The Green County Humane Society is in the midst of a very appropriate and important discussion about how to handle aggressive dogs at its Monroe shelter.
An aggressive dog committee that includes board members, the shelter manager, a former board candidate and two local veterinarians, have been discussing policy creation for a few months. The possibility of euthanizing aggressive dogs as a last resort was discussed at the most recent GCHS board meeting, June 24.
"Hoping the issue will go away is not an option," said Mick McClain, the committee chairman.
And without a policy, the GCHS puts itself at risk if an aggressive dog injures a shelter worker, volunteer or visitor, or someone who adopts a dog.
"We don't want to adopt out a dog and then learn that it attacked a 2-year-old child," board vice president Mary Jane Grenzow said.
Clearly, the committee and board are considering all options. Training and rehabilitating problem dogs was discussed. Sending dogs to animal sanctuaries has been mentioned. Training and rehabilitation would require resources and expertise - which would cost the GCHS money. And the few animal sanctuaries for dogs in the U.S. usually have waiting lists, the board was told.
Euthanasia must be discussed as an option if the GCHS is going to conduct a complete examination of the situation. Obviously, the fact that GCHS is a no-kill shelter injects even greater emotion into the process. It is understandable why some people would oppose euthanasia as a policy option.
But former board member Gunhild Marcher took the argument too far last week when she suggested the board wants to euthanize animals.
"I'm worried you're trying to kill animals to make yourselves look good," Marcher told board members. "You shouldn't put animals down in any circumstances, ever."
To suggest shelter animals should never be euthanized, under any circumstance, simply is not realistic. And in some cases such a philosophy would be considered inhumane to a suffering animal.
To suggest that board members want to euthanize to make themselves "look good" is as unfair as it is absurd. Board and committee members have been clear in saying euthanasia would only be considered after a dog couldn't be rehabilitated and only if shelter staff and volunteers are at risk. That makes sense.
Unfortunately, Ms. Marcher and a handful of others have not hesitated to heap personal attacks on GCHS board members they disagree with over policy. This approach did not serve GCHS well in the past, nor will it moving forward.
In fact, those who take that approach are making it awfully difficult for GCHS to move forward. Perhaps it's time they move aside.
An aggressive dog committee that includes board members, the shelter manager, a former board candidate and two local veterinarians, have been discussing policy creation for a few months. The possibility of euthanizing aggressive dogs as a last resort was discussed at the most recent GCHS board meeting, June 24.
"Hoping the issue will go away is not an option," said Mick McClain, the committee chairman.
And without a policy, the GCHS puts itself at risk if an aggressive dog injures a shelter worker, volunteer or visitor, or someone who adopts a dog.
"We don't want to adopt out a dog and then learn that it attacked a 2-year-old child," board vice president Mary Jane Grenzow said.
Clearly, the committee and board are considering all options. Training and rehabilitating problem dogs was discussed. Sending dogs to animal sanctuaries has been mentioned. Training and rehabilitation would require resources and expertise - which would cost the GCHS money. And the few animal sanctuaries for dogs in the U.S. usually have waiting lists, the board was told.
Euthanasia must be discussed as an option if the GCHS is going to conduct a complete examination of the situation. Obviously, the fact that GCHS is a no-kill shelter injects even greater emotion into the process. It is understandable why some people would oppose euthanasia as a policy option.
But former board member Gunhild Marcher took the argument too far last week when she suggested the board wants to euthanize animals.
"I'm worried you're trying to kill animals to make yourselves look good," Marcher told board members. "You shouldn't put animals down in any circumstances, ever."
To suggest shelter animals should never be euthanized, under any circumstance, simply is not realistic. And in some cases such a philosophy would be considered inhumane to a suffering animal.
To suggest that board members want to euthanize to make themselves "look good" is as unfair as it is absurd. Board and committee members have been clear in saying euthanasia would only be considered after a dog couldn't be rehabilitated and only if shelter staff and volunteers are at risk. That makes sense.
Unfortunately, Ms. Marcher and a handful of others have not hesitated to heap personal attacks on GCHS board members they disagree with over policy. This approach did not serve GCHS well in the past, nor will it moving forward.
In fact, those who take that approach are making it awfully difficult for GCHS to move forward. Perhaps it's time they move aside.
