InvestigationReportReleasedby

theLancasterCountySPCAin
ConnectionwithSickPuppy
July10,2016

LANCASTERCOUNTYSPCA
848S.PrinceStreet
Lancaster,PA17603
(717)9176979
PRESSRELEASE
ForImmediateRelease
July10,2016
Contact:SusanMartin
(717)9176979

The Lancaster County SPCA has concluded the case in regards to a puppy named Libre. As
determined by the facts of the investigation of the report below, the findings of this investigation and
testimony taken by parties involved cannot substantiate that a puppy was abandoned, left for dead
or maggot infested as previously reported in the media. Nor can the conclusion be drawn that the
breeder of the puppy truly intended harm to the puppy beyond a reasonable doubt since treatment
was being administered by a licensed veterinarian which was confirmed.
There are several facts reported to the media by parties involved that cannot be substantiated and
contradict previous statements made by these reporting sources. It is still undetermined based on
the facts of the case why the sources who originally called the media in regards to this case did not
clarify the misstatements posted by the media. Several media outlets were contacted by the
investigating officer personally to inform them of the inaccurate information relayed to them based on
the findings.
A humane society police officer does not have authority to question the treatment given by a
veterinarian nor do they have the authority to prosecute a suspect because they choose to provide

an animal in their care with the minimal treatment versus the best, costliest treatment to save an
animals life at any price.

In addition, investigators do not make judgments or reports based on one-sided testimony that is not
confirmed. An investigator is required to look at all of the facts, not just the information reported by
one source to the media.

The Lancaster County SPCA wishes Libre the best of luck in his fight to recover and hopes that
Libres story encourages more people to adopt versus supporting breeders for profit.

Concluding evidence provided obtained by the Lancaster County SPCA:

1. A produce driver, associated with the rescue group that obtained the sick puppy on July 4, 2016,
regularly delivered to the breeder of the puppy.

2. The rescue group approached the breeder and asked if he would be willing to allow them to have
a puppy that appeared to be sick. The breeder of the puppy explained to the rescue group that he
had been treating the puppy and it was not responding to treatment.

3. The breeder willingly gave the puppy to the rescue group when they informed the breeder that
they would be willing to take him to another veterinarian for further treatment.

4. The produce driver was questioned to whether or not he had previously seen sick dogs on the
property or any signs of previous neglect on previous visits to the breeder. The produce driver
confirmed he had never seen previous signs of neglect as he saw the other two dogs owned by the
breeder when he delivered to the farm previously. The produce driver stated that the other dogs
owned by the breeder previously always appeared of good weight and healthy. It was also confirmed
by individuals associated with the rescue group that the kennel was clean inside and the remaining
two dogs appeared in good health the day the puppy was obtained.

5. The puppy was taken by the rescue group immediately to an emergency veterinarian for
treatment. The dog was treated by two veterinarians at the emergency clinic. One treating
emergency vet verbally confirmed that there were no maggots observed by him on the puppy. The
other treating vets report also confirmed there was no treatment for maggots during the overnight
stay at the emergency treatment center.

6. The investigating officer went to the breeders property to question the condition of the puppy. The
breeders kennel inside was clean and two remaining dogs on the property had food and water and
appeared to be of good weight which was consistent with the produce drivers story. The Officer
confirmed with the breeders vet that the dog was receiving treatment for demodectic mange. The
breeder provided medical records in addition to showing prescribed joint medication being given to
one of the older dogs of the remaining two on the property. The breeder indicated that the puppy was
a Boston terrier and the mother was one of the dogs on the property. The mother dog had a previous
litter with no issues. The investigator saw slight patches of hair missing on the mother dog when
viewed up close and informed the breeder to not breed until his vet could confirm it was safe to
breed her. Subsequently, the breeder willingly offered to surrender the mother dog to the Lancaster
County SPCA. Pictures were obtained provided by individuals associated with the rescue group 48
hours prior to the rescue group taking the puppy showing the puppy was urinating and defecating
normally. A health certificate singed by a licensed veterinarian was completed indicating the puppy
was healthy at eight weeks old and able to be sold by the breeder indicating no sign of disease or
sickness was prevalent.

7. The next day the puppy was transferred to another treating veterinary practice where the puppy
currently remains under treatment. The current treating vet was contacted by the investigating officer
of the case. Officer Martin informed the current treating vet with the name and contact info of the
breeders vet and relayed the previous treatment that had been given by the breeders vet. The
current vet indicated that he only removed two maggots from the top of the skin. The current treating
vet also indicated that he was trying a different type of treatment that was new and hoped the dog
would respond better.

8. All treating vets agreed that the proper treatment provided by the breeders vet was appropriate.
Two of the treating vets could not speculate how long the puppy had been sick and verified that it
was likely the dog was being treated and was not responding. Both treating vets indicated that this
type of mange can be difficult to treat and requires a lengthy treatment. Officer Martin asked two of
the treating vets if they could testify in court to the fact that the dog was not under current treatment
and if it the dog did not appear to be treated previously. Both vets indicated to Officer Martin that
they would not be comfortable testifying in court that true intentional neglect existed since there was
confirmation that the puppy was being treated and not responding to treatment.