Did Wilkes County NC Pit Bulls Get Gassed?

One must question how a "humane society" that loves our pets can stand by silently without being outraged that the victims in the Wilkes County Dog Fighting case became the ultimate victims of animal cruelty with the systematic method used to end their lives. - Spalding Gas Chamber

Here in Georgia we face our own admissions of inhumane shortcomings, especially from those in the "ivory towers" of animal advocacy who refused to speak out against the travesty of murdering pets in the remaining Georgia counties that still use gas chambers.




From Nathan's blog....

Did Wilkes County Dogs Get Gassed?
March 9, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd

With the uproar over the Wilkes County massacre focusing on the systematic and needless killing of the 145 dogs and puppies, and the Humane Society of the United State’s shameless defense of it, there hasn’t been a lot of commentary on the cruel way the dogs probably died. Did the Wilkes County dogs get gassed? Except for the really young puppies, according to testimony at a County Commission meeting, the answer is probably, yes.

The Wilkes County NC shelter which was the sight of the massacre is back in the news—defending the carbon monoxide gas chamber to kill animals, even as employees there have admitted that when they use carbon monoxide, it isn’t “a pretty sight, with animals scratching and trying to get out.”

Despite testimony from a veterinarian that animals put in gas chambers “endure more trauma and pain than necessary to end their lives,” the Director of the Wilkes County shelter not only defended the use of gas, but he defended shooting animals, and claimed (erroneously) that it takes upwards of five minutes after lethal injection for animals to stop breathing.

Webster’s dictionary defines euthanasia as “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.” Unfortunately, in most shelter environments, animals are not solely being killed because they are hopelessly sick or injured, but rather as “population control.” In this environment, shelter killing—particularly of healthy and treatable animals—raises a host of ethical questions and dilemmas, many of which are being raised by the public in communities across the country.

At the very least, shelters who kill, particularly those which kill large numbers of animals, are obligated to ensure that employees are technically proficient, competent, skilled, compassionate, properly trained, and doing everything in their power to make sure the animals are as free from stress and anxiety as possible. The use of a gas chamber does not allow this.

A “relatively painless” death can only occur in an environment where sensitivity, compassion, and skill, combine with efforts to minimize distress and anxiety. By contrast, gas systems take time to kill—during which animals experience distress and anxiety, and can struggle to survive. They can result in animals surviving the gassing, only to suffer even more. They are designed for the ease of shelter workers, not care and compassion for the animals.

The use of such systems to kill animals is universally condemned by humane advocates and progressive shelters, and has been outlawed for dogs and cats in several states including New York and California. According to Dr. Michael Moyer, V.M.D. from the University of Pennsylvania College of Veterinary Medicine:

There is no progressive sheltering agency of any scope or stature willing to philosophically embrace gas systems for the killing of any species of animals. Sheltering is deliberately, inexorably, and philosophically moving away from mass killing as an acceptable method of dog/cat population control.

That there are technical features of one system that distinguish it from other such systems is irrelevant. Profit center analysis, head-to-head demonstrations, ease of use, load capacity—none of these are capable of overcoming the humane and philosophical objection to mechanized death at the core of those who have moved away from this technology.

In short, they should never be used. But they are in Wilkes County. And they most likely were for most of the Wilkes County dogs.

To view a video of animals being gassed and then thrown into a dumpster, click here. (Caution: this film videotaped inside a North Carolina shelter is very graphic.)

Excerpted From the Wilkes-Journal Patriot, March 9, 2009

The Wilkes County Animal Shelter’s use of carbon monoxide poisoning to euthanize dogs and cats was challenged during the “public concerns” portion of the county commissioners meeting Tuesday night.

Janice Combs said lethal injection was more humane and should be used instead. Ms. Combs said Wilkes was among the few places where carbon monoxide poisoning was still used.

Legislation proposed in the current N.C. General Assembly session bans euthanization by carbon monoxide. It requires that animals be euthanized only by lethal injection or by ingestion of sodium pentobarbital and that euthanasia be performed only by licensed veterinarians or certified euthanasia technicians.

Ms. Combs said that when she called the Wilkes Animal Shelter last year about the matter, an employee told her both methods were used there and that animals didn’t die quickly with carbon monoxide poisoning. The employee “said it wasn’t a pretty sight, with animals scratching and trying to get out,” she added…

Ms. Combs, an employee of the Town of Elkin, left a video and written materials for county officials to view. They included written statements criticizing use of carbon monoxide poisoning to euthanize animals, one signed by four veterinarians in Winston-Salem and the other by a veterinarian in Bahama (near Durham)…

Part of the statement from the four veterinarians with Ard-Vista Animal Hospital in Winston-Salem read, “Unfortunately, euthanasia by carbon monoxide gas chambers is still in use in many animal shelters due to lack of training, resources, funding or a combination of the above. Animals placed in these chambers, who may be suffering already, endure more trauma and pain than necessary to end their lives.”

Wilkes Animal Control Director Junior Simmons said in an interview this morning that opposition to carbon monoxide euthanization is based more on misinformation than fact.

Simmons said older animals with difficulty breathing and animals up to 4 months old are euthanized with lethal injection of sodium pentobarbital at the Wilkes Animal Shelter as recommended by the N.C. Department of Agriculture.

Except in cases where an animal struck by a vehicle or injured in some other way makes euthanization by gunshot more humane, he said, other animals at the shelter are euthanized by carbon monoxide.

He said three dogs of comparable size at a time typically are placed in the carbon monoxide chamber. When the gas is released, said Simmons, they become unconscious in 20 to 45 seconds and die as they stop breathing in two to five minutes. He said the length of time is about the same with lethal injection…

Tax Woes for City Councilman Eddie Price

When you think of property taxes and elected officials it never dawns on you that those with the power to tax your home don't think they have to pay taxes on the property they own.

An investigation into property held by Lilburn City Councilman's Eddie Price has resulted in a tax bill off over $1,700 being issued to Councilman Price for illegally claiming a homestead exemption on rental property he owns.

Councilman Price has owned and operated his business, Eddie's Automotive (located on Webb Parkway), in the City of Lilburn since June of 1990. He lives in Lilburn with his family and is a deeply committed member of the community. However, he's not as committed to pay his property taxes.

Price involved himself in my dog barking case in Gwinnett's Recorders Court last August when he testified that he was caretaker for his wife's rental property located two doors down.

Property records confirmed the house is deeded to Price's wife "Wanda Moaveni" with the tax bills being sent to Price's luxury home located at 230 Flowers Cove Lane in Liburn. Price now rents that property out to a family who owns two outdoor dogs whose barking apparently isn't an issue.

What is unclear is why Price had such an issue with my dogs since he lives several miles away - or was he interested in forcing me out of my home so he could purchase it in a distress sale? Regardless, his ethics and capacity to represent citizens should be questioned.

One is left to wonder what role Price played in the county solicitor's position that "my" neighborhood would be better served if I surrendered upwards of ten of my dogs or MOVED to resolve my barking dog issue. Was Price interested in justice and tranquility or merely seeking the opportunity to purchase my property in a distress sale?

The integrity of any political figure who seeks to kill old lazy hounds should be an issue for all of us who cherish our family pets. Those elected to government positions must serve as a role model in paying ALL the taxes that they are required to pay. It is disingenuous for a person of Price's political stature to run on a "deep commitment" to the community keeping property owners taxes low while in fact he is claiming exemptions he is not entitled to.

Councilman Price chose to involve himself in my dog barking case which ultimately opened up his involvement of the skimming off of tax revenue he was participating in. Those who cast stones should not live in glass houses.

This issue will certainly surface during future discussions with the city of Lilburn's attempt at annexing a large part of un incorporated Gwinnett.

I certainly don't want a person who places personal greed over citizens rights to own pets making decisions for me or my hounds.

Coyotes not that dangerous, experts contend

An interesting article appears with attempts to dismiss some of the fears and myths that coyotes present in our communities. Since coyotes are part of the canine kingdom one is left to wonder whether these feral dogs will be held accountable for any howling under the new proposed Gwinnett barking ordiances.

With an ever shrinking green space (thank you developers) in which to survive it's becoming more common to hear their howls in the early evening hours, a howl that is often followed by a chorus of howls from neighborhood dogs as well. Is this some sort of communication between the two groups of dogs? One would assume that with a dog's inherent characteristic of protecting their pack and their territory that the noise generated from this ritual is harmless but who should be held accountable under the county's view of what constitutes "nuisance barking".

One could argue that a pet owner who has a dog that lives or spends time outdoors would be criminally responsible each and every time their dogs barks for five times for thirty seconds. Yet, if you listen to the communication between the coyotes and neighborhood dogs this would be all part of a "normal commication dialog.

The real question is who is responsible for the noise generated from the coyotes? Common sense would say (which this proposed law seriously lacks) the owner of the property where the barking originates should be responsible. Does that mean that the county will find themselves in violation of their own ordinance? Or will the county offer up some feeble explanation that barking sounds generated from the wild are exempt while the reply barking from our family dogs is not?

Unlike the feral cat population which our animal control seems willing to trap and kill there seems to be no public policy that involves county animal control's irresponsibility in tracking down these canine hardened and lifetime criminals. After all, a reasonable mind would understand that not only do coyotes routinely violate the nuisance barking laws but are allowed to violate the restraint laws, the laws requiring vaccination and reasonable vet care, and perhaps borderline cases of not complying with dangerous dog provisions.

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2009/01/31/news/a3-coyoteterror.txt

Coyotes not that dangerous, experts contend

Saturday, January 31, 2009 5:30 AM EST
By Pamela McLoughlin, Register Staff

BETHANY — After receiving a flurry of panicked calls in response to what was described by some media as a “coyote attack” on a 17-year-old girl in her yard Tuesday, wildlife experts have this message for residents: Relax and let your kids go outside again.

First, according to police, the girl was never bitten or attacked but was apparently scared and injured from an encounter with pricker bushes.

Second, wildlife experts say coyotes get a bum rap in general and are often the first to be blamed for missing cats when indeed cars pose a much greater danger to pets.

The wildlife hotline at the Humane Society of the United States’ office in Woodbridge has been ringing off the hook since news broke of the alleged coyote attack. “This is scaring people and they’re afraid to let their children out of the houses, which is really uncalled for,” said Laura Simon, field director for the Urban Wildlife Program for the Humane Society of the United States.

“It’s a fairy tale: Here’s the big bad wolf coming to take their children away,” she said.

State Trooper David Merriam said the teen was in a yard on a farm on Litchfield Turnpike — not walking on Litchfield Turnpike as originally reported — when something came out from behind a structure that she thought was a coyote. She ran or fell into pricker bushes and received scratches from those on her upper thighs, he said. At first she said she had been bitten by a coyote, then said she was not, Merriam said.

Emergency responders couldn’t find any puncture marks on the girl and so she was not transported by them to the hospital.

Merriam said there haven’t been any other reports of coyote attacks in Bethany that he can recall.

Simon said the lack of bite mark evidence speaks for itself. “If you were bitten by a coyote there would be no doubt,” she said. She said in just about all the cases of a person being nipped or bitten by a coyote, the animal either was being fed by humans and was used to being near people, or was rabid.

Simon noted a case last year in which a woman was nipped in the knee by a coyote, but as it turns out, that animal had become brazen because employees at a Branford McDonald’s were feeding it. At that time, Paul Rego, a state Department of Environmental Protection wildlife biologist, said it was the first time in his 20 years on the job that he’s ever heard of a coyote injuring a human being.

Simon said some people make the mistake of leaving cat or dog food out for coyotes to eat, and the animals then become used to people.

She said people can reverse the feeling of comfort coyotes can gain around humans by chasing them or making loud noises by banging pot tops together.

Often the howling of a family of coyotes scares people who interpret it as a battle cry, she said, but usually it’s just communication because the animals are social with each other.

She said the state estimates there are 2,000 coyotes in Connecticut and they are more noticed or seen when they appear in the suburbs because they are more visible than in the woods.

Simon said a call to wildlife experts often goes like this:

“There’s a coyote in my yard and he’s menacing,” the caller might say.

“What’s he doing?” the wildlife expert will ask.

“He’s in my yard,” comes the response.

“But what’s he doing?” is the next question.

“Laying their sunning himself,” the caller will report.

But, said Simon, “Just because they see a coyote, it’s not menacing.”

“This is not a new threat. We just have to be smart,” she said.

Pamela McLoughlin can be reached at pmcloughlin@nhregister.com.

AJC - Ordinance would get tougher on barking dogs

Gwinnett's Animal Advisory Council is encouraging pet owners to submit comments on these proposals before the draft is submitted to the county commissioners.

http://www.ajc.com/gwinnett/content/metro/gwinnett/stories/2009/01/30/gwinnett_barking_dogs.html

GWINNETT COUNTY
Ordinance would get tougher on barking dogs
By PATRICK FOX

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Friday, January 30, 2009

Gwinnett dog owners will be required to keep a closer ear on their best friends if a draft resolution under consideration becomes law.

The county’s citizen Animal Advisory Council is considering changes to the animal control ordinance that sets more specific limits on how long and how loud a dog can bark. It also expands the description for tethering of animals.

The biggest change is the definition of “intermittent” barking, which would be defined as any vocalization by an animal for a continuing period of 30 seconds or more on five or more occasions in any 30-minute period. The current ordinance does not define intermittent, but only states that such barking cannot go on for more than 30 minutes.
The draft proposal also defines as a nuisance any vocalization plainly audible to a person of ordinary hearing ability not located on the same property as the animal. The proposal would excuse barking “given as a warning to the presence of a person trespassing on the property” where the animal is located.

The proposal has generated some chatter on local blogs, but county officials dismiss some of the criticism as preposterous.

Karen Thomas, director of the county attorney’s office, which is helping draft the ordinance, said the advisory council is addressing the issue because of concerns raised in the community.

“It’s the whole balancing thing of if you have an animal, then you should care for the animal,” she said. “It’s to help make sure there is no mistreatment of animals.”

Penalties include up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail. The proposal, in its infancy, is not scheduled to be heard by the County Commission any time soon.

Advisory council chairperson Gail LaBerge would not comment on the specifics of the ordinance, saying only that its under review.

Randy DeCarlo, a frequent critic of the animal control ordinance, said there is a more sinister motive behind the effort.

“The main crux of the problem with the animal ordinance on barking is they allow anybody to file a criminal complaint against you, without any investigation from any policing agency,” DeCarlo said. “If you own one dog, you face six months in jail. That’s absurd. You don’t put people in jail because their dogs bark.”

DeCarlo added that the ordinance may curtail adoptions at the animal shelter, resulting in more animals being put down.

“I can’t remember the last time we impounded a dog for barking,” said shelter manager Mary Lou Respess.

The new ordinance, she said, actually makes it tougher to prosecute an owner because it ultimately takes two neighbors — not one — to swear out a barking complaint.

“People don’t say ‘I’m not going to adopt a dog because it might bark,” Respess said. “It just doesn’t come up.”

County Attorney's seek to tighten noose on barking dogs

County Attorney's seek to tighten the noose on barking dogs

County attorney's are recommended changes in the wording of Gwinnett's controversial dog barking ordinance which will all but doom that barks in Gwinnett County.

Gwinnett's County Attorney's office has taken a new approach in trying to sell it's latest version of the county's "get tough" approach on dog barking. The new ordinance proposal has moved "nuisance barking" out of section 10-33 Public Nuisance Animals and created an new

section 10-51 "Duty of animal owners to be responsible owners.

It reads:

Sec 10-51 Duty of animal owners to be responsible owners.

a) It shall be the duty of every owner or custodian of any animal to exercise reasonable care and take all the necessary steps and precautions to protect other people, property, and animals from injuries or damage which might result from their animals's behavior.

Similar to the current ordinance the county defines ordinance violations as "ANY vocalizations which are plainly audible to a person of ordinary hearing ability not located on same property as the animal or animals making such vocalizations for more then fifteen minutes without interruption" or "more then thirty minutes if the vocalization is intermittent."

The new twist is the county solicitor Allison Cauthon's explanation that the county defines intermittent barking to be any "vocalization of any animal or animals for a continuing period of thirty seconds or more on five or more occasions in any thirty minute period."

What this means for a typical owner of three dogs is if those three dogs barked for thirty seconds, stopped and then resumed barking for another thirty seconds the pet owner would be in violation of the ordinance, even if that barking was only dogs playfully chasing down local squirrels. The pet owner could face up to three terms of six months jail time, up to $3,000 in fines and court ordered disposal of all three family dogs even for an innocuous first offense.

There is nothing in this ordinance that would prohibit people from provoking dogs into barking by either making deliberate bursts of noise, rattling a fence or pointing a video camera or cell phone at one's property and filming that outburst as evidence of barking violation. Nor does the ordinance allow dogs to bark or communicate with other animals in near proximity to your property.

Unethical realtors or property owners who hate dogs could simply choose to stalk your property and film a dog's natural defensive tendency of warning of an impending breach of the domain. If your dog stands in the way of making a quick sale in this housing market your pets could simply become collateral damage in a down market.

It was clear as county solicitor who prosecutes these misdemeanor animal cases, Allison Cauthen argued over the concepts of a dog genetically inclined to bark at any person, animal or thing it would view as an intruder. This would include complaintants armed with video camera's seeking to "manufacture" evidence of barking violations to be used in criminal prosecutions.

An unknown person holding and pointing a video camera aimed at a dog should be a reasonable defense that a dog determines a threat is present, yet, our solicitor routinely uses this as evidence to convict.

While Allison claims to have been involved with animal protection issues since she was a small child and that it was this passion of protecting animals formed the very reason she attended law school she fails to understand that dogs use barking as their primary method of communication.

It would be inhumane and cruel to force pet owners, who have fenced yards, to confine their pets in cages for over 23 hours a day in order to be in compliance with the county's barking ordinance.

In an even more disturbing twist the county has thrown out to current law which states "the vocalization does not apply if the vocalization(s) are given as a warning to the presence of an intruder".

That language has been changed to "these time limits do not apply if the vocalizations are given as a warning to the presence of a person trespassing on the property where the animal or animals are located."

In effect, if enacted a pet owner would be in violation if a neighborhood thug menaced or threatened the property was located as long as that thug didn't enter or trespass on the pet owners property.

Since anyone living in a near proximity of the barking dog CAN file a complaint that leads to a citation, criminals will be rejoicing in being able to remove an animal who's tirelessly protects the property and lives of their "family".

Home owners will lose a valuable tool in preventing criminals from launching home invasions. Criminals will be protected with the use of video camera's that can remove obstacles to their criminal future criminal behavior - your dogs.

Once the dogs are gone they are free to replace the video camera with masks and weapons - this law does nothing to prevent home invasions, burglaries or other acts of violence against otherwise law abiding citizens.

The only real winners will be the criminals who prey on our neighborhoods. Once a criminal has gained access to your home often times it is too late. Dogs act as a deterrent to neighborhood crime - something that our county attorney's office seem to overlook in their quest in increasing the conviction rate on dog barking cases. Will our elected officials be equally negligent and over look thr role dogs play in protecting our homes as well?

Under these revised changes community watch programs will change dramatically. The ever vigilant canine would be disposed of, sent to our community kill shelter and disposed of as a reward for protecting the family home. Our new pet free neighborhoods might be silenced by our new found fears.

Barking is a mode of communication that is common in dogs, it may even be the result of human encouragement. Certain breeds have been bred to bark as part of their watchdog or herding duties.

Barking is used to alert or warn others and defend a territory, to seek attention or play, to identify oneself to another dog, and as a response to boredom, excitement, being startled, lonely, anxious, or teased.

Dog owners learn to understand this as a communication between them and their pets. We learn to understand when our dogs want attention or want to play. We also learn to understand when our dogs are warning us of impending threats or fear. A true animal advocate and protector cherishes and respects this as an unconditional bond between humans and their canine friends.

Barking laws in Gwinnett are the only ordinance violation that relies solely on citizen driven complaints that are typically never verified. It remains unclear what role animal control holds in investigating these violations or if an investigation is even required. Even though these charges carry potential jail time jury trials are not allowed under recorder's court rules. Animal owners are denied the same due process rights that are routinely provided thugs and criminals.

The law doesn't allow ANY barking - even if that barking is the result of an effort to train your pet. If enacted, pet owners would face serious obstacles with training a playful pup or a poorly socialized shelter or rescue dog. What effect will these laws have on anyone considering adding a dog from our shelter who might need training or a period of time to adjust. Since the law also allows ALL your dogs to be cited, even if only one or a few are actually barking, pet owners will and should be concerned about adding any dogs in the future.

Also excluded would be pet owners or their children who might want to exercise or play with their dogs in THEIR fenced yards if that play activity included playful barking with five intermittent bursts of thirty seconds or more.

This law is easily manipulated by neighbors who have issues or squabbles that have absolutely nothing to do with the dogs involved. Rather then drawing our neighborhoods together squabbles that lead to the loss of our family pets will instead serve as a catalyst for ripping them apart.

Long time residents who have chosen their homes BECAUSE of the right to responsibly have family pets can easily be manipulated and forced out by unethical realtors and home owners who don't share those values.

Over 60,000 citizens in the un incorporated parts of Gwinnett have a love affair with their family pets. The image of having Fluffy or Fido ripped from the family home is one that will serious damage an already depressed market for the homes we own.

No one wants to live in a community where a family lives in fear - that fear that their family pet could very well be next to be accused of being a "public nuisance". Our community will be judged on how we treat our elderly, our children and our family pets. That is the core values of family values.

Dog barking offenses should be treated like every other noise ordinance on the books. It is disingenuous that a property owner has the right to unlimited access to noise emitting devices not limited to power mowers, leaf blowers and an assortment of other devices while pet owners are forced to all but silence their pets to protect them from court ordered seizure, huge fines and potential jail time simply because they choose to live in and own a dog in Gwinnett.

As pet owners, we are responsible for providing the same protection to our pets as they provide our families, even if our county attorney's office does not share those same values. Pets are not disposable, you do not replace them like some worn out lawnmower an d you do speak out loudly against any government attempt that endangers them.

Advocating for animals involves fairness in our laws that protect our pets from being abused - even if that abuse comes from our judicial system that places unfair expectations on dogs who behave simply as they are supposed to behave.

Contact information for the county attorney's office who are drafting these changes:

thersea.cox@gwinnettcounty.com) and

allison.cauthen@gwinnettcounty.com)

Please forward your comments to our elected officials and remind them that your vote includes protecting our family pets. Any vote in support of these changes will be cause not only to lose that vote but our respect as well.

Polite but firm phone calls please.

Gwinnett Board of Commssioners

Charles.Bannister@gwinnettcounty.com
Commission Chairman:
Charles Bannister770.822.7010

Shirley.Lassiter@gwinnettcounty.com
District 1 Commissioner: Shirley Lassiter 770.822.7001

Bert.Nasuti@gwinnettcounty.com
District 2 Commissioner: Bert Nasuti 770.822.7002

Mike.Beaudreau@gwinnettcounty.com
District 3 Commissioner: Mike Beaudreau 770.822.7003

Kevin.Kenerly@gwinnettcounty.com
District 4 Commissioner: Kevin Kenerly 770.822.7004

Gwinnett Animal Advisory Council

Gail Laberge Chairperson - Lawrenceville Kennel Club
outland@laberge.org

Dennis Kronenfeld - Feline Issues
DK1011@aol.com

Dr.Timothy Montgomery - Gwinnett Municipal Association
Dawgdoc@mindspring.com

Tricia Smith - Gwinnett Extension Service
Tricia.Smith@gwinnettcounty.com

Gloria Kennedy - Gwinnett Humane Society
calicoglk@netzero.com

Carla Brown - Member at Large
carla.brown@gwinnettcounty.com

Clara Seals - Shetland Sheepdog Club of Georgia, Inc. Member at Large
CPSeals@aol.com

Mary Lou Repress - Gwinnett Animal Shelter Director
Mary.Respess@gwinnettcounty.com