Did Alla McGeary’s vet say Stella was healthy under Dr. Danoff’s care?

[Elaine]

Did Alla McGeary’s own vet say that Stella was healthy while under Dr. Danoff’s care?

Reportedly Alla’s defense for stealing Stella was the assessment that Stella was not well cared for by Dr. Danoff, specifically the Kim was not providing sufficient nutrition for Stella and that the situation was so egregious it warranted committing a felony by stealing and then hiding Stella.

Yesterday, I heard for the first time, that Alla McGeary took Stella to her own vet shortly after she first “stole” Stella. Reportedly, Alla's own vet told Alla that Stella was in good condition and weight and that her shiny coat reflected months of good nutrition (a reflection of Kim Danoff's care). Purportedly Alla was upset that her own vet would not back her up that Stella was too thin and otherwise unhealthy.

I believe that DAR&E included a letter from Alla McGeary’s vet about the good health and condition of Stella in their response to the DPCA... and the DPCA Board ignored Alla’s vet’s letter.

If it is true that Alla’s own vet agreed that Dr. Danoff was taking good care of Stella, then there was absolutely NO justification ever for stealing and hiding Stella!!! How could the DPCA Board have ever come to any other conclusion?

[Athy]

This is accurate. When Alla initially took in Stella as a foster, there was no report of poor health, emaciation, etc. After the DAR&E board voted to approve Kim's adoption request, Alla announced on February 9, 2008, that she was not going to return Stella (in spite of her earlier agreement to meet with a DAR&E board member to return Stella to Kim - I don't know who or what changed her mind.) On February 12, 2008 (three days after her public announcement), Alla took Stella to her local veterinarian for a "check up".

According to the written report provided by that veterinarian to DAR&E and Dr Danoff (a scanned copy of which was provided to the DPCA board and Rescue Committee), Stella was "bright and alert and in good flesh. Her body weight was normal for her stature and she was free of intestinal parasites. I also found her coat to be in good condition." In a verbal discussion, the veterinarian commented that Stella was in very good condition and that the quality of her coat could not have resulted from months of deprivation or neglect - she was just too shiny and healthy.

The veterinarian would not support Alla's contention that Stella was starved, mistreated, neglected, et cetera. The letter from the veterinarian was provided to the DPCA.

Not only did DAR&E provide that particular veterinarian's signed letter, we also provided the DPCA with a signed letter from the surgical veterinarian who performed the obstruction surgery that McGeary and Getter claim was abusive. In that case, he absolutely recommended surgery for Stella based on several x-rays that were taken. He performed the surgery and as you all know, no obstruction was found. Because no obstruction was found, Dr Danoff is somehow a negligent owner according to McGeary.

Does that make sense to anyone who owns and loves an animal? Dr Danoff is publicly castigated for following her own veterinarian's recommendation to have surgery rather than wait and see if the blockage might worsen overnight. Getter and McGeary apparently believe that Dr Danoff should have taken a gamble on Stella's life and just "hoped" that it was just gas rather than follow the advice of a surgical veterinarian and x-rays. What world are these characters living in?

I'm not convinced that the rescue committee read either letter. I know they didn't bother to speak to either vet or to the trainer and behaviorist who provided written documentation.

I hope everyone is getting a flavor of what motivated many of the DAR&E board's decisions. We have the fevered rantings of Wanda Minnick, John Getter and Alla McGeary as opposed to written, logical and factual documentation from professional and certified animal caregivers. And the DPCA board and Rescue Committee believe that we didn't follow our own procedures because we took the professional opinions over the opinions of volunteers who were behaving extremely erratically.

Athy Conigliaro