To the Editor:

In regard to Mackinac County's Prosecuting Attorney Fred Feleppa's response letter (The St. Ignace News, May 22) concerning the animal abuse case, he is apparently under the assumption it is all right to let other people pay for the care of Larry Rooney's animals. Mr. Rooney was unable, unwilling, or just didn't provide proper care, like food, water, shelter, and medical. All are required under the law for him to do so. No one who cares about living things ever thought or believed these poor animals would have been returned to their abuser for more punishment. The appeal sent to animal lovers was to assure their foster and medical care would be provided until their placement in a new home was possible, and not to get them, literally, on their feet again to be returned to Mr. Rooney. Since the two lawyers were in agreement to return as many animals as they did, it was also their responsibility to see that Mr. Rooney paid for the animals' care and medical expenses while under the jurisdiction of the county. If he was unable to afford this cost, then he was also unable to afford their continued care.

I sent the letter to the generous people who gave the money (some said they really didn't have it to give, but their love for these animals was more important than their own needs) to help this county save these animals from further abuse. I explained in this letter many of the animals were going to be returned, and if this is not how they expected their money to be used, they were entitled to a refund. Mr. Feleppa was not the one who took their phone calls or read their letters expressing their reasons for sending money. It was not blackmail against Mr. Feleppa, but assuring the county was not committing fraud. We did not return the money to punish the county or the prosecutor, but to be honest with the people who gave the money. We know they gave this money and it wasn't to help Mr. Rooney get these animals back.

Mr. Feleppa made his decision to negate the importance of this animal abuse case well before the animals' rights people got involved. These were "just animals" and according to his response, he still feels this way. Michigan just updated and made stricter animal abuse/cruelty laws effective April of 2008 mainly because of the seriousness and more occurrences of animal hoarders. Allowing Mr. Rooney seven dogs and 17 birds was probably a mistake this county will revisit again at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Feleppa states he learned a lot from this case, but will keep them in perspective with the other demands of his office. Too many experts have drawn the direct connection between child, spouse, and animal abuse to ignore the animal abuse cases. The family pet is being included on the restraining orders in many states, because the abuse of pets is used to threaten or punish the human victim. If he cares so much about the children, then he will give animal abuse cases their proper respect.

If the prosecuting attorney's office expects this county's animal control officer to be effective in upholding the laws this state and county has set forth to provide animals the right to have proper food, water, shelter, and medical care, then the prosecuting office had better find the time to prosecute the offenders breaking these laws. In the long run, he may just save a child from further abuse. Jo Ford Moran