Animal Control Duties

[L-1]

I believe it is the fact the dog was taken from her home without any knowledge, notice to the homeowner , or permission and put down.

Good question. Again I must ask, how did the Animal Control Officer know to respond to the residence? Someone had to call him. If it was not the owner, more than likely it was the landlord. Why won't anyone inquire into this, get the facts and straighten it out rather than just blame the officer or trash him through innuendo?

I mean really - let's stop and think about this for a minute. Do you suppose that out of the blue one day the ACO knocked on the landlord's door and said, "You must let me intro one of your rentals because my crystal ball tells me there is an injured animal inside that I must remove and put down" ?

Things don't happen that way. There has to have been a basis for all this to have happened. Let's look there before we start pointing fingers of blame.

So, by what right did the landlord have to let the aco into the premises

Good question. Perhaps the landlord represented the place as his being his residence and his animal, or said he was acting at the owner's request, or that the owner had died, or abandoned the animal - it could have been a hundred things. Again, someone needs to ask the landlord and officer rather than just jump to conclusions.

by what right did the aco take the animal

Again, we must look at what the landlord told the ACO and what the ACO perceived as to the animal's condition. No one seems to know that and is just inserting their own guess. We must also look at the county ordinances and rules governing such situations, which no one has posted, even after repeated requests to do so. Instead, people just list their perceptions of what the rules and laws might be, many of which on their face would violate public policy.

I

There is a new article with input from a vet. (Actually a couple) this is the vets statement on one of them


https://www.newsnowwarsaw.com/compla...-state-police/


(Note, the diagnosis was apparently performed by a video of the dog and specific pictures of the tumor provided to the vet. I’m not discounting it. Merely including that for informational purposes)


personally given the vets statement and the presumption the dog would survive the operation, I can’t see why this isn’t at least a matter of theft.

From prior posts, first the vet was going to put the dog down, then later, a vet could have saved him with an operation the owner had no money for, so the dog continued to suffer. I'm sorry, but I'm finding little value in this unless some of the key players bothered to advise the ACO of this prior to his taking action. Did they?

personally given the vets statement and the presumption the dog would survive the operation, I can’t see why this isn’t at least a matter of theft.

Yet......

I don’t think it’s a matter of whether the aco has the legal authority to put down an animal in some given circumstances. That’s likely to be allowed

So which is it? If based on statements of the landlord, the ACO was acting in good faith and by mistake of fact which disproves any unlawful intent, then the ACO did nothing wrong.

My big question is what was the true condition of the dog at the time? While the vet speaks to diagnosis based on an old video, was he present to examine the dog in person when the ACO was there? We are taking the owner's word that the dog was fine, but the article alludes to photos in the sheriff's possession that depicts a terribly suffering dog, a vet was ready to put the animal down and the word of an ACO that in his years of experience, the animal was suffering enough that dispatch was warranted. Just a preponderance of what little we have so far does not weigh this in favor of the owner.

We all love animals, but take about 20 steps back and look at what OP has posted here. It is all assumptions and innuendo with absolutely no offer of proof. If the ACO screwed up then yes, appropriate action needs to be take against him, but not by a crazed internet lynch mob fueled by their own imagination and guesswork rather than cold hard facts.

[jk]

Good question. Again I must ask, how did the Animal Control Officer know to respond to the residence? Someone had to call him. If it was not the owner, more than likely it was the landlord. Why won't anyone inquire into this, get the facts and straighten it out rather than just blame the officer or trash him through innuendo?

I mean really - let's stop and think about this for a minute. Do you suppose that out of the blue one day the ACO knocked on the landlord's door and said, "You must let me intro one of your rentals because my crystal ball tells me there is an injured animal inside that I must remove and put down" ?

Things don't happen that way. There has to have been a basis for all this to have happened. Let's look there before we start pointing fingers of blame.

I don’t believe anybody but the op will have those answers. I doubt the landlord would respond to me if I inquired. After all, he could be admitting to a crime depending on what actually took place.

Good question. Perhaps the landlord represented the place as his being his residence and his animal, or said he was acting at the owner's request, or that the owner had died, or abandoned the animal - it could have been a hundred things. Again, someone needs to ask the landlord and officer rather than just jump to conclusions. [€/QUOTE] again, something I believe only the op (actuslly the owner of,the dog) can find out.

Again, we must look at what the landlord told the ACO and what the ACO perceived as to the animal's condition. No one seems to know that and is just inserting their own guess. We must also look at the county ordinances and rules governing such situations, which no one has posted, even after repeated requests to do so. Instead, people just list their perceptions of what the rules and laws might be, many of which on their face would violate public policy. [/QUOTE]. I had reed that putting down an animal is legally allowed (honestly don’t recall where at the moment but I believe it was a dependable source). But there has to be more than the aco s layman’s determination, especially since this was a kept animal. I know, somebody needs to .....

given this was all quite recent and the decision by the vet to operate quite recent, I would say the vets determination that surgery ismviable and the proper path, I don’t see a possibility of some sickly old dog laying in the garage near death. Remember, the vet only decided to,offer surgery and even help source funding only after the op had actually sought funding to put the dog down and the vet had viewed the 2 minute video and pictures of the tumor. I think the vets decision to offer the surgery after the owner had actually resigned herself to accepting she would have to put the dog down says a lot. The vet is the one that appears to have actually swayed the owner from putting the dog down. I can’t see a vet doing that if they didn’t feel the dog would thrive after the surgery.

From prior posts, first the vet was going to put the dog down, then later, a vet could have saved him with an operation the owner had no money for, so the dog continued to suffer. I'm sorry, but I'm finding little value in this unless some of the key players bothered to advise the ACO of this prior to his taking action. Did they?

I provided an actual quote from the vet. Again, the bigger issue is what legal right the aco has to enter a private home and take the ops property. The landlord had no legal right to enter the premises under Indiana landlord tenant law. It could be the only action available is against the landlord, if he represented himself as the dogs owner.
If the aco knew it was not the landlords dog, he would be hard pressed to claim a right to put down the dog. He is not a vet and could not determine the medical condition of the animal. This was a pet, not a wild animal, or even a stray.

]
So which is it? If based on statements of the landlord, the ACO was acting in good faith and by mistake of fact which disproves any unlawful intent, then the ACO did nothing wrong.

only if the landlord represented the home and dog to be his would the aco be excused from examination. I can’t imagine joe citizen calling the aco and asking him to come and dispatch his dog though. Otherwise the aco would know it was not the landlords dog and unless he was trained to diagnose the animal, I believe his actions were illegal.

My big question is what was the true condition of the dog at the time? While the vet speaks to diagnosis based on an old video, was he present to examine the dog in person when the ACO was there? We are taking the owner's word that the dog was fine, but the article alludes to photos in the sheriff's possession that depicts a terribly suffering dog, a vet was ready to put the animal down and the word of an ACO that in his years of experience, the animal was suffering enough that dispatch was warranted. Just a preponderance of what little we have so far does not weigh this in favor of the owner.

it wasn’t an old video. This all happened very recently so,the video would have had to be quite recent. Given the vet assisted in sourcing the funds to do the surgery after the owner had actually sought assistance to put the dog down, I have little doubt the vet believed the dog was in good enough health to undergo the surgery. The video was to ascertain whether the dog was active or simply laying there waiting to die.
The aco is not a vet and is not qualified to diagnose an ill animal. Especially in a situation where an animal is kept, it would be out of line making any sort of diagnosis. He should have taken it to wherever he would normally take injured animals.

How do you perceive a dog suffering terribly in a still photo? If they took a pic of the tumor, sorry but a lump doesn’t mean they are suffering. She was a 14 year old dog that wouldn’t win a beautiful dog contest. How do you see suffering in just a photo?

We all love animals, but take about 20 steps back and look at what OP has posted here. It is all assumptions and innuendo with absolutely no offer of proof. If the ACO screwed up then yes, appropriate action needs to be take against him, but not by a crazed internet lynch mob fueled by their own imagination and guesswork rather than cold hard facts.

actually, if I based it on only the posts here I probably could write this off as it was probably the best thing for the dog. After reading the news articles I did, especially the statements by the vet, I believe the aco was likely way out of line and either the aco the landlord or both have committed a crime.


I have no date for that picture. Maybe the op could provide that. Of the three pics I can find of the dog, she’s looking the roughest in this one.


Well, i can’t seem to be able to attach the image it’s in this publication http://www.inkfreenews.com/2019/06/2...-shooting-dog/

[L-1]

Sorry folks, but I'm leaving for a two to three week road trip and can't participate anymore.

I'll wait to find out how all this shakes out when I get back.

[jk]

Sorry folks, but I'm leaving for a two to three week road trip and can't participate anymore.

I'll wait to find out how all this shakes out when I get back.

heading to Warsaw Indiana maybe?

[L-1]

Nope. Texas for a trade show. Hope I can handle the heat. It's supposed to be running about 99 and humid, unlike here at the beach where it's been in the low 70s and comfortable.

[jk]

Nope. Texas for a trade show. Hope I can handle the heat. It's supposed to be running about 99 and humid, unlike here at the beach where it's been in the low 70s and comfortable.

Enjoy. I know i wouldn’t though.

[llworking]

I don't mean to be rude to anyone, but I really do not understand the debate that is going on here.

The animal control officer removed the animal, took it to a dump and shot it with a gun.

That certainly is not procedure in the state in question and its highly unlikely that its procedure anywhere else either. A vet working with animal control decides whether or not an animal is to be euthanized, and then its done with an injection, not with a gun.

[jk]

An aco has, from what I’ve read, the authority to dispatch sick or injured animals. What hasn’t been found is any rule that says they can or can’t do it to your pet that he discovers in your own home. If you’ve read the news on the Internet you will see this sort of issue is not new for this guy. It was ruled permissible for each of his prior actions. That suggests the powers that be don’t have a real issue with it.

I don’t disagree that the animal should have been taken to a vet or impound where the animal could be examined to determine if it was able to be saved.

Other than that, I think more info is needed. Why the aco was called to the home and what the landlord told The is likely to be important in determining if there was any wrong doing and by whom. That’s something the op will have to provide, if they can even obtain it. I doubt it would be divulged to a complete stranger simply asking for the info.

[L-1]

Enjoy. I know i wouldn’t though.

Hopefully, good old Texas BBQ will make up for the heat.

[llworking]

An aco has, from what I’ve read, the authority to dispatch sick or injured animals. What hasn’t been found is any rule that says they can or can’t do it to your pet that he discovers in your own home. If you’ve read the news on the Internet you will see this sort of issue is not new for this guy. It was ruled permissible for each of his prior actions. That suggests the powers that be don’t have a real issue with it.

I don’t disagree that the animal should have been taken to a vet or impound where the animal could be examined to determine if it was able to be saved.

Other than that, I think more info is needed. Why the aco was called to the home and what the landlord told The is likely to be important in determining if there was any wrong doing and by whom. That’s something the op will have to provide, if they can even obtain it. I doubt it would be divulged to a complete stranger simply asking for the info.

The fact that you think that there is any circumstance where it could be valid for an ACO to remove a pet from someone's home, take it to a dump and shoot it is disturbing, to say the least.

Dispatching an injured, wild animal is one thing. Dispatching someone's pet without due diligence is completely another. No ACO is qualified to determine whether or not a pet can recover.