|
Criticism
dogs animal shelter
Critics
say Coconino Humane Association isn't humane enough(Longer
Web version)
By
Susanne Severeid
Flagstaff Resident
“Our
mission is to operate a humane and caring shelter that will give aid
to unwanted, abandoned and mistreated animals in northern
Arizona.” So states the Web site of the Coconino Humane
Association, also known as “the shelter.” But, many in Flagstaff
have serious concerns regarding this shelter’s management, kennel
conditions, high euthanasia rate for adoptable animals, lack of
accountability, and ineffective community outreach.
Nicholas
Gabriel III, vice president of the shelter, responding to the above
concerns, stated in a letter dated Aug. 22, 2001: “Our facility is
one of the nicest in the state and we are proud of it.”
Yet,
in the course of researching this article I’ve heard the shelter
described by others, often in disparaging terms such as: “Among
the worst shelters I’ve ever seen, like something out of the
1950s;” “Just a holding cell for the animals till they kill
them;” and “A concentration camp for animals.”
Paula Johns, executive director of Plateauland Mobile
Veterinary Clinic, a local, low-cost spay-neuter clinic, has
repeatedly expressed her concern about how the shelter operates. As
former executive director of the Humane Society of the White
Mountains, Johns has extensive experience managing such a shelter.
“My biggest concerns with the Flagstaff shelter,” said Johns,
“are their lack of community outreach, lack of accountability,
lack of euthanasia training, minimal qualification of the low paid
help, no exercise, spraying the animals down in their pens, spraying
at the walls; in one word: lack of compassionate care. This applies
to just about every facet of how the shelter currently operates.”
Like
the Flagstaff shelter, Johns’s White Mountain shelter also had
contracts with the city and county and had to accept “anything
that walked in the door.” She is sympathetic to the challenges,
but her commitment to community outreach was central. “We had
foster programs, fund-raisers — we were always a presence. The
Flagstaff shelter has just now again started doing ‘Pet of the
Week’ in the paper; we did such things all the time.
And, unlike the shelter, if anyone wanted to attend our board
meetings, they were welcome any time; we even advertised it in the
paper. At the White Mountain shelter, the first thing I did was call
the Arizona Humane Society and talk with them about a variety of
things, one of them being euthanasia training. They had one of their
vets and their clinic manager come up, and gave us a whole day of
training.”
Carolyn
Pursely, longtime Flagstaff resident and an original board member of
Critter Crater, calls the shelter the "Inhumane
Association.” According to her, “The real goal for reforming the
shelter should be to do whatever it takes to minimize the kill rate
and maximize the adoption rate. But, after years of watching the
Flagstaff shelter, I feel there’s no way that’s going to happen
under the current administration. We must speak up for the animals,
for they can’t speak for themselves. It’s time to go beyond just
talking about the poor conditions there and to figure out a way to
accomplish a change in the shelter’s administration. For the
public to understand what’s going on, they should visit the
shelter; make eye contact and bond with an animal. Then return a day
or two later and walk by the all those empty cages, and wonder where
that dog went, or that whole batch of dogs.”
The
shelter is a private, nonprofit entity, receiving a substantial part
of its revenue from Coconino County and the city of Flagstaff. Since
it receives thousands of dollars per year from these contracts, it
should be fully accountable to them and to taxpayers, but, as a
private business, it is virtually untouchable. And a business it is.
A killing business. The shelter’s yearly report states that from
July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2001, it took in 4,619 dogs and cats
(including strays brought in by the city and county, as well as
owner turn-ins). Of this total, 1,161 were returned to owners; 1,386
were adopted; and 2,073 were killed. Thus, according to the
shelter’s own figures (and not
including pets returned to owners), this is a 40 percent adoption
rate. The average adoption rate for similar shelters nationwide is
50 percent according to an informal nationwide survey.
Each month, roughly 173 dogs and cats are killed at the
shelter.
Nationwide,
the trend is toward higher adoption rates and lower kill numbers.
Like hundreds of shelters throughout the country, Nathan Winograd,
Executive Director of Tompkins County Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals in New York, also maintains animal control
contracts. Like the Flagstaff shelter, Winograd’s facility is
required to take in all strays and abandoned animals. But, as
explained in the March/April edition of Best Friends
magazine, the Tompkins County shelter is being praised for its
operations.
Winograd
told Best Friends, “We achieved this with a simple, ‘stop
the killing mindset’.” He turned his shelter — which had
traditionally used euthanizing as the first solution — into a
model of how shelters can be run; with dedication, compassion, a
massive community outreach program, a firm commitment to adopt
rather than euthanize, and a 100 percent compulsory sterilization
rate for adopted animals.
“We
didn’t do it with a big shelter, or with buckets of cash, but with
a simple firm commitment to stop the killing, the flexibility to see
it through, and by having the director acknowledge that the
responsibility for each death is his or hers alone,” said Winograd.
Few
realize that under Arizona law, after a 72-hour waiting period an
animal shelter can do whatever it likes with city or
county-impounded stray animals that don’t have identification. As
for animals turned in by owners, once the owner signs a
relinquishment form, the animal becomes the property of the shelter;
it can be legally euthanized the minute you walk out the door. It is
entirely up to the discretion of the shelter whether the animal will
even get a chance at adoption. The city or county pay only for that
initial 72-hour period for strays; after that, any housing, feeding
or medical expenses become the liability of the shelter.
Hence, according to Paula Johns, it is the owner
turn-ins that tend to be first in line to be euthanized when there
is a space problem, even though more is known about these animals’
backgrounds and these animals are often healthier and better
socialized. “If you’re full, and the city or county is bringing
in strays,” said Johns, “you have to make room. You can’t
euthanize the 72-hour minimum animals, so it’s the owner turn-ins
who go.”
Consequently,
the idea that your relinquished pet will sit comfortably in the
shelter for weeks until it has a chance to find a new and loving
home is a fantasy.
Coconino
County’s Cruelty Regulation Ordinance No. 96-01 states that
animals must be “in
healthy environments … provided with water … medical care …
animals shall be given adequate exercise space.” However,
the shelter provides no outdoor access of any kind and the cement
floor cages are so small that larger dogs cannot even walk back and
forth and often must step or lie in their own feces.
On more than one occasion I, and others, have witnessed dogs
with long strands of saliva hanging from their mouths, with no water
dishes in their cages.
Dennis
Pugh, executive director of the shelter, told me he never has a
veterinarian in the shelter. “If a dog coughs once,” he said,
“we give him a look. If he coughs twice, he’s outta here.”
The
noise of barking dogs in the shelter is so deafening that employees
often wear ear protectors. An index card with the barest of
information, often hastily written by an impounding officer, is
posted on the cage. This information does not seem to be
double-checked by shelter employees, and at times is so inaccurate
as to quote the wrong sex.
Terrified
and confused, Fido remains in this prison, until finally led from
his cage. Freedom at last, he thinks, tail wagging happily. He is
taken to the isolation ward in the back, where one by one, the
animals are euthanized on the floor by an employee who is not
required to have any formal training in this skill. And they don’t
always get it right. “Some go down easier than others,” I was
told.
So,
having been given as little as just a few days to be adopted, Fido
dies on this hard, cold floor. Tongue hanging out, he lies there in
a row with the others until tossed into the landfill like so much
garbage.
A
big difference between the shelter and so-called “no kill”
rescues, is that these “no-kill” centers can pick and choose …
and turn away pets which they deem too old, sick, or difficult to
adopt; and many have months-long waiting lists before they can
shelter or foster pets. So for people with an urgent need to find a
home for an animal, the shelter becomes the only option — a
“do-kill” option. (Critter
Crater Pet Adoption Center will close its doors for good on August
10. During its two
years of operation in Flagstaff, it found homes for over 700 dogs
and cats, and spayed more than 400 animals.)
“Why
on earth can’t owners just put a tag on their pets?” asked a
frustrated animal control officer. “Or simply take a marking pen
and write a phone number on the collar? How difficult is that?”
In spite of the numerous complaints about the shelter’s
management, there are, and have been, compassionate and helpful
individual employees.
Some
find it hard to work at the shelter and watch as nice animals are
euthanized simply because owners are irresponsible or refuse to pay
the minimal fee to get their pet out. According to a former shelter
employee, fewer than 20 percent of animals found in the county are
returned to owners, simply because the owners don’t care, or think
the animal will easily get adopted: “When you don’t bother to
pick up your pet, it amounts to a death sentence.”
Former
employees interviewed for this story corroborated many of the claims
made by others, but were reluctant to be quoted by name, fearing
possible retribution.
Alice
Fennell, owner of Ask for Pets, has a sense of vocation when it
comes to placing rescued animals; she rescued, fostered and adopted
out some 400 dogs and cats last year. “I started this,” said
Fennell, “because I saw a situation I didn’t agree with and I
wanted to change it, while realizing that I can’t rescue every
one. I know that you can’t adopt out all animals. But three days
is patently unfair. If they’re not sick, and I don’t mean just
with kennel cough which runs rampant at the shelter, it still takes
time to get the right person for the right animal. The particular
animal needs to be given more time and more publicity; whatever it
takes. It really doesn’t have to be this way.”
The
shelter currently has no foster program, and does not appear to
conduct an energetic public outreach program to encourage adoptions.
According to a former Critter Crater volunteer, “Many times
in the past we offered to help advertise their animals; we even
offered to transport them from the shelter to our Pet Adoptions
days. There was always an excuse, ‘liability in moving them’ or
whatever. He (Pugh) rejected all our offers to help find homes for
those animals.”
In
spite of repeated criticism, the shelter continues to hose out cages
without removing the dogs, which Johns calls “simply inhumane.”
According to county documents, Pugh was notified by Mary Graeff,
animal management supervisor for Coconino County on May 14, 2002,
that there existed “…concerns
from the public regarding animals being wet and cold, because it
appeared the animals had not been removed from the kennels while
cleaning.” He responded that his staff “…has been trained to
spray the water onto the wall which helps avoid the animals getting
wet.” This is in direct contradiction to guidelines set down by
The National Animal Control Association manual which states:
“Animals and solid material BEGIN
ITALICS must END
ITALICS be removed from cage prior to cleaning” (emphasis in
original). In shelters nationwide, it is the rule to always remove
animals during such cleaning. Yet, Pugh continues to refuse, claiming it would be too expensive.
More
than one Flagstaff resident reported seeing a mother dog nursing her
puppies, all of them sopping
wet and cold, lying on a feces-and water-soaked towel on the cement
floor of a cage.
As
this goes to press, the Coconino County Board of Supervisors is
considering revisions to the animal housing county health code, one
of which would require
animals to be taken out during hosing. “It’s crazy,” said
Johns. “Why do we have to pass a law
to get him to do what is standard procedure everywhere else?”
In
a published editorial, a shelter employee stated, “The kennels are
actually quite comfortable, and all young puppies and older dogs are
given blankets to increase their comfort level.” But I recently
adopted a dog listed as 10 years old and there was no blanket or
towel to increase her “comfort”, nor did I, in the course of
several visits, ever see such pads or blankets in older dogs’
cages.
The
shelter is never inspected by a third party. Coconino County does
conduct one yearly kennel inspection, but their single-page form
with just 20 yes-or-no questions does not address items such as
kennel size, access to drinking water, outdoor runs or exercise. A
typical question is, “Are the facilities properly plumbed?”,
“Cages of durable material?” and “Is the operation
permit current?”
In
their previous contract, the county, for the first time, did insert
a clause requiring a
third-party, independent inspection. However, when the director of
the Arizona Humane Society offered to do such an inspection for
free, Pugh rejected the offer. “The reason we’ve kept insisting
on an inspection with Dennis,” said Johns, “is because he’s
had such a closed-door policy. He has stated that he doesn’t want
the Arizona Humane Society coming in because he’s ‘more of a
pound than a shelter,’ which I’ve said all along. He’s a pound
operating under the auspices of the Humane Society.”
The
shelter’s sign on Butler Avenue reads, “Humane Society ,” but on all official documents I’ve reviewed, the shelter is
called the Humane Association. A large sign outside the
shelter building reads Coconino Humane Association. “There are 21
organizations in Arizona that use the term Humane Society in their
names,” says Cheryl Nauman, Executive Director/CEO of the Arizona
Humane Society. “And there are no affiliations amongst the
different organizations. Many people think the Humane Society of the
United States is an umbrella organization, but it is not; they
don’t govern or control any other organization. The term ‘Humane
Society’ is not trade-markable … there are no organizational
compliance requirements.” In other words, I could, tomorrow, start
my own “Humane Society” and be accountable to no one.
“Ultimately,” says Nauman, “a Humane Society is defined not by
the name on the door, but by the manner in which it treats its
animals and how aggressively it seeks to find those animals new,
loving homes.”
To
adopt an animal at the shelter all you need is cash. You don’t
need to show identification or answer any questions. There is no
follow-up on the animals’ welfare, and no adoption coordinator to
help with information on the animal. “At the White Mountain
shelter, we would always at least greet somebody in adoption,”
said Johns, “take them in, try to find out what they were looking
for, give some sense of guidance.”
Aside
from the 72-hour minimum on strays, there are no rules about how
long an animal will be allowed to live before being euthanized. “A
week is a long time” for an animal to be there free and clear for
adoption, Pugh told me. He said he prefers “not to have set
rules,” leaving such decisions up to the employees, many of whom
work for minimum wage and have little relevant experience or
training.
Hearing
how employees decide the fate of animals, Johns just shook her head.
“Before an animal was euthanized at our shelter,” she said,
“that employee would first have to come to me. Ultimately,
euthanasia decisions were up to me, the director.”
A
recent “Pet of the Week” ad in the Arizona Daily Sun,
stated, “Please help make the shelter’s job easier by getting
your pet an ID tag or microchip.”
Yet
when I called the shelter to ask if they scanned each new animal for
a microchip, I was told, “No, only if it looks like a lost pet,
and not every day, maybe every couple of days.”
This,
according to a local veterinarian, “Is a gross breach of public
confidence.”
Scanning
for a microchip is a simple process that only takes a few seconds.
Nauman
said, “Scanning for a microchip is just Basic Shelter 101.”
What
does this say about the shelter’s commitment to returning pets to
their rightful owners? And what if a pet adopted from the shelter is
later found to carry a microchip identifying the previous owner?
Why,
in the face of all this criticism, has this situation been allowed
to continue for so long? For one, many in Flagstaff have never set
foot in the shelter. Also, the use of names with the word “Humane” tend to
give us the impression that all is being done as it should be. But the real answer lies in the fact that for the city of
Flagstaff and Coconino County, Pugh’s shelter is the only place to
take stray or abandoned cats and dogs. Pugh does a job that no one
else cares to do. On average, the county alone deals with 15 dogs a
day. There currently exists no other facility in the area to do the
job.
But,
it can cut both ways. According to public documents including
the IRS
Form 990 for the period ending June 30, 2000, and the shelter's
own financial statement and auditor's report, for the year
ended June 30, 2001, the shelter received $10,100 and
$5,108 per month from the city of Flagstaff and Coconino County
respectively. “Loss of these contracts would have a severe
economic impact on the organization’s (the shelter’s) ability to
operate and fund its programs,” states the shelter’s own audited
report. An accountant I had a conversation with regarding the
shelter’s past IRS forms said it appears that, “without the city
and county contracts they’d most likely not survive beyond six
months.” In other words, the shelter would be a financial dead
duck in the water.
This
mutual dependency has resulted in standoffs, such as the one that
occurred during the last contract period between the shelter and the
county. Pugh stalled on signing the contract until just a few weeks
before it expired on June 30, 2002. He thus
managed to operate without a signed contract with the county for
two years, rendering their newly inserted “inspection” clause
meaningless as there was no time left in which to actually conduct
such an inspection. The new contract is currently being negotiated,
and Pugh has already requested an increase in funding amounting to double the previously agreed-upon sum, bringing the county payment up to
$10,000 per month. This has the county balking and, so far, they
have been paying on a month to month basis while exploring other
options.
Meanwhile,
the city recently extended its contract with the shelter, agreeing
to pay $125,000 per
year.
According
to Deputy Chief of Police Robert White, who responded on behalf of
the city to questions about the contract, the city’s new contract
reflects just a slight “market increase.” He indicated that Pugh
said he will be asking for another increase when the option to renew
comes up in November.
“The
fact that he is asking for more money amazes me,” said Johns.
“How can he sit there with a straight face asking that, with them
having his audited financial statements in their hands, showing
he’s got $300,000 in the bank?”
When
I expressed concerns about shelter operations to Pugh, he blamed the
fact that he can only hire low-wage, inexperienced help. However,
the shelter’s own auditor reported that for the period ending June
30, 2001, the shelter had net assets at the end of the year of
$357,965. Recent
audited financial statements indicate a surplus in funds of close to
$200,000 — with no restrictions, food donations from Purina
valuing $10,000, and a “building fund” in excess of $100,000.
Despite the sizable building fund there appears to be no plans to
enlarge the kennels, add outdoor runs, or make other substantive
improvements to benefit the animals. On the contrary, Pugh has
indicated to the county that he intends to permanently seal the trap
doors between cages. In years past, these doors at least provided
the dogs a minimal chance
to move about.
Pugh
is required to provide reports to the county accounting for the
animals they adopt out. When asked about these reports, county
officials could not remember whether or not he had in fact submitted
such reports, nor could they at that moment be located. How
accountable is such directorship going to be, if no one seems to
keep track of whether or not the reports are even sent in?
To
clarify how such a nonprofit corporation works, a board of directors
is responsible for hiring, evaluating and, if necessary, dismissing
the executive director. There is often a delicate balance between
the board and the director, but, according to Johns, how
that balance works is essential. “I serve for my board. That’s
who I reported to when I worked for the White Mountains shelter. I
would think that any effective Board would see that progress isn’t being made here
in Flagstaff, that they need to take steps to move forward. Having
worked at a shelter and been involved with the Board of a shelter
for 10 years, I do sympathize with the plight and situation that the
Flagstaff shelter is in. However, it goes back to: if Dennis (Pugh)
is tired or whatever, then step down, move on, take a new direction.
That’s what I did. You get to the point where you do get burned
out. There are times and there are days when you tend to get bitter,
hostile and sad and you have a public that can be so ignorant. What
you see in the smaller shelters, though, is, yes, it’s a difficult
struggle, but the board of directors is out there doing membership
drives, community outreach.”
Who
are these shelter’s board members? Are they aware of the
community’s concerns? And if so, what have they done about it?
As
I researched this article I was surprised how many people came
forward with story after story. My own neighbor recalled visiting
the shelter and asking to take a young Labrador retriever out of its
cage (to see how it got along with children), only to be told by a
shelter employee, “No, we don’t want them to get too much
exercise.” (Despite the fact that FlagPAL volunteers have created
an outside area for just such a purpose.)
"And my own recent experience after I found a
lost dog. Naturally, I did not bring it to the shelter. A
pet store called the shelter for me and gave a full description and
contact number for their file. Later that afternoon, the dog's
owner called the shelter looking for the dog, but was told that they
had no information about her dog. She called them again the
next day and even went by the shelter in person — each time
getting the same heart-breaking answer. It was only after she saw my
"found" ad in The Daily Sun that she and her dog
were happily reunited. I've
been told of similar incidents happening to others in recent weeks
as well.
Jean
Myers, Flagstaff chapter coordinator for the Animal Defense League
of Arizona, said, “A huge concern of mine is that there is no vet
care. The barren, concrete cells, the dark, cold atmosphere, and
putting to sleep at the drop of a hat. I mean, any dog with kennel
cough is put to sleep immediately. The dogs appear terrified. Their
barking is more like screaming. I think the only solution is we need
another facility, one that is not controlled by Dennis Pugh. It
should not be profit-motivated, but run by the community.
The
public, too, I heard over and over, is a large part of the problem.
As long as people do not spay and neuter their pets, as long as they
treat them as “disposable,” dumping them indiscriminately, there
will remain staggering numbers of unwanted animals. And as long as
the city and county can offer no alternative, or are unwilling —
or unable — to pay for a new shelter, then Pugh will remain at the
helm.
As
far back as 1985, the Daily Sun reported serious allegations against the shelter, then
under the direction of Clarence Pugh. These allegations ranged from
“animal neglect” to “wholesale mismanagement.” Critics
claimed at the time that on several occasions animals that were
still alive had been dumped at the landfill by shelter employees.
According to an article published Oct. 27, 1985, “Other charges
were primarily directed at Dennis Pugh, Clarence’s son and an
employee at the shelter.” Voicing much of the criticism were some
of the shelter’s own volunteers, some of whom claimed that their
concerns were dismissed by the shelter’s board. Reports indicate
that the board included Nicholas Gabriel. Interestingly, Nicholas
Gabriel III now sits on the board.
Robert
White, the deputy chief of police, seemed unconcerned by the
recurring allegations against the shelter. White, on the force for
27 years, said of the shelter, “I am pleased. … I know there is
a lot of confusion and I’ve been in meetings where I’ve heard a
lot of unsubstantiated allegations. I don’t like going in there.
It’s smelly, but that organization does a pretty responsible job
in dealing with both the numbers of animals they work with and
injured animals. Dennis and the board has responded.”
The
city conducts no inspections of the shelter. White seemed to feel
inspections were not necessary. He asked rhetorically what
inspectors would look for during an inspection? He also noted that
his animal control officers visit the shelter every day to drop off
animals. However, from my own observations, these visits can be
quite brief, lasting just long enough to drop off newly-found
strays.
So
far, Pugh’s strategy of blatantly ignoring ongoing criticism and
refusing to change conditions has worked. But, if enough concerned
citizens were to contact city and county officials, it could compel
Pugh and his board to get in step with current norms. It would also
help for all the various animal organizations, shelters,
veterinarians, etc. to unite, pooling their resources, energy and
talent, rather than inadvertently competing for the same funds,
public donations and prospective adoptants.
The
city and county, by law, must have such a facility where they can
dispose of their animals, and no one will deny that it is a dirty
job, made even dirtier if it is not properly funded and managed so
as to keep animals long enough to succeed with adoption instead of
euthanization. And, the faster the “turn-over,” (i.e. killing),
the lower the expenses per animal. We certainly can insist on proper
oversight by those agencies who, for years, have seemed only too
happy to look the other way while the shelter takes care of this sad
and messy problem.
We
can, and should, demand that the animals be treated humanely,
regardless of how short their stay in the shelter might be. And, if
we must in the end kill them, can’t we, at least, assure them a
gentle death administered by caring, properly trained personnel?
“What
frustrates me, and everyone in the animal community here, is that
everybody’s taken their run at it,” laments Johns. “The
shelter handles 90 to 95 percent of the animals, and he (Pugh) is
invited to all the Animal Advisory (committee) meetings, we send him
the minutes, everything, but he never attends. How do you create
effective change without the Humane Association’s (the
“shelter”) involvement?” She just shakes her head in sadness.
“You have to care. And he just doesn’t.”
Susanne
Severeid is a freelance writer with an extensive background in
television and radio. She is the recipient of two Emmy Awards for
documentaries she hosted for PBS-TV.
Click
here to read an article about Dennis
Pugh and his response to some of the criticism voiced in the above
article.
Click
here to read Susanne
Severeid’s letter describing how she was told the shelter would
not put the dog to sleep for at least a couple of days while
Severeid tried to find a home for the dog. The dog was put to sleep
within 12 hours.
Click
here to read letters to the editor
about the story above and the animal shelter.
Click
here for a list of current
officers and directors of the Coconino Humane Association.
Click
here
to read the award-winning but controversial story by Anne Minard
about the shelter published in the Arizona Daily Sun Dec. 16, 2001.
Click
here to read Amy Durant’s editorial defending the shelter and
taking Minard to task. The editorial was published in Flagstaff Tea
Party in January, 2002.
|
