Letter To The Editor: NEAS Responds To Patch Series

Dear Editor:

The recent series of articles published by Salem Patch regarding Northeast Animal Shelter reflects a wanton disregard for the truth and is a disservice to credible community journalism. It was also, in every instance, a cynical exploitation of homeless animals who are loved and well cared for at NEAS. Blaring headlines declaring that NEAS euthanized healthy animals should have tripped an alarm for an editor – any editor – who would know that this was not plausibly true and should have challenged the writer on that statement alone.

Everyone knows that pet stories are popular, so perhaps the intention was to write these stories in the most alarming way possible to gain readership. The reporter’s reliance on Facebook posts and conversations with former employees without facts or evidence to support their claims is sloppy journalism at the very least. Did the reporter not bother to ask these former employees why they are no longer employed at NEAS?

The reporter did not quote a single one of NEAS’ tens of thousands of happy adopters, did not speak with the Salem animal control officer, and did not reach out to our rescue partners in other states except for quoting a rescuer whom we terminated (not the other way around, as reported) for failing to follow our pre-transport protocols. The reporter never even bothered to visit Northeast Animal Shelter, declined two invitations to visit, and never spoke with me via phone even though I gave him my cell phone number. For the first article, he did not contact me at all. For subsequent articles, he emailed questions but skirted around the false claims.

NEAS saves lives, and does not euthanize healthy animals, as alleged. However, all “no kill” shelters will euthanize an aggressive animal that cannot be rehabilitated. This reality was never mentioned. Had the reporter simply done an Internet search he could have easily found the definition of a “no-kill” as a shelter that will only euthanize an animal that is unadoptable and dangerous to humans and other animals. The national standard under that definition is to save 90 percent or more of the animals that enter a shelter. Last year, of the more than 5,000 dogs and cats that NEAS took in, only two dangerous animals were euthanized. We achieved this remarkable success rate, adopting out more than a 99 percent of all animals that arrived, including those who arrived sick or emaciated and needed medical care and training before they could be placed.

Since the publication of these misleading and factually incorrect articles, we have had to clean up the mess that Patch made by assuring our adopting families and community friends that we are guided by the very highest standards and have remained committed to saving lives that would have been lost if we did not exist.

A better story would have been about the legal responsibility any animal shelter has to the public to never place an aggressive animal that could – and likely would – cause harm to a human or another animal. Abby and Rukia were mentioned in the article as evidence that NEAS euthanized healthy animals, but a mental health problem is not purely a human condition. A dog with a dangerous temperament may be physically healthy, but mentally unstable.

Abby was adopted and, in a sudden unprovoked attack, bit her adopter in the face. Rukia mauled our volunteer trainer, latching onto her arm and shaking her violently like a rag doll and nearly sending her to the hospital. What would your headline be if we allowed Rukia to be adopted and she mauled a child after we had observed her propensity for a sudden, unpredictable, and vicious attack?

The story about Bandit – along with the false accusation that we had set him to be euthanized – is a perfect example of the reporter’s not asking the right questions. Bandit was admitted to the shelter in January 2017 and he was adopted for the second time in July 2017. Bandit often goes berserk when he sees another dog, which is why we had him trained by three different trainers at a cost of thousands of dollars. The first two trainers were not successful, so we sent him offsite for nearly two months to be trained by Loyal Canines. You would think we would be applauded for this extraordinary effort, but the story was turned inside out in order to be critical of NEAS and Loyal Canines.

The article made it seem like NEAS uses prong collars routinely, even though NEAS rarely uses these. The reporter quoted a canine trainer from West Virginia who had never met the dog in question, and who would not have known that the dog was in a shelter environment, walked by many different people, could not be safely walked without a prong collar, and that extensive positive-reinforcement training had failed. Other reputable trainers say prong collars are life-saving and humane training tools that do not choke or hurt the dog. Loyal Canines recently rebutted the allegations in your Letters to Editor section, writing “[The] story …was 100% inaccurate in its description of Loyal Canines' dog training services and the life-saving work we did with Bandit.”

The story behind the scenes is that Bandit did well at Loyal Canines, and they believed Bandit could be adopted by an experienced dog owner provided he was always walked with a prong collar, but what happened next shows that you can never be too careful. Six months after adoption, Bandit’s collar broke and he savagely attacked a senior Golden Retriever (one of the gentlest canine breeds). The Golden Retriever’s leg had to be amputated and the dog nearly died. Knowing that, we couldn’t take Bandit back and put him up for adoption again without creating liability for the shelter, so we told the adopter if we take him back he will have to be euthanized. The “feel good” story about Bandit being adopted outside our shelter by the volunteer who connected with him does not yet have a final chapter. We remain concerned.

Please understand that this letter is in no way an invitation to Patch to do a follow up story, beyond publishing this letter. You have done enough harm already and the irony is that those who are most harmed by your coverage are the furry guests in our care who need a safe home. Prospective adopters will now read Patch’s misleading and inflammatory headlines when they do an Internet search for Northeast Animal Shelter. Your assault on our sterling reputation makes our job harder and our pets’ futures uncertain.

Sincerely,

Donald R. Shapiro, Director

More on this story:

• Shelter's Punishment-Based Training Techniques Raised Concerns (03/26/2018)
• Staff At Northeast Animal Shelter Refused To Care For Local Pets (03/21/2018)
• Allegations Mount Against Northeast Animal Shelter Management (03/20/2018)
• Northeast Animal Shelter Responds To Allegations By Ex-Employees (03/19/2018)
• Ex-Employees Claim No-Kill Animal Shelter Euthanized Healthy Pets (03/18/2018)

Get free local news alerts right to your inbox.

Patch file photo.