Dinnes Speaks Out, PETA Again Eats Crow
The old saying "time will reveal all things" seems so apropos when it comes to making sense out of the drama created for Michael Jackson by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The veterinarian who had filed suit against Jackson announced that the claim has been settled, and he staunchly countered allegations from PETA that Jackson's animals are not being well tended to.
The animal rights organization had publicly accused Jackson of neglect of the animals residing in his Neverland zoo. On or around January 16, 2006, the press was abuzz with news that PETA had demanded there be an official investigation by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) into the living conditions of Jackson's animals. In a statement released to the media, PETA spokeswoman Lisa Wathne said that she had seen aerial photographs of the animals living in bleak conditions and surrounded by pools of urine.
"These animals are in enclosures that are completely barren, it looks like a dilapidated roadside zoo," Wathne said. "The animals have no enrichment of any kind. They are deprived of everything that's natural to them. We have heard accusations that employees aren't being paid and that animals aren't being fed, or that food is only available on a day-to-day basis.
"We have asked the USDA to investigate the situation and if they determine the animals are not being cared for properly to confiscate the animals and release them to accredited sanctuaries."
Wathne had also stated that PETA did not expect to hear back from the USDA for several months, "but we do feel that with all the accusations coming forward this is potentially a serious enough situation that there is a good chance the USDA has already looked into it, and we hope it is acting to address the situation."
Days later, Darby Holladay, a spokesman for the USDA, revealed that there had in fact been an investigation and that it was concluded that allegations of animal mistreatment were unfounded. The animal care veterinarians who visited Neverland on December 21, 2005, deemed the creatures to be in "good health." There were no apparent violations of the Animal Welfare Act at Neverland Valley Ranch.
It was also learned from Holladay's statements that PETA had filed their complaint with the government agency on December 19, 2005, a whole month prior to their spokeswoman creating a media frenzy relating to said complaint. Why the wait to publicly accuse Jackson of animal cruelty? Why had they not informed the public that they had already contacted the USDA in December?
In response to a letter from one inquiring mind, Wathne stated that PETA had "sent a letter to the USDA asking them to investigate the many allegations from employees and former employees at Neverland that the animals are not being properly cared for." It is unclear as to whether or not these allegations from these supposed "employees and former employees at Neverland" were made directly to PETA.
Wathne also reiterated what she had said to the press: "As I said to the media, from the few photos I have seen (taken by air), Neverland at this time resembles nothing more than a shabby roadside zoo - the animal enclosures were absolutely barren, devoid of anything natural and with no apparent enrichment for the animals."
Oddly, she never once mentions that her expertise or that of anyone else at PETA had also been in aerial photography analysis. But to be fair, nobody bothered asking. It is understandable that Photoshop, shadows, or elephant poop can deceive the untrained (or gullible) eye into believing that they are seeing pools of blood.
Another responder by the name of Jenny Woods gave additional reasons as to why PETA fired off their complaint.
"In this case, we were given several reasons to look into the allegations against Mr. Jackson, including a feature on Fox News suggesting that Mr. Jackson’s animals were being neglected and that ranch workers were not being paid as well as allegations that Mr. Jackson is being sued for not paying his veterinarian," she offered.
Only Woods knows of what "several reasons" prompted them to act, but we'll deal with the ones that she outlined. Woods said that PETA based their complaint off of a "Fox News feature" and also on the fact that Jackson’s longtime veterinarian was suing him. This "Fox News feature" was actually a gossip column by über Jackson stalker Roger Friedman, a man who proclaims that Jackson is near financial ruin every other day.
Friedman had dedicated yet another piece to Jackson's pending doom on Friday, December 16, 2005, in which there was a small bit about the animals at Neverland: "Also, there are real fears now for the animals in Jackson's home zoo. Last week, the ranch was down to almost no food for the animals. At the last minute, sources say, a delivery was made, but it won't last long."
PETA's complaint to the USDA followed on Monday, December 19. There has been no success in trying to pry from the ever-evasive PETA what other criteria triggered their reflex pressing of the "Alert: Animals in Danger" button.
Just about everyone (except PETA) fails to find a connection between Jackson being sued by his vet and allegations that his animals aren't being cared for. A report of that suit had included a blurb that veterinarian Martin Dinnes had still been caring for the animals despite not receiving pay. Additionally, Dinnes' suit was filed on December 27, 2005, eight days after PETA had lodged its complaint and six days after the USDA had sent a team to assess the condition of the animals. Unless they are psychics, PETA cannot possibly claim that their accusations of animal cruelty had anything to do with Dinnes's suit.
What was even more perplexing was that Woods trashed the USDA's conclusion. Hadn't they written to this agency to investigate the matter? Now they are dismissing their findings?
In the same letter, which had also been sent to several other outraged individuals, Woods stated, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) findings do not prove that the animals at Neverland are being well cared-for. This government agency is well-known for having only minimal requirements for the care of captive animals, and the USDA typically only takes action in cases in which animals are in extremely dire or life-threatening situations."
Wathne made a similar statement to the press: "The USDA enforces the federal Animal Welfare Act, which establishes minimum standards of animal care, and I have to emphasize minimum. The USDA takes action only when the animals are dying or are in dire straits."
This is somewhat amusing considering that PETA had no problem with the USDA's "minimal requirements" when the agency investigated allegations levied against Utah's Hogle Zoo and eventually fined them for animal neglect in 2005.
In an April 2005 Fact Sheet, PETA had the following about the Hogle Zoo situation: "Hogle Zoo has failed to meet minimal federal standards for the care of animals used in exhibition as established in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has cited, warned, and penalized Hogle Zoo for violations that include failure to safely cage animals, filthy conditions, unsanitary feeding, failure to provide shelter from inclement weather, failure to provide adequate veterinary care, supplying animals with contaminated drinking water, and failure to maintain facilities in good repair."
It is quite disturbing to then see PETA discarding as not enough to "prove that the animals at Neverland are being well cared for" the USDA's conclusion as to the allegations of Jackson's animals living in "squalor." Is the government findings only relevant when they support and assist in furthering your bottom line? These statements from PETA sound mighty hypocritical.
On January 23, 2006, the Santa Barbara News-Press published statements from a seemingly furious Dinnes about the media reports surrounding his lawsuit against Jackson. Not only does he state that the situation has been resolved, but that the animals that have been under his care are doing just fine.
"Through all of this, all the principals, and Neverland, and MJJ, and all of Michael's entities knew that even if I didn't get paid," Dinnes said. "I was going to take care of those animals."
In speaking about the USDA investigation, the doctor stated, "Attacking the health and welfare of those animals is a direct attack on me, and my credentials are impeccable. We really have nothing to hide. Our doors are open, to the right people. You could eat off the ground on that property."
The animals at Neverland are privileged to have a first class menagerie comprised of architectually designed, custom-built homes.
"Michael and I are very close," Dinnes added. "We've been close for 20 years. My dispute was not with Michael. It was with his business people. Through everything that Michael went through, their mind wasn't on a lot of things. I've been there with him before, through times when I failed to get a check on time, but they never, ever stuck me, and I was assured they never would again. Something triggered me to file, but it's all settled.
"I'm not paid, pending a signature, but suffice it to say, it's settled," he continued. "We got a clean bill of health from the USDA, and I have that in writing. I talked to Pete Miller at Santa Barbara County Animal Services. He's an investigator. I have a long history with them. Pete said, 'Marty, I believe whatever you say. I just had to call you because we hear what we consider rumors.'
"Contrary to what people are saying in all these looney toon reports, the animals are fine," Dinnes stated. "I go up there once a week. The animals are well fed. They're in good condition. It's just not like what's reported.
"My attorney asked the Enquirer, 'Where'd you get the information?' They said, PETA. 'Where'd you get the pictures that you took?' They said, 'From a helicopter.'
"You know how you can doctor pictures; I'm just surmising. They did take a picture of the elephants being walked, and they conveniently had a clump of elephant poop around them. They took a picture of the giraffes in the yard, and claimed that there was a dark spot on the ground that they said was blood. Under my watch, that can never happen," the doctor said.
If you ask PETA, they will tell you that they had been contacted by the National Enquirer to comment on the pictures; however, according to Dinnes, the tabloid is claiming that they received their story from PETA. Confused?
Now that the Dinnes suit is practically settled and he personally vouches for the condition of the Neverland animals, in addition to the USDA conclusion, one would hope that PETA would take a hint and back off. Maybe a second helping of crow soup would help with the digestion of that bitter pill they have to swallow yet again for having jumped on half-assed statements being made by ghosts quoted by gossipmonger Roger Friedman.
Prior to Dinnes announcing the settlement of his suit, PETA intended on going after Jackson further. If they have not yet filed a second complaint, we would hope that they will reconsider the thought of doing so. No animal mistreatment was found at Neverland and they should accept the USDA conclusion as they have in the past. We are certain that the millions that PETA receives from the many who genuinely love animals would be better used for the pursuance of cases of real animal atrocity and not for the chasing of nonexistent threats to animal welfare.
Source:
MJJF/AP/Fox News/Santa Barbara News-Press/Santa Maria Times/eMJey