Response to the Excuses of HSEO's Director

On 6/16/13, the East Oregonian published a newspaper article discussing the communities' issues with Pet Rescue. (It's behind a paywall, but it's only a dollar, and I encourage you to read the whole thing).

It quotes Jackie Alleman (owner and director of Pet Rescue) quite a bit.

Jackie Alleman also sent in a letter to the Editor on 6/20/13.

Since no one from Pet Rescue will talk with me directly, I'd like to respond to her statements from both the article and the letter here.


The article states that "...Pet Rescue’s executive director Jackie Alleman is growing wary of what she sees as unwarranted public scrutiny. She said that the shelter has no legal obligation to host volunteers."

This is true, and also ridiculous. Of course there's no legal obligation to have volunteers. It's also not against the law for Pet Rescue to not vaccinate animals, have a website, advertise adoptable animals, or any number of smart shelter practices that I've already outlined. And if they were a non-profit dealing with used furniture or canned food, no one would care. But they're dealing with living animals, pets, and therefore they have a moral and ethical obligation that has nothing to do with legalities. And what's more, they receive tax dollars and donations, so, yeah, public scrutiny is very much warranted.


It also says, "Alleman argued that the training and supervision involved with hosting volunteers makes it a consuming endeavor for Pet Rescue."

and yet she also says: "Alleman said the shelter no longer lets the dogs out to exercise because they don’t have the time."

I'm sorry that doing your job correctly is time-consuming. If this were a regular business instead of a non-profit, that kind of excuse would get you fired.

Pet rescue "...receives the majority of funding from local government (Umatilla County and the city of Hermiston) ... about $120,000 per year... Alleman said that the shelter prides itself on keeping a tight budget."


"Alleman is no longer a paid employee, but lives on-site and receives about $40,000 per year in rent from the shelter."

"Alleman said she is not one to ask for other people’s money and push for donations for the shelter."

They could probably stretch their dollars a little farther if they weren't paying rent to their own director and also started advertising for donations from the community. I'm sure that $40,000 would more than pay for a part-time volunteer coordinator/trainer, for example. Then they wouldn't have to worry themselves about how "time comsuming" it is to have volunteers do free labor for them.

"Hermiston city manager Ed Brookshier said the shelter’s service is “satisfactory” for the city, adding that currently Pet Rescue is the only option. “Frankly, there is no other service around... some larger counties provide their own shelter but we wouldn’t be able to afford that.”

This is certainly understandable, and I don't think anyone expects the city of Hermiston to open a completely city-run animal shelter. Many, many cities and counties do exactly what Hermiston does and contracts their animal control and sheltering with a private non-profit. It's win-win situation in most cases, as the city doesn't have to fund the entire operation, and a non-profit gets a boost of revenue and legitimacy in the community. It's not some new, revolutionary thing; lots of other shelters are in this exact situation and are doing a much, much better job than Pet Rescue.

"Pet Rescue euthanizes nearly half of the thousands of animals it brings in each year. It’s not something Alleman likes, but she said she could never keep the shelter afloat and help 232 dogs and 67 cats get adopted in the last year if they didn’t turn to euthanasia. '“We have to make hard decisions every day,”' Alleman said. “If we didn’t, this shelter would have shut down 19 years ago."

Is it a hard decision to utilize free online advertising? Is it a hard decision to call other rescues in the area when your shelter is full and you plan to euthanize a healthy animal? Is it a hard decision to ask for donations from the public to keep the shelter "afloat"? Is it a hard decision to stop paying yourself $40,000 in rent and instead use that money to save more of the animals you claim you "have to" kill? Is it a hard decision to spend 10 extra minutes per animal to get a good photograph to help market them more effectively? Is it a hard decision to follow any of the best practices for animal shelters that are listed online for free?

In her letter to the editor, Alleman says:

"Suzanne complains in the article ... that she doesn’t see Pet Rescue in the community. We provide tours for girl scout, boy scout and youth groups. We provide pet education classes in the local school districts. We’ve set up a booth at the Good Shepherd Family Education day and handed out information and goodies for 4 or more years now. We’ve had entries in the Hermiston parade. This last year we provided 1300 lbs of dog and cat food for families and seniors citizens that need temporary emergency help. Every year we mentor high school seniors that are interested in animal care as a profession. If Suzanne hasn’t seen us, I guess we don’t hang out in the same places."


All good stuff. Why not do more?

Suzanne is not the only person who doesn't see them in the community. They need to "hang out" in more places, more often, to get more positive exposure. That leads to more adoptions and more pet lives saved.

(And, as a side note for perspective, 1300 lbs of food, while commendable, isn't all that much - it amounts to 33, forty-pound bags of dog food. In an entire year. Fuzz Ball Animal Rescue, which has an extremely small budget (in the hundreds of dollars range) and only a handful of volunteers, managed to give out about 300 lbs of food in 2012. Pet Rescue should be able to do a lot more.)




Alleman says: "We vaccinate high risk animals when they enter our shelter, but then we still have to wait at least 10 days for the shot to have the optimum effect. We have found that one of the best ways for our shelter to keep germs at bay, besides cleaning and disinfecting daily, is to keep dog to dog exposure at a minimum. So this precludes us from letting all the animals run together. 

While it's true that not overcrowding cuts down on the disease transmission risk, as long as dogs share air space, the risk is there. Vaccinating for parvo upon intake is considered best practice by every expert in the field of animal sheltering. Vaccines are inexpensive: between $1-$5 per animal when purchased by a non-profit. There is no reason not to vaccinate all healthy-looking animals upon intake.

"We have volunteers come and walk dogs nearly every day we are open."

This directly contradicts what she told the reporter in the earlier article.



Alleman then starts blaming the public for the inadequacies of her organization: "I cannot express enough the importance of spaying and neutering your pets. I believe the key is to encourage more responsibility from pet owners. .. We believe that the best use of Pet Rescue's resources is to help pet owners become responsible by letting them invest in their own pets spay or neuter and vet care and Pet Rescue encouraging that, by providing assistance as needed. 

How does encouraging OTHER people to spay and neuter their pets help YOU get better at adopting out animals? It's blame-shifting, pure and simple.

"Don’t lash out at the shelters, who are trying to clean up the mess of overpopulation."

There is no such thing as pet "overpopulation". The statistics are readily available. There are, in fact, more than enough homes for every shelter animal, they just have to be marketed properly. And voicing valid criticisms with a goal to improve and save lives is not "lashing out".

"We are thankful to Washington State University and their excellent vet program ... for spaying and neutering at least 25 animals per year for adoption from our shelter."


That's great. But why isn't this advertised somewhere in the community (like on a website) to get more positive exposure for both the shelter AND the university? And why stop there? If you're having difficulty getting local vets to do free spay/neuters, get creative. Build a surgery suite onsite; Vets are usually much more willing to volunteer their time if it's not at their facility and they don't have to do set up or clean up. $40,000 would more than pay for a surgery table, instruments packs, and autoclave. Just sayin'.

 "HSEO/Pet Rescue reunites approximately 10 dogs a month with their lost owners and provides a centrally located facility for folks to check for their stray animal."

I'm confused by the way this is phrased - Alleman is just describing what they're paid by the city to do as if they're doing it for free out of the goodness of their hearts? It's a great idea to advertise and celebrate every stray that is returned to its owner, but this is merely the bare minimum that a shelter should be doing.



"Pet Rescue maintains an inventory of approx. 60 animals to provide the best assortment for those who are looking to adopt an animal. And any business-person knows that you keep your inventory healthy and marketable."

These are actually good ways of looking at things. Many in the rescue community disagree with me on this, but I and others believe that treating animal rescues as businesses and rescue animals as "products" helps to save lives because it puts us in the mind-set of doing everything we can to help animals get out of the shelter alive. Except that one of the main points of this website is that Pet Rescue doesn't have good business sense. They miss so many opportunities to advertise their product, keep their product healthy and marketable, save/make money, and engender a positive image in the community (their customers). Alleman isn't a good business person, that's the whole point of trying to get her to improve!



"Also, I assume, any successful business-person knows that he must sell his inventory at market prices."

She probably mentions this because so many people have complained about the high adoption prices; although there are no set prices for pets from HSEO, some non-altered, non-vaccinated dogs have sold for hundreds of dollars. Adoption prices are controversial but it's my opinion that Pet Rescue's are higher than they need to be, especially when they aren't investing that much in each animal (not spaying or vaccinating in many cases).

"I am happy that Suzanne found a place to volunteer her time. And I am sure, with her efforts, her statement, “the dogs are not overpopulated, just under marketed,” her new shelter will be empty soon."

Ooo, a little passive-aggressiveness. Nice.

"... as in politics, there are many ways to provide services and care for the abandoned and stray animals that are out there in our community. Our current policies are what works for us..."

But they're NOT working. That's the point. At best, they're barely adequate. They could be so much better, and so many more lives could be saved.

... 500 animals that come through our door each year. .. adopting more than 260 shelter dogs per year and reuniting about 120 with their owners.

There's conflicting statistics: in the EO article, it said "thousands" of animals, not 500. But anyway, again, why aren't these happy tails advertised somewhere?

I've said this many times, but since I'm being bad-mouthed but some people about my motivations, it bears repeating: My goal in voicing these criticisms is to help improve the Humane Society of Eastern Oregon/Pet Rescue. If there were another, nicer, less public way of getting the management to shape up and come into 21st century animal-sheltering, I'd do it. I know personally, and from talking with many other people, that the community's concerns and suggestions have been ignored for years. Sometimes public shaming is the only way to get people out of their rut.