IN AND FOR KING COUNTY

MARTHA SCUDDER, a single individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LARRY GALLOWA, a married individual

Defendant

NO.: 04-2-04721-8SEA

DECLARATION OF TRACY BENNETT DVM DIPLOMAT ABVP - AVIAN SPECIALTY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT GALLAWA’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I, Tracy Bennett, DVM, make the following Declaration under Penalty of Perjury under the laws of the State of Washington:

1. I am over the age of 18, am competent to testify and make this Declaration based on my knowledge of the facts;

2. I am a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine and a Diplomat of the American Board of

Veterinary Practitioners in the Avian Specialty. I have been in avian practice for 11 years as of June 2005. I own the Bird and Exotic Clinic of Seattle which I opened in 1997. My clinic is a specialty practice which exclusively treats birds and exotic pets. My caseload is approximately 90% avian. I treat birds living in pet situations as well as avicultural and other flock settings. I also have a bachelor’s degree and two years of graduate education in Biology. I have been a speaker on avian medicine to the public and my peers and have published in my field;

3. I was asked to inspect Martha Scudder’s aviary by Pierce County Animal Control

and performed the initial inspection with 2 animal control officers and the veterinarian for the

animal control’s facility in January 2003;

4. Animal Control asked me to write a letter outlining basic recommendations for Mrs.

Scudder for the aviary to improve what we considered to be an animal neglect situation. Mrs. Scudder had agreed to cooperate willingly according to Mr. Wally Hall at animal control;

5. I wrote a letter outlining my initial recommendations for Martha Scudder’s aviary and

sent it to Wally Hall at Pierce County Animal Control;

6. Animal Control asked me to re-inspect the aviary and we did so in June 2003;

7. I was asked to be an expert witness for the legal case listed above and asked for and

received all medical records from Dr. Singh Dhillon and Washington State University regarding all birds presented from Martha Scudder’s aviary;

8. I have reviewed these medical records, and based on these records and my personal

inspections of the facility, I state the following opinions as an expert in the field of avian medicine:

a. All animals have basic requirements necessary for survival including: a source of

clean and freely available water, adequate nutrition which meets the caloric and metabolic needs of the species, adequate space in their enclosure which allows natural movement, a sanitary enclosure free from accumulations of their own fecal material, protection from temperature extremes depending on species and regular medical care that provides treatment or euthanasia for sick/suffering individuals;

b. I state that these basic necessities are not provided to the birds at Martha Scudder’s

Aviary;

c. The medical records document the lack of these basic requirements and an extremely

high mortality rate related to their absence;

d. The medical records document multiple cases of starvation, dehydration and

“sudden” death of animals suffering from long term debilitating diseases which received no medical care;

e. The medical records also document multiple deaths from long term nutritional

diseases such as Hypovitaminosis A and atherosclerosis;

f. Also documented are multiple deaths from contagious disease such as

Chlamydiophila (Psittacosis), Neurotropic Ganglioneuritis (PDD or Macaw Wasting Disease), Pacheco’s disease (a herpes Virus) and Mycobacterium avium (avian tuberculosis);

g. Both Chlamydiophila and Mycobacterium avium are diseases which are contagious to

humans and present a significant human health hazard;

h. I was deposed by plaintiff’s newly retained counsel on May 5, 2005. The deposition lasted until approximately 12:30 p.m., and was continued and has not yet been re-set. However, I was asked at deposition, and testified about my current opinions regarding Mrs. Scudder’s aviary. My opinion after reviewing necropsies, Mrs. Scudder’s deposition, and the depositions and declarations of other witnesses remains the same as I held at the time of my inspection: that this aviary’s necropsies document multiple cases of starvation, dehydration and “sudden” death of animals suffering from long term debilitating diseases which received no medical care.

Signed this ____ day of ________________________, 2005, at__________________, Washington,

_________________________

Tracy Bennett DVM Diplomat ABVP - avian

[Dr. Bennett's comments scarcely require elaboration except for two points

Dr. Bennett is experienced in treating exotic birds not only as pets, but in flock settings
Her description of conditions at the Scudder Parrot Depot conform to the description of animal cruelty as defined under Washington State law, as well as laws upon legal burying of animal carcasses (as will be discussed following; cf. Deposition of Kathy Phillips Scudder). Sadly, the officials of Pierce County did not see fit to enforce those laws.—Editors.]

RCW 16.52.207

Animal cruelty in the second degree.

(1) A person is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the person knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon an animal.

     (2) An owner of an animal is guilty of animal cruelty in the second degree if, under circumstances not amounting to first degree animal cruelty, the owner knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence:

     (a) Fails to provide the animal with necessary shelter, rest, sanitation, space, or medical attention and the animal suffers unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain as a result of the failure; or

     (b) Abandons the animal.

     (3) Animal cruelty in the second degree is a misdemeanor.

     (4) In any prosecution of animal cruelty in the second degree, it shall be an affirmative defense, if established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's failure was due to economic distress beyond the defendant's control. [2005 c 481 § 2; 1994 c 261 § 9.]

Finding -- Intent -- 1994 c 261: See note following RCW 16.52.011.

RCW 16.68.020

Duty to bury carcass of diseased animal — Dead animal presumed diseased.

Every person owning or having in charge any animal that has died or been killed on account of disease shall immediately bury the carcass thereof to such a depth that no part of the carcass shall be nearer than three feet from the surface of the ground. Any animal found dead shall be presumed to have died from and on account of disease.