Lancaster renews ECSPCA Agreement

[Lee Chowaniec]

The Town Board of the Town of Lancaster approved an Agreement with the Erie County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ECSPCA) to provide adoption, animal cruelty investigation and euthanasia services for the seized dogs within the Town of Lancaster and hereby authorizes the Supervisor to execute said agreement which will commence January 1, 2019 and terminate December 31, 2019.

Resident Georgia Schlager questioned the board on the resolution prior to approval for clarification regarding adoption, cruelty investigation and euthanasia protocols.

Schlager: According to the language in the agreement with municipalities the town is obliged to send all dogs to the SPCA that are physically and behaviorally healthy. That language must refer to dogs that are being put up for adoption after they have been held the legal holding period as determined by NYS Agriculture and Markets Law.

Councilman Matt Walter: And those are the ECSPCA rules.

Schlager: Lancaster just passed an ordinance that reduced the holding period from 7 to 3 days. Is that the Ag & Markets suggests as well?

Walter: We were told there was some conflict in the law and we had a couple of different laws on the books…some ambiguity there…I was told it was dropped down to three.

Schlager: Three days is a short hold period. What protocol is followed when the four-kennel shed is filled and more strays are seized when we currently don’t have an agreement with another municipality to accept our overflow.

Walter: We are still working on that. Just because we didn’t get the grant doesn’t mean we aren’t working on expanding our shelter and doing more things there. The project isn’t dead, it’s just that we weren’t able to get it all done; so, we are trying to find an alternative on what to do.

Schlager: Right now, what would you do?

Walter: I know Johanna (Supervisor Coleman) is talking to another town about using their shelter. I have also talked to other towns and they said they are open to it. When it was originally discussed they were told there might be 300 to 400 dogs per year… when they were told 1 to 2 per month, they said we could work something out. So’ we hope to have an agreement in place until a newer, larger shelter or an addition to the shelter is done.

Schlager: Is the ECSPCA ever compelled to take dogs from municipalities regardless of circumstance.

Walter: Not that I am aware of. We passed a resolution a couple of years ago (2014) allowing…because there is a number of dogs… before the SPCA was full because we can’t take dogs because we were holding dogs longer…we talked to a number of rescue groups, I believe five or six, that we approved that would also take dogs if the SPCA couldn’t. The nice thing is that those are all ‘no kill’ rescue groups; rescue groups that find foster homes for the dogs.

Schlager: Do all dogs transferred to the SPCA for adoption purpose get adopted? If after a period of time a dog is not adopted is it returned to the municipality or euthanized by the SPCA?

Walter: It’s not returned to us. I believe the SPCA only euthanizes dogs if there is an issue at the SPCA. They will not take a troubled dog. If a dog bites someone or is an aggressive dog, they will not take it. So, it would have to be an issue at the SPCA. I know that I have talked to the SPCA and they do everything possible to not euthanize dogs. Typically, it’s only when there has been an issue.

Supervisor Coleman: They have a behavioral program there to assess dogs so where if someone were to say to us that there was a dangerous dog that they would be more than happy to assess that dog for us. So, they provide us that particular service. That is obviously something that we can’t do. They are experts with the animals. and they are available in addition to taking a dog in. And, the three-day holding period is a minimum. It doesn’t mean that somebody may say ‘hey, today is the third day and I can’t get there until tomorrow morning because my car broke down… or whatever’… that doesn’t mean that the dog couldn’t be held longer.

Schlager: Lancaster currently operates its dog control department using a 4-kennel shed – with many shortcomings. Are there other municipalities using such a shed-like structure and/or/ where the kennel operation is separate from the administrative office, like ours?

Walter: I am not certain. I have not toured all the other municipalities. I have toured Cheektowaga’s. That is the only one I toured.

Schlager: In my humble opinion the town is already underserved with only a four-kennel operation and will be even more underserved as the town continues to grow. Is this board entertaining the construction of a brick-and-mortar building with additional kennel volume?

Walter: Yep, we already answered that. We are looking to expand; whether that’s a new brick-and-mortar building… that’s part of the very controversial questions that were never answered. We never heard whether there was a preference, how many kennels she was looking for. All those questions will be answered and hopefully we will be getting something done.

Comment

Thank you, Ms. Schlager for asking those questions. Considering approximately 45% of households in Lancaster have a dog, the great majority of dog owners have little information and/or knowledge on the operation of the Dog Control Department regarding seizure of dogs, retrieval, shelter or coordination with the SPCA. Most people take little interest in any of the aforementioned because they believe they will never have the need to be involved with the DCO operation.

It is when you point out to a dog owner the similar frightful experience their dog may go through just visiting the vet, getting groomed or in a situation faced with larger aggressive dogs – and even unfamiliar people. And often your dog has your presence for support.

It was troubling to hear Council member Walter say that he did not know how many other Erie County municipalities operated a shed-like shelter like Lancaster does; one that is not insulated and until recently having inoperable passage doors from the interior to the outside. Two passage doors have had guillotine doors installed, two still pried open using a weighted instrument. The floors must be ice cold.

It is troubling to hear that the administrative office is separated from the shelter; that there are only four kennels; that the town would even consider building an additional shed for sheltering the dogs. It is inconceivable that anyone who is aware of the town’s dog control operation would prefer anything but a new brick-and-mortar building – and we just blew a $200,000 grant in making that happen; a grant brought to the town’s attention by DCO Karn and fostered by her in the best interest of the community and dogs.

Hearing Walter say:

The project isn’t dead, it’s just that we weren’t able to get it all done; so, we are trying to find an alternative on what to do
That he didn’t know how many other municipalities used a shed-like structure for a shelter
That the town is considering building an additional shed-like structure
Hopefully we will be getting something done

is not comforting or acceptable.

[mark blazejewski]

In February, 2014 we had a Wheaton puppy. Fine sweet dog, who on one night, engaged in unprovoked violent behavior. The dog became unapproachable by family members, and our assumption was that the dog was in some unknown way, injured.

Lancaster Animal Control, at that time, was entirely unresponsive to our concerns.

We hired a pet ambulance for transport to the vet. The vet neutered the dog in the hoped that the behavior was related to hormonal issues. The dog was assessed for two days and returned to us.

Regrettably, the medical procedure was not successful, and within two nights, the violent behavior repeated.

The SPCA did pick-up the dog for behavioral assessment. The behavioral specialist recommended putting the dog down. After consulting with our vet, I gave my consent.

Walter: I believe the SPCA only euthanizes dogs if there is an issue at the SPCA.

Based on my experience, this statement is true.

Walter:They will not take a troubled dog. If a dog bites someone or is an aggressive dog, they will not take it..

Based on my experienced, this statement is partially correct. The SPCA will not take an aggressive dog for adoption purposes. They will take the dog for assessment by behavioral specialists and then apply the appropriate function.

Walter: I know that I have talked to the SPCA and they do everything possible to not euthanize dogs. Typically, it’s only when there has been an issue.

Based on my experience, Council Member Walter is correct.

If my recollection serves me well, in some instances, the SPCA may turn the dog over to Cornell Veterinary School, and the dog may function as something as a teaching model.

Supervisor Coleman: They have a behavioral program there to assess dogs so where if someone were to say to us that there was a dangerous dog that they would be more than happy to assess that dog for us. So, they provide us that particular service. That is obviously something that we can’t do. They are experts with the animals. and they are available in addition to taking a dog in. And, the three-day holding period is a minimum. It doesn’t mean that somebody may say ‘hey, today is the third day and I can’t get there until tomorrow morning because my car broke down… or whatever’… that doesn’t mean that the dog couldn’t be held longer.

Based on my experience, Supervisor Coleman's comments are spot on.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Yes, Mark, Walter and Coleman did give some suitable answers to some of Schlager’s questions. But that is akin to answering code questions on refuse handling operations and not following through.

Not committing to a brick-and-mortar building with the additional kennels Lancaster needs to operate as a self-sufficient entity is troubling – a building hosing an administrative office as well, not one down the road.

The shed is not adequate. According to NYS Ag and Markets shelter guidelines the shelter should accommodate for:
Size
Disease
Injury
Illness
Temperament

As for size, while the size of the inside is adequate a large breed dog cannot fit through the current dog door. A small dog is not strong enough to open the door and if outside can’t get back in. Rocks were used to keep the door open and cold air entered the inside of the shed making floors extremely cold. Two of the flaps have been replaced with guillotine doors, two have not.

As for illness, NYS mandates that a separate quarantine space be provided to prevent spread of disease (Parvovirus, distemper, mange, ring/hook worm, kennel cough, etc.). Because of lack of kennel space to accomplish this, dogs are being housed inside the office.

As for alternative measures, when contracting with other municipalities consideration must be given to:

Cost: Boarding fees and additional liability insurance will be required.

Ownership: regarding who makes decisions as adoption, euthanasia, etc.

Access - regarding who releases a held dog to owner; who checks for the validity of rabies; who checks for validity of licensing?

Court cases: There are instances when a DCO needs to testify in court on a dog’s temperament. Which municipality DCO does so? Which municipality pays – a dog may be held in evidence for a long period of time.

Lastly, hearing Walter once again blaming DCO Karn for not providing the town with the grant requisite application responses is disturbing considering we have heard no refuting response from DCO Karn. Unlike Walter who openly published in the town’s communications a litany of private emails to accuse Karn of the town’s missing out of the $200,000 grant, perhaps Karn is reticent to do so for myriad professional and decency reasons.

For Karn to alert the board of the grant, fostering its importance, how can we not assume it was for anything else than a brick and mortar building with more kennels, an administrative office and a self-sufficient operation; not the current uninsulated, shed with floors and walls that been chewed through, inoperable passage doors and not suitable for all breeds and sizes.

And to think that the town would consider building an additional shed is inconceivable!

[mark blazejewski]

Yes, Mark, Walter and Coleman did give some suitable answers to some of Schlager’s questions. But that is akin to answering code questions on refuse handling operations and not following through.

Not committing to a brick-and-mortar building with the additional kennels Lancaster needs to operate as a self-sufficient entity is troubling – a building hosing an administrative office as well, not one down the road.

The shed is not adequate. According to NYS Ag and Markets shelter guidelines the shelter should accommodate for:
Size
Disease
Injury
Illness
Temperament

As for size, while the size of the inside is adequate a large breed dog cannot fit through the current dog door. A small dog is not strong enough to open the door and if outside can’t get back in. Rocks were used to keep the door open and cold air entered the inside of the shed making floors extremely cold. Two of the flaps have been replaced with guillotine doors, two have not.

As for illness, NYS mandates that a separate quarantine space be provided to prevent spread of disease (Parvovirus, distemper, mange, ring/hook worm, kennel cough, etc.). Because of lack of kennel space to accomplish this, dogs are being housed inside the office.

As for alternative measures, when contracting with other municipalities consideration must be given to:

Cost: Boarding fees and additional liability insurance will be required.

Ownership: regarding who makes decisions as adoption, euthanasia, etc.

Access - regarding who releases a held dog to owner; who checks for the validity of rabies; who checks for validity of licensing?

Court cases: There are instances when a DCO needs to testify in court on a dog’s temperament. Which municipality DCO does so? Which municipality pays – a dog may be held in evidence for a long period of time.

Lastly, hearing Walter once again blaming DCO Karn for not providing the town with the grant requisite application responses is disturbing considering we have heard no refuting response from DCO Karn. Unlike Walter who openly published in the town’s communications a litany of private emails to accuse Karn of the town’s missing out of the $200,000 grant, perhaps Karn is reticent to do so for myriad professional and decency reasons.

For Karn to alert the board of the grant, fostering its importance, how can we not assume it was for anything else than a brick and mortar building with more kennels, an administrative office and a self-sufficient operation; not the current uninsulated, shed with floors and walls that been chewed through, inoperable passage doors and not suitable for all breeds and sizes.

And to think that the town would consider building an additional shed is inconceivable!

Lee, my remarks were not intended to reduce your very worthy position. Any maltreatment of animals breaks my heart, and I fully support your efforts to raise and enhance their care.

My comments were focused on the SPCA, with the sole intention of relating my recent experience to dispel some perceptions that the public may have in regard to that facility. There is however one comment, bracketed below, which departs from my stated intention.

In February, 2014 we had a Wheaton puppy. Fine sweet dog, who on one night, engaged in unprovoked violent behavior. The dog became unapproachable by family members, and our assumption was that the dog was in some unknown way, injured.

Lancaster Animal Control, at that time, was entirely unresponsive to our concerns.

Whoever was in charge of Animal Control in 2014 dropped the ball on my puppy. Even the LTPD voiced sympathy to me when I related my concerns. The 2014 officer, IMHO, was a heartless, lazy prima donna, who appeared not to function up to the standards of the office as per its published 2014 responsibilities.

Any present institutional function would almost certainly be superior to the reign of lazy indifference that characterized my dealings with the office of 2014.

Thank GOD for SADIE'S SAFE HARBOR. That is a plug readers.

[gorja]

Last year's agreement with the SPCA can be found on page 19. It probably has similar language as this year's
https://lancasterny.gov/document-cen...ions/file.html