PatriotDev

Never Broken
2023-05-10 05:02:04 (UTC)

My response to Piper’s accusations/as if from a third party not connected with the school

I would like to respond to this, because these are some serious accusations that have been levied against someone in our community and I would like to point out a few things for all who read this to consider. Since the original post, I have thought long and hard about whether to respond, what to say, etc, and I can no longer be silent. First, let me say that I do not know Ms. Foster or Ms. Kraft at all, though I have seen them around town. I know Mrs. Van Veen slightly and have followed her both around town over the years with her dogs and online on her Facebook page. The same goes for Mr. Kip hart. I’ve seen him around town, but I do not know him. Therefore, my comments should be taken as the comments of someone who does not have a dog in the fight, as it were. Still, I feel I must speak out. A bit of background on me. I was a police k9 trainer for 20 years. I have also handled and trained my own assist dogs. I was a contractor for a security company for 6 years and was a dog handler there.

As for Ms. Foster’s assertion that truth is an absolute defence to defamation and that no legal action could be taken, she is wrong. First, since these statements were not given as opinions, but as facts, and since many of them are untrue or unprovable, and since the statements are obviously damaging and the statements made were initiated by Ms. Foster and not by a third party such as someone asking about a business or a person’s experiences with a person, it would be very easy to prove malice in this case. The other thing I’d like to point out before I get in to why I feel these statements are unbelievable is that on Ms. Foster’s various Facebook pages, she claims to be an attorney. She has not passed the state bar exam in Ohio where she is from, or Arizona where she now resides. I know because I checked. One cannot be an attorney if one does not pass the bar exam. It only means they graduated from law school. I find the majority of what Ms. Foster says to be unbelievable for the following reasons:

1. Ms. Foster claims that the fire broke out and she did her best to save all the dogs. No one has denied this. In fact, in all the media accounts, she was given credit for doing so. She claims that two of the dogs, and then a third, the stud dog, charged the sheriff’s deputies aggressively. Now, let’s examine this claim for a moment. Firstly, this was an emergency situation. I was not there of course, so I can only comment based on my experiences as a police k9 trainer and security dog handler. If dogs had charged deputies aggressively, they would have been shot. No ifs ands or buts about it. This situation did not allow for the gentling or calming down of frightened or aggressive dogs. If the dogs had been that aggressive, why are they still alive? No law enforcement officer in his or her right mind, with a fire at their backs, would stand there and wait to see if the dogs truly were aggressive or would attack them. They would shoot first and ask questions later.

2. Ms. Foster claims that the deputies were yelling German commands at the dogs. Most people do not know German dog training commands. Those that do are usually law enforcement dog handlers, military or dog sports enthusiasts. The average police officer is not going to know these commands.

3. Ms. Foster claims that she yelled at the deputies that these were “guide dogs to help blind people”. With dogs loose and a fire raging, I doubt very seriously any kind of long conversation took place.

4. Ms. Foster claims that a dog fight broke out between two of the dogs which was the most vicious fight she’s ever seen. With all due respect, Ms. Foster has not obviously seen many dog fights. Firstly, if the dogs were fighting, why are none of them injured? It is possible for dogs to fight without injury, but these are more posturing sessions than fights and are not serious. When dogs truly fight, they get injured. To my knowledge, none of the dogs were injured or required veterinary care for injuries after the fire.

5. Ms. Foster claims that the stud dog, I don’t know the name of the dog, did not in fact die of smoke inhalation because he wasn’t close to the fire. If the smoke could be breathed in by those miles away on the state highway, then surely the dog was close enough to breathe in the smoke. When fires strike, people are told to evacuate, even if the fire is not endangering their residences or personal safety because of the dangers of inhaling smoke and toxic chemicals.

6. Ms. Foster claims that she kept a kitten under her hat away from a large, I’m assuming German Shepherd Dog, (stud), who kept treating the animal as prey. this is ridiculous because when a dog is in prey drive and wants to kill something, it will. A woman with a hat in the bed of a pickup would not be able to stop the dog from doing so. Ms. Foster also asserts that Mrs. Van Veen has not looked for the cats which she feel survived because she saw fresh cat tracks after the fire. Was Mrs. Van Veen to go search through smoldering rubble to find a cat that has probably died? Because of the news stories, we know that she has been back to the property. If a cat had been seen, I’m sure someone would have heard so by now. It’s also interesting that no one else, to my knowledge, had seen these supposed fresh cat tracks.

7. Ms. Foster claims that the pens Mrs. Van Veen kept the dogs in were barren and not shaded. I visited the property once some time ago and saw pens with large cottonwood trees on either side and dog houses inside, so the animals staying in them did have shelter. She claims that eight dogs lived in one pen at a time. This cannot be true based on her own statements that there were eight dogs and 4 puppies on the property. Firstly, no one would put a mother dog with newborn pups in a pen with other dogs of either sex. Most bitches would not permit this at all. Even if the bitch did, there is a chance the puppies could be trodden upon and killed.

8. Ms. Foster asserts that there were mice racing around the young pups. In the first few weeks of life for puppies, the mother dog does not leave them except for relieving herself and she does this as close to the puppies as possible. I find it very unlikely that a bitch, especially a German Shepherd who are not usually known for timidity, would allow mice to run around the puppies and not do anything about it. I cannot speak to the presence of rodents in the home, but if they were in that pen, there would have been a lot of dead mice in the dustbin because the bitch would have made short work of them. Even if they had been eaten, remains would still have been found.

9. Ms. Foster claims that Mrs. Van Veen did not care for the property as a caretaker. She asserts that Mrs. Van Veen refused to make repairs on the property. Mrs. Van Veen did not own the property and neither did Mr. Boucher who also lived there. It is a matter of public record that the property was bought by a consortium, so without their permission, repairs could not be undertaken. I do not know about the condition of the roof, but I have it on good authority that an insurance claim was filed but that Mr. Boucher and Mrs. Van Veen were not given any financial means to fix the roof or other items needing tending to on the property.

10. Ms. Foster claims that her guide dog repeatedly pulled her into traffic and that the training with her dog was “a joke”. In my current occupation as a delivery driver, I drive all around Sierra Vista, Hereford and surrounding areas, and I see a lot. What I saw does not support this at all. In person accounts and videos on Mrs. Van Veen’s Facebook page show a dog eager to work and responsive to his handler in the case of Ms. Foster’s guide dog. What I did observe, on multiple occasions, was a woman with a guide dog who had so much vision, that she would often pull the dog to different places or items when she wanted to look at them instead of letting the dog guide her. I don’t know much about guide dog training, but I know enough to recognise that this is not proper, as it would erode the dog’s ability to guide with confidence. The dog must be in charge once the harness handle is picked up. If the person starts dictating where the dog goes by “driving” the dog, the dog would learn that he really didn’t have to take his job seriously after all. Ms. Foster claims that Mrs. Van Veen did not do anything but watch them and occasionally correct her when she misspoke a command. This was not supported by either videos or my eyewitness accounts.

11. Ms. Foster claims that Mr. Kiphart hit, punched and strangled dogs. One must ask themselves the following questions. Firstly, would dogs, if they were horribly mistreated in that manner, run to that same person, Mr. Kiphart, during a fire when they needed rescue? I highly doubt it. In a fire or flood, dogs will often run away, especially if mistreated, and many times they will not even go with their owners due to fear. The fact that five of Mrs. Van Veen’s dogs ran to Mr. Kiphart’s vehicle shows the love and trust they have for Mr. Kiphart. Ms. Foster claims that Mr. Kiphart has a leather strap and that he used it on the dogs and claimed “they know when I’m serious”. I do not know the age of Mr. Kiphart, but I do know that he is not a young man, and, before the misguided shift to positive only dog training, (never saying no, applying consequences for behaviour, etc), the leather strap, a rolled up towel or newspaper, was often used. Most people did not strike the dogs at all. Think of this tool as a sound and sight reminder of what the dog is supposed to be doing. For example, when one uses a longe whip with a horse, they do not strike the horse with it. They crack the whip, use it to indicate direction or speed, etc. the whip might touch a horse, but they would not be hit or struck. One must also ask oneself how a man, who was supposedly so abusive to dogs, could have a successful dog sitting business, have worked successfully for a recognised rescue group and been the employee of a company that trained guard dogs. I know Mr. Kiphart has done all of these things and continues to operate his business of dog sitting with many repeat customers. I know this because I did some asking around about him when I saw him with his Collie assist dog. Would a dog go to someone who beat or strangled it? They might, but they would not go tail waving, head high and grinning goofily at him. If a dog was unhappy in Mr. Kiphart’s care, the owner of that dog would be able to tell. Why would people continually bring their pets back to Mr. Kiphart if they could see their dogs were relieved they had come back? Why would a pet owner take their dog back to a place that made them, the dog, so unhappy? They wouldn’t.

12. Ms. Foster asserts that Mrs. Van Veen has been working daily to court locals, the media and her social media followers. I cannot speak to Mrs. Van Veen’s activities, but what I can speak to with certainty is that Mrs. Van Veen did not contact any of the news media outlets that did stories on the fire. These people contacted her. I can state this with certainty as I know persons who work in that industry who would be happy to state this fact. Ms. Foster seems unhappy with the fact that Mrs. Van Veen is soliciting donations to try and reopen her school. Whether it is a registered business or not, Mrs. Van Veen has been doing this at least since the early 90’s. Her dogs have been in books and magazines, and in news stories both print and televised. I do not think that Mrs. Van Veen’s dogs would have been featured in these stories if she was not a legitimate dog trainer. Furthermore, this seems to be a passion of Mrs. Van Veen’s. Helping the blind and disabled. If Ms. Foster cannot see why Mrs. Van Veen would want to continue doing so, the problem lies not with Mrs. Van Veen but with Ms. Foster. I would also like to point out, that nowhere on this site or on Facebook, has Mrs. Van Veen “actively” worked against Mr. Boucher. She has stated her opinion that people should be aware that Mr. Boucher has other assets he could sell if he chose, but that people are free to donate to him, if they wish. This is not working against someone, but stating an opinion. Hopefully, there are enough intelligent people reading this, to see that for what it is, and to see Ms. Foster’s accusations as a vindictive smear campaign.

13. Ms. Foster asserts that she brought all her belongings with her when coming to Arizona. It is certainly possible that she had items shipped, but one is only allowed to take on an airplane, 2 checked bags and one carry on and one personal item. Surely one could not fit all their worldly possessions in two bags and one carry on, especially if one was able to pay, in full or in part, for a $10000 dog. What I mean is, that even if payments were extremely low, say $300 a month, Ms. Foster would, since she was not, I’m assuming, homeless, it would follow that she would have more possessions than just those able to fit on an airplane. One would assume, since Ms. Foster cannot drive, that she had to either have someone drive her or take some sort of public transport, plane, train or bus, all of which have baggage restrictions and requirements. I do believe Ms. Foster lost possession in the fire, but stating that it was everything she owned? It’s possible, but I’m not convinced it’s true.

14. Ms. Foster acts as though Mrs. Van Veen and Ms. Kraft are obtaining donations and I believe this to be true. I believe that Mrs. Van Veen and Ms. Kraft possess lots of donated items, but when I was helping to gather items, I was able to obtain a partial list of items needed by the school and personal items were not on that list. Some personal items were donated but I was assured by those who donated these items that they were for Mrs. Van Veen and Ms. Foster but that anything they could not use or did not fit, could be given away.

15. Ms Foster started a fundraiser for the school. This is true, but since the school is run by Mrs. Van Veen, is it not reasonable to assume that she would maintain control of the donated funds so they could be used appropriately? One must also ask oneself why, if Ms. Foster had such concerns about Mrs. Van Veen, her dogs and methods, would she agree to, or take it upon herself to, start a fundraiser. Would you raise funds for someone you had major issues with? I don’t think most people would.

16. If Ms. Foster was so concerned about the care of the older dogs and puppies, why didn’t she report her concerns to animal control? Why didn’t she call authorities? If things were that bad, and if she care for animals as she claims, wouldn’t the sensible thing be to call someone in to look at the situation and assure her, Ms. Foster, of the welfare of all the animals? I do know that since the fire, Mrs. Van Veen has been in touch with not only animal control but also various rescue groups. No one has reported that the dogs are in poor health, etc.

17. Ms. Foster implied that Mrs. Van Veen was over charging for her dogs. It costs between $30000 and $75000 to train a guide/assist dog and team through to task readiness with the most expensive school being The Seeing Eye who says that it costs $75000 to train such a team. Here’s an article that will explain it more:
https://puppyintraining.com/how-much-does-a-guide-dog-cost/

Since an assist dog costs between $15000 for self trained and as much as $60000 for private or school trained, I would say Mrs. Van Veen is undercharging for her dogs. I would venture to guess this is because it is not about the money, but about helping people be more independent, though I cannot say for certain as I have not asked Mrs. Van Veen. Yes, it is true many can get an assist dog, particularly a guide dog, for little to no cost, but not everyone is able to go to a well established program placing 100-300 teams a year for various reasons. This might be because they have other disabilities, need more intensive private training, cannot commit to that much time away from home, do not like the methods or breeds used by the programs, etc. When you consider the costs of feeding, caring for, enriching and placing a assist/guide dog team, plus gas, food, extra veterinary costs due to emergencies, etc,finding people to help with the dogs, etc, and only charging $10000, Mrs. Van Veen is hardly making a profit. Ms. Foster asserts that Mrs. Van Veen calls her business a “a hobby” to avoid paying taxes. I have some news for Ms. Foster…. The IRS does not care if something is a full time Joe or a hobby. If it earns income, it must be taxed.

18. If Ms. Foster asserts that her guide dog was such a horrible guide dog, and the training was so bad, why , then, did she leave a glowing review on the Facebook page of Mrs. Van Veen? This review as erased and a different one written from another account on April 20th. The first review was written at the beginning of March. One must wonder…. One also must wonder, if she is so heart broken over not receiving her guide dog, why this is true if he was so horribly trained. Why would a person want a dog from a situation like that to use as a guide dog at all? One would, if one had common sense, run, not walk, the other way as fast and as far as they could instead of agreeing to be partnered with a guide dog that, according to Ms. Foster, should not be guiding at all.

19. One also should ask themselves this question…. Why did Ms. Foster collect thousands of dollars on a Go Fund Me to purchase her guide dog and then tell people she was going to make monthly payments and/or make harnesses in exchange for payment, as harnesses are expensive And then not pay Mrs. Van Veen any of that money that was being raised to purchase her dog? Was the money returned to the donors? If not, this is fraud. One also should wonder why Ms. Foster has at least 4 Go Fund Me sites and four or five Facebook accounts. If a person must constantly change their accounts, they are up to something shady. I could buy having a problem with Facebook, losing a password and not having the email address, etc, once, but not four or five times. In my opinion, people should investigate claims before jumping in and making accusations. And in case anyone is curious how I found out about these accounts, I looked. Anyone who has passed 8th grade computer science should be able to find out what I did.

20. I have also seen Ms. Foster accuse Mr. Kiphart of criminal activities against her. This is a serious accusation. If it were true, why weren’t the authorities called in? Why didn’t she let Mrs. Van Veen know that these supposed incidents took place? I would almost find this funny if not for the fact that these accusations are getting wilder and wilder by the minute. People, wake up and see what’s in front of your eyes. This person, who claims to live in Hereford on one page and Bisbee on another and doesn’t live in either, and has created her account on here for only a week, is obviously here with malicious intent. And before anyone says that my account is new, yes, it is. I am not hiding that fact. I saw this post on a friend’s phone and felt I needed to create an account to speak my mind, after thinking about it since the original post.

I am sure, even though I can not speak for them, that Mrs. Van Veen, Ms. Kraft and Mr. Kiphart would be happy to let anyone examine the dogs and also to provide an accounting of exactly what was done with donations, particularly financial ones. How can I say this? It’s simple. When you have nothing to hide, you’re not afraid to let people know it. As I said before, Mrs. Van Veen and Mr. Kiphart have been in contact with animal control and rescue groups regarding the dogs, their situation and care, and no action has been taken.

I would also like to point out that asking someone to sign a non disclosure agreement is not blackmail, “buying” silence, or extortion. I think Ms. Foster should go back to law school. NDAs are used all the time in business and personal situations.

I feel Ms. Foster’s issues, if they really exist at all, should have been brought up to the appropriate authorities. It is up to them to determine if a person is abusing/mistreating animals. One must also ask oneself why someone would leave a review stating how wonderful the dog was when all these problems, had they existed, were there from the beginning. For what ever reason, Ms. Foster is angry and that’s fine, but her accusations are beyond believable and I just felt the need to state that in this forum. I also find that I must point out, that it is very disturbing for me when people are willing to take the word of someone who I’m guessing, misrepresented their vision or lack thereof to obtain a dog, and misrepresented their status as an officer of the court over the word of someone who has just been trying to help people and has others who are willing to speak up for her even when they don’t know her well, if at all.




Ad: