07/31/2020
Sheba, a ten year old female GSD was let out of her home at least two times and got into trouble one time in a dog fight.
She was picked up by animal control and a hearing officer sentenced her to death in July, 2019.
Sheba's lifelong behavior has been exemplary except for one instance when she got in a fight once when out but there aren’t many dogs that haven’t been in at least one incident with another dog.
I am in no way suggesting she go back to a home with a history of non compliance.
LITIGATION – NO COMMENTS. In the last two months, every attempt I have made to communicate with SBC representatives, I have been told: “This is in litigation and we cannot talk about it.”
First off, if everyone believed in that, no one would ever settle out of court.
That kind of rationale is merely an effort to edge you out of an issue, and suppress whatever you’re thinking In other words, “Stay out of our sandbox. We alone will handle this our way.” Now that might be fine for a private business protecting sensitive information but this is a public agency. In terms of public administration, this is supposed to be a county serving its citizens. Not lawyers being cagey with taxpayers and insisting on a communication black-out.
SO A HEARING WAS HELD and on July 18, 2019 Mr. Beck, the presiding Hearing Officer wrote in part, in a letter to Sheba’s owner,..“ I am ordering Sheba to be destroyed per San Bernardino County Code., Title 3, Division 2, Chapter 14, Section 32.1407(a) because allowing you to maintain custody of Sheba would create a significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare.”
THERE ARE THREE PROBLEMS WITH THIS FIRST.
No where is it required that Sheba’s only alternative to a living existence is back with her former owner. Yet that was the reason Beck gave for killing Sheba. She clearly could have gone to a rescue group like so many other dogs most every day.
SECOND. There was never a finding that Sheba could not be re-homed.
THIRD. Euthanizing Sheba is contrary to their own policies, state policies and their normal practice.
HERE IS WHAT APPLICABLE POLICIES AND LAWS SAY
Section 17005 of the California Code states in the first sentence of the first sub section (a) “It is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. Sub section (b) reads, “It is the policy of the state that no treatable animal should be euthanized. A treatable animal shall include any animal that is not adoptable but that could become adoptable with reasonable efforts.
San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 6.1 dated August 18, 2017 Issue #2 Page 1: “It is a goal of SBC Animal Care and Control to reduce the number of companion animals euthanized in the animal shelters. As such, SBC Animal Care and Control cooperatively releases animals to both partner and non-partner non-profit animal rescue groups in an attempt to achieve this goal.” (Devore has upwards of 300 affiliated rescue groups.)
San Bernardino County Animal Control Policy III 18.1.0 Regarding Selection of Animals for Euthanasia dated October 30, 2014 Issue #3 Page 3, Rescue Groups – Approved rescue groups are a viable alternative to euthanasia and many will accept animals of all types regardless of their condition. These groups should be utilized whenever practical and appropriate.”
So, the shelter’s normal practice is not to euthanize if at all avoidable these days. As an example, in 2020, we know, so far, that Devore has killed 11 animals and seven of them were chickens that they thought had corona virus. Four were dogs. Its fair to say that the department complies with the county and state policies in these regards with the exception of their enthusiasm to euthanize Sheba, whose owner frustrated them by his non-compliance over a period of two years.
AVAILABLE RESCUES READY TO PULL SHEBA.
There were available then and there are rescues waiting now to take her, rehabilitate and re-home her to a safe, secure and responsible home. Devore has somewhere around 300 separate rescue groups as a standard operating procedure, even for rescuing dogs with far more significant behavior histories than Sheba.
And there can be no pointing to Sheba’s dogfight as a reason to euthanize her. As an example of the ability to safely place dogs with actual bite histories recently at Devore a Doberman that had bitten a child twice was placed with a rescue to be adopted to a proper home. Sheba has never bitten anyone.
Based on ten years of good community behavior, Sheba has earned a loving home that is “pet responsible” to finish out her remaining life. There was never a finding that Sheba was not adoptable. She never bit anyone or even demonstrated aggression to a person in her entire ten years in the community. She got in a dog fight once. That’s probably better than the average dog. To put icing on the cake, there is a petition signed by many people in the community vouching for Sheba’s behavior. Even the owners of the dog she had been in a dog fight with argued for her to go to a rescue group.
IN SUMMARY. This story is about a disaster in animal control and in animal ownership with a largely guiltless dog caught in the middle.
A false assumption regarding Sheba’s placement options triggered an erroneous death verdict.
That in turn, necessitated a law suit to stop the ex*****on which automatically threw everything into the court system which, of course, moves at glacial speed and if you’re a dog, one year is a very long time.
Volunteers trying to get justice for Sheba are asking for a simple act of compassion and kindness by just treating Sheba like you treat the vast majority of other dogs every day. Let her goto a non-profit rescue organization for rehabilitation and re-homing her to a safe, secure, responsible home, preferably outside of San Bernardino County where she can salvage her remaining life.
The real code violations in her case were human violations not canine violations yet she is paying the ultimate price just by being his dog.
Since Sheba was always eligible to got to a rescue instead of going back to her non compliant home, there is no reason she must be killed. With the reason for Sheba’s death decision deflated, the legal maneuvering to kill Sheba is merely a trumped up case to kill the dog of a non-compliant 80 year old man because he was pain in the neck to the Animal Control Department. That’s what this is about.
With a simple agreement and a phone call, the law suit can go away and we would immediately guarantee that your public safety mandate would be satisfied to the fullest extent and Sheba would never return to San Bernardino County.
Sheba is literally mentally deteriorating in that place and there is nothing sadder than to look in the eyes of an animal that is losing their mind because they have been stuck in tiny cell for a year.
