Setting Animal Protection Back 100 Years (Reply)

(Picture Left: "Nia" and Chris. Nia is a fabulous "Throwaway Mama" Pitbull that we rescued from death at the AC&C almost a year ago. All this time, this loving and dog friendly, child friendly dog has languished in boarding. Our abilities to place loving Pitties like Nia is now further hampered by the ASPCA's distruction of Oreo and false rationalization for it.)

Cubby's Daddy Writes: A high visibility organization with the massive funding and community standing of the ASPCA has a responsibility to set an example. By killing Oreo, the example they set is that it's ok to put down pitbulls because they are "aggressive" and can not be rehabilitated. The average person knows nothing about this breed except what they hear on the news. They think all pits are dangerous and should be put down. The ASPCA has done nothing but re-affirm that misconception. People are the problem, not the pitties.

Reply: The wisdom of your comment cannot be emphasized enough.

As powerful "role model" to almost the entire animal protection movement, the ASPCA has sent a silent message to the media and the public at large in its needless and unjustifiable execution of Oreo.

The message is that Pitbulls are aggressive and beyond redemption and should be put down in order to "protect the public."

What the ASPCA doesn't say is that according to insiders who knew Oreo, the dog was not aggressive at all. Vets had no problems in treating Oreo or volunteer dog walkers in walking Oreo.

Ah, but alas, Oreo (a former victim of beatings by her owner and being thrown from a rooftop) didn't fair well on her so-called, "Behavior Test." She charged a plastic hand dangled in front of her face.

My, my. Surprise, surprise.

I wonder what my dogs would do were I to dangle a plastic hand in front of their faces? Sadly, I can't answer that question as I've never had occasion to tease or torment my dogs with a plastic hand. I suspect, Chance, my Pomeranian might "charge" a plastic hand. Perhaps I should have him put down as a "danger" to the public?

What is particularly distressing about the ASPCA's killing of this particular dog is not just the actual execution, but the ASPCA's justification and rationale for it.

"Blaming the victim," so to speak.

One might be a little more understanding of the ASPCA position had they said something like:

"More than 90% of the dogs we get in from cruelty cases are Pitbulls. More than 80% of the dogs arriving at city Animal Control shelters are Pitbulls and Pit mixes.
Tragically, we don't have the responsible and capable homes to place all of these dogs into. We are forced to kill most Pitbulls because there is no reputable placement for the majority of them."

Had the ASPCA said the above, while representing TRUTH, it still would not have justified the killing of Oreo, because this particular dog DID have placement offer through a reputable and capable sanctuary ("Pets Alive"). If (as said yesterday) the ASPCA didn't like the particular shelter, they could have appealed to Best Friends in Utah who, almost assuredly would have taken a case as special as Oreo's and had the means to do so.

But, the ASPCA never bothered to ask Best Friends and ignored Pets Alive's offer.

In its arrogance, The ASPCA apparently didn't want another organization to succeed in what it failed to achieve: "Rehabilitation" and possible placement of Oreo into a loving home. It was more convenient and politically expedient to kill the dog and then blame Oreo for her own execution ("unadoptable.")

Thus, rationale for Oreo's death is put on the DOG, rather than the vicious human individual who so cruelly beat and tried to kill her OR the culture that is so ruthlessly breeding, abusing and discarding this breed of dog en masse.

The ASPCA's inexcusable killing of Oreo sets back the Animal Protection Movement at least 100 years.

The message is: "It is easier and more convenient to blame and kill the animal victims of abuse than to challenge and go after the human perpetrators." -- PCA

******

ASPCA Part of the Problem (Debate)

Linda Brink Writes: As much as I deplore the ASPCA action--and truly, I hate what they did--I have a hard time ever mounting a campaign against any animal rescue organization if that organization is doing any good at all--and the ASPCA does do some good. When animal activists attack animal rescue groups who do some legitimately good work, it splits the forces...... Use what happened to Oreo to highlight the real issue, not the failings of the ASPCA. The failings are a symptom. The issue is the disease.

Reply: With all due respect, there are major holes in your argument.

You say, "The ASPCA does some good." You speak about the ASPCA as if it were some tiny animal rescue group operating on a shoe string budget.

In reality, the ASPCA soaks up MOST of the donation dollars of the entire animal welfare, rights and even rescue movement. We are talking of an organization that has raised 30 million dollars from ONE commercial!

The question needs to be asked, "What is the ASPCA doing with all those millions of dollars?" (Obviously, SOME good has to arise!)

In many ways, the ASPCA has sold out the very animals it portends to speak for, "Oreo" being only one sad example -- a "symbol" so to speak of the whole.

Yesterday, I wrote about the ASPCA's long, sordid history of killing and then blaming the animal victims for their own executions. "Most of the animals are old, sick or vicious." This is obviously the tactic the ASPCA used to justify the destruction of Oreo. ("She was aggressive.")

You seem to think that the public will come to some sort of enlightenment on its own.

Why should it?

The ASPCA has been putting out the message for years now that, "New York City is on the road to no kill." Many people interpret that message to mean NYC is "no kill" now.

There is no sense of public URGENCY to help save strays or shelter animals or, quite frankly, for the public to neuter its own pets as most people believe all pet related problems have been solved. Many otherwise animals lovers now buy pets from pet stores or breeders rather than adopt as they believe that the only animals "euthanized" in shelters are "old, sick or vicious."

Complacency and naivete are major parts of the "disease" you speak about. And the ASPCA has been one of the biggest contributors to that disease of misinformation and denial.

How can NYC be "on the road to no kill" when we don't even have ONE fully functioning and humane Animal Control shelter in the entire city? Does anyone think to ask that the ASPCA donate some of its millions to help build ONE state of the art, Animal Control shelter in NYC?

The ASPCA will of course argue that it is a "National" organization whose agenda isn't NYC "stray" cats and dogs. But, what exactly has the ASPCA achieved on behalf of animals suffering nationwide? Has it launched a nationwide media campaign against puppy mills or factory farms? Has it focused on the national epidemic of dog fighting and the breeding, abuse and abandonment of Pitbulls?

One is hard pressed to come up with one major achievement for animals by the ASPCA, other than its Spay/Neuter van. -- And that doesn't cost 100 million dollars.

Finally, you speak about "splitting the forces." But, it seems from the messages I have read it is you who is being somewhat divisive in defending the ASPCA. The rest of us seem to be on the same page in agreeing that some action needs to be taken to insure that what happened to Oreo does not occur again to some other hapless animal under the ASPCA's control and "care."

As for the ASPCA signing its letter to concerned citizens with, "Public Information Department" rather than an actual name, I think that seems to show its utter disdain and arrogance towards those who were distraught by the needless death of Oreo. -- Either that or those at the ASPCA are ashamed of their own letter, as no one seemingly wants to take the responsibility (or blame) for it. --- PCA


********

The Transformation of Dutch

(Picture Left: Dutch giving a kiss to Chris. --Something that never could have been imagined or predicted six months ago.)

As a small rescue group without a brick and mortar shelter, we rely on either foster people or boarding kennels to care for the dogs we rescue.

Two of the individuals we board dogs with are also dog trainers.

Yesterday, I had opportunity to visit (along with a friend) the boarding/training home where we are currently keeping six of our rescued dogs.

All six dogs were happy, healthy, balanced and enthusiastic.

But, the dog who had made the greatest "transformation" from the time he was first rescued was "Dutch," a beautiful, Chow/Duck-Trolling Retriever cross pulled from the AC&C Euth list last Spring.

When I first met Dutch at the shelter, he was a very nervous, wary and untrusting dog.

I attributed the young, 1-year-old dog's lack of ease and socialization to the stress of being in the pound after his owner was evicted (for non-payment of rent) and apparently went to a human shelter where she could not bring her dog.

I did have concerns however, about rescuing Dutch. His hard stare and stiff body posture along with the poor behavior assessment at the pound suggested a dog that was not going to be an easy adoption by any stretch of the imagination.

Initially, I put Dutch in an Upper East Side boarding facility where either I or one of my volunteers could walk him everyday and get to know him better.

But, over the weeks he was boarded, Dutch became even more wary, defensive, unpredictable and untrusting.

We had to be very careful when handling Dutch. He was extremely uncooperative and stubborn when we attempted to put Dutch back in his little room ("kennel") following a walk.

But, of even greater concern, was Dutch's reactions (lunges, attempts to bite) to joggers, skateboarders or cyclists when out on a walk. On one occasion, Dutch actually nipped a man running too close to the dog and the volunteer walker. Fortunately, the man was nice about the incident and did not seek any kind of compensation.

But, the incident alarmed me enough to contact the shelter again and request the cell phone number of Dutch's former owner. I needed to have a sense of Dutch's "history" and the kind of home he came from.

I was able to get in touch with Dutch's former owner -- which unfortunately helped explain a great deal of Dutch's defensive, insecure and worrisome behavior.

His former owner told me she acquired Dutch when he was only "3 weeks of age" from a friend whose dog had puppies. (Three weeks is way to early to separate puppies or kittens from their mothers. Animals separated this young from moms and siblings often display neurotic or even aggressive behavior later in life.)

"Iris" (Dutch's former owner) also told me that by the time he was a year old, Dutch had already sired two litters of puppies. This said a lot about the owner's lack of awareness and care to the pet overpopulation problem as well as her general lack of responsibility to properly vet, care for and neuter her dog.

But, most of all, Iris failed to properly expose Dutch to the normal activities of everyday life (i.e walk her dog) and socialize him with strangers.

Although Irish swore up and down to me how much she "loved" her "baby," she never once took the time to visit Dutch while we had him boarding in Manhattan, despite my pleas with her to do so.

"He's so stressed," I told Iris. "I realize you can't take him back, but it would really help Dutch to see you."

My pleas fell on deaf ears. Iris was full of excuses.

Finally, Dutch became even too difficult and combative for even the staffers at the boarding kennel to deal with.

I was told I needed to make arrangements to get Dutch out of there.

About this time, I was under added pressure from several people, including one of my own volunteers to have Dutch euthanized. The dog was a "liability."

Feeling conflicted and desperate, I contacted a reputable dog trainer in Manhattan and requested that he come and evaluate Dutch for me.

"Ken" came the following day to the boarding kennel and together, we took Dutch for a long walk. When anticipating Dutch's reactions to joggers and cyclists, Ken gently snapped the leash and gave a mild correction to Dutch. Dutch did respond favorably to the training technique immediately focusing on his handler.

Ken later told me that although Dutch needed "work," he was not beyond redemption and should be saved.

That is when I called Chris in Brooklyn.

The best way to describe Chris is like a New York City version of Cesar Millan.

Chris is a long time dog lover, rescuer and trainer. He has 8 rescued dogs of his own and also works with rescue groups like ours to save, board and train dogs pulled from death at the city shelter.

Chris agreed to take on and work with Dutch.

Upon arriving to Chris' home in Brooklyn, Dutch immediately tried to bite Chris when first removed from the transportation vehicle.

According to Chris, Dutch was one very stressed out and wary dog who required several days to calm down and begin to settle in.

But, since then, Chris has reported back to me positive developments over the months with Dutch.

But, I guess one never actually or totally believes until actually seeing the dog for one's self.

Yesterday, I could not believe Dutch was the same dog I sent out to Chris so many months ago.

Instead of the hard staring, stiff "Don't mess with me" dog I remembered from last Spring, out in the yard bounced a happy, carefree, "I'm in love with life!" Dutch who came up to my friend and me with zest, enthusiasm and total trust.

It took a few minutes for me to realize that I no longer had to be "careful" in handling Dutch. He welcome petting and even some light roughousing as a trusting puppy would on the precipice of life.

It was one of the most amazing transformations I have ever seen in all my years of rescue. -- Something one could never have foreseen or imagined six months ago.

Not only did Dutch welcome handling and affection from humans -- but he fully reciprocated and gave back in limitless abundance.

When my friend, Jane and I finally left after spending half the afternoon with Chris and a bunch of happy, playful, affectionate and balanced dogs a thought occurred to me:

Yesterday, was the first time I had ever seen Dutch smile. -- PCA

*******

The Heart of the Matter (Guest Editorial --by, Linda Brink)

(Picture left: "Lady" Gentle, affectionate dog abandoned at city shelter for "moving." Wonderful profile from past owners....."Very affectionate dog....loves men, women, children, other dogs and cats." Nevertheless, Lady flunked food part of SAFER test and winded up on kill list. Now rescued and in tempoary boarding, but what of the millions (like Oreo) for who, there is no rescue or "happy ending?" The Guest Editorial by Linda Brink below examines the entire tragic picture.)

All of what everyone writes is correct, of course. But the heart of the problem isn't the killing of animals for space, for temperament judged notcompatible with human living--for whatever reason.

The true heart of theproblem is human behavior --behavior that closes each door, until the one remaining, for millions of animals, is: the kill door.

The heart of the problem is the fact that the human animal is self-centered to such an extreme, a life is judged unworthy, and unwanted, for--the most flimsy ofreasons. "We are moving; we don't like the hair; too noisy; too needy; tooaggressive, wrong color, too"--whatever.

The problem is entirely the human element, of course. The shelter is simply trying to cope in ways that, Iagree, often strike one as demented, with the problems created by people inall walks of life whose priorities no longer, for whatever reason, includethe animal they once desired. The animals they take to the shelters inimpossibly huge numbers. And leave there. Leave there, knowing they willbe killed. For space. Because one cannot house them all; cannot give themall a new life. Because, there are millions.

That's the heart of the problem: the people. Not the shelters.

So, while some progress will be made attacking shelters for their killpolicies, the real flaming arrow should be blazing in another directionentirely. But--where, exactly, when there are so many appropriate targets?The pet industry. Yes, certainly they deserve a cannonball volley for theendless breeding tortures and the whole sales pitch that comes out the otherend: the puppies, the kittens, the chicks, the millions of parentlessbabies snatched away from their nurturing parents and placed, so wrongly,into--cages. And eventually--again, so wrongly--into human hands. The human hand pays the money, and in return, they get the life.

There seems tobe an insatiable craving for babies, and yet, I never look at a baby animalwithout seeing the parents who mourned the theft. The babies are a product:it's big business, selling lives, and it's big business in associatedindustries that market all the bells and whistles that go with that dearbaby, the toys, beds, food, accessories, the groomers, the trainers, theboarding facilities, the vet link--yet another industry--it just goes on andon. Powerful interests, indeed, and they don't want this industry thatendlessly puts all the dogs and cats and birds and reptiles and smallanimals in the shelters and rescues and sanctuaries, when they becomeadults--they don't ever want that industry to go away. It's a living toogood to waste.

And so laws never seem to change to truly protect animals, frompeople--their main acknowledged threat--because all of these industries joinforces to make sure people crafting the laws don't go too far, don't get toocarried away, with animal protection. With passing laws that will impingeon human rights, the right to own animals and essentially do what one wantswith them. The rights of people who buy industry products and pay forindustry services. Moderation, please, in regulating the pet and animalindustries. Touchy subject with legislators everywhere.

I support No Kill shelters. I don't blame Kill shelters. I blame thepeople who bring the animals to those shelters, the industries that providethose animals, the politicians who look the other way. I blame humantolerance for unimaginable cruelty--something Michael Vick understands, sowell--the blood and screams of the dogs all tidied up now--the past, yes?Gotta go now--game time!

I blame all the industries who conspire to keepthings exactly as they are--with the main theme being: animals as aproduct. I blame the society that supports these industries, and demandsthese animals, all new and shiny even as millions languish in cement andsteel cages, begging a new home.

I realize: all shelters have a limit,space-wise and resource-wise. I realize: there aren't enough good homesout there for all the adults, and even babies, who are born and unwanted.I've taken in, myself, both dogs, cats, and birds--all turned loose to fendfor themselves. They are desperate and they are suffering and they areusually, very sick.

So, when No-Kill shelters turn animals away forspace--where do they go? What do people do with them? You can figure itout. Kill or No-Kill, the animal loses for many related reasons, and whileit feels great to have a target--the Kill Shelters--they are, in fact, NOTthe essential problem. They are simply, the end result.

Humans are, everystep of the way, the problem.

Because a huge number of humans aregreedy--both those who sell the babies, and those who must have that cutelittle bundle. They lack empathy. They lack compassion. They aremotivated by--convenience.

Too many humans have no problem at allcontrolling, and destroying, an animal's life. Too many humans are capableof pretense. Too many humans delude themselves. Too many humans: atheart, just don't really care. About the eventual fate of animals once intheir care.

Oreo. Poor, dear Oreo. Judged for her fears, judged for her anger. Neverjudged for what was in her heart. An inconvenience--aggressive dogs are aninconvenience, no matter what causes their aggression. Dangerous tohumans--an ironic conclusion, certainly, in Oreo's case. But no matter:Oreo must go.

The ASPCA could have helped Oreo, and at the same time,gotten an important message to the public about just how twisted the livesof animals can become--because of humanity. They could have gotten the evenmore important message out there: and we must help these animals who areour victims. That is, in fact, our responsibility to these animals--to helpthem.

Instead the message is: just kill them all. Terrible, yes--butjust one aspect of a very large, very convoluted problem that is not beingaddressed at its source: the pet trade and related industries. The lackof appropriate regulation. The lack of laws. The lack of responsibilityand compassion and empathy by a large part of human society, which in fact,makes all of the above problems, issues: a society that eats animals, usesanimals, only wants animals living with them that get with the program, andeven those, are always--expendable.

Move mountains to save the helpless fawn; shoot the adult deer. The humanelement. Prognosis for change: not good.So, the life and death of Oreo--yet another step backward. One that couldhave gone forward, for Oreo, and for perhaps, many animals. But--onceagain, human arrogance, human stubborn behavior, human lack of an embracingof the responsibility owed this dog, to give her a chance--a lack of evenseeing it that way--well, bottom line: Oreo was killed.

The ASPCA deservesa flaming arrow, yes, for setting such a terrible example, for being ananimal rescue organization that clearly lacks a beating heart. Butagain--where is it Oreo came from?Where so many come from. Before the window, the crazed person who flungher, before the ASPCA, Oreo was a baby: she trusted, she expected to benutured, she expected to be loved, by her mother, by something, by someone.All normal expectations, but, in this world so controlled now, byhumans--she expected too much.

For Oreo, it was luck of the draw and likemillions of other individuals, Oreo got dealt: an uncaring human hand.

Things CAN change--there are small victories, more and more. But directyour angst where it will do the most good--at the beginning of the chain ofevents. Not at the end result: the so-called, shelters, their policies,their mistakes. Warehousing unwanted animals is not the answer. It willnever be the answer. Shelters are a symptom. The human element is theproblem, and it's diseased.

Go for the tumor, the cancer--hard as that maybe in a world where so many will do anything--anything--to make a buck.Unite, focus and go for it. The source, the root, the disease. Go forlaws, go for regulations. Demand change. We have to continually attack thepet industry--and animals as food and clothing and lab experimentationindustries--even as we try to open people's hearts and minds to animals asindividuals who experience life much as do we--because that part of thesolution is critical: human understanding of animals as sentientindividuals.

The task is huge. The issue: focus. Unrelenting focus onthe heart of the problem: the uncaring human element. The unaware humanelement. The greedy, self-centered, cruel human element--and this goes forcitizens everywhere--as well as the animals as products industries who caterto their unrealistic whims. A daunting task--but there is, in fact, so muchthat's horrifying to expose.

A daunting task, but not, even in this darkhour, a hopeless one. Focus--it's essential. People do become aware. Andpeople do change.We became aware. We changed. And now we must truly focus, all together, onthe very heart of the matter.

Linda Brink Director,
Sunnyskies Bird & Animal SanctuaryWarwick,
NYhttp://www.sunnyskiesbirdsanctuary.org/


***********

"SAFER?" Or, Mostly Lethal (for dogs)? -- Reply

(Picture Left: Chance (i.e. "Puppy Boy"). One of my two personal dogs, Chance was rescued from shelter Euthanasia list last year after displaying "extremely aggressive" ("severe") behavior in shelter. And yet, relatives who turned Chance into shelter when owner became ill, indicated Chance to be "protective, loving, good with children." Which description was ultimately correct? Information from past home was totally accurate -- as it is in most cases. Who knows the animals best? Past owners, NOT artificial "tests.")

Crazy Runner Writes: I hate the SAFER test. The first time I saw it, I knew what a crock it was and how dangerous it was. So many wonderful dogs have been killed because they reacted poorly to a fake hand constantly poking them while they're trying to eat. After reading this, I will never give another dime to the ASPCA. It never ceases to amaze me to hear the insane expectations people put on animals. They're supposed to take horrific abuse and still be happy. They're supposed to instantly heal from a horrible life with no help or reassurance because heaven forbid a person has to take time and effort into training and helping their new pet. Animals have to be more saintly and patient than Mother Teresa to please many people.

Reply: Very well said.

The ASPCA rarely suggest that it is human behavior that needs to change.

Instead, it is the animals who need to change for us.

I have had dogs for all my life. Never in more than 50 years of having dogs have I had reason or occasion to put my hand in the dog's food bowl and shove his/her face out of it.

Nor, do I pinch my dogs' feet or sides.

What is the ASPCA's justification for these "tests" on dogs?

"We have to know if a small child does these things to a dog or steps on the dog's foot, the dog won't bite."

By that logic, we should also be able to guarantee a dog won't bite, when hit in the face with newspapers if peeing on the floor or kicked by their human owners. What about those people who have burned dogs with cigarette butts? Should we not also burn dogs to "test" their reactions? Should we not yell, scream or hit at dogs as many human owners do?

Reality is, that it is almost impossible to "predict" how any dog is going to behave in any home or under any and all circumstances. As Cesar Millan says, almost everything depends upon the owners. "Every home has its own energy and vibe," says Millan. He is right.

The best predictors of future behavior is past behavior.

When the subject is dogs, if we want to have a sense of the dog's general temperament and/or past history, the people who best know this are the past owners.

But, what if past owners aren't available to question? Such as in cases of arrest, eviction, abandonment, death or hospitalization of owner?

What if the dog was picked up as a stray?

In those cases, it is important to gather as much information as possible concerning the circumstances of the dog arriving at the shelter. When a dog is picked up from a location, it is often possible to get information from neighbors, landlords and area residents. They can often indicate whether a dog lived with children or other pets. They often have information regarding the dog's general temperament. If the dog was a stray, was it friendly to strangers or shy, for example?

There is in fact, much information that can be gathered when either questioning past owners or investigating the circumstances from which a dog was picked up from.

That information is far more "predictive" of a dog's general demeanor and behavior than artificial "tests" done on dogs, usually under very stressful and unnatural shelter conditions.

In saying all this, it is not to totally poo poo any evaluations at all on shelter dogs.

Sure, we want to have a sense of how a dog may be around other animals or if s/he has particular "issues" with food, toys or bones.

Walking a dog on the street or in a yard near other dogs gives a sense of animal to animal "reactions." Observing a dog when s/he eats or attempting to walk close to the dog's food bowl can usually show if a dog has particular "guarding" issues with food, bones or toys.

In my opinion, there is no justification for plastic hands shoved in a dog's face while the animal is attempting to eat. I think it safe to say most humans would "bite" or at least become very pissed, were someone to shove a hand in our dinner plates while we're eating.

Nor, do I see justification for pinching a dog's feet or sides -- or "tag" games for that matter. I think it reasonable to assume many if not in fact, most dogs being dumped in shelters have probably never engaged in a game of "tag."

As currently conducted, it seems the SAFER temperament tests as developed and promoted by the ASPCA have been designed to cause many, if not in fact, most dogs "tested" to fail one or more parts of it.

They therefore serve mostly has justification for euthanasia, rather than any true barometer or "predictor" of animal behavior. -- PCA

**********

The Arrogance and Callousness of ASPCA

(Picture Left: "Oreo" --A dog who seemingly never knew a happy day in her life. "Rescued" only to suffer and ultimately be executed for the sins of her abuser.)

It is the ASPCA that developed the so-called "SAFER" (temperament) test that is now used to condemn hundreds of AC&C dogs a year, as well as it pacify's and numbs a naive public and media into believing that the only animals being killed in shelters are "old, sick or vicious."

The "SAFER" test as currently conducted at our city animal shelters attempts to "predict" a dog's behavior in a home according to the way the animal "reacts" to various stressors performed on him or her when newly arriving in the unnatural environment of an overcrowded, municipal shelter. These include pinching the dog's feet and sides, forced engagement in so-called "tag" game (which can frighten some dogs not familiar with the activity), shoving a plastic hand in the dog's face while the animal attempts to eat and a forced, unnatural encounter with another ("tester") dog.

One of the reasons cited by the ASPCA for yesterday's destruction of Oreo, (the young, horribly abused Pitbull thrown from a rooftop last January) was that she charged when the plastic hand was dangled in front of her face.

In a show of incredible arrogance and callousness, the ASPCA refused to allow Oreo, to go to Pets Alive (which offered to take Oreo and keep her for life if "unadoptable") -- or any of the other reputable and potential rescue opportunities.

If the ASPCA had some bone to pick with Pets Alive, one needs to ask if they attempted to contact Best Friends in Utah ("Dogtown") that ONLY takes medical or behavior cases from other shelters or even Cesar Millan?

The ASPCA's seeming lack of empathy for Oreo -- a dog who in her short life, never knew a happy day -- is also something to be seriously questioned.

Not only was this dog beaten and thrown off a roof by her former "owner," but then had to undergo painful surgeries, daily stress and long term confinement in a cage at the ASPCA.

Where was the concern for this dog's SUFFERING over most of her life? Did the ASPCA seriously expect Oreo to act like Lassie or to pass her SAFER tests with flying colors under these extremely adverse and unnatural circumstances?

Where was the ASPCA's appreciation and concern for all the thousands of dollars in donations that were sent for this dog's care and ultimate placement? Would hard working people generously donate to an organization that apparently decided to kill Oreo months ago? What was the point in putting Oreo through so much oppression and suffering only to kill her in the end?

Indeed, the ASPCA merely completed (slowly and torturously) the "job" that Henderson (Oreo's psychotic owner) started.

And while Henderson will most likely walk free after a ("community service?") slap on the wrist, it is his victim who is, instead, labeled, "aggressive," unworthy to be in society and ultimately executed.

Something is wrong in that picture.

The ASPCA needs to held accountable for this one.

It is not just the blood of Oreo on the ASPCA's hands, it is the blood of untold thousands.of animals -- Especially when once considers the ASPCA's abysmal record of killing when running Animal Control in New York City, as well as its development of so-called "SAFER" ("temperament") tests (now used to condemn thousands of dogs) and finally, its blatant lies in promising a "No Kill" New York City. --PCA

*********

The Sad Saga of Oreo and the ASPCA

Personal Comment: Regarding the comment and reference to the NY Times article about Oreo and the ASPCA, below is a letter that is being circulated over the Internet pressuring the ASPCA not to kill the dog, who months ago, was thrown from a roof.

Personally speaking, I don't feel I have enough facts in the case to render a just judgment on the situation, the ASPCA or the dog.

I will however, say this:

The ASPCA has a long history of distorting facts and in some cases, outrightly lying to fit their own PR image and agenda.

When the ASPCA ran Animal Control in NYC, it was forever claiming to the media and the public that it was mainly putting down, "Old, sick and vicious" animals, which was a total lie. Truth was, the ASPCA was killing about 80% of the cats and dogs that arrived at its shelters, including many thousands of kittens, homeless pets and even puppies. To claim that the great majority of the animals were "old, sick and vicious" was distortion at its very worst.

Earlier in this decade the ASPCA was among the biggest offenders in putting out the "New York City on the Road to No Kill!" message. Even worse, the ASPCA lied when leading New Yorkers and the press to believe NYC would be "no kill" by 2008 and then later, 2010 and 2012.

Due to criticisms by some in the animal community, the ASPCA has since toned down the Disneyworld message and no longer seems to cite actual dates for the NYC to become "no kill." But, as cited in this blog repeatedly, there is no way NYC can become "no kill" at all as long as the city refuses to build adequate and humane Animal Contol shelters, perferably, in every borough.

Unfortunately, when an person or organization like the ASPCA has a history of manipulating or hiding facts to fit personal or organizational agendas and public image, then we need to be skeptical of other claims as credibility has been seriously damaged.

Is the dog, "Oreo" so vicious, dangerous and beyond any kind of rehabilitation that he must be euthanized?

I don't know as I personally have never seen the dog.

From the facts that we do know, the dog did not have a good owner as he was an obvious victim of cruelty. Oreo has also spent months primarily in a cage at the ASPCA.

These sort of situations would render many, if not in fact, most dogs highly stressed and apt to act out in some aggressive or defensive manner.

One wonders if the ASPCA attempted to contact someone like Cesar Millan or Best Friends in Utah ("Dogtown") who took many of the Michael Vick dogs?

Have all avenues for Oreo been exhausted?

Unfortunately, knowing the ASPCA's long history of seeking justification for the killings of hundreds of thousands of animals (i.e. "blame the victims") I tend to suspect not. --PCA

Below, the letter currently being circulated by "Win Animal Rights" for Oreo:

****Cross Post Freely, Widely & Quickly****OREO - ONLY HOURS LEFT TO LIVE
ASPCA WILL EXECUTE OREO ON FRIDAY THE 13TH"
WHY IS ED SAYRES, CEO - ASPCA, LYING?"

On November 3, 2009 in a WAR action alert, we asked the question "what ever happened to Oreo", the young dog (i year old) that was thrown from the rooftop of a 6 story Brooklyn building? Many of you wrote to the ASPCA and many of you forwarded the ASPCA's written replies to WAR. Mr. Sayres tell those who wrote that Oreo is doing well, still healing and that a decision has not been made about what to do next.

Now the whole ugly truth is starting to come out, as the ASPCA frantically tries to spin the story, in a way that will protect the ASPCA from scrutiny.

See the New York Times story that was just published:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/nyregion/13oreo.htmlYou can post a comment to the NY Times article and we encourage you to do so, as we are sure that the ASPCA will be reading those comments.

Please write to or phone Ed Sayres immediately. Ask them not to kill Oreo and to find a suitable rescue or rehabber for her. Mr. Ed SayresPresident & CEOAmerican Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)424 E. 92nd StNew York, NY 10128-6804e-mail: esayres@aspca.orgTelephone: 1-212-876-7700 Ext. 4600His secretary, Christine is at: 1-212-876-7700 ext. 4600After 7:00 am on Friday, November 13th you can call: 1-212-876-7700 extension 2500 and ask to speak to the person in charge.

Following is an open letter to Mr. Sayres from Win Animal Rights:

Open Letter to Ed Sayres:

Dear Mr. Sayres,

I represent the animal rights/animal liberation group Win Animal Rights based here in New York City. Win Animal Rights has both national and international affiliations.

It was at our invitation that many activists contacted you at the ASPCA to ask about the status of the young pit bull that was thrown from a Brooklyn roof and "rescued" by the ASPCA. Many of our readers have forwarded your responses to us. Many initially believed the misleading information you sent them. Mr. Sayres, why are you lying to people?We both know that the implication, in your e-mail responses, that you are holding Oreo until the end of the criminal action against Fabian Henderson, is untrue.

Mr. Henderson relinquished ownership of Oreo to the ASPCA many months ago. If you had to hold her for legal reasons, why is it that you have given the order to kill her on Friday, November 13th?

We both know that Oreo is not still healing. If anything Oreo is now suffering from emotional abuse that she has suffered since being "rescued" by the ASPCA. She has sat in a cage with very limited human interaction. She wears an elizabethan collar 24 hours a day, seven days a week.....not because she needs it, but, because it makes her easier for your people to handle. This alone would make a dog crazy. How can you be so cruel?Speaking of cruel, no doubt the ASPCA had the best of intentions when you "rescued" Oreo and put her through extensive surgery and a lengthy and painful convalescence, or did it have something to do with the media attention on the story and the thousands of dollars that have been received in donations for Oreo?

Do Oreo's donors know that you are about to execute her? How do you think they would feel about their donation dollars being wasted and more donation dollars used to put her to death?

Why is it that you did not report, to those who wrote, about the ASPCA behaviorist advocating that Oreo was, in her opinion, aggressive and a liability and that she could not be rehomed?

Why is it that you did not tell anyone that a second behaviorist has since been brought in (as ignorant as the first) to support the ASPCA's decision to kill Oreo? Did you think you could keep this information from the public?How is it that you tell some that Oreo is getting plenty of daily human interaction when you tell others that she is vicious and cannot be handled by anyone? Seems like you are getting caught in the web of your own lies.

Is Oreo vicious and unable to be handled, as your behaviorist claims, or is she getting plenty of love and human interaction?

It has been reported to Win Animal Rights, that the decision to kill Oreo was made some time ago and that only the ASPCA's fear of negative publicity has kept you from executing her so far. If negative publicity is a deterrent to killing, we would be happy to provide you with all of the negative publicity you can handle.

This letter and the facts of the case are being broadcast to every journalist, every blogger, every social networking venue and every animal friendly list in the world. If Oreo is executed, we will not forgive you and we will never forget such a shameless act of betrayal. You have my personal word on that.Every individual life is precious. Please live up to your name, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and your mission statement.

If the ASPCA cannot rehabilitate Oreo and undo the damage of over 5 months in solitude in an ASPCA cage, at least find a group that can help Oreo. We both know that there are rescue groups and sanctuaries that work with dogs with behavioral problems. I am sure they would be happy to release the ASPCA from all legal liability.

We would be anxious to assist you in finding an appropriate rescue. You can reach me at: centcom@war-online.orgUntil all are free,Camille HankinsFounder/DirectorWin Animal Rightshttp://war-online.orgPress OfficerNorth American Animal Liberation Press Officehttp://animalliberationpressoffice.orgIf you have any questions, comments or suggestions feel free to contact us at: centcom@war-online.orgVisit the WAR Calendar for future events: http://calendar.yahoo.com/winanimalrightsVisit the WAR MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/winanimalrightsVisit WAR on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Win-Animal-Rights/25169195791

For more info contact Win Animal Rights at: winanimalrights@optonline.netCall: 646.267.9934 or visit the WAR website at: http://war-online.orgW.A.R. (WIN ANIMAL RIGHTS) is an independent non-profit organization not affiliated or associated with SHAC, SHAC USA or any other group or organization and does not conduct or incite any illegal activity. The above information is not meant to incite or request any illegal actions or illegal activities of any kind. If you have any questions about the legality of any act, we encourage everyone receiving this (or the) action alert(s) to check your local laws and ordinances before proceeding to do anything.


*******