The California “humane” movement on trial

The San Diego Humane Society & SPCA.

A trial gets underway today in a Southern California courtroom over the San Diego Humane Society’s refusal to take in many stray cats. SDHS, which runs animal control for San Diego and close to a dozen other cities in the county, turns them away at the door and tells finders to release them on the street.

Plaintiffs allege that, 

[W]hen SDHS determines that a cat should be considered a ‘community cat’ because it was found outside, they will not allow a member of the public to adopt that cat even if they are willing to pay for necessary medical care.

Similarly, if a cat is admitted to the shelter but is then determined to be a feral cat, SDHS at that point refuses to release the cat and instead insists on euthanasia [killing].

According to plaintiffs, California law requires SDHS “to take charge of ‘abandoned’ animals,” but SDHS is claiming “that unless there is direct evidence of abandonment, SDHS can just assume the cat is not ‘abandoned’ and therefore has no obligation to care for the cat.”

SDHS seems to believe that only if there is direct evidence that a cat is abandoned or stray will it be considered such. By assuming that friendly housecats suddenly appearing in an area are not stray or abandoned unless there is direct evidence to the contrary, many abandoned/stray cats are being re-abandoned by SDHS, because most cats will not have an eyewitness to the abandonment stepping forward.

San Diego Humane Society hired one of the largest law firms in the country to defend it. In its trial brief, SDHS argues that they are under no obligation to find homes for friendly cats because those cats already have “outdoor homes” and that refusing to admit them is necessary to protect those cats from itself: “Plaintiffs’ requested relief operates as a death sentence for the unadopted cats who will ultimately be euthanized [killed].”

Although San Diego Humane Society argues that it will be forced to kill cats if required to care for them, it can become an “open admission” No Kill shelter by comprehensively implementing the No Kill Equation. SDHS takes in over $65,000,000 annually and has $126,000,000 in assets. Other communities have done it with higher per capita intake rates and lower revenues. The SDHS position also ignores that cats not only have a right to life, they have a right to rescue.

AB 595 would have required “shelters” to notify rescuers 72 hours before killing an animal. It was named after Bowie, a shy 12-week-old puppy killed by Los Angeles County’s municipal pound despite a rescue group willing to accept him into their foster care and adoption program. SDHS was one of the organizations that successfully lobbied to have AB 595 defeated.

In addition, SDHS opposed California Assembly Bill 595 (Bowie’s Law), requiring pre-killing notification so that rescuers and members of the public can save them. It opposed AB 2265 to give rescuers notice of animals facing death at multiple “shelters”¹ without traveling to each one, giving them time to arrange foster care and accept custody of animals before they are killed. And it asked the California Supreme Court to give it the power to kill “adoptable and treatable” dogs — and, by extension, cats — despite rescuers ready, willing, and able to save them.

The trial in Pet Assistance Foundation vs. San Diego Humane Society and SPCA is expected to wrap up next week. It could have a major impact on how California pounds address their obligations to cats, as other pounds also turn cats away.

At the Los Angeles City pound, cat rooms are mostly empty and, in some cases, entirely empty, while staff turn stray cats away, leading to abandonment.

For example, Los Angeles Animal Services volunteers documented that cat rooms are mostly empty and, in some cases, entirely empty, while staff at the pound turn stray cats away, leading to mass abandonment. Across the street from one of the “shelters,” volunteers are forced to care for the discarded cats.

Cats are abandoned across the street from the Los Angeles City pound after staff turns away people trying to bring in stray cats. The abandoned cats are fed by individual rescuers, not the pound staff who appear indifferent to their welfare.

Likewise, when a pregnant cat showed up in the Orange County, CA, yard of a Good Samaritan and then gave birth, the woman did what she thought was responsible: allowed the kittens to nurse and then wean before taking them all — mama and kittens — to Orange County Animal Care, the municipal “shelter.”

“Shelter” staff told her to return the feline family to where she had found them. The woman explained that the mother cat might not have a home. She did not have a collar or tag and was also pregnant when she was found. At any rate, the kittens certainly had no home to go to because they were not yet born and would not know where to go even if they did. Staff still turned them away, telling her to release them back on the street.

Despite California being the wealthiest state in the country and the fifth largest economy in the world, despite the Governor earmarking $50,000,000 in state funding to improve local agencies, despite some of the best-funded animal control facilities in the nation, and despite organizations like SDHS taking in tens of millions annually and having assets exceeding $100,000,000, many needy animals are either killed or continue to find the doors of their local “shelter” closed.

Plaintiff’s Trial Brief is here.

Defendant’s Trial Brief is here.

1. A “shelter” is a refuge, a haven. Municipal pounds that kill animals or turn needy animals away do not provide “shelter.” As such, the term “shelter” is used with quotations to denote its common but erroneous use.