http://www.petsalive.com/oreo.html

Based on my experience with the ASPCA, I feel confident they did explore available alternatives for Oreo. I have personally seen them beg for places (at long term rescues/sanctuaries) for dogs with less than stellar temps. And these were dogs that never made the news with stories of their abuse. Judging by some of the dogs I met/worked with there, my gut tells me something was seriously off with Oreo. There may have also been a prob with the rescue that wanted her and there were no other options for her, in particular, to keep everyone, including Oreo, safe and happy. . . you can only put so many signs on a kennel run before a well meaning volunteer decides to do something that turns out bloody . . . yeah, I’ve seen that also. The ASPCA does a lot of evaluating of the dogs in their care. Constantly along with working with them. And these aren’t half a**ed attempts at evaluating or rehabbing and it’s also not a one shot deal for a dog (or cat). At other shelters and rescues I’ve worked with, you generally don’t get such a thorough run down of a dog, and many times discover the problems yourself. Not to say they don’t try, but resources aren’t in high supply. Getting everyone to follow a protocol to help/rehab a dog issue is also a problem at some of the shelters/rescues, which is not so much of an issue at the A.

I’m not saying the A is perfect or anything, but just personal experience (with the behavior dept) tells me that this was not done lightly or without much thought/solution seeking. I also live with a few “un-adoptable” pets who would not do well in a long term facility and certainly shouldn’t be placed with the general public.

I support Oreo’s Law because I strongly believe that all alternatives to killing shelter pets should be explored. (Note that I said “killing” because I intend my comment to differentiate between that and “euthanasia” which to me, is a means to end the suffering of a medically hopeless pet.)

I think the ASPCA was wrong to kill Oreo in the way they did because, based on what I’ve read, they did not explore the available alternatives.

As I understand it, Oreo’s Law would help shelter pets have access to all available options before being killed.

I don’t need to explain it to Donna and Christie but for the benefit of others, the Hayden Law included more than just rescue groups’ access to shelter dogs that’s under discussion here.

I would really like to see a analysis revisiting all the impacts of Hayden.

My assessment is that since 1998 when the Hayden Law passed, shelter euthanasias of dogs have declined at a faster rate than before Hayden.
http://saveourdogs.net/wp/wp-c.....-chart.jpg

The shelter euthanasia trend doesn’t prove that the Hayden Law is the reason for this improvement, but it’s promising.

Heather, whether you want to answer or not is totally up to you, but I sincerely did not mean that in a “shitty” way. There are people who feel that laws such as this are a double-edged sword, and even Donna Reynolds, who in general supports the right of access to shelter animals, said she thought the energy being spent to pass this one would be better spent on other things.

I did not intend to slur you.

It’s true that the line I quoted didn’t reflect everything she said, but given that she continued with a warning to “get those wills and powers of attorney in order, people,” I don’t think I misread.