Animal Shelter Donations

I was in town yesterday to work and was introduced to the neighbor of my client. I was questioned about the GF Animal Shelter by the neighbor who had visited this site.

I was told that the old shelter building had a brand new sign and everything was now being sent out under the title "GF Animal Shelter". The neighbor was concerned about a post on this site that read:
Eva said...

Pet Portrait Tidbit-
I just had my 2 dogs and cat "pose" for their pictures with Nancy and Jack Logozzo - They are wonderful to work with and the entire proceeds from their pet portraits are donated to the Animal Shelter to spay and neuter pets. Really --- They asked me to make my check out to the Animal Shelter- Nothing went to them- Wow!

August 27, 2007 7:39 PM

The neighbor, who had donated to the Humane Society Shelter & GFAF (Animal Foundation) in the past, said that money donated to the current animal shelter would, to the best of their knowledge, just go into the general funds of the city and not, specifically, for spay/neuter.

This person went on to say that they were extremely upset for the following reasons:
1) The city had not set up, and voted on creating, a specific fund to accept donations for the shelter & so the money was not guaranteed to get to the animals and they wondered if the Logozzos were aware of this as they solicited funds in good faith and if the couple were truly raising funds for spay/neuter then the checks should be made out to the Spay/Neuter Task Force - NOT the city shelter.

I must say I couldn't find anything in the online city records to disprove the statement and guaranteeing the funds for spay/neuter use. I did, however, find the following: Under Montana Law (Legal Opinion 2001-09) the city is allowed to "(7) solicit and accept bequests, donations, or grants of money, property, services, or other advantages and comply with any condition that is not contrary to the public interest; (emphasis added)" However, it is usual in these circumstances of land, water rights, etc., to vote at a public meeting to accept these "gifts".
So, unless this specific non-profit entity is/has been established & voted on to accept such donations, i.e., GF Animal Shelter Fund, we have no such thing. - Ed.

2) That they didn't feel as if the animals were truly the main concern for either the City or the GFAF as the Foundation had never given one penny to the Humane Society or the current shelter and they were angry about that.
Again, I couldn't find any records to refute this statement. - Ed

At this point we were joined by three other neighbors who had been phoned with the invitation to come and join the discussion. Once again, these people had been long-time supporters of both the GFAF & HSCC and they openly voiced their concerns:
3) With all the money the Foundation had at hand, this individual was VERY angry that none was going for the current care of needy animals. If this was due to the way the Foundation had set-up their trust, then shame on them for not taking into consideration the need for care of animals which would fall under the care of HSCC, an entity that the Foundation was quick to denigrate, while the people waited for a new
shelter to be erected. If this was merely an oversight on the part of the Foundation, then WHY hadn't its
board rewritten its statement and/or bylaws to allow for allocation of a percentage of current funds to go for the care of animals presently in need. (This person went on to say) The Foundation had been very quick to take the publics' money on behalf of helping the animals and very slow to actually HELP THE ANIMALS. (emphasis by speaker)
4) Another neighbor was incensed that the Foundation would use funds for a dog park for dogs that were already in secure, loving homes while animals at the current shelter were being killed for lack of adoption and space. It showed to her that the Foundation was trying to make itself look good to get more money,
not really care for animals that needed help. She hadn't given donations over the past few years for Fido down the street to go play, while a lost or abandoned cat or dog was euthanized in the shelter.
5) The fact that the current and future shelter is, and will not be, a "No Kill" angered these people.
6) All felt that the majority of citizens here were caring, worried people who wanted the best for animals in need and they felt duped by both the Foundation and City.

Ed note - Two of these people had taken on the personal responsibility to pay for a complete vet check and spay/neuter for a total of 3 animals in the past two months and to work with other caring people to find good homes for them. One had also personally payed for the transportation costs of an animal to reach a rescue group out-of-state as they were not going to risk the dog's life by placing it in the current shelter.

Many of these concerns I also have. Since its inception I have supported the Foundation and, until its demise, the HSCC. I continue to work with individuals in the GF community and neighboring counties that are caring for, rehabilitating, finding adoptive and rescue homes for needy animals. I can only say thank you to those of you out there that put the time, money and personal effort into protecting the animals you take under your wing. There is no future for an animal that's euthanized. Animals live in the "now" and it's the now we need to concern ourselves with.

I know this is an emotional topic, but the people I spoke with yesterday feel they reflect the feelings of many. They want to know just why this is happening to the animals and what these groups (city and Foundation) are actually doing to truly help animals. They're not, to quote one of them, "going to give one more red cent to any group that's going to kill an animal or put it in a bank account where it'll sit and do nothing while we have animals that need help. I want to know, be really sure, that my dollars help an animal to live a good life."