Llodra Defends ‘No-Kill’ Policy After Critical Reception

By John Voket

First Selectman Pat Llodra permitted three individuals, all affiliated with Newtown’s Canine Advocates, to level criticism about a recently proposed euthanasia policy for the soon-to-be-completed animal control facility before she took a few minutes to clarify that the plan would simply codify and formalize practices that have been in place for almost 13 years.

Going as far as suggesting the town relabel the document a “no-kill policy,” Mrs Llodra said the new facility must have euthanization guidelines in place, in part, because it will be required as part of a feline ordinance currently under review by the Legislative Council’s Ordinance Committee. Without the feline ordinance in place, the municipal animal facility will not be able to take in or keep any cats.

The first selectman opened the January 19 special meeting by inviting public comment, recognizing that a large group of residents were in attendance to hear discussion of the policy. But Mrs Llodra acknowledged that the board would not be taking up the issue that evening, and would instead wait until her fellow Selectmen Will Rodgers and James Gaston, Sr, had an opportunity to fully review the two-page document.

Mrs Llodra also said she wanted to provide more time for members of the public to comment.

“We don’t want to act so quickly so you feel your voice is not being heard,” Mrs Llodra said. “This is not a time-sensitive action, other than [wanting] to have something in place before the new animal control facility opens.”

The first selectman referred to comments made by Mr Rodgers at a previous meeting, saying, “Because we’re writing a policy that strictly controls when euthanasia can be used doesn’t mean we support euthanasia. It means we support a no-kill policy except for very, very specific circumstances.”

She said those circumstances have to be defined and described, and a process has to be developed “so everyone is accountable for that behavior, and that we don’t leave those decisions to chance.

“Leaving policy matters to chance, depending on who’s in the decisionmaking role is not a wise thing to do for any of us,” Mrs Llodra said. “And certainly not wise when we’re looking at the lives of animals that are impounded.” She also acknowledged, however, that such a policy would have to be crafted to keep as many residents “as comfortable as possible.”

Coming to the microphone, Virginia Jess said she was representing the board of Canine Advocates. She said the group has been conducting fundraising for the new town animal facility with the assumption it would be a “no-kill” facility. Ms Jess said she recognized that up to now, there were no such written guidelines.

Longstanding Policy

Ms Jess said that since initiated in 1999 by then-first selectman Herb Rosenthal, an unwritten policy provided that no dog would be euthanized unless it was under “extreme medical duress.”

“Perception is reality, and Newtown residents’ perception is that the town takes a humane stand on euthanasia,” Ms Jess said, adding that her group and its supporters would push for as restrictive a policy as possible. And she said it was critical that such a policy include mandatory participation by a licensed veterinarian.

Additionally, the Canine Advocates were critical of the prospect of the local police department having management control of the facility and staff.

“We ask that the first selectman’s office retain those supervisory powers,” Ms Jess said.

Speaking to the point in the proposal regarding “behaviorally nonsustainable” animals, Ms Jess questioned how animals with significant behavior concerns would be evaluated by an independent trainer.

“What criteria will be used to find a qualified behaviorist and trainer?” she asked, stating that any such person would have to specialize in working with shelter animals. And she wanted to know how the hiring of such a person would be funded since the shelter budget was slated for reductions.

Shelter volunteer and “Saturday dog walker” Jackie Zvon said she was not speaking for the volunteer group, and said her opinions were formed from working with volunteers and the pound.

“We have been a no-kill facility for as long as I remember,” Ms Zvon said.

Ms Zvon said she was proud the town under Mr Rosenthal initiated a no-kill policy.

“Now let me tell you how saddened and ashamed I am of our town’s decision to rescind that policy under Ms Llodra’s watch,” Ms Zvon said. “I don’t speak in euphemisms. The plain truth is our pound is going from a no-kill facility to a kill facility.”

Targeting ‘Bad Dogs’

Referring to behaviorally “nonsustainable” animals, Ms Zvon said under the proposal, she believes the deciding panel would simply be charged with determining which shelter occupants were “bad dogs.” She then related the story of several dogs she knew who may have fallen under that criteria, and who went on to be matched with appropriate owners and who were now thriving happily and without incident.

Eugene Rosen was next, stating that such a policy would be a “highly sensitive issue,” and saying he wanted to understand Mrs Llodra’s thinking.

That prompted Mrs Llodra to remind the audience that the policy has been under discussion for about three months, and that the selectmen were “really curious” because there had been such a lack of public input from residents.

“We’re certainly not trying to create a kill facility — that is not the intention at all,” Mrs Llodra said, adding that the proposed policy would enforce accountability related to the status of compromised animals in the shelter.

“We’ll just retitle this to say this is a no-kill policy,” she said. The first selectman also confirmed that euthanasia would not be used to handle shelter overpopulation, and she did not feel an assessment to determine whether an impounded animal would be a risk to other animals or humans was unreasonable or unusual.

“I feel very strongly that we are at greater risk without a policy, than we are with one,” she said. “But we need to say it in a way that doesn’t frighten people or make people think we are trying to do something that’s harmful.”

Mr Rodgers said he knows of other communities that were exposed to liabilities because they did not have such a policy. And he likened some of the controversy to the introduction of sex education in schools, saying many critics believed at first that it would promote promiscuity.

“We anticipated this would be greeted with suspicion. All we tell you is look at the language of the policy — look what it says. Don’t go to trying to read between the lines,” Mr Rodgers added. “We’re not [ratifying a policy] to use it. We’re doing it to provide cover and sustainability in terms of liability protection, and possibly as a last recourse if it has to be used.”