Endangered by new state law Why flail animal rescuers?

The Roanoke Times ^ | August 6, 2002 | SHARYN HUTCHENS

[07055]

WHAT does it take to get through to Virginia's legislators?

In April they passed and Gov. Mark Warner signed a law that is going to get someone raped or killed. The law requires animal rescuers, most of whom are women and many of whom live alone, to post their home addresses and telephone numbers publicly in pounds, open their homes to the public "at reasonable hours" and make their rescue records available to the public upon request.

As if that were not stupid and dangerous enough, these volunteers' homes are now subject to a warrantless inspection by the state veterinarian. If you are suspected of manufacturing drugs, the state needs a warrant to enter your home. Apparently taking in animals that no one else wants is more serious.

This law was pushed through by the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies, a program of the national animal rights organization Humane Society of the United States. By referring to rescuers as "agencies" and calling the law an amendment "relating to shelters, penalties," the Virginia federation managed to hide from legislators the fact that they were talking about people's homes.

But now, when contacted by citizens concerned for their safety, our legislators say, "Talk to the VFHS." Since when are we required to talk to a lobbyist about changes we want in our law?

Rescuers were already subject to the same animal welfare laws as their neighbors. The state has no business coming into the homes of private citizens performing a public service using their own money and time to help these animals.

This law does not need to be amended; it needs to be rescinded, and it needs it now - not when the General Assembly goes back into session.

Many people are giving up rescue rather than put their families at risk. Others will comply with the law. Will it take one of the latter being raped or murdered in her own home to get our "honorable" legislators' attention?

Or... will perhaps one of them, before that time, actually read what this law says and decide something needs to be done about it?

Virginia rescuers hope so.

SHARYN HUTCHENS of Lexington has been in dog rescue for 35 years, and breeds and shows Whippets.

[07055]

Any animal rescuers who live or rescue dogs in Virginia are urged to become part of our group working to overturn this unneeded and unconstitutional law. To become involved, just to go this website:

http://www.no-sb-260.com/

[Khepera]

Or quit rescuing animals.

[riverrunner]

If they don't want the trouble don't be into animal rescue. I would bet the law was past bcause some of the rescuers where keeping animals in inhumane condtions. I have seen this in Wis where these fruit loops get so many animals that they can not care for them. Forcing them to live in filty crowded conditons.Most of these animals should be put down takeing care of the problem

[07055]

And because there are some "fruit loops" who own guns, I guess we need warrantless searches of the homes of all gun owners?

Who needs the Fourth Amendment or the Second Amendment---we can always count on government to be fair and reasonable. Right?

[Wild Irish Rogue]

An animal "rescuer" is generally a volunteer with a parent organization-such as Poodle Rescue of Such and Such County,Cocker Spaniel Rescue ,Mixed Breed Rescue ,etc. The volunteers provide a temporary home for a dog,that may have been headed for euthenasia. The people involved in the "rescue" organization are well known to each other and the number of rescue dogs allowed in any one foster home, is usually restricted to one or two. They provide TLC and a temporary home, while a permanent home is found. I think you may be confusing these generous and giving people with the little old lady who has 80 cats in a trailer.

[gcruse]

On first reading this, I was irate. On realizing it was talking about 'animal rescuers,' I say let the VFHS handle it.

[07055]

I say let the VFHS handle it.

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.

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

To be fair, what was the reason for passing the law? What was the problem the law fixed? Half the story is not going to move me to feel bad about the animal rescuers.

[Eala]

The law requires animal rescuers, most of whom are women and many of whom live alone, to post their home addresses and telephone numbers publicly in pounds, open their homes to the public "at reasonable hours" and make their rescue records available to the public upon request.

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?

[supercat]

I got Casper back in 1993 from a woman in Rockford who took in strays and tried to find homes for them. I for one am very glad that this woman was involved with rescuing cats, since it's thanks to her that I got the wonderful cat who's now sitting near my feet wandering around, since I guess he found the ground near my feet too boring.

[NYCVirago]

What a beautiful cat you have! Rescue animals are the best!

[07055]

To be fair, what was the reason for passing the law? What was the problem the law fixed? Half the story is not going to move me to feel bad about the animal rescuers.

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.

[07055]

http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story135822.html

Editorial in today's Roanoke Times.

[07055]

What is an animal rescuer?

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?

[supercat]

What a beautiful cat you have! Rescue animals are the best!

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.

[supercat]

But shouldn't the sponsoring senator have understood his own bill? Rescuers have had two or three different "It wasn't intended to ..." answers from him.

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)?

[07055]

We feel that there are pretty good constitutional arguments should they ever try to enforce this law against people who refused to allow warrantless searches.

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).

[retiredtexan]

I have rescued many cats, and most of them still live with us. They have had all the necessary shots and tests. and are healthy and safe. I do not need the STATE to inspect my home or sanction what I am doing.I will not turn my animals over to the local pound for any kind of disposition.

[supercat]

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.