Observations of veterinarians workinq in Franklin County Animal Shelter

For Confidential Internal Review

April 1oth2007

Franklin County Dog Shelter offers the conventional services of a dog shelter, and in addition housesveterinary surgical and medical services that are staffed by senior veterinary students, under thesupervision of veterinarians associated with The Ohio State University. These clinical rotations are a vitalcomponent of the veterinary curriculum and contribute greatly to the preparation of the students for aveterinary career. Student evaluations of the FCDS experience are uniformly outstanding.

Recent events at FCDS, including a high rate of turnover of veterinarians, loss of the OSU clinicalrotation in shelter medicine, and loss of the FCDS animal behavior department, have raised significantconcerns. In order to identify factors that have contributed to the dissolution of these veterinary programs,we invited veterinarians with recent experience of the Franklin County Dog Shelter to comment on theirexperiences.

Replies were received in March 2007 from Drs Flores, Herron, Hill, O'Quin, Ott, Peruski, and Sharpe.

The first part of this review is a compilation of comments with thematic grouping. The second partconsists of two unedited letters written by veterinarians involved in the FCDS behavior program.

Jonathan Dyce MA, VetMB, MRCVS, DSAO, DACVSAssociate Professor & Section Head Small Animal Surgery

..

Adoption of dangerous dogs

1) Uncountable pit bulls and pit bull mixes are adopted out as various other mixes. Regardless ofhow you feel about pits, no one should adopt one thinking it is something else. A litter of pit mixescame in with a pure bred pit mother. Mom was euthanized and the puppies were adopted as labmixes. Some are returned when vets or landlords inform the adopters what they have. Peopleare now coming in because they are looking for pits and heard the shelter was adopting them.

2) J'vementioned the problem with placing aggressive animals before, but I walked around today andgot some names and stories. It may help you to have more than generalities. The following dogswere in the shelter today, and there were probably more

a. Baby Bear was not recommended for adoption by staff and behavior dept. He was on theadoption floor for a long time, where his behavior worsened and was brought to theattention of administration several times. He was adopted. He was returned on 3-11-07for biting a child in the face. Today, he was taken to Libby's (Dr. Libby Kinsell) for aquarantine. (Libby's is a common place to send known aggressive dogs, many areadopted from her home).

b. Cocoa bit a kennel attendant in the face while she was restraining for a microchip. Thepeople planning to adopt her wisely decided not to adopt. (They then picked out anotherdog which had been returned three times for signs of separation anxiety, one of theadopters had a veterinary diagnosis of separation anxiety). Anyway, Lisa says the bitewas justified since it was scared and getting microchipped. The vet tech said she was stillgetting the chip out of the package when the bite happened, so it was just restraint thattriggered the bite. Currently the dog is a "do not euthanize" and is on quarantine. I'm notsure what they will decide tomorrow.

c. Tiffany just finished quarantine after being returned for biting her adopter. Planning toreadopt her.

d. A 16 week old unsocialized puppy (Cooper) who was not recommended for adoptionwas adopted on 3-7-07 and was returned for aggressive behavior. The adopter's vet

. recommended euthanasia but the adopters returned him to the shelter where-he is a "donot euth".

3) No Protocols. On many occasions, very obvious pit bull mixes were being adopted out. This isagainst county policy, and was happening repeatedly. Again, noble intentions, but with potentiallyvery dangerous and legal ramifications for the county.

4) Recommendations of veterinarians with special interests in animal behavior were often ignored.This resulted in dangerous animals being placed for adoption. As you know, one dog with ahistory of aggression bit a veterinary student in the face. There are many other examples ofaggressive dogs being placed on the adoption floor.

5) Aggressive, biting animals were housed in unlocked wards. Many times, young childrenwandered through the shelter, improperly supervised by parents. It was a grave concern of minethat one of these children might some day inadvertently open a cage door of an aggressiveanimal. I voiced this concern directly to Lisa Wahoff.

Behavior assessment

1) Temperament Testing/Behavioral Screening. A real legal concern. Veterinarians with a specialinterest in animal behavior would do a behavior screen on each dog that was available foradoption. The results and recommendations of their testing were repeatedly altered and ignored.Again, altering medical records is illegal! Disregarding an experts' (the veterinarian)recommendation, in this situation, is foolhardy at best. Many dangerous dogs were and are on thefloor for adoption.

Case in point follows: A young, castrated, Rottweiler was temperament tested by a veterinarianand deemed dangerous - aggressive. It was recommended this animal be humanely euthanized.Administration ignored the recommendation and adopted the dog out. On the way home, in thecar, the dog bit the new owner in the face!

The scenario seems unbelievable, however, I have heard many a story with the same outcome.

2) Behavior screenings have stopped - a dog scheduled for spay while I was there just last week wasso aggressive, that we could not even get a hold of it to sedate it!

.

Containment of infectious diseases.

1) Parvo outbreak seems to be winding down. Most of those affected developed signs after 10 daysindicating that exposure occurred within the shelter. At the peak of the outbreak 7 new caseswere diagnosed in one day, and animals (previously undiagnosed) were found dead in their cageson several occasions. To add to the problem a puppy (named Elliot Sadler) had typical signs ofvomiting, diarrhea, and inappetance but was not as sick as many cases. The parvo test wasstrongly positive, but Lisa (FCAS Director Lisa Wahoff) said she didn't think it had parvo. Theykept it in a crate in the euthanasia room (moving the crate into a corner during euthanasias)for several days before adopting it out. It is likely that this puppy was still shedding at the time ofadoption.

2) Long wait times in overcrowded conditions breed disease. Kennel cough runs rampant in thefacility. Dogs are no longer being placed in isolation that have this disease. It is permitted to treatfor kennel cough while the dog is in the regular adoption ward. This is a highly contagious diseaseand should not be permitted in the wards! Again, the administration did not follow expert (theveterinarians') recommendations placed in a comprehensive outline of how to handle disease andsanitation.

3) No Protocols. A dog in the isolation ward broke with parvo virus at which time the animal hadprofuse, bloody diarrhea. It was recommended by the veterinarian that no dogs move in or out ofthe ward for a minimum of 10 days. The administration and staff literally laughed in theveterinarian's face and went ahead and moved animals around as they pleased.

. 4) Currently the isolation and observation wards are not being used for their intended purposes ofcontrolling disease. The observation ward has become a regular ward. Again, while it is noble towant to save as many dogs as possible, creating this disease-infested facility is inhumane to thedogs.

5) Treating kennel cough out in the regular wards instead of isolation, etc.

Population density and basic hygiene

1) Office Foster Dogs. Dogs that were deemed shy or socially awkward were taken to theadministration office to allow for all day socialization with other dogs and humans. While thisseems like a great idea, having urine, vomit and fecal material on a carpeted surface isunsanitary. Even outbreaks of parvo virus with bloody diarrhea occurred in the office. This is ahighly contagious disease and the carpet does not allow for proper cleaning and disinfection. Thisdoes not even begin to describe the odor you are met with when you enter the administrationoffice area from continual urine saturation of the carpet!

2) Routinely dogs were kept in the employee lounge and restrooms! It was not uncommon to walkinto the break room and find urine and feces all over the floor- needless to say, no students orveterinarians could bring themselves to eat lunch in there. The human health ramifications of this,let alone potential OSHA violations is incredible to think about.

3) Very recently I walked into the women's restroom and there was a Chihuahua wrapped in a towelsitting on a chair in there. There was no employee around to question. It was literally sitting there,staring at me.

4) Recommendations for disinfection and maintaining sanitary conditions were disregarded by theadministration. Dr. Hill, Dr. O'Quin, and I spent many hours outlining changes that should havetaken place in order to decrease the incidence of infectious disease. These recommendationswere ignored.

5) Last Monday receiving was full so that dogs were placed in crates that were stacked on top ofeach other. They had been there most of the day, and I'm not sure if they were there overnight ornot. At least two of them were unable to stand and most had voided in the crate and were unableto avoid lying in it. To get rid of the crate situation without euthanizing animals one of thequarantine rooms is now being used as a holding ward. Animals are being treated in the holdingand adoption wards, further spreading disease. They are also asking us to do surgery on themwhile they are ill. R66 was on my schedule today with URI and severe green nasal discharge. Idid not perform surgery on this dog, though they said he was on meds and I should just do himlast.

6) Overcrowding also resulted in a very dirty environment.

7) Overcrowding in the shelter and long stays on the adoption floor resulted in high levels ofrespiratory disease as well as many behavior problems.

Long term confinement

1) Another huge issue for me is long term cage confinement. These animals are housed in smallcages with little human contact or exercise for months on end. In many cases, behavior problemsdevelop or worsen. I commonly saw muscle wasting in some of the longer term residents and thedevelopment of demodex in those who were not affected on arrival. If animals were confined thisway in homes or puppy mills, they could be charged for animal cruelty.

2) Overcrowding/Long stays on the floor. While it is noble to want to keep every dog as long aspossible, many negative things occur to dogs that are being kept in a cage for months on end withlittle human contact or ability to be outdoors. Behavioral issues abound and any behavioralconcerns that the dog may have had in the beginning, intensifies.

Foster care

1) Many dogs are sent out to foster care. Many are sent to foster care because they are sick or havebehavioral concerns. Most of these dogs were unknown to the veterinary staff, but were havingmedications dispensed to them. These medications were being prescribed and dispensed by theadministration. This is illegal and dangerous! The expert in animal health care (the veterinarian)was being disregarded.

2) It was a mystery as to how many dogs were in foster care. All records for these animals are notreadily obtainable. There was a concern at one point amongst the staff about a person who doesfoster work for the shelter. It was reported that she had so many dogs in her house that she wassleeping in her car. Is this not a case for animal hoarding? The validity of this story isquestionable, however, that county's dog warden was called upon to investigate.

3) It is important for the Commissioners to know that many dogs leave the shelter when they are sickand are housed off site. The conditions of these warehoused dogs are unknown to me but shouldbe investigated.

Medical records system

1) Altered medical records. This is extremely serious. As a veterinarian, it is paramount to keepaccurate medical records. On repeated occasions, medical records were altered to create theadministrations' desired outcome for that dog. This is illegal! The expert in this situation (theveterinarian) was being disregarded.

2) Medical records (which were kept by veterinarians) were often altered and/or disregarded by theadministration. This happened in varying degrees. Many times my medical recommendationswere crossed out and written over by a staff member. Other times the records would disappearentirely. Usually this happened when the medical recommendation interfered with theadministration's plan for the animal.

3) Handing out prescription medications to Foster dogs that we have no idea about!

Standard operating procedures

1) Overall there is a lack of knowledge, training, and staff availability necessary for basic animalhealth and medical care at the Franklin County Dog Shelter (FCDS). Although most staffdemonstrated compassion and concern for the FCDS animals, there were deficiencies in basicanimal care including failure to provide adequate food and water, safe housing and medical care.Animals with serious, contagious and/or life threatening medical conditions were not appropriatelyrecognized or treated. There are no written protocols for any aspect of shelter operations, andtraining materials contain inaccuracies and conflict with verbal descriptions of policies provided bymanagement, which in turn differ from actual practices. Staff, including management,demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding animal health and medical care. Staff members wereheard giving unqualified and potentially inaccurate medical advice to the public.

2) No Protocols. Again, documents from experts (veterinarians) were given to help guide protocols inthe shelter. To review, these documents were ignored by administration.

Case in point follows: A cleaning attendant noted a small breed, neurological dog in a regularward. The dog was examined. Given the development of neurological signs and the fact of noowner or medical (vaccine) history, it was recommended for euthanasia and infectious diseasetesting (Le.: most concerning rabies). In a population situation and from a public health concern, itwas very important to remove this animal from the facility. The administration elected to keep theanimal in a regular ward with a sign up that said one should wear gloves when handling theanimal, while they waited to see if the animal improved. After a few days, this dog could not be

found and no one "seemed to know" what had happened to the dog. What a catastrophe if theanimal was positive for something like rabies and then a human got bit. This animal should havebeen immediately culled.

3) Absolutely no protocols are set in place to handle certain situations, Le.: the neurologic dog thatwas brought into the medical clinic! Neurologic dog with no owner, recommend euthanasia andrabies testing. Lisa's (FCDS Director Lisa Wahoff) medical opinion was- put employees at risk andsend the dog for a neuro consult!

Communication

1) No Communication. During my time there, not once was there a meeting with the administration todiscuss any issues at hand. It was always an environment of hostility and resentment towards theveterinary professionals and students.

2) There were no channels for productive communication between the veterinarians and theadministration. No meetings were held despite many requests. Staff concerns were largelyignored. At the time of my departure there was mounting frustration among staff members.Although the above problems were of great concern, I still found my time at the shelter to beproductive and rewarding. I believe that all of the problems stem from a misguided intention tosave the animals. Ironically, the policies and decisions of this administration have resulted indecreased animal welfare and compromised public health.

Behavior program

Two letters from veterinarians involved in the FCDS behavior program are presented unedited.

.

Letter#1

I began my work with the behavior department at FCDS in the Summer of 2003 as a veterinary studentintern. Initially the behavior department was considered a high priority. The administration was very openand encouraging as far as program development and implementation. It was the director's idea to fund anOpen Paw conference attendance. The director was very supportive of new programs and held meetingswith staff to ensure that the programs were respected and carried out appropriately.Temperament/behavior evaluation testing gradually increased for questionable dogs before adoption andnew adopters were getting greater education at the time of adoption. The high volume of dogs and lack ofavailable space and/or time for rehabilitation made extensive behavior evaluations challenging and manytimes decisions had to be made in regards to a dog's disposition that were quite difficult. The behaviordepartment, technical staff and administration all made an effort to make some of the more difficult or lessstraightforward decisions together.

After a one year break from the shelter, I returned to the shelter part-time as a veterinarian, workingprimarily with the behavior department (behavior intern). From the beginning of my employment I noticedan abrupt difference in the role and perception of the behavior department. The chair veterinarian for thebehavior department had revolutionized the behavior screening process. Every dog received a somewhatobjective behavior evaluation before being placed up for adoption and new adopters were beinginterviewed in regards to the type of dog that would best fit their needs. Dangerous dogs were for themost part eliminated from the adoption floor and better matches between dog and adoptive home werebeing made.

With the greater number of dogs being evaluated, however, came the increased number of euthanasiarecommendations based on aggression and anxiety problems. Euthanasia is not an easy decision foranyone to make, but the behavior department felt an obligation to the public to provide safe andemotionally competent pets. Thus, when a dog showed signs of aggression or was surrendered based onsevere anxiety problems, euthanasia was often recommended as the safest and most humane option.Here is where I believe the majority of the problems between the behavior department and the shelter

administration began. Arguments in regards to disposition of an aggressive animal became a dailyoccurrence. Organized discussion was lost and many emotional, hurtful, and unprofessional words wereexchanged.

FCDS shelter possessed few options for safe rehabilitation of these animals, despite an extensivefoster program. Foster homes were available for some of the less severe dogs, but the educational stafffor these foster homes was lacking. With shelter space and foster homes filling up, the shelter was leftwith an excess of dogs, many of whom possessed behavior traits that made them poor adoptioncandidates. Overcrowding became a large problem. More devastatingly, dogs with observed behaviorproblems remained on the adoption floor. The administration seemed to be under pressure to keepeuthanasia rates as low as possible. The price for this decision was mental and physical deterioration ofdogs that remained for weeks to months on end. The shelter was far understaffed (presumably due tobudget restrictions) for the volume of dogs at task. Kennel attendants could barely keep up with wasteclean up and many potential adopters were turned off by the unsightly conditions. For the most part, thekennel attendant staff were compassionate and caring with the dogs, but their primary role was feedingand clean up. This meant that the dogs depended solely on volunteers for daily walks and attention. Themajority of dogs were not walked at all. An attempt was made to train some of the behaviorallychallenging dogs, but as the numbers outweighed the resources for such training, that program eventuallyfell to the wayside.

The addition of a volunteer coordinator helped rejuvenate the volunteer forces and more dogs weregetting their daily walks. The dark and dirty conditions turned many volunteers off and many of them didnot return after their initial training. Another growing problem with volunteers was that many dogs weredifficult to handle due to size, lack of training, and utter excitement at the rare chance for a walk.

Problems between the behavior department and the administration seemed to peak about 6 monthsinto my employment as a veterinarian. Results of aggression during behavior evaluations were beingignored in many cases and dogs with bite histories were making their way into adoptive homes. I will noteven go into the petty changing and hiding of behavior evaluation results at this time. All I can say at thistime is that professionalism and respect in the workplace were long gone.

I suppose in each shelter there will always be an inherent difference of opinion when it comes toquantity of animals vs. quality of life for the individual animals. In my opinion, quality of life for a FCDS dogis poor. More dogs are being retained for adoption and, according to record, adoption rates have notincreased. Many dogs show very poorly on the adoption floor and, thus, remain unadopted for months ina very small cage. I have included videos as examples of such dogs to illustrate my point (Available onrequest).

If the goal of FCDS is to reduce euthanasia rates and provide safe, adoptable pets, then significantchange needs to be made in regards to housing, mental enrichment, animal selection and daily care.Proper evaluation of behaviorally sound pets by appropriately trained professionals should be performedon all dogs before becoming available for adoption to prevent adopter injury and dissatisfaction and toprevent animals from remaining on the adoption floor, unwanted for months. Increased space, staff, andprofessionalism are crucial for the achievement of this goal.

Letter#2

As a veterinary student, I was thrilled when I was offered an internship at the Franklin County DogShelter. I had become interested in shelter behavior after my years of extensive involvement with a localdog rescue agency. I looked forward to my days at the shelter and was assigned to develop some newprograms for the shelter. Based on my work as an intern at the shelter, I was later offered a position todirect the newly established Behavior Department when I graduated from The Ohio State UniversityVeterinary College.

The Director and I worked on the purpose and mission of the soon to be Behavior Department. Thesegoals were outlined and supported by a grant proposal written to the BarkPark board. (Since it was newlycreated, the Behavior Department had not been included in the 2004 budget). Our purpose would be toincrease the adoptability of dogs available for adoption, decrease the number of returns, decrease thenumber of dogs surrendered to the shelter for behavioral issues, and serve the community as an outreach

.

-program to help educate the public and encourage owner retention of dogs that might otherwise be.surrendered. Its mission would be to promote successful dog adoptions, provide behavioral enrichmentfor dogs during their stay at the shelter, and to repair and preserve the human-animal bond by educatingdog owners so that we could effectively decrease the number of dogs relinquished due to training orbehavioral problems. Other goals included to create a behavioral helpline for the central Ohio community,education classes for the public, a kennel enrichment program, low cost behavioral counseling for thepublic and a shelter dog training program.

At first, the Director was approachable and wanted to hold weekly meetings to discuss the progress ofthe department and also to discuss individual dogs that may require behavioral intervention. She wasinterested in the results of behavioral evaluations and seemed to trust our expertise in the area. However,within a few months, most communication had broken down between the director and those involved withthe Behavior Department. We dreaded having to approach her regarding dogs that failed the evaluationtest.

The fact of euthanasia affects every shelter. Although no one likes the idea of euthanasia, it is aneveryday reality, especially at a county facility as large as Franklin County. The two main reasons forrejection for adoption were aggression and anxiety. These are two of the most common reasons thatdogs are surrendered to the shelter to begin with. Although never an easy decision, the BehaviorDepartment always chose to make decisions objectively, not emotionally, unlike the Director. Euthanasiafor some dogs was honestly the most humane and safe option. Dogs with aggression should not beadopted out to the general public. Near the end of my employment at the shelter, the Director often timesopted against euthanasia for a dog with behavioral issues and instead sent it out the door to a foster hometo an often unknowing foster parent. It should be noted that despite at attempts to develop behaviortraining for foster homes, at the time of my departure, nothing had as of yet been implemented.

It was disheartening to watch the dogs' behavior deteriorating after they spent months on the floor.The number of dogs needing behavioral intervention was just too many especially when compared withthe four-five individuals working exclusively within the Behavior Department. The shelter has honestlybecome a classic case of quantity vs. quality. Unfortunately, the ones that suffer the most are the dogs,both from disease and from behavioral issues after being sheltered for too long a period of time.

It is my greatest fear that dogs unfit for adoption are indeed being adopted out by the shelter. Almostall of the goals of the Behavior Department began to go.

Worst of all, my fear would be that the public would begin to develop a negative image of adopting arescued dog when in fact the shelter should be one of the first places that families go to purchase a dog.When a family adopts a dog that comes to them already with behavioral problems, it is impossible for abond to develop. No one benefits from this type of adoption; the dog finds itself back within the confinesof the shelter and often the adopter harbors ill will against the shelter that sold them "damaged goods."

My greatest concern in the last few months of my employment with the shelter was the fact that resultsof aggression during behavioral evaluations were being ignored as Were dogs surrendered with bitehistories. Our recommendations were ignored and often these dogs were finding their way out of theshelter into adoptive homes! All matter of respect for the expertise of those in the Department haddisappeared. The shelter became an intolerable place to work at. I looked back at the purpose, mission,and goals of the Behavior Department and just became sickened. All of the ideas were being lost for thesake of saving more dogs, if indeed one could consider the motives of the Director saving.

I have heard from others that the shelter has become a depressing place both to work and to walkthrough. I shudder at the thought of all of the dogs that are probably being retained on the floor with nomental stimulation or behavioral enrichment. Too many dogs are being held for too long a period of timewith no thoughts about the repercussions of the shelter's decisions. The shelter needs to have trainedprofessionals available in the area of behavior in order to promote better and safer adoptions and to enrichthe lives of the dogs during their hopefully short stay at the shelter. However, this seems like this maynever happen since unfortunately the Behavior Department is now non-existent.