Shelters Need to be Held Accountable for their Euthanasia of Pets
By Anna E. Morrison-Ricordati Attorney at Law
THE TRUTH IN SHELTER ACT .... EDDIE'S LAW [1]
Eddie's senior guardian couldn't keep him anymore. Although trained and highly capable of working with the elderly, Eddie's guardian wanted Eddie to be with a young family who could give Eddie the love he deserved. The two-year old, gentle-yet-bubbly Border collie deserved a good home , no, he deserved a great home. Driving over an hour to the wealthiest, most pristine Chicago suburb she could find, paying a steep relinquishment fee, and listening to the promises from humane shelter staff who would "do everything possible" to find Eddie a new home, Eddie's guardian relinquished Eddie to the shelter. Eddie was sure to find his young family here. Eddie's guardian smiled softly as she rustled Eddie's ears while whispering "you won't miss me at your new home," and then watched as Eddie was led into the animal receiving room by a member of the humane shelter staff.
Days later, Eddie was euthanized.
HUMANE ANIMAL SHELTERS
Considering the standard practice in 1890s New York involved rounding up stray dogs, loading them by the hundreds into a cage, and drowning them in the East River, animal control has come a long way as a result of humane animal shelters. Indeed, it is because of humane societies and animal shelters that we now have animal rescue within cities. Yet in the eyes of many animal rescuers, shelter practices are still a far cry from "humane" over 100 years later.
In most states, humane animal shelters are broadly defined, but involve two general philosophies. "Open door" or "kill" shelters typically accept all animals without a waiting list, with or without a fee, and euthanize adoptable animals when space is an issue. "No-kill" shelters typically utilize waiting lists and fees to limit animal intake and do not euthanize adoptable animals. Both shelter philosophies have been criticized and both frequently euthanize animals with untreatable medial issues or serious behavioral problems.
SHELTER STATISTICS
The lack of uniform nationwide reporting requirements prevents an exact accounting, but it is estimated that over 9.5 million companion animals are euthanized each year in United States shelters. Citing reasons from aggression and sickness to overcrowding and scarce resources, the vast majority of euthanized animals are otherwise healthy, adoptable companions. Euthanasia statistics do not account for all unadopted animals in shelters, as in some states, shelter animals are transferred to research facilities authorized to conduct experiments or dissection (this is called "pound seizure").
Were it not for Eddie's guardian feeling uneasy when her follow-up calls to the shelter went unanswered, Eddie's case might never have been investigated. Shelters in Illinois are required to report intake and euthanasia statistics to the Department of Agriculture, but there are no requirements that this information be made available to persons before relinquishing a companion animal. In Eddie's case, the humane shelter's relinquishment contract specified that it need not inform Eddie's guardian of Eddie's circumstances.
REPRESENTATION, PROTECTION AND ACCOUNTIBILITY
Drafted by attorney, G. David Tenenbaum, the Truth in Shelter Act (Eddie's Law) proposes:
"¢ Definition of "open door/kill" and "no-kill" based upon the shelter philosophy and euthanasia rates of otherwise healthy, adoptable animals;
"¢ Disclosure of shelter statistics by requiring, for each year of operation, the total numbers/percentages of animals taken in, adopted out, euthanized and transferred to other facilities (including research labs using animals for experimentation) be posted on the shelter's front door; and
"¢ Penalties for shelters that violate the disclosure requirements or otherwise misrepresent the shelter's activities to the public. [2] Recall that Eddie's guardian was led to believe Eddie would be adopted"”and not simply "˜cleared out' when more animals arrived"”a belief that was bolstered by the payment of a sizeable relinquishment fee. Eddie's law aims to clarify the public's understanding of shelter activities, and provides accountability where shelters obtain funding by misrepresenting the shelter's status as "no-kill" when euthanasia is applied to otherwise healthy, adoptable animals. Unless a guardian has all relevant facts regarding a shelter's use of euthanasia and transfer, the decision to surrender/relinquish to a given shelter may not align with the guardian's true intent.
Opponents to the proposed law claim it would dissuade guardians from surrendering animals, potentially leading to animal abandonment, a continued stay in a bad environment, or the disappearance of "open door" shelters altogether. Yet, forcing animal guardians to consider the direct consequences of relinquishment could have beneficial results. It could prevent an otherwise guiltless guardian from attempting to cycle yet another animal through the shelter when the animal is no longer a baby or when the guardian has bored of providing care. It may encourage other guardians to bear at least some of the costs of sheltering by seeking a "nokill" shelter for relinquishment with payment. It could even increase awareness of laws directed at animal abandonment and other abuses. The current practice of allowing a guardian to discard animals at the "open door/kill" shelters benefits only the irresponsible animal guardian. For cities with publicly-funded shelters, this burden is borne by the taxpayers. With sufficient free-market incentives, it may be possible to shift high-kill shelters to low- or no-kill practices.
In an era of transparency and increasing concerns for animal welfare, shelters that are funded by public dollars and private donations should be required to accurately report shelter statistics to persons entering the shelter. Only with full disclosure of shelter practices can we, as consumers, direct our resources to the shelters that best match our own humane perspective.
[1] This account was loosely construed from information obtained in publicly available court records. The names of all persons, animals and locations have been changed or referenced generally to protect the identities of all involved. [2] For additional information on the text of Eddie's Law and to obtain draft legislation for proposal in your state, please e-mail
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
