Riverside County Animal Control Services Department Indio Animal Control Shelter

During the period January through May 2004, Riverside County officials received approximately 100 citizens’ complaints regarding the Indio Shelter concerning the treatment of animals and the negative attitude of employees toward the public and rescue organization representatives.

Only 22 of the 2,720 animals impounded in FY 2002-2003 at the Indio Animal Control Shelter were transported to a veterinarian for treatment of their injuries or illness. 2

The disposition of impounded animals from the Indio Animal Control Shelter representing seven (7) months in the FY 2003- 2004 are reflected below: DISPOSITION OF IMPOUNDED ANIMALS Held over FY 2003-2004 And Impounded FY 2002-2003 (7/1/03 – 2/29/04) FY 2001-2002 2,720 1,731 Euthanasia 1,879 69.1% 1,152 66.5% Adopted 477 17.5% 244 14.1% Return to Owner 364 13.4% 335 19.4% *Note: Fiscal Year starts July 1st through June 30th.

According to current policy dogs are held (5) days post-impound before the public or rescue organizations can adopt.

Currently, the Indio Animal Control Shelter has working relationships with only the following three (3) rescue organizations and a private citizen: • Save-a-Pet • Yucaipa Animal Placement Service • Orphan Pet Oasis • Private Citizen

Evidence shows that the Director of Riverside County Animal Control Services Department rarely visited the Indio Animal Control Shelter and was not well informed regarding the operations of the Indio Animal Shelter.

The management for the Animal Control Shelter in Indio failed to utilize an independent and unbiased citizen complaint process to address the public’s issues and concerns.

During a visit at the Indio Animal Control Shelter, the Grand Jury observed the following conditions: a. Most of the 30 dog kennels were dirty with strong unpleasant odor of feces and/or vomit on the floor. (Photographs 1 and 2). 3 b. Soft canned food for very young, elderly or sick animals was unavailable. c. Towels, blanket or paper to create a more comfortable environment for puppies, kittens, and older or sick animals was unavailable. d. Upper fencing on some kennels that would prevent larger dogs from jumping into another kennel was missing. (Photograph 3) e. Drain holes (6-8” in diameter) in the kennel floors were uncovered. (Photographs 4 and 5) f. Freezer containing euthanized animals was unlocked and accessible to anyone on the property. g. An outdoor run for overflow had no protective covering to reduce exposure from the sun. h. The condition of the building showed a need for repairs and has not been repainted since 1974. i. Cooling misters that surround the outside animal quarantine area were inoperative. j. Administrative and animal records were observed to be scattered on the floor and spilling out of file boxes in a metal shed that also contained bags of dog and cat food. (Photograph 6) k. Two (2) of the animal control vehicles do not have the circulating roof swamp coolers on them. l. Upon reviewing the Riverside County Policy and Procedure Manual there are no procedures for implementation of spay/neuter programs. 4

Prior to the euthanasia of animals, the Indio Kennel Attendants do not obtain the name and phone number of private citizens and rescue organizations who have placed a “Hold” on an animal for adoption and therefore, are not in compliance with the Indio Animal Shelter’s Policy Number 326. This policy states, “If there are any holds on an animal (even if they are expired), an attempt will be made, via phone to the person or persons to confirm they are not interested in the animal.”

Many animals impounded at the Indio Animal Shelter are not receiving needed veterinary care. This practice is in violation of California Civil Code Section 1834.4(a) and (b) which states, “impounded animals must receive appropriate veterinary care” and also violates Section 559d (a) and (b) of the California Penal Code, which require that “no adoptable or treatable animal be killed”.

In accordance with Riverside County Animal Service Policy Number 335, all animals deemed suitable for adoption are administered Bordatella vaccination as well as the 5 in 1 injection. Although this information is recorded on the Animal Cage Card, the rescue organization’s representatives and private citizens are not notified of the vaccinations when adopting the animals.

The Supervising Animal Control Officer at the Indio Animal Shelter was unable to provide documentation or clearly articulate the qualifications, behavioral standards, problem solving skills and human relations skills for the Animal Control Officers Position.

In April 2003, a person present at the Indio Animal Shelter, documented the following acts of cruelty to animals: a. “Kennel attendants kicking and punching dogs like they were punching bags that were in the process of being euthanized. b. Newborn kittens (a week old) were not fed and were allowed to starve to death. c. Kennel attendants using their animal control sticks to drag cats to the edge of the cage for the purpose of euthanasia. 5 d. Kennel attendants hitting cats with their animal control stick to calm them prior to moving to another cage or euthanasia.”