I’m a little concerned that that ‘Hat of the Day may become a regular feature on this blog. Granted, the name sounds like there should be one every day, which will not happen. If I committed myself to uncover a separate ‘hat every day of the week, every week of the year, the feature would soon become strained and contrievd, much like Slate’s tired “Bushism of the Day,” which now accomplishes little beyond providing Eugene Volokh with an unlimited supply of fisking fodder. So this is - I hope - the first and last time I will name three ‘Hats of the Day within the span of a single week.

Today’s award is to be shared between two co-conspirators, Silicon Valley “Humane” Society and an unnamed Los Gatos woman who they helped steal Niki Karanastasis’s dog, Bella - as a birthday present for her 10-year-old daughter. Mommy stealing for her daughter; isn’t that sweet? The “Humane” Society won’t name the woman, so for want of a better name I’ll dub her “Ms. Hat.”

All this began when Bella got out on January 2 of this year. Three times between then and January 7, Karanastasis and her friends checked with the “Humane” Society to see if Bella was there. All three times, it turns out that Bella was there, but they were not informed of this. Finally, on January 8, Karanastasis found Bella in the shelter, happily claimed her, and was told she couldn’t have her own dog back because Ms. Hat had applied for an adoption earlier that day. Despite vociferous protests from Niki and her friends, the “Humane” Society stuck to its guns and gave Bella to Ms. Hat the following day.

It’s not as though the “Humane” Society didn’t have any other options. The sensible thing to have done is quite straightforward: call Ms. Hat and say “Sorry, there has been a mistake, the dog you arranged to adopt is owned, and therefore is not available for adoption after all. Would you like us to refund your adoption fees, or shall we help you find another dog?” That would have been the sensible thing to do, so instead, the “Humane” Society just handed over the dog to Ms. Hat. Spokeswoman Laura Fulda non-explains her group’s actions thusly:

We continue to side with the law. You can’t just say “Anything goes.”

No, of course you can’t, but then again, no one asked the “Humane” Society to do any such thing. All we ask is that an adoption be canceled once it becomes clear who the true owner is. The notion that the Humane Society’s “hands were tied” depends on the theory that Bella was “already adopted” at the time Niki claimed her, which clearly was not the case (else Ms. Hat could have, and probably would have, taken “her” dog home at the time she applied for the adoption). Even after an animal has been adopted out, many rescue groups retain the right to take back the animal under exigent circumstances. If the “Humane” Society doesn’t reserve this right, shame on them.

Suppose that Niki had lost her stereo instead of her dog for five days and it was given to someone else. No one doubts that if she could prove she was the rightful owner, the stereo would be hers to take back. So what law does the “Humane” Society believe allows, let alone mandates, the opposite result if the property in question was a dog? They don’t say. I left a voice mail for Ms. Fulda this morning inquiring as to what statutes or ordinances she had in mind while referring to The Law in yesterday’s story. I will be a little bit surprised if she returns my call at all, and very surprised if she cites any law that actually says what she claims it says.

Even if Fulda is right about that law, there is clearly no law mandating that the “Humane” Society keep Ms. Hat’s true identity secret. Quite the contrary, dog licenses are a matter of public record. Thus, the “Humane” Society’s refusal to divulge this information has no basis in law, only on nebulous “privacy concerns,” which in this case simply means “let the thief enjoy her loot in peace.” I’m sure that the S.J. Mercury-News could find that information if they really wanted to, but apparently, that paper doesn’t have the same “right to know” policy toward dog thieves that Ohio newspapers have towards law-abiding gun owners.

Thus, it’s probably up to the Blogosphere to “out” Ms. Hat. Based on what little information the “Humane” Society was willing to divulge, here’s what we know about Ms. Hat so far:

• She lives in Los Gatos.
• She is a self-absorbed jerk who thinks everything she wants is hers, other people’s interests be damned.
• She has a 10-year-old daughter, whom she is raising to think the same way.
• She is in possession of a Golden Retriever that answers to the name “Bella.”

Not only does the “Humane” Society refuse to divulge any further details about their partner in crime, they also refuse to even contact her a second time urging her to do the right thing voluntarily:

Fulda said the agency won’t call the woman again. “Once you’ve made a decision, you can’t keep hounding them,” she said.

Unlike the idiotic decision to give Bella to Ms. Hat in the first place, Fulda does not even pretend that any law mandates the policy of “not hounding” its most unreasonable customers in hopes of persuading them to see the light. And it’s not just Fulda; the “Humane” Society as a whole - or at least the Silicon Valley chapter - seems to be rather proud of its decision. Here’s what their president, Christine Benninger, had to say of the incident:

I would hope this would be a wake-up call to ID your pets, either with a tag or a microchip, and to get them licensed.

Translation: yep, we stole the dog, gave it to someone with no lawful claim of right, and we feel good. This isn’t a wake-up call for us, or even for the Legislature that drafted the law we think required us to do this. Oh, no, it’s a wake-up call for everyone but us. Tag your dog, and if you don’t, rather than having the authorities make you pay a $20 fine, a private, unelected group will take the dog away and give it to a stranger, even if we know it is your dog.

Yes, Karanastasis dog should have been licensed, tagged and most importantly of all, microchipped. But that is no excuse for the “Humane” Society to make a bad situation worse by knowingly going through with an adoption after learning the identify of the true owner.

The real wake-up call here is for the “Humane” Society itself, but they seem to have missed that call. So it’s up to their contributors - or potential contributors - to get that call for them and send them a message. Call them at (408) 727-3383 to deliver the message they seem to have missed. Meanwhile, if you like to contribute time, money, or anything else to help animals, by all means do so. Donate to a local shelter, or better still, a rescue group. But don’t give a dime to the “Humane” Society. Your local chapter may say that one chapter is not to blame for the acts of another. Too bad. If other chapters lose contributors, maybe then they’ll start putting some much-needed pressure on the rogue agency in the Silicon Valley who is sullying their good name.