I think "mistreating" and "neglected" can safely be considered synonymous terms in this instance.Originally Posted by wilomn
So here's a fact. Jane Flint was arrested for "suspicion of mistreating animals and violating regulations regarding endangered or threatened species". This is according to an official document. An arrest report. Not a document made up by peta or the HSUS but an honest to God document created by an officer of the law. And before someone starts talking about police corruption, don't bother. There's too many agencies involved for it to be the police trying to set someone up.
This next part speaks for itself. Cullen himself claimed not to need a permit for exotics due to a consulting arrangement. The director of the Wisconsin Humane Society says some of the animals might have been covered, but not all of them.Jane E. Flint, who told police she lived in the building at 2323 S. 13th St., was arrested Wednesday and is in custody at the Milwaukee County Jail. She is being held on suspicion of mistreating animals and violating regulations regarding endangered or threatened species, according to the arrest report.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/93800689.html
If he claims not to need a permit chances are pretty good he doesn't have one. Time will tell to what extent the animals he kept were or were not covered under the consulting agreement. It will also tell if maybe he misunderstood the extent that the animals were covered under the agreement.
I'm all for giving someone the benefit of the doubt and I understand the desire to circle the wagons to protect one of our own, but it seems like the evidence we have access to is mounting against the guy. No doubt we all look forward to hearing his side of the story, but in a nutshell this is what we have so far -Cullen told investigators he doesn't need a permit for the exotic animals because of his consulting agreement with the Wisconsin Humane Society.
A limited number of Cullen's animals may have been covered by the humane society's licenses, but certainly not all of them, according to Executive Director Anne Reed. She said she is "surprised and concerned" about what authorities found at Cullen's properties.
http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/93861264.html
1) Police served a search warrant and found the place in shambles. I know there's been several comments about how the search warrant is probably illegitimate, but those accusations have no basis on anything solid that I've come across. They appear to be based on emotion and a dislike of peta/hsus in general. Some have even suggested that peta somehow setup Terry Cullen to make him look bad because they don't like people having pets. Which leads me to my next point...
2) The building has been condemned. If a health inspection condemned the building this quickly that a pretty good bet something is really amiss.
A few people have said that the conditions could get bad in very short order with that many animals and too little help. Sure they could get bad, but condemnation indicates a public health hazard. A few piles of snake poops and dead rats don't equate to condemnation. Something had to be going on over the long term.
The question is how long has peta had an inside person going behind Terry Cullen, and Jane Flint spreading poop and the corpses of dead rodents around to the point where the building needs to be condemned?
3) They've removed somewhere between 250 and 300 animals and no reports indicate they were well cared for. Not from the zoo representatives, the police officers, the city workers, the neighbors, or even the humane society. Unless everyone involved is out to get Terry Cullen I'd expect there to be some kind of positive spin on this whole situation in his favor by someone. But I've not heard it, have you?
4) Terry Cullen has himself said he doesn't need permits for the animals. Which is a pretty good indication he doesn't have them. If you claim not to need it you probably won't bother going through the time and expenses to acquire it.
Reply With Quote