Chapel Hill News July 2, 2003 APS shelter to euthanize more animals In response to a Humane Society report that recommended shorter stays, APS has begun killing animals sooner. CHAPEL HILL _ The Animal Protection Society of Orange County has begun euthanizing animals more quickly at the Orange County animal shelter in response to a preliminary report that the Humane Society of the United States released last week. APS Executive Director Laura Walters said the Humane Society's report indicated that the shelter's facilities are inadequate to house diseased animals and prevent the spread of disease. As a result, surrendered sick animals now will be immediately euthanized. Stray sick animals will be treated for five to seven days, after which they will be killed if they have not recovered. Healthy animals will no longer be kept for up to three weeks before they are euthanized but instead will be killed if they have not been adopted after seven to 10 days. Historically, the APS's philosophy has been more focused on animal treatment than in some other shelters, Walters said, but that might change as a result of the Humane Society's recommenda- tions. The report states that, because the shelter has limited capacity and accepts all animals, "APS must focus its efforts on structuring a system that decreases the length of stay for the animals it receives." The report says a seven- to 10-day average is reasonable. On Tuesday, the first day the new policy was implemented, 26 cats were euthanized at the shelter, according to Walters. "This has been a very difficult change for our staff," she said. Jude Reitman, one of the APS's most vocal critics, described the policy change as a superficial "band aid" that she said will do little to rectify systemic problems at the APS. "Killing more animals in a shorter period of time will benefit neither the animals not the public," Reitman said. "It's an absurdly simplistic response to a much more basic problem at the APS, which is that the APS does not follow minimal disease- management standards." In addition to modifying its euthanasia policy, the APS board of directors also has adopted a number of other policy changes prompted by the Humane Society report. "It has always been a priority of this board to act quickly when problems are brought to our attention," APS board President Pat Beyle stated in a Tuesday press release. "We will immediately prioritize the HSUS suggestions and will ensure that change occurs as warranted." The policy changes include implementing all of the cleaning procedure recommendations outlined in the Humane Society's report, ensuring that all incoming animals receive a health assessment and are immediately vaccinated and initiating weekly staff training sessions. The Humane Society's report was critical of several aspects of the APS's operation of the Orange County Animal Shelter, including APS's approach to animal isolation and vaccination and shelter sanitation. Orange County contracts with the APS to run the shelter. County commissioners ordered the independent review late last year after a group of critics emerged last summer alleging that APS's man- agement and animal care techniques were insufficient. --- Above article edited and published as Euthanizing hastened at animal shelter The News & Observer July 2, 2003 ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News Editorial July 2, 2003 Cleaning up animal shelter If anyone was looking to an evaluation by the national Humane Society for reassurance about the operations of the beleaguered Animal Protection Society of Orange County, the release of the Humane Society's preliminary report offers little encouragement. The report finds problems in every area of care examined, from health care to sanitation to disease control to ventilation. It's hard to find a good word about the animal shelter in the entirety of the 23-page report. Among the problems: -- No well defined system for processing incoming animals and properly managing their health, resulting in animals staying too long in the shelter. Animal treatment procedures were vague or lacking, staff had little formal training, and record keeping was incomplete. -- A high incidence of disease caused by below-standard cleaning and sanitation practices and non-existent ventilation. -- Inadequate isolation and separation of sick animals from well ones. -- Lack of a system for assessing animals after they are admit- ted. -- Failure to vaccinate new animals soon after arrival. APS policy requires vaccination within 24 hours, but some went days or weeks before being vaccinated. -- Lack of ventilation throughout the shelter. Orange County is responsible for the building and ventilation, but apparently APS personnel weren't aware of the problem. In response to the preliminary report, APS officials did not dispute any of the findings. APS says its problems boil down to too many animals and not enough staff and space. The agency adopted new policies that incorporate many of the Humane Society recommendations. The new policies mean that more animals will be euthanized and fewer saved. Twenty-six cats were killed Tuesday. That's a shocking shift in philosophy, and no doubt there will be community reaction that APS is going too far in the other direction. The space and staffing issues aside, we have to wonder why it has taken the Humane Society to point out such obvious needs as isolation of sick and well animals and prompt vaccination of incoming animals. Or why APS didn't notice for years that it had no ventilation. We recognize that this is an initial report, and that more is to come. But it does little to restore public confidence in an operation that has been in the middle of public controversy for more than a year. The report also affirms the good judgment of the Orange County commissioners in declining to give a long-term contract extension for APS to continue operating the county animal shelter. Instead, the board on June 17 extended the contract through Sept. 30 - when the final Humane Society report should be in _ after which the contract may be extended month to month. The board also was wise to direct its staff to investigate alternatives to the APS contract, including having the county run the shelter itself. It could be a very messy and complicated endeavor for county government to get into the business of running an animal shelter. And, as the APS points out, the agency provides other services to the community, such as dog and cat spaying. But the county is responsible for public health _ of humans and animals. Both are affected by the operation of the shelter. One thing's certain. The shelter cannot continue to be operated as carelessly and sloppily as indicated by the Human Society report. The commissioners need to be carefully considering now how to rectify the situation. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 2, 2003 APS deserves better leadership On June 17, the Orange County Board of Commissioners voted to extend the Animal Protection Society's contract by only three months, instead of the expected six months. This is the strongest message to date that change is required at APS, and I urge current and potential members of the APS to echo the Board of Commissioners' message. When the APS board of directors covertly removed member-voting rights in November, they recklessly left us no oversight power except through our wallets. Please consider notifying the APS leadership that your contributions will resume only after significant concerns are addressed, including restoration of voting rights and establishment of a directorship that is responsive to thoughtful community input. The current leadership has forgotten that they are but temporary stewards of an important institution that will, hopefully but now not certainly, outlive their administration. In lieu of financial support at this time, you may wish to consider in-kind donations. For years I have volunteered at the APS as an adoption counselor and cat room attendant, and have donated food and other supplies. I will continue to do so. In the past year, however, for the first time in a decade, I have withheld financial contributions. I wish to help the animals and show support for the staff, but do not wish to see my dollars fund the lack of forethought that I find at the helm of this organization now. Nor do I wish to voluntarily financially aid any in power who decide that voting rights are suddenly a dangerous thing that they can usurp. This usurping does not bode well for the APS's sustainability. I will happily resume my membership responsibility of financial contribution when the board resumes its responsibilities to members. My apologies to the dedicated, under-appreciated staff for these comments; I am not "boycotting" them. I have had the privilege of living and volunteering in communities that are similar to this area in socio-demographic profile. We can have, and deserve, a better-led animal shelter. More importantly, the staff at the shelter deserves better; their jobs are already among the most difficult jobs to be done. Most importantly, the animals, who are more voiceless than members and staff, deserve the most thoughtful and trustworthy leadership attainable. If you too have a vision that we can do better, will you consider sending such a message to the APS directorship? Beverly Rockhill, Carrboro ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 2, 2003 APS director should heed no-confidence I am gratified that APS Executive Director Laura Walters has correctly interpreted the Orange County Board of County Commissioners' "vote of no confidence in the APS's ability to continue running the shelter." She says that the commissioners "were not taking all of the financial implications ... into consideration" and that "APS provides an additional $575,000 a year for animal services." These include a dog-training program, dog park and other income- producing operations unrelated to the county's shelter obligation. If APS loses its contract, will APS no longer provide such services, given its financial support from APS members and the general public? Walters claims that "APS owns all of the furniture ... associated with the shelter to the tune of about $300,000," apparently suggesting that the county must spend this amount to furnish the shelter. This is a gross exaggeration, since such items are listed in the latest APS tax return at a depreciated value of $62,360. This amount includes not only the shelter (which the county must furnish) but the APS sanctuary as well. It is difficult to believe that furniture, cages, computers and other fixed assets would cost a significant amount, should APS be unwilling to sell the shelter furnishings to the county. In any event, a new shelter must be built within a few years, and this amount is insignificant in comparison to that cost. Walters also says that "the spaying and neutering service and the 24-hour animal rescue program could be discontinued." She overlooks the fact that spaying and neutering is performed by the independent Nicks Road Veterinary Clinic and is a substantial source of APS income, while the 24-hour rescue program is specif- ically funded by the county. The purpose of APS was never to operate the county shelter, built 17 years after APS was founded. Its articles of incorporation also state that "each member shall be entitled to one vote at any meeting of the corporation," a right that has been illegally usurped by the APS board. In view of all the turmoil at APS involving both the incompetent management of the shelter and the illegal and undemocratic actions of the APS board, Laura Walters can do the board a service by submitting her resignation. The APS board can do the membership a service by removing its leadership. The Orange County Board of Commissioners can do the public a service by taking over operation of the shelter as soon as possible. Elliot M. Cramer, Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald July 3, 2003 Animal shelter adopting changes CHAPEL HILL -- A preliminary report from the Humane Society of the United States that found problems with disease control, procedures and animal management at Orange County's animal shelter has resulted in changes there, and more changes could be in store. The Humane Society's assessment cited unclean conditions, a lack of written records and the lack of a well-defined system for processing animals and supervising their health at the shelter, which is managed by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. The APS' animal shelter committee earlier this week approved three pages of new shelter policies and protocols that address incoming animal exams and vaccinations, treatment of sick animals, euthanasia protocols, housing, staff training and clean- ing procedures. The group's board of directors has to review and approve some of the changes, while others will be left to management's discre- tion, said APS President Pat Beyle. Humane Society inspectors gave "us some very, very fine guidelines and we will review them and change where it is warranted, and we will review some of the guidelines according to our philosophy," Beyle said. "The next part of the report will come in and we'll do the same thing." A larger discussion on the APS' philosophy still looms. The Humane Society report said the APS' attitude toward sheltering animals "needs to be re-examined and overall objectives and goals need to be established." It urged the group to "concentrate its efforts towards creating a well-structured system for moving animals through its shelter facility." Commissioner Barry Jacobs said he would like the public to weigh in on that broader issue. "One of the difficulties here is we need to have a philosophical discussion about how important it is for us as a community to work toward a no-kill philosophy" at the shelter, he said. Beyle said APS now has a "comforting, incredibly nurturing environment," and that it would "hate to give up that philosophy." "We like to save animals and we like to nurture them and keep them, and we like to treat sick animals as long as we possibly can to see if there's any possible way if we can adopt them and get them home," she said. "We've just always kept them until the last piece of medication can be delivered." Jacobs said a shelter with limited facilities can't afford to keep animals that are ill for too long. In trying to save more animals, the APS has perhaps kept animals that were too ill, he said. Under the policies that the APS' shelter committee approved, sick animals would stay at the shelter for three to five days before being euthanized or put into a foster home for up to a month. Healthy adoptable animals would be viewable for seven to 10 days -- a period recommended by the Humane Society report -- before being euthanized. Beyle said APS has looked forward to the Humane Society's report as a "benchmark time to make changes and implement our policies." The shelter committee's new policies indicate that all cleaning procedures recommended by the Humane Society will be implemented, Beyle said. Changes in documentation and housing of the animals will also be immediately made. Other changes, such as the euthanization policy, are less cer- tain. "I don't think we are going to change for the sake of change," Beyle said. "I think we have got to take a look at it and see how it fits with how we do things." Jacobs said that if APS policy and philosophical changes make it more likely healthy strays will be euthanized, he would want to make sure there's a "rigorous process" in place to find the lost animal's owner first. On the other hand, if the APS wants to minimize euthanization, then a larger facility, more staff and more capital expenditures likely would be needed, he said. Jacobs, who originally liked the idea of moving toward a no-kill philosophy, said Humane Society representatives helped explain how na‹ve he was. He added that he found the inspection team's initial report revealing. "I think it substantiates a lot of concerns that citizens have expressed," he said, adding that he's long had concerns about record-keeping and written policies and procedures at the shelt- er. The report helped solidify his thinking. "I was pleased to read the report not because it found things wrong per se, but it found things as a layperson I could not otherwise make a determination on," Jacobs said. The full Humane Society report is due in the fall. Jacobs said he is glad the county is taking the time to gather information before making a move. "It's tempting to jump to conclusions," he said. "It's more important to have some facts before we make what will be some important decisions." ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 4, 2003 APS shelter euthanasia policy draws howls U.S. Humane Society praises shelter for prompt action. By KATHLEEN HUNTER, STAFF WRITER CHAPEL HILL -- The recent decision by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County to hasten animal euthanasia at the Orange County Animal Shelter has prompted several members of the community to call for a county-funded "no-kill" animal facility. The policy change also has spurred a groundswell of criticism of the community at large, the Humane Society of the United States and the APS. "The more I read about it, it seems like this is a political fight and the animals are the ones who are hurting," said Shirley Paine, who lived in Chapel Hill for almost 10 years before relo- cating to upstate New York. "It's sad." "I'm just amazed that in a town like Chapel Hill that prides itself so much on humane thinking that this battle has gone on for so long. There has to be an answer." APS Executive Director Laura Walters announced last week that the APS board of directors had adopted a number of new policies -- including shortened periods of stay at the shelter before animals are euthanized -- aimed at ensuring that the shelter's operations comply with recommendations outlined in a report the Humane Society released late last month. Walters indicated that the report forced the APS into a corner and left the agency no alternative but to adopt the new euthanasia policy -- a contention with which a Humane Society representative at least partially agrees. "The fact that (Walters) has taken a step toward meeting those recommendations is admirable," said Kim Intino, the Humane Society's manager of the Animal Services Consultation Program. "I think it's very difficult for the general public to hear that you're euthanizing animals, and the general public often doesn't understand how a shelter works." Intino said that more efficient adoption policies also should be put in place to move animals through the shelter more quickly. Chapel Hill resident Lynn Colin said she was outraged to hear that an organization like the Humane Society would support euthanasia as a way to deal with overcrowding and disease in shelters. "When the Humane Society of the United States sends down a order like this, they have a problem -- a big problem," Colin said. Walters said she anticipated future installments of the Humane Society's comprehensive evaluation -- all of which are due out by late August or early September -- likely would recommend the APS implement a one-day adoption policy. Now, individuals interested in adopting from the shelter must wait 24 hours -- a measure partially designed to prevent impul- sive adoptions. Walters said the APS has shied away from same-day adoptions in the past and would have to consider all of the ramifications associated with speeding up the adoption process before making any changes if the Humane Society does recommend a same-day policy. According to Walters, last year, 5,165 animals came through the shelter -- 2,067, or 41 percent, of which were adopted, 522, or 10 percent, of which were reclaimed, and 2,232, or 43 percent, of which were euthanized. Even though almost half of the animals that entered the shelter last year -- under the old policy -- were euthanized, the euthanization rate at the Orange County shelter is still well below the state average and is just slightly above the national average. In 2002, 18.5 animals per 1,000 people were euthanized in Orange County. The Charlotte Observer recently reported that 35 to 40 animals per 1,000 people are euthanized in the state, a rate more than twice the national average of 16. Some fear that the new euthanasia policy could increase that statistic for Orange County. Under the new policy, surrendered sick animals will be immediately euthanized while stray sick animals will be treated for seven to 10 days, after which they will be put to sleep if they have not recovered. A surrendered animal is one the owner voluntarily turns over to the shelter, while a stray's owner is unknown. Healthy animals now will be kept for seven to 10 days -- rather than three weeks -- before they are euthanized. "It seems like such a drastic, drastic reaction," said Nancy Wisniewski, a Raleigh resident, who said she was shocked to learn of the policy change. "It seems like there are other alterna- tives." N.C. House Co-Speaker Jim Black, D-Mecklenberg, recently pledged to push for a commission to reform animal control laws that have resulted in the high statewide euthanasia rate. Several local residents have said they would like to see the Orange County shelter abandon euthanasia altogether and adopt a no-kill policy. Walters said the APS would be in support of running a no-kill facility but that the agency currently does not have the resources to do so. The county pays APS $429,000 a year to run the shelter. At the direction of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, county staff has begun investigating possible sites and designs for a new shelter facility as well as operating models. The lease on the existing facility, which is off Airport Road, expires in 2006 and will not be renewed. Commissioner Barry Jacobs said he hopes temporary solutions can be identified to help keep euthanasia rates at a minimum until a new facility is built or other changes are made, but that he is unsure what those measures might be. The pace at which the commissioners make decisions, Jacobs said, might make taking action quickly impossible. "We're not a group of people that tends to rush to judgement, and this is too important an issue to rush to judgement," he said. In the meantime, Jacobs said he understands why some people are upset. But he said it is difficult to identify where the criti- cism should be directed. "Without the evaluation of outside experts, it's hard to know whether we're just playing games or if the choice to do more euthanizing is the inevitable consequence of having to do more disease management," he said. Late last year, commissioners contracted with the Humane Society to conduct the independent assessment of the animal shelter's operations after a firestorm of criticism of the APS emerged last summer. Elliot Cramer and Jude Reitman, the APS's two most outspoken critics, filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court in February alleging that the APS board illegally refused to disclose information and records, removed members' voting rights and obstructed members' efforts to nominate candidates to the APS board of directors. The APS has responded with a counter suit claiming that Cramer and Reitman have defamed APS's reputation. In June, county commissioners voted 3-2 not to summarily extend the county's contract with APS through the end of the calendar year as County Manager John Link had recommended. Instead, they opted to extend the contract until Sept. 30, after which it will come up for renewal each month through Dec. 31. Commissioner Moses Carey later asked the board to reconsider that decision and to extend the contract for the full six months, but the motion failed. In light of the Humane Society's report, Cramer has said he plans to petition the Board of Commissioners to discontinue the coun- ty's contract with APS as of Oct. 1. Walters said last week that whatever decisions APS has made and will make in the future will be with the intention of providing the best possible care for animals. "Whatever we do is going to be in the best interest of the animals, no matter what," she said. --- Republished and slightly edited as Euthanasia decision spurs outrage The News & Observer July 8, 2003 ________________________________________________________________ APS should cooperate about shelter Chapel Hill Herald Saturday, July 05, 2003 BY ELLIOT CRAMER Like Animal Protection Society President Pat Beyle (The Chapel Hill Herald, June 22), I too hope that the APS continues its service to the public. Unfortunately, she and others at the APS have been telling us what they will not do if they lose the contract to operate Orange County's animal shelter rather than what they will do. She says "county staff, who are knowledgeable about APS operations, recommended the commissioners extend the contract six months." But County Manager John Link wrote Health Director Rosemary Summers on Feb. 3 to say, "We need to go ahead and provide the [county commissioners] with an interim plan for continuing our contract on a month-by-month basis after June 30 ... Rosie, you might be ready to take over the shelter." The three-month extension and the board's directive to Link to investigate other options will allow the county to act quickly after receipt of the Humane Society of the United States' final report, as Commissioner Steve Halkiotis recommended. The purpose of the APS was never to operate the county shelter, built 17 years after the APS was founded. As Beyle says, the county should not "use tax money for services that to date have been provided by the APS through donations." The county has no need "to duplicate APS programs" which includes a dog-training program, a dog park and other income-producing operations unrelated to the county's shelter obligation. If the APS loses its contract, will it no longer provide such services, given its financial support from APS members and the general public? Beyle says that the "APS owns all shelter furnishings, and replacement could cost about $300,000," apparently suggesting that the county must spend this amount to furnish the shelter. This is a gross exaggeration, since such items are listed in the latest APS tax return at a depreciated value of $62,360. This amount includes not only the shelter (which the county must furnish) but the APS sanctuary as well. It is difficult to believe that furniture, cages, computers and other fixed assets would cost a significant amount, should the APS be unwilling to sell the shelter's furnishings to the county. In any event, a new shelter must be built within a few years and this amount is insignificant in comparison to the cost of one. Beyle states that "the 24-hour emergency service ... through the county's 911 system" could be discontinued and that "the APS provides spay and neuter services to every animal adopted." The 24-hour program is specifically funded by the county, while the spaying and neutering is performed by the independent Nicks Road Veterinary Clinic and is a substantial source of revenue for the APS. Surely the clinic has every incentive to continue these services for which it's fully paid by the adoption fee. There is no reason why APS could not cooperate with a county- run shelter and continue to provide other animal services that are unrelated to operation of the shelter. I have repeatedly cited APS's false monthly statistical reports, three different sets for 2001-02 substantially different from one another and all in error. Beyle offers another example of misreporting when she says that the APS' 2001-02 adoption rate is "40 percent -- 10 percent higher than under the previous administration." Actually, the 2001 APS annual report gives an identical adoption rate of 40 percent for 2000-01, as compared to 32 percent for 1999-2000. The adoption rate, which was increasing, is actually 4 percent lower under Laura Walters than had been previously projected. Contrary to what Beyle says, in a community like Orange County, there need be no "difference between government management of an animal shelter and a private animal welfare organization's management." The public and the county commissioners have expressed their concern for a well-run shelter whose policies are transparent and which will serve as a state model. Unfortunately, this is not the case under the current APS management. San Diego County, Calif., (www.sddac.com) offers a model of what a county operation could be like. Beyle says that APS officials "are listening to constructive criticism and are prepared to make changes." Unfortunately, the failure to listen is the source of their problems. On Oct. 14, in my very first statement about the APS, I said, "We would be eager to work with the current board to bring back community support and assure a bright future for APS." Instead of listening, the APS has refused to discuss problems with any of us, as suggested by Dr. Halkiotis many months ago. In fact, they have sued us for slander for criticizing their operation of the county shelter and for daring to demand the return of APS members' voting rights. These rights are guaranteed to us by the APS Articles of Incorporation, which says "each member shall be entitled to one vote at any meeting of the corporation." As former Executive Director Pat Sanford so eloquently said, "Shame on the APS. Grieve for the animals." Elliot Cramer is a retired UNC psychology professor and the president of the Piedmont Animal Welfare Society. He is involved in litigation with the Animal Protection Society. ________________________________________________________________ The News & Observer July 6, 2003 Comment: This is by a APS Board member who SHOULD know better. For the love of pets, an overpopulation problem So many are lost Thanks for your June 28 article about banning animal sales at the State Fairgrounds flea market, but I was surprised the "spin" of your story. In Orange County alone over 6,000 animals come into the shelter a year, and half have to be euthanized due to a lack of space and not enough people adopting them. And Orange County is such a small piece of the Triangle area. You have a responsibility to educate your readers that because of certain animal breeders there's a tremendous overpopulation, especially in the South. The Charlotte Observer did a wonderful piece on animal shelters and really created awareness of what a huge problem we as a society have caused. My husband and I "foster" animals to give them more time to find a home. Several shelters don't even have foster programs available. It's all about time: as soon as the animal arrives it has five to seven days to get adopted, and if it's "surrendered" it can be euthanized due to space limitations in as little as 24 hours. I urge you to do a story about shelters in our area and encourage and educate people on how many dogs and cats die each day, each week and month due to overpopulation. Erin Furr Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ The News & Observer July 6, 2003 Harmful response I was appalled to read a July 2 article that the Orange County Animal Protection Society's response to a Humane Society report is to euthanize animals more quickly. I adopted a wonderful dog from the APS in 2000 and had a generally good experience with the shelter. Since then I have followed the controversy regarding the running of the shelter in the papers, but generally gave Director Laura Walters and the APS the benefit of the doubt that they were trying to do a good job. However, the decision to euthanize animals more quickly as one of the first actions in response to the report clearly demonstrates the lack of caring for these animals. This response is a quick fix and doesn't address the real problems of disease management. It also seems contradictory to the purpose of having an outside review of the shelter, which was to improve the welfare of the animals. According to the article, the Humane Society's recommendation was to "structure a system that decreases the length of stay for the animals it receives." To me, this means increasing adoption rates, through methods such as increasing public awareness of the number and variety of young and old animals, including pure-bred animals, available for adoption. The ultimate goal should be to have a no-kill shelter, to the extent that it is possible. I urge the Orange County Board of Commissioners to end the contract with the APS. The next three months will only see the death of untold numbers of animals that are perfectly adoptable. Marcey Waters Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ Comment: Unfortunately she believed Laura's lies, but see Chapel Hill Herald July 10, 2003 The Chapel Hill News July 6, 2003 Letters to the Editor What has happened to town's conscience? I lived in Chapel Hill from 1987 to 1996 and prided myself on living in a town that tried to look after the unfortunate -- both humans and animals. But after reading the APS euthanized 26 cats because they don't have the facilities to keep them, I'm glad I'm not there now. What has happened to the heart and conscious of a town that has forgotten the plight of homeless animals who did not ask to be born in such an affluent town where their lives mean nothing? Residents may be surprised to learn that all animal shelters are not involved in this type of politics, even in the poorest of counties. In Steuben County, N.Y., where I live, the Finger Lakes Animal Shelter is a no-kill facility that has the solid backing of the communities it serves, and the dedicated volunteerism of many, including some county-run mental health support groups. Residents throughout the area also save grocery store receipts for a major grocery store, cans and bottles, and an assortment of things for the shelter to turn in and buy food and litter. Through donated funds, the shelter takes out a page ad each week in local papers, listing pets that need homes, including some that have been there several months. These animals usually find homes as a result of the ad. Of course, you say in Chapel Hill, this would be impossible because of the numbers. Maybe so, maybe not. But the staff members who euthanized 26 cats because the affluent citizens of Chapel Hill are too busy fighting over whether the shelter is doing its job have my sympathies. I'm sure it must have been a very difficult task for them. And for the dear lady who withheld her funds because she had no say so in how the shelter is run, withholding funds is not the answer. Why not try to turn all that negativeness around and devote your energy to trying to help the shelter in a positive way? The truth is stray animals deserve better than they are getting in ritzy Chapel Hill and Orange County. Both the city and the county should be ashamed that a county like Steuben, N.Y., where the unemployment rate is at near record highs and the economy outside of Corning is very depressed, takes better care of its animals than Chapel Hill. From the view of an outsider reading about the feuding at the expense of the helpless animals, it certainly tarnishes the town's image. Shirley Simmons Paine Prattsburgh, N.Y. ________________________________________________________________ The Chapel Hill News July 6, 2003 Euthanasia decision shows lack of caring I was appalled to read that the Orange County APS's response to the HSUS report is to euthanize animals more quickly. I adopted a wonderful dog from the Orange County APS in the fall of 2000 and had a generally good experience with the shelter. Since then, I have followed the controversy regarding the running of the shelter in the papers, but generally gave director Laura Walters and the APS the benefit of the doubt that they were trying to do a good job. Why would someone take on a position as director of an animal shelter if that person didn't care about animals, after all? However, the decision to euthanize animals more quickly as one of the first actions in response to the HSUS clearly demonstrates the lack of caring for these animals. This response is a quick fix and doesn't address the real problems of disease management. It also seems contradictory to the purpose of having an outside review of the shelter, which was to improve the welfare of the animals in the care of the APS. According to the article (Chapel Hill News, July 2), the HSUS's recommendation was to "structure a system that decreases the length of stay for the animals it receives." To me, this means increasing adoption rates, through methods such as increasing the public's awareness of the number and variety of young and old animals, including pure-bred animals, available for adoption. The ultimate goal should be to have a no-kill shelter, to the extent that it is possible. Instead, the APS has chosen to put animals down as quickly as possible. What chance does an animal have of being adopted in the period of one week? I encourage those considering getting a pet to go to their local animal shelter. However, for those who find stray animals, I implore you to take the time to call around and find a no-kill shelter or private animal rescue group, rather than taking the animal to the Orange County APS. The animal will have almost no chance of avoiding disease or getting adopted with the current state of the shelter. Lastly, I urge the Orange County Board of Commissioners to end the contract with the APS. The next three months will only see the death of untold numbers of animals that are perfectly adopt- able. Marcey Waters Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ Comment: She seems to have gotten it wrong; see July 10 article. --- Chapel Hill Herald Sunday, July 06, 2003 Threat to animals not from APS I was an employee for the Animal Protection Society for five years. I joined the board of the APS in March because I've never seen harder-working people with bigger hearts than at the APS. APS passes N.C. Agricultural Department veterinary inspections every year and has never been cited for unclean conditions. Why is the Humane Society of the United States report so discrepant? I read the Humane Society critique. The APS staff has worked zealously to save animal lives, often overstretching the capabilities of the poorly designed, county provided building. The Humane Society's suggestions to close off a wing to the public, kill sick animals instead of treat them, and reduce adoptable animal stays to seven to 10 days are heart-wrenching choices that deal only with the inadequacies of the building. They are not about the big picture of saving lives. The building wasn't designed with good medical practices in mind. Now Orange County will become like Charlotte, where recently the Charlotte Observer decried Charlotte's 70-percent euthanasia rate. The county doesn't give the APS the money to hire the right number of workers to take care of the high number of incoming animals. The delay in vaccinating is the result of this short staffing. The Humane Society report tells us we will have to kill more animals to keep the small, clumsy building in line with the society's suggestions. Death is their quick and easy answer to inadequate conditions. The APS staff labors mightily to find people to foster animals and reach adopters through Petsmart and Dubey's. The Humane Society's recommendations don't give harried staff the time they need to perform these life-saving programs. The APS under Laura Walters responded immediately to the Humane Society's medical recommendations. The APS veterinarian and his certified tech assistant now come in daily for three-hour medical rounds in the afternoon. The county does not pay for this. If there is still more that can be done, the APS has vowed to do it. With the Humane Society recommendations, adoption rates will drop, euthanasia will climb, and we will be just like every other animal shelter in the area. Will this death rate increase satisfy APS critics? We ask citizens to become foster parents now while we look for more acceptable solutions. Jesse Kaufmann ________________________________________________________________ Editorial Chapel Hill Herald APS, county far from resolving shelter issues July 7, 2003 Understanding that its future is at stake, the Animal Protection Society moved quickly to answer a report that criticized its management of Orange County?s animal shelter. On the last day of June, APS leaders issued a statement that promised compliance with the preliminary recommendations of the Humane Society of the United States. They also previewed a series of policy changes that would affect the handling of animals at the shelter. Those moves are welcome, for there?s no doubt the willingness of the APS to follow the Humane Society?s advice will go far toward determining whether it retains a contract from Orange County to manage the shelter. But just as we?ve cautioned against making hasty judgments about ending that contract, we caution against rushing to uphold it. The APS and the county commissioners have a long road to travel, and they?ve only taken the first steps. Before the present controversy ends, the commissioners will have to spell out what they want and expect for Orange County?s animal-control program. At the moment, they?re nowhere near ready to do that. Though unquestionably important, animal control has always been a low-priority program for the commissioners, who prefer to concentrate on issues like land use and school finance. The Humane Society review isn?t only about scrutinizing the APS; it?s also meant to help bring commissioners up to speed on an unfamil- iar subject. That education process won?t be finished in a matter of days or weeks. It?ll be more like months. Similarly, the commissioners will need time to think about what kind of oversight they want for the program, as they clearly have problems to address on that front. The present system assigns the APS most of the work involved in dealing with the public, even though it?s not a public body. The nonprofit also doesn?t get enough supervision from the county, again because County Manager John Link and his staff have to devote most of their time to higher-priority programs. Ultimately, the commissioners also will have TO grapple with policy. Will they want to minimize euthanasia with a ?no-kill? shelter, with all the expense that entails? Will they want to be involved in wildlife rehabilitation? Few of the issues at stake in this review are easy; no one will benefit if the commissioners rush the job. ________________________________________________________________ Comment: When will Laura say "I'm sorry"???? Caring for pets the human thing Chapel Hill Herald Wednesday, July 9, 2003 JEAN BOLDUC Columnist I've got pets on the brain. Driving back from the beach after the holiday weekend, we came to a trouble spot on U.S. 70. "We" in this instance was my family and many others on a shared mission. Apparently, something fairly serious happened on the highway. As our long line of traffic finally reached a nearby intersection, we were greeted with state troopers and fire engines coming toward us in our lane. Like sheep, we followed the many cars in front of us as we were led along some local roads that would eventually take us back to highway U.S. 70 -- about an hour later. Winding ever so slowly through these back roads is instructive to the observer. This, indeed, is what most of North Carolina looks like -- farmland with tiny houses scattered about. Creeping closer to our goal, we watched as some of the local folks came out to talk to the bored drivers, smiling at our unlikely meeting and exchanging holiday greetings. They've scarcely ever seen a hundred cars stretched across the front yard. We were an oddity for them to ogle at. As we approached one fenced-in field, Madison (our golden retriever) began to growl and bark. Coming up was a horse who had come up to the roadside fence to see what all the fuss was about. Madison didn't like the horse. I rolled down the window some, thinking that the smell would be of interest to her. She barked at the horse, which caused it to look in our direction with one of those "you talking to ME?" expressions. It was absolutely priceless. We laughed for 10 minutes. That's something a pet can do for you -- make you laugh when you're frustrated, and help you relax. My mother returned home from a week in the hospital recently. The young cat that she's babysitting all summer has been a great comfort to her in the wake of a heart attack. Some kitten antics here and there and a purring companion to pet and talk to. How do you put a price on that? Orange County has a problem with its domestic animals, there's no doubt about that. We have too many stray cats and dogs and the county will have to start euthanizing them earlier to cope with the backlog. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that everyone who works for the Animal Protection Society of Orange County wants to avoid that, but there are problems with the APS opera- tion that are already beginning to trump that central issue. In the short form, these will be described as "just communication problems," but indeed communicating with the public is so critical in protecting animals and controlling their population that there is no such thing as "just" a communication problem. Whether it's euthanizing feral cats after starting adoption proceedings or suing a local man who allegedly insulted the reputation of the organization, the APS is spending a whole lot of time and resources in a downward spiral of public-relations damage control instead of advocating for animals that really need help. A friend of mine recently tried to adopt a cat that the APS determined was feral and put down before she could pursue the agency's appeals process. When she brought the matter to the board, they heard her out and determined that, in fact, they had erred in accepting her deposit and in not explaining to her what the feral policy was and why she would not be permitted to adopt the animal. More importantly, they not only didn't apologize for the bungled experience, but Executive Director Laura Walters took it upon herself to twist the facts into an editorial criticism of my friend for the fact that she was going to keep the cat in her bathroom for the first few days in her new home. This, said Walters, would have been inhumane. If it is, then APS should stop recommending it to people who are adopting new pets. Instead of counter-suing its critics with defamation charges that are little more than bluster, the APS should be spending its time accounting for its budget, planning for needed improvements and articulating for the public the need for a strong animal-control program and creative approaches to adopting out as many animals as possible. There's only one thing Walters should say (or write) to those who have criticized the agency and sought public accountability for its work, its budget and its plans for the future: "I'm sorry." The euthanization rate at the Orange County shelter is reportedly well below the state average, but there's always room for improvement. While that part of the agency's work is probably in need of better public understanding, the more troubling issue is vividly clear. When officials of a publicly funded agency are pointing the finger at critics as the cause of trouble instead of defending their programs and administration on facts and merit, something is very wrong. Jean Bolduc is the owner of Pen & Inc Communications, a Web development and editorial services company based in Chapel Hill. Readers may e-mail her at jean@penandinc.com or write to her c/o The Chapel Hill Herald, 106 Mallette St., Chapel Hill, NC 27516. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald Wednesday, July 9, 2003 'No-kill' animal policy often means slow kill The main reason that the Humane Society of the United States was chosen for the Orange County Animal Shelter evaluation is because they are professionals in the field of animal welfare, with the expertise to evaluate conditions under which animals are kept. The most significant part of the group's report says: "APS's [The Animal Protection Society's] philosophy regarding the sheltering of animals needs to be re-examined and overall objectives and goals need to be established. The goals and objectives should mandate that the APS concentrate its efforts toward creating a well-structured system for moving animals through its shelter facility." Warehousing -- keeping animals in shelters for long periods of time -- is what has been happening at APS. I challenge the claim that by following the Humane Society's recommendations, euthanasia would climb and adoptions would fall. If anything, the adoption rate will go up, the "died in kennel" rate will go down, and the health and security of the animals will become more stable. The APS has been keeping more animals longer, keeping sick, contagious animals with healthy ones, and overcrowding the shelter. "No-kill" can all too easily become slow kill. The intent has been to avoid killing animals, but the result is that animals unnecessarily suffer from illness and are eventually euthanized anyway. Despite good intentions, these practices of the APS have caused great harm without improving adoption rates. The APS board members and others interested should look at the actual statistics before and after Laura Walters became the executive director. Remember, too, that for many years the Orange County Animal Shelter has had the highest adoption rate in North Caroli- na. Overcrowding causes stress, lowers an animal's resistance, causes depression and creates an unsuitable environment for animals that have been abandoned by society. The most humane road for a county-operated shelter is to work harder on sterilization programs that will reduce the numbers of animals coming into the shelter, and to treat sheltered animals humanely. For some animals that arrive at the shelter, their week there may be the best in their lives; let's not make it the worst week of their lives. Don't torture those animals that we are supposed to be protecting, and please stop attacking or using emotional blackmail to intimidate the Humane Society, the county commissioners and other residents of Orange County who genuinely care about our homeless animals. Instead, start doing the job you need to do. Pat Sanford Chapel Hill (The writer is the former executive director of the Orange County Animal Shelter.) ________________________________________________________________ Comment: See response below Chapel Hill Herald Sunday, June 29, 2003 Letters didn't tell whole story In reading two recent letters to the editor criticizing the Orange County Animal Shelter and its policies, it is quite appar- ent only one side of these issues is being printed. Betty Kent says she was "refused a puppy because animals are required to spend an additional night at the shelter." Her letter did not mention we have a policy prohibiting same-day adoptions. Any animal to be adopted is given a thorough health exam, blood is drawn and tests are run. If of age and healthy, the animal is spayed or neutered. In addition, we want the prospective adopter to take a day or two to make sure he really wants the animal and is willing to make a commitment. In this instance, Ms. Kent went into the kennels and returned with a puppy and her checkbook out. When we explained the policy and that health work needed to be done, Ms. Kent became extremely loud, angry and vocal. When she calmed down, she agreed to wait until the next day to take home the puppy. Meanwhile, a health check revealed the puppy had kennel cough. I called Ms. Kent personally and said we would treat the puppy for her at no cost, or she could take it to her own veterinarian. She chose the latter and I contacted her ve- terinarian to explain the situation. The adoption was done the next day. Ms. Kent signed a form saying she was aware of the puppy's condition and agreed to pay for veterinary care. She contacted us later to let us know the puppy was recovering and doing well. The letter from Carla Shuford describes her friend's attempt to adopt a cat that was later euthanized. Unfortunately, Ms. Shuford failed to note the cat was feral (wild) and therefore not adopt- able under county policies. The cat was trapped at Ms. Shuford's house, at her own request, and brought in by animal control. Ms. Shuford and her friend were aware feral cats cannot be adopted. A feral animal does not want to be anywhere near humans, and it would have been inhumane to keep the cat in her bathroom, as Ms. Shuford's friend wanted to do. When John Sauls, director of Animal Control, explained the policy, the friend agreed she did not want the cat, and came in the next day to withdraw her appli- cation. Only at that point was the cat euthanized. With all the animals we are forced to euthanize every day because nobody wants them, the last thing we want to do is kill an adopt- able animal that someone wants. Laura Walters Executive Director APS/Orange County Animal Shelter Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 9, 2003 Incident shakes confidence in APS I recently attempted to adopt a cat through the Orange County shelter. Last week, a friend of mind, Carla Shuford, and Laura Walters, executive director of the Animal Protection Society, wrote letters to the editor about my experience. Ms. Walters has so completely misrepresented my experience, I feel compelled to set the record straight. Shuford told me about the cat because it had been trapped at her house and she wanted to find it a home. I went to the APS, saw the cat, put down a deposit and set a pick-up date for a few days later. The next day I was contacted by the APS and later spoke with John Sauls, director of animal control, about the cat. Sauls said the cat was feral and therefore unadoptable and that the acceptance of my deposit was a procedural error. After discussing the situation with Sauls, I felt I had no choice but to request my deposit back because county policy prohibits the adoption of any feral animal. Walters' letter to the editor claimed that I had, at this point, decided that I didn't want the cat. This is totally false and Walters knows it. It was at this point that I requested the return of my deposit, thinking I had no other option. After my discussion with Sauls, I learned that an appeals process existed. Five hours after first requesting my deposit back, I submitted a letter requesting an appeal in an attempt to save the cat. I received a response letter from Walters four days later, in which she told me that the appeals process was not valid in this case because the cat was not adoptable. However, by the time I received her letter of explanation I was aware that the cat had been euthanized on Friday between the time I requested my deposit back and returned with the appeals letter. Walters' letter to the editor also said that I intended to keep the cat in my bathroom and that this would be inhumane. Again, she's knows this to be false. I intended to follow the shelter's recommendations to confine the cat to my bathroom for a few days to ease its transition into a new environment. I have only the shelter staff's word that the cat was feral. While I would like to believe what the staff tells me, given recent events and my own experience I find that my confidence in the APS is shaky at best. -- Jamie Hagenberger, Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 9, 2003 APS must be held accountable Although under constant scrutiny and with months to prepare for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) examination, the recently released report on the APS shows unvaccinated animals, filth, disease, lack of standard operating procedures and inade- quate management. Indeed one of the first recommendations is: "APS's philosophy regarding the sheltering of animals needs to be re-examined and overall objectives and goals need to be established." When will the APS be held accountable? If the HSUS report portrays APS trying to show off its best, then what was the condition a year ago, or what will it be next year with no threat of an investigation? We openly criticized the APS a year ago when we lost a dog to parvovirus due to inadequate disease control and not receiving an immunization. But no changes have been made. Citizens need to consider what has taken place in the last year at the shelter _ besides the revoking of members voting rights. If the handbook was indeed "archaic," as APS Executive Director Laura Walters admits, and they have known changes needed to happen, then why hadn't attempts been made to correct inadequacies? Hadn't the Dispute Settlement Center, under contract by the county, already provided constructive and objective feedback to the APS? Why only under the "objective" external pressure from HSUS does APS seem willing to respond? Shouldn't a nonprofit community-based organization be responsive to its constituents and its community? Why have they ignored critical volunteers, members and concerned citizens? Why do we, homeowners and tax payers, feel that it would be more humane to leave an animal on the highway rather than take it to the local shelter? Why are our neighbors responsible for trapping, neutering, and rehabilitating the feral cats living around their office at the hospital? We sincerely hope that the HSUS report will cause this community to become more active and demand that change finally take place at our local shelter. If you read the report, you must agree with us: The treatment of animals in our shelter is bordering in criminal. Both the Orange County leadership and APS need to look at other college communities such as Palo Alto, Ithaca, Oberlin, College Station, and Indianapolis as examples _ these are all university communities that have successfully managed shelters and pet overpopulation. Please consider writing to the County Board of Commissioners and APS Board of Directors that change needs to happen. -- Adrian and Anne-Marie Meyer, Carrboro ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 9, 2003 APS places blame on wrong shoulders APS is again diverting attention from its incompetent management of the county shelter and foisting blame elsewhere. It has blamed law enforcers, animal control officers and veterinarians in Arkansas for having "their own agendas" in describing the horrible conditions in the Greenwood, Ark., shelter run by Laura Walters. When confronted with the high disease rate, staff turnover and filthy conditions at APS, APS blames critics for causing animals to "suffer." When confronted with vaccination lags of up to 70 days, APS blames the county for inadequate funding, while simultaneously denying such lags exist. Now APS blames the largest and oldest humane society in the United States for causing the shelter to supposedly kill more animals. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the Humane Society's sober recommendations and a transparent effort to discredit their criticism. HSUS did not recommend higher kill rates, as APS would have the public believe, nor will APS's "new" policies result in more animals being killed. The policies HSUS recommended are policies that were in place prior to Walters' tenure, when adoption and euthanasia rates were the same as for her first year. Both rates are worse now. HSUS has recommended euthanasia of sick surrendered animals only when they cannot be treated quickly and when the shelter is full. These numbers are small and this will have no effect on adoption rates. APS blames the euthanasia of 26 cats early this month on HSUS's recommendations. Not so. The APS's board had not even approved any so-called "new euthanasia policy," which APS says is already responsible for more animals dying. APS alone can take that credit. We need competent management that relies on ethical practices, not on the kind of hysteria mongering that we see at APS. Anyone interested in what HSUS really said should see The PAWS Web site, www.ourpaws.org, where the HSUS preliminary report will be post- ed. Get the facts. -- Judith Reitman, Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 9, 2003 Leadership has let things go too far Kudos to Beverly Rockhill for her letter appearing in the July 2 edition of The Chapel Hill News. I too support the hard working and dedicated staff at the Animal Shelter and continue to make my in-kind donations and to take the staff occasional treats. If the leadership of the APS is truly concerned that the APS will lose its contract with the county to operate the Animal Shelter, I make the following suggestions. The board should call a special meeting and restore the voting rights of the membership. The board should terminate the employment of Executive Director Laura Walters. The present Executive Committee of the board consisting of the president, vice president, secretary, treasurer and member Ann Petersen should resign. In accordance with Article VIII Section I of APS bylaws, 15 members may call an emergency meeting of the membership. This should be done for the purpose of nominating new board members to fill the five vacancies. The new board can then proceed with electing new officers and initiating a search for a new executive director. After all, it has been the leadership, or lack thereof, of the present administration that has permitted things to get out of hand and to sink to the present level. We need responsible leadership with forethought and skilled, experienced management. The membership of this organization should demand the best for our animals and our community. I urge every interested member of the community to attend the APS Board of Directors meetings (which are public meetings) held the second Monday of every month at 7 p.m. at the Animal Shelter on 1081 Airport Road in Chapel Hill. It is my wish that the APS and the shelter return to their positions of respect and leadership in the state. Let's stop wasting time with lawsuits, excuses and denials and devote all our efforts to the animals, for they are the reason for the existence of the APS and the shelter. -- Virginia Ellington, Carrboro The writer was an APS board member for a number of years and was its Secretary until she resigned in March ________________________________________________________________ Comment: It not the Hard working employees we are concerned with; it's the incompetent corrupt leadership. Chapel Hill News July 9, 2003 Animal shelter attracts hard-working people I was an employee for the APS for five years. I joined the board of the APS in March because I've never seen harder working people with bigger hearts than at the APS. APS passes N.C. Agricultural Department Veterinary Department inspections every year and has never been cited for unclean conditions. Why is the HSUS report so discrepant? I read the HSUS critique. APS staff has worked zealously to save animal lives, often over-stretching the capabilities of the poorly designed, county provided building. HSUS's suggestions to close off an extra wing to the public, kill sick animals instead of treat them, and reduce adoptable animal stays to 7 to 10 days are heart-wrenching choices that are only concerned with the inadequacies of the building. They are not about the big picture of saving lives. APS wants to keep its euthanasia rates the lowest in the state. The building was not designed with good medical practices in mind. The public is much more aware now of these issues than when this building was made. Now Orange County will become like Charlotte, where just last Sunday, The Charlotte Observer decried Charlotte's 70 percent euthanasia rate on its front page. The county does not give APS the money to hire the appropriate number of staff to take care of the high number of incoming animals. The delay in vaccinating is a direct result of this short staffing. The staff labors mightily, finding kind people to foster animals and reach more adopters through Petsmarts and Dubey's, and through online viewing of adoptable animals. These are ways to buy animals' time. I was surprised that HSUS did not acknowledge the impact of these great programs. HSUS recommendations don't give harried staff the time it needs to also perform these life- saving programs. APS, under Laura Walters, responded immediately to HSUS medical recommendations. The APS veterinarian and his certified tech assistant now come in daily for three-hour medical rounds in the afternoon. The county does not pay for this. If there is still more that can be done, the APS has vowed to do it. With the HSUS recommendations, adoption rates will drop and euthanasia will climb and we will be just like every other animal shelter in the area. Will this death rate increase satisfy APS critics? We ask citizens to become foster parents now while we look for more acceptable solutions. -- Mrs. Jesse Kaufmann, Hillsborough ________________________________________________________________ The Daily Tarheel July 10, 2003 Report spurs some changes at APS shelter Meredith Gregory soothes Begonia, her kitten, at the Animal Protection Society's shelter in Chapel Hill. Recently, officials and citizens have scrutinized APS. Improper record keeping and a high incidence of disease transmission were only two critiques the Humane Society of the United States brought against the Animal Protection Society of Orange County's animal shelter as part of its initial two-day review. The report states that there was no well-defined system for processing incoming animals and that sanitation practices were substandard. It goes on to state that ventilation in the 60-year-old building was nonexistent and that vaccinations often were delayed, with many animals waiting several weeks for inoculations. Shelter manager Nicole Carper said she thinks the report is unduly negative. "They weren't able to spend much time with us to see how we work. They don't know what we are capable of," she said. In response to the critiques, APS and shelter workers are implementing a new set of protocols. APS Executive Director Laura Walters said she thinks the changes are workable. "We've created a healthy hold room and an admissions room where animals are inspected and vaccinated immediately," Walters said. The problems with ventilation immediately were fixed by the county following the report, Walters said. Contrary to public belief, euthanasia rates have not gone up dramatically in response to the report, Walters said. "What's happened is we're having to change some our protocol because (the Humane Society) doesn't believe we have suitable facilities to house sick animals or house animals for longer periods of time. "We're having to do more euthanasia just because that's the only way we can keep the healthy animals," Walters said. Elliot Cramer, one of APS's most active critics, thinks the solution to the shelter's problems does not lie solely in euthanasia. "They need to heavily promote a subsidized spay/neuter program," Cramer said. Such a program previously resulted in 1000 less animals ending up at the shelter, Cramer said. Walters added that APS officials plan to alleviate crowding by building a new shelter near Mebane, which would allow animals to be shuttled from the shelter and would cost about $500,000. Cramer said he does not think the new shelter will solve all of APS's problems. "The shelter wouldn't be especially spacious for $500,000," Cramer said. "And no one has released any plans or said how many animals will be housed there." Cramer and Jude Reitman have taken legal action against the 13 APS board members, claiming that board members deny them access to records, obstruct all efforts to nominate people to the board and remove members' voting rights. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald July 10, 2003 Comment: Laura has finally come clean (after some gentle prompting from HSUS.) How many lies does Laura have to tell before the Board fires her. This is the first time that APS has admitted what a small facility the "half-way home" will be (50 dogs and 35 cats.) Pat Beyle (July 8 WCHL) said "Now With the HSUS recommendations, we are left with strict limitations on how long animals can stay in our care. ... For the past three years the APS has been raising money to build an adoption center ... (that) will include a no-kill center." This is a cynical attempt to use her misunderstanding of the HSUS report as a fund-raising device. Walters makes clear below that APS will NOT operate a "no-kill" shelter but merely a place to store animals "a few days before heading to their new home." How removing sup- posedly healthy animals from the shelter for a few days will "help improve disease control at the county shelt- er" is difficult to see. APS says that they will save "hundreds of animals". This is preposterous. The May report shows 307 animals sheltered on June 1, obviously under overcrowded condi- tions. The average number of adoptions (143) is down 17% from last year (172) and is the lowest in years. Prior to Walters taking charge the average number increased from 150 to 168. Space for 85 will hardly make a dent in the number of adoptions, particularly since APS admits in the shelter FAQ (written by Sauls and Walters) that "There are more 'surplus' animals than people wanting to adopt them." Euthanasia policy 'not in stone' Humane Society clarifies its recommendation to APS CHAPEL HILL -- Believing there to be a public misunderstanding about one aspect of its preliminary report, the Humane Society of the United States has issued a two-page letter clarifying its recommendation on the euthanasia at Orange County animal shelter. "I think there's a lot of confusion," said Krista Hughes, coordinator of the Humane Society's animal services consultation program. "I think that people thought we were implying that animals should be euthanized after a certain period of time, and that wasn't what the recommendation was." The letter is a response to public inquiries about Humane Society's recent preliminary evaluation of the county shelter, which is operated by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County. In response to the Humane Society's early report, the APS' animal shelter committee last week approved three pages of new shelter policies that address incoming-animal exams and vaccinations, the treatment of sick animals, euthanasia protocols, housing, staff training and cleaning procedures. Those guidelines call for sick animals to stay at the shelter for three to five days before being euthanized or put into a foster home for up to a month. Healthy, adoptable animals could be viewable for seven to 10 days -- a period recommended by the Humane Society report -- before being euthanized. While the new policies are in effect, they do not necessarily mean that animals will be euthanized in seven to 10 days, said APS Executive Director Laura Walters, who added that when it comes to euthanasia, much also depends on the individual animal. Walters said the new policy is just a guideline. "It's not in stone and it never was in stone," she said. "If we have an animal that's perfectly adoptable and healthy and we have the space, we'll hold it as long as we can. That's what we've always done." The Humane Society's letter said that APS must set a goal for itself, realizing that even if its goal is an average of seven to 10 days, this means that some animals may stay three days while others may stay 20. The Humane Society did not recommend or imply that stray animals should immediately be euthanized after a specific length of time, its letter said. "We think shelters or agencies need to measure the average length of time that animals are in their care and set a goal," Hughes said. "It's just a goal. It doesn't have to be the numbers that we gave. They need to set their own goal." The APS manages the county shelter as an "open admission" facility, meaning that it accepts all animals that come to its door, including animals picked up by Orange County Animal Con- trol. Given that, the APS has more incoming animals than there are permanent homes, which creates a surplus of animals that can lead to overcrowding and illness if "appropriate animal management protocols are not in place," the Humane Society said in its letter. Not all animals that arrive at the shelter are adoptable due to illness, aggression or other factors; others that seemed adoptable may become stressed or sick during their stay at the shelter and become unadaptable. "Moving animals through a facility rather than warehousing them indefinitely can be accomplished through a combination of effective health care protocols, efficient adoption practices and unfortunately, humane euthanasia," the Humane Society letter said. Some in the community want to consider a "no-kill" shelter, which would not euthanize animals. But Walters said the APS can't operate a "no-kill" shelter in the existing building. The county's lease there expires in 2006 and it is seeking another location to build a new shelter. The APS has a philosophy of limiting euthanasia, so it could examine a "no-kill" shelter option in the future, she said. Walters said the APS is in the process of building a "halfway home" in Mebane that will house about 50 dogs and 35 cats. The organization has raised $350,000 of the $500,000 it needs for the building. Construction should start in a few weeks and be fin- ished in five months. Walters said the new facility -- where animals that have been adopted will be spayed or neutered and then stored a few days before heading to their new home -- should help improve disease control at the county shelter. Hughes said the Humane Society's full report should be done in August. The preliminary report, which was requested by the APS, does not highlight the accomplishments of the agency, but only addresses issues that need immediate attention, like health care, disease control and general animal management. After the full report is issued the Humane Society typically would continue to help the agency it has evaluated. It often advises how to set up a task force to implement some of the recommendations. Little of that follow-up work has occurred so far. ________________________________________________________________ Shelter oversight should be considered Chapel Hill Herald Saturday, July 12, 2003 Speedy action by the Animal Protection Society of Orange County and the Humane Society of the United States has nipped another public relations fiasco at Orange County's animal shelter in the bud. Facing pressure from the community (and, it's fair to note, this newspaper) to follow the advice of a Humane Society review team that inspected the shelter this spring, the APS announced a series of policy changes late last month that covered the gamut of its operations. One of the changes addressed euthanasia and specified that healthy animals are to be made available for adoption for seven to 10 days after they've received their shots and had their temperament checked. With all the questions surrounding the APS, it was no surprise that within days some folks were wondering if the policy meant adoptable animals would face death the minute their 10 days were up. That apparently wasn't the idea, as the APS and the Humane Society soon made clear. They issued a statement saying the seven- to 10-day display period is basically a guideline that can be waived on a case-by-case basis if an animal is adoptable and there's space for it to remain. The Humane Society opposes ware- housing animals at the shelter, but it stressed that its sugges- tions on length of stay are "just a goal." Many no doubt welcomed that news with relief. Euthanasia is a fact of life at animal shelters, but no one likes it, least of all the people involved on either side of the APS debate. Though averted, the euthanasia flap does highlight a troubling issue about the shelter and its management. The shelter is a county operation meant to be run by and for the residents of Orange County, but as we've seen this month, the APS retains a great deal of discretionary authority over what happens there. The group's leaders announced the policy changes on their own; they have pondered the merits of running a "no-kill" shelter on their own. Where's the public in all this? County administrators exercise nominal supervisory authority over the shelter, and the Orange County Commissioners ultimately call the shots. But despite the high level of public interest in shelter operations, there's no advisory board devoted solely to the review of shelter policy. At some point, as the commissioners weigh the future of the county's animal-control program, they'll have to address governance issues that could underlie the entire squabble. It's one thing to have a private group handle the shelter's day-to-day operations; it's another to surrender policy-making authority. ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 13, 2003 Humane Society clarifies its position National organization says it did not intend its recommendations to result in quicker euthanization of animals. Responding to several complaints from local residents, the Humane Society of the United States issued a two-page memo stating that the society's recommendations for the Animal Protection Society of Orange County were not intended to immediately speed up the euthanization of animals. But APS Executive Director Laura Walters said she believes the shelter's new policies are in line with the Humane Society's recommendations. "In reading the recommendations, I think they make it very clear that there should be a set number of days these animals can be held, and unless we can get these animals out through adoption or foster care, euthanasia is the only option," Walters said. The APS recently shortened the period healthy animals are held before they are euthanized to seven to 10 days; previously animals were held as long as three weeks. The change was made after a preliminary report by the Humane Society criticized the disease-handling and cleaning practices at the shelter, while noting that the facilities are inadequate for the number of animals moving through the shelter. The report stated that, given the conditions, APS should move animals through the shelter more quickly. Krista Hughes, coordinator of the Humane Society's Professional Animal Services Consultation Program, said the focus of the Humane Society's recommendation was on finding ways to shorten the amount of time animals spend in the shelter, not necessarily to kill them sooner. "We did not recommend that animals be euthanized after a specific period of time," Hughes said. Hughes said the Humane Society advises that an agency spend a year monitoring when animals enter and leave a shelter and use that information to determine an average length of stay for its animals. Only then should an agency institute policies -- that could include new euthanasia and adoption procedures -- meant to decrease the amount of time animals are held at the shelter, she said. "Once APS has a benchmark, it should set goals to try and reduce that number," the Humane Society's clarification statement reads. Although a Humane Society official initially praised the APS's new policies, the clarification statement takes issue with them. "The HSUS recommendation of an average of seven to 10 days for strays and three to five days for surrendered animals is a goal; however, APS must set a goal for itself, realizing that even if their goal is an average of seven to 10 days, this means that some animals may stay three days while others stay 20. The HSUS did not recommend or imply that stray or owner-surrendered animals should be euthanized after a specific length of time." As a practical matter, Walters said, the APS has lost space at the shelter that could be used to hold animals by making other changes recommended by the Humane Society. It is unlikely, she said, that there will be extra space available to house animals beyond the new benchmarks APS has set. In the event that space is available, Walters said the animals would not be euthanized but would remain up for adoption as long as possible. Walters said the APS continues to operate under its new euthanasia policy but is also trying to promote its foster care program to minimize the number of animals that are euthanized. Late last year, commissioners contracted with the Humane Society to conduct the independent assessment of the animal shelter's operations after a firestorm of criticism of the APS emerged last summer. A final report from the Humane Society is expected in late August or early September. Two APS critics filed a lawsuit in Orange County Superior Court in February alleging that the APS board illegally refused to disclose information and records, removed members' voting rights and obstructed members' efforts to nominate candidates to the APS board of directors. The APS has responded with a counter suit claiming that the critics have defamed APS's reputation. In June, county commissioners voted 3-2 not to extend the county's contract with APS through the end of the calendar year, as County Manager John Link had recommended. Instead, they opted to extend the contract until Sept. 30, after which it will come up for renewal each month through Dec. 31. --- Republished and slightly edited as Humane Society clarifies APS report The News & Observer July 15, 2003 ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill Herald Sunday July 13, 2003 Clean house at the aps to end current squabbles Oh, good grief! Enough, already! Consider the countless rhetoric, the untold hours of effort (not to mention the lawsuits) expended on the aps controversy. For gosh sake, get rid of Laura Walters and the whole bunch and start all over. Bob Bauman Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ News of Orange July 16, 2003 The Mess at APS: an Overview APS has been embroiled in controversy for almost two years. A July 2, 2002 headline (CH Herald) reads "APS CONTROVERSY - After nine months, time to move on". This involved APS Wildlife Direc tor and veterinarian Bobby Schopler whose contract with APS was terminated. Despite this, APS has sued Judith Reitman and me for slander alleging that "Beginning in August, 2002 ... (they) have undertaken agreed, conspired and acted in concert to undermine and destroy the contractual relationship existing between Defend ant APS and the County". Reitman had been involved with the APS "Pet of the week" which was euthanized last August 19. I became involved later because of my concern for Schopler of whom it was said "the public and area wildlife are the biggest losers". I attempted to get nomi nated to the APS Board, where I hoped to influence policy. Immediately my efforts were impeded although I offered my cooper ation to them on October 14. APS finally accepted my nomination but one week later changed the bylaws illegally taking voting rights away from the Membership. It was not until February 20 that I and others formed the Piedmont Animal Welfare Society (www.ourpaws.org) and sued APS for the return of voting rights. On April 1, APS President Pat Beyle stated to the Orange County BOCC "We will file our answer. The resolution to many of the pending issues will come out in the lawsuit." Their answer was to deny everything and to sue us for slander. Their earliest piece of evidence about me is a statement on November 19 to the BOCC saying: (a) "I believe the Officers and Board of APS are guilty of mal feasance in denying my request to review and copy the membership lists and in illegally changing the Bylaws, taking voting rights away from the membership." (b) "I believe that you should be concerned about the unlawful way APS is being run ... (c) "I believe that APS is guilty of fraud in submitting these blatantly false reports and I believe you should investigate this." (d) "If there were intelligent life leading APS, they would have fired Laura Walters long ago." This statement was well within my rights as a member of APS, concerned with the mismanagement of the animal shelter operated by APS under contract with the County. It has been fully justi fied by the recent HSUS report of which one newspaper has edito rialized (CH Herald 7/1) "The Humane Society's team found fault with nearly every aspect of the operation. It's not going too far to say its preliminary report was scathing." Amazingly Laura Walters said (CH Herald June 28) "It's someth ing that is exactly what we wanted." We wanted an independent organization (to) ... kind of get us on the right track". Unfor tunately she immediately got on the wrong track again, prompting public outrage (N&O 7/8) with the suggestion that HSUS required a policy which quickly euthanized animals. She then backed off saying (Ch Herald 7/10) "It's not in stone and it never was in stone. If we have an animal that's perfectly adoptable and healthy and we have the space, we'll hold it as long as we can. That's what we've always done." More recently (CH news 7/13) she contradicted this saying "they make it very clear that there should be a set number of days these animals can be held", while HSUS replied "the focus of the Humane Society's recommendation was on finding ways to shorten the amount of time animals spend in the shelter, not necessarily to kill them sooner. ... We did not recommend that animals be euthanized after a specific period of time" If this seems like "disinformation", it is. See the facts on the PAWS website www.ourpaws.org. Elliot Cramer is a statistician and UNC Emeritus Professor and is the President of the Piedmont Animal Welfare Society. ________________________________________________________________ More recent happenings June 17 Orange Commissioners (BOCC) refuse to renew APS contract for six months. Renew for three months and then month to month June 26 BOCC reaffirms vote despite request to reconsider Board of Health requests Summers to draft letter June 27 interim HSUS report released July 9 clarification of HSUS report July 16 letter to Jude about HSUS report Aug 7, 8, 12 depositions of Reitman and Cramer Aug 28 BOCC Work session on APS HSUS report and Summers Final HSUS Report received Sept 16 BOCC Board meeting - discussion of APS Sept 25 BOCC Public Hearing on APS ________________________________________________________________ The Daily Tarheel July 17, 2003 Fate of shelter may hinge on group's report Fourteen year-old Andre Farrar cleans the animal cage at the APS animal shelter last . Farrar is working five days a week during the summer. The Orange County Board of Commissioners will discuss the fate of the Animal Protection Society of Orange County's Chapel Hill animal shelter after the final evaluation of the shelter by the Humane Society of the United States comes out late next month. APS annually renews its contract with the county to use the shelter site. The shelter, along with the county's Public Works facility, is scheduled to relocate by 2006 to make way for UNC's Carolina North campus. An already controversial year for APS grew more contentious when the shelter's executive committee implemented an accelerated euthanasia rate in response to recommendations in the HSUS preliminary report. The report recommended that APS shorten the length of stay for stray animals to 7-10 days and for owner-surrendered pets for 3-5 days. HSUS since has issued a three-page statement saying that it did not recommend or imply that animals should be euthanized immediately after a specific length of time. The document states: "The concept of 'average length of stay' is that sheltering agencies should measure the amount of time an animal spends at the shelter. ... Once APS has tracked this for a period of time, they will know that animals spend an average number of days in their care. Once APS has a bench mark, it should set goals to try and reduce that number." APS Executive Director Laura Walters said members of the public took the introduction of the euthanasia policy the wrong way. "It's not a firm and fast rule,"Walters said. "If there's room, and as long as an arrival is healthy and happy here, we'll keep them." Staff already have begun making several improvements to animal processing and facility cleaning procedures at the shelter in response to HSUS' recommendations, Walters said. The Board of Commissioners hired HSUS to conduct the evaluation in September 2002 in response to public accusations of misconduct in the operation of the shelter, said Gwen Harvey, assistant Orange County manager. "We thought it would be beneficial to have an outside expert come in and take a look," she said. The August report will be a three-part evaluation of the shelter's facilities and operations, its animal control and field services and the organization of its management and administration, said Krista Hughes, coordinator of HSUS' Animal Services Consultation Program. Harvey said the board will consider changes to the way the shelter is managed as soon as the full HSUS report comes out. "Even before the new shelter is built, we are committed as staff and the Board of County Commissioners to figure out how to make improvements happen faster," she said. The board must determine a site for the new shelter and ensure that it is designed, financed and constructed by 2006, Harvey said. "Our goal is to establish a shelter that the community would find credible and that offers the best possible environment for animals' welfare." ________________________________________________________________ Chapel Hill News July 30, 2003 Kitten incident sparks call for resignation I join fellow reader Bob Bauman in calling for the ouster of Laura Walters from the APS. We adopted two kittens from the APS last year. They were both sick with respiratory infections when we brought them home. Not alarming since the conditions are so unsanitary at the APS. Our big surprise came when we took the kittens to our private vet and discovered that the female was pregnant. When all was said and done, the APS denied any negligence in not informing us of the pregnancy, nor did it help with the termination/spay operation. Walters herself conveyed the attitude that the animal was ours and it was now our problem. "It's that time of year," were her exact words. If she's willing to be that gruff and flippant about the care of an animal to a member of the general public, what is she saying at APS staff meetings in private? (Besides, "Go ahead and euthanize them all")? Get a new building, a new staff and perhaps the public will renew its belief in the APS to competently, compassionately deal with abandoned and abused animals in Orange County. Mary Hartzell Chapel Hill ________________________________________________________________ Humans must be better animal stewards At the Orange County animal shelter, as at all shelters, adoptions should be promoted intelligently and aggressively. Within reason, more space is better than less at the shelter, because this helps to minimize disease and allows a wider selec- tion of animals for potential adoptees. However, in the absence of widespread shifts in social norms regarding the unacceptability of un-neutered cats and dogs and unlicensed "backyard" breeding, much of our well-intended debate about disease control, adoption and euthanasia at our shelter (or any shelter) will, unfortunately, not amount to much when it comes to an annual animal body count. Shelter space and the number of potential adoptees will always be limited. In the absence of aggressive spay-neuter programs, the number of animals needing sheltering and care can be unlimited. When there is a widespread consensus in our society that we humans, having domesticated cats and dogs thousands of years ago, have thus assumed the responsibility for stewardship over these species, we can start to make some real progress. We, not the animals we have domesticated, have the foreknowledge and the ability to prevent the tragedy of the taking of so many healthy lives by preventing the births of unwanted cats and dogs. If the killing of healthy dogs and cats sickens and angers you, please speak out, and not just to the APS. Help to change the norms about what it means to be a truly humane and progressive society. Don't rely on shelter workers to do this -- it is a societal task. Ask your local media to keep information on the reality of shelter euthanizations in the public eye. Just a few photos can tell a tragic story. Read information put out by Best Friends (www.bestfriends.org), the HSUS (www.hsus.org) and other animal welfare organizations on what has proven effective at some of the best shelters when it comes to decreasing euthanizations. Let friends and strangers know of your opinions on animal overpopulation, even if you might offend. Ask flea markets to stop pandering to breeders who prosper on impulse buyers. Ask your legislators to sharply increase the penalties and disincentives for having un-neutered cats and dogs, and to increase the owner liability for producing massive litters. Ask your vet to be more active in low-cost spay-neuter programs. The poet Audre Lorde observed that "your silence will not save you." Our silence, no matter how caring, will not save the ani- mals. Beverly Rockhill Carrboro ________________________________________________________________