The court battles to save Bruce and Thunder

What do we owe dogs who have a lifesaving alternative?

Bruce

A Ventura County Superior Court judge has 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” for “multiple alleged incidents of aggression.” 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 latest 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.

Although the state court declined to issue its own protective order, the decision does not authorize Bruce’s killing. The federal court order remains in effect while the court considers jurisdictional issues and other claims brought by SPARC.

The legal battle comes as records maintained by Ventura County Animal Services paint a markedly different picture of Bruce’s behavior while in custody. Although Bruce has been declared “vicious,” VCAS kennel staff consistently describe him as a “model citizen” during his months at the shelter. The kennel notes document overwhelmingly positive behavior, suggesting Bruce has adjusted and can do well in a controlled environment despite the incidents that led to the proceedings.

Despite this and court filings that reveal multiple alternatives to killing were presented, including permanent custody under strict conditions or a sanctuary option, these options were rejected.

Bruce’s battle is not unique.

Lightning

As previously reported, the Denver pound is also intent on killing Thunder, a dog, despite a sanctuary alternative. Lightning, another dog who was with Thunder, is already dead. Indeed, “DAS killed Lightning as quickly as possible. So quickly that an appeal filed within hours was already too late.”

Prior to his execution, Denver Animal Shelter pound leadership sent a one word text after a judge ruled that Lightning could be killed: “Beautiful.”

Lightning’s killing follows his mauling of a cat and his biting of a person after he, and Thunder… escaped from their yard. The death of the cat, the biting of a person, his betrayal by an irresponsible “owner,” his betrayal by Denver pound staff, and even Lightning’s death are many things — tragic and heartbreaking, chief among them. But none are “beautiful.”

Despite a behaviorist evaluation that recommended Thunder… be spared because he exhibits “full bite inhibition” and a sanctuary offering to take him, ensuring he would neither be returned to the irresponsible “owner” nor ever put anyone else in harm’s way… [DAS is committed to killing him].

Despite their histories, Bruce and Thunder’s killing cannot be allowed to stand. Why?

Because we need to eliminate discretion which causes animals to die despite lifesaving alternatives.

Because if sanctuary is an option, it is a win-win: for the safety of the community and for the safety of the dog.

Courts have ruled that a family who does not believe in chemotherapy or blood transfusions cannot choose to allow their child to die if those things can save the child’s life. There are laws that say a family cannot cut down a tree on their own property because public policy is against cutting down trees. Just like kids and trees, shouldn’t a dog have an option despite the desires of the people at the pound who have control over him?

In fact, precedent for such a viewpoint already exists. Over 30 years ago, California courts invalidated a will provision that said a dog was to be killed upon her owner’s death. The court (and then legislature) found that it violated public policy to allow dogs who have a place to go to be killed just because a person with power over the dog demands it. A subsequent court ruled the same way about healthy and treatable dogs in shelters.

Although Bruce and Thunder have troubled histories, the principle here is similar: It is not right to kill an animal who has an appropriate and safe environment for them and others and can no longer pose a threat. Bruce — described by the very agency seeking his destruction as a “model citizen” — and Thunder, who has developed a positive relationship with some of his kennel attendants, deserve an opportunity for life and happiness.

For now, Bruce remains alive in VCAS custody while the federal litigation continues. In Denver, Thunder also remains in custody under a stay of execution, while his case works through the judicial process.