Did a staff member/volunteer of Cherryland really just say that they are killing people's pets on purpose when asked? Seriously??? Are people like Ed the kind of people that Cherryland employs? Is this person representative of their volunteers? No wonder the place is such a train wreck. If you are a volunteer or employee, you are becoming a liability to the shelter. You do not make it look any better with your comments. You don't follow the policies in Jenifer's proposal every day - you don't take the animals to the vet for health checks, have foster homes, spay and neuter all of your animals, you don't communicate much with members (I know because I am one) or have open meetings, you don't show up at community events to adopt out your animals...you do the BARE MINIMUM and think you're wonderful. You're not. You may not want to kill animals, but that certainly doesn't stop you, does it. There are many past-volunteers out here in TC. Don't think that you will be able to cover up what you do forever. We can all have a much better shelter and save more cats and dogs. Why wouldn't everyone want that? Get out of the 80's and look around you. Times are changing and Cherryland's policies are from the past.

So E.D., you sound like you are a volunteer, staff member or a board member? It would be nice to have a name with your post to follow up on your information. According to you, you're saying that CHS is voluntarily euthanizing owner animals for people who don't want to go to their vet to do it. Is that correct? I don't believe that is consistent with the bylaws of the organization which state "The Cherryland Humane Society is an organization working to provide a bright and positive future for all pets. Its vision is to provide a responsible, loving and permanent home for every pet, and a heightened public awareness of the benefits of our pets to mankind." Nowhere in the bylaws do I see that they offer a free euthanasia service to the general public. Nor do I think the public wants them to provide this "service." If there is no vet on staff, who is providing this "service"? And does this person look at any vet records of the pet before killing them? Your post was very enlightening and if you are in fact affiliated with CHS, you have only served to verify things about the shelter that a lot of people already believe to be true. It's very sad that those of you who state that you are affiliated with the shelter in some way are the most close-minded ones who are not open to saving more lives. Things don't "have to be done" when you are willing to make changes and you have the resources, which you do. You have the money, you have the space, you have the free offer of help from the Michigan Pet Fund, you have the support of the public and volunteers who would help you...the only thing that is lacking is the willingness. That is up to the board of directors. And if you're all sitting around "laughing" about proven ideas that can save the lives of cats, then it looks like there needs to be a new board of directors.

First... I want to know where "ed" gets his information! As the former canine director for Petsafe... I can assure you that CHS has NEVER taken a petsafe animal and NO foster home has ever turned a petsafe dog over to them!
Second... I was with Petsafe for 5 years and Jennifer had already left. So as much as some of you would love to use Petsafe as an excuse for shooting her down... It's not going to work! Jennifer had NOTHING to do with Petsafes demise. I know that for a FACT! Not from gossip but first hand knowledge.

I would like to say that you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!! I know you would like to think that you know everything about everything you just seem to be that kind of person. I'm sorry to have to be the one to say YOU DON'T. I know what goes on at the cherryland humane society. And the informed citizen is correct. Yeah the one that you attacked like a child, well here you go you got what you were looking for. A fight. This is crazy you should get you facts straight. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT ANYONE THERE WANTS TO KILL ANY ANIMALS? WHY WOULD THEY WORK SO HARD IF THEY JUST WANTED TO KILL ALL THE CATS? And it is true that most of the policy that was in the proposal is in fact in place I follow it everyday. So really just try to do what I do everyday before you open you mouth and attack people.

First I want to say that most of you all have many of the things you are saying wrong. Including the author of this supposed proposal. First she says that she volunteered with petsafe and tried to help them, well look where that got them. CHS has taken in many of the animals from petsafe that the foster parents could not take care of. So instead of irresponsibly spending the money that CHS has put away, on this ridiculous proposal, the money will be used to take care of the animals that petsafe could not. The Cherryland Humane society will clearly tell you that they are not associated with any other humane society or rescue organization. I believe that this is mostly due to liability issues. Which I'm sure none of you have thought of. Also if all of the people on here would like to sanitize over 70 cat cages and 48 dog kennels each morning in under three hours then maybe you can talk about taking on even more animals. Its not easy and everyone involved there are extremely hard working and nobody on here would understand that better than I would. The euthanasia rates are what everyone is all worked up about. Well I can let you know that many of the animals that are taken in and put to sleep are very ill and CHS is not required to take in these animals. CHS could refuse these animals and put the euthanasia expense on the person bringing the animal in. But CHS understands that many people do not have the resources to do that so it is just taken care of. So that the animal is given the most humane treatment possible. Also the author of this proposal says that that there should be written reasons of why each animal is put to sleep. Well guess what there is. She also doesn't understand much of what goes on each day at CHS. I know exactly what happens and what she is proposing is so silly it makes everyone laugh. Putting WILD animals back on to the streets to put people in danger is just stupid. These feral cats are not something that anyone here wants to mess with. They are so unpredictable and dangerous I don't think anyone will do that. Taking a cat out of a live trap is dangerous in it self. One bite on the hand from a cat like that can cause hand amputation. And that is not over exaggeration. Any cat bite can easily get infected more so than any other kind of bite. So I will not be putting my extremities at risk. I mean really do you want that kind of an animal in your neighborhood. I will say that all animals at CHS are evaluated and everything is done to make the best of each situation that is encountered. And every situation that is brought there is considered. I think that this person has way too much time on her hands and next time she submits a proposal she should really do her research at the actual facility she wants to change instead of copying what facilities in very different situations do.I hope that everyone understands that nobody involved at CHS wants to put any animals to sleep. And everyone there would be happy if the animals coming in ran out but that is just not the reality of things. The reality is that some things have to be done that are not always easy but it is right to do. So maybe CHS wont tell you how many animals they put down that day because they like to look at the success stories instead and there are many of them. If you go in and ask they will tell you that they only out down an animal if they are extremely sick or aggressive. And that is true. So before believing everything this supposed expert writes (poorly written I might add) you should try to understand that sometimes reality cant be as simple as certain people think that it could be.

When we first moved here we supported CHS, but when we learned the euthanasia rate, we stopped and joined other organizations. We couldn't more strongly support a sterilizing program as a first step and developing a large base of volunteers that would include fostoring animals. It's not rocket science. It has been done all over the country. We would give and so would large numbers of other residents of this area.

I want to address so many of the opinions, but it's a waste of time and energy that we could be using to help the animals, healthy, sick, feral, etc. Cherryland Humane Society has funds and room to help more animals.
Jennifer, I commend you for everything you have done and are doing.
I have volunteered for animal rescue groups in the area and there are a lot of people that outside of the groups that want to help, volunteer and foster.
I can't believe,with our economy the way it is, how many people in our community (and friends of mine that are visiting from out of town) want to help any and all of the animals.
There should be no argument.

Jennifer, my phone # is 231-342-0633. Please call me and I will help you in any way I can to facilitate the Cherry Land Humane Society become a "no kill shelter."

There are two groups I recommend if they can not.

When a dog or cat is not "adoptable"

Please call HANDDS for dogs @231-360-3647

Please call Un-Cats for cats @ 231-590-1420

If there is an animal at Cherry land that may be put down for one reason or another, I know one of these groups will help.

Bonnie

Leslie,
Thank you for your work for the better care of animals. I take issue with you calling me a negative person. I love animals as much as everyone commenting here. We obviously have different ways of expressing ourselves and on some points may differ completely. As far as I know posting a comment falls under my free speech right. So please, no name calling.

I HAVE read the proposal and all of the posts. I am absolutely FOR Cherryland Humane Society becoming a "no kill" facility. People must understand that there will be times when euthanasia is necessary - cases of severe, untreatable disease, etc - just as you stated. As for my pie-in-the-sky comment, I am a realist. One step at a time and anything is acheivable, but all at once? No way. I applaud CHS for asking Ms. Isbell to make her proposal.
A foster program is a wonderful idea - I never said it was not.
I love every dog that I walk, so please do not belittle my volunteerism. Some of the dogs have never been on a leash. Many of us work on basic obedience as we are out with them. I would certainly volunteer if there were organized obedience classes for the CHS dogs. There was a dog at CHS for 364 days before she was adopted. She is a wonderful girl and had special needs. One day shy of a year at the shelter - NOT euthanized because of her difficulties. Please acknowledge that there are success too. Room for improvement - absolutely!
I stand by my praise for the staff of CHS. They are wonderful people. Can the Board make CHS better - of course.

I have rescued several cats/kittens that were half wild over the years, and know from experience how long it takes to tame these animals. I can't imagine how depresssing it must be for these shelter volunteers to be faced with seeing these animals come in day after day. Every one of the animals I rescued have been brought to the vet and fixed, at my expense. I feel I am doing my part to help control the pet population. Wish I could do more, but every little bit helps.

I find it so infuriating when talking with people who are so irresponsible they let their barn cats/outside cats breed year after year, and the kittens are then half wild, breeding more.

I think that's part of the problem with society today, so many don't want to take responsibility and step up to the plate and help out, they wait for someone else to take care of the problem.

How are "domestic cats in the wild" and "considered wild animals" vastly different? I don't see where that statement warrants an attack. Cats who BECOME wild because of our neglect are indeed wild animals. They cannot be domesticated after a certain number of generations, and are therefore "wild". They do have the value of controlling the rodent population, but because of their alarming ability to reproduce exponentially, a good TNR program is vital. In any case, semantics are a silly thing to fight over. We all have the same purpose - what's best for the animals. Why don't we discuss THAT instead of throwing insults? Aren't we supposed to be the more evolved species?

How are "domestic cats in the wild" and "considered wild animals" vastly different? I don't see where that statement warrants an attack. Cats who BECOME wild because of our neglect are indeed wild animals. They cannot be domesticated after a certain number of generations, and are therefore "wild". They do have the value of controlling the rodent population, but because of their alarming ability to reproduce exponentially, a good TNR program is vital. In any case, semantics are a silly thing to fight over. We all have the same purpose - what's best for the animals. Why don't we discuss THAT instead of throwing insults? Aren't we supposed to be the more evolved species?

I am grateful that we have Cherryland Humane Society and know how difficult it can be to work in a shelter, but we should also be very grateful that Jennifer Isbel has taken the initiative to put forth a plan to improve the outcome of the pets at Cherryland Humane Society and in Grand Traverse County. Instead of being so critical of the no-kill option she has presented, I think it is helpful to highlight some very important details of her plan that would be easy to implement, and also to recognize the problems we have in Grand Traverse County:
1) ALL PETS SHOULD BE SPAYED OR NEUTERED BEFORE ADOPTION. Over-population is one of the main reasons for homeless pets and when Cherryland adopts out pets that have not been neutered, they are contributing to the over-population, not improving the situation. If Cherryland HS were to use some of their excess funds for this initially, I'm sure that additional funds could be raised for this purpose from our caring community.
2)It is my understanding, that being a no-kill shelter means that all adoptable or trainable pets will not be killed. That means that there will still be some euthanization but it would be greatly reduced. Who would object to that? Approximately 60% of cats being euthanized is very high and could be improved upon with the support of the community and by increases in spay and neutering.
3)When the new Cherryland Humane Society building was built, the plan called for 1 side of the dog shelter area to be for the adoptable dogs from our animal control shelter. Somehow that never occurred and I'm not saying it was the fault of Cherryland HS. The stay dogs in GT county are taken to Animal Control, not to Cherryland HS,and unless redeemed by their owners or picked up by a non-profit group, they face being euthanized. Instead the adoptable dogs should be taken to Cherryland. All strays from Leelanau County are taken to Cherryland HS and yet only a small number of Animal Control pets in Grand Traverse County are taken to Cherryland for adoption.
Did you know that? I have wanted to work toward a way to resolve this for years.
TO CONCLUDE: Let's all work together toward a no-kill humane society. We should also work toward a non-kill animal control where our strays are taken to Cherryland. If the strays of Leelanau can go there, why not the strays of Grand Traverse County?
Please help work for improvement - the pets deserve our help.

Dee you must be a pal of Leslie,and as ignorant as she is.. You stated that feral cats are considered wild cats. I called the DNR in Lansing just a few minutes ago. they said a feral cat in michigan is not a wild animal as you stated. It is considered a domestic cat in the wild. A song bird probably makes a good meal for them. You two are hurting Jennifer's cause with you skewed and untrue comments. You shouldn't do that when CHS asked for the plan and is considering it. . You Radicals are hurting her. People are laughing at your comments . Really you cant get anything done raving mindlessly.

If anyone thinks this is impossible, I hope you check out the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kanab, Utah. www.bestfriends.org People told them there was no way and they are celebrating their 25th year this year. Their work alone helped bring the euthanization of animals from 17 million down to 5 million.
It is possible to make CHS a no-kill shelter. TNR...Trap, neuter, release. Our community can do a lot more. We just need to believe we can do it. If we don't try, what does that say about our community?

If you are truly are a vet tech, I would never want any of my animals near you. You are another NEGATIVE person in this thread who obviously hasn't actually read the plan, nor do you have any idea what is going on at Cherryland. YOU are the pie in the sky person. You are a dog walker. Are they killing any dogs or cats in front of you? No. You are seeing the "pretty" side of the shelter. No one cares if you think the people at Cherryland are nice. We care about results. If you read the plan, you'd know there are DEFINITIONS for no-kill. It means an animal won't be killed if it's adoptable. They won't be killed if they are treatable and healthy. So you are saying that you are FINE if a healthy and treatable animal is killed???? Fine. We now know your position. I really doubt that 800 cats last year were unadoptable. I suppose 800 is a good "balance." Better than 1200, right?! Were those cats feral? They shouldn't be taking in feral cats just to kill them to begin with. But I doubt THAT is the explanation anyway. Have you ever tried to catch a feral cat?? So then if they aren't killing ferals then are they killing stray cats? Are they trying to find the owners before doing this? Their stats don't show many cats being returned to owners. Or are they killing cats that were owner surrendered because they need more space? Did they tell the owner who dropped the cat off that this might happen?? NO!!! And why are they killing so many kittens? Are you okay with them doing that too? I suppose that you are also against Cherryland using foster homes to bottle feed those kittens so that they aren't killed? Saving kittens is just PIE IN THE SKY! Or maybe the cats are too sick to save. Hm...could that be because they DON'T TAKE THEM TO THE VET FOR HEALTH CHECKS? I suppose you support that too. You probably also support Cherryland not having dog trainers working with the dogs and volunteers to rehabilitate the dogs with behavior issues? I'm sure you probably see a LOT of dog trainers around when you are walking the dogs, don't you? I'm sick of all you negative people who are okay with the LOW standards of this shelter. They are not even close to doing the right thing in many areas. There are shelters ALL OVER THE COUNTRY who do better. It's not brain surgery. The Grayling shelter can do it and so can much larger shelters than Cherryland. Cherryland has the money to do it. They have the FREE offer to help them do it. They also have a lot of us out here to help them if they do the right thing! Do you know who is missing from this discussion? Cherryland!!!!! They keep saying they adopt out all "adoptable" pets. Bull. It's time for them to step up and defend themselves. If they think that it's more important to take in EVERY animal that comes in their door as opposed to SAVING them, then they need to be honest and say it out loud. We're all getting the message loud and clear anyway. And yes, I'd LOVE a follow up on this story too. Because I doubt Cherryland will make any meaningful changes. And yes, please DO interview the veterinarians. Interview the veterinarians who have offered to work with Cherryland on spay/neutering. And then ask Cherryland why they aren't taking them up on those offers...I'd REALLY like an answer to that question.

If you're not willing to help fix the problem, then you have no say! I have been dong animal rescue(mainly dog) for years. I strongly support NO-kill! Have you ever been there when the Vet sticks that needle in and watch him/her take their last breath? I have! Yes, I have had to euthanize some of the dogs in my care. But it was because of severe illness and it was to stop the suffering, a couple have been from severe aggression issues, that after working with trainers and in ALL cases under the advisement of one or more Veterinarians.
How many puppies have died in your arms, because previous owners didn't vaccinate,(or obviously spay) their pet?
What it comes down to is every animal that is killed it's the fault of the irresponsible owner! Don't attack Jennifer because she's trying to help. Go after the people that think it's "not natural" to spay/neuter! there are low cost programs to help with the cost of spay/neuter. Is it free? no, but the rescues work with some of the local vet for low income families. They also have "wellness hours" for discounted shots & exams for their pets. A local vet just had a low cost neuter clinic just this week!
No animal should leave a shelter un-altered or un-vaccineated! It's just that simple. Distemper/parvo $5-$10, Rabies $15-$18 every 1-3 years, spay/neuter (through low cost programs) $60-$140 only done once! If you cannot afford that then please volunteer at or foster for a shelter for your fuzzy fix!
As far as feral cats... one person stated "Their lives are short and miserable." FALSE! Cats that are living outside can survive outside. Feral means "wild". I guess the raccoons, opossums and all the other wild animals living on our streets should also be "put out of their misery". The only difference is that WE are the cause of feral cats, and there for WE should fix it. There are TNR programs out there to stop them from reproducing. Need more information, contact a local Veterinarian and they can give you the numbers to the local rescues as well as CHS.

I am a volunteer dog walker at Cherryland Humane Society. The staff and other volunteers are the most wonderful group of people I have ever had the privelege to "work" with. They truly love the cats and dogs and at times doing very difficult work. While working toward a "no kill" policy is a good idea, I think it is a bit misleading to be named such. There will be times when CHS has to make the decision to euthanize. As a former veterinary technician, I can assure you that not every animal can be saved. Some of Jennifer Isabel's suggestions are good, others are pie-in-the-sky. Finding a balance is important.
Ms. Fairbanks, if you do a follow-up on this subject, please interview area veterinarians....they are very involved in helping CHS. Many clinics in the area offer a free surgery a month. The folks adopting dogs and cats from CHS are given a substantial discount on spaying or neutering. Karen Mertaugh, DVM recently neutered 13 male dogs from CHS in one day at her clinic - not an inexpensive undertaking. She also volunteers her time and skill to neuter male cats at CHS. There have been times when I have seen a dog I thought needed to see a vet and the next day was treated at quite a discount. It is a shame the CHS does not have a surgery suite - but it was suggested at the time the building was designed, but not included. And the current facility is a FAR CRY better than the little old building CHS used to occupy. Perhaps comparing the statistics from CHS regarding the old facility vs the new facility will put things into a bit more persepctive. Please do a follow-up to this story. Obviously many people are interested.

There are several ways to solve issues. The important thing is that people see the need and are willing to join together and get the job done. Remember that CHS requested this proposal from Ms. Isbell. It is one step of many yet to come that is progressing in the right direction. This should not even be a contentious subject, and it should not be raising the ire of anyone. We should all be nodding in agreement that our communities have a grave problem controlling the pet population and we should be brainstorming ways to make it work, instead of resorting to name-calling and character assassination. As others, I did not renew my membership at CHS this year because of the euthanasia reports. I will be more likely to continue my financial support knowing they are considering the 'no-kill' option.

EXCELLENT job, Diana Fairbanks. You should be very proud of your very diplomatic coverage of this issue. You and Jennifer deserve praise and respect for your efforts. I am so glad that at least some in the public have been made aware of CHS policies and practices, that they are not "no-kill" and need to make efforts toward that end. Yes, it is tough NOT to take in every animal that someone wants to drop off at no-kill shelters. It is a problem shelters face and gently battle every day. Most shelters, when at capacity (and those are many at this time) work with the owners to find alternatives and have pet owners to do some of the work themselves. Ask family and friends if they can take in your dog or cat, run a classified ad, put up posters in your community that you need help placing your pet in a new, loving home. A pet is your personal property in the State of Michigan, and comes with responsibilities, including food, shelter, shots, license, and veterinary care. The shelter should be a pet owner's last resort, not first choice. The person who wrote that all animals should be allowed into all shelters by their owners, whether old and ill, aggressive, untrained, is not looking at the total picture of pet ownership responsibility! Why is it the responsibility of the shelters to euthanize your old, sick dog? Isn't that the responsibility of the owner? Buck up and be there for your longtime buddy when the time comes to say goodbye. There are plenty of vets out there who would help someone with a discount so the owner would be able to do the right thing by their pet. Don't make shelter staff members go through this heartbreak so you don't have to go through it. That is very selfish.
On the subject of feral cats, I believe truly feral cats need to be controlled through TNR spaying and neutering. They have no place in the domestic shelter environment any more than a coyote or a wolf. The MDNR or wildlife conservationists should be handling all wild animal complaints, including feral cats, and not be left for ill-equipped shelter staff and volunteers to handle. These cats don't necessarily need to die. There are plenty of people with deep pockets and time on their hands who would love to help any agency humanely control the feral cat population in every community. You just have to let people know an effort is being made. Feral cats can be good for the ecosystem as predators of mice, rats, snakes, etc. We have made so many changes in our philosophy regarding animal welfare in the past 10 years. We need to keep doing the right thing: Help people be responsible pet owners through low-cost spay/neuter programs and shot clinics. It's time for Cherryland to fully join in this effort.

I believe that if Cherryland Humane Society was genuinely dedicated to the long-term care of dogs/cats and the reduction of homelessness (as they state in all of their literature) then neutering ALL animals before being released to the public would be standard policy. Check Friday's paper when CHS advertises adoptions.... nearly all animals advertised are NOT neutered. This is an incongruent message! You either ARE or ARE NOT committed to the reduction of homelessness. Although the percentages for euthanizing dogs is low--the number for cats is atrocious! Jennifer Isbell's suggestions for a no-kill shelter HIGHLIGHT the opportunities for improvement. I applaud her efforts and the CHS Board's willingness to at least investigate options.

I encourage all of you to read Jennifer Isbell's Proposal presented at Monday's meeting with the CHS Board of Directors. Although lengthy, it's well worth reading, if for no other reason than to promote and direct important questions toward CHS regarding their current policies. I think the stage has been set for our community to hold CHS accountable for their actions, and reasons behind them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand it's difficult for an interested community member to even attend their board meetings. That secrecy promotes rumors and myths. Now is the perfect time for CHS to become transparent to the community within which they serve, and make much needed changes, or explain their rational for not doing so. I also agree with previous comments that the community would become very involved, and could be used as a huge support system for CHS, if their policy became "no kill." There are many successful models from which to begin, as explained in Jennifer's document.

What a bunch of baloney, You really don't know what you're talking about. I haven't seen anything in the papers about CHS turning
down any proposals. I am sure you folks would try hard to get it on the air or in print,no matter what the results. You and your buddy Jennifer seem as though you just want to start an argument between two animal protection groups with out the real facts. You need to calm down and try to state only facts and work with other animal lovers. the "I know everything attitude" isn't going to work.

A friend of mine has helped jennifer and she is very dedicated helping homeless animals no matter where they come from or what shelter or rescue group that they go to. She also helps people who do their own rescue work. I am shocked by you so called animal lovers out there that want Cheryland to keep taking in animals and keep taking in animals whether they are going to be killed or not. There are lots of shelters bigger ones and smaller ones who are able to be no kill. And Cherryland was offered free help to do it? And they still wont? What is the problem? Why? Its going to take time and effort and money and it might not happen overnight but it should be started. Good grief people quit calling yourselves animal people when you support killing animals. And for those of you who keep saying that they are doing their best, they are obviously not.

What can be done with feral cats, injured, sick or aggressive animals. How can any humane society call itself that if it does not do right by the animal. If you really have the interest of the animals at heart you would see the error of your ways. The no kill radicals don't have any answers for what to do with the animals no one wants or can work with. Do we let them loose to run the woods and streets of our towns or do we do the humane thing and put them out of their misery or let them run to continue to breed and reproduce? If you had worked at a humane society you would be able to understand that the only real answer is spay/neuter and until the humane societys are put out of business they must continue to help the public remain safe and secure,so we will not have wild animals running rampunt in the steets. The pro you are working with doesn't seem to understand the REAL WORLD either. I think the work to be done is by the people in the real trenches of this issue and thank God the humane societys are here and codos for all their great work in the communities especially here in Northern Michigan. People here even want their children to observe cats having kittens so their children can see the joy of birth???!!! we all need to look at our own beliefs and do a reality check. SPAY AND NEUTER!!

Why is it that we're so quick to criticize someone with an idea who only wants to improve a situation? Maybe it's not a perfect plan; I've never worked in a shelter or for any such organization, so who am I to say? It just seems to me that those who have a heart for animals could just work together to create a plan that IS perfect.

Different people have various levels of insight from their various experiences. If all of these could work together to form a perfect plan, it could only benefit the animals - and us in the long run.

My suggestion? Skip the criticism and work hand in hand to solve the problem.

I am assuming that L.G. from Rapid City is the same person who brought up Petsafe at the CHS annual board meeting (and is the spouse of a staff member at Cherryland). I will say up front that this may not be the case but I would like to address the comments either way. First of all, I was NOT the "director" of Petsafe. I was a volunteer and then a president for approximately a year. The reason Petsafe closed (years after I left the group) was because of bankruptcy. There were other problems with the group when I was there that could never be changed because of disagreements between the board members. Some of the things I supported while I was there included foster home checks, limits on animals in foster homes, intake decisions being made by more than one board member and other financial & organizational issues. As for your question about where the money would come for CHS to be no-kill...as stated in the plan I submitted, there is $400,000+ in interest income listed in their financial report that could be tapped into while aggressively fundraising and going after grant money (which the Michigan Pet Fund offered to help them with). Once an organization decides to be no-kill, a HUGE amount of resources become available including Maddie's Fund, which requires all animal welfare groups in a geographical area to work together to solve community problems. In addition, although I have not been a staff member of a shelter or humane society, I have volunteered with several no-kill shelters in Tennessee and could certainly see which policies allowed them to achieve their no-kill status. Additionally, I consulted a "professional" in the field who came to the CHS meeting with me. She was from the Michigan Pet Fund Alliance. Her organization assists shelters in becoming no-kill facilities. She not only backed up my plan, she offered further assistance (for free) to CHS should they decide to be no-kill. As for my motives, commitment, reputation or goals for the animals in the Traverse City area, you can talk to ANY of the local rescue groups about me, all of which I have worked with. Even when some of the groups didn't get along, I always maintained good relationships with them and continue to support ALL of the groups in the area, including CHS. I would also like to address the comments about pet owner responsibility. I am totally in agreement on that. That is why part of my plan includes a low-cost spay/neuter program in the area because it is desperately needed. We need to address the problems on the front end instead of only dealing with what happens after the fact.

While "no kill" is a very heartwarming and noble goal for all animal shelters, there are serious issues that need to be addressed before this policy is implemented. First of all, please do not blame the animal shelters for the surplus pet situation. The blame has to be placed squarely on the shoulders of irresponsible pet owners who do not spay or neuter their animals. Nation statistics show 45 cats born for each available home. This makes it virtually implossible to place every animal that needs a permanent home."No kill" shelters can only be no kill by limiting the number and type of pets that take in. To those animals that they know they can find homes for. Old, ill, feral or aggressive animals are routinely turned away. Does anyone care what happens to those animals? A full access or compassionate care animal shelter takes in all the pets brought to them, regardless of age, temperment or health status, And yes, some are euthanized. It is NOT a traagedy when these animals are given a merciful ending rather than being dumped out on the street to die of disease, starvation or being hit by a car. Cats reproduce at a startling rate, if they are not spayed or neutered. A few outdoor cats can become 30 or 40 in one year. Feral cats cannot be brought into someone's home and tamed. Their lives are short and miserable. Most animal shelters that accept feral cats routinely euthanise them. They make up a very large percentage of their total euthanasias. Spaying and neutering our pets is the only solution to this problem. Instead of trying to save every animal the goal should be to spay or neuter every animal. No pets should EVER leave a shelter unless they have been spayed or neutered. Please help your area shelter by donating to their spay/neuter program. By reducing the number of pets born we can all be a part of the solution. Let's work towards the day when there are no surplus pets only happy, cherished ones.

There are both physical and financial limits to what anyone with even the best of intentions can do to help people, let alone pets. The cost to keep an ever expanding population of dogs and cats, and the constant need to enlarge the shelter to house them all is simply unrealistic even in the best of times. Resources would be much better used attacking the cause of this problem, ignorant, irresponsible pet owners who allow their animals to breed unchecked. Until we can change the attitude of these people CHS is doing the best job possible for the animals that come under their care, and they deserve our support and understanding.

They only logical thing in this part of the country is to have a full access shelter, that means they take in all animals, strays, feral and sick besides putting animals down when their owners request due to ill health associated with old age, cancer, etc. The truth of the matter is that feral cats are wild, will bite the hand that feeds them and when you get up to 60 in a day, what do you do with them. People need to wake up and know that the shelters do,what in the long run, the best for these animals, better than starving to death, being eaten by coyotes or run over by cars. Smell the coffee and stop listening to radicals.Unless you have millions of dollars to hire thousands of extra personal and build hugh shelters to care for the hundreds of animals. Check all the figures and know all the facts before committing to inhumane ideas like no kill shelters.

i love animals. i hate seeing cats and dogs having to be put down. but if PEOPLE were more responsible, it wouldn't have to happen. too many people don't get their animals fixed because they don't think it's necessary, or they can't afford it. too many people get animals when they're renting homes and then barely try (if they try at all) to find a new home where they can take their pets. too many people are all too ready to dump off the animals that rely on them rather than doing what it takes to find a new home for them themselves.

raising adoption fees is an ok idea, except most people don't want to or can't pay $100 or more for a pet. there are plenty of places people can get animals for free, and (since we're talking about either low-income people or people who aren't exactly ideal pet owners) where they aren't required to have them spayed or neutered.

if you want to save animals, go adopt them before they *need* to be put down. get the pets you have spayed or neutered, and advise pet owners you know to do the same.

Jennifer has plans to make the shelter like the last organization she was a director at, (PET SAFE). Things really worked out great there, they went broke. Her plan for CHS really stinks. Where would the money come from? She apparently does love animals, but has no idea how to run a shelter.

I DON'T THINK SAVING THE ANIMALS SO THEY CAN LIVE THERE LIVES IN CAGES IS THE ANSWER. IF THOSE EIGHT HUNDRED AND SOME CATS WERE NOT PUT DOWN DO YOU FEEL THAT THERE ARE EIGHT HUNDRED AND SOME HOMES WAITING FOR THEM. TO ME THE ANSWER IS CHARGING A YEARLY FEE IN THE FORM OF A BREEDERS LICENSE TO ANY ONE WHO CHOOSES NOT TO SPAY AND NEUTER. I AM THE PRESIDENT OF A RESCUE GROUP AND ITS HORRIBLE TO SEE WHAT COULD STOP IF PEOPLE WERE MADE TO BE RESPONSIBLE. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE MORE ANIMALS THAN THERE ARE HOMES DUE TO PEOPLES LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS WHERE THE STRAYS COME FROM AND ALL THE FREE KITTIES AND DOGS COME FROM IN THE PAPER. WE AS PEOPLE NEED TO DEMAND A BETTER LIFE FOR OUR ANIMALS. THEY GIVE US SO MUCH.

I worked in rescue for over 20 years while living in the City of Detroit. I learned to take in certain animals because I knew the Michigan Humane Society or the Pound would automatically euthanize them. Not necessarily because they were "feral" or "vicious" but because they were in need of training or were older and considered not adoptable compared to the kittens and puppies. (Although rescued Pit Bulls and Pit mixes are automatically euthanized in Detroit because of the inherent danger of being fighting dogs or guard dogs for drug houses.)
I believe that Cherryland Humane Society could become a "no kill" shelter if the community supported that decision. I would LOVE to see CHS increase their adoption fees. It would not only help the shelter in securing money needed to make sure that every female animal is spayed before leaving the shelter, but it would also help to deter a quick decision in adopting an animal.
I am now in training to become a Veterinary Technician. After obtaining my degree, nothing would please me more than to donate my time assisting local Veterinarians who would agree to donate their services for one or two spays/neuters a month. (If they would like to do more, that would be good, too!)
Contrary to popular belief, there are very few animals that cannot be saved through training. It takes time and effort, but so does properly raising and training a puppy or kitten. An animal is a long term commitment, an investment in time and money and needs to be a carefully thought out decision.
I will end with one of my favorite quotes, by Mahatma Gandhi: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be determined by the way its animals are treated."

It is apparent that "informed citizen" is anything but. It's also apparent that this person didn't read the proposal or the stats on the cat killings. It's people like you who have their head in the sand that help continue HORRIBLE policies. Grow up. It's also disgusting that Cherryland continues to lie to people who bring cats in by telling them they won't be put down. And they lied at the end of the story about trying to find homes for all adoptable animals. Bull. I doubt that those 800+ cats they killed are unadoptable. If they are it's because they got sick at Cherryland and they don't treat them. These cats are just "problems" to those people. Has anyone noticed how many kittens are killed? It's repulsive. They are much easier to adopt out than an adult cat. I hope that they lose donations. It's the only way they will stop. And people need to stop taking their cats there. Wake up - 6 out of every 10 cats don't make it out of that building alive. As for being a non-profit and them having a budget to stick to, you must have missed all the $$ they have and aren't using to save the animals. Once again, repulsive. As for "policy that, for the most part, already exists". Bull again. Take your own advice. Know the facts.

I'm grateful to the lady who finally informed the community that Cherryland is not a no kill facility. I have visited 3 times the first no kill center in the USA, in Kanab Utah, Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, which has been instrumental in the kill rate being dropped from 80 million dogs and cats to somewhere around 10 million in the U.S. every year. Their website and training programs can be a guide for Cherryland to achieve compassionate solutions for caring for homeless animals and finding homes. We are a compassionate community where animals are a part of most of our lives and those of us who have rescue animals can't image our pets being put down. PLEASE Cherryland Board, evaluate the archaic setup we currently have and check out these other centers. Without exception every pet should be neutered before leaving the center. Where is the vet and medical care at the center? Why are they in small cages? Everywhere I look Cherryland is raising money. Yet the shelter is bare minimum standards. So much good can be done with the money using already established models of no kill shelters prevalent around the country. Traverse City's abandoned, injured and abused dogs and cats need our help and more volunteers would step forward if this was a no kill shelter. A nurse friend and I organized Paws Walk 3 years ago with great support from the community, but the group we worked with was way underfunded and disorganized. We had no where to go the next year as we could not in good conscience work with Cherryland. The models of no kill shelters that are spreading across the US reflect our values in Traverse City and are described online. I guarantee you that more funds would become available and most of all more animals saved and found homes if such changes were made. It is a win win for all.

This really makes me sad....and angry! How can the shelter say they are no-kill and still euthanize animals?!?! Who regulates this? Like many, I have always thought CHS was a no-kill shelter...how sad to find out it isn't. Jennifer, I wish you the VERY BEST in your endeavor and I hope 7&4 will keep us updated on progress. Thank you for all you do!

Most animals that are brought into the humane society by families are adopted out again. You have to realize the vast amount of stray or feral cats that are brought in and cannot be rehabilitated. This is a non-profit organization and they do not have endless coffers. They have a budget, which can not handle extremely expensive medical treatments for the thousands of animals they see every year. This woman has no experience working in a shelter, is proposing policy that, for the most part, already exists in the CHS's manual, and is attacking an non-profit organization and staff that make tremendous sacrifices for the animals. Don't forget the human element. They love animals and do the best they can, but sometimes an animal is past the point of no return when you're handling a substantial amount of creatures. Think before you speak, and know the facts, unlike this person who has too much time on their hands and is waging a pointless crusade. Go to a shelter downstate and look at the amount of animals they euthanize, then you'll really know what's up.

I was also told by the employees at Cherryland Humane Society that they do not put animals down. We had lost a cat a couple years ago and we made more than a few trips in there to see if it showed up. We found out later that they do put them down. How is this OK when there are laws about cruelty to animals. As a society, we do not allow people to determine when they die, but we allow them to decide when animals do. I guess it's time to take good old Grandma to the humane society. They'll take care of her.

This topic is very dear to my heart. Having recently adopted a dog from a local rescue group, and having sponsored an adoption event for them, I see how hard volunteers work to ensure these animals' survival.

My adopted pet has food guarding issues, but that doesn't make him any less deserving to live. He is under 2 yrs old and was scheduled for euthanasia in a shelter when HANDDS rescued him.

There will always be animals who are difficult to re-home due to behavior issues. But chances are, a human caused the behavior in the first place. We owe it to them to rehabilitate and find them the right forever home.

If the Humane Society could work with the local rescue groups to find foster homes and to make the animals visible to the public, it would be a win-win situation. A society should be judged on how it cares for its weakest and most vulnerable. Animals have no no say in their own destiny, so we humans need to take this responsibility seriously.

I am one of the greatest lovers of animals( not the ones I put on my plate),and a no kill animal shelter is a bad idea. The cost to keep every animal alive would put too much burden on the community and personel running the facility.It would last only so long before the numbers of volunteers would diminish and cost skyrocket for the shelter.60% is a high number of cats but the process must pick the strongest for survival of the rest, just like mother nature intended.

I am really upset to read this because I was told by the woman behind the desk at Cherryland Humane Society that all pets were kept until they were adopted. That's obviously a line of rubbish. There was a dog that I was very much in love with, and couldn't adopt because the house deal we were working on fell through. I assumed when she wasn't at the shelter anymore that she'd been adopted, now I am wondering if she was put down. That's heartbreaking! I was lied to outright by that secretary. The least they could do is be honest with people.