On the evening of 12/29/13, a woman, R. B. was driving through downtown Hermiston when she spotted a dog that appeared to be a stray. It was an adult male unneutered pix/boxer cross that was loose on the sidewalk and was also very skinny and dirty. She stopped and put the dog in her car. A neighbor than came out and told her the dog was not a stray, but lived at a house nearby. R. B. called the police and explained the situation. Officer McMahon arrived and, after seeing the poor condition of the dog, decided it was in bad enough shape to seize and charge the owner with animal neglect. He took photos of the dog at the scene and posted a notice of impoundment on the owner's door (the owner wasn't home).
R. B. explained that she was on the board of directors for a Hermiston based non-profit animal rescue, that they had a foster available to house the dog, and funds to provide immediate vet care. The officer said he wasn't allowed to release the dog to her and that the dog had to go to the Humane Society of Eastern Oregon (aka Pet Rescue). (He did explain that the non-profit could get on "the list" by speaking to city hall).
Concerned that the dog would not be treated properly at Pet Rescue, R. B. sent another volunteer, Sharon M., to the shelter. She arrived less than an hour after the dog did. She spoke with Beau Putnam, explaining that the rescue she volunteered for could take the dog and provide him with immediate vet care. Beau refused to transfer the dog, stating that if she wanted the dog she could, quote: "adopt the dog in five days for $150."
This brings up a number of disturbing questions. Like, why would he think the dog could or should be put up for adoption in only five days?
1) The dog was seized as part of an animal neglect case. Five days probably isn't even enough time for the owner to be charged, let alone been found guilty in a court of law. Unless the owner releases the dog, or the city files a petition to the court to gain full custody/ownership of the dog, it has to be held until conviction. Even if the city files a petition, it takes at least 14 days for that to take effect. At best, Beau Putnam is ignorant of animal laws. At worst, he just doesn't care because he's so used to flouting the constitutional rights of dog owners who are also ignorant of their rights under the law.
2) Even if the dog was released by the owner, which would give Pet Rescue the immediate right to adopt to a new home, that's not nearly enough time to allow the dog to get proper medical care, and recover enough to be vaccinated and neutered.
3) And even so, why wouldn't he be willing to work with another rescue agency? Pet Rescue personnel complain all the time that they are "forced" to euthanize adoptable animals because they "don't have enough space". And yet, here is a prime example of them refusing to transfer a "problem animal" thus freeing up a cage and saving them from having to pay for vet care/vaccines/neutering.
Leaving aside the legal issues, many of us are concerned that this dog will not be provided proper care; will, if vaccinated at all, will be vaccinated while likely immune-compromised; will not be neutered prior to adoption; is not likely to be adopted at ALL due to his current state; that Pet Rescue won't do anything to improve the adoptability of the dog; and if not adopted he will be euthanized without trying to work with other rescues in the area.
No comments:
Post a Comment