Shelley Zenner, Rabbit House - Edmonton, Canada

A woman who had more than 1,100 rabbits seized from her home pleaded guilty to causing an animal distress on Monday.

Shelley Zenner was charged with various offences under the Animal Protection Act after the Humane Society seized 567 rabbits from her Edmonton-area home in March 2010. Because so many of the animals were pregnant, the Humane Society ended up with 589 rabbits.

An additional 542 rabbits had been seized from the home between fall 2008 and March 2010.

The Crown and defence lawyers issued a joint submission that would see Zenner to pay $8,500 in fines and receive a lifetime prohibition from owning animals..."  More


Apr 7, 2010: Three charged in Edmonton rabbit house case
BY BEN GELINAS
Three Edmonton residents have now been charged after the single largest seizure of rabbits in the Edmonton Humane Society’s recorded history last month.
The 589 bunnies seized by animal protection officers on March 12 were in poor health. Many were found to be carrying the highly contagious and untreatable disease “Snuffles” and all had to be euthanized, society spokeswoman Shawna Randolph said Wednesday.

Mar 31, 2010: Edmonton rabbit hoarders anger neighbours

By:Michelle Thompson
There’s no city bylaw stopping hare-crazy Edmontonians from hoarding hundreds of rabbits.
And some people are hopping mad about it.
“We need to make sure there’s tougher laws in place,” said Lori Herlidan, who runs Edmonton-based New Beginnings Rabbit Rescue.

“We need to have a heavier hand with that.”

Until being snapped up by animal control workers last month, 500 rabbits had been living rent free in a $500,000 Riverbend home.

Some living in air vents and cupboards, the cuddly beasts had been hopping around the 2,297-square-foot home at their own speed, chewing apart floorboards and electrical wires.
The rabbits were seized from the house — layered with feces and fur — following a provincial environmental health order March 15, demanding the property be vacated until it was improved to a “safe and habitable condition.”

But neighbours are convinced a massive rabbit population will return to 730 Haliburton Cres. — unless a bylaw is created to stop the bunny-fanatics from restoring their collection.
“If they (the homeowners) are allowed to move back in, there’s going to be problems,” said one neighbour, requesting anonymity.

Under city bylaws, homeowners are allowed to have up to three dogs and six cats.
But there’s no limit to the amount of birds or bunnies living in Edmonton abodes.
Unless animals are in danger, the city’s paws are tied when it comes to enforcing rabbit overloads, said Edmonton’s animal control coordinator.

“From a bylaw perspective, there’s nothing we can do,” Keith Scott said. “There are other agencies that deal with those things.”

Some city councillors said they were willing to review the bylaws, but added they didn’t suspect it would be necessary to put a rabbit limit on households.

“I don’t really know whether we require changes to the bylaw,” said Coun. Amarjeet Sohi. “I think people should use common sense.”

Sounds of a barking dog and a running vacuum could be heard inside 730 Haliburton Cres. on Wednesday, but the people inside didn’t answer the door.

The house is owned by Shelley Zenner and her adult son Quentin, who recently moved out.
His wheelchair-bound grandma, Edna Zenner, lives at the house too.

Relatives said the rabbit-hoarding clan had long moved from their Debolt, Alta. hometown and ostracized themselves from most of the family..." More


Mar 30, 2010: Hundreds of rabbits removed from Edmonton house
Two residents were ordered to leave their southwest Edmonton home earlier this month after the house was ruled uninhabitable due to the urine-stained floors, droppings and hair from hundreds of rabbits inside.
"The house was in an unsanitary condition caused by over 500 rabbits that lived, unconfined, throughout the house," environmental health officer Sandra Hamilton wrote in an order on March 15.
The residents were ordered to leave their house within seven days and return it to a "safe and habitable condition."
The rabbits were removed by Edmonton Humane Society animal protection officers on March 12, according to spokeswoman Shawna Randolph.
Randolph said she could not say how many rabbits were actually seized until charges are laid, but said it was "more than 500." Neighbours say the rabbits were running free for about three years.
According to the order, heat vents in the house on Haliburton Crescent were blocked by dust, hair and droppings. Missing floor coverings exposed a subfloor contaminated by rabbit waste.
Rabbit droppings, hay contaminated with rabbit droppings and drywall stained with rabbit urine were found inside the house and another pile of droppings was discovered in the driveway..." More

The bunnies were living in a Terwillegar area home on Haliburton Crescent that has been on the society’s radar for more than a year.

Animal protection officers had been working with the family prior to the seizure.

Over the last several months, the family surrendered 542 additional rabbits, which were generally healthier than those seized in March. The majority of those have been put up for adoption.

This one house on Haliburton has provided the society with the majority of its rabbits up for adoptions over the last year and a half, Randolph said. In 2008, the society put 312 rabbits up for adoption; in 2009, they put 432 rabbits up.

The society averaged 55 a year prior to 2008.

Randolph could not discuss the reasons why this one family had allegedly accumulated so many domesticated rabbits.

Shelley Zenner, Edna Zenner and Quentin Zenner have each been charged with causing distress, failing to provide adequate care for sick or wounded animals, failing to provide food and water, as well as shelter, ventilation and space.

The rabbits were seized March 12 and an inspection several days later showed the home was not fit for even humans to live in. A March 15 report detailed a long list of safety hazards and disease risks, including large holes in the wall revealing exposed electrical wires being chewed by rabbits..." More

Jun 13, 2012:  Woman, 44, hoarded 1,100 rabbits in her dilapidated two-storey homeDec 19, 2011:  Alberta woman pleads guilty to hoarding 1,100 bunnies


A woman who hoarded more than 1,100 rabbits in her house has been fined $8,500 (£5,300) and banned for life from keeping more than one animal as a pet.


Shelley Zenner, 44, from Edmonton, Canada, was also ordered to take psychological counselling after earlier pleading guilty in court of causing distress to an animal.


A court heard how animal protection officers raided Zenner's two-storey home on March 12, 2011, and removed 589 rabbits - the largest single seizure of rabbits Edmonton Humane Society officials have ever witnessed




They said the bunnies were everywhere, living in an environment full of urine and faeces with many injured or missing eyes or limbs.


Almost all of the rabbits were euthanised by EHS because they were suffering with the highly contagious, fatal respiratory infection known as snuffles.


Her home in Terwillegar, south west Edmonton, had been under surveillance since 2008. More than 1,100 rabbits were either removed or surrendered from the home over three years..."  More

Animal hoarding targeted in Horry County

May 1, 2012:  Additional animal control regulations passed by Horry County Council

By Brad Dickerson

There’s a few more rules on the books for dealing with animal management in Horry County.

The County Council unanimously passed third and final reading Tuesday night of an ordinance that adds new provisions to the animal control statute, such as making it unlawful for keeping pets locked up inside vehicles on hot days. Additionally, the new ordinance changes some of the language to better clarify how animals should be treated by their owners.

Third reading was quickly passed with no discussion among council members other than clarifying some grammatical errors in the ordinance. This followed a lengthy discussion during second reading, where the issue of whether the new laws were too broad was discussed...

...Also, animal hoarding isn’t based on a specified number, but whether or not the owner is able to provide the minimum care and treatment required for a large number of animals.

There has been some talk over how the wording of the updated animal control ordinance makes the rules too broad.

Council Chairman Tom Rice cast the sole “nay” vote on the ordinance’s second reading at the April 17 County Council meeting..."  More

Aug 2, 2012: Horry County considers stiff new penalties to protect animals

By Sean Maginnis

HORRY COUNTY, SC - Horry County Officials may be looking to crack down on animal abuse and provide aid to stray animals.

The Horry County Public Safety Department is currently reviewing plans to create stiffer penalties for people convicted of animal abuse crimes, as well as better defining proper animal care.

County Spokeswoman Lisa Bourcier said the goal of the proposed law change is to make sure people know what it means to provide adequate food, shelter and water for domesticated animals.

"The County is...just trying to better define our definitions," Bourcier explained.  "And [also] trying to put in a little heavier penalties as well."

One of the penalties would include the possibility of prohibiting convicted animal abusers from owning a domesticated animal for up to two years.

Conway resident Bobby McDowell, a self proclaimed animal lover, says he believes the county's rules on animal care are vague and in dire need of an update.

"[The ordinance] has no meat, no backbone to it," he stressed. "Which means our [animal control] officers can't do their jobs."

Other ideas being considered by the Public Safety Committee are the prohibition of animal hoarding, creating a low cost spay and neuter program, creating a catch and release spay and neuter plan for stray animals, and requiring all pet owners to implant their pets with I.D. microchips.

Bob Bonsigner, President of the "Sav-R-Cats" animal advocacy group, said he is particularly pleased with the catch and release spay and neuter program, one he is helping county officials develop..."  More

Jan 24, 2010: Animal hoarding up for public review in Horry Co.

An ordinance that aims at protecting animals will be up for public review Monday during a Horry County Public Safety Committee meeting.

The ordinance, under its last review, would give Horry County the authority to remove pets from someone's home if there are a large number of animals that are not properly cared for. A copy of the ordinance states hoarders often fail to provide basic care for animals, resulting in "malnourishment, injuries, disease and often death."

John Pennington, who manages a rental property, says he had a big mess to clean up after renters moved out and left their dogs behind. One dog was dead and the others made what he describes as a "mess" around the house.

Pennington hopes the ordinance passes, noting it would have greatly helped his situation.

"If they would have [gotten] the dogs out of there, not only would it make a difference for the dog, he'd still be alive," believed Pennington. "My apartment wouldn't be completely destroyed."

Bob Grabowski, vice chairman of the Horry County Council, says its instances like Pennington's that have pushed the council to pass an ordinance such as the animal hoarding ordinance.

"Our focus here is really to help the animals - to help the animals get out of these horrible conditions," he said.

If an officer takes note of an animal hoarding problem, they are supposed to take pictures and then present the evidence to a judge before the animals can be removed from the home.

Pennington claims he called police four times before they took action. He says the reason police didn't act was because the animals were not running around the neighborhood. They were in a home.

Pennington believes the ordinance could have given police the authority to take action earlier. He says if someone is not taking care of their pets, they should be taken away.

"They come get your kids, don't they?" he asked. "When you're not good to your kids, why not the animals?"

Grabowski says the ordinance is not targeting licensed breeders or anyone who has multiple animals that are well cared for or well fed.

The public review will take place during on Monday at 9:30 a.m. at the Horry County Government and Justice Center in Conway. The ordinance is expected to Horry County Council for another public review and its final reading..." Link

Dec 7, 2009: Animal hoarding ordinance to receive more consideration

By Claudia Lauer

The Horry County Council Public Safety Committee voted to continue the discussion on the county's proposed animal hoarding ordinance.

Several members of the public, including representatives from Sav-R-Cats and the Horry County Humane Society, came to the committee meeting this morning with questions and requests. Some questioned whether the ordinance would unfairly target rescue operations, but the county was clear that the ordinance would not be aimed at anyone who is humanely adopting animals..." More & video

Nov 5, 2009: Animal hoarding targeted in Horry County

By Claudia Lauer

The story of the woman who lives with dozens of cats seems to be a fictional cautionary tale for most people, but Horry County could soon take steps to prevent the real-life problems that accompany the condition known as animal hoarding.

The compulsive hoarding of animals is often a psychiatric disorder in which people feel the need to rescue more animals than they can care for, and the result is usually a health issue for the humans and animals involved. The Horry County Council will hear first reading of an ordinance Tuesday to treat animal hoarding as a punishable offense and to allow animal control officers to remove animals from those situations.

"It has been a problem in certain districts in the county. We had one situation where a person had 56 dogs inside of a single-wide trailer, and when officers stepped inside, they fell through the floor because it had rotted from all of the animal waste," said Paul Whitten, Horry County's director of Public Safety. "I think any attempt to put a number where it becomes unsafe to have that many animals, I think that number would really be arbitrary."...

...Animal hoarders usually don't understand or acknowledge their inability to care for their animals. Houses can be overrun by animal waste and the animals are often kept inside because the owners are afraid others will see their poor health, but conditions don't have to reach that critical point to be considered hoarding, according to the psychiatric research group Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium..."...More

Advocates Call For Strict Pa. Animal Hoarding Laws

Reporting Ben Simmoneau

Animal advocates say Pennsylvania law needs to change if officials are going to be able to stop the growing problem of animal hoarding.

Already this week, officers from the Pennsylvania SPCA have raided two Philadelphia homes and confiscated nearly 200 animals.

In a home on Mascher Street Tuesday, officials found the remains of 30 dead animals and 90 more alive.

Two dead dogs were found along side 85 live Chihuahuas and two cats in a home on Earp Street in South Philadelphia Wednesday. SPCA officer George Bengal says that home was the worst he's seen in 20 years of work....

..."Years ago – and I'm going back probably 10 or more years ago – you got maybe one or two a year," he said. Now, SPCA officers average about one or two per month.

Bengal says part of the problem is that Pennsylvania law does not mention hoarding at all. Right now, most hoarders just receive summary citations – comparable to traffic tickets.

If dead animals are found, hoarders can be charged with crimes, but only misdemeanors, officials say.

And there's nothing to mandate psychological treatment, even though psychologists say animal hoarders are clearly mentally ill.

"Usually it's a sense of personal responsibility, that it's their responsibility to make sure that the animals are taken care of," said Dr. Marla Deibler, a psychologist who specializes in hoarding. They believe if they don't take care of the animals "then they would be responsible for them being mistreated."

"We now are typically asking for psychological evaluations through the court system so they can get some type of mandatory help," said Bengal. But until the law changes, judges do not have to comply with that request.

"The bigger picture with this is to actually get help with the individuals," Bengal said. "To me, that's a huge win-win for us and also for the individuals."..." More

ACTION ALERT: First Strike and You're Out: A Model Law

May 12, 2010: Bill to Create Online for Animal Abusers

The Senate Appropriations Committee has placed S.B. 1277 in a suspense file, meaning it could cost the state more than $150,000 and the committee will consider it later. It also means the bill will die unless it is affirmately released from the suspense file for further action...

...Last year Sen. Florez introduced a bill that would have strengthened judges' authority to keep convicted abusers away from animals, but Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it. An online registry is certainly an alternative. .." More

Feb 19, 2010: Senate Bill No. 1277 (.pdf)

March 4th, 2010: A Special Message from California Senator Dean Florez

by Senator Dean Florez

As California's Senate Majority Leader, I take the job of protecting Californians and their animals very seriously. Experts have proven a strong correlation between violence against animals and incidents of domestic abuse. I believe we should have tough laws in place to protect both people and animals from violence.

That's why, last week, I was joined by the Animal Legal Defense Fund's Executive Director Stephen Wells in Sacramento to announce that I am sponsoring tough new legislation that will create a public registry for criminals convicted of felony animal abuse.

On the same day, ALDF launched its national campaign to push for animal abuser registries in all 50 states. Contact your own legislator asking for animal abuser legislation where you live at ALDF's special website, ExposeAnimalAbusers.org.

If someone has been convicted of animal cruelty, I believe they should be prohibited from owning any animals in the future. The animal abuser registry will be an effective tool in preventing ownership of animals by convicted animal abusers..." More

Jun 13, 2009: Gov. Schwarzenegger Vetoes CA Bill to Limit Abusers' Access to Animals

Update October 12, 2009: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has, however, vetoed AB 243, a bill passed by the California legislature that would have banned ownership or possession of any animal for 5 years upon conviction of misdemeanor animal cruelty and 10 years for felony crimes against animals. Anyone caught owning or possessing an animal in violation of this would have been guilty of only a misdemeanor.

May 17, 2009: A Proposal for Mandatory Bans on Contact with Animals Following a Conviction for Animal Neglect or Cruelty

Currently, most states have no mandatory requirements keeping those who are convicted of animal abuse crimes away from animals following their convictions. This despite the fact that offenders have demonstrated, through their actions, their utter disregard for the welfare of animals, and that recidivism in some types of animal abuse cases can reach 100%.

Yet having an animal in one’s life is a privilege, not a right – and with that privilege comes certain responsibilities, including the responsibility of providing adequate care and otherwise not abusing or neglecting the animal. The Animal Legal Defense Fund's First Strike and You're Out law provides another tool to help combat animal neglect and cruelty by mandating that those who are convicted of a violation of their state animal protection laws are prohibited from owning or having contact with animals for a set period of time, ranging from five years for a first misdemeanor offense up to the lifetime of the offender following a second felony offense.

Enacting a First Strike and You're Out law in your state will help in the fight against animal neglect and cruelty by keeping offenders away from potential new animal victims, which would, for example, help stem the high rate of recidivism often associated with animal hoarding. This proposal will also help reduce the huge economic toll which repeat offenders impose on their communities – hoarding cases in particular are very costly, often requiring the cooperation of several local agencies.

First Strike and You're Out Law Highlights

• Separates offenders from potential new victims
• Will help to reduce future crimes against animals and save limited community resources
• Those who have been convicted of animal neglect or cruelty have demonstrated, through their actions, their irresponsibility with animals. This justifies having a set period of time where they are not allowed contact with them.
• Addresses high recidivism rates (near 100%) for certain offenders (i.e. animal hoarders)

How You Can Help

Animal Advocates:
Please contact your state legislators today and ask them to support a First Strike and You're Out law for those who are convicted of animal neglect or cruelty.

Legislators:
For more information on ALDF's model law, or for assistance in drafting a First Strike and You're Out law for your state, please download the following forms or contact legislation@aldf.org.

First Strike and You're Out Model Law: Information (PDF)
First Strike and You're Out Model Law: Text (PDF)

ALDF's complete model law collection can be found in the Resources section of our website..." More

ALDF: Animal Neglect Facts

Animal neglect is the failure to provide basic care required for an animal to thrive. At first glance, such cases may seem less egregious than a single, brutal act of violent abuse, but severe neglect can mean extended periods of extreme suffering resulting in permanent injury or death. A single large-scale neglect case can affect hundreds of animals, as in cases of hoarding, puppy mills and farm neglect.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund maintains a database of criminal animal cruelty cases in the U.S. reported to our organization. In the last ten years, over 30% of cases that we have tracked involve animal neglect.Issues common to neglect cases:

-Animal neglect is often associated with human neglect involving a child, elder or other dependent.

-Handling all of the animals involved in large-scale neglect cases (hoarding, puppy mills and farm neglect) requires considerable effort and expense – all animal victims must be examined, treated, catalogued as evidence and sheltered during the pendency of a court case.

State Law

Most states’ criminal animal cruelty statutes define a minimum standard of care which requires that an animal caretaker provide water, food, shelter and veterinary care. Animal abandonment may also be specifically addressed in some statutes. However, by definition, some animals – such as farmed animals, fish or wildlife – may be excluded from anti-cruelty statutes, and some actors – such as farmers engaged in common husbandry practices, veterinarians practicing medicine or research facilities engaged in experiments – may be exempted from the statutes. To read your state’s laws on animal neglect, see Animal Protection Laws of the United States of America & Canada. Legal advocates and prosecutors seeking advice on strategies for the successful prosecution of animal abuse cases can refer to ALDF’s Legal Advocates' Manual for Animal Abuse Criminal Cases.

Some state statutes also contain provisions separate from the animal cruelty statutes to address care requirements for breeding facilities. (These may be in the agriculture section of the code.)

Violations of state animal neglect laws are almost always misdemeanor-level violations. Washington and California have felony-level provisions for extreme animal neglect. In a state with only misdemeanor provisions for neglect, a diligent prosecutor can sometimes find an opportunity to charge a suspect with a felony, such as incidents involving large-scale property destruction. However, this back-door approach highlights the need for improved state laws that allow for felony charges in cases of extreme animal neglect. ALDF’s report on Confronting Animal Neglect in America: Current Law and Future Possibilities analyzes shortcomings in neglect laws and suggests statutory language to confront the problem of animal neglect.

Some state laws have provisions for pre-conviction forfeiture, cost of care bonds or liens, which can expedite permanent placement for the animals and allay the sheltering expenses for the care of seized animals. To read about options for prosecutors seeking to gain legal custody of abused animals in states without pre-conviction forfeiture provisions, see “Solutions to Long-Term Cases in States Without Pre-conviction Forfeiture Provision”.

Another way to expedite permanent placement for neglected animals is to use statutory provisions that allow a private citizen or organization to file a civil suit for an injunction against an accused animal abuser, thereby allowing the Court to terminate the defendant’s interest in the animals. ALDF successfully used such a provision in North Carolina law in ALDF v. Woodley. Other states could easily adopt similar laws, using ALDF’s Model Animal Protection Laws Collection, which includes statutory language for civil injunctive relief for criminal violations.

Animal hoarders present challenges to the justice system beyond other types of neglect because the hoarder may be mentally ill. Furthermore, hoarders have a very high rate of recidivism. To stop the repeating cycle of abuse, sentencing orders should include psychological counseling and a prohibition on possession of animals. While these sentencing options are generally available to judges even where specific statutory language is lacking, adding them as mandatory provisions in each state’s anti-cruelty laws would result in such sentencing orders becoming routine. Currently, only Illinois defines “animal hoarder” in their animal protection statutes and specifically requires convicted hoarders to get a psychological evaluation and treatment.

If a hoarder is deemed incompetent to stand trial, his or her animals may be in a legal limbo. In 2006, ALDF won an historic legal case involving termination of an unfit guardian’s interests. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that where a defendant has been found incompetent, a Court can appoint a trustee, such as a humane society, to determine what disposition is in the best interest of the animals. Ideally, in any case that results in a suspended prosecution or deferral, the Court should consider and provide for the best interest of the animals involved prior to dismissing the case.

County/City Ordinances

Animal-related ordinances at the county or city level are generally designed with the goal of protecting public safety and public health, although some provisions may be used to prevent the neglect of animals:

-Municipalities may prohibit tethering of dogs or may limit tethering by the type or length of the tether or by the amount of time the animal is tethered. (A handful of state laws restrict tethering.) See a summary of anti-chaining laws.

-Municipalities may limit the number of animals a person can possess in the jurisdiction. Although primarily aimed at preventing public nuisances, such laws may also give local authorities a tool to prevent hoarding and puppy mill situations.

Federal Law

The Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 USC §2131 - §2159, requires that minimum standards of care and treatment be provided for certain animals bred for commercial sale, used in research, transported commercially, or exhibited to the public. The Act provides guidelines for housing, enclosures, exercise, feeding, watering, sanitation and handling, but it does not regulate the type of experiments that can be performed on animals. The Act is enforced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Violators may be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties or may have their licenses revoked.

The Act limits the types of animals it protects. It defines “Animal” as a “warm-blooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet.” Notably, however, the following animals are excluded from the Act: birds, rats, mice, reptiles and farmed animals – these animals account for over 95% of the animals used for research and raised for food in the United States.

Facilities covered by the Act include: research laboratories, dealers (breeders and brokers), exhibitors (zoos and circuses) and transporters. Facilities that are exempt include: retail pet stores, direct sellers, hobby breeders, public pounds, private shelters, private collections, livestock shows, pet shows, rodeos and any facility using nonregulated species.

The federal Twenty-Eight Hour Law, 49 USC §80502, addresses neglect of animals being transported across state lines by requiring that transporters “may not confine animals in a vehicle or vessel for more than 28 consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding, water, and rest.”. Violators may be subject to a civil penalty.

The website for the Animal Legal and Historical Center has more information on the AWA, the Twenty-Eight Hour Law and other animal-related laws.ALDF ResourcesALDF offers several resources to assist in investigating and prosecuting animal neglect crimes and to strengthen animal protection laws:

-Animal Protection Laws of the United States of America & Canada is a compendium of state laws that highlights several topics, including counseling requirements and cross-reporting requirements, in quick reference tables and full-text statutory sections.

-Confronting Animal Neglect in America: Current Law and Future Possibilities is a 2007 report reviewing the status of the laws of each state by chronicling both their statutes and case law as they relate to animal neglect. The report then makes recommendations of statutory options that have the potential for reducing the tragic incidence of neglect in the future, including language for felony provisions, sentencing requirements and termination of an unfit guardian’s interests.

-Solutions to Long-Term Cases in States Without Pre-conviction Forfeiture Provision outlines options for prosecutors to secure custody of abused animals in states without pre-conviction forfeiture provisions.

-Model Animal Protection Laws Collection provides statutory language you can use to improve your state animal protection laws.

-The Legal Advocates' Manual for Animal Abuse Criminal Cases is a guide to assist animal advocates and prosecutors with procedures and strategies for the successful prosecution of animal abuse cases, including advice specific to hoarding, puppy mill, and farmed animal abuse cases.

-ALDF’s Criminal Justice Program provides free legal services to prosecutors and investigators who are handling animal cruelty cases and to legislators who are working to improve animal protection laws.

-Sample foster care application and agreement forms can be downloaded for use by shelters caring for large numbers of animals seized by law enforcement.

-Animal Hoarding Facts provides basic information about animal hoarding and what can be done to stop it.

-Issues in Animal Neglect Cases is an article discussing the seizure of animals when investigators serve a search warrant for animal neglect.

Cases

Robert and Rebecca Collier – IndianaRepresented by ALDF, the United States Equine Rescue League (USERL) filed a complaint in Indiana against Robert and Rebecca Collier for the cost for caring for eight severely neglected horses. ALDF is also assisting USERL in fighting a court order in Collier's cruelty case, which stated that the horses must be returned to Collier.

Michael, Judy and Gayle Keating – North Carolina The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed suit against three North Carolina residents for severely neglecting eight horses whom they starved – in one case, literally to death – and deprived of all veterinary care.

Janie Conyers – North Carolina A dog breeder was keeping over 100 dogs and some birds in horrendous, filthy conditions with untreated, severe medical problems. ALDF filed a civil lawsuit resulting in a settlement that prohibited Conyers from ever owning another animal.

Vikki Rene Kittles – Oregon, Wyoming, Florida, Mississippi, Colorado, Washington After being run out of several states, serial animal hoarder Vikki Kittles was keeping 116 dogs, all sick and some dying, in an old school bus in Oregon, where District Attorney Joshua Marquis and ALDF were determined not to let her get away again.

Jean Marie Primrose – Oregon This case involved neglected cats who were left in legal limbo after their guardian was judged incompetent for trial. ALDF won a landmark court decision regarding termination of an unfit guardian’s interests.

Barbara and Robert Woodley – North Carolina To rescue hundreds of dogs from abuse and neglect at the Woodleys’ breeding facility, ALDF used a unique provision in North Carolina law to win a permanent injunction against the Woodleys, thereby gaining custody of their 325 neglected dogs, in the largest civil animal cruelty case in history.

Vernon and Katonya Zawistowski – Washington In this case, the defendants were convicted of neglecting two malnourished horses. An appeals court opinion found that the horses suffered pain due to the defendants’ failure to provide adequate food.

Link