Another letter to Polk County officials with no response back

𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲

𝐓𝐨: 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐤 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐀𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 – 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐃𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐌𝐫. 𝐆𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐨𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐫
Cc: County Official below

Subject: 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲

Dear Mr. Scherer,

I write respectfully on behalf of animal welfare advocates (a few of whom are CC’d here) and concerned members of the public to request clarification on several operational matters at Polk County Animal Control. These questions have been raised repeatedly at Board of County Commissioners meetings and through various channels. This letter seeks information to better understand shelter policies and procedures.

Sheriff Judd has built a national reputation for innovative law enforcement and accountability. With his name on Polk County Animal Control, there is an unprecedented opportunity to transform 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚’𝐬 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭-𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫 into a national model that other sheriffs study and replicate—demonstrating the same leadership that has made Polk County a law enforcement benchmark. The questions below identify specific areas where evidence-based programs could achieve the dramatic improvements seen in other Florida counties.

𝐏𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐈𝐂 𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐒 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐈𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐒

𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞: Public records requests to Polk County Animal Control are consistently incomplete, delayed, or ignored. I received only 9-line budget items instead of comprehensive documentation and received no response to requests for incident reports on animals euthanized with holds, remediation protocols for accidental euthanasia, or public access investigations.

𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:
What quality assurance processes ensure complete responses to public records requests?
When records are stated to not exist, what documentation confirms this determination?
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 and raises questions about records management protocols.

𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐁𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐑𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐔𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘

𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝: Since June 2025, animal welfare advocates have attended monthly Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meetings requesting ordinances to address animal welfare issues, including TNR programs, tethering standards, outdoor shelter requirements, pet sales regulation, breeder oversight, community cat management, animal abuse registries, spay/neuter voucher programs, and enforcement penalties, among many others. These preventive measures would align with:

𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭: 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝟖𝟐𝟑.𝟏𝟓 states: “It is therefore declared to be the public policy of the state that 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 be used to 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬. Determining which programs result in 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐝𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 and in 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 for 𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥 𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 is crucial to this effort.”

𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐫 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝:
Commissioner Rick Wilson stated at the September 2, 2025, BOCC meeting (Hour 2:33:15):
“𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟’𝐬 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥. 𝐒𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟’𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐟𝐟 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐬 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐞𝐰 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐎𝐑 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬.”

Commissioner Bill Braswell stated at the June 3, 2025, BOCC meeting (Min 23:00):
“𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐨𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟’𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲. 𝐘𝐨𝐮 𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐟.”
At that same June 3, 2025, meeting, Commissioner Wilson stated the Board would discuss these concerns with the Sheriff.

Many additional concerns have been raised since June 3rd, yet no ordinances have been enacted.
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧: The Commissioners have publicly stated they will only enact animal welfare ordinances if requested by the Sheriff’s Office. This places 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 for the absence of comprehensive animal welfare ordinances in the Sheriff’s Office and, by extension, Animal Control leadership.
If the Board of County Commissioners is placing ordinance responsibility on the Sheriff’s Office, I respectfully suggest: The simplest approach would be to study ordinances from most other Florida counties to identify best practices. Alternatively, a working group could be convened with shelter medicine professionals, animal welfare attorneys, and representatives from counties with successful programs. Potentially more valuable would be conversations between the Sheriff and neighboring sheriffs for input on ordinances and obstacles they’ve overcome. Many counties have already done this work—there is no need to start from scratch.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬:
Has Animal Control leadership been attending BOCC meetings or sending official representatives to discuss ordinance needs? Will Animal Control send a representative to the November 18th meeting at 9:00 AM and attend subsequent invitations to meetings?

How does Animal Control communicate to the BOCC which ordinances are necessary to improve animal welfare outcomes?

If Commissioners state they are waiting for the Sheriff’s Office direction on ordinances, who from your office provides this guidance?

𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧 – 𝐅𝐁𝐈 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡 𝐨𝐧 𝐀𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐫𝐮𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐲: The FBI recognizes animal abuse as strongly linked to other forms of violence. It was the National Sheriff’s Association that advocated to the FBI to add animal cruelty as a separate data set (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/-tracking-animal-cruelty).

Without comprehensive ordinances (including an animal abuse registry, tethering standards, regulation of pet sales, and enforcement mechanisms), Polk County lacks preventative—and even robust remedial—tools that other jurisdictions use to identify and track potential threats to public safety.

𝐄𝐍𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐔𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 – “𝐆𝐑𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐏𝐒” 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐅𝐄𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐃𝐈𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐒

On August 20, 2025, I sent the following request for legal clarification to County Attorney Randy Mink. As of this date, I have not received a response. I now direct these same questions to you as the Director responsible for Animal Control operations:

𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝟏: 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬
Does any ordinance prohibit or restrict the feeding of cats or dogs outside?

If such ordinances exist, please provide specific code section references.
If no such ordinances exist, would this mean there is no legal authority to request people to stop feeding outside?

𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝟐: 𝐌𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐎𝐰𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐯𝐢𝐚 𝐅𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠/𝐇𝐚𝐫𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠
Some municipalities within Polk County assign ownership based on feeding for a set period: Polk City and Winter Haven after 3 days, Mulberry after 7 days. Other municipalities do not appear to have ownership-through-feeding provisions: Lakeland, Haines City, Auburndale, Bartow, Lake Wales, and Town of Lake Hamilton (based on my review of these specific municipal codes).
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧: Directives instructing residents to cease feeding outside cats or dogs without legal authority may constitute overreach and could result in violations of 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝟖𝟐𝟖.𝟏𝟐 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝟖𝟐𝟖.𝟏𝟑 (animal cruelty) if “owned” animals are deliberately starved. For municipalities lacking ownership-through-feeding provisions, does any county or municipal code authorize Animal Control to declare feeders as owners?

𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝟑: 𝐂𝐚𝐭 𝐒𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐑𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬 “𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐒𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐬.”
Polk County Animal Control has issued “green slips” stating: “Outdoor dogs and cats must have appropriate shelter.” (Documentation attached). Does Polk County or any municipal ordinance require an outdoor shelter specifically for cats? Section 4-27 of the Polk County Code references dogs but does not mention cats.

𝐈𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝟒: 𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧

The current complaint process relies on single-complainant reports or single sworn statements without corroborating evidence, even for owned pets. Other counties require enhanced standards to prevent hearsay-based enforcement actions and reduce retaliatory complaints:
Sworn affidavits from 2 separate households for noise complaints
Photographic or video evidence for property damage claims
Would Animal Control consider adopting 𝐞𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 and ensure fair enforcement?

𝐉𝐔𝐋𝐘 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐘 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄𝐒 – 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐒

In July 2025—exactly one year after implementing an informal phone ban and following extensive media coverage of shelter conditions—Polk County Animal Control formalized restrictive policies through 𝐒𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐃𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝟐𝟒𝟔𝟐𝟓𝟎.𝟏𝟖 (dated July 9, 2025):
𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝:
Written ban on phones/electronic devices in “controlled areas” (previously enforced informally since July 2024)
Relabeling of kennel areas as “controlled” and “restricted.”
𝐀𝐝𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐣𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐡𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐬:
Extension of perimeter fencing 6-8 feet, making formerly public areas now private
Termination of the volunteer program
Placement of “Bad Dog” warning signs at the entry and at the entry of dog wings (now controlled areas)
Requirement for a government-issued ID just to walk the premises
Barring rescue organizations from formerly accessible areas

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬:

1. How do these restrictions enhance rather than limit public oversight?

2. If these restrictions are justified by safety concerns, why did no safety incidents occur during the decades when public access, phones, and volunteers were permitted?

3. According to University of Florida Shelter Medicine Program staff who oversee data for 153 shelters across 64 of Florida’s 67 counties, 𝐧𝐨 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫 has implemented similar phone bans or access restrictions in adoption/kennel areas. If safety is the concern, how do 153 other Florida shelters operate safely without these restrictions?”

𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭: These unprecedented restrictions—𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚’𝐬 𝟏𝟓𝟑+ 𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬—have been raised by citizens at every BOCC meeting since implementation. Rather than enhancing security, these policies create a 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 that undermines confidence in shelter operations. When neighboring counties operate transparently without similar measures, Polk County’s restrictions invite scrutiny rather than demonstrating professionalism.

𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐗𝐓 – 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐀𝐊𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐅𝐎𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄

University of Florida Data (2024):
Polk County Animal Control: 𝟔,𝟐𝟕𝟑 non-live outcomes (𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚)
Miami-Dade County: 𝟐,𝟓𝟎𝟓 non-live outcomes (despite having 𝟑.𝟓× Polk’s population)
𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: The University of Florida Shelter Medicine Program explains that high intake-per-population rates indicate 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬. If irresponsible ownership were the primary factor, counties with higher populations, urban density, and socioeconomic challenges would show higher intake rates.

How does Animal Control leadership explain that Polk County’s intake and euthanasia rates significantly exceed those of larger, more densely populated counties? Wouldn’t these numbers justify a greater need for ordinances to prevent animals from entering Polk County Animal Control in the first place?

𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐀𝐋 𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

𝐀𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 – Allegations via BOCC sworn statements:
Animals are being fed only once daily
Dogs of all sizes are receiving identical food portions regardless of weight
Insufficient exercise/enrichment for caged animals as required by 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝟖𝟐𝟖.𝟏𝟑

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: What is the official feeding schedule, and how are portion sizes determined? Can you provide daily feeding logs documenting dates/times, portions per animal, and staff responsible? If such logs do not exist, how does Animal Control ensure compliance with statutory feeding requirements? Florida Statute 828.13 requires caged animals to be temporarily released for exercise—what protocols ensure compliance, and how is this documented?

𝐄𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐬 – 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: Are all animals sedated prior to euthanasia? With an average of 𝟏𝟔+ animals euthanized daily (based on 2024 statistics), what staffing and facility resources are allocated to euthanasia procedures? If sedation is standard protocol, is there a dedicated room and staff person assigned specifically to sedation procedures?

Note: Upon review of the Special Operations Division Procedure (SOPD) manual obtained through public records, it does not clarify that all animals are sedated. The manual mentions “when/if” sedation occurs, but not that all animals receive sedation.

𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐞𝐫 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦 𝐓𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 – 𝐁𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝: In August 2025, statements were made before the BOCC that approved volunteers waiting since February were informed that the volunteer coordinator had quit and the program was terminated. Similar statements were heard at the October 2025 BOCC meeting.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: What has prevented the volunteer program from continuing with a new coordinator? What training was provided (or would have been provided) to volunteers? Considering the shelter’s high workload, have inmate workers been expanded to compensate for the loss of volunteers? What type of training do they receive in animal welfare?

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧: Terminating the volunteer program eliminates 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 at a time when public concerns about shelter operations are heightened. If a former county shelter director were willing to provide training to upcoming volunteers, would you consider accepting five volunteers (perhaps more) currently willing to assist? Three have already passed background checks and were previously approved to begin service in February 2025.

𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐈𝐓𝐎𝐑 𝐎𝐁𝐒𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐅𝐀𝐂𝐈𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐃𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒

Multiple individuals who visited Polk County Animal Control—both before and after the access restrictions implemented in July 2025—have reported concerning conditions, including
Animals in cages without food or water
Uncleaned cages containing feces
Persistent strong odors throughout the facility
Adopted pets that were sick
These observations have been made as recently as August, September, and October 2025. Some visitors have documented their concerns in public Google reviews and social media posts, creating a pattern across multiple independent observers.

𝐂𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬: The consistency of these reports raises serious questions about daily animal care protocols and compliance with Florida Statute 828.13, whether the July 2025 access restrictions were intended to improve conditions or prevent documentation of existing conditions, and the absence of internal quality assurance mechanisms to identify and address care deficiencies. This pattern makes independent verification urgent. Either these observations are inaccurate (in which case verification would clear the shelter’s reputation and prove operations meet professional standards), or they are accurate (in which case immediate corrective action is needed).

𝐓𝐍𝐑 (𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐏-𝐍𝐄𝐔𝐓𝐄𝐑-𝐕𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐈𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐄-𝐑𝐄𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐍) 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐌 𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐋𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍

𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞: 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝟖𝟐𝟑.𝟏𝟓 requires crucial effort from animal control agencies to use “𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐤𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬” and to determine which programs reduce euthanasia.

𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬:
Of 𝟔𝟒 Florida counties with shelters, 𝟔𝟏 counties with open intake shelters have better live outcome rates than Polk County (exceptions: Baker, Gadsden, Glades)
𝟔𝟑 𝐨𝐟 𝟔𝟒 counties kill fewer animals than Polk County Animal Control
Polk County continues to have the 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐚 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 for 7+ consecutive years (per University of Florida data and media reports)
Polk County does not implement policies aligning with Florida Statute 823.15’s mandate

𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐬:
𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 (established 1878): In 2017, the nation’s top legal authority—composed of 400,000 lawyers—enacted 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏𝟎𝟐𝐁 after comprehensive analysis. Key findings:
𝐓𝐍𝐕𝐑 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝: Humane trap → Veterinary evaluation → Sterilization → Rabies vaccination → Ear-tip → Return
𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐅𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲: TNVR rarely requires new legislation—only correct interpretation of existing laws.
𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Governments should interpret or adopt laws enabling TNVR programs and caregiver exemptions.

𝐄𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬:
∙ Alachua County, FL: TNVR reduced shelter intake by 𝟔𝟔% in targeted areas vs. 𝟏𝟐% in others.
∙ Orange County, FL: Euthanizing a cat costs $𝟏𝟑𝟗; sterilizing costs $𝟓𝟔—sterilizing 𝟕,𝟗𝟎𝟑 cats saved $𝟔𝟓𝟔,𝟎𝟎𝟎.

𝐄𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬:
University of Florida Shelter Medicine Program, ASPCA, Best Friends Animal Society, Association of Shelter Veterinarians, and American Humane Association.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬:

1. What specific obstacles prevent implementation of programs mandated by Florida Statute 823.15?

2. Has Animal Control leadership requested BOCC adoption of ordinances to comply with this statute?

3. What alternative programs are in place to satisfy Florida Statute 823.15’s requirement to use “every feasible means” to reduce euthanasia?

𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐓 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐈𝐂𝐘 𝐂𝐇𝐎𝐈𝐂𝐄𝐒

𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬:
Over the last 𝟔.𝟓 years, approximately 𝟐,𝟎𝟑𝟕 animals have escaped from Polk County Animal Control
Based on conservative breeding calculations, escaped cats could produce 𝟏𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎–𝟏𝟒,𝟎𝟎𝟎 offspring over 6.5 years
If animal rescues withdrew help and Good Samaritan TNVR teams stopped helping Polk County Animal Control, intake would climb to approximately 𝟏𝟗,𝟎𝟎𝟎 animals annually

This suggests Polk County Animal Control has not implemented internal programs or policy changes necessary to function independently of volunteer community support.

Would Animal Control consider a peer-to-peer assessment from other law enforcement agencies or sheriffs experienced in TNVR implementation, to ensure an honest and objective evaluation of Polk County’s current practices?

𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐕𝐄𝐍 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐘 𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐔𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐏𝐄𝐄𝐑 𝐅𝐋𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐃𝐀 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐄𝐒

Two nearby Florida counties demonstrate effective approaches to accountability that could be implemented in Polk County:

𝐋𝐞𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 – 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐕𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐒𝐮𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞
Lee County Animal Shelter operates with video surveillance cameras in kennel areas that provide timestamped documentation enabling a fact-finding inquiry when concerns arose in 2024 (Fox 4 News, October 1, 2024). This internal monitoring protects both animals and staff while demonstrating institutional accountability.

𝐓𝐚𝐲𝐥𝐨𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲 – 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
Taylor County’s Board of County Commissioners held a workshop with animal welfare advocates (October 2024), consulted with the University of Florida Shelter Medicine Program, and implemented specific improvements including re-sealed floors and enhanced veterinary care—demonstrating how collaborative approaches achieve measurable results while enhancing public trust.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐤 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐲: If Lee County Sheriff and Taylor County commissioners could work collaboratively with animal advocates or the University of Florida Shelter Medicine Program to improve operations, can Polk County pursue this same proven approach within the next 4 months?

𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐘 𝐀𝐋𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄𝐒 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐊 𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐘

Given the July 2025 access restrictions that eliminated phones, volunteers, and public access, 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐬 are now essential. Polk County could implement:
Video surveillance cameras in kennel areas (Lee County model)
University of Florida Shelter Medicine Program assessment (Taylor County model – used by 130+ shelters across 22 states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands)
Bi-annual third-party inspections (regular independent verification)
Scheduled public tours (quarterly community access tour)
Real-time statistics dashboard (daily intake/outcome/capacity numbers – Best Friends Animal Society model)
Anonymous staff reporting system (external, independent of Sheriff’s Office)

𝐃𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: Would Animal Control leadership be willing to implement at least some of these transparency alternatives?

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧: When a facility simultaneously bans phones, eliminates volunteers, restricts rescue access, extends perimeter fencing, requires ID for entry, and becomes the 𝐎𝐍𝐋𝐘 Florida shelter with such restrictions—while refusing to implement any alternative oversight mechanisms—the question naturally arises: 𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠?
If conditions meet professional standards, implementing transparency measures would vindicate operations. Refusing all alternatives to the eliminated oversight suggests conditions cannot withstand scrutiny.

𝐎𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐄𝐍𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐃 𝐑𝐄𝐏𝐔𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐇𝐈𝐏

Sheriff Grady Judd’s name is on the entry fence at Polk County Animal Control—and with it comes an extraordinary opportunity. The facility bearing Sheriff Judd’s name represents an opportunity to demonstrate that the same excellence applied to law enforcement can transform animal welfare—creating a showcase operation that reflects the Sheriff’s commitment to results and accountability.
Other sheriffs in Florida have received recognition for their animal welfare programs and animal protection taskforce, but none have the platform, resources, or proven leadership track record that Sheriff Judd possesses. Polk County could set the standard that others aspire to meet.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲: Rather than having the 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 for 7+ consecutive years, Polk County could become a model for transformation when law enforcement leadership applies the same data-driven, results-oriented approach to animal welfare that Sheriff Judd has applied to public safety.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐒𝐮𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐖𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐋𝐨𝐨𝐤 𝐋𝐢𝐤𝐞:
Dramatically reduced euthanasia rates (as achieved by 61 peer countries)
Cost savings from evidence-based programs (In 2017, Orange County documented $656,000 in savings)
National recognition for innovative leadership
Enhanced public trust through transparency
Compliance with Florida Statute 823.15 mandates
A facility operation that reflects the excellence Sheriff Judd has established in other areas of law enforcement

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝: Animal welfare advocates are not adversaries—we seek the same outcomes Sheriff Judd has achieved throughout his career: 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐬, 𝐟𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭. Better outcomes for animals translate to better outcomes for the Sheriff’s Office, for Animal Control leadership, and for the community.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐨𝐦 𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐞: Improving shelter outcomes is in everyone’s interest. Programs that save lives, increase adoptions, and reduce euthanasia enhance public perception, reduce criticism, and demonstrate professional excellence.
I look forward to your response.

Respectfully,

cc:
Polk County Officials:
Sheriff 𝐆𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐝 ([email protected])
Associate Attorney Sheriff 𝐉𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐫 ([email protected])
County Attorney 𝐑𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐲 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐤 ([email protected])
Board of County Commissioners ([email protected])
Commissioner 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐤𝐲 𝐓𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐦𝐚𝐧 ([email protected])
Commissioner 𝐑𝐢𝐜𝐤 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐬𝐨𝐧 ([email protected])
Commissioner 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐥𝐥 ([email protected])
Commissioner 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐚 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐨 ([email protected])
Commissioner 𝐌𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐞𝐥 𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭 ([email protected])
County Manager 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐁𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐲 ([email protected])
Clerk 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐌. 𝐁𝐮𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝 ([email protected])
Animal Welfare Advocates
( Undisclosed here)

Attachments
“Green Slip” documentation from Animal Control

Map of Florida open-intake shelters

Reference Links

BOCC Meeting Videos;
https://www.polk-county.tv/CablecastPublicSite/gallery/1?site=1

University of Florida Shelter Statistics (2024):
https://sheltermedicine.vetmed.ufl.edu/research/current-studies/florida-animal-sheltering/shelter-level-data

𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐫 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
Resolution 102B (2017):
https://www.animallawconference.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2017-ABA-TNVR-102B.pdf

Google Reviews:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Polk+County+animal+control+Florida

Lee County Sheriff Investigation:
https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/new-lcso-begins-fact-finding-inquiry-into-claims-about-lee-co-animal-shelter

Florida Statutes

𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝟖𝟐𝟖.𝟏𝟐 — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/0828.12

𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝟖𝟐𝟖.𝟏𝟑 — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/828.13

𝐅𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐚 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝟖𝟐𝟑.𝟏𝟓 — https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2025/0823.15

Municipal Codes

Polk County —
https://library.municode.com/fl/polk_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH4ANFO

Polk City —
https://library.municode.com/fl/polk_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH14AN

Mulberry —
https://library.municode.com/fl/mulberry/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH5AN

Winter Haven —
https://library.municode.com/fl/winter_haven/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH4AN

Lakeland —
https://library.municode.com/fl/lakeland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH10AN

Bartow —
https://library.municode.com/fl/bartow/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH14AN

Auburndale —
https://library.municode.com/fl/auburndale/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH5AN

Haines City —
https://library.municode.com/fl/haines_city/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH5ANFO

Lake Hamilton —
https://library.municode.com/fl/lake_hamilton/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH6AN

Lake Wales —
https://library.municode.com/fl/lake_wales/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH6AN