I want to start off by saying that this story had a happy ending. Gatsby was adopted by a great couple and he is likely being spoiled while adjusting to his new home. But had it not been for a handful of people, people that do not work for the shelter, this would have never happened.

This is what we’ve learned by staying engaged in Gatsby’s stay at the Carson shelter: Gatsby came in as a stray on 6/3. Since he was a stray he’s not automatically made available to the public, and he’s given the “available” date of 6/8 instead. This is done so that the shelter can see if a dog has a microchip and then attempt to contact any owner that the dog may have. This date also doubles as a “due out” date, meaning that the first day that any stray dog becomes available to the public is also the first day that it could hypothetically be killed. Gatsby is given the ID# A4586493 upon intake. A microchip is found at some point, the date of when it was found is unclear. Gatsby receives a CTA (commitment to adopt) on 6/15 by an individual that saw him at the shelter. Gatsby is placed on the glamour shot list by a volunteer on 6/16. Glamour shots are when a photographer comes in and photographs select dogs for a better profile picture. This is done for networking purposes and essentially buys the dog a 10-day networking hold from the date that the picture is taken. In order to be kept on the glamour shot list any added dog must first pass a temperament test. Between 6/16 and 6/21 Gatsby is given his temperament test, which he passes with an “A.” The shelter sends out a letter to Gatsby’s owner (noted from the microchip) on 6/21. Glamour shots are then given on 6/22, and Gatsby is included, thus buying him 10 more days and making his new “due out” date 7/2. It’s learned that a “property inspection” was done regarding Gatsby’s actual owner, thus implying that his owner wanted him back. The property inspection is then “failed,” meaning that the shelter decided that Gatsby is not allowed to return to his previous owner. On 6/26 volunteers and concerned individuals take it upon themselves to upload Gatsby’s glamour photo onto the websites ShelterMe.com and RescueMe.org. On 6/28 the shelter staff finally calls the CTA, which was placed on 6/15. Nobody answers. Gatsby is then placed on the euthanasia evaluation list for the morning of 6/29 because his “due out” date is still showing in the computer as being 6/8, his original “due out” date. His actual “due out” date is now 7/2, but apparently nobody updated it in the system. This was only found out because miraculously an interested couple saw Gatsby’s photograph on the website RescueMe.org and ended up calling into the shelter the night of 6/28 to place an IP (interested party) on him. Gatsby is neutered on the morning of 7/1 and is picked up that afternoon.

I know that that was a frustrating paragraph to read. The 5-day intake window for strays is put there precisely for this reason: To locate a microchip and follow-up with any owner. Yet, the Carson shelter didn’t contact Gatsby’s prior owner until they sent a letter out on 6/21, 18 days after Gatsby came into the shelter and 13 days after he hypothetically could have been killed. They then scheduled a “property inspection,” which I personally find absolutely absurd (and had no clue that they actually do this), and then failed the person to boot, thus blocking Gatsby’s reunion with his legitimate owner.

Secondly, when Gatsby received a CTA on 6/15 this should have prompted both a temperament test and the dog’s sterilization, if necessary. In Gatsby’s case it was. A commitment to adopt is a commitment to adopt, and that should be of the utmost importance to any shelter staff. Well, Gatsby’s neuter wasn’t done until 7/1 (at the behest of a secondary request), and the individual who placed the CTA on 6/15 wasn’t even called back until 6/28! God only knows how many times this person may have tried to contact the shelter… Shelter phones routinely park you on hold for upwards of an hour or more, no matter the time that you call, and this is the case almost exclusively. When you do finally get through it’s almost a guarantee that you will be told 1 thing by 1 person, and could then be told a totally different thing by another person, even on the same day. This could have happened with them, as I’ve experienced this phenomenon many times. All I know is that Gatsby’s temperament test was given at some point between 6/16 and 6/21, which he passed with an “A.” It’s unclear whether it was done for the first CTA or for the glamour shot clearance. But why was the individual who placed the original CTA not called until 6/28? And why, based on 1 non-answer, does Gatsby immediately go on the next morning’s kill-list? Nice.

The non-updating of Gatsby’s “due out” date, from 6/8 to 7/2, could have also gotten Gatsby killed at any time, and almost did. This “oversight” nonsense has gotten countless dogs, including Ruby, killed in the past. We will sadly never know the true scale of such incompetence.

And ultimately, the placing of his picture (by someone not affiliated with the shelter) onto a website (not affiliated with the shelter) is what got him seen and then saved by a secondary interested person. Had it not been for that act, Gatsby would have almost certainly been killed on the morning of 6/29 (as the “due out” mistake would have never been realized), and best case scenario the morning of 7/2 (assuming the update was placed correctly, which it wasn’t).

I want people to understand that the reason I have so much information about this specific dog is because there were lots of people working together to make sure he had a happy ending. Unfortunately most dogs do not have this. The most important takeaway from this writeup should be the question that you are hopefully already asking: How many dogs does this happen to? How many dogs end up dying simply due to miscommunication, or stagnation, or inaction on the part of the shelter?

So many dogs most likely suffer the fate that Gatsby almost suffered. Even with all of ^those details, all that could be deemed positive momentum, all that should have been done correctly, or better, or faster… Gatsby almost died, and no one would have known. It all would have been flushed down the memory hole. Gatsby was just fortunate enough to have a volunteer that honed in on him for whatever reason, who then got 3rd party rescue folks and networkers involved, and even through all the shelter’s incompetence he was still salvaged. Thank God. Most dogs die silently when up against this. This is not an anomaly, more likely a normality. How many dogs have died when they quite easily could have been and should have been saved?