I don't know much about how legislation works in Albany but I suspect you may not know what it's like down in the 'trenches' of animal rescue. While you may think bill A05449A will help animals, it actually does them a severe disservice. I ask you please to reconsider your support of this bill.This bill makes it more difficult for rescue groups (who already have working relationships with city shelters) to pull animals out for adoption. Why would anyone want to stand in the way when there are groups ready and willing to take on any adoptable animal brought into the shelter? Why give the shelter the right of refusal when there are no other options but death? It seems so simple: any adoptable animal the shelter has no room for should be offered to a participating rescue. This bill disrupts this obvious flow and allows the shelter to spitefully kill any animal it chooses. I asked myself why legislation would allow something so seemingly cruel. Then I remembered the old adage: "Follow the money."Shelters like NYC's Animal Care & Control receive a large amount of funding from Maddie's Fund, a foundation whose express purpose is to create a 'no-kill nation.' ACC receives this funding as part of a gradual transition into 100% no-kill, or so that's the intent. But ACC is a high-kill shelter, so how can they continue to receive this funding? Do they find ways to better work with no-kill groups and eliminate the need for the euthanasia room? No, they falsify records to classify the killing of healthy animals. It has been reported numerous times that the ACC has altered medical records of healthy animals to make it appear they were ill, and  were thus killed. Killing a sick animal is allowable by Maddie's Fund, so suddenly there are a lot more terminally sick animals in the shelter.This revelation brings the 'psychological pain' language issue into focus. As you are aware, this bill allows the shelter to immediately kill any animal it believes to be in 'psychological pain.' There is no waiting period suggested; an understandably terrified cat can be put down within moments of intake. All the shelter must do is claim the animal would never recover from his condition, the animal is irredeemably ill, so it must be put down. And with that, no-kill funding is secured (at least until Maddie's Fund gets wise to the deception).

This bill does nothing but help high-kill shelters cover their tracks. It makes them less approachable, less accountable. How is that good government? I know most people don't really care about these animals; after all, if people cared more, how would they allow this to continue? The municipal shelter system works best below public scrutiny so it's up to a dedicated few to try to bring these issues to light. I don't blame you for not being aware of what's really going on here, nor am I confident this letter will change your mind. Everybody knows the city pound doesn't have enough money, so here's a way to ensure a funding source that doesn't rely on tax dollars, what's the harm? The harm is that these actions will mean a return to the dark ages of animal welfare for NY state. Do you really want your name associated with that?

Sincerely,

Jimmy Legs!