Arrested for Helping a Dying Chained Dog

[danae 0]

What was the vet's report on the dog?

The vet documented that he was very malnourished, had sores all over his body, missing fur, very bad back spurs (most likely responsible for him now being able to stand or walk). Also found an undetermined mass near his hip. He is now said to be doing as well as can be expected.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What was the vet's report on the dog?

The vet documented that he was very malnourished, had sores all over his body, missing fur, very bad back spurs (most likely responsible for him now being able to stand or walk). Also found an undetermined mass near his hip. He is now said to be doing as well as can be expected.

Ah, ok. Hopefully that's enough evidence to throw out the charges against her. If a child or animal is being neglected, I'm all for rescuing them from the abuse, but I'm weary of people taking the law into their own hands.

Here's what I found on the Humane Society's website:

How are complaints investigated?

While the exact process may vary depending on the local laws and procedures, an officer will look into the complaint to see if animal cruelty statutes have been violated. If in fact a violation has occurred, the officer may speak with the owner and issue a citation and give the owner a chance to correct the violation.

The majority of cruelty complaints stem from simple neglect of the animal, rather than deliberate abuse. The humane officer's biggest role is as an educator—informing well-meaning, but unknowledgeable, pet owners of the proper care of their pets.

In rare cases, animal neglect or abuse may be extreme and require immediate intervention. Depending on the circumstances, the animals may be removed from the situation by the humane agency to protect them from further harm. The agency will present the case to the prosecutor's office for further evaluation and possible prosecution. Some agencies have the power to obtain and serve warrants; other agencies work closely with local police who execute the search warrant on their behalf.

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_...or_neglect.html

.....

They are a reputable organization. I'm just wondering why they didn't at least investigate further into this or perhaps they did and felt it wasn't a severe enough case to be able to remove the animal from the home?

[babonsi 0]

First of all, I want to thank all of you who expressed their support! Each action taken, regardless its magnitude, might help in preventing this kind of atrocity from happening again (at least we can only hope so).

You know, sometimes skepticism and the instinct to play "devil's advocate" can lead us into believing that there MUST be a second side of the story. I'm certainly not blaming anyone and we are all entitled to an opinion. However, at the end of the day, a helpless animal is terribly suffering and might not recover, as a direct consequence of someone's incredible negligence - to say the least. What's more important, political correctness or saving an animal from probably slow and terribly painful but certain death, under the eyes of the complacent authorities who seem to have incredibly sensitive toes that got stepped on?

Were those sores, very bad back spurs that are causing him a lot of pain to the degree that he is literally unable to stand up, malnourishment, seriously low weight, missing fur, undetermined mass near his hip -- all of these conditions documented by the vet's report -- a product of Tammy Grimes' "overly-zealous" imagination? Did Doogie's miserable present condition just show up out of nowhere, or was it the result of a prolonged and unacceptable neglectful treatment? I think (hope) we can all agree that these are pretty much rhetorical questions.

Steven_and_Jinky Posted Today, 08:34 AM:

I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm looking at the pics and I can't see any feces? Secondly, if the dog was lying on it's back for a long time and flailing it's legs, wouldn't it be covered in mud?"

She said that the dog was lying on his side with his back towards the street when they showed up ... I don't know any more than you do on this one Steven but, just by looking at the pics, we can see that the dog was lying on his right side all the time. Even the video shows Doogie hopelessly struggling to get up from his right side. We never saw his right side, so it sort of makes sense that this would be the side covered in mud (and probably feces). In such a severe state of weakness induced by malnourishment and illness, most probably the dog hadn't been able to stand up / roll over in quite a while so perhaps that's why there's no obvious mud / feces on his visible side?

If the humane society investigated and found no cause for alarm, then I'm not sure why she took the law into her own hands. Did she go to the door and ask the owner(s) about the dog?

Just like lauraxmarie observed, the article says: "We got a call from Kim Eicher in East Freedom 9/11/06, crying because Doogie hadn't gotten up since Saturday. She had been calling the Central Pennsylvania Humane Society since Saturday to no avail. We told her we aren't law officers, and she needed to call the Humane Officer. We told her to make sure she left a message, very clearly, about the problem. Then we got another call about the same dog, from another person who passes him every day. At that point we called Kim back to see if she'd heard from the Humane Officer. She had not, was very, very upset and we were very worried about him, so we promised her we'd go out and see what we could do."

"The majority of cruelty complaints stem from simple neglect of the animal, rather than deliberate abuse. The humane officer's biggest role is as an educator—informing well-meaning, but unknowledgeable, pet owners of the proper care of their pets." (Human Society)

I'm having a really hard time seeing how "educating" was the humane officer in this instance ... Failing to respond to an honest call for help during a 3 days period, while the dog was lying motionless in the cold mud, obviously ill and famished? I'll go ahead and call THAT deliberate abuse from someone who had the responsability to ensure that animals and their rights are being looked after.

Steven_and_Jinky Posted Today, 10:47 AM:

They are a reputable organization. I'm just wondering why they didn't at least investigate further into this or perhaps they did and felt it wasn't a severe enough case to be able to remove the animal from the home?

I'm sorry Steven, but what exactly had to happen for this case to be considered "severe" enough? The Humane Society is somehow supposed to be the equivalent of UNICEF agencies for animals, if we were to use a comparison. Would child protection turn a blind eye and say it's not severe enough yet for them to take the appropriate measures, if a neglected, starving child in obvious pain was reported? The dog was unable to even display a scared animal's natural instinct to defend himself when a stranger approaches him ... he couldn't even whimper, let alone bark. He was collapsed, famished and in great pain. If the case gained even an inch more on the severity scale, there would be no Doogie to save anymore. The "owner" obviously didn't give a damn about the animal's condition and he certainly wasn't going to change that anytime soon. Who in their right mind would allow their own dog (or any kind of animal, for that matter) end up in such deplorable condition, without taking the appropriate actions?

It is heartbreaking and utterly unfair that, just because he/she was the "human being" with a rusty chain, a pole and control powers over a defenseless animal who depended on them for proper care, he/she somehow became "the owner" with irrefutable property rights but NO responsabilty whatsoever.

There might be more to the story and for those who care, I'll definitely keep you posted when/if I receive more info ... but these ARE the facts. A dog was on the verge of possible death and, for all we know, he's not totally safe now either (quote from the article: " The vet gave him a shot for pain plus some B vitamins for energy, so that perhaps he could have even one good day or a few good hours"). Humane Society failed to respond to the several desperate calls for help. They never showed up to analyze the situation and conclude that it wasn't "severe" enough. The owner never showed up while all of this was going on either. 3 days to be precise. 3 days or probably more with no food (there's obviously not a single trace of anything edible in the filthy trough), with no water (the dog couldn't even stand up to get to the filthy water bucket). The neighbors repeatedly expressed their honest concern. She took the dog to the vet and made sure that everything possible was being done for Doogie's life to to saved. She was willing to cooperate with the authorities and be "politically correct": "As we got to the vet, the CPHS Humane Officer Gotshall was just leaving, and he stopped us. He was about to go out to the residence. When he found out we had Doogie with us, he was not happy. I volunteered to take Doogie back and he could pick him up instead. He refused that [...]" And now, the owner magically appeared and decided that his "property rights" were cruelly stolen from him? I beg to differ.

Sorry for the lenght of this post. I've just encountered way too many cases like this before and, if we were all to be politically correct, most of the animals rescued would not be alive anymore to enjoy a new, safe and loving home, just because the so-called owner had property rights.

Thanks again to all of you who called, wrote or simply refused to swallow this as acceptable/excusable behaviour of the "owner" and the authorities, for that matter.

Miha

[one...two...tree 2,762]

First of all, I want to thank all of you who expressed their support! Each action taken, regardless its magnitude, might help in preventing this kind of atrocity from happening again (at least we can only hope so).

You know, sometimes skepticism and the instinct to play "devil's advocate" can lead us into believing that there MUST be a second side of the story. I'm certainly not blaming anyone and we are all entitled to an opinion. However, at the end of the day, a helpless animal is terribly suffering and might not recover, as a direct consequence of someone's incredible negligence - to say the least. What's more important, political correctness or saving an animal from probably slow and terribly painful but certain death, under the eyes of the complacent authorities who seem to have incredibly sensitive toes that got stepped on?

Were those sores, very bad back spurs that are causing him a lot of pain to the degree that he is literally unable to stand up, malnourishment, seriously low weight, missing fur, undetermined mass near his hip -- all of these conditions documented by the vet's report -- a product of Tammy Grimes' "overly-zealous" imagination? Did Doogie's miserable present condition just show up out of nowhere, or was it the result of a prolonged and unacceptable neglectful treatment? I think (hope) we can all agree that these are pretty much rhetorical questions.

Steven_and_Jinky Posted Today, 08:34 AM:

I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm looking at the pics and I can't see any feces? Secondly, if the dog was lying on it's back for a long time and flailing it's legs, wouldn't it be covered in mud?"

She said that the dog was lying on his side with his back towards the street when they showed up ... I don't know any more than you do on this one Steven but, just by looking at the pics, we can see that the dog was lying on his right side all the time. Even the video shows Doogie hopelessly struggling to get up from his right side. We never saw his right side, so it sort of makes sense that this would be the side covered in mud (and probably feces). In such a severe state of weakness induced by malnourishment and illness, most probably the dog hadn't been able to stand up / roll over in quite a while so perhaps that's why there's no obvious mud / feces on his visible side?

If the humane society investigated and found no cause for alarm, then I'm not sure why she took the law into her own hands. Did she go to the door and ask the owner(s) about the dog?

Just like lauraxmarie observed, the article says: "We got a call from Kim Eicher in East Freedom 9/11/06, crying because Doogie hadn't gotten up since Saturday. She had been calling the Central Pennsylvania Humane Society since Saturday to no avail. We told her we aren't law officers, and she needed to call the Humane Officer. We told her to make sure she left a message, very clearly, about the problem. Then we got another call about the same dog, from another person who passes him every day. At that point we called Kim back to see if she'd heard from the Humane Officer. She had not, was very, very upset and we were very worried about him, so we promised her we'd go out and see what we could do."

"The majority of cruelty complaints stem from simple neglect of the animal, rather than deliberate abuse. The humane officer's biggest role is as an educator—informing well-meaning, but unknowledgeable, pet owners of the proper care of their pets." (Human Society)

I'm having a really hard time seeing how "educating" was the humane officer in this instance ... Failing to respond to an honest call for help during a 3 days period, while the dog was lying motionless in the cold mud, obviously ill and famished? I'll go ahead and call THAT deliberate abuse from someone who had the responsability to ensure that animals and their rights are being looked after.

Steven_and_Jinky Posted Today, 10:47 AM:

They are a reputable organization. I'm just wondering why they didn't at least investigate further into this or perhaps they did and felt it wasn't a severe enough case to be able to remove the animal from the home?

I'm sorry Steven, but what exactly had to happen for this case to be considered "severe" enough? The Humane Society is somehow supposed to be the equivalent of UNICEF agencies for animals, if we were to use a comparison. Would child protection turn a blind eye and say it's not severe enough yet for them to take the appropriate measures, if a neglected, starving child in obvious pain was reported? The dog was unable to even display a scared animal's natural instinct to defend himself when a stranger approaches him ... he couldn't even whimper, let alone bark. He was collapsed, famished and in great pain. If the case gained even an inch more on the severity scale, there would be no Doogie to save anymore. The "owner" obviously didn't give a damn about the animal's condition and he certainly wasn't going to change that anytime soon. Who in their right mind would allow their own dog (or any kind of animal, for that matter) end up in such deplorable condition, without taking the appropriate actions?

It is heartbreaking and utterly unfair that, just because he/she was the "human being" with a rusty chain, a pole and control powers over a defenseless animal who depended on them for proper care, he/she somehow became "the owner" with irrefutable property rights but NO responsabilty whatsoever.

There might be more to the story and for those who care, I'll definitely keep you posted when/if I receive more info ... but these ARE the facts. A dog was on the verge of possible death and, for all we know, he's not totally safe now either (quote from the article: " The vet gave him a shot for pain plus some B vitamins for energy, so that perhaps he could have even one good day or a few good hours"). Humane Society failed to respond to the several desperate calls for help. They never showed up to analyze the situation and conclude that it wasn't "severe" enough. The owner never showed up while all of this was going on either. 3 days to be precise. 3 days or probably more with no food (there's obviously not a single trace of anything edible in the filthy trough), with no water (the dog couldn't even stand up to get to the filthy water bucket). The neighbors repeatedly expressed their honest concern. She took the dog to the vet and made sure that everything possible was being done for Doogie's life to to saved. She was willing to cooperate with the authorities and be "politically correct": "As we got to the vet, the CPHS Humane Officer Gotshall was just leaving, and he stopped us. He was about to go out to the residence. When he found out we had Doogie with us, he was not happy. I volunteered to take Doogie back and he could pick him up instead. He refused that [...]" And now, the owner magically appeared and decided that his "property rights" were cruelly stolen from him? I beg to differ.

Sorry for the lenght of this post. I've just encountered way too many cases like this before and, if we were all to be politically correct, most of the animals rescued would not be alive anymore to enjoy a new, safe and loving home, just because the so-called owner had property rights.

Thanks again to all of you who called, wrote or simply refused to swallow this as acceptable/excusable behaviour of the "owner" and the authorities, for that matter.

Miha

Thanks, Miha. Are the existing laws not adequate then when it comes to animal abuse? I can totally understand the rescuer's frustration but if we want to compare this situation to other crimes committed, do we want citizens taking the law into their own hands? I'd rather we change laws if need be or work at having city and state agencies that have full time enforcement officers dedicated to investigating animal abuse.

[danae 0]

First of all, I want to thank all of you who expressed their support! Each action taken, regardless its magnitude, might help in preventing this kind of atrocity from happening again (at least we can only hope so).

You know, sometimes skepticism and the instinct to play "devil's advocate" can lead us into believing that there MUST be a second side of the story. I'm certainly not blaming anyone and we are all entitled to an opinion. However, at the end of the day, a helpless animal is terribly suffering and might not recover, as a direct consequence of someone's incredible negligence - to say the least. What's more important, political correctness or saving an animal from probably slow and terribly painful but certain death, under the eyes of the complacent authorities who seem to have incredibly sensitive toes that got stepped on?

Were those sores, very bad back spurs that are causing him a lot of pain to the degree that he is literally unable to stand up, malnourishment, seriously low weight, missing fur, undetermined mass near his hip -- all of these conditions documented by the vet's report -- a product of Tammy Grimes' "overly-zealous" imagination? Did Doogie's miserable present condition just show up out of nowhere, or was it the result of a prolonged and unacceptable neglectful treatment? I think (hope) we can all agree that these are pretty much rhetorical questions.

Steven_and_Jinky Posted Today, 08:34 AM:

I'll probably get flamed for this but I'm looking at the pics and I can't see any feces? Secondly, if the dog was lying on it's back for a long time and flailing it's legs, wouldn't it be covered in mud?"

She said that the dog was lying on his side with his back towards the street when they showed up ... I don't know any more than you do on this one Steven but, just by looking at the pics, we can see that the dog was lying on his right side all the time. Even the video shows Doogie hopelessly struggling to get up from his right side. We never saw his right side, so it sort of makes sense that this would be the side covered in mud (and probably feces). In such a severe state of weakness induced by malnourishment and illness, most probably the dog hadn't been able to stand up / roll over in quite a while so perhaps that's why there's no obvious mud / feces on his visible side?

If the humane society investigated and found no cause for alarm, then I'm not sure why she took the law into her own hands. Did she go to the door and ask the owner(s) about the dog?

Just like lauraxmarie observed, the article says: "We got a call from Kim Eicher in East Freedom 9/11/06, crying because Doogie hadn't gotten up since Saturday. She had been calling the Central Pennsylvania Humane Society since Saturday to no avail. We told her we aren't law officers, and she needed to call the Humane Officer. We told her to make sure she left a message, very clearly, about the problem. Then we got another call about the same dog, from another person who passes him every day. At that point we called Kim back to see if she'd heard from the Humane Officer. She had not, was very, very upset and we were very worried about him, so we promised her we'd go out and see what we could do."

"The majority of cruelty complaints stem from simple neglect of the animal, rather than deliberate abuse. The humane officer's biggest role is as an educator—informing well-meaning, but unknowledgeable, pet owners of the proper care of their pets." (Human Society)

I'm having a really hard time seeing how "educating" was the humane officer in this instance ... Failing to respond to an honest call for help during a 3 days period, while the dog was lying motionless in the cold mud, obviously ill and famished? I'll go ahead and call THAT deliberate abuse from someone who had the responsability to ensure that animals and their rights are being looked after.

Steven_and_Jinky Posted Today, 10:47 AM:

They are a reputable organization. I'm just wondering why they didn't at least investigate further into this or perhaps they did and felt it wasn't a severe enough case to be able to remove the animal from the home?

I'm sorry Steven, but what exactly had to happen for this case to be considered "severe" enough? The Humane Society is somehow supposed to be the equivalent of UNICEF agencies for animals, if we were to use a comparison. Would child protection turn a blind eye and say it's not severe enough yet for them to take the appropriate measures, if a neglected, starving child in obvious pain was reported? The dog was unable to even display a scared animal's natural instinct to defend himself when a stranger approaches him ... he couldn't even whimper, let alone bark. He was collapsed, famished and in great pain. If the case gained even an inch more on the severity scale, there would be no Doogie to save anymore. The "owner" obviously didn't give a damn about the animal's condition and he certainly wasn't going to change that anytime soon. Who in their right mind would allow their own dog (or any kind of animal, for that matter) end up in such deplorable condition, without taking the appropriate actions?

It is heartbreaking and utterly unfair that, just because he/she was the "human being" with a rusty chain, a pole and control powers over a defenseless animal who depended on them for proper care, he/she somehow became "the owner" with irrefutable property rights but NO responsabilty whatsoever.

There might be more to the story and for those who care, I'll definitely keep you posted when/if I receive more info ... but these ARE the facts. A dog was on the verge of possible death and, for all we know, he's not totally safe now either (quote from the article: " The vet gave him a shot for pain plus some B vitamins for energy, so that perhaps he could have even one good day or a few good hours"). Humane Society failed to respond to the several desperate calls for help. They never showed up to analyze the situation and conclude that it wasn't "severe" enough. The owner never showed up while all of this was going on either. 3 days to be precise. 3 days or probably more with no food (there's obviously not a single trace of anything edible in the filthy trough), with no water (the dog couldn't even stand up to get to the filthy water bucket). The neighbors repeatedly expressed their honest concern. She took the dog to the vet and made sure that everything possible was being done for Doogie's life to to saved. She was willing to cooperate with the authorities and be "politically correct": "As we got to the vet, the CPHS Humane Officer Gotshall was just leaving, and he stopped us. He was about to go out to the residence. When he found out we had Doogie with us, he was not happy. I volunteered to take Doogie back and he could pick him up instead. He refused that [...]" And now, the owner magically appeared and decided that his "property rights" were cruelly stolen from him? I beg to differ.

Sorry for the lenght of this post. I've just encountered way too many cases like this before and, if we were all to be politically correct, most of the animals rescued would not be alive anymore to enjoy a new, safe and loving home, just because the so-called owner had property rights.

Thanks again to all of you who called, wrote or simply refused to swallow this as acceptable/excusable behaviour of the "owner" and the authorities, for that matter.

Miha

Thanks, Miha. Are the existing laws not adequate then when it comes to animal abuse? I can totally understand the rescuer's frustration but if we want to compare this situation to other crimes committed, do we want citizens taking the law into their own hands? I'd rather we change laws if need be or work at having city and state agencies that have full time enforcement officers dedicated to investigating animal abuse.

I dont see how animal rescue [/i]can be related to 'other crimes'. When you are talking about theft of property- the criminals only intent is self gain. In cases such as this, the only intent was to save a life, completely atruistically. If this dog had been a child, the person who removed that child from its situation would be deemed a hero by all.

Now, I know legally the situation is different as children are not considered property, whereas animals are. But I do not believe these laws are just- and yes something must be done to change them. Groups are involved in legislative work all over the world trying to make changes. In the UK, they are getting somewhere- here in the states it is considerably slower. This is not a nation of animal lovers.

So in the mean time, it is all one can do to take action- and if a life is in your hands, to save it.

[babonsi 0]

Thanks, Miha. Are the existing laws not adequate then when it comes to animal abuse? I can totally understand the rescuer's frustration but if we want to compare this situation to other crimes committed, do we want citizens taking the law into their own hands? I'd rather we change laws if need be or work at having city and state agencies that have full time enforcement officers dedicated to investigating animal abuse.

Laws will never be able to equally please everyone. So yes, depending on the circumstances, they might prove "inadequate" and even obsolete. I agree with not taking the law into our own hands, to a certain degree. Changing the law if need be also sounds good in theory, on the long run. But in this case, virtually everything has been tried in order to comply with the existing law. The authorities in charge failed to cooperate. Filing a petition to change the law wouldn't have been of much help to Doogie today, would it? Something URGENT needed to be done and she did it. Perhaps a change in the law WILL help prevent such cases from happening again in the future. But Doogie would STILL be probably dead by now, if it wasn't for this "criminal" who broke the law and is now facing ridiculous charges, while the "owner" is probably browsing ads for a new dog for his chain. The saying "You got the wrong guy, officer" comes to my mind, strangely enough.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thanks, Miha. Are the existing laws not adequate then when it comes to animal abuse? I can totally understand the rescuer's frustration but if we want to compare this situation to other crimes committed, do we want citizens taking the law into their own hands? I'd rather we change laws if need be or work at having city and state agencies that have full time enforcement officers dedicated to investigating animal abuse.

Laws will never be able to equally please everyone. So yes, depending on the circumstances, they might prove "inadequate" and even obsolete. I agree with not taking the law into our own hands, to a certain degree. Changing the law if need be also sounds good in theory, on the long run. But in this case, virtually everything has been tried in order to comply with the existing law. The authorities in charge failed to cooperate. Filing a petition to change the law wouldn't have been of much help to Doogie today, would it? Something URGENT needed to be done and she did it. Perhaps a change in the law WILL help prevent such cases from happening again in the future. But Doogie would STILL be probably dead by now, if it wasn't for this "criminal" who broke the law and is now facing ridiculous charges, while the "owner" is probably browsing ads for a new dog for his chain. The saying "You got the wrong guy, officer" comes to my mind, strangely enough.

I was thinking about a law that could be inacted that would actually give a rescuer the legal right to rescue an animal who's life is in danger from abuse. Such a law would have protected this woman from being arrested in the first place and would encourage others to take action without fear of legal consequences. Some sort of Animal Rescue Act?

[Ban Hammer 12,866]

Thanks, Miha. Are the existing laws not adequate then when it comes to animal abuse? I can totally understand the rescuer's frustration but if we want to compare this situation to other crimes committed, do we want citizens taking the law into their own hands? I'd rather we change laws if need be or work at having city and state agencies that have full time enforcement officers dedicated to investigating animal abuse.

Laws will never be able to equally please everyone. So yes, depending on the circumstances, they might prove "inadequate" and even obsolete. I agree with not taking the law into our own hands, to a certain degree. Changing the law if need be also sounds good in theory, on the long run. But in this case, virtually everything has been tried in order to comply with the existing law. The authorities in charge failed to cooperate. Filing a petition to change the law wouldn't have been of much help to Doogie today, would it? Something URGENT needed to be done and she did it. Perhaps a change in the law WILL help prevent such cases from happening again in the future. But Doogie would STILL be probably dead by now, if it wasn't for this "criminal" who broke the law and is now facing ridiculous charges, while the "owner" is probably browsing ads for a new dog for his chain. The saying "You got the wrong guy, officer" comes to my mind, strangely enough.

I was thinking about a law that could be inacted that would actually give a rescuer the legal right to rescue an animal who's life is in danger from abuse. Such a law would have protected this woman from being arrested in the first place and would encourage others to take action without fear of legal consequences. Some sort of Animal Rescue Act?

this sort of stuff would not even be on the news in germany as there are pet police over there. i do wish pets had more protection here from idiots like these who abuse/neglect their pets.

[xjennyinstereox 0]

AWFUL!!! *bump*

[PurrSuede 0]

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_...or_neglect.html

.....

They are a reputable organization. I'm just wondering why they didn't at least investigate further into this or perhaps they did and felt it wasn't a severe enough case to be able to remove the animal from the home?

Before you declare to people that HSUS is "a reputable organization" perhaps some homework is in order:

from: http://www.give.org/reports/care2_dyn.asp?226

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) does not meet the following 2 Standards for Charity Accountability.

1: A board of directors that provides adequate oversight of the charity’s operations and its staff.

HSUS does not meet this Standard because it reports that no member of the board is assigned the responsibility of serving as the treasurer of the board of directors. In general, the board's treasurer helps provide independent oversight of the organization's finances.

8: Spend at least 65% of its total expenses on program activities.

HSUS does not meet this Standard because according to its audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2003, its total program expenses ($47,379,795) were 63% of total expenses ($74,867,684).

Also worthy of note:

Chief Executive Officer: Paul G. Irwin, President

Compensation: $315,898

another website of interest:

http://pub46.bravenet.com/forum/3947933668/fetch/141826

HSUS continually gets low scores from established charity watchdog groups. Charity Navigator recently gave the group only one star (out of four). It gave no stars to HSUS?s Earth Voice International, and one to Humane Society International and the Humane Society of the United States Wildlife Land Trust. Worth magazine gave HSUS a "D" rating for spending as much as 53 percent of its expenses on fundraising. And online rating service Give.org noted that the huge HSUS corporate family does not have an active governing board overseeing the overall structure

and:

http://www.ussportsmen.org/interactive/fea...ead.cfm?ID=1187

HSUS Fails to Make the Grade

While the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is a leader among charities, the nation’s largest anti-hunting organization has missed the grade.

Charity Navigator gives the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) a two-star rating. The organization’s fundraising spending is inefficient, and according to Charity Navigator’s overall rating, the group “needs improvement.”

The HSUS has received other negative ratings by charity watchdog groups. The American Institute of Philanthropy gave the group a D rating for spending over 50 percent of its expenses on fundraising. The December issue of Smart Money Magazine calls HSUS a “laggard” for putting barely 60 percent of its expenditures toward programs in 2002.

The HSUS is FAR far from "reputable"....

Do NOT recommend endorsing them to anyone at all!

Want more??

from: http://www.wolfdancer.org/hsus/

The Humane Society of the United States, or HSUS, is NOT affiliated with our local humane societies. The people who, day in and day out, help us care for lost, stray, abused or abandoned animals never get a single thin dime of the billions of dollars that the HSUS generates annually. The HSUS benefits from the similarity of names, indeed, it thrives on this fact. Unfortunately, there are victims of this borderline fraud. The victims are the animals, the people who love them, and our local Humane Societies. Since so many people are under the false impression that the monies they donate to HSUS directly supports their local shelters, they often feel as if they have already contributed, when in fact, they have only helped to feed this animal rights organization. The HSUS is dedicated to the abolition of all animal use. This means, no pets, no livestock, no medical research, no Zoos, no animal use at all.

from: http://www.thefcf.com/speak/arspend.asp?key=388

Humane Society of the United States

Is "it" humane? Does "it" spend any of the millions of dollars it collects to feed and shelter even one homeless animal? Despite its name, it does not support any local animal shelter in the world that can be found. What does it do? It collects money. Now everybody knows that everyone has at least one good point) to emphasize so let's get that good point out of the way early on. It does not accept dogs under false pretences, and then kill them and dump them in a dumpster as did the PETA people, who are now under arrest for animal cruelty. They just do not accept dogs, period. That is how they have become the wealthiest animal RIGHTS organization in the universe.

While most local animal shelters are strapped for cash, under-funded and under-appreciated, staffed with mostly volunteer help, people whose heart is in the right place but need to submit to a reality check every year, HSUS has accumulated over $115 million in assets. How? By draining the contributions from the little old ladies in tennis shoes that think that it is their god-given right to tell the world how they think people should raise animals. These dollars would go to the local shelters, but so many of these people think the local shelter is just a local arm of the national organization. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) does nothing to discourage this false thinking.

As far back as 1991, Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta exposed some of the wrong doings of John Hoyt, president of HSUS and Paul Irwin, then vice president-treasurer of the organization. After advising his followers to live more sparingly, Hoyt proceeded to buy himself a $310,000 house in Maryland with HSUS money. That's 1991 dollars! How much is that today? The house is rent free to Hoyt, I guess as part of his salary, but the California State Attorney General took exception to it. Irwin, as treasurer, also wrote himself a check for $85,000 to fix up his ocean front property in Maine.

DO NOT GIVE MONEY TO THE HSUS under any circumstances!!

[Donna A 4]

i hate it soooo much when people mistreat animals. i would have to kill someone if they ever touched my babies (cat and dog) in a bad way.

[PurrSuede 0]

Here's what I found on the HSUS (not local)website:

How are complaints investigated?

While the exact process may vary depending on the local laws and procedures, an officer will look into the complaint to see if animal cruelty statutes have been violated. If in fact a violation has occurred, the officer may speak with the owner and issue a citation and give the owner a chance to correct the violation.

The majority of cruelty complaints stem from simple neglect of the animal, rather than deliberate abuse. The humane officer's biggest role is as an educator—informing well-meaning, but unknowledgeable, pet owners of the proper care of their pets.

In rare cases, animal neglect or abuse may be extreme and require immediate intervention. Depending on the circumstances, the animals may be removed from the situation by the humane agency to protect them from further harm. The agency will present the case to the prosecutor's office for further evaluation and possible prosecution. Some agencies have the power to obtain and serve warrants; other agencies work closely with local police who execute the search warrant on their behalf.

HSUS link removed... They are a reputable organization.

I'm just wondering why they didn't at least investigate further into this or perhaps they did and felt it wasn't a severe enough case to be able to remove the animal from the home?

I'd like to stress that the HSUS is NOT affiliated with any local HUMANE SOCIETY.

The Humane Society that would cover the Altoona, PA is this one:

http://www.centralpahumanesociety.org/

They are also providing this information on their website, regarding this situation:

http://www.centralpahumanesociety.org/Release_20060915.pdf

HSUS is a terrible organization, ranked as one of the worst animal charities in the country, and should not be construed in any way to be a part of your local Humane Society.

In fact the HSUS uses the "Humane Society" part of their name to make you think this for their solicitations, but with the amount of money they receive they could fund almost EVERY local humane society in the US. Sadly, they do not.

-- Dan

Edited November 9, 2006 by PurrSuede

[meauxna 15]

I hate this thread SO much, but I really needed *this* info about HSUS, PurrSuede.

Thank you!

[kim&james 0]

Im disgusted by the behaviour of the dog owners, and of the police dept. I am emailing my support for Tammy and she is a hero...

One thing that has surprised me here in the States is that animal cruelty laws are so varied... Living in Australia they have such good laws in regards to animal cruelty and they do prosecute and ban owners from having any animals if charged.. and it happens alot.

Responsible pet ownership does not just include feeding your pet, a pet is part of your family... I have one rescued dog, pekingnese with one eye, a cat we got from the vet and we have just this past week had another cat (crosseyed) come live with us who followed the dog and me home from one of our walks... it had been living under a trailer up the road and I think the owners had abandoned it when they moved.

Richland has great animal control, the animal control officer is a cop and he has been known to remove animals from their owners when he sees cases like this of abuse... The dog we have now has been at the animal rescue league several times due to neglect and the last time, I found the dog and he followed me home.. a friend who works there told me that if the league gets him back again they are going to adopt him out and not let the owners have him back... (for the third time).. She checked with them and they said we could keep him... Our pets are happy and cared for ... and that is the responsibility of all pet owners...

The arnolds should be banned from ever owning another animal and charged with neglect and cruelty. Oh and the police dept should be made to apologise for their behaviour, in the very least.

[Mags 112]

It was in the news today that animal mistreatment is on the up in the UK. Makes me feel truly sick, it really does.