Canine Nation, NFP P.O, Box 1182 Kennett Square, PA 19348 caninenation@gmail.com June 29, 2011 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Secretary Ed Kee, Cabinet Secretary of Agriculture 2320 South DuPont Highway Dover, Delaware 19901 Ph: (302) 698-4500 Dear Secretary Kee, Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review the Department of Agriculture's report prepared by Lisa Tanielian and Heather Hirst (hereafter referred to as "the investigators") presented to me on June 24, 2011 regarding Kent County SPCA's violations of Title 3 Chapter 80 in the case of "Neo" the dog. After a careful review of the report, | find it to be unsatisfactory and possibly fraudulent, The report contains numerous logical fallacies, errors of omission and evidence of intentional deception which would seem to indicate an attempt to obscure facts in order to exonerate KCSPCA and its director Mr. Murrey Goldthwaite from blame. It is my belief that the investigators’ personal familiarity and association with Mr. Goldthwaite improperly influenced the investigation. Broadly, the report can be described as a "red herring”, a deliberate attempt to change the subject from its intended focus to some immaterial side-point(s). For example, the primary complaint was that KCSPCA made no attempt to contact Neo's owners as required by §8003(c)(3). Instead of addressing this complaint, the investigators responded with two pages attempting to define the word "owners", discussing court cases, microchips, television interviews, a Cocker Spaniel named "Batista" and whether Neo received a refill for antibiotics to treat an unrelated respiratory condition a month earlier. The two pages concluded with the non sequitur. "Therefore Kent County SPCA has not violated Section 8003(c)(3)." Most of the report is a tenuous attempt to deny Canine Nation of its rightful ownership of Neo. If this is the intent of the Department of Agriculture, then it should be handled in a separate investigation, not as a diversion aimed at corrupting the current investigation into KCSPCA's shelter violations. Seven specific complaints against KCSPCA were submitted to the Dept of Agriculture on June 2, all of which were sidestepped or ignored by the investigators. These seven complaints are summarized as follows with the investigators’ concluding statements:41. Violation of §8003(c)(3) KCSPCA made no attempt to contact Neo’s known owners. Investigators: "The writer has yet to view any proof that Ms. Daniels or Mr. Hans have met the burden of a valid claim to ownership.” 2. Violation of §8003(c)(2) KCSPCA did not post Neo on their lost animal page. Investigators: “The posting would likely have been in vain.” 3. Violation of §8003(d) KCSPCA did not properly maintain a database of rescue organizations. Investigators: "There is nothing in the State law that specifies conditions whereby shelters may remove or add rescue groups.” 4. Violation of §8004(b)(5) KCSPCA euthanized Neo without first contacting the rescue organizations. Investigators: "Neo was in poor condition” (no documentation provided) 5. Violation of §8004(b)(2 and 3) KCSPCA euthanized Neo despite having available space for him. Ignored, 6. Violation of §8004(c) KCSPCA euthanized Neo without the determination of a licensed veterinarian. Ignored. 7. Violation of §8004(d) and §8007 KCSPCA did not follow proper euthanasia procedures and/or did not maintain records. Ignored, In each case, the investigators failed to address KCSPCA's violations. Instead, the investigators resorted to spurious reasoning and speculation in an apparent attempt to absolve KCSPCA of its violations. Not only does the report engage in flawed logic, it deliberately omits facts and ignores submitted documentation in s effort to protect KCSPCA. On the pages that follow, | have highlighted the specific flaws in the investigators’ report. Sir, | can say with confidence that you are a fair, unbiased man. In all of our meetings | have been impressed with your impartiality, diligence and dedication to the truth, If, after reviewing the following pages, you agree that the investigation was handled improperly, please consider my request for a complete retraction of this report and a new investigation to be conducted by persons who are objective and capable of handling this matter. An internal review of the Ms. Tanielian and Ms. Hirst's performance and appropriate action may also be necessary to ensure the integrity of the Delaware Department of Agriculture. Sincerely, J.C. Hans Director, Mid-Atlantic Chapter Canine Nation, NFP1, Violation of §8003(c)(3) KCSPCA made no attempt to contact Neo's known owners. (On May 20, when asked why KCSPCA did not contact Neo's owner (Canine Nation), Mr Goldthwaite stated: "We did have in our records who the animal was transferred to, Canine Nation was called with no response back." Mr, Goldthwaite re-asserted this claim in a WMDT television interview on May 25: “They were contacted back when the animal had first came in, ATAT phone records were submitted to the investigators indicating that no calls were made from KCSPCA to Canine Nation at the time of Neo's intake or any me thereafter. Instead of drawing the appropriate conclusion that KCSPCA never contacted the owner, the investigators engage in multiple logical fallacies (red herring, argumentum ad hominem, ignorantio elenchi and non sequitur) attempting to cloud the issue, Red Herring ‘The investigators state: "To establish whether a violation of this section has occurred, it must first be established who the owner is.” Then the investigators proceed to change the subject from § 8003(c)(3) to a convoluted discussion of what the word “owners’ means. This is reminiscent of the infamous quote by an ex-President: “It depends on what the meaning of the word 's'is.” The investigators’ comments regarding this specific complaint are geared exclusively toward stripping Canine Nation of its lawful ownership of Neo, thereby releasing KCSPCA of its responsibilty to abide by the law. Ownership of Neo, if contested, is a matter for Civil Courts to decide, well beyond the scope of this investigation of KCSPCA's shelter procedures Arqumentum Ad Hominem ("Personal Attac! ‘The investigators’ two-page discussion of "owners" with its many errors of logic will not be discussed here except to draw attention to one very serious issue. At one point, the investigators make wild accusations and insinuations that Canine Nation treated Neo inhumaanely. | demand that the Department of Agriculture immediately present conclusive proof of these defamatory statements. If proof cannot be produced, then the Department of Agriculture is ‘engaging in slander. ‘The investigators state “assuring the pet's well-being and humane care’ is a core requirement of adoptionsitransfers", “also noted are the lack of follow up care”, "pet ownership also comes with responsibilities ... ensuring that a pet is provided with food and water" and "the writer has yet to vview any proof that Ms, Daniels or Mr. Hans have met the burden of a valid claim to ownership.” In their voracity to prove that Canine Nation did not provide proper veterinary care for Neo, the investigators deliberately omit the fact that Canine Nation spent $2,829.52 on Neo's veterinary care in March, Instead, the investigators dwell on the idea that Neo never received a refill for his antibiotics, using this as grounds to claim that Canine Nation is nat worthy of owning a dog, Ignorantio Elenchi ("Irrelevant Conclusion”) and Non Sequitur Following these lengthy, irrelevant discussions of ownership and other dogs, the investigators close the section with the unsubstantiated conclusion: "Therefore Kent County SPCA has not Violated Section 8003(c)(3)." The AT&T phone records were never mentioned. Mr. Goldthwaite's false claims that he contacted the owner were never mentioned. KCSPCA's lack of attempts to reunite Neo with his owner were never mentioned. Therefore, §8003(c)(3), dedicated to Animal Recovery, was wholly ignored, and this entire section of the investigators’ report is invalid.2. Violation of §8003(c)(2) KCSPCA did not post Neo on their lost animal page. According to §8003(c)(2), shelters "shall also post all stray animals on the Intemet with sufficient detail to allow them to be recognized and claimed by their owners." Instead of investigating whether or not KCSPCA posted Neo on the Internet, the investigators ‘again indulge in logical fallacies (red herring, petilio principi, tu quoque) to divert the subject away from the required lost animal posting and instead dwell on irrelevant arguments. Red Herring ‘Again the investigators sidestep the focus of this complaint by bringing up invalid questions of ‘ownership, claiming "Kent County SPCA was owner of the animal, so posting the animal as a stray while in guarded medical condition and while being under rabies quarantine was not necessary. Petitio Principii ("Begging the Ques Petitio principi is the fallacy of basing an argument on a conclusion that has not been established ‘The investigators begin by making the unwarranted claim "Kent County SPCA was owner of the animal" and use that as an excuse to avoid the entire investigation of KCSPCA's required posting, Canine Nation's legal, documented ownership of Neo was established with the March 10 transfer contract and with KCSPCA handing Neo over to Canine Nation on March 11. If these ownership documents are to be contested for any reason, it must be done in Civil Cour, but until that time ‘ownership rests with Canine Nation. Contesting ownership is beyond the scope of the Dept of ‘Agriculture investigators who should remain focused on the specific complaints they are tasked with investigating, Tu Quoque ("You Too’ Instead of addressing whether KCSPCA made attempts to reunite Neo with his owner, the investigators accuse the owner of not making attempts to contact KCSPCA. This is called a tu {quoque argument whereby the accused ducks the issue by accusing his accuser of the same thing. ‘The investigators state: “Although Neo was not posted as a stray .. it should be noted that neither party was looking for Neo in April" Three paragraphs are dedicated to a discussion of the owner's actions while nothing is mentioned about KCSPCA's specific violation of the law. It must be stressed: the owner’s actions are not relevant to §8003(c)(2). No law requires owners. to post lost animals on the Internet; however the law does require shelters to do so. The investigators confusion over this point indicates either a total lack of familiarity with the issue or a deliberate attempt to misrepresent facts, Opinion The section closes with the investigators deviating from the issue and making the assumption "the posting would likely have been in vain.” Such opinions have no value and no relevance to the law or to this investigation.3. Violation of §8003(d) KCSPCA did not properly maintain a database of rescue organizations. According to §8003(d), “Animal shelters shall establish and maintain a registry of organizations willing to accept animals". On March 8, 2001, Canine Nation submitted the required forms to KCSPCA and was added to the registry. Without notice, explanation or justification, Murrey Goldthwaite removed Canine Nation from the registry some time after April 14. Itis my strong belief that Mr. Goldthwaite acted on personal prejudice against myself. As a result, Canine Nation, ‘which had been rescuing and rehoming an average of six dogs per week from KCSPCA, was no longer given the opportunity to save animals. This has resulted in a tremendous loss of life over the summer, not the least of which was Neo's. Department of Agriculture investigators were tasked with learning why Canine Nation was removed from the registry and by whose authority. Instead, investigators used this as an opportunity to make more inaccurate, unjustified accusations against Canine Nation without any documentation or proof to back up their claims. Argumentum Ad Hominem ("Personal Attack" In this section, the investigators again engage in multiple counts of slander against Canine Nation, Their comments will not be indulged here since they are wholly irrelevant to the case of Neo. However | insist on a formal investigation into these accusations and into those who are responsible for spreading the misinformation and damaging the reputation of Canine Nation. This is a very serious matter which I hope the Department of Agriculture will not take lightly 4. Violation of §8004(b)(5) KCSPCA euthanized Neo without first contacting the rescue organizations. According to §8004(b)(5), an animal may not be euthanized unless it is determined that “organizations on the registry .. are not willing to accept the animal Red Horring ‘When tasked with determining whether or not KCSPCA contacted any rescue organizations before euthanizing Neo, the investigators again avoided the issue by diverting attention to Neo's health condition, This will be discussed further in point 6. Violation of §8004(c) and 7. Violation ‘of §8004(d) and §8007. Ignorantio Elenchi ("Irrelevant Conclusio' As before, the investigators begin by basing their argument on a preconceived conclusion that has not been established. Investigators make the false claim that the law does not require the shelter to abide by regulations if an animal's health is being evaluated. The investigators state: "Accepting shelters are not required under Section 8004(b)(5) to list an animal on the rescue registry while the anima health condition is still being evaluated.” Nowhere in Title 3 Chapter 80 does it state anything to that effect. Rather, the law states in §8002(c) "an examination of animals entering an animal shelter shall be performed within 72 hours [3 days] of entry." Presumably, if KCSPCA had indeed evaluated Neo's, heath, it would have been done within 72 hours--before April 23. Neo was held until April 25. By the investigators’ own admission, Neo's health had not been evaluated until April 25, meaning he was allowed to suffer for 5 days without any emergency veterinary care.With this new information in mind, | would like to add the following formal complaints against Kent County SPA; Violation of §8002(c) - KCSPCA did not properly evaluate Neo’s health within 72 hours of intake, and Violation of §8002(d) - KCSPCA did not “ensure that animals requiring veterinary care are seen by a licensed veterinarian within a reasonable amount of time based on the condition of the animal, and that urgent medical care is provided as needed.” It should be noted that the investigators’ report provided no veterinary records or documentation of Neo's veterinary evaluation despite these items being requested in the original complaint submitted to the Department of Agriculture on June 2, 5. Violation of §8004(b)(2 and 3) KCSPCA euthanized Neo despite having available space for him. This complaint was ignored by the investigators. Instead, investigators claimed "the decision was made to humanely euthanize ‘Neo’ due to his poor physical condition,” No veterinary documentation was provided to back up this claim, 6. Violation of §8004(c) KCSPCA euthanized Neo without the determination of a licensed veterinarian. ‘This complaint was ignored by the investigators. ‘This should have been the crux of the investigation. In the original complaint against KCPSCA. submitted on June 2, Canine Nation made the following statement and will emphasize it again. “There have been discrepancies and contradictions regarding the Kent County SPCA's reason for ‘euthanizing Neo. While Section 8004(c) allows “an animal may be euthanized immediately if necessary to alleviate undue suffering’, the fact that Neo was kept alive for 5 days indicates that no such undue suffering existed, unless it can be proven by veterinary records that Neo had received critical care continuously for § days. Either the Kent County SPCA kept a suffering animal alive for § days, or the Kent County SPCA euthanized an animal who was not in immediate distress.” It must also be noted that §8004(c) requires that 'The determination of whether euthanasia is necessary ... shall be made by a licensed veterinarian | again request full veterinary documentation for the § days that Neo was kept at KCSPCA. Included should be the name of the attending veterinarian who made the decision to euthanize Neo and who performed the euthanasia,7. Violation of §8004(d) and §8007 KCSPCA did not follow proper euthanasia procedures and/or did not maintain records. This complaint was ignored by the investigators. Given the growing list of discrepancies in KCSPCA's story, Canine Nation would lke all veterinary records to be made known regarding Neo's initial evaluation on April 20, his veterinary care April 20-25 and the exact procedure by which he was euthanized on April 25 and whether it was performed by a licensed veterinarian or nationally certified euthanasia technician in a manner consistent with §8004(d). It should be noted, according to §8006, that a violation of §8004(d) "Euthanasia Method and Procedure" is a class A misdemeanor punishable under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court If veterinary records cannot be produced by KCSPCA, then KCSPCA js in violation of §8007 Record Keeping and Reporting, Summary Canine Nation is submitting a formal request for a new investigation into the death of Neo. The investigation must be carried out by persons who are free from personal bias and have no personal or business associations with Murrey Goldthwaite, KCSPCA, its employees or board members. The investigation must examine the following 9 possible violations of Title 3 Chapter ‘80, and the report must contain documentation to validate the findings. 4. Violation of §8003(c)(3) KCSPCA made no attempt to contact Neo's known owners. 2. Violation of §8003(c)(2) KCSPCA did not post Neo on their lost animal page. 3. Violation of §8003(d) KCSPCA did not properly maintain a database of rescue organizations. 4, Violation of §8004(b)(5) KCSPCA euthanized Neo without first contacting the rescue organizations. 5. Violation of §8004(b)(2 and 3) KCSPCA euthanized Neo despite having available space for him. 6. Violation of §8004(c) KCSPCA euthanized Neo without the determination of a licensed veterinarian. 7. Violation of §8004(d) and §8007 KCSPCA did not follow proper euthanasia procedures andlor did not maintain records. 8. Violation of §8002(c) KCSPCA did not properly evaluate Neo's health within 72 hours of intake. 9. Violation of §8002(4) KCSPCA did not provide necessary, urgent medical care by a licensed veterinarian.Kent County SPCA / Canine Nation (Neo) Page 1 of 6 Delaware Department of Agriculture Shelter Complaints - Investigation Form TITLES CHAPTER 80. ANIMALS HELD IN SHELTER Initial Contact: 15/20/2041 - Jennifer Ranji of the Governor's Office was contacted by Jay Hans of Canine Nation regarding conflicting reports that a dog named *Neo/Brownie" ~ microchip #985121008242803 was euthanized, or was possibly stil alive and shown on the Kent County SPCA stray listings as Shelter ID #250560. The case was forwarded to Department of Agriculture on that same date by Ms, Ranji and iniial contact was made by writer in phone call to J. Hans of Canine Nation, Multiple complaints made by J. Hans against Kent County SPCA are listed in this docurient below in the order ofthe formal complaint letter dated 6/1/11 provided by J. Hans. Complainant ~ Jay C; Hans / Canine Nation Shelter Complaint Against - Kent County SPCA (KCSPCA) Investigator/Writer — Lisa Tanielian Supervisor ~ Heather Hirst, DVM MS Background Information: Dog "Neo" was transferred from Kent County SPCA to Canine Nation on 3/11/11, Per Jay Hans of Canine Nation, he transported ’Neo” to Kaylyan Daniels on that date. When questioned, Ms, Daniels claimed to Kent County SPCA that the dog was under her daughter's care when the dog was lost/stolen on 4/16/11. Writer has contacted and verified no report af this dog belng lost or stolen was ever made with any of the $ major shelters in New Castle County (Delaware SPCA, Delaware Humane, Faithful Friends) or with Kent County SPCA. “The first report ofthe dog "Neo" being stolen/ost did not occur until 8/20/14, and thatwas due to the incorrect belief that another dog (identified as #250568 — an intact male without a microchip) Isted on the Kent County SPCA stray list was the dag "Neo*. On 5/20/11, as a resutt of inquiring about dog #250568, the complainant became aware that 'Neo" had been euthanized after being picked up in poor condition in the city of Wilmington 2 month earlier on 4/20. Information From Delaware SPCA Animal Control Officer Report On 4/20/11 at 14:07, "Neo" was picked up by Delaware SPCA at Taylor & Bennett Streets in Wilmington, DE. ‘The officer secured dog, then transported the dog to the Delaware SPCA shelter In Stanton. The dog was impounded according to DE SPCA policy and procedure. The officer noted in report that the dog's condition was “emaciated, with multipfe wounds of unknown origin, possible bait dog’. Officer scanned for microchip and noted “Microchip scan proved positive — chip #985121005242803". O'ficar contacted Home Again and was advised that the chip went back to KESPCA. Delaware SPCA then made arrangements with KCSPCA to “pick up the dog since it was their adopt’. writer has contacted Kaylynn Daniels on multiple occasions (5/26, 5/27, 6/8). Voicemail messages have been left, ut no response received. Kent County SPCA officers have met with her on 2 occasions. She claims that she was out of town when the dogs were lost/stolen on 4/16/11 and she claims to have adopted the animal contrary to Mr. Hans’ claim that che was fostering. Writer requested foster agreement from J. Hans by eral on 6/3/14, but no agreement between Ms, Daniels and Canine Nation has been produced to date.Kent County SPCA / Canine Nation (Neo) Page 2 of 6 Violation of DE Code, Title 3, Ch.80? NO Section, subpart of Chapter 80 in question; 8003(c)(3) § 8003. Animal adoption, recovery, and rehabilitation. (€) Animal recovery. ~ {8) Ifa possible owner is Identified, the animal shelter shall make every reasonable attempt to ‘eunite the animal with its owner. Upon the owner's or caretaker's initiative of recovery procedures, the animal shelter shall retain custody of the animal for a 5-day period to allow for ‘completion af the recovery process. The owner or custodian of the animal may be held reisponsible for reasonable housing and boarding costs once the owner or custodian has bean ‘olfied of the animal's location, provided that the owner or custodian has been advised of such ‘costs prior to the costs being Incurred Summary of findings: To establish whether a violation of this section has occurred, it must first be established who the owner is. This statute does not define “Owners", so writer must look at other statutes and case law for guidance. State shia Benne ut of Co o. 100402255 For purposes of Section 8204(a), the term “owner” is defined as any person owning, keeping or ‘harboring 1 or more animals. 3 Del. Code § 8202(m). Ownership can be determined in a number of ways, including through title, {astady, prior assertions of ownership, location ofthe animal, lack of intervention by any other purported owner, ‘and keeping or harboring of the enimal. Smith v. Caldwell, No. Civ. A. 00-05-0857, 2000 WL 33653407 (Del. CCP July 14, 2000). Using the definition in conjunction with the case law as guidance, the writer looked at the following factors: Microchip 10 . Standard procedure at Kent County SPCA is to provide adopters and rescue transfers with Microchip information that allows them to register the microchip in their name. In this case, the microchip registration continued to list Kent County SPCA on 4/20/11 when the animal was picked up as a stray, despite the fact that the dog was transferred on 3/11/11. Mr. Hans acknowledged the importance of the microchip in establishing ownership in his recent television interview with WMOT when he stated "And they are throwing out the window everything that had to do with the microchip. And If thats the case; all the pet owners out there who had their animals microchipped, its worthless." ‘Whiter therefore acknowledges both Kent County SPCA and Mr. Hans’ assertion that the microchip ‘registration is @ part of establishing a claim to ownership. Writer also acknowiedges that the microchip registration standing alone does not always provide a clear ttle to ownership, so other factors were also considered below. tt ‘According to Mr. Haris, the dog was allegedly in the custody of Kaylynn Daniels as a foster caregiver from the date of 3/11/11 until the dog was stoler/last on the weekend of 4/16/11 = 4/17/11, which is the date Kaylynn Daniels stated to Kent County SPCA that the dog was stolen during an interview with Capt. Whipple and Lt Hopper on 5/27/11 Mr. Hans claims that since Kaylyrin Daniels was acting only as a foster caregiver, that he thereby retained tile fo the dog. Ms. Daniels has claimed to Kent County SPCA during thelr folow-up interview of 6/7/11 that she hhad adopted the dog, and that she therefore had tite to the dog. To dale, writer has not recelved a response from Kaylynn Daniels but she staled on Friday, 6/10/11 that she will provide the ownership paperwork to the Kent County SPCA. Ms. Daniels did not provide that information when Kent County officer retumed to her home on 6/10/11. A request was made by writer to Mr. Hans on 6/3/10 for a copy of the foster agreement between Canine Nation and Kaylynn Daniels, but to date, ithas not been provided either.Kent County SPCA / Canine Nation (Neo) Page 3 of 6 Adoption/Transfer Contract Kent County SPCA ‘The adoption/transfer contract that Mr. Hans signed with Kent County SPCA has a section regarding non- compliance that addresses Kent County SPCA's right to superior tite, “It is agreed that KC SPCA retains superior title to said pet for the purpose of assuring the net's well ‘being and humane care in which case it may be taken through claims proceedings.” Whiter noted that on some of the transfer forms to other organizations, the Non-Compliance section heading was circled to highlight that section as pertaining to the transfer. Documentation (trom an unrelated case involving Canine Nation) was provided by Kent County SPCA to the ‘iter with regards to Mr, Hans’ understanding of Canine Nation's right to tite. On March 15, there was an issue with one of Canine Nation's foster caregivers for a cocker spaniel named “Batsta". As partof the investigation into that that matter, the Kent County SPCA hes a transcript of text messages that Mr. Hans had sent to that caregiver, in which Mr. Hans states “Batista stil belongs to the SPCA’. Although not conclusive, thle does appear to acknowledge Mr. Hans understanding of Kent County SPCA's claim to ttle even though the Non-Compliance section was not circled. ack of Intervention ‘As noted above, “assuring the pet's well-being and humane care" is a care requirement of adoptions/transfers for almost any animal shelter or rescue. Inthis case, Mr, Hans/Canine Nation released a dog to the care of Kaylynn Daniels on 3/11/11. While he did intervene during an liiness for the period of 3/21-3/23, it does not appear there was any intervention between Canine Nation and Kaylynn Daniels thereafter until §/20, when Mr, Hans had contact with the caregiver (Daniels) and it was realized the dog "Neo" was no longer in her care. iso noted are the lack of follow up care regarding Neo's illness treated 3/21-3/23/14 «The velerinarian recommended that Neo/Brownie "be isolated from other dogs, ideally in a dog-less foster home unti he fs fully fecovered” due to the fact that he had a contagious respiratory disease. ‘As Ms, Daniels has mentioned, Neo was lost/stolen with other dogs in her care. «The Veterinarian recommended a “recheck evaluation with your regular vaterinarian in 14 days to recheck x-rays on his chest and get 2 more weeks of antibiotics." It has been confirmed that "Neo" di not return to this veterinarian or request any additional antibiotics, per the recommendation. ‘Since the dog was retumed to the foster caregivet and no other receipt of veterinary care has been provided, it appears that this recommendation was also disregarded, although writer cannot say with ‘certainty that Kaylynn Daniels did not follow-up due to her lack of response fo writer's repeated requests for additional information. ‘A lack of Canine Nation's involvement with other foster caregivers after 3/23/11 is also highlighted In a later section ofthis report with regards to Section 6003(¢) Pet ownership also comes with responsibilies, of which the most basic is ensuring thet a pet is provided with food and water. In the case of ‘Nao’, the foster caregiver told an Animal Gontrol Officer the dog was foststolen on 4/16/11. Delaware: SPCA picked up the dog on 4/20/11, and as previously noted, "Neo" was described as "emaciated, with mullipie wounds of unknown origin, possible bail dog”. The veterinarian report at Kent County SPCA listed him as 26 lbs. underweight on 4/20/11, and the pictures provided by Kent County SPCA to the Department of Agriculture confirm those descriptions, Although the origin of the bite wounds stil have not been determined, itis not feasible that tne dog became 26 Ibs underweight in only 4 days (between 4/16 and 4/20). ‘While no one item above necessary establishes ownership, the writer has yet to view any proof that Ms. Daniels or Mir. Hans have met the burden of a valid claim to ownership. Therefore Kent County SPCA has not violated Section 8003(c)(3).Kent County SPCA / Canine Nation (Neo) Page 4 of 6 Violation of DE. Code, Title 3, Ch. 80? NO Section, subpart of Chapter 80 in question: 8003(¢)(2) {§ 8003, Animal adoption, recovery, and rehabilitation, (c) Animal recovery. — (2) Animal shelters shall maintain updated lists of animals reported lost, and attempt to match these lost reports with animals reported found and animals in the shelter, and shall also post all es Sarees tw eng ‘with sufficient detail to allow them to be recognized and claimed by ir owners. Summary of findings: Most importantly, as ownership was discussed in the previous section, Kent County SPCA was owner of the animal, so posting the animal as a stray while in guarded medical condition and while belng under rabies ‘quarantine was not necessary. During the Investigation, the writer contacted the $ major shelters in New Castle County ~ Delaware SPCA, Delaware Humane, and Faithful Friends in addition to Kent County SPCA. The dog *Neo" was never reported missing with any of these 4 shelters by the foster home or by Jay Hans of Canine Nation, and therefore Neo never made it onto a list of lost animals at any shelter. Itis a matter of record in the Delaware SPCA investigation report dated 5/2'/1 ithat a Chester County SPCA investigator spoke to Kaylynn Daniels after that agency became concerned about a number of pitbull, she admitted that she had not been at her residence in 30 days’ and had no knowledge that the dog was no longer in her daughters care. She also stated that her daughter advised her that ‘all of her dogs were stolen’. ‘Athough Neo was not postad'as a stray due the KCSPCA’s ownership, it should be noted that based on statements provided by Ms. Daniels and Mr, Hans, neither party was looking for Neo in April, Ms. Daniels original statement noted in Delaware SPCA report of 5/21/11 said she was away for 30 days and had no knowledge of the dog belng lostistolen, and Mr. Hans statement that he first became aware of Neo's absence on 5/18/11, so. neither party was even aware that Neo was missing and the posting would have likely been in vai. Violation of DE Code, Title 3, Ch. 80? NO Section, subpart of Chapter 80 in question: 8003(4) '§ 8003. Animal adoption, recovery, and rehabilitation. (@) Anitnal shelters shall establish and maintain a registry of organizations willing to accept animals for the purpose of adoption, including breed specific rescues, or to provide the animals with long-term placements. The registry shall include the types and breeds of animals about which the organization wishes to be contacted. Animal shelters shall have the right to inspect the facilities of any adoption organization taking animals from the shelter. ‘Summary of findings: Mr. Hans questions Kent Counly SPCA’s removal of Canine Nation from the “established registyy”. Writer confirmed that Canine Nation was in fact removed from the Kent County SPCA registry in April due to multiple issues that occurred during the first month of Canine Nation “rescuing” dogs from Kent County SPCA ‘© The first issue with Canine Nation involved a Cocker Spaniel named Batista that was transferred from Kent County SPCA. This event resulted in police responding to the caregivers home, animal control ‘also responding, and the dog belng pulled out of the foster home after tne dog was posted to Craiglist for ‘$100. This.case was the subject of 2 articles in the Dover Post newspaper. Newspapers articles, (Craigiist posting, and transcript of text messages that Mr. Hans sent to foster while the drama was ‘unfolding were provided to the writer. + Asa result of the newspaper articles, Jennifer Daly of the Dover Post began to receive inquiries from ‘ther foster families that Canine Nation had placed KCSCPA dogs with in Maryland, Ms. Daly providedKent County SPCA / Canine Nation (Neo) Page 5 of 6 the writer with general information on the issues that thay faced with the dogs and thelr inability to get into contact with Mr. Hans. The fosters claimed that Mr, Hans said that Canine Nation would help them with health-related issues the dogs were known to have, but could not get into contact with him after the dogs were placed in their care. Ms. Daly also tried to contact Mr. Hans on behalf of these fosters to no ‘© One of the fosters, Melanie Smith-Taylor, has also provided 25 email threads that illustrate the issues with not being abie fo get into contact with Mr. Hans. In her case, Mr. Hans placed a 14 year old Husky / Pithuil Mix (Sadie) into her care on 3/16/11. The foster knew that the dog had a “softball size tumor" on her chast and cataracts, which she was willing fo deal with based on Canine Nation's agreement to handle the medical costs. Once she nad the dog, she realized that it had far more health issues than the tumor and cataracts. The vet that Ms. Smith-Taylor took Sadie to on 3/21/11 recommended that the dog be euthanized, The vet did not believe Sadie would lve through the surgery since it was suspected that she had Cushings disease and difficulty breathing which pointed to congestive heart fale. Because she was the foster caregiver, she made a tremendous effort to get in touch with Mr. Hans so that he ‘could make the decision needed. Ms, Smith-Taylor tried in vain to contact Mr, Hans. The dog eventually bit someone and in mid Apel was taken to a local shelter called "BARCS” as a result of the bite. Sadie ‘was euthanized on 4/18/11, BARCS also noted in thelr email of 4/22/14 that they had made “numerous attempts to contact the rescue where Sadie had come from...to na avail” Due to the multiple issues that occurred within a shor time period, the writer believes KCSPCA is well within their rights in the maintenance of the registry to remove Canine Nation. Documentation conceming the issues hes provided adequate justification for removing Canine Nation from their rescue registry. There is nothing in the ‘State law that specifies conditions whereby shelters may remove or add rescue groups. Violation of DE Code, Title 3, Ch. 80? NO. Section, subpart of Chapter 80 in question: 8004(b)(5) {§ 8004, Euthanasia in animal shelters. (b) Animal shelters shall ensure that the following conditions are met before an animal is euthanized (6) Organizations on the registry developed pursuant to § 8003(d) of this tile are not willing to accept the animal; Summary of findings: In this case, Kent County did not contact any of the organizations on the rescue registry. Upon entry to Kent County SPCA, the dog "Neo was seen by 2 veterinarian, wounds scrubbed with topical antiseptic, antibiotic ointment was applied, and he was prescribed antibiotics for 10 days. Accepting shelters are not required under Section 8004(b)_5) fo list an animal on the rescue registry while the animats health condition is still being evaluated, Because of his wounds, he was placed under rabies quarantine. This precludes and posting to the registries, ‘On April 25, the laboratory technician went to obtain a fecal sample to test for parvo, which tured out to be negative, At this time it was determined that dog was lethargic, had "bloody tarry stool" and ongoing wound infection. it was decided that based on his poor physical condition and the rabies quarantine required due to the wounds of unknown origin that the humane decision was euthanasia According to state law, 8004 (c} Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter to the contrary, an ‘animal may be euthanized immediately if necessary to alleviate undue suffering or to protect shelter staff andior other sheltered animals from an animal's severe aggression or contagious deadly health condition. The determination of whether euthanasia is necessary pursuant to this subsection shall be made by a licensed veterinarian or, in cases of extreme emergency occurring after regular business hours In clreumstances under which a ficensed veterinarian is not available, by other appropriately trained staf. As referenced under Section 8004(c), Neo was in poor condition end even though officers continue to investigate what happened fo Neo, it was not a sufficient reason to force the dog to continue sufferingKent County SPCA / Canine Nation (Neo) Page 6 of 6 Violation of DE Code, Title 3, Ch. 80? NO Section, subpart of Chapter 80 in question: 8004(b)(2) § 6004, Euthanasia in animal shelters, (©) Animal shelters shall ensure that the following conditions are met before an animal is euthanized: (2) There are. no empty cages, kennels, or other living environments in the shelter that are suitable for the animal, ‘Summary of findings: As listed jn the previous section, the decision was made to humanely euthanize "Neo" due his poor physical condition, Since he was euthanized to “alleviate undue suffering’, Section 8004(c) was met and thereby overrides this requirement.