Is This a Fair Evaluation?

Reminder: This blog is now living at yesbiscuit.wordpress.com

***

How would you expect a dog who looked like this to score in a shelter evaluation? To find out how this dog actually scored and what will happen to her as a result, click here.

Every shelter dog deserves a fair evaluation.

Slap on Wrist for AC Officer Who Pleaded Guilty to Killing Dogs

Hoosick, New York: [Note: one click only for free, after that subscription required]

As animal control officer, [Matthew] Beck should have taken loose or stray dogs that he picked up to a local animal shelter. Instead, Beck killed the dogs, disposed of their remains and then forged state documents and filed false reports to cover up.

And to be specific, he picked up dogs, shot them & tossed their bleeding bodies in a manure pile on his farm.

The good news: He was charged by authorities for his crimes and pleaded guilty. The bad news: Apparently he wasn't cruel enough to warrant any felony charges so he's getting off with two weekends in jail for misdemeanor offenses. So we're straight, I want to clarify that this man was paid to pick up loose dogs and take them to the shelter so they could be reunited with their owners or adopted by new owners if they had none. He was their only chance at life. Instead of doing his job, he shot these pets to death and tossed them in a shitpile. They never had a chance. I think I could have argued for the felony charges.

He ended up getting caught because one of the owners whose dogs he picked up complained to authorities:

The investigation of Beck began after Hoosick resident April Stevens accused him of stealing her dogs, two four-year old Golden Retriever-Rottweiller mixes, Abby and Ginger. Her dogs were never found.

[...]

Stevens said that Beck had told her he had picked up two dogs after a woman reported finding them but that they were of a different breed than hers and that he had returned them to their owner. The woman said that she had found the dogs in her barn where they had apparently sought shelter but that they had no collars or identification. She called the police who in turn called Beck. He picked up the dogs.

Beck’s story fell apart when the woman who had found the dogs saw a flyer with the dog’s pictures that Stevens was circulating in her efforts to find her dogs.

As part of their ongoing investigation, State Police executed a search warrant at Beck’s Eagle Bridge property and found the remains of dogs.

I'm sure Mr. Beck thinks it's totally stupid that he has to give up two weekends for shooting the pets he was paid to protect. Sadly, Ms. Stevens has to give up every weekend - and every weekday - with April and Ginger, who themselves had to give up everything.

To the Animal Control Officer Who Said No - Thank You

The ironically named Animal Protection and Safety Shelter in Houston, Alaska had 4 dogs and 4 cats in need of homes, until this week:

Some of the four dogs and four cats had been unclaimed at the facility since November, and the city wasn't prepared to keep them forever, said department head Sgt. Charlie Seidl, who shot them.
"We stretched out as long as we could," Seidl said. [...] "And like I said, we can't hang on to them indefinitely."

Right. You stretched it out as long as you could, maybe you should get a medal.

No one at the Houston city offices seemed prepared to take credit for directing the action. Several involved parties, including Seidl, said Mayor Roger Purcell ordered the animals put down.
[...]
The chain of events recounted by [Evelyn] Rohr [a shelter volunteer] also included an order from the mayor to police to kill the animals after an officer at the shelter -- who could not be reached for comment Tuesday -- refused to do it.

Amidst the horror of this betrayal and brutal killing of helpless shelter pets, I want to say one thing that might otherwise be overlooked. Someone whose job it was to care for the shelter's residents was told to shoot them all. That person said no. He or she might be at risk for losing his or her job over this, I don't know. But I know it's easy to flap our gums and type our blogs about how we would all do the right thing if faced with similar circumstances. It's not so easy to actually stand up and do that thing. In this economy. In a small town. In a remote state. But this person did it. Whoever you are, I say thank you.

Breaking Down the Petsmart Survey

USA Today has a piece on the survey commissioned by Petsmart which asked 3000 adults questions about spay-neuter and shelter kill numbers. The article dives in head first on "pet overpopulation" which is unfortunate since there is no such thing. The longer we perpetuate that myth, the further we are away from having a real societal discussion on the inherent value of pets' lives.

The piece also focuses on how the public grossly underestimates how many pets are killed in shelters every year. I don't see this as significant because even though the numbers guessed by many respondents were significantly lower than the commonly reported estimates, they were still huge numbers - one hundred thousand, one million, etc. The public knows that many shelters are needlessly killing pets in this country, they just don't know the estimated numbers.

The important takeaways from the survey results to my mind are:

• Roughly 7% of dog owners and 10% of cat owners reported unplanned litters: This is not a shocking response in my view. The survey did not delve into such things as whether the pups/kittens from these litters were placed responsibly with screened homes and lifetime return guarantees but then again, we know that not all planned breedings result in responsible placements so there ya go.
• 24% obtained their pet from a rescue group or shelter: This is good! Granted this is a small scale survey in comparison to the entire pet owning country but if we could see 24% adoption rate in every community, we'd be in like flynn.
• 31% didn't neuter their pet because of cost: The article mentions that there are many options for low cost neuter surgery. Apparently there aren't enough. Or if there are, why doesn't the general public know about them? The other important consideration which the piece doesn't mention is no cost neuter. There are some people who, out of the goodness of their hearts, will share what little food and warmth they have with a stray pet but can't afford to neuter that pet at any price. We need volunteers and subsidized programs in order to offer no cost neuter to that segment of the pet owning population. Now.

FL Kill Shelter Receives Needed Aid, Says Meh

Pasco Co Animal Services in FL kills approximately 60% of the dogs and 85% of the cats in their care. Now a group of area Veterinarians is trying to reduce the kill numbers by providing shelter management software, supplies and volunteering to perform surgeries and hold off-site adoption events. In addition, the group intends to apply for a $20,000 grant for TNR efforts. The county, instead of expressing gratitude, seems suspicious at best:

Assistant County Administrator Michele Baker said she needed more information about the tracking software to determine how it would benefit the department and to ensure there isn't a duplication of services.

"It's going to require close coordination to be effective," she said.

Baker expressed some reservations about the grant proposal, saying she wanted to make sure the department wouldn't be required to provide matching funds.

"We are open to any suggestion that could help us reduce the feral cat population," she said. "If there's no match required, then yay."

Read as: If they're really willing to do all the work for us and we don't have to lift a finger, then uh - yay, I guess.

The Vets are also encouraging the county to participate in the next Pet Adoption Expo at the FL State Fairgrounds where hundreds of homeless pets find new owners. The reason the shelter hasn't participated previously? "[T]hey can't send a staff member for the day." The Vet group will probably round up volunteers to work the booth, which the shelter could have and should have done on its own. But apparently they just keep their noses to the killing grindstone and can't really be bothered with much else.

Hell, Alaska

Warning: If you click the below link to read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News, you will see a photo of a dead dog.

We need animal shelters to care for our communities' lost and homeless pets until they can be reunited with their owners or adopted to new ones. The city of Dillingham, Alaska runs an animal shelter and apparently employs an animal control officer to care for the dogs. In early December, a city employee noticed the snow surrounding the windowless warehouse which serves as the dog pound was pristine - seemingly no one had been to the pound in some time. The employee got the police chief and drove to the shelter to check on the dogs.

Inside, they found the heat had been turned off. There was a 50 pound bag of kibble but no water. Trash and feces covered the floor and every single dog in the city's care - six at the time - was dead:

"I've never seen animals desecrated quite to this extent," said Jim Hagee, a Chugiak veterinarian who frequently practices in Dillingham. "The cannibalism is really what got to me."
[...]

Decomposed dog carcasses were in cages or curled on the plywood floor.

A black husky found inside a plastic bag was likely one of the first to go, Hagee told police in his report. A 14-week-old Rottweiler puppy wearing a pink camouflage collar was one of the last.

Hagee estimates the dogs were left to fend for themselves for four to six weeks.

As for the AC officer who was paid to care for the dogs:

City officials say the dogs had been in the care of Community Service Officer Travis Barnett. He has been suspended without pay.
[...]

Police wrote that Barnett admitted to "abandoning his duty to care for or humanely euthanize two dogs in his care," according to a Dillingham police report provided to Hagee.

Barnett said a third dog was left dead at the shelter and he didn't know where the other three came from, according to the report.

He didn't know where three of the dogs came from. Well let's see, maybe they heard your hellhole of a shelter was such a happenin' joint, they flew in from Hawaii to check the place out. Maybe they were left by aliens. Jesus Tap Dancing Christ.

The city opened its shelter in 2005. Prior to that, strays were kept at a local pet boarding business owned by Deanna Hardin:

[S]ince word of the dead dogs surfaced in a radio report in December, some people are reluctant to report strays to the city, Hardin said.

Yeah, I'd guess so.

Ms. Hardin is seeking a contract with the city to resume caring for the community's strays since the current "shelter" has been closed.

Whatever the outcome of the city's investigation and future shelter arrangements, it's too late for a Rottweiler puppy wearing a pink camo collar and 5 other dogs.

Garland Animal Shelter Gives Up Gas Chamber

Garland, Texas has an animal "shelter" that kills a lot of pets. Sometimes they admit pets directly into the gas chamber which is the killing method they prefer, since it saves 4 pennies per dead pet. There has been a struggle between the shelter and community to get rid of the gas chamber. The community has now gotten its wish and a local newspaper columnist is less than enthused:

Starting Friday, lethal injection will replace carbon-monoxide gas as the city's primary method of euthanasia.
But what a lousy victory. Because either way, almost 6,000 dogs and cats, puppies and kittens will still end up dead and in the city's garbage dump this year.

Right. That sucks. And while we can be happy that the gas chamber will no longer be used as the primary killing method, what we need to focus on now is how to decrease the killing. At least with the gas chamber issue resolved, we don't have to be continually sidetracked with the tired old arguments about how the AVMA hearts gas chambers.

Contrary to misimpressions you may have gotten, Garland has always been using a euthanasia method fully endorsed and approved as humane by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Oh geez.

In fact, as I talked to Garland city officials about this situation, they seemed eager for me to actually witness the gas-euthanasia process. And so I did.

Mention of carbon-monoxide euthanasia creates images of a crude hose-and-tailpipe contraption. In fact, the city uses a commercially built system – a stainless-steel box about five feet on each side, attached to industrial-type bottles of CO.

Oh well I didn't realize it was a commercially made gas chamber. That sounds lovely. Does it sparkle?

Animals are placed in separate cages (up to four at a time) and rolled into the box. I watched as a single animal – a 55-pound pit bull – was rolled in.

A glass door makes the whole process highly visible. And it doesn't take long.

The dog sat docilely, looking back at me looking at him. The gas quietly hissed. And in about a minute, the dog suddenly wobbled, his eyes lost focus and he toppled over.

It was sad, quick work. And I wished that this dog's lousy owner could have been forced to watch.

Since the column notes that the dog was picked up for roaming and was well fed and wearing a harness, how can you be so sure the owner is "lousy"? True, the owner did not reclaim the dog but then, this shelter does have a history of gassing pets within minutes of admission. I don't know how long this dog was held but in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary, I'm not ready to label anybody "lousy". Maybe the owner is in the hospital or maybe he doesn't know where to look for his dog. Maybe he is avoiding looking at the shelter because he knows it only as a place that kills 6000 pets a year.

The column's author watched this dog die and wished that the owner could have seen it. You know what I wish? I wish the dog could have been adopted out by the shelter, relocated to a shelter in another area where he could have been adopted or released to a rescue group. I wish he could have been lovingly cared for by those charged with sheltering the community's lost and homeless pets until a permanent situation could be found for him. I wish that he was, you know, not dead.

We've got to find a way to wake up irresponsible pet owners. Sentencing them to a day of death-chamber duty might be a start.

Blaming the public for the killing that goes on at the local shelter has never helped anyone. Yes there are irresponsible pet owners just as there are irresponsible Mothers, drivers and gun owners. They are part of our society but the ones who are willfully irresponsible are, I believe, a small minority. With education, public outreach and access to community services, many "irresponsible owners" will do the right thing by their pets. They just need a hand up. Less judgment, more understanding.

We are a humane society of people who care about pets. Join us.

No Kill Action Alert for MN Residents

From my inbox, sent by the Animal Ark Online Community:

Following a report that the Animal Humane Society is violating Minnesota law by failing to hold all stray animals for the required 5 day period, Minnesota residents are being asked to contact members of their city councils to demand they enforce the law.

The Animal Humane Society contracts with nearly 2 dozen cities in and around the Twin Cities metro area (complete list is here). Furthermore, the Animal Humane Society accepts stray animals from private citizens whether or not they are the designated impound center.

Documented cases of have shown that Animal Humane Society will kill stray animals, without scanning them for microchips, without listing them in their lost & found system, and without providing possible owners any opportunity reclaim their pets. In one documented case, a heathy stray kitten was killed within 5 minutes of arrival at the Animal Humane Society in Golden Valley.

In another case, the guardian of a group of cats arrived within hours of them being brought to the Animal Humane Society shelter in Woodbury. But the cats were already dead.

Residents are urged to contact the members of their city council and demand that they enforce the law. Additionally, everyone is asked to share this story with other residents in MN.

So long as Animal Humane Society continues to violate state, none of our pets are safe.

Vet Laments Loss of "Rational Euthanasia Policy" after Shelter Embraces No Kill

The Porter Co Animal Shelter in IN has made a number of changes over the past 18 months in an effort to implement a no kill policy:

While the effort has already resulted in a noticeable decrease in the number of cats at the shelter, she [the shelter director] predicted the problem will really start coming under control within the next five years.
[...]

Veterinarian Mary Ann Sheller, who was replaced on the shelter board as part of last year's change in operations, disagreed with the rosy assessment, saying she continues to hear about animals being turned away or dumped because the shelter is full.

"In essence, what they have done is exchange a rational euthanasia policy for a warehouse policy," Sheller said.

Too bad, so sad. The community tossed you off the shelter board and did away with your pet killing ways. Now all you have to fall back on is the tired old "warehousing" (pdf) argument. *dabs tear*

Blue Light Special on Shelter Pets

In OH, infamous dog killer Tom Skeldon has resigned as Lucas Co dog warden. A PETA representative wrote a Letter to the Editor at the Toledo Blade praising Skeldon's killing:

No one wants to end the need for euthanasia more than the brave people who hold the syringe, but pushing dogs out the door like clearance merchandise or releasing vulnerable breeds into a world that holds only suffering and death for so many of them isn't the way to do that.

If we overlook the fact that PETA is among the "bravest" of us, killing tens of thousands of pets without even trying to adopt them out, we might focus on the thinly veiled slam on poor people. Yes poor people (and others) love clearance merchandise. It means getting a bargain, a good deal on some desired product. What's wrong with that?

In fact, would it be so awful to get dogs off the killing table and "out the door" by marketing them as "clearance merchandise"? As long as homes are adequately (and not overly) screened, I certainly don't have a problem with it. Everyone loves a good deal and many people are willing to buy last year's model, as it were, or slightly irregular products if it means added value overall.

Maybe some people consider shelter pets to be clearance rack type pets as opposed to new-in-the-box, bright and shiny puppies and kittens. So what? The fact is that retail stores manage to attract a good number of shoppers to their clearance racks and move merchandise. Isn't that what we're trying to do for shelter pets - attract buyers with the prospect of a good deal and get pets into homes?

Once again, PETA has it all wrong in my opinion. Pushing dogs out the shelter doors and into homes is the goal. Of course potential owners must be screened and no one wants to guilt anyone into taking a pet they're not prepared to accept responsibility for or a pet who would be a mismatch for the owner's lifestyle. But aside from the screening process, "pushing dogs out the door" is exactly what we want to do for shelter pets. If it takes a clever marketing ploy such as a blue light special to help achieve that, I say go for it. Obviously PETA chooses the blue needle special for the unfortunate pets who fall into their hands. But they are fast becoming dinosaurs in the world of homeless pets. We are a no kill nation of people who care about pets. Join us.

Two Pieces from 'USA Today' on Oreo

USA Today has an interview with Dr. Stephen Zawistowski, a behaviorist with the ASPCA who worked with Oreo. He is asked about the opposition to releasing her to a sanctuary instead of killing her:

"Unless she was put in virtually complete isolation," she'd live a "life of constant stress," he said. She was so reactive to so many things that she was almost always agitated. "We tried to desensitize her, and that tended to make her more reactive. The kind of love, attention and handling that has worked with so many other dogs made her more hostile," he said. Drugging her might have lowered her aggression, but if drugs succeeded, "you have to be certain someone would always maintain and monitor this treatment for the next 12 to 14 years … and there can be organ damage over time." And finally, complete isolation from all people and animals is "not a quality of life we can accept."

In another piece, USA Today heads down the well worn path of rationalizing killing while pepetuating the myth of pet overpopulation:

In shelters across the country Friday, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dogs met Oreo's fate for the same reason she did: They were too violent — because people made them that way. At least Oreo got the benefit of months of efforts to try to make her capable of living peacefully in this world; most of the rest did not because most shelters haven't the time, resources or expertise to work with such animals.
[...]
[A]lso on Friday, thousands of perfectly friendly dogs lost their lives in shelters simply because of the numbers reality: No more animals could be crammed in, but more are always arriving because people get bored with them or don't feel like training them, or let them create litters. So discarded pets must die to make room for more discarded pets.

At some shelters, the kill rate is 90%, and the vast majority aren't too vicious or too sick to save. They're merely victims of overpopulation.

The piece suggests that compassionate people must come to terms with these "truths" even though it may be uncomfortable. The truth is that there is no such thing as pet overpopulation. The truth is that shelter pets do not have to be killed in order to make room for more. The truth is that we are a no kill nation of people who care about pets and know they deserve better.

Facing these truths may be uncomfortable at first for some, but the nature of life is change and evolution of thought. Thinking about the value of the lives of shelter pets and changing how we go about saving those lives is one way forward.

Bad Animal Control Ideas, Nebraska Edition

In summary:

The Gothenburg Animal Hospital serves as Gothenburg’s city pound.

Now, because of a new state law that changes how animals are handled at city pounds statewide, it will be more expensive to adopt a dog or cat.

“It will be much more costly,” said Gothenburg Animal Hospital owner and veterinarian Roger Dudley.

Under a Gothenburg City Council proposal driven by state law, all adopted cats and dogs must be spayed or neutered.

A for-profit veterinary clinic can't possibly serve the needs of the city's shelter pets at the level they deserve. Basically, the staff is moonlighting by taking in strays but obviously their top priority will be their business. If they don't keep focused on making a profit, they won't have a business anymore. Shelter pets deserve better.

The Vet is obviously thinking in terms of profit when he talks about the greatly increased fee to adopt neutered shelter pets. The community needs someone who thinks in terms of public service with regard to saving pets and getting them into homes. Why not get the community involved and see if those goals can't be accomplished?

Unfortunately, there are more problems:

Dudley said the city currently pays the Gothenburg Animal Hospital $10 a day for cats and $12 for dogs to board strays only if they are euthanized but not if they are adopted.

Financial incentive to kill is never a good practice when the goal is saving pets.

[T]he city pays for four days of boarding. If the clinic keeps a pet longer for adoption, the business is not reimbursed.

See above.

Since he’s been in the veterinary business, Dudley said he doesn’t think problems with stray dogs have increased but cats have.

“Cat’s [sic] continue to multiply and that’s difficult to shut down,” he said. “There are so many, I don’t know what could be done.”

Is this the person the community wants in charge of caring for stray pets - someone who says he has no ideas on how to handle the local cat population? Perhaps the idea of TNR for feral cats doesn't appeal to him due to the issue of profit. But it would be worth bringing up to the city and recruiting volunteers from the community to help reduce the feral population. And what about low cost neuter services so local pet owners can afford to get their cats neutered? Maybe that falls under the lack-of-financial-incentive category too.

What say you Gothenburg?

What if We All Neutered Our Pets Today?

I no longer believe in the concept of "pet overpopulation" in this country. That myth has been debunked to my satisfaction by Nathan Winograd. But setting that aside, let's say for the sake of discussion that there are - if not a surplus of pets, at least way too many being killed in animal shelters. It's good to have a general agreement on what the problem is when considering possible solutions. So let's consider this guy's idea, which is not his alone, but rather one shared by many people concerned about pets being killed in shelters:

The Executive Director of what is now the Humane Society of Northeast Georgia in Gainesville says he would support a law requiring cat and dog owners to spay and neuter their pets.

As regular readers know, I do not support mandatory spay-neuter laws in any way, shape or form. But again, for discussion purposes, let's give the proposal a whirl.

So we all spay and neuter our pets. Well hold on a sec actually because I could not afford to spay and neuter all of mine at once. And there are most likely many others like me. So will there suddenly be funding for low cost spay-neuter services everywhere they are needed, especially in rural areas of the South for owners like me? That seems hard to believe since, if funding were available, wouldn't we have low cost spay-neuter services available everywhere already? But let's just say that all the needed neuter clinics appear magically throughout the U.S. Further, let's set aside the concerns about vaccinations (mandatory or owner discretion?), individuals with medical concerns (senior pets, anesthesia sensitivity, etc.), transportation (how do I get my pets to and from the clinic?) and any other potential conflicts. We'll just make this happen.

So now we've all got our pets neutered. But wait - is it reasonable to assume that every single pet owner complied? Probably not. People who rely on selling puppies and kittens as a means of income may not be willing to give up their livelihoods and in fact, unscrupulous individuals may see a black market developing for their product. Other owners may be involved with criminal activities involving their dogs and cats (dogfighting, crush videos) and may intend to continue but even if they were willing to abandon their practices, they likely wouldn't want to come forward to have any official records created on their animals.

In my estimation, we'd still have black market entrepreneurs and other criminals with intact dogs and cats. Then there are the strays, reproducing at will all over the country. Stray dogs and cats, lacking in socialization and definitely going without health screening or even basic health care. Litters born under abandoned trailers in the cold and the wet. Those lucky enough to survive spend their lives evading animal control, scrounging for scraps, and reproducing at will.

Back at home, 10 years into the future, all my pets will have died. And so will everyone else's who complied with the MSN law. But we really want to have pets. Veterans and other individuals need service dogs to assist them in day to day life. Farmers need stock dogs. Families need companion animals. Etc. What are we to do?

We can try to trap and domesticate a stray dog or cat. That may or may not work out so well, especially if our needs are for a particular type of pet. And if we successfully catch and tame a stray pet, the animal will need to undergo training for the work we require him to perform. He may or may not be physically and mentally suited for this training. If we get lucky and all goes well, we can hope that he is able to provide several years of service/companionship but of course he'd have to be neutered, leaving us stranded in the same boat eventually.

Alternately, to find a pet of a specific type, with predictable behavior and aptitude, we could seek out a criminal. Because those are the only people with intact pets who would be breeding anymore in this country. Again, that may or may not work out so well and probably isn't worth the risk.

Finally we might have the option of importing a pet from a foreign country. But surely foreign breeders will seize the opportunity to make financial and other demands on U.S. buyers, since the market will bear it. And some breeders will not sell stock to a country where sterilization is mandatory. The average pet owner will most likely be unable to import a pet. Perhaps U.S. shelters will import pets from foreign sources - strays rounded up off the streets or taken from shelters. Will these pets be well cared for in transit and what will the cost be to adopt these precious few available pets? If we look at how American consumers have historically fared when we've relied upon foreign products, we could get a glimpse into how the foreign pet trade might look.

So where are we in 10 years if we pass mandatory neuter laws all over the U.S.? We can have a pet, provided we're skilled in trapping and taming strays, willing to buy from a criminal and hope we don't get caught, or wealthy enough to import a pet. These unlikely and undesirable options will not apply to the average pet owner though. The average pet owner will be a thing of the past - not in 1000 years or 100 years but in 10 years.

There is another approach to tackling the problem of killing shelter pets. It makes sense and allows all of us to keep owning pets for as long as we can do it responsibly. No Kill now.

Garland Shelter to Kill More Pets by Injection vs. Gas Chamber

The Garland animal shelter has been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century and its modern methods of killing pets:

Garland’s animal shelter will shift from carbon monoxide gassing to lethal injection as its main means of euthanization by the end of the year according to a memo from City Manager Bill Dollar.

Before we get too excited about this development, let's remember that the shelter is:

• Still killing healthy, adoptable pets
• Changing their killing method after the local paper exposed many unlawful, inhumane killings at the shelter
• Only admitting to one case of killing a pet under the age of 4 months in the gas chamber

Furthermore:

The city continues to reiterate the fact that both methods of euthanization are approved under American Veterinary Medical Association guidelines and State of Texas regulations.

Yeah, why is that AVMA and Texas?

Dollar's memo continues:

“The selection of euthanasia methodology has always been tied to resource allocation,” the memo said. “Departmental management has been, and continues to be, unwilling to operate in a manner that will increase response time to citizen calls for service simply to use a less efficient, but equally humane, method of euthanasia (injection of sodium pentobarbital) more frequently.”

Oh my. This rhetoric is approaching the level of "If we kill pets by injection, the terrorists win". I wonder what this exemplary "response time to citizen calls" is that they value so highly? Heaven forfend a resident would have to wait an extra minute to complain about his neighbor's barking dog just because the shelter can't gas as many pets as it would like. Get with it Garland city officials. We're watching.

Montgomery Co Shelter Closing - Good News

You may have received e-mails or seen postings on Facebook, Twitter, etc yesterday about a shelter in Montgomery Co closing and killing any unadopted animals left after their final business day. The confusion appeared to stem from which Montgomery Co this was - New Jersey? Pennsylvania? The correct answer is Texas. And there is a good outcome according to the Texas shelter's website - all the pets were adopted. So that's that.

Thank you to my friend John Sibley for sorting this out.

TX Newspaper Exposes Killings at Garland Animal Shelter

The Abe Tuggle Animal Shelter in Garland Texas gasses pets. Although the community has raised objections to this method of killing, city officials in charge of the shelter say that no changes will be made. The Dallas Morning News (DMN) is investigating pet killings at the shelter:

The Garland animal shelter has been gassing young, sick or elderly cats and dogs in violation of state law, probably causing them a slower, more stressful death, records obtained by The Dallas Morning News show.

The shelter also may have violated city rules on how long animals must be kept before being euthanized. According to the records, some animals were killed within minutes of arriving at the shelter.

Mayor Ronald Jones, who received details of the newspaper's findings on Thursday, said the city would investigate.

[...]

Using carbon monoxide on such animals is a Class B misdemeanor, punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a $2,000 fine for each charge.

DMN has obtained partial shelter records and has made a request for complete records from the past 3 years.

On June 1, 2007, five kittens were brought to Garland's Abe Tuggle Animal Shelter and Adoption Center at 9:31 p.m. Shelter records show they were gassed between 9:32 p.m. and 9:43 p.m.

For emphasis, I'd like to reiterate the above. Five kittens were gassed within 1 - 12 minutes of arrival at the shelter. By even the most heartless of "standards", 1 - 12 minutes is insufficient time to evaluate incoming shelter pets. A Garland city official tried to defend the practice of admitting shelter pets directly to the gas chamber by stating that a Vet might determine the animals had communicable disease. Indeed shelter records do indicate these kittens were listed as "sick". How anyone could determine the health status of 5 kittens within seconds is beyond my comprehension but there you have it.

But the state code prohibits gassing young or sick animals because the time it takes them to die "may be significantly increased."

"In animals with decreased respiratory function, carbon monoxide levels rise slowly, making it more likely that these animals will experience elevated levels of stress," the code also says.

So if gassing young or sick animals is prohibited, I assume that gassing young and sick animals is decidedly illegal. But the Deputy Director of the city's Health Department Jason Chessher reminds us there are pennies at stake here:

Garland shelter officials say that using carbon monoxide is easier on workers and more efficient because four animals can be gassed at one time. Chessher also said using gas costs about 4 cents less per animal than lethal injection.

In addition to pennies, education is also a priority for Garland:

Shelley Stonecipher, a veterinarian with the Texas Department of State Health Services, which oversees shelter inspections, said the state focuses on education rather than enforcement.

So at this monumental savings of 4 pennies for each pet gassed, the presumably tiny hourly salary for the most efficient Vet in the history of the world, and an emphasis on education, I can guess Garland is primed and well able to sponsor a visit from someone like Nathan Winograd to help them get their heads out of their asses ducks in a row. Or perhaps we'll just wait and see what the DMN digs up next.

Garland Shelter Pets Draw Short Straw

The Garland Animal Shelter in Texas has some problems:

Two thirds of the animals in a shelter in Garland are being put down. However, it isn't the number, but the way in which those animals are being euthanized that spurred over a dozen to speak out at a Garland City Council meeting Tuesday night.

Problem Number One: They are killing approximately 67% of the pets they are supposed to be helping.
Problem Number Two: Nobody cares about that.
Problem Number Three: The shelter gasses pets to death with the support of city officials:

Garland health officials say carbon monoxide and lethal injection by Sodium Pentothal are equally humane.

Problem Number Four: Garland health officials are lying when they say killing by injection and killing by carbon monoxide poisoning are "equally humane". If you want to see the horrors of pets being gassed to death, you can check You Tube (one of those vids here). I can't watch.

Problem Number Five: The city's attitude seems to be: Killing so many shelter pets by injection might be more stressful for the employees than just tossing them in the gas chamber to die.

Amid criticism for the city's method of euthanizing animals, Garland officials said Wednesday that they're not making any changes and that gassing cats and dogs at the animal shelter is less stressful on its employees than lethal injection.
[...]
"We put our employees first."

So basically, what I'm getting from this is that, although the community is upset over the method of killing at the local shelter, Garland officials have a clear message: Suffer and die, pets. Sux being you.

Checking Up on TLAC

Another Day in the Death at Town Lake Animal Center in Austin:

7-1-09:

Adoption: 16
DOA: 27
*slams on brakes*
Twenty-seven dead on arrival? Listed are 14 cats, 12 dogs and 1 "other". ??? Also: !!!

Euthanized: 35

• 5 killed due to "Agg policy"
• 22 due to "no pick"
• 2 due to "rabies risk"
• 2 due to "sick/injured"
• 4 due to "suffering"

7-9-09:

Adoption: 9
DOA: 3
Note: There is also 1 bird is listed as "died in kennel"

Euthanized: 32

• 1 killed for being a kitten less than 4 weeks old
• 12 killed due to "Agg policy"
• 16 due to "no pick"
• 1 due to "rabies risk"
• 1 due to "sick/injured"
• 1 due to "suffering"

Should I still keep hoping that the Committee who voted for major change in the killing policies at TLAC will have any real impact? It's hard to remain optimistic when I read stats like these. Because I can't help thinking these aren't "stats" so much as "pets".

What's Going on with Pitbulls at NYC Shelters?

This sounds pretty good:

This year New York City Animal Care & Control has not had to euthanize any healthy animals because of space and officials say they would like to keep this going for the remainder of the year, if not indefinitely.

Note: This same info appears on NYC Animal Care & Control's own website.

But then a whistleblower provided some of the animal info from the shelter for the same time period surrounding the above news story. Apparently "New Hope" is code for "Killing" in these records:

My name is HANK. My animal ID # is A819916.
I am a male, brown and black am pit bull ter mix. 2 YR, 0 MO of age. SCAN NEGATIVE BRIGHT, ALERT, RESPONSIVE, HYDRATED PHYSICAL EXAM eent clear, mild dental staining, mild gingivitis h/l sounds wnl smi: bcs 5/9, amb x 4 hyper during exam but sits when asked FECAL FLOAT INCONCLUSIVE FECAL FLOAT NEGATIVE FOR PARASITES

Reason for New Hope: SPACE.

My name is WONGSTER. My animal ID # is A821269.
I am a male, black and white american staff mix. 1 YR, 6 MO of age. BAR; hematochezia; tenesmus A: Large bowel diarrhea/hematochezia P: metronidazole 250 mg: 1 1/2 tab BID x 5 days; panacur sid x 5 days; parvo test (unlikely positive) Exposed to sick ward, monitor for cough/nasal dc SCAN NEGATIVE BRIGHT, ALERT, RESPONSIVE, HYDRATED PHYSICAL EXAM Too tense and nervous Nosf

Reason for New Hope: SPACE.

My name is XENA. My animal ID # is A820324.
I am a spayed female, br brindle and white pit bull. 15 YR of age. Intake Date: 7/16/09 Reason for Surrender: OWNER SURRENDER/ LANDLORD ISSUES Pet Profile: Loves men, women, children and cats SHE IS A VERY SWEET DOG GOOD FOR A HOME THAT DOESNT HAVE A LOT GOING ON NO CONCERN by vet staff SAFER Test and Date Performed: 7/22/09 BEHAVIOR-MODERATE Stare:2.Pulls out three times, still body ears back,mouth closed Sensitivity:3.Pulls away from the touch ears back mouth closed Tag:3.Not fearful but unresponsive, pulls body weight back, does not approach when game ends Pinch:2.Quickly pulls out Pinch2:^ Food Aggression:1.Lifts head allows dish to be moved Toy aggression:1.No interest Rawhide aggression:^ Dog to dog:1.Approaches to investigate and turns away Volunteer Bios: N/A Advertised 7/23 Zip Code: 11385 Medical entry and behavior: BEHAVIOR AS PER MEDICAL-NO CONCERN scan neg barh amb x4 sociable and tolerance of handling umbilical hernia severe tarter and gingivitis, nuclear sclerosis over grown nails-trimmed possible heart murmur geriatric nsf QARH - BCS - 4/9; EENT - nuclear sclerosis, mild dental tartar Hr/Lung - regularly irregularly heart beat did not hear murmur w/synchronous pulses Integ - 1 cm diameter soft tissue mass on left prescapular region, 3cm ST mass on left thorax, 2cm mass on ventral abdomen, fatty deposits present on bilateral thorax MS - amb x 4, nsf GI - nonpainful/soft abdomen GU - nsf NS - nsf A: geriatric -Ventral ST mass r/o umbilical hernia vs neoplasia (benign vs. malignant) vs. infectious -ST masses Thorax and prescap - r/o lipoma vs other neoplasia P: recommend cardiology consult - monitor for lethargy, syncope, cough; FNA masses; +/- CBC/Chem/TXR for geriatric workup Weight:56.0LBS Additional notes: Advertised 7/26

Reason for New Hope: SPACE.

My name is JENIFER. My animal ID # is A820178.

I am a female, brown and white american staff mix. 2 YR, 0 MO of age. Dog tolerates handling and did not become aggressive towards the handler during the assessment. Dog growls while in the vicinity of other dogs. DOG AGGRESSION IS A BEHAVIOR THAT CAN BENIFIT FROM BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION AND/OR MANAGEMENT. Assessment items are scored from 1 - 5 ( least aggressive - most aggressive) Look; 1 - Dog leans forward or jumps up to lick the Assessor's face with tail wagging, ears back and eyes averted. Sensitivity: 1 - Dog leans into the Assessor, eyes soft or squinty, soft loose body, open mouth. Tag: 1 - Dog assumes play position and joins the game or indicates play with huffing, soft 'popping' of the body, etc. Dog might jump Assessor once play begins. Squeeze 1 & 2: 1 - Dog gently pulls back his paw. Dog may lick hand. Food: 1 - Dog lifts head and ceases eating when you reach to pull the bowl away or push him out. Toy: Dog takes toy away, keeps a firm hold. his body is between you and the toy, and he is loose and wiggly. No growling or stiffness. Rawhide: No interest Dog to Dog: 4- Dog approaches with stiff body, high tail and piloerection. Dog growls after prolonged exposure to helper dog. Initial exam Scan negative Barh Slight dental tartar Alopecia located on both front paw's forepaw area Has diarrhea,was parvo tested results:Negative Bring stool to medical sign for fecal float was placed on cage A litlle tense Nosf

Reason for New Hope: SPACE.

My name is MISSY ELI. My animal ID # is A821255.
I am a female, white and tan pit bull mix. 1 YR, 6 MO of age.

Reason for New Hope: BEHAVIOR.

My name is TYSON. My animal ID # is A820961.
I am a male, white and black pit bull mix. 3 YR of age. sURENDERED 7/21 No pets allow Loves men,women, children, dogs WALKED TWICE A DAY. ONLY FED PEDIGREE DRY FOOD. EXTREMELY LOVING AND CARING ANIMAL. EXTREMELY HYPERACTIVE AS WELL. LOVES TO PLAY ALOT. Friendly by intake Mild by vet staff Questionable on SAFER below Look 1:Jumps up to the assessor while licking the assessors face with ears back and averted eyes Sensitivity 1:leans in to the assessor with soft relaxed body,open mouth ,ears back and wagging tail Tag 1 :Follows at the end of leash with soft body ,wagging tail,ears back and open relaxed mouth Squeeze 1 :Pulls paw away Squeeze 2 :Pulls paw away Food 1 :Calmly allows food to be moved follows the dish while soft in body Toy 1:No interest Rawhide 1:No interest Dog to dog 4 :Approaches the helper dog by rushing in with stiff body ,ears forward and growling Advertised to rescue groups

Reason for New Hope: BEHAVIOR.


I can't help noticing every one of these dogs is a Pitbull type. Does NYC Animal Care & Control kill other breeds as well or just Pitbulls? And why was the apparently inaccurate info given to the press about not killing for space when records seem to indicate that killing for space does occur, at least for Pitbulls?


Related Reading: Metro City Tails

BARC in Houston Still a Trainwreck

The chief Veterinarian and a Veterinary Technician for BARC are out:

The firing comes nearly two weeks after Mayor Bill White hired Gary Fusco to turn the agency around. While Fusco was hired to be a “change agent,” some council members have questioned the decision to hire a man with a background in the manufacturing industry.
[...]
BARC has been rocked in recent weeks by well-publicized images of emaciated animals in their care, the mistaken euthanasia of a family dog and the discovery of improperly-designed cages after a puppy died in a drain last month. The puppy was brought in July 23 with its pit bull-mix mother and two siblings and mistakenly placed in a cage meant for older animals, officials said at the time. The puppy slipped through the floor grating in the cage and fell into an open drain — about the width of a soda can, officials said.

Not to mention the sad death of Coltrane. I hope BARC can get things turned around.