Dallas Pound Tries Out a “You Think You Hate Us Now? Just Wait!” Stance

When the public won’t stop clamoring for their public animal shelter to do the job they’re paying them for, the only reasonable thing to do is punish the public.  That’s the approach the long-troubled Dallas pound is taking in a briefing posted this week to the city’s website.  Among the proposed punishments:

  • Slap pet owners who fail to license, fail to keep a rabies tag on their pets at all times, or fail at some other horrible thing with criminal fines and civil fines.  If they can’t pay, sue them.
  • Impound pets belonging to anyone who hasn’t gotten them neutered and hasn’t bought a special permit.
  • Eliminate holding period protections for cats picked up outdoors.
  • Eliminate holding period protections for dogs picked up from areas “with high incidence of injury by animals”.
A dog for adoption at Dallas Animal Services, as shown on PetFinder.

What’s that you say?  You are a taxpayer and if your cat or dog gets lost and impounded by Dallas Animal Services, you want the chance to reclaim him and you don’t want pound staff disposing of him as they see fit before you even get home from work?

You don’t see how increasing impounds and breaking up families by imposing hefty fines many owners won’t be able to pay qualifies as “sheltering”?

You sound like a troublemaker.  We have punishments for you.

DAS killed more than 9000 dogs last year.  But don’t worry, that’s “the hard part of the job.”  I guess thinking up ways to increase intake and take pets out of homes is the easy part.  Good going DAS.

(Thanks Nathan.)



19 thoughts on “Dallas Pound Tries Out a “You Think You Hate Us Now? Just Wait!” Stance

  1. Just… arg.

    What kind of people do this? And why do we keep paying them money to do it?

  2. “ Current Situation
     The City has engaged Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in an
    11-week project to create a city-wide Strategic Plan
     Comprehensive analysis of issues and come up with recommendations based on best practices”
    gee I wonder how much that will cost the taxpayers ? “current situation// yea sure is rather snafu ( situation normal all fucked up) is more like it

  3. For now, under the current city ordinances, it would be illegal to impound an animal for failure to spay or neuter, or have the appropriate “intact” license. It is citation and fine only. However, since one of the proposals on the table includes looking at whether Dallas Animal Services should remain under Code Compliance in the City’s organizational structure, should they become a stand-alone entity…not covered by city ordinance…I guess they could make whatever rules they wish. And impounding your animals for failure to spay/neuter or obtaining the proper license is on the table…directly from the proposal:
     Possible Enhancement
     Impound animals for failure to sterilize, instead of issuing citations
     Over 80% of animal attacks involve unsterilized male dogs

  4. Didn’t realize Dallas was a Mandatory S/N area. And at least they admit that they need to add options for low-no cost s/n in order to increase compliance. But seriously, how do they not realize that that’s just not the solution to the problem?? Impounding an animal that someone can’t afford to neuter, and then charging them fines, that they also can’t afford, just results in yet ANOTHER dog in the shelter system, which results in ANOTHER dog put down, and the owners will likely just go down the road to the guy on the corner with puppies and get another…..

    Its all an education problem anyway. Its entirely possible to own an intact dog or cat and not allow them to reproduce randomly and keep them from causing problems. It just takes education of the owners. Spend that money on community outreach and education instead of some fancy consulting firm.

    1. Dallas has been a MANDATORY spay/neuter city since 2008…with some “exceptions” which require annual permitting.
      Once Dallas went MSN in 2008, almost ALL surrounding communities did as well. Most with fairly resasonable exemptions (i.e. Plano…) but a few became far more draconian…Garland, for example. They have a ZERO tolerance policy… While they do offer “intact” registration for pets in Garland, they have a ZERO tolerance redemption policy. If your dog is impounded for any reason, even with an “intact” registration, you will be forced to sterilize or be cited. I learned this when my show/performance dog escaped from his handler on his way to a competition. I was aware that most communities here had gone MSN with exemptions…but learned of Garland’s policy when I visited shelters to make them aware of my dog’s loss, in case that particular jurisdiction should pick him up. I was told if he was impounded, that there is no choice. He would have to be sterilized. NO exceptions. Per the City Council. Or a warrant would be issued for my arrest, and I could talk to the judge about it. Talk about great customer service and support for a citizen who was already an emotional mess…

      1. I have to admit that I’m not surprised, unfortunately. The manager of a local shelter here was quoted in a local news story stating to the effect that everyone with an intact dog should be required to carry paperwork with them, at all times, showing that they’re allowed to own an intact dog, and that cops should be able to stop you and check your dog’s paperwork……..and we’re NOT a Mandatory S/N area!

  5. What are they thinking? Or not thinking at all? 9000 dead dogs and probably twice as many cats. “Win-win” for Dallas because they get money and don’t have to spend any to take care of dead animals. Our local county animal control gets huge redemption fees and I believe they are more interested in bringing in the big bucks than taking care of any animal. Sometimes I think we are moving backward.

  6. The year AFTER MSN went into effect in Dallas (2008) the Animal Services budget was submitted asking for a 10% increase to cover the cost of the increase of impounds and care. So much for reducing strays. And eight years later, the problem of strays in the southern sector of the city is the same as it ever was, with attacks by feral packs pretty much a constant threat…even resulting in the death of a Dallas resident earlier this year when she was attacked by a pack of dogs. That had been reported to the city SEVERAL times. So yeah…it’s working well.

  7. Well, I disagree on eliminating holding period protections for cats picked up outdoors; and/or
    eliminate holding period protections for dogs picked up from areas “with high incidence of injury by animals and Impounding pets belonging to anyone who hasn’t gotten them neutered and hasn’t bought a special permit. The main problem I have is euthanizing these animals, before they can be saved by their owners; and the ones with high incidence of injury by animals then they should be placed in insolation until they are known to be dangerous to all. There are way to many dogs and cats euthanized; we should be cutting back not euthanizing more. Also, I am all for placing penalties if pets aren’t spayed or neutered.

  8. Should owners not be able to make the decision as to whether or not to spay or neuter or keep intact? There are plenty of “incentives” for the public to spay or neuter, and for many it is the right decision…but for government to “mandate” an invasive surgical procedure is unwarranted and unconstitutional. We will have to agree to disagree. And since that is not the topic at hand, I will pursue it no further.

    1. Well, I certainly don’t want government to mandate an invasive surgical procedure as agree on State mandate, such as Dallas, because right now there are too many animals running around that are not S/N! So much for that, just dislike innocent animals being euthanized! I am done with this subject!

      1. We all agree that s/n is a good idea. The difference is how you implement it. Education, access to services, low cost/free services vs. laws and fines. Carrot vs. stick.

        The stick means that more animals die. The carrot means that you get what you want and give people the opportunity to do the right thing – which most of them want to do, anyway, if they have the tools they need to do it.

  9. I’m wondering, though, about the dogs picked up in areas with “high incidence of injury by animals.” Does this maybe mean that the dogs are getting attacked by raccoons and coyotes, and they don’t want the dogs to go back there because they might be injured? Considering how little the shelter seems to care about the dogs’ welfare, this may be yet another excuse.

    1. No, they mean injuries to people by animals. They don’t feel a need to excuse the killing or even pretend to be interested in the welfare of the animals…

      1. Municipal sheltering and animal control is all about protecting people from animals. That is why so called humane societies should never take on municipal contracts for animal control, because it’s a complete conflict of interest.

  10. i would say un-freakin-believable, but then again this is the same people who allowed a cat to slowly die within the “shelter’s” own walls. They listened to her cry for days stuck in the wall and only decided to break into the wall to free her AFTER she died and was stinking up their break room. But hey, “we all want the same thing”, right? That’s what all the No Kill naysayers keep claiming.

  11. get rid of these cold blooded human beast with black souls and hearts,put them out on their butts,killing is not right thing to do,killing is way too easy for so…many twisted garbage human beings.Humans who care about these animals should be ones making better choices for them,killing is the very last resort,sounds though these people are in capable of working hard to avoid killing,so get them out of animals arms legnth

  12. Can the writer start a petition? Just like this writer’s voice and it would make sense for the petition to start here. I’ve posted the story on my neighborhoods social media network and and would be happy to share with all of my friends in rescue in the Dallas area for their signature.

Leave a Reply