Adopting out microchipped dogs: Cookie's story

This story was sent to me by Becky. She picked up a friendly stray dog in Hermiston on May 12 2013. She didn't trust Pet Rescue, so instead of taking him to the shelter right away, she decided to take on the work herself of finding the dog's owners.

Becky writes: 

"I took him to the vet the next day. He was scanned for a micro chip and one was immediately found. I was elated! They made two phone calls and located the registry on which he was registered and was put in contact with the registered owner.

Maria, the owners daughter, could not believe her father's dog had been found. He had been gone for four months. What was more incredulous, they live in Yakima! Someone had Cookies with them in their truck, there is some confusion as to who, it was either the son in law or the owner, when they stopped in Plymouth, Washington. Cookies went missing during their stop there. He was unable to find him and had to get back on the road.  At that time we had no idea how he had gotten to Hermiston. 

Maria was not immediately able to come to Hermiston due to her fathers illness. I told her not to worry, I enjoyed having Cookies.  His hair was in such deplorable condition that I had him groomed and sent updated pics to Maria.  Two weeks went by and that little dog stole not only my heart but my whole family's.

Fourteen days to the day we found Cookies, my three year old son let Cookies outside without our knowledge. Our yard is fenced but Cookies is so small, there are a couple of spots he can slip out. As soon as we realized he was missing, the search was on. We walked around our neighborhood and posted his picture on several Facebook sites. I also left a voice message on Pet Rescue's answering machine Tuesday morning at 6:30am. And I made the agonizing call to Maria to let her know. I felt I had let her dad down.

A woman commented on one of the posts I put on a Facebook page and suggested we had a poodle thief on our hands because her mother in law had a poodle come up missing two weeks prior. Coincidence? As it turns out, no. After talking back and forth on Facebook, we determined we were looking for the same dog. She didn't immediately recognize the dog because the pic I posted was after he had been groomed. She said her mother in law had adopted the dog from Per Rescue three weeks prior. I told her Cookies' story and she was sympathetic but also upset that her family paid to adopt a dog that already had an owner.

I called Pet Rescue at 11:54am on Tuesday morning. Initially to make sure my message was heard and to check to see if Cookies had been turned in. Beau answered, confirmed he had received my message and said no one had called or turned Cookies in.

I should have left I at that but I couldn't. I told him about how I had heard he adopted Cookies out and questioned why no one checked for a micro chip. He defiantly said "That dog has never been here and we do check for chips. Micro chips aren't always registered." I argued that Cookies' micro chip is registered but my words fell on deaf ears.  He then informed me that whoever adopts a dog becomes the legal owner.

I contacted Hermiston Police Department. The dispatcher took a report and had a deputy call me. His demeanor was unpleasant and so was his response. He told me Pet Rescue is not required to check for micro chips. Despite my protests, he basically told me there was nothing they could do. "It is a civil matter."

I continued to call Pet Rescue every day looking for Cookies. I even went down there to see for myself that he wasn't there because I DO NOT trust them. Fast forward to Thursday, May 30 at 4:51pm. I was at the photo studio located in Wal Mart with my two youngest children getting their pictures taken. I missed a call on my phone while getting my boys into costume for the pictures. As soon as I got the opportunity, I checked my missed calls and saw that Pet Rescue had tried to call me. It was now 4:54pm (6 minutes before the shelter closed) so I immediately called back. 

Beau answered and he says, "I have your dog here." I start crying and and babbling. He asks me to tell him the story again because he is really confused. So I do so. He states that I am the only one who reported him missing so he will give him to me.

Because I am unable to immediately go and pick Cookies up, he says I can come in the following day and positively ID him and pick him up. I explained that it is easy to ID Cookies over the phone. Cookies has a very obvious injury to his nose. His left nostril is separated from his upper lip and there is a scar on the right side of his nose. Plus, you can easily feel his micro chip and told him where it was located.  While on the phone with me, he looks at Cookies' nose and then says, "I remember this dog now. We did adopt him out." 

The following morning, Beau calls me and says that he can't give the dog to me. He said he went back in the 'Lost and Found' book and found where the people who adopted him called to report him missing. He claimed that legally he had to give him back to them.

I was livid. What would this guy have done had I picked Cookies up the night before when he said I could have him? Demand that I give him back? He calls me a little later and claims to have come up with a solution that "works for everyone". His great idea was to contact the people who adopted him in Hermiston, ask them if they want the dog back. If they did not want him back, he would return the fee they paid for the dog to them. Then he would contact the original owners in Yakima and offer them the dog. They would have three days to pick him up and would have to pay a fee of $100. (Remember that the original owner is ill and homebound).

I did not see how this was a good or fair plan. I argued with him and he was quick to tell me that he don't have to do anything. I said "Oh I am we'll aware of that. That is exactly what I was told by a police officer." He says, "So now you're calling the cops on me?!" I defended myself by telling him that I was simply trying to find out if the original owners had a legal leg to stand on in order to get their dog back.

Beau has repeatedly asked why the original owners never called to look for their dog. I can't seem to get him to understand that these people live in Yakima. The dog went missing in Plymouth. How were they suppose to know he ended up in Hermiston?  He also argues that you don't just leave the area where your dog went missing but he doesn't understand that he had no choice. It is my understanding whoever was with the dog when he went missing was on a time constraint due to being on the clock and on the job. I also emailed Beau and argued the purpose of getting a pet micro chipped is so that if a pet goes missing, the owners can be contacted and the pet returned to them. His reply was this-

Hello, I agree with you and it is my hope that the people in Yakima do get their dog back. I hope it all works out. I would just like you to understand that micro-chips are quite controversial. For instance, micro-chip companies have certain scanners that only work for their particular micro-chip. Their are instances when a dog has come in that our so called "universal scanner" has not picked up certain brands of chips. On the other hand Vet Clinics are putting in micro-chips that shelters may not have scanners for. It is unfortunate but each scanner can run up to 700 dollars a piece and we have not been fortunate enough to have the companies donate scanners. On our end it is something most individuals to not know or understand. We are strong advocates of tags with phone numbers on them for these certain occasions. I hope you understand the issues at hand.
Thanks

Now I am to wait for Beau to call me when he gets an answer from the people who adopted him. By today, 3pm I still had not heard from him so I emailed him. He said he still had not been able to reach anyone."

Becky sent an update June 1st:

"The people who adopted Cookies surrendered him. Beau said he is going to return the adoption fee of $100 to them. My husband is on his way to Pet Rescue now to pick Cookies up. We have to pay the $100 adoption fee."

Then later that evening :

"Beau and my husband had a confrontation this morning while picking up Cookies. Later Beau showed up at our house. He has redeemed himself. He came to apologize.

Maybe he isn't a bad guy after all. His concern was that the original owners dumped Cookies and didn't really want him back. Honestly, no one really knows what the real story is. We can all guess and speculate but we will never really know Cookies' story"

We'll start by giving Pet Rescue the benefit of the doubt: Microchip universal scanners are not perfect. Even when used correctly, they fail to pick up chips a small percentage of the time. This error rate drops to almost zero if the animal is scanned a second time, however, which is why current best practice is to scan a stray dog at least twice.

I'd also like to address Beau's statements about microchips line by line:

"... micro-chips are quite controversial."

This hasn't been true since the 1990's, despite the rumors that are still circulating. Microhips used to be  controversial when they were a new, unproven technology that wasn't widely used. Now they are considered almost standard for pets to have, and statistics show that they significantly increase a lost pet's odds of being returned home. Every vet I know recommends them; most shelter and rescue groups have their pets microchipped before adopting them out. Even most of the small private rescue groups I've worked with have a universal scanner because microchips are so widely used nowadays. Several states even have laws pertaining to scanning for microchips. That's how widespread and important microchipping is in the US. The only "controversy" remaining is standardizing the frequencies used and making a universal database. With a current universal scanner, which Pet Rescue claims to have, these issues don't apply.

"..micro-chip companies have certain scanners that only work for their particular micro-chip. Their(sic) are instances when a dog has come in that our so called "universal scanner" has not picked up certain brands of chips. On the other hand Vet Clinics are putting in micro-chips that shelters may not have scanners for..."

Again, this is mainly a problem of the past. Currently, 98% of pets in the US are chipped with 125 kHz chips, there is one company that uses 128 kHz and the rest of the world uses only 134.2 kHz frequency chips, but obviously they're not used very often in the US. Current universal scanners pick up all of these frequencies, anyway.

It's not relevant to this case, anyway, since Cookie's microchip was 125 kHz.

"... each scanner can run up to 700 dollars a piece and we have not been fortunate enough to have the companies donate scanners..."

I'm not sure how this is relevant, since he already stated that Pet Rescue already has a universal scanner and used it on Cookies. Does he mean that they have an old scanner that is inadequate but they can't afford one that actually works? If that's so, it's disturbing, and Pet Rescue needs to correct that immediately. It's not a pet-owner's fault that the shelter has a scanner that outdated a decade ago.

The $700 figure is also an exaggeration; usually they run $250-$300. Cost is a bit irrelevant since this is a vital piece of equipment for any animal shelter, right up there with having electricity and running water. For Pet Rescue, $300 represents the adoption fees of two dogs. Or, have a fundraiser specifically for a new scanner. Heck, I've seen a three-day donut-selling fundraiser run by two people pull in that much money.


It's also not relevant to bring up the fact that sometimes owners forget to register their contact information with the chip company, or forget to update it: Cookie's registry was correct and up to date.

Microchip scanners fail a small percentage of the time, and if we assume that's what happened with Cookie, then certainly Pet Rescue didn't do anything wrong by adopting him out to the family in Hermiston. Once the truth came to light, however, they should have handled the situation MUCH differently.

I'm very glad that Beau apologized to Becky. And it's also true that we may never know what the real deal is with Cookies' original owner. To me it does seem unlikely that they "dumped" him in Plymouth, but it's always a possibility.

However, the facts remain: Cookies was microchipped and the contact information was up to date and the owners wanted him back. It should have been an open and shut case. There's really not much more to ask of the owners except maybe that they expend a little more energy to get the dog, but even that could be understandable due to the drive and having their minds on other things. Not everyone is willing to drop everything to drive 2 hours for a dog. It doesn't necessarily mean they're bad pet owners.

Beau did not handle this situation well. At best, it was sloppy shelter work followed by inappropriate customer service. Either way, he's the director and the public face of the Humane Society of Eastern Oregon and needs to step it up.