Interim Board Blaming No-Kill even though Liberty Humane Society has Never been a No-Kill Shelter

Diana Jeffrey, attorney and LHS interim board member took it upon herself to put the shelter in long term jeopardy by filing a S.L.A.P.P. (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit against volunteers in order to silence them.  In this complaint, Diana Jeffrey (or should I say attorney husband Howard Myerowitz) spells out the previous administration's problems, and blames No-Kill.

28. On or about November, 2009, LHS hired a new Executive Director, with a grant from the John L. Neu Family Foundation.

29. Without authority from the Board of Directors, the new Executive Director unilaterally decided to abandon LHS’s historic euthanasia policy and turned the shelter into a “no-kill” shelter, meaning animals would not be euthanized except in extreme situations. 

30. The “no-kill” movement is an element of the animal rights movement that believes no dogs or cats should be euthanized unless extremely vicious/dangerous.  Dogs with behavioral problems, even so-called “bully breeds” like Pit Bulls displaying forms of aggression, are not euthanized but are adopted into homes.  Many “no-kill” shelters reject methods typically used by other mainstream shelters to determine an animals’ temperament and do not engage in temperament testing.

31. “No-kill” shelters are usually privately run facilities that do not perform animal control duties and thus are not under a duty to pick up and house stray animals.  They have the ability to pick and choose the animals they will accept and typically only select those animals which are behaviorally sound without any signs of aggression.  

32. “No-kill” shelters only accept animals they have room for and that can be adopted out quickly.

33. The animals they reject are of course usually euthanized at some other shelter, or are abandoned by their owners.

34. Because the LHS shelter is an inner-city shelter serving the state’s second largest city, LHS is required to accept all stray animals from Jersey City and Hoboken, and impound them according to N.J.S.A. 4:19-15.16, LHS does not have discretion to select only adoptable animals and has no control over how many animals come into the shelter, or when.  

35. Accordingly, under the new Executive Director’s “no-kill” policy LHS quickly ran out of room which resulted in the shelter quickly becoming disastrously overcrowded and animal care suffered.

36. During the time the new Executive Director’s “no-kill” policy was in place, the LHS shelter failed the only two inspections by state and local health authorities conducted, in November, 2009 and April, 2010.

37. Also as a result of the “no-kill” policy, shelter spending spiraled out of control during the period November, 2009 to July, 2010, threatening LHS’s financial stability.

38. Because the largest single donor to LHS supported the new Executive Director, the Board felt helpless to deal with the situation.  On July 15, 2010 the entire Board resigned abruptly.

The lawsuit can be viewed here in its entirety.

This isn't the last of the blame game either.  Recently, at a board meeting, LHS President Alfred Martino spoke of the previous administration as well:

"So now it’s time to deal with what I call the elephant in the room and that is our policy on euthanasia. Before the current board there was a No-Kill policy that was implemented but what happened? 

The population of cats and dogs skyrocketed. Uh in addition because the goal was to to not kill any dogs uh dog bites were not reported and in fact the employees who had been bit were encouraged not to say anything because of course that would have resulted in the animal having to be put down. 

Problem dogs were hidden from the public. And as many of you know because I was there in in June and July uh the the housing for dogs was was not only inadequate it was frankly atrocious. There were dogs that were housed in the in the kitchen. There were dogs that were housed in wire cages and stacked upon each other. You will notice when you go into the shelter that is not the case any longer. 

So what does that that mean? A No-Kill policy at least for the previous administration there was increased stress on both the animals and the staff."

No folks, those aren't typos, and the rest of board meeting transcript is even more painful to read.  It seems as if the information was written out for him by Diana Jeffrey, doesn't it?

Mr. Martino, is this what you mean by overcrowding and "wire cages stacked upon each other?"

Niki Dawson, director of the Camden County Animal Shelter, sits at her amongst cages of kittens, Friday, July 10, 2009 in Blackwood. Photo by Douglas Bovitt.

Now, to the anti-No-Kill crew, and all those who believe their lies, the previous administration did NOT institute a No-Kill policy.  Such a change would require board approval, and we all know that didn't happen.

Instead, the previous board wanted to put a cap of 40 dogs at LHS.  Remember back in July when everyone was up in arms because of a 40 dog "rumor," where all extra dogs would have had to be killed?  Interestingly enough, isn't the current administration keeping a similar count?  In fact, the latest State Inspection Report dated 9.24.10 noted 48 dogs at the shelter.  And surprisingly enough, after interviewing Niki Dawson, a Hudson Reporter article stated:

"As of Nov. 26, 183 cats and 40 dogs were housed at the shelter."

40 dogs...40.

So which part of this is difficult to understand?

Back to the last administration's non-existent No-Kill policy for all you non-believers.

"The most widely accepted definition of a no-kill shelter is a place where all adoptable and treatable animals are saved and where only unadoptable or non-rehabilitatable animals are euthanized." (from No-Kill Now)

I have taken the liberty to post the Animal Inventory for January through May of 2010 below (yes, there are a few typos, someone apparently had trouble with basic math).  I believe this was distributed at April's board meeting.

 

As you can see, there were quite a few animals euthanized under the previous administration.  And if we estimate (just for argument's sake) that the previous administration killed 20 dogs and 20 cats per month, and the shelter still reached the capacity that it had...and the shelter is currently only housing 40 dogs, then How many animals is LHS REALLY KILLING NOW? 

While we're at it, lets quash the debate about the excessive number of animal deaths due to disease, etc., of the previous administration.  Check the number of cats that reportedly died at the shelter in 2009.  Wow, 523!  Wasn't that when Aurora Piacentino was shelter manager?

Bottom line?  Although they killed less animals and were looking toward a No-Kill solution, there is no way the previous administration could even be considered No-Kill because animals were killed for space.