It is true that a five-day hold only applies to stray animals. In cases like this, the required holding period is longer.

The fact of the matter is: If we had no-kill as a policy at ALL animal "shelters," this NEVER would have happened. We don't take it upon ourselves to euthanize sick humans, but we feel so free to do it to other life forms. I wouldn't take an animal within 100 miles of a "humane" society "shelter."

AHS “did everything the way our protocol calls for." Clearly, AHS needs to change its protocol. This poor woman did everything right by having a clear will. The City of Woodbury should also be held accountable for doing business with a kill-shelter.

this is sad i because she left her estate to them thinking they would get her cat but look at the bright side maybe in death she wanted her cat with her we won't know if thats possible until we die but i think it is may they both rest in peace Hope Animal Ark builds on with the money from the estate to make the kitty rooms bigger. I just visit there in oct i was really liked two cats whos owner has died but i couldn't have 2 because of my landlord So i got Rufus for Caring for Cats another no kill shelter in north st paul this was because my cat skittles of 17 died and i know we will be together again

"Humane Society officials decided to euthanize Jimmy, said Laurie Brickley, Humane Society vice president of marketing."

Euthanized exactly why? On what ground was that decisions made and why? Was there nothing more important to do in the City of Woodbury? Is that what happens to all "owner surrenders" in Woodburry? They just get killed with no questions asked? I don't think the Woodbury Animal Shelter fits the definition of "Shelter" (a. Something that provides cover or protection, b. a refuge; a haven.). It fits more like the definition of a Slaughterhouse (an establishment where animals are butchered).

So, let me get this straignt: the Humane Society position is that when they killed the cat, they were doing so at the request of his owner. Now, they say ownership of his dead body is in dispute? At the same time, they don't understand the need for a holding period? Really?!

I presume the daughters were aware of the contents of their mother's will. I would say this more or less explains why the cat ended up dead! However the Animal Humane Society were definitely complicit in this murder.

Janet, I don't think we can assume Mary's daughters knew the contents of her will. They have been estranged from her for a very long time. It is also not clear what information was really exchanged between the family and AHS. It is clear that "next of kin" do not automatically become "owners" of a person's property when they die. Lacking any proof of ownership of Jimmy, AHS had the legal and moral obligation to, at least, hold him for the required impound period, or until a decision-maker that could demonstrate ownership came forward. Had AHS simply held Jimmy for the required period, he would have been claimed by Animal Ark on the 4th day of impound. He would be alive and getting the care he deserved, and that Mary had gone so far out of her way to ensure happened.

The frightening thing about the statements made by AHS is this: They want to interpret the law in such a way that would prevent the owner of any pet from having their wishes carried out in the event something happens to them. The "we didn't know what was in the will" excuse does not hold any water, if a shelter responsible for impounding an animal will not hold the pet until there is an opportunity to find out.

Unless someone dies clutching their Last Will and Testament in their hands, how WOULD they "know", especially if they do not provide the administrators of the estate a reasonable opportunity to come forward?

This is all about the estate isn't it. The cat was collateral damage for the greed of some, especially apparent at the AHS...Ultimately, whoever recieved the proceeds to care for the cat is responsible for the animals protection. If they were not responsible protectors of the persons last wishes, then they should not be entitled to the estate. IMO.

Woodbury should review its contract with AHS. This is an unusual situation, for sure, but accidental killing of people's pets happens all the time in kill shelters across this country.

We need shelter reform and we need appropriate legislation to hold those in charge of animal welfare accountable. I'm getting very tired of the excuses, case in point: Brickley, the Humane Society official, saying "unfortunately we could not be psychic."

No one expects you or your colleagues to be psychic, Laurie Brickley, but we do expect you to do your jobs, which we taxpayers are paying you to do. AHS should have asked about Mary Ray's directives. AHS should have asked the daughters more questions. And in failing to do so, AHS should own up to their error, apologize and strive to make it better so it doesn't happen again. There are measures which would prevent this sort of thing happening again. Holding periods are mentioned above, and supposedly those are already on the books but were not honored here? For shame.

Instead we get a shrugging of the shoulders and excuses. For those of us who have been monitoring AHS closely, this abdication of responsibility comes as no surprise.

Interesting conversation, all. I would also like to point out that while the specifics of this case are unusual and unique, AHS has a long history of killing animals when other alternatives were available. Here are a sampling of recent examples:

http://animalark.ning.com/profiles/blogs/k9-officer-destroyed-at-animal

http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/3590DF9CAA8644C686257560005A1D26?OpenDocument

http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/702708FBD30A635A862576A50046EB20?OpenDocument

http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/2E6142B790C6F5C3862577D5006FC050?OpenDocument

http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/294EBBB310F76084862576A500775EBE?OpenDocument

While the specifics of this case are unique and unusual, the needless killing of companion animals at AHS is, unfortunately neither of those things...

Looking forward, when someone wills their estate to an animal shelter they should notify the City and humane society. A mutual databank could be kept at City Hall and the HS. It doesn't seem that complicated. These situations are probably far and few between. Obviously the police have other things to do but there's no excuse for putting that cat down in only two days. That's terrible.

On another note, I wonder if a lawyer helped Mary Ray draft her will. If so, the attorney should have anticipated complications such as this and advised Ms. Ray to make her wishes known. If there's a lawyer involved, I think they dropped the ball on this one.

This is a sad story. It's mostly sad that this family was so estranged - that seems to be the real moral of this cautionary tale. Hopefully Jimmy and Mary are together and at peace.

First of all, it was NOT an "owner surrender" as the "Humane" Society rep claims. Anyone -- ANYONE -- knows that upon a death there is a probating of a will. Anyone -- ANYONE -- in any sort of animal welfare work should assume that provisions would have been made by the decedent for pets. The "Humane" Society's reneging of its responsibility to protect the cat and see that the wishes of the deceased were fulfilled by claiming that a family member authorized the killing of the cat is legally -- and morally -- indefensible. Not to mention despicable.

Annalisa, you are 100% correct. The things you say are common sense, well-known in our society. Could the City of Woodbury or AHS start giving out Mary's car or house without the will being probated? Of course not... not even to "next of kin".

To Oakdale Resident: We don't need a new database. We just need the agencies charged with handling the property if deceased citizens to abide by existing laws, and to pay full respect to the responsibility that is in their hands.

Why are the words Humane and Kill used for the same place?
Many people are under the sad assumption that a Humane Society is an adoption center only.
They need to change the name to Pound or Animal Control.

Guess I will have a bracelet made to wear that my animals are provided for in my will.
What a sad lesson,

My heart really goes out to Marlene Foote who had these conversations with Mary Ray. It must have been so sad to learn of her death and then learn the fate of her cat.

People like Mike Fry and Marlene Foote are so special and work so hard on behalf of animals. Hopefully their sad experience and frustration in this case will help others in the future.

Kris, the editor of Patch, had a great idea on Facebook!
Have a "pet of the week" featured on all the Patch sites for adoption.
Great Idea, Kris!! :0)

I think this story comes down to a matter of FIVE DAYS. It seems like Jimmy's death was a killing of convenience, to avoid having to provide medical attention to him. I believe that the family probably acted on the best information they had about the situation. Had AHS simply waited a five day period, this whole tragedy might well have been avoided. Wills and probate are the only means for the dead to communicate with the living & they can take time (5 days perhaps) to sort out the basics. Based on Ms. Ray's specific requests and her seeking out alliance with a no-kill shelter, I have to guess that she feared that something like this might happen to Jimmy. I concur with other commenters who shared concern about having their final wishes and instructions regarding their companion animals honored. Life and death decisions made in haste by animal welfare stewards imperil all of our pets who outlive us. No disrespect meant to Ms. Brickley, but it's too bad that AHS chose their Marketing Director rather than their top (policy) executive to respond in such an irreversible situation.

Mr. Farber noted in the article that, “After a telephone conversation with one of Ray’s daughters, Humane Society officials decided to euthanize Jimmy, said Laurie Brickley, Humane Society vice president of marketing.” This is untrue.

As I stated in my conversation with Mr. Farber, Animal Humane Society did not make the decision to euthanize Jimmy. The decision was made by Ms. Ray’s family member.

Jimmy arrived at Animal Humane Society on December 7 to be held for five days. Minnesota state law mandates that any stray animal be held for five days before placement or until a rightful owner claims it, whichever comes first.

On December 11 we were put into contact with one of Ms. Ray’s family members by the Woodbury Police Department. That family member surrendered Jimmy to us with the request that he be euthanized through our euthanasia and cremation services.

Jimmy did not have a microchip that would lead Animal Humane Society or any other animal welfare organization or vet’s office to believe that he was to be transferred into the ownership of Animal Ark.

Laurie Brickley, AHS

Laurie, thanks for your post. Your comments shed much light on this issue.

You said, “The decision [to kill Jimmy] was made by Ms. Ray’s family member.” But, that is not true. It was the decision of AHS to kill Jimmy, based on an interpretation of a phone call.

In addition to that glaring issue with your statement, I take issue with you suggesting that he was to be held for “five days”. The five-day hold applies only to strays (as you correctly indicated in your quote in the article). Abandoned animals, and animals on other “legal limbo”, as in the case of Jimmy, are required to be held for 10 days. I guess that is an irrelevant point, since AHS did not even hold Jimmy for five days.. Additionally, had they held Jimmy for five days, this would not be an issue. I began contacting AHS on the 4th day of impound (as defined by State Law). Even though you were required to hold Jimmy for a MINIMUM of ten days, he was dead within 24 hours.

Whether or not Jimmy had a microchip is irrelevant to this discussion. A “family member” cannot legally “surrender” a pet they do not own. That is the point.

Not only were animal welfare laws violated in this case, probate and property laws were also violated. And, it is shocking that in a situation as serious as this, AHS would bring out their “Marketing Manager” to speak about violations of law and failed policies.

Laurie: Additionally, I find your statement which read, "Jimmy did not have a microchip that would lead Animal Humane Society or any other animal welfare organization or vet’s office to believe that he was to be transferred into the ownership of Animal Ark" to be exceptionally informative.

Anyone who knows anything about Microchips knows they only indicate who owns a pet. In this case, if Jimmy had been micro chipped, it would only have told AHS that he was owned by Mary Ray. But, of course, you already knew that.

No one -- and I mean NO ONE -- registers their pets to the people responsible for those pets if something happens to the pets' owners. You, and AHS, clearly know that, and are just making stuff up to excuse your continued violations of law, and your continued disregard for animal life.

Such a sad story :( We found a stray cat in Oakdale and when we found out the police were going to bring it to the Humane Society we decided to keep it in our garage temporarily rather than bring it to it's potential death. Luckily it was microchipped and the local vet found the owners. We have two cats - one of which is diabetic and her medicine costs about $100 for a 3 month supply. I hope someone can figure out a sure-fire way to make sure this never happens again.

Many years ago I found a beautiful and friendly dog, I posted pictures of her and kept her for 3 days at my parents home. Eventually I turned her over to the HS. Two days had passed and I was contacted buy the original owner, who just returned from vacation. I explained that I just turned the dog over to HS 2 days ago. I immediatly called the HS and they told me they had just put her down about 15 minutes ago. I have never taken a dog to the HS again. I keep the dogs until I find their owners. Which I usually do.

Do You think the HS could use the Social Media, I see all sorts of posts for lost and found animals in my area. Maybe someone that new Ray's wishes could have came forward before this tradgedy happened. I will never trust the HS.

Oh by the way, The HS also sells dogs for lab testing. I know this becasuse I was offered a job at a company that told me they get their dogs that are about to be put euthenised from the HS.

Makes you wonder if they are actually euthenized or if they are sold for lab testing.
HMMMMMMMM?

It's unfortunate that the cat was euthanized when it would have had a place to live, but I have to wonder why the leadership at Animal Ark didn't recommend a $2 tag on the cat's collar to contact them in case the animal ever went missing or the owner's death. People wear medical directive bracelets. If rescues are going to encourage people to donate their estates with the stipulation that their animal will be cared for, they should also take responsibility for ensuring the transition of the animal. AHS and the police don't have ESP, so they contacted next of kin and followed their wishes.

The general public should be more concerned about the underlying issue here. "No-kill" groups like Animal Ark have made it crystal clear that that they don't think pet owners should be the one deciding whether their animal is suffering, and that the shelter knows what is best for your pet.

http://www.animalarkshelter.org/PDFs/MNCAPA.pdf (page 2)

Many low income people rely on shelters to provide lower cost euthanasia, but according to MN CAPA, the shelter could not euthanize your animal until the pain is "unremitting". Considering the CAPA law currently being proposed in Minnesota, pet owners may want to protect their rights to make that decision when that time comes for your beloved pet. Let your legislators know you find that concerning, otherwise you could be faced with your beloved pet being placed in a cage at a "no-kill" shelter for a few more months of suffering.

If a shelter was really committed to saving lives, it would not kill a cat just becase it was diabetic. It's ironic that a 71-year old woman was able to manage Jimmy's diabetes and a humane society was not.

J. Carter: Jimmy didn't wear a collar, because he lived indoors his whole life. The fact that he did not wear a collar does not negate the responsibility of the City or AHS in handling him according to current state law. Furthermore, I believe that most people with pets would want them cared for if something happened that prevented them from doing so. Regardless, people have the ability according to currently law to express those wishes... you may or may not agree with them. Mary Ray made her wishes clearly known. The City and AHS violated law and Mary's wishes and killed her cat. Are you really trying to justify that?!

J. Carter: It's too bad that MN CAPA isn't a law yet because if it were, Jimmy would still be alive. If this is how "owner-requested" euthanasias are handled, how can you even say that owners know what is best for their pets? This daughter requested that Jimmy be "euthanized", but he was not suffering irremediably. He had diabetes, which had been managed by insulin. He is dead now, not because he was at the end of his life, but because AHS doesn't treat diabetic animals. And if you really understood MN CAPA, you would not be scaring people into thinking their pets would be "placed in a cage at a 'no-kill' shelter for a few more months of suffering".

Why would shelters even allow the service of "owner-requested euthanasia"? Shelters should be a place where people take their animals to save their lives, not to have them killed. Take your animal to your vet if you feel it is at the end of its life. Is saving a few dollars really worth having to leave your pet with complete strangers in an unfamiliar building, surrounding by other scared animals? By the way, if you take your animal to AHS for this "service", you wouldn't be allowed to be by his side while he's being euthanized. According to their website: "We are unable to accommodate visitation requests during the procedure due to the number of animals in our care. This also helps to keep the fees for this service low." What does being able to be with your pet at the end of its life have anything to do with how much the service costs?

J. Carter - Children are not probated as property because, unlike pets, children are not defined as property in State law. AHS clearly understands that these laws DO apply in this case. They are holding Jimmy's remains until after the preliminary probate hearing. According to the attorney for the estate, the hearing is a simple, routine, uncontested hearing. The administrators of the estate do not even need to appear.

No one is questioning a pet owners right to make decisions about their pets. This is a case where the owner did make decisions, and AHS failed to take even a minimum about of time to find out what she wanted.

Relating to your statements about owner-requested euthanasia and CAPA, you are conflating two unrelated issues. CAPA says that shelters should not be in the business of ending the life of healthy animals at the request of owners. It does not suggest the owners cannot make those decision. Veterinarians sell "euthanasia" services all the time. One might want to wonder why shelters would fight for the right to kill healthy and savable pets, or why they would even want to sell that service...

Which, brings up another interesting point... since AHS claims this was a service requested by the "owner", and it is a service for which they charge a fee, can they show us a receipt indicating the daughter paid for the service? The answer, according to AHS is "no". They didn't even get a signed piece of paper.

I find it hard to believe the AHS doesn't know the differance between laws regarding children verses the laws regarding animals owned by an individual. AHS is trying to throw up a smoke screen to hide the obvious way they conduct business. Pets are personal property and as such I'm curious if the request to put Jimmy down was made by the administrator of the estate? Just because someone is a family member doesn't mean they have the right to make decisions regarding personal property. I find it very unprofessional the tone that the Woodbury AHS is taking about this whole matter.

The family member that (supposedly) requested the humane society put Jimmy down was not the administrator of the estate. It was, in fact, a person expressly and specifically excluded from Mary Ray's estate. AHS clearly understands the laws involved. They are refusing to turn over Jimmy's remains to the estate, pending probate. AHS clearly understands what probate is. They understand that Jimmy was part of Mary's estate.

They are simply bending themselves into prezels trying to avoid taking any responsibility for killing Jimmy.

The most egregious comments... they imply it was Mary's fault they did not know her wishes, because Jimmy was not microchipped! The audacity is breath-taking!

Get real people. No kill doesn't necessarily mean such. And things are never black and white. Having a severe depression I wanted to find a home for a cat who had a siezure disorder that the vet didn't know what it was. I had taken this cat in from someone who got "caught" with it in a no pets apartment. I couldn't care for him and a new baby and two other elderly cats, also taken in; one with hyperthyroidism required a daily pill (and the vet never told me I could buy the medication at Walmart for $5 and I was milked me for $60 a month for years). After putting up posters up and not able to find him a new home I learned he was unacceptable at no kill shelters as most have very restricted admission thus they can select who they DON'T want to "kill." I ended up keeping him but he had a cancer on his spleen that grew quickly and he needed euthanasia. After the experience at this vet, very cold and callous,and from hearing from others experiences would have taken him to AHS in a heartbeat. RIP Tamale.

Mike, I agree, the audacity is sickening and is not helping their case one bit. All the AHS had to do was simply asked the daughter if she was the administrator. Instead they chose to take the lazy road and ask if they should go ahead and put Jimmy down. They did not do their job, period. The argument they are trying to make that they didn't know Mary's wishes doesn't fly. If you don't know something, you ask. It's just common sense. Not that it will bring Jimmy back, but if they are concerned about their image, the AHS should now do the right thing and hand over the remains. Why hold them until probate court? Now they are concerned about probate? Very unprofessional.

Wow, this story brings tears to my eyes. I just lost my dog to cancer. It is the hardest thing I've ever had to deal with. Our pets are family and mean so much to us! Obviously Mary Ray loved her cat dearly if she took the time to make sure it would be cared for if it outlived her. I am saddened to hear how the humane society handled this case. The Animal Ark does wonderful work and I support the agency 100%. I pray that others who pass away before their pets will have their wishes carried out! Keep up the great work Animal Ark!!

http://www.animalarkshelter.org/animal/ArkArticles.nsf/AllArticles/309787FAF455B8D48625796E0069AD6D?OpenDocument

The whole situation is very sad, but for Mike Fry to blame the Humane Society with such continued hatred confuses me (this is definitely not the 1st time he's publicly criticized AHS). I have volunteered both my time and money to the Humane Society for over 15 years, and I really don't understand his constant disapproval of the work that the Humane Society does. Don't we all want the same thing -- to care for animals?! Animal Ark is a "no kill" shelter. By definition, Animal Ark needs to be choosy in the animals that are accepted. If they accepted sick or un-adoptable animals, they'd run out of room in their shelter as these animals continued to wait for adoption. So they offer the most adoptable animals. Guess who takes the rest? AHS accepts all animals. Without the AHS, animals would needlessly suffer from overpopulation and adoption rates would be much lower. I believe there are benefits to BOTH the AHS and Animal Ark, and would think that it would be prudent for the leaders of both organizations to "play nice" and not air personal opinions of the other organization to any media outlet they can get to listen. Don't we all have the same ultimate goal, of helping as many animals in the community as possible? Then let's work together to make that happen, and quit polarizing people and forcing them to choose sides. Because the last time I checked, both organizations work for animal protection.

For the Animals -- The AHS didn't "kill" Jimmy; they followed what they believed were the wishes of his owner's next of kin. They euthanized a sick cat at the request of its owner's daughter, not knowing the rest of the story. None of us commenting here were there for every conversation between her daughter, the city, AHS, and Animal Ark. Therefore, it's kind of hard to draw accurate conclusions about who is in the wrong here. It's a sad situation. And I never said that his life was not as important as another animal's life. Accepting all animals, even the sick and dying, means that they aren't out on the streets suffering. Isn't euthanasia a more humane way for a suffering animal to die than to starve in the elements? I'm not saying this was the case for Jimmy; I'm simply saying that making blanket statements that euthanasia is evil doesn't help animals either. Let's address the problem of pet overpopulation and spay and neuter as many pets as possible, then watch the number of unwanted (and therefore euthanized) animals drop. I'm pretty sure that every person who works at the AHS doesn't enjoy euthanizing animals, but they realize that in this world where animals are abandoned and unwanted, there is often no other choice. (Again, not saying this was the case with Jimmy -- since none of us were there, let's call it a big misunderstanding and learn from the mistakes made by many people.)

Kelly, why was AHS so quick to end Jimmy's life before they could find out "the rest of the story"? And from all accounts, he was not sick, he was diabetic. There's a big difference between suffering irremediably and having a medical condition that can be managed by insulin. It is also the difference between being euthanized and being killed. Yes, euthanasia is a more humane way for an animal to die, but only if the animal is already suffering and there's no chance for it to recover. It is not humane to kill an animal simply because it is sick with a treatable or manageable condition, or because it fails a temperament test. You make it sound like an animal has only two options--starving in the elements or being "euthanized" at a "shelter". How about a shelter that provides medical attention or necessary training so they can be adopted instead? Also, I am not saying that every person at the AHS enjoys euthanizing animals, but why aren't they questioning the fact that often there may be another choice? Why didn't someone say, "Can't we give Jimmy insulin?"

Kelly L... you are only right about one thing, no one knows what conversations actually took place between AHS and Mary's family. We could have known if AHS has followed standard business practices and simply had the "next of kin" (who was, ironically, just down the street from the AHS shelter at the time) sign a legal document "requesting" "euthanasia". Apparently, they did not. They also, apparently, did not request any proof the family member they were speaking with was the actual administrator of Mary's estate.

Apparently AHS was willing to do very little to help Jimmy or Mary. They seem to have only wanted to do the least amount of work. The easiest thing was to kill Jimmy. So, that is what they did, without any thought about probate, impound, or other state laws that were already in place to protect his life, and the wishes of his owner.

Kelly L,

I also volunteer and donate on behalf of animals and used to think as you did. I thought there were limited options, that it was humane to euthanize because the only other scenario was animals starving and cold outside on their own. But I've come to realize that's very black and white thinking. There are other options.

There are open admission shelters, taking in any and all animals and still achieving high live release rates. For the local MG Impound this past year it was something like 96%. How do they do it? Through close collaboration between shelter staff and rescue groups. They simply commit and make it happen, even when the going gets tough. No excuses. It takes hard work and dedication, but it is possible. This sort of paradigm shift is happening all over the U.S.

I'm very sorry to say it, but AHS has shown, despite a healthy budget, a full staff and volunteers at the ready, they do not have what it takes. They frequently make horrible mistakes and then make excuses instead of making it better. They let the animals down, and they let us down.

I wish AHS did better. I would much prefer they were an effective and overwhelming force for good in animal welfare. I would love for them to be accountable, take ownership of the problems that arise and improve! Our companion animals in crisis deserve better. And we taxpayers, who entrust them with caring for our community's animals in times of crisis, we deserve better too.

Mike Fry/For The Animals -- I give up. Since anything I say is obviously not correct and everything you say is true (well, you tell me that I am "only right about one thing", so thanks for that admission), I will keep my opinions to myself. Obviously, in your opinion, it is best to bad-mouth another animal welfare institution in the community with the hope of making yourself and Animal Ark look better. I thought we all wanted what's best for animals, but apparently I was wrong.

Don't take it so personally Kelly L. No one is attacking you, but if you offer your own set of opinions, don't get upset when other people offer theirs.

It's a fact that there was a place for Jimmy to go, plans set up for him, all things set aside, etc. etc. and then the animal "shelter" contacted and listened to the woman's daughter, who was specifically excluded from her will. AHS didn't bother to find out the administrator of the estate, or get the will from them, or any thing remotely similar to that which could be accomplished by a simple phone call. That is what is fact. It's also a fact that AHS is required to hold animals that were surrendered by owners and animals with questionable ownership for 10 days. This cat was killed 24 hours later. There really is no bad mouthing on anyone's part here, because this "shelter" did bad enough all on their own.

This is calling public attention to a legal and moral wrong committed by a "shelter" that the public funds with taxes to save animals in their community, not kill them. That's not bad-mouthing at all. What's best for the animals is to make it well known when an animal welfare agency is neglectful, mismanaged, incompetent, and bent on killing. Apparently, AHS fits this description

I will be contacting the Woodbury City Council requesting that Woodbury ends its relationship with AHS. I hope everyone commenting here does the same.

There are still some unanswered questions remaining. Why was there such an urgency to kill the cat? Did the cat pose any danger to the public? Did the cat show any symptoms that he was extremely ill or injured? Did nobody at AHS come of the idea to hold the cat and try to find a foster home or adopt him out? Jimmy lost his beloved owner and home and as reward for that ordeal he got killed. Just like that.

Mits, & Cait L , Yes, please contact Woodbury City Council. I've been there & will continue to go there to request change.

Nicole, You are right, the AHS not only broke the Property Law, but they broke the MN Law Ch. 343 protecting the rights of animals. We are going to have to appear at the next Council meeting to ask the City of Woodbury, to bring the impound center of the AHS into compliance with all applicable laws. Currently, everyone is dancing around the law & most of them don't even know or unerstand it. It's pretty frustrating, and frightening that our taxpaying dollars are wasted on incompetence.

Based upon what I have learned by reading all of these posts, and I have no connection with either shelter, It seems as a mistake happened, Mr Fry woould rather point fingers at others than look to see what he coould improve from his end for the next CAT that someone wills to his shelter. No matter what any of you think, this is about the money Mr Fry would receive. I think AHS is a good option for the city, I don't want to see the CSO of WDBY driving all over the metro to drop off animals that roam the streets. A family member told AHS to put the cat down, they acted on that. Maybe that was not the intent of the lady but who knew?

What does this story have to do about the money Mike Fry would receive? It is about Jimmy, the cat that Animal Ark was supposed to get, but didn't because AHS killed it. So what if a family member told them to "put the cat down". The cat was the property of a deceased person, and her possessions are part of her estate. A family member had no right to say what should happen to Jimmy. The lady made her intentions very clear, and why would AHS be so quick to kill a cat before finding out what those intentions were? This story is about the needless killing that happens everyday at AHS, and if that's where you want your stray animals to be taken, then I hope all your strays are friendly enough to pass their asinine temperament tests.

As a point of fact, I get no money from this event, no matter the outcome. Animal Ark, the organization for which I work, is the beneficiary of Mary's estate, regardless of what happened to Jimmy. This issue is not, in any way about money. It is an issue about following laws and right and wrong.

Is there anything about this statue that seems unclear?

343.235
Subdivision 1.General rule.
An animal taken into custody under section 343.12, 343.22, 343.29, or 343.31 may be humanely disposed of at the discretion of the jurisdiction having custody of the animal ten days after the animal is taken into custody, provided that the procedures in subdivision 3 are followed. An animal raised for food or fiber products may not be seized or disposed of without prior examination by a licensed veterinarian pursuant to a warrant issued by a judge.

With all due respect, Keith, you got that entirely wrong. First, there was a known owner. It was Mary Ray's estate. In Minnesota property of a person who dies goes to their estate to be probated. These laws do apply because Jimmy was in a situation where he was not being cared for. That would be the only logical or rational reason for removing him from the home.

A point of fact: If another person in the home survived and was caring for Jimmy, we would not be having this conversation. The fact of the matter is the rational basis for removing Seizing Jimmy from Mary's home is that he was not being care for. If this law does NOT apply... please explain under what MN Statute was the Woodbury police operating when they removed Jimmy from her home? You do understand that police cannot just take the property of a dead person without a legal basis, right? If lack of care was not the rational basis, what was? Note: the law does not only apply to "cruelty" it applies to "neglect" and neither of these things is always intentional.

When Mary died, Jimmy became the responsibility of her estate. Because her estate was not aware of her death immediately, Jimmy was being neglected, hence the seizure... and the required 10 day hold.

Additionally, Keith,

We do not need to keep debating this here. Soon enough a judge will get to decide this case. The basic questions will be: If the City of Woodbury was not "seizing" Jimmy when they took him from Mary's home, what where they doing, and under what legal authority? Can a shelter prescribe ownership of an animal to anyone they choose, based on arbitrary information?

Those questions and others will be part of the very interesting legal discussion. Queue your legal team...

Also, Since Keith is citing MN Chapter 346 (Animals Roaming at Large - i.e. "stray" animals) it is worth pointing out that the minimal 5 day hold required by these statutes was not even followed. Clearly, Jimmy was not "roaming at large" or "estray". He was confined to Mary's home and not being care for.

Regardless of that, I personally began contacting AHS on the 4th day of impound (verifiable via phone records and recorded conversations with Woodbury police). So, while AHS is quoting a law that does not apply, with lower standards, they did not even comply with the lower standards of they law they are citing. It will be an interesting day when this goes to court.

The Animal Humane Society of Woodbury (a/k/a The St. Croix Animal Shelter, Humane Center for Companion Animals, Humane Society for Companion Animals ... and "In-Humane Society of Woodbury" is our term for them) has, for YEARS, been violating the MN State Impound Holding Law of 5 days. They seem to like hiding behind state statues to justify their actions which are despicable! They really should be held accountable and should be following state laws like all other facilities. After our own sad and frustrating encounter with AHS of Woodbury 3 years ago, it is really sad to see this happening yet again. After all, what Mary Ray wanted can never be fulfilled. This cannot be just another "unfortunate" or "accidental" killing and get passed over. I thought the mass killing of cats from our area that were brought in, mislabeled as "feral" by the Animal Control Officer and all killed within 24 hrs. would have raised enough flags with local residents. We tried 3 times over 6 days (1st visit w/in 24 hrs of disappearance of the cats) to get them back and were denied because they said they "didn't know anything about them" .. all the while, they had just been killed. How could they not KNOW or provide any information? They made the call to kill them. Obviously their record keeping and communication levels need help. I really hope Jimmy's case will push the AHS to close or totally reform and start following laws set in place. Can the public attend the court hearing?

I am sure you will be able to. You can also attend City Council Meetings. I have heard that a group of Woodbury residents are planning attending until something meaningful is done.

You're about a year late on the changes enacted to the City of Woodbury animal ordinance policies... What I recall is that it started with a complaint about someone raising a few chickens in their yard and a neighbor complaining about the rooster cawing in the morning.

The Cats Meow: sounds like you had a horrific experience with the Woodbury AHS euthanizing your cats.. We all need to document these unlawful incidents, & have to appear at Council meetings, etc.
Everyone sending emails or reading, Next Meeting is 7:30 p.m. OPEN FORUM, at
Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Rd. , JAN. 11th, 2012.

rfos- it wasn't the daughters decision to make, and the AHS should have known this. Just because there is a "next of kin" does not give someone legal rights. The law is very clear that pets are clasified as property and as such AHS should have asked the daughter who the administrator of the estate was. Had they done this Jimmy would still be alive.