T
The Killing of Puppy 43063
June 11, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd
Your Honor, on June 19, 2007, a 12-week-old brown and white puppy … entered the Loudon County shelter and was given number 43063. He was never given a name… the puppy was killed by the shelter, never having been given a chance to live, never having been given a name. Why? Contrary to state law and contrary to local law, puppy number 43063 was never put up for adoption and was killed for one reason and one reason only: Puppy number 43063 was identified by the shelter as a pit bull mix. On the puppy’s pre-euthanasia report, the official reason for euthanasia is typed in as “breed.†Let me repeat that. The recorded reason for why puppy number 43063 was killed under current shelter policies was “breed.†That reason at some point was crossed out in ink and “behavioral observations†was written in its place. Behavioral observations. The shelter’s canine behavior assessment for puppy number 43063 notes that the puppy, “Approaches the front of the kennel seeking evaluator’s attention. Happily greets evaluator. Is sociable. Initiates gentle, physical contact. Wanted to be in evaluator’s lap. Moves closer for further attention. In evaluator’s lap playing. Wiggly. Leans against you. Bouncing around. Very lovey. –Counsel for Plaintiffs, Animal Rescue of Tidewater vs. Loudon County , Virginia , May 5, 2009.
Pit Bull advocates across the country were closely following a recent trial in Virginia about whether Loudon County ’s ban on Pit Bull adoptions was legal, given a provision of state law and the Attorney General’s opinion to the contrary. According to Virginia State Law,
No canine shall be found to be a dangerous dog solely because it is a particular breed nor is the ownership of a particular breed prohibited.
According to the Attorney General’s interpretation of that law,
Publicly funded animal shelters may not euthanize dogs based solely upon breed.
The case, Animal Rescue of Tidewater vs. Loudon County, Virginia ended in the County’s favor. The court held that banning the adoption of dogs deemed Pit Bull or Pit Bull-mixes did not violate the law.* As a result, dogs someone says “look†like “Pit Bulls†or “Pit Bull-mixes†will continue to be killed without ever being made available for adoption.
The County, in undisputed court testimony, conceded that point:
Q: Are Pit Bulls in Loudon County allowed to be adopted?
A: No. The pit bulls and pit bull mixes are not allowed to be adopted.
Q: As to pit bulls, any citizen of Loudon County may not adopt a pit bull; isn’t that correct?
A: The Loudon County Animal Shelter does not adopt out pit bulls, no.
To the Director’s credit, he did approach the Board of Supervisors to ask them to remove the adoption ban on Pit Bulls which they declined. But despite this, his staff—most notably his shelter manager—testified in defense of the shelter by misleading the court, with a series of Orwellian claims that deny the obvious and contradict one another.
The Loudon County shelter manager claimed the shelter only killed one “adoptable†Pit Bull even with a blanket policy against putting any up for adoption. Of 122 dogs killed since a new policy was enacted—reaffirming the ban but allowing “adoptable†Pit Bulls to be transferred to rescue groups—she said all but one failed their temperament evaluation. One. That’s a pass rate of 0.01%. Compare that to 86% in Tompkins County . And 86.6% according to the American Temperament Test Results. Despite this, the shelter manager testified that the shelter is not biased against Pit Bulls, but in favor of Pit Bulls:
Q: And you stated that pit bulls are not treated differently at the shelter, is that correct?
A: No, sir, they are not…. We never make decisions based on breed, we make decisions based on space availability and based on appropriateness.
Q: [But pit bulls or pit bull-mixes] are never put on the adoption floor; isn’t that correct?
A: At this time they are not made available for adoption, that’s correct.
…
Q. Are you aware, personally aware, of any staff bias regarding pit bulls either pro or con?
A. Well, we do have some staff that are pit bull advocates, and so any bias we might have would be in favor.
Despite admitting the shelter bans the adoption of Pit Bulls, she claimed they are treated the same as other dogs and decisions about them are not based on breed. Despite the fact that she admitted a Pit Bull with behavior issues has never been given the rehabilitation that is given to other dogs, she says they are treated the same. She even went so far as to say that if there was Pit Bull bias at the shelter, “any bias we might have would be in favor.â€
As noted above, counsel for Animal Rescue of Tidewater described one such “dangerous†Pit Bull at this shelter:
Approaches the front of the kennel seeking evaluator’s attention. Happily greets evaluator. Is sociable. Initiates gentle, physical contact. Wanted to be in evaluator’s lap. Moves closer for further attention. In evaluator’s lap playing. Wiggly. Leans against you. Bouncing around. Very lovey.
The puppy was killed. Sadly, this sort of behavior by individuals tasked with overseeing humane societies and animal control shelters is not surprising. Rather, it is endemic to the industry. And it is a lack of any accountability for their actions that gives shelter managers an aura of untouchability and allows them to make outrageous claims, even when contradicted by the evidence.
In fact, that is what is underlying the larger opposition to the No Kill movement. The No Kill movement is attempting to impose accountability on shelters which have not had any because groups like the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States have not only given them a free ride, they defend them no matter how poorly they perform. And with uncritical support, encouragement, and even praise by killing apologists and enablers like the ASPCA and HSUS, it is little surprise that shelter managers would feel no compunction about making such claims even while testifying in court, under penalty of perjury.
One of these enablers is a hitman-for-hire by the name of Pat Miller, an anti-No Kill crusader who holds herself up as an “expert†on sheltering issues, and who testified for the County in the lawsuit. Miller testified that roughly 60% of all Pit Bulls in shelters are unadoptable based on a study she has seen. The study was conducted by the Massachusetts SPCA at a time when it was killing at an astonishing rate. Not surprisingly, it came up with the finding to justify its kill rate, the same way the Loudon County shelter manager justifies killing dogs she claims are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull-mixes by saying the only ones she kills are “unadoptable.†As I wrote in Redemption:
With assets at one time reaching nearly one hundred million dollars, the Massachusetts SPCA (MSPCA) is perhaps the richest animal shelter in the world, but roughly 60 percent of all dogs and cats whoentered the MSPCA shelter system throughout the 1990s were killed.
Is it any wonder that the MSPCA study cited by Miller would conclude that 60% were “unadoptable�
June 11, 2009 by Nathan J. Winograd
Your Honor, on June 19, 2007, a 12-week-old brown and white puppy … entered the Loudon County shelter and was given number 43063. He was never given a name… the puppy was killed by the shelter, never having been given a chance to live, never having been given a name. Why? Contrary to state law and contrary to local law, puppy number 43063 was never put up for adoption and was killed for one reason and one reason only: Puppy number 43063 was identified by the shelter as a pit bull mix. On the puppy’s pre-euthanasia report, the official reason for euthanasia is typed in as “breed.†Let me repeat that. The recorded reason for why puppy number 43063 was killed under current shelter policies was “breed.†That reason at some point was crossed out in ink and “behavioral observations†was written in its place. Behavioral observations. The shelter’s canine behavior assessment for puppy number 43063 notes that the puppy, “Approaches the front of the kennel seeking evaluator’s attention. Happily greets evaluator. Is sociable. Initiates gentle, physical contact. Wanted to be in evaluator’s lap. Moves closer for further attention. In evaluator’s lap playing. Wiggly. Leans against you. Bouncing around. Very lovey. –Counsel for Plaintiffs, Animal Rescue of Tidewater vs. Loudon County , Virginia , May 5, 2009.
Pit Bull advocates across the country were closely following a recent trial in Virginia about whether Loudon County ’s ban on Pit Bull adoptions was legal, given a provision of state law and the Attorney General’s opinion to the contrary. According to Virginia State Law,
No canine shall be found to be a dangerous dog solely because it is a particular breed nor is the ownership of a particular breed prohibited.
According to the Attorney General’s interpretation of that law,
Publicly funded animal shelters may not euthanize dogs based solely upon breed.
The case, Animal Rescue of Tidewater vs. Loudon County, Virginia ended in the County’s favor. The court held that banning the adoption of dogs deemed Pit Bull or Pit Bull-mixes did not violate the law.* As a result, dogs someone says “look†like “Pit Bulls†or “Pit Bull-mixes†will continue to be killed without ever being made available for adoption.
The County, in undisputed court testimony, conceded that point:
Q: Are Pit Bulls in Loudon County allowed to be adopted?
A: No. The pit bulls and pit bull mixes are not allowed to be adopted.
Q: As to pit bulls, any citizen of Loudon County may not adopt a pit bull; isn’t that correct?
A: The Loudon County Animal Shelter does not adopt out pit bulls, no.
To the Director’s credit, he did approach the Board of Supervisors to ask them to remove the adoption ban on Pit Bulls which they declined. But despite this, his staff—most notably his shelter manager—testified in defense of the shelter by misleading the court, with a series of Orwellian claims that deny the obvious and contradict one another.
The Loudon County shelter manager claimed the shelter only killed one “adoptable†Pit Bull even with a blanket policy against putting any up for adoption. Of 122 dogs killed since a new policy was enacted—reaffirming the ban but allowing “adoptable†Pit Bulls to be transferred to rescue groups—she said all but one failed their temperament evaluation. One. That’s a pass rate of 0.01%. Compare that to 86% in Tompkins County . And 86.6% according to the American Temperament Test Results. Despite this, the shelter manager testified that the shelter is not biased against Pit Bulls, but in favor of Pit Bulls:
Q: And you stated that pit bulls are not treated differently at the shelter, is that correct?
A: No, sir, they are not…. We never make decisions based on breed, we make decisions based on space availability and based on appropriateness.
Q: [But pit bulls or pit bull-mixes] are never put on the adoption floor; isn’t that correct?
A: At this time they are not made available for adoption, that’s correct.
…
Q. Are you aware, personally aware, of any staff bias regarding pit bulls either pro or con?
A. Well, we do have some staff that are pit bull advocates, and so any bias we might have would be in favor.
Despite admitting the shelter bans the adoption of Pit Bulls, she claimed they are treated the same as other dogs and decisions about them are not based on breed. Despite the fact that she admitted a Pit Bull with behavior issues has never been given the rehabilitation that is given to other dogs, she says they are treated the same. She even went so far as to say that if there was Pit Bull bias at the shelter, “any bias we might have would be in favor.â€
As noted above, counsel for Animal Rescue of Tidewater described one such “dangerous†Pit Bull at this shelter:
Approaches the front of the kennel seeking evaluator’s attention. Happily greets evaluator. Is sociable. Initiates gentle, physical contact. Wanted to be in evaluator’s lap. Moves closer for further attention. In evaluator’s lap playing. Wiggly. Leans against you. Bouncing around. Very lovey.
The puppy was killed. Sadly, this sort of behavior by individuals tasked with overseeing humane societies and animal control shelters is not surprising. Rather, it is endemic to the industry. And it is a lack of any accountability for their actions that gives shelter managers an aura of untouchability and allows them to make outrageous claims, even when contradicted by the evidence.
In fact, that is what is underlying the larger opposition to the No Kill movement. The No Kill movement is attempting to impose accountability on shelters which have not had any because groups like the ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States have not only given them a free ride, they defend them no matter how poorly they perform. And with uncritical support, encouragement, and even praise by killing apologists and enablers like the ASPCA and HSUS, it is little surprise that shelter managers would feel no compunction about making such claims even while testifying in court, under penalty of perjury.
One of these enablers is a hitman-for-hire by the name of Pat Miller, an anti-No Kill crusader who holds herself up as an “expert†on sheltering issues, and who testified for the County in the lawsuit. Miller testified that roughly 60% of all Pit Bulls in shelters are unadoptable based on a study she has seen. The study was conducted by the Massachusetts SPCA at a time when it was killing at an astonishing rate. Not surprisingly, it came up with the finding to justify its kill rate, the same way the Loudon County shelter manager justifies killing dogs she claims are Pit Bulls or Pit Bull-mixes by saying the only ones she kills are “unadoptable.†As I wrote in Redemption:
With assets at one time reaching nearly one hundred million dollars, the Massachusetts SPCA (MSPCA) is perhaps the richest animal shelter in the world, but roughly 60 percent of all dogs and cats whoentered the MSPCA shelter system throughout the 1990s were killed.
Is it any wonder that the MSPCA study cited by Miller would conclude that 60% were “unadoptable�