Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rescue groups and residents demand formal review after large animal-hoarding incident; county officials say they will examine the matter
Summary
Rescue organizations and community members described severe neglect in an animal-hoarding case and urged the board to require an independent review of animal control's response and evidence handling. Speakers said many animals were emaciated or died and that records and prosecutorial referrals are needed; commissioners acknowledged concerns and asked for oversight steps.
Multiple animal-rescue organizations and volunteers told the Burke County Board of Commissioners on May 18 that a large animal-hoarding case involved prolonged neglect, widespread animal suffering and flawed agency response, and they asked the board to require a formal review.
Representatives from Cotton Branch Refuge Project and other rescue groups described hundreds of animals associated with the property, serious medical conditions among the animals and extensive rescue and veterinary costs. "This is not a minor animal welfare issue...This is prolonged suffering," Evan Costner of Blue Ridge Liberation said in public comment. Joshua Carpenter, a director with Cotton Branch Refuge Project, said volunteers documented conditions and urged the county to provide the complete animal-control case file to prosecuting authorities and to review potential conflicts of interest.
Several rescuers provided firsthand accounts. Andrea Cermele of Animal Haven of Asheville said teams found animals "living in their own filth" and documented severe wounds, parasite infestations and animal deaths. Volunteers described barn and house conditions where piglets and other animals were living amid feces and debris and said some animals did not survive despite emergency care.
Speakers asked the county to (1) produce records showing when animal control was first contacted and what investigations followed, (2) explain why charges have not been filed in the matter where rescues say evidence supports prosecution, and (3) review animal control procedures and evidence handling for compliance with state law. Some speakers also requested exploration of potential conflicts of interest involving agency staff and the incident.
Family members of the subject asked the board to consider the subject's mental-health status and to avoid public shaming while advocates stressed accountability and legal follow-through. Commissioners acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the emotional testimony; they did not take a legal action at the meeting but were asked to direct staff to review records and report back with findings and potential next steps.
What the record shows: Rescue organizations said they spent tens of thousands of dollars and logged hundreds of volunteer hours to remove and care for animals. Public speakers asked the county to ensure transparency, provide the animal-control case file to prosecutors if statutory violations are present, and to confirm whether agency procedures for evidence, reporting and referrals were followed in this case.
