LETTERS TO THE EDITOR – 3-15-12

Perception
Editor: Dear HAS Board of Directors, I just read your commentary in the March 8 edition of the Healdsburg Tribune. In it you state “While we are striving to conduct business with increased professionalism and efficiency, it was never our intent to shut out or ‘muzzle’ the opinions of the public, and we sincerely apologize if this was the perception.” I don’t understand how you can say “it was never your intent” when your actions, as stated in the new HAS Volunteer Manual, have very clear intent to restrict the expression of my opinion. Your actions seem very clear and not subject to misperception.
All I want to do as a HAS volunteer, which is what I’ve done the past 12 years, is to walk dogs and work at fundraisers. Can I be a HAS volunteer without giving up my right to free speech?
Denny Drowty
Healdsburg
More shelter questions
Editor: The Healdsburg Animal Shelter’s commentary of March 8th continues with the same campaign of obfuscation. The Board continues to refuse to tell us what the stats are for the Healdsburg dogs alone. (It is, after all, the Healdsburg Animal Shelter, not the Bay Area Animal Shelter.) Hiring a 3rd CPA, when HAS already has two, (Virginia Anderson and Tom Rackerby), and Penny Chambers, (Councilman Tom Chamber’s wife), as bookkeeper, defies logic. Change to improve is good, change to confuse and evade is not.
The organization is now spending $60,000 on a fundraising consultant. Historically, HAS would hire an Executive Director, rather than a Shelter Manager, specifically so that that person could legitimately be tasked with fundraising responsibilities, as well as managerial duties, thereby justifying a larger salary. (Even at that, I never contemplated one as shockingly large as that of the current Director). The Board keeps referring to how bad fundraising was in 2010 versus 2011 under its new leadership. In actuality, it was a team effort that raised most of the 2011 funds from the “Imagine the Pawsabilities” fundraiser planned during 2010, largely by the efforts of former Board members and high profile, former donors. The much-repeated “356%” increase in funds raised in 2011 is just more “smoke and mirrors.” The funds raised in 2009 would likely be similar to 2011. There were no major fundraising events in 2010, and the board knows that fully well. So, once again, the “transparency” that they pretend to give us is just another lesson in how to lie with statistics to people who are unaware of the facts.
Under the current Board’s direction, the building project has stalled out. These same Board members oversaw and approved all of the reported flaws about which they now so loudly complain. Under this Board’s direction, (or lack thereof), it appears that the building project has failed to the point that the animals continue to be deprived of the kind of physical shelter that they need and deserve, despite of all of the money already raised. Is that why I heard a staff member wrote a letter to the Board President requesting her resignation?
I wonder, do the Board members see smiles on the faces of Healdsburg residents who surrendered their dogs thinking that we had a “no-kill” shelter, only to find out that they were euthanized? Were those dogs’ tails wagging too?
Madeline Wallace
Healdsburg
Misleading statistics
Editor: In the March 8 Commentary column, the animal shelter board again touted its 7% euthanasia rate and decreased medical expenses. I’m growing weary of these misleading statistics, which reflect not only Healdsburg’s animals, but also healthy, well-adjusted dogs brought in from other shelters. Our shelter’s primary focus is supposedly Healdsburg animals.
Sometimes our own animals arrive at the shelter with socialization deficits and health issues, which often require extra care — medical attention and/or behavioral training/rehabilitation. The shelter has repeatedly refused to disclose the euthanasia rate on Healdsburg dogs, (versus the combined rate including dogs from all sources); and it’s time to come clean. To my knowledge, seven of the eight dogs put down in 2011 came from Healdsburg. How many of them could have been saved with extra training or more medical care? Killing a dog is so much cheaper than investing in training or healthcare. How many dogs’ lives were sacrificed to enable the sudden, radical improvement in the shelter operation’s “bottom line”?
Another misleading statistic is the much touted 358% increase in funds raised over the past year. The bulk of that increase came from the efforts of volunteers and board members who have since left HAS in frustration and disappointment. It was certainly not solely owing to the efforts of the current shelter Director and Board, who tout it as an example of their own success.
Marie Salerno
Healdsburg
Good people
Editor: On a recent Sunday I was visiting family that lives in Healdsburg, when sadly my Labrador Retriever went missing. Immediately I started running through the neighborhood calling her name, when it became apparent to me that she was no where to be found. Desperately, I started putting up posters about my missing dog, and immediately people started approaching me to offer help. One kindhearted couple stopped their car and came over to get my information and offered to help look for my dog. Another gentleman, out for a Sunday cruise about town, circled the block numerous times and spent almost an hour looking for my missing lab. The amount of honest concern and worry that came from each person who approached me was unbelievable. After hours of hysterically searching for her, I received the best phone call of my life. My dear lab had wondered into someone’s BBQ, where she was fed, given water and most importantly, loved. To the couple who found my dog and called to return her, I am eternally grateful for your kindness and humanity. Knowing that there is a place in this world where people are kind, generous and willing to help a stranger has strengthened my belief that this world is full of good people. So thank you Healdsburg, for reminding this girl that good exists, and now I know where to find it.
Shannon Foley
San Francisco
Trees for vineyards
Editor: I’ve seen articles about the biggest cutting of redwood forest for vineyard ever to take place in Sonoma County. Spain based Artesa/Codorniu is a huge corporation and we’re a tiny dot on their map.
I’m concerned about our society’s take on nature. I was born and raised underneath these trees surrounding my home in Annapolis. I’m heartbroken that I have to fight to protect what Mother Nature gave me.
The California Dept. of Forestry should represent the state’s citizens by protecting our environment, especially our state tree. I’m devastated they’re signing off on a deal with Artesa to deforest my childhood memories. What bothers me most is grapes can grow elsewhere. Why cut down these unsurpassed trees to plant vineyards? The redwood only grows in this region of our country- that’s why it’s our state tree. They deserve to be protected. We can’t pick our state flower, but it’s okay to cut the state tree? We need to morally contemplate this before we destroy our planet’s beautiful assets. The wine industry is booming in a down economy. For a financially struggling society, the least we can do is protect our earth, because nature will always be free.
Holly McCarroll-Baker
Annapolis