Maplewood considering subcontracting out Animal Control, meeting on January 6th at 7pm

To display these pictures on this message board is exploiting the poor innocent animals in those photos. If anyone wants to view this, we are all intelligent enough to read the reports. And why inflict this on a thread comprised mostly of animal lovers? It is tasteless and unnecessary. These photos violate decency and community standards.

These photos are from NJ Dept of Health inspections and are public records. Yes, they are disturbing, but a picture is worth a thousand words. People NEED to see the track record of this organization. It is far more disturbing that South Orange and Maplewood are doing business with them.

Ctrzaska: The person who runs this place is still the same person as when those photos were taken. In fact, the person has been there in important positions for nearly 40 years. I don't think the NJ Dept of Health has inspected this place since 2011 so this may be the most recent information we have.

The photos are part of consistent pattern. In 2003, the State Commission of Investigation issued a scathing report on Associated Humane Societies and they still let similar things happen 6 and 8 years later.

http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/ahs.pdf

A year and half ago Newark officials who worked with Cory Booker expressed their displeasure with this shelter. This is the city where the shelter itself is located.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/12/cory-booker-animal-shelter-fur-flies-in-fight

And apparently Newark Associated Humane is still killing lots of animals and cannot even keep track of them:

http://njanimalobserver.wordpress.com/2014/12/22/new-jersey-animal-shelter-statistics-are-far-worse-than-previously-thought/

Calliope,

Were the state inspectors exploiting the animals when they took these photos? No, these animals deaths and/or poor care were documented and shown so people could know what was going on.

@Bahumbug,
Of course the NJDOH was not exploiting the animals---they were documenting those conditions for EVIDENCE of cruelty in accordance with their State imposed mandate. You, however, are displaying these disturbing photos to incite people to promote your own agenda, and that most certainly is exploitation. It puts you in the same category as Right to Lifers posting bloody, mutilated fetuses, and PETA's graphic depictions of skinned dogs and cats in China. ---There is no warning that the pictures are graphic and disturbing---and anyone, including children, can open this thread and see them. The very inclusion in this thread is base, vile and disgusting, and treats those poor animals with less respect than the people who inflicted that suffering on them in the first place.

Anyone who has ever read any of my posts on similar threads knows I am not a fan of AHS, but instead of graphically illustrating what was wrong with AHS, perhaps you might invest some of that misspent energy in offering a viable solution. These tactics of yours are vile.

@Calliope,

Please get off your high horse. The photos are factual evidence to demonstrate the track history of this organization. They are not edited or tampered with as some groups do. Pictures are worth a thousand words. The town council and the people of South Orange must be aware of what is at stake here.

Some of these very same photos appeared in the following news story. I guess NBC New York news was an exploiter and promoting an agenda (no warnings for people in this news story) too. You are acting if I'm posting pornography. Please. These are newsworthy photos the public must see.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Shelter-Shocker-65290687.html

If the media can post horrific Holocaust photos, certainly this is not even close to that.

People NEED to see what this organization has done and what is at stake. Apparently, your feelings are more important than the animals who will have to go to this place. Those animals who died and/or were mistreated should not have done so in vain. What happened to them needs to be known so others don't face the same fate (assuming AHS is the same). To argue, that I'm being cruel to those animals by posting the photos is a joke. Even more offensive is your claim, that this is worse than the perpetrators of these acts.

Congratulations, you got the photos (many of which appeared in a major media news story) deleted from this thread. Now, many people won't see what this organization is all about.

BTW..the primary job of the state DOH is to measure compliance with shelter regulations. Photos are part of that job. Certainly every photo should be viewed by anyone who cares even the slightest bit about the stray animals of South Orange and Maplewood.

The photos are so disturbing that it is difficult to continue any sort of discussion to find solutions to the South Orange/Maplewood animal control service. Bahumbug did provide the link to the pictures, so perhaps we could delete the pictures and write a new post with the link that warns readers that there are extremely disturbing photos on the link.

Look I am not good with my English I am just passing on information as I get it sorry if you can't follow it I will try more those photos are what the committee should see and the taxpayers because it will be coming out of our pockets. Those animals suffer and died at the hands of this shelter who used their humane news paper to hook people in by displaying such poor shaped animals and claiming to save many lives the pictures are a wake up call for this animal loving town. This town always set high standards but for some reason we just hit rock bottom

Your English was good enough to toss about direct allegations of criminal activity earlier, yes? Or did I misread that? You still didn't address that when challenged, nor answer the question I've posted a THIRD time now: what "deal"?

@bahumbug
So to sum up, you do not know whether any of the sensationalized 4-6 year-old photos are representative of the shelter today, nor whether the shelter has been inspected within the last four years. Unless I've misstated any facts, while any of your connect-the-dot conclusions could very well be validated at some point, right now you have no confirmation.

Had you chosen to address your dire concerns about Newark anytime in the past four years and sought answers instead of waiting until now to suddenly reveal disgust, I'm sure that relevant information would have been far more helpful to the discussion here than unsupported allegations.

Who owns the JAC building and probably more importantly the land? Are their mortgages or liens against the property? My recollection is that the building is less than ten years old and even with the mismanagement that took place must be in decent condition.

As I have posted before, a no kill shelter is a laudable concept. However, it requires unlimited space and money to sustain. You don't need a PHD in math from MIT to figure out that in a few years the place will fill up with unadoptable animals and the income stream from adopting out pets will come to a halt.

If the JAC facility is going to be reused as a shelter there are some very hard, cold facts that have to be dealt with and understood from the get go.

bobk, making sure that any new solution that is proposed is fiscally sound from now on is something that we need to assure, so that this problem does not reoccur. But I am not sure that lingering animals were a major reason for the shortfall in funds. Until the JAC administration threatened to take back my rescued animal back, because I criticized the feces in their yard, I was a volunteer. I did not see many dogs that lingered there for years. I only remembered one: Billy.

What Czrsaska lacks in skill to articulate his point of view seems to be amply compensated with nastiness. I wish that @dave would place him in the penalty box until he cools off. Meantime, I hope that we all think about the animals, it's about them.

The animals should always be the main concern. How can one individual in the NJDOH possibly have time to inspect all the NJ shelters to determine that laws are being followed? The NJDOH staff should be increased to make sure that inspectors are assigned to visit shelters periodically. Finding problems early makes it easier to correct them and keep the animals safe. Towns with local shelters should have their own Health Department inspect the shelter every 6 months (review medical records, etc) and visits should be on an impromptu basis. Inspector's should be held responsible for the contents of their reports.

The sad fact is there are just to many homeless animals and not enough homes for them.

@cody, will do.

Copihue said:

What Czrsaska lacks in skill to articulate his point of view seems to be amply compensated with nastiness. I wish that @dave would place him in the penalty box until he cools off. Meantime, I hope that we all think about the animals, it's about them.

I can articulate my point of view quite well, though I'll note that I have not chosen to do so anywhere in this thread. What I have done is ask pointed questions on the heels of unfounded allegations and supposition, which I'll also note have gone noticeably unanswered, leading me to believe there is far more hyperbole than substance in many of the above anonymous posts. Happy to be proven wrong, however.

ctrzaska,
We have one animal control officer who is putting her job on the line to let the town know about the plans for our animal shelter which she thinks are awful. We also have a report from the State rescue organization's inspectors that charge the rescue group with multiple violations. Finally we have a website that details what the owners of the Newark rescue group attitude and behavior was when Patrick, a dog on the front steps of death from neglect that outraged the world, found a loving home with the Scavellis who saved his life. That's one side of the argument saying that there is a problem with the potential solution to our animal control services in South Orange and Maplewood.
Then we have you howling on the sideline that there is hyperbole, unfounded allegations and suppositions.
Let's get back to business, please. It's 2015, ask questions that point us to a solution. Be constructive and nice

Key questions to consider:

What experience has Maplewood had with Associated Humane while they have been covering in lieu of JAC?

What outstanding violations, if any, does Associated Humane have NOW? Is the information posted above just ancient history or does it reflect current conditions?

Does Associated Humane have the facilities/resources necessary to meet Maplewood's needs if/when a contract with them goes into effect? If not, how long would it take them to acquire what they would need to meet our needs?

What alternatives does the town have when it comes to meeting our immediate needs both in terms of animal control and in terms of making shelter arrangements if entering into an agreement with Associated Humane for animal control and/or shelter care is found to be unsatisfactory?

The jac building is in South Orange and as I understand it maplewood does not have sole rights to give it away in some deal. South Orange still has an animal control officer.

I was with Debbie we were coming back from talking withmt. pleasant animal shelter she is working on a plan. But just now a small black there dog was clip by a,car on Springfield ave she jump out of the car and block the traffics toss a blanket on the dog owner show up of course the dog was off leashes she told them to take it to the emergency hospital then she just got back in her car and left you tell me how Newark will handle that call when their time is 45 min. Newark

Has always had a bad track record and will keep so. They have ten town's already how do you think they will service our needs. If we should lose our pets we will have to go to Newark and pay to get them back that's if we get them back

Another concern of mine is how proactive AHS would be in trying to find owners of dogs who are loose - we have a number of escape artists here in town who get out despite their owners' best efforts. Would AHS be scanning, calling and trying to reach owners, or would they only be able to hold the dog until the owner contacted them? My concern is that a pet could be euthanized in the time it might take an owner to locate their dog, or that the dog could catch some disease from being held in a communal situation for a significant amount of time.

Is AHS reachable at night or on weekends, does anyone know?

The website has the hours: http://www.ahscares.org/page3.asp?page=nservices&style=3
They say that they have 24/7 ambulances, but it doesn't say who pays for the service. They also claim to have veterinarians on staff, yea, they need vets to kill dogs.
To be fair and balanced, when I read about Patrick, I was well impressed with how they responded to the call. They did the emergency pick up, and they send him to Garden State Veterinary when they decided that they couldn't handle the case. It cost them a ton of money, and they paid for all of Patrick's care. Their claim to Patrick was not without any merit, but it was the wrong call. Patrick bonded with the people who saved his life. But if not for AHS vets and ambulance, Patrick would have never made it to Garden State Veterinary Services in Tinton Falls.

I'm aware of her plight, and my previous experiences with her and Bob have been nothing but pleasant and effective. This isn't the way I'd go about holding onto my job and/or advocating for a shelter alternative but we can agree to disagree regarding whether her efforts and those of her more rabid supporters will do more harm than good, however. As to the howling, I'd argue that those posting unintelligible rants, inflammatory photos and accusing municipal employees of criminal behavior are the ones doing it. Let's get back to business, indeed.

@ctrzaska,

Articulate (as always) intelligible (as always) and sensible (as always)

:X We can't solve the world's abandoned animal problems, but if we work together, we can find a compassionate solution for Maplewood and South Orange. ><

ctrzaska said:

@bahumbug
So to sum up, you do not know whether any of the sensationalized 4-6 year-old photos are representative of the shelter today, nor whether the shelter has been inspected within the last four years. Unless I've misstated any facts, while any of your connect-the-dot conclusions could very well be validated at some point, right now you have no confirmation.

Had you chosen to address your dire concerns about Newark anytime in the past four years and sought answers instead of waiting until now to suddenly reveal disgust, I'm sure that relevant information would have been far more helpful to the discussion here than unsupported allegations.

Ctzaska,

Newark City officials, which is the city the shelter is located in, made these very allegations just a year and half ago.

"The city officials who requested anonymity said the AHS shelter has a "track record of squalor" and "horrific conditions" that are "very sad and troubling.""

"One city official characterized Crawford's charges of neglect and slander as "unsubstantiated allegations from a disgruntled organization that has been fighting with us for years.""

In fact, the city was so disgusted they wanted to build their own shelter to replace Associated Humane Societies:

"In a statement provided to U.S. News, Newark Deputy Mayor Adam Zipkin said, "Due to our extreme dissatisfaction with the level of care at the existing AHS facility – and because far too many of the animals are unnecessarily killed there each year by AHS – we anticipate breaking ground this fall on a new state-of-the-art, no-kill animal shelter in Newark that will provide the highest quality of care for neglected and abused animals.""

All this comes from this article from a year and half back.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/07/12/cory-booker-animal-shelter-fur-flies-in-fight

Associated Humane Societies statistics shows the shelters kills LOTS of animals based on their own numbers:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gCSitZJQfTJ8af_nCaxF1GwIBDhFVkVDli-lrrDEwqM/edit#gid=126925452

Based on a local news story over the summer, a large percentage of South Orange or Maplewood animals were killed when Newark Humane took over. This is all consistent with my observations at that shelter and what I've heard from some of the few volunteers they have.

As I said, they have the same person running the shelter when all this happened. Do you think they magically changed? Why SO would work with another group with a scandalous history after their JAC saga is beyond me.

I've not been on this board for long and don't visit regularly. The information is here. I hope SO makes a good decision.

Don't assume its scandalous on the part of the people who run shelters when most animals are killed.

No one opens a shelter to kill. But the fact is a lot more animals are given to shelters than adopted. When that happens the shelter overflows. Sadly the only choice is to not accept animals, to kill them or to release them into the wild.

Some no kill shelters don't accept animals when full. They are criticized for being cruel, not giving shelter to someone who has to or wants to give up their pet.

The scandal is not having sufficient shelter space and the low adoption rate.

rescueme said:

In 2014 the a c o (animal control officer) pick up about 6 dogs five went into foster homes and one went to Newark. The administration knows this because every month Bob roe has to add up the animals that the a c o picks up including how many dead animals how many animals were tested for rabies (how many) ... tickets given out how many cats were pick up ...

I think that the animals at the JAC were mostly imports from the South. Now that the JAC is gone, the problem may be much smaller.

BG 9:

That is not true. Hundreds of communities run no kill (only dangerous dogs and gravely ill animals are euthanized) animal control shelters. A good number of these communities were previously killing far more animals than Newark Associated Humane is killing now. Many also take in many more animals than Newark Associated Humane. Some are even in the south like Jacksonville, Florida.

You can read many here:

http://outthefrontdoor.com/

And Newark Associated Humane has lots of money. They rake in almost $9 million a year. If they can't handle that many animals with their building, they should add more space or not take on so many towns (and their animals) for money.

I've got a distinct suspicion that the most indignant posters here - calliope and ctrzaska - have been venting wrath at being confronted with the unwelcome possibility that their vivid criticism of the JAC has led to an even more disastrous solution. And have mauled the messengers.
The JAC - with its inability to run a shelter and bizarre response to its initial closing - eliminated itself. But the ideal of a well-run local shelter is worth trying to achieve. Signing onto an overburdened urban pound with a documented history of horrible conditions and, with no town ACO, a substantial decrease in animal services, looks like an expedient decision lacking a motive concern for animal welfare.

@bahumbug
The ongoing political war between AHS and the Newark political machine (a city who has written the book on quid pro quo funding for decades) has been ongoing for years, reaching its nadir with the election-timed meddling of Booker and his deputy (and a string of FB histrionics). And where has Booker gone since? Or his no-kill shelter that made for such headlines?

Choosing one side over the other in that war is meaningless. What I would like to see are the results of current oversight, and to date none have been shown (admittedly though, they may not exist). I don't dispute the high-kill ratios at the shelter, but defer to and agree with BG9's comments above, and would ask that you reconsider your response to reveal similar no-kill shelters covering truly urban inner cities such as Newark, with its poorer demographic and lack of funding. I've not seen any fair comparisons.