The next entry I wrote for “The Dog
Logs” was going to be about the foster puppy, Rango, but before I
had the time to finish it, something else came along that demanded my
attention…
There is a picture that started
circulating on Facebook a few days ago of a bloodied and sad little
Australian Shepherd. It’s a heart-breaking picture, really. Having
sincere concerns for the welfare of this animal, I immediately had
questions. How did this happen? WHY did it happen? What kind of
injury are we looking at? Is anyone taking responsibility for this?
The picture and its caption were soon
spread with adamant intent. The caption varied slightly from person
to person with each posting but its general gist was this: “This is
what happened when Animal Control picked up Cassie Simms dog!!! This
is Auston, he is the nicest dog ever and he was out in their alley
yesterday playing with some other dog when animal control picked him
up and proceeded to beat him. Those of you that know Auston know that
he wouldn’t hurt a fly, this makes me sick to think that anyone
could do this to such a sweet dog, or any animal at that. When we
went to pick him up this is how his owners found him, his lip was
busted, he had a cut on his chest, he was bleeding from his nose, and
looked like he had been tossed around. The owners feel like there is
nothing they can do about it. The police were called and they won’t
do anything about it because animal control is who deals with animal
cruelty. We want this story to spread like wildfire. This happened
right here in Amarillo, and it’s completely unacceptable. Something
needs to be done to whoever did this.”
This caption only raised more questions
for me. Dogs don’t belong in alleys. Why was the dog in the alley?
Had it run out the door of his home or had he escaped his yard? How
did Animal Control happen upon this dog? Was his home near where he
was found or had he been wandering the streets for days? My next
concern was why the people involved automatically assumed the dog had
been beaten by Animal Control. The dog could have been in a fight
with another dog. The dog could have injured himself while escaping
his own yard. There are MANY questions that a rational person would
have asked before jumping to that particular conclusion.
Being somewhat familiar with the
establishment, I was positive that there is NO person employed by
this agency who clocks in every morning with the intention of
breaking into someone’s yard and stealing their dog to beat it
bloody (which is the FIRST position the owner took – that later
changed). The notion is absurd beyond comprehension. Every single
person on staff there owns at least one, if not several animals.
Contrary to the currently popular circulating rumors, they’re
actually employed to help protect animals as well as people because
they CARE.
This is going to bounce around a bit
because this story has been ALL OVER the place and it's quite
confusing, even to me. Please bear with me as I try to piece it
together as logically as possible from the information I have
gathered.
The night the dog was taken into
custody (Tuesday, May 8), the owner told officers that she would be
going to the media because of her outrage over the situation. Animal
Control had no problem with that because they knew they weren’t in
the wrong. She has every right to do so, should she deem it
necessary.
On the afternoon of May 9, the head of
Animal Control contacted the owner and asked if the dog had seen a
vet about his injuries. She was told that if she didn’t have a
particular vet she already used that they could recommend some and
would happily pay the bill for a full examination including x-rays or
whatever was deemed necessary. She already had a vet that she had
seen regularly, so it was suggested that she go see the one with whom
she was already familiar. Animal Control also contacted the vet and
asked for a full medical report upon completion of the examination
because if there WAS any sign of abuse from one of the officers,
action upon said officer would be taken swiftly. The vet soon
reported to the owner of the dog and to Animal Control that the only
injuries found were several cuts in the mouth and a slightly swollen
jaw, consistent with any animal biting a staff. The vet also advised
there was no wound on the dog’s chest as stated in the caption. The
animal displayed no tenderness or soft tissue damage indicating that
the animal had been abused in any way.
I soon found a
page on Facebook that had been created for the incident at hand:
“Justice for Auston.” (I’m not here to question why the
spelling of the dog’s name changed 3 times; I’m sticking with the
“O” because that’s what’s been most consistent.) They posted
the video of the ProNews7 interview where the dog was happily
bounding around the yard, playing with the owner, and with no visible
injuries. What WAS visible in the video were gaps in their fencing
large enough for a small horse to escape.
See for yourselves here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LYzJ9dHW6kU
As people lined up to bash the
government agency for their cruelty, I decided to start asking
questions. It was only fair to start with the instigating party, to
see if I could get a more fully formed side of their story.
“If
the dog was so severely "beaten" why is he running and
playing in the yard? Have you ever seen a scared animal on the end of
a catch pole? Have you ever had your tongue pierced? It bleeds a LOT.
The wounds could have very easily been self-inflicted and have
apparently been confirmed by HER veterinarian as such. Keep in mind
there are always TWO sides to every story.”
I
know now that these were not the correct questions to ask of these
people. The point to the tongue piercing question was that when I was
16 and living in Austin mine was done incorrectly and bled profusely
for nearly an hour. I didn't think it was ever going to stop. A
frightened animal biting at a metal stick could cause a lot more
damage. You could Google a medical analysis, or just read this,:
“Mouth injuries
are common, especially in children [or dogs], and may involve the
teeth, jaw, lips, tongue, inner cheeks, gums, roof of the mouth (hard
or soft palates), neck, or tonsils. Sometimes mouth injuries look
worse than they are. Even a small cut or puncture inside the mouth
may bleed a lot because there are many blood vessels in the head and
neck area.” Thank you, Cigna Medical Care.
After
logic evaded the “Justice for Auston” group once again, I added
that their own posting began with the phrase, "An
Amarillo dog-owner is breathing a sigh of relief after it was
confirmed by a veterinarian that her dog was not abused by Animal
Control officials." I continued asking questions. “Then why
the tirade? What justice does she want? I'd think she'd want a fence
that isn't full of holes. Not ONCE have I seen anywhere that the
owner took responsibility for HER dog being out of HER yard.”
As
suspected, the Shea-bashing continued. Rikki
Lynn Nicole Quaas replied, “wow
seriously ^^^^ thats just insane.... and complete bs. NO DOG SHOULD
LOOK LIKE THAT WHEN IN CARE OF ANIMAL CONTROL, and if the "catch
pole" is such an obviously horrible way to capture an animal,
then WHY USE IT!!?? and not to mention they knew where the dog
belonged and instead of getting the owner and returning them home
they leave a note???? and catch and "BEAT" an animal that
cant speak up. Plus we all heard side 2 to the story ....”
First
of all, why am I insane? For suggesting that the owner take
responsibility for having inadequate fencing? Lemme 'splain a little
something to you. The owner was clearly not home at the time of the
incident. Do you expect the Animal Control officers to break into her
house to leave the dog inside? No. Should they have put the dog back
into the yard from which it just escaped? No. If they had done so,
the dog would have easily been able to escape again and what then?
Get run over by a car? Is THAT better for the dog than taking it into
custody? No.
After
this, a young gentleman by the name of Jake Hudson decided to toss
another spit wad in the bucket. I'm not here to call Jake a bad guy –
he's clearly passionate about the situation, although it would seem
slightly misguided. It's obvious he cares about the dog and its well
being. He's just not willing to look at any view point other than his
own.
“@Shea if you read, there was more than a bitten tongue. The dogs nose was bleeding and had cuts. I understand there are two sides to the story, but when you look at the FACTS, regardless what you think you can not ignore the fact that they left the dog in the kennel to bleed. Im about 99% sure if that was your dog, you wouldnt go "oh the pound didnt do this cuz the vet says so".
Actually, if I didn't SEE any wounds on my dog, I certainly wouldn't invent them. And if I should have my dog inspected by a professional of my choice who agrees there are no additional injuries, I wouldn't be seeking an attorney to sue someone over something that didn't happen and demanding that everyone who was called in to help (because of MY mistake) lose their job because of incompetency.
Jake continued, “Obviously if the dog was bleeding from the nose, there would have been some type of blunt force trama. If you watched the video, the director blamed that on the stick they used. Oh please that thing was plastic, likelyness that the dog was close enough to the officers to hit it on the nose is ridiculous.”
Again, I have to point out some inaccuracies. The poles are metal. The dog doesn't have to be in close proximity to the officer in order to bang his nose on it. The point is to keep the dog AWAY from the officer. If you think this is physically impossible, you've clearly never watched an episode of Animal Cops. If that's still too much effort, you could just take a gander at this video which PROVES the possibilities. I know your attention spans are short, so just skip to the 50 second mark. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVuC8LHiM3A
Oh dear mother of pearl, he's still talking. “Also Shea, this has nothing to do about her lack of responsibility. We all understand that things happen, dogs get out. But when it looks like the dog was beaten and thrown in the kennel is unjustifiable. You cant remotely consider taking there side on that, if not you dont deserve to have a dog.”
Actually, yes, it has everything to do with her lack of responsibility. And I can forgive the grammatical errors and misspellings to an extent. But to say I don't deserve to have a dog? Them's fightin' words. And it's not stopping there! “Also, i have had my tongue pierced and no it does not bleed alot ;)” I'll give you the grace of assuming you've been misled up until this point but now I can without hesitance call you a LIAR.
For some reason, I continued to beat my head against a virtual brick wall. “I work with animals every day. I am a teacher, a trainer, a reader, and a writer. Too many people are using emotion in the place of logic here. Is it not standard practice to notify an owner if their dog has been picked up? Yes. That's why they left the note. Obviously, the owner was not present when this occurred. Why was Animal Control called concerning the animal in the first place? What did the owner SEE happen to justify - aside from what a veterinarian has already disclosed - the accusations of abuse? What state of panic, aggressive or otherwise fearful as is its natural instinct, was the dog displaying at the time? How long was the dog in Animal Control's possession before the owner arrived? You shouldn't be angry at someone for having questions. I don't want to see any animal hurt when the situation could have been prevented - I care for them as much as anyone here. All I want to know is the WHOLE story. That shouldn't offend anyone rational.”
Here comes Rikki Lynn Nicole Quaas. “There was no questions asked by you. You made a blatant statement suggesting the animals injuries were self inflicted. And absolutely no animal should ever be returned to the owner looking like that ... No matter how long it is in animals cares control. Not EVER. Call whomever you like irrational, fact of the matter is if you see this picture and hear both sides of the stories which we all have and you still want to place blame on a defenseless animal then I don't even have any more to say ...that pretty much says it all. anyway.... enough outta Shea ....”
I pointed out that there were indeed TEN previously asked questions, none of which were answered. You can't say that both sides of the story were clearly represented, then turn around and accuse the news station that the owner went to of somehow providing a cover-up. It can't be BOTH. According to the owner and her friends, the TV station is lying, the newspapers are lying, the veterinarian of HER choice is lying, and of course Animal Control is lying. Everyone BUT the owner is at fault. These people are making my brain tired. I give up. If the people on this side won't answer my questions, I'll ask them elsewhere.
The entirety of my day has involved investigation of every aspect of the events which Cassie Simms has personally deemed newsworthy. Her outcry for “justice” while running to every media outlet in town is what made this information public. I didn't get into this looking to take sides or pick a fight. All I wanted to know is WHAT HAPPENED.
And this is what happened:
It was reported that several male dogs were wandering loose in an alley near Cassie Simms' home. A resident nearby owns a female Boxer who happened to be in heat. The woman who owned the boxer – and had her contained safely in her yard – called Animal Control to have the excess animals removed because they were also acting aggressively to other residents who were trying to use their alley.
At approximately 4:10, the first officer arrived at the location and quickly assessed he would not be able to handle the situation on his own and called for back up.
The people who know Auston well say that he is a very friendly dog and never aggressive towards anyone he knows. This persona can change dramatically when a male dog is trying to mate with a female in heat. In addition to this, he was also being pursued by people he didn't know who were trying to take him away from “sexy time.” In this instance, a dog would be naturally aggravated. That's just science. If you disagree, feel free to look it up.
It took both officers several minutes to corner Auston and contain him with a staff, also otherwise referred to as a “catch pole.” Once he was secured on the staff, he continued the aggressive behavior and attempted to attack one of the officers. This is another reason for the implementation of the staff. The animal fought and bit the staff from the location of his capture, all the way to the vehicle into which he was loaded. Even with the additional protection of padding on the end of the staff to help prevent injuries, he wound up biting his own lip and tongue, and banging his nose on it.
At approximately 5:55, Cassie Simms arrived at Animal Control demanding the return of her pet and accused “someone” of opening her gate to allow her dog to escape or that Animal Control had trespassed onto her property in order to steal the dog from her back yard.
Before I continue, let me show you some pictures of her “gate” and you can make your own decision as to whether or not this scenario seems plausible.
Where else could an Australian Shepherd – whose breed is known for their acrobatic skills - have possibly had the opportunity to Shawshank his way out of there? The more sensible question to pose would be, “Where did he NOT have the opportunity?”
At
approximately 6:05, the officer returned to Animal Control with
Auston secured in his unit. He was advised that the animal needed to
be cleaned up before giving him back to the owner. Both the officer
and his supervisor made several attempts to clean Auston up. The more
they tried, the more aggressive the animal became, and the more he
bit the staff and kept injuring his lip. In fact, he was SO
aggressive that even Mrs. Simms could not contain him and had to wait
for her husband to arrive before they could leave with the dog.
I'm
not here to say who's right and who's wrong, but you can clearly see
where my suspicions lie.
I
should also add that the ConnectAmarillo.com article containing the
previously debated video ended thusly:
“Results
of the examination concluded the dog did not suffer any type of
injuries from any sort of abuse.
Cassie said she is content with the outcome and glad her dog was not abused.
As
for Auston, Cassie said he is doing fine and getting back to normal.
She
said her family now plans to upgrade their fence to ensure their pets
do not escape again.”
Yet
the fight continues because justice has still somehow been avoided.
Justice for WHAT!?
Here's
what I want you to ask yourselves: Which story makes more sense to
YOU?
