Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Welfare Miranda topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Humboldt County to revoke permit for Miranda’s animal rescue after allegations of mass killings and long‑running noncompliance
Summary
Multiple speakers told the planning commission that Miranda’s rescue operated for years in breach of its conditional use permit and that animals taken there later were found shot and dumped; callers urged permit revocation and referral to the Board of Supervisors.
Several residents used the planning commission’s public‑comment period to urge staff and elected commissioners to pursue revocation of a conditional use permit for a local animal rescue operation, alleging long‑running noncompliance and violent treatment of animals.
At the podium, resident Kent “Red” Swatsky (who also uses the name Red Sutherland) said the county’s conditional‑use review process had failed in multiple cases and warned that allowing continued noncompliance sends the message that “Don’t bother getting a permit.”
Jamara Knight, a 30‑year resident, said the county had given “special treatment” to Miranda’s rescue and accused local authorities of protecting friends: “Money and privilege talk in this community,” she said, and asked the commission to deny the permit and close the rescue so animals could be safely transferred. She repeated a call for immediate enforcement or referral to the Board of Supervisors.
Other speakers gave specific, graphic allegations. Kim Sheeran, the founder of a regional rescue nonprofit, said she had heard credible reports that rescue animals taken to Miranda’s were later shot and that adoption photos had been forged. She reported that the operator had admitted in a warrant response to taking hundreds of animals and alleged that many were euthanized by shooting. “He takes money for these animals and would just shoot them in the head and kill them,” Sheeran said in an emotional comment.
Jennifer Raymond, who said she examined county records, told commissioners she had reviewed applications and could not find evidence that an on‑site sewage disposal system described in the original permit application had ever been built or inspected. She said kennel structures claimed in the applicant’s file did not exist and described unsanitary conditions at property boundaries, which she called a “significant health hazard.”
Several speakers asked the commission to refer the matter to the Board of Supervisors for possible permit revocation under county code (jurisdiction and code sections were cited during testimony). Others asked staff to explain why, if the county had received complaints for years, enforcement actions (fines or revocation) had not followed.
Planning director Ford told the commission during later agenda items that code enforcement had engaged with Miranda’s property, the county had sent a letter documenting out‑of‑compliance conditions and had offered a compliance agreement with deadlines; the director said the county would pursue suspension or revocation if the operator failed to meet the terms of that agreement.
The commission did not take immediate action on the non‑agenda comments. Several speakers asked the commission to add the topic to a future meeting or to refer it to the Board of Supervisors so the broader body could consider revocation.
What’s next: The transcript record documents community requests that county staff pursue enforcement and that the item be elevated to the Board of Supervisors for possible revocation; staff said it had issued a compliance letter and was monitoring compliance deadlines.
