The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer:
Frank Ribeiro
Re: Nov. 3 article “Humane Society’s record is misrepresented”
It is regrettable that members of The Humane Society of Southern Arizona (HSSA) Board of Directors have chosen to take a defensive posture in response to the revelations in the Oct. 20 article “Statistics Show an inhumane Humane Society.”
Their rebuttal is misinformed and misleading, beginning by recounting not the practices but merely the policies of HSSA. Practiced earnestly, as it was prior to Steve Farley’s arrival as CEO in 2020, those praiseworthy policies forged a Humane society that proudly served our community and, importantly, truly cared for the welfare of its animals. But they provide HSSA no exoneration as Farley’s team flagrantly disregarded those virtuous policies.
Seeking vindication they cite a euthanasia policy requiring “careful analysis and verification.” Prudent policy, yes, but in practice it flies in the face of the attestations to the contrary by too many witnesses of unwarranted canine executions not supported by HSSA’s own in-house professional canine specialists and justified using totally fabricated diagnoses.
Their “misrepresentation” claim questions a PACC report showing many fewer dogs survive their stay at HSSA (78%) than at PACC (90%). They would prefer using HSSA’s “Lives Outcomes” metric that shows HSSA as having canine survival rates at the similar 90% level at PACC. These discrepancies demonstrate how unreliable survival statistics can be.
At the core, our focus must be euthanasia rates.
The board members don’t contest the irrefutable, that canine euthanasia rates at HSSA far exceeded those at PACC. So conspicuous is that excess that HSSA pleaded for PACC to increase their euthanasia rate to mitigate embarrassment to HSSA’s executives. But high euthanasia rates only became an issue after Steve Farley’s arrival.
Over the five years prior to Farley’s 2020 arrival, an average 5.25% of dogs admitted to HSSA were euthanized (2,446 dogs admitted on-average yearly, 128 of which were euthanized — both numbers exclude owner-requested euthanasias). Averaged over the three years of the Farley administration that rate would climb sharply from 5.25% to 7.30% (Admissions declined to 1,738/year, while euthanasias remained largely unchanged at 126).
This percentage increase translates to 36 deceased canines annually additional to the number expected in a ‘normal’ (5.25%) year. More alarming is the tally for the most recent fiscal year (2022-23) wherein the rate spiked to 9.08% (1,630 dogs admitted, 148 euthanized). This implies 62 more canine executions than ‘normal’. (Data source: HSSA website)
Fact: Higher euthanasia rates for HSSA than at PACC. Fact: Higher euthanasia rates during the Farley term than the years before. The striking jump in HSSA’s euthanasia rates under Farley (9% up from 5%, almost a rate doubling) adds credence to the many witnesses reporting the Farley team’s ruthless approach to condemning to death healthy, well-behaved dogs without just cause.
HSSA might be able to deflect direct responsibility for the deaths of those 250 small animals onto Colton Jones. But for the inexcusable deaths of scores of these wonderful dogs, culpability falls squarely on the Farley team. They engaged in animal cruelty willfully and repeatedly such that the pets-as-snake-food barbarity became simply business as usual. Yet our board members appear to be unwilling to acknowledge these inhumane practices.
No doubt the board is grasping at straws, desperately trying to restore the integrity of HSSA. It is an objective earnestly shared by all of us who have protested and/or criticized HSSA practices. But the most essential component of this formidable PR crusade is reestablishing credibility. Living in denial, the route chosen by the board of directors, will not serve their purpose. The board must stop defending the indefensible and acknowledge HSSA’s atrocious recent history so it can stand once again as an honorable member of the Tucson community.
Follow these steps to easily submit a letter to the editor or guest opinion to the Arizona Daily Star.
