Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label animals. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

"I could hear them screaming": Problems at BCAC Must Be Addressed

KTBS broke a disturbing story last night out of Bossier City Animal Control in which two shelter workers, (one a volunteer and one a paid employee) report inhumane euthanasia practices:

Brandy Cornell quit working at the shelter Friday after she said she witnessed dogs and cats euthanized with the heart sticks by untrained technicians.  
"I could hear them screaming," Cornell said about the cats when they were being euthanized. 
Technicians are required by law to train in Baton Rouge once a year. Cornell provided KTBS with a letter, which you can see in the video above. In that letter Dale Keeler, who oversaw Cornell at the shelter, said that all heart stick practices would "cease" as of May 8 "until a technician is trained in chemical sedation." 

 Under Louisiana law, heart stick, or IC,  is illegal unless the animal has been sedated by a trained professional and can feel no pain.

"I could hear them screaming."

So to be clear, here is the law on euthanasia in Louisiana:

C. Euthanasia:  
(1) Euthanasia methods and procedures must conform with recommendations outlined in the report of the American Veterinary Medical Association on Euthanasia, dated July 1, 1978, or as revised except as provided in Paragraphs (2) and (3) of this Subsection.
(2) Euthanasia by carbon monoxide gas chambers on cats and dogs shall be prohibitd beginning on January 1, 2013 and thereafter. 
(3) Euthanasia by intracardiac injection on cats and dogs shall be prohibited unless the animal is unconscious or rendered completely unconscious and insensitive to pain through the injection of an anesthetic. 
(4) Euthanasia personnel shall attend the Humane Society of the United States Academy on Euthanasia or an equivalent program within one year of date of employment. 

 The KTBS story ended with former shelter volunteer Brandy Cornell asking,"Why would he [Keeler] tell them they would cease euthanasia until they got a sedation class? Why would he even say that if someone was already certified to do it. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever,"

She raises a good point.

Question:  Every certified animal euthanasia technician (CAET) at BCAC had to sign Keeler's May 8 mandate that "all intracardiac heart sticks will cease."  Why would you sign something like that if you aren't actually doing the procedure? 

What is heart stick?  If you Google it, you'll get headlines and images you don't really want to see so let me quote from the Human Society of the United States Euthanasia Reference Manual:

Intracardiac Injection (IC) (Injection of Sodium Pentobarbital Directly Into the Heart) 
An intracardiac (IC) Injection involves the injection of sodium pentobarbital directly into the heart, where it is quickly transported to the brain.  Injection into a conscious animal's heart is excruciatingly painful, even if the technician is able to locate the heart chamber on the first attempt.  For this reason, IC Injection must never be administered to an animal unless the euthanasia technician has confirmed that the animal is fully unconscious.  Many states and municipalities have laws dictating that animals must be fully unconscious before an IC injection.
The Humane Society details specific measures to ensure that the animal is completely unconscious before such a procedure.

This is a very effective way to euthanize an animal that is unconscious, but if not, it is torture.

"I could hear them screaming."

Finding the heart chamber is difficult, even for a trained and experienced technician.

A Certified Animal Euthanasia Technician (CAET) is trained to administer euthanasia, but not sedation, and a CAET must renew their certification each year.  A CAET can only do heart stick euthanasia (IC)  if the animal is totally unconscious from trauma or sedation and sedation must be done by a veterinarian according to Louisiana law:

§1209. Pre-Euthanasia Restraint
 A. Euthanasia by intracardiac injection on cats and dogs shall be prohibited unless the animal is unconscious or rendered completely unconscious and insensitive to pain through the injection of an anesthetic. Such prohibition is applicable to animal control shelters and their animals located on site as well as their animals which may be transported to a veterinary clinic for euthanasia. Temporary transfer of ownership of the animal to the veterinarian by the animal control shelter for euthanasia by cardiac injection is a violation of the law. The performance of euthanasia by intracardiac injection in violation of this section by a CAET and/or veterinarian is sanctionable.  
 B. A CAET (lead status or otherwise) shall not use any drug for purposes of sedation, or any form of anesthesia, since sedation is beyond the permissible scope of euthanasia practice for this certificate holder. However, Acepromazine, Rompun (xylazine), or Domitor (medetomidine) which are non-controlled drugs, may be legally used by CAETs for pre-euthanasia restraint of feral/fractious animals. If an animal control shelter’s animal must be sedated/anesthetized pursuant to Subsection A above, then a LA licensed veterinarian must perform this service.

Question:  What sedation drugs are on site at this shelter that are used prior to the IC procedure?

 This should all be recorded at the shelter and monitored as controlled substances.  There ought to be a paper trail.  If not, that's a big problem.

Question:  There is no vet on staff at this shelter; who orders and administers the sedation drugs required by law before IC Injection?

Question:  Who on staff is sedation certified and for how long?  How many animals were put to sleep before that certification occurred and by what method?  Are the annual certifications up to date?  Do the medication logs align with procedures?

I think what we will discover is that there are no required sedatives on site at this shelter and no one certified to deliver said sedatives.

I hope not.

That aside, it is a terrible and inhumane procedure which has been outlawed in many states.  It should be a last resort procedure -- not the option of choice for euthanasia.

The whistle blowers in this case are both respected members of the animal community and have excellent reputations.  I don't say that to insinuate that anyone else does not have an excellent reputation; I only mean that it is difficult to question what these whistle blowers are saying.

It is clear that there are many, many questions to be investigated in this story.

The Humane Society Reference Manual on Euthanasia defines euthanasia this way:
Euthanasia involves more than ending an animal's life.  It is a process that combines compassion and scientific consideration while providing each animal with a death that is free of pain and stress.  Along with the technical skills required, there must be compassion and a sense of solemnity, reverence, and respect for the animals.
Shelter employees and volunteers are to be commended for the work they do; it is a job that is emotionally draining, without a doubt.  We must applaud and support the whistle blowers; when an injustice is done it must be corrected and in this case, when the public's trust is compromised it must be restored.  Best practices must be in place and full confidence in the shelter restored.

It is incumbent on the investigators to do this.


Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Let's Clear Up Some Rumors about CPAS

On May 5, 2018,  I wrote a post encouraging the local animal community to support Travis Clark as director of CPAS, knowing that he's not going to be able to come in with a magic wand and save all the animals.  It is not a no-kill shelter after all, and to be fair, Mr. Clark inherited an absolute mess.

One of the key points in my post was this:

It is important to remember that a shelter can't lower those euthanasia rates without help from the community; when so many people refuse to spay and neuter their pets there will naturally be too many unwanted animals.

There is literally nothing in the world Mr. Clark will be able to do about the endless intake at CPAS.  It is an open-intake shelter: they have to take everything that comes through the door.  People in this community need to spay and neuter their animals.

Mr. Clark has been on the job for two weeks and today Facebook began melting down when some in the animal community fired up the negativity train once again. I'm not about spreading rumors on this blog so I reached out to Mr. Clark to see what was true and what isn't.

Here is his response, in his own words:

Hello everyone: 
 Please feel free to share this information as it has come to my attention that some people are being misinformed about changes occurring at Caddo Parish Animal Services. I would like to say thank you to my supporters. To the people that are consistently negative and spreading false statements, you are definitely not into animal welfare for the betterment of this community. I will not allow a handful of crabby, bitter, unhappy and disgruntled people deter me from responding to social media alerts, tags, questions, etc. responding to post is one of the reasons the citizens entrust me with this position, they know that I look into their concerns. So I will address some instances that have taken place since starting in this position 16 days ago.  
On my 3rd day in office, a dog was attacked by another dog leaving it severely injured. A rescue came to transfer the dog and I was the blame. I was being called out for failing the community on my 3rd day in the position. When I respond to the situation, naysayers move on to other post.  
During my second week, I observed animals that have been in this environment since January 2018 which is unacceptable when you have 5-6 dogs in a kennel designed for 1 dog or 2 at the most with the guillotine closed. I made the decision to have staff contact rescue partners in hopes to help some extended stay animals get a positive outcome. I was criticized for that. 

Also during my second week, a dog that has been in the facility for months that has documented behavioral issues was selected for humane euthanasia. This dog was in an outside kennel to himself while multiple other kennels housed numerous dogs which resulted in fighting and injuries. Being questioned about one dog with behavioral issues followed suit.  
Today, supposedly 56 animals have been humanely euthanized in the past few days.
I can see how such an alarming title could cause a stir. What you do not see is the amount of animals that come into this Shelter daily for whichever reason. I intend to house animals as safely and efficiently as possible. I am open to all whom want to visit the Shelter. A great time would have been this past Saturday at the Open House. One of my highly touted critics was there and I appreciate him coming to the Shelter because in my presence, he understood who I was and understood that my vision is on the path to industry standard.  
 Also, there is a untrue statement that CPAS isn't partnering with Rescues for transports which would not benefit the animals in this facility. I have no issues vaccinating and providing health certificates for any animal being transported. If anyone has stated that they have heard otherwise from me, ask them for documentation or proof. I have said when animals are tagged by a rescue group, it would be best for the animal to be removed from the Shelter for space concerns. Also if a group has tagged an animal which stays at the facility it can cause more work for staff to explain why an adopter can't have this animal because a rescue wants it. A rescue can come into CPAS adoption room right now and take every animal in the room altered or intact because I have 24 more to replace the entire room and I will have another 24 after that. There is no animal shortage here. Will I directly alter an animal for a transfer, no. Altering animals for transport is not industry practice. If an animal is altered at the shelter, has no adopter and a rescue wants it, that's great. It would appear unfair to alter animals for one group and not the others. If this was a practice that was being done prior to my arrival, I'm not here to disrupt the relationship but I will make recommendations as I see fit. This field is not cut and dry or black and white, every situation is different.  
It seems as if I am being villainized and I have not done anything warranting such angst from the community (at least a handful). There have been a lot of positives during my first 2 weeks and there will continue to be positives. I will show you why I was selected for this position in due time. There is only a few names that are reoccurring with the negativity and I appreciate you. You too will be #TeamCaddo eventually.

There you have it.

I'll stand by Travis Clark and by my original position: give him a chance.  Two weeks is not long enough.

And for crying out loud, if you have an issue with Mr. Clark, reach out to him in a positive and respectful manner.  He wants to be part of the solution.  We should help him. 

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Caddo Parish Set to Name New Animal Services Director

Caddo Parish Animal Services
In early 2015 I attended the trial of Gabriel Lee at the Caddo Parish Courthouse; Lee was eventually convicted of animal cruelty for his abandonment of the dog Braveheart in a storage locker.  One of the witnesses in that trial was a Caddo Parish Animal Services investigator named Travis Clark.  Mr. Clark was instrumental in getting Mr. Lee to jail and in getting him to surrender ownership of Braveheart so he could be saved.

Mr. Clark worked at Caddo Parish Animal Services from 2008 - 2015, and then moved away to work as Supervisor at the animal shelter in Stockton, California.  Clark left his family and friends here in Shreveport because he wanted to advance his training, complete his degree, and expand his skill set, probably with an eye to eventually becoming Director of Caddo Parish Animal Services.  His work in Stockton has given him valuable experience. 

It appears that this might be about to come to fruition.  Rumor has it that Mr. Clark will be the new CPAS director.  Not everyone in the rescue community here is happy about this but most that I have talked to are thrilled.

Caddo Parish Animal Services has been the subject of a great deal of scrutiny and criticism in the past few years for various reasons, and while there are still many problems, it does appear that some changes have been made.

Because of the demands of outraged citizens who truly want a better shelter, there have been outside audits made, and now auditors are auditing the auditors to ensure that when Parish Administrator Woody Wilson says that the shelter is using PetPoint, for example, they really are.  Another huge step in the right direction is the new partnership with Erica Falbaum, founder of PEP!, a very active and important outreach program about responsible pet ownership.  Mr. Wilson also reported in February 2018 that the parish is working with Best Friends Animal Society who will review shelter operation.  Wilson's report can be found in the February 5 minutes of the Commission work session; he goes into more detail about positive steps toward shelter operation.  For the most part, a lot of it is just words, but some of it is really happening.

Caddo Parish Animal Services is an open-intake municipal shelter which means that it is part of local government and we all know that government moves slowly.  Any steps toward the positive are welcome. We are not where we need to be, but there is progress.

One of the items that Mr. Wilson addressed at that February work session was to begin the search for a new director for the shelter; Kelvin Samuel has been serving as interim director since Chuck Wilson resigned in November 2017.  Since Wilson's resignation, many in the animal rescue community have had fingers crossed and lifted silent prayers for the return of Travis Clark.

Going away card for Travis Clark by Shreveport animal community, 2015

Mr. Clark has been a popular figure with many in the local animal community.  While his appointment has not been officially announced, the signs are there that he may be tapped as the new director.  He has resigned his job in Stockton and is in the process of moving home to Shreveport.  In interviews with local media, Mr. Wilson has said that his pick for director would be announced very soon and that the person is currently returning to the area.  It isn't hard to add this up.

It is my belief that Mr. Clark will be a welcome appointment by most in the animal community here and it is widely believed that he will do a good job.  As evidenced by his decision to leave CPAS in 2015, some believe that part of his motivation was to get away from untenable circumstances at the shelter that he was powerless to change.  That distancing, coupled with the fact that he could position himself to become an attractive candidate to lead CPAS by working and training in Stockton, could have been a very smart move.

The rescue and adoption statistics for the Stockton shelter under Mr. Clark's tenure look very good.  The euthanasia rate is steady at about 16% and the adoption and the rescue rates are in the 30 to 35% range.  As an open-intake municipal shelter of course there will be some euthanasia rates: it's not a no kill shelter, but with Caddo's euthanasia rate well north of 60%, the numbers in Stockton look pretty good.

Stockton Animal Services 2017


It is important to remember that a shelter can't lower those euthanasia rates without help from the community; when so many people refuse to spay and neuter their pets there will naturally be too many unwanted animals.  Any incoming director would need to continue the working relationship with PEP! and also develop other community programs like adoption events, PetPoint implementation, a well-trained and compassionate staff, a modern, updated website, funding for medical needs, and a strong volunteer and rescue program.

Perhaps Mr. Clark is the man for the job.

There is no question in my mind that he cares about animals.

Bo Spataro (owned by Braveheart) says Mr. Clark is "an intelligent, respectful, and driven person" who will likely work to turn around public perception of the shelter and who will work closely with the rescue community.  "I think he will do very well and plan on actively supporting him," Spataro said.

Travis Clark
There are those who will not be happy with the choice of Mr. Clark if for no other reason than that he has the approval of Woody Wilson, but in truth, I don't think Wilson cares one iota about the shelter; I think he cares about Woody Wilson and doesn't want the pressure of an outraged public on his doorstep.

It has been the citizens of Caddo Parish who have fought for change at Caddo Animal Shelter through countless appearances at meetings, letters to commissioners, interviews with news media, public protests, and meetings with local politicians.  We have been the voice for change.  We have insisted upon it.  We have not backed down.  And now change is here.

If Travis Clark is tapped for the job, as I believe he will be, then we need to support him.  We need to line up at the door to volunteer at the shelter.  We need to marshal donations for whatever he needs from blankets to money.  We need to organize transports for rescue animals, volunteer at adoption events, wash kennels, and maybe even help set up an inviting adoption room at the shelter.  Whatever he needs we need to step up and lend a hand.

We have screamed for change and now change is coming.  Let's be part of the solution and not perpetuate the negativity. 

Let's give him a chance, but most of all, let's give him some help.


Further Reading:
Problems at Caddo Animal Control Continue (SIGIS, Oct. '17)
Stockton Animal Shelter Statistics
Caddo Parish Commission Minutes access
PEP! Education Outreach
Caddo to begin searching for new director (KSLA, Feb. '18)





Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Caddo Parish Animal Services: "...things began to go downhill..."

The first of a series of articles about Caddo Parish Animal Services written by Jessica Carr of The Forum is out this week.

With her writing, Ms. Carr hopes to shine some light on conditions at CPAS and attempts by advocates to enact some reform there.  She's done a nice job in this first article laying the groundwork for those relatively unfamiliar with the situation there.  

Those of us that have been following this issue and advocating before the Caddo Parish Commission for so many years sometimes forget that there is a large segment of our community who may be unaware of what is happening at CPAS; they're out there. I've talked to them.  

So, Ms. Carr's article this week lays the necessary groundwork and I hope it reaches a wider audience than we web-warriors have been able to achieve.  Several of our local news outlets have reported on the problems and Lex Talamo at The Shreveport Times has covered these issues.  There is little reason now for anyone to claim ignorance on the mismanagement of this shelter which lies directly at the feet of the Caddo Parish Commission.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, some members of the Commission are attempting to address issues at CPAS but change comes slowly and unless the general public is at the Commission meetings using their allocated three minutes to lobby for change then the Commission seems more than happy to shove the issue to the back burner.  

Here's a snip from Carr's article in The Forum:

To say that it’s been a rough year for the Caddo Parish Animal Shelter (CPAS) would be putting it mildly. The shelter has received a number of complaints from animal rights advocates and members of the community looking for changes to be made. Several incidents this year have only added to the shelter’s murky reputation that has been a consistent topic of heated debate in the Shreveport-Bossier community.  
The incidents and complaints against CPAS have been brought to light by animal rights advocates on social media, personal blogs, and some have been reported by local media. Allegations range from overcrowded kennels and inadequate medical care to CPAS workers wrongfully euthanizing dogs that were claimed by rescue groups on several different occasions.

Carr also notes my ongoing post which logs a small portion of the abuses reported at CPAS which is here.

Any day we can get the media to keep the pressure up on this issue is a good day.  Share the Forum article on social media and pick up a copy. 

I look forward to seeing the next installment.

Further Reading:
A Chance for Change at CPAS  (10/14/2017)
Problems at Caddo Animal Control Continue (April - October 2017)
The Shreveport Times:  Out of Control Animal Shelter, by Jack Whitehead (Oct. 6, 2017)
The Shreveport Times:  There is Something Not Right at this Animal Shelter, by Lex Talamo (1/14/17)


Thursday, October 12, 2017

A Chance for Caddo Animal Shelter: Let the Citizens Have a Voice

Marley is a typical example of what happens to dogs at Caddo Parish Animal Services.

A dog is brought in as a stray, or is owner-surrendered.  The dog might be perfectly healthy, as Marley is.  On intake, Marley is heart worm negative.  Thin, but otherwise fairly healthy and so considered "adoptable."

Adoptable dogs are put inside in plexiglass and cinderblock kennels with concrete floors.  The walls are painted in glaring neon colors.  The sound of barking dogs echo through the facility.  Over time a dog gets "kennel crazy" - sort of like cabin fever in humans.  A dearth of human interaction, constant noise, complete over stimulation.  It gets to you.

When this happens, the dog might become "aggressive" or just stir crazy and so is then moved to the "rescue only"  side of the shelter which is outside in the elements; there are usually several dogs in a kennel and they often have to fight for food.  Dogs like Marley will lose even more weight and eventually become unhealthy.

Our local rescues can only pull so many dogs.  Their funds are limited and donations get maxed out quickly.  Vet bills add up.

So dogs like Marley enter that downward spiral toward euthanasia.

Then we end up with high kill rates.

When Caddo Commissioner Matthew Linn proposed an amendment to the Caddo Parish Home Rule Charter in the October 2 work session that would help change the situation at CPAS, most of the commissioners were in favor and recognize that CPAS is "failing miserably," as Commissioner Mario Chavez said in his remarks.

Three of our commissioners, however, don't see a problem, and as I noted earlier in the week, interim Commissioner Louis Johnson thinks we have administrators in place "who are doing a great job."  That may be true in some departments but certainly not with regard to the animal shelter.

Caddo Parish Animal services euthanizes at least half as many dogs as they take in and the percentage is far higher with cats.

CPAS stats: September 2017


Of course part of that is due to the citizenry who refuses to spay/neuter their animals.  But there have been far too many grievous problems and examples of bad policy, procedure, and mismanagement at our shelter that could be improved upon.  Why does this cycle continue?

Commissioner Linn's proposal to change the charter to allow for an outside auditor is a step in the right direction, however some in our community see this as simply "a political ploy" and said "Commissioners like Matthew Linn have no credibility."  (That was a comment on Facebook when I shared my last blog post.  I don't want to call out the commenter by name).

This is disheartening.  Commissioner Linn is trying to do the right thing, trying to implement known best practices in government, and this is something that should have been done long ago.  In fact, had an auditor been involved back when administrators offered CPERS to the commissioners perhaps that tangled mess could have been avoided.

This is mixing apples and oranges.

This is now.

NOW is the time to fix this shelter and turn it into something we can be proud of.

What we need to focus on is not egos but on the animals like Marley who are at this moment suffering because there is nobody in charge to fix this problem and literally no other hope on the horizon for them outside of this proposed amendment.

We all need to unite in this issue.  We need to quit mixing issues and blaming people for past transgressions that have nothing whatsoever to do with this issue.

We have three commissioners who opposed the proposal: Doug Dominick, Louis Johnson, and John Atkins, and they oppose it for different reasons.

Mr. Dominick opposes primarily the cost to the voters.  By that theory the Caddo Commission should never place any more issues on the ballot.

Mr. Johnson, who is up for re-election October 14, believes things are great the way they are.

Mr. Atkins favors a new committee.

As I recall, the Commission rejected the recommendation of their last formed committee so I don't see the purpose of this.

As Mr. Linn pleaded in the October 2 sessionn, "Give transparency a chance."

I would add, let's give animals like Marley a chance, and the hundreds of other animals who will face stress, hunger, exposure to disease, and euthanization before this is resolved.

Call or email your commissioner and ask them to support this proposal; and remember, all Mr. Linn is asking the Commissioners to do is to bring this issue before the voters.  Ultimately, we get to decide whether or not to change the Home Rule Charter.  Why can't we have a voice?

Doug Dominick: District 1
Lyndon B. Johnson: District 2
Steven Jackson: District 3
Matthew Linn: District 4
Jerald Bowman: District 5
Lynn Cawthorne: District 6
Stormy Gage-Watts: District 7
Mike Middleton: District 8
John Atkins: District 9
Mario Chavez: District 10
Jim Smith: District 11
Louis Johnson: District 12


Further Reading:
SIGIS: Caddo Commissioner: Give Transparency a Chance
The Shreveport Times: Caddo Commission Mulls Over Adding Independent Auditor
The Shreveport Times:  Out of Control Animal Shelter
Association of Local Government Auditors
SIGIS:  Problems at Caddo Animal Shelter Continue











Saturday, March 11, 2017

Animal Shelter Success Stories: Why Can't Caddo be one of Them?

By now it is no secret that conditions at Caddo Parish Animal Services are deplorable.

The first-hand, documented cases of animal abuse and neglect have been exposed nationwide and it is now far past time for members of the Caddo Parish Commission, in whom authority over the Caddo Parish Animal Services lies, to take action.

The time for excuses and obfuscation is over.

I am challenging Parish Administrator Woody Wilson, Assistant Administrator Randy Lucky, members of the Animal Services Board, members of the Caddo Animal Shelter Advisory Board, the Caddo Parish Commission Animal Services Committee, and all members of the Caddo Parish Commission, to work together and turn this shelter around.

Don't let this travesty define your legacy.

Huntsville, Alabama brought their shelter from one that adopts out 30% of their animals to one that now adopts out over 90% through a higher volunteer presence and a spay/neuter program that has reduced the overall number of unwanted animals in their community.

Lafayette, Louisiana has turned their shelter around through an alliance with the Target Zero organization which has implemented changes in ordinances that now allows rescue groups to pull dogs more easily.  The city also found ways to fund a new animal shelter which allows their adoptable animals to be more easily seen and seen in a more favorable light.

In Baton Rouge, the Companion Animal Alliance negotiated with the city and took over their shelter. At the time the shelter had an 80% euthanasia rate; it is now around 30% and has empty cages. They've just broken ground on a new facility. The shelter is working with rescues to facilitate adoptions and has implemented a TNR program.

Hesperia, CA Animal Shelter cited lack of leadership as one of their problems and has turned their shelter around. They now have a 20% euthanasia rate and "some physical changes at the shelter include the addition of an X-ray room for shelter Veterinarian William Connelly, a policy and training manual, a dog ID engraving machine, a new work space environment for staff and an emphasis on social media and community engagement."

Longview, TX turned their shelter around from a 70% euthanasia rate to 40% currently and still falling. Their city leaders toured successful shelters across the country and then brought in a new leader who knows how to run a shelter. The shelter is now focused on spay/neuter programs, microchip programs, and has built a new facility.

In Waco, TX, the city has partnered with the Humane Society and has  dropped their euthanasia rate to 29%. They have made tremendous gains in improving the health conditions at their shelter by sealing floors, ripped out ceilings stained in rat droppings, and replacing AC systems. Puppies are isolated from larger dogs and the city is taking a hard line on back-yard breeders.

Shelters all over the country are cleaning up their act, lowering euthanasia rates, taking steps to control sanitation and prevent spread of disease, working to create family-friendly shelters where animals can best be shown in a favorable environment.

There is no reason why Caddo Parish can't do the same.

I challenge the Caddo Commission obstructionists to drop the egos, drop the politics, and take a step toward change.  The time for token "policy review" is over - we've heard that for at least a decade.

There is simply no reason why Shreveport should be stuck with an antiquated shelter with little concern for sanitation, with too many untrained workers, many of whom show no compassion. There is no reason why we should not have a shelter that is a true shelter, modern and up to date, family friendly, with meeting rooms for potential adoptions, with an on-staff veterinarian, an x-ray machine, working cameras to monitor kennels and situations, and with a strong alliance with rescue groups and volunteers.

Don't let this hell hole of abuse and neglect be your legacy.

Be the change.


Wednesday, December 21, 2016

An Open Letter to Every City and Parish Public Official

Update (12/23/16): Matthew Linn responded to my letter via email; he said (in part) :

"Please reach out to your friends that live in each commission district and get them to send the same effective letter you sent me to the other eleven commissioners. This type of statement from you helps us make the correct decision. A few of us on the commission need as much help as we can get in changing policy and procedure within the Animal Shelter, I am 1 vote out of 12."

He encouraged me (and others) to come speak at Caddo Commission meetings on this issue.

I thank Mr. Linn for his response.



Following is a modification of yesterday's post in the form of a letter which I'm sending via USPS to every city official I can find. Feel free to copy/paste or modify as you wish and do the same. Unless there is some public outcry over the animal problem in this city nothing will change. Be the change.



December 21, 2016

Mr. Matthew Linn President, Caddo Parish Commission
615 Rutherford
Shreveport, LA 71104

 RE: Caddo Parish Animal Ordinances

 Dear Mr. Linn:

I'm hoping for some positive change in our area in 2017 with regard to our unwanted animal population.

You are no doubt familiar with the story of Ellie, a stray who in early December wandered into a man’s yard perhaps looking for a bite to eat or a drink of water. The property owner went inside his home, brought out his own dog and ordered it to attack Ellie because she was in his yard. This was captured on video by a brave young woman and was reported to Caddo Parish Animal Services and other officials. Ellie died of her injuries despite an heroic effort to save her. CPAS declined to press charges on the man for animal attack because he was in his own yard and Ellie was not leashed. Ellie's owner has never come forward.

The point of that story is this: Ellie is not an anomaly. There are hundreds of Ellies throughout our area. All you have to do is look in our animal shelters which are overflowing with unwanted dogs and cats despite the very best efforts of several strong, dedicated local rescue groups who work diligently to pull and adopt out these animals. The cycle is never ending, though. The shelters remain filled.

The problem exists on several levels: first and foremost is that too many people in this part of the country see animals as property rather than sentient creatures who need love and companionship. Too many people think dogs are just something to put in the backyard and feed once a day. But hey, at least those dogs have a home, right? No: it's not good enough. That is the basis for the "dogs as property" mindset.

Then you have the segment of our population who will refuse to spay or neuter their animals. Their excuses run from not wanting to change the dog's personality to a conviction that the animal will never reproduce or breed with another animal so what's the point? With organizations like Robinson's Rescue, who offer low-cost spay/neuter procedures, cost is not a valid excuse. And before you know it, here comes another litter of unwanted puppies. Who follows up on those vouchers when animals are adopted to ensure they are in fact spayed or neutered?

The third factor contributing to our unwanted animal population and overflowing shelters is the backyard breeders. Go on Facebook or Craigslist and you can find hundreds of people hawking puppies born of some poor kenneled female used only for breeding and then discarded when her productivity is done. These people have no compassion for the animals whatsoever but are only interested in the dollars they will receive after finding someone to buy these poor puppies (who will probably also then be used for breeding).

And finally, a fourth factor we must consider is the lack of enforcement of our existing animal abuse laws and the slap-on-the-wrist justice doled out on the cases that ever actually do get prosecuted. The most egregious that comes to mind is the Braveheart case where after a three day long trial and agonizingly clear evidence that this dog was left by the defendant to starve to death in a storage locker in a Louisiana August, the verdict was a misdemeanor. A slap on the wrist. An animal's life does not matter. It's just a dog.

So what is the answer? How do we change this? Why is our community willing to stand by and watch hundreds of animals euthanized each month because the shelters have to make room for incoming animals? Why does our community tolerate backyard breeders, people selling animals in parking lots and on Craigslist, when so many in shelters need homes? Why does our community accept a verdict like that in the Braveheart case or in Ellie's case? Why is it acceptable for a man to kill another dog because it wandered into his yard just looking for a bite to eat or a drink of water? Why do our fine, upstanding city leaders not get outraged when dogs are chained to trees, porches, fences, and left out in all of the elements with inadequate shelter? Why are the meager laws that do exist not properly enforced?

I think changes need to be made. These are just for starters:

Number 1: Existing laws need to be strictly enforced and the laws we do have need to be either clarified or made stronger. For example, in the Braveheart trial – the distinction between felony animal cruelty and misdemeanor was so indistinguishable to the jury they simply opted for the lesser charge.

Number 2: Pet owners should be required to have identification tags on their pets. This in itself would reduce the pet shelter population. Install a tag making machine in the lobby of the shelter and the parish could even make some money from it. Just as we require pets to have a rabies tag, no pet should leave the shelter without identification.

Number 3: Get tough on spay/neuter laws. Reduce unwanted animals and backyard breeders. Enforce laws that prohibit puppy sales in parking lots and on the roadside.

 Number 4: Any pet owner who brings their pet to a shelter as “owner surrender” because it no longer fits their lifestyle should have to tour the kennels and pick which animal will be euthanized to make room for their animal.

It’s true that nobody wants to see the sadness. Nobody wants to watch the video of Ellie being attacked or laying on the driveway bleeding to death. So why do we continue to let this happen?

We have got to have tougher laws and we have got to have consistent enforcement on these laws. We have to educate our children that animals are not property to be discarded when you're tired of them, when they aren't cute anymore, when you move to a new house, when it no longer fits your lifestyle. It starts with the children. We need to run PSAs and educate them.

It's time for our community to change perspective with regard to our animal population. We owe them that much.

And finally, I challenge you and every member of city government to walk the kennels at Caddo Parish Animal Services and look into the eyes of those animals. Spend some time with them, walk a couple of dogs, show up on euthanasia day and look into the eyes of the selected, watch a couple of adoptions. Look into the eyes of the rescue workers and volunteers who are burning themselves at both ends to save these animals. Then tell me things are okay the way they are.

Sincerely,

 Patricia Austin Becker

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

A Call for Change: Animals are Not Property


Rudy: currently needs a foster family. Details below.
I'm hoping for some positive change in our area in 2017 with regard to our unwanted animal population.

If you aren't familiar with the story of Ellie you should go here and read about her.  In early December, Ellie wandered into someone's yard and the property owner went inside his home, brought out his own dog and ordered it to attack Ellie because she was in his yard. This was captured on video by a brave young woman and was reported to Caddo Parish Animal Control and other officials. Ellie died of her injuries despite an heroic effort to save her. CPAS declined to press charges on the man for animal abuse because he was in his own yard and Ellie was not leashed. Ellie's owner has never come forward.

The point of that story is this: Ellie is not an anomaly. There are hundreds of Ellies throughout our area. All you have to do is look in our animal shelters which are overflowing with unwanted dogs and cats despite the very best efforts of several strong, dedicated local rescue groups who work diligently to pull and adopt out these animals. The cycle is never ending, though. The shelters remain filled.

The problem exists on several levels: first and foremost is that too many people in this part of the country see animals as property rather than sentient creatures who need love and companionship. Too many people think dogs are just something to put in the backyard and feed once a day. But hey, at least those dogs have a home, right?  No: it's not good enough. That is the basis for the "dogs as property" mindset.

Then you have the segment of our population who will refuse to spay or neuter their animals. Their excuses run from not wanting to change the dog's personality to a conviction that the animal will never reproduce or breed with another animal so what's the point? With organizations like Robinson's Rescue, who offer low-cost spay/neuter procedures, cost is not a valid excuse.  And before you know it, here comes another litter of unwanted puppies. Who follows up on those vouchers when animals are adopted to ensure they are in fact spayed or neutered?

The third factor contributing to our unwanted animal population and overflowing shelters is the backyard breeders. Go on Facebook or Craigslist and you can find hundreds of people hawking puppies born of some poor kenneled female used only for breeding and then discarded when her productivity is done.  These people have no compassion for the animals whatsoever but are only interested in the dollars they will receive after finding someone to buy these poor puppies (who will probably also then be used for breeding).

This is what a "misdemeanor" looks like.
And finally, a fourth factor we must consider is the lack of enforcement of our existing animal abuse laws and the slap-on-the-wrist justice doled out on the cases that ever actually do get prosecuted.  The most egregious that comes to mind is the Braveheart case where after a three day long trial and agonizingly clear evidence that this dog was left by the defendant to starve to death in a storage locker in a Louisiana August, the verdict was a misdemeanor. A slap on the wrist. An animal's life does not matter. It's just a dog.


So what is the answer? How do we change this? Why is our community willing to stand by and watch hundreds of animals euthanized each month because the shelters have to make room for incoming animals? Why does our community tolerate backyard breeders, people selling animals in parking lots and on Craigslist, when so many in shelters need homes? Why does our community accept a verdict like that in the Braveheart case or in Ellie's case? Why is it acceptable for a man to kill another dog because it wandered into his yard just looking for a bite to eat or a drink of water? Why do our fine, upstanding city leaders not get outraged when dogs are chained to trees, porches, fences, and left out in all of the elements with inadequate shelter? Why are the meager laws that do exist not properly enforced?

When will our community have enough of this and demand something be done?

I'm the person who changes the channel when those ASPCA commercials come on with the sad shelter dogs looking desperately through the cages. Nobody wants to see the sadness. Nobody wants to watch the video of Ellie being attacked or laying on the driveway bleeding to death. So why do we continue to let this happen?

We have several excellent rescue groups in our area working to pull dogs from shelters and send them to homes in communities with tough spay/neuter laws where there are low numbers of unwanted dogs. Some of these rescue volunteers have been known to jump out of their beds in the middle of the night to rescue a dog stranded in the middle of an interstate or sit for hours in a field behind a building working to gain the trust of a terrified stray who won't come to anyone. These people are burned out at both ends and cannot be expected to continue to carry the responsibilities of an entire community on their own shoulders when it comes to looking after the animals in our city.

As a community: Shreveport, Bossier, Springhill, Minden, Mansfield, Keithville, all of us -- we have got to stand for change. We have got to demand change. We have got to have tougher laws and we have got to have consistent enforcement on these laws. We have to educate our children that animals are not property to be discarded when you're tired of them, when they aren't cute anymore, when you move to a new house, when it no longer fits your lifestyle. It starts with the children. Educate them.

What can you do? Educate yourself. Visit the shelter. Go to Caddo Animal or go to Bossier. Visit PetSavers.  Do some research. Learn what the kill rate at the shelters is. In Caddo it used to be almost 80%. That number is down because Caddo is working harder with rescues these days, but there is still so much more room to improve.

Write your city officials. Write the mayor. Write your representatives. Demand change. Otherwise, cases like Ellie's and like Braveheart's will continue to be a source of outrage and tragedy. I'm going to print out the Shreveport animal control ordinances (linked below) and annotate changes that need to be made and then I'm going to send a copy of that to every city council member and every Caddo commissioner, and the mayor.

It's time for our community to change our perspective with regard to our animal population. We owe them that much.


Contact the City Council.

Contact the Caddo Commission.

Contact Mayor Ollie Tyler.

Caddo Parish Animal Control.

Bossier Parish Animal Control.

Shreveport Animal Control Ordinances.


(Photo of Rudy courtesy of POLA Foundation. If you can foster him contact POLA.)

Monday, September 26, 2016

Spot is Ready to Meet His Forever Human!

Spot is ready for his forever home!

You remember Spot?  So many of you chipped in to give him a chance!

Spot is a German Shorthair/Dalmation mix (or some semblance of that...) and is about 3 years old.  He is simply stunning.  He was owner surrender at Caddo Animal Control and was on the euthanasia list a couple of times -- the volunteers there kept buying more time for him, begging for his life.

No rescue could take him because he had no adopter and was heartworm positive.  That's a huge financial commitment for a rescue, so a bunch of people donated money to cover his medical expenses, a foster stepped up to nurture him, and Rockers Rescue stepped up to pull him from the shelter.

Spot was saved!

But now Spot is ready for his forever home. His foster has to give him up by October 21 because she is moving. She never intended to keep him full time; fosters save lives by adopting out and fostering
another.

Spot is on slow kill heartworm treatment and the rescue is committed financially to seeing that through. That would not be your expense as a foster or adopter.

He's up to date on his shots, he is dewormed, and microchipped. He has also been neutered!

His current foster has taught him manners and given him much love and TLC.  He's a very sweet and loving boy.  He likes car rides, hugs, peanut butter, and playing outside.

Spot is ready for a family to adopt him and love him forever.  He wants a yard to play in, a bed to sleep in, someone to pet his silky gray ears, and a family to love.

Spot has been a single dog and it's not clear how he will do with other dogs yet, but that can easily be determined.  If you'd like to Rockers Rescue.
meet Spot or want to consider adopting him, or even fostering him so he doesn't have to go into boarding, please contact

This baby has been through enough transitional situations; he needs a permanent, loving home.  Please share this with anyone you know who would be a fabulous human for Spot.

There is someone out there who is exactly the right match for this sweet boy.

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

The Braveheart Trial: One Year Later

It's been one year since "The Braveheart Trial." Jury selection began January 27, 2015.

I'm reposting my "Snapshots" from the trial for the occasion and to reflect on the progress we have made in a year.

I'll say this: that trial, and the experience of sitting through it, made a huge impression on me and one that has stayed with me almost daily ever since. The raw emotion on all sides was simply incredible. Even more important, I think, is that so many people in the area and across the country followed Braveheart's story and the awareness this dog has brought to the issue of animal abuse is unfathomable.

In the past year we have made a little progress in the animal rescue community; rescue groups such as LA Baby Mommas and many others are working tirelessly and have saved countless lives. The focus must also be a proactive one, however and the message to spay and neuter your pets doesn't seem to get through. You simply can't change the minds of adults set in their ways. I witnessed an adult adopting a puppy a few weeks ago and he didn't want to take advantage of the neuter voucher that came with the dog; the man insisted that it would not be necessary. He very nearly lost the adoption right then and there, had it not been for his wife's assurance that the animal would be neutered.

The key will be in educating the young, I believe. There has been change at the Caddo Animal shelter which hopefully will lead to good things there and to more animals being rescued. The euthanasia rate there is ridiculously high, but now that more animals are being approved for rescue, that should come down.

One program that is making a difference is PEP, or the Pet Education Project. This group goes into schools and teaches about responsible pet ownership: food, water, shelter, care and love. They've reached almost 60,000 kids in the area which is pretty awesome.

Another huge plus is the growth this year of Nova's Heart, an organization that helps the homeless care for, and keep, their pets.  Now associated with Hope Connections in Shreveport, Nova's Heart is very near being able to care for every homeless person's pet in the city; they provide leashes, food, blankets, and other items for the animals.

There is progress.

I hope that you'll read through this once again and relive the tensions, the compassion, the humor, and the love that we all felt as we all fought for Justice for Braveheart.

Today, Braveheart continues his mission as cheerful ambassador and educator in responsible pet ownership.  His Facebook page is filled with "Pittie smiles" and his expressions reveal the love he has come to know and gives in return.

He truly is a miracle dog and is truly a brave heart.


January 29, 2015:

"It's just a dog."

*******************

"Redirected aggression."  This is the defense attorney's explanation for why Gabriel Lee was on trial.  As I understood her explanation, he was a victim of "redirected aggression" which is primarily a feline condition and occurs when a cat sees something outside its reach that causes aggression; unable to reach the original stimulus, the cat will lash out at whatever it can reach.

Apparently, according to the public defender, "all these people" are lashing out at Gabriel Lee after seeing something so horrible (a clinically emaciated puppy near death) that they must have a victim for their aggression.

Ergo, Gabriel Lee is the victim here.

What?

********************

Jury selection.  I'm watching the potential jurors as the public defender questions, grills, explains points of law, prods.  (I was not there for the DA voir dire).  Some are very interested; some look nervous, some anxious, and once the bailiff had to wake one of them up.  They are a true mix of our society.  It looks like the system is working...

The public defender is a dead ringer for Jennifer Garner. I bet she gets that a lot.

Is it intentional that voir dire is so repetitive?  That the attorneys repeat the same thing over and over?  The power of suggestion, perhaps?  Do they teach you to talk down to jurors in law school?  To be patronizing?  I honestly don't know -- I do understand that as an attorney dealing with jury selection you are dealing with all levels of intellect and it's important to gather as much information about your jury pool as you can.

Both sides scribble notes.  Sitting behind the public defender, I could see her legal pad (I couldn't read it!) where she had divided the yellow sheet into boxes - one for each potential juror.  I suppose the name of each one was in each box and copious other notes that I could glimpse.  Both sides wrote constantly.  Notes, notes, notes.

***********************

The judge was a large, serious man with a wonderfully expressive face which he kept in "poker face"
Ronda Spataro, left, with Brave hours after he was found, and Brave, right, now.
mode most of the time.  An occasional smile to the bailiff who brought his (coffee?  tea?) to the bench.  A directing glimpse from judge to bailiff, to a nodding potential juror...the bailiff draws water from the cooler and takes it to the juror who lifts head in another attempt at attention.

The judge had a wonderfully resonant voice and as boring as jury directions were when it came time to charge the jury, I listened.

He must have read those directions to hundreds of juries yet he still read with expression.

***********************

After voir dire, day two.  Sitting on the patio at Nicky's unwinding and looking back on the day with the Braveheart crew.  The courtroom had been freezing, absolutely freezing, all day.  The sun on the patio felt good.

The table is filled with chips, salsa, white zinfandel, Dos Equis, tea, ashtrays.

"What is that you're drinking?" Bo asked me.

"Dos Equis.  Here, taste it."

"I think I will!" and takes a sip.  "Hey, I think I'll have one of those!"

Ronda drapes her arm out of the wrought iron patio screen to keep smoke away from everyone; she wraps her arms around the rungs and takes a drag.  Spirits are pretty high and everyone feels good about the way things are going.

"This is the first time I've relaxed since Friday, since the phone calls started," Bo said.

Six jurors and one alternate have been picked.  Five females and one man.  Various ages and race make-up.  We are happy with the jury.  We think they were all pet owners which looks to be an encouraging sign.  We don't talk about the jury much; we talk about Doris's parakeets, the cleft palate puppy Ronda and Bo are fostering, about other ongoing animal cruelty cases everyone is following.

Ronda snags our server and they get into a Spanish lesson about how to say "heart worms" in Spanish.  "There is no word for 'heart worms' in Spanish," Ronda explains.  They eventually figure out something that will suffice.

We sit for several hours on the patio, late lunch, a few drinks, a little down time.

It is nice.

***********************

You cannot wear your glasses perched atop your head in the courtroom.

It is a rule.

Not even reading glasses.

***********************

Before the courtroom is opened each morning, it is inspected and cleared.  Everyone waits in a sort of holding cave in the basement of the courthouse.  There is no cell service in there.  Zilch.  Zero.

Obviously there is no cell phone use in the courtroom.

On the first day of the actual trial there were two girls sitting in observation.  One was from New Zealand and another from California.

"This is like going to the movies for us," one explained.  "We like to go to trials.  We have no idea what this one is about!"

Bo had turned to talk to them and find out who they were.  If it's someone who follows the Braveheart page or someone from a rescue group, he likes to acknowledge them and thank them for coming.

He gave them a very brief summary of the case and showed them a quick picture of Braveheart on his phone.  They were very relieved to know the story had a happy ending.

The girls were looking at pictures on their phones before court started.  The bailiff approached:

"You aren't taking pictures, are you?"

"Oh no sir!  I was just showing her a picture."

The bailiff smiled and moved on.

***********************

Court is a whole lot of hurry up and wait.

Court "begins" at 9:30.  Which means 9:45 or 10.  Except there are always procedural matters and so court begins with a sidebar conference.  Then another recess for fifteen minutes.

Everyone rushes outside to smoke.  We've learned that the handicap entrance/exit is the quickest way - no stairs to fool with.  We still have to go through the metal detector and take off belts when we come back in.

"Give me your lighter."

"Where are your cigarettes."

"How long is the break?"

"I'm freezing in there."

Because Ronda was on the list to testify, we couldn't talk to her until after her testimony.  She stood off by herself to smoke.

I forgot and thought she was maybe upset so I took a couple of paces over,

"You okay?"

She nodded yes.

Jean:  "HEY!  Get back over here!  She can't talk to us!"

Ooops.

Ronda stubbed out her cigarette and we went back inside.

**************************

Opening statements.  The ADA is tall, lithe, graceful.  She looks a little like Kate Middleton, the Duchess of Cambridge.  She strides in her slim gray suit to the podium, makes eye contact with the jurors who look at her expectantly, and she smiles at them.  She holds their eyes a moment.  It's a warm, sincere smile and she has them.  She begins her statements which quickly became discordant and hard to follow with the multitude of defense objections.

Is the jury getting frustrated, too?  I wonder.

The ADA speaks very quietly, evenly and keeps going as the judge overrules one objection after
Caddo Parish Courthouse
another.

She speaks maybe ten, fifteen minutes, and wraps up; her co-counsel whispers something to her and the ADA returns to the podium to point out to the jury some things she wants them to pay special attention to during testimony.  One of these things brings a quick objection from the defense which prompts a lengthy sidebar conference.

Another delay.

The jury is ready to get going, to hear the evidence.  This is frustrating.

***************************

Opening statements. The defense begins her opening statements.  She speaks with ease and with confidence; she's doing her job, but she sounds patronizing to me.  That's just me.  The jury is listening to her closely.

She has PowerPoint slides which she puts up to keep the jurors on track.

"Why Are We Here?"

Another one has the text of the statute the defendant has been charged against.  She explains very methodically what the charges are and spends a great deal of time telling them what the judge will say to them later.  She becomes repetitive and some jurors gaze off.  Looking around the courtroom.  Looking at the spectators.

Her co-counsel and the ADA scribble notes incessantly.

There is much strategy to all this!

************************

The defendant is sitting in front of me at the table with his attorneys.  I can only see the back of him
Gabriel Lee: Braveheart's abuser
except for when he enters and leaves the courtroom.

He spends the entire trial in a black leather jacket with orange strips somewhere on the shoulders or arms (I can't see them), white dress shirt, and slacks.  All of his clothes, including the jacket, look much too large for him.

He listens attentively to the testimony and his attorneys who both whisper to him frequently.  He sometimes slumps down in his chair, his hands clasped in front of him.  Sometimes he sits up and snatches a tissue from the box in front of him and blows his nose.

During closing arguments, he shakes his head repeatedly as the ADA lists the numerous things he omitted doing for Braveheart, like calling a vet.  At one point he let out an exhortation of frustrated air:  "Pffffffffttt!"

*************************

During the defense presentation, the attorney called up at least three, maybe four, close family members to testify that the defendant is a great guy and "he loves dogs!  Very caring!"

"Yes, I would leave my dogs with him!"

I thought, "Well, of course they're going to say that!  It's his close family and his girlfriend of ten years for crying out loud!  Is this supposed to be persuasive?"

***************************

"Redirected Aggression"??

***************************

KSLA posted a news story after day one in which they referenced the wrong Braveheart page.  They referred readers to "Justice for Braveheart," a dog in another state.

How hard is that to check?

***************************

Subway for lunch on Day One.  The line is ridiculous, but it's walking distance from the courthouse, and it smelled really good.

Jean marshalls some tables together outside and homesteads them while we all stand in this line.  Mamma Patt and I eventually reach what we think is the front of the line and move to the counter only to be rebuked by the "sandwich artist" to move back in line until called.

My bad.

We eat quickly.  There is much sharing of cookies and talk turns to the opening statements.  You're dying to know what everyone else thinks, but Ronda is sitting there and she's not yet been recused from the witness sequestration order so she gets nervous about the trial talk and moves away.

It has come much too far for this all to be called a mistrial on some technicality.

She moves to the curb to smoke.

**************************

All the Braveheart crew carry tiny bottles of hand sanitizer with them that have purple, green, and yellow painted on the outside of them.  They are part of a fabulous fundraiser one of their young volunteers has created.  Bo told me that she has raised huge sums of money for animal rescue organizations.

After every smoke break or recess, out comes the hand sanitizer bottles and everyone slathers it on.  That's not a bad thing.

Youth can be so inspirational!

*************************

On day one of testimony there were plenty of seats in the courtroom.  People came and went through the day and the deputies kept the back couple of rows "reserved."

Because of the high emotional impact of this trial there was a very clear law enforcement presence in the courtroom most of the time.

But when the verdict was read?  There were at least 24 armed deputies in the courtroom.  There was one on each end of each row, lining the walls, several in front, one or two at the door, the usual ones behind the bar, and I'm sure quite a few outside.

It was like the OJ verdict was coming down.

**************************

One of the first witnesses was the vet tech who found Braveheart in the locker.  She and her husband owned the storage facility / buildings where Gabriel Lee had rented a slot to refinish cars.  The building he rented apparently had a concrete floor and a garage bay door at each end; you could drive right through it.  Testimony indicated that there was grease of some sort and a fine sanded dust all over the floor.

She testified that she and her husband told Mr. Lee not to come back on the property because he had not paid his rent; that was 9/10.  On September 11, 2013, the witness and her husband went to the locker to change the lock and found a light on and a radio playing.  Because no renter was paying rent anymore to cover these utilities, they went in to turn them off and that's when her husband found the dog.

You know the story.

They thought he was dead.

They were going to bury the dog "on the property" and she had a shovel to pick him up; that's when he blinked.  He was not dead.

Her first thought was to take him to the emergency vet clinic.

Wouldn't yours have been the same?

**************************

The defense made much ado about whether the facility was a garage, a storage building, a locker, blah, blah, blah.

I get her point - her point was it wasn't Storage Wars.  It was a "place of business," she said, where people came and went each day to work.

What difference does it make?

Did you see the picture of the dog?

**************************

"Redirected aggression."

????

**************************

Ronda Spataro was nervous about testifying.  She had come so far to get to this point.

This I noticed about Ronda:  she has the capacity to sit very, very still.

Those benches are hard.  As Doris said, "It's like sitting in a Baptist church all day!"

The first day I sat next to Ronda and I fidgited; crossed one leg and then the other.  Shifted my weight.  Sat on my hands.  Leaned forward.  Rocked my head from side to side to crack the stiffness out of my neck.  Looked around ... the jurors....the judge...the bailiff.....the attorneys.....what time is it?

Ronda sat motionless.  Her expression set ("poker face"), staring straight ahead, hands folded in her lap, leg crossed.  Never moved.  Sometimes she would pull the arms of her sweater down and fold the sleeves around her arms and resume position.

How can anyone be that still for that long?

Nerves.

***************************

When Ronda finally was able to testify, near the end of Day One, she brought tears to my eyes.

The ADA:  "We've spent all day talking about the puppy Braveheart.  Do you know Braveheart?"

Ronda:  "I DO know Braveheart!"  and she smiled.  It was pure love.

It doesn't sound like much, but there was absolutely NOTHING in that room at that moment except her love for Braveheart.

It was everything.

The jury was riveted.

************************

Loraine does most of the posting to the Braveheart Facebook page and on breaks would try to mange texts and put up a quick post about the proceedings.

Loraine has the sweetest face and smile; she's the most positive person I've ever met.  She radiates peace.

Obviously the Braveheart t-shirts were taboo, but did you know that orange is the symbol color against animal abuse?

Loraine and I both showed up in orange on Tuesday.

She carries a prayer rock in her purse.  As we went through these metal detectors and purse scanners multiple times each day, once she pulled this rock out of her purse and showed it to me.  It was a gift someone had given her.  It's a palm sized dark grey smooth rock with silver painting on it.

On the first day of testimony the media was there at the lunch break.  It was KSLA who had erroneously directed folks to the wrong Braveheart page (they corrected that later).

Loraine spoke to them for the group; she's always so eloquent and kind.

Bo:  "Loraine, when have you ever not known exactly what to say?"

She cuts her green eyes at him, smirks, throws a sassy comment his way and then writes pure eloquence on the Facebook page.

*************************

Loraine works with Nova's Heart - an organization that helps feed and care for the pets of the homeless in the area.

Walking to lunch one day, Bo spots a familiar face: a homeless guy with his dog.  Bo shouts and waves at him from across the street.

After lunch we see the guy and his dog in front of the courthouse and we stop to visit.  Loraine recognizes a woman with him and her dog.

These people: Bo, Ronda, Loraine, Jean, all of them, do so much good, so much work for both people and animals that it simply defies logic when people on social media decry all the fuss about "just a dog."

They have no idea the depths to which these people reach to help others.

When the verdict came in, this guy had someone watch his dog for him so he could come in and hear his friend Bo's verdict.

****************************

Doris on verdict day: She drove from MS to support Braveheart
Ms. Doris came from Mississippi to see this trial.  She is involved in animal rescue and has been for her entire life.  She's a fireball!

Ms. Doris was staying in a hotel in downtown Shreveport which caught on fire thus ruining her clothes for then they smelled like smoke.  She woke up to what she thought was an alarm, then looked out her peephole, didn't see anyone about, opened her door, and saw smoke.

Me:  "Oh my gosh!  Did they evacuate y'all?!"

Doris:  "Well!  I evacuated myself!"

She gathered a terrified young boy and his mother and out they went.

After sitting in the courtroom all day then she went back to the hotel to wash her smoky wardrobe and try to recover her items from her now sealed hotel room.

******************************

Closing arguments.

The ADA again strides up to her podium.  Elegant.  Cool.  Her confidence level has improved and her body language indicates a certain degree of confidence.  She has been chatting and smiling more with her co-counsel and seems more relaxed.

Her closing argument was made for television.

As she went over the possible verdicts the jury could consider, she reminded them that the defendant was charged with aggravated cruelty to an animal.  A lesser charge they could find is "simple cruelty to an animal."

She held up the now famous picture of Braveheart curled up, waiting for death, in the storage locker.

"There is nothing simple about this," she said.

She listed like bullets a lengthy list of things the defendant "omitted" to do.

"OMISSION:  He omitted requesting veterinary assistance" from the vet tech from whom he rented the locker and who had previously offered to give him medicine for the puppy's obvious worms.

"OMISSION," she said again:  he didn't tell anyone there was a dog in the locker when they told him not to come back on the property.

"OMISSION!"  she said:  he didn't give the dog proper food or water - he was clinically emaciated and dehydrated.

She went through at least ten of these...

"OMISSION!"

It was a made for TV delivery.

************************

The law for aggravated animal cruelty in the State of Louisiana:
Any person who intentionally or with criminal negligence mistreats any living animal whether belonging to himself or another by any act or omission which causes or permits unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death to the animal shall also be guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals.

************************

"Redirected aggression"  

??

************************

"There is NOTHING simple about this."

*************************

"OMISSION":  he FAILED this dog in every sense of the word.

*************************

The public defender's closing arguments were basically that the defendant found the dog three days before he was found, he only checked the box that said he was the legal and rightful owner, or had custodial discretion, on the animal control release because he wanted to take care of the dog and he knew it would have a better life!  

He was giving it Gatorade!  To replace electrolytes!

He was giving it "proper" amounts of food!


She referred back to the emergency vet who said it was "very surprising" that Braveheart showed an interest in food at all in those early hours.

It was all because the defendant "gave her a head start!" with his care!

This poor fellow, this victim of "redirected aggression," saved the dog's life!

He's a hero!

*****************************

He did not tell the owner of that storage facility that he had a dog locked and chained inside.

****************************

I'll be honest.  I was incredulous at the defense closing arguments.  

Astounded.

****************************

The jury is charged, the judge reads pages of jury directions, and trial is in recess until verdict.  The Braveheart crew is exhilarated.  The prosecuting attorney are beaming.  Not celebrating, but confident.  

The back row is filled with deputies and the row before them filled with media.  As we leave the courtroom the media linger in the hallway afraid to venture too far.

Bo Spataro, always, always pleasant and polite, offers to call them when he gets word about a verdict so they, too, can go eat lunch.

We all file out the side exit, through the garage, and the smokers fire up.

We will have lunch at a place right next door to the courthouse on Texas Street, on the corner.  It's close.  

There are about eight of us; we sit down in the nearly empty restaurant, order drinks, peruse the menu, place orders.  

We see our courtroom bailiffs picking up lunches for the jurors.  Our lunch is delayed until the juror orders go out, which is fine.  We want them happy!

As soon as our food starts coming out Bo's phone rings.  

"They have a verdict," he says.  

The waiter, about to place a platter of red beans & rice in front of me pauses:

"You want us to just hold this for you?"  he asks as Bo says "We need checks."

All bundles of butterflies and wondering what this quick verdict means, we dash out.  They promise to hold our food.

Now that's service!

*****************************
We rush to the side entrance of the courthouse and get through the metal detectors and scanners as quickly as possible.  

Nobody has eaten.  Nobody could eat, now.  

Walking briskly down the hall to the courtroom, Loraine stops:  takes deep breaths, and her green eyes look a little alarmed.  

"Are you okay?"  someone asks.

Her eyes fill with tears.  

"Yes."  she says.  

It's fine - everyone has been saying.  Braveheart is already a winner.

But there must be justice, right?

Deputies everywhere.

The tension is incredible.

Doris:  "I've never seen such a police presence in my life!"  This from a woman who attended the Casey Anthony trial.

"What do they think we're going to do?!" she said.

Waiting.

The attorneys and defendant are all in place.  People are rushing in.  Bo kept his promise and let the media know the verdict was in.  They are here.

Finally, the judge enters.  

The jury files in.  I think about Scout, in To Kill a Mockingbird, who said that a jury never looks at the defendant if they've convicted him.  

Jean is on one side of Ronda and Bo on the other.  All three have hands clenched in Ronda's lap.

The foreman passes in the verdict.  

The judge looks, scowls, motions them back to the jury room.  

Some technicality.

We stand and sit every time they enter.

The come back in within a few moments, we stand again.

The bailiff reads the verdict.

Guilty of Simple Cruelty to Animals.

Simple Cruelty.

***************************

"There is nothing simple about this!"

****************************

"Redirected aggression!"

****************************

Whispers ripple throughout - 

"Simple!"  

"It's simple, isn't it?  Is that what they said?"

"Simple cruelty!"

**************************

The defendant is handcuffed; it's still a conviction although a misdemeanor and not a felony, now.  Handcuffed and taken away.

*************************

There is relief that it's not a "Not Guilty" verdict but much frustration that it's not "Aggravated."  The difference in the language is so close - whether the abuse was intentional or not.  

I suppose the jurors believed the defense's theory that the defendant was trying to help the dog by bringing him into the "shade, out of the elements."  

******************************

Media everywhere.  They all want to hear from Bo and Ronda.  

Both need a moment to gather thoughts.  

The media complies.

In a few minutes, Bo and Ronda give a statement to the media in front of the courthouse; the frustration is obvious.

"What do you want to say to Mr. Lee?"

"I don't think we have anything to say to Mr. Lee at this point."

How do you feel about the verdict?

It's not what we wanted, but we will live with it.

****************************

It's not what we wanted, but we will live with it.

*******************************

"Redirected aggression."

*****************************

Obviously, Braveheart is a winner.  And the Spataros are winners because at the end of the day they get to go home to a beautiful Braveheart.  They are winners because they are good, kind, caring people who are doing good in their community and who have a loving network of friends and family.  
Whatever the verdict was today, they are all winners and there is nothing but positive, good things ahead of them. 

And many more dogs to save!

Go, Brave, go!