Local opinion: Statistics show an inhumane Humane Society

The Humane Society of Southern Arizona and its former executives are being castigated, and rightly so, for the dismal prospects for their 250 small animals. But there is much more to the story of HSSA’s callous and uncaring ways. Consider some curious statistics. PACC, by-far Tucson’s largest animal rescue group, in 2022 registered a ‘Live Outcomes Rate’ of 90%, telling us 10%, or one in 10 dogs admitted to PACC are euthanized or otherwise die while in residence. HSSA’s comparable rate was only 78%; almost one of four dogs don’t survive their stay at HSSA. This suggests Euthanasia rates at HSSA are decisively higher than at PACC. So, what’s going on?

I, and other former HSSA volunteers, have witnessed euthanasia practices at HSSA that are exceedingly cold-hearted. Decisions to euthanize a dog based on behavior problems were routinely made without the consultation, much less the approval, of HSSA’s Behavior Specialist. Unconstrained by any need for expert opinion, it allowed HSSA’s former CEO to grossly exaggerate or totally fabricate problematic behaviors to rationalize euthanasia. Most often this was used against healthy well-behaved dogs with long stays at the shelter even when the shelter wasn’t full. Hazel was a two-year-old Pit Bull adored by the staff and volunteers who worked with her. Hazel had been at HSSA for 10 months when she was euthanized, justified by the then-CEO’s assertion that she was suffering “unimaginable emotional pain.” Everyone who worked with Hazel knew this was a completely dishonest description. Emotionally distraught dogs are routinely put on anti-depressant medication. Hazel was not. Also, the Behavior Specialist often selected Hazel to participate in off-site events requiring interaction with the public. Dogs suffering emotional pain would never be chosen. Also, videos of Hazel show an exuberant, happy, and affectionate canine.

This clear injustice outraged Hazel’s many fans. But when a volunteer questioned the CEO’s decision, that volunteer was promptly dismissed, sending a chilling message: questioning HSSA leadership will not be tolerated. Leadership would not admit error, nor would assurances be made that it wouldn’t happen again. That’s because it would happen again, and again.

In the HSSA pre-dating this now-dishonored administration, when a dog was condemned, every effort was made to save its life: off-site training, a foster home, a willing outside rescue group, etc. But when HSSA executives condemned a dog (or cat), all those avenues of salvation were almost always denied. Letters to the editor on these pages have raised these same concerns. Once condemned, there was no reprieve.

Hazel’s experience has been repeated often. It clearly portrays an institutional mindset totally uncaring about the welfare of their animal charges. This mindset permeated HSSA. An individual came to HSSA wanting to adopt a number of rabbits for a garden party, essentially as decoration. Asked what happens after the party, his response: “I’ll just get rid of them.” The Adoption Counselor rejected the adoption application. For this rejection, the Adoption Counselor was fired. From their perspective, animals are widgets. And this counselor turned down a big sale of widgets. Concern for the widgets’ welfare is not to be considered. Also, if widget inventories aren’t selling, smart business practice is to liquidate (i.e., euthanize) the inventory to make room for faster-selling widgets.

PACC’s 2022 Audit Report: “Humane Society leadership” is pressuring PACC “to vastly increase (PACC’s) euthanasia rate because the Humane Society’s euthanasia rate is so much higher than PACC’s.” Same request in blunt terms: ‘Kill more dogs, not just the sick and control-problem dogs, but also the healthy well-behaved ones.’ Coming from HSSA, this is not an unreasonable request. After all, it’s not asking PACC to do anything HSSA wasn’t already doing themselves.