The decisions of judges in animal cruelty cases receive major media attention because the American public is highly emotional about pets. Historically, the excuse for not prosecuting heinous crimes against animals was often the claim that judges do not take animal abuse seriously.
That is changing. But, as the Internet inundates us with stories of horrendous large-scale animal abuse and neglect, it is important to also publicize the statements of personal compassion and empathy that judges increasingly are incorporating into their courtroom opinions. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than by the insightful comments of the Honorable Jesse Rodriguez in the following excerpts from the 2007, Long Beach, CA, animal abuse/hoarding-case sentencing of ALEXIA TIRAKI-KYRKLUND, 45, and GLORIA ROMERO, 39, both found guilty of animal cruelty in running a “rescue” facility, called NOAH’S ARK.
What Is Animal Hoarding?
In the various categories of animal cruelty, “hoarding” or “collecting” animals is among the most loathsome and unforgivable, based on the number of simultaneous victims, length and degree of visible and internal suffering, and the fact that often the perpetrator manages other aspects of his/her life effectively—indicating that there is mental clarity and intentional deceit during the months or years of neglect of helpless animals (exempting those cases where there is a professional medical diagnosis of serious mental disorder).
In a 2010 animal cruelty conviction involving hoarding, the perpetrator is a former Mayor of Beverly Hills, CA, and a current practicing attorney.
http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/webrescuer.13f86ce99.html http://hoardingchihuahuas.com/blog/article.php?story=20100811211552498
Most hoarders realize they are doing something wrong. This is evidenced by the elaborate steps taken to hide the animals, refuse entry to the location, withdraw from social interaction, keep dead bodies of animals in freezers, and refuse to obtain veterinary care—all from fear of discovery.
If you have never been physically at the site of animal hoarding, it is hard to imagine the noxious, debilitating odor of often hundreds of animals urinating, defecating, and dying in a cramped, closed area. Of course, not all hoarding is companion animals. Dozens of skeletal horses and other emaciated, dehydrated farm animals are found without food and water and too weak to stand. Hundreds of birds and reptiles are subjected to a slow, painful death from neglect and starvation without anyone ever knowing.
Too often there has been a failure to prosecute animal hoarders because it is routinely dismissed by officials as merely "obsessive-compulsive behavior," or the result of “good intentions gone awry.” Thus, the obvious evidence of the criminal act is ignored or minimized. Yet, the animals are held totally captive in small cages and/or houses or other structures with covered and sealed windows and are allowed to starve to death as they are consumed by the toxicity of their own waste. Hoarding is not a momentary oversight—it is continuing animal cruelty on a mass and perverse basis.
There are politicians, lawmakers and major humane organizations that gain national publicity and donor funding for their efforts against the cruelty of puppy mills but excuse the filth and excruciating suffering of hoarded animals on the justification that a well-intentioned animal rescuer merely became “overwhelmed.” Responsible, capable rescuers use their head as much as their heart and do not allow themselves to become chronically overwhelmed.
Hoarding is not just an issue of numbers of animals. It is the lack of ability—for whatever reason-- to reasonably and humanely care for them. Some hoarders do not spay and neuter the animals they collect and deliberately increase the number of unsocialized, starving and sick animals by this omission.
Some of the most tragic contemporary hoarding situations occur under the guise of “rescue” and under the provisions of a 501(c)3 charity, to which unsuspecting owners relinquish their pets—often for a donation and/or bequest, believing they will be cared for in a kind and humane manner to the end of their natural lives.
In the KYRKLUND/RAMOS (Noah’s Ark) case, many of the animals were already “rescued” from public animal shelters and left with Kyrklund by individuals/groups involved in removing impounded pets from municipal shelters ostensibly for purposes of adoption. A large number were traced by microchips issued by Los Angeles City Animal Services department.
Why Do “Humane Experts” Excuse Hoarding?
How do professionals who claim to love animals repeatedly excuse obviously sane, articulate persons who fail to maintain minimally humane conditions for dozens, often hundreds, of animal victims? And, why are these criminals so often allowed to keep or obtain more animals and repeat the behavior after conviction merely by moving to a new jurisdiction?
If we compare the usual dismissive penalties imposed on animal hoarders to pedophiles, could the argument be made that both are merely an “obsessive-compulsive disorder” and that the perpetrators of egregious crimes against children should be allowed to continue to adopt or be in a position/household where he/she has access to and control over children? Is it because they are voiceless that merely a claim to “love” animals allows them to be abused by hoarders with impunity?
Equally perplexing, why do many responsible rescuers risk their own credibility by rushing to cover the transgressions of one of their own whose reprehensible conduct is far worse than the maligned relinquishment of healthy pets to shelters by those who cannot continue their care?
JUDGE JESSE RODRIGUEZ LOOKS AT A BLURRED SUBJECT WITH CLEAR VISION
On December 4, 2007, ALEXIA TIRAKI-KYRKLUND and GLORIA RAMOS were convicted by a jury on three counts of animal cruelty in running a “no-kill” private animal-rescue center, called NOAH’S ARK, in Long Beach, CA. Animal Abuse: Shelter raided, 250 cats and dogs seized - Long Beach, CA | Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/9528/CA/US/#ixzz1R79E0kXp
At the December 20, 2007 sentencing, The Honorable Jesse I. Rodriguez shared his personal thoughts and feelings about animals in our society and those who violate the trust of these “vulnerable” victims. His opinions are presented in pertinent excerpts from the trial transcript and are offered to encourage more enlightened and vigorous pursuit of justice for voiceless victims of animal cruelty and hoarding.
(Also, included are certain extracted statements by prosecutor, Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Mark Burnley and Defense Attorney Todd Krause.)
The following Profiles from Pet-Abuse.com provide background/ summary information of the Kyrklund/Ramos “Noah’s Ark” case:
ANIMAL ABUSE DATABASE PROFILE (Pet-Abuse.com)
Alexia Tiraki-Kyrklund
Gender: Female
Location: Long Beach, CA (US)
History
Aug 23, 2006 - Long Beach, CA (US)
Convicted: Shelter raided, 250 cats and dogs seized
Sentence: Judge Jesse Rodriguez sentenced Tiraki-Kyrklund to 16 months in prison. In Jan 2008, she was ordered to repay $94,614.12 in restitution to Long Beach Animal Control… more.. http://www.pet-abuse.com/profiles/9712/
Apr 2004 - Signal Hill, CA (US)
Convicted: Zoning violations, importing wild animals
Sentence: On June 19, Kyrklund was sentenced to 12 days in county jail, 36 months probation and was ordered to pay restitution to the city for more than $12,000 in vet bills to treat animals seized at the Signal Hill property.. more..
Gloria Ramos
Gender: Female
Approximate Age: 39
Location: Long Beach, CA (US)
History
Aug 23, 2006 - Long Beach, CA (US)
Convicted: Shelter raided, 250 cats and dogs seized
Sentence: Gloria Ramos received a term of one year in county jail and five years' probation. In Jan 2008, she was ordered to repay $94,614.12 in restitution to Long Beach Animal Control.. more..
Animal Abuse Profile: Gloria Ramos - Long Beach, CA | Pet-Abuse.Com Animal Cruelty Database http://www.pet-abuse.com/profiles/10349/#ixzz1R7Mzvx1v
SENTENCING: PROBATION (RAMOS)
STATE PRISON (KYRKLUND)
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ: “WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OUR CULTURE AND OUR DEMOCRACY, BASED ON JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEFS, ITS HISTORY AND ITS HERITAGE BELIEVES THAT EVERY BEING SHOULD BE TREATED WITH RESPECT.
“I THINK THAT THIS BASICALLY BRINGS TO THE SURFACE THAT IN OUR DEMOCRACY EVEN ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS. THEY ARE IMPORTANT RIGHTS. THERE IS NOTHING MORE PLAINLY TO CONTRAST OUR JUDEO-CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AND CULTURES AND DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS TO THE FACT THAT IF YOU RECALL, GENTLEMEN, THAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ONE OR MORE JURORS THAT CAME FROM OTHER CULTURES WHERE ANIMALS, ESPECIALLY DOGS, ARE USED TO FEED ANIMALS.
“SO…I MAKE THAT ANALOGY BECAUSE TO A DEGREE--IT IS A TESTAMENT OF OUR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES THAT WE ARE HERE IN THIS TYPE OF A CASE.
“YOU MAY PROCEED, MR. BURNLEY.”
DEPUTY D.A. MARK BURNLEY (PROSECUTOR):
“JUST BRIEFLY, YOUR HONOR. MY PRINCIPAL CONCERN OF THE PEOPLE IS THAT THE DEFENDANTS UNDERSTAND AND REALIZE THAT WHAT THEY DID WAS WRONG BECAUSE IT SEEMS FROM PAST BEHAVIOR THAT THEY JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND. AT LEAST MISS KYRKLUND DOESN'T UNDERSTAND. SHE HAD A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THE SIGNAL HILL CASE WAS FILED BACK IN 2004. SHE HAD A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN LIEUTENANT QUIGLEY CAME OUT TO DO A COURTESY INSPECTION OF THE FACILITY IN JULY OF 2005. AND STILL HERE WE ARE, BOTH DEFENDANTS HAVING BEEN CONVICTED AT JURY TRIAL OF THREE FELONY COUNTS OF ANIMAL ABUSE.
“…HONESTLY, YOUR HONOR, I CANNOT SAY WHICH WOULD MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND AND REALIZE MORE. WOULD STATE PRISON AND PAROLE MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND AND REALIZE AND DETER THEM FROM EVER DOING THIS AGAIN? WOULD THAT BE THE MORE APPROPRIATE WAY TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN, OR WOULD A FORMAL GRANT OF FELONY PROBATION WITH TIME IN COUNTY JAIL AS REQUESTED IN THE PEOPLE'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM BE THE MORE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE?
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ: “DO YOU BELIEVE THAT IN TERMS OF SENTENCING…BOTH DEFENDANTS STAND EQUALLY BEFORE THE COURT?”
MR. BURNLEY: “NOT REALLY, YOUR HONOR. I BELIEVE THAT IF EITHER DEFENDANT WOULD BE MORE--I DON'T WANT TO SAY—CULPABLE--BUT MORE INVOLVED, IT WOULD BE MISS KYRKLUND.”
“MISS RAMOS. FROM MY REVIEW OF HER CRIMINAL HISTORY--HAS A 14601.1 [Driving w/o License] SHE HAS NO OTHER PRIOR CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. SHE HAS NEVER BEEN CITED AS FAR AS I CAN TELL FOR ANY TYPE OF BEHAVIOR SIMILAR TO THIS. HOWEVER, I THINK FROM THE TRIAL TESTIMONY THAT IT DID COME OUT THAT SHE WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED WITH THE FACILITY…”
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ: “THANK YOU.” (COURT DISCUSSION WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL.)
MR. BURNLEY: “THIS CASE WAS ABOUT THE DEFENDANTS FAILING TO DO WHAT THEY
HAD PUT THEMSELVES OUT AS DOING FOR ANIMALS, HELPING ANIMALS--HELPING ANIMALS IN NEED AND TAKING CARE OF THEM.
“AS I SAID IN MY CLOSING ARGUMENT. MAYBE THEY HAD NOBLE INTENTIONS, BUT THOSE NOBLE INTENTIONS WENT HORRIBLY AWRY.
“FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH ANIMALS FOR WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, IT IS ALMOST WORSE THAT IT HAPPENED TO THEM BECAUSE THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND WHAT THOSE CONDITIONS WERE.
“EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENSE IS SAYING THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED WITH ANIMALS ANY MORE, I BELIEVE PART OF THIS CONVICTION SHOULD BE PUNISHMENT AND DETERRENCE.
“I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO SENTENCE APPROPRIATELY. IF THE COURT IS NOT GOING TO IMPOSE STATE PRISON, I BELIEVE TIME IN COUNTY JAIL. THE PEOPLE'S MEMORANDUM LAYS OUT ALL THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 597 [CA Penal Code – Crimes against Animals—Felony or Misdemeanor]. THESE DEFENDANTS NEED TO UNDERSTAND, NOT JUST SIT HERE AND SAY WE UNDERSTAND, BUT THEY NEED TO LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT THEY DID.
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ “THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
“THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE WERE VULNERABLE. THEY WERE HELPLESS ANIMALS JUST WANTING TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. I DO BELIEVE THAT ANIMALS HAVE FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS AND SHOULD BE TREATED FAIRLY. THESE WERE HELPLESS BEINGS. THEY COULDN'T TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES. THEY EXPECT OTHER PEOPLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEM.
“IN OUR SOCIETY, WE DO. THEY ARE PART OF US. THEY ARE PART OF OUR FAMILIES. SO IN OUR SOCIETY, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FAIRLY AND PROPERLY TAKE CARE OF OUR ANIMALS AND OUR PETS WITHIN OUR MEANS. OUR MEANS MUST BE REASONABLE. OUR INTENTIONS MUST BE REASONABLE BASED ON LOGIC AND COMMON SENSE.
“AS TO DEFENDANT RAMOS, SHE HAS AN INSIGNIFICANT CRIMINAL RECORD. SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY PRIOR RECORD OF CITATIONS FOR ANY TYPE OF ANIMAL CRUELTY OR ANY PENDING CASES. SHE WAS A VOLUNTEER. SHE BECAME MORE THAN A VOLUNTEER.
AS TO MISS KYRKLUND, SHE WAS ON PROBATION AT LEAST FOR ONE COUNT THAT DEALT WITH SOME TYPE OF DOCUMENTATION AND THEN TWO PENDING COUNTS OF SOME FORM OF ANIMAL CRUELTY.
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ: “THEY ARE PENDING. SO EVEN UP TO THAT POINT SHE STANDS DIFFERENT THAN MISS RAMOS VIS-A-VIS THE ISSUE OF NOTICE.
“FURTHER, ANOTHER AGGRAVATING FACTOR AS TO MISS KYRKLUND IS THAT THE COURT BELIEVES THAT SHE OCCUPIED A POSITION OF LEADERSHIP OR DOMINANCE OVER OTHER PARTICIPANTS. SHE WAS THE ONE IN CHARGE. SHE WAS THE ONE IN CHARGE, SO THE COURT BELIEVES THAT THEY STAND DIFFERENTLY IN FRONT OF THE COURT IN TERMS OF SENTENCING.
“THE PEOPLE BEGAN THEIR ARGUMENT, THEIR CLOSING ARGUMENT, WITH SOME SORT OF CLICHE THAT GOOD INTENTIONS GONE WRONG OR NOBLE INTENTIONS GONE AWRY OR HOWEVER IT WAS PHRASED BY THE PROSECUTION.
“THE COURT HAS BEEN CONCERNED THAT IF MISS RAMOS AND MISS KYRKLUND HAVE THIS DEVOTION FOR THESE ANIMALS OR FOR ANIMALS IN GENERAL, HOW COULD THE SITUATION HAVE GONE SO FAR AND SO BAD FOR THOSE ANIMALS? THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER THAT THEY COULDN'T HANDLE IT.
“GOOD INTENTIONS AT THE BEGINNING JUST GO SO FAR. SOME PEOPLE SAY THAT ROBIN HOOD HAD GOOD INTENTIONS. IT IS NOT A PROPER ANALOGY, BUT MANY DICTATORS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD BEGIN WITH GOOD INTENTIONS, AND LOOK WHAT HAPPENS.
“THEREFORE, IN THIS CASE, RESPECTFULLY SPEAKING, AS TO MISS RAMOS, SHE'S PLACED ON [FIVE YEARS] FORMAL PROBATION ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS. SHE IS TO PAY A $200 RESTITUTION FINE.
“SHE IS TO STAY AWAY FROM THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE LONG BEACH ANIMAL CONTROL…AND STAY AWAY FROM ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LIEUTENANT QUIGLEY.
“SHE IS TO OBEY ALL LAWS, ORDERS OF THIS COURT AND ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT.
“SHE SHALL NOT OWN, POSSESS, CARE FOR OR HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH ANY ANIMALS OF ANY KIND. SHE SHALL NOT BE EMPLOYED BY OR START UP OR AFFILIATE WITH OR VOLUNTEER FOR ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE AGENCY OR BUSINESS WHOSE PRIMARY BUSINESS PURPOSE IS TO OWN, POSSESS OR CARE FOR ANIMALS. THIS INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO VETERINARIAN CLINICS, VETERINARIAN HOSPITALS, ANIMAL SHELTERS, ANIMAL KENNELS, ANIMAL ADOPTIONS OR ANIMAL RESCUES.
“SHE SHOULD DELIVER IMMEDIATELY, WITHIN 48 HOURS,ANY ANIMALS IN HER POSSESSION TO A DESIGNATED PUBLIC ENTITY FOR ADOPTION OR OTHER LAWFUL DISPOSITION AND PROVIDE PROOF TO THE COURT THAT SHE NO LONGER HAS THEM IN HER POSSESSION.
“HER RESIDENCE IS SUBJECT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE WITH OR WITHOUT A WARRANT BY ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY INCLUDING THE LONG BEACH ANIMAL CONTROL AT ANY TIME OF THE DAY OR NIGHT AND ALSO BY THE PROBATION DEPARTMET. PURSUANT TO [PENAL CODE SEC.] 597(G), SHE SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PAY AND SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE COUNSELING.
“MISS RAMOS IS TO COMPLETE A 24-HOUR COUNSELING PROGRAM AND ENROLL WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RELEASE FROM CUSTODY.
“THE DEFENDANT IS TO REPORT TO THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RELEASE. I BELIEVE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING IT IS FIVE YEARS OF FORMAL PROBATION…”
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ: “AS TO MISS KYRKLUND.AS TO COUNT 2…THE COURT IS GOING TO SELECT THE LOWER TERM OF 16 MONTHS IN THE STATE PRISON…; AS TO COUNT 3, EIGHT MONTHS…CONCURRENT; AS TO COUNT 12, SENTENCE SUSPENDED PER SECTION 654 OF THE PENAL CODE, SIXTEEN MONTHS CONCURRENT AS TO COUNT 3.
[Remaining counts were dismissed, pursuant to PC Sec. 1885, unable to proceed.]
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ: “FURTHER, THERE IS A $200 RESTITUTION FINE PURSUANT TO SECTION 1202.4(B) AND A $200 PAROLE REVOCATION FINE, MA'AM, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1202.45. THAT FINE IS STAYED, PENDING SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF PAROLE.
[Defendants advised of appeal rights by Judge Rodriguez. Attorney Krause indicated his intention to appeal. Discussion was held with both counsels regarding bail for Plaintiffs Kyrklund and Ramos.)
JUDGE RODRIGUEZ: “[KYRKLUND] BAIL IS DENIED. LIKEWISE TO MISS RAMOS.”
(THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED AT THIS TIME.)
# # #
its amazing to me that facts are not important in Internet articles. yes it is alex here. i am not in hiding. i am freely out in the open. the hospital is called the ARC rather ballsy if you ask me for a person who is guilty. i have nothing to hide hence the article that shared my dream to help animals medically.
why are you trying to imply that the hospital is trying to 'steal' dogs? have you thought of writing for the globe with all your exaggerations and hype?
well since facts are not important to you phyllis maybe some of your readers might be interested in some.
the microchiped dog in question was brought in to us directly from the shelter. the 'owners' asked us to remove the chip. why would we doubt it? they had the proper paperwork indicating that they were the new owners and that they wanted their own chip and did not want to have their pet double chiped. had it been a stray pet there would have been no question regarding the chip removal. how ever some like international chips etc.so we didnt think to question the ownership.
but why would you need to try and paint a non profit veterinary hospital geared to helping stop animals from dying at the shelters because of medical care as a bad thing? it makes me wonder how much you really do care for animals. what is your point here? your hatred for me blinding you to the desperate need of affordable medical care for the helpless animals in SLA?
doesn't it seem odd to you that the very doctor that was hailed by your friend quiggly and the long beach animal control as the best veterinarian in long beach even giving him an award a month prior to the raid choose to stand by me not them?
as for me, well im trying my best to do something good but that seems bad to you. again i find that odd.
i still fight and continue to work on my appeal having already over turned one of the charges against and work on the balance. but im sure you already knew that since your stories are always based on facts and not glorified hype.
aren't you the one whose best friends with the officer that raided noah's ark? did you also write an in depth article on that city animal control when they were later found to have been conducting horrible acts of bloody brutality against animals themselves? disgusting acts that should have had charges filed but will never happen because its a city entity and they are not held accountable are they? what about the fact that the director resigned humiliated and everyone was either fired or resigned from that incident?
yes im sure you did an unbiased article on them as you do on me all based on facts.
well phyllis you know where i am if you ever really want the facts. im not in hiding. dont need to be.
Thank you so much for bring this issue to our attention.
I'm a researcher for the series Confessions: Animal Hoarding, currently airing on Animal Planet that tells the stories of people overwhelmed by the number of pets they own. The problem is on the rise and affects communities across America.
If you are concerned about the health of animals in someone's care and suspect they may be hoarding them, we might be able to help.
Most animal hoarders don’t see themselves as hoarders, and sometimes don’t intentionally collect animals. Their relationship with their animals has threatened their relationships with friends and family.
Most of these situations aren’t dealt with until they become criminal. This results in animals being euthanized by over-stressed shelters, and doesn’t address the underlying psychological issues - meaning nearly 100% of people end up in the same situation again.
We are dedicated to finding comprehensive long-term solutions and believe therapy to be key to this. We can bring in experts to help people and their pets.
If you or someone you know needs help because animals have overrun their life, visit www.animalhoardingproject.com to learn more and submit their story. Alternatively, contact me directly at help@animalhoardingproject.com or toll-free at
1 -877-698-7387.
We will treat all submissions with confidentiality and respect.
Are you aware of the increase in hoarding since the advent of the "No Kill Equation" movement of Nathan Winograd? It's not a coincidence. In Philly, under PACCA, according to George Bengal of the PSPCA, hoarding went from one or two a year to that many a month since 04. The "No Kill Equation" program was installed under PACCA at that time. On Craigslist and blogs, many, many comments were made saying that the PACCA staff, handpicked by Nathan Winograd, were made aware of hoarders taking animals from the shelter but they ignored these warnings. I have links above on that situation.
If you want to find hoarding, then follow Nathan Winograd. Are you aware of the hoarders in Washoe County, NV, Reno? They were taking cats from the "No Kill Equation" Nevada Humane Society and some other adoption groups. It's so obvious, or should be, when the same people return to adopt, time after time, that something is wrong.But this movement's motto is "Outta Sight, Outta Mind", and they care only about showing numbers.
To follow up on my previous comment, Alex Tiraki, was one of this group convicted of animal cruelty. She was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Now there is an investigation where she removed a microchip from an owned dog so this dog could be transported out of state and the owner was desperately trying to find the dog.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/are-l-a-s-transported-dogs-stolen-or-rescued
So it appears that she is not the "snapshot" of an unselfish, caring person but rather an animal abuser and a thief trying to steal someone's beloved pet. Boo hoo
Alex Taraki is also with the clinic that removed a microchip from a dog when the owner was looking for it at the shelter.
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/are-l-a-s-transported-dogs-stolen-or-rescued#comment-109838
When retired veterinarian Salam Saleh asked dedicated animal rescuer Alex Tiraki, what dream project she wished for in her ongoing efforts to help animals, she didn’t hesitate. An animal hospital that catered to the rescue community.. http://theneighborhoodnewsonline.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=669:animal-rescue-service-rescues-rescuers&catid=65:animal-issues-and-pets&Itemid=84
NOTE: "AN ANIMAL HOSPITAL THAT CATERED TO THE RESCUE COMMUNITY"
And your problem with that is?
The section of that story immediately following that which you posted:
She understood the kind of unsung sacrifices animal rescuers made, not only in time and effort but financial as well. Paying to spay and neuter, cure a parvo puppy, fix a broken leg, address the skin conditions of malnourished dogs. The list was endless. Veterinary services are costly, so the difficult-to-care for animals are left behind or rescuers put off taking care of their own bills in order to pay vet costs. When Salam heard Alex’s dream, he also didn’t hesitate. “Let’s do it!” and The Animal Rescue Center was born, offering low cost full vet services for the rescue community.
If you were trying to discredit Alex Tiraki, I'd say the that proper context shows your attempt to be rather petty. But thanks for giving the readers a chance to see two contrasting snapshots: Alex Tiraki appears to be unselfish and you look like a spiteful little d-bag.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
We do have a right to privacy but not at a cost of cruelty to anything, be it animal or human. Would you like to live next to one of these hoarders? If you did live next door, you would be the first one to scream and yell to violate the hoarder's rights, wouldn't you? Or would you prefer to have 100 dogs barking and stinking up your neighborhood? Get real, Animals Don't Have Rights. You would violate anyone rights because you think your rights are more valuable than others.
Refusal to allow entry and withdrawing from social interaction is hardly limited to those who want to hide hoards of animals. We have the right to privacy and to live a life of seclusion. I think this article was written by an "animal rights" shill. If the animals are being treated as well or better than they would be if they were left to fend for themselves then mind your own business. I haven't a clue as why someone would want that many animals but that's my own feelings and feelings have no place in law.
As all of us readers of this wonderful publication, we know that OV is having problems installing the new website because of growing pains.
I think part of this article has been cut off, namely what the Judge said in his ruling. I am looking forward to that being placed onto the article so I can read it, I am very curious about the ruling.
This is an important issue and I hope those reading it will check back when the problem is corrected, I know I will.
According to George Bengal of the Pennsylvania SPCA, hoarding there has risen dramatically since 04. He was quoted that before he saw maybe 1 or 2 cases a year, whereas since 04, he now sees that many a month.http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/20100720_Hoarding_grows__and_TV_takes_note.html
It's no coincidence that Philadelphia/PACCA adopted the "No Kill Equation" in 04-05 and the rise in hoarding. More and more "No Kill" shelters are being busted for cruelty/hoarding.
The PSPCA has a CEO who is a follower of this "No Kill Equation" program and here is a news story indicating that the PSPCA had to bust one of their own foster homes as a hoarder. The hoarder also admits to taking animals from PACCA. PACCA had the animal control contract with the City of Philly and their management staff was handpicked by Nathan Winograd. Things became so bad there that PACCA was on the verge of having cruelty charges filed. An RFP was issued overnight and the contract was taken away. The City of Philly did an audit and it showed how poorly this program was working.
http://articles.philly.com/2010-07-15/news/24968040_1_dead-animals-dead-dogs-humane-officers
She disputed the PSPCA's figures on the number of animals seized from her home, andWilliamson confirmed that Federov had helped foster kittens for the PSPCA.
Federov said she had taken dogs from the former PACCA to save them from being put down.
Another "No Kill" shelter under Winograd's program is giving cats to hoarders, as well as other "No Kill" rescue groups.
http://www.rgj.com/section/blogs11?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3aacc02915-b98e-411d-9c60-e0990262ffe5Post%3ac8d743e3-f6f6-4d23-90bb-a58054cfffe1&sid=sitelife.rgj.com
Nevada Humane Society records show that Nawojski has adopted seven cats from the shelter since 2006. That's the legal limit in congested areas of the county. Stevens said, based on microchip readings, that it appears the seized cats were adopted from a number of different cat rescue groups. She said that if the cats are surrendered, each group will likely take back the ones who came from them. She said there were at least six unaltered male cats and they wouldn't know if any of the females were not spayed until further investigation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38978396/
When Animal Rescuers Become Animal Hoarders: Rescues, shelters make up a quarter of the 6,000 hoarding cases each year
"Rescues and shelters now make up a quarter of the estimated 6,000 new hoarding cases reported in the U.S. each year, said Dr. Randall Lockwood, ASPCA's senior vice president of forensic sciences and anticruelty projects.
"When I first started looking into this 20 years ago, fewer than 5 percent would have fit that description," Lockwood said."
It was about 15-20 years ago that we started hearing the term "no kill".
Hoarding is on the rise and you have to ask if it is a coincidence that this rise owes it rise to the "No Kill" movement. When you offer cats and dogs for free, as most of the "No Kill" shelters do, or two fer one sales, who do you think will show up?