 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
This is an Emergency – We need your help now!
As our conflict with the county continues, it becomes harder and harder to understand all of the motivations of our county commissioners. Indeed, this story has become stranger than fiction. For those of you who have been part of the story from the beginning, I will begin where our last installment left off. For those of you who have not, please refer to the overview at the end of this letter.
In our last newsletter (Fall 2000), we informed you that we had filed for a request to extend the deadline with the county commissioners, on the condition of our zoning variance requiring us to have a public land survey done of the facility, from December 13, 2000 until June 1, 2001. We also stated that we had filed a request for a temporary injunction with the district court, to prevent enforcement of the condition of our zoning variance requiring us to reduce the number of animals at the facility from 42 to 30 by December 13, 2000, pending the outcome of that case.
On December 4, 2000, we had a public hearing in front of the county commissioners for the extension of time on the survey. Our lawyer explained that due to significant unexpected expenses in 2000, we could not afford the survey. He cited Evacuation expense of $5118, Wildfire mitigation expense of $2054, Road maintenance expense of $6101, Emergency veterinary expense on Kasha of $3629, and Legal expenses of over $10,572, totaling over $27,474. In addition to these expenses, our attorney also cited the extra time and attention that all of these situations required that prevented the scheduling of the survey. Before he could even conclude his statements, Jim Disney (county commissioner), interrupted and began a personal attack on Frank and Pat Wendland (founders of Wolf), expounding on how irresponsible they were, how they had broken every promise they had made to the county, and how they showed no concern for their neighbors. After continuing to stun the audience with his lack of focus on the issue at hand and his obviously unsubstantiated claims, Frank took the podium to inquire as to what examples he could cite to verify his claims. Mr. Disney could NOT come up with any. Frank expressed that the record of the entire special review process demonstrated just the opposite.
After a short public comment session and a brief recess, the commissioners began their discussion of the request. Again, Mr. Disney began his tirade against the Wendlands. At this stage of the process, no public comment is allowed. Cheryl Olson was nodding her agreement with the comments from Disney, and Kathay Rennels was noticeably absent from the entire proceedings. The two commissioners finally voted to grant the extension. The audience clearly was left wondering what all that was about. The variance had already been given, which would indicate that Wolf had accommodated all of the requirements; all the commissioners had to do was vote on the extension of time. The personal attack could only be attributed to some personal feelings on the part of the commissioners that somehow the lawsuit filed by Wolf was a personal attack on them. Therefore, they needed to attack in return.
This is not the case. Wolf has as its mission the goal of saving the lives of wolves and wolf-dogs. Wolf believes that each individual is a unique, sentient being that has a right to live out its life in as well-adjusted a fashion as can be provided. Additionally, Wolf tries to educate the public to understand this belief. It would be totally foreign to all of the policies and philosophies of Wolf to walk away from any decisions that would kill happy, healthy, well-adjusted animals. Our lawsuit is not a personal attack; it is the only decision we were left with.
James Mackler (he may be emailed at jam@wwe.com), the lawyer for Wolf, filed for the temporary injunction, citing that irreparable harm would occur if that condition of the variance were to be enforced, as there is no where for the animals to be placed. They would have to be killed. The county attorney filed an objection to the temporary injunction, stating that Wolf “will not suffer irreparable harm if they are required to remove animals from the property to meet the 30-limit-maximum condition of the special review approval”… they “will be able to replace the removed animals with other animals in need of shelter.” The judge has not ruled on the temporary injunction, and has stated that he wants to hold a hearing on the issue before he makes a decision. That hearing cannot be scheduled until January. This leaves Wolf technically in violation of the reduction of numbers condition of the approved variance, even though the legal case is pending.
The outgoing commissioners (Jim Disney and Cheryl Olson) again don’t seem to want the case to take its legal course, and have scheduled a hearing by them on January 2, 2001, for Wolf to show cause as to why the commissioners should not revoke the variance. Our attorney has requested a continuance of their hearing, as we do not have enough time to prepare and, indeed, our attorney is scheduled to be out of town on that day. We are not sure whether or not that continuance will be granted.
Just as I thought I was finished with this letter, another twist occurred. On December 19th, we received notification from the judge in our legal case that he has found in favor of the county commissioners, and that we have 30 days from his ruling, December 18th, to remove 12 animals from the facility. Although not great news for the long-term, it appeared as though it might carry some short-term benefits. This ruling technically prevents the commissioners from revoking our variance and implementing any enforcement. As we have found out through this entire process, however, our elected officials don’t necessarily have to follow fair and just methods. When our attorney again requested a continuance of the hearing set for January 2nd, based on the judges ruling, he was informed that the commissioners did not see this ruling as pertinent to the hearing.
It appears that they are going to proceed with the hearing and the revocation of the Wolf variance. If revoked, the worst-case scenario would allow the commissioners to order the removal of ALL of the animals from the facility.
We cannot allow that to happen, as it would surely result in their deaths. Our attorney is still working to get this hearing stopped. We are not sure what will occur with that. And we cannot wait to begin a counter to this obvious personal attack. We also cannot assume that the commissioners will follow a logical and rational course of due process. Once they order the removal of the animals, our only recourse will be some sort of civil disobedience. We need to generate as much public awareness and media attention as we can, NOW!That’s where you come in. Without your help, we will not succeed. We realize that finding extra time during the holidays is difficult, and that it is human nature to believe that one person’s input is unimportant, but YOU are important to the lives of these animals. PLEASE find the time and do what you can.
1. Plan to attend the hearing on January 2, 2001, 3:00 p.m., at the Commissioners Hearing Room, 200 West Oak Street, Fort Collins, Colorado. We will have information for you to use as your speech, or you can choose to just provide moral support.
2. Communicate your concerns by writing, faxing, e-mailing, and calling all of the individuals on the following list. If you have other contacts that can help, please call Wolf so we can spread that information.
3. Get at least ten friends who are sensitive to animal issues to also complete items 1, 2 & 3.
If you can attend the hearing or might have time in your schedule between January 2nd and January 9th, when the new commissioners take office, please call us so that we can plan the tactics for the hearing and for the aftermath of the commissioners’ decision.
Sincerely,
Frank Wendland
Cofounder
p.s. HAPPY HOLIDAYS
|
Kathay
Rennel |
Cheryl
Olson |
Jim
Disney |
|
Bill
Owens |
Wayne
Allard |
Wayne
Allard |
|
Ben
Nighthorse |
Ben
Nighthorse Campbell |
Bob
Schaffer |
|
Bob Schaffer |
Oprah Winfrey Harpo Productions Post Office Box 909715 Chicago, IL 60607 312-633-0808 (voice) none (fax) www.oprah.com |
Mary Flegas KWGN TV 2 News Post Office Box 5222 Englewood, CO 80155 303-740-2855 (voice) 303-740-2803 (fax) mflegas@tribune.com |
|
Mike Hooker KCNC TV News 4 1611 South College Avenue, Ste 213 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970-224-4444 (voice) 970-224-0235 (fax) mhooker@cbs.com |
Ronda Scholting KMGH TV 7 News 201 South College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-495-0862 (voice) 970-495-6754 (fax) ronda_scholting@kmgh.com |
Ward Lucas KUSA TV 9 News 500 Speer Blvd. Denver, CO 80203 303-871-1499 (voice) 303-698-4700 (fax) ward.lucas@9news.com |
|
Roger Wolfe KUSA TV 9 News 419 Canyon Avenue, #320 Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-484-5332 (voice) 970-224-9415 (fax) roger.wolfe@9news.com |
John Miller CNN Local News 1201 Unversity Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-419-3117 (voice) 970-493-4958 (fax) unclgrn@aol.com |
News Desk Associated Press 1444 Wazee Denver, CO 80202 303-825-0123 (voice) 303-892-5927 (fax) |
|
News Desk Associated Press 50 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10020 212-621-1500 (voice) 212-621-7520 (fax) |
Theo Stein Denver Post 1560 Broadway Denver, CO 80202 303-820-1201 (voice) 303-820-1369 (fax) tstein@denverpost.com |
Coleman
Cornelius Denver Post 2453 Reception Court Fort Collins, CO 80521 970-416-9451 (voice) 970-416-9459 (fax) ccornelius@denverpost.com |
|
Deborah
Frazier Rocky Mountain News 400 West Colfax Denver, CO 80204 303-892-5308 (voice) 303-892-2841 (fax) frazierd@rockymountain news.com |
Matt Benson Coloradoan-USA Today 1212 Riverside Avenue Post Office Box 1577 Fort Collins, CO 80524 970-224-7738 (voice) 970-224-7899 (fax) news@coloradoan.com |
Janet Thayer Loveland Daily Reporter Hearald 201 East 5th Street Loveland, CO 80537 970-669-5050 (voice) 970-667-1111 (fax) news@reporter-herald.com |
|
Randy Bangert Greeley Tribune 501 8th Avenue Post Office Box 1690 Greeley, CO 80632 800-275-0321x229 (voice) 970-356-5780 (fax) bangert@greeleytrib.com |
Executive
Director Action for Animals SAO 176 HUB 207 Box 3522338 Seattle, WA 98195 206-227-5752 (voice) (fax) afa@afa-online.org |
Executive
Director Amer. Humane Assoc. 63 Inverness Drive East Englewood, CO 80112 800-227-4645 (voice) 303-792-5333 (fax) www.amerhumane.org |
|
Executive
Director American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 424 East 92nd Street New York, NY 10128 212-876-7700 (voice) 212-348-3031 (fax) website@aspca.org |
Craig Ginsburg Animal Forum 800-336-2225 (voice) (fax) animal4um@aol.com |
Executive
Director Animal Protection Institute of America 2831 Fruitridge Road Sacramento, CA 95820 800-348-7387 (voice) 916-731-4467 (fax) onlineapl@aol.com |
|
Executive
Director Animal Rights America Post Office Box 489 Caldwell, NJ 07006 201-228-7632 (voice) 201-403-8440 (fax) ara@superlink.net |
Executive
Director Animal Rights Coalition Post Office Box 8750 Minneapolis, MN 55420 612-882-6161 (voice) 612-822-0469 (fax) arc-mn@cheerful.com |
Executive
Director Earth Action USA 30 Cottage Street Amherst, MA 01002 413-549-8118 (voice) 413-549-0544 (fax) amherst@earthaction.org |
|
Executive
Director Friends of Animals and Their Environment Post Office Box 27327 Golden Valley, MN 55427 612-822-2720 (voice) 612-822-5434 (fax) lhatfate@aol.com |
Executive
Director Humane Education Network 3027 Barney Avenue Post Office Box 7434 Menlo Park, CA 94026 415-854-8921 (voice) 415-854-8921 (fax) hennet@ix.netcom.com |
Executive
Director Humane Society of the US 2100 L Street NW Washington, DC 20037 202-452-1100 (voice) 301-258-3079 (fax) www.hsus.org |
|
Executive
Director In Defense of Animals 131 Camino Alto Ste. E Mill Valley, CA 94941 415-388-9641 (voice) 415-388-0388 (fax) ida@idausa.org |
Executive
Director International Fund for Animal Welfare USA 411 Main Street, P.O.Box 193 Yarmouth Port, MA 02675 508-362-6268 (voice) 508-362-5841 (fax) www.ifaw.org |
Executive
Director Mobilization for Animals Post Office Box 5881 Philadelphia, PA 19128 610-256-4052 (voice) 610-270-9895 (fax) mobilization_for_animals @juno.com |
|
Executive
Director Progressive Animal Welfare Society 15305 44th Avenue West Box 1037 Lynnwood, WA 98046 206-787-2500 (voice) 206-742-5711 (fax) info@paws.org |
Executive
Director Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 403 McCauley St, P.O.Box 1297 Washington Grove, MD 20880 301-963-4751 (voice) 301-963-4751 (fax) kshaprio@capaccess.org |
Executive
Director Rocky Mountain Animal Defense 2525 Arapahoe, Ste. E4-335 Boulder, CO 80302 333-449-4422 (voice) 333-449-4422 (fax) rmad@rmad.org |
|
Executive
Director United Animal Nations 5892A South Land Park Drive Post Office Box 188890 Sacramento, CA 95822 916-429-2457 (voice) 916-429-2456 (fax) uan@gvn.net |
Executive
Director World Animal Net Wim de Kok 19 Chestnut Square Boston, MA 02130 617-524-3670 (voice) 617-524-1815 (fax) worldanimalnet@yahoo.com |
Executive
Director World Society for Protection of Animals Post Office Box 190 Jamaica Plain, MA 02130 617-522-7000 (voice) 617-522-7077 (fax) wspa@world.std.com |
"The
County & The Wolf"
A
Christmas Story
(*) indicates that factual backup data is available upon request.
Early 1994, the founders of Wolf found 162 acres in a remote mountainous area, approximately 15 miles northwest of Fort Collins. It had a small cabin located in a steep secluded canyon. The founders of Wolf investigated surrounding properties to be sure there would be no problems with noise and, according to county records (*), there were only 2 properties within a mile radius that had residences on them. One a weekend summer cabin, and one almost ¾ of a mile up the road, both where noise could NOT be heard from the site property.
July 1994, the property was purchased (*).
Late 1994, Wolf began operation.
May 1995, the founders of Wolf purchased a 20-acre parcel (*), that became available, in order to increase the size of the buffer around the facility. Total property now reached 182 acres.
Middle 1995, (having saved 15 animals and turning down over 100) Wolf realized that in order to accomplish part of its mission, education, it would have to go public with its operation and beliefs.
21 August 1995, Wolf allows the Fort Collins Coloradoan to run an article (*) about the sanctuary. Obviously Wolf would not have done this if they believed they were violating any ordinances.
October 1995, Wolf received an undated letter (*) from a county planning and zoning code enforcement officer informing Wolf founders that noise complaints had been received, (in September) and that there was an ordinance that basically stated that if a residence possessed more than three cats and/or dogs it must secure a zoning variance as a kennel through a process called a special review.
Early November 1995, Wolf discovers that out of the three complaints received (*), two came from properties that supposedly had no residences on them and the third from over two and half miles (as the crow flies) from the facility. These were obviously responses from the news article as NO complaints had been received before this.
30 November 1995, after researching this ordinance and having some concerns about the process, (1. The county definition of a kennel did not seem to apply, 2. The fees to apply for the variance was $1800, 3. The complaints did not have to be justified or proven), the founders responded (*) to the county voicing its questions about the ordinance.
05 December 1995, code enforcement responds (*) to the questions, basically saying that Wolf fits their definition of a kennel not necessarily Webster’s definition.
06, 09, 10 February 1996, Wolf receives letters from three neighbors (**) on the Wolf access road indicating that noise is NOT a problem. Several of these locations much closer than the three individuals who complained.
21 February 1996, County Commissioners vote (*) to waive fees for Wolf’s application.
06 March 1996, County Commissioner, Janet Duvall indicates to the news (*) that she shares the feelings of the Wendlands, that “The law is just not right.” Saying that, “the county needs to take another look at the kennel regulation.”
06 March 1996, County Planner, John Pedas is quoted in the newspaper (*) as saying, “the Wendlands’ operation isn’t a big concern for the county, given the large size of their property and its isolated location.” He said “the kennel regulation is aimed more at county subdivisions.”
17 October 1996, Wolf receives another letter from a property owner (*) on the Wolf access road indicating that noise is NOT a problem. Again this property is located much closer to Wolf than that of the individuals complaining.
October 1996, after spending several hundred hours preparing a report required by the planning department, Wolf submits 30 copies of a 35-page document with the application (*). Wolf was told by the planning department that the report was one of the most professional and comprehensive that they had ever received. (note: there is NO question on the application inquiring about the maximum number of animals proposed at the facility and Wolf does NOT volunteer a maximum number.)
09 January 1997, Wolf met with the county planning department for a “Concept Technical Review” (*). A meeting with technical staff to delineate what other information they felt was necessary for them to evaluate the plan. The tone of the planning department seemed to have changed, and more and more obstacles were being put in the path. In addition to all of the information that is normally required in the original report they requested some fairly bizarre (in the context that residences, nursing homes, livestock auctions, and even farm animal rescues are not required to provide but kennels are) reports such as: wildfire mitigation plan, rock slide mitigation plan, 100 year flood plane elevation, storm water drainage paths, noise mitigation plan (even though no proof a problem is required), emergency evacuation plan, road maintenance plan, etc. Of course, all of these reports needed to be prepared by an expert in the specific field. In an attempt to understand why so many reports were required, Wolf questioned the technical staff and was only told that any special review must be treated as a subdivision development, which Wolf is NOT.
Remainder of 1997, not having the funds ($3,000 to $7,000) to hire the experts that the county wanted to prepare the reports Wolf procrastinated on how to proceed.
08 February 1998, the Fort Collins Coloradoan again ran another story (*) on the Wolf facility.
13 February 1998, Larimer County Planning and Zoning gives Wolf a drop-dead date (*) of April 21, 1998 to respond to their requests before turning the matter over to the County Attorney.
22 April 1998, without funds necessary to accommodate requests, Wolf answers the planning staff (*) by directing a letter to the county attorney outlining a list of questions about the entire process.
06 May 1998, the county attorney responds (*) without answering concerns, but rather reinforcing that logic need not prevail.
June 1998, Wolf submits a detailed answer (*) to the planning staff covering those items that could be accommodated without huge expense and declines to answer those that were too expensive. (note: Wolf does NOT indicate a maximum number of animals to be maintained at the facility.)
August 1998, Wolf receives a grant (*) for operating and education expenses.
September 1998, planning staff sends preliminary review (*) to Wolf after reevaluating all materials received. Again they request additional information, scaled down from previous requests but still very oppressive.
October 1998, Wolf Board of Directors votes to spend some of the grant money in order to supply the county planning staff with the information they requested. Wolf is given until the end of March to supply additional information.
28 December 1998, Sound engineer performs sound tests (*) at the Wolf founders’ property in accordance with County Noise Ordinance standards and found that noise levels from the animals did NOT exceed the ambient background noise levels.
23 January 1999, Sound engineer performs sound tests (*) at the Wolf founders’ property in accordance with County Noise Ordinance standards and found that noise levels from the animals did NOT exceed the ambient background noise levels.
24 March 1999, Wolf contractor(sound engineer) requests access (*) to the property, of individuals who complained about noise, in order to perform sound tests. He was denied access.
28 March 1999, Sound engineer performs sound tests (*) at three locations on the property lines of the Wolf founders’ property, in a direct line to the closest residences, in accordance with Larimer County Noise Ordinance standards and found that noise levels from the animals did NOT exceed the ambient background noise levels. This test was performed in conjunction with discussions with Carol Evans (County Planner) as to what would satisfy the county on the noise issues.
31 March 1999, Wolf submits 30 copies of answers (*) to request for additional information adding another 30+ pages to the original document. Requiring hundreds more hours and in excess of $5,000. (note: Wolf does NOT indicate a maximum number of animals to be maintained at the facility. Wolf’s response to that question by the county is, “Wolf intends to maintain a number of animals on site that will not adversely effect issues such as noise, safety, waste management, animal care and rabies control. Wolf does not believe that as the number of animals increases the impacts or potential impacts also increase.”)
Summer – Fall 1999, Wolf conducts a traffic log (*) of vehicles coming and going from the property. Personal and sanctuary related trips do NOT exceed the average for a residential single family home in the United States of ten. Wolf believes that with 182 acres and the potential for a minimum of 5 residences that this number is NOT excessive.
04 August 1999, Wolf receives final report (*) being sent by planning staff to planning commissioners recommending approval of the variance with limited conditions.
18 August 1999, Public Hearing of the Special Review before the planning commission. Wolf presents evidence and expert witnesses proving that noise, traffic and safety issues do NOT present a nuisance to neighbors. Planning commissioners vote six to zero to recommend approval (*) of the variance with 10 conditions. Condition #2 would limit the maximum number of animals at the facility to 55.
September 1999, Wolf contractor (sound engineer) requests access again to the property, of individuals who complained about noise, in order to perform sound tests. He was denied access again.
04 October 1999, Public Hearing of Special Review before county commissioners. Approximately 125 supporters and 10 opponents turned out for the event. Several times during the course of the discussion Jim Disney reprimanded the Wolf organization (*) for not seeking approval before starting the operation, saying sarcastically “it’s a lot easier to come in here and ask for our forgiveness than it is to ask for our permission.” This chastisement seemed somewhat out of place. Wolf was not aware of the ordinance when it began operation and even the county planning enforcement officer was quoted in the news (*) as saying “he’s sure there are probably many county residents who have four or more dogs and cats on their property who never have to worry about having a kennel review. The county reviews of kennels are made on a complaint basis.” This would imply that there was nothing unusual about the process being followed by the Wolf operation. Indeed, NO citation was ever issued to Wolf for any violation. The hearing was continued to 08 November due to all of the public comment.
08 November 1999, continuation of the hearing before county commissioners. Again, supporters outnumbered opponents at least 15 to 1. Only 3 individuals complained about noise and one of those built in the area after the Wolf sanctuary had already been in operation for years. That individual was even video taped by a news crew (*) saying that noise was not a problem. The public comment section was completed and a short recess preceded the commissioners’ discussion. They suggested a new set of 12 conditions ignoring some of the recommendations of the planning commission and those of the planning staff. They chose to hold off a vote on the variance until the county attorney had a chance to put their recommendations into legalese. They vote to continue the hearing again, this time until December 13, 1999. Condition #2 would limit the maximum number of animals at the facility to 30.
09 November 1999, Wolf founders express relief, to the news, that commissioners seem to be recommending approval of the zoning variance, but reject condition that would require 12 animals to be removed (*) from the facility. They indicate that this would require the animals to be killed. Jim Disney said (*) noise issues were “subjective.” “It depends on which expert you want to believe. I didn’t hear credible evidence one way or another.” Wolf does not understand this statement as the three individuals who expressed concern about noise presented NO EVIDENCE and NO EXPERT WITNESSES. Wolf on the other hand had a scientific study (*) performed on noise and had two expert witnesses testify that noise was NOT in violation of the county noise ordinance and could NOT be amplified, to the 3 locations of complaint, without electronic equipment. These are the same locations that refused tests to be performed at their residences.
13 December 1999, County commissioners continue hearing and vote to approve the variance (*) with the finalized 12 conditions outlined in November meeting. Wolf would be given until December 13, 2000 to reduce the number of animals at the facility to 30.
13 January 2000, Wolf founders file a lawsuit (*) against the county citing that the basic ordinance that caused the special review to occur was unconstitutional and that the county commissioners had no facts to base their condition limiting the number of animals at the facility to 30 making their decision arbitrary and capricious.
02 January 2000, Wolf hires a contractor (*) to begin thinning the forest as part of the wildfire mitigation plan.
25 January 2000, Wolf meets first set of requirements (*) of the conditions of the variance covering the wildfire mitigation plan implementation.
10 February 2000, Wolf meets second set of requirements (*) of the conditions of the variance covering road maintenance plan/implementation and site inspection scheduling.
03 May 2000, Wolf meets third set of requirements (*) of the conditions of the variance covering the site inspection.
23 October 2000, Wolf meets fourth set of requirements (*) of the conditions of the variance covering facility licensing. Wolf also filed a formal application (with $200 fee) for extension of time to complete the site improvement land survey.
04 December 2000, county commissioners hold hearing (*) on extension of land survey. Kathay Rennels is noticeably absent. Although the extension is approved, Jim Disney takes the opportunity to personally attack the Wendlands. He states that the Wendlands have broken every promise they have made to the county, that they are totally irresponsible and have absolutely no concern for their neighbors. When challenged to provide facts to support his claims he cannot.
05 December 2000, Wolf files motion for preliminary injunction (*) on condition #2, removal of 12 animals. Wolf cites that irreparable harm would occur, as the animals removed would have to be killed.
08 December 2000, county files objection (*) to the Wolf motion for preliminary injunction. The county states that Wolf“will not suffer irreparable harm if they are required to remove animals from the property…” they “will be able to replace the removed animals with other animals in need of shelter.”
12 December 2000, Wolf files response (*) to the county objection.
14 December 2000, county commissioners set unscheduled hearing (*) for January 2, 2001. The letter indicates that Wolf“may be present to show cause why your Special Review permit to operate a kennel should not be revoked for failure to comply with condition #2 of approval.”
15 December 2000, Wolf verbally requests postponement of hearing. They indicate that there is not enough time to prepare, based on the holidays, and that even their lawyer is scheduled to be out of town that day.
18 December 2000, county verbally refuses to reschedule hearing.
18 December 2000, judge issues ruling on legal case (*). The findings are in favor of the county, however the judges order allows Wolf 30 days to remove 12 animals from the facility.
19 December 2000, Wolf again requests postponement of hearing (*). This request is based on the judges ruling and order which supersedes the commissioners’ time frame of 13 December 2000 for the removal of 12 animals from the facility.
19 December 2000, county again refuses to reschedule (*).
13 December 1999 to present, no complaints documented from neighbors!
© 2000-2008, WOLF - a nonprofit corporation, All Rights Reserved
WOLF, Post Office Box 1544, La Porte, CO 80535 - USA