Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Local dogs put in pound - irresponsible owner

ByronsMum
November 8th, 2006, 01:45 PM
Saw this article in today's local paper. Some people just make me GRRRRRRRRRRRR :yell: :frustrated: Why...WHY would you have a pet if you aren't going to take care of it??? WHY OH WHY!???!!!!!

U:\Huntsville dogs article.pdf**

(I hope people can actually open the file....)

**see article in post #3

chico2
November 8th, 2006, 01:55 PM
Sorry,I could not open it...

Dogastrophe
November 8th, 2006, 02:02 PM
Link was to article saved and not to the online article. The link is: http://www.huntsvilleforester.com/1162999915/

Article as follows:

by Gillian Brunette - Wednesday, November 8, 2006

Two young husky dogs are currently staying at the Huntsville Animal Shelter while their owner fights the cost of a veterinarian’s bill.

The amount due to the Huntsville Animal Hospital is $1,079.54. A further $330 has been racked up to date in animal shelter fees.

Municipal law enforcement officer George Turner was before council on Monday regarding a request from the dogs’ owner to waive the fees.

The request was denied.

Turner told council the two dogs were running at large on October 24 in the Yearley Road area. They arrived at a residence and the occupant noticed they had been in obvious contact with a porcupine. Both dogs were very distressed.

“Not knowing who owned the dogs, animal control was contacted and the dogs were picked up,” said Turner.

“The dogs were taken to Dr. Stock at the Huntsville Animal Hospital. One of the pets was in more serious condition than the other. It was an emergency and it was given an anaesthetic and treated immediately.”

Because the dogs wore no identification it was not possible to contact the owner immediately, said Turner.

“We later found out who the owner was and also found out that the dogs had been picked up running at large earlier this year. Dog tags were then sold to the owner, but they were not attached to the dogs when they were found on Yearley Road.”

The owner was contacted by the Huntsville Animal Hospital and asked to collect her pets.

“When she didn’t show up the dogs were picked up and taken to the animal shelter, where they remain today,” Turner said.

The dogs’ owner has said she shouldn’t have to pay the fees because the treatment of her dogs was given without her permission, said Turner.

“She says the fees are adding up every day and they are fees [she] can’t afford.”

Under the Town’s present policy, if a dog is picked up by animal control and requires medical treatment the Town will, subject to specific circumstances, pay the cost to a maximum of $250 per animal.

“If the Town decides to pay in this instance it would be $500 toward the vet’s bill and the shelter would be out of pocket,” said Turner.

“The policy says if the owner of the dogs is determined they are responsible for the fee. We identified the owner as soon as possible. It would’ve been sooner if they wore dog tags.”

Councillor Sven Miglin asked what would happen to the dogs if the owner does not pay the bills.

“The dogs could be put up for adoption. In fact, the girl who owns the dogs could walk in and adopt them,” said Turner.

“What about the outstanding expenses?” asked Miglin.

“The Town would have to pay the $500 to Mr. Stock and would be liable to pay the shelter,” replied Turner.

He further noted that no charges have been laid against the owner for either of the two occasions the dogs were found running at large.

Sympathy for the owner was not forthcoming from around the council table.

“This is the owner’s responsibility. This is the second time it’s happened. The dogs needed treatment right away and she should be grateful,” said councillor Leslie Caswell.

Sheryl Coulson, an animal shelter board member, was also present at the council meeting. She agreed with council’s decision not to waive the medical and animal shelter fees.

“I’ve been in a [porcupine] situation with my own dog and I know how much pain they are in. I’m glad that Barb Mooney [animal control officer] sought help for the dogs right away. I would expect the same for my dog.”

Meanwhile, as the dogs have remained at the animal shelter for more than three days, they technically belong to the shelter, said Turner.

“If she wants her dogs back, she will have to pay [the bills].”

Prin
November 8th, 2006, 02:47 PM
I love the last sentence. Hope these two doggies end up ok.

erykah1310
November 8th, 2006, 06:40 PM
Im glad that the shelter is sticking to their guns about the costs and everything,especially since this kind of thing wasnt the first incident they have had with these dogs.

However is it just me or does $1,079.54. in vet bills for quills seem incredibly high???? Kita had to be put under anesthetic once for quill removal and on meds for infection control and it only came up to $300. ( well a bit more but not much, it wasnt even $350) so for two dogs I could understand approx $700.

None the less, im glad that the shelter has these dogs, I dont think the owner really worries or cares too much bout hte dogs if they are allowed to run at large.

muckypup
November 8th, 2006, 06:52 PM
I hope that they are adopted out to a good home and she doesn't get them back. I think it's still her responsibility to pay the fees.

joeysmama
November 8th, 2006, 07:36 PM
It's been a long day so maybe I'm just not reading ths correctly but the owner doesn't want to pay the fees and can get around this by just walking in there and adopting the dogs?

I think that either she should pay the fees or she should be ineligible to adopt them.

I also think that there should be some sort of program in place where a person who does get their dogs back in a situation like this has to be monitored. Surprise visits or something, to be sure the dogs are being cared for.

rainbow
November 9th, 2006, 03:13 AM
I think that either she should pay the fees or she should be ineligible to adopt them.

I agree.

But, I hope someone else that knows how to care for these dogs properly, adopts them. :fingerscr

Dogastrophe
November 9th, 2006, 07:32 AM
Although the "owner" can apply to adopt the dogs back (if it gets to this point), I have my doubts that the application would be approved.

ByronsMum
November 9th, 2006, 07:47 AM
Thanks for posting the link Dogastrophe.... Much appreciated.

I will post any follow up articles that tell about what has happened to the dogs.