The Daniff Mastiff named Echo in a cage at the ArkValley Humane Society, taken on February 14 the day he was first scheduled to be euthanized. Photo by AVHS as submitted to PACFA.
In the end, the Chaffee County court case involving the Daniff Mastiff named Echo came down to Colorado property rights. Which did not make the tears shed in the courtroom any less real, or the situation any less heart-breaking.
“This is a very emotional case in our community,” said Chaffee Judge Diana Bull. “The court has to follow the law and treat this under contract law. I know the property we’re talking about is not just a car or a house.”
The Thursday morning preliminary hearing addressed the motion for injunction filed by Shawn and Sophia Vrooman to attempt to stop the euthanization of the 145-pound Echo, which hinged on the constitutionality of the contract they signed when they brought Echo to the AVHS shelter.
“We agree the disposition of the animal is at the discretion of AVHS,” said Bull. “The court does not believe based on reasonable interpretation — I do not believe one can interpret this in any other way. AVHS can determine the disposition of the animal . .. this is an unambiguous contract.”
The court ruled that Echo is considered the property of the Ark-Valley Humane Society under Colorado statute CRS 35-80-106 and denied the request for injunction. An agreement was reached more than two hours into the preliminary hearing in which the Vrooman’s withdrew their motion for an injunction, and in exchange, they are being given the opportunity at 10:00 a.m. Friday, February 24, to see him and say goodbye to him.
The Vrooman’s attorney Ryan Drengler had alleged that the contract did not include the key policies that AVHS said it referenced and that the Vroomans had made it clear to the shelter that if a family couldn’t be found to adopt Echo, that they wanted him back. They provided statements that AVHS staff members had told them that was possible. Drengler raised the question of whether the contract was fully integrated or partially integrated; meaning that there were key words and euthanization policies that weren’t in the contract on which AVHS is now acting, of which the Vrooman’s weren’t informed.
During testimony, AVHS staffer Nicole Ritter admitted that the policies regarding euthanasia weren’t necessarily readily available, and weren’t on the contract, although she said she knew there were internal policies about the euthanization of animals at AVHS.
“There was nothing I could have provided,” she said from the witness stand. “I don’t have access to anything like that. I would have spoken to management about it.” Then she confirmed that there was one manager on duty that day.
Defense Attorney Randy Canney added to the emotions of the room, after his blunt comment “they give up a dog, AVHS accepts a dog”, by saying that attempting to say that contracts need to include everything that this is “leading to the ridiculous attorney over-writing of contracts.”
“It’s absolute legal nonsense just so you don’t come into court and argue those two items aren’t in the contract. This isn’t a services contract,” he added. “After the relinquishment — it’s done…you give up all rights to [the dog] It’s A-B. It’s done. If that isn’t clear enough they say we don’t always have to tell you if it is transferred or euthanized.”
This leads directly to the press release put out by AVHS more than week ago, in which Executive Director Amber Van Leuken said that they were prevented from allowing the dog to go to another trainer because they couldn’t be released from liability for what he might do. The claim is that this is a state reality (which AVV is investigating).
It is assumed that unless AVHS relents and allows one of the now dozens of large-dog breed trainers and animal behaviorists from across the country and North America (including Save Rocky The Great Dane Rescue And Rehab Charity (‘SRGDRR’). The largest Great Dane rescue in North America), who have offered to take Echo and retrain him, he may be dead by Friday evening or soon after.
At the moment he remains in a cage that the Vroomans say does not meet his size, and he is being drugged with 250mg of trazodone twice a day to keep him calm.
Unless some statement has come out of which AVV is not aware, the board of directors of Ark-Valley Humane Society has not issued any kind of statement. No actual written policy related to AVHS euthanization policies has been produced. Given that AVHS has (according to their own record) put down 12 dogs in the past two years, this would seem to be a necessary policy that should be disclosed to the public.
UPDATE: The following statement arrived in AVV’s general mailbox and was not retrieved until after AVV’s 5:00 p.m. posting sweep. it comes from AVHS Executive Director Amber Van Leuken, not from the AVHS Board of Directors:
Ark Valley Humane Society granted ownership of relinquished dog
Salida, Colo. – Following a hearing at the Chaffee County Courthouse on Thursday, Feb. 23, the complaint against the Ark Valley Humane Society (AVHS) was withdrawn, and the injunction dismissed pertaining to ownership of Great Dane-Mastiff dog, Echo. Preceding the hearing, Echo was relinquished by his previous owners to AVHS on Thursday, Feb. 2 and has been in AVHS care since then.
Please reach out to AVHS Executive Director, Amber van Leuken, with any questions.
Editor’s note: AVV has learned that Echo’s correct weight was 145 pounds, not 170 pounds as we originally reported.
AVHS
Has let the whole community down and truly shown their “Quality”
How despicable…
A NO KILL SHELTER?
MY ASS!
WRONG DECISION
WRONG DECISION
MY DONATIONS WILL CEASE!
This is such a sad and emotional situation to me. It is one that both pet owners and shelters face frequently. It requires such tough decisions! I feel it prompts a normal human response of judgement with typical fault finding and accusation that needs to be processed.
However I wish that reporting of these conflicts were more “investigating” than “instigating.” There are facts missing here.
Cowards. Ark Valley Humane Society (AVHS)had numerous offers from exceptional canine behaviorists—all with extensive experience working with large breeds— within Colorado, out of state, and Canada. All expressed interest in working with Echo, stating that his behavior could be modified quickly and easily with proper training. Some trainers even offered to adopt him, including a trainer in Canada. AVHS’s leadership chose not to pursue any of these options for Echo.
AVHS denied this beautiful young dog the opportunity to develop into the best version of himself with the help of professional trainers and to live his best life.
True to form, AVHS lies about its transparency, confusing it with spin mastery. AVHS lied to Echo’s parents when they first walked through their doors and were told they could have Echo back if AVHS couldn’t adopt him out. AVHS lied to the public repeatedly about Echo with the help of a hit piece disguised as a “Letter of Support for AVHS”, written by Ben Hill DVM who had never laid eyes on Echo prior to his writing this document in support of euthenasia, yet goes on to describe Echo as a “170 pound liability” (Echo actually weighed 145 pounds when Sophia and Shawn brought him to AVHS). Did AVHS not weigh him the entire time he was in their care? In his statement piece, Hill said that Echo was “dangerous,” cautioning readers “to let Echo back into the community would be irresponsible, unfair, fraught with liability and cowardly.” In writing this, Dr. Hill fanned the flames of hysteria surrounding Echo and negligently sealed this poor dog’s fate. From this point forth, Echo was viewed as AVHS’s “dangerous 170 pound liability.” In an act of complicity, AVHS posted Hill’s careless drivel on their website for the world to see. People in the community referenced Dr. Hill’s “Statement of Support” as evidence that Echo, a dog that they, like Dr. Hill, had likely never seen, was indeed dangerous and deserved to die….because the good doctor said so. For all his talk of compassion and respect, Hill showed none to Echo.
A veterinarian has a “duty to protect animal health and welfare, and prevent and relieve animal suffering.” Dr. Hill and anyone else involved in the creation and dissemination of this harmful “Statement of Support” document, which is posted on AVHS’s website, did Echo, the Vroomans, and the greater community a huge disservice.
Perhaps Dr. Hill can give thought to who the truly dangerous person is in this equation. It certainly isn’t Echo.
Cowards come in various shapes and sizes, and there seems to be no shortage of them in Echo’s life.
Amber Vanleuken, executive director of Ark Valley Humane Society, in a remarkable display of cowardice called the Chief of Police to chase away the Vroomans from the AVHS premises after they arrived in panic, wanting to see their dog. They had just received a phone call from Vanleuken, who shocked them with the news of her unilateral decision to kill Echo in one week on Valentine’s Day. Prior to receiving Vanleuken’s disturbing call, Shawn and Sophia had been led to believe by AVHS staff that Echo would soon be returned them. Of course, no one at AVHS is owning up to this. AVHS seems to be afflicted with a serious case of amnesia.
In a gross abuse of power, Vanleuken forbade the Vroomans from visiting with Echo, who was given two daily doses of Trazodone, a drug used for sedating dogs with anxiety. The poor dog was obviously stressed and in an altered state of mind while in the shelter environment. The next time the Vroomans received PERMISSION (please let this sink in) to see Echo, would be February 24th, the day Vanleuken sentenced Echo to die.
Shawn and Sophia were put through hell leading up to Echo’s murder. They had to scramble to find an attorney, who succeeded in securing a temporary stay of execution before the original day that Vanleuken had sentenced Echo to death (Feb 14), followed by a preliminary hearing on February 23rd, that would address the motion for injunction to stop the euthanization of Echo. The court ruled that Echo is considered property and based solely on the written contract that the Vroomans had signed with AVHS (verbal promises be damned!), Echo was considered the property of the Ark-Valley Humane Society. Vanleuken, in a shocking display of callousness, smirked when the verdict was delivered.
A veterinarian following the case commented, “Having practiced veterinary medicine for over 50 years, I have never needed to murder a family pet who passed behavioral mediation.”
Tragically for Echo, he would not be given the opportunity for behavioral mediation, thanks to Vanleuken, in spite of the many offers to work with Echo from reputable trainers throughout the US and Canada. A few offered to adopt him.
Today, Shawn and Sophia were granted permission to see Echo for the last time.
A press release was issued later that day, announcing that Echo would be killed by Ark Valley Humane Society.
Echo, a beautiful Dane/Mastiff with many years of life in front of him, was forced to die because the people around him failed him.
So much for compassion.
To Dee, @ Animal Litigation Center: I looked for a “Dee” at this group and didn’t find you listed as staff or in their network of attorneys. I am wondering if you are allowed to speak on their behalf? Ben Hill is a DVM, serves on the Salida School Board, is known in the community. AVHS as a Board of Directors and legal counsel. Randy Canney is a well-trained and well-respected attorney in the area. Amber van Leuken does not make unilateral decisions about killing animals. Do you know the veterinarian who works regularly with AVHS and who also provided guidance to AVHS in this situation? Do you know the members of the AVHS Board? Your letter with so much vitriol seems to put your personal perspective about this situation above professionals with significant training and expertise. It is unfortunate that the Vroomans fell in love with a young puppy, who they neglected to properly train and socialize. This is a scenario that plays out exponentially in animals shelters across the country. I wrote this in my comments previously, but rescue shelters take what animals come through their doors, they do not turn them away but they get-what-they-get. I donate to the organizations that support legal defense of animals in all kinds of cases, incl. the national organization that underwrote the Endowed Chair in Animal Law at Univ. of Denver. Many of us love animals dearly, as you do. Attacking AVHS and its staff is inappropriate.
I see this as a sad and emotional situation. One of many that AVHS and pet owners face repeatedly. Reaching the right decision is extremely difficult. Oh how we love our pets! We can put up with faults as easily as with our family members. However if either becomes a danger to community, a tough decision must be made. To me, fault finding and accusations are a normal human response, but really serve no purpose. Sure, I would like to save Echo. as I would my brother. But in the end if he, however innocently, harmed a child or someone else’s beloved pet, I would rue my decision.
Lori Strojan
How can you call yourselves a rescue when you’re not letting anyone rescue this poor dog echo. I would never donate or have friends and family. Donate to you just because of this …
As I have written previously, I will write again: I wonder how many of you who are so outraged have ever spent significant time in a shelter, and by significant I don’t mean walking a few dogs or petting a few cats. I mean working behind the scenes, away from the public eye, dealing with the stuff that most people would turn away from. Holding an incredibly sick animal IN A SHELTER as it is being euthanized, tending to sickening/disgusting wounds done by human hands, this kind of stuff. It is done out of the public view, but this is a big part of the work of an animal rescue shelter worker. At the onset, my heart also breaks for Echo primarily, for the Vroomans secondarily, and finally for AVHS staff for the heartache this has caused. But you have to know that rescue shelters HAVE TO TAKE whatever animals come through their doors, whatever the physical condition, whatever the socialization, whatever the disease or illness, whether neutered/vax’d, etc. I have always said from my personal experience that rescue shelters get to deal with everyone else’s heartache. There are many, many — most in fact — wonderful animals relinquished to shelters. But there are a percentage that come in needing extensive treatment for physical ailments and behavioral issues. It is easy to stand from afar and make a judgment here. I ask: have you MET the staff at AVHS? Having been staff/volunteer at many organizations, no one does it for the money; people do it because of their love for animals. Not just purebreds, not just “good” dogs, but all animals, to include dogs with mange or maggots, infections that one can smell from feet away, cats with hair so matted it has pulled the skin away from the body; yes, all these and more. This entire situation is sad from every perspective. Perhaps rather than demonizing AVHS staff, talk to members of the AVHS board to get additional facts or information. Amber VanLeuken is not a dictator or a tyrant; she answers to a board, people who are your friends in this community. Also, you might take a moment to read Attorney Randy Canney’s bio. This is not a guy who doesn’t know what he’s talking about; he is also served in this community by AVHS. My heart hurts for poor Echo, tears have welled in my eyes. But I also keep in mind that over a million animals are euthanized in shelters each year; my heart aches for all of them as well.
When a young, healthy dog is caught in the crossfire of common sense and bureaucratic power trips it’s a reflection of whether the decision makers will apply solution oriented strategies. It’s well known there are alternatives, with canine behaviorists who know their stuff. It’s well known that Echo is loved, and has been a victim of circumstances, not intentional abuse or neglect. Yet, he’s at the mercy of those who made our community believe that they practice kindness and put animals first. PR spins and clever lawyer talk degrade Echo to a mere commodity due to the law. Those folks ought to do some serious soul searching. If there is a will, there is a way.
Especially the lawyer who is pushing his agenda using any approach to get his way- instead of seeking a collaborative solution for a future for this young dog, jointly with the shelter and the Vroomans. killing a healthy dog makes no sense. It’s unnecessary, as Echo had great potential to be rehabbed with the right people, who understand his needs and DNA. The laws in CO where pets are classified as property simply suck. They protect always those who inflict harm, have selfish agendas or fail to protect our pets in their profession. The laws need change since yesteryear. Our pets are not a couch nor a vacuum cleaner. They are sentient beings, family.
The sad irony is, if it was Mr. Canney’’s dog, he sure would approach it with a different twist. It’s a sad state of affairs that instead of addressing the issue with people in a capacity to help ensure a future for this beautiful young dog, precious resources are wasted to win a battle in every aspect just to prove a point. What point?
Humanity comes in different shapes or forms. It’s just a matter whether it’s a priority by those who could make a difference- happy endings are the reward by those who truly care- who invest their positions in positive outcomes and beneficial results.
Anything else is a betrayal to the dog involved, the family and community as it certainly does nothing to enhance trust.
Gerda Widmer,
Beautifully said!
Can someone explain HOW is the contract AVHS has to own Echo so binding that they would still be liable even if they entered into a new contract with someone else to own Echo? It seems there are many “someone elses” ready and willing to take on the liability. Where are the smart lawyers to provide such a contract? Really! Saying goodbye? Tears and sadness rain and reign today Feb. 24.
Cary, Salida, CO
They won’t even give him a chance with the Great Dane rescue people are willing to take him omg 😡😡😡😡😭😭😭
To AVHS/Amber van Leuken:
“If your eyes are opened, you’ll see the things worth seeing.” Rumi
WHY are you still choosing to take Echo’s life when positive solutions are right in front of you? This is the definition of INHUMANE!!
Executive director Amber van Leuken was offered so many options as far as giving Echo a second chance yet, Amber van Leuken choose to ignore all of them! This woman had the power to change Echos life in a positive manner yet choose to kill him instead! AVHS should be embarrassed of the hypocritical behavior Amber van Leuken practices! For an individual with a master of psychology one would think she would better understand Echos behavior is based off of fear/stress and try everything in her power to help Echo as appose to wasting AVHS money/donations to fight like hell to kill him! Hope your proud of yourself Amber van Leuken! Im sure you will take pleasure in killing Echo as you did in snickering at the Vroomans when the verdict was read. Trust and believe karma always finds away Amber van Leuken!
It’s interesting that this decision is a direct opposition of their key values to provide compassionate care and understand the needs of animals in varying situations.
This is a disgusting power trip for the executive director who somehow has a nonprofit showing six figure profits each year. 2020 was over $312k. By killing this dog, people need to realize that she is inept and that no animal is safe from her ego.
I truly doubt that Amber van Leuken wants to have Echo “killed”. You know as well as I if Echo was returned to the Vroomans and then bit another human or animal, it would be the Ark Valley Humane Society that would be sued for allowing an aggressive dog to be released. The Vrooman’s are the ones who should take the blame in this whole escapade. They ignored Echo’s needs from the very beginning and then dumped him on Ark Valley Humane Society to remedy their situation. Shame on them. They do not deserve to have Echo, or any other dog.
Mary Silvestri,
Amber van Leuken and AVHS have been presented with several positive solutions concerning the well-being of Echo. Amber van Leuken ignored James Tsai (a well-respected animal behaviorist, who specializes in rehabilitating aggressive and traumatized large breed dogs) offer to adopt Echo which included, signing a liability waiver that would have absolved AVHS from any/all legal responsibility with regard to Echo. Save Rocky the Great Dane Rescue & Rehab (the largest Great Dane Rescue in the United States) also reached out to Amber van Leuken graciously, offering to relieve AVHS of any/all legal liability by also, signing a release of liability. AGAIN, Amber van Leuken ignored said offer. Additionally, a release of liability agreement is widely enforceable in Colorado and is meant to warn people of the risks of an activity. They disclaim liability by getting people to agree to assume the risk of doing something, such as adopting a dog with behavior issues as AVHS has “alleged” of Echo. I’m confused as to how AVHS can publicly post a statement “alleging” their lawyer advised that transferring Echo to any individual, rescue group or other such entity will not relieve AVHS of any future, potential liability. As long as AVHS explicitly warns a potential individual, rescue group or other such entity of the “alleged” possible risks involved with adopting Echo than I don’t see how AVHS can make such a claim. Especially, since AVHS uses liability waivers themselves, when animals are adopted from their shelter (seems a bit hypocritical in my opinion).
In addition, not one named and/or identifiable individual has come forward backing up AVHS claim of Echo “allegedly” biting them. Nor, has one image of “alleged” bite been released.
Furthermore, who are you to pass judgement on the Vroomans? Yes, they turned Echo over to AVHS but it was with the intention of finding him a more suitable home with individuals who could offer him the time and attention they couldn’t. The only individuals to blame for the demise of Echo is AVHS and the executive director Amber van Leuken! BOTH (in my opinion) failed Echo miserably by turning a blind eye to all those who so graciously stepped up and offered to give Echo a second chance!
To tolerate such behavior & disregard for life, degrades us all and compromises the moral force of our cause…
As I mentioned previously in a correspondence to AVHS, I intend to change my will to remove an endowment to AVHS, in the event they kill Echo without researching ALL options of relief. They still have an opportunity to determine if transfer to any trainer is an option. Short if that, they will be acting just like any other kill shelter. Sad.
Tom Golson
Salida
WHAT A DISGUSTING TRAVESTY!!!!!
All the money AVHS paid out in attorney fees could have been used to better Echo including, his quality of life! AVHS and its executive director Amber are a prime example of a shelter who certainly DOES NOT lead by example! I will definitely encourage all I know to cease donating to this hypocritical organization! Sadly, the animals will be the ones who pay the price just as poor Echo will with HIS LIFE!
That is a wise choice. I question the ethics and morals of the entire operation now. With $1.7million in assets and six figure profits each year, it’s upsetting to know that some of that could not have been used to properly care for Echo and bring in someone who wasn’t afraid of him.
It is absolutely horrid when the ‘laws’ broken regularly are upheld so rigidly against what is right. I volunteer to take Echo’s place. That would solve my problem and Echo’s. Unlike me, Echo has a place to escape to where he can live out the rest of his life without harm. This will likely prevent AVHS from helping this community further. Who is going to trust them? I certainly would not. They are defeating their own purpose. I have worked in kennels, with show dogs and boarding dogs and with a veterinarian and also knew a great Dane breeder who assured me that any aggression in such animals is met with euthanasia as puppies. I understand the situation. To put this animal down when their is a fair alternative is simply wrong. What ever happened to doing the right thing? This county has allowed torture of a disabled resident for 8 years in order to cover it’s own legal tail instead of doing the right thing until they could legalize their actions. They never spend any time or money or any effort at all trying to protect their ability to do what is right. Echo got a better chance than the people that this county is harming intentionally.
DO NOT EUTHANIZE THIS INNOCENT BEAUTY. SHAME ON ANY OF YOU INVOLVED WITH THAT DECISION. HOPE YOU ROT IN HELL.
“Unless some statement has come out of which AVV is not aware, the board of directors of Ark-Valley Humane Society has not issued any kind of statement.”
AVHS has released several formal statements. What is with this publication and bending the truth? Embarrassing.
Sherri Long,
If this publication is bending the truth than why would AVHS afford the family the opportunity to say goodbye to Echo? Additionally, the family was not permitted to properly say goodbye to their precious pup! They were not allowed to touch Echo nor take any last pictures with him. How could they be so cruel if they weren’t trying to hide Echos deplorable condition? Amber and her crew along with AVHS showed NO COMPASION towards the family nor Echo by disallowing any physical contact between the two, just heart breaking! Neither AVHS nor executive director AMBER VAN LEUKEN practice what they preach! The following is posted on AVHS website.
Our Key Values:
– Compassion for the animals and people we serve.
– Leadership that inspires hope and kindness through education and example.
– Kindness towards people and pets that find themselves in difficult situations.
– Transparency regarding the work we do.
[O thonl] AVHS and AMBER VAN LEUKEN ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A BUNCH OF HYPICRATES!
I send my deepest sympathy to all involved with Echo. I am so sorry for your pain. It’s surely not a happy time for anyone involved.
This is so gut-wrenchingly sad and wrong on so many levels. This poor dog has been caught in a sick, perverted power struggle. His poor parents will get to say goodbye to their beloved boy tomorrow morning before Amber Vanleuken and her team kill him. Insanity!!!! Have these people lost their moral compass….or perhaps they never had one????? Echo was entrusted in Ark Valley Humane Society’s care. Instead of finding a loving home for him or returning him to his owners, as promised by Ark Valley Humane Society’s staff, their Executive Director Amber Vanleuken, decided to kill him, although many offers have been extended to Vanleuken and her team including:
1. Provide April Kintgen, Echo’s breeder, access to arrange a behaviorist to assess Echo on-site. Alternatively, AVHS permits Echo to be temporarily removed from the shelter’s premises for the independent assessment.
2. Release Echo to a local trainer for board-and-train.
3. Release Echo to an out of region board-and-train.
4. Release Echo directly to his lawful owner, April Kintgen, who resides in Wyoming. This removes Echo physically out of the state of Colorado.
5. Release Echo via adoption to a local qualified family.
6. Release Echo via adoption to a qualified family with contractual obligation for training.
7. Release Echo to Save Rocky the Great Dane rescue (the largest Great Dane rescue in the US).
8. Upon exhaustion of all options outlined above, canine behavioral expert James Thai from Vancouver, BC, Canada, guaranteed and promised to provide adoption of Echo. This removes Echo physically out of the USA.
Ark Valley Humane Society has rejected all of these offers. There is no justifiable reason for killing this dog, especially one with SO MANY options. PURE EVIL!!!
“Companion animals are entitled to be recognized under the law as more than mere disposal property. They are irreplaceable and should be treated as such.”
-The Center for Animal Litigation
This is a sad case. It seems to come down to a claim that staff at AVHS promised something that they cannot deliver – to return Echo if he couldn’t be placed.
I guess the lesson here is to be careful about what you sign, and who you trust.