The fee schedule for fines dished out to pet owners that have their dogs running at large is as follows.
First time $100
Second time $500
Third time $1000
There is no provision for doubling it in a school zone. Mr. Harris alleges that this was threatened:
Our daughter told me that Sandy initially told her that there would not be a fine but that after I called and spoke to Lugo, she was told the fine would be $250.00. Lugo told our daughter that I had no business calling there starting trouble. Lugo also told our daughter that because the dog ran onto school property, the fine could be doubled. My daughter asked "doubled"? Lugo stated, "yea, didn't you see the signs on the road that say Fines Doubled in School Zone?"
See http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2007/12/humane-society-needs-new-director.html
There appears to be a bit of inconsistency in Mr. Harris' allegations compared to the law as far as fines are concerned. The dog got away the first time yet there is no mention of a fine. The dog got away the second time and the fine was only $100. On the third offense the claim is the fine was going to be $250 but doubled to $500 because it was "in a school zone." Sounds to me as if the evil Ms Lugo was quite forgiving with the fines.
Can't afford the fines? Tough. They apply to all of us regardless of the season or our financial security.
There also appears to be a complete lack of effort to get both sides of the story on Joe's part. IMHO now would be well into the "it's too late to seek it" period.
Much of Mr. Harris' complaint is little more than hearsay as it is entirely or a least almost entirely based upon what his daughter relayed to him. And now he entertains us with yet another tale of woe that is entirely hearsay.
There are two sides to every story. Mr. Harris' is full of so many holes it looks like swiss cheese.
As far as Ms. Lugo's language is concerned I'm sure this board is loaded with puritans. What no one seems to be getting is that she was giving a sampling of what the people say to her over the phone, not just saying those things for the sake of saying them. Try to fit the intent and purpose behind her comment into your opinion. If she'd been testifying in court she'd have been allowed to state exactly the kind of language without any abbreviation whatsoever.
As far as the shelter being staffed by killjoys I think some of you have a vivid imagination. Any shelter is a finite space. They can only house so many animals. This particular shelter always seems to be at or near capacity. So decisions that are unpleasant have to be made. If an animal is a stray it has to be held for a period of time. If it is given up by its owner there is no required holding period. There is no need for a holding period as no one is looking for it. If the shelter is full it's bye bye kitty for those give ups.
So for those who's tale of woe involves giving up something and then wanting it to live give me a break. If it meant so much to you why'd you give it up in the first place?
Joe, in posting this crap along with unsubstantiated hearsay, anonymous tales and letting some of the inuendo you've let get through on sexuality you've done the humane society and the county a great disservice.
kudos
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
25 comments:
I VERY strongly disagree and you have now pissed me off.
Look, if you saw ALL the sexual attacks that have been made against Linda and ALL of the Staff there, you'd be blown away!
Don't you DARE make false statements that I have allowed such harsh comments because I most certainly did not.
I am the ONLY one who sees those comments and they were deleted and thrown in the trash as I wanted nothing to do with them.
Sexuality has NOTHING to do what the subject at hand, UNLESS others were exposed to such at that facility. Now, if you don't like what I did allow to be posted, TOUGH SHIT!
Now as far as Mr. Harris is concerned, Lady or Mister, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF MAN YOU'RE SCREWING WITH!
Honor doesn't get any more real than this man Robert Harris! This is a man who would NEVER lie to advance and would take his licks and wounds in anything in life and I'd back that with all I have! They don't come any finer than this man and I say, how dare you challenge such a man.
Now, if Mr. Harris would like to offer his background, that's his business. However, I do NOT expect him to do so, I do not believe he needs to do so but I'm telling you FLAT OUT, you just challenged the wrong man and Rick Pollitt knows it. Gail Bartkovitch knows it and Joe Halloway knows it. I'd add a TON of additional names to that list but I don't believe that's necessary.
Mr. Harris went into this meeting with all his ducks in a row and if you don't believe me, I challenge you to ask Rick Pollitt personally.
Mr. Harris never denied the fact that they realized they had made mistakes. He never pointed the finger at the Humane Society being fully responsible. He is challenging the LAW, Idiot! Something this man just happens to know a lot about! I personally think you just pushed the wrong button, who ever you are. I can't wait for him to respond!
"There also appears to be a complete lack of effort to get both sides of the story on Joe's part."
First of all, I didn't write the article/letter. Secondly, WTF do YOU think you just attempted to do? You just allegedly tried to tell the "other side." As did a few others along the way in comments.
I left it wide open for EVERYONE to express their experiences, good or bad. So do tell me, what are you so afraid of?
It becomes more and more interesting how this Blog is truly working. When people have a whole lot to hide, the comments go through the roof, the anger grows and a PERFECT example of accountability is LIFESTAR!
You see, they knew I was right. They checked into the situation and immediately took action. Another GREAT example is Clear Channel.
Now look at anything the Tilghman Administration has their hands in, especially Gary Comegys!!!!! The Zoo, the Humane Society, Council Meetings, Planning & Zoning, The Fire Department, it goes on and on.
The Tilghman Administration puts up their fists, they NEVER admit to being wrong and quite frankly, the entire bunch of you make me sick.
You have your chance and you've even doing so anonymously, without any recourse. So quit your bellyaching and EVERYONE realize that if Barrie & Comegys have their hands in it, something is wrong with it.
First time $100
Second time $500
Third time $1000
Talk about raping the pet owner!It should be 20,50,100 and so on!Where is that money going?Sounds to me somebody is filling there pockets up!
Two points.
One: Pet owners that can't control their pets getting away always seem to make "oops" business this a habit. A pet running wild is serious business, and Mr. Hearsay Harris can't seem to wrap his head around this.
Two: To the Humane Society respondent.- You're misusing the world "killjoy". It doesn't mean what you think it does. Look it up.
"A killjoy is a person who is anti-fun, or prevents others from having fun."
Joe, you have left up inuendo. Perhaps you've screened out much of it but you've still left some up. Even after you admonished yourself a few remained as I was still able to view them and wondered why you'd left those up after you posted your feelings about them. My statement was hardly false then, eh? My point is that you did indeed let some of it get through and you've now removed most of it.
See 11:16, 1:23, 2:56, & 10:22. I originally only looked back at Mr. Harris' comments and now see you did indeed take more out than I thought you did, yet some inuendo remains. NONE OF IT is pertinent to the discussion and shouldn't have come in at all. A couple I mention above are passable but there is nothing short of useless vitriol in others. I did note that some of the more vile comments were removed. Thank you for that. Sincerely. However, you did let them through, so wind your neck in on your rage about me making false statements.
However, Mr. Harris' is relying on hearsay. He had a single phone conversation with Ms. Lugo according to his post. Absolutely everything up to that point was from his daughter.
Can you state you've never had any of your kids or step kids twist things around in the least to make their side look more favorable?
FWIW I am not from the humane society. I don't work there and I'm not relatd to anyone that does. But I do know that there are two sides to every story. Even credible sides have different interpretations. In fact I think you'd be very surprised to find out who I am. I'll remain anonymous though. Call me what you will but I hardly need any nut jobs coming around or calling me for defending people with sexual orientation that they don't understand or God Forbid challenging Mr. Harris' argument by pointing out he's relied quite heavily on his daughter's statements for the basis of his complaint.
I do know that this shelter does good things and is a service to the community.
I do know the fee schedule for the fines because I asked. I do know the fines Mr. Harris quotes aren't in that fee schedule, yet mysteriously the doubling of 100 is not 250 if that was what his daughter was attempting to say. If she was attempting to say the fine was 250 but getting doubled to 500 she's clearly wrong again. Exactly what she meant isn't clear AFAIK.
Here's a novel idea. And I must preface it by referring back to one of my earlier comments, I wouldn't be surprised if no one at the shelter wanted to speak to you at this point as you've published the mess and waited so long. Why not call and get the other side of the story? Why didn't you do that before publishing Mr. Harris' letter. It is for the most part hearsay. He furthered that by posting someone elses story, total hearsay. I don't care if he's the pope, hearsay is hearsay.
As for referring to me as an idiot, duly noted. At least I did look into the other side of the story before posting.
And the other side of the story is quite different than the one presented here.
BTW, the dog damn near got hit by a car in the seconds before it was picked up. But that is hearsay.
Oh, and anon 5:16 is correct. Kill happy would have been more appropriate.
I have always learned there are THREE sides to every story. Your side, their side and the TRUTH!
As for our children, they all lie, no question about it. I don't care what anyone says, they're suckers if they don't believe their children lie to them.
It's always funny years down the road when the Family gets together and the kids start rambling off about the many lies and or things they did Mom and Dad never knew about.
However, let me say this. "I believe" that Bob, (considering his past career) has that in mind BEFORE he ever said a word. Just so you know.
I'm not at all implying that his Daughter lied on this particular situation. I am saying however that Bob is much smarter than you'll ever know in your life time.
As for the statements. What I left up IN THAT POST was acceptable to me. I warned everyone in advance and trust me, many did not follow those rules.
Before I go on I'd like to see what others have to say.
I figured you'd find them acceptable but at least one of them really makes me question your judgement. 11:16 and 2:56 imply beastiality and come off quite homophobic. Neither contributes anything to the discussion other than idiocy. One of them can't even spell the name of a fairly common pet.
Alas, it is your blog...
As far as Mr. Harris' intelligence is concerned I once witnessed an exceedingly intelligent woman defend her son and stepson only to find out minutes later they had indeed done the deed she thought them incapable of doing. We're talking mensa material with this woman.
Your three sides to the story differs not at all to my two sides in that I've mentioned the truth lies in the middle somewhere. Often it is nearer one end than the other. Having read Mr. Harris' story and talked to several people that were actually present during conversations in the shelter as well as at the time of the dog rescue I am of the mind that Mr. Harris has been taken for ride by his daughter. Just like my old mensa friend was.
You know what you remind me of? A control freak. Nothing anyone says will be good enough for you. I've had a lot of employees in my lifetime and I know your type. I personally think your type of personality is dangerous for business. Take up accounting, it will be better for all animals.
Just to make this post fully correct you would have to say Mr. Lugo because there is no record that i know of for any Mrs. Lugo. She is noone respectible by the way she treats people. She may treat aanimals ok but lets think about it we are in control. So Mr. Lugo needs to go because he is responsible for the poor excuse of a job that is being done there sometimes.
Mr./Ms. anonymous....hearsay is admissible in court in some circumstances. You keep saying "hearsay, hearsay, hearsay" like that means anything in this case. It means nothing at all. You use it as a feeble defense for the humane society. During the one conversation I had with Lugo, she confirmed that she was holding the dog in protective custody. This corroberated what my daughter had told me on that point.
Let's look at this. Protective Custody. If you know so much, where does the humane society get the authority to do this? This is a challenge to you! TELL US ALL!
What provision in the charter authorizes the humane society to keep a dog from it's owner if the dog has all of it's shots and hasn't been abused? Tell us all!
If you contacted the humane society as you say, you know that it hasn't been abused, right? Tell as all!
I'm looking at the county code right now. Tell us all where the code provides for the fine schedule you just mentioned? I don't see that anywhere. What I see in the code is this: "
ARTICLE VII Penalties and Fines
SS 133-23 Civil Penalty
A) Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $1000.00 per violation. Each day the violation continues shall constitue a separate violation.
B) Animal Control Officers are hereby authorized to issue citations for civil infractions of this chapter.
I've read this code over and over. I have another question for you. Where did you get this $100, $250, $500 thing? You said you contacted the humane society so that you could get the "other side". Did they tell you that it was 100, 250, 500? If they did, it appears that they made up that rule as well. and YOU brought that to my attention....THANK YOU!
As far as what my daughter was told about the fines....that's what they told her. She didn't make it up. I questioned her at length because the last thing I'm gona do is go into someting without all my ducks in a row and look foolish. Something I might suggest to you.
They did NOT issue her a citation the first time. They did the second time and she paid a fine of $100.00. On the third time they told her the fine was going to be higher and that there would be impound fees unless she signed the dog over to them. She signed the dog over. When you look at the law....the humane society didn't even have the authority to make that deal.
Whoever you are you took the side of the humane society without looking at the law. Even the things you use as an argument are immaterial. The law makes no provision regarding a dog almost being hit by a car, nor does it stipulate any additional penalty for repeat violations.
I have no reason to lie. My daughter and her boyfriend were certainly accountable due simply to the fact that they are responsible for their animal all the time. She paid the fine for the dog when she got it and rightfully so. My kids know how I feel....if you're wrong, you're wrong. Own up to it because you own it. In this case...pay the fine and don't bitch...the dog got out...bottom line. There are rules and when they're not followed there is a price to pay. BUT...everyone has rules they must follow. I'm not gonna stand by and watch the humane society who isn't following the rules try to hold someone else accountable for not following the rules.
It has become clear to many people, including council members, that the humane society has been running wild with NO accountability. There is no accountability because they answer to a board of directors who are appointed by.....Who? If they're going to be in a position where they hold the citizens accountable for violation of county law, they must be accountable to an elected official.
I have been before the courts and have given testimony in District and Circuit Courts in two counties. I have received judicial notice and have given expert witness testimony in the area of street level drug interdiction. My testimony has resulted in the prosecution and incarceration of criminals for more than 25 years. My integrity has NEVER come into question.
I am not out to insult you even though it is apparent that is your goal to bring my integrity into question. Many of the finest attorneys in the area have tried without success for one reason. I've never compromised my integrity in any case...ever. I would rather admit that I was wrong and loo like a fool than lie on the stand. If I've never done it before, I'm not gonna do it for the sake of a dog.
All I wanted was for the humane society to play by the rules written by our elected officials.
Whoever you are....do us all a favor. Answer the questions I asked above. AND if you're gonna take a position in opposition to mine, let's put the cards on the table. You know who I am......who are you?
I guess I misread your non existent fine schedule . Rather than 100, 250, 500.....you have it as 100, 500, 1000. It's still wrong according to the county code.
Also, as far as me being taken for a ride....Lugo has been called to the carpet for her behavior and that of her employees. It seems she has lied to one of the councilmen - when she told him she needed to see a subpeona in order to release the information relating to the dog that was euthanized, and then relented and gave him the information. I believe they are circling their wagons - and don't expect them to tell the truth when the heat gets turned up.
As far a their sexual orientation...that's their thing. I couldn't care less what they do in their personal lives. I don't think it's anyone elses business.
At 9:01 AM , joealbero said...
Even I am ashamed I allowed certain comments to go through on here but let me assure you, I deleted a TON of them. I don't mind people blowing off a little steam but some of them were so over the top as personal attacks I deleted them immediately. Just so everyone knows, Joe
Joe, I view some of the ones you left up as personal attacks. When someone has a difference of opinion with you is it really necessary for you to attempt to psychoanalyze them?
Mr. Harris, I don't really see where I've questioned your integrity. I've questioned your objectivity on a valid point. You're daughter is the one that painted an unfavorable picture. In your thorough questioning of her you don't mention speaking to others that may have unbiased opinions. Like the neighbors who may have an idea of the dog's access to the great out of doors.
You insist that my argument about hearsay is not a valid one and base this on the fact that some hearsay is admissible in court. I don't think the hearsay you have presented here comes close for either your daughter's tale or the other one you relayed.
Further more you dipped your oar in well before you had a chance to really question her about what was going on. You telephoned the shelter during the actual event.
Here is a good discussion on that matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay_in_United_States_law
Try as I may, I cannot make "because my daughter said so" fit in any of the exclusions.
While you are quoting from Maryland code you should be a bit more thorough and consider the following bits I lifted from it. It appears to me that animal control are quite readily permitted to develop a fee schedule so long as it doesn't exceed $1000. So tell me, where does establishing that schedule actually violate the code?
§ 133-8. Dogs at large prohibited.
No owner of a dog, whether licensed or unlicensed, shall permit said dog to run at large.
^^^Goes without saying. Your daughter has allowed this to happen repeatedly. So much that neighbors call animal control. Apparently in an area where it may get struck by a car. Would she have pissed and moaned about the vet bills? Surely you can see these exceeding $1000 quite readily.
§ 133-9. Dogs on school grounds prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any owner or custodian to permit his dog to be on any school grounds on any day school is in session or on any public recreation area where organized activity is being conducted, unless such dog is controlled by a leash or similar device.
^^^ Was the dog on school grounds? More reason for your daughter to exercise better control. Could this have been influencial in the disposition in this case? They do have discression allowed in the code (read on).
§ 133-10. Impoundment and redemption provisions.
A. An animal control officer shall seize and apprehend any dog found running at large contrary to the provisions of this chapter and shall confine said animal in a humane manner until disposed of in accordance with this section.
(1) Dogs, cats or ferrets not wearing a current Wicomico County rabies tag shall be confined for a period of not less than six days, unless sooner claimed by the owner. Thereafter, the animal shall become the property of the animal control authority and shall be disposed of by return to the owner, adoption or euthanasia.
(2) Dogs, cats or ferrets wearing a current Wicomico County rabies tag shall be confined for a period of not less than six days, unless sooner claimed by the owner. The owner of the licensed animal shall be notified of the impoundment. The notice shall be given within three business days of the impoundment and shall give the owner three days from the date of the notice in which to redeem the dog, cat or ferret. Thereafter, the animal shall become the property of the animal control authority and shall be disposed of by return to its owner, adoption or euthanasia.
(3) When dogs are found at large and their ownership is known to the animal control officer, such animals may, at the discretion of the officer, be returned to the owner, who shall also be served a civil violation notice.
^^^ oooo, there's a biggie you've missed out on. The animal control officer may return the animal at his discretion.
It doesn't say that he has to. He's got discretion. Just like a judge with a sentence. He can base this on prior experience. Like ooo let's see, having to pick the dog up too frequently. This may be compounded by having to pick other dogs up with a spatula in the same vicinity after their owners let them get hit by cars. You claim to know the law, yet you've conveniently not mentioned the parts of the code contrary to your argument.
Certainly discretion is allowed under the statutes. That discretion can include the decision to release the dog and to levy a fine of up to $1000. That still leaves animal control the opportunity to establish in their facility a fee schedule as I was told. It also leaves them room, like it or not, to bargain with those fees in a manner to release the dog to a better location in order to serve the dog's well being.
If you are going to quote code, be thorough. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
At 4:49 PM , poke your eye out kid said...
First time $100
Second time $500
Third time $1000
Talk about raping the pet owner!It should be 20,50,100 and so on!Where is that money going?Sounds to me somebody is filling there pockets up!
The money doesn't go to the humane society if that is what you are implying. It is a fine and handled through the courts. I suppose it goes to the same entity as all other fines.
The code allows for a fine of up to $1000. If you don't think that is fair stand up and push for a change.
I seriously doubt that a $1000 fine gets imposed very often. With this young lady no fine was given for the first offense. Only $100 for the second.
If animal control officers know you and your dog on a first name basis perhaps you have a problem.
to 4:49 all the money goes to the county and stays there,and lets think about this just wait untill as some have suggested that animall controll be under the sheriffs dept there will be no leaniancy lets see just how quick you get to the 1000.00.and it will not matter if your net worth is $20.oo or $200.000.
Anonymous said.......
Was the dog on school property?
yes it was......so what. I'm not arguing that there was a violation. This does not authorize the humane society to make up its own laws. It was an emotional knee jerk reaction for which they are now forced to answer.
Is it the first time the dog got out? NO....we've established that... repeatedly. What's your point? The code has no provision for repeated offenses. That would be up to a judge in a court of law.
Would vet bills to have the dog treated for injuries sustained if it had been hit by a car? Very likely. An emotional point with no validity for the purposes of this discussion
NOW the "biggie". So you think I missed it. You must be from the humane society because that is PRECISELY the justification they gave. But it holds no water.
You may know that the county atty was present during our meeting. By the time it was over the following had been established:
1) you listed A (3). this relates to the discretion the officer has at the time the apprehension occurs. If the officer may return it to the owner or take it back to the pound. The issue at hand was the meaning of the word "return". In this case "return" and "release" are NOT synonymous. Return means to "carry back". As in to take the dog back to the owner and issue him/her a citation. This was supported time and time again as we disected the code in order to determine the legislative intent of the code relating to animal control.
The legislative intent was to give the officer discretion in this area ONLY. If you look at the rest of the code it lists all the areas wherein the conditions regarding the release of the dog to it's owner are laid out in black and white - NO DISCRETION. The legislative intent was never to give the animal control officer so much descretion that he/she can, at their discretion, render the rest of the code null and void.
SOOOOOO if you think I missed a biggie...you're sadly mistaken.
Let's recap, shall we? If an officer picks up a dog and knows who the owner is, they have the discretion to either return the dog to them and issue a citation or impound the dog. Once the dog is impounded, they have three days to noify the owner. The owner has three days from the date of notification to retrieve the animal. No room for discretion there. It further says a citation "SHALL" be issued. It doesn't say "may". No discretion there either.
The fact is, ma'am or sir, you have failed miserably in your attempt to justify the actions of the humane society as it relates to the refusal to return the dog to it's rightful owner. Perhaps it is YOU who should be objective when you look at the code. And to quote you.....since you attempted to inappropriately use the code to justify your position.....if you live by the sword you shall die by the sword.
I was not looking for a fight....I was just asking that the humane society work within the parameters of the law.
so i guess from what i read here that Mr Harris has never given anyone a break even his own children im shure haha.But now that it is all about him and his so called integrity its diferent ooohhh public EYE.Guess what dont give a F--k about him or his little baby girl that has to have her DADDY come to her rescue.THIS ALL ABOUT THE SAFTY OF THE ANIMALL AND THE PUBLIC THAT WAS AT RISK BECAUSE THE DOG WAS CONSTANTLY PLAYING IN TRAFFIC.
At 12:44 PM , robert harris said...
Anonymous said.......
Was the dog on school property?
yes it was......so what. I'm not arguing that there was a violation. This does not authorize the humane society to make up its own laws. It was an emotional knee jerk reaction for which they are now forced to answer.
Is it the first time the dog got out? NO....we've established that... repeatedly. What's your point? The code has no provision for repeated offenses. That would be up to a judge in a court of law.
What is my point? My point is that your daughter is an irresponsible dog owner. Was animal control lying in wait for her dog to get out? Doubtful. The SOP is the dog gets out and someone calls animal control.
Depending upon their location and prior commitments animal control will make it to the scene when they can.
More than likely a phone call won't even be made unless the dog has become a nuisance and it has been getting out a lot. More often than not neighbors don't want to get involved or don't want to risk retalliation from someone.
During these times just what was your daughter doing in an attempt to rescue her own dog?
If it were my dog I would be out looking for it. If I weren't home you can bet your bottom dollar that the one responsible for letting the dog out would be doing something about it. Even if that meant calling animal control for assistance. That would at least indicate to them that someone was concerned about the dog.
This has happened three times that animal control was brought in. I believe it is quite safe to say this happens frequently.
The law doesn't specifically state anything about repeat offenses one way or the other. It does give the officer discretion. He can levy whatever fine he wishes. No judge is needed unless the person doesn't pay the fine. If they've structured a graduated fine for repeat offenses, officially or unofficially they are not at all in violation of that regulation.
Regarding the wording you debated it is quite easy to interpret it in the fashion that I have done. Just because I did the same thing as the humane society doesn't mean I am from the establishment. It is the way it is worded. If you are correct it is misleading. Quite open to interpretation. Honestly, I'd never seen it prior to looking it up after you made repeated references to the statutes.
Feel free to continue with the assumptions though. They do go to your credibility. And I stand fully by my attention to your ability to remain objective in matters regarding your daughter.
You've taken at face value that they told your daughter to chain the animal. Send a stranger over there to adopt a dog and have him state he intends to keep the dog chained for extended periods.
You claim they weren't willing to release the dog to her. How do you know she didn't omit some details about just this? Perhaps they were willing to release the dog under certain circumstances and even do away or reduce the fine. A form of discretion.
Lets look at what your daughter said:
Our daughter responded to the Humane Society to pick up the dog at which time she had to pay a $100.00 fine and was told to chain the dog outside and provide a dog house. The purchase of the dog house was a stipulation of the release of the dog from confinement.
I don't believe there is an official with any humane society that would tell someone to chain their dog. I do believe that providing a dog house would be ordered if the person showed intent to chain the dog outside. Two very different interpretations. If I had a nickel for all the times my kid twisted statements like this I could afford to buy Joe's car collection.
Our daughter went to the Humane Society on Citation Dr. to redeem the dog. She met with Linda Lugo who advised her that she would not release the dog. Lugo advised her that the dog was in "protective custody" for a period of ten days and that the dog could only be released to her under the stipulation that the dog would not be permitted to stay at the Pittsville residence.
Again, this is from your daughter? Once again there was the other side to this. Quite a bit of distance falls between this statement and what I was told.
According the County Code, ss133-8-c states "The owner shall be entitled to resume possession of any impounded dog, cat or ferret upon compliance with the vaccination and licensing provisions of this chapter and
payment of such sum for board and care as the animal control authority shall determine reasonable"
Didn't your daughter complain about not being able to afford this? Why did you not come and pay the fine for her?
Linda,
Let's cut all the bullshit and admit that the person commenting here is you? This way there can be some credibility to all that you post here.
I mean, think about it. how else could "anyone else" have the details you have described from internal meetings and results from such if it weren't you?
Then you challenge Mr. Harris with hearsay. Look, if you are NOT Linda, EVERYTHING you spew here is hearsay.
In order for this to be a civil debate, just tell me what it is you're afraid of? Come clean and say who you are and perhaps things can be resolved. Till then, everyone believes you're Linda anyway.
The charge of an animall controll officer is not only to follow county code but to be compationet to the animall and to assess the cituation in whitch it is in,hence that is where the Humane society falls into place.now if you just want someone to go out and catch the dogs and throw thelm into a cell and hit thelm with every time you think our court rooms are jamed now you just wait, then go ahead send the sheriffs dept i have heard of a few cases where they have flat out just shot the animall all they have to do is just think they are at risk!
Joe,
I have alluded already to what it is that keeps me anonymous. You've had several nutjobs already submit stuff you wouldn't put up as well as some you've pulled off the other thread.
I have a family and do not wish to have God knows what kind of small minded hate filled nightmare of a person show up on my doorstep. Call me a coward, pussy, whatever you choose. I'm a peaceful man and really don't like any of this crap. I mentioned the event that occured recently where one blogger traveled several hundred miles to set another's trailer on fire. I'm not about to open myself up for similar assaults from any the people that frequent your blog. Some of them are definitely not operating with any sort of reason.
I've repeatedly stated that much of what I have to offer is in fact hearsay. I have given fair criticism of Mr. Harris for doing the same. I have purposely avoided repeating much of what I was told at the shelter because it isn't my story to tell. A lot of what I have stated is common sense and reality that goes in general and applies to this case.
Honestly, I wish I'd never replied at all. It is hardly worth my effort.
Mr. Harris implies some sort of consequences will occur as a result of the wrongful acts carried out by Ms. Lugo and the animal control officer(s) involved.
What will this consist of? Will there be a hearing where all parties are present and can question each other over disputed matters?
Will there be firings? Will there be policy changes?
What details have I given for internal meetings? Mr. Harris is the only one to mention specifics of meetings. I haven't attended any meetings.
I simply went to the shelter and stood around making some observations about the way people were handled the while I was there. It was rather crowded and hectic at the counter. I saw nothing inappropriate from the shelter side of the counter, but there was one guy that would have raised the temper of many.
While I was there I saw a couple of incidents that left me quite impressed. An elderly gentleman came in with a cat hoping the shelter could help him. It had a medical problem and needed to be seen by a vet. He couldnt' afford the emergency clinic and his regular vet was closed until after Christmas. Ms. Lugo, that horrible horrible woman, lover of animals in obscene fashion that you've let others state here repeatedly, contacted the emergency clinic and made arrangements to cover his bill. He was on disability and his funds were done for the month. Another lady that was present to file a complaint against a neighbor offered a donation. If Linda hadn't done what she had done I was going to drive to the clinic and anonymously give some money to help. The lady that was there was afraid to file a complaint for fear of retaliation. The humane officer (one of those previously labeled quite negatively here) did a fabulous job comforting her and assuring her that her name would be held in confidence and that he would investigate her allegations of cruelty.
After all of this I asked some questions pertinent to the Harris story.
This was an open discussion between myself, Ms Lugo, a couple of the officers and other shelter staff. They weren't willing to give me much in the way of details, but what I heard didn't exactly jive with Mr. Harris' hearsay claims of his daughter's encounters. I would have liked to have seen the animal control officers report but didn't ask at the time. That may be a matter of public record. I dunno.
That is when I was told about the fee schedule. I have no idea if this is printed in some manual. I took the schedule at face value. Mr. Harris pointed me to the code and I see it isn't there. However, unlike him, I see room for the officers to institute such a fee schedule based upon repeat offenses. Nothing in the statute says they cannot.
I read the statute and came to the conclusions that I did on my own accord last night. That was the first I'd laid eyes upon them. Reading them I can see where they'd be interpreted just as I have done, yet I see sensibility in Mr. Harris' interpretation. I am not a lawyer, I don't think he is either.
Perhaps I should be a little less aggressive here. However, Mr. Harris needs to realize that his objectivity readily comes into question by family tie.
There is no reason civility cannot exist while protecting ones identity. You cannot show me where I have made any false allegations about Mr. Harris.* I've simply pointed out the weaknesses in his side of the story, consulted the code and pointed out where it doesn't meld with his arguments.
I might be incorrect on one of those counts, but I am dead right on the other. I am also right at pointing out the possibility of his dog getting injured or killed. That this may happen is quite likely and could be part of why things were handled as they were. Even if the law was twisted or misinterpreted. Where I stand that was in the dogs best interest.
I still hold you accountable for publishing this without making an effort to seek information from both sides. You of all people should recognize the importance of that after the Daily Time's lopsided management of the problems your wife experienced at the zoo.
Getting both sides separates tabloid journalism from legitimate journalism. This is "Salisbury News" isn't it?
*I may have made allegations about his daughter's irresponsibility and lack of honesty on the matter. Those allegations come from having dealt with lots of kids including my own. You admit your kids have lied. Apparently you and Jennifer have had a few problems with yours and the law. Am I safe in assuming they painted a picture that was somewhat different from reality in the name of saving face? Kids do that. Why should anyone think Mr. Harris' daughter is any different.
I also make those allegations about her being irresponsible with the dog based upon having a good grasp of reality regarding just such matters. Most people that get found guilty of a crime have done that crime repeatedly before getting caught. I myself don't exactly have a stellar driving record. I wouldn't be so bold as to say that every speeding ticket I got just happened to be during the only times I was speeding.
I take my knocks on those and pay the fine. I would never go running to daddy crying about how unfairly I was treated by the mean lying officer.
I'm assuming she's somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 years of age. Prime for being deceitful on the matter for two reasons that I have observed in my half century on the planet. Kids lie. We've already agreed on that. Kids today are a product of the way our society is moving regarding responsibility. Nothing that happens to me is my fault. The world is stacked against me and all my problems are brought on by accidents and bad luck.
Just go to the mall and observe the disrespect. I apologize, but I'm already biased against her. Her father coming to her rescue on the matter and completely faulting the shelter for the whole matter does him no justice. Remember, the truth is in the middle?
Hi Joe,
Before I get too busy and forget, Our family wishes your family a very Merry Christmas and a Healthy, Happy, Prosperous New Year
I stopped at Granddad's house to deliver a fruit basket after church. He is wound up over the Humane Society issues, and should be. Anyone who challenges his credibility or intentions is barking up the wrong tree. (pun intended) The county, along with the city and state, are full of, "that's the way we always have done things." It's time for a new day, where common sense and accountability rule. Emphasis on ACCOUNTABILITY. In our society, groups of people get their heads together and make rules for EVERYONE to live by. Where that fails, is that some small people get in big positions and think that they have a better idea, and make up their own rules to suit themselves.
Joe, I think that what you do helps to bring these issues to the attention of the general public, who, after all, are the ones paying for the services. I don't always agree with your view, but I do appreciate your time and effort getting the issues before the public. Our local newspaper doesn't want to, or for economic reasons, can not address these problems. Not doing so, is a disservice to it's customers.
farmboy
farmboy,
Thanks You! Merry Christmas to you and your entire Family and thanks for visiting my Blog. I truly wish I could create articles that would make "everyone" happy but you and I both know that would be impossible.
Joe in the 4:18 comment i goofed it should read hit thelm with a fine every time
Anonymous said......
Even if the law was twisted or misinterpreted. Where I stand that was in the dogs best interest.
Sir....the end doesn't justify the means. Is it OK for the police to conduct an illegal search just to lock up a drug dealer? Is it OK for the police to make a false arrest if they don't have enough evidence because they "feel" it is the right thing to do? Of course not. Same thing here....no matter how emotional you feel about a dog running at large.
You insult my daughters integrity and you don't even know her. EVERYTHING you presented on this thread is hearsay and then you accuse me of making accusations based on hearsay. Double standard?
The point you continually try to drive home is that she is an irresponsible pet owner. Whether or not that's true was NEVER the point regardless of how many times you try to justify the illegal actions of the humane society by injecting an emotional aspect into it.
There is only ONE way to enforce the law.....you do it legally. Plain and simple. Holding everyone accountable to the SAME laws creates a level playing field and assures "equal protection under the law". To twist the law with unchecked discretion and NO accountability opens up the door to allow corruption. I don't think we should live with that.
I am finished with this thread. It's just going back and forth for no good reason.
All things being said and set aside, I wish you and yours a happy holiday season.
Mr Harris no wonder your daughter does not have a clew because you cannot see past yourself and oh god may i say it THE LAW these are codes whitch are like rules to follow now rules are bent every minute of every day basicaly guidlines to follow.But there are guidlines that a humane person would interject,then you put the two together and you have something to work with,you cannot sit there and tell us that you never ever bent a rule in any given situation to make something have a possitive outcome.Every call the animall controll dept, goes out on is diferent there may be a dog running loose for the first time well using discretion they would contact the owner and ask thelm to comply with the LAW if there is a second time depending on whether or not it was an accident or on purpose would determin the outcome.you even at this piont do not know the whole story i think you need to sit your daughter and her boyfriend and the grandmother down and ask thelm actually how many times they were given breaks because the officers assessed the cituation and realized lots of the times were accidents,but unlike most they never got the message.even actuall law inforcment officers have a little room for discretion depending upon the situation frankly shit happens,somtimes trying to be nice because you see there are multiple causes will backfire in your face but honestly most times it works.I know you have spent a lot of time in a court room and have seen the prosicutor suggest a sentance but the judge may do something totally different it may not even be something on the books but guess what he did it and it may work you cannot go out and hit every dog owner every time there dog gets out with a fine particually in a county that has grown so quickly i could give you some names of some people in this county that i am possitive you rub elbows with every day but still do not believe there dog should be confined the lab cituation for one this person came in after we had there dogs for two weeks before they bothered to contact us and his comment was among others i own five hundred acres and i do not have to lock my dogs up,he is the type of person that should recieve a citation the first time then he also was privy to the fact that if he went to court in front of a certain judge he could get it thrown out.what is good fair for one is not allways fair for the other.Merry Christmas to all.
Post a Comment