HomeCat NewscrimeUpdate on the Kristen Lindsey DVM Cat Killing Case


Update on the Kristen Lindsey DVM Cat Killing Case — 22 Comments

  1. I would like to make a comment on the length of this case, having gone through legal stuff myself.
    I think that this is being handled very fast!
    In my case, I was trying to get my long term disability back from my company’s insurer. It took FOUR YEARS, and that was just to see a judge about a potential hearing!
    I settled out of court, because I was so tired of the whole thing.
    So, a little over a year to have something settled in court is nothing, compared to what usually happens.

    • Thanks for sharing Penel. Yes, it has been proceeding reasonably quickly which is welcome. However, this case is very well known across the Western world as it has been well publicised on the Internet both on social media and in online newspapers. It is my belief that this has driven the case along or to put it this way: if there had not been any publicity on social media there would not have been any stories in the newspaper and it is my view that under these circumstances nothing would have happened. It would have been just another cat shot or killed by another person almost invisibly. Thousands upon thousands of cats are killed illegally every year but nothing happens.

  2. According to a March 10 report by KHAU11 News, after spending all of Thursday in a mediation hearing no agreement was reached. An administrative law judge is expected to issue an order for the case to be heard at a later date.

    While this may sound like bad news, the extra time will allow further investigation into Lindsey’s actions, including false statements and misrepresentations made by Lindsey when she was investigated after the killing. Lindsey stated under oath that she believed Tiger was rabid and that she was out hunting when she killed him. She later said she wasn’t hunting and that Tiger wasn’t rabid.

    Lindsey further mocked the TVBME by ignoring their request to produce a body, stating the remains were decomposed and unavailable. She later admitted she didn’t search for Tiger’s remains. The board also asked for names and statements for all witnesses to the case. Lindsey provided names but no statements.


  3. I find this article to be somewhat misleading, and several comments are innaccurate. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but opinions should be stated as such, and not presented as facts. Factually speaking, the TBVME took immediate action on the Lindsey case, voted for the strongest possible penalty (license revocation) and has subsequently pursued the matter with diligence and commitment.

    Tiger supporters everywhere agreee that Lindsey’s license should be revoked. SO DOES THE TBVME, yet they are bound to follow procedural rules and regulations. This process takes time. The TBVME can not simply snap its fingers and suspend or revoke a vet’s license without due process. Lindsey has the legal right to appeal the board’s decision. When a judge suggested mediation, the board needed to comply. To do otherwise would jeopardaize the integrity of the case. The TBVME has to play by the rules in order to achieve the outcome they and we want: permanent revocation of Lindsey’s veterinary license. My opinion is that we would do better to reserve our anger and mistrust for Lindsey, rather than denigrate the agency that is working to revoke her license.

    • Why is the article somewhat misleading, Betsy? It is factual as far as I am concerned except for a bit of speculation on the mediation (and why not) and suggesting, based on facts, that the intervention was down to media pressure. I don’t believe it is true to say that the TBVME took immediate action voluntarily as you imply. There was a lot of online campaigning going on. I would doubt that they would have taken action but for the high profile and organised campaigning which was picked up by the online news media putting pressure on the TBVME.

      • Hello, Michael. I’ll gladly elaborate. The article is in error on several points of fact.
        First, the board has not yet revoked Lindsey’s license; they VOTED to revoke following last August’s Informal Conference, and issued an Agreed Order to Lindsey. Lindsey appealed the board’s Order and proposed sanctions (license revocation) and appealed the case. As you may know, Lindsey still has an active veterinary license, which she recently renewed. She is legally allowed to do this while the case is still open.

        Secondly, the article states that the vet board requested postponement of the hearing due to Lindsey’s “rabies defense.” This is incorrect. As stated in the board’s Motion for Continuance filed with SOAH, the board’s attorney needs more time to investigate details revealed in Lindsey’s February 9, 2016 deposition. These details relate to Respondent’s prospective witness Karen Chapman, and also to Dr. Bruce Buenger’s possible involvement in the case. . . not to Lindsey’s “rabies defense.”

        I also reject suggestions that the TBVME took action slowly or reluctantly, because the facts demonstrate otherwise. This highly publicized case ultimately resulted in over 700 formal complaints being filed with the vet board, but the board did not wait that long to take action. I am a complainant in the Lindsey case, and was the 25th person to file a formal complaint, on April 18, 2015. The board promptly sent me a reply indicating that an investigation was open. This letter is dated April 20, 2015, only FIVE DAYS after Lindsey killed Tiger.
        The board also issued and mailed me a case timeline on April 20, 2015, which culminated in a hearing set at SOAH within 18 months of the onset of investigation. The SOAH hearing is now tentatively set for late April, which is well within that timeline, and much faster than it might have been, considering the complexities of this case. I have remained in frequent contact with several TBVME staff members throughout this case, and I assure you they have conducted themselves with alacrity and integrity from the beginning. The TBVME has received a great deal of undeserved criticism, and I’m sad to see it occurring here on PoC.

        • by chromeI would have thought that “voting to revoke” is next to the same thing as revoking. And I did say that in effect she is appealing the decision which is the same word that you have used. If she is appealing the order then that of itself must mean that the order carries weight. It must mean that the order has a meaning and that meaning is that they decided to revoke the licence.

          I have not said that she does not have an active veterinary licence. To be honest, I think that you are being rather pedantic in differentiating between voting to revoke and revoking. It is a very fine difference and one that is hardly worth discussing in my opinion.

          I feel that I’m allowed to express my opinion in saying that the Board would not have taken action but for the high-profile nature of this case which started on Facebook through the campaigning public and which ended up in the online news media. This put pressure on the Board. In addition to the numerous complaints. But for those complaints from the public I would very much doubt whether the Board would have taken action. They would not have taken action entirely voluntarily off their own back without encouragement from the public.

          As for the “rabies defence” this information comes from Alley Cat Allies via chron.com (as far as I am aware) as stated in the article. They are a reliable source of information as far as I am concerned. I can do no better than report on reliable sources.

          • The difference between “voting to revoke” and “revoking” is that Kristen Lindsey still has an active license to practice veterinary medicine. That seems worth discussing to me.

            Alley Cat Allies is an admirable organization, but the best of us can make errors in reporting. There’s a great deal of misinformation circulating about the Lindsey case. The most reliable source information is the SOAH documents themselves, but I realize we may not all have time for thorough fact checking.

            While I regret my failure to demonstrate the vet board’s admirable conduct to your satisfaction, you’re certainly entitled to an opinion, and this is your page. I’ll retire from the field. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment, and for your continued interest in the Lindsey case.

    • Contrary to what you claim, her license has not been revoked. The Board VOTED to revoke it, but Lindsey and her attorney chose to not accept that as punishment,and have caused this case to be long and drawn out. There was an SOAH hearing the last week in April where the case was presented again. The judges who heard the case are not expected to rule on it until the fall or later. There is nothing wrong with the TBVME-they are following legal protocol. Please give accurate updates on the case,so you don’t mislead readers. Thanks.

  4. Thank goodness that you continue to update us so we can pass this info along to people who care. This story must continue to be out in the open so it won’t be forgotten by sweeping it under the rug.


  5. What is WRONG with the Texas Board of Veterinary Medicine Examiners? I agree totally that her facebook page ALONE was sufficient to permanently take away her license! Veterinarians take an oath to “do no harm”. Nobody’s pet or farm animal should be allowed to be touched by her ever again. There are serious consequences for such outrageous acts of cruelty.

    • We agree with you Jo wholeheartedly. The trouble is that “establishment” protect their own and to get them to make one of their own an outcast is very hard. I guess it has only got this far because of the pressure by the public, online, on social media. But for that her killing of Tiger would have been brushed over and be history by now.

  6. You are correct-
    A rose is a rose &
    Watered down vinegar ….
    is still p___ & vinegar.
    sorry but……………
    I would never trust this woman with any of my beloved pets.

    Too sad that her parents didn’t teach her about compassion. I understand that it typically takes 12 years to earn a veterinary license.
    note: this time frame may not apply in every case?

    Eva says-

  7. The Texas Board could have revoked her license based on the Facebook post alone as conduct unbecoming a veterinarian. They should have done so immediately or at least suspended her license pending an investigation. They did nothing until the media got hold of the story and hundreds sent formal complaints. She is still licensed.
    While I am very glad mediation failed, exactly why should there even be mediation? They should have revoked immediately and she would have had to sue to try to get it back. She also would probably would have been charged criminally.
    Bottom line for me is I don’t trust the Texas Board to do the right thing because they haven’t from the beginning. Whatever happens now , they will say it was a SOAH decision. She killed Tiger on her off duty time, not in her job as a veterinarian. Kristen Lindsey hunts. So do a LOT of veterinarians in Texas and the Board doesn’t want that can of worms opened by being responsible for her license revocation.

    • I agree with you, Sally. The establishment always protect their own. Public pressure forced them to act. I am hopeful that her license will be revoked but there is definitely a possibility that she’ll be let off in some way because they protect their own as stated.

  8. Not only should somebody like that have their licence revoked, but they should spend at least 5 years in prison.
    The unfortunate lack of prosecution for people like lindsey is the reason why people like her feel free to abuse animals.
    If I had it my way, I would sentence people like that to death.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>