As many of you may know, some time ago our daughter had a bad experience with the Wicomico County Humane Society as it related to the way it carried out its contractural obligations to enforce Wicomico County animal control law. Her dog escaped several times and after being picked by the Humane Society three times they refused to return the dog to her unless she found another place that she could keep it. My problem was that in my interpretation of the Wicomico County Code I couldn't find anything authorizing the Wicomico County Humane Society to deny anyone their property (dog, cat, whatever) short of the dog being deemed dangerous and deadly pursuant to the provisions in the Annotated Code of Maryland - and that simply didn't apply in this case due to the fact that it had never bitten anyone.
When I posted it originally several people spoke up about incidents in which the same types of things had happened to them. We also heard from people who stated this like....."your not a responsible pet owner - you shouldn't own a dog" and all kinds of comments that which really had nothing to do with the issue at hand. The real issue was that an organization acting on behalf of the Govt. was taking property belonging to citizens and keeping it WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY TO DO SO AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS!
I asked for a meeting with my Councilman and the County Executive to address my concerns. The meeting did in fact take place. Present were the County Executive, two members of the County Council, and the County Atty. I expressed my concern and asked the County Atty for a legal opinion relating to the legality of the Wicomico County Humane Society's common practice of taking possession of pets and releasing them only after their demands were met. I was told that they would look into the matter and get back with me on the issue.
After a substantial period of time without a response I attempted many times to contact the County Atty without receiving either a call back or a response to the question at hand.
BUT.....FINALLY after about six months of calling and calling....of leaving message after message....of speaking with Rick Pollitt and having him tell me numerous times that he would have Ed Baker call me without result..........I got an answer. Today, December 4, in the year of Our Lord, 2008 I got a response. (Just kidding - I know they're busy)
Today I was contact by an Assistant County Atty who advised me that their official position is that the Wicomico County Humane Society acted outside of their authority. That the Wicomico County Humane Society could make suggestions as to what measures may be taken to help keep a dog confined but they must release the dog to its owner without condition. They can issue a citation but they CANNOT keep a dog from it's rightful owner.
This is important. We can't stand idly by and permit our rights to be trampled by anyone. This is a private organization responsible for a form of law enforcement. There are issues that still remain. With whom do you file a complaint should this happen again? Who are their bosses? Some "board of directors" the members of which are unknown to anyone? They do not operate under the authority of any elected official and are not employed by the County. Therefore they are so insulated that they are almost untouchable unless some takes the time to meet with the person who controls the purse strings......the County Executive. If I hadn't taken the time to meet with him the dog would likely have been euthanized.
Also important - The Assistant County Atty did in fact contact Linda Lugo and advised her that she has no authority to keep animals from their rightful owner. Lugo stated that she understood and that she was doing what she thought was in the best interest of the dog. SO WHAT?!? You can't make up laws you THINK should exist! I can't imagine the lawsuits that could come from this now that it is clear that the Humane Society was acting outside of it's authority. Now that the law is clear, I have this to say:
Linda Lugo you and your employees play a vital role as a Humane Society when you take stray animals and find them homes. However, when you take the responsibility of enforcing law, you are taking a position of public trust. That being the case, you are expected to work within the parameters of the law doing so with pride and integrity. You cannot make up the rules as you go along. The ends can never justify the means. Learn what the laws are and work within them. Until you do, you will never build the level of public trust you will need to do the best job you can for the people who pay your salary....and that should be your goal.
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
Is this the person whose story has been on this blog before? if so, KUDOS and thank you for informing all of us of the rules. I expect this can be found bu looking up the Annotated Code of Maryladr Regulations, but if I'm wrong, Please correct me here. This is a great database for everyone to keep "bookmarked" on their computer for any situations that may arise. It's just the plain law, clear and simple(maybe confusing to some).
ReplyDeleteYes, a dog that gets out repeatedly, crosses a busy road and goes onto school property repeatedly while children are outside playing should not be Linda Lugo's concern. Her job is to keep sending animal control officers to pick up the dog, like a combination free taxi service and doggie daycare. She should keep returning the dog to the irresponsible owner so the dog can get killed on the road or so it can scare or bite a child on the playground. What on earth was Linda Lugo thinking when she tried to get the owner to sign over the dog? Thank goodness Lugo has seen the legal error of her ways and will follow the letter of the law to protect all such owners, not the public and certainly not the dog. If one-tenth of the effort expended on defending the owner had been spent on securing the dog . . . never mind. The owner is vindicated and totally understands all of her legal rights and absolutely none of her moral responsibilities.
ReplyDelete"Until you do, you will never build the level of public trust you will need to do the best job you can for the people who pay your salary....and that should be your goal".
ReplyDeleteGranddad.
WRONG. the reason those pets are there is because of irresponsible owner like your daughter. The humane society is the only barrier between negelctful humans and defenseless animals. Their goal is to make the aminals life better, not your stupid daughters.
Suck it up, you of all people should know better.
It seems to me at this point, the dog should definitely NOT be returned to the owner after a second offense until a court hearing to determine if the people were negligent in the dogs escaping. Just like with parents with kids. that abuse them. Same thing... endangerment. If found guilty, they should have to forfeit that dog. While they are writing those new laws, maybe they better address this problem to make the Humane Society's role more defined.
ReplyDeleteI've said a dozen times that you can't legislate good parenting. The same can be said for a pet owner. Either you have a caring, responsible pet owner, or you don't.
ReplyDeleteYou state that the dog was picked up 3 times by the Humane Society. Is it your contention that the dog was only loose three times and happened to get picked up all three times? How many times did the dog roam and NOT get picked up?
I've read enough "dog attacks child" stories to last me a life time. I've seen too many dogs hit on the side of the road and way too many homeless dogs sitting in cages waiting to go to a loving home.
Is this the best you've got? Really? Too bad we can't legislate common sense.
Sorry, dog lovers. You may have good points, and I even agree with some, but the issue that trumps all the others as far as the LAW is concerned is this: no person, agency or government representative may take, secure, or deny me what is lawfully mine. PERIOD! Grand Dad, I would be most infuriated by the outrageous arrogance, incompetance, and stonewalling of people we pay to do a job. Government employees of all levels, NOW HEAR THIS: The citizens are getting sick of you dropping the ball! BTW, no one loves his dogs more than I love mine.
ReplyDeleteDog lover
ReplyDeleteSo your saying it's OK for WCHS to make up their own laws?
When acting in the capacity of an animal control officer, their goal is to do their job within the parameters of the law. That's it.
Suck it up? What do you mean? It would appear as though it was the Humane Society that was wrong.....and since you don't know the circumstances surrounding the dog getting out (which has noting to do with the Humane Society's failure to comply with the law and the real issue here) maybe it's you who should be sucking something up. Perhaps it's you who are the stupid one.
No, Granddad, you have raised an irresponsible stupid daughter who can't take care of her dog. I applaud Linda for her actions. You, Joe, and your ilk live to thump your paltry fists on your flacid chests and prove to us all how "right" you are. No matter what the law, Linda was right in this case. Granddad, if your dimwitted daughter can't keep track of her dog, what about your grandkids. What say you, granddad?
ReplyDeleteThere is little one can say about irresponsible pet owners. I under-
ReplyDeletestand that is what the County is
suppose to be trying to "tighten"
up, for the irresponsible owners
out there & also for more protection of its citizens. I
understood from the paper the other
day, if they don't do this by Dec 20th, all the new laws that were presented will be dropped.! How
about that----that is probably
exactly what they want to happen!!!! I believe it has been
over 1 1/2yrs since it was preposed
to our leaders. To get a direct
answer from "any of them" is like
pulling teeth, let alone the
lawyer you addressed.
As for Ms Lugo, I feel sure she
had the best interest of the
animal at heart, however she
is not "God" when it comes to
making the law. This seems to
have been her arrogant attitude
with people over the years & it
definately needs to be brought
to a hault!!! "Mr C." was on the
"Board" , with whom you would file
a complaint , but resigned when
the child was attacked by 2 dogs
who were later euthanized by the
H. Society.
Your family sounded like it needed
a few lessons on how to protect
your dog from escaping to the
horriffic ,outside dangerous world
and Ms Lugo still needs lessons in
how to speak to people without try-
ing to intimidate them. If she can't----then she needs to be re-
placed by someone with more
finesse to do the job properly.
NOBODY SHOULD HAVE AS MUCH AUTHORITY,AS SHE "THINKS" SHE HAS
& OUR COUNTY REPS SHOULD BE HELD
LIABLE TO GET IT CORRECTED & NOW!!!! See what kind of an answer
you can get from them. They're like
a bunch of dam lawyers, they will
never answer your question directly!!! Go on , get an answer, if you can't perhaps the
Daily Times can. We'll all sit
back & see what you can do. By
the way I wish you LOTS OF LUCK!!!
.
look at this situation in another aspect. Say WCHC was the police and Luna was a cop and she was out enforcing the law and punishing criminals (no checks and balances). However she sees something that she thinks is wrong and arrest a person and punishs that person, how ever there is no law on the books for what that person did. How would you feel if the people protecting you could just make up the laws and enforce them as they see fit as Luna did in this case. If a cop made up the laws as they went they would be out of house job and in jail.
ReplyDeleteOur system of justice is organized and based around the principle that not one innocent person should be punished. If a hundred guilty people go free, so be it, as long as the system errs on the side of the individual.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely wish that people would take the responsibility that comes with the all the rights and privileges we're given, but I would much rather not have a nanny state telling me how to live and what to do.
As much as we would like to have a system that screens would-be parents and would-be pet-owners like we do with would-be handgun owners, it just isn't practical enough to do and at the same time preserve that most-important central principle of erring on the side of individual rights.
Sorry of I sound too Libertarian for some of you, but this is just one case where we "social progressives" have to grit our teeth and choose a different battle, because this one just ain't ripe for arguing.
9:29 you're a sad individual. Your willing to ignore the law and support anyone who breaks a law with which you disagree. You insult someone you don't even know because they're related to someone who contributes to this blog - extremely transparent. For you to refuse to acknowledge facts set plainly before you is a testament to your ignorance and inability to engage in intelligent debate. The purpose of this post is to make people aware that the way the Humane Society has done business in the past has been acknowledged by the Office of the County Atty. to be unlawful and to let people know that the Humane Society cannot keep property that rightfully belongs to someone else. It's the LAW. Since this is a concept you cannot grasp, I would proffer that it was your parents who raised a stupid child. So stupid, in fact, that further attempts by me to engage you in meaningful conversaton would most certainly be an exercise in futility. We're done here.
ReplyDeleteI shall work as hard as you to make sure that this is allowed in Wicomico County.
ReplyDeleteWCHS should have taken to the dog away. The dog obviously means NOTHING to your daughter. Seems as if you were just looking for a fight.
This is stupid, your daughter needs to give the dog to them so they may indeed find it a good home.
OK, enough is enough. It's very obvious that many of these comments are coming directly from employees of the Humane Society. I wouldn't have a problem with it IF you used your names. That being said, your not going to be fired for supporting what you believe in. Please do so in the future.
ReplyDeleteI believe everyone knows I am personally doing everything possible to help these animals at the Humane Society and thank God it's working. The point of this Blog is to openly discuss issues, like them or not, agree with them or not. The outcome is answers. Without it we have nothing but a one way street. Granddad feels strong in his convictions and should be respected for such. Linda and others know who he is and he's welcome to say so if he likes, I will not do so. That being said, Linda and others know who they're dealing with head on. I feel it's only fair everyone return that same respect and perhaps in the end there will be a resolution in which everyone can agree upon. If not, well, we'll agree to disagree and tomorrow is another day. Try it, you'll like it. Oh, NEVER forget this is about the animals and not individual personalities and beliefs. The animals have no voice.
People may not like what Linda did, but it was in the best interests of the animal in question. This whole situation could have been avoided if on the first or second time the dog got loose a better attempt to keep it from happening again would have taken place.
ReplyDeleteGRANDAD, I wish you'd been around to hear my father tell me,"son, it's better to sit around and let people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and let them know it."
ReplyDeleteAlthough you have the right to say and do what you're doing - it isn't the right thing to do.
Your dog and the public have rights too. Responsible owners don't have this problem.
Why do you?
I am utterly amazed at the number of people who completely miss the point of this post.
ReplyDeleteAnd 12:10 - I don't have this problem. My dogs stay either in my house or in a kennel. This was never about MY dogs.
GRANDAD - I'M DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT.
ReplyDeletePlease excuse the typo - it should have read:
Your dog and the public have rights too. Responsible owners don't have this problem.
Why - do you?
Yeah granddad, it just sounds like you and your daughter don't like Linda Lugo. Most of us think that she is doing an amazing job, and we are happy that she and Joe have settled their differences for the good of the animals. You and your daughter should do the same. Will you go volunteer to walk dogs out here? We would love to see you in the spirit of the holidays.
ReplyDeleteIt's insane the number posts here that are in of support a quasi-government agency denying a citizen their property without due process. Did any of you take a civics class in school? Do you know what our Constitution is? You people scare the heck out of me. If this is the level of your awareness, I hope you don't vote.
ReplyDeleteWow , we got some issues here!
ReplyDeleteBig friggin deal!
Whoever you are with the dog ,
just keep it secure and on your property. Problem solved . I'm
not missing the point , I'm
simply finding a solution to the idiot who owns the animal. It will happen again if you don't take the steps to secure your animal. You are right about the law . Get over it!
When I was a young boy, we had a "heinz" shorthair named rusty, He only had 3 legs, losing one to a motorcycle while chasing my oldest brother out of the street and back to the yard. He never wore a leash, and ran with us kids and the other neighborhood dogs, and protected us. He was a good friend, never bit anyone, and died of old age.
ReplyDeleteHow do we know this was your property? Did you produce the proper evidence ? Do you have title or a receipt for this property? How about paw prints?
ReplyDeleteA sample of D&A.
Lets move on!!
As I said in an earlier post, the LAW trumps emotion. those who wish to debate Grand Dad are not prepared. Bottom line, WCHS can no longer hold pets from their owners. Change the law or get over it. David Sapp
ReplyDeleteGrand dad is right about insisting that laws be obeyed. He is also right that his daughter should have been taught how to be responsible for herself and her "property" by someone other than Linda Lugo. Now his daughter knows she can continue to act irresponsibly because she is acting legally. OK, he is satisfied that the Humane Society's conduct has been found to be legally unjustified and will be changed. Unless and until the laws change, pet owners like his daughter are perfectly free to neglect the animal's safety and to put nearby school children at risk. So WCHS has been brought to task, wonder if Grand dad thinks anyone else in this situation might need her conduct changed? I'm thinking no.
ReplyDeleteI just read through all the comments, agree with Joe that many are just venomous enough to have come from employees, and maybe a couple from Lugo herself.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, it seems clear that many of those commenting have MISSED the point. Granddad isn't arguing about or defending his daughter's responsibilities or how she tends to them. His point was that the Humane (should a facility that REGULARLY euthanizes pets be called Humane?) Society has been using police powers which they do not have. His point was to alert others who may be or have been affected by the "Society"s behavior that it was not and is not legal.
Keep the personalities out of it, and perhaps you might appreciate the real purpose of his notice.
Confidential to Granddad:TMI.
It's time to stop making this a personal attack on anyone. This has nothing to do with one person or another.
ReplyDeleteWhat this is about is one person deciing to take the law into her own hands. She wants to be the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branch all by herself. As a previous person stated, that is not how our country works.
I can understand that she is frustrated, but she is still in a position of customer service. The people whose animals get out are not her children that she needs to discipline. Her job is to catch strays to keep the animal and people away from each other. This is for protection of both.
The way the system should work is that Linda should be the Excecutive branch of the three. She is thee to enforce the laws that are on the books. The county council is the legislative branch. They should decide what if any laws should be made. They should seek public input and also look at other juristictions to see how other communities deal with this issue. If there are violations of the law, Linda should take the appropriate action. The pet owner should be given the oppertiunity to face the accuser and be judged by an independant person or persons (judicial).
Linda has the frustration of seeing some dogs over and over. It would be better for everyone if her and the other employees took the time to be courtious and teach and train offenders how to properly care for their animals. This would be a benefit for all. When you attack someone with demeaning words, that person will naturaly go on the defensive.
As hard as it is, try not to take your job too personal. Just like the police officer can't take away children and property from people without a court order, regardless for how they "feel" about the situation.
Our community is changing. It's not the same small town we had years ago. Not everyone knows everybody else anymore. Therefor we have to grow and change with it.
We don't want needless laws. If we could all just find better ways to communicate, these kinds of things wouldn't get blown up and it wouldn't and shouldn't get personal.
I have a pound puppy that I got 3 years ago. He has been a wonderful friend and the service provided is great. But lets keep in the bounds of what we are authorized to do.
Grand Dad, I get the "point" of your post just fine. There is no clear law on the books defining the authority of the WCHS. Since that is the case, Linda Lugo did what she thought best at that time. What you call "outside the parameters of the law and her authority" I call protecting the dog and the community. There were no guidelines in place for her to follow, so she used her best judgement. I believe Wicomico County is attempting to address and correct this, yes?
ReplyDeleteContinue to thump the Annotated Code of Maryland, by all means. As far as the law goes, you are correct and you even heard it "officially" from the county's attorney. That's great. Just keep in mind that many guilty folks have gotten away with wrongdoing based on how some of our laws are written. I believe it's called "getting off on a technicality." I think that applies in this case. You keep harping on the dog being "property" that was taken from your daughter without a law to back up the seizure. The dog is not a bicycle or a car. It is a creature that needs food, shelter and medical care and frankly, it doesn't appear that your daughter acted very responsibly when it came to securing the dog.
And no, Joe, I don't work for the Humane Society. But I have adopted from there and have taken advantage of the low cost spaying and neutering program they offer. I appreciate the valuable service they provide to our community, and thank them for dealing with negligent pet owners and unwanted animals in the best way they can.
The law in our county says that dogs are to be kept on the owner's property or under their control at all times ie. on a leash. Irresponsible pet owner's are wasting our tax money by forcing H.S. to babysit their dogs when the animal control officers could be taking care of their many other duties. It is against the law for your dog to be RAL (running at large)in our co. period. I don't work for the H.S. but support them 100%. and while we are talking about being responsible, do you know all dogs, cats and ferrets must be vaccinated to protect them against rabies at 4 mos. of age. then they must be kept current on rabies vaccines. many people don't know this and are putting their pets and families at risk. letting your pet run loose puts it and your family at risk for contacting diseases. Just take responsibility for your pets people. it's that simple.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Tom.
Keep control of your pets, period.
ReplyDeleteIt truly scares me when someone justifies an action by a government agency with the statement "No matter what the law,". If this idea was followed by the masses, any law unpopular with the majority of the public could be ignored. minority rights, gender equalities, even simple due process could be ignored if a well intentioned official (or someone hiding behind a veil of good intentions) could ignore or create anything he chooses. Imagine if it were your HOME they felt caused a public nuisance and they wanted to evict you from it and tear it down, simply because they say/think any prudent responsible person would have done so. we cannot govern by opinion, we must govern by fact and precedent. I would personally support a "3 strikes and you lose the dog" law or something of the like, but to act like the law exists simply because we want it to, or because we think it OUGHT to... thats just dangerous to ALL of our rights and liberties.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is where County laws
ReplyDeleteneed to be changed. Dogs are personal property in this County.
In Somerset Cty. they are not
declared so. New laws need to be
put on the books for the protection
of the animals , who cannot speak for their own safety ,and for citizen protection .The Public should be make aware of what is
going on in this County as to the
limits of the HS & as to the owners
responsibility to their pets.
Our County has the right to impose
more law then what our State requires. Are they going to do so?
Let us sit back & wait. Remember
what the County Lawyer said, If
they do not do something by Dec 20the new laws proposed for change will no longer be valid to
vote on!!!!!!!!
I wish people would STOP taking this entire matter personally & realize that if we as citizens
want more protection, & also
want more protection for animals
the LAWS IN THIS COUNTY NEED TO
BE CHANGED TO DO SO!!!!
So get the new Laws on the books,and HAVE SOMEONE RESPONSIBLE
FOR SEEING THEY ARE FOLLOWED THROUGH AS THEY ARE SUPPOSE TO BE!
Here's what I wish:
ReplyDeleteWebsite of WCHS updated daily
Facility open seven days, at least for a few hours, so that potential adopting people can get there after work, on Sunday ( a HUGE family day, what better day to adopt a pet?)
NO MORE EUTHANIZING unless medically necessary
Since sbynews has begun "helping" advertise pets, there seems to be an increase in adoptions. It's not just this blog, but the amount of exposure it provides. That seems simple enough.
If it's about staffing, you can operate on those otherwise "closed" days with minimal staff or vollies, and hold the pet until paperwork is completed on a full staff day, for instance.
Where there's a will there's a way. Find it, please. Those defenseless animals you're in charge of are begging you.
Basically this is what it comes down to in my eyes. The owner was not responsible becuase the dog continued to get out. That is a problem whether it be the dog or the owner, it should have been resolved after the second time.
ReplyDeleteBut also I have to say that until Linda and the humane society has been given the authority to keep the pets from the owner's by LAW then Linda and the humane society did take actions into their own hands wrongfully. If they felt that the owner was that irresponsible then they should have taken some type of action against the owner. There should be laws for the humane society to follow to take the dog. BUT right now there are not.
This is not a singled incident. Linda and the Humane Society have done this same thing several times to other people. They have taken the law into their own hands and until there is something on the books they should not be allowed to do so.
It sounds to me like we may have found our next District Attorney.She has decided to what is best for our society without asking society.
ReplyDeleteI beleive there is a procedure concerning "picked up dogs". I would bet my bottom dollar there are citations given for "loose pets" in our society.After enough citations people will get the message.But to deny our legal rights based solely on one persons perspective is completely against what our democracy was formed for.
We are not a Monarch. The States Attorney should not have the power to decide if a jury of our peers is to hear a case and our local dog catcher should not have the ability to deny a owner of their property.
Perhaps after so many citations a pet owner should have to attend a pet owner safty coarse , just as if it were a trafic violation.Lets impose a point system. Every citation incures points and when you are over the limit with in a certain time , a person must attend classes.Just like with a driving privledge.
I have refered to Davis Ruark when speaking on this topic because many crimes are not heard in court because Davis dosent feel they are valid. Who made him GOD. Our constitution clearly states a jury of our peers, and even has a total of how many are on the jury. I have been subjected to this totalitarian system ,disguised as democracy , for far too long. And if my day keeps going this way , I just might break something tonight.Ooops got caught up on the Biscuit.( thats Limp Biscuit for all you fuddie duddies out there ).
Its just like our congress, Keep takind from the people untill they collapse and then we can make things the way we want them.Please people, let our founding fathers continue to be as politically correct as they have been in the past. Before "we" started to amend and change what our forefathers were trying to do. Give me liberty or give me death. Lets stop allowing those in self acclaimed power to continuely abuse the rest of us so they don't have to do the job they signed on to do. If its to much for you Davis , just step down. But what would you be then. Just another Alcohalic with no skills or future. I bet he has a inside tract to the welfare line or I hope so. Maybe he and the mayor can start a soup kitchen in time for their retirement.Hahaha
write em a citation ! Sooner or later they will get the message.Idiots.Don't give the dog catcher the right to take a pet from a owner. This dose not feel right , dose it to you ?
ReplyDeletegrand dad i have a little question for you since you are such a pet lover,WHY DID YOU SHOOT AND KILL YOUR NEIGHBORS DOG? IS THIS NOT TAKING THE LAW INTO [YOUR] OWN HANDS WHERE YOU NOT THE JUDGE ,JURY AND EXECUTIONER.
ReplyDelete