Video captured of dog being sent to death drops rescuer from adoption program, please write
Recently, however, that all changed following Logan expressing concern over the treatment of a surrendered dog, and what appears to be retaliation on the part of the animal shelter facility.
It all began on July 27 – the day that Logan witnessed a heartbreaking scene at the facility. On that day, Logan was at the facility to pull a dog for her rescue.
While there, she claims to have overheard a woman laughing and joking about a dog who she was surrendering. The woman allegedly was laughing as she told a friend that the dog was “(expletive) dumb,” and that she should abandon him in the parking lot.
Unfortunately for the dog, it is not the same story that she provided to the shelter staff.
The woman told the shelter employees that the dog was “aggressive,” and that he needed to be euthanized.
Later, Logan’s heart broke as she saw the “wheel or box of death” brought out to the parking lot. This “box” is for dogs who are to be destroyed.
The frightened dog seemed to know his fate as he bucked away from the contraption and attempted to keep his freedom. Logan captured part of the gut-wrenching scene on video.
The supposedly “aggressive” dog was clearly frightened, yet his tail continues to wag.
The “aggressive” dog never lashes out at anyone or anything – instead, he tries to keep away from the death cage. According to Logan, she witnessed the same dog wait for thirty minutes as the surrender paperwork was completed.
According to Logan, the dog never reacted to anyone or anything.
Haunted by the scene she had witnessed and perplexed as to why and how a young, healthy dog would be placed in the “death cage,” Logan contacted the shelter to see about the dog’s status.
She was told by the adoption coordinator that:
The dog you observed was being brought in by his owner to be euthanized. He had a history of aggressive behavior towards animals and humans. In this type of case the dog is immediately euthanized.
Logan immediately responded to the email asking if the shelter bothered to do a temperament test or otherwise evaluate the doomed dog – or, did they simply take the word of the woman who no longer wanted him.
Two days later, she received notice that she had “violated” shelter terms and that she would no longer be able to pull animals from the shelter for rescue; she could, however, still make a public adoption.
A portion of the correspondence received from Katie Ingram follows:
OC Animal Care is an open-admission shelter. When an owner makes
the difficult decision to surrender their animal, we will respect their wishes.
Adoption Partners should never interfere with this process. Due to the sensitive
nature of these situations, please ensure that you and others from your group
adhere to this policy.”
“I will assure that all representatives of the organization will not interfere with
shelter operations when visiting OC Animal Care.”
According to your Adoption Partner file, you were the representative that
signed the Adoption Partner Manual Agreement and the 2012 Adoption Partner
Application. Through your signature on these documents, you acknowledged
that you would adhere to all guidelines, including the previously noted
guidelines regarding owner surrenders.
After viewing both of the videos posted on You Tube, it is clear that your
actions are in violation of OC Animal Care’s Adoption Partner guidelines.
Sharon Logan was stunned and appalled and she immediately contacted her lawyer.
Though Ingram states that Logan “interfered” with the woman who was surrendering the dog, she did nothing more than capture video images – at no time did she interfere with the shelter’s operations.
Signage around the shelter facility does not indicate that photos and/or video images are prohibited.
Finally, the OC Animal Shelter appears to have violated the law with the immediate killing of the healthy, young dog.
According to Section 31754 of the Food and Agricultural code:
mandates that animals relinquished by their PURPORTED owners are to be held the same period as strays and provided the same vet care and treatment.
There is an exception to the hold time “if” aggressive behavior has been documented.
In other words, in writing, there must be evidence of documented aggression by the agency responsible for enforcing shelter animal laws.
The obvious reason for this is to prevent people from contriving stories to get rid of an animal which they no longer want.
Sharon Logan’s attorney has stated that the actions of the OC Animal Shelter appear to be both “retaliatory and punitive,” in nature.
At the very least, if they were unhappy with her 1) questioning the killing of the dog, and 2) videotaping the surrender – they should have given her written warning of their concerns.
I emailed the adoption coordinator on Thursday addressing these concerns and asking for a statement. As this article was being written, Katie Ingram responded to my inquiry.
Ingram stated that the shelter killed the dog based on a statement from the owner. She wrote:
Upon surrender, the owner notified our staff that the dog had a history of aggression with both people and animals. This information was documented on his file.
Ingram also stated that Logan was barred from the adoption partner program because she engaged the woman who surrendered the dog.
Logan informed me that, after the dog’s surrender was complete, she was angry and yelled to the woman that she had “sentenced her dog to death.”
While Logan’s statement to the woman may not have been the “right” thing to do, it is doubtful that, post surrender, it “interfered” with the operations of the facility.
A healthy, adult dog lost his life on July 27. The woman who surrendered him, for all intents and purposes, killed him outright with her words.
According to the information provided, the shelter facility did not evaluate the dog for signs of aggression.
From all appearances, they took the word of the woman who did not want the “dumb” dog anymore.
Sharon Logan is no longer an adoption partner at this facility. She captured a disturbing scene on video and voiced her concerns – now she can no longer help those in need.
According to Ingram, Logan’s drop from the adoption partner program is because of the following:
Whether we agree with the decision of an owner or not, we cannot authorize this behavior from our “partners” in these types of situations.
Logan intends to pursue legal action with her lawyer over this situation.
WHOM TO CONTACT
- Ryan Drabek, Ryan.Drabek@occr.ocgov.com
- Tammy Osborn, Tammy.Osborn@occr.ocgov.com
- Katie Ingram, Katie.Ingram@occr.ocgov.com
Ryan.Drabek@occr.ocgov.com , Tammy.Osborn@occr.ocgov.com , Katie.Ingram@occr.ocgov.com
Dear Mr. Drabek, Ms. Osborn, and Ms. Ingram:
I am writing today on behalf of the dog who was innocently killed absent any legitimate assessment, resulting in the wrongful death of a dog and the dismissal of a responsible caretaker from the adoption partner program, Sharon Logan.
With respect to the owner, the woman’s words were not an accurate or reliable portrayal of the dog; indeed, it only served to victimize an innocent dog while neglecting to address those culpable: people who intentionally neglect their dogs or those who deliberately portray them as aggressive with violent behaviors relying only on words versus an accurate and complete assessment. Killing the dog absent a reliable assessment only propagates fear and irrational approaches to valid concerns. When you become immune to legitimate problems by unreasonably focusing on their owners description, the problem only escalates, allowing deviant human behaviours to flourish; when people start questioning the absence of enforcement and solution, you will determine that ignoring protocol is a fallible approach to controlling or preventing dog attacks.
For future situations, I appeal to you to allow the life of dogs, giving them time to acclimate and familiarize themselves with their surroundings. Even those dogs targeted as “dangerous” deserve time with a responsible caretaker. All dogs deserve life.
Thank you for taking the time to read this urgent appeal.
shelter” means to protect.
not to take an innocent,
from life and eject.
this is murder, stupid.
the parties involved.
are ignorant fools:(
Karen Lyons Kalmenson
dogs have feelings
dogs want to live.
too many misdealings,
yet dog always
Karen Lyons Kalmenson