« Comcast's horrible customer service rides again | Main | Could Scruffy's Law have saved Lucy the Lab? »

28 December 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


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!


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.


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!


Well, apparently all the negative attention got some results:


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?


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).

The comments to this entry are closed.