Pricey care: Humane Society explains high reimbursement costs in Great Dane case

WOLFEBORO — The New Hampshire state director of the Humane Society of the United States says that what might appear to be overbilling by the agency for the care of Great Danes seized from Christina Fay last June in fact barely covers the expenses that have been incurred.

Lindsay Hamrick, responding to an article in the Feb. 20 edition of The Laconia Daily Sun, said items such as “consultants and services” actually refers to people providing direct care to the animals.

Hamrick said there are five to six paid staffers at the shelters each day, including veterinary technicians, dog trainers, shelter managers, and other trained people, and more would be needed if not for the 12-14 volunteers who assist with the care of the dogs.

Tuesday’s article noted that the judge in the Fay animal cruelty case ordered her to pay $773,887 to the HSUS, but an itemized list of costs showed that only $154,375 went to the direct care of the dogs in the form of veterinary care, medical supplies, transportation and sheltering, and food.

Hamrick said the remainder of the money also went into the care of the seized dogs.

She said New Hampshire has 12 independent animal shelters that take in abused animals when possible, but they were unable to accommodate the 80 Great Danes seized from Wolfeboro.

“Even if they could take them in, they were not equipped to care for them for the eight months to three years it typically takes for an animal cruelty case to make its way through the courts,” Hamrick said. “That kind of a commitment for a nonprofit is an enormous one.”

The HSUS has an animal rescue team to deal specifically with large-scale animal cruelty cases and national disasters, she said, and has an operations plan and memoranda of understanding with law enforcement agencies to provide emergency services.

In the Great Dane case, the agency paid for the lease of three spaces and the shipping of the kennels and supplies, and had to staff the shelters, “so we essentially built three animal shelters over the course of a couple of weeks,” Hamrick said.

“The dogs are still in those spaces now, and even with the conviction and restitution order, none of that applies because of the appeals process. The Great Danes are still in temporary animal shelters — although they’re not so temporary now.”

While Fay asked the court to allow her to place the dogs in other homes, Hamrick said the state did not feel comfortable with that arrangement.

“The New Hampshire Legislature clearly found that the fact finder in the cruelty case was the best person to determine what is in the best interest of victimized animals — not the perpetrator,” attorneys for the state wrote in the sentencing memorandum.

Hamrick said the fees listed in the judgment reflect real costs, and would be much higher if many of the veterinarians did not provide services at reduced or no cost. She also noted that the listing does not include more than $100,000 in veterinary care paid from a separate HSUS fund established for the purpose.

“The travel costs are assessed because we brought people from all over the country to help,” Hamrick said, explaining that they use local volunteers from New Hampshire and New England as much as possible, but, in order to provide the staffing and care needed for that many dogs, they had to draw people from a wider area.

Animal cruelty bill

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday passed an amended version of Senate Bill 569, introduced by Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro), which requires people accused of animal cruelty to post a $2,000-per-animal bond to cover the cost of care.

The principal amendment was to increase from five to seven the number of breedable females to determine that dog owners must file as kennel operators. Opponents of the bill had complained that those who chose not to spay their dogs could be lumped into the category of breeders, even if they were only raising the dogs as pets. By increasing the number, legislators hoped to address the concerns of pet owners who are unlikely to have as many dogs.

To those who complain that the $2,000 bond is excessive, Hamrick said it is a reasonable payment for providing the care.

“If your dog gets loose, you have to pay a fee to get her back,” Hamrick said. “It’s that the shelter has provided care for your animal for however many days until you came to claim it. The state spends $300,000 to $500,000 per year on the care of animals seized, and only about 3 percent of that gets paid by defendants.”

The bond was included to relieve the burden on the towns, which are obligated by law to arrange for the care of seized animals, as well as to help the shelters providing the care.

“If towns are looking at a tremendous expense, it impacts how quickly they address animal cruelty,” Hamrick said.

She said the American Kennel Club and other groups that criticize such legislation offer no financial assistance or help to the agencies that rescue abused animals. “So it’s concerning about how they criticize how they’re cared for.”

More than 30 states have similar laws to require the accused to pay for the care of their animals, according to Hamrick.

“The Governor’s Commission has studied the issue of money and has said in reports that a bonding law is a huge portion of the solution,” she said.

Hamrick said there is a misconception about how easy it is to make a false accusation and seize animals.

“Law enforcement can only seize animals based on probable cause, and there must be a signed court warrant,” she pointed out.