From: john@starfire.MN.ORG (John Lind)
Newsgroups: rec.pets,rec.pets.dogs,mn.general
Subject: Inhumane treatment of people at the Animal Humane Society
Keywords: dog pet humane
Date: 22 Aug 92 16:31:48 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Starfire Consulting Services, Mpls., MN

First, let me explain my cross posting:  This was specifically about a
dog, and I wanted to reach the people of rec.pets.dogs, but the Humane
Society deals with a much wider variety of pets, and this has to do with
them, too.  I know that there are people who read one group or the other,
but not both, and I wanted to reach them all.  Also, this is an issue with
potential interest for a broader Minnesota base, as well, so I threw
mn.general in.

On 27 July, I wrote and mailed the following letter to the Director
of the Humane Society.  I wrote a followup letter on 4 August, including
a SASE.  I have not yet received ANY response, not so much as a form letter
thanking me for my concern or a note that they would check into it.  On this
date, I am also writing to "The Board," but I am starting to wonder if that
will ever be read by the intended recipients.  Perhaps my ill treatment has
conditioned me to see things that aren't there, but it seems to me that they
are trying to close ranks.  When I called to find out who to write to after
not receiving satisfaction from the office of the directory, I was treated
very cooly and given the absolute barest of informaiton, told that I should
simply mail my letter to "The Board" in care of the usually AHSoHC address,
and that I should make the greeting to Sir or Madam.

I am asking that any of the rest of you out there who are concerned
about this issue help me make sure that there is some sort of public
accountability for behavior at the Humane Society.  Please write letters
of your own, and please e-mail me to let me know that you are concerned
enough to take action.  Perhaps you feel I am jumping on the soapbox
prematurely, but I have written to television stations, large corporations,
and the City council and have at least gotten the courtesy of a response.
This stonewalling has really raised my ire, and made me wonder if there
is dirty laundry somewhere...

Here is the text of my letter, and my complaint:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
John Lind
4839 32nd Avenue S
Minneapolis, MN  55417-1407
27 July, 1992


Animal Humane Society of Hennepin County
Director Alan Stensrud
545 Meadow Lane N
Golden Valley, MN  55422


Director Stensrud:
     We have a dog which we adopted through your Society, and we are pretty
well pleased with him.  We were very impressed with your facilities, care, and
the adoption staff.  These people are to be congratulated on their involve-
ment, compassion, and friendliness.  Our experience there has caused us to
speak highly of your work and encourage people to visit you if they are look-
ing for a pet.  Our involvement with the Lost and Found department, however,
has been far from rosey, and right now I am feeling very angry and quite ill-
used.  I'd leave an animal roaming the streets before I'd bring it in to you,
and advise others to do likewise, NOT because of the treatment of the animal,
but because of the way I have been treated.
     I understand the need for your animal surrender rules as they apply to
people bringing in their own pets.  I understand that your staff could not and
should not be expected to answer for the disposition of the thousands of an-
imals that are brought in to your facility, and that to do so would not really
be in the best interest of the original owner, the new owner, your staff, or
perhaps even the animal.  I do unquestionably feel that your rules regarding
the surrender of stray animals by concerned citizens are being harshly and un-
fairly applied.
     When I brought in the adult yellow lab on Saturday, 92/07/18, I made it
very clear that our dog and the stray had gotten on famously, and that we had
considered merely keeping the animal, except that it was wearing a collar, was
trained and well-behaved, and we felt that our first responsibility was to try
to find the original owner.  The staff member who received the animal con-
curred and seemed appreciative of our concern both for the animal and its own-
er.  I was told that I could call back on the morning of the last day of the
8-day holding period to discover if the dog had been claimed or to claim her
ourselves by simply paying any veterinarian charges which may have been in-
curred during the animal's stay.  I felt that this was a very satisfactory ar-
rangement, signed the papers, and left a sad but affectionate animal behind,
holding receipt number 16621 and some information about the lost and found
department stating that cats were kept for AT LEAST 5 days, and that dogs were
kept for AT LEAST 8 days.  I was instructed to call NO SOONER and NO LATER
that the morning of 92/07/26, which struck me as a bit odd, but I thought it
would work for us.
     The trouble started when I realized that we were going to be out of town
on Sunday, 92/07/26, and that that was the date we were supposed to call.
Something came up Saturday night after your business hours for that day.  Hav-
ing no other option available to me, I called, left a message on the answering
machine, a message which included my name, phone number, the receipt number,
and my reason for leaving the message and proceeded with the preparations to
leave town.
     When we got back on Sunday night, there was a very curt message on our
answering machine saying that we needed to call that day.  The message I had
left made it very clear that we were unable to do so, but your staff member
seemed to feel it was appropriate to leave a message for which she already
knew, if she were paying attention, our compliance was impossible!  There was
no information as to whether the dog had been claimed, and a rather pointed
remark that the dog couldn't be held as a stray past the 8 day limit.  If that
is true, why does the other literature say, "AT LEAST?" They also left the
522-4325 number, but when I tried to call that, all I reached was a BROKEN
answering machine that only managed to mumble a COUPLE OF WORDS of the outgo-
ing message before stopping.
     When I called this morning, I was told that the animal was no longer a
stray (which was no information at all), and that no further information would
be given to me.
     I feel strongly that your rules need to be a little more flexibly applied
when the day is a holiday or weekend.  This is doubly true on Sundays, since
that department doesn't even open until 11:00.  That leaves one entire hour in
which to comply -- not really reasonable.  I was NOT asking that the animal be
held while we made up our minds, or consulted the stars, or whatever, but just
that our option to know what happened to the animal be left open and that, if
it were available, that it be held for our immediate (next day) return.  I
feel that I was doing the level best that I could under the circumstances, and
was asking for nothing unreasonable.  I wasn't asking that the animal be held
for our CONVENIENCE, but our UNAVAILABILITY.  I couldn't make arrangements for
someone else to pick up the animal, because I didn't even know if it was
available.  Now they won't even tell me if the dog was returned to the origi-
nal owner!  Thanks for nothing, I guess.
     I had been asked for a donation when I brought the dog in, and I regret-
ted that I didn't have much cash or my checkbook along.  Now I am very glad I
didn't make that donation, nor are any others likely to be forthcoming from
us.  I'm not going to keep what happened to us a secret, either.  I am sorry
that an entire organization has to suffer for the faults of one department,
but I see no other options until citizens concerned with the welfare of stray
animals are treated humanely, as well.
-- 
		   John Lind, Starfire Consulting Services
E-mail: john@starfire.MN.ORG		USnail: PO Box 17247, Mpls MN  55417