Funding for enforcement of animal neglect laws – particularly who should bear the cost – was a topic of discussion at the county board of supervisors’ meeting May 11.
Linn Price, director of Animal Welfare and Education (APE) Charity and a licensed veterinary technician, told the supervisors during the open forum that she had been contacted two weeks ago by the animal cruelty investigator for the Animal Rescue League of Iowa. He asked for Price’s help in investigating a complaint the ARL had received of animal neglect at a residence in Churdan.
The complaint stated that cats – too many to count – live in filth with feces and urine everywhere. “This house and these animals are a major concern for both their health and the health of the community. If any of these animals would happen to get loose in the community, who knows what will happen to anyone who comes in contact with them,” the complaint stated.
Price spoke with sheriff Steve Haupert about the situation. The residence and pet owner is well known by both Price and Haupert. Animals have been removed from the residence twice before. In the fall of 2011, 16 dogs were seized under warrant and were found to be neglected.
In that case, the county paid more than $7,000 for veterinary and boarding expenses for the dogs. A judgment was entered against the pet owner; only $200 has been paid. Because the pet owner does not own property, the county cannot put a lien against the property to claim the money.
Price reported that Haupert told her May 1 that he is hesitant to pursue animal neglect cases in Greene County because of the cost.
“The question is, ‘how can we have our LEC enforce the laws if they feel there is no funding?’ Do we want to continue to have animal abusers in our growing county, or are we going to find the funds to correct this situation?” Price said.
“Our law enforcement needs the funds to be able to do something with this case and with other cases,” she continued.
“There’s a fine line here between her [the pet owner] right to privacy… I think we’re putting the animal concern over her concern,” Haupert answered.
Board chair John Muir questioned if this particular case is an animal health issue or a human health question.
Haupert said he didn’t know.
Haupert said in the 2011 case the owner was running a puppy mill. “This is different. These are private, in home animals not for sale. Where do you draw the line where you go in and make a case for animal safety over her welfare?”
Supervisor Guy Richardson suggested that the city of Churdan should carry part of the cost.
Haupert said he is willing to investigate the case and any other cases, “but it often comes back right on your lap. It costs the taxpayer.” He suggested that animal welfare groups help cover the costs incurred. (In the 2011 case, $6,000 of the care for the seized animals was paid to an out-of-county vet clinic. P.A.W.S. received about $1,000; A.P.E. did not submit costs for reimbursement.)
Haupert said he had not yet gone to Churdan to check the situation, but that he would do that soon. He said he has talked with an IDALS investigator and said he was willing to help, but is very busy now with bird flu.
The supervisors told Price they would “look into it.” “We’ll see where our latitude lets us legally interact with this.”
In further discussion at the end of the meeting, the supervisors talked again about cities carrying some of the cost of animal cases. Haupert said the county ends up covering much of the cost on dog bite cases. In the last couple of years, the county has paid several thousand dollars for quarantine and rabies testing after dog bites that has not been able to be collected from the dog owners.
He said that with the current 28E agreements pertaining to law enforcement, the cities pay an amount based on population. The sheriff’s office can bill extra for involvement in civil or criminal procedures, “but I never have because the cities are strapped, too. We just always take it upon ourselves that if we have time we do that,” Haupert said.
Haupert suggested that as discussion of a new animal shelter to serve the entire county continues, towns other than Jefferson should be asked to contribute to the expense.
