Humane Society Sued By Owner Over Spaying

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...03Oct30_2.html


Humane Society Sued By Owner Over Spaying

By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2003; Page B03


Sunday Daskalea doesn't hesitate to explain why she purchased her dog, Ameera,
for $2,500: She intended to breed the rare Argentine dogo and sell the puppies.





When neighbors in her Glover Park apartment building started complaining about
the 75-pound, 13-month-old dog, Daskalea decided in May 2002 to have a friend
house the dog, and she placed Ameera in a car for several hours while waiting
for the friend to pick up the dog. Later in the day, Daskalea said, she heard
her car alarm go off and looked out her building to see an animal control
officer from the Washington Humane Society removing Ameera.

So began a month-long process during which, Daskalea said, she was denied
ownership until she moved out of the apartment and bought a boat, where she
would be able to house the dog. By then, Ameera had been spayed.

"That tore me up. It really did," Daskalea, now 34, said recently. "I banged my
head and cried so much and collapsed on the floor."

Now living in North Carolina with Ameera and three other dogs, Daskalea filed
suit in D.C. Superior Court this month alleging that the Washington Humane
Society violated her rights.

The Humane Society, which operated the D.C. animal shelter for 20 years until
its contract expired last month, is negotiating with the city for a new
contract.

A statute gives the Humane Society the authority to seize animals under D.C.
anti-cruelty laws. Officials declined to comment about specifics of Daskalea's
case, but they pointed out that the dog had been left in a car on a warm day.

"If an animal appears to be in danger, the Humane Society's law enforcement
side will take that animal into custody," spokesman Andrew Weinstein said.

The Argentine dogo combines the traits of a number of hunting breeds and was
originally bred to hunt large game, such as wild boar and cougars, in
Argentina.

The case illustrates the challenges that animal control officers face in
balancing the rights of pet owners with the protection of animals. In general,
animal protection laws across the country have gotten stricter in recent years,
said Betsy McFarland, program manager for the Humane Society of the United
States, which is not connected to the Washington Humane Society.

"We think strong protection laws help people become better owners," she said.
But "we are careful to look at any law as fair and reasonable."

Paul Zukerberg, an attorney for Daskalea, thinks the D.C. laws are
unreasonable. The Humane Society makes arbitrary decisions and has no
independent government oversight, he said.

"She went through a nightmare process," Zukerberg said of his client. "You have
to grovel to get your dog back. . . . They can't be judge and jury."

The incident in May 2002 was Daskalea's second run-in with the Humane Society.
Both stemmed from complaints that she was housing a pet in violation of
apartment rules and had left the dog in the car.

During the most recent incident, Daskalea said, her friend Gagik Vartanian was
coming to get the dog. When Vartanian was delayed, Daskalea asked her boyfriend
to walk Ameera and give her water.



After Ameera was taken by the Humane Society, Daskalea said, she attempted to
regain custody, including sending Vartanian to get the dog. Vartanian, who
lives in Northern Virginia, said officials told him that "if they gave me the
dog, I would give it right back to her. I said, 'If you care about the dog that
much, come out to my house every week on random checks.' But they said no."

Weinstein said that Daskalea "lived in a place that did not allow dogs, and
odds are the dog will end up in the car again. There's no way we will return
any animal to a place that's not safe."

A month passed before Daskalea got the dog back -- after she bought a $61,000
boat.

A dog that is unclaimed for 20 days becomes the property of the Humane Society.
However, society officials said, they will not sterilize an animal if the owner
objects.

Daskalea said she "absolutely did not" agree to having Ameera spayed. Vartanian
said that "1,000 percent she would not do that. She got the dog to breed."

Weinstein is not apologizing.

"A lot of owners get upset when pets are taken from them," he said. "But this
sounds like a clear-cut case. She left the dog in her car."

"Ichydog" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...03Oct30_2.html


Humane Society Sued By Owner Over Spaying

By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2003; Page B03


Sunday Daskalea doesn't hesitate to explain why she purchased her dog,
Ameera,
for $2,500: She intended to breed the rare Argentine dogo and sell the
puppies.

snip

Since the owner admitted she purchased the dog "purely" for breeding
purposes, obviously was not even living in a situation which would have been
appropriate for raising a litter of large breed puppies and then left the
dog in a car for several hours, then it seems to me that the Humane Society
did a good job of saving yet another dog from becoming a breeding machine
for $$$
EGD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003

"EGD" wrote in message .. .
"Ichydog" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...03Oct30_2.html


Humane Society Sued By Owner Over Spaying

By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2003; Page B03


Sunday Daskalea doesn't hesitate to explain why she purchased her dog,
Ameera,
for $2,500: She intended to breed the rare Argentine dogo and sell the
puppies.

snip

Since the owner admitted she purchased the dog "purely" for breeding
purposes, obviously was not even living in a situation which would have been
appropriate for raising a litter of large breed puppies and then left the
dog in a car for several hours, then it seems to me that the Humane Society
did a good job of saving yet another dog from becoming a breeding machine
for $$$
EGD


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003


I don't think the question is whether the dog should or shouldn't have
been bred or should or shouldn't have been spayed. Although I agree it
should have not been bred by her because she didn't have the proper
facility and would be breeding for the wrong reason.

The true question is whether the Humane Society had any right to spay
the her dog. And i would have to say NO. They said they spay them
after 20 days of not being reclaimed, and won't spay a dog if the
owner objects but it seems they did it anyway. She wasn't intending on
keeping the dog at her place any longer but they still wouldn't
release the dog to her friend who would be keeping it at a suitable
location. These people violated her rights and they do it all the
time. The same way they do illegal search and seziere. Its one thing
to stop animal cruelty and take dogs in danger, but there are numorous
cases where they take dogs without cause and also personal belonging
PCs, Photos anything. They have NO right and are violating others
rights. I would sue too, they should be replacing the dog. It would
have been even more devasting if the dog had been put down, some
places put large breeds of this down without giving owners time to
reclaim the dog. What if she had the proper place to keep the dog and
it some how excaped and was then spayed or put down, that is just
wrong, but it happens anyway. The only reason they do what they do is
because most of the time people let them. I refuse to let some one
unlawful walk all over me.

"Ichydog" wrote in message
...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...03Oct30_2.html


Humane Society Sued By Owner Over Spaying

By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 31, 2003; Page B03


Sunday Daskalea doesn't hesitate to explain why she purchased her dog,
Ameera,
for $2,500: She intended to breed the rare Argentine dogo and sell the
puppies.





When neighbors in her Glover Park apartment building started complaining
about
the 75-pound, 13-month-old dog, Daskalea decided in May 2002 to have a
friend
house the dog, and she placed Ameera in a car for several hours while
waiting
for the friend to pick up the dog. Later in the day, Daskalea said, she
heard
her car alarm go off and looked out her building to see an animal control
officer from the Washington Humane Society removing Ameera.


I think if she left her dog in the vehicle, unsupervised, for any length of
time AND this isn't the first time it has happened, that she should not have
been given her dog back, period. Which would make the dog a rescue dog and
should accordingly be spayed or neutered. The only failures I see here are
on the part of the owner, and on the Humane Society for returning a dog to a
negligent owner.

Robin

(CPit_Dogs) wrote in message . com...

The true question is whether the Humane Society had any right to spay
the her dog. And i would have to say NO.

On the basis of what information? I don't know the local laws in DC,
but you clearly don't either. What matters are the laws on abandoned
property and any superceding laws governing animal cruelty and shelter
hold periods. In CA, ownership of that dog would have gone to the
shelter after one week, making it perfectly legal to spay her. The
dog could not be returned to the owner because she could not be
legally housed, and the shelter cannot legally release the dog to a
third party. Given the limited facts in the article, it sounds as it
the HS had grounds to seize the dog and not allow the owner to reclaim
her without some changes made in the situation, if at all. The only
unknown factors are if the dog could have been returned to the owner
at all, and what the time limits were. I suspect this suit is going
nowhere because the HS was the legal owner of the dog at the time she
was spayed.

Lynn K.

snip



When neighbors in her Glover Park apartment building started complaining
about
the 75-pound, 13-month-old dog, Daskalea decided in May 2002 to have a
friend
house the dog, and she placed Ameera in a car for several hours while
waiting
for the friend to pick up the dog. Later in the day, Daskalea said, she
heard
her car alarm go off and looked out her building to see an animal control
officer from the Washington Humane Society removing Ameera.


I think if she left her dog in the vehicle, unsupervised, for any length of
time AND this isn't the first time it has happened, that she should not have
been given her dog back, period. Which would make the dog a rescue dog and
should accordingly be spayed or neutered. The only failures I see here are
on the part of the owner, and on the Humane Society for returning a dog to a
negligent owner.

Robin

Whoa...

I know there is a diminished expectation of privacy in vehicle's. But
exactly where were the exigent circumstances justifying illegally
entering this guy's car? Was the dog asphyxiating?

Regardless of how I feel about dogs, I know the law views them as
property. How and when did they give this guy a chance to cure
whatever deficiencies were present in the home setting so that he
could get his dog back? And just what was the threat to public safety
that they prevented by spaying this dog?

(K Johnson) wrote in message news:
I know there is a diminished expectation of privacy in vehicle's. But
exactly where were the exigent circumstances justifying illegally
entering this guy's car? Was the dog asphyxiating?

On most days in D.C., yes, the dog probably was in danger of
overheating. There is nothing at all illegal about breaking into a
vehicle containing a dog in physical distress.

How and when did they give this guy a chance to cure
whatever deficiencies were present in the home setting so that he
could get his dog back?

No dogs permitted per the lease is not a correctable deficiency and
they are under no obligation to give another chance. Particularly
with multiple complaints and a safety seizure.

Lynn K.