Opinion ID: 2023858
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Court's Disposition Order.

Text: Iowa Code section 717B.4 discusses the disposition of neglected animals. Subsection 1 provides for the immediate disposition... [presumably destruction as provided by section 717B.4(4)] if the animal is permanently distressed by disease or injury to a degree that would result in severe or prolonged suffering. (Emphasis added.) Subsection 3 also contemplates a possible sale. In relevant part, that subsection states: 3. A court may order a person owning the neglected animal to pay an amount which shall not be more than the expenses incurred in maintaining the neglected animal rescued pursuant to section 717B.5, and reasonable attorney fees and expenses related to the investigation of the case. The remaining amount of a bond or other security posted pursuant to this chapter shall be used to reimburse the local authority.... The moneys shall be paid to the local authority incurring the expense. The amount shall be subtracted from proceeds owed to the owner or owners of the animal, which are received from the sale of the animal ordered by the court. Iowa Code § 717B.4(3). At the time of the court's order, the monkeys were not permanently distressed because of the care that had been given to them at the university. The provision for their destruction under section 717B.4 was therefore inapplicable, and the court properly rejected it. Destruction of the monkeys under these circumstances, moreover, would be inimicable to the stated purpose of chapter 717B, [1] especially in view of the fact that at least five of the monkeys are on an endangered species list. Under the court's order, the monkeys could be sold, but the court did not specify how this was to be accomplished except to state that it should be under the supervision of the county attorney and the veterinarians. Kriz argues that the sale should be at public auction. However, a public auction was discouraged by the experts in this case because of the likelihood that the monkeys would again be in the hands of a private owner, possibly even Kriz herself. One person, even under the most favorable conditions, cannot properly care for fifty monkeys. In fact, at the Blank Park Zoo in Des Moines, it takes three full-time employees and a night keeper to care for just thirty-five of them. Monkeys require specialized veterinarians. They need regular tuberculosis testing and vaccinations. Kriz has had no regularly attending veterinarian, and there was no evidence that the monkeys had been tested on a regular basis. The care of monkeys is very specialized. Different species require different types of care and different types of habitat. Monkeys are carriers of diseases such as tuberculosis, salmonella, Marburg virus, shigella, Ebola, and Herpes B virus, all of which are dangerous to humans. Testimony showed that monkeys are dangerous to have as pets, and their bites carry a very high risk of infection. In fact, it was the concern of one of the veterinarians about the monkeys' possible health hazard to humans that caused the initial contact to be made with the University of Iowa veterinarians. There was evidence that a majority of zoological veterinarians and primatologists flatly oppose private ownership. A public sale, for all of these reasons, would not be a good idea. In fact, one veterinarian testified that the sale of monkeys at a public auction would be a disaster. While the statute mentions a sale of the animals, it does not direct it; and it does not even mention a sale by public auction. The statute, we believe, gives the court considerable latitude as to the disposition of neglected animals, and the court was well within the parameters of that latitude here. The type of animal involved obviously should play a large role in that determination, as it did here. If Kriz's motivation for a public auction is to maximize her own monetary return, we point out that income to an owner from disposal of neglected animals does not appear to be a significant rationale of the statute; as already discussed, the statute was passed to alleviate animal suffering. It was not intended to maximize income to the owner. As one court has noted: Indeed, the power to seize and dispose of neglected animals is analogous to the state's traditional power to take action to abate a nuisance or to protect the public health. As such, the state's disposal of neglected animals falls within the class of property deprivations for which the Fifth Amendment does not require compensation. Porter v. DiBlasio, 93 F.3d 301, 310 (7th Cir.1996) (disposition of neglected horses). As a practical matter, a public sale would have no economic benefit to Kriz. Under section 717B.3(3), the cost of keeping neglected animals must be deducted from a sale before any proceeds would be paid to the former owner. The cost of care testified to by the university veterinarians (approximately $8400 for the six-week period preceding trial) would far outstrip Kriz's own valuation of the animals. We agree that the monkeys should be sold or placed in appropriate animal sanctuaries or zoos under the supervision and recommendations of the veterinarians, as ordered by the district court. AFFIRMED.