SLAPP-HAPPY ZOO MASTERS? By John Sorenson* Do you care about freedom of speech? Are you disturbed by animal suffering? If you answered "yes" to either question, recent events in Niagara Falls should be of concern to you. Marineland, the "theme park" that displays captive marine mammals in Niagara Falls, is attempting to silence criticism of their operations by suing Niagara Action For Animals, a small, non-profit, grass-roots animal protection group. On July 27, 2003 Marineland's high-priced legal team slammed NAFA with notice of a libel suit claiming $250,000 in punitive damages and seeking an injunction that would stop NAFA from publishing any of the statements made against Marineland. The case is based on a letter sent by NAFA to a Niagara Falls car dealership, Autoland Chrysler, politely requesting a meeting so that NAFA could explain their case against the dealership's plan to stage a Christmas party at Marineland. NAFA's position is that no libel was committed since the statements made about conditions at the amusement park are true and Marineland suffered no economic loss since Autoland went ahead with its party. NAFA sees Marineland's legal action as an attempt to use the courts to limit freedom of speech. In the St. Catharines Standard and the Niagara Falls Review (May 27, 2004) John Law of the Osprey News Network quotes NAFA spokesperson Dan Wilson: "We all believe in standing up and speaking out for the animals. NAFA has done just that and now a big corporation is trying to silence us through bankruptcy." This is a tactic that has been widely used by large corporate polluters against environmentalist groups. These tactics have become so prevalent that two professors at the University of Colorado, George Pring and Penelope Canan have coined a term for them: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). They suggest that SLAPPs are not usually intended to reach the courts (where they typically lose) but are designed to silence criticism through legal intimidation. The goal is to limit public debate and to allow corporations to continue their activities without restriction. In his book Green Backlash, Andrew Rowell notes that corporations have launched thousands of SLAPPs, targeting people for attending meetings, signing petitions, reporting violations of pollution laws, writing letters to local newspapers, testifying in public hearings or supporting boycotts. These tactics obviously pose a serious danger to democratic freedoms that we all value, such as the right to express our opinions and to speak out against injustices. SLAPPs have come to Canada, too. For example, in 1990 Ogden Martin company threatened to sue for defamation 52 doctors who expressed concern over the impact of a waste incinerator in Orillia; the Ontario Medical Association passed a resolution defending the doctors for speaking out on behalf of public health and Ogden Martin did not proceed with the charges. Since the majority of SLAPPs are clearly frivolous and obviously designed to intimidate critics rather than to address any real legal issues, activists and their lawyers have started to strike back and the courts seem to be supporting them. In 1991, one activist in Missouri was awarded an $86.5 million judgment against an incinerator company that had wrongfully launched a SLAPP against her. Shell Oil had to pay out $5.2 million for wrongfully suing Raymond Leonardini who had questioned carcinogenity of plastic pipes used by the corporation. The most famous case, of course, is the McLibel Trial in which McDonald's fast food corporation sued a postal worker and a gardener in London (Helen Steel and Dave Morris). The two and a half year case became the longest trial in England. In 1997, the judge ruled that McDonald's 'exploit children' with 'misleading' advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are 'antipathetic' to unionization and pay their workers low wages. Although the judge ruled that the two activists had not proved all their points and should pay damages, they refused to do so and, reeling from the negative publicity, McDonald's did not pursue it. In 1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings against McDonald's concerning heart disease and employment. Due to the publicity surrounding the court case, the Anti-McDonald's campaign became an international movement, resulting in books and a documentary film. Steel and Morris continued their campaign and have taken the British Government to the European Court of Human Rights to defend the public's right to criticize multinationals, claiming British libel laws are unfair. Those who make valid criticisms of powerful corporations should not have to fear retaliation in court. This is one reason why Marineland's efforts to silence NAFA should be of concern to all Canadians, even those who are not distressed about mistreatment of animals. Of course, here the question arises: do the claims made by NAFA have validity? In general, the practices of capturing and displaying marine mammals have been extensively criticized. Dolphins and whales are intelligent, sensitive animals that live within complex societies. Methods of capture are often violent and many animals are accidentally killed in the process or die in transport. Removing individuals from their families and social groups is stressful for the captured individuals as well as for those who manage to escape. Captivity has a radical effect on these animals. In their natural environment they dive deeply and travel vast distances. No tank in an amusement park can duplicate these conditions. As well, these animals navigate their natural world through echolocation, the use of sound waves. In a small tank, this would be maddening. Writing for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society in the U.K.,Vanessa Williams compares this to what a human being would experience if confined to a lifetime in a hall of mirrors. Removed from their rich ecosystem and complex social world, captive dolphins and whales are imprisoned in a miniscule alien environment, bombarded with strange sounds, fed an artificial diet, forced to perform unnatural activities and subjected to the stressful proximity of hordes of tourists. Most live drastically shortened lives. It is impossible to imagine anything remotely attractive or entertaining in all of this. In particular, Marineland has been widely criticized by international animal protection groups. Established in the 1960s, Marineland seems like a relic from a more distant past, with its sad displays of imprisoned animals. Safety and health conditions have been widely criticized and many simply don't survive their captivity. As NAFA stated in their letter to Autoland Chrysler, 23 dolphins and 10 orcas have died at Marineland. Zoocheck Canada's comprehensive 1998 report Distorted Nature: Exposing the Myth of Marineland outlines many of the problems with Marineland. Based on investigations carried out by 13 scientific experts in a variety of disciplines such as aquarium animal husbandry, biology, conservation, ethology, marine mammal science, veterinary science, wildlife rehabilitation and zoology, the report expressed grave concerns about the welfare of animals held at Marineland, substandard public health and safety measures, the negative educational role played by the amusement park and the absence of any valid conservation activities. Zoocheck and other groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare also have criticized Marineland's importation of Russian beluga whales and bottlenose dolphins, after the Canadian government prohibited them from capturing these animals in Canadian waters. Commenting on this in the Whales Alive newsletter in 2000, William Rossiter, President of the Cetacean Society International noted that "many people in the Canadian zoo/aquarium industry and government feel Marineland is an embarrassment" Speaking in the House of Commons on April 2, 2001, MP Libby Davis stated that Canada's lack of policy and regulation on capturing marine mammals had allowed unscrupulous operators to bypass stricter regulations in their own countries and that there was "no question" that Marineland had played a role in this, helping to undermine international protection. Many parents and schools send children to Marineland believing they will learn something about animals and develop an appreciation for nature. These are laudable goals but it seems unlikely they will be met at Marineland. For example, Dr. Naomi A. Rose, marine mammal scientist and coordinator of all marine mammal programs for the Humane Society of the United States describes the dolphin show as "almost devoid of biological information" and notes that the performance "would not meet the minimum professional educational standards required under the (American) Marine Mammal Protection Act." Dr. Rose also found that enclosures for animals did not meet minimum standards for size and noted rust and chipping paint that affected water quality. Similarly, Dr. John Gripper, a veterinarian with over 30 years of international experience, an appointed zoo inspector in the U.K., and Advisory Director of the World Society for the Protection of Animals also found the animal enclosures too small and advised that Marineland "would fail an inspection under the standards of the U.K. Zoo Licensing Act". Other scientists who contributed to the Zoocheck report came to similar conclusions. Clearly, then, the only message that children will derive from a visit to Marineland is that it is ethically acceptable to imprison animals in unacceptable conditions and force them to do pathetic tricks for our entertainment. Marine mammals are not the only animals imprisoned at Marineland. In a 2002 report for the World Society for the Protection of Animals and Zoocheck, Rob Laidlaw described how bears and deer are confined in wholly artificial, featureless environments that provide no stimulation, privacy or shelter and do not allow the animals to exercise their full range of natural behaviour and movement. The bears, normally solitary in their natural environment and sensitive to auditory stimulation, are crowded together directly opposite what Marineland touts as the world's largest steel roller-coaster. Clearly, the case raises important ethical and political questions. Those who are concerned about freedom of speech and civil liberties in general and those who care about animals will be watching the case closely. Public sympathy is more likely to be with a small group of volunteers who care deeply about animal welfare than with a large corporation that looks like it's trying to crush those same volunteers when they speak out against what they see as cruelty and injustice. Certainly, the controversy will raise public awareness of what actually happens inside Marineland and, if the case does proceed to court, a great deal of previously unattainable information will be exposed about Marineland's operations, such as the number and causes of animal deaths and conditions inside the park. In attempting to silence its critics, Marineland may be opening doors on secrets it has tried to hide for years. * John Sorenson is a professor in the Department of Sociology at Brock University in St. Catharines, where he teaches courses on the role of animals in human societies.

Libel Lawsuit Dropped By Marineland
http://www.lawcore.com/legal-information/07-12-06.html
Topic Added July 12th, 2006 -
Marineland has dropped a libel lawsuit against an animal rights group after a three year legal battle. The Canadian company, Marineland, filed the libel lawsuit back in 2003, and as part of the suit had claimed for a quarter of a million dollars in compensation from the animal rights group, Niagara Action for Animals.
In May of this year, Marineland decided to drop the lawsuit, and last week made an official statement confirming this action. Daniel Wilson, the Public Education Director for the animal rights group stated: “We’re happy and relieved the lawsuit is over.”
Marineland filed the lawsuit after the animal rights group sent a letter to a company that was planning to hold a party at the amusement park. In its letter to the Niagara Falls car dealership that was planning the party at Marineland the animal rights group expressed concern over the animals there being kept in captivity.
Following this letter and after learning of its contents, Marineland decided to file a lawsuit against the animal rights group accusing its officials of libel.

Marineland owner pleased libel suit resolved

Thursday, July 20, 2006 - 02:00

Local News - Marineland owner John Holer says he’s pleased to put a three-year legal battle with a local animal rights group behind him. “We are in the business of entertaining residents and guests of the Niagara Region, not in the business of fighting lawsuits,” Holer said Wednesday in response to Marineland of Canada’s decision to drop a $250,000 libel suit against Niagara Action for Animals. The action brought against NAFA in 2003 alleged the organization had attempted to interfere with Marineland’s economic interests by sending letters to various companies considering holding functions at the theme park. The letters, sent in 2001, outlined the NAFA’s concerns over Marineland’s practice of keeping marine mammals in captivity. Holer said he was agreeable to settling the dispute because there had been no reports of similar activity.

ID- 114869

Atlanta Humane Society takes critics to court
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15705Atlanta

By Michelle Taylor
Staff Writer
michelle.taylor@gwinnettdailypost.com

LAWRENCEVILLE— A four-year-long libel lawsuit with the Atlanta Humane Society came to an end for Kathi Mills on Friday.
The Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, citing Mills had made “defamatory statements” regarding AHS and its director, Bill Garrett, against her was thrown out.
“This is not just a victory for me,” said Mills, an animal welfare activist. “This is a victory for anyone who chose to speak out on an issue and a corporation has tried to squash their First Amendment right.”
Following a WSB-TV “whistleblower” investigation that alleged the AHS had grossly inflated adoption statistics, did not investigate cruelty cases and lied in fundraising literature about the kill rate, Mills made comments in a Yahoo chat room on the situation.
Mills said she summarized the report in the members-only chat room for animal rescuers around Atlanta and wrote commentary on the investigation. She said another animal activist forwarded the conversation to the AHS, resulting in the SLAPP suit.
The verdict said because the AHS was contracted by Fulton County government to run the Fulton County Animal Shelter, it was a quasi-governmental agency, and because Garrett is considered a public figure, libel would have to be proven. Because negligence and malicious intent could not be proved, libel could not be proved, thus throwing out the case.
Mills was not and is not affiliated with AHS, nor has she adopted any animals from the organization.
Mills was not the only person served with a SLAPP suit. Barbara Hawkins, a former AHS employee, was also served, and hers was also deemed “moot.”

After bouncing around from court to court for four years, lawsuits filed by the Atlanta Humane Society and its director, Bill Garrett, against two women who criticized the organization, were dismissed by the Georgia Court of Appeals as having no merit. The Appeals Court concluded that the cases should never have gotten past the trial court phase, and that both suits should have been dismissed by the judges in a summary judgement.

It all began in November 2001, when WSB-TV aired a Whistleblower Report critical of the AHS’s management of the Fulton County Animal Shelter. The report claimed that AHS inflated its adoption figures, lied about having a 24 hour pet hospital and pet ambulances, and failed to properly investigate animal cruelty cases. Barbara Harkins, a former AHS employee, appeared on the report and spoke about inconsistencies in the claims made by AHS about the services they offered and the way things actually were.

After watching the report on television, Kathi Mills, a cat rescuer and operator of kittyvillage.com, a website devoted to finding homes for homeless cats, went online to a members-only Yahoo! group chat room for people in the local rescue community. It is a place where they can trade information, advice, news and gossip. Everyone in the room was hot that night after watching the news report.

Members of the rescue community were unhappy with many of the policies of AHS, including their unwillingness to spay or neuter animals before adoption to ensure that they would not reproduce after adoption, and their refusal to scan for microchips or chip animals before adoption. But the big source of bitterness was the way AHS ran the Fulton County Shelter. The biggest complaints were that AHS would not allow animals to be adopted from the shelter, that they would not let other rescue groups take animals out of the shelter in order to find homes for them, and that they killed far too many animals. Their own records showed that of the dogs and cats brought into the shelter and not recovered by the owners, 94% were killed.

In a posting on the chat site, Mills was critical of Atlanta Humane Society, and especially of Bill Garrett, referring to him as “Mr. Kill”, stating that he was “evil”, and in the most inflammatory remark, said that he “was not worthy to lick the dog and cat poop off our shoes.” A bit much, but hardly libel. She also called for the Atlanta animal welfare community to “unite in ending his long and tragic career.”

As it turned out, one member of the group was a mole, or someone who likes to cause trouble, or possibly just someone who seeks favor by sucking up to people with influence. For whatever reason, she forwarded Kathi Mills’s postings to Garrett. Shortly afterward, both Mills and Harkins were notified that they were being sued for libel by both Garrett and the Atlanta Humane Society.

As a journalism major in college, Kathi Mills had learned about the first amendment and libel law. She knew her remarks were not libelous, and she was angry at the idea of being sued. Her first response was to alert the media and make this a public event. She contacted every newspaper and TV news department she could and told her story. Soon the AHS was looking at a lot of people with cameras and answering the kind of questions they weren’t used to hearing. They had picked a fight with someone who knew how to fight back.

Now AHS had a public relations problem. What many people felt was a tactic to intimidate its critics and get them to take back their remarks and apologize had blown up in their faces. Public sentiment leaned toward the two women. Editorials in the Atlanta newspaper urged the AHS to drop the lawsuits, but they would not do so. Maybe they felt they would lose face if they backed out, or maybe they thought they would win. Much like Brer Rabbit in his dispute with the tar baby, it would have been better if they had never thrown that first punch.

Barbara Harkins kept a low profile during the proceedings, but Kathi Mills was going to keep this matter as public as possible. If there was a reporter or TV camera around, she would make herself available for some interesting and pointed comments. When Garrett complained that her remarks had caused a sizable drop in donations to the AHS, she pointed out that it was his own damn fault for making the remarks public. If he had not sued her, no one would have ever heard what she said except the members of the chat room, and it would have been forgotten the next day.

Mills and Harkins both challenged the suits as illegal Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits as they are known. SLAPP suits are usually brought by larger, financially stronger organizations against individuals who oppose or criticize their actions, threatening the opponents with financial ruin if they do not back down. They are usually successful, or were before the state governments began making them illegal. Now, if a lawsuit is determined to be a SLAPP suit, it is supposed to be dismissed.

The case bounced around the court system for far longer than anyone expected, going all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court and back down to the Court of Appeals, with each side, usually the Atlanta Humane Society, appealing any ruling that went against them. Outside of the courtroom, there was a lot going on.

The lawsuits infuriated and galvanized the rescue community and united them on one goal – to get the Atlanta Humane Society out of the Fulton County Animal Shelter. Many of the people involved in animal rescue had talked about the need for this for some time, but now the effort began in earnest. They began to petition the Fulton County Commission with letters, e-mail, petitions, and phone calls. They spoke up at commission meetings, and made sure that the media was made aware of their complaints. Soon the only press the AHS was getting was bad press.

At first the commissioners tried to ignore the issue, but as more and more members of the public became aware and got involved, the commission realized that there was a problem and they would have to deal with it. They decided to put the contract to manage the shelter up for competitive bid, and established new rules and policies to be followed by whomever got the contract. Shortly after, Atlanta Humane Society informed the commission that it was no longer interested in managing the shelter. It wasn’t quite over; there was a little more intrigue in the coming months, but in the end Southern Hope Humane Society was awarded the contract and has been managing the shelter ever since. They have introduced modern practices, encouraged adoptions, follow a firm spay-neuter policy, and have reduced the kill-rate dramatically.

In a strange twist that only served to make what was going on seem even more bizarre, and confirmed that you should never put anything on the internet that you would not want used against you, Bill Garrett sent an e-mail to some of his close friends across the country. Mills obtained a copy of it during the discovery process for the lawsuit and posted it on her website. Soon a lot of people were reading it. In it, Garrett referred to his critics as “zealots” and compared them to the 9/11 terrorists who flew planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and suggested that, figuratively speaking, someone had flown a plane into his building. It left many people wondering if someone had forgotten to take someone’s medication.

In the rulings that were handed down, Atlanta Humane Society and Garrett were ordered to pay both Barbara Harkins and Kathi Mills $75,000 for their legal expenses. This is in addition to its own legal fees, which amounted to almost $500,000 for 2002-2004, with 2005 still to come. How much of this expense is the result of the lawsuits is unknown, but before the lawsuits began, AHS averaged less than $10,000 in legal expenses annually. PAWS Atlanta, formerly Dekalb Humane Society, a comparable if somewhat smaller organization, doesn’t even list any legal expenses in its financial statements for the last three years.

Bill Garrett retired from the Atlanta Humane Society at the end of February, ending an era that saw big changes for the organization. He took over a poorly managed rescue group with no money and built it into a well-funded organization with income in the millions and a pile of assets. He had a lot of supporters who thought he did a lot of good, and a lot of critics who felt that he didn’t do enough. As one critic said, “Atlanta Humane has more money and does less with it than any comparable rescue group.” If his final act as director was to blow three-quarters of a million dollars (our estimate) of his employer’s money on legal fees in a foolish, pointless and misguided attempt to punish two women who criticized him, you would have to call that a pretty impressive exit.

AR-News: (NJ) Richard J. Perr, Esq., et al, files classic SLAPP suit against activists

Defamation? - Shriners - Part 8
By Cassandra 'Sandy' Frost
9-24-6
http://sandyfrost.newsvine.com/

The Shriners, both fraternal and charitable, are suing the non profit Charity Watch Center website and Vernon Hill, Shriner whistleblower, for defamation, monetary damages and a jury trial. http://www.help-page-nonprofit.org/index.html According to a September 21, 2006 article in the St. Petersburg Times, "Shriners Sue Over Website's Charges": "The suit, filed in Hillsborough Circuit Court, accuses J. Vernon Hill and the other members of his company, Charity Watch Center, of spreading lies about Shriners Hospitals, a nonprofit headquartered in Tampa." Rather than answering questions about their finances, the Shriners claim that they have been defamed by those asking the questions. The Shriners need to prove that the fact based statements allegedly made by Charity Watch and Hill were false and made with malice. "The law of defamation is supposed to protect people's reputations from unfair attack. In practice its main effect is to hinder free speech and protect powerful people from scrutiny. Defamation actions and threats to sue for defamation are often used to try to silence those who criticize people with money and power." 1 The Charity Watch center analyzed thousands of pages of Shriners 990 tax returns and found that only 23% to 48% of the net proceeds (as opposed to the required 100%) raised in Pennsylvania were actually going towards the charity. Paul Dolnier, Charity Watch founder, met with investigators from the State of Pennsylvania who reviewed his findings as a professional with a Masters in taxation, experience as an IRS Revenue Officer and 15 years of tax accounting experience. It has also been discovered that the Shriners have failed to disclose information about their affiliations, governing documents, lobbying, receivables from officers, trustees and key employees and real estate loans on their tax returns. Twenty years ago, the Orlando Sentinel investigated a Shriner circus ticket scam and discovered that less than 2% of what the Shriners raised on behalf of the sick and crippled children actually went towards their medical care. The articles also detail how the Shriners were ultimately fined in 1987 for violating the Florida's charitable solicitation and registration laws. The Shriners are claiming that Charity Watch and Hill have damaged their ability to raise money. According to Dolnier, if they never raise another dime, the Shriners can run their hospitals for the next 40 years based on what they already have which is about $10 billion. The Shriners have been criticized by charity watch dog groups for "hoarding" money that should be going towards their stated primary mission; that of operating the Shriners Hospitals for Children and providing medical care at no cost to sick and crippled children. Now, the Shriners are using their "tax- deductible charitable contributions" to launch a jury trial in an already overburdened Florida court system. Prior to this, the Shriners failed to use their own "due process" to address Hill's concerns and determine if he violated Shriner law by questioning their finances. They also refused invitations to meet with the Charity Watch Center and/or Hill to address the questions both have asked the past two plus years about their finances. The Shriners also failed to attempt to resolve their perceived issues through mediation. Instead, they have taken a very public legal action that will make others in the media sit up and take notice. What will they do when the international media and three letter agencies begin to ask: "What questions were being asked and why have they refused to answer?" "What do the tax returns show?" "What do the real estate records show?" "Where does all the money go?" "Why all the secrecy?" Others may wonder why the Shriners are asking tax payers to pay for an expensive jury trial that they will probably never win. Cases like this are more commonly known as "strategic lawsuits against public participation" or SLAPP lawsuits. "The purpose of SLAPP lawsuits is to chill freedom of speech and press by bankrupting the defendant. This is how wealthy companies abuse the legal process and the justice system. As defined by Britton D. Monts, our Texas attorney in the SLAPP suit filed in 1999 by Life Partners, Inc., 'On one side is a company that resents criticism, and is eager to stifle the voice of a public advocate who speaks out on a controversial issue. On the other side is an outspoken individual committed to preventing companies from victimizing investors. As in all SLAPP lawsuits,' said Monts, 'First Amendment issues are at risk. This is a clear challenge to freedom of speech and freedom of press.' The term "SLAPP," coined by University of Denver sociologist Penelope Canan and law professor George Pring, authors of "SLAPPS: Getting Sued for Speaking Out," refers to strategic lawsuits against public participation. "SLAPPers" usually are private parties, big money interests who intimidate people from speaking out since the expense of defending themselves can bankrupt most individuals. SLAPP suits commonly are brought by corporations, real estate developers, or other private parties who object to letters to the editor, web site criticism or other publications, testimony at zoning hearings, petitions to Congress or state legislatures, or who file public interest lawsuits. Unless quickly extinguished by the courts, SLAPPers chill the democratic process. That is why more than a dozen states have anti-SLAPP laws. These laws allow SLAPP victims to bring a motion early in the case, before expenses go through the roof, to force the SLAPPer to present evidence that it has a reasonable chance to win." 2 1 http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ defamation.html 2 http://www.viatical-expert.net/SLAPP/sLAPP%20lawsuits.htm All copies of material reprinted or duplicated from by Sandy Frost must include the following credit line: From http://sandyfrost.newsvine.com/ Copyright © 2006 by Sandy Frost. Used by permission.

NEPA News (NE Pennsylvania)
Superior Court upholds $96,000 verdict against animal shelter

April 08, 2003

The original story may be found at:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7647097&BRD=2212&PAG=461&dept_

The Pennsylvania state Superior Court has upheld a $96,000 verdict against a Fayette County animal shelter in the case of a dairy farmer who said he was wrongfully cited for animal abuse nearly a decade ago.

The Fayette County branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said last year that the verdict was so large it could force their shelter to close. The SPCA had appealed, arguing the damages awarded were too high and that there was not enough evidence to support them. The group also argued, unsuccessfully, that it was immune from being sued as a government agency.

"What is more shameful than a farmer being accused of cruelty to animals?" the court said, in upholding the verdict, issued last week.

SPCA officials didn't immediately return calls Tuesday for comment on whether they plan to appeal the latest decision.

The damages stem from April 1993 when John Tabaj sued the SPCA and the now-defunct Tri-County Humane Protections Inc. for invasion of privacy and malicious prosecution.

Tabaj said six animal control agents, four of them armed, were sent by the SPCA to search his 190-acre dairy farm in Dunbar Township. The agents were looking for a stolen dog that belonged to the estranged husband of Tabaj's daughter. Though the dog was never found, Tabaj said animal control workers placed him in custody for two hours and issued animal abuse citations, including one for a cow.

The group dropped the charges after Tabaj argued that the allegations were mistaken and said the cow was being treated by a veterinarian.

SPCA members have said that Fayette County strays might have to be taken to neighboring Somerset County if the shelter is closed.