Rescue 2.0

Vicki Steiner, UCLA School of Law | June 18, 2011

OBJECTIVES
Best practices for shelter rescue
Working together to develop best practices for Rescue 2.0
SHELTER RESCUE
Background
Knowing applicable law
Documenting incidents
Reporting incidents
Fear of retaliation
RESCUE 2.0
What is Rescue 2.0?
Advantages
Disadvantages
CASE STUDIES
Friends or foes?
Out-of-state placements
Pulling without a plan
Chip-ins and fraud
Other problems?
DUE DILIGENCE
Free online resources

Mimsey and Buddy
Nguyen Litigation
Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control
Change made possible by rescuers willing to come forward to report facts of incidents under penalty of perjury

DACC ordered:
To comply with the holding period
To provide vet care to ill/injured animals
To comply with rescue release provision
To restore pull rights
Sources: A Dog’s Life Rescue v. County of Los Angeles , LASC Case No. BC 357617 Nguyen v. County of Los Angeles , LASC Case No. BS 112581

An animal with a medical condition who has a poor or grave prognosis for being able to live without severe, unremitting pain despite necessary veterinary care.
Stipulated definition intended to remedy the killing of animals with treatable medical conditions.

Shelters must provide necessary and prompt veterinary care, as well as treat animals kindly and provide nutrition, care, and shelter
Source: California Civil Code, §§ 1815, 1816, and 1834

Source: No Kill Advocacy Center, http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/StipulatedOrderViolation.pdf

HELPFUL
Stick to the facts
Be specific: names, dates, and detailed descriptions of incidents are crucial for proper investigation
Be professional
Be willing to stand up for the change you seek
NOT HELPFUL
Personal attacks
Vague statements based on rumor that you have not personally verified
Inflammatory language
Making complaints, but refusing to testify as to their truthfulness

I’ll lose my pull rights. They will fire me. Animals will be killed. These are all natural responses and legitimate concerns. However . . .

Silence may save individual lives, but at what cost? The possible cost of many other lives each year and the cost of having a chance to make meaningful change for the animals.

Without witnesses with firsthand knowledge and specific details about shelter incidents, it is difficult for:
Shelter managers to investigate and address wrongdoing
Elected officials to take action
Attorneys to seek legal recourse

Terrific essay written by Sheldon Eisenberg, one of the attorneys in the Nguyen v. County of Los Angeles case.
Source: No KillAdvocacy Center, http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Sec1983_000.pdf

Recent survey showed that internet users are more active participants in their groups than non-users. Higher rates of:
Charitable donations
Volunteering
Attending events
Pride in group
Source: Pew Internet, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/The‐Social‐Side‐of‐the‐Internet.asp

Embedded in group life in the U.S.:
9 out of 10 nonprofits report having Facebook presence
Environmental/Animal groups report largest average community size on Facebook compared to other nonprofits
Internet users who use social media for group activities:
62% use Facebook, while only 12% use Twitter
Sources: Common Knowledge, http://www.nonprofitsocialnetworksurvey.com Pew Internet, http ://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/The‐Social‐Side‐of‐the‐Internet.asp

ADVANTAGES
Easy to use
Facilitates community, sharing, and connecting
Increase rescue network beyond local to national
Increase transparency in rescue practices
Knowledge sharing
Develop brand/goodwill
DISADVANTAGES
Compassion fatigue
Peer pressure
Anonymity—can lead to:
Fundraising fraud
Harm to animals
Bullying and harassment

WORKING AS A COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP BEST PRACTICES

PROBLEM
Rescuer X makes arrangements for transporter Y to take Henry the Hound from the shelter to his arranged foster home on Monday. Transporter Y demands payment in full up front. Days pass, and Rescuer X gets a worried phone call from foster asking where Henry is. Neither Henry nor the transporter can be located.
SOLUTION
What best practices should have been followed to avoid this situation?

PROBLEM
Rescuer X posts a “NEEDS HOME NOW OR WILL BE KILLED” plea on Facebook for Pete the Pit Bull, whom the shelter claims is “aggressive.” A new Facebook “friend” of Rescuer X responds and says she really wants a pit bull and that she lives in Kirksville, MO. At the same time, out-of-state Sanctuary Z says it will take Pete as it specializes in rehabilitating so-called hard-case animals.
SOLUTION
What best practices should be followed in this situation?

PROBLEM
Rescuer X receives an urgent email about a dog named Guido who is said to have $200 in pledges. Rescuer X pulls Guido, but is unable to find a suitable foster or adoptive home. Rescuer X cannot keep Guido because he doesn’t get along with his other dog. Also, none of the pledged money is ever sent. Guido ends up in boarding, where he has lived now for more than a month.
SOLUTION

PROBLEM
Rescuer X is new to rescue and wants to help a special needs cat named Sally. Facebook Friend Z offers to help Rescuer X by setting up a chip-in to raise money. Friend Z sets up a chip-in to raise $4,000, even though the nature and extent of Sally’s medical needs are not fully known. Rescuer X calls on her friends to donate, and the goal is met. However, Rescuer X never hears from Friend Z again.
SOLUTION

What other concerns do you have about Rescue 2.0?
What best practices could be employed to address such situations?

When entrusting the lives of animals in others’ care, due diligence is a MUST!

Home checks
Veterinarian references
Adoption or Foster Agreements that include strategic questions to help you assess the suitability of possible adopters/fosters
Others?

RESEARCHING NONPROFITS:
Google
Better Business Bureau, http://www.bbb.org/
CA Registry of Charitable Trusts, http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Search.aspx?facility=Y
Charity Navigator, http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Guidestar, http://www.guidestar.org/
IRS, http://www.irs.gov/app/pub-78/
990 Finder, http://foundationcenter.org/findfunders/990finder/

RESEARCHING INDIVIDUALS:
Google
BoardReader, http://boardreader.com/
Social Mention, http://www.socialmention.com/
Whos Talkin, http://www.whostalkin.com/
For additional suggestions, see LexisNexis’ Zimmerman’s Research Guide on “Finding People” http://law.lexisnexis.com/infopro/zimmermans/disp.aspx?z=1484

California Legislative Counsel. California code . Database at http://leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
California Legislative Counsel. Know your legislators . Retrieved from http://leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html (tool to locate the contact info for your representative)
City Council, City of Los Angeles. http://lacity.org/YourGovernment/CityCouncil/index.htm
Common Knowledge. (2011). Nonprofit social network benchmark report. Retrieved from http://www.nonprofitsocialnetworksurvey.com
Eisenberg, S. (2008). Section 1983 to the rescue . Retrieved from http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Sec1983_000.pdf
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. http://bos.co.la.ca.us/Main.htm
Michigan State University College of Law. (2011). Breed-specific legislation in the United States . Available at http://www.animallaw.info/articles/aruslweiss2001.htm
No Kill Advocacy Center. (2008). Stipulated order violation form . Retrieved from http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/StipulatedOrderViolation.pdf
Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2011). The social side of the internet. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/The‐Social‐Side‐of‐the‐Internet.asp
Steiner, V. (2011). Animal law research guide . http://libguides.law.ucla.edu/animallaw

Thank you for your participation today and for all you do for the animals!
E-mail: [email_address]

http://uclaanimallaw.wordpress.com	859
http://uclaanimallaw.com	478
http://translate.googleusercontent.com	1

Rescue 2.0

by UCLA Animal Law Program

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 1,338

Statistics

Rescue 2.0 Presentation Transcript