Posted on

Formulas don’t lie. Or do they?

Every budget cycle, animal control directors are faced with the task of justifying the number of personnel needed to run their operations.  I was reading one such justification recently in which the director was making the case for a new animal shelter and the necessary staff to run the shelter.

The “go to place” to find formulas that will over estimate your needs is the resource center for the National Animal Control Association.  Don’t get me wrong, the Association is a wonderful organization but their formulas are grossly out dated by twenty years.  The calculations that were created for shelter staff  are wrong because we as a society have evolved into better pet owners.

In the document that I was reading, that was presented three years ago, the paper predicted that the shelter would have an intake of 25,000 animals, based on the city’s current population.  But based on the current statistics, the actual intake was 5,000 animals.  We are seeing a decline in our intakes because more and more people are spaying or neutering their pets.

The only pet demographic that is giving us trouble is that of pitbull owners.  By far, the owners of pitbull dogs are less likely to spay or neuter their dog.  For that reason, the pitbull breed is taking up over 50% or our kennel space in animal shelters.   The good news is that with declining intakes, animal shelters have more kennel space, which are needed because pitbulls require more time to get them adopted, if at all.

Anytime some one is using a “national statistical formula” to justify increasing their budget, you should ask yourself if the numbers are real.  In order to determine that, you have to observe the shelter’s activities over time and see what influences the intake numbers.  One method to increase your intake numbers is to announce that you have become no-kill and your intakes will increase with surrenders from your jurisdiction and all of the surrounding jurisdicitons.

Posted on

Just Doing Their Job

Recently, a Tennessee teenage was maul and killed by a “pack of dogs” as she was approaching the home in which the dogs lived.  The sheriff’s report of the incident quoted the owner as saying, that the dogs were “just doing their job.”  I wonder what this guy owned that was so valuable that it was worth killing over.

I have repeatedly claimed that the owners of aggressive dogs are idiots.  It is unfortunately that we only become aware of these people after someone has been injured or killed.  Dogs are a lot like guns, they are dangerous in the wrong hands.

As with any dog attack, the prosecutor is struggling through possible charges; the first that always comes to mind is reckless endangerment,  especially when the expectation of the owner was for the dogs to attack innocent children that approached his home.

Posted on

Fee Waivers and Deferments

It is frustrating in our business that people will not have a second thought of allowing their pets to run loose,  but have second thoughts when it come time to bail their pet out of the shelter.  In an effort to maintain the highest live release rate, we have bent over backward to get pets back to their owners when the owners don’t want to pay impoundment fees.

Returned in the field:  many shelters have a program which an animal found running at large and is wearing a current license, the animal control officer will return the pet home.  If there is someone home, the animal is simply handed off.  If the owner is not home, the animal control officer should not attempt to secure the animal in a fence.  All you need is to return the pet and then have the pet escape again and be hit by a car.  If it is observed that you returned the pet, then you will be blamed for any harm that comes to the animal later.  It is important to track returning pets home, so pet owners don’t abuse this service.  When I first started in this business, a Black Lab would come out and greet me and he and I would patrol his neighborhood.  I would give his owners a break because he helped me capture the other dogs that were running loose (hint: it is easier to catch a dog if you have another dog with you).

Fee deferment:  fee deferment is a program that works with your finance department in which pet owners are offer an opportunity to set up a fee schedule to pay back the fees that they are owed.  Since many people will not honor a payment schedule, the finance department can apply it to their property taxes, whether house or auto.  Don’t waste your time sending non-payments to a collection agency, they will tell you that there is no money in it for them.  It is not like they are going to reprocess their pet; besides, you’ll see the animal back in your shelter in no time.

Fee waivers:  a fee waiver is a partial or complete reduction in the fee.  This is usually a case in which the owner can demonstrate that the impoundment was beyond his or her control or that they can show an extreme financial hardship.  Like everything, you have to decide if they are telling the truth.

These waivers will have one of two outcomes: that you have coddled the owner and the owner learns nothing from the experience, except to scam the system.  But, there are times that it is a educational experience and the owner learns a little more about being a responsible pet owner.

Posted on

Personal Narrative

From the moment that we are born, we are creating our personal narrative.  As we get older, outside forces begin to boister or corrode that narrative.  It is too bad that many fail to follow the teaching I learned in the Boy Scouts to be “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, courteous,  kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”  As we age, we begin to carry two personal narrative:  the real one and the one that we put out to others.

Our real narrative is the one that determines if we have the good qualities of our species, like integrity.  Oddly it one of the traits that I see less often.  We are all born with the same amount of these good qualities and many of us start selling the off through life.

As you choose to loose those better qualities, we create a narrative that we project to others; these are the kind of things that we put on our Facebook page or on a dating app.  Social media is a good place to determine the kind of person you are.  Do you post to get attention or do you post to make the things better.  Do you push your agenda on the world with truths or lies?  Are you supportive or are you destructive?  This is your public narrative.   It is the one that most people see.

For many people they create their public narrative, the embellish it, and when told a sufficient number of times, they begin to believe it.  In your narrative, you can become the hero or the victim.  I’ve noticed a growing number of victims because they have started believing their public narrative.  In stead of taking responsibility for their lives, they want to blame others for their failures.

What kind of narrative are you creating?

Posted on

The Deevolution of Communication or is it?

I sent out a text message to a friend and all I got back was a smiley face; while it is probably preferable to a “LOL.”  I cannot help but feel that we are evolving back to the stone age where our emojis are becoming a form of cave painting in an electronic format.  Or maybe I am just getting this all wrong and emojis are a complex form of shorthand.  They do say that a picture paints a thousand words; but, how many words does an emoji paint?  If that is the case, then I failed in this communication.  If I was more technically savvy, I should have sent back hearts or something.

Posted on

Temperament Testing

In an effort to afford potential adopters with full knowledge of their future pet, animal shelters provide behavior tests so as to provide the best adoption match.  Over the years, various temperament tests were used and eventually, they migrated to the Safer Test for dogs.  Using a worksheet, the dog undergoes various tasks and a determination is made as to the temperament of the dog at the time of the testing procedure.  For obvious reasons, no test is performed to determine if the dog is good with children.

The Safer Test is a good indicator, but potential adopters should understand that the test is performed under controlled conditions and that the dog is performing the test after being taken from a confined space within a loud kennel.  The Safer Test is only an indicator, but usually pretty accurate if performed by qualified, attentive staff.

It is not uncommon for owners who have had their dogs seized as a dangerous dog will demand that their dog be tested for aggression as if the Safer Test will outweigh the dog’s actions of attacking someone.  In court trials, attorneys for dog owners make claims that their client was denied Due Process because the animal shelter failed to administer a temperament test on the dog.  The dog’s temperament at the time that the dog is in the shelter has nothing to do with the dog running out into the street to bite a delivery person.  The only true test would be to set up the same conditions that caused the dog to attack in the first place.  The Safer Test does not provide for having someone drive up in a UPS truck and approach the dog’s house in a UPS uniform.  If it did, the dog would likely fail that test.

Dogs are territorial.  They see someone approach their house and after barking at them, the person leaves; likely because their job is done and the package has been delivered.  Over time the dog begins to see that by showing aggression toward these people that the dog always wins and the person leaves.  If allowed to escape the yard, the dog realizes that he can finally teach them a lesson and bites them.  Even a dog that has passed a Safer Test could be caught in this situation.

Over the years, I have tried to explain this to dog owners who have asked to allow their dog to be evaluated prior to a dangerous dog hearing.  Sometimes, I have even been tempted to allow it; but, I know that if I allow someone to test the dog while the dog is in my shelter and that person is attacked, that is on me.  The person will ask to sign a waiver, but a waiver of liability will not hold up in court.   It is foolish to place the shelter at legal risk by allowing someone to interact with the animal.  You don’t want to end your career by allowing someone into a position of being able to sue you and your jurisdiction.

It can also be said that potential adopters may be fooled by a spotless temperament test for a pet for adoption.  A temperament test does not speak to the nature of that pet; it speaks to the behavior of the animal at a given time under controlled conditions.  We are frequently asked if a dog is good with children.  It depends.  There is always a risk of placing children with pets and as such, no animal shelter in their right mind would conduct such a test.  Although, we discovered our volunteers conducting such tests without staff knowledge.  I cannot say enough, “dogs bite.”  As smart as we are, we cannot predict in advance what will trigger a dog to bite.  I’ve witnessed incidents in which people behave in a manner that should have gotten them bitten, but they weren’t.  I have also witnessed incidents in which an animal chose to bite without visible reason.

At best, temperament tests are only as good as the circumstances, control, and ability of the persons conducting the test.  Usually, when we question an evaluation, we conduct it again using different evaluators and frequently get different results.  So?  Which evaluation do you use?  Many animal shelters will continue conducting an evaluation until they get the one that they want… just wear the dog down until it behaves as you want.  It is no wonder that an adopter will quickly return an animal because it does not live up to the hype of the evaluation.  People want perfect pets.  Perfect pets don’t exist.  It would be better if we training the adopter as to what to expect than offering up a pet as something that it was during a ten-minute evaluation.

Purchasing a pet is a risk.  For that reason, many States enact Pet Lemon Laws that provide for the return of the pet or provide compensation for pet owners who find their newly adopted pet requiring veterinary treatment.  As much as people insist on guarantees, animal shelters can only report on what they see.  Anyone wanting to adopt a pet should first check the integrity of the organization adopting the pet.  It is unfortunate that many shelters will do anything to prevent an animal from euthanasia; even lie about its behavior.

Posted on

Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)

Breed specific legislation is all about treating every breed as equals.

Miami started the fad of banning pitbulls, thinking it was a public safety measure.  Many communities followed.

Does banning pitbulls make your community safer?  Yes, but so does banning Cocker Spaniels and Chihuahuas.   Most dog bites are the result of irresponsible dog owners, but poor ownership qualities become more noticeable as the size and the power of the breed increases.  A bad Chihuahua owner is hardly noticed because the bite of a Chihuahua rarely needs medical attention.  Bites caused by pitbulls are increasingly causing fatalities… thus the decision communities take to ban them.

Are Pitbulls getting a bad reputation?  Yes and no, Pitbulls are very loyal dogs, but they attract the worst pet owners; on top of that, genetics play a role that makes the dogs predisposed to aggression towards other animals.  Many humans are bitten trying to protect their pet from an attacking Pitbull.

People always find their way around the BSL laws.  When Pitbull owners discover that their breed has been unmasked, they simply respond saying that the dog is a service animal.  You already know how I feel about the abuses of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) concerning service animals; but, now you have communities dealing with the dilemma of dealing with Pitbulls as an ADA issue.

The chant opposing BSL is, “The deed, not the breed.”  The idea is that if a dog is aggressive, it will display that aggression by biting someone.  Given that every dog has the potential to bite, you don’t arbitrarily ban a breed without proof of aggression.  In theory, this sounds fair, but the problem arises that someone now has to be bitten.  The idea of BSL is to prevent bites before they occur.

We now live in a world in which people want to champion the cause of the under dogs and as such we are seeing a movement to rescind BSL laws in many cities.  Some State have created laws prohibiting breed specific laws.  Although this movement will not sway the insurance companies that have banned these dogs from homeowner insurance polices or stop apartment managers from renting to owners of specific breeds.

The underlying problem is that in the wrong hands dogs, any dog, presents a risk to society when the owner of that dog decides that his right to own a potentially dangerous dog out weighs the rights of his neighbors to live safely.  Pitbulls can live in our community, only if their owners can recognize the potential threat that they may pose and take the necessary steps to prevent them from causing harm… this also applies to Chihuahuas as well.

Although Pitbulls are finding good pet owners, they are prominently still falling into the hands of the worst owners, as evidenced by the volume of Pitbulls that are overwhelming our shelters.  In leu of a ban on Pitbulls, I would recommend legislation that requires the sterilization of the breed; it is our only hope of getting our shelter populations under control.  As long as pitbull breeds fill over half of the kennels in our shelters that are and will remain a problem in our communities.

A few years ago, after Denver banned pitbulls, people began identifying their  pitbull as a service animal.  As you have read in other posts on this site, the laws concerning service animals had gotten way out of control and Denver was dealing with that abuse as people fought for their banned pets.  In February of 2020, the City of Denver overturned the previous ban and provided for passage of pitbulls to be treated like other pets, following a two year probationary period.

States started transitioning away from breed specific legislation and began banning laws that don’t treat all animals as equals.  In our WOKE society, the breed laws were decried as racist and “didn’t follow the science.”  Many states began passing laws directed at insurance companies who first discovered that paying out insurance claims differed from breed to breed.  Given that some breeds were responsible for the greatest number of serious bites and fatalities, they decided to not insure those breeds.

As governments start pressuring insurance companies into accepting all manner of breeds, it will be interesting to see how these companies will respond to being forced to pay out claims for animals that they see as high risk.

Anyone who has been bitten by various breeds knows that all breeds are not equal.  Smaller breeds are more likely to bite more often, but larger breeds inflict the most injuries.

Posted on

Our Largest Obstacle

The greatest obstacle that we have in performing our jobs is protecting the public.  I frequently query job openings in our profession and then seek out the back story.  I would like to find the happy story about an animal shelter director who retired after a long fulfilling career of service to his or her community, but that is rarely the case.

Many directors are fired for doing their jobs.  The problem with doing our job is that there is always some one who thinks that the job should be done differently.   It usually involves the euthanasia of an animal.

In our business, there is ALWAYS someone who will second guess our decisions.  Most of our decisions are geared toward keeping the public safe, but someone will always come along to champion the cause of an animal that you have killed.  Even if their cause is righteous, death usually rule outs other outcomes.  Many times, you don’t know that someone is interested in the animal until after the deed has been done.  In almost every case, it deals with the decision that the animal shelter personnel believes the animal to be aggressive.

When you decide to get into this profession, you need to realize that it possible that you can get fired for just doing your job.  Petition sites and social media have no obligation to tell the truth, their purpose is to get people excited; hopefully to get the people in a rage.  People used to be able to see through these scams, but not any more.  People believe what they are told and are too lazy to research the truth for themselves.

My mantra in this business is:  “If you are going to get into trouble, do it for doing something good.”  Do the right thing.  You may be with your employer only a couple of years, but you must live with yourself the rest of your life.

Posted on

Bad Fences Make for Bad Neighbors

One of the most frustrating thing that we face in our profession is determining the risk of a failing fence.  I have had countless conversations with owners of perceived aggressive dogs as to the state of their fence line.  We are not in the insurance business, but we know a accident waiting to happen.  The problem we face is that the owners of aggressive dogs are not the brightest tool in the box and as Animal Control Officers, we cannot take action until the dog actually escapes the yard.

The other day, 9-year-old Emma Hermandez was killed by three pit bull type dogs in Detroit after Emma’s father spoke to the dog’s owners about  the sad state that his fence was in.   The owner was arrested, but the article stated that the “prosecutors are determining what charges, if any, their owner may face.”  The problem with prosecutors is that they rarely deal with fatal dog cases and can’t think objectively.  Every dog has the potential to bite, but few have the ability to kill.  Dogs are like a loaded weapon, some are like BB guns and other are more like a 45 caliber.  Having been warned about the neighbor’s concern and failing to take action, the owner should be charged with reckless endangerment.  If the Animal Control had received and acted on previous complaints, the owner should be charged with murder.

As with guns, there are no laws that keep dogs out of the hands of idiots.  You can usually tell when a neighborhood has one of these dog owners, the rest of the neighborhood knows that a gun will trump a dog anytime.

I have advised neighbors to know the response time of their police and go on record filing a complaint with both the police and animal control.  A person needs to build a case for themselves as to the necessity of the actions that they have taken to protect themselves.  You may one day be in court trying to convince a judge that your actions were necessary.  A person needs to keep their wits about them, even an experienced police officer can fail to hit a vital organ.  My shelter dealt with a pit bull dog that had been shot by the local police officers 19 times and lived through the experience.  The best shot comes when the dog is running directly at you, presenting that large forehead.  If you miss, offer up your forearm and you are in perfect position to line up for a perfect shot.  If you work for the police department, volunteer to catch your canine dog on a wrap.  Plenty of “wrap time” can get you to see for yourself the opportunity that is made available to you.  If you find it necessary to shoot the dog, remember that in all of the excitement, you must always insure that you have a safe background behind the dog.

Why would you consider shooting a dog?

  1. You do not carry the necessary equipment to capture the dog alive without risk to yourself.
  2. It is a quick solution to a problem that demands an immediate response.  Let’s face it, the longer that a dog is allowed to chew on a child, the less likely the child will survive.
  3. It is a permanent solution to a problem that you cannot trust the dog’s owner to fix.

In the case with Emma, a neighbor shot one dog and the others were later captured by animal control; but, it was all too late for her.   As with any of these fatal incidents, there will be someone wanting to save the dogs.  They might even hire a “dog expert” to justify the dog’s actions, these guys are paid well to spin a yarn, they’ll even make the case that it was the victim’s fault.

Posted on

The Case for Pookie

In 1995, a 2 year old girl was playing in her yard, when she decided that she wanted to pet the neighbor’s dog, Pookie.  She began climbing the chain link fence so that she could reach over and pet the dog.  As she climbed the fence, the dog grabbed on to the toe of her shoe and began pulling her toes, then foot, then leg through the fence.  A witness at a nearby bus stop reported that the dog look like a land shark, trying to pull that child through the fence.

The dangerous dog case against this dog was thrown out because the judge ruled that when the child’s toes crossed the plane of the fence, the child was trespassing and determined that the child’s actions triggered the attack upon her.

This incident became a landmark case in Portland Oregon because it set the stage for a local attorney and his wife to turn the local animal shelter into a prison as they appealed dangerous dog cases that came their way.  Anyone who has worked with the courts know the lengthy process and the attorney used this lengthy process to punish the shelter by forcing them to hold dogs pending the appeal process.  The appeals serve to keep the animal shelter full of “dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs,” and where the dogs become the victims of being caged for a long time.  Many debate as to how humane it is for a dog to be caged for years pending a court resolution.

The war between public safety and the rights of animals has been constantly waged in Portland Oregon for years.  This attorney and his wife have repeatedly stated that there really is no reason to declare an animal as dangerous, it is a human problem.  As with any cause, there are people at the extreme left and extreme right.  The people who live their lives in the fringe of any cause do not accept those of us who try to remain balanced and stay in the middle.   Working in the animal welfare field, you are going to be constantly called on to take one side or the other.  If you are a government employee, you have to understand that even though we got into this business because of our love for animals, our primary purpose is to protect our community.  In spite of what people will tell you, there are animals that are too unsafe to live in our communities.  Sure, most of them became unsafe as a result of their owners; so, even though it isn’t their fault, they are still a public safety risk.

The purpose of people like this attorney and his wife is to intimidate us.  They believe that if they are persistent long enough, we will cave to their will.  Along the way we are going to lose a case or two, but we will carry on because we have a higher calling: to keep our children safe.