In California, a difficult situation involving an injured chihuahua-terrier mix was reported in the Contra-Costa Times today. The dog was injured in a hit-and-run accident, and brought to the local animal shelter.

A group of people who witnessed the dog's accident pooled their money and raised $750.00 to provide the dog with surgery necessary to fix its broken pelvis and leg. However, the animal shelter refused to release the dog to these people until after the State-mandated waiting period. Meanwhile, the shelter had taken the dog a clinic for medication.

I did some research on this waiting period, and found it codified into the Food and Agricultural Code, under section 31108. The law defines the waiting period to be six days, with exceptions for a shorter four-day period.

The waiting period is designed to provide the owner of the dog enough time to claim their pet. However, I could not find anything in the code that prevented officials from providing veterinary care during the waiting period. But most likely, the bare minimal care was provided to the dog out of budget constraints.

However, I found an interesting piece of law in the Business and Professions Code, relating to the licensing of veterinarians:

4826.2. ...A veterinarian, registered veterinary technician, or an unregistered assistant working under the supervision of a veterinarian, may lawfully possess one or more of the animals only for the period of time that, in his or her judgment, veterinary care and treatment are necessary...

This means that a veterinarian working at a shelter can actually seize ownership of an animal, if that animal requires veterinary care.

So, why can't such a veterinarian go ahead and take the $750.00 this group has raised, and just provide the care? Clearly these people are wanting to help this poor dog. It seems the State has already provided a solution for this very situation, yet the animal shelter seems unwilling to take advantage of this group's generosity.