Can There Be a Future for Oreo's Law?

Last week, the New York State Assembly Agriculture Committee voted to table Oreo's Law for the year. Oreo's Law, named for a dog euthanized by the ASPCA amid controversy over her potential to recover from emotional trauma, said that any shelter planning to euthanize a dog had to hand over that dog to any 501c3 rescue organization upon request.

Those who protested Oreo's death rallied around the law. But others were hesitant to get behind the proposal because there simply wasn't enough to distinguish what dogs had to be turned over to what groups, raising a lot of concerns about the future welfare of those animals. When the co-author of the bill began working on amendments, I had hoped they would help ensure that dogs didn't go from a bad situation to worse. But the new version still put experienced shelters at the mercy of potentially underqualified rescue groups, with a few swiss cheese safety nets now in place: an aggressive dog could be euthanized, but only if the courts got involved; any 501c3 could still demand a dog, but only if their staff, board and volunteers were clear of animal cruelty charges. The changes weren't enough to win support.

Most people agreed with the spirit of the law: Let's save more animals. But laws need more than spirit. They need to be written in a way that they can achieve their goal with minimal unintended consequences.

The fears on both sides of the Oreo's Law debate are very real. Yes, there are shelters out there who seem to wantonly kill animals and refuse to work with rescue groups. Look at Robeson County, North Carolina, where the shelter is being sued for allegedly putting animals down right after they've been spoken for.

But on the flipside, a 501c3 status doesn't mean much. Just last month, 261 neglected, flea-ridden dogs were rescued from Mid-Florida Retriever Rescue, a 501c3 nonprofit organization. If they had been in New York, and Oreo's Law had passed, they would have been able to request any dog that wasn't terminally ill or defended in court. Defenders of Oreo's Law waved off the concern about hoarders, but new hoarding cases are discovered every day, and a disturbing number of them are from people who were "rescuing" animals.

Besides the requirement that personnel are clear of a history of animal cruelty (which could just mean they haven't been caught), there was nothing to determine that a group was qualified to take on the responsibility of an aggressive dog. Yet, rescuers who have extensive experience with tough cases, but have never applied for 501c3 status, would be shut out of helping.

So, is there a future for Oreo's Law?

Best Friends Animal Society, who was criticized for taking a neutral stance on the bill, posted a statement yesterday on why they ultimately stayed out of it: "We quickly realized this issue was less about passage of legislation, and more of a nasty fight over ideology and past histories ... Sadly, this is one of those times in the no-kill movement where infighting, name-calling, and baseless accusations become the focus, not the best interest of the animals." I couldn't agree more. (In fact, I agree with everything Best Friends had to say on the issue.)

The controversy around Oreo's Law got downright ugly at times. If the goal is to get shelters and rescues working together to save animals' lives, you know what's not going to work? Infighting, name-calling, and baseless accusations.

I'm all for fighting for what you believe in, especially when it comes to saving animals. But there often comes a time when the fighting needs to stop, and the listening needs to begin. To quote Best Friends again: "It is time that we come together, lay down the swords and collaborate to solve the challenges faced by homeless animals in this country today."

People on both sides need to take advantage of this cooling off period before the next legislative session. It's possible to not only save animals' lives, but give them good lives where they're protected from further trauma. If the groups involved can get beyond bickering to figure that out, then Oreo's Law might have a chance. Although, to be honest, the law is only secondary; if both sides learn to collaborate toward their common goal, the legal mandate to do so won't be what saves lives. 

Photo credit: ASPCA