Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Lost dogs story, continued

ByronsMum
November 16th, 2006, 12:00 PM
Follow up to the original story I posted, located at http://www.huntsvilleforester.com/1162999915/

My thought is: if she has the money to pay for a lawyer, why not just pay the vet bill??? So what was she planning on doing with her dogs if they had not received the urgent medical care they needed?? And WHY oh WHY did she not have tags on her dogs????? Especially if she KNEW that they had escaped before and had received a warning from the city to tag her dogs! :frustrated:

Dog owner tells her side in dispute with Town
by Gillian Brunette - Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Colleen Marshall, who owns the two husky dogs that were the subject of an article printed on the front page of last week’s Forester, wants her side of the story told.

Kippa and Tundra have been housed at the Huntsville Animal Shelter since October 24 when they were picked up ‘at large.’ Both dogs had tangled with a porcupine, so animal control officer Barbara Mooney took them to veterinarian Dr. Ken Stock, who also sits on the animal shelter board.

Marshall was contacted by the veterinarian’s office the following morning and asked to collect her dogs. She was told that the bill for services was in excess of $1,000. When Marshall didn’t arrive, the dogs were transported to the animal shelter, where their pound fees are continuing to rise.

Marshall said she wasn’t notified by the shelter before her dogs were treated and disputes municipal law enforcement officer George Turner’s claim that ownership of the animals was not known until afterwards.

“When my dogs went missing and I couldn’t find them I called the animal shelter at 4:30 p.m. the same day and left my name and a description of the dogs on their answering machine,” Marshall said.

According to Turner’s report to council, the dogs had no collars or identification tags and it wasn’t until they were recognized as having been picked up ‘at large’ by animal control earlier in the year that the owner was identified.

Marshall argues that she is getting two different sides of the story: the Town’s version and another one from Dr. Stock’s secretary.

“She told me that the name given to her when the dogs were brought in was that of Lonnie Marshall. That’s my husband, and he was home on vacation at the time. He did go out and look for the dogs, but there was no note left on the door as the Town claimed and nothing on our call display from the shelter. The only call I got was at 7 a.m. on Wednesday morning from Dr. Stock’s office.”

Marshall continued: “I also asked Dr. Stock’s office why they didn’t notify me when the dogs were brought in. They said they thought the Town had done that.”

Marshall wrote a letter to council asking that both the shelter and Stock’s fees be waived as the dogs had been treated without her prior permission. The request was denied at last week’s council meeting.

Marshall said she does not have the money to pay the bills and communicated as much in a telephone conversation with Turner.

“When I told George that I could not afford to pay and that Dr. Stock wanted $600 up front he said, ‘If that’s the case you should borrow from family or a friend.’ He also said if I didn’t claim the dogs by Sunday [October 29] they would become pound dogs.”

Meanwhile, Marshall says she is concerned about her dogs, despite remarks from some that suggest the contrary.

“What’s most frustrating are the letters [to the Forester online]. People don’t know the full side of the story. I’ve called the animal shelter to find out how my dogs were and I was told I couldn’t talk to them, that I had to go through George. I also tried asking the shelter how much I owed, but they wouldn’t answer.”

Asked how the dogs came to be ‘at large,’ Marshall said she has no idea. They are kept in a fenced compound that also contains their kennels.

“When they got out before they got on their kennels and got over the chain link fence, so we put a lid halfway across the enclosure so they couldn’t get out.”

Short of climbing the fence, a notion put forward by a neighbour from whom Marshall purchased the dogs as pups, their escape from the enclosure remains a mystery.

Marshall said she can’t understand why her dogs are being held for ransom over an unpaid bill. She has contacted the OPP, but was told it was a civil matter.

“My grandfather is talking to a lawyer to see what my options are to get the dogs back, and I’ve still not been told whether I’m liable for the bill whether I get my dogs back or not.

“I want my dogs back; my kids want the dogs back. We’ve had the dogs since they were pups and the kids have grown up with them. And I think the dogs would rather be back with the family than in a cement cell.”

Blathach
November 16th, 2006, 05:37 PM
Please read the following sticky regarding new rules for the news forum.

http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=32870