Lilibet was picked up by CACC on 3/7/23, from the home of a citizen who reported that an aggressive dog would not leave her back porch. Type of aggression not identified. She was already labeled an outcast. She never had a chance. We learned this when someone filed a FOIA request to learn why Lilibet had been killed on 6/13/2022, thirteen weeks after her incarceration .
Her death was a shock, a gut searing shock that came without warning. She was one year old and she suffered. She suffered emotionally and physically because she was tortured by the very people whose job it was to protect her.
FOIA stands for Freedom of Information Act and, for our purposes, is a report that documents a dog’s stay at CACC, its medical history and outcome at the pound.
The volunteer report on the Facebook page, “CACC Adoptable Pets” says
Lilibet is a smaller pup with a lot of personality and love to share! When she first arrived, she was so scared, but those days are behind her now! Now you don't have to ask her twice to climb into your lap... that she does on her own! We are her pals now, and she loves every minute of it! Lilibet is sweet and outgoing and so much fun! https://youtu.be/PPhAHstBMWg
In the FOIA LILIBET was said to be “kennel stressed” after being there three days and was given anti-anxiety drugs for five days.
On 5/8 the FOIA states that Lilibet is deteriorating, “highly stressed in kennel environment…agitated…constant motion…pacing, spinning, …jumping and bouncing off cage” writes ART (his signature, the Shelter Manager), what he observes by her cage. “Not eating at times.”
She had good leash tests and participated in numerous playgroups without incident:
In a playgroup of five dogs, 5/24: https://youtu.be/woSTgRhTK4s
A playgroup of eight dogs, same date:https://youtu.be/BpRt9vbycFk
Another playgroup of six dogs: https://youtu.be/NzjCvWgtuHI
On 5/30, the FOIA states that there was an incident in which dogs in playgroup got into a fight and Lilibet was among them. She had wounds on both sides of her face which required staples. She was on pain medicine and the staples would be removed in 10-14 days. Multiple wounds that were deep enough to be stapled. She did not start the fight.
And then the FOIA states about Lilibet, “after patient was sedated/treated in medical for bite wounds, she was highly reactive to the other dogs while passing them when returning to kennel.”
And when two weeks come, staples due to be removed, Lilibet is SPAYED. She gets a microchip and she has a Heartworm test (negative).
CACC only follows this protocol when a dog is going to be adopted. But Lilibet does not get adopted.
Instead, TWO DAYS AFTER SHE’S SPAYED, SOMEONE PUTS HER BACK IN A PLAYGROUP.
Two days after major surgery, she is put back in a playgroup. There is a dog fight. She receives more facial wounds.
And the stitches from her very recent spay RUPTURE, it’s right there:
“Spay incision: significant swelling…erythema…inflammation….” and a “1.5 cm herniation under swelling.”
And so, the APC and the SM have a discussion and decide that, based on her behavior, they elect “humane euthanasia” for Lilibet.
Of all the ways I’ve ever heard of CACC killing a dog, Lilibet’s brutal torture and killing have brought me to levels of outrage, shock and pain I didn’t know were possible.
WHY was LILIBET sent to playgroup two days after a major surgery? Ten to fourteen days are recommended for recovery. Rest and little movement are required for healing, https://www.petmd.com/dog/general-health/dog-spay-recovery-what-expect
WHO SENT HER TO PLAYGROUP TWO DAYS AFTER MAJOR SURGERY? WHY?
WHY WAS SHE SPAYED IN THE FIRST PLACE?
WHO DECIDED TO SPAY HER IF THEY THOUGHT SHE WAS SO REACTIVE?
WHY WAS THE PUBLIC NOT INFORMED OF HOW STRESSED SHE WAS? SHE COULD HAVE BEEN NETWORKED MORE, SHE COULD HAVE HAD A CHANCE!
WHO IS RUNNING CACC? WHO IS TORTURING THESE SENTIENT BEINGS, OUR HOMELESS COMPANION ANIMALS?
WHO ARE THE PEOPLE CAPABLE OF THIS TYPE OF CRUELTY IN A CITY-RUN FACILITY AND WHY ARE THEY NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE? APC AND SW, WHO “ELECTED” TO KILL HER, NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. THE ACTING DIRECTOR WHO IS NEVER THERE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR HER NEGLECT OF SUCH BARBARIC PRACTICES. IT IS UP TO US TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.