No doubt, there are those that believe I'm belabouring the point. The reality is that since June 28 when the shelter opened, the oft-stated status of the "new" THS has been woefully quiet. While I am cognizant that new policies take time to discuss and implement and the Board has had only a limited time period in which to acquaint itself with the current policies and procedures at the shelter, what I find troubling is the complete and utter lack of communication occurring between the public and the THS.
Perhaps I am seeing this too simplistically - and if so, I would be grateful if people would point out the error of my concerns.
But it seems to me there was a fairly clearcut sequence of events.
- The dogs were surrendered (and I don`t dispute that somewhere in the tedious and to my mind, far too complicated process of surrendering there is a clause that states the dog could be euthanized if deemed by the staff of the THS).
- within 24 hours SOMEONE made a decision to kill the dog for SOME reason.
- SOMEONE then euthanized the dog.
So what is the mystery?
If there was a sound reason why this had to be done, why hide it? While I am obviously not privy to the dog's medical history, it states in the original ad that they were both healthy. I think it a fair assumption to say the dogs were also socialized - Icy was a pet for 11 years!
Incidentally, I DO NOT believe people should point the finger at their former owner - it seems to me that just based on the dogs themselves, he was a conscientious ad caring owner. They were older, they were healthy and they were well loved - that is obvious - and we are not privy to his reasons for giving them up. I know that, for instance, Britain's 6 month quarantine and the associated costs are simply too prohibitive for some. Or if he was moving to a tropical country, that is a legitimate reason - I know, because we brought our samoyed to live in Grand Bahamas many years ago and it screwed up his system for the rest of his life (northern dogs are not designed to deal with such hot countries).
Houndward Bound brings up the issue in a discussion on the Stop the Slaughter at the Newmarket OSPCA facebook page.
I know that I have been open about my concern about a different philosophy between the "no-kill" advocates on the Board versus the "low-kill" - and make no secret that I support the former. In the correct context, not only is "no-kill" plausible, but when followed correctly has proven to be successful beyond the wildest dreams. It does NOT mean "NEVER kill" - one of the issues with the "old" THS and is far too intricate to summarize here but google Winograd and you will comprehend how truly successful an example he provides.
It appears a number of people have emailed various board members and THS executive director Garth Jerome directly- if anyone receives any information about the circumstances surrounding this, I would love to hear about it.
I know that part of my concern and the reason I am worrying about this is that during the chaos and horror of the OSPCA occupation (apart from the sheer number of animals who were murdered), at two of the meetings which occurred toward the end it was clearly up in the air as to the ultimate goals of the "new" THS. I give Garth Jerome full marks for being honest and aboveboard about what he perceived was the policy - which is "low kill" ...and to my mind, a euphanism for getting rid of animals that aren't readily and quickly adoptable. While I disagree with him, I appreciate his candour.
An 11 year old Huskey may very fit the criteria of not "readily" adoptable by some.
Of course, they didn't volunteer there for several years and see how many caring people are out there that are ready, willing and able to adopt dogs that most places would deem "unadoptable". I have seen homes found for dogs that in a thousand years I would swear would never find them - old dogs, sick dogs, dogs with medical issues- dogs with behaviour issues ... as much as it breaks your heart to see how many HORRIBLE people are out there - people who abuse their pets - people who dump them when they get old - people who treat them as a "flavour of the month" and then quickly lose interest and move onto the next thing --- for as many of THOSE people there are a commensurate number of WONDERFUL people - who open their hearts and wallets and take the dispossessed, the neglected, the abandoned and the old into their hearts and homes.
So why did Icy have to die??
An 11 year old husky is surely not unadoptable. Before the shelter reopened, a number of us had adopted older animals with health issues, some of them palliative. There are people who will do this.
ReplyDeleteI read Icy's former owner's response. I'm so sorry he had to find out through emails. He might have imagine that his old dog found a forever home with her pal Diablo.
I also read that, apart from one benign tumour (we all get them as we age), Icy was healthy.
Someone at THS needs to explain this now. No spin please.
Answer us this, THS, and how you're going to prevent this happening in the future, and then, donations might start to flow.