The story of our fight to obtain justice and due process for farmers in the Pacific Northwest.
When over 170 animals were confiscated
by Kitsap Humane Society (KHS) in Olalla, WA, many of us were surprised
because the photos of the raid didn't appear to show neglected or
abused animals. In fact, the photos appeared to show clean, healthy,
well-cared-for animals---several shown eating food or grazing in pastures
before they were seized.
The Bailey family, who raised animals on their acreage in unincorporated Kitsap county for decades, had been complying with KHS requests. Among other things, they were downsizing their animals and they did have a vet scheduled to come do health checks on the animals in a few days at their own expense as had been required by KHS. KHS knew this. Yet before any of this could happen, KHS came with law enforcement and every major media outlet and seized the Bailey's animals. Photos published by the media show KHS handling and transporting animals in ways inappropriate for the species, and even doing some of the same things mentioned as evidence of supposed cruelty.
But many of the things quoted as evidence of cruelty didn't appear to make sense.
KHS reportedly instructed the family to have food and water in front of the animals at all times, despite the fact that for many animals overfeeding can cause health problems such as obesity, bloat and colic---some of which can be rapidly fatal. When the Baileys complied with this order, their cow died.
The Baileys lived near a feed store and, according to news reports, did have food for the animals when inspected. But KHS said it wasn't enough---they were apparently supposed to have large amounts of food stockpiled at their home instead of buying enough fresh feed for a week or two at a time as needed.
Algae in water was cited as evidence of abuse, although this is a common occurrence and well within the range of normal on farms. A vet was quoted in the media expressing concern that some of the rabbits didn't have bedding, although even the ARBA recommends against putting bedding in wire rabbit cages. A horse-specific body scoring system was used to body score the cow, and a score within the range of normal was cited as evidence of starvation.
The quotes in the media which appear to be from the independent livestock-knowledgeable vets who examined the animals before they left the farm drastically differ from KHS's summary of the evaluations provided by the vets employed at the shelter, who examined them after many hours crammed into inappropriate transport containers without food or water.
The Baileys were not provided with the correct forms or instructions about how to file a petition to get their animals back, or information about the reasons the animals were removed. All they received in this regard was a copy of the state law.
The Baileys did not sign over their animals, and did file a petition to get the animals back in less than 14 business days as specified in the law to "prevent the animal's destruction or adoption." The petition was completely ignored. The Baileys requested to be able to post bail for their animals, and this also was denied.
Before they could even have a hearing, Kitsap Humane Society sent many of the animals to a remote rescue, and both organizations began castrating the Baileys' livestock animals---including rare breeds---and adopting them out. Many of the animals had already left KHS's hands within one day after the seizure, despite state law prohibiting disposal of the animals until 15 business days had passed without a petition being filed or bond posted.
When the Baileys' lawyer contacted the Humane Society, and then their attorneys at the county Prosecutor's Office, all the communications and requests for information were likewise ignored. Center Valley Animal Rescue has also flatly denied public records requests and access to evidence they hold.
Law enforcement MUST be held accountable to comply with the law and due process.
At the 1/3/2012 hearing, the judge ordered that no more of the Baileys' animals under the control of the Kitsap Humane Society be adopted out, altered or otherwise devalued at this time. KHS claimed that this was moot and could not apply because all of the animals had already left their hands. Meanwhile, CVAR openly announced that they would ignore the court order and continue neutering and adopting out the animals, even though on their website they note that they serve as overflow for the county humane society facility and other rescues, which would include KHS.
Despite many requests, the Baileys and their lawyer were not informed which animal or circumstance the single charge of 2nd degree cruelty against each of the Baileys was related to, or what evidence the charge was based on. They were denied access to evidence, veterinary reports, Humane Society records, photos, and the animals themselves. They were not allowed to see the animals or have a veterinarian examine them.
The Baileys only learned of the criminal charges against them and the hearing that was scheduled because a media reporter took pity on them and shared information KHS and the county prosecutor had given to the media but denied the defendants, despite many requests from both the Baileys and their lawyer.
The accused CANNOT mount an appropriate defense without being allowed access to the evidence or being told what specific allegations the charges are based on.
The Baileys were stripped of a large portion of their livelihood and self reliance without due process, and need your help to fight this. The monetary costs for dealing with an accusation like this are astronomical, whether a person in guilty or innocent. Legal fees are expensive, it costs money even to file paperwork, and posting bond for the animals can become extremely expensive very quickly.
Many may not know that WA state law was modified just this summer to add the words "accessible" and "appropriate" to the definitions of necessary food and water. This had the potential to become an important test case as to how that is interpreted. If any court rules that standard husbandry practices---such as feeding a specific ration tailored to the animal's needs rather than having unlimited food available 24/7---qualify as animal cruelty, this will affect all farmers, breeders, hobbyists and pet owners.
The Justice4PNW team and others worked to raise public awareness of this case and the due process issues, and to help gather evidence and affidavits to support the Baileys. After the second hearing, the Baileys were each assigned a public defender for the criminal charges, and their original attorney continued to represent them in the civil matter.
In mid-February, their civil attorney finally received replies to his requests for records and evidence from the various entities.
On Feb. 17, 2011, we received the news that all charges against the Baileys, both civil and criminal, have been dropped. This is excellent news.
But the battle is not over. The animals are still gone. Most had been altered and adopted out, and KHS has claimed that they have no jurisdiction over or ability to retrieve the ones that are still in rescues and foster care.
The Baileys would like to get their animals back, or at least be reimbursed for the animals and for the damage done to their property during the raid, but such a legal battle would be costly.
We need to send a strong message that, in cases where due process is ignored or animals are inappropriately confiscated, law enforcement must be held responsible. If animal owners are not found guilty of cruelty, they need to have their animals returned or be reimbursed for them. Simply accusing someone of an unproven crime does not give anyone the right to permanently take away or destroy a person's property.
We also need to make sure that, if it turns out that animals were confiscated inappropriately, the confiscating agency and not the animals' owner pays the cost of that confiscation.
At this point the Baileys' lawyer has obtained copies of needed documents and records, and will be evaluating them to see what the next steps will be.
The Bailey family, who raised animals on their acreage in unincorporated Kitsap county for decades, had been complying with KHS requests. Among other things, they were downsizing their animals and they did have a vet scheduled to come do health checks on the animals in a few days at their own expense as had been required by KHS. KHS knew this. Yet before any of this could happen, KHS came with law enforcement and every major media outlet and seized the Bailey's animals. Photos published by the media show KHS handling and transporting animals in ways inappropriate for the species, and even doing some of the same things mentioned as evidence of supposed cruelty.
But many of the things quoted as evidence of cruelty didn't appear to make sense.
KHS reportedly instructed the family to have food and water in front of the animals at all times, despite the fact that for many animals overfeeding can cause health problems such as obesity, bloat and colic---some of which can be rapidly fatal. When the Baileys complied with this order, their cow died.
The Baileys lived near a feed store and, according to news reports, did have food for the animals when inspected. But KHS said it wasn't enough---they were apparently supposed to have large amounts of food stockpiled at their home instead of buying enough fresh feed for a week or two at a time as needed.
Algae in water was cited as evidence of abuse, although this is a common occurrence and well within the range of normal on farms. A vet was quoted in the media expressing concern that some of the rabbits didn't have bedding, although even the ARBA recommends against putting bedding in wire rabbit cages. A horse-specific body scoring system was used to body score the cow, and a score within the range of normal was cited as evidence of starvation.
The quotes in the media which appear to be from the independent livestock-knowledgeable vets who examined the animals before they left the farm drastically differ from KHS's summary of the evaluations provided by the vets employed at the shelter, who examined them after many hours crammed into inappropriate transport containers without food or water.
The Baileys were not provided with the correct forms or instructions about how to file a petition to get their animals back, or information about the reasons the animals were removed. All they received in this regard was a copy of the state law.
The Baileys did not sign over their animals, and did file a petition to get the animals back in less than 14 business days as specified in the law to "prevent the animal's destruction or adoption." The petition was completely ignored. The Baileys requested to be able to post bail for their animals, and this also was denied.
Before they could even have a hearing, Kitsap Humane Society sent many of the animals to a remote rescue, and both organizations began castrating the Baileys' livestock animals---including rare breeds---and adopting them out. Many of the animals had already left KHS's hands within one day after the seizure, despite state law prohibiting disposal of the animals until 15 business days had passed without a petition being filed or bond posted.
When the Baileys' lawyer contacted the Humane Society, and then their attorneys at the county Prosecutor's Office, all the communications and requests for information were likewise ignored. Center Valley Animal Rescue has also flatly denied public records requests and access to evidence they hold.
Law enforcement MUST be held accountable to comply with the law and due process.
At the 1/3/2012 hearing, the judge ordered that no more of the Baileys' animals under the control of the Kitsap Humane Society be adopted out, altered or otherwise devalued at this time. KHS claimed that this was moot and could not apply because all of the animals had already left their hands. Meanwhile, CVAR openly announced that they would ignore the court order and continue neutering and adopting out the animals, even though on their website they note that they serve as overflow for the county humane society facility and other rescues, which would include KHS.
Despite many requests, the Baileys and their lawyer were not informed which animal or circumstance the single charge of 2nd degree cruelty against each of the Baileys was related to, or what evidence the charge was based on. They were denied access to evidence, veterinary reports, Humane Society records, photos, and the animals themselves. They were not allowed to see the animals or have a veterinarian examine them.
The Baileys only learned of the criminal charges against them and the hearing that was scheduled because a media reporter took pity on them and shared information KHS and the county prosecutor had given to the media but denied the defendants, despite many requests from both the Baileys and their lawyer.
The accused CANNOT mount an appropriate defense without being allowed access to the evidence or being told what specific allegations the charges are based on.
The Baileys were stripped of a large portion of their livelihood and self reliance without due process, and need your help to fight this. The monetary costs for dealing with an accusation like this are astronomical, whether a person in guilty or innocent. Legal fees are expensive, it costs money even to file paperwork, and posting bond for the animals can become extremely expensive very quickly.
Many may not know that WA state law was modified just this summer to add the words "accessible" and "appropriate" to the definitions of necessary food and water. This had the potential to become an important test case as to how that is interpreted. If any court rules that standard husbandry practices---such as feeding a specific ration tailored to the animal's needs rather than having unlimited food available 24/7---qualify as animal cruelty, this will affect all farmers, breeders, hobbyists and pet owners.
The Justice4PNW team and others worked to raise public awareness of this case and the due process issues, and to help gather evidence and affidavits to support the Baileys. After the second hearing, the Baileys were each assigned a public defender for the criminal charges, and their original attorney continued to represent them in the civil matter.
In mid-February, their civil attorney finally received replies to his requests for records and evidence from the various entities.
On Feb. 17, 2011, we received the news that all charges against the Baileys, both civil and criminal, have been dropped. This is excellent news.
But the battle is not over. The animals are still gone. Most had been altered and adopted out, and KHS has claimed that they have no jurisdiction over or ability to retrieve the ones that are still in rescues and foster care.
The Baileys would like to get their animals back, or at least be reimbursed for the animals and for the damage done to their property during the raid, but such a legal battle would be costly.
We need to send a strong message that, in cases where due process is ignored or animals are inappropriately confiscated, law enforcement must be held responsible. If animal owners are not found guilty of cruelty, they need to have their animals returned or be reimbursed for them. Simply accusing someone of an unproven crime does not give anyone the right to permanently take away or destroy a person's property.
We also need to make sure that, if it turns out that animals were confiscated inappropriately, the confiscating agency and not the animals' owner pays the cost of that confiscation.
At this point the Baileys' lawyer has obtained copies of needed documents and records, and will be evaluating them to see what the next steps will be.
We would also like to hear from anyone else who has had similar experiences with KHS or other animal law enforcement agencies--please contact the Justice4PNW team to share your story if you had animals confiscated without due process--especially if you were not charged, had charges dropped, or were found innocent; and either did not get your animals back or had to pay to get them back.