Category: Animal Control Operations

Posted on

Cowboy Justice

One of the most common ways for judges to deal with aggressive dogs is to vanquish the dog from the jurisdiction.  This means of administering justice is similar to dog owners hiding their dog following an incident in which the dog has injured someone.

The judges don’t want to make the decision to destroy the dog and the pet owner is unwilling to accept responsibility for the actions of their dog.  Neither have any concern about throwing out an aggressive dog from one jurisdiction makes the dog a risk to another jurisdiction.  As long as the dog doesn’t pose a threat to our community, they are okay.  When it comes to pet ownership, as a society, we have never thought globally.

The reason that so many people are attacked by aggressive dogs is that neither the community nor the owners take their responsibility seriously and the children seem to take the brunt of these folks failing to accept their civic responsibility.

Anytime I heard about a “get out of town free” order, I would determine where the dog was going and call the animal control officers of that jurisdiction to make them aware that an aggressive dog was moving into their neighborhood.  I figure that if all we do is push our problems off on another community, they can prepare to deal with it in their community.   This kind of thinking has forced many neighborhoods to take protection with them as they go out on their daily walk; some of them even carry guns.

Posted on

The Evolution of the “Running at Large” Ordinance

In the beginning, dogs were considered running at large if the dog was not under the “control of the owner”, while off the property of the owner.  There seemed to be a discrepancy between what the owner consider under control and what Animal Control Officers consider under control.  It became obvious that voice control proved to provide inadequate control under most (every)circumstances.

Ordinances migrated to requiring dogs to be kept under physical control.  Eventually the ordinance evolved to requiring maximum leash length and the leash had to be held by an adult with the capacity to “physically” control the dog while off the property of the owner.

Soon the laws required dogs to be physically confined to the property.  It was a time when the Invisible Fence folks tried to convince the law makers that their device should be viewed as physical confinement; we didn’t buy it.  We had enough experience to know that a headstrong dog would suffer the brief pain to breach the fence and then would be punished every time the dog tried getting back into the yard.

People too cheap to fence their yards would start chaining their pet in the yard.  After a few years we discovered the chaining caused dogs to become more aggressive and it was inhumane to chain the dogs for long periods of time.  We then began to create tethering laws; that created a whole new world of pet owners trying to interpret the law.

It wasn’t long that cats got into the act.  I think we received more complaints about cats than we did dogs.  Cat owners, like the dog owners before them could not understand how they could be breaking the law while their cat was just sitting on the porch.  Most people did not understand the concept of their pet having the potential to leave the property because the animal was not physically confined to the property.  Not a single pet owner convinced us that they had an infallible honor system with their pet that was never broken.

be We constantly were told that “My pet never leaves the yard.”  In all my years in animal control, I found only two dogs that could not be coaxed from their yard.  They were two Shelties living on a corner lot in Pullman Washington.  Those animals have passed on, so I am convinced that there are now no animals to my knowledge that will not breach the boundary of their yard.

Cats became more of an issue because cat owners exercised loose ownership of their cats.  People treated their pets as passing strays in the neighborhood.  For that reason, we then had to define the term of owner.  It seems that the more laws that we created to make people responsible pet owners and good neighbors were creating a culture of absentee pet owners.  The thinking is that if I pretend that I don’t own the animal, then maybe I can convince someone else that I really don’t own the animal.

Posted on

Cat Licensing

I believe that cats should be indoor animals; however, I have lived with numerous cats who disagree with me.  Cats are easy to train to be indoor animals, until they experience the outdoors and all that training goes out the door (or window).  Having experienced the outdoors, the cat is compelled to be an outdoor animal.   When this event occurs, it is time to double check that you cat is still wearing its collar with pet license and other identification.

Why should you cat have multiple identification?    If your local jurisdiction requires licenses, the only phone number on the license tag is one to your animal shelter or city/county clerk.  These offices are not always open.  Someone finding your cat, even if you don’t think it is lost, will have no one to call in the middle of the night.  Putting a tag on your pet with your phone number may save you a trip to your local shelter to reclaim your pet and save you the cost of reclaiming your pet.

Cat licensing ordinances are the most difficult ordinances to pass.  Many people don’t believe it is possible to own a cat and city councils and county commissions often agree.  People see licensing as a pet tax, which it is; but, it also indicates that the animal that bit or scratched you may be vaccinated for rabies.  I said, “may be” because people frequently place licenses ontheir pets that are not registered for that pet.

I believe in pet taxes because pet owners are the ones who benefit most from animal control services.  These are the folks that pick up your pet from a frustrated neighbor when your pet is digging or pooping in their yard.  If these folks didn’t have someone to call, who knows how they might take out their frustrations.

Most cat owners are too lazy to put (and keep) a collar and tag on their cat.  They claim that the collar endangered the cat by getting the cat hung up on a tree branch.  I have spent a lifetime rescuing cats and have yet to rescue a cat from its collar.  Don’t make excuses, just admit that you are too lazy.

Differential licensing is setting a lower license fee for animals who have been spayed or neutered.  People think this is unfair to charge more for a fertile animal; but the fact is that fertile animals and the cause of the pet overpopulation crisis that many animal shelters face.  If you are not smart enough to immediately recognize the benefit of spayed or neutered pets, then you should pay a higher tax so that animal shelter has the funds to take care of your poor judgement.

I believe that pet license expirations should coincide with the expiration of the rabies vaccination.  The initial vaccination is good for one year and most revaccinations are good for three years.  Many veterinarians  may only vaccinate for one year, so as to force you to come back each year for an office visit.  I support the notion to visit your veterinarian annually, but I oppose over vaccinating a pet.  If your veterinarian insists on giving your pet an annual rabies vaccination, it is time to look for a new veterinarian.

The main reason for putting identification on your cat is that less an 7 percent of lost cats are ever returned to their owner.  The fact is that people don’t search for their lost cat.  The main reason (not laziness (but that figures in)) is that cats are not the most loyal of creatures and might have a history of moving in with a neighbor from time to time.  Even with the longest holding times, cat owners usually don’t begin the search for their cat until the holding period has long run out.

Neighborhoods are full of frustrated people who spend their time trapping the cats that come in their yard.  It is their response to the callousness of cat owners who believe they don’t have a responsibility to keep their cats confined.  Many cities have programs for catching stray (loose) cats.  I have lived in places in which we had to keep ordering more and more traps because of the high demand.  Most of the cats that are trapped have no identification; the cats that do have identification are frequently returned within minutes of being trapped.

For the people who have not figured out how to keep a collar on their cat, you might think that microchipping is the answer.  As I have always said, microchips are a poor form of secondary identification… it is better than nothing, but not much better.  It is very hard to scan a cat in a live trap.  The cat is so freaked out, that many times the cat acts feral and for the safety of the staff, the cat is not immediately scanned for a microchip.  A collar and tag can immediately identify the cat as having an owner.  Keep a cat indoors spares the cat from the experience of being trapped.

Posted on

Breaking Up Dog Fights

One of the greatest risks to employee safety is breaking up two dogs fighting.  Dog fights are most likely to occur in the shelter, but recent designs to animal control vehicles place employees at risk while transporting animals.  In order to accommodate various size dogs, animal control vehicle box designers have created removeable walls to adjust the size of the cage compartments.  Those walls are an extremely weak point in the design in which an aggressive dog can breach the wall and attack a dog an adjacent cage.

I have found that the most effect way to break up a dog fight is to use a CO2 fire extinguisher.  The blast from the fire extinguisher is sufficient to shock the dogs from fighting briefly.  One used, the extinguishers can be recharged to be used again.  The extinguishers should be in every animal control vehicle and placed throughout the animal shelter.

Police and EMT might consider using the extinguishers to access an injured person who is being guarded by the person’s dogs.  Although tasers are effective, they may be unnecessary  if emergency personnel prepare in advance for such incidents.

Posted on

Working for Bureaucrats

An article out of White County Illinois tells of a story of an Animal Control Officer being fired.  My best guess is the County Commissioners attempting to punish the officer for social media abuse; a frequent problem in our profession.  As with many bureaucrats, they puff out their chests and proceeded to do the wrong thing.

This particular Animal Control Officer started extended the hold time for animals to get them adopted and asked volunteers to come in to provide socialization with the animals.  The local bureaucrats wanted all of these programs aborted.  Their actions hit a nerve with me, not just for the callousness toward the animals, but it sparked an old memory.

While going to college, over 30 years ago, I was the animal control officer for Pullman Washington.  I worked under the Police Department.  I had a good relationship with the Washington State Veterinary College and local media.  Relationships that every animal shelter operator treasures.

The shelter was a small shelter and the adoptions were slow.  I convinced the local newspaper to run a weekly pet of the week and show all of the animals at the animal shelter.  One of the local councilman began following the pet list and discovered that many of the pets had been listed and relisted in the column.

The Police Chief paid me a visit and demanded that I stop holding  animals and ordered me to euthanize every animal that was over its five day stray hold period, much like what is happening in White County.  I was so angry.  I returned to the animal shelter, had a good cry, and followed my orders.

I believe that the order was immoral, as are many mandates from bureaucrats.  I had arranged for all of the shelter’s food be donated and the only cost to the City was the time I spent cleaning cages.   Did I continue holding animals?  Of course, but I knew that I had to be smarter.  I would make small changes in the appearance of the animals in the newspaper article, so that the busy body councilman would not see the same animal listed twice.

The problem with many bureaucrats is that they fail to see that the animals in our care represent a life and all life is precious.  Not a tool to bully their animal welfare staff and demonstrate their own self importance.

Posted on

When Going the Extra Mile is Not Enough

I have had the opportunity to participate in the evaluation  of animal sheltering over the past 30 years.  We migrated from index card record keeping to computer systems that post photos of lost pets on the Internet.  I have always encouraged my staff to go the extra mile in getting a pet back to his or her owner.

The evolution of the pet owner has evolved to recognizing the importance of spaying and neutering (in most of the country); but pet owners have not become better a vaccinating their pets or taking the initiative to look for their lost pets.

Animal Shelters are receiving less annual intakes due to spay/neutering efforts.  Shelters are not less crowded because animals are being held longer in hopes of finding them a new home.  Pit bull dogs are the greatest problematic breed because the breed occupies 50 percent of the kennel space in shelters.

When I first got into the business of animal welfare, a university veterinary professor told me the best way to control disease in an animal shelter is to not overcrowd the shelter.  Overcrowding causes stress to the animals and the maintaining a large number of animals will likely introduce disease.  As a result of the no kill movement, shelters are maintained in a state of overcrowding and as such shelters are frequently battling disease outbreaks.  If pet owners had previously vaccinated their pets, we would see fewer disease outbreaks.

The most notable issue that we see in animal shelters is the failure of pet owners to look for their lost pets.  The usual excuse is that, “He is always getting out and eventually comes home.”   The most important factor in being a pet owners is that the own should be smarter than their pet.  Pet owners should be able to create an escape proof yard.  I suspect that many pet owners are just too lazy to go looking for their lost pet, in many cases pet owners report they learned about their dog being in the shelter through a friend or social media.

In most of the country, animal shelters maintain a three day holding period.  Most reasonable people would realize that their pet is missing in three days and go to the shelter.  The three day period is sufficiently short that the animal is unlikely to breakout with a disease by coming into the shelter unvaccinated.  The owner can deal with the symptoms when they get home.

In an effort to cater to local communities, some shelters extend the holding periods up to 10 days.  Even with the longer holding periods, many pet owners find the time too short.  The problem with longer holding periods is that an unvaccinated pet may start showing symptoms of disease during day 5 or 6.   The animal shelter is then faced with treating the animal’s disease and becomes a risk to other animals.

Nothing is more upsetting than to have an animal owner reclaiming their sick lost dog on day nine and blame shelter staff for the animal’s illness.  It is easier to announce how dirt the shelter is with disease infested animals, than to admit that the owner didn’t see the importance of vaccinating their pet.

Due to the nature of animal shelters, there will ALWAYS be animals with diseases in them.  If you are not going to vaccinated your pet, then you should make sure that your pet never ends up in an animal shelter.  The only way to keep disease out of an animal shelter is to shut its doors to incoming animals.

Most animal shelters recognized the deficiency of pet owners in vaccinating their pets, so they vaccinate the pets on intake.  The problem with vaccinations is that they don’t begin to take effect for six to seven days and it is minimal affect at that.  So why do we bother vaccinating?  It is all part of going the extra mile for the animal.

Now it is time for pet owners to start going the extra mile for their pets.  They can begin by placing identification on their pets and begin looking for their lost pet within the first 24 hours.  The shorter the time an animal spends in an anima shelter the safer the animal will be from disease.

Posted on

ACOs Looking for RPOs

In this blog, I want to “kill two birds with one stone;” although I, in no way, condone stoning as a legitimate means of euthanasia.  I want to discuss a program I had to reward responsible pet owners (RPOs) and to discuss societies abuse of acronyms.

A great number of years ago, I wanted to change up my patrols of picking up stray dogs by looking for responsible pet owners; people walking their pets responsibly.  I went out in search with a letter from the mayor and a bag of goodies.  I posted signs on my Animal Control vehicle: “ACO looking for RPO.”  Of course no one knew what that meant: Animal Control Officer looking for Responsible Pet Owners.

I would stop people out walking their dogs and looked for a leash, current license, carrying a bag to pick up poop, and evidence that the animal was spayed or neutered.  Shockingly, I actually found a few who qualified.  I quickly realized that the free bag of dog food might have been an excessive gift.

This effort reminded me of the excessive use of acronyms that we use in society, the worst part of reading an article is the fact that most authors actually believe that everyone will know what their acronym represents.  It is as if we have forgotten the rules of engaging readers.  So for everyone’s sake the rule is that if you are going to use an acronym, you FIRST write out the term and follow it with the acronym in parentheses like: “Government funded organization (GFO)”.

Every organization uses acronyms, but it is damn foolish to think that everyone knows what they mean.  We have become a society that tries to shorten our words into very brief communications, but we frequently commit a disservice to our readers.  Please use acronyms responsibly.

Posted on

Having the Right Tool

Animal control officers have it easier than police officers because we can usually predict the actions of those that we deal with.   Our cliental have their own set of tools, like teeth and claws and we need to have to proper tools to prevent our own injury and protect the animal.  The most important tool is the one that we don’t have.

Catchpole: the catchpole is the most important tool we have to prevent injury to ourselves and to control the animal.  Even used properly, it can be a media nightmare when its use is watched by others.  The trick in using a catchpole is to gently control the animal with minimal force.  The catchpole should be tight enough to keep the animal from escaping, but not so tight as to choke the animal.  It is the one tool that you should ALWAY care with you.  When facing an aggressive dog, the last place your catchpole should be in in the vehicle.   When I would go out into the field with my officers, I always carried my own catchpole because I knew that it worked.  Always keep your equipment in working order.

Muzzles:  as I mentioned previously, using a muzzle on a cat means that you have already lost the fight.  The trick to muzzling dogs is to use the right size; too small and the dog can’t breathe, too large and the dog removes the muzzle.

Gloves:  The only glove that I ever found that worked on cats was the Neptune Glove.  The glove looked like the attack sleeve used in training police and military dogs, but was covered by chainmail.  It was expensive, but paid for itself when I was called to remove a badger from the trunk of a car.   I haven’t seen it on the market for years, but there are a lot of new materials available that claim to be puncture resistant.

Pepper stray:  I used pepper spray once, when I foolishly stepped out of my vehicle without a catchpole.  I discovered that a leash provides little protection from a cornered Rottweiler.  Pepper spray come in many concentrations:  Halt is at .003 %, others are at 5%, 10%, and 20% for bears.  I always carried Halt, but many animal control officers want to use the concentrations used by police officers.  Although it is infrequently used, to keep the pepper in suspension, you need to vigorously shake up the can at least once a month.

Clipboard:  A metal clipboard is the best protection when approaching pet owner’s home.  We have all experience dogs pushing their way past the owner to get at the intruder on the porch.  In these situations, I have yet to come upon a pet owner willing or able to control their pet.  For that reason, the clipboard provides a small shield from the animal.  The dog wants to bite you, so you feed the dog your clipboard.  You keep feeding the clipboard as you step slowly back to the street to your vehicle.   In situations in which two dogs run out at you, you pepper spray them both and use the clipboard to feed to the one that keeps coming.

Snake tools:  snake tongs and snake hooks are valuable for dealing with snakes.  I hate snakes and found that they don’t make 20 foot long snake tongs, you’ll have to work with tongs that are 4 or 5 feet long.

Hazmat equipment:  if you ever have to go into the home of a hoarder, you’ll appreciate having disposable coverall, booties and gloves.  A facemask with the methane/ammonia cartridge will be necessary in the worse cases.  Make sure you keep track of the expiration date on the cartridges.  The facemasks come in various sizes, so it is important to find the right size to fit you.

Flashlights:  remember that using a catchpole requires two hands, so a flashlight that isn’t fixed to your forehead will only get in the way if you need to use your catchpole.

Flex ties:  It is not uncommon to find yourself in a hoarding case that you need to borrow pet carriers.  The carriers are often broken down and the screws are frequently missing.  Flex ties is a good temporary solution in an emergency.

Posted on

Zoonotic Diseases

I saw in the news a report of a person getting Brucellosis from a dog.  As an animal welfare worker, you should already know that you live in a world of animal diseases and some of those diseases can be passed along to you; that is the definition of a zoonotic disease.

From time to time we need to refresh our memories as to this particular aspect of our profession; I was constantly reminded by the staff who loved to go from animal to animal getting doggie kisses.  We preach about fomites (the spread of disease through our hands and clothing) only to see employees spreading it through their mouths.  I get it, it hard to be in this profession and not surrender to a few kisses.  But like your hands, wash your face between kisses.

Animal Shelter staff and the public are the primary vector for spreading diseases within an animal shelter.  It is bad enough that we spread the diseases between animals, but we need to be sensitive to the diseases that we can give to ourselves.

I would like to share an article by Jill Seladi-Schulman, PhD on zoonosis.  We all should practice safe animal handling.

Posted on

Screwing with Mother Nature

I recently wrote about Australia’s war on feral cats.  In today’s news, we find that the bounty on cats is not reaping sufficient cat deaths; the government has decided that the solution to kill millions of stray cats is by airdropping “poison sausages” according to Australia’s CBS News.

It has been my experience that our “well intended species” always makes things worse when we screw with Mother Nature.  We created the problem with the cats in the first place and now we feel the need to fix the problem by poisoning all of the cats so as to minimize the impact the threat of the cats on native wildlife populations.

I mentioned the problem of non-target species eating the bait.  As I see it, many native wildlife species eat the same food as cats and maybe even a few children.  The plan to poison all of the cats seems to not be very well thought out.

Australia is faced with a difficult problem. Since the introduction of cats by Europeans in 1700, 27 mammals species are now facing extinction.  Even here in the United States cats are blames for impacting wildlife populations.  Australia believes that their are estimated between 2 and 6 millions cats in their country.  Having been in houses hoarding cats, I know the difficulty in getting an accurate count.  Australia has set their goal of wanting to kill 2 million cats by 2020.

So, this is how I think it will unfold:  Australia will successfully kill a whole bunch of cats, but at the same time they will be killing a whole bunch of the species they are trying to save.  A couple children will come across the food and hopefully not eat enough to harm them.  And, all the while the cats will continue to breed and in a few years they will be back where they started.