Ariz. Humane Society changes policies after cat killed

[cowcommander]

PHOENIX --The Arizona Humane Society apologized for "failing" a pet owner whose cat was euthanized, changed its policy of not accepting credit cards over the phone and established an emergency fund for pet owners unable to immediately pay their bills. The policy changes come amid public outcry over the Humane Society's decision to euthanize a cat when its owner could not afford to pay an estimated $400 clinic bill at the moment he brought it in for treatment.

"The agency is immediately taking steps to ensure that the Daniel Dockery situation never repeats itself," Humane Society spokeswoman Stacy Pearson said Wednesday. "We truly and sincerely apologize to Daniel Dockery." Dockery, a recovering heroin addict, brought his 9-month-old cat, Scruffy, to the Arizona Humane Society's Campus for Compassion on Dec. 8 after it suffered a laceration on a barbed-wire fence.

When clinic officials refused to take a credit card from his mother over the phone or wait 24 hours for her to wire him cash, Dockery reluctantly surrendered ownership of Scruffy. He said staff told him the cat would be treated and put in foster care. But on Tuesday, Dockery learned that Scruffy was put down just hours after he left the clinic because of a lack of available doctors.

http://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/pets/story/2011-12-29/Ariz-Humane-Society-changes-policies-after-cat-killed/52269888/1

[Curmudgeoness]

1. The AHS Campus for Compassion.....

where compassion goes to die. What is really sad about this is 1) Scruffy is gone and 2) this is sure to hurt other animals when donations dry up. Well, maybe #2 is a good thing....more donations will go to other organizations who do have compassion. I just don't get it.

[liberalhistorian]

14. What's especially infuriating is that, after refusing

a credit card or wired payment, they refused to return the cat to him so that he could take it to a place that WOULD accept such forms of payment, which the vast majority of vet clinics and all emergency vet clinics do (they wouldn't be able to stay in business if they didn't). He really didn't have much choice in his so-called "surrender" of the cat. Fuckers.

[moriah]

18. Read my longer post about this, I edited my original n/t.

You are misconstruing the timeline. They had no legal right to hold the cat before papers were signed. They actually were bound by law NOT to hold the animal unless payment was made or the cat was surrendered! Because you can't just go around kidnapping other people's property without just cause.

If they had threatened to report him for animal abuse if he had taken her to another clinic, the only way they could have legally gotten their hands on that cat without the owner's consent, I guarantee you'd have seen that in the original article on the case from the Arizona Republic, the one that came out before the Humane Society of Arizona told the owner his cat was dead.

After she was surrendered, she was taken to a different clinic. That was the clinic that could not legally return her when they realized they would have to euthanize her. Because they were legally responsible for her welfare.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Pilanthropic orginizations are forced to act cold..

The show of remorse ,and change in policy ,shows compasion. RIP Scruffy

[Enrique]

4. in memoriam

[Moonwalk]

3. I'm angry, sick and horrified by this...and appalled at the stupidity!

They killed the cat because he couldn't get them the money--but waiting would have gotten them the money. Now they'll never get the money....



It's like some sick "killing the golden goose" story. Or tales of debtor's prison back in the 19the century. You lock someone up so they can't work and pay off their debts which they're locked up for. Whoever made this kafkaesque decision, bilking the organization out of their money and giving a lie to their name was not only cruel, thoughtless and inhumane, but a moron!

[moriah]

6. If people would read the full story on this...

... the issue was that the AHS is unable, by law, to treat or hold any animal if they have not received payment or if surrender paperwork is not filled out.

They are also required by law to treat animals that were taken by the police on animal abuse charges and hold them for 17 days.

The day Scruffy was surrendered, 186 other animals were surrendered, including several that the law mandated they treat. Three animals needed surgery that day, they could only take care of two of them. Those two were most likely the ones taken by police and they had no other choice but to treat them first.

If it would have been humane to let the animal suffer overnight, he could have declined to surrender her and keep her at home until his mom could wire him the money. Obviously he felt her pain was too much to do that. So he gave her the best chance he could.

The AHS's hands were tied and the only thing they could have done differently was accept payment by phone.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

7. Read the next paragraph,

Pearson acknowledged Scruffy's injuries were treatable but said they were so significant that clinic staff could not return the cat to Dockery without treatment. She said the staff also could not let the animal go without treatment for 24 hours.

They wouldn't treat the cat and they wouldn't return the cat so he might take it elsewhere.

Sadly asshole bureaucrats see some of the worst animal cruelty occur within agencies supposedly in the business of caring for animals.

A number of years ago a dog my parents were attempting to adopt was put down because some asshole manager took her sweet time coming back from lunch and a 1:00 adoption deadline was missed even as my parents sat in the lobby with a leash, collar and kennel.

There was no reasoning with anyone, the "vet" was there to kill a dozen dogs and nobody on site had the authority or more likely was just too fucking lazy to go downstairs and get the dog.

[moriah]

8. Surrender is the LAST and FINAL option, and he signed the paperwork.

So are you suggesting that shelters call everyone before they euthanize?

For those who surrendered RESPONSIBLY, all that would do is add more grief and guilt -- they already have tried every other option and know that euthanasia is a possibility. If there is ANY other option, an animal should not be surrendered. People don't realize just how heart-breakng animal welfare can be -- the need well outstrips the supply for services. If there was a checkbox for "Please notify me before putting my cat down", it would encourage people to see surrendering an animal to a shelter as something other than the LAST option -- and making it harder for animals who really DO have no other place to go.

For the HS in my area, this never would have happened for two reasons. First, they are committed to never euthanizing any treatable animal. Second, if you have EVER surrendered an animal from them, you cannot adopt it or any other animal... EVER. Their belief is that if someone has gotten to the point of not being able to care for their animals and not being able to find another option, they are not a Forever Home. So they would have been straight-up with the man that he would NEVER get his cat back. EVER.

Yes, I feel passionately about this issue. And it irritates the hell out of me that I have friends who are threatening to withhold money from GOOD shelters that happen to use the name "Humane Society" over this. All that does is make a bad situation worse, and does NOTHING to send a message to the Arizona Humane Society.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

9. How many ways is one to interpret the following phrase?

clinic staff could not return the cat to Dockery without treatment, that is like saying you "surrendered" your iPhone to a mugger. They were not returning the animal to him regardless. Whatever they coerced him into signing is semantics, particularly with the promise the cat would be treated and put in foster care. They probably would have told him anything to make him go away.

I'm suggesting in this situation there were substantial extenuating circumstances, such as an owner who sought care rather than surrender, a benefactor willing to immediately pay for the required care and the nature of the injury considered to be treatable. To then turn around and immediately euthanize the animal is criminal.

The only impediment to caring for this animal was bureaucratic assholes who refused to engage either their hearts or brains. Much like the clowns who told my folks there was nothing that could be done as they stood there with a kennel ready to take a yorkshire terrier home because their boss didn't get back in time to sign something. They get so fixated on being detached and unemotionally involved that they become incapable of effectively doing their supposed job. My father even offered to pay, immediately in cash whatever they were obligated to pay the "vet" (who looked like a wino) for his services.

I am jaded on this issue because my experiences with most of the "humane societies" and rescues I have encountered as an adopter of animals have left me physically ill.

[moriah]

10. He could have declined to surrender the cat and instead taken it home with him.

Once he signed the paperwork, YES, that was the case.

Edit to add:

No promises were made to the man and he admits it himself. He said he was told it was "likely" she would be adopted. But NO GUARANTEES.

They are not a no-kill shelter, it's all over heir website and their paperwork.

[liberalhistorian]

13. One more time, as has been previously pointed out,

they would NOT return the cat to him so that he could take it elsewhere because they determined the injury was severe enough to not be able to do so. Even though that wasn't their call to make because it wasn't theirs, at that point. They put him in a real catch-22. They refused to treat the cat without money, but then they refused to accept a credit card payment or wait for a wired payment.

Then, even without having ownership of the cat (and, therefore, in my view, the right to make any decisions regarding it) they refuse to return the cat to him so that he could take it to a place that WOULD accept a credit card or wired payment; most emergency vet clinics would have done so. So, as another poster pointed out, it was like "surrendering" your wallet to a mugger, you really have no choice and they didn't give him a choice, either.

They had NO right to refuse to return the cat to him so that he could take it to a place that would accept a credit card or wired payment. NONE. But they had him over a barrel. And WTF didn't they accept credit cards, anyway, most people aren't going to have hundreds of dollars immediately available for treatment. Fuckers.

It's really getting harder and harder to defend the HSA, which I used to do, but every time I turn around, there's a story like this. Stories from different states, but the same organization.

[moriah]

17. Again. You are misconstruing the timeline. Read the original article. Please. Thank you.

Last edited Fri Dec 30, 2011, 06:33 AM - Edit history (1)

Editing to add text:

Think about it logically, and look at the original article from the Arizona Republic, which contains his statements before he knew his cat was dead.

He took his cat to a satellite clinic of the Humane Society of Arizona that does not provide free care -- the fees are reduced, but not free. That clinic, per the AHS's own website and words, cannot hold an animal without payment for care or it being surrendered. So if he refused to pay, and refused to surrender, what could they have done? Absolutely nothing except let him take his cat home or to another vet.

What legal right would they have had to his cat before he signed the papers? It's not like a hospital where she couldn't be signed out AMA. The only way they get their hands on animals that are not voluntarily surrendered are if they are taken in animal abuse investigations by the police.

If they had refused to let them seek alternative care or told him that they would report him for animal abuse if he took HIS cat to another clinic, when it was still HIS property, I guarantee you that you would have seen it in that article before we found out what happened to Scruffy. They were hurt and angry, and would have said it if that was the case.

It wasn't.

Scruffy was voluntarily surrendered. Then she was transported to a different facility, the Second Chance Clinic. That was the clinic that said they could not give her back after they realized they would not be able to treat her that day and she would have to be euthanized to save her from suffering overnight. Animals don't understand "It'll all be over in the morning."

And after she was surrendered, no, they could not return her without treatment. Because at that time, they were legally responsible for her welfare.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

15. "clinic staff could not return the cat to Dockery without treatment,"

Nothing I have read suggests they were going to allow him to leave with the injured animal, at which point it became their own self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is just a story of heinous bureaucratic assholes in the wrong line of work.

[moriah]

16. Read the original article. You are misconstruing the timeline.

"The clinic" you refer to is the Second Chance Clinic. The one Scruffy went to AFTER being surrendered.

[moriah]

12. BTW, when I say he could have declined to surrender, I'm going by the original article on the case:

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/12/23/20111223phoenix-man-loses-kitten-thats-his-saving-grace.html

"But Dockery said he couldn't immediately pay the estimated $400 veterinarian bill. He said instead of working with him, or waiting 24 hours for his mother in Michigan to wire the money, Humane Society staff told him the only way Scruffy would be treated is if Dockery "surrendered" the animal and signed away his ownership rights.

Fearing that Scruffy was in pain, Dockery said he signed. Now, on the day before Christmas, Dockery said he wonders if he ever will see Scruffy again.

"They call themselves the Campus of Compassion and Care. There's a big sign with those words on it over there. But I didn't get no compassion and I didn't get no care that day," Dockery said. "There wasn't any kind of confrontation, just a lot of tears, you know, when I signed those papers.

.....

"They refused to take it. They said they didn't want to do that because they've had trouble in the past," Koning said. "I offered to wire the money if they would hold the cat overnight. ... He (Dockery) could bring them the cash the next day. We offered to pay for boarding. But they didn't want to wait.""


He admits there was no force or coercion, no confrontation, and no guarantees. He didn't want to take the cat home at that time, he wanted to leave her there because he knew she needed care immediately and wanted them to give the care that day and pay the next. Which they could not legally do.

Once he signed the papers and the cat was transported to the Second Chance clinic, no, they could not give the cat back when it was still in need of treatment.

The only thing they could have done differently was accept the credit card by phone.

I assume that before surrendering the cat he called other vets to see if they would accept a card by phone. I know I would have. And I imagine that none of them would take it either.

[Enrique]

5. I like the image of a 49-year-old recovering heroin addict

with a prison record, asking his mother to help pay $400 to treat his 8-month-old kitty named Scruffy. It didn't end well, but there are positives in this story. Not to mention the public outcry and the change of policy.

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. Speechless.