 Donors BewareI have long believed that when it comes to making charitable donations to animal-oriented nonprofits, your money is best gifted in support of either small, local organizations in your own backyard or in support of organizations led with full transparency and with a clearly defined mission. Some recent drama in my state reinforced my beliefs related to a large, well-respected organization that enjoys a stellar public reputation for reasons I have never understood. More on that later. The only national organization I support financially related to companion animals is the No Kill Advocacy Center founded by Nathan and Jennifer Winograd. Reading Nathan’s book about the myth of pet overpopulation (as an excuse for the killing of healthy and treatable shelter animals) and how to save the lives of shelter animals using the No Kill Equation was a game changer for me. I also donate to small nonprofit organizations led by people I know personally and those supported by my family members. You are welcome to give your money to any organization you choose. I implore you, however, to not rely solely on the reputation of an organization as a litmus test for it being worthy of your support. Just because an organization has been around a long time does not mean it is efficiently operated. It is a betrayal of the public trust for animal-oriented nonprofits to put themselves forth as being champions for animals when they are not. This is a national issue. So, what’s a donor to do? I encourage you to do a little homework first to learn more about the organization and how your money may be used before using logging into your Paypal account or opening your checkbook. You can search on the IRS website to determine if the organization you wish to support is actually a nonprofit; many are not. Registering with the Secretary of State alone does not a nonprofit make. You can also perform a search on Propublica to learn more about the financials of the organization. You may decide that an organization has so much money already that your donation may be better used elsewhere. I also recommend you take a look at the website for the organization, do a basic internet search about the organization to look for any red flags and ask other people you know about the organization. The Greater Birmingham Humane Society, Inc.I have taken great pains over the many years of my advocacy to avoid engaging in behavior that may lead to litigation and to focus on facts as they are known to me. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation suit that person must be able to prove what is called “actual malice” through publication of false statements that damage reputation. Truth is a defense against litigation but that doesn’t mean you won’t get sued. I have written indirectly about the Greater Birmingham Humane Society in Alabama in the past but have not taken on the topic directly because the CEO has a reputation for threatening litigation and it just was not worth the risk. I would argue the time has come to be more direct because any damage to the reputation of the organization is the result of its own behavior and not the result of any facts I share. I hold no malice toward GBHS; I would refer to it more as profound disappointment for lost opportunities and lost lives. I am writing about GBHS to provide some facts so people in my region can make their own decisions about this organization and so people in other regions will think twice before supporting organizations that may not conduct themselves in ways of which they approve. More information about GBHS can be found on the Alabama Animal Advocates website.  GBHS first came on my radar back in 2017 when it was promoting a bill to create a state dog and cat breeders commission. The organization promoting the bill called itself the Alabama Puppy Mill Project but the website for APMP used email and physical addresses for the GBHS and people were encouraged to donate to GBHS in support of the bill. I did not support the bill. I felt it was too ambitious, would be almost impossible to enforce and many breeders would just ignore it. It was my opinion then, and now, that a standards-based bill would mean more because violations would be a crime. After the bill failed, those supporting it engaged in a campaign against the senators who did not advance the bill out of committee. I found the behavior embarrassing and potentially damaging to the causes of animal welfare and told the senators as much. When a bill fails, it makes little sense to go on a public campaign to vilify and shame the very elected officials with whom you likely will need positive relationships in the future. One senator told me the behavior of bill supporters had “poisoned the well for any animal legislation for the foreseeable future.” After the bill failed, GBHS - through the APMP - began electioneering to replace senators; this is prohibited conduct about which I reported GBHS to both the IRS and the Alabama Attorney General. More information about the GBHS came to light in 2018 as the result of reporting by No Kill Movement about statistics that were misrepresented, threats of litigation, marketing off of animals prior to ending their lives, growing animal control contracts, alleged misuse of funds and disaster profiteering. Donald Watkins wrote about the GBHS ties to a rescue group that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for dogs at auctions and then sued people for comments made on social media, political campaign activity, gaslighting, financial improprieties and being a killing zone for animals. I'm not sure if Mr. Watkins was ever threatened with litigation. Mike Fry of No Kill Movement told me he received a cease and desist request by a GBHS attorney to which he essentially replied, "bring it on." These are facts: History, Reputation and Resources
 Animal Census Reports
My Opinions My focus on the GBHS so far in this blog has been on the facts. I am allowed to have my own opinions based on my knowledge and experience even when they are not in lockstep with others.
 Supporters Beware I started this blog with a warning for donors. I will end it with a warning for supporters of animal welfare organizations. I think most people presume the best of organizations that profess to care about and provide support for companion animals. Most organizations do wonderful work, and most small organizations are led by people who are not compensated and often lack life-balance because they are trying to hard to help. Not all organizations are what we believe them to be. We need look no further than to recent news coverage about the animal sanctuary in California where bodies of more than 100 dogs were found in two primary dig sites following execution of two search warrants. People are horrified that animals they sent to a sanctuary ended up in a mass grave. In my state, we need look no further than the Greater Birmingham Humane Society as an example of an organization that enjoys a stellar pubic reputation when that reputation may not be deserved. The GBHS does not have mass graves, but it has "euthanized" thousands of animals for many years (sometimes over 1,000 in a single month) with very few people calling that conduct into question. Which is nothing short of a tragedy for the animals and people who place their trust in the organization.
2 Comments
 I was recently invited to participate in a round table discussion about animal issues in Alabama next month for an Emmy-winning public television series created and hosted by naturalist-educator Doug Phillips called "Discovering Alabama." It will be the third part in a series he first created in 2022 called Animal Friends. The scope of part 1 and part 2 of the series covers a variety of topics that include animal intelligence, values in Alabama related to animals, animal laws, lack of enforcement and prosecution of those laws, lack of humane education, lack of services in different parts of Alabama (shelters and animal control), puppy mills, spay/neuter, stray animals and challenges to keeping pets. Doug covered a lot. There are a many problems in our state when it comes to companion animals, but I know Doug wants to talk not so much about what is wrong and more about solutions to the issues we face. The other participants in the roundtable have almost 200 years of experience between them in a variety of capacities that include animal shelter leadership, animal control leadership, cruelty investigation, law enforcement training, legislative expertise and veterinary medicine. I'm sure ours will be an interesting discussion. Most of us interact on a pretty regular basis already and we're a pretty lively group. I started thinking about what I will bring to the table when we talk about solutions. I suspect the other participants will talk about things like having our certified law enforcement officers trained on the state laws (animal crimes, dangerous dogs, dog fighting), having animal control officers receive some level of mandatory training on those same subjects, state funding of the legal mandate that every county have an animal shelter, and perhaps making the state dog confinement law mandatory instead of optional. My experience is that of an advocate with a focus on political advocacy based on the foundation of my decades in the legal field. As I ponder what I hope to contribute to the discussion, I am sharing some thoughts here in the "for what it's worth" category with a mindset toward solutions as we try to be the change we seek.
 Seek change locally first. People talk all the time about stronger state laws to protect animals. Laws and enforcement of those laws are two different things. A strong state law is of no value if it is not enforced. I genuinely believe that change begins locally and is based on the values of the people who live in each community. If you want the animal shelter in your community to do a better job of saving lives, learn about programs that help that happen and engage with the shelter leadership and elected officials to seek support for some changes. If you want better conditions for dogs who live outside in your community, consider promoting a local law that sets standards that will be enforced by local law enforcement as a priority of the elected officials in charge. In any given state, the more communities that embrace progressive ways of functioning, the more that culture may spread and then make enacting meaningful state laws more likely. In seeking local change, keep in mind that your values may not represent those of your community and you may be in the minority. If the predominant culture in your community is that animals are disposable, are easily replaced, and are not worth spending tax dollars to help them, there is little you can do to change that. It is worth trying, but realize that magical thinking will not help bring about the change you seek. I am proud of the positive changes made in Huntsville, Alabama (where I worked), regarding how the animal shelter operates which was made possible through political advocacy. Despite 2 years of effort, I failed to convince the county commission where I live to modify a shelter SOP that says all shelter animals will be destroyed after 60 days. I tried. And I will try again if and when the culture changes or new people are elected who may be more willing to listen.
In my June 7, 2026, blog I invited followers to send me questions on a variety of topics. I was surprised at the range of subjects people wanted to know about. Thank you to all who submitted questions and the time you took to participate. If you don't see your exact question here, it is because someone else submitted a similar question or I answered your question directly. You are welcome to contact me any time to ask questions about animal welfare advocacy and the topics I cover on my website as long as you are not seeking my help to take or place specific animals; I lack the ability to do that. Q: The city where I live just made a new law that makes people pay a $250 penalty to reclaim a lost dog and also charges a daily fee. The reclaim penalty goes up to $500 for a second offense. How are people supposed to afford to pay that much money? M.G. in Alabama A: Fees like this are often put in place by elected officials whose focus is more on punishing the public than helping the public. The theory is that if fines are high enough, people will work harder to keep their pets from getting loose. The problem with this approach is that not every dog we see running loose is the result of people who do not care. Accidents happen. Gates get left open by contractors, children leave doors open, dogs flee their property when scared (by fireworks or other loud noises), dogs dig out from under and climb over fencing and the batteries in dogs’ electronic fence collars wear out. A lot of people simply cannot pay what amounts to ransom to reclaim a lost dog because they cannot afford it. It doesn't matter how much they love their animals - when making decisions about what may be limited resources, paying rent, feeding children and keeping the power on will always take priority over paying hundreds of dollars to reclaim a lost pet. This means the city in which you live will no doubt end up spending lots of money to impound, house and care for an animal before ending the life of that animal which is absurd. Every instance of a lost pet should be addressed on a case by case basis to determine what happened and how to keep it from happening again, even if that means setting up a fund (perhaps using donations) to give people resources like run lines and pavers (to reinforce fencing) to keep dogs from getting loose. Cities like yours should also create a fee waiver policy so that people who genuinely cannot afford to pay reclaim fees and penalties can get their dog back when the alternative is the city spending money to end the life of that dog. Any city that treats the public like the enemy will never gain the cooperation of the public and be able to encourage them to make better choices or accept help to prevent animals from entering the shelter. I encourage you to band together with other residents of the city and engage respectfully with members of the city council to get this new policy reversed. It is not uncommon for a city to charge a nominal reclaim fee, but these amounts are so punitive that it will affect not just citizens but the shelter operation.  Q: I know there are rescue groups who go to dog auctions to buy dogs and I know you don't approve of that. Don't you think the lives of those dogs are worth saving? P.C. in Florida A: I think the lives of all dogs have value. In my opinion, the problem with your question relates to use of the word "save." There was a time when dog auctions were attended by two groups of people: the breeders selling dogs and the brokers buying dogs. There were people in rescue circles who acquired unsold "stock" after auctions ended based on relationships they had curated with breeders and with no money changing hands. It was a quiet exchange out of the pubic eye that put a dog or puppy in the hands of a rescuer while doing the breeder the favor of taking a dog who may be sick or lacking certain breed traits while keeping the breeder from using a bullet, a shovel or a bucket to end the life of the dog. All that changed years ago when people in the rescue community began attending auctions to buy dogs and calling it rescue. As Kim Kavin explored in depth in her Washington Post article, the presence of rescuers in the auction tent forever changed the commercial dog breeding industry for the worse. Much worse. There was nothing quiet or curated about this new relationship as rescuers made not only their presence at auctions known but also their willingness to pay whatever it took to buy dogs from the auction block. Rather than giving unsold dogs to rescue groups after the auction and as part of a quiet exchange, breeders began to see rescuers as a potential revenue source, sometimes breeding dogs specifically for the rescue community to make huge sums of money. According to Kavin's April 2018 article, one particular Alabama-based breed specific rescue paid more than $400,000 to buy 172 dogs over a period of four years for, "an average price of $2,365 per dog. Last year, more than half the dogs the nonprofit group says it saved were bought at auction." The article goes on to recount an event in which an Alabama rescuer offered to pay $24,000 for two dogs a breeder named Will Yoder had just bought for a little over 8k. And she did. Sounds crazy, right? Since the article was published in April of 2018 with who knows how much money being spent to buy dogs in the last 7 years. I shudder to think how that money was used to expand breeding operations to be able to breed more and more dogs. I don't see this as "saving" dogs at all. I see this as enriching the very industry rescuers claim to abhor, making it more profitable than ever and leading to the breeding of more and more puppies while the breeder "stock" potentially suffers out of view of the auction tent. It may not be popular to say so, but I will: I think it is the height of human arrogance to focus solely on purchasing a specific dog (or dogs) at an auction to be able to say that dog was "saved" or "rescued while remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that the money used to buy that one dog will be used to breed or purchase many more dogs in its place, thereby perpetuating the industry. Rescuers can and should focus on saving animals most in need of rescue in their own areas and without going to auctions at all.  Q: Why are you against mandatory spay neuter since there are states in the northeast where it is mandatory? P.B. in Wisconsin. A: Despite what you may have been told, there are no states in the northeastern part of the United States where spay/neuter is mandatory for owned animals. The reason more pets are sterilized in those places is because promotion of spay/neuter has been a priority for years and it is more easily accessible than it is in other parts of the country. There are some areas of the country where there are veterinary deserts and there is no veterinarian to which people can take a pet to be spayed or neutered. That is not the case in the northeast. There are also places where veterinarians charge hundreds of dollars for a procedure which can be done for much less at a non-profit clinic that focuses on just spay/neuter. Most states mandate spay/neuter of animals adopted from shelters and rescues as a means of controlling animal populations and to avoid having the offspring of adopted animals enter the shelter, leading to more spending. Even though spay/neuter of adopted animals is the law in most places, there are numerous animal shelters that adopt out intact animals using "the promise method" (in which people promise to have the surgery performed but never do). There are also numerous rescue groups that fault the public for "pet overpopulation" but allow unsterilized animals to be adopted and then lament the number of animals they are asked to help. To learn more about opposition to spay/neuter which extends far beyond my website, please take a few minutes to read about it here. If we are prepared to punish people who can least afford to have their pets "fixed," we do better to just help those people instead and create relationships with them that extend beyond a single surgery. Q: What is the biggest mistake you've made when it comes to your advocacy to try to help animals? J.S. in North Carolina A: I've certainly made a lot of mistakes along the way as I've advocated for animals and systemic change. The mistake that bothers me the most was more of a calculation than anything. I totally underestimated the former shelter director of Huntsville Animal Services in Alabama which was the focus of much of my advocacy for more than 2 decades. Like most people, I presumed that her status as a licensed veterinarian meant she would would be open to ideas on how to save the lives of more animals; there were years when more than 7 thousand animals died in her facility under her leadership. Yes, you read that correctly. I failed to appreciate how fiercely she would fight to maintain the status quo for what was likely the sake of her own mental health. It must be incredibly difficult to realize that so many animals died when they could have been saved. Had I known how hard it would be to get her to embrace a new culture for her city department, the approach used by No Kill Huntsville to try to affect change might have shifted somewhat. We still would have focused on municipal accountability, but could have used different methods to try to gain her cooperation with more sensitivity to her struggle between her past actions and the potential future of Huntsville as a No Kill community. I am proud of what was achieved in Huntsville which is now one of the safest places for animals in the state and even in the country. Did we do the hard work? No. But we changed the history of the city by banding together, speaking out, harnessing the compassion of the public and pushing the city to create a new culture which made it possible for a newe director to be hired whose values are in keeping with those of the public he serves. Q: I'm worried about the number of puppy mills in the state where I live. It's not obvious where they are located. What's the best place to get information to learn more about mills in my state? A.M. in Wisconsin A: This is an easy one. Bailing Out Benji, led by Mindi Callison from Iowa. I first learned of Mindi a few years ago through a mutual contact who was saving mill dogs (not by purchasing them) and then when she appeared in a film executive produced by another contact of mine called Dog by Dog which I blogged about before and I recommend everyone watch. The film is just as relevant today as it was when it was released and has national implications. You can watch the film on Google play, Pluto TV or Youtube. Bailing Out Benji has become one of the most reliable sources of information about the commercial dog breeding industry (as is Harley's Dream) and provides a national map that tracks USDA licensed breeders and brokers by state. Each brown circle on the map represents a broker and each blue circle represents a breeder. You can see details about the licensee by clicking on the circle. For example, the Fairmont Acre Kennel in Ephrata, Pennsyvania, has 154 adult dogs and a history of compliance issues. If you know of a breeding operation that is not on the map, that means it is not licensed by the USDA (although having a license is not indicator of how well the dogs or their offspring are cared for). Humane World (formerly the Humane Society of the United States) tracks the 100 worst dog breeding operations annually.  (capture of interactive map courtesy of Bailing Out Benji) Q: I see a lot of negativity on social media about the No Kill movement, some of it by very prominent people. they have called the movement a scam that has led to animal suffering. Why is this happening? J.F. in Texas A: Let's get to the scam part first. The No Kill movement is a social movement for which we should all be grateful. We have the movement to thank for the fact that our country no longer kills 16 to 17 million animals in animal shelters every year and that number is now less than 1 million. That is still too many, but we've come a very long way. In my opinion, the negativity about the movement is led by people who have not learned the history of animal sheltering in our country to better understand how we got to this point in history and the obstacles overcome to get here. There are opponents of the movement who associate it with a specific organization or platform like the Best Friends Animal Society or Human Animal Support Services. The movement does not belong to those organizations no matter how much money they have or how large their platform may be. They do not own it. The movement is made up of people like you and me. People in the trenches of advocacy seeking change in their own communities because they view saving the lives of shelter animals as a moral imperative. Focusing on specific organizations and then faulting the movement takes the focus off of our core values in which there are no excuses for killing healthy and treatable animals and the focus is not on math (the 90% reference) but on method. Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center addressed in a recent Substack article in which he wrote: I am hearing rescuers and advocates regurgitating excuses for killing we debunked in the 1990s and 2000s: pet overpopulation, irresponsible public, need for a 'no birth' and not No Kill nation. . .When we call for a No Kill nation, we are specifically referring to the promise and success of open-admission No Kill Equation sheltering. We are referring to a shelter in the dictionary sense of the word: “an establishment providing food, protection from danger, and temporary housing for stray or unwanted animals.” The door is always open and animals find a new beginning, instead of the end of the line. We are NOT referring to the fundraising scam where “managed intake,” “community sheltering,” and “Human Animal Support Services” are euphemisms for “no entry” and increases in placement rates are dependent on animals being turned away, abandoned, and left to suffer.  Q: I've heard there are countries where having a pet spayed or neutered is considered barbaric. Why does the U.S. focus so much on that?
A: You are correct. Some German and Scandinavian countries (including Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) have restrictive policies on neutering. In Germany, the Animal Welfare Act prohibits neutering, except for health reasons or to control populations. In Norway, neutering is illegal unless strictly necessary. The removal of ovaries and testicles is considered to be mutilation, no different from cropping ears and docking tails. The focus on spaying and neutering in the United States is based on our history. There was a time when 16 to 17 millions animals died in animal shelters every year, regardless of age or health. Focusing on spay and neuter as a positive way to keep pet populations from growing while potentially extending the life of the sterilized pet has become a cultural norm while still allowing pet owners to make choices for themselves. Q: You say that every place is capable of becoming a No Kill community but not every place is ready for that. What does that mean? C.V. in Georgia A: Every community has limited resources and every community has collective values that represent the priorities of the people that live there. I believe every community in which the lives of companion animals are valued has the capacity to save all healthy and treatable animals - regardless of resources - by inviting the public to create a new culture that balances public safety with saving lives. Many of the programs that save the lives of shelter animals cost nothing and even those that do require some cost can be addressed using the "pay me now v. pay me later" approach. An example is investing funding into making spay/neuter of pets accessible and affordable (or free) for low income residents. Communities that invest in population control pay up front for surgeries, but pay less long-term because fewer animals enter tax-funded shelter. Not every place is ready to be a No Kill community because there are many places where the lives of dogs and cats are not valued. If animals are treated as expendable, and the public supports that, there is no incentive elected officials to ensure the tax-funded shelter is managed differently. If a shelter even exists. People who live in those places who do value the lives of animals can focus on getting people elected to represent their values and do what they can in the present to help animals in need. But sometimes we have to follow the advice in the book Twelve by Twelve to see, be, do as we wait for a time when change is possible. Animal shelter reform cannot always be forced through logic, respectful dialogue and political advocacy no matter how much we want it.  In late March of 2026, authorities from Lauderdale County, Alabama seized 191 dogs from a rural property owned by an elderly couple. The couple (and their son) were arrested more than 6 weeks later for 4 charges of animal cruelty as a Class A misdemeanor. People are outraged. They demand that more charges be brought for the sake of the dogs. Many of these same people promoted a new law that goes into effect on October 1, 2026, called Beau’s Law. Under this new law first offenses will be charged as a Class C misdemeanor, two levels below the current punishment of Class A? So, what happened? We must start with the history. In 2023, authorities from the Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office began interacting with a family breeding dogs in a rural part of the county. There were numerous dogs housed two to a kennel and there were multiple people providing them with care. There were a lot of dogs but nothing illegal was taking place. Most of dogs were large breeds with several being identified as “Doodles.” Fast forward to 2025. Authorities began working with the owners and reached an agreement for them to reduce overcrowding of dogs on the property. This led to the owners surrendering 74 dogs to the Florence Lauderdale Animal Shelter over a period of months. It is unclear how many dogs were left behind or if dogs continued to be bred and sold. Fast forward to 2026. Investigators with the Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office executed a search warrant (which was issued by a judge based on a search warrant affidavit) on the property where dogs were confined around the property, in a detached garage and in a basement. Many dogs were kept in crates with limited access to food and water and they were surrounded by feces. Lauderdale County Sheriff’s Office Lieutenant James Distefano told the media, “I'd be lying if I didn't say I was overwhelmed not only by the number of dogs but by the smell.” He noted it was the largest number of dogs he remembered being seized from a single resident in more than twenty years. The dogs were taken to the Florence Lauderdale animal shelter after they were seized. They were cared for and later transferred to rescue groups after the owners surrendered them weeks after they were seized. Little about this whole process is known beyond what has been reported by the media.  What should have happened? A plan should have been developed to execute the search warrant following the same evidence protocols that are used in other criminal cases while still providing for the needs of the dogs. Yes, this evidence is alive but the evidence in support of a case becomes the backbone of the prosecution. It is typical for large seizures like this to be set up as an assembly line operation using veterinarians, vet techs, investigators, deputies and shelter staff, sometimes working in concert with the District Attorney’s Office. The process requires meticulous documentation, secure evidence collection, and strict adherence to a continuous chain of custody to ensure the evidence is admissible in court. Every dog should have been examined by a veterinarian on site with a record created of that examination and multiple photographs taken of each dog. Because dogs were seized, whether it was 5 dogs or 191 dogs, the owners should have been arrested and charged with animal cruelty at that time. To the extent some dogs require any type of veterinary care following the initial examination - emergency care or otherwise - that should have been fully documented to be used in making prosecution determinations. In this case, only 4 charges were brought related to 191 dogs. Only the district attorney’s office knows why. It is reasonable to presume either that 1) evidence was not handled property (which may mean it was not collected at all or there was a delay in collecting evidence until weeks later when the dogs were in better condition) or 2) most of the dogs were not in particularly bad shape when they were seized. The defendants were arrested more than six weeks after the dogs were seized were charged with 4 counts of cruelty to animals which is a Class A misdemeanor. This is an older law that applies to animals generally and is not specific to dogs and cats. It could be argued the defendants should have been charged with cruelty to animals under the Pet Protection Act which is a newer series of laws specific to dogs and cats. Using this law which would have put in motion due process provisions of the law that call for a disposition hearing regarding the dogs to be held within 20 days of them being seized (but could have been held much sooner) and has built-in provisions to recoup costs to care for the dogs. It is unknown if any of the dogs required some type of emergency treatment to save their lives. If that was the case, that could be considered aggravated cruelty and cases regarding those dogs could be brought not just as a Class A misdemeanor but as a Class C felony. After local media reported only 4 charges had been brought, people took to social media to express their outrage. They wrote about how people had worked so hard to help the dogs by grooming them, caring for them and helping the shelter get them to rescue groups. A local city council member posted on Facebook that, “Countless people worked tirelessly, without compensation, to help these animals begin to heal.” Another person started a petition called Justice for the 191 Dogs of Lauderdale County which states: We are calling on District Attorney Angie Hamilton to aggressively prosecute animal abuse cases and pursue the strongest charges possible when nearly 200 animals are found suffering in horrific conditions. And the community is also demanding FULL RESTITUTION for the THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS spent by Lauderdale County, local shelters, rescues, and taxpayers as a direct result of the accused individuals’ actions. The people of this community should not be forced to carry the financial burden of this cruelty. 🐾 We are demanding accountability. 🐾 We are demanding stronger action. 🐾 We are demanding justice for these dogs.” I was curious about the number of criminal charges and the laws used so I reached out to the district attorney’s office. I was provided with limited information as I expected because the cases are in their early stages and it would not be appropriate for authorities to share investigative information with me or information about prosecution strategy. I was told that the defendants were charged with the law about animals generally because it was decided that the law in the Pet Protection Act that would have covered these circumstances (Code of Alabama Section 13A-11-241(b)) calls for intent and it was decided intent on the part of the owners was lacking. They were overwhelmed and had too many dogs. The ADA and I agreed to disagree on that interpretation of the statute. The law about torture of a dog or cat uses the word “intentionally.” The law regarding cruelty to a dog or cat does not use that same word even though it could easily have been included by the legislature. (The explanation I was given helps me understand why a woman from whom more than 100 dogs were seized last year was charged using the older law, leading to the dogs being housed in the shelter for many months.) I hope two things for the future. Regarding the 191 dogs resulting in 4 cases, I hope the cases will not be dismissed simply because the dogs were surrendered and that the DA will seek mandatory mental health counseling for the defendants in addition to having the court order a pet ban or limit for any probationary period. Regarding interpretation of the law, I hope the DA’s office will interact with other prosecutors in the state to compare notes on interpretation of the law regarding intent. No one wants another large seizure of animals who sit in a shelter for months because they are living evidence, causing terrible overcrowding, staff burnout and who knows how much spending.  If you see a situation regarding companion animals you think rises to the level of animal neglect or cruelty, report it. You may be asked to submit a written complaint and testify in court. When animals are neglected - whether it is because of intent, the owners becoming overwhelmed or the owners having a mental health issue – those situations seldom get better on their own. You can be the change you seek by owning your outrage and making sure authorities know what is happening and why you are concerned. It may be that what you see is not at all criminal even if it doesn’t meet your standards for how you treat your own pets. I live in an area where lots of dogs live outside all the time no matter how hot it is, how cold it is or how hard it rains. One lives right across the street from us in a fenced area with a wooden doghouse. He gets little, if any, attention, is not walked and while I wish the family would surrender the dog to a rescue group, they see nothing wrong with how the dog is treated and cared for. I have to remind myself almost daily, “that is not our dog.”  If a large animal seizure by law enforcement happens in the area where you live and you are not satisfied with the results of that process, you can reach out and to authorities and ask questions, but you will never know all the details. That is not owed to you. I know of no prosecutors who respond to demands, let alone petitions. These are criminal cases in which legal decisions are made based on laws and evidence. Prosecutors and defense attorneys present information to the court. No one owes you answers. If you want to help animals taken to a shelter as a result of some legal action, please volunteer. But don’t expect anyone to give you a medal for that. Helping shelter animals in need should be its own reward and is likely to be met with only a “thank you.” Back to the new law. Beau’s Law goes into effect in Alabama on October 1, 2026. The law only pertains to dogs and covers many of the same subjects already in the Pet Protection Act that has been in effect for more than a quarter of a century. If these arrests had happened after October of this year instead of the end of March, the defendants could have been charged not with Class A misdemeanors (punishable by up to a year in county jail and a $6,000 fine) but with Class C misdemeanors (punishable only by up to 3 months in jail and a 500 fine). I wonder what the outrage will be when cases are brought 5 months from now and offenders get what amounts to a slap on the wrist. Or are not charged at all because enforcement and prosecution resources are limited and will always be used to enforce crimes against people before crimes against animals.  (image of dogs at top of blog courtesy of WHNT)
 People who are passionate about helping companion animals mean well and that includes some (but certainly not all) of the people we elect to represent us at the state level, senators and representatives alike. Every state is governed by laws that cover subjects ranging from agriculture to aviation to banks to corporations to counties to courts to education to elections to eminent domain to housing to insurance to professions and public works. You get the idea. Each state also has laws about animals some of which relate to animals generally (containment, livestock, rabies vaccination, dangerous dogs, sterilization) and some of which relate to crimes against companion animals specifically like torture, cruelty and neglect of dogs and cats. Each state has its own process for how laws get enacted but the process is similar: a bill is filed by a state elected official - a senator or a representative - and it is assigned to a committee for consideration. It can either die in committee (meaning no action is taken) or get a favorable vote (with or without changes being made) and then it is considered by the chamber in which it was introduced (house or senate). If it makes it through that chamber, the process repeats itself in the other chamber where it the bill may die or move forward. If the bill gets through the second chamber, it goes to the governor to sign or veto. The process is more detailed than that and involves more steps, but that’s the general sequence. If you are not familiar with the process in your state, please learn about it. This is the information for my state that is published by the American Civil Liberties Union. In my experience, very few people who want animals treated better know the laws in their own state. Some are written more clearly than others and all laws are open to some degree of interpretation which is why courts sometimes get involved. This lack of knowledge often extends to the very elected officials who promote bills they think will help animals. A contact of mine at a state attorney general’s office told me that state elected officials often do not know the existing laws, often do not write the bills they file and may not understand the effect their proposed bill may have on existing laws, often weakening laws that have been on the books for decades. So, how do we animal advocates or concerned citizens know if a bill is a good bill or a bad bill? We need to examine the following things:
A Good Bill  Like many states, Colorado sells license plates to the public for causes the public supports. One of those license plates is the “Adopt a Shelter Pet” plate. Funds collected from the sale of the plates goes into the “pet overpopulation fund” to be used by animal shelters to have animals spayed/neutered and to support education programs. Prior to the promotion of House Bill HB25-1137, shelters seeking money from the fund had to agree to not use the phrase “No Kill” related to their shelter operation or marketing. The Humane Society of Fremont County - which holds 7 municipal contracts - has proudly upheld the highest open-admission save rate in Colorado for 10 consecutive years and is considered a leading animal shelter in the country. Because it refused to comply with the requirement to ditch the “No Kill” label, it was prevented from receiving crucial funding. The primary purpose of the bill was to prevent funds being withheld from shelters that support the No Kill model of animal sheltering. A portion of the bill language states: (c) The adopt a shelter pet account in the pet overpopulation fund receives money donated through the sale of the adopt a shelter pet license plate to be used for spaying and neutering animals in animal shelters and rescues and to support overpopulation education programs; An incredible amount of work was done by the primary supporters of the bill: No Kill Colorado, the MaxFund No Kill Animal Shelter and Adoption Center, and the Humane Society of Fremont County, This bill represents a long-overdue correction to an unfair funding restriction that has penalized shelters like ours for standing by our no-kill values,” said Doug Rae, the Director of the Humane Society of Fremont County. “We are proud to lead this fight for fairness and transparency, but we need the public’s help to get this across the finish line.” Proponents of the bill fought hard for its passage after it was introduced in the house in late January. It passed the house in February and passed the senate in March after gaining support from the Colorado Department of Agriculture. The bill was being signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on April 17, 2025. This is an example of a good bill. It sought to remove obstacles to receipt of funds by animal shelters that were based not on helping animals, but were grounded in the personal opinions of the members of the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Authority, some of whom are hostile toward No Kill philosophies. The law as enacted states, “the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Authority must not favor a particular shelter model when allocating money from the Adopt A Shelter Pet Account.” A Bad Bill  Most states have laws about animal cruelty that are part of the criminal code. Such is the case in Alabama. The laws were enacted at different times in the history of the state and law enforcement officers are not trained in animal laws in the academy instruction they received to be certified. Laws about cruelty to animals (generally) and aggravated cruelty were enacted in 1977 and 2013, respectively. Laws about cruelty to dogs and cats (specifically) were enacted in 2000 as part of the Pet Protection Act. There were two problematic animal bills filed in the 2025 legislative session which has now ended without either bill making it out of the chamber of origin. Both bills were promoted by the CEO of nonprofit organization based in Birmingham that holds numerous municipal contracts (and continues to seek more) despite the fact that it has a dismal live release rate for dogs and a less than stellar rate for cats. House Bill 149 was originally filed on February 4, 2025, and a substitute bill took its place on April 2, 2025 without the public having an opportunity to review the substitute. The bill did not seek to amend existing laws (which should have been the case) but was a stand-alone bill called the Alabama Dog Tethering and Outdoor Shelter Act. The original version of the bill would have reduced what was a Class A misdemeanor to a Class B misdemeanor. It includes provisions regarding food, water, shelter, collar size, enclosure size, enclosure height that are unenforceable as written. Here are some examples: (1) ADEQUATE FOOD. Food that is sufficient in amount and is appropriate for the particular type of dog to prevent starvation or a significant risk to the dog's health from lack of food. The term includes palatable, uncontaminated, and nutritionally appropriate food that is fed according to species requirements or is fed as directed by a veterinarian. This is an example of a bad bill. It sought to achieve too many things at once, many of which would have been unenforceable. It would not have outlawed chaining of dogs as many people thought; it would have allowed dogs to be chained using a chain designed for dogs which are sold widely on the internet and at pet supply stores. The provisions in the bill related to "shelter" might have been of some value, but the state has a history with that one word. There have been multiple attempts over a period of many years to define the single word shelter in the criminal code (three of which were brought by a former state representative who is now the state auditor). All failed. The senate chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee told me years ago that as long as a dog can get under a mobile home, that's shelter. His personal views aside, I'm not sure why proponents of the bill thought that having a new bill to define that one word combined with numerous other things would make it through the legislative gauntlet. It would be like a tenant asking a landlord to fix a window, being told no, and then asking the landlord to fix the window, renovate all the rooms in the house and pay for landscaping. Not. Gonna. Happen. In addition to issues with provisions of the bill being unenforceable, perhaps the more concerning issue is that the bill would have given authority to animal control officers to perform duties typically performed by certified law enforcement officers. The requirements to be an animal control officer in Alabama typically consist of having a high school diploma or GED and a driver's license. Most animal control officers are not trained in their animal control duties, much less trained in animal laws, investigative techniques, de-escalation techniques or probable cause determinations. Giving untrained civilians authority to seize animals could be dangerous – someone is apt to be shot and people in the vicinity of the property could also be endangered. Giving ACOs authority to seize animals could also result in unwarranted taking of animals in violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they do not know the laws of the state and this could lead to litigation. As my husband said very clearly when we were taking about the bill: “if you come on my property to take my dog, you better have really good health insurance.” I am relieved this bill did not make it out of the house of origin, a fact that has put me at odds with some of my contacts in Alabama who mistakenly believe the bill would have done amazing things to help animals in our state. I understand they mean well but their failure to learn about existing laws and to think for themselves was a recipe for disappointment. Many people supporting the bill took their cue from the CEO of a nonprofit organization I mentioned above. She has an huge following in the state and speaks with the voice of authority regarding animal issues - including proposed legislation - even thought some of her comments were inaccurate. She has a lot of support by members of the business community in her area and is favored by the founder of a large nonprofit organization with national reach. All of this is despite the fact that about half the animals impounded by her organization in 2024 did not survive the process. I'm not sure that anyone with a record that poor should be considered a voice of authority on any issues related to companion animals. Including new laws. I would like to think there will be lessons learned from the fact that the bills she promoted did not leave the chamber of origin. I'm not so sure that will happen. It is easier for people to take the default position that state legislators don't care than it is to examine why the bills failed to better promote effective bills in the future.  For those in my state who are upset that House Bill 149 (and House Bill 249) did not survive this legislative session, here are a few things to consider.
I wrote a blog about a month ago about the relationship between animal hoarding and mental health issues that was prompted by realizations about a contact of mine who was found to having dying animals inside her home. I interacted with her family following the suicide of her husband and her death. After learning more about the situation inside the home, I chose to delete the blog and save the topic for another day. This was done primarily out of respect to her family. I told her son I would revisit the issue later and that time has come. I don't expect you to read my blog and agree with me completely. My hope is that you will suspend your judgment long enough to learn something that may serve you well in the future or even help you prevent animal suffering and abuse. NOTE FOR CONTEXT: There are many times people refer to someone having a large number of animals as "hoarders" or "collectors" when that is not always the case. Just like a dog running loose is not always an abandoned animal, not all large groups of animals are owned by hoarders. People can get overwhelmed when they can't afford spay neuter, they are afraid the local shelter will kill animals and they are judged harshly. Community outreach to help people - while suspending judgement - is incredibly important and can also identify potential hoarders. It's much more nuanced than people realize. Some situations can be resolved by helping to place puppies and having the adult animals spayed and neutered to prevent further litters. Not a week goes by that we don't hear about an animal hoarding situation in some form. Local tragedies have ranged from hundreds of dogs found inside the home of an elderly couple, many of which were dead, to a woman who was found to have dozens of animals on her rural property, many of which were dead or dying. If you search for the phrase "animal hoarding" you will find a litany of news stories from across the country which describe horrific situations which shock the senses. Some cases result in criminal prosecution. Many do not. What the cases have in common is a person or people who have more animals than they can reasonably care for who end up neglecting or abusing those animals leading to suffering and often death. My initial reaction to these situations is the same as most people. The information is disturbing, heart breaking and infuriating all at the same time. How can we not be angry about a situation so out of hand that people and animals live in filth and animals are left to die? How could they be so heartless and care so little for their companion animals? Why didn't they reach out for help? I still have the same initial reaction as I would have had years ago as my focus is on the suffering and death of helpless animals. After almost two decades of animal welfare advocacy, however, my next thoughts look a little deeper to examine the "why" and the "how." I now know these situations for what they are: animal hoarding. When people think of animal hoarding they think of dozens of animals inside a house, perhaps even dead animals inside a freezer. The number of animals is really not important. The complete lack of care for them, despite the best of intentions, is the key. Mental health experts have studied this phenomenon extensively. What at first looks like a criminal act created by intent really is not and the underlying reasons are quite often the opposite.  What is Animal Hoarding? This article in Psychology Today explains animal hoarding this way:
How to Spot an Animal Hoarder The following are red flags that someone in your life may be collecting or hoarding animals:
What You Can Do to Help If you genuinely believe someone you know is an animal hoarder, whether you are related to them or not, take action to try to prevent the situation from getting worse.
 The Response When I first learned about the abuse and neglect of animals by my local contact, I openly said that I thought there were mental health issues involved. I later learned there were also issues regarding spousal abuse which contributed to the totality of the situation. This was a tragedy compounded by tragedy compounded by suffering and abuse. I ultimately lost long-term contacts when I shared my opinion about mental health problems being the cause of the situation and when I wrote that it made perfect sense in hindsight that my contact was extremely critical of the local animal shelter. The local shelter did not cause her to be a hoarder. It just made sense that she felt so strongly about the shelter ending the lives of healthy and treatable animals while she felt she was doing all she could to keep her own animals alive.
I am always shocked at how much people in the rescue community advocate for compassion toward animals while having none toward people. There are some who are active in animal rescue (but certainly not all) who carry an immense amount of loathing for people in general which is just below the surface of their functioning. Of course animals suffer and die at the hands of hoarders as the hoarders suffer themselves. As much as the torch and pitchfork crowd may want hoarders to pay severely for their crimes, that does not always happen. As is explained by the Animal Legal Defense Fund, "animal hoarding cases are difficult to prosecute [because] most states have no legal definition for animal hoarding, courts already assign relatively low priority to animal abuse and neglect cases in general, and many people are unfamiliar with the severity of abuse in hoarding situations." There is a lesson so many in the animal sheltering and rescue community still have not learned: animal problems are people problems. As terrible as hoarding situations are, they do provide an opportunity for change and to bring good from tragic. I encourage the stakeholders in the animal sheltering, welfare and rescue community in an area in which a hoarding situation is found to examine this issue from a place of compassion and to try to prevent it from happening again. There are some communities that have created a Hoarding Task Force to help address potential hoarding situations using the expertise of mental health professionals, law enforcement professionals and members of the animal sheltering and rescue community. This approach is akin to a shift in some law enforcement agencies from treating every law enforcement encounter with the pubic as a criminal matter and instead using mental health liaisons to resolve situations to avoid arrest, incarceration and prosecution. Not a month goes by when I don't hear someone talking about or read something on social media supporting the concept of Mandatory Spay/Neuter as the solution to "pet overpopulation" related to the destruction of healthy and treatable animals in animal shelters. The argument is that if we just punish people for failing to have pets sterilized, it will serve as an incentive for them to comply. That approach always reminded of a phrase from my Army days that goes, "the beatings will continue until morale improves." I understand the allure of the "there ought to be a law approach." It would be wonderful if making a single law in a city, county or state would magically resolve numerous issues at one time. The problem is simple: Mandatory Spay/Neuter just does not work. Most states have laws which say that animals adopted from animal shelters and from rescue groups must be sterilized. Laws like this are vital. Those animals adopted out are the end of the line and will produce no offspring to add to local pet populations. On the flip side, it makes no sense at all to adopt out unsterilized animals who will then create offspring which may then end up in the shelter or with a rescue group, thereby creating a never-ending cycle of adoption, birth and destruction (in most shelters). That would be the animal shelter/rescue version of Sisyphus. To be clear, when people talk about Mandatory Spay/Neuter (often called MSN for short), they are not talking about laws related to shelter and rescue animals. They are talking about laws that require ALL animals in a given geographic area be spayed and neutered to include owned animals. (People often lament that animals are considered property under the law. When it comes to MSN, that is a good thing. People have a right to determine what happens to their own property, making room for an argument that MSN is actually unconstitutional). Also to be clear, there is an urban myth that northeastern states have fewer animals because spay/neuter of owned animals is mandatory there. It is not. What those states have done is promoted voluntarily spay neuter as a way of keeping pet populations low. They are ahead of the curve. I learned last week that a person in my area had written an ordinance for the city in which I work to enact MSN. I presume that person was well-intentioned and just did not realize that what seems good on paper doesn't translate to practical application. In the process of researching the issues with MSN, it occurred to me I had not seen any recent blogs on the topic. This is why I wrote this blog. Much of the discussion is dated to a degree because this is actually a fairly well-settled issue in animal sheltering. The world is not flat, Elvis has left the building, we went to the moon and MSN does not work. I'm sharing my research here to make my argument in opposition to MSN, to help educate some folks along the way and to provide an example of what one community has done related to spay and neuter which makes MSN irrelevant.  These Organizations Oppose Mandatory Spay Neuter The following organizations all oppose MSN. There are more, but I consider this my go-to list when I engage with people about this subject. Click on the name for each organization to learn more about opposition to MSN. American Veterinary Medical Association American College of Theriongenologsists Humane Society of the United States MSN Position Humane Society of the United States (regarding veterinary positions on spay/neuter generally) ASPCA Best Friends Animal Society No Kill Advocacy Center National Animal Interest Alliance No Kill Learning (explaining the difference between "pet overpopulation" and "shelter overpopulation) related to MSN I would be remiss if I did not mention an article written by Brent Toellner about MSN which I have shared too many times to count and shared as recently as last week. He wrote it as KC Dog Blog prior to being named the National Programs Director for the Best Friends Animal Society. The AKC also opposes Mandatory Spay/Neuter. I do not support the AKC and will not link to their information here. You can find their position using a Google search.  They Oppose it Because Mandatory Spay Neuter Does Not Work The reasons why organizations oppose MSN are vast. These are what I consider the highlights. I have paraphrased some of the position statements of the organizations below and some of the information was provided by Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center.
 Enforcement Issues With a Mandatory Spay Neuter Ordinance All tax-funded animal shelters serve a finite geographic area. Some are led by a single jurisdiction within that area. Such is the case in the city where I work, Huntsville, Alabama. Huntsville Animal Services provides service to the City of Huntsville and Madison County (excluding the City of Madison); animals enter the shelter from the entire county (minus Madison which does its own animal control functions). Ordinances enacted in the city are only enforceable in the city and not the county. Madison County lacks home rule which means it cannot enact its own animal laws absent a bill being filed in Montgomery and passed through the state legislature. (There are some other ways to enact laws in counties which are complicated and not worth discussing here). The reality is that the county cannot just pass a resolution and change how it functions whether that has to do with spay/neuter, chained dogs or some other animal issue. There are essentially four groups of animal owners related to any attempt to enforce MSN: 1) those owners whose animals would be exempt (i.e. because they are registered with some organization like the AKC and participate in shows); 2) those owners who would seek exemption for their animals due to opposition to spay/neuter of their pets based on advice from their veterinarian; 3) those owners who have already had animals sterilized or will do it voluntarily; and 4) those owners who cannot afford to have their pets sterilized (or believe they cannot because the fees ordinarily charged by many full-service veterinarians and lack of knowledge of low-cost alternatives). It can be extremely difficult for even a veterinary professional to visually determine if an animal, particularly a female, has been sterilized; it would be virtually impossible for an animal control officer to make those determinations in the field. The only way people would be "discovered" to be in violation would be if their animal was picked up running at large, encountered as a result of a complaint or if they were reported by a veterinarian or some other person. Most, if not all, cities lack the ability to devote resources just to enforcement of MSN which, in most cases, would affect people who lack the ability to pay a fine. If a city did choose to divert resources to MSN enforcement, that would mean taking resources away from public safety functions or shelter functions to get lost animals back home, to rescues or into new homes. The resources used for enforcement include time and money. If a municipality is prepared to use time and money to enforce a punitive law, it does better to use those same resources to help people instead - which is what Huntsville is already doing.  The Huntsville Story I have written before about my animal shelter reform efforts in Huntsville because it has been the focus of my advocacy for more than 15 years. While there are more steps which can be taken by the city to be more progressive regarding the operation of the tax-funded animal shelter, I must give credit where it is due related to the community making spay and neuter both accessible and affordable. The only short-coming of which I am aware is a lack of effective marketing and community outreach so more people know about the resources available to help them. The City of Huntsville created a spay/neuter program for low-income residents in 2009 called Fixin' Alabama. The city originally invested 20k a year into the program and now invests 100k a year in the program. This, combined with other factors, has reduced intake at Huntsville Animal Services from approximately 10k a year (in 2009) to around 5k a year (since 2015) even though the city has grown and is now the largest city in the state (having been recently named the Best Place to Live by U.S. News and World Report). We know it can take years for programs related to spay/neuter to show results. These results for the City of Huntsville speak for themselves. Making it easier for low-income residents to have animals sterilized removes the judgment, helps them do the right thing and keeps animals out of the tax-funded shelter and other local shelters. Huntsville is home to the North Alabama Spay & Neuter Clinic which is one of only four such clinics in the state. It is open to anyone regardless of income or where they live. This makes it easy for people who may not qualify for Fixin' Alabama to get a pet sterilized. It is also convenient for people who live and work in Huntsville, regardless of income. The clinic has a 2-3 week waiting list. Demand is high and prices are low. The clinic has performed more than 36,000 surgeries since it opened in 2010 - in spite of some time periods during which the state veterinary board was determined to close all non-profit spay/neuter clinics in the state. There are several nonprofit organizations that help people with spay/neuter. SNAP (Spay Neuter Action Project) receives 39k a year from the Madison County Commission to have pets spayed/neutered. Another example is HAWS - Helping Animals Without Shelter. This is a judgement-free organization that helps people keep dogs contained, helps with dog houses and food and helps with spay/neuter. There are also several rescue groups in the area who will spay/neuter animals for free or help offset costs for sterilization on a case-by-case basis. All of this means that Huntsville has numerous spay/neuter resources which negate the need for a mandatory ordinance even if one worked. The City revised the city code related to animals in the fall of 2018. It enacted MSN internal to the shelter which states that any animal impounded can be sterilized. I am not entirely certain about the legality of this local law; my advocacy group in Huntsville questioned it prior to it being enacted. Time will tell if it is challenged through litigation. I am told by the shelter director that if a family cannot pay to redeem their pet or pay for the sterilization surgery, the fees are waived. (As a related subject, there is already a state law requiring animals adopted from shelters and rescues be sterilized. It is not consistently followed in the state. That issue is separate from requiring sterilization of owned animals.)  What You Can Do If you live in a community that is considering Mandatory Spay/Neuter in an attempt to reduce pet populations, I hope you will share this information and consider what it is you really hope to accomplish. I would argue that while it sounds like a good idea, it just is not. If you live in a community which already has MSN on the books, I hope you will take steps to try to repeal that law by working with your shelter director and local elected officials. It is likely the law was enacted with good intentions by people who just did not realize the unintended consequences that come with MSN. I would not be surprised to learn that the law is either not being enforced or is being enforced only as a secondary offense.
As an unapologetic supporter of the No Kill Equation, I also hope you will learn about the 11 programs and services of the Equation, one of which is access to high-volume/low-cost spay neuter services. Let's stop punishing people and instead make it easier for them to make good choices which affect their companion animals, their families and their communities. I learned recently that Illinois passed Senate Bill 1882, called the "Safe Pets" Act which governs dogs and cats sold in pet stores. The new law does not prevent pet stores in the state from selling animals which are sourced from breeders. This comes as no surprise. Petland, the most prolific pet store chain in the country which sells dogs, already has eight retail locations in Illinois. The state cannot enact a law which would affect commerce for Petland because the stores are already open. The new law does state the following (among other provisions):
Many of these local laws go much further than the new Illinois law and I first blogged about them last year. These are locations where there are no existing pet stores like Petland selling dogs. The lack of those retail locations means that municipalities have the ability to enact pre-emptive laws to keep the stores from opening in the first place. The local ordinances I have advanced in some cities in my state require pet shops to source animals from shelters and rescue groups, prohibiting them from getting animals from breeders, brokers or from rescue groups which obtain animals from breeders or brokers for compensation (often referred to as the "rescue model.")  As I have written about before, I obviously support these ordinances, resolutions, bills and laws which are, at their core, consumer protection laws. The Illinois law has limitations because Petland stores are already open there, but the language of the law makes it clear that it is also focused on consumer protection. And for good reasons. The Internet is replete with stories about people who bought a dog at a pet store, only to have that dog be terribly ill or have some genetic defect which results either in thousands of dollars of veterinary bills to treat/manage or which results in the death of the animal. The CDC has done multiple studies about pet store dogs spreading diseases to people, in some cases resulting in litigation. Then there is the less publicized scam in buying a pet from store: when the person who buys the animal does not understand they have leased the animal and it does not belong to them. I've heard a number of arguments against these laws, none of which are persuasive for me and some of which are just absurd. The laws take away personal choice. No. They do not. I admittedly promote adoption of animals from shelters and rescue groups. As much as I would like others to feel the same way, I cannot force them to share my values through magical thinking. I know plenty of people who get animals from breeders and cannot be persuaded to do otherwise. If someone wants to get a dog from a breeder, these laws do not prevent them from doing that. In places which have enacted laws about pet shops, that sale is just not facilitated in a retail setting. That does not mean the person cannot seek out a breeder of their choice who does not sell animals in retail stores. I read a blog on the website for the American Kennel Club which claims, "the purpose of these measures is get at not only retailers, but also breeders." We hear all the time that no "reputable" breeder would ever sold a dog or cat in a store, so people who have chosen to breed animals either for love of the breed or as a source of income are not affected by these laws. They are free to sell those animals directly to consumers just like they always have. These laws are only aimed at shutting down "puppy mills". It is true that the fewer pet stores in our country which sell dogs from large dog breeding operations (which I consider mills regardless of how well the dogs are cared for), the less profitable those operations will be. But to say the laws are only enacted to try to close those places loses sight of the primary purposes for the laws. Consumer protection. Perhaps a time will come when enough of these laws are enacted across the country when it will have a huge impact on those people currently breeding dogs for sale in those stores. The more stores which close or which switch to the rescue model, the fewer places there will be for the dogs to be sold. That time is a long way off. Millions of dogs are bred in the United States each year and this is a huge industry. The dogs are sold on the internet on websites which look polished and which leave the impression the parent dogs are well cared for. Dogs are also sold at auctions and in some cases, the dogs are being purchased by rescue groups which claim they are saving the dogs they buy from a fate worse than death while at the same time remaining willfully ignorant of the dog or dogs who will take the place of the dog they bought at auction using the money they paid.  The laws prevent people of color from getting a dog of their choice. This is a new argument I first heard a few months ago and the explanations go something like this: 1) Many shelters and rescue groups making adopting an animal incredibly difficult (this is often true) which; 2) negatively impacts people of color; so 3) those people who have not been able to get a pet from a shelter or a rescue group need the ability to get a pet of their choice from a pet store as an alternative. I am the first to admit that there are shelters and rescue groups which make adopting an animal so difficult that people just give up. There have been a couple of recent articles about this in the New York Times and in The Cut. We had a panel discussion as part of the No Kill in Motion series (from No Kill Movement) recently in which we talked about this subject. Organizations like CARE - Companions and Animals for Reform and Equity are working hard to shine a light not only on the lack of diversity in shelter leadership, but also on how difficult some shelters make it for people to adopt because of their judgment of the worthiness of those people. The work of CARE is invaluable and it is long past the time when we should be having these discussions about inclusion and equity. But for every shelter and rescue which makes adoption difficult, there are many more which are doing all they can to place pets in need by making adoption exceedingly easy by using open adoption counseling and providing animals who are fully vetted and microchipped, sometimes with the adoption fee being incredibly low or waived. To say that people who have been turned away from a shelter or rescue should go to a pet store as their next option is not compatible with the argument that there are scores of reputable breeders across the county who do not sell pets in stores. I plan to take up this issue of how these laws affect people of color with James Evans of CARE to get his take on the argument. I have written many times about the subject of puppy mills and pet stores. I have often wondered how different our country would be had the UDSA not tried to help struggling farmers some 70 years ago and recommended breeding dogs as a way to make money. We would still have dog shows and people would still breed dogs, but would we see the production and sale of millions of dogs a year like we do now while at the same time destroying millions of dogs in places we call shelters? We will never know. I have also wondered how people would feel if we had never sold dogs or cats in stores from commercial breeding operations (many of which house dogs in conditions we would consider criminal) and we suddenly started doing that. Would people be outraged? I'd like to think so. I hope a day comes when we see an end to the sale of dogs and cats in stores and when people instead get companion animals from shelters, rescues or from responsible breeders as a direct purchase. Stores are great for a lot of things. Furniture. Clothing. Food. Not for pets. It's time for that to end. The sooner the better. (image of pet store puppy courtesy of Hector Parayuelos)
There is a bill pending in the Colorado Legislature I firmly oppose because it is dangerous. House Bill 21-1120. I do not live in Colorado so you may ask, “why do you care about that bill?” I care because laws can be infectious both for the good and the bad. A bad law in one state can spread to others and I think it’s up to all of us to keep that from happening. Some explanation is in order. When I first learned at what was happening at the shelter in the city where I work over 15 years ago, I was shocked, angry, upset, and emotional. Like most Americans, I presumed that animals died in shelters because they were suffering. As I have blogged about before and wrote about in my book, I had a rude awakening in the summer of 2006 when I learned that healthy and treatable animals died at the shelter every day for no other reason than that is what had happened for years. “Catch and kill” and “first in, first out” were the status quo. I was like most people who probably should have known what was happening at the shelter, but just did not. It had not been on my personal radar. This unwelcome epiphany led me to a journey of educating myself about why this was happening not just in my area, but across the country. I came to realize that animal shelters in our country are, for the most part, our public shame. We call ourselves animal friendly and we say we cheer for the underdog while we hold our values above those of other cultures. Shame on us. Part of my education was learning about something called the Asilomar Accords. This was essentially a meeting of the minds in animal welfare which was held in Pacific Grove, California, in 2004. The stated goal of the Accords was to build “bridges across varying philosophies, developing relationships and creating goals focused on significantly reducing the euthanasia of healthy and treatable companion animals in the United States.” That may sound like great goals. What really happened was that the Accords focused more on people and not offending anyone and less on saving animals. The outcome was definitions for a series of words and phrases which are used to classify animals in shelters: Healthy Treatable/rehabilitatable Treatable/manageable Unhealthy and untreatable We are now almost 20 years removed from the Accords. The result has been not an increased focus on life-saving, but use of words by shelters which are inconsistent with the words are used by the public. The Accords have been used to categorize animals who could have, and should have, been saved, but instead were killed after having been put into a category that attempts to make that action more acceptable in some bizarre way. No one would dispute that an animal who is suffering or irremediably ill should be euthanized. But what about neo-natal animals? Old animals? Blind or deaf animals? Animals with conditions like epilepsy, megaesophagus, Wobbler’s Syndrome, paralysis, allergies or broken limbs? What about community cats? What about animals who get sick only after they enter a shelter or animals who develop behavior issues in the shelter due to the shelter environment itself? I think all these animals should be saved. Progressive shelters do save them. Regressive shelters do not. The words from the Accords are used as political cover to classify animals and then end their lives. It happens every day and may be happening in the community where you live.  This brings me back to Colorado House Bill 21-1160, called the Care of Dogs & Cats in Pet Animal Facilities. This bill is the Colorado version of the Accords, but worse because it says so little so poorly. It hinges on the definitions of two words that are not well defined: healthy and safe. Sound familiar? Much like the Accords have been used to classify and then destroy animals for almost two decades, this bill creates a license to kill. At the heart of the bill are definitions for the words “healthy” and “safe.” The fact that the bill does not define those words more specifically or by referring to an evaluation matrix is terribly problematic. This means that animals are put at risk for conditions or behavior which may lead to their death unnecessarily, some of which may have been created by the shelter environment itself. The bill also refers to a concept called Socially Conscious Sheltering which I have blogged about before; the words sound positive and they are. The issue is when those words are used to end the lives of animals needlessly. I know it can be hard for people outside of animal welfare circles to believe that animals in shelters are destroyed for having been classified using words, but it happens every day. Animal shelters use words like healthy, unhealthy, treatable, untreatable, safe and unsafe – all of which are open for interpretation - while making it sound like the animals were saved from some fate worse than death.  Also not included in the bill is any language setting forth the qualifications of the people making decisions on whether animals are considered healthy or safe and, by extension, which animals live or die. Is that a decision made by a veterinarian who is trained in shelter medicine? Does it involve evaluation by a trained behaviorist who evaluates dogs outside of the shelter facility itself (since many fear-based behaviors are caused by the way in which dogs are traditionally housed. We must remember that the animals who could pay the ultimate price from this bill are not just numbers on a sheet of paper. They are living, sentient beings who are worthy of our very best, because that is what the public expects. The dog destroyed may be our own who is so scared in a shelter he shows his teeth or cowers in a kennel corner. The cat destroyed may have been our neighbor's beloved pet who presented as feral out of fear because she had never been outside of her own home. I learned long ago that statutory law is a tricky thing; words in a law are there for a reason and if words are not there, that is with intent. If the same bill can be read by ten different people who come away with ten different interpretations, the bill is fatally flawed. A bad bill is worse than no bill. Once it becomes law, it can be complicated to say, "oh, no. That's not what we meant or what we intended." This is one of those bills. I have heard from many people that they interpret the wording of the bill differently than I do. That alone is a red flag which tells us this bill must be stopped to avoid taking Colorado back in time rather than making it more progressive. I applaud any city, county or state which decides to take proactive steps to improve the lives of pets in need and to help them either get back home or get to new homes. House Bill 1160 is not that bill. If you live in Colorado, I encourage you to read the latest version of the bill and then consider stating your opposition to the bill. It has already made it through the House and is set to be heard by the Senate Agricultural and Natural Resources Committee on April 22, 2021. You can email the committee members in addition to your own state senator. You can also sign up to testify remotely or using written testimony, which is what I did. If you do not live in Colorado, you can still have an opinion on this bill. The bill is backed by some organizations with lots of money and is being promoted by sponsors who likely are not educated enough on how animal shelters operate to see the danger this bill presents. The only way to stop the bill is for us to speak up and do our part to say there are better ways to help shelter animals in Colorado. To learn more, visit these links. MaxFund Opposition to House Bill 21-1160 No Kill Colorado Opposition to House Bill 21-1160 House Bill 21-1160 FAQs Sample Letters about House Bill 21-1160 Organizations Which Oppose House Bill 1160  Pop quiz. A dog wanders onto your property or up to your front door. He looks dirty, is thin and has some blood on his fur. He’s not wearing a collar and is a bit scared, but appears friendly. Which of the following describes how you react and what you do? You -
If you answered with number 1 only, I hope you never cross paths with a lost dog. If you answered with any combination of numbers 2 through 5, you likely don’t have a very high opinion of others and you may end up committing a crime. If you answered with any combination of 6-10, you are to be commended. Millions of us share our lives and homes with companion animals and most of us consider them family members. It can be difficult to think of them as property, but that is what they are considered under the law, just like our cars and our furniture. The big difference is that most of our property cannot get lost, get confused or feel pain. Case law on the subject of animals as property and the value of those animals when they are stolen or killed is evolving. We have not reached a time in our society that animals have a status separate from the other things we “own.” Other countries have taken that step. In some ways this is a good thing. As long as my dog is my property, I have certain rights regarding the ability of someone else to keep him from me or the ability of law enforcement authorities to seize him from me. Animals get lost for a variety of reasons and not all of them relate to people being irresponsible. Most of us have heard the story of the dog who went missing on a family trip after having managed to get through a hotel door during a bad storm. The Washington family looked for him for 57 days before he was found in a field near a subdivision. We hear all the time about pets who have gone missing after automobile accidents. A few years ago, just that happened to a co-worker of mine. My co-worker and her family were on their way home from a trip and were traveling on a major highway when they were involved in an accident. Their dog was in the car. Although he was not seriously hurt by the accident, he was scared. The minute they opened the door he ran and kept running. They looked for him for hours and were not able to find him that same night. They kept looking for weeks and were ultimately able to find him with the help of a team of volunteers. A similar thing happened just this past weekend in Arizona.  (image of Obi and his family courtesy of Nicole Rodriguez) Companion animals get lost or loose for so many reasons. A gate is left open, a contractor does not close a door, a child opens a door to go outside and an animal pushes past him or her. A dog or cat jumps a fence following a loud noise which scares them, including fireworks or gunshots. Our default assumption may be that an animal we encounter is loose because someone is to blame or people just don’t care enough. That is certainly the case some times, but most definitely not all of the time. My husband and I have personally encountered numerous lost animals over the years, many of whom we found on or near our rural property. I admit there was a time when I presumed the worst of people. I wondered how they could “allow” their pets to get loose or how they could care so little to “dump” their pets in a rural area, presuming they would be able to survive. My position on this has evolved over the years as my education on animal welfare issues has also evolved. We once had a shockingly thin hunting dog show up at our front door. “Buck” was wearing a tracking collar with a phone number which, thankfully, was still valid. It turns out he had gone missing from a pack of hunting dogs and had been missing for weeks. We didn’t feel great giving him back to the owner who showed little emotion when he came to retrieve Buck from our property, but we did it because it was the right thing to do. The last dog we “found” was crossing a busy highway a few miles from our house. I felt sure he would be hit by a car. Rich pulled into a nearby parking lot and was able to coax him toward our truck with some dog biscuits. “Buddy” was covered in mud so we took him home, cleaned him up a bit, contacted local animal control authorities to explain what happened (and in case there were any reports of a missing dog) and housed him in our workshop until we could get him to a rescue group which scanned him and held him for his “property hold period.” We drove around the area for weeks looking for lost dog signs and looking for properties my may have come from. He was a Great Pyrenees and we thought me might have come from a parcel on which livestock were kept. I posted about him on social media and on a website called Helping Lost Pets. I feel confident his family must have been looking for him just because he was such a stunning, laid back dog. The connection was never made and Buddy was later adopted by a wonderful family. I have often joked about “liberating” animals I see living in what I consider substandard conditions and know people who have done just that, one of whom was convicted a few years ago of theft and receiving stolen property. Another contact of mine is facing criminal charges now for her involvement with placing a blind dog who left his property, ran into the road and almost caused an accident. I hope she has found a criminal defense attorney and will find a way to negotiate return of the dog, perhaps with some agreement that the family not let a blind dog outside unattended. For me, it’s just talk. As much as I would like many of the animals I see to live the way my dog lives, they do not belong to me and there would be real world consequences to stealing them. I try to find other ways to help them either by donating items to be used for their care or enlisting the aid of rescue groups to approach the owners toward improving the conditions for the animals or encouraging the owners to surrender the animals instead.  (image courtesy of Chriss Pagani) I see information every week about animals who are lost and the people who find them. These are people I would ordinarily consider Good Samaritans who mean well, but may not always make the best choices. I also learn at least once every few months about someone who has purposefully stolen an animal or animals. They do this knowing who owns the animal but while having made a conscious decision to take one or more animals because they don’t think the owner is caring for the animal properly. If you find a lost animal, even if that animal comes on your property, you are not entitled to keep that animal any more than you are entitled to keep a car parked near your house with the keys in the ignition, the wallet you find when walking through a parking lot or the bicycle you see leaning against a wall outside of a business. If you knowingly keep a person’s property from them and/or later transfer that property to another person, you have committed a crime regardless of your good intentions. Every state has its own criminal laws about theft of property and receiving stolen property. In my state, theft of property in the fourth degree and theft of lost property in the fourth degree relate to property that is valued at less than $500. These are Class A misdemeanors which may result in a jail sentence of up to one year and a fine up to $6,000.00. Theft of property of theft of lost property valued at more than $500 but less than $1,000 are each Class D felonies which can result in a sentence of not more than 5 years and not less than 1 year and one day. Receiving stolen property is also based on degrees related to the value of the property and is a separate offense. I know this is an emotional topic. I know that people who find lost animals more often then not want the very best for them and are just trying to be helpful. This subject was recently explored on an episode of a popular television show called A Million Little Things; one of the characters in the show found a dog and kept him, only to learn about a year later that the dog's family had been looking for him and made flyers about their missing dog. As of this writing, "Gary" was struggling about what to do with the dog, whom he named Colin. The next time an animal in need crosses your path, please give some serious thought to how you would feel if your pet went missing. Wouldn’t you want the person who found your pet to presume the best of you, and not the worst, and do everything possible to help you find your lost pet? I know I would. Please take the time to at least contact local animal control authorities so you can get the animal into the animal control system and give the owners an opportunity to find him or her. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to take the animal to an animal shelter and leave him or her there. If you decide to find a new home for that animal yourself, whether you know who owns the animal or not, you are knowingly breaking the law and may be criminally charged and convicted. I hope a time comes when our companion animals have their own legal status as sentient beings. My couch cannot get up and wander away, crossing county lines. My car will not roll away on its own and end up miles from my office of my house. Some countries have changed their laws already. It’s time for us to get on board. It’s time to change the legal status of animals to protect them not as “things,” but as the creatures we love and value as they enrich our lives in countless ways. But in the meantime, please. Don't steal my dog.  |
AuthorI am an animal welfare advocate. My goal is to help people understand some basic issues related to companion animals in America. Awareness leads to education leads to action leads to change. Categories
All
image courtesy of Terrah Johnson
|
RSS Feed