What Will Happen to the Noah's Ark Animals Now?

Reprinted from Best Friends Network bestfriends.org

The Legal Animal
What will happen to the Noah’s Ark animals now?
September 28, 2006 : 12:00 AM
Nearly 300 animals seized from Long Beach, CA rescue facility are in the middle of a legal tug-of-war over their future.Pictured: A young friend with Tippi, before the surgery that removed her massive tumor and revitalized her life. ****************************************************************************They are the cats and dogs that society has forgotten, discarded, deemed to be worthless.“Ol Man,” a 14-year-old hound dog dumped at the pound by his lifelong owner, and desperate for a little love. “Jake” one of two dogs who stuck right by his elderly owner’s side after the man suffered from a stroke – only to be thrown out by the man’s children. And “Tippi,” a dog whose sweet face was overshadowed by a massive but benign tumor, who had been shot by a BB gun before being dropped at a municipal animal shelter.All were scheduled to be euthanized at an animal control facility, before rescuers stepped in at the last minute and saved them, taking them to Noah’s Ark rescue in Long Beach, California.All ended up among the 299 animals seized from Noah’s Ark on Aug. 23, during a raid by Long Beach Animal Control.And all are now waiting in cages at the animal control facility, waiting for the lawyers and judges to determine their future.Seizure of animals controversial, facts in heavy dispute. The controversy over that seizure is not likely to end anytime soon.Animal Control officers maintain that the animals were saved from extremely unsanitary conditions at Noah’s Ark, where they were walking in their own urine and feces, and that they were in need of care and grooming. They say they were called to the facility by police, who noticed a disturbing smell while responding to a silent burglar alarm next door. Over the next two days, animal control seized all of the animals from the shelter.“It was extremely unsanitary, there was no ventilation, it was extremely hot, there was little water, it was dirty, animals’ coats were saturated with urine and feces, they had toenails that were growing into the pads of their feet. It was awful,” says Lt. Michelle Quigley, lead animal control investigator in the case.Meanwhile, Noah’s Ark supporters say the animals were well loved and cared for by a dedicated staff of volunteers, and note that the facility found loving homes for more then 2,400 pets just last year. Many of these animals already had health issues before coming to Noah’s Ark, because the facility specialized in taking animals who were old or special needs.“It was not elaborate by any means, but none of those animals were neglected,” says Alexia Kyrklund, the founder of Noah’s Ark. Kyrklund was arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty during the raid, but now, more than a month later, there have still been no charges filed against her. Kyrklund asserts the raid and seizure are retaliation for previous complaints she has made against animal control. She says that some of the animals who cannot be in the group facilities, because of aggression or illness, are locked in rooms overnight, and then put outside again when the volunteers arrive the next day. However, she says the volunteers were not allowed to enter that morning, but were manhandled by authorities and “treated like they were murderers.”“[Because of the raid] nobody was allowed to go inside and clean the next day, so the animals in those rooms are going to be a mess, with a mush of water and urine and feces. I guarantee you those rooms didn’t look good, and the animals in those rooms didn’t look good – but I dare them to show me pictures of anything but that,” she says. Some who have become involved in the controversy over the animals take a middle view.“Was [Kyrklund] beating dogs? Of course not. Was she starving dogs? Of course not. Where these dogs in the best condition they could have been? Well, you have to take into consideration the dogs she takes in in the first place – those who are sick, old, and unadoptable,” says Jennifer Pryor, one of a group of people that has banded together to champion the former Noah’s Ark animals. Widow of actor Richard Pryor, Pryor runs the animal charity Pryor’s Planet.“Animal cruelty? I don’t think so, I think they are stretching to make that charge. I think [Kyrklund] had too many animals, and when you have too many, you can’t pay enough attention,” she says. “I tell my volunteers, this is a cautionary tale for everybody, and we have to look at it and say, ‘This is what can happen.’ It is so hard to say no to an animal, and if you don’t have that off switch built into your psyche, then you are going to get into trouble.” The real question: What will happen to the animals now? Whoever is right, one thing is for sure: The real victims are the animals, who are once again sitting in an animal control shelter facing an uncertain fate. “The priority is the animals, they are the victims here, they didn’t ask to be put in this situation, and they are in it,” Pryor says.Pryor says her only concern is the animals, and that none of her legal efforts are focused on Kyrklund’s individual legal problems. She says Pryor’s Planet has already spent a substantial amount on legal fees to protect the animals, and cannot continue to do it alone.The legal wrangling has centered around ownership and control of the animals, and in particular, whether or not the city may euthanize them if homes can’t be found.Noah’s Ark attorney James Blancarte succeeded in getting a temporary restraining order August 25, barring animal control from euthanizing any animal without a determination by three veterinarians that the animal was irremediably suffering. That restraining order expired Sept. 8, and was not renewed by the judge, because Quigley filed a declaration with the court promising that “only those animals deemed to be irremediably suffering by a licensed veterinarian will be humanely euthanized.”However, Blancarte says this declaration is inconsistent with the release forms animal control has asked Noah’s Ark to sign, relinquishing control over the animals to the city and allowing them to euthanize the animals if they see fit.In his view, the city is attempting an end run around its previous promises, by instituting administrative proceedings to have the animals declared abandoned. As allowed under state law, Noah’s Ark has received notice that unless they pay fees and costs for the impoundment and care of the animals – now close to $100,000 – by October 5, then the animals will be deemed “abandoned” and become the property of the city.“It seems to be a back door way to get to the normal municipal protocol to euthanize based on budget protocols and lack of space,” Blancarte says. “The city has never stepped up to say that it will not euthanize animals who are not adoptable once Noah’s Ark releases them.”City says it is committed to placing animals; stops short of guarantee. On the other hand, the city indicates that it is committed to finding homes for all of the animals, claiming that very few of them are actually special needs. Although Long Beach animal control does kill animals deemed to be “unadoptable,” and for space and budgetary reasons, Lt. Quigley says the Noah’s Ark animals are being treated differently than the other animals in the shelter.Quigley says she doesn’t have the exact euthanasia statistics for the shelter easily at hand. However, she says that last fiscal year, Long Beach Animal Control took in 3,600 dogs, 2,275 of whom were adopted, transferred to another shelter, or redeemed by their owners. During the same time period, the city took in 5,500 cats, 993 of whom were adopted, transferred, or claimed. That leaves 1,325 dogs (36%) and 4,506 cats (81%) unaccounted for in the statistics – most of whom were presumably euthanized. “That is not going to happen to the Noah’s Ark animals, we have committed ourselves to get everybody placed who can be placed, unless the vet says otherwise,” Quigley says. “We try to do this with all of the animals, but in this particular case, we made that commitment, and we will try our best to honor that.”After the city gains legal authority over the animals, Quigley says the first effort would be to place animals with people who had proof of ownership – some people who had adopted animals from Noah’s Ark had not been able to come to the facility for their pets before the seizure. So far, at least one dog has been released to a proven owner.The next step for animal control will be to find loving homes, Quigley says. Although they will release animals to rescues on their approved list, she says they will not turn them over to any rescue that was involved in bringing animals to Noah’s Ark in the first place.“We are ruling out any rescues that placed animals with Noah’s Ark, who willfully placed animals in harms way, because we want to make sure the animals don’t end up back in the same situation we pulled them from,” she says.Meyers stopped short of saying that the city would “guarantee” that it wouldn’t euthanize animals if it had difficulty placing them in homes or with rescues, stating only that the policy has been to only euthanize those who were “irremediably suffering.”“That is what the policy has been, and it hasn’t changed…[and] I have received absolutely nothing to indicate that this policy would change,” she says.Animal advocates want firm commitment not to euthanize. This lack of a firm commitment is the crux of the problem for the people campaigning on behalf of the Noah’s Ark animals, who say that as soon as Noah’s Ark representatives sign documents to relinquish the animals – or as soon as the city deems them “abandoned” – they lose all control over what is going to happen to them, and the city is free to change its mind.For her part, Meyers says the city can’t start finding homes for the animals until they are relinquished by Noah’s Ark. But Noah’s Ark is unwilling to sign the animals over without a no-kill commitment.“My concern is that I don’t trust the city, we need to put their feet to the fire to say, ‘What is your exit strategy?” Blancarte says. “I want them to tell us what they purport to do with the animals that are not adoptable, now it says in their frlease orms that they can be euthanized, which is inconsistent with what they told the court.”Toward this end, Blancarte is going back into court on Sept. 29, asking for a new temporary restraining order to prevent the city from using the administrative process to declare the animals abandoned – which is now set to happen on Oct. 5 unless Kyrklund comes up with $100,000.“The clock is ticking,” Kyrkland says. “We got a notice that gives us 12 days to come up with [100,000] in fees, or the animals will be deemed abandoned, and they can do whatever they want with them.”The supporters of the animals are putting their hopes behind the legal process. They say they have been stonewalled in all attempts to resolve the conflict on their own, and efforts to work through an independent mediator have resulted in frustration. In addition to Blancarte, they hope to hire an animal rights attorney to assist his efforts.The problem is money. Although Pryor’s Planet has fronted much of the legal fees so far, it cannot continue to do so, and supporters are looking to raise $10,000 to help support continued legal action – only $1,800 had been raised as of Sept. 27. The group is also looking for an animal rights attorney who might be willing to take the case pro bono.Advocates say: Let the animals go, and let us help you. Pryor says she would like to see the city change its policy and allow animals to be immediately released to the rescuers who originally bailed them out of animal control facilities – about 30 or so have stepped forward and said they would take responsibility for those animals. For the rest of the animals, she wishes animal control would ask for help from the people who care about them.“I wish they would ask for help, I wish they would exhibit compassion and responsibility toward the dogs, and stop using them as a weapon against [Kyrklund]. It feels like a personal fight, and unfortunately they are using these animals as weapons,” she says. “I wish they would behave with compassion, intelligence, logic, and economic savvy.”Rescuer Jane Garcia would like to see the shelter accept immediate help in setting up a foster program for the animals, so they could get out of cages, and stop taking up space that other animals in the city may need.“It seems like a complicated situation but it could be so simplified, but the legal people and animal control are jerking everybody’s chain,” Garcia says.Pryor and Garcia are also asking for more rescuers to step up and take responsibility for the animals they placed at Noah’s Ark.“There were lots of rescuers pulling from LA shelters and then loading them on [Kyrklund], and calling it rescue, and that’s not rescue, that’s just shifting the problem to someone else. I am really upset with those people who haven’t stepped forward, who haven’t gone on the record that these are my animals, and I want them back,” Pryor says.Kyrklund is particularly worried about the cats, who constituted about half of the animals seized.“I don’t think the cats will get out, because I haven’t heard anybody step up for the cats yet,” she says.Kyrklund says that if the city will legally commit to finding homes or rescues for all of the animals, then she would be happy.“It’s not, and it never will be, about me,” she says. “My situation I will deal with later, I would just be happy to know the animals are safe. Anywhere, and I really mean that. If I got assurances that animal control would find homes for them and not euthanize them, I would be happy.” Pryor’s Planet, a 501c3 organization, is accepting donations for the legal fund to secure the safe release of the Noah’s Ark Animals. Fund managers emphasize that none of this money will be used for legal fees for charges that may be filed against Alexia Kyrklund.PLEASE MARK ALL DONATIONS "ARAF" (Animal Rights Attorney Fund) so they can be earmarked directly for this cause.For Paypal/credit card donations, click here. Checks may be sent to:Pryor's Planet16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1450Encino, CA 91436Visit Pryor’s Planet on the web here. jedboy1
Can you find out what happened to Tippi? She's had her surgery, but she's still being held at LB Animal Control? She was on television! Doesn't shehave an owner? That picture of her tumor is heart-breaking.

September 29, 2006 at 2:10 PMposted by: katz
When i first saw the news telling of the raid at noahs ark i emailed best friends . thank you for getting the word out. lori herek, laguna beach, ca.
© 2006 Best Friends. All rights reserved. Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Rat Patrol
Sat, September 30, 2006
Send this page to a friend
Join this community
Send a message to the community manager

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.