Scruffy's Law: Making animal organizations tell the truth

Here's a law I can get behind.

That's because it's not an unfunded mandate, and it's not micro-management. It's just truth in advertising.

We need to pass a law that animal organizations that kill more than 10 percent of the animals that come in their doors may not use the words "humane," "shelter," or "prevention of cruelty" in their names.

I suggest we call it "Scruffy's Law," after the bottle-fed kitten killed by the Arizona "Humane" Society the other day, after they refused to provide emergency medical care for a cut that needed stitches unless her owner signed her over to them -- even though his mother was ready and able to pay for the care immediately with a credit card over the phone. From Yes Biscuit:

A 49 year old Phoenix man named Daniel Dockery bottle fed a kitten from birth whom he named Scruffy.  He raised enough money to get her spayed when she was old enough, fed her tuna, and slept next to her on the pillow at night.  Mr. Dockery credits Scruffy with helping him to remain sober for one year after battling a lifelong addiction illness.

Earlier this month, 9 month old Scruffy apparently cut herself on fencing and Mr. Dockery took her to the Arizona Humane Society for treatment.  Unable to come up with $400 on the spot, Mr. Dockery asked if the facility would accept his mother’s credit card by phone (she lives in MI) or be willing to accept payment the next day after his mother wired him the cash.  The Arizona Humane Society would do neither.  In fact, they reportedly advised Mr. Dockery that the only way for Scruffy to receive treatment was for him to sign over ownership.  He reluctantly complied.

For the next 3 weeks, Mr. Dockery searched area shelters and repeatedly asked staff about Scruffy.  He kept getting the runaround.  Finally this week, Mr. Dockery learned that Scruffy had been killed shortly after he signed ownership over to the Arizona Humane Society...

Their explanation? They lacked the resources to treat Scruffy, because they took in too many animals that day.

Why did they take her, then? Beats the hell out of me, and anyone else with a lick of sense or ounce of compassion. Scruffy had an owner -- an owner apparently quite willing to suffer for the sake of his pet, and a family member willing to pay for her care. 

In what universe did this make sense?

Only in a universe where an organization like this gets to market itself with the word "humane" in its name.

It's a simple fix, folks. A consumer protection law that will cost almost nothing, just some signs and new business cards. Heck, it will create jobs! Talk about a win-win!

And if they don't want to change their name, that's a simple fix, too. It's called the No Kill Equation. All the cool kids are doing it!

What do you say: Are you on board with Scruffy's Law?

Comments

[Nokillhouston]

This is what I've been thinking for a long time. Calling themselves "humane" is false and deceptive advertising. It should be regulated like every other business.

[Michelle H]

I'm on board with Scruffy's Law!

[Lissa]

Things like this really make my blood boil.

I remember when I had to find a place for my rabbit because I was moving overseas and couldn't take him with. Called the Woodbury Human Society in Minnesota they said I could pay a fee and give them my rabbit and they told me that if my rabbit didn't pass the behavior test they would put it down. Then they said that if I didn't want to give him up to them I could give him over and they would euthanize him for me.

I hung up as soon as she said that. I couldn't believe how cold and uncaring they could be about such a thing. Needless to say my donations go elsewhere now.

[Shannon Willson]

I am more on board with a mandated No Kill equation - micromanagement or not!

[Jen deHaan]

This makes me feel sick to my stomach. I wouldn't be surprised if they even had some empty kennels that day too. I'll do what I can to see a Scruffy's Law proposed and passed - help with the site, promotion, etc.

Although I volunteer at shelters like this for the animals, and animals alone (in addition to enjoying the "hands on" time) - more and more I feel like perhaps my limited free time and experience in this kind of thing can be better spent on endeavors like this. Scruffy, like Oreo, deserved so much better - as do all the future animals that are going to suffer without such protection in place.

Please let us know what we can do.

[Mary E Drayer]

I am definitely on board with this, but I would take it a step further and suggest that even if shelters are saving 90%, if they are still killing healthy animals--feral cats and non-vicious dogs with behavior issues--they should not be allowed to call themselves no kill.

[Lea]

I read the story when it made the New Mexico papers and to say the least I was outraged. We need more laws to protect our animals and their owners. There is no "humane" when things like this happen.....Scruffy's Law is a must do!!!

[April - Fix Charlotte]

Count me in! I'm 100% on board with mandated no kill.

[Wendy Mielke]

Absolutely count me in! Nobody who kills even one healthy, adoptable animal should call themselves "humane". I've felt that way for a long time. I'm also totally in favor of mandated no-kill! It's long overdue that we end the practice of euthanizing perfectly healthy and adoptable animals. I consider that murder! These so-called "humane" societies are a bunch of murderers, and I hope they read this too!

[Cheryl]

Well, apparently all the negative attention got some results:

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/12/29/20111229humane-society-changes-policies-cat-euthanized.html

[Tina Clark]

This should definitely be a law. And let's not forget using the word "euthanasia" to describe killing animals who are not irremediably suffering (like Scruffy for instance).

[ruth e. raleigh]

I understand that the website to Arizona Humane had to be shut down and only one of the top officials can post now on their facebook page. Now...how's THAT for transparency?

[Rosemary]

The problem with setting a fixed percentage without analysing anything else is surely the possibility of organisations "gaming" their statistics, or honestly having varying intake with different chances of surviving.

For example, our sister organisation in Suffolk doesn't have facilities for severely injured strays, so they don't take them in. We do have facilities, so a greater percentage of our intake doesn't survive (e.g. because of head trauma that doesn't respond to supportive care). That means we have a higher euthanasia percentage than our neighbours, but we're both honestly trying to do our best.

There is a genuine problem with running a low-cost treatment setup if people either can't or won't pay, because if you let one person off paying you end up having to try to do the same for everyone.

I confess to having once threatened a client's sister that I'd turn up at her place of work and make a scene if she didn't replace the very obviously dud cheque she'd given him with cash or a cheque with a valid signature. (She did).