1 dead, 3 at risk, 5 dogs seized; HUH? But who’s mostly to be blamed?

When I was a child, my mother was in graduate school and we were living in graduate student housing.  A neighboring couple’s child died in the night.  I remember the hostile and angry faces of the medical team and investigators who clearly presumed the parents had somehow contributed or caused this child’s death.  I watched at a distance from the balcony in front of our apartment as a young father with arm around his wife tried to keep her from collapsing as she wept and her knees kept giving way.  All I could feel was anger and fury at the callous investigators who held them there, interrogating them in public while their child was rolled past us all on an ambulance gurney – the parents held back from their departing baby.  This was typical after a SIDS death in the 1960’s.  Even today: “Very little is certain about the possible causes of SIDS, and there is no proven method for prevention.”  I have no doubt that the grief and self-blame that always accompanies the death of an infant was seriously exacerbated by the way this couple was treated by authorities and done for no good reason in my opinion.

It makes me angry when those with “better” or more information harass those of lesser means; more so when those doing the harassing do so under color of law and take it to extremes of seizing property inappropriately and filing criminal charges.  This dog seizure case looks like yet another of those harassment and overreaching cases to me.  Don’t get me wrong.  I have some issues with these owners of the dogs seized in Beaumont and I weep for the dog who died but I have much bigger issues with the other parties involved and there’s responsibility to be assigned to many.

“A natural disaster is the effect of a natural hazard that affects the environment, and leads to financial, environmental and/or human losses… disasters occur when hazards meet vulnerability.”  When we think of natural disasters, we tend to think of hurricanes and volcanoes but disasters come in many sizes and shapes.  Those who live in southern Texas are not the least bit accustomed to extended periods of freezing weather.  The last time we saw weather this bad was in 1989.  I was in north Houston and watched an ice fall form down the side of a neighbor’s house because their pipes had burst.  So many ha pipes burst that there was a shortage of repair materials for several weeks after that natural disaster, that Big Freeze of 1989.  Had governmental authorities focused more on education, much of that damage could have been avoided.  I was raised further north and had just bought a house in north Houston before that 1989 freeze.  I knew what needed done and survived with a hefty electric bill but no damages to my home.  During these disasters, we often lose power as well.  Had that or some other complication arisen, I would not have fared so well.

The Big Freeze of 2010 has not been quite so severe as the one of 1989 and we’ve had significantly fewer burst pipes BECAUSE the government and media did a much better job of educating on the 3 p’s: People, Plants, and Pipes.  They’ve long done a decent job of warnings for people.  Then came plants which are often sensitive to even extremely chilly weather that doesn’t reach freezing and we get that every year.  The freeze of 1989 made a real impact on people so the bursting pipe potential also was dealt with.  KBMT provided quite a few details on how to deal with pipes to prevent bursting.  I saw much the same on Houston news, reporters live at supply houses showing the materials, getting advice from pros to the public, updates on materials going low in supply and what alternatives one could resort to.

However, in recent years, a 4th “p” has been added: PETS.  When I was a kid, pets were far less likely to be in homes.  During particularly severe weather, we were more likely to hear and see livestock, part a family’s business and survival, being brought in or people maintaining a fire in the barn and bundling up to sleep in the barn to ensure the safety of the livestock.  Whether the “pets” would even be allowed in the barn depending on what effect it would have on the livestock; if it was a negative impact, the pets were on their own.  And they generally got along and through those weather disasters just fine.

Over the years, we’ve told people to control their pets and then tell them stupid things like that they can only have a 4 foot fence.  This results in chaining and cramped forms of confining.  What we don’t do is educate on what those mandated changes and the adaptations also cause in added needs for the pets.  You’ think that before this BIG FREEZE, there would have been warnings and education for pet owners since there seems to be this huge push to enforce cruelty laws.  Here’s what I found in the Beaumont area.

The City of Beaumont website is AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL.  Blinking thing doesn’t even have a search box.  I believe I visited nearly every page on it paying special attention to the alert and press release pages I found on the site map page.  I couldn’t find a single warning about the weather, let alone any advice for residents, on the internal pages.  Now, on the front page was “Advisory” in red up top right corner with the weather blurb.  I clicked on it and got a great deal of information on the weather underground page it took me too.  Buried in there was this: “These conditions could kill crops and other sensitive vegetation... and plants should be brought indoors or covered if possible. In addition... residents are encouraged to keep pets indoors or provide adequate shelter... food and unfrozen water if they need to remain outdoors. Wrap exposed water pipes to prevent damage to pipes.”

If a Beaumont resident was looking for local sources of information, they got 2 of “bring them inside” and one “keep pets indoors of provide adequate shelter”.  Well, no offense but for those unaccustomed to this weather, what the F constitutes “adequate shelter” because bring in a pack of dogs isn’t always feasible.  Many still have packs of dogs that are never indoors and not house trained.  I see nothing at all wrong with that; nor am I ready to lay all the blame on those who might not know what to do in unusual circumstances.  I’m certainly not willing to lay all the blame at their feet when the authority wishing to prosecute them is literally withholding the information.

On the City of Beaumont website index, there is no link for “animal services”, “animal control”, or anything similar.  The only link on that page is for “Adopt a Pet”.  FYI, the pertinent page for Animal Services, a part of the Beaumont PD, is here.  The focus of the page is clearly enforcement of laws (no link to tell you what they are or where to find them), collection of pound fees, and adopting out animals.  There is this sentence:  “The Animal Services Unit… offers educational literature on all aspects of animal services ranging from animal cruelty to the number of animals kept at a single location.”  Now why the frack isn’t that information posted on the website?  Do you want compliance OR do you want to seize, impound, collect fees, file charges and collect fines?  I gotta think it’s the latter given what is and, more importantly, what is NOT on your web page for Animal Services.  There is also a rather clear problem with the fact that the standard keeps changing when it comes to animal neglect and abuse and, if you put up a standard, you might have to keep it up to date.  When the bar is being raised as rapidly as it is with animals, it’s virtually impossible for the public to keep up; what was fine for a dog yesterday is gross abuse today.  To me, that hardly seems fair either.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.  I agree.  However, the government has an obligation to set forth what the law is and how and when it will be enforced, to inform on their interpretation of the law.  I don’t see any of the Texas governmental units setting forth even vague standards on what is animal neglect or even animal abuse.  It seems they are following the obscenity “I know it when I see it” standard and that is wholly unacceptable as a legal standard.  Crimes involve 2 parts: acting (or failing to act) and INTENT.  If the government doesn’t know it until it sees it, a citizen or resident can’t possibly have the intent of breaking the law because the law isn’t sufficiently defined for them to comply.  Texas governmental agencies, including Beaumont in this case, have failed miserably in informing and educating the public on these new and evolving laws in favor of merely attacking the citizenry when something goes wrong and sensationalizing these cases.

And what does the media do in these cases?  More sensationalizing.  They seem more interested in writing a headline that will snag and inflame the public than in helping the animals.  Where are the articles saying what SHOULD have been done for these animals instead of merely ranting about what was done wrong and focusing on the “wrong” that is mandated by law (for example, restraint of the animals – whether fenced or tethered)?

Not surprisingly, I see this case differently than the popular media.

I look at the picture to this story and see a “dogloo” atop some kind of mattress or pad.  This dog is not on bare ground and that alone tells me someone cares at least a little.  There are multiple pictures with this story.  In the first photo, I see a rather shabby dog house BUT it is elevated, seated on 2 X 4’s to keep it dry, and that again tells me someone cares.  In photo 2, I see a well worn winter yard.  That indicates to me that dogs have run the yard sufficiently to keep the grass from growing.  They may be tethered at times but a yard in this area isn’t that stark without multiple dogs running it.  I also see multiple housing units for dogs.  They aren’t pretty and matching.  In photo 7, I see an officer petting one of the dogs so clearly these aren’t the “straining at the chain, snarling, snapping” pit bulls of so many stories that make the news these days.  I see another officer with a camera.  Overall, I see the home of a poor family trying to care for their animals and falling a bit short.

Now I’m just plain ANGRY with Beaumont Animal Services.  I’m inclined to believe the family DOES love these dogs.  They were cooperative in moving them into a garage and rather apparently had no intent to harm them by leaving them in the yard; they were and are amenable to changing their ways.  Despite that, animal services snatched up 5 dogs.  That alone deserves some special attention.  Frankly, I don’t think animal services had any attention of not seizing these dogs from the moment they found the dead dog.  Still it warrants discussion because there were 4 dogs in the yard and one of those died, leaving 3 alleged neglected and at risk.  Perhaps, MAYBE, those were subject to seizure (although, when the owner is willing to change and is trying to improve conditions, I think that is what should happen) but where did the 2 other dogs pop up from?  That mere “two pit bull puppies” is the only reference to them and I surely think we would have been told in big bold letters if they had been in the yard.

I suspect the puppies were in the house and well cared for.  I also have a suspicion that all of these poor dogs may have already been euthanized despite their obvious pleasant demeanor to the officers and I suspect even the puppies have been euthanized.

I actually have no doubt AT ALL that these puppies were inside the house, neither neglected nor abused.  It is apparent that these animal services have decided to do a bit of CPS style overreaching.  If one is thought abused, snatch them all up.  It would behoove them to take note of the CPS case where 400+ children of a community were snatched up in west Texas.  In that case, the appellate court was none too polite in slapping the government’s hand and ordering individual findings for each child (which resulting in all but less than a handful to be released back to their parents).  I have a feeling the appellate court may be less nice when it comes to taking animals en masse; particularly where those animals are contributing to the family financial welfare as in the case of puppies being sold during these hard times… or livestock or inventory.  (Oh, yes, I know you animal control and humane types think you're above the law and subject to no laws but hang on to your hats because that's changing and it may change very fast.  This is Texas, long time bastion of property rights and freedom of enterprise - even when it involves animals.)

These owners are not alone in this dog’s death.  The animal services and humane groups have done a piss poor job of education, despite their claims they support and promote animal welfare.  The government has done a piss poor job of providing guidance on what it expects from animal owners while having no trouble at all in putting out very specific fencing and restraint provisions.  No one, including the media, did a big push on the alternatives for keeping animals alive during this freeze.  It is so sad that the neighbors didn’t offer straw and blankets for them if the family couldn’t afford those.  We all have a share of blame in this poor boy’s death.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The sad truth is that this arctic cold, this minor natural disaster, has cause suffering and death for pets and wildlife.  Officials say at least 38 endangered sea turtles stunned by cooler water from the recent Texas cold snap washed up near the Gulf Coast and couldn't be saved.  Frostbite takes kitten’s ears.  These are just 2 of the recent stories I found.  I rather like part of that second one and kudos to the reporter for this:

“Dogs kept outside during the winter must be given proper shelter along with a source of water.  A draft-free dog house built from weatherproof materials should also be elevated and insulated. Inside there should be bedding of straw or wood shavings.”  I would add that it is good to face the door somewhere other than North or Northwest during cold fronts and to have a 2 foot wind break on the North side if possible.  The winter dog house should not be over-sized as this makes it difficult for the dog to stay warm; the idea is for the dog's body heat to be trapped as near the dog as possible and that hooey about being big enough to stand, turn, etc is utter crap for a winter dog trying to keep warm.  During winter, the elevation should be blocked to reduce the cold air rushing under the dog house.  Shivering produces heat for the animal but it takes additional energy which means food allotments need to go up so they can maintain weight while shivering off calories.  Ditto all that for a cat enclosure outside.  During heat spells, animals need more space for air circulation, more shade, more water and they need the air to rush under the enclosure to whisk away their body heat.  It isn’t much education but it’s a start!  A little sad that they did that AFTER the kitten's ears were frost bitten but still, a start.

On the other hand, I must take serious issue with this: "If it's too cold for you, it's too cold for them," she [Tami Holmes, Sarnia Humane Society shelter manager] said.  Uh, no dear, I’m an “exotic” who is miserable below 76 degrees.  My well coated dogs and cats run for the screened porch to soak up the sun and enjoy the chill of 50 degree and below weather!  Maybe some day you humane twits will realize animals are not humans and BOTH animals and humans come in a wide variety for which “one size fits all” and sound bites are grossly inappropriate.

Go Back

 Posted in General
  Tags animal control animal saving


Comment