AWLA Hawk

The Virginia General Assembly passed HB 281 yesterday without the language that was added as an amendment by Gov. McDonnell…

However, no pound may euthanize, or prohibit the adoption of, any dog based solely on breed.

…but excised by the Speaker on the grounds that it was not germane to the bill itself, which stiffened penalties for animal-cruelty violators.

As when this language was offered in HB 429 in January, it triggered strong opposition from managers of traditional shelters. Sharon Adams, Executive Director of the Virginia Beach SPCA, sent a long letter to legislators on Tuesday urging them to reject the HB 281 amendment. A reader passed a copy of her letter along to us — here’s how it starts:

As you are aware, the Virginia Beach SPCA and many of the largest progressive animal organizations throughout Virginia are very opposed to the Governor’s amendment to HB281, similar to the original bill, HB429. Some of those in opposition include the Animal Welfare League of Alexandria, Animal Welfare League of Arlington, Danville Humane Society, Loudon Animal Care and Control, Rockingham- Harrisonburg Humane Society, Bristol Humane Society and the Virginia Beach SPCA.

Ah, the two AWLAs again. Despite the effort of animal-welfare activists and the departure of Kay Speerstra, our local shelters don’t appear to have changed their views. Speerstra’s testimony in January against HB 429 focused on the importance of “local decision-making”. Interestingly, Adams’ letter doesn’t mention that argument at all.

Instead her letter makes a number of points about the difficulty shelters have finding homes for pitbulls, given the general public prejudice against them and the restrictions imposed by landlords and homeowners insurance policies.

Valid points, but I don’t see their relevance to the debate. The amendment wouldn’t have prohibited euthanization decisions based on kennel space or a dog’s tenure at the pound. It would only have guaranteed that every dog has a chance, however small, at finding a home.

Here’s another excerpt:

All adoption policies that related to breeds would be prohibited by this bill. For example, the VA Beach SPCA has an adoption policy to not adopt Huskies to families with cats, not because we don’t like Huskies but because we do like cats. Huskies have such a high prey drive… that it puts the cats in the household in danger…

I’m not sure how Adams concludes that the amendment language would force a shelter to offer a husky to a family with a cat. The language doesn’t guarantee an adopter the right to adopt the animal of its choice. Under current law, shelters have to screen adopters — they can’t offer animals to convicted animal abusers. If aspiring adopters have cats, or bunnies, or ferrets, or small children, shelters can steer them away from certain dogs and breeds. This happens every day, and the amendment wouldn’t have affected it.

Adams goes on to ask:

How does a municipal pound defend itself against future allegations and lawsuits when often there is no agreement over what breed a dog is? How do they “prove” that their decisions are based on public safety, not breed?

This, I suspect, is the real reason behind the resistance to the amendment.

(Ironically, Adams makes the exact point that the law’s proponents have been trying to make: it is often difficult or even impossible to ascertain a dog’s breed or combination of breeds. So breed-based policies — like killing certain breeds or prohibiting their adoption — don’t make sense when you can’t be sure what you’re killing or refusing to adopt out.)

Under the HB 281 amendment, shelters wouldn’t have to worry about allegations or lawsuits unless they killed dogs based solely on breed. Since Adams argues that breed assignments are debatable, breed-based policies effectively become appearance-based policies. And as the find the pitbull test reminds us, that’s a slippery slope.

So shelters would only be at risk if they condemned a dog like Sharky to death based entirely on his appearance, the minute his five days were up and he remained unclaimed. To stay within the law, all the shelter would have to do is assess Sharky’s behavior.

But Adams’ letter claims:

…most pounds do not have the resources to perform behavior assessments which would be necessary to defend against allegations that their decisions were based on breed “solely”.

That sounds questionable, given the other responsibilities shelters bear… but then fine, let someone else do it.

Before killing any dog, a shelter could notify local rescue groups and give them a chance to take it. Let a qualified and motivated rescue organization determine the dog’s prospects for adoption or rehabilitation. It worked for the Vick dogs. In other words, implement Oreo’s Law.

In Adams’ opinion:

Pit bulls are not being adopted from municipal shelters for reasons having nothing to do with adoption and euthanasia policies real or imagined. This bill does absolutely nothing to change any of that.

Defeating the bill also does absolutely nothing to change any of that. What would change it is implementing policies like Oreo’s Law, along with the demonstrably successful programs undertaken by the open-admission shelters that supported the bill, like Charlottesville and Richmond.

The numbers don’t lie; the shelters supporting the HB 281 amendment have far better animal outcomes than those opposing it. And if Adams thinks it’s a matter of scale (her letter states that Virginia Beach SPCA takes in thousands more animals than Richmond SPCA), she should talk to Bonney Brown at the Nevada Humane Society, which takes in thousands more cats and dogs than Richmond or Virginia Beach.

Of course, with the right leadership at Virginia’s animal shelters, the HB 281 language wouldn’t even be necessary.

Shelters like those in Richmond, Charlottesville, and Reno are charting the path forward, and those impeding progress should follow or get out of the way.

In January, we posted an entry describing AWLA Executive Director Kay Speerstra’s efforts to help defeat Virginia House Bill 429, which would have added 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.

Speerstra and others opposed to the ban on breed-based killing were able to celebrate the defeat of HB 429 — until yesterday, when Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell added the language as an amendment to just-passed HB 281, which increases the penalties for violating Virginia’s animal-cruelty laws.

As Virginia’s Attorney General in 2006, McDonnell had previously issued an opinion that breed-based killing by public animal shelters was illegal under Virginia law. As Governor he has thrown down the gauntlet to members of the General Assembly; delegates voting to protect breed-based killing will now also be voting to shield repeat animal-cruelty offenders.

That’s one vote that’s going to be hard to explain away.