Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: "No Kill"??? This is long, but a worthy read

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Greenville, SC, USA

    "No Kill"??? This is long, but a worthy read

    October 3, 2002

    Rescue kennel comes under fire

    Banks Animal Rescue Kennel on Southbound Street near West Fifth
    Avenue is the center of controversy regarding its 'no-kill' policy.
    Photo by Donnie Roberts/The Dispatch
    The Dispatch
    September 28, 2002


    * Complaints against BARK may be made to the Veterinary Division of
    the N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs by calling
    Dr. Carol Woodlief, animal control veterinarian, at (919) 733-7601 or
    sending e-mail to [email protected] or to Lionel J. Randolph,
    Supervisor of the Charitable Solicitation Licensing Section, N.C.
    Department of the Secretary of State, at (919) 807-2211 or Charitable
    Solicitation Licensing Section, N.C. Department of the Secretary of
    State, P.O. Box 29622, Raleigh, N.C. 27626-0622.

    Ann Banks, owner of Banks Animal Rescue Kennel, finds herself at the
    center of controversy over animals in her care who have been

    Records from the Davidson County Animal Shelter show that Banks has
    been responsible for the euthanization of more than 5,000 animals
    between January 2000 and August 2002.

    BARK and Project Smiley, a separate animal rescue organization that
    joined forces with BARK in June and shares the same location on
    Southbound Street, promote themselves as a "no-kill" facility.

    The Charitable Solicitation Licensing division of the N.C. Secretary
    of State has also received a complaint about BARK and is conducting
    an inquiry into whether Banks should obtain a license as an
    organization that solicits charitable contributions.

    The situation was first reported when WGHP FOX8 aired a news report
    Wednesday night that showed Banks physically placing animals in the
    carbon monoxide euthanasia chamber at the Davidson County Animal

    When animals are surrendered to a no-kill facility, most people
    assume that the animal will be kept and cared for until it can be
    adopted - and that it will not be euthanized.

    Banks contends that a no-kill facility is a "facility that does not
    have a means to euthanize animals" on site - not one that will keep
    all animals until adopted. Banks said animals that are "too shy, too
    aggressive, too contentious or too sick" could be euthanized.

    "The state does not have a true definition of what `no-kill' is,"
    said Eve Roser, the former volunteer coordinator with the Davidson
    County Animal Shelter and the founder of the Eve Roser Animal
    Rescue. "Ann chose to call herself `no-kill.'"

    Roser said the National Humane Society and the American Society for
    the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals say that a legitimate
    rescue, "no-kill" facility will "turn away any animal that you
    knowingly cannot find a home for. You would guide that individual to
    wherever they should go."

    The bottom line, Roser said, is to ask why would people go to BARK
    and pay to leave an animal when a call to animal control could have
    the animal picked up and delivered to the county shelter free of

    "What would be the reason?" she asked. "Because they believe that `no-
    kill' means that."

    Dr. Carol Woodlief, animal welfare veterinarian with the N.C.
    Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said that the Animal
    Welfare Act does not distinguish between types of shelters. "We do
    not govern any shelter policy," she added.

    Woodlief did confirm that BARK is licensed as a privately owned
    animal shelter.

    Under the veterinary division of the Department of Agriculture, this
    type of shelter is described as: "A facility which is used to house
    or contain animals and which is owned, operated or maintained by a
    duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society for the
    prevention of cruelty to animals or other nonprofit organization
    devoted to the welfare, protection and humane treatment of animals."

    Technically, "what Ann is doing is not illegal," Roser said. Robert
    Hyatt, county manager, confirmed there are no county ordinances in
    place to prevent what has been done.

    However, Roser does question the tremendous number of animals killed.
    She questions how many of those animals were healthy, adoptable
    animals or ones that would have made suitable companions.

    "You can't tell anyone there were 5,077 vicious, aggressive, sick
    animals," she added. "She (Banks) was able to handle every one of
    those animals (shown in the news video)."

    Roser also said, as a licensed animal rescue shelter, Banks is
    obligated to provide regular veterinary care for the animals under
    her care and points out that it is against the law to knowingly adopt
    out a sick animal.

    Banks contends, "You can't treat them all," using extremely "wormy or
    mangy" puppies as examples. "Sarcoptic mange can take weeks and weeks
    to get rid of. By that time they can spread the mange to every other
    dog in the facility.

    "If I knowingly adopt (out) a puppy that has sarcoptic mange, they'd
    bust my chops."

    Roser has heard "so many horror stories, all affiliated with BARK,"
    that she knows - and has proof - that "regular veterinary care" is
    not being provided.

    A veterinary technician with whom Roser deals regularly, Amy Knable,
    paid $40 to adopt two kittens from BARK. From experience, Knable knew
    that one kitten was obviously very sick. Not isolated - as is
    required by state regulations - Knable adopted both the sick kitten
    and the one with which it was kenneled in the hopes of treating the
    sick one. Ultimately, it died from feline leukemia.

    "She (Banks) knowingly adopted out a sick animal," Roser said.

    Roser questions why not take a sick animal to a veterinarian if there
    is any chance the animal can be healed and adopted in the
    future. "Puppies with mange would not constitute (a need for)
    euthanasia. In my opinion, Ann and Project Smiley are a business and
    veterinary care cuts into the profit."

    Roser also suggested that a review of the 911 Center's event log
    documents in "Ann's own words describing what needs to be picked up."
    Calls for animal pick-up are dispatched through the county's 911
    Center. These animals are then taken to the animal shelter.

    Fifty-five pages of recorded calls shows that more than 400 calls
    were made for animal pick-up from May 1999 to this week at BARK.
    There are countless calls for animal control to pick up sick cats,
    dogs, puppies and kittens, more than one animal at a time, and/or
    vicious, aggressive dogs.

    Other calls are more specific. One call asks for nine dogs to be
    picked up while in another Banks says she has three boxes of cats for
    pick-up. At least two calls advise animal control "he will need an
    empty truck."

    A call on May 1 says to "have animal control come on as soon as they
    can she has several sick dogs and some she can't get rid of" while
    another call requests pick-up of "puny kittens."

    Some of the calls are extremely graphic while a "big dog," "a dog
    chasing cats" or "a female dog in heat and every dog in a 50 mile
    radius is there trying to get to her" were given as reasons for pick-

    At issue, too, is the fee schedule BARK has in place. Banks charges a
    $10 surrender fee for puppies and kittens and a $50 surrender fee for
    adult dogs and cats. At question is what these fees are being used
    for if so many animals are being euthanized on a regular basis.

    According to the Animal Welfare Act, a state licensed rescue shelter
    can not misrepresent itself.

    Lionel J. Randolph, supervisor of the Charitable Solicitation
    Licensing Section with the N.C. Department of the Secretary of State,
    explained that, in certain situations, fraud may exist. Examples may
    be if a drop-off fee has been paid with the promise that the animal
    will find a home but is later euthanized or if an adoption fee is
    paid with the agreement that the fee covers the necessary shots,
    spaying or neutering and general health care for the animal, but the
    rescue shelter is not doing those things.

    The Internal Revenue Service and/or the Department of Revenue may get
    involved if fees being charged - fees that should be reported on
    various tax forms - are paid but the notation on the check
    says "donation."

    "I see them in conjunction with solicitation of charitable
    contributions," Randolph said. "I have to be concerned with
    charitable contributions, how much she received and what she's done
    with it."

    If these contributions reach a certain level, it may mean that Banks
    will be required to obtain a charitable solicitation license. In
    cases of alleged fraud, Randolph forwards the information to the
    appropriate agency.

    Randolph has requested from Banks her articles of incorporation,
    bylaws and past tax returns. A formal written request for the
    information has been sent after two verbal requests to Banks failed
    to provide the information.

    "She may be under investigation by another group. She is not under
    investigation (by CSL division)," Randolph said. "This is a routine

    Randolph has also sent a formal request for the same information to
    Brenda Bishop, owner of Project Smiley. The group has been with BARK
    since its eviction from its previous location in High Point, Roser

    In the middle of all this controversy is the Davidson County Animal
    Shelter, which is under the direction of the Sheriff's Office.

    Both shelter workers, Anita Wood, a veterinarian technician, and
    Richard Varner, an animal control officer, were very disheartened by
    the ongoing euthanizations, Wood said.

    "There was nothing we could do. The dogs were in her possession,"
    Wood said. "If she deemed them vicious, if she deemed them sick,
    there was nothing we could do."

    Roser said Banks made a conscious choice. "She has the option of
    putting those animals in the general population area," Roser
    said. "By saying they're sick or aggressive, it eliminates the option
    of adoption."

    Wood also indicated that despite the animal shelter's reputation for
    euthanizing stray animals, she, Varner and their volunteers "work
    hard to get these little critters a home." This includes
    spaying/neutering and all current shots.

    However, she added, they are candid with owners about the likelihood
    of an animal being adopted.

    "We will be honest and tell them that," Wood said.

    Sheriff Gerald Hege said his office has been aware of the number of
    animal euthanizations from BARK for quite some time and has even
    conducted some investigations into incidents, but that they were
    limited as to what they can do because of the lack of a county

    "The county commissioners need to take a look at this," he
    said. "We're talking with Commissioner Akins about it. Hopefully
    we'll be able to change the situation and get an ordinance or at
    least charge a fee or something."

    All those involved agree it comes down to human responsibility for
    their animals if the issue of homeless, unwanted animals is to be
    solved. Banks uses it as a defense for her actions. "It's a Davidson
    County problem."

    Hege urges the public to take more responsibility when surrendering

    "People, when they take their animals to these `no-kill' places, need
    to ask a lot of questions and find out just what `no-kill' means to
    the owner," Hege said.

    However, people who adopt animals from shelters and rescue kennels
    are often looking for a specific size and breed of animal.

    "What happens to all the others?" Hege said. "If people are truly
    animal lovers, if the sole purpose is to save an animal, they should
    adopt the next dog in line. That kind of eliminates what's happening
    in this situation."

    Ana Agud may be reached at 249-3981, ext. 228, or at [email protected] Staff reporter Cherriece Wright contributed to this

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    indianapolis,indiana usa

    The article was very enlightning. I didn't think the term
    "no kill" was open to interpretation, but BARK seems to
    think so. For them to say that "no kill" means that they
    have no means to euthanize on site is rediculous.

    I hope this so called rescue group is throughly checked
    out by local lawmakers. Changes need to be made pronto.
    I've Been Boo'd

    I've been Frosted

    Today is the oldest you've ever been, and the youngest you'll ever be again.

    Eleanor Roosevelt

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Lawrenceville, Ga, USA
    I agree the county needs to do something, at least define by ordinance what "no kill" means, and when the term can be used.

    I feel sorry for the animals that were set to the rainbow bridge before their time , and I feel sorry for those that took their pets to these places hoping for a better life for them , and they were lied to and misled by someone apparently looking at the bottom line
    Scott is owned by 5 cats: Jackson, Fluffy, Twidgit, Ashton, Lexi;
    and 3 dogs: Eli, Sassee, Ginger

    Fuzzy317's Pictures

Similar Threads

  1. "I Am An Animal Rescuer" poem...a MUST read
    By moosmom in forum General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-05-2010, 02:43 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-28-2009, 01:00 PM
  3. Anyone read "Fast Food Nation"
    By caseysmom in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 12:53 PM
  4. How "Animal Welfare" folks kill dogs...*rant*
    By CathyBogart in forum Dog House
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-13-2007, 03:11 PM
  5. "Paper Angels" - read the lyrics..
    By CountryWolf07 in forum General
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-01-2007, 07:57 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the