MONROE - Former Green County Humane Society board members Gunhild Marcher and Marsha Stanek questioned the board Wednesday about its policy regarding aggressive dogs and how the board selected candidates for the May 7 annual meeting election.
The board was prepared for comments about its efforts to create an aggressive dog policy in light of recent questions and comments from the public.
Board vice president Mary Jane Grenzow asked that the public comment portion of the meeting be moved up on the agenda to allow people to talk to the board and allow the board to clarify what she called "misconceptions."
"We're not moving away from no-kill," Grenzow said. "We need to look at what to do with a dog that displays aggressive behavior. We have to look at this issue."
Marcher said she was concerned about who would assess a dog's behavior and that dogs that appear aggressive at the shelter can still make good pets for people who are willing to spend extra time with them.
Grenzow told Marcher that there hasn't been any formal policy created to deal with aggressive dogs, but some changes have been made to keep better records of how and when dogs are aggressive, Grenzow said.
Board member Mick McClain, who is in charge of the aggressive dog committee, said there are two veterinarians, humane society board members and shelter manager Tonya Kelly on the committee. He said a policy to deal with aggressive dogs is in its initial stage and the committee has gathered some resources to find the best method to handle aggressive dogs.
Green County District Attorney Gary Luhman, who attended the meeting at McClain's invitation, explained animal laws. In response to a question from a board member, Luhman said the humane society wouldn't be legally responsible if it adopted out a dog that was aggressive as long as it required the adopter to sign a waiver that stated the animal was aggressive.
Luhman said that would protect the shelter but said the person could still file a lawsuit if the animal bit or attacked anyone.
"Anyone can file a lawsuit," Luhman said. "That doesn't mean they would win the case."
Grenzow said that while the board hasn't made up its mind about what will be included in the aggressive dog policy, this isn't the first time the issue has been brought before humane society members. In 2006, the GCHS board, which at the time included Stanek and Marcher, conducted a survey of members and found that 76 percent of the 104 members who responded said the shelter should put down animals that posed a risk to the community.
In a survey done by the Green County Leaders for the humane society in April 2008, 398 people, out of the 635 people who responded, said the shelter should only euthanize animals that are unadoptable or unable to be rehabilitated.
Grenzow also presented information from Maddie's Fund, a national organization that supports no-kill shelters, which said unhealthy and untreatable animals should be euthanized. The organization defined those types of animals as animals with, "behavioral or temperamental characteristics that pose a health or safety risk."
Board President Paul Barrett said that any policy adopted by the aggressive dog committee would have to be approved by the board.
The board was prepared for comments about its efforts to create an aggressive dog policy in light of recent questions and comments from the public.
Board vice president Mary Jane Grenzow asked that the public comment portion of the meeting be moved up on the agenda to allow people to talk to the board and allow the board to clarify what she called "misconceptions."
"We're not moving away from no-kill," Grenzow said. "We need to look at what to do with a dog that displays aggressive behavior. We have to look at this issue."
Marcher said she was concerned about who would assess a dog's behavior and that dogs that appear aggressive at the shelter can still make good pets for people who are willing to spend extra time with them.
Grenzow told Marcher that there hasn't been any formal policy created to deal with aggressive dogs, but some changes have been made to keep better records of how and when dogs are aggressive, Grenzow said.
Board member Mick McClain, who is in charge of the aggressive dog committee, said there are two veterinarians, humane society board members and shelter manager Tonya Kelly on the committee. He said a policy to deal with aggressive dogs is in its initial stage and the committee has gathered some resources to find the best method to handle aggressive dogs.
Green County District Attorney Gary Luhman, who attended the meeting at McClain's invitation, explained animal laws. In response to a question from a board member, Luhman said the humane society wouldn't be legally responsible if it adopted out a dog that was aggressive as long as it required the adopter to sign a waiver that stated the animal was aggressive.
Luhman said that would protect the shelter but said the person could still file a lawsuit if the animal bit or attacked anyone.
"Anyone can file a lawsuit," Luhman said. "That doesn't mean they would win the case."
Grenzow said that while the board hasn't made up its mind about what will be included in the aggressive dog policy, this isn't the first time the issue has been brought before humane society members. In 2006, the GCHS board, which at the time included Stanek and Marcher, conducted a survey of members and found that 76 percent of the 104 members who responded said the shelter should put down animals that posed a risk to the community.
In a survey done by the Green County Leaders for the humane society in April 2008, 398 people, out of the 635 people who responded, said the shelter should only euthanize animals that are unadoptable or unable to be rehabilitated.
Grenzow also presented information from Maddie's Fund, a national organization that supports no-kill shelters, which said unhealthy and untreatable animals should be euthanized. The organization defined those types of animals as animals with, "behavioral or temperamental characteristics that pose a health or safety risk."
Board President Paul Barrett said that any policy adopted by the aggressive dog committee would have to be approved by the board.