The battle to save Bruce continues

Ventura County officials intent on denying SPARC their day in court and Bruce an opportunity for life and happiness

As previously reported, a Ventura County Superior Court judge denied a request for a temporary restraining order that would have barred Ventura County Animal Services (VCAS) from killing Bruce, a dog ordered destroyed after being declared “vicious.” Despite the denial, Bruce remains protected under a temporary preservation order issued by a U.S. District Court while attorneys continue pursuing legal avenues to prevent his death.

The request was filed by the Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center (SPARC), which argues that it retained contractual rights to Bruce under the adoption agreement executed when the dog was adopted in 2023. According to SPARC, ownership reverted to the rescue organization after Bruce’s adopters became homeless, Bruce began acting out aggressively, and they relinquished him to VCAS. SPARC contends it was never notified of the proceedings that resulted in the destruction order and was denied an opportunity to assert its contractual and property rights before the County ordered Bruce killed.

The litigation also challenges the factual basis for killing Bruce. Although the County relied on prior incidents to classify him as dangerous, records from Bruce’s months in the shelter describe him as a “model citizen” who behaves well with kennel staff and adapts successfully to a stable, controlled environment.

According to court filings, SPARC and others proposed permanent placement in a secure sanctuary or other controlled setting where Bruce could live without posing a risk to the public. The central ethical question therefore is whether a dog should be killed when a safe, permanent alternative exists that protects both public safety and the animal’s life.

For an analysis of why the answer is No, click here.

Despite the denial of the protective order, the litigation in both state and federal court continues. But Ventura County officials are trying to deny SPARC their day in court and Bruce an opportunity for life and happiness by demanding the litigation be dismissed under the threat of sanctions.

Dan C. Bolton of the Walter Clark Legal Group, which represents SPARC, calls the County’s threat of sanctions “sanctimonious gamesmanship,” arguing that VCAS intent to kill Bruce while ignoring a humane alternative, is both illegal and unethical. He refutes that SPARC’s claims lack a good-faith basis, explaining that the denial of a temporary restraining order does not dictate the merits of the underlying action because they operate under different evidentiary standards.

He has also tried, without success, to reach County attorneys by telephone, a courtesy that every attorney normally extends to one another. Despite the failure to return his calls, he subsequently offered to meet at a place and with officials of their choosing to find an accommodation that saves Bruce’s life, protects public safety, and furthers judicial efficiency. Will they ignore those overtures, too?

The jury, as they say, is still out. But what is clear and what never ceases to amaze me — although after so many years I should no longer be surprised — is how much time, resources, and effort “shelter” managers and their enablers spend trying to kill or justifying the killing of animals. If they spent even a fraction of that trying to actually place them, they would be the heroes they now only pretend to be.