Pit Bull in trouble

[bamapitbullmom]

All~ Susan contacted BBR initially via Myspace and has done everything possible to get this dog back. I just spoke to her on the phone and have offered to drive to Montgomery (2.5 hrs) to formally evaluate the dog, along with my friend and Certified Pet Dog Trainer, in order to help get this dog released.

Any help on your part will be appreciated, Susan is going to send me her attorney's email address so that I may contact him directly. The hearing was today and the judge did not allow any testimony from the original owner (Susan). This is the same shelter which housed Louis Vuitton, the pit bull beaten and burned and recently adopted out. Louis' abuser was sentenced to 9 years in prison.
************************

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 2:07 PM
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: Fwd: MontgomeryCounty Humane Shelter



To whoever is an animal advocate and animal lover: PLEASE TAKE TIME TO READ THIS EMAIL - IT IS TRUE AND I APOLOGIZE THAT IT IS SO LONG, but there is no way to tell you everything without some background on this case.

If you know of anyone who may be able to help me save a beloved member of my family - and he is NOT a vicious dog, please pass this email on to anyone and everyone you can think of. Little Man's time is running out.

My name is Susan McGuire and I live in Pintlala, Alabama (south of Montgomery). My telephone numbers are 334-281-0994 (home); 334-207-9408 (cell) and 334-277-5820 (work). This story has been a nightmare for me and my family since September 30th and is a pretty long story. Any help you may be able to give may help someone in the future who may be faced with a similar situation (even if I can't save Little Man's life). There is a status hearing tomorrow in Judge Price's courtroom on the criminal part of this case (which is another totally ridiculous thing - if the shelter was not so adamant about killing Little Man, there would never have been an appeal).

The facts of this case are astounding - and unbelievable. Judge Price threw out my motion to Intervene today, February 4, 2009. The fact that Judge Price denied my motion to intervene means Little Man has been condemned to die with no hearing, no defense and this is heartbreaking.

Four years ago, my son brought home Choco (80 pound Pit Bull). Choco had been stolen from his original owner, and when my son returned Choco to him, the owner told my son to keep Choco because he would just get stolen again. Choco quickly became a member of the family (he was our second rescued dog that year - the first is a Lab mix that I got from her owner when she was four months old and had been horribly abused - she weighed five pounds when I got her - two weeks later she weighed 13 pounds). Lucy (also a Pit) was next, so starved you could see every bone in her body. In the sixteen years I have been living in the country, I have rescued approximately 25-30 dogs, several cats, and two squirrels.

We kept one of the puppies out of a litter of 11, born May 21, 2006, and named him Little Man. Little Man has a very sweet personality and is my favorite. I live on a very busy highway, and at the time the dogs came into our lives, I was making very minimal pay ($12K per year) so there was no money for a dog pen.

Lucy had to be secured by a chain (which is a horrible way to contain a dog, but at the time I had no choice - it was that, or death by a car or truck on the highway). Little Man stayed in a small pen we had built for the puppies, but when he outgrew the pen we brought him inside until he was about 9 months old. He was then relegated to being on a chain but we kept him and his mother close together so they could interact. The chains they were secured with were over 25 feet long,=2 0so they had plenty of room to move about, but I hated the sight of those precious dogs being chained. They were also let off the chains regularly - they love to go "fishing" with my son at our pond (they swim - he fishes).

One day in February of 2008, I was outside and just could not bear seeing Little Man on that chain one more day, so I called my son's half-sister (she already had shown responsible care for another sister of Little Man's) and asked her if Little Man could come and stay with her. She was only to keep him conditionally - if there were ever any problems (never dreaming of any problems with Little Man, but with her boyfriend), Jessica was to return him to my care immediately.

My son checked on Little Man often to make sure all was well. Little Man seemed to be thriving in his new home, and I was still trying to get on my feet financially when I learned that Jessica's boyfriend had allowed Little Man to run loose (we all live out in the country).
I have been trying to rescue Little Man from this shelter since he was picked up on September 30th. Little Man has been living in a cement enclosed cell for over four months now. Before he was ripped out of his home, he was treated like a prince.

Friday, January 30th, about half of the Humane Shelter staff was in the courtroom for sentencing on the guy who abused Louis Vitton. How amazing to see emblazoned on the back of their shirts "SAVING LIVES - ONE FAMILY AT A TIME". I wonder - if Little Man had been beaten with a shovel and then burned severely, would the shelter still have the same attitude of wanting to kill him? Is the media interested in this story, or do they just want "sensational" stuff to report on?

I had Little Man in my possession from birth until he was almost two years of age and never had any problems. Little Man has never bitten anyone. All testimony given (except the alleged fight) could have been explained by me since I know Little Man so well, but I trusted Officer Scott Hill, so I sat silently NOT knowing that I was condemning my dog to death via Animal Control Officer Scott Hill.

As soon as we walked through the courtroom doors and in to the hallway - I asked Hill when I could get Little Man back. His response was immediate and hateful - "You are NOT getting this dog back - he can't be rehabilitated". I felt as though I had been sucker punched - the testimony in court did not indicate any need for "rehabilitation" - Little Man has never bitten anyone. And on top of that, if this was such a serious case to these people who were so ready to condemn this precious dog, then why were they acting like this was one big party before court started (they did not know who I was - they were all laughing and having a good time waiting for the original hearing)?

I have no idea why the shelter is so adamant that Little Man be killed. I had contacted the shelter as soon as I found out Little Man had been arrested - went to the shelter and asked to see Little Man and was initially denied. One more comme nt about the officers - while I was at the shelter, a female officer came in and when she was told which dog I was there about, she stated "Oh Little Man - he is sooooo sweet". If I had known what I know now, every single conversation with Scott Hill would have been documented and recorded. He has lied to me since my first contact with him - he gives a great impression of being a "fair" person - but my eyes are opened to who he really is.

Steven Tears, the Executive Director of the Humane Shelter, let me see Little Man - every time I went, whether I had called ahead to request or just showed up. The last day I was allowed to see him was on January 5th. On January 9th my attorney and one of his partners went out there (who by the way, was a humane officer for eight years before going into the legal profession and wanted to testify on Little Man's behalf - and after evaluating him said there is no way this dog is vicious or a threat). Mr. Tears will no longer let me see Little Man.

I have to assume that part of the reason is because on December 31st (I had been to see Little Man twice that week), I fell apart and cried like a baby in front of the workers - (Little Man is in the "jail" part of the shelter - there was a lot of chaos that day and a helper unfamiliar with the case took me back to see Little Man but did not know that Little Man was not "allowed" out of his cell). The wor ker brought Little Man to a lobby-like area (LM was wagging his tail the entire time) and at least four other workers (including Scott Hill and Steven Tears) came through while I was hugging Little Man. Little Man's only reaction was to wag his tail and look for extra love. Officer Hill came and stood beside LM and petted him. While I was loving on Little Man and crying like a baby, I asked Hill "how could you kill this dog?" - his reply - "He is unpredictable". I believe that is why th e workers are upset - they did not know there was someone who is so desperate to save Little Man's life.

On January 10th I went to see Little Man, was denied and was told I would have to call Mr. Tears the following week. I asked for his phone number so I could call him right away (it is a 30 minute drive one way for me to come to Montgomery). Mr. Tears told me that no one at the shelter had known anything about this case and now his workers are upset and that is the reason I can no longer see Little Man. He also stated that Little Man would not eat for a full day after seeing me (funny how he would gobble up treats I brought him each time - and looks like he has lost at least ten pounds).

I don't want to do anything that would upset Little Man, but20find it difficult to believe that seeing me would upset him - I saw him on December 29th - his skin was in terrible condition - very dry and flaky - he was missing hair on his tail and on his feet. Two days later he looked like a different dog. I am sure he thinks no one cares about him - and since I have not been allowed to see him since January 5th I have no idea what shape he is in and no longer believe this shelter is humane.

This dog has never been anything but a family dog. I own his mother and father - and they are both very docile and both are rescues, in fact I have four dogs - three (spayed) females (one is half Lab), and Choco, who is the father of Little Man (and if I had the money, he would be neutered by now).

My dogs are not aggressive to anyone or any animal (in fact I was able to rescue a baby squirrel from Lola - and released him once he was rehabilitated medically - I guess Officer Hill would call the squirrel vicious since he bit me - Steven Tears tried to get me to bring the squirrel in so they could "test him" for rabies - my doctor laughed when I told him what Mr. Tears had said when I went in=2 0to get a tetnus shot).

In the sixteen years at my present address, there has never been one complaint from any of my neighbors - and they all have dogs, too and there have never been any fights with my neighbors' dogs. I have never been involved with a case against a dog, and until this, trusted the officers at the MontgomeryCounty "Humane" Society to be honest and forthright. Officer Hill is anything but, and made a determination to kill Little Man before he even met him.

If Little Man was a danger, it would have been indicated in the vet's file (he was taken to the vet on two occasions by Jessica and I have met with one of the vets who examined him and spoken with one of the workers, both who told me that there would be labels on the file if Little Man had shown any agression at all). I have also been told that even if I got a letter from the vet's office it would not be admissable in court (and they are willing to write a letter stating Little Man did not exhibit aggressive behavior).

Officer Hill told me NOT to testify at the original hearing and led me to believe that once the "Humane" Shelter had him, then I would have no trouble getting him back. IF I had seen the ori ginal complaint from Hill and NOT trusted him and testified, then I believe the judge would have released Little Man into my custody. The judge saw me in the courtroom (I was the only one in there who was not "involved" in the case) and I am sure she saw me because she asked if there were any other witnesses - you can only imagine how difficult it was for me to keep my mouth shut and not testify on Little Man's behalf.

The testimony given in District court was a slam dunk against the boyfriend - that was obvious to me - because I KNOW Little Man and know his demeanor. I raised this dog for 21 months before letting him go to live with Jessica - and only then because I thought he would be an inside dog - only dog I have ever given away out of love. The guilty party in this case is the boyfriend - for not having Little Man under his control at all times when Little Man was outside.

Little Man has never bitten anyone. He has been around babies, toddlers, and children of all ages and been around other animals his entire life - he was born into a family that already had one cat and two other dogs - one of a litter of 11 - no one who ever came to my house was ever afraid of him. He looks bad, but he is just like his daddy - a big teddy bear wanting only lo ve - and his daddy is almost twice his size. Choco, on the other hand, is scary to look at but that is because of what some sub-human did to his ears. It used to hurt me to look at them - now I think of ways to keep the rain out of them when he needs to go outside (he is one of two inside dogs).

I met with ADA Sean McTear immediately after the hearing. ADA McTear stated that the Judge, the District Attorney's Office, and the Humane Society did NOT want to kill this dog. I gave Mr. McTear the phone number of someone who would immediately take Little Man into his care and ADA McTear said he would call this person to arrange to have Little Man moved to his home.

The ADA never called my friend nor would he return my phone calls (even after I filed a Pro-Se motion as Intervenor/Petitioner on Little Man's behalf) so that is why I ended up hiring an=2 0attorney - and had to beg them to take this case until I could pay their fee. I believe wholeheartedly God has put him in our life. He is young, but he is compassionate and wants Little Man's life to be saved as much as I do.

The media was all over the Louis Vitton case (horrific what was done to that poor dog) so now people think that the shelter is pit bull friendly, but I find that inconceivable, given the facts of this case - it is obvious that Little Man is not vicious - and is no threat - and has never been abused, yet they are determined to kill him and won't budge one inch. I have absolutely no idea why they have determined he is unadoptable unless they are trying to cover for Scott Hill making a very bad judgement call.

The Montgomery County "Humane" Society indicates in their mission statement that they want to "reduce euthanasia", but I sure can't see that given their determination to kill Little Man - who not only has someone who loves and wants him, but has the room for him (I have 33 acres and a dog pen that is 76' x 56' - hot-wired both top and bottom - and in the next six months plan to have another one built).

Again, my apologies for this lengthy letter. My objective is to save Little Man's life, and nothing else. Little Man has been given a death sentence with no trial - no defense.

Looking back, I should have raised my hand like a second-grader to ask if I could speak to address the issues that were brought out in the original trial .I had no reason not to trust Hill and that is one of my weaknesses - I trust until given a reason to do otherwise - he seemed honest and forthright and seemed at the time to have Little Man's best interest at heart. His motives were clear after the case, but not before. He is a good talker and an even better actor.

Hill also told Jessica that she did not need an attorney. The shelter has put itself in a bad position with an officer of the law dispensing legal advice. No one believes this story at first glance, but after all facts are presented, they are astounded, as am I. The shelter has willingly racked up four months of boarding, feeding and care (as little "care" as that may be). Now they intend to kill this beloved family member.

[crystalbbr]

Keep us in the loop about this Jess...this is just crazy.

[valliesong]

Having worked at shelters who handled dangerous dog and other cases, I would personally take everything the owner has to say with a grain of salt. It's extremely important to get both sides. She doesn't even state why the dog was originally impounded. Was it just because he was at large, or did he get into something with another dog, cat, or livestock?

Some municipalities will declare a dog dangerous if it bites a domestic animal. I don't agree with that as an across the board policy of course, but if it is the local law...

[bamapitbullmom]

Oh, I know which is why I called her tonight. I was skeptical at first, thinking there must be more to this story when she first contacted us over a month ago.

She regrets allowing the half-step-daughter (whatever she is) to take him. The ACO was called b/c he was loose. He showed absolutely no aggression at all. There was a story about him getting into a fight with another dog but I don't know details.

This woman has hired an attorney. No one is giving her a reason why they won't release the dog why he hasn't been euthed yet (there must be a reason, they've had him since September).

I'm trying to find out exactly what is going on and felt like I should at least do that, especially if everything she states is correct.

[RealPitBull]

Jess, I'm really curious to hear what the details are and what ends up happening. The above letter leaves a lot out - just glosses over a supposed fight. And she keeps saying the dog has been sentenced to death without trial, but there WAS a trial according to this letter? Also, was she still the legal owner of the dog when he got loose? Or was the daughter the legal owner?
I also noticed inconsistencies....like they say Choco was the second dog adopted in a year, but go on to list two other dogs BESIDES him. Dunno, little thinsg like that make me go

Just seems like some real pertinent info is being left out. Bless you for looking into this and offering to get to the bottom of it all and possibly help this poor dog out.

[bamapitbullmom]

Oh tell me about it, it's been like herding cats to figure out what is going on and several times on the phone last night I had to segway her back to my intended topics of discussion.

She was audibly very upset, voice cracking but at the same time, was very articulate, intelligent, self-blaming, etc.

I have told her in no uncertain terms that something doesn't sound right and she told me that she completely understood and knew alot of people would feel that way. I think she was trying to get as much history out there, which makes things all fuzzy when there are so many details.

My reason for calling her last night was simple, to get her attorney's contact information, the judge's email, DA's and everyone else involved so that I can contact them and hear for myself what the heck is going on.

I just sat back and looked at my dogs (Jasmine WOULD be assumed dangerous b/c she's so reactive and fearful) and imagined if something like this happened to me and no one did a thing. It broke my heart. And to think that a dog which was described as people and cat adoring, sociable and laid back is lying on a cold, concrete floor being cared for and handled by people who think he's dangerous makes my heart ache.

I'm not siding with anyone or planning to speak for this woman, I only wanted to offer my services and see what reception I get. If they tell me that the dog will be euthed but won't allow an evaluation, I need to find out why.

According to Susan, the ACO is the one who is calling the shots, he's the one who claimed the dog was aggressive and said that he will be euthed. Steven Tears, the Director likes pit bulls, wouldn't he be the one to decide what happens in his shelter?

[RealPitBull]

Oh, I was on the verge of tears reading this woman's story, no doubt. A lot of people's loved, well cared for and responsibly owned dogs could potentially be labelled 'vicious'. You just never know what can happen; and it is sad to think that there could be no advocate for victims like these.

[bamapitbullmom]

Okie Dokie! I called and spoke with the director of the Montgomery Humane Society and got the "rest of the story".

In a nutshell...Susan (the original owner) gave the dog to her ex step-daughter and her boyfriend b/c Susan didn't want to keep the dog on a chain anymore (no real reason she couldn't keep him indoors but when I asked her about crating she said, "Oh! I didn't even think about that!").

ex step-daughter's bf is a "crazy a@@hole" according to Steven Tears (director of MHS) and drinks alot, sits outside and shoots at wildlife. ? He also has been seen putting a laundry hamper over the dog's head and shaking it around to get him "riled up".

Dog has been witnessed and reported chasing other animals, reported two incidents of getting into dogfights with other loose dogs, chasing at least 4 people, one man while cutting grass on a riding lawnmower. He apparently aggressed a woman walking down the sidewalk and scared her so bad that she called 911.

Steven allowed Susan to visit him at the shelter but asked her not to anymore because the dog became so stressed after she left and wouldn't eat for the next couple of days. That was the only reason he asked her not to visit him. She took that as being told she wasn't allowed.

The first judge heard the case and determined to set a hearing which was the one with another judge which heard the plea from the step daughter in which they pled guilty to the dog at large charge. Susan convinced the step daughter to appeal in order to try to get the dog back.

Susan tried to get the judge to consider releasing the dog to her and he denied it b/c she is not the legal owner. Now she is trying to get the step daughter to make a statement which says she was only temporarily keeping the dog for Susan even though she had had him for 8 months at the time he was picked up.

So now the dog will sit in the shelter for another 5 weeks until that hearing.

Steven said the woman does not need to own pit bulls, she has this dogs father and Susan just thinks she can bring home another male (esp one which has been practicing chasing people, fighting other dogs and treated poorly by the bf) and all will be peachy. Steven also said she STILL has her other 2 dogs on chains and has told him that she would fix up the pen and keep them all in the pen in the yard where they wouldn't be able to roam...all 3 dogs in one pen. Two male pit bulls. In 8+ months she has not finished the pen.

Susan claims the ACO is out to get her and according to Steven, the ACO is hiring a lawyer because Susan is slandering him. I don't know all the details in that but it stems from him refusing to testify on Susan's behalf b/c he didn't feel the dog should be released to her. Susan feels that he didn't testify b/c he knew the dog wasn't dangerous. Oy.

Steven also says that her lawyer is a pompous a@@ and wouldn't even go near the kennel where the dog was.

He also told me that while this dog has not growled or shown any aggression outright, he does tense, freeze and give hard stares when approached (yikes!).

He basically is saying this is not the same dog Susan claims he is/was.

The dog will be held as evidence b/c of the appeals, they are considering contacting Best Friends to send him there or he will be euthed. I offered to drive up and evaluate on videotape and give an unbiased assessment whether this dog is adoptable and to what degree or if he isn't a candidate for adoption and provide a detailed, written statement regarding behaviors I see to be used however they deem necessary.

That way, at least he was given a fair assessment.

Susan basically has her attorney on her side and that's it. I have told her that I am only trying to figure out what is going on, on both sides and now I am going to have to tell her that there is nothing I am going to be able to do. From Steven's description of his behavior and body language, this isn't a dog I would touch and Steven works with pit bulls and x's regularly and is realistic about them and is also concerned about the breed's perception.

Next court hearing is the 23rd...nice little drama, huh?

[crystalbbr]

Oh Geez...awesome job though Jess of getting to the bottom of this. I thought I recognized Steven's name as one of being one of the PB friendly guys, so it was all quite confusing!

[valliesong]

Sounds similar to a lot of the cruelty cases and dangerous dog cases we got at the shelters I worked at. I remember a woman who came in with papers to sue Joni (who since passed away of cancer) and said, "You can tell Joni she just got herself served."

Of course the woman lost the case. The animals are the ones that end up suffering in the end because the sit in the shelter while the legal process drags on.

[DiamondTiger]

Hmmm... thinking.... ??? There's got to be a better way to end this (one way or another) for this poor dog. Jess, are you close enough to maybe eval the dog and offer to have him signed over to your org by the current owner? Do you think the courts would do that? I mean, if the dog is legally released to you and he is not a good candidate for an adoption program, he could be humanely euthanized and this suffering for him could come to an end. Right now... the poor boy is sitting in a cold "cell" and growing more anxious and stressed by the day. That's never good for any animal and if he's being held on a legal matter, chances are good that nobody really interacts with him because (this is how it goes here) legally he has to be "left alone" - meaning no medical attention, no exercise, no socialization, no nothing except food and water and just "being".

[RealPitBull]

This whole thing is so sad! The details of the case don't suprise me at all.