There was another newspaper article on this subject, this time from the East Oregonian (the Hermiston Herald is part of the same media group).
The new article is here: (LINK) It is much more neutral and balanced than the earlier HH article.
After some concerned citizens spoke at the Hermiston city council meeting in January, the city manager Byron Smith met with some of us to hear our concerns in more detail, and then followed up with a lot of research. He presented his findings to the city council at tonight's council meeting. Also at this meeting, several more community members spoke about their concerns with Pet Rescue. The meeting minutes and an audio recording of the meeting will be available on the Hermiston city website soon.
I'm encouraged that the city manager and the council are taking these concerns seriously. We'll see where it goes from here.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Thursday, January 29, 2015
The Hermiston Herald Gets it Wrong
The Hermiston Herald newspaper published a front page article about the recent public scrutiny of Pet Rescue on 1/16/15. Unlike the East Oregonian article on the same subject written by Natalie Wheeler in 2013, this one, by Sean Hart, was terribly unbalanced and poorly-researched almost to the point of libel.
Sean Hart attended the 1/12/15 city council meeting where four people spoke about the problems at Pet Rescue (including myself, and I'm named in the article). That would have been a good opportunity for him to pull any one of us aside to find out more about our concerns. Instead, the only people he talked to were Mark Morgan, (the assistant city manager), and Beau Putnam.
Mark Morgan made some inaccurate statements about Pendleton PAWS (an organization he knows little about), but Sean Hart didn't even bother contacting a PAWS representative to fact check, even though the subject was specific aspects of PAWS' policies and procedures.
A numbered list of inaccuracies:
1) "...the complaints were not specific in nature."
Again, he never bothered talking to any of us at the meeting, or doing any research on the subject (like, oh, Facebook or this blog), but even so, our complaints are VERY specific in nature. This blog discusses specific complaints in excruciating detail. As the meeting minutes show (see meeting minutes) there were specific complaints. Hart somehow doesn't mention any of them, except that we complain that Pet Rescue kills too many animals.
2) "...and many of the detractors’ claims are inaccurate or misleading." Ok, which ones? If I'm being misleading, please tell me where, and I'll do my best to address it. And anyway, if we apparently don't have specific complaints, than how can we mislead anyone? So, even though we "don't have specific complaints", Hart made sure to publish Beau Putnam's responses to our non-existent complaints:
2a) It's implied that one of our complaints, that Pet Rescue does not post its animals for adoption online before killing them, is false (even though we apparently don't have specific complaints?). Beau states that "most" of their animals are posted on Petfinder. As I've show people again and again on this blog, this is false. Usually (except for the last month, under intense negative public scrutiny) Pet Rescue has maybe 10% or fewer of it's available animals posted online ANYWHERE.
2b) It's implied that one of our complaints, that Pet Rescue turns away volunteers, is false (even though apparently we don't have specific complaints?) Pet Rescue has turned away volunteers as recently as December 2014, and even those who aren't turned away are mismanaged, and restricted from helping. Most animal shelters have an "open door" policy for volunteers, meaning that once they are trained on certain duties, they can come and go as they please as long as there is a staff member in the building. Pet Rescue doesn't seem to know what to do with volunteers, and wants to restrict them all to a set schedule, putting all kinds of barriers in front of people who want to help, but can only come a hour a week or whatever. Instead of encouraging and working with volunteers.
3) Putnam said, and when no-kill shelters in Pendleton and the Tri-Cities are at full capacity, people will bring in animals that are turned away there to his shelter. This is the opposite of my experience talking to rescuers in the East Oregon and Washington areas. Usually, people who are either turned away by Pet Rescue, or who don't want to use Pet Rescue, will take Hermiston strays AWAY from Hermiston, to Pendleton, Walla Walla, Tri-cities, or even as far as Portland. I'd love to see PROOF from Pet Rescue records, that they took in animals originating from other cities.
4) "In order for the shelter to be able to continue accepting all dogs, some that have not been adopted must be euthanized" - or, they can do what everyone including myself have been BEGGING them to do for years, and actually try to adopt their way out of killing. It's very possible to do so.
5) “Euthanasia is always a last resort,” Putnam said. “As long as they’re healthy and not aggressive, I will do the best I can to find that animal a home." I would love to see PROOF in the form of records, to show this is true. This is opposite of what many people with experience working with Pet Rescue have observed. And since most of the animals who are killed, are killed without ever being advertised, or without another rescue or foster home being contacted first, how can he say he's "doing the best we can"?
6) "the term “no-kill” can also be confusing and misleading"... and yet, there is a wealth of information online about the most common types of "no-kill" animal sheltering. Whether you call it "no-kill" or "low-kill" or "high-save"... the results are always the same. Shelters that truly try, do not kill "for space".
7) "Of the animals euthanized, some are unhealthy while others are aggressive... some owners bring in injured and sick animals just to be euthanized." I would love to see PROOF in the form of Pet Rescue records, that this is true. It's generally accepted that only about 10% of animals in a shelter need to be euthanized due to extreme suffering or aggression (the rest are either healthy, or treatable). And since most shelters don't include owner-requested euthanasias in their statistics (such an animal would not be considered an "intake"), those deaths should not "inflate" the kill numbers. Even so, 40% and 10% are worlds apart.
8) "Morgan said the way the Pendleton and Hermiston shelters operate and contract with the cities is different, which could contribute to misperceptions." This is the premise of the whole article, which I'll address below in detail. The short version: The organizations of PAWS and Pet Rescue, are comparable. The minor differences in their relationship with the city government is insignificant to the discussion of mismanagement and poor performance at Pet Rescue.
9) "After the holding period, Morgan said PAWS employees do not take all of the dogs from the police department. He said PAWS employees choose what dogs the shelter will admit, and the city is forced to pay additional fees for the remaining animals."
Flat out wrong, which Mr. Hart could have easily found out by actually talking to the organization he was reporting on. PAWS takes in EVERY stray dog from the City, except those (rare) who must be euthanized by law for aggression (even if those few dogs were added to PAWS' kill-rate, it would not make it much higher). PAWS also provides the city pound with vaccinations, leashes, and blankets (and the services of cleaning the blankets), and PAWS employees often travel (in their personal vehicles) to pick up stray dogs if the police aren't available. PAWS also takes in stray dogs directly from the street to the shelter if the pound is full, or if there are emergency circumstances, without being paid A DIME by the city for that service. The city of Pendleton is paying less, and getting more, out of it's relationship with PAWS than the city of Hermiston is from Pet Rescue.
10) Pet rescue is "open admission" and PAWS is not.
EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE, it's irrelevant. There are plenty of truly "open admission" animal shelters across the US who have less than a 10% kill rate (Sean Hart perhaps could have discovered this by using Google, as I just did). And anyway, Pet Rescue is not as "open door" as they imply. They can and have turned people away who have stray Hermiston animals, and people who want to surrender owned animals. Just a few weeks ago, I personally took in a stray dog that Beau turned away. Sometimes owner "surrendered" animals have been taken straight to the kill room without ever going into a cage, so they barely count as an "intake".
In contrast, while it's true that PAWS does not simply take in any animal no questions asked, only to kill it later "for space", they don't "turn people away". Except in cases where the dog has killed another animal or has seriously bitten a person (and even then they sometimes make exceptions based on the circumstances). PAWS tries other methods: they work with owners to retain the animal whenever possible; work to find foster homes or emergency boarding; provide contacts or help with transportation for rescues that would more closely match their needs (breed specific rescue, etc); assist with low-cost spay/neuter/vaccinations and food assistance; help people post online and newpaper ads, and provide other advise for re-homing an animal themselves. PAWS office staff volunteer dozens of hours a week on a Face Book pet re-homing group helping people in the Eastern Oregon region. (And because PAWS isn't afraid of public scrutiny, any of this is easy to confirm and learn more about).
Simply consider the fact that PAWS was able to take in almost two hundred more animals last year, 782 vs. PR's roughly 600, despite being in a community of nearly identical size to Hermiston. If Pet Rescue was really so "open door", and PAWS some kind of picky pet boutique as implied, the opposite should be true.
The premise of the article is that PAWS and Pet Rescue should not be compared because they "operate differently". Yet, Hart didn't even bother contacting anyone from PAWS to find out how they actually operate. I don't know if this is laziness or bias, but the result is the same.
It's incredibly disappointing to see a reporter (and the editor) allowing the front page of their newspaper to be basically free advertising space for an tax-funded organization with which the community has legitimate concerns.
Sean Hart attended the 1/12/15 city council meeting where four people spoke about the problems at Pet Rescue (including myself, and I'm named in the article). That would have been a good opportunity for him to pull any one of us aside to find out more about our concerns. Instead, the only people he talked to were Mark Morgan, (the assistant city manager), and Beau Putnam.
Mark Morgan made some inaccurate statements about Pendleton PAWS (an organization he knows little about), but Sean Hart didn't even bother contacting a PAWS representative to fact check, even though the subject was specific aspects of PAWS' policies and procedures.
A numbered list of inaccuracies:
1) "...the complaints were not specific in nature."
Again, he never bothered talking to any of us at the meeting, or doing any research on the subject (like, oh, Facebook or this blog), but even so, our complaints are VERY specific in nature. This blog discusses specific complaints in excruciating detail. As the meeting minutes show (see meeting minutes) there were specific complaints. Hart somehow doesn't mention any of them, except that we complain that Pet Rescue kills too many animals.
2) "...and many of the detractors’ claims are inaccurate or misleading." Ok, which ones? If I'm being misleading, please tell me where, and I'll do my best to address it. And anyway, if we apparently don't have specific complaints, than how can we mislead anyone? So, even though we "don't have specific complaints", Hart made sure to publish Beau Putnam's responses to our non-existent complaints:
2a) It's implied that one of our complaints, that Pet Rescue does not post its animals for adoption online before killing them, is false (even though we apparently don't have specific complaints?). Beau states that "most" of their animals are posted on Petfinder. As I've show people again and again on this blog, this is false. Usually (except for the last month, under intense negative public scrutiny) Pet Rescue has maybe 10% or fewer of it's available animals posted online ANYWHERE.
2b) It's implied that one of our complaints, that Pet Rescue turns away volunteers, is false (even though apparently we don't have specific complaints?) Pet Rescue has turned away volunteers as recently as December 2014, and even those who aren't turned away are mismanaged, and restricted from helping. Most animal shelters have an "open door" policy for volunteers, meaning that once they are trained on certain duties, they can come and go as they please as long as there is a staff member in the building. Pet Rescue doesn't seem to know what to do with volunteers, and wants to restrict them all to a set schedule, putting all kinds of barriers in front of people who want to help, but can only come a hour a week or whatever. Instead of encouraging and working with volunteers.
3) Putnam said, and when no-kill shelters in Pendleton and the Tri-Cities are at full capacity, people will bring in animals that are turned away there to his shelter. This is the opposite of my experience talking to rescuers in the East Oregon and Washington areas. Usually, people who are either turned away by Pet Rescue, or who don't want to use Pet Rescue, will take Hermiston strays AWAY from Hermiston, to Pendleton, Walla Walla, Tri-cities, or even as far as Portland. I'd love to see PROOF from Pet Rescue records, that they took in animals originating from other cities.
4) "In order for the shelter to be able to continue accepting all dogs, some that have not been adopted must be euthanized" - or, they can do what everyone including myself have been BEGGING them to do for years, and actually try to adopt their way out of killing. It's very possible to do so.
5) “Euthanasia is always a last resort,” Putnam said. “As long as they’re healthy and not aggressive, I will do the best I can to find that animal a home." I would love to see PROOF in the form of records, to show this is true. This is opposite of what many people with experience working with Pet Rescue have observed. And since most of the animals who are killed, are killed without ever being advertised, or without another rescue or foster home being contacted first, how can he say he's "doing the best we can"?
6) "the term “no-kill” can also be confusing and misleading"... and yet, there is a wealth of information online about the most common types of "no-kill" animal sheltering. Whether you call it "no-kill" or "low-kill" or "high-save"... the results are always the same. Shelters that truly try, do not kill "for space".
7) "Of the animals euthanized, some are unhealthy while others are aggressive... some owners bring in injured and sick animals just to be euthanized." I would love to see PROOF in the form of Pet Rescue records, that this is true. It's generally accepted that only about 10% of animals in a shelter need to be euthanized due to extreme suffering or aggression (the rest are either healthy, or treatable). And since most shelters don't include owner-requested euthanasias in their statistics (such an animal would not be considered an "intake"), those deaths should not "inflate" the kill numbers. Even so, 40% and 10% are worlds apart.
8) "Morgan said the way the Pendleton and Hermiston shelters operate and contract with the cities is different, which could contribute to misperceptions." This is the premise of the whole article, which I'll address below in detail. The short version: The organizations of PAWS and Pet Rescue, are comparable. The minor differences in their relationship with the city government is insignificant to the discussion of mismanagement and poor performance at Pet Rescue.
9) "After the holding period, Morgan said PAWS employees do not take all of the dogs from the police department. He said PAWS employees choose what dogs the shelter will admit, and the city is forced to pay additional fees for the remaining animals."
Flat out wrong, which Mr. Hart could have easily found out by actually talking to the organization he was reporting on. PAWS takes in EVERY stray dog from the City, except those (rare) who must be euthanized by law for aggression (even if those few dogs were added to PAWS' kill-rate, it would not make it much higher). PAWS also provides the city pound with vaccinations, leashes, and blankets (and the services of cleaning the blankets), and PAWS employees often travel (in their personal vehicles) to pick up stray dogs if the police aren't available. PAWS also takes in stray dogs directly from the street to the shelter if the pound is full, or if there are emergency circumstances, without being paid A DIME by the city for that service. The city of Pendleton is paying less, and getting more, out of it's relationship with PAWS than the city of Hermiston is from Pet Rescue.
10) Pet rescue is "open admission" and PAWS is not.
EVEN IF THIS WERE TRUE, it's irrelevant. There are plenty of truly "open admission" animal shelters across the US who have less than a 10% kill rate (Sean Hart perhaps could have discovered this by using Google, as I just did). And anyway, Pet Rescue is not as "open door" as they imply. They can and have turned people away who have stray Hermiston animals, and people who want to surrender owned animals. Just a few weeks ago, I personally took in a stray dog that Beau turned away. Sometimes owner "surrendered" animals have been taken straight to the kill room without ever going into a cage, so they barely count as an "intake".
In contrast, while it's true that PAWS does not simply take in any animal no questions asked, only to kill it later "for space", they don't "turn people away". Except in cases where the dog has killed another animal or has seriously bitten a person (and even then they sometimes make exceptions based on the circumstances). PAWS tries other methods: they work with owners to retain the animal whenever possible; work to find foster homes or emergency boarding; provide contacts or help with transportation for rescues that would more closely match their needs (breed specific rescue, etc); assist with low-cost spay/neuter/vaccinations and food assistance; help people post online and newpaper ads, and provide other advise for re-homing an animal themselves. PAWS office staff volunteer dozens of hours a week on a Face Book pet re-homing group helping people in the Eastern Oregon region. (And because PAWS isn't afraid of public scrutiny, any of this is easy to confirm and learn more about).
Simply consider the fact that PAWS was able to take in almost two hundred more animals last year, 782 vs. PR's roughly 600, despite being in a community of nearly identical size to Hermiston. If Pet Rescue was really so "open door", and PAWS some kind of picky pet boutique as implied, the opposite should be true.
The premise of the article is that PAWS and Pet Rescue should not be compared because they "operate differently". Yet, Hart didn't even bother contacting anyone from PAWS to find out how they actually operate. I don't know if this is laziness or bias, but the result is the same.
It's incredibly disappointing to see a reporter (and the editor) allowing the front page of their newspaper to be basically free advertising space for an tax-funded organization with which the community has legitimate concerns.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Thursday, January 8, 2015
This is what it's like to have a conversation with Pet Rescue staff
Beau Putnam recently posted a statement on the Pet Rescue facebook page:
Here is the link, and here is a screen capture in case it gets removed:
I feel that Pet Rescue is once again not being honest with the public, and is trying to whitewash their reputation with a handful of vague platitudes. I've brought up many legitimate concerns with them for four years now, concerns that many other people have also brought up. I've provided numerous, specific, practical solutions, and continue to be ignored (and I honestly don't know why). We've all been ignored. It's true that Pet Rescue has made tiny improvements over the last few years, but it's not enough, and not fast enough. They could be doing so much more. There's no excuse for killing animals "for space" when there are so many life-saving alternatives they're not even trying.
So, I posted two comments on the facebook thread, and I'll let you judge if they were out of line. Beau evidently thought so, because he deleted them, and then blocked me from commenting. Not sure that's the best way to improve their reputation.
I also had a meeting set up with him tomorrow to talk about ways I could help improve Pet Rescue, but he cancelled because "something came up." I told him I'm still available at other times, we'll see if I ever get a chance to make my case to him.
Here is the link, and here is a screen capture in case it gets removed:
I feel that Pet Rescue is once again not being honest with the public, and is trying to whitewash their reputation with a handful of vague platitudes. I've brought up many legitimate concerns with them for four years now, concerns that many other people have also brought up. I've provided numerous, specific, practical solutions, and continue to be ignored (and I honestly don't know why). We've all been ignored. It's true that Pet Rescue has made tiny improvements over the last few years, but it's not enough, and not fast enough. They could be doing so much more. There's no excuse for killing animals "for space" when there are so many life-saving alternatives they're not even trying.
So, I posted two comments on the facebook thread, and I'll let you judge if they were out of line. Beau evidently thought so, because he deleted them, and then blocked me from commenting. Not sure that's the best way to improve their reputation.
I also had a meeting set up with him tomorrow to talk about ways I could help improve Pet Rescue, but he cancelled because "something came up." I told him I'm still available at other times, we'll see if I ever get a chance to make my case to him.
Saturday, January 3, 2015
Another way to look at it
One of the many problems with Pet Rescue's current policies (which, lacking transparency and anything in writing, basically seem to come down to "whatever Beaut Putnam feels like today"), is that it drives people away from using the shelter, which they are paying for with their tax dollars.
Putnam and Alleman like to say that they're providing a service to the community, but what's actually happening is they are pocketing tax dollars, while many of the animals that SHOULD go to the shelter and benefit from those dollars, end up elsewhere. For example, many strays are kept and adopted to new homes by the people who find them because they don't trust the shelter; some are brought to Pendleton PAWS for the same reason; still others never get picked up in the first place. I know many people who won't report or pick up a stray dog unless it's literally running into traffic or causing danger because they know it might have a better chance at living if it can find its own way home than if it ends up at Pet Rescue.
Putnam and Alleman like to say that they're providing a service to the community, but what's actually happening is they are pocketing tax dollars, while many of the animals that SHOULD go to the shelter and benefit from those dollars, end up elsewhere. For example, many strays are kept and adopted to new homes by the people who find them because they don't trust the shelter; some are brought to Pendleton PAWS for the same reason; still others never get picked up in the first place. I know many people who won't report or pick up a stray dog unless it's literally running into traffic or causing danger because they know it might have a better chance at living if it can find its own way home than if it ends up at Pet Rescue.
Yet another negative story
Becky writes of an incident from 2013:
"I paid a fee to surrender a stray kitten only to pay an adoption fee less than 24 hours later because I was told the kitten I surrendered was going to be euthanized to make room for a litter of feral kittens that was being brought in."
It's appropriate for a shelter to charge for its services - after all, the city contract money simply can't cover all the expenses incurred in staffing, cleaning, vetting, vaccinating, and feeding. But this sort of lack of compassion and poor customer service skills are exactly the problem that needs to be addressed. When animals are being killed "for space", it's time to try something different.
"I paid a fee to surrender a stray kitten only to pay an adoption fee less than 24 hours later because I was told the kitten I surrendered was going to be euthanized to make room for a litter of feral kittens that was being brought in."
It's appropriate for a shelter to charge for its services - after all, the city contract money simply can't cover all the expenses incurred in staffing, cleaning, vetting, vaccinating, and feeding. But this sort of lack of compassion and poor customer service skills are exactly the problem that needs to be addressed. When animals are being killed "for space", it's time to try something different.
Hopeful example from a different animal shelter
Here is an uplifting story from an animal shelter director about when his new non-profit took over operation of a large city dog shelter, and how they turned it to "no-kill" almost overnight.
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2015/01/january-1-2012-a-look-back-at-kc-pet-projects-first-day.html
http://btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2015/01/january-1-2012-a-look-back-at-kc-pet-projects-first-day.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)