Legal News

Nye Co, NV:

[Animal Control officer Tim] McCarty was able to convince the owners of FLOCK (For the Love of Cats and Kittens) to surrender ownership and custody of the some 700 or more cats to the county which, in turn, placed the animals in the care of a rescue organization, Best Friends Animal Society.
[...]
Nye County then filed charges of animal neglect against FLOCK for failure to provide food, water and veterinary care in violation of Nevada Rev. Statutes §574.100.

That was two years ago. The case comes up for trial this week.

***

Pennsylvania:

Holly Crawford, who inspired outrage in legions of animal lovers when her Pennsylvania home was raided and several pierced animals were seized in late 2008, has been convicted of animal cruelty.

Crawford, a dog groomer by trade, had been marketing so-called "gothic kittens" -- with piercings in their ears and necks -- for sale on the Internet auction site eBay.

Ms. Crawford was found guilty last week of animal cruelty. The prosecutor will seek a prison term of 12 - 18 months. Sentencing is scheduled for March 31.

***

Proposed legislation in NY called Oreo's Law, supported by many animal advocates but opposed by the ASPCA, has a website which includes responses to claims made by ASPCA in their opposition:

Oreo’s Law is based on nearly identical California legislation which has been in effect for over a decade. Despite similar dire predictions [that dangerous dogs will be released into communities] in California, there is no evidence this has occurred.

[...]

To oppose a law with such vast lifesaving potential for all animals entering a shelter based on dire predictions about aggressive dogs which have not materialized despite 11 years of experience in California is unethical and indefensible.

There is also an action page on the site with contact information.

Two Pieces from 'USA Today' on Oreo

USA Today has an interview with Dr. Stephen Zawistowski, a behaviorist with the ASPCA who worked with Oreo. He is asked about the opposition to releasing her to a sanctuary instead of killing her:

"Unless she was put in virtually complete isolation," she'd live a "life of constant stress," he said. She was so reactive to so many things that she was almost always agitated. "We tried to desensitize her, and that tended to make her more reactive. The kind of love, attention and handling that has worked with so many other dogs made her more hostile," he said. Drugging her might have lowered her aggression, but if drugs succeeded, "you have to be certain someone would always maintain and monitor this treatment for the next 12 to 14 years … and there can be organ damage over time." And finally, complete isolation from all people and animals is "not a quality of life we can accept."

In another piece, USA Today heads down the well worn path of rationalizing killing while pepetuating the myth of pet overpopulation:

In shelters across the country Friday, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of dogs met Oreo's fate for the same reason she did: They were too violent — because people made them that way. At least Oreo got the benefit of months of efforts to try to make her capable of living peacefully in this world; most of the rest did not because most shelters haven't the time, resources or expertise to work with such animals.
[...]
[A]lso on Friday, thousands of perfectly friendly dogs lost their lives in shelters simply because of the numbers reality: No more animals could be crammed in, but more are always arriving because people get bored with them or don't feel like training them, or let them create litters. So discarded pets must die to make room for more discarded pets.

At some shelters, the kill rate is 90%, and the vast majority aren't too vicious or too sick to save. They're merely victims of overpopulation.

The piece suggests that compassionate people must come to terms with these "truths" even though it may be uncomfortable. The truth is that there is no such thing as pet overpopulation. The truth is that shelter pets do not have to be killed in order to make room for more. The truth is that we are a no kill nation of people who care about pets and know they deserve better.

Facing these truths may be uncomfortable at first for some, but the nature of life is change and evolution of thought. Thinking about the value of the lives of shelter pets and changing how we go about saving those lives is one way forward.

I Wish Wilkes Co was in NY

NY state legislators seem to take the business of needless dog killing seriously:

From the Office of Assembly Member Micah Kellner in Manhattan:

We are preparing to introduce legislation this week along with State Senator Tom Duane to require shelters to release any animal they plan to kill to a bonafide rescue group or humane organization which requests possession of [the animal].

The legislation is titled "Oreo's Law".

Added, 11-19-09: pdf of letter from No Kill Advocacy Center regarding Oreo's Law.

ASPCA Euthanizes "Oreo"

Some of you may have been following the story of "Oreo", a Pitbull mix in NY who survived terrible cruelty thanks to the care of the ASPCA. On Friday, the ASPCA euthanized her due to aggression:

Because adoption was not an option, the ASPCA looked at placing Oreo in a long-term resident facility. However, because of the aggressive behavior displayed, it is almost certain that Oreo would have lived out her entire life in seclusion from other dogs and people. Her contact with the outside world would have been minimal at best. Her quality of life would have been reduced to virtually nothing. Thus, we arrived at the painful yet clear decision to humanely euthanize Oreo.

I don't know that I disagree with euthanizing a dog with extreme aggression, especially when extensive rehab efforts have been made as in Oreo's case. But it is hard to support the decision to euthanize when a reasonable alternative exists. Pets Alive, a no kill shelter in NY with a proven track record regarding difficult dogs, had offered to take Oreo:

We offered to take Oreo to our facility and work with her. If she was adoptable we would adopt her out. If not she would live at the sanctuary for the rest of her life. That’s our standard offer.

As an outsider, it seems to me the ASPCA should have at least considered the offer and taken a tour of the facility where Oreo would live. This would give them a concrete idea of her potential quality of life, rather than the assumption they were basing their decision on. By refusing to consider the offer, the ASPCA comes off as irresponsible to my mind. The ASPCA must be held to a very high standard due to their size and influence and they must set an example for preventing cruelty to animals, like the name says. I can't see how they've met this burden or fulfilled their obligation to Oreo by refusing to consider a reasonable alternative to her death.