.jpg)
Oreo, before she was killed by the ASPCA
A couple weeks ago, Oreo’s Law was tabled for the year by New York State’s Assembly Agriculture Committee. This was a tragic blow to those who knew that it had the potential to save thousands of animals’ lives in New York. Not only that, but its passage could have influenced other states to pass similar laws as well.
What was equally as disheartening as the failure of this law to be passed was the noticeably absent support by some of the largest “humane” organizations. I knew that the ASPCA (Ed Sayres) and the New York City Mayor’s Alliance (Jane Hoffman) had fought to kill this law, but until I read Nathan Winograd’s blog, I did not know that yet another large humane organization had opposed it as well.
I attended Best Friends' conference last October. The elation of being with so many people who seemed to be as committed to saving lives as I am (and the depression of returning to a city with five kill shelters that kill 80,000 animals every year) was overwhelming and I was moved to tears on the last day of the conference. The dedication to animals that I observed from Best Friends’ leaders is one reason that I am having a very hard time wrapping my brain around Best Friends’ lack of support for Oreo’s law, as well as their alliances with those who actively opposed it.
Keiko, the day she entered BARC
* A severely injured dog named Keiko (right) entered BARC in March 2010. Keiko was forced to stay at BARC for a week even though rescuers begged BARC's director to release her so she could be taken to an eye specialist. BARC’s director repeatedly refused and, after a week, Keiko died when BARC’s vets attempted remove her eyes even though they did not have the proper surgical equipment. Subsequently, three volunteers who tried to save Keiko were banned and the employee who filed a complaint regarding Keiko’s treatment was fired.
* After BARC sent out a “plea” for help to the community because they were overcrowded, a woman went to BARC to pick up an animal to foster. She was told that “ordinary citizens” (those not with a rescue group) would not be allowed access to the kennels after 5:00 p.m.
* Another foster parent said that she tried to take a 2-year-old cat to foster because the cat had been there almost 90 days, which is the maximum amount of time animals have at BARC before they are killed (many get only 3 days). The woman was told that there was a new rule that no animals over 4 or 5 months can be fostered unless they are sick. So the shelter director’s new rule would not allow a cat, who was at an extremely high risk of being killed, to be fostered because she was over 5 months of age.
* Another person said that she was at BARC one weekend with a relative who was adopting a puppy. The puppy being adopted had a littermate so the woman asked to foster the littermate. The woman was told that puppies in the South kennel were not available for foster unless they had a medical necessity. This puppy was less than 2 months old. It is well known that puppies are at an extremely high risk for contracting distemper at BARC. The disease is so rampant that some rescue groups are afraid to take a puppy whose feet have touched the floor at BARC for fear of carrying the disease back to their own animals. Yet, a willing foster parent was turned down.
* A few weeks ago, a foster parent tried numerous times to get through to someone at BARC to place a “hold” on several animals. When she finally got a BARC employee on the phone, she was told that she could not be helped because BARC was short handed. Note: It takes about 1 minute to place a hold on an animal in BARC’s computer system. A hold would ensure that the animal would not be killed, but the employee did not want to take this minute to perform this life saving task. By the time the foster parent got through to BARC again later that day, the animals had all been killed.
Killed by BARC although she had a home waiting
* I have personally experienced this apathetic, killing attitude myself. During last year’s kitten season, BARC was, as usual, inundated with cats/kittens. One Saturday I went to BARC and took pictures of every cat/kitten there (over 200) so that I could forward these to rescues in and outside of Houston in the hopes of getting some out of BARC alive. I managed to find a rescue in Dallas that would take 6 or 8 of them and a pilot who would fly them to Dallas for free. I contacted BARC to put a hold on the cats/kittens so they would not be killed before foster parents could pick them up. But my efforts were in vain, because BARC did kill a Siamese female (left) before we could get there. Whether she was killed out of spite, or absolute indifference to killing, the outcome was the same… a beautiful, sweet cat, who had a home waiting for her, was killed. (A second cat, who was on hold for me, was found sitting outside the “euthanasia room” in line to be killed as well. Additionally, BARC claimed that they “could not find” a kitten that was on hold. I’ve since discovered that “cannot find” often means “already dead”.) I still get choked up when I talk about the Siamese cat, or look at her picture now. The tragic thing is my pain is not isolated. Rescuers and foster parents face these same appalling scenarios day after day in Houston as they do in New York.
And, is it really possible to remain “neutral” especially when not supporting one of the “sides” means not protecting thousands of animals from needless death? “Inaction does not equal neutrality. Silence does not equal neutrality. In the face of much suffering, to do nothing is to accept that suffering. Inaction is, itself, an action. There is no neutral. Neutral is an illusion.” (Marc Moorash)In fact, Best Friends’ Gregory Castle said at the conference “While everyone in the room has had successes, we can’t let that past success blind us to new possibilities. Don’t be afraid to question the status quo. Don’t be afraid to challenge your colleagues.” Hmm I guess the statement should be don't be afraid to challenge colleagues unless they are the ASPCA, Mayor’s Alliance or Best Friends themselves.
Personally, I am tired of the "can't we all just get along" cliche because that usually means “let me keep doing what I am doing and you be quiet” or in the case of kill shelters it means “let me keep killing and you say nothing about it”. Also, I don’t agree with "it’s OK to have differences of opinion" as a justification when one of those "opinions" means animals will die. The advocacy of Oreo’s Law wasn’t a simple “difference of opinion”. This was fighting to pass a law that would save thousands of lives. This was about something that could have potentially saved more animals than those victimized by puppy mills and saved more than those victimized by dog fighters and saved more than just the feral cats being killed by shelters. This law had the potential to save thousands of pets entering kill shelters in the state of New York and it had the potential to influence life saving laws in every state. Best Friends statement also said “It’s time to leave this dispute in the past, and focus on the future”. I’ve heard similar statements from BARC and defenders, especially after Keiko died. Along, with being a convenient and condescending statement meant to try to get people to ignore wrongdoing done to animals, I don’t agree that it is in the past. It is not really in the past when the people who killed are still working at the shelters, both at BARC and the ASPCA, and they are still killing. Best Friends has done an amazing amount of good work for animals in the past and they have become one of the largest humane organizations in the US in part due to a lot of volunteers and donations. Like it or not, along with that growth comes an expectation of that they will step up and defend the issues that mean so much to their supporters i.e. those that save all lives. Indeed, Best Friends has publically supported other life saving animal welfare issues in the past and they should have supported this important law as well. Their support should have come regardless of who their friends or alliances are, and it should have come regardless of whether some of those involved appeared to be “fighting”. Best Friends wants to open an office New York. I can't help but think that their lack of support for Oreo’s Law has a lot to do with a potential alliance with ASPCA and the financial backing could bring. In other words, money won out over lives. I hope that they will make wiser, more compassionate choices the next time this comes around. And this law WILL come around again, if not in New York, then another state. More of us need to be willing to take a stand, even if that stand is unpopular with our friends or "alliances". The number one thought in our minds, at all times, should be “Will my decision save animals’ lives?” If the answer is yes, then we should wholeheartedly pursue it, regardless of our friends’ opinions or financial backing.
In their recent statement, Best Friends also labeled Nathan Winograd’s support of Oreo’s law as divisive. I believe this label should be viewed as a badge of honor that has been worn by many visionaries who were unwilling to stand by silently and allow injustice. Ghandi once said of all social movements:
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win."
“Then they fight you”. Ghandi sounds divisive too, does he not?
If divisive means a willingness to openly and uncompromisingly take stand on an issue that will save animals’ lives; to speak out for the voiceless even when it is unpopular with the other humane organizations, financial backers, your friends or potential alliances; or to speak the truth when others are afraid or unwilling, then I aspire to that divisive label as well. I would be in the company of some extraordinary people.
*generally attributed to Edmund Burke.
Comments
Get over it, Seriously. Stop all the whining and complaining and blaming. The law didn't pass because not enough people supported it, if there weren't enough people supporting it then maybe there was a reason. Best friends did not single hand-idly cause the bill to be denied. I've read lots of literature regarding both sides of the argument regarding Oreo's Law and quite frankly I wasn't all for it either, the concept seemed good but there was something about it I wasn't comfortable with. All of you need to wipe away the tears, put on your big girl and boy panties and move on with your lives
If Amber had made such her macho statement to, oh, say, William Wilberforce, William Lloyd Garrison, Susan B. Anthony or Martin Luther King, Jr. every time they railed against the defeat of one of their bills to reform slavery laws, laws against women's suffrage and laws against civil rights, this country's legislation would still be unjust to many citizens. Today, the issue has to do with righting wrongs done to our innocent animal population. Bett will surely head back into battle with Nathan and No Kill's thousands of intelligent, rational, compassionate supporters, now that she has invested her time in once again pointing out the obvious failures of those who PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT ANIMALS BUT CLEARLY DO NOT, JUDGING BY THEIR ACTIONS -- OR LACK THEREOF.
I hope that each time she writes one of these reflective essays, filled with facts, at least one more person new to the subject will read it and join the fight to snuff out ignorance, arrogance and complacency toward animals.
This is not a time to have a contest and freely throw blame and insults. It is a time to reflect and figure out the stumbling blocks - and then work to find common ground. Every movement worth fighting for had opposition (e.g., civil rights, women rights, etc.), and change did not happen over night. True leaders are able to navigate the differences and find agreement. They figure out a way to work together and make things happen. I am frankly disgusted with what has happened in the past few months regarding Oreo's Law. There are too many egos and not enough self-reflection. Return to your childhood sandbox and learn how to make a difference without alienating everyone... this is not meant to be another chapter in Nathan's next book.
Please remove the word "such" in my first sentence below; dunno HOW it slipped in there!
This definition stirs me: "Reformers are not usually popular, and it takes energy to forward constructive change. We can all feel tremendous pressure to leave the human scene unstirred. But unwillingness to forward reform is really a form of selfishness, and if we cave to that unwillingness, everyone's progress stops sooner or later, including our own. Spiritual growth means we continuously examine what we believe and how we behave." ~ Keith Collins
For those who have any doubts about the slimy, backdoor dealings (that had nothing to do with saving lives) that went on to kill this very important law, should listen to the June 20 issue of Animal Wise radio. animalwiseradio . com. Assemblyman Micah Kellner tells how the ASPCA talked out of both sides of their mouths, and were literally sneaking around the assembly building blatantly lying to assembly members about what was or was not in the law. And Best Friends lack of support DID have an impact. He confirmed it and he was there.
And there was A LOT of public support for this law. So much support that it shut down the assembly's email system TWICE.
The only reason this law was opposed was egos and money.
Wow, Bett! Excellent piece.
Thank you Bett Sundermeyer for this article. Although I am disgusted and sickened at the lack of support that the animals who share our world receive, it is my hope that through perseverance, this wrong will be corrected. I hope that it is sooner rather than later.
The only way people with a neutral or uncaring attitude toward animals will change is if, after death, they come back as a dog or cat and end up in a shelter. As they are being taken to the kill room, I bet they wish they had supported a law that would have saved their lives.
I can no longer support an organization that doesn't lend its support to the very animals for which I send my donation.
Great article, Bett. I especially liked your reference to Ghandi. It's sad that it IS the nature of society that the masses will rationalize their inaction with words of "compromise". And while they spend their time excusing themselves, millions of cats and dogs are being slaughtered by "shelters". History is not changed by herds of sheep, but by people of passion who refuse to compromise their values are willing to stand firm to their convictions.
There were a TON of people supporting it, enough to flood the email boxes and phone systems of the New York legislature. But special interests (ASPCA) and their money killed the bill.
Andy, seriously? "Learn how to make a difference without alienating everyone"? I guess Rosa Parks should've just sit down and shut up, eh?
Very minor correction to your excellent article, Brett - the quote about challenging the status quo was actually made by Julie Castle, not Gregory.
'scuse me, that should be *Bett*, not Brett!
The problem with many of these large organizations is that they push their agendas based on how many animals are killed, not on how many are saved. As long as it benefits them to kill animals, they will oppose any efforts to make killing illegal.
Thanks for the update James, but I took the quote directly from Best Friends' website. Follow the link above and read towards the bottom of the article. Either way, one (or all) of their leaders seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths right now.
I hope they go back to their roots and again become the organization that everyone loved.
Sure, get along is fine and dandy as long as it means for the reformers to shut up and allow the status quo to go unchallenged. Why shouldn't the ASPCA and others have to get along with Nathan? Why are people advocating for saving animals in the animal welfare movement considered the radical ones?
The problem with many of these large organizations is that they push their agendas based on how many animals are killed, not on how many are saved. As long as it benefits them to kill animals, they will oppose any efforts to make killing illegal.
Sorry about the double post--I refreshed the page to see new comments and didn't realize it would post my comment again. :(
Great article. I, too, and sick of the "can't we all just get along" crap. I have never seen different rescues IN THE SAME TOWN manage to agree all the time, but they still manage to save lives. I am disgusted by the apologists who mewl about "all the good they (BF/HSUS/PETA/ASPCA) have done" and the hard work they put in. Well, gee, we should never criticize, then, should we?
Oh, wait. The small rescue groups I know have people who work fulltime jobs to support their animals, spend all their free time tending to animals, cry themselves to sleep at night for the ones they were too late to save (or were killed egregiously by animal control). When do you think the last time was that anyone in power at BR/HSUS/PETA/ASPCA cried over any animal? Gave up their days off? Gave so much of their own money they can barely afford food for themselves? All of them: major fail
Wow Andy - let tens of thousands of animals die "because there was something about it I wasn't comfortable with".
"All of you need to wipe away the tears, put on your big girl and boy panties and move on with your lives"
What an assanine statement for someone to make. Of course if you don't give a crap about animals being killed why would you even waste your time commenting on this page. You - are part of the problem.
Upon review, I apparently mixed up Andy and Amber...although both appear to be clueless just the same. They want everyone to stop "complaining and whining" while animals are killed every hour. They obviously have the same mindset as Best Friends ...stick your head in the sand and pretend nothing bad is happening.
You may be "RIGHT"...but you have to be able to effectively communicate and convince others to agree with you without alienating people. I think this is where the animal welfare people miss the boat. When Nathan said that he would "never mention Oreo again" if ASPCA agreed to be on board with the proposed legislation under a different name, what rational person would think that the history of Oreo would magically disappear? This is not realistic. Large organizations like ASPCA and Best Friends are not going away. Trashing them is one approach. But what will get us faster to the results we aspire?
Andy, you're a fool because you cite history but have not learned from it:
Those movements you refer to? Every single one of them had extremely polarized factions involved. There were no compromises to be had.
Women's right to vote? Check out how many suffragettes were imprisoned and beaten by guards while politicians laughed with the good ol' boys at the bar.
Civil rights? Go talk compromise to the black men and women who fled the South in fear. Ask the hanged victims of color who paid the price to stand up and be heard. Ever hear of Rosa Parks, you arrogant little twit?
Abraham Lincoln and his family had to suffer physical threats from bigoted members of his own party. He almost lost the 1864 election because of a bunch of hate-filled racist democrats who called themselves Copperheads.
(continued...)
(Concl'n)...
Then there's The Great Appeaser - Neville Chamberlain. My hero, Winston Churchill, stood alone as a voice crying in the wilderness while that limp-wristed turd Chamberlain cowtowed to that nice man, Adolf Hitler. He, like you, felt that an accord could be reached if only they could just get along.
The Great Appeaser returned from Germany and held aloft that now-infamous paper and declared, "Peace is at hand!" Everyone cheered - except Winston Churchill.
In response to Chamberlain's appeasement, he stated in typical brilliant fashion, "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war."
Less than one year later the world was embroiled in an all-out war for domination by Hitler. Some peace!
HSUS, PETA, ASPCA and now, sadly, Best Friends are the Neville Chamberlains of today. Nathan Winograd, God bless his tireless soul, is our Winston Churchill.
It's about saving lives, not an industry! Appeasement-really? Agai
(Concl'n)...
Then there's The Great Appeaser - Neville Chamberlain. My hero, Winston Churchill, stood alone as a voice crying in the wilderness while that limp-wristed turd Chamberlain cowtowed to that nice man, Adolf Hitler. He, like you, felt that an accord could be reached if only they could just get along.
The Great Appeaser returned from Germany and held aloft that now-infamous paper and declared, "Peace is at hand!" Everyone cheered - except Winston Churchill.
In response to Chamberlain's appeasement, he stated in typical brilliant fashion, "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame, and will get war."
Less than one year later the world was embroiled in an all-out war for domination by Hitler. Some peace!
HSUS, PETA, ASPCA and now, sadly, Best Friends are the Neville Chamberlains of today. Nathan Winograd, God bless his tireless soul, is our Winston Churchill.
It's about saving lives, not an industry! Appeasement-really? Agai
You should ALWAYS be able to call people to the mat if you think there is something wrong. Not everybody is going to agree with you, and they can make their own opinions, but you are very brave to do so. We live in a complacent society where people will turn away when they see abuse because they don't want to get involved or rock the boat. Look at how we treat each other, people getting beaten and others walk away. I'm reminded of a famous quote ""We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."
— Elie Wiesel
So, for those who don't want to get involved, then don't, but for those who stand up, good for you. There are actually people out there who don't think we should be mad at BP for the oil spill, if you can believe that. Everyone who has another living thing in their charge, be it animal or human, has a right to be questioned.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!