Help Pass the Florida Animal Rescue Act
- by: No Kill Nation
- recipient: Florida State Senators; Florida State Representatives
As indicated in a recent Associated Press poll, seven out of every ten Americans do not believe that shelters should kill healthy and treatable animals. But members of the general public are frequently under the illusion that animal shelters would never need a law that legally requires them to transfer animals to qualified rescues instead of killing them, because not to do so simply defies logic, shelters would never act irrationally and immorally by wasting taxpayer money by killing and disposing of animals that rescue groups were willing to save.
However, the consistent response from rescue groups in Florida, and many other states like Washington, New York, and California, is that shelters frequently make it difficult or impossible for rescue groups to save animals.
The following are some quotes from a survey of 600 Florida rescue groups across the state:
One rescue group says: "Animal Control makes the determination on a case-by-case basis often preferring to kill an animal than releasing it to ANYONE"
Another states: "If staff are having a bad day or feel like denying you access for any reason, they will simply refuse to let you rescue an animal, even if it was allowed beforehand."
And, finally, another rescue groups says: "[These] situations arise constantly. Small rescue groups, especially, don't know where they stand day to day, and cannot rely on continued support or cooperation from staff. You feel the need to constantly 'suck up' to the person in charge, which still doesn't guarantee you will be allowed to rescue the animal(s) you have identified. You find yourself trying to time your rescue work when the kindest people are on duty, avoiding the staff who are rescue-unfriendly or who don't want to process any additional paperwork."
These sentiments are representative of the 63% of respondents that indicated at least one Florida state shelter refused to work cooperatively with them and then turn around and kill the very animals they were willing to save.
The Florida Animal Rescue Act will make it illegal for shelters to kill an animal that a qualified 501(c)(3) rescue organization is willing to save. The bill also requires that all public and private animal shelters publicly document the intake and outcome for each animal, and to disclose the shelter's performance for all animals under their care.By prohibiting the needless killing of an animal that a qualified rescue group is willing to save, this groundbreaking legislation will shift the focus of shelters from killing to saving lives. In addition, by requring public accountability, Florida residents will know, for the first time, what actually happens to animals in shelters, what takes place out of the public eye, and ultimately how their taxpayer dollars are being spent.
To learn more about the Florida Animal Rescue Act, and contact your State Representative directly, please visit www.floridarescueact.com
To send a message directly to the Senate President to ask him to put this legislation to a vote, please use the following Action Alert: http://www.capwiz.com/thenokillnation/issues/alert/?alertid=60944681&type=CU
As indicated in a recent Associated Press poll, seven out of every ten Americans do not believe that shelters should kill healthy and treatable animals. But members of the general public are frequently under the illusion that animal shelters would never need a law that legally requires them to transfer animals to qualified rescues instead of killing them, because not to do so simply defies logic. However, the consistent response from rescue groups in Florida, and many other states like Washington, New York, and California, is that shelters frequently make it difficult or impossible for rescue groups to save animals.
The following are some quotes from a survey of 600 Florida rescue groups across the state:
One rescue group says: "Animal Control makes the determination on a case-by-case basis often preferring to kill an animal than releasing it to ANYONE"
Another states: "If staff are having a bad day or feel like denying you access for any reason, they will simply refuse to let you rescue an animal, even if it was allowed beforehand."
And, finally, another rescue groups says: "[These] situations arise constantly. Small rescue groups, especially, don't know where they stand day to day, and cannot rely on continued support or cooperation from staff. You feel the need to constantly 'suck up' to the person in charge, which still doesn't guarantee you will be allowed to rescue the animal(s) you have identified. You find yourself trying to time your rescue work when the kindest people are on duty, avoiding the staff who are rescue-unfriendly or who don't want to process any additional paperwork."
These sentiments are representative of the 63% of respondents that indicated at least one Florida state shelter refused to work cooperatively with them and then turn around and kill the very animals they were willing to save.
Instead of voluntarily working with rescue groups, shelters instead argue that a rescue access law will increase costs, lead to hoarding, and lead to dangerous dogs being released to the public.
This is a complete fabrication. These shelters fail to discuss the cost savings and additional revenue that would result from the bill, namely, reduced killing, reduced body disposal, and increased revenues from transfers. The bill specifically allows shelters to charge rescue groups a fee. This was not included in any of their calculations. California also has a constitutional provision against unfunded state mandates and their rescue access law survived a challenge, as the CA Dept. of Finance analysis and the Commission on State Mandates specifically found the provision was revenue neutral (with savings that outweighed any costs). It also found that shelters were grossly inflating costs and ignoring savings and additional revenues.
Secondly, a rescue group access law does not expose animals to undue risk of hoarding because animal control entities have power to investigate where there is suspicion that animal abuse and neglect is occurring. And, in fact, HB 597/SB 818 specifically excludes organizations with a volunteer, staff member, director, and/or officer with a conviction for animal neglect, cruelty, and/or dog fighting, and suspends the organization while such charges are pending.
Moreover, there is no established causal link between rescue group access laws and hoarding. First, there are many low or no-cost sources of animals; there is no need to pay shelter adoption fees for the purpose of acquiring animals.
Most hoarding situations involve individuals who take on too many animals; the rescue groups to which Florida shelters must release animals will be qualified 501(c)(3) rescue and adoption organizations. Despite the claim that this is just a "tax status," such organizations are composed of networks of individuals run by boards of directors who have established procedures for getting animals the care they need and adopted into homes. In order to obtain 501(c)(3) status, such organizations have to provide information about their board members and operating procedures. They must also show evidence of public support for what they do. For instance, by showing the IRS the number of volunteers they have and the extent of donations they receive. And to retain their IRS status, rescue and adoption organizations must abide by the law, including anticruelty laws.
Furthermore, they would have to register with several Florida agencies, including the Department of State, Department of Revenue, and Department of Agriculture Division of Consumer Services. In other words, there are plenty of safeguards in place.
In summary, in the absence of any legal mechanism to require that shelters work with rescue groups, rescuers have a much more difficult time trying to save lives and improve shelters and are fearful of the shelters' unchecked power to retaliate against them. The result is that animals who are neglected and even abused in shelters are more likely not to be helped, and animals who would otherwise be rescued end up being killed. That is a violation of shelters’ fiduciary duty to both the animals and taxpayers they serve, and the reason why HB 597/SB 818 is necessary to put an end to this arbitrary practice, and guarantee the right of rescue groups to save shelter animals.
Thank you for taking the time to read our letter. We strongly urge you to support this legislation.By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.
Having problems signing this? Let us know.