As a senior, set to graduate this December, I am a little disappointed in both sides. I think they all may have forgotten how challenging it is for their students. Most of us work full-time at low paying jobs, and do our best to balance work, family, education, and our finances. This semester, the cost of tuition, fees, and parking increased; and my texts will cost around $500. I work full time while attending classes and still need to take out student loans to pay for my education. I just received a notice from YSU that my loans will be delayed due to the possible strike. Like many students, I rely on those loans to make it through the school year. The $13,000 I earn this year is a far cry from the salaries of any of the involved parties. While they argue about benefits and pay raises, I have to find a way to pay my bills and feed my family. I hope everyone involved keeps that in mind the next time they sit down for negotiations.
As others have stated, I am disgusted by the euthanasia of the Cat Ladies' cats. After four weeks of waiting for answers, I have tried to focus on the bigger picture - what can be done to stop something like this from happening in the future? Animal Charity and its humane officers still have the ability to go out and do the same thing to another shelter. They could walk into Angels for Animals, Alchemy Acres, For the Dogs, or any other rescue, seize their animals and euthanize them. If they possess such an abundance of evidence against the Cat Ladies, why have there been no charges after a month?
By Ohio Revised Code, if the Cat Ladies are found innocent, Animal Charity is only responsible for paying them "an amount determined by the court to be equal to the reasonable market value of the companion animal at the time that it was impounded plus statutory interest" (ORC 959.132 (G)). That is the only penalty for wrongly seizing and euthanizing an animal? How does the court determine “fair market value” for someone’s pet? Another section states, "A companion animal that is seized under this section may be humanely destroyed immediately or at any time during impoundment if a licensed veterinarian determines it to be necessary because the companion animal is suffering" (ORC 959.132 (D)). So, legally speaking, humane agents could seize anyone's pet, destroy it immediately if their veterinarians decided it was suffering, and have extremely limited accountability. Who defines 'suffering'? My dog had a growth spurt when she was 18 months, and was prescribed anti-inflammatory medication to help with the pain. Does this qualify as suffering? Would she have been put down?
I am fully supportive of Ohio's attempt to prosecute true animal cruelty; however, the laws are vague and one-sided, offering little protection to anyone wrongly accused of neglect or cruelty. The laws are written in such a way that the accused is presumed guilty from the beginning. Ironically, I could only find laws regarding the training and appointment of humane officers. No laws discuss oversight or accountability. I was not surprised, however, by ORC 959.132 (B), which contains the clause, “No officer or impounding agency shall impound a companion animal that is the subject of an offense in a shelter owned, operated, or controlled by a board of county commissioners pursuant to Chapter 955.” The clause grants county dog pounds immunity from humane agent seizures (unless the board approves the seizure of its own animals), while other shelters are left vulnerable. Animal Charity and its officers have abused their power and status as a 501(c)(3) on numerous occasions and something must be done to prevent this from happening again.
Animal Charity's 2008 form 990 shows 28 paid employees and 0 volunteers.
When your agency claims to be a "law enforcement agency" that has the authority to investigate and shut down other 501(c)(3) nonprofits, how can your paid employees be impartial? No policy regarding conflict of interest? No policy regarding whitleblowers?
Look at the situation this way: If I owned a restaurant in Youngstown and the county's only health inspectors were on my payroll and had the power to close any other restaurant, wouldn't that be considered a severe conflict of interest?
Again, where is the oversight? Where is the regulation? To whom is this agency accountable?
John Owen is listed on the 990 as Nikole's husband. He was their staff veterinarian for three years and the couple made over $100,000 each year. It is also interesting that the 2008 return shows that Animal Charity does not have a conflict of interest policy or a whistleblower policy.
I have a great deal of respect for humane officers and the difficult work they do. That being said, I am disturbed by Animal Charity's raid at the Cat Ladies Society. Over the past few years, Animal Charity seems to have deviated more and more from it's original purpose and in many instances has bent or even broken the law, justifyig its actions by implying that the ends justify the means. Their own website states, "...but be reminded that we are a law enforcement agency...". I hate to split hairs, but no they are not. They are a 501(c)(3) non-profit agency that employs humane agents.
Additionally, Animal Charity seems more interested in making headlines than following some of their own purposes as stated in their state-filed amendment to their articles of incorporation in 1978 (which were retained in their latest filing in 1985):
"7. To cooperate with any persons or organization in seeing that humane principles, care, treatment, and measures are applied and used at all times to the custody of and in dealing with animals."
According to Animal Charity, they had visited the CLS at their old location in June, made recommendations for improvement, and returned a few weeks later. At that time, no animals were seized, nor was there any outcry of animal cruelty toward the Cat Ladies. Two months and a new shelter later, the Cat Ladies are suddenly guilty of animal neglect and cruelty? By Nikole Baringer's statement to the Vindy, "...the situation was a bit better. At that time, the shelter was getting ready to move to its new location..." (quoted from article). So, Animal Charity visited the old shelter and saw the conditions in person, but were not compelled to take any action. They only raided the Cat Ladies after they received e-mail complaints? Something doesn't seem right with that logic.
Sadly, I only see a whole lot of bullying and little or no cooperation. Wouldn't it be in the animals' best interests to work with the Cat Ladies to improve the situation? Wouldn't that have satisfied Animal Charity's purposes of education and the provision of humane care and treatment for animals? If Animal Charity had spent the past few months working with the Cat Ladies instead of working against them, this story could have been much more positive for both organizations.
It's also funny that Animal Charity, in its quest to "rescue" these animals, is going to have them examined by a veterinarian to "determine a course of action." What exactly does that mean?
The ONLY course of action for the Cat Ladies was to rehabilitate the sick, injured, and 'defective' cats that no one else wanted. The Cat Ladies have adopted out cats missing legs and eyes, cats that are paralyzed, and cats that are blind. They have rescued kittens from the turning lane on RT224 in Boardman. They have bottle fed dozens of day-old kittens thrown away in dumpsters.
If Animal Charities' possible "course of action" includes euthanizing even one of these cats, how is that rescuing them?
So let me see if I have this right. In June, Animal Charity began its investigation. They told the Cat Ladies to "clean up the shelter". A few weeks later, they returned and the Cat Ladies had improved the situation. Since Animal Charity did not seize the animals on that second visit, I think it's safe to assume that the shelter's standards met Animal Charity's criteria to allow it to continue taking care of the cats. After two months (during which no additional follow-up visits were made), Animal Charity suddenly has new evidence and raids the new facility? Something does not add up.
I especially love Baringer's last statement, “I don’t know who their funding comes from, but instead of putting that money into the facility, they should have used it to care for the animals." Isn't moving to a newer shelter improving the care of the animals? Isn't that what Animal Charity told them to do (clean up the facility)?
How can Animal Charity seize the cats based on their previous living conditions when the conditions were obviously satisfactory at the time?
In terms of operating expenses, Noah's Lost Ark is the same as a zoo, yet receives no government assistance like the Cleveland or Pittsburgh zoos. According to their website, they use 550+ lbs of meat, 1000 lbs of hay, 150 lbs of produce, 275 lbs of grain, and 1400 lbs of straw - per day. The bill to run the sanctuary for just one day is astronomical. Your flippant comment that "They have to feed the animals and maintain the park regardless of my attendance and I feel they charge way to much for what they have to offer," is extremely misguided. The sanctuary does not exist for your entertainment. Instead, you and your children are priveleged to have the opportunity to view the exotic animals that live there. Considering the children's admission costs less than the average children's movie ticket or fast-food lunch and goes toward caring for abused and neglected animals, I'd say $5.00 is rather reasonable.
Wow! With 4,596 comments, Stan seems to have an opinion about everything - and most of them are negative! Well, everyone knows what "opinions are like..." As for his comment about the wolf exhibit: There is no good reason to "eliminate" an entire species from their natural environment. It's funny how after wolves were "eliminated" the deer population skyrocketed; and now Ohioans complain about deer overpopulation. Does anyone else see a pattern?
Financial-aid disbursements delayed at YSU for fall semester
As a senior, set to graduate this December, I am a little disappointed in both sides. I think they all may have forgotten how challenging it is for their students. Most of us work full-time at low paying jobs, and do our best to balance work, family, education, and our finances. This semester, the cost of tuition, fees, and parking increased; and my texts will cost around $500. I work full time while attending classes and still need to take out student loans to pay for my education. I just received a notice from YSU that my loans will be delayed due to the possible strike. Like many students, I rely on those loans to make it through the school year. The $13,000 I earn this year is a far cry from the salaries of any of the involved parties. While they argue about benefits and pay raises, I have to find a way to pay my bills and feed my family. I hope everyone involved keeps that in mind the next time they sit down for negotiations.
August 19, 2011 at 5:56 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Man’s inhumanity to pets
As others have stated, I am disgusted by the euthanasia of the Cat Ladies' cats. After four weeks of waiting for answers, I have tried to focus on the bigger picture - what can be done to stop something like this from happening in the future? Animal Charity and its humane officers still have the ability to go out and do the same thing to another shelter. They could walk into Angels for Animals, Alchemy Acres, For the Dogs, or any other rescue, seize their animals and euthanize them. If they possess such an abundance of evidence against the Cat Ladies, why have there been no charges after a month?
By Ohio Revised Code, if the Cat Ladies are found innocent, Animal Charity is only responsible for paying them "an amount determined by the court to be equal to the reasonable market value of the companion animal at the time that it was impounded plus statutory interest" (ORC 959.132 (G)). That is the only penalty for wrongly seizing and euthanizing an animal? How does the court determine “fair market value” for someone’s pet? Another section states, "A companion animal that is seized under this section may be humanely destroyed immediately or at any time during impoundment if a licensed veterinarian determines it to be necessary because the companion animal is suffering" (ORC 959.132 (D)). So, legally speaking, humane agents could seize anyone's pet, destroy it immediately if their veterinarians decided it was suffering, and have extremely limited accountability. Who defines 'suffering'? My dog had a growth spurt when she was 18 months, and was prescribed anti-inflammatory medication to help with the pain. Does this qualify as suffering? Would she have been put down?
I am fully supportive of Ohio's attempt to prosecute true animal cruelty; however, the laws are vague and one-sided, offering little protection to anyone wrongly accused of neglect or cruelty. The laws are written in such a way that the accused is presumed guilty from the beginning. Ironically, I could only find laws regarding the training and appointment of humane officers. No laws discuss oversight or accountability. I was not surprised, however, by ORC 959.132 (B), which contains the clause, “No officer or impounding agency shall impound a companion animal that is the subject of an offense in a shelter owned, operated, or controlled by a board of county commissioners pursuant to Chapter 955.” The clause grants county dog pounds immunity from humane agent seizures (unless the board approves the seizure of its own animals), while other shelters are left vulnerable. Animal Charity and its officers have abused their power and status as a 501(c)(3) on numerous occasions and something must be done to prevent this from happening again.
October 15, 2010 at 7:09 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Cat shelter reopening; charges still possible
Another interesting fact:
Animal Charity's 2008 form 990 shows 28 paid employees and 0 volunteers.
When your agency claims to be a "law enforcement agency" that has the authority to investigate and shut down other 501(c)(3) nonprofits, how can your paid employees be impartial? No policy regarding conflict of interest? No policy regarding whitleblowers?
Look at the situation this way: If I owned a restaurant in Youngstown and the county's only health inspectors were on my payroll and had the power to close any other restaurant, wouldn't that be considered a severe conflict of interest?
Again, where is the oversight? Where is the regulation? To whom is this agency accountable?
September 25, 2010 at 1:01 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Cat shelter reopening; charges still possible
John Owen is listed on the 990 as Nikole's husband. He was their staff veterinarian for three years and the couple made over $100,000 each year. It is also interesting that the 2008 return shows that Animal Charity does not have a conflict of interest policy or a whistleblower policy.
September 25, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. permalink suggest removal
This animal welfare case appears to have staying power
I have a great deal of respect for humane officers and the difficult work they do. That being said, I am disturbed by Animal Charity's raid at the Cat Ladies Society. Over the past few years, Animal Charity seems to have deviated more and more from it's original purpose and in many instances has bent or even broken the law, justifyig its actions by implying that the ends justify the means. Their own website states, "...but be reminded that we are a law enforcement agency...". I hate to split hairs, but no they are not. They are a 501(c)(3) non-profit agency that employs humane agents.
Additionally, Animal Charity seems more interested in making headlines than following some of their own purposes as stated in their state-filed amendment to their articles of incorporation in 1978 (which were retained in their latest filing in 1985):
"7. To cooperate with any persons or organization in seeing that humane principles, care, treatment, and measures are applied and used at all times to the custody of and in dealing with animals."
According to Animal Charity, they had visited the CLS at their old location in June, made recommendations for improvement, and returned a few weeks later. At that time, no animals were seized, nor was there any outcry of animal cruelty toward the Cat Ladies. Two months and a new shelter later, the Cat Ladies are suddenly guilty of animal neglect and cruelty? By Nikole Baringer's statement to the Vindy, "...the situation was a bit better. At that time, the shelter was getting ready to move to its new location..." (quoted from article). So, Animal Charity visited the old shelter and saw the conditions in person, but were not compelled to take any action. They only raided the Cat Ladies after they received e-mail complaints? Something doesn't seem right with that logic.
Sadly, I only see a whole lot of bullying and little or no cooperation. Wouldn't it be in the animals' best interests to work with the Cat Ladies to improve the situation? Wouldn't that have satisfied Animal Charity's purposes of education and the provision of humane care and treatment for animals? If Animal Charity had spent the past few months working with the Cat Ladies instead of working against them, this story could have been much more positive for both organizations.
September 19, 2010 at 10:07 a.m. permalink suggest removal
More than 70 cats taken from Cat Ladies Society
It's also funny that Animal Charity, in its quest to "rescue" these animals, is going to have them examined by a veterinarian to "determine a course of action." What exactly does that mean?
The ONLY course of action for the Cat Ladies was to rehabilitate the sick, injured, and 'defective' cats that no one else wanted. The Cat Ladies have adopted out cats missing legs and eyes, cats that are paralyzed, and cats that are blind. They have rescued kittens from the turning lane on RT224 in Boardman. They have bottle fed dozens of day-old kittens thrown away in dumpsters.
If Animal Charities' possible "course of action" includes euthanizing even one of these cats, how is that rescuing them?
September 16, 2010 at 7:45 a.m. permalink suggest removal
More than 70 cats taken from Cat Ladies Society
So let me see if I have this right. In June, Animal Charity began its investigation. They told the Cat Ladies to "clean up the shelter". A few weeks later, they returned and the Cat Ladies had improved the situation. Since Animal Charity did not seize the animals on that second visit, I think it's safe to assume that the shelter's standards met Animal Charity's criteria to allow it to continue taking care of the cats. After two months (during which no additional follow-up visits were made), Animal Charity suddenly has new evidence and raids the new facility? Something does not add up.
I especially love Baringer's last statement, “I don’t know who their funding comes from, but instead of putting that money into the facility, they should have used it to care for the animals." Isn't moving to a newer shelter improving the care of the animals? Isn't that what Animal Charity told them to do (clean up the facility)?
How can Animal Charity seize the cats based on their previous living conditions when the conditions were obviously satisfactory at the time?
September 16, 2010 at 7:36 a.m. permalink suggest removal
Animal sanctuary opens new habitat
sotired-
In terms of operating expenses, Noah's Lost Ark is the same as a zoo, yet receives no government assistance like the Cleveland or Pittsburgh zoos. According to their website, they use 550+ lbs of meat, 1000 lbs of hay, 150 lbs of produce, 275 lbs of grain, and 1400 lbs of straw - per day. The bill to run the sanctuary for just one day is astronomical. Your flippant comment that "They have to feed the animals and maintain the park regardless of my attendance and I feel they charge way to much for what they have to offer," is extremely misguided. The sanctuary does not exist for your entertainment. Instead, you and your children are priveleged to have the opportunity to view the exotic animals that live there. Considering the children's admission costs less than the average children's movie ticket or fast-food lunch and goes toward caring for abused and neglected animals, I'd say $5.00 is rather reasonable.
July 22, 2010 at 12:48 p.m. permalink suggest removal
Animal sanctuary opens new habitat
Wow! With 4,596 comments, Stan seems to have an opinion about everything - and most of them are negative! Well, everyone knows what "opinions are like..." As for his comment about the wolf exhibit: There is no good reason to "eliminate" an entire species from their natural environment. It's funny how after wolves were "eliminated" the deer population skyrocketed; and now Ohioans complain about deer overpopulation. Does anyone else see a pattern?
July 22, 2010 at 9:41 a.m. permalink suggest removal