Stockton Pound Sued for Killing Animals Illegally

Last month, a couple whose dog had been impounded by the Stockton pound in CA spoke to the city council about their experience.  Their microchipped, neutered, vaccinated dog had escaped through a gate accidentally left open in their yard.  When the owners, both newly unemployed, tried to reclaim their pet, the Stockton pound demanded $180.  The owners couldn’t come up with the entire fee so offered a partial payment and a promise to pay the balance in installments.  The pound refused, leaving the crying owners no other option but to beg for their beloved family member’s life.  Stockton killed their pet.

As might be expected, this is not an isolated incident at the Stockton pound:

A review of 2013 documents found instances in which seven dogs belonging to five people were euthanized because the owners could not immediately afford to pay impound fees.

The Stockton pound is no stranger to controversy.  Mayor Anthony Silva put together a citizen commission to examine allegations of wrongdoing at the facility one year ago.  The group has been trying to present its findings since January but have yet to be allowed to speak at a city meeting.

Now local advocates have teamed up with the Animal Legal Defense Fund and filed suit against the Stockton pound.  Using a year’s worth of pound documents obtained via public records requests, the plaintiffs in the suit allege:

  • Stockton killed more than 1500 cats and dogs during their legally mandated holding periods.
  • The pound kills owned pets without making meaningful efforts to return the animals to their owners.  One case involved a dog who was killed because the owners couldn’t speak English.
  • Pets who are medically hopeless and suffering are forced to linger in their cages for days before being euthanized.

ALDF attorney Jenni James says no money is being sought in the suit:

“Our request is very simple,” James said. “We’re asking the court to demand that the city of Stockton follow its own laws, and for the city of Stockton to acknowledge that the laws it passed apply to the shelter.”

The pound’s director went the predictable route in response to the lawsuit:

The city of Stockton said it cannot comment on the lawsuit and neither can the Animal Services director — but she did say the shelter does the best it can for the animals.

“People who come here see the impact and how many dogs come into the shelter,” Animal Services Supervisor Pat Claerbout said. “It’s extremely limited, and we can’t keep every animal.”

We’re doing the best we can. We can’t keep them all.  Ergo, the law doesn’t apply to us and if your broke ass can’t come up with the ransom to bail your pet out of our kill factory, sux being you.

(Thanks Clarice and Eileen for the links.)

7 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 14, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in animal advocacy, animal shelter abuse, lawsuit, retaliation

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 14, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/stockton-pound-sued-for-killing-animals-illegally/

Oak Ridge Police Department Conducts Mass Killing in Response to Distemper Outbreak

TN – The Oak Ridge police department, which runs the pound, closed the facility one week ago after two dogs tested positive for distemper:

As a precaution, all animals brought into the Oak Ridge Animal Shelter are being vaccinated on arrival. The shelter is separating dogs with any kind of cough or nasal discharge from dogs available for adoption.

These are not precautionary practices that a facility should institute in the face of an outbreak but rather standard protocols which should be in place 365 days a year.  It’s unclear to me what standard operating procedures are in Oak Ridge:

[Lt. Robin] Smith said the shelter staff vaccinates all animals, but it takes about 10 days for the vaccine to do any good.

So wrong.  As Maddie’s Fund indicates, vaccination prior to or immediately upon intake for all shelter animals is critical and provides protection within hours:

Immunity is not typically an “all or nothing” condition. For some diseases of concern in shelter settings, particularly respiratory illness, vaccination serves to protect from serious symptoms rather than infection.

Additionally, animals will begin to be protected from the worst effects of other diseases, such as canine distemper in a very short time. At the 2011 Shelter Medicine Conference at the University of Florida, Dr. Annette Litster, Director of Maddie’s® Shelter Medicine Program at the Purdue University School of Veterinary Medicine, told the audience, “With canine distemper virus, challenge studies have shown a really incredibly fast response to a modified live vaccine, or a recombinant vaccine. Within four hours of an effective vaccine, those dogs are protected – provided there’s not a problem with maternal immunity – from the really severe neurological effects of challenge with canine distemper. There’s complete protection within 7 days after vaccination from the challenge studies that have been published.”

If the Oak Ridge pound had been vaccinating upon intake across the board, utilizing routine cleaning practices and quarantining new arrivals, those in charge might have a better understanding of disease prevention and management.  From the Koret Shelter Medicine Program info sheet on Canine Distemper Virus (CDV):

The most important factor in disease risk is vaccination: a “fully” vaccinated animal over four months of age is at very low risk of CDV infection. However, even incompletely vaccinated animals may survive a possible exposure.

Relying on incorrect information not based in science, Oak Ridge killed every one of the thirty dogs in the pound – including the majority who appeared to be healthy:

Smith said that the shelter staff refused outside help with the euthanasia. He said they wanted to do it themselves and ensure the animals knew they were loved and cared for.

“I have never been prouder of that staff doing a horrible job that needed to be done,” [Chief James] Akagi said.

Death be not proud. That “horrible job” did not need to be done.  The job that needs to be done here is for the police department in charge of the pound to educate itself on how vaccinations work to prevent disease in conjunction with standard cleaning and isolation practices.  Ensuring animals are loved and cared for includes at least minimal education on standard disease prevention and management practices for shelters.

(Thanks Clarice for sending me this story.)

16 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 13, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in distemper, needless animal shelter killing, southern shelters

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 13, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/oak-ridge-police-department-conducts-mass-killing-in-response-to-distemper-outbreak/

Treats on the Internets

A Nevada puppy owner says Douglas Co ACOs strong-armed her into surrendering her puppy for killing due to exposure to another pup who tested positive for rabies.  (Thank you Clarice for the link.)

Authorities appear to be citing gambling as a motive in the case of the “Lucky Dog” scam in Boggs Mountain, Georgia where the shelter director was taking cash donations to keep dogs alive, pocketing it, then killing them anyway.  (Thanks Clarice.)

Rowan Co, NC voted to phase out use of its gas chamber for killing shelter animals.  Beginning April 1, the county will only kill “aggressive” dogs and cats in the gas chamber and that practice will end after workers receive additional training.  (Thank you April for the link.)

Matthew Power, the author of this piece describing how poachers killed a turtle advocate in Costa Rica, reportedly died this week on assignment in Uganda.

A woman describes a powerful connection she experienced with some deer after falling on a walk.  (Thanks Valerie for the link.)

The irresponsible public helps a snapping turtle to cross the road safely.  (Thanks Valerie for this one as well.)

10 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 12, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in treats on internets

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 12, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/treats-on-the-internets-172/

Vermilion Parish Director Kills Dogs Tagged for Rescue Because She Can

Vermilion Parish Rabies Control in LA does not adopt animals to the public.  It functions primarily as a pet killing facility while allowing rescue groups to save some animals – unless the director decides she feels like killing those animals too.

Last week a group called Animal Aid of Vermilion Area had exchanged e-mails with Vermilion Parish pound director Pam Monceaux, confirming they would pull three dogs – Sasha, Pepper and Ringo – on Thursday morning.  But when the rescuers arrived, they learned Ms. Monceaux had killed Sasha, Pepper and Ringo.

There was no claim of a misunderstanding about these three dogs being pulled by rescue.  Ms. Monceaux apparently killed them intentionally while rescuers were en route.  A local news reporter asked Ms. Monceaux for an explanation:

 News 10 reached out to Monceaux for answers, but we were told to leave the premises or she was calling the Vermilion Parish Sheriff’s Office.

If you can’t own it, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it.

Under our current, broken shelter system, killing is a choice.  Any shelter animal may be killed at the discretion of the director.  Some shelter directors consider this their job while, in stark contrast, there are hundreds others working hard to save every healthy/treatable animal in their care.

There are two ways to stop retaliatory and needless shelter killing in Vermilion Parish:

  1. Replace the director with someone committed to lifesaving.
  2. Enact legislation removing killing as an option.

Contact information for the Vermilion Parish Police Jury that oversees the pound is at the bottom of this page.

(Thanks to everyone who sent me info on this story.)

12 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 11, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in animal shelter abuse, retaliation, southern shelters

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 11, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/11/vermilion-parish-director-kills-dogs-tagged-for-rescue-because-she-can/

#DeadDogLulz in Maricopa Co

As we are so often told about people who work in pet killing facilities:  Nobody WANTS to kill animals.  But apparently when they do get to kill them, it’s too fun not to gloat about it on social media.

A Maricopa Co dog called Mickey was reportedly minding his own business in his fenced backyard one day last month when someone let their 4 year old child wander into the yard.  When the child took Mickey’s bone, the dog bit the child in the face causing a severe injury.  Mickey was seized by the Maricopa Co pound and his family is fighting in court to keep him alive.

A Facebook group in support of saving Mickey’s life has more than 32,000 likes.  Vanessa Martinez, a Maricopa Co pound employee, visited the page and taunted those hoping to save Mickey:

“This is stupid… you guys doing all of this won’t help any. He’s going night night.”

Ooh, burn.

The pound’s director has defended Ms. Martinez’s comments as free speech.

A judge is scheduled to make a determination on Mickey’s fate by March 13.

A spokesperson for MCACC says Martinez is still employed. A petition is circulating on the Internet calling for Martinez to be terminated.

That petition and 5 pennies will get you a nickel and someone who likes killing animals.

(Thank you Clarice for the link.)

14 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 10, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in animal shelter, behavior, dog bites, safety around dogs, shame

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 10, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/deaddoglulz-in-maricopa-co/

Open Thread

Animal related links, chit chat, etc.

6 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 8, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in open thread

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 8, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/open-thread-106/

Orange Co Pound Kills Lost Pet Upon Impound

Sofie, as depicted on the WFTV website

Sofie, as depicted on the WFTV website

Lisa Storey is a pet owner in Orange County, Florida.  When one of her children accidentally left the home’s front door open recently, her senior cat slipped outside.  Ms. Storey began searching for her beloved pet, called Sofie, immediately.  While canvassing the neighborhood with flyers, Ms. Storey learned a neighbor had found Sofie and taken her to Orange Co Animal Services.

“I was kind of relieved when I heard she was there.  I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh. She was rescued.’”

But Orange Co had killed Sofie upon impound so Ms. Storey never had any chance of reclaiming her.  The pound’s vet examined the cat, determined her to be “lethargic and extremely emaciated” and killed her.

Ms. Storey was heartbroken:

“It’s not right.  I mean, she wasn’t in any pain,” said Storey.

This isn’t the first time the Orange Co vet has been involved in a pet killing that made headlines.  After the pound oops-killed a 2 year old dog named Hershey who had an adopter waiting to take him home last summer, a local rescuer wrote to Dr. Robert Ridgway, requesting an explanation for the killing.  Dr. Ridgway’s highly unprofessional response included no explanation for the needless killing but a number of attacks on the person demanding answers.

Orange Co policy dictates that stray animals are held for at least 3 days so the owner can reclaim them.  But apparently that policy is less policy and more possibly, depending on whatever way the wind blows:

Channel 9 asked Animal Services if that three-day holding policy depended on whether the animal was sick or healthy.

They said hold times are made on a case by case basis.

Orange Co Animal Services likes to read the rules and then apply them based on interpretive dance, as they did when wrongly claiming the law required them to kill a beagle named Rufus whose owner wanted him back last year.

This is your municipal animal shelter, America.  These are the people blaming the “irresponsible public” for the killing and claiming shelters should do away with mandatory holding periods for cats because their owners don’t want them.  Fight back.

(Thank you Clarice for the link.)

13 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 7, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in animal shelter, cats, lost pets, needless animal shelter killing, senior pets

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 7, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/orange-co-pound-kills-lost-pet-upon-impound/

Karma Rescue in CA Sells Lost Pet While Ignoring Owner’s Pleas

When a CA family’s 8 month old puppy got lost last month, owner Rosa Torres began looking for her right away.  She visited her local shelter repeatedly but never saw her puppy, called Raffiki.

In fact, Raffiki had been found running loose and was taken to a neighboring shelter – not the one the owner kept searching.  An area group called Karma Rescue pulled Raffiki from that shelter and listed her online as an adoptable pet.  That’s how Ms. Torres found out where her puppy was.  The owner immediately tried to reach Karma Rescue by phone but had to leave a frantic message explaining she wanted to get her lost pet back.  She then went to the group’s website and filled out an adoption application for Raffiki.

“The application form says why do you want this particular dog. I said because she belongs to me,” Torres said. “I said we love her and we miss her and we want her back home with us.”

But no one from Karma Rescue got back to Ms. Torres.  Instead, they sold Raffiki for $300 to another owner.  In a statement to the L.A. Times, Karma Rescue said Ms. Torres’s application “did not meet the qualifications that Karma looks for when adopting a dog to a home.” The L.A. Times writer explains:

As someone who’s worked with animal rescue, let me translate that: Torres is young; she and her son live with her parents in a small rental home in a not-so-great part of town. Her dog wasn’t microchipped, spayed or wearing ID tags. If she couldn’t manage to find the dog in a week, she doesn’t deserve to get her back.

Worse:

“Had [Ms. Torres] been a little more diligent, we would have spoken with her,” acknowledged Karma Rescue’s lawyer Susan Willis.

Karma Rescue decided that Raffiki’s owner wasn’t even worth talking to, never mind considering the return of her family member to her.  Not everyone agreed with the decision:

“You’ve got groups that help people and their pets, through education and support, versus people who just focus on the animals and tend to demonize owners,” said Jessica Gary, who spent the last year volunteering with Karma Rescue and considered the group one of the city’s best.

She resigned last week because this case revealed an elitism that’s shocked and disappointed her.
[...]
“If they’d returned this dog to the original owner, this new family could have adopted another dog, one that might die in the shelter now because it doesn’t have a home.”

Affirmative.

As we’ve discussed numerous times on this blog, rescue groups have no right to act like they are the 1%, trickling down animals upon the unwashed masses as they see fit. Poor people love their pets too. If rescues are truly wanting to save as many lives as possible, returning a lost pet to an owner should be a no-brainer under normal circumstances. It’s a way to put another one in the WIN column while reallocating resources to save the next animal on the local pound’s kill list. Instead Karma Rescue appears to have been determined to break up Raffiki’s family, because they deemed Ms. Torres unworthy.

On its website, Karma Rescue claims that the human-animal bond is sacred and must be respected:

“Unfortunately, your pet does not have a voice,” the Karma Rescue website reminds pet owners considering giving up their pets. “He can’t tell you he would rather stay with the family he has known and loved all his life.”
“Dogs and cats … go through psychological torment when they lose their family. Your pet deserves to stay with the family he/she loves.”

Apparently Karma Rescue neglected to include a giant asterisk there.

The owner who bought Raffiki is refusing to return her and it’s unclear to me whether Karma Rescue would send her home to Ms. Torres even if the puppy was returned. Ms. Torres and her 4 year old son are heartbroken that their family member will not be coming home. And you can probably guess what Ms. Torres’s opinion of rescue groups is at this point:

“My image for a rescue was always kind people who wanted homes for animals that need rescuing,” she told me. “I was really in shock that they weren’t trying to help me get my dog back.”

Instead of putting one in the WIN column and saving another pet in Raffiki’s place, Karma Rescue has broken up a family and needlessly given other rescue groups a bad name. It’s not lost on me that the group chose the name Karma. In Buddhism, there is no one to deem you unworthy like this group did Ms. Torres, but bad karma must be worked off, no matter how many lifetimes it takes. They might want to get started on that now. Ending their discriminatory practices and focusing on lifesaving would be a step in the right direction.

(Thanks Anne and Davyd for sending me this story.)

29 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 6, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in adoption screening, human-animal bond, lame totally lame, lost pets, rescue

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 6, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/12635/

Deceptive Maneuvering at MAS Costs Another Dog His Life

Memphis Animal Services impounded a 2 year old male Alaskan malamute on January 31 for roaming loose.  His owner called the next day to inquire about redeeming her pet.  This should be the end of this dog’s story at MAS – right here.  Because the dog was owned and wanted and the owner contacted MAS to advise them.  But it’s Memphis, so no.

MAS told the owner they would sell the dog back to her for $83 but only if the dog’s heartworm test came up negative.  Then they ran to take blood from the dog and do a heartworm test.  Eleven minutes later, someone from MAS hopped back on the phone to call the dog’s owner with the news:  the heartworm test was positive so the price to buy the dog back was now $333.  So slick.  The owner advised she could not afford that amount and so MAS kept her dog.

Portion of MAS records, obtained via FOIA request, for dog #263122 (partially redacted by me)

Portion of MAS records, obtained via FOIA request, for dog #263122 (partially redacted by me)

Memphis Pets Alive photographed this dog on February 4 and February 11 and captured some stunning images of him:

mal face 02 04 14 mpa

Dog ID #263122 at MAS on 2-4-14, as posted on the Memphis Pets Alive page on Facebook.

mal 02 04 14 mpa

Dog ID #263122 at MAS on  2-4-14, as posted on the Memphis Pets Alive page on Facebook.

Dog ID #263122 at MAS, as posted on the Memphis Pets Alive page on Facebook.

Dog ID #263122 at MAS on 2-4-14, as posted on the Memphis Pets Alive page on Facebook.

Dog ID #263122 at MAS, as posted on the Memphis Pets Alive page on Facebook.

Dog ID #263122 at MAS on  2-11-14, as posted on the Memphis Pets Alive page on Facebook.

mal smile 02 11 14 mpa

Dog ID #263122 at MAS on 2-11-14, as posted on the Memphis Pets Alive page on Facebook.

A rescue group applied to adopt the dog on February 12.  There are no further notes indicating why this adoption did not proceed.

Two days after the February 11 photos were taken, MAS records indicate the dog had a “brief exam” by a vet and was diagnosed with a “mild” cough. Medications were prescribed.

mal vet notes 1

The next morning however, MAS notes state the dog was found unresponsive in his kennel and since “no vet was on duty” to examine him, they decided to kill the dog rather than take him to a vet for care.

Two entries by two different MAS staff members indicating no vet was on duty at the time the dog was found unresponsive and the decision made to kill him.

Two entries by two different MAS staff members indicating no vet was on duty at the time the dog was found unresponsive and the decision made to kill him.

In what appears to me to be a glaring discrepancy, the medical notes for dog ID #263122 indicate a vet at MAS examined the dog after he was found unresponsive and recommended euthanasia:

mal vet notes 2

A dog who appeared to be happy, healthy and smiling on the evening of February 11 was found unresponsive in his cage the morning of February 14. A decision was made to kill the dog without a vet exam since, as two staff members noted, there was no vet on duty. A vet at MAS then noted that she examined the dog and recommended euthanasia on February 14. Whatever shenanigans went on here, the dog’s death was entirely preventable because this pet should never have been at MAS after his owner called to claim him on February 1.

Holding a dog for ransom that an owner can not pay is inconsistent with animal sheltering.  Jacking up the redemption fees because a young, healthy dog tests positive for heartworm makes even less sense if the shelter’s goal is to get animals out alive.  Heartworm is not an immediate death sentence and there are different treatment options available, including a very low cost option.  The owner should have been advised of the positive test result and counseled to seek vet care.  If she was unable to pay the $83 in fines to get the dog back, a payment arrangement (of any terms that would work for the owner) should have been made.  Tacking on the extra $250 just because the dog tested positive for heartworm is cruel and unusual.  The end result of all this nonsense is yet another beautiful dog in a garbage bag at Memphis Animal Slaughtering.

How many more, Memphis?

26 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 5, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in lame totally lame, memphis animal shelter

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 5, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/deceptive-manuevering-at-mas-costs-another-dog-his-life/

Odessa’s Multi-Tiered Failure Results in Dog’s Death

The police department in Odessa, Texas runs the pound.  Thousands of animals are impounded and killed each year, with the police department claiming most of them are “unadoptable”.   One dog impounded on February 15 for quarantine was definitely not “unadoptable” – he had a family who loved him and wanted him back.  Instead, he is now dead:

OPD says on Saturday, the dog pushed up a water bowl, escaped from the opening and out of exterior doors, which were open for ventilation.

The dog was found dead in the street later that day.

When municipalities insist that dogs be quarantined at the pound instead of at home, it’s purportedly being done in order to provide the highest level of safety to the public.  That is, Odessa apparently doesn’t trust owners to quarantine their own dogs at home following a bite report and requires dogs be sent to the pet killing facility for the duration of the quarantine.

Pro tip:  If your quarantine cages are such that all a dog has to do is push aside a bowl in order to escape not only the cage but the entire building, you aren’t protecting the public very well.  I think a reasonable argument could be made that in fact you aren’t doing your jobs at all.  But with a cited kill rate of 85% at Odessa’s so-called shelter, I guess everybody already knows that.

The Odessa police department will investigate itself in the case.

(Thank you Clarice for the link.)

4 Comments
by YesBiscuit on March 4, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in animal shelter, neglect, public servants behaving badly, rabies

Posted by YesBiscuit on March 4, 2014

http://yesbiscuit.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/odessas-multi-tiered-failure-results-in-dogs-death/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 833 other followers