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.
= new reply since forum marked as read