Did You Know?

  • The RC shelter believes killing is the ultimate “act of kindness” and is carried out on  hundreds of young, adoptable /treatable dogs and cats. Killing increased in 2012 even though intake was down.
  • An animal’s death can be labeled as “medical” for something as treatable as a URI (cold), ringworm or Giardia.
  • An animal can be labeled “behaviorally unadoptable” for getting too excited when out of the cage or even staring at another dog.
  • A dog named King suffered for 3 months and died alone in his kennel after staff did not provide proper medical treatment while he was under their “care”.


  • Programs that were once run cost free are now being handled by paid staff, therefore placing the burden on the taxpayers.
  • The City is now requiring all new volunteers to go through an interview and a LiveScan background check.  Whereas before it only required an orientation. These background checks cost $30-40 each, paid by the City, and will result in additional costs that will be paid by the taxpayers.
  • It is standard practice for RC to spay pregnant females therefore killing the babies. Some have even been in the birthing canal when they were killed. These deaths do not count in the shelter’s euth “statistics”.
  • The dismissed volunteers made over 100 adoption videos, fostered bottle babies, started and ran playgroups and training classes, held off-site adoption events, and helped get the Best Friends Grant all at no cost to the shelter!
  • The dismissed volunteers helped save over 50 “at risk” dogs in 2012 through adoption, foster and rescue efforts.
  • Volunteers are no longer allowed to take photos or videos of animals without prior approval from management. What are they trying to hide?
  • That if you exercise your first amendment right to speak out against conditions at the animal shelter, you will be chastised and threatened with being dismissed from volunteer service. But that is only if you are allowed to become a volunteer, because if you do not say the right things in your interview, you will be denied the opportunity to help the animals at the RCAC.

To learn more about "No Kill" advocacy, and how it can be achieved in your community:

There is a better way

  • There are over 90 open-admission, municipal shelters across the country that have achieved No-Kill (some at 98-99% save rate), without increased costs to the taxpayers. 
  • Statistics show that there are over seven times as many people looking to bring an animal into their home every year as there are animals being killed in shelters. Pet overpopulation is an excuse that poorly run shelters use as an excuse to kill treatable animals. 
  • Polices and Procedures can and should be adopted by our City in order to ensure proper care for all animals entering the shelter, regardless of who is Director.  
  • Volunteers are FREE labor, not only saving the City thousands of dollars a year, but getting to know the animals and helping with rehabilitation. A successful Director, with a true goal of No Kill, treats volunteers as an asset, not a burden. 
  • A shelter doesn't have to be perfect, but it does have to be transparent!

To stay updated with the happenings at the RC Animal Shelter, and the efforts of THAT Group, visit our blog, "Shelter Shenanigans"

Under the leadership of  Director Veronica Fincher:
  • 4 long-time volunteers with 3,000+ hours of service and an employee in good standing were fired for speaking out against conditions at the shelter.

  • Playgroups for large and small dogs were cut from 3-4 days a week for each, to only one day a week for each.

  • Training courses that once ran every 6 weeks by volunteers were halted and only one session has been held since December 2011. 

  • That the number of animals killed for “behavior or medical reasons” increased in 2012 by 22% compared to 2011. Even though the animal intake was down in 2012.

  • The number of rescues the shelter worked with was cut in 2012, and 35% fewer animals were sent to rescue compared to 2011.

  • One of the first changes she made was to take away the practice of naming animals. She felt the public would not recognize their lost pet if it had a different name. She also cited that it was, “easier to euthanize an animal that didn’t have a name.” Demonstrating that she is not concerned with what is compassionate towards the animals and the volunteers that work with them.

  • The City Council  Voted for a No Kill shelter in 2005! So why was a new Director who came from a kill shelter brought in to run a  shelter whose goal was to become No Kill? Why are public records requests being heavily redacted? And the recent Grand Jury Investigation has been shown to be one-sided and the shelter had advanced warning of the “surprise “ visits!