Paulding Co Animal Control ~ no longer rescue friendly.

[shelterpetsrock!]

Written by a local rescuer/local resident.

Hey Everyone,

A few months ago, Paulding County Animal Control was taken over by the Marshall's Dept. There were some slight changes made, that we were not too comfortable with, but we decided to sit back and wait to see what happens. According to The Paulding County Board of Commissioners, nothing was going to change as far as the Humane Society's involvement with the facility.Adoption policies were to remain the same. Paulding County was probably the most animal and rescue friendly shelter in the state of GA. The Staff at Paulding was devoted and dedicated to saving animals. It seems as if change is coming, and not in a good way.

 

First off, The Board of Commissioners decided to close the facility to deal with the rodent infestation.. That's fine. The problem is, what to do with stray dogs or vicious dogs or hurt animals.. Rescues cant take dogs off the street!!!. There was no plan put into place prior to the facility closing. The only runs available are the outdoor runs..which is fine as they are covered. There is only room for about 20 dogs. Now before the Marshall's Office took over. The staff would evaluate dogs to see if they could be paired up together. If you could pair two dogs up, you can house more dogs and save more lives.. That is now not allowed. The new Marshall in charge, would like all dogs to be in individual runs. The staff is not allowed to double dogs up, even if they came in together.. again.. not conducive to saving lives. Next, The Marshall's office said the shelter has to remain 20% empty at all times.. So, That means more dogs will be euthanized and faster. Why? Wait until the facility is full, then start to put dogs down..

 

Here's the kicker.. The outdoor runs were full. These strays didnt get the memo about the shelter being closed. More and more dogs are coming in. A staff member called in a rescue that has been pulling from PCAC for 11 years. This group has saved a great many animals from this facility over the years. This rescue group took 9 dogs on Sunday and 4 more this morning. When the new Marshall found out, She was not too happy. I dont know why. she was very impressed when they adopted all the dogs out, without being fixed for 20.00. She passed the comment that rescues just pull dogs to make money.. wow I know, as a rescue, I have never made dime one on a dog. The Marshalls office called the rescue and ordered them to return these dogs by tomorrow AM. Why? When the rescue will spay and neuter these dogs, before adopting them out. Why would you want dogs kept in the pound? so you can adopt them for 20.00 unfixed? to just anybody.. Come and get your unfixed pitbull for 20.00.. Dogfighters and Backyard breeders are welcome.Come get yourself an unfixed Pit or grab a lab pup for a baitdog.. We will microchip them for you too. . So now all rescues need to be approved by the Marshall.. This is the same Marshall that wanted to adopt out a Pregnant Dog that was about to give birth.. So, Thanks Mr Commissioners for your beautifully written memo.. I guess it dont mean sheeze.. You want to work with the Humane Society? Maybe you should tell the Marshalls office that, I dont think they got the memo either. We need to really come together and put a stop to the bullcheeze..Paulding was the one place that got it right.. I think the media needs to get a hold of this..

 

--

Jason M Flatt

President and Founder

Friends To The Forlorn Pitbull Rescue Inc.

A registered 501 ©(3) organization

www.friendstotheforlorn.org

 

 

[jmd]

This doesn't make me too happy about the arrangements being done by the commissioners to start out with. I did write them and tell them so. If its going to be like this, its not good.

[Christopher Robin]

If I had needed another reason to convince myself that a no kill nation is not only do-able but is needed, this would have been it.

 

This doesn't make sense! Bring the rescued animals back????

 

I agree. Bring on the media.

 

They were there lickety-split when the shelter was closed, let's see how fast they respond to this.

 

CR

[retiredteacher]

Call Fox5. They are always happy to help the animals even if the Marshal isn't. Who is the marshal? We need to let (her?) know that we are not pleased.

 

Oh, and the HS needs to step up and start a fostering program like Cherokee. I'll help foster and I know there are others who will, too.

[Hee Haw]

Maybe I'm missing something here- I thought it was the government's role to 'control' the animal population to the extent necessary that they do not become a public health or public nuisance problem; not save every animal that comes through the door. The other places I have seen have the government role that 'control' the problem and the private/charity role that handles the adoptions, spay and neuter, vaccinations, etc. programs and campaigns. My impression from reading the related posts here is that the 'control' function managed to get taken over by the 'humane society' function and the local government has had to re-establish proper boundaries. The government is not and should not be the humane society- nor should public funds be spent on ensuring the function of the humane society are done. This is especially important at our time with lack of funding or vital government functions. Where is the humane society facility and volunteers that should be the ones advocating for the animals and taking on the adoption and 'no kill' shelter programs? Sorry, but I just see it the place of my tax dollars to support a special interest group's agenda. If you feel strongly about it, instead of trying to sick the media on the marshal or the commissioner or whomever, use your time and money to open a human society facility to support and carry out your cause. I'd gladly give to support such an endeavor because I agree with the goal- just don't think the government should be the one funding it. In fact, I think it would be a great story for Fox 5 to cover- the local humane society trying to raise enough money to fund their operations and run a no kill shelter.

[gpatt0n]

Hee Haw:

 

My impression is that the government funds the facility but the Humane Society provides (volunteer and additional shelter) manpower, health care and even food for the animals from donations ... as well as providing adoption services... in essence lowering the cost of the county's taxpayers while providing the pets the best possible chance at survival.

 

The facility has never been a 'no-kill' shelter and literally hundreds of animals have been euthanized every month. But with the emphasis on adoption and the maintenance of healthy, adoptable pets for longer than a few days after abandonment adds a humane aspect to the county's operation that is rare and possibly only in this public-private partnership.

 

The assertion that 'rescued' animals must be returned to the shelter after having been released to a rescue is, any way that you slice it, a curious, eye-brow raising event that has inquiring minds wanting to know what is going on.

 

pubby

[Lady Raider]

hmmmmmm

[Hee Haw]

Hee Haw:

 

My impression is that the government funds the facility but the Humane Society provides manpower, health care and even food for the animals from donations ... as well as providing adoption services... in essence lowering the cost of the county's taxpayers while providing the pets the best possible chance at survival.

 

The facility has never been a 'no-kill' shelter and literally hundreds of animals have been euthanized every month. But with the emphasis on adoption and the maintenance of healthy, adoptable pets for longer than a few days after abandonment adds a humane aspect to the county's operation that is rare and possibly only in this public-private partnership.

 

The assertion that 'rescued' animals must be returned to the shelter after having been released to a rescue is, any way that you slice it, a curious, eye-brow raising event that has inquiring minds wanting to know what is going on.

 

pubby

 

Don't disagree with the wondering what is up with the rescues, but it just seems that so many feel that animal control should function as the humane society. I don't understand how that came to be, but I understand the current commission seeing the need to separate the two. I know that most of the staff that is there on a regular basis, and is ultimately responsible for getting the work done, is county-paid staff. The two organizations would seem, on the surface to have a mutual interest, but in the end I think out of necessity they may often find themselves on opposite sides of the street. I'd be equally fine with the county outsourcing the animal control function to the humane society, so long as it was cost neutral.

[benji]

Heehaw did you know that working together saved the county alot of money and the control of the population has improved every year. The goal looks to be the same to me. If you are worried over money you may need to see what all the humane society does there. From what I have heard this happened because of employees being in different locations and not knowing that their new policies were.

Edited June 19, 2010 by benji

[gpatt0n]

Don't disagree with the wondering what is up with the rescues, but it just seems that so many feel that animal control should function as the humane society. I don't understand how that came to be, but I understand the current commission seeing the need to separate the two. I know that most of the staff that is there on a regular basis, and is ultimately responsible for getting the work done, is county-paid staff. The two organizations would seem, on the surface to have a mutual interest, but in the end I think out of necessity they may often find themselves on opposite sides of the street. I'd be equally fine with the county outsourcing the animal control function to the humane society, so long as it was cost neutral.

 

The immediate rescued animals aside, my perception over the years is that the Paulding Humane-Paulding County Animal Control public-private partnership was essentially a model operation that involved key compromises - i.e. the Humane Society accepting that animals must be euthanized - particularly when ill or when the numbers become too massive; that the integration of the two organizations in promoting spay and neuter was absolutely the best idea from the get go as it minimizes the issue in the long run and the confidence that the public has that the animals are treated as humanely through the process with a strong emphasis, not only on adoption, but on responsible pet ownership.

 

The point is that it did not appear to most or even many in the community that this public-private partnership was at all broken. Oh, there were problems and certainly perfection eludes us all. But the co-existence of the two groups - each overseeing the other - created a natural check and balance that instills confidence that the operation was being operated in a way that balanced the interests and eliminated the presumption that the county was not employing sociopaths whose thirst for animal blood was the motivator.

 

The costs of maintenance and personnel were not a point of contention and the animal control officers and humane society volunteers seemed to be working in unison. In short, the old adage, don't fix it if it is not broken comes to mind.

 

Still, we're told that it is being fixed ... anyway ... with leadership being transferred from those who have a history and experience in running a model animal shelter with a high-adoption rate and low rate of euthanasia to a police/law-enforcement model with emphasis switched to what we are to presume is enforcement.

 

This would make sense if the record showed that animal control officers were, because of incompetence in terms of evidence, losing 50 percent or more of the cases that go to magistrates court. Maybe they are but that is not an element of the published record and has not been put forward as a justification.

 

This might even make sense if there were not literally hundreds of citations for animal control violations every month issued by the current animal control officers.

 

Indeed, the goal of increasing the number of citations (and resulting fines paid) by ten, twenty or one-hundred percent, has not been put forward as a justification. If it were, it would be an issue of interest to the public particularly in this election year.

 

But, again, no one is making those arguments.

 

I've been watching this and no one has answered the question of what really is broken.

 

Hee Haw, we are all innately conservative - i.e. we naturally resist change - and this is a change and we want to know why and have a right to know why. It is the public's business.

 

If this is indeed, as you hinted, an effort to destroy the long-standing and succesful public-private partnership that is the Humane Society/Animal Control operation in Paulding, we deserve to know what the justification is?

 

About all we've heard so far is this is a bureaucratic desire to streamline the organizational chart of the county.

 

The bottom line, though, is that a clean-looking organizational chart for the county is a stupid reason to destroy a model public-private partnership.

 

Of course I've heard other reasons rumored for the change, but frankly, they are even more stupid than that.

 

Bottom line, if that or any of those other reasons I've heard rumored are the 'real reason', our elected officials are letting us down on their job #1, which is to protect us, the public, from bureaucrats enacting private agendas.

 

pubby

[benji]

The immediate rescued animals aside, my perception over the years is that the Paulding Humane-Paulding County Animal Control public-private partnership was essentially a model operation that involved key compromises - i.e. the Humane Society accepting that animals must be euthanized - particularly when ill or when the numbers become too massive; that the integration of the two organizations in promoting spay and neuter was absolutely the best idea from the get go as it minimizes the issue in the long run and the confidence that the public has that the animals are treated as humanely through the process with a strong emphasis, not only on adoption, but on responsible pet ownership.

 

The point is that it did not appear to most or even many in the community that this public-private partnership was at all broken. Oh, there were problems and certainly perfection eludes us all. But the co-existence of the two groups - each overseeing the other - created a natural check and balance that instills confidence that the operation was being operated in a way that balanced the interests and eliminated the presumption that the county was not employing sociopaths whose thirst for animal blood was the motivator.

 

The costs of maintenance and personnel were not a point of contention and the animal control officers and humane society volunteers seemed to be working in unison. In short, the old adage, don't fix it if it is not broken comes to mind.

 

Still, we're told that it is being fixed ... anyway ... with leadership being transferred from those who have a history and experience in running a model animal shelter with a high-adoption rate and low rate of euthanasia to a police/law-enforcement model with emphasis switched to what we are to presume is enforcement.

 

This would make sense if the record showed that animal control officers were, because of incompetence in terms of evidence, losing 50 percent or more of the cases that go to magistrates court. Maybe they are but that is not an element of the published record and has not been put forward as a justification.

 

This might even make sense if there were not literally hundreds of citations for animal control violations every month issued by the current animal control officers.

 

Indeed, the goal of increasing the number of citations (and resulting fines paid) by ten, twenty or one-hundred percent, has not been put forward as a justification. If it were, it would be an issue of interest to the public particularly in this election year.

 

But, again, no one is making those arguments.

 

I've been watching this and no one has answered the question of what really is broken.

 

Hee Haw, we are all innately conservative - i.e. we naturally resist change - and this is a change and we want to know why and have a right to know why. It is the public's business.

 

If this is indeed, as you hinted, an effort to destroy the long-standing and succesful public-private partnership that is the Humane Society/Animal Control operation in Paulding, we deserve to know what the justification is?

 

About all we've heard so far is this is a bureaucratic desire to streamline the organizational chart of the county.

 

The bottom line, though, is that a clean-looking organizational chart for the county is a stupid reason to destroy a model public-private partnership.

 

Of course I've heard other reasons rumored for the change, but frankly, they are even more stupid than that.

 

Bottom line, if that or any of those other reasons I've heard rumored are the 'real reason', our elected officials are letting us down on their job #1, which is to protect us, the public, from bureaucrats enacting private agendas.

 

pubby

 

 

Ha you must have heard the one about the big time dog selling business going on by employees and rescues. They have made millions from what I have heard. Ha

Edited June 19, 2010 by PUBBY

[+LauraLeigh Farms]

Hee Haw:

 

My impression is that the government funds the facility but the Humane Society provides (volunteer and additional shelter) manpower, health care and even food for the animals from donations ... as well as providing adoption services... in essence lowering the cost of the county's taxpayers while providing the pets the best possible chance at survival.

 

The facility has never been a 'no-kill' shelter and literally hundreds of animals have been euthanized every month. But with the emphasis on adoption and the maintenance of healthy, adoptable pets for longer than a few days after abandonment adds a humane aspect to the county's operation that is rare and possibly only in this public-private partnership.

 

The assertion that 'rescued' animals must be returned to the shelter after having been released to a rescue is, any way that you slice it, a curious, eye-brow raising event that has inquiring minds wanting to know what is going on.

 

pubby

 

Many people in Paulding County have donated time, food, money and fund raising efforts to the shelter. I'm glad that someone is keeping us informed of the situation at PCAC. It will be interesting to see how the stable inspections for new and renewed licenses will be handled under the new management.

[Hee Haw]

The immediate rescued animals aside, my perception over the years is that the Paulding Humane-Paulding County Animal Control public-private partnership was essentially a model operation that involved key compromises - i.e. the Humane Society accepting that animals must be euthanized - particularly when ill or when the numbers become too massive; that the integration of the two organizations in promoting spay and neuter was absolutely the best idea from the get go as it minimizes the issue in the long run and the confidence that the public has that the animals are treated as humanely through the process with a strong emphasis, not only on adoption, but on responsible pet ownership.

 

The point is that it did not appear to most or even many in the community that this public-private partnership was at all broken. Oh, there were problems and certainly perfection eludes us all. But the co-existence of the two groups - each overseeing the other - created a natural check and balance that instills confidence that the operation was being operated in a way that balanced the interests and eliminated the presumption that the county was not employing sociopaths whose thirst for animal blood was the motivator.

 

The costs of maintenance and personnel were not a point of contention and the animal control officers and humane society volunteers seemed to be working in unison. In short, the old adage, don't fix it if it is not broken comes to mind.

 

Still, we're told that it is being fixed ... anyway ... with leadership being transferred from those who have a history and experience in running a model animal shelter with a high-adoption rate and low rate of euthanasia to a police/law-enforcement model with emphasis switched to what we are to presume is enforcement.

 

This would make sense if the record showed that animal control officers were, because of incompetence in terms of evidence, losing 50 percent or more of the cases that go to magistrates court. Maybe they are but that is not an element of the published record and has not been put forward as a justification.

 

This might even make sense if there were not literally hundreds of citations for animal control violations every month issued by the current animal control officers.

 

Indeed, the goal of increasing the number of citations (and resulting fines paid) by ten, twenty or one-hundred percent, has not been put forward as a justification. If it were, it would be an issue of interest to the public particularly in this election year.

 

But, again, no one is making those arguments.

 

I've been watching this and no one has answered the question of what really is broken.

 

Hee Haw, we are all innately conservative - i.e. we naturally resist change - and this is a change and we want to know why and have a right to know why. It is the public's business.

 

If this is indeed, as you hinted, an effort to destroy the long-standing and succesful public-private partnership that is the Humane Society/Animal Control operation in Paulding, we deserve to know what the justification is?

 

About all we've heard so far is this is a bureaucratic desire to streamline the organizational chart of the county.

 

The bottom line, though, is that a clean-looking organizational chart for the county is a stupid reason to destroy a model public-private partnership.

 

Of course I've heard other reasons rumored for the change, but frankly, they are even more stupid than that.

 

Bottom line, if that or any of those other reasons I've heard rumored are the 'real reason', our elected officials are letting us down on their job #1, which is to protect us, the public, from bureaucrats enacting private agendas.

 

pubby

 

You've got my curiosity up Pubby. Are you going to put your investigative reporting hat on and get to the bottom of it? Hope so.

[Christopher Robin]

If those rescued pets did have to go back, I just hope some little kiddo didn't already adopt - and began bonding with it.

 

It would be a rotten thing to do, if that animal got taken away and put back into the AC facility.

 

CR

[solosoul]

Which rescue is having to return the dogs?

[pcshopper]

My only comment on this is that I used to FULLY support the shelter, however, with the new "God Almighty Power" in place, I wouldn't spit on the place if it was burning.

 

Whoseever bright idea it was to change things, has done NOTHING but make it worse, and sadly, the ANIMALS are the ones to suffer. In the end, I believe what will happen is most, if not all, rescues that pull from Paulding, will be pushed away by this senselessness.

 

The new "powers that be" have NO interest in the animals...it just a job to them. Why do a job if your heart isn't in it? They don't understand a THING about rehoming and forever homes...

[bellaprincess]

Can someone fill me in on why a rescue would have to return dogs? That makes no sense to me.

[AustinPlantation]

I know that, Good Mews, the no-kill cat shelter in east Cobb, took in several cats from the Paulding Shelter --- have they been asked to return the cats?

Can someone fill me in on why a rescue would have to return dogs? That makes no sense to me.

[benji]

I believe it was a big mix up from the employees that are working with the full temporary pens not knowing that someone had said they were interested in adopting the puppies took by the rescue. When it filled up they had called the rescue because space was needed and they took several dogs and this is now not allowed and another dog taken ended up being chipped but the owner hadn't been found. They were took back.

Edited June 20, 2010 by benji

[Lady Raider]

this whole topic is so confusing.

 

 

so having the new people take over the shelter is not a good thing? just asking, I have heard good and bad from this new take over.

[grandmaofnine]

I believe it was a big mix up from the employees that are working with the full temporary pens not knowing that someone had said they were interested in adopting the puppies took by the rescue. When it filled up they had called the rescue because space was needed and they took several dogs and this is now not allowed and another dog taken ended up being chipped but the owner hadn't been found. They were took back.

If this is the case, does it sound like the new Marshall in charge has things under control? And why in the world would a rescue not be allowed to take several dogs? So many things about your statement seem odd.

[raclay]

If this is the case, does it sound like the new Marshall in charge has things under control? And why in the world would a rescue not be allowed to take several dogs? So many things about your statement seem odd.

 

From what I understand from Benji's post is that a microchipped animal was taken by a rescue group before the owner could be found. I also understand the post to mean that a second animal was taken by a rescue group AFTER someone else expressed interest in the animal. If this is the case and only two animals were asked to be brought back, then I don't see a problem. The micro chips are in place so owners can find their lost pets and also, I really don't believe a rescue would knowingly take an animal after someone has shown interest in adopting it from the shelter.

 

It seems that there is some miscommunication going on at the shelter right now. However, with the new changes it is "somewhat" understandable that these things will happen in the beginning and until everyone "learns the ropes". I am not going to take sides until I see and hear more and hopefully BOTH sides of the stories, we all know there are two.

[Lady Raider]

I am still confused on what the problem is...

[ram0265]

I think that to many changes are happening for factual accounts to come out. Its hard when the AC can't get on here and lay down what is going on up there. While I keep seeing negative topics, I'm trying to still think this could be a positive thing.

[bellaprincess]

Written by a local rescuer/local resident.

Hey Everyone,

A few months ago, Paulding County Animal Control was taken over by the Marshall's Dept. There were some slight changes made, that we were not too comfortable with, but we decided to sit back and wait to see what happens. According to The Paulding County Board of Commissioners, nothing was going to change as far as the Humane Society's involvement with the facility.Adoption policies were to remain the same. Paulding County was probably the most animal and rescue friendly shelter in the state of GA. The Staff at Paulding was devoted and dedicated to saving animals. It seems as if change is coming, and not in a good way.

 

First off, The Board of Commissioners decided to close the facility to deal with the rodent infestation.. That's fine. The problem is, what to do with stray dogs or vicious dogs or hurt animals.. Rescues cant take dogs off the street!!!. There was no plan put into place prior to the facility closing. The only runs available are the outdoor runs..which is fine as they are covered. There is only room for about 20 dogs. Now before the Marshall's Office took over. The staff would evaluate dogs to see if they could be paired up together. If you could pair two dogs up, you can house more dogs and save more lives.. That is now not allowed. The new Marshall in charge, would like all dogs to be in individual runs. The staff is not allowed to double dogs up, even if they came in together.. again.. not conducive to saving lives. Next, The Marshall's office said the shelter has to remain 20% empty at all times.. So, That means more dogs will be euthanized and faster. Why? Wait until the facility is full, then start to put dogs down..

 

Here's the kicker.. The outdoor runs were full. These strays didnt get the memo about the shelter being closed. More and more dogs are coming in. A staff member called in a rescue that has been pulling from PCAC for 11 years. This group has saved a great many animals from this facility over the years. This rescue group took 9 dogs on Sunday and 4 more this morning. When the new Marshall found out, She was not too happy. I dont know why. she was very impressed when they adopted all the dogs out, without being fixed for 20.00. She passed the comment that rescues just pull dogs to make money.. wow I know, as a rescue, I have never made dime one on a dog. The Marshalls office called the rescue and ordered them to return these dogs by tomorrow AM. Why? When the rescue will spay and neuter these dogs, before adopting them out. Why would you want dogs kept in the pound? so you can adopt them for 20.00 unfixed? to just anybody.. Come and get your unfixed pitbull for 20.00.. Dogfighters and Backyard breeders are welcome.Come get yourself an unfixed Pit or grab a lab pup for a baitdog.. We will microchip them for you too. . So now all rescues need to be approved by the Marshall.. This is the same Marshall that wanted to adopt out a Pregnant Dog that was about to give birth.. So, Thanks Mr Commissioners for your beautifully written memo.. I guess it dont mean sheeze.. You want to work with the Humane Society? Maybe you should tell the Marshalls office that, I dont think they got the memo either. We need to really come together and put a stop to the bullcheeze..Paulding was the one place that got it right.. I think the media needs to get a hold of this..

 

--

Jason M Flatt

President and Founder

Friends To The Forlorn Pitbull Rescue Inc.

A registered 501 ©(3) organization

www.friendstotheforlorn.org

 

 

 

 

From what I understand from Benji's post is that a microchipped animal was taken by a rescue group before the owner could be found. I also understand the post to mean that a second animal was taken by a rescue group AFTER someone else expressed interest in the animal. If this is the case and only two animals were asked to be brought back, then I don't see a problem. The micro chips are in place so owners can find their lost pets and also, I really don't believe a rescue would knowingly take an animal after someone has shown interest in adopting it from the shelter.

 

It seems that there is some miscommunication going on at the shelter right now. However, with the new changes it is "somewhat" understandable that these things will happen in the beginning and until everyone "learns the ropes". I am not going to take sides until I see and hear more and hopefully BOTH sides of the stories, we all know there are two.

I am coming up with 13 dogs. ??

 

I am still confused on what the problem is...

Me too!! I seem to be confused in a lot of threads lately.

[solosoul]

Who is it from the Marshall office that is in charge?

[GACat]

Who is it from the Marshall office that is in charge?

 

Capt LeAnn Bastis LeHolm

[raclay]

I am coming up with 13 dogs. ??

 

I was referring to Benji's post, #19. But shoot, all these varying stories are confusing me too now. I think I will just keep my mouth shut until I hear and see more information. I read Benji's post to mean two animals, but after reading it again, it says one microchipped animal taken without looking for owner and other puppies taken when someone expressed interest in adopting them. That is where I came up with two, but I didn't catch PUPPIES when I read it the first time. Anyway, I know the original post(#1) states 13 animals. Either way, this is all very confusing, too many stories and no info from the AC people.

Edited June 21, 2010 by raclay

[bellaprincess]

I am coming up with 13 dogs. ??

 

I was referring to Benji's post, #19. But shoot, all these varying stories are confusing me too now. I think I will just keep my mouth shut until I hear and see more information. I read Benji's post to mean two animals, but after reading it again, it says one microchipped animal taken without looking for owner and other puppies taken when someone expressed interest in adopting them. That is where I came up with two, but I didn't catch PUPPIES when I read it the first time. Anyway, I know the original post(#1) states 13 animals. Either way, this is all very confusing, too many stories and no info from the AC people.

 

Glad I could bring you over to my side of confusion! LOL

 

We need a PCAC for Dummys manual at this point.

[shelterpetsrock!]

I'll do my best to answer your questions as honestly as I can - but please keep in mind that there are AC employees that are fearful of their jobs, therefore cannot post publicly.

 

Yes, there was a dog that was microchipped. This dog was at the shelter for over the 72 hour hold time, the owner NEVER registered the microchip, so the chip registered back to the breeder. An employee tried daily to trace said chip. This was ONE of several dogs that a local rescue pulled from the shelter. The rescue stated that they also tried to trace the chip. AC did find the owner info AFTER the dog had been pulled by rescue. The rescue was willing to contact the owner.

 

The puppies in question were listed on petfinder. Someone called expressing an interest, but it has always been policy that no animal is to be held at the shelter if they are available to go out the door - because the main goal is to get them OUT the door. Rescues have ALWAYS been welcome to pull an animal that is available, after being made available to the public.

 

The good news here is that the chipped dog DID make it home. (despite the fact that the owner NEVER came looking for her, nor called)

 

The bad news here is that several puppies went BACK to the shelter - UNADOPTED on Saturday - and now a local rescue that's pulled THOUSANDS of pets from Paulding over the past 11 years - well, they aren't coming back.

 

Rescues have never had "first choice" of any pets at the shelter. With the circumstances of the shelter being closed to the public, and only one day per week adoptions (which has only been twoSaturdays at this point) and VERY low adoptions on those days, it was believed to be in the BEST interest of the DOGS to call a rescue that was able to pull as many as they could on that day.

 

Under normal circumstances, these pets would have been available to the public first after the 72 hr hold time. The options here are limited. Due to the "new" rule that dogs are no longer allowed to be paired up with other friendly dogs, there were very few runs open to incoming animals.

 

Most rescues are not a permanent solution - their intent is to save animals by removing them from a shelter environment and into a new home quickly.

 

A shelter environment can cause serious illness - ESPECIALLY under current circumstances where the Paulding shelter is no longer vaccinated pets at this time -

 

Apparently, the policies on animal rescue groups pulling animals from our local shelter has changed, but the employees weren't clear of any changes.

 

So to get back to the topic at hand, why was this local rescue told to bring these dogs back to the shelter or risk legal action by the county?

Edited June 21, 2010 by shelterpetsrock!

[solosoul]

I'll do my best to answer your questions as honestly as I can - but please keep in mind that there are AC employees that are fearful of their jobs, therefore cannot post publicly.

 

Yes, there was a dog that was microchipped. This dog was at the shelter for over the 72 hour hold time, the owner NEVER registered the microchip, so the chip registered back to the breeder. An employee tried daily to trace said chip. This was ONE of several dogs that a local rescue pulled from the shelter. The rescue stated that they also tried to trace the chip. AC did find the owner info AFTER the dog had been pulled by rescue. The rescue was willing to contact the owner.

 

The puppies in question were listed on petfinder. Someone called expressing an interest, but it has always been policy that no animal is to be held at the shelter if they are available to go out the door - because the main goal is to get them OUT the door. Rescues have ALWAYS been welcome to pull an animal that is available, after being made available to the public.

 

The good news here is that the chipped dog DID make it home. (despite the fact that the owner NEVER came looking for her, nor called)

 

The bad news here is that several puppies went BACK to the shelter - UNADOPTED on Saturday - and now a local rescue that's pulled THOUSANDS of pets from Paulding over the past 11 years - well, they aren't coming back.

 

Rescues have never had "first choice" of any pets at the shelter. With the circumstances of the shelter being closed to the public, and only one day per week adoptions (which has only been twoSaturdays at this point) and VERY low adoptions on those days, it was believed to be in the BEST interest of the DOGS to call a rescue that was able to pull as many as they could on that day.

 

Under normal circumstances, these pets would have been available to the public first after the 72 hr hold time. The options here are limited. Due to the "new" rule that dogs are no longer allowed to be paired up with other friendly dogs, there were very few runs open to incoming animals.

 

Most rescues are not a permanent solution - their intent is to save animals by removing them from a shelter environment and into a new home quickly.

 

A shelter environment can cause serious illness - ESPECIALLY under current circumstances where the Paulding shelter is no longer vaccinated pets at this time -

 

Apparently, the policies on animal rescue groups pulling animals from our local shelter has changed, but the employees weren't clear of any changes.

 

So to get back to the topic at hand, why was this local rescue told to bring these dogs back to the shelter or risk legal action by the county?

 

I will ask once again...WHAT rescue was it that had to bring animals back? I have an idea and wonder if it the one I think it is.

[rockysmom]

My only comment on this is that I used to FULLY support the shelter, however, with the new "God Almighty Power" in place, I wouldn't spit on the place if it was burning.

Whoseever bright idea it was to change things, has done NOTHING but make it worse, and sadly, the ANIMALS are the ones to suffer. In the end, I believe what will happen is most, if not all, rescues that pull from Paulding, will be pushed away by this senselessness.

 

The new "powers that be" have NO interest in the animals...it just a job to them. Why do a job if your heart isn't in it? They don't understand a THING about rehoming and forever homes...

 

 

Wow.....I'm as confused as everyone else on the situation at the shelter but just to add to the confusion at hand I need to ask why are you so angry? I mean, if your intentions were to help the animals why stop?

 

And just as an aside, if my microchipped animal was picked up and then adopted out I would want some answers too.

[shelterpetsrock!]

Wow.....I'm as confused as everyone else on the situation at the shelter but just to add to the confusion at hand I need to ask why are you so angry? I mean, if your intentions were to help the animals why stop?

 

And just as an aside, if my microchipped animal was picked up and then adopted out I would want some answers too.

 

 

Please read my above post. I think it should answer any questions as to why a microchipped dog was not re-united with it's owner sooner.

 

for the record: The rescue asked AC for the owner info after it was found so the rescue could take the dog home. The AC employee was forbidden to give out the info.

 

And allow me to take this as an opportunity to ask of all of you with microchipped pets, PLEASE make sure you REGISTER those chips & keep your contact info current!!!

Edited June 21, 2010 by shelterpetsrock!

[shelterpetsrock!]

I will ask once again...WHAT rescue was it that had to bring animals back? I have an idea and wonder if it the one I think it is.

 

 

Personally, I don't see the relevance.

 

The 4 dogs in question from Friday were one purebred and three mixed breeds.

[solosoul]

Personally, I don't see the relevance.

 

The 4 dogs in question from Friday were one purebred and three mixed breeds.

 

Well I guess you answered my question after all... I bet you do not see the relevance.

[rockysmom]

Please read my above post. I think it should answer any questions as to why a microchipped dog was not re-united with it's owner sooner.

 

And allow me to take this as an opportunity to ask of all of you with microchipped pets, PLEASE make sure you REGISTER those chips & keep your contact info current!!!

 

 

I read your post and then reread it just to be sure I understood what you were saying. I am in no way trying to side with the owner and if my animal went missing I would be running everywhere to get the information out that my animal was missing. All I'm saying is that when an animal is micro chipped although it may be a PITA, with a little effort the owner (or at least a contact) can be located. Again, we don't know the actual circumstances as to why the owner did not go to the shelter to file a lost animal report. I mean, were they out of town? So both the shelter and the rescue knew the animal was micro chipped and it took a third party to intercede to recover the animal to its owner.

 

So far so good?

[DoubleRose]

I will ask once again...WHAT rescue was it that had to bring animals back? I have an idea and wonder if it the one I think it is.

 

 

Why does that matter?

[dawneykids]

My only comment on this is that I used to FULLY support the shelter, however, with the new "God Almighty Power" in place, I wouldn't spit on the place if it was burning.

 

Whoseever bright idea it was to change things, has done NOTHING but make it worse, and sadly, the ANIMALS are the ones to suffer. In the end, I believe what will happen is most, if not all, rescues that pull from Paulding, will be pushed away by this senselessness.

 

The new "powers that be" have NO interest in the animals...it just a job to them. Why do a job if your heart isn't in it? They don't understand a THING about rehoming and forever homes...

WOW! That says a lot about you and none of it good.

[solosoul]

I read your post and then reread it just to be sure I understood what you were saying. I am in no way trying to side with the owner and if my animal went missing I would be running everywhere to get the information out that my animal was missing. All I'm saying is that when an animal is micro chipped although it may be a PITA, with a little effort the owner (or at least a contact) can be located. Again, we don't know the actual circumstances as to why the owner did not go to the shelter to file a lost animal report. I mean, were they out of town? So both the shelter and the rescue knew the animal was micro chipped and it took a third party to intercede to recover the animal to its owner.

 

So far so good?

Right they could have been out of town or heck even in town and not knowing that the Pound was open or that anyone would even answer the phone( could have called and never got a call back if things have not changed from the past)...after all it was all over the News that they would be closing to do repairs. They could have been checking other counties to see if it had been taken there.72 hours is not a long time....just look at the post right here on PCOM of owners who love thier dogs and they are still..weeks later looking for them.

[dawneykids]

If this is the case, does it sound like the new Marshall in charge has things under control? And why in the world would a rescue not be allowed to take several dogs? So many things about your statement seem odd.

Yep, I'm with you on that one.