Prologue

This site was originally created in April 2012 to blow the whistle on abuses and lawbreaking at the Stockton Animal Shelter. Since then there has been an investigation by the Stockton Police Department into animal abuse and illegal activity at the shelter. Originally characterized as an investigation into shelter operations and not into the activities of any individual employee, the investigation has since been recharacterized as a personnel matter and the report of the investigation has been made secret from the public.

The investigation was completed in October 2012, but problems persist at the shelter, as covered in the CCPA Blog, and the shelter continues to operate with the same supervisor and personnel responsible for all the appalling and in most cases illegal activities discussed on this site.

Summary

After an extensive analysis of public records, we conclude there is ample evidence pointing to systematic and methodical illegal killings of animals at the Stockton Animal Shelter. In addition, we find evidence of withholding of medical care from injured and suffering animals.

Our quantitative analysis of public data indicates that 76% of animals killed at the Stockton Animal Shelter are killed illegally. Our analysis further indicates that 40% are killed immediately, on the day of intake or on the next day, and another 35% are killed too soon, before the end of their statutory holding periods. In both cases, the citizen owners of these companion animals are harmed and denied their right to a holding period, during which they might locate and save their pets.

Stockton Animal Services ought to understand municipal law, especially since they are a division of the Police Department. Our analysis, however, points out that, with respect to statutory holding periods, there appears to be either an ignorance of the local law or a choice to ignore it. This same local law, the Stockton Municipal Code, is the authority under which Animal Services levies redemption fees and licensing fees on citizens. We don't appreciate the idea that ordinary people must obey the law, but this government agency can brush it aside.

Our Inquiry

At the beginning of the year we submitted to the City of Stockton a public records request for information about animals taken up by Stockton Animal Services between September 15, 2011 and December 31, 2011.

The response to our request was disappointing. What records we did receive seemed to us almost designed to discourage public discovery of what was actually going on at the animal shelter. While we were able to extract quite a lot of information, it was only through the application of forensic analysis that would not generally be available to grassroots rescue organizations or an average member of the public.

Data Analysis

You can read about how we analyzed the records in the Data Analysis section of this site. What the quantitative analysis indicates is alarming.

First, the data says there is a large segment of animals that were killed immediately on intake.

Second, the data says there is another large segment of animals that were killed during their holding period, apparently because of an ignorance or repudiation of the local law.

These indications of the data analysis are illustrated in the following chart, which shows all animals killed. Forty percent are killed right away, on the day of intake or on the following day, 36% are killed somewhat later, but still during the required holding period, and 24% are killed legally, after the end of the required holding period.

Pattern of Behavior

As indicated by their own public records, Stockton Animal Services routinely kills healthy and treatable dogs and cats without first holding them for the minimum amount of time mandated by state and local law. Disturbingly, the dominant portion of animals killed are killed on the day of intake or the next day. In the data you can see that some kind of sorting process is at work, with a large set of luckless dogs and cats being selected for immediate death. Forty percent of the dogs and cats killed on their day of intake are classified as "sick," which raises the suspicion that "sick" is a label used liberally to somehow account for unlawful killings. Additionally, animals coming in from citizens, turned in over-the-counter, are killed immediately far more often than animals coming in via Animal Control Officers in the field, independent of whether the animal is turned in as a stray or as an owner-surrender.

California and Stockton law are quite clear that a cat or dog must be held for possible redemption or adoption, unless the cat or dog is irremediably suffering, is an unweaned infant impounded without its mother, or is a dog that has been documented as vicious prior to arriving at the shelter. There are no other exceptions. Illness, behavior, temperament, or age are not exceptions.

Stockton Animal Services impounds approximately twelve thousand dogs and cats per year, and about 67% of those are killed, amounting to roughly eight thousand dogs and cats. Based on our results, the number of those killed unlawfully is 76% or about six thousand dogs and cats. So in the past year, something like six thousand or more citizen pet owners have possibly been harmed by the actions of Stockton Animal Services.

Immediate Death

These are a few of the unfortunate cats and dogs that found themselves selected for immediate death. All were killed illegally by Stockton Animal Services, with no opportunity to be reunited with their owners or to be placed into a new home. Keep in mind that over the course of a year, there are thousands of dogs and cats dealt with in the same way as these few examples:

• A176385 was a normal, healthy black cat. This cat was part of a collection of six cats turned in over-the-counter by a purported owner. The other cats in the collection were A176386, A176387, A176388, A176389, and A176390. All six cats were killed immediately. This case is similar to the case, reported by News10 Sacramento, of a cat named "Prayer" owned by Stockton resident Amber Bean. Prayer and another neighbor's cats were rounded up by a third neighbor, turned in over-the-counter to Stockton Animal Services, and killed immediately. Prayer was labeled "sick," despite being completely vigorous and healthy, according to Ms. Bean.
• A175650 was a normal, healthy gray tabby cat turned in over-the-counter as a stray found running loose. This cat was killed immediately.
• A175177 was a normal, healthy, and highly adoptable gray kitten taken up stray in San Joaquin County and brought to the Stockton shelter. This kitten was killed immediately.
• A175471 was another normal, healthy, highly adoptable gray tabby kitten that was turned in as a stray over-the-counter. This kitten was killed immediately.
• A176964 was a normal, healthy Boxer dog that was one of two dogs turned in over-the-counter by their purported owner. The other was A176965, a normal, healthy Rottweiler. Both dogs were logged in "normal," but within a half hour were classified "fearful," and then killed immediately together. Neither owner-relinquishment nor temperament is an exception to the requirement to hold a dog or cat for the minimum time set by law. Furthermore, state law requires that owner-surrendered dogs and cats be given the same holding period as strays (see the Holding Periods section of this site).
• A175082 was a normal, healthy Pit Bull dog that was turned in over-the-counter by its purported owner. This dog was logged in "normal," but within a half hour was classified "aggressive," and then killed immediately. Again, neither owner-relinquishment nor temperament is an exception to the requirement to hold a dog or cat for the minimum time set by law.
• A176323 was a grey cat turned in over-the-counter by a purported owner and labeled "feral." This cat was killed immediately, though it may have had an owner or a caretaker. Feral cats must be treated the same as stray cats and owner-relinquishment is not an exemption from the requirement to provide a holding period.
• A177024 was a small stray tortoiseshell cat logged in as "sick." This cat was killed immediately. Illness is not an exception to the requirement to hold a dog or cat for the minimum time set by law. A stray dog or cat that is ill may still be someone's pet. Consequently, the law requires that an ill stray may be killed immediately only when it is irremediably suffering (see the Holding Periods section of this site). In this case, there is no notation of any veterinary examination or prognosis in the cat's record. There is only the label "sick."
• A175457 was a small stray tan cat logged in as "sick." This cat was killed immediately. This cat and the one above are representative of a pattern of behavior at the Stockton Animal Shelter where dogs or cats are labeled "sick" and then killed on that basis. For most of these animals there is no health record, evidence of examination by a veterinarian, or recorded prognosis.
• A174622 was a small brown Chihuahua was turned in over-the-counter and labeled "sick." This dog was killed immediately. Apparently this dog was not overtly sick, because the euthanasia log notes time-and-space as the reason for the killing.
• A175637 was a German Shepherd dog turned in over-the-counter by its purported owner and logged in as "sick." This dog was killed immediately. In this dog's record there is no notation of any veterinary examination or prognosis. There is only the label "sick."
• A176454 was a Dalmatian dog turned in over-the-counter as a stray, logged in as "normal" but within a half hour classified as "sick." This dog was killed immediately. However, unlike most of the dogs and cats killed immediately, this animal had a note of medical examination in its record. The note cited malnourishment, fleas, and white mucous membrane as symptoms, and anemia as a condition, along with a recommendation to PTS (Put To Sleep) for humane reasons. There is no documentation that this dog was irremediably suffering or untreatable; the symptoms listed were non-specific (white mucous membrane can be caused by fleas, as well as by simple fear and stress) and the suspicion of anemia could only be confirmed with a blood test that was not done. Furthermore, the person making the diagnosis and recommendation was not identified as a veterinarian. It is illegal for a non-veterinarian to diagnose or give a prognosis for a sick animal (explanation).

Other Troubling Notes

There are additional troubling notes scattered throughout the records we received. Here are just a few:

• Dog A173303 was apparently a candidate for euthanasia because of skin allergies.
• Dog A174962 a female German Shepherd was selected for "humane" death because she was "thin and scard" [sic] (scared or scarred).
• Chihuahua-type dog A175418 was impounded October 9 after biting someone. Once all public safety issues had been addressed and the dog was cleared to be released, with notes in the file indicating the owner wanted the dog back, the dog was killed November 6 because the owner could not afford the $775 redemption fee or the $611 adoption fee Stockton Animal Services intended to charge her. Instead of receiving any fees at all, or simply allowing the dog to go home alive to an owner who complied with all public safety requirements, Stockton Animal Services killed the dog and ended up absorbing all the costs of boarding, killing, and disposing of the body.
• Dog A175166 impounded October 6 after being pepper-sprayed. There is no indication of veterinary assessment or treatment. That dog was killed October 14.
• Dog A175594 with a broken leg was "OK to PTS HUMANE" (PTS means Put To Sleep). That dog was killed soon after intake with no indication of veterinary assessment, treatment, or of outreach to rescues.
• Dog A175285 impounded October 7 and killed October 15, had a broken rear leg that was decreed "costly to fix.” There are no notations of pain medication or of outreach to rescues. This dog may have been held, in pain, for a week before being killed.
• Cat A174066 turned in by owner on September 19 because owner was moving out of state and killed illegally on the following day.
• Dog A175092 turned in by owner on October 5 because he was returning to Mexico and killed illegally on the same day.

Call For Investigation

Our data analysis and the notes all throughout the source documents both suggest Stockton Animal Services routinely engages in unlawful practices.

Particularly unsettling is the number of animals that are killed on intake, pointed to by our quantitative analysis. The only way to know the true extent of the problem is to perform an investigation and full audit of Stockton Animal Services. We call for such an investigation, to be conducted by an independent team of knowledgeable outsiders.

In the meantime, we believe there is credible evidence to suggest that Stockton Animal Services’ director should be removed or placed on administrative leave, and an interim director appointed to act under a citizen oversight committee.

Ultimately, the actions of the Animal Services agency are the responsibility of the director. We believe Stockton Animal Services, under its current director, has established a longstanding pattern and practice of disregard for local and state law, and that this behavior has resulted in, and continues to result in, the unnecessary and wrongful killing of large numbers of impounded companion animals, with the attendant harm that comes to the owners of those animals, who are sometimes desperately searching at the time their pets are illegally put to death.

Be Heard

Your voice matters. You can help Stockton's city leaders realize that people care about their companion animals and what happens to them in the hands of the City.

Be heard now. Write or call:

• Mayor Ann Johnston
  ann.johnston@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8244
• Police Chief Eric Jones
  eric.jones@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8377
• City Attorney John Luebberke
  john.luebberke@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8333
• Council Member Elbert Holman, Jr. (District 1)
  dist1@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8244
• Council Member Katherine Miller (District 2)
  dist2@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8244
• Council Member Paul Canepa (District 3)
  dist3@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8244
• Council Member Diana Lowery (District 4)
  dist4@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8244
• Council Member Susan Eggman (District 5)
  dist5@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-0558
• Council Member Dale Fritchen (District 6)
  dist6@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8244
• Council Member Florence Low (District 7)
  dist7@stocktongov.com  •  (209) 937-8279

Public Records Request

The response to our public records request comprised nineteen PDF files containing pages of the following kinds of documents:

• Kennel Inventory
• Euthanasia Report
• Euthanasia Log
• Adoption List

Kennel Inventory

The Kennel Inventory is a snapshot of the animals in the kennel on a particular date (example). The Kennel Inventory includes three useful pieces of information: the animal's ID number, intake date, and due-out date, which is the shelter's idea of when the animal's holding period ends.

We received 28 Kennel Inventories covering various dates between September 19, 2011 and November 22, 2011. Each inventory contained cats and birds only and no dogs.

Euthanasia Report

The Euthanasia Report is a list of animals that are candidates for euthanasia on a particular date (example). Since the list is a sort of eligibility list, not all of the animals will actually be killed. In fact, our analysis shows that 44% of animals that appear on any Euthanasia Report are not killed (they don't show up in the Euthanasia Log).

We received 46 Euthanasia Reports covering various dates between September 16, 2011 and November 29, 2011. Of the 46 reports, 35% were missing pages and 25% were missing more than half of their pages. If a Euthanasia Report was incomplete, it was liable to be highly incomplete.

Euthanasia Log

The Euthanasia Log is a handwritten log, ordered by date, of what animals were euthanized and the number of cc's of barbiturate administered to each animal. (example). In the log pages we received, the columns containing the amount administered, amount remaining in the unique bottle, and the initials of the person administering had been mechanically redacted using a strip of paper.

Pentobarbital sodium (FatalPlus) is a Class II controlled substance (along with morphine and methamphetamine) subject to regulation at the federal and state levels. The purpose of the Euthanasia Log is really to keep track of this substance in order to comply with federal and state laws, and not to keep track of animals killed. (By the way, pentobarbital sodium is highly toxic to humans and to wildlife. The carcasses of euthanized animals must be disposed using a method in compliance with state and local laws, like deep burial or incineration, which is one of the reasons why killing twelve thousand animals every year is so expensive.)

Adoption List

The Adoption List does not identify animals by animal ID, and therefore was not used in our analysis.

First Red Flag

The first red flag was the incompleteness of the provided records. The Kennel Inventories and Euthanasia Reports are daily reports, or perhaps every-other-day reports. We received only 28 Kennel Inventories and 46 Euthanasia Reports for a 108-day period. We received no Kennel Inventories for dogs, many Euthanasia Reports that were half missing, and no reports at all for the entire month of December. In their cover letter, the city stated that they just didn't have any Kennel Inventories or Euthanasia Reports for that month.

As you might expect, because of its real purpose, the Euthanasia Log was the only document that appeared to be intact and complete for all 108 days.

Computer Software

Since the response to our public records request was in the form of photocopied pages packed into PDF files, we had to convert the data into a usable form. First, we ran each photocopied page through optical character recognition. Then we parsed the resulting text using custom software that corrected the expected character-recognition errors and built a database of animals keyed on animal ID. During this phase, each animal was cross-referenced with every source document in which it was mentioned. Once this database was in place, a full analysis of the information could begin.

Brief Analysis

The Euthanasia Log contained 2,550 entries for the period from September 15, 2011 to December 31, 2011. Euthanasia was performed every day during that period, except for one Saturday, two Sundays, Thanksgiving, Christmas Day, and New Year's Eve. Euthanasia was performed on Christmas Eve and on the day after Christmas.

44% of animals euthanized were euthanized with no reason given. 41% were euthanized for time and space. 19% were euthanized for being "sick." The rest were euthanized for various reasons that were each less than 4% of the total.

The Euthanasia Log indicated that 1.5% of animals (39 animals) required second doses to be killed. We do not know if this is an unusual number.

The average number of cats in a Kennel Inventory was 50, and, on average, 56% of the regular cages were occupied (36 out of 64).

Of all animals appearing on a Euthanasia Report, 67% were killed on the date of the last report on which they appeared, 23% were killed after that date, and 10% were killed before that date, meaning that they appeared on a Euthanasia Report after they were already dead.

Euthanasia Log Irregularities

The Euthanasia Log contained a few instances of duplicate animal IDs appearing on different dates. Our software detected these duplicates, even though looking for them was not a part of the analysis. When duplicate animal IDs appeared on the same date, we took it to mean a second dose was administered to the same animal in order to kill it. When duplicate animal IDs occur on different dates, however, one of the animal IDs is necessarily fictitious, meaning that a dose of controlled substance is unaccounted for.

• A176741 on November 9 and November 18 (double dose)
• A176603 on November 15 and November 16
• A176037 on November 7 and November 10
• A176334 (or possibly 176339) on November 8 and December 23 (if 176334) or November 3 (if 176339)

Kennel Inventories Analysis

For any given animal, in order to detect a violation of the statutory holding period, we have to know the animal's intake date and euthanasia date. The Kennel Inventories are our only source of documented intake dates.

Once we filtered out animals with intake dates before September 1, 2011, birds and wild animals, and animals with out-of-sequence ID numbers, because they were re-impounded, we ended up with a data set of 504 animals from the Kennel Inventories. These animals had intake dates running from September 1, 2011 to November 21, 2011 (remember, we were given no Kennel Inventories for the month of December).

70% of these animals were killed (351 out of 504). 41% of these animals were killed in violation of the holding periods described in the Stockton Municipal Code (207 out of 504). In this table, the violations are highlighted in orange.

This histogram (also below) shows when animals were killed: on the same day as intake (day 0), on the first day after intake, on the second day after intake, and so on. You can readily see that some animals are killed early, but the bulk of the killing happens on days five, six, and seven, indicating the shelter's idea of when the holding periods end.

Animal ID Numbers

We took advantage of a property of the animal ID numbers in order to expand our data set beyond those animals with documented intake dates. At intake, every animal is issued a unique animal ID, if for no other reason than to have a patient identifier to put into the Euthanasia Log.

The animal ID numbers are issued by a case-management system, Chameleon/CMS, that is used by the Stockton Animal Shelter, and that is in wide use by animal shelters all across the country.

Chameleon/CMS issues animal IDs in sequential order, independent of the kind of animal. Consequently, animal IDs are serial numbers that order all taken-up animals chronologically. We verified this fact by talking with the manufacturer of Chameleon/CMS, HLP, Inc., by talking with staff at the Sacramento City Animal Shelter, which also uses Chameleon/CMS, and by analyzing blocks of animal IDs on Animal Intake reports from other time periods generated by the Stockton Animal Shelter itself.

Because the animal IDs are serial numbers, any particular intake date will have a range of animal IDs associated with it. Conversely, any particular animal ID will have the intake date of the range into which it falls.

Since we have a sampling of documented intake dates from the Kennel Inventories, we can infer an intake date for any animal ID we have, if it falls anywhere between the first and last documented intake dates. For example, in the sequence of animal IDs shown below, the animal ID marked with an asterisk has an intake date that is inferred. It falls between two animal IDs that have known intake dates. Whenever an animal ID falls between two IDs with different intake dates, we always give the benefit of the doubt to the animal shelter by assigning the earlier intake date.

Euthanasia Reports Analysis

Armed with a method for inferring intake dates, we mixed into the data set the animals appearing on Euthanasia Reports. These were animals for which we had animal IDs but no documented intake dates.

The Euthanasia Reports added 793 unique animals that were not in any Kennel Report, resulting in a mix that was, more or less, two parts Kennel Inventory animals and three parts Euthanasia Report animals. In this expanded data set, 59% of the animals were killed (763 out of 1297). Adding the Euthanasia Report animals, which were mostly dogs, improved the save rate, which is not too surprising since we know that almost half of the animals that appear on Euthanasia Reports are never actually killed.

27% of animals in the expanded data set were killed in violation of the holding periods described in the Stockton Municipal Code (351 out of 1297). In this table, the violations are highlighted in orange, and the same-day violations (animals killed on their intake day) are highlighted in red.

There are three same-day violations: two are cats, labeled as "sick," and the third is a dog, a Pit Bull Rottweiler mix, that was surrendered by its owner, who said he was returning to Mexico (Row 446 of the table). The dog was apparently killed immediately, but continued to appear on Euthanasia Reports for two days after it was already dead. Under state law, owner surrendered animals must be held for three days, even when the owner requests euthanasia of the animal. (Also of note, this animal was apparently under-dosed, and required a second dose, as noted in the Euthanasia Log, to be killed.)

This histogram (also below) shows the number of animals killed on days after intake. You can see that this histogram has the same shape as the histogram for the Kennel Inventory data set, which suggests that our method of inferring intake dates for animal IDs is valid and robust.

Second Red Flag

The second red flag was that in the combined data set of all documented animals, the number of animals that were killed accounted for only 46% of the animals listed in the Euthanasia Log for the same time period. There were a lot of missing animals. A lot of animals for which we were given no records in response to our public records request, other than the handwritten animal IDs and dates in the Euthanasia Log. If the Euthanasia Log did not exist, and it probably would not absent the requirement to track a controlled substance, we would have no knowledge of these animals at all.

We started calling these undocumented animals the "ghosts," because they were only faintly present in the record available to the public.

Euthanasia Log Analysis

To investigate the mystery of the ghosts, we mixed into the data set the animals from the Euthanasia Log, for which, like the Euthanasia Report animals, we had only animal IDs.

The Euthanasia Log added 929 unique animals, creating an expanded data set that was roughly two parts Kennel Inventory animals, three parts Euthanasia Report animals, and four parts Euthanasia Log animals. In this data set, 76% of animals were killed (1692 out of 2226). 52% were killed in violation of the holding periods described in the Stockton Municipal Code (1156 out of 2226). In this table, the violations are highlighted in orange, and the same-day violations (animals killed on their intake day) are highlighted in red.

Final Red Flag

Adding the Euthanasia Log animals dramatically increased both the percentage killed and the percentage of violations. However, we expected the shape of the histogram to be more or less unchanged. But that was exactly what did not happen. Instead, this histogram (also below) for the full data set, which again shows the number of animals killed on days after intake, has a large spike of animals killed either on the day of intake or on the day after. The spike is so big that it dwarfs the previously highest numbers on days five, six, and seven.

Inclusion of the ghost animals from the Euthanasia Log completely changed the computed data profile of when the killing was happening at the shelter.

The Ghosts

This was such a startling discovery that we next constructed a histogram of the ghost animals in isolation. Again, these are the animals that appear only in the Euthanasia Log and not in any of the other documentation given to us in response to our public records request. The data indicates that 57% of the ghosts are killed on their intake day. 78% of the ghosts are dead by the end of the next day, and by the end of the third day 82%. By the end of the seventh day, which would be the end of the longest possible holding period, the data says that 96% of the ghosts are dead.

Two Classes of Violations

Our analysis indicates that out of all the animals killed, only 24% were killed legally, meaning that the animal, and the animal's owner, were afforded their full statutory holding period. Our analysis further suggests that there are two classes of violations.

First, many animals seem to be killed before the end of their holding periods because the shelter is miscalculating holding periods. The correct periods are shown in this chart. The data pattern of intake dates, shelter-assigned out dates, and euthanasia dates suggests that the shelter is simply counting four days from the day the animal is processed. This would correspond to the state-level three-day holding period, plus one day for good measure, but would show a complete ignorance of the actual Stockton Municipal Code.

Second, many more animals are seemingly being killed on the day of intake or within a couple of days of intake, which would be illegal under any applicable law.

What the data indicates about these two classes of violations is shown in the following pie chart of all animals killed (1692 animals). The killed-on-intake class includes animals that our analysis says were killed on their intake day or on the next day. The killed-during-holding-period class includes animals that our analysis says were killed on any day between the third day after intake and the end of the statutory holding period.

Examples

This dog and cat represent the thousands of dogs and cats annually that fall into the two classes of illegal killings at the Stockton Animal Shelter.

Dog A175163 is an example of the first class of violation. This normal, healthy, adoptable dog was taken in on a Tuesday and should have been held for six days, through the following Monday. Instead, this dog was held for only two days and was killed four days early.

Cat A175650 is an example of the second class of violation. This normal, healthy, adoptable cat was taken in on a Monday and should have been held for five days, through the following Saturday. Instead, this cat was killed immediately on intake, within fifteen minutes of arriving at the shelter.

Closing Note

Clearly the data we have suggests there is something very wrong going on.

Subsequent to the original publication of this analysis, we have pursued additional public records requests that have shown not only the correctness of the original analysis, but patterns of behavior at the Stockton Animal Shelter.

For example, the reason why the ghosts do not show up on any daily report is simply because they are killed so quickly, often within minutes, taken directly from the receiving cages to the euthanasia room. Preliminary sampling indicates that 80% of the animals killed immediately on intake are turned in by citizens over the counter. Only 20% come in by way of Animal Control Officers in the field. The animals turned in by citizens and killed immediately are split evenly between strays and owner-surrenders. For some reason, animals impounded by Animal Control Officers are safer, and more likely to be given a holding period, than animals turned in by citizens, independent of whether the animal is stray or owned.

Stockton Holding Periods

The statutory holding periods in Stockton are the following:

• 7 calendar days for stray animals when the identity of the owner is known
• 4-6 business days for stray animals with no known owner
• 4-6 business days for feral cats, which are treated the same as stray cats
• 4-6 business days for owner-surrendered animals, which are treated the same as strays (explanation)
• None for unweaned kittens or puppies that are taken in without their mothers
• None for cats or dogs that are actively suffering from injury or disease such that it is impossible to put them in right condition
• None for dogs previously documented and declared vicious

Why a Holding Period?

The first purpose of a holding period is to allow time for a pet owner to realize a pet is missing and then visit the animal shelter to redeem the pet. Whenever an animal shelter disregards legally established holding periods, they are taking it upon themselves to disenfranchise citizen pet owners.

The second purpose of a holding period is to allow time for rescue groups to discover animals and place a rescue hold on them in order to save them from being killed. By disregarding holding periods, a shelter not only violates the established rights of access of rescue groups but also kills animals unnecessarily.

Preference to Avoid Killing

California law and Stockton municipal law both express a preference to avoid killing treatable or adoptable animals. These statutory preferences introduce a bias into the law that should be considered when interpreting individual statutes.

State Law

California law establishes holding periods between four and six business days, but this part of state law is currently suspended for budget reasons (see the references for more details). The active, provisional state law establishes for all dogs and cats a holding period of three days (72 hours) from the time of impoundment. The three-day holding period applies to owner-surrendered animals, even when the owner requests immediate euthanasia, and to feral cats, which are treated the same as any other stray cats.

Holding Period Exceptions

California law allows that an animal may be immediately euthanized in three exceptional situations. Because these exceptions are enumerated in the law, all other imaginable exceptions are excluded. Consequently, the following are the only situations in which an animal may be killed both immediately and lawfully:

• When the animal is "irremediably suffering from a serious illness or severe injury" (Food and Agriculture Section 17006). The word "irremediably" means impossible to cure or put right. Such a strong word was chosen to convey the intent that animals with treatable sicknesses or injuries not be denied their holding periods and the opportunity for owner redemption or adoption.
• When the animal is an unweaned infant that is taken in without its mother (Food and Agriculture Section 17006).
• When the animal has a history of vicious behavior documented by Animal Control prior to its arrival at the shelter. (Food and Agriculture Sections 31108.5(b) and 31645 and Stockton Municipal Code 6.08.100).

In no other case may a dog or cat be killed lawfully without a holding period. Old age, temperament, behavior, illness or injury that is not severe, or any other attribute of the animal or its circumstances of entry into the shelter are irrelevant. The animal must be held and cared for so that it has the chance to be reunited with its owner or placed into a new home. California law clearly mandates that this is the shelter's duty.

Again, Why a Holding Period?

The law protects the property rights of the pet owner and the access rights of rescue groups. Just as the law says the Police Department may not impound an automobile and then auction it immediately, the Animal Services department may not intake a dog or cat and then kill it immediately.

Citizens are permitted to own a grumpy cat or a fearful dog or an aggressive dog. It is not against the law. A sick dog or cat may have been ill and in treatment when it escaped its home, or may have become sick while lost and fending for itself. An aggressive dog that is an actual threat to public safety must be declared dangerous through an adjudication process that respects the rights of the owner.

Temperament, observed behavior, illness (when not irremediably suffering), and age are not a factor in determining whether an animal receives a holding period. Animals with these characteristics when they are taken up may still be someone's pet, and that person's rights under the law must be protected. This is true whether the animal is taken up as a stray or is turned in over the counter. In the latter case, the rights of the true owner must be protected from the actions of any individual claiming to be the true owner. As well, the the rights of rescue groups to discover animals in the shelter and save the them from destruction must be protected.

Irremediable Suffering

Apart from the english meaning of the adverb "irremediably," the concept of irremediable suffering has been addressed in a number of settlements and stipulations resulting from civil suits brought by citizens and rescue organizations against municipal animal shelters. These settlements have all employed the same definition of "irremediable suffering."

Stockton Law

A local law cannot override a state law by providing less protection than the state law provides. However, a local law may provide additional protection. The Stockton Municipal Code specifies longer holding times for stray animals than the provisional state law.

The actual holding period depends on whether the owner of the animal is known or unknown. When the owner is known, the holding period is seven calendar days. When the owner is unknown, the holding period is based on a formula that, since the Stockton Animal Shelter is closed on Sundays and weekday evenings, calculates four business days when an intervening day is a Saturday, and six business days otherwise, as described in this chart.

We interpret "known owner" to mean an owner whose identity is known or reasonably ascertainable, as when the animal has a microchip, license tag, or rabies tag. We see no basis for taking "known owner" to mean an owner that is easily reached by telephone or other immediate means. The Santa Cruz County Animal Shelter holds animals whose owners are unreachable by telephone for seven days while it mails out a notice to the owner's last known address.

Owner Surrender

Stockton Municipal Code says nothing about owner-surrendered animals, so the state requirement to treat owner-surrendered animals the same as stray animals applies (explanation).

An owner-surrendered animal may not be killed without a holding period, even when the owner requests euthanasia (Food and Agriculture Code Section 31754), unless it is one of the exceptional cases allowed by law (and listed above).

The law says an owner-surrendered animal must be given the opportunity to find a new home or be reclaimed by its owner. Sometimes owners have a change of heart. A far more common situation, though, is when the purported owner is actually an angry neighbor, family member, or roommate turning in an animal against the wishes of the true owner. (The civil suit A Dog's Life Rescue v. Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control was sparked by an incident in which a mother turned in two dogs that were in foster care with her daughter, but still owned by a rescue organization. The dogs were killed immediately by the shelter, and the true owner, the rescue organization, was unable to claim them back. In the settlement of the case, the City was required to cease its unlawful practice of denying owner-surrendered animals their statutory holding periods.)

Mendocino County was sued in 2007 because of a local ordinance permitting voluntary surrender of animals for euthanasia, which contradicted state law (McLellan v. Mendocino County, May 2007). Before the case went to trial, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors repealed the local ordinance (more).

Over The Counter

People finding stray animals in Stockton may turn them in to Animal Services. In fact, Stockton Municipal Code says that any person taking up a stray animal is obligated to give notice to Animal Services so that the animal can be impounded (Stockton Municipal Code 6.04.320). When a person delivers a stray animal to the shelter, it is known as an over-the-counter transaction. The law does not distinguish between strays taken in over-the-counter and strays taken in by Animal Control Officers. They receive the same holding period.

Feral Cats

Stockton Municipal Code says feral cats, which are defined as cats that are unsocialized to humans and indistinguishable from wild animals, may be seized as abatement of a public nuisance (Stockton Municipal Code Section 6.04.360). There is no other mention of feral cats in the code. Consequently, as established in state law, feral cats should be treated no differently than any other stray cat.

Feral cats are defined in both state law and Stockton law as cats that are like wild animals (Food and Agricultural Code Section 31752.5). Accordingly, a cat that has been living in an abandoned school bus or in the woods for six months, but that is socialized to humans, is not a feral cat.

Is Saturday a Business Day?

When calculating Stockton's statutory holding periods, the question comes up of whether Saturday is a business day. State law says clearly that Saturday is considered a business day when an animal shelter is open to the public for four or more hours, which the Stockton Animal Shelter is not (hours are from noon to 3:00pm on Saturdays). Given that a local law may not remove protections provided by a state law, and given the statutory preferences for redemption and adoption over killing, there is no basis for interpreting Saturday as a business day at the Stockton Animal Shelter.

California Public Records Act

The intent of the California Public Records Act is to give the public access to the debates, decisions, actions, and outcomes of government employees and agencies in a way that is readily understandable and free from deceit. This intent is clearly expressed in the text of the legislation and in the biases built into the law that favor disclosure over withholding. Further, public inquiry into the conduct of the people's business is a foundational right of every citizen of California. The CPRA requires agencies to act as helpful custodians of public records and not as uncooperative gatekeepers. Agencies must assist citizens in identifying the records that contain the desired information and in overcoming any practicable basis on which access to that information would be denied (Government Code Section 6253.1(a)).

Our CPRA Request

Our CPRA request was submitted on January 7, 2012 for the following:

• Written policy on medical and temperament evaluation
• Written policy on cooperation with rescue organizations
• Written policy on foster care
• Case history information on all animals taken up between September 15, 2011 and the end of the year

The case history information we requested included date of intake, circumstances of intake (e.g., stray or owner-surrender), names of personnel that dealt with the animal, records of medical diagnoses and treatments, records of temperament tests, records of holds placed on the animal, and final disposition (e.g., euthanized, rescued, or adopted).

The Response

The first part of the response arrived electronically on January 24, 2012, and provided the following:

• Stockton Animal Services has no policy on temperament testing or behavioral evaluation
• Stockton Animal Services has no policy on foster care, other than that rescue organizations are prohibited from providing foster care
• Stockton Animal Services has no policy on cooperation with rescue organizations

The second part of the response arrived by mail in the first week of April, three months after our request was submitted, in the form of a DVD-ROM containing nineteen PDF files. The PDF files contained photocopies of pages from four kinds of paper records: Euthanasia Reports, Kennel Inventories, an Animal Adoption Report, and the Euthanasia Log. In total, there were 801 pages.

Though the records we received were delivered on a DVD-ROM, none of the records were electronic records. For those interested, the details of what we received are given here.

Paper Records

The Stockton Animal Shelter uses Chameleon/CMS, which is an integrated software case-management system specifically for animal shelters. Chameleon/CMS is a high-end system, costing $10,000 to purchase and $1,000 per computer to license annually. The typical annual cost to a shelter is around $7,000.

The Chameleon/CMS server stores all of its data in an industry-standard Microsoft SQL database server, thus all of the digital information about the animal shelter and the animals is collected together in one accessible repository.

As you might guess, Chameleon/CMS has a powerful and flexible report-generation capability. In fact, Chameleon/CMS makes use of another industry-standard component, Crystal Reports, to perform report generation. Crystal Reports is designed to be easy to use for the average person, and there is even a For Dummies book written about it. The Euthanasia Reports and Kennel Inventory Reports that the Stockton Animal Shelter utilizes are both generated by Crystal Reports.

Perplexingly, the response to our public records request seems to indicate that the Stockton Animal Shelter does not use Chameleon/CMS in the way it was designed, and in the way it can provide the most help. Rather, the Stockton shelter appears to print out reports and then annotate them, thus turning digital records into paper records, and it is these fragmentary paper records that are served up to the public whenever a CPRA request comes over the transom.

Sketchiness of the Response

We expected to receive a digital case history, with one record per unique animal, extracted from the Chameleon/CMS database. What we actually received was a motley assortment of photocopied daily reports, which contained so many duplicate references to animals that, while filling many pages, they actually accounted for only 45% of all the animals taken up by the shelter during the time period in question.

Furthermore, the process to prepare these records for delivery was astonishingly labor-intensive, involving manual redaction of over 800 pages with Sharpie pens and strips of paper, photocopying, review by the Assistant City Attorney, and meetings and phone calls between the attorney and the shelter director.

In the end, the records provided did not include much of what we requested. All of the following were absent for each animal:

• Medical and treatment records
• Type of intake (owner-surrender, stray)
• Final disposition (adopted, returned to owner, euthanized, transferred)
• Any holds placed (hold for rescue, hold for owner)
• Temperament or behavior testing records
• Veterinarian of record
• Personnel who took up, medically treated, or euthanized

No Stand-Alone Record

In every case, the reason for not providing the information we asked for was the "no stand-alone record" defense. This defense asserts that the city is not required under the law to create any document that it does not already possess. In other words, even though all the information is sitting in the Chameleon/CMS database, they are not required by law to possess or use a Crystal Report that would allow them to make it available to the public.

The statement that "the City has no stand-alone record in response to the request" came up so often, appearing six times in the cover letter alone, that it started to become humorous, along the lines of Al Gore's infamous overuse of the "no controlling legal authority" excuse.

What the CPRA Says

Before the advent of office computers, the types of records we asked for would have been kept on paper in manila folders in a filing cabinet. Servicing a public records request would have been a matter of fetching the documents, photocopying them, and mailing them out.

The idea that computerization and the use of digital databases might make records formerly visible to the public suddenly opaque is one that was anticipated by the authors of the CPRA. Consequently, while the CPRA does not in general require agencies to construct lists or reports that do not already exist, an exception is made when the data originates in an electronic database. The only catch is that the cost of "programming" to extract the desired information from the database and into a single record must be borne by the requester.

We believe the City's response to withhold information was improper, and that the broad interpretation of the CPRA's exemption of documents that do not already exist was incorrect.

How Much Programming?

Chameleon/CMS comes with over 40 report templates pre-installed. These templates can be tweaked easily, to add or remove fields for example. In addition, the license to Chameleon/CMS gives each customer login access to a private web site that provides technical support and hundreds of templates for reports of every conceivable nature. For the average computer user, installing a new report template is at the same level of difficulty as opening a new Facebook account.

We discovered there is a report named "animal history.rpt" that is in use by a number of other animal shelters. This report produces, for each animal, a record that looks like this, and can be run for all animals taken up between two dates. The report output, in PDF form, consumes 24 kilobytes of disk space per animal. For the 3,816 animals taken up between the dates of our particular public records request, the report would produce a 92 megabyte output file that could be transmitted digitally over a typical enterprise internet connection in 37 seconds.

Catch-22

By not having certain report-generation templates installed in their case-management system, Stockton Animal Services has set up a convenient Catch-22 situation that allows them to hide their patterns of behavior from the public.

When asked for all animal records between a pair of dates, or between a pair of animal IDs, they say they have "no stand-alone record" containing the requested information, and provide instead the kinds of documents that we received, which conceal the true activites of the agency. While they will provide an individual record when given an individual animal ID, in order to request the records for all animals taken up in a given time period you would have to impossibly know and list the relevant animal IDs. Even then, the entire request could be rejected legitimately under the CPRA because it would be unreasonable to ask the agency to retrieve hundreds or thousands of individual records by typing in animal IDs one at a time.

As a result, there is no way for the public to observe the handling by the agency of all animals taken in over a given period of time, and Stockton Animal Services is able to operate largely free from public scrutiny, which is exactly what the CPRA was intended to prevent.

Gracie's Story

On Friday, March 2, 2012, I (Eileen McFall), Lynne Prater, Hannah Shaw and Rupa Singh went to Stockton Animal Services. While there, we observed many empty kennels and cages and we also observed, in the “adoptables” area of the shelter, several dogs with Elizabethan collars and medication attached to the front of their kennels. In the back part of the shelter, we observed several dogs with apparent injuries but none of the signs of veterinary care visible on the dogs in the front area.

One of those dogs was A180643. A180643 had a huge swelling, at least the size of a grapefruit, on the side of her face. Having seen such a thing once before, I thought it might be an abscess. There was nothing on her kennel card about veterinary care. In keeping with the California Public Records Act and with knowledge in mind of the California Penal Code that requires animal control officers to convey injured animals to a veterinarian, I asked to see her record, and if she had not received care, to be allowed to take her to a veterinarian at my own expense. My requests were refused, with the only response being that the supervisor had directed staff not to allow me to videotape.

I declined to put away my cameras (still and video) and again requested to see the records. Staff called the police and two officers responded. Lynne Prater also made phone calls, with the result that Stockton City Councilman Dale Fritchen came to the shelter. He was allowed to see the records, ascertained that none of the apparently injured animals had received veterinary care, and directed staff to make sure they did receive care.

Over the weekend, one of the injured dogs we saw, A180611, was killed. We placed “rescue holds” on two others, A180643 and A180587.

On Monday, March 5, Lynne Prater and April Cruz-Ryckman went to Stockton Animal Services. Staff again called the police. After responding and seeing that there was no crime, the police officers left. Volunteers were allowed to “pull” A180587, now named Speranza (Italian for “Hope”), but not A180643. April Cruz-Ryckman reported that staff told them the swelling on the face of A180643 was a tumor that would cost too much to treat so they would euthanize her.

After phone calls and emails reminding city officials that by law, they cannot kill an animal if rescue is available and that it is not up to them to decide what a rescue is willing to spend on treatment, A180643 was released to me on Tuesday, March 6 and named Gracie. A veterinary appointment the same afternoon resulted in the diagnosis of an abscess, not a tumor. After draining the abscess, flushing her ears, which were badly infected, and treating with a round of antibiotics, she was healthy and ready to be spayed. After three weeks in foster care, Gracie was adopted and is now healthy, happy and well loved and cared for.

When I received records after filing a Public Records request, it showed that none of the dogs we saw on March 2 and for whom Councilman Fritchen directed staff to provide veterinary care actually received any veterinary care. Gracie, Speranza, and the unnamed dog A180611 who was killed all suffered through their stray hold periods with no veterinary care.

Shelter Due-Out Date

The due-out date for an animal is the shelter's idea of when the animal's holding period ends and the animal becomes eligible to be killed. Our analysis shows that the shelter is miscalculating the due-out date, apparently because of an ignorance of the local law or a policy simply to disregard it. The correct statutory holding periods are shown in this chart.

For each intake day of the week, we created a histogram of the due-out days assigned by the shelter. For example, the histogram shown below is for intake on a Monday. The bars represent how many animals (taken in on a Monday) were assigned that particular due-out day.

It's easy to see that the most popular due-out day for an animal taken in on a Monday was the following Friday, which is the fourth day after intake, as shown below. The histogram for intake on a Tuesday is similar. When intake was on a Wednesday, the most popular due-out day was five days after intake, as shown below. This result indicates that Sunday was not counted, presumably because the shelter is closed that day. All the histograms, for every day of the week, are in agreement that the due-out day was calculated as four days after the intake day, not counting Sunday.

But since a four-day count does not correspond to the statutory holding periods set forth in the Stockton Municipal Code, the next question to ask is when does the actual killing take place.

Killed How Many Days After Intake?

The histogram presented below tells us when animals taken in on a Monday were killed. There are two times when most of the killing happens. First, on the day of intake or on the next day. Second, on the fifth, sixth, and seventh days after intake. This latter time begins precisely on the day after the due-out day calculated by the shelter. Therefore, this is the killing that the shelter thinks it is doing legally. However, the simple four-day count is wrong, and many animals are killed illegally because the shelter either doesn't understand the local law or has decided to ignore it.

This same pattern is present in all of the histograms for different intake days of the week.

Dog A176391 serves as an example. Taken in on a Tuesday, this normal, healthy, adoptable terrier should have been held for six days, through the following Monday. Instead, this dog was held for the four-day count (plus Sunday), and was killed on the sixth day, one day too early to be legal.

Illegal Killing

The following histogram, for animals taken in on a Monday, shows the legal versus illegal partitioning of the killings. Legal killings occur after the end of the statutory holding period, and illegal killings before. In this histogram several things are crystal clear. The two phases of killing are manifest. First, the animals killed on intake and, second, the animals killed after the shelter's idea of the correct holding period. The shelter's miscalculation of the holding period is also readily apparent, as indicated by the spike of killing on day five, one day too early to be legal.

Also obvious is that the largest part of the killing happens too early and is illegal. In fact, as shown elsewhere in our data analysis, 76% of the killing is done outside the law. The animals killed several days early are killed in violation of Stockton law, and the animals killed on intake are killed highly illegally, outside of Stockton law, California law, or any applicable law.

This same pattern is present in all of the histograms for different intake days of the week.