Pavel Lishin Verified

This story is throwing my brain out of wack. On the one hand, my eyes are tearing up that a doggie died. On the other hand, I want to crap in those people's mailbox.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Cristiana Ginatta Verified

For sure the dog had a bigger brain than the shelter's employee...

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Scott Doyle Verified

Well the only result on http://DentonCAD.com for Shawn Snider appraises his home at $131,785, so it's not just the mortgage (didn't see anything for Beth). Maybe they want a boat, too, since they're close to Lake Lewisville?

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Pavel Lishin Verified

Ms. Bayless-Snider called the shelter the next day and arranged to pick up Amicus on May 16. They didn't get the dog sooner because they were waiting for payday to afford the recovery fees, which would have been $109, Mr. Snider said.

If they can't afford a $109 fee, maybe they really do need the money from the puppies they sold. Wonder if they sold them out of a box by the side of the road... and wonder if they'll sue the city if it outlaws such activities.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Scott Doyle Verified

Kay, if I'm ever on trial for anything, I hope you're not in my jury.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Pavel Lishin Verified

Well, I think re-adoption would probably have been better. Plus, unlike most dogs, at least it got laid once in awhile.

Then again, if you can't afford $109 to rescue a $200k dog, what are the odds you're feeding it premium dog food and sparkling spring water.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

James Scott Verified

I do agree with Kay's comment about the fact that there does need to be some sort of restitution above and beyond that of a few hundred dollars they may have been able to make with the dog's litter. Everyone is jumping on this couple because it seems like they were just trying to make a buck off their pet (which may very well be the case), but just imagine if this had been a different owner of a pet that was perhaps spade or neutered - would they be owed any more than the small amount they paid for the dog? Or what if this was a dog that they had rescued from a shelter previously, would they be owed nothing?

I think what is mainly at issue here is there is clearly 1) lack of procedures within the animal shelter to prevent serious errors like these from occurring, or 2) lack of responsible and competent employees working to carry out those procedures.

Either way, they city should probably assess the situation at their shelter to make sure this does not happen again. A lawsuit for $200K will certainly do that. I'm not saying that's a realistic amount to sue for, just that a small amount would be trivial and easy for the city to dismiss and forget about.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Scott Doyle Verified

That's what oversight entities are for, imo - fine 'em and use the money to promulgate revised euthanasia policy state-wide...or if training is just a one-time deal, institute a mandated continuing ed course.

Don't just give a random couple $200k of city funds to make a statement. Anything more than a grand seems ridiculous.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

John McClelland Verified

And cases like this are why I may be facing lawsuit reform legislation in the state house.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Scott Miller Verified

To this Scott it seems pretty appalling that they only have to keep a dog 4 days for the owners to claim it. I know from personal experience that it can take longer than four days to find your dog in a shelter.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Pavel Lishin Verified

James Scott: I agree, they are entitled to some sort of restitution. But I think they waived that right, along with most of their moral superiority, when they asked for TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND FREAKIN' DOLLARS.

Kay: People who can't afford $109 on a day's notice are just gonna take their new-found fortune and use it selflessly? Unless they couldn't afford the fee because they're giving away all their money to charity.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Lisa Lawrence Merritt Verified

This story is pathetic and exactly why I had Invisable Fence installed where I used to live.

Worth every penny to a true dog lover.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

James Scott Verified

Wow - certainly this story has made it on "things you can't miss" by now.

After the triple OT DET/PIT Stanley Cup Final game (not sure why that's relevant), I was able to see some video of the owners in this case on NBC news. I think most peoples' sentiment as far as whether or not this family is in it for the money, or in it for the principle, got a bit clearer - at least in my eyes. I'm not so sure the loss of their family member is quite the only motivation for asking for money (hence the ridiculous claim of $200K) - but once again, I revert to the fact that any small amount asked for (say, sub $1K), would be trivial and the entire issue would be swept under the table.

What is fair? I have no idea. $10K, $100K? I can't even begin to imagine what I would ask for if I was in the same position - I can't put a dollar figure on the value of my children, since that is what they are to me. Sure, there is the fact that they had a couple of days but opted to wait b/c they didn't have the money - I know I would have probably lied/cheated/stolen to get the money if I didn't have it to get my boys out of 'jail', but then again, if my mindset was that I knew I had one or two days left, maybe I wouldn't have reverted to that. Thus, the reason why something needs to happen to make sure that the negligence doesn't happen again.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Scott Doyle Verified

No doubt that money talks, but that's an indirect method which doesn't necessarily stand to get anything done. I'd think animal lovers would want the most effective outcome, not just a judgment that would inevitably hit resident's pockets.

Utilizing this as a case to enact change in the manner euthanasia is practiced should be the utmost priority, imo.

James, if I recall correctly, we don't off humans who are stuck in a cell for a few days - not exactly apples to apples.

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Wanda Jewell Verified

I think that the news people are not researching their articles very well and leaving out the rest of the story. The article that the Denton Record Chronicle printed is clearly slanted against the shelter worker. The comments they have printed are emotionally inflammatory from a person of questionable character with an easily looked up criminal record in both Denton and Tarrant counties. It seems to me this person who so loves his dog that he lets him sit in a shelter for 9 days and supplements his income by breeding this same mixed breed dog and selling the resulting mutts to people should have his motivations for his suit against the city examined. Is he doing this for his 15 minutes of fame? Is he doing this to get back at the government for jailing him for his crimes? Or is he just looking to make a fast buck because people love dogs and will feel sorry for him thus giving him a big award?

IF this person really loved their dog, they would have spay/neutered it rather than breeding it for profit. There are thousands of lab mixed breed dogs and puppies in the shelters dying every day. IF they really loved their dog, they would have come up with the money to get their dog out of the shelter as soon as they could after they got the note about him being in there. My husband is unemployed and I could come up with $109 to get one of MY BABIES out of lockup if they were picked up by the shelter within a day or 2. A shelter cannot hold a dog for an owner indefinitely. I can't believe someone would expect the city to house their dog past their euthanization date because they couldn't/wouldn't come up with $109. Instead, these people want the shelter to board the dog for free until they get paid, meanwhile letting the dog be exposed to who knows what diseases and parasites during his wait since a city shelter has to pick up sick, diseased, often starving stray dogs who have never seen a vet in their lives as well as any owner surrendered dogs that come in.

This dog was in the shelter for 9 days before it was euthanized. Lab mixes are very hard to place from a shelter situation because there are thousands of them out there in shelters across the state. Most cities in the area have a 48-72 hour hold before a stray dog is put up for adoption or euthanized based on how crowded the shelter is, the health of the dog and other criteria each city has mandated. Some shelters hold the animals as long as they can before euthanization. Shelter workers often on their own time post the dogs to http://Petfinder.com and send pleas to area rescue groups hoping to save the dogs from euthanization.

I have had experience with the Denton Shelter on many occasions. I know that Denton's shelter has very dedicated to the animal people that go the extra mile to help their animals get into rescue or be adopted by the public before they have to euthanize an animal. Mistakes are made even when we humans are extremely diligent in our duties to those in our care. The Denton shelter’s atmosphere has improved vastly since I first began going there many years ago. They hired a new manager and new officers that implemented positive changes for the Shelter, the animals and the adoptions. I think loosing any of them would be a severe blow to the Denton shelter’s animals.

Yes, it is a shame the dog was euthanized. I do feel sorry the dog lost his life. The dog had more days granted to him in a shelter situation than most dogs that are allowed to stray. In my opinion, the shelter is not the one at fault here. The dog should have been picked up by its owners before the normal hold period expired. Why should a city have to spend taxpayers money to pay a negligent owner anything after the shelter gave the dog extra days for the owner to come and pick it up?

Wander

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Wanda Jewell Verified

My facts about the shelter are from what I have actually observed with my own eyes in the shelter over the years I have been dealing with them versus just reading about it.

When I first started going to the shelter, the dogs did not have any beds. They have karunda beds in the big kennels now. They used to put small dogs in the big dog runs and now they put them in a suitable sized kennel with clean soft bedding. The shelter where the dogs were housed was not well air conditioned and it is now. The shelter did not have anyone to talk to the adopters looking for dogs other than one guy at the front desk who was busy answering phones as well as dealing with numerous other things at once and now they have 2 ladies in the area where the dogs and cats are just to help people looking for animals. They now post their animals to http://Petfinder.com hoping someone will see them and come adopt them where they did not do so in the past. The shelter used to be surrounded by razor wire 6 foot fences that were scary to drive through which have been removed. The shelter has gotten volunteers to come in and walk the dogs and give the animals some human interactive time instead of being in the cages the whole time they are there. The cats have play and sleeping areas separated from their litter pans by walls versus all of it being in one crate like it used to be. They have put in information packets for people to get on many different subjects, new cages and many other amenities they didn't have 8 years ago. The shelter insides has been painted and made a much more pleasant place for both people looking to adopt dogs and for the animals themselves.

A dog can walk through a park where other dogs have been and pick up fleas, worms and other illnesses in the environment. A shelter has many animals come in that are sick with distemper, parvovirus, fleas, worms, ticks, etc, because they have not been vaccinated or cared for. A shelter cannot refuse to pick up a sick dog and often dogs that are sick are not displaying the symptoms of whatever disease they may have at the time of pick up. Like for instance, the people that bought the puppy on the side of the road from a person selling puppies from a vehicle in Fort Worth last year and it turned out to have Rabies. At time of purchase the puppy was not displaying any symptoms of the disease only to have the new owners discover several weeks later the puppy had rabies.

In any environment where there are animals/people that come in sick, others will be exposed even when the area is cleaned daily. Viruses are often air borne and a sick dog has to be held for a certain length of time just like a well dog in a city shelter situation. Crowded conditions in a city shelter is a hotbed for viruses and parasites to spread from one kennel to another even when the shelter does its best to keep everything clean which Denton does as I see them cleaning when I walk through the shelter. I have donated bleach, kitty litter and other requested items they needed because of their limited budget to help them keep it clean. In their own home environment there is much less chance of your animals being exposed to these things if you are diligent in your vet care and pest prevention around your home. Most of your neighbors are or should be vetting their dogs and preventing parasites on them as well so normally there is less chance of them being exposed to unvaccinated and ill animals.

Aren't your children who go to school, exposed to sick children in an enclosed environment? Think about all the lice, colds and flu picked up by children at school. An animal shelter is a similar situation only with animals versus children.

The Denton shelter has improved over the years and they are still striving to do the best they can within their budget and guidelines set down by the city for the animals in their care. Perhaps you could volunteer at the shelter so you could help the animals and see with your own eyes the caring of the employees and volunteers that work in the Denton shelter like I have.

Wander

5 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

James Scott Verified

Not surprising. Sad situation all around. Hopefully those are the last dogs that couple ever chooses to neglect. Unfortunately, as soon as they think they can make some money off of animals again, they'll be back in business. At least they won't be able to (legally) in Dallas without paying for it now (or as soon as the new ordinance goes into affect).

4 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )

Pavel Lishin Verified

If only they'd won their lawsuit, they could afford to stay in that house and feed their animals!

By the way, please tell me these people don't have children.

4 months, 3 weeks ago ( Link to this comment | Suggest removal )