Author:  Tressa Lucas
I heard a quote recently that made me think.  “Sometimes to be silent is to lie.”

This about my personal experience with the death of an orphaned dog – a rescued orphaned dog.  Being silent can also be an indication of agreement.  I do not agree with what happened.  In fact, it still makes me sick to think about it.  I cannot change it, but I can share my story with others.  Hopefully, Winston’s story can raise awareness and help prevent this from happening again and provide a catalyst for positive change.

Every member of my animal family is from a non-profit rescue group or shelter.  I am so thankful to the many dedicated individuals and organizations that work tirelessly on behalf of homeless animals.  It concerns me when I see anything put a shadow on those efforts.  Like anything else, there is good and bad in all industries and it is important to know the difference.  Unfortunately, sometimes you cannot learn that difference until you get behind the veil.  That is how I learned.  From my personal experience, it seems that most people assume the word “rescue”  or “rescuer” means only good things.

My experience with Winston was an eye opener for me in many ways.  First, I started questioning the words rescue and rescuer.  Second, I realized that a clean air conditioned kennel facility does not necessarily mean dogs are safe – do not take things at face value.  Third, I got a very clear understanding of what euthanasia really means.  Fourth, I grew to despise kennel facilities.  I understand their necessity, but I just don’t like them and my passion for fostering was re-confirmed.  Lastly, I realized there really is no such thing as No Kill because there will always be a human in the position of determining the life of an animal and how the human defines what is adoptable and treatable is unique to each individual.  When I researched the No Kill movement that was just beginning at the time of Winston’s death, I realized the focus was on animal shelters, which it needed to be.  But, rescue organizations were not addressed with regard to killing, which I found very interesting.

Winston was a sweet, young, energetic and well-behaved shepherd corgi mix.  Most of the time, he had one year up, the other down and his tongue out to the side.  He loved chasing a ball, playing with squeaky toys, and having his belly rubbed.  Intelligence radiated from this little guy’s eyes.  He was rescued from a county shelter and had a tremendous amount of potential.  He was not aggressive, nor did he have any health issues.  He was a vibrant two year old dog who loved life.  Little did he know his second chance would end in less than a year.  Unfortunately, he was “euthanized” by the group that rescued him.

Euthanasia provokes many long heated debates.  It is a sad reality that is necessary in certain situations.  It is also a word that has been misused and its’ definition stretched and redefined.  Webster’s defines euthanasia as:  The act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.”  This is my understanding of the word and Winston’s death did not fit the definition.  There was hope for his future.  He was not given any options.  That is what I thought rescue organizations were meant to do.

Sadly, I learned this was not the first time this kind of incident happened with the rescue organization – there was a pattern.  This was an organization that had been around for a long time.

I have been an advocate for homeless animals for almost twenty years, working independently as well as with various organizations.  I have had the privilege of helping place dogs that might be considered unadoptable.  If a dog like Winston can’t be helped, what is the point of rescuing?  If he is an example, what is the fate of the others?

I got to know Winston very well while volunteering at the Los Angeles based organization that “rescued” him.  I went to the kennel to visit him and the other dogs often.  He was a guest in my home for overnight visits.  We went on hikes together with my dogs and those of my friends.  Unfortunately, I was not able to foster Winston full time, but I was committed to getting him out as much as I could.  I knew him very well, so nobody could pull he wool over my eyes.

It was a Tuesday and I walked Winston at the kennel and told a staff member I would be back on Thursday.  I wanted to keep him out with me that night, but due to an event and heavy work day the next day, I was not able to do so.  When I returned, his name was erased from the board and another dog was in his kennel run.  It was if he never existed.  Something felt very odd.  “Where is Winston?”  I asked.  I was told to speak with the kennel supervisor.  As I walked through the facility, a sickening feeling came over me that I am not able to put into words. When I approached the kennel supervisor sitting at her desk, I asked “Where is Winston?”.  She told me he was  “euthanized” because he was not doing well in the kennel – “it was the humane thing to do.”

I was shocked to say the least.  There is really no way to describe the feelings that came over me.  It was a combination of anger, betrayal, disgust and disbelief.  I felt powerless.  I thought Winston was safe.  Had I known he was going to be killed, I would and could have done something.  It broke my heart.  I never imagined a young, happy dog like him as a candidate for “euthanasia” by a rescue organization nonetheless.  I sat in front of the facility crying like I have never cried before.  Eventually, I gathered my composure and got as far away from that place as possible.   Winston was gone, but he would never be forgotten.

Animal care goes beyond providing food, water, and a clean kennel run.  Dogs become stressed living in confinement.  Exercise, socialization, training and human contact are equally as important.  Why would any rescue group kill a dog that becomes stressed from living in a kennel when they have created the environment of stress?

Volunteers are an important part of non-profits.  They might provide the last option that an animal needs.  Many are instrumental in the rehabilitation and adoption process.  Most give their time to rescue groups to nurture life and the chance for a new beginning.

While some groups do not involve volunteers in the decision making process, sometimes they can bring an important perspective in the assessment of an animal, especially when it pertains to its’ behavior outside of the kennel environment.  When it comes to the decision of “euthanizing” an animal, a group might consider informing volunteers of their plans, especially those who have spent a considerable amount of time trying to help a particular animal.  To think that volunteers do not or should not form some kind of bond is conceivable.  Surprising anyone with the intentional death of an animal they care about is cruel and unkind.

Non-profits rely on the generosity of financial donations and the giving of time.  Is a non-profit rescue organization that is dedicated to combating euthanasia, committed to rescuing and rehabilitating homeless animals and to finding them homes actually doing what it states?  Here are a few questions and observations to help assess any rescue group before giving time, money, and especially animals.

What is the Mission Statement and is it being followed?

How do they spend the money they are given?

What is their adoption process – is it reasonable or impossible?

How many animals do they adopt out every year?

How many of their animals are returned after being adopted out?

What is their definition and policy for euthanasia?

How many animals does the organization euthanize every year?

How much time and effort do they give the animals under their care?

Are animals flourishing or declining in a particular environment?

How are they promoting their animals looking for homes?

What is the physical condition of the kennel facility?

What is the overall attitude of the organization?

Do they answer your questions openly or are they secretive, defensive, or resistent?

Any organization that asks for money and time to benefit a humanitarian cause, such as helping homeless animals is in a very special position of trust.  They need to be transparent and accountable.  Donors should be able to question something that seems out of line with the mission.  Homeless animals are as innocent as children and the elderly.  Where is the accountability for them?  If there is any, it is so fragmented that it doesn’t really exist at all.

It has become apparent to me that the absense of accountability can create an attitude of arrogance and loss of compassion in some.  When anyone uses the excuse that they have been around for many years or has the attitude that they are beyond reproach, it concerns me.  That is counterproductive and dangerous to the entire humane community and to the animals.

There are Ombudsmen who advocate for the elderly living in nursing homes and assisted living facilities. They provide information about how to find a facility and get quality care.  The are trained to resolve problems, address complaints, and advocate for improvements in long term care.  Homeless animals living in kennel facilities need something like an Ombudsman.  It could be an independent group designated to act as the liaison between non-profits, the public, and the city and state agencies.  It could also notify, through a grading system, how organizations operate in specific areas, such as cleanliness, customer service, finances, and animal care.

I have seen charity navigators that give a financial overview, but I have yet to find a more in depth evaluation for rescue organization kennel facilities.  We must set this standard for accountability.  This would also provide valuable information for people to know when they are supporting a rescue organization and for those that are looking to surrender their animals to a kennel facility.

Every dog that comes through my life touches me in a special way.  There are many precious memories and happy endings.  I am troubled when I think of Winston’s ending.  But, his life did have a purpose.  It represents the many others who cannot speak for themselves.  That purpose is not served by silence.  Until there is a standared for accountability, I believe the public must be made aware and take responsibility.

I hope Winston’s story encourages everyone to ask questions and to speak up.  Maybe it will be a positive step towards creating the accountability that is needed…one dog at a time.