From: Zelda <[email protected]>
Subject: ASPCA introduces legislation that allows animals to be killed
immediately! Immedate Action Needed! NEW YORK SHELTER ANIMALS FACE GRAVE AND
IMMEDIATE DANGER.
Date: Saturday, February 11, 2012, 12:18 AM
#yiv2067114850 .yiv2067114850hmmessage P {
PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}
#yiv2067114850 BODY.yiv2067114850hmmessage {
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;FONT-SIZE:10pt;}
NEW YORK SHELTER ANIMALS FACE GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER.
In 2010, No Kill advocates succeeded in getting a rescue access bill introduced
in the New York State Legislature that would require shelters to give animals
they are planning to kill to qualified rescue organizations. This bill had the
power to save 25,000 animals a year by forcing shelters to give animals to
rescue groups who they were planning to kill. It was defeated by an ASPCA-led
coalition, which then introduced their own bill claiming to do the same but
which, in reality, codifies the status quo and erodes existing protections for
shelter animals. If this bill passes, shelters will be granted the legal
authority to refuse rescue groups for arbitrary reasons, such as the rescue
group is in a neighboring county, or the rescue group criticized the shelter
for poor, abusive or neglectful conditions.
In addition, it eliminates the holding period for scared cats, feral cats, shy
dogs, and traumatized animals by granting shelters the legal authority to kill
animals for being in “psychological pain” immediately on intake. They could be
killed within a minute of arrival. With this bill, the ASPCA is trying to not
only stop rescue access, but to erode what few protections animals in shelters
already have.
The vote is Tuesday and it is expected to pass. WE MUST NOT ALLOW THAT TO
HAPPEN. Please tell Assembly Member Paulin and ASPCA President Ed Sayres that
shelters should not have such broad power to kill animals within 60 seconds of
arrival:
E-mail Ed Sayres [email protected]
Post your opposition to the ASPCA Facebook page: www.facebook.com/aspca
E-mail Assembly Member Amy Paulin: [email protected]
Post your opposition to Paulin’s Facebook page: www.facebook.com/amy.paulin
New Yorkers, urge the Ag Committee to vote No on the ASPCA fake rescue access
and quick kill bill (you must use all four alerts to contact ALL members of the
Ag Committee):
Alert #1 of 4: http://bit.ly/y1qO2q
Alert #2 of 4: http://bit.ly/wF1cw2
Alert #3 of 4: http://bit.ly/zLUZuh
Alert #4 of 4: http://bit.ly/AcnrMT
For more information, including the text of the proposed law:
www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8451
From: Nicole Bruck
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject:
ASPCA introduces legislation that allows animals to be killed immediateThe
ASPCA has introduced a law that would grant shelters the legal authority to
kill animals for being in “psychological pain” immediately on intake.
They could be killed within a minute of arrival. All the dogs I have rescued,
and found great homes for, all suffered “psychological pain” when they
first entered the shelter. Now they will simply be killed.
The ASPCA got the following politician to introduce the bill. Please leave a
note on her Facebook page:
https://www.facebook.com/assemblywomanpaulin
Please read the articles at the link below and if you are a New York resident
take action. Please spread far and wide to all those that live in NY.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8451
The evilness of the ASPCA know no bounds. All they want to do is kill.
For those of you that believe the PR the ASPCA spews, please
read Nathan Winograd's (head of the No-Kill Movement) blog. If you click on the
link above, scroll down and on the right you will see a section titled
"The Truth About ASPCA".
Gone in 60 Seconds
February 10, 2012 by Nathan J. Winograd
NEW YORK SHELTER ANIMALS FACE GRAVE AND IMMEDIATE DANGER.
In 2010, No Kill advocates succeeded in getting a rescue access bill introduced
in the New York State Legislature that would require shelters to give animals
they are planning to kill to qualified rescue organizations. This bill had the
power to save 25,000 animals a year. It was defeated by an ASPCA-led coalition,
which then introduced their own bill claiming to do the same but which, in
reality, codifies the status quo and erodes existing protections for shelter
animals. If this bill passes, shelters will be granted the legal authority to
refuse rescue groups for arbitrary reasons, such as the rescue group is in a
neighboring county, or the rescue group criticized the shelter for poor,
abusive or neglectful conditions. In addition, it eliminates the holding period
for scared cats, feral cats, shy dogs, and traumatized animals by granting
shelters the legal authority to kill animals for being in “psychological pain”
immediately on intake. They could
be killed within a minute of arrival. With this bill, the ASPCA is trying to
not only stop rescue access, but to erode what few protections animals in
shelters already have.
The vote is Tuesday and it is expected to pass. WE MUST NOT ALLOW THAT TO
HAPPEN. New Yorkers, urge the Ag Committee to vote No on the ASPCA fake rescue
access and quick kill bill (you must use all four alerts to contact ALL members
of the Ag Committee):
Alert #1 of 4: http://bit.ly/y1qO2q
Alert #2 of 4: http://bit.ly/wF1cw2
Alert #3 of 4: http://bit.ly/zLUZuh
Alert #4 of 4: http://bit.ly/AcnrMT
On Wednesday, the NYS Assembly Agriculture Committee will take up Assembly Bill
A05449A by Amy Paulin. It is expected to pass. A05449A is an ASPCA-written bill
that seeks to undermine support for true shelter reform and true shelter
access, a rival to Assembly Bill A07312, the Companion Animal Access & Rescue
Act (CAARA) by Assembly Member Micah Kellner. It will not provide true rescue
access for animals shelters are committed to killing and more importantly, it
will eliminate the holding period for shy dogs, scared animals, and all feral
cats in New York State by giving shelters the power to kill animals they
consider to be in “psychological pain” immediately. In short, scared cats,
feral cats, shy dogs, and stressed/traumatized animals could be killed within a
minute of arrival.
In addition, the ASPCA/Paulin bill will give shelters virtually unlimited power
to decide which animals are subject to rescue and which rescue groups they want
to work with. Not only would this continue current practice, giving the stamp
of legislative legitimacy to killing despite a rescue alternative, it would
make it more difficult for rescuers to seek real legislative reform in the
future. The ASPCA bill would not have saved Oreo. In fact, it would not save
the majority of the 25,000 animals currently being killed in New York State
shelters every year despite a qualified rescue alternative. For example, the
bill specifically says shelters do not have to work with rescue groups outside
of their county, even when those organizations have the ability, capacity, and
desire to save lives. This allows shelters in rural communities to avoid
working with the extensive rescue group network of New York City, Buffalo,
Rochester, and Syracuse, where homes are in
greater abundance. It also allows shelters to avoid working with rescue groups
and No Kill shelters in neighboring suburbs or counties.
Moreover, they do not have to work with any rescue groups. The bill
specifically says that shelters “may” give animals to rescue groups rather than
kill them, instead of “shall” give the animals to them. And it gives them
unlimited authority to determine whether a rescue group or particular animal
qualifies. If shelter staff believes the rescue group is unfairly critical of
the shelter, they can deem that rescue group “abusive” under the law and
prevent them from rescuing animals. That is the situation we have now, and
shelters like New York City’s pound have kicked out rescuers and volunteers for
trying to improve conditions by exercising their First Amendment rights.
There is no question that a rescue access law is needed in New York State. A
2010 survey found that 71% of NYS rescue groups have been turned away by
shelters and those shelters subsequently killed the animals they offered to
save. The survey also found that roughly half of all non-profit organizations
have been the subject of retaliation, including retaliatory killing of animals,
for expressing concern about inhumane conditions in shelters. One
bill—CAARA—seeks to truly end these practices.
While CAARA empowers non-profit animal rescue organizations to fulfill their
missions, a right often denied to them by larger non-profit organizations and
shelters, the ASPCA bill paradoxically assumes such organizations guilty of the
very problem they were chartered to combat.
CAARA provides whistleblower protection for rescue groups, creating an
incentive for non-profit organizations to help end cruelty or neglect at
shelters without fear of retaliation and loss of rescue access. The ASPCA bill
gives shelters the authority to refuse working with rescue groups if they
determine those groups are hostile toward the shelters, effectively
eviscerating any whistleblower protections and conditioning rescue access on
silence as to inhumane conditions which may exist in that particular shelter.
CAARA prevents needless animal suffering by mandating precise, sensible, and
objective criteria for determining which animals are irremediably suffering and
therefore exempt from rescue access provisions. The ASPCA bill creates a number
of loopholes and fails to specifically define the terms of such exemptions,
leaving them open to interpretation by the very individuals the law should be
regulating. For example, the ASPCA bill allows shelters to kill animals they
consider are in “psychological pain” which lacks any objective standards of
determination. If an animal is scared or shy, he or she can be killed right
away, with no holding period of any kind. This would be a death sentence for
all feral cats, all shy dogs, all scared animals. In fact, it will allow NYS
shelters to kill any animal with no holding period by claiming they are in
“psychological pain.”
CAARA ensures public safety by mandating precise criteria for determining which
dogs are dangerous or aggressive and therefore exempt from rescue access. The
ASPCA bill fails to specifically define the terms of such exemptions, again
leaving these important and life-determining evaluations open to decisions
unrelated to a dog’s true temperament.
CAARA protects animal well-being by providing specific, sensible, and objective
criteria whereby a shelter can refuse to provide rescue access to a particular
non-profit for reasons of proven cruelty or neglect. The ASPCA bill allows
shelters to refuse rescue access to non-profits even when none of these
conditions actually exist.
Under the ASPCA bill, New York State shelters could refuse to give this puppy
to a rescue group and kill him instead for any of the following reasons (and
more):
The shelter claims the puppy is in “psychological pain” because he whines in
the shelter.
The shelter says the rescue group is hostile because it reported publicly that
shelter animals are allowed to wallow in filth while staff is not reprimanded
for failure to clean.
The rescue group is in a neighboring county.
The shelter states that it does not believe the rescue group can provide
adequate care without having to objectively state how or why they arrived at
that conclusion.
The puppy has a cold which the shelter determines to be “contagious” and
therefore “deadly” to other animals in the shelter.
The shelter claims the puppy is aggressive.
By contrast, under CAARA, the shelter would not be able to kill this puppy if a
rescue group offered to save him unless:
The puppy was irremediably suffering and the prognosis for rehabilitation was
poor or grave.
The rescue group had a volunteer, staff, or board member who has charges of
animal neglect, cruelty, or dog fighting pending against them or a conviction
for neglect, cruelty, or dog fighting.
The rescue group failed an inspection that was conducted in a timely manner
with objective criteria for failing.
The rival bill is an attempt to co-opt the movement for rescue access and to
defray criticism by claiming they support ‘rescue access’ without directly
challenging the conditions which make true rescue access so vital to saving
lives in New York State. It makes it more difficult for rescue groups to save
animals and easier for shelters to kill.
Finally, although the bill suggests that shelters would be required to scan for
microchips, match lost and found animals, and post these animals online, in
reality, it gives them the ability not to if they determine, wholly within
their discretion, it is not “practicable” to do so. Every provision requiring
shelters to do anything is preceded by the loophole not to if they determine it
is not “practicable” to do so. Practicable literally means capable of being
done or reasonable, but there are so many alternatives to it—reasonable,
feasible, practical—that no one uses it anymore. That is, no one outside the
law. It survives today in the jurisprudence of this nation. You will find it in
law where it has only one meaning: you do not have to do this if you don’t want
to. Its singular purpose is to mollify opposition by enacting reform, but then
providing a loophole big enough to drive the proverbial Mack truck straight
through it.
When you read legislation and you see that dastardly word, you will know that
the legislator is not serious about reform. You will know that the bill is
meant to ride popular sentiment on an issue but not upset the powerful
interests who are vested in the status quo. So you can have legislation, for
example, that is called the “Climate Change Prevention Act.” It might have
policy statements that sound ambitious: “Whereas, today climate change is
threatening to destroy economies, cause species extinction, and result in
irreversible harm to the planet and all living things.” It might then put the
blame on use of non-renewable sources of energy. And then, in what sounds very
promising in today’s political climate, it might “mandate that utilities must
purchase 50% of their energy from renewable sources by 2015.” And you might
think that this is something you can get behind. You will vote for this and
vote for the legislator who introduced it.
But wait, you search the text of the law, and there it is, one tiny word, the
kiss of death that potentially renders the whole thing a paper tiger. It goes
on to say, “if practicable.” In other words, if it isn’t too much trouble. And
it always certainly is. Or we wouldn’t need a law to force them to do so in the
first place.
The word “practicable” is a wink, a nod, a slight head tilt to special
interests by legislators that no one really expects change, that those the law
pretends to regulate will be able to continue doing what they have always done
as long as they make the claim that following the law is not “practicable.”
Please help defeat this bill so we can pass real reform and to prevent feral
cats, scared dogs, and all the other animals from facing certain death if
shelter bureaucrats claim they are in “psychological pain.” We must let the
ASPCA, Assembly Member Amy Paulin, and the members of the Agriculture
Committee know that this is not acceptable. The fate of tens of thousands of
animals every year hang in the balance.
"We believe that the mass, systematic killing of our beloved companion animals
is abhorrent, immoral and unacceptable. We believe that all animals have the
inherent right to live, and to be treated with respect and dignity; that no
animal should be treated as a disposable object or killed for any reason other
than for dire and untreatable medical conditions."
~SOS: Save Our Shelter Animals
