"We Are Already Doing That!"

I had planned to follow the post on Government Powers with a related post on Individual Rights, but the events of this past week have prompted me to take a slightly different viewpoint.

For context, let's first rewind to 2009.  In July of that year, Mr. Charles W. Wilson, then-Director of the Department of Environmental Resources (of which Animal Management Division is a part), asked me to meet with him to expand on some issues that we had previously discussed concerning AMD.  In a series of meetings over several months, I shared data with him related to the performance of AMD, and the changes in attitudes and programs that would improve the outcomes for animals.  I pointed out that, at that time, there were more than a dozen jurisdictions which had implemented these changes and had subsequently began saving 90% or more of all animals presented to their open admission, municipal shelter. (Now, the number of jurisdictions is almost 200.)

Mr. Wilson GOT IT

On November 12, 2009, Mr. Wilson announced a "New Day" in which the "Life Saving Philosophy" would inspire AMD to new levels of performance.  (See Note 1.)

This was a momentous occasion for the people and animals of Prince George's County.  The Gazette published an article on January 7, 2010, entitled "Officials promise 'new day' for animal care"

"We Are Already Doing That!"

... but the Gazette also quoted the Administrator of AMD, Mr. Rodney Taylor, who contradicted his superior, Mr. Wilson, and said "I wouldn't call it a 'new philosophy' -- we're trying to enhance what we're doing."   ("We Are Already Doing That!")  (See Note 2.)

In an effort to promote the Life Saving Philosophy and bring about the New Day that he envisioned,  Mr. Wilson sent staff members to the 2010 No Kill Conference  in D.C., and invited a shelter director who had achieved the 90% milestone to give a presentation to staff in the Animal Services Conference Room.  (See Note 3.)

In spite of the specific assignments and opportunities for training, there was no significant change in the outcomes at the Animal Services Facility.  Mr. Taylor also privately shared his position with me that any changes that Mr. Wilson might implement would only be in effect as long as Mr. Wilson was the Director of DER.  Mr. Wilson was prevented from taking any corrective action by the Jack Johnson administration.  Mr. Wilson's appointment ended with the inauguration of Rushern Baker as County Executive.

Here We Go Again

In 2011, County Executive Baker initiated CountyStat, a program to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of various county agencies.  As a result of newspaper articles, letters to the editors, radio interviews, and about a thousand letters to the County Executive's Office, AMD became the subject of the very first CountyStat Team meeting in September 2011.  The Team clearly documented in their Presentation that, among four local jurisdictions, Prince George's County was the worst in each of the three years studied as far as Adoptions and Euthanasia (killing).  (See Note 4.) 

In spite of many recommendations that the CountyStat Team made to AMD, there has not been any significant improvement in outcomes.

... and Again

With the appointment of Mr. Adam Ortiz, who had been the Manager of the CountyStat Team, as Director of DER in early 2013, and his selection of Mr. Larry Coffman as Deputy Director to oversee Animal Management Division, a series of Stakeholder Meetings was initiated.  After several meetings at which suggestions were received, including from several No Kill advocates who were familiar with the success of the movement in an increasingly large number of jurisdictions, Mr. Coffman expressed his opinion that "We are doing everything that we should be doing, we just need to do it better."  ("We Are Already Doing That!")

When asked by one of the advocates in the Stakeholder Meeting, "If AMD has been doing all of the things that the other jurisdictions are doing, and the other jurisdictions are saving 90% or more of all animals, why is the kill rate so high in Prince George's County?"  There was no response.

Animal Management Division Sued In Court

This Spring, Dani, a polio and cancer survivor who had been told by her doctors that she needed a service dog, was told by an Animal Control Officer from PG AMD that her pit bull service dog, Storm, was illegal and must be removed from the County within 48 hours or she would be subject to a large fine and jail time.  (Let's skip the jurisdictional and constitutional issues surrounding this for now, as it will require a full blog post at a later date.)

Dani called AMD, as suggested by the Animal Control Officer, left a message, but did not get a return call.  Dani called other offices of the County Government, but was told that the Pit Bull was illegal.

Well, not exactly.  The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) entitles service dogs to be kept and has no exceptions by breed.  The ADA trumps the County Statute.

So, Dani and the Maryland Dog Federation filed suit, and got a Temporary Restraining Order against PG AMD to stop any enforcement of the "Dog Ban".

In court on Thursday, October 3, Mr. Taylor testified that the ADA has been in effect for about twenty years and that they have been honoring the provisions of the Act.  ("We Are Already Doing That!")

If you look at the Licensing page of the Animal Management Division website (See Note 5), you will see under Pit Bull Licenses that Pit Bulls are illegal unless they lived in the county before the 1996 enactment of the ban.  No exceptions are mentioned for ADA service animals.

There is a statement about service animals on the page, but it is strangely tacked on to the Hobby Permits paragraph.  Maybe it was a recent afterthought?

In the courtroom, the county attorney asked Dani if she had attempted to call AMD, as requested.  Yes, she replied, several times, but got no response.  She had also called another agency of the government and been told that the dog was illegal.

The county then asked Dani if, after getting no response from AMD and being told by another agency that the dog was illegal, if she had followed up in writing.  No, she hadn't.  (Why would she?)

The county then asked Dani if, after getting no response from AMD and being told by another agency that the dog was illegal, if she had made a personal trip to AMD to speak face-to-face with someone at AMD.  (Again, why would she?  Remember, Dani is a polio survivor with mobility issues, that's why she NEEDS a service animal.)

If Prince George's County Animal Management Division were in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, how would one know?  Not by talking to an Animal Control Officer, not by calling AMD, not by inquiring at other county agencies, certainly not by checking the AMD website.

PG AMD also produced a form that they claim to have been distributing for twenty years.  ("We Are Already Doing That!")  It appeared to have been produced on a word processor, not professionally printed, and also, unlike official county forms, there was no County Seal, Form Number or Revision Date on the form.

Needless to say, the judge ordered AMD to license Storm within 24 hours and allow him to live in the county, unmolested by Animal Management Division.  The Huffington Post covered the story.  (See Note 6.)

The Missing Link

In this blog, we have been exploring the many excuses that are used for killing a large percentage of animals, and, in fact, found that they were just that -- excuses.  We have also discussed several factors which may potentially be valid reasons for a high kill rate, but found that they don't apply in Prince George's County because the conditions are more favorable than average here.  In the last two posts, we have exposed practices of AMD which actually violate the law, only to increase the intake count and ultimately increase the kill rate, while wasting money and county employee time (more money).

What is the difference?  About 200 other jurisdictions have had a change of attitude and implemented a set of about a dozen different programs and within a very short time -- almost immediately, in fact -- they begin seeing a dramatic increase in the number of animals being saved, but Prince George's County Animal Management Division claims to  have been doing all of those programs for decades, but still has a high kill rate.

The link that is missing which enables, or disables the ability to successfully save lives, even if programs have been implemented, is a critical one, and will be the subject of a future post.

Please Subscribe (Email Updates) to this blog, and Like, Share, Tweet, Email, this post.  Thanks for reading.

---

Note 1:  http://tinyurl.com/qz8rt39  Mr. Wilson's announcement on November 12, 2009 of a "New Day" based on the "Life Saving Philosophy."

Note 2:  http://tinyurl.com/lnk7nvr  The Gazette article, January 7, 2010, "Officials promise 'new day' for animal care"

Note 3: http://tinyurl.com/lgxqx9g  Training presentation, "Building a No Kill Community" given at the PG AMD facility by Susanne Kogut, Director of the Charlottesville/Albemarle County SPCA.

Note 4:  http://tinyurl.com/l23wyfe   CountyStat Presentation, September 21, 2011.  (See p. 16 & 18.)

Note 5:  http://tinyurl.com/k6sh52a  Prince George's County, Animal Management Division, Licensing website.

Note 6:   http://tinyurl.com/me3x3a4  Huffington Post Article, October 7, 2013, Maryland Judge Orders County With Pit Bull Ban To Return Service Dog.

---

Tim Saffell is the President of Prince Georges Feral Friends, SPCA, www.PGFerals.org, which sponsors No Kill Prince George’s County MD www.NoKillPrinceGeorgesCountyMD.org .