A Winston-Salem animal rights advocate is suing the Robeson County Animal Shelter for euthanizing cats and dogs after they had been flagged for adoption.

The Gerber Animal Law Center of Raleigh filed the suit in Robeson County on behalf of Susan Barrett. After reading the complaint, District Court Judge Jeffrey Moore issued a restraining order barring shelter staff from euthanizing a dog or cat after a rescue group says it will adopt the animal.

The suit lists Health Director Bill Smith, shelter manager Jeff Bass and Environmental Health Director Albert Locklear as defendants.  Smith said "I can tell you, there is no such thing as a hold". "An animal may be adopted to whoever is present. That's the policy."

The lawsuit comes two weeks after Smith agreed to end a controversial euthanasia practice. Before the policy change, the shelter was the only one in the state still euthanizing animals on a regular basis by injecting lethal drugs directly into their hearts - intracardiac injections known as "heart sticking."

Barrett and others celebrated the policy change.  "But there are still a lot of problems at this shelter," Barrett said.

The lawsuit claims shelter staff regularly euthanize animals even after rescue groups call to adopt them. The suit challenges a shelter policy that calls for as many as half of the facility's 100 kennels to be left empty to allow for easier cleaning.

"By euthanizing to maintain that many open kennels, we're arguing that it amounts to unjustified killing," said Calley Gerber, the animal law attorney who filed the lawsuit.

The suit alleges that Bass euthanized a dog in April after Barrett told him she planned to adopt it. Barrett was waiting in the parking lot when Bass killed the dog and Bass knew she was there, the suit claims. Other animal rescue groups signed on to the suit make similar allegations.

"They have repeatedly taken retribution on the rescue groups," Barrett said. "The more we want a dog, the quicker the dog gets put down."

In 2009, the rural shelter took in more than 5,100 stray cats and dogs, according to county records.  Of those, more than 4,500 of the animals - roughly 88 percent - were euthanized.

Smith said the high kill rate is the result of limited community involvement, a large number of stray animals and not enough space or money to shelter them. But Gerber said the shelter's policies are to blame.

The shelter's hold policy doesn't require a window for pet adoptions. After giving owners 120 hours to claim a lost pet, the animals can be put down without ever being up for adoption. The Robeson County shelter also will not release the animals to foster homes during the hold period, even though a 2009 state law allows for such an arrangement, Gerber said.  Smith said the health board will consider changing the hold policy next month.

The lawsuit is the latest in a line of challenges against the animal shelter.

In 2001, animal advocates released an undercover video showing shelter workers heart-sticking dogs and cats without giving them anesthesia. The method is said to be extremely painful if the animal is not sedated. Various versions of the video have attracted hundreds of thousands of online views in recent months and seemed to galvanize animal rights activists from across the nation.

Sherrie Green stood outside the shelter holding her hands on her hips and squinting under the midday sun. The 25-year-old massage therapist and her family were surrounded by nearly a dozen others who had lined up to rescue animals. The shelter was scheduled to open for adoptions at 10 a.m., but three hours later the door was locked.

"We drove here from New Jersey," Green said, signaling toward her mother, sister and grandfather in the parking lot. "They're still not letting us in."

The shelter opening was delayed to allow for cleaning, a staff worker said. The facility opened shortly after 1 p.m. but only after a handful of would-be adopters were turned away.

Among the crowd locked out of the facility were rescue groups from South Carolina, Kentucky and Ohio, a regular trend in Robeson County since accusations of abuse at the shelter began spreading on the internet a few months ago.

"There is no compassion inside those walls," Jackie Armstrong said. "I come here every day now to pull animals for adoption, and they just don't care."

Smith scoffs at the allegations. He says the animal groups are misleading people. After the decision was made to end heart sticking, Smith said he hoped the change would quiet critics.  "It didn't," he said. "They just moved on to different issues. They don't like the staff. They don't like the holding period. It's always something"

Smith said misinformation about the shelter has led to threats against his staff.  Bass, the shelter's manager for eight years, has received the brunt of the criticism. Bass has said that animal advocates have left phone messages threatening to kill him. Others have posted Facebook messages calling him a murderer.

Joan E. Loza Mobry of Wisconsin has led the online charge against Bass. She said in a phone interview that her "life mission" is to see Bass put in prison. Loza Mobry said she'll have to pursue her goal from afar.  "I have to," she said, "because if I ever came face to face with Jeff Bass, I would probably do something I would go to prison for."

Update 5/22/10:  Robeson County officials are asking a District Court judge to dismiss a lawsuit alleging cruelty at the county animal shelter.

County Attorney Hal Kinlaw will argue to have the case thrown out, according to legal briefs. The charges against the animal shelter in St. Pauls lack legal merit, Kinlaw wrote in the documents.

The Gerber Animal Law Center of Raleigh filed the lawsuit on behalf of Winston-Salem animal rights activist Susan Barrett. Among other allegations of abuse, the lawsuit alleges that shelter staff regularly euthanize animals, even after rescue groups call to adopt them.

On May 7, Judge Stanley Carmical upheld a temporary restraining order barring shelter staff from euthanizing dogs or cats after they've been flagged for adoption.

Kinlaw argued against the restraining order during the hearing. He said there is no law or policy requiring the shelter to keep an animal alive after a state-mandated 120-hour hold period.  "We're not saying the (shelter) rules can't be modified," Kinlaw said during the hearing. "We're saying the appropriate way to modify the rules is through the Health Department."

As enforced, the animal shelter's policy doesn't require a time window for pet adoptions.

After giving owners 10 days to claim a lost pet, the animals can be put down without ever being put up for adoption. The health board will consider changing the hold policy at its meeting on May 27, county officials said.

Update 5/25/10:  A Robeson County District Court judge dismissed parts of a lawsuit alleging cruelty at the county animal shelter.

The crux of the lawsuit, though - a series of charges accusing shelter staff of abusing and unnecessarily euthanizing animals - will be heard, Judge Stanley Carmical ruled.

County Attorney Hal Kinlaw had asked to have the entire case thrown out. He argued that the charges against the animal shelter would be better handled through administrative review than through court action.

The judge disagreed.  "If (the allegations) are true ... then they would appear to be unlawful," Carmical said.

Carmical dismissed two claims in the lawsuit which challenged matters of protocol at the animal shelter. The shelter's policy to keep at least half of its kennels empty for cleaning and the county's decision not to utilize a voluntary fostering program allowed by the state are not illegal, the judge ruled.

"The only thing I need to be concerned about is whether these practices deviate from state law," Carmical said. "It seems the proper mechanism to address those issues would be with the legislature."

Also during the hearing, Carmical issued an injunction preventing the shelter from euthanizing an animal for at least 24 hours after a rescue group sends a fax expressing plans to adopt the animal. The order will remain in place throughout the course of the litigation, Carmical said.

The defendants listed in the lawsuit did not attend the hearing.

Barrett said afterward she was pleased the lawsuit was moving forward.  "I'm absolutely thrilled," Barrett said. "I know this needs to go to court, because people need to have this exposed."

The lawsuit cites a handful of alleged instances in which shelter staff were said to have abused sick or injured animals, ignored requests to adopt animals and euthanized animals within the state mandated 72-hour hold period.  The lawsuit names a handful of witnesses, and Barrett said she has stacks of documents to back her claims.

Calley Gerber, the Raleigh-based animal rights lawyer representing Barrett, said the lawsuit deals more with how individual employees treat animals than with the shelter's written procedures.  "The policy isn't necessarily the problem; it's the people," Gerber said. "The policy could be improved, though, don't get me wrong."

Reference:

The Fayetteville Observer