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 houses
veterinary surgical and medical services that are staffed by senior veterinary students, under the
supervision of veterinarians associated with The Ohio State University. These clinical rotations are a vital
component of the veterinary curriculum and contribute greatly to the preparation of the students for a
veterinary 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 clinical
rotation in shelter medicine, and loss of the FCDS animal behavior department, have raised significant
concerns. 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 their
experiences.
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 part
consists of two unedited letters written by veterinarians involved in the FCDS behavior program.

Jonathan Dyce MA, VetMB, MRCVS, DSAO, DACVS

Associate 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 of
how you feel about pits, no one should adopt one thinking it is something else. A litter of pit mixes
came in with a pure bred pit mother. Mom was euthanized and the puppies were adopted as lab
mixes. Some are returned when vets or landlords inform the adopters what they have. People
are 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 and
got some names and stories. It may help you to have more than generalities. The following dogs
were 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 the
adoption floor for a long time, where his behavior worsened and was brought to the
attention of administration several times. He was adopted. He was returned on 3-11-07
for biting a child in the face. Today, he was taken to Libby's (Dr. Libby Kinsell) for a
quarantine. (Libby's is a common place to send known aggressive dogs, many are
adopted from her home).
b. Cocoa bit a kennel attendant in the face while she was restraining for a microchip. The
people planning to adopt her wisely decided not to adopt. (They then picked out another
dog which had been returned three times for signs of separation anxiety, one of the
adopters had a veterinary diagnosis of separation anxiety). Anyway, Lisa says the bite
was justified since it was scared and getting microchipped. The vet tech said she was still
getting the chip out of the package when the bite happened, so it was just restraint that
triggered the bite. Currently the dog is a "do not euthanize" and is on quarantine. I'm not
sure what they will decide tomorrow.
c. Tiffany just finished quarantine after being returned for biting her adopter. Planning to
.. readopt her.
d. A 16 week old unsocialized puppy (Cooper) who was not recommended for adoption
was 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 "do
not euth".

3) No Protocols. On many occasions, very obvious pit bull mixes were being adopted out. This is
against county policy, and was happening repeatedly. Again, noble intentions, but with potentially
very 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 a
history of aggression bit a veterinary student in the face. There are many other examples of
aggressive dogs being placed on the adoption floor.
5) Aggressive, biting animals were housed in unlocked wards. Many times, young children
wandered through the shelter, improperly supervised by parents. It was a grave concern of mine
that one of these children might some day inadvertently open a cage door of an aggressive
animal. I voiced this concern directly to Lisa Wahoff.

Behavior assessment

1) Temperament Testing/Behavioral Screening. A real legal concern. Veterinarians with a special

interest in animal behavior would do a behavior screen on each dog that was available for
adoption. 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 the
floor for adoption.
Case in point follows: A young, castrated, Rottweiler was temperament tested by a veterinarian
and 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 the
car, 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 was
so 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 days
indicating that exposure occurred within the shelter. At the peak of the outbreak 7 new cases
were diagnosed in one day, and animals (previously undiagnosed) were found dead in their cages
on several occasions. To add to the problem a puppy (named Elliot Sadler) had typical signs of
vomiting, diarrhea, and inappetance but was not as sick as many cases. The parvo test was
strongly positive, but Lisa (FCAS Director Lisa Wahoff) said she didn't think it had parvo. They
kept 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 of
adoption.
2) Long wait times in overcrowded conditions breed disease. Kennel cough runs rampant in the
facility. Dogs are no longer being placed in isolation that have this disease. It is permitted to treat
for kennel cough while the dog is in the regular adoption ward. This is a highly contagious disease
and should not be permitted in the wards! Again, the administration did not follow expert (the
veterinarians') recommendations placed in a comprehensive outline of how to handle disease and
sanitation.

. 3) No Protocols. A dog in the isolation ward broke with parvo virus at which time the animal had
profuse, bloody diarrhea. It was recommended by the veterinarian that no dogs move in or out of
the ward for a minimum of 10 days. The administration and staff literally laughed in the
veterinarian'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 of
controlling disease. The observation ward has become a regular ward. Again, while it is noble to
want to save as many dogs as possible, creating this disease-infested facility is inhumane to the
dogs.
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 the
administration office to allow for all day socialization with other dogs and humans. While this
seems like a great idea, having urine, vomit and fecal material on a carpeted surface is
unsanitary. Even outbreaks of parvo virus with bloody diarrhea occurred in the office. This is a
highly contagious disease and the carpet does not allow for proper cleaning and disinfection. This
does not even begin to describe the odor you are met with when you enter the administration
office area from continual urine saturation of the carpet!
2) Routinely dogs were kept in the employee lounge and restrooms! It was not uncommon to walk
into the break room and find urine and feces all over the floor- needless to say, no students or
veterinarians 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 towel
sitting 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 the
administration. Dr. Hill, Dr. O'Quin, and I spent many hours outlining changes that should have
taken place in order to decrease the incidence of infectious disease. These recommendations
were ignored.
5) Last Monday receiving was full so that dogs were placed in crates that were stacked on top of
each other. They had been there most of the day, and I'm not sure if they were there overnight or
not. At least two of them were unable to stand and most had voided in the crate and were unable
to avoid lying in it. To get rid of the crate situation without euthanizing animals one of the
quarantine rooms is now being used as a holding ward. Animals are being treated in the holding
and adoption wards, further spreading disease. They are also asking us to do surgery on them
while they are ill. R66 was on my schedule today with URI and severe green nasal discharge. I
did not perform surgery on this dog, though they said he was on meds and I should just do him
last.

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 of
respiratory 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 small
cages with little human contact or exercise for months on end. In many cases, behavior problems
develop or worsen. I commonly saw muscle wasting in some of the longer term residents and the
development of demodex in those who were not affected on arrival. If animals were confined this
way 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 as
possible, many negative things occur to dogs that are being kept in a cage for months on end with
little human contact or ability to be outdoors. Behavioral issues abound and any behavioral
concerns 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 have
behavioral concerns. Most of these dogs were unknown to the veterinary staff, but were having
medications dispensed to them. These medications were being prescribed and dispensed by the
administration. 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 not
readily obtainable. There was a concern at one point amongst the staff about a person who does
foster work for the shelter. It was reported that she had so many dogs in her house that she was
sleeping in her car. Is this not a case for animal hoarding? The validity of this story is
questionable, 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 sick
and are housed off site. The conditions of these warehoused dogs are unknown to me but should
be investigated.

Medical records system

1) Altered medical records. This is extremely serious. As a veterinarian, it is paramount to keep
accurate medical records. On repeated occasions, medical records were altered to create the
administrations' desired outcome for that dog. This is illegal! The expert in this situation (the
veterinarian) was being disregarded.
2) Medical records (which were kept by veterinarians) were often altered and/or disregarded by the
administration. This happened in varying degrees. Many times my medical recommendations
were crossed out and written over by a staff member. Other times the records would disappear
entirely. Usually this happened when the medical recommendation interfered with the
administration'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 animal
health and medical care at the Franklin County Dog Shelter (FCDS). Although most staff
demonstrated compassion and concern for the FCDS animals, there were deficiencies in basic
animal 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 appropriately
recognized or treated. There are no written protocols for any aspect of shelter operations, and
training materials contain inaccuracies and conflict with verbal descriptions of policies provided by
management, which in turn differ from actual practices. Staff, including management,
demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding animal health and medical care. Staff members were
heard giving unqualified and potentially inaccurate medical advice to the public.

2) No Protocols. Again, documents from experts (veterinarians) were given to help guide protocols in
the shelter. To review, these documents were ignored by administration.
Case in point follows: A cleaning attendant noted a small breed, neurological dog in a regular
ward. The dog was examined. Given the development of neurological signs and the fact of no
owner or medical (vaccine) history, it was recommended for euthanasia and infectious disease
testing (Le.: most concerning rabies). In a population situation and from a public health concern, it
was very important to remove this animal from the facility. The administration elected to keep the
animal in a regular ward with a sign up that said one should wear gloves when handling the
animal, 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 the
animal was positive for something like rabies and then a human got bit. This animal should have
been immediately culled.
3) Absolutely no protocols are set in place to handle certain situations, Le.: the neurologic dog that
was brought into the medical clinic! Neurologic dog with no owner, recommend euthanasia and
rabies testing. Lisa's (FCDS Director Lisa Wahoff) medical opinion was- put employees at risk and
send the dog for a neuro consult!

Communication

1) No Communication. During my time there, not once was there a meeting with the administration to
discuss any issues at hand. It was always an environment of hostility and resentment towards the
veterinary professionals and students.
2) There were no channels for productive communication between the veterinarians and the
administration. No meetings were held despite many requests. Staff concerns were largely
ignored. 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 be
productive and rewarding. I believe that all of the problems stem from a misguided intention to
save the animals. Ironically, the policies and decisions of this administration have resulted in
decreased 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 student
intern. Initially the behavior department was considered a high priority. The administration was very open
and encouraging as far as program development and implementation. It was the director's idea to fund an
Open Paw conference attendance. The director was very supportive of new programs and held meetings
with staff to ensure that the programs were respected and carried out appropriately.
Temperament/behavior evaluation testing gradually increased for questionable dogs before adoption and
new adopters were getting greater education at the time of adoption. The high volume of dogs and lack of
available space and/or time for rehabilitation made extensive behavior evaluations challenging and many
times decisions had to be made in regards to a dog's disposition that were quite difficult. The behavior
department, technical staff and administration all made an effort to make some of the more difficult or less
straightforward decisions together.
After a one year break from the shelter, I returned to the shelter part-time as a veterinarian, working
primarily with the behavior department (behavior intern). From the beginning of my employment I noticed
an abrupt difference in the role and perception of the behavior department. The chair veterinarian for the
behavior department had revolutionized the behavior screening process. Every dog received a somewhat
objective behavior evaluation before being placed up for adoption and new adopters were being
interviewed in regards to the type of dog that would best fit their needs. Dangerous dogs were for the
most part eliminated from the adoption floor and better matches between dog and adoptive home were
being made.
With the greater number of dogs being evaluated, however, came the increased number of euthanasia
recommendations based on aggression and anxiety problems. Euthanasia is not an easy decision for

. anyone to make, but the behavior department felt an obligation to the public to provide safe and
emotionally competent pets. Thus, when a dog showed signs of aggression or was surrendered based on
severe 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 daily
occurrence. Organized discussion was lost and many emotional, hurtful, and unprofessional words were
exchanged.
FCDS shelter possessed few options for safe rehabilitation of these animals, despite an extensive
foster program. Foster homes were available for some of the less severe dogs, but the educational staff
for these foster homes was lacking. With shelter space and foster homes filling up, the shelter was left
with an excess of dogs, many of whom possessed behavior traits that made them poor adoption
candidates. Overcrowding became a large problem. More devastatingly, dogs with observed behavior
problems remained on the adoption floor. The administration seemed to be under pressure to keep
euthanasia rates as low as possible. The price for this decision was mental and physical deterioration of
dogs that remained for weeks to months on end. The shelter was far understaffed (presumably due to
budget restrictions) for the volume of dogs at task. Kennel attendants could barely keep up with waste
clean up and many potential adopters were turned off by the unsightly conditions. For the most part, the
kennel attendant staff were compassionate and caring with the dogs, but their primary role was feeding
and clean up. This meant that the dogs depended solely on volunteers for daily walks and attention. The
majority of dogs were not walked at all. An attempt was made to train some of the behaviorally
challenging dogs, but as the numbers outweighed the resources for such training, that program eventually
fell to the wayside.
The addition of a volunteer coordinator helped rejuvenate the volunteer forces and more dogs were
getting their daily walks. The dark and dirty conditions turned many volunteers off and many of them did
not return after their initial training. Another growing problem with volunteers was that many dogs were
difficult 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 months
into my employment as a veterinarian. Results of aggression during behavior evaluations were being
ignored in many cases and dogs with bite histories were making their way into adoptive homes. I will not
even go into the petty changing and hiding of behavior evaluation results at this time. All I can say at this
time 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 to
quantity of animals vs. quality of life for the individual animals. In my opinion, quality of life for a FCDS dog
is poor. More dogs are being retained for adoption and, according to record, adoption rates have not
increased. Many dogs show very poorly on the adoption floor and, thus, remain unadopted for months in
a very small cage. I have included videos as examples of such dogs to illustrate my point (Available on
request).
If the goal of FCDS is to reduce euthanasia rates and provide safe, adoptable pets, then significant
change 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 performed
on all dogs before becoming available for adoption to prevent adopter injury and dissatisfaction and to
prevent animals from remaining on the adoption floor, unwanted for months. Increased space, staff, and
professionalism 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 Dog
Shelter. I had become interested in shelter behavior after my years of extensive involvement with a local
dog rescue agency. I looked forward to my days at the shelter and was assigned to develop some new
programs for the shelter. Based on my work as an intern at the shelter, I was later offered a position to
direct the newly established Behavior Department when I graduated from The Ohio State University
Veterinary College.
The Director and I worked on the purpose and mission of the soon to be Behavior Department. These
goals were outlined and supported by a grant proposal written to the BarkPark board. (Since it was newly
created, the Behavior Department had not been included in the 2004 budget). Our purpose would be to
increase the adoptability of dogs available for adoption, decrease the number of returns, decrease the
number 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 enrichment
for dogs during their stay at the shelter, and to repair and preserve the human-animal bond by educating
dog owners so that we could effectively decrease the number of dogs relinquished due to training or
behavioral 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 the
public and a shelter dog training program.
At first, the Director was approachable and wanted to hold weekly meetings to discuss the progress of
the department and also to discuss individual dogs that may require behavioral intervention. She was
interested 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 with
the Behavior Department. We dreaded having to approach her regarding dogs that failed the evaluation
test.

The fact of euthanasia affects every shelter. Although no one likes the idea of euthanasia, it is an
everyday reality, especially at a county facility as large as Franklin County. The two main reasons for
rejection for adoption were aggression and anxiety. These are two of the most common reasons that
dogs are surrendered to the shelter to begin with. Although never an easy decision, the Behavior
Department always chose to make decisions objectively, not emotionally, unlike the Director. Euthanasia
for some dogs was honestly the most humane and safe option. Dogs with aggression should not be
adopted out to the general public. Near the end of my employment at the shelter, the Director often times
opted against euthanasia for a dog with behavioral issues and instead sent it out the door to a foster home
to an often unknowing foster parent. It should be noted that despite at attempts to develop behavior
training 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 with
the four-five individuals working exclusively within the Behavior Department. The shelter has honestly
become 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. Almost
all 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 a
rescued 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 a
bond to develop. No one benefits from this type of adoption; the dog finds itself back within the confines
of 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 results
of aggression during behavioral evaluations were being ignored as Were dogs surrendered with bite
histories. Our recommendations were ignored and often these dogs were finding their way out of the
shelter into adoptive homes! All matter of respect for the expertise of those in the Department had
disappeared. 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 the
sake 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 walk
through. I shudder at the thought of all of the dogs that are probably being retained on the floor with no
mental stimulation or behavioral enrichment. Too many dogs are being held for too long a period of time
with no thoughts about the repercussions of the shelter's decisions. The shelter needs to have trained
professionals available in the area of behavior in order to promote better and safer adoptions and to enrich
the lives of the dogs during their hopefully short stay at the shelter. However, this seems like this may

. never happen since unfortunately the Behavior Department is now non-existent.