A young woman reports that staff at Sugar Land [TX] Animal Services refused to accept a stray dog she found, instructing her to leave the dog where she found it. When she requested the supervisor’s name to file a complaint, she was asked to depart and was threatened with arrest for trespassing.
The following day, she claims animal control officers from the neighboring county where she resides visited her after Sugar Land employees lodged a complaint about her dogs being kept in “poor conditions.” The officers inspected her home but issued no citations, as the animals were well-cared for. Having never seen her dogs before, she suspects Sugar Land employees of attempting to intimidate or retaliate against her, actions which are illegal.
Moreover, this isn’t the first instance of Sugar Land’s controversial practices. In 2022, city officials in Sugar Land, TX, dismissed five shelter employees for euthanizing 38 animals without proper protocol. The shelter manager resigned prior to potential termination.
Despite these allegations, the mayor remained supportive of the staff, dubiously labeling them as the “best of the best” and offering his “unconditional support.” Such unwavering support suggests they cannot lose his backing — even when they advise people to abandon dogs, retaliate against complainants, or partake in cruel behavior. It’s no surprise they seem to act carelessly with the lives of both animals and humans.
Source: Nathan Winograd newsletter. Thanks.
RELATED: Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) is treating shelter dogs abysmally
There’s Managed Intake, which I fully support when done appropriately, and managed intake with no idea of what should be done, which sounds like what this woman encountered, along with the dog she found.
Good communication, proper and ongoing staff training, staffing levels, customer service attitudes, good staff supervision, strong supportive programs, (can you hold this dog for 48 hours and put up posts for an owner, to give him a better chance of going straight home without a stay in the shelter?), and shelter capacity all come into play when a stray is brought to a shelter. Done well together they create a good managed intake program, and they help save animals’ lives.
Here’s what the shelter’s website says regarding walk-in drop offs:
“Walk-in Shelter Intake Closed (Dogs)
Due to capacity issues in our shelter and in the region the shelter is unable to accept dogs brought in by residents to the shelter.
Animal Services Officers will respond as needed in the field to assess whether a dog needs to be impounded due to age or injury.
The shelter can only accept cats and kittens that are found in Sugar Land by residents of Sugar Land.”
The community is fundraising to increase shelter capacity. They have cute adoption information directly below that.
So the situation may have been poorly communicated;the follow-up regarding the woman’s own pet care is inexcusable. But there is no doubt that Mr. Winograd’s push for “no kill” has led to many situations like this. To have “No Kill” a community needs to have a sustained program of HIGH VOLUME spay and neuter of pets.
In Seattle in the 1970s, the Humane Society lost the contract for the municipal shelter’s contract because of the high volume of euthanasia they were doing. A new group of people took over the management, and soon realized that there would be no quick or easy solution to the euthanasia rates. They could have fundraised for a new shelter, but instead they thought creatively: an initiative was put on the ballot in 1978, asking Seattle taxpayers to tax themselves to build and subsidize a Municipal Spay-NeuterCclinic. The initiative passed, and the clinic opened in 1982. Low-cost spay and neuter services quickly caught on throughout the area, and as spay-neuter rates increased, the euthanasia rates decreased.
A no-kill shelter can be a miserable excuse for inhumane animal care. Or it can offer wonderful, high-quality care when well-butressed by supportive progams, starting with HIGH VOLUME spay-neuter.
Texas has some of the worse animal “shelters” in the country. With 111,000+ population you would think Sugarland could/would do better.
Thanks. This must be due to a Texan culture or general attitude in the state which starts with failing to fully accept the sentience of animals.
Thank you, April. The issue here appears to stem from insufficient capacity and a negligent attitude towards dog ownership, particularly the failure to spay and neuter, along with other factors that could decrease euthanasia rates and enable shelters to accept stray dogs brought in.
The crux of the problem with unwanted dogs and cats boils down to irresponsible pet ownership, evident in impulsive purchases or acquisitions of pets followed by inadequate care, including neglecting to sterilize.
The root cause, the breeding of unwanted companion animals, must be tackled with greater dedication and energy. Shelters are reactive entities, cleaning up the aftermath.
It has been observed that shelters often react defensively when faced with criticism instead of being open and willing to engage in discussion. There are accounts of shelters penalizing whistleblowers who expose shelter shortcomings, resulting in their dismissal—a typical defensive action by inadequate and fearful management.
There seems to be a prevalence of closed-mindedness among shelter management, although it is acknowledged that there are also some exceptional managers.