[Pai]

Now, I LOVE Best Friends. They have been my favorite rescue organization for years now. But what they've done over the latest attempt to get a law passed in NY to mandate shelters to work with rescues has really broken my heart.

http://petsalive.com/blog/2011/02/11/best-friends-turns-their-back-on-ny-again/

It sounds like they have sold their allegiance to their pocketbooks, rather than to the animals. To cite 'political suicide' as the reason to not support a law that has done great things in other states to save shelter animal lives is just shocking to me. They don't have enough money, that they have to toss NY animals under the bus? Really? Then they state support for identical laws in other states (that they don't have financial interests in)!

I am appalled and speechless. And very sad, because BF used to be my heroes. What is it about becoming large and rich that makes this 'welfare' groups forget the very values that created them in the first place?

And I am very sad for the shelter animals being helped by Pets Alive, who will be denied the help from BF now because PA's leadership has dared to disagree with them on their stance. I find it terrible that BF would hold innocent animals hostage in such a way, to try and force silence from others!

 

[Independent George]

I'm a little unclear on this law - when you say 'shelters', do you mean state AC facilities, or private shelters that take in animals? If it's the latter, I would actually appose the law, too.

 

[Pai]

Here is the text of the bill.

NO ANIMAL IN THE CARE OR CUSTODY OF A DULY INCORPORATED SOCIE-
7 TY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, A DULY INCORPORATED HUMANE
8 SOCIETY, OR A POUND OR SHELTER MAINTAINED BY OR UNDER CONTRACT OR AGREE-
9 MENT WITH THE STATE OR ANY COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR VILLAGE, OR AUTHORIZED
10 AGENTS THEREOF, SHALL BE DESTROYED IF, PRIOR TO THE KILLING OF THAT
11 ANIMAL FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN IRREMEDIABLE PHYSICAL SUFFERING OF THE
12 ANIMAL UPON A CERTIFICATION MADE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY A VETERINARIAN
13 LICENSED TO PRACTICE MEDICINE IN THE STATE THAT THE PROGNOSIS FOR RECOV-
14 ERY IS POOR OR GRAVE EVEN WITH COMPREHENSIVE PROMPT AND NECESSARY VETER-
15 INARY CARE, A NONPROFIT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL
16 REVENUE CODE ANIMAL RESCUE OR ADOPTION ORGANIZATION REQUESTS POSSESSION
17 OF THE ANIMAL. IN ADDITION TO ANY REQUIRED SPAY OR NEUTER DEPOSIT, THE
18 FACILITY HAVING POSSESSION OF THE ANIMAL, AT ITS DISCRETION, MAY ASSESS
19 A FEE, NOT TO EXCEED THE STANDARD ADOPTION FEE, FOR ANIMALS RELEASED TO
20 SUCH ORGANIZATIONS.

It's virtually identical to similar laws in California and Delaware, which BF has praised.

 

[Willowy]

I'm a little unclear on this law - when you say 'shelters', do you mean state AC facilities, or private shelters that take in animals? If it's the latter, I would actually appose the law, too.

How do you mean? Do you think that privately run shelters should be allowed to kill animals even if a rescue group will take them, but publicly-funded shelters shouldn't?

BF has not actually denied Pets Alive any assistance. It was only the blogger's opinion that they would in the future. Which may or may not be true.

I don't know enough about the situation to say anything on BF's stance. Sometimes you do have to sacrifice one thing to do something bigger. Whether that applies here or not I don't know.

If BF has actually lost touch with actually helping animals, that's very sad. "The love of money is the root of all sorts of injurious things", after all.

 

[Pai]

"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."

Something bigger seems to consist of making even more millions of dollars. As if BF is poor or something!
Apparently, after BF's former CEOs stepped down, the new management has developed a different value system for running the group.

 

[brandiw]

Various things I have read lead me to believe that Best Friends isn't on the up and up anymore. I know I wouldn't give them my hard-earned money.

I really think that there is a distinct problem with any animal welfare group that wouldn't support this legislation. I wish Missouri had that legislation. Before the director of my local shelter was fired, she used to kill perfectly healthy, great dogs before the rescue I volunteer with could pull them. Why? Because they were rottweilers and pit bulls, breeds she didn't like. I know that this same garbage goes on in other ACs around the country, and legislation like that proposed above would be very beneficial to the rescues who run into ridiculous road blocks while trying to save the dogs.

 

[Independent George]

How do you mean? Do you think that privately run shelters should be allowed to kill animals even if a rescue group will take them, but publicly-funded shelters shouldn't?

Something along those lines. There are a lot of shady 'rescue' organizations out there; a number of hoarding operations began as legitimate rescues. A shelter should have the right to decide for itself not to turn over an animal if something about the rescue skeezes them out, even if it means putting the dog down. A publicly funded shelter automatically loses some of its autonomy by accepting funds.

 

[Pai]

If you read the bill, the shelter can request to inspect the rescue's facilities if they don't trust them. If the rescue refuses to be inspected, then the shelter is allowed to reject their request for the animal.

IF THE SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, THE
32 HUMANE SOCIETY, POUND OR SHELTER, AS APPLICABLE, HAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT
33 PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PLACEMENT OF AN ANIMAL WITH A PARTIC-
34 ULAR ANIMAL RESCUE OR ADOPTION ORGANIZATION WILL EXPOSE THE ANIMAL TO A
35 SITUATION INVOLVING CRIMINAL NEGLECT OR CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, IT MAY
36 CONDITION THE RELEASE OF THE ANIMAL TO SUCH ANIMAL RESCUE OR ADOPTION
37 ORGANIZATION UPON THE CONDUCT OF AN INSPECTION OF THE ANIMAL RESCUE OR
38 ADOPTION ORGANIZATION'S PRIMARY FACILITY. SUCH INSPECTION MAY BE
39 PERFORMED BY THE ENTITY POSSESSING THE ANIMAL OR BY A THIRD PARTY AT THE
40 DIRECTION OR REQUEST OF THE POSSESSING ENTITY.

Also, no group with members that have any prior convictions of cruelty, dogfighting, etc. can legally qualify for 'rescue' status. So they're a non-issue too.

There is really, nothing objectionable about this bill. ASPCA hates it because it throws the whole Oreo debacle back in their face (so, ego) and BF doesn't want to piss them off because they want their backing for their fundraiser. It's just plain sleazy.