Posted on 08/31/2002 6:41:26 PM PDT by 07055
http://www.no-sb-260.com/
Who needs the Fourth Amendment or the Second Amendment---we can always count on government to be fair and reasonable. Right?
Unfortunately, the way the "problem" is handled by many animal shelters is with the needle.
This is unavoidable for many dogs---there are not enough homes for all of the unwanted dogs and cats.
But, rescue groups are often able to find homes for animals that would be killed by shelters for space reasons.
Please don't get animal rescuers confused with people like PETA or HSUS---we are as opposed to those groups as most FReepers are. We are just softhearted people who love animals and want to help find them homes.
This is bizarre. Not "to (specified government agency)" but "to the public"! What prompted this? Or are Virginia legislators as stupid, arrogant, careless and otherwise indifferent to anything but re-election as legislators in my state?
How did this law come about? We believe there is a strong possibility that it is payback to whistleblowers:
http://www.no-sb-260.com/whyhappen.html
Virginia pounds and shelters aren't much to be proud of. Although the best of them are wonderful, only 10-15% are in full compliance with the law and there are some real hellholes. Volunteer rescuers are the most likely and determined whistle blowers and we've made some people pretty mad.
In the 1990s the The City of Richmond Animal Pound had a reputation for unsanitary and inhumane practices, even for outright cruelty. Euthanasia, for example, is required by Virginia law to be painless but was being done by the very painful method of "heart-sticking". In 1996 a group of concerned citizens formed SOS (Save Our Shelters) to press for change. Within a few months the group grew to over 30 and began to do a lot of animal rescue work as well. The fight to clean up the Pound was a long one, fought with Freedom Of Information Act requests and pictures from the SOS side and with harassment from the pound side.
One of the discoveries was that the State Veterinarian had had many complaints about the unsatisfactory conditions at the Richmond pound and indeed, there were similar reports about infractions at other pounds. The State Vet, however, had taken no action on these complaints and listed those pounds as being 'in compliance,' with animals receiving good care.
.... In 1999 the management of the Richmond City pound was replaced. SOS then pressed for a law that would allow fines to be levied against chronically sub-standard animal pounds unless they were doing their best to improve. The law was passed unanimously in 2000. However in 2001 and again in 2002 the effective date was delayed by lobbying from the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies.
Who were the drafters and chief lobbyists for SB 260? The VFHS. And after being made to look much worse than 'inefficient' by SOS' ongoing exposure of his failure to act on reports from his own investigators, what would you guess is the State Veterinarian's view of animal rescuers?
In our opinion 'rescuer control and payback,' is a third important reason for SB 260. And if the law survives, the next rescue group that campaigns to clean up an animal pound will have an even more dangerous battle because the State Vet will be able to call for rescuer searches at will and (since the law is too vague to know if you are 'legal'), find as many violations as he wants.
If you take in more than six companion animals per year, or three and three unweaned litters then after January 1, 2003, you must register with the State Veterinarian (SV) as a 'Companion Animal Rescue Agency' (CARA). If a CARA uses foster homes, those foster homes must also be registered with the SV unless they take only two or fewer dogs per year.
CARAs must be open to the public during 'reasonable hours.' Since this is similar to the wording used for pounds, ('reasonable hours during the week') this looks like a requirement for a schedule of hours when the private home is open to walk-in visitors. Does this mean that private home owners are expected to open their homes to unscreened strangers during business hours? Only by appointment? Does it mean you can't say 'No' if someone nasty wants to come?
It is certainly true that CARAs can go "underground"---I imagine many of them will. But why should they have to do that?
Casper was a two-year-old fraidycat when I got him; his name refers to his ability to make himself disappear. It's amazing what a few years of loving care will do to a kitty. And when my wife was around, she made him even sweeter. Maybe he figured that compared the way she Elmyrized him [see picture in profile], perhaps I wasn't so bad after all >:*3.
Do any of these "it's not intended to..." answers appear in "official" sources? I wonder if any of them could be used to challenge application of the law to people's private homes (since that was supposedly not the legislative intent)?
The problem, of course, is that it will cost a lot of money to hire a lawyer experienced in constitutional issues. Thousands of dollars at least--if not tens of thousands.
And dog rescue people are generally not loaded with extra cash given that each dog is placed for less than the vet bills spent on him. (Our group charges $200 but we average expenses of $250).
The woman from whom I bought Casper charged $10, but I think I paid her $25. Best $25 I ever spent in my life, save perhaps (just perhaps) for the money I spent on match.com before meeting my other (late, alas) Sweetie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.