CT Humane Society Saves Money by Killing Pets

The state Attorney General and former employees of the CT Humane Society allege the shelter seriously mishandled its multi-million dollar budget and deprived treatable animals of care, killing them to save money.  Among those killed were cats with upper respiratory infections, heartworm positive dogs, and dogs with minor behavior issues such as separation anxiety.  The details on the money sound downright scandalous:

He [A.G. Blumenthal] said that there were conflicts of interest in both “appearance and reality” in the society’s business dealings with board members, and that the society was spending too little money on animal care.

The report found that from 2005 to 2007, up to $258,000, or 5.2 percent of the society’s budget expenses, were spent on businesses connected to board members.

The investigation will continue into what Blumenthal called “serious and credible” allegations of misuse of society funds, including whether former President and Chairman Richard Johnston used society assets to support his unsuccessful campaign for the state Senate in the early 1990s.

Whoa.  And:

The allegations first surfaced earlier this year when a group of current and former society employees formed the Coalition for Change.

The group claimed that Johnston, who led the organization for 24 years, had unchecked power over the venerable charity, one of the most prominent in the state.

Staffing cuts and policy decisions had diminished the society’s animal care, and Johnson was abusive to employees, some of whom he fired for trying to unionize, the Coalition for Change alleged.

This month, the President and Chairman of the Board resigned “to pursue other philanthropic pursuits after 24 years with the society” according to the article.  (Heads up philanthropic pursuers!)  The Board also voted to not have the same person serving as both President and Board Chair in future.

This quote from former employee Cathy DeMarco says it all:

“The public who relinquished their animals to the Humane Society in desperate times, very upset about relinquishing animals, think they’re giving the animal a chance, not knowing they were put down, sometimes within a day or two,” she said.

Imagine what you or I or anyone who cares about our communities’ pets could do with millions of dollars.  And look what The CT Humane Society did instead.  Shame.

3 thoughts on “CT Humane Society Saves Money by Killing Pets

  1. I’m so glad you picked up on this story. I’ve been watching it closely as some of my friends who volunteer at our shelter also volunteer there. The stories they tell – well, not pretty. At their request, our shelter pulled as many animals as we could handle throughout the past few years to save them from being killed. When Parvo struck, they killed all the dogs; if a dog showed food aggression – dead. If a dog growled at another dog – dead. NO dog was given a fair evaluation and if it was a Pit Bull, it was often worse.

    There were times when our shelter and many others in the area, were bursting at the seams, and CHS was nearly empty. HOW can that be?

    I could go on, but I do fear repercussion, which is unfortunate. I’m just glad we were able to help when we could. It disgusts me that an organization can have $52 million dollars (I believe that figure is correct) and can’t go the extra mile to help an animal in need. How is the word “humane” used in their title? How.

  2. No Kill Programs are CHEAPER than “euthanasia” (murder) programs…..it is a shame that these fools didnt know that….they could have saved money and more importantly, saved lives at the same time.

    Well, nobody ever accused cat and dog murderers of being clear thinkers.

    1. Matt – how do you see no-kill as cheaper? There are huge costs associated with caring for animals rather than killing them. Vaccinations, routine medical care, caring for sick animals – the cost of palliative care for a dog with Parvo in Fairfield County, CT, the location of CHS, can quickly run over $10K. That’s why they wiped out their dog population when parvo struck at their shelter.

      It’s clear that you and I are on the same side of the CHS argument, I’m just interested in your sources to back up saying that no-kill is cheaper.


Leave a Reply