MAS is widely considered the worst shelter in America, although there are plenty of contenders to that title. Click here if you want your day ruined. There have been promises of reform, steps taken, and little tangible improvement in Memphis. The webcams that were installed in the shelter were supposed to show the public that MAS staff were doing a good job, treating the animals well, and that things were getting better. Unfortunately they merely revealed more abuse, more substandard care, and in the end, city employees filed a grievance, stating that the cameras made them feel unsafe. That's right, the city employees were afraid that they might face retribution for their animal abuse caught on video, and their solution was not to stop abusing the animals, but rather, to remove the cameras. The city agreed with them.

Luckily for this dog, the cameras were still running when she was being dragged across the floor, unable to breathe and urinating on herself. When people saw the footage, they began calling the shelter to find out what was going on, and were told that she was a feral dog, and the catch pole was the only option for safely handling her. There was some initial interest in adopting the dog, but it was determined fairly quickly that she would need more specialized care. By the time I became involved, there had already been considerable negotiation with shelter management to get the dog, named 'Mari' by her advocates, released. When other offers fell through, I agreed to take Mari.

Shelter administrators played a game very familiar to me - a lame PR tactic in which they agree to let a dog go, but place an arbitrary deadline on the transfer that they know I can't meet. This way, they can say they agreed to give me the dog, but I never showed up. Pretty clever, albeit transparent; I wasn't given enough time to fly to Memphis, much less drive. Their original deadline only gave me a three-hour window, which isn't even enough time for me to drive to the airport.

With the help of rescuers around the country, I tried to find someone in Memphis to go get the dog, but this proved difficult, and my Facebook appeal backfired. No one would give the poor dog a ride, but they were calling the shelter, which no one had asked anyone to do. The sudden pressure from people who had nothing to do with the case resulted in the city attorneys getting involved. It got Mari a stay of execution, but as it turned out, it didn't change the situation. The next day, we found ourselves with a new, equally unrealistic deadline.

Fortunately, Mari's advocates were able to negotiate an extra day this time, and I arranged for her to go to our friends at Animal Rescue New Orleans, where she could be evaluated by people who actually know something about feral dogs. A couple of Memphis volunteers even came forward to transport her. Things were looking up. I knew there would be problems, but I mostly kept that to myself, so as not to scare the volunteers away.

The next day our drivers arrived at MAS, where they were made to wait two hours, face interrogation, and sign numerous forms before being told that they could take Mari, but that no one from the shelter would help them get her out of the kennel. Due to the bizarre layout of the shelter, the volunteers couldn't even fit a trap into the kennel, so the only way to get the dog out was going to be with a catch pole. Having no experience in this area, our volunteers were afraid. They started calling others to help, and a former animal control officer came to the rescue, or so we thought. He ended up refusing to catch the dog, too, citing an inability to guarantee her safety or his own. He later sneaked away and turned his phone off so no one could beg him to come back and help.

After making countless phone calls and appeals to rescuers and veterinarians, and after begging shelter staff and being denied, citing a 'mandate from above' barring any of them from assisting, we found ourselves in a difficult position, with only about an hour remaining to get the dog out of the shelter before it closed for the night. I was told that shelter staff would kill the dog if she wasn't removed by closing time, claiming that she had a respiratory infection that she would pass to the other dogs. Knowing that she had been in the shelter for over two weeks and had either contracted the infection from other shelter dogs or had it already and had been exposing the other dogs the entire time, I considered this unreasonable. Shelter staff were willing to use a catch pole to take the dog to be killed, but not to place her in a carrier so that she could live, which would have been easier and saved them money.

What was going on in Memphis? In cases like this, I expect problems from shelter staff, but where were the experienced rescuers? Had this been Seattle, Los Angeles, New York, or any of scores of other cities we'd have had the dog out the first day, but Memphis was different somehow. As one rescuer put it, "they like to hold candlelight vigils and pray, but when it comes to hands-on rescue, they don't want to get involved." I don't want to believe that, but it certainly seemed true that day. That is, until, in the eleventh hour, a local rescuer who had been following the story online got tired of all the nonsense, got in her car, drove to the shelter, and put the dog into the trap for transport.

I like to imagine that she walked in and did the job without saying a word to anyone, and left in the same manner. I know it didn't go that way, but it makes for a better story.

The volunteers got on the road with the dog, all parties quite happy to be out of MAS, and Charlotte and Lise from ARNO met them in Jackson, MS to take her the rest of the way. And by the way - Mari was a boy. The staff at MAS were so careless that they hadn't even gotten the dog's gender right, after housing him for weeks.

The story didn't end there, though, because whenever a shelter, city, or agency goes out of its way to make you fail and you succeed in spite of it, and especially if you make them look bad in the process, for example, pointing out that they failed to correctly ascertain a dog's gender, they have to attack you. So attack they did. They attacked us for taking the dog to ARNO instead of bringing him directly to OAS, claiming they would have to change their policy as a result of this deception on our part. They attacked us for not having a veterinary health certificate for him before transporting him. They attacked us for putting so much time, effort, and money into saving one, feral dog, when MAS is slaughtering adoptable animals at an appalling rate. The local paper didn't bother to talk to me before publishing their skewed version of events, and the public chimed in, even citing stories of my exploits and illegal activities that they had invented themselves to support their accusations. They complained that we didn't pay an adoption fee - that MAS had spent money 'fully vetting' the dog, and we should have been responsible for that expense. They said we broke the law by taking the dog across state lines without a health certificate. They called us liars. One person called me an anarchist - me, Steve Markwell, who just testified in Olympia last week, sits on two legislative advisory committees, and works directly with nearly every law enforcement agency in Clallam County, as well as others around the country. I chose not to respond to minor league journalists and the sad little people tapping away at their keyboards. I decided they could all go to hell. But if I had responded, I would have said this:

1. Transfers of animals between shelters, rescues, and sanctuaries are routine, and one organization fostering or housing animals for another is absolutely standard in this field. We don't charge each other adoption fees or boarding fees. There is nothing scandalous about sending this dog to ARNO, or that we didn't give MAS any money for the dog.
2. We never stated that this dog would be coming directly to Washington from Tennessee. It takes time to arrange transport, and MAS wasn't giving us any.
3. We did not obtain a veterinary health certificate for this dog because: a) thanks to MAS's unprofessional and obstructionist conduct, we did not have time; b) MAS's staff veterinarian refused to help; c) contrary to the statements being made by some, it WAS NOT required by law; d) to attempt an examination of a feral dog under those conditions would have been a waste of time, as well as risky to the dog and anyone trying to handle him.
4. MAS did not "fully vet" the dog; they did sedate him, give him a rabies vaccine, and administer a heartworm test, but they did not address his respiratory infection, and in fact misidentified him as female. I am at a total loss as to how a large, fully sedated, short-haired dog's gender could be mistaken after what was supposedly a thorough veterinary examination, so we must assume that the exam was conducted with the utmost lack of care or concern.
5. I understand that MAS kills many adoptable animals, and some people are upset that so much time and effort was spent to save one dog that may not be adoptable. The truth is that it would not have taken so much effort if MAS followed standard operating protocols and had good, working relationships with rescue groups. Additionally, because I specialize in feral dogs, of course a feral dog was the one I offered to take from the shelter - this doesn't make MAS's killing of adoptable animals my fault. MAS has the power to change their situation through proven effective management and operational protocols that include a large-scale spay/neuter effort that will ultimately save the city money, and reaching out to rescues, sanctuaries, and other entities for help. That they chose not to take this course of action is not my fault. And finally, animal control officers chose to trap this feral dog and impound him at the shelter in spite of being grossly behind in their duties elsewhere; my understanding was that they had over 700 calls they still had not responded to, and yet they had time to trap a feral dog. Trapping this, one dog had a negligible effect on the community, but incurred a significant cost to MAS and to the city that they had no reasonable expectation to recover.
6. Eat shit.

But I didn't say any of that. Instead, I let them stew in their willful ignorance and brazen stupidity. Mari was renamed Mario, and he settled in at ARNO, where he gets along great with other dogs, but not so well with people. He has made progress, but his attempts to bite make him somewhat atypical of feral dogs, and a poor prospect for eventual adoption. Based on ARNO's assessment, not MAS's, Mario will be coming to live with us in Washington, and I can bring him here with the confidence that this is truly his best option - something I could not have done with only MAS's 'professional' assessment of him.

Mario's journey isn't over, and you can help him with the next step. Click here to make a donation for Mario's transport to Washington and his ongoing care.

This Korean Jindo was abandoned at the former Cultus Mountain rottweiler farm in Mt. Vernon, WA; while not feral, the dog was highly unsocialized and defensive. She was not hesitant about biting. She had previous leash training, but did not want to be touched. We did a very low-stress capture without the use of a catch pole or any other tools besides a couple of slip leads. The entire capture took under 8 minutes from first stepping into the pen to loading her into the truck.

We want people to see that there are alternatives to manhandling, terrifying, and potentially injuring a fearful dog during capture. Also notice that no one was bitten.

This dog was vaccinated the following day using similarly non-traumatic handling methods. For the first week of her rehab she was walked, but otherwise left alone. Within a week after that, she was enjoying human contact, responding eagerly to the leash, and allowing herself to be picked up. This was accomplished safely, with absolutely no rough handling or 'correction'.

Thanks to Brent Warner for shooting this.

When our county animal control officer found ten-year-old chow mix, Moose, she knew the then-management at the shelter would immediately kill him, so she called us. Moose found himself alone in the woods after his meth cooking owner overdosed. He stayed with the body for a few days before anyone missed the man.

Morbidly obese, terrified of strangers, and with a terrible case of 'meth mouth', when the authorities did arrive, Moose was a snarling mess. He had to be trapped. At the Sanctuary he was given his space for a week or two, then leash trained before undergoing a six-hour dental surgery. The abscesses in his mouth released such horrific toxins that Moose entered an autoimmune deficiency that had him suffering from numerous ailments, including infected sores, extreme sensitivity to pain, and worst of all, a violent reaction to something he needed to survive - food.

Moose could not keep food down, and he went from one of the fattest dogs we've ever seen to a mere skeleton. Exploratory surgery showed a thickening of the esophagus at the entrance to the stomach, which triggered vomiting whenever food hit the area. As our vet bills piled up and hit the five-digit mark, we wondered how long it would be before he starved to death, but somehow Moose kept going. After a two-week stay at our vets' office, one of the doctors had fallen in love with him, and quickly agreed to adopt him. Under the Doctor's care, Moose underwent more surgeries, including the rebuilding of an eyelid that collapsed due to starvation. The Doctor began researching holistic medicine to incorporate into his treatment.

At his worst, Moose lost all his hair, had an Elizabethan collar to prevent him from damaging his various surgical incision sites, and a diaper, because in spite of the fact that he looked like a walking corpse, he was ornery enough to urinate all over the Doctor's house when she brought home a new foster puppy. Moose also couldn't resist picking fights with the Doctor's pot-bellied pig; no matter how many times he lost, he kept going back for more.

Moose went vegan, a prescription diet resembling Corn Pops being the only food he could keep down, if only about half the time, and only after it had been soaked in warm water until it was fully saturated. His hair grew back in. His low-swinging testicles could finally be removed. He was still emaciated, but less so. And feeling better for the first time in a year, he decided to kill every chicken and rabbit our veterinarian had in her home. Had he succeeded in getting all of them he could have stayed with her, but since he missed a couple of parrots and rabbits, the Doctor felt the responsible thing was to return him to the Sanctuary; she had the smaller animals first and felt it was unfair to them to put them at continued risk.

We were happy to have the old man back, but we were unhappy with his 'Corn Pop' diet; it had served its purpose - not the most nutritious or digestible stuff, at least Moose could keep it down and had derived some minimal nutrition from it. We began adding Natural Balance vegan formula to the mix, and found as long as we kept it under half he could usually keep it down. We believed at the time that meat was too rich for him to eat, so we stuck with vegetable-based foods. But one day Moose got into some beef blood, lapped it up, and kept it down. So a few times a week, blood was added to the mix.

What we found next was the product that truly saved Moose's life: Sojo's. To the Sojo's we added an herbal pain relief and anti-inflammatory supplement called DGP, salmon oil, liquid glucosamine, and digestive enzymes. We'd put it all into a blender and mix with water or blood until it was the consistency of skim milk; any thicker and Moose would vomit, but as long as the mix stayed thin, he held it down. We fed him four to six times a day, as much as he would take.

Moose loved his Sojo's, but he was always eyeing the other dogs' raw meat, and whenever he could sneak a piece of turkey or pork, he went for it. This sometimes resulted in vomiting, but we discovered that because he had had so many of his teeth pulled when we first took him in, he was unable to eat the stuff very quickly, and couldn't pack enough meat and bone into his esophagus to trigger a vomiting response. So we started supplementing Sojo's with small pieces of meat. Moose was still thin, still achy.

I don't remember why we first gave Moose ground beef, but when we did, we were surprised to see that not only did he keep it down, he could eat four pounds at a sitting. And just like that, after two years of near-starvation, Moose was at a healthy weight in two weeks. We immediately began taking him for walks to restore some muscle mass to his atrophied limbs. First just 50 yards or so, then down the street, then around the block. First walking, then at a steady trot.

Ground beef not being a nutritionally complete diet, we added supplements, and we continued to let him have the occasional pork bone to chew on. And now, at age twelve, the dog that barely ate for two years has a much-welcome weight problem. That's right - he's actually a little too fat, and we've cut back his portions.

No one expected Moose to live this long, and at any point in the long journey it took him to get here, no one would have thought euthanasia to be an unreasonable option for him. No one, that is, except Moose, whose will to live is, frankly, kind of inspirational. And moreover, the happy dog we see today (even though he always looks sad in photos) forces us to question the all-too-common and reckless statements so often heard in rescue circles about how much more merciful and humane it would be to kill a dog than to put him or her through lengthy and costly procedures that would restore life's quality and increase its duration. How much more merciful and humane it would be to kill a dog rather than to force him or her to wait in the shelter for a few extra months while we go to court on that animal's behalf. How much more merciful and humane it would be to kill a dog than to put time and money into behavioral rehab that might not 'work'. How much more merciful and humane it would be to kill a dog than to let it live out its life in a sanctuary that specializes in meeting its unique needs. And at the heart of it all, what these 'rescuers' are really saying is this: we don't want to spend that kind of money, give that kind of time, devote those kinds of resources to a dog. Dogs don't matter enough to warrant the cost, and so we rationalize actions, and inaction, that are fundamentally contrary to our espoused purpose, which is to save and improve lives, not to hold them in the palms of our hands and destroy them under the guise of what's more merciful and humane. And in our egregious error, we're ignoring the single, most driving instinct that defines the behavior of the entire animal kingdom - survival. Above all else, what dogs want, more than a tasty meal, more than a warm bed, more than a walk in the park, is to live.

And of course there is a time and a place for legitimate euthanasia; when animals have no hope of recovery and all other options have been exhausted, we must do the truly merciful and humane thing. But when many said that Moose's time had come, he taught us not to jump the gun, and that two years of struggle and tens of thousands of dollars were worth it to fulfill his greatest desire - to live. He won't be with us forever, and each day we have him is both a gift and a bit of a surprise, but in the end we'll know we did all we could for him, and when he goes, we'll know it truly was his time, and we can be happy in the knowledge that the last months, or dare I say years, of his life erased the pain of the first twelve. If Moose could talk, I think he'd thank us for riding it out with him. We're sure glad we did.

There is no evidence to support that the dog in question was not formally declared potentially dangerous. However, when the dog was brought to the shelter by the animal control officer, the shelter did not receive any paperwork to that effect, apart from the words "potentially dangerous" being written on the dog's intake card, or at the very least, that paperwork is not in the shelter's possession at this time. This is what caused confusion among some shelter staff and volunteers. The confusion continued when the county supplied a list of potentially dangerous dogs and the dog in question was not included on that list. A possible explanation is that she was removed when she was put into the custody of the shelter. The list contained only two dogs, both added in 2011. The animal control officer was never directly questioned about the dog - this part of the story, as far as I have been able to gather, was fabricated.

It also recently came to my attention that another dog mentioned in the entry, Midas, was never declared dangerous; I mentioned Midas as an example of a dog whose good looks afforded him a great deal of leniency despite multiple bite incidents, while a dog in the same shelter with fewer incidents was killed. As it turns out, animal control was even more inconsistent in that case than I first believed. It is important to note that this was a different animal control agency than the one discussed above; the entry I published was about dangerous dog laws in general, not specifically those in our county.

Some of the details have changed, but the main point remains the same. These confusing, vague, and arbitrary laws seldom accomplish their intended purpose. The fact that our own county currently has no dangerous dogs under its jurisdiction suggests that compliance with the law is such an overwhelming task for the average citizen that when faced with a dangerous dog declaration, people opt instead to have their animals killed. This is, of course, unless we are to believe that every dog that is declared dangerous belongs to an irresponsible or uncaring person, or that the people of our county are so vigilant in keeping their dogs from getting into trouble that these cases never arise in the first place.

Our county commissioners are considering changes to our dangerous dog regulations, some of which are justified and necessary, and others of which I oppose. Specifically, I oppose expanding the definition of a potentially dangerous dog to include dogs that chase game animals and free-roaming poultry, rabbits, and cats, and expanding the definition of dangerous dogs to include dogs that injure other animals.

I believe that the responsibility for keeping domestic animals safe in our communities is a shared one, that people are ethically obligated to keep their own animals safe from predators, traffic, poisons, and other hazards. I do not believe that it is appropriate to hold the owner of a dog responsible for the injury or death of an animal that could as easily have been killed or injured by wildlife, logging trucks, or a puddle of antifreeze. This does not excuse a dog that attacks animals on the property of the owner of those animals, nor does it excuse dogs that attack other dogs, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and I believe it is being drawn in the wrong place. With reference to the expansion of the definition of dangerous dogs, I oppose it on the grounds that there are simply too many factors that come into play when it comes to animals injuring one another to warrant a permanent, irrevocable declaration. Sometimes dogs fight, and the dog that picks the fight does not always win. The severity of injuries depends more upon where the teeth happen to land than on the temperament of the animals involved, and to permanently and irrevocably declare a dog to be dangerous, requiring that it be kept in cruel confinement for the rest of its life, that it be insured at great expense, and that its owners pay an exorbitant annual license fee, is, in my opinion, outrageous. The state law, for all its flaws, draws the line at the killing of one animal by another, and I believe our county should, at least for now, do the same.

It would be unfair not to point out the elements of the proposed changes that I do support, however, and the most important of these is the creating of an inactive potentially dangerous dog status. Inactive status allows the owner of the dog, after two years with no violations, to apply for relief from the highest registration fees in the state. For responsible citizens who found themselves in a difficult situation due to a simple mistake, this new status is a well-deserved addition to the county code. Another wise change to the law specifies that electronic or 'invisible' fencing are not adequate methods of restraint for potentially dangerous dogs. I would like to see that expanded to include chains and tethers as well.

The county's Animal Issues Advisory Committee, of which I am a member, may never fully agree with me when it comes to legislation, but as I deal more with dangerous dog declarations than any resident of this county, including its law enforcement officers, I hope that my suggestions do not fall on deaf ears. To see the law with its proposed changes, as well as the changes I propose, click here.

Unless you work in animal control, animal rescue, or your dog has gotten into trouble with the law, you might not know about dangerous/vicious dog legislation. In fact, many animal control and animal rescue workers know little or nothing about it, which I suppose is a good thing, since it points to the fact that dangerous dog cases don't come up all that often, even for people who deal with dogs for a living. I had my introduction to this type of legislation in 2008 when I became involved in a case in Michigan where Rogue, a Siberian husky, was accused of killing a neighbor's Shih-Tzu.

Click here to read the full entry.