Do No Harm
What we owe dogs who have a lifesaving alternative
Dear Colleagues:
Ventura County Animal Services (VCAS) is being sued to prevent it from killing Bruce, a dog ordered destroyed after being declared “vicious.” The lawsuit was filed by the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center (SPARC), which argues that it retained contractual rights to Bruce under the adoption agreement executed when the dog was adopted in 2023.
According to SPARC, ownership reverted to the rescue organization after Bruce’s adopters became homeless, Bruce began acting out aggressively, and they relinquished him to VCAS. SPARC contends it was never notified of the proceedings that resulted in the destruction order and was denied an opportunity to assert its contractual and property rights before the County ordered Bruce killed.
The litigation also challenges the factual basis for killing Bruce. Although the County relied on prior incidents to classify him as dangerous, records from Bruce’s months in the shelter describe him as a “model citizen” who behaves well with kennel staff and adapts successfully to a stable, controlled environment.
Bruce can be hand-fed treats. While in the shelter, the attorney fighting to keep him alive notes that he also has “no documented bite, attempted bite, charge, lunge, snap, or aggressive handling incident.”
As a compromise, SPARC has offered to send Bruce to a sanctuary, where he can live out his life without threatening the safety of the public. VCAS has rejected the offer. This is deeply wrong because it achieves the stated ends — protecting public safety — while also giving Bruce an opportunity for life and happiness.
We need to eliminate discretion which causes animals to die despite lifesaving alternatives.
In fact, precedent for such a viewpoint already exists. Over 30 years ago, California courts invalidated a will provision that said a dog was to be killed upon her owner’s death. The court (and then legislature) found that it violated public policy to allow dogs who have a place to go to be killed just because a person with power over the dog demands it.
A subsequent court ruled the same way about dogs in shelters, finding shelter staff are not legally competent to make a determination that a dog is behaviorally “unadoptable.”
Although Bruce has a troubled history, the principle here is similar: It is not right to kill an animal who has an appropriate and safe environment which protects them and others.
For now, Bruce is protected by a court order while the case works it ways through the judicial system. Stay tuned…
Very truly yours,
Nathan Winograd
Executive Director
You can learn more about dog rehabilitation by clicking here.
You can learn about our model Do No Harm Act by clicking here.