More talks held on dog warden, shelter

DAVE MOSIER/independent editor

A luncheon meeting in the Van Wert County Board of Commissioners’ conference room was held Friday to further look at what direction the county dog warden’s position should take following Rich Strunkenburg’s firing after complaints of dead animals and unsanitary conditions at the county Humane Shelter were filed on July 20.

The primary stakeholders – County Commissioners Todd Wolfrum, Thad Lichtensteiger and Stan Owens; Sheriff Thomas M. Riggenbach; and the Humane Society board of trustees – were all at the meeting, as were a number of interested area animal lovers.

According to Lichtensteiger, the discussion centered on how best to fulfill the responsibilities of the two positions: dog warden and humane officer, both of which were filled by Strunkenburg and, typically, by most of the county’s previous dog wardens.

Whether that is the best way to do things is a question yet to be answered, though, Lichtensteiger said. The positions are not synonymous: the commissioners hire the dog warden, while Humane Society trustees appoint the humane officer. The two positions have been combined in the past to provide a better salary, as well as a residence adjacent to the Humane Shelter on Bonnewitz Avenue.

The question, though, is whether a dog warden freed from having to also administer the Humane Shelter might not be more effective. Some of those at the meeting also feel the two positions don’t have the same aims and could be better served by having two people, instead of one.

Currently, Deputy Sergeant Randy Averesch, who has K-9 training, is the interim dog warden – and could possibly be the person to take over the job permanently, Lichtensteiger said, adding that Averesch is currently doing a good job in the position.

The commissioner also said having a law enforcement officer in the position gives the job more flexibility, as well as a person who has better tools and training.

As it now stands, Sheriff Riggenbach would likely continue to provide oversight for the dog warden’s position, but it’s unclear at this point who would supervise a separate humane officer, if one was hired.

No one at the meeting disagreed that oversight has been a problem for the dog warden/humane officer positions in the past. Although the Humane Society owns the Humane Shelter, the dog warden’s residence and surrounding property, none of the trustees even had a key to the shelter prior to this past week. In fact, Humane Society trustees, who meet quarterly at the present time, don’t conduct their meetings at the Humane Shelter.

Meanwhile, although Strunkenburg did a significantly better job of returning calls and providing services after being placed under Sheriff Riggenbach’s direct supervision last August, the sheriff said that, while he has been in the shelter on occasion after he began supervising Strunkenburg, it had been some time since he had visited the facility prior to July 20.

Volunteers – who were apparently snubbed by Strunkenburg when he was dog warden – would likely play a big part in a restructuring of the current system, especially when it comes to helping out at the Humane Shelter.

At this time, though, no one is sure who exactly would be the person to organize a volunteer system and administer it.

Having a separate dog warden and humane officer could solve that problem, if the humane officer also was volunteer coordinator for the shelter. More money would possibly be needed as well, if the positions were split.

More discussions will be held to try and determine exactly what course of action would be best – and provide the best possible service to Van Wert County residents and pet owners. According to Lichtensteiger, all of the stakeholders in the Humane Shelter situation are committed to finding a solution to the problems at the shelter.