Another way to look at it

One of the many problems with Pet Rescue's current policies (which, lacking transparency and anything in writing, basically seem to come down to "whatever Beaut Putnam feels like today"), is that it drives people away from using the shelter, which they are paying for with their tax dollars.

Putnam and Alleman like to say that they're providing a service to the community, but what's actually happening is they are pocketing tax dollars, while many of the animals that SHOULD go to the shelter and benefit from those dollars, end up elsewhere. For example, many strays are kept and adopted to new homes by the people who find them because they don't trust the shelter; some are brought to Pendleton PAWS for the same reason; still others never get picked up in the first place. I know many people who won't report or pick up a stray dog unless it's literally running into traffic or causing danger because they know it might have a better chance at living if it can find its own way home than if it ends up at Pet Rescue.

Yet another negative story

Becky writes of an incident from 2013:

"I paid a fee to surrender a stray kitten only to pay an adoption fee less than 24 hours later because I was told the kitten I surrendered was going to be euthanized to make room for a litter of feral kittens that was being brought in."

It's appropriate for a shelter to charge for its services - after all, the city contract money simply can't cover all the expenses incurred in staffing, cleaning, vetting, vaccinating, and feeding. But this sort of lack of compassion and poor customer service skills are exactly the problem that needs to be addressed. When animals are being killed "for space", it's time to try something different.

Hopeful example from a different animal shelter

Here is an uplifting story from an animal shelter director about when his new non-profit took over operation of a large city dog shelter, and how they turned it to "no-kill" almost overnight.

http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2015/01/january-1-2012-a-look-back-at-kc-pet-projects-first-day.html

Beau Putnam refuses to work with other rescues

In yet another example of Pet Rescue putting pets in their care as a last priority, Beau Putnam shows again that he's not willing to work with other rescues.

 


This is Rufus, an elderly, 10 lb dog who's been at Pet Rescue since June 2014. During his long stay at the "shelter", he was not neutered or groomed, and often went without bedding even during cold weather. A volunteer (one of the few people allowed to volunteer) felt sorry for him and posted his picture out on a FB pet adoption group.

Right away, a 501c3 rescue in Portland saw his picture and contacted Pet Rescue and asked Beau if he would transfer the dog to them, since they had an adopter who was looking for a small terrier like dog. He said flatly, no. If they wanted him, they'd have to pay the $150 adoption fee ($50 refundable after proof of neuter). They managed to talk him down in price, and did all the work of lining up a transport to take him to Portland three days later. Beau Putnam refused to put a hold on the dog, even for three days. He refers to that as "boarding" apparently not understanding that holds are a normal part of business for most animal shelters. Worried about what might happen to him over the next few days, the rescue scrambled to find a last minute foster home.

Rufus made it out alive, and has finally been groomed. But the way Beau Putnam handled the situation was stupid, cruel, and rude. This dog should have been advertised online. Pet Rescue SHOULD have contacted other rescues to ASK for a transfer months ago; aside from the fact it appears this dog was neglected by Pet Rescue; when a rescue actually went out of its way to take an elderly, unneutered dog who'd been sitting "on the shelf" for half a year, off of his hands and into an loving home, he should have gladly transferred for free.

This is not the way things are done in the 21st century American animal shelter community.

Ignorant of the law; euthanizing for no reason

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.

What happened to Pequeno?

Pequeno is a small young friendly dog who escaped his yard earlier this month. He was picked up by police and taken to Pet Rescue. His owner very much wanted him back, but didn't have the money right away to pay his release fee. While the owner was waiting for their paycheck, Pet Rescue adopted him out to a different family. Pequeno's original owner still desperately wants to get him back.

There's of course a lot we don't know about the situation, but many people in the community have concerns. Why did Pet Rescue adopt out a dog they knew had a owner who wanted him back? Many people are concerned that Pet Rescue may have been motivated to adopt out such cute, young, friendly and highly-adoptable dog since they could make more money that way than on a release fee. Why are they refusing to work with the original owner at all at this point? Couldn't they get the adopter in contact with the original owner without compromising the adopter's personal information?

People are concerned that Pet Rescue is lying about what happened to Pequeno; they're concerned he  was actually euthanized or sold, or that their record keeping is so haphazard that they simply don't know who took him.

 Poorly-handled situations like this erode the community's trust in their animal shelter.

Certainly, Pet Rescue is not required to hold on to dogs indefinitely if their owners aren't able to pick them up right away. But, as a pet owner myself, it's scary to think what might happen to one of my pets if they escaped their yard.

Original information here.

Pet Rescue avoids answering questions from the public?

One of the biggest red flags with Pet Rescue is their lack of transparency. There is almost no information online about the organization. Their policies, goals, mission statement, financial information, shelter statistics, even something as simple as the names and duties of the board members is all a mystery. And considering the many allegations of poor practices and downright abuse, many people in Hermiston are concerned that such a lack of transparency is just a sign of corruption and an attempt to hide shady dealings from the public.

On May 27 2013, I sent an email to the Humane Society of Eastern Oregon with a list of 18 questions (see below). The next day, Jackie Alleman (the president of Pet Rescue) sent a Facebook message to my employer stating that she thought some of the questions were "confrontational" but that she would "compile that information as soon as possible". It was inappropriate for her to contact my employer in any way: my questions were sent from my personal email on a weekend day and there was no information in the email that pointed to where I worked and in fact none of the questions had anything to do with where I worked; I was asking them as a concerned citizen. She would have had to search my name on the internet to even figure out that information, and I find that unprofessional and downright strange.


But the bigger point is: I have yet to recieve a response of any kind.

Here are the questions I sent:

Hi, since I moved here a few years ago, I've heard a lot of negative rumors circulating about Pet Rescue, and I was hoping you could answer a few questions. The Humane Society of Eastern Oregon is the largest shelter in the entire region, and I really want to give you the benefit of the doubt.

1) It's difficult to find information about your organization online. Can you tell me the names, and duties of the board of directors (and any paid staff) for Pet Rescue?

2) Do you have yearly statistics for  things like: number of animals that you took in, number adopted, number of return adoptions, number and reason for euthanasias, etc? And if so, is it published somewhere or can you send it to me?

3) I've heard from several people that you've adopted animals to friends or family members who then used the animals for breeding purposes, is this true?

4) Do you utilize foster homes? How many foster homes do you currently have?

5) Every time I visit the shelter, I never see any volunteers working (walking dogs, manning the front desk, cleaning, answering phones, etc). Pretty much the only person I've seen there is Beau Putnam. How many volunteers do you currently have coming on, say, at least a weekly basis? How often are dogs walked during the day?  Is there a fenced play area nearby where dogs can play off leash?

6) What kind of contract(s) do you have with local municipalities, which cities/counties do you contract with, and what are your specific (contracted) duties? How much money do the cities/counties pay you for these contracts?

7) How long do you typically hold a stray/found animal before offering it for adoption or euthanizing?

8) I think that euthanasias are performed in the shelter building, but I've heard that they're done in the cat room in front of all the cats. Is this true? Is there a certified euthanasia tech on staff?

9) The last time I visited the shelter, there were no toys or bedding in any of the dog runs, are the dogs provided with any toys or bedding at any time during the day?

10) The last time I visited the shelter, there were healthy cats in cages very close to cats with an obvious URI. Do you ever separate or quarantine obviously sick animals from the healthy ones?

11) Do you vaccinate animals upon intake? All of the Pet Rescue adoptions paperwork I've seen show that you either don't vaccinate at all, or only vaccinate the day an animal is adopted.

12) Sometimes I've seen some very nice, obviously professional photos of adoptable animals on the Pet Finder website, but most of the time the photos are very poor quality. Is there a photographer who volunteers sometimes, and if so, why doesn't he or she take all the photos for marketing purposes?

13) I've also noticed that almost all the entries on the Pet Finder page under "adopted" animals (aka the "Happy Tails") have been deleted (normally Petfinder keeps them up forever as good publicity for the shelter). Why is that?

14) I've also noticed on Petfinder that the postings for adoptable animals almost never have a description or much information on each animal, even for pets that have been listed for days or weeks. Why is that? Who puts up the Petfinder listings? Do you ever have volunteers do this?

15) Why does Pet Rescue not have its own website?

16) Are there written protocols or SOP's for shelter operations and policies? And if so, can you send them to me?

17) What kind of software/record-keeping do you use at the shelter to keep track of animal ID's, intakes, adoptions, etc?

18) Which veterinarian(s) do you typically use for shelter animals?

I understand that was a lot of questions, but these things concern me and others in the community. Thank you for your time in answering them.

Today I sent a follow up email. We'll see if they respond.

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.