St Johns Co Kills Lost, Microchipped Service Dog Without Contacting Owners

In December 2014, St Johns Co Department of Animal Control in Florida reports on its website that the facility took in 322 animals, killing 225 of them. Here are a couple of screengrabs from the full report:
stjohnsco intakesstjohnsco outcomes

Babygirl, as shown on actionnewsjax.com.

Baby Girl, as shown on actionnewsjax.com.

One of those killed that month was a lost, microchipped pet named Baby Girl whose owners were looking for her.  When Baby Girl’s owners went out of state, they left her in the care of a friend but the dog became lost and was taken to St Johns Co AC.  JoAnn and Brian Williams went door-to-door, searching for their dog.  Baby Girl was a registered service dog who helped the couple by alerting prior to seizures and providing comfort during episodes of bipolar disorder.  When they found out Baby Girl had been at the county pound, they called and were told that pound workers had killed her:

Brian Williams said their dog had a microchip inside of her but said they were never contacted by animal control.

“They said evidently our chip machine wasn’t working that day, like ‘oh my bad, we killed your dog!’” Brian Williams said.

Action News went to Animal Control for answers but we were turned away and told to contact county spokesperson Michael Ryan regarding this issue.

Mr. Ryan issued a statement indicating Baby Girl had “no identification” and which concludes:

After being housed for three additional days past the standard holding period, the dog was euthanized in accordance with county ordinance. While the loss of any pet is tragic, facility space limitations prevent us from housing stray animals indefinitely, and unfortunately we were not notified of the missing dog until 34 days after an animal with similar characteristics was received.

So “no identification”, because microchips only count when AC can use them to blame the owner for failing to have them on their lost pets, and the owners took too long to find out where their pet had been taken so they must be horrible people and oh yeah, the county kept the dog alive for 3 days longer than it legally had to so obviously sainthood is imminent.

The family asked for Baby Girl’s body and collar but have received neither.  They were told the remains were hauled to a Georgia landfill along with a truckload of other pets killed by the county.

Action News reached out to county officials, who said, “The body was disposed of according to county policy and procedure.”

Everything is legal therefore it must be all good.  No need to explain how or why the microchip was missed or offer an apology for killing a beloved pet and service dog or figure out how to prevent killing other owned pets in future.  Just hide and refer all questions to the county Procedures Were Followed guy.  No one in St Johns Co need lose any sleep over the fact that its procedures led to the needless killing of a family member.  Procedures=good.  Everything else, up to and including county employees failing to do their jobs=meh.  Evidently the chip machine that detects humanity in parts per million isn’t working in St Johns Co either since it hasn’t beeped in years.

(Thanks Clarice for the links.)

Previous Post
Leave a comment

26 Comments

  1. There should be hell to pay! I hope they sue; however, this is a wrong that can’t be corrected! You can’t bring a lovable pet back!

    Reply
  2. The…chip machine? Something tells me that the “chip machine” spends a lot of its days not working…

    And…let’s say that their (apparently) one working chip scanner burst into flames that day necessitating the purchasing/borrowing/begging/stealing of a replacement – they had the dog for days, but never thought to scan her at any time after the supposed spontaneous combustion of their scanner?

    No, I’m sorry, but this is the hallmark of a shelter that uses killing as a convenience.

    Reply
  3. i hope the family of baby girl sue this so called animal shelter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i hope this godforsaken place is shut down for good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and that they can never hurt another animal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i am angry about this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply
    • I couldn’t have said it better, Carla. I think they should be closed and fined heavily for each “mistake”. This happens way to often and there should be severe consequences!

      Reply
  4. Joan Capaiu Greene

     /  January 26, 2015

    Service Dogs are NOT pets – they are vital to their owners’ quality of life, and are usually valued at $10k or more due to their training. Seizure alert dogs have a great deal of effort put into their development. Federal and often state law has penalties for harming service dogs – often including large fines, possible jail time and the cost of a replacement dog when a Service Dog is killed or rendered incapable of.serving. if I were the disabled owner, I’d have an ADA attorney look into those options.

    Reply
  5. Verjean

     /  January 26, 2015

    I do have a couple of questions to try to help me understand the timeline involved…
    #1. The Williams’ went out of state. How long were they gone?
    #2. At what point during that absence did “Baby Girl” go missing?
    #3. How long was she gone before they started to look for her? Did the friend caring for her not report her missing? How long was she gone before ANYONE reported her, or started to look for her? I am assuming the Williams’ could not go door-to-door looking for her until they returned from out of state. Again, how long were they gone?

    The shelter states they were not made aware of a dog fitting Baby Girl’s description until 34 days after what is assumed to be Baby Girl was impounded. Were the first attempts to find her not until a month later?

    And a couple of other questions…
    #1. If this was a seizure/bi-polar alert dog, why did she not accompany them out of state? Were they going to be seizure-free while gone out of state? True service dogs generally accompany their owners 24/7.
    #2. What service dog registry was she registered with?
    #3. Proof of chipping is easily enough accomplished. The Williams’ should have the paperwork submitted to whatever registry she was registered with. What chip registry was she registered with? If you have proof of chipping, then I would say you have a much better case against the city.

    That being said, IF she was indeed, micro-chipped, her chip should have been scanned. If the scanner was not operational, then a veterinarian’s office should have been contacted to assist with scanning animals for that period of time. For a shelter to simply “opt-out” of scanning because their equipment didn’t work or is “broken”, is NOT acceptable. But I am confused enough about the timeline and the fact this was a “service” dog being left behind…that additional questions need to be asked.

    Reply
    • Eucritta

       /  January 26, 2015

      I strongly disagree that these ‘additional questions need to be asked.’

      What matters here is that an owned, wanted dog was needlessly killed by an incompetent pro-kill shelter.

      The rest is just distraction. So maybe Baby Girl’s people aren’t saints, who here really gives a shit? Yes, it may well affect any legal case, but the law should not be confused with justice.

      Reply
    • Nice job of blame-shifting.

      I know at least two people who don’t take their service dogs with them if they have to fly, because they won’t take the chance of running into officious idiots who make up laws and regs in their heads, and wind up being forced to put the dog in baggage.

      It is sadly not uncommon for pet sitters, be they friends, family, or hired, not to tell the owners a dog has gone missing, to “avoid worrying them.”

      Finally, what’s the real world, rather than “if your dog got lost you must be a horrible person”, reason for saying they might be lying about their dog being chipped? Note that the ” shelter” doesn’t even claim the dog was scanned and no chip was found. Instead, they are offering a feeble excuse for not having bothered to scan the dog before they killed her.

      Reply
      • Chris_B

         /  January 27, 2015

        I disagree. I think asking why the person that lost the dog didn’t go looking or at least notify the pound is a very good question.

      • Alice

         /  January 27, 2015

        And I know many people who *don’t* take their service dogs with them when they travel. Believe it or not, there are a million and one people who work with the general public that know nothing about service animals and the laws surrounding them. Sometimes that ends with mild annoyance, and sometimes it ends with lawsuits and injury to the animal. When you travel with your SA, the odds of encountering one (or more) of them rises ten-fold. So, they choose to leave their pet at home with a friend or relative.

        I had a dog get out when I was traveling out of the country once. I called home to check on her nightly, and was told everything was fine. I didn’t know otherwise until I got an email from my chip company saying “great news! Your pet was found!”. My relative hadn’t wanted to worry me while I was on a different continent and realistically couldn’t do anything to locate her. She however had notified all the local vets/AC/rescue groups she could find and I had left documentation behind that would have allowed her to pick her up. She actually had before I found that email.

        Had this AC gave a flip about doing their damn jobs, This story would have had the same ending. Did they take her in and kill her on the same day? They said their “chip machine” was broken on “that day”. Well, what about the other days she was there? How long was this “chip machine” down? And how many other animals did they not scan during this time?

        More than likely, the didn’t even try to scan her. They just saw a mutt “Pittie type” and put her with the rest to be slaughtered. Because not only are they a dime a dozen to them, just killing is oh so easier than doing what the tax payers (like this dog’s owners) pay them to do.

    • Yeah and prolly Baby Girl was drunk and dressed like a slut so…

      Would it be ok with you if Baby Girl was one of those pets who naturally alerted prior to seizures and AC killed her without scanning her chip and contacting the owners? Cos it sounds like you’d be ok w/that.

      Reply
      • Exactly. For all we know, they didn’t even know she was missing until they got back.

        I found a Lab, once. Filed “found” info with everyone I could think of. Worked to get the dog into Lab rescue – even taking her out to a place two hours away to get her behaviorally evaluated for them. Had her vetted (she was spayed, already) and got things lined up…

        Twelve days after I found her, the owner calls me. She had just gotten back from her honeymoon to find that her father in law had “lost” her dog and didn’t bother to look for her. Actually, she suspected (based on where the dog was found relative to where they lived) that her FIL had packed the dog in his truck, driven her out to the next county and dumped her.

        You’d think you could trust a family member, but apparently not.

        And this person watching Baby Girl may have known she was chipped and figured that if anyone found her, she’d get a call… Some people have weird ideas about microchips (thinking that they have GPS tracking or whatever), so who knows?

        No, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, whatever happens to a dog BEFORE they enter the shelter is NOT RELEVANT to that dog’s survival once it enters the shelter. The second that dog crosses the threshold, that dog’s life is in the hands of the shelter staff. They are COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE for what happens to that dog next. And in this case, they are completely responsible for killing an owned and loved dog who had ID (chip) and a place to go.

  6. Verjean

     /  January 27, 2015

    IF this dog was, in fact, micro-chipped, then the shelter ABSOLUTELY should be held responsible. And quite frankly, if the shelter is admitting that they didn’t scan the animal for a chip, they should ALSO be held responsible. I’m not in the least implying that these are not “good” owners. But, owners do bear responsibility for their dogs. And in this case, what can only be described, according to the owners, as a “valuable” dog. A dog with value beyond it’s simple cost. A “service” dog. A working “service’ dog…we are to believe. Okay…they say she was a registered “service” dog. With which registry? I can’t believe that the registry would not insist upon some type of permanent ID. That should be on record. I’m simply trying to understand the details of what happened and when. I know several service dogs. I don’t know any that have been left by the owners or families for significant amounts of time, other than for health reasons pertaining to the dog. But, that doesn’t mean that it couldn’t or doesn’t happen. I’m just trying to understand why it “would” happen. This story is told from a single perspective, the owner’s. They have “said” she was micro-chipped. Okay…the paperwork for the registration of that micro-chip is easily provided. Was the original micro-chip ever registered? Was the information kept current? IF the dog was indeed, micro-chipped…(documentation?)…then absolutely, the shelter should be held responsible for this killing,. IF the shelter would have scanned the dog, would the information listed have led to these owners? IF so, the shelter should be held accountable. But I can’t begin to tell you how many dogs come into rescue or the shelter, with a chip that the scanner picks up, with NO information. The chip was never registered with the owner’s information. They never mailed the form in. Or phone numbers and addresses were never kept current. Or new ownership information was never updated. How do we know this dog was micro-chipped, other than the owner’s claim? I don’t think that is an unreasonable question to ask. I can tell you this…if I had registry paperwork, and a service dog registry, the legal process would already be taking place…and that paperwork would be plastered all over God’s creation. If anyone questioned whether the dog was micro-chipped, (as I am doing) I would be shoving that proof in their face.
    Now, should shelters and their policies be changed to NoKill Advocate “No-Kill” models? Absolutely. But shelters, if actually operating within the regulations that are placed on them by their governmental entities, are held harmless from these types of situations. ASSUMING they have followed ALL the regulations as written.
    I think for the public to assume that ALL shelters scan all animals upon intake, is rational and reasonable. But unfortunately, not true. And I agree that no animal should ever be euthanized without providing every reasonable attempt to identify the owner. All I am stating, is the only facts we have in this case, are provided by the owner. And that is an important story, but it is going to be told from “their” perspective. I also know that the shelter has been very reticent to provide any information other than their “official” statement which doesn’t help with “balance”.
    What we can agree on, is this a sad, tragic case, with yet another innocent being killed in what should be a sanctuary. Sheltering in this country, must be revised on a large scale. But for now, as long as they operate within their legal requirements, they are held harmless for these deaths. NOW…IF proof of micro-chip can be provided, or the shelter admits to not scanning the animal, on the record…I’d sue the livin’ crap out of ’em or at least rattle their cage.
    I come to these issues from an ownership, breeder, trainer, rescue, and shelter volunteer background. I have a great deal of empathy for all of those facets. They should not be “adversarial”…none of them. Facts are facts, and can be documented. This seems a very simple case…if the dog was micro-chipped (and I’m simply asking for documentation…) then the shelter is at fault. If the dog was not micro-chipped, or the information not registered nor kept current, then you cannot blame the shelter for operating within the policies that apply to them. Either way…sad and tragic.

    Reply
    • Alice

       /  January 27, 2015

      AC said the “chip machine” wasn’t working “that day”. Going by that, they either only went to scan her before they killed her (and didn’t bother waiting when they realized it wasn’t working) or they didn’t bother at all and this is their very half-assed attempt to cover themselves.

      There *is* no official service dog registries. Unless you get a dog from a service dog organization, it’s a waste of time and money to get a “after market” registration. They will register pet rocks if people are willing to pay their fees, and they never check that the dog in question *is* trained. And more importantly, it is illegal for you or anyone else to ask for proof under the ADA. There has been a stink to change that because of idiots wanting to take their untrained pets everywhere, but as it stands it is illegal to ask for any proof/documentation. People can (and do) train their own service animals. How does one write themselves an official document that they trained their own animal to aid them?

      Reply
      • Verjean

         /  January 28, 2015

        The article states that Baby Girl was a “registered” service dog. “Baby Girl was a registered service dog who helped the couple by alerting prior to seizures and providing comfort during episodes of bipolar disorder.” So, is she registered, or not? I understand completely that service registries are a joke. And are abused on a frequent basis. But, THIS article tells us she was a registered service dog. So, it’s a reasonable question. As I said, I know several legitimate service dogs, and most, if not all, have, at the very least, some sort of organizational affiliation. And, if they came from a “rescue” organization, they are micro-chipped by rescue as policy anymore. It’s unfortunate that BG was not one of those service dogs affiliated with an “organization” or rescue as they could have come forward as well. I understand fully that some dogs are trained individually by their families. But, in that case, the dog would not be “registered”. On a happier note, I understand the Williams’ will be getting a new dog, from a local rescue group in Jacksonville, “Pit Sisters”. Rescue has micro-chipped her. They are also working very hard to eliminate the harsh anti-pit policies that exist in that part of the country.

        As for whether I have “evidence” as to whether the Williams’ are “lying”? I’m not making any determination of the veracity of their statements at all. I’m simply asking for HARD, documentable facts. Everything provided in this article, is simply a personal statement provided by the Williams. They “said” the dog was “registered”. They “said” the dog was micro-chipped. Yet provide no proof of either, either by choice or inability to do so. This article states that BG was a “registered” service dog. Now, I’m being told by those responding here, that many service dogs are NOT registered. Actually, in fact, that service dog “registry” is completely bogus. BUT, the dog in this article is presented, in PRINT, as a registered service dog. So, if that statement is not true, and apparently it isn’t, because no one can tell me who she is “registered” with…then what other facts are misrepresented in this article? I cannot make any determination of “responsibility” without having solid facts and timeline.

        Here’s another “probability” that wasn’t addressed in the article at all. Baby girl SHOULD have been wearing a collar with current city registration and rabies tag. Was she in violation of local ordinances?
        https://library.municode.com/HTML/12174/level3/TITXIIIHECO_CH462AN_PT5VARELIAN.html
        Specifically Sec. 462.502. Vaccination, registration and licensing required.

        Now, special exemptions apply to service dogs in Jacksonville’s animal ordinances. A service dog would have qualified for having the city registration fee “waived” but the rabies and registration tags were still required to be worn at all times. It is also claimed by the Williams’ that BG WAS wearing a collar. I have not heard the Williams’ claim that the collar also had tags attached.

        As to all the replies to my questioning of the timeline and my “attempts” to shift “blame”…I am doing no such thing. I have stated over and over and over that if the shelter has admitted, on the record, to not scanning this dog…then they should be held liable. But the official response from the city, simply says that “attempts to identify the dog were made” on the 11th, when she was brought in. They have made NO statement regarding an inoperable scanner. (Duh…) She was held for the required five days, and then three additional days beyond that. The William’ say they began their search on the 19th. Did they begin with the shelter? The shelter says they were not contacted about any dog fitting the description until 34 days AFTER the 11th. There are also conflicting statements about how BG ended up at St. John’s. One article says she was picked up by Animal Control, another says she was taken to animal control by a neighbor.

        Additional stories:
        http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/family-wants-body-service-dog-back-after-alleged-w/njrFW/
        http://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/news/local/couple-claim-st-johns-county-shelter-euthanized-th/njnLZ/

        If you want to be enraged about something…be angry about the shelter policies regarding pit bull or bully-type dogs. This is a policy that has been in effect for SEVEN years taken from a published article in 2007…”Last month, St. Johns County officials decided to ban adoptions of pit bulls from the county’s animal shelter. That means pit bulls must either be claimed by their owner or euthanized.”

        And quite frankly, I can believe St. John’s probably doesn’t go out of their way to find owners to claim lost pit bulls. I doubt that any pit bull type dog coming into the shelter, stands much chance of getting out. Which is all the more reason for making sure that yours is identified six ways to Sunday. And…I wonder how much it costs to redeem a bully in Jacksonville. Or if there are additional requirements that need to be met for bullies. I wonder how many hurdles the Williams’ would have had to clear, before being able to redeem BG. The “Pit Sisters” might be able to help with that one. They sound like a great group. I do feel for the Williams. I know that dogs get lost every day. I also know that many owners do not do what is necessary to protect their beloved companions sometimes. I do not know definitively, whether the Williams’ did or didn’t. My heart does go out to them, and I’m very gladdened that they will be able to welcome a new dog into their home. I hope this dog will also be able to be an assistance to them with their “challenges”, but if not, she sounds as if she will be a loved and cherished family member. That is really all one can ask.

    • The owners say she was microchipped. You have ZERO evidence they are lying. You have ZERO evidence their information was not up to date with the chip company.

      The “shelter” admits they did not bother to scan the dog before killing her. Why are you so eager to shift blame and make up excuses for the pet killers?

      Reply
      • Verjean

         /  January 28, 2015

        NO WHERE does it say the SHELTER admitted to saying their machine was not working. Mr. Williams’ “said” that they “said” that. “Brian Williams said their dog had a microchip inside of her but said they were never contacted by animal control. They said evidently our chip machine wasn’t working that day, like ‘oh my bad, we killed your dog!’” Brian Williams said.
        BRIAN WILLIAMS SAID. So how will you prove that the shelter made that statement? Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t… Now, can I believe that some shelter employee made a flippant statement? Sure. I see it all the time at crappy, poorly managed shelters. There’s rude, apathetic people everywhere working in shelters.
        Why not just have someone go to this shelter with their pet, and have the shelter confirm a micro-chip for them…as a a community service. My shelter does it all the time. Even if I find a lost dog that I don’t leave at the shelter, they will scan it for me. Why doesn’t someone confirm whether this damn shelter has an operable scanner. If not…got ’em. If so, ask if they ever have problems with it, and what the policy is when it isn’t operational. Then I would ask if there were problems around this period of time. And what specifically was done to repair/replace it. These are YOUR tax dollars at work at municipal shelters. Sign in at the shelter (most shelters require this now…) take a photo with your phone documenting you were there. Then ask to have your dog scanned. Any time you get grief? Take pictures. Take names. DOCUMENT…
        I am not shifting blame…and I’m not making “excuses” for pet killers. You will find NO ONE more committed to shelter reform. But, I also work closely with shelters…good, bad and ugly. And knowing first-hand many shelter employees or managers that should have been charged with cruelty and neglect, if not outright abuse. Which is why I follow YesBiscuit. I KNOW these things exist. But I also know that many good shelters and good shelter employees get caught in policies and mandates that sometimes they have no control over. We must not lose sight that NOT ALL SHELTERS are hellholes, and not all employees are killers. BUT if you are going to attack, you must have documented PROOF! You are right, I have ZERO evidence they are lying. I also have ZERO evidence they are telling the truth. YOU have ZERO evidence as well. The Williams’ “said” she was micro-chipped, but no documentation has been provided of such. The Williams’ “said” she was registered, but no documentation has been provided of such. Brian Williams’ “said” that some shelter employee “made” the flippant statement that “the machine must not have been working”, with no documentation provided, or admitted to by the shelter, in any of their statements.
        That, in NO WAY, lessens my empathy for the Williams’. But without documented proof, you also can’t attack the shelter. Which by the way…the more I learn about, the more I dislike. But one smart-ass remark by a shelter employee? Hell, I get those all the time. If I had a nickle for every one, I’d be retired on an island somewhere…far away from all this crap. I agree that Brian did NOT deserve to be spoken to like that on the phone, if in fact, that exchange took place they way Brian says it did. But, does Brian remember the name of that employee? Did he get a name? Did he report the employee to a supervisor? I don’t know about you, but I can tell you in no uncertain terms that I wouldn’t put up with that kind of rudeness ever. I would have asked the name of that employee. I would have asked to speak to his supervisor. AND I WOULD HAVE NAMES!!! I would have asked WHY the scanner wasn’t working. I would have asked how long it was out of commission. I would have asked WHY it hadn’t been fixed!!! I would have asked why another scanner was not brought in, or why…why…why!!! I would have asked the shelter to “document” their story, and would have shown up to receive it IN PERSON. Or gone to city council. If that request was refused…I would tell them my attorney would be contacting them, sooner rather than later. Those are YOUR tax dollars. They are there to SERVE YOU! You all know the power of social media. You can put these folks on notice pretty quickly. We see it happen all the time.
        If nothing else, this story may serve as a primer for any of us when we deal with a shelter or its personnel. Document. Document. Document. Take names. If you’re there in person, turn on your recorder on your phone. KNOW who you are dealing with. Ask for supervisors when you are treated rudely.
        When we try to reform a particular shelter’s policies…we can’t do it without statistics, and facts that are DOCUMENTED. The same applies to any owner or any public citizen, for that matter, dealing with any public, governmental entity…of which “municipal” and county shelters are. Not all shelters are public however. But they are all financially supported by someone. When bad things happen, document, report, and if necessary, get legal. But you can’t get legal without documentation, either. It’s easy to attack shelters, even good ones sometimes that have to operate within poor policy which they themselves don’t always control. Remember, there are good shelters, and there are shelters that are just trying to be good and do the right things. Sometimes I get the feeling we treat shelters the same we treat breeders. We treat them all as scum. Let’s be sure we have all the facts first… The Williams’ have said many things. It would be just as easy to “prove” them.

    • Alice

       /  January 27, 2015

      The information on the chip is irrelevant in this situation all around. AC did not say the chip was unreadable. They did not say it lead to no where. They did not say it was not current. They said their “chip machine” was broken “that day” so they didn’t give a damn, and killed her without tracking down a “chip machine” that was operational. They then try to place all of the blame on the owners, and you are falling for it. They are legally obligated to scan for chips, and they did not. Every last bit of this situation is on them.

      Reply
      • Verjean

         /  January 28, 2015

        I’m trying to determine whether that is true, Alice. I don’t know that they are legally required to scan. As I said, BG was also legally required to be registered with the city and wearing both her registration tag and her rabies vaccination tag. That is how most shelters would be legally obligated to identify an impounded animal.

  7. THESE PEOPLE NEED TO TAKE THEIR JOBS SERIOUSLY! IF I HAD MY WAY, I WOULD FIRE THEM ALL AND START OVER!

    Reply
  8. This is why I keep telling people that although yes, a microchip is a vital part of helping ID your dog, its NOT the be-all-end-all of identification. FAR to many shelters do not scan, or only half-assed scan. And then their pet is euthanized “for space” or “for behavioral problems” or other such. You need to make sure your dog has his tags on TOO, and when he gets loose (which happens to even the most responsible of owners), you HAVE to go out of your way to make sure that you’re looking for your dog at the shelter. If you have to get your neighbor who knows the dog to run by the shelter for you if you can’t due to work. For every GOOD shelter there’s a shitty one who’s barely following the rules….

    Reply
  9. Verjean

     /  January 28, 2015

    I would also add, that micro-chips are NOT infallible. They do stop working. They do migrate. A very well known blogger in the area that supports rescue once had an on-going heated debate with me about this very issue. So, the next time he took them to their yearly vet appointments, he asked the vet to scan their chips. And guess what…one stopped transmitting. He knew the chip was there…it couldn’t be read. It was kind of eye-opening. They are a lovely piece of technology…but not infallible. And then we have all the issues with differing manufacturers not willing to share proprietary information, so that a truly “universal” scanner is only a pipe-dream, and European chips don’t even read on most American scanners. Micro-chipping is a wonderful “tool”, and has helped reunite countless pets and owners. But it’s not, as Ruth said, the end-all of pet identification. I prefer tattooing, but most shelters do not look for tattoos, and although my dogs are smooth coated, tattooing is a poor choice for dogs with significant coat. A collar with the ID embedded or stitched directly on or INTO the collar, as long as the collar will break-away, if necessary…is probably the best choice. Along with a secondary method of ID…micro-chip or tattoo. I would also add that having a good relationship with your local shelter is also beneficial…so that they know you, and they know your dogs…but I realize that is a bit unrealistic.

    Reply
    • Verjean, You have had ample opportunity to make your positions clear so please refrain from commenting further on this post.

      Reply
    • You are making claims the shelter is not making. THEY are the ones saying they did not bother to scan the dog before killing her. They are not claiming, as you are attempting to, that the chip was not there or not working or not updated. The shelter says they did not bother to scan the dog before killing her because their scanner wasn’t working.

      The shelter didn’t even try. They just killed the dog because arranging for her to be scanned by a vet would be inconvenient and why bother.

      Everything else is excuse-making verbiage.

      Reply
    • Alice

       /  January 29, 2015

      This county refuses to adopt out Pitt/mixes to individuals. They only way for them to make it out alive is RTO and rescues pulling them. In FL, BSL is illegal in all cities/counties except Miami-Dade by law. I have *never* seen an AC with such asinine regulations that gives a damn about *any* animal in their “care”, much less a breed they clearly hate.

      She was wearing a collar. The sent it to the landfill with her. The owners had a tag on her when they left. Even if the tag had gone missing, she had on a collar. The last time I checked, dogs were not born wearing collars. That should have been a big freaking clue to check for a chip. But then, they would have to *gasp* do their damn jobs to check for one, wouldn’t they?

      Reply
  10. this just makes me weep.

    Reply

Speak!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: