Richmond County Animal Shelter fined by state

ROCKINGHAM — The Richmond County Animal Shelter has been slapped with a civil penalty for violations, state documents show.

In a notice dated Oct. 21, the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Veterinary Division assessed a $2,000 fine following an investigation into multiple complaints.

According to court documents, the Animal Welfare Section received a complaint on Sept. 17 from an unnamed individual, leading to an investigation. The same person lodged another complaint on Sept. 24.

The following day, AWS received a separate complaint from different person, who supplemented her initial complaint with “additional allegations and details” on Oct. 1. This complaint led to a second investigation, documents show.

Civil court documents show the investigations revealed a total of 52 allegations, many of which “did not pertain to the NC Animal Welfare Act,” which is what the investigation centered on.

According to documents, a review of the shelter’s records showed:

• No record of ointment being applied to the eye of Luke, and no written disclosure of the animal’s medical condition in the adoption agreement
• Nick was released “without obtaining the identification required” by law.
• Hope received veterinary care, but no medical log documenting the administration of medication could be found. Records are required to be kept for three years. Hope was also released without obtaining identification
• Eight animals did not receive a rabies vaccination within 15 days of intake
• No veterinary care was administered to Babe, who had been beaten on the head and face with a metal pole while attacking a person, during the dog’s 13-day impoundment. “A single attempt to administer a non-steroid inflammatory medication and a steroid medication in food was unsuccessful.”
• During a site visit, investigators noted the following:
• Two water buckets were found with cloudy water (with no animals present) and some were zip-tied to the fencing and had rocks in the bottom “which may indicate the buckets were not being sanitized daily” as required by law.
• The concrete in the canine enclosures had “a rough texture that was not impervious to moisture,” as required by law, which “may allow” chemicals to seep in and allow exposure of the dog's skin to cleaning and disinfecting agents (which was also noticed during the shelter’s Sept. 17 inspection.)
• A lack of drain covers, which was alleged in the first complaint and noticed during the September inspection. “Later contact with the Shelter Director revealed that the drain covers did not fit properly, and a different type of drain cover had been ordered.”

Investigators also reviewed the shelter’s euthanization records from June 1 to Sept. 23, which showed that 82 animals were euthanized — 10 prior to the end of the required 72-hour holding period with no records documenting exceptions.

The complaint made on Sept. 25 concerned 17 puppies that were transferred to the complainant's rescue, records show. Twelve of those were transferred immediately to another shelter.

Of the remaining five, one died within 24 hours. 

The complainant alleged that the shelter was falsifying vaccination records, so she requested a vaccine titer for one of the other four.

Those 17 puppies did not come to the complainant directly from the shelter, but were pulled from the Humane Society of Richmond County,” documents show. “The disposition records for these 17 puppies do not contain the identification information... (required by law) for the transfer from the shelter to (the Humane Society.)”

The receiving shelter found those puppies had intestinal parasites “that were subsequently treated.”

The remaining five had “been noted by the shelter as having diarrhea and they were considering euthenaisa because of their medical condition.”

“The shelter and HSRC agree that the shelter verbally explained that the (five) puppies were ill and were being transferred as medical rescues,” court documents read. “No written disclosure of the medical conditions of these puppies was provided to HSRC by the shelter in violation (of state law.”

There was also no written disclosure provided by the Humane Society to the rescue shelter, documents show.

“Considerable disagreement exists between these two parties as to the extent of the verbal exchange of information concerning the medical condition and risk of/plan for euthanaisiaof the puppies,” the court filing reads.

It goes on to say that shelter staffers believe the five puppies may have been started on medication for diarrhea, but no documentation could be found.

With all that, the county was only fined $1,000 for each violation regarding the early euthanizations and $1,000 for not providing care to the injured dog. 

As for the structural violations, County Manager Bryan Land said the county is “already in the process of taking care of.”

“The main one was the concrete floor resurfacing,” he said. “Crews are supposed to start on that, I think, in two weeks.” 

He said that project will cost around $34,000.

He said county maintenance staff has been at the shelter working on “some of the smaller items” including the drain covers and a few electrical issues mentioned in the inspection report.

Land added that most of the issues that resulted in the fines have been taken care of and the fine has been reduced to $500, “because we’ve presented the proper paperwork.”

“And the ones that weren’t taken care of, we’ve got policies and procedures in place and being updated,” he said.