UNITED KINGDOM -- A little girl torn apart by savage dogs lay on her hospital bed as nurses pumped her full of painkillers and pleaded, "Mummy, please don't let them put me down".
Five-year-old Leah Preston heard the vicious animals who mauled her in Low Hill, Wolverhampton, had been destroyed and was worried she might be put to sleep, her family said.
Doctors said the youngster was in a stable condition in Birmingham Children's Hospital after undergoing surgery for bite wounds to her leg, groin and arm on Friday.
Onlookers watched in horror on Thursday afternoon as schoolgirl Leah was tossed around like a rag doll being viciously savaged by the two animals.
She was playing in her front garden in Hawksford Crescent when the two dogs, named Gina and Kaiser, escaped from a metal cage behind the next door house and attacked her.
The Bull Mastiff cross-breeds tugged her between each other, tearing chunks out of her flesh before turning on their owner and her two young children, witnesses said.
The owner of two dogs, Jean Harvey, today broke down in tears, shaking and unable to speak, as she tried to relive the horrific incident.
With bloodied teeth marks covering her arms, Ms Harvey wept as she vividly recalled the two dogs attacking her, her two children, Liam, five, and Lauren, three.
Friends said she had used her body as a shield to protect her five-year-old neighbour, who was being torn apart by the two fighting dogs.
Ms Harvey's sister-in-law, Diane Harvey, said: "As far as I know she went to feed the dogs and next thing she realised they was not there. "
She heard a scream and she has run out to save Diane's baby next door.
"Even though her two were outside she ran straight to the baby. She then threw her body on top of the baby so the dogs could not get to the baby any more. She is bitten from her shoulders all the way down to her heels because she used her body as a shield. She keeps saying, 'I tried to save the baby'."
Leah's mother, Diane Reynolds, 28, looked on helplessly as they mauled the little girl, biting flesh from her body and leaping for her throat.
Leah's uncle, Peter Reynolds, 38, received a frantic phone call from his sister to say that the dogs were attacking her daughter.
He said the family had only moved into the house five days before and he had boarded up the back gate because they had been afraid of the dogs.
He arrived on the scene in minutes to find Leah inside the house covered in blood and the two dogs attacking the Harveys next door.
"It was savage, man," he said. "It was like she had been mauled by a shark it was so horrific. "The two policemen were crying. We knew the dogs were dangerous. I think it is criminal to breed dogs like that. I want the breeder prosecuted and the rest of the dogs killed."
Family friend Carol Read, arrived at the scene to find Ms Reynolds screaming from inside the house, "Please, Carol, save my baby".
The 47-year-old, of nearby Showell Road, said: "I saw the dogs and at first I thought they'd got a rag doll. Then I saw there was one dog going for Leah's throat. That child looked like the victim of a shark attack.
"I was a coward when I saw what was going on. I turned away and screamed for somebody to help me. "Nobody would come so I knew I had to get that baby. When I picked her up my hand almost went through her leg.
Leah's aunt, Linda Reynolds, 39, said: "She has lost all the muscle in her leg.
"There are bite marks on her head, on her arm and on her throat. But she never even cried. Not after the attack. "The baby in hospital said to her mum, 'Mummy, don't let them put me down'."
The two dogs were taken away by vets and destroyed, a police spokesman said.
Chief Superintendent Tom Duffin said officers were still investigating the incident to determine whether or not any prosecutions would follow.
He told a press conference today at Wednesfield police station: "What happened yesterday was a really nasty event.
"The thoughts and emotions of people must be with those people but the police must continue their inquiries.
"It is harrowing. I have taken steps to ensure that staff involved receive proper support."
(Daily Mail - May 19, 2002)
Monday, May 20, 2002
Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Washington: When Peggy Noblitt's HOA enacted a ban on pit bulls, they told her she could keep hers as long as she complied with a few things. She refused and got a lawyer instead.
WASHINGTON -- The owner of a pit bull and the homeowners' association at Issaquah Highlands might be heading to court.
Peggy Noblitt, 37, says Blu Gator, her 1-year-old Staffordshire pit bull terrier, is being discriminated against by a requirement that she wear a muzzle.
"I'm fighting this," said Noblitt, a three-year resident at Issaquah Highlands. "I do not want to adhere to any unique or discriminatory rules."
In March, the homeowners' association began enforcing a new rule banning pit bulls from the planned community.
But Noblitt's dog was "grandfathered in," so long as certain conditions were met.
In addition to the muzzle requirement, Noblitt must, among other things, spay her dog, confine it inside a secure kennel when it's in the backyard [by itself] and [maintain] $250,000 of liability insurance [which can be as simple as a rider attached to your homeowner's insurance].
Issaquah Highlands developer Judd Kirk said efforts are being made to bring Noblitt into compliance.
"If that can't be done, we'd have to pursue legal steps," Kirk said. He declined to say what those steps might be.
Noblitt, who has hired a lawyer, says Blu Gator is a friendly dog and shouldn't be penalized for highly publicized stories about pit bull attacks.
"Every person that has met her adores her," Noblitt said. "All she wants to do is play."
But Erick Zimmerman, a homeowners' committee member, said there have been multiple incidents of Blu Gator lunging toward children or pets.
As for Noblitt's contention that homeowners are on shaky ground with the pit bull ban and special conditions for Blu Gator, Kirk disagrees.
"It's clear under the CCRs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) ... that they have the power to do it."
Issaquah Highlands' requirements are not unique. Many cities, including Kirkland and Everett, also impose muzzle and other requirements on pit bulls.
Noblitt says she wholeheartedly endorses dangerous-dog legislation, but objects to rules that focus on individual breeds.
If her dog became aggressive or dangerous, Noblitt says, she would put Blu Gator down.
Fighting for equal treatment of her pet has been expensive.
"It's cost me a fortune," Noblitt said. "I have a three-ring binder on this whole issue."
Those legal costs may escalate as the standoff continues.
Noting that Noblitt has not complied with the required conditions, Zimmerman says the homeowners association has few options.
"Our only choice now is to take the next step," Zimmerman said.
(Eastside Journal - May 14, 2002)
Peggy Noblitt, 37, says Blu Gator, her 1-year-old Staffordshire pit bull terrier, is being discriminated against by a requirement that she wear a muzzle.
"I'm fighting this," said Noblitt, a three-year resident at Issaquah Highlands. "I do not want to adhere to any unique or discriminatory rules."
In March, the homeowners' association began enforcing a new rule banning pit bulls from the planned community.
But Noblitt's dog was "grandfathered in," so long as certain conditions were met.
Issaquah Highlands developer Judd Kirk said efforts are being made to bring Noblitt into compliance.
"If that can't be done, we'd have to pursue legal steps," Kirk said. He declined to say what those steps might be.
Noblitt, who has hired a lawyer, says Blu Gator is a friendly dog and shouldn't be penalized for highly publicized stories about pit bull attacks.
"Every person that has met her adores her," Noblitt said. "All she wants to do is play."
But Erick Zimmerman, a homeowners' committee member, said there have been multiple incidents of Blu Gator lunging toward children or pets.
As for Noblitt's contention that homeowners are on shaky ground with the pit bull ban and special conditions for Blu Gator, Kirk disagrees.
"It's clear under the CCRs (covenants, conditions and restrictions) ... that they have the power to do it."
Issaquah Highlands' requirements are not unique. Many cities, including Kirkland and Everett, also impose muzzle and other requirements on pit bulls.
Noblitt says she wholeheartedly endorses dangerous-dog legislation, but objects to rules that focus on individual breeds.

If her dog became aggressive or dangerous, Noblitt says, she would put Blu Gator down.
Fighting for equal treatment of her pet has been expensive.
"It's cost me a fortune," Noblitt said. "I have a three-ring binder on this whole issue."
Those legal costs may escalate as the standoff continues.
Noting that Noblitt has not complied with the required conditions, Zimmerman says the homeowners association has few options.
"Our only choice now is to take the next step," Zimmerman said.
(Eastside Journal - May 14, 2002)
Friday, April 26, 2002
Kansas: Sabine Davidson, convicted of 2nd degree murder after her Rottweilers chased, attacked, mauled and killed an 11-year old boy, has already had her appeal denied. Now she's trying to get a new trial
KANSAS -- A woman convicted of second-degree murder following a dog attack that killed an 11-year-old boy in 1997 is seeking a new trial or another appeal.
Sabine Davidson of Milford was convicted in January 1998 and is serving a 12-year prison sentence. She had remained free during her appeal until the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the conviction in July 1999.
The court said that Davidson "created an unreasonable risk and then consciously disregarded it in a manner and to the extent that it reasonably could be inferred that she was extremely indifferent to the value of human life."
Christopher Wilson, 11, was killed on April 24, 1997, when attacked by three Rottweilers as he and his brother were waiting for their school bus. The boys climbed a tree to get away, but when Christopher came down he was attacked and dragged some 70 feet to a ravine.
Davidson's husband, Jeffrey, had also been charged with unintentional second-degree murder, but he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter and was placed on probation. He was not allowed to own dogs during that probation period.
Sabine Davidson dug her heels in and absolutely refused to take any plea offer that would have spared her prison time. Her attorney was quoted as saying she didn't feel like she didn't anything wrong. However, during the trial numerous neighbors testified as to the aggressive behavior of the dogs. Trainers from a sort-of protection dog training club (think police K9 training) testified that Sabine Davidson brought her dogs there often, couldn't control them and was basically a weirdo that they didn't want around. Neighbors also testified that they saw men in the Davidsons' yard wearing those bite-sleeves that police dog trainers use to have the dogs attack them.
It was clear that the dogs were: aggressive, trained even more to be like a guard dog, able to get out and escape the Davidson property seemingly whenever they wished, and the Davidsons had created and cultivated these deadly weapons that eventually attacked and killed a child.
Sabine Davidson was back in Geary County District Court on Wednesday, asking Judge Larry E. Bengtson for a new trial or appeal on grounds that she had ineffective legal representation in the first appeal.
She contends that Keith Sevedge of Lenexa, the court-appointed attorney representing her during the appeals process, failed to bring up pertinent issues that would have helped her case.
Ralph DeZago, arguing on her behalf Wednesday, said an appellate court will address only issues brought to its attention, and that other issues that the trial attorney listed as pertinent "just didn't get raised."
DeZago would not say any one particular issue was more important than another.
"This poor lady is here with all these issues that needed to be raised, and they weren't," he told the court.
At the trial, Davidson and her attorney had raised the possibility that dogs other than her Rottweilers were responsible for the attack. That issue surfaced again Wednesday when DeZago questioned what had happened to teeth scrapings ordered to be taken from the Rottweilers after the attack.
Results of the scrapings were never presented in court during the trial. DNA from the scrapings, DeZago contends, could have shown if the dogs that did the mauling were in fact Davidson's.
Ron Hodgson, who represented Davidson at the trial, was asked Wednesday why he did not press that issue. He said that as defense attorney it was not his responsibility to prove whether the victim's DNA was or was not present on Davidson's dogs, which were killed by Geary County deputies on the day of the attack.
"It was not the defense's job to do that," Hodgson said.
THE LITTLE BOY'S BROTHER WAS AN EYEWITNESS. THE SCHOOL BUS DRIVER SAW THE THREE ROTTWEILERS ATTACKING THE LITTLE BOY. THE FIRST DEPUTY TO ARRIVE SAW THE DOGS ATTACKING THE LITTLE BOY; HE SHOT AND KILLED THE LARGE MALE 80-LB ROTTWEILER, CAUSING THE TWO SMALLER FEMALE ROTTWEILERS TO RUN AWAY.
However, he said he did argue to the jury that the prosecution had not brought up that evidence.
Beth Gillmer-Jones, a sheriff's detective who was the principle evidence custodian during the case, said oral scrapings were taken from the dogs and that to the best of her knowledge those results are still at Kansas State University, where the dogs were examined.
"I did not receive any swabbings or slides," she said.
The judge is expected to issue a written decision in a week or two.
(The Topeka Capital-Journal - April 25, 2002)
Update
Dog owner’s request for retrial in fatal mauling case denied
A woman whose dogs fatally mauled an 11-year-old boy will remain in prison after a judge denied her request for a new trial, Geary County Atty. Chris Biggs said Monday.
Sabine Davidson was convicted in 1997 of unintentional second-degree murder, after her three Rottweilers attacked and killed Christopher Wilson of Milford while he waited for a school bus.
The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the conviction in 1999.
In April, Davidson challenged her conviction, saying her trial attorney was ineffective, and failed to have DNA testing done on scrapings from the dogs' mouths.
She also alleged that her attorney on appeal was ineffective for not raising additional issues during the appeals process.
(Associated Press - June 18, 2002)
Earlier:
Sabine Davidson of Milford was convicted in January 1998 and is serving a 12-year prison sentence. She had remained free during her appeal until the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the conviction in July 1999.
The court said that Davidson "created an unreasonable risk and then consciously disregarded it in a manner and to the extent that it reasonably could be inferred that she was extremely indifferent to the value of human life."

Christopher Wilson, 11, was killed on April 24, 1997, when attacked by three Rottweilers as he and his brother were waiting for their school bus. The boys climbed a tree to get away, but when Christopher came down he was attacked and dragged some 70 feet to a ravine.
Davidson's husband, Jeffrey, had also been charged with unintentional second-degree murder, but he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of involuntary manslaughter and was placed on probation. He was not allowed to own dogs during that probation period.
Sabine Davidson dug her heels in and absolutely refused to take any plea offer that would have spared her prison time. Her attorney was quoted as saying she didn't feel like she didn't anything wrong. However, during the trial numerous neighbors testified as to the aggressive behavior of the dogs. Trainers from a sort-of protection dog training club (think police K9 training) testified that Sabine Davidson brought her dogs there often, couldn't control them and was basically a weirdo that they didn't want around. Neighbors also testified that they saw men in the Davidsons' yard wearing those bite-sleeves that police dog trainers use to have the dogs attack them.
It was clear that the dogs were: aggressive, trained even more to be like a guard dog, able to get out and escape the Davidson property seemingly whenever they wished, and the Davidsons had created and cultivated these deadly weapons that eventually attacked and killed a child.
Sabine Davidson was back in Geary County District Court on Wednesday, asking Judge Larry E. Bengtson for a new trial or appeal on grounds that she had ineffective legal representation in the first appeal.
She contends that Keith Sevedge of Lenexa, the court-appointed attorney representing her during the appeals process, failed to bring up pertinent issues that would have helped her case.
Ralph DeZago, arguing on her behalf Wednesday, said an appellate court will address only issues brought to its attention, and that other issues that the trial attorney listed as pertinent "just didn't get raised."
DeZago would not say any one particular issue was more important than another.
"This poor lady is here with all these issues that needed to be raised, and they weren't," he told the court.
At the trial, Davidson and her attorney had raised the possibility that dogs other than her Rottweilers were responsible for the attack. That issue surfaced again Wednesday when DeZago questioned what had happened to teeth scrapings ordered to be taken from the Rottweilers after the attack.
Results of the scrapings were never presented in court during the trial. DNA from the scrapings, DeZago contends, could have shown if the dogs that did the mauling were in fact Davidson's.
Ron Hodgson, who represented Davidson at the trial, was asked Wednesday why he did not press that issue. He said that as defense attorney it was not his responsibility to prove whether the victim's DNA was or was not present on Davidson's dogs, which were killed by Geary County deputies on the day of the attack.
"It was not the defense's job to do that," Hodgson said.

THE LITTLE BOY'S BROTHER WAS AN EYEWITNESS. THE SCHOOL BUS DRIVER SAW THE THREE ROTTWEILERS ATTACKING THE LITTLE BOY. THE FIRST DEPUTY TO ARRIVE SAW THE DOGS ATTACKING THE LITTLE BOY; HE SHOT AND KILLED THE LARGE MALE 80-LB ROTTWEILER, CAUSING THE TWO SMALLER FEMALE ROTTWEILERS TO RUN AWAY.
However, he said he did argue to the jury that the prosecution had not brought up that evidence.
Beth Gillmer-Jones, a sheriff's detective who was the principle evidence custodian during the case, said oral scrapings were taken from the dogs and that to the best of her knowledge those results are still at Kansas State University, where the dogs were examined.
"I did not receive any swabbings or slides," she said.
The judge is expected to issue a written decision in a week or two.
(The Topeka Capital-Journal - April 25, 2002)
Update
Dog owner’s request for retrial in fatal mauling case denied
A woman whose dogs fatally mauled an 11-year-old boy will remain in prison after a judge denied her request for a new trial, Geary County Atty. Chris Biggs said Monday.
Sabine Davidson was convicted in 1997 of unintentional second-degree murder, after her three Rottweilers attacked and killed Christopher Wilson of Milford while he waited for a school bus.
The Kansas Supreme Court upheld the conviction in 1999.
In April, Davidson challenged her conviction, saying her trial attorney was ineffective, and failed to have DNA testing done on scrapings from the dogs' mouths.
She also alleged that her attorney on appeal was ineffective for not raising additional issues during the appeals process.
(Associated Press - June 18, 2002)
Earlier:
- Kansas: Frenzied Rottweilers chase, attack and kill Kansas boy, 11
- Kansas: Sabine Davidson refused to take a plea deal after her Rottweilers chased, mauled and killed an 11-year old boy. A jury just found her GUILTY of 2nd degree murder.
- Kansas: Sabine Davidson refused to take a plea deal on a charge of involuntary manslaughter after her Rottweilers attacked and killed an 11-year-old boy. Last month a jury convicted Sabine of 2nd degree murder. This convinced her husband Jeffrey Davidson not to risk a jury trial; he took the original plea offer of involuntary manslaughter and is sentenced to probation
- Kansas: Sabine Davidson's attorney complains that her murder charge is excessive. Her Rottweilers chased, attacked, mauled and killed 11-year-old Chris Wilson
- Kansas: Sabine Davidson was convicted of reckless 2nd-degree murder after her Rottweiler mauled an 11-year-old boy to death. Davidson's appeal, which was denied, says she "conveniently ignores significant aspects of her conduct that contributed to the tragic death of Chris"
- Kansas: Sabine Davidson's murder conviction upheld after her Rottweilers attacked and killed an 11-year-old boy
Thursday, April 18, 2002
New Jersey: Court determines that the live-in girlfriend of the owner of a Rottweiler which attacked a child, can be considered a legal owner
NEW JERSEY -- Back in 1998, a Rottweiler attacked a young girl named Kayla Pippin while she was at her neighbor's swimming in their pool.
Kayla's mother sued the Rottweiler's owners, Christine Agresta and Carol Fink, for her daughter's injuries from the dog. Carol Fink tried to argue that she was not technically the dog's owner, that she wasn't the one who originally purchased the dog - her girlfriend did.
However, the court determined that both women - who lived together as a couple - considered the Rottweiler "their dog" and evidence of their actions showed they both enjoyed the benefits and burdens of the pet.
Therefore, the court held that Carol Fink was one of the Rottweiler's legal owners and as responsible for the bite to the little girl as Christine Agresta.
Superior Court of New Jersey,Appellate Division.
Kayla PIPPIN, a minor by and through her natural mother Guardian ad Litem, Joan Pippin, and Joan Pippin, individually and in her own right, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.
Carol FINK, Defendant-Appellant v. Christine Agresta, Defendant-Respondent.
Decided: April 17, 2002
Pursuant to leave granted, defendant Carol Fink appeals from an order denying her summary judgment, on a complaint against her for injuries to the infant plaintiff as a result of a dog bite.
CASE HISTORY
The relevant facts are that on Saturday, May 23, 1998, Kayla Pippin, along with other children Amanda Baliff, Justin Baliff and a girl named Jessie, walked to 122 Albany Avenue in Barrington to use the pool on the property owned by Carol Fink.
The request of the children was not unusual since Kayla and other neighborhood children had previously used the pool.
Carol told the children they could go swimming only if one of their mothers supervised.
The children walked to the Baliff home and spoke to Janice Baliff, who agreed to come over in a few minutes.
The children returned to wait by the pool.
Kayla applied her sunblock and sat at the top of a slide leading into the pool.
Zeus, a 110 pound Rottweiler dog which lived with Carol and Christine, was “doing laps” in the pool.
Kayla and the other children had played with Zeus both in and out of the water on other occasions without any problems. However, when Kayla slipped and slid down the water slide into the pool, Zeus bit her on the cheek and the arm.
Carol rushed to aid, placing a towel on Kayla's face. An ambulance was called, and Kayla was taken to the hospital.
Zeus was purchased by co-defendant Christine Agresta from a Pennsylvania pet store in 1994 when he was five months old.
At that time Christine lived in Philadelphia. Carol was her co-worker and friend. When Christine told her she liked Rottweilers, Carol mentioned she knew of one for sale. Both women went to the pet store on at least two occasions.
According to Christine, Carol convinced her to buy the dog she named Zeus.
A short time later Christine moved with Zeus to Rochester, New York and lived there for about a year and a half. During that time Christine was Zeus' sole caretaker. She registered him and listed herself as owner.
By 1996 the relationship between Carol and Christine had grown beyond friendship. Christine and Zeus moved into Carol's home where the two women shared expenses, established a joint bank account and lived in every way as a couple, considering themselves life partners.
They purchased another dog they named Mitzi and registered her with the municipality listing themselves as joint owners. While they did not so register Zeus, they considered him “their dog.” They shared his expenses as well as feeding, walking and otherwise caring for him.
After the incident with Kayla, they jointly participated in the decision to euthanize him.
Suit was brought by Kayla's mother as guardian ad litem against both Carol and Christine. After discovery was completed, the parties conceded that there was no proof of prior vicious or aggressive behavior by Zeus. Therefore, the issue was the applicability of N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, commonly known as the dog bite act. The strict liability statute reads as follows:
“The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.”
Both plaintiff and Carol Fink moved for summary judgment on the issue as to whether Carol falls within the statutory definition of an “owner” for imposition of liability under the statute. The motion judge denied both applications. We granted Carol's motion for leave to appeal.
Since the statute contains no designated definition of an “owner,” it is necessary to apply principles of statutory construction. The “owner” of a dog is defined in a related statute known as a the Rabies Control Act, N.J.S.A. 4:19-15.1 to -15.29, as “․ every person having a right in [a] dog and every person who has a dog in his keeping.”
However, we have held that the statutes are not to be read in para materia since the Rabies Control Act is a regulatory statute mandating uniform licensing of dogs for the community health goal of preventing spread of rabies while the dog bite act serves a narrower purpose of eliminating scienter in a civil action to impose strict liability in favor of a bite victim.
Cases dealing with common law liability for an injury caused by a dog attack have used the description “owner” interchangeably with a “harborer” or “keeper” in the inquiry as to whether there was knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity and a failure to control the animal.
However, the dog bite act is in derogation of common law, and its terms must be strictly construed. Accordingly, we cannot rely upon the broad reading of “owner” in the cases interpreting common law liability.
Our decisions interpreting the dog bite act reflect a restrictive definition of a dog “owner.”
We have held that the statute was not applicable to an action by a child against his parents who were caring for a dog belonging to the child's uncle while he was on vacation because we considered the parents as temporary custodians or “keepers” rather than “owners.”
We refused to extend the statute to affix liability on a landlord who allegedly knew that a tenant's dog was improperly on the premises. Similarly, we found that a homeowner who permitted stray dogs to remain on his property was not subject to strict liability under the statute.
Carol argues that under a properly narrow reading of the statutory language she cannot be considered the “owner” of Zeus because it was Christine who purchased Zeus and registered him in New York.
However, while purchase and registration are significant evidence of the identity of a dog's “owner” within the meaning of the act, they are not determinative. Circumstances existing at the time of the dog's bite must be examined, and the actions, attitudes and understanding of the suggested owner or owners must be considered.
Both Christine and Carol testified that they considered Zeus “their dog.” Their actions comport with the usual understanding of dog ownership by a couple. They shared the burdens and benefits of Zeus as a family pet and held themselves out to the world as his owners.
In light of these undisputed facts we hold that Carol as well as Christine was an “owner” of Zeus.
Since plaintiff made no cross-motion for leave to appeal, we would not ordinarily consider her argument that the trial judge erred in failing to grant her summary judgment as to Carol's liability under the dog bite act even though the issue was briefed and argued by the parties.
However, consideration of judicial economy in light of our decision on the appeal by Carol leads us to decide the issue. Since we have held that Carol was an “owner” of the dog within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 4:19-15.1, we reverse the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff.
Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
COLLESTER, J.A.D.
(Findlaw.com - April 17, 2002)
Kayla's mother sued the Rottweiler's owners, Christine Agresta and Carol Fink, for her daughter's injuries from the dog. Carol Fink tried to argue that she was not technically the dog's owner, that she wasn't the one who originally purchased the dog - her girlfriend did.
Therefore, the court held that Carol Fink was one of the Rottweiler's legal owners and as responsible for the bite to the little girl as Christine Agresta.
* * * * * * * *
Superior Court of New Jersey,Appellate Division.
Kayla PIPPIN, a minor by and through her natural mother Guardian ad Litem, Joan Pippin, and Joan Pippin, individually and in her own right, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v.
Carol FINK, Defendant-Appellant v. Christine Agresta, Defendant-Respondent.
Decided: April 17, 2002
Pursuant to leave granted, defendant Carol Fink appeals from an order denying her summary judgment, on a complaint against her for injuries to the infant plaintiff as a result of a dog bite.
CASE HISTORY
The relevant facts are that on Saturday, May 23, 1998, Kayla Pippin, along with other children Amanda Baliff, Justin Baliff and a girl named Jessie, walked to 122 Albany Avenue in Barrington to use the pool on the property owned by Carol Fink.
The request of the children was not unusual since Kayla and other neighborhood children had previously used the pool.
Carol told the children they could go swimming only if one of their mothers supervised.
The children walked to the Baliff home and spoke to Janice Baliff, who agreed to come over in a few minutes.
The children returned to wait by the pool.
Kayla applied her sunblock and sat at the top of a slide leading into the pool.
Zeus, a 110 pound Rottweiler dog which lived with Carol and Christine, was “doing laps” in the pool.
Kayla and the other children had played with Zeus both in and out of the water on other occasions without any problems. However, when Kayla slipped and slid down the water slide into the pool, Zeus bit her on the cheek and the arm.
Carol rushed to aid, placing a towel on Kayla's face. An ambulance was called, and Kayla was taken to the hospital.
At that time Christine lived in Philadelphia. Carol was her co-worker and friend. When Christine told her she liked Rottweilers, Carol mentioned she knew of one for sale. Both women went to the pet store on at least two occasions.
According to Christine, Carol convinced her to buy the dog she named Zeus.
A short time later Christine moved with Zeus to Rochester, New York and lived there for about a year and a half. During that time Christine was Zeus' sole caretaker. She registered him and listed herself as owner.
By 1996 the relationship between Carol and Christine had grown beyond friendship. Christine and Zeus moved into Carol's home where the two women shared expenses, established a joint bank account and lived in every way as a couple, considering themselves life partners.
They purchased another dog they named Mitzi and registered her with the municipality listing themselves as joint owners. While they did not so register Zeus, they considered him “their dog.” They shared his expenses as well as feeding, walking and otherwise caring for him.
After the incident with Kayla, they jointly participated in the decision to euthanize him.
Suit was brought by Kayla's mother as guardian ad litem against both Carol and Christine. After discovery was completed, the parties conceded that there was no proof of prior vicious or aggressive behavior by Zeus. Therefore, the issue was the applicability of N.J.S.A. 4:19-16, commonly known as the dog bite act. The strict liability statute reads as follows:
“The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.”
Both plaintiff and Carol Fink moved for summary judgment on the issue as to whether Carol falls within the statutory definition of an “owner” for imposition of liability under the statute. The motion judge denied both applications. We granted Carol's motion for leave to appeal.
Since the statute contains no designated definition of an “owner,” it is necessary to apply principles of statutory construction. The “owner” of a dog is defined in a related statute known as a the Rabies Control Act, N.J.S.A. 4:19-15.1 to -15.29, as “․ every person having a right in [a] dog and every person who has a dog in his keeping.”
However, we have held that the statutes are not to be read in para materia since the Rabies Control Act is a regulatory statute mandating uniform licensing of dogs for the community health goal of preventing spread of rabies while the dog bite act serves a narrower purpose of eliminating scienter in a civil action to impose strict liability in favor of a bite victim.
Cases dealing with common law liability for an injury caused by a dog attack have used the description “owner” interchangeably with a “harborer” or “keeper” in the inquiry as to whether there was knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity and a failure to control the animal.
However, the dog bite act is in derogation of common law, and its terms must be strictly construed. Accordingly, we cannot rely upon the broad reading of “owner” in the cases interpreting common law liability.
Our decisions interpreting the dog bite act reflect a restrictive definition of a dog “owner.”
We have held that the statute was not applicable to an action by a child against his parents who were caring for a dog belonging to the child's uncle while he was on vacation because we considered the parents as temporary custodians or “keepers” rather than “owners.”
We refused to extend the statute to affix liability on a landlord who allegedly knew that a tenant's dog was improperly on the premises. Similarly, we found that a homeowner who permitted stray dogs to remain on his property was not subject to strict liability under the statute.
Carol argues that under a properly narrow reading of the statutory language she cannot be considered the “owner” of Zeus because it was Christine who purchased Zeus and registered him in New York.
However, while purchase and registration are significant evidence of the identity of a dog's “owner” within the meaning of the act, they are not determinative. Circumstances existing at the time of the dog's bite must be examined, and the actions, attitudes and understanding of the suggested owner or owners must be considered.
Both Christine and Carol testified that they considered Zeus “their dog.” Their actions comport with the usual understanding of dog ownership by a couple. They shared the burdens and benefits of Zeus as a family pet and held themselves out to the world as his owners.
In light of these undisputed facts we hold that Carol as well as Christine was an “owner” of Zeus.
Since plaintiff made no cross-motion for leave to appeal, we would not ordinarily consider her argument that the trial judge erred in failing to grant her summary judgment as to Carol's liability under the dog bite act even though the issue was briefed and argued by the parties.
However, consideration of judicial economy in light of our decision on the appeal by Carol leads us to decide the issue. Since we have held that Carol was an “owner” of the dog within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 4:19-15.1, we reverse the denial of summary judgment to plaintiff.
Affirmed in part. Reversed in part.
COLLESTER, J.A.D.
(Findlaw.com - April 17, 2002)
Monday, February 25, 2002
New Jersey: For years Joan Byron Marasek insisted she was running a tiger sanctuary when she was really just hoarding them, say police
NEW JERSEY -- On January 27, 1999, a tiger went walking through the town of Jackson, New Jersey.
According to the zoology guidebook Wild Cats, a tiger's natural requirements are 'some form of dense vegetative cover, sufficient large ungulate prey, and access to water'.
By those measures, Jackson is really not a bad place to be a tiger. It is halfway between Manhattan and Philadelphia, in the middle of Ocean County -- an easy commute to Trenton and Newark, but still a green respite from the silvery sweep of electric towers and petroleum tanks to the north, and the bricked-in cities and mills further south.
Only 45,000 people live in Jackson, but it is a huge town, a bit more than one hundred square miles, all of it flat as a tabletop and splattered with ponds and little lakes. A lot of Jackson is built up with subdivisions and WaWa Food Markets, or soon will be, but the rest is still primordial New Jersey pinelands, broom sedge and jack pines and sheep laurel and peewee white oaks, as dense a vegetative cover as you could find anywhere.
The local ungulates are maybe not up to what a tiger would find in more typical tiger habitats like Siberia or Madhya Pradesh; in Jackson, there are just the usual ornery and overfed pet ponies, panhandling herds of white-tailed deer, and a milk cow or two, unless you include those at Six Flags Great Adventure, which is stocked with zebras and giraffes and antelopes and gazelle and the beloved but inedible animal characters from Looney Tunes.
But the Jackson tiger wasn't long for this world.
A local woman preparing lunch saw him out her kitchen window, announced the sighting to her husband, and then called the police. The tiger slipped into the woods.
By five that afternoon, a workman at The Dawson Corporation complained about a tiger in the company parking lot. By seven, the tiger had circled the nearby houses and returned to the Dawson property, followed by the Jackson police, state wildlife officials, and a surveillance helicopter.
The tiger picked its way through a few more backyards and the scrubby fields near Interstate 195, resisted tranquilizer darts fired at it by the police, and headed in the general direction of a middle school; neighbors described seeing 'an orange blur'.
Shortly after 9:35 that night, the tiger was shot dead by state officers, who had given up on capturing it alive.
An examining veterinarian determined it had been a young Bengal male, nine feet long and more than four hundred pounds. Nothing on the tiger indicated where he had come from, and there were no callers to the Jackson police reporting a tiger who had left home. Everyone in town knew there were tigers in Jackson -- that is, everyone knew about the fifteen tigers at Six Flags Great Adventure.
Note: Later articles say that DNA testing proved the tiger came from Marasek's property.
But there were also other tigers in Jackson, as many as two dozen of them, belonging to a woman named Joan Byron Marasek. In fact, suburban Jackson, New Jersey has the highest concentration of tigers per square mile of anywhere in the world.
Joan Byron Marasek is famously and purposely mysterious. On videotapes made of her by the New Jersey State Exotic Captivity Permit Division -- which is the one of the only ways you are likely to see her, since she rarely leaves her compound, where she lives with her tigers, her husband, and eighteen or so dogs, except to go to court, where she has been fighting about her tigers for the past two years -- she looks small and unnaturally blonde, with a bobbed nose and a small mouth and a startled expression on her face.
For instance, her age is a major mystery. She is either an oldish-looking young person or a youngish-looking old person. Evidently she has no Social Security number, which makes her actual age difficult to establish. She has testified that she was born in 1955 and was enrolled in New York University in 1968; when it was once pointed out that this would have made her a thirteen-year-old college freshman, she allowed as how she was not very good with dates.
According to a newspaper report, she worked for a while as an actress and once appeared naked, riding a swing, in a production of Tom Stoppard's play 'Jumpers'. In a brochure for her tiger preserve she appeared wearing silver boots and holding a long whip and feeding her tiger Jaipur from a baby bottle.
On an application for a wildlife permit, Marasek stated that she had been a circus performer with Ringling Brothers and L.N. Fleckles; had trained with Doc Henderson, the illustrious circus veterinarian; and had read, among other books, The Manchurian Tiger; The World of the Tiger; The Deer and the Tiger; Wild Beasts and Their Ways; My Wild Life; They Never Talk Back; and Thank You, I Prefer Lions.
In 1976 the Maraseks bought eleven acres in Jackson and moved there with Bombay, Chinta, Iman, Jaipur, and Maya, five Siberian tigers they had gotten from animal trainer David McMillan.
Their land was in a featureless and barely populated part of Jackson called Holmson's Corner, near the intersection of Monmouth and Millstone Roads. There was not much besides a church and a few houses nearby. One neighbor was a Russian Orthodox priest who ran a Christmas tree farm next to his house; another lived in a gloomy bungalow with a rotting cabin cruiser on cement blocks in the front yard. Marasek held both an exhibitor's license from the United States Department of Agriculture, which supervises animal welfare nationally, and a theatrical animal permit from the state of New Jersey, which is granted to wild animal owners who declare that their animals will be used for education or performance.
Not long after moving to Jackson, she got six more tigers -- Bengal, Hassan, Madras, Marco, Royal, and Kizmet -- from McMillan and from Ringling Brothers.
The next six -- Kirin, Kopan, Bali, Brunei, and Burma -- were cubs born in the backyard after Marasek allowed her male and female tigers to commingle.
'I eat, sleep, and breathe tigers,' she told a local reporter. 'I never take vacations. This is my love, my passion.'
According to a friend of Marasek's, 'She walks among her tigers just like Tarzan. She told me, "I have scratches all along the sides of my rib cage and both my arms have been cut open, but they're just playing." Now that's love.'
In 19XX Marasek created a non-profit organization, Tigers Only Preservation Society (T.O.P.S.). Its mission was 'Conservation of all Tiger Species. Possible re-stocking to the wild, of captive born, tiger offspring. Use of captive born tiger population program to supplement the wild populations in the event of catastrophic loss to natural environmental habitats. To resolve the human/tiger conflict and create a resolution. To save the Tigers from extinction.'
She did lose some of her animals. Muji died after a bad reaction to an injection. Diamond had to be euthanized after Marco tore off one of his legs. Marco also killed Hassan in a fight in 1997, on Christmas Eve. Two other tigers died after eating road-killed deer that Marasek now thinks might have been contaminated with anti-freeze. But more cubs were born, and more tigers were purchased, and the tiger population of Holmson's Corner steadily increased.
By the time the tiger walked through town, The Tiger Lady of Jackson had at least seventeen tigers in her backyard.
You know how it is -- you start with one tiger, then you get another and another, and then a few are born and a few die, and you start to lose track of details like exactly how many tigers you actually have. As soon as reports of the loose tiger came in, the police asked everyone in Jackson who had tigers to make sure all of them were accounted for. Six Flags Great Adventure had permits for fifteen and could account for all fifteen.
The counting at Tigers Only was done by a group of police and state wildlife officers who spent seven hours peering around tumbledown fences, crates, tunnels, and sheds in the Maraseks' backyard. They could only find seventeen tigers. Marasek's state permit stated that she had twenty-three. The wildlife officers filmed the visit:
'Joan, I have to entertain the notion that there are five cats loose in town, not just one,' one of the officers says on the videotape.
Marasek's lawyer, Valter Must, explains to the group that there was some sloppy math when she filed for the most recent permits.
The officers shift impatiently and make a few notes.
'For instance, I don't always count my kids, but I know when they're all home,' Must says.
'You don't have twenty-three of them,' one of the officer says.
'Exactly,' Must says.
'You'd probably know if there were six missing,' the officer adds.
'I would agree,' Must says.
Marasek insists that no matter how suspicious the discrepancy between her permit and her tigers appears, the loose tiger is not hers. No, she does not know whom it might belong to, either. And gentlemen, please don't stick your fingers into anything, please: I'm not going to tell you again.
The officers criss-cross the property for hours and come back the next morning to try counting tigers once more. They ask to see Marasek's paperwork. She tells them she is embarrassed to take them into her house because it is a mess.
The tiger quarters look cheerless and bare, with concrete floors and chain-link fences and blue plastic tarps flapping in the January wind, as forlorn as a bankrupt construction site. During the inspection, a ruckus in one of the tiger pens starts up.
Marasek, who represents herself as one of the world's tiger authorities, runs to see what it is, and reappears, wild-eyed and frantic, yelling, 'Help me! Help! They're going to...they're going to kill each other!'
The officers head towards the tiger fight, but then Marasek waves to stop them and screams, 'No, just Larry! Just Larry!', meaning Larry Herrighty, the head of the permit division, about whom she will later say, in interviews, 'The tigers hate Larry.'
She told reporters afterwards that she was furious about the state inspection.
'The humiliation we were forced to suffer is beyond description,' she said at a press conference. 'Not only did they seriously endanger the lives of our tigers, they also intentionally attempted to cut off their food supply.'
The day of the tiger count was the first time the state had inspected the Maraseks' property in years.
New Jersey paid some attention to animal welfare -- for instance, the Scotch Plains Zoo was closed in 1996 for substandard care -- but didn't spend the money or the time to monitor most of its permit holders. There had been a few complaints -- 'It had been reported to us that between the hours of 4AM and 6AM that recordings of music or jungle drums would be played over the public address system, and that your tigers would roar,' the State Office of Noise Control wrote to Marasek in 1983, warning that there would be regular monitoring of her facility for roaring -- but the roaring was never measured again and the occasional inquiries about strange odors were never answered.
Her permits were renewed annually without delay, even as the number of animals increased.
The investigators were disturbed by the conditions they found at Tigers Only Preservation Society. In court papers it was noted: 'The applicant's tiger facility was a ramshackle arrangement with yards (compounds), chutes, runs, and shift cages...some of which were covered by deteriorating plywood, stockade fencing and tarps, etc....The periphery fence (along the border of the property), intended to keep out troublemakers, was down in several places. There was standing water and mud in the compound. There was mud on the applicant's tigers.'
There were deer carcasses scattered around the property, rat burrows, and thirty-five large angry dogs in a separate pen near the tigers. The one wandering tiger suddenly seemed inconsequential; the inspectors were now much more concerned about the fact that Marasek had at least seventeen living in what they considered sorry conditions, and that the tigers were not being kept for theatrical or educational purposes but as illegal pets.
Anyone with the type of permit Marasek had must file information about their animals' work schedule, but the state had no records of the tigers ever performing or anyone attending an educational program at Tigers Only. The one Marasek tiger with a public profile was Jaipur, who weighed more than one thousand pounds and was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest Siberian tiger in captivity.
In court papers, Marasek also described Marco as 'a great exhibit cat' -- this was by way of explaining why she doted on him, even though he had killed Diamond and Hassan -- although as far as anyone could tell, Marco had never been exhibited.
It has never been proven that the loose tiger belonged to Marasek. DNA tests and the autopsy were inconclusive. Some people think it might have been a drug dealer's guard animal, which is apparently the fate of many surplus lions and tigers, and had run away or been emancipated for some reason; others say it was a pet that had gotten out of hand, and was dropped off in Jackson in the hope that the Tiger Lady would take it in. And there will always be conspiracy-theorists in town who believe that any animal escapes from Six Flags would be covered up, since the park is the largest taxpayer and biggest employer and certainly the primary attraction in Jackson since it opened in 1974.
In the end, however, the tiger has simply been relegated to the annals of suburban oddities -- a lost soul, out of his element, doomed to his unhappy end, whose provenance will never be known.
It is not hard to become a person who has a lot of tigers. Only eight states prohibit the ownership of wild animals; three states have no restrictions whatsoever; the rest have regulations that range from trivial to modest and are barely enforced.
For a long time, there were no restrictions in New Jersey on owning wildlife. But in the seventies, there were regular reports of monkey bites and tiger maulings, and beginning in 19TK, exotic animal owners had to register with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Dangerous exotic animals were permitted only if it could be shown that they were needed for education or theatrical performance.
The state issues over 10,000 permits for small exotic pets such as ferrets and Siberian hamsters, and less than three hundred for dangerous animals, including monkeys that perform at Bar Mitzvahs and casinos, and lions that get movie and television work.
Animals are easy to find, and cheap. Exotic-animal auction houses and animal markets thrive in the Midwest and the Southeast, where wildlife laws are most relaxed, and on the Internet.
One recent afternoon, I browsed the Hunt's Exotics Web site, where I could have placed an order for baby spider monkeys ($6,500 each, including delivery); an adult female two-toed sloth ($1800); a Northern cougar female with blue eyes, who was promised as 'tame on bottle'; a black-capped capuchin monkey, needing dental work,($1500); an agouti paca; a porcupine; or two baby tigers 'with white genes' ($1800 each).
From there, I connected to more tiger sites -- Mainely Felids and Wildcat Hideaway and N.O.A.H. Feline Conservation Center -- and to pages for prospective owners titled 'I Want a Cougar!' and 'Are You Sure You Want a Monkey?'
It is so easy to get a tiger, in fact, that the American Sanctuary and Shelter Association estimates that there are 6,000 pet wild tigers in this country -- about three times the number of registered Irish Setters or Scotties.
One reason it is particularly easy to get tigers is that they breed easily in captivity. There are fewer than eight thousand wild tigers left in the world, and three subspecies have become extinct just in the last sixty years. In zoos, though, tigers have babies all the time. The result is thousands of 'surplus tigers' -- in the zoo economy, these are animals no longer worth keeping because there are too many of them, or because they're old, and zoo visitors prefer baby animals to mature ones.
In fact, many zoos bred excessively throughout the seventies and eighties once they realized that baby animals drew big crowds. As a result, the trade in exotic pets expanded as animals were sold to dealers and game ranches and unaccredited zoos once they were no longer needed.
In 1999, the San Jose Mercury News reported that many of the best zoos in the country including the San Diego Zoo and Denver Zoological Gardens regularly disposed of their surplus animals through dealers.. Some zoo directors were so disturbed by the practice that they kill their surplus animals rather than risk them ending up as mistreated pets or on hunting ranches.
According to the Mercury News, the director of the Detroit Zoo euthanized two healthy Siberian tigers rather than sell them to animal dealers. Sometimes the dealers buy the animals just for butchering. An adult tiger, alive, costs two or three hundred dollars. Tiger meat from one large animal sells for $1000, and a tiger pelt sells for twice as much.
By the time the tiger walked through town, Jackson was no longer a place you could go unnoticed if you had two dozen wild animals in your backyard. Between 1990 and 2000, the town's population increased by almost one-third, and cranberry farms and chicken farms began producing crops of condominiums and center-hall Colonials.
It was probably inevitable that something would come to show the changing character of Jackson, its passage from a rural place to something new -- a bedroom community attached to nowhere in particular, with clots of crowdedness amid a sort of essential emptiness; a place with no urban character, even though it was so close to so many big cities, practically exploding with new people and new roads that don't connect to anything, and the fresh, clean sidewalks of cement that still looks damp; the kind of place made possible by highways and telecommuting and made necessary by the high cost of living in bigger cities and made desirable, ironically, by having the air of a simple and quaint country village. A tiger in town had, in a roundabout way, made all of this clear.
In 1997, a model house was built on the land immediately east of the Maraseks, and in the next two years twenty-seven more houses went up. The land had been dense, brambly woods. It was wiped clean before the building started, so the new landscaping trees were barely toothpicks, held in place with rubber collars and guy wires, and the houses looked like they'd just been unwrapped and set out, like lawn ornaments. The development was named The Preserve. The houses were airy and tall and had showy entrances and double-car garages and fancy amenities like swimming pools and Jacuzzis and wet bars and recessed lighting and cost three or four hundred thousand dollars.
They were the kind of houses that betokened a certain amount of achievement -- the classic suburban second house, a major promotion-to-company-vice-president house, very different from the faded old cottages tucked around the other side of the Maraseks' own trailer home and tiger pens. They were owned by people expecting a certain kind of suburban polish in the neighborhood, and who were disconcerted to note that on certain mornings, as they stood outside playing catch with their kids or pampering their lawns, there were dozens of buzzards lined up on their roofs, staring hungrily at the Maraseks' backyard.
'If someone had told me there were tigers here I would have never bought the house,' one of Marasek's neighbors said one afternoon. His name was Kevin Wingler, and where his lawn ends, the Maraseks' property begins. He is a car collector, and he was in his garage at the time, tinkering with a classic Corvette he had just bought.
'I love animals,' he said. 'We get season's passes every year for the Great Adventure safari, and whenever I'm out I always pet all the cows and all the pigs, and I think tigers are majestic and beautiful and everything. But we broke our ass to build this house, and it's just not right. I could have bought in any development! I even had a contract elsewhere but the builder coaxed me into buying this.'
He licked his finger and dabbed at a spot on the dashboard and laughed. 'This is just so weird,' he said. 'You'd think this would be happening in Arkansas or something.'
I drove through the Preserve and then out to a road on the other side of the Maraseks' land. This was an old road, one of the only ones that had been here when the Maraseks moved in, and the houses were forty or fifty years old and weathered. The one near the corner belonged to the owner of a small trucking company. He said he had helped Marasek clean up her facilities after the state inspection.
'I knew she was here when I moved here fifteen years ago,' he said. 'Tigers nearby? I don't care. You hear a roar here and there. It's not a big concern of mine to hear a roar now and then. The stench in the summer was unbearable, though.'
He said he didn't think the wandering tiger was one of Marasek's because her tigers were so dirty, and the tiger that got shot looked clean and fit. He said that a few years before, Marasek had come by his house with a petition to stop the housing development. He didn't sign it.
'The new neighbors, they're not very neighborly,' he said. 'They're over there in their fancy houses. She's been here a lot longer than they have.'
Still, he didn't want to get involved.
'Those are Joan's own private kitty cats,' he said, lighting a cigarette. 'That's her business. I've got my life to worry about. I can't worry about Joan and her tigers.'
The tiger had walked through Jackson for less than eight hours, an inscrutable and unaccountable visitor, and like many such visitors, he disturbed things. A meeting was held at City Hall soon after the tiger was shot. Four hundred people showed up. A number of them came dressed in tiger costumes. They demanded to know why the roving tiger had been killed rather than captured, and what the fate of the Marasek tigers would be.
Somehow the meeting devolved into a shouting match between people who were from the new Jackson, insisting that Marasek's tigers be removed immediately, and the old guard, who suggested that anyone who knew the town -- and by implication, the only people who really deserved to be living there -- knew there were tigers in Holmson's Corner. They wanted to know why, if tigers bothered them so much, the people in the Preserve had been stupid enough to move in.
Soon after the meeting, the state moved to revoke Marasek's wildlife permits. The town invoked its domestic animals ordinances, demanding that Marasek get rid of some of her dogs or apply for a formal kennel license. The homeowners in the Preserve banded together and sued the developer for consumer fraud because he had withheld information about the tigers in his off-site disclosure statement, which notifies homeowners of conditions like toxic dumps and prisons that might effect the resale value of a house. The neighborhood group also sued Marasek for creating a nuisance with both her tigers and her dogs.
Here was where the circus began -- not the circus where Joan Marasek and her husband had worked and where she learned the recipe for 'Joan's Circus Secret', which is what she feeds her tigers -- but the legal circus, the amazing three-ring spectacle that has gone on for three years and still continues.
It began when the state revoked Marasek's permit, citing inadequate animal husbandry, failure to show theatrical or educational grounds for possessing potentially dangerous wildlife, and grievously flawed record keeping. Without a permit, Marasek couldn't keep the animals. Marasek appealed, but the permit revocation was upheld. She appealed to a higher court.
She was ordered to get rid of the animals while awaiting the results of her appeal of the permit case. She appealed that order. 'Tigers are extremely fragile animals,' she said at a press conference.
'Tigers will die if removed by someone else. If they are allowed to take our tigers, this will be a tiger holocaust.'
She won that argument, which allowed her to keep the tigers during her permit appeal, as long as she promised to keep the tigers from breeding.
During the next two years, three of her tigers had babies. She hid the cubs from the state inspectors for several months. She declared that the state was trying to destroy her life's work. Through her Tigers Only website, she supplied form letters for her supporters to send to state officials and to the DEP:
'Dear Senator: I am a supporter of the Tigers Only Preservation Society and Ms. Joan Byron-Marasek in her fight to keep her beautiful tigers in their safe haven in Jackson, New Jersey. We should all be delighted with the fact that these tigers live together in peaceful harmony with their environment and one another right here in New Jersey. If anything, the T.O.P.S. tigers should be revered as a State treasure, and as such, we citizens of New Jersey should all proudly and enthusiastically participate in this State-wide endeavor to keep the T.O.P.S. tigers in New Jersey. If we are successful, future generations of constituents will be eternally grateful for your efforts in keeping these magnificent creatures living happily in our midst for all to enjoy.'
In the meantime, the case revoking her permit was upheld, overturned, reviewed, and stalled while she changed attorneys five times. It moved up the legal chain until it sat before the highest state court, where in June, 2001, it was finally and conclusively upheld -- in other words, she was denied, once and for all, the right to keep tigers in New Jersey.
The case of Tigers Only Preservation Society vs. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife reminded some people of the 1995 landmark lawsuit in Oregon against Vickie Kittles, who had 115 dogs living with her on a school bus. Wherever Kittles stopped with her wretched menagerie, she was given a tank of gas and directions to get out of town.
She ended up in Oregon where she was finally arrested. There she faced a state attorney named Joshua Marquis, who had made his name prosecuting the killer of Victor the Lobster, the twenty-five pound mascot of the Seaside, Oregon, aquarium, who had been abducted from his tank. When the thief was apprehended, he threw Victor to the ground, breaking his shell; the lobster died three days later. Marquis was able to convict the man of cruelty to animals as well as theft. He decided to prosecute Kittles on the same grounds of animal cruelty.
Kittles contended that she had the right to live with her dogs in any way she chose. Marquis argued that the dogs, which got no exercise and no veterinary care and were evidently miserable, did not choose to live on a school bus.
After five minutes of deliberation the jury convicted Vickie Kittles of animal neglect and her dogs were sent to foster homes around the state. The Kittles case was the first prominent suit against an 'animal hoarder' -- a person who engages in the pathological collecting of animals. Tiger Ladies are somewhat rare, but there are Cat Ladies and Bird Men all over the country, and often they end up in headlines like '201 Cats Pulled From Home' and 'Pets Saved From Horror Home' and 'Cat Lover's Neighbors Tired of Feline Fiasco'.
A study published by The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium says that two-thirds of hoarders are females, and most often they hoard cats, although dogs, birds, farm animals, and, in one case, beavers, are hoarded as well. The median number of animals is thirty-nine, although many hoarders have more than one hundred. Hoarders, according to the Consortium, 'may have problems concentrating and staying on track with any management plan'.
Recidivism among hoarders is close to one hundred percent.
Take the animals away, the adage goes, and they'll have more on the way. Often they move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid the law.
Last fall, at her first press conference since the tiger was found in town, Marasek told the Asbury Park Press that that she and her tigers were planning to move. The state of New Jersey would be very happy for Marasek to move, and to move soon. She said she was buying land 'elsewhere'-- she wouldn't name the state -- and would only say she would be moving 'sometime in the future'.
In the meantime, the Department of Environmental Protection reserved homes for the tigers at the Wild Animal Orphanage in San Antonio, Texas. It was a rare offer, because a tiger epidemic was underway; in fact, two other sanctuaries that had at first agreed to take the Marasek tigers had filled up with other animals while the case stalled, and the Wild Animal Orphanage had been asked to take in forty more big cats from around the country.
In early January, State Superior Court Judge Eugene Serpentelli held a hearing in the matter. The Tiger Lady wore a dark green pantsuit and square-toed shoes. She was edgy and preoccupied and waved off anyone who approached her except for a local radio host who has trumpeted her cause on his show and a slim young man who huddled with her during breaks. The young man was as circumspect as she was, politely declining to say whether he was a contributor to Tigers Only Preservation Society or a fellow tiger owner or perhaps someone with his own beef with the DEP.
Throughout the hearing, Marasek dipped into a heavy black briefcase and pulled up sheets of paper and handwritten notes and pages downloaded from the Internet and passed them to her lawyer -- her fifth, who had just been retained a day before the hearing.
The material was about the Wild Animal Orphanage and the USDA infractions it had been cited for over the years -- storing outdated bags of Monkey Chow in a shed with insecticides, for instance, and placing the carcass of a dead tiger in a meat freezer until its eventual necropsy and disposal. None of the infractions were serious and none remained unresolved, but they raised enough questions to delay the inevitable: once again, the state had to adjourn and schedule yet another hearing on how the Marasek tigers were going to leave town.
'Throughout this period of time, I've made it clear that the court had no desire to inflict on Mrs. Marasek or the tigers any hardship,' Judge Serpentelli said before adjourning. 'But the tigers must be removed. I have no discretion on the question of whether they should be removed, just how.'
The follow-up hearing was also postponed; the word is that the Tiger Lady was really ready to reveal details about how she planned to get the tigers out of town.
I had been to Jackson a dozen times, circled the Maraseks' property, and walked up and down the sidewalks in the Preserve, but I had never seen a single tiger. I had even driven up to the Maraseks' front gate a few times and peered through it, and I could see a bunch of woolly white dogs scuffling behind a wire fence, and I could see tarps and trailers scattered around the house, but no tigers, no flash of orange fur, nothing.
This is how I understood how this all had happened -- how a lady and twenty-some tigers could live unnoticed for so long, and how you might dismiss as a crazy rumor a story about wild animals in the woods even if you lived next door. You really could live your life here in the most usual way and never know what extraordinary thing was afoot just a few yards away; you would dismiss the occasional whiff of something weird or a roar at midnight because the alternative was simply too strange.
Everything about the story was so surreal -- Marasek's personal history, the idea of collecting these creatures, the image of a tiger walking through the suburbs -- that I decided I really wanted to see one of the animals, to assure myself that they really existed, and mostly because I know that sooner or later, by the irreversible order of the New Jersey courts, these tigers will be taken away from this strange little patch in New Jersey.
One afternoon I parked across from the Winglers and walked past their garage, where Kevin was still monkeying around with his red Corvette, and then across their backyard and beyond where their lawn ended, where the woods thickened and the ground was springy from all the years and decades of pine needles that have rained down, and I followed the tangy, slightly sour smell that I guessed was tiger smell, although I don't think I've ever smelled tigers before. There was a chain-link fence up ahead. I stopped and waited.
A minute passed and nothing happened. A minute more, and then a tiger walked past on the other side of the fence, its huge head lowered and its tail just twitching, the black stripes of its coat crisscrossed with late-day light, its slow heavy tread making no sound at all; it reached the end of the fence and paused, and then turned back the other way, and then it was gone.
(The New Yorker - February 24, 2002)
According to the zoology guidebook Wild Cats, a tiger's natural requirements are 'some form of dense vegetative cover, sufficient large ungulate prey, and access to water'.
By those measures, Jackson is really not a bad place to be a tiger. It is halfway between Manhattan and Philadelphia, in the middle of Ocean County -- an easy commute to Trenton and Newark, but still a green respite from the silvery sweep of electric towers and petroleum tanks to the north, and the bricked-in cities and mills further south.
Only 45,000 people live in Jackson, but it is a huge town, a bit more than one hundred square miles, all of it flat as a tabletop and splattered with ponds and little lakes. A lot of Jackson is built up with subdivisions and WaWa Food Markets, or soon will be, but the rest is still primordial New Jersey pinelands, broom sedge and jack pines and sheep laurel and peewee white oaks, as dense a vegetative cover as you could find anywhere.
The local ungulates are maybe not up to what a tiger would find in more typical tiger habitats like Siberia or Madhya Pradesh; in Jackson, there are just the usual ornery and overfed pet ponies, panhandling herds of white-tailed deer, and a milk cow or two, unless you include those at Six Flags Great Adventure, which is stocked with zebras and giraffes and antelopes and gazelle and the beloved but inedible animal characters from Looney Tunes.
But the Jackson tiger wasn't long for this world.
A local woman preparing lunch saw him out her kitchen window, announced the sighting to her husband, and then called the police. The tiger slipped into the woods.
By five that afternoon, a workman at The Dawson Corporation complained about a tiger in the company parking lot. By seven, the tiger had circled the nearby houses and returned to the Dawson property, followed by the Jackson police, state wildlife officials, and a surveillance helicopter.
The tiger picked its way through a few more backyards and the scrubby fields near Interstate 195, resisted tranquilizer darts fired at it by the police, and headed in the general direction of a middle school; neighbors described seeing 'an orange blur'.
Shortly after 9:35 that night, the tiger was shot dead by state officers, who had given up on capturing it alive.
An examining veterinarian determined it had been a young Bengal male, nine feet long and more than four hundred pounds. Nothing on the tiger indicated where he had come from, and there were no callers to the Jackson police reporting a tiger who had left home. Everyone in town knew there were tigers in Jackson -- that is, everyone knew about the fifteen tigers at Six Flags Great Adventure.
Note: Later articles say that DNA testing proved the tiger came from Marasek's property.
But there were also other tigers in Jackson, as many as two dozen of them, belonging to a woman named Joan Byron Marasek. In fact, suburban Jackson, New Jersey has the highest concentration of tigers per square mile of anywhere in the world.
Joan Byron Marasek is famously and purposely mysterious. On videotapes made of her by the New Jersey State Exotic Captivity Permit Division -- which is the one of the only ways you are likely to see her, since she rarely leaves her compound, where she lives with her tigers, her husband, and eighteen or so dogs, except to go to court, where she has been fighting about her tigers for the past two years -- she looks small and unnaturally blonde, with a bobbed nose and a small mouth and a startled expression on her face.
For instance, her age is a major mystery. She is either an oldish-looking young person or a youngish-looking old person. Evidently she has no Social Security number, which makes her actual age difficult to establish. She has testified that she was born in 1955 and was enrolled in New York University in 1968; when it was once pointed out that this would have made her a thirteen-year-old college freshman, she allowed as how she was not very good with dates.
According to a newspaper report, she worked for a while as an actress and once appeared naked, riding a swing, in a production of Tom Stoppard's play 'Jumpers'. In a brochure for her tiger preserve she appeared wearing silver boots and holding a long whip and feeding her tiger Jaipur from a baby bottle.
On an application for a wildlife permit, Marasek stated that she had been a circus performer with Ringling Brothers and L.N. Fleckles; had trained with Doc Henderson, the illustrious circus veterinarian; and had read, among other books, The Manchurian Tiger; The World of the Tiger; The Deer and the Tiger; Wild Beasts and Their Ways; My Wild Life; They Never Talk Back; and Thank You, I Prefer Lions.
In 1976 the Maraseks bought eleven acres in Jackson and moved there with Bombay, Chinta, Iman, Jaipur, and Maya, five Siberian tigers they had gotten from animal trainer David McMillan.
Their land was in a featureless and barely populated part of Jackson called Holmson's Corner, near the intersection of Monmouth and Millstone Roads. There was not much besides a church and a few houses nearby. One neighbor was a Russian Orthodox priest who ran a Christmas tree farm next to his house; another lived in a gloomy bungalow with a rotting cabin cruiser on cement blocks in the front yard. Marasek held both an exhibitor's license from the United States Department of Agriculture, which supervises animal welfare nationally, and a theatrical animal permit from the state of New Jersey, which is granted to wild animal owners who declare that their animals will be used for education or performance.
Not long after moving to Jackson, she got six more tigers -- Bengal, Hassan, Madras, Marco, Royal, and Kizmet -- from McMillan and from Ringling Brothers.
The next six -- Kirin, Kopan, Bali, Brunei, and Burma -- were cubs born in the backyard after Marasek allowed her male and female tigers to commingle.
'I eat, sleep, and breathe tigers,' she told a local reporter. 'I never take vacations. This is my love, my passion.'
According to a friend of Marasek's, 'She walks among her tigers just like Tarzan. She told me, "I have scratches all along the sides of my rib cage and both my arms have been cut open, but they're just playing." Now that's love.'
In 19XX Marasek created a non-profit organization, Tigers Only Preservation Society (T.O.P.S.). Its mission was 'Conservation of all Tiger Species. Possible re-stocking to the wild, of captive born, tiger offspring. Use of captive born tiger population program to supplement the wild populations in the event of catastrophic loss to natural environmental habitats. To resolve the human/tiger conflict and create a resolution. To save the Tigers from extinction.'
She did lose some of her animals. Muji died after a bad reaction to an injection. Diamond had to be euthanized after Marco tore off one of his legs. Marco also killed Hassan in a fight in 1997, on Christmas Eve. Two other tigers died after eating road-killed deer that Marasek now thinks might have been contaminated with anti-freeze. But more cubs were born, and more tigers were purchased, and the tiger population of Holmson's Corner steadily increased.
By the time the tiger walked through town, The Tiger Lady of Jackson had at least seventeen tigers in her backyard.
You know how it is -- you start with one tiger, then you get another and another, and then a few are born and a few die, and you start to lose track of details like exactly how many tigers you actually have. As soon as reports of the loose tiger came in, the police asked everyone in Jackson who had tigers to make sure all of them were accounted for. Six Flags Great Adventure had permits for fifteen and could account for all fifteen.
The counting at Tigers Only was done by a group of police and state wildlife officers who spent seven hours peering around tumbledown fences, crates, tunnels, and sheds in the Maraseks' backyard. They could only find seventeen tigers. Marasek's state permit stated that she had twenty-three. The wildlife officers filmed the visit:
'Joan, I have to entertain the notion that there are five cats loose in town, not just one,' one of the officers says on the videotape.
Marasek's lawyer, Valter Must, explains to the group that there was some sloppy math when she filed for the most recent permits.
The officers shift impatiently and make a few notes.
'For instance, I don't always count my kids, but I know when they're all home,' Must says.
'You don't have twenty-three of them,' one of the officer says.
'Exactly,' Must says.
'You'd probably know if there were six missing,' the officer adds.
'I would agree,' Must says.
Marasek insists that no matter how suspicious the discrepancy between her permit and her tigers appears, the loose tiger is not hers. No, she does not know whom it might belong to, either. And gentlemen, please don't stick your fingers into anything, please: I'm not going to tell you again.
The officers criss-cross the property for hours and come back the next morning to try counting tigers once more. They ask to see Marasek's paperwork. She tells them she is embarrassed to take them into her house because it is a mess.
The tiger quarters look cheerless and bare, with concrete floors and chain-link fences and blue plastic tarps flapping in the January wind, as forlorn as a bankrupt construction site. During the inspection, a ruckus in one of the tiger pens starts up.
Marasek, who represents herself as one of the world's tiger authorities, runs to see what it is, and reappears, wild-eyed and frantic, yelling, 'Help me! Help! They're going to...they're going to kill each other!'
The officers head towards the tiger fight, but then Marasek waves to stop them and screams, 'No, just Larry! Just Larry!', meaning Larry Herrighty, the head of the permit division, about whom she will later say, in interviews, 'The tigers hate Larry.'
She told reporters afterwards that she was furious about the state inspection.
'The humiliation we were forced to suffer is beyond description,' she said at a press conference. 'Not only did they seriously endanger the lives of our tigers, they also intentionally attempted to cut off their food supply.'
The day of the tiger count was the first time the state had inspected the Maraseks' property in years.
New Jersey paid some attention to animal welfare -- for instance, the Scotch Plains Zoo was closed in 1996 for substandard care -- but didn't spend the money or the time to monitor most of its permit holders. There had been a few complaints -- 'It had been reported to us that between the hours of 4AM and 6AM that recordings of music or jungle drums would be played over the public address system, and that your tigers would roar,' the State Office of Noise Control wrote to Marasek in 1983, warning that there would be regular monitoring of her facility for roaring -- but the roaring was never measured again and the occasional inquiries about strange odors were never answered.
Her permits were renewed annually without delay, even as the number of animals increased.
The investigators were disturbed by the conditions they found at Tigers Only Preservation Society. In court papers it was noted: 'The applicant's tiger facility was a ramshackle arrangement with yards (compounds), chutes, runs, and shift cages...some of which were covered by deteriorating plywood, stockade fencing and tarps, etc....The periphery fence (along the border of the property), intended to keep out troublemakers, was down in several places. There was standing water and mud in the compound. There was mud on the applicant's tigers.'
There were deer carcasses scattered around the property, rat burrows, and thirty-five large angry dogs in a separate pen near the tigers. The one wandering tiger suddenly seemed inconsequential; the inspectors were now much more concerned about the fact that Marasek had at least seventeen living in what they considered sorry conditions, and that the tigers were not being kept for theatrical or educational purposes but as illegal pets.
Anyone with the type of permit Marasek had must file information about their animals' work schedule, but the state had no records of the tigers ever performing or anyone attending an educational program at Tigers Only. The one Marasek tiger with a public profile was Jaipur, who weighed more than one thousand pounds and was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the largest Siberian tiger in captivity.
In court papers, Marasek also described Marco as 'a great exhibit cat' -- this was by way of explaining why she doted on him, even though he had killed Diamond and Hassan -- although as far as anyone could tell, Marco had never been exhibited.
It has never been proven that the loose tiger belonged to Marasek. DNA tests and the autopsy were inconclusive. Some people think it might have been a drug dealer's guard animal, which is apparently the fate of many surplus lions and tigers, and had run away or been emancipated for some reason; others say it was a pet that had gotten out of hand, and was dropped off in Jackson in the hope that the Tiger Lady would take it in. And there will always be conspiracy-theorists in town who believe that any animal escapes from Six Flags would be covered up, since the park is the largest taxpayer and biggest employer and certainly the primary attraction in Jackson since it opened in 1974.
In the end, however, the tiger has simply been relegated to the annals of suburban oddities -- a lost soul, out of his element, doomed to his unhappy end, whose provenance will never be known.
It is not hard to become a person who has a lot of tigers. Only eight states prohibit the ownership of wild animals; three states have no restrictions whatsoever; the rest have regulations that range from trivial to modest and are barely enforced.
For a long time, there were no restrictions in New Jersey on owning wildlife. But in the seventies, there were regular reports of monkey bites and tiger maulings, and beginning in 19TK, exotic animal owners had to register with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Dangerous exotic animals were permitted only if it could be shown that they were needed for education or theatrical performance.
The state issues over 10,000 permits for small exotic pets such as ferrets and Siberian hamsters, and less than three hundred for dangerous animals, including monkeys that perform at Bar Mitzvahs and casinos, and lions that get movie and television work.
Animals are easy to find, and cheap. Exotic-animal auction houses and animal markets thrive in the Midwest and the Southeast, where wildlife laws are most relaxed, and on the Internet.
One recent afternoon, I browsed the Hunt's Exotics Web site, where I could have placed an order for baby spider monkeys ($6,500 each, including delivery); an adult female two-toed sloth ($1800); a Northern cougar female with blue eyes, who was promised as 'tame on bottle'; a black-capped capuchin monkey, needing dental work,($1500); an agouti paca; a porcupine; or two baby tigers 'with white genes' ($1800 each).
From there, I connected to more tiger sites -- Mainely Felids and Wildcat Hideaway and N.O.A.H. Feline Conservation Center -- and to pages for prospective owners titled 'I Want a Cougar!' and 'Are You Sure You Want a Monkey?'
It is so easy to get a tiger, in fact, that the American Sanctuary and Shelter Association estimates that there are 6,000 pet wild tigers in this country -- about three times the number of registered Irish Setters or Scotties.
One reason it is particularly easy to get tigers is that they breed easily in captivity. There are fewer than eight thousand wild tigers left in the world, and three subspecies have become extinct just in the last sixty years. In zoos, though, tigers have babies all the time. The result is thousands of 'surplus tigers' -- in the zoo economy, these are animals no longer worth keeping because there are too many of them, or because they're old, and zoo visitors prefer baby animals to mature ones.
In fact, many zoos bred excessively throughout the seventies and eighties once they realized that baby animals drew big crowds. As a result, the trade in exotic pets expanded as animals were sold to dealers and game ranches and unaccredited zoos once they were no longer needed.
In 1999, the San Jose Mercury News reported that many of the best zoos in the country including the San Diego Zoo and Denver Zoological Gardens regularly disposed of their surplus animals through dealers.. Some zoo directors were so disturbed by the practice that they kill their surplus animals rather than risk them ending up as mistreated pets or on hunting ranches.
According to the Mercury News, the director of the Detroit Zoo euthanized two healthy Siberian tigers rather than sell them to animal dealers. Sometimes the dealers buy the animals just for butchering. An adult tiger, alive, costs two or three hundred dollars. Tiger meat from one large animal sells for $1000, and a tiger pelt sells for twice as much.
By the time the tiger walked through town, Jackson was no longer a place you could go unnoticed if you had two dozen wild animals in your backyard. Between 1990 and 2000, the town's population increased by almost one-third, and cranberry farms and chicken farms began producing crops of condominiums and center-hall Colonials.
It was probably inevitable that something would come to show the changing character of Jackson, its passage from a rural place to something new -- a bedroom community attached to nowhere in particular, with clots of crowdedness amid a sort of essential emptiness; a place with no urban character, even though it was so close to so many big cities, practically exploding with new people and new roads that don't connect to anything, and the fresh, clean sidewalks of cement that still looks damp; the kind of place made possible by highways and telecommuting and made necessary by the high cost of living in bigger cities and made desirable, ironically, by having the air of a simple and quaint country village. A tiger in town had, in a roundabout way, made all of this clear.
In 1997, a model house was built on the land immediately east of the Maraseks, and in the next two years twenty-seven more houses went up. The land had been dense, brambly woods. It was wiped clean before the building started, so the new landscaping trees were barely toothpicks, held in place with rubber collars and guy wires, and the houses looked like they'd just been unwrapped and set out, like lawn ornaments. The development was named The Preserve. The houses were airy and tall and had showy entrances and double-car garages and fancy amenities like swimming pools and Jacuzzis and wet bars and recessed lighting and cost three or four hundred thousand dollars.
They were the kind of houses that betokened a certain amount of achievement -- the classic suburban second house, a major promotion-to-company-vice-president house, very different from the faded old cottages tucked around the other side of the Maraseks' own trailer home and tiger pens. They were owned by people expecting a certain kind of suburban polish in the neighborhood, and who were disconcerted to note that on certain mornings, as they stood outside playing catch with their kids or pampering their lawns, there were dozens of buzzards lined up on their roofs, staring hungrily at the Maraseks' backyard.
'If someone had told me there were tigers here I would have never bought the house,' one of Marasek's neighbors said one afternoon. His name was Kevin Wingler, and where his lawn ends, the Maraseks' property begins. He is a car collector, and he was in his garage at the time, tinkering with a classic Corvette he had just bought.
'I love animals,' he said. 'We get season's passes every year for the Great Adventure safari, and whenever I'm out I always pet all the cows and all the pigs, and I think tigers are majestic and beautiful and everything. But we broke our ass to build this house, and it's just not right. I could have bought in any development! I even had a contract elsewhere but the builder coaxed me into buying this.'
He licked his finger and dabbed at a spot on the dashboard and laughed. 'This is just so weird,' he said. 'You'd think this would be happening in Arkansas or something.'
I drove through the Preserve and then out to a road on the other side of the Maraseks' land. This was an old road, one of the only ones that had been here when the Maraseks moved in, and the houses were forty or fifty years old and weathered. The one near the corner belonged to the owner of a small trucking company. He said he had helped Marasek clean up her facilities after the state inspection.
'I knew she was here when I moved here fifteen years ago,' he said. 'Tigers nearby? I don't care. You hear a roar here and there. It's not a big concern of mine to hear a roar now and then. The stench in the summer was unbearable, though.'
He said he didn't think the wandering tiger was one of Marasek's because her tigers were so dirty, and the tiger that got shot looked clean and fit. He said that a few years before, Marasek had come by his house with a petition to stop the housing development. He didn't sign it.
'The new neighbors, they're not very neighborly,' he said. 'They're over there in their fancy houses. She's been here a lot longer than they have.'
Still, he didn't want to get involved.
'Those are Joan's own private kitty cats,' he said, lighting a cigarette. 'That's her business. I've got my life to worry about. I can't worry about Joan and her tigers.'
The tiger had walked through Jackson for less than eight hours, an inscrutable and unaccountable visitor, and like many such visitors, he disturbed things. A meeting was held at City Hall soon after the tiger was shot. Four hundred people showed up. A number of them came dressed in tiger costumes. They demanded to know why the roving tiger had been killed rather than captured, and what the fate of the Marasek tigers would be.
Somehow the meeting devolved into a shouting match between people who were from the new Jackson, insisting that Marasek's tigers be removed immediately, and the old guard, who suggested that anyone who knew the town -- and by implication, the only people who really deserved to be living there -- knew there were tigers in Holmson's Corner. They wanted to know why, if tigers bothered them so much, the people in the Preserve had been stupid enough to move in.
Soon after the meeting, the state moved to revoke Marasek's wildlife permits. The town invoked its domestic animals ordinances, demanding that Marasek get rid of some of her dogs or apply for a formal kennel license. The homeowners in the Preserve banded together and sued the developer for consumer fraud because he had withheld information about the tigers in his off-site disclosure statement, which notifies homeowners of conditions like toxic dumps and prisons that might effect the resale value of a house. The neighborhood group also sued Marasek for creating a nuisance with both her tigers and her dogs.
Here was where the circus began -- not the circus where Joan Marasek and her husband had worked and where she learned the recipe for 'Joan's Circus Secret', which is what she feeds her tigers -- but the legal circus, the amazing three-ring spectacle that has gone on for three years and still continues.
She was ordered to get rid of the animals while awaiting the results of her appeal of the permit case. She appealed that order. 'Tigers are extremely fragile animals,' she said at a press conference.
'Tigers will die if removed by someone else. If they are allowed to take our tigers, this will be a tiger holocaust.'
She won that argument, which allowed her to keep the tigers during her permit appeal, as long as she promised to keep the tigers from breeding.
During the next two years, three of her tigers had babies. She hid the cubs from the state inspectors for several months. She declared that the state was trying to destroy her life's work. Through her Tigers Only website, she supplied form letters for her supporters to send to state officials and to the DEP:
'Dear Senator: I am a supporter of the Tigers Only Preservation Society and Ms. Joan Byron-Marasek in her fight to keep her beautiful tigers in their safe haven in Jackson, New Jersey. We should all be delighted with the fact that these tigers live together in peaceful harmony with their environment and one another right here in New Jersey. If anything, the T.O.P.S. tigers should be revered as a State treasure, and as such, we citizens of New Jersey should all proudly and enthusiastically participate in this State-wide endeavor to keep the T.O.P.S. tigers in New Jersey. If we are successful, future generations of constituents will be eternally grateful for your efforts in keeping these magnificent creatures living happily in our midst for all to enjoy.'
In the meantime, the case revoking her permit was upheld, overturned, reviewed, and stalled while she changed attorneys five times. It moved up the legal chain until it sat before the highest state court, where in June, 2001, it was finally and conclusively upheld -- in other words, she was denied, once and for all, the right to keep tigers in New Jersey.
The case of Tigers Only Preservation Society vs. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife reminded some people of the 1995 landmark lawsuit in Oregon against Vickie Kittles, who had 115 dogs living with her on a school bus. Wherever Kittles stopped with her wretched menagerie, she was given a tank of gas and directions to get out of town.
She ended up in Oregon where she was finally arrested. There she faced a state attorney named Joshua Marquis, who had made his name prosecuting the killer of Victor the Lobster, the twenty-five pound mascot of the Seaside, Oregon, aquarium, who had been abducted from his tank. When the thief was apprehended, he threw Victor to the ground, breaking his shell; the lobster died three days later. Marquis was able to convict the man of cruelty to animals as well as theft. He decided to prosecute Kittles on the same grounds of animal cruelty.
Kittles contended that she had the right to live with her dogs in any way she chose. Marquis argued that the dogs, which got no exercise and no veterinary care and were evidently miserable, did not choose to live on a school bus.
After five minutes of deliberation the jury convicted Vickie Kittles of animal neglect and her dogs were sent to foster homes around the state. The Kittles case was the first prominent suit against an 'animal hoarder' -- a person who engages in the pathological collecting of animals. Tiger Ladies are somewhat rare, but there are Cat Ladies and Bird Men all over the country, and often they end up in headlines like '201 Cats Pulled From Home' and 'Pets Saved From Horror Home' and 'Cat Lover's Neighbors Tired of Feline Fiasco'.
A study published by The Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium says that two-thirds of hoarders are females, and most often they hoard cats, although dogs, birds, farm animals, and, in one case, beavers, are hoarded as well. The median number of animals is thirty-nine, although many hoarders have more than one hundred. Hoarders, according to the Consortium, 'may have problems concentrating and staying on track with any management plan'.
Recidivism among hoarders is close to one hundred percent.
Take the animals away, the adage goes, and they'll have more on the way. Often they move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid the law.
Last fall, at her first press conference since the tiger was found in town, Marasek told the Asbury Park Press that that she and her tigers were planning to move. The state of New Jersey would be very happy for Marasek to move, and to move soon. She said she was buying land 'elsewhere'-- she wouldn't name the state -- and would only say she would be moving 'sometime in the future'.
In the meantime, the Department of Environmental Protection reserved homes for the tigers at the Wild Animal Orphanage in San Antonio, Texas. It was a rare offer, because a tiger epidemic was underway; in fact, two other sanctuaries that had at first agreed to take the Marasek tigers had filled up with other animals while the case stalled, and the Wild Animal Orphanage had been asked to take in forty more big cats from around the country.
In early January, State Superior Court Judge Eugene Serpentelli held a hearing in the matter. The Tiger Lady wore a dark green pantsuit and square-toed shoes. She was edgy and preoccupied and waved off anyone who approached her except for a local radio host who has trumpeted her cause on his show and a slim young man who huddled with her during breaks. The young man was as circumspect as she was, politely declining to say whether he was a contributor to Tigers Only Preservation Society or a fellow tiger owner or perhaps someone with his own beef with the DEP.
Throughout the hearing, Marasek dipped into a heavy black briefcase and pulled up sheets of paper and handwritten notes and pages downloaded from the Internet and passed them to her lawyer -- her fifth, who had just been retained a day before the hearing.
The material was about the Wild Animal Orphanage and the USDA infractions it had been cited for over the years -- storing outdated bags of Monkey Chow in a shed with insecticides, for instance, and placing the carcass of a dead tiger in a meat freezer until its eventual necropsy and disposal. None of the infractions were serious and none remained unresolved, but they raised enough questions to delay the inevitable: once again, the state had to adjourn and schedule yet another hearing on how the Marasek tigers were going to leave town.
'Throughout this period of time, I've made it clear that the court had no desire to inflict on Mrs. Marasek or the tigers any hardship,' Judge Serpentelli said before adjourning. 'But the tigers must be removed. I have no discretion on the question of whether they should be removed, just how.'
The follow-up hearing was also postponed; the word is that the Tiger Lady was really ready to reveal details about how she planned to get the tigers out of town.
I had been to Jackson a dozen times, circled the Maraseks' property, and walked up and down the sidewalks in the Preserve, but I had never seen a single tiger. I had even driven up to the Maraseks' front gate a few times and peered through it, and I could see a bunch of woolly white dogs scuffling behind a wire fence, and I could see tarps and trailers scattered around the house, but no tigers, no flash of orange fur, nothing.
This is how I understood how this all had happened -- how a lady and twenty-some tigers could live unnoticed for so long, and how you might dismiss as a crazy rumor a story about wild animals in the woods even if you lived next door. You really could live your life here in the most usual way and never know what extraordinary thing was afoot just a few yards away; you would dismiss the occasional whiff of something weird or a roar at midnight because the alternative was simply too strange.
Everything about the story was so surreal -- Marasek's personal history, the idea of collecting these creatures, the image of a tiger walking through the suburbs -- that I decided I really wanted to see one of the animals, to assure myself that they really existed, and mostly because I know that sooner or later, by the irreversible order of the New Jersey courts, these tigers will be taken away from this strange little patch in New Jersey.
One afternoon I parked across from the Winglers and walked past their garage, where Kevin was still monkeying around with his red Corvette, and then across their backyard and beyond where their lawn ended, where the woods thickened and the ground was springy from all the years and decades of pine needles that have rained down, and I followed the tangy, slightly sour smell that I guessed was tiger smell, although I don't think I've ever smelled tigers before. There was a chain-link fence up ahead. I stopped and waited.
A minute passed and nothing happened. A minute more, and then a tiger walked past on the other side of the fence, its huge head lowered and its tail just twitching, the black stripes of its coat crisscrossed with late-day light, its slow heavy tread making no sound at all; it reached the end of the fence and paused, and then turned back the other way, and then it was gone.
(The New Yorker - February 24, 2002)
Thursday, January 31, 2002
Florida: Santa Fe Community College Physics and Astronomy instructor Sally Hoffman caught hoarding 72 sickly cats in barn
FLORIDA -- Authorities have seized 72 sickly cats in unsanitary conditions and filed a sworn complaint alleging animal cruelty against an Alachua County woman.
The complaint was filed against SALLY HOFFMAN, who kept the cats in a four-stall barn at 9604 NW 171st Terrace.
The tin-roofed barn had wire fencing over the openings to keep the cats from escaping. Some of the cats were locked in cages.
"This was a first for me. I was amazed. It was quite a scene as far as the condition the cats were being kept in," said Alachua County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Johnson.
Hoffman could not be reached for comment. Neighbors and county officials said she was a Santa Fe Community College instructor. SFCC officials said Sally Hoffman is an instructor of Physics and Astronomy at the college and is Director of the Planetarium.
Dr. Randy Caligiuri, Alachua County Animal Services director, said the cats did not appear to be malnourished, but many had respiratory infections and would be examined for illnesses, including feline leukemia.
"One stall had 25 cats. One stall had 27 cats. One cat was in an area built off the stalls that had a leukemia sign on it," Caligiuri said. "The main thing was the squalor they were living in. There was a trash heap waist-high. In the stalls, it looked like kitty litter was just dumped in a corner, and it mounded up over 2 feet. The food was mounded in turkey basting pans. There was some food spilled over the kitty litter manure floor, and they had to eat off the floor. One area had moldy food. Some of the water had algae and kitty litter manure."
Penny Lefkowitz, Animal Services' interim field supervisor, said the agency learned of the cats because neighbors complained of the cats' cries and the stench.
Neighbors said Hoffman did not live on the overgrown property, which has an older single-wide mobile home, a junked car and the barn.
George Yates, who lives nearby, said Hoffman typically came to tend to the cats and then left.
She rarely socialized with neighbors, Yates said.
"She's been there about three or four years. She fixed up the shed and then brought the cats in," Yates said. "She'd come out sometimes at midnight. I talked to her a couple of times at the gate, but there wasn't much communication between her and the people out here."
Caligiuri said the biggest concern is the spread of feline leukemia among the cats. He added that a lot of the cats did not seem socialized to people.
Shelter Supervisor Meredith Shields said the seizure of so many cats has put a premium on shelter space that was already limited. The cats were removed Monday.
Most of the cats were placed in pairs in a cage. They're a forlorn sight. Most lay cuddled together in the back of their cages, wheezing and watering from the eyes. A few rubbed their bodies against the doors, eager for a human hand.
Caligiuri said Hoffman told Animal Services she took in the cats from people who moved or were unable to keep their cats.
I'm sure she got some cats this way but I'll bet she was trapping people's pets too and stealing them.
Many of the male cats were not neutered. Caligiuri said Hoffman said mothers with kittens were separated from the rest of the cats and homes were found for the kittens.
The article makes no mention of Hoffman being charged with animal cruelty.
UPDATE:
Sally Hoffman (aka Sara Hoffman, Sara Witherow Hoffman, Sally Witherow Hoffman) died on December 19, 2014. She was 70 years old.
The obituary says "Sally was a Professor of Astronomy and Physical Sciences at Santa Fe College in Gainesville for 40 continuous years from 1974 until her death" so it seems she suffered no ramifications for the suffering she inflicted on the cats locked in her barn. How many animals died at her hands that we'll never know about, whose bodies were simply thrown into the trash or into the field to rot?
(The Gainesville Sun - Jan 30, 2002)
The complaint was filed against SALLY HOFFMAN, who kept the cats in a four-stall barn at 9604 NW 171st Terrace.
The tin-roofed barn had wire fencing over the openings to keep the cats from escaping. Some of the cats were locked in cages.
"This was a first for me. I was amazed. It was quite a scene as far as the condition the cats were being kept in," said Alachua County Sheriff's Deputy Lee Johnson.
Hoffman could not be reached for comment. Neighbors and county officials said she was a Santa Fe Community College instructor. SFCC officials said Sally Hoffman is an instructor of Physics and Astronomy at the college and is Director of the Planetarium.
![]() |
| Photo circa 2014 |
"One stall had 25 cats. One stall had 27 cats. One cat was in an area built off the stalls that had a leukemia sign on it," Caligiuri said. "The main thing was the squalor they were living in. There was a trash heap waist-high. In the stalls, it looked like kitty litter was just dumped in a corner, and it mounded up over 2 feet. The food was mounded in turkey basting pans. There was some food spilled over the kitty litter manure floor, and they had to eat off the floor. One area had moldy food. Some of the water had algae and kitty litter manure."
Penny Lefkowitz, Animal Services' interim field supervisor, said the agency learned of the cats because neighbors complained of the cats' cries and the stench.
Neighbors said Hoffman did not live on the overgrown property, which has an older single-wide mobile home, a junked car and the barn.
George Yates, who lives nearby, said Hoffman typically came to tend to the cats and then left.
She rarely socialized with neighbors, Yates said.
"She's been there about three or four years. She fixed up the shed and then brought the cats in," Yates said. "She'd come out sometimes at midnight. I talked to her a couple of times at the gate, but there wasn't much communication between her and the people out here."
Caligiuri said the biggest concern is the spread of feline leukemia among the cats. He added that a lot of the cats did not seem socialized to people.
Shelter Supervisor Meredith Shields said the seizure of so many cats has put a premium on shelter space that was already limited. The cats were removed Monday.
Most of the cats were placed in pairs in a cage. They're a forlorn sight. Most lay cuddled together in the back of their cages, wheezing and watering from the eyes. A few rubbed their bodies against the doors, eager for a human hand.
Caligiuri said Hoffman told Animal Services she took in the cats from people who moved or were unable to keep their cats.
I'm sure she got some cats this way but I'll bet she was trapping people's pets too and stealing them.
Many of the male cats were not neutered. Caligiuri said Hoffman said mothers with kittens were separated from the rest of the cats and homes were found for the kittens.
The article makes no mention of Hoffman being charged with animal cruelty.
UPDATE:
Sally Hoffman (aka Sara Hoffman, Sara Witherow Hoffman, Sally Witherow Hoffman) died on December 19, 2014. She was 70 years old.
The obituary says "Sally was a Professor of Astronomy and Physical Sciences at Santa Fe College in Gainesville for 40 continuous years from 1974 until her death" so it seems she suffered no ramifications for the suffering she inflicted on the cats locked in her barn. How many animals died at her hands that we'll never know about, whose bodies were simply thrown into the trash or into the field to rot?
(The Gainesville Sun - Jan 30, 2002)
Florida: Boy back home after mauling by family dog
FLORIDA -- The little boy who was critically injured when he was mauled by a family dog in early January returned home Tuesday night.
Garrett Brown, 23 months old, was still sedated and much of his head - including his eyes - remained bandaged, but his brothers and sisters were thrilled to see him. They even followed their parents' directions and cleared most of their toys off the floor.
"We are so glad to be back home and have him with us," said Bruce Brown, the boy's father and a Levy County paramedic. He was among the first on the scene to find his mauled son on Jan. 6. The attack happened minutes after the robust toddler learned how to open the outside door of the family's rural Levy County home. He slipped outside unseen while the others were getting ready for church.
Minutes later, Garrett was found in the yard by his mother Jessica Brown, a 911 dispatcher for Levy County. She initially thought the youngest of her seven children was dead when she picked him up.
The dog, a female German Shepherd, was about 1-1/2 years old and had given birth to a litter of puppies about a month earlier. She as immediately destroyed.
The biggest hurdle Garrett, his parents and his doctors face is figuring out what to do about his vision. His eyelids, some muscle and his tear-producing glands were destroyed. For now, doctors have surgically closed Garrett's eyes.
"There's no technology - no technique - in place right now to build functioning eyelids," Bruce Brown said.
"Some of the doctors told us it could be four to ten years, and some told us they may not come up with a solution in our lifetimes," Jessica Brown said.
Instead of focusing on what is not available, the Browns are looking to the future for their youngest child.
[articled edited for length]
(The Gainesville sun - January 30, 2002)
Garrett Brown, 23 months old, was still sedated and much of his head - including his eyes - remained bandaged, but his brothers and sisters were thrilled to see him. They even followed their parents' directions and cleared most of their toys off the floor.
![]() |
| Garrett when he was a little boy. He was just 23 months old when he was attacked. |
"We are so glad to be back home and have him with us," said Bruce Brown, the boy's father and a Levy County paramedic. He was among the first on the scene to find his mauled son on Jan. 6. The attack happened minutes after the robust toddler learned how to open the outside door of the family's rural Levy County home. He slipped outside unseen while the others were getting ready for church.
Minutes later, Garrett was found in the yard by his mother Jessica Brown, a 911 dispatcher for Levy County. She initially thought the youngest of her seven children was dead when she picked him up.
The dog, a female German Shepherd, was about 1-1/2 years old and had given birth to a litter of puppies about a month earlier. She as immediately destroyed.
The biggest hurdle Garrett, his parents and his doctors face is figuring out what to do about his vision. His eyelids, some muscle and his tear-producing glands were destroyed. For now, doctors have surgically closed Garrett's eyes.
"There's no technology - no technique - in place right now to build functioning eyelids," Bruce Brown said.
"Some of the doctors told us it could be four to ten years, and some told us they may not come up with a solution in our lifetimes," Jessica Brown said.
Instead of focusing on what is not available, the Browns are looking to the future for their youngest child.
[articled edited for length]
(The Gainesville sun - January 30, 2002)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)











