Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Souring "No Kill" in New York

Animal Extremist Flagship Scrambles for Cover. . .

. . .as Nathan Winograd puts the screws to the ASPCA, the NYS Legislature mulls "Oreo's Law" and Pets Alive still hasn't filed mandatory tax forms with the NYS Charities Bureau.

The curtain is about to go up on The Clash of the Titans, Act II.  So make yourself some popcorn.

 And grab a box of tissues, if you're not okay with a lot of political posturing at the expense of defenseless animals used as pawns in the this "humane" brinksmanship extravaganza.

 Barbarians at Ed Sayres' gate: animal extremists protest at ASPCA

These are not days of wine and roses at E. 92nd Street, and it  just     gets     worse  for Agent Orange -- the "voice of the voiceless" --  as things spiral downward.

Meanwhile, at the state capital. . .

 ASPCA's not the only one hearing voices

Invoking the name of a dog tormented by a criminal then rescued tormented by a criminal, exploited for her fund-raising potential, and finally killed by the ASPCA, agents for the "humane" treatment of animals are administering their own litmus test in Albany:  "Oreo's Law" -- For or Against?

The proposal makes the transfer of shelter animals scheduled for euthanasia to another shelter or rescue that wants them mandatory and a matter of state law.  Amended four times since it was first introduced in January, "Oreo's Law" appears to be slowly strangling in its own red-tape, procedural requirements and specifications.

Why would non-profits operating lawfully in the State of New York invite government involvement in what was their private, lawful business, anyway?

Oreo's unintended consequences

Here are a few questions for New York's elected public officials:

What if the "NONPROFIT, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE ANIMAL RESCUE OR ADOPTION ORGANIZATION" is fiscally irresponsible and has no competence whatsoever with dogs like Oreo, that -- for whatever reason and with an unknown capacity for improvement -- keep trying to bite people?

What connection is there between an organization's tax reporting status and its ability to manage problematic dogs?

Doesn't the mandate of elected officials include protecting the safety and welfare of the People of the State of New York from the blunders of outfits like Pets Alive?

What mechanism exists to protect the welfare of animals in the custody of  those "adoption organizations"?  They are exempted from humane standards of care requirements made of similar facilities with a differing tax-filing status, and are not routinely inspected by the State of New York.  Dogs with temperament issues could spend a lifetime sequestered at a private "adoption organization."  Who's going to check on them?

Will all of those tax-exempt "adoption organizations" stand up to public scrutiny?

Pets Alive:  Still crazy.  After all these years.

Pets Alive of Middletown, New York, occasionally known as "Best Friends, East Coast Division",  doesn't seem to notice subtle warnings.

 As of April 15, 2010, the self-styled "hero" of the campaign to pass Oreo's Law remains a scoff-law private corporation risking its tax-exempt status by failing to submit IRS Form 990's to the New York State Charities Bureau, as required by state law.  The Charities Bureau hasn't heard from Pets Alive since 2003.

In 2007, Pets Alive also needed to file for exemption from 2008 property taxes.  Neither its founder, nor any member of the Pets Alive Board of Directors, fulfilled the requirement.  Pets Alive was billed $46,000 for 2008 taxes and when they failed to pay, the county moved to foreclose.

Last month Pets Alive narrowly escaped disaster when the county executive took up their cause.  Would Ed Diana -- the elected public official that Pets Alive says "has our back" -- intervene on behalf of the rest of the people in Orange County, New York if they didn't make timely submissions to the tax assessor's office, too?

It isn't clear how the Town of Wallkill and the Pine Bush School District, short-changed when revenue from Pets Alive taxes failed to materialize, will manage without the income they expected.  Does Diana have $23 thou for the Pine Bush School District?  Cause they're looking for the funds

Business as usual at Pets Alive

In addition to its on-going failure to comply with state law, Pets Alive also continues to sell "cranky" dogs to "self-centered, arrogant, egotistical and yes, stupid people" who later return the dog, ask for their money back, involve their lawyer when Pets Alive refuses to issue a refund, and complain to the Better Business Bureau.

The beg-a-thons continue

The rationalizations for importing more and more animals from all over the country, and Puerto Rico, increasingly sound like a page from a hoarder's diary.  Days away from last month's near-miss with foreclosure, Pets Alive was busy bringing in more animals:

But they refuse to stop rescuing animals — [co-Executive Director] DeAngelis was in West Virginia over the weekend, rescuing more than 80 dogs and cats.  "We just can't stop on the possibility that we might close," [co-Executive Director] Clair says.

The Road to No Kill ?

This isn't working for me.  Not at all.  It leaves a sour taste in my mouth -- and I'm a person who really wants to believe in "no kill."  Or very, very low kill.

The pissing contests and political correctness assessments involving the ASPCA and the state legislature are bad enough. 

But legislation that would further empower a dysfunctional group like Pets Alive, and mandate placement of vulnerable and possibly dangerous animals to their care?  

I'm not buying it, and I don't think the people of New York should be compelled to buy it, either.  This is no where. 


EmilyS said...

but but but....
Ed Sayres = DEVIL!
NathanW sez so!
Pets Alive = saintly noble rescuer! Gina and Christie say so.. or if it's not, it doesn't matter because no kill cannot be questioned! why you want PA to file stupid bureaucratic forms anyway.. you some kind of CCF nut???

or did I get that wrong...


Anonymous said...

No kill cannot be questioned? It's "no kill of ADOPTABLE animals" by the way. Something people forget when for whatever reason an animal is known to be human aggressive. I'll bet EmilyS still believes in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny...lay off the
kool Aid there Emily, I don't think the Pope has nominated your pals for sainthood, or will any time soon.

EmilyS said...

you just proved my point there, Anon friend, buried in your inscrutable "insults" (at least I assume you're trying to insult me, but you'll have to try harder cause I'm pretty stupid and don't get what you're trying to say).

There's isn't a "no kill" advocate in the world who routinely uses the phrase "no kill of adoptable animals".. just too long and bulky donchaknow and of course EVERYONE understands what we really mean (surely you read the fine print on everything, don't you?).

While on the other hand, every Sternbergian kill shelter in the world DOES claim to kill only "unadoptable" animals, while they slaughter pit bull type dogs, older dogs, black dogs, starving dogs that object to food being pulled away etc etc.

Try harder.

Try harder to understand that "no" kill is a fraud because every shelter KILLS, even when they call it euthanasia, "good" killing. A human aggressive dog (like Oreo, say?), is KILLED, whether you call it euthanasia or "sending home" or "going to the Rainbow Bridge" or anything else. Only the freakazoid drones want to call this something other than killing, so they can continue to pat themselves on the back for being "no kill".

Try harder to understand when the public has no freaking clue what you acolytes mean, it's not the public's fault.

I wont even ask you to understand that people who insist that words have consistent clear meanings ("no" means "no") are not the enemy. At least not the enemy of the REAL goal, which is saving as many animals as possible. As opposed to the apparent goal, which is acting morally superior to anyone who hasn't fallen unquestioningly in line behind the Robespierres rhetorically marching you over the cliff.

Anonymous said...

I see a lot of those arrogant bastards who aren't sensitive enough to deal with "cranky" dogs as clients.

Clients who go to shelters with good intentions, willing to take in a homeless dog instead of buying an adorable puppy for the same price from an ad in the local paper. Clients who ask lots of questions at the shelter, provide honest information on their life styles - and yet somehow still go home with dogs that are completely and utterly unsuitable for them.

I've fostered lots of dogs - mostly problem dogs. I've donated thousands of dollars to rescue groups and put in thousands of hours of volunteer time with rescue groups, public education and more. I understand the passion people feel to help dogs.

What I don't understand is the self-centered need to make everyone else in the world deal with it as passionately as I do. I've taken in biters, but I'm a professional trainer with no children who understands the risks - and I'm willing to hold the dog I've lived with and worked with and come to love in my arms and sob like a baby when I put it down because it isn't fixable.

Compared to that, selling the dog to a sucker is taking the easy way out.

EmilyS said...

Best Friends has a statement, though you might have to "friend" them to read it: