Pets Alive Blog » Legislation

The Itty Bitty Kitty Rescue

kerry — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:19:08 +0000

A healthy 3 week old kitten arrived at the ACC, and 45 minutes later was killed for “having no mother”.

No adopter or rescuer was given the opportunity to save this kitten.

On Mother’s Day, a mother cat and her two tiny kittens were on the ACC kill list. What in the world?

These are tiny kittens, some as young as two weeks old. Dying by the dozens in our NYC shelters. At Pets Alive we simply could not stand by and watch that. With the help of volunteer, John Sibley, we went in and took 64 kittens (and mamas) out of the NYC shelter system and saved all their little tiny lives.

It is for reasons like this that New York needs a rescue access law like CAARA. CAARA would make it illegal for shelters to kill animals without giving rescues an opportunity to help.

How can it be that the three week old kitten was not even offered to rescue to help? How is it that these decisions – life and DEATH – can be made so arbitrarily? At what point do people stop seeing each of these tiny creatures as little lives? Little beings deserving a CHANCE at a life? The kitten was completely healthy. There was no reason to kill her.

Pets Alive is committed to stopping the killing of all animals in the shelter system. We took 64 cats and kittens in one shot. 64. Think about that number. 64 tiny babies never having a chance at a life. Why? Who decides these things? With CAARA they wouldn’t have a CHOICE but to let us have a chance to save them all. That is why Amy Paulin’s bill is worthless, because HER bill wouldn’t stop this. This is why we NEED to pass a law like CAARA. To save these delicate lives that some organizations may not care about.

And some of the workers at the CACC do care. Some of them send us emails or get on the phone and ask for help. They feature a dog or a cat and personally take the time to write something about that animal, what they know about that animal. They reach out. They take pictures of the animals being held by people, poignant, loving, affectionate. And what do they get for it? Reprimands. Termination. It is forbidden to take pictures of animals WITH people in them, even though all studies have shown that this can increase adoptability. It seems to us that any staff member there that starts to actually care a little, either has to hide it, or risk termination. We’ve been watching this happen for years. Why does this continue in NYC? When will we get some sort of leadership that cares?

And the lack of care is monstrous. As you know, we have taken dogs from the cacc where their bladders were not expressed and almost burst (Robert). We have taken a cat with a broken leg (Gloria) that was left to sit there for weeks without any care.

And now look at THIS cat. We have named her Mitzee. Her medical sheet says this cat has conjunctivitis. I’m no vet but even *I* can tell THIS is not plain old simple conjunctivitis. A week later, a vet examination notes a possible ruptured eye. Possible? A week later? But no pain meds? No drops? No ointment? I know this is grainy, but look at this kitten’s intake picture a week before. Look how bad the eyes looked THEN. Now look at them a WEEK later. Was there any CARE for them, any treatment?

This is an absolutely disgrace and this is what goes on in your NYC shelters. The BEST city, the most FAMOUS city, one of the RICHEST cities in the nation.

Pets Alive will work feverishly to provide medical care and find loving homes for all of the “Itty Bitty Kitties”. Half of the kittens are at the Middletown NY sanctuary, and half are being cared for at our Elmsford, NY rescue center.

Little Mitzee, the cat pictured above is at risk of going blind. Our vets feel that one of Mitzee’s eyes must be removed and the other needs daily care and possible surgery in order to save her vision, if indeed it can be saved. Could it have been saved a week ago when she entered into the Animal CARE and Control Facility in NYC?
Maybe.
Where is the “CARE” part of Animal CARE and Control??

One of the kittens has no foot. Almost all are sick with URI and various infections. One has already passed away from a massive blockage in her little intestines. Did the staff not notice that she was not defecating? Within less than 24 hours of having her, WE did. But by then it was too late and we lost her early this morning.

Please note that this is not some hoarder. We did not go in and do a mass rescue. This is the New York City Animal Care and Control Facility. YOUR NYC shelter.

The cost to Pets Alive to save this many lives, and handle the medical crisis, the vetting, the altering and the caring for all these cats will be astronomical. But THEY ARE WORTH IT. These little lives are WORTH saving and WORTH having a chance. Please help us. Pets Alive is asking for donations to help not only this little kitten have a chance at life, but to help cover costs for all 64 of these saved lives.

How To Help:
Financial donations are urgently needed to help provide continued care and medical treatment for the itty bitty kitties, including Mitzee, who is currently undergoing treatment to try to save her vision. To help provide care for them, donations of kitten food, toys, and scratching posts are also needed. Please also consider welcoming one into your home. They should all be in a home, being loved. Please fill out an application now to adopt an Itty Bitty Kitty.

Because THIS is the kind of life they have now. Now that they are with us. We take responsibility for all the animals in our care and we tend to all their needs. This is how every shelter should be run. Including the one in the most famous city in the world. Look at the BEFORE kittens on this page – from the CACC. And the AFTER kittens – at Pets Alive. Which do YOU think is the right way? Support no-kill. Support CAARA. Together, let’s put an end to this madness of murdering tiny creatures that haven’t even had a chance at life.

We are trying to pass legislation in NYS that would make this illegal. It would require the director to contact rescue groups and give them 8 hours to respond. Assembly Bill 07312 (CAARA) would empower non-profit animal rescue organizations to fulfill their missions, a right often denied to them by larger non-profit organizations and shelters. It provides whistleblower protection for rescue groups, creating an incentive for non-profit organizations to help end cruelty or neglect at shelters without fear of retaliation and loss of rescue access. It has specific provisions to ensure that these groups have the best interests of animals at heart and are able to care for them. And it prevents needless animal suffering by mandating precise, sensible, and objective criteria for determining which animals are dangerous or irremediably suffering and therefore exempt from rescue access provisions.

The bill will be voted on in the next week or two. Unfortunately, the ASPCA is trying to kill it, and the chair of the Assembly Agriculture Committee, William McGee, is willing to do their bidding by recommending that the bill be tabled. That will be the continued kiss of death for 25,000 animals a year who have an immediate place to go.

Please help us pass the Companion Animal Access & Rescue Act by Kellner. Use all three alerts to reach ALL members of the Assembly Ag Committee:

Be polite!

Use all three alerts to reach ALL members of the Assembly Ag Committee:

Alert #1 of 3: http://bit.ly/GJmNH9
Alert #2 of 3: http://bit.ly/GOUkwd
Alert #3 of 3: http://bit.ly/GHR7lW

Let’s stop the madness. And the murder.

Pet’s Alive dog ordinance proposal to the Middletown Council

kerry — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:59:04 +0000

Below is an email sent by Pets Alive to the Middletown Council to consider instead of a city wide insurance requirement for renters. We hope that they might consider this option instead of the current plan, or working in conjunction WITH the insurance plan:

———————————————–

In regards to the issue in Middletown with the problem owners of problem dogs. I think that we are actually on the exact same page about this. I believe in reading the PDF you posted originally that it doesn’t explain the real issue at stake, and contrary to the mayor’s opinion, we are far from naïve about the issues involving dogs in cities. If we are going to be honest and upfront about this here – you have some irresponsible citizens using dogs to intimidate, threaten and wreck havoc in your city. Terrorizing neighbors, making it difficult to do inspections or deal safely with public issues in those areas.

You asked for a possible solution. I’ve come up with an idea that I’d like to have you all review.

Please forgive me for the convoluted nature of it. It is just in the “thinking” stages right now, which is why I didn’t voice it last night. It would need some major fleshing out, but maybe this is a possible solution.

It seems to be that you have the majority of Middletown residents that are law abiding, responsible people. You also have a fair share of “issue people” with “issue dogs”. How many would you estimate? 50? 100? 150? How many would you honestly say are the problem people in the city? I have no idea what the number would be but I think it would be a fair guess that it is not 95% of the population.

While I think the CGC (Canine Good Citizen) test has some merit, this is again having your RESPONSIBLE pet owners have to go and get this testing done on their perfectly good dogs to prove and show they are decent people with decent pets. I do like this idea though as a way to be exempted if you choose to still go with the forced insurance plan. Good people and good dogs should have a way of being excluded from having to be penalized for doing nothing wrong.

The “issue people” aren’t going to go for this test and you feel then they would go and get insurance. I would guess though that you’re wrong. I would guess that they would get dogs and not tell landlords, that if caught they will say the dog isn’t their’s, that they are minding it, or that they just found it…they will dump the animal, wait a month and get another one.

Years ago I was in a car accident. The driver ran a red light. He was drunk. He had a suspended drivers license and he had no insurance. Running a red light is illegal. Driving while intoxicated is illegal. Driving with a suspended license is illegal. Having a car with no insurance is illegal. Yet there we were. The law abiding citizens will obey your laws. The others – WON’T. You may catch and enforce this on a few people but I truly believe this isn’t going to solve your problem in the city and it certainly won’t stop the bites and threatening dogs. They will all still be there – just with insurance.

What about if you JUST focused on the problem people and the problem dogs.
ONLY on them?

How about instituting a complaint system.
Someone gets three complaints (or whatever number the city determines to be realistic) about their dog (even if by the same complaintent) with three incidents reported, then that dog MUST go for a temperament test. A summons that an ACO or a police officer could write that mandates a behavior evaluation.

The “incident” would NOT have to be a bite. Don’t wait that long!!! ANY person can file a complaint about a dog for anything they deem threatening. Such as lunging at them. Lunging at their dog. Snapping or growling as they walk through their own hallways.

Once three complaints are filed (or whatever number you feel responsible), then that dog MUST go for a temperament test (or perhaps attend a CGC class instead?).

Pets Alive has one of the top three canine behaviorists in the country. His name is Pat Whitacre and he was the dog trainer from the National Geographic show DogTown. We can ask him to do these evaluations. He can then code the evaluations for you as RED (potentially dangerous and/or unpredictable), YELLOW (may need caution, a muzzle or can be pushed to react) or GREEN (non-issue dog).

If the dog is a RED, then that owner MUST then get the insurance you mandate, must keep the dog muzzled at all times when in public, perhaps pay a “retainer” to the city in case of a bite, or would need to surrender the dog.

If the dog is YELLOW then this should be at the discretion of the city how to handle and perhaps each yellow dog can be reviewed on a case by case basis by anyone you see fit (and we would also be happy to help with this, make the recommendation, or turn it over to someone in your city to make that decision). Perhaps YELLOW dogs would also require the insurance, or perhaps a muzzle in public depending on WHY they were yellow (for instance are they yellow because they hate other dogs? Are they yellow because if really pushed they MAY react by snapping or biting (but are generally ok if not provoked), or are they yellow because they are particularly fearful or shy and therefore their reactions may differ in different situations).

GREEN would mean the dog seems to have no issues, and could not be provoked into a dangerous reaction.

Perhaps you can have the owner pay a $50 fee for these evaluations, and the city would take a $25 administrative fee and Pets Alive would be paid a $25 eval fee (or whatever fee you feel appropriate). If not Pets Alive, then some other organization that is qualified to do temperament testing but you also must be careful because you have two schools of dog/rescue people out there – you will have the ones that want to pass all the dogs and you have the ones that will fail many of the dogs for impractical causes. The dog world can be a crazy place. I will promise you that Pets Alive and our trainers would be 100% on board with our evaluations for you. We WANT these dogs off the street. We WANT to see these people not be allowed to have dogs. We hate that they can mistreat and use dogs in this manner and we are deeply upset to think about children living in fear in their own homes, or being mauled by an animal. But equally we want to make sure that the dog is fairly evaluated and since we have one of the best behaviorists in the country right here it seems silly to not use him. However, that would be up to you, we merely volunteer our support and help in this, if we can.

Potential Problems with this idea:

The “crazies”. You are going to have some people that just hate dogs and will file erroneous complaints about every dog they see. Perhaps a way to solve this would be that if the dog turns out to be GREEN then THEY are required to pay the testing fee of $50. After a few of these stack up they won’t be so quick to complain about every single dog in the neighborhood.

What constitutes a complaint: The city would need to be clear on what can be complained about. This is about threatening dogs. This is not about dogs peeing on bushes that the city cut too short (smile) or defecation on the lawn that wasn’t cleaned up. Complaints need to be specific as to the feeling of being threatened or damaged in some way by the dog or the person with the dog.

Legality: I have no idea if you can FORCE someone to get a temperament test on their dog or force them to ONLY get it at a pre-approved City of Middletown place. Would they legally be allowed to bring the dog to any place that conducts such testing? Can they be required to pay? Perhaps this solution of temperament testing would be offered as an option or they would THEN fall under your other insurance law. “Do this. Or buy the insurance” ?

Liability to Pets Alive and the City of Middletown: I’m a little anxious about offering the temperament testing because of liability issues. If we rate a dog a green and that dog then bites someone, can this come back to “bite us both in the butt”? Can the city and Pets Alive be sued? Or can each rating go with a clause stating that neither the city or Pets Alive guarantee these temperament tests to be accurate, or something to that effect? Because even GREEN dogs might potentially bite in the right situation and dogs by their very nature can be unpredictable in any circumstance. Wording would need to be in place to protect Pets Alive (or whoever was doing the testing) and the City of Middletown for a lawsuit stemming from this.

Pets Alive’s Speech to the Middletown Council

kerry — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:53:59 +0000

This speech was given last night, April 3, to the Middletown Council Members in response to the proposed ordinance that would ban the feeding of feral cats and require all renters to carry dog insurance. There were no pictures in my speech. I just added these to break up all this text. The town announced they would continue to review the dog ordinance and were RESCINDING the feral cat ban! THANK YOU MIDDLETOWN COMMON COUNCIL!
———–

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

My name is Kerry Clair and I am the executive director the Pets Alive Animal Sanctuary in Middletown.

We very much appreciate being heard on legislation regarding animal issues.

I’d first like to address the proposal before the council to mandate the purchase of dog insurance by renters.

In every town across the nation, where mandated animal laws were adopted, the law never solved the issue it was supposed to resolve. In every case, towns that adopted ordinances such as insurance requirements, mandatory spay neuter and breed specific legislation have never been successful. The problem is that only the responsible pet owners will follow these mandates. The irresponsible ones will ignore them ANYWAY.

Additionally many landlords will decide the law is not worth the hassle to enforce, and will demand that tenants get rid of their dogs. Where will all of those dogs go? Is there a plan for that? Are you planning on mass killing for all of them? That sounds harsh, but there doesn’t seem to be a plan in place for housing or rehoming these animals that will be surrendered. Already the Middletown Humane Society and surrounding shelters are full and there is already a waiting list to take dogs in. What will now happen to these dogs that tenants will be forced to surrender?

Even if they are not forced by landlords to surrender their dogs, many will not be able to afford to purchase this insurance. An additional $300 a year in insurance , for people already struggling to make ends meet, is simply not affordable for MANY residents of Middletown. Those people will also be forced to give up their pets.

Already so many landlords do not allow pets. We could place so many more animals in homes and have so many fewer animals in shelters if more landlords would allow pets. This law gives them another reason for not dealing with what they perceive to be the hassle of pets in their rental property.

Our second concern is the definition of a bite. The ordinance calls for any person that has a dog that has bitten to carry extra insurance, and uses the term “dangerous dog”. “Dangerous Dog” has a specific legal definition under NYS Agriculture and Markets law. The law has specific circumstances under which a dog can be determined by a judge or justice to be a dangerous animal to the community. For that reason we shouldn’t use or redefine that term when describing a dog that has bitten or nipped someone.

Additionally, who will determine if a family has to carry even MORE insurance because their dog has a bite on his record? Will each bite or nip be analyzed independently? They are not all equal and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Instead, why not require muzzles for dogs that have a past and proven aggressive bite history, when out in public, like the New York State Dangerous Dog Law does? Wouldn’t that be more fair? This will safely enable dogs to be out in public without unfairly penalizing renters and people in Middletown who have perfectly well behaved dogs and are perfectly responsible pet owners.

Will having insurance result in fewer bites? No. What is the goal of this new law and how will it be enforced? Obviously police can’t go house-to-house demanding to see proof of insurance for dogs. Does it only have to be proven if the dog has bitten? And then what happens if the renter doesn’t have that insurance? Do they then get fined? Kicked out? The dog confiscated? Since the town won’t really know if a renter has the insurance until after a bite, why should every owner be penalized if they are responsible and act responsibly in their personal dog ownership?

Since we already know it doesn’t work, as evidenced in other cities that have tried it, why would the city even consider it?

The second and final thing I would like to discuss tonight is the new ban on feeding cats. I respectfully ask that you rescind this ordinance.

THIS METHOD OF CONTROLLING CAT POPULATIONS HAS NEVER, EVER, WORKED. The ONLY way to decrease stray and feral populations of cats is by TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return).

If you have 25 feral cats and you leave them unchecked, every year each female will have one or two litters and those litters will stay IN that feral colony. They will then have their own litters. This will expand exponentially. However if you have 25 cats and you fix them so no offspring are born – THOSE CATS WILL NOT USUALLY ALLOW STRANGE CATS TO JOIN THEM. So as they die (the average life span of a feral cats is about 5 years old) your colony will get smaller and smaller.

Not feeding them and punishing people that feed them will accomplish NOTHING. Starved cats do not “go away”. They are there because well before someone started feeding them, they found a food source. Or good shelter. Or safety. If you don’t help them with a little food, then they may become sick, ill or diseased, and this malnourished condition also makes them more susceptible to parasitic infestations, such as fleas and roundworms which they will then spread in your neighborhood to your family pets, though this does NOT STOP THEM from breeding. Then you have kittens born. Sick kittens in feral colonies DIE. This isn’t good to watch or for visitors to your community to see.

Kindhearted people who help feed these colonies are actually doing a great service. They use their OWN money to provide food and care. Taxpayers and communities save money by not ultimately having to trap them all and kill them when it becomes unmanageable. Trapping, euthanizing and disposing of bodies all cost taxpayer money. So does arresting, fining, or taking people to court for feeding them! When warmhearted citizens feed and care for them it does NOT cost the community a dime.

The city and county should be HELPING with feral management, not hindering it, because in the end it is FAR cheaper to manage such a colony than to just keep killing them all.
Also, really – how can you truly enforce this? Cat lovers who care about these animals aren’t going to simply stop. After I released my blog about this issue, I received the following email from a Middletown resident. She said:

“One reason TNR is the only option is people like me. I would feed the cats in the middle of the night – no matter WHAT the law says. I will not let cats go hungry! I would rather TNR but the law would arrest me or fine me.”

Are you going to have to pay police to monitor every area of woods, or garbage area, or backyard communities? Are you willing to arrest little old ladies and fine them and drag them to court? These caring Middletown citizens will find new and innovative ways to keep feeding.

Not feeding them doesn’t help you. It hurts you. Feral cats will survive ANYWAY. This has been proven in deserts and on deserted islands throughout the world where ferals survive without any nearby human habitation. Within a few years, even without feeding them, you will be so overrun with cats that you will be forced to start taking drastic measure, like killing them…and your rodent population will also be out of control.

I understand that Jane Hoffman who manages the animal situation in NYC in conjunction with the ASPCA has also emailed you a letter in regards to the feeding of feral cats. Please understand that they are managing animals in the largest city in the United States and have tried EVERYTHING with feral cat populations. The letter she sent you explains why TNR is the only way of effectively managing cats. Allie Cat Allies, the largest cat organization in the United States ALSO supports TNR as the only way of managing feral colonies.

I have a rule for my staff. Don’t come to me with problems. Come to me with solutions. As such I offer you this solution. Pets Alive will step up and work with Middletown and Wallkill SOLELY for the next year on our newly developed TNR program. If the town will help cover ½ the cost of altering the cats, Pets Alive will take on the responsibility of the other half, and of all the trapping, transporting and any additional vetting needed. Many local shelters will spay/neuter feral cats for as little as $20-30. We are ready to commit to the cats of Middletown and Wallkill. Will you commit to them too?

If we are going to fix the issues in shelters and help animals in our community, we must all be work together and do everything we can to make it easy to live with your animals in a rental home, easy to get your animals altered, and easy to allow animals in the community. We ask that the Council members please consider working with us to solve the problems the town faces.

Thank you for your time.

Middletown Common Council proposes irresponsible animal legislation

kerry — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 23:43:39 +0000

At the last Common Council meeting in Middletown a proposal was made and it appears to have been accepted, to prohibit the feeding of stray or feral cats. This ban on the feeding of feral and stray cats, while on the surface appears to address a problem, will actually cause a MUCH larger problem for cats and animals in Middletown. I am sure that the people proposing this feeding prohibition believe that if people do not feed feral and stray cats that the cats will “move on” and will no longer continue to procreate and reside in the neighborhood.

What the author of this amendment is probably unaware of is that THIS METHOD OF CONTROLLING CAT POPULATIONS HAS NEVER, EVER, WORKED.

The ONLY way to decrease stray and feral populations of cats is by TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return).
I wrote a blog on this very issue some time ago and it is called “Feral Cats – Educating Communities“.

“When cats are removed, rodent populations explode and increase the spreading of disease. Instead of eradicating a colony and killing cats, sterilization would be the most effective and humane method of control. Roger Tabor adds that, “if a colony is neutered and returned to its area it will continue to hold the location and keep other cats out by its presence. The group’s population will gradually decline over a few years.”

For example, say you have 25 feral cats in a feral community. If you leave them unchecked, every year every female will have one or two litters and those litters will stay IN the community. They are accepted. They will then have their own litters. And so forth and so on. However if you have 25 cats and you fix them all so no offspring are born – THOSE CATS WILL NOT USUALLY ALLOW STRANGE CATS TO JOIN THEM. So as they die (the average life span of a feral cats is about 5 years old) your community will get smaller and smaller until eventually there are none.

Do you understand the concept of how this works?
Not feeding them will accomplish NOTHING.
Punishing people that feed them will accomplish NOTHING.

Starved cats do not “go away”. They are there because well before someone started feeding them, they found a food source – garbage, rodents, whatever it was. Or good shelter. Or feel it is safe there. That is why they are there to begin with. If you don’t help them with a little food, then they can become sick, ill, diseased, and this malnourished condition also makes them more susceptible to parasitic infestations, such as fleas and roundworms which they will then spread in your neighborhood to your family pets, but this does NOT STOP THEM from breeding. Then you have kittens born. Dying all over the town. Litter after litter. This isn’t good to watch, for visitors to your community to see, and it increases disease and wandering of these animals (where they then spread it).

Feeding them and managing a feral community actually keeps DOWN the number of cats.
WAY DOWN.

People that help feed these communities are actually doing a great service. They use their OWN money to care for and feed them. The healthier cat does not spread disease or wander as far. Taxpayers and communities save money by not ultimately having to trap them all and kill them when it becomes unmanageable. Trapping, euthanizing and disposing of bodies all cost taxpayer money. So does arresting, fining, or taking people to court for feeding them! Individuals feeding them – does NOT cost the community a dime. The city and county should be HELPING with feral management, not hindering it, because in the end it is FAR cheaper to manage such a community than to just keep killing them all.

Also, really – how can you truly enforce this? People who care about animals, aren’t going to simply stop. Are you going to have to pay for police to monitor every area of woods, or garbage area, or backyard communities? Pay for all that time? Arrest little old ladies and fine them and drag them to court? People who care, will find new and innovative ways to keep feeding. And they should. Because they are the ones that are right, and people who want to stop them are the ones that are wrong. Studies prove this over and over and over again. Not feeding them doesn’t help you. It hurts you. Feral cats will survive ANYWAY. This has been proven in deserts and on deserted islands throughout the world where ferals survive without any nearby human habitation. So what are you really accomplishing in your community with feral cat feed banning? Again…nothing. Within a few years, even without feeding them, you will be so overrun with cats that you will be forced to start taking drastic measure, like killing them and then the seniors in that community, their visitors, or anyone living in the area, will be extremely upset and this will cause tremendously bad press.

In addition to this legislation they are also proposing another one that will be discussed at a meeting this Tuesday. This proposed law will REQUIRE renters to get liability insurance on all large dogs. Renters would be required to have a minimum of a $100,000 insurance policy on all dogs weighing over 50 pounds. They claim the law is needed because of the rising number of dog bites. This insurance is expected to cost renters an additional $200-300 a year.

Also an additional insurance requirement would be required for dogs that have already bitten a person. Those dogs would require an additional $50,000-$100,000 policy.

So let’s say your dog is running around with the kids, get’s over excited and “nips” someone. That would be classified as a bite if you go to the emergency room to get it cleaned up and your dog would now require additional insurance if you want to keep that dog. If you don’t, what are your options? You may already be struggling to pay your bills and keep your kids clothed. Now, if you want to keep the family dog, you’ll be forced to fork out another $300 a year.

In a town that is already beleaguered with animal control issues, meaning they basically have none at the moment (maybe in violation of NYS law), what is the town planning on doing with all of the dogs that will be surrendered, abandoned and let loose as a result of renters refusing, or not being able to pay this insurance?

In every single town across America, it has been shown time and time again that mandatory animal laws do not work and in fact result in a massive increase in animals being dumped on the sheltering system. It has failed nationwide. In every city, in every town where it has been enacted.

It has never resulted in less bites. Is that the goal here? Will having insurance result in less bites? No.

Having such laws has not resulted in “better” lawsuits either. What exactly is the purpose of this new law? How will it be enforced? Will police be going to every landlord and demanding to see proof of insurance for their renters? Does it only have to be proven if the dog has bitten? And then what happens if the renter doesn’t have that insurance? Do they then get fined? Kicked out? Their dog confiscated?

Is this a good use of police time, when we are already struggling in Middletown to cover the current budget?
Is this a good use of our court system?

Since we already know it doesn’t work, why would the city even consider it?

Like banning the feeding of feral cats, this law will actually have the OPPOSITE effect.

The only solution to feral and stray cats in managing the community. This is done through feeding, TNR and vetting these animals and in the end this costs the taxpayer and the city FAR less than any of the alternatives. Additionally what can be done about dog bites is strict fines and penalties for owner irresponsibility. Since the town won’t really know if a renter has the insurance until after a bite, why should every owner be penalized if they are responsible and act responsibly in their personal dog ownership? Why aren’t the people that are irresponsible fined heavily and penalized heavily for their irresponsibility?

It is time to stop penalizing and hurting the majority of good dog owners (and good dogs), for the irresponsible few.
It is time to stand up and fight irresponsible animal laws in our community.
It is time to be heard on these issues and to intelligently resolve animal infractions, and not in a way that harms the law abiding citizen and their well behaved pet.

Additionally, we must ask – why are renters being penalized? This law ONLY applies to people renting. That is a bias that also must be addressed. Isn’t isolating one type of person discriminatory and illegal under NYS Law (I’m not a lawyer and don’t know the answer to this but it seems biased to me)? What is the difference between renters, and home owners? This law would unfairly penalize renters and as stated above would result in a massive backlash of abandoned animals in a shelter system that is already bursting at the seams in Middletown.

1st Ward Alderman Joe Masi has stated that public input could change this law. We appreciate that he cares very much what the public has to say on this issue. We are asking for your public input now. We ask that all our readers attend the Common Council and speak out intelligently, politely, and pointedly about these proposed animal laws in our community and also we ask you to email our town councilmen and mayor.

Please email them and politely ask them NOT to pass this proposed law and to also read more information on the detriment of banning the feeding of feral cats.

Joseph M. DeStefano (Middletown Mayor): mayor@middletown-ny.com
Joe Masi (1st Ward Alderman): jmasi@middletown-ny.com
J. Miguel Rodrigues (Common Council President): jmrodrigues@middletown-ny.com

Full contact for all the members and phone numbers can be found here: http://middletown-ny.com/mayor.htm

Thank you for caring about the animals in your community.
We are eager for the town to hear us on these issues.

It is the rescue community and the public that have the greater knowledge and experience with these issues and our voices need to be heard when they come into our courts.

Please send an email and attend the meeting this Tuesday, April 3.
Meetings are held at the Common Council Chamber on the second floor of City Hall at 16 James Street in Middletown at 8:00 PM but please get there early to get a seat and be heard.

The Quick Kill Bill, and a question – WHY?

kerry — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:40:37 +0000

It has been a very “up and down” couple of days and for many that read the normal Pets Alive twitter and Facebook, we haven’t been up to our usual light hearted tweets and posts.

I learned a long time ago that the thing that keep all of you coming back, and following us, and supporting us, is to feel good about what we do and why, and how, and to show you all that goodness. It makes us feel good too.

That isn’t to say there aren’t horrible things in rescue. There ARE. We see it every day, of course. But we don’t feel you need to be pelted with it. I’d rather show you the picture of that dog AFTER we loved him back into health, or that kitten after we cleaned her up and she is on her way to her forever home.

But sometimes bad things are going on that we need you to step up and fix because without you we are truly powerless. I can write a letter or call someone on the phone and that can mean nothing at all. But when we ask all of YOU to, and you DO, it is so tremendously powerful that it brings the opposition to it’s knees. Collectively we are very powerful and collectively we can implement change. Good change. Positive change.

Recently I have put out blogs about how happy I was in regards to the ASPCA doing some really good things. I wanted to type “for a change” here and be bitter about them but the fact is that the ASPCA does have many good programs and they do have good things that go on within their organization. I guess the disconnect for me though, and for so many of you, is why they would ever fight anything that has the power to be so good for animals. Not only fight it, but lobby against it, use their might and power to betray it and stop it. I sit here and wonder why they would do that.

In my years of working with animals I can consistently go back to things I have learned from Michael Mountain. He has always given me much to think about, contemplate and learn, in every single conversation or exchange I have ever had with him. And he would ask “why?”. “What are the REASONS behind the way they are acting. What is the motivation?” So I have given that a great deal of thought. Are the leaders of the ASPCA evil people? Do they hate animals? Do they want to keep all the power and decision making about animals to themselves and be the mandators and arbitrators of all things animal? Are they afraid of something? If so, what? Are they just ignorant? Are the people doing these things just dumb or uninformed?

I look at all those questions and I am just left baffled. They fought against Oreo’s Law. They stopped it dead in it’s tracks. Why? It was said because they feared “hoarders” getting animals or that there were no reviews done on the pulling rescues and “any rescue” could get an animal then, no matter what. At least that is what I remember their reasoning to be, but the fact is that none of that is true. In Oreo’s Law and in CAARA there are many safeguards in place for this and I would challenge you to think about the odds. OK, let’s say for an instance that some irreputable places get animals due to CAARA’s law. So let’s even say it is a HUGE number. Let’s guesstimate 10% of all animals saved by rescues from death at shelters go to not great places (and come on, ten percent would be absurd don’t you think?) Since the ASPCA defeated Oreo’s law almost 40,000 lives would have been saved. So let’s look at those numbers. 40,000. If we use that high 10% number then 4,000 went to places that weren’t that great. That leaves 36,000 animals that went to amazing and wonderful places and into homes. Aren’t these odds good? Aren’t these numbers amazing? Because once we have CAARA in place ….well then, now we can start saying “Hey, 4,000 animals did NOT go to good places last year and while a not so great place may, or may not, be better than dead, we need to now turn our attention on those places and get this fixed. Shut them down. Stop then from being able to run a rescue.” Then since we have CAARA, we can focus all our energies on THAT change and THAT fix.

Don’t you think that would be a better way to handle the ASPCA’s fears? After all – isn’t that their job? To be the “voice” of the animals? To protect the animals? To stop cruelty to animals? They have hundreds of millions dollars every year to do it. So can’t they funnel maybe a million bucks a year into making that a huge part of their programs in NYS so that we can then save 100% of the animals thanks to CAARA?

But no, they don’t see it this way and I’m perplexed as to why. Doesn’t this sound reasonable to you? Doesn’t this make sense? DOESN’T IT? So why if you, and I, and the huge bulk of the animal community, including Michael Mountain, Best Friends, The No Kill Nation, Alley Cat Allies and thousands upon thousands of other animal organizations around the country that are actually DOING the saving of the animals (unlike the ASPCA really), then why can’t the ASPCA see this? What is the problem here? Shouldn’t they listen to and believe those of us in the trenches? Shouldn’t they come out of their offices and look at what we have to say? Meet with us? Discuss these things? Don’t you think that this is the rational response?

And yet they don’t and again I am shaking my head and baffled completely as to why.

And not only do they refuse to hear us, listen to us, meet with us, discuss all of this with us, they go behind our backs to stop our bills and they fight them tooth and nail and they put all their weight and power and money behind stopping US from helping animals. Again….WHY? Do they have some secret that they can’t let us in on? Some reason for not explaining their actions? Why put ANOTHER bill forth – the disgusting Amy Paulin bill now known across the country as “The Quick Kill Bill”.

If they really wanted to protect animals and want a bill to do so, why not sit with us and rework the wording of CAARA in a way that we could all agree on because I will tell you something dear readers – if the ASPCA came to us and said “Hey, in your bill, this doesn’t make sense and we are concerned about animals as a result” there isn’t a single one of us that wouldn’t say “WHAT? Is our bill missing something? Are we not protecting animals in every way we can with it? WOW! Let’s look at that and reword that so that we can protect animals the best we can!” Do you think any of us would refuse changes that would help animals? I mean – OF COURSE NOT! HELLO! But they do – they don’t invite us in to discuss the bill they are putting forth, they don’t even acknowledge us when we point out massive problems with their bill, or respond to us, they won’t work with us on OUR bill and they don’t try to protect animals. Why not?

Let’s look at the bill that they put out, ok? And again, most of us aren’t lawyers and most of us are not rocket scientists but even in my dumb-not-rocket-scientist way *I* can see the problems here and so can you. So why is it that they can not? Why is it that they won’t discuss this with us, or address this, or fix this, or support the bill that is already THERE that DOES take all of this into account. WHY PUT ANOTHER BILL OUT THERE?

Under the ASPCA & Amy Paulin’s bill, New York State shelters can refuse to give a dog (or even a puppy, or a kitten or a cat or any animal we are able to save) to a rescue group and kill him instead for any of the following reasons (and more):

The shelter claims the puppy is in “psychological pain” because he whines in the shelter.
The shelter says the rescue group is hostile because it reported publicly that shelter animals are allowed to wallow in filth while staff is not reprimanded for failure to clean.
The rescue group is in a neighboring county.
The shelter states that it does not believe the rescue group can provide adequate care without having to objectively state how or why they arrived at that conclusion.
The puppy has a cold which the shelter determines to be “contagious” and therefore “deadly” to other animals in the shelter.
The shelter claims the puppy is aggressive.

By contrast, under CAARA, the shelter would not be able to kill a puppy if a rescue group offered to save him unless:

The puppy was irremediably suffering and the prognosis for rehabilitation was poor or grave.
The rescue group had a volunteer, staff, or board member who has charges of animal neglect, cruelty, or dog fighting pending against them or a conviction for neglect, cruelty, or dog fighting.
The rescue group failed an inspection that was conducted in a timely manner with objective criteria for failing.

I mean are YOU with me here?
If you look at these two bills, which one would YOU support?
And yet the ASPCA supports the one that allows this killing rather than helping the animal? Really? Why?

Under the ASPCA’s bill shelter animals can not only be killed within a minute of arrival and not only can these shelters pick and choose who they want to work with on rescuing these animals from death, but the bill says they “MAY” work with rescue groups – NOT THAT THEY HAVE TO. Additionally, the bill “suggests” that shelters would be required to scan for microchips, match lost and found animals, and post these animals online, BUT IN REALITY THE LEGAL WORDING gives them the ability not to if they determine, wholly within their discretion, it is not PRACTICABLE to do so. Every provision requiring shelters to do anything is preceded by the loophole not to if they determine it is not “practicable” to do so. Also who determines if an animal is “psychologically” suffering? Well if you read the ASPCA’s bill – two people. Pretty much any two people. They don’t have to have any knowledge or any specialized training, they don’t even have to know a single thing about animals. If you and I agree that this animal is psychologically suffering (& excuse me but what the hell does that even MEAN?), even if 2,000 other people say it is not, well then we can kill this animal. We only need two people. Really?

Now all of you that have been to Pets Alive have SEEN the animals when they first come in here. They are terrified. Tails tucked. Shaking like a leaf. Some won’t even MOVE. They huddle at the back of their runs. We’ve all seen it and I have written about it many times. Every one of those dogs could be killed upon intake according to the ASPCA’s bill. You have all witnessed it with your own eyes! That transformation. The tails coming up, the dogs coming to greet you tails wagging in less than a few days. You have all seen us take truly feral and terrified animals and within days or weeks they are out on walks or in loving homes, going up that driveway with their heads out the window and their tongues hanging out and their tails wagging.

You are not a professional.

Yet you know this to be true.

Then why doesn’t the ASPCA know it?
Again I go back to Michael Mountain’s questions of long ago. To understand someone you have to understand what their motives are.

And usually I can.

Power. Greed. Corruption. Money.

I’m just at a loss for this one. Is that what the ASPCA is truly about? Would they harm animals, and not support a bill because of those motivators? Really? But if not, then why? WHY? What are their reasons? And why are we sitting here and wondering why? Why aren’t they telling us? Why are they always silent as we beg them for answers? Why will they not support CAARA? Why would they put forth their own bill that hurts animals and kills animals?

So then we lose on Oreo’s Law, and that ridiculous woman, Amy Paulin with the backing of the ASPCA, submits her bill and it passes the Ag Committee. Now it has to go to the Codes Committee and we have heard from the WONDERFUL, and animal loving, chairman of that committee, Mr Joseph Lentol and he says :

“I am not a sponsor of this bill and have not had any part in its drafting. Those who have voiced their opposition against this bill have raised legitimate questions and I, too, am concerned. Therefore, I do not intend to report this legislation at this time. I believe a great deal more study and work must be done on this issue before legislation can be moved to the floor.”

I want to find this man and kiss him. And hug him. And then kiss him again.

So we are overjoyed and our hearts sing and we go home with smiles on our faces and then what do we hear? We hear that there is one way to FORCE the chairman to put the bill on the floor and that is if the Speaker of the Assembly, Mr. Sheldon Silver overrides him. So we hear that the ASPCA is already talking to him and that he might be very sympathetic to them (and I guess their money and power) and our hearts sink. We don’t even know if the ASPCA has his ear, but we know that Mr. Lentol won’t let this go forward and we don’t know what Mr. Silver will do. And I sit and wonder exactly how powerful IS the ASPCA, but more than that I ask myself over and over and over – why? Why would they do this, why are they doing this? Why? Don’t they care? Don’t they care about how many animals this will affect? Don’t they think CAARA is a better law? If not…why?

And then I think about all that money that they raise and I think about how much our teeny tiny organization has done with almost no money and struggling every month to make sure we can pay our bills, but then I think about all the lives we have saved and all the impact we have had in our community and others, with almost no money. I think wow, if we had that kind of money what could we do? And we hear the head of the ASPCA, Ed Sayres, is looking for another job and I think wouldn’t it be so cool if we could get a guy like Nathan into that position. What would someone like HIM do with all that money? My guess is we would see INSTANT change and no kill communities. Because if you have money and power you can accomplish so much. Look at all the ASPCA has accomplished on the WRONG side – killing Oreo. Killing Oreo’s Law. Killing CAARA. Putting through their own hideous bill. And then think about if they used that power for GOOD what they could have done. Wow. The options and possibilities are staggering.

So why don’t they. Again. Why?

Now let’s look at Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. I have no idea if she is a republican or a democrat. Don’t care. Never bothered to look it up. But here is the important thing. WE voted her into office. We. The people. Her constituents. What does that mean? Well Webster defines it like this: a person who authorizes another to act in his or her behalf. So by voting for Amy Paulin we authorized her to act IN OUR BEHALF. And when she put up this hideous bill, she heard from us. 16,000 people. Did you get that? She heard from 16,000 people that we did NOT want this. What then, gives HER the right to ignore us all and put this forth anyway? Her own interests? Promises from the ASPCA to help fund her campaign? What? Why? Because when you only have 80 people on your Facebook page that follow you and the most replies you’ve EVER had to one of your posts is 3, and suddenly your Facebook page lights up with over 1900+ posts ALL from New Yorkers say ”STOP IT. NO. WE DON’T WANT THIS“, how exactly are you acting in our behalf?

Politicians seem to forget that they work for us. That we put them in office to DO OUR BIDDING. Not the other way around. When they lose sight of that and when they decide to act in what is in THEIR best interest (being buddies with the powerful ASPCA) then we can not re-elect these people. Remember that as she is up for re-election in November and New Yorkers must send her, and all of those like her, a very clear message.

So where are we now.

Well, we are back to square one I guess. Our bill has still not been presented even to the Ag Committee and theirs has passed the Ag committee but been been canned by the Codes Committee Chairman, Joe Lentol. So it all comes back to Sheldon Silver and the ASPCA. Just how powerful IS the ASPCA? Does Sheldon Silver care about animals? Who knows. We know that he does care about his career. And if the ASPCA is in his ear whispering about what they can do for him and perhaps how they can fill his campaign coffers, will he do the right thing, or will he throw Joe Lentrol under a bus and force the bill to the floor? Because here is how it works for those of you that don’t know. The Assembly is sort of like the House of Representatives, but it is only for New York State. The Speaker is much like the speaker on the national level, and he has the same powers. He is the one that decides who heads the committees. He was the one that appointed Joe Lentrol. He has the power to take that away from him, I believe arbitrarily (someone can correct me in the comments if that is not so). The final say on committee chairpersons lies with Sheldon Silver. And Sheldon Silver is the second most powerful man in New York State. Sheldon Silver likely responds to power and I’m sure the ASPCA can promise him many things.

Will they?
I’m sure they will as this is the last way they have to get their bill passed.
Will he respond to them?

Well THAT is the question.

Can YOU influence his decision?
I don’t know. But you HAVE to try. Because so far the blow up on Amy Paulin’s page and the anger and hostility from New Yorkers over this bill has made a committee chairman pay attention, has made a previous supporter of the bill back off it and remove his name from it (and likely many more will follow suit), and so we have clearly had a major and massive impact. The only thing left for us to do is continue this relentless onslaught and try to make Sheldon Silver pay attention to us and recognize that his constituents are more important than the power of the ASPCA. That if he does for us, and supports us in this, that we will be there for him forever. We need to at least try to make sure he realizes how important this is to us. To this end I ask that you click the link below and send him a letter and politely (in your own words or you can use the text provided) tell him how much this matters to YOU. A New Yorker. And a voter. And mostly, an animal lover.

CLICK HERE TO SEND SHELDON SILVER AN EMAIL (feel free to also follow up with a phone call)

Oh, and by the way…all the animals you see pictured in this blog? PAY ATTENTION TO THIS NOW – every single one of them would, or could, have been euthanized by the ASPCA’s & Amy Paulin’s Quick Kill Bill. Hmmm. Take a another look. All of them. Is this the bill we want for New York?

Independently we are nothing. Collectively, we are EVERYTHING.

Wind them up, give them a little power, watch them…kill?

kerry — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 22:18:18 +0000

So all over the nation the no-kill movement is growing and growing and growing. Building momentum. More and more people are getting involved, not accepting the status quo (that they “have to die, there are no other options“), and putting an end to the killing in their neighborhoods. BSL is being fought, kill shelters are frowned upon, TNR is supported and good is conquering evil.

Each day, each week, each month, we hear more and more success stories. We learn more about the good that people are doing and we watch as the “evil-doers” are verbally and legally attacked by their community for their killing. People flooding meetings to standing-room-only status, bringing law suits against their shelters, and standing up for what is right and good. No longer backing down, but fighting to save lives. The “bad” is no longer covered up, but put out there with the press covering it, blogs light up across the internet with “do you believe this?? SIGN THIS PETITION”.

We rejoice that you are no longer tolerating it.
Good for you.

However it still seems that tiny people with small minds and with a wee bit of “power” are out there abusing it and trying to use it to do harm. Old-style shelter directors, animal hating animal control officers, town officials, co-op board members that seem to have nothing better to do than to continue to try to kill animals that their own communities want to protect and save.

On Tuesday we will be going to court to fight just such a situation. Let me tell you about it.

Kimmee was a dog that we rescued from the CACC the morning she was scheduled to die for a URI (upper respiratory infection).

Kimmie was quiet, and shy and scared. We took her in and with five days of antibiotics she was fine. Ready to go into a home. She was so timid and quiet that she became a volunteer, staff and kid favorite. The children here would warm up to her, perhaps recognizing in her the things in themselves that they once conquered. Volunteers eagerly walked this beautiful dog and staff spent extra time winning her over and helping her past her shyness.

Along came a couple that fell in love with her, and took her home. For eleven months she lived with them. She spent time with neighbors, children, at the dog park, in a dog day camp when they went away. Everyone who came in contact with her stated the same thing. “Shy, but very sweet”. No one had any aggression issues with her. She never even lifted a lip at anyone.

But this week, something terrible happened. A TV repairman came into the home and he leaned over to kiss her face. Kimmee (now called Kaylee) responded by biting him. It was not a nip, it was a bite and the man needed stitches to repair his torn lip. The owners returned Kimmee to us and explained what happened. Everyone was surprised, including them. Eleven months, not a problem. The entire time she was here, never a problem. Now she reacted to a situation that was scary for her and she bit someone. We are not excusing this bite. We are not saying that Kimmee is faultless. We feel terrible for this poor man – that had his face bitten in such a manner! We feel terrible for the owners that had to return a dog they loved. A bite is never something to scoff at and never something to not respect and take seriously.

But here is where the story goes bad.
The Animal Control Officer of Goshen, Laureen Sandstrom, has decided that Kimmee is a “Dangerous Dog”. She is trying to stop us from ever allowing Kimmee to be adopted again. I called her and she was adamant. I explained that according to New York State Law, she has no legal case to declare Kimmee a “Dangerous Dog” according to the NYS Dangerous Dog law. She sarcastically told me that she has done this “tons of times before”. On Tuesday we will go to court to fight this. Not only for Kimmee, but for all the dogs out there that this woman is declaring “dangerous”. First let me explain the law to you to show you why this woman doesn’t even have a legal case. She is a woman that was given a tiny bit of power and instead of using it to help animals and protect their lives, she has tried to use it to harm them. She doesn’t even KNOW the law that she is trying to use against Kimmee. Can you believe it? She is trying to invoke DANGEROUS DOG Laws on Kimmee, but she doesn’t even know the law. Let’s take a look, shall we?

Here’s the actual statute:
http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusnyagri_mkts_121.htm

1. Laureen, the Animal Control Officer can’t make the complaint. She didn’t witness the bite. The guy who was bitten has to:

Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the case of
a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may make a complaint of
an attack or threatened attack upon a person, companion animal, farm
animal as defined in subdivision twenty-four of section one hundred eight
of this article, or a domestic animal as defined in subdivision seven of
section one hundred eight of this article to a dog control officer or
police officer of the appropriate municipality.

By the way, she also has to ticket someone – the owners of the dog, before going to court. No ticket has ever been issued! Hmm. Starting to wonder if the Animal Control officer of Goshen even KNOWS the law! Are they given any training at all?

2. IF the guy who was bitten makes the complaint, THEN she can initiate the proceedings herself (but so far he hasn’t and she already told us we have a court date and time – um, based on what? He hasn’t made any complaint yet! Did she illegally file all the paperwork before she had a complaint?):

Such officer shall immediately inform the complainant of his right to
commence a proceeding as provided in subdivision two of this section and,
if there is reason to believe the dog is a dangerous dog, the officer
shall forthwith commence such proceeding himself.

3. Jurisdiction clearly resides with the municipal judge. That’s awesome for us. That means Laureen, the ACO officer has no authority at all. And it means that some board member, or town clerk can’t do it either. It has to be done by a sitting judge. Hopefully HE knows the law!.

Any person who witnesses an attack or threatened attack, or in the case of
a minor, an adult acting on behalf of such minor, may, and any dog control
officer or police officer as provided in subdivision one of this section
shall, make a complaint under oath or affirmation to any municipal judge
or justice of such attack or threatened attack.

4. The first thing that happens is that the justice has to decide if there is probable cause to believe the dog is dangerous under the law. In this case that is VERY shaky, but of course just like you can sue anyone you want, with our without reason, a judge can make a ruling and then it would be up to us to defend our side under law.

If he believes there is probable cause, Laureen has no jurisdiction in Wallkill – the town we are in, and the dog was legally surrendered to US. So now they have to get the Wallkill Animal Control Officer to try to seize the dog. We’re still not clear if a town judge can compel an officer of another town to do something, though it does look like the law says he can.

Thereupon, the judge or justice shall immediately determine if there is
probable cause to believe the dog is a dangerous dog and, if so, shall
issue an order to any dog control officer, peace officer, acting pursuant
to his special duties, or police officer directing such officer to
immediately seize such dog and hold the same pending judicial
determination as provided in this section.

5. Then there has to be a hearing within 5 days, and the “owner” needs to get 2 days notice. Burden of proof is on the person who makes the complaint to prove the dog is a dangerous dog.

Whether or not the judge or justice finds there is probable cause for such
seizure, he shall, within five days and upon written notice of not less
than two days to the owner of the dog, hold a hearing on the complaint.
The petitioner shall have the burden at such hearing to prove the dog is a
“dangerous dog” by clear and convincing evidence.

6. If the judge believes the dog is dangerous he has to spay/neuter the dog, chip the dog, and can do one or more of the following:

If satisfied that the dog is a dangerous dog, the judge or justice shall
then order neutering or spaying of the dog, microchipping of the dog and
one or more of the following as deemed appropriate under the circumstances
and as deemed necessary for the protection of the public:

Have the dog evaluated at the owner’s expense.
Confine the dog.
Restrain the dog in public
Muzzle the dog in public
Order that liability insurance be in force at all times.

7. Here’s the most important part. In order to kill or permanently confine the dog, at least one of the following special circumstances has to be true:

a) the dog, without justification, attacked a person causing serious
physical injury or death;

[NYS Penal Law section 10.0 defines "Serious physical injury" as physical
injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or
serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or
protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.]

Don’t see it here.

(b) the dog has a known vicious propensity as evidenced by a previous
unjustified attack on a person, which caused serious physical injury or
death.

No, we don’t have THAT here either.

(c) the dog, without justification, caused serious physical injury or
death to a companion animal, farm animal or domestic animal.

No, don’t have that here either.

8. If the dog is deemed “dangerous” the owner has 30 days to appeal in County Court. So if they sentence the dog to death they have to wait 30 days to kill her. Pets Alive would appeal to county court in this case.

The owner of a dog found to be a “dangerous dog” pursuant to this section
may appeal such determination, and/or the court’s order concerning
disposition of the dog to the court having jurisdiction to hear civil
appeals in the county where the “dangerous dog” finding was made. The
owner shall commence such appeal by filing a notice of appeal with the
appropriate court within thirty days of the final order pursuant to this
section. Court rules governing civil appeals in the appropriate
jurisdiction shall govern the appeal of a determination under this
section.

9. If the judge orders death there is an AUTOMATIC stay with the appeal. Anything else has to be motioned for:

Upon filing a notice of appeal from an order of humane euthanasia pursuant
to this section, such order shall be automatically stayed pending final
determination of any appeal. In all other circumstances, the owner of the
dog may make application to the court to issue a stay of disposition
pending determination of the appeal.

10. Nothing else applies except we find this really cool:

A dog shall not be declared dangerous if the court determines the conduct
of the dog (a) was justified because the threat, injury or damage was
sustained by a person who at the time was committing a crime or offense
upon the owner or custodian of the dog or upon the property of the owner
or custodian of the dog; (b) was justified because the injured, threatened
or killed person was tormenting, abusing, assaulting or physically
threatening the dog or its offspring, or has in the past tormented,
abused, assaulted or physically threatened the dog or its offspring; (c)
was justified because the dog was responding to pain or injury, or was
protecting itself, its owner, custodian, or a member of its household, its
kennels or its offspring; or was justified because the injured, threatened
or killed companion animal, farm animal or domestic animal was attacking
or threatening to attack the dog or its offspring. Testimony of a
certified applied behaviorist, a board certified veterinary behaviorist,
or another recognized expert shall be relevant to the court’s
determination as to whether the dog’s behavior was justified pursuant to
the provisions of this subdivision.

We think we could easily argue that the dog THOUGHT she was protecting her family. We also think it’s cool that the law carves out exemptions for dogs doing their duty.

As luck would have it, Pets Alive just happened to have one of the nation’s premier experts in dog training, and behavior, at our sanctuary this week. Pat Whitacre, lead trainer at the Best Friends Animal Society (one of the nation’s LARGEST organizations) has more degrees next to his name than most doctors, tons of experience, and even starred in a TV show on National Geographic. He was on “vacation” at Pets Alive, volunteering. We asked him to do a behavior assessment for Kimmee.

Guess how she did?
Great! The assessment is geared to get reactions. Dogs that will bite, will be tempted into it during some of these tests. While he found her shy, and anxious during some of the tests, she never resorted to biting as a response. I won’t post the whole assessment but here is the summary (which we will present in court):

Summary: Kimmie is a dog who lacks confidence when faced with unfamiliar people or situations. Her bite in the home showed that the right/wrong conditions can produce an aggressive reaction. However, during a wide variety of conditions during this assessment she showed no aggressive behavior. Her history and today’s behavior do not indicate that she is aggressive by nature nor is she easily provoked into using dangerous behavior.
That being said, responsible pet owners should not put their pets or visitors in situations the pets cannot handle well. In Kimmie’s case, her comfort in a crate, provides a convenient solution for providing safety for all involved during potentially stressful circumstances.

We also contacted the Day Camp that Kimmee used to stay at when her owners went away. He expressed surprise. Said Kimmee was always shy but had never shown a single aggressive moment and came in contact with many people at the facility and played with as many as 40 other dogs.

So here is a case where a dog has never had a single negative incident on her portfolio, and one bite in her entire life illicits a knee-jerk reaction from this seemingly uneducated animal control officer to see that Kimmee is forever prevented from going to another home again, as long as she lives, or is euthanized.

And she claims she has done this “tons of times before”. I’m glad she tangled with us now, and not some poor, distraught animal owner who didn’t know the law, or their rights. I think now she has to be stopped and she has to be educated and she has to make decisions that are based in the best interest of the animal AND the person who has been bitten. At no juncture do we take this bite as something to act flippantly over, or something that is not a terrible incident. At no point do we think Kimmee should be adopted into a home with little children running about and lots of noise and commotion. But that isn’t the situation here. The situation here is that they want her confined forever, or killed. Is that the right response to a dog that has been perfect her whole life and had ONE incident?

Absolutely not.

So we are happy to be the voice for Kimmee and we are glad to be. The difference is that we KNOW the law and no longer will Laureen, the ACO, be allowed to walk over people and take away their dogs to be killed. We are sorry that she is so close minded. When we tried to call her to explain this she didn’t want to hear it. She didn’t even want to discuss it – just “see you in court”. Yes Laureen, we will see you in court. Please bring your best lawyers, because THIS is one dog you will not be sticking a needle into or forcing to spend her life with a muzzle on, and in a cement run. THIS dog will be protected by Pets Alive.

Know your rights too. What if YOUR dog bit someone. Do you have to surrender the dog to Animal Control? NO! Do you have to sign her over to be euthanized? NO! Can they take your dog from you without a court hearing? NO. Can your neighbors demand your dog be removed or euthanized if their child was bitten? No. Learn the law. Don’t ever give your dog up without a fight.

So we are very prepared for Tuesday. Wish us, and Kimmie, good luck. We need to stop Laureen from doing this anymore. Here, she isn’t tangling with a home owner that is scared, upset and nervous. Now she is dealing with us, and we aren’t going to lay down and go quietly. We never do when the life of an animal hangs in the balance.

Ready? Let’s roll.

What can you do?
Contact Justice Thomas Cione: nyawadira@gmail.com, 845-294-6477 – ask him to rule on the side of Kaylee (Kimmee) on Tuesday – a dog that has had only one negative incident her entire life. Please remind him that we like the job he has been doing so far for Goshen, and that he is running for re-election. Politely remind him that our community cares about our animals, and wants him to care, as well. Please ask him to re-familiarize himself with the Dangerous Dog Laws of New York State. (Be courteous and polite at ALL times!)
Town of Goshen website: http://www.townofgoshen.org

NOTE: THE COURT DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO OCTOBER 26.
PLEASE CONTINUE TO SEND LETTERS.
Contact Justice Thomas Cione nyawadira@gmail.com & courteously request he dismiss this case. He will decide about dismissal THIS week.
We are unclear if that is correct email for the justice, so please also fax your letter to him at: 845-294-4456, or call 845-294-6477

You can also contact the town supervisor. Tell him to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on this case. Ask him to drop the case fax: 845-294-6542

Update #2:
On October 26th we went back to court. The case was DISMISSED on a technicality. The ACO officer filed all the paperwork in the name of the dogs previous owners. I told her months ago this made no sense, as WE owned the dog now but she did it that way anyway. This came back to bite her in the butt as the judge advised that even if he ruled in her favor, he would have to instruct the previous owners to surrender the dog, which they would just respond that they didn’t OWN the dog and had no legal ability to surrender her. So in this time that we have had with her, Kimmee has lived with other dogs, been walked by children, men, woman and all sorts of volunteers, been dressed up in Halloween costumes and so on. She is NOT an aggressive dog. In fact there is tremendous doubt now that she actually even BIT the guy. More on that later. So the update is that the ACO refiled all the paperwork against Kimmee, but some other changes happened between the time the case was dismissed and the ACO refiled. More on that soon, and pictures to come.

CAARA – URGENT ALERT!

kerry — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 14:46:09 +0000

With only a couple of weeks left in the legislative session, it is urgent for New Yorkers to contact NYS Senator Joseph Robach and urge him to bring the Companion Animal Access and Rescue Act (CAARA) to the Senate floor for a vote. CAARA will save roughly 25,000 animals a year currently being killed in New York State shelters despite qualified rescue groups willing to save their lives at no cost to taxpayers.

CAARA would:

Make it illegal for shelters to kill animals if qualified rescue groups are willing to save them;
End “convenience” killing when there are empty cages and when animals can share kennels or be sent to foster care;
Require pounds to post strays, including photographs and descriptions, on the Internet so their families can search for them online;
Require transparency in operations by requiring shelters to make their statistics public;
Require pounds to scan for microchips, maintain lost/found lists, and match lost with found animals in the shelter;
Require fresh food and water, environmental enrichment, clean living environments, as well as prompt and necessary veterinary care; and,
Allow shelters to transfer stray animals to rescue groups during the holding period to free up cage space or get vulnerable animals out as soon as possible, subject to the same rights of redemption for the animal’s family.

Senator Robach is a sponsor of CAARA, but he is being opposed by powerful industry groups in his own district. We need to thank Senator Robach for standing up for the animals and urge him to ignore the Naysayers who want to make sure that their power is not upended since they do not represent either his true constituents or the people of New York.

Please telephone or e-mail Senator Robach today: Thank him for sponsoring CAARA and let him know that if he pushes forward, he will be a hero not only to the animals, but also to the many thousands of animal-loving supporters of CAARA, who have written, telephoned, emailed elected officials in Albany to let them know how much we care and want this bill passed as it is currently written.

As always, please be polite and positive.

Telephone: (518) 455-2909
E-mail: robach@nysenate.gov

Oreo’s Law Redux – WE NEED YOU NOW!

kerry — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:38:56 +0000

Oreo’s Law (now CAARA) WILL “die” without your calls and letters!

On Monday or Tuesday, Oreo’s Law (now known as CAARA – Companion Animal Adoption & Rescue Act ) will be voted on by the New York State Assembly Agriculture Committee. But it is not likely to pass without a large showing of community support between now and then. That is because the opposition has been lobbying strongly against the bill once again. We told them last year we would NOT allow this to happen again.

WE NEED YOU NOW.

“Where New York goes, SO GOES THE NATION.”

CAARA would:

End “convenience” killing when there are empty cages and when animals can share kennels or be sent to foster care
Require pounds to post strays, including photographs and descriptions, on the Internet so their families can search for them online
Require transparency in operations by requiring shelters to make their statistics public
Require pounds to scan for microchips, maintain lost/found lists, and match lost with found animals in the shelter
Require fresh food and water, environmental enrichment, clean living environments, as well as prompt and necessary veterinary care

If CAARA is defeated, thousands upon thousands of cats, kittens, dogs, puppies, rabbits, and other animals will continue to be needlessly killed in NYS shelters every year—animals CAARA has the power to save.

A statewide survey of NYS rescue groups found that over 70% were being turned away because the shelters were hostile to rescue groups, and then those shelters turned around and killed the very animals the rescuers were willing to save. We have experienced this time and time again, right here in Orange County, in our own backyard. Time and again we offer to take in animals that other local shelters are about to kill and they turn us away. THIS HAS TO STOP!

WITHOUT YOU MAKING THESE CALLS AND SENDING THESE EMAILS – CAARA is dead – just like Oreo is today,
even though Pets Alive offered to give her sanctuary.

Tragically, right doesn’t always defeat might. Sometimes the animals don’t win. Sometimes they continue to get killed despite a readily available lifesaving and rescue alternative. Sometimes a feral kitten who a rescue group is willing to socialize and place in a loving home will instead get injected with poison from a bottle marked “fatal plus” and then dumped in a landfill. Sometimes a puppy who can go to rescue and be guaranteed a home will be killed instead. For their sake, please do not let this be one of those times. This may be the best chance we have as a generation to make a PURPOSEFUL POSITIVE impact for animals! We can change the world here folks – please. Help. This is critical. Time is of the essence. Don’t think about it – take a few moments to send an email or make a call.

Please call & email Senator Ritchie & ask her to pass CAARA! ritchie@nysenate.gov 518-455-3438

Please post on your social media sites and ask your friends to do the same. You can find a sample letter here. (Please modify it into your own words). You can also cut and paste the following e-mails to your letter as well.

mageew@assembly.state.ny.us; amedoreg@assembly.state.ny.us; benedettom@assembly.state.ny.us; blankenbushk@assembly.state.ny.us; bronsonh@assembly.state.ny.us; butlerm@assembly.state.ny.us; crouchc@assembly.state.ny.us; finchg@assembly.state.ny.us; gunthera@assembly.state.ny.us; hawleys@assembly.state.ny.us; liftonb@assembly.state.ny.us; lopezp@assembly.state.ny.us; maisela@assembly.state.ny.us; markeym@assembly.state.ny.us; mcenenyj@assembly.state.ny.us; moyaf@assembly.state.ny.us; reillyr@assembly.state.ny.us; riveraj@assembly.state.ny.us; riverap@assembly.state.ny.us; russella@assembly.state.ny.us; rosenthall@assembly.state.ny.us; avella@nysenate.gov; gallivan@nysenate.gov; shuntley@nysenate.gov; kennedy@nysenate.gov; omara@nysenate.gov; ranz@senate.state.ny.us; ritchie@nysenate.gov; seward@nysenate.gov; valesky@senate.state.ny.us; cyoung@senate.state.ny.us;

Because without you, the animals don’t stand a chance.

This is Oreo. She was killed even though Pets Alive offered her sanctuary.
Don’t let this happen to another animals.

Does anyone CARE? More on Chesterfield S.C.

kerry — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 15:14:12 +0000

Today, marks six weeks since shots rang out in Chesterfield SC, killing as many as 22 dogs, and yet to date no arrests have been made, no criminal charges have been filed and the men accused of these reprehensible acts remain on PAID administrative leave.

Yes. Paid. After viciously murdering animals, they can sit home, basically on vacation, and get paid for it.

Sheriff Sam Parker’s office, which oversees the Chesterfield Shelter, initiated the investigation. So here we have the department that is directly connected with running the operation investigating themselves. Nice, right?

Well, YOU didn’t think so, and thanks to your calls and outrage, Governor Nikki Haley’s office stepped in and asked the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) to takeover. SLED was asked to lead the investigation and turn over their findings to the Attorney General’s (AG) office. Great, right? Welllll, not so fast….read on.

On March 31 when the investigation was “complete” and the findings turned over to the Attorney General for review, it appears almost NONE of the KEY people responsible for calling attention to this were even interviewed!! That includes the volunteer who first unearthed the bodies of these animals, the 4 animal control officers accused of these crimes, the eye witnesses who came forward regarding the abuses they witnessed at the shelter, and none of the evidence of dog fighting was ever examined.

SAY WHAT??

How in the world does an investigation go on without any of the KEY players being interviewed? Look, I’m not a law enforcement person, I don’t even play one on TV, but I do watch cop shows and admittedly that is the extent of my “vast” police knowledge, but it seems to me that watching even the most inept police departments and detectives on TV, they STILL seem to interview people that SAW a crime or KNOW about a crime. Yet SLED doesn’t appear to have done ANY of that. Hmmm.

It is becoming increasingly clear that SLED, an organization that Sheriff Parker was member of for over 20 years, is not interested in thoroughly investigating the massacre and abuse of these animals, or holding anyone accountable for these despicable and horrendous acts. The “Old Boys Club” back at work?

However, at the request of the AG – at least THEY seem to have some common sense, SLED has been instructed to REOPEN their investigation and conduct official interviews with four animal control officers, asking if they participated or directed anyone to participate in the unlawful shooting of dogs. The agents were also asked to look into reports of dog-fighting-related activities at the shelter.

Well. That’s a start.

What a shame that SLED has no experience in investigations that they did not realize they should do this! Or…oh my…no, it couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the Sheriff that they are possibly investigating was a member there for 20 years, could it? Nah. That would be WRONG, so that can’t be it.

OK, so we talked about how inept the investigation has been so far and how little they actually care at all about this. I can even imagine them saying “Hey, look, the internet people all got pissy, so let’s pretend to look into this and it’ll all die down”. (That’s what Ed Sayres said about Oreo, remember? Hey, – how’s that working for YOU Ed?)

But most importantly, what has happened to the animals at the Chesterfield Shelter in the past six weeks?

I can tell you.

NOTHING good.

Here are some of the “nothing good”:

The volunteers of Paws and Claws, the rescue that has worked at the shelter for over 15 years, have been locked out and told that their services are no longer required.
Sheriff’s deputies have been tasked with running the shelter while the ACOs are on leave and animals are now being either given away or sold for a dollar. Yes. Not adopted. SOLD. For a dollar.
The animals are NOT getting vaccinated or fixed. They are going out into the community without vaccines, unaltered and have already begun to pop up on Craigslist for resale. I’m sure lots and lots of puppies are not too far behind, and lots are likely going to labs or dog fighting rings….as either fighters or bait dogs.
At a recent event in Cheraw, SC, one of the animal control vehicles was parked at the side of the road leading into the event with a box of puppies and a handmade sign “for sale” displayed.

The end of this nightmare is nowhere in sight and it is clear that those in charge would be happy to see this swept under the rug and things to “go back to normal”.

So do we have to sit back and accept this?
OH COME ON! YOU KNOW ME BETTER THAN THAT BY NOW!

Heck no. We are gonna bombard them with calls again and remind them that THE NATION IS WATCHING AND WE WILL NOT TOLERATE OUR ANIMALS BEING TREATED LIKE THIS! We will remind them that when an animal winds up in a shelter it is because they need and are asking for HELP. NOT ABUSE AND MURDER. Remind them that THEY work for US. And that WE care about our nation’s animals!

Now more than ever we must stand together and fight to bring justice for the animals killed and to fight to ensure lasting change for this shelter and the many high kill shelters scattered throughout SC. Without an independent group appointed to oversee these shelters the suffering will never end. The men responsible for these crimes need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and we must demand an end to the lawlessness.

What can you do?

Call the Attorney General Alan Wilson and remind him of his instructions to SLED to interview ALL key witnesses. To date, that hasn’t happened. 803-734-3970 or online http://www.scattorneygeneral.org/ag/contactform.html
Call Governor Nikki Haley (803)734-2100 grassroots@nikkihaley.com and Lieutenant Governor Ken Ard (803) 734-2080 LtGovernor@scstatehouse.gov
Participate in person or online – SC Animal Awareness Day in Memory of the Chesterfield 22 and in Honor of all animals suffering in SC shelters Thursday, April 21, 2011 from 3:00 PM – 6:00 PM (ET) http://scawareness.eventbrite.com/
Sign this petition at Change.org http://www.change.org/petitions/hold-chesterfield-co-shelter-accountable-for-shooting-dogs-and-other-abuse-charges

Below is a list of the many laws that have been broken or ignored at Chesterfield, visit http://on.fb.me/fjFx56 for more details and news stories.

LAWS BROKEN OR IGNORED AT CHESTERFIELD

(NOTE – PLEASE DO NOT READ BELOW IF YOU ARE EASILY UPSET. STOP HERE AND JUST PLEASE MAKE THE CALLS ABOVE. Below is not a nice read. If you have doubts though, or want more information, read on…but I am warning you that some of the details are graphic and they are NOT necessary for you to read in order understand and make the calls we need. Please make those calls. Write those letters. The dogs are counting on you to help. YOU ARE ALL THEY HAVE.)

1. Dogs were shot as a euthanasia solution. State law clearly states that a dog may only be shot in an emergency such as a safety threat (an example would be rabies), to prevent suffering, or to stop an openly aggressive dog.

SECTION 47-3-420. Allowable methods of euthanasia . [SC ST SEC 47-3-420]
(3) Shooting: Shooting may be used as a means of euthanasia only in an emergency situation to prevent extreme suffering or in which the safety of people or other animal life is threatened or where it is considered necessary by the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources to eliminate or control the population of feral animals.

The dogs shot at Chesterfield were gentle, and were walked on leashes to the landfill where they were shot. One witness who previously worked at the shelter was practically in tears as he described one dog sitting on its haunches panting and suffering from multiple gunshot wounds as it waited to die. This witness NEVER saw an animal euthanized by injection. The same witness described cats being hit with iron pipes.

2. The shelter manager, Brian Burch, is a convicted felon who served time for drug charges. (Burch was sentenced to 3 years and a $10,000 fine in 1996 for distribution of cocaine. He did receive a pardon in 2000.)

3. The gas chamber at Chesterfield was disabled last year for safety reasons. It did not pass a safety inspection. (Sheriff Sam Parker told FOX news that the shelter adopted a lethal injection policy “about a year ago.”) Shelter workers were then certified to euthanize by injection. The drug supposedly bought for this purpose was Ketamine, a drug which is not approved by the FDA for use in dogs It is NOT a euthanasia drug, but it IS a popular street drug, commonly called “Special K.” What happened to the Ketamine? The shelter provided FOX with records indicating they’ve purchased 3 bottles of Euthasol – which is a euthanasia drug, but veterinary experts have indicated that 3 bottles of Euthasol would not be enough to handle the volume of animals moving through the Chesterfield shelter over a 12 month period. The Chesterfield Co. Sheriff’s office provided FOX with drug records that show three drug orders in the last 12 months and several drug logs. The drug logs appeared to reflect inconsistencies as to how the drugs were administered, i.e. the same doses for 20 dogs, despite weight differences.

4. The landfill where the dead animals were discovered. SC Department of Health and Environmental Control had made it clear that animal bodies could not be dumped there. The SC Department of Health and Environmental Control confirmed and FOX reported that the area is an “un-permitted landfill” and that the Sheriff’s office had been made aware long before this case started that animals could not be dumped there. DHEC then “reminded” the shelter again after the dead dogs were discovered.

5. Several witnesses told of pit bulls having signs on their cages saying “Hold for Brian Burch.” The only reasonable assumption is that these dogs were slated for fighting. The one tag FOX has a picture of says “Hold For Brian Burch and Frank Laney (Brian’s predecessor as shelter manager).” One witness also told FOX that when she asked to see “game dogs,” she was led to the pit bulls and an inmate working at the shelter set up an impromptu dog fight to show her how aggressive one of the dogs was and how it would “make her some money.” The witness says the inmate threw a smaller, mixed breed dog in with the pit and the pit killed the dog in front of her. The witness also says she saw numerous pit bulls with tags on their kennels that said “Hold for Brian Burch.”

Enough? Yes. Enough. I’m sick. And angry. and my heart is wounded and hurt and I’ve got tears in my eyes as I type this. I can’t bear it. Can you? Let’s put a stop to this. Are you ready? Then pick up the phone, make those calls and write those letters.

R.I.P. sweet Dora and all the others. We’re coming for these vicious people and we’re not going to let them get away with it. I promise you all. WE promise you.

YOU ARE ALL THEY HAVE.

DO SOMETHING.

(Thank you Jude for pulling all of this together for me)

Best Friends turns their back on NY – AGAIN

kerry — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:51:00 +0000

So we were able to get Oreo’s Law put forth again to the Agricultural Committee (Thank you Micah Kellner).

This is just the first step of getting this bill passed.

Truly none of us felt it would be a problem, initially, to get it through this first committee. It was later we thought we’d have the true battle. But we underestimated the ASPCA – they have done this before, we were neophytes. They recognized that the best way to make sure it never saw the light of day was to influence the first committee to can it…and they did. They didn’t actually shut it down, they were just able to get it “tabled”, which meant that months ago they just all agreed NOT to vote on it until next session.

So in that time, we estimate that 16,629 number of animals have died in New York Shelters as a result.

Well here we are again.

It’s been presented back into committee, and immediately Best Friends has come out against it.

We EXPECT the ASPCA to come out against it. After all, the very name “Oreo’s Law” is forever a blight on their organization. For those of you that have lived in a cave the last year, Oreo was a dog that suffered abuse every day of her life. She was finally tossed from a six story building and she miraculously survived. She had broken bones and a broken spirit, but with care and surgery she survived. A true Miracle Dog. But she didn’t like other dogs and so the ASPCA deemed her unadoptable and they killed her. They murdered her even though Pets Alive stepped up and agreed to take her here.

I mean here is a dog that was in pain, multiple surgeries, in a strange and scary place, and we said let’s give her some time in a sanctuary with some peace and they said something like “nah, we know best, we’re gonna murder her”. And they did. (I don’t think that the word “euthanasia” should ever be allowed to be applied in cases like this). Even though we have a track record of saving and rehabbing HUNDREDS of dogs much, much, much, worse than ones with a little dog aggression.

But here is the good part of Oreo’s death if there is such a thing. The community was UP IN ARMS and OUTRAGED.

Here was a dog – a true MIRACLE – that had known nothing but abuse her entire life and survived the “un-survivable” and the ASPCA, the group we give our money to to “speak for the animals” and to protect them – they decided to kill her even when there was another option.

So people were outraged and they demanded something be done and so Oreo’s Law was birthed. And Oreo’s Law says that if a rescue that is a 501(c)3 and has no past record of any sort of animal charges against them, that if they step up and can help by taking a dog from a euthanasia list of a shelter (we still have to pay that shelters adoption fees!), then they should be allowed to do so.

If we had this, then Oreo would probably be in a loving home right now being pampered and shown love for the first time in her life. Instead she is dead, and in a landfill because the ASPCA decided that even though they raised a ton of money from her “miracle story”, that she wasn’t worth giving more than a couple of months of time to.

So enter Oreo’s Law.
Enter the ASPCA crushing it and lobbying against it – as expected – (we did offer to change the name if they would support it) and then enter Best Friends – the champions of no kill, the group that pretty much, in my mind, started the entire no-kill movement. They decide that we can’t win against the ASPCA. They tell us that they are starting a huge fund raising campaign in NY this year and they will be raising money here, and they can’t do it without the ASPCA’s support and backing. And they won’t support Oreo’s Law because they say that going against the ASPCA would be political suicide.

I am not telling you that I SUSPECT this. I am not telling you that I think this is what happened, I am telling you that they SAID this on the phone with me, and Nathan and others.

It was devestating.
Best Friends.
My hero’s.

The people we modeled the entire Pets Alive organization after, the people that saved our ass when the previous director and founder of Pets Alive got brain cancer, made terrible decisions down here, put animals in danger and then she died leaving no plan in place for any of them. When we came here and saw what had happened we called Best Friends, and they came and helped and put us on our feet. My heroes. I read their magazine cover to cover. I cry happy tears when animals I know were adopted there, and I went out there many times to visit and work at their amazing facility in Utah. I know many of the founders and consider many of the staff my friends. I want to be clear – I LOVED this organization with EVERY breath. LOVED THEM. BELIEVED IN THEM.

I was dumbfounded. How could BF not support this. I couldn’t believe it. We wrote a few blogs about it. You can read them here:

Paying it Forward – written by Kerry (me) and
Best Friends, Welcome to New York – written by Matt.

They betrayed us.
They betrayed the animals.
They chose political alignments over animals lives.

I still can not believe it.
As I write this, I sit and I say this can’t be true. IT CAN’T BE. I love that organization. I LOVE them. Please this can not be true. Please.

But it is.

As shocking as it is, they have lost their way.
They choose politics now over lives.
They have become one of the big names.
The big players.
And they lost their mission.

Let me tell you that Michael Mountain – their PAST CEO – DID support Oreo’s Law. HE IS TRUE to his heart and to his mission. He is truly what the animal movement should be about. You can read his letter and many other letters of support here: http://petsalive.com/oreo.html

Because even after they trashed Oreo’s Law, and as a result it was defeated in committee (or “tabled”), we still worked with Best Friends. We did the Beagle Rescue with them. We still support many of the things they do. They still do great things. They helped us save all those beagles (they footed the entire bill) they recently saved 200 dogs in a situation in Arkansas (we took 8 of those dogs here), and their outreach in helping people with dogs and cats is amazing.

They do a great number of mass rescues and their Help Desk helps countless others place animals and get help for animals that need it. Of course they raise money too from these ventures, although I do not hold that against them – it would be stupid to spend thousands of dollars and NOT publicize and get PR for what you are doing and not try to get the money out of that publicity. Let’s face it, they aren’t stupid and I don’t begrudge them that. EVERY rescue or shelter will highly publicize the good that they do in the hopes of support from the community. We NEED it to continue our missions, so as I said, they do many great things, but of course they also raise a lot of money from them as well.

But once again, Oreo’s law is put forth and they refuse to support it.

But here are the disconnects. They supported the Delaware law which was MUCH, MUCH tougher. The Delaware law wouldn’t even allow a shelter to euthanize an animal if it had an empty available FOSTER home, an empty kennel, or ANY other option – wow! How awesome is THAT law!!?? We have tons of shelters here killing animals before the weekend “in case” lots of animals come in. What if none do? You just killed dozens of animals for no reason. So in Delaware, this comes out and Best Friends supported it!!! They issued a statement and congratulated Delaware animal lovers and publicly supported the law. So what is the difference?

They SAY (and this is NOT true) that Delaware had a provision that the shelter could inspect the rescue group and Oreo’s Law does not. They said that was what the difference was. HELLO! HELLO! PAY ATTENTION NOW. Oreo’s Law was rewritten to appease Best Friends on this issue – they told us if we rewrote it to include this issue they would support it! THEY PROMISED US! SO WE DID! Oreo’s law gives shelters the ability to inspect the rescue group when they have reason to suspect that the animal might be put in harm’s way. Yet THEY claim that “the language has not changed since last year…” Not true.

So did they not BOTHER to read it because they don’t care? Did they not bother to read it because they don’t want to have to support it because it puts them at odds with the ASPCA? Or did they read it, know this and put forth misinformation to make themselves look not so heinous and let you, the readers, read their statement and say “Oh! Well, that makes sense”. Well I am telling you that they are either IGNORANT, or they are LYING.

They told us they would support it if we changed the wording. We did. They lied. They say that the wording is the same. It is NOT.

Then they said that they do not get involved in any legislative issues, that they always stay “neutral”. But, um…hello… by NOT supporting it they aren’t “neutral” and they DID support Delaware. So Best Friends, why the spin? Why the lies? What are you doing and WHY, WHY, WHY? Do you care that animals are killed every day as a result of this? Almost 17,000 since Oreo’s Law was tabled. Part of those deaths, rest with you.

OK so let’s move on. They keep spinning it. Here is yet ANOTHER reason they gave for not supporting it. “Rescuers can be hoarders”.
But if that is true, then why support the Delaware law? Delaware Rescues are NOT hoarders, but NY rescuers ARE hoarders?

And wait, just last week The CEO of Best Friends wrote a whole blog trashing PETA because PETA says that no kill organizations are just hoarders in disguise and he trashed that comment (RIGHTFULLY SO) and said that rescuers and no kill organizations are NOT hoarders and that “hoarding is a mental disability that may be linked to obsessive-compulsive disorder. Animal hoarders are no friends of no-kill, and Best Friends and others in the no-kill movement have led the way in exposing and bringing hoarders to justice.” Hmm.

Also what is the percentage of hoarders that are rescuers? I know hundreds of rescues. Truly HUNDREDS. There are a few I’m not crazy about. True. But the percentage of them that are hoarders? Out of the HUNDREDS I know? Ummm. None.

And if everyone is worried, REALLY, about hoarders? Then wait a second. The ASPCA brings in $80 million dollars a YEAR. They pay their CEO $500,000+ a year. Wouldn’t that be THEIR job? To track down “fake rescues” that are really “hoarding” and shut them down and help the animals? Wait. Isn’t that what the ASPCA is SUPPOSED to do? American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Isn’t that their job? So why are we worried about hoarders? We have an organization with $80 million buckaroos every single year at their disposal. Are you telling me they can’t hunt down, sniff out, or follow up on reports of hoarding in NY? Why would we need Oreo’s Law to do that, we already HAVE an organization that is charged with handling that, and we give them a TON of money to do it. Hey, ASPCA instead of wasting money fighting Oreo’s Law and instead of wasting money killing miracle dogs, how about you go hunt down some hoarders and shut them down, so good rescues can get on with their good work?

Gregory Castle goes on to say, in this blog, that “PETA believes that all pit bulls should be killed upon entering shelters, rather than be adopted by the public. Why? Because PETA believes that there is a chance that someone with bad intentions might adopt a pit from a shelter and use him/her for fighting or tie him/her out in the yard to serve as a macho guard dog”.

Gregory disagrees with this. But wait…are you all following me here? He disagrees with Oreo’s Law because say SOME dog, maybe 1% of dogs or cats might wind up with a hoarder or a bad person, we should not save the other 99%. So he disagrees with PETA when they say the exact same thing, yet he says this in his rebuttal of Oreo’s Law. Oh the hoarders will get the animals. The sky is falling!

Here is a news blast for you. Take a look at ANY newspaper classified section. Go to the front of ANY supermarket or Walmart store, go to your local Craigslist. See how easy it is to get FREE animals? Why in the world would hoarders go through the trouble of establishing a non-profit, getting a 501(c) 3, developing a rescue – JUST so they could get dogs from euthanasia lists in shelters in NY? I’m sorry but please, this is so absurd. It doesn’t hold any water.

Any how much of this has happened in California where there IS an Oreo’s Law? Have they seen an outbreak of hoarders saving dogs and cats from euthanasia? Um…no.
Has it happened in Delaware? Are there TONS of hoarders now? Umm..No.
So why is New York supposed to be different?

And let me tell you that by writing this email, I am committing suicide for my organization.

Read that again.
I am committing suicide for my organization.

Why? how? Because recently I asked Best Friends for help with our Elmsford location. We took over another shelter that was failing miserably. They had over 1000 animals there. They were all living in horrible little cages. We used the practices Best Friends taught us, and we went in and set things straight. We have a LONG, LONG way to go there, but no animals live in cages and 500+ have been adopted, placed with other organizations, and so forth. But we need help there. It is a huge nut to crack, and fix, and we could desperately use Best Friends resources and help. We might fail if they don’t help us. But I was warned. They would help us, but not if I did this. Spoke out against them again like this.

And as I write this, the blood in my veins goes cold, with fear over that threat. Without their help, Elmsford may have to close down. We can’t fail there, what would happen to all those animals? We CAN’T fail and we have such HUGE plans for the future for that place – to do mass rescues and really make an impact for animals.

But I would be no better than what they are doing if I chose my alliance with them, and what they can do for us, over the lives of animals.

Because that is what they did. They chose the alliance with the ASPCA over the lives of animals.

So don’t think I didn’t think long and hard before I wrote this.
I did.
It hurts me to write this, believe it or not, and it tremendously hurts my organization.

But if I choose to stay quiet, and I choose my relationship with them, over what is RIGHT, then I do exactly what I’m so disgusted with them about.

And there are other blogs about this as well, about the terrible disappointment we all feel in Best Friends:

Nathan Winograd: “With Best Friends Like These….”
and Yes Biscuit’s! Best Friends and Oreo’s Law Redux

So do as you will Best Friends.
Pull your proposed support from our Elmsford project.
I won’t hold that against you, but forever I will hold against you choosing the ASPCA over what is right.

Oreo’s Law is right.
You are wrong.

Choose LIFE.
Choose LIFE and LIVES over alliances and politics.

There is still time to make it right.
Will you?

At the end of Gregory Castle’s PETA blog it says this:
“PETA, please let go of the dock and get on-board the No More Homeless Pets boat. We’d love to have you with us.”

I say:

“Best Friends, please let go of your alliances and get on board to save lives again. We’d love to have you with us.”