GCHS has in-house policy concerning three-day hold

Friday, August 10, 2007
By Halea Franklin, Staff Writer

A recent case, in which a dog from Bloomfield was taken to the Greene County Humane Society and euthanized without notifying the owner, has caused many people to question animal ordinances in place within the county.

On July 23, a dog, named Bear, belonging to Jerry and Becky Pate of Bloomfield was impounded by the Bloomfield Police Department. Linton Animal Control Officer Chuck Botsford was called in for assistance and later transported the animal to the Greene County Humane Society.

According to Greene County Humane Society President Lana Robertson, the animal shelter was told the dog was aggressive and was humanely euthanized.

Currently, according to Greene County Humane Society Shelter Administrator Rene Abram, they have a policy regarding a three-day hold on strays.

"However, in-house, we have an overriding policy regarding the three-day hold should an animal be deemed aggressive, severely injured, or critically ill," Abram explained. "In this type of situation, it may be necessary for staff or other authorized individuals, such as law enforcement officers, animal control officers, or licensed veterinarians to order a humane euthanasia of said animal."

According to Greene County's animal control ordinance, which was adopted by the Board of Commissioners in 1997, any animal at large, unlicensed dog, viscous dog or female dog in heat that is not confined shall be taken by a law enforcement officer or an animal control officer and impounded in the county animal shelter.

If the owner of an impounded animal can be identified by a license tag or other means, the animal control officer shall immediately upon impoundment notify the owner by telephone or mail, according to the county's ordinance. Any animal that is not claimed by the owner within three days of impoundment shall become the property of the county and may be placed for adoption or humanely euthanized.

According to the city of Linton's animal control ordinance, which was passed in 1984 by the Linton City Councils, dogs and other animals found to be running at large shall be taken by an agent of the city and impounded for no less than five days or until claimed by the owner. Immediately upon impounding the animal, every effort shall be made to notify the owner of the impoundment and the conditions in which the owner may regain custody of the animal.

Abram said it's the animal shelter's first responsibility to weigh the potential risks involved in housing an animal that could potentially injure someone -- whether it be an employee, volunteer, citizen or even another animal.

"These are uncomfortable situations, but the purpose of laws and policies is to offer the most protection to the most people," Abram said. "In the case of Bear we are sympathetic towards the Pates and their loss. We realize Bear was caught in the worse case scenario. We had an obligation to weigh the rights of and give the highest regard to other people and animals in terms of their safety. It does not happen often, but it does happen."

Comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on gcdailyworld.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

If a shelter has an "in-house policy" as they are now saying, why wasn't the public aware of this? And more importantly, was the public allowed to vote on this policy? If an organization has one set of rules known to the public and another set known only to those "in-house" what does that say about this organization? These are your tax dollars at work and your pets at risk!

They are trying to back-pedal and come up with an excuse for euthanizing any animal they want to without being accountable to anyone. It would be informative to know just how long this dog was at the shelter before the fateful decision was made...did he just come in and ZAP that was it?

Any knowledgable shelter has what's called a "temperament test"...that test doesn't include "so & so" thinks this dog is too aggressive. It should be a standardized test administered by qualified personnel who have received training in this field. Even after the test is administered not all animals who fail are put down. Qualified personnel realize not all animals act the same in new environments. The Green County Shelter evidently does NOT have qualified personnel or this would not have happened.

I urge caring people in Greene County to step up to the plate and hold this organization accountable to YOU!

-- Posted by Chena on Sat, Aug 11, 2007, at 8:43 PM

I was right, its a conspiracy.

-- Posted by hilljak on Sat, Aug 11, 2007, at 10:07 PM

What I don't understand is a few years ago the stray hold under different management was 7 days. Then new management, 5 days. When was it publically announced that it was back down to 3 days? Shouldn't the public be made aware of ALL ORDINANCES that the GCHS claims to uphold to? WHere are the county commissioners in approving the 3 day stray period. Shouldn't the taxpayers have something to say? Afterall, your money DOES go to the GCHS, so why should you not have a voice.

In regards to the dog who needlessly was put to sleep...may I ask the qualifications of the animal control officers/managers involved in this decision? I'm guessing no prior animal control experience prior to GCHS, and I am guessing no professional training in animal control or animal behavior. No animal, i.e. dog, cat, etc should be judged until they've been at the shelter for 2-3 days because a new enviroment, even the friendliest of dogs will at times freak out and act scared. WHO CAN BLAME THEM? Again, this falls back on the knowledge, or lack thereof in this case of the people handling animal control calls and such.

As far as Abrams comment about weighing the potential risks....the stray hold area is SEPERATE from the adoption area, so that would rule out injury to the public or volunteers, and the staff, well....they should be TRAINED on how to handle ALL types of animals, viscious or otherwise and figure out that euthanizing isn't always the ONLY answer. Or the only 'exit' in not doing their jobs!!!!

What basically happened here, is the ordinances in place was 5 days and the GCHS who again gets government funding and taxpayer dollars took it upon themselves to make a "in house" rule and amend it to 3 days without notifying anyone? So they basically broke the county ordinance.

They were "told the dog was agressive" Did they evaluate the dog or just go by someone elses say so? Regardless the dog and the owners had rights too. MOST RESPONSIBLE shelters will advertise for FREE in the local newspaper about dogs picked up. Found ads are usually free. Why can GCHS not do this?

Its time the public spoke up and the county commissioners listened up!!!!!!!!!

-- Posted by horsewhispers24 on Wed, Aug 15, 2007, at 6:23 PM

My understanding is the LEGAL minimum days hold has always been 3 days, according to the county ordinance formed in 1997 and approved by the commissioners. Past management chose to extend it, rather then kill an animal that might have an owner looking for it. NExt board made it 5 days and I have no clue when they dropped it back to 3 days. THey have a list of people who they won't let attend their meetings, so we may never know about anything they are doing.

You are aware, that a County Commissioner serves as the GCHS V.P.? You may want to remember that when you vote again for commissioners.

-- Posted by STILLHOPEFUL on Thu, Aug 16, 2007, at 11:30 AM

A sad try and an effort to cover their rears. Clearly.

If there was any such 'in house' rule, it shouldn't over ride county ordinances. Yet they want the public to trust and support them?

-- Posted by STILLHOPEFUL on Thu, Aug 16, 2007, at 8:56 PM