Liveblogging the No-Kill Conference: Using the law to save animal lives

Richard Avanzino of Maddie's Fund, a self-described "recovering attorney" and former head of the San Francisco SPCA, says it was his goal while running the shelter to "sue or be sued every three weeks."



One of his most famous lawsuits was that involving his fight to save Sido, an 11-year-old dog whose owner killed herself, leaving behind a will that called for her dog, Sido, to be killed and buried with her.



The SF/SPCA was the animal control agency at the time, so Sido was with them.The refused to kill her, and the executor of the will sued them.



While the case was going through the court, they also went to the legislature and the governor. National organizations FOUGHT the effort to save Sido.



The legislature passed a law to save Sido, which the governor was hesitating to sign. However, he signed it just as the courts ruled in her favor. Sido lived to be 16. This is the case that Rich credits with inspiring the birth of the no-kill movement.



"She passed on and she's waiting for me to join her at another point in time."



Judge ruled that dogs in San Francisco have a right to life. Executor said will had the right to dispose of property. Rich doesn't think of dogs as property, but judge said if she is property, she's property like a Rembrandt, and can't just be willfully destroyed.



Sido became a celebrity.



Lynne Fridley of Maddie's just said there was a case decided this morning that declared a dog a family member in a custody case, rather than property.



Rich said Sido followed him everywhere and slept in bed with him and his wife in bed every night. She became an ambassador of good will and had a fan club. Reporters and legislators loved her.



"The lessons learned from saving Sido, that people could care about one animal's life so much, raised the bar on what we thought could be done to save more dogs and cats. It was this case that inspired what came to be called "the Adoption Pact."







SF /SPCA was doing animal control, which accounted for nearly $2 million of annual $5 million budget -- but SPCA was subsidizing animal control work with around $1 million of its own charitable money.



SF built its own animal control department and shelter, headed by Carl Friedman. SPCA went to him in 1993 and asked him to join in a "memorandum of understanding" to save all healthy dogs and cats "and we were thrown out of the office."



Widespread opposition from every shelter direct0r in Bay Area.



Threatened to go to the voters -- had huge support -- Friedman conceded. Created "Adoption Pact" that SPCA would take any healthy and many treatable dogs and cats that animal control couldn't find homes for.



Then Rich goes into the story of the deer on Angel Island, and island in San Francisco Bay that is a state park. Deer had a population explosion and were starving. SPCA wanted to feed them, park officials wanted to kill them.



"Park officials said that if SF/SPCA personnel show up to feed the deer, they'll arrest us for trespassing. SF/SPCA, which had humane officer powers in SF, said fine. 'We'll rest you for animal cruelty, and we'll bring the six o'clock news.' And they said, 'That's an interesting idea. Why don't you go over there and feed the deer?'"



Long story, but bottom line: Question all experts. Including in court. "Even if you don't succeed in the case you're fighting, it can create precedents that influence the outcome of similar cases for other populations and even other species."



Fort Funston Dog Walkers is the next case he discusses. 1973, San Francisco turned recreational land over to the federal parks. They promised to preserve recreation including dog walking, but broke the promise.



Fr. Funston Dog Walkers brought a case in 2000, joined by SF/SPCA. Argued they broke federal law, broke promises, violated own regs.



Parks claimed closures necessary to protect endangered birds. Opponents said that was a pretext; there were other ways to protect the birds.



Next case: Live animal sales in Chinatown.



Inhumane conditions and animal cruelty (really gruesome, worse than most can imagine now) documented in Chinatown food markets. Became huge political "hot button" issue. Cultural differences -- public and media attention. Powerplay between two Chinatown factions.



Eventually resolved with a multi-pronged approach -- negotiation, some legislation, some Fish and Game action. Eventually the practices went away.



Next case: Leona Helmsley estate.



Helmsley "left $5 billion to help dogs, which sounds perfectly reasonable to me."



Trustees went to court asking Court to declare that they "are not bound by the expression of the Decedent's wishes," and they won.



Maddie's Fund, HSUS and ASPCA have gone to court. Rich says we could empty America's shelters of dogs if that money were really given to dog welfare, but there's a bigger picture here.



Donor intent. Wealthy widows who care about animal welfare constantly have their wishes ignored after their deaths.



Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge, Doris Duke, Thelma Doelger, Helen Vorhees Brach.



Those of us involved in this case have been considered the fringe, whackos, crazies. We haven't gotten the traction our cause deserves. Now there is a sea change. People see their pets as family members. We wouldn't put their family members in a cage, although "when my son wrecked my car, that was an exception."



Donor intent: "If any wishes in any will are to be honored, animal welfare bequests need to be honored. The idea that anyone, especially a wealthy woman, who wishes her estate to benefit animals is automatically a little 'off' and thus, those wishes can safely be disregarded needs to be challenged and brought to an end."



Question raised, isn't that inconsistent with Sido case?



Rich said "dead hand from the grave" shouldn't take life from a living creature, but yes, it was inconsistent. (From Christie: I don't think so, actually. If your argument is that animals aren't the same as a sofa or a car, well, neither are they like money. I don't think that's the underlying point.)



Rich says animals have intrinsic value that makes them more than property. And interestingly, the shelter world doesn't seem to see it that way. "In the shelter world when you talk about legislating standards as Nathan promotes, most of the shelters and big organizations object to that."



Some discussion of this point follows, but I'm having that little jet lag thing again so I'm just listening for a few moments.



Someone raised question about "guardian" vs "owner," and said that AKC is contacting veterinarians and saying it threatens veterinarian decisions. Discussion follows, but then Rich also said it is a two way street.



Rich advocates for paying veterinarians more. Says if we're going to argue that pets aren't property, they're family members, then part of that is we shouldn't stop crying about a $7000 bill to save a dog from cancer, because when his wife was dying of cancer, her medical bills were hundreds of thousands of dollars.



Question about shelters in CA that ignore requirements of Hayden Law, and even when they get taken to court, there is no penalty. Rich said that people in the community have to force laws to be upheld. Judges often rule that they don't want to shut shelters down, penalize taxpayers, etc.



Someone said, but isn't that just enabling shelters to continue ignoring law? Rich said, if I were the judge I'd rule in your favor on that. I'm not the judge. Judges rule on what is practical not just what is right.



Long discussion of legal status of animals. Someone pointed out that there are problems with "guardian" status, which most in the room seem to support for animals.



Rich said that's true: "I guarantee you that if we had all our wishes fulfilled today, we'd be unhappy tomorrow."



Then he goes back and says that it's essentially an evolution and we don't really know where it will go, but he knows for sure that we have to stop the killing of shelter animals before it goes anywhere good. Applause.



Okay, we're veering off into a religious discussion now... the issue of guardian vs owner, and the legal status of animals, is very much on people's minds here today.



Someone is saying that she can't understand how to reconcile the presence of breeders at this conference -- Joan Miller of the Cat Fanciers Association was a speaker, in fact -- with a no-kill outcome for the country.



Rich says he doesn't like us vs. them, and if we're going to save all the animals in a community we need everyone's help.



Someone is saying, don't bother with the law. Just focus on morality. He's advocating using extreme measures against politicians, animal control officers, organizations, everyone -- "bullying." Protests. Etc. Only thing that works and always works.



Rich just moves on. A person from Delaware says, hey, we got our law without those tactics.



However, she goes on, she has no idea how they can be expected to go into collaboration with a terrible shelter that kills lots of animals and lies all the time to get a Maddie's Fund grant.



Rich says, you can't. We believe in honesty and integrity and mutual respect. We don't want to fund a group that lies.



But we don't think a single agency can do it by itself. Communities need to get all groups working together and build a safety net of care for animals.



We don't have the Maddie's police. We aren't going to come into communities and say, "You're not telling the truth! You have to do this or that."



Someone said there is an "animal's attorney" position in Switzerland.



Rich: "Europe is in many ways a lot more progressive than we are in the United States."



A heated discussion ensued about an organization in Delaware, which Rich finally cut off. "We are very passionate in our movement, and we're going to disagree on things."



Said we should always try to do better.



Question: Has anyone used a writ of mandamus to compel government to enforce Hayden Law in CA?



(Answer is yes, in Kern County.) But Rich pointed out judges tend to be reluctant to issue Writs of Mandamus to make governments do things, even things required by law, particularly if there is no funding to follow the law.



Question: If you think veterinarians should make more money, doesn't that make it harder to adopt animals and do rescue?



Rich: Yes. Difficult issue, I don't want to say, "You're poor so you can't have a dog." But on the other hand, just as we have to think how we're going to get medical care for our kids, we have to consider that when we get pets."



Says it's like national health care. As a society we've lived with tens of millions of people not having health insurance. Poor people can't get medical care all the time. This is a huge issue, will not be solved in his lifetime. But if you work on the premise that animals are family members, you are going to follow a certain path. They're not human. They're not property. We have to decide what entitlements they get. The human species will define that.



Are these rights intrinsic, or because we've given them? In this society, humans give rights to animals, and over time, I think we'll give more rights to animals. Will they ever vote for president? Well, I hope so, because we can use the help.



Discussion of case in Robeson County, North Carolina. (http://animals.change.org/blog/view/activists_drop_lawsuit_against_robeson_county_animal_shelter)



Then someone raised question about New York plan to kill Canada geese. What can we do, she asks? There is no science behind this plan. The mayor in New York hates animals. We feel helpless.



Rich: To change society for animals, you have to have laws, community activism, and leadership. Need all three.



You have a powerful media in New York, papers, TV. You have a voice to be heard. If it's being heard and ignored, I don't know what to do. Sometimes you can go to court if there's a framework for litigation, but if that framework has not been established, the animals suffer.



Person in audience: Article 178 in New York, mayor is not immune.



She said she doesn't think it will stop Bloomberg because he's a millionaire. (?)



Someone says that they think we're really rushing into this "guardian" thing. Sometimes due process is the ONLY THING that keeps dogs, esp pit bulls, from being confiscated from homes and KILLED IN SHELTERS. There are really legit reasons people, breeders, rescuers, pit bull advocates, are hanging onto "owner" and "property," not because they don't care about animals.



Rich says this is a perfect example of where there is a good reason for "ownership." As we change law, there are unintended consequences to our good intentions. Law can be a sword, and can do great harm.



Someone says they've noticed a lot of pushback on TNR programs from bird groups recently. How do we deal with this?



Rich: You'll always have people in conflict. That TNR injunction as I understand it came about without fair representation to the feral cat folks. It's like we heard about the Helmsley case after the fact, so how could any other point of view have been heard? We're supposed to hear all sides.



When going to court, we have to have scientific evidence to support our position, not just emotion. As it comes to predation of cats on wildlife, I don't think we've done enough to prove our case. Yet.



Then Rich rants about the statements, constantly made, that a cat will reproduce at this horrible rate and inundate the world with cats, and bird groups use this all the time against cats. BUT IT'S NOT TRUE!



They also argue cats aren't indigenous to these areas. Well, Grizzly Bears are indigenous to San Francisco. (Laughter)



We have to do that work.



He than praises people in room as being the heroes and stars of saving animals and thanks them for what they're doing and for being here.



Next up: A luncheon talk with Micah Kellner, New York State Assemblymember and author of Oreo's Law.

Comments

[Rosemary]

I wish Richard had developed the issue of veterinary care and adoptions by people on very low income a bit more.



It seems to me that getting this sorted out is absolutely critical because if we refuse adoption to these groups they're going to get animals from friends who've let their cat/dog have a litter. That just encourages breeding by owners who might well otherwise have had their pets spayed (after all they're finding that loads of their friends want kittens or puppies so from their point of view there IS no pet over-production problem.



They then go on perfectly fine until the point where one of their animals needs a caesarian and they find it would cost two month's income.

[Patti Kunz]

Could people pay for a WebEx, or similar platform for the Conference to be delivered online? That would get the word out to more people. Is there a CD available or written scripts? I appreciate this offering. Would like more to bring the info to all.

[Eucritta]

Given how veterinary costs are rising, the industry-wide practice of requiring payment in full upfront, job loss, home loss, wage stagnation, increasingly tight credit, and a lingering, possible double-dip recession which may well get worse before it gets better, it seems to me this isn't only an issue for the poor but also the middle classes.

[Christie Keith]

Donna, I lived through this at a time I had a pit mix, and she was adopted from SF/SPCA. Wasn't the pit bull discrimination added later? Lita was a "certified St. Francis Terrier," which I thought was the program they later dismantled but was in place at first.

I moved out of San Francisco right after this and it was a long time ago, but that's my memory -- is it wrong?

[Donna]

> Created “Adoption Pact” that SPCA would take any healthy and many treatable dogs and cats that animal control couldn’t find homes for.



... with the exception of pit bulls.



This keeps getting missed when no kill advocates look to SF's history (and current policy).

[Donna]

Christie, I think this webpage from Friends of SFACC explains it the best (about 3/4s of the way down)



http://helpacc.org/faq.html



"However, because of a 1994 Adoption Pact between the two agencies, if ACC offers an adoptable dog or cat to The SF/SPCA, perhaps because of lack of kennel space at ACC or an overabundance of a particular breed, The SF/SPCA has obligated itself to take the animal. The only exception is pit bull dogs, whom The SF/SPCA does not take unless they have a documented history (known owners, no fight-training background, licensed, microchip registration, up-to-date-vaccinations, vet bills, receipts from dog trainers, etc.). In fact, other than pit bulls, The SF/SPCA may "pass" on only three of ACC's adoptable dogs and cats a month, but this rarely happens."



We've never known a time-period in SF when the agencies didn't discriminate against pit bulls or limit their adoptions. One of BR's co-founders was an employee at SFACC during the adoption pact period and it inspired her to help create BR as a way to address the dogs that were being forgotten in the push for no-kill.



SF has historically considered pit bulls to be "a problem" that must be dealt with, rather than dogs with human-created issues that need to be addressed. Hence, the current BSL that was and is fully embraced (and even promoted) by SF agencies. I don't recall ever reading any statements from the no-kill community decrying this BSL. It's been a sore spot as you can well imagine.

[Donna]

I should add that Jan McHugh-Smith ended the mandatory finger printing and mugshot requirement for pit bull adopters from SFSPCA. Up until the time she took the seat as director, this policy was actively enforced.

[Christie Keith]

Well, I don't know if you consider me a member of the no-kill community, but I decry it. I believe all dogs should be individually evaluated regardless of breed, and I'm against breed specific (or "type" specific) laws and policies.

I'll email Rich and see if he wants to comment.

[Donna]

Thanks. Contra Costa County has been inspired by SF's endorsement of SB861 and is in the middle of considering MSN now for their big county .. so the conversation is here.

[Valerie]

Zip files of conference materials are available for download here:

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/whatsnew.html