People for Pet OWNership

Click here to edit subtitle

Blog

view:  full / summary

Just Some Facts

Posted by P4PO on June 22, 2018 at 7:10 PM

New blog by Nadine our newest blogger <3 


I’m still reeling over Judge Amy Ignatius’ decision to give all of Tina Fay’s Great Danes to H$U$ - the very people who have warehoused them for over a year. I came to this late so I went back to look at H$U$’ claims again. Being a Husky gal myself I was not familiar with a lot of the ailments that they mentioned so I set off to do some research. 

The first one that was brought up quite a bit is something called “cherry eye”. These made for some very sensational pictures, and admittedly is a little creepy looking. Turns out this not uncommon or life threatening, and in fact at least one dog was scheduled for surgery (you have to assume the $25-$30k per month Tina spent at the vet was not just for rabies shots).

So, what did I learn?.......

What is Cherry Eye anyway? First, there is a real medical name if you want to do your own research - Prolapsed nictitating membrane gland or PNMG. When the tear gland flips upward (prolapses) out of its normal position under the eyelid and becomes inflamed, the pink, bulbous protrusion is what results at the corner of the eye, descriptively referred to as a “cherry eye.”

Cherry Eye or PNMG, a disorder of the nictitating membrane (NM), is also called the third eyelid.

Cherry eye is most often seen in young dogs under the age of two, however it can occur at any age. And according to a retrospective study of 155 cases in 2012, the five breeds that were most commonly affected by this bilateral condition are: French Bulldog, Shar Pei, Great Dane, English Bulldog and Cane Corso's.

Cherry Eye in dogs is not a life threatening condition, but if left untreated can cause your dog eye problems later on. The importance of the third eyelid is to give added protection to the dog's eyes.

According to ASPCA, Pet Insurance claims data indicate the most common dog illnesses are eye infections, gastroenteritis, cancer, skin infections, and ear infections. With one of the prevalent eye-related dog illnesses being cherry eye.

Other sources also say that the surgery is not a guarantee the cherry eye will not return. Sometimes, the membrane or "third eyelid" becomes dislodged again and the surgery must be repeated. This tells me that Tina could have also already had the procedure performed, and we know that she had at least one surgery already scheduled when the dogs were ripped from their home.

So how much is this surgery? Based on my research the amount can vary widely. The exam itself is around $150-$200 with the surgery starting at around $250, going up from there, some report spending over $1,000 in extreme cases. Of course H$U$ had medical services donated. I wonder if H$U$ is asking Tina to pay for donated medical services – it’s not like they were required to submit receipts for the outrageous amount they asked for – and for which they were rewarded.

So what does this tell me? 

 This is NOT a case of abuse or neglect, just an unfortunate but common occurrence.

 Tina could have already had surgery performed on some of the affected dogs.

 Interestingly dogs have 3 eyelids.

 H$U$ and the media, as always, are just looking for what they can sensationalize.


Red eyes are still creepy looking – no matter what the cause or species



Now off to research Happy Tail and Papilloma’s Virus.

Why won't some shelters just do the right thing?

Posted by P4PO on June 18, 2018 at 7:15 PM



Shame on Miami-Dade Animal Services (MDAS), they had a chance to do the right thing yet chose not to. This is why shelters and rescues are coming under fire so often these days. It used to be that a shelter would find a stray, try super hard to find the owner, send the dog home, happy ending time. Not in these modern times though. That’s just not how many shelters and rescues work these days and it’s not just sad - it’s sick.


What is going on with MDAS in the last two days is a perfect example of why so many people who love animals are becoming disenchanted with rescues and shelters across the country. This story is developing even as I type, so keep an eye on the P4 page for updates.

 


Basically what happened is two dogs got loose and ran away. Sadly, one was hit by a car and killed. The other one, a stunning Afghan Hound bitch named Baby was picked up and brought to MDAS. The owner and friends had been frantically posting on all the local pages, getting flyers made etc, when someone spotted the post by MDAS saying that Baby (who the shelter named Melody) was available for adoption on June 21, 2018. The owner promptly went to MDAS with all the paperwork, AKC papers, vet info, etc. The shelter staff took the papers out back, then after a while came back and told the owner it wasn’t their dog, that the microchip didn’t match. Now, that may work with a Yellow Lab, but this is an Afghan with distinct markings and you don’t generally find the breed running amok in Miami. The chances of the bitch being a different Afghan are the same as my chances of being the goalie on the winning World Cup team, .00000000000000000000000001%.

 


This is the screenie of the shelters post, which I think is taken down, or I may be blocked.



 

 

 

This is the screenie from a friend of the owner on a local group




 


Here are some screenies of the post where the shelter tries to backpedal but gets called out. I am SO VERY PROUD of all the people standing together against this theft!


 

 


I am hoping this story ends on a happy note and the shelter does the right thing, but I am NOT holding my breath.



Tina's Final Sentencing

Posted by P4PO on June 16, 2018 at 5:55 PM





Thank you everyone for your patience. This week has been a roller coaster of emotions waiting for sentencing. We have a new guest blogger this week, Nadine, who managed to slip into court so she could give us a first-hand account of what happened.

 

Thursday, June 14th was the continuance of the May 11th sentencing of Christina Fay. People entered the courthouse on a warm sunny day. Prosecutor Steven Briden looking a bit like a bindle stiff wearing a characteristically ill fitting suit, his 3 chins all aquiver with his righteous indignation.

AND IT BEGAN

The day started with #shityoucantmakeup. Tina’s attorney, who was to argue her case, was caught in flight delays and cancellations and was not able to be at court. Tina’s other attorneys were given very short notice, just hours, that they would need to ask for a continuance. But all the lawyers knew there was little chance of that happening, and that a different lawyer would most likely argue the case. As everyone suspected the continuance was denied – and frankly Tina didn’t want any delays in her dogs going from that warehouse to homes.

 

Tina’s attorneys began by sharing with the judge that rescues were posting online, some admittedly HSUS rescue partners, that they were asked to be there on the 15th of June to pick up dogs. As we shared earlier, some even knew what dogs they were getting (you can read a little about that here http://www.p4pownership.com/apps/blog/show/45729664-h-u-new-hire-). A friend of Tina’s told us how distraught Tina was over her dogs being put in stock trailers and shipped all over the country. So our best guess is she insisted the attorney start with this. Of course with the gaggle of attorneys HSUS had, they knew better than to post that information until the judge made her announcement. Too bad they forgot to tell their rescue partners not to say anything about it until AFTER the judge announced what was to happen to the dogs. (I say announced, not ruled, because it still seemed like a foregone conclusion.)

The judge did say more than once that there would be no trailers pulling up to the warehouse to pick up these dogs. We’ll discuss the rehoming in just a bit.



DISPOSITION OF DOG

The first item they addressed was the disposition of the dog who allegedly bit an HSUS contractor. Attorney Jeremy Cohen asked that this dog be given to Tina for evaluation and rehabilitation, if needed. Although the judge did not allow for an evaluation, or that Tina get this dog, she did grant the Defense's request that Tina be present when HSUS kills another one of her dogs. Okay, so she didn’t say it just like that, and I don’t really think you can call a dog being euthanized based on HSUS' word alone a win, but the judge did grant the Defense's request and asked that the State work things out and make it possible for Tina to be present.

 

TIME SERVED


On May 11th, Judge Ignatius sentenced Tina to 12 months (for misdemeanors with no priors) with 9 months to be suspended. At that time Kent Barker, one of Tina’s attorneys, asked how this would benefit anyone and asked that she reconsider. The judge asked the Defense to come back in June with a plan for counseling and she would consider suspending another 60 days, but that Ms. Fay would have to spend at least 30 days incarcerated.

When the judge asked why no plan had been submitted for counseling, Attorney Kent Barker started by telling the Court what a private person Tina was, and based on the media coverage to this point that they could get no assurances that this would stay private. He went on to tell her about just some of Tina’s day to day responsibilities. I would never have mentioned this, but it’s been reported by more than one media source. Tina’s responsibilities (this information was presented at different times):

1- One of Tina’s sons requires 3-5 phone calls a day to and from Tina. He is diagnosed with Schizoaffective disorder and a cognitive impairment delay as well as a very serious blood clotting problem. Tina’s son had been hospitalized 3 times in the past 8 weeks, had had emergency surgery, and had been in the ICU for days at a time. He would literally be homeless in a day without any daily intervention and support by Tina. He MUST take medication daily or he could likely develop clots in his liver and abdomen again. Tina must call him and see to it that he takes it daily. Generally every 3 weeks he is actively suicidal. If Tina were not able to communicate with him daily, the outcome would most likely be devastating. If Tina were to go to jail, she would need to find some help for him in her absence – and we know the luck she’s had with hired help.

2- Her daughter is bipolar and is not medicated. She has a 1 year old baby and lives in a shelter in NYC. Other issues are suspected. She, too, requires cash for her almost daily crises. Again, Tina would need to arrange for support for her, too.

3- Tina also had another son who recently died. His widow now has a newborn baby, and without a family, Tina is her emotional and financial support.

4- And of course the one beloved elder dog Betta, with health conditions that lives with Tina.


 The judge’s ice cold heart broke just a little. And the newspapers had it correct when they said there was a gasp in the courtroom when she announced her sentencing. She conditionally waived ALL jail time and asked for twice monthly counseling with a report sent privately to the Court of Tina’s meaningful participation. Shockingly (by that I mean to nobody’s surprise) the State argued against this. This seemed like a big win by the attorneys, but Tina has little regard for what happens to her – caring only for her dogs and what is left of her family.

Interesting note: When the Defense brought up the fact that there was no jail time in the original trial, the judge said that this was a completely new trial and nothing from the previous could be considered. In May, the judge made the comment that she wasn’t buying this was a “perfect storm”. Kent Barker used this term in the first trial only - so are we to believe she didn’t talk to the other judge or read transcripts?


REHOMING OF DOGS

The rehoming is very difficult to write about. The State ordered that HSUS get possession of all of the dogs and rehome them through their wide array of partners. The Defense had a neutral third party selected with neither Tina’s nor the HSUS' input, and asked that the dogs be rehomed in the Northeast and not be subject to being transported across the country. The Defense did not present the fact that HSUS rescue partners from the South were the ones presented in the opening, and proof that thousands of dogs were sent from the South to the Northeast every year from overcrowded Southern rescues. Sadly, the Defense could not present again that there have been 31 qualified homes waiting for these dogs since last year.

The judge ordered that ALL BUT 2 DOGS BE TURNED OVER TO HSUS for placement (the 2nd dog was taken back on Stay for Appeal). She went on to say that there would be no wholesaling or profiting as the Defense pointed out that was their intent. This is where she mentioned again that trailers would not be pulling up to take the dogs away, and indicated to me (need transcript to be sure) that they would not leave the warehouse until they had individual homes to go to. There was no mention about this of current purported warehouse violations.

The one piece of good news is that it was ordered the dogs we have been showing on the TRIAGE LIST NOT BE EUTHANIZED. If after 3 months there are dogs they have not been able to rehome, the Court would need to address this.


LEFT HANGING

At this hearing Tina’s attorneys asked for 3 things and it’s yet to be seen if she will see any of them.

1- All FCI and AKC registration papers - originals. Biden said the evidence could be released, but it sounded like they might not have much.

2- All custom leather collars and leashes. Tina had these made for each dog, and kept them whenever she lost a dog.
 

3- Necropsy report on Bruno (H1-03), the 5th dog who died on May 3rd, 2018 that she still does not have. The State argued that this is not as simple as an autopsy and can take months. The judge chose to believe that.

RESTITUTION

I’m still trying to figure out how the restitution could be just justified. The court ordered that Tina pay the Town of Wolfeboro $12k and pay HSUS $1.9 MILLION plus. There were no allowance to deduct from this restitution amount for donations of: food equipment, money and medical services donated specifically for the Danes or the money gained with Tina’s dogs from advertising. The judge would also not take into consideration that everything was taken from Tina’s home in Wolfeboro - even toilets. We shared Trent Loos’ video of the house with one bedframe and one dresser left remaining inside the home, period. She wanted the baby blanket for the son whom I had mentioned earlier who recently died to be sent to his child. Those and other personal mementos cannot be replaced by any amount of money.


When all was said and done, a reporter approached Tina leaving the courtroom and asked how she felt. After Tina told them that she “felt gutted", this bright little reporter intelligently asked Why?" Personally I would have wanted to punch the little girl. But Tina as she walked down the steps, turned, and in a pained voice, said “I’ve lost everything I love – everything”!

As people walked out of the courthouse, it was like mother nature knew something bad had happened and there was suddenly a chill in the air.

I’m sure Tina is trying to figure out how to cope with this loss of her beloved dogs. But while she is processing, we need keep in mind that this is NOT THE END OF THE STORY. I know now that the animals are gone, we will lose support on this page. Tina needs people's support more than ever now, and we need to remember that this is a fight for more than just Tina. It's a fight for citizens' basic Constitutional rights and animal ownership rights in the United States.


Who's really pulling the strings in New Hampshire?

Posted by P4PO on June 11, 2018 at 6:30 PM



Master of puppets;
 I’m pulling your strings 
Twisting your mind and smashing your dreams

Blinded by me, you can’t see a thingJust call my name, ‘cause I’ll hear you scream, Master, Master, Master, Master of Puppets. 
Metallica




"OMG, but she had like 84 dogs"! That in a nutshell is why so many people are against Tina Fay and is just about the first thing anyone says to me when we are talking about her and her dogs. 

So what? Yeah, Tina Fay had more dogs than some people think she should have. I am NOT going to rehash everything here and now because all the blogs can be found here at P4PO’s website, so take some time to read!!! http://www.p4pownership.com/apps/blog/

When it comes down to it I couldn’t own 84 dogs. I don’t think I could handle 4 to be honest. What I can handle isn’t what is important here because (sigh) it’s not always all about me. Tina had full time help and people to care for her dogs up until May of 2017. After May 2017 Tina had a loyal employee and 2 that did nothing but take pictures while they were supposed to be working. So yeah, Tina had more dogs than “normal” and people are losing their minds over it.

Growing up I was surrounded by dogs. My grandparents on my dads side raised English Setters and English Springer Spaniels for hunting, field trials and shows. The kennels easily housed more than 100 dogs and were managed by a full time kennel manager, a trainer and a couple of part time helpers. Back in the day this was actually the norm for kennels. This was before the AR came through and dictated to us all the amount of dogs we “should” own. It was also before the AR fed us all the BS lies that the less a person breeds the better a breeder they are.


Why am I bringing this up now? I’ll tell you.

I am blogging this now because this week is the final sentencing for Tina. The H$U$ is starting a huge push on social media and trying to get it’s followers all worked up and over emotional to drive their donations even higher. As a bonus, H$U$ is also pushing their sheeple (followers) to show up at court to show support for the H$U$ (harass Tina).

 

Ever since the defeat of SB-569 the H$U$ has been seething and whining about losing. It’s no coincidence that people who actively opposed the bill are getting strange phone calls asking questions about puppies and breeding. People have even gotten calls on numbers never used for advertising puppies leading me to think that H$U$ is simply googling the names on the sign in sheets from the legislative sessions. At least 3 people have come forward having been warned by their local ACO’s that the state director for the H$U$ (Lindsay Hamrick) asked them to gather info on breeders. This is the H$U$ after all. The organization that showed up at someone’s house the Monday after that person supported Tina at court. The H$U$ has zero scruples and a great love of money which is a very dangerous combination.

 

I really wonder what sort of hold the H$U$ has on prosecutor Steven Briden to make him do as they say even when it’s not in the best interest of the people who live in New Hampshire. What sort of hold does H$U$ lawyer Leana Stormont have on prosecutor Steven Briden? Why can’t Steven Briden think for himself and follow the law? Did Leana weave some sort of spell over Steven?



Maybe there is no spell, maybe Steven Briden simply lacks conviction to do the right thing and enjoys being damned with faint praise by the H$U$. We here at P4PO just hope that Judge Amy Ignatius does the right thing and follows the law NOT the H$U$. As Judge Ignatius has a B.A. in American history, we hope that she wants to be on the right side of history, not the H$U$'s side. 


H$U$ New Hire?

Posted by P4PO on June 9, 2018 at 7:00 PM

Looks like the Humane Society of the United States might have a new employee.


While sipping adult beverages and watching the build up to the Belmont I decided to search Facebook a little bit and see if there was any new chatter about Tina and the Great Danes. Well, was I shook after the first 5 minutes. It appears that the H$U$ has hired a Fortune Teller and can see that they will win the rehoming of the dogs on Thursday June 14, 2018. A fan of the Great Dane page sent us a picture of someone they claim is said Fortune Teller and I think she looks a bit like Leana Stormont, the lawyer for the H$U$.



Here is a rumored picture of the Fortune Tellers minions




 


Here are the screenshots of various rescue groups preparing to pick up the Great Danes on June 15th.




 

  

I wonder if Judge Amy Ignatius made a backdoor deal with prosecutor Steven Briden and the H$U$ or if Leana is truly psychic. Why are these groups so sure of getting Tina’s dogs? Did Judge Amy Ignatius OK the deal? Is this proof that Tina can not get fair treatment in New Hampshire, even after she's paid her lawyers thousands of dollar to draft a rehoming proposal - the one that Judge Ignatius asked for?


We Get It Done!

Posted by P4PO on June 8, 2018 at 8:45 AM

We here at People for Pet Ownership wanted to share some good news! We shared a very scary story yesterday about the professional dog show handler’s van that was stolen with 14 dogs. It was found this morning after an anonymous tip and air surveillance.

All the dogs were found safe and alive. Let me repeat that: SAFE AND ALIVE!! We are relieved and many of us ugly cried getting the news. It was amazing how the dog community came together. Show people, breeders, pet owners, rescue organizations and people who just plain love dogs. Social media got the word out, across the county people notified area vets, stores, shelters, kennel clubs. Over 75,000 shares in less than 24hrs. The reward started at $2,000 and in less than 24hrs went up to $30,000. People were jumping in to help even if they never were going to see any of that money.

This is what we do, when we, a dog community stand up and come together. We get things done. We put all differences aside and unite. It is refreshing to see the warriors stand true.

Speaking of warriors, we need to give a HUGE shout out to the following groups that made this miraculous recovery. Redding, CA Police department for being so vigilant and listening to all information. They kept the hope alive. California Highway Patrol were the ones who used air surveillance that ultimately found the van in a secluded wooded area.

We want to offer a suggestion to help thank them. They have a canine unit that looks like they have a DONATE page: https://www.facebook.com/ReddingK9/?fref=mentions

Another huge shout out to Haven Humane Society. They stepped up, were on scene to retrieve the dogs and to provide immediate care. The dogs were brought to their facility to get a vet checkup. AND THEN THEY RELEASED THE DOGS TO THEIR OWNERS! How often are we saying that shelters hold onto purebred dogs because they have certain notions about show dogs. But not Haven Humane. Thank you for being part of our dog community.

We would like to offer to donate directly to Haven Humane Society to if you can: https://www.facebook.com/HavenHumaneSociety/

When all was said and done we ended with 14 alive and grateful dogs, their smiles say it all.


 

Money for Nothing

Posted by P4PO on May 30, 2018 at 9:55 PM

Money for Nothing

It seems like not a day or two goes by without someone, somewhere trying to take over the dogs in Tina Fay’s case.

Last week we wrote this blog about someone placing the dogs and no sooner does the drama die down there but we learn about Melissa Horn, a Siamese Cat breeder from Pennsylvania (sorry not the Swedish pop star) who is working with “Someone” to place Tina’s dogs. Now everyone wants to see the dogs in good homes, but I want to see who is going to argue in front of a judge (the person who actually gets to make the decision) that a cat breeder is the most qualified to find appropriate homes for giant breed dogs.


Melissa first posted in April of 2018, which, coincidentally is when the warehouse the dogs are in was listed as being for lease.



Yesterday a new post started making the rounds which made all of us at P4PO raise our eyebrows


People made inquiries via Facebook and when they asked questions were met with thinly veiled hostility as well as Vaguebooking of an epic nature.


Phone calls to Melissa were treated the same way as PM’s; shady, sketchy and just plain weird.


It seems that a lot of people are trying to take advantage of this situation because they see it as a way to make some easy money. Shame on all of you who are doing this and care more about money. $500 a pop for some facebook posts seems like good money to me.


Please note: NO ONE has any authority to move or place these dogs until the court makes a decision on June 14th. The “helpers” as they refer to themselves as, appear to be nothing more than opportunists - con artists that show up at funerals like ghouls and take advantage of the family members. Guess what - no one has died and TINA has not given authority to ANYONE to do anything with the dogs.


SO-- if anyone else comes forward with an offer to do anything with these dogs , please do not share-- do not engage -- do not pay $500. Know that it is fake news so to speak--- and we all know what we think of those that spread it.


Was the H$U$ evicted from the warehouse they keep the Great Danes in?

Posted by P4PO on May 24, 2018 at 9:10 PM

So we have been finding out info lately that makes the people who are against Tina very, very angry. Angry enough that the NH Prosecutor Steven Briden tried to basically get this blog shut down, lol. That is how we know we are hitting sore spots and exposing people, they try to silence us here. As flattering as it is we are just a little blog so hey, what harm can P4PO do?


I do have a question for the New Hampshire Prosecutor Steven Briden as well as the Humane Society of the United States. I am wondering why the warehouse where the dogs are being kept is up for lease. How can that be? It was listed BEFORE Tina’s sentencing, so why didn’t Briden or his puppet masters at the H$U$ mention it?





Is THIS the reason that Briden and his puppet masters are in such a hurry to rehome the Great Danes? We would LOVE a response from someone from the prosecutor’s office or the H$US. We probably won’t be holding our breath though. Notice the date and notice the following screenshot from TODAY, notice date and time stamp on the lower right hand corner... 





Is this just ONE MORE THING being used to force Tina to give up her dogs and stop fighting the H$U$? Are the dogs even still at the warehouse considering that leasing is available immediately? Did the H$U$ get evicted or did they not renew their lease? If they didn't renew the lease what made them so sure they were going to not have the dogs there anymore? Why was the warehouse availabe back in April? We welcome any answers the H$U$ will give us.

Trust No One

Posted by P4PO on May 23, 2018 at 9:30 PM

When I am not enjoying my fabulous non paying job as esteemed blogger for P4PO I like to keep an eye on the pages I run. The most active one lately has been “The Real Story of Tina Fay and her Dogs”, especially when the AR trolls come out to play. I don’t only notice the people expressing opposing views I notice supporters who comment on the situation and actually seem like they care and they want to help. As you can imagine there’s a lot of Great Dane owners and breeders on both sides of the aisle and I like to support Tina’s supporters if that makes sense. Back on May 16th I came across a post on a page called “Steamboat Champagne Danes” whose only listed “Team Member” is Karen Van Scoyk a vocal supporter (or so I thought) of Tina’s.







As I read the page though I started to get a really, really bad feeling especially when I came across a post saying that Steamboat Champagne Danes was in charge of rehoming some of Tina Fay’s dogs. I called my friend who had been in court for Tina’s sentencing and asked if I had missed where the dogs had been okayed to be rehomed. She assured me that from what she had heard at court that there was no one who was re-homing because Tina’s lawyers and the prosecutor needed to even agree on a plan and that couldn’t be finalized until sentencing is completed on June 14, 2018.

 

 

After you read the screenshots you will probably have some questions, I know I do.



 

 


It turns out that Karen Van Scoyk is an AR who is friends with some of the most notorious radical animal rights activists including Kate Riviello. Kate Rivello also goes by the name “Kay” it seems she needs two Facebook pages to express her concerns over animal “abuse”





https://kateriviello.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/who-is-kate-riviello/


-Tsk, tsk Karen, you now officially have my undivided attention, sharing the petition for Tina, posting messages of support, you almost had me fooled.

What I really want to know is who at the H$U$ has made the call to rehome these dogs and what has Karen Van Scoyk done for the H$U$ to be considered worthy by them?

Dear H$U$, care to address these concerns?

Posted by P4PO on May 23, 2018 at 1:25 PM

When I started reading this new blog by our OG Guest Blogger it occurred to me that the Humane Society of the United States’ (H$U$) facility it’s keeping Tina Fays dogs in would easily make a top 100 list of horrible kennels. Hell, if it wasn’t being run by H$U$ the warehouse would have been shut down and the dogs seized because of neglect and abuse. The hypocrisy shown here is mind boggling as if a breeder literally warehoused their dogs the outcry would be huge, so why is it OK for the H$U$ to do? Remember, Tina submitted a list of homes to the State prosecutor in August of 2017 which the H$U$ refused to accept and therefore the prosecutor refused to accept. Why is the state of New Hampshire allowing the H$U$ to play puppet master?


The original Guest blogger coming at you again. Sorry it has been awhile. Government contracts and inspections keeping me busy. Let’s talk about the warehouse. I mean the temporary housing facility Tina Fay’s dogs are being held in. As we know from previous blogs, they are in a huge industrial building in an industrial park.



Said building just met with the Zoning and Planning board in May of 2017 to review its approved uses. And stated the current tenants listed below:

“D. Stoppe reviewed the current tenants and associated uses to be as follows:

1. White Mountain Karate – 4,000 sq. ft. for classes

2. Top Gun Gymnastics – 10,000 sq. ft. for gymnastics training

3. Country Cupboard Candy Distribution

4. Emerald Environmental Technologies Refrigeration

5. Dave Berton Carpentry Shop

6. Construx Steel Building Fabricators

7. Priority Machine Metal Fabrication

8. Lamcor Machine Metal Fabrication and repairs

9. Mobile Marine Services – boat storage

10. NH Coach and Camper RV Services – reroof motor homes and storage

11. Ameriswiss Technologies Equipment - remanufacturing and sales

12. Professional Music Group studio – band practices in lobby area

13. Stoppe Management Services Property Management”


Further explaining what the building is approved for:

D. Stoppe reviewed the list of proposed uses on “1412 route 175 Holderness NH List of Approved Uses”:

(1) Warehouse / Distribution facility / Wholesaler

(2) Commercial storage facilities

(3) Retail stores, sales, sales rooms and stands

(4) Restaurant

D. Stoppe stated that he did not think a restaurant would ever be a tenant in his buildings and agreed to cross it off the list.

(5) Professional offices, studios, bands,

D. Stoppe noted that a band practices in one of the buildings where the noise does not create a

disturbance.

(6) Vehicle (or equipment) service stations, sales and service (rental)

(7) Churches, municipal buildings or structures, museums, research and teaching facilities

(8) Manufactured housing (or structure) assembly

(9) Marinas (recreational vehicle services)

(10) Private clubs (No alcohol sales)

(11) Recreation facility – personal

(12) Recreation facility – public

(13) Recreation facility – commercial

(14) Recreation facility – commercial low impact

(15) General farming and agriculture services excluding marijuana

(16) Essential services – police, fire, ambulance or utilities office space.

(17) Health Care, Medical facility – Dr. office space

(18) Machine, Equipment or Vehicle Shop Repairs, Storage, Remanufacturing, Sales or Service

D. Stoppe stated there are 14 ft. high garage door bays which can provide adequate area a business to maintain a fleet of vehicles.

(19) Communications, Information, Data Storage, Technology facility

D. Stoppe indicated that his buildings have adequate power for a data storage business to occupy a space.

(20) Carpentry, plumbing, electrical or other trade shop

(21) Food preparation or non-volatile blending, repackaging or value-added business

(22) Commercial Low impact

(23) Multi Use Facility

(24) Engineering Facilities

(25) Previously approved Light Industry – 1994 ZBA Special Exception for light industry that “cuts metal into various shapes”.

 

Nowhere on that list does it say, “Animal boarding and/or grooming”. So they fall under the definition of a kennel. This is the zoning board definition of kennel: “Kennel, Animal Boarding and Grooming – An establishment which more than six (6) dogs or domestic animals more than one year old are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained or sold.” (http://www.holderness-nh.gov/public_documents/HoldernessNH_Ordinances/UpdatedZoningOrdinance2012.pdf)

 

I really hope they licensed all those dogs as of May 1st with the town of Holderness, NH.

 

TITLE XLV

ANIMALS

CHAPTER 466

DOGS AND CATS

Licensing of Dogs

Section 466:6

466:6 Group Licenses. –

I. The owner or keeper of 5 or more dogs shall annually by April 30 pay the required fee and obtain a license authorizing the owner or keeper to keep the dogs upon the premises described in the license, or off the premises while under such owner's or keeper's control. Such owner or keeper shall not be required to obtain a "commercial kennel" license under RSA 466:4, III unless such person has a commercial kennel as defined under RSA 466:4, III.

II. No town clerk shall refuse to issue a group license to an owner or keeper who has complied with the requirements of this subdivision.

III. The fee shall be $20 for the group license, $2 of which shall be remitted to the town clerk for deposit into the companion animal neutering fund, established in RSA 437-A:4-a, as the companion animal population control fee, and $18 shall be retained by the town or municipality.

IV. No fee shall be required for dogs which are under the age of 3 months.

V. Upon request, an owner or keeper shall receive numbered license tags for each dog included under the owner's or keeper's group license.

Source. 1909, 135:1. 1925, 97:1. PL 150:10. 1927, 61:1. 1941, 59:1. RL 180:10. RSA 466:6. 1977, 356:2. 1981, 306:2. 1986, 213:2, 3. 1987, 186:1. 1995, 298:5, 6. 1996, 242:2. 1997, 332:5, eff. Aug. 22, 1997.”

 

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XLV/466/466-6.htm

 

It appears the dogs are being harbored in a building that is in a zoning violation of the building’s accepted use. Is that so they don’t have to register with the state to be inspected? Because surely housing dogs in the same area that they test refrigeration units, or the loud noise of fabrication shops wouldn’t be found to be in any kind of inhumane treatment of animals, right?

 

Well let’s see, what does the USDA say about it?

 

“Indoor Housing

The AWA regulations define Indoor Housing as: any structure or building with environmental controls housing or intended to house animals that:

General Inspection Procedures Conducting the Inspection 3-14

Animal Welfare Inspection Guide 06/2017

1. is capable of temperature control within the limits for species of animal therein, maintaining humidity levels of 30 to 70 percent, and rapidly eliminating odors from within the building; and 2. has a continuous connection of a roof, floor, and walls (a shed or barn set on top of the ground does not have a continuous connection between the walls and the ground unless a foundation and floor are provided); and 3. has at least one door for entry and exit that can be opened and closed (any windows or openings which provide natural light must be covered with a transparent material such as glass or hard plastic). If a housing facility meets the conditions for all aspects of the definition of “indoor housing facility” except that it is not climate controlled, it is still considered an indoor housing facility under AWA regulations. If the temperature, ventilation, and humidity cannot be controlled as required by the applicable section of the standards, the building should be cited as noncompliant. An example of an Indoor Housing Facility includes, but is not limited to: A shed or barn that has a floor with a continuous connection with the walls and a roof.

 

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/Animal-Care-Inspection-Guide.pdf

 

How does an industrial building not set up as a permanent kennel building provide adequate temperate monitoring, ventilation, and documented humidity control?




What about the dog waste, how is that being handled? These many dogs produce a lot of waste, is one dumpster enough?

 

Now the inside, we don’t have too many inside photos, but there don’t appear to be ventilation visible ventilation ducts or fans, there is no natural fresh air and there is no natural lighting. The planning board minutes referenced above even state there is no plan to upgrade the interior lighting.




So based on this, they would be found in noncompliance with an USDA kennel inspection. Too bad it’s out of my jurisdiction. 

 

How is this better than when they were with Tina Fay?

 




Rss_feed