Circumstances surrounding the Kosciusko Animal Shelter are unfortunate.

First of all, I want to make it clear that at the Gerard house, we like animals. We own a couple dogs. One is a Norwegian elkhound. The other is a Yorkshire terrier. (Have you ever heard that you don't really own a Yorkie, a Yorkie owns you? It's true.)

Over the years, we've had cats, hamsters, a rabbit or two, guinea pigs, hermit crabs and fish. So I am no stranger to the bond between pets and their owners.

That's why I fully understand that all those involved in the issue surrounding the shelter are dedicated and well-meaning.

But for whatever reason, some folks have gotten a little out of control.

I am referring to a letter to the editor that appeared in this newspaper this week. The letter writers all but accused the board of directors of the now-disbanded Humane Society of lining their pockets with money meant to go to animals.

That is patently and overtly false. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I bear responsibility here because I published the letter to the editor. Frankly, I have always been a big supporter of letters to the editor. I have always felt very strongly that the letters page should be a forum for anyone to voice an opinion - no matter how wacky or offbeat that opinion might be.

But there are lines that can be crossed. Insinuating that the Humane Society board members personally gained from their management of trust money crossed the line.

I guess one becomes desensitized to these things. After looking at hundreds of letters to the editor, it's easy to overlook the insinuation, the innuendo. It would have been easy to edit out the insinuation. But failing that, I think it is only fair to set the record straight.

James Butts, John Bauman and Cathy Teghtmeyer were board members of the Humane Society. The Humane Society received $208,000 from an estate. The couple that left them the money had no children, but really loved animals.

The couple wanted the money to go to help animals.

The Humane Society had a closed membership and wasn't particularly active. The Animal Welfare League had lots of members and was much more active in the community. In fact, AWL approached the county and offered to take over operation of the county animal shelter.

Problem is, things aren't going as well as planned at the shelter. They're in a bit of a financial pinch. So some AWL members thought that the Humane Society ought to fork over the money to the AWL.

In the meantime, Butts, Bauman and Teghtmeyer have to figure out what to do with the money. (It's not like these people don't have anything better to do, by the way.) They decided - and I fully agree with them - the best thing to do would be to turn the money over to the Kosciusko County Foundation.

The foundation would manage the money. A portion of the interest earned by the money would be turned over to the animal shelter each year regardless of who owns or operates it. The rest of the interest earned would be added to the principal so the fund will grow.

Who could argue with that? It's perfect. And I am sure the people who donated the money also would be happy about it.

Of course, all this was chronicled in stories in this newspaper. Nonetheless, some people choose to remain uninformed.

So please, let's dispel the notion that these Humane Society board members somehow gained personally from the money donated for the good of animals in Kosciusko County.

Now, I suppose one could argue that the Humane Society should have just turned all that money over to the AWL.

What would the AWL have done with the money?

If they were smart, they would have set up a trust so the money would earn interest. A portion of the funds would go to the shelter each year and a portion would be left for future growth.

Hmmm. What a coincidence. That's exactly what the Humane Society did.

The dumbest thing that the AWL could have done with the money is spend it on operating expenses at the shelter. That would have depleted the funds in a few short years, leaving nothing for the future.

Bad idea.

If that's what these letter writers want, they're off base. The money needs to be managed, not spent. Who better to manage it than the Kosciusko County Foundation. An organization far, far above reproach.

I believe the Humane Society board members did the right thing.

I admire the AWL's enthusiasm and I applaud their efforts. They are working hard to make the shelter a better place but they're finding out it's a daunting task.

When they took over the shelter, they vowed a "no kill" policy. They were going to make sure every animal was adopted. That was a noble goal.

But I honestly think it was misguided.

Unfortunately - and remember, I like animals, too - it is my considered opinion that euthanasia is as much a part of animal control as spaying and neutering.

I think that a "no kill" policy tends to abrogate the responsibility of pet owners. Think about it. It's OK to drop off little Spunky at the shelter because they will find a new home for him, right? I would guess that the possibility of little Spunky's demise served as a deterrent. Some people probably balked at a trip to the shelter for just that reason. They couldn't bear the thought of little Spunky being put to sleep.

Of course there are the animal slobs who will dump an animal along the road. You aren't going to reach those folks no matter what you do.

I also think the county bears some responsibility here. The old axiom "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" comes to mind. Yeah, sure, the county saved some money - somewhere around $130,000 a year - by turning over the animal shelter to the AWL. But is the level of service what it used to be?

I hate to admit it, but this is a case where (boy, I really hate to admit this) government is better suited to handle the problem than the private sector.

That was really tough for me to type, but it's true. I am a fanatical devotee of privatization. But some things, I guess, are just better left to local government. Animal control is one of them.

The shelter doesn't necessarily have to be owned by the county, but I think whoever owns it should be under contract with the county. There is no way an animal shelter could ever cover operating expenses with drop off and adoption fees. No way. Even with lots of volunteer help, they would always fall short.

If they raise the adoption fees, fewer people adopt. It defeats the purpose. Revenue decreases. If they charge drop off fees, people dump more animals along the roadside. Then the shelter has to incur the cost of picking them up.

Frankly, I think the county needs to be more involved. It was a nice try. It was nice for the county to think that it could all but wash its hands of animal control. But it isn't working. It's time for the county to ante up and help out the AWL or whoever runs the shelter.

And it's time for us humans to stop throwing darts at each other over this.

After all, it's the animals that we're supposed to be helping.

Gary Gerard is vacationing for two weeks. News Views will return Aug. 6. [[In-content Ad]]