As we noted in yesterday’s post, as more and more “shelters” embrace Human Animal Support Services (HASS), their doors are increasingly being closed.

Under HASS, euphemistically referred to as “community sheltering,” shelters stop taking in strays, including kittens, telling people to handle them themselves, turn them loose, or leave them on the sidewalk. This puts animals in harm’s way and ignores their right to rescue.

For a Good Samaritan who found that a feral mama gave birth in his yard, he had nowhere to turn. Most of the local “shelters” would not take them in, and the only one that would offered a death sentence.

So we did.

Together, not only will we save lives; we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished and where every individual life will be protected and revered.

Donate

The San Francisco Bay Area used to be the beacon of lifesaving in the animal movement. It no longer is. As “shelter” after “shelter” embraces Human Animal Support Services (HASS), their doors are increasingly being closed.

Under HASS, euphemistically referred to as “community sheltering,” shelters stop taking in strays, including kittens, telling people to handle them themselves, turn them loose, or leave them on the sidewalk. This puts the onus on residents to do the job they already pay shelters to do through their tax dollars. It also puts animals in harm’s way and ignores their right to rescue.

For a Good Samaritan who found that a feral mama gave birth in his yard, he had nowhere to turn. Most of them would not take them in, and the only one that would offered a death sentence.

So we did.

These kittens (and their mama) are a living reminder of the vast disconnect between what Americans want and expect from animal “shelters” and what they too often receive: dereliction of duty at best and, at worst, deadly malfeasance.

That is why we are committed to fixing our broken animal “shelter” system and will not quit until it is.

Donate to their care:

Donate

Together, not only will we save lives; we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished and where every individual life will be protected and revered.

The Spring 2026 issue of No Kill Sheltering is available for subscribers of The No Kill Advocacy Center.

The current issue covers:

• When it comes to rescued animals, little things mean a lot;

• A victory for animals on death row;

• A once-deadly feline disease has a cure;

• Protecting pets from tainted products;

• How technology is helping find lost pets;

• Misrepresenting bite data puts lives at risk;

• No Kill Companion 2026;

• No Kill is about programs, not geography;

And more.

If you are not a supporter, please subscribe below. Your contribution is tax-deductible as allowed by law and supports our work to end the systematic killing of animals in “shelters.”

Subscribe now

Together, not only will we save lives; we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished and where every individual life will be protected and revered.

Read more

SB 201, a bill to make it illegal for Utah pounds to kill animals that rescue groups are willing to save, has passed the Utah House and Senate and was just signed into law by the Governor.

The bill, modeled after The No Kill Advocacy Center’s Animal Rescue Act, requires “shelters” to notify qualified groups two days before killing animals and allow their rescue. It will save lives, save money, spare rescuer suffering, and bring in millions of dollars in tax revenue.

In California, for example, a similar law has been on the books since 1998. It has increased the number of animals transferred to rescue groups rather than killed from 12,526 a year to 99,783 — a nearly 700% increase, all at no cost to taxpayers. ​In fact, it resulted in a potential cost savings of over $4,000,000 statewide for killing and destruction of remains. Over 2,000,000 animals have been saved since the law’s inception.

SB 201, the Utah Animal Rescue Act, goes into effect on May 6.

Donate

The Animal Rescue Act

The No Kill Advocacy Center’s model legislation for individuals seeking to enact a similar law in their city, county, or state.

To mandate collaborative working relationships between municipal shelters and not-for-profit organizations in order to reduce the number of animals killed, reduce taxpayer expenditures, and increase local economic activity and tax revenues through spending on adopted animals.

Lifesaving, Cost-Saving, and Economic Benefits

In 1998, California passed a law making it illegal for public (and private) shelters to kill animals when qualified rescue groups were willing to save them. Accordingly, the number of animals saved, rather than killed, increased from 12,526 to 99,783 annually — an increase of nearly 700%. That increase corresponds with yearly cost savings of $4,450,107 for killing and destroying remains, plus additional savings relative to the cost of care. In addition to direct savings, a University of Denver study found that laws of this kind have a positive economic impact on businesses and increased sales tax revenues due to subsequent spending by adopters on animals.

Opposition

State and national organizations like the ASPCA often oppose the legislation, claiming that passing such legislation is expensive, unsafe, and tantamount to handing the keys to the shelter over to hoarders. A 10-year study of the California legislation, however, found that “there is no evidence that the problems predicted by some when the law was considered, such as hoarding or exposing the public to dangerous dogs, has ever materialized.” On the contrary, the law improved state and federal oversight of non-profit animal welfare organizations.

Public Safety

Right of rescue access legislation does not change long-standing state laws regarding dangerous dogs and dogs who cause serious physical injury. These dogs, animals suspected of having rabies, and animals who are irremediably suffering are exempted from the notification and placement requirements.

Moreover, a subsequent study in a local municipality with such an ordinance found that while the placement of dogs climbed from 69% to 98%, the percentage of dog bites deemed moderate or severe declined by 13%, with the greatest decline in the number of bites classified as “severe,” which declined by 89%. The study concluded that the legislation was not only consistent with public safety, it also improved it, noting positive impacts on “public health, social capital, and community engagement,” all of which have “important implications for [the city’s] ability to promote and sustain the health and well-being of both its human and non-human animal residents.”

Model Legislation

Sec. 1. Definitions

(a) Animal shelter.—The term ‘animal shelter’ means <<name of animal control shelter>>; as well as a public or private facility that:

(1) Has a physical structure, other than a private home, that provides temporary or permanent shelter to stray, abandoned, abused, or owner-surrendered animals; and,

(2) Is operated, owned, or maintained by a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, other non-profit organization, pound, dog control officer, government entity, or contractor for a government entity.

(b) Licensed veterinarian.—The term ‘licensed veterinarian’ means a veterinarian licensed to practice veterinary medicine in this state.

(c) Rescue organization.—The term ‘rescue organization’ means an organization that is:

(1) Described in section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue Code and exempt from taxation under 501(a) of that Code; and

(2) An animal rescue organization, animal adoption organization, or organization formed for the prevention of cruelty to animals.

(d) Irremediable suffering.—The term ‘irremediable suffering’ means an animal who has a poor or grave prognosis for being able to live without severe, unremitting physical pain even with comprehensive, prompt, and necessary veterinary care, as certified in writing by a licensed veterinarian.

(e) Serious physical injury.—The term ‘serious physical injury’ means a physical injury to a person from a dog bite that creates a substantial risk of death or which causes death or serious or protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

(f) Unprovoked biting.—The term ‘unprovoked biting’ means unprovoked biting of a person. Biting is provoked if, among other things, it occurs because the dog was being taunted, or the dog was acting in defense of self, a person, another animal, or property, or the dog was acting from maternal instinct, or the dog was reacting to hunger, pain, or fear, or the dog bites accidentally, as when playing.

(g) Business day.—The term ‘business day’ means a day the animal shelter is open to the public for adoption and redemption for a continuous period of at least four (4) hours.

Sec. 2. General Provisions

(a) Not less than two business days before the euthanasia of any animal, the animal shelter shall:

(1) Notify or make a reasonable attempt to notify by verifiable written or electronic communication any rescue organization that has previously requested to be notified before animals are euthanized;

(2) Give those notified under Subsection (a)(1) possession of the animal to avoid the animal’s death if they request it.

(b) The rescue organization must take possession of the animal within 48 hours of notifying the shelter pursuant to Subsection (a)(2).

(c) No animal shelter may euthanize any animal without meeting the requirements of this Subsection, except as follows:

(1) An animal who is irremediably suffering.

(2) A dog adjudicated to be dangerous pursuant to <<State Dangerous Dog Law>> and ordered to be euthanized by the court.

(3) A dog with a documented history of unprovoked biting that has resulted in serious physical injury to a person. Documentation must consist of medical reports made at or around the time the prior bite incident occurred which describe the circumstances of the bite, the nature and severity of the injury, and treatments given for the injury.

(4) An animal that has bitten a person and is suspected to carry and exhibit signs of rabies, as determined by a licensed veterinarian.

For a free step-by-step guide to get it introduced and passed, click here.

Donate

An Ohio man “was cited for feeding stray cats behind a building he owns during a recent stretch of harsh winter weather.”

“He said many feral cats live in the alley behind the property” and “began feeding the cats and providing shelter during the recent winter weather.”

[T]he cops went nuts and were like, ‘You’re feeding cats? Oh my God, you can’t do that, that’s against a village ordinance.’ They came out immediately and wrote me up…”

“I was cited a $100 court cost. [The] Judge was as surprised as I was that you can’t feed cats…

“They literally were going to starve to death, or freeze to death, or dehydrate. And so, we put out those things just enough to get them through that cold snap and that deep snow.”

The ordinance criminalizes compassion and works at cross purposes with the claimed goals of officials.

A community cat program reduces intakes and killing of community cats, decreases complaint calls to animal control, reduces illness in the shelter, and reduces wasteful spending of taxpayer money. It increases opportunities to expand lifesaving efforts for other animals, such as dogs. It also empowers, rather than punishes, Good Samaritans.

If enacted in Ohio and elsewhere, it would also allow police to go “nuts” over real crimes, not because residents care for needy cats.

The No Kill Advocacy Center has model legislation for individuals seeking to enact a community cat program law in their city, county, or state.

Donate

A new Florida law took effect on January 1 that requires the state to maintain a public database of people convicted of aggravated animal cruelty charges. “Dexter’s Law” was named for a dog adopted from a shelter and killed just days later.

Unfortunately, there are no birthdays, photographs, the names of the counties where the crime occurred or where the people live, to provide more identifying information. That is about to change.

The House and Senate unanimously voted to correct the defect.

If signed by the Governor, as expected, the updated database will include, “aliases, date of birth, race, counties of conviction, charges, case numbers, dispositions, descriptions of any identifying marks and tattoos and a photograph of a person.”

By knowing the right lies to tell and which truths to omit, convicted animal abusers can potentially acquire animals from shelters, rescuers, and others who lack access to valuable information to help them make better, more informed choices. An “Animal Abuser Registry” or database modeled on laws now protecting children, strips abusers of this advantage by requiring those abusers to register with the state.

The No Kill Advocacy Center has model legislation for individuals seeking to enact a similar law in their city, county, or state.

Donate

The 2026 edition of The No Kill Companion is now available.

The definitive guide to animal shelter issues, The No Kill Companion is a reference manual for legislators, policymakers, shelter managers, media, advocates, rescuers, and other stakeholders.

With short encyclopedia-like entries, it covers the definition of No Kill, its history, opposition, challenges, and threats, as well as the state of the movement, costs and benefits of No Kill animal services, model legislation, shelter assessment tools, and a primer on various sheltering issues, including temperament testing, community cats, and more.

Buy Now

There is also a 10-pack for shelter board members, legislators, and others.

Buy 10-Pack Now

Please note: 10-packs will begin shipping in early April.

Giveaway: While supplies last, we are giving away the remaining inventory of the 2025 edition to No Kill Advocacy Center members and paid No Kill Sheltering subscribers in good standing.

Contact Us

Please make sure to include a physical mailing address or P.O. Box. There are no electronic copies, so it has to be mailed. Only one copy per person while supplies last. Priority given to those who did not receive a free copy last year. Otherwise, first-come, first-served.

As a thank you for supporting our lifesaving work by being a founding/patron member, we would like to send you a courtesy copy of the 2026 edition of The No Kill Companion.

The definitive guide to animal shelter issues, The No Kill Companion is a reference manual for legislators, policymakers, shelter managers, media, advocates, rescuers, and other stake…

Read more

A bill to make it illegal for Utah pounds to kill animals who rescue groups are willing to save has passed the Utah Senate and is now before the House. The bill, modeled after The No Kill Advocacy Center’s Animal Rescue Act, requires “shelters” to notify qualified groups two days before killing and allow them to rescue them. If passed and signed into law, it will save lives, save money, spare rescuer suffering, and bring in millions of dollars in tax and adoption revenue.

In California, for example, a similar law has been on the books since 1998. It has increased the number of animals transferred to rescue groups rather than killed from 12,526 a year before the law went into effect to 99,783 after — a nearly 700% increase, all at no cost to taxpayers.

​In fact, it resulted in a potential cost savings of over $3,000,000 statewide for killing and destruction of remains (these savings do not include additional savings relative to the cost of care). Over 2,000,000 animals have been saved since the law’s inception.

The No Kill Advocacy Center has model legislation for individuals seeking to enact a similar law in their city, county, or state.

Donate

For years, cats who developed feline infectious peritonitis (FIP) were either killed or died. The disease had a 100% fatality rate. No more. Colorado State University veterinarians tested an antiviral therapy that has proven 77% effective in treating FIP. While 12% of cats relapsed, all relapsed cats achieved remission after a second higher dose. Importantly, there were no adverse side effects. The oral treatment studied at CSU, molnupiravir (MPV), is the second therapy shown to be effective in treating FIP.

Earlier research indicates that another antiviral, GS-441524, also achieves remission in roughly four out of five cats diagnosed with FIP. In 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration took steps that allowed veterinarians to legally prescribe this antiviral in compounded form, a common practice in veterinary medicine for tailoring drugs to individual animals. MPV is now also available through compounding pharmacies.

With multiple treatment options now available, FIP is a treatable disease, and shelters and veterinarians should not be killing cats and kittens who test positive.

Subscribe now

As reported previously, a lawsuit against Riverside County alleges animal cruelty and “a shocking, callous, and ongoing failure to follow California law.” The lawsuit also alleges that the pound releases unspayed and unneutered animals, in violation of a law prohibiting it. It also asserts that taxpayer funds were wasted on the nepotistic hiring of an incompetent, unskilled pound director and on a $2.45 million contract with a consultant who has a track record of abject failure and animal harm.

In court, Riverside County officials didn’t dispute that they neglect, abuse, and kill animals. They did not dispute the release of unspayed and unneutered animals. And they didn’t dispute spending what will ultimately be millions of taxpayer dollars on the hiring of a consultant who advocates leaving animals on the street, has defended abuse and abusers, and even promoted shelters breeding dogs. Instead, they asked the Court to dismiss the case, contending that they should not be held accountable. The Court rejected most of these claims (one dismissed count for waste of taxpayer funds is on appeal).

Now, the volunteers and rescuers who filed the lawsuit are seeking a preliminary injunction (an order by the Court) to compel the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS) to:

• Stop killing animals who are not irremediably suffering;

• Acquire additional kennels, even temporarily, to house animals;

• Provide reasonable and necessary medical care, nutrition, and housing; and,

• Stop releasing unspayed animals.

Petitioners base their request on:

• Statistical evidence that the pound is killing, on average, 11 animals per day;

• Admissions by the current director that they are killing “for space”;

• Evidence, including photographs of sick and injured animals who are not receiving veterinary care or pain management; and,

• The killing of healthy and treatable animals, despite rescue attempts.

In addition to being inhumane, petitioners allege that the pound’s actions are illegal, citing violations of the 1998 Animal Shelter Law (Hayden Act), including its requirement of veterinary care and humane treatment, and local ordinances that mandate pre-adoption sterilization and prohibit summary destruction of an animal unless vicious or irremediably suffering. Petitioners allege that “irreparable harm” to animals will result if the injunction is denied, up to and including death of animals.

The court is scheduled to hear the motion on February 10. Stay tuned…

The case is Woodruff v. Gettis. Rescuers, volunteers, and animals are represented by Walter Clark and Dan Bolton of the Walter Clark Legal Group. Learn more by clicking here.

Donate

Together, not only will we save lives, we will create a future where every animal is respected and cherished, and every individual life is protected and revered.

With a new year and a new legislative session in every state, now is the time to introduce bills that make a life-and-death difference for animals in “shelters.”

The No Kill Advocacy Center has model laws to do so, including legislation that:

• ​Makes it illegal to round up and kill community cats;

• Gives rescuers the legal right to save animals from pounds intent on killing them;

• Makes it illegal to kill animals unless those animals are irremediably suffering;

• Makes it illegal for anyone else to kill them, including private veterinarians;

• Prevents people convicted of animal abuse from acquiring animals;

• Bans cruel methods of killing;

• Requires pounds to focus on saving animals rather than killing them, including providing prompt and necessary veterinary care;

• Prevents landlords from discriminating against renters with pets;

• And more.

The No Kill Advocacy Center also has free guides to help you introduce such laws in your community or state. And No Kill Advocacy Center attorneys stand ready to help.

Donate

Make a tax-deductible year-end gift to The No Kill Advocacy Center or subscribe to No Kill Sheltering.

Together, not only will we save lives, we will create a future where every animal is respected and cherished, and every individual life is protected and revered.

The Winter 2025 issue of No Kill Sheltering is available for subscribers of The No Kill Advocacy Center.

The current issue covers:

• How to reform the local pound;

• Ending animal cruelty through technology;

• The last gas chamber;

• A noble legacy saves over 2,000,000 animals (you can make it more);

• A glimmer in the dark: 2025 in review.

And more.

If you are not a supporter, please subscribe below. Your contribution is tax-deductible as allowed by law and supports our work to end the systematic killing of animals in “shelters.”

Subscribe now

Together, not only will we save lives; we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished and where every individual life will be protected and revered.

Read more

A Waymo vehicle, Google’s (Alphabet’s) autonomous taxi service, seems to have struck a small dog in San Francisco, weeks after one of its taxis killed a cat. The dog’s condition is unknown. A passenger on the ride recounted hearing yelping and seeing a crowd gather. The rider contacted customer support and the police.

The latest incident has intensified scrutiny over the safety and accountability of autonomous vehicles. According to publicly available data, Waymo cars have been involved in at least 14 animal collisions since mid-2021, resulting in five animal deaths. Critics argue that these incidents highlight a lack of accountability.

In a letter, The No Kill Advocacy “requested legislation requiring autonomous vehicles to give cats and other small animals a ‘brake.’” As we explained,

The technology already exists; it just hasn’t been used.

As a 2022 study, “AI ethics: the case for including animals,” determined, self-driving technologies can “substantially reduce animal deaths and injuries on the road,” but “this will not happen unless the designers of these systems choose to make it happen.” The authors of the study reviewing such technology found that carmakers have chosen not to do so when it involves small animals, such as cats, raccoons, and squirrels, millions of which are killed by cars each year.

Currently, the only animals that are inadvertently protected are those that are “large enough for a collision to cause serious damage to the car and perhaps its occupants (for example, moose).” In other words, these systems are only designed to protect cars and their occupants, not animals. They should. And state law should demand it.

Do you believe in second chances? Millions of animals are betting their lives on it. Donate to The No Kill Advocacy Center this holiday season and give the animals still at risk the greatest gifts of all: life, love, home, and family.

Donate

Donate to The No Kill Advocacy Center this holiday season and give the animals still at risk the greatest gifts of all: life, love, home, and family.

Donate

Together, not only will we save lives, we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished and where every individual life will be protected and revered.

Other ways to give:

• We are on Benevity. Donate through your employer to multiply your impact. They will match your donation.

• Send a check to The No Kill Advocacy Center, PO Box 182, Canyon, CA 94516.

• Subscribe to No Kill Sheltering, our magazine for saving lives. Subscriptions are considered donations and are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

• Donate your old car or truck.

Donate Car

• Buy merchandise.

Buy Gifts

Happy holidays to you and yours, including the furry, fuzzy, and feathery ones.

A lawsuit has been filed against the Town of Apple Valley in California, accusing it of severe mismanagement and systemic cruelty toward animals at the Apple Valley Animal Shelter (AVAS), the local pound. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges “a shocking, callous, and ongoing failure by Respondent Town and AVAS to follow California law,” which requires shelters to provide veterinary care, food, shelter, and humane treatment.

According to the Petition, AVAS is “plagued with mismanagement, poor budgeting, a disdain for the health and safety of animals in its custody, and a disinterest in working with the community and rescue organizations. AVAS has an inexcusable focus on killing, rather than saving, dogs and cats. This must change.”

“As a society, Californians have decided that all animals should be treated kindly and humanely. This value is reflected in California’s legal requirements imposed on its animal shelters.”

In violation of the law, the Petition alleges:

• Routine killing of healthy, adoptable cats and dogs to save costs.

• Overcrowding, disease outbreaks, and filthy kennels.

• Failure to provide veterinary care or vaccinations.

• Retaliation against rescuers and adopters trying to save animals.

• “Behavioral” or “medical” pretexts used to justify killing.

The Petition includes numerous and compelling examples of such conduct, including:

• Bailey – A cat killed despite active adopters offering immediate vet care.

• Mrs. Puff Puff and kittens – Entire feline family killed after AVAS refused foster and adoption offers, claiming the cats been there “too long.”

• Abby – Described as “not aggressive, just frozen,” but killed days later, with “adoptability” listed as the reason despite an adoption request.

• Ramona – A kitten left dehydrated and covered in feces; killed for “health” without any treatment or cleaning.

• Dogs hosed with freezing water – Witnesses saw staff spraying occupied kennels, leaving animals drenched and shivering.

Making matters worse, Petitioners allege that the town,

[H]as imposed severe budget cuts to AVAS’s operational budget, dropping the overall operational budget by 15% from the prior fiscal year. Respondent Town and AVAS cut their operational costs by carrying out a policy to kill healthy, adoptable animals, instead of spending resources feeding, caring for and housing them, and hiring sufficient personnel to perform those duties and veterinary services, and ensuring that the animals are adopted in the community or through animal rescue organizations.

Overall, the Petition portrays a pattern of neglect and cruelty, citing unsanitary conditions, lack of vaccination, inadequate staffing, and a culture of killing rather than rehabilitating or rehoming animals. It seeks judicial intervention to compel the adoption of lawful and humane shelter practices.

For a copy of the Petition, click here.

Petitioners in the case are three rescue organizations and four individuals. They are represented by attorneys Walter T. Clark and Dan C. Bolton of the Walter Clark Legal Group. Walter Clark Legal Group brought a similar action against another notoriously abusive pound, Riverside County Animal Services.

To learn more about that case, click here.

Donate

A Waymo vehicle, Alphabet’s (Google) driverless autonomous taxi service in San Francisco, struck and killed a neighborhood cat named KitKat. The incident has spurred public grief and anger, especially in the community that viewed the cat as a local fixture. KitKat was a bodega cat and affectionately known as the “Mayor of 16th Street.” The bodega owner raced the gray tabby to the veterinarian, but KitKat did not survive.

In response, city supervisors are considering a resolution urging state legislators to empower counties to regulate autonomous vehicle operations locally. The proposal aims to shift regulatory power away from the state.

We propose an alternative: requiring autonomous vehicles to give cats and other small animals a “brake.”

Our letter to the supervisors follows:

Dear Supervisors,

On behalf of our San Francisco members and supporters, indeed on behalf of all Californians, thank you for seeking/considering changes to how autonomous vehicle operations are conducted after a Waymo taxi struck and killed KitKat, a beloved neighborhood cat.

Unfortunately, we do not believe state legislators will pass legislation to shift regulatory power away from the state to local control, that the Governor would sign such a bill, or that doing so is necessary or desirable. Instead, we request legislation requiring autonomous vehicles to give cats and other small animals a “brake.” The technology already exists; it just hasn’t been used.

As a 2022 study, “AI ethics: the case for including animals,” determined, self-driving technologies can “substantially reduce animal deaths and injuries on the road,” but “this will not happen unless the designers of these systems choose to make it happen.” The authors of the study reviewing such technology found that carmakers have chosen not to do so when it involves small animals, such as cats, raccoons, and squirrels, millions of which are killed by cars each year.

Currently, the only animals that are inadvertently protected are those that are “large enough for a collision to cause serious damage to the car and perhaps its occupants (for example, moose).” In other words, these systems are only designed to protect cars and their occupants, not animals. They should. And state law should demand it.

Sadly, we cannot bring KitKat back. And we will forever remember his killing as many things: tragic and heartbreaking, chief among them. Nothing can alter that reality. However, we can lessen the futility of his death if we learn from it and reform policies so that other animals do not suffer the same deadly fate.

Very truly yours,
Nathan J. Winograd

Donate

The Autumn 2025 issue of No Kill Sheltering is available for subscribers of The No Kill Advocacy Center.

The current issue covers:

• A new federal task force to tackle animal abuse;

• The pets of the homeless are suffering;

• How the American humane movement lost its way;

• A former beacon of hope becomes a cautionary tale;

• TNR protects cats, caretakers, and birds;

And more.

If you are not a supporter, please subscribe below. Your contribution is tax-deductible as allowed by law and supports our work to end the systematic killing of animals in “shelters.”

Subscribe now

Together, not only will we save lives; we will create a future where every animal will be respected and cherished and where every individual life will be protected and revered.

Read more

Dear Colleagues:

The Town of Hempstead in New York is no stranger to controversy. Indeed, it is no stranger to “Abuse, Corruption, Nepotism and Cronyism.” Years ago, staff at the pound filmed themselves terrorizing a cat. As lazy, inept, and cruel animal control officers stand around laughing, making obscene gestures, and goofing off, a terrified cat is brought into the room and hung from the neck with a catchpole. While he struggles to escape, pound staff sadistically chant, “Kill the kitty, kill the kitty.”

A couple of years later, rescuers filed a lawsuit against the pound and the Town for violating their constitutional rights, after they were banned from the shelter for speaking out against mismanagement, cronyism, and animal abuse. The rescuers won.

Two years later, an audit of the Town pound confirmed gross financial mismanagement, including taxpayers overcharged $12.7 million for running the “shelter.”

Subsequently, another lawsuit alleged that pound managers verbally abused rescuers and volunteers, denied animals prompt and necessary veterinary care, and retaliated against anyone who spoke out about neglect and abuse by killing animals they wanted to save.

And that takes us to this year, where, once again, the Town is the subject of a lawsuit for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of volunteers. Specifically, a volunteer dog walker claims he was banned from the pound for exercising his First Amendment rights.

According to the Complaint filed in Federal Court, the pound took custody of a dog named Titan, who was placed in solitary confinement. The Town later sought to have Titan killed. The volunteer created a Facebook page, Save Titan, sharing videos and urging the public to advocate against killing. This generated public pressure.

After attending a court hearing about Titan’s case, the volunteer was handed a letter from the Town Attorney’s office informing him that he was suspended from volunteering and banned from all Town of Hempstead facilities (including the pound, parks, and beaches), under threat of police intervention. In the lawsuit, he alleges the ban is retaliation for his attempts to save Titan, and accuses the Town of a conspiracy to violate his civil rights.

For a copy of the Complaint in Febrizio vs. The Town of Hempstead, click here.

As I have written so many times before, citizens not only have a First Amendment right to speak out against government policies with which they disagree, but they also have a constitutionally protected right to demand that the government correct the identified wrongs.

As the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled, “speech on public issues occupies the ‘highest rung of the hierarchy of First Amendment values’ and is entitled to special protection.” Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 145 (1983). Indeed, such speech lies “at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection.” First Nat’l Bank of Bos. v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 776 (1978).

When animal lives are at stake — as they are when animals enter a pound that has not fully embraced a culture of lifesaving — banning volunteers and rescuers critical of policies that favor killing by government “shelters” is even more egregious, given the life and death consequences.

Thankfully, the First Amendment gives rescuers, volunteers, and No Kill advocates the right to criticize the shelter without being banned. It gives them the right to complain to city and county officials without being fired as a volunteer or rescuer partner. It gives them the right to take and publicize photographs of conditions at the shelter without being evicted from the premises. It forbids shelters from forcing them to sign, as a condition of volunteering or rescuing, a “non-disclosure” agreement that prevents them from posting criticism the shelter deems “disparaging.” It also makes it illegal to ban commenters, as well as to hide or delete critical comments on government social media pages.

Whether it is the Town of Hempstead or anywhere else, animal lovers do not surrender their constitutional rights at the shelter door.

Know and protect your rights by downloading “Section 1983 to the Rescue,” our free guide.

Very truly yours,

Nathan J. Winograd
Executive Director

Donate

Despite opposition from 23 local animal welfare groups and receiving thousands of emails requesting a “No” vote, the Hawaii County Council voted to criminalize the feeding of community cats. According to Aloha Animal Advocates, the local organization that spearheaded opposition, the bill will “thwart years of dedicated efforts to reduce and control the cat population” through sterilization and caretaking. The bill is currently on the Mayor’s desk awaiting his signature or veto.

Proponents argue that cats are “non-native” and do not deserve compassion, even though “non-native” and “invasive species” are the language of intolerance, based on an idea most of us have rejected in our treatment of our fellow human beings — that the value of a living being can be reduced to the place of ancestral origin. Indeed, people are “non-native” to Hawaii, too, and unlike cats, they cause most of the environmental harm impacting other animals: eating birds, using pesticides, and destroying wildlife habitat to build hotels, shopping malls, and golf courses. But to the nativists on the Council, the rules do not apply to them.

Moreover, biodiversity has never been higher in Hawaii. To make the opposite case, nativists simply do not count the plants and animals they dislike. And therein lies the rub: as much as it pretends to be, Invasion Biology — the underpinning of nativism — is not science, it is ideology; and a morally repugnant one at that. It is also cruel and unworkable.

In addition to depriving cats of food and care, the bill also harms people. A recent study found that approaches similar to those in the Hawaii bill lead to profound human suffering.

Study authors found that caregivers are motivated by “considerable concern regarding the health and safety of the cats,” “feel responsible for improving their health and welfare,” and “commit substantial time and finances to their needs, despite existing legal and financial difficulties.” Study authors further found that the bond between caregivers and cats was “as strong as the bonds with their own pets.” So it is not surprising that caregivers suffer when officials harm the cats. That suffering was “significant,” leading to grief, trauma, poor physical health, and long-term psychological distress, including profound guilt, loss, and inability to eat.

As such, the study’s authors called for an end to punitive and lethal methods and recommended that “authorities identify and assist caregivers…” Such an approach would see healthy cats who are social with people adopted into homes, cats who are not social with people neutered and allowed to live out their lives outside of homes, and caregivers “afforded the physical and psychological benefits of maintaining a bond and mutually beneficial relationship with the cats.”

It would also protect birds by reducing the number of cats, cat home ranges (and therefore, the chance of contact with birds and other wildlife), and hunting. It would spare cat suffering, caregiver suffering, and teach children how to solve challenges without resorting to the infliction of harm. Doing so would be an embrace of the “aloha” spirit. In the Hawaiian language, “aloha” means love, affection, compassion, mercy, sympathy, pity, kindness, and grace.

But nativists on the Island will not allow it. And they will not allow it because they trade in violence against animals and people, not love, compassion, mercy, or grace —or, for that matter, real environmentalism. As Carl Jung, the father of analytical psychology, argued, if you want to understand someone’s motivation, look at the consequences of their actions. If this is true, the goal of nativists is to harm cats and those who love them. Indeed, while the bill prohibits compassionate care, it explicitly allows for their trapping and removal, and thus killing.

For further information, read “Conservationists” don’t want to save birds; they want to kill cats by clicking here.

Donate