Posted on Sun, May. 18, 2003

The case of Delores Perez, who has been charged with animal cruelty after breeding more than 250 dogs in her home, could be resolved as early as Tuesday when it comes before Union's district court.

But even if Judge Chris Bragg delivers his verdict then, not all the questions surrounding the case will be answered immediately. How did it happen? How could future cases be prevented?

Almost a month ago, Perez's home was raided by sheriff's deputies and animal control officers who said she ran a "puppy mill," breeding and selling dogs in squalid conditions. The dogs, two kittens and a parrot were removed, treated by veterinarians and placed in foster homes.

Perez, 77, has denied the dogs were mistreated or unhealthy. She had acknowledged to The Observer she had more dogs than she could handle, and recurring health problems had made caring for them more difficult. But her lawyer, Don Brown, said Thursday she plans to plead not guilty to misdemeanor animal cruelty.

The case meanwhile has garnered national attention, with more than 3,800 people signing an electronic petition put together by a Las Vegas woman. It asks to "make North Carolina a sane, civilized place for the helpless creatures whose care is our responsibility."

To many familiar with the situation, Perez seemed to have slipped through the network of state and local protections for people and pets. State regulations didn't apply to her, local zoning laws didn't keep track of her and a "no trespassing" sign on a gate kept authorities off her property.

Union County Animal Control said it has had concerns for more than a decade about Perez's 20-year-old business but made just one other attempt to stop it, in 1993. That raid resulted in a similar animal cruelty charge that was dismissed on appeal. The next set of raids came April 22.

Animal control officials say other investigations were hampered because they couldn't access her property, and they couldn't find people willing to testify. Other Union officials who could have checked her business said they never heard complaints, or lacked the power to help Perez unless she asked for it.

They point to holes in state and local regulations. Some say it will take state legislation to change the system. But some state officials say new laws aren't needed because Union County already had the means to prevent such cases. Here are some of the issues:

PETA: Protections `pathetic'

North Carolina is one of 41 states that has strengthened animal cruelty statutes in recent years, animal rights advocate Martin Mersereau said. But like many states, he said North Carolina is "still pathetic" when it comes to protecting animals.As a senior caseworker at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Mersereau said he followed an N.C. case that resulted in no jail time after a dog was set on fire.

"It's hideous," he said. "Just because `felony' is in the (animal cruelty) legislation doesn't necessarily mean justice will prevail."

A state bill passed in the Senate and now under consideration in a House committee would allow judges to permanently remove animals from owners in civil, not just criminal, cases.

State Sen. Fern Shubert, R-Union, has been trying to modify the bill so it could fix holes found during the Perez case. Shubert's provision would regulate breeders, whether they sell to pet stores or directly from their homes as Perez has done. Currently the Agriculture Department only inspects breeders who sell dogs to pet stores.

But her idea has not yet been taken up in the House, she said. Her counterpart, Rep. Pryor Gibson, D-Montgomery, has said local regulations, not legislation, might be the answer. Shubert is talking with the N.C. Association of County Commissioners about what local or state action could be taken.

Inadequate staffing

Some N.C. counties, including Union, already have special zoning laws limiting sales of animals from homes. Union, for example, requires special-use permits for property owners who board, treat or raise dogs in kennels.

But the county's sole zoning inspector, Donald Keziah, said Perez is not listed as having a special-use permit.

While she could have had a permit from whoever owned her property before she bought it in 1984. But a paper filing system limits what he can learn about her property's history, he said. And he said minimal staffing limits how much he can investigate.

He said he never heard complaints about the conditions at Perez's home until days before the April raids. Even if he had, Keziah said he would have needed her permission to inspect the property to confirm it violated zoning and then could only issue fines.

In some counties, Perez's own safety could have allowed intervention. During the recent raid, authorities said they found filthy conditions with up to 4 inches of feces coating her floors. (She said she has since hired people to clean up her property.)

But Union County does not have a minimum housing code, said county Health Department Director Lorey White. That means people can live however they want, he said even if it endangers their own health.

Shelter relies on donations

Animal Control, the county department that handles local animal issues, ultimately led the Perez raid, with the Humane Society and the Sheriff's Office. The nine-person animal control staff is stretched thin on a less than $350,000 budget, supervisor Susan Marsh said. Most of the money covers salaries, she said, and the shelter often relies on donations to feed the 7,500 to 9,000 animals that come through its doors each year.

The county could hire a separate animal cruelty investigator, however, who could enter property without a warrant to seize endangered animals if accompanied by a sheriff's deputy, she said.

County commissioners rejected creating the position last fall, though, she said.

An investigator still would have needed probable cause to seize Perez's animals, she said, but her "no trespassing" sign would also have limited that. "In this case," Marsh said, "I'm not positive an animal cruelty investigator could have made a lot of difference."

Instead, she said the legislators need to pick up the issue: "There's going to have to be tougher laws out of the state legislature."

Upcoming court appearance

Despite the broader questions, both sides are keeping their focus on what happens Tuesday.

Perez's lawyer said his client would plead not guilty. But he said he wasn't willing to discuss what would happen to her dogs or her business if she's acquitted.

The Humane Society, meanwhile, is hoping she'll be convicted, given jail time if possible and barred from having animals again. Judges have discretion in such cases, but District Attorney Kenneth Honeycutt said he doubts Perez could receive much, if any, jail time.

Humane Society lawyer Rodney Alexander has said the society also could seek liens to make Perez reimburse the foster homes. Society president Cindy Poppino hopes the case will fix Perez's situation. "I do think she's got problems but what I'm saying is we're helping Perez here," she said. "I wish she would take this as an opportunity to take care of herself, clean up and get out of the puppy mill business."