Category: Animal Control Operations

Posted on

Property Rights

One of the problems that we face in our self-righteous world is making moral decisions that exceed the confines of the law.  Recently, a veterinarian was convicted of theft in Michigan for refusing to return a dog to a homeless man.  The veterinarian felt that the local animal welfare organizations would not do proper justice in investigating the welfare of the dog.  She further went on to exclaim that it was her ethical duty as a veterinarian to take the dog, and besides, the dog wasn’t licensed.  Okay, that was pretty lame.

The veterinarian’s “act of kindness” backfired when a Grand Rapids jury convicted the veterinarian of theft.  Her defense attorney spoke to the Associated Press that, “What is right and what is legal are not always the same thing.”  If she gets any jail time, she will get an opportunity to review her actions and determine if “being right” was worth it.

Animals are considered personal property.  By law, only animal control organizations have the authority to take legal possession of a person’s pet, following a practice of exercising due process.

In a perfect world, the court could order the veterinarian to return the dog.  But, it turns out for whatever reason, this “humane act” resulted in the euthanasia of the dog.  This kind of weakens the resolve that the veterinarian was actually performing an act of kindness.  We are all left wondering if the dog was better off with the involvement of the veterinarian.

The feelings that you have about this should feel oddly familiar; we experience this every day.  We have front row seats to some of the worst pet owners in our communities.  Yet the property status of a pet is no different than a person owning a car.  And yet, if you are doing your job right, you can prove to your community that there is a difference:  you are much less likely to go to jail for mistreating your car.  The veterinarian should have trusted her local animal welfare professionals.

Posted on

Pet Limit Laws

As with most laws, pet limit laws exist because some people lack the common sense to understand their limits. This blog is the result of a seizure of 97 dogs in our community. The notion of pet limit laws is the belief that as the number of animals that increase at a residence, the issue of animal-related complaints rise. Many communities enact pet limits in preparation for the idiots who come into their communities lacking the necessary common sense needed when people group together.

Pet limit laws can be found either in the local zoning code or in the animal control ordinance. Most limit the number of pets to less than a half dozen (over six months of age). As an incentive, many communities allow people to own more sterile pets than fertile ones. The idea is that people who spay/neuter their pets are generally more responsible than those who don’t.  Exemptions are often given to people who are fostering animals for the animal shelter.

A large number of pets at a specific residence increases noise related to pets and odor related to pet waste. Given these issues, it is understandable that people make animals one of the issues that are most reported to city/county councils. The worst part of people owning too many pets is when the government has to step in. Most public animal shelters are unprepared for a large influx of animals. So it comes down to one person’s lack of common sense creates a crisis for those who have to deal with it.

If I sound a little harsh here, it is because I have dealt with my share of pet seizures resulting from stupid people owning pets. From a professional perspective, there are a lot more stupid people in our communities than you could ever imagine; unless you are living next to one, and then you know.

It will be interesting to see how our community deals with this latest seizure. Will they address pet limits due to a single idiot, or do we need a few more incidents of our shelters being overburdened?

Posted on

DEI in Animal Shelters

Animal Shelters were practicing DEI far longer than it being accepted in business. If you look at the position statements of most national animal welfare organizations, you’ll find a statement of breeds. These statements began to materialize when communities were banning breeds that posed a risk to public safety.

We began to see statements claiming that “There are no bad dogs.” Or, “All breeds are the same.” I cannot help but feel that the people who wrote these position statements never worked in the business of animal control. Not all dogs are bad, but the ones that are can inflict varying amounts of injury. Some breeds, although aggressive by nature, can only inflict minimal injury. Some breeds have the propensity to inflict larger amounts of injury or even death. It is this last group of animals that communities wanted to ban.

Breed bans began with pitbulls because that is the breed that has always attracted the worst owners. It is tragic that you have to ban a breed based on who owns the breed but “it is what it is.” The early pitbull owners were attempting to breed their dogs for aggression and many of those deleterious genes remain in the pitbull’s gene pool.

Due to reputation, pitbulls began to accumulate in animal shelters and quickly overwhelmed the shelters. It was not uncommon to see pitbulls making up over 70% of the dogs in shelters. It became difficult to place pitbulls and shelters felt that the only way to get a pitbull adopted is to lie about the dog. It problem became so great in Virginia that laws had to be created to insure that animal shelters were not misrepresenting their dogs. No longer could an animal shelter lie about the aggressive behaviors that previous owners experienced with the dogs that they had surrendered.

The battle over adoptions and public safety became a war zone. While working in Virginia, I ended my career by deciding public safety was more important than adoption numbers. When dogs (pitbulls) became aggressive towards staff, the best (only) solution was to end the dog’s life. Keeping the public safe was more important that keeping your adoption numbers up. If you are going to lose your job, do it protecting your own species.

Before the laws were created in Virginia, a prospective dog owner would be safer getting a dog from a newspaper ad that getting the dog from an animal shelter. The ad would allow the prospective owner to have a sit down with the previous owner to get a first-hand account of the dog’s behavior.

I’d like to report that animal shelters are honest when dealing with prospective pet owners. The problem is that pitbulls still make up the greatest percentage of dogs in our shelters and philosophies have changed to eliminate euthanasia. The longer that a pet remains in an animal shelter the greater the chances that a dog will become aggressive. If euthanasia isn’t an option, then lying to prospective pet owners may be the only option that animal shelter staff have in moving the dog out of their shelter.  Keep in mind that their statistics are often more important than your safety.

I have preached over and over about integrity, but lying about a dog’s previous behavior is where animal shelters first begin to strip away their integrity. Once the first layer of integrity is removed, the remaining ones are easier to strip away. As such, if someone is thinking of adopting an animal from an animal shelter, it might be a good idea to take along an animal control officer before committing to a particular animal.  If one isn’t available, ask to see the intake paperwork (anything that might have been offered by the previous owner).

Posted on

Rabies

When I was working in Florida, we were battling the problem of feral cats. At that time, we were using the age-old solution of trapping and killing the cats. With such a large number of cats being trapped, we found a large number of raccoons finding their way into our traps. I came up with the idea of testing the raccoons for rabies so as to determine whether if we had a problem.

Our Health Department wasn’t eager to open that bag of worms. They were worried that I would show the presence of rabies was more prevalent than they wanted. They were worried that I would unleash a crisis that they were not prepared to deal with. And for them, it was a nasty task of cutting out the brains of these animals. We eventually agreed to just deliver the head of the raccoons, so that they wouldn’t have to worry about disposing of the bodies.

I took on the task of mapping the locations where the animals that tested positive were trapped. We discovered that the presence of rabies was much higher than we expected in our raccoon population. Something that our Health Department didn’t want to be known. After all, how do you deal with rabies in a wildlife population?

Just because you find a raccoon that tests positive for rabies, you don’t necessarily have the risk that that animal is shedding the virus. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t use the presence of rabies as a PR stunt to encourage people to vaccinate their pets.

For the most part, the rabies vaccination can be purchased to provide protection for 1 year or 3 years. Many veterinarians will administer the 1 year vaccination to force their clients to come in annually for their pet’s health examination. It’s good for the veterinarian’s pocketbook, and it is a thing that responsible pet owners do.

I’ve always believed that the solution of dealing with raccoon and feral cat populations would be in the form of seeding an area with pellets that contain rabies vaccine and a sterilant I just can’t figure out how you package the pellets so that small children don’t eat them; but, no matter how gross the things that children pick up and eat, they seem to survive.

Posted on

Dog Bites on Postal Carriers

A couple of months ago, I received a postcard from the Post Office reminding residents of the need to secure their pets; dog bites rise in the summer months. Today, our local media reports that there has been a spike in the number of postal carriers being bitten by dogs. Two factors are present when dog bites occur: hot weather that makes dogs short-tempered, and irresponsible dog owners who let their dogs run loose. There isn’t much of a cure for either of these two factors…. Or is there?

I have always believed that the Postal Service holds the greatest cure to end the stupidity factor. They only need to stop mail service to the neighborhood with loose aggressive dogs, and the dog owners’ neighbors will begin the education process. In most cases, the dog owner sees his (or her) error and will comply with the neighborhood norms. If that doesn’t work, then the dog becomes a victim of the neighborhood by either someone holding the dog for Animal Control to pick up or by “accidentally” digesting food that disagrees with the dog.  Having the option of having animal control in the community is a good step in reducing incidents of extreme justice.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of pet owners who cannot overcome their stupidity and thus secures the careers of many animal control personnel. I used to meet up with postal carriers to check in with them about potential problems on their routes. No one knows the problem of loose dogs better than postal carriers: work with them to keep the mail flowing.

In communities where animal control is underfunded, I have heard about neighborhoods in which people carry weapons when going out for a neighborly walk.  Usually, the problem has to persist when neighbors resort to such activities; and yet,  the owner acts shocked when one of their dogs is the recipient of a neighbor’s bullet.   Clueless is right up there with stupidity for such people.

Posted on

Using GPS

Throughout my career, I have used GPS in several organizations that I have overseen.  Here are a few war stories:

In Portland, we received a call that one of our vehicles had kicked up a rock and cracked the caller’s windshield.  We checked the location of the incident against the GPS of the vehicle that the guy reported.   We found that the vehicle was on the other side of the County when the incident occurred.  We discovered that people get their windshield cracked and begin looking for a government vehicle on the road to blame the incident on and get a free windshield replacement.

In Jacksonville, we received a call about one of our drivers driving recklessly.  We pulled up the GPS data and found that our driver was driving 50 miles per hour in a 35-mile zone.  The caller was right.

Also, in Jacksonville, we deal with a lot of impatient callers who are calling in to see where the truck dispatched to their address is.  We can look at the mapping software and advise them.  It was not uncommon that we’d see the vehicle pulling up in front of their house and advise them to look outside the window.

GPS finds the best use for new drivers who are unfamiliar with your city.  It helps them get around.

GPS systems help advise your dispatcher as to which vehicle is the closest to the incident location.

We lost one of our employees in Fairfax County.  He had pressed the emergency button on his radio, and we were able to find the location of his vehicle via GPS.  When it started getting dark, we dispatched a helicopter and asked him to shine his flashlight straight up, and the helicopter pilot was able to direct our search to him.

GPS is a wonderful tool.  I used the it in Jacksonville to map the locations of raccoons that had tested positive for rabies.

In Salt Lake City, I used GPS to map the locations of dogs that had been declared dangerous.   I have heard of communities that have online mapping to let neighbors know where the dangerous dogs are in their neighborhood.

As an oldtimer, I use GPS when I am using the public transportation system in my city.    Google has a feature where you can share your location (not with just China (joking)).  So when I go out the door, I turn on Google Maps, and my daughter can track me when she turns on her Google Maps.  If I am headed out to a soccer game, she can see how far I am away.

You would be remiss if you didn’t take advantage of the tools that are available to you.

Posted on

Its not their fault!

I was reading comments following the recent incident of one of our police officers shooting a dog.  Many people conclude that the dog was not to blame.  On that, I agree.  Dogs become confused, especially when some stranger is yelling at them.  Time and time again we see evidence that many pet owners are not smart enough to own a dog.  Any reasonable person would realize that the best way to control your dog is with a leash.   If you can’t figure out the purpose of the leash, you should not take your dog into a crowd.

Every effort that the person attempting to control the dog made it worse.  Their excitement just further excited the dog.  During the two separate altercations that the police had with the dog, I did not hear a single person say “no” to the dog.  That is the first step in training dogs to be around people; to stop aberrant behavior.  This incident failed at all levels.

When the officer approached the dog the first time, the leash was on the dog, but no one was holding the leash.  Someone was stepping on the leash.  The officer should have seen the risk that he was entering into and demanded that someone take the leash into their hands.  It might have helped that he didn’t start with “his cop voice.”

In the second incident with the dog, the dog was off-leash.  The person near the dog could be clearly seen with the leash in her hand.  This makes no sense; the person had to be pretty stupid to take the dog off leash following the dog biting an officer just moments before.

Still using his “cop voice,” but a little more excited, the officer was yelling at the woman to hold the dog.  In addition to the woman being stupid, she was also very slow.  The dog began approaching the officer and the woman’s efforts to stop the dog only seemed to excite the dog more.

As slow as the woman was, the police officer was very quick in pumping four rounds into the dog.  Although the dog didn’t immediately die, it was in pretty bad shape.  I don’t know at what point that dog realized that he was acting badly; it is further evidence that people should be tested first before they are allowed to own a pet or have children.

Posted on

Officer Involved Shooting

Our local police responded to a parking lot full of people.  From police footage, it appears that most of the people were homeless.  One police officer approached the group and was attacked and bitten by a dog.  It appeared to me that the dog was on a leash at the time.   The officer was walking off the attack when he came back into view of the dog again, which was now off-leash.    Another officer approached the dog’s owner yelling at her to control her dog.  Her attempt was feeble, at best.  He promised her that he would shoot the dog if she didn’t gain control of it.  She didn’t and the dog attacked again and was shot four times for its efforts.

In most circumstances, I would feel sorry for the stupid dog and its owner; but, people don’t realize the impact that has on the officer.  As an animal control officer, I could have taken the dog without killing it.  That’s what we do.  But, I don’t expect a police officer to handle the situation as I would have.  Police officers are trained to think with their guns when they are in danger.  So, given the circumstances, it was a righteous shooting. Although, a Taser would have been my first choice.

Before you start thinking that I’m all full of myself, keep in mind that most animal control officers don’t carry guns.  So shooting a dog isn’t an option.  If we are experienced animal control officers, we get out of our vehicles with a ketch-pole and leash in our hands.  The prospect of getting bitten doesn’t worry us as it does police officers.  Of course, we also get more experience facing down a face full of doggie teeth.

I recall using pepper spray on a Rottweiler once.  The owners complained to the police about my use of pepper spray and when the police sergeant came out to talk to the dog’s owners, the dog attacked him.  He came just short of shooting the dog.  Once the sergeant calmed down, he told me not to worry about the complaint.  I was a little embarrassed that I stepped out of the vehicle without my ketch-pole.  After all of these years, I still feel bad about using the pepper spray.

Posted on

Hiring a veterinarian

Hiring a veterinarian can be the most challenging task that you might ever encounter. Your veterinarian will likely be your most expensive employee and the veterinarian position will be the hardest position that you will ever have to fill. During your interview with potential hires, you will keep asking yourself if there is any hope that you will get your money’s worth from that individual. Here is what you will encounter:

You need someone who can organize their time and be able to perform high-volume surgeries. But here is the kicker: they can’t be too fast or too slow. A veterinarian that needs two or three hours to complete a spay/neuter will be too ineffective on your staff; but, a veterinarian who completes surgeries within minutes will be taking shortcuts. I have witnessed veterinarians taking shortcuts in closing and substituting glue for sutures. I’ve seen organizations dealing with the bad press from people taking their pets home, only to complain about open wounds. And then the shelter has to pay for that person to take their pet to the emergency clinic to close the wound again. You can’t afford to be paying for many of those incidents. It is much cheaper to do the surgeries right, even if it takes a few minutes more.

Hiring a veterinarian is all about balance. That balance is very hard to find. As such, you need to think about “plan B.” If your local humane society operates a high-volume clinic, you might consider contracting with them for your surgeries. Some will even provide pickup and delivery services. “Plan C” is contracting with a local veterinarian who is willing to reduce their rates for a constant income source. Surgeries make up a small portion of a veterinarian’s business and you might find one who wants your business just to stay proficient.

A word of caution. Avoid “luxury veterinarians”; who might have worked at a luxury, government, or university clinic where that had unlimited resources.  There are hidden costs associated with “luxury veterinarians,” because they are used to providing deluxe services.  I discovered just how many dogs you can find with lime disease if you test for it. You are going to run up your veterinary costs if you treat every dog that comes into your shelter with lime disease. If you have the time and the money, go for it. If you are working with the same budget that I’ve had throughout my career, you have to stop short of providing luxury services.

Another word of caution is the handling of controlled substances. Although the shelter purchases the drugs, your veterinarian is the only one allowed to handle them. If you decide to fire your veterinarian, have another veterinarian in the wings to accept responsibility for the drugs. Come to think about it, you might want to schedule route drug tests for your veterinarian. I never did that and thinking back, I wish that I had.

I am going to get slightly off-topic. When I worked in Utah, employees who were in accidents when driving a government vehicle were immediately sent in for a drug test. At first thought, you’ll think that is a stupid idea, until you start to realize that the accident could have been caused by someone on drugs. Does meth make you drive a little more aggressive? I think that it might. Of course, back in those days, Utah had the third-highest meth use in the Country.

Posted on

Status Quo Budget

I have discovered that I can’t leave the animal welfare profession even though I am retired.  Last night I dreamt of working on a status quo budget.

The phrase “status quo” literally translates to “the existing state of affairs.’  In budgeting, it means a budget that reflects the current pattern and operational levels without any planned changes or increases. (according to Google)

In reality, given inflation, there is no such thing as a status quo budget; last year’s dollars will not present this year’s operation.  So, even with a status quo level of budgeting, you’re forced to reduce areas of your budget due to rising costs of, say, pet food; unless you are prepared to provide cheaper food; which, might cause other budget areas to arise: due to indigestion.

The best insurance for your budget is developing a good relationship with your city/county commission.  As I have mentioned in past blogs, in Florida I had a County Administrator hell bend to reducing Animal Control’s budget.  But, due to our relationship with our Commission, they stopped him every year because the Commission receives a lot of animal-related complaints and we made sure that we responded promptly to them.   The County Administrator never figured out our secret, because he never saw the big picture.

That same Administrator always had us providing cost-cutting budgets each year.  In many of them, I would cut my own salary so as to meet the needs of the County.   Although losing me was no sweat off the Administrator’s back, the Commission didn’t want to lose their contact person in Animal Control.

In last night’s budget, I was disillusioned with Animal Control agreeing to a status quo budget without thinking that it was really a budget reduction.  So, if you think you are ahead by agreeing to last year’s budget, you are going to have to rethink your budget as a reduction.  Just know that in advance and let me go back to sleep.