Here is a follow up article from the Altoona Mirror regarding Tammy Grimes' case. The general sentiment I am seeing from animal rights quacks is that if animal control had actually done there job she wouldn't have been forced to break the law. I find several flaws in that assessment.
First, no one forced her to break the law, and she said when she did it she accepted full responsibility for her actions. Yet, for the last 15 months she has been claiming she took the dog, but wanted to be let off free. If she truly accepted the consequences of breaking the law she wouldn't have been so insistent that she didn't break the law even though she stole a dog.
Second, animal control organizations across the country are underfunded and overworked. If they truly wanted to fix the problem that caused the situation they would use all the publicity generated to draw attention to the situation of animal control. You can't blame them for not being able to respond to a call as quickly as you like when they lack the resources to do so.
Tammy Grimes Follow Up
Here is a particularly disturbing story that has surfaced recently. Apparently, a man left his dog at the clubhouse when he went golfing. While he was golfing, two employees stole the dog and slaughtered it to be eaten. The names of the two suspects have not been released so it may be difficult to follow this through to a trial. I will post more as I find it.
Dog Stolen and Eaten
The last story today is about a puppy that was stolen from the home. It is a rare color and supposedly worth as much as $5,000. This is a common form of theft where thieves target homes they know have rare dogs. Since the dog is still a puppy it makes it easy to transport, and due to the demand for the dog it is an easily movable commodity. The owners typically will offer a large reward for their puppy, no questions asked, which in my opinion is the worst thing you could do. Sure, you will probably get your dog back, from the very thieves who stole it, but at the expense of perpetuating the cycle. It happens so frequently that it wouldn't surprise me if thieves steal the dog with the intention of returning it for a reward.
Puppy Stolen from Home
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I think 3 days is about 2 days too long for any ACO to respond to an EMERGENCY.
Well, yet ANOTHER "blogger" who apparently has nothing better to do with his/her time than to sit behind a computer screen all day and post inaccurate assumptions about people who are actually out there working to change the lives of others, both humans and animals. Is there anything you DO other than putting other people down? Does it make you feel better about yourself?
I agree that animal control operations are often low on resources and training. And I LIKE your idea of publicizing the problems with AC all over the country. As DDB's de facto volunteer PR person, I intend to make that my next project. The thing is that in Tammy's case and so many others, it isn't a matter of "lack of resources." It is a matter of AC officers who simply don't care. For example, an email just went around the Dogs Deserve Better group email list last night about an AC officer somewhere in this country where it is now 15 below zero, a pit bull is shivering in a snowy yard with no shelter, and the AC officer says to our DDB Rep: "Well, how do you KNOW the dog is cold?" And then he refuses to even go look at the dog, which has frostbite.
We will continue to work within the law to educate the owner, provide blankets for the dog and perhaps, if we're lucky enough to get permission, build a fence for the owners.
Anyway, thanks for the idea about publicizing the problems with AC. I am on it!
@ddbrep6
Sometimes other emergencies come first. If it is a case of an ACO outright ignoring the complaint, then go over their head. Everyone reports to someone else. The fact remains that it was legally wrong to take the dog, the moral/ethical nature is questionable. For one thing, a person's moral/ethical position on the matter depends on a person's cultural upbringing. It comes down to if you view allowing the alleged cruelty to continue to be a worse offense than to break the law. It is fine for you to come to your own conclusion as to how you would react, but when one elects to break the law you must realize that it comes with consequences.
In Tammy Grimes' case, her consequences will probably not be all that terrible, a slap on the wrist compared to how it could have turned out since it looks like she will just receive probation. I'm happy with that, I don't think jail time is needed, but she did need to be convicted because it is important for the precedent to remain that when you break the law you suffer consequences.
@getalife
Your animosity towards blogging in general is noted. Now, since you harbor such great disdain for it, why don't you do the rest of us who do not share your sentiment a favor and just ignore those of us who choose to blog.
As for what do I do? I spent a little over four year volunteering with a local animal rescue group, does that count as working to change the lives of others? I stopped doing that to spend time with my own dog who required significant levels of training for some issues he developed. I also work a full time job with a 2 hour round trip commute, so life is a little busy.
Lastly, for the record, I in no way actually attack Tammy Grimes at any level. I critiqued her actions, I did not "put her down". It is solely based on my opinion and if you have a problem with that than you should again refer to my point in paragraph one.
@monica c. schreiber
I'm glad to hear that my post has inspired you to do something about the problem. I have a problem in believing that Tammy's case was a matter of an AC officer who just did not care. If he truly did not care, he would have never followed through on the complaints and the dog would have just vanished without a trace. But, in cases where that is true, the correct action to take would be to go over the Animal Control Officer's head. They do have a superior that they report to. In my county they report to the County Sheriff. If I encountered an instance such as the pit bull you mentioned, I would pay a visit to the Sheriff. Everyone reports to someone, and persistence pays off. Keep records of who you talked to, when you talked to them and what their general response was. Dereliction of duty is a serious problem, but they will not be reprimanded for it unless it is brought to the attention of their superiors.
Now, one thing that this fiasco has made painfully obvious is that Animal Rights and Animal Welfare groups are both very good at greasing the media engine, and no one, especially the politician, likes to look bad in the press. I don't know about everywhere, but my County Sheriff is an elected official, so I think he qualifies as a politician.
Hi Nicholas,
Thanks for your comments and for the work you've done on behalf of animals.
As an attorney, I cannot disagree with you that if a law is broken, there must be consequences. Important to note that there do exist under our laws "justifications" and "mitigating circumstances" that will, in some cases, excuse a crime. Tammy's case has gotten so many people up in arms because there seems to be, to many of us, a "disconnect" between the facts and the law.
As a quick aside, had I been her lawyer, I think I would have tried harder to argue an "abandonment" defense, as I think it could have been reasonably argued that if a dog's owner leaves in on the ground for three days, unable to stand, and chained to a dog house, they have, for all intents and purposes "abandoned" that property.
But anyway...I'm curious: Do you think that the family that let the dog lie on the ground for three days in the mud should held accountable for THEIR actions (or inactions)? I think it can VERY reasonably be argued that they were in violation of Pennsylvania animal cruelty statutes.
Do you agree?
I wanted to reply quicky to this part of your most recent post (then I'll stop, promise!):
"If [the AC officer] truly did not care, he would have never followed through on the complaints and the dog would have just vanished without a trace. But, in cases where that is true, the correct action to take would be to go over the Animal Control Officer's head."
The dog didn't "vanish without a trace." Everyone knew Tammy took the dog. That's why the AC officer and the sherriff decided to go after Tammy with such vehemence. What better opportunity to finally bring down this nettlesome, "commie" animal welfare activist! They "followed up" on the dog only to arrest Tammy.
In fact, Tammy called the AC officer to tell him she had the dog, after the dog was taken to the vet. She asked whether he would take the dog to initiate a cruely investigation against the owners. He said "no."
I cannot say whether it was feasible to go over the AC officer's head, but I can't disagree with you generally on that point. You certainly are right that in most cases that should be the next step.
I do know that many people in Tammy's vicinity consider her a pain in the butt and "smug" because she believes in the compassionate treatment of animals. I honestly don't know if she or someone else ever did try to go over the AC officer's head, but I did hear that when the sherriff arrested Tammy he said, "If you ever come near my dogs, I'll put a slug in your ass." My strong sense is that going over the head of AC would have done no good at all. Tammy likely knew this all too well from her years working on behalf of dogs in this area.
Thanks for listening. I believe in the rule of law, just like you. I also think that there are unique, discrete situations in life where compassion/morality sadly conflicts with the rule of law.
Tammy and DDB have LEGALLY rescued close to 1,000 dogs from a lifetime of agony at the end of a chain. She "stole" ONE dog. Can't we all just focus on the good she's done?
@monica c. schreiber
I am an animal lover at heart, and from what I have seen I do feel that the family should be held accountable. But, I am a Computer Engineer by trade, and I know all too well how evidence can be doctored using a computer. While I do not myself think that is the case, I find that it would cast a shadow of doubt on the evidence that Tammy collected. This is part of why I feel it is so important to follow the correct legal channels when encountering something such as this. When the evidence is correctly collected, it removes that shadow of doubt.
Now, I have read people claim that because she is the head of a local rescue group she is permitted to file civil complaints against someone for animal cruelty, but I do not know if that covers ensuring authenticity of evidence. Furthermore, as I am not familiar with that aspect of her local laws, I can not truly comment on it. I do know that in my county, that is not the case, and only the appointed Animal Control officers, which are considered sheriff's deputies with limited authority, are allowed to file a complaint.
@monica c. schreiber
Sometimes when you step on enough toes you create enemies for yourself. which could be why she got the response she did from the Sheriff and the D.A., but the Sheriff said what he had only after Tammy had taken the dog. It is just speculation, but had she gone to the Sheriff first when the Animal Control officer was not performing his duties she could have received a different response. Had she not, getting media attention about civil servants not performing their duties may have spurred them into action. It wouldn't make her any friends, but if you feel you must try to save every dog you are bound to make enemies along the way.
Unfortunately, you can't save every dog you encounter while following the constraints of the law. Jake/Doogie would have certainly had to endure more suffering while proper channels were followed, but it wouldn't have been in vain. You need to work as quickly as possible so that the dog hopefully does not die, but if you are not successful, at least their suffering and death would help to further the cause so that future dogs do not have to go through the same thing. Some may view it as cold, but the continued suffering of one dog in very small if it prevents the suffering of hundreds if not thousands to come.
In regards to the good that Tammy has done, it is that very reason that I am glad she most likely will not receive jail time. Her probable sentence is just a slap on the wrist, and it comes with the bonus of all the publicity it has generated towards her cause. I believe she truly is a good person, who just took it a little too far.
Post a Comment