THIS CAUSE was before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion to Chant Ownership of Confiscated Animals. Accordingly, the Defendant/Owner put forth evidence and testimony to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she is able and fit to maintain or continue custody of and provide adequately for said animals.

Based on the testimony from the agent, veterinarian doctors, and the officer who observed the one hundred six animals, i.e. one hundred one (101) birds, two (2) dogs, two (2) turtles and one (I) rabbit that were seized by the agent from the defendant’s residence on September 10, 2006, the Court finds that the evidence presented by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Tampa Bay, Florida, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as SPCA) indicated a lack of proper and reasonable care of the animals. However, the owner was able to provide adequately for, and have custody of, the animals, after demonstrating to the Court by clear and convincing evidence that she is able and fit to have custody of and provide adequately for said animals based on the following facts:

1. Richard Levy, an agent with the SPCA, advised that the residence was filthy. There was dander and dust throughout the home and bird cages. The residence was cluttered with an unusual amount of debris, bird seed was layered along the floor and the overall living conditions of the home were not ideal. The agent further advised that the bird. cages had not been cleaned for a period of time (unknown length), and old and new feces was mounting on the floor of the cages, getting so high that the trays were difficult to pull out One cage housed twenty-five (25) birds leaving little room for the birds to move around freely. The bird seed was scattered throughout the floor of the cages. There was no food, only powder in most of the trays because it was all eaten by the birds; however, there was adequate clean water available to the birds. The agent observed a discharge in the nasal area of some of the birds. Some birds had tattered feathers and one bird had plucked all its feathers from the neck down to the tail. Mr. Levy further advised that the Photographs that depicted blood on the feathers was probably due to the transport of the animals, and was not caused by the Defendant’s care.

2. The agent further testified that he observed the dogs chained to a rail at the front end of the residence, where there was unclean water available to the dogs. The dogs were visibly dirty with fleas. However, it was established at the heating that the dogs were chained in that manner at the directive of law enforcement.

3. Mr. Levy further testified that the one (I) rabbit and two (2) turtles appeared healthy.

4. Dr. Rita Manarino, a twenty (20) year veterinarian and a bird specialist, testified that she examined all the birds and the two (2) turtles a couple of days after the seizure. She observed conjunctivitis and nasal discharge on some birds, tattered feathers on approximately fifteen (15) birds, matted fecal material and/or diarrhea on some birds, and thin shelled eggs.

5. Dr. Manarino conducted Pollyanna tests which revealed positive results of a possible fungal disease and/or possible antibodies in the bloodstream. She further explained that the antibody response could reveal false positive if recent vaccinations were done on the birds, i.e. within 6 months. In addition, Dr. Manarino testified that a sudden change in bird food can cause diarrhea.

6. Dr. Manarino testified that the environment the birds were housed in was unsanitary conditions, and in her opinion the birds were neglected due to their unsanitary environment.

7. Dr. Tiffany Bogart, Relief Veterinarian, with ten (10) years of veterinarian experience focusing primarily in dogs, advised that she saw no signs of abuse with the dogs, but felt the animals were neglected.

8. Dr. Bogart found the dogs had hookworms, however, the dogs gave no outward signs of any symptoms and the hookworms were not at a serious stage. Although the conditions under which the animals were kept were not ideal, the owner did provide adequate clean water and food for the animals while she was away for an approximate thirty-six (36) hour period.

10. Lynn Andrews, thirty (30) year breeder, who holds a Class C license with The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, testified that she mixes a custom feed, It was her belief that the SPCA did not feed the birds the same food, therefore she attributed the diarrhea problems to a sudden change in feed.

11. She further testified that she vaccinated all the birds with the first inoculation. On August 13, 2006 and the second inoculation on September 7, 2006.

12. Ms. Andrews advised she cleaned the cages approximately five(S) or six (6) days prior to the seizure.

13. She offered no testimony about the actual living conditions of her residence or about how long the residence maintained a dirty and clutter filled condition, thus exposing the birds to this environment. However, she did advise that cockatiels are high dander and dust producers, offering an. explanation for the dusty living conditions of the home.

14. The most compelling testimony came from Dr. Margaret Wissman, DVM, an avian breeder and veterinarian specialist and Fred Smith, a certified agent specialist with the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council and the Regional Director of the American Federation of Avian Conservation and Research Committee. Both advised that after reviewing the photographs of the actual living conditions of these birds, they detected no neglect or abuse.

15. Mr. Smith, a thirty-two (32) year bird breeder, observed the birds five (5) days after the seizure and did not feel that there wore any concerns with the treatment of these animals by the defendant.

16. He opined that it as not unusual for juvenile birds housed together to chew on one another’s feathers which explained the tattered tails of some of the birds. He thither advised that it is not unusual, to clean a cage once a week when birds are breeding. He explained that he was familiar with the bald bird, advising that the previous owner also had the bird with the same bald condition fro plucking. He advised that Ms. Andrews acquired ownership of that particular bird in August, 2006.

17. Mr. Smith testified that he noticed that the SCA was giving pellet food to the birds and recommended they switch to seed due to the sudden change causing diarrhea or a loose stool. He, too, believed that the diarrhea occurred after the birds were seized due to the change in feed.

18. Finally, Dr. Margaret Wissman, a Board Certified Avian Specialist since I 994,with twenty-five (25) years of experience specializing in avian medicine, advised that after reviewing the photographs, lab work and trial testimony, she concluded and offered the opinion that the birds were in very healthy condition. She saw no signs of conjunctivitis and no evidence of diarrhea in any of the photographs that reflected the true conditions at the Defendant’s residence. She attributed the low calcium levels to recent egg laying at the Defendant’s residence and continued egg laying at the SPCA when the mother and clutch of eggs had been separated.

19. She testified that the high titer readings were from the recent vaccinations. She expressed no concern over the condition of the cages, advising that the fecal material feel through the grates so therefore there was no direct contact with the bids.

20. She emphasized that the birds were heavy ad robust. She observed that the fecal material o the walls and feathers was dusted down more than normal, but she advised that those conditions did not affect the health of the birds. She advised that she would be concerned if there was fecal matter I the food, but that condition will happen because the birds are raised in captivity.

21. Dr. Wissman testified that it was her opinion that the birds were neither abused nor neglected.

Based on the above findings of fact, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the living conditions of the home were not appropriate for the animals and directs the Defendant that such conditions must be corrected However, it is further

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the defendant did demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that she is able and fit to have custody of and provide adequately for these animals. It is therefore

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendant has seven (7) days after the date of this order to claim and remove the animals from the possession of the SFCA.

This Court further recommends that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission routinely conduct unannounced spot checks on the Defendant’s residence to ensure that a sanitary environment exits for the well-being and safety of these animals.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, this day of December 2006

It is the goal of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to develop and maintain the best regulations possible that provide for public safety, animal welfare, and the legitimate use of wildlife for personal, educational or exhibition purposes. To this end we formed a technical assistance group, consisting of 11 experts, to review captive wildlife regulations and address current captive wildlife issues. The FWC received many resumes from interested parties possessing a wide and varied range of expertise and a vested interest in addressing captive wildlife issues.

The group members were selected based on their diverse background and areas of expertise. The experience possessed by the selected members represents all facets of the captive wildlife industry and wildlife rehabilitation. Additionally, it represents experience in animal welfare, disease/bioterrorism, emergency response and local government. We are confident that these members represent a well-rounded group and are equal to the task of developing the best regulations possible for captive wildlife.

Information regarding the scope of the group, as well as meetings and contact information for group members, will be provided at this Web site in the near future. Group meetings will be open to the public and you are welcome to attend and listen to the discussion. We will not take oral public comment at the meetings; however, we encourage you to give input to technical assistance group members, provide written comments, and attend public workshops addressing captive wildlife.

We appreciate your interest in Florida''s captive wildlife. We encourage and solicit your input throughout this process. Please continue to monitor this Web site for updates regarding the Captive Wildlife Technical Assistance Group and this process.

Captive Wildlife Technical Assistance Group Members:Ms. Julie Alexa Strauss: Corporate Counsel for FELD Entertainment, Inc. (Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus); former Captive Wildlife Committee member.

Dr. Terri Parrot-Nenezian: Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine specializing in wildlife and exotics; Wildlife Rehabilitator; Exhibition/Sale Licensee with authorizations for most Class I and II families; former Captive Wildlife Committee member.

Mr. Dan Martinelli: Treasure Coast Wildlife Hospital, Executive Director; Wildlife Rehabilitator; Exhibition/Sale Licensee with authorizations for most Class I and II families; Venomous Reptile Licensee.

Mr. Eugene Bessette: Ophiological Services, Founder and Director; Venomous Reptile Licensee; Exhibit/Sale Licensee for Class III reptiles; former Captive Wildlife Committee member.

Mr. Joe Christman: Curator of Mammals for Disney''s Animal Kingdom; extensive background in zoo operations and husbandry.

Dr. Leroy Coffman: Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine; Former State Veterinarian and Director of Animal Industry with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services; extensive background regarding bioterrorism, disease issues involving livestock/wildlife and emergency response to natural and man made disasters.

Mr. Ken Johnson: Representative for the Humane Society of the United States; Director of IT for FSU College of Medicine; former Captive Wildlife Committee member.

Dr. Susan Clubb: Doctor of Veterinarian Medicine; Co-owner of Hurricane Aviaries; Staff Veterinarian for Parrot Jungle Island; extensive avian and primate background.

Mr. Bill Armstrong: Hillsborough County Animal Control, Director; Florida Animal Control Association, President; County Emergency Response Coordinator for Emergency Support Function (ESF) 17 (Animal Issues).

Mr. R. Donavan Smith: Close Up Creatures, Inc., Founder and Director; NGALA Private Reserve, Founder; Exhibit/Sale licensee with authorizations for elephants, hippos, felids, crocodilians, and ratites.

Ms. Gloria Noble Johnson: Cougar Ridge Education Center, Inc., Founder; Exhibit/Sale Licensee with authorizations for Class I and Class II cats; Lobbyist.

Will your birds be confiscated by SPCA? Will the county take you to court for a nuisance complaint because of your Birds?

A couple raising lovebirds and African Greys in a rural area of Hillsborough county have been plagued with numerous complaints (22 different agencies) from two neighbors for the past five years. The neighbors contacted Animal Services, zoning department, and housing standards making different complaints against the Hectors stating their birds were too noisy.

Subsequently Hillsborough County Animal Services filed suit in the circuit court against the Hectors resulting with a citation for animal nuisance, which is in violation of Hillsborough County Ordinance 00-26 as amended by 03-8.

Section 15 states that "No companion animal shall be allowed to unreasonably annoy humans, to endanger the life or health of other animals or persons acting lawfully, or to substantially interfere with the rights of others thereby interfering with the reasonable use and enjoyment of property."

Hillsborough Animal Services is reviewing and drafting changes to the Animal Ordinance. Bill Armstrong, director of Animal Services of Hillsborough County, has stated at the monthly committee meetings that the Hector case is going to be a model for other county agencies to use to go after other exotic animal owners or breeders. He has also indicated that he wants Hillsborough County's Animal Ordinance to be the strictest and become the model for other county governments across Florida and the U.S. to adopt. (Check out link for more information about the Hillsborough County Animal Ordinance.)

The Hectors had to face two hearings on their charges. There was strong substantiated evidence that the birds were not a nuisance, i.e., the decibel readings were well within the allowable guidelines. The aviary building where the birds are housed had the proper building permits and met standards with regards to set backs from property lines. The Hectors' attorney told the court that the Hectors also has the right to reasonable use and enjoyment of their property. That reasonable use and enjoyment cannot constitute a tangible injury to someone else, but they are not required to tailor their lifestyle to adopt to someone who is unreasonable in their sensitivities or in their complaints or demands.

There was a tape recording of the bird sounds which was presented to the court. However, an appeal was filed in this case because the tape recording could not be found to become part of the court document. This court case was overturned because the tape could not be produced by the County. The hearing officer ruled that the county could re-file an action against the Hectors if they so desired.

FFA purchased a copy of transcripts of the court hearings. Anyone wanting a copy of these documents may purchase them for the cost of photocopying and mailing. Contact Phyllis Martin, Secretary, at 813-737-2504.

The first leg band was placed on a Falcon by King Henry in 1595.is used by breeders to track chicks from different pairs of birds. Seamless leg bands placed on chicks indicate the birds were captive-raised. The use of alpha, numeric, or both alpha and numeric identification on the bands can depict the year the chick was banded, the initials of the breeder, the initials of the business name, the initials of a bird organization which registers the bands, the state where bird was bred, and a unique number to identify each chick raised. Bands come in colors and some professional groups use the colors to depict the year on exhibition birds. Bands also are made from plastics, stainless steel, and aluminum, and come in a multitude of sizes geared to fit all species of birds.

Below are some of the bands used by Florida breeders. If you recognize a band identification and can fill in the breeders name, please do so. If your band identification is not shown, we would appreciate adding it to our list. Send this information to FFA Secretary Phyllis Martin at Phyllis837@msn.com. A completed list of these band identifications with breeders or aviary names will be made available to members upon request.

The "Agricultural Property Notice" sign shown to the right is available at your County Farm Bureau office. The cost $25 each. Pick up several today for you and your neighbor's farms or aviaries. Even though bird breeding is not yet recognized as an agricultural entity, we can start behaving like one. We all need to get involved with our Farm Bureau. We need to talk to our local Farm Bureau representatives about aviculture - the other agricultural business. We need to talk with our county and state elected officials about aviculture.

Aquiculture and horticulture are recognized as farming industries so we need to make it our goal to become a recognized farming industry during the year 2002. (Published in Farm & Ranch News/October 2001.)

The Association of Avian Veterinarians has finally taken a position on the inhumane technique of de vocalization of parrot species. The following is an excerpt from their statement regarding permanent anatomical alterations of avian species.

The AAV does not support any surgical procedure that permanently and irrevocably alters avian anatomic structure or function, with the following exceptions: A. The procedure(s) is deemed necessary for the safety, health, husbandry, and well-being of the bird(s) and cannot be accomplished by other non surgical means such as an avicultural husbandry management practice.

B. The procedure(s) is humanely performed in a valid research setting where such a procedure(s) ha been approved by an institutional animal care and use committee or an appropriate over-sight organization that considers the procedure(s) necessary for the study. C. The procedure(s) is deemed necessary by the administering veterinarian and is not on the list of condoned procedures in this statement. 1. The AAV does not condone any surgical procedure resulting in the permanent and irrevocable alteration of avian anatomic structure or function that is performed for purely cosmetic purposes or to modify the innate behavior of the bird(s) when other non-surgical alternatives may be employed.
2. The AAV assets that surgical cosmetic or behavior modification procedures may be associated with a high degree of risk to the patient, both intra- and post-operatively, and that such procedures are usually considered nonessential to the survival, health, and general welfare of the bird(s).

3. The AAV strongly supports the implementation of noninvasive methods such as avicultural husbandry management techniques or behavior modification procedures to achieve the desired outcome.

4. The AAV maintains that the tenets of this position statement do not extend to those avian species utilized in the food-animal industry.

5. The AAV further acknowledges that any of these surgical procedures may be performed legally, and that the AAV has no regulatory or legal authority over the practices of its members or associates. (Sounds like a lot of loop holes to me. What do you think? – Editor, FFA Newsletter)

Discouraged Surgical Procedures
1. Beak-splitting (mandibular bifurcation) to reduce aggression. Avicultural behavioral modification and proper husbandry practices are usually sufficient to resolve aggression tendencies in those species where this is a problem.

2. De-vocalization or de-voicing to reduce noise by surgical alternation of the syrinx or associated structures.