BUILDING A STABLE ENVIRONMENT SINCE 2001 ®

The Henneke Body Condition Scoring system is widely used in horse cruelty cases to determine the overall body condition of a horse.  It is based on both a visual inspection as well as six major areas on a horse that are responsive to changes in body fat.  The system uses a scale of 1 to 9 - with 1 being “poor” and 9 being “extremely fat.”   Most animal control agencies will impound horses that have been scored 1 or 2 by a veterinarian or a person certified in Body Condition Scoring.

Veterinarians play an important role in most animal cruelty cases.  They are frequently called upon to determine the cause, severity, and duration of an animal’s injuries, as well as the extent to which the animal experiences pain and suffering.   From a legal point of view,  the pain and suffering must be unjustified and the result of an owner’s poor judgment or care of the animal.   This element in any cruelty case is difficult to prove, but important to establish for successful prosecution of a neglectful or abusive owner.

Washington horses are fortunate because another Pierce County horse case established that horses that are starving feel pain and suffering.   In a nutshell, Vern and Katonya Zawistowski were charged with six counts of animal cruelty in the second degree for their neglect of two horses from underfeeding and poor dental care.  They were found guilty, but the Pierce County Superior Court threw out the District Court jury convictions, so the State appealed in September, 2003.    Division II reinstated the convictions, and in a written opinion established that malnutrition results in hunger which could result in physical pain. 

Long SUFFERING:  Patient endurance of pain or unhappiness

Together we’ll stand; divided we’ll fall.

Come on now people; let’s get on the ball

And work together.

Come on, come on.  Let’s work together.

                -- Canned Heat

Friday, January 4, 2008

Animal control supervisor Lisa Drury looked over veterinarian Linda Hagerman’s report on the condition of the 13 horses she had examined at Waller Road the day before.  Although Hagerman told Drury that the horses were not exhibiting signs of pain and suffering, her written report included some interesting details.  She had scored four of the horses at grade 2, and noted such conditions as swollen legs, arthritis, and diarrhea.  Hagerman also noted that the unsanitary conditions on the property could lead to skin infections, lameness, and parasite infestations.  Still, she felt she didn’t have an “ethical and medically sound reason” to say that the horses were experiencing pain and suffering.

Drury was concerned about Hagerman’s statements because they had been down this road before.  In a 2004 case, five horses had been seized from Vern and Katonya Zawistowski, including two that were severely underweight - their bones protruding sharply in surviving photographs.  Hagerman had been the examining veterinarian in that case too, but in court, her testimony that she “imagined” that an underfed horse would feel hunger, and that one of the horses may have experienced “some uncomfortableness” due to lack of dental care opened the door for an appeal of the owners‘ conviction for animal cruelty.  The defense used these statements to successfully appeal the Zawistowski’s conviction.  And it took yet another trip to the State Court of Appeals to reverse that opinion and reinstate the original conviction. 

Although Hagerman’s report in this case would provide probable cause to remove at least four of the horses, Drury knew that unless they removed all of the horses the case would continue to be of concern to local citizens.

The problem was that doing an exam onsite (at the Waller Road location) was difficult or even dangerous.  The paddocks were knee-deep in mud in some places, making it difficult to stand or manage a fractious horse.  There were at least four stallions on the property and it didn’t appear that any of then had received much handling.  The bottom line was that in  order to really evaluate each horse’s condition thoroughly, they needed to be removed to another location. 

So animal control asked if Hope For Horses could provide case management services, which would include the responsibility for transporting the horses to a safe location, overseeing any vet and farrier exams, providing daily board and care for at least thirty days, and coordinating the reports that animal control would need to determine whether or not to take the case forward to the prosecutor.  The fee for that service would be $10.50 per horse per day. 

Officer Davidson got to work on obtaining a warrant. 

Meanwhile, the citizens were still calling.  One asked if the remaining horses on the property had to die before anything got done.  Another one said that in the last several months she noticed the bay stallion with what looked like  penis infection; that he always had it hanging out.  She complained that the horses always had their halters on, and never had any blankets on the coldest winter days.  And the previous winter she had noticed a horse lying the pasture that was there for a couple of days.  She wondered if it had passed away. 

Diana Martin not only checked in with animal control, she also called Dr. Jack Gillette to see if she could get any information.  Gillette said he was too busy to get involved further, and besides he had already donated $1,000 worth of his time to the case. 

So Diana called Dr. Hagerman to ask why the remaining horses couldn’t be seized.  But Hagerman repeated what she had already told Lisa Drury the day before:  she didn’t have an “ethical and medically sound reason” to say that the horses were experiencing pain and suffering.  Although she could continue to treat the two horses that had already been seized, she told Diana that a different vet would be taking over. 

From that conversation, Diana apparently thought that Hagerman had been “fired” by the county, and that made her mad.  So she called animal control and told them so.  Then Hagerman called animal control to ask if she should continue to provide medical care to the two horses at Rose Corey’s place since she had been asked to excuse herself from the case.  But animal control had not asked her to step down, and since the arrangement for medical care for the two horses at Rose’s was at Rose’s request and not the county’s, the county had nothing to say about that either. 

Saturday, January 5, 2008

George Wearn is a man of action.  He’s the kind of guy who pays attention to what is going on in his neighborhood.  He’s not afraid to show up at county council meetings and make his voice heard.   George knows how to research a problem, and had found out that the property at 96th and Waller was being rented to Donna Gale.  So he contacted the property owner and got permission to feed some hay to the horses there.  On Saturday afternoon, George and two other people fed three bales of hay to the horses.  On Sunday George returned to the property.  While there he placed a call to Hope For Horses saying “We’d love to work together as a group to make sure this problem is resolved.” 

Chapter 6

IMPOUND AT WALLER ROAD - CHAPTER 5