BACKGROUND

           Michigan Doodle Rescue Connect (MDRC) is a nonprofit organization that specializes in rescuing dogs, usually poodle mixes known as “doodles.”

           On March 10, 2020, MDRC received a call that about flyers in Newaygo County that read: “For Sale … 10 [ten] Labordoole [sic] Puppies … will be Vet check. Vaccine. Dewormed. $900.00 obo [or best offer].” The flyer continued: “free to a good home 4 month old Brittany Spaniel and Poodle Cross,” “Vet check vaccine deworm.” 

           MDRC sent a team to rescue the “free” dogs, which turned out to be three siblings that were 5-6 months old. They were dirty, matted, and malnourished. They were living in extremely unsanitary conditions on the breeder's property, stinking and covered with feces that was matted into their fur. At the time of the rescue, one of the dogs on the property was seen eating his own feces.

           After transporting the puppies to safety, MDRC began the process of bathing the puppies. It was during that process that MDRC noticed that one of puppies, Hank, had a leather strap embedded in his mouth between his jaws and knotted at the back of his head. The leather strap had clearly been left in Hank’s mouth for months. The leather was rotting and had cut deeply into Hank’s right and left cheeks as he grew, leaving one inch of raw, exposed flesh on both sides. In other words, the breeder had wrapped a leather strap around Hank's head and mouth, practically gagging him, and left the strap to rot away Hank's skin. This would have caused progressive and extreme unrelenting pain and impaired Hank's ability to eat.

           MDRC immediately sought medical care from the Surrey Veterinary Clinic to remove the leather strap and have Hank medically evaluated. The treating veterinarian was shocked and horrified. Hank had to be sedated, his head was shaved, and his injuries were surgically treated.

           As an additional side effect of having a leather strap between his jaws, Hank’s teeth were in poor condition. His inability to chew or keep saliva in his mouth caused advanced tooth decay. At the time of his rescue, Hank was a 5-6-month-old puppy with the teeth of a 10-year-old adult dog. Worse yet, if MDRC had not intervened, based on the breeder's abject neglect, the leather strap would likely have caused consequences leading to a systemic infection and death.

           Hank has since been adopted and has a loving new family: one of the veterinary technicians who treated him. The night after Hank’s surgery, she was so moved by his poor condition and suffering that she voluntarily stayed at Surrey overnight to keep a personal watch over him—even sleeping by Hank’s side.

           While Hank has made great progress in healing physically and mentally, his injuries will likely be permanent. The breeder's cruelty will leave Hank in a disabled condition for the rest of his life.

IMPACT STATEMENT AND REQUEST

            MDRC has rescued and continues to rescue dogs that come from a variety of backgrounds: some are surrendered by a family that can no longer care for the dog, others are surrendered by breeders who were unable to sell the dog as planned. At times, the dogs are not in good health—for example, suffering from skin infections or gastrointestinal parasites, or requiring corrective eye surgery. Never in MDRC’s history have they ever encountered a dog as severely injured as Hank. Therefore, MDRC respectfully requests that the Court order a penalty under MCLA Section 750.50 that reflects the gross neglect committed by the defendant: 2 years of probation with the condition that the breeder be prohibited from possessing any dogs, a $1,000 fine, and 200 hours of community service.

2 Years of Probation With No Dogs

            Section 750.50 authorizes the Court to impose as part of the sentence a requirement that the breeder not own or posses any dogs for the entire term of probation. It is appropriate for the Court to do so in this case, which will serve both a protective function and send an important message to others who might otherwise neglect animals. The breeder has shown that he cannot and will not properly care for the dogs he possesses. While he described them at his arraignment as “pets,” he admitted to the Michigan State Police that he only checks on them once per month. (MDRC is skeptical of the truth of even that claim, as Hank’s injuries could not have occurred over the span of just one month.)

           In addition, the police officers who investigated the breeder's property reported that the dogs were kept in squalid conditions. Their pens were filled with feces. The police officers even noticed that one of the dogs was eating feces at the time of the rescue-- indicating this may have been a constant activity due to both nutritional and environmental deprivation. Hank and his brothers were malnourished and filthy. They were not the exception: in fact, MDRC believes that separate violation of Section 750.50 could have been charged for every one of the dogs on the property, in addition to Hank. While MDRC supports the County Prosecutor's decisions in this case, the Court should consider the extent of the neglect and the breeder's reckless disregard for the well-being of the animals in his possession. The Court has an opportunity to prevent further animal abuse by this defendant. If the breeder is allowed to keep any dogs, the likelihood of repeat instances of cruelty are high.

           The breeder's conduct has demonstrated that he is categorically unable to care for animals in his possession, and that the eventual outcome for any such animals will be prolonged neglect and suffering. Given the high recidivism rate among animal abusers, barring him from possession of animals, and requiring him to surrender the dogs in his care, will go a long way towards eliminating the likelihood of future abuse, as well as supporting the public policy of the state to prevent animal cruelty before it starts.

$1,000 Fine

            MDRC expended significant resources to care for Hank. His veterinary bills alone cost the organization thousands of dollars, in addition to expenses of grooming and feeding him. The breeder has not offered to reimburse MDRC for these expenses, even though he might be required to do so under the common law. Instead, MDRC respectfully requests that the Court order the breeder to pay the maximum fine under the animal cruelty statute: $1,000.

            The breeder's financial situation is no defense or excuse for his actions, and financial concerns are not a defense to animal cruelty. And as evidenced by his flyer, the breeder was selling puppies for $900 each. Given his involvement in a business directly tied to his conviction, and the money expended by MDRC on Hank's behalf, the breeder should be assessed the maximum fine of $1,000.

            Moreover, imposing a fine will have a deterrent effect on this breeder and other irresponsible breeders, serving the public interest. Overpopulation is a serious problem faced by local animal control departments and animal rescue organization, which results in additional costs to taxpayers and the unnecessary euthanization of healthy dogs. As evidenced by the breeder's willingness to give up Hank and his siblings for “free,” there are many unwanted dogs who are the product of breeders looking to get rich quick. The $1,000 fine sends a message to breeders that dog breeding is not an easy way to make money: the breeder must adequately care for the puppies and refrain from hurting them.

200 Hours of Community Service

            Finally, MDRC asks the Court to require the breeder to complete 200 hours of community service.

CONCLUSION

            This case has a national and even international following. It has been featured on television news segments and in newspaper articles. The eyes of the world—including millions of Americans who are dedicatd to the protection of animals from cruelty, as well as breeders like this one—are on the Court. MDRC trusts that justice will be served through the sentencing of the breeder who abused Hank and that the Court’s decision will send a message that animal neglect, cruelty, and abuse is unacceptable.