|
Depressing Christmas cards Leading Catholic: Disney has corrupted kids Kid comes before designer jeans Predicting the stock market Judge: Obese fliers should get two airline seats Palin's unfortunate interview backdrop! Record number of pot plants seized in state Safe haven or easy way out? Where's the good gas prices news? McDonald's shines in bad economy June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Share! |
|
|
Burying Fido in the vacant field
Well, apparently for the last 15 years or so, county animal control officers have been burying dead dogs and cats on vacant property.
The practice — some 500-plus burials in the last year — ended last week after county lawyers involved animal control officers that such burials need the permission from a property owner. That is almost always not practical, so the dead animals — complete with bugs and stink — will be brought to the animal shelter for disposal. Channel 29 Eyewitness News found out about a burial last Thursday and the issue was brought to a head. The officers won't be happy about the smell or the possible health hazards of bringing decomposing animals back to the pound. Residents, however, can bury their own pets on their own property. Lord knows I've buried hamsters on my back 40. Do you think it's about time that the county changes its disposal methods for small animals? Or do you think it wasn't a problem until those darn TV cameras raised a stink? Posted by Steve E. Swenson 15 comments from 12 users
1
posted by
allRED
on Oct 24, 2006 at 01:57 PM
posted by
allRED
on Oct 24, 2006 at 04:18 PM
Adam it was a joke ok, but i;m alittle tried of these rare beings that seem to hold up constuction and lumber cutting. Ron. posted by
randomfactor
on Oct 24, 2006 at 04:23 PM
. posted by
allRED
on Oct 24, 2006 at 07:36 PM
Ron. posted by
NancyII
on Oct 24, 2006 at 09:23 PM
Wouldn't you think some of the money could go for low cost spaying and neutering clinics?
Personally, I feel that if you can't afford to take care of your pet, you shouldn't have one. These people who say they want to give their dog at least one chance to be a mother irritate the crap out of me. They're equating motherhood of people to motherhood of dogs and that's just nuts. I got my lab when she was 7 weeks old and when she hit the 6 month mark I made her appointment for spaying. People who insist on keeping a pet while it has litter after litter aren't doing anyone any favors and their pet doesn't get to keep their precious "child" anyway. If they leave them in the yard together they'll mate with each other. How's that for motherly love? posted by
debbscott
on Oct 24, 2006 at 10:10 PM
I could not believe this article. I agree--The head of the dept. of animal control should be fired. How can anyone be that stupid and work in such a position. I often walked my dog in what used to be fields around Day St & Airport Dr in Oildale. Now I know why my dog used to stop at so many different places in this burial ground and try to dig! Believe me the workers did not take the time to bury them very deep as Ms. Haynes stated. She says that the burials were never an issue before--that's because no one knew this was happening. Also a few years ago I worked for a very well respected Veterinary office in town. I know that they have a freezer. And a company comes and picks up the deceased animals. I'm sure something like that could be used here. I hope more experienced people speak out on this issue to help with a remedy!!! posted by
rock923
on Oct 24, 2006 at 11:59 PM
I worked in animal control for over 30 years and never heard of a animal control agency in California burying dead animals in empty lots. What cities/counties were being referred to with the comment: "Most other animal control agencies bury dead animals, Haynes said."
Alas, again the need for a manager with animal care & control training and experience is shown. posted by
anonymous
on Oct 25, 2006 at 09:03 AM
The reasoning AC used to justify burying animals all over town was ludicrous. If they don't want the mess and inconvenience in the trucks, hasn't anyone ever heard of using heavy-duty trash bags, biohazard bags, or something similar to keep all the unpleasantness of a dead body contained? How hard is it to securely enclose a dead animal in a bag and bring it back to AC later in the day?
The laziness and stupidity of the AC department is frightening. And this town's backwards attitudes towards pet ownership only help to enable AC's incompetence. posted by
birdmom
on Oct 25, 2006 at 09:14 AM
Besides the health issue of having dead animals buried all over the County, I am bothered by one other thing. By not bringing these dead animals back to the shelter, these animals never get scanned for a microchip. I was under the impression that ALL animals brought to AC, dead or alive, were scanned for a chip. If an animal escapes its yard and gets hit by a car, it appears the owner may never know what happened to their pet as it is just unceremoniously buried without being checked. Is it possible to scan through a plastic bag so they don't have to get their hands dirty?
posted by
anonymous
on Oct 25, 2006 at 09:40 AM
Not much difference in the expertise between Animal Control and Human Services. Both embarrassments. Of course the human clients aren't anything to write home about, either.
posted by
anonymous
on Oct 25, 2006 at 09:44 AM
I checked with ourl ocal animal control agency, both the city and county, neither buries dead animals on private or public property.
From the picture on the news story, that cat didn't look to "nasty" or "decomposed" or crawling with bugs and maggots, it wasn't even buried, it was layed on the ground and covered up with some dirt, probably with the ACO's shoe. Denise Haynes is worried that bugs will infect other animals at the shetler if the dead animals are brough back for disposal, are you kidding me...shouldn't she be a little more concerned about the kennel cough, parvo, distemper, canine nfluenza and panluek that is infecting the animals in her care at the shelter, because of poor cleaning practices ie, no disinfectant on premises not even bleach! If the dogs we pulled for rescue only had some bugs on them, hell we would consider that great shape! But no, they are sick, injured and starved! It is time for this community to get involved and demand a change in leadership. God forbid that YOUR pet find it's way into this shelter! posted by
shoneypaws
on Oct 25, 2006 at 09:50 AM
How many yards has animal control tainted with Parvo which can live in the ground up to 3 years? An unsuspecting family moves in and looses their family dogs thanks to Animal Control. I can not understand how they could possibly not realize this. It is against the law in Sacramento County and City to bury animals on private property. How could Bakersfield be so stupid? Do they not know one thing about the animals they are supposed to serve? The deceased animals are placed in freezers until properly disposed of. If they follow proper procedure there is no oder or disease.
posted by
anonymous
on Oct 25, 2006 at 12:35 PM
There are a couple of tests I would submit on this topic relative to Denise Haynes who, imho, should be fired... should have never even HAD the job.
1. Does common sense dictate that you can walk over to your neighbor's home, and bury your dead dog? If not, then just how stupid is Haynes? Why is she still there? 2. State law requires that animals picked up dead be scanned for a chip. This is simple stuff. Wave the scanner over the dead animal and record the chip number. Then call the company. They will release, to Animal Control, the chip information. So.... if they were NOT carrying scanners on their trucks (which they don't) then they are also in violation of state law. Denise Haynes has NO experience as an Animal Control Director. None. The reason this shelter is still in such shambles is, largely, because of her. The audit of the shelter, ordered by the Board of Supervisors, took her to task, as well. It is not just the public, it was an audit company that audits animal shelters. Please write a letter to the BOS asking that she be removed from this position. posted by
anonymous
on Oct 25, 2006 at 08:43 PM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Jon McQuiston, District 1 - ph: 661-868-3650, fax: 661-868-3657, district1@co.kern.ca.us Don Maben, District 2 - ph: 661-868-3660, fax: 661-868-3666, district2@co.kern.ca.us Barbara Patrick, District 3 - ph: 661-868-3670, fax: 661-868-3677, dist3@co.kern.ca.us Ray Watson, District 4 - ph: 661-868-3680, fax: 661-868-3688, district4@co.kern.ca.us Michael Rubio, District 5 - ph: 661-868-3690, fax: 661-868-3645, district5@co.kern.ca.us posted by
anonymous
on Oct 25, 2006 at 08:45 PM
Please flood the Board of Supervisors with calls that Denise Haynes be terminated.
This shelter needs a progressive, pro-active manager right away.
1
BAKERSFIELD.COM HOT TOPICS:Advertisement |