We have received numerous contacts in regards to the article on Alpha Tex Kennels. We understand the emotions and passion involved with this case. However, we also understand that there are two sides to every story, and choose to wait until the facts come out in the trial to complete the story. The article is based on what has been reported in the news reports, not on unsubstantiated rumours and here say.

As stated in the article, there are questions that do not have immediately available answers. These answers will not come until the trial, and we stand by our statement of “It is unfair and unjust for anyone to make any judgments at this time.” Never in one time in the article does it defend, or even state, the care the animals received. The only references were that a number of the pictures showed dogs that appeared clean, healthy etc., as well as some of the equipment furnished in the kennels.

Our utmost concern is always the welfare of the animals (animal welfare, not animal rights-there is a huge difference). We have seen numerous pictures, but without positive evidence that these are actually the dogs from the Alpha Tex Kennels, we will not make any judgments. Many of the pictures are at a close up range, and do not show the surrounding area. We cannot determine if it is actually the Smith’s property. Due to the many incidents of propaganda pictures being used in different media venues, you will have to understand our hesitancy to accept these for actual photos of the Alpha Tex Kennels animals.

One of the questions we have is-Since it is reported that the Sheriff and an investigator from the Humane Society of West Texas were at the kennels three days prior to the seizure, why did they not tell the Smith’s at that time: 1) Get the kennels cleaned up, if they were really in need of it; 2) Reduce your numbers; 3) Are the animals that have alleged issues under veterinarian care; and 4) Address any other alleged issues that they may have seen. Had they done this, it could have been of great help to the animals involved, as the stress from the noise, equipment, unfamiliar people, and being taken away from the only home they have known has contributed to the concerns with the dogs. It would have helped the Smith’s deal with the situation they found themselves in, as well as alleviating excessive legal costs on both the county and the Smith’s. Include in this are the costs to the varying rescues and shelters that were incurred in accepting and caring for these dogs.
Why did the Humane Society of West Texas (HSWT) institute a seizure, as stated by Sheriff Raissez, when they had no facility to care for the impounded dogs? Would it not have been better, and less costly to all involved, to keep the dogs in the location that was home to them, and assist in correcting any alleged issues until a determination was made in the courts? Weekly or even daily checks on the animals could have been done. By sending these dogs all over the state, combined with the stress of the noise, equipment, unfamiliar people, taking them away from the human/animal bond they knew and exposure to potential diseases, they have put these dogs at greater risk.  I believe I can potentially answer that question-it would not be newsworthy nor would it garner donations of funds! We have all seen the sampling of pictures of the large donations of food and items given to the HSWT, while the amount of funds having been donated is unknown at this time.

Think about it-the Texas statutes say that the owners, should ownership be turned over to the Humane Society of West Texas, will have to reimburse the costs of caring for these dogs. Texas Statute 821.023 states that the owner, if ownership is given to the “humane organization,” must pay all court costs, including costs of 1) investigation; 2) expert witnesses (we can guess who those may be); 3) housing and caring for the animal(s) during its impoundment; 4) conducting any public sale ordered by the court; and 5) humanely destroying the animal if destruction is ordered by the court. Just how many animals were put down with no court order as of date? My question here is “Does the Humane Society of West Texas have to reimburse the shelters and rescues that the dogs have been sent to all over the state?" Given the fact that the vast majority of the costs incurred have been through donations, as they have done an extensive “please donate” drive using the publicity from this seizure, this sounds like a really profitable deal for the HSWT, and great incentive to institute a seizure! While they may call it an adoption fee, or spay/neuter fee, it is a sale-don’t forget that statute wording of “public sale.” Should ownership remain with the Smith’s, does the HSWT or the county itself have to reimburse the Smith’s for the legal costs incurred? I mean really, if the state allows for reimbursement to the “humane organization”, why does it not allow for reimbursement to the owner(s) should the Smith’s be exonerated of alleged acts? You have to remember here that while rumours abound about an alleged suit against the county by the Smith’s, no suit has been filed as of date. This is mere speculation at this time. The state is allowing for their own financial recourse while failing to allow for the accused’ financial recourse.

Another question arises-Why is that the people who are just now claiming “they knew the conditions were bad at Alpha Tex Kennels” (this is yet to be determined in a court of law) did not offer to help improve the alleged conditions at the time, some claiming as far back as 5 years ago? If the concern was really about the animals and their care, why are they just now stepping forward to comment? If what they are saying is true, why did they wait until now to say anything? Or is it really just jumping on the bandwagon of rumours and here say and getting their “15 minutes of fame?”

It is being reported by Kevin Lewis, Herald Editor that as of November 5, 2011, the county attorney, Lex Herrington, has been recused from the case in the wake of comments made by Commissioner Nathan Johnson in regards to a possible settlement. Herrington is refusing to discuss the issue, stating “I cannot visit about that.” Judge Penny Golightly stated “We are in the process of trying to find another attorney.", and did in fact confirm that Herrington has been recused. She added that “What was reported was wrong.” And beyond that “I can’t talk about it.” The search for an attorney to handle the case for the county has caused further delay in the trial date, and further delay in the fate of the dogs.

This is a result of rumours and unsubstantiated here say about a lawsuit against the county, while none has been filed at this time, being fuelled by animal rights people (remember those donations of funds). What this has done is to delay the trial, causing further costs to the county and the Smith’s, as well as the people currently caring for the dogs. We ask that everyone please calm down, as ultimately, it is the dogs that are paying the heaviest price for this entire unfortunate situation. Efforts would be better spent in the care of these dogs and let the court system determine what really happened.

In light of this recent development in the case, you will understand our desire to wait until the conclusion of the trial, when the correct elements of the case are revealed, to follow up with the complete accurate facts of the story.