Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Shelter Director fired for excessive euthanizations
#1
I am glad action was taken quickly against the shelter director. She had 20 animals put down in one day. Only some of them for medical reasons. I don't know what she was thinking of, but she clearly didn't understand that she was supposed to find homes for the animals.


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...-1.1971647

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/dire...r-a/nhggH/

I am glad they reacted so quickly. It means they are committed to finding homes for the animals. Good for the volunteer who had the courage to report the Director.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#2
I agree. The Sheriff's office seems to have acted very speedily indeed. By doing that, it has saved the lives of countless animals which otherwise might easily have euthanised in the future. Also, the volunteer was right to "shop" the director, as compassion overrides work loyalty.

The director was clearly informed of the new policy about avoiding euthanisation whenever possible, so she had no excuse.
Reply
#3
I can't imagine what the director thought she was doing.
I understand the Sherriff's office changed its animal policies in response to the actions of animal rights people. They got rid of the Director quickly for the same reason. Our interest and response to animal situations around the world are having an effect. People who make decisions about animals are starting to listen.

I just came across another article so I will add it to this post.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lake...story.html
147 animals dead in 9 days!
I think that is grounds for dismissal from a no kill shelter!
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#4
A very similar case, but worse!
Reply
#5
It is the same case, but it seems things were worse than originally reported. I wonder how she lasted 9 days. I guess it took a courageous volunteer to report her.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply
#6
147 animals in 9 days! How terrible! May this lady come to realise and regret the error of her ways in due course....
Reply
#7
These stories are both horrific.

I heard of another one also, the last few days. I can't recall where I read it but if I find the link I will post. It was a case of a dog who went missing, and the dog's microchip details were circulated to various people including shelters. Apparently the dog was scanned, the caretaker contacted, and she was very happy. Yet by the time she got to the shelter her dog had been put to sleep.

However...what some people don't realise about "Shelters" (as opposed to "Rescues") is that in many busy places, any animal taken in is still in great danger. Should that animal develop kennel cough, even so much as a sniffle or runny eyes, it is destined to be euthanised. Any animal who doesn't pass re-homing criteria tests is also destined for euthanasia.
That could -and often does mean- an animal who is shy, very depressed, defensive over its food, terrified....etc.
It is heartbreaking.
Reply
#8
I know that story about the dog being euthanized. She had called and talked to the shelter, but when she arrived the next day, the dog had been killed. (I can't find the article either)

Shelters are only safe if they are "No Kill" shelters. Their definition of adoptable is much broader. They also use foster homes for damaged animals to give them a chance to recover. Euthanasia is a last resort when no other option is kind and merciful. I understand that my local shelter actually reviews all euthanasia cases afterwards just to make sure that the euthanasia criteria are acceptable.

I think a lot of shelters are moving towards a No Kill standard. Certainly the shelter in the article is moving towards being a no kill shelter. This wholesale slaughter goes totally against what she was hired to do. 147 in 9 days. What vet would put up with that.
[Image: IMG_9091.JPG]
Catherine

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Created by Zyggy's Web Design