THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, June 16, 1996 TAG: 9606140277
SECTION: VIRGINIA BEACH BEACON PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: 61 lines
SPCA leader defends policy
The final paragraph of a letter to the editor in the June 9 Beacon contains two false but serious accusations about the Virginia Beach SPCA. The first was that we euthanize animals after 10 days. . . that is absolutely incorrect. There is not, nor has there even been a time limit for animals to stay at the Virginia Beach SPCA. Animals remain as long as we have room and the animal remains healthy. Clearly, the writer is misinformed.
The second accusation was that our animals are not kept in clean cages. That statement strikes at the very heart of our mission, which is to humanely care for the more than 5,000 animals brought to us each year. Our shelter is widely known for its cleanliness. In fact, over the past two weeks, we have had visitors from Alaska, Missouri and South Carolina. All these visitors remarked enthusiastically about the cleanliness of the shelter.
More to the point, we investigated this accusation by telephoning all individuals who adopted animals on the Sunday referred to by this letter writer. Those we reached were asked the following questions:
1. How would you rate the overall cleanliness of the Virginia Beach SPCA kennels?
2. Did you notice any or an unusual number of animals lying in their feces or urine?
Not one of the persons with whom we spoke saw animals lying in their own feces or urine. And, everyone of them indicated that the cleanliness of the Virginia Beach SPCA was ``fine'' to ``excellent.''
By and large, when the Virginia Beach SPCA receives a criticism or complaint, we try to learn from it and move on. We deal with thousands of individuals every month and there will be differences of opinion on policies and times when we could have handled a situation better.
The letter from Nicholas Delphia presented a criticism of our adoption policies and raises a legitimate point of discussion. In this fast-paced world, we understand that some families just want to pay their money and take their merchandise. That is acceptable at some places where animals are acquired, but we believe dogs are not underwear. The teen-aged writer's frustration on being ``quizzed'' was evident both in the letter on the day in question. Our effort to encourage most family members to commit to the adoption by a visit or some other means was seen as unreasonable.
Because 70 percent of the more than 5,000 animals brought to the Virginia Beach SPCA are turned in by their owners, we think it would be irresponsible if we did not discuss with potential adopters all the reasons that are routinely given when animals are brought to us, such as ``My husband, father, wife, girlfriend, landlord, etc., is making me get rid of it.'' Shouldn't we try to prevent that situation from happening to the animal again?
When letters to the editor are one-sided and erroneous attacks on individuals or organizations, we believe that it is a misuse of the medium. We believe that individuals who make ill-informed and exaggerated statements because of their frustration should appreciate the damage they do to a charity's reputation. Sadly, maybe that was the point in the case of this letter writer.
We have spent 30 years taking responsibility for our operations and policies and invite everyone to visit the Virginia Beach SPCA and see for themselves.
Sharon Quillen Adams
Executive Director,
Virginia Beach SPCA by CNB