# Watch 20/20 tonight



## Elegant (Jul 17, 2004)

Chanel's breeder sent me an email about how people steal show dogs and then falsley accuse them of abuse, and sell stolen animals, etc...I don't know what that will be about, just got an email from her. Tonight 10 pm eastern and pacific times, 9pm central, on ABC. Just thought I ought to tell you guys!

~Elegant


----------



## molidaab (Oct 19, 2004)

I also received an e-mail about this program. From what I was told, this is going to slam rescue groups in general. Unfortunately, from what i understand it is going to say that rescue groups are going around stealing dogs from breeders, then accusing them of neglect, etc. Sounds like it is going to hurt the good groups just because of a few bad apples. This has a J.S. sound all over it, although i know she had nothing to do with the program.


----------



## puppylucy (Jan 8, 2005)

i'll be watching if i'm home.. if not, i'll be recording it









thanks for the heads-up


----------



## Matilda's mommy (Jun 1, 2005)

I will watch it also.


----------



## Elegant (Jul 17, 2004)

Did anyone watch...I forgot to!









~Elegant


----------



## puppylucy (Jan 8, 2005)

i tried to watch and it wasnt on


----------



## Elegant (Jul 17, 2004)

Interesting...







I wonder why they would advertise something that wasn't going to be on? Odd...









~Elegant


----------



## mee (Jul 17, 2004)

i watched it last night, it was on at 10pm my time..
i missed about 5 min of the beginning tho, but the whole segment was about 15-20 min long.

just about this Texas SPCA basically stealing breeders dogs lobbying the judges saying that these breeder's dogs were being abused, starved, and mistreated and sick so they had to raid them in and take all her dogs away

but after all the dogs were examined, none of the dogs had any evidence of being abused, no dogs were covered with feces or urine , some were even overweight but still the SPCA took them in basically "stealing" them


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Elegant_@Jun 4 2005, 04:03 PM
> *Interesting...
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

It was on... just not quite the same show that was hyped. I'm not sure how I feel about it. I wasn't totally convinced that the Texas SPCA was stealing dogs... the conditions didn't look that great to me... guess it is subjective.


----------



## puppylucy (Jan 8, 2005)

i guess my area felt that hurricane programs were more important than animals.

like they haven't shown 19845932 programs about THOSE in the past year


----------



## mee (Jul 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Kallie/Catcher's Mom_@Jun 4 2005, 03:07 PM
> *the conditions didn't look that great to me...  guess it is subjective.
> <div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=68979*


[/QUOTE]

yeah the dogs condition didnt look great too to me..there were poop in their cages, and so many dogs in several huge outdoor cages... so first i was wondering why the SPCA was said they were "stealing" the dogs..but oh well...


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by mee+Jun 4 2005, 04:14 PM-->
> 
> 
> 
> ...


yeah the dogs condition didnt look great too to me..there were poop in their cages, and so many dogs in several huge outdoor cages... so first i was wondering why the SPCA was said they were "stealing" the dogs..but oh well...








<div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=68985
[/B][/QUOTE]

Sometimes reporters exaggerate to get a story... It's hard to know what to believe... they didn't appear to be showing both sides. They had their agenda and were set on proving it.


----------



## 3Maltmom (May 23, 2005)

I also watched it last nite. Looked like back-yard breeders to me. I don't know if anyone noticed the Malts? They were filthy. And matted.
Whether it was urine or dirt. All of the dogs, I noticed, were filthy. There's more to taking care of these little ones than throwing food and water in an outdoor pen.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by 3Maltmom_@Jun 4 2005, 04:46 PM
> *I also watched it last nite.  Looked like back-yard breeders to me.  I don't know if anyone noticed the Malts?  They were filthy. And matted.
> Whether it was urine or dirt.  All of the dogs, I noticed, were filthy.  There's more to taking care of these little ones than throwing food and water in an outdoor pen.
> <div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=68989*


[/QUOTE]

Great point! The whole story seemed to center on the fact that they didn't have urine or feces on them... like that was the definitive test for whether or not they were abused.

I think that 20/20 is a sleazy show, IMHO. Not just based on this, but on past topics, as well.


----------



## HappyB (Feb 28, 2005)

Puppymills are horrible things, and none of us want to see them in operation. I have thought about this program since it aired. Today, I was thinking about law, and whether I could look at this as a situation dealing with something entirely different. Let's say that we were dealing with someone who had 80 to 90 boxes on their property. Someone went to the judge and said I'm going to go seize those boxes because they should have red tape on them, and they have blue. Would we see this as a different thing then? If we look at the legal aspect and whether someone can come in and seize property just because they have the right to do it, and then profit from it, then our country is no better than some of those our men and women are fighting to free.


----------



## sheila2182 (Nov 28, 2004)

The pens where they kept them looked 'shoddy" to me also.I missed some of it,but one women they said had air condtioning in her kennals.I didnt see that though.But what I seen did look like brb to me also.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LucyLou_@Jun 4 2005, 06:22 PM
> *Puppymills are horrible things, and none of us want to see them in operation.  I have thought about this program since it aired.   Today, I was thinking about law, and whether I could look at this as a situation dealing with something entirely different.  Let's say that we were dealing with someone who had 80 to 90 boxes on their property.  Someone went to the judge and said I'm going to go seize those boxes because they should have red tape on them, and they have blue.  Would we see this as a different thing then?  If we look at the legal aspect and whether someone can come in and seize property just because they have the right to do it, and then profit from it, then our country is no better than some of those our men and women are fighting to free.
> <div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=69009*


[/QUOTE]

I guess the difference is that there are laws against cruelty to animals but there apparently is not a definition of exactly what that means. Also, I think it is a matter of whether or not dogs are considered "property" or living beings. Those who see them as property definitely wouldn't think they should be seized. 

I don't see dogs as property and do think we should seize them if they are being mistreated. Again, it is a subjective judgement, though, regarding whether or not they are being mistreated. That's where the controvery lies. 

20/20 can spin the story to suit their purposes and to make sure they have a story to put on air.


----------



## HappyB (Feb 28, 2005)

My dogs are family members. That is why I had to back off and look at this as something totally different. If it were a living being, then it's a totally different matter. I've just received some links that might shed a different light on this subject. 

http://www.spca.org/site/PageServer?pagena..._20_Ben_Wheeler

http://www.spca.org/site/PageServer?pagena...0_20_Van_Zandt2



I see that this is around Canton, Texas. This area is notorious for puppymills. If you have never been to the Canton Flea Market, then you might not know about the horrible situation of selling animals there. I stopped by once, and it was one of the sickest situations I could imagine. Animals in cages for sale in these little makeshift booths. I also visited a puppymill outside Tyler, Texas. I can still envision the sight, as well as recall the sench.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LucyLou_@Jun 4 2005, 06:50 PM
> *My dogs are family members.  That is why I had to back off and look at this as something totally different.  If it were a living being, then it's a totally different matter.  I've just received some links that might shed a different light on this subject.
> 
> http://www.spca.org/site/PageServer?pagena..._20_Ben_Wheeler
> ...


[/QUOTE]

OH GOSH!! I think it is time for me to write 20/20 an email.... As I suspected... they spun this to get a story... they did not truly investigate to see what the situation was... and they thought they were so clever to bring a vet along incognito... Seems like they were just out to get the guy who runs the SPCA and to attract viewers .....









EDIT: For anyone who missed the broadcast, here is a link to most of what you missed: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=817494&page=1

There is a link to a message board on the first page of the story.... Here is the link.... man... if you think we have opinions on this board... whoa.... these people are fightin' mad.... on both sides of the issue!!! http://forums.go.com/abcnews/2020/forum?st...4&byThread=true


----------



## Elegant (Jul 17, 2004)

I just looked at the subject line on her email to me and it the email was intended for YTCLA members...wtf is that?

~Elegant


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Elegant_@Jun 4 2005, 07:10 PM
> *I just looked at the subject line on her email to me and it the email was intended for YTCLA members...wtf is that?
> 
> ~Elegant
> <div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=69023*


[/QUOTE]
I Googled it and it is Yorkshire Terrier Club of Los Angeles.


----------



## Elegant (Jul 17, 2004)

Thanks...got a little lazy!









~Elegant


----------



## clharter (May 14, 2005)

I was very torn by the report. While I didn't think the conditions were the greatest, I didn't see the conditions that the dogs were being confinscated for. I do think that there should be warnings to improve before taking the animals away. The last lady they showed had been on vacation and the dogs were still clean, watered and fed. They did show her indoor kennels and the air conditioner. She seemed to really lover her animals. They wouldn't even let her say goodbye to her first dog. When they checked her dogs none had fecies or urine and some were even over weight.The people checking the dogs were office workers not vets. But it did seem that the main focus was on the Texas SPCA. It's a shame that it will probably affect other reputable rescues.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by clharter_@Jun 4 2005, 07:59 PM
> *I was very torn by the  report. While I didn't think the conditions were the greatest, I didn't see the conditions that the dogs were being confinscated for.  I do think that there should be warnings to improve before taking the animals away.  The last lady they showed had been on vacation and the dogs were still clean, watered and fed. They did show her indoor kennels and the air conditioner.  She seemed to really lover her animals. They wouldn't even let her say goodbye to her first dog.  When they checked her dogs none had fecies or urine and some were even over weight.The people checking the dogs were office workers not vets.  But it did seem that  the main focus was on the Texas SPCA.  It's a shame that it will probably affect other reputable rescues.
> <div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=69034*


[/QUOTE]

Check out some of the links in LucyLou's post above. I just think if these people loved their dogs so much they would have provided better conditions for them... urine and feces are not the gold standard for care, IMHO.

It would have been nice, though, if they could have had classes to teach these people how to care for dogs and give them a second chance.


----------



## 3Maltmom (May 23, 2005)

These were BACKYARD BREEDERS. They were NOT hobby breeders. The one with the air conditioning , was nothing more than a small-scale puppy mill.


----------



## clharter (May 14, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Kallie/Catcher's Mom+Jun 4 2005, 05:02 PM-->
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Check out some of the links in LucyLou's post above. I just think if these people loved their dogs so much they would have provided better conditions for them... urine and feces are not the gold standard for care, IMHO.

It would have been nice, though, if they could have had classes to teach these people how to care for dogs and give them a second chance.
<div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=69036
[/B][/QUOTE]
The woman I was talking about is Pam CHanault. The SPCA site does not show any pics of her kennels. 

I'm not saying that I think dogs should live that way, but the Spca didn't find any of the things they were charging her for. THe laws need to be changed or made more spacific.


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

That's not back yard breeders, that's puppy mills. My definition of a BYB is NOT having 89 dogs. 
I had mixed feelings after seeing the show too. I gave the benefit of the doubt to some of the people involved. But that particular lady had the guts to say she had show dogs. Show dogs ??? Please. Show dogs should look in better condition. My husband made a good point too about the other lady who went on vacation for 4 days. How can you go on vacation for 4 days when you have so many dogs ? Who took care of those dogs during the 4 days ? were they left by themself ? This was a real one sided botched story. After seeing the pictures in Lucylou links, now I cannot even give the benefit of the doubt to the other people involved (the one with the horses and the lady who took in stray dogs).


----------



## Teddyandme (Feb 6, 2005)

Last evening after the show I replied in a different topic about this show...and said that I thought that one should have a right to appeal and that one person should not have the right to seize the property of another just because he has power...and then I saw the links to the sites lucy lou posted...and I want to cry

How dare 20/20 say they are a news program without an agenda...this is not unbiased journalism but a story to rile others up and for 20/20 to make a profit on people watching there show at the expense once again of the animals who are again abused...over and over again. 

When will we as a people learn not to trust these shows...and when will we stop using the innocent to make a buck. There eyes say it all...so very sad. No animal should live this way...without a lap to call his very own and a loving hand to reassure.

Susan


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Teddyandme_@Jun 4 2005, 11:58 PM
> *Last evening after the show I replied in a different topic about this show...and said that I thought that one should have a right to appeal and that one person should not have the right to seize the property of another just because he has power...and then I saw the links to the sites lucy lou posted...and I want to cry
> 
> How dare 20/20 say they are a news program without an agenda...this is not unbiased journalism but a story to rile others up and for 20/20 to make a profit on people watching there show at the expense once again of the animals who are again abused...over and over again.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

You are soooo right! 

Check out the bulletin board at the show web site that I posted in an earlier post in this thread..... lots of people are upset over this... of course some puppmillers are applauding the show...


----------



## puppylucy (Jan 8, 2005)

i cant believe 20/20~!!!

poor dogs


----------



## Elegant (Jul 17, 2004)

Uh-oh...so what does this say about Chanel's breeder? -_- Maybe she didn't know what it was about. She sent me a forwarded email. I think I will email her back just to politely enlight/inform her.









~Elegant


----------



## HappyB (Feb 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Elegant_@Jun 5 2005, 10:28 AM
> *Uh-oh...so what does this say about Chanel's breeder?  -_-  Maybe she didn't know what it was about.  She sent me a forwarded email. I think I will email her back just to politely enlight/inform her.
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

I don't think you can draw any conclusions about your breeder from her sending this email about the show to you. I got it from a number of sources--rescue sites, as well as from people who show. As the story was advertised, it was to tell of dog theft. I know I was eager to see it, but after seeing the pictures of how the dogs were raised, I had a totally different view of the rescue group, as well as 20/20. I don't agree with raising dogs in that way, regardless of whether they have food and water, or whether they are clean or dirty. No dog should spend most of it's day in a cage, whether it is living in a puppymill or a show breeder's home.


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by LucyLou+Jun 5 2005, 01:02 PM-->
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think you can draw any conclusions about your breeder from her sending this email about the show to you. I got it from a number of sources--rescue sites, as well as from people who show. As the story was advertised, it was to tell of dog theft. I know I was eager to see it, but after seeing the pictures of how the dogs were raised, I had a totally different view of the rescue group, as well as 20/20. I don't agree with raising dogs in that way, regardless of whether they have food and water, or whether they are clean or dirty. No dog should spend most of it's day in a cage, whether it is living in a puppymill or a show breeder's home.
<div align="right">index.php?act=findpost&pid=69253
[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, said, LucyLou....

Elegant, I wouldn't think there is anything wrong with your breeder letting people know about the show...


----------



## Maidto2Maltese (Oct 19, 2004)

I only saw a small segment of this show.. but the one lady ( stout blonde lady) looked an awful lot like the one featured on the Animal planet show where the texas SPCA is featured. I can't say for sure but the lady and the place sure looked like it.. and if so... when watching the Animal planet show.. I felt the conditions were very very bad... but then I don't like these type breeding 'set-ups' to begin with!
Also, if I recall, they ( SPCA) had issued some warnings before actually going in to seize the pups.
They often repeat these SPCA programs.. so hope someone will catch it and see if I am correct.
Missysmom


----------



## Elegant (Jul 17, 2004)

Thanks guys!









~Elegant


----------



## HappyB (Feb 28, 2005)

Here is a different slant on the legal aspect of the dogs taken in Texas, as shown on 20/20. I think we have already discussed that these dogs were not in good situations, but this just points out the legality of it.
I got this from another site, and it has been crossposted there, so I assume it is OK to post the information.


Someone did speculate on the unconstitutionality of the Dallas (TX) law not allowing appeals & wondered why no one has appealed it. (They probably don't go after people who know enough & can afford to do so competently.)

Bad as the no-appeals issue is, there are other serious Constitutional issues involved in these cases. The 4th Amendment guarantees the right to be secure in one's home against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 5th Amendment says one cannot be
deprived of one's property without due process of law and that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the laws.

What all that means is the seizures themselves violated the prinicple of the 4th Amendment; and keeping the property (the animals seized) without due process and selling them without giving owners the profits violated the 5th Amendment.

Furthermore, for any defendants, such as Mrs. Moore, who couldn't afford a private attorney, the court is supposed to appoint a public defender. That requirement is embedded in the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, as decided by the Supreme Court in Gideon v. Wainwright (1963).

Of course, that Garcia twerp goes after poor defendants, just because without counsel representing them, they cannot present a decent defense. I just don't understand how the state of Texas gets away with that alone. I recently spent a whole morning in the misdemeanor section of New York City's Criminal Court. The offenses were all trivial stuff, almost all of them either dismissed or downgraded to violations with small fines. But even there, there was a public defender, actually a good one, to represent all defendants, which she did very responsibly.

I, too, read the ABC messages in response to the program, and you're right, most focused on whether these cases were justified or not, whereas the much larger issue
is whether the United States Constitution is being trashed, which it seems it is.>


----------



## k/c mom (Oct 9, 2004)

LucyLou, there are some good points but again it boils down to if the dogs were just "property" and not living beings. Aren't there "Cruelty to Animals" laws that they are breaking?


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

I have been a big fan of 20/20 for years, but that segment was one of the most biased I have ever seen. Anyone who followed the Jennifer Siliski/Hollybelle story knows that there is much, much more to seizing dogs than was portrayed on that segment. 

Much ado was made about how one judge could sign an order and the SPCA could then go in and take the dogs. I work in the legal profession and that is called an injunction. It's an emergency measure, based on probable cause, but it is in no way the final resolution. Just as happened in the Hollybelle case, that just begins the legal process which involves court hearings, witnesses, expert testimony, etc. Without conclusive evidence, those dogs would be eventually returned to their owner.

Whether or not mange, fleas, living conditions, etc. warrented seizing the dogs would ultimately be decided bases on evidence presented, not a judge's signature on the original injunction. In the Hollybelle case, it took a year to be resolved which is a much more accurate estimation of the time involved. The 20/20 story implied that the dogs were seized, then sold shortly afterwards. For any of you unfamiliar with the Hollybelle story, it will give you a truer picture of how the process really works. 

http://hollybellemaltese.com/

Watching the 20/20 story made me wonder if group lobbying behind blocking the Puppy Protection Act and similar legislation was behind the story. It's a large, vocal and heavily funded group of puppy millers and brokers. Since the Humane Society publically supports this legislation and opposes puppy mills, I wonder if that is why it was targetted?

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications...g_breeding.html

http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications...ection_act.html

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_...on_puppy_mills/


----------



## dhodina (Apr 1, 2005)

Wether you want to admit it or not a dog is your property. You paid money for it and you are responsible for its upkeep. I know alot of people view them as children but the truth is they aren't, they are dogs. When it comes down to it they are seen as property. The laws Texas has passed are extremely onesided and violating our rights. They are only taking into account one person's view and slant on things to make a decision. If you only take pictures of the things you want you can leave alot out and the judge isn't always getting the whole picture, and once he decides you have no way to fight, no fair trial, nothing. What if the person taking the pictures doesn't like you for a personal reason. What is to stop him from using the courts to hurt you? What if you have a sick dog, they take pictures of the sick dog, underweight looking horrid, but you have the dog under vet treatment. They show the picture of the dog to the judge, he says that is abuse, take the animal. You have no way to go and say you have the dog under vet care and are doing what is right, you just lost your pet and can do nothing. Perception isn't always reality.


----------



## Ladysmom (Oct 19, 2004)

"The laws Texas has passed are extremely onesided and violating our rights...The judge isn't always getting the whole picture, and once he decides you have no way to fight, no fair trial, nothing."

The Judge only signs the temporary order giving the officer to the right to seize the animals. That is an emergency order and is only good for 10 days. Then, within 10 days of the Judge's order, there is a hearing to determine whether or not the animals are being treated cruelly. Failure to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody constitutes cruelty under Texas law. 

Only after a hearing if it is proven that the animals were treated cruelly do they become the property of a non-profit animal shelter.

For anyone who is interested, here is the actual law:

HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 
TITLE 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS 
CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS 
SUBCHAPTER B. DISPOSITION OF CRUELLY TREATED ANIMALS

§ 821.022. Seizure of Cruelly Treated Animal


(a) If a peace officer or an officer who has responsibility for animal control in a county or municipality has reason to believe that an animal has been or is being cruelly treated, the officer may apply to a justice court or magistrate in the county or to a municipal court in the municipality in which the animal is located for a warrant to seize the animal.

(







On a showing of probable cause to believe that the animal has been or is being cruelly treated, the court or magistrate shall issue the warrant and set a time within 10 calendar days of the date of issuance for a hearing in the appropriate justice court or municipal court to determine whether the animal has been cruelly treated.

© The officer executing the warrant shall cause the animal to be impounded and shall give written notice to the owner of the animal of the time and place of the hearing.




Tex. Penal Code § 42.09 (2004)

§ 42.09. Cruelty to Animals


(2) fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for
an animal in the person's custody;




HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 
TITLE 10. HEALTH AND SAFETY OF ANIMALS 
CHAPTER 821. TREATMENT AND DISPOSITION OF ANIMALS 
SUBCHAPTER B. DISPOSITION OF CRUELLY TREATED ANIMALS


GO TO TEXAS CODE ARCHIVE DIRECTORY

Tex. Health & Safety Code § 821.023 (2004)

§ 821.023. Hearing; Order of Disposition or Return of Animal


(a) A finding in a court of competent jurisdiction that the owner of an animal is guilty of an offense under Section 42.09, Penal Code, involving the animal is prima facie evidence at a hearing authorized by Section 821.022 that the animal has been cruelly treated.

(







A statement of an owner made at a hearing provided for under this subchapter is not admissible in a trial of the owner for an offense under Section 42.09, Penal Code.

© Each interested party is entitled to an opportunity to present evidence at the hearing.

(d) If the court finds that the animal's owner has cruelly treated the animal, the owner shall be divested of ownership of the animal, and the court shall:

(1) order a public sale of the animal by auction;

(2) order the animal given to a nonprofit animal shelter, pound, or
society for the protection of animals; or

(3) order the animal humanely destroyed if the court decides that the
best interests of the animal or that the public health and safety would
be served by doing so.

(e) A court that finds that an animal's owner has cruelly treated the animal shall order the owner to pay all court costs, including costs of:

(1) investigation;

(2) expert witnesses;

(3) housing and caring for the animal during its impoundment;

(4) conducting any public sale ordered by the court; and

(5) humanely destroying the animal if destruction is ordered by the
court.

(f) The court may order that an animal disposed of under Subsection (d)(1) or (d)(2) be spayed or neutered at the cost of the receiving party.

(g) The court shall order the animal returned to the owner if the court does not find that the animal's owner has cruelly treated the animal.


----------



## dhodina (Apr 1, 2005)

"Garcia led an effort to get Texas politicians to pass a law saying once a Justice of the Peace approves one of the SPCA's confiscations, an owner can't do anything about it. "


This is what I was refering to.


----------



## doctorcathy (May 17, 2004)

i just saw the show today...it was stupid because i watch animal precinct and animal cops....all those shows----and the SPCA wasnt stealing these dogs. 

and even on the show---they'll say "just clean it up, and i'll be back in a few days". and if they dont clean it up they say "i guess its too much work, i'll take some of the dogs". 

i hated the 20/20 show. 


OH, and i saw an Animal Precinct where there was dalmation (i think) that was all skinny and they went to talk to the owner and he showed proof of vet bills saying that the dog was dying...so they left the dog there. 

and whats up with all these animals "that were stolen" living outside and having poo right next to the food bowls??


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

When Animal control in Houston seizes maltreated animals they ask the Houston SPCA to help care for them. But the SPCA cannot dispose of the animals before the case went to court. As far as I have seen here in Houston, it's the court who decides if an owner can get the animals back or not. Once the court has decided, the SPCA is free to auction off the animals or place them up for adoption. Those cases shown on 20/20 are strange. It's a botched report as I said before. It did not show the whole picture.


----------

