Community Action Now
Employee fired after charges of animal abuse
Sheriff says group not honest about dog's initial condition
By TERESA RESSEL
Daily Journal Staff Writer
Thursday, May 29, 2008
POTOSI — Washington County Sheriff Kevin Schroeder has terminated the employee who has been charged with animal abuse, but is criticizing the Midwest Bloodhound Rescue for not being completely honest about the situation.

In a press release issued Wednesday afternoon, Schroeder said the bloodhound, Mosley, was adopted with the intention of training him for search and rescue operations.

He said shortly after the adoption, Mosley developed two quarter-sized spots on his back where he was losing hair. He said Lt. Charles LaLumondiere, who was to be Mosley’s handler, took the dog to the vet clinic where he received treatment for “possible allergies.”

“The hair began to return and he was doing fine,” Schroeder said.

In November, the dog was handed over to the department’s detention officer, Lance Mason, who Schroeder said is a certified trainer. The dog was to begin obedience training.

“In January, D.O. Mason reported that Mosley was losing hair, and dropping body weight,” the sheriff wrote in a press release. “D.O. Mason was instructed to take Mosley to Lawson Veterinary Clinic again and get Mosley treated.

“The prognosis of the Veterinarian was that Mosley had Demodexil mange. DVM Alicia Toler further advised that this condition had been with Mosley since birth. She stated that if the disease is treated within the first year of life that it can be cured, however if it is not, the disease will be reoccurring the rest of the dog’s life. It can be treated, but never cured.”

Schroeder said they reviewed the adoption agreement with Midwest Bloodhound Rescue and learned the dog had been treated for mange before the adoption.

“However this information was down-played and did not come to light until after Mosley had been adopted by the Sheriff’s Office,” he said.

He said communication began with the group in an attempt to come to an agreement about the dog since his condition was going to hinder his ability to be used for police purposes.

“After contacting the rescue group, they advised that our Veterinarian was wrong and that we should get another opinion as to Mosley’s condition,” he said. “The end result was that the rescue group agreed to take Mosley back.”

He said shortly after Mosley was given back, he learned the extent of the dog’s condition from the group’s Web site and began investigating.

“I was appalled at Mosley’s condition, and would have never believed that his condition would have been allowed to deteriorate to such a degree before being advised,” he said. “I read the statement of the volunteer that transported Mosley as to the living conditions that Mosley was in and it (threw) a red flag.”

The volunteer reported that Mosley had been kept in a 4 by 4 pen with a dirt floor and was found with no bedding, food, food pan, or water.

The sheriff found that hard to believe. He said it was later learned the volunteer was not honest in those statements.

“The volunteer was interviewed as part of the investigation and her statements were found to be totally false,” Schroeder said. “When interviewed she stated that it was dark when she picked Mosley up and she could not see what the conditions of his kennel were in.

“She had no explanation as to why she reported the false information.”

Schroeder said he did decide to terminate Mason in light of the charges that were filed Tuesday. Mason was charged by Special Prosecuting Attorney Wendy Wexler Horn with two counts of misdemeanor animal abuse.

“D.O. Mason was a good employee,” he said. “I would have never thought this would happen”

He said this ordeal has affected the lives of good people. “There have been slanderous remarks about Charles LaLumondiere, the Sheriff’s Office, the County Commission, and me,” he said. “It even went as far as entering the political arena, as two of my opponents in the upcoming election sought to use this story to discredit me in their bid for election to the office of sheriff.”

He said now the truth is known and the healing process can begin.

“I will personally be in contact with the Midwest Bloodhound Rescue group, Missouri Police Working Dog Association and PETA as to the facts and findings in this investigation,” he said.

The Midwest Bloodhound Rescue group has said that the dog did have a small outbreak of mange before the adoption, but it had been treated and the dog had fully recovered.

Sandi Singer, director, is upset LaLumondiere hasn’t been held responsible because he signed the adoption agreement, agreeing he was responsible for the dog’s proper vet care.

In the adoption application, LaLumondiere reportedly stated he would keep the dog in the office or in a barn during the day and inside the house at night.

The signed contract requires the adoptive family to provide prompt and timely vaccinations and proper veterinary care, and proper nutrition. It states that the dog shouldn’t be tied up and a fenced enclosure with adequate shelter from the elements.

Teresa Ressel is a reporter for the Daily Journal and can be reached at 573-431-2010, ext. 179 or at tressel@dailyjournalonline.com.
Published: Thursday, May 29, 2008.
Updated: Friday, June 13, 2008 2:09 PM CDT
Reader Comments Reader Comments (22)
The comments below are from readers and do not represent the views of the Daily Journal
upset mom posted on Thursday, June 12th, 2008 at 7:52 am
I am an animal lover. I would love to make sure that whoever is responsible for Mosley's condition to have to withstand the same conditions. However, I have a major problem with the thinking of this country. I read an article in the Journal about a man endangering a child, placing his hands on this child, getting supervised probation and anger management classes for his actions. No comments about the actions of this man. No comments about the type of punishment. No comments at all!!!
Triple D posted on Wednesday, June 4th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
That's what I thought voter, you haven't read the report so you can't say for certain the Sheriff's version is 100% accurate. It's one thing to have an opinion of what you hope or believe the truth might be, we all have our opinions, it's another thing all together to say you know for a fact something is true without having first hand knowledge.
Maynard posted on Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
keepin it real-LOL No I am not from New York City.I am a local yocal just like yourself but I do consider myself a slight bit cultured.I make it out of our illustrious Lead Belt to get some of that big city culture as much as possible.As for the "demographically incorrect" comment I was somewhat slamming the people that make fun of Potosi when they only live 20 miles away.I also was making that comment because
anybody that would mistreat an animal is some Stereotypical Redneck.
Triple D posted on Monday, June 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Voter...have you read a copy of the report? If not how do you know the story is fact? Your comments conflict with the press release. It doesn't say Mason didn't follow the vets orders or didn't give him his meds. It also didn't say Mason didn't tell him of the condition.
Voter posted on Saturday, May 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am
Re: Triple D
First of all, I know for a fact that what the sheriff stated is true. Go ask for the transcripts of the investigators questions to this woman from Bloodhound Rescue. I am sure you can get a copy of them. And, the reason the sheriff fired this man is simply because Mosley was definitely neglected and the handler was at fault for that. In any bosses eyes when a person neglects the duties assigned to him to the point that this animal was not given the meds the vet gave him and lied about Mosleys condition when asked, that is grounds for firing. Was he in a place with a dirt floor ..no. Was he without straw and proper bedding..no. Did he have water and food, yes. But, did this handler alert everyone as to Mosleys deteriorating condition...NO. Did he do what the vet said to do ..NO. The sheriff had no recourse but to fire him and justifiably so. The sheriff waited until the investigation was complete and did what he had to do.
keepin it real posted on Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Hey Maynard, what's your problem with country folk? Are you from New York City. I've read a few of your comments, and they leave no doubt, that you think the good citizens of Potosi are incompassionate, inhumane and just plain d--- stupid. You going out on a limb and being demographically incorrect, and your mockery of their vocabulary, SHAME ON YOU, but your name is MAYNARD, so that speaks volumes. People round here love thier pets, too bad the Sheriffs Dept.can't seem to check on one of their own, and I do mean Mosley. NO WAY was Mosley that ill from a previous case of mange that had been cured.Did you see the poor animal. What a Disgrace...
Mens Rea Actus Reaus Whoopity Doo posted on Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Either the sheriff is guilty through a "law of parties" argument (look more legal knowledge), much like a pimp (sorry officer I didn't know what she was doing in the room before she gave me the money) or he should resign for being a horrible leader since he apparently had no clue what was going on in his own department. The deputy was the sheriff's agent and represented the department and the sheriff is responsible for the deputy's actions or lack thereof.
To Trenticus posted on Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. Just because an employer may be "responsible" for the actions of an employee - does not rise to the level of CRIMINAL LIABILITY. If, for example, you owned a shop and one of your employees sold drugs out of that shop - you, as the employer, cannot be prosecuted for selling drugs. Sandi Singer isn't a lawyer and doesn't understand criminal law. Look up "actus reus" and "mens rea" for a better understanding of what MUST be found by a prosecutor before charging a person with a crime. Ms. Horn did her job, and did it well - and that is the TRUTH.
Triple D posted on Friday, May 30th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Voter: If his accounts are 100% accurate then why are there charges and why was Mason fired? You saying his story will match the reports doesn't make it so. Have you read them? Do you know his accounts match those of the investigative reports? Or is his account slightly slanted and short of the whole story? I don't know I'm just asking, but I go back to my earlier question...why were there charges, why was he fired?
Voter posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Re:Triple D
At least the sheriff's version can be checked out in the investigators report which should be public knowledge by now and everyone can get a transcript of the interviews made. So, I wouldn't call it "his version". I would call it the most factual statement made to date. Now if the paper runs HIS statement over and over again like it did the statements made that were lies, then I would consider it fair. It is amazing how easy a paper in this county really likes to lean toward ANYONE that likes to talk bad about Washington County and its people and its elected officials before investigations are done or facts are brought into play. Don't forget the men and women in law enforcement in ANY county around here are putting their lives on the line EVERY single day for us. And, it bugs the heck out of me when everyone jumps on the bandwagon and takes the word of ANYONE above the men and women who do this every day for us.
Dog Lover posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
...and once again Kevin Schroeder covers hisself, but lets everyone else take the fall. When is this man going to finally take responsibility for something instead of always passing the buck?
Trenticus posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Dear Ms Horn,

You should reconsider your position within the county of St. Francois and consider joining or applying for something that meets your qualifications. Obviously you choose to prosecute the weak and not the guilty! I have NEVER in my life seen someone in the position you hold to blantanly disregard the TRUTH!
trenticus posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Reinstate Mason or other charges will be filed on behalf of citizens of St. Francois County. This is a blantant case of "PASSING THE BUCK'! Sheriff, You are ultimately Responsible for your Staff! So the hammer should fall on you for not governing your staff! The DOG was a staff member and you ignored the health of your staff member. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE!!!!
bulletinman posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Good point why terminate, sometimes you just have to say ummm! You can't fire stupid
COLUMBIA MO posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
The truth of the conditon of Mosley after his abuse is with the vet testing results as follows and I quote:
"His [Mosley] condition was such that we rushed him to an emergency vet that night,” the Web site states. The dog reportedly suffered from frostbite, malnutrition and dehydration, severe hair loss (mange), ear and eye infections, seborrhea of the skin, cellulitis, and anemia. Unquote. Several of these conditions do not happen overnight but over a much longer range of time. SOMEONE did NOT do the job right and that is what appears to be the facts now, if these test results are accurate. SHAME ON THOSE INVOLVED.
jwh posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
wow i didnt think there would be charges...wow
sosad posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Hey Sheriff! Blah, blah, blah....We saw the photos of the poor dog. The dog was obviously very sick and had lost a tremendous amount of weight. How is that NOT the fault of the department that adopted this animal.

Sir, I think you need to "cowboy up" and quit trying to place blame elsewhere. Accept responsibility for this situation and you will be more respected.
Triple D posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Maynard, I say you're right, the truth is somewhere in the middle. If what the Sheriff is saying was true, there wouldn't have been charges.
Maynard posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Again we get half the story and everybody light's their torches and scream's Animal Abuse.I myself am guilty cause I just assumed it was some backwood's Redneck's that chucked a Dog in a Pen that was sick and needed Vet treatment.
Honestly it is probably embellishment from both sides and somewhere in the middle is the Truth.Considering the Animal Rescue person lied about the condition's and they admit the Dog had a condition beforehand and then you have the Sherriff still Firing the Deputy with the Prosecutor's still charging him pesronally.
Triple D posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
That's very Punny!!!:-) Voter how about now you give the paper credit for reporting the truth (or at least his version)once the Sheriff made it available to them.
Belinda posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Abuse is Abuse and charges should be filed on everyone responsible for this Abuse. Any person that abuses a defenesless animal should be held accountable for thier act of stupidity. I pray everyone responsible for this act will be held responsible. It sure does make me wonder about any accuasations ever made against these people for police brutality, I would say look at the source.
Why terminate posted on Thursday, May 29th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Why terminate the officer if he did nothing wrong? I think the sheriff is dog gone stupid.
Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to leave comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 

Not a member? Register now.
search Search the archives
Last 30 Days

Advanced Search