Why the City of Long Beach, California is Trying to Kill a One-eyed Pekinese…and 298 of Her Friends

The true story of life, death, lies and corruption in America’s fifth largest city.

The following is a factual account of how a volunteer-run, animal rescue and rehabilitation center called Noah’s Ark Animal Rescue, had it’s animals confiscated during a malicious and unjustified raid by the City of Long Beach, California. Dedicated to assisting senior and special needs pets, Noah’s Ark survives entirely on private donations and has successfully adopted out over 2400 pets last year alone.

At an eye-popping expense to the tax-payers, including air support via a city helicopter, fire department, police, and countless animal control personnel, a military style raid on the facility was conducted by the city. On duty at Noah’s Ark were a handful of unsuspecting volunteers including several minors, a couple of adults and a seventy year-old woman. During the assault, a 13 year-old boy who was there as part of a school-sanctioned program was brutally attacked by Long Beach police officers with a taser weapon leaving him to writhe in pain on the concrete floor. The seventy year-old woman volunteer was also forced to the ground and denied her medication for nearly two hours. The other volunteers were also brutally forced to the ground by police.

Over the course of some thirty-plus hours all 299 pets were hauled away, including Twiggy, a one-eyed Pekinese dog who was in the care of Noah’s Ark. During the raid, the founder, Alexia Kyrlund was arrested for suspicion of animal cruelty.

Based upon all the evidence it appears that the City of Long Beach, Animal Control Manager Wesley Moore, and Animal Control Lt. Michelle Quigley conspired to put at risk the lives of 299 faultless, innocent pets.

Here is the truth…the facts:

1. In a September 7, 2006 interview with the Gazette, Lt. Quigley said the animals at Noah’s Ark were “walking around in feces and urine.”
FACT These pets were left without cleaning and care for over 36 hours while they were being seized. Noah’s Ark volunteers were arriving to begin the morning cleaning routines when Lt. Quigley staged her raid. None of the volunteers were allowed to clean – they were threatened with arrest if they stuck around. It’s not hard to imagine what these pets will look like after so many hours of jumping around, being frightened by strangers, spilling their water buckets and food dishes, running through feces and urine after an overnight period and 36 hours. (Note: most of Noah’s Ark’s animals live cage free if they like so that they may curl up together – a progressive animal care stance that is well-supported in animal behavioral science.) At 36 hours, the animals basically produced their own evidence in the form of feces and urine. It is conjectured that Lt. Quigley did not take her evidence photos upon arrival but rather she waited until the cages became soiled with 36 hours of confinement.

Further, according to Ms. Kyrlund Lt. Quigley had visited the Noah’s Ark facility countless times over the past several months prior to the raid and never voiced a concern, issued a warning, written or verbal.

2. Noah’s Ark was raided illegally and without a warrant. Lt. Quigley stated in Administrative documents that Animal Control didn’t need a warrant because the animals were in eminent danger.
FACT There was no eminent danger. Was there evidence that the building was unsafe or other hazards? In fact Animal Control had been a regular visitor to the facility with never a mention of such potential or real hazards.

3. Lt. Quigley and Wesley Moore said in several newspaper interviews that they were unable to breath, even using masks while in the facility due to the overpowering smell.
FACT Several eyewitnesses reported that the Animal Control officers assigned to process the pets ordered pizza and soda pop and consumed this in the so-called “foul smelling” facility. Were Quigley and Moore exaggerating or do the Animal Control officers working under them have strong constitutions?

4. Lt. Quigley filed the action against Noah’s Ark using a Penal Code of 597.1, which applies to abandoned animals. By intentionally using the wrong code it allowed broad internal powers to be used by Animal Control. Instead of going before a judge to prove the validity of a raid, it was handled internally.
FACT Lt. Quigley went back according to Administrative document and changed the code to the proper Penal Code of 579.f. A typographical error, or calculated corruption? By using an internal Administrative Hearing, Animal Control is the judge and jury. By utilizing this process, all 299 pets are stripped of due process and Long Beach Animal Control moves closer to its written stated goal of the right to euthanize 299 cats and dogs.


5. According to the law in the city of Long Beach, even seized animals are to be released back to their owners as long as they are in good shape and do not pose a threat to the community.
FACT Twiggy and her friends are in legal limbo. The city has imposed nearly six-figures in impound fees. Holding these healthy, non-violent pets hostage is illegal.

6. Long Beach Animal Control removed the pets “for their own protection.”
FACT Anonymous individuals have made public, photographs taken inside the Animal Control facility where the Noah’s Ark animals are being held. The pets are living in complete and utter filth. Dogs lie in cages with the floors covered in feces and urine. Many have feces on their bodies. Some appear to be in cages much too small for their size. One small dog was living in a cat litter box. Are these pets being made to live in filth as a punishment or perhaps a photo-op in the future?

Why did all of this happen? Obviously this will only be conjecture and opinion but there are two items, deeply rooted in fact:

Big Money In 2003 Long Beach overturned a long-standing ban on pet breeding. Why would they tip the scales away from limiting the cities exploding pet population? The answer, The American Kennel Club’s annual dog shows. The show, which it is estimated to pump over $4 million into the local economy put pressure on the city to change the law (favoring the dog breeding community). Noah’s Ark was a very outspoken opponent of the city and the change of the law. In fact, Noah’s Ark would be one of the groups to bear the financial brunt of the flood of unwanted pets put into the system.

Complaints Just 13 days before the raid, Officer Estrada from Animal Control visited Noah’s Ark. He asked to go back into the runs with the dogs. He was told by the supervisor on duty, a slight woman of no more than 100 pounds that he could view the dogs through a split (Dutch–style) door until the pets could be secured. The Officer then set on the woman, assaulting her as he opened the door to the dog area. Immediately, a large dog pushed his head into the now open door, to which Officer Estrada slammed the thick wooden door onto the dogs head causing the dog to scream in pain.

This assault prompted Ms. Kyrlund to file a formal complaint with Wesley Moore and City Attorney Robert Shannon. The city now had Twiggy and her friends in their sights.

With no pre-seizure hearing, no due process, and unyielding effort to obtain the right to euthanize these pets, the city of Long Beach has sunk to a spectacularly low level.

What can be done? Ed Boks, General Manager of Los Angeles’ Animal Services, and a local vet offered to house and care for the animals FREE OF CHARGE. After the Noah’s Ark animals were photographed, their utility as evidence is fulfilled. Noah’s Ark agreed to this. Wesley Moore and the city’s attorney refused the offer. In fact, they told James Blancarte, the attorney for the animals, “No way, we’ll see you in court!”


DISCLAIMER: The information provided on the Noah's Justice website is provided as a public service and is intended to be used as reference material. These are not official findings. All individuals are innocent until proven guilty. Statements made herein are opinions. Assessing the accuracy and reliability of information contained in the website is the user's responsibility.
The information contained in the Noah's Justice website does not comprise all information available to the public. All information provided by Noah's Justice is provided on an "as is" basis and contains no warranties, express or implied. In no event shall Noah's Justice be liable for damages, of any nature whatsoever, arising from the use of this site.
Noah's Justice uses reasonable efforts to provide accurate, complete and current information on this website; it does not, however, represent the information to be so. By accessing this website, the user agrees that Noah's Justice and other parties involved in creating, maintaining, or delivering the information contained therein shall be immune from any liability and damages arising from inaccuracies or incompleteness in data provided.
By using Noah's Justice you agree that you have read, understood and will abide by all statements set forth in this Disclaimer.