You probably don't believe that she kills animals for fun. You may know this but after the rulings in the Dianne Whipple case, everything changed in CA shelters. The bar got raised very high for adoption out of fear that organizations would be sued into oblivion if they adopted out a dog that turned out to hurt someone.
At the time that case was in the news, my wife worked for the SF SPCA, a "no kill" shelter. I used quotes, not to imply that they are shady in that respect, but because they won't take in just any animal. If they have a known biter or the dog fails their temperament test, they won't take it in. This was always the case, but after the Whipple case, the bar for admission got much higher.
None of us want to think about it when an individual dog's life is on the line but the people who run those places have to consider protecting their organizations so they can continue successfully adopting at least some animals. You know you would take sole responsibility for an animal after adopting it, but they don't. It also doesn't eliminate the possibility that a third party could be injured by the animal, find out where you got it and sue the shelter for adopting it to you.
It sucks, but it's the other side of the reality the shelter has to manage.
Of course. Most intelligent rational people understand and agree with most of this..in theory and to a degree in practice. But it still must be LAWFUL. iT still must be rational, reasonable, practicible, and not become hysterical and extreme. In other words, common sense must continue in the wake of any tragedy and law cannot be twisted to fit a new reality. The current laws still protect good dogs, define bad dogs and promote adoption. Laws can't used in conjecture of future actions, nor can they be broken to cover ones liability ass. " I won't serve a Muslim so he won't blow up my restaurant so I won't get sued."
Marsh had zero aggression issues. Zero. He was beyond friendly. He had "escape from bad/cruel owner issues" and "not wanting to be left behind when he loved someone" issues... And face licking issues. Hardly liabilities for anyone, and certainly not transferable liability when a new guardian is found like a severe biter would potentially be. Be cautious, get the proper liability insurance, but don't kill innocent dogs because of a few bad dogs.... no one could run an animal business effectively, legally or ethically with that kind of hysterically cautious approach. This shelter carries a one hundred million dollar liability policy for chris Sakes!! My animal business has much more individual liability and loss potential with only a two million dollar policy. Yet I'm not on paid salary with govt benefits killing good clients.
This act was in clear violation of very well spelled out animal law....both its spirit and its letter. Vicious is vicious. Dangerous is dangerous. There is NO law that allows a GOOD, non injured, non biting, non dangerous dog to be willfully killed by ANYONE: No individual or agency is allowed to judge ,jury and executioner of an innocent. A bad dog??? There are a ton of current codes that support that in due process.
So your point taken, but not the point here.
They literally killed Marsh based on face licking first, then after 18 more days in a cage, on pure here say of an owner who deposited / abandoned the dog willingly. " He kept trying to run away from me...he tried 7 times." Bad dog!! or good dog trying to escape a bad man?
I'm all for supporting an organization that follows law to euthanzize and promotes adopting good, sweet animals...but not judging law as to what is a PERFECT animal..or a perfect adopter for that matter... because , let's face it, perfect is relative. and that much power wherein life and death is concerned is way too much power for a non- judicial government agency.
Marsh didn't bite. Marsh didn't bark. Marsh -in their own emails-..sweet, kind. Lovable.
The issue here is that they ended a good dogs life, lost money adopting, spent money killing, traumatized all those who wanted him ......and still got paid a salary for it.
