| Complaint: | Complaint 18-34 |
|---|---|
| Respondent: | Ken Prejs |
| Premises: | Glenn Animal Care Hospital |
The complainant brought his old dog to Prejs for euthanasia due to concern for suffering. His dog was a pitbull but apparently very well behaved and up to date on all vaccinations. Prejs requested that he muzzle the dog, which she did, and then he came in with needles. The complainant stated that he thought they must have been for a horse and were very large compared to the needles used when his Great Dane had been put down. Prejs shot up the dog with the sedative and left for five minutes; the dog remained unsedated and the complainant was asked to put his dog on the table. The dog began to resist as she was shaved before being euthanized, so a veterinary technician held the dog down on the table. The complainant asked if more sedatives should be used and Prejs told him he would use more if he wanted. He gave the dog another sedative with no effect, and the veterinary technician continued to hold the dog down on the table. Prejs then returned with another large needle and injected the dog with the euthanasia solution. The complainant states that he knows when his dog died because that was when the dog stopped struggling. The complainant asks: "Why is Ken Prejs allowed [to] treat animals and humans like this? Please stop him."
Prejs says that the complainant refused to leash the dog and seemed hesitant to talk to him. Prejs also says he was told the dog was being euthanized because of aggression according to a phone call with the complainant's mother, so he requested the dog be muzzled. He also confirms that a veterinary technician did assist with the euthanasia and also notes that he didn't trust the complainant to properly restrain the dog. The accounts differ somewhat and he states that the dog "calmly passed away." Prejs also states that while some people stay with their dead dog for an hour, the complainant left within minutes. Prejs concludes by stating that the additional sedatives were offered at no charge, that they stopped whenever the dog seemed distressed, and that the entire euthanasia only took 45 minutes, which wasn't bad.
The Investigative Committee discussion states that the dog had a history of aggression, had no rabies vaccination history, that the size of the needles was appropriate, and that "[s]ome euthanasias do not go as smoothly as expected."
| Source: | February 2, 2018 PM Investigative Committee Meeting |
|---|---|
| People: | |
| Ken Prejs | Respondent |
| Roll Call: | |
| Adam Almaraz | Aye |
| Amrit Rai | Aye |
| Christine Butkiewicz | Aye |
| Donald Noah | Aye |
| Tamara Murphy | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
| Source: | March 3, 2018 Board Meeting |
|---|---|
| Proposed By: | Nikki Frost |
| Seconded By: | Darren Wright |
| Roll Call: | |
| Christina Bertch-Mumaw | Absent |
| Darren Wright | Aye |
| J Greg Byrne | Aye |
| Jessica Creager | Aye |
| Jim Loughead | Aye |
| Julie Young | Aye |
| Nikki Frost | Aye |
| Robyn Jaynes | Aye |
| Sarah Heinrich | Aye |
| Result: | Passed |
The primary source for the above summary was obtained as a public record from the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board. You are welcome to review the original records and board meeting minutes by clicking the relevant links. While we endeavor to provide an accurate summary of the complaint, response, investigative reports and board actions, we encourage you to review the primary sources and come to your own conclusions. In some cases we have also been able to reach out to individuals with knowledge of specific complaints, and where possible that information will be included here.