Posted by rose on May 3, 2006, 1:44 pm Jade Murphy
207.119.234.148
Permission to cross-post and distribution appreciated. If you are posting to lists that do not accept attachments you will have to copy and paste the contents of Dr. Tally's letter.
Dear Georgia Department of Agriculture:
I am copying in many of the media and animal protection organizations and asking everyone to also contact Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue's office (404-656-1776) and Georgia Attorney General Thurbert E. Baker's office (404-656-3300) regarding the attached letter from Dr. Spencer Tally, the veterinarian who examined and vaccinated the dog's sold at auction in Bartow County, GA this past Saturday. You are likely informed about the auction ordered by probate judge Mitchell Scoggins, because the attorney for the estate of Katherine Culberson, Michael A. Prieto, has been quoted as stating that a list of the buyers of the dogs was sent to your department.
Mr. Prieto, who opened the auction, has also made the statement that a "full disclosure" regarding the health status of the dogs was made to the audience of potential buyers. Reportedly, there is a video of the auction and Mr. Prieto's introductory remarks; some who were in attendance remember him listing only the vaccinations that the dogs had received.
It is my understanding that some dogs were held back from the sale because of health reasons, and the number of those dogs is in question; some animal rescuers claim the number of dogs relinquished to them was not the original number of dogs they had been told were in need of rescue.
Many of the successful bidders for the dogs were animal rescuers who bought the intact (not spayed/neutered animals) in order to save them from a continued life of confinement and breeding. Because of the condition of the dogs as enumerated in Dr. Tally's attached letter, the buyers will incur substantial veterinary medical costs as they attempt to help the animals regain their health. Certainly that should have been taken into consideration before the dogs were ordered to be sold at auction. Certainly every buyer of those dogs deserves to be informed about the content of the attached letter and should have been provided a copy of the letter prior to the sale. Some of the buyers have young children, and some of the parasites that the dogs are infected with are communicable to humans. By his order to sell the dogs, Judge Scoggins showed a callous disregard for the health and well-being of the animals and the public welfare.
Your department has stepped in and stopped the sale of sick animals in the past - why did you not do so in this instance? Was it because you also were not informed that these animals were infected, in poor condition, and that they constituted a threat to public health?
I am not an attorney and I don't know if and how many laws have been broken in this scenario. I would think that the heirs of Katherine Culberson, who made a significant income (did she report all those earnings?) by keeping dogs in a deplorable manner would be morally obligated to refund the money spent by rescuers to save those dogs. And, if they don't do so voluntarily, the estate's assets should be frozen and the government should intervene and assign whatever portion of those assets that would compensate the rescuers for the purchase price of each animal and the subsequent veterinary medical costs.
Your and the media's attention will be appreciated by all of us who are concerned about the welfare of those animals and the people who purchased them. The law may consider animals just dispensable "property," but we do not. This matter has surely become an aggravation to those who preferred to not put the needs of the animals foremost, but this entire incident could have been prevented. We have to wonder why a miserable operation such as the late Katherine Culberson's wasn't investigated and shutdown years ago.
Sincerely,
Jim Willis
http://www.crean.com/jimwillis
Responses: