Allegations of Money Mismanagement made against Metro Animal Services LOUISVILLE, KY (WAVE) – In November 2008, WAVE 3 aired a story of a woman who adopted a dog through Metro Animal Service’s satellite adoption center in Middletown. According to the woman, she was asked to pay $350 in cash for the dog.
Apr 21, 2009 7:42 PM PDT Apr 21, 2009 8:20 PM PDT
“I can tell you on the first glance, as a result of your story, as a result of a legal request for information, there is an allegation being made of significant financial mismanagement,” said Downard (R-16).
After seeing that story air, Downard says a concerned citizen submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for records and other details on the Animal Adoption Agency.
“This is not just someone who called up and said gee, whiz, I think there is a problem. This involves a Freedom of Information request, a reply to that officially. Therefore, we are dealing with legal documents and there is some disturbing information in it,” he said.
Downard said most of the questions about the Animal Adoption Agency’s practices and procedures could not be answered in the FOIA reply. “There are apparently not a lot of records for thousands of dollars of activity.”
In addition, Downard said there is no account of how many animals were taken in, adopted out or paid for at the Middletown adoption center. “From their answers, I can tell it’s being handled in financial mismanagement and it reminds me of what happened in the housing investigation.”
Jackie Gulbe, Metro Animal Services assistant director for community relations, said she had not heard about the investigation and was not aware of how the Animal Adoption Agency operated. “If there are requests to investigate how the transactions are being held or being handled, we are more than happy to work with, to work to satisfy the request,” Gulbe said.
Downard said he would push forward with an investigation. When asked by WAVE 3 if he believed this issue went all the way up to the upper management of Metro Animal Services, Downard replied, “Yes. It has to. It’s contractual obligations and then dollars and cents, big dollars and cents.”
Downard says he is handing all the information over to the internal —-auditor for further review.
OR how about this one? Same Louisville Animal Control, the AC which is functioning with the HSUS helped along law?—————–> the horrific ordinance that IS the subject of a constitutional lawsuit in Louisville? The same lawsuit where the HSUS amicus brief was DENIED TWICE from being allowed to be filed? Where HSUS attempted to use the Plaintiff’s former attorney, a conflict of interest?
Below is part of the story of the animal control charging $350 for a sick dog which ended up displaying signs of distemper:
“So what we’ve found is more people are willing to pay more for a highly desirable breed of dog,” said Kerri Richardson, a Metro Government spokesperson.
Poole finds that ridiculous, but says because her daughters fell in love with Sammy, she paid the price and took the dog to her vet to get checked out.
“He had double ear infection, fleas and what we thought was kennel cough,” said Poole. Poole then paid the vet and took Sammy home, but days later the dog’s nasal infection got worse and he wouldn’t eat. “He was pretty sick,” said Dr. Greg Crockett, a veterinarian.
According to Crockett, Sammy had labored breathing, congestion in his lungs and other clinical signs of distemper a contagious and potentially deadly illness. After X-rays, blood tests and a week of injecting antibiotics into the dog’s system, Dr. Crockett confirmed the case and told WAVE 3 that Sammy was not fit for adoption.
“I’m not quite sure why people’s tax dollars are used to adopt out sick animals,” Crockett said.
Poole’s vet bills totaled more than $800 dollars, and that amount does not include the $350 she paid in adoption fees. After Poole complained to the Animal Adoption Agency, they offered her $175 back, but only if she returned the dog.
“It’s Metro Animal Services policy that if for some reason, someone doesn’t want the dog anymore or there’s a problem with the dog, we will refund your money, but you have to surrender the animal,” Richardson said.
What is the moral of this story? It’s ok for HSUS and Animal Rights to tell dog breeders not to sell sick animals but it’s ok for animal shelters or rescues to sell them? To Oprah? Or is the Animal control seizing only animals they know are highly desired, and THEN selling them for cash after they become sick in the shelters?