Greenhill's Lieberman, in his CYA email sent at 11:52 PM 3/6/13 (shown below) making excuses for Greenhill's decision to kill Lucky Lady and Slim Jim, said a number of untrue things. Bob is a great example for highlighting his lies. It is a shame that Greenhill won't respond to community concerns unless the media are involved. We thank the local media immensely for paying close attention to this issue.
From Long time animal advocate and rescuer Trish Chomyn: Gail Schroder Greenhill's vet put Bob on the kill list, as soon as his hold time was up. Bob is an 8-9 year old black lab. Bob has the typical lab disposition; loving to people, other dogs and cats.... Bob came in intact and with a skin infection. Was this enough to kill Bob? Senior Dog Rescue (SDR) did not think so. NOTE: No outreach was done on this dog. No medication, baths or otherwise done for this dog. Treatment was withheld, because Bob was to be killed. Greenhill ignored the many requests for Bob's transfer to SDR. Greenhill and staff at what is now 1st Ave have transferred dogs to SDR for years. It took the No Kill community to get a response and save Bob. Bob went into foster, went to the vet and in a month had finished his inexpensive meds for the skin infection, happily had weekly baths.....he was very good about them....and was neutered through donations just for him. Bob has been thriving and happy in his forever home for awhile now. Greenhill would have killed him. No treatment for treatable ailments, no outreach, no nothing.
So, with all that Greenhill "claims" they do for the animals...why was this not very old, showing no arthritis, no aggression to anyone or anything...put on the KILL List? Why was treatment withheld? With all the "aggressive outreach" Greenhill claims, why did Greenhill not respond to the emails or calls from the representative for SDR to transfer as they had done so many times in the past? Why did it take the No Kill community to get involved to save Bob? More importantly why was treatment withheld from this sweet, old dog?
Please do join No Kill Lane County on Facebook. We are working to protect our shelter animals. Greenhill must comply with the contracts they signed, (they don't) and stop withholding treatment from animals causing them to suffer. Your taxpayer funds support this, have a voice! https://www.facebook.com/NoKillLaneCounty
If you would like to be put on the No Kill Lane County advocate mailing list, please email us at NoKillLaneCounty@gmail.com
In his email below Lieberman states "We do our best to consider all options and make what we feel is the best decision for each dog." That is a lie, they did nothing for Bob other than put him on the kill list and withhold treatment. He also states another lie: "Euthanasia is truly the last option that we consider in all situations, and thankfully this option is only necessary in the most dire of circumstances."
The percentages quoted below by Lieberman are highly suspect. Greenhill will not provide any back up documentation to support their numbers. We are just supposed to believe them.
From: Cary Lieberman <Director@green-hill.org>
Date: March 6, 2013 11:52:40 PM PST
Subject: RE: dogs to be euthanized despite rescue offers
A number of people have written with concerns about Lucky Lady and Slim Jim. In order to answer everyone promptly, I’m sending out the same email to everyone. Please forgive me if you receive this email multiple times. Please also know that if you have specific questions about these dogs or represent a rescue group that is interested in taking in these dogs, you should contact the 1st Avenue Shelter directly at541-844-1777.
As many of you know, Greenhill Humane Society and 1st Avenue Shelter rarely euthanize dogs in our care. Greenhill has a 98% live release rate for dogs and the 1st Avenue Shelter has a 97% live release rate for dogs. Euthanasia is truly the last option that we consider in all situations, and thankfully this option is only necessary in the most dire of circumstances.
This is a difficult situation with Lucky Lady and Slim Jim. We have been working with these two dogs for months and we have staff and volunteers that are very attached to them. They each have very challenging behavior issues. We have been networking these dogs and looking for a suitable rescue placement where these dogs could have a good quality of life, but their behavior in the shelter is declining despite the enrichment and training we're able to provide.
Last week we decided to do another networking push for them. Early this week we were told that a local trainer that volunteers with us, Cindy Ehlers (of Canine Miracle Rescue) wanted to pull both of these dogs and that volunteers had pooled money to pay to board them at a facility in Salem that we were unfamiliar with. The information we were given is that this boarding facility uses aversive training methods like prong collars. We had a long discussion about it, and our behavior and animal care staff felt that while those methods might be ok for some of the dogs we work with (there are various opinions about that), that these two dogs would not respond well to those methods and would most likely deteriorate even more significantly.
We relayed this concern to Canine Miracle Rescue, and we have decided that we need to speak directly with the people who would be caring for Lucky Lady and Slim Jim to evaluate whether we feel it is an acceptable placement for one or both of these dogs - we can’t make that decision based on secondhand information. Our kennel manager is making those calls. We've also received a number of calls today from other rescues (some of which had already been contacted about these dogs and passed on taking them) and we are considering those, as well.
Ultimately, we feel our role is to balance our responsibility to these dogs with our responsibility to the community. These decisions are incredibly difficult on our entire team. We do our best to consider all options and make what we feel is the best decision for each dog.
Cary Lieberman, CAWA