Author Archives: kstclare

IMG_20140701_192135

The Ebey Island Cats July 1, 2014

What Are a Few Stray Cats Worth?

~ a lawyer

The Ebey Island Cats were seized with a warrant by Snohomish County Animal Control on the morning of Friday, July 11, 2014 at approximately 10:40 am. They were taken to the Everett Animal Shelter for veterinary care and feeding, or that is what they wrote on their warrant, that is what was supposed to happen.

They were all dead by 6:30 pm that same day except for one.

110 cats dead in an less than 7 hours. The last one dead the next day after having been left in the trailer for a day without any food or water.

This is their story and the lies of Snohomish County Animal Control and its officers and the abuse they suffered during the last afternoon of their lives at the hands of the Everett Animal Shelter.

These are the last pictures I took of them, running in a field on the evening of July 1, 2014, 10 days before they killed them for no reason other than lack of money and resources at the shelter to care for them (Dr. Lisa Thompson, the vet at the Everett Animal Shelter, testified at trial that they were all savable but the shelter didn’t have the money or staff/resources to take care of them).

Please understand this one point if you understand nothing else – on the morning of the seizure, I was there during the seizure while they packed up and towed away the trailer they were living in.

I NEVER SURRENDERED THEM, EITHER VERBALLY OF IN WRITING.

IT NEVER CAME UP IN CONVERSATION.

If SCAC officer Angela Rench “magically” produces a signed release for them, it is a lie. I was told by Officer Rench 4 days previous to the seizure that I would have to surrender them.  I moved them to a new location to avoid SCAC taking them. I knew they wanted to kill them – they proved me right.

At the shelter, they were still MY LEGAL PROPERTY while they were being killed.

THEY.ILLEGALLY.DESTROYED.MY.LEGAL.PROPERTY.

Here are more of their pictures:

 

Statutory Law for Seizure of Animals

Let’s review the statute they were seized under:

app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=16.52.085

16.52.080  <<  16.52.085 >>   16.52.090

RCW 16.52.085

Removal of animals for feeding and care—Examination—Notice—Euthanasia.

(1) If a law enforcement officer or animal control officer has probable cause to believe that an owner of a domestic animal has violated this chapter or a person owns, cares for, or resides with an animal in violation of an order issued under RCW 16.52.200(4) and no responsible person can be found to assume the animal’s care, the officer may authorize, with a warrant, the removal of the animal to a suitable place for feeding and care, or may place the animal under the custody of an animal care and control agency. In determining what is a suitable place, the officer shall consider the animal’s needs, including its size and behavioral characteristics. An officer may remove an animal under this subsection without a warrant only if the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition.
(2) If a law enforcement officer or an animal control officer has probable cause to believe a violation of this chapter has occurred, the officer may authorize an examination of a domestic animal allegedly neglected or abused in violation of this chapter by a veterinarian to determine whether the level of neglect or abuse in violation of this chapter is sufficient to require removal of the animal. This section does not condone illegal entry onto private property.
(3) Any owner whose domestic animal is removed pursuant to this chapter shall be given written notice of the circumstances of the removal and notice of legal remedies available to the owner. The notice shall be given by posting at the place of seizure, by delivery to a person residing at the place of seizure, or by registered mail if the owner is known. In making the decision to remove an animal pursuant to this chapter, the officer shall make a good faith effort to contact the animal’s owner before removal.
(4) The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time. An owner may prevent the animal’s destruction or adoption by: (a) Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal’s immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (b) posting a bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal’s care for a minimum of thirty days from the seizure date. If the custodial agency still has custody of the animal when the bond or security expires, the animal shall become the agency’s property unless the court orders an alternative disposition. If a court order prevents the agency from assuming ownership and the agency continues to care for the animal, the court shall order the owner to renew a bond or security for the agency’s continuing costs for the animal’s care. When a court has prohibited the owner from owning, caring for, or residing with a similar animal under RCW 16.52.200(4), the agency having custody of the animal may assume ownership upon seizure and the owner may not prevent the animal’s destruction or adoption by petitioning the court or posting a bond.
(5) If no criminal case is filed within fourteen business days of the animal’s removal, the owner may petition the district court of the county where the animal was removed for the animal’s return. The petition shall be filed with the court, with copies served to the law enforcement or animal care and control agency responsible for removing the animal and to the prosecuting attorney. If the court grants the petition, the agency which seized the animal must deliver the animal to the owner at no cost to the owner. If a criminal action is filed after the petition is filed but before the animal is returned, the petition shall be joined with the criminal matter.
(6) In a motion or petition for the animal’s return before a trial, the burden is on the owner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the animal will not suffer future neglect or abuse and is not in need of being restored to health.
(7) Any authorized person treating or attempting to restore an animal to health under this chapter shall not be civilly or criminally liable for such action.
[2011 c 172 § 3; 2009 c 287 § 2; 1994 c 261 § 6; 1987 c 335 § 1; 1974 ex.s. c 12 § 2.]
NOTES:
Finding—Intent—1994 c 261: See note following RCW 16.52.011.
Construction—1987 c 335: “Nothing in this act shall be construed as expanding or diminishing, in any manner whatsoever, any authority granted officers under RCW 16.52.020 or 16.52.030.” [1987 c 335 § 6.]
Severability—1987 c 335: “If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.” [1987 c 335 § 7.]

 

Let’s look at a few details of the statute here:

(4) The agency having custody of the animal may euthanize the animal or may find a responsible person to adopt the animal not less than fifteen business days after the animal is taken into custody. A custodial agency may euthanize severely injured, diseased, or suffering animals at any time.

They didn’t follow the state statutes to wait the 15 days.

These cats were

(a) not severely injured,

(b) “diseased” – what is the definition here of “diseased”? If we are talking about FeLV or FIV, only 3 were tested…. and not with a 100% confirmatory lab test but using a test that has a 32% false positive rate.  And they wouldn’t do a confirmatory test. If we are taking about upper respiratory infections, these are easily treatable with antibiotics. There is no definition of  “diseased” in the statute so they can assign any definition to it they want and not be held accountable.

(c) suffering from a life threatening health condition – they did not have any life threatening conditions, the vet at the trial said they could be treated but the shelter didn’t have the money or staff….

This statute is so poorly written giving the “custodial” agency so much power over the ambigious definitions of “diseased”and “suffering” that they can kill them right away using their own version of the definitions and then it is too late for the animals, even if one were to challenge their definition of the word

An owner may prevent the animal’s destruction or adoption by: (a) Petitioning the district court of the county where the animal was seized for the animal’s immediate return subject to court-imposed conditions, or (b) posting a bond or security in an amount sufficient to provide for the animal’s care for a minimum of thirty days from the seizure date.

*They started killing them within an hour of getting to the shelter – there would have not been enough time to get to district court to get the necessary stop destruction order and then deliver to the shelter.

*Because they killed them right away, I was denied the chance to post a bond for their care…

If no criminal case is filed within fourteen business days of the animal’s removal, the owner may petition the district court of the county where the animal was removed for the animal’s return.

Too late.

THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT HERE

My cats were NEVER surrendered to SCAC or EAS, either verbally or in writing that morning.

I would have never surrendered them to their death at the hands of the shelter.SCAC  and Everett Animal Shelter destroyed my cats, destroyed my legal property. There was never a court hearing for me to surrender them. They never went to court to get a court order to euthanize them that day. They just killed them assembly line fashion and then made up lies to justify their actions.

Their Last Day of Life

This was a pre-planned premeditated killing on the part of SCAC and the Everett Animal Shelter. THE CATS NEVER EVEN MADE IT INTO THE SHELTER BUILDING…. they set up a big event tent outside with tables underneath to kill them and exam them. They never had any intention of taking them into the shelter. Officer Rench seized them and knowingly took them to the shelter that had neither money nor resources to care for them while an investigation was being conducted. So you purposely take them someplace that can’t care for them – so you kill them then. That explains why she kept telling me at the seizure to not follow her to the shelter. She knew they were being taken in to be killed. I wish I had followed her so I could have documented exactly what they did in video & pictures.

As I mentioned above, my cats and trailer were seized on the morning of Friday, July 11, 2014. I was at the seizure while they packed up the trailer, took off the 80% shade cloth I had installed on the top of it the day before to block the sun hitting the metal skin, took off all coverings over the windows that were there to block the sun, and hooked the trailer up to a Snohomish County Sheriff tow truck and drove off to the shelter. They left me standing in the field watching them as they drove away.

I had asked Officer Rench if I could go in and put the nursing moms back on the litters of kittens and she said “NO, THE VET WOULD DO THAT”. Of course, neither the vet nor anyone else present at the shelter put the nursing moms back on the 3 litters of kittens. They never planned to. Officer Rench lied to me when she said they would and how would they know which mom went with which litter? Two of litters were between 2 & 3 weeks old, thus requiring to nurse at least every 3-4 hours at that age. I had let the moms out of their carriers at 7 am that morning so they could eat, drink water, and use the litter boxes while I ran out first thing in the morning to clean some of their boxes. They purposely dehydrated and starved these nursing kittens by not putting them back on the moms. In the video, there is the mom sitting next to the carrier waiting to be let in to nurse her kittens, of which she never was to see them again.

As I  write this blog, I will be documenting the ABUSE and every single lie by Snohomish County Animal Control and the Everett Animal Shelter.

SCAC Lie #1: Officer Angela Rench said she read me the Miranda warning that morning, She even got Officer Wierzma to say he witnessed it. She never did. There was no point in reading me the warning as I was not under arrest. I even asked a sheriff standing there if I was under arrest and he said no. They left me standing in the field by myself after they drove off. Charges against me would not show up for another 7 months.

Once at the shelter, 3 cats were tested. Two came up FeLV+, one came up FIV+. They started killing them immediately based upon the gross assumption that they were all positive or as they called it “diseased”– Vicki Lubrin, the head of SCAC, even reported to the Herald Newspaper that they were “all diseased”. They took a video of the inside of the trailer at 12:11 pm that day, a half hour after they arrived at the shelter and half the cats were already gone from the inside of the trailer, packed up in boxes and handed out the door.

SCAC Lie #2: Officer Rench in her documents to the prosecution said they were all tested – they were not – the vet report says only 3 were.  And there was no way to have run SNAP tests on all the cats before killing and examining them all by 6:30 pm.

Once at shelter… the trailer was parked in full sun with all windows and roof vents closed. They made a video of the inside of the trailer where it was 85 degrees at noon and there was no water present in the one water bowl. There were two cats in visible respiratory distress/panting in the video and they DID NOTHING TO HELP THEM except kill them all afternoon.

THERE WERE CATS THAT WERE IN THE HOT TRAILER ALL AFTERNOON BEFORE THEY REMOVED THEM WITH:

NO VENTILATION

NO WATER TO DRINK

FORCED TO BREATHE HIGH LEVELS OF AMMONIA.

Officer Rench testified in the trial that they were given no water all afternoon while they were confined in the hot trailer... dehydrating, suffering from thirst, some panting and in respiratory distress already at noon, WHILE THEY WERE AT THE SHELTER PROPERTY and under the control of the shelter and SCAC. The temp at noon was 85 degrees in the trailer – I bet that the temp was closer to 100 degrees by early afternoon in the trailer. And all 7 SCAC officers, the shelter vet Dr. Lisa Thompson, the head of SCAC Vicki Lubrin, the director of the shelter Shannon Johnson,

ALL OF THEM NEVER GAVE THE CATS ANY WATER TO DRINK THE WHOLE AFTERNOON TO EASE THEIR THIRST OR SUFFERING IN THE HOT TRAILER.

There were also a few litter boxes in their that needed to be cleaned (they had seized the trailer in the middle of my cleaning that morning) so with all the windows closed up, the ammonia levels were FORCED into being high, setting off the meter. Again, remember there were no open windows in the trailer for ventilation so they forced the cats to breathe high levels of ammonia all afternoon THEREBY CAUSING UPPER RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS and then saying on the vet report that many of them had upper respiratory symptoms. They didn’t even remove the litter boxes to help reduce ammonia levels to ease their breathing.

How is this not animal cruelty on the part of every single person present that day who took part in the killing. 

By 6:30 pm, they were all dead except for one that hid. They took them, killed them and then did their exams on dead bodies. Most of the pictures supplied by the shelter were of dead cats. They found the last one the next day, after they had dehydrated and starved him for over 24 hrs. I cannot imagine what he went through, seeing all his colony mates taken away and killed.

Here are some pics from the video of the cats IN the trailer at the shelter right before they were killed- please explain to me how these cats were in such horrible shape that they could not be saved as Vicki Lubrin would have you believe (wait a minute…, the vet at trial said they could be saved – they just didn’t have the money or resources to do it and it would take 2 months to get them healthy – 2months???.). Some did have minor health issues that were being addressed and treated (I always kept a supply of antibiotics and subq fluids with me in case they got sick), but nothing that couldn’t be treated by the shelter with a bath, food, water, antibiotics for a few, and a dose of Revolution for ear mites & lice. None of the cats had  a life-threatening health issue that would necessitate immediate euthanasia. Do any of the cats below look like it would take 2 months to treat them for what?

 

And one last note about that day – I found out months later that the seizure had made the news that morning -there were approximately 20 rescue groups that emailed or called the shelter offering to take the cats because they knew they didn’t stand a chance there. Here is the article where I learned this:

Think the city shelter is an animal’s friend?

“Just recently they killed 111 cats, from a raid in Snohomish County in one day. Some of the cats had FIV & FLV which can be a death sentence for most cats but with the proper care they can live a pretty meaningful life. Twenty different rescues reached out & offered to take many if not all of the cats but instead they pulled the trailer up to the city shelter not even bringing the cats inside to examine them but instead they caught each cat one by one & killed them as the other cats looked on, & it didn’t matter if they were adults or kittens. It took all day & the last ones to die were out of their minds according to our sources.”

This proves my point: everyone involved in the seizure was on a assembly line killing mission. They wouldn’t even accept any help from other rescues to take the cats when they KNEW in advance that they didn’t have resources or money to care for them.

Officer Wierzma testified on the stand that once they got about 60 cats out, the others started jumping all over the trailer to avoid be taken. They knew they were going to their death.

???

Why has no person involved in this been charged with animal cruelty? If a regular person locks a cat up in a hot trailer with no ventilation and no water, they would be charged with animal cruelty as I was, but these people get a free pass.

 

FELV+ and FIV+ Testing Information

The test performed at the Everett Animal Shelter was a SNAP/ELISA test. It is a 5 minute test to give initial results BUT IT IS NOT 100% ACCURATE. Problem here is that it has a 32% false positive rate. Another more involved lab test (sent to a lab and taking a 24 hr turn aorund) has to be performed to be 100&% accurate that a cat is FeLV or FIV positive. See the two flow charts below to make the testing protocols simple to a regular person.

I knew some of them had tested positive years ago but did not have recent testing results. Their simple 5 minute test did NOT confirm with 100% accuracy that they were FeLV or FIV positive. And again, because this was a killing mission starting that morning, they were never going to do anything more than an 5 minute SNAP test anyway. They did not follow standard veterinary protocols in their testing and they didn’t care. 

And how do we know they are even telling the truth and did the testing, now that all their other lies and gross exaggerations are being exposed. What proof do we have? And btw, Officer Rench will claim in her documents that I told her all of them were FeLV positive…. nope never said that, I said some were FeLV positive.

FIV Testing Protocol

FeLV Testing Protocol

*A special note here regarding FIV+ status in cats: if  a cat tests positive for FIV, it does not absolutely mean it carries the virus. If a cat has been vaccinated for FIV, they will also test positive. The test cannot distinguish between the two states (virus or vaccination) so there is not 100% confirmatory proof that the positive cat carried the FIV virus even thought they would like you to believe it did.

Here is another good article regarding FeLV/FIV testing:

http://www.neighborhoodcats.org/article/HOME/135

Here is some important info to pay attention to (bolded sections are mine):

Feline Immunodeficiency Virus (FIV)

When it comes to testing feral cats for the FIV virus, most veterinarians and clinics use the ELISA (Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay) test. Commonly referred to as a “snap” test, it produces a result within minutes. It detects whether antibodies to the FIV virus are present in the blood, not whether the virus itself is present. As a result, a positive test result does not necessarily mean the cat is infected. For cats less than six months of age, FIV antibodies may have been passed to them from their nursing mother, but not the virus. To confirm infection these cats must be re-tested when they are older than six months. Another complication arises from the advent of the FIV vaccine. Cats who have received the vaccine will test positive for FIV because the vaccine stimulated their immune system to form antibodies, not because they are infected.

Even putting aside the problem of kittens with their mother’s antibodies and cats vaccinated against FIV, a positive ELISA test is not a definitive diagnosis. “With ELISA tests, the incidence of false positives is relatively high. Positive results, especially in asymptomatic cats, should be confirmed by another test such as a Western blot.” (The Merck Veterinary Manual, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, (2012) ). A Western blot or similar test must be performed in a laboratory and is usually considerably more expensive than the ELISA snap test. Because of the added time and expense involved, follow-up lab tests are rarely performed for feral cats.

Feline Leukemia Virus (FeLV)

For testing feline leukemia infection in ferals, the FeLV version of the ELISA snap test is also the most commonly administered. It detects whether FeLV antigen, a product of the virus, is present in the blood. A positive result indicates the cat was exposed to the virus, but does not necessarily mean he is permanently infected. He may have fought off the virus, leaving bits of antigen behind, or he might be in the process of fighting it off at the time of testing. Infection is not permanent until the virus enters the cat’s white blood cells where it can replicate and spread. The ELISA test does not indicate whether this has occurred. Only a second test, such as the IFA (Immunoflouresence Assay), can determine whether the virus has entered the white blood cells.

Similar to follow-up tests for FIV, the FeLV IFA test must be performed at a laboratory and is rarely pursued in the context of TNR because it takes time to get results and is more expensive than the ELISA test. The failure to have an IFA test performed prior to euthanizing a supposedly FeLV positive cat can literally be a fatal mistake. In an article published in 2006, the National Veterinary Laboratory – a privately owned diagnostic lab founded by the inventor of the IFA test – found that over the course of three years, 32% of FeLV positive results from ELISA tests submitted to it for review were not confirmed by subsequent IFA tests. In other words, almost one of three positive ELISA results turned out to be a potentially false positive. The frequency of false positives with FeLV ELISA tests is why it is common knowledge in the veterinary field that, “Confirmation of positive results, especially in asymptomatic cats, should be pursued by testing for cell-associated antigen, eg, with an immunoflourescent antibody assay (IFA test).” (The Merck Veterinary Manual, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, (2012) ). 

Another problem with the ELISA test for FeLV is it is sensitive and prone to false positives from mishandling. A classic example of mishandling occurs when the result is labeled a “weak positive.” There is no such thing. Either the antigen is present in the blood or it’s not. A “weak positive” finding almost always indicates some type of testing error.

To summarize, the common practice when feral cats are tested is to use the ELISA Snap tests with euthanasia the usual outcome when results are positive for FIV or FeLV. This practice is highly flawed as the ELISA tests are subject to error and best practices in the veterinary field call for more precise follow-up laboratory results to confirm any positive results, especially with asymptomatic cats.

The Bill

Six weeks after they seized and killed my cats in the same day, I got a bill from the Snohomish County Animal Services for over $18,000 for their “services”.

Yes, you read that correctly – over $18,000. WTF?

They charged me $115 per cat to kill them with a 59 cent injection.

2011 Animal Services Invoice 8 25 2014-page-001

Who are the 3 animal control support staff? Why were no names given on the bill? How do we even know they were real people if they are not giving names?

Let’s think about this for a minute. I have money in the bank for food for the cats, medical supplies on hand, money put aside to put down to lease some land and buildings while I had been looking the past 6+ months to move them to a new spot, currently advertising on Craigslist and contacting other rescues for help to get them out of the trailer into bigger buildings and build a sanctuary. I even had a carpenter/floor person able to do some remodeling for me – all I had to do was find the land and space since their current home was falling apart. So I am working full time caring for them and trying to get them moved.

AND SOME STATE AGENCY WITH NO MONEY COMES IN, SEIZES THEM, KILLS THEM BECAUSE AS WAS TESTIFIED, THEY DIDN’T HAVE MONEY AND RESOURCES TO CARE FOR THEM. AND THEY WOULDN’T EVEN ACCEPT ANY HELP FROM ANY PRIVATE RESCUE GROUPS TO TAKE OVER THEIR CARE.

How was this not a pre-meditated killing mission? They never cared about these cats – they just wanted to make the complaints go away because they were being threatened with Pasado’s.

There needs to be new leadership and a model for Snohomish County Animal Control … think about how this $18,000 + money could have been spent to help my cats or the other animals at the shelter… maybe Animal Control should be more about “helping” people with what they need – food, cleaning help, maybe help looking for a good site to relocate the cats, looking for other homes rather than making the owners jump through tons of hoops, usually on on impossible timelines and setting them up for failure where the real victims are the animals who were killed.

AT THE FIRST VISIT WITH OFFICER RENCH, I ASKED HER FOR HELP – I ASKED HER IF SHE KNEW OF ANY LAND OR BUILDINGS ON ACREAGE THAT WERE UP FOR RENT. (They drive all over the county, right?) She said that “they didn’t do that“.

They just tell you you got to do a list of things to get “compliant” and when you don’t, your animals are seized and killed. So much for asking for help…. the only help they would offer would be to take them and kill them. That is standard protocol.

$115 per cat – how much would it have cost to take them in, put them in cages with food and water and give them a dose of Revolution for the ear mites and lice (I honestly don’t remember seeing lice and only see it in one picture of a dead cat yet they claim that they all had it – even the newborn kitten less than 24 hrs old had lice???). I can buy a 6 dose pack of Revolution for $85 on KV Vet supply website – that is $16 per dose. I am sure the shelter can get it cheaper in bulk.

Regarding antibiotic/Clavamox for upper respiratory infections, a vet told me that they buy Clavamox for $10/bottle through Webster’s which is a wholesale veterinary drug supplier. And because Clavamox dosing is weight dependent (one bottle for an adult cat),  you can treat a litter of 5 kittens at 2 lbs. each with one bottle, that is $10 to treat a litter of 5 little 8 week old kittens (@2  lbs average weight). It would have cost them at most $10 to treat 5 of the kittens who had URI’s.

Does the shelter even provide veterinary care to animals?

There needs to be an audit of the shelter.

What is the mission statement of the shelter?

The Vet Report

The first thing to know here – once animals are seized with a warrant and taken to a shelter, it is only the shelter vet that can examine them – the owner cannot call in their own vet to represent themselves and their animals. The owner cannot call in their own vet to confirm or dispute the shelter vet’s findings. So the owner is at the mercy of the shelter vet who works for the state and can say anything they want and it cannot be challenged because the animals are killed and disposed of right away, hence the evidence is gone.

  • If the vet report claims that each one had ear mites, they need to be providing pictures of each pair of ears. They didn’t.
  • If they claim each one had lice, they need to be providing pictures of the lice on each cat.I see only one picture of a cat.
  • They need to be provide pictures of each cat’s face that had an upper respiratory infection (especially the cats killed later ion the afternoon that were forced to sit in an oven called the trailer while they gave them no water and forced them to breath high levels of ammonia ALL AFTERNOON on a hot July day).
  • All the cats that are missing teeth or have dental disease, they need to provide pictures of each mouth. They didn’t.
  • The vet summary said they all had pot belly. I am not seeing the pot belly in the pictures of the dead cats. How can a newborn less than 24 hrs old have a pot belly?
  • The vet summary said they all had gastrointestinal disease. Based upon what symptoms? What definition of gastrointestinal disease are they using? They never did any fecal float tests on any cat. So many generalizations….

Only one or two pictures have been provided for each cat…. dead cats with their tongues sticking out always look worse than live cats.

So they can say anything they want but without pictures documenting and confirming every single charge, how do we know they are telling the truth?

After the mass killing, rumor is that Dr. Lisa Thompson did not do all the exams, there were other vets and vet techs on site who did them too. How could she examine all 110 cats that first day when the trailer did not get to the shelter til 11:30 am and she testified that she went home around 6:30 pm (found in  trial transcripts). Hmmm… that is maybe 2 minutes per cat without a bathroom break and yet she told my lawyer that she spent 5 minutes per cat, which was standard shelter policy she said. The numbers are not adding up.

 

Seizure Happy Snohomish County

seizure numbers

Hmmm…. 998 animals were seized during the year of 2014 in Snohomish County and taken to the Everett Animal Shelter. If you subtract my 111 cats for the month of July, that leaves 887 animals or 80 animals a month. This would be cats and dogs – not horses since they don’t get taken to this shelter. I wonder what happened to all of them? Did they immediately kill them like they did mine? Their stories and fates will be the subject of an investigation in the coming year.

 

The Attacks on the Cats and Trailer

Just a short note – none of the people named below were ever arrested for trespassing, breaking and entering, destruction of property, abandonment of animals, lying to law enforcement, intent to commit robbery through organzing a raid on fb, and theft of animals.

Attack #1:

On April 21st, the woman who was in charge of the property where we were staying gave me 5 days notice to move. I was not able to find a place in 5 days to move the trailer to so…. on April 26th, I returned to the trailer in the afternoon to find that the power to the fans had been disconnected and the trailer was sitting in full sun and almost 85 degrees inside. The adapter cord from the extension cord to the RV plug on the power pole had been stolen and power was turned off at the pole. The person who did this purposely put the cats in a dangerous environment by disconnecting the electricity which turned off the fans. What person in their right mind takes out their frustrations on a group of innocent cats by purposely turning off the power which turned off the fans thereby causing dehydration.. I rehooked up the power to get them back on the fans.

On April 28th, I again returned to the trailer to find the power again turned off and a note from SCAC Officer Delgado concerned about the cats in the trailer. So the power was again purposely disconnected and AC was called.

The woman who did this is named Alison Anderson. It was either she or someone she called to turn off the electricity twice, thereby putting the cats in danger of heat exhaustion and dehydration on a full sun day. I consider this an act of direct animal cruelty towards the cats because all people involved knew that without fans running, that trailer could become too hot inside for the cats and they would suffer yet they didn’t care for their welfare.

Attack #2:

Gyda Andrea Harris – she and several others was responsible for the next two attacks on the trailer.

I returned to the trailer mid Saturday afternoon on June 28th, 2014 to find that the master lock holding the door closed had been sawed off with a hacksaw. The door was wide open and cats were running around in the open field. I had to spend the rest of the day rounding them up and 4 were never found. These 4 that were never found were very tame and when outdoors, would stay close to the trailer. I believe that they were stolen that day by her but I cannot prove it. So this person trespasses on private property and breaks into the trailer to let them run all over a field full of predators that could kill them inc coyotes and dogs from neighboring farms. And yes, coyotes have been seen and heard during the day.

That next Wednesday, an ad was posted on CL full of lies about a woman going around the neighborhood stealing other people’s cats and locking them up in a trailer. On her facebook page, she posted that she was looking for carriers and a truck to conduct a raid on the trailer at 3pm that next Sunday. She can forget about trying to delete these fb pages – they have all been saved for evidence.

Attack #3:

So while I am out that Sunday afternoon looking at a 5 acre property with a 5 stall horse barn and outdoor shed to move the cats to, she shows up AGAIN. At her first attempted visit, she sees my truck there while I am there taking care of the cats. She leaves and then returns after I leave – she has visible proof that someone is there taking care of them, (after making up many lies that no one has been seen there taking care of the cats in many days – I was there every day, multiple times and spent every night there and never saw her staking out the place), she goes AGAIN and cuts off another lock and puts a big dish of some clear liquid in there. Funny how she forgot to look to the right inside the door and see a full water bowl sitting there that I left for them just an hour before. Not knowing what was in the dish and not willing to poison myself, I threw it out. How is this not an attempted poisoning? She testified that she decided not to take any cats that day – so her original intent was to steal as many as she could.

Just where the heck was she going to go with them? Stealing another person’s property – there was no way she could take them to the shelter and surrender them because she didn’t own them. They would be considered stolen property.

How is this not breaking and entering?

How is this not property destruction, destroying my locks and door?

How is this not trespassing on private property (I had permission from the owner of the property to be there – she didn’t.)?

operation cat rescue

What the Herald Newspaper Reported

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20140712/NEWS01/140719672

EVERETT — More than 100 cats and kittens were seized Friday afternoon from a travel trailer parked on Ebey Island, east of Everett.


“After blood tests confirmed (the animals) were diseased and contagious they were humanely euthanized to relieve their pain and suffering,”

They only tested 3 cats – they cannot speak for the other 108. Gross generalizations, gross assumptions, vague definitions…. lies to justify the killings.

 No Room At The Inn

Vicki Lubrin reported to the paper that the cats were in such horrible shape and suffering that they needed to all be put down. Then they change their story and the vet at trial says that they were all treatable but they didn’t have money or staff/resources. You be the judge looking at my pictures and the pictures at the shelter the afternoon they were killed.

But wait, here is an article from 2009 where they took in 155 dogs from a puppy mill. So they do have space and staff and resources and money… maybe they just hate cats. Maybe they just hated me because I refused to surrender them and moved them to a new location and would not tell them where, so they took it out on my cats.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/couple-charged-with-animal-cruelty-155-dogs-seized/

“Officials seized 155 dogs from the Larsen’s Gold Bar house. Officials said many of the dogs were covered in feces, suffering from diseases, and had no water or food. The dogs are being cared for at the Everett Animal Shelter.”

Sounds like they used the same criteria for the dogs above and as they used with my cats – covered in feces, diseases, no food or water. Hmmm…. but they had money and room for all of these dogs.