Legislators for Animal Advocacy today released a report at a press conference that contained details on the euthanasia of dogs and cats at the Connecticut Humane Society (CHS) and demanded a meeting with members of the charity’s board.
The following is from CtNewsJunkie.com, which attended the press conference in Hartford.
Unsuccessful at its first attempt to get the Connecticut Humane Society to issue a moratorium on behavioral euthanasia, two state lawmakers armed with inside information are again calling on the charity for a moratorium.
According to documents leaked to Rep. Diana Urban, D-North Stonington, and Rep. Annie Hornish, D-Granby, the Connecticut Humane Society put down 200 cats and 165 dogs in 2009.
The spreadsheet, which Urban says was leaked to lawmakers by an employee whom she refused to name, lists the species, breed, reason for the euthanasia, date it occurred, name of the person who authorized it, and name of the person who performed it.
Of the six names which appear only one ends with the initials DVM, or doctor of veterinary medicine. Most of the euthanasias performed by the veterinarian were on animals put down due to health issues. Most of the other euthanasias which were performed fall under the heading of “aggression” or “behavior” and were done by individuals who lawmakers believe are not veterinary technicians.
The complete report from CtNewsJunkie.com is here.
The following are statements from the legislators:
State Representative Diana Urban (D-North Stonington/Stonington), House Chair of the Select Committee on Children and longtime animal advocate said, “I am concerned that the Connecticut Humane Society refused in writing to a moratorium on behavioral euthanasia while we work to clarify policy.”
“By releasing these euthanasia records, we hope that they will cooperate more fully with the legislature as we seek legislative solutions to what is clearly excessive euthanasia for behavioral problems,” Rep. Urban said.
State Representative Annie Hornish (Barkhamsted, East Granby, Granby, New Hartford), Co-Chair of Legislators For Animal Advocacy, said, “Euthanasia really should be a measure of last resort, and done in rare instances. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing at the Connecticut Humane Society suggests that killing is commonly done without justifiable cause and at far too high a frequency. We’re here to give these victims a voice and to stop what appears to be a whole lot of unnecessary killing.”
gptzite of Connecticut
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
STATE CAPITOL
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06106-1591
July 6, 2010
Christopher White, President
Connecticut Humane Society Board of Directors 701 Russell Road
Newington, CT 06111
Dear Mr. White,
We appreciate the promptness of your response to our recent letter. The spirit of accuracy compels us to provide some immediate clarifications.
First, if you review our letter, you will note that it was addressed to your entire Board of Directors by our Caucus, Legislators for Animal Advocacy, and some additional interested legislators who felt strongly about signing the letter; it was not solely from Rep. Urban. We therefore would recommend that, in the future, you address and deliver your replies to every signatory to our correspondence and not simply to Rep. Urban personally.
Second, we are unclear as to whether your letter, a copy of which I attach, represents the Board’s response to our request, since you personally wrote it on your own firm’s (LIFE Publication’s) letterhead, and not Connecticut Humane Society letterhead. We therefore would appreciate confirmation that each member of your Board received a copy of our letter and your letter, and agrees with the assertions and statements you make therein.
Third, your letter contains a factual error or misstatement that we must correct. You essentially state that our Office of Legislative Research did not request from CHS the names of your Board of Directors. We therefore are attaching proof of our request to CHS asking for the names of your Board members.
Fourth, your letter exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of our request for a moratorium on behavioral euthanasia_ The word “moratorium” denotes delay, not peimanence, which is exactly what we meant in our letter. We are calling for a moratorium on behavioral euthanasia until certain laws and policies can be openly discussed and evaluated.
Finally, we thank you for your invitation to the CHS Newington facility, and in the future will certainly consider making such a trip. Since the purpose of our meeting is to talk about the Attorney General’s Interim Report, as well as CMS’s euthanasia policy, in an open and transparent forum, however, we are requesting that the Board or its designated representatives sit down with us or our designated representatives at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford to focus on that purpose.
In that venue, at that time, we can fully and appropriately discuss these and the several other points that you raise in your letter. We therefore will contact you in the next few days to set up the meeting.
Rep. Annie Hornish, Co-Chair, Legislators for Animal Advocacy
cc: Connecticut Humane Society, Board of Directors
P.S. As with our first letter, this letter will be sent to you and your Board of Directors as well as all members of the above-mentioned caucus.
Similar Posts:
- Proposed Legislation To Be Announced Wednesday For Ct Humane Society
- Legislator Calls For Resignation Of Ct Humane Society Board
- Legislators To Call For Moratorium On Behavioral Euthanasia At Conn Humane Society
- Ct Attorney General Closes Investigation Into Connecticut Humane Society Without Taking Further Action
- Heat Turning Up On Conn Humane Society Board
- Support For Group Seeking To Oust Connecticut Humane Society Chairman Grows
As yet again our state spends into the negative, the budget is filled with lard as are our state legislators! We hired these idiot, this is what we get!
maybe they are volunteering thier time…
You think that protecting animals is some sort of a pork-barrel project? That’s too bad that your moral compass is so misaligned….
I agree that a DVM should make the decision to euthanize. However, earlier this year, a man from a low income home New Britain surrendered 2 cats (M/F) to CHS. He reported that the female cat had been dangerously aggressive all her life, and he asked that CHS take her and/or euthanize her. They refused to do so, and rather than take responsibility, they told the owner to call a small local nonprofit group that does not have a shelter. The owner called the president of the group, and she tried to help by visiting his home. The female cat attacked her without warning, resulting in serious bite wounds to her hand and arm. The cat then had to be euthanized (presumably at the group’s expense) and was tested (negative, thank goodness) for rabies.
Chances are, if the guy was “low income,” that CHS didn’t want to spend the money on the drug to euthanize the animal, and that’s why he was turned away. People report that CHS has turned people away, pets dying in their arms, because the people couldn’t pay the euthanasia fee. I am not sure if this is so, but I have heard it from reputable sources.
Is the CHS a low kill or no kill..A aggressive dog or cat is a very dangerous thing.I have taken care of people with such bites that they will never look the same again… No offense to any one or any aniamal but they all cannot be saved…I have been south and seen a no kill shelter…How humane is it to keep a dog in a kennel for any extended period…and if there is people out there that disagree then why dont you adopt them…I beleive that if there is a Lisensed Behavorist ,then the qulifications of this person doing the testing should be
proven to the pubic..I have seen nothing on thier website of such person…
It sound a little strange that someone that owns a rescue wants to work at CHS, isnt that a little off the wall and how is this helping her business…
Training is done by another company?? Of course I did look at thier website and at least the owner is APDT,CPDT and has fantastic background…How is their traing anyone know???
And what is the laws as far as Shelters
Hi Barkey, you bring up some very good points.
1) CHS claims to be a low kill shelter.
2) You are correct in that all animals CANNOT be saved however, you have to have some sort of consistancy and use your other options before killing is decided upon.
3) It is totally inhumane to keep an animal in a shelter for any EXTENDED period of time however who decides what that time is? That’s the hard part of no kill.
4) Disagreeing does not mean we are the option to adopt them. We don’t all have acres of land to build a kennel on. If that were the case, I’d take them all.
5) You are correct in that if there is a licensed behaviorist, there would be much more creditility to eunthanasia decisions. I don’t mean to belittle anyone but the fact of the matter is, there is no formal training for ANY behavior person on staff.
6) I agree that it is very strange that someone who runs their own rescue organization is now working at CHS as the rescue coordinator/behaviorist. Again hiring a behaviorist who has no formal training in behavior.
7) The training is in fact done by an outside Company and they are top notch trainers. The business is totally on the up and up and dogs recieve great training from these folks.
THe problem with the random killing is that there is no sense or sensibility to it. I can’t tell you as a trainer, certified by both CHS and Animal Behavior College, I spent a good chunk of time with many dogs only to come in one day and find their cage empty. You get all excited to think they found a home and realize they got put down. 8 out of 10 times, the dog was put down because of a mistake that a volunteer made with them. Letting agressive dogs gets near each other, not understanding the signs, walking them too close to the toehr dogs cages, not having a good grip on your leash, the list goes on and on. We certainly don’t euthanize volunteer’s for making a mistake, the animals don’t need to pay with their lives every time they screw up especially when it’s human error that caused the screw up.
Euthanizing animals is a must at times but it should not be used to fix problems and to make room for shipments. When there is a medical issue, there is never any doubt that it is in the best interest of the animals to put them down. When an animal is surrendered to CHS they have to pass a temperment test. If SO many dogs end up being put down, it has to go back to why were they taken in in the first place? Perhaps overhauling your testing techniques is in order.
All I have to say is to all the people that are complaining about animals being put down is get on a list and take them as they come in and deal with them yourself if you can do better! These people at the CTHS work their butts off dealing with wacko people, animals that are sick, injured or aggressive, and they deal with the losses as well. If you want to attack someone, attack the breeders, the irresponsible people who continue to neglect their animals or let them reproduce when there are thousands all over the country being put to sleep each day. Why bust on a charity organization that does the best they can each day with what they are dealt? Do you know how many animals they SAVE every year? Of course there are workers complaining – show me a job where there aren’t! If you can’t handle what has to be done, than get a different job and stop your whining. It’s hard any time you get animals involved, but you can’t save them all – so help them by going after the people that are letting them reproduce till it’s out of control. Come on now!