"Greenhill did indeed KILL Graham before the needle pierced his skin. They socially isolated him from volunteers and his other friend dogs. He was a prisoner of war tortured into not knowing why he could not go out and play when we stood in front of his cage and could only hope he understood how much he was loved by some. And believe me where ever I go I do not keep quiet on this type of treatment. No worse then the pics of the slaughter house beef in my mind."
How does a dog that was described as good with dogs and loves people turn into a dog so "dangerous" he had to be killed? Since Graham already had good manners, what happened to this sweet dog while in Greenhill's care? What did they do to him, or not do for him? We want to know who signed off on Graham's death and why. You put a social dog that loves people in an isolation cave of a kennel, and let them rot for three weeks; volunteers reported they could hear Graham crying for attention. Why did they keep volunteers from interacting with him? Why did they tell volunteers it was for "legal" reasons, when that is an absolute, flat out lie?
Graham did get out from his foster home and get in a fight with two other dogs. This is not a reason to end his life. According to the story Jaclyn Semple told today, they have reached out numerous times to the owner of the two other dogs, and they have not responded. Apparently, they aren't interested in pursuing any legal action against Greenhill or Graham. Only the courts decide Potentially Dangerous Dog (PDD) determinations. Rarely does the court make the determination that a dog is so dangerous it should be euthanized. Last time I checked, Greenhill was not the courts.
Two other dogs, Athena & Gage did have court ordered PDD determination. They were fine with people. They killed several cats. Their PDD determination from the court was only 6 months of limitations. Limitations, not death. Both these dogs were pulled from LCAS, and eventually found great homes. This is how I know how PDD through the courts works. Graham didn't kill any other animal, ever. Yet Greenhill denied him the chance to find a home. Why?
I would like everyone to please watch these videos. Then try to wrap your head around this dog changing, in the span of just two months to being so "dangerous" he had to die. Watch them and know that for THREE WEEKS a rescue that Greenhill and LCAS have both worked with attempted to get information about Graham so that she could either take him into her own rescue or network him to other rescues. No one at Greenhill ever responded to her about her questions. NO ONE. EVER.
Here is the link to Graham's "Pet of the Week" in January. Sweet, docile, loving...
Here Graham is in a play group with other dogs:
So, this beautiful dog is dead. Put to death when there was a rescue waiting to help him. This is what kill shelters do. This is unconscionable, tragic and incompetent. This is not Save Adoptable & Treatable Animals mandate, not even close. This is not how I want my tax dollars spent.
The question needs to be answered, and soon. Just what did Greenhill do to Graham to make him so dangerous? What kind of abuse is going on behind closed doors that would cause this sweet, sweet dog to become so "dangerous" he had to die? What is Greenhill doing to other dogs they label "dangerous"? This absolutely calls every single one of their so-called "assessments" into question.