INTERESTING ANIMAL STORY HERE IN STANISLAUS
by Marty Carlson
This last week I saw a Facebook live video talking about a dog, Rhino, that had been confiscated and taken to Stanislaus County animal control shelter on Cornucopia way. The owner of the dog had been arrested, for a minor warrant, and instead of releasing the dog to a friend that was coming to get Rhino, the police department chose to call animal control and put the dog in doggy jail.
The owner, who is low income, was not able to pay the more than $600 in fees that was amassed while she was taking care of her business. A friend of hers, the one that was coming to pick up the dog originally, was trying to get the dog released from the animal shelter and was running into a stiff brick wall of attitude by some employees there. They were not willing to be too cooperative but were willing to tell him that if the dog is not picked up and paid for by the 5 PM the following day the dog would be going and I quote “nighty night.” They had also claimed that the dog was being held because of a bite was not true they do not seem to be having accurate records there, and shortly thereafter discovered themselves that was not true themselves.
I guess the term “nighty night” must be a term specific to Stanislaus County animal services agency, as far is euthanizing dogs I have not heard that term before. It seems that there’s a negative type of demeanor that’s developed in the animal services agency that does not seem to consider proper customer service. And using that type of terminology to animal lovers is one of the most derogatory terms that you could use.
A plea was put out over Facebook to help this lady that is highly dependent on her dog, and many wonderful people responded with donations to keep the dog from being euthanized.
This reminded me of a personal experience that I had several years ago was stances County animal control services. I had relatives visiting from out of state and had brought their boxer with them, and the neighbor had called animal control stating the dog had bit her grandson. I personally observed the dog around her grandson and he was not bitten, was just scared by a big dog. There were no bite marks on the young man, but the dog was taken and held in the Stanislaus County animal control services facility for quarantine period, which by law could have been done right here at my house. They chose not to do that, forcing a return visit by my relatives and retrieve their dog, after the quarantine period.
I tried explaining to the animal control officer, who had a very poor demeanor with everybody involved, and was not willing to listen. After great expense of the incarceration was paid, the dog came out about 20 pounds lighter and full of fleas. The dog had a totally different demeanor coming out also. This occurred just months after this agency had moved to the new facility on cornucopia way. The dog was a very loving dog but was different after that experience.
About a year ago, an inmate from the honor farm, was working at the agency and took pictures from an area of the agency where they euthanize the dogs. There were dead dogs piled on the floor on top of each other and pictures were taken. See article here
The director, Ann Patton, was very quick to defend what they do, and also very quick to criticize the inmate in an effort to deflect their responsibilities. See article here
In addition, some time just prior to the pictures being taken by the inmate, there was a lady in Modesto who wrote a letter to the editor, stating her dog had gone missing, and had been missing for several weeks. She was never notified by animal control services that her dog was at their facility. She had originally adopted the dog from that facility, and when you do they make you pay for a chip that they insert for tracking purposes, that chip is not optional and youre required to pay. They did not check that chip in the dog or ownerships and had placed the dog up for adoption again. The lady that had originally adopted that dog, saw her dog on the animal control services website where it was up for adoption and contacted them.
She was told by Stanislaus County animal services that they are not obligated to look for ownership of an animal that comes into the facility, they were also demanding that she pay for long-term care of the dog for them having the dog for several weeks. She was put in a position that she had to pay a quite a bit of money if she wanted to get her dog back. Then try to settle the claim with the county later.
Again, the director at the time, Ann Patton, was quoted in the newspaper is saying that they are not obligated nor required to check ownership by chip even though they require people that adopt the dogs to pay for the chip for identification purposes. This director has been quoted also in the past stating that she doesn’t like animals and apparently, she has no big concern about the animals nor the people that own these animals and how much they mean to each other.
In that last example shows the government’s willingness to gather revenue over doing what I personally would consider the right thing. It’s an integrity issue.
Now let me hear what you think