Recently I had been a part of an ongoing thread that was meant to network a 9-month-old Pit Bull mix that was dumped by her owner at the Carson shelter. The actual surrender took place on 3/24 and was witnessed by a good Samaritan, who documented everything, with both pictures and words. It was explained how this dog was brought in (connected to a yard chain), and then shoved into the small intake cage by her surrenderer, him slamming the door on her face so inappropriately that a volunteer actually ran out and felt it necessary to say something. This individual then attempted to walk through the shelter runs, presumably to look for another dog. He was stopped by that same volunteer, and it was implied that he should leave.

This dog was extremely shaken by the experience. If any indication is to be had from the callous way in which she was dumped, she was likely neglected in numerous ways throughout the length of her young life. Still, in the face of it all she remained sweet and calm.

Fast forward to 3/29, and the prior owner had apparently called the shelter wanting to reclaim the dog. How was this found out? Because the networking efforts had secured a rescue for her, and the rescuer was actually in the office trying to place a CTA (commitment to adopt) on the dog’s file. This dog had rescue, and Carson disallowed it because the prior owner now wanted her back. Now I’m all for a genuinely remorseful person, realizing their mistake and attempting to make it right. I’ll never personally understand surrendering your dog to a kill shelter, but everyone is different. Point is though that dogs, by and large, love their people, regardless of how they are treated. If there is genuine remorse being shown by a person that was put into a tough situation, then who’s to seriously stop that? Everyone certainly makes mistakes. A dog being redeemed by someone they love, as an alternative to the shelter killing them, is always preferable, obviously. But look at this circumstance specifically… Tough to make that argument. Then you add in the fact that rescue is there, ready and willing. Sadly, for this dog, she was ultimately picked back up by the person that discarded of her just days prior.

This is all leading to my ultimate point…

I asked whether this individual had to pay to reclaim the dog. That was curious to me because I know that in the past, Carson has charged huge sums of money (upwards of $300) for people to redeem their dogs that were LEGITIMATELY LOST and impounded at their facility. We are talking fees that are 2-3x their adoption fees. We are talking fees that are 10x their rescue fees. All for someone who has legitimately lost, misplaced, had their dog stolen, etc. Wouldn’t it be a gigantic hypocrisy if someone who has legitimately lost (and now taken the initiative to find) their dog, then had to pay far more money to redeem that same dog, than the individual who carelessly dumps their dog like trash, only to come back and try to reclaim it 6 days later? Isn’t there something inherently wrong with that?

I called the shelter and tried to get some answers. The phone operator told me that since a “stray” dog breaks a “leash law,” that that is how the higher fine is incurred. It doesn’t matter under what circumstance the dog ever were to get loose. If it were to happen, it automatically classifies the dog as a “stray,” and thus, in violation of the leash law. Whereas, if some rotten person actually dumps their dog on the shelters doorstep, slamming the cage door in its face on the way out for good measure, they don’t incur any fee whatsoever and have actually “done the responsible thing” in the eyes of LA County. They’ve “broken” no law. Yes it’s true, there’s no law on the books for being a heartless scumbag.

The worst part about all of these thoughts firing in my head is this… I was told last year by someone who frequently visits the shelter that they were aware of a family that had legitimately lost their dog, and that it was then impounded by the Carson shelter. The family was contacted by the shelter. They came in, they confirmed and visited, they absolutely wanted to redeem their dog. Just so happens, Carson had tied numerous fees to the eventual release, as well as a per day fee for housing the dog (prior to the owners even being eventually notified). Once the owners were onsite, they made the shelter aware that they couldn’t afford to pay those fees, but that they most definitely wanted their dog back. The shelter knew of these owners, knew of their intentions and that they wanted their dog back. Instead of working with this family, they gave them an ultimatum and would not let them leave with their dog. After a few days, the shelter opted to euthanize their dog. The family found out about it from a phone call.