08/28/10
I Wish We Could Believe the Newspaper -
Categories: On Friday, the Dallas Morning News ran a story of a chihuahua that was euthanized at the Garland animal shelter. According to the report, Jason Chessher, Garland's deputy health director, said the dog was killed because "she was considered aggressive and vicious."
When thousands of animals have to be euthanized daily across the country, why did this incident make the news? Supposedly because a woman learned the dog was at the shelter and wanted to rescue it. However, shelter policy, understandably, prohibits placing aggressive dogs.
That should have been the end of the story and wouldn't have made the news even in a small town paper.
Indeed, why did the DMN even waste the space and ink? The answer seems to be what else the reporter was able to stuff in as filler:
From the Dallas Morning News, August 27, Metro Section:
The Garland shelter came under criticism last year after a Dallas Morning News investigation revealed that the shelter was gassing animals in violation of state law and city rules, sometimes putting dogs and cats down within minutes of their arrival.
The statement is totally false; management and editorial staff at the paper know it to be false yet the falsehood is repeated Goebbels-style again. The "came under criticism" mentioned in the story was by Katie Fairbank, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News and financial contributor to animal rescue groups, who made those harsh claims in a series of articles and blog posts that accused the city of illegally killing animals and of "gassing young, sick or elderly cats and dogs."
In a post on Oct 18, 2009, How Unfair Is Katie Fairbank?, I revealed the falsehood:
In a Sept 19 article, Ms Fairbank refers to a sampling of records from 2007 that were provided to the newspaper by anonymous sources. She says these were "shelter records" and she refers to photographs taken of "illegally killed" kittens. (Why would the shelter take photographs of illegally-killed kittens?) She refers to a young dog as another example.
According to city personnel, she did ask staff on the afternoon of Sept 17 to investigate a number of incidents. She was told that records were not immediately available — that they were archived — but that her questions could be addressed within a few days. She agreed, telling staff members that she expected the story to run "in a few weeks" and to contact her with the findings. She called the next morning for the results, waiting little more than overnight. Her story was in the paper the following day. There were no other efforts to get the rest of the story even though there were successive articles and blog posts.
When those "records" were reviewed, staff was only able to find one instance of improper euthanasia, which was documented in a memo PDF to Council and the city manager: "After reviewing the records from 2007 provided by the media, there does appear to be one instance of an animal younger than four months of age that was euthanized by respiration of carbon monoxide. It was euthanized by a Shelter Attendant who is no longer employed by the City of Garland." Ms Fairbank later acknowledges that single incident but does nothing to correct her prior claims.
End of story. Last year.
Or so you might think. Yet another DMN personality, James Ragland, decided he has to "smirk" his wisdom about aggressive chihuahuas:
Guess we'll have to take the Garland animal shelter's word on this. And let me say right up front that I've never owned a Chihuahua or bee[n] threatened by one. So maybe the little pooches with big eyes can, indeed, be downright mean.
Still, it's hard for me to juxtapose that adjective—"vicious"—with that noun—"Chihuahua"[—]without smirking.
***
Must've been one mean dog.
Mr Ragland's readers seem to know more about the breed than he just "juxtaposes."
Gary H: "I seem to remember an article from a few years ago where a policeman somewhere was at a woman's door wanting to talk to her. She was non compliant and opened her door to sic her Chihuahuas on him. I think she was eventually arrested but the officer actually had to seek medical treatment at the hospital. I can only imagine the fun his coworkers had with that one when he returned."
Bill M: "I used to carry the U.S. mail. Chihuahuas were the worst. They were small; you couldn't see them. Meanwhile they were dashing around your feet nipping at your ankles. I used to speculate how far i could drop kick one."
Finally, my grandmother had a chihuahua that she loved and that loved her. He would do anything to protect her. I had the bites to prove it. Around small children, I'd juxtapose a German Shepherd or Lab any day.
UPDATE: There are numerous reporters at the DMN that I trust without reservation and they do a fine job of accurately reporting the news. Those that write about our city in "downtown Garland" seem to do such a better job than those that write in "downtown Dallas." Case in point, local reporter Ray Leszcynski gives additional information on the controversy between rescue groups and the shelter at the DMN Garland Blog.
[Contact Numbers—City Departments] [Citizen's Request Center]
Local news: [DMN Garland Blog] [DMN Garland Community] [Around Garland] [The Garland Texan]
Comments:
As much as I can imagine the pressure of the council to improve our image after you hired the HAHN group to brand Garland for economic development and tourism , their fee out of tax money should not preclude the freedom of the press.Our country was founded on liberty and this is one of the basic protections.
08/29/10 @ 12:55
08/30/10 @ 14:43
08/30/10 @ 16:45
08/30/10 @ 18:15 How do you explain the shelter holding a dog for 3 weeks that I have pictures of taking treats out of my hands. That shelter workers witnessed taking treats out of my hand. A dog they were going to release to the owners if they fixed their fence. A dog that was released to rescue and never deemed dangerous being put down? Yes, he was NEVER deemed dangerous. Not only did the shelter contact ME to come get the dog, but when I did, they changed their mind. Why? When I asked Diana Oats if they would release a dangerous dog to rescue, she told me NO. So why would they call rescue to get the dog? She flat out admitted to me that the dog was never deemed dangerous. Every encounter that I had with the dog was friendly. He took treats from my hand, wagged his tail, perked his ears. He was terrified of the shelter staff and their catch poles. If the dog was deemed dangerous, I suppose that the shelter would have proof of their notification sent to the owner and the owners right to appeal within 30 days. But wait, Diana Euthanized the dog without having him there 30 days. She euthanized it after a rescue group that are experts in the breed (FILA) said the dog was NOT aggressive. Your educated staff doesn't even know the difference between a bullmastiff and a FILA. Two different breeds with two different temperaments. If the dog was aggressive or dangerous, why wasn't he is quarantine? He was right there with an unlocked cage for every man, woman and child to stick their hands in to.
The truth is, rescue groups are treated as the bad guys at Garland Animal Shelter. But we are all hard working citizens. We work full time jobs, have families, and rescue dogs on our own dimes. Garland should take advantage of the support and help and reach OUT to rescue groups to help move dogs out of the shelters. Having a much lower Euthanasia rate would say alot for the city shelter and probably would get you more donations and funding. But instead, the city and the shelter manager take pride and joy in doing more harm to innocent lives. Why is that? What do you get out of it?
08/30/10 @ 19:58
08/31/10 @ 22:07 Comments are closed for this post.
