Richmond SPCA Blog

Chesterfield residents face new policy limiting cat ownership

Last night, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, despite overwhelming public opposition, voted to enact a zoning amendment that will limit the number of cats a resident can keep to six. Previously, there had been no limit. The reason for this change? According to the supervisors, a single situation involving just one resident in the county prompted the measure’s introduction and ultimate passage. The result? Policy, with immense unintended consequences, that will now affect countless residents and innumerable innocent cats – all to prevent a single individual from keeping a substantially large number of cats on her own property (it is worth noting that this person has been routinely found to be providing responsible care to her cats). If this approach to resolving a single issue sounds like a bad idea to you, that is because it unquestionably is.

Board of Supervisors Chair Dorothy Jaeckle, who represents the Bermuda district and introduced the amendment, assured those who attended the meeting that the county would not be proactive in its enforcement of the new law. I’d encourage residents of the county who keep more than six cats (now or in the future) to mention that when the county asks them to file for their special exceptions.

The Richmond SPCA, which has more than 15,000 constituents living in Chesterfield County, was present for the Board of Supervisors’ meeting last evening, and we were joined by other private organizations as well as residents who shared our wide array of concerns regarding this amendment. You can read the reasons we outlined for our opposition to the measure in the text of our remarks to the board.

The Richmond SPCA is grateful to Supervisor Chris Winslow, who represents the Clover Hill district, for speaking with us earlier in the week to hear our concerns related to this measure before it was presented last night for a vote. We also appreciate very much his efforts, though unsuccessful, to have the vote delayed so that other options or revised language could be explored. Mr. Winslow cast the sole dissenting vote yesterday evening, and we thank him for his rejection of an ill-designed, targeted policy that hurts many more people and animals than it could ever hope to help.

If you are a resident of the county and share our concerns and frustrations, I hope you will consider writing to your supervisor to let him or her know of your dissatisfaction.

Bermuda District
Dorothy Jaeckle
jaeckled@chesterfield.gov

Dale District
James M. "Jim" Holland
hollandj@chesterfield.gov

Clover Hill District
Christopher M. Winslow (Please thank him for voting against the amendment.)
winslowc@chesterfield.gov

Matoaca District
Steve A. Elswick
elswicks@chesterfield.gov

Midlothian District
Leslie A.T. Haley
haleyl@chesterfield.gov

---

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

A needless and indefensible death in Carroll County

I have recently spent time pleading for the life of a dog I have never met and whose name I do not even know.

I have done so because the situation was brought to my attention by some of my peers in the animal welfare field and the idea of this dog dying just seems so frustratingly unnecessary and therefore tragic. The dog seems to have a single blemish on his record. He killed a chicken and, for that reason, he was impounded in the government facility in Carroll County, Virginia, a rural county where the City of Galax is located.

While none of us is comfortable with a dog killing a chicken or any other animal for that matter, anyone who has worked in animal welfare for long knows that this behavior is not uncommon for dogs and can happen easily if the dog is in a rural location and his guardians do not put in place measures to prevent the dog from free roaming. Such an occurrence does not mean that the dog will be aggressive toward people or toward other dogs. It certainly does not mean that he needs to die. It does mean that such a dog must be adopted out with care to a home where he will not come into contact with small animals and to guardians who will be very careful about preventing him from having opportunities to kill or injure another animal. At the Richmond SPCA, we know that trustworthy adopters of that sort come along frequently and, with good counseling prior to adoption, can be relied upon to provide a loving home and responsible care for a long and full lifetime.

Under Virginia Law, a dog who kills livestock can be killed. However, the dog may also legally be rehomed to a state non-adjacent to Virginia. Significantly, just three weeks from now on July 1, 2016, Virginia law will change under HB1231 (passed by the 2016 Virginia General Assembly) to allow "the district court to order that any dog that has been found to have injured or killed only poultry be microchipped and either confined securely or transferred to another owner whom the court deems appropriate." Under current law, the court is required to order that such a dog be killed immediately or removed to another state.

The Richmond SPCA, Homeward Trails and the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies have all offered to pay to board this dog until July 1, 2016 at which time he could be transferred to any one of our groups. We have all also offered to find a rescue in a non-adjacent state immediately. These offers have fallen on deaf ears and we have gotten no response other than one terse emailed statement from Galax City Manager Keith Barker that the dog would not be transferred.

Why? When government animal control agencies wonder why they are disliked and when people who oppose the no kill philosophy whine that they are not understood, this is the sort of situation that they need to look at honestly for some answers. Not all of them would do this by any means but, when one of them does, it really erodes public confidence that they actually care about the welfare of animals. When a responsible organization has offered to provide a variety of resources to save the life of a dog, as I have done on behalf of the Richmond SPCA (along with other organizations as well), and when you have been completely polite and reasonable in your requests to be allowed to move this dog to another location and find a responsible home as we have been, but you have been summarily refused, the loss of life feels so very unnecessary. And that is not just tragic. It is deeply unethical.

So, I feel so very sorry for that nameless, adorable dog in the picture whom I have never met. So sorry that people are probably going to end his life when there were people who wanted to save his life and could have done so responsibly. Why does this continue to happen? Why would they prefer to make this choice? Because I can only conclude that they do prefer it. 

Update: This dog was in fact killed sometime yesterday. I found out last night. It is heart breaking. I believe this tragedy will trouble a great many people.

---

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

Related articles

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

Guest blog: Animal welfare issues before 2015 General Assembly include protections for puppies and primates

Animal Brigade service club gets students involved as young advocates

Don't be fooled by animal hoaxes

Every day we're reminded of the wonderful things that social media can do for the animal welfare movement. Sharing photos can help reunite lost cats and dogs with their families, can facilitate the transport of orphaned puppies with little prospect of adoption to the safe haven of a no-kill shelter, and can inspire donations to deliver lifesaving medical care to pets in dire need. 

However, April Fool's Day is an appropriate time for a reminder not to trust everything that comes across your news feed. Internet trolls feed on anger and outrage, and sometimes stoking the passions of animal lovers is a fire they start just to watch the world burn. One particular such troll took on the persona of an elderly Richmond woman and created a Facebook account as "Kat Tenna." Public posts from this profile were deliberately inflammatory on a variety of topics, but the ones that began to spread with a viral fever used real photos from news reports of animal cruelty and made blatant, outrageous statements of deliberate acts of cruelty. 

Feeding the voracious appetite of the troll, people from all over the country began to flood animal welfare groups, law enforcement agencies and news stations in Richmond with these reports yesterday evening. The Richmond SPCA's Facebook page was bombarded with hundreds of messages, and we responded to each one to explain the hoax and how to report the fake profile to Facebook for removal, which we were notified just before midnight that Facebook had acted upon. 

The messages, emails, calls to dispatchers and more all came from a good place. Genuine animal lovers, appalled by what they were seeing reached out from as far away as New Zealand to urge authorities to save a dog they believed was in danger. They were acting on what we've all learned: "If you see something, say something." And if you witness neglect or cruelty first hand, that is absolutely the right way to be programmed, to document and report mistreatment immediately. However, on the internet, a dose of skepticism is warranted and can prevent resources that can be devoted to a real animal or person in danger from being diverted in response to a hoax. 

How do you weed out the hoaxes, the cat-fishing and outright scams without ignoring an animal who is potentially in real danger? 

1. Google's reverse image search is an amazing tool. 
   This was the first step in ruling out that the "Kat Tenna" claims were false. Both of the photos she claimed to be of her own dogs could be found online in posts one to five years old that were connected to real news reports. 
   
   You can find many other methods, but Google makes it incredibly simple. At images.google.com, upload the photo or provide a link to the image you want to search. The results will show you matches online. We're opting not to show the images shared by Kat Tenna here, but they were connected to a 2015 case in Oklahoma and a 2011 case in the Philippines. 
   
   
2. Perhaps someone else has already done the research. 
   Just as you would hopefully search snopes.com if something about a "news" story shared by a distant relative doesn't smell right, there are websites and pages dedicated to debunking hoaxes involving animals. One of those is Animal Abuse Known Hoaxes on Facebook (warning: this page does include screen shots of graphic and disturbing images). If you have other favorites that are reliable, share them in the comments.
   
   
3. No results? It could be a valid threat. 
   Do your best to determine the location of the person and find the appropriate law enforcement agency to investigate animal cruelty in that locality. It can be as easy as plugging the search terms "report animal cruelty, Anytown, USA" into your favorite search engine. In most cases, that is not going to be a private organization such as ours, and social media is not the best avenue for serious or urgent communications such as this. 

We are truly grateful to live in a community with so many animal lovers willing to speak up when they suspect an animal has been mistreated. Thanks to all of you for your sincere concern and passion to make the world we live in a better one for animals. 

---

Tabitha Treloar is the director of communications for the Richmond SPCA. 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. 

Related articles

Animal Brigade service club gets students involved as young advocates

Guest blog: Animal welfare issues before 2015 General Assembly include protections for puppies and primates

Come home to your best friend: the Richmond SPCA's new adoption campaign

You can make all the difference for pets at government shelters

Every Monday through Friday, we visit government shelters around the Richmond Metro area, bringing dogs, cats, puppies and kittens in need back to our Robins-Starr Humane Center where we deliver to them all necessary care, including crucial medical treatment, prior to adopting them to loving, permanent homes. 

As our resources allow, we travel to other localities within Virginia and also to other parts of the country in order to save as many precious lives as possible. And we are always met with gratitude from animals and humans alike. Those working in our rural partner shelters are often especially elated to see our transfer van arrive, knowing that we bring hope for animals who have limited chances for adoption in their own communities.    

One such dog is Jake. He traveled to Richmond a few weeks ago from Cumberland County, but it wasn’t until after he arrived at our Robins-Starr Humane Center that we learned what a heart-wrenching journey this dog had endured. Friends of Cumberland County Animal Control shared that until very recently Jake had a guardian who loved him very much. 

Jake has since been adopted into a home where he will spend the remainder of his life with people to love and care for him. Although they can’t all tell us their stories, we specialize in second chances for pets like Jake. Your monthly donation of $12, $20, $35 or $50 will allow us to travel to a Virginia shelter to return with dogs and cats whose dreams will come true at our Robins-Starr Humane Center, all thanks to your support. Will you help today by becoming a Transfer Pals monthly donor? You may make your tax-deductible gift securely online here or call us at 804-521-1308.

Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for the love, safety and comfort you make possible for pets in desperate need of our saving.

---

Tabitha Frizzell Treloar is the director of advancement 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. 

Richmond City Council applauded for passage of bullhook ban

Testimony in support of the ordinance was made by Todd Woodson, Richmond SPCA CEO Robin Starr, HSUS Vice President for Wildlife, Nicole Paquette and HSUS Virginia State Director, Matt Gray.

Richmond City Council voted 8-1 Monday evening in favor of an ordinance to ban the use of bullhooks on elephants. Approval of the anti-cruelty measure earned praise from the Richmond SPCA and The Humane Society of the United States. Patrons of the paper to amend City Code concerning cruelty to animals were Charles Samuels, Chris Hilbert, Parker Agelasto, Ellen Robertson and Reva Trammell. 

"We are delighted that Richmond has taken this courageous step to further establish our city as one of progressive thinking about and compassion for animals," said Robin Robertson Starr, chief executive officer of the Richmond SPCA. "By banning bullhooks in Richmond, we help ensure that our children learn about wild animals' in their real habitats and encourage true respect and caring for the magnificent animals that share our planet."

“Richmond has long been a leader in the animal welfare movement and this vote is another illustration of that,” said Matthew Gray, Virginia state director for The Humane Society of the United States. “For too long, elephants in traveling shows have suffered as a consequence frequent striking by handlers wielding the sharp end of a bullhook. The decision by city council to ban the bullhook illustrates the deep compassion this city has for animals of all kinds; we are so grateful to city leaders for their support.”

Bullhook facts: 

• ​The use of bullhooks results in trauma, suffering, and physical injury to elephants. A bullhook can inflict lacerations, puncture wounds and abscesses to an elephant’s sensitive skin, which is rich in nerve endings and susceptible to abrasions.
• In March 2015, Ringling Bros. announced it will phase out the use of elephants in its traveling shows by 2018, citing in part a changing public attitude to the use and treatment of elephants in circuses, as well as the growing number of cities and counties across the country that have prohibited the display of elephants or use of bullhooks to train elephants.
• Safer and more humane alternatives do exist. Protected contact is an elephant management style based on positive reinforcement, utilizing food treats and praise. It was developed more than 25 years ago and is currently used by sanctuaries and most zoos that house elephants. 
• The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) adopted a new policy in 2014 that prohibits keepers from sharing unrestricted space with elephants and avoids the need for implements like the bullhook. ​

---

Media contacts: Tabitha Treloar | office: 804-521-1303 | email: ttreloar@richmondspca.org
Naseem Amini | office: 301-548-7793 | email: namini@humanesociety.org

---

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.

Attorney General’s office sets the record straight on legality of TNR programs

Thanks to Attorney General Mark Herring and his office’s Opinions Counsel Timothy Oksman, it is now clear that private people and organizations like ours can engage in trap-neuter-return programs ("TNR") in Virginia without fear of legal reprisals. A letter sent out from the Attorney General's Office during the previous administration in 2013 has been found by Attorney General Herring’s Office to have been inaccurate and therefore it has been wholly retracted. This is important and welcome news for everyone in Virginia who wants to help feral cats by providing them with spaying and neutering and rabies vaccinations through trap-neuter-return programs ("TNR"). 

The letter at issue, dated November, 2013, was sent to me, and also to Rob Blizard at the Norfolk SPCA, by Norman Thomas who was Opinions Counsel in the Attorney General’s Office at the time. The letter threatened us with criminal prosecution if we continued to provide spaying and neutering services to kind people helping feral cats by engaging in TNR. The City Attorney for Richmond was copied on the letter, apparently in hopes that he would take action to force us to stop providing such services. Yes, that is right, in hopes that our City Attorney would force a non-profit to stop providing free spaying and neutering services to the community. The basis for the irresponsible threats in Thomas' letter was an opinion letter dated July 13, 2013 that had been issued by Attorney General Cuccinelli to the Town of Front Royal. That opinion letter had said only that an agency of a local government may not itself engage in the “return” portion of TNR programs. 

Mr. Thomas, who indicated that he was writing the letter because he had been asked to do so but never specified who had done the asking, wildly misinterpreted the July 13, 2013 Cuccinelli opinion. First, he sought to apply it to us, a private non-profit organization that provides the veterinary medical services for feral cats for free, when the Cuccinelli opinion had explicitly limited itself to local governments. Secondly, the Cuccinelli opinion made clear that private people could engage in the trapping and the returning parts of TNR without being seen under the law as owners. The Richmond SPCA itself does not do the trapping or the returning; we just provide the veterinary medical services. The trapping and returning are done by caring individuals acting on their own who clearly under the Cuccinelli opinion are not violating the law either since they cannot be considered to be abandoning an animal they do not own.

When I got the threatening letter from Thomas, I discussed the letter with our Executive Committee and Board leaders and we agreed that it was obviously not based on an accurate reading of the Cuccinelli opinion. We knew, and still know, how very crucial our free sterilization and rabies vaccination services for feral cats are and we were not going to be intimidated into ceasing to provide them with no reasonable legal basis. I am deeply grateful for having Board leaders who are cool-headed and courageous because Thomas’ letter would probably have intimidated many organizations into stopping these crucial services. I replied to Thomas’ boss, Attorney General Cuccinelli, saying that we were confident that the interpretation of his opinion in Thomas’ letter was incorrect and so it would not affect our continuing to provide free spaying and neutering and rabies vaccinations for ferals in connection with TNR efforts. I never received any further communication from Thomas or his office whatsoever.

We are aware that the Thomas letter has been used by people and organizations in our state who oppose TNR programs, such as the Virginia Alliance for Animal Shelters, as the basis for inaccurate claims that TNR engaged in by private people utilizing the veterinary services of a private organization such as ours is not legal in Virginia. It is important that they stop spreading this false information now that our Attorney General's office has made clear that the letter Thomas wrote was wrong and has retracted it.

I am very grateful to Attorney General Herring and to Mr. Oksman for have set the record straight on this issue and, thereby, ensuring that caring people and organizations like the Richmond SPCA do not need to fear prosecution for continuing their good and charitable works to help and protect feral cats.

---

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.

Related articles

Paws for Health illuminates the power of good company

We Were Adopted! (April 20 - 26, 2015)

CEO Perspectives: The choices we make

Lethal Methods Backfire in Feral Cat Population Control Study, says Alley Cat Rescue

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.

Please contact Richmond City Council on behalf of elephants

While my messages to you often concern the dogs and cats which the Richmond SPCA shelters each day, it is an important part of our mission that we are called to be advocates for all animals. A paper introduced in the Richmond City Council to address the treatment of elephants provides just such an opportunity, and I am writing to ask that you lend your voice to speak for these intelligent, majestic animals who are forced to perform through punishing treatment with implements of cruelty.

The paper patroned by council members Chris Hilbert, Charles Samuels and Parker Agelasto seeks to ban the use of bullhooks and similar tools designed to inflict pain as well as the brandishing or exhibiting of such implements in order to train or control the behavior of an elephant. Such actions would become a Class 2 misdemeanor effective January 1, 2017 with the passage of the ordinance.

Please join us in supporting this measure by contacting your representative on City Council to urge a vote in favor of the paper when it comes before council. I encourage you to visit this link to determine the member of council who represents you. Those who profit from the cruel treatment of animals have been very vocal since the paper was introduced last week, and we as animal advocates need to stand together to say loud and clear that there is nothing radical about opposing the use of bullhooks on elephants. These are intelligent, sensitive animals with deep family relationships. Every child and adult who loves animals recoils upon learning that elephants endure painful stabbing to force them to perform unnatural stunts.

The adoption of this ordinance will further distinguish Richmond as a leader in the humane treatment of animals, but your help is essential to ensuring that outcome.

Thank you for your love of animals and your prompt action on this crucial issue!

Updates, Oct. 28, 2014: 

The Council agenda indicates that this issue is on schedule for the Dec. 8 meeting of Council. We expect that the paper will be heard by a committee in November, and we will provide further information as it becomes available.

Some have indicated that it would be helpful to have a sample message to send. However, it is important that constituents use their own words when calling or writing members of council and only only contact a council member if you are a resident of his or her voting district. Unique messages carry more weight than those received in duplicate. Messages should politely ask the council member to vote in favor of the ban on bullhooks and ensure more humane treatment of elephants visiting our city with traveling shows. You may also wish to state that pain and punishment of captive animals have no place in family entertainment.

Additional facts that could be incorporated:

• The use of bullhooks results in trauma, suffering and physical injury, often including lacerations, puncture wounds and abscesses to an elephant’s sensitive skin, which is rich in nerve endings and susceptible to abrasions.
• Elephant sanctuaries and most accredited zoos that house elephants no longer use these barbaric devices and instead rely exclusively on positive reinforcement, such as treats and praise.
• At least 40 US municipalities have passed full or partial restrictions on the use of wild animals in public displays and/or the use of bullhooks and more than 30 countries have passed national restrictions.

---

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.

---

We also hope that you will take a moment to read Michael Paul Williams’ excellent column that appeared in Friday's Times-Dispatch. In this column, Mr. Williams discusses the miserable lives to which wild animals are subjected in circuses. We agree with his well written piece and believe that the proposed ordinance that is before City Council to ban bullhooks is an important step in the right direction of a more humane circus.

Related articles

Banning the bullhook just the start for a more humane circus

Henrico couldn't tell us not to care about cats

There surely could be no better news that I could have received than the news that the cats had won. When I saw the message telling me that the Virginia Supreme Court had found in favor of Susan Mills and against the overbearing conduct of Henrico County with regard to community cats, I was thrilled and grateful. While the cats have been greatly helped by Susan as well as by the Richmond SPCA and their wonderful attorneys, Jack Robb and Will Shewmake of the law firm of LeClair Ryan, the success really belongs to the cats and to the powerful ethics of respect for the value of their lives and those of other creatures.

Susan Mills says she began feeding neighborhood cats when she first moved into her home in the Laurel Pines subdivision more than 30 years ago.

We all hope that the County will not pursue any new efforts to further persecute or threaten Susan or the cats that she has treated lovingly and responsibly for so many years. Everyone should learn to care for the animals with which we share our world in the dedicated way that Susan has done.

I could never adequately thank Will Shewmake and Jack Robb who have generously given their time, energy, professional expertise and moral support to Susan and to the Richmond SPCA to help us to protect the cats. We also are deeply grateful for the thoughtful opinion which supported a broader approach to the issue written by Justice William Mims and to Alton Wright of the Henrico Board of Zoning Appeals who made clear from his observations, and predicted at the BZA hearing, that the County's actions against Susan Mills were ill advised. I am also so thankful to our wonderful Board members who were willing to stick with our support for Susan's case throughout all of its stages because they knew it was the right thing to do.

Our greatest thanks of all goes to Susan Mills who has not only cared for and loved these cats for many years but who was willing to stand up courageously to the County for them. Together, as a team with Will and Jack, we showed that we can give animals the voice they deserve. It is wonderful to know that the voice we gave them was truly heard. Henrico could not tell us not to care.

---

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.

Related articles

Consider the value of your pet's companionship

The benefits of taking two

Contact DGIF by May 30 to advocate an end to horrifying cruelties of fox pens in Virginia

Fox pens are horrifying tools of animal abuse and it is shameful that they continue to be allowed to function in the Commonwealth of Virginia. In Virginia, foxes are trapped in the wild all over our state and thrown into electrified fenced enclosures for dogs to chase them down and frequently maul and kill them. In staged competitions, hundreds of dogs may be judged on how they aggressively pursue the outnumbered, captive foxes, all for a trophy and cash prizes. All the terrified and exhausted fox gets if he or she survives the competition is the chance to live until the next such horrendous occasion. We have urged both the Virginia General Assembly and the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (which licenses, regulates and inspects fox pens) to end this blood “sport,” which is not a tradition in Virginia since it only began in the 1980’s. How can one even think of using the word “sport” when one of the participants is grossly outnumbered and has no means of escape?

Currently, the Board of Directors of the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries is considering changes to the Virginia fox pen regulations in response to the public outcry over their abuses. View the proposed regulations here. These proposed regulations are weak and unenforceable, and they will most likely do nothing to reduce the number of foxes injured and ripped apart by dogs in pens. In addition, the Board heard a great deal of expert testimony about the fact that the fox pens constitute a great threat to the massive spread of rabies in Virginia. The Department’s own staff recommended including a new regulation to address the rabies issue but the Board itself struck the proposed regulation down. Virginia citizens need to tell the Board that the time is now to rid the state of its last legal blood sport and stop fox penning.

The Board has asked for public comments on these proposed regulations by May 30. Please send a quick note using the link below to The Virginia Board of Game and Inland Fisheries asking them to prohibit fox pens and to protect us from the spread of rabies. The animals need your voice! There will be no positive change for these animals unless the Board hears from you that you want both the animals and the people of Virginia protected. If they do not hear from the people like you who love animals, then they will believe that no one cares about these precious animals and their fate in these fox pens.

Here are some topics that you could comment on in your message to the Board if you wish:

1. Pens are fenced enclosures where dogs are released to chase down captive foxes, often in competitions. No matter the size of the enclosure, the dogs often catch and kill the foxes. In just five years, Virginia operators reported to have taken more than 6,000 foxes from the wild for this cruel enterprise.
2. We have it in law that wildlife cannot be possessed, bought and sold, yet these fox pen operators take foxes by the thousand for their private amusement and financial gain.
3. These pens have zero wildlife management value and are a threat to public and wildlife health. It's shameful our state agency is spending resources attempting to manage this fenced game. There is no question (and the experts have confirmed) that fox pens constitute a Russian roulette for the spread of rabies because foxes are a vector species for rabies and they are being transported by unvaccinated people and being attacked by many unvaccinated dogs.
4. These pens go against our traditions of fair chase and our morals, and no ethical hunter would have anything to do with them. Nor would any real mounted fox hunter. This activity has nothing to do with the tradition of mounted fox hunting.

Send your comments to the following email address: regcomments@dgif.virginia.gov. You must include full personal identifying information for your comment to be considered. Many thanks from me and from the innocent animals whose lives are at stake.

---

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 a first and last name to be used as your screen name.

Related articles

The truth about the American Kennel Club is exposed on the Today Show