Post by Brooke on Jun 20, 2005 19:30:11 GMT -5
Friday, June 17, 2005 3:17 PM CDT
Euthanasia practices at shelter
By Ruth Stanley
Managing Editor
Following the resignation of animal shelter director Helen Bensch at the end of May, euthanasia practices at the Whitley County animal shelter have come under fire by volunteers, who say that several unnecessary euthanasias were performed at the shelter.
Dr. Colleen Quinn, a veterinarian who is also the vice chairman of the board of the directors for the animal shelter, acknowledges that some (animal) euthanasias were performed after Bensch's departure to alleviate overcrowded conditions, but added that adoptions at the shelter also continued at a steady pace over the same time frame.
"We euthanized some that had been there a very long time. We didn't randomly go in and euthanize animals. Because of health and space issues, we had to make some decisions," Quinn said.
Some of the animals euthanized had been at the shelter since September, according to Laura Gater who is one of several volunteers upset that adoptable animals were euthanized in order to make space.
"Yes, all the cages were full and we had four mother cats and their kittens in portable cages on the floor, but they were all being taken care of. Why couldn't she have waited a little longer?" Gater asked.
Quinn says because the shelter was full, and the shelter is bound by contracts not to turn away animals, some animals had to be euthanized in order to make space.
The shelter has contracts with county and municipal governments requiring them to not turn away any animal and to hold animals for 14 days.
When the shelter becomes full, it becomes necessary to euthanize some of the animals in order to make room for the new ones coming in.
Gater said as a volunteer she was aware of the terms of the contract and understands that euthanasias are necessary at the shelter, but does not believe that the ones that occurred after Bensch's resignation were necessary.
She said there is room to add more cages in two of the cat rooms, and while she understands there is a cost involved, believes that would have been a better solution than euthanization.
"If there's room and these animals are young and healthy, why can't we keep them longer? she said.
Gater would like to see policies that keep the animals at the shelter longer, thereby giving them a better chance at a better life.
Quinn questions the quality of life of animals who are kept in cages for long periods of time.
"It's not fair to make an animal sit in a cage for six or eight months in a stressful environment," Quinn said.
The length of time that some animals were kept at the shelter led to contract issues.
Despite the contractual requirement that no animal be turned away, both Roberta Lytle, a former employee, and Bensch said there was a waiting list at times to get animals into the shelter. Lytle said it was never more than four or five people and that the longest wait may have been three weeks during a time that the shelter was quarantined for a parvo virus outbreak. Bensch said most of the people on the waiting list were animal sign-overs, that is people who were giving up their pets.
Euthanasia guidelines provided to The Post & Mail by the Humane Society of Whitley County list seven points that help determine euthanasia. The final guideline is "if the animal shelter and adoption center does not have space to adequately house all animals in its care at any given time the animals deemed 'least adoptable' shall be euthanized to make space."
Bensch, who made the decisions on which animals to euthanize, admits she has a conservative stance toward euthanizing them, but argues that the board never had a policy on euthanasia. She said she knew she was to euthanize sick, aggressive and older animals when space became a problem.
Quinn points out that one of the reasons Bensch, who was the shelter's first director, was hired was because of her experience in animal shelters and familiarity with policies and procedures.
"The board's initial thought was to hire a director with experience to help us develop the policies and procedures of the shelter," Quinn said, adding that all the policies in place are now being reviewed.
Quinn noted that Bensch's conservative stance toward euthanasia combined with the spring influx of animals contributed to a population explosion at the shelter.
"I don't understand why you would euthanize adoptable animals to make room for something that may not be adoptable. But then that all goes to space," said Bensch, who said she was aware of the contractual obligations the animal shelter had.
Bensch also said that there is a group among the volunteers who really wanted the shelter to have no-kill policy, despite the fact that she told employees and volunteers that the shelter does euthanize.
"I was very clear about telling them that we do euthanize in the event that the animal is sick or aggressive," Bensch said. "The problem came in when healthy adoptable animals were euthanized."
Quinn also said that the message has been made clear since the animal shelter project began.
"We have never said that the shelter is a no-kill shelter," said Quinn. "I understand being upset that we have to euthanize animals, but we have never said we were a no-kill shelter.
"It's not that we accept euthanasia as a means of population control, but at this time euthanasia is necessary in order to carry out our mission of controlling the overpopulation of animals in this county."
Both Bensch and Quinn agree that euthanasia doesn't fix the underlying problem.
"Our goal is to help fix the underlying problem by spaying and neutering," said Quinn, who added that the anger should be directed at the underlying problem and not the temporary solution.
Bensch said, "overall, the long-term solution is spaying and neutering and owners being responsible and accepting accountability for their pets."
www.thepostandmail.com/articles/2005/06/17/news/news/news01.txt
Euthanasia practices at shelter
By Ruth Stanley
Managing Editor
Following the resignation of animal shelter director Helen Bensch at the end of May, euthanasia practices at the Whitley County animal shelter have come under fire by volunteers, who say that several unnecessary euthanasias were performed at the shelter.
Dr. Colleen Quinn, a veterinarian who is also the vice chairman of the board of the directors for the animal shelter, acknowledges that some (animal) euthanasias were performed after Bensch's departure to alleviate overcrowded conditions, but added that adoptions at the shelter also continued at a steady pace over the same time frame.
"We euthanized some that had been there a very long time. We didn't randomly go in and euthanize animals. Because of health and space issues, we had to make some decisions," Quinn said.
Some of the animals euthanized had been at the shelter since September, according to Laura Gater who is one of several volunteers upset that adoptable animals were euthanized in order to make space.
"Yes, all the cages were full and we had four mother cats and their kittens in portable cages on the floor, but they were all being taken care of. Why couldn't she have waited a little longer?" Gater asked.
Quinn says because the shelter was full, and the shelter is bound by contracts not to turn away animals, some animals had to be euthanized in order to make space.
The shelter has contracts with county and municipal governments requiring them to not turn away any animal and to hold animals for 14 days.
When the shelter becomes full, it becomes necessary to euthanize some of the animals in order to make room for the new ones coming in.
Gater said as a volunteer she was aware of the terms of the contract and understands that euthanasias are necessary at the shelter, but does not believe that the ones that occurred after Bensch's resignation were necessary.
She said there is room to add more cages in two of the cat rooms, and while she understands there is a cost involved, believes that would have been a better solution than euthanization.
"If there's room and these animals are young and healthy, why can't we keep them longer? she said.
Gater would like to see policies that keep the animals at the shelter longer, thereby giving them a better chance at a better life.
Quinn questions the quality of life of animals who are kept in cages for long periods of time.
"It's not fair to make an animal sit in a cage for six or eight months in a stressful environment," Quinn said.
The length of time that some animals were kept at the shelter led to contract issues.
Despite the contractual requirement that no animal be turned away, both Roberta Lytle, a former employee, and Bensch said there was a waiting list at times to get animals into the shelter. Lytle said it was never more than four or five people and that the longest wait may have been three weeks during a time that the shelter was quarantined for a parvo virus outbreak. Bensch said most of the people on the waiting list were animal sign-overs, that is people who were giving up their pets.
Euthanasia guidelines provided to The Post & Mail by the Humane Society of Whitley County list seven points that help determine euthanasia. The final guideline is "if the animal shelter and adoption center does not have space to adequately house all animals in its care at any given time the animals deemed 'least adoptable' shall be euthanized to make space."
Bensch, who made the decisions on which animals to euthanize, admits she has a conservative stance toward euthanizing them, but argues that the board never had a policy on euthanasia. She said she knew she was to euthanize sick, aggressive and older animals when space became a problem.
Quinn points out that one of the reasons Bensch, who was the shelter's first director, was hired was because of her experience in animal shelters and familiarity with policies and procedures.
"The board's initial thought was to hire a director with experience to help us develop the policies and procedures of the shelter," Quinn said, adding that all the policies in place are now being reviewed.
Quinn noted that Bensch's conservative stance toward euthanasia combined with the spring influx of animals contributed to a population explosion at the shelter.
"I don't understand why you would euthanize adoptable animals to make room for something that may not be adoptable. But then that all goes to space," said Bensch, who said she was aware of the contractual obligations the animal shelter had.
Bensch also said that there is a group among the volunteers who really wanted the shelter to have no-kill policy, despite the fact that she told employees and volunteers that the shelter does euthanize.
"I was very clear about telling them that we do euthanize in the event that the animal is sick or aggressive," Bensch said. "The problem came in when healthy adoptable animals were euthanized."
Quinn also said that the message has been made clear since the animal shelter project began.
"We have never said that the shelter is a no-kill shelter," said Quinn. "I understand being upset that we have to euthanize animals, but we have never said we were a no-kill shelter.
"It's not that we accept euthanasia as a means of population control, but at this time euthanasia is necessary in order to carry out our mission of controlling the overpopulation of animals in this county."
Both Bensch and Quinn agree that euthanasia doesn't fix the underlying problem.
"Our goal is to help fix the underlying problem by spaying and neutering," said Quinn, who added that the anger should be directed at the underlying problem and not the temporary solution.
Bensch said, "overall, the long-term solution is spaying and neutering and owners being responsible and accepting accountability for their pets."
www.thepostandmail.com/articles/2005/06/17/news/news/news01.txt