The Curious Case of Heather Harper-Troje
"I regret not fighting for Black Boy. That was his name, this dog who’d been kept on a chain for his entire life in the yard of an abandoned house, never given affection, fed barely enough to sustain him. He’d been bought by the son of the woman who lived next door to the abandoned house for “protection.” She was terrified of him, she threw his food at him because she wouldn’t go near him. At first glance he was intimidating — a big black German Shepard mix who’d only known life on a chain and who was, understandably, protective of his space. But something about him had captured me. I spent time with him, a lot of time, and this is how he came to trust me enough to let me whisk him away on the night that ended up with him dead and me broken."--Heather Harper Troje, "Rescued by Black Boy"
|
It's Okay to be a Little Skeptical
Placing value on speaking the truth and extending the courtesy of belief to those who offer seemingly sincere confessions, are very human inclinations. Especially when anecdotal material is being related by someone we otherwise identify with or trust, and when the material being related overlaps beliefs we already hold. Which is why a lot of people who've read, or will read, Nathan Winograd's anecdote about volunteering at PETA will probably believe it:
"Let’s go back in time to the year 1992, the year I volunteered for PETA. One night each week, I would stuff envelopes for them. And then one day, my roommate, a former PETA employee, found a dog in need of a home. We called him Ray. I asked her why we didn’t just take Ray to PETA. Surely, PETA, with its millions of dollars and millions of animal loving members, would find him a home. But she said No, because PETA would just kill him." --Nathan Winograd
But it is because of this anecdote, and other anti-PETA anecdotes like it, that I've learned to calibrate my trust in people differently. PETA's one and only animal shelter opened at their Norfolk, Virginia, headquarters during the last half of 1998. Bear this small but significant detail in mind as you read the next anecdote:
"Dave Shishkoff of the Friends of Animals pressure group claimed that he saw perfectly-healthy looking puppies and kittens killed at PETA when he worked there as an intern in 1991. 'PETA has a perverse definition of euthanasia -- one that apparently demands that any animal with the slightest discomfort ought to be killed,' he said. 'The vast majority of the animals PETA kills are far from terminal or suffering from incurable conditions. PETA claims to have a $30 million annual budget, yet cannot find home for about 2,000 cats and dogs each year. Not with $30 million dollars, or millions of members and huge lists of email addresses.'"--Douglas Anthony Cooper
To the uninitiated, either account might seem credible. But how could anyone who worked or volunteered for PETA, six or seven years before the animal rights group operated a shelter, credibly relate information about their shelter practices, past, present, or future? The casual reader probably doesn't know, and may never know, that PETA's one and only animal shelter opened in July of 1998, and because of that otherwise seemingly small fact, each of these anecdotes prove themselves to be fictitious.
"Let’s go back in time to the year 1992, the year I volunteered for PETA. One night each week, I would stuff envelopes for them. And then one day, my roommate, a former PETA employee, found a dog in need of a home. We called him Ray. I asked her why we didn’t just take Ray to PETA. Surely, PETA, with its millions of dollars and millions of animal loving members, would find him a home. But she said No, because PETA would just kill him." --Nathan Winograd
But it is because of this anecdote, and other anti-PETA anecdotes like it, that I've learned to calibrate my trust in people differently. PETA's one and only animal shelter opened at their Norfolk, Virginia, headquarters during the last half of 1998. Bear this small but significant detail in mind as you read the next anecdote:
"Dave Shishkoff of the Friends of Animals pressure group claimed that he saw perfectly-healthy looking puppies and kittens killed at PETA when he worked there as an intern in 1991. 'PETA has a perverse definition of euthanasia -- one that apparently demands that any animal with the slightest discomfort ought to be killed,' he said. 'The vast majority of the animals PETA kills are far from terminal or suffering from incurable conditions. PETA claims to have a $30 million annual budget, yet cannot find home for about 2,000 cats and dogs each year. Not with $30 million dollars, or millions of members and huge lists of email addresses.'"--Douglas Anthony Cooper
To the uninitiated, either account might seem credible. But how could anyone who worked or volunteered for PETA, six or seven years before the animal rights group operated a shelter, credibly relate information about their shelter practices, past, present, or future? The casual reader probably doesn't know, and may never know, that PETA's one and only animal shelter opened in July of 1998, and because of that otherwise seemingly small fact, each of these anecdotes prove themselves to be fictitious.
Will the Real Account of Heather Harper-Troje's Experiences at PETA Please Stand Up
However, unlike Nathan Winograd and David Shishkoff, Heather Harper-Troje did work for PETA during a time frame when the animal rights group was operating a fledgling version of their specialized shelter. Not even PETA disputes this. And in terms of offering convincing anecdotal evidence, being able to verify that you were "there" is at least half the battle. This is why a lot of people will read "Rescued by Black Boy" and, forgiving inconsequential distortions ascribed to creative license, they will attribute a higher degree of probability to the statements she makes about her experiences at PETA. But Heather Harper-Troje hurls a lot of extremely serious accusations at PETA in "Rescued by Black Boy"--that PETA management demanded that rescue workers steal animals, falsify records, and greatly overestimate the weights of animals being euthanized so that more animals could be euthanized off the books. And when accusations stand to inflict a great deal of harm against others, as is the case with the accusations launched by Heather Harper-Troje in "Rescued by Black Boy," the burden of proof should probably be higher than just "being there."
Two Blogs, Two Very Different Accounts
It's important to note, however, that "Rescued by Black Boy" isn't Heather Harper-Troje's first blog about her experiences working for PETA. Back in July of 2013, some thirteen years after she was fired from her job at PETA, Heather Harper-Troje wrote another blog, "Speaking Out About PETA," a notably less-caustic piece alleging that PETA routinely euthanized animals whom some would consider to be adoptable and that she had endured fierce opposition in wanting to open a small, modest animal shelter with which to save them. In this blog, she described her frustration upon learning that the animal rights group was electing to stop providing free neutering for male pit bulls, in what she claims was an effort on PETA's part to save money. "Black Boy," the dog who would feature prominently in the second blog Heather Harper-Troje would write about her experiences at PETA, and who would be credited with Harper-Troje's profound change of heart, wasn't mentioned anywhere in "Speaking Out About PETA."
Interestingly, in "Speaking Out About PETA," Heather Harper-Troje describes the disagreement she had with PETA management over her wanting to open a shelter in her work area, as being the catalyst to her firing at PETA. But in "Rescued by Black Boy," Harper-Troje claims that her declining work ethic and a showdown with PETA management over the animal rights group's spay and neuter policies, had been the final nails in her "rogue" coffin. The devastatingly serious accusations that she would launch in "Rescued by Black Boy"--that staff was forced to steal animals, falsify records, and greatly overestimate the weights of animals euthanized so that more animals could be euthanized off the books--are notably absent from "Speaking Out About PETA." "Speaking Out About PETA" and "Rescued by Black Boy" are very different blogs.
When "Rescued by Black Boy" was first published, among other things, I asked Heather Harper-Troje why she chose not to disclose to her readers the full scope of PETA's work during her brief tenure there. She explained that she chose to exclude information of that nature because it was already "out there" and its inclusion would've only distracted from the point she was trying to make. And indeed it would have. In August of 2015, six months after she published "Rescued by Black Boy," I asked Heather Harper-Troje if she was finally able to substantiate the accusations she launched against PETA in that blog. She replied that her experiences are their own validation, and that she believes that Nathan Winograd's "experience," in the aforementioned anecdote about his volunteering for PETA, substantiated her story. No one else has ever alleged that PETA forced staff to steal animals, falsify records, and overestimate the weights of animals euthanized so that more animals could be euthanized off the books, however. Those accusations are unique to Heather Harper-Troje.
Interestingly, in "Speaking Out About PETA," Heather Harper-Troje describes the disagreement she had with PETA management over her wanting to open a shelter in her work area, as being the catalyst to her firing at PETA. But in "Rescued by Black Boy," Harper-Troje claims that her declining work ethic and a showdown with PETA management over the animal rights group's spay and neuter policies, had been the final nails in her "rogue" coffin. The devastatingly serious accusations that she would launch in "Rescued by Black Boy"--that staff was forced to steal animals, falsify records, and greatly overestimate the weights of animals euthanized so that more animals could be euthanized off the books--are notably absent from "Speaking Out About PETA." "Speaking Out About PETA" and "Rescued by Black Boy" are very different blogs.
When "Rescued by Black Boy" was first published, among other things, I asked Heather Harper-Troje why she chose not to disclose to her readers the full scope of PETA's work during her brief tenure there. She explained that she chose to exclude information of that nature because it was already "out there" and its inclusion would've only distracted from the point she was trying to make. And indeed it would have. In August of 2015, six months after she published "Rescued by Black Boy," I asked Heather Harper-Troje if she was finally able to substantiate the accusations she launched against PETA in that blog. She replied that her experiences are their own validation, and that she believes that Nathan Winograd's "experience," in the aforementioned anecdote about his volunteering for PETA, substantiated her story. No one else has ever alleged that PETA forced staff to steal animals, falsify records, and overestimate the weights of animals euthanized so that more animals could be euthanized off the books, however. Those accusations are unique to Heather Harper-Troje.
PETA's Statement About Heather Harper-Troje's Accusations
So far, this is PETA's one and only official public statement about the accusations Heather Harper-Troje launches in her blogs "Speaking Out About PETA" and "Rescued by Black Boy," but there is every indication that the animal rights group is taking the matter very seriously.
Interestingly PETA chose not to respond to Heather Harper-Troje's more scathing allegations; that PETA forces rescue workers to steal animals, falsify records, and overestimate the weights of animals euthanized so that additional animals can be euthanized off the books. This might indicate an intention on the animal rights group's part to pursue a defamation lawsuit, should Harper-Troje reenter the country in the future. And PETA might have a case against Harper-Troje, because PETA's VDACS animal reporting summaries for that time frame support PETA's rebuttal. In the next several sections, I've used PETA's VDACS animal reporting summaries, for the periods before, during, and after Heather Harper-Troje's employ, to include the aspects of PETA's relevant work that Harper-Troje believed would "distract" her readers. |
The Origins of PETA's community Animal Project and Specialized Shelter
It's impossible to tell the story of PETA's specialized shelter without talking a little about Ingrid Newkirk. Most people know her as PETA's fearless and controversial founder and leader, but before she helped found PETA in 1980, and devoted her life to saving animals exploited for food, clothing, entertainment, and research, Ingrid Newkirk devoted her life to saving companion animals.
Ingrid Newkirk entered the animal sheltering world in the 1970's, which was a pivotal time for shelter animals in terms of their survival and treatment. In the early 1970's, the rate of shelter euthanasia was the highest it has ever been. The United States was euthanizing somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million companion animals annually, out of a total population of about 80 million animals--or about one quarter of the entire companion animal population, every single year. To put this in perspective, currently, the U.S. euthanizes between 2 million and 3 million companion animals annually, out of a population of about 160 million animals, or less than 1.875% of the entire companion animal population. What set shelter euthanasia on its path to its dramatic decline? A concerted effort on the part of shelter specialists and veterinarians to create services which would educate the public on matters of animal welfare and routine spay and neuter.
In Michael Specter's fascinating yet somewhat obscure 2003 piece about Ingrid Newkirk, "The Extremist," Newkirk's introduction to the sad state of American animal sheltering is described this way:
Ingrid Newkirk entered the animal sheltering world in the 1970's, which was a pivotal time for shelter animals in terms of their survival and treatment. In the early 1970's, the rate of shelter euthanasia was the highest it has ever been. The United States was euthanizing somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 million companion animals annually, out of a total population of about 80 million animals--or about one quarter of the entire companion animal population, every single year. To put this in perspective, currently, the U.S. euthanizes between 2 million and 3 million companion animals annually, out of a population of about 160 million animals, or less than 1.875% of the entire companion animal population. What set shelter euthanasia on its path to its dramatic decline? A concerted effort on the part of shelter specialists and veterinarians to create services which would educate the public on matters of animal welfare and routine spay and neuter.
In Michael Specter's fascinating yet somewhat obscure 2003 piece about Ingrid Newkirk, "The Extremist," Newkirk's introduction to the sad state of American animal sheltering is described this way:
Newkirk worked and volunteered at several Washington D.C. area animal shelters during the early 1970's, before returning to England for training at the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to learn more about companion animal welfare. Upon returning to the states, Newkirk took a position at Montgomery County, Maryland's Department of Environmental Protection, working as an anti-cruelty officer, where she was charged with inspecting the county's animal holding facilities--pounds, shelters, animal research labs--for compliance with the county's and state's animals welfare regulations. From there, Newkirk took a position at Montgomery County's most notorious animal pound, having had the terrible duty of inspecting it for the county and witnessing the profound depths of its despair first hand. She bravely set to work bringing the facility up to code and creating and implementing effective adoption policies. From there, she earned a position as Washington D.C.'s first female Poundmaster. The nation's Capital's first low-cost spay and neuter clinic was created during Newkirk's tenure, and she worked closely with the D.C. Metropolitan Police to get shelter dogs in their stellar canine training program. From there, she became the Director of Zoonotic Disease for the District of Columbia Commission on Public Health, a position typically reserved for persons with medical degrees. From there, she founded and became the president of the world's most effective animal rights organization.
In June of 1996, Ingrid Newkirk moved PETA's headquarters from Maryland to Norfolk, Virginia, and in 1998, created PETA's Community Animal Project program (CAP), a small division within the greater organization itself that would deal specifically with cases of cruelty and neglect, primarily within impoverished sections of the Hampton Roads area. Most of the animals PETA's CAP program handled at that time were either victims of abject cruelty and neglect who required humane euthanasia, or were owned animals whose guardians needed assistance spaying and neutering their animal companions. In 2001, PETA set up its first mobile spay and neuter clinic, increasing the number of animals they could spay and neuter from hundreds to thousands. In 2002, PETA set up several rooms at their headquarters where any adoptable animals of whom PETA took custody could be responsibly held while they awaited transfer to traditional animal shelters, or adoption, usually by a PETA staff-member. PETA wasn't focusing on the healthy, happy animals of Hampton Roads. Healthy, happy animals don't need saving. PETA focused on the animals in the most dire of circumstances, the animals for whom no one else was coming to save. Ingrid Newkirk, a woman who was exquisitely qualified to run a traditional animal shelter, and had, saw the need for and opened a shelter for the primary purpose of providing humane services to unadoptable animals instead.
In June of 1996, Ingrid Newkirk moved PETA's headquarters from Maryland to Norfolk, Virginia, and in 1998, created PETA's Community Animal Project program (CAP), a small division within the greater organization itself that would deal specifically with cases of cruelty and neglect, primarily within impoverished sections of the Hampton Roads area. Most of the animals PETA's CAP program handled at that time were either victims of abject cruelty and neglect who required humane euthanasia, or were owned animals whose guardians needed assistance spaying and neutering their animal companions. In 2001, PETA set up its first mobile spay and neuter clinic, increasing the number of animals they could spay and neuter from hundreds to thousands. In 2002, PETA set up several rooms at their headquarters where any adoptable animals of whom PETA took custody could be responsibly held while they awaited transfer to traditional animal shelters, or adoption, usually by a PETA staff-member. PETA wasn't focusing on the healthy, happy animals of Hampton Roads. Healthy, happy animals don't need saving. PETA focused on the animals in the most dire of circumstances, the animals for whom no one else was coming to save. Ingrid Newkirk, a woman who was exquisitely qualified to run a traditional animal shelter, and had, saw the need for and opened a shelter for the primary purpose of providing humane services to unadoptable animals instead.
The Reality of Being a Rescue Worker When PETA's CAP Program First Debuted
I can only imagine what it must have been like to be a PETA rescue worker back in the late 1990's and early 2000's, when PETA's "Community Animal Project" first debuted. What most people aren't aware of, and what they should be made aware of, is that PETA's CAP and program didn't begin as a foray into animal sheltering. PETA has operated a small specialized facility for the primary purpose of providing humane euthanasia to suffering and unadoptable community animals since July 1, of 1998. But the focus of PETA's CAP program significantly changed in 2000, after a North Carolina law enforcement officer contacted the animal rights organization with disturbing photographs of the conditions inside and outside of the Bertie County, North Carolina pound.
|
In a 2005 press release about this historical work in North Carolina, PETA spokesperson, Daphna Nachminovitch stated that in 2000, PETA had been, "given photographs which showed one dog drowning in a pool of water, too sick and weak to lift her head, a starving dog eating a dead kitten, and a dead puppy found in the gas chamber shed," prompting the animal rights group to galvanize and dispatch a team to North Carolina. PETA staff and volunteers went immediately to work to improve the conditions at the Bertie County shelter and others, and PETA sent experts to talk to county officials about ending their use of gas chamber and firearm euthanasia. Under enormous pressure from PETA and its supporters, four North Carolina pounds and shelters entered into agreements with the animal rights organization to improve pound conditions for animals, but county officials refused to budge on the gas chamber issue.
That same year, during the time of Heather Harper-Troje's employ, PETA began working closely with these four North Carolina shelters, pouring over $300,000 into bringing them up to code--even building safe animal housing from the ground up. PETA contracted the services of local a veterinarian, Dr. Patrick Proctor, DVM, to euthanize animals who would otherwise be killed in a gas chamber at the Hertford County pound. PETA tried to persuade the remaining three counties to allow local vets to humanely euthanize their animals as well--on PETA's dime--but for whatever reason they refused. So, every week, sometimes several times a week, PETA staff and volunteers would make the hours-long trek to North Carolina to clean kennels, feed animals, save as many adoptable animals as they could, and humanely euthanize the ones they would not be able to find homes for. Sick and injured animals on stray holds, who would typically be left to languish in cages, were transported by PETA staff to local veterinarians for treatment.
When PETA's Community Animal Project debuted in 2000, euthanizing animals--even animals whom some would consider treatable--or even adoptable--was part of a PETA fieldworker's job description. When PETA became involved with North Carolina animals that year, their staff quickly and dishearteningly realized that their capacity to impact the lives of animals in North Carolina pounds and shelters would be extremely limited. While improving the living conditions at these shelters and pounds was critical for the animals residing there, PETA leaders had hoped that their massive campaign against the use of gas chambers in North Carolina would result in the cessation of their use. When it didn't, PETA was faced with either walking away from the problem altogether, or taking personal responsibility that the animals in those four North Carolina pounds and shelters wouldn't be shoved into a box soaked with the feces, urine, vomit, and blood of all the animals who were tortured to death before them. History tells us that PETA took the honorable road. In a statement she made about this work, "Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe," Nachminovitch said. "The point is that good homes are few and far between. Our aim here was to stop them from dying an agonizing death."
That same year, during the time of Heather Harper-Troje's employ, PETA began working closely with these four North Carolina shelters, pouring over $300,000 into bringing them up to code--even building safe animal housing from the ground up. PETA contracted the services of local a veterinarian, Dr. Patrick Proctor, DVM, to euthanize animals who would otherwise be killed in a gas chamber at the Hertford County pound. PETA tried to persuade the remaining three counties to allow local vets to humanely euthanize their animals as well--on PETA's dime--but for whatever reason they refused. So, every week, sometimes several times a week, PETA staff and volunteers would make the hours-long trek to North Carolina to clean kennels, feed animals, save as many adoptable animals as they could, and humanely euthanize the ones they would not be able to find homes for. Sick and injured animals on stray holds, who would typically be left to languish in cages, were transported by PETA staff to local veterinarians for treatment.
When PETA's Community Animal Project debuted in 2000, euthanizing animals--even animals whom some would consider treatable--or even adoptable--was part of a PETA fieldworker's job description. When PETA became involved with North Carolina animals that year, their staff quickly and dishearteningly realized that their capacity to impact the lives of animals in North Carolina pounds and shelters would be extremely limited. While improving the living conditions at these shelters and pounds was critical for the animals residing there, PETA leaders had hoped that their massive campaign against the use of gas chambers in North Carolina would result in the cessation of their use. When it didn't, PETA was faced with either walking away from the problem altogether, or taking personal responsibility that the animals in those four North Carolina pounds and shelters wouldn't be shoved into a box soaked with the feces, urine, vomit, and blood of all the animals who were tortured to death before them. History tells us that PETA took the honorable road. In a statement she made about this work, "Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe," Nachminovitch said. "The point is that good homes are few and far between. Our aim here was to stop them from dying an agonizing death."
PETA Had Relationships with Several Area Shelters Before, During, and After Heather Harper-Troje's Employ, and has Always Transferred Adoptable Animals to Them
"I asked if we could open a small shelter in the area where I did most of my work, that way I could spend less time in my van, we could do spaying and neutering right there, I could more easily integrate into the neighborhood and get to know people, and we could actually adopt out animals instead of euthanizing them."--Heather Harper-Troje, "Speaking Out About PETA"
According to PETA's animal reporting summaries for the time frame of Heather Harper-Troje's employ as a rescue team member, PETA was working with as many a six different local shelters to place adoptable animals they received. Just as PETA must report the number of animals they transfer to other facilities on their animal reporting summaries, these corresponding shelters in turn report that they've received these animals on their animal reporting summaries. It doesn't make sense that Heather Harper-Troje would approach PETA management about opening a "traditional" animal shelter at a dilapidated housing project when PETA had working relationships with six different open-admission shelters that regularly took (and still take) adoptable animals from PETA. PETA states that Heather Harper-Troje never approached them about opening a small, traditional animal shelter, but even if she had, the fact that PETA was transferring adoptable animals to six area shelters already, puts the necessity of such a shelter in a far less urgent perspective.
|
PETA's Spay and Neuter Services Increased Exponentially During and After Heather Harper-Troje's Employ
Most people probably wouldn't know this, but prior to 2010, statistics for the animals for whom PETA provided spay and neuter surgeries appear on PETA's VDACS animal reporting summaries. Between the years of 1998 and 2002, in the middle of which Harper-Troje's eight-month employ nests, PETA's spay and neuter program wasn't scaled back as she alleges. In fact, PETA's spay and neuter outreach grew exponentially. In 1998, the year PETA's shelter opened, the animal rights group spayed and neutered 100 animals. In 2000, the year of Harper-Troje's employ, the animal rights group spayed and neutered 453 animals. In 2001, primarily due to the animal rights group debuting their brand new mobile SNIP program, PETA's spay and neuter outreach was able to serve 2,683 community animals that year. In 2002, PETA managed to log an impressive 4,666 spay and neuter surgeries. The number of spay and neuter surgeries has only risen, with PETA providing hundreds and hundreds of free spay and neuter surgeries to community pit bulls every year. Another interesting fact pertaining to Heather Harper-Troje's allegation, is that Ingrid Newkirk was Washington D.C.'s first female pound-master before spearheading PETA. It was during her tenure in this role that the nation's capital opened its first spay and neuter clinic. Spay and neuter has always been a big deal to PETA. The animal rights group currently runs four mobile spay and neuter units, and they've spayed and neutered over 125,000 animals at low-cost, or for free, since their shelter opened in 1998.
The Events that were Unfolding When Heather Harper-Troje Published "Rescued by Black Boy"
"The former employee spoke exclusively to 13News Now Friday from her home in Honduras. She says she decided to speak out more than a decade later after learning about a recent Eastern Shore incident where two PETA workers were caught taking a chihuahua from a man's porch."--13NewsNow.com
In November of 2014, eighteen months after Heather Harper-Troje published her first blog, "Speaking Out About PETA," shocking headlines began to emerge alleging that two PETA staff had stolen a dog from a Parksley, Virginia, porch, on October 18, 2014, and that the entire incident had been captured on surveillance footage. On December 11, 2014, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services conducted an inspection of PETA's facility to find out why Maya, the Eastern Shore dog at the center of the controversy, had been taken into custody and euthanized prior to the expiration of the state's mandated stray hold. The state inspector took photographs of the custody records pertaining Maya's intake, the records pertaining to two dogs taken into custody along with Maya, and the custody records pertaining to two feral kittens surrendered by Maya's guardian, Wilber Zerate. The records were a mess; the dates on the owner-surrender forms pertaining to these animals, each signed in September of 2014, when the animals were lawfully surrendered, had been altered to reflect the date the animals had been taken into custody a month later. And there was something else of interest to PETA's detractors; the estimated weights of the two four-month-old feral kittens surrendered by Maya's guardian, Wilber Zerate, had been entered as seven pounds each on the intake forms, a hefty weight even for healthy indoor kittens.
On February 9, 2015, Heather Harper-Troje published "Rescued by Black Boy," her second blog about her alleged experiences at PETA, and this time her accusations were considerably more serious than just having tense disagreements with PETA management over the animal rights groups' adoption and spay and neuter policies. Harper-Troje was now alleging that PETA forced workers to steal animals, falsify records, and greatly overestimate the weights of animals euthanized so that more animals could be euthanized off the books, the first and only time anyone has ever made claims of this nature. And now there were headlines which seemingly supported her new story. The very same day, legislation was introduced to the Virginia House of Delegates intending to limit the number of animals who could potentially be euthanized at PETA's Norfolk shelter.
On February 9, 2015, Heather Harper-Troje published "Rescued by Black Boy," her second blog about her alleged experiences at PETA, and this time her accusations were considerably more serious than just having tense disagreements with PETA management over the animal rights groups' adoption and spay and neuter policies. Harper-Troje was now alleging that PETA forced workers to steal animals, falsify records, and greatly overestimate the weights of animals euthanized so that more animals could be euthanized off the books, the first and only time anyone has ever made claims of this nature. And now there were headlines which seemingly supported her new story. The very same day, legislation was introduced to the Virginia House of Delegates intending to limit the number of animals who could potentially be euthanized at PETA's Norfolk shelter.
"Part of me needs this catharsis, but what made me finally decide to write about this was the bill that just passed in the Virginia Senate and is on its way to the House. Yesterday was the first I’d heard of the bill but I’m glad I did because I think it’s a necessary one."--Heather Harper-Troje, "Rescued by Black Boy"
More Conflicting Accounts
In some interviews, Heather Harper-Troje says that learning about the incident involving Maya prompted her to write and publish "Rescued by Black Boy." In the blog itself, where there is no mention of Maya, Harper-Troje attributes learning of the legislation targeting PETA's shelter as the motivation behind writing "Rescued by Black Boy." In a blog she published just two days after "Rescued by Black Boy," Harper-Troje describes enlisting the help of the aforementioned blogger, Douglas Anthony Cooper, who had himself written a series of scathing blogs about the incident involving Maya and the new legislation targeting PETA's shelter. Together, she said, they devised a plan to make sure that "Rescued by Black Boy" would get the exposure she felt it would need.
"I did a little research and found the work that Douglas Anthony Cooper has been doing to expose PETA, I felt he was the one I needed to contact. My hope was that he would read my blog and know the best way to get the truth out so I sent him a Facebook message with a link. Over the course of many hours we communicated and I told him more about my experiences, it felt good to share these things, cleansing. Keeping them locked tight, shared only to those I most trusted, was like having a darkness living inside of me, some nasty companion I hated and couldn’t get rid of. I don’t consider myself to be absolved, but I’m on my way."--Heather Harper-Troje, "The Legacy of Black Boy"
On February 27, 2015, less than three weeks after Heather Harper-Troje published her suspicious new allegations against PETA, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services officially closed its investigation into PETA's intake of Maya. That same day, PETA released a statement explaining that they were finally able to discuss the Eastern Shore events, and that Maya had been misidentified and taken into custody as one of three legally surrendered dogs. Sensational headlines alleging that PETA staff had been caught "stealing" a dog were no longer being generated, and the media's interest in Heather Harper-Troje was about to come to a grinding halt.
The Records Pertaining to Maya's Intake Contradict Heather Harper-Troje's Allegations
Many of PETA's detractors, including Heather Harper-Troje, had initially hoped that, at the very least, the overestimated weights of the feral kittens surrendered by Maya's guardian, Wilber Zerate, would shore up Harper-Troje's allegations that PETA forces its staff to grossly overestimate the weights of animals euthanized so that more animals can be euthanized off the books, but the records indicate that the opposite is true. The weights entered for the kittens weren't sufficient to create a surplus of the drug used to euthanize animals. With regards to companion animal euthanasia, sodium pentobarbital is administered at a dose of one milliliter per ten pounds of body weight, with the minimum dose being one milliliter. In order for the kittens' weights to have been overestimated in such a way as to generate more than the minimum one milliliter dose, their estimated weights would have to have been greater than ten pounds each, which isn't the case. Additionally, the custody records for the other animals taken by the PETA staff that day reflect that the animals' weights were estimated in the low to middle range of normal for their ages and breeds, and not overestimated.
SB 1381: In Like a Lion, Out Like a Lamb
On March 8, 2015, Senator William M. Stanley, Jr. wrote an opinion piece in the Virginian Pilot, "A Simple Bill to Save Pets' Lives," announcing that his family was adopting a shelter dog, an abandoned, elderly, and heart worm positive hunting hound whom, he stated, would've been euthanized in a lot of Virginia shelters. Senator Stanley wrote, "This is the fundamental problem with organizations like PETA, which sees what it has but not what can be with just a little love, dedication and attention." Senator Stanley proclaimed that he had introduced new legislation, in January, that would take aim at PETA's controversial shelter practices. Citing a generally misunderstood "site visit report" pertaining to PETA's shelter, generated by the State Veterinarian back in 2010, Senator Stanley wrote that his new legislation, SB 1381, would fix a "strained interpretation of the law" that allows PETA's Norfolk facility to operate as an "animal shelter" and euthanize some 2,000 animals every year.
"Each session of the Virginia General Assembly seems to hold a piece of surprise legislation, a bill that appears small, even innocuous, yet generates a tremendous amount of engagement by citizens, activists and lobbyists. This year, the surprise was my bill, SB1381, legislation that added one word, changed the tense of one word and changed the order of one phrase in an existing piece of Virginia code. It became a source of great debate and generated broad bipartisan cooperation in a legislative body often criticized for political polarization. SB1381 is a technical amendment in a section of the Virginia Code. It states that the primary purpose of a private animal shelter shall be to find permanent adoptive homes for those companion animals that the private shelter takes in."--Senator William M. Stanley, Jr.
But there's a rather interesting story behind the VDACS "site visit report" Senator Stanley referenced in the Pilot. In 2010, precipitated by an email to his office asking for clarification regarding the purpose of PETA's Norfolk animal facility, State Veterinarian, Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, conducted a site visit at PETA's facility to get a better understanding of the type of work the animal rights group was doing there.
Though PETA's facility had been annually inspected by a State Veterinarian as an "animal shelter" for over a decade, Dr. Kovich felt it prudent at the time to reassess whether or not PETA's shelter currently met the statutory definition of "animal shelter" and whether it would continue to be inspected as such, or considered to be a "veterinary establishment" going forth.
As part of the reassessment process, Dr. Kovich spoke with Daphna Nachminovitch, the vice president of PETA's Cruelty Investigations Department and the person who oversees PETA's shelter. Additionally, Dr. Kovich performed an assessment of PETA's facility and analyzed the data contained in PETA's 2010 Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services "animal custody records." He then constructed charts and graphs that quantified the proportions of PETA's adoptions, transfers, and euthanasia procedures, in an endeavor to determine the facility's "primary purpose."
When Dr. Kovich generated this site visit report, he documented that according to Ms. Nachminovitch, the majority of animals that were taken into custody by PETA were considered by them to be unadoptable, and that Ms. Nachminovitch had indicated to him that adoptable animals were routinely referred to other area animal shelters for adoption. Consistent with Ms. Nachminovitch's statements, Dr. Kovich documented that according to the findings of his site visit, PETA did not operate a facility that primarily found homes for animals. Operating under the assertion that PETA's facility must operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals, in order to meet the statutory definition of "animal shelter," Dr. Kovich documented that no further action would be taken regarding the findings of his site visit, until such time that Ms. Nachminovitch could respond with material supporting the "legitimacy of PETA for full consideration as an animal shelter."
Asserting the legitimacy of their facility for full consideration as an "animal shelter" was of paramount importance to PETA if they were to continue taking custody of animals for the purposes of adoption and transfer, and reuniting strays with their guardians. Interestingly, however, PETA's facility did not need full consideration as an animal shelter to provide the service of humane euthanasia to community animals who require it, since PETA already operated a "veterinary establishment" that employed at least one full-time veterinarian, and veterinary establishments can perform humane euthanasia as a veterinary service with no requirements that they report their euthanasia "numbers" to the state.
Ultimately, it was determined that PETA had had the law on their side the entire time. Dr. Kovich had made an honest mistake in asserting that facilities must operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for companion animals, in order to be considered "animal shelters" by the state. At the time, this was the state of Virginia's statutory definition of "animal shelter":
"Animal Shelter" means a a facility, other than a private residential dwelling and its surrounding grounds, that is used to house or contain animals and is owned, operated, or maintained by a non-governmental entity including a humane society, animal welfare organization, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.
There had never been a requirement that PETA's shelter operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals. Because PETA's shelter did operate for the purpose finding permanent adoptive homes for the relatively few adoptable animals they received, PETA's facility already met the statutory requirements for full consideration as an "animal shelter." On March 30, 2011, Dr. Kovich generated a superseding document stating that his office had completely reviewed the materials PETA submitted and that his office was satisfied that PETA's Norfolk facility met the statutory requirements for "animal shelter."
The 2010 "site visit report" was the artifact of a misunderstanding of the law. Virginia considers the following three methods of shelter animal disposition to be equal under the law; adoption, transfer, and euthanasia, with no preference given to any single method of disposition. There is no condition that shelters operate for a "primary purpose," even with regards to finding animals permanent adoptive homes. And despite what Senator Stanley wrote in his piece for the Virginian Pilot, none of the previous definitions of "animal shelter" and "private animal shelter" include the word "primary," and interestingly, neither does the legislation Stanley himself introduced.
William Stanley, Jr. and PETA probably don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. Senator Stanley made a point to say that his new adopted hound dog doesn't have to earn her keep as a hunting dog anymore, but the sad truth is that the Senator does support an industry that generates thousands of abandoned hunting dogs every year, just like the abandoned and heart worm positive dog he himself rescued. I was shocked to learn, and maybe you will be too, that Senator Stanley not only supports breeding and exploiting dogs for the hunting industry legislatively, he hosts annual fundraising events where dogs are provided to participants for the duration of his scheduled hunting event.
And while Senator Stanley may love rescuing dogs, species of wild "game" animals are served at the private reception following his annual fundraising bird kill. Senator Stanley misguidedly blames the euthanasia of abandoned hounds like his dog "Tanner" on the shelters that take them in, instead of the industry that leaves thousands of hunting dogs starved, neglected and abandoned every year. And rather than create legislation that protects hunting dogs like Tanner from the cruelty and abandonment that necessitates their admission into shelters, Senator Stanley is asking Virginia citizens to join him at taking aim at an organization that wants to end these dogs' exploitation. And he's asking them to overlook the fact that his proposed definition of "private animal shelter" didn't actually attribute a "primary purpose" with regards to private animal shelters.
Though PETA's facility had been annually inspected by a State Veterinarian as an "animal shelter" for over a decade, Dr. Kovich felt it prudent at the time to reassess whether or not PETA's shelter currently met the statutory definition of "animal shelter" and whether it would continue to be inspected as such, or considered to be a "veterinary establishment" going forth.
As part of the reassessment process, Dr. Kovich spoke with Daphna Nachminovitch, the vice president of PETA's Cruelty Investigations Department and the person who oversees PETA's shelter. Additionally, Dr. Kovich performed an assessment of PETA's facility and analyzed the data contained in PETA's 2010 Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services "animal custody records." He then constructed charts and graphs that quantified the proportions of PETA's adoptions, transfers, and euthanasia procedures, in an endeavor to determine the facility's "primary purpose."
When Dr. Kovich generated this site visit report, he documented that according to Ms. Nachminovitch, the majority of animals that were taken into custody by PETA were considered by them to be unadoptable, and that Ms. Nachminovitch had indicated to him that adoptable animals were routinely referred to other area animal shelters for adoption. Consistent with Ms. Nachminovitch's statements, Dr. Kovich documented that according to the findings of his site visit, PETA did not operate a facility that primarily found homes for animals. Operating under the assertion that PETA's facility must operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals, in order to meet the statutory definition of "animal shelter," Dr. Kovich documented that no further action would be taken regarding the findings of his site visit, until such time that Ms. Nachminovitch could respond with material supporting the "legitimacy of PETA for full consideration as an animal shelter."
Asserting the legitimacy of their facility for full consideration as an "animal shelter" was of paramount importance to PETA if they were to continue taking custody of animals for the purposes of adoption and transfer, and reuniting strays with their guardians. Interestingly, however, PETA's facility did not need full consideration as an animal shelter to provide the service of humane euthanasia to community animals who require it, since PETA already operated a "veterinary establishment" that employed at least one full-time veterinarian, and veterinary establishments can perform humane euthanasia as a veterinary service with no requirements that they report their euthanasia "numbers" to the state.
Ultimately, it was determined that PETA had had the law on their side the entire time. Dr. Kovich had made an honest mistake in asserting that facilities must operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for companion animals, in order to be considered "animal shelters" by the state. At the time, this was the state of Virginia's statutory definition of "animal shelter":
"Animal Shelter" means a a facility, other than a private residential dwelling and its surrounding grounds, that is used to house or contain animals and is owned, operated, or maintained by a non-governmental entity including a humane society, animal welfare organization, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.
There had never been a requirement that PETA's shelter operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals. Because PETA's shelter did operate for the purpose finding permanent adoptive homes for the relatively few adoptable animals they received, PETA's facility already met the statutory requirements for full consideration as an "animal shelter." On March 30, 2011, Dr. Kovich generated a superseding document stating that his office had completely reviewed the materials PETA submitted and that his office was satisfied that PETA's Norfolk facility met the statutory requirements for "animal shelter."
The 2010 "site visit report" was the artifact of a misunderstanding of the law. Virginia considers the following three methods of shelter animal disposition to be equal under the law; adoption, transfer, and euthanasia, with no preference given to any single method of disposition. There is no condition that shelters operate for a "primary purpose," even with regards to finding animals permanent adoptive homes. And despite what Senator Stanley wrote in his piece for the Virginian Pilot, none of the previous definitions of "animal shelter" and "private animal shelter" include the word "primary," and interestingly, neither does the legislation Stanley himself introduced.
William Stanley, Jr. and PETA probably don't see eye to eye on a lot of things. Senator Stanley made a point to say that his new adopted hound dog doesn't have to earn her keep as a hunting dog anymore, but the sad truth is that the Senator does support an industry that generates thousands of abandoned hunting dogs every year, just like the abandoned and heart worm positive dog he himself rescued. I was shocked to learn, and maybe you will be too, that Senator Stanley not only supports breeding and exploiting dogs for the hunting industry legislatively, he hosts annual fundraising events where dogs are provided to participants for the duration of his scheduled hunting event.
And while Senator Stanley may love rescuing dogs, species of wild "game" animals are served at the private reception following his annual fundraising bird kill. Senator Stanley misguidedly blames the euthanasia of abandoned hounds like his dog "Tanner" on the shelters that take them in, instead of the industry that leaves thousands of hunting dogs starved, neglected and abandoned every year. And rather than create legislation that protects hunting dogs like Tanner from the cruelty and abandonment that necessitates their admission into shelters, Senator Stanley is asking Virginia citizens to join him at taking aim at an organization that wants to end these dogs' exploitation. And he's asking them to overlook the fact that his proposed definition of "private animal shelter" didn't actually attribute a "primary purpose" with regards to private animal shelters.
The Transformation of SB 1381
Below is a representation of the definition or "animal shelter" as it existed prior to the introduction of SB 1381 (non-italicized text, with and without strike-throughs), the changes SB 1381 proposed (italicized text, with and without strike-throughs) , and the legislation in its amended form (all italicized and non-italicized text without strike-throughs):
By the time Senator Stanley's March 8, 2015 piece was published in the Virginian Pilot, SB 1381 had already been significantly amended, a fact that wasn't disclosed in the Virginian Pilot piece. Two weeks earlier, on February 23, 2015, based on sound recommendations issued by the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee, Delegate Robert Dickson "Bobby" Orrock, Sr., amended Stanley's proposed definition of "private animal shelter" to exclude the language, "and facilitating other lifesaving outcomes for animals." The House of Delegates passed the amended legislation that same day, and the bill was signed into law by Virginia's Governor on March 29, 2015.
Though SB 1381 never established that private animal shelters must operate for the "primary purpose" of finding animals permanent adoptive homes, PETA's detractors, including Heather Harper-Troje, claimed an unprecedented victory against the animal rights group, and all manner of misguided rumors about what change the legislation did and did not effect began to circulate.
Though SB 1381 never established that private animal shelters must operate for the "primary purpose" of finding animals permanent adoptive homes, PETA's detractors, including Heather Harper-Troje, claimed an unprecedented victory against the animal rights group, and all manner of misguided rumors about what change the legislation did and did not effect began to circulate.
The Draft Guidance Document: The VDACS Oversteps Its Authority
On March 26, 2015, three days after SB 1381 was signed into law, Arin Greenwood, the Animal Welfare Editor for the Huffington Post, and former research fellow and contributor for the notorious industry front group, Competitive Enterprise Institute, published the piece "Animal Advocates Cheer As Bill Aimed At High-Kill PETA Shelter Is Signed Into Law," featuring a VDACS' quote about the department's plans to create regulations that would "further clarify" the scope of Stanley's legislation:
"VDACS plans to develop a new regulation through the Administrative Process Act to further clarify the qualifications for a facility 'operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.' The agency expects that the three-step regulatory process required by the Code of Virginia will take two to three years to complete given the extensive stakeholder interest in this issue. The impact of the law on PETA or any other private animal shelter will not be known until the regulation is finalized."--VDACS' Statement to Huffington Post
Though Delegates that passed the amended legislation would later state that the bill never established that private animal shelters must operate for any primary purpose, and though the bill had never even contained the word "primary" or any of its synonyms, forces within Virginia and beyond redoubled their efforts to establish a "primary purpose" requirement with regards to private animal shelters, outside of the statute, by way of an accompanying "guidance document." On April 16, 2015, at their request, the VDACS met with what was described as "a number of proponents of SB 1381" to get their input; SB 1381 patron Senator William Stanley Jr., Debra Griggs of the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies, Robin Starr of the Richmond SPCA, and Will Gomaa of Maryland-based Alley Cat Allies met with VDACS Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Sam Towell, VDACS Commissioner Sandy Adams, and State Veterinarian Dr. Richard Wilkes, to express their concerns. The group of supporters was asked to submit their suggestions for a "guidance document" the VDACS would be drafting.
The VDACS rarely creates guidance documents. In fact, this guidance document was the first ever of its kind. But what made this particular document even more noteworthy was that the VDACS and several of the legislation's supporters were working together privately to draft it. Over the span of many weeks, the VDACS was creating regulations that would be put in place as soon as July 1, 2015, and they were doing it out of the view of most of the document's stakeholders. And what was maybe even more concerning was that the group seemed to be endeavoring to enact regulations contrary to the statute in its content. On April 28, 2015, barely a month after SB 1381 was signed into law, and two weeks after the VDACS had met privately with the group of SB 1381 supporters, VDACS officials were already going forth with the premise that the statute itself established that private animal shelters must operate for the primary purpose of providing permanent adoptive homes for animals, though Delegates who passed the bill would later say it didn't:
"SB 1381 changed the definition of a public animal shelter to require that a shelter have the finding of permanent, adoptive homes for companion animals as the primary mission of the facility. VDACS is developing criteria that will determine the primary mission of a public shelter and hopes to start using the definition for inspections near July 1. A facility must be designated as a shelter to be allowed to have trained and approved non-veterinarians perform euthanasia."--Dr. Wilkes, Virginia State Veterinarian in a Letter to the Virginia Veterinary Medical Association Dated April 28, 2015
"VDACS plans to develop a new regulation through the Administrative Process Act to further clarify the qualifications for a facility 'operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.' The agency expects that the three-step regulatory process required by the Code of Virginia will take two to three years to complete given the extensive stakeholder interest in this issue. The impact of the law on PETA or any other private animal shelter will not be known until the regulation is finalized."--VDACS' Statement to Huffington Post
Though Delegates that passed the amended legislation would later state that the bill never established that private animal shelters must operate for any primary purpose, and though the bill had never even contained the word "primary" or any of its synonyms, forces within Virginia and beyond redoubled their efforts to establish a "primary purpose" requirement with regards to private animal shelters, outside of the statute, by way of an accompanying "guidance document." On April 16, 2015, at their request, the VDACS met with what was described as "a number of proponents of SB 1381" to get their input; SB 1381 patron Senator William Stanley Jr., Debra Griggs of the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies, Robin Starr of the Richmond SPCA, and Will Gomaa of Maryland-based Alley Cat Allies met with VDACS Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Sam Towell, VDACS Commissioner Sandy Adams, and State Veterinarian Dr. Richard Wilkes, to express their concerns. The group of supporters was asked to submit their suggestions for a "guidance document" the VDACS would be drafting.
The VDACS rarely creates guidance documents. In fact, this guidance document was the first ever of its kind. But what made this particular document even more noteworthy was that the VDACS and several of the legislation's supporters were working together privately to draft it. Over the span of many weeks, the VDACS was creating regulations that would be put in place as soon as July 1, 2015, and they were doing it out of the view of most of the document's stakeholders. And what was maybe even more concerning was that the group seemed to be endeavoring to enact regulations contrary to the statute in its content. On April 28, 2015, barely a month after SB 1381 was signed into law, and two weeks after the VDACS had met privately with the group of SB 1381 supporters, VDACS officials were already going forth with the premise that the statute itself established that private animal shelters must operate for the primary purpose of providing permanent adoptive homes for animals, though Delegates who passed the bill would later say it didn't:
"SB 1381 changed the definition of a public animal shelter to require that a shelter have the finding of permanent, adoptive homes for companion animals as the primary mission of the facility. VDACS is developing criteria that will determine the primary mission of a public shelter and hopes to start using the definition for inspections near July 1. A facility must be designated as a shelter to be allowed to have trained and approved non-veterinarians perform euthanasia."--Dr. Wilkes, Virginia State Veterinarian in a Letter to the Virginia Veterinary Medical Association Dated April 28, 2015
It wasn't until May 6, 2015, and quite by accident, that word leaked out that SB 1381 supporters were meeting privately with VDACS officials to create the guidance document, and that regulation was on track to be implemented way ahead of the two to three year time frame the VDACS had committed to back in March. On May 7, 2015, PETA submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the VDACS to obtain the materials pertaining to the drafting of the guidance document, at considerable expense to the animal rights group. PETA made the materials they received available to the other stakeholders, most of whom, like PETA, had only opposed SB 1381 prior to its amended and passed form, and who had no idea that the VDACS had been soliciting comment with regards to drafting the guidance paper.
"I was surprised to hear that there is an interpretation of the bill which gives impetus to writing new regulations that affect private shelters, if that is indeed the case. The purpose of moving the language 'operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals' from a lower line to the first line of that section of Code was presented to the Agriculture Committee as a statement of emphasis to insure that all shelters make an attempt to adopt out animals. 'Private shelters operating on charitable dollars should make a sincere effort to get animals adopted rather than kill them,' as one proponent stated. There was no discussion of regulation changes or any other requirements intended with passage of the bill."--Delegate Danny Marshal, in a Letter to VDACS About the Drafting of the Guidance Document
When looking through the materials pertaining to both the process of passing SB 1381 and the private drafting of the VDACS' guidance document, it's clear that many of the participants were aware that the private group was endeavoring to enact regulations contrary to the statute in its content. On January 29, 2015, during testimony she gave in front of the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee, Debra Griggs, the president of the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies and founder of No Kill Hampton Roads, stated the following:
"My name is Debra Griggs and I am the president of the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies. We believe this bill closes the loophole in the definition of private animal shelter to make it abundantly clear that finding permanent adoptive homes is a purpose of those shelters. This does not affect public shelters only private shelters. It doesn't say private animal shelters must succeed at finding permanent adoptive homes just that it must be one of your purposes."
In a February 25, 2015, blog post for the Richmond SPCA, Robin Starr writes:
"It was a modest bill that simply made clear that private shelters operating on charitable dollars should make a sincere effort to get animals adopted rather than just killing them all. It was not, as the hysterics have claimed, an effort to force all private shelters in Virginia to be no kill or to prevent them from being able to euthanize animals. That was an irresponsible claim all along since the right of shelters to euthanize is set forth in a separate code section that has not changed at all."
And the VDACS has certainly already been through this; back in 2010 when the State Veterinarian conducted that "site visit" to PETA's shelter, operating under the false impression that the statutory definition of "animal shelter" established that private shelters must operate for a primary purpose of finding animals permanent adoptive homes. The VDACS now maintains that they believed that the guidance document was necessary because the restructuring of SB 1381 established that private animal shelters must operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes, even though the word "primary" appears nowhere in the statute. A confusing claim since the statute itself doesn't provide that the placement of the phrase "operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals" has any bearing on other shelter operations. In addition to the stakeholders who initially opposed SB 1381, the Delegates who actually passed the legislation feel that the VDACS is overreaching its regulation of private animal shelters by interpreting the statute that way:
"I have been made aware that the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has overreached its regulation of private shelters above and beyond the intent of SB 1381. … If the intent of SB 1381 needs to be polished then we have the entire year to speak about those changes and have recommendations for the 2016 legislative session."--Delegate Barry Knight, in a Letter to VDACS About the Guidance Document
Delegate Bobby Orrock Introduces New Legislation to Clarify the Definition of Private Animal Shelter
"As you know, I have been meeting with legislators to set the record straight about PETA and our local work. During a number of meetings with legislators from both sides of the aisle, I have been told that the bill passed with such a majority because it was 'neutered' after the amendment, and had 'no teeth.' PETA did not oppose the bill after the amendment was made. We have always found permanent adoptive homes for adoptable animals, and we will continue to do so."--Daphna Nachminovitch, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
On February 21, Heather Harper-Troje blogged that, the next day, she would be submitting a letter to Virginia Delegates apprising them of her alleged experiences at PETA and asking them to support SB 1381, legislation that she believed would greatly limit the number of animals the animal rights group could potentially euthanize in their Norfolk shelter. It is unclear whether or not Harper-Troje actually sent the letter, but if she did, it didn't have the impact she was likely hoping for. On February 23, 2015, based on recommendations issued by the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee, Robert Dickson "Bobby" Orrock, Sr., amended the proposed definition of 'private animal shelter' to exclude the language, 'and facilitating other lifesaving outcomes for animals,' and the amended definition was signed into law on March 23, 2015, by Governor Terry McAuliffe.
Since the passing of SB 1381, PETA has been meeting with Virginia legislators to provide a better understanding of their shelter and the community's need for it, and they're making a lot of progress. Though this was clearly not their intention, all of the bloggers who exploited PETA's mistake regarding the intake of Maya to forward SB 1381, and all of SB 1381's supporters who conspired behind closed doors to create regulation that reached far beyond the scope of the statute, played an important part in illustrating to the Delegates the extent to which PETA is unfairly targeted.
Below is a collection of the materials pertaining to the draft guidance document, including a timeline summary of events, the names and positions of the participants of the private meetings, and statements from the General Assembly indicating that House Delegates believe that the VDACS "overreached its regulation of private shelters above and beyond the intent of SB 1381":
On February 21, Heather Harper-Troje blogged that, the next day, she would be submitting a letter to Virginia Delegates apprising them of her alleged experiences at PETA and asking them to support SB 1381, legislation that she believed would greatly limit the number of animals the animal rights group could potentially euthanize in their Norfolk shelter. It is unclear whether or not Harper-Troje actually sent the letter, but if she did, it didn't have the impact she was likely hoping for. On February 23, 2015, based on recommendations issued by the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources Committee, Robert Dickson "Bobby" Orrock, Sr., amended the proposed definition of 'private animal shelter' to exclude the language, 'and facilitating other lifesaving outcomes for animals,' and the amended definition was signed into law on March 23, 2015, by Governor Terry McAuliffe.
Since the passing of SB 1381, PETA has been meeting with Virginia legislators to provide a better understanding of their shelter and the community's need for it, and they're making a lot of progress. Though this was clearly not their intention, all of the bloggers who exploited PETA's mistake regarding the intake of Maya to forward SB 1381, and all of SB 1381's supporters who conspired behind closed doors to create regulation that reached far beyond the scope of the statute, played an important part in illustrating to the Delegates the extent to which PETA is unfairly targeted.
Below is a collection of the materials pertaining to the draft guidance document, including a timeline summary of events, the names and positions of the participants of the private meetings, and statements from the General Assembly indicating that House Delegates believe that the VDACS "overreached its regulation of private shelters above and beyond the intent of SB 1381":
Delegate Bobby Orrock Introduces Legislation to Preserve Private Shelters' Abilities to Serve Animals on a Case by Case Basis
On December 22, 2015 and January 5, 2016, respectively, Delegate Bobby Orrock introduced HB156 and HB340, legislation seeking to clarify the definition of "private animal shelter" and affirm private animals shelters' lawful purposes, and HB157, legislation seeking to reaffirm the requirement of public transparency with regards to the potential development of a "guidance document" that may someday accompany legislation pertaining to private animal shelters. On January 20, 2016, Delegate Orrock introduced HB1270, a mandate that will direct the State Veterinarian to "establish a seven-member advisory committee to make recommendations and serve as a resource in the development of policies related to the care and treatment of companion animals by public and private animal shelters." HB340 passed both House and Senate vote, with amendments, HB157 has been sidelined until 2017, pending the outcome of HB1270, which is still viable and likely to be passed.
Learn more here:
SB 1381 Doesn't Restrict Shelter Euthanasia in Any Way
Below is the section of Virginia code that provides for the euthanasia of shelter animals, emphasis has been added to the sections directly pertaining to the circumstances under which shelter animals may be euthanized. Preceding the code are definitions pertinent to understanding the material.
"Humane society" means any incorporated, nonprofit organization that is organized for the purposes of preventing cruelty to animals and promoting humane care and treatment or adoptions of animals.
"Facility" means a building or portion thereof as designated by the State Veterinarian, other than a private residential dwelling and its surrounding grounds, that is used to contain a primary enclosure or enclosures in which animals are housed or kept.
"Private animal shelter" means a facility operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals that is used to house or contain animals and that is owned or operated by an incorporated, nonprofit, and nongovernmental entity, including a humane society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other similar organization.
"Releasing agency" means (i) a public animal shelter or (ii) a private animal shelter, humane society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or other similar entity or home-based rescue that releases companion animals for adoption.
§ 3.2-6548. Private animal shelters; confinement and disposition of animals; affiliation with foster care providers; penalties; injunctive relief.
Bills amending this Section
A. A private animal shelter may confine and dispose of animals in accordance with the provisions of subsections B through G of § 3.2-6546.
A. For purposes of this section:
"Animal" shall not include agricultural animals.
"Rightful owner" means a person with a right of property in the animal.
B. The governing body of each county or city shall maintain or cause to be maintained a public animal shelter and shall require dogs running at large without the tag required by § 3.2-6531 or in violation of an ordinance passed pursuant to § 3.2-6538 to be confined therein. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit confinement of other companion animals in such a shelter. The governing body of any county or city need not own the facility required by this section but may contract for its establishment with a private group or in conjunction with one or more other local governing bodies. The governing body shall require that:
- The public animal shelter shall be accessible to the public at reasonable hours during the week;
- The public animal shelter shall obtain a signed statement from each of its directors, operators, staff, or animal caregivers specifying that each individual has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment, and each shelter shall update such statement as changes occur;
- If a person contacts the public animal shelter inquiring about a lost companion animal, the shelter shall advise the person if the companion animal is confined at the shelter or if a companion animal of similar description is confined at the shelter;
- The public animal shelter shall maintain a written record of the information on each companion animal submitted to the shelter by a private animal shelter in accordance with subsection D of § 3.2-6548 for a period of 30 days from the date the information is received by the shelter. If a person contacts the shelter inquiring about a lost companion animal, the shelter shall check its records and make available to such person any information submitted by a private animal shelter or allow such person inquiring about a lost animal to view the written records;
- The public animal shelter shall maintain a written record of the information on each companion animal submitted to the shelter by a releasing agency other than a public or private animal shelter in accordance with subdivision F 2 of § 3.2-6549 for a period of 30 days from the date the information is received by the shelter. If a person contacts the shelter inquiring about a lost companion animal, the shelter shall check its records and make available to such person any information submitted by such releasing agency or allow such person inquiring about a lost companion animal to view the written records; and
- The public animal shelter shall maintain a written record of the information on each companion animal submitted to the shelter by an individual in accordance with subdivision A 2 of § 3.2-6551 for a period of 30 days from the date the information is received by the shelter. If a person contacts the shelter inquiring about a lost companion animal, the shelter shall check its records and make available to such person any information submitted by the individual or allow such person inquiring about a lost companion animal to view the written records.
C. An animal confined pursuant to this section shall be kept for a period of not less than five days, such period to commence on the day immediately following the day the animal is initially confined in the facility, unless sooner claimed by the rightful owner thereof.
The operator or custodian of the public animal shelter shall make a reasonable effort to ascertain whether the animal has a collar, tag, license, tattoo, or other form of identification. If such identification is found on the animal, the animal shall be held for an additional five days, unless sooner claimed by the rightful owner. If the rightful owner of the animal can be readily identified, the operator or custodian of the shelter shall make a reasonable effort to notify the owner of the animal's confinement within the next 48 hours following its confinement.
If any animal confined pursuant to this section is claimed by its rightful owner, such owner may be charged with the actual expenses incurred in keeping the animal impounded. In addition to this and any other fees that might be levied, the locality may, after a public hearing, adopt an ordinance to charge the owner of an animal a fee for impoundment and increased fees for subsequent impoundments of the same animal.
D. If an animal confined pursuant to this section has not been claimed upon expiration of the appropriate holding period as provided by subsection C, it shall be deemed abandoned and become the property of the public animal shelter. Such animal may be euthanized in accordance with the methods approved by the State Veterinarian or disposed of by the methods set forth in subdivisions 1 through 5. No shelter shall release more than two animals or a family of animals during any 30-day period to any one person under subdivisions 2, 3, or 4.
- Release to any humane society, public or private animal shelter, or other releasing agency within the Commonwealth, provided that each humane society, animal shelter, or other releasing agency obtains a signed statement from each of its directors, operators, staff, or animal caregivers specifying that each individual has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment and updates such statements as changes occur;
- Adoption by a resident of the county or city where the shelter is operated and who will pay the required license fee, if any, on such animal, provided that such resident has read and signed a statement specifying that he has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment;
- Adoption by a resident of an adjacent political subdivision of the Commonwealth, if the resident has read and signed a statement specifying that he has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment;
- Adoption by any other person, provided that such person has read and signed a statement specifying that he has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment and provided that no dog or cat may be adopted by any person who is not a resident of the county or city where the shelter is operated, or of an adjacent political subdivision, unless the dog or cat is first sterilized, and the shelter may require that the sterilization be done at the expense of the person adopting the dog or cat; or
- Release for the purposes of adoption or euthanasia only, to an animal shelter, or any other releasing agency located in and lawfully operating under the laws of another state, provided that such animal shelter, or other releasing agency: (i) maintains records that would comply with § 3.2-6557; (ii) requires that adopted dogs and cats be sterilized; (iii) obtains a signed statement from each of its directors, operators, staff, and animal caregivers specifying that each individual has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment, and updates such statement as changes occur; and (iv) has provided to the public or private animal shelter or other releasing agency within the Commonwealth a statement signed by an authorized representative specifying the entity's compliance with clauses (i) through (iii), and the provisions of adequate care and performance of humane euthanasia, as necessary in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
For purposes of recordkeeping, release of an animal by a public animal shelter to a public or private animal shelter or other releasing agency shall be considered a transfer and not an adoption. If the animal is not first sterilized, the responsibility for sterilizing the animal transfers to the receiving entity.
Any proceeds deriving from the gift, sale, or delivery of such animals shall be paid directly to the treasurer of the locality. Any proceeds deriving from the gift, sale, or delivery of such animals by a public or private animal shelter or other releasing agency shall be paid directly to the clerk or treasurer of the animal shelter or other releasing agency for the expenses of the society and expenses incident to any agreement concerning the disposing of such animal. No part of the proceeds shall accrue to any individual except for the aforementioned purposes.
E. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the immediate euthanasia of a critically injured, critically ill, or unweaned animal for humane purposes. Any animal euthanized pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be euthanized by one of the methods prescribed or approved by the State Veterinarian.
F. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the immediate euthanasia or disposal by the methods listed in subdivisions 1 through 5 of subsection D of an animal that has been released to a public or private animal shelter, other releasing agency, or animal control officer by the animal's rightful owner after the rightful owner has read and signed a statement: (i) surrendering all property rights in such animal; (ii) stating that no other person has a right of property in the animal; and (iii) acknowledging that the animal may be immediately euthanized or disposed of in accordance with subdivisions 1 through 5 of subsection D.
G. Nothing in this section shall prohibit any feral dog or feral cat not bearing a collar, tag, tattoo, or other form of identification that, based on the written statement of a disinterested person, exhibits behavior that poses a risk of physical injury to any person confining the animal, from being euthanized after being kept for a period of not less than three days, at least one of which shall be a full business day, such period to commence on the day the animal is initially confined in the facility, unless sooner claimed by the rightful owner. The statement of the disinterested person shall be kept with the animal as required by § 3.2-6557. For purposes of this subsection, a disinterested person shall not include a person releasing or reporting the animal.