A A A A Search :
Toledo Talk  
From Wulf's workspace   

Vetrinarian Proposes Dog License Boycott

This, in todays' paper. Sounds like the best way to get the dog catchers attention-get in his pocketbook!!

rticle published November 14, 2009
Prominent vet supports boycotting dog-tag fees
Cut in funding could force warden to change
Photo
Dr. Bob Esplin, owner and founder of SylvaniaVET, wants immediate changes in the dog warden's operation.
( THE BLADE )
Zoom | Photo Reprints
By JC REINDL
BLADE STAFF WRITER

Frustrated with the policies and practices of the Lucas County dog warden, a prominent Sylvania veterinarian said yesterday he would support a dog license boycott if serious changes aren't made soon.

"I'd like to see a complete change in the way the dog warden is administered and run," said Dr. Bob Esplin, owner and founder of SylvaniaVET on Holland-Sylvania Road. "If the county commissioners aren't going to stand up and do what most of the dog-owning population in Lucas County thinks is right, then what we could do is, we could withhold purchasing dog licenses."

Dog-license fees are the prime source of revenue for the county dog warden and its $1.7 million annual budget, which receives no funding from the county's general fund. Lucas County's $25 fee is believed to be the highest in the state.

Dog owners are required by law to buy an annual license for their pet once it's over 3 months of age, or they could be charged with a misdemeanor.

Dog Warden Tom Skeldon holds licensed dogs at the pound at least 14 business days before he kills them. Unlicensed dogs are held only three days.

Read: Link to Dog Pound Log: Nov. 14, 2009
Dr. Esplin said he normally would not condone such an act of civil disobedience. But the commissioners' failure to bring about significant reform in the warden's high kill rate, low adoption rate, high license fee, and active discrimination against "pit bulls," would make the boycott a necessary "last resort" if they continue to stall, he said. "Then we could put financial pressure on the county commissioners because they wouldn't be able to pay their bills," Dr. Esplin said.

He helped persuade the warden in 2007 to begin using a donated scanning device to check dogs for implanted microchips that can identify their owners.

Not all the dog warden's critics are on board with the boycott.

Jean Keating, co-founder of Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates, said she respects Dr. Esplin but fears a boycott could paradoxically result in more dogs being killed, as the waiting period would shorten to three days from 14. "That could lead to a lot of problems if your dog gets picked up," Ms. Keating said. "I hate to go against Dr. Bob - like I said, he's my vet and has done a lot of good things for my dogs over the years - but for the neighborhoods [Mr. Skeldon] targets, that could kill a lot of dogs."

Animal rescue groups and elected officials have stepped up criticism of Mr. Skeldon's office in recent weeks, particularly over the number of dogs being killed.

The pound euthanized 2,483 dogs last year, representing a 77 percent kill rate.

Members of a dog warden advisory committee have faulted the warden for euthanizing too many dogs and not adopting out enough. The committee recommended Thursday that the warden enact a temporary moratorium on killing nearly all puppies under 3 months of age.

The county commissioners this week voted 2-1 to allow the warden to keep his job, rejecting a motion by Commissioner Ben Konop that Mr. Skeldon be fired.

On Dr. Esplin's boycott idea, Mr. Konop said: "I definitely share his frustrations - there does need to be a change urgently - but I'm not to the point yet where I would back a violation of the law to achieve that change."

Rather than an outright boycott of the licenses, Ms. Keating said she would like to see the license fee lowered to $20. Such a decrease is warranted, she said, because the warden failed to enact any of the five suggestions for improving services made in 2007 when the commissioners agreed to the warden's request for a $5 fee increase.

Dr. Esplin said a boycott wouldn't be necessary if the public manages to influence the commissioners to force the warden to change. "All I want to do is send a message to the commissioners that the public is not happy," he said.

Contact JC Reindl at:

jreindl@theblade.com
or 419-724-6065.

created by Wulf on Nov 14, 2009 at 10:47:30 am     Comments: 59

print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Here's the phone number, if anyone wants to let skeltons office know "the check's NOT in the mail". 419-213-2800 .

posted by Wulf on Nov 14, 2009 at 10:54:40 am     #



Office is closed until Mon. morning

posted by Wulf on Nov 14, 2009 at 11:06:48 am     #



Dumb idea. The vet ought to know better.

posted by max on Nov 14, 2009 at 11:16:12 am     #



What always irritated me about the dog license deal is this; If you have a dog, and forget to get it a new license before January 31st you pay double.
On top of that, they use their database to determine that folks who had dogs the previous year/s haven't bought the new license.
So, they use the fact that you normally obeyed their law agaist you. Forget about the folks that own who knows how many dogs that run loose, and have never been licensed.
It ticks me off that I have to pay $50 bucks each for my dogs that never leave their fenced yard.

BTW, cats don't need to be licensed, is that correct? Because I've never seen a dog get in my garbage on pickup day, but my neighbors cat does regularly.

posted by JeepMaker on Nov 14, 2009 at 11:28:35 am     #



Check that, it's $25 each. Still pisses me off. :-0

posted by JeepMaker on Nov 14, 2009 at 11:41:20 am     #



OK, personal story. I'll keep it short.
Neighbor down street had 2 American Bulldogs. They were big and he couldn't control them while walking. Kid's played near and on street so I asked him to not walk them this way when kid's out. It became a pissing match.
I reported him to dog warden for having 2 "pitbulls" that were not muzzled when walked. While the dog warden recognized that they were "pitbulls" they couldn't do anything because when they went to door, between 8-4pm, owner would not answer door. Since dog warden couldn't see them, they couldn't do anything about them.

Lesson learned, dog warden is very, very powerless and to prevent being fined for dog license, don't answer door.

posted by hockeyfan on Nov 14, 2009 at 11:46:56 am     #



Well, I'm going to call Mon. morning (419-213-2800), and let them know I won't be paying unless and until things change there, starting at the top.

posted by Wulf on Nov 14, 2009 at 12:49:42 pm     #



Max, civil disobedience is not a dumb idea. Stop being such a tool.

posted by GuestZero on Nov 14, 2009 at 01:24:52 pm     #



So the dogs without current licenses will be killed in three days instead of 14? Seems like a dumb idea. I think there will be "unintended consequences" when this is tried out.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 14, 2009 at 02:09:33 pm     #



Cutting off the funds for animals who need them is a dumb idea. I would support some other measure of expressing citizen concern. Can the name calling and grow up.

posted by max on Nov 14, 2009 at 04:06:45 pm     #



Wrong, it's a GOOD idea, almost as good as having a troll filter on the Forum would be.

posted by Wulf on Nov 14, 2009 at 04:25:21 pm     #



Just thought I'd pull somebodies chain. A boycott of the license fees would get their attention but might wind up costing the dog owners in the long run, late fees etc... They hate publicity more, perhaps a 1,000-plus puppy march on the place would net some interesting media.

posted by max on Nov 14, 2009 at 04:48:23 pm     #



Nets catch lots of interesting things.

posted by Wulf on Nov 14, 2009 at 05:20:23 pm     #



As much as I can't stand Skeldon, and think he should be fired, Esplin's proposal is irresponsible. As Jean Keating said in the article, not paying for your dog license would only make a bad situation worse by increasing the killing rate of innocent dogs. I am surprised this veterinarian does not see the serious ramifications of doing this. Not only would dogs be at increased risk of dying if they get lost without licenses, but dog owners would be hit with a huge penalty. In this economy, how many people would not be able to afford it the penalty, and just surrender their dogs because they don't have the money. There are other ways that don't jeopardize the lives of dogs to put pressure on Skeldon: Don't vote for the commissioners who refused to fire him; as someone said in an earlier post, organize a march to the dog pound demanding Skeldon's resignation; show up at county commissioners meetings to demand he be fired.

posted by bikerdude on Nov 14, 2009 at 07:39:21 pm     #



The county commissioners aren't running for election anytime soon, and the dogs are being killed NOW. A march doesn't sound bad, but politicians have problems when people can take money out their coffers, which they need to buy votes. I dare "seldom" to start killing ALL the dogs because license fees aren't being paid. It'll never happen. This is a shot across his bow he understand real quick.

posted by Wulf on Nov 14, 2009 at 07:53:11 pm     #



Wulf, dogs are going to be killed regardless, because there are so many of them at the dog pound and shelters. The point is, Skeldon should be slowing down the rate by promoting adoptions, etc., not cranking up the gas chambers to put more dogs down because they are unlicensed. If people agree with Esplin and stop paying for their licenses, and their dogs get out of their yards by accident, how many of these dogs will be put down within three days because their owners didn't get there in time? I am all for kicking Skeldon to the curb, but not this way. It just isn't responsible. A march to the dog pound would have much better results. Even though I do not have a dog, I would show up and protest.

I do agree with Keating that the license fee should be reduced since Skeldon has not implemented any of the recommendations he had previously agreed to implement.

posted by bikerdude on Nov 14, 2009 at 08:37:48 pm     #



I am usually for civil disobedience but I agree with bikerdude, not paying for licenses could create more reason to kill the animals ie. no money to care for the ones we have, blah, blah, blah. You need to work to get the laws changed in Ohio which allows breeds to be singled out and targeted and you have to work to get the current warden out. Esplin is an idiot even suggesting such a thing. Maybe he can take the money he gets from Pfizer and turn the dog pound into a "no kill" facility?

posted by golddustwoman on Nov 14, 2009 at 10:45:48 pm     #



Max, civil disobedience is the appropriate response, and lacking money, "Kill 'Em Skeldon" can't even collect the animals he fully intends to execute.

Stop being a tool. Skeldon doesn't give a flying fuck what we think. As long as he holds a politically-connected office, he collects a big paycheck and is working for a fat retirement package ... all PAID FOR by you and me. Skeldon has been told more than enough times to know about "citizen concern". I'm sure he's had our concerns printed up on his toilet tissue for his amusement.

posted by GuestZero on Nov 14, 2009 at 11:30:06 pm     #



The key words here are "paid for by you and me" Well, I'm going to take the "me" out of the equation. I'm not waiting around to do any law changing in some far off election. You folks don't REALLY think his response will be "kill 'em all-yesterday!" do you? Bikerdude, I understand what you're saying, but this clod hasn't listened to a dimm thing anyone has been telling him! I say shut the money valve off.

posted by Wulf on Nov 14, 2009 at 11:59:01 pm     #



Esplin is an idiot even suggesting such a thing

And you're a genius, right? Trust me, I know these things...

Protests are good, petitions and phone calls to your elected representative are all good. However, nothing gets their attention faster than cutting off the money supply.

posted by madjack on Nov 15, 2009 at 02:09:52 am     #



GuestZero is mostly right. Starving Skeldon's budget will absolutely have the right effect. As to the fat retirement package paid for by the taxpayers I'm not so sure. Each public employee contributes - a non voluntary minimum - to the public retirement system. Those contributions are pooled and invested by the State to provide pension and health care retiree benefits. I can't say for certain how self sustaining this invested pool has been but it is definitely not all taxpayer funded. This should be a topic for another post and I won't comment furthur on the retirtement package issue unless someone wants to research it and start another thread.

But to repeat, after giving it some thought, a license fee boycott sounds like the right thing to do - even if it would cost me double what I pay now to get in compliance if caught and fined. Somehow the public has to get Skeldon and the Commissioners' attention. Right now it's not happening. We're only getting lip service. It looks like my Molly, Bently and Jack are going to walk on the unlicensed wild side in 2010. This will be the first time ever in 40 yrs. I haven't properly and timely licensed my dogs.

posted by holland on Nov 15, 2009 at 12:10:56 pm     #



So I wonder how it would work if fees are withheld from the dog warden's operation? Is he required to go out after dogs that are loose (with the attendant manpower costs), or can he just wait for animals to be brought in to be put to sleep? Would he lay off people to cut costs, and rely on the public to bring in problem animals? Or would he rely on the gun-carrying public to control loose animals? I imagine that the more than 2400 dogs put to sleep each year (a 77% kill rate) could easily be found homes with the volunteer shelters we have in Toledo. That is only 200 dogs/month that would have to be found homes while temporarily waiting for good homes (with "temporary" being up to a year). I am sure there are a lot of dog-fighting organizations that would adopt these animals to train their beasts. At least the dogs would be able to show their courage, and go down fighting.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 15, 2009 at 01:22:48 pm     #



I know the contributions of "Paws & Whiskers" are way down this year. Also, many people have been bringing back their cats because they can no longer afford to take care of them. When people call to ask if they have room for another cat, they usually do not. I imagine it is the same (or worse) with shelters that take dogs for adoption.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 15, 2009 at 01:42:39 pm     #



I think it would backfire. Skeldon would like nothing more than flooding the coffers with money he would get from slapping people with high penalty fees. People would have less money in their pockets, and unlicensed dogs he would pick up would be at increased risk of dying, since they have only three days for their owners to pick them up. I'd hate to stick it to the dogs to get back at Skeldon.

posted by bikerdude on Nov 15, 2009 at 02:37:38 pm     #



What if everyone without a license said that it was due to the economy?
Just like unions having a scheduled "sick day".

posted by hockeyfan on Nov 15, 2009 at 02:43:27 pm     #



Here is my $0.02 and story on it. It sounds like a bad idea, though I applaud the people who have the guts to do it. Not sure what the repercussions are for not buying it is though but here is my story concerning it.

Last year I lived in Lucas county and moved to Perrysburgh (wood) at the end of Jan. Knew it was close but I went ahead and bought wood county tags for my dog.

A month or so letter I get a really abrasive letter "reminding me" to get my lucas county dog license, and that I had to send them all kinds of personal info. Forget what exactly but it was something along the lines of my drivers license, social security or birth certificate. Forget which, but more info than I thought was necessary and mentioned sever consiquences if I didnt renew.

Believe I kept the letter just because I couldn't believe how outlandish it was and almost mean. Never did reply or call the number, because I figured if they did try to pursue it they would realize I don't live in Lucas county anymore.

Was a very messed up situation.

posted by INeedCoffee on Nov 15, 2009 at 02:53:01 pm     #



If no money comes in how can he even afford to bring in more dogs? How can he afford to pay anyone to work there? Who is gonna kill the dogs if no one there to do it? If Skeldon pulls out his gun and starts executing dogs you sure bet once it got into the news he would be gone in 10 days.

posted by Linecrosser on Nov 15, 2009 at 03:11:56 pm     #



First, everyone is not going to do it, so he will have money to kill YOUR dog if he catches it with no license. Second, when he starts fining people for not paying their licenses, the money will pour into his coffers. So he will have more money to kill more dogs. He will get his money one way or the other. It's just a bad idea.

posted by bikerdude on Nov 15, 2009 at 05:40:28 pm     #



What about passing a law at the county level that all dog shelters in Lucas County would be required to take a percentage of the 200+ dogs caught each month based on the present size of the shelter? A larger shelter would be required to take more dogs, and a smaller shelter less. We could then reduce the Dog Warden's office to just staff required to catch dogs on the loose. I am sure there are hundreds of people willing to give contributions for this "service". And the taxpayer would be off the hook.

If it proves too much for the shelters they could dissolve their non-profit status, and use the funds to put the dogs presently in their care to sleep, or find room at other shelters and give them the funds they have.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 15, 2009 at 06:31:05 pm     #



Define "larger". Money in the checking account? Number of physical kennels? Available foster homes? Not a good idea for the County to budget based on volunteer donations to 501-3C shelters. Donations would likely dry up overnight in revolt from an unfunded mandate. In addition, tax payers aren't on the hook. They don't fund the Dog Warden's operations. It is entirely funded from the dog license fees. Law abiding dog owners fund it.

More importantly, Lucas County doesn't have the legislative power to "pass" laws. Lucas County operates under the general law form described in the Ohio Constitution. "Counties under this form do not possess legislative authority - that is, they cannot adopt ordinances or law. They may perform only those acts and duties as prescribed by the Ohio Revised Code."

http://ohioline.osu.edu/b835/b835_8.html

posted by holland on Nov 15, 2009 at 08:15:12 pm     #



How about everyone send their $25 to a shelter instead?

I'd like to see a protest downtown or at the dog warden first. I'd like to see if any changes are made from the committee. If Skeldon does nothing and continues to be an arrogant jerk, they have no "real" power to prove you have a dog. Just don't answer your door.

posted by hockeyfan on Nov 15, 2009 at 08:21:44 pm     #



That's an excellent idea!

posted by Wulf on Nov 15, 2009 at 08:29:30 pm     #



Yes. It is. Anybody considering an annual holiday charitable contribution, please think of your favorite animal shelter. Cat shelters are just as overwhelmed as dog shelters (little plug for Paws and Whiskers).

posted by holland on Nov 15, 2009 at 08:45:05 pm     #



Holland, I guess the law requiring charities to take the dogs is moot if such a law cannot be passed. I probably would have based it on the number of dogs these charities have on average (number of physical kennels) although additional kennels would probably have to be built if most operate at capacity. Myself, I do not find the dog warden that reprehensible. Perhaps it would be a good idea if he opened his operation to more "non-profits" but I think that in the end only hundreds of dogs (not thousands) will be saved through the efforts now being made. Not because he is an evil man, but because those requiring these efforts on his part will not step forward to adopt the animals "saved". In other words, pure human hypocrisy.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 15, 2009 at 09:41:52 pm     #



Anyone know how many dogs Konop takes care of?

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 15, 2009 at 09:49:09 pm     #



I don't think Skeldon is evil, either. He is "taking care" of problems due to irresponsible people. I do hope he reaches out to rescues to reduce the euthanisia rate, but the overwhelming problem remains that people don't spay and neuter. The rescues are teeming with dogs and cats, with some refusing to take any more in. Dr. Esplin is phony to take such a position that he knows would be popular with the public. If you decide not to pay for your dog's tags, and get fined, forward your bills to Dr. Esplin, who did not disclose whether he himself is going to stop paying for tags. He obviously did not think this through. Just a reckless idea.

posted by athena on Nov 15, 2009 at 10:02:59 pm     #



I believe it costs around $5,000 per month to operate "Paws & Whiskers". Food, litter, spaying/neutering, shots, treatment of animals who are sometimes quite sick, all of these add to "the bottom line". This is for the 50-100 cats that are there in this "no-kill" shelter.

Try to imagine the Lucas County Dog Warden keeping dogs in a "no-kill" shelter (sometimes for years) while waiting for them to be adopted. Imagine the owners of dogs being required to pay $600 for a dog tag vs. $25 so that no dog would have to be "put to sleep". At least these dogs would not breed indiscriminately, but more would continue to come in.

Imagine the kennels for these dogs expanding on a yearly basis. Perhaps one of Toledo's "skyscrapers" could be retrofitted into a kennel. 2,000 dogs would become 2,500 dogs (maybe 1,500 would be adopted, though I doubt it), then 4,000, then 6,000, and on and on.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 15, 2009 at 10:20:50 pm     #



Consider this: who here could not get a dog or cat in 24 hours if they wanted one? I have two cats hanging at my back door right now. I have my limit on cats. I spend a couple of hours a day cleaning their litter boxes, and feeding them. I believe most people who want a pet have them now. They may become a "hoarder", as I am, taking care of a dozen animals, but most will settle for one or two animals. I doubt there are many in Toledo that at this time do not have a pet if they want one. So who will take these "excess" animals that the dog warden has? Will they be caged while they wait to be adopted? Will all 2000+ caught each year find foster homes as they wait to be adopted? Or perhaps the main concern is the "pit" variety? Maybe there are hundreds waiting to adopt "Killer" and "Psycho" but could care less about a poodle named "Fifi". Something tells me that there will still be hundreds killed every year, but everyone will feel better about the process once the "reforms" are adopted, and Skeldon's successor is named.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 15, 2009 at 11:54:04 pm     #



Myself, I do not find the dog warden that reprehensible.

Well gee whiz, I'm real surprised! Imagine, a reformed repressive like you siding with an arrogant fascist like Baby Doc Skeldon. Who ever would have thought such a thing possible - I'd never have guessed it.

Why don't you and Baby Doc go for a little moonlight stroll on the lake - about a mile off shore. Don't forget to wire your cinder block around your filthy neck.

posted by madjack on Nov 16, 2009 at 12:03:06 am     #



Well, MadJack, emotional, not very rational.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 16, 2009 at 12:24:42 am     #



I agree with oldsendbrdy when she asked "who will take these excess animals that the dog warden has? The Toledo Area Humane Society has an open door policy, meaning it does not turn away any animal. However, they have to make "room" for the new ones coming in. They euthanize thousands of animals each year. The non-kill rescues have their limits. They absolutely don't have room, and are continually desperate for fosters. How many would support a levy that would pay for no-kill shelters to handle unwanted animals? Few would favor a "new tax." And how long is it okay to keep these animals in cages and small quarters? How do we make room at these shelters for all the unwanted cats and dogs that flood through the doors? Unless society is ready to pony up, I don't see many significant changes ocurring with the dog warden. Certainly not the office of the dog warden. Skeldon, however, has been in the job too long and has not made any serious attempts to make changes that would improve things even a little bit at the pound. New blood might calm things down, but the real problem would continue to exist.

posted by bikerdude on Nov 16, 2009 at 12:57:13 am     #



We had a cat hanging around our house a couple of summers ago. It was nice, but I felt we had as many as we could handle. I took it to the Humane Society at Indian Circle in Maumee. I cannot remember whether he was neutered or not, but he was a cat with a nice temperament. I asked how long it would be kept, and I thought she said a day or two as she took it into the room across the hall. I did some paperwork and gave a donation. As I turned to leave the door opened to the room across the hall, and I saw the cat going limp as a woman in white removed a syringe. They had killed it as I waited. What could I do? I wasn't even mad, but I have never taken a cat there again. I figure the "Humane" stands for a "humane death" for any animals put in their care. Kittens might have a chance, but most full grown cats will be dead by the end of the day.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 16, 2009 at 01:15:32 am     #



oldsendbrdy, I asked a volunteer at the humane society what happens to all the cats they have. He said the kittens are almost always adopted, but the cats hardly ever and are put down. So very sad. Sorry to hear about the cat you had hoped would find a home, but was euthanized so quickly. I don't blame you for not taking a cat there again. I wouldn't, either.

posted by bikerdude on Nov 16, 2009 at 04:48:49 am     #



The THS had a beautiful adult female long hair cat that was up for adoption on Channel 11 news at 12:00 today. It seems that some adult cats are kept at the THS for adoption.

posted by holland on Nov 16, 2009 at 01:48:47 pm     #



I hope I didn't give the impression that all the cats are put down there. Just that many people prefer to adopt the fuzzy little kittens compared to adults, which have a higher proportion of euthanasia. My vet thinks the cat we just adopted is about 2 or 2 1/2 years old, though he is very small. We really fought the temptation to adopt a cute little tiger kitten that was very sociable and loving, and rambunctious. They go out the door pretty quickly. There are so many adult cats at THS that are so beautiful just waiting for a home - short, medium, long hair, black, white, calico, tabby - anythink you think you might like, they have them. No shortage there. Same with the rescues, I'm sure.

posted by bikerdude on Nov 16, 2009 at 04:34:10 pm     #



I think their chances depend on the time of year. The lady who accepted the cat I took in said they had a lot, and they could not keep them very long. I am sure that cats are adopted at THS. But I also bet that the majority of animals that go there are killed to make room for more coming in. I don't blame them. Their mission is different than "Paws & Whiskers". They are there to accept the unwanted, and some will be adopted. "Paws & Whiskers" is there to provide a home to cats that are not adopted, but will accept very few. In the end, all animals die. If "Paws & Whiskers" goes under due to lack of funds then their cats will have to be placed somewhere. If THS gets reduced funds then their animals will probably have shorter periods of life expectancy to make room for others. It would be nice if all shelters had unlimited room for the flood of animals that come in, but we are dealing with reality. The options are to kill the unwanted, or to keep some (whether wanted or not), and refuse others. I have gotten kittens into P&W but I have had to wait weeks for room. If I did not care whether they lived or not I would take them to THS.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 16, 2009 at 05:48:14 pm     #



Sadly, but when animals are caged for a long period of time, they can show signs of being "cage crazy". The volunteers that come to any shelter and spend time taking the animals out, walking them, brushing them, etc help, but you can imagine being in the same cage for long periods of time.
I realize that every cat and ever dog will never be able to be saved, but maybe, just maybe, a little better effort by those in charge of such places will at least help.
Heck, I've seen Paws and Whiskers, and other places have remote adoptions all over, but never once have I seen the dog warden promoting an "adopt a dog" day or weekend.
I'd like to see that change.

posted by hockeyfan on Nov 16, 2009 at 06:52:11 pm     #



I wanted to clear up some of the comments that are being made about the Toledo Area Humane Society. I spend my weekends volunteering there, and I am somewhat shocked about the experiences people are talking about here.

Normal procedures when animals are brought in are that they will be put up for adoption once they pass a health and behavior evaluation. If there is absolutely no space available, we will ask people to please try to keep the animal a few days until space opens up. I volunteer up at the front desk, so I have told this to people hundreds of times. I truly find oldsenbrdy's story hard to believe, and if it was the case, I do think this was an isolated incident.

Go check out their facility. They have 3 or 4 adult cat rooms (where cats are free roaming)- so adult cats are plentiful and get adopted every day. Once they are up for adoption, they stay there until they are adopted unless there is a medical issue. There are adult cats there that have been there for months.

I love that place and the people that spend their days working and volunteering there. Please don't make a judgement based on a few people's stories and experiences. Take the time to take a look and talk to the workers/volunteers- they truly care about the animals there and put their hearts and energy into finding these animals good homes.

posted by Courtney on Nov 16, 2009 at 09:03:36 pm     #



Looks like Dr. Bob Esplin is backpedaling on his stance to boycott dog license fees, now calling his proposal a "kneejerk reaction." As THS executive director John Dinion says in the clip, Esplin is "a little off the mark" on such a stance. "Taking away funding at a time they are trying to improve their operations is counterproductive," he said. I agree with Dinion. Let cooler heads prevail on this issue so we can move forward, instead of putting more unlicensed dogs at risk of being put down at the pound.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?
section=news/local&id=7121750

posted by bikerdude on Nov 17, 2009 at 12:25:28 am     #



Sorry, but the above link doesn't work, for some reason. Go to WTVG's web site, and under "local stories," look for "Dog warden controversy continues."

posted by bikerdude on Nov 17, 2009 at 12:33:02 am     #



So what is the story on this dog, http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091117/NEWS16/911170356/-1/NEWS. Did the owner not try to get it into one of the humane societies in Sylvania? Or maybe there are none in Sylvania? The dog was taken in on a Thursday so maybe the owner was looking forward to going out Friday night looking at another kind of tail. Or maybe he works with the Blade and this was part of their effort at reporting "news".

Maybe he does not read the Blade. What kind of fool would take their dog to the Dog Warden's office after the kind of news we have been reading for the last two weeks? He could have taken it to the THS where they claim a higher success rate, "the humane society, which claims a 100 percent adoption rate for all healthy and adoptable dogs". Sounds like some of the "investigative reporting" that the Blade is famous for (only involving the death of an innocent dog).

Would like to know what would have happened if the dog had ended up at THS. Perhaps the loss of hair would have made it unhealthy, and, therefore, unadoptable.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 17, 2009 at 11:32:38 am     #



Perhaps we will find out what happened to a similar dog taken in by THS. The above article might be part of a larger investigative series on the various humane societies, and rescue groups in Northwest Ohio. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 17, 2009 at 11:41:27 am     #



Does anyone know if the killing of dogs at the dog pound mostly occurs on Tuesdays and Fridays? That would seem to be the indication from the posting in the Blade, http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091113/LOG01/911139994.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 17, 2009 at 12:55:54 pm     #



That guy in The Blade article sounded like an idiot. Who takes their dog to the pound because they don't have time for it? I am sure most dogs would rather be left alone for a while than put to death. Get another dog to keep it company if nothing else tool.

posted by Ryan on Nov 17, 2009 at 01:33:39 pm     #



oldsendbrdy: Totally agree with you. The guy was a jerk to take the dog to a pound because he did not have time for it but, unfortunately, pounds, humane societies,and rescue groups are loaded with dogs given up by jerks who come to realize that a dog has needs. If anything, please remember not to give a pet as a gift at Christmas! UUUGH!!
Bikerdude: Yes, sounds like Dr. Bob Esplin is back peddling. But that TOOL will do anything for publicity- even looking like an idiot to get more face time on TV. What I REALLY DO NOT GET is are there no other local vets that the local media can go to for an opinion? I mean, really, how many vets are in Toledo? Oregon? Sylvania? Hell, all of Lucas County????? Why is Esplin the only one The Blade and the rest of the media go to for a story? Since when does having an office in tony Sylvania make him an expert on anything and everything?!?

posted by golddustwoman on Nov 17, 2009 at 02:08:13 pm     #



Ryan, seems there is a lot more the Blade could have put in this story. Seems like lazy reporting to me. I'd like more background on the guy. Does he work for the Blade or one of the Blade's partners? Was this story "set up"? Who decided on this dog, and this owner? There would probably be nothing "unethical" about putting dogs in jeopardy for the sake of a story, or series of stories. After all, they are considered as just "property" under the law. And I would not put it past the management of the Blade to do the groundwork for such a story as long as it was not unlawful or "unethical". I wonder what more we'll see printed in the coming days.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 17, 2009 at 03:21:10 pm     #



With 62,500 licenses bringing in $1,562,500 a year at $25 per license how much would we have to up the licenses if we were to require the warden to do as the reformists requested, give the dogs shots, try to prevent "kennel cough", and perhaps have a vet on call with a cap of $1000 per dog for care. The last is something a lot of "rescue" groups do. It might mean the difference to an animal to be "adoptable", and save a few from the vet's final needle.

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 17, 2009 at 04:23:29 pm     #



In reference to the possibility of a story "setup" by the Blade, common sense says that, with all of the animals that are surrendered and eventually euathanized, the Blade has plenty of surrender situations from which to choose. A reporter need just call the warden's list and choose one that is willing to respond. Honestly oldsendbrdy lady - where do you get this nonsense? I can only assume that the story, if true, might make you uncomfortable, hence you feel the need to disparage it so that you can continue to defend the warden.

The big question is why can't the Lucas County Dog Pound operate like thousands of other pounds across the US that have long followed the same procedures that the advisory committee has recommended? We are very backward here. There is absolutely no reason or excuse, just an abundance of ignorant and hard hearted people.

posted by holland on Nov 17, 2009 at 08:18:55 pm     #



So, Holland, common sense would also wonder "why now?" This story has been bubbling for two years, and the Blade is either a leader, or follower, of the news. I have to wonder what is the advantage to the Blade to take this position? Or is this the beginning of a longer series of stories that will butter their bread for the next few months. After all, what are the criteria that THS uses for an "adoptable" dog, and what ailments will be treated to make a dog "adoptable?"

posted by oldsendbrdy on Nov 17, 2009 at 10:53:38 pm     #