CAPA Modified – Parvo is Not a License for Shelters to Kill

Just as it is unfair to punish a shelter dog based on breed, so it is unethical to kill shelter pets based on the name of a disease.  In this post, I’m talking about canine parvovirus but the statement can apply to other diseases as well.  Euthanasia to end the suffering of medically hopeless pets must be based upon the veterinary prognosis, not just the diagnosis of disease.

I was recently excited to learn that the No Kill Advocacy Center’s model legislation piece, the Companion Animal Protection Act (CAPA) has been modified and the following provision removed from the document:

(2) Symptomatic dogs with confirmed cases of parvovirus or cats with confirmed cases of panleukopenia may be euthanized without delay, upon a certification made in writing and signed by a veterinarian licensed to practice medicine in this state that the prognosis is poor even with supportive care. Such certification shall be made available for free public inspection for no less than three years;

Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center explained that the language was removed in order “to move away from disease-based to prognosis-based legislation”.  I fully support this change.

Parvo is preventable and treatable and every animal shelter has an obligation to both prevent and treat this disease.  Parvo in shelters is prevented through the practice of vaccination prior to or immediately upon intake, good housing practices and standard disease prevention cleaning protocols.  The disease is further prevented by ensuring the community’s dog owners have easy access to low cost vaccinations for their pets.

Treatment options for parvo dogs include in-house care if sufficient resources exist to provide isolation and appropriate veterinary care.  If the facility is not equipped to provide treatment, parvo dogs may be transferred to another shelter with appropriate facilities or to a private veterinary clinic.  Donations may be solicited from the public if necessary.  The media can help in educating the public and spreading the word about the shelter’s efforts to save lives.  The days of blanket killing of shelter dogs for parvo or exposure to the disease are over.

Killing dogs who have tested positive for parvo without providing treatment is unacceptable.  Killing dogs who have not been tested or treated, who have been “diagnosed” by someone other than a veterinarian, who are asymptomatic but have been exposed or who are merely “suspected” of having the disease is also unacceptable.  What are your local shelter’s protocols for handling parvo dogs?

Austin Pets Alive has a ward set up for parvo dogs, run by volunteers.  The save rate is approximately 85% and dogs are usually back on their paws after a week.  Disease free dogs are then put on the adoption floor so they can find loving homes and live normal, happy lives.  How does that compare to your local shelter’s parvo protocols?

Shelters who fail to vaccinate all animals prior to or immediately upon intake are failing to prevent the spread of disease.  Shelters who fail to utilize standard disease prevention cleaning protocols and/or maintain good housing practices are failing to prevent the spread of disease.  These same shelters are often the ones who kill based on disease (or suspicion of disease) instead of veterinary prognosis and then blame the public for failing to vaccinate their pets.

All shelters need to bring their parvo protocols in line with current veterinary standards.  Prevention and treatment are not luxuries.  They are the minimum that every shelter pet is entitled to and the least we should expect from our municipal facilities.

Thank you to the No Kill Advocacy Center for modifying CAPA to reflect veterinary advances in the diagnosis and treatment of parvo and the duty of shelters to meet those standards.  No disease diagnosis, exposure or suspicion should be an instant authorization to kill shelter pets.  Further evaluation by a veterinarian is always appropriate and in most canine parvo cases, treatment is likely to be successful.

Further information:

Free webinar by Dr. Ellen Jefferson on the parvo dogs ward at Austin Pets Alive.  Type “Ellen Jefferson” in the search box and tick the “show past sessions” box to bring up the one hour webinar titled “Treating Parvo”.

Controlling Parvo:  Real Life Scenarios by Dr. Kate Hurley

Disinfection 102:  Beyond Cage Cleaning by Dr. Kate Hurley

Redefining Vaccination on Intake – Maddie’s Fund

NYC’s Homeless Pets Don’t Belong in Garbage Bags

Shame on the ASPCA, the Mayor’s Alliance, Animal Law Coalition and everyone else attempting to block legislation which would give pets in the NYC shelter system a fighting chance to escape the kill room.

No healthy/treatable pet should be sent to the landfill.

Photo of Biscuit, saved from NYC ACC, with his person Lily, as it appears on Facebook.

[photo]

Thank you Karen for sharing this photo link with me.

More Apparent Illegalities Revealed at Catoosa Co Pound

When I initially looked over the kill logs from the Catoosa Co pound in GA, it appeared that GA law was being violated regarding the method of pet killing being performed there.  The reader who initially contacted me about the pound requested some additional records and those documents seem to reveal violations of county law regarding mandatory hold period for impounded animals.  Catoosa Co law states:

 An animal that does not have any identification shall be confined at the shelter for a period of at least five days from the date of impoundment.

(1)

Any animal impounded, in violation of this chapter, that is found to be injured or diseased beyond humane recovery, and does not have any identification may be euthanized to prevent further suffering on the animal’s part.

[...]

(3)

The animal control department may dispose of any animals not claimed or redeemed by the owner, as provided for in this section, on the first day after the required impoundment period.

[emphasis mine]

I interpret this to mean that any impounded stray pet in Catoosa Co must be held for at least 5 days unless he is determined (I assume by a veterinarian although that is not stated specifically) to be medically hopeless and suffering in which case he may be euthanized before the mandatory hold has expired.

In the case of cat #001976, he was impounded and killed on 12-1-11.  The surrendering party clearly indicated on the form that he was not the owner of this cat.  There are no notes to indicate that a vet – or anyone at all – examined this cat and found him to be medically hopeless and suffering.  If in fact he was someone’s terrified pet or part of a feral cat colony, the owner or caretaker would never have been able to redeem him because Catoosa Co killed him upon intake.  If he was unowned, it’s possible someone might have been interested in adopting him but Catoosa Co never offered him for adoption.  Catoosa Co gave this cat no chance to live.  Cat #002104 was impounded and killed under very similar circumstances – the surrendering party indicated he did not own the cat, there are no veterinary notes indicating any type of exam, and the cat was immediately killed.

Most of the other cats in this set of documents are listed as “feral” so presumably, although the surrendering parties failed to indicate ownership status, these cats were legally considered to be strays and should have been held for the mandatory 5 days under county law.  Every cat listed was killed immediately upon intake, using multiple injections of Fatal Plus.

The dog documents reveal at least 1 case where a pet appears to have been killed before the mandatory hold period expired.  Dog #002027 is marked as a stray with an impound date of 12-19-11 and a kill date of 12-21-11.  There are no notes of a veterinary exam of any kind.  Most of the dogs in this set of documents were killed with multiple injections of Fatal Plus.

As a follow-up to the previous post where it was noted that the kill logs appeared to indicate pets at Catoosa Co were not being killed humanely or in accordance with state law, I contacted Dr. Robin Downing, a CO veterinarian specializing in pain management, for her input on the issue of killing non-sedated pets with multiple injections of Fatal Plus administered IP, IV and/or IC.  She responded to my questions regarding this practice as follows:

Fatal Plus is VERY caustic (alkaline pH) and so injecting it into the abdomen of a cat or dog is inhumane.

If it is going to be given IV at all, the appropriate euthanasia dose should just be given at that time… It is an ANAESTHESIA agent (pentobarbital sodium), NOT a sedative, although as an anaesthetic agent it DOES cause unconsciousness…

But again, if you’re already in the vein, the fatal dose should simply be given.

It is ONLY appropriate to perform an intra-cardiac puncture after DEEP sedation which provides ANALGESIA also…

And specifically on the subject of euthanizing pets whose veins are inaccessible for whatever reasons, Dr. Downing says:

It can be a very peaceful experience for the pet involved, but ONLY if it is performed using APPROPRIATE drugs in an APPROPRIATE fashion…  And for us that means sedation using a medication called an “alpha-2 agonist” mixed with a narcotic…  Unsure how a shelter can do this without the support of a veterinarian.

I am grateful to Dr. Downing for sharing her views on this subject.  I know most of us are not vets and it is sometimes hard to make sense of practices which fall so far outside our experiences as pet owners.  I hope Dr. Downing’s comments shed a little light on the subject.

After the first post on Catoosa Co, some readers contacted the Georgia Attorney General and the Georgia Department of Agriculture and asked them to investigate.  At that time, the main concern was that pets were possibly being made to suffer while being needlessly killed.  Now there appears to be an additional concern that the mandatory hold period is not being observed at Catoosa Co.  I hope the authorities will investigate this as well.

Lastly, if you are a GA resident, please take action to help get the Georgia Animal Rescue Act (GARA) passed in your state.  Remember that Catoosa Co initially surfaced on our radar because they killed a healthy puppy named Jackson whom a rescuer wanted to save.  GARA would give pets like Jackson a legal right to live.  The Catoosa Co pound must not only be held accountable for their past actions, they must reform their practices and be held to a higher standard such as would be provided under GARA.  Pets in GA need these legal protections.

Bringing Up from the Comments

Reader Daniela spoke with an aide in NYS assemblywoman Amy Paulin’s office this morning regarding the Quick Kill bill.  Here is Daniela’s summary of the conversation.  Interesting to note that Amy Paulin’s aide has never heard of Best Friends:

The bill has been passed in the committee and is moving on to the next stage. The assistant I talked to was very nice – when I asked what the status was she asked if I wanted to talk about it. I told her I was opposed to it and she said she has only been hearing from people opposed to the bill. There have also been death threats so she has the door locked – I can’t blame her on this one. In talking to the assistant I do not think they understand the mentality of the kill shelter. They are in an area where their shelter is no kill and does everything it can to reunite owners and their lost pets and try to get them homes. They have the “if practicable” language in there because it seems like they think that it is unrealistic to give a time frame – like 4 hours within intake. Personally I would be happy with “must scan for microchip before bringing to the kill room” as long as it guarantees the animal will be scanned at least once in its stay.

They also claim the ability to kill in 60 seconds is not in the bill. I am not a lawyer and have not read the full bill so I do not know if that provision is in there specifically or not but since so many people are pointing it out some language in there must something there that leads people to believe that an animal could be killed immediately. She is also claiming that shelters will not kill animals just for whining or being scared – I think she is naive on what kill shelters actually do.

It seems like Amy Paulin really does want to do what is best for the animals but she is not aware of the actual implications of this bill. I asked why she doesn’t support CAARA and I was told that they don’t support it because they do not believe it will be passed because the shelters do not have the ability to do what is in the bill. They did acknowledge that the CAARA bill is the better bill but they feel that they have to go with “makes better” because CAARA will never get out of committee.

I asked about the word “practicable” and was told every piece of legislation has that in there and it’s just there so that shelters without the means to do so are okay. Again I think she is very naive in the mentality of kill shelters and what they can do and what they want to do and what they will do. I did talk to her about the horrors in NYACC – seems like many people are complaining specifically about NYACC.

She did say that most likely they will be making amendments to the bill and they are considering taking out the psychological pain parts. I asked if she would consider working with Best Friends and Alley Cat Allies to help reword and she had never heard of Best Friends – apparently the assistant who helped with this bill moved on so this assistant is not 100% up to speed on who helped where. She did take down their names and what they do so hopefully that means they are willing to accept more discussion about this bill. She did say that she worked with rescues and shelters to get this bill where it was but I refrained from asking her who she worked with besides the ASPCA – mainly cause I didn’t think I could keep a civil tongue in my mouth and I also didn’t think she could tell me that.

Small recap – Amy does believe she is doing the best for the animals – she really thinks it will improve the lives of the animals in shelters in NY. She thinks this is a stepping stone to better legisation as she does not thing CAARA can be passed at this time. This is supposed to help create a bridge to when CAARA can be passed. I doubt she has ever worked with a rescue and seen the conditions of a kill shelter so is naive on what the mentality of the people there is. She thinking that animals cannot be killed within 60 seconds for being in psychological distress – she seems to think the holding period would stop that. She also sounds like she might be willing to work with other organizations to help fix this bill

I have gathered all my knowledge of this bill from all the websites that discuss what this bill means. If some of the people that read and understand the full bill want to contact her they might have a more meaningful conversation with her. I ended the call with us agreeing to disagree on the effects of the bill.

I spent about 20 – 30 min talking to her so if you want any specifics let me know.

11th Hour Social Media Blitz to Fight for Shelter Pets’ Lives

On Wednesday February 15,  Assembly Bill A05449A will be introduced in the NY state Ag Committee.  This quick kill bill is expected to pass and we need to make our voices heard tonight to keep that from happening.  This quick kill bill is of immediate concern to NYers because it affects their community pets but it’s also very worrying for pet owners everywhere because it sets a legal precedent for more needless shelter pet killing.

And once again, it falls upon “the irresponsible public” to stand up for the lives of pets because the multi-million dollar animal welfare groups won’t do it.  Where is Alley Cat Allies, the nation’s largest group advocating for feral cats?  They should be mobilizing their forces in opposition to this bill which will legalize instant killing for every feral cat in NY.  Where is Best Friends?  They ask people to donate so there will be “no more homeless pets” but this bill might as well be named “no more living homeless pets”.  Why aren’t they mass e-mailing members to take action against this?  HSUS?  Tuh, I know better than to ask.  And of course ASPCA is the group that is leading the coalition to get the quick kill bill made into law.

It’s up to you and me.  Again.  No matter where you live, please take action and voice your opposition to the ASPCA’s quick kill bill.  Then pass this information on to your compassionate animal friends.  Every voice counts.

As always, please keep your comments respectful.

With permission, I am sharing Nathan Winograd’s most recent post on the subject, complete with action items, below.  This is the most succinct explanation I’ve seen.  If you aren’t familiar with the quick kill bill and need more information, there are links at the end.

From Nathan Winograd:

If the ASPCA and Assembly Member Amy Paulin get their way, feral cats and scared cats can be exterminated immediately on intake in New York State shelters.
The ASPCA is pushing legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Amy Paulin that would allow New York State shelters to kill animals immediately if shelter staff determine that the animals are in “psychological pain.” There is no definition of what constitutes psychological pain and no standards to how it will be applied. For the first time anywhere in the U.S., shelters will be allowed to kill animals with no holding period of any time based on the animals’ perceived state of mind, giving regressive shelter bureaucrats unlimited discretion to immediately kill animals based on unenforceable, unknowable, and completely subjective criteria. Not only is this a real and immediate threat to shy and scared animals, as well as feral cats, but it is a very dangerous precedent to introduce in the animal control laws of our nation.

Whether you are from New York or not, please speak up for the animals:

• Email Ed Sayres: esayres@aspca.org

• Post comments on the ASPCA Facebook page: www.facebook.com/aspca

• Post comments to twitter: @aspca

• Email Amy Paulin: PaulinA@assembly.state.ny.us

• Post comments on Paulin’s Facebook page: www.facebook.com/assemblywomanpaulin

• Post comments to twitter: @AmyPaulin

Learn more:

Gone in 60 Seconds

The ASPCA Fights for More Shelter Killing in NY

Dear Dog Pounds, It’s Not ‘Euthanasia’ and You Aren’t Being ‘Forced’ to Do It

Euthanasia is a kindness we are able to offer medically hopeless pets so that they do not have to suffer at the end of their lives.  It is an act of love, an attempt to offer relief and dignity to a noble companion.  When so-called shelters end the lives of healthy pets or those with treatable conditions such as coughs, colds or bad teeth, that is not euthanasia – it’s killing.  It is not an act of love but rather one of violence.  Killing healthy/treatable pets is completely unacceptable.  It is not what most Americans believe their shelters should be doing.  And as the math proves, it’s entirely unnecessary since there are enough homes for every shelter pet in the country.

If killing shelter pets is ethically objectionable and the majority of us don’t want shelters doing it and it can’t be justified by saying there are “too many pets, not enough homes” – why are some shelters claiming they are “forced” to kill pets?

Let’s make this simple:

• We are the taxpayers who pay your salary and we don’t want you to kill pets.

• There are many more people looking to add a pet to their homes than there are pets in shelters.

• It may some some hustle and hard work, but you can place every healthy/treatable pet in your care with an adopter, foster or rescue group.

The Marion Co pound in Ohio put up a Facebook page to list their pets.  This is good.  However, this seems to be all they are willing to do in order to avoid killing.  This is not good.  From a news piece titled Dog Pound Forced to Euthanize:

The Marion dog pound has reached its maximum capacity, and soon animals will have to be put down if they do not get adopted.

“Our main kennels number is 20, and we started this morning at 23,” Marion County Deputy Ryan Zempter said.

The Marion County Dog Pound is trying new approaches to get adoption numbers up.

The dog pound has created its own Facebook page.

[...]

The Marion dog pound can only speculate, and hope for a change.

“I guess just keep our fingers crossed  and hope we can get some out the door before the next one comes in,” [Marion County Deputy Ryan] Zempter said.

Cross our fingers and hope for a change?  Jiminy H. Criminy!  We started a Facebook page but we have 3 dogs too many so we’re going to have to start killing.  Because obviously we couldn’t ask a dog to share a space with another dog in order to save his life.  We couldn’t have offsite adoption events on weekends or offer a Valentine’s Day adoption promotion.  Because Facebook page!

I’m not seeing the forcing.  When does the forcing start?

To reiterate:  Ending the lives of healthy/treatable pets is not “euthanasia” – it’s killing.  We don’t want you to kill and there is no need to kill.  Therefore, you are not being forced to kill pets.  It’s the opposite, actually.  You are being forced to save pets, if you’re being honest.  But since we can’t count on pet killers to tell the truth, we need to put laws into place to protect shelter pets.  This is why we need CAPA.

This blog will be going dark tomorrow to protest SOPA/PIPA

Image from sopastrike.com

You may already be familiar with the proposed legislation (SOPA in the House, PIPA in the Senate) that would, in effect, shut down this blog and a host of other internet sites if enacted.  I want the internet to remain a place of free exchange of uncensored information and ideas.  I want to continue my form of advocacy and I support the rights of others to do the same.  Therefore I am joining in the blackout on January 18 from 8am to 8pm to protest these awful bills, to help raise awareness and get people to take action.

If you want to read more about SOPA/PIPA or want to know how to fight back, everything is here.  This is the page that I will be directing visitors to tomorrow.  I WILL be on Twitter tomorrow, following and sharing news about the #SOPAstrike.  The blog will be live again at 8pm.  Please consider calling or writing your Senators and Representative in opposition to PIPA and SOPA.

Legislating the Better Angels of Our Nature

Tonight I, like many of you, have someone special sharing my Christmas Eve.  I have a sweet and beautiful pet, whom a shelter threatened to kill.  Surrey’s “crime” was being pregnant and about to give birth.  The day the volunteers at the Tipton Co shelter sent out the plea about Surrey, there were two other bitches there, just as pregnant as she was.  After I e-mailed my offer to take her, I was directed to the volunteers’ page on Facebook.  I scrolled through some of the posts and saw one of the other pregnant bitches.  She was a black dog and so didn’t photograph very well inside the shelter.  She looked possibly like a Pitbull mix and it was obvious, even in poor lighting, that she was very pregnant.  There was an update on her the morning after Surrey had been sprung.  The black mama dog, with her puppies wiggling in her belly, had been killed by the shelter.  I closed the page.  I never knew what happened to the other bitch in whelp.

Tonight, as Surrey lays in her bed underneath the Christmas tree, I am thinking about how lucky I am to have her here.  I am thinking too about the black mama dog at Tipton Co, and all her unborn pups, who were thrown in the dumpster, their remains now rotting in the landfill.  That girl deserved to be in a dog bed under someone’s Christmas tree too.  Her puppies deserved a chance to be born and to be fawned over by squealing children.  Every pet in the Tipton Co shelter, like every pet in every animal shelter in this county, deserves to live.

It is morally and ethically wrong for anyone to kill a healthy/treatable pet.  There is no justification.  None.

Surrey is my pet.  Every animal in a shelter tonight in this country is my pet too.  I love them.  It’s not possible for me to have them all physically sleeping under my Christmas tree tonight but they are there in spirit.  They are in my heart and in my head.  Not a day or night goes by that I am not thinking about them – hoping for them.  Until there is not a single pet under threat of death at the hands of a so-called shelter, I will keep advocating for no kill.

We can not change every shelter worker’s morals or ethics, but we can work to get the law on the side of pets in need.  If we could get CAPA passed in every state in this country, needless shelter pet killing would not only be morally and ethically wrong – it would be legally wrong.  If it seems sometimes like I’m nagging people to take political action, this is why.  Because within this legal action lies my hope.  It won’t erase every problem within our nation’s broken shelter system but it’s a big, fat foot in the door.  Right now, they are slamming that door in our faces while they do their killing.  I want to jam a foot in the door of every kill room in every shelter in every state.  I want to hear our voices yelling through the crack, “You have no right – stop!”

I don’t say all this just because it’s Christmas or just because I have a pair of soft brown Beagle eyes gazing at me sleepily.  I say it because this is the truth I know.  Every pet in a kill shelter tonight is Surrey.  And every pet in a kill shelter tonight is the black mama dog with no name.  There is no difference.  But there ought to be.  There ought to be a law.  Because killing a defenseless pet who wants nothing more than to be loved should be a crime.  If we can’t appeal to the better angels of our nature to get the killing to stop, we’ll have to put the law on the side of shelter pets.  Are you prepared to jam your foot in a door to end the killing?

Weigh In on MI Dog Mauling Case

An interesting case in MI:  A couple engaged to be married, who between them owned three dogs, kept the dogs in their fenced yard with warning signs posted.  A 6 year old neighbor girl and her friend wanted to come in the yard one day while the man’s niece (also a resident) was home.  The niece told them no, don’t come in the yard.  The 6 year old, apparently without adult supervision, opened the gate to the fence anyway and went into the yard.  The dogs mauled her.  The man and the woman who owned the dogs were charged with keeping dangerous animals and agreed to have the dogs killed.

Michigan law dictates that an animal can not be declared dangerous for attacking a trespasser.  In the case against the male owner, prosecutors argued that a 6 year old can not be a trespasser since the child would be unable to make such a distinction.  The jury convicted the man and sentencing is scheduled for next month.  The trial against the fiancee is set to begin next week.

Here are my questions:

Do parents/caregivers have the right to expect their 6 year old children to be safe in the neighborhood, even when not supervised by an adult, and even when the child is trespassing on to someone else’s property?  (Regardless of whether you believe the child could knowingly trespass or not.)

If state law says a dog can’t be declared dangerous for attacking a trespasser (which is a reason some people have dogs – for protection) and the argument is made in court that the child is too young to knowingly trespass, are we not then making the assumption that dogs must be somehow capable of discerning trespassers of sufficient mental maturity to understand that trespassing is illegal vs. trespassers who are not capable of this understanding?  Does the law need to be re-written?

If the couple had left a jug of bleach on the porch, and the kid unlocked the gate, walked up to the porch and drank the bleach, would the couple have been charged with a crime?

Are charges against the girl’s parents/caregivers appropriate?

The Legal Hypocrisy of Killing Pets

When taxpayer funded shelters kill pets because those pets are their property and the shelter can dispose of them as they see fit, what kind of an example does it set for the community? What legal hypocrisy is exposed?

In April 2011, William Richerson of Oneida Co, NY took the family pet, a  Jack Russell Terrier named Sam, down to the basement and shot him to death:

[Mr. Richerson] told a judge in court this week that he didn’t see anything wrong with killing the family dog [...] because it was his dog, prosecutors said.

He pled guilty this month to two felonies – aggravated animal cruelty and a weapons charge – and is scheduled for sentencing in July.

There is no information that links this heinous crime to kill shelter practices.  I am simply drawing the parallel between the prosecutable act of killing a dog because he is property with the publicly sanctioned act of killing shelter pets because they are property.  Is it time to consider leveling the playing field for the protection of all pets?  Should the law apply equally to individuals and public shelters alike?

In the case of individual owners, society accepts the euthanasia of a pet who is medically hopeless and suffering or a dog who has been deemed vicious.  In fact, we grieve with those who share with us the sad news of euthanizing a beloved pet.  But the killing of a pet simply because the animal is the property of the owner?  We condemn that act and, when the law allows, prosecute it as a crime.

When a municipal shelter kills pets simply because they are property, I consider that a crime.  The law does not agree with me and society has been fooled into accepting the killing as a necessary reality.  That however, is a lie.  There are enough homes for every shelter pet in America.  So why should the laws of a humane society allow for pets to be killed by shelters just because they are the shelter’s property?  And to make the killing even more egregious, some shelters store their pets behind closed doors, making no attempt to adopt them out or even to let the public know they are there.  After the required hold period expires, the shelter then kills the pets – because they can.

This is a grey issue when you consider the potential exceptions and special circumstances that could crop up in any shelter or even an individual owner’s situation.  But in broad terms, what are your thoughts about the laws applying to the killing of pets simply because they are property – should they be completely different for owners and shelters?  Or should the two parties be bound by laws more similar in nature – laws which are representative of our society’s attitude toward pets?

***

Rescue Five-0 is a site aimed at helping people to initiate action regarding local legal protections for shelter pets similar in nature to those afforded other pets.