Protecting Rescuers & the Dogs they Want to Save
As we explain to the California Supreme Court, shelters are not competent — and ought not to be trusted — to determine that a dog is “unadoptable.”
The No Kill Advocacy Center filed an amicus letter in opposition to the County of Los Angeles’ Petition for Review asking the California Supreme Court to allow it to kill dogs despite non-profit rescue organizations ready, able, and willing to save them.
As we previously reported,
In a lawsuit by rescuers against the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control, the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that California shelters cannot kill dogs rescue groups are willing to save “based upon its determination that the animal has a behavioral problem or is not adoptable or treatable.”
But Los Angeles County is asking the state’s highest court to overturn that ruling by fear-mongering that unless it does so, dangerous dogs will “threaten [the] life, health, and safety of humans and fellow animals.”
It is a lie. Not only are dangerous and vicious dogs exempt from rescue, but as we explain to the Justices, shelters are not competent to determine that a dog is “unadoptable.”
Honorable Justices:
The No Kill Advocacy Center is a national organization that writes animal protection legislation at the local, state, and federal levels, assists animal shelters in increasing placement rates, and consults with municipal and private shelters worldwide on improving overall operations.
We write in opposition to the County of Los Angeles’ Petition for Review in Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, Supreme Court Case No. S282524. Despite fear-mongering about “dangerous and vicious” dogs, there are no studies or other evidence to support their assertions of danger to public safety, and there is ample evidence to the contrary.
Shelter Behavioral Assessments Are Notoriously Unreliable
In asking the Supreme Court to reverse the unanimous Court of Appeal decision, the County of Los Angeles is asking this Court to substitute its preferred policy judgment for that of the Legislature. During legislative hearings on the Hayden Law, municipal shelters, including the County of Los Angeles, made the same argument as in the Petition for the right to make behavioral assessments before releasing dogs to non-profit rescue organizations.
Although the Legislature rejected the shelters’ argument for several reasons,1 an exception also was — and remains — unnecessary. It is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether a dog will be aggressive outside of the shelter based on behavior inside the shelter. Studies prove that “displaying concerning or dangerous behavior was not significantly associated with return to the shelter, and positive predictive values were low, implying that many positive tests will be false positives.” (McGuire, Betty, Kennedy Jean-Baptiste, ‘Relationships between demographic characteristics of shelter dogs and performance on tests of a behavioral evaluation and between performance and adoption success’ (2023) Journal of Veterinary Behavior 66, 11-19.)
In one study, authors evaluated over 25 years of research to determine “the validity or reliability” of temperament testing “used or intended for screening shelter dogs for behavior labeled aggressive and/or for adoption suitability.” (Patronek, Gary J., Janis Bradley, Elizabeth Arps, ‘What is the evidence for reliability and validity of behavior evaluations for shelter dogs? A prequel to ‘No better than flipping a coin’’ (2019) Journal of Veterinary Behavior 31, 43-58.) They concluded that there is “no evidence that any canine behavior evaluation has come close to meeting accepted standards for reliability and validity.” (Ibid.) Some tests were wrong as much as 84% of the time (a combination of poor tests and poor testing practices by shelter workers). While shocking, it should not be surprising since the tests are based on a “fatally flawed” premise: “that the provocations used at a single time during a dog’s stressful experience in a shelter will predict future behavior at a different time and place.” (Ibid.) This is why researchers have determined that shelter behavior tests are “no better than flipping a coin” and called for an end to their use. (Patronek, Gary J., Janis Bradley, ‘No better than flipping a coin: Reconsidering canine behavior evaluations in animal shelters’ (2016) Journal of Veterinary Behavior 15, 66-77.)
Responding to concerns that this may put public safety at risk, study authors demonstrated that most dogs labeled “behavior” in shelters have nothing wrong with them. “Surrenders often say more about the people doing the surrendering — about ‘owner-related factors, needs, and expectations’ — than the dogs being surrendered.” (Patronek, Gary J., Janis Bradley, Elizabeth Arps, ‘Saving normal: A new look at behavioral incompatibilities and dog relinquishment to shelters’ (2022) Journal of Veterinary Behavior 49, 36-45.)
Research also demonstrates that “dogs are likely to encounter an array of stressors including noise, unpredictability, loss of control… disruption of routines,” and unfamiliar people and surroundings in a shelter environment. (Willen, Regina M., Patricia A. Schiml, Michael B. Hennessy, ‘Enrichment centered on human interaction moderates fear-induced aggression and increases positive expectancy in fearful shelter dogs’ (2019) Applied Animal Behaviour Science 217, 57-62.) Without rigorous efforts to remedy these issues, such as through intensive enrichment programs, which most California shelters do not provide, as many as eight out of 10 dogs fail their behavior evaluation. By contrast, these dogs will likely pass if provided enrichment, including those initially, though falsely, deemed “potentially quite dangerous” by shelter staff. (Ibid.) As such, dogs capable of being safe, dependable pets are wrongly labeled as “behavior,” “aggressive,” and “unadoptable.” (Ibid. See also Grigg, Emma, Belle Nibblett, James Robinson, et al., ‘Evaluating pair- vs. solitary-housing in kenneled domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) using behaviour and hair cortisol: a pilot study’ (2017) The Veterinary Record 10.1136; Kiddie, Jenna, Lisa Collins, ‘Identifying environmental and management factors that may be associated with the quality of life of kennelled dogs (Canis familiaris)’ (2015) Applied Animal Behaviour Science 167, 43-55; Martin, Allison L., Christina M. Walthers, Madison J. Pattillo, et al., ‘Impact of Visual Barrier Removal on the Behavior of Shelter-Housed Dogs’ (2022) Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 10.1080; Raghy, R., Ninan Jacob, J. Tamizhkumaran, ‘A Review on the Influence of Noise on the Welfare of Dogs’ (2023) International Journal of Bio-Resource and Stress Management 14(5), 789-795.)
Compounding these problems, studies also confirm that medical conditions “can trigger aggression in a nonaggressive dog.” (Amat M. S. Le Brech, X. Manteca, ‘The Relationship Between Aggression and Physical Disease in Dogs’ (2023) Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 23, 00118-3.) This includes, for example, hyperthyroidism, neurologic issues, exposure to distemper, skin problems, and microbiome changes. Study authors called on animal shelters that claim a dog has “behavior” issues to “include a thorough physical examination to rule out painful conditions, a neurologic examination, a complete blood count, and biochemistry” — “a complete medical checkup is needed to make a proper diagnosis.” (Ibid.) The vast majority of animal shelters, including those run by the County of Los Angeles, do not do so, choosing to kill dogs based on flawed temperament tests.
Shelter Staff Lack the Motivation and Skill To Protect Dogs
In addition to flawed testing methods, a study found that animal shelter managers often oppose efforts to reduce killing — indeed, “attempting to find alternative methods to this type of unwanted animal ‘solution’ really was seen as challenging the dominant paradigm” and discouraged. (Tallberg, Linda, Peter Jordan, ‘Killing Them ‘Softly’ (!): Exploring Work Experiences in Care-Based Animal Dirty Work’ (2021) Journal of Work, Employment and Society 36(5), 858-874.) As such, managers tend to hire people who are not mission-driven:
I find the best employees here are the ones that have done some normal work outside, like worked for McDonald’s [and] realize, ‘Hey, you do as you’re told, you get on with it, you follow the procedures, and you don’t make up your own mind [about how to do the work and whom to save]’ (Ibid.)
The study also determined that most shelters operated without guidelines and were haphazard in deciding which animals to kill. Instead, killing decisions often depended on the whims of individual staff, some of whom looked for reasons to do so.
Indeed, another study examined whether existing research into what dogs need for good welfare while housed in kennels led to policy improvements in shelters. (Cobb, M.L., A. Carter, A. Lill, P.C. Bennett, ‘Perceived importance of specific kennel management practices for the provision of canine welfare’ (2022) Applied Animal Behaviour Science 249, 105591.) Study authors found that it did not.
While research demonstrated that socialization and exercise were vital to dogs, staff and managers were most likely to support “limiting social opportunities for dogs housed in kennel environments,” even though doing so undermines dog welfare and puts them at heightened risk of being falsely labeled “unadoptable.” (Ibid.) As a result of these kinds of findings, the Legislature had more than ample basis for its judgment that the shelters themselves were not to be entrusted with discretion to determine what animals should be released to non-profit rescue organizations.
The Court of Appeal Opinion Creates No Risk to Public Safety
Finally, no substantiated evidence indicates that non-profit rescue organizations take unwarranted safety risks by adopting out dangerous dogs. On the contrary, non-profit rescue organizations maintain a keen awareness that such actions would jeopardize their ability to successfully rescue and place animals in appropriate homes.
Unlike the shelter environment, not-for-profit organizations specializing in rescuing animals and providing them with foster care possess a distinct advantage in their capacity to thoroughly and accurately assess the behavior of canines. The extended duration that animals spend within a foster care setting allows for a more gradual acclimatization process in a home environment, contrasting with the comparatively shorter timeframe afforded within unnatural shelter environments. Moreover, the personalized attention dispensed to these animals in foster care represents a critical factor not typically observed within conventional shelter settings. It is also common for rescue organizations to have access to or enlist the services of behavioral specialists, facilitating a more comprehensive evaluation and rehabilitation regimen for dogs, surpassing the resources and care typically available in most contemporary shelter facilities.
Not surprisingly, a study that analyzed more than 10 years of California data found “no evidence that the problems predicted by some when the [Hayden] law was considered, such as… exposing the public to dangerous dogs, has ever materialized.” (Wang, Jennifer, ‘Rescue group access to shelter animals: an analysis of the impact of California’s ‘rescue access’ law and its applicability elsewhere’ (2011), pre-publication review (Last accessed 7 Oct. 2023).)
Likewise, a study of a rescue ordinance in another state modeled on California’s 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 most significant decline in the number of bites classified as “severe,” which fell by 89%. (Hawes, Sloane, Devrim Ikizler, Katy Loughney, et al., ‘Legislating Components of a Humane City: The Economic Impacts of the Austin, Texas “No Kill” Resolution (City of Austin Resolution 20091105-040)’ (2017) University of Denver Institute for Institute for Human-Animal Connection.) 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,” which have “important implications for [a city’s] ability to promote and sustain the health and well-being of both its human and non-human animal residents.” (Ibid.)
For all the foregoing reasons, we request that the Supreme Court deny the Petition for Review.2
Very truly yours,
Nathan J. Winograd
Legislators rejected allowing shelters to carve an exception for dogs they deemed “unadoptable” for several reasons. First, it would have limited lifesaving intent. Second, it would have created liability concerns. Since the right of rescue was mandatory, municipal shelters that gave dogs to non-profit organizations were not certifying the safety of dogs and cleared of liability for any dogs those organizations subsequently adopted out. Third, it would have undermined the whistleblower protections of right of rescue access. Before enactment, shelter managers punished rescuer organizations by refusing to partner with them if they exposed inhumane conditions in their facilities. Fourth, non-profit organizations are better able to assess dogs, as discussed below.
If the Court does grant the Petition, we ask that it review giving municipal shelters like the County of Los Angeles discretion to impose additional unspecified requirements on qualified rescue organizations. Doing so raises the possibility that municipal shelters will use that discretion to accomplish what the Court of Appeal opinion has precluded. For example, on October 9, 2023, Ventura County Animal Services sent the following email to rescue partners:
Dear Rescue/Transfer Partners:
In light of the recent appellate decision by the Court of Appeals for the Second Appellate District, VCAS is seeking to ensure that all rescue/transfer partners have completed the most recent Transfer Partner Application and have been approved by VCAS to be an approved partner.
As such, attached please find our updated Transfer Partner Application. If you wish to continue working with us, please return the completed application to vcar.rescue@ventura.org by October 25, 2023. We will complete our review and will notify you by November 17, 2023, of our final determination regarding approval. During this application period (until November 17, 2023), we will continue to recognize your rescue/organization as an approved partner. However, please be advised that after November 17th, we will only partner with rescue organizations that have been approved…