SB1381: Governor's signature establishes private animal shelters must have purpose of finding adoptive homes

When Napoleon entered our care he was nearly blind and suffering complications from untreated diabetes. After surgery for cataracts and 7 months of rehabilitation, he was adopted and became a beloved member of the Butler family.

I, along with many other deeply committed Virginia animal welfare professionals, worked very hard to persuade the General Assembly to pass Senate Bill 1381, patronned by Senator Bill Stanley, and we were thrilled when it did pass by a large margin. Recently, Governor McAuliffe signed that bill into law, thereby ensuring that private animal shelters in Virginia will have to be “operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes.” This is a standard that I believe almost all private shelters in Virginia meet and that the public expects all of them to meet. However, the outlier is the facility in Norfolk operated by the ironically named People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). That facility is licensed in Virginia as a private shelter but has for many years killed about 90% of the unfortunate dogs and cats that enter it. Recently, PETA workers also stole Maya, a young healthy Chihuahua, from the porch of her own home after many efforts to lure her off the porch had failed (all this is captured on video the veracity of which has never been challenged by PETA). They killed her that very day along with several other apparently young and healthy dogs and cats they took from the same housing area.

Despite the fact that PETA spent a great deal of time, money and effort fighting Senate Bill 1381 tooth and nail, the votes were not even close: 95 to 2 in the House and 35 to 1 in the Senate. PETA continued, after the bill’s passage in the General Assembly, to try to get the Governor to veto the bill but failed at that effort as well. Considering their vast financial resources and extensive connections in this state, it is quite a statement that they lost their efforts by such enormous margins.

The Richmond SPCA took Scarlet into its care when her guardian passed away. After stabilizing her insulin levels to manage diabetes, we found her a wonderful home with the Evangel familly.

So, now it gets interesting. PETA, which saw the bill as a big enough threat that they fought it desperately, now is saying that it makes no difference as a law. They and many of their advocates are arrogantly claiming that they will do nothing differently. The new PETA party line is that they have always tried to get animals adopted but, as they are quoted in the Huffington Post, “PETA will also continue to serve those most in need in our community—the old, sick, and injured animals, who comprise most of those PETA takes in when no one else will.” Note the telling use of the word “also” which makes clear that they see old, sick and injured animals as not being among those that they will get adopted. It would appear that what PETA believes that these groups of animals “in need” are actually in need of is death.

I find this appalling. One of the richest animal organizations in the world is saying that old, sick and injured animals cannot be adopted and must be killed. That certainly is not our philosophy here at the Richmond SPCA and is not a philosophy that is acceptable today given the enormous progress that we have made in saving homeless animals from death.

Stark (formerly Maestro) was adopted by the Roberts family after the Richmond SPCA brought his seizure condition under control and performed lifesaving surgery to remove his spleen.

The PETA statement that no one else takes in old, sick and injured animals is simply a lie. The Richmond SPCA accepts into our care many senior pets and we see age as no impediment to their being adopted. We also take in thousands of sick and injured animals annually and provide veterinary treatment and rehabilitation to every one of them whose condition is treatable (which is almost all). If PETA’s statement is suggesting that they do not and will not provide such veterinary care and rehabilitation, then they need to make that position clear to the public and own it. They need to explain publicly why an organization operating on annual budget in excess of $35 million is not willing to treat and rehabilitate the sick and injured animals in its care but rather has killed and intends to continue to kill all of them.

When PETA spokespersons are asked by reporters and others to clarify what are their health and behavioral standards for determining that an animal should be killed and who exactly is making that determination, they never will give an answer. If, as it would appear, they are killing all of the elderly, sick and injured animals that come into their care and spending none of their many millions of dollars in assets to treat those that are treatable and save their lives, there is just one word for that. Reprehensible.

---

Robin Robertson Starr is the chief executive officer of the Richmond SPCA. To read her biography or that of our other bloggers, please click here. Before posting a comment, please review our comment guidelines. Please note that our comment policy requires both your first and last name to be used as your screen name.

Comments

[Lisa Garr]

So disturbing...I know of many people who are willing to adopt sick animals- my dog is a perfect example. He was a stray on the streets of Miami who had horrible Demodectic Mange. We adopted him and nursed him to health with no reservations. He is now healthy and 13 years old...a perfect example of what Robin is saying. Sick and injured animals should have a chance to heal and be adopted, not sent to the kill room. Shame on PETA.

[Adri Golden]

No more donations to PETA from me!

[Wendy Tucker]

So very glad to hear of this common sense decision! True animal shelters have nothing to fear, and I hope this helps put PETA out of business once and for all. This is a huge victory for animals!

[Doreen Forbes]

~~what a victory!...altho I know it isn't over, it's an amazing 1st step...congrats to all the hard work put in by those who care!!!

[Bonnie Jones]

Thank you for this story. I think when most people are educated about who PETA truly is, they will stop supporting PETA. I believe most PETA contributers were scammed by the group who falsely claims to help animals.

[Michael Boshears]

I'm sorry, but I will continue to support Peta. As one who has had a seriously--likely mortally--injured FIV cat show up at my doorstep and had to make the heartbreaking decision to euthanize him, I do understand that there are cases where euthanization is necessary. Having said that, there are some things Peta espouses with which I do not agree. Nevertheless, they are a force for good in this world and I believe that every animal rescue/welfare organization-including the SPCA-has benefited from their efforts. I researched the SPCA and see it's name connected with some pretty bad publicity too: not spending donated funds on animals and the like. Clean up your own house before you criticize another's.

[Nancy Peters]

PETA really needs to be stopped and people need to realize that they are not for saving animals. I absolutely will not support them.

[Suzanne Cavallo]

Why is PETA getting away with killing animals when they want the world to believe they advocates for animals??? They are disgraceful. They will never get another cent from me.

[Brenda Jackson]

If PETA doesn't get there name on the news or in the paper for saving animals then there not interested...They shouldn't even be involved in small animal rescue because there not any good at it so STOP PETA !!!

[edna bodiam]

My own personal belief is thst all animals deserve a happy life. .the no kill advovacy..is the only way forward. .treating older dogs with same respect is also part of the no kill equation. .I they r sick treat them. .every animal matters..euthenizia should only apply when situation for that animal is terminal.

[Linda Keen]

PETA needs to be stopped. They should have to obey the laws. Older animals and sick animals should have a right to have a chance to get better. The dog they took off the porch was not sick and they had no right to take that puppy from it's porch and kill it when the owner was taking care of it. I think charges should be taken against this organization and the ones responsible. I hope someone enforces these new laws and they don't get by with this treatment of older animals.

[Stephanee Rose]

It is heartbreaking for most of us to have to put down a suffering family member, as I did in 2004, for my 16 yr old feline son who was suffering from advanced kidney disease. It was 3 yrs before I could adopt again: my feline boys will be 8 next month! I shudder to think what could have happened if PETA operated in our NO-Kill City, Jacksonville, FL.

[Sierra]

BTW, peta, since when is murdering animals ethical? This bill is a victory only if peta is prosecuted for murdering animals and shut down for good!

[Marilyn Durst]

What are they doing with $35,000,000.00 every year? Smaller rescues all over the country work very hard at finding homes for older, sick, injured or handicapped animals. Their dedication results in successful rehabilitation and rehoming of hundreds of thousands of animals every year. Without checking, I'm sure that not one of them has an annual budget than even approaches $35,000,000.00. If you want to support an animal welfare organization, choose one of those operating on a prayer and a promise. PETA needs to end.

[Marilyn Durst]

I have never donated a red cent to PETA and I never will. If, however, there is an effort to shut them down and donations for that are needed, let me know.

[Tabitha Treloar]

Michael Boshears, your financial support of PETA is certainly your choice, and we are strong advocates of well-informed philanthropy. As for the cat you describe on your doorstep, if he was in fact mortally injured and suffering, the decision you made to euthanize him was done under the true definition of that word “euthanize.” That is “the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy” and is consistent with the no-kill philosophy that the Richmond SPCA embraces. What we and other no-kill leaders object to is the taking of the life of an animal when the animal is healthy or could be restored to health with veterinary intervention (meaning, the animal is “treatable”). PETA has refused to respond when they have been asked about their own criteria for “euthanasia” determinations, as they were by Huffington Post editor Arin Greenwood in this article.

Regarding your research of our organization, there is no “the SPCA” or any grouping of humane organizations with SPCA in their name. The Richmond SPCA is an independent, local, private non-profit operating in Richmond, Virginia and is not a chapter or affiliate of any other local or national animal welfare organization. The accusation you’ve made of misappropriation of funding is baseless and has no connection with the operations of the Richmond SPCA, which has been recognized by Charity Navigator with their highest rating for fiscal responsibility, four stars, for multiple years. You can find our profile here.

[Sandra Vawter]

I too was duped into believing PETA is an organization protecting all animals. Recently, however I have found out the true facts about PETA and their practice of killing perfectly healthy animals. I will NEVER give them another penny of my hard earned income.

Thank you Richmond SPCA for all your diligence in the protection of all animals by passing the all important Bill.

[sandi]

Anyone who supports PETA is really uninformed or ignorant of the facts