Category Archives: Animal Control/Stray holding facilities

Articles pertaining to ACO/Stray holding facilities

Apology from Lost Dogs Illinois Director – Chicago Animal Care and Control Return to Owner Statistics

I had been under the understanding that Chicago Animal Care and Control Return to Owner actually meant “stray” return to owner.  Little did not I know it included other categories which CACC  considered return to owner.

This is my statement to the Commission members of Chicago Animal Care and Control on July 19th.

My name is Susan Taney, Director of Lost Dogs Illinois.  Lost Dogs Illinois is a not for profit organization that helps citizens find their lost dogs and Good Samaritans find lost dog’s owners but we also work with Animal Controls to increase their Return to Owner rate and decrease their stray intake.. We have typically defined Return to Owner as the percentage of stray or lost dogs who are brought in to CACC which are reunited with their owners.

I would first like to address the return to owner statistics. I’ll refer to it as RTO from here on in.  This year on CACC’s website I noticed that in the month of March the RTO statistics were split into categories:  strays that were reunited with their owner and other dogs that were returned to their owner for other reasons.  (to give you examples: dogs surrendered and the owner changed their mind or evictions or owner went to hospital so these were “return to owner” ). In all the discussions we had with CACC we assumed we were on the save wavelength and only referring to the strays that were reunited with their owners.  Also, I noticed that there was a whole new description about the live release rate and other definitions in regards to statistics.  With that in mind, the RTO statistics that I have reported to both CACC and the public have been wrong and are not as positive as I thought they were.  Never was there any indication with discussions with any of the  directors and staff that RTO included not only strays but the other categories I mentioned earlier, as well.

So I am going to now tell you the actual number of stray dogs reunited with their owners for three months in 2017 compared with what I wrote about on our website and Facebook page in which I gave praise to CACC for their stellar improvement.

June, 2017              45%               actual            33%

July, 2017                42%              actual            31%

August 2017          53%               actual            33%

I am very disappointed and disheartened about this discovery in regards  to the statistics.

Stray intake has been consistently been at 60%. Progressive animal controls are taking a hard look at stray intake on how to decrease it.  At the last commission meeting I attended, I made suggestions.

I don’t know who the new Director will be but I am truly hoping the new Director will try to fix the broken animal control system in Chicago with being a leader in the field which will expand to Cook County.Obviously the Live Release Rate has increased but the actual animal control system needs to be addressed, supported by the mayor and public and brought into the 21stcentury.

Thank you for your time.

Below listed are the actual statistic posted on the CACC’s website.

Below are the actual statistics that I FOIA’d.  What is FOIA? The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a United States federal law that grants the public access to information possessed by government agencies. Upon written request, U.S. government agencies are required to release information unless it falls under one of nine exemptions listed in the Act.  As a citizen you have the right to request information possessed by government agencies.

 

 

Just a reminder….. Rescues and Animal Shelters

On January 1,2016, a new Illinois law was passed to require what is necessary if a rescue, shelter or veterinary clinic  holds a stray animal.  We also confirmed this information with Dr. Mark Ernst, State Veterinarian.

The law is Animal Welfare Section (225 ILCS 605/3.6) of the Illinois State Statutes.

Sec. 3.6. Acceptance of stray dogs and cats.
(a) No animal shelter may accept a stray dog or cat unless the animal is reported by the shelter to the animal control or law enforcement of the county in which the animal is found by the next business day. An animal shelter may accept animals from: (1) the owner of the animal where the owner signs a relinquishment form which states he or she is the owner of the animal; (2) an animal shelter licensed under this Act; or (3) an out-of-state animal control facility, rescue group, or animal shelter that is duly licensed in their state or is a not-for-profit organization.

(b) When stray dogs and cats are accepted by an animal shelter, they must be scanned for the presence of a microchip and examined for other currently-acceptable methods of identification, including, but not limited to, identification tags, tattoos, and rabies license tags. The examination for identification shall be done within 24 hours after the intake of each dog or cat. The animal shelter shall notify the owner and transfer any dog with an identified owner to the animal control or law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which it was found or the local animal control agency for redemption.

Definition of animal shelter:

“Animal shelter” means a facility operated, owned, or maintained by a duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society, or other non-profit organization for the purpose of providing for and promoting the welfare, protection, and humane treatment of animals. “Animal shelter” also means any veterinary hospital or clinic operated by a veterinarian or veterinarians licensed under the Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act of 2004 which operates for the above mentioned purpose in addition to its customary purposes.

While we understand the reasoning for this law, it still creates a maze of holding facilities for an owner to find his/her lost dog. For example:  If I lost my dog in Chicago.  I would first check City of Chicago Animal Care and Control to see if my dog has been taken there but then I find out my dog could have been taken Animal Welfare League (there are two of them), Animal Care League, Paws Chicago, even some rescues,vet clinics and police dept. hold dogs.

Our solution is to use Pet FBI, a centralized database that Lost Dogs Illinois partners with.  www.petfbi.org  We recommend having a common login account that all of your staff share, allowing any of your staff to access private contact information for pet owners.

City of Chicago Animal Care and Control (CACC) Return to Owner Rate for Dogs is Steadily Improving.

For many years the CACC’s Return to Owner (RTO) rate for dogs was DISMAL. Six years ago we met with the then senior management staff to discuss what CACC could do to get more dogs home. It should be noted that 60% of the intake of CACC is stray dogs. That means many of these dogs are “owned”. These owned dogs need to go home; not have a new home or be euthanized.

Lost Dogs Illinois believed that by implementing the ideas suggested below, CACC would increase their Return to Owner Rates, reduce euthanasia and relieve pressure on the rescues that are carrying the burden to save lives. Slowly CACC started implementing the following suggestions (which we have noted in red) and this year the RTO for dogs has been over 40% (June – 45% and July 42%). Just think how many more dogs could be reunited if they implemented more of our suggestions.

  • Implement a Marketing Campaign to bring awareness to the public that your facility is where their lost pet has been taken. (Simply by having volunteers post flyers (other languages) in neighbor stores, etc.) Or place ads on Craigslist, newspapers, etc.
  • Develop a Volunteer Pet Detective or Lost Pet Recovery Team to do some of the following tasks listed below.
  • Use a dedicated email address for lost and found pets. Develop a lost pet report form on the website to enter information about lost and found pets. Use this to match against pets that are being held at other facilities or are posted on LDI, Craigslist or other internet sites.
  • Tracing dead end microchip and ID tags (Lost Dogs Illinois has volunteers who trace dead end tags and will train other shelter employees/volunteers) HAVE OFFERED
  • Door Greeter to help people with lost pets, post flyers on the board and give out lost pet information.
  • Use Helping Lost Pets as a centralized database. IMPLEMENTED
  • Volunteers can help individual lost dog families with lost dog recovery tips
  • Make sure any adopted dog or claimed dog leaves with an ID tag on a new collar. (Apply for an ASPCA Grant to receive an ID engraving machine) Research shows putting the tag on the collar when the dog leaves a facility increases the likelihood of a reunion. Research shows that more than 80% of Good Samaritans who find dogs want to find their owners. If the tags are not being attached to the collar it is defeating the purpose. IMPLEMENTED
  • Use AVMA Best Practices for Scanning for Microchips. WE HOPE
  • Implement Field redemptions by having scanners and computers on the trucks. If the dog does not have to come into the shelter there is less stress on the dog, staff, volunteers, and other dogs in the facility. This reduces euthanasia and makes more room for truly homeless dogs.
  • Negotiate or reduce fees so they are not punitive. IMPLEMENTED
  • Install a big flat screen TV in lobby for people to view the “found animals” that are being held. Many people have phobias about entering the wards. INSTALLED KIOSK IN LOBBY
  • Expand the hours of tours for stray wards.
  • Expand website to include different languages or install translator. Provide tips on how to find lost pets on the website.
  • Register microchip to the owner at implant. IMPLEMENTED
  • Use found dog signs at the location where a dog is picked up by field officers STARTED BUT STOPPED
  • Free or low cost microchip clinics along with ID tagging – HAVE BEEN DOING THIS

Update to the article – Welcome to the Cook County Animal Maze

 

In 2015, The Chicago Reader published an article entitled “Welcome to the Cook County Animal Maze”. The text of the article is reprinted below. We wanted to update our fans on our progress since then.

For the last two years, Lost Dogs Illinois has been using and promoting a centralized database called Helping Lost Pets (HeLP). LDI believes in the Power of One! If all of the entities used ONE centralized database it would make it much easier for lost pets to be reunited with their families. So far, only one stray holding facility in Cook County is using the HeLP system. That is the City of Chicago Animal Care and Control. The rest of the facilities do not use HeLP. The county remains a confusing patchwork of systems, with little to no cross-commuication between them. Some stray holding facilities, vet clinics and police departments post photos of impounded pets on Facebook or their websites. Some do not.

We are frustrated and disappointed that more facilities do not utilize HeLP. It is FREE and has numerous features to enable owners, finders, employees and volunteers to make “matches” between missing and found pets. Together we could help more dogs get back home to their rightful owner.

Welcome to the Cook County animal maze

A patchwork animal-control system with no central database has made Chicago and its environs a place where lost dogs stay lost. Animal lovers and Commissioner John Fritchey want to change that.

By Julia Thiel

Last November, a yellow lab named Harley escaped from the yard of his home in Garfield Ridge, near Midway. As they searched for him, Harley’s owners checked both Chicago Animal Care and Control and the Cicero facility Waggin’ Tails Animal Shelter, with no luck finding him.

But Harley had in fact been taken to Waggin’ Tails after his escape. From there he was transferred to the Animal Welfare League location in Chicago Ridge, which is where some volunteers with Trio Animal Foundation found him in early December. Chicago-based Trio pays medical bills for homeless pets, and the volunteers were looking for animals in need of help when they noticed a hematoma on one of Harley’s ears, both of which had become infected.

Bridgid Nolan, Trio’s medical and rescue director, says that despite his condition, it was immediately obvious that Harley was no stray but a lost pet. “He was way too good not to have been someone’s dog,” she says. “He was well mannered, incredibly calm and affectionate.” The Trio volunteers took him to the organization’s vet, who treated Harley and was the first to inform Nolan that the dog was microchipped.

Nolan got the information from the chip; the phone number was disconnected, but the address led them to Harley’s family, and soon after, Harley’s owners—a father and two young children—came to Trio’s facility to claim their pet. When Harley saw the family, Nolan says, “he jumped into the kid’s lap and started rolling around on his back. They were all on the ground in this joyous reunion pile.”

Still, the owner (who declined to be interviewed for this story) was “pretty frustrated.” Nolan says Harley was held by Waggin’ Tails for 14 days before being transferred to AWL, during which time a letter was supposed to have been sent to the address associated with the microchip. But not only had Harley’s owner failed to receive a letter, he’d gone to the shelter and been told that his dog wasn’t there.

Harley (and his owners) got lucky. But not all lost pets do, and Nolan says that Cook County’s lack of a centralized database to track recovered stray animals is a major part of the problem. “It’s a frustrating, dangerous situation,” she says. “Dogs get euthanized, cats get euthanized. They get transferred to rescue groups and then they’re adopted out. The whole system’s a bit of a mess here. I can barely navigate it sometimes, and I’ve been [working in the rescue community] for 11 years. For the general population, it’s super overwhelming. You have no idea what’s going on.”

There’s no question Cook County has a decentralized, patchwork system. Chicago Animal Care and Control, in Little Village, takes in all the animals impounded within the city limits. But in the suburbs, each municipality is responsible for its own animal control, and with 135 municipalities in Cook County, there are a lot of places where a lost animal could end up. Most municipalities contract with shelters like AWL or private facilities like animal hospitals to care for impounded animals. (Cicero and Evanston, which have their own facilities, are the exceptions.) Cook County Animal and Rabies Control is responsible for unincorporated areas and the Forest Preserve District (which together total 234 square miles, just short of a quarter of Cook County’s 945 square miles of land), but doesn’t have a facility of its own either; all stray animals impounded by CCARC—on average about 500 a year—go to the AWL shelter in Chicago Ridge. From there, unclaimed animals may be taken in by other shelters, adopted by individuals, or euthanized. Yet there’s nothing to help owners find their missing animals amid this sprawl.

Four years ago, Susan Taney started Lost Dogs Illinois to help people find their missing pets. She recalls an animal control director in central Illinois telling her, “Wow, you’re going to be surprised at Cook County. It’s a mess.”

That warning turned out to be true. “It’s a maze to find your lost dog,” Taney says. She doesn’t believe that the current system is efficient or effective, and points out that the CCARC website doesn’t even list the stray holding facilities used in Cook County (her nonprofit’s site, lostdogsillinois.org, does, in addition to hosting its own database of dogs that have been lost or found by individuals). “Dogs have four legs, they can’t read signs. They can’t tell what municipality they need to stay in,” she says. “We’ve had dogs found in Wisconsin.”

Last September, Dolton Animal Hospital, the facility the village of Dolton in Cook County contracts with to house its stray animals, was shut down after a police officer found four dead dogs, nine emaciated dogs, and a severely emaciated cat that later died. In the aftermath of the discovery, law student and animal rights advocate Sarah Hanneken started an online petition demanding that CCARC be held responsible for its handling of stray animals. In it, she questioned the department’s use of its $3.5 million budget, particularly the fact that the 24-person department has only six animal control wardens for all of Cook County.

Hanneken sent the petition, which ultimately collected more than 3,000 signatures, to all of the Cook County commissioners, and at the county’s public budget meeting in downtown Chicago last October, she and Taney each outlined their concerns about CCARC.

Cook County commissioner John Fritchey says that the issue was already on his radar—over the last couple years he’s received hundreds of complaints about CCARC. And he says that at the budget hearing Hanneken and Taney attended last fall, some of the answers given by Donna Alexander, CCARC’s director, “didn’t match up to some of the facts I had.” For example, he says, Alexander told him that someone is reachable 24 hours a day. But one evening during the 2014 polar vortex, Fritchey got a call about dogs being left outside in West Town and tried to contact CCARC. It took him several tries to reach anyone, and “when I did, I was told that nothing could be done until the next day, there was nobody they could put me in touch with and nothing they could do,” he says.

“A number of questions [have been] raised about their budget, how they’re using their resources, salaries,” Fritchey says. And “I’ve had multiple instances where routine requests for information from my office to the department have been treated as Freedom of Information requests,” he adds. “That in itself raises red flags to me, and sets a very bad tone.”

In January, Fritchey asked Patrick Blanchard, the Cook County inspector general, to conduct an operations review of CCARC, which is currently under way. (Because the investigation is ongoing, Blanchard was not able to comment.)

“The Dolton case is one example of what’s wrong with the system,” Fritchey says. “It did not involve a facility that the county contracts with. But if we provided our services better, there’d be no need or opportunity for something like that to happen.”

“Dogs can’t read signs. They can’t tell what municipality they need to stay in. We’ve had dogs found in Wisconsin.”—Susan Taney of Lost Dogs Illinois

Fritchey thinks that, in addition to improving animal-control services, Cook County should operate its own shelter or shelters, centralizing the animals currently impounded by CCARC and municipal authorities. For examples of models to follow, he points to Los Angeles County, the only one in the U.S. with a greater population than Cook County’s (it has six shelters), as well as Arizona’s Maricopa County and Miami-Dade County, which are both larger than Cook County in square miles. “There’s no question it’s feasible,” he says.

Asked about CCARC’s responsibilities and goals, department spokesman Frank Shuftan (who said he’d collaborated with Alexander, CCARC’s director, on the e-mailed answers) emphasized rabies control: “The department’s main goal is to protect the public health from rabies and other diseases transmitted from animals to people through vaccination, registration and education.” (This is essentially identical to the mission stated on its website.) The e-mail addressed the spaying and neutering of pets, but discussed stray animal control only in relation to the training in animal control techniques that CCARC provides for Cook County municipalities.

That’s because in the department’s view the present system making each municipality responsible for its own animal control is the most efficient one. “Strays are most easily apprehended by local animal control or properly trained law enforcement who are familiar with the terrain and who can be deployed rapidly due to proximity,” wrote Shuftan. Moreover, CCARC maintains, placing lost animals in shelters close to their homes increases reunification rates with owners: “Best practice holds that a centrally located facility does not increase owner and animal reunification as well as locally based housing.”

As for a central, searchable database, CCARC’s reply again focused on rabies: the department’s discussed creating a password-protected one to allow law enforcement officials to access rabies tag records, but it’s a “technical and capital issue” that hasn’t come to fruition, Shuftan said. He didn’t address the question of creating a database of animals impounded by CCARC that, like Lost Dogs Illinois’s, is publicly accessible.

Fritchey, who owns a rescue dog himself, doesn’t think the “technical and capital issues” CCARC refers to are necessarily insuperable. He points out that Cook County has quite a few buildings that are currently standing empty; it might be possible to retrofit one as a shelter. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re able to do that for less money than we’re spending now, with better results,” he says.

“If Cook County wants to say, hey, we are doing what we are supposed to do under the law, OK—that’s fine,” he adds. “But just following the law doesn’t meant that you’re doing things right. Can’t we do this better, even if we need to make legislative changes to do it?” Fritchey realizes that, especially in the midst of city and state budget crises, he may be criticized for focusing on animal control, but shrugs that off too. “When you look at animal welfare issues, it’s not just about the animals, it’s about the owners and families they came from,” he says. “People care about this issue. It’s not a frivolous issue.

“There’s few people I like better than my dog,” he adds, “so this is an easy one for me.”

Reprinted from The Chicago Reader

 

 

Why is Cook County Animal and Rabies Control a Secret?

 

Two years ago, Cook County Commissioner John Fritchey requested an audit by its Inspector General of Cook County Animal and Rabies Control (CCARC).   Eight months later on August 21, 2014, Cook County Inspector General Pat Blanchard presented the summary of Operational Review of the Department of CCACC. This was just a 15-page summary of an 80 page report.

On September 25, 2015, Lost Dogs Illinois’s (LDI) director filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the President of the Cook County Board and the office of the Cook County Inspector General (IG) to receive the full and complete Operational Review of the CCARC from which the summary was prepared. The LDI Director was denied the full and complete report by the Inspector General’s office. The President’s office said they did not have the complete report in their possession. The LDI Director then filed for a review of the denial to the Attorney General’s Public Access Officer. The Public Access Officer upheld the denial.

On December 8, 2015, the LDI Director along with a LDI adviser, met with Martha Martenez, Cook County’s Director of Administration, who oversees the department of Cook County Animal and Rabies Control. A discussion was had concerning several issues and solutions in regard to the report.

A year after the IG released the Summary Report, the LDI Director made another FOIA request of the Cook County Board President’s Office and the Inspector General’s office to find out the outcome of all the recommendations in the report. Both sent back denials. The LDI Director then sent a request for review of the denial to the Public Access Officer who then contacted the President’s office. After several contacts, the President’s office sent the Public Access officer the 10/2015 letter that was sent to the Inspector General’s office (standard 90 day follow-up letter).

It has been two years since Commissioner John Fritchey asked for a complete study of CCARC. It took the IG department 8 months to do this operational review. Nothing has really changed.

Lost Dogs Illinois believes in change for the better for Cook County residents and their pets.   As stated by our Director at the Cook County Commissioner’s Budget Committee meeting (11/3/2016) “I am not discounting the importance of rabies and public safety but I really believe it is time to reexamine the mission of this Department and reorganize CCARC to provide better services. Cook County is the 2nd largest county in the US, we should be proud to offer an efficient way for owners get their loved family members back.”

We also would to state that according to the Fiscal Year 2017 Preliminary Budget – Special Purpose Fund Outlook Cook County is showing approximately $8.6 million fund in the Special Purpose Fund. What is the purpose of the fund and how is it helping Cook County residents and their four legged family members?

If you are as concerned about this issue as we are, please contact your Cook County Commissioner. You can find out who your Commissioner is by clicking on the link below.  Tell them that you want an Animal Control Department, which better serves the community and their pets.

List of Cook County Commissioners

Further reading

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is Now or Never

Where Oh Where Could My Lost Dog Be Held in Cook County

Part-2 – Where Oh Where Could My Lost Dog Be Held In Cook County

Inspector General Report Cook County Animal and Rabies Control

Action Alert – It is Now or Never

Action Alert – Cook County animal and Rabies Control

Bowser, come home – Why lost pets stay lost in Cook County – Chicago Tribune Editorial Board

Chicago Reader – Welcome to the Cook County Animal Maze

Follow-Up – Cook County Commissioner’s Budget Meeting – November 2015

Follow-up Meeting with Cook County President’s Staff

 

 

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lizzie’s Story – Persistent Owner Finds Her Dog Despite Dysfunctional Animal Control System in Cook County, Illinois

Lizzie’s story as told by her owner…..

My dog was gone for 5 days and authorities still took money from me even though they never had her.

14009841_10207136467791694_1464311352_n

Lizzie before she went missing.

Last Wednesday-Around 2:40 – I let my 2 dogs outside in our backyard to go to the bathroom before I went to work. The gate was closed and there was nothing to worry about.

At 2:43 – I went out to see if they were done and the front gate was slightly open. I freaked out and went to the yard to find our family’s oldest dog there but my other dog was missing. I went inside to get my little brother and he walked around the neighborhood while I drove around. We didn’t see her anywhere. We thought she would be where we usually goes on walks but we couldn’t find her in any yard and nobody had seen her.

At 2:53 – I called my mom. She told me to go to work and my brother and dad would find her. I was stressing out and I could barely work without crying my eyes out.

At 5:30, -my boss let me go on a 2 1/2 lunch to see if I could find her because my dad and brother weren’t able to yet. I knew that they looked on every block in Broadview.   So I decided to head to Broadview Police station and give them my dog’s information. I then went home and called the microchip company to report her missing and to make sure all my contact information is correct because she didn’t have a collar on since she was going to take a bath that day. I then went to go search Maywood since we live 2 blocks away.

Around 6:50 – I was driving down 10th avenue in Maywood when I saw a group of men. I asked if they had seen a black dog and they said they saw a dog that was black with brown stripes walking down 10th. I called my dad and started going block to block to see if I could find her. I didn’t have any luck and I got nervous and wondered if she went on the highway. I checked the other side of the highway and saw two Cook County sheriff officers. I told them what happened and if they received a call for a dog. They told me that they don’t receive those calls, but if Maywood finds her they have a scanner so she would be brought home the same day if they scanned her.

At 7:14, – I registered her on helpinglostpets.com after my mom gave me the website.

At 7:32 – I called my dad and told him my progress and he said that they will go and search Maywood. I went back to work

At 10:38 – I messaged Lost Dogs Illinois and told them what happened. They said to fill out the sheet, which I did and her post went on their page. I finished work at midnight and I still didn’t have my little girl.

Thursday- 11:30 – I started my extreme search to all shelters around the neighborhood. My first call was to Animal Care League in Oak Park. They stated that they receive dogs from River Forest, Oak Park, Forest Park, and North Riverside so if she went in those areas they would have her. I gave the lady my information and Lizzies chip number and hoped she would be found. They told me to call the police stations to see where they brought dogs if they were lost. Broadview and Maywood takes their found dogs to Broadview Animal Hospital.

At 11:43 -I called Broadview Animal Hospital. They said they never received my dog but if she was found, they have a microchip scanner and I would be called.

At 2:51 – I called the Forest Park police station before work. They said they never received a dog but if they did they would take the dog to Animal Care League.

At 2:53, I called Melrose Park Police and they stated that the only dog they have is a small brown male dog. I gave them Lizzie’s information

On my lunch break at 7:00, I drove around Maywood and to see if anyone else saw her and no one did. Went to bed around midnight without Lizzie girl

Friday-At 8:00 am – I went on a walk through Maywood and these two men told me to call Maywood Animal Control. I tried and couldn’t get a hold of them.

At 11:42 – I called The Code Enforcement Department and the lady at the front desk named Karyn said that she would have animal control call me back because he was in court.

At 2:00 – everyone was telling me to call them back so I did and no one was answering. I then called 8 times from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. and never had anyone answer.

At 4:00 – I told my dad that we needed to go to the village hall because I didn’t feel right and no one was calling me. We arrived around 4:17 and the lady at the front desk yelled at the animal control man for not calling me after she gave him my number to update me. He showed me a picture of Lizzie and asked if it was my dog and I said YES! And he went to the radio to ask if the dog is at the Broadview Animal Hospital and the man said that there is a pitbull at the hospital not a retriever and the man looked confused and asked again if that was my dog and I said yes and she is not a pitbull. “Trust me I have a pitbull at home.” He then told me I had to fill out release papers and pay a 65 dollar fee for 2 days that she was in the Hospital. He stated that a family found her on 7th avenue on the 1900 block and she let 4 little kids surround her and pet her. I filled the paperwork out, paid the cashier and my dad and I went to the animal hospital.

At 4:53 – we arrived and no one was there. We called the number and nobody picked up so we called back to the code enforcement (which close at 5) at 4:54 and no one picked up so I had to wait another day to go pick up Lizzie.

Saturday -The day we finally thought we were going to have her. I worked 7-4 that day, but I asked my manager if I could take an early lunch to pick her up at 9:00 when it opens and he allowed me. My parents and I arrived at 9:04. They opened at 9:00 and no one was there. The lights were on so we thought someone had to be there. I called them 8 times, then I called the village hall which was closed.

A man finally came in and made me fill out paperwork for 30 minutes and he went to the back to get the dog. He brought out a small black dog and a pitbull. Neither were my dog. We showed him a picture and he stated that he never seen that dog and he doesn’t know “why the hell they made you pay”. He instructed us to go to the police department to see what happened and we went over there. The dispatch said they have nothing to do with this and we would have to wait for animal control to go back to work on Monday.

I had to go back to work, so my parents dropped me off and went back. The man showed them the intake records they keep and no dog was received from the location they told me. He told my parents that Maywood has sent multiple families there searching for dogs that has never been there but this is the only time that he has ever seen someone pay for a dog that they didn’t have. They went to Animal Care League and looked at the dogs and didn’t see her.

At 2:57 – I called North Riverside police and they never caught a dog.

At 3:02 – I called Berwyn police and they also had not seen or gotten a call about a dog.

The rest of the day we were watching the Facebook pages hoping someone would see her and driving around the neighborhoods to try and get a glimpse of her. We had a close family friend print out flyers that someone made for us and we posted them on the poles of the street she was found and put a flyer of each of the houses mailbox or door hoping someone would call to tell us what happened.

The man at the Broadview Animal Hospital called the cops, which said that an Officer named Guzman answered the call for Lizzie. Someone on Facebook found his number. We called and left a message. Many people emailed other officials including the mayor of Maywood. No one received a message back. My mom went to the police station to talk to a Sgt. Fairley and he said that it is not his problem.

Many people were sharing and giving advice (which we thank) and we had my friends and others posting on news channels such as WGN, ABC, FOX, and NBC. My mom even emailed those said news stations to see if they can help

We started to run out of options. We contacted media, posted on Facebook, talked to unwilling police officers in Maywood and the only thing we had left was to go to the village hall to demand my dog back as well as my money

A few people told us to look at the Bellwood shed to see if she was there and we decided to go over there. The only dog they had was a pitbull who was very excited to see us.

The rest of the day I planned out what I was going to say because I wanted to be as calm as I could be to receive my dog without any problems.

Monday at 8:30 – my dad and I went to the village hall. Everyone looked at us confused as to why we were there. I looked an officer in the face and said “my dog was not at the animal hospital.” He went to the back and asked what happened.   He came over to me and stated that she was not taken to the animal hospital. The front desk lady said ‘Oh yea! Guzman, you couldn’t take the dog right? Because you didn’t have the truck” In which he replied that he was instructed to leave the dog.

The officers went to the house where they left her at with my dad and my dad showed the family the flyer that was on their door and they were saying “Oh yea that’s the dog we found.” They gave her away to someone in Melrose Park because they have 2 small dogs.

I was told I would receive a phone call which I did at 9:34 a.m. which was from the family that originally found the dog. They said they called code enforcement 3 times and no one answered so he told me the man’s number and said that the man gets off at 5 so we could get the dog then

I went to the code enforcement to get my refund and they stated that they were going to the man’s house at 5:30 to get the dog and that they would bring her home

I went again at 11:00 to see what was going on with my refund and they said it would come on Friday. I asked if I could go with to get my dog because I didn’t trust them and they said they don’t allow people to meet because something could go wrong. (This doesn’t make sense because they asked if we wanted to go with to the family that had her and gave us their address). A man pulled me in his office and apologized and stated that someone should have picked up Lizzie and dropped her off at the animal hospital. He said he had a meeting with everyone to see what happened but didn’t give me any details.

At 5:00 – I received a call from a teenager stating that we needed to meet earlier because they have other things to do then watch over a dog and to pay up because they took care of the dog.

Right after, I called the Maywood police and they stated that it is not their problem because it now involves Melrose Park police. I told them that it actually does involve them because it was their code enforcement that screwed up in the first place and they were the ones picking her up. He said that he can’t help and there’s nothing he can do.

I received a call from the code enforcement at 5:30 and they said they had the dog outside. I went out and Lizzie was finally home.

At 9:14, I received a call from the man that pulled me in his office and he wanted to make sure his employees dropped my dog off.

Lizzie is now back at home and so happy. We appreciate everyone that posted about her and helped us along the way because it kept me sane. What Maywood did  not go unnoticed and I hope that this doesn’t happen to another family. Thank you so much and hug your fur babies a little tighter tonight because you never know what can happen.

14137728_10207170540843499_13220557_n

Lizzie is HOME!

From Lost Dogs Illinois…..

Many long time fans and supporters have read our numerous blogs about how dysfunctional the system is in Cook County.

To refresh your memories, here they are the blogs:

Where Oh Where Could My Lost Dog Be Held In Cook County.

Part 2 – Where Oh Where Could My Lost Dog Be Held in Cook County

Inspector General Report – Cook County Animal and Rabies Control

Browser Come Home – Why Lost Pets Stay Lost in Cook County – Chicago Tribune Editorial Board

Action Alert – Cook County Animal and Rabies Control

Follow-up – Cook County Commissioners Budget Meeting – November 3, 2015

Follow -up on LDI’s meeting with the Mayor’s staff and Cook County’s President’s staff

Knowledge is POWER!   YOUR Taxes and Fees pay the government officials and employees. What the government seems to forget that these are loved family members and they should be doing everything possible to reunite “found” dogs with their owners.

 

 

 

Chicago Pets Benefiting from New ID Tag Engraver at Chicago Animal Care and Control

Misty getting her new tag.  Her family being reunited with Misty

Misty getting her new tag. Her family being reunited with Misty

Chicago Animal Care and Control took one giant leap for petkind recently by adding a high-tech ID tag-engraving machine to its shelter facilities.

CACC Administrative Services Officer Susan Cappello said the non-profit group, Friends of Chicago Animal Care and Control, donated a VIP Pet ID tag machine to the shelter in January 2016.

“The Pet ID Tag machine will be used to provide free pet ID tags to all customers who adopt a new pet, find their lost pet, and attend our monthly low-cost pet vaccine clinic,” Cappello told Lost Dogs Illinois via email. “In less than one week of use, CACC made over 10 tags already to new or existing pet owners.”

Cappello added that CACC’s next low-cost vaccine clinic will be held Feb. 17 and that “[W]e plan to provide a pet ID tag to every customer” that day.

Providing pets with ID tags can help shelters reduce overcrowding. A 2010 study conducted by The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals suggested that pet ID tags containing owner contact information make it easier for people to help get that animal home should it become lost. That allows a shelter to direct its resources to supporting true homeless pets.

ID tag and collar

ID tag and collar

“Having a microchip is a great safety measure for emergencies or if the pet loses a tag or collar,” Dr. Emily Weiss, vice president of shelter research and development for the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals told New York Times blogger Tara Parker-Pope in 2011. “But an ID tag is the simplest, easiest way to assure your pet is going to get home.”

Chicago Animal Care and Control strongly recommends that all pet owners microchip and obtain a collar and tag for their pets, Cappello said.

Cats that get lost are nine times more likely to be reunited with their owner if they arrive at a shelter with a collar and tag or microchip,” Cappello emphasized.  “Dogs are five times more likely to be returned home to their owner if they have a collar and tag or microchip.

“If your pet gets lost and is found by our shelter, we will research the tag and microchip information and contact you as soon as possible,” Cappello said. “Collars with identification are your pets’ fastest ticket back to you should they become lost.”

Joliet ID machine 5.2015

Engraving an ID tag at Joliet Township Animal Control

CACC joins Joliet Township Animal Control as two major Northern Illinois municipal animal control programs now offering ID tags as part of the adoption/retrieval package. JTAC, which serves Joliet, Joliet Township, Crest Hill and Rockdale, used part of a $20,000 grant awarded it by The Petco Foundation, in partnership with Natural Balance Pet Foods, to purchase its machine in March 2015.

ILresearch

Thank you Lydia Rypcinski for writing this article!

 

 

 

Follow-up on LDI’s meeting w/the Mayor’s staff and Cook County President’s staff

Wally

Update on December 18th Meeting with Rosa Escareno, Deputy Chief Operating Officer, City of Chicago, Office of the Mayor.

LDI’s Director, Susan Taney and Kathy Pobloskie, LDI advisor, along with five members from Advocates for Chicagoland Animals and Chicago Rescue Round table, were asked to meet with Rosa to discuss what we felt was needed to hire an Executive Director for Chicago Animal Care and Control. Rosa said the Mayor had received our petition, calls and letters from Chicago residents for a nationwide search for the new ED. An ad has been posted on three national websites with applications closing January 11, 2016. We were very pleased with the meeting. We want to thank everyone who took the time to sign the Advocates for Chicagoland Animals petition or called their aldermen and the Mayor. They heard us.

The second meeting that day was with Martha Martenez, Cook County’s Director of Administration, who oversees the department of Cook County Animal and Rabies Control. We discussed the following:

  • Encouraged Cook County Animal and Rabies Control to use reasonable priced microchips which includes registration. Profits from these sales could provide low cost or free microchip clinics for under served areas.
  • Search for grants to help fund these types of clinics. Gave them names of organizations that may have available grants.
  • Encouraged the County to use Helping Lost Pets, a free national map based database, since there are multiple stray holding facilities in Cook County and Chicago
  • Gave them our municipality listing for Cook County animal holding facilities.
  • Asked that they add Lost Dogs Illinois to their website as a resource.
  • Asked for the copy of the ordinance saying that rabies tag monies have to be spent towards rabies education, etc.
  • Asked what the plans are for the surplus of money for CCAC.  As of 2015 that was approximately $8 million.
  • We were told that CCAC are working with the Cook County Sheriff’s department.

We, at LDI, hope to continue a working relationship with Cook County and CACC.

 

 

 

Chicago Animal Care and Control commission Meeting – November 19, 2015

142631079_de9877ddfa

We, at Lost Dogs Illinois, feel it is important to keep you informed on how we are trying to support our mission is reuniting lost dogs with their owners.

Last Thursday (November 19, 2015) our Director attended the open meeting of the Commission (advisory board)  for the City of Chicago Animal Care and Control. She read the following statement:

Since 2012 through the end of September 2015, over 70,000 animals have passed through the doors of CACC.   Approximately 4,400 were adopted; 5,400 were returned to owner and 37,000 were transferred to rescues. 24,000 were killed. What is wrong with this picture?

The management staff of CACC has been so concerned with increasing their live release rate that they have done this at the expense of owned family pets and rescues. Rescues are doing the heavy lifting. Many of these rescues volunteers are paying taxes to support CACC while they are funding their rescue organizations and volunteering their time to take care of these animals..

Many progressive animal controls have over a 50% return to owner rate for dogs and 9-13% RTO for cats. Many of these owned dogs and cats at CACC are being adopted out, transferred to other shelters and rescues or killed.

These same progressive animal controls have adoption programs and promote adoption events to find homes for the homeless.

Creating programs to keep animals in their homes and out of shelters reduces shelter intake. Preserving the owner/animal bond should be at the heart and soul of every animal shelter’s core mission

It is time for the City of Chicago to hire a Director who will implement progressive, proven programs like a lost pet recovery and viable adoption program including an intervention program to keep animals in their homes.

Illinois is ranked number one in animal protection laws in the US even though Chicago, a world-class city, is lagging way behind in saving lives and keeping animals in their homes.

One final note: Chicago’s shelters are rich in cash assets. I understand that it is good business practice to have a surplus and that some assets are locked in.  BUT when the three largest shelters have over $100 million in assets. Doesn’t it make sense to collaborate with CACC to offer free microchip events to Chicago residents, develop programs to keep animals in their homes, and to help with CACCs adoption program. I hope common sense will prevail to save lives.

photo credit: sue and flora via photopin (license)

ASPCA’s Position Statement on Shelter Responsibilities Regarding Lost Pets

IMG_1098

The ASPCA has recently released a Position Statement on Responsibilities of Animal Shelters. We are very pleased that they have put a high emphasis on shelter transparency and proactively reuniting lost pets with their families.

Below are some excerpts from this Position Statement. Does your local shelter or stray holding facility do these things? We would like to see American shelters and stray holding meet these standards and feel that there is a need for legislation to enforce them.  Please discuss these items with your state legislators and ask that they be mandated for all American shelters and stray holding facilities.

Goal 3: Owned animals are quickly and reliably returned to their owners

A. Shelters must check for ID, including microchips, tattoos, etc., at the time of intake.  Checking animals for identification at the time of intake should be required by law of all animal shelters, public and private. The administrative burden associated with this requirement is minimal compared to the benefits of quickly reuniting animals with their owners. This requirement should be extended to owner-surrendered animals, as the information concerning ownership of a micro-chipped animal can confirm current ownership, shed light on possibility that other owners may exist, and must be updated regardless in the event of a subsequent adoption.

B. Shelters must serve notice to identified owners of stray animals, and the hold times for stray animals must account for mail delivery. Even in 2015, the U.S. Mail continues to represent the method by which many, if not most, people receive communications from local government, utility companies, financial institutions, the courts, etc. Thus, the mail represents a relatively reliable means of communication, and while other means of contacting owners are encouraged, shelters should be required to serve notice to identified owners by mail, regardless of other methods of communication that might be attempted. In order to provide owners with a meaningful opportunity to reclaim their animals, stray animal hold times should be of sufficient length to account for the additional time that notice by mail requires.

C. Shelters must provide public notice, appropriate to the community, of stray animals entering the shelter.  Shelters have an obligation to give notice to the community of stray pets that enter their facilities in order to assist and facilitate the return of those pets to their owners. While online postings, whether on a shelter’s website or other web platforms, have become commonplace, this may still not be feasible for all shelters. Thus, the form this notice should take may vary by community. Nevertheless, notice that is reasonably calculated to reach community members should be required of all shelters accepting stray animals.

D. Shelters must provide clear notice to the public concerning shelter locations, hours, fees and the return-to-owner process.  The ASPCA strongly supports requiring the provision of this information to the public. Where possible, it should be available on a shelter’s website, but certainly, information regarding fees and the return-to-owner process should be available in written form at the shelter itself.

E. Shelters must establish a reasonable process for matching stray animals admitted to the shelter with reports of lost pets received by the shelter from owners.  The ASPCA supports a requirement that shelters establish and publicize a reasonable process for helping stray pets return to owners in search of them. The most effective approaches will include a process for monitoring lost pet reports for possible matches with stray animals admitted to the shelter. However, because the appearance of an animal may change significantly while lost, or information provided in lost pet reports may be incomplete or inaccurate, the ASPCA believes that shelters should provide clear notice to owners searching for their lost pets that there is no substitute for visiting the shelter in person.

F. Shelters must be accessible to the public during reasonable hours for the return-to owner process.  The ASPCA supports a requirement that shelters be accessible during reasonable hours to owners seeking to reclaim their pet. These hours should include some reasonable additional period of time beyond the typical workday (e.g. 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday) so that pet owners who may not have flexible work schedules have the best opportunity to reclaim their pets. What constitutes “reasonable” access depends on factors including the length of the hold period, the nature of the community, e.g., urban, suburban, rural, and the resources of the shelter.

G. Shelters should be authorized and encouraged to reduce or waive redemption fees.  For the reasons discussed above in relation to adoption and placement, the ASPCA supports the granting of specific authorization for shelters to reduce or waive fees to owners seeking to reclaim their pets and encourages shelters to regularly and consistently use this tool to reunite more pets with their families.

H. Return-to-owner from the field should be expressly authorized.  The ASPCA strongly supports legal authorization of return-to-owner from the field for animals with identification. This practice not only reduces burdens on shelters, but it straightforwardly accomplishes the goal of quick and reliable return.