Last week, the agricultural subcommittee of the Virginia House of Delegates considered House Bill 429, which would add the add the following sentence to section 3.2-6546 of the Virginia Code:
However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed.
AWLA Executive Director Kay Speerstra traveled to Richmond to testify in opposition to HB 429, and her testimony helped defeat the bill in subcommittee. When this sequence of events triggered an uproar in the local animal-rescue community, Speerstra sent an e-mail message to AWLA volunteers explaining her position. Here’s the substance of that e-mail message:
In my comments on HB 479 (sic), I specifically stated that AWLA does not employ breed bans, and I noted my personal opposition to breed bans in general. To be clear, my comments focused on the importance of permitting local municipalities to set their own adoption policies. Rather than having the Commonwealth set these policies for us, I support local decision-making on these issues. Communities throughout Virginia face varying fiscal, safety and security conditions, which may call for different and flexible approaches on many issues surrounding the animal adoption process. Local decision-making in this case will best meet the different needs of each locality and is ultimately in the best interest of the animals we care so much about. The comments that I made in Richmond expressed my concerns about this component of the legislation.
In other words, Speerstra personally opposes breed bans, but it’s important to her that animal shelters retain the right to prohibit adoption and euthanize animals based on breed alone.
In October, 2006, the Attorney General of Virginia issued the opinion that euthanizing a dog in a public shelter based on breed alone was illegal, but Speerstra believes this prohibition should be subject to “local decision-making.” A few decades ago, that philosophy was used to suppress voting rights and preserve school segregation. There’s a reason that laws defending basic rights of life and liberty are not left to local decision-making in this country.
Here’s the language of HB 429 in context, i.e. inserted into the relevant paragraph of section 3.2-6546 of the Virginia Code:
D. If an animal confined pursuant to this section has not been claimed upon expiration of the appropriate holding period as provided by subsection C, it shall be deemed abandoned and become the property of the pound.
Such animal may be euthanized in accordance with the methods approved by the State Veterinarian or disposed of by the methods set forth in subdivisions 1 through 5. However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed. No pound shall release more than two animals or a family of animals during any 30-day period to any one person under subdivisions 2, 3, or 4.
Why should this one provision be left to local decision-making?
Or if we accept Speerstra’s argument, then surely other provisions in the applicable code should also be left to the discretion of local animal shelters. How about this one?
B1. The pound shall be accessible to the public at reasonable hours during the week;
Clearly some localities might find this provision more burdensome than others. Why not let the shelters decide how and when to provide public access?
How about this provision of the Code?
B2. The pound shall obtain a signed statement from each of its directors, operators, staff, or animal caregivers specifying that each individual has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment, and each pound shall update such statement as changes occur;
Maybe that provision should be removed and the degree to which staff are vetted be left to local decision-making. And how about these provisions of the Code?
C. An animal confined pursuant to this section shall be kept for a period of not less than five days, such period to commence on the day immediately following the day the animal is initially confined in the facility, unless sooner claimed by the rightful owner thereof.
The operator or custodian of the pound shall make a reasonable effort to ascertain whether the animal has a collar, tag, license, tattoo, or other form of identification. If such identification is found on the animal, the animal shall be held for an additional five days, unless sooner claimed by the rightful owner. If the rightful owner of the animal can be readily identified, the operator or custodian of the pound shall make a reasonable effort to notify the owner of the animal’s confinement within the next 48 hours following its confinement.
Why should the Code be bogged down with such minor and specific restrictions?
Maybe because Virginia residents want to ensure that even homeless and friendless animals retain some basic rights and a fair shot at finding a home.
It sounds like Ms. Speerstra is quite the hypocrite. Why is she using our tax dollars to stop legislation that would help animals? It sounds like it is time for a new Executive Director at that shelter.
That is long overdue. They should also consider gaining a new “Chief” of animal control. Many, many decisions are based on her discretion.
I don’t think it’s an Animal Control issue at AWLA. Dog behavior evaluations (sometimes resulting in euthanasia) are done by the adoptions manager. Other euthanasia decisions (based on the animal’s health, cat behavior, too many hamsters, etc) are made by the kennel managers. I don’t think Animal Control Officers usually get involved with or know what happens to the animals they bring to the shelter. I’m sure they’ll follow up if there is a chance they were exposed to rabies, but under normal circumstances, they don’t. The ACOs probably have some input, say if an animal was particularly hard to deal with in the field. There are definitely inadequacies with Arlington Animal Control, but a lot of that is based on county and AWLA policy.
I agree Frank. Seems it’s time for a new thought process at the AWLA. Someone who is just as committed to the animals as they are to making money.