(Understand this is only one person's perspective, also consider this note is consistent with the many calls I've received from employees and volunteers. I don't recall ever personally meeting this employee. The author did sign but I think the request for anonymity is reasonable):
Good evening everyone.
I want to start by saying that I have been an employee of the City of Chicago Commission on Animal Care and Control for the past several years. I wanted to respond to some of the comments made, both by fans of Mr. Dale, as well as supporters of Ms. Travis, as well as citizens who are expressing outrage over the WGN News story from last night.
First, to say that the union employees there are lazy is shortsided and out of line. We work extremely hard for the citizens of Chicago. Of course, we have some co-workers that probably should of chosen a different career, but you will see that in pretty much every workplace. We all have co-workers that we would want to see go elsewhere.
The fact is that ACC is severely shortstaffed, and has our budget cut each year since I first started there several years ago. We had to lay off MUCH needed kennel and veterinary staff. We are operating at 30% strength in our field and investigative operations (which is why we have to respond to ONLY calls of an immediate public safety concern..stray dogs are not considered priority). We operate at the best of times only 3 vehicles on the night shift. We only have about 18 animal care aides, so those are spread pretty thin. Our alderman and mayor do not consider ACC to be a priority, so funds are sent elsewhere. The mayor has even equated us to garbage men. That is his mindset when he thinks about ACC.
We are also receiving more animals this year, then we did last year. We are simply overwhelmed.
However, what was said last night by "Peter" on the news story is completely accurate. We have not had this severe a problem with overcrowding in several years, since Nikki Prostous was there. The new director, Cherie Travis, came on board December of 2009, and things very quickly got out of hand. Let me give you folks some facts concerning her decisions:
1. She will not allow staff to euthanize a severally injured and/or sick animal without consulting her first, getting her OK, and then ONLY after attempting every medical treatment option, some of which are extremely expensive. These animals are then being treated in the same pavilions that house healthy animals. Very stupid thing to do, especially with cats, and the disease WILL spread!
2. She has called staff lazy, incompetent, stupid, not knowing their jobs. I have been in meetings where she screams these things at her subordinates. How can you expect staff to work for you when you fail to respect them? In one case, she went to the home of an employee who was sick, entered his house without permission, and proceeded to scream obscenities at him while he laid sick in his bed. The employee is currently suing the city over this, and it is under "investigation". She treats her staff like trash...causing quite a few to either go on medical leave due to the stress, or quit outright. She then brings her friends in, as she was overheard saying "My friends need jobs too."
3. She has not allowed staff to euthanize severally aggressive dogs, some of which were involved in serious bites to little kids. She wants those dogs assessed and then sent to rescue. This is not the mission of an animal control agency. Our goal is to PROTECT THE PUBLIC from vicious and dangerous animals, NOT to put them back on the street.
4. She has been witnessed pulling owners that come to complain they got a ticket, to the side, and then telling them how to get out of the ticket at their court hearing.
So what happens, is that the facility fills OVER capacity, as Ms. Travis will not allow staff to euthanize the aggressive and/or sick animals.
I also want to give a couple more facts...
1. Despite what people want to believe, our euthanasia numbers BEFORE Travis came were actually going down, even with the increase in animals.
2. We were NEVER this full until she came in.
Rescues were coming in force daily to get our animals. Now, we might get three or four a week, and they will only take the small breed, easily adoptable animals. Sorry, this is a fact!
I could go on and on about Ms. Travis. None of this is personal in nature, they are facts. She does not need to be the director of a major cities animal control program. She would be better suited to running her PACT Humane Society, and being an advocate for the animals, as I do believe that she has an great energy for that.
This is a governmental animal control agency, folks. What does that mean? Well, I think people want ACC to do the same functions as a humane society does. The two are completely different in what they do. I want to clarify to everyone what an AC agency is supposed to do.
It is not just being all about the animals, folks. Well, it is to some extent, but the real mission of an AC department is to remove stray, vicious, unwanted animals from the public streets, so they are not breeding and overpopulating, which causes risks to the public, both in disease and animal bites. We have taken on the new mission of investigation and prosecution of cruelty and dogfighting, as most AC departments are now doing after demands from the public for us to do it. We are very good at both missions, and I am proud of my co-workers for getting these missions accomplished, even being shorthanded as they are!
Filed under: animal shelters, cats, dogs, pets, veterinary health
Tags: Cherie Travis, Chicago Animal Care and Control, Steve Dale archives
Thank you for speaking out on behalf of the animals and the public, it was a brave thing to do. I have a question for you, can volunteers come in to help clean the cages, clean the rooms; and help with the animals or does it have to be a union person?
I would love to see a rise in spay neuter in Chicago as a result of this segment, that would help a lot. Perhaps some legislation to require spay/neuter for all "pet" animals?
Yes, thank you ACC commenter, what is being stated is FACT although we all know that it borders on the surreal and therefore seems exagerated, and it is now publicly documented fact. Please, I ask all of those who support Cherie, what is being done is not no-kill. Nathan Winograd had Maddie's Fund and tremendous resources and support and resources when he took San Francisco no-kill. The no-kill movement for large city pounds cannot be addressed the same way as Humane Societies address the movement. Keeping animals in unsafe and unsanitary conditions is just wrong, and if any of us no-kill people saw this in a person's home we would call that person a hoarder and deal with them appropriately. As for dangerous dogs, we have a limited number of homes and an oversupply of dogs, why place dangerous dogs when other nice ones languish and die? Remember, CACC isn't the only shelter that rescues pull from, by placing a dangerous dog with a rescue then you are likely killing one more friendly dogs that deserve a good home by taking their spot in a safe place.
Toronto Humane had a similar situation happen and the government actually prosecuted the leadership and board. Let's not give the no-kill movement a bad name.
BTW Iluvchicago, Spay Neuter has been very, very active for the last ten years. PAWS spays as many as 10,000, the AntiCruelty Society around 12,000 and the smaller clinics like Tree House's and Animal Welfare another 2500 or so each year. Even Cherie's free PACT s/n days bring in about 1250 more each year. We are finally spaying and neutering twice as many as we are euthanizing. The problems are complex and different in a pound. Poverty is a big issue, breeders are even worse who supply inner city pet stores that sell animals that are not s/n'd on credit terms to the ignorant public who then let these animals breed.
Please consider being an animal educator, you can speak to Chicago's schools and public through PAWS Chicago's program. We need to get the word out about responsible owenrship
I applaud all the spay/neuter organizations and efforts throughout the city, you are doing a great job, the numbers quoted above, if accurate are astounding. As you stated the problem is complex and multi-faceted, one solution is not going to fit all shelters. Keep up the good spay/neuter work. I would be interested in becoming an animal educator.
Thank you to this employee; this WAS a brave act.
Did Chicago have any doubt, when it hired a known Animal Rights Activist who had NEVER had experience running a shelter or any governmental department, let alone one charged with public safety, that this would end in disaster?
Stop positions from being BOUGHT by extremists and activists. We need to conduct a FAIR search of individuals who are QUALIFIED and experienced - Chicago is too large for a "test run." We have a dogfighting epidemic that MUST be a focus - does Travis have any experience or idea how to combat this? NO. Her background is in teaching college students how to join PeTA.
Get real, Chicago and do something on the up and up for once. When we're talking about suffering animals and danger to the public, action MUST be taken.
How disgusting...someone complaining that dogs aren't immediately KILLED for biting. Thankfully, the shelter I adopted my four from believe that there are reasons animals bite and I was able to adopt them and make them family members..oh yeah, two bit children.And there was an explanation each time.
And to try and actually save a sick animal...what a concept..
To all of you that see a problem with trying to save animals, especially this city employee, you shouldn't be working with animals. Winograd didn't have any a ton of resources, what he had was belief in the animals and compassion, which obviously none of you have for these animals. It is so much easier to kill then to try to make a difference. Lazy and heartless...not a good mix for the animals. They have so little people that are truly there for them. Protect the public...how noble of you. In real words, kill them so we don't have to spend the time working with them and rehabbing them.
Don't ask Steve about helping out. He won't even admit he hasn't been in the building since Cherie took over. He says I am turning it on him. He won't admit he hates her so he won't try to help the animals over there. He would rather help get rid of Cherie. People like that are part of the problem, not part of the solution. You want to help Steve..make a difference for those animals. Show us your heart is bigger than your ego. I would go stand right beside you and do whatever work needed to be done. How about it?
Dana, cut the BS out, only you and Karen are tooting Cherie's horn right now. This is about the animals, not Steve or Cherie's ego or anyone else's. Seriously stop the personal attacks, they just make you look really petty since they have no substance.
"Anonymous" - until you decide you can back up your statements with your name, then I have no time for you. Everything I say, I can and would back up. You are right it is very much about the animals. And here you have an employee complaing about animals actually being given a chance to live by not killing them based on someone saying they have bitten or by them trying to get them healthy. Not every story is as it seems all the time and when it is, there is often a reason it happened. Thankfully Cherie is on the animals side and is willing to try to save those dogs. Three months ago we rescued a shih-tzu from CACC that had bitten a little girl in the face. If it weren't for Cherie and what she is trying to do the dog would have been killed immediately. That dog is a wonderful sweet loving dog and even the person who works at CACC that puts the dog on RO, said something had to have happened to provoke that dog. She was adopted by an adult only home and is doing great. I get updates from them all the time. If you do the work you say you do you also know that people often lie when they relinquish animals. We have had people say an animal bit and then we found out that it never happened, but they said it so they wouldn't look bad giving the animal away.
I have not made any personal attacks. I have challenged you to be "man" enough to say who you are. I have challenged Steve to actually do something (and you also) to be a part of the solution, not the problem. Cherie is and always has been for the animals. I know her personally and consider her a friend to me and the animals. If she were not for the animals, I could not consider her a friend of mine. I will back up any and all statements I have made. I will always be there for the animals and I will always stand behind those that I know are also for the animals. If you think I am petty, so be it. If I am doing in what I believe in is right for the animals, I don't care what you call it. I will toot Cherie's horn, because I believe in her and what she is doing. On this page you have an employee complaining because Cherie is trying to save lives. Those pictures, anonymous, have no stories with them. Cherie asked and would have loved to have been able to explain. We have had cats come in the shelter looking like that. We have had dead animals brought to us that we tried to revive. We have had cats and dogs pass away at the shelter, not due to lack of care, but because it was their time. We have cats in our iso rooms that are sick but are under doctors orders and being treated. In the mornings the kennels look not so appealing wtih feces and urine in them. Go to Orpans of the Storm and some other shelters and you will find two dogs sometimes to a kennel. Just because there is two doesn't mean it's a bad thing if they have the room. If you could talk to a cat and ask him if he was ok spending a day or two in a carrier or if he would prefer being killed, what do you think the answer would be. I have done two day transports where the dogs had to be in carriers for extended periods of time. I didn't like it, but guess what...they were alive. Remember the other option to all of this is DEATH. These aninmals would be KILLED and its sad that you and Steve, as animal welfare advocates, seem to be ok with that. And again, Steve, hasn't even been through the doors of CACC since Cherie took over. He has no right to say things he doesn't know about. Getting information second and third hand can be very stupid and dangerous. Anonymous...get the stories behind those pictures, then I will talk with you. Otherwise I feel talking to you is a waste of time that I should be spending saving more lives, not to someone who seems to support killing them. You have proven that by saying Chicago shouldn't be trying to go no-kill. Talk to Nathan Winograd. See how he feels about that.
I will talk to Nathan Winograd and his wife, Jennifer. They are friends of mine, and believe me, they would never condone the conditions or how Cherie has treated her employees, volunteers and rescues that come in. Until then, I like so many others out there are afraid of her and am not ready to reveal my true identity yet.
I know this is an old thread, just wondered if after a few months of living with Nathan's ideas and the reality of the pain he causes, you are still friends ? He is inhumane in the conditions he generates for the animals and those caring for them.
This is biggest bunch of crap I have ever heard. I am with an adoption partner who has pulled animals this past year. Travis has been professional and always finding ways of trying to save "just one more." You really want us to believe that:
1. the director verbally abuses her staff, but the the city of Chicago hasn't disciplined or suspended her? If it is so widespread, why wouldn't she have been fired? The city would never allow this.
2. Ms Travis is the cause of a lawsuit because she went to an employee's home and screamed obscenities? If that were even remotely true, wouldn't that employee have called the police? Did they? If someone came to my house, forced their way in and yelled at me, I'd dial 911, and there would be evidence of a police report.
3. Ms. Travis requires herself to sign off on euthanasias? Is that documented? The building employs veterinarians; I doubt a lay person is going to go over a vet's head and make euthanasia decisions.
4. Ms. Travis refuses to euthanize aggressive dogs. How about you provide a specific example. And, does she perform euthanasia? How is it that she refuses?
Where is the proof on your "facts"? You sound like a disgruntled employee making bizarre, outlandish claims that could not possibly be true; it sounds like office gossip that has gone out of control. If they were, you could PROVE it. Maybe she has called you out for not doing your job appropriately. Maybe you are of the opinion that all animals should be destroyed after 3 days so you don't have to clean cages. I don't know what your motivation is, but it's not in pursuit of the truth, because you provide no EVIDENCE.
You are so wrong. This employee is telling the truth! There is documentation on her requesting animals to be doubled up. She has no clue on how to be a commissioner. She is only letting people on the outside see what she wants. She is fooling you all. Only the employees know the truth because they live it. The head of this shelter should step down, she has prosecuted others directors at other shelters for the same conditions that are at ACC. There is EVIDENCE there. The city just has to go get it.
If you would Advocate, allow me to respond:
1. There are pending HR and Inspector General investigations in to her behavior. Don't believe me, do a FOIA. All public record folks. She is also pretty protected due to a deputy commissioner at HR being a DePaul classmate of Cherie's, as well as lots of clout in the mayors office. Travis has even admitted in front of several people that she has been a "bit*h to people". How hard is it to be nice to people? Even when holding them accountable...be professional about it!
2. The police were there when Travis did what she did. She was not invited in to the employees home. The cops were there doing a well being check on the employee. She was asked to leave, and the cops escorted her out. This is pretty common knowledge among the employees at ACC, everybody knows about it. People are being quiet frankly out of fear of Travis going bezerk on them.
3. She is the director, Advocate, she can require pretty much anything she wants to. If she wants to approve the euthanasia list before the shelter manager assigns it to a supervisor, she can certainly do so.
4. She wants every animal evaluated before euthanasia. Seems reasonable, right? Well, it would be, except in cases where the animal rips up a little kid, unprovoked.
Also, Advocate, I am not going to cite specific examples, hence Cherie reading this (and I KNOW she is reading this, finding out exactly who I am, and she comes after me. She is tenacious and vindictive, and I am not the first to say this either now or in the past.
Am I disgruntled? Not really....my moral sucks, my coworkers moral sucks. I still show up every single day, and I work my tail off for the citizens, because that is what I swore an oath to do. So no, Cherie has no reason to call me out on anything, because I do my job. If that is being disgruntled, then fine...call me that.
What is my motivation? To wake people up. I don't have a personal problem with Cherie at all. Her heart seems to be in the right place, and I have no issue with that. It is just when her heart is not in the RIGHT location. We're governmental animal control. Does that mean I want to see every animal die? No. Of course I don't!
First off, it is offensive of some of you to even assume that staff at ACC want to kill animals. We don't. It kills us a little bit at a time every single time we put an animal down. We despise it. I have personally put down puppies with parvo, and was in tears while doing it. Can any of you put yourself in my shoes, and empathize with that? Have any of you done it yourselves?
But we also understand that there are too many animals, some of which are really sick, or really aggressive due to the stupidity of their owners, so yes, euthanasia is a needed evil. I do not have the "save them all" mentality. So if you must demonize me, please...have at it. I am freaking realistic. There are not enough homes for these animals either folks...hence why ACC's adoption numbers suck right now.
My motivation is to get the Mayor to actually get someone with ANIMAL CONTROL experience in to our department. I had issues with Anne Kent...she was a nice lady, but had no idea what she was doing. Nikki? Again....no clue. The last director we had that actually knew how to run an animal control agency was Dr. Parmer. Even if Cherie was the most friendliest person on Earth, I would still be saying what I am saying. The problem is that when you belittle your people, disrespect your people, and kick them when they are down....they are going to talk.
Ask yourselves why people are talking before you decide to demonize them.
I had thought I was through with this page and yet feel compelled to check back. The courage of the employee trying to defend his shelter is amazing. I live with a No Kill public intake shelter and it's as bad or worse that what this person is describing. The animals are pushed out the door to anyone, and there are no home checks. Winograd doesn't like homechecks, they mess with his numbers. The truth is out there for people willing to look, No Kill is an absolute failure, I can say that because I live with it. All the resources are pulled from the field into the " adoption process" and you have never seen or smelled anything like it. We have cats stacked to the roof, dangerous dogs released, and dogs released into dangerous homes. We were a nice community with a great shelter until Winograd came in with his snake oil and asked the county to bend over. Cherie Travis, I don't know, but her evil twin lives out west.
Where is the "Friends of the Chicago Animal Care and Control" organization? Seems they might have some input in the current fiasco. They have a lot of fundraiser type events coming up and it looks like they're sincere in their efforts to help where the city falls short.
http://www.fcacc.org/
Unfortunately, this is is what the sad state of Chicago animal welfare, the conversation has turned from questioning how a shelter is run to to either you are for no-kill or against it. End of the day this should be about Ms. Travis work, period, is the shelter better off since she has been there? If she saved one life what was the cost to the other animals in there? Frankly even if she was a saint her work should be evaluated, just the best way to make sure the job is being done properly.
By the way, the no kill movement can be a goal without having to be achieved, it is a dog by dog, cat by cat, program by program reduction of needlessly killed animals & figuring out what works best daily trial. I don't know of any other welfare program where it is so O.K. to say " Lets just help like 50% cause 100% is not an achievable goal" . Imagine if the american cancer society came out and said cancer was not 100% curable so they are just going to go for the ones they knew they would cure. They help who they can and strive for more. Sad part is this has made many animal advocates express how much no-kill can not happen, so less and less are going to try.
It needs to be clearly defined, what no-kill means. I think that there are too many opinions on the subject and not enough fact. Does it actually mean to NOT kill anything? Or is the true nature to lower euthanasia of adoptable animals? What is an adoptable animal? What is not an adoptable animal? Is it arbitrary, or are there actual guidelines to follow?
Those questions need to be answered.
This is from the National Animal Control Association:
Animal Facility Capacity Limitations
Approved: 06/04/05
Guideline Statement
NACA recognizes certain municipal and privately run facilities tend to under-utilize euthanasia practices because of changes in management, philosophy, or national trends that are based on "long term housing."
Basis for Guideline
Animals should not be held in overcrowded conditions nor held for excessive time periods that may be mentally or physically detrimental to the animal's welfare. NACA recognizes that municipal and privately run facilities must maintain euthanasia practices in order to control overcrowding problems including disease transmission, behavior degeneration, and overall health problems.
Guideline Recommendation
NACA recommends that each animal holding facility understand their maximum holding capacity and develop sincere policies to avoid these problems that may be considered inhumane themselves.
Amen
I am the first to admit the No-Kill name is to attract people to the speakers and movement, much like Pro-Choice, Pro_ life, ect. but having some knowledge of the movement I am confused on where you need more definition, would it be information from the book, website, or many conferences held to try and inform people on finding resources, implementing programs, and other ways to stop the needless killing of animals. Now if you want to talk about what needs clarification, that is a different story. How many rescues or shelters have actual guidelines on what constitutes an animal that is too aggressive, to medically needy, and my favorite too anxious to lead a happy life? It does not have to be definitive, this is life after all, but what happened to the basics, this dog needs this this shelter provides it. One of the big changes that need to come is in defining the behaviors and needs of the dogs better, on all ends, when they come in and where they end up. Unfortunately, as my point was before, there are too many people already resigned to the fact dogs and cats will die to ever make effective changes.
You seem like a bright fellow, I hope you continue your research. Most of us in the animal care field are here because we care, some are to emotionally involved to be effective. Some are just delusional. The whole No Kill theory is based on some other civilization where people are waiting for cast off animals to come their way. Just because there are 2 million residences, does not mean that 2 million animals will live in them. Some folks don't want a pet. If No Kill would go to shelters that need help it might seem reasonable. That is not the way it works, they need government contracts and buildings in place. It is not self supporting and remains a leach on the back of every municipality it locks onto. A parasitic movement that causes animals to suffer from being kept in crowded conditions and often way to long. The mandate of ACC is to protect the public, and provide a safe kennel experience until it is reclaimed, rehomed or PTS. The government cannot and should not support an animal sanctuary. Rescue agency should be in the rehoming business, not the government.
What is even more discusting is when someone is complaining about dogs that aren't immediately KILLED for KILLING!! In January there were pitbull dogs that killed a man and were not put down. This man was the owner of these dogs. He was killed and Cherie Travis let these dog live. I find that outrageous. These dogs are in someone's home and can kill again. How does she sleep at night knowing these killer dogs are out there?! She is willing to let killer dogs live but at the cost of a human being's life. And this is the head of ACC? The person that is suppose to protect the public?
I doubt this - but if you can prove this, please contract me privately.
So what are we talking about here. Animal welfare or Cherie Travis' mental state? People who suffer from deep emotional disorders often get themselves into positions of power.I guess that will all come out in the wash.
....I mean look at Goerge W. and Mayor Daily...