By Elisa Black-Taylor
A Pickens County, South Carolina woman is grieving over the fate of her lost 17-year-old cat, who was euthanized at the shelter after the cat went missing.
Kelli Gandy, a Clemson resident, was worried about her cat when it went missing for the first time. Kelly had adopted the cat at a young age, and it would follow her around like a dog. In less than 24 hours, her cat was euthanized when it wound up at the shelter. Pickens County Animal Control said the cat was very sick and malnourished.
News media WSPA7 had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to learn why the cat was euthanized after trying for two weeks to talk to Pickens County Administrator J. Chappell Hurst, Jr. Hurst finally gave a statement to media a few days ago saying:
“That cat was in terrible shape. We put the cat down. I don’t apologize for that. We had to make that decision. We made it and we stand by it. That’s the end of it. I’m not worried about what the ordinance says. We have a right to make a decision of what’s in the best interest of an animal. And we made that decision.”
Here’s a video where news media spoke with everyone involved (as at June 1st 2015, the video is no longer available – sorry).
As it turns out, the Pickens County shelter may or may not have violated state law as pertaining to the hold on animals brought into the shelter. SC law states that all stray animals must be kept for a period of five days, after which time they may be legally euthanized or adopted out. Should a cat be wearing identification such as a collar, Animal Control is supposed to hold the cat for 10 days.
The cat was deaf, and old. Kelli says her cat wasn’t malnourished and had food available to her at all times.
WSPA7 stated in their report there is no exception to the five day hold, that all animals must be held as required by law. I did a bit of digging and found the shelter may have had the legal right to euthanize the cat. According to SC animal law, the law may not have been broken in this case. Under Article F (http://www.animallaw.info/articles/dduspetadoption.htm ) there’s a clause that read…..
“if an animal is extremely sick, believed to be experiencing extreme pain and suffering, or has a contagious disease, the shelter can kill the animal. Such determination of the animal’s condition needs to be made by a veterinarian or the shelter supervisor.”
Kelli has plans to meet with Administrator Hurst on August 12. She also plans to attend the next Pickens County council meeting later this month. In the meantime, Kelli and her family are heartbroken at the death of the cat they’ve had for so long now.
“We had no say whatsoever. We didn’t get to say goodbye. Nothing. Nothing. Now we don’t have her anymore,” Kelli told WSPA7.
Should a shelter have the right to euthanize a cat without informing the owner?
It’s scary to think a cat or dog turned into a shelter in poor condition is subject to euthanasia if that animal is determined to be sick or in pain. Shelter administrator’s apparently do have the right to euthanize. That still doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Don’t get me wrong. If an animal is in extreme pain and no owner can be located, that’s different.
It’s sad that Kelli never had the chance to say goodbye to her cat.
How does everyone else feel about this case? I’d suggest each of you check the laws in your state. I was totally unaware this is how SC deals with sick animals left at the shelters. This may be true in other states as well.
Elisa
Sources:
- http://www.animallaw.info/articles/dduspetadoption.htm
That’s the cat Pam.
Is the picture of the cat shown above the cat that was in fact euthanized? If so, it is obvious the cat is soaking wet. Was the cat trapped by someone and brought in to the shelter? How did the shelter obtain the cat? What qualifications did the shelter supervisor have to properly determine in the short time they had the cat that it was “sick and malnourished?” Obviously this determination was not made by a trained veterinarian. If the cat in the picture is indeed the cat in question, it is standing up – therefore presumably could not be that “sick.” Many cats at age 17 can be hyperthyroid or in renal failure or have heart problems or cancers, but they can sometimes live a good while with medications, even though they may not be as hale and hearty as they one were. Did they offer this cat food to see if it would eat? Some elderly cats become bone thin in their old age, just like people, but nevertheless go on living a long time quite happily. And why didn’t the shelter make any kind of effort to find the owner of the cat, especially knowing it was elderly and perhaps someone’s beloved pet? Couldn’t they at least have posted a sign where the cat was picked up? This is just typical of the uncaring attitude of so many municipal kill shelters.
I bet you it was just a matter of course to save money and the fact that the cat was old just gave them the excuse to say it “appeared to be” sick and in pain etc
Oh how I hate them – I hate these shelters who don’t give animals a chance.
I can attest to the fact that our kill shelter in no way adheres to the wait period they are supposed to. As stated above, there is a clause built in that gives them the go ahead to euthanize if they deem the animal to be sick.
Here, no shelter animals are medically treated even for a simple respiratory issue that could easily be taken care of. They automatically go to “the blue room”, as they call it. These decisions are made by uncredentialed staff. A vet never sees the animals.
I really feel for this woman. I raised a kitten to live to the age of 21. In her old age, she looked scruffy and thin but was going strong until the end. If a vet had seen this woman’s 17 year old, he may have realized that this was just a case of old age.
I’ll bet that I wouldn’t look so good either if I were as old in years!
This appears to be yet another example of shelter personnel who do not really care about animals. The rush to euthanise is testament to that. The administrator’s words ” I’m not worried about what the ordinance says. We have a right to make a decision of what’s in the best interest of an animal.” speaks volumes as to her attitude. She appears to be be saying that she has the right to make a decision irrespective of the ordinance. The ordinance says an animal may be put down before the expiry of the prescribed waiting period ” when an animal is extremely sick”. Being thin is certainly not extremely sick. Not enough importance was given to finding the owner or even seeing if it was adoptable. The rush to get rid of it was the over-riding concern. It would be interesting to hear what “sickness” was diagnosed so quickly by Pickens County Animal Control, and what proof do they have? These are 3 points that seem to demolish the case for immediate ethanasia.
My initial assessment is that this cat was killed to soon. I don’t think the shelter supervisor made an objective assessment of the cat’s health. He appears to have ignored the cat’s age. Old cats can be skinny but not malnourished. The owner says her cat was OK health-wise. I would prefer to trust her assessment.
Anyway the law seems to be unclear. Elisa says there is a loop-hole, a get-out clause for the obligatory wait period.
But the guy in the video did not defend his actions on that clause. He just said the cat was too ill and that he did the right thing. Perhaps he was indirectly referring to the clause.
The truth is that waiting 5 days would not have harmed. Almost certainly, the cat would have survived five days and the owner could then have dealt with her cat as she needed to.
This is another case of an over-eagerness to kill shelter cats in my opinion and not do enough to find owners and rehome.