Dogged Blog

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?

Comcast's horrible customer service rides again

I sometimes wonder why Comcast is still in business.

After my last go-around with them, when they randomly gave my phone number away to someone else for no reason and professed to be unable to fix it for several days, you'd think nothing would surprise me.

But after Rawley, my dog, took my remote control out into the woods in a snowstorm, I contacted them about getting a replacement, a ten buck purchase. They informed me I'd need to provide them the following to buy -- not be given, but purchase -- a replacement remote:

1. Name on the account,
2. Address,
3. Telephone number associated with the account,
4. One of the following:
4.1. Last four digits of the Social Security Number of the account
holder,
4.2. Security Code,
4.3. Account Number,
4.4. Amount and date of most recent payment on the account, or
4.5. Services that are listed on the account.

Really, Comcast? Are you out of your mind?

It's not that I don't have all that information; I do. It's that it's the most ridiculous piece of overkill I've ever seen.

And it's worth noting that the people at Comcast are all very pleasant and nice. It's not rudeness that's the problem. It's the actual systems at Comcast that are broken, and the fact that their employees are not empowered to help customers. Being polite is not a substitute for having genuine customer-friendly policies and procedures.

A Greyhound Christmas

Stella on Christmas night, saying, "What do you mean, Santa's not coming again tomorrow?"

Rawley, the little varmint, hid not just his new toy in the woods, but hers, too. I can't find either of them. He didn't have enough time to bury them... they've got to be out there somewhere...

The No-Kill Movement: We are the 71 percent

We can argue all we want about what "no-kill" really means, whether it's about shelters or communities. Whether it's impossible or provably possible. About whether it's saving 90 percent or 98 percent or some strange and complicated definition involving highly subjective concepts like "adoptable."

What we can't argue about is this: The overwhelming majority of Americans -- 71 percent -- believe that shelters should not be allowed to kill any homeless pets unless they are too sick to be saved or too aggressive to be kept as pets.

That's what an Associated Press-Petside poll conducted by GfK Roper found in October when it asked 1,118 people in 50 states to identify which of two statements matched their own view.

Seventy-one percent said they believed  "Animal shelters should only be allowed to euthanize animals when they are too sick to be treated or too aggressive to be adopted."

Only 25 percent believed "Sometimes animal shelters should be allowed to euthanize animals as a necessary way of controlling the population of animals."

I know the history of animal sheltering in this country. I know how it came about that those who should have been tasked with sheltering, caring for, and showing compassion to homeless pets became their biggest killers.

But I also know the day when society found that acceptable is over. Completely and utterly over. Outdated, unwanted, increasingly unthinkable. Seventy-one percent of Americans know it, too. And those who insist it's impossible have now officially joined the ranks of those who never thought we'd have openly gay soliders or a black president.

In the battle for hearts and minds of nearly three-quarters of the people who live in this nation, no-kill won.