The following letters to the editor were published in the
Susquehanna County Independent.
Adoption opportunities denied due to race, color or breed (10/6/99) Kennel technicians speak out Shelter manager has difficult job Euthanasia vs Loving Home
Published October 6, 1999
Adoption opportunities
denied due to race,
color or breedI’ve never had occasion nor reason to submit
a letter to this, or for that matter, any other newspaper.
That is until my recent experience with the Susquehanna
County SPCA.
I first met ‘Charlie’ only minutes before he was euthanized
at the SPCA shelter in Montrose. Charlie first came to my attention
when my brother asked me to go to the Montrose shelter to retrieve a
stray dog he had delivered to the SPCA.
Charlie had first appeared at my brother’s doorstep in pretty rough
shape. From al1 appearances, Charlie had just recently given
birth to pups and gotten into a scrape to protect them from some-
thing (coyote?). In any event, my brother and his wife took pity on
this scrawny little dog feeding and caring for it for the next few days.
After discussing the situation they decided the best course of action
would be to deliver her to the SPCA shelter where perhaps someone
would be willing to adopt her.
After having done just that, my brother had second thoughts and
decided that he and his wife would like to adopt Charlie. Having to
work and unable to go to the shelter, my brother enlisted my help
and asked me to go to Montrose to get Charlie back.
Little did I realize the ordeal about to unfold. I arrived at the shelter
the day after Charlie was delivered and asked the person at the counter
if I could take the dog home. Rather than being greeted with a smile
and a friendly face, I was rather rudely informed that "it doesn't work
that way, you fill out an application." I was also told that the decision
was up to the manager who may determine that the dog isn't adoptable.
After filling out the two page form for adoption I asked to speak to the
manager to find out if I could adopt the dog.
At this point Elizabeth (the manager) came out from the back room
and proceeded to tell me that she "didn't think she would allow me to
adopt the dog because it might have 'Pit Bull' in it. She went on to
explain that it was her policy to destroy any dog that has Pit Bull,
Bull Mastiff or Bull Terrier in it; whether or not that particular dog
is aggressive. I was summarily informed that even though Charlie
may have been my dog (more accurately, my brother's) to begin with,
she would not let me take her. "In any event," according to Elizabeth,
"the dog must go through a 48 hour evaluation period."
On my way home, it occurred to me that this dog may not have any
of the 'forbidden' kinds of breeds in her and it might be a good idea to
have my veterinarian speak to the SPCA. After speaking to my vetm
he indicated that he would call the SPCA for me and do what he could
to prevent the destruction of Charlie.
The next morning I arrived at the SPCA shelter early (before they
opened) hoping to intervene on behalf of Charlie before she was
destroyed. When the shelter opened I again requested the return
of Charlie and was told to fill out yet another adoption form
(which I did). Thereafter I was left waiting in the lobby alone for
more than 30 minutes. I suspect that they were hoping that I would
leave. I didn’t. Rather, I stayed there pushing their buzzer at the front
desk until someone would speak to me. When finally I was able to get
their attention, I was told I’d have to speak to the manager who was
currently on the phone. Another 15 minutes elapsed before Elizabeth
appeared, only to tell me that I couldn’t have Charlie. She went on to
explain that once a dog is placed in her facility, she could do anything
she wanted with that animal. Charlie was going to be destroyed.
I asked to see the dog because I truly believed that Elizabeth had
already destroyed her. She hadn’t. It was at this point that I first met
Charlie. What I saw was a scared little dog that appeared utterly unable
to defend herself, let alone aggres-sively attack any human. Nonetheless,
this menace to society had to be destroyed.
On the way home I was truly heart sick. The whole sordid little affair
seemed so unreal to me that I still can’t believe that it’s true. I am not an
animal rights activist, and have no problem with the thought that unwanted
or aggressive animals sometimes must be destroyed. However, it seems to
me that there is no good reason to support any organization (or person)
that would destroy an animal for no other reason than its parents’
(or grandparents) breed.Cheryl Hinkley
Published October 13, 1999
We are the kennel technicians at the Susquehanna
County Humane Society who are responsible for
taking care of our shelter animals. We feel in many
ways, the public does not know what we do here or
why things happen as they do. Cheryl Hinkley’s letter
about the stray dog her brother asked the dog warden
to bring to our shelter shows that there is a real need
for education in this community. We asked for
permission to respond to Mrs. Hinkley’s letter and we
hope that this reply helps.
Every one of us loves animals, including our manager.
We all have pets at home that we treat like babies. We all
work very hard to keep our shelter animals clean, vaccinated,
well fed, healthy and content. We are all required to euthanize
animals humanely and with dignity. Basically, our job is to
clean up the many problems caused by irresponsible or
thoughtless people. It can be a very hard job at times.
It takes a huge amount of compassion, strength and sensitivity
to kill those same animals you have come to enjoy greeting
every morning. Fortunately, we find homes for a lot more
dogs than we have to destroy. We have all cried during euthanasia
sessions. We stroke animal’s heads and apologize for the way things are.
We talk to them softly as they go to sleep forever. We see too many
strays, too many litters, too much pain. Where are you for those sessions,
Mrs. Hinkley?
We don’t expect anyone who does not work here to appreciate how
hard it is for us to do what needs to be done. But we do expect that
people will at least listen and keep an open mind about what we have to say.
Mrs. Hinkley should be annoyed at the irresponsible owners who dump
dogs with fighting scars all over their bodies to fend for themselves in the
cold. She should be annoyed with people who fight dogs for fun and profit.
But don’t be annoyed with the caring staff at the humane society who took
a dog in, cared for her and put her down gently because she could not be
adopted. That is just not right.Rebecca Jones, Jason Sterling, Geraldine Coolidge, Darlene
Anderson, Doris Wegner.(Rebecca Jones later spoke out in her own letter, painting an entirely different picture.)
Published October 20, 1999
If the employees at the Susquehanna County Humane Society
are of like mind in the opinion that the manager is loving and
compassionate towards the animals in her charge, we must
assume that they are in total agreement with her and therefore
have as little regard for the animals’ welfare as she has proven to have.
Is euthanasia an acceptable alternative to giving an animal a loving home?
Are all injured animals taken to the shelter assumed to be aggressive and
unadoptable? How many other animals have been taken there by
well-meaning persons who believed that these poor souls would have
their wounds tended and be given a chance to be adopted into loving
homes.. .and instead they are discarded (destroyed) like a piece of
garbage? Didn’t this newspaper publish several letters in the past from
persons who were denied adoption by Ms. Anderson, according to her
whim, for various unfathomable reasons—including being on Social
Security? Were those potential pets destroyed, too?
Was the letter from the ‘staff’ a true attempt to defend the manager
or a ploy by Ms. Anderson to elicit public acceptance by forcing the
employees to sign her letter, just as they have had to sign a ‘code of
conduct’ which threatens a $500 fine and/or loss of employment for
disclosing shelter details to a third party? What does an organization
have to hide to deem it necessary to threaten employees in this manner?
(A rather Nazi philosophy, we’d say.)
If you have saved your past copies of this newspaper, reread the
letters printed in the editorials over the past year and a half of the
atrocities former employees witnessed while in the employ of the
SCHS under Ms. Anderson’s management. Can you believe that a
person who denied animals medical care, humane living conditions
and a peaceful euthanasia—often allowing them to lie in a cage or
carrier for days in agony waiting for death to come—has suddenly
repented and now gives a damn about these creatures? Personally,
we think not...and this is certainly proven by Cheryl Hinkley’s recent
experience and denied adoption. Ms. Anderson preferred to destroy
that frightened little dog rather than give it to a nurturing family who
could have offered ‘Charlie’ a few years of happiness and love.Former employees of the
SCHS under Ms. Anderson:
Helen Sellitto, Christy Baker,
Kim Bennett, Sarah Brasche,
JoAnn Gibbons
Published November 3, 1999
Shelter manager
has difficult jobFor over a year our Susquehanna county
branch manager, Elizabeth Anderson, has been
the subject of a venomous ‘letters to the editor’
campaign by a few citizens who do not agree
with the way things are done - or were being done
- at the shelter.
The latest assault on Elizabeth Anderson
demonstrates both the difficulty of performing
this kind of work and the naivete of some people.
in refusing to adopt a pit bull to the woman who
wrote the recent complaining letter, Ms. Anderson
was simply following a 20 year old policy of the
Pennsylvania SPCA, a policy that is standard
among established humane societies across the
country.
In such cases we are literally protecting people
from their now naivete, as a pit bull is not just another
dog. True, any dog is capable of biting. But with pit
bulls there are two behavioral aspects that set them
apart from the rest of the canine world: First, unlike
other dogs that warn you through a pattern of body
language, lip curling, teeth baring and growling that
they are preparing to strike, pit bulls bite without
going through such warning rituals. Second, dogs
usually bite ad release, leaving relatively clean puncture
wounds. But pit bulls usually bite and hang on, violently
twisting their very strong necks and chests. If you’ve
seen documentaries on the feeding habits of great
white sharks or crocodiles, you’ve seen the kind of
movement I’m describing. The wounds left by these
pit bull attacks are anything but clean. They are jagged
and disfiguring, especially if the attack is on the face,
where it often is when children are involved.
Not every pit bull will act this way, but because
there is a relatively high incidence of sudden aggressive
behavior among such dogs, they must be treated differently.
e don’t want to take the chance that a pit bull will kill someone
or leave some child grossly disfigured for life.
Under the best circumstances, working at a humane
society shelter is not easy. Shelter managers must make
gut wrenching decisions every day. And our branch
manager can’t really escape the pressure, as they live
on the shelter grounds.
In Elizabeth Anderson’s case her work is made all
the more difficult by the small group of nay sayers who
have waged this vendetta against her. It is a testimonial
to her strength and commitment to help animals that she
has been able to carry on in the face of this almost
weekly public attack on her character. Residents of
Susquehanna County should consider themselves
fortunate that Ms. Anderson is there to take care of
the many problems that occur in the human/animal
relationship.Erik Hendricks,
executive director