Kansas Humane Society Needlessly Kills Healthy Dog, ASPCA Defends the Killing

Shannon Nott received a yellow Lab puppy as a gift from her daughter early last year.  She named her Lucy.  While Ms. Nott worked during the day, Lucy did the typical things you would expect of a young Lab left alone – she dug at the carpet, chewed on furniture and chewed a hole in the wall.  Not knowing how to handle Lucy’s destructive behavior, Ms. Nott agonized over the situation and ultimately decided to take Lucy to the Kansas Humane Society so they could adopt her out to a good home.  Last week, she surrendered Lucy to the Kansas Humane Society along with “her rawhide bone, toys, brushes and a new bag of dog food”.  Ms. Nott was very distraught over her decision but thought it was the right thing to do.  She signed the surrender form, including an acknowledgement that she was choosing not to purchase, for a $30 fee, an option to reclaim the dog if she changed her mind.

Ms. Nott went to her car in the pound’s parking lot and called her sister, sobbing.  Together, they decided that Ms. Nott should go back and get Lucy and they would “figure something out”.  But when she returned to the pound’s lobby, she learned the Kansas Humane Society had already deemed Lucy unadoptable – due to the description of the inappropriate chewing behaviors – and had killed her.

Kim Janzen, the Humane Society president and CEO, said, “To an outsider, it’s going to seem that we acted rashly, but we didn’t.”
[...]
Janzen said she couldn’t say how often an animal is put down in the relatively short time frame that Nott’s pet was.

Really?  Couldn’t say?  So I take it this is not an isolated case of barbarism on the part of the Kansas Humane Society but rather one of many – too many to count apparently.

It doesn’t help an animal with severe anxiety to be placed in a kennel, and that animal’s stress would raise stress for other animals at the shelter, Janzen said.

“Ultimately, what we wanted to do is avoid putting the animal through additional stress.”

How kind of the Kansas Humane Society to avoid subjecting Lucy to the stress of sitting in a kennel by subjecting her to the stress of the kill room instead.

Most people won’t adopt a large pet with such behavior, she said.

Well maybe, but definitely nobody will adopt her if she’s dead.

The newspaper contacted the ASPCA for comment on the situation and the ASPCA representative basically says the owner should have tried harder to find the dog a home herself and the pound is not to blame for the immediate and needless killing of Lucy:

“When faced with the incredibly tough decision to relinquish an animal, the ASPCA encourages pet owners to explore every possible option — including checking with local breed rescue groups and no-kill shelters as well as friends, neighbors and family members to see if they might be able to help care for that animal — before relinquishing it to an open-admission shelter that in all likelihood is already overburdened.”

See, the Kansas Humane Society is already overburdened.  So they really can’t be faulted for taking a normal, healthy Lab immediately to the kill room.  Cos, you know – overburdened and stuff.

You know who else is overburdened?  Every rescuer I know.  Every no kill shelter I know.  Every caring pet owner who takes in a pet off the street or puts food out for community pets or fosters pets off death row from their local kill shelter to save their lives.  And yet none of them are killing pets.  How can the ASPCA seriously defend this abominable practice?  Where is the condemnation for the killing of Lucy and those like her in pet slaughterhouses all over this country?  It’s outrageous.

Shame on the Kansas Humane Society for killing Lucy and shame on the ASPCA for its failure to condemn the killing.  Both organizations should be overburdened – with shame.

Leave a comment

151 Comments

  1. KateH

     /  January 1, 2012

    Wow. They couldn’t have shared other options with you, like a list of pet sitters, dog day cares, or asked if she’d discussed trying any medications with her vet? They couldn’t have found a foster home that would have worked with the dog? They couldn’t have sold the woman a frickin’ crate? It sounds as if the owner didn’t do any training or use a crate, which could have prevented the dog wrecking parts of her house, and that’s where KHS should have given her some help. She sounds like someone who doesn’t know much about dogs, but instead of just taking her dog and killing it immediately, she should have been offered some help. Problem solving is not as hard as many shelters make it out to be, and helping the owner should give the staff a better feeling than what they get to play god. (What am I thinking – there’s no better feeling than playing god – unless you actually can think outside a box.) Oh, and helping the owner is almost always going to be cheaper than killing and sending a dog to the landfill.

    Reply
    • MegD

       /  January 10, 2012

      I think everyone needs to have a fuller understanding of this situation. This site has made a very short aricle from bits and pieces taken from a much larger article which attempted to more fairly explored both sides of this paricular situation. For the full article please visit http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/01/2158855/wichita-woman-upset-with-kansas.html

      Reply
      • You have assumed – twice – that readers here are unfamiliar with the blogging format and/or too dumb to click links provided within the post for themselves. Your assumptions are wrong. Twice.

      • I think we already have a full understanding. Here, I sum it up for you: 10 minutes after Lucy entered the facility she was dead. The KHS didn’t even bother to try saving Lucy. She was dragged from the front lobby directly to the kill room and was injected with Fatal Plus.

      • ezbuddy

         /  January 21, 2012

        Oh yeah, I have a fuller understanding. I understand it sounded exactly like the “shelter” was covering their butts, lying to keep the heat off themselves.

        I don’t believe for a minute the owner knew the dog would be killed so quickly. The heartless/soulless murderers shouldn’t be in the business or pretend to call themselves a “humane” society.

        Shouldn’t that be Kansas Killing Society?

    • Sonya

       /  February 9, 2013

      Have you ever worked in a shelter? Ever had to make these decisions…I have, it’s not playing god for these people. It’s a horrible reality, in which humans are the enemy…spay and neuter your pets people, and don’t give animals as gifts! WORST idea ever!

      Reply
  2. I have no intention of being mean spirited but I tell people this ALL THE TIME and they don’t believe me. They suspect my motives. They believe that if the word “humane” or “animal shelter” is in the title, their ‘pet’ will be given a second chance. SO, I have to say that although I am sure she is devastated, she made the decision, whether on true or false info or understanding, and that’s that. Let her become an instrument of good by telling others what the truth is about these places.

    Reply
  3. alice in LALA land

     /  January 1, 2012

    looks like 2012 is going to be the year we OUT these ‘shleters’ and make the world a better place. This blog is one of the best places to do that. I have shared the Alabama 44 story with hundreds of people this year on facebook and elsewhere.. to show that just because there are “too many” dogs.. does not mean they should be taken.. I am pushing for programs of ‘sheltering in place” where people can get help instead of fined and arrested.
    Thanks for keeping us so informed Shirley, you blog is making more of a difference than you can even know

    Reply
  4. Arlene

     /  January 1, 2012

    Lucy was a PUPPY! That’s what puppy’s do. They explore their world with their mouth. They also amuse themselves with whatever they can when they are bored and lonely. Too many hours spent alone in an entire house and there will be destruction.

    What a pity that Lucy lost her life because of being a puppy. The shelter should have given the lady alternatives to giving Lucy up to them. They could have waited at least 24 hours, better yet 72 hours before they killed the puppy. God forbid they call rescues!

    No one did their jobs. Sad commentary on the human race today. Everyone is so full of excuses for killing. No one is all that helpful. Just get rid of problems as fast as they can. None of this had to be. No more excuses. It is what it is! A slaughterhouse mentality at the Kansas Humane Society. Nothing humane about that!

    Reply
  5. Candace

     /  January 1, 2012

    If they already knew they weren’t going to adopt out the puppy due to the behavior, the least the shelter could have done was be honest with the woman and tell her that. Just because one place won’t work with a particular behavior, doesn’t mean another won’t. Being a puppy, the animal should be responsive to training and would be more adoptable and in higher demand than other animals that were at the shelter at the time. I do not necessarily think that they should have traded off a different dog to put down, but they should have considered their options and possibility of that dog being re-adopted. It was wrong to not even give the dog a chance since it was all based on what the owner said – circumstances are different for every animal and the behavior could very well been due to the situation it was in.

    Reply
    • Jodi

       /  January 1, 2012

      I think shelter workers should be honest and tell what the outcome will most likely be. I think it is horrific that they took a lab puppy (not an anxious, unadoptable dog) straight to the back to kill it.
      Our rescue had a litter of pups we were trying to find foster for . We told the family that we would take them as soon as we could find a foster and they were ready to be weaned. When I called them (pups were 6 weeks to the day) they had taken them to the pound a few days before. Lady told me that the pound said they were “so cute, they’ll get adopted fast”. Knowing that the pound does not adopt out pups that young, I immediately phoned them to offer to take them. I was told by a worker I know that they had “euthanized” them the same day.

      As for the $30 “reclaim” insurance…is that commonplace?

      Reply
  6. Pauline

     /  January 1, 2012

    The woman was a heartless Moron, and a stupid one at that, as its been mentioned here-that is what puppies do and they were loads of things she could have done-the simpliest, get a crate.
    She painted such a ad picture of Lucy but expected someone else to deal with “issues” that she couldn’t cope with…….

    Reply
    • What if she’d never heard of crate training and nobody told her about it? Is she still a heartless moron? I think it’s obvious from the fact that she brought the dog’s toys w/her to the pound and that she was very upset over the situation that she is not heartless. Maybe she was simply in need of some education from people who have experience dealing with young retrievers. In any case, even if she was heartless (which I don’t believe) – that in no way justifies the pound killing her dog or the ASPCA defending it.

      Reply
      • Roger

         /  January 2, 2012

        I took the advice of a comment I read in the article and did a FB lookup of the owner. The days prior to this event, her friends gave her advice, such as use a no kill shelter, find a larger crate, I know someone to contact for placement and even a warning not to bring her pet to KHS for fear of this very thing occurring. I do understand your view of shelters, irregardless of owners, shelters have a duty to do right by the animals they take in. However, here is an owner that even with advice and info, still brought her pet to a facility that she knew the outcome could possibly be tragic.

    • She was not heartless…nor was she a moron. She was an inexperienced lab owner who was given a puppy by a family member. Happens all the time! (Why do you think so many *shelters* dissuade people from buying pets as gifts for others?!)
      She made a mistake, and wasn’t willing to throw $30 to the murderers in order to have the chance to change her mind.
      If the intake person had told her they were going to kill her dog, we’d be complaining that they were threatening the customer.
      It is NOT this gal’s fault that the *humane* society killing machine took possession of her pet under false pretenses. Is it the donor’s fault that these killing apologists continue to function?
      The one who sticks the needle in the vein is the one to blame for the death. *They’re just doing their job* doesn’t cut it! ANY person employed at the facility has the right and the duty to speak up, step up and DEMAND CHANGE. (Which is why so many caring people quit working at kill shelters…and why the no kill equation works so well when killing is taken off the table.)

      Reply
      • Roger– really? Because I can’t find a Facebook profile for Shannon Nott. Or maybe she took it down because of people vilifying her for believing the “happily ever after” stories that these so-called “shelters” serve up like so much tripe.

      • Roger

         /  January 2, 2012

        Larkin Vonalt- yes the page is still there. Shannon Nott Witchita KS. There’s a conversation about 3 down from the top. And I did not see anyone vilifying her on her page.

      • Her facebook page is here: https://www.facebook.com/shannon.furman.nott

        There was some advice to try crating, but she was afraid of it. There was some mention of trying to find a no kill shelter, but no explanation of why KHS was a seriously bad choice–in fact, the person who said they knew someone at KHS said their friend was fostering Lab puppies.

        She was not an experienced dog person; she was not someone who had prior knowledge of what’s going on in “sheltering” and dog rescue. What she was told just wasn’t explicit enough to convey useful information to someone who didn’t already know these things.

  7. Pauline

     /  January 1, 2012

    such a bad picture, I meant

    Reply
  8. Tanya

     /  January 1, 2012

    Let’s remember who dropped Lucy off and signed over ownership… Her owner, Ms. Nott is primarily responsible for this tragedy, not the ASPCA, not the humane society, Lucy’s owner put her where she ultimately ended up. Lucy’s owner should have looked online, sought out other resources, etc. Lucy’s owner should have trained her. Lucy’s owner needs to accept her role in Lucy’s death and quit blaming the ones she dropped her dog off with.

    Reply
    • I don’t blame the owner. She did what she thought was best in a situation that overwhelmed her. She didn’t shoot the dog or drop the dog off “in the country” or any number of other bad things for which I would absolutely hold her accountable if she had done. She did what we WANT people to do – she took the dog to a place with the words “humane society” in the name, believing they would treat the dog humanely.

      The fact is, I don’t care if the surrendering party is Michael Vick – what happens to the dog AFTER the so-called shelter has control should be protection from harm – not killing.

      Reply
      • People who know the deal tend to forget that a tremendous number of people in the US – even well educated people – believe that shelters provide… well, shelter. Not everyone is aware that most shelters kill.

      • word.
        “Shelter (noun): Something that affords protection; a refuge, a haven.”

        We can’t forget that definition.

        Its why the shelter exists, sure the owner *should* have done more, but maybe she simply *couldn’t*. You don’t know what you don’t know. We all had to learn training tips, tricks, and shelter policies somewhere along the way.

        Unfortunately this is one lesson Ms Nott will not likely forget.

      • Teri

         /  January 5, 2012

        She won’t forget, but she had the cajones to come forward and tell her story and that, hopefully, will prevent other people from making the same mistake (believing that the words “shelter” or “humane” mean anything when big $$$ are involved). And that really is the bottom line. These places advertise that they exist to help when, in reality, they only exist to make money and, if they have to sacrifice a few animals they could have placed but didn’t want to spend the money to deal with very minor issues, they really don’t care.

    • ezbuddy

       /  January 21, 2012

      I ONLY blame those where she dropped the dog off with. That “shelter” was the one who decided to kill the dog. Ms Nott did not understand her dog was to be murdered.

      Crateing isn’t, in my opinion, a good option for an anxious dog that doesn’t understand. A chain outside isn’t appropreate either, yet better than a crate, tearing up the inside or a “shelter.”

      Is Kansas “Humane” Society’s web address or post address available? I think some opinions may help them understand how wrong they were. They really need my opinion. Any info on them?

      Reply
      • Sonya

         /  February 9, 2013

        Dogs have a natural instinct to den…ever notice your dog under something? A table, your desk? Or are you one of these people who also believe a dogs place is in the backyard, because it’s a dog? A crate is a den, it is a safe place where, should the dog feel, he can go “hide” from everything. His safe place, where humans running around can’t step on him, bratty children pulling on his ear or tail aren’t supposed to mess with him. My dogs all love their crates. That said, they aren’t in them very often either..you can’t abuse it and expect it to work. A chain outside is not preferable to a crate…would you rather be tethered to something outside in the elements, or in your cozy little bedroom? Same concept.

  9. Babs

     /  January 1, 2012

    I thought the Humane Society had dog behavior experience. What happened to the period she was suppose to be able to come back for the dog? Now like our Arizona Humane Society, the Kanas Humane Society will have to hire a publicist to manage “their” image. Donations should be directed toward other shelters and sanctuaries. This was a PUPPY!!!! They chew like teething human babies……..BECAUSE THEY ARE TEETHING BABIES. Shame on you HUMANE SOCIETY. SHAME!!! There are many things you can to to teach a dog not to chew. Why didn’t they call a lab rescue.
    I am now directing all the money I gave to the Humane Society to smaller rescue groups.

    Reply
  10. THIS IS THE MOST DISGUSTING DECISION EVER! WE NEED TO CHANGE SHELTER STAFF AS THIS HAPPENS ALL TOO OFTEN AND WE ALL KNOW IT DOES! SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO STOP THE SADISTIC BASTARDS IN SHELTERS. KILLING HAS NO IMPACT ON THEM. WE NEED TO STOP THEM NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111

    Reply
    • Teri

       /  January 5, 2012

      The staff doesn’t make the decisions, the administration does. The staff simply follows the policies. However, I don’t know how anyone with a heart could work in a place where the policy is to destroy a dog unless that dog was severely injured or so ill that it was suffering.

      Reply
      • Sonya

         /  February 9, 2013

        I can promise you from first hand knowledge, these people don’t have a god complex. None of them want to see a puppy put to sleep because humans are to irresponsible to research proper care for these animals. No, not everyone knows how to care for them, shame on them for not doing their homework. There are no sadistic people working in that shelter. Years ago when I worked there, there was. These people have the hardest job in the world. Until you have had to make that decision, I suggest you not pass judgement…go apply, work in a shelter for a year…watch the stupid people who bring in animal, after animal, and still get more of them. OR adopt one out, who comes back, and comes back, and comes back, until finally it gets kennel cough and has to be euthanized. The adoption staff doesn’t have quite as much power to tell many people “no you can’t have this dog, or it’s not for you” as we did when I worked there. I digress… I have a heart.

      • OK Sonya, that’s 3 comments in short order on a year old post. As a new commenter, I am going to suggest you take a break here and see if anyone responds.

  11. mikken

     /  January 1, 2012

    I can’t blame the owner – she may not have even been a dog person before she was given the puppy. She may have had no idea what owning a dog involves. And it’s clear she didn’t know what owning a working breed like that involved.

    It’s also very clear that the this so-called shelter did NOTHING to counsel her, did nothing to offer her help or alternatives, and did NOTHING sensible like recognizing that a young Lab was mismatched with this woman and this dog might do very much better with someone more suited to her. You know, stuff that you might think was…their job? What they should be doing?

    And of course the ASPCA defends it. Because they aren’t in the business of getting animals out of shelters alive, either.

    Reply
  12. Leeah3633

     /  January 1, 2012

    This woman’s actions are a prime example of why animals end up in ‘shelters’. If she was unable to care properly for the puppy (she should have researched puppy training methods and also crate trained the pup-it sounds like she didn’t put much time in learning how to care for her) she should have immediately looked for a home for her. When she went into the ‘shelter’, she should have asked if there was a ‘no kill’ policy. It sounds like she was an irresponsible pet owner even though she cared for her emotionally. I’m not letting the ‘shelter’ off the hook, they should have thoroughally explained their policy when she surrendered the pup so the woman could have made an informed decision as to whether to leave her there. Wrong, Wrong on so many levels here and who suffers….the puppy who was doing nothing more than what normal puppies do when left alone. So frustrating!

    Reply
    • So if a “shelter” thoroughly explains to a surrendering party, “We are going to kill your pet immediately – as in, the second you turn your back to head out the door we will be drawing up Fatal Plus into a syringe to inject your pet” – does that let them “off the hook” as you say? To my mind, it does not matter how much or how little a surrendering party loved and cared for a pet. What matters is that the surrendering party DID NOT KILL THE PET but instead acted responsibly by bringing the pet to a “shelter”. The shelter’s job is to shelter. They failed this dog, not the owner.

      Reply
      • Leeah3633

         /  January 1, 2012

        Everyone failed this puppy…..EVERYONE!

      • I only see 2 groups here asking for donations to help save puppies and kittens – the Kansas Humane Society and the ASPCA. And when someone calls themselves a “humane society” or “society for prevention of cruelty” and asks for money – it implies (to me anyway) that acting humanely and preventing cruelty are their JOBS. It was the Kansas Humane Society’s JOB to protect Lucy from harm and it is the ASPCA’s OBLIGATION to condemn the cruelty that was inflicted upon Lucy.

      • Joyce

         /  January 2, 2012

        I agree with the poster that says EVERYONE failed this dog and there is plenty of blame to go around. The first failure came when the puppy was sold to the daughter for the mother as a present. No screening? No education? Obviously, the puppy was not sold with any kind of “return under any circumstances clause in the contract.” nor any follow-up from the breeder. Then when the puppy gets past “the cutes” and the reality of an ill-behaved, destructive dog sets in, the owner pawns the dog off on the humane society because its easier then doing the right thing and teaching it manners, crate training etc. Are you kidding me? The time for remorse was long before she packed Lucy into a car with her “rawhide bone, toys, brushes and a bag of dogfood.” Did she also pack up her obedience training classes, crate and leashes for the long walks she was supposed to take the puppy on every day to burn off all that puppy energy? We live in a disposable society after all; lets just pass the buck along. Finally, the HS, faced with just another oversized, ill-mannered one-dog-destructo-team accepted the dog knowing it did not have the resources, time or inclination to rehabilitate the dog and killed her without a moments hesitation. Its awful that it happened, but this dogs fate was sealed when it was handed over as a squiggly, squirming puppy to a person that was not going to be its keeper and had no idea the commitment she was making for someone else. Put the responsibility, squarely where it belongs. Ultimately, it was the owner that “supposedly” loved Lucy, that failed her. The HS was just the tool that accomplished it.

      • Peter Masloch

         /  January 2, 2012

        Fact is, If KHS would be a No Kill facility Lucy would be still alive and would have had a second chance. Unfortunately, some “expert” at KHS decided Lucy is un-adoptable, dragged her to the kill room and did what they do best.

      • Of course you are right Peter and this makes me sad. And I feel sadder still to think that it would have been better for Lucy if she had been turned loose in the country or left on a chain 24/7 or some other awful fate – because at least she would still be alive. If she was alive, there would be a chance that she could be rescued and be given that happy life she had a right to live. But Kansas Humane Society took away that right and with it, any hope Lucy ever had.

      • Joyce:

        NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!

        You said: “Finally, the HS, faced with just another oversized, ill-mannered one-dog-destructo-team accepted the dog knowing it did not have the resources, time or inclination to rehabilitate the dog and killed her without a moments hesitation. Its awful that it happened, but this dogs fate was sealed when it was handed over as a squiggly, squirming puppy to a person that was not going to be its keeper and had no idea the commitment she was making for someone else.”

        What is the HS’s JOB?! What do their TV ads say? They ease suffering, they help animals? BULLSHIT. This puppy was NOT suffering! The help they offered was cruel, needless and unnecessary…if they knew they didn’t have the resources, time or inclination to rehabilitate the dog, they should not have taken the dog! (If they are an open-admission facility they could have/should have been more clear and up-front with the owner about their intentions.)

        And according to Joyce, we’re all supposed to just sigh and say: Oh Well, it was the owners fault?!? Again I say NO!

        I don’t want this dog’s fate to be sealed when it was handed over as a puppy! I have handed over myriad puppies, and some of them ended up with tragic stories…but some of them had FABULOUS stories. Some were filled with pain and sorrow, some with joy and ease. Some were boring and *normal*…my complaint is that those of us *in the know* understand that 50% or 75% or doG help us 90% of animals that end up at these falsely defined *shelters* end up dead. END OF STORY! How or why the critter got to that place is somewhat irrelevant. This death lies squarely on the shoulders of the bogus humane society and the fact that the ASPCA stands behind them in their choice is just more proof of how horribly broken the system is.

    • Leeah3633

       /  January 1, 2012

      Incidentally–We adopted a beautiful 2-3 year old retriever mix from our local humane society last year. She had been there a month. Her writeup was: not housebroken, chews furniture, not good with children, toy and food protective, gets on furniture.
      We fell in love with her at first sight and talked it over and decided we would take her to training classes and promised each other we would treat her with patience and tolerance since we knew it was not going to be an easy road. Well….we brought her home and and from day 1…..NOT ONE of the warnings were true. She was totally housebroken, LOVES children, will give you her bones and food, has never chewed anything and only gets on furniture if she’s invited. Our humane society did not turn around and destroy her upon intake, thank God!

      Reply
    • She didn’t go out and get a puppy. This puppy was a “gift” from her ex-husband, “for their daughter.”

      Reply
      • Teri

         /  January 3, 2012

        Lis, you really need to actually READ the article before commenting. And I quote: “Shannon Nott received a yellow Lab puppy as a gift from her daughter early last year.”

        No mention of an ex-husband, and the puppy was not a gift for her daughter. Perhaps you read a different story somewhere. But the rest of us are commenting on THIS story.

      • Mizzy D

         /  January 3, 2012

        Teri – Lis is correct. Shannon says on her FB page that it was a gift for her daughter from the ex.

      • Teri

         /  January 3, 2012

        Yes, I know that now. But, apparently I was expected to be psychic since the article stated otherwise and, while Lis felt the need to “correct” people, she never bothered to enlighten us as to where the information came from.

        Shannon’s ex deserves to be hung by the short hairs. I’m willing to bet he knew she wouldn’t have the time or funds to properly care for the dog but took joy in putting her in the position of having to either take the dog or be the “bad guy.” Too bad Shannon trusted the “Humane” Society to live up to their name. Hopefully her experience and subsequent publicity (gotta give her props for having the courage to go to the press) will prevent other people from making the same mistake.

  13. That solves a problem for me. I won’t be donating ANY money to the ASPCA until they reverse their decision to support this horrible practice, if ever, what a needless act for a young puppy. What horrific barbarians. They will no longer have my support, and I plan on writing a harsh letter to let them know just that. Humph.

    Reply
    • db

       /  January 2, 2012

      Check out charity navigator and see how much money these big “animal welfare” businesses actually take in and what they spend on administration and fund raising. Not much goes to help animals . . . be smart about your donations. And, yes, giving to those “on the ground” local rescues and shelters who actually do try and save animals is where I give my money, too. You just have to do your homework and not be swayed by the sad songs and pathetic pictures of puppies and kittens you see on the ads . . .

      Reply
      • I agree with you db. We have several fine rescue groups here, and I will donate to them from now on and never again to ASPCA or US Humane Society. Yeah, they think showing their picked out pets and singing sad songs is really helping. Not at all. All those dogs and cats they show on the ads are probably dead by now. At least our local shelter is thinking about privatization due to the outrage of the practices at, you guessed it, Memphis Animal Services. And, our humane society here, is NOT a no kill shelter. They send unwanted dogs and cats to the shelter to be killed. People that drop their pets off after hours are unaware that their pet will be taken the next day to the shelter to be killed. A house of horrors it is.

  14. Peter Masloch

     /  January 1, 2012

    You know, when you call our Shelter somebody will answer the phone with “Allegany County Animal Shelter and Services, how can I help you”.
    The term “Services” means something. It means that we are there to help and support people. Quiet honestly, I would have talked the woman in to taking one of our crates home (for free) and give it a try.
    That is called “Customer Service”. No, it is not the woman’s fault. i know many people that come to our Shelter and asking for help with dog behavior issues and we are more than happy to help those people. It is our Job.

    Reply
    • And sometimes people don’t come in asking for help – maybe b/c they don’t know that you WOULD help them or that there IS any help available for the problems they are having. But I bet you help those people too. Because it’s one of your services. It’s your job. It’s the right thing to do.

      Reply
      • Peter Masloch

         /  January 1, 2012

        Absolutely. We always talk to people if they come to us surrendering an animal. It goes like this: What is the reason you surrender the animal? is there anything we can do for you so that you keep the animal?
        In this case, Lucy died because of the laziness from the Kansas Shelter. They could have done so much more besides of taking the dog to the kill room as soon the woman left the building.

      • KateH

         /  January 1, 2012

        Peter, is your shelter in Maryland? I’m trying to make sure I donate (not much, since I made less than 10 grand this year, but something) to shelters that try harder, and yours sounds like one. I don’t see an actual website for it, just a FB, and want to make sure this is yours. My donation will be by check, and I need to make sure of where I’m sending it.

      • Peter Masloch

         /  January 1, 2012

        @KateH: Yes, our Shelter is in Western Maryland. We do have a (incomplete) website which is http://www.ashelterofhope.com
        Our address is:
        Allegany County Animal Shelter
        716 Furnace St.
        Cumberland, MD 21502
        301-777-5930

    • Roger

       /  January 1, 2012

      I think it is great that you have a dialog with people attempting to surrender their pet. How many times a day do you have to have those types of discussions with owners looking to surrender their pet?

      Reply
      • Peter Masloch

         /  January 1, 2012

        I believe every Shelter should talk to people, special the Kill shelters since they lack customer service the most. Helping people to keep their animals should be priority at any Shelter. Lately we did have some owner surrenders due to the bad economy which are all extremely sad cases and it sure was not easy for the families. But at least we could guarantee them to find new homes for their animals.

    • Tina Clark

       /  January 3, 2012

      I can certainly see from Ms. Nott’s Facebook page why people would criticize her. Heck, I would criticize her, as it does seem she ignored several really good options (although we don’t know whether she actually did or not, since not all business in life is conducted through Facebook). But be that as it may, let’s not forget that there is no contradiction between recognizing that there are people who deserve criticism for being irresponsible or not properly caring for their animals, and understanding that THEY ARE NOT THE ONES RESPONSIBLE FOR ANIMALS BEING KILLED IN POUNDS. As Shirley has pointed out in several different very eloquent ways (and still some people don’t seem to get it), whatever an individual does or doesn’t do, doesn’t shift the blame for the killing, which in any and every circumstance, lies solely and directly on the pound.

      Reply
      • Tina Clark

         /  January 3, 2012

        I aplogize for putting my comment here, I meant to put it as a general comment, not a reponse to you, Peter. But I did want to leave a response to you as well. I just wanted to say that It’s always great to find a shelter that feels such counseling is “their job.” Here in Los Angeles, a group of volunteers has started a pilot pet retention program. We staff a table in the lobby and intercept people coming in to relinquish their animals, to find out what we can do to help the animals stay in their homes. So far there are only six of us and our coverage is very spotty. I’m glad they are letting us do this, but I keep thinking, “isn’t this the job of the “shelter” itself?

  15. This is absolutely heartbreaking and unconscionable. Over the last year, I pulled all of my donations from the ASPCA because of several choices they made and policies they have in place. Instead, I’ve spread my giving (however meager it may be) to local rescues and groups, many that I’ve come to know through Facebook. They are much more ‘hands on’ and do so much more for the animals than the ASPCA does…they do so much more for the animals with more of a loving heart. I do hope that 2012 sees steps taken for animals that will really make a difference in their lives. And I hope “shelters” undergo a huge transformation and see the need to become no-kill. I pray for the day that we see that…for the animals’ sake.

    Reply
    • Teri

       /  January 3, 2012

      Please make sure to check out even these places with FB pages. Just because they say they are doing something, doesn’t make it so. Recently there have been stories in the news from areas all over the country of so called “rescues” that were anything but. Locally we had a woman who, for several years, people were singing the praises of for her work “rescuing” unwanted pets. She received donations from many sources, not just private citizens but businesses. Last year it was discovered that she had taken in dozens of dogs and over 100 cats and housed them in a home she owned in the country. She did not actually live there but visited “several times a week.” Sometimes she fed and watered the animals, sometimes she didn’t. She did NOT clean up after the animals and she made no effort to find homes for any of them. When authorities finally looked into this “rescue” there were dead animals everywhere, some from disease, some from starvation. There were cages with 3 or more cats in them, often with one or more dead. All the animals were living in their own waste. Not one animal was without some type of injury or disease and they had been so long without human contact few of them were placable. The home was so dirty it had to be condemned. How did she get away with it?? Well, she used the home she lived in as the place where animals were surrendered leading the pet owners to believe they were surrendering their animals to a clean, healthy home where they would be cared for until they could be placed in new homes. After a few days she would transfer the animals to the other home. If anyone asked she told them the animal had been adopted. She spent some of the money she received from well-meaning donors on the cheapest food she could buy and, when donations were down, the animals were not fed.

      Long story-short, the “Humane” Society and ASPCA aren’t the only ones capable of duplicity. Do your homework before you donate. And DON’T buy puppies from stores or even breeders. Adopt a rescue!!!!! There is no need to breed until every dog and cat has a safe, loving home.

      Reply
  16. Terri

     /  January 1, 2012

    Hmm.. Don’t give money to ASPCA for whtever they need.. cuz they support killing.. turn your back on them. Don’t buy anything from them.. Avoid them at cost..

    Reply
  17. Joyce Krechting

     /  January 1, 2012

    I agree with Shirley on this one. This woman was not dog savvy as are the readers of this blog. All of you would know things to do in order to keep this dog, but she obviously did not know. There are many many people who are unaware of the most basic things about the proper way to raise and train a puppy. I run across people like this quite often, they don’t know about crate training, or how to housebreak. They don’t know about all of the help that could be available to them on the internet, they have never heard about rescue organizations and on and on. I hope someone will help this woman to learn the right things in case she ever decides to have anonther dog. And if she does want another some day, it seems as if an older dog of a different breed would be more suitable and she could find the right one with a rescue.

    The shelter should have been honest with her at the very least, better yet they should have ways to help these people keep their pets.

    Reply
  18. Teri

     /  January 1, 2012

    I haven’t donated to the “Humane” Society in years. Why? Because they are anything but humane and this story proves it. It wasn’t entirely their fault. I blame Ms. Nott’s daughter for giving her mother a dog without making sure she a) wanted it, and b) had a clue about how to deal with it. I blame Mrs. Nott for not having the intelligence to tell her daughter to take the dog back because she didn’t know anything about raising a dog (too bad the daughter didn’t get her a rescue dog that was older and past that puppy destructive behaviour stage) or pick up the phone book and call a vet and/or trainer/ dog training club. Just another sad commentary on our throw away society. You buy something and it quits working, you throw it out and buy another. You buy a pet and it isn’t to your expectations or you just don’t want to deal with it, take it to the shelter and let it be someone else’s problem.

    But yes, I blame the “Humane” Society worker(s) too. Upon hearing Ms. Nott’s story they should have advised her that this is normal behaviour for a bored, energetic puppy and directed her to consult with a trainer (but, judging from the article, they were ignorant as to the normalcy of this behaviour. If they knew anything about puppies and, especially breeds like Labs, they would not have deemed the chewing behaviour to be abnormal and a deterrent to adoption). They also should have told her that, if she left the pup, odds were good the dog would be euthanized as they didn’t have the space to hold a dog that would be unlikely to be adopted nor the resources to train it. That said, I have never heard of a shelter that immediately sends a pup to the chamber. Most shelters have a “rotation.” Dogs that have been there the longest are the first to be destroyed.

    No, this is a long list of fault here…..actually starting with the breeder….with all the dogs in the world looking for homes, bringing new litters of puppies into the world is not only thoughtless, it is cruel and selfish.

    Reply
    • It wasn’t a gift from her daughter. It was a gift “for” her daughter–from the ex-husband, who likely had no interest in whether or not she wanted that dog, or any dog, whether it was an appropriate dog for her, etc.

      Put the blame for the inappropriate choice of dog where it belongs.

      Reply
      • Teri

         /  January 3, 2012

        I guess you and I read two different articles. The one I read (the one above, which is the one I commented on) states quite clearly: Shannon Nott received a yellow Lab puppy as a gift from her daughter early last year.”

        I stand by everything I said.

    • Erica

       /  January 3, 2012

      As per Shannon’s Facebook page – it was a gift FROM her EX to her daughter.

      And if this is the first you have heard of any shelter immediately sending any animal straight to the kill room – happens too many times than I care to recount!

      Reply
  19. Karen F

     /  January 1, 2012

    According to one of the commenters on the Eagle story, “This organization asked for and received in excess of ten million dollars from citizens of Wichita with the promise that they would build a shelter that would end euthanization of all “adoptable” animals. What they did not disclose was that it is very very easy to declare any animal ‘unadoptable’. So the administrative staff and employed vets now have beautiful offices and the public sees a cutsey web site and adorable kitty city but has no idea what goes on in the back rooms. This story is only the tip of the iceberg and sadly will probably continue because Ms. Janzen has the ability to smooth-talk enough donors into supporting her and her well-paid administrative staff.”

    Another commenter says elsewhere in the thread, “The public is not allowed to see what animals they have in the back…only the few that they have up front. Why does KHS refuse to let people go back to see the largest part of their shelter…….why do they have everything under lock and key. I have talked to some of those workers and volunteers who have been privy to the back and many times they say the runs are not full and at the same time KHS is turning animals away…………….but it does make their percentages lookk good!”

    Reply
    • db

       /  January 2, 2012

      Michigan “Humane” Society is very similar. They raise a lot of money by misleading the public into thinking they adopt out a large percentage of the animals they take in. The key is “adoptable” and they find more than 70% of the ones they take in “unadoptable”!
      Just sad for the animals and the people who think they are doing the right thing by surrending them to a “humane” organization or “shelter”.
      The public needs to be made aware of the fact that things are not always what they seem to be and what is really happening in many of these places that are supposed to be helping animals. As long as those in power can hide behind labels and mislead the public, they will get away with the killing. (AND IT IS NOT EUTHANASIA, folks)

      Reply
  20. Jessica C

     /  January 2, 2012

    Stories like this just make my blood boil. And they happen all too often.

    Yeah, because puppies dont ever chew or anything. And its nothing untreatable/something they grow out of. We still have bite marks all over the handle of our recliner from when my dog was a puppy. Does the ASPCA want to come over here and kill her now, too?

    Reply
    • Teri

       /  January 3, 2012

      Ok, I am NOT defending the “Humane” society here BUT….did you READ the story? The owner was the one who decided the behaviour was something she couldn’t deal with (doesn’t sound like she even tried) so, while I blame the “Humane” society for their policy whereby they decide a dog is not adoptable based on a pretty flimsy basis (and easily correctable and completely normal, behaviour) there is a BIG difference between Ms. Nott and you. YOU chose to keep your puppy and, hopefully, work through the puppy behaviour. Your last statement is obviously purely emotional and not based on any rational thought. No one went to Ms. Nott’s home and killed her dog. SHE decided to just dump the dog at the shelter and walk away.

      Our local shelter has a policy of doing behavioral evals on the animals brought in. “Normal” behaviour such as a puppy chewing and being destructive when bored, does NOT rule out adoption. Food aggression, being aggressive towards other animals DOES. It’s a matter of liability. It’s very difficult (but NOT impossible) to train a dog with aggression to not respond in an aggressive manner. The younger the dog, the easier it is to teach them new responses. However, few shelters have the time, money or properly trained personnel to work intensively with aggressive puppies. Prospective adoptees need to be made aware of the behaviours that are present and correctable so they are aware of the issues and how to deal with them (puppy classes, crate training, etc). Aggressive adult dogs, well just forget it. Unless you have Cesar on retainer and speed-dial, it would require a professional trainer and a great deal of money to MAYBE get a dog over the age of 1 year to develop new, non-aggressive responses to actions they previously responded in an aggressive manner.

      However, there are other factors that the shelters have no control over that greatly lower the likelyhood of an animal being adopted including: age (the older the dog the less likely it will be adopted), breed (Pit Bulls, Dobermans, Rotties, German Shepherds, and other “aggressive” breeds are harder to place), and (sadly) colour, with black dogs being harder to place (perhaps a perception that they are more aggressive). HOWEVER, a GOOD shelter will take dogs in these cases and try to place them in rescues IF they are not aggressive or recommend a rescue to the person surrendering (abandoning) the dog letting them know that, if they leave the dog at the shelter it is virtually assured that the dog will be destroyed. A shelter where the people running it are too lazy, don’t have funds (certainly NOT the case in the above referenced shelter), or where it’s just their policy, will generally destroy older dogs, large breeds or dark coloured dogs within 24 hours even if they have room. It’s a matter of economics for them….the dog is unlikely to be adopted (based on years of experience) and it costs money to house, feed and care for them therefore, it make sense (based strictly on economics) to just go ahead and destroy the dog. You can blame the shelters but, as I pointed out in a post above, you need to follow the bread crumb trail back, all the way to the irresponsible breeders who continue to have their bitches pop out litter after litter when there are so many dogs already in need of homes and to our society in general where we have been conditioned to simply throw away anything we don’t like, no longer need, or that isn’t up to our expectations regardless of whether it is an object or a living, feeling creature.

      Reply
      • Erica

         /  January 3, 2012

        Teri do you work at a shelter? I have to say ONE thing about dogs & aggression – it IS trainable. I have done it with NUMEROUS dogs – and they are pitbull type dogs. Both for food aggression AND other animal aggression. You don’t have to be Cesar Milan to be able to train an aggressive dog.

        And you continue to cry the ‘irresponsible breeder’ song – sounds like an HSUS commercial!

      • Teri

         /  January 3, 2012

        Sorry but you assume a lot here. First, you assume everyone read Ms. Nott’s Facebook page. My comments are based solely on the information given in this article. If the information is incorrect that is hardly my fault. Second, you assume I don’t know anything about training dogs. Again, you assume incorrectly. I have trained MANY dogs, mostly German Shepherds. I am aware it is possible in many cases to teach an aggressive dog new behaviours. However, I don’t believe it when you say you do it all the time. The older the dog, the more ingrained the behaviour and the more difficult it is to teach them new responses. In addition, even if you “think” you have taught an older, aggressive dog new responses, it is always risky to believe that the dog will always choose the newly learned behaviour. A stressed dog will ALWAYS revert to older, more ingrained behaviour. ALWAYS. Which is why most shelters will not place a dog that has shown food aggression or aggression towards other animals. Unfortunately, they do not take into consideration that the dog’s behaviour may very well be due to the stress of being IN a “shelter” and they don’t take the time to ascertain if this is the case or not. They also either don’t know or ignore the fact that there are people out here who are aware of the risks, don’t have other animals or children, and have the experience to handle such animals. My good friend is a retired vet. She currently has a severely abused Rottie who is very timid. The only thing more dangerous than an aggressive dog is a timid one. While my friend, her husband (who the dog has bonded to) and her son (a vet tech) are well versed in how to deal with such a dog it didn’t prevent my friend’s sister from being bitten by the dog just walking past her. Thankfully they recognized the behaviour for what it is (a severe fear of new people) and know to not allow the dog in crowds or around their granddaughter because the dog, despite expert handling for over a year, will always be unpredictable (the dog was 4 when they got her). Had this dog been taken to a “shelter” with this behaviour she would have been immediately destroyed. I have a 7 year old GSD who was in a no-kill rescue. Good thing because, with his track record, most shelters would have deemed him unplaceable and destroyed him. When I adopted him I was aware of all of his issues and I knew adopting him would mean that I likely could have no other animals around nor small children. Yet, here he is, 6+ years later, working as a therapy dog with children with autism. But I still can’t take him around large men, especially if they are wearing hats. His distrust of them is too deeply ingrained. The only exception is my oldest son who spent MANY hours working with the dog. Unfortunately, the dog’s love of my son has not translated into eliminating the mistrust he learned from 8 weeks of age until the police removed him from the previous home at the age of 8 months.

        As for the statement about irresponsible breeders, I resent your snarky comment about the HSUS. The fact is, there are literally HUNDREDS of breeders who have NO BUSINESS bringing litter after litter into the world when there are so many dogs who need homes. But, apparently YOU feel that indiscriminate breeding is ok. So, how many dogs are you prepared to take in? 10? 20? 50? Because there are literally THOUSANDS of dogs in North America in need of homes, especially homes with experienced handlers like you where the dogs who have learned bad behaviour (or not been properly trained and socialized to exhibit safe, non-destructive behaviour) can be kept safe and be loved. But, as long as there are irresponsible breeders, and irresponsible people who view dogs as just another disposable possession, there will continue to be dogs dumped on the side of the road and at these so-called “shelters” where they will have anything BUT shelter….All of my dogs that I have had as an adult have been rescues. I will NEVER buy a dog from a pet store or breeder, no matter how reputable that breeder is because the simple fact is, there are so many dogs already out there in need of homes and, even though I am only one person and can only do a limited amount, I do what I can to make the lives of the dogs I have filled with love, good food, fun and more love. But I can guarantee you, every one of my dogs is (and always have been) altered to prevent bringing even one more puppy into this world until such time that we can assure that they have an appropriate home to go to.

        That said, I think any “shelter” or “Humane” society that does what this place did (killing a dog essentially just because they felt like it) should be forced to drop the words “shelter” or “humane” from their names because it’s a lie….

      • Jessica C

         /  January 3, 2012

        I was obviously being hyperbolic. Dont take everything you read on a blog so seriously. As for the rest of what you said, I dont really agree with it, but everyone else rebuttled in a much better way so I will just leave it to them.

      • KateH

         /  January 3, 2012

        I am so fed up with hearing shelters cry “We don’t have the money, the time, the experienced help required to …..” These are so often the shelters being judgmental of adopters and the general public every time there’s a person who wants to keep a dog in less than the most perfect situation (as decided by a little clique of know-it-alls) or a person who needs to surrender a pet for some reason that the clique doesn’t think is good enough. They say, “If they don’t have the money, the time, the experience to take care of a pet properly, they shouldn’t have gotten them.” A lot of them add in, “Don’t you know, pets are for life!” which is also so rudely said by those who defend shelters who use that refrain. It’s an ego-stroking nightmare of “We are good, and you are bad because your behavior forces us to kill pets.” I really wish a motivational speaker could come in and get them to “Believe in YOUR power to change” their narrow minds, their arrogant attitudes, and their inability to think outside the tiny box they create.

        Teri, your words “However, few shelters have the time, money or properly trained personnel to work intensively with aggressive puppies.” and then saying that only CM could solve a problem, are a nice way to try and justify killing animals that need some help. There is no reason why, with proper liability release waivers, and education by the staff that a dog that has an issue at a food bowl, can’t be placed in a home with an owner who’s not a complete moron. That education would need to be verbal and written, and dog forbid a shelter spend some time talking to a trainer to develop the materials needed. No, let’s cry the “no money, no time, no staff” and kill animals instead. If the shelter can’t do the job, then they shouldn’t have the animals in their care.

        As for your rant on “irresponsible breeders” I wonder, what would be your actual plan to stop this, and who do you think should fall under it? I’m all for shutting down the scumbags who place ads in the paper and Craigslist that say “Shi-poos, Cava-chons, English Bulldogs, Chihuahuas, white Boxers and Cane Corso puppies available XXXXXXXXXXXXXXpuppies.com” because, come on, they are obviously a freaking puppy miller or an idiot, but what about the ones that say “AKC registered Samoyeds, 10 weeks old, parents on premises, both are health tested and therapy dogs certified by the Delta Society. Puppies have been extensively socialized in our home and the community.” Those aren’t “irresponsible breeders” and while it’s highly unlikely that a breeder of that quality – and that is a quality breeder who we should encourage the hell out of – would advertise on Craigslist, but the point is, who decides who shouldn’t breed and what would be the criteria? I totally agree that a lot of fools and greedy bastards are “irresponsible breeders” but make sure you understand and admit that there are RESPONSIBLE breeders out there, too.

  21. db

     /  January 2, 2012

    Okay, each time we read or hear about one of these situations (and they happen way too often and need to be made public) we wring our hands and the tears flow. This year I challenge you all to put your feet on the ground and do what you can to support the animals in your own community and the people who are actually out there helping them. Maybe you can volunteer, foster, donate supplies or money, write a letter to the editor, but do something beyond talking about how awful it is! Please, it’s time we all (myself included) took action in whatever way we can.

    Reply
    • I agree with you db. I do volunteer with the humane society here, but I have to rethink that. I have written letters to all our officials here, letters to the editor, forwarded posts from YesBiscuit and only now is MAS thinking about privatization. A nice new facility was just opened in November, but inside, it is a house of horrors. I’ll put my energy and money (what little I can) into the local rescue groups who DO care. We can all do something to bring about change. Make the time. Just do it.

      Reply
  22. To everyone who wants to pigpile on the owner: I WOULD NOT CARE if the owner had hit the dog over the head with a rolling pin every morning, fed her rocks for lunch and then prayed for her death every night. (And obviously I’m exaggerating here to make a point and not in any way intending to endorse animal cruelty.) The owner did not kill the dog. No matter how she may or may not have treated or felt about the dog, the owner did not kill the dog. The owner did what we want people to do when they are no longer able or willing to care for a pet – she brought the dog to a place that is supposed to protect pets from harm. I am going to repeat, b/c this is crucial: This is what we want people to do.

    Bringing a pet you can or will no longer care for to a shelter is the humane alternative to a host of things we know some people do in these circumstances, including:

    Killing the pet

    Chaining the dog 24/7

    Neglecting or otherwise mistreating the pet

    Driving the pet to a rural area and setting her “free”

    Lucy’s owner, whether she was compassionate or heartless in your opinion, did the right thing when she decided she was either no longer able or willing to keep Lucy. She brought her to a place called a “humane society”. From the point where Kansas Humane Society took possession of Lucy, she was at their mercy. They should have protected her from harm. They should have given her the chance to live a long and happy life. That was a right that Lucy had and the Kansas Humane Society took away that right – at the very first instant they were able to do so. The Kansas Humane Society took away Lucy’s right to live and the ASPCA defended the barbaric act.

    Reply
    • Volunteer

       /  January 2, 2012

      You do contradict yourself in claiming that you both do not care if the pet owner mistreats the pet, and then claiming that mistreating the pet is bad.

      How many pets have you fostered from the local shelter which had bad behaviors including constant barking, chewing, urination, chewing through walls? Where should animal shelters look for people such as yourself who are willing to retrain all these adult dogs?

      You may be the only person who wants to be put into a nursing home when you are older, rather than cared for by family, because you know that people being paid provide better care than families.

      This so called shelter may be the worst one in the world, but to give this pet owner a free pass is bewildering.

      Reply
      • Let me clarify: I was exaggerating for effect.

        I would not want any owner to mistreat a pet.

        I was trying to make the point that whatever Lucy’s owner may or may not have done in past does not play into my opinion of who is to blame for her death.

      • Volunteer

         /  January 2, 2012

        It is remarkable for you to repeatedly state you do not blame the owner for not providing basic care for the dog.

      • Another way to put this into perspective–if a person surrendered a child to a place claiming to be a shelter for children and which took money from people who were led to believe that their money would be for the humane treatment of children, and that “shelter” killed the child within five minutes (or five hours or five days, weeks, months or years) of receiving the child, the people at the “shelter” would be the ones facing murder charges, and rightfully so. We do not tolerate this sort of nonsense in any other context. People tolerate it and even repeat it with regard to animals because it is the b.s. that has been repeated ad nauseum over the years by organizations such as the ASPCA. Surrender your money to them and they will hoard it. (Hmmm… they don’t burn checks because depositing them is such a bother, do they?) Surrender animals to them and they will kill them and blame anyone but themselves, which facilitates the money-hoarding. It is just another form of animal exploitation for financial gain, only it is more disgusting and leaves the animals even more bereft, because it is done by those claiming to protect them. The animals need protection from such “protectors” because these people are robbing them of what should be their safety net.

      • It’s nice to see KHS chime in, but you should stop pretending you don’t understand normal American English.

        Shirley didn’t say she doesn’t care if the dog was abused by the owner; she said that whether or not the dog was abused by the owner (a fact not only not in evidence, but not suggested by any of the available facts), it’s irrelevant to what the shelter did once they had custody of the dog.

        And what they did was take a normal, healthy puppy, and kill it immediately because they couldn’t be bothered to do their jobs.

      • Volunteer

         /  January 3, 2012

        Lis, try reading more of the blog, and comprehend it. Shirely has commented many times that as long as a dog is kept alive by the owner, she is happy with the owner.

        The ony people who fail pets, according to Shirley, and many other people who have never done any animal welfare work – paid or unpaid – are people who volunteers and employees.

      • I’ve been very lenient with your anonymous mischaracterizations and attacks but you seem to have nothing else to offer. If I’m wrong and you have something useful to contribute, please do so. Otherwise, please consider this a one time warning that this type of troll activity is not tolerated.

      • Volunteer

         /  January 3, 2012

        Valerie, are you old enough to be a parent, of a human?

        Here is a hint. It would be ILLEGAL to drop off a human child the way this woman dropped off her dog. Humans are not allowed to disregard human children as they do pets.

        So why are you not calling for the arrest and prosecution of this callous woman?

      • Volunteer

         /  January 3, 2012

        Shirley, exactly what have I said that is considered trollish?

        The fact that you have never volunteered with an animal welfare group?

      • Erica

         /  January 3, 2012

        WOW – just WOW. “Volunteer” you need to get your head out of your arse and stop acting so childish! You came into someone else’s “house” and act like THAT?!?!? If I were Shirley I would’ve booted you after the first crappy comment! If you knew ANYTHING you would KNOW that a shelter is suppose to be a SAFE place for animals…to protect them from harm, while at the same time locating homes for them! AND if you knew a shit then you would KNOW that Shirley and many, MANY other people on here foster, support (volunteer and/or donate) to shelters ALL the time. Maybe you should just go back under the rock you crawled out from under and stay there for the sake of humanity!

    • the humane society and the ASPCA do not care about these animals—-people just are not aware enough or care enough to find out. If they did, we would not have to spend hours every day of the year trying to rescue these animals from these “shelters”. Every day we are on a deadline trying to save as many animals as possible and shove them into already overcrowded rescues before these shelters kill these animals for whatever reason they want. How many people are even aware of how these animals are killed. Many are “put to sleep” by being thrown into gas chambers awake with as many animals as can be shoved into the box—while they scream, cry and try to claw their way out as they are slowly gassed to death–which can take as much as thirty minutes to an hour, while they vomit, defecate and know they are being killed. Some die faster than others and spend their last moments trying to gasp for air while all around them are dying. Others are “put to sleep” by “heartstick”—having poison jammed by “stick” right into their heart and then they convulse, spasm, vomit, defecate as they are being held down in a room already full of other dead animals until they are dead—some being killed, screamed at and further abused while they die. Others are injected with poison in a room full of dead dogs and cats and then just thrown into a pile of other dead and dying animals. —-I do blame all involved——-ignorance is no excuse for anything———————-animals are a life long commitment ———not a disposable “thing”——-wake up and see the dead bodies of these poor innocent creatures who want nothing else but to be loved. ——–as a last thought—–these animals know as they are being dragged to the “death room” that they are being brought there to be killed and they cry as they are being dragged there, just as you and I would cry out for someone to save our lives——-it’s just that society doesn’t think their lives are worth as much as people–???????????????????????????????????

      Reply
    • Jessica C

       /  January 3, 2012

      Shirley-
      I could NOT agree with you more. A shelters job is to do just that- SHELTER the dog until it can find a future owner.

      I know this is an extreme example, but what if the dog was a baby who a woman decided to put up for adoption because she thought she wanted the baby but it turns out she didnt. So she takes it to an orphanage and the orphanage causes it harm in some way. Is it still the mother’s fault or is it the orphanage’s fault?

      Reply
  23. maybe the Humane Society and the ASPCA should take some the millions of dollars they take in each year and actually do what they are supposed to do—save lifes—–however——it is much cheaper to just kill them————stop giving money to the Humane Society and the ASPCA

    Reply
  24. Yes pets are for life. So are children and marriages. Things don’t always work out. Sometimes people make plans but then become terminally ill. Sometimes people lose their jobs and homes and wind up in shelters themselves. And some people – not most, but a minority – are just irresponsible jerks. WHATEVER THE CASE, this is what animals shelters are for. So that no matter what has happened to gum up the works, there will always be a safety net to catch the community’s pets and keep them safe. At least, that’s what they are supposed to be for.

    Reply
    • We place pets every day for terminally ill people—most of these pets are placed within hours. Other people make plans for their pets, just as they do for their animals. People do not want to live in the “horrible” shelters there are for people—they can walk out. This weekend I cross-posted and placed into rescue for one “shelter” 32 animals—today they killed 48. Shelters —-unless they are no-kill———-kill every day. Owner surrenders are sometimes killed the moment they are brought in. ——-Everything is disposable for people. Children are for life—–will provisions and life insurance. Marriage—-I tell my children—-if you are not planning on staying married for ever—-don’t get married.——-we place pets everyday for people who lose their jobs——-have fosters lined up for those struggling, as well as, military personnel who have no one to take care of their pets while they are deployed. The ASPCA and the Humane Society have become major money making machines with people retiring with full pensions. Rescues have people working there who do not get to retire, much less have full pensions. People are not responsible, some shelters take in as many as 100-150 animals a day—-impossible to place. Everyone thinks that their animal will be adopted right away because “they are so cute–everyone will want them”, then why don’t you?—–others are moving, or just had a baby, can no longer afford them, life-style changes—yadda, yadda, yadda,—have heard it all before. Shelters are not shelters—however, they are always looking for volunteers—-but thats generally some one elses problem—-because most people don’t have the time.

      Reply
      • The local shelter I volunteer with has been sending out happy emails about the adoptions that have taken place while they were “closed” over Christmas and over New Year’s. And they don’t radiate hate and contempt for the people who have to, for whatever reason, surrender their animals.

        Any org calling itself a “shelter” or “humane society” or “society for the prevention of cruelty to animals” should not be killing animals for no reason except that they were surrendered, or because they have a cough, or because they are puppies exhibiting normal puppy behavior, or because they are stressed in a stressful situation.

        Taking an animal they no longer can, or want to, care for to a shelter is, as Shirley has pointed out, what we tell people to do, what we want them to do. To then blame and condemn them because they didn’t realize that that place that calls itself a “shelter” is in fact a killing factory, is hypocritical at best.

  25. So You’re Thinking About Giving Up Your Pet? You Might Want to Reconsider.
    makeadifferencerescue.wordpress.com
    This is a copy of a post. I am not the original author; but it is one of the most important articles we could ever post on this site. Please post this EVERYWHERE….spread the word about the REALI…

    Reply
    • I didn’t see the article you mentioned at the link but there is a fine line between educating/helping people to keep pets and recognizing when it is either not possible or not best that the owner keep the pet. We want to HELP people, not guilt them into keeping pets with threats of “the pound will kill Fluffy if you take her there”. While education and assistance are very important, the bottom line is that they will not address EVERY situation and we will always need shelters.

      Reply
    • Tina Clark

       /  January 3, 2012

      I can’t believe this essay keeps rearing its ugly head…again. It just seems to keep popping up, sometimes with a slightly different wording here and there, but always the same basic essay. Every time it comes up again and people start posting it around, I start beating my head against a wall trying to make people understand why this is SO wrong-headed

      Here is a slightly different incarnation of the same essay that was posted some time ago, followed by my response.

      http://whatsallthisthen.wordpress.com/2011/09/30/%e2%80%9cmommy-what-happens-inside-an-animal-shelter%e2%80%9d/#comment-729

      Reply
      • Erica

         /  January 5, 2012

        I didn’t know what kmmm was talking about – NOW I do! The stupid “I’m a Shelter Director” letter! BTW – lovely response to it!!!

  26. Dannielle

     /  January 2, 2012

    how sick is it that they didn’t even bother to evaluate her for any of the behaviors listed on the surrender form?

    people lie sometimes, out of shame for loss of a home or a job, and may state the animal is being given up for an inaccurate reason.

    they didn’t even TRY. they took her, walked her directly to a back room, and killed her.

    I’m not exonerating the owner, either. had the daughter been willing to take the dog or a responsible breeder take the dog back when it couldn’t be kept- as I or any of the people I associate with would- the dog never would have walked through a shelter’s doors. I see nothing mentioned about efforts by the family to either return this dog to her breeder or to rehome her themselves.

    poor Lucy.

    Reply
    • Not the daughter. Why can’t people bother to read. The ex-husband, as a “gift for the daughter.” Which the mother then had to try to care for even though she wasn’t the one who chose to get a dog, and which the ex-husband didn’t have to deal with.

      For crying out loud, use your brains, people.

      Reply
      • The Wichita Eagle article says:

        Nott got Lucy as a gift from her daughter about nine months ago.

        I think that’s why people (myself included) believed Lucy was a gift FROM the daughter.

        At any rate, as I’ve said in various forms many times already, as far as placing blame for Lucy’s death, it matters not to me how the owner got Lucy, how she treated her, or how she felt about her at the time of surrender. None of those factors played a role in Lucy being killed. The Kansas Humane Society is solely responsible for the decision to kill Lucy and the act of killing Lucy. And ASPCA defended them.

      • Her Facebook page, which apparently only Roger and I have looked at, she says it was a gift from the ex for her daughter.

  27. Joel

     /  January 2, 2012

    I’m really having a hard time understanding all the blame being heaped on the owner. No-kill folks talk all the time about the dangers of looking for perfect homes for dogs. Sometimes the homes or the owners aren’t ideal, that’s part of the deal.

    But then when the situation doesn’t work out and a dog gets returned, the owner is inevitably an imbecile? Really? The owner or the situation just wasn’t a fit. It happens.

    Apparently, dog owner are morons if:
    – They aren’t dog experts, and don’t have a lot of experience in training..
    – They don’t have a healthy amount of cynicism about shelters, usually attained by reading blogs that are critical of shelters.
    – They only exhaust half of the options available to them, instead of the 100% we can come up with because we know more about dogs.

    A certain percentage of people are going to return their pets. If the owner is a moron and the dog is a healthy, normal dog, then why wouldn’t we want the dog to be returned so that it can go to somebody competent?

    Reply
    • Volunteer

       /  January 2, 2012

      You have no idea what really happened between the pet owner and the pet or the pet owner and the shelter.

      What we do know is:
      -this person kept the dog into adulthood
      -did not fix the problems
      -did not want to pay $30 to keep the dog alive for a certain period of time so she could change her mind
      -did not contact the rescue groups the shelter tried to provide

      Why do you claim repeatedly the dog was returned? A dog is returned in a few days or a week, not after a year.

      Reply
      • Joel

         /  January 2, 2012

        Nobody has any idea of exactly what went on, and there is definitely some he said-she said in the article, which is why it’s silly to start labelling the woman as a moron.

        Call it a return or surrender, it doesn’t matter. The owner is always quick to be cast as a heartless idiot, no matter the circumstances.

      • Karen F

         /  January 2, 2012

        What we know from the Eagle’s coverage is:

        -this person received the dog as a gift from her daughter
        -this person did not give up right away
        -this person was concerned that the dog was suffering from separation anxiety
        -this person tried to find a new home on Facebook
        -this person tried to contact a rescue for help
        -this person agonized about giving the dog up, spent most of the time of the surrender hugging the dog, and brought all the dog’s own things so the dog would have them in her new home
        -this person believed KHS would find the dog a new home
        -this person was distraught while filling out the paperwork and wanted to get away
        -this person began sobbing as soon as she left the building and tried to undo the surrender

        What we also know from the Eagle’s coverage is:

        -KHS deemed the dog, a beautiful young yellow Lab, unadoptable without assessing her
        -KHS killed her

        The owner did not put the needle in and push the plunger. The owner provided an opportunity for the right owner to discover this high-energy, friendly dog. But for the right owner to discover the dog, the dog had to be alive, be assessed, and be retrained so her best foot could be put forward for potential adopters. Yes, I believe that is the responsibility of the shelter. They are able to attract donors, so I assume they would be able to attract volunteers (or perhaps even pay someone) to help with training programs. Programs for behavioral and medical rehabilitation are listed as part of the No Kill equation, and right here we can see why they made the list — they save lives.

        But KHS is not a No Kill shelter. KHS is a shelter that requires that an animal be “adoptable” at the moment of surrender. If he or she is not, the animal will be killed. That is wrong.

      • Karen F

         /  January 2, 2012

        I should have said, “KHS is a shelter that requires that an animal SEEM and BE SAID TO BE ‘adoptable’ at the moment of surrender.” In fact, Lucy could have seemed adoptable, and even been adoptable, but KHS assumed they knew all they needed to know based on what the owner disclosed in her effort to give accurate information.

      • Volunteer

         /  January 3, 2012

        Yes Karen F, based on the gossip this pet owner seems an emotional wreck who probably caused a great deal of stress for her poor dog.

        Tell us how you handle dogs with severe anxiety when you foster them. How many do you foster in an average year?

      • Karen F

         /  January 3, 2012

        Volunteer, you are asking this question as if my behavior somehow made KHS kill Lucy. It didn’t, and neither did anything that Shannon Nott did. And neither did anything that Lucy did or experienced. KHS killed Lucy because they decided to kill her.

      • Erica

         /  January 3, 2012

        “Volunteer” yet again you show no knowledge – a ONE year old dog is NOT an adult – it is still considered a puppy! Obviously you are a ‘volunteer’ at KHS otherwise why would you continue to argue so much over this situation. You have NOTHING of substance to add to the conversation. Instead of wasting time why don’t you read up on the No Kill agenda AND go back to your shelter and teach them about it. And in the mean time realize that KHS broke the law in what they did!

  28. Know what SAR handlers, detector-dog trainers, and some service dog trainers call a high-energy teenage Labrador who is too much for most pet owners to handle?

    Here’s a hint. It’s not “unadoptable.”

    Reply
  29. Debby Walker

     /  January 2, 2012

    I live in Kansas. Where specifically is this shelter at?

    Reply
  30. It probably shouldn’t astound me that so many people are willing to shovel the blame on to the owner. That’s the spin the so-called “shelters” have been selling for years. That owners are “bad.” That death is better than a bad owner. That they are so overburdened because of these bad owners that they have to do things they don’t want to do.

    When really the truth is that the shelters are just too damn lazy to do anything other than kill.

    Perhaps we should start a guerrilla campaign of posting large notices on these buildings that speak the truth “Your Pets Killed Here.”

    (And yes I have worked in shelters. And yes, I am active in rescue.)

    Reply
    • I’ve had friends who would hang out in the parking lot at Animal Control and offer to take dogs from people before they relinquish them–Animal Control didn’t like that.
      I’ve had friends tell me, “But I’ve given several dogs to Animal Control and they’ve all found great homes!” (Animal Control doesn’t like that either.)
      I’ve had owners who want to give me their dogs and when I say I don’t have the time/room/resources and suggest they take their dog to Animal Control, they say: “But Animal Control kills dogs…” (And it’s one of the few statements that makes me cringe and accept *just one more* into my pack.) I don’t know how Animal Control feels about that, but I would hope they would appreciate my efforts?!
      Not all shelters are the same. Our Animal Control does make mistakes, and I think that the union employees can get away with a lot more laziness than their inflated salaries and benefits should allow.
      Although they’ve had a lot of turn-over since I was last active in volunteering, so maybe it’s better now?
      BTW, some of you rescue folks probably wouldn’t allow Lucy’s former owner to adopt from you…and how will THAT help anything?!? Not only have we lost Lucy to KHS, we’ve lost one more loving person as a resource for an animal in need.
      LOSE/LOSE. And *shelters* kill hope every damn day.
      H. Houlahan…precious, priceless, irreplaceable, one in a million are just some of the descriptions for a dog like Lucy in the right hands.

      Reply
      • Erica

         /  January 3, 2012

        Lynn I just have to say that you hit the nail on the head with the comment about how *most* places wouldn’t allow her to adopt for them! Sadly we have too many animals AND hoops for potential owner to jump through! Hell, I was turned down from a rescue because I had kids and other animals! Don’t mind the fact that I’ve trained the same dog I was trying to get for over 15 yrs – and had the recommendation letters to prove it! Too often everyone is so busy playing God with animals lives that the poor animals end up losing in the end – with their lives.

  31. marie

     /  January 2, 2012

    I had a dog that ate 3 couches, my mattress, a wall. a door among other things I would have never brought him to a shelter. This went on for 3 years. He finally got out of it. I had him for 13years til he died of cancer.

    Reply
    • It’s not a contest. Just because you kept a dog that ate 3 couches and Ms. Nott surrendered her dog having (presumably) done less destructive chewing, it doesn’t make you a hero or Ms. Nott a villain. I trust that each person does the best they can.

      Reply
  32. ashley

     /  January 2, 2012

    I think the owner should have listened to her facebook friends. She said she has been a dog owner to several dogs. I wonder what happened to all of those dogs? I got my pit bull when she was 3. I had never owned a dog and got stuck with her. Not potty trained, scared to death, and skin and bones. She ruined my brand new carpet within 2 months of being here(and she wasn’t fixed either!). So I googled what to do, I called the vet, my friends, etc. Now she is a fat happy 9 year old loving girl. I wouldn’t change a moment of it. They will learn of you teach them. I think the owner is just shitty for not trying to teach Lucy. I am not having any problems teaching my 6 month old what and what not to chew on. This is my 1st puppy.

    Reply
    • You are entitled to your opinion of the owner but I would point out that you are basing your opinion on an assumption of what the owner didn’t do as far as trying to teach Lucy. I don’t see any basis for your assumption. Regardless of whether she tried to teach Lucy not to chew furniture, she didn’t kill her. Kansas Humane Society did that.

      Reply
  33. One thing I want to reiterate here, b/c it seems to have been overlooked: The owner changed her mind after surrendering Lucy.
    If you read the Wichita Eagle piece, it says Ms. Nott became “hysterical” after walking out the door of the Kansas Humane Society and leaving Lucy behind. She was sobbing. She realized she had made a wrong decision. As a human being, I can understand this. I too have made wrong decisions in my life and felt regret. I assume many of you who are condemning the owner here have also made wrong decisions.
    Ms. Nott realized her choice was wrong within MINUTES – and attempted to go back and undo the wrong decision and make things right. When she did that, the Kansas Humane Society told her it was too late to ever make her wrong decision right b/c they’d already killed her dog. Why some of you can not feel sympathy for her in these circumstances, I don’t know. But it scares me. It really does.
    Perhaps some of you are thinking “Well *I would never* make that particular wrong decision.” So what? There are no prizes for which mistakes you make in this life – only in how you try to make things right once you realize you did wrong. Ms. Nott tried but the Kansas Humane Society had made the decision to take Lucy’s right to live away. And they didn’t become hysterical over it and call their sister and sob on the phone about it either. In fact, unlike Ms. Nott, they haven’t even realized they made the wrong decision. They are telling the press they did the right thing by killing Lucy immediately.
    Kansas Humane Society does not realize they made the wrong decision and they are doing nothing to try to make things right. All my condemnation goes to them for their actions and to the ASPCA for condoning it. Ms. Nott seems very human to me. Kansas Humane Society and ASPCA – not so much.

    Reply
    • Erica

       /  January 3, 2012

      Shirley – I just have to say that the masses of asses on this post amaze me! I am sick of watching people continual finger pointing at what Ms. Nott did….EXACTLY what we want people to do… and that the SHELTER failed Lucy! Honestly it does NOT matter what the reason(s) are for turning in an animal….that IS what shelters were set up for! For EVERYONE who continues to point the finger at Ms. Nott – I sure as hell hope NONE of you EVER have to face losing your home/job or getting terminally ill….it isn’t fun to have to think of losing a beloved pet and when our SHELTERS don’t live up to their names and what there are SUPPOSED to do it makes it even worse.

      I have personally been faced with the possibility of losing my home and with having 6 kids to worry about as well, I agonize over what will happen to my pets *if* I did lose my house. I do run a rescue out of my house – and the pit bulls would be VERY hard to place, I’m not going to lie, but *if* I had to go through it I would expect the shelter to live up to it’s name! Anything else is just BS!

      For those who continue to finger point – maybe it’s a good time for some internal processing and find a way to stop acting like jerks! Not everyone is going to be perfect – not everyone is going to do things *your* way – not everyone *knows* that shelters kill – so get off your soapboxes and get some damn compassion! A dog lost it’s life because a SHELTER broke the law and killed it before the 3 day hold period. So now where’s the blame lay?????

      Right where it should…on the SHELTER!

      Reply
      • Jessica C

         /  January 3, 2012

        Erica I couldnt agree more. You said everything I was trying to say but you said it much better. By continuing to keep blaming the owner rather than the SHELTER, we are doing exactly what the ASPCA and HSUS wants us to do. Also Im getting tired of the “it was a gift FOR her daughter”/”it was a gift FROM her daughter” thing. Is that really relevant?? Who cares who it was for?? Lets move on to something that matters!

      • Jodi

         /  January 3, 2012

        “Ms. Nott did….EXACTLY what we want people to do… and that the SHELTER failed ”
        Erica hit it right there. Our rescue doesn’t want people dropping dogs/cats on our county roads and at the dumpstersites around our county. They will die of dehydration and starvation in the summer and freeze in the winter. They will suffer from mange and infestations of worms and fleas/ticks. They will face deadly cars and wild coyotes. Some will become some “dumpsterized” that they fear the kind soul who tries rescue. We have no shelter and no animal control in our county right now. We are building and have offered to take on an animal control contract. We are sponges taking in all the successful ways others are saving lives even when they are open admission…because we know that one day soon we will face the challenge (with less than $10M in donations), but we also know that we will be a “shelter” …the safe haven we are all meant to be.

      • Teri

         /  January 3, 2012

        My son and his wife inherited a family of cats when they bought their home in the country. First order of business was to take the whole kit and kaboodle (no pun intended) to the vet for health checks, shots, worming and spay/neutering. My son learned from an early age that our cats didn’t need to reproduce (we lived on a farm)….the numbers never dropped since so many people felt free to leave their pets in our yard. Worked for me. I loved having a dozen cats around. When the numbers got too large the youngest cats were given to new homes. Although, some of our friends quit bringing their little kids over because they were likely to go home with a young cat….healthy and already fixed, tho….I just wish the people who would drop off entire litters at our place would have dropped off the mamas with them so I could have had them spayed too…

      • KateH

         /  January 3, 2012

        Jodi, can you say where your planned shelter will be – maybe someone here will be able to help you somehow.

      • Teri

         /  January 3, 2012

        Jodi, PLEASE let us know where your shelter will be and how we can help. Until there are more shelters like yours, places like the so-called “Humane” Society will continue to exist…..and that is something I would like to see end.

        If nothing else, places like the KHS should be forced to follow the law regarding truth in advertising……

      • Jodi

         /  January 3, 2012

        Terri and KateH, Old Fella Burke County Animal Rescue, Inc. in Burke County,GA. http://www.oldfella.org We have a FB page also.

  34. Peter Masloch

     /  January 2, 2012

    And let’s further more point out that the (any) Animal Shelter has a responsibility to society, a moral and ethical responsibility. The Animal Shelter is suppose to be the safety net for the animal in case everything else fails. KHS has failed both, the society and Lucy.

    Reply
  35. Karen F

     /  January 3, 2012

    Well over 200 comments on the Eagle’s piece. The discussion focuses squarely on who was actually responsible for the killing of Lucy. The story definitely struck a nerve.

    Reply
  36. “Volunteer” has been sent on a secret mission that will take many years to complete. Please don’t engage him in further conversation as he will be unavailable to reply.

    Reply
  37. Laceysmom

     /  January 4, 2012

    Wow – lots of comments on this thread! Well, I went to the KHS website and holy crap – they offer “virtual pet behavior” . Step by step advice at NO CHARGE. So, if they know how to fix negative behavior, then why couldn’t they have tried to retrain Lucy? I don’t get it.

    Reply
  38. I just check Derek Schmidt wall on Facebook.. there are two comments post below the sample letter that Shirley poster. both people also want this to be investigated.

    http://www.facebook.com/DerekSchmidtKS

    Reply
  39. Sarah

     /  January 7, 2012

    I blame Ms. Nott entirely. She signed a form that she did not want the dog back–she did not look into training, and she took her dog to a kill shelter. I think that it is HIGHLY unlikely that anyone else would adopt a dog that the owner surrendered due to destructive behavior. Animal shelters have terribly small budgets, especially since the influx of pets and the decrease of pets with the current economic crisis in the U.S. It would be less stressful for the dog to be euthanized instantly than to sit in the shelter for 5 days and then be euthanized. This shelters did not have the money, staff, or space to make a different choice.

    Of course, Ms. Nott feels bad. But rather than blaming the shelter for her actions, she could take this as an opportunity to do something positive–let people know that she made the wrong decision, volunteer for the shelter as a foster parent so the shelter has more room and can hold animals longer, hold a fund raiser for the shelter, advocate for better funding. . . Rather than harrasing a shelter that did what they said they would, I’m sure there are many more things Ms. Nott could do to make herself feel better that would actually help the animals. As it is, her actions are taking even more time away from animals in that county shelter by forcing the staff to deal with her complaints.

    Reply
    • Erica

       /  January 7, 2012

      Seriously – you blame someone who used a SHELTER the way it is meant to be used? You blame someone – when it was the SHELTER that killed Lucy? You blame the owner when KHS broke the law and did NOT keep the dog alive for the mandatory 3 DAY period?

      I think Ms. Nott is going through enough right now. And personally – I would NOT help the very shelter that killed a perfectly healthy and entirely NORMAL puppy within literally 10 MINUTES of it being dropped off.

      How can you say it is nicer to kill the pup rather than put it in a cage?????And you go on and on with how it’s not the shelter’s fault…no time, no money…SERIOUSLY? WTF are shelters there for? It doesn’t say Kill Clinic for Animals on it’s doors…it says HUMANE SOCIETY! There is not ONE damn humane thing KHS did in this situation.

      In my opinion Ms. Nott DID do something positive – she brought to light that not only does KHS suck…but they also broke the law…and do not deserve to get away with it – especially NOT when the rep can’t even recall HOW MANY other times this has happened.

      And your BS spin on how this is taking time away from the animals…..the ones they are getting ready to kill. Are YOU trying to ease your conscience a bit maybe? Work there? Kill there?

      Reply
    • Erica

       /  January 7, 2012

      And BTW – how do YOU know what Ms. Nott did or did not do for Lucy? You have NO CLUE – unless you are a friend of hers, or work at the shelter……..

      Reply
    • Peter Masloch

       /  January 7, 2012

      Sarah, just out of curiosity, did you ever look up the definition for the word “Shelter”?
      Hint: you can find it on the top of this page.

      Reply
  40. MegD

     /  January 10, 2012

    I think everyone needs to have a fuller understanding of this situation. This site has made a very short aricle from bits and pieces taken from a much larger article that more fairly explored both sides of this paricular situation. For the full article please visit http://www.kansas.com/2012/01/01/2158855/wichita-woman-upset-with-kansas.html

    Reply
  41. Mandi

     /  March 21, 2012

    That shelter is a scum bag shelter and that woman Janzen deserves herself to be euthanized and cremated with all of those dogs! Let me tell you a story about my dog that The Wichita Eagle and the TV News would not take. I live in the county in Butler County mind you – out in the Augusta area – 45 minutes away from that sewage hole. My 6 year old lab got out of our fence. He had a collar with tags that had his name, address and phone # on them. Apparently he went to visit a neighbor a few miles down the street who was Mrs. Janzen’s best friend, Jeff and Olivia Owen. Rather than call me or bring my dog home, she took my dog clear to another freaking county to that KILL SHELTER. She took off my dogs collar and turned him in as her own dog, yet Janzen knew it was not her dog and still allowed her to turn it in. I spent three days calling the county vet offices and shelters in BUTLER COUNTY looking for my dog, knocking on doors, driving around the county looking for my dog. On day 4, I received a note via her daughter that she gave to my son on the bus “I took your dog to the shelter in sedgwick county.” When I went there to retrieve my dog they would not give me any info because I was not the one who turned him in as the listed owner. Simply told me to look through the dogs in the shelter and see if he was there. He was not. I was in tears. I wanted answers and they weren’t giving any! As I left destraught, I received a call from Janzen. She remembered my dog because her friend had brought it in. They euth’d him the day before because they thought he had glaucoma. I asked if they had tested him. NO they had not! In fact, he was up to date on all of his vet visits, heart worm meds, rabies and other shots. He was blind in his left eye – he did not have glaucoma. He was seen by a vet regularly about his blindness. That witch took a member of my family that day no different than if I had been walking down the street and you walked up and shot my kid in the head. Buddy was a black lab with no behavioral issues. He was the friendliest dog anyone could have ever known and he did not have glaucoma. And by the way, the so called “expensive” glaucoma test the Kansas INHumane Society can’t afford to conduct is no more than a squirt of air in the eye to see if the eye dilates or not. Wow – air must be really expensive these days. We can not save them all, that is true. But there is absolutely no logical reason for killing a perfectly good prospective pet for these ill-advised excuses they would have you all believe which are in fact most of the time lies designed to cover up the truth. And let me tell you something else, this BS she posts about saving 63% or something thereof last year, I do not believe one word that comes out of that woman’s mouth. Numbers can be fudged in InHumane societies just like they can in business. If you want to see, hear and read the truth, go to this website about Death Row Dogs. This is in New York. But make not mistake, the Kansas inHumane Society is no different…

    http://www.urgentdeathrowdogs.org/about-urgent.

    Educate yourself – then speak.

    Reply
  42. Mac

     /  May 10, 2012

    Why so surprised. I work in an area related to the meat production and packaging industry. These organizations plague the industry, who feed millions for, most of the time, staged or illegally obtained material, unfortunately only those familiar with the industry can discern the abnormalities in those materials. I don’t advocate for unnecessary killing or tormenting of animals, but it is a necessity. Well, these organizations present themselves as the saviors of animal kingdom and really they exist to ask money from kind-hearted people and then pretend their interest is in animals. It is not. HSUS does not sponsor your local shelter and ASPCA is only designed to functiona as a business. They are as callous as any large corporation and if an animal won’t lend them fees, they will be killed. No questions asked. Still, I think a dog is teachable and Ms. Nott’s only sin was that someone else would have more time to do just that, but her honest presentation of the dog’s behavior was a warrant against the animal’s life. Still, I have lost pets before and feel sorry for her loss.

    Reply
  1. The Week in Tweets (19 January 2012) | Some Thoughts About Dogs

Speak!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 922 other followers

%d bloggers like this: