IACC says suffering of maggot-infested kitten not excessive

In a response to an inquiry from 7/21/08, Indianapolis Animal Care & Control Administrator Steve Talley issued the agencies "official" conclusions about the 2-day suffering of a seriously debilitated, maggot-infested kitten discovered by volunteers on June 24. The circumstances surrounding this are outlined in a letter of complaint filed with the IACC advisory board on July 4th. You may read the entirety of the letter by clicking here.


Mr. Brush,

Thank you for your continued concern for the well-being of the animals
entrusted to Indianapolis Animal Care & Control.

As Administrator, I personally have reviewed all the issues and concerns
you raised about the kitten (animal number109157) which arrived at the
shelter at 9:22 PM on June 22, 2008.  The animal control officer, who
brought the animal into the shelter, noted on the intake form that the
kitten had suffered an injury.  Our veterinarian arrived at our facility
on the afternoon of June 23, 2008, examined the kitten, and made a note
of the animal being very lethargic and indeed had sustained an injury to
its left femur.  She also included in her notes her recommendation for
euthanasia.  The employees of this agency followed that recommendation
on June 24, 2008.  There was no mention of maggot-infestation anywhere
on the notes from our veterinarian; I have no reason to believe the
veterinarian would have over looked or omitted that condition from her
notes had it been present.  Although there were no apparent signs of a
need for emergency veterinarian care for this animal, I have reiterated
to our staff that they take advantage of the 24-hour emergency
veterinary service by transporting any animal with a serious injury to
the VCA West 86th Street location.

In summary, after reviewing the information provided by staff and our
veterinarian, I have concluded that IACC did not violate state or local
laws as they relate to the care and treatment of animals under the
control of our agency, specifically 531-401(a) as mentioned in your
e-mail.

So to summarize, the kitten was injured badly enough that it was noted by the officer that brought it into their facility. It was seen by a vet (perhaps some 15-20 hours later) that recognized an injury so serious that it warranted euthanasia on Monday afternoon, but the kitten was still languishing in a cage on Tuesday afternoon.

Let me clarify that we are not talking about a subtle injury. The cat smelled foul, of decaying flesh. It could not use its hind legs at all, just dragged them. At the time we found it (between 1-3pm Tuesday afternoon) it was infested with hundreds of small maggots covering the rear legs. I have no idea how long it took the maggots to grow, and perhaps they were not readily visible the previous afternoon, but I am certain that the smell, debilitation and injury would have been quite obvious, despite the diminishing tone of Administrator Talley's response. If you have a strong stomach, you might want to see a photograph taken of the cat's rear end and the maggot infestation (although I wouldn't advise it). Bear in mind that IACC strictly forbids candid photography on premises. How very convenient for them.

The Indianapolis Animal Care & Control Division is charged with enforcement of animal-related laws, both Indianapolis ordinances and state laws. They, presumably, would be fully versed in the legal limits and definitions of the care & treatment of animals. IACC also employs a paid staff that are presumably trained in the proper care & treatment and destruction of animals. They have a computerized system called Chameleon for the entry and management of all the information about each animal.

As the experts, and with these tools at their disposal, why must a seriously injured cat suffering from a very painful fracture (and in the estimation of our volunteers, multiple fractures) languish in pain in a cage for 40 hours? Can you imagine the pain from the fracture of even single a leg bone? No relief from suffering was afforded to this cat until some volunteers had to find the poor, suffering kitty, then had to ask 4 employees before help was finally rendered in the form of euthanasia.

So what does the law say?

Sec. 531-401.  General requirements for animal care and treatment.

(a)   Every owner or keeper of an animal kept in the consolidated city and county shall see that such animal:
(1)   Is kept in a clean, sanitary and healthy manner and is not confined so as to be forced to stand, sit or lie in its own excrement; the person(s) responsible for animal(s) shall regularly and as often as necessary to prevent odor or health and sanitation problems, maintain all animal areas or areas of animal contact;
(2)   Has food that is appropriate for the species in adequate amounts to maintain good health, fresh potable drinking water where appropriate, shelter and ventilation, including quarters that are protected from excessive heat and cold and are of sufficient size to permit the animal to exercise and move about freely;
(3)   Shall not be tethered by use of a choke collar, or on any collar too small for the size and age of the animal, or by any rope, chain or cord directly attached to the animal's neck, or by a leash less than twelve (12) feet in length, or by any tether or leash without swivels on both ends, or of such unreasonable weight as to prevent the animal from moving about freely;
(4)   Is protected against abuse, cruelty, neglect, torment, overload, overwork, or any other mistreatment;
(5)   Shall provide the reasonably necessary medical care, in addition to the required rabies vaccination which shall include recommended vaccinations as required by accepted veterinary standards, and if diseased or injured, or exhibiting symptoms of disease, receives proper care and is segregated from other animals so as to prevent transmittal of the disease; and

(6)   Is maintained in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local laws and all regulations respecting animal care and control as are adopted by the city department of public safety and in effect from time to time

There is no specific definition for "reasonably necessary medical care", nor is there a specific definition for "abuse" or for "neglect". So obviously by the estimation of some people, at least some people at ACC, suffering the pain associated with a major leg bone fracture for 40 hours is not abusive or neglectful. In fact, when this is put into context with Administrator Talley's defense of employees dragging a dog down the hall by the neck, we start to see a fairly good picture of how "care & treatment" is defined within IACC.

These examples of neglect and mistreatment are not condemned by Administrator Talley. Most reasonable people would find these incidents to be very disturbing, and wonder what was being done to ensure that they would not happen again. In these responses we see no expression of concern...no sense that maybe something went wrong to allow these animals to be mistreated so grossly...no emphasis on improving handling or procedures to ensure animals don't "fall through the cracks." Why such an apathetic response from IACC?

Although sickening, I believe that this treatment is just the norm at IACC, and I firmly believe that for as bad as these examples are, it gets much, much worse than this. From failing to provide clean cages/stalls or fresh food and clean water, to rough, abusive handling, neglect of needed medical care and right up to the ultimate indignity of the slow, painful, apparently botched euthanasia inadvertently observed by one of our vet tech volunteers, the picture is clear and consistent: Indianapolis taxpayer money is being used to run a shelter with values that can only be described as a perversion of the tenets of humane animal sheltering, do not reflect the understanding or values of taxpayers, and countless scores of animals are suffering because of it.