Employees charge that animal sanctuary euthanized animals to cut costs

Employees for the Dancing Star Sanctuary claim that they were given a list of 30 animals, with another list of 20 to follow, of elderly horses and burrows to euthanize. The aim of these mass euthanasias, the former employees claim, is to reduce costs of feed, medicine, and veterinary bills.

Upper management contends that this is not true, and state that they simply had a “wave” of elderly animals whose time to be put to sleep, for humane reasons, had all hit at once. They state that these claims are simply a matter of disgruntled ex-employees. One of the employees still worked for the organization when he spoke out against his superiors, and was promptly fired 24 hours later.

Having been in this business for 12 years, and also having been on the Human Resources side of things, I can see where both sides of the story are plausible. I have witnessed disgruntled ex-employees make outrageous claims. I have also, unfortunately, seen executives that are entrusted with the financial decision-making in a charity organization flagrantly abuse that power.

So how do we know who is depicting the most accurate story?

Sanctuary spokesperson, Roger Gillott stated that sanctuary executives had examined the herd and determined that many animals needed to be put down. While they are having qualified veterinarians do the euthanasia, I find it suspect that it was the executives, and not qualified veterinarians, who examined the animals and ultimately made the decision to euthanize them. Why was it not a qualified veterinarian who did the examinations and made the determinations? Looking at the biographies of the executives at the sanctuary, none of them list any background that would suggest that they are qualified to perform medical examinations on an animal.

In the State of California, any person deemed the “owner” of an animal can request the animal be put to sleep regardless of whether it is an animal that needs it, or not. In fact, when an owner surrenders an animal to a city or county shelter, and requests that the animal be put to sleep, the shelter *has to* comply, even if the animal is young and adoptable.

With that in mind, I can’t help but wonder if the executives made the determination to put these animals down and then contacted a veterinarian, knowing that it would be done simply because they requested it. Of course the veterinarian can refuse, but I have known plenty of veterinarians (even worked with some) who would do it regardless, and I don’t think it was probably difficult for these executives to find a veterinarian willing to euthanize animals who really didn’t need it yet. Especially if it was a veterinarian with whom they had worked for some time.

The fact that industry standard operating procedures were not followed in this circumstance of mass euthanasia is concerning, and it makes me more inclined to believe the employees. It is unfortunate that the fate of an animals life can fall into the hands of unscrupulous people who are there to protect the animals, but that is sadly sometimes the cold reality.