Animal Control Agency Incompetence in Whatcom County

On Friday morning, May 7, 2004, my husband and I and some friends headed to the Whatcom County Courthouse in Bellingham, Washington, for an arraignment for the people who ran the puppy mill where our dog Spike and several other bulldogs were rescued from last February.

The dogs that were rescued from "Billie's Bullies" were found in deplorable conditions. All were starved nearly to death. The kennel was filthy, full of dog feces and urine, and the dogs were infested with fleas, ticks, and any number of internal parasites. One dog could not walk and had to be carried out when he was finally rescued. Another had his eyes crusted over so badly that he couldn't see. Sadly, still another dog was found dead. A necropsy revealed she had starved to death some days earlier but her carcass was simply left to rot in the kennel with the other dogs.

When concerned citizens went to the kennel on the evening of February 9 and found the dogs in that condition, they immediately contacted SSP (Security Specialist Plus Preferred Animal Care), the agency contracted by our county to provide animal control services to some of the small towns in our area. SSP would not remove the animals even though they found one dead animal, and the surviving dogs were in those abominable conditions. They merely instructed the owners of the kennel to be sure that the dogs were fed that night. According to eyewitnesses, the first officer on the scene wanted to remove all the dogs the very first night, but the supervisor, Butch Baggett, vetoed her decision, with tragic results. SSP had been to the premises on the morning of February 10 and in spite of the fact that the dogs still hadn't been fed as per SSP's own orders the previous evening, they deemed the situation acceptable and left the hapless animals in those squalid conditions. Concerned about the dogs, the individuals who initially discovered the horrors at the kennel went back to the premises at about 6:00 pm on February 10 and were alarmed by what they found. Not only had one another dog, a Shihtzu, died, but another of the bulldogs was so severly dehydrated that one of the rescuers, a veterinary technician, feared he may be in shock. SSP was summoned and they came to the house a third time. When the vet tech showed the animal in question to the responding SSP officer, he stated, "He doesn't look so bad to me." The rescuers insisted that the dogs be taken and SSP reluctantly complied. When the particularly dehydrated animal snorted (as bulldogs are wont to do), the SSP agent took a step back and declared that he was NOT going to touch that dog. What sort of animal control officer is that??

I had questions for the prosecutor about the inaction of SSP when they were initially summoned to the premises. He didn't know the answers and advised me to call SSP, which I did. I spoke with two agents there on Friday, May 7, after I met with Mr. Dworkin. Both gave me the runaround. I finally spoke with the supervisor, Officer Baggett, and he became absolutely hostile with me when I asked why the dogs weren't removed from the home the first night, and why the puppy mill owners were allowed to keep the remaining dogs. He flatly refused to discuss it with me and told me that as long as the investigation was pending, he would not discuss it with me or with anyone. As long as Billie and Danny are out of jail and not prosecuted, the case is considered pending and will not be discussed. So I asked him if she flees and is never brought to justice, he would never discuss it? and he said, "That's right." Not only was he not cooperative, but he was discourteous and disrespectful, alternately raising his voice at me and laughing at me.

Billie and Danny were arrested and all the remaining dogs confiscated on May 7. This was a small victory along the way, because now that Billie is without the dogs, she cannot immediately start another puppy mill venture. However, Danny and Billie made bail about 8 hours after their arrest and were scheduled to be arraigned on Friday morning, May 14, at the Whatcom County Courthouse. SSP still had the dogs in their custody as of May 14.

At this point I contacted you, Mr. Kremen, regarding this disturbing matter. You seemed genuinely concerned and contacted Greg Rustand, the owner of SSP, immediately. Mr. Rustand then contacted me directly.

When Mr. Rustand called me I asked him why all the animals were not removed that first night that SSP was called to the home. He told me in no uncertain terms that SSP has no authority to remove animals from any home without a warrant, and that SSP had requested a warrant but "those things take time". (On May 14, Mr. Dworkin advised me that SSP had requested no warrant with regard to these animals, completely contradicting what Mr. Rustand told me.) I specifically asked him three or four times, just to be sure I was being clear, whether that applied in cases such as this, where one animal had already perished from starvation and the remaining animals were nothing more than skin and bones, some with open sores, one unable to walk, and no food or water was present? Mr. Rustand told me there were absolutely NO circumstances, even in cases where an animal's life was in imminent danger, that any animal control agency could remove animals from a home without a warrant, EVEN IF the animals were in a life threatening situation. I advised him that when I asked the prosecutor the same question, he answered me by saying he had no idea why SSP had not removed the animals immediately, so the information Mr. Rustand provided conflicted with what Mr. Dworkin, the prosecuting attorney, provided. Still, Mr. Rustand did not budge on his position. He maintained that SSP acted properly and he even stated incorrectly that there was food for the dogs on the premises. Eye witness accounts state exactly the opposite.

I did some research on this, because I simply couldn't believe that the law did not make provision for life threatening situations. RCW 16.52.120 (1) states that "An officer may remove an animal under this subsection without a warrant only if the animal is in an immediate life-threatening condition." I understand that one might say that subsection is open to interpretation, however, since one dog had already died, and since the other dogs were in such deplorable condition, and since, when people returned to the home the following day, yet another dog had expired, it is my considered opinion that these animals were indeed in life threatening conditions. If there was any doubt as to the gravity of the dogs' condition, RCW 16.52.120 (2) states that "If an animal control officer has probably 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." At the very least, the condition of these helpless animals certainly showed "probable cause" that they had been neglected. There was simply no excuse, under these statutes, for SSP not to have removed these animals then and there. This demonstrates SSP acted with little if any regard for the welfare of these animals.

Mr. Rustand and the personnel at SSP, if they are to provide animal control services for this area, should certainly be knowledgeable about the law, and should follow these laws, for the welfare of the animals they are supposed to be helping.

SSP currently retains the Shihtzus and the Boston Terriers that were seized on May 7, 2004, but Mr. Dworkin was unable to tell us how long they would be kept by SSP. SSP did advise Mr. Dworkin that there were "some health issues" present in these most recently confiscated dogs. He wasn't sure how long he would have SSP keep the animals, however, because the State Constitution overrides any statutes on animal cruelty, and he said that the Constitution is very clear and hard on search and seizure. By seizing someone's property (in this case, their sick and dying animals), he claims he could be leaving the county open to a huge lawsuit by Billie and Danny, and he is reluctant to expose the taxpayers of this county to a very expensive lawsuit.

I understand that SSP, like any other animal control agency, faces many challenges in providing animal control services. This, however, was simply an inexcusable act of cruel indifference and ignorance. How anyone with any compassion or regard for animals could leave dogs in such abominable conditions, where there was already a dead animal on the premises, is incomprehensible.

I am enormously concerned about the abuse of these animals, but I am also concerned about the inaction of SSP and about the apparent apathy and ineptitude of some of the personnel, namely Officer Baggett and Greg Rustand. This is a serious matter that requires some sort of action.

Please initiate an investigation into the practices and personnel of SSP, and please do not renew their contract with the county when it comes up for renewal. The animals that need to be helped are already in enough trouble without the added stress of the uncaring actions of SSP.