|
Letters to the editor regarding
animal shelter
Thank
you for having courage
Thank you for having the courage to print Susanne
Severeid’s article. The time to find an alternative to the
Flagstaff
Humane
Association is now. Dennis Pugh is running a shelter whose ethics
were alive and well in the 50’s; control animal population by
killing. It was the accepted method of solving the problem. Times
have changed and Dennis is not changing with them.
The thing I don’t completely understand is this: what if
Pugh or employees of the Humane (laughable name) Association went
around to the various cages and shot 5 or 6 dogs and cats on a daily
basis, then dumped their bodies in the land fill. People would be
outraged and it would never be allowed to continue. So what is it
about giving an injection that kills perfectly adoptable animals
that people tolerate?
I have personally heard from 4 people in the last month who
told me they tried to work with Dennis on community outreach, train
the dogs to make them more adoptable, volunteer to do animal
behavior work, etc., with Dennis telling them he’s just not
interested. And you know what? He’s so obviously not interested.
I believe the answer to this dilemma is to encourage the city
and county to build a bigger, cleaner, more humane, more welcome
shelter; one that encourages compassion volunteerism, and humanity.
I encourage people to write or call city and county officials
to share their story and make this new shelter happen.
Carolyn Pursley
Sedona
Shelter
management a crime
I too am
writing anonymously because I used to work (at the shelter).
I agree, the conditions are far from satisfactory, and the
director, Dennis Pugh, even more so.
He spends so little time there overseeing his business which
his family started. As for the care of the animals, every other
shelter I have ever set foot in have individual access to the
outside from each run. During cleaning, the animals are forced
outside in these runs and the doors closed so that they can’t get
wet during cleaning. The only exception is during major weather
occurrence such as a blizzard. Even then, the outside areas should
have some cover so as to protect the animal. There is plenty of room
for the Flagstaff location to incorporate this into the existing
runs. Dennis cries
"poor" yet when I solicited donations of blankets,
machinery and food for the Coconino County Humane Society, I was
told to stop!
Little
comfort is given to a puppy or group of puppies who have been tossed
into a cold, wet kennel with a thin towel as "warmth."
That towel is wet within 30 seconds and that is all the puppies have
to huddle with except for a cement floor. I'm not saying pamper the
animals, but for cryin’ out loud, don't they deserve better than
that? And if a worker
walks by a water dish with dog poop in it, the worker should stop
and empty it, clean it and give the animal fresh water. More often
than not, that doesn't happen.
It is a
crime the way our local animal shelter is run. Dennis Pugh should be
out of there and replaced by someone who really does care about the
animals and their well being. He obviously does not.
And shame
on the county for allowing this to continue.
Anonymous
Personal responsibility needed
Nowhere in any of the articles of concerning animal shelter was
anything mentioned concerning “personal responsibility”.
It is the responsibility of dog and cat owners living in
Coconino County to spay or neuter their animals. If you can’t
afford to “fix” your animal then you should not own one.
Would you own a car if you could not afford to maintain it? Your
animals should be properly tagged so that if it is lost you can be
notified of its whereabouts. Your
animal should be properly contained in an area of sufficient space
and provided with food, water, and shelter. When more animals
are fixed fewer unwanted animals are procreated.
Therefore, fewer animals would arrive at the shelter.
Consequently, a smaller staff would be needed and the
money in the shelter budget would then be available to pay
higher wages and to properly train shelter employees. Lets put the
blame where the blame belongs. The reason so many animals are
euthanized is because there are more animals available than there
are people who are willing to adopt them.
Jim
Loper
Flagstaff
Many
thanks
Many
thanks to Susanne Severeid for her outstanding article,
"Criticism dogs animal shelter," in your August issue.
Kudos for standing up to the pound's current administration and the
county and city governments whose funds enable it to keep
operating. The
pound is an abomination. The suffering and the slaughter must be
stopped. N.
Lindsley Flagstaff
Claims
made by shelter director deserve scrutiny
Thank
you to the Flagstaff Tea Party for having the courage to publish the
real story on the Coconino Humane Association. However, there are a few points in Dennis Pugh’s rebuttal I
must take issue with:
Mr.
Pugh’s charges that “some rich people did not get their way”
or that
“critics may have financial motivation” are unsubstantiated and
an attempt to deflect attention from the real issue, which is and
always will be the welfare and treatment of animals at the shelter.
It’s
interesting that Mr. Pugh blames his budget shortfall on the
ambitious
spay/neuter
program. He should be
overjoyed with the 98 percent spay/neuter compliance rate instead of
complaining about the financial implications of the shelter finally
doing what it was supposed to do all along.
Just
as he did in the December Arizona Daily Sun article, Mr. Pugh is
once
again
bemoaning the cost of vaccines.
Mr. Pugh claims “the cost of shots has gone out of
sight,” when in fact over the last two years, the increase has
been minimal. Dog and
cat vaccines have only increased by 10 percent and 13 percent
respectively. Mr. Pugh
claimed in the Daily Sun article that $15 of dog adoption fees and
$10 in cat adoption fees are used up in vaccination costs, in
reality the actual cost of vaccines for dogs are $3.21 and $5.89 for
cats.
As
I suggested in a letter to the editor to the Daily Sun, Plateauland
would be
glad
to assist the CHA in reducing those costs, possibly all that’s
needed is a new supplier. By
my calculations the savings would be substantial, well over $12,000,
money that could be used for animal care.
From
Mr. Pugh’s assertion that public perception of the shelter is good
but
tainted
by “undeserved articles,” it’s clear that he is out of touch
with the community. An
important function of an Executive Director should be community
outreach. When, I
wonder, was the last time Mr. Pugh attended a community event or
meeting pertinent to animal welfare in Coconino County?
In
regards to the shelter’s euthanasia rate, Mr. Pugh stated “the
shelter only
euthanized
48 percent of the animals in its care.”
What I find appalling is that over the past three years,
while animal shelters nationwide are dropping their euthanasia rates
to record lows, the numbers at the CHA have actually increased by 5
percent over the last three years.
Mr. Pugh goes on to say that his numbers compare favorably
with a euthanasia rate at other shelters four or five years ago.
This statement proves my point; Mr. Pugh is far behind and
out of touch with the animal welfare world.
Although
I initially agree with Mr. Pugh’s statement regarding employees
having a better insight into which animals should be euthanized, I
strongly disagree with who should make the final decision.
Those decisions should be made by an executive director or a
Shelter Manager, not by employees earning minimum wage.
Employees working with animals on a day to day basis can
become frustrated and in turn, make ill advised choices.
It’s a heavy burden for an executive director to bear, but
a necessary one to ensure the proper decisions are being made for
the right reasons.
If
money were the real issue, wouldn’t it be logical for the CHA to
host several
fund-raisers
or a community membership drive?
However, that may lead to
more community involvement, which Mr. Pugh definitely does not want.
Also,
a membership in the CHA is unlike most small humane societies in
that
the CHA board is not elected from the membership base but are chosen
by Mr. Pugh. Now, since the Executive Director usually serves at the
pleasure of the Board of Directors, in my mind that is a clear
conflict of interest. As
I see it this is the real issue, the lack of an independent board. If the board were to be elected from an open membership, then
possibly we would see real progress.
In
closing, please understand that I am not a rich person and have no
financial motives to
criticize
Mr. Pugh or the CHA; my concern is and will always be for the
animals.
Paula
Johns
Executive Director
Plateauland Mobile Veterinary Clinic
|
