Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 47

Thread: Dog lives matter

  1. #31
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,509
    Communications # 751 -



    Communications # 752 -

    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  2. #32
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,509
    Communications #763 -





    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  3. #33
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,509
    This was Mrs Karn's (DCO) statement at the last board meeting
    https://soundcloud.com/user-32929237...-tbm#t=1:23:37
    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,912
    Hey Matt:

    I really appreciate the time and effort you put into presenting a timeline and an explanation why the town missed out in applying for a matching grant that would have helped offset costs in either making present kennel improvements, adding kennels or building a new facility.

    Despite DCO Karn’s declaration that she went ‘above and beyond’ to provide information to the board to answer their questions, you make it quite clear that the board (all members favoring the grant application) still had unanswered questions – after 4+ months of time in knowing of the grant. That is perplexing.

    As you well know, Mrs. Lemaster and I have been advocates of the town providing a good shelter for the strays picked up. We were disappointed in not getting the grant as we believe the shed in place is inadequate, often in disrepair, not in close proximity to the DCO office and that a brick & mortar replacement building would be better suited – especially with the increase in animal population and with a growing town.

    That said, I still need clarification on the following:

    • Is DCO Karn a department head? You stated that she should not be influenced by department heads.

    • Even if she is considered a department head, department heads provide information as to what the project entails, need for and what funds will be used for. After this length of time, what questions went unanswered? The board was all in you say?

    • You state that Karn and you had to ‘sell the job’. According to you Karn failed to satisfactorily provide the options the board was looking for. You Chair this committee and are quite involved in the DCO program. Yet you also failed to sell this ‘job’ and the grant application never made it to the grant writer’s desk. Did Karn ever get a chance to talk with Sue Barnes (grant writer). Didn’t Karn contact Barnes and was blown off? It appears the board was not interested in spending money at this time on the Dog Control Department.

    • It would be interesting to read a rebuttal by Mrs. Karn. Interesting, but futile as the grant application time has come and gone.

    • I do not believe in spending money on providing a fenced in area for a dog walk, or whatever. The holding time has been reduced to three days and there are aggressive dogs. The money is better spent in improving the shelter and in getting the DCO’S office in close proximity to the dogs.

    • Lastly, it was comforting to read that Ag & Markets found the shelter and program operation adequate (9/28/18) – no flags, eh?

    • Considering the Animal Health Inspector review took place on 11/15/18 which is the time period that the shelter floor and walls were being chewed through by the dogs it is interesting that no flags were noted.

    I am only interested in the welfare of the dogs Matt and I am truly disappointed that this grant opportunity was not taken advantage of. If the town was not in a position to spend money on dog control, just say it. Don't throw Karn under the bus.

  5. #35
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,509
    Lee,

    Where is the dog shelter located? Where is the DCO office located?
    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  6. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,912
    Quote Originally Posted by gorja View Post
    Lee,

    Where is the dog shelter located? Where is the DCO office located?
    The dog shelter (shed) is located at the Lancaster Municipal Campus on 525 Pavement Road. The shelter is located on the farthest east parcel in the site. The DCO’s office used to be located across the road (northside) but I understand it has been relocated farther west from the kennels. An office was supposed to have been built in an adjacent room within the shed, but it never happened. The room is used as a laundry / storage room.

    Go to the shelter and look for yourself. Make sure you contact the DCO as there is a no trespass sign on the property. If you had gone this past week you could have verified that the wooden floors have not be replaced yet with a concrete-like sheeting and tile placed on top of the sheeting. Ask if there was any flooring insulation installed.

    Maybe you can get an explanation why Patricia Famiglietti (Animal Health Inspector) did an inspection of the facility on November 15 and found no issues when the floors and walls had already been chewed through by the dogs.

    It is an appropriate time for someone from the public to inspect the facility to determine whether the structure (shed) is ‘adequate’ to shelter dogs in a manner that keeps them warm, separated and monitored appropriately for food and water as the DCO office is not in close proximity to the kennels.

    Find out how many dogs are being sheltered elsewhere (SPCA, etc.) while the kennel work is taking place and during periods of overload. Find out what it costs the town to shelter dogs elsewhere.

  7. #37
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,509
    Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
    The dog shelter (shed) is located at the Lancaster Municipal Campus on 525 Pavement Road. The shelter is located on the farthest east parcel in the site. The DCO’s office used to be located across the road (northside) but I understand it has been relocated farther west from the kennels. An office was supposed to have been built in an adjacent room within the shed, but it never happened. The room is used as a laundry / storage room.
    I had no idea that they weren't in the same building until your previous post #34. That's nuts.
    Here's a nice little packet about shelter design.
    https://www.animalsheltering.org/sit...ign-packet.pdf

    Flooring
    Appropriate flooring materials are vital to maintaining a clean facility in which microorganisms and
    odors are minimized. Poured floors with a minimum of seams are best. Ceramic tile is not a good
    choice for kennel or housing areas because grout is permeable and therefore impossible to clean
    adequately.

    Selecting materials and finishes for your shelter is an exercise in balancing appearance
    with initial cost, life cycle cost, and durability. When looking at appearance, consider
    what colors, textures, patterns, and sizes are available.

    The perfect surface would have these characteristics:
    Pleasing visual impact.
    Durable.
    Easily cleanable.
    Resilient.
    Nonabsorbent to liquids and odors.
    Prevents microbial growth.
    Sound absorbent.

    No single material is appropriate for use in all areas of your shelter, and no material is a
    top performer in all of these categories, so choosing the “best” surface is a matter of
    balancing the requirements for specific areas with the cost and performance of available
    materials

    When considering cost, look at the initial cost of the product, the cost of installation, the
    cost of maintenance over time, and the cost of replacing a less expensive product when
    it reaches the end of its life cycle. For example, vinyl tile can be purchased and
    installed for as little as $1.50 per square foot, while porcelain tiles cost in the $10.00 per
    square foot range. Once the overall maintenance costs for stripping, refinishing, and
    buffing the vinyl floor is factored in, the cost differential can be offset in approximately
    five years, with the added benefit of having a durable and attractive floor that can last as
    much as three times as long. Frequently lost in the desire to keep initial construction
    costs low are the long-term expenses involved in cleaning and maintenance.

    Of course, there is the other side of life cycle cost analysis: if you can’t afford the initial
    cost of a material, it really doesn’t matter how good the material is.

    The following materials list briefly reviews some of the advantages, disadvantages, and
    costs of some of the materials we recommend for animal shelters.

    Flooring Materials
    Quarry and ceramic tile is a very durable and “dressy” material for the front of the facility
    and can be used throughout if desired. When selecting tile, check for slip resistance,
    make sure that the sub floor does not flex, consider using darker grouts, and use tiles
    that don’t need waxing or sealing. We typically recommend epoxy grout, but make
    certain that the tile installer has experience working with it.

    Cost: Quarry Tile $3.35 to $7.00/sq. ft.
    Porcelain Ceramic Tile $3.25 to $12.00/sq. ft.

    VCT (Vinyl Composition Tile) is a good all around, inexpensive, and durable material. It
    typically comes in 8" x 8" or 12" x 12" sizes and is available in “designer” colors. While
    a practical material in the general service areas of a shelter, it is not appropriate for
    animal holding areas. Frequent waxing is required to keep joints sealed, since the joints
    cannot be heat or chemically welded. The base cannot be coved.

    Cost: $1.25 to $1.50/sq. ft.

    Sheet vinyl is very durable and easy to maintain. Seams can be heat welded or
    chemically bonded, and the base can be coved as high as desired for a seamless joint.
    Use commercial grade, homogeneous PVC that has no specific wear layer. Since
    adhesives are not what they once were, be very cautious to test the moisture content of
    concrete slabs, make sure that installers follow the manufacturer’s recommendations,
    and be sure that you understand the warranties.

    Cost: Higher quality $3.50 to $4.50/sq. ft.
    Medium quality $2.75 to $4.00/sq. ft.
    Lower quality $1.85 to $2.25/sq. ft.

    Liquid applied epoxy and MMA (acrylic resin) flooring is very durable and easy to clean,
    although fairly expensive. Surface preparation is critical and experienced installers are
    recommended. Color, slip resistance, and thickness can be difficult to achieve.

    Cost: Liquid Applied Epoxy $6.00 to $8.50/sq. ft.
    Acrylic Resin $7.50 to $10.50/sq. ft., about 25% more than liquid
    applied epoxy.

    Exposed concrete slabs in runs, wards, and utility areas are very affordable and
    durable. It is strongly recommended to seal the concrete rather than paint it, because
    the sealer actually bonds with the concrete. Liquid applied sealers are inexpensive and
    easy to apply, but need to be reapplied every six months. Concrete slabs can be
    dressed up by ordering the concrete with an integral color or by staining the concrete
    once the slab is installed. Staining requires a sealer for protection.

    Cost: Basic sealed concrete $4.00/sq. ft. installed, sealing is negligible
    Sealed with integral color $1.00 to $1.50/sq. ft. more
    Stained and sealed $1.50 to $2.00/sq. ft. more
    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  8. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,912
    Unfortunately, no response from councilman Matt Walter. I would also have liked to ask:

    Was there ever a time in October that two or more board members met and decided that pursuit for the $200,000 grant should be discontinued - for reason other than DCO Karn not providing adequate grant application information to the board and other involved individuals? Walter made it quite clear that ‘everyone’ was in favor of this project, and yet they all let the grant pursuit wither on the vine?


    Isn't it true that it was not a full matching grant; that the town was only obligated to spend $25,000?

    How many other facilities have a shed shelter operation rather than a brick-and-mortar building operation; an operation where the DCO’S office now is several hundred feet away in another building.

    Aren’t the shed floors and walls uninsulated; with inoperable gate flaps to the outside in cold weather and where small dogs cannot manage to open the flaps and where they are then pried open letting cold air into the inner room.

    Is it true that small dogs and some more aggressive dogs are being housed in crates at the DCO’S office because of kennel conditions and lack of; and yet the shelter received an ‘adequate’ rating from AG. and Markets?

    Since 2010 the recorded number of dogs sheltered is as follows:

    2010 - 35
    2011 – 40
    2012 – 40
    2013 – 19
    2014 – 54
    2015 – 87
    2016 – 80
    2017 – 105 (Karn becomes DCO)
    2017 – 135
    2018 – 141 at present

    Under Karn’s leadership the department’s operational efficiency has increased significantly, and where population and dog ownership has increased as well; and will continue to do so.

    The town takes in $70,000 in dog license fees and other revenue for shelter fees and fines, Where does that revenue go; to the DCO Department, the General Fund, etc.?

    The Town of Lancaster at present has no written agreement in place that makes it possible for the town to transfer any dogs to their kennels, right? Liability being a big factor. Some believe the SPCA is a dumping ground for any dog, any reason. People who know better understand the policies and restrictions that disallows this open-door process. Individuals who do not know better make the assumption that all transfers, vet fees, housing, etc. are cost free. Not so.

    Lastly, you reduced the hold time from seven days to three to free up kennel space. Why not expedite the process by allowing the DCOS to issue permits fo owners who retrieve unlicensed dogs?

    A former town board member once stated: “This is not rocket science.” It may seem so on the surface, but far from true..

  9. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,912
    It was very disappointing and disconcerting to hear no one address the board Monday evening re council member Matt Walter’s dissertation on why the town did not apply for the 2018-19 competitive New York State Companion Animal Capital Fund.

    Walter used an intensive email collection to establish that the blame for not applying for the grant rests with Dog Control Officer (DCO) Jean Karn for not providing timely requested information to the board re application requirements.

    I would have expected someone to ask Walter something in the order: "Since you made your timeline, including private emails, public in order to back your statement that "Officer Karn is responsible for not pursuing the grant because she did not answer all questions", can we see her response and her timeline with emails pertaining the grant?

    Not receiving a grant that could have amounted to $200,000 with a $25,000 match from the town could have helped immeasurably in providing a brick and mortar building that would have satisfied all AG & Markets guidelines in properly sheltering a dog and having the DCO’S office within the facility.

    The current 4 kennel structure (shed) is not insulated, had chewed up floor and wall board replaced, is inadequate in number of kennels, has inoperable flap doors connecting interior to exterior rooms, etc. A small dog is not strong enough to open the door and if outside, cannot get back in. Currently a rock is used to hold the door flap open According to NYS Ag and Markets Law and NYS shelter guidelines the current shed is not adequate for many reasons.

    Top 5 are:

    1. Disease
    2. Injury
    3.illness
    4. Size
    5. Temperament

    And yet on November 15th, the facility got a passing grade from an AG & Markets inspector. How did that happen?

    NYS mandates that a separate quarantine space be provided so as not to spread disease. (Parvovirus, distemper, mange, ring, hook worm, kennel cough etc.) Having no such available space dogs are housed inside the office – an office housed separately and hundreds of feet away from the kennels.

    Supervisor Coleman speaks on entering into contract with Clarence to provide services in time of ‘overflow’ need. Some problems to be noted with such contract:

    COST -Boarding fees and additional liability insurance will be required.

    OWNERSHIP- who makes decisions as to euthanasia, adoption etc.

    ACCESS - who releases a held dog to owner and who checks the validity of rabies and licensing?

    PAPERWORK - where and how it's kept.

    COURT CASES - there are times that the DCO needs to testify in court on a dog’s temperament. Will Clarence be able to and who pays them for doing so? Depending on a court case, a dog may be held as evidence for a long period of time. If a police officer charges an owner with a crime against a dog, that case could take a year to go to court. Technically a dog could be boarded that long. Appeals of court cases take time too. Case in point in Cheektowaga and there 4 dogs from a bite case.

    Lancaster does have an agreement with ECSPCA to take our dogs – a limited number. ECSPCA charges a per diem fee of approximately $30 per day – depending on needs.

    NYS mandates that any municipality issuing dog licenses maintain a dog control department. Our department is lacking in kennel space. Over this past weekend there were four additional dogs added to the previous 12 that could not be adequately housed in Lancaster. Two of those dogs went to the ECSPCA by court order for boarding. The other two were unlicensed and given to the owners and told to license them by the Lancaster PD.

    We need a new facility for myriad reasons. For the town to claim that they are looking at building another shed-like structure is like putting lipstick on a pig!

  10. #40
    Member gorja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lancaster, NY
    Posts
    11,509
    All I see regarding dog control at the upcoming board meeting is a contract renewal with SPCA to provide adoption, animal cruelty investigations and euthanasia services for our seized dogs.

    Nothing was mentioned regarding revamping or building a new kennel or sending overflow of dog guests to other municipalities.
    Have a GREAT day,
    Georgia Schlager

  11. #41
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,912
    What's this I hear that Council member Matt Walter is stepping down as head of dog control because of recent events?


    I'm shocked! Nah, not really.

  12. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,912
    Well, it's official, Council Member Matt Walter is no longer Chair, or even a member on the Public Safety Committee. The dogs are howling their approval.

    Council Member Adam Dickman is now Chair and serving with him are Supervisor Coleman and Council Member Ruffino.


    Hopefully, the newly appointed committee doesn't become complacent and feel the DCO shelter / operation in place is adequate. They will hear otherwise.

  13. #43
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
    Well, it's official, Council Member Matt Walter is no longer Chair, or even a member on the Public Safety Committee. The dogs are howling their approval.

    Council Member Adam Dickman is now Chair and serving with him are Supervisor Coleman and Council Member Ruffino.


    Hopefully, the newly appointed committee doesn't become complacent and feel the DCO shelter / operation in place is adequate. They will hear otherwise.
    This is no surprise. Basically, Matt is a nice guy. He is not a bad person. I think he put his hat in the ring because he felt he can do some good. In the beginning, Matt was not political. His first mistake was aligning himself with the wrong person (Johanna). Her influence was a strong one, perhaps she promised things or perhaps his alignment with her gave her the leverage she needed on certain things. At the end of the day, expertise or experience is important when running for a political position. Matt did not have that, he had a heart. He is not a bad person, he was just naïve. I actually feel bad for him, he was beaten up pretty bad throughout his tenure.


    With that said, I also think that Johanna was not too bad as a Supervisor. Yeah, there are some things I didn't agree with, but for the most part she did well. She'll be missed as an icon in Lancaster where she'll no longer have her fingers in the pie. But it is time for her to retire and enjoy her retirement.

  14. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,912
    In this bitter time of winter, and after recently reading numerous articles on dog abuse as well as neglect, one has wonder how, or whether our administrators in charge of prosecuting and penalizing residents who are cited by the Dog Control officers for code violations and given court appearance tickets respond.

    There are over 5,000 dogs licensed in Lancaster. We cannot but assume that such dog owners are responsible by having their dogs vaccinated for rabies and then licensed. What is not known is how many dogs there are in Lancaster that are not licensed. It is a state and local law that dogs are to be licensed. A few years ago, the town had promised a dog census would be performed to identify dog owners. It has not happened. It is estimated that there are twice as many dogs unlicensed as are licensed.

    The Dog Control department receives a report from the Clerk’s Office regarding individuals who have unlicensed dogs or are delinquent in re-licensing their dogs. After multiple contacts, and where no action is taken by the individual for remedy, a court appearance ticket is issued. Court appearance tickets are issued for other infractions as well.

    Responsible dog owners who vaccinate their dogs and license them voice concerns about how responsible owners are who don’t license their dogs, but whose dogs are out and about in the community with the likelihood they have not been to see a vet and are possibly harboring communicable diseases. When court appearance tickets are issued, does our court act responsibly in making determinations that leads to a favorable and responsible outcome or simply dismiss the charge and/or do not issue a bench warrant for the no-shows to appear and comply? How much revenue is the town missing in revenue by practicing such indifference?

    How fair is such process to the dog owners that do comply? How much town revenue is being lost in not licensing all dogs? What are the legal ramifications should the town be sued?

    Hopefully, the town will further improve a dog control operation that was near non-existent but a few years ago. Dog lives matter!

  15. #45
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    5,912
    We have read and heard media reports of the extraordinary rescue / care given to some animals and the dark side of abuse and resulting need for euthanasia.

    In the past few years Town of Lancaster residents have witnessed the positives of a new dog control operation (under the direction of DCO Jean Karn) and the shortcomings of a dog shelter (shed) for myriad reasons.

    In this week’s communication #94, Karn, as been her custom since hired a few years ago, to issue a monthly report of the department’s operation:

    159 complaints / calls received
    35 calls responded to / follow ups
    56 compliance notices
    25 final notices
    9 appearance tickets issued
    7 dogs redeemed
    1 rescue transfer
    0 SPCA transfers
    1 dog euthanized
    951 miles patrolled by van

    Impressive compared to past operations in amount of activity and lack of reporting and transparency. Especially impressive considering the number of compliance notices, final compliance and appearance tickets issued in town where it is estimated the number of unlicensed dogs is twice the number of dogs licensed.

    What this report cannot report on is what happens to dog owners after the notices are filed, court appearance tickets are issued and whether any monetary penalties are levied on the non-compliant.

    In communication #100, the Clerk’s office report shows under Dog License & Redemption Fees a total receipt of $4,625 for the month of January 2019. Outside of a late fee penalty receipt of $375 (62 incidents) there is no indication of revenue received from court appearances. Do these fees appear anywhere or never levied? Why do all this good work and report it if there are no consequences; no penalties. Why get a dog license? Because DOG LIVES MATTER! At least to some of us.

    And if there are twice as many dogs unlicensed as there are licensed, why has the town not pursued the dog census project it promised a few years ago? It is not only unfair to compliant dog owners who do license their dogs, but unfair to the community as a whole knowing there is an unlicensed dog with the possibility the dog may not seen a vet to have its rabbi shots and/or immunization shots to stop the spread of other communicable ailments to other dogs.

    Lastly, the 2019 budget for Dog Control is $166,594. If all dogs were licensed and all non-compliance fees collected this department would be, or close to being, self-sufficient.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. All lives matter
    By Yankeefan2009 in forum USA Politics and Our Economy - President Donald Trump
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2015, 08:11 PM
  2. Black Lives Matter
    By FMD in forum Speakup Here
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 10th, 2015, 05:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •