TX Pound Gets Huffy When Local Advocates Ask Them to Stop Hiding and Killing Pets

The Humane Society of the New Braunfels Area in Texas hides many of the animals impounded by the facility. When a citizen contacted the organization in July expressing concern over this practice, Amanda Craig, president of the HS of the New Braunfels Area, responded with an explanation. This is a portion of that response:

I have to assume, due to the content of your email, that your knowledge and opinion of our shelter have been influenced by the No Kill New Braunfels group. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify a few things and invite you to be a part of our future success.

The only animals that are not photographed are the stray animals that are still on hold, animals who enter the shelter in such poor medical condition that they cannot be treated, animals that enter the shelter that are too aggressive for adoption and feral cats. I will elaborate on the “stray hold” policy. When strays enter our shelter they are “held” for 3 business days minimum. During that time they may not be put up for adoption or presented to the public via photographs/internet. The reason for this is that, in the past, there have been issues with people “shopping” our stray area. The reason that people do this is to look for a pure bred and/or intact dog to breed or fight in order to make a profit. You see, if an “owner” claims a dog the fee is typically much less than the adoption fee so it is financially beneficial for these corrupt individuals to claim a stray as their own rather than buy or adopt if they can manage to get away with it. However, during that hold time, if an owner comes in who has legitimately lost a dog, we will happily show them every single kennel in our stray hold area in hopes that we can reunite them with their dog. Based on the level of detail that a person can give about the dog they claim to have lost, we are able to determine if they are truly missing a companion animal or if they are simply “shopping”.

Shorter: No Kill New Braunfels sucks and here’s a bunch of baloney we made up so we don’t have to do our jobs.

For the month of July, when that e-mail was written, the HS of the New Braunfels Area took in 359 dogs and cats, hid an unknown number of them and killed 243 – a kill rate of approximately 68%. But of course, better off dead than living with PET SHOPPERS. Because you know all the evil people in the world are posing as lost pet owners and looking to adopt an animal off death row in the New Braunfels pound. That’s common knowledge.

But alas, No Kill New Braunfels keeps the ball rolling and stays focused on lifesaving with this recent newspaper ad:

Newspaper ad from No Kill New Braunfels in TX (click to enlarge).

Newspaper ad from No Kill New Braunfels in TX (click to enlarge).

How ya like me now, bitchez?

(Thanks Linda for info on this story.)

MI Politician Smears the South as an Excuse for Hiring a Pet Killer

In Leon Co, FL, animal control is run by Andrew Seltz.  On AC’s website, it states that more than 6000 animals are killed every year at the pound.  And there is one of those threats that the killing will continue until magic happens:

Unfortunately, until each citizen commits to preventing their pet from adding to the burden of pet overpopulation, the trend will continue to worsen.

We don’t have to stop killing animals at the pound.  The burden is not on the few of us actually doing the killing.  We are not going to change.  It’s up to the approximately 282,000 residents of Leon Co to change.  And until all 282,000 people meet our demands, the killings will not only continue but will “worsen”.  If you don’t like it, you can go… enact legislation, I guess.

This is the shabbiest, shirkiest form of blaming the public for the killings at the local pound.  Not only is Andrew Seltz refusing to accept responsibility for his actions, he is blaming the public he needs to partner with in order to stop the killings and setting an unachievable demand for the community to meet before he’ll consider stopping.

The fact is, most people have already neutered their pets.  Most of those who haven’t neutered them would do so if it was within their financial means.  Ordering this small group to get their pets neutered on pain of more needless shelter pet deaths does not cause free spay-neuter certificates and transportation to vet clinics to magically happen.  We can not neuter our way out of killing.  Any shelter director knows this and given that they do, it’s especially cruel to dangle that carrot in front of the public who is needed to foster, rescue, adopt and donate.  It’s cutting off your nose to spite your face.  Then stomping your face in the dirt.  While killing friendly dogs and cats.

When it was recently announced that Andrew Seltz was leaving Leon Co to take over the Ingham Co pound in MI, a concerned animal advocate contacted county commissioner Kara Hope.  This is the response received from Commissioner Hope:

From: “Kara Hope” <kara@votekarahope.com>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 1:54:45 PM
Subject: New animal control director

Ingham County is fortunate to have residents like you who care so much about animal welfare. But I hope that you’ll give Mr. Seltz a chance and reserve judgment until he’s had a chance to go to work here.

As someone concerned with animal well-being, you might know that there is a big cultural difference in how animals are viewed and treated in some areas of the southern U.S. To put it crudely, in some southern communities, animals are viewed as disposable. There is less effort and few resources put into re-homing animals. I’m sure that the statistics you refer to reflect policies that result from the difference in points of view.

And it might ease your mind to know that Mr. Seltz told us during his interview that one of the reasons he wants to return to Michigan is because he found the southern perspective on animals and their value to be troubling.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Kara Hope
http://www.votekarahope.com
@KaraHope7

Oh hell naw.  Don’t go blaming the south for your decision to bring in someone who kills animals instead of doing his job.  We here in the south love our animals just as much as anyone does anywhere in this country.  Our compassion for lost and homeless animals is not second-class.  Our perspective that animals in need should be sheltered and not killed is based upon the value we place on our pets.  Now if you want to charge the south with having an overabundance of regressive, good ol’ boy appointed shelter directors who keep killing animals because that’s the way they’ve always done it and why change when you can blame the public instead – well, that’s a conversation we can have.  Case in point:  Andrew Seltz.  (By the way, thanks for stabbing us in the back on your way to the top, sir.  Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.)

While employed in the south, Andrew Seltz blamed his local community for the killings he oversaw at the pound.  If Ms. Hope or anyone else in Ingham Co thinks that’s going to change when he gets there, brace yourselves.  I predict Mr. Seltz will find the unwashed masses just as blamable in Ingham Co as he did in Leon Co.  And he’ll continue killing animals until magic.

My message to Ms. Hope goes for Mr. Seltz as well: If you can’t own it, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it. And don’t expect the south to be your punching bag. We’re all full up on smack-talking shelter pet killers around here so find somebody else to kick around.  Or maybe you could stop looking for whipping boys and start doing your jobs, “to put it crudely”.

Sonoma Co Fires Director Who Implemented Lifesaving Changes at Shelter

Remember that one time we had good news about the Sonoma Co shelter in CA?  Well hold on to that memory like a clip-on koala stuffy because it may be all you get.

Brigid Wasson, the shelter’s director for the past 11 months, was fired without reason by Sonoma Co last week, one month prior to her probationary period being fulfilled.  She describes her termination meeting with the county:

My boss and her assistant came to my office at three in the afternoon, announced their decision, then watched me as I packed my personal belongings and was escorted off the property like a criminal. I was shocked and devastated.

Ms. Wasson, who says she moved to Sonoma Co for this job, is credited by the county with increased rescue placements, establishing social media marketing, improved record keeping and the robust return to owner program for lost pets I blogged about previously.  The bottom line:

The shelter’s live release rate is now at 85 percent, up from 59 percent in 2008, according to the county.

In fact, Ms. Wasson told me she had calculated the year-to-date live release rate at 88% just days before being terminated.  And that she was working on a number of other programs:

  • The community cat program which had already reduced cat euthanasia by 75%
  • The Sonoma County animal related ordinance revision which included bringing the ordinance up to state code (it currently isn’t), adding TNR/cat-friendly language, removing breed-specific language (restrictions to Pit Bull type dogs), and reducing pet limit restrictions
  • An expanded coalition including shelters in our county as well as in neighboring counties.

A Sonoma Co ACO will temporarily run the shelter while the county seeks a permanent director.  The ACO will be the third director in 14 months.  It’s unknown what will happen to the changes and protocols instituted by Ms. Wasson at the shelter.  But the county’s message seems clear enough:  saving the lives of pets at the shelter is not the direction the county wants to go.  What type of applicant will be attracted to the position knowing that the previous director increased lifesaving and was fired by the county?  What will happen to the lost and homeless pets in Sonoma Co going forward?

126 MO Animals Shuffled from One “Humane” Society to Another

The Lebanon Humane Society in Missouri recently elected a new board who voted in Judith Koch as president.  Police had to be called to maintain order at a contentious public meeting.  Some people are so unhappy with the new board, lawyers are involved.

Despite the fact that the organization built and opened a new facility in 2010, Ms. Koch says the place is appallingly filthy and overcrowded.  The board asked the Humane Society of Missouri Animal Cruelty Task Force to take the 126 animals being housed in the new building, which they did yesterday.

Part of the controversy surrounding the new board is the question of killing animals.  Ms. Koch is less than reassuring on the issue:

“We absolutely are not going to kill any healthy, adoptable animal. But if we have a sick animal that may be making others sick, it would be unreasonable not to put that animal down. Priority right now is to get our population down without having to kill any animal that’s adoptable,” Koch said.

“Unreasonable not to” kill any sick animal who “may” make other animals sick. In a shelter environment, that statement equates to a rubber stamp of approval for killing any sick animals of the board’s choosing, even if those animals are suffering from readily treatable illnesses very common in shelters such as coughs and colds.

And I see she managed to work in the “having to kill” phraseology so cherished by killing apologists.  After all, nobody wants to kill animals.  Or so animal killers keep saying.  But don’t criticize:

“I would like to ask that the public not criticize the new or old board until they have walked a mile in our shoes.”

Yeah but I can’t walk a mile in your pet killing shoes because I refuse to consider killing as an option for population control.  So I can’t say anything against what you’re – oh, I see what you did there.

As for the 126 animals now at the Humane Society of Missouri, it looks like they are still in the hands of people who kill animals.  From the website:

We do not give the animals in our Adoption Centers a time limit in which to find a home. Once the animals pass their health and temperament examinations and are offered for adoption, they stay as long as they remain in good health and don’t develop temperament problems.

Pass all our hoop jumping tests.  Don’t get the sniffles.  Don’t cough.  Don’t side-eye anyone.  Just always be perfect and you can live.

Gee, I wonder how these two organizations became friends.

(Thank you Arlene for the link.)

Nobody WANTS to Kill Animals – Monongalia County Edition

Although there are currently only 11 pets, all dogs, listed on the Petfinder page for the Monongalia County Canine Adoption Center in Morgantown, WV, it does state that the facility adopts out both cats and dogs.  In fact, there is an alert that the pound is overflowing with cats:

Screengrab showing a portion of theMonongalia County Canine Adoption Center page on Petfinder.

Screengrab showing a portion of the Monongalia County Canine Adoption Center page on Petfinder.

While it’s hard to reconcile the idea that the facility is overflowing with cats but is advertising zero as available for adoption online (the pound’s website takes you to Petfinder), it’s possible some insight may be gleaned from a recent story covered by local media.

Tom Wiley, a Morgantown landlord, is currently the subject of a police investigation after two separate tenants reported he went into their apartments and stole their cats.  Although pets were not allowed in the apartments, neither tenant was given any prior notice that their cats would be stolen by the landlord.  The law requires that prior notice be given before a landlord removes anything from a tenant’s apartment.

Both cat owners say they tried to find out what happened to their pets, including contacting the landlord.  One was told by Mr. Wiley that her cat had been “taken care of” even though he refused to say exactly what he had done.  The other says she was ignored by Mr. Wiley until he finally responded to a REWARD FOR LOST PET sign she posted.  He told her he had taken her pet to the Monongalia County Canine Adoption Center.

In fact, Mr. Wiley allegedly took both cats to the same pound where they were both killed upon intake.  One of the cats, Cali, had been adopted from PURR and was microchipped.  Had workers at the pound bothered to scan Cali prior to killing her, they could have obtained PURR’s contact information and someone from the group would have reclaimed her.  It seems like so little to ask – that pound employees do their jobs – and yet:

Officials at the pound said they were unable to scan the animal properly because of its aggressiveness the day it was taken in.

Read:  And they couldn’t wait to kill her.

The cat was supposedly too aggressive to scan for a chip but they somehow managed to kill her which, unlike a scan, would require direct contact.  I don’t want to know how.

Cali’s owner says she was not aggressive.  Although one can imagine she was likely scared after being stolen by a cat hater, transported by who-knows-what means and brought inside a pet killing facility.

Killing surrendered animals upon impound is always bad policy at any “shelter”.

  1. Pets have the right to live.  The fact that they have been surrendered to a shelter does not trump that right.
  2. The shelter does not know for certain if the surrendering party is actually the pet’s owner.
  3. Pets may be microchipped with contact information of someone willing to reclaim them if contacted.
  4. Someone may be looking for the surrendered pet.
  5. It’s the shelter’s job to find the animal a new home, if needed.

In addition, no domesticated animal’s behavior can accurately be assessed at the time of arrival at a pound.  Some animals may be able to be assessed after a settling-in period, others may never reach that state.  Behavioral assessments are of limited value in a shelter environment but the notion that any animal can be evaluated upon impound is outrageous.

I can’t help but wonder whether the Monongalia Co pound workers even asked Mr. Wiley whether he owned the cats.  For all I know, he truthfully told them he’d stolen the pets from tenants and they gleefully busted out the Fatal Plus to teach the irresponsible public a lesson.  Maybe they have an established relationship with Mr. Wiley, as many pet killing facilities do with cat haters.

And what about the zero adoptable cats listed online by the Monongalia Co pound – are they all “aggressive”? Is it just the pound’s dumpster that is “overflowing” with cats?

(Thanks Vicki for sending me this story.)

Lost Pets, Pregnant Animals and Others Being Killed and Sold for Profit in Duncan, OK

The city of Duncan, OK has an animal control department but it’s unclear to me exactly how that department operates.  The website seems to indicate AC picks up stray pets.  But in a recent media interview, the department refused to disclose details on its operations:

Although the City of Duncan’s Animal Control Department refused to comment on how long they hold animals before they are euthanized, [city manager Jim] Frieda said the humane society is notified of the animals being held so that adoption possibilities can be explored.

The humane society being referred to is apparently the Stephens Co HS. They won’t say how long they hold animals either. From the organization’s website:

SCHS is an open access shelter. We take all animals, excepting only the very ill, the very aggressive or city strays that must be processed through a city’s animal control department. We do not have a minimum ‘hold time’ on any of our animals; based on the high intake numbers we routinely experience, we simply do not have available space to do so.

With every county stray intake, we assess the dog and make a determination 1) whether someone may be looking for it, 2) its adoptability and 3) available space.
[...]

SCHS does not hide the fact that we are an open access facility and that we do euthanize.

Oh crud. They are open admission but won’t take those animals most in need. Of the ones they do take, they won’t say how long they’ll hold them. But they will decide if someone might be looking for them or if someone could ever possibly love them before killing them.  Yay.

Within this partnership of secrecy lies a money making scheme for the city of Duncan.  It sells the dogs and cats killed by AC for profit and has been doing so for about five years according to the Duncan Banner.  The city contracts with Bio Company Inc. and Skulls Unlimited International, Inc.

Bio Company pays $2 for dead cats who measure over 12 inches from nose to tail. The company embalms the carcasses then sells them to schools that dissect cats in their biology classes. But wait, there’s more gruesome:

A customer service representative from Bio Company said the price range depends on what kind of injections the specimen has had, how big they are or if the animal is pregnant.

I don’t suppose the city of Duncan will want to comment on the killing of pregnant animals either.

Skulls Unlimited pays $3 for dead cats and $5 for dead dogs so long as each possesses a full set of adult teeth. After cutting off the animals’ heads, the company removes the flesh and bleaches the bones. The company sells the skulls of housecats for $69.

The city manager wants people to know what a sweet deal this is:

Both companies are responsible for providing equipment to store the animal carcasses, such as freezers, and for disposing of all animals that do not meet their standards.

Frieda also noted that with these agreements, more money is being brought into the general fund.

“With these contracts, we get something for the animals.”

That’s what animal “sheltering” is all about, at least to the city of Duncan I guess. Getting something for dealing with animals. Doing their jobs to actually shelter animals and return them to their owners or help them find new ones is not getting something apparently. I’m not seeing any dollar signs there so no, not getting something. But don’t react normally or anything:

City Manager Jim Frieda said residents should not be alarmed by the contracts.

[...]

“For the most part, all of these animals are animals that are not claimed by any owner that might want to keep the remains or go through a burial process.”

But I mean, how do you know? Neither the city of Duncan, nor the “humane society” it partners with will say how long they hold stray animals, some of whom are lost pets whose owners are looking for them. And with a financial incentive to kill animals, how can local residents possibly give the city the benefit of the doubt?

(Thanks Salette and Nathan for the story.)

Enablers Desperately Cling to Killing in Glynn Co as Public Supports No Kill

The Florida Times-Union shamefully published a killing apologist piece whitewashing the weekly killing done by Barbara Sancomb, the manager at the Glynn Co pound in GA.  Framing the manager as an animal lover and showing a photo of her paw print tattoos to prove it, the paper talks about the terrible “burden” of killing animals who trust her and willingly submit to her while she’s killing them.  Like we’re supposed to be all aw when in reality, I expect most people’s reaction to the disturbing visualization is more AHHHHH!

The article also talks about how sad it is that no kill advocates have complained online about animals being mistreated, deplorable conditions and needless killing at the pound.  That hurts the shelter staff’s feels.  Plus, the paper says, the animal advocates are liars anyway.  Because other places are worse:

“Everybody who criticizes us, they have obviously never been to a bad animal shelter because this is a really good one,” [Sancomb] said.

Yes, it does sound really good.  Animals in need of homes who come to trust you and willingly allow you to inject them with poison so they can die.  I’m trying to think of anything that would be better but nothing is jumping to mind.  Unless you want to touch upon that doing your job to actually shelter animals thing.

The shelter has been a public relations nightmare for the county. Earlier this year, Animal Control Advisory Committee Chairman Marci DeSart released startling statistics describing the shelter’s euthanasia rates. Since 2006, 18,000 dogs and cats have been put down.

The county kicked that person to the curb post haste.  But then one of the commissioners started talking about no kill and it seemed to resonate with the public:

A town hall meeting he called last month drew a couple of hundred animal advocates in favor of no-kill including DeSart and members of No-Kill Glynn, an organization she co-founded. No one spoke against it.

No one spoke in favor of killing.  Zero.  A couple hundred were in favor of lifesaving.  But veterinarian Bill Disque says reality is an illusion:

But Disque, a retired vet who spays and neuters animals at the shelter several times a month, said there’s a silent majority in the county who realize no-kill is not an achievable goal as things stand now.

A silent majority who really want to see the killing at the pound continue unchecked.

Now you’re just making shit up.  There is no silent majority of the public who secretly rub their hands together in hideous delight when thinking about puppies and kittens being sent to the landfill by the local pound.  There just isn’t.

What there is:

The overwhelming majority of the public, 71% of those surveyed, believes shelters should only be allowed to euthanize animals who are medically or behaviorally hopeless.  Sorry to rain on your Pet Killing Parade with my Actual Data from Reputable Agencies but oh, not sorry.

The vet goes on to invoke the too many animals, not enough homes myth and blames the irresponsible public for the killing. In a county where a couple hundred people showed up in support of no kill at the town hall meeting.  They do sound so irresponsible.  I wish they would move to my county.

(Thank you Valerie for the link.)

Nobody at the Dallas Pound Forced to Do Anything Ever

Dog ID #847991 at the Dalls pound, as posted on PetHarbor.com

Dog ID #847991 at the Dallas pound, as posted on PetHarbor.com

The NBC affiliate in Dallas recently ran a story with the headline “Overload Forces Shelter To Euthanize Dozens of Pets” which needs to be stomped on. Get on your heavy boots.

Overload. This makes it sound as if intake has skyrocketed at the Dallas pound recently and Lucy and Ethel can’t keep up with all the chocolates coming down the line. In reality, the pound’s intake numbers have been down slightly in comparison with 2013 for the months of January through May. While June did see an increase over the 2013 numbers, it was only 32 additional animals in a facility that takes in roughly 2000 animals every month. Clearly “overload” is not the proper word to characterize the pound’s population – maybe “usual load” would be more accurate.

Forces. I hate to see this word used when describing why shelters kill animals. I hate it so much, I think we need to nuke it from orbit – it’s the only way to be sure. Nobody ever in the history of the known universe has been forced to kill a shelter pet. By the same token tragically, nobody who works in a shelter has ever been forced to do their job of sheltering animals. There is no way to force anyone to do their job any more than they can be forced to kill. They have to want to do it. Which says it all when you look at what they choose to do when it comes to sheltering vs. killing.

Shelter. Wrong. The Dallas pound has killed approximately half the pets who have come through its front doors this year. This is not a safe haven. Animals are not being protected from harm at the Dallas pound but in fact the opposite – they are being subjected to the ultimate form of violence by those paid to shelter them.

Euthanize. If you went to journalism school, you may already know how to use a dictionary. If not, crack one open now. Euthanasia, or “good death” is the appropriate word to describe ending the suffering of a pet deemed medically hopeless by a veterinarian. Killing friendly, healthy, happy dogs and cats for convenience instead of doing the hard work of sheltering them is not “euthanasia”.  It’s killing. Own it.

Dozens of Pets. This puts a picture in the reader’s mind of some number of shelter animals who were killed, relatively small in comparison to the thousands being taken in by the pound every month. A minor tragedy, if you will. The truth is, in May and June of this year, the Dallas pound killed 3274 animals. Sure, there are dozens of pets being killed but that’s happening every single day of the week. The mountain of dead animals being needlessly killed at the Dallas pound is staggering and characterizing it as dozens is misleading.

Here’s your headline:

Usual Load of Animals Results in Usual Outcome at Dallas Pound: Needless Killing of Thousands of Happy Pets.

There, I fixed it.

(Thanks Mike for the link and the stats.)

NJ Department of Health Investigating Linden Shelter

The city of Linden, NJ operates a shelter where they impound animals from several area cities.  The shelter failed its last inspection.  Animal control falls under the city health department.  Now the state health department is investigating the facility:

“The department is investigating numerous complaints received about the holding of animals at Linden Animal Shelter relating mostly to animals not being held appropriately, unsanitary conditions and improper euthanasia,” state Department of Health communications manager Daniel Emmer said in an email.

Linden Mayor Richard Gerbounka says the allegations are “a total lie and an exaggeration” which seems to be wildly contradictory but hey, I didn’t go to Mayor School.

“Our goal is always to unite animals and their owners. And although we have the right to euthanize an animal, our policy is to try working with rescue groups to find good homes for animals that are not claimed.”

They have the right to kill any animals of their choosing.  But they have goals, which you know, kinda balances everything out.

Only animals that are not adoptable, because of age, illness or poor temperament, are euthanized, said Linden Health Officer Nancy Koblis, who oversees animal control.

Not adoptable and euthanized are my least favorite euphemisms in the world.  And in the mouths of killing apologists, they always seem to fall out together.

On Friday September 6, 2013, an area family’s 15 year old pitbull accidentally got lost.  The family began searching for him immediately and called Linden AC but no one there bothered to pick up the phone or call the family back.  The next day, the family went to the local police department and was told their dog had been picked up by Linden AC and taken to an area vet hospital.  They called the hospital, called the hospital emergency number and even drove there in hopes of finding their beloved pet.  The only person they were able to speak with was a veterinarian who had no idea what they were on about.  The family was forced to wait until Monday morning.  But as it turns out, their pet had been killed shortly after arrival at the vet clinic on Friday.  Linden Health Officer Nancy Koblis explained:

“It was an older dog and was not in good shape. The recommendation was to euthanize, which is what we did.”

According to the hospital’s medical history report, the dog was underweight, had a small tumor and was walking with difficulty, possibly from severe hip arthritis.

Yep, sounds like a 15 year old pitbull.  Who was dearly loved by his family who was looking for him and being given the runaround by pet killers.  But nobody WANTS to kill animals, ‘specially on Friday afternoons before quitting time for the weekend.  They have goals there and stuff.

Another complaint made against the Linden shelter from an area resident concerns the hosing of filthy dog runs with dogs still inside.  The resident is upset that the dogs are sprayed with their own urine and feces under the guise of “cleaning”.  But the mayor says people are mistaking what sound like spa days at the pound for mistreatment of animals:

“Our animal control officers do spray the dogs on a hot day and they enjoy getting a shower,” the mayor said. “If someone sees that, they might think something is improperly being done.”

What’s the wording again – a total lie and an exaggeration?  It’s growing on me.

AND there are improvements:

The facility also is making a more visible attempt to reunite animals and owners.

“We’ve done it all along, but probably not as much as people would like us to do,” Koblis said.

Probably not as much as the owners of the 15 year old pitbull we killed on a Friday afternoon then tried to hide so we could at least enjoy our beers over the weekend would like but hey, there’s no pleasing some people.

Workers at the shelter will be taking pictures of animals at the shelter that will be placed on the Internet by a rescue group in hopes that owners will be located, she said.

With no computer access at the facility, she said, animal control workers are unable to search the Internet for missing dogs.

Gee, they are going to start taking pictures.  Welcome to 2014.  But they don’t have computer access and there is no possible way to get that in New Jersey apparently.  Plus they don’t want to encourage the unwashed masses to come in trying to save lives or anything like that:

While the shelter has walk-ins who are looking to adopt, Koblis said, “we would rather give them to rescue groups, who will put them up for adoption.”

“We are not an adoption facility,” she said. “We do animal control. We hold the dog for at least seven days. Hopefully, the owner will come and look for it.

And by hopefully, I take it she means hopefully not since obviously they don’t hold all the dogs for 7 days – or 7 hours even – and nobody really feels like answering the phone or calling back owners looking for their lost pets.  But let’s not criticize.  For the love of ponies – these people have no computer access!

(Thanks Arlene for the link.)

 

Court Orders Hocking Co to Stop Torturing Animals in its Homemade Gas Chamber

The Ohio SPCA has been trying to get Hocking Co to stop gassing animals for years.  But the county has fought, both in court and in the court of public opinion, to keep gassing.  After all, the county’s gas chamber is homemade and everyone knows homemade things are the best.

This month, the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Ohio SPCA and ordered the Hocking Co dog warden to stop gassing animals and start killing them via injection.  The dog warden is already certified to kill animals by injection, it’s just that he didn’t feel like it, because who would when you’ve got a homemade gas chamber to play with?

At issue in the ruling:  Ohio law requires that animals be killed humanely, including being rendered unconscious immediately and painlessly.  The Hocking Co homemade gas chamber leaked carbon monoxide and wasn’t actually the swell killing device the county made it out to be:

A former assistant Dog Warden and humane agent, Chris Vickers, testified that when they were in the gas chamber, he heard dogs “screaming like they had been hit by a car and injured”. Gassing took several minutes and was not always effective in causing death. He would see dogs struggling, fighting, urinating and defecating on themselves. He routinely found blood, bite marks, feces and urine on their bodies when he removed them from the chamber after gassing.

“Not always effective in causing death” sounds like some pets were still alive after being tortured in the Hocking Co gas chamber.  Those animals were presumably put back inside for more torture until they finally died.  Yeah, I can see why the county is so head over heels with this thing.

The county lawyer argued that killing animals by injection is stressful for both people and animals.  No mention was made of the stress from working in a place filled with carbon monoxide fumes and the sounds of pets being tortured to death.  Also:  homemade!  Like on Etsy!

Hocking Co has 30 days to appeal the ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court.  When contacted by the local news for comment, county officials hid.

The ruling may force other counties in Ohio to stop gassing pets as well since they too must comply with state law ensuring humane death for animals.  The gas chamber is not humane and the recent court ruling upholds that.

Let’s be clear:  Killing healthy/treatable animals for convenience is not in any way humane – even if it’s done by injection.  But for rare cases when euthanasia is warranted to end the suffering of a medically hopeless pet, the most current humane method should be used.  Thankfully, many communities have ended the practice of convenience killing in their open admission shelters.  Hocking Co could join them, assuming the dog warden and county officials have stopped crying in their beer over the loss of their beloved torture device.

(Thanks Arlene for sending me this story.)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 920 other followers