Saturday, October 20, 2012

Factually Refuting Greenhill's Many Deliberate Lies: KPNW Broadcast 9/27/12

I am writing to refute, with facts and documentation, some of the many deliberate lies told by Gail Schroder and Cary Lieberman in the KPNW-AM broadcast on 9/27/12.  Link to the broadcast below.
Kahlua, Gail Schroder said, had teeth that were just fine, and she did not know why the entire Kennel staff said and believed for weeks Kahlua needed extensive dental work.  Lieberman and Schroder can't keep their stories straight about Kahlua.

Below is a screenshot taken on 9/28 from a July 18 post from First Avenue Shelter's Facebook page, run by Greenhill. This post is asking for donations for Kahlua's dental surgery. Volunteers and staff have stated that Kahlua had very worn and some broken off teeth. One does not need to be a DVM to recognize worn and broken teeth. It is clear that Greenhill allowed Kahlua to suffer and that her teeth were not "just fine". (Greenhill Volunteer: " Even a non-expert (me) could tell that her teeth were pretty worn and at least one was broken off. ....I had just listened to the interview - her teeth definitely weren't 'just fine'." (Name known/Available by request)
Kahlua was "Pet of the Week".  If there was nothing wrong with Kahlua's teeth, why did they say there was on TV?
  1. Regarding the cat Oscar. Lieberman said on the KPNW broadcast that Greenhill kept Oscar for a month "because the rescue asked them to until they had room." However according to the director of that rescue, West Coast Dog & Cat (WCDC) that is a lie.  Prior to August 6th, WCDC had informed Greenhill that they had space for Oscar and to go ahead with the surgery.  Regardless, even if WCDC asked Greenhill to hang on to Oscar, was that a reason to withhold treatment and pain medication?

"We would never withhold pain medication from any animal, I think that goes without saying" Gail Schroder, said on the KPNW broadcast. But they did from Oakly and from Oscar.  Oscar was kept for nearly a month at Greenhill, untreated and with no pain medication (except for three days) with an extremely painful ruptured eyeball.   Why didn't they tranquilize Oscar so they could examine him properly? Why didn't they put medication in his food? Why did they let him suffer with a very painful ruptured eye? Why didn't they do the humane thing and remove his damaged eye? Why did they wait nearly a month to contact the rescue that offered to take him sooner? How would you feel if your eyeball was ruptured and it went untreated for a month? Why are they not telling the truth about Oscar?

Gail Schroder also stated on KPNW that she ordered her staff to not treat the dog Oakly because he was "dangerous". Please read what the groomer, Molly Sargent said about working with Oakly on August 13th:

"I groomed Oakly. I gave him a bath, I clipped his nails and I scissored his hair including around his face. He was wagging his tail and eating treats. The only time he objected was when I did his face, as many older dogs do. He may be in the very beginnings of dementia but I have groomed MANY dogs much worse than him who were well cared for and lived for many more years. His tumor was NOT bigger than his foot as Cary Lieberman stated at the Advisory Committee meeting, nor did his ears need surgery. They looked slightly infected. His eyes had some matter in them and I have no doubt his eyesight was not the best but still I managed to groom him without injury to either of us. I have been grooming for 47 years and have done dogs MUCH more difficult than Oakly on a weekly basis. I am surprised that Gail Schroder was so frightened of him that she wouldn't even treat him. He is a small dog and could have been muzzled if necessary for treatment. But I didn't find it necessary to muzzle him to groom him."

The truth about Oakly is as Gail Schroder said of him: "we were not going to spend money on a dog that is not adoptable and is going to be euthanized". Oakly's story is a success only because the animal welfare community demanded that Greenhill do the right thing. Greenhill deserves no credit in saving Oakly. Gail Schroder marked Oakly for death, and unadoptable, and therefore not worthy of treatment.

From Oakly's intake on 7/30/12, Greenhill did not care for him properly, relieve his pain or have him groomed prior to August 13th. The extensive veterinary work was done the day before he went to Senior Dog Rescue. Oakly did not receive qualified veterinary care until then. Why is Greenhill not telling the truth about Oakly?

August 3, email to Lieberman and Semple from CVT Heidy Hollister:

"I have been informed by Gail Schroder, DVM not to treat ailments on the animals that we are going to euthanize at the end of their holding period."

Schroder said on the KPNW broadcast she didn't say that and that Heidy "misunderstood" what she was saying.  It is impossible to "misunderstand" the directive "not to treat ailments on the animals that we are going to euthanize at the end of their holding period."  Especially when it is backed up by Schroder's notes in her own handwriting on Oakly's medical file.   Gail Schroder did not tell the truth about Kahlua, Oscar or Oakly. She is not being truthful about her directive to the CVT either.  

Link to KPNW Broadcast:

Please read the emails sent by CVT Heidy Hollister prior to Greenhill's firing of her:

You will also find documented testimony from others, both Greenhill volunteers and staff.