Another euthanasia today

We received this email last night from staff:

I made the decision to euthanize Sampson (A501475, was in kennel 3) this evening because he jumped the exercise pen fence and attacked another dog who was bieng walked back to his kennel after surgery. It took 4 staff members 5 minutes and many desperate efforts to get Sampson to let go of the other dogs neck and head. The victim dog went home with his adopter shortly after with treatable injuries, but due to the severity and tenacity of the attack, I removed Sampson and requested that he be euthanized.

I have to note this one because staff did recently promise to give us a week's notice before euthanizing a dog. However, after the incident with Derby did not produce any options, they probably thought that this would be the most humane decision. There's certainly no point in putting a dog in a stray kennel, where no one will interact with him, if he's going to be euthanized anyway in a few days.

It's still a little bothersome to have received no other explanation for why they didn't give us the week's notice after all of the trust issues were discussed so vehemently the other night. Anyway, there could be a really good reason for it and I don't plan to challenge any of it, I just thought I should document it.

Bonding "problems", Part 4

We received this from staff yesterday:

Cornbread in Kennel 55, ID A499195 had to be euthanized yesterday. His ringworm had gotten worse and worse and was not responding well to treatment. He then developed some sort of infection in his eye and we just didn't feel he was doing well here in the adoption program.

We then got another email from staff:

Everyday TLAC staff has to make tough decisions about which animals get to go to adoption and which ones don't. These decisions are never, ever made lightly. With limited kennels, limited resources and the reality of dogs in our care deteriorating no matter what we do to try to protect them - TLAC Staff makes theses decisions every day. Our hope is that before staff, and especially volunteers, get attached to animals that do not have a very good chance of ever getting reclaimed, rescued or adopted, the animal leaves the shelter as quickly and peacefully as possible.

Is this the best solution? Of course not, in a perfect world every animal would be given a chance at adoption, no matter how long it took. We are not there yet - each and every one of us is moving towards that goal in every moment of our lives - but we simply are not there yet.

This brings me to Lefty. He had a bum front left leg - no telling how long it had been that way and what it might have taken to fix it. His mouth was full of infected, abscessed teeth (the ones he had left anyway). We was high heartworm positive. He was a two year old unaltered pit bull. Could he have gotten adopted? Perhaps. But each day he was in an adoption kennel, countless other dogs, more adoptable, healthier dogs, would not have even been given a chance. We had to take all of these things into consideration when we decided to remove him from the program this morning.

We do our best to keep dogs who we truly feel are not good adoption candidates from landing in adoption kennels, but sometimes they slip through the cracks. I apologize profusely to anyone who may have become attached to Lefty during his short stay in Kennel 49.

I need to comment on a few things here. First, this sentence: "Our hope is that before staff, and especially volunteers, get attached to animals that do not have a very good chance of ever getting reclaimed, rescued or adopted, the animal leaves the shelter as quickly and peacefully as possible. "


I suppose that this confirms what I'd feared...that staff is trying to euthanize dogs faster who might have issues so that we won't become bonded to them.


Whenever they euthanize a dog and volunteers get upset, we are always told that "These situations are not about what is best or easiest on our own human emotions but on the needs of the animals. " (See letter from staff at end of this posting.)


So, it's "not about what is best or easiest on our own human emotions" when they kill a dog with whom we have bonded, but then they're killing dogs sooner, before we've had a chance to bond, to help protect us from our own emotions. Seems to me like if it's not about our own emotions, then we shouldn't be proactively killing dogs to avoid potential heartbreak in the future.


Next, the part about Lefty slipping through the cracks and making it into the adoption program, has already been commented on by another volunteer:

First, I was dismayed that Lefty was described as falling through the cracks because he made it to adoption. I would say he had every right to make it to adoption, and should have been given every chance to succeed. I would say that he fell through the cracks when he was euthanized at TLAC. I am sorry that Cornbread was killed because of ring worm and "some sort of eye infection."

Which leads me to the last piece on which I want to comment - euthanizing Cornbread for having ringworm and an eye infection. This posting is already getting very long. I think I'll save this one for the next posting.

Bonding "problems", Part 3

I talked to the volunteer coordinator this weekend about the euthanization policy and she cleared up any confusion for me. She said that the policy has not changed and that the recent euthanizations were merely forgotten about. Staff is still committed to notifying us when this happens.

On Saturday, another two were euthanized and we were notified. That makes 4 dogs in a month, which is really high. I'm very concerned that we have a trend starting, but we'll see what the next few months bring.

Bonding "problems", Part 2

Here's a volunteer's response to the last email from staff on the issue of euthanization notices and why the policy seems to have changed:

It appears that our definitions of "Sadness" differ - that's unfortunate. Sadness for me, is not a label.

An animal that is brought into the adoption program, proves that that animal is mentally sound and healthy to deserve a shot at adoption. A lot of animals that qualify and don't even get this opportunity - that's tragic, but an animal that's pulled out of adoption because he/she succumbed to the stress and couldn't take it anymore (and thus now is a danger to all those around) is no less devastating. Hence, a dog's mental or physical disposition has no bearing on the sadness of a situation. Also, at the cost of being repetitive, How does informing the outcome for an animal hamper the safety of the environment? How are they even remotely related? It just sounds incredible.

Indeed, its a courtesy TLAC extends us by informing us about the status of the animals we toil and care for. Its much appreciated. Perhaps, if the staff had the time,
opportunity and encouragement to spend only an hour (or even a half) with an animal of their choice, once a week, such a courtesy might appear to be a natural and a compassionate gesture. But that's a whole different debate that needs a separate forum. But please, make no mistake, a volunteer who doesn't care much for being notified of the tragic news doesn't see the rationale or the emotions behind those to request such a courtesy. A compromise it may be, but both sides respect and empathize with other's feelings.

There also appears, and I repeat, a significant shift and contradiction in management policy. You first email categorically states, and I quote: "Notification of euthanization WILL NOT be made for an animal that must be removed right away for behavior or health issues" while your last email suggests that "Every effort to notify volunteers with a "sad news" is made . . ." So what has changed and why? Your emails do not explain this anywhere.

I appreciate Sarah for her efforts in writing a depressing email each time something happens. I think its brave and extremely difficult. Also, I don't think that TLAC management is without care, there are places where in volunteers don't have the opportunity to even express themselves as I do right now. But why do you refuse to take a hand that is offered to you? I've been here for over two years, the dogmanners program has come a very long way. Its never been as strong as it is now. How do you think this occurred? And more importantly, how do you expect it to go on, if you don't offer us the trust you expect in return? Volunteers can't expected to be dictated upon without offering a plausible explanation . . . we'd like to be seen as a worthy partner. I've said enough and I thank you for reading thus far. It's all I have to say and you won't be hearing from me on this issue anymore. This email is not directed at all at [the volunteer coordinator], I hold her in very high esteem . . . but it certainly deserves an honest introspection from management. "

And here's the result of the "honest introspection from management", yet still no direct answer acknowledging that the policy has changed or why:

Every effort will be made to notify volunteers with a "SAD NEWS" Yahoo! posting when an adoption animal is pulled from the program.

Check adoption outcome reports and "ALL" animals on our website by animal ID#. Remember to keep track of the animal ID # if you want to email me for the specific outcome of the animal.

Bonding "problems"

I had a very troubling conversation with staff about a month ago, which I've already once written about. In that conversation, they mentioned that they didn't like how bonded the volunteers are becoming with the dogs and that they perhaps need to start euthanizing dogs earlier who might become problems, to avoid the bond and the difficulties caused when they decide it's time to euthanize.

In the past few weeks, three dogs have been euthanized without a notice going out to the volunteers. We only know about this because of volunteers tracking dogs, noticing a dog isn't around and that it wasn't on the list of adopted dogs, and inquiring from staff in person to find out what happened. We've had an understanding with staff that we be notified of an adoption dog getting euthanized (as opposed to the unlucky 30 animals a day who are euthanized in the stray area and never even make it into the adoption program). I sent an email to find out if the policy had changed and here's the response:

"Notification of pending euthanization will occur only when we believe the animal is safe enough to leave in the adoption program. Notification of euthanization WILL NOT be made for an animal that must be removed right away for behavior or health issues. It is the responsibility of TLAC management to keep our environment safe and healthy. We respectfully ask that you trust us to make the right decision for everyone and every animal - even though it is emotionally difficult for all of us. We are still committed to notifying volunteers of any "Sad News" postings when appropriate."

Another volunteer replied to the group, expressing his disagreement of only getting the "Sad News" emails for certain dogs and bringing up the trust issue. Here was the response:

"The "Sad News" euthanization notification has not changed. This applies when the adoptable animal has been in the adoption run for an extended period of time. What makes it "sad" is the animal is healthy and its' behavior is fine, it just hasn't had an adoption We notify volunteers about the five day pending euthanization if an adoption is not made. This notification is a courtesy for the volunteers desiring to know the specific outcome of the animal. For volunteers that do not want to know, the "Sad News" posting is a compromise. But when the health or behavior of the animal compromises safe conditions for the public, staff, volunteers and other animals, it is the responsibility of TLAC management to remove the animal immediately. Every effort to notify volunteers with a "Sad News" notice is made. Does it always happen? No.

Why weren't you told? I can't say specifically without knowing the animal ID number. Is it because the animal was actually adopted with the new adopters giving a new name? Are you assuming the animal was euthanized because it no longer is in our care? That is not the case with all animals. With an animal ID number, I will be
happy to look up the animals to confirm their outcome. I cannot do it by name. "

By the way, two of the dogs' names were Abner and Lefty. Apparantly, we have so many Abners and Leftys that they can't find those dogs in the system using just their names nor can anyone remember them.

All of the staff responses have come from the volunteer coordinator, who does not have knowledge of the individual dogs. However, all of staff are included in these emails. The same staff members who told the volunteer about the dogs getting euthanized when she asked are seeing this email thread. So far, none of them have come forward to tell the group what has happened to the dogs. They're just letting the volunteer coordinator tell us that without an animal id, they don't know what happened, so we should just assume the dog has been adopted.

I'm sure that this isn't the end of this issue and I'll have another post about it soon.