Following is the email I sent to the head of animal control, our county commissioner and the county administrator today regarding Gatsby. I expect no relevant response, but will keep everyone updated as to the response we receive.

Original email follows:

Mr. Rova,

My wife and I adopted a beagle mix from the shelter last Thursday, March 2, 2006 and took him to the veterinarian on Tuesday, March 7, 2006 for his "within 3 working day" checkup. In the course of the checkup, our veterinarian, Dr. Mark Sprayberry, diagnosed him with Ear Mites, Ear Infections, Bronchitis, Hookworms, and Heartworms. Because of his bronchitis, we must wait for an additional week until he is cured before we can get him immunized to prevent future infections. Though we understand we are allowed, according to the adoption contract, "to return our dog for a refund of the spay/neuter fee," we are going to proceed with treatment as we cannot in good conscience allow an otherwise healthy and loving dog to be destroyed because of the negligence and lack of care of his previous owners.

I realize that your facility is limited in resources and must make do with less-than-adequate funding from the city, county and state, but I find it very surprising that you do not have a veterinarian or a vet assistant on staff that can effectively screen for such health problems before presenting the animal for adoption. Although the paperwork we signed stated that all animals are adopted "as is," it also states that the dog was given a preliminary heartworm test and was dewormed by your facility on the 27th of February. This either speaks to a lack of expertise available to your facility, or incompetence, or both.

As our dog was in the kennel with numerous other animals, and hookworms and ear mites are highly communicable diseases, and heartworms are passed from dog to dog via mosquito bites, it seems some more thorough screening technique or process would be appropriate, if for no other reason than for the health of the other dogs and cats, and of the surrounding communities, as well.

As it stands now, we will be out an additional 700 dollars above and beyond what we had expected to spend (as we expected to spend 200-300 or so to get him neutered and returned to a completely clean bill of health). We will also potentially be out an extra 30 dollars to your facility if his health prevents him from being neutered in the next 3 weeks.

Please let me know if there are any forms of compensation or remuneration that we can apply for in order to offset this financial burden, aside from having the dog destroyed. I also strongly urge you to review the diagnostic and treatment procedures in the shelter, and to examine the CDC guidelines for better health in animal shelters.

Regards,

Charles L. Hendrix