I am responding to an article about the new Lincoln County Animal Shelter board. I continue to be concerned about the lack of transparency and the use of words "no-kill," when I do not believe the local shelter conforms to the true definition of "no-kill." I am a former volunteer at the shelter and have been affiliated with some 60 organizations over the last 15 years, involving "no-kill" and senior dog rescue efforts.

Statements in the press by current board members imply that former board member Michaela Stone's revelations about mismanagement at the shelter were detrimental to the animals and fundraising. I believe the contrary is true. This brave lady opened the doors and books to the community at large and was the catalyst for needed change.

Public recognition of the shelter's problems may have been painful and may have deterred some former donors, but without Ms. Stone's actions, would the needed changes to improve the shelter's sustainability and animal care occur? What is needed now is more of the public openness and dialog that Ms. Stone began. It is time for the board to divulge what is and has been going on, both financially and in the day-to-day management of the shelter.

Now to my main directive for the last three years: No-kill!

In Board President Kathy Williams' response to recent criticism, she defined "no-kill" as not euthanizing due to lack of shelter space. This is not the definition of no-kill.

The actual "no-kill" statement is: "No animal shall be killed unless it is irremediably sick or irretrievably vicious." But most importantly, these conditions — aggression to the point of being a liability to other living creatures and illness to the point that no medical treatment could alleviate the condition — must be proven.

And herein lies the rub. Who at the shelter is making these decisions and how are they made? I ask again, in those three cases I have raised to the board, was a veterinarian or animal behaviorist involved in the decision to kill these animals?

Based on my experience, I can assure you of one thing: Not one of those three dogs I've been writing about (killed) were in either of those two categories.

In a positive step toward full disclosure, this local nonprofit, dependent upon public support, should regularly report the following statistics: the number of dog/cat admissions, the number of dog/cat adoptions, outgoing transfers to other facilities, the number dogs/cats euthanized and the reasons, and the number of animals that died at the shelter and causes, if known. The board should also define the specific procedures and personnel involved in a euthanasia decision.

I attempted to contact and sit with the board, alone or with other (former) board members, but there was much folderol about communication and when I did finally get a message, I followed it up with a package of information for the new president and have not heard from anyone since.

I am not in this for any other reason than to see the lives of dogs saved, nothing more! I wish to support the shelter, but not in its past (or as yet present) status. It must change, and it must prove that it has.

I leave you with the following from the PAWS organization: "As the public increasingly demands better outcomes for shelter animals, some shelters work harder and implement improved programs to achieve better results for the animals, other shelters work even harder to conceal."

Which of the above do you want and which will you permit in your community?

I respectfully submit this commentary with the greatest hopes that the new board will in fact find new direction and give new life to a faltering shelter system. I would like nothing better than to see this happen.