Humane Society of St.

Joseph County
Department of Animal Control

San Mar Kennels

Sandra Martinez
54555 Pine Rd.
South Bend, IN 46628

RE: June 3, 2019 Kennel Permit Inspection

At approximately 10:00am on June 3, 2019 Animal Control Officer (ACO) E. Langford and I, ACO A. Kirkeby met
Dr. Jennifer Strasser of the Indiana Board of Animal Health at San Mar Kennels for a scheduled kennel
inspection. Dr. Strasser was asked by our agency to attend this inspection to look for any state level
infractions. This inspection was pre-arranged and scheduled with kennel owner, Sandra Martinez, as per an
agreement with Mrs. Martinez’s legal counsel to correct ordinance violations which led to the denial of San
Mar’s kennel permit on February 21, 2019.
ACO Langford and I, ACO Kirkeby, were concentrating on evaluating if San Mar Kennels made the necessary
changes to be in compliance with the requirements set forth and agreed upon by San Mar Kennel’s legal
counsel and the Humane Society of St. Joseph County on February 27, 2019. These requirements are listed
below:
1. Submission of San Mar Kennel’s capacity for humane care as described in the Guidelines for Standers of
Care in Animal Shelters published by The Association of Shelter Veterinarians.
a. Capacity for care shall include the number of appropriate primary housing units and your
estimated staffing needs to care for the animals within the primary housing units. By identifying
the number of appropriate primary housing units and amount of staff available, you should be
able to determine a number of animals you can humanely care for at any given time.
b. San Mar Kennel’s shall remain at all times within their capacity for humane care.
2. Submission of rabies vaccination certificates for all dogs and cats over the age of 12 weeks old who will
be or are currently being housed at San Mar Kennels.
3. A record keeping system shall be in place to identify each animal within San Mar Kennel’s care to
ensure proper record keeping. These records should be organized and easily accessible. Records shall
include the following:
a. Owner name, address, and phone number
b. Intake date and exit date
c. Identifier (e.g. record number/name/microchip number)
d. Physical description (breed, color, approximate age, sex)
e. Type of vaccinations given and dates
f. Rabies certificate
g. If animals have been prescribed medication, you should have a medical treatment plan sheet
with dates and times treatment was given
4. Each kennel must display the identifying number/name/microchip for each animal being housed in that
particular kennel.
5. Establish cleaning, disinfection, and care protocols for maintaining clean and healthy living quarters.

2506 Grape Rd.  Mishawaka, IN 46545  Phone: 574 255 4726  FAX: 574 255 4767 www.HumaneSocietySTJC.org
 6. Make cleaning, disinfection, and care protocols and necessary training available to those responsible
for maintaining animal quarters.
7. Have the supplies and tools onsite and available to achieve clean and healthy living quarters on a daily
basis.
8. Ensure animals have appropriate housing, heating, ventilation, light, and sound control as described in
the Guidelines for Standers of Care in Animal Shelters published by The Association of Shelter
Veterinarians.
9. See that all animals on the property receives proper veterinary care as necessary to treat illness,
disease or injury to prevent the transmittal of disease, to be vaccinated as required by law in order to
promote humane animal health in a timely fashion. Medical and treatment records must be kept with
each individual animal’s records and be readily available upon request.
10. All bites must be reported to the Humane Society of St. Joseph County within 24 hours.
11. Establish policies and protocols that reflect The Five Freedoms for Animal Welfare
a. Freedom from Hunger and Thirst: by ready access to fresh water and a diet to maintain full
health and vigor
b. Freedom from Discomfort: by providing an appropriate environment including shelter and a
comfortable resting area
c. Freedom from Pain, Injury or Disease: by prevention or rapid diagnosis and treatment
d. Freedom to Express Normal Behavior: by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and
company of the animal’s own kind
e. Freedom from Fear and Distress: by ensuring conditions and treatment which avoid mental
suffering

INSPECTION
ACO Langford walked through and compiled a spread sheet of all the animals in the kennel. She counted one
hundred sixty-eight dogs and two cats in ninety-three (93) runs. This is an increase of eights dogs from our last
visit on March 23, 2019.
I, ACO A. Kirkeby made my way through the kennel with kennel owner, Sandra Martinez for a period of time
and periodically talked with Homeward Bound’s president, Jen Schwartz. During this inspection Sandra, Jen,
and I had a discussion in the front lobby.
According to the Guidelines for Standers of Care in Animal Shelters (GSCAS) every animal should have a unique
name and/or number upon intake. In addition, there should be a record for each animal which is described in
GSCAS as followed “Basic elements of a record should include; the identifier, results of microchip scan,
microchip number if present, source of animal, dates of entry and departure, outcome, species, age, gender,
physical description (breed and colors), and available medical and behavioral information”(GSCAS, pg 6).
Proper record keeping is vital to the safety of the animals, staff, and guests. Record keeping promotes the
ability to gather accurate data such as length of stay, medical, and behavioral issues. Without proper record
keeping it difficult to ensure physical and psychological well-being of the animals.
San Mar’s largest client is Homeward Bound Animal Welfare Group. Homeward Bound uses a website called
PetFinder to post their adoptable animals for potential adopters to view on the internet. Through the website
one is able to create pet profiles and it generate identification number for each animal. Most of the
Homeward Bound dogs had PetFinder identification cards with intake date that hung on the chain link fence
Page 2 of 12
on each dog run. However there were several runs with only a colored piece of paper with a brief description
of the dog. The Homeward Bound dogs without PetFinder identification cards did not have identification
numbers and/or name. For example Exhibit 1 shows a red piece of paper only providing information with
breed and color. Exhibit 2 is a red piece a paper with gender, breed, color, and intake date. The intake date of
November 23, 2017 indicates that this dog has been at San Mar Kennels for over 2 years without a name and
is not on PetFinder available for adoption.
The private client boarding dogs had their rabies certificate and note cards hanging on their run. These note
cards had very limited information. Exhibit 3 shows a note card that was hung on a private client dog’s kennel.
The note card included animal’s name, owner’s phone number, and color. Sandra disclosed that once we leave
the rabies certificates for private boarding dogs will be removed from the dog’s run and put back in a box. This
is concerning because her note cards have very limited information. For the remainder of this report I will
refer to the note cards, PetFinder cards and colored pieces of paper as identification cards.
During a previous inspection on March 23, 2019 I requested each dog run have an identification card present
on both ends of the dog run for the dog(s) that occupy that run. So regardless of what side the dog(s) is on one
knows what dog and number of dogs live in that particular run.
Eleven (11) runs in were labeled with numbers but the remaining eighty-two (82) runs of the kennel did not
have a numbering system, which was requested in the February 27, 2019 letter and at the March 23, 2019
inspection.
I asked to see their medical sheets. Sandra stated they didn’t have one because none of the dogs were on
medication. Later during the inspection an employee clarified and said there is one dog who just started
medication today for a wound on his ear. This dog allegedly started medications today, June 3, 2019, for a
wound on his ear, but there was no record of this.
Jen Schwartz said she has documentation of all the Homeward Bound dogs who have tested positive for
heartworm disease in a log book which includes dates of treatment and who completed the treatment. This
was not at the kennel therefore we are unable to verify the logs existence. Jen said she will email this to me.
As June 12, 2019 we have not received any proof this log book.
San Mar Kennels has several Homeward Bound dogs living in crates and dog cage banks. This area is one of the
sections they did not allow us to see on pervious inspections. The dogs living in the dog cage banks are small
dogs under twenty pounds. They all had newspaper or shredded paper in their cage. Directly across from this
dog cage bank are medium and large dogs in dog runs. Due to this set up, the dogs face each other with
roughly five (5) feet of walkway in-between. Some of these small dogs have been at San Mar for several
months. For example Exhibit 4 is a dog named “Joltik” a Chihuahua/Pug mix with an identification card that
states his intake day as November 30, 2017 and Exhibit 5 dog named “Bacada” Dachshund Chihuahua mix with
an intake date of October 23, 2018. Several of these small dogs appear terrified and/or cage aggressive. I
observed them snarl and repeatedly biting the front of their cage when I put my hand towards the cage door.
Sandra told me her staff does not clean or care for these animals and they are cared for by Homeward Bound
volunteers. She said volunteers are there every day and to clean and get the dogs out for exercise.
We witnessed a handful of dogs that have been there for over year according to the intake dates listed on the
PetFinder identification cards. The longest resident was a Boxer/Lab mix named “Jock” who came in on
September 1, 2014. Others have been there since 2016 and 2017:

Page 3 of 12
  “Living for the City” intake date September  “Toucannon” intake date October 19, 2017
14, 2016
 “Sandygast” intake date October 25, 2017
 “How Deep is Your Love” intake date
 “Jangmo” intake date October 30, 2017
November 4, 2016
 “Turonator” intake date October 30, 2017
 “Harlan” intake date September 13, 2017
 “Miltank” intake date December 4, 2017
 “Inside Information” intake date October 6,
2017  “Reuniclus” intake December 28, 2017
Dog named “Maderno” identification card provides an intake date of January 31, 2018. I didn’t think that date
was accurate since I’ve observed this same dog on previous inspections, so I asked Jen Schwartz about his
intake date. Jen stated that the intake date was wrong, that he has been here for a while and has been
returned three times. Sandra has reported to me at pervious inspections that “Maderno” is a biter.
As I was near the outdoor pens Jen yelled to me “Amy, we are thinking about euthanizing that dog!” I went to
get a closer look and a Great Pyrenees almost bit me when I was leaning on the railing of its pen. Thinking they
were euthanizing him for medical reason as there are no caution signs and the railing is 3-4 ft tall. The dog
could probably jump the fence. I got out of the way before the dog could get to me. Jen explained that the dog
is aggressive and she can’t even handle him. He appeared matted and dirty. It’s clear this animal is not being
groomed or socialized.
I observed approximately 30% of all dogs within the kennel having long nails and/or in need of grooming. See
Exhibit 6 and 7.
I also witnessed and video recorded a brown brindle with white Bulldog type dog biting a Lab type dog in the
neighboring run. I did not see any punctures on the victim dog. I pointed this out to Jen. She asked me how we
handle dogs who do that at our shelter. I told her we do not have primary living kennels made with chain link
fence and he should not be next to other dogs. She indicated she would have the dog moved. Jen left before
the end of our inspection and the dog had not been moved.
During this inspection I witnessed areas that do not have any natural light or windows. I observed parts of the
kennel without out lights on and watched Mrs. Martinez shut off lights as we left certain sections of the
kennel. It appears some dogs are in the dark for long periods of time. Sandra complained about her expensive
electric bill and showed me their electric bill which was over a $1,000+ per month.
While walking the kennel area I witnessed and video recorded an employee spraying a kennel down while the
dog was in the same kennel huddled in the corner which is completely unacceptable.
I asked Sandra what she thought would be an acceptable capacity for care number as described in the
requirements for obtaining the kennel permit. Sandra has decided that they can humanely care for one
hundred and twenty animals. Jen Schwartz was also present at the time of this discussion and argued with
Mrs. Martinez that the capacity for care number is one hundred and thirty-two animals. After Ms. Schwartz
left Mrs. Martinez indicated that her capacity for care number was one hundred and twenty. She picked this
number based on the number of kennels they have, which is ninety-three, and some are large enough for two
dogs. She did not consider the number of staff they have or the GSCAS which recommends fifteen (15)
minutes per day to humanely care for each dog.

Page 4 of 12
During our inspection on March 23, 2019 I asked Jen Schwartz to have a volunteer log book for accountability
for the animal’s care. The volunteer hour log book would include name of volunteer, start and end time, and
what they did while they were at San Mar Kennels. This is very important to the animal’s well-being as its been
explained to me by Sandra and Jen that Homeward Bound volunteers are the only ones who are socializing
and providing mental and physical exercise to the Homeward Bound dogs. Without a record system there is no
way to verify each animal is receiving adequate care. This log could not be provided at the time of our
inspection and as June 12, 2019 we have not received documentation of the volunteer log book.
Jen Schwartz of Homeward Bound Animal Welfare Group has a unique relationship with San Mar Kennels. Jen
identifies herself as a paying client. However, kennel owner, Sandra Martinez reported at previous inspections
that she does not charged Homeward Bound to house rescue animals there. However, Sandra reports that Jen
Schwartz pays the salaries of the two full-time employee and a portion of the removal of waste, water, and
the electric bill. The relationship between vendor and client is often times concerning because their roles and
responsibility are unclear. This makes it challenging to hold the proper party accountable to ensure the
physical and mental well-being is being met for such a large number of animals. This also reveals one or both
parties are not being honest with our agency in an attempt to pass off accountability.
INSPECTION EVALUATION
1. Capacity for Care: FAILED
a. By San Mar’s own accounting their capacity for care is 120 animals, which means they are
currently housing 50 more animals than they capable of caring for.
b. “Every sheltering organization has a maximum capacity for care, and the population in their
care must not exceed that level. Factors that determine capacity for care include: the number
of appropriate housing units; staffing for programs or services; staff training; average length of
stay; and the total number of reclaims, adoptions, transfers, release, or other outcomes….
Operating beyond an organization’s capacity for care is an unacceptable practice (GSCAS,
12pg).”
c. San Mar has three full-time employees (including Mrs. Martinez) and two part-time employee
per Mrs. Martinez.
d. San Mar’s capacity for care number should be a maximum of ninety (90) animals.
e. “The National Animal Control Association [NACA] and the Humane Society of the United States
[HSUS 2010] recommend a minimum of 15 minutes of care time per day for feeding and
cleaning each animal housed in the shelter [9 minutes for cleaning and 6 minutes for feeding]
(HSUS 2010; NACA 2009b; GSCAS, page 12).”
f. If San Mar has ninety (90) animals they would need twenty-two and a half (22.5) hours of care
each day. 22.5 hours multiplied by 7 days a week equals 157.5 weekly hours (22.5x7=157.5
weekly hours). 157.5 is the required number of care hours per week to care for ninety animals.
g. 157.5 hours divided by 4 employees = 39.38 hours per week. In summary, the two part-time
employees must work at least 20 hours per week with the other three full-time employees
working 40 hours each week in order for San Mar to meet the minimal care hours of 157.5
weekly. Ideally they should have more employees for socialization, exercising the animals, and
providing medical care.
Page 5 of 12
 h. In addition, they have ninety-three (93) kennels so their capacity for care being at ninety (90)
would allow them to have enough room to properly clean kennels in the colder months when it
is not appropriate for animals to be in the non-temperature controlled area of the kennel. Also
this would reduce the risk of dogs injuring each other by only having one dog per kennel.
Additionally, if there is a dog that is aggressive towards other dogs, San Mar now has the ability
to have an empty kennel in-between the aggressive dog and the next kennel. This would also
prevent employees feeling the need to spray kennels while animals are in them. In addition this
would eliminate dogs living in a dark room, in crates or dog cage banks.
i. Unsocialized and potentially aggressive animals are being housed at the facility that kennel staff
and client/owner are unable to handle and it is unknown if there is behavioral assessment and
plans in place for these animals. This is hazardous for kennel staff, clients, guests of San Mar,
and the animals themselves. By being at a manageable capacity for care, San Mar & Homeward
Bound can focus on providing these type of animals with the one-on-one care they require for
maintaining their physical and mental health.

j. Lowering the capacity to ninety (90) animals would allow San Mar and their largest client to
focus on adopting out the animals who have been there for years and have the time to provide
more one-on one medical attention, nail trims, and other grooming needs.
2. Submission of Rabies Certificates: NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
a. For the Homewards Bound dogs there is plastic bin that contains files for each dog which has
their rabies certificate and vaccinations administered. The few private boarding dogs rabies
certificate are stored in a box without any filing system.
b. Recommendation: I would recommend implementing a filing system where there are ninety-
three (93) slots in a filing cabinet for each kennel and each animal’s medical paperwork and
vaccinations would be in that slot number that corresponds to their kennel number.
3. Animal Record Keeping System: FAILED
a. A record keeping system shall be in place to identify each animal within San Mar Kennel’s care
to ensure proper record keeping. These records should be organized and easily accessible.
Records shall include the following:
i. Owner name, address, and phone number
ii. Intake date and exit date
iii. Identifier (e.g. record number/name/microchip number)
iv. Physical description (breed, color, approximate age, sex)
v. Type of vaccinations given and dates
vi. Rabies certificate
vii. If animals have been prescribed medication, you should have a medical treatment plan
sheet with dates and times treatment was given

Page 6 of 12
 b. They have three different types of identification cards, these cards are placed in a plastic holder
that hang on the chain link fencing on each run. The information provide on many of the
identification cards was insufficient. In addition, there were no medical sheets with any of
animals.
c. During my inspection on March 23, 2019 I requested each dog run have an identification cards
present on both ends, so regardless of what side the dog is on one knows what dog and
number of dogs that live in that particular run. This has not been completed.
d. All animals should receive one basic intake form and medical evaluation sheet. If the animals
are later added to PetFinder, they can have their PetFinder card displayed in addition to the
basic intake form.
e. San Mar has failed to create a cohesive record keeping system as described in the February 27,
2019 corrections letter.
4. Kennel Numbering System: FAILED
a. Kennels in section B were numbered but the rest of the kennels did not have a numbering
system. Every run should be numbered throughout the entire kennel facility.
b. San Mar has failed to provide a numbering system for each of the kennels being used to house
animals.
5. Establish Cleaning Protocols: FAILED
a. There was one “Daily Cleaning Routine” protocol posted in the laundry room near the cleaning
products. It briefly describes how to clean the outside and inside runs. The “Daily Cleaning
Routine” states they combine bleach and Hillyard vet and kennel disinfectant.
b. This cleaning protocol needs to include the dilution ration of water to disinfectant and how to
clean crates and cage banks. Based on the label of Hillyard vet and kennel disinfectant the
proper way to use it is four (4) ounces of cleaner per gallon of water and should not be mix with
bleach.
c. One of the most basic elements of running a kennel is proper sanitation and cleanliness.
Although San Mar has attempted to create a cleaning protocol, they have failed to follow basic
directions posted on their cleaning products. Basic cleaning protocols are imperative to disease
control in kennel environments.
d. Resources are readily available online at sites like ASPCAPro.org and the American Animal
Hospital Association that detail proper cleaning protocols for kennel settings. Failure to provide
a clean environment can result in the spread of disease throughout the entire kennel and to the
people and pets who may be later exposed to these animals.
6. Make cleaning, disinfection, and care protocols and necessary training available to those responsible
for maintaining animal quarters: FAILED
a. San Mar was provided the ASPCA’s “Diluting Bleach for Disinfection” guidelines on March 27,
2019. These guidelines are easy to follow and gives the user specific dilution amounts for
disinfecting kennel spaces. It is unknown if San Mar has shared this information with their staff.

Page 7 of 12
 b. San Mar’s posted “Daily Cleaning Routine” states they combine bleach and Hillyard vet and
kennel disinfectant which is contrary to the Hillyard instructions.
c. San Mar staff were observed spraying out a kennel with a hose while a dog remained in the
kennel. “When water or cleaning and disinfecting products will be sprayed in or near the area
of the primary enclosure, animals must be removed from the cage or kennel, or separated from
the area being cleaned by guillotine doors to prevent splatter, soaking of the animals and
stress. It is an unacceptable practice to spray down kennels or cages while animals are inside
them (GSCAS, 15pg).”
d. Besides the posted “Daily Cleaning Routine” it is unclear if staff and volunteers have been
trained on the daily cleaning and care of the kenneled animals.
7. Have the supplies and tools onsite and available to achieve clean and healthy living quarters on a daily
basis: PASS
a. San Mar has a plastic cabinet with doors where they store their cleaning supplies. It appeared
cleaned and organized.
8. Ensure animals have appropriate housing, heating, ventilation, light, and sound control as described in
the Guidelines for Standers of Care in Animal Shelters published by The Association of Shelter
Veterinarians: FAILED
a. The individual dog runs, crates, and bank cages had a water bowl and a food dish. Most of the
dog runs contained two dogs.
b. Some animals are living in the dark for 23+ hours a day with little to no socialization. San Mar
employees cannot even handle a portion of these animals. “Facilities should be designed to
offer as much natural light as possible. When artificial light is used, it should closely
approximate natural light in both duration and intensity [CFA 2009; Griffin 2006, New Zealand
1993; Patronek 2001] (GSCAS, 10pg).”
c. In an attempt to increase their capacity for care, dogs have been kenneled in non-insulated
runs as their primary enclosure which fails to provide any safety from extreme temperatures. In
colder months, ice was present in some of the dog’s water bowls. GSCAS states “the AVMA
recommends the ambient temperature should be kept above 60 degrees Fahrenheit and below
80 degrees Fahrenheit, and the relative humidity should range from 30 to 70% (AVMA 2008a;
GSCAS, 9pg).”
d. The structure of the kennel allows for contact between the dogs permitting bites and other
injuries to take place. Allowing cage fighting by not eliminating the possibility of contact
between caged animals and as a result injuries taking place is completely unacceptable. “The
primary enclosure must be structurally sound and maintained in safe, working condition to
properly confine animals, prevent injury, keep other animals out, and enable animals to remain
dry and clean (GSCAS, 7pg).”

e. Twelve (12) dogs were kept in small stainless steel type cages or temporary dog crates as their
primary enclosures. “Cages or crates intended for short-term, temporary confinement or travel
(e.g., airline crates, transport carriers, cages or crates designed to restrict mobility during a

Page 8 of 12
 defined period for recovery or treatment including small stainless steel cages less than 2 ft x 2
ft), are unacceptable as primary enclosures and are cruel if used as such (GSCAS, 8pg).”
f. Failed to meet basic care guidelines for animals within their facility.
9. See that all animals on the property receive proper veterinary care as necessary to treat illness, disease
or injury to prevent the transmittal of disease, to be vaccinated as required by law in order to promote
humane animal health in a timely fashion. Medical and treatment records must be kept with each
individual animal’s records and be readily available upon request: FAILED
a. Pages 18-25 of the GSCAS describe in detail the importance of key medical topics including
veterinary relationship and record keeping, considerations on intake, vaccinations, emergency
medical care, pain management, parasite control, monitoring and daily rounds, nutrition,
population well-being, response to disease or illness including isolation, diagnosis, and outbreak
response, and medical treatment of shelter animals. These standards were used in considering
if San Mar met minimum care requirements for animals under their care.

b. As mentioned in the report, San Mar has no formal medical record keeping or treatment
protocol. “All health care practices and protocols should be developed in consultation with a
veterinarian; ideally one familiar with shelter medicine. A formal relationship with a
veterinarian should be in place to ensure that those responsible for daily animal health care
have the necessary supervision and guidance. The best way to ensure that health care practices
are in keeping with professionally accepted standards is to implement written standard
operating procedures [SOPs] (GSCAS 18).”
c. There was no indication that on intake of a new animal belonging to Homeward Bound into San
Mar Kennels received a health evaluation or vaccination check. There were no records to
indicate any particular Homeward Bound animal’s health status upon intake making evaluating
the animal’s current state difficult. “Each animal should receive a health evaluation at intake to
check for signs of infectious disease and/or problems that require immediate attention [UC
Davis 2009]. Intake evaluations should be documented in the medical record (GSCAS 19).”
d. Upon request to see such medical treatment records for an injured animal, no record could be
produced. There was no indication that the animal had been seen by a veterinarian or that a
veterinarian had been consulted on the animal’s care. “Medications and treatments must only
be administered under the advice or in accordance with written protocols provided by a
veterinarian, and all drugs must be dispensed in accordance with federal and state regulations
(GSCAS 18).”

e. Of the 170 animals observed on June 3, 2019, San Mar claims to of only had one animal on a
medical treatment plan. This is completely incomprehensible given the fact that the animals
being kept at San Mar range in age, breed, and are received with often unknown health
statuses.
f. There were no basic medical protocols available to be reviewed including no vaccination
protocol for incoming animals and those who may be in need of boosters. “Vaccines are vital

Page 9 of 12
 lifesaving tools that must be used as part of a preventative shelter healthcare program.
Vaccination protocols used for individual pets in homes are not adequate in most population
settings (GSCAS, 19).”
g. “Rounds must be conducted at least once every 24 hours by a trained individual in order to
visually observe and monitor the health and well-being of every animal. Monitoring should
include food and water consumption, urination, defecations, attitude, behavior, ambulation,
and signs of illness or other problems (CFA 2009; New Zealand 2007; US Davis 2007; CSCAS
21).” It still remains unclear as to who shoulders responsibility for the daily rounds and
observations of the animals being kept at San Mar. Failure to provide a structured daily routine
to identify and observe changes in health, well-being, and behavior has resulted in at least 1/3
of the animals in need of basic grooming and nail trimming. An untold number of animals may
be in need of basic and additional veterinary care including identifying urinary tract infections,
fleas, heartworm disease, pain management, stress relief through medication, and routine
vaccinations to promote a healthy kennel setting.
h. This category is of the most importance to the well-being and care for the animals kenneled at
San Mar. It is very alarming and disheartening to discover that even after being presented with
clear guidelines of care that San Mar and their largest client, Homeward Bound, fail to meet
these basic standards of care.

10. Report All Bites: UNKNOWN

a. It is unknown how many bite incidents have taken place at San Mar Kennels.
b. Since January 1, 2019, no bites have been reported.
c. According to local ordinances, bites must be reported to our agency within 24 hours of incident.
11. Five Freedoms: FAILED
a. The Five Freedoms are:
i. Freedom from hunger and thirst
ii. Freedom from discomfort
iii. Freedom from pain, injury, or disease
iv. Freedom to express normal behavior and
v. Freedom from fear and distress
b. It appears all of the animals at San Mar Kennels are free from hunger and thirst.
c. Majority of the dogs did not have bedding for a comfortable resting place and are made to lay
on bare kennel floors. Animals currently have temperature controlled shelter due to the
increase of temperatures outside, but in the colder month’s dog’s water bowls were freezing
and the dogs did not have adequate shelter from the cold.

Page 10 of 12
d. There is no documentation or protocols present for treatment and diagnoses of injury, illness,
or disease.
e. There was no record available showing that the dogs receive daily physical and mental
stimulation by staff or volunteers. Some animals living in crates and stainless steel cages are so
unsocialized that San Mar staff doesn’t even handle them.
f. It appears that by being passive in remedying kennel fighting issues, long lengths of stays, and
the lack of one-on-one daily interaction has increased, at least in some of the animals, their fear
and distress within the kennel setting.

Page 11 of 12
CONCLUSION
In determining what humane animal care practices are, the Guidelines for Standers of Care in Animal Shelters
published by The Association of Shelter Veterinarians was used in producing requirements to be met by San
Mar Kennels. As stated in the forward of the GSCAS “The Guidelines are meant to be applicable to virtually any
situation in which care for companion animals is delivered in a group or population setting, including
traditional brick and mortar shelters, sanctuaries and home based foster or rescue networks (v).” San Mar is
currently operating as a pseudo animal shelter by housing over 150 canines for one client, Homeward Bound
Animal Welfare Group.
As such, San Mar has been relying on Homeward Bound Animal Welfare Group to provide volunteer staffing
hours to clean, exercise and socialize the vast majority of the animals being kept on property. This reliance on
an unstructured schedule, based on variable volunteer availability and unknown training of such volunteers
has added to the unreliable care and unorganized record keeping seen within San Mar Kennels.
Kennel owner Sandra Martinez appears to have little control in the number of animals within her facility and
the workings of the daily routine within the kennel. This may be due in part to being overwhelmed by the
large number of animals being boarded by Homeward Bound Animal Welfare Group and the lack of staff and
resources to properly care for so many animals. It appears that Homeward Bound does as they please with no
regard to Mrs. Martinez, the staff at San Mar Kennels, or the animals themselves.
Living and care conditions within San Mar Kennels meet the St. Joseph County Animal Control Ordinance
definition of an animal hoarded:
ANIMAL HOARDER. any person who
(1) having one (1) or more animals and failing to provide adequate standards of nutrition, sanitation,
shelter, and veterinary care, with this neglect often resulting in illness and death from starvation,
spread of infectious disease, and untreated injury or medical condition;
(2) Persistence, despite this failure, in accumulating and controlling animals.

The February 27, 2019 correction letter as described above was in response to the February 21, 2019 denial of
San Mar’s 2019 kennel permit based on previous and chronic ordinance violations. It is clear that even with
specific requirements, educational resources, and three months to remedy the issues that San Mar is unable
to meet such requirements and has continued to increase the number of animals within their facility.
Due to the ongoing and serious nature of these violations, a fine of $250.00 will be issued for each “FAILED”
violation described above totally $2,000.00. San Mar Kennel’s kennel permit application is hereby denied. As
such, San Mar Kennel must immediately cease kennel operations and have all client and boarded animals
removed from the property within two weeks.

This report is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.

ACO A. Kirkeby, 434

Witnesses to this report: ACO E. Langford, 430 & Executive Director, Genny Carlson
Page 12 of 12