|
2/19/2009 10:29:00 AM
Animal shelter panel spars over members - again
Ryan Jeltema
News Editor
STANTON - The spirit of cooperation that took over the Montcalm County Animal Shelter ad hoc committee last week evaporated quickly Wednesday.
Committee member Fran Schuleit of Greenville attempted to replace Howard City veterinarian Dr. Edward Lepley with District 1 County Commissioner Ron Blanding early in the meeting, igniting another firestorm of criticism over the committee's membership.
Schuleit argued that Lepley, who works with R&R Research in Howard City, didn't deserve a seat on the committee because he had missed all three meetings so far. She made a motion to excuse Lepley from the panel and give his seat to Blanding, whose motion during a Jan. 26 Board of Commissioners meeting created the group.
"We need somebody who is actively interested in the committee," Schuleit said.
County Board Chairman Patrick Q. Carr, who selected most of the committee members, strongly opposed the move since it would upset the balance of R&R Research supporters and detractors currently named to the panel.
"All I'm trying to do is accurately reflect what was approved by commissioners," Carr said, reading from Blanding's motion Jan. 26. "I think it's clear that Dr. Lepley is on the side of continuing the contract with R&R and Commissioner Blanding is on the side of discontinuing the contract with R&R so making a motion to replace a person on the side of the R&R contract with someone who is not on the side of the R&R contract seems like more of a power play to me."
Carr said he is "done picking people for this committee" and threatened to resign "and let you pick the committee you want." He cautioned, however, that his fellow commissioners may not look favorably on the continued discord over panel membership.
"I think at some point if the commissioners lose faith in the work this committee is doing they may just pull the plug," Carr said.
R&R Research owner Jim Woudenberg said Lepley "had fully intended on attending the meetings" but has had valid reasons for not coming. He said Lepley didn't attend the first meeting Feb. 5 because he believed panel members would only be discussing minor scheduling issues, had a death in the family Feb. 11 and had a previously scheduled meeting in Ohio on Wednesday.
"He fully intends to participate in this committee," Woudenberg said. "I don't think it's wise to ask him to step down."
Committee member S. Michael Scott of Howard City pointed out that most community boards and committees only have up to two county commissioners so adding Blanding as a third would break that tradition.
Scott said boards and committees typically allow three absences, then give notice to that person that they must attend the next meeting or face removal.
In a split 4 to 3 vote, committee members opted to retain Lepley as a member. Carr, Scott, Woudenberg and Committee member Steve Crouse voted to keep Lepley while Schuleit and committee members Dr. Randy Carpenter and Rhonda Waldorf voted to remove Lepley and appoint Blanding.
|
Posted: Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Article comment by:
Amy Giza
I hope you resign, Patrick Q. Carr, as you are not acting in the best interest of the people and what they want anyway.
And... If the was a true vote, there would be a overwhelming outcry for this to stop. Where did you get the 65% from, Charlie? Did you see the petition for this to end?
Posted: Friday, March 06, 2009
Article comment by:
Toni
I'm so sorry, my last comment was supposed to be for Charlie Patten, NOT Mr. Boerman. I guess that happens when I try to type in the middle of the night while I have flames of anger coming out of my eyes.
Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Article comment by:
Toni
MR Boerman,I think we all know that people are considered more important than animals but what alot of the public doesn't understand is that most of these former pets are being used to test cleaning products or toxic chemicals.They're even used to test things that have already been tested. Would you like to see your dog immobilized with a hole in it's throat while cigarette smoke is constantly streaming at the dog's face and neck. They want to see how harmful the smoke is. For Pete's sake, we already know this, yet they continue the same horrid tests. I guess the companies have to justify the research grants they get.Can you look deep in your heart and say that if you could no longer care for your old dog, that you'd take it to Montcalm shelter so R&R could take it and "possible save someone's life"? If you could, then you really have no heart.
Posted: Monday, February 23, 2009
Article comment by:
JoyceJM
There is no compromise to be made on R&R's contract. Citizens from Montcalm, as well as throughout the state, have spoken in opposition to renewing the contract. It's time for Mr. Carr and his associates to understand that those of us against Class B dealers will not stop fighting for the animals.
Mr. Carr I sincerely hope you do resign not only from the committee but from the Board as well. It's painfully clear that you do NOT represent the citizens of Montcalm.
To all those opposed to pound seizure please consider attending the Meet Your Legislators Day in Lansing on 3/31/09. Many of us are attending this event to specifically request that legislation be introduced on a state level to eliminate pound seizure/Class B dealers in Michigan.
Posted: Sunday, February 22, 2009
Article comment by:
Polly Grunfeld Sack, Esq.
I too would like to add my voice to those who have asked to have more details as to this mystery poll. Mr. Patten and Mr. Carr, let me share some REAL FACTS with you. An American Medical Association (AMA) poll, which was statistically valid and professionally administered, showed that although 75% of the people polled were in favor of some limited form of research, 75% of those were adamantly against sourcing animals from a shelter or pound. The National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organization and the European Council, all of which are huge biomedical research organizations, are all adamantly against the use of pound animals because of their unreliability as research subjects due to unknown backgrounds and history. (Note that animals may be sourced from "Class A" dealers, who specifically bred animals for research within medical guidelines and parameters.) Well known medical researchers, including the founder of the Mayo clinic, have said that animal tests like this have hindered our understanding and progress with diseases like cancer. The National Animal Control Association has come out clearly against selling pound animals to research as it undermines the animal control function (which is what taxpayers are paying for) and erodes public confidence. And last but not least, based on these blogs and attendance at the various commissioners' and committee meetings, the overwhelming majority of Montcalm County citizens are against renewing the R&R contract. The FACTS are clear. And the prudent decision is to reject the R&R contract. Remember this issue is not whether animal research should continue-- it's whether the subjects should be Montcalm county pets. And any attempt to frame it otherwise is pure manipulation.
Posted: Saturday, February 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Angie
Mr Patten,
Which commissioner are you talking about? If there had been something like that, wouldn't it be available for the public, who so called agreed to this contract, to view it. I think that the residents of Montcalm County get together and tell Mr Carr that we do not want this contrace renewed and we need to be allowed to vote on this matter as it is OUR animals, NOT HIS that are being taken to these places. We should have the right to decide this for ourselves, and not have some money hungry person telling us what to do!!!
Posted: Saturday, February 21, 2009
Article comment by:
let me do your homework 4 u
Letter to the Editor: University should abandon outdated animal testing
By John Pippin
On January 19th, 2009
As a cardiologist and senior medical adviser with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, I want to refute incorrect statements quoted in your article ('U' under pressure for dog testing, 01/14/2009) and clarify why PCRM opposes the University's use of live dogs from Michigan animal shelters in lethal trauma training classes.
The University Health Service falsely claims that the majority of Advanced Trauma Life Support courses use animals. In truth, however, the University of Michigan is one of the last institutions in the country continuing this outdated practice. In an ongoing nationwide survey of ATLS courses, it was found that over 90 percent of researchers exclusively use non-animal methods, such as cadavers or human patient simulators. In fact, the American College of Surgeons, which accredits all ATLS programs, endorses the use of simulators.
We oppose the use of dogs and other animals in ATLS courses not only because it is inhumane but also because it is not the best way to teach participants how to treat acute trauma injuries. The procedures taught in the University's ATLS course include cutting into the airway, inserting chest tubes, and sticking needles in the lungs, heart and abdomen. The anatomy is so different in dogs that the techniques must be revisited later — when human lives may be on the line.
The University’s students deserve the most advanced training methods available. That means immediately replacing the use of live dogs with superior, human-based methods.
John J. Pippin, M.D., F.A.C.C.
The letter-writer is a senior medical and research adviser with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Posted: Saturday, February 21, 2009
Article comment by:
Jill Wheeler
I have to agree with Sandra Carlton, and if Montcalm County would look at all the other options available they would see that this contract is not appropriate anymore. It has been proven for decades that live animals used in reseach are no longer necessay. The experts agree that computer programs are far more accurate, cheaper, and much easier than having live animals available. It is so frustrating that some people just get stuck in a mode, and cant see any other way. I personally think there is something more going on between Mr.
Carr, and R&R. My father a lifelong resident of Montcalm County lives in the country about six miles out of town, and he and his neighbors are always getting dogs and cats dumped on their doorstep. I have no doubt in my mind people do this in the hopes their pets will get adopted by some kind hearted person instead of taking them to the shelter where they have almost a zero chance. If they dont go to R&R, theyll be put to death in a horrible manner. There are so many better solutions to the surplus animals in Montcalm County. I truly hope all you people will be outspoken, and let your opinion be known. I know my father does not approve of this contract!
Jill Wheeler
Posted: Friday, February 20, 2009
Article comment by:
Sandra L. Carlton
This is in response to Mr.Charles Patten. I am unaware of any poll taken by any commissioner, and question whether the poll referenced accurately reflects the sentiments of the entire county.
I have been involved in this issue for over 30 years, and can tell you the findings of those who oppose the contract have been quite different. Our information was not gotten by talking to friends, family or even people we knew to be of like mind, but gathered by conducting door-to-door campaigns in Carson City, Edmore, Greenville, Howard City, Lakeview and Stanton and manning information booths a many area festivals. We found that well over 70% of the people we spoke with (and we talked to a lot of people)did NOT support the contract with the class B dealer.
I am curious as to what inspired you to make an impromptu visit to the class B dealer's facility. Whatever the reason,this issue is not about a clean facility. It is about good public policy and what in government is referred to as "best practices". Our commissioners' decision to surrender abandoned or lost pets to a private entity for purposes not supported by county residents is neither good public policy nor a best practice.
Your claim that once people understand that these animals are used in life saving medical research they will support the contract has one giant flaw. There is no proof that any of these animals have ever been used for any life saving research. In fact, the only use we have been able to substantiate is that some dogs from our shelter have been used in Advanced Trauma Life Support courses which are currently under attack because many researchers feel there are far better alternatives to using dogs in these classes. Considering that Wayne State University, Michigan State University and the University of Michigan combined only purchased 27 dogs and 8 cats from this dealer in 2007, and only a portion of these animals came from our shelter, we can't believe our animals are really necessary at all!
We truly cannot understand why the county commissioners are so intent on protecting this contract with the dealer. It boggles our minds especially when the termination of the contract could result in more volunteers, better services, increased donations and very possibly make our county eligible for grants which would more than offset the insignificant cost of disposing of animal carcasses which is the only possible
benefit this contract offers to the county!
Posted: Friday, February 20, 2009
Article comment by:
Beth Kieffer
I live in LaPorte County, Indiana now. Our State Prison works with a local rescue group training dogs for their Canine Good Citizenship certificates.
It's a program called Prison Tails and it's a win-win situation. The prison has something to incent the convicts to behave, the privilege of having a dog in their cell. The prisoner learns skills they can take with them when they are released, not to mention the love and affection of a great dog while they are training it, and knowing that dog will end up in a wonderful home. And the rescue group gets good, well cared for and trained dogs to adopt out.
They are very successful and have been used as a model for other such programs all over the country.
Regarding the contract, I really hope this situation is corrected soon. Though I do not live in Montcalm County any longer, my parents who own a dog do, and I am so scared that Sage might escape and end up taken by R&R before my folks have a chance to recover him. This has happened – I know of a rescue group that had tried to get a couple of huskies – had called and asked for them to be held and within hours of calling, they went to retrieve the dogs and R&R had already taken them. This really upset me and sends shivers down my spine for pet owners in Montcalm County.
There is no reason to continue this contract. Though I know it's out of the realm of possibility to have a no-kill shelter, I believe the reputation the shelter currently "enjoys" really does affect how the citizens and other rescue groups think of them when they are looking for a pet. The Petfinder use makes me happy, as long as it's kept current it's a great way to get the pets adopted. As an animal lover, I don’t know how Mr. Woudenberg sleeps at night. I couldn’t justify it ever.
If someone is unsure how the voter’s really feel, how difficult would it be to put the issue to a vote? There would not be any concern of impropriety by members of the commission, no more speculation of how the voters feel. I don’t understand why this hasn’t happened sooner. I know how my parents would vote – contract over!!!! No more!
Beth Kieffer
Formerly of Edmore Michigan and Mt. Pleasant Michigan
Current volunteer at the Michiana Humane Society
|
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
|
