Saving Helo

Should we save Helo?

Those who have been reading this blog for a while know that I have investigated a number of human fatalities that resulted from dog attacks.  As a result of those investigations I have handled and evaluated a lot of dogs.  In almost every case the dog involved in a human fatality is killed afterwards.

Why are these dogs killed?  It seems a simple enough issue-dog kills human, then human kills dog.  But every once in a while we need to look at why this happens.  It may be automatic and seem, well, natural, but we need to remind ourselves why.

In most cases the reason is clear-the owners of the dog want it destroyed.  This is an understandable reaction, especially if the dog is responsible for the death of a family member.  Regardless of why or how the fatality came about the emotional baggage would be debilitating.  We have to respect the wishes of the owners of these dogs, even if we might disagree with their decision.  It is, ultimately, their decision to make.

More complex are cases where the mandate to destroy the dog comes from the government.  The government has, under the law, the ability to perform a legal “taking”, a seizure, of contraband and other items under specific circumstances.  A vehicle can be seized and disposed of if used in certain crimes.  Ill-gotten gains can be taken.  Clearly prohibited items, such as illegal drugs, can be taken and destroyed.  All of these examples have been decided to be in the interest of the State.

When it comes to dogs the case becomes murkier.  The primary reason given for the destruction of dangerous animals is for public safety.  We certainly don’t want vicious animals running around loose and attacking people.  That is a reasonable action.  Frankly, many of the dogs I have evaluated after causing human deaths have been a clear risk to people.  The triggering action for the attack may have made sense in doggie terms, but the reaction to that provocation was excessive and inappropriate.  The magnitude of the reaction made the dog a clear danger in any future incidents, and thus the dog was rightly destroyed.  Perhaps some of these could have been sheltered in tightly controlled environments, but in all honesty the number of such safe places is very limited.  The better alternative was humane destruction.

A common second reason for destroying these animals is liability.  Cities, counties, and other jurisdictions are seen as deep pocket targets for litigation.  A jurisdiction that releases a dog involved in a fatality may have exposure down the line if the dog ever bites again.  Sadly, I am certain there are litigators that would hover expectantly around such an animal, just waiting for the chance to find an excuse to file action for a settlement on anything the dog might do, or even be accused of doing.  This issue can be settled with appropriate releases and other transfer of liability, but even if these releases are solid actions may still be attempted by those looking for a quick settlement.  I understand this concern, and if a dog is being destroyed for this reason the agency simply needs to acknowledge the fact and move on, rather than hiding behind excuses.

Lastly, in my mind, and saddest of the choices, is the fact that some people want revenge, plain and simple.  The dog killed a person-most likely a child.  Their attitude is that the dog must die, preferably immediately.  The dog has done the unforgivable and ‘justice’ must be swift and certain.  This is the same attitude that once led to the construction of a gallows while the trial was in progress-and too often results in the execution of the dog on scene.  I have talked often about the need to adequately process the animal(s) involved and that there should be no rush to judgment or execution.  I do, however, as an old police officer, understand the immediate stress responders have at the scene; a body, often a baby, is right there.  The alleged suspect is also right there. The responder my have never seen a dog fatality before.  In this case the suspect is an animal, with a lesser expectation of fair treatment (in some minds), and with little provocation or excuse the responders can use immediate deadly force to protect themselves from a perceived threat.  Revenge is swift and certain, and rarely does anyone question the actions of the responders.

The problem here is the same problem we have with jumping to swift judgment in human-caused cases: what we see, or think we see, may not be the whole story.

And that brings us to the case of Helo, a Siberian Husky in McKeesport, Pennsylvania, accused of killing a three-day-old infant.

The public story seemed pretty clear.  Press reports stated that the child’s mother left the three day old boy unattended for just “two minutes” to use the bathroom, and during that brief time the dog severely mauled the infant.  These kinds of incidents do happen.  According to the press, the dog had been in the home for less than two weeks and the baby had just come home from the hospital.  There were the expected quotes about the “horrible injuries” that the poor child had suffered.  The dog was expected to be destroyed.

But then he wasn’t.  And then he was seized again.  And then he was to be destroyed.  And then questions began surfacing-and I was called in.

It turned out that the facts were far more complex than the press reports indicated.  I am not going to go into all the procedural foul-ups and legal missteps made in this case, but I will focus on a few physical, evidence based issues that made the case murky at best.

To begin, Helo (the accused) is a mostly white male Siberian Husky.  The child killed suffered serious injury to his head and face.  A substantial amount of blood was present (although confined to a very limited area-more on that later), yet Helo had only two minor smudges of blood on his fur: one about the size of a thumb print on the side of his face, almost under his ear, and one smudge smaller than a dime on the front of his left leg, above the ankle.  As a retired police officer familiar with many crime scenes, both of these smudges look just as they sound-smudges.  Not drips, splashes, or spatter, but smudges.  These are more consistent with transfer of blood from another object, not the active dispersal of blood from a fatally bleeding victim.

The only marks on Helo were these two small smudges-nothing else.  I find it difficult to believe that a white dog, accused of biting a child and causing an injury that exposed the child’s brain, would only have two tiny smudges of blood on him.  That must have been a very fastidious dog…or perhaps just not the right dog?

Now let us add in the fact that there was not one, but four dogs in the home at the time of the fatality.  Helo was blamed because the mother told police that she saw Helo “…standing over the baby…”.  Not biting the baby.  Not hurting the baby.  Standing over the baby.

The second dog in the home, a dark colored Pit Bull mix, was allegedly with the mother in the bathroom (on the second floor) the entire time.  This dog was only given a cursory visual “check” by the responding Law Enforcement and Animal Control authorities.  Yet I can tell you from personal experience that blood on a dark colored (especially if brindled at all) dog is difficult to see.  I have, in fact, only discovered the extent of blood on a dark brindled dog by feeling the stickiness on the fur when handling the dog.  Yet no tests were done on dog #2, not even simply wiping down the dog with a white piece of gauze or paper towel. 

Further, this second dog was supposedly in the bathroom with the mother-but the mother claims that she was only in the bathroom for two minutes.   Yet the timeline of the attack, as documented by police reports, shows that the mother was talking to her boyfriend (from the bathroom presumably) beginning at 9:15 am.  The mother stated to police that she discovered the baby injured, and Helo standing over him, just as she finished her two minutes in the bathroom.  She then called 911.  Yet police records show that Emergency Services and police were not called until 9:32 AM, seventeen minutes after the conversation with her boyfriend began.  Now, we all know how difficult it can be to have a dog directly underfoot in a bathroom while we are attending to personal needs.  As a man I can only guess how enjoyable that would be if I were a woman who had just given birth trying to deal with personal hygiene, perhaps involving sanitary pads, etc.  I don’t think it unreasonable for a person who has mistaken a seventeen minute conversation for “two minutes” to have lost track of the second dog for even a few minutes.  Things happen-we get distracted.  Time is fluid when we are discussing things we care about with our loved ones.

The lack of a thorough examination of the second dog is regrettable, but what becomes more outrageous is the handling of the other dogs.  Remember them?  There were four dogs in the house-not two.  And guess where the other two dogs were when EMS and police arrived?  Locked behind a closed door in the basement-barking and lunging at the closed door!  Yet neither police nor Animal Control ever even looked at these dogs, for “security reasons” according to the police reports.  Security reasons?  You have police and skilled Animal Control personnel on scene to assist in handling the dogs, yet they fail to even visually check those two dogs for “security reasons”.  That certainly makes sense-blame the friendliest dog on scene, seize (briefly) the other friendly dog while not adequately checking him for evidence, but leave the two difficult, barking, lunging dogs because you are afraid to handle them?  In the wake of a human fatality?  To me this is one of the most incredible facts of this case.

To sum up so far: we have blamed the white dog with minor smudges.  We have taken but not examined the dark dog.  And we have left the two nasty dogs barking and lunging at the closed basement door.

Let’s look at the other physical evidence now.

At the time of the incident the baby had been left in a bathtub-like plastic carrier on the floor of the home’s living room.  The carrier, which had no safety strap, was jammed in between the couch and a mattress on the floor that the family-and their dogs-had been sleeping on.  The carrier contained a small pillow and a soft liner.  The baby had been left lying on his back, head on the pillow, when the mother went to the bathroom.  When she found the baby injured the baby was still lying on his back, still with his head on the pillow-and there were bite marks on the baby’s face, the top of his head, and the back of his head.  Yet he was still in the same place his mother left him.  This presumes that the dog(s) bit him, tore a significant wound across his face, literally opened the top of his skull, and yet never moved him out of the carrier-or even to a different area of the carrier.  A small fragment of skull was found, but that was within the carrier and a matter of a few inches from the baby’s head, still on the pillow.  I can’t frankly say that I have ever seen a situation where dogs dissected a target (toy, food or prey) and were so darn neat in their efforts as to return the scene exactly as it was before their actions.  Usually dogs are a least a little bit messier.

The bite marks are also a problem.  I was able to determine from a close examination of the autopsy photos that there were simple punctures and there were directional tears.  The directional tears were at contrasting angles.  That means the teeth involved pulled from different sides.  Although there were not clear enough full bites to absolutely identify or exclude any particular dog, I was able to identify two clear sets of canine tooth punctures-and the measurements were consistent with two different sets of jaws.   Now, we were only given access to Helo for measurements, but at least one set of punctures were inconsistent with the measurements of Helo’s canine teeth. 

The tearing injuries on the baby’s face were also a problem.  They indicated that the biter had pulled against the child’s flesh enough to tear completely through face and cheek tissue for several centimeters.  The force needed to tear that far is in excess of the weight of a three day old infant’s head.  Now, one might suspect that a dog could use a paw to hold a target and pull against it (as we have all seen with dogs dissecting soft plush toys or rope chews), but Helo had another difficulty here-he had a broken front leg that was in a cast.  With the couch on one side of the carrier and the mattress on the other side, a single dog would have had to maintain footing on a soft, irregular surface with one foot and hold the target (the baby) down with the other.  But Helo had a broken leg, in a cast, that was essentially non-weight bearing.  For Helo to have torn the flesh he would have had to somehow have juggled baby, carrier, and his own support with a single usable leg.

And we still have the scene problem.  If Helo did this all by himself, or even if two dogs pulled on the child, and there were bites to the front, sides, and back of the baby’s head-how did the baby’s body get repositioned back exactly as it started?

All these questions and more were bumping around in my head when I finally got to meet and physically evaluate Helo.  The video of the evaluation is posted on YouTube-search “Helos evaluation” or try

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHdpQP76WKs

To summarize, I found Helo to be an active, personable, inquisitive young male Husky.  He readily sought human contact, was very responsive to directions and simple obedience commands, he took treats gently, and he allowed me to fully handle him with only slight avoidance of handling his healing leg.  I could take toys and food freely, without guarding or protective aggression, and was able to actually reach into his food bowl while he was eating.  He exhibited no signs of human-focused or dog-dog aggression.  He was, in fact, a pleasant and friendly dog.  If Helo had come into a shelter I was in charge of with no documentation of his history, his behavior would indicate that he was very adoptable.  My bottom line on Helo: this dog is absolutely not dangerous, and is no more likely to bite a person than any random pet dog one might encounter.

So now we go back to the initial question in this case: should Helo be saved?

In the human justice system we mandate that a person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.  That proof must be to a standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”.  In animal cases, sadly, guilt by mere presence or association is more often the standard.   In this case yes, Helo was present.  He had a small amount of blood on his fur, consistent with transfer from some other surface.  There were three other dogs present, none of whom were adequately examined.  At least some of the bite marks are inconsistent with Helo’s measurements.  Do we have reasonable doubt here?  Absolutely.  Is Help’s behavior during the evaluation consistent with a dog that I feel is clearly a danger to the public?  No.  Helo is again no more a risk to the public than any other dog.  If Helo is to be destroyed, it will not be to protect public safety.  As we discussed, liability can be dealt with by attorneys and releases.  The only reason for Helo’s destruction will be for revenge, plain and simple.

Must Attend! National Dog Bite Conference, May 4th

A little self-plug here, along with a HUGE opportunity for readers to attend an awesome and educational event in Atlanta, GA on May 4th (as if you need a reason to go to Atlanta).....

And for Animal Control Officers, we still have a number of scholarships available for you to attend since we know your agencies are broke, broke, broke.....

I will be joined by Victoria Stilwell, trainer, author, and star of "It's Me Or The Dog; Dr. Mark Wulkan, Chief of Surgery at Childrens' Healthcare of Atlanta; Claudine Wilkins, legal and legislative expert; and other leaders in the field of dog bites and surrounding legal, medical, and practical issues.  Come and learn, socialize, and share with others your questions and experiences.  Help us reduce the number of needless injuries that occur every year.

Mark your calendars to attend an important conference presented by The State Bar of Georgia, The Animal Law Section, and Children's Health Care of Atlanta:

 The National Dog Bite Investigation, Treatment and Prevention Conference:

A Symposium by and for Lawyers, Judges, Medical Professionals, First Responders (EMS, ACO, ER), Veterinarians & Technicians, Animal Control Officers, Police, Dog Trainers, Educators, Shelter Directors and Legislators addressing current issues affecting the education and interaction of professionals in preventing and treating dog bites and victims.

  Register Early. Space is Limited.

 Limited scholarships available for Animal Control Officers.

Click here for more information: http://www.iclega.org/programs/7967.html

 For information contact: info@georgiaanimallaw.org

OR GO TO: http://www.dogbitecon.org/

What is Animal Rescue: Part 1

We talk a lot about Animal Rescue and the various efforts to Rescue and Save the Animals (yes, you can usually hear the caps).  Right now we are working hard to get the Florida Animal Rescue Act passed by our State Legislature and save lives.  But we have to wonder some times; what is Rescue, how does it work, how should it work, and what are we Rescuing animals from in the first place?

There seem to be two major segments of Animal Rescue out there; disaster response rescue and everyday companion animal rescue.  Although Rescue groups often deal with both faces of this challenge, they are two distinct issues.  Let’s look at disaster response first and try to get a clearer picture of our mission.

Last year North Carolina and Virginia were hammered by Hurricane Irene.  New York and the rest of New England faced a once-in-a-century storm.  There was the outbreak of tornados in the Birmingham/Tuscaloosa Alabama area, a tornado that devastated a good swath of Joplin, Missouri, tornados in New England, and the creeping disaster that was the flooding along the Mississippi Delta. These displaced and took many human lives, and likewise impacted animal lives, both companion and commercial.  During each of these disasters phone and ‘Net lines were buzzing with concerned folks desperate to “Save the Animals.” And saving was done, and will continue to be done, by many dedicated ground teams, shelters, shelter support staff, and volunteers.

But we have to be clear what we mean when we want to “Save the Animals”? Save the animals from what? For what? Which animals?  We intend good things, but what is our true mission?

Let me give a quick example of good intentions versus a defined mission. During the early ground operations in New Orleans after Katrina and Rita one of our volunteers brought in a baby alligator to be “saved”. The alligator was about two and a half feet long. It was captured in the rubble of an apartment complex, just off Lake Ponchartrain. 

The conversation went pretty much like this:

Me:  “Bless your heart*, I appreciate your concern, but what is that you have?”

Vol:  “An alligator.  A baby alligator.”

Me: “Ok.  Tell me-where are we?”

Vol: “New Orleans.”

Me: “Which is in….”

Vol: “Uh, Louisiana?”

Me: “And where do alligators live?”

Vol: “In swamps…”

Me: “Swamps where?

Vol: “…Louisiana”

Me. “Exactly.  We are not saving alligators…THEY BELONG HERE. THERE IS NOTHING TO SAVE THEM FROM, except maybe their PARENTS.  PUT THAT BACK.  He (or she) will be just fine.  Trot across the parking lot to the levee, and put that fellow back in Lake Ponchartrain where he belongs.”

I know I hurt the poor volunteer’s feelings-they were just trying to “Save the Animals”. And in northern Illinois, or Michigan, or wherever the volunteer came from, alligators might need saving. But along the Gulf Coast we residents consider them pests. Large, prehistoric, small-dog-eating, golf course infesting pests. They are part of the local ecosystem, part of the natural world, part of (cue the Disney song) “the circle of liiiife…..! They don’t need saving. They belong here.

This was a case of unclear mission goals.  The volunteer with the alligator wanted to Save the Animals, but lacked an understanding of the specific parameters we were focused within.  Our mission after Katrina was to address companion animal issues-lost pets, endangered pets, abandoned and/or lost livestock.  We were not there to collect and “save” an entire ecosystem.

During disaster response, we must first understand what animals we are saving, and from what.  Typically there are two clear classes of animals we are interested in: companion animals (pets) and livestock/agricultural animals, most often horses, cattle, and barnyard fowl.

What are we saving them from?  Well, of course we are saving them from the immediate threat.  Drowning in floods, injured or dead from falling debris or trees, in the case of New Orleans the poisonous soup that it became when all the chemicals in factories and under people’s sinks merged together post-levee failure; the range of dangers for pets and livestock is tremendous.

These threats loom largest for those animals left behind by their owners.  We saw plenty of that in Katrina; families left their animals behind, leaving food and fresh water available, assuming that they would return to relatively secure homes and properties and to their animals in a day or three.  We know how badly that worked out now, with the levee failures and the complete closing of New Orleans for weeks.  One dog that I personally rescued had been trapped in his house for 49 days.  HE survived, but too many didn’t.  Drowned animals were commonplace.

So we save the animals, at least those that are not native-and perhaps some of those if they are injured-from injury, drowning, poisoning, and other immediate hazards.  We round them up, clean them up, dry them off, and give them wholesome food.  We tend to their wounds and begin to return them to gentle, positive companionship with humans.  We are indeed saving them from valid, clear threats.

But what are we saving them for?  For dispersal to well meaning people all over who want to also “Save the Animals” by opening their homes and hearts to these needy creatures?  Despite events that transpired after Katrina, the answer here is a resounding “NO”.  In a disaster response, our first and foremost goal and mission is to save these animals so they may be returned to their rightful owners.  We are not there to conduct a massive collect-and-adopt mission.  We are there to rescue and safeguard the animals at risk until such time as we, or other authorities, can identify and reunite the animals with their human families.  In a disaster response this reunification is our goal, our mission, our reason to exist, our lifeblood.  I can tell you personally that, when a family returns to a scene to find their home destroyed, their possessions scattered on the tide, their lives in ruin, the looks on their faces when they realize their pet is safe and cared for are worth every second of work and struggle.

But there is a caution that we must keep close to our hearts.  When we rescue these animals, they are only temporarily in our care.  We are their saviors, but not their keepers.  We have no authority or place determining if their owners are fit to have their animals back.

This situation came up during our post-Katrina response.  Well meaning, kind and concerned rescuers had issues with a number of things they saw.  These kind folks, first off, resented the owners for leaving their pets behind.  Too many people expressed to me their disgust at what they considered outright abandonment.  I even, at first, found it difficult to understand until I learned that most people had been told, or believed, that they would only be gone a brief time.  Residents of New Orleans, like many Gulf Coast communities, had evacuated before.  Most times they leave for one to three days and then are back at home, cleaning up and back on track.

In Katrina, an unpredicted element intruded.  The city was generally secure, with some middling damage, until the levees broke.  Houses that had been safe and dry were now underwater, as much as six to ten feet or more, depending on which neighborhood you were in.  The residents who fled, and those who stayed behind, never truly expected this to happen. 

The waters came in fast enough in some locations that we later found dinner dishes still on the tables, food on the stoves, lives interrupted in the middle of normality.  And we found animals drowned in houses, sometimes loose in the house, sometimes in crates and kennels, and too often accompanied by their owners.  In the home of one person who was apparently a hoarder, we found seventy two dead animals, dogs and cats, scattered around the house.  Some cats had even taken refuge in the attic, and then drowned trying to escape from the eaves as the water covered the roof.  Some animals were in attics, mute testament to their loyalty as they died in their owners’ laps.

But we found them, mostly unaccompanied, and rescuers were appalled.  How could these people leave their pets?  Why could they not fit a small dog into a car, or take their cat?  What physical possession could have been more important than their companion?

And some rescuers began trying to second guess the owners, trying to place their own values on the owners of the survivors.  Some animals were, frankly, not kept to the standards that many of us were accustomed to.  The animals were chained, tethered, or simply running loose.  The animals were not always groomed, were not always as friendly as they expected, were not kept….like our animals.  And some rescuers began making decisions as to whether the owners deserved their animals back.

This was, despite good intentions and sometimes legitimate outrage, simply wrong.  This was not the mission.  This was not their place.  We/they had no business making such decisions.  Good or bad, well intentioned or hopelessly clueless, the owners had every right to have their animals returned.

Situations like this are why we need close control of and accountability for rescuers in disaster responses.  The rescue mission must be narrowly defined; first, respond and collect all the animals that meet your mission goals-in the case of Katrina, companion and livestock animals.  Second, stabilize, house, identify and document all the animals you have.  Third, work fervently to return and reunite the animals with owners without removing them from the immediate area where they can be reasonable recovered.  And finally, if all else fails, THEN begin adopting/fostering/placing animals with new homes both in and out of the affected areas.

There are a few ways we can proactively design our responses to lessen the likelihood of mission drift.  We can pre-credential our responders, building a database of trained, qualified people who understand the issues we will face and the system within which they will function.  We can limit access to disaster areas to those credentialed and trained persons.  We can set out our mission goals and rules clearly from the outset, and have accountability measures in place.  We can set up receiving facilities designed for safe containment, immediate medical treatment, and behavioral assessment and management to ensure the animals are kept safe until they go home.  Finally we can document, advertise, and follow up on recovery locations to try and reunite pets and families long before we start shipping them out and away, sometimes to places where the owners may never find them again.  I feel that these are the basic requirements of disaster response and rescue for those who want to “Save the Animals”.

But disaster response is, almost by definition, the exception.  What about day to day rescuing of needy and discarded animals?  That subject is for next time.

* NOTE: Here in the South you hear people say "Bless your heart..." a lot.  That is not because they are all pious and well wishing.  In much of the Southern US, the phrase "Bless your heart" is code.  It means "Are you really that stupid?"  Of course, true Southerners are far too well mannered to straight out say that.  Thus, "Bless your heart".

What is a Behaviorist?

I am asked fairly regularly about trainers and behaviorists and about recommending a particular person or group.  

The issue of who is or is not a behaviorist is unclear in our current training environment. "Behaviorist" is a tag that generates lots of marketable attention. Claiming to be a behaviorist specializing in aggression or dangerous dogs is an even bigger selling point, yet determining qualification to treat aggressive dogs is a serious issue due to the danger to both the public and to the dogs.  Today we have people popping up claiming to be "dangerous dog rehabilitators" or "aggressive dog specialists".  Some of these folks have extensive experience and are very talented; some are less so, and some, sadly, are frankly in the mix to be perceived as the baddest in the 'hood.

I do not label myself as a behaviorist.  My certification through the Council for Certification of Professional Dog Trainers is as a Certified Behavior Consultant-Canine-Knowledge Assessed.  That means I have met certain criteria of education and experience, provided professional references, documented such, been peer reviewed, and then passed a certification exam.  This certification requires that I pursue continuing education in the field to maintain my standing.  I also have a B.S. degree with concentration in Psychology.  That does not, in my mind, make me a behaviorist.

I reserve the title "Behaviorist" for two select groups of people; Veterinary Behaviorists-people with degrees as Veterinarians who pursue additional education in the field of behavior and obtain that Board Certified designation, and Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, those individuals with Doctoral degrees in animal behavior.  These two groups of professionals are the ones that I feel have earned the term "Behaviorist".

That is not to say that others are deficient.  I look at the field of animal behavior work as similar to the medical field.  Board Certified specialists (cardiologists, neurologists, etc.) are at the top of the field.  They have a medical degree and extensive additional training.  They are the level of Veterinary Behaviorists.  

Experienced behavior consultants certified by recognized, professional, peer-reviewed groups (CCPDT, the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, and the International Association of Canine Professionals come to mind) are more at the level of a Physicians' Assistant or a Nurse Practitioner-we can do a lot, but we are not the top of the food chain. There are certainly cases that are beyond our experience and training.  We cannot perform medical interventions like prescribing medication.  

Similarly, certified dog trainers (such as CPDT-KA, CDT (from IACP), KPA (by Karen Prior Academy), Victoria Stilwell's Positive trainers, etc.) are talented and well trained resources that may or may not also have extensive behavior training but are recognized as highly competent trainers by a clear review process that includes references, existing and continuing education, and documented experience.

Scattered along the continuum below are experienced but uncertified trainers, comfortable in their skills in teaching non-problematic dogs manners and performance sports but not specifically addressing serious behavior issues.  Then come new trainers and those who have been pressed into dog training duties by their pet shop employers.  The talents and experience of these folks vary but they certainly contribute to the overall picture of helping owners and animals achieve a good, cooperative relationship.

When it comes to working with aggressive and potential dangerous dogs, I am very conservative in recommending "rehabilitators" or trainers.  The best choice is usually to consult a Board Certified Veterinary Behaviorist or a Certified Applied Animal Behaviorist.  They are trained and able to assess not only the dog's behavior, but also any potential underlying medical issues that may be contributing to the problem-and to medicate or treat those issues. The problem is that there are very few of these individuals in the Unites States. Not all of these folks necessarily specialize in aggression, especially when it involves truly dangerous animals; like all professionals they have their specialties.

The next line of referral is to certified individuals that have built up extensive experience over time and have elected to deal with aggression issues.  There are still relatively few of us; as of January 2012 there are about 60 CBCC-KA certified behavior consultants in the US, and not all accept aggressive dogs.  Other groups such as IAABC have similarly low numbers of certified individuals.  To determine which of these is appropriate for a dangerous animal requires a frank discussion with the individual about their past experience and training.  I can't speak for others, but my work is based on about fourteen years of training experience, and extensive dealings with varying degrees of aggression and ultimately dangerous dogs since about 2003.  I have dealt with animal that have killed humans-yet I don't claim to know it all.  I am still constantly learning. 

As far as general trainers, dog obedience instructors, etc.; there are many talented, responsible and dedicated people out there that do a lot of good.  Whether these folks are qualified to deal with advanced cases is a matter of individual experience and education.  The person at the pet store that teaches simple sit, stay, down may not be the right choice for an involved behavior problem, even if it does not involve aggression.  If one of these instructors is your only option, interview them extensively about their training and experience and get several references before committing to any program, especially if it seems to be a “one size fits all” program. 

Lastly, the group that I am most concerned with are those who think that being an "aggressive dog rehabilitator" is an advertisement of prowess. These folks are in it for the ego trip.  These "trainers" make a big deal of bragging that they deal with the "baddest of the bad".  They tend to display bite scars as badges of honor.  Sorry, but every bite that I have received is a sign that I made a mistake, and at least temporarily failed the dog.  They are not bragging matters. Depending on the venue, a bite by a problem dog may be a death sentence for the dog, even if the trainer made the mistake.  Ego should not enter the equation.

When choosing the person that helps you with problem behavior, or even simple training, please be very aware; regardless of the level of training or expertise an individual has, the trainer, behaviorist, or rehabilitator should not use any technique that they can’t do right in front of you.  You, as the animal’s owner and caretaker, should have the final say regarding tools and techniques.  If ANYTHING the trainer does makes you uncomfortable, ask questions and, if you still feel uncomfortable, ask them to try another strategy.  If they cannot comply-find another trainer.

Save some lives-Support Florida Animal Rescue Act

Here in Florida we are fortunate to have new legislation pending that will save animal lives.  The bill, called the Florida Animal Rescue Act (SB 818), provides clean, clear legislation that accomplishes two simple, but essential things: 1) it guarantees Rescue organizations access to animals at shelters that would otherwise be killed, and 2) it demands transparency for all animal shelters regarding how many animals they take in, how many they place, and how many they kill.  Neither of these are currently provided for in Florida Statute.  This deficit allows shelters to kill animals that Rescue organizations are willing and able to take, and allows shelters to hide the ugly reality of their true kill rates.

As a former open admission county Animal Control Shelter Director I fully and completely support this bill.  I commend Senator Mike Bennett of Bradenton for introducing this, and equally thank and commend the many legislators in both Houses that are co-sponsoring this and its companion HB 597.  Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for supporting these bills and giving the animals of Florida a fighting chance.

Some may think that such legislation is unnecessary.  “After all”, they think, “shelters already work with Rescues and others to place as many animals as possible…don’t they?”  Sadly, they don’t.  As illogical and counter intuitive as that seems, during my tenure I saw far too many other agencies that either had no desire to cooperate, or were openly antagonistic, to Rescue involvement. In my own agency it took a substantial amount of time to build trust with Rescues that had been previously rebuffed.  I also struggled against those who begrudged the time, effort and resources spent trying to place and return animals to owners.  After all, “catch ‘em and kill ‘em” had always been the way.  There was no need to change.

Some parties are already lining up to protest and obstruct the passage of these bills.  An organization on which I formerly sat on the Board has publicly come out opposing the legislation.  The excuses are the same old routine always trotted out against progressive change: “It costs too much.  It takes too much work.  It is hard.  It isn’t the way we have always done it.”

Below I have presented their objections and have detailed the claims that many of the opponents have made and my answers to their specific points.

The specific objections noted:

• These bills require local animal control agencies to create a registry for animal rescue groups and offer animals to these groups prior to euthanizing them. While well-intentioned, this will create severe unintended consequences, including: There will NOT be a cost-savings under this bill; rather, there will be a significant cost incurred. For each animal sheltered by a local agency there will be up to $45 additional cost to house animals during the required holding period. To comply with §823.15, FS shelters will have to invest approximately $175 per animal for shots and sterilization before they go to another shelter or rescue. For a small shelter that takes in 100 animals a year that could be a greater cost than their entire operating budget for the year.

RESPONSE:

            This is incorrect.  There is no requirement for additional holding days; the legislation provides simply that the shelter notify their list of Rescues no less that 24 hours before euthanizing an animal and allow the Rescues to make contact and arrange pickup of the animals within two days of contact.  The total maximum time period required is three (3) days-and State Law already demands that shelters hold the animals taken in as strays for three (3) days.  The easy method here would be for an agency to simply send an email of incoming animals soon after intake (Say at the end of each business day) and let the entire hold run during the mandatory 3 day stray hold. This legislation does not require ANY additional holding-it can all run at the same time.  No additional days-no additional costs.  This statement also fails to mention that the shelter will be able to charge its full adoption fee to any claiming Rescue, thus recovering the same costs as if they had adopted the animal normally-just faster.

            Further, the citation of FS 823.15, claiming that the shelters will have to invest approximately $175.00 per animal for shots and sterilization before transfer is incorrect.  FS 823.15 provides that “all dogs and cats sold or released for adoption from any public or private animal shelter or animal control agency…by either (emphasis added)…(a) providing sterilization by a licensed veterinarian before relinquishing custody of the animal; or (b) Entering into a written agreement with the adopter or purchaser guaranteeing that sterilization will be performed within 30 days or prior to sexual maturity.” (emphasis added).  This section also provides that “Any fees or court costs used for the enforcement of this paragraph are the responsibility of the adopter”. It further states “All costs of sterilization pursuant to this section shall be paid by the prospective adopter…”   This places the alleged $175.00 on the receiving shelter or rescue and allows the releasing shelter to recover any and all costs for enforcing this provision.  None of this alleged $175.00 is the responsibility of the shelter releasing the animal(s) to the rescue groups.  There are no additional costs.   

·         Animal control officers will go from spending most of their time caring for animals and addressing community issues to spending most of their time doing paperwork. The burdensome process will increase both labor and supply costs that currently are dedicated to the animals.

RESPONSE:

            There is no extra paperwork to consume the Animal Control Officers’ valuable time.  A shelter should already have a functioning system of intake and accounting in place.  The only extra effort will be a simple batch email to the established list of Rescues once a day.  That is all.

• This burdensome new process will create overcrowded conditions in shelters due to increased holding requirements. To address this issue many, if not all, shelters will reduce the local holding periods to account for the mandated increase – meaning owners will have three fewer days to reclaim a lost pet before it is available to the public and rescues. In some cases this reduction will be from 5 days to 2 days, but in many others it will go from the current 3 days to no days.

RESPONSE:

            As stated above there are no extra holding periods.  The Rescue notification and response period can be incorporated into the already-required legal holding period.  If this means that agencies are intending on reducing their holds below the level required by State Statute they have bigger problems than alleged overcrowding.

·         There are very limited exceptions where euthanasia can occur – diseased animals cannot be euthanized unless they are “irreparably suffering”, meaning that parvo, ringworm, and other diseases will spread through shelters infecting currently healthy animals, leaving them unadoptable, creating undue suffering, and increasing the medical and labor costs to the local shelter.  

RESPONSE:

            Untrue.  The only restriction on euthanasia is that the animals must be offered to Rescues first.  If the Rescues do not claim the animal in the time listed then the agency is free to dispose of the animal as they see fit.  This legislation does not require the warehousing of animals or any increased holding time. 

• There are no controls in place to ensure that the animal rescue groups are legitimate, meaning that shelters will not be able to weed out hoarders or animal testers.  Very little information can be asked of the rescue groups.  They don’t even need a place of business in Florida.  Like the problem of ‘pill mills,’ Florida will become known as the place to get animals without any scrutiny. Animal testing labs that currently breed their own animals or pay a high price to acquire animals will now have a new resource in Florida. This will bring undue negative publicity to the State.

RESPONSE:

                This is an issue that has always existed with rescue groups, and for which there is no current prohibition in State Statute as it stands.  The proposed legislation requires that the organization have a 501(3)c Non-Profit designation (currently not required under State Statute) and that the Rescue may be required to provide background checks on its personnel (also not currently required).  Instead of lowering the requirements for Rescues to pick up animals (there are none in Statute) it established two important benchmarks.  And as far as whether the Rescue is local or out of area: Oh, the horror!  Instead of killing an animal in a local shelter there might be an alternative.  Some Rescue might, at their expense and using their resources, adopt an animal SOMEWHERE ELSE!   Please.

·         This bill unnecessarily restricts local animal control agencies in their operations.  Many shelters have vastly improved their local programs, all without interference from state regulation.  This bill puts that progress at risk and would almost certainly lead to overcrowded, diseased conditions. Some of the shelters have already taken euthanasia rates from 85% or more down to 35-40% with locally based initiatives. These programs may be at risk because the bill will require holding animals that may never be taken from the shelter and it may deteriorate working relationships with known and professional rescues that will no longer be willing to work with shelters that allow anyone claiming to be a rescue to get animals.

RESPONSE:

            The proposed legislation takes no control from local agencies-it simply requires them to try and place or transfer animals before they kill them.  Yes, many agencies have reduced euthanasia rates substantially.  This legislation will not affect those agencies because they are already doing what is needed.  Known and professional rescues should welcome this legislation as another opportunity to do their jobs with agencies that have heretofore not been willing to work together.  And again, there is no mandate for additional holding periods.

• Mandating a restrictive program with no flexibility will cost taxpayers money and lead to less humane conditions for animals. This bill creates additional unfunded mandates upon the local governments by increasing costs unnecessarily.

RESPONSE:

            There are no unfunded mandates in this bill.  The cost of the establishing the registry can be as little as a donated three-ring binder with copies of the Rescue organizations’ 501(c)3 papers.  That is how my agency handled it voluntarily-and it worked just fine.  Other than that three-ring binder there are no costs as I discussed above.

The email broadcast went on to list the following talking points.  I have addressed each of those below.

Myth: You can drop your pet off at a “no-kill” shelter any time if things do not work out.

Fact: “No-Kill” shelters have limited room and resources and turn away needy pets that are deemed unadoptable. Most “No-Kill” shelters require appointments for surrendering a pet and many of these shelters charge a fee to take your pet. Sadly, nearly all of the turned away animals are abandoned or taken to another shelter where they may eventually be destroyed.

RESPONSE:

This has nothing to do with the proposed legislation.  It is further untrue-there are No-Kill Shelters that are open admission municipal agencies and who accept unrestricted drop-offs.  This is an attempt to divert attention from the legislation and to create an artificial “Ugly Reality vs No-Kill” debate were it does not belong.

Myth: There is no overcrowding problem.

Fact:  In one major Florida city from 2001-2010 there were 282,661 pets that entered animal shelters. Of those, 97,259 pets were returned to owners or found new homes. In that same period, however, 185,402 were euthanized. In 2010 there were 304,074 households – meaning nearly one in three households adopted a pet from a shelter, yet nearly 2/3 of the animals in that city were euthanized. Every household would have had to adopt an animal over that period of time for “No-Kill” to have been accomplished. Statistically ½ of all households desire to own a pet – so every household wanting a pet would have had to adopt 2 additional pets into their household over this 10 year period.

 RESPONSE:

Yes, there are a lot of animals.  This has no relevance to the proposed legislation.  The issue of the number of animals homeless is better addressed by such strategies as low- or no-cost spay/neuter, responsible pet ownership education, etc.  This is just an attempt to confuse the issue and set out a fog of allegation and misinformation hiding the true issue: should a shelter have to make a minimum effort to try and adopt or place an animal before the kill it? 

Myth: “No-kill” shelters offer a humane way for unwanted pets to live out their natural days.

Fact:  Pets being warehoused in “no-kill” shelters are confined to cages for weeks, months or even years. These caged animals become more withdrawn, depressed or aggressive everyday, reducing their chances of being adopted. This practice is considered by humane groups such as PETA to be a far worse fate than traditional shelters. In several documented cases these animals suffer needlessly and die in inhumane manners because the shelter became overwhelmed with the animals being kept for long periods of time.

RESPONSE:

This is an issue long debated and off topic in this discussion.  Differences in opinion about the “humane” state of No-Kill shelters are appropriately the subject of other debate, but have nothing to do with this bill.  And by the way-citing PeTA as an authority regarding humane treatment of companion animals is ludicrous. Their Virginia shelter killed 97% of all its animals in 2010.

Myth: “No-Kill” shelters offer a cost savings over traditional shelters.

Fact:  The average cost to prepare an animal for adoption is estimated at $175 per pet. Additionally, it costs $10-15 per day to care for the animals. “No-Kill” shelters often rely upon the public shelter to pay for the services required for sterilization/adoption and housing before taking them to place in new homes. While it may look as if the “No-Kill” shelter offered a savings it is simply that they shifted the burden to the public shelter.

 RESPONSE:

This is an exaggerated overstatement of costs.  Vaccinations for a pet amount to less than $10.00 for a full set (if purchased in bulk as most shelters do).  Spay/neuter costs vary, but are significantly less than listed, especially when conducted by an in-house program.  This also ignores the fact that the public shelter transferring an animal to a Rescue, under the proposed legislation, will collect its full adoption fees covering their costs-if not actually making money. There is no “shift” of any rescue organization’s costs to the public sector.

Myth:  Public shelters are the only ones that euthanize animals they take in

Fact:  Many “No Kill” shelters turn animals over to the local animal control agency for euthanasia or they have private veterinarians perform the procedure so they can maintain their “No Kill” claim.

RESPONSE:

If this is happening please refuse to “massage” the paperwork, document it and report the FRAUD being perpetrated.  I know as a former Animal Control Agency Director that I was asked to do this once-and refused.  I would not be party to fraud.  I assume that other Animal Control Agency heads (at least the ones I know) are of equal integrity and will refuse to cooperate with this kind of sham.  Again, this does not impact the proposed legislation.

Myth:  “No Kill” shelters are all working to resolve their local pet issues and adopting out all types of cats and dogs.

Fact:  Many “No Kill” shelters actually look outside their local area for more “desirable” pets to place for adoption. The typical mixed breed brown or black dog is too often not taken by these shelters because they are difficult to place due to a lack of public demand. The same is true of adult cats, especially black cats and orange tabby.

 RESPONSE:

This is another argument being presented to fog the issue-this legislation has no effect on local adoptions-OTHER than to make it possible for Rescue organizations to step up and take in animals that they have room for WHEREVER they might be.

Myth:  “No Kill” shelters will always take a good animal that needs a new home.

Fact: Nearly all “No Kill” shelters are limited admission shelters (meaning that they will only take animals when they have available space). These shelters turn away thousands of animals per year due to lack of space. Additionally, these shelters must remain in business by producing revenue so they often limit the kinds of animals they take by what they know will be adopted quickly to generate operating revenue. This leaves bigger pets, common mixed breeds and those animals that have lower demand to be the burden of the open admission shelters that ultimately have to euthanize some of these animals.

RESPONSE:

The allegation that No-Kill Shelters are ALL limited admission is incorrect.  There are open admission shelters that are documented No-Kill Shelters.  In this context the question is off-topic.  These allegations, true or otherwise, have no bearing on the legislation at hand.  This is a distraction.

            Those of you who know me personally know that I am a pragmatist.  I recognize the harsh realities of life, and have a great appreciation for the difference between reality and fantasy.  This bill sits solidly in the realm of the real world.  This is a practical, workable, and efficient method to begin the task of reducing needless euthanasia in Florida, and indeed across the nation. 

Please join with me in supporting this legislative action to save animal lives in Florida.