Sunday, June 22, 2008

Correspondence Received by Mayor James F. Valley From Animal Lovers -- WARNING ADULT CONTENT

Below is a sampling of the messages that I have been delivered by many of you and some others who were anonymous. This is a sampling of the messages; not a complete listing.
Soon, I will be issuing a press release related to the animal control issue in Helena-West Helena, Arkansas. Many of you did not and do not have all of the facts. More importantly, many of you were not constructive in your approach to the situation. As Americans, we are better people than this. We can reach for the higher ground and do so in a way that is conducive to progress.
Forget about any of my personal traits. Don't consider my age, sex, height, weight, marital status, race, educational background or anything else about me. Gauge for yourself, whether you believe that fellow citizens should be treated this way. I think not.
Granted, I could have handled the animal situation differently; no doubt. Would different have been either right or satisfactory? That, we will never know because different died when the decision was made. Will I handle the situation the same way again? NEVER!
However, my approach HAS NOT been tempered by these communications. Actually these communications have hindered the purpose and goals of the Humane Society of the United States by taking the low road. Constructive criticism is a good thing. Name calling gets nothing positive accomplished.
Here are the comments that I am sharing with you:
When I heard this story I knew the mayor was a black man before I was able to see his pic. The reason is who else
would make such a no brain decision ……….
This guy needs to go. And this mayor is a lawyer!!! Obviously a case of affirmitive action at its worst as this
brainless idiot was passed through school to meet quotas.


J.F.Valley -
I couldn't force myself to address you as 'Mr.Mayor'.
Because you are a disgrace to your office, your country, and your race.
Many people, I am sure, will pray for you. Mostly, I hope, that you develop even just a bit of common sense,
compassion, and responsibility.
You really didn't have any alternative to ' solving ' the problem? You didn't exhaust all other possibilities? Your
'solution' shows you to be unworthy of any position of authority.
I leave you in disgust and contempt,
Gerald Martin
HAVE A FUCKEN HEART YOU BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Forrest City's Animal Shelter":
I recently read of your "decision" to release approximately 10 DOMESTIC dogs into the nearby national forest. You
clearly either had NO understanding of the responsibility that your city government took on when Animal Control
officers took those dogs into their care or you simply didn't care about that responsibility! I am an animal
control officer in a small community in Wyoming. We house dogs and cats that arrive at our Shelter either by
surrender from their owner or by Officer impoundment. Either way, once our city takes these animals into our care
they are the property and responsibility of the city. Your actions in this circumstance are truly abominable (that
should be your word of the day). Why don't you look it up! A real man, a real civil servant, a real professional, a
real administrator, a real human being would have seen that if there was no budget or facility to house those
animals properly they would have been either transported to a nearby community where they could be housed or they
would have been humanely euthanized. You have shown yourself and those complicit in this act to be lacking in the
very basic quality of responsibility and humanity. I am not a bleeding heart "save the animals" type. Euthanasia is
a fine alternative to endless housing of animals. If the reports of bites to Officers during handling of these
animals are true then it is likely that some, if not all of these animals, posed a danger to staff which has now
been unleashed upon the community at large. Any public servant, from police officer to mayor, should stand by the
oath to "do no harm" through their actions. I SERIOUSLY question whether you can say that you, Mayor, have done no
harm in this circumstance.
I hope that you and any staff involved in this egregious act are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and I
further hope that you and the aforementioned staff are immediately removed from public office. You are clearly not
cut out to bear the burden of responsibility if your first choice when faced with a difficult situation is to just
"make the situation someone else's problem". You are truly gutless. You should be ashamed of your actions.
Posted by Anonymous to Mayor Valley's Journal at June 13, 2008 11:25 PM
Berner_girl has left a new comment on your post "Forrest City's Animal Shelter":
Dear Mayor Valley,
Unlike other dog lovers, I am not out for blood regarding the decision to release 10 domestic dogs into St. Francis
National Park. However, I do wish to make it clear that I find that decision to be a serious error of judgment.
Releasing domestic dogs into a national park was neither good for the dogs, nor for the community. Though many
people believe dogs to be descended from wolves, this does not make them their equals or equivalents. The brain of
a dog is smaller and in some ways, functionally different from that of a wolf. A dog is not equipped to live,
uncared for, in the wild, especially if it was not feral in the first place.
I presume that St. Francis National Park is not a fenced property teeming with park rangers who will care
diligently for the animals. Even if it was, I doubt that it would effectively contain them. The dogs will likely
gravitate toward humans who, until the time of their release, were the source of all important resources like food
and social environment. They will scavenge through dumpsters. They will meet with traffic and highways. They will
become nuisances in the community. Dog bites will ensue. People will either deal with them by contacting animal
authorities to find an appropriate shelter or rescue or they will shoot or poison them. They may spread disease, if
they live long enough to contract or carry them. 10 dogs is not cause to predict a local crisis, but is it any less
of a potential threat if one child's face is seriously damaged by a hungry, cornered dog? (According to animal
behaviorist Jean Donaldson in her book The Culture Clash, dog bites are the most common cause for facial
disfigurement in children.) I'm sure that child's parents wouldn't think so.
As a member of the dog-loving community, I am familiar with – and wish to point out to you – some of the other
options that were present to house the dogs. If I am not mistaken, the dogs were set loose because the town shelter
was ill-equipped to handle them while the new, county-wide shelter project was underway. Lack of funds was a
contributing factor and proverbially washing the town's hands of the animals was a way to put the funds to better
use within the community, correct. Here are some other ways this could have been solved with the animals' welfare
at heart:
• The dogs could have been fostered by volunteers in the community until they were adopted. This is a system
utilized by other shelters in the case of animals that are sick or otherwise unfit to be housed in the shelter
• If the shelter lacked the funds to pay for the dogs' expenses while they were fostered, they could have been
surrendered to another shelter or rescue. Rescue organizations operated by groups of individuals who foster animals
until they can find homes for them are prolific in my area of Oregon, though I am admittedly unfamiliar with the
Helena-West Helena locale.
• If the shelter was in an area where overcrowding and lack of demand was a problem, transports for the dogs could
easily have been coordinated via the Internet. This is a method that is gaining in popularity to move dogs in areas
with high euthanasia rates or low demand for adoption to other shelters, rescues, or new homes. Volunteers along
the specified route donate their time, money, and gas to drive the dogs for one or more "legs" of the trip.
As I said, I am not out for blood and I seek to keep this comment in as respectful a tone as possible. I know you
are probably flooded with snarling e-mails from angered, well-meaning dog owners, as many in the dog-loving
community are enraged by this decision. My hope is that, if possible, the dogs may be recollected and dealt with in
a manner as suggested above, and that this decision will be appropriately learned from. I hope that no leader, in
times where other solutions are available, will find this to be an acceptable solution to housing homeless animals.
God's blessings,
Elizabeth Beadle
Posted by Berner_girl to Mayor Valley's Journal at June 14, 2008 1:43 AM
mairwin has left a new comment on your post "Forrest City's Animal Shelter":
Dear Mayor Valley,
I was appalled to read of your decision to release the animals that were being housed in your local animal shelter
into the wild. This was not a sound decision from any viewpoint.
As a pediatric nurse who has had to treat numerous children with dog bites, I can tell you that this was a poor
choice, not only for the dogs but also for your community.
I am also a former resident of Houston, TX, and we had a big problem stray dogs in our neighborhood. I would like
to know how much research you did, both from a legal and a community impact standpoint, before you made this
I am not a resident of your community but I have family who are, and I will be sure to let them know who is
responsible for the increase in the numbers of feral animals they will surely be seeing.
That would be a GREAT "word of the day" for you: feral.
Mary Ann Irwin
Posted by mairwin to Mayor Valley's Journal at June 14, 2008 12:48 PM
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Forrest City's Animal Shelter":
Good job hero. What you did is absolutely against the law. Hope you are ready to pay the consequences.
5-62-101. Cruelty to animals
(a) A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if, except as authorized by law, he knowingly:
(1) Abandons any animal;
(2) Subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment; (3) Subjects any animal in his custody to cruel neglect; or
(4) Kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner.
(b) Cruelty to animals is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c)(1) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, the court may order any person found guilty of cruelty
to animals to receive a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and if determined appropriate, psychiatric or
psychological counseling or treatment.
(2) The cost of any evaluation, counseling or treatment may be ordered paid by the defendant up to the
jurisdictional limit of the court
(d) If the person pleads guilty, nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of cruelty to animals, the court may assign
custody of the abused animal or animals to a society which is incorporated for the prevention of cruelty to
5-62-110 Definitions.
(a) As used in this act, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) 'Animal' or 'dumb animal' includes every living creature;
(2) 'Torture', 'torment', or 'cruelty' include every act, omission, or neglect whereby unjustifiable physical pain,
suffering, or death is caused or permitted;
(3) 'Owner' and 'person' include corporations as well as individuals.
(b) Nothing in this act shall be construed as prohibiting the shooting of birds or other game for the purpose of
human food.
Posted by Anonymous to Mayor Valley's Journal at June 14, 2008 7:30 AM
Mr. Valley,
I want you to know the eyes of the world are on you and on Arkansas because of the shameful, ignorant, inhumane
action you have taken to "rid" your city of dog overpopulation.  I am absolutely appalled at your decision.  Your
letter, as well as the newslink and video, are being posted on virtually every dog forum, every rescue board, every
animal weblist accessible through the internet.
Have you ever seen a dog that has been abandoned in the forest?  Well I have.  I have worked with them, loved them,
and nurtured them back to health. 
If Arkansas's so-called response to animal overpopulation is to abandon them in a forest, then it is not a place I
would want to visit.  Humane, civilized, caring societies provide spay and neuter programs, educate their citizens,
shut down puppy mills, bring in and enforce animal protection legislation, and as a last resort humanely euthanize
them using lethal injection.  They do not "set them free" so animals that we have domesticated can slowly and
painfully starve to death or die of injuries.
I will be writing letters to the editors of all major newspapers in your State as well as to the primary tourism
services in Arkansas. 
Disgusting, simply disgusting.
Jean Ballard
Mission, British Columbia, Canada.
Bet you would never find your town in the national spot light.
I hope you seek friendly advice from legal council for what anyone can see is that there were some moves that can
be questionable.
You thought you were doing good for the dogs by releasing them to fend for themselves outside your down town area.
But you forgot a few things along the way.
You picked up the strays for they are strays.  They do not have owners.  They are left to fend for themselves.  If
you are unable to care for them, that is what asking other cities to help.
Did you forget about your citizens?  You release the dogs in a National Forest.  There are no fences to make them
stay in the forest.  They are strays.  They move about, and in most part, they have made a pack.  A dangerous pack.
 To roam.
A citizen is put in harms way by your actions.
And you answer the if they get bit it's the stray owner's fault.  Did you remember why they are stray .. they have
no owner.  You were the last one in possession of the animal so if anything does happen, you are the one who will
be guilty.
And don't forget about federal land.  Did you check into the rules and regulations about the use of federal land?
Where was legal council in these decisions?  Where was the council in general of this move?
What may have been a simple answer to a problem you did not know how to handle, or did not want to deal with
period, has become a national look.
Before speaking more, get some council and start to look a little smarter and apologize for moving on an idea you
thought was right, but have seen after the fact as something you should have done differently.
Take in that you are responsible for the dogs for they were in your care, and that any citizen come to harm you
will make good.
The best advise is to get the dogs back and see if another city can care for them that is prepared for them for a
Turn this media around and turn it around to a good.
Good luck to your town.
and your next election.
Paula Collins

You broke Arkansas State Laws dumping those dogs.  You call yourself a trained lawyer?  Who are you kidding?  Those
dogs cannot find food for themselves, they travel in packs, they ARE a danger to humans and domestic animals. 
You know NOTHING about animals obviously.  What you have done is on the internet NATIONALLY.  You have made your
town a laughing stock.  These dogs should have been put humanely to sleep if your shelter could not care for them.
Be aware, that this is not the end of the situation, as those on the internet that NOW know what you have done will
be seeking redress from the proper authorities.
(a)  A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if, except as authorized by law, he or she knowingly:
     (1)  Abandons any animal;
     (2)  Subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment;
     (3)  Subjects any animal in his or her custody to cruel neglect; or
     (4)  Kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner.
(b)  Cruelty to animals is a Class A misdemeanor.
(c)  (1)  In addition to any other penalty provided by law, the court may order any person found guilty of cruelty
to animals to receive a psychiatric or psychological evaluation, and if determined appropriate, psychiatric or
psychological counseling or treatment.
     (2)  The cost of any evaluation, counseling, or treatment may be ordered paid by the defendant up to the
jurisdictional limit of the court.
(d)  If a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to or is found guilty of cruelty to animals, the court may assign
custody of the abused animal to a society which is incorporated for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2918; 1983, No. 285, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2918; Acts 2001,

-----Original Message-----
From: richard short []
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:11 PM
Subject: released animals
Importance: High
Sensitivity: Personal

I would love to know what you told to the mayor when he came to you with the idea of releasing animals into a
forest. Did you not realize that these animals would either starve to death or be eaten by other animals and those
animals think of Peoples pets as a new food source? Another issue with releasing known "bitters" is that if someone
comes into contact with these animals the chance of them being bitten increases greatly with there hunger and fear.
My research of current laws show this is a misdemeanor with up to 1 year in jail and 1000 in fines. As an attorney
and having known the laws, you should be held as responsible if not more for allowing the release of these dogs.
Why did no one find a vet and explain the situation, I am sure they would have rather put the dogs down before
seeing them released into a national forest to try and fend for them selves. I would like to know your feelings and
the information you gave the mayor on this issue before the dogs were released? Also if you plan on doing anything
legally about his decision to both physically and mentally ABUSE those animals her had released?
Dear Mayor Valley.
Your lack of inhumanity and compassion for these dogs has gained your city and the state of Arkansas international
notoriety. It would be far better to humanely euthanize these animals, rather than release them in a National
Forest to be torn apart by predators, or to die a slow lingering death by starvation. It is hard to believe there
is no county, state, federal or private funding to enable you to spend $50,000 for a new shelter. That it the price
of two compact automobiles. It really doesn't seem to be out of reach to me.
Is this stain on your honor going to be the legacy you leave to your children and grandchildren? Please reconsider
you actions, and find proper shelter for these dogs.
Sincerely, Peter Askin, Mayne Island, B.C.  Canada
----- Original Message ----- From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:57 AM
Subject: Yahoo! WebHosting Email

name = Patricia Payne
email =
phone = 4796469189
comments = A friend sent me the article concerning the Mayor of Helena-West Helena releasing dogs into the national
forest instead of seeking ways to find homes for these poor. helpless creatures. I am shocked beyond
belief....horrified is a better word. Why on earth would he do that? There are many rescue groups that could have
taken these dogs instead of abandoning them! PLEASE, don't do that again! Patricia Payne Fort Smith AR
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 1:07 PM
Subject: Yahoo! WebHosting Email

name = Lacey Copple
email =
phone = 618-204-5135
comments = It was Horrible, irresponsible and unethical to release those dogs. Other shelters would have been
willing to take in the dogs. I hope the Mayor is not re-elected after this appalling stunt. City officials and
police should press animal cruelty charges.
Dear Mayor,
When I read the article about you releasing the shelter dogs into the forest, I was absolutely dumbstruck.  How
could leaving them to fend for themselves against predators, facing starvation, and a cruel slow death, be more
humane than euthanizing them?  Are you that heartless?  Families visit the state forest.  You have put them in
danger now because these dogs will no doubt become "hunger-crazed" and may attack.  Not to mention it is illegal to
abandon animals on public property.  I hope people do not think you are above the law and that you will face the
same punishment any citizen in your town would face.  I am amazed at some of the comments you have made concerning
this.  I am not usually this harsh and blunt but what you did was a deliberately inhumane act to say the least.  It
is hard to believe you and your officials can not come up with $50,000 in your budget for a shelter.  Other towns
do it all the time.  Maybe you should look at your budget and cut out a lot of the "stuff" that is not needed. 
Please try to rectify this by going ahead with the plans to build a new shelter.
Thank you,
Teresa Daniels
Releasing unaltered dogs into a National Forest?
Aren't there state laws against abandoning an animal? Those dogs will begin to multiple and it will be a pitiful
thing to see them starve and if people feed them they will fill the forest with stray dogs that will become a
danger to the public.
They would have been much better put to sleep than the fate they and their offspring face now.
Mr. Valley,

       I just saw the story of the dog release on the news. I'm wondering, what were
you thinking? Did you think that no bad publicity would come from this? It
just seems like a rather ill-thought plan. The reason animal shelters are set
up are for dumped and abandoned dogs and cats, and you just turned around and
did the same thing. What you have done is the equivalent to shutting down an
orphanage and releasing the children into the public to fend for themselves
just because you don't want to the responsibility of taking care of them
anymore. Well you are the Mayor and it is your responsibility. If you are
incapable of dealing with these responsibilities, perhaps you shouldn't be
Mayor. Did it not occur to you to contact a nearby SPCA or even another
animal shelter and explain your situation. If you would've put the word out,
I'm sure someone would have responded. I'm extremely disappointed in the
local government, and doubt your ability to function as a competent citizen,
let alone Mayor. I hope that the amount of criticism you receive from this leads you
to rectify the mistakes that you alone have made. I also hope that you have learned
from this mistake. Good day sir.
Kinner Stroud.
Have you lost your ever loving mind?   Or could it be that Good Ol' Arkansas inbreeding?
You released about 10 dogs into the "wild", as you put it and made sure to scare the general public in doing
so..."some were pitbulls".  First and foremost you have a duty to your community and by all accounts I have been
reading have failed at this miserably.  Secondly, how dare you use a public park such as a national forest to do
your dumping?  There are laws that are to be followed as I would presume there is in your community but maybe that
is not the case as I have seen there is no Police Chief on the payroll, so I guess you think you can do as you
wish.  I have sent the article to many organizations nationwide and we will be calling for not only your dismissal
but also that any and all crimes you have committed be not only charged but prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law.  So I hope that you sleep well for the time you have left in your office and in your cooshy life, as a cell is
a bit different environment.  You should be fed and watered and turned loose into the wild with no way to defend
yourself.  If there is truly a God he will not take kindly to your total lack of compassion for one of his
Deborah Houston
Jena, Louisiana
P.S. I will make sure that tonight I give my dogs an extra kiss before they lay in my bed to go to sleep and tell
them if they can pray tonight would be a good time to do so.
Comment from discdogshayne | Email discdogshayne
6/14/08 12:38 PM | Permalink
Delete Comment Block This Screen Name Actions [+]
Let me get your reasoning correct...So you dont want to (or can't) deal with all the stray dogs (right?)... So lets
release all of these un-neutered dogs into the wild and that will solve the stray problem.  I think, Mayor Valley,
that Arkansas' education system has failed to teach you something--dogs procreate... they dont just magically
By setting these animals free you are putting citizens (yes the ones you are supposed to be advocating for) at risk
of an even larger animal problem... MORE dogs that are not vaccinated against diseases like rabies or any number of
intestinal worms (both of which can be transfered from dog to human), who are even less socialized with humans
(making them more aggressive and dangerous) and who are procreating uncontrollably in the forest. 
Here's a math lesson for you:
Lets assume you released 20 animals into the forrest and that there were 10 male and 10 females (one male could
EASILY impregnate all of the females).  Let's say all litters are 6 puppies and are evenly split male and female
(females can get pregnant every 6 months started at 6 months of age).
By the end of the first year and a half this is what it looks like:
20 (Original Dogs)+ 60 (First Litter Puppies)+60 (Second Litter Puppies)+ 180 (Puppies of First Litter Dogs)+ 60
(Third litter puppies)= 340 dogs... assuming some die we can call it 300 dogs. 
IF you go just 6 months longer
300+ 60 (fourth litter puppies) + 180 (second litter of first litter dogs) + 180 (first litter of second litter of
dogs)=720 dogs in 2 years.
you should have closed the shelter after either finding them homes or negotiating with other shelters.#3 Comment
from mooreangela | Email mooreangela
6/13/08 5:18 PM | Permalink
Delete Comment Block This Screen Name Actions [+]
Your god will punish you for murder.#2 Comment from seherezade | Email seherezade
6/13/08 5:12 PM | Permalink
Delete Comment Block This Screen Name Actions [+]
You should be stripped of your public post and thrown in jail.  One can only hope that what you did by abandoning
those dogs comes back to "bite" you tenfold.  It would be small justice for the lives you've helped ruin.#1 Comment
from bishoppudge11 | Email bishoppudge11
6/13/08 12:07 PM | Permalink
Delete Comment Block This Screen Name Actions [+]
Seriously, how did you get elected?
Your recent bonehead (not mention illegal) move to release dogs onto a national forest is being hammered on the AR
Times Blog. 
I for one am glad the AR Times is covering your fiascoes in that poor city you claim to lead.  At least now the
entire state can see how deficient you are in running a city. 
I actually feel sorry for the people of Helena-West Helena.  I understand their desire to elect a young and
motivated visionary to pull them out of the funk they were in.  Its a shame they got what they did with you when
they elected a so-called leader.
Releasing dogs onto a national forest...what were you thinking?
By the way, I don't expect you to leave this posting up long but you might consider trying to defending yourself on
the AR Times Blog. 
Major Valley,
I just read a news article about your new plan to "deal" with the dogs who require care in your local shelters. 
You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.  While it is a sad reality that many shelters do not have the
resources or space to care for unwanted animals and are forced to euthanize, humane euthanasia is a better fate
than what you have subjected these animals to.  Domesticated animals are simply incapable of surviving in the wild.
 You just released pet dogs  to wander in the wild, where they are exposed to diseases, will be hunted by wild
animals, and be unable to find appropriate food and shelter.  Because of your actions these animals will not only
die, they will suffer before they die.  I hope that it isn't a common occurrence for you to make such ill informed
and heartless decisions and hope you will be as haunted by your decision as I am.  Somehow I imagine that you will
forget this long before I do.
Kelly Hendry
UVA Law 2010
Dear Sirs & Madams,
I have to tell you I am absolutely appalled at what your mayor did, dumping those dogs into the St. Francis forest.
First of all, dogs are not wild animals.  They can not survive in the wild.  Only an idiot would think they could. 
Your mayor has to be dumber than dirt.  No one could possible think this was a good idea.
In a blog I read a letter from your mayor stating your animal control officer had been to the hospital 3 times from
bites from some of these dogs.  He seemed to be using this as part of his reason for letting the dogs go. Does
letting loose biting dogs in a National Park Service Recretion Area sound like a good idea? 
It violates the laws of the National Park Service.  It violates the laws of the State of Arkansas.  It is totally
unethical, and cruel.
And, it reflects badly on the entire State of Arkansas.
I strongly advise you to to have a recall of your mayor.  I hope he will be proscuted to the fullest extent of the
law by both the Federal Government and the State of Arkansas.
Melissa Huston, North Little Rock, Arkansas
I am not from your town, I have never even been there, but I wanted to let you know that I support your decision
about the dogs.  I cant believe people are making such a huge deal over it, you would think criminals had been
released!!! I think you did what was in these dogs best interest and actually gave them a fighting chance at life
not sentencing them to death!!!!  The next time someone critizes you, ask them if they wanted to take the dogs home
with them to help. Dont let it bother you stay stong!! You did the right thing!!
Scarlett Finney (Hot Springs)
 "I've learned that you can tell a lot about a person by the way he/she
handles these three things: a rainy day, lost luggage, and tangled Christmas tree
Maya Angelou
It seems that you don't have all the facts. Please understand, the Humane Society had the "animal shelter" shut
down stating that the conditions were too poor. Ok, point taken. However, rather than taking the animals anywhere
themselves, they–the Human Society–placed the animals at the city sanitary department. At the sanitary? Are the
dogs trash? Moreover, the dogs were in four pins in the hot sun! Come on! These "animal lovers" left the dogs in
what I consider "worst conditions" for five (5) months. The sanitation workers, who had no experience caring for
animals, were uncomfortable. After repeated efforts to get help with a bad situation, the mayor did what he thought
was best–let the dogs fend for themselves. Finding better conditions should have been the Humane Society's job!
What kind of "idiot" would do this? I say one who has a heart, one who is on the front line seeing it all happen.
Would you prefer euthanizing them?
The Humane Society has only raised $700 to do anything worth while for the animal shelter and Mayor Valley
mentioned that it will take minimum of $50K to have a decent shelter. It really sounds like the Humane Society
cares (sarcasm meant).
Would you rather die now, to avoid getting cancer later? I suppose dogs don't value life the way we do, they
wouldn't know what they'll be missing.
That man should be dumped into the middle of the national forest with no shoes and made to find his way home.
Fucking psychopath. And he's a Mayor!
At the end of this matter, I, James F. Valley, Mayor of Helena-West Helena, Arkansas, hope that animal control and management is improved around the country.
Stay informed: (Recent Entries on Mayor's Journal)

Honorable James F. Valley
MAYOR - Helena West Helena
P O Box 248
Helena-West Helena, 72342
870-572-3421 Phone
870-572-5034 Fax
870-817-4035 Cell

No comments: