Cost of Care

There are several ways to try to alleviate the prohibitive financial encumbrance and lengthy detriment to the wellbeing of the animals. One is for an HLE officer to obtain a voluntary surrender of the animals in question from the owner at the beginning of an investigation or as soon as possible thereafter. This is quite possibly the best option as it allows for the animals to receive all necessary treatment and be placed up for adoption quickly. Many HLE officers will offer this as an option to pet owners who do not have the means or the willingness to provide veterinary care or who refuse to comply with the animal cruelty code. Doing so allows them to present an alternative to pet owners; that is, they can either surrender the animal to a humane society or animal shelter or face charges if proper actions are not taken—such as, providing adequate food, water, or shelter, or veterinary treatment. Often, the threat of a court case is enough to cause a respondent to concede that they cannot care for the animal properly. In more serious cases the option to surrender ownership will not completely void the need for charges to be filed, but it can certainly allow for reduced stress to the animal and reduced financial obligations for the humane society (Bond Posting for Animal Cruelty State Statutes).

Another way that cost of care can be mitigated is by means of bond posting and forfeiture provisions. Some states like Colorado, Washington, Vermont, and Indiana have passed legislation that requires the offender to post a pre-conviction bond that will cover the costs associated with caring for the animals for the duration of the case. Should the offender choose not to pay, they must forfeit the animals, allowing them to be placed up for adoption. The costs associated with housing, feeding, and medical care are typically established by the agencies tasked with caring for the animal, in conjunction with the employed or consulting veterinarians who are providing the medical treatment. Meticulous records need to be kept regarding all treatment and expenses.

Seeking restitution is another way to recoup some of the costs associated with housing and care of the animals, but the officer needs to make this request to the attorney handling the case at the outset. Courts can include restitution as part of an offender’s sentence. As with cost of care documentation, the costs associated with caring for the animal for the duration of the case should be meticulous and accurate. The court can order restitution payments be made to the facility that provided the care, and any violations can result in the placement of liens on the offender’s property until the debt is settled.

Abandonment

Abandonment cases are handled differently depending on state and municipality. In some areas animals who have been left for a certain amount of time with no care, food, water, or shelter can be considered abandoned property, without owner, and can be seized by humane law enforcement. With regard to property that may be abandoned, one must consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding it: "there must be proof that the owner or possessor intended to give up all title, interest, claim, and/or right to possess; abandonment is not determined exclusively by a property rights analysis, but the intention to abandon may be inferred from word, acts, and deeds that indicate the person has given up sufficient interest in the property” (Ingram, 2009). Because they are considered abandoned the former owner cannot lay claim to them. However, some agencies choose to seize the animal and hold it until a property disposition can be completed, in which the officer must, by all means necessary, track down the property owner and if one cannot be located, request that ownership be transferred to the animal welfare agency by a judge. However, this process can be time consuming and laborious.

Emotional Toll

The refusal or unwillingness of the court system to take animal cruelty seriously or place emphasis on its unacceptability can make an officer wonder why they bothered at all. Over time this discouragement can result in an attitude of apathy and lassitude. HLE officers not only have to perform a job that exacts enormous emotional damage, but they also have to perform it while facing possible danger from people and animals. They must have policing skills and knowledge of the law, an excellent ability to communicate and “read" situations, a general knowledge of animal behavior, and the ability to walk a fine line between maintaining a sensitivity to the plight of animal suffering and succumbing to the defense mechanism of complete emotional shut down. They must do all this while occasionally enduring ridicule, disrespect, passivity, and indifference. They are frequently dismissed as “dog catchers,” confused with animal control, discredited as law enforcers, and wrongly labeled as activists. Many HLE officers felt drawn to the work in part because of their love for animals, and to witness some of the most atrocious acts of violence committed on animals while still maintaining professionalism is no easy task. But despite all of the negativity, most HLE officers are proud of their roles. They know that while they cannot win every case or save every life, the lives they do save are worth any amount of hardship. Being the voice of those who cannot speak for themselves makes up for the difficulties. No matter the cost, they will keep fighting in the hope that one day there will be no need to fight anymore.