Mary Cummins Animal Advocates Los Angeles California Wildlife Rehabilitation Real Estate

Monday, February 13, 2017

Lawsuit behind the USDA deleting inspection and permit reports - Contender Farms, Show inc, Lee McGartland, horse soring

USDA, HSUS, Contender Farms, Lee McGartland, Mike McGartland, Show Inc, united states department of agriculture

UPDATE: I just found the documents which the McGartlands wanted removed from the USDA website. They publicly filed them in their public lawsuit against the USDA. Therefore the documents are privileged and can be publicly shared. The documents attached to their February 2016 lawsuit against the USDA include Tab, Exhibit 8 which are official warning letters and form 7060. They involve four horses who showed evidence of soring at two events on three different days. The documents in order are as follows,

August 23, 2012 form 7060 violations of federal law, unlawful acts, case TN130373-AC, violator Mike McGartland, 15 U.S.C. Sec 1824(7) showing of horse with substance used to sore a horse, ( C.F.R. Sec 11.2(c) prohibited substance, horse tested positive for sulfur, horse "Low on Gin," 74th Annual Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration in Shelbyville, TN.

Same violation against Lee McGartland.

Same violation against Chris Alexander.

August 30, 2012 form 7060, case TN130155-AC, against Mike McGartland, 15 U.S.C. Sec 124(2), horse is sore. 9 C.F.R. Sec 11.3 scar rule, horse is sore, horse "He's Shady in Black," in the 74th Annual Tennessee Walking Horse Naional Celebration in Shelbyville, TN.

Same violation against Lee McGartland.

Same violation against Chris Alexander.

February 17, 2016 official warning letter from the USDA, case TN150128-AC. Letter states USDA could impose civil penalties up to $2,200 or other sanctions for each violation. USDA decided not to pursue penalties as long as they don't violate the regulations again. They offered them the opportunity for a hearing.

August 26, 2014, Lee McGartland, TN150128-AC, 15 U.S.C. sec 1824(2)(A), horse is sore, horse "She's A Shady Sister" (class no. 120, entry no. 1001) at the 76th Annual Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration in Shelbyville, Tennessee.

Same warning letter as February 17, 2016 but to Michael McGartland.

Same for 7060 as above August 26, 2014 but to Michael McGartland, case TN150127-AC. This time the horse is "Blue's Master" (class no. 139B, entry no. 982), same show.

Below is the link to the documents.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4dUhGeFJwRFp3YjQ/view?usp=sharing

It's really shocking that the McGartlands would demand that the USDA remove all inspection, permit, violation reports because of a few warning forms and letters. In their lawsuit they said they were denied a hearing. In the letter the USDA offered them a hearing if they wanted to contest the warnings. The USDA could have cited them, fined them but they didn't.

From personal experience I can tell you that USDA is not very strict on enforcing regulations. You have to do something really bad to even get a warning. Even after warning letters they don't start any action unless the person refuses to correct their behavior and defies the USDA like the Wildlife Waystation and Tiger Rescue did numerous times. I personally feel that the Texas attorneys who owned the horse just wanted to bully the USDA into silence. They almost succeeded. Hopefully the USDA will be able to stop them. We need those records to be public for this reason.

February 3, 2017 USDA removed permit and inspection reports along with the search engine stating it was in part due to litigation. February 7, 2017 they updated their reason, see below.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/enforcementactions

"Last Modified: Feb 3, 2017  Print
Courts are continuously issuing decisions that provide agencies with guidance on interpreting and applying laws applicable to the release of information to the public by the Federal government, including the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice maintains comprehensive guidance involving the Privacy Act, Freedom of Information Act, and other laws, and updates such guidance based on legal developments. APHIS, with the support from the Office of the General Counsel, continuously monitors these sources of information and makes refinements to APHIS’ practices, as needed.

Based on our commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs, and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals, APHIS is implementing actions to remove documents it posts on APHIS’ website involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that contain personal information. These documents include inspection reports, research facility annual reports, regulatory correspondence (such as official warnings), lists of regulated entities, and enforcement records (such as pre-litigation settlement agreements and administrative complaints) that have not received final adjudication. In addition, APHIS will review and redact, as necessary, the lists of licensees and registrants under the AWA, as well as lists of designated qualified persons (DQPs) licensed by USDA-certified horse industry organizations to ensure personal information is not released to the general public.

Those seeking information from APHIS regarding inspection reports, research facility annual reports, regulatory correspondence, and enforcement records should submit Freedom of Information Act requests for that information. Records will be released when authorized and in a manner consistent with the FOIA and Privacy Act. If the same records are frequently requested via the Freedom of Information Act process, APHIS may post the appropriately redacted versions to its website. In addition, some enforcement records (such as initial decision and orders, default decisions, and consent decisions) are available on the USDA’s Office of Administrative Law Judge’s website (https://www.oaljdecisions.dm.usda.gov). For more information on preparing and submitting Freedom of Information Act requests, please visit https://efoia-pal.usda.gov/palMain.aspx."

USDA stated they removed the documents because of litigation. I went and found a couple of the cases related to the take down of this public information. One of the cases is CONTENDER FARMS, LLP, LEE MCGARTLAND, MIKE MCGARTLAND and SHOW, INC., Plaintiffs vs.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Case No. 4:16-cv-163-Y, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, FORT WORTH DIVISION.

This is the second lawsuit the McGartlands who are both lawyers, attorneys filed against the USDA over their alleged violations and public reports. From the Washington Post,

Lee Wall McGartland, Michael "Mike" McGartland, Texas, lawyers, personal injury, tennessee walking horses, usda, lawsuit


"Three summers ago, Lee Wall McGartland and Mike McGartland entered a horse named The Royal Dollar in the 74th annual Red Carpet Show of the South. A veterinary medical officer from the U.S. Department of Agriculture was there, too.

The animal placed third in its class in the competition for Tennessee walking horses, which have a high-stepping gait that enthusiasts say comes from breeding and training. But it can also come from the application of caustic chemicals to a horse’s legs and other painful practices called “soring.” These are outlawed under the federal Horse Protection Act, and the Agriculture department is responsible for horse owners’ compliance. During a post-show inspection, the veterinary officer determined that The Royal Dollar was sore.

The finding resulted in one of several official warnings between 2013 and 2016 that identified the McGartlands as “violators” — warnings that appeared on a public USDA database and that now underpin a legal battle between the Texas couple and the department. The McGartlands sued, arguing that the enforcement program denies due process to those accused of violations and breaks privacy laws by publishing personal information."

In this case the USDA noted that the Plaintiffs violated the Horse Protection Act. USDA posted in the USDA website their inspection reports, inventory of animals, warning letters and other related USDA documents.

Plaintiffs sued the USDA stating that posting that information is a violation of Plaintiff's privacy. Plaintiffs also state that they feel the reports are false and defamatory. Plaintiffs state they were never allowed a hearing before a court of law before the violations were listed on the USDA website even though they did receive warning letters. From the second amended complaint which is linked below,

"Plaintiffs in this case allege that both USDA’s use of warnings and publication of the Form 7060s and other enforcement-related information are unlawful and not authorized by the HPA. (ECF No. 45, Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44-51, 58, 64)."

Previously USDA said there could be no settlement of this lawsuit. Now all of a sudden after the documents were purged Plaintiffs said there could be a settlement. HSUS then intervened because they need online access to the documents because they cannot be timely obtained through FOIA requests. Below is the motion and memorandum in support. If you look at the linked USDA documents in the memorandum, they're now missing. You get a 403 page.

Second Amended Complaint by Plaintiffs.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4V3dVY2dxUi1icVU/view?usp=sharing

HSUS Motion to Intervene.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4bkZHMWdsQVdHd3M/view?usp=sharing

HSUS memorandum in support of motion to intervene.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4c21IdWxzcUNFbXc/view?usp=sharing

Here is the docket.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4NmtqQ1dzdHFHTFE/view?usp=sharing

Plaintiffs argue that having the documents online is a violation of the Privacy Act §552a(b).

"The legal wrong about which the McGartlands and Contender Farms complain results from
USDA employees unlawfully deciding the McGartlands violated the HPA and imposing sanctions
on them by assessing penalties that are then published on USDA databases. 5 U.S.C. §551(10)(C)
and (13). SHOW complains that the USDA has wrongfully publicized on these same databases
that SHOW has violated the HPA."

The McGartlands also complain that the USDA has violated their privacy rights by
disclosing and publishing false and misleading personal information about them on USDA
databases in violation of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a(b).

"D. The USDA Unlawfully Disclosed the McGartlands’ Personal Information
Without Their Consent in Violation of Privacy Act §552a(b).
69. On June 8, 2015, the McGartlands saw on the USDA’s website that they were identified as
having violated the HPA on August 23 and 30, 2012. The USDA was immediately contacted and
informed of the McGartlands’ concern that it had been publically disclosed that they had violated
the Act, pointing out that the HPA does not authorize the Agency to release allegations about those
it investigated or believed had violated the Act. The USDA was requested to remove the website
and inform the world that it was a mistake to have said the McGartlands violated the Act.
70. On June 12, 2015, the McGartlands wrote the USDA complaining of the lists the Agency
was publishing that identified them as having violated the Act, pointing out that the USDA was
violating HPA §1825(b) and the Privacy Act. The McGartlands requested the Agency stop making
disclosures about them. The disclosures about the McGartlands on the Searchable Violations List
and Enforcement Actions List were materially false and misleading."

Plaintiffs further argue that the documents should not be released in a FOIA request.

"76. The Privacy Act and FOIA Exemption 7(C) protect from disclosure information compiled
for law enforcement purposes where release “could reasonably be expected to constitute an
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. §552(b)(7)(C). There can be little question
that Agency disclosures, that the McGartlands have been targets of USDA law-enforcement
investigations and enforcement actions, can, and have subjected them to embarrassment and
potentially more serious reputational harm."

They request their information be removed.

"118. Plaintiffs seek a declaration holding unlawful and setting aside Defendant’s alternative
enforcement programs to Formal Enforcement Proceedings, under which the USDA decides that
people have violated the HPA, penalizes them for the violation and falsely and misleadingly
publishes their names on database list as having been determined to have violated the Act.

119. Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining the USDA from publishing the Searchable Violations
List, Enforcement Actions List and HIO Penalty Lists, which falsely or misleadingly identify
people as having been determined to have violated the HPA.

120. Under the APA, HPA and Privacy Act, the McGartlands request this Court declare that the
USDA has violated and is violating the Privacy Act by disclosing the McGartlands’ personal
information in violation of 5 U.S.C. §552a(b). The McGartlands request that the Court enjoin such
violations from occurring in the future, and order that all USDA lists identifying the McGartlands
as having been the subjects of investigations into HPA violations or identifying them as having
been penalized with a public reprimand or Form 7060 be removed from the USDA’s website."

Below is HSUS answer to Plaintiff's complaint. They state Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim and lack standing. I believe if Plaintiffs feel they were defamed, they should have sued for defamation. As the reports are now outside of the statute of limitations of one year for defamation in Texas, they cannot bring a suit for defamation.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4WExpMGZFZE1kZU0/view?usp=sharing

Plaintiff previously sued USDA for similar things. They lost in district court under fair Judge Terry means, appealed, it was affirmed in part and reversed in part. Below is the docket of the previous case.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4TTA2aDVSSjJsZ2c/view?usp=sharing

Opinion on the appeal.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxE8KfVPjYF4MUNpMmpCeUtZZkk/view?usp=sharing

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C13/13-11052-CV0.pdf

Legal summary about the case.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/23/5th-circuit-nixes-usda-horse-protection-rule.htm

In summary it appears that Lee and Mike McGartland of Show Inc and Contender Farms show their Tennessee walking horses. They were upset that USDA passed a regulation in 2012 making it mandatory for horse shows to suspend horses which show evidence of soring per USDA inspectors. One of their horses place third then was suspended when a USDA inspector found evidence of soring. The McGartlands sued. They lost in district court, appealed. It was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The McGartlands sued on a technicality stating that the law states there should be a horse inspection but never stated it should be by a USDA inspector.

The McGartlands sued the second time to remove their inspection reports, violation reports and warning letters from the USDA website claiming privacy violations. They also sued because they feel they were noted as having violations without being given a chance to have their case heard before a judge. My opinion is that they could have appealed the USDA's violation report. I did that with the California Dept of Fish & Game. I didn't have a violation report. I appealed an administrative issue and won. The owners of the horse and Plaintiffs in the lawsuit are both personal injury attorneys.

As I see it the Gartlands were found to have sored horses by the USDA. The received violations and their inspection reports were posted online. They felt this hurt their reputation and business. They sued to have evidence of their horse soring removed from the public websites. Sounds to me like someone who committed cruel acts on an animal and they just don't want everyone to know it. These lawsuits bring even more attention to the alleged cruel acts.

Previous article on this USDA issue.

http://animaladvocatesmarycummins.blogspot.com/2017/02/animal-advocates-starts-usdachallenge.html

Here is another one of the lawsuits behind the USDA document dump.

http://marycumminsrealestatemarycummins.blogspot.com/2017/02/usda-removed-documents-because-of-party.html

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Monday, February 6, 2017

Evanger's recalls Hunk of Beef because of Pentobarbital in a batch of food - Mary Cummins, Animal Advocates

Evanger's hunk of beef, cat, dog, food cva fda voluntary recall pentobarbital euthanasia drug

Evanger’s Voluntarily Recalls Hunk of Beef Because Of Pentobarbital Exposure in one Batch of Food

Animal Advocates' note: Pentobarbital is used to euthanize cats, dogs, pet animals. Cows are killed by captive bolt gun. No one would ever use pentobarbital to kill a cow as it has a long half life. It can cause major health problems for anyone or any animal who eats the cow. I don't believe someone killed a cow with pentobarbital. I personally believe that the supplier either fed his cows cats, dogs from a rendering plant or the supplier added some rendered cats, dogs from a rendering plant to the ground meat they sold to Evanger's. Euthanized cats, dogs are boiled at high temperatures so separate the fat from the protein. The fat an protein are sold as fishmeal.

Evanger's buys their beef from a supplier. I don't think Evanger's would knowingly buy meat which had pentobarbital in it. It's possible that the rendered animals made their way into the cows through the feed supplier. It is illegal to feed rendered animals to animals in the US. It's illegal to use it in pet or human food. It can only be sold to a non-US company. Generally it's sold to Asian shrimp farmers. Then the US buys the shrimp. I hope the beef supplier does not buy feed from China. That could be how it got in there.

Below is the release.

"For Immediate Release February 3, 2017 Evangers Dog & Cat Food Co
 1-847-537-0102

Out of an abundance of caution, Evanger’s Dog & Cat Food of Wheeling, IL is voluntarily recalling specific lots of its Hunk of Beef product because of a potential contaminant Pentobarbital, which was detected in one lot of Hunk of Beef Au Jus. Pentobarbital can affect animals that ingest it, and possibly cause side effects such as drowsiness, dizziness, excitement, loss of balance, or nausea, or in extreme cases, possibly death.

The specifically-identified lot numbers (as detailed below) of cans of 12-oz Hunk of Beef being voluntarily recalled were distributed to retail locations and sold online in the following States: Washington, California, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, and were manufactured the week of June 6 – June 13, 2016.

Although pentobarbital was detected in a single lot, Evangers is voluntarily recalling Hunk of Beef products that were manufactured the same week, with lot numbers that start with 1816E03HB, 1816E04HB, 1816E06HB, 1816E07HB, and 1816E13HB, and have an expiration date of June 2020. The second half of the barcode reads 20109, which can be found on the back of the product label.

The subject recall affects 5 lots of food that were produced from its supplier’s lot of beef, which is specifically used for the Hunk of Beef product and no other products. To date, it has been reported that five dogs became ill and 1 of the five dogs passed away after consuming the product with lot number 1816E06HB13. Evanger’s is proactively issuing a recall voluntarily so as not to risk potential exposure to pentobarbital in the product.

All Evanger’s suppliers of meat products are USDA approved. This beef supplier provides us with beef chunks from cows that are slaughtered in a USDA facility. We continue to investigate how this substance entered our raw material supply.

Because we source from suppliers of meat products that are USDA approved, and no other products have had any reported problems, we are not extending the recall to other supplier lots. This is the first recall for Evanger’s in its 82 years of manufacturing. Although it has been verified that little or no product remains on store shelves, if consumers still have cans with the aforementioned lot numbers, he or she should return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-847-537-0102 between 10:00 AM – 5:00 PM Central Time, Monday - Friday."

###
Follow FDA
Follow @US_FDA on Twitter disclaimer icon
Follow FDA on Facebook disclaimer icon
Follow @FDArecalls on Twitter disclaimer icon
Recent Recalled Product Photos on FDA's Flickr Photostream disclaimer icon
Product Photos

http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm539900.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Georgia Aquarium non-profit animal entertainment "business" - Atlanta, Georgia EIN 58-2574918

Georgia Aquarium, non-profit, for-profit, animal entertainment business, atlanta, georgia, seaworld, shows, tricks, tanks EIN: 58-2574918
I was surfing the web when the below video popped up for the Super Bowl. The first screen on the video states they are a 501 3c non-profit organization that doesn't have to pay taxes. If you take a closer look, they are actually a SeaWorld like for-profit business with $471,000,000 in assets which brings in $78,000,000 per year.

Notice in the video that it looks just like SeaWorld. The marine animals are all doing forced tricks with unnatural objects. This is no different than SeaWorld. These animals are bought, taken in as babies and habituated to be a trained animal to sell tickets to a park. They are not released back to the wild but caged for life.



Here is their Guidestar page so you can see the huge income they make.

https://www.guidestar.org/profile/58-2574918

They state this is conservation, education when it's really just entertainment for humans.

I wrote an article about the difference between non-profit aquariums and for-profit marine entertainment parks like SeaWorld. There is no difference except in the way they formed their corporations. SeaWorld should have started as a non-profit. Some of these non-profits bring in much more money than for profit SeaWorld.

http://animaladvocatesmarycummins.blogspot.com/2014/11/when-is-non-profit-not-non-profit.html

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Friday, February 3, 2017

Animal Advocates starts the #USDAchallenge as USDA removed all inspection, permit info from website

USDA AWA Animal Welfare Act APHIS Donald Trump removes all permit and inspection reports Mary Cummins Animal Advocates #USDAchallenge


UPDATE: 02/22/2017 USDA returned some documents 02/17/2017. They are here.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/sa_obtain_research_facility_annual_report

Here is the notice that some documents have been returned.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/newsroom/news/!ut/p/z1/vVLLbsIwEPwajpadR_M4hooGEIVKECC-RJvYFBdih8SQ8vd1UC9QQdVLfdrVznh3dhZTvMZUwkm8gxZKwt7kKfWyycx9tvpzMolf3gYkSmbj_mhKbDJ9wqtrwGw59Eg0WCSLaWD1R6GD6WP-ElNMC6krvcUpVFvRZIWSmkud7UVeQ33ukQYyydumVqq8JI2GHd-qPeN1BlKqoyx4aRjNpZqfMwaadzGyieVfAmL3CLSAWp43QnN0rDpM17sqBMOpwyAgIWfICmwfuX5OULhxCuR6PnMs2LAQ4FbrTzGdVnLnRcTw6fU6brdlfwMe_JGaGfx7M8Sxh1cnwVucSFWXxr_5HyUOCR7_Zpm5CfFxONDIGNdZ9anx-t-dq8qkDJwz2m1eB45L0y8kEbZR/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/?urile=wcm%3Apath%3A%2Faphis_content_library%2Fsa_newsroom%2Fsa_stakeholder_announcements%2Fsa_by_date%2Fsa-2017%2Fsa-02%2Fawa-website-update

02/08/2017 We uploaded some of the missing USDA files here.

https://archive.org/details/USDA_files

More files here

http://thememoryhole2.org/blog/aphis-annual-reports

We filed a FOIA request for all correspondence, email, faxes, voicemail in regard to the removal of the information from the USDA website. We also requested access to or a digital copy of all the items removed. Here is our FOIA request. We'll update this page with any responses to our request.

http://animaladvocates.us/foia_usda_02032017.pdf

Today the USDA just removed all permit information and inspection reports from their website. If you try to search for them, you get this message.

https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/enforcementactions

"Last Modified: Feb 3, 2017  Print
Courts are continuously issuing decisions that provide agencies with guidance on interpreting and applying laws applicable to the release of information to the public by the Federal government, including the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice maintains comprehensive guidance involving the Privacy Act, Freedom of Information Act, and other laws, and updates such guidance based on legal developments. APHIS, with the support from the Office of the General Counsel, continuously monitors these sources of information and makes refinements to APHIS’ practices, as needed.

Based on our commitment to being transparent, remaining responsive to our stakeholders’ informational needs, and maintaining the privacy rights of individuals, APHIS is implementing actions to remove documents it posts on APHIS’ website involving the Horse Protection Act (HPA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that contain personal information. These documents include inspection reports, research facility annual reports, regulatory correspondence (such as official warnings), lists of regulated entities, and enforcement records (such as pre-litigation settlement agreements and administrative complaints) that have not received final adjudication. In addition, APHIS will review and redact, as necessary, the lists of licensees and registrants under the AWA, as well as lists of designated qualified persons (DQPs) licensed by USDA-certified horse industry organizations to ensure personal information is not released to the general public.

Those seeking information from APHIS regarding inspection reports, research facility annual reports, regulatory correspondence, and enforcement records should submit Freedom of Information Act requests for that information. Records will be released when authorized and in a manner consistent with the FOIA and Privacy Act. If the same records are frequently requested via the Freedom of Information Act process, APHIS may post the appropriately redacted versions to its website. In addition, some enforcement records (such as initial decision and orders, default decisions, and consent decisions) are available on the USDA’s Office of Administrative Law Judge’s website (https://www.oaljdecisions.dm.usda.gov). For more information on preparing and submitting Freedom of Information Act requests, please visit https://efoia-pal.usda.gov/palMain.aspx."

This is most likely related to Donald Trump. He told all federal agencies such as the USDA not to give out any information. The USDA permit search is also down. It was here.

https://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/Warning.jspx;jsessionid=7f00000130d877a4b47a2b9d4b9ca181bc36536f1dce.e38Obx8Sb3yQby0Obh0Qe0

We have a USDA Class C exhibitor permit in order to keep sanctuary animals. We always post our permits and inspection reports as we've never had a violation ever since we first had the permit in 2003 14 years ago. We will continue to do so. Any organization that doesn't post their own USDA permits and inspection reports should be suspect. People shouldn't donate or give money to any organization, sanctuary or zoo that doesn't post their permits. Our permits and inspection reports are posted below. All of the documents online were redacted. Here is one such document. They never included our home address, any personal information or even copies of the signatures.



Animal Advocates hereby challenges all over USDA permit holders to post all of their permits and inspection reports. Please, share this post. #USDAchallenge #PostYourInspectionReports

For those that need permit or inspection report information, here is a sample Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request letter I sent. Edit this to suit your needs then email it to FOIA.Officer@aphis.usda.gov. Not having that information online is going to cause USDA to get bogged down with FOIA requests. That's why they put the information online in the first place.

December 1, 2014


USDA, APHIS, Animal Care
FOIA REQUEST
Tonya Woods, FOIA Director
Legislative and Public Affairs
Freedom of Information Act
4700 River Road, Unit 50
Riverdale, MD  20737

Dear FOIA Officer:

Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of All emails, letters and faxes to/from/within the USDA which mention Tawni Angel, Jason Nester, Tawnis Ponies and Petting Farm, any other business name they have used for anything related to her cancelled USDA permit, current permit or any complaints. I specifically want to see her exhibiting, dealer, breeding and transport permits.

I would like to receive the information in electronic format. (Via email to ***.) I agree to pay reasonable duplication fees for the processing of this request.

If my request is denied in whole or part, I ask that you justify all deletions by reference to specific exemptions of the act. I will also expect you to release all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material.

I of course reserve the right to appeal your decision to withhold any information or to deny a waiver of fees.

I look forward to your reply within 20 business days, as the statute requires. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,



Mary Cummins

USDA Animal Advocates permit inspection reports #USDAchallenge Los Angeles, California Mary Cummins

USDA Animal Advocates permit inspection reports #USDAchallenge Los Angeles, California Mary Cummins

USDA Animal Advocates permit inspection reports #USDAchallenge Los Angeles, California Mary Cummins

USDA Animal Advocates permit inspection reports #USDAchallenge Los Angeles, California Mary Cummins

USDA Animal Advocates permit inspection reports #USDAchallenge Los Angeles, California Mary Cummins


Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Alleged animal cruelty in production of "A Dog's Purpose" movie coming out soon - Animal Advocates

A Dog's Purpose, animal cruelty, dog, water, Birds and Animals Unlimited, Ray Beal, Raymond Beal, Canada, Animal Advocates
UPDATE: 02/03/2017 AHA just released the results of their investigation into themselves. They cleared themselves of all wrong doing, imagine that. Here is their report http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/nr-report_Redacted-2.pdf

As an employee for AHA we were told that the animals cannot be stressed or frightened. That is "abuse." The dog didn't die but it was still frightened. That is not allowed on set per AHA's own regulations.

AHA investigated themselves in the tragic deaths of horses in the movie "My Friend Flicka." They said the deaths were "unavoidable accidents." That's not what the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services said after their very thorough investigation. They said the deaths were avoidable. No horse should be allowed to run with a dangling lead. That's common sense. You wouldn't let a little kid run with long shoe laces untied. Here is the official report from the City. http://www.animaladvocates.us/Flicka_Incident.pdf    Here is the result of AHA's investigation into themselves. http://www.eonline.com/news/49785/report-accidents-fell-flicka-friends  I worked for AHA during this time though I wasn't on the Flicka set. One of the AHA horse experts said it was the inspector's fault. An immediate result was adding to the inspection manual that no horse should be allowed to run free with a long dangling lead.

01/23/2017 I thought Gavin's name sound familiar. We went to Beverly Hills High School together.

Gavin Polone producer of "A Dog's Purpose" just gave a statement about the incident and the American Humane Association (AHA). He stated "American Humane Association (AHA) is not an adequate protector of animals on set. They are not independent from the studios. They don't take a stand against abuse. They should have stopped this."

http://tmzvod-a.akamaihd.net/tmz/2017-01/23/0_rqf3japn_0_dibiz8d9.mp4

PETA has released a protest flyer.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/dogs-purpose-peta-flier.pdf

The animal trainers have released this statement. This doesn't change anything. The dog was frightened. Everyone admits that. This is considered "harm." They admit the dog got sucked under the water. That would have also been frightening for the dog. They pulled the dog out. He did not drown or have any permanent harm. Still, he was frightened. Per AHA you cannot allow the animals to be frightened to shoot a scene. We still don't know who was holding the dog and trying to force him in the pool. It had to have been someone with Birds and Animals Unlimited. It doesn't look like Beals or the other listed animal trainer.

http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0123_a_dogs_purpose_statement.pdf

This is from Gavin from the Hollywood Reporter.

"Last Thursday, I went to Amblin's office and watched all the film shot on the day in question, as well as saw video from the trainers and still photographs. As with the TMZ video that you saw, two things were evident: 1) the dog handler tries to force the dog, for 35 to 40 seconds, into the water when, clearly, he didn’t want to go in; and 2) in a separate take filmed sometime later, the dog did go into the water, on his own, and, at the end, his head is submerged for about 4 seconds. These two things are absolutely INEXCUSABLE and should NEVER have happened. The dog trainer should have stopped trying to get the dog to go in the water as soon as the dog seemed uncomfortable, and the trainers should have had support under the dog as soon as he came to the side of the pool and/or had less turbulence in the water so he never would have gone under. The American Humane Association (AHA) representative who is paid by the production to “ensure the safety and humane treatment of animal actors,” as its website states, should have also intervened immediately on both of those parts of the filming. So should have whomever was running the set. Those individuals should be held accountable and never used again by that studio or its affiliates.

I also hold myself accountable because, even though I was not present, I knew and had written about how ineffective AHA has been over the years. Its monitors have been present when bad things have happened to animals on sets, not offering enough protection to stop those events and displaying no real protest after they occurred. Though AHA is the standard guarantor of animal safety on all studio productions and I was not consulted when they nor the dog trainers were hired, I should have fought with the studio to come up with alternatives to serve those functions. I didn’t, and there is nothing to mitigate my inaction. I’m deeply sorry about that."

Full link

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gavin-polone-a-dogs-purpose-outcry-what-happened-whos-blame-967160

01/21/2017 The producer has supposedly seen the "original full video." That is impossible because that was someone's personal cellphone video. The producer could have only seen the professional video the cameraman shot from a different angle. Of course the cameraman is not going to be shooting when the animal is just getting used to the water. Cameraman would only film when they were ready to shoot it for the film.

The producer said that the dog was in the water earlier that day and was fine. They just wanted to shoot it from the other side. Dog was not trained to jump in the water on the other side. Dog got scared.

That story makes no sense. The trainer was trying to dip the dog in the water so he would realize the water is warm. That is on the audio on the video. If the dog had indeed been in the water earlier, he would have already known it was warm.  Dog also would have been wet and not dry.

Producer went on to say the dog was not physically harmed or killed. We realize that. Still, the dog was frightened. When I worked for AHA we had to make sure the animals were not frightened. They said dog chasing cats can't be induced by fear. They must train the animals to follow the other and make it appear to be chased. That dog was clearly frightened. Everyone admitted that. That is against AHA regulations. The dog doesn't have to die for it to be a violation of AHA regs or cruelty.

I think that was first time dog was getting into the water with the jets on. Why not put him in the water with the jets off then slowly turn them on so he can get used to it? If you look at the final cut, the dog jumps off a wooden ledge. There's no water in the pic. The next frame is from another angle with the dog going into the water. The dog did not jump into the water on the final film. I haven't seen the full movie, only the trailer.

The producer now asks the question "why didn't they take the video to the media 15 months ago when it was filmed? Why did they wait for the press junket?" The answer is clear. The dog was not injured or in danger of dying. There would be no reason to make it public instantly. PETA or whomever released the tape to TMZ a week before the opening of the film and press junket. The reason was to get full media attention on the issue. FTR I don't support everything PETA does. I'm against circus and zoo animals. I support sanctuaries. I think there can be some safe and humane exhibit of animals for education or positive media. This movie could have been that positive media. There was no reason to scare the dog like that.

They also should have tested the jets to see if the dog could get sucked under like he was. If you angle jets against a corner, it will cause animals, people to get sucked under. There's a place on some famous rapids where if you don't go straight through the middle, you will get sucked under and sucked to the bottom of the river. They can't even get the dead body out because the force of the swirling water keeps the body pressed to the rocks.

http://ew.com/movies/2017/01/20/dogs-purpose-author-additional-footage-paints-different-picture/

Here are the AHA guidelines.

"If any animal appears aggressive, stressed and/or charges, threatens or bites any
person or animal, it shall be removed immediately from the set and location."

https://www.americanhumane.org/app/uploads/2016/08/Guidelines2015-WEB-Revised-110315-1.pdf

01/19/2017 "There will be no premiere for "A Dog's Purpose" because the studio that produced it is still reeling from the video posted showing it's animal star in distress.

Amblin and Universal studios are still reviewing footage that syncs up with the video TMZ posted to determine what happened to Hercules when he clearly was recoiling as his trainer tried pulling him into the water. The studios say the dog is fine and was never abused.

The studios know lots of people are upset after seeing the video. The studios have also canceled the press junkets."

This is sad all the way around. I know the main producer, actors love animals and would never want to see them harmed. They hoped the movie would want to make people adopt pets from shelters which is why they teamed up with Best Friends. I hoped the same. I personally feel what happened with the dog on the second production team was the result of underlings just trying to get the shot no matter what. I don't know who is the guy holding the dog and trying to get him in the water. I don't think it's Bean because he looks different. It's also not the other animal trainer who looks different. No other animal trainers are credited in the film. Did they let anyone try to force the dog in the pool? If AHA was there, what went wrong? I was trained by them, worked for them for one day so I know that they don't really care about animals. Still, what went wrong here.

_________________

I will predict that nothing happens to the people involved.

"A Dog's Purpose" crew members are now under investigation by Canada's Chief Veterinary Office, and jail time is on the table if the agency finds any wrongdoing.
The CVO tells TMZ it received a formal complaint on Wednesday, and has begun looking into what went down on the set during filming in Winnipeg.
TMZ posted the video of Hercules, a German Shepherd, appearing terrified to get in churning water to shoot a scene for the movie. The trainer tried for about 40 seconds to put Hercules in the pool. The CVO says it wasn't involved with the filming, because a rep from the American Humane Association was on set. That rep, we've learned, has since been suspended.
The Office could levy a fine up to $10k and/or sentence offenders to up to 6 months in jail."

PETA confirmed that all the animals in the film came from Birds and Animals Unlimited in Acton, California. That is the website and Facebook page that has been shut down all day.

"The animal-rights group is targeting a specific animal supplier — Acton, CA-based Birds & Animals Unlimited.

According to PETA, a manager at BAU told its undercover investigator that they provided all the dogs for the film and Deadline confirmed this evening that BAU handled the dog in the video."

The producer stated this,

“I’m horrified by this,” said Polone. “The first thing I asked was, ‘Is the dog OK?’ He’s fine. But if I had seen that, I would have stopped it in a minute. People have to be held responsible for this. It was someone’s job to watch out for this kind of thing. Why didn’t they? This is something I’ve written about before, whether it be circus animals or animals on set. American Humane are supposed to be there supervising. That’s their job that someone is paid a lot of money to do. Why wasn’t this stopped? There needs to be a better system than this. That’s what I’ve called for in the past. I agree with PETA that they not only need to make sure animals are treated properly on set, but they also need to find out where the animals are kept outside of the set. To make sure they are treated properly at all times.”

"Animal Justice says it has filed complaints with the Winnipeg Humane Society, the Chief Veterinary Office of Manitoba, and the Winnipeg police department alleging violations of federal and provincial animal protection laws.

“Throwing a terrified German Shepherd into rushing water is blatant animal cruelty,” Camille Labchuk, a lawyer and executive director of Animal Justice, said in a news release.

“It is illegal to inflict suffering and anxiety onto animals, and there is no loophole that lets Hollywood moviemakers get away with abusing animals on a film set."

"Actor Josh Gad, who lends his voice to a dog in the film, issued a statement on Twitter saying he has asked the studio and production team for an explanation of what he calls "disturbing images."

He said that while the finished film is "one of the most beautiful love letters to animals I have ever seen," he was troubled by the video.

"I am shaken and sad to see any animal put in a situation against its will," Gad wrote. A publicist for the actor confirmed the post was authentic."

The scene is included in the movie. You can't use film where someone, an animal was harmed. That's law so people won't make snuff films or intentionally do a dangerous stunt. Below are a few frames from the trailers.

A Dog's Purpose, animal cruelty, dog, water, Birds and Animals Unlimited, Ray Beal, Raymond Beal, Canada, Animal Advocates

A Dog's Purpose, animal cruelty, dog, water, Birds and Animals Unlimited, Ray Beal, Raymond Beal, Canada, Animal Advocates
A Dog's Purpose, animal cruelty, dog, water, Birds and Animals Unlimited, Ray Beal, Raymond Beal, Canada, Animal Advocates

A Dog's Purpose, animal cruelty, dog, water, Birds and Animals Unlimited, Ray Beal, Raymond Beal, Canada, Animal Advocates
A Dog's Purpose, animal cruelty, dog, water, Birds and Animals Unlimited, Ray Beal, Raymond Beal, Canada, Animal Advocates
A Dog's Purpose, animal cruelty, dog, water, Birds and Animals Unlimited, Ray Beal, Raymond Beal, Canada, Animal Advocates

The producers just said that the dog "Hercules" was not forced to perform and he's fine. They stated the film "A DOG'S PURPOSE, produced by Amblin Entertainment and distributed by Universal Pictures, is a celebration of the special connection between humans and their dogs. And in the spirit of this relationship, the Amblin production team followed rigorous protocols to foster an ethical and safe environment for the animals.

While we continue to review the circumstances shown in the edited footage, Amblin is confident that great care and concern was shown for the German Shepherd Hercules, as well as for all of the other dogs featured throughout the production of the film. There were several days of rehearsal of the water scenes to ensure Hercules was comfortable with all of the stunts. On the day of the shoot, Hercules did not want to perform the stunt portrayed on the tape so the Amblin production team did not proceed with filming that shot.

Hercules is happy and healthy."

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Story gets worse! American Humane Association was on set monitoring the animal. The inspector said and did nothing! I was trained by AHA and worked for them for a day. They side with the filmmaker over the animals.

"The representative from the American Humane Association who was on the set of "A Dog's Purpose" has been suspended after officials saw video of a terrorized dog on set."

Disturbing video below showing an animal trainer forcing his dog into turbulent water who then goes under was posted on TMZ earlier today. The scene was part of the movie "A Dog's Purpose" which is coming out January 27, 2017.



The animal trainers listed for the film are Raymond Beal of Birds and Animals Unlimited and Brian Turi of Studio Animals. The film "A Dog's Purpose" partners with VCA and Best Friends. We sent a polite email asking about the footage to ir@vca.com ericr@bestfriends.org studioanimals@gmail.com California@birdsandanimals.com. We will post their reply when they reply. The man in the video does not look like Brian Turi. It looks like Ray Beal a little. He works with that type of dog. Here's a pic of him. I am not 100% positive that Ray is the person in the video. The person in the video appears to be balding and has red hair. Maybe it is the water safety person? I've asked all involved who it was but no response. Nonetheless the trainer and AHA person should have been watching out for the dog and not allowed that shot.

Ray Beal, Raymond Beal animal trainer "A Dog's Purpose" Birds and Animals Unlimited, california, cruelty, movie
This is from a behind the scenes of the movie. This is one of the handlers. It looks like Ray Beal. I wonder if the guy is the AHA person. We had to wear our shirts and hat on set. I worked for them for one day though went through a week of training.



Mary Cummins
of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit

Tuesday, November 29, 2016

Depredation permit issued for mountain lion P-45 who killed alpacas issued to Victoria, Joseph Vaughn Perling

p-45 mountain lion cougar animal advocates llama alpaca malibu california depredation permitVictoria vaughn-perling joseph vaughn-perling bitcoin hyponotist cryptology llama farm malibu ca p 45 mountain lion hunt kill depredation permit

UPDATE: 12/13/2016 Building and safety was at the property yesterday. There is a "no trespassing" sign on the front. Inspector is not allowed to go beyond a no trespassing sign. Ron Dockery (818) 880-4150 x281 said he has a large file on that property. He worked with the previous owner which was an old man who died. Victoria bought it in probate. He referred me to regional planning which enforces coastal commission, zoning, planning and health dept. 213 974 6483. He told me to forward any complaints to that department.

12/02/2016 I just found photos and video of the alpaca farm. The farm is in deplorable condition! I'm shocked the woman allowed the press to see this filthy, unsafe and totally unsecured property. I see no barn or permanent protection from rain, sun, wind and cold. That "fence" is flimsy and wouldn't keep out a small child. Their corral is basically a bunch of trash. This explains why the alpacas are muddy. Their hooves must be kept dry and clean. I also see overgrown teeth. If their lower teeth don't line up with the upper palate area they will over grow and need trimming.

The neighbor Phillips is not rational, neither is Victoria. They complain that the government must protect their alpacas from mountain lions. If they are going to keep alpacas in mountain lion country they should at least provide them with a secure enclosure. They were begging to have the mountain lion kill their alpacas. These people are very irresponsible animal people. They also lied about having barbed wire, security cameras, lights.... You wouldn't leave a wad of cash on the sidewalk and expect the government to protect your money. Why leave these poor defenseless animals unprotected in the mountains.













___________________

Finally major attention seeker Victoria Vaughn Perling and her mean spirited, threatening attorney had yet another press conference at her Alpaca selling ranch in Malibu. She stated she will agree to get predator proof caging. She won't kill P 45. She makes it sound like she's doing all of us a very big favor from the bottom of her "caring" heart. Any sane person can clearly see that killing one specific mountain lion will not prevent others from eating your animals that you leave unprotected in a corral. The woman has shown herself to be a careless, lying attention seeker who only cares about money. She is in store for some upcoming reality checks. She should not have shown this light upon her unlicensed, unpermitted business operating from a site that has no occupancy permit, utilities, potable water or legal structures.

It seems when Victoria filed for divorce earlier this year she had her husband sign over the property to her alone.

Here is Victoria at her press conference this morning.

victoria vaughn perling alpaca malibu p 45 depredation permit inadequate fencing and protection

Here is video from tonight's meeting. Everyone loves P 45 except Victoria.

https://www.facebook.com/JaneVelezMitchell/videos/10157791029065693/

And the story changes again. Victoria already hired a hunter to track and kill P 45 per Fish & Wildlife. "Hughan confirmed that a depredation permit had, in fact, been issued to the rancher and that she had already "hired an agent to make the attempt."" She never wanted to save it. A liar.

She said she had security cameras to protect the alpacas. How does that work with mountain lions? She said she had barbed wire and adequate fencing. No, she didn't. The property has no legal utilities. She said there was a loud radio. Again, no utilities. This is her place. She allowed her alpacas to be killed. She should be cited for animal neglect. Coyotes could easily get into this enclosure. As I looked on satellite image there was no protection from sun, rain, wind, no adequate water.
victoria vaughn perling alpaca malibu p 45 depredation permit inadequate fencing and protection

She changed her story again. Victoria through her attorney Reid Breitman just threatened to kill P-45 if she doesn't get a trapping permit. She also thinks she will send P 45 to Wildlife Waystation. The Waystation lost their Fish & Wildlife permits, are not allowed to take in new animals. They also have no room or money.

“It is only a matter of time when someone will get a kill permit, and successfully kill P-45,” Vaughn-Perling said. The statement added that the law firm of Vaughn-Perling’s attorney, Reid Breitman, would cover the cost of the relocation. But, it warned, Vaughn-Perling “will proceed with killing this lion if she is not given a permit to relocate it within the next few days.”

Victoria Vaughn-Perling has changed her story. We don't care that she's lying. We're just happy that she won't be killing P-45 after she recevied many polite emails and phone calls. She asked for permit to kill it. There is no permit to trap and relocate and she didn't ask for one. It's illegal to trap and relocate healthy nuisance wildlife. We need P-45 in that area breeding if our local mountain lion species is to survive.

victoria vaughn perling alpaca malibu p 45 depredation permit inadequate fencing and protection

victoria vaughn perling alpaca malibu p 45 depredation permit inadequate fencing and protection
victoria vaughn perling alpaca malibu p 45 depredation permit inadequate fencing and protection
 Another website said these are her dead alpacas. Look at that fence! It's four feet high in that area.
victoria vaughn perling alpaca malibu p 45 depredation permit inadequate fencing and protection


Victoria Vaughn-Perling said in a news release that she was recently issued a permit to kill Mountain Lion P-45 with a gun within 10 days. She said the lion has killed 20 alpacas and at least 65 other animals belonging to neighbors in the last eight months. She wants the state to issue her a permit to trap, tranquilize and transport the mountain lion to an animal sanctuary.

"I obtained the kill permit in order to save P-45's life," said Vaughn-Perling in a news release. "P-45 has been very aggressive and active in the area, and a kill permit was issued by the Department of Fish & Wildlife earlier this year to another neighbor about a mile away. That resulted in P-45 being wounded by a rifle shot, but fortunately he survived. It is only a matter of time when someone will get a kill permit, and successfully kill P-45."

______________

We contacted all the alpaca ranches in the area to find out which one suffered the loss. We offered our services to help them build predator proof fencing. It was NOT the Gomez ranch. They stated "We haven't lost animals and will not kill a lion.  We use loud noisy dogs, and motion lights.  We've been here 19 yrs without any attacks." Hunters have been contacting the ranches offering their services. Gomez said they would never hire a hunter or kill a mountain lion.

We believe but are not 100% certain that MalibuAlpaca.com is the ranch that got the depredation permit. We emailed them offering to help with predator proof enclosures. This is most likely the ranch https://www.openherd.com/farms/7160 They are Victoria and Joseph Vaughn-Perling, 33477 Mulholland, Malibu, CA 90265.

The property had a shack on it which the county said was not livable or up to code. The property was bought in foreclosure as is with $150K of mandatory repairs. The well water is tainted. They were ordered to repair the property but there are no permits showing any work was done. No one can live on the property.

Here are the owners of this property. They claim to be alpaca ranchers and animal lovers.

Joseph Vaughn-Perling 49 years old
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vaughnperling

Victoria Vaughn-Perlint 58 years old
https://www.linkedin.com/in/victoria-vaughn-perling-8b287716

Here is her hypnotist website
http://www.hypnotherapeutic.net/
Her contact info victoria@hypnotherapeutic.net

Joseph Vaughn-Perling runs many odd businesses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLmeww3LBRI

They had an illegal airbnb rental for a while. As the structure isn't legal or livable, that's illegal. I believe they also outlawed airbnb in Malibu, not positive. Their ad is gone. The MLS stated the well water was tainted yet they said it was fine. There are no permitted repairs or occupancy permit on this property.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=371646.0

I contacted these people to confirm the permit, their information and their plans. I told them if they didn't reply I would assume everything I sent them is correct. Below is their public info from who.is

joseph.vaughn-perling@bt.com
malibualpaca.com

This is from LinkedIn. The husband is a cryptologist. Wife is a hypnotist. They state this is their alpaca farm. It's illegal to run a business from this location. The property is not connected to utilities. Per the MLS the well is tainted. It's a 528 sf one room, bath shack.

They live at 4908 Calle Robleda, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 in a 5+3 they bought in 2003 for $650,000. The wife owns it, not the husband.

Owner
MalibuAlpaca.com
January 2012 – Present (5 years)Malibu. California USA
Bed and Breakfast on an Alpaca and Game Fowl Ranch
Organic and green
Suri and Huacaya Breeding
Fiber, Fertilizer, Wool production, Yarn Spinning, Shearing, Weaving and Knitting finished goods.
Beekeeping and honey, wax and finished goods.

They don't have a USDA breeding, dealing and exhibitor permit. They will never get one as the property is not livable and their enclosures are not safe or proper, obviously. They don't have utilities, potable water or an occupancy slip.

Here is the property. Description from MLS.

"Remarks : Great price for major fixer in great area of Malibu hills. One bedroom one bath house. Garage work shop may not be permitted. Buyer's responsibility to verify.
Agent Remarks : Please see photo of copy of Building and Safety violations. Water test show shows not pottable. Coastal commission violations also. Estimates show approximately $150,000 in repair work needed. Probate with court confirmation and subject to over bid. If you are not familiar with this process please educate yourself. Do not call agent for explanation. All offers must be cash, non contingent and non refundable deposit."

Victoria vaughn-perling joseph vaughn-perling bitcoin hyponotist cryptology llama farm malibu ca p 45 mountain lion hunt kill depredation permit
Victoria vaughn-perling joseph vaughn-perling bitcoin hyponotist cryptology llama farm malibu ca p 45 mountain lion hunt kill depredation permit

Victoria vaughn-perling joseph vaughn-perling bitcoin hyponotist cryptology llama farm malibu ca p 45 mountain lion hunt kill depredation permit
They were married in a virtual reality world. His father is a priest at the church next door to my old church in BH.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/COMPUSERVE+GIVES+AWAY+THE+BRIDE+IN+VIRTUAL+VALENTINE'S+DAY+WEDDING...-a017953253

Here is MLS on the property. These California Coastal Commission, Los Angeles County Building and Safety and other violations were never cured. I just looked at title. A road runs through her property cutting it in half. Her property can't be accessed from Mulholland legally. Other neighbors have rights to pass through her property to get to theirs.

"Remarks : Great price for major fixer in great area of Malibu hills. One bedroom one bath house. Garage work shop may not be permitted. Buyer's responsibility to verify.
Agent Remarks : Please see photo of copy of Building and Safety violations. Water test show shows not pottable. Coastal commission violations also. Estimates show approximately $150,000 in repair work needed. Probate with court confirmation and subject to over bid. If you are not familiar with this process please educate yourself. Do not call agent for explanation. All offers must be cash, non contingent and non refundable deposit."

Victoria vaughn-perling joseph vaughn-perling bitcoin hyponotist cryptology llama farm malibu ca p 45 mountain lion hunt kill depredation permit

Victoria vaughn-perling joseph vaughn-perling bitcoin hyponotist cryptology llama farm malibu ca p 45 mountain lion hunt kill depredation permit


None of these issues were ever corrected.





Seems they are getting divorced. That means that Victoria alone requested the depredation kill permit.

Case Number:  PD062917
VAUGHN-PERLING, VICTORIA VS VAUGHN-PERLING, JOSEPH

Filing Date:  06/29/2016
Case Type:  Dissolution of Marriage (General Jurisdiction)
Status:  Pending

Future Hearings

None
Documents Filed | Proceeding Information


Parties

VAUGHN-PERLING JOSEPH - Respondent In Pro Per

VAUGHN-PERLING JOSEPH - Respondent

VAUGHN-PERLING VICTORIA - Petitioner

VAUGHN-PERLING VICTORIA - Petitioner In Pro Per

Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information


Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
06/29/2016 Summons
Filed by Petitioner

06/29/2016 Declaration-Uniform Custody Minor'
Filed by Respondent

06/29/2016 Petition
Filed by Petitioner

06/29/2016 Declaration-Uniform Custody Minor'
Filed by Petitioner

06/29/2016 Notice

06/29/2016 Response
Filed by Respondent
______________

Within the last six months Malibu mountain lion P-45 has killed and eaten some llamas and goats. In the most recent incident over the weekend it’s believed that P-45 killed 11 alpacas and didn’t eat them. Sometimes with young mountain lions like P-45 if they see lots of prey they go into a killing frenzy and kill them all. That is what most likely happened at an alpaca ranch in Malibu.

Earlier this year P-45 killed alpacas at the nearby alpaca ranch of attorneys Wendell Phillips and Mary Dee Rickards at 33173 Mulholland Hwy Malibu, CA 90265. They also raise alpacas to sell. Phillips got a depredation permit and hunted P-45. Phillips stated he saw P-45 and shot him but the bullet only grazed him. The permits are only good for ten days.

Mountain lions are protected in California. They can only be killed with a depredation permit, in self defense or for public safety.  In this situation killing P-45 doesn’t solve the problem. A new mountain will take over the territory and continue to kill farm animals until those animals are better protected. A mountain lion would prefer to kill a corralled alpaca over a wild deer as it’s much easier.

The main reason more farm animals are being killed is that many more people are raising alpacas and llamas. It was illegal to have them until we got an amendment to County zoning to allow wildlife rehabilitation in 2006. At the same time they added the keeping of llamas and alpacas on agriculture property due to demand.

We have reached out to the alpaca ranches in the area. One of our partners builds amazing enclosures for wolves and other animals. These enclosures are mountain lion and coyote proof. We’re hoping we can help the ranchers build better enclosures. Based on the photos the corral is made of low, flimsy material. While it is electrified a mountain lion could easily jump over it which is what happened.

In the meantime there will be a meeting to talk about the issues at 7:00 p.m. November 30, 2016 at the NPS Paramount Ranch movie set, 2903 Cornell Road, Agoura Hills, CA. This ranch was owned by the father of Mary Dee Rickards who used it as a Western movie set. We’d love to send someone to the meeting but our volunteers who do presentations are either too far away or sick. We know the Fish & Wildlife, Parks Dept, Santa Monica Conservancy and other groups who will be going and speaking about the issue.

We’ll keep everyone apprised of the situation with updates.

UPDATE: We just sent the following email to the ranches in the area.

"We're very sorry to hear about the loss of your alpacas. We are Fish & Wildlife permitted wildlife rehabilitators in Los Angeles. We are the group which got the amendment to zoning to allow the keeping of llamas and alpacas in Los Angeles in 2006.

We rehabilitate coyotes, bobcats ... and down to bats. Our enclosures must keep these animals in. For that reason we know they will keep the same animals out. Our facilities are in mountain lion country yet we've never lost an animal to a mountain lion. The reason is because our enclosures are predator proof.

One of our friends is Lockwood Animal Sanctuary in Lockwood, California. The husband of the team Matthew Simmons builds amazing enclosures. You should contact him about building enclosures to protect your animals from predators. Here is his email address ****@lockwoodarc.org Their enclosures are each a few acres in size in a hilly area. We highly recommend them.

If you do kill P-45, another mountain lion will take over his territory. Because it's easier to kill a corralled alpaca than a wild deer, the killings will continue unless you protect your animals. When some young mountain lions see corralled animals they kill them all at once in a frenzy and may only eat one.

Please, contact Matt and ask him about predator proof enclosures. They don't have to have roofs if you build them properly. You can incorporate the trees and natural surroundings in the enclosures so you don't see the fencing."

Mary Cummins of Animal Advocates is a wildlife rehabilitator licensed by the California Department of Fish and Game and the USDA. Mary Cummins is also a licensed real estate appraiser in Los Angeles, California.


Google+ Mary Cummins, Mary K. Cummins, Mary Katherine Cummins, Mary Cummins-Cobb, Mary, Cummins, Cobb, wildlife, wild, animal, rescue, wildlife rehabilitation, wildlife rehabilitator, fish, game, los angeles, california, united states, squirrel, raccoon, fox, skunk, opossum, coyote, bobcat, manual, instructor, speaker, humane, nuisance, control, pest, trap, exclude, deter, green, non-profit, nonprofit, non, profit, ill, injured, orphaned, exhibit, exhibitor, usda, united states department of agriculture, hsus, humane society, peta, ndart, humane academy, humane officer, animal legal defense fund, animal cruelty, investigation, peace officer, animal, cruelty, abuse, neglect #marycummins #animaladvocates #losangeles #california #wildlife #wildliferehabilitation #wildliferehabilitator #realestate #realestateappraiser #realestateappraisal #lawsuit