Comment Up
Animal Care & Control needs to take out the words care and control from their name. Let's call it what it is in the case of pit bulls and those with pit bull mix.--a kill facility.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Commissioner Vana asked me to forward the information below that we received from Dianne Sauve, Director of Animal Care and Control and to let you know we are very sorry about Buddy. If we can be of further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Thank you for letting us know about this unfortunate incident.
...................
Aide to Commissioner Shelley Vana
301 North Olive Ave
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561-355-2203
Hi Danna,
I was off-site Friday and got your message this morning. I am somewhat familiar with the case, after the fact. I did attempt to reach Ms. Anderson on Thursday but she has yet to return my calls. (NOTE--Ms. Sauve left a message on my cell phone that she would be out and not returning until Wednesday, May 23)
The dog was a pit mix (the man who turned him in said it was a lab, but it looked more pit). Pre-exam he was tentatively chosen for the adoption program. All animals are basically slated for adoption or rescue unless extenuating circumstances are found. If severe behavior problems exist such as aggression, dogs do not go for either.
In the case of medical problems we send as many animals as people will take to rescue. We work with approximately 70 rescue organizations with new ones added regularly. Few groups will take pits or pit mixes. Lab rescue will only take purebred labs. Some will take on cases that require surgery but those are usually small breed dogs that the rescues deem imminently adoptable. Or, high profile cruelty cases… everyone wants those.
This dog was found to have a leg/joint problem that would require surgery. Conservative estimates for this type of orthopedic surgery would be about $2,000.00 to $3,000.00. As a result of the medical finding, and the fact that our rescue groups have not been able to take on the expense of these cases, the dog was euthanized. I do stand behind the veterinarian who made the determination and 2 vets reviewed the case beforehand. (NOTE: None of us saw anything whatsoever wrong with any of his legs, ankles...in fact he was walking perfectly)
It should also be noted that the person who brought the dog in did not indicate that he or anyone else would be willing to take the dog. (NOTE: The man who brought in the dog told the gal at the front desk that he wanted to adopt but needed to check first with his wife) Staff are required to place memos in the database if anyone is willing to be a last resort. (NOTE: Staff did not do this nor did they ask me for my phone number the very next day) No memos existed. We do periodically have people visit dogs in the shelter but unless they indicate that they want to be a last resort, such visits are not noted. (It is our fault for not asking the right questions?)
Euthanasia decisions must be made and those decisions are not made lightly. Each day we have upwards of 100 animals that we are trying to move into rescue. We understand the financial limitations of our rescue partners and what animals they are willing to take. With numerous healthy, friendly pit and pit lab mixes currently being rejected by rescue organizations, we have to make those decisions for the ones that have medical issues. (NOTE: They kill pits all of the time)
Many people think that becoming a no-kill facility would eliminate euthanasia. Nothing is farther from the truth. We will still have the pits and the cats, and the ones needing exorbitant surgery, that no one comes for...
Dianne Sauve
5 comments:
Sad to say, but exactly what I wrote previously, death to pitty's and pitty-breed's.
I've NO doubt that the "bad leg" story is simply an exercise in CYA/Cover Your Azz.
Thanks for your compassion and effort,
John
Dianne Suave's letter is an example of bureaucratise at its worst. The letter reveals an institutional protectionism that tells you that nothing will be done, that those working in the bureaucracy (Director Suave, the veterinarian and staff at the Animal Shelter) don't have to worry about answering to anyone or being subject to an investigation, and the public and the animals be damned. Suave's letter is riddled with issues and statements that demand an investigation if Dianne Suave was really interested in having Animal Control perform the way she claims it performs. County Commissioner Vana and the County Commission should look into this matter more closely, but won't. Two of the most important unresolved issues are:
1. Director Suave says that the dog suffered from a "leg/joint" problem. There are numerous credible witnesses who have direct personal knowledge that there was no leg problem concerning the dog when the dog was dropped off at the shelter. Why does bureaucrat Director Suave ignore the information given about a number of citizens who say there was no leg injury? Why does Suave have no interest in investigating this matter further?
2. Director Suave says that staff is required to place memos in the database if anyone is willing to be a last resort. Yet, the person turning the dog in said that he advised that he wanted to adopt, and was not told about this "last resort" concept contained in Director Suave's letter. Why does bureaucrat Director Suave ignore this information? Why does Director Suave have no interest in investigating this matter further as to what staff really tells the public?
There is so much frustration that individuals feel when bureaucracies do what was done to that poor dog. And there is such a feeling of helplessness when the bureaucracy goes into protection mode rather than trying to correct the problems. And, the bottom line is that the Palm Beach County Commission is complicit in allowing Animal Control to avoid addressing serious inquiry with a letter as presented by Director Suave.
THE WHOLE SITUATION IS INFURIATING!
YOU HAVE SHAMED YOURSELVES DIRECTOR SUAVE AC&C!
I have made a decision NOT to call Ms. Suave back. I don't want to get upset. I don't want to hear the same old tired line. They can believe and tell us what they want. They have become so jaded and justify murder. We out here in the community know what happened. Not pretty. Not nice. This was a very sweet and docile dog. Some day they all will have to answer to a greater power. You have to wonder how they all can sleep at night.
I read your latest comment on Buddy in which you decided not to call Dianne Suave back. You are correct that there is no point, and evidence of the fact that you will not be taken seriously is Dianne Suave's letter to the County Commissioner.
One of the problems with Animal Control is that the Palm Beach County Commission has given a deference to Dianne Suave over the years that is undeserved. The County Commission is ultimately responsible for the performance of its departments. The County Commissioners, if they really cared, would do a serious investigation into what happened based upon the information you have supplied. Dianne Suave will not do an investigation and will write a bureaucratise letter like you posted yesterday because she knows that she and Animal Control can get away with it, and that the County Commission will do nothing about it.
Your information about the Buddy incident is supported by truthful information supplied by individual citizens with no axe to grind, and whose only motivation is to tell the truth. Dianne Suave, on the other hand, has every motivation to gloss this matter over with statements that are highly suspect. Shame on Dianne Suave; shame on Animal Control; but especially shame on the Palm Beach County Commission if it ignores the information it has been given and does not act on it.
Post a Comment