Treatment of pet far from humane
Post-Tribune (IN)
July 19, 1998
For years our family has avidly supported the humane care of animals, either monetarily or verbally. But a recent experience has certainly led us to question the true motivation of some agencies as well as local government representatives.
Following is the story of our loss: On May 13, I had our family pet - Katy, a wonderful 4-year-beagle outside on a leash. I let go of the leash to do something; I became involved and Katy wandered off. She had done this a few weeks before but returned within a couple hours.
The following morning Katy still had not returned. My daughter contacted New Chicago police, who in turn directed us to the Lake Station mayor's office, informing us of the animal control officer that works out of that office.
We live on the border of three towns and were not sure who to contact. Living in a mobile home park, we contacted that office also. In each call we gave a description of Katy, including a small obvious growth she had on top of her head. We also left our name and phone number.
We called the Hammond Humane Society to see if she was reported. We originally purchased Katy from them and she wore her original ID tag. We called the Hobart Humane Society, also giving a complete description. We were told there was a female beagle there, so my daughter drove over to see if it was Katy. It was not.
The next morning, I received a call from the Hobart Humane Society saying they had Katy but were sorry to say they had to put her to sleep. The Lake Station animal control officer stated she thought Katy had parvo, therefore they had no choice. I asked: "Why did no one call us? You had a complete description and phone numbers, as well the fact my daughter had made a trip there just the day before to see if another beagle was her?" Again, I was told she had parvo.
I went immediately and picked up Katy's body, expressing how upset we were that we were not contacted so we would have the chance to take her to a veterinarian. I left the shelter and went to a local veterinarian who performed an autopsy for me to determine if Katy was sick. His findings: "I found no pathology on limited post-mortem."
In disbelief, my daughter contacted the Hammond Humane Society making them aware of the outcome. They were incredulous and did not understand why we were not contacted, for they had been called by the Hobart Humane Society inquiring about the owner of Katy. When we started to question everyone involved, we were given one story after the next. That included the Lake Station mayor's secretary, who said the animal control officer called off sick on Friday. However, we have a copy of a surrender order from Hobart Humane Society which she signed on May 15, 1998, stating Katy was ill with parvo.
Our conclusion: It appears a few very unprofessional, unqualified, self-appointed executioners made a diagnosis and decided on their own that our family pet should be destroyed. Why they did not call is beyond us. As my son placed Katy in her grave, our little granddaughter began to laboriously scoop up earth with her bare hands and scatter it over the body. Moved from the heart to do her part, this little 5-year-old, I believe, demonstrated the true meaning of humane.
John and Barbara Stevens
Hobart
