Horrid conditions at the SPCA part 2
Here is Carol's response to Marcia Yoselson, member, PSPCA Board of Directors:
4/20/05 MY RESPONSE TO YOSELSON: with CC's to M. Aull, E. Hendricks, Dr. Casavecchia,( board member) Valerio Phillips( board member), Shauna Binswanger (board member)
Dear. Ms. Yoselson,
The following website, currently under construction, will have the complete listing of over 340 petition comments for your review by Friday:
www.petscomefirst.com
I appreciate your interest in this serious matter and would like to thank you for taking some of your time off to visit the Centre Hall SPCA.
When i decided to volunteer at the Centre Hall shelter about a year and a half ago, i had no prior knowledge of John or the SPCA. I spent over three months there, 4 - 5 days a week, going in at all hours of the day and generally remaining for 4 - 5 hours each time. It took me that long to get a good snapshot of how John ran the place, so i can certainly understand that on one visit, nothing 'exceptional' would be observed.
What i saw on the positive side:
1) The animals were all given food and water on a daily basis.
2) The kennels and cages were cleaned and (usually) sanitized every 24 hours.
3) Some animals with medical problems were taken to a local vet.
4) Occasionally volunteers( including myself) would come in to walk the dogs.
5) John took puppies, when he had them, once a month, to Brookline Village for the elderly patrons to handle and hold.
6) John spoke at a Rotary Club meeting and i was told was well received by the members.
On the flip side;
o If no volunteer came in, no dogs would be taken out that day.
o I was instructed by staff that john would not permit any soft bedding in the
kennels (even in the form of towels), as it created "too much extra work"
o I never saw any toys or treats given to the animals. When i placed plastic cat toys in with some of the kittens, the following day I found them discarded in the trash.
o There was never a vet on hand to examine the animals when they came in, and the vast majority went without any medical examination.
o volunteers were discouraged by staff from removing soiled newspapers from the cages of the smaller dogs, as that would generate more trash that had to be dealt with, and diminish the newspaper supply too quickly. This meant that many dogs were forced to spend an entire day standing, sleeping, and eating in urine soaked, feces covered newspapers
o I would describe John's demeanor with his staff, volunteers and the public as generally unfriendly, suspicious and uncooperative most of the time, with most people.
A few more things i learned, experienced and observed during my time there:
1) John consistently refused to cooperate with the vast majority of local animal rescue organizations, even those with very solid reputations. When asked why, he said, "not all rescue groups are good."
2) John instructed his staff not to handle or socialize with the animals lest they become attached to animals that would subsequently be put down. The entire time i volunteered there i saw one female staff on one occasion, spend time with a dog. The dog's name was "Remington". (his story to follow)
3) John regularly used intimidation tactics with his staff and the public. I had the sense that people were generally afraid of him, and i could understand why.
4) John would sometimes "sit" for days and weeks on multiple applications filed on a single dog. When asked why, none of the staff said they knew, but that he often did that.
5) John made the following statements to me, at different times, to describe his process for determining which animals to euthanize:
(a) "it is totally discretionary"
(b) "it is often random"
(c) "sometimes i'm in a miserable mood. You don't think that THAT affects my decisions?"
(d) "I will not rely on temperament testing results to influence or guide my choices."
(e) I can't tell you why of chose this dog over that dog to put down".
I never received any other rationale from him.
6) John neglected to provide veterinary attention to 3 kittens that had lost sizable parts of their toes and tails as a result of a Jack Russell Terrier mix repeatedly biting them. The Jack Russell was being kept in a lower cage underneath the cage the kittens were in. For about a week or so, the kittens continued to walk around their cage with their untreated wounds covered with pellets of kitty litter. The kittens eventually died in their cages. The matter had been brought to the staff's attention, and staff assured me that "John was aware".
7) Two other kittens were kept together in one cage. One began developing an eye infection that got so severe over time that it's eyes became glued shut. The other kitten, having shown no signs of an infection in the beginning, was kept in the same cage and soon developed the same symptoms. They both eventually died in their cages.
8) A litter of 8 puppies were kept in a dark room (the "laundry room".) with no windows and no light (except when someone would enter the room for some reason) for about two weeks. The newspapers in their shared kennel would become quickly saturated with urine and diarrhea but would get changed only once a day.
9) 2 exotic birds (a cockatoo and a blue/gold macaw) that were among animals seized from an abuse situation were kept in the front office for months where they could be exposed to pest infestations and potentially die. John refused to allow an adoption of either of the birds by a woman and her husband who offered $250.00 for each, had built an extension on their home for her birds, were extremely knowledgeable about exotic birds, and offered to have random home inspections done by the SPCA to ensure that the birds were being properly cared for. At one point John allegedly told her that he would let them go for "$1000.00 each, not including the cages". John refused her application and is said to have held out on one of the birds for $900. (If that is so, was that income reported? Or is he permitted to keep it for himself?)
10) A 16 week old puppy, "Remington" (mentioned above) was surrendered by his owners. A woman who was volunteering there at the time with me, told John that if it came time for Remington to be put down, she wanted to adopt him herself. She asked that he call her in such a case and she could be at the shelter within 2 hours to adopt him and would pay the full adoption fee. John never attempted to contact her, but instead euthanized the dog before she returned to volunteer a week later. At the same time, a Jack Russell Terrier mix with very aggressive behaviors that was known to attack cats and children, was kept, and later adopted only to be returned by the new owners because of its aggressive behavior.
11) A dog that came in with a severe flea infestation received no treatment for the fleas.
12) I asked John if i could transport some of the dogs, one at a time, to a local professional dog groomer. (Dogs, of course, would sometimes come into the shelter filthy, covered in feces, and/or extremely matted. I never saw any effort made to ease their discomfort or clean them up.) John would not allow me to take any of the dogs off the property. John did give me permission to have a professional groomer come to the shelter one day to shave the rock hard mats out of a beautiful Chow mix. Several years prior, the same woman had visited the shelter and volunteered to groom dogs at the shelter in exchange for leaving her business cards in the office. After several phone calls with no response, she gave up.
13) A lab mix came in with raw sores all over his body. I told John about the dog and asked him daily if the dog had been given any medical attention. He said it was a skin condition, and did nothing to treat the condition for an entire week. After constant prodding on my part, he finally took the dog to a vet for treatment.
14) I witnessed one dog being taken out of its kennel to be euthanized. The animal was one that i was familiar with and had shown no signs of aggressive behavior. A device at the end of a long pole was put around her neck and the animal was dragged down the hall, fighting the entire way. John asked me if i would be willing to euthanize an animal. I said, "yes, but i would want to make the process more humane".
15) A woman surrendered her beloved cat, "cuddles" because her son had developed allergies. She asked how long the cat would be kept for adoption and is assured by the staff that those cats that had been there longer would be put down before hers. She came in the very next day to visit Cuddles but John had already put the cat down.
16) the same Animal Behavior Specialist who wanted to adopt "Remington", attempted to post notices on the kennels of the dogs she temperament tested, along with special colored collars for their necks, indicating how well socialized vs. aggressive/un-socialized the animals tested to be. She offered this information for the benefit of the staff, public and volunteers. John told her, that he was all for the work she was doing. But the collars and notes mysteriously disappeared every night. The staff blamed John; John blamed the staff. The end result was that the woman ended her volunteer work there out of sheer frustration.
17) There has never been a successful, ongoing, organized volunteer program at the shelter. John told me that his staff objected to volunteers coming in, and that he was at a loss as to what to do. Recently, John told me that he has been searching for "the right person for twenty years" to run a volunteer program, but has been "unable to find such a person". This apparently included myself and two other very capable women who offered to take on the task together full time. He made it impossible for us to function there. One of the women is now running a very successful cat rescue operation, the other is working on establishing her own animal shelter as an alternative to the SPCA.
There is certainly evidence that John, alone, is not at fault for all the negative publicity and sentiments within our region towards the SPCA in Centre Hall. With him sharing in that responsibility is Erik Hendricks who (reportedly) has continually ignored complaints lodged about John over the years, and seems to protect and defend John every step of the way without bothering to investigate any of the circumstances himself.
I would not, however, hold any of the staff responsible for the many shortcomings of the shelter operation. It is the shelter manager's responsibility to establish direct, guide, and instruct what the staff do in their jobs and how they do those jobs. It is the manager's responsibility to set the tone for the shelter. It is the manager's responsibility to inspire and motivate. It is the manager's responsibility to lead by example. It is the managers’ responsibility to monitor and supervise the activities of his/her staff and to be aware of what is occurring daily.
John is a terrible shelter manager and has been for many years. It's really that simple. He should have been ousted long ago, but i had no knowledge of him until 2003 when i thought i'd do some volunteer work with animals and randomly selected the SPCA. I had no grudge to bear or biases in any direction. The time i spent there caused me great distress for the many animals that must endure John's Draconian methods and callous attitudes. I have since volunteered and visited other animal shelters and the worst I’ve experienced is still far, far superior to the Centre Hall SPCA. There is no reason for things to be as they are and have been at that facility, other than John Matrisciano and perhaps Erik Hendricks.
Erik Hendricks response in our local paper on April 22nd was that the petition complaint was vague and since the SPCA euthanizes animals it can be a target for eomotional complaints. Basically he is trying to "play down" all of the stories from the signers of our petition.
the petition's website is at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takea...ltl=1114633150
Please if you can take time to sign I would appreciate it. If we don't get a suitable response I am going to ask for more assistance in this issue in the form of letters to the Board and cross posting of this issue.
Thanks again so much!
