126 MO Animals Shuffled from One “Humane” Society to Another

The Lebanon Humane Society in Missouri recently elected a new board who voted in Judith Koch as president.  Police had to be called to maintain order at a contentious public meeting.  Some people are so unhappy with the new board, lawyers are involved.

Despite the fact that the organization built and opened a new facility in 2010, Ms. Koch says the place is appallingly filthy and overcrowded.  The board asked the Humane Society of Missouri Animal Cruelty Task Force to take the 126 animals being housed in the new building, which they did yesterday.

Part of the controversy surrounding the new board is the question of killing animals.  Ms. Koch is less than reassuring on the issue:

“We absolutely are not going to kill any healthy, adoptable animal. But if we have a sick animal that may be making others sick, it would be unreasonable not to put that animal down. Priority right now is to get our population down without having to kill any animal that’s adoptable,” Koch said.

“Unreasonable not to” kill any sick animal who “may” make other animals sick. In a shelter environment, that statement equates to a rubber stamp of approval for killing any sick animals of the board’s choosing, even if those animals are suffering from readily treatable illnesses very common in shelters such as coughs and colds.

And I see she managed to work in the “having to kill” phraseology so cherished by killing apologists.  After all, nobody wants to kill animals.  Or so animal killers keep saying.  But don’t criticize:

“I would like to ask that the public not criticize the new or old board until they have walked a mile in our shoes.”

Yeah but I can’t walk a mile in your pet killing shoes because I refuse to consider killing as an option for population control.  So I can’t say anything against what you’re – oh, I see what you did there.

As for the 126 animals now at the Humane Society of Missouri, it looks like they are still in the hands of people who kill animals.  From the website:

We do not give the animals in our Adoption Centers a time limit in which to find a home. Once the animals pass their health and temperament examinations and are offered for adoption, they stay as long as they remain in good health and don’t develop temperament problems.

Pass all our hoop jumping tests.  Don’t get the sniffles.  Don’t cough.  Don’t side-eye anyone.  Just always be perfect and you can live.

Gee, I wonder how these two organizations became friends.

(Thank you Arlene for the link.)

4 thoughts on “126 MO Animals Shuffled from One “Humane” Society to Another

  1. They all learn the “language” but the reality is that “adoptable” is what the people want it to be. I agree that killing for anything other than serious untreatable medical problems is killing, not euthanasia. And I couldn’t walk in their pet killing shoes for a minute. Idea – if an animal shows signs of sickness, then use a quarantine area, treat that animal and get on with the business of actually . . . you know . . . saving lives.

    1. Sounds like work.

      I wonder how many dogs don’t make it to the adoption floor in these so-called shelters because they got confused while being repeatedly screamed at and slapped in the face by the person evaluating their temperament.

      And the cats – geez. Hissed in trap upon impound: kill.

      1. Yes, it does. And I just put my thoughts on the comment section of the linked article. This is not rocket science – but people need to make the decision to stop the killing. Too often, they spend all their time killing and then trying to figure out how to make it sound better. Waiting for the day when some of these places actually say, “We kill 75% of the animals that we take in.” That, at least, would be honest.

      2. You said it, db.

        But it would have to be, “We kill 75% of the animals that we take in, we don’t want to bother with decent pictures or promote adoption, we find killing much easier than rehoming, and if you don’t like it, then tough because we aren’t going to change.” THAT would be honest.

        But no, we have to kill because someone, somewhere didn’t s/n and was irresponsible and you people don’t love animals enough so it’s really all your fault, anyway. And the record plays on…

Leave a Reply