A reader living in Warta Bolesławiecka municipality called us. He has a problem with two dogs. As he pointed out, until recently his sister was the owner of these animals. She rented an apartment from our reader. However, at the beginning of February she moved out and now lives in another municipality.
She did not take the dogs with her—for financial and health reasons. Her pets were left in the care of the person who contacted us. In a conversation with istotne.pl, he stressed that he cannot look after them. And for the same reasons: finances and health.
The reader told us that he has been dealing with this problem for a month, firmly emphasizing that it is not that he has had enough of the four-legged animals.
First, he asked his acquaintances whether anyone would like to take the dogs in. Then he spoke with the Shelter for Homeless Animals in Przylasek. As he told us, the shelter referred him to the Warta Bolesławiecka Municipality Office, where he reportedly heard that since the shelter would not take over the dogs, the municipality could not do so either for legal reasons.
The person who contacted us said that the shelter manager stated that the dogs did not require intervention because they did not appear neglected. However—as the municipality resident noted—that is not what the whole matter is about. The issue is not that the aforementioned four-legged animals are being harmed, but that the reader can no longer look after them.
A municipal official from Warta Bolesławiecka municipality explains to us:
The Animal Protection Act clearly states when a municipality intervenes and when a shelter may take in a dog: above all, when the dog has no owner. This situation is completely different. We know the owner of these dogs—she is the sister of the man who reported the matter.
The woman was a nuisance to her brother as a neighbor. She severely neglected her household; the dogs relieved themselves in the house. When she went to work, she tied them to the kennel, and they barked all day. Her brother then reported to the police that the dogs were disturbing the peace of the home.
She adds:
Before New Year’s Eve, the couple went to the shelter to give up the dogs. However, the manager of the facility told them that this was not the way to proceed. They then contacted the Municipality Office. When the woman submitted a letter relinquishing the dogs to the shelter, I initiated the procedure. But the manager was concerned by the version of events presented by the dogs’ owner’s brother, so he personally went to the property. And he saw the condition the dogs were in. It turned out that they were being fed and that nothing was wrong with them. He therefore concluded that the dogs had an owner; so why should they be taken to a shelter?
I informed the parties that the shelter had refused to accept the dogs. And I explained that they had to find, on their own, someone who would adopt the animals. The municipality deals with homeless dogs—with no caretaker. But we know who the owner is.
And she emphasizes:
The woman moved out, but did not formally designate a caretaker for the animals. They remained on her brother’s property. The obligation therefore currently rests with this man. We are not acting against this man out of spite; above all, we are guided by the welfare of the animals and the law. Shelters are filled to capacity; if everyone who got tired of their dog took it there, the situation in these facilities would be truly dramatic.
A representative of the Shelter for Homeless Animals in Przylasek spoke in a similar vein and promised us that the facility would respond to the matter in writing. However, we have not received a response so far.
What happens next is unknown.