spacer graphic
Baywater Animal Rescue Kills Cats
Baywater Animal Rescue, 4930 Bucktown RD,Cambridge, MD

The Story of Ms. Pearl, a Fifteen Year-old Cat
Baywater Animal Rescue, located at 4930 Bucktown RD, in Cambridge, MD claims on their website under "About Us:"

"With more than 60 years of caring for and saving animals, Baywater Animal Rescue, a No Kill humane organization, is dedicated to the principle that every animal deserves to live."

REALLY? Apparently not. On April 30, 2012, Scott and Janice Hughes had the director of Baywater, Suzette Stitely, open the otherwise closed facility (they are "closed" on Mondays) and summarily euthanized Ms. Pearl, a healthy 15-year old cat that was owned by Ms. Phyllis Wheatley, the Hughs' daughter-in-law.

Here's what led up to this "in-humane" and morally reprehensible as well as senseless killing of an animal that did not belong to the Hughes.

Scott and Janice Hughes, upon getting the director to open Baywater, alleged that Ms. Pearl "had been abandoned" and requested that she be euthanized. Rather than make any attempt to verify this claim, for some undisclosed amount of money, the director had Ms. Pearl killed in whatever manner that the director decided.

Ms. Pearl had herself been rescued by Ms. Wheatley when she was a kitten and had been thrown into a trash can to let die. It was the sound of her mewing that brought attention to her and her subsequent rescue. From that time on and up until her wrongful death at the hands of vicious people. Ms. Pearl was cared for and dearly loved by Ms. Wheatley and her children for fifteen years.

The Hughes' claim of "abandonment" by Ms. Wheatly is simply an egregious fabrication on their part to exact some inexplicable apparent "vengeance" upon Ms. Wheatley. We used the word "vengeance" because of the following:

The Hughes' son, Dale (and Ms. Wheatley's husband) had recently been diagnosed with liver cancer and succumbed to it only three months after being diagnosed. Upon his untimely death, Janice Hughes mounted a campaign to drive Ms. Wheatley from the home that she and Dale had been renting from the Hughes and which the Hughes wanted to sell. She exhibited bizarre behavior toward Ms. Wheatley and threatened her bodily harm by shaking her cane at her and espousing threats if Ms. Wheatley didn't move immediately, among other equally insane tactics. While Ms. Wheatley presumably had Maryland law regarding tenant occupancy on her side, threats to her person were simply more than she could deal with in light of her grief over the loss of her husband; such threats commenced the moment Dale died.

But someone did offer to buy the property. The buyer, having just lost her own cat, fell in love with Ms. Pearl and offered to adopt her. This was "heaven sent" since in her hurry and anxiety to escape the wrath and further harassment from the Hughes, Ms. Wheatley found a rental property but one in which the owner would not allow cats. Ms. Wheatley subsequently made arrangements with the buyer of the Hughes' house for Ms.Pearl's adoption with the understanding that if anything were to go awry, she would call Ms. Wheatley immediately in order to make other arrangements.

Unfortunately, the sale fell through, no one contacted Ms. Wheatley, and the Hughes seized the opportunity to do away with Ms. Pearl never once attempting to contact Ms. Wheatley so that she could pick up Ms. Pearl.

The Hughes would never have been able to have Ms. Pearl killed, however, if it were not for Baywater Animal Rescue's complicity in this heinous act: It is our opinion that this so-called "no kill humane organization" is quite the opposite: in fact, in a conversation that Ms. Wheatley had with a staffer, she learned that "they [Baywater Animal Rescue] routinely put down 'older' cats."

"ROUTINELY?" This not only flies in the face of their "philosophy and stated purpose" quoted earlier but it also begs the question, "What other animals have been killed out-of-hand with zero proof of how that animal came to Baywater, who the owners are/were, etc.?" If this is true, how is it that Baywater claims to be a "no kill facility?"

In addition, when Ms. Wheatley picked up Ms. Pearl's body from Baywater, it had been frozen and wrapped in plastic and then in a blanket -- a common and routine practice? What other common and routine practices are done there that the "trusting" public knows nothing about? We shudder to think!

We believe that this organization betrays the public's trust by advocating a "no kill policy" and soliciting monetary donations on the basis of this premise -- a categorical lie: it takes only one euthanized animal to make the premise from which they garner money from public donations and others fraudulent. It is a total impossibility for Baywater to declare itself "kill free" and then kill cats, whatever their ages, however many, for whatever reason. These are mutually exclusive concepts and morally incompatible.

None of this, of course, will bring back Ms. Pearl, but it will give her a voice when she had none. And it might save other animals from a similar fate.

If you know of anyone who has had a similar experience or if you have direct knowledge of the euthanasia of any animal at Baywater, please fill out the form below and click "submit." We will publish all such reports on this site.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed on this site are solely those of the owners of the site and may or may not reflect the views of other persons associated with either Baywater Animal Rescue or this case.

spacer graphic
spacer graphic

If you know of anyone who has had a similar experience or if you have direct knowledge of the euthanasia of any animal at Baywater, please fill out the form below and click "submit." We will publish all such reports on this site.
Type your story here