In late April, as Melton (representing NSRN) attempted to negotiate a resolution to the dispute, Sanderbeck alleged someone attempted to break into her home (also the location of COSR, a registered 501(c)3 non-profit corporation). COSR’s attorney, John Bell, then demanded that Covatch “solve” the alleged break-in as well as remove any negative comments and articles pertaining to COSR/Sanderbeck from the internet before any negotiations could take place.

On May 7, attempts to mediate the issue failed and Melton withdrew. On May 10, COSR/Sanderbeck’s attorney posted a Public Statement on the COSR website stating Piper would not be returned until all demands listed in that statement were met, however, COSR would be taking applications for adoption of the Champion Sheltie.

As the story of Covatch’s attempt to recover Piper spread across social media and into mainstream media, dog owners, breeders and rescue groups began to weigh in on the issue. Outrage exploded over the refusal of COSR/Sanderbeck to return the microchipped Champion Show Dog from Columbus, Ohio to Oslo, Norway to Victoria, Australia. Ethical, moral and legal questions surrounding the obligation of Rescue organizations to return lost dogs to their owners were hotly debated as breeders and owners expressed concern over the refusal to accept Piper’s microchip as legal proof of ownership.

COSR/Sanderbeck claimed that because the co-owners left the owner information with the implanting veterinarian instead of paying for the Home-Again registry service, Covatch and Wilson did not own Piper. The question of registration vs registry and the ability to use that microchip to track owners remains a heated topic of debate as owners questioned whether a microchip would ensure the return of their lost or stolen pet?

All microchips are registered at the point of sale to the purchaser, whether it is a veterinarian or breeder, so now the question remains: does the failure to pay for the chip registry service render the chip invalid? COSR/Sanderbeck claims the lack of calling Home Again and “registering” the chip into the service registry that assists in recovering lost animals negates the ownership of the dog recorded by the purchaser at the time the chip is implanted. That the microchip was readily traceable by Home Again’s 24 hour service to the implanting veterinarian was insufficient proof for COSR/Sanderbeck.

What should have been a simple issue (reuniting a lost dog with her owner) is now a major court battle between the co-owners and the rescue with allegations of stalking, alleged break-ins, mean things said on the internet and even what legally constitutes “ownership” of an animal coming into play.

The argument made by COSR/Sanderbeck for not returning Champion Legacies Pipe Dream in the filed Answer is highly questionable and dubious at best. COSR/Sanderbeck had possession of this particular dog for less than 24 hours before being contacted by her owners. Franklin County Animal Shelter knew of the Microchip and actually contacted the Veterinarian who implanted the chip. The shelter was told that the chip information was at another location and the veterinarian would locate that information and return the call as soon as it was in hand. The shelter recorded that contact onto the notes for this dog and yet never followed through, violating their own policies for microchipped dogs. Instead, Franklin County Animal Shelter changed the status of Piper to “awaiting rescue” instead of holding Piper and following up on the microchip information which would have directed the shelter to Wilson, the co-owner. By 11:05 am Monday morning (as noted in the Shelter records), Piper was transferred to COSR/Sanderbeck.

Why did the Shelter, contrary to its own policies, transfer a highly adoptable dog so quickly from the Shelter instead of placing that dog into their own adoption center?

What was the rush to get this particular, well cared for and obviously owned dog OUT of that shelter?

After Covatch learned of Piper's transfer to COSR/Sanderbeck, she and multiple other people (the dog’s Show Handlers, the caretakers and the other co-owner) all contacted COSR/Sanderbeck and immediately identified Piper, yet Sanderbeck refused to return the dog. Why? This particular dog was not in need of “rescuing” - she had a loving family who wanted her and took care of her. She was and is loved so much that her co-owners have gone to extraordinary lengths and expense to bring her home.

The attempt to recover this microchipped purebred Champion Shetland Sheepdog by her co-owners has now become a legal battle already costing in the tens of thousands of dollars - costs that would, for most people, make attempting to recover that lost dog a financial impossibility.

People around the nation have joined to aid Covatch and Wilson in the attempt to bring this loved dog home by setting up a legal defense fund that is expected to exceed $90,000. Why would total strangers band together to raise this amount of money for one dog?

The answer is simple.

Every dog owner can identify with this situation. Every owner is at risk of a dog escaping its yard, house, surroundings, caretaker, vet, boarding kennel, being stolen or going missing. Every dog could bolt or be stolen and a collar or tag could be removed. Collars and tags come off - get lost.

Most owners now microchip their pets with the understanding that the microchip is a means of identifying their pets and is a tool to reunite them with their lost animals. However, the Piper story has shaken to the core the belief that microchipping protects pets.

The refusal of COSR/Sanderbeck to return Piper has shone a light on the dark and ugly underbelly of some rescues that operate outside ethical, moral and legal standards assumed to be held by rescues.

The very concept of “rescue” has been damaged by the refusal of one woman and the “rescue” she directs to return this owned and loved and identified pet to her owners. People who once gave freely are now asking hard questions of the non-profits they once supported and they are withholding donations, to the detriment of organizations and dogs truly in need. It is important to draw distinction between those rescues that go above and beyond to help dogs and pets in need and who reunite lost animals with their families from those who have motives as yet unexplained.

It is also important that legislators take a closer look at how rescues and non-profits operate and to what standard should those organizations be held. The Shelter system in America also needs to be examined to see if those government run agencies are following the law as set by the Department of Agriculture. In 2013, the Department enacted rules and regulations which were signed into law on Feb. 7, 2014 (Agriculture Act of 2014) to set standards throughout the nation for both shelters and dealers (among whom rescues are included).

In the 2014 Farm Bill, the Animal Welfare Act recognizes that short hold times are unreasonable in the instance of found or impounded animals.

The Animal Welfare Act under APHIS rules state that any stray brought into a shelter must be held five days, not counting the day of intake and excluding the last day before being adopted or transferred to a dealer. That five day period must also include a minimum of one weekend day. The AWA further states that any dealer who receives an animal (with few exceptions) must also hold that animal for an additional five days before finalizing any permanent placement.

According to the Final Rule in the Agriculture Dept governing Shelter hold times, the minimum hold time for Shelters is five days:

“[Docket No. 91-035-3] AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations under the Animal Welfare Act (Act) to require that dogs and cats acquired by pounds and shelters owned and operated by States, counties, and cities, private entities established for the purpose of caring for animals, such as humane societies or contract pounds or shelters, and research facilities licensed as dealers by the United States Department of Agriculture, be held and cared for at those establishments for at least 5 days before being provided to a dealer. We are also amending the regulations to require that dealers provide a valid certification to anyone acquiring random source dogs and cats from them. These amendments are being made pursuant to the most recent amendment of the Act. The amendment to the Act was enacted to prevent the use of stolen pets in research and to provide owners the opportunity to locate their animals. (EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23, 1993.)”

“No dealer or exhibitor shall sell or otherwise dispose of any dog or cat within a period of five business days after the acquisition of such animal or within such other period as may be specified by the Secretary …”

Under Section 2135 of the Animal Welfare Act:A closer inspection of Shelters throughout the country to insure they are following the AWA regulations regarding hold times for lost pets is urgently needed. Also, a closer regulation and oversight of Rescue organizations, as well as education of both entities to the current regulations and laws governing their operations is critical.

Both Franklin County Municipal Shelter and COSR/Sanderbeck fell far short of the legal hold time before converting the ownership rights of Piper's co-owners. As the average pet owner does not have the ability or means to fight a legal battle that costs tens of thousands of dollars - many have walked away from pets they love because of that cost and that conversion has succeeded.

Why has the Franklin County Municipal Shelter stepped forward after being notified that the Shelter did not follow APHIS regulations? In Brown County, OH, a similar case resulted in the Shelter demanding the return of the dog illegally released to a foster when the case reached the Court. That dog was recovered by the owners. Why, then, has the Franklin County Shelter not demanded that COSR/Sanderbeck return this dog to her owner?

When a FOIA request was filed for Shelter Proceedures, the manuals and information on Shelter Policy, the documentation sent in response to the Ohio Sunshine Act were all dated after Piper was taken and released - none of the manuals in force at the time Piper was at the shelter were released. Another FOIA request has now been sent requesting those proceedures and manuals for the time period that was in effect during April 17 - April 21, 2014. When that information is forthcoming, an update will be published..

What should have been something as simple as an identified dog being reunited with her owner(s) has now turned into an expensive legal exercise that, prior to reaching a Court of Law, has cost the owner of the lost Sheltie and pet over $35,000 and will only get significantly more expensive as long as there is no resolution. Indeed, should this case go before an appeals court, the cost could well reach into six figures.

Where are the checks and balances in the system? What are the responsibilities of the Shelter? Who and what regulates the practices of Non-Profit Rescue organizations? What laws need to be strengthened and what laws are not being enforced.

It is apparent from the Piper case that closer regulation and oversight is necessary for both Shelters and for Rescue organizations. What is needed for both is extensive education regarding the current regulations and laws governing their operations as well as stricter oversight on both local, State and Federal levels.

Finally, how does one determine the legitimate and honest Rescue from the ones that do not follow legal, moral and ethical standards? Due Diligence must be applied by examining any Charity or Non-Profit to which an individual donates time or money. Organizations such as Guidestar and Great Non-Profits are available to read reviews of Non-Profits. Checking with the offices of State Attorney Generals or through the IRS to verify the status of any Non-Profit is also advisable.

Another excellent practice is to get to know your local organizations - go into the organization's place of operation, volunteer, listen and most of all, LOOK to see what is being done by any one organization. Those that are not transparent, those that will not show their financial records (as required by the IRS) when asked, those that don't "feel" right necessitate further inquiry.

In the meantime, good rescues suffer from the backlash of this situation while bad rescues continue “business” as usual. And, the real losers in all of this are the dogs that are in real need of “rescuing” and those honest and wonderful people who dedicate so much time ad effort to help them.

In this case, Ch Legacies Pipe Dream is not one of those dogs - or was not, until COSR/Sanderbeck got hold of her.

If you would like to contribute to the Piper Legal Defense Fund (registered in the State of Ohio), you may do so here. This fight is not about one dog - it is about every pet, yours and mine. Any donation helps - if each animal owner donated the cost of one cup of coffee, the legal costs could be covered.

If you would like more information on this story, here are some additional links:

Piper's Story Continues - when the wisdom of solomon is not enough

She's taken something as natural as birth and death ... and turned it into something ...

Articles found in Best in Show Daily are as follows:



When a Rescue goes Wrong

Breaking News - Rescue Posts $10,000 Bond to Keep from Returning Piper

$200 for a Champion Sheltie - and Update on Piper

Update: Attorney Bell Breaks his Silence

Abuse Allegations trail COSR Director

Veronica Covatch, Piper's Owner Speaks Out

News Papers:

Columbus Dispatch

philly.com

Examiner - Waiting for the hand-off; Will COSR director obey court order to return Piper?

Examiner - Piper the Sheltie hand-off stand-off: Day 1 and no dog

Media:

NBCi4 - Rescue Group Refuses to Return Runaway Sheltie

ABC13 Pennsylvania Woman Fights Ohio Rescue Over Dog

CBS Local - Philadelphia

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/...

#bringpiperhome