The ASPCA killed Oreo despite an offer to save her by a No Kill
shelter and sanctuary.
Over the last several days, the ASPCA’s killing of a dog named Oreo has ignited a furor among animal lovers nationwide. They tried to justify it by claiming she was aggressive. But the question of whether or not Oreo was beyond rehabilitation is merely a side story to the most significant issues raised by Oreo's execution. And while Oreo’s killing by those who were supposed to be her protectors has left too many questions unanswered, what has emerged as the most significant one is why did Ed Sayres, the President of the ASPCA, rush to kill an abused dog when the public demanded that she be saved and a sanctuary had offered her lifetime care?
Last June, a one-year old dog named Oreo was intentionally thrown off a sixth floor Brooklyn roof top by her abuser. Oreo sustained two broken legs and a fractured rib. Although the facts are sketchy, Oreo also appears to have been beaten in the past—several of the neighbors in the building where Oreo lived reported hearing the sounds of the dog being hit. The ASPCA nursed her back to health and arrested the perpetrator. They also dubbed her the “miracle dog.”
The miracle was short-lived. According to Ed Sayres, the President of the ASPCA, when Oreo recovered from her injuries, she started to show aggression. After a series of temperament tests, Ed Sayres says he made the decision to kill her. The New York Times reported the story the day before Oreo’s scheduled execution. Despite the best efforts of Sayres to spin the outcome, the furor and condemnation by dog lovers all over the country was immediate.
In an attempt to contain the wrath of the animal-loving community against him, Sayres issued a press release replete with crocodile tears (“We are all upset by this”), saying that she was truly vicious, and arguing that lifetime care in a sanctuary would have meant no quality of life. Sometimes, Sayres said, there are no happy endings. On Friday, Oreo laid dead, the victim not of her former abuser, but of an overdose of poison from a bottle marked “Fatal-Plus,” at the hands of a shelter bureaucrat.
Refusing a Lifesaving Alternative
Facts are troubling things. Facts get in the way of a contrived story. And there is one troubling fact that all of Ed Sayres’ double-speak simply cannot overcome. Try as the ASPCA might to argue that Oreo’s death was unavoidable, Sayres’ misrepresentation has one fundamental obstacle: Oreo had a place to go. The issue doesn’t turn on the real extent of Oreo’s aggression. The real issue is that a No Kill shelter and sanctuary, with experience rehabilitating aggression in dogs, which works with area shelters that could have vouched for their credibility, which enjoys wide community esteem, and which is only a short drive outside of New York City, offered to give her lifetime sanctuary, and was refused.
They called and left a voice mail message on Sayres’ telephone. They called his secretary. They called the ASPCA Press Office. They contacted everyone on the ASPCA website contact page. And they were ignored, hung up on and lied to.
Pets Alive in Middletown, New York, is not only a member of the Mayor's Alliance for New York City animals, of which the ASPCA is also a member, they are not only an Alliance-approved rescue partner, they not only have had experience with aggressive dogs, but they agreed to take responsibility for a dog the ASPCA was committed to putting in a body bag and then dumping in a landfill. Even though Pets Alive is already an approved rescue partner, the fact that Oreo may have presented a special case didn’t mean the offer should have been rejected out of hand. The ASPCA could have visited Pets Alive; they could have checked veterinary references, community references, could have insisted on specific precautions and liability waivers. But instead, on Friday, before the "media circus got out of hand," Ed Sayres, willfully, neglectfully, cruelly, and dishonestly, chose to kill Oreo instead. That is the true face of the ASPCA. And that is intolerable.
Lowering the Bar
Ironically, had these events taken place in California, it would have been illegal for the ASPCA to kill Oreo instead of giving her to Pets Alive. In 1998, the California legislature overwhelming and bipartisanly passed a law making it illegal for a shelter to kill a dog if a No Kill shelter or rescue group is willing to save that dog—even in cases where the shelter says the dog is aggressive. Having worked in San Francisco, Sayres should be sensitive to the fact that the ASPCA, which claims a leadership position in this movement, should not have a more regressive policy than one approved by an overwhelming number of politicians on both sides of the political spectrum and the State’s Republican governor.
And yet the ASPCA, under Sayres, proves once again that the large national organizations have no vision, no desire to truly raise the status of animals in society, and despite claiming they are setting the bar on how society should relate to animals, that they are in reality staffed by those who would rather perpetuate the violence and betrayal Oreo already experienced by killing her—even as true animals lovers offered them a simple, life-affirming alternative, and the second chance at life Oreo so richly deserved.
And as an agency which claims to be the leading voice of animals, the ASPCA has a duty to continually push the envelope and raise the bar on these issues: to ask the tough questions, to give the issue the time it needs to arrive at a just and thoughtful resolution. Instead, the ASPCA rushed to kill Oreo and permanently closed the door to an animal that needed the full force of the ASPCA’s compassion—and vast resources—the most.
Ignoring the Public
A few short years ago, this case would have had the same tragic ending, with the majority of the dog loving public angry that Oreo’s life had come to this short end. But their anger would have been directed only at her former abuser. Today, that anger is still strong, but it is also being directed at the agency which was supposed to protect her from that ultimate harm and fundamentally failed. This is the same anger that forced Humane Society of the United States CEO Wayne Pacelle—like Sayres, another stalwart defender of killing—to stop pursuing the automatic destruction of abuse victims. Today, despite the claims of aggression which would have ended the dialog in the past, people want, deserve, and believe the dogs deserve the happy endings to which they are not only entitled, but which are readily available if men like Sayres and Pacelle would only give it to them. But time and time again, they choose not to.
That Oreo may not have been an immediate adoption candidate due to aggression issues is therefore secondary to the will of the people who wanted Oreo saved, who demanded that Oreo be saved, who were not swayed by false calculations of quality of life, of talk of being traumatized, of any other rationale that would have allowed Sayres and Pacelle to kill dogs without public condemnation. People are tired of the excuses, they are tired of the justifications, and they are tired of the killing.
Because I was quoted in the New York Times article (a bit misquoted actually as I would never call a dog an “it.” I was referring to the testing, not the dog), I was flooded by e-mails and telephone calls. The anger at Sayres was resolute. As one of those individuals noted,
Missing completely from the ASPCA’s response is any acknowledgment whatsoever of the concerns and outrage of the public who fund their work. The public was disrespected; their concerns guided by compassion disregarded.
The gulf between what the public expects from a humane society and the conduct of the ASPCA and others in their league is so at odds with humanity, a gulf so wide, it cannot be crossed. Instead of building a bridge to create needed dialog, Ed Sayres mounted a barricade from which he ran a self-serving propaganda campaign to force his views. He forgot that the ASPCA is publicly funded. He behaved like a dictator, not a leader.
Set Up to Fail?
No analysis on Oreo’s death would be complete without an evaluation of how the ASPCA determined that she was aggressive: Did the ASPCA evaluate her fairly? Given the abuse she suffered, how painful was she? Did they give her enough time to learn to trust again? Critics have charged that the ASPCA set her up for failure. That is an important issue and one that cannot be left to the often self-serving claims that have defined the ASPCA over the years.
As in many of these cases, people are questioning whether she was truly as aggressive as Sayres is trying to make out. There have been unconfirmed reports that staff and volunteers have claimed the ASPCA is exaggerating, and the ASPCA has not yet released any videotapes of her which would shed light on the real extent of her alleged aggression. According to unconfirmed reports, two staff members indicated that while the dog did show aggression, she could also be very affectionate, and as a result, they felt she was treatable. Unconfirmed reports also indicate that staff members asked Sayres for a reprieve so she could be placed in a sanctuary. And finally, unconfirmed reports indicate that a volunteer was able to go in and handle Oreo, despite some aggression issues. I have not been able to verify the veracity of these claims, but since this is secondary to the main issues above, their resolution would not alter what should have been the outcome.
On top of these nagging issues, there is the question of whether Ed Sayres is fit to make the final determination. I worked very closely with Sayres at the San Francisco SPCA. It was Sayres who was responsible for the decline and eventual abandonment of the No Kill goal in San Francisco. It was Sayres who embarked on the boondoggle of building a $20 million specialty hospital despite other specialty veterinary hospitals in that city and surrounding areas; and projections that it was not needed, would ultimately harm the San Francisco SPCA’s finances without meeting an unmet need, and cause programs for homeless animals to be curtailed. It is no surprise that those predictions have come to pass: The SPCA is now losing $3,000,000 every year, has eliminated 25% of its staff, has cut lifesaving programs, and appears to be racing toward financial oblivion, all due to the legacy of Sayres’ catastrophic leadership. As I wrote in Redemption about his tenure in San Francisco, Sayres inherited an,
SPCA with a strong infrastructure, departments that had become the envy of the growing No Kill movement, and a fundraising apparatus that had amassed an endowment of over forty million dollars. [He] would not fully leverage the opportunity he was given. In a short period of time, with money being wasted, fundraising opportunities missed, deficits created, an increasingly bloated bureaucracy developing, and key programs gutted or eliminated, the SPCA finally abandoned all pretensions toward No Kill in San Francisco.
This is a man who, as head of the wealthiest and most powerful SPCAs in the nation, claimed on the front page of USA Today, the most widely circulated newspaper in the country, that not killing was the moral equivalent of killing. This is a man who in Austin, Texas, has chosen to attack No Kill and shelter reform advocates and hinder their goals by throwing his organization’s support behind a shelter director who refuses to embrace alternatives to killing and who also kills tens of thousands of animals annually despite hundreds of empty cages at her facility. Sayres is also taking credit for the modest decline in killing this year which is exclusively the result of the work of a private rescue group saving the animals the ASPCA-partner shelter is otherwise determined to kill.
During my tenure with him in San Francisco, Sayres rarely ventured out of his office, almost never walked the kennels or interacted with the animals, and was so detached, that he simply signed off on whatever his staff said, no matter how regressive those he hired were (and there are plenty of regressive people at the ASPCA also). But there is one incident in particular which sheds light on the Oreo case.
When I was working with Sayres in San Francisco, he had signed off on the killing of a dog who I felt deserved further evaluation. He made the decision to kill a dog without seeing the dog, without observing the evaluation, without, I would venture, even being able to pick the dog out of a kennel of other dogs. I objected and suggested that we needed to set the bar higher. I gave him a formal proposal that, before killing an animal, he appoint a guardian ad litem, someone who would represent the dog (or cat) the same way an attorney would defend the accused during a death penalty case. It would not cost him anything, as I was an attorney, I already worked there, and I agreed to represent the animals whenever a behaviorist or veterinarian issued the death warrant. He said, “No.” Ironically, that is the process used in the criminal and civil case against dog slayer Michael Vick. A guardian was appointed by the federal judge overseeing the disposition of the dogs. As a result, the vast majority of Vick’s victims were saved. In other words, when Sayres is given the chance to be fully involved, he chooses not to be, even when it means death for dogs at the shelter he oversees; or when it means a lost opportunity to advance this movement, as would befit someone in his position.
The Great Betrayal
In 1866, over 140 years ago, Henry Bergh began the modern humane movement in the United States with the founding of the ASPCA. For the rest of his life, Bergh devoted himself to saving the lives of animals in and around New York City. For over two decades, Bergh spent each and every night, regardless of freezing temperatures, walking the streets of New York City tending to sick animals, fighting for their rights, working to save them, and confronting—and stopping—their abusers.
At the time, New York City had the largest horse-pulled railway in the world. In one poignant incident, one evening in February of 1871 during the evening rush hour, working people rushed for the cars, and the horses began to strain with heavy loads through snow and slush. As one overloaded car reached the corner near where Bergh stood, the driver was ready to give the horses another lash when the call came to “Stop!” and “Unload!” It was Bergh. “Who the hell are you?” came the reply from the driver. “Unload!” called the order again. When the driver refused, Bergh reportedly pitched him into a snow bank and unhitched the horses. Often, Bergh would completely stop traffic on the lines, causing traffic jams that would leave thousands of people stranded and cursing to no avail—because one man had stopped all the traffic to protect a single horse.
As hard as Bergh labored to protect all animals, he worked equally hard to protect dogs, particularly against abuses at the hands of city dogcatchers. Through prosecutions of abusive dogcatchers, lobbying for stronger laws and greater protections, and by striving himself to save them, he reduced deaths for dogs at the hands of the city pound by over 80 percent in just one year alone. Henry Bergh would not have killed Oreo.
Today, Ed Sayres sits in the chair once occupied by Bergh. He does not advance the cause of animal protection. He is not a tireless champion on their behalf. He does not faithfully represent Bergh’s vision, nor does he faithfully represent how most Americans now feel about animals. Instead, when given the opportunity to save the life of an animal, he cowers in his office, refusing to return telephone calls, while collecting a paycheck of half a million dollars a year. On the afternoon of Friday, November 13, Ed Sayres had a personal driver take him home. Oreo’s body was sitting in a freezer, waiting to be delivered to a landfill.
Toward the end of his life, Bergh would often lament, “I hate to think what will become of this [SPCA] when I am gone.” Ed Sayres has answered that question for him. And Sayres’ answer: “an agency that kills savable dogs,” would have hurt Henry very deeply.
When I was growing up, the ASPCA represented very little beyond an annual fundraising calendar with pictures of kittens and puppies and platitudes about the human-animal bond. And while we have all grown up to demand more than calendars and killing, the ASPCA has not. And while that agency claims to be a leading voice for the animals and the people who love them, their actions toward Oreo demonstrate otherwise: The ASPCA doesn’t represent the dog lovers at Pets Alive. It doesn't represent the values of the American people. It no longer represents the fierce compassion of its founder. And it certainly doesn’t represent dogs like Oreo.
For more information:
Comments
Boo to Ed Sayres and Boo to the "humane movement" that has so fundamentally lost its way. Oreo's case was a question of morals and the ASPCA failed miserably. There is no room for immorality in leadership.
Very thorough article, with some very provocative thoughts in it. I hope that there is a groundswell request for reform in the aftermath of this. This smacks of a power play to create a veneer of legitimacy for future "tough decisions."
Personally, I now feel crappy. We just surrendered our two dogs to the local SPCA "No Kill" shelter because of finances, our health, and some behavioral problems that we were not dealing with very well. Not heavy aggression, but at least one of the dogs might be considered problematic. We gave them up to this organization because of the No-Kill policy specifically. I now have to tell myself that what happened to Oreo will not happen to them. Way to shatter people's confidence in your organization, Mr. Sayers. . . .
Shelly, don't personalize it. How is Oreo's killing an error. Shouldn't the ASPCA stopped the execution when the offer by Pets Alive was made? Why did they rush to kill her? It is truly amazing that people like you who probably think of themselves as animal lovers are so forgiving of people who kill them. This "error" cost a dog her life and she can never be brought back. There's no enjoyment here. Just profound anger and sadness.
I have to wonder where the remarks from Shelly came from here since she/he did not bother to explain their accusation at all. "So called errors?" What part of this whole story of Oreo didn't you get exactly? I'll be glad to explain it all to you in more base terms if you like. And I definitely did not read anything in this very thorough and well stated article that was exalting of the author's work other then that he had worked with the Killer Sayres before. That's not something he's bragging about I'm sure. Just a fact.
Ed Sayres must be a relative of yours to be so blind to the truth of what happened last week.
And Shelly, what is so wrong with Nathan Winograd promoting his own work? His work being that of saving lives, not just throwing them away like the work of Ed Sayres? You should educate yourself further on the no-kill shelter movement.
I have to agree Jen and Franklin, Shelly sounds to me as if she has a personal vendetta against Nathan, and I couldn't help but notice not a word about the real issue at hand. Her motivation and agenda is extremely and painfully obvious, fortunately we only share the same name but not the same spelling, thankfully.
This is not about exaling anyone's work in its wake. This is about the sad fact that Oreo's life was not spared, despite help/rehab/placement being available. Despite all the inquiries from the public and organisations, she was mercilessly killed.
Is there an ego or powerplay involved ? Is the premedidated murder under the guise of apologetic excuses acceptable ??? NO.
Oreo was a victim of haste and unprofessional decisions.
The atrocious and inhumane act on the dog Oreo is a deplorable act of selfishness. I would believe Mike Arms would not be proud of the organization now. For all he's worked so hard to make changes for the better, he left to implement even more changes for the animal welfare... of which you should take a crash course urgently. Has ASPCA leadership no compassion or slightest respect to save lives, specially under such dire circumstances ?
Is the ASPCA's fear of failing in successfully rehabilitating this dog and ensure a future for her as should be your utmost priority.. is that fear greater than your concern to give her THAT very chance with another organization ? How dare you make such an atrocious and inhumane decision ?
Are you joining the propagandists of other big names in animal welfare whose main interests are to gain financially with national ad and mailing campaigns under the guise of "helping animals that need rescue" ?ASPCA ought to be forever ashamed of your cowardly act. It just seems the ASPCA is still in the stone age when it comes to effective and fair assessment testing under which so many animals die because the humans in charge are self-appointed "experts" with no clue. The methods presently applied in your organization are the doom of any animal in question... they are outdated, unfair and absolutely provocatively giving you an excuse to kill.
In modern America, under a name of your caliber, the killing of Oreo is unacceptable. Your publicity gig towards collecting donations from unsuspecting people and your heartless act of "judgement" in this case are an outrage. The media ought to report on this - to expose your failure to put the animal first.
Oreo has suffered tremendously and deserved more from you. Your shortsightedness and unprofessional practices must be exposed. And I suggest you educate yourself and your staff on how to be more humane, save lives and make that a top priority by attending a workshop at Mike Arm's Animal Center in California.
Animals always become victims of twisted propaganda.. when it is about saving the image of the powers in charge.. Shame on you.
OreoVictim of ASPCA New York
Used for publicity gain Used for self-gain...not understood,
not given a true chance to gain back trust in humanity,
not granted a chance to earn the compassion from those in charge....the shortsighted decision makers of ASPCA NEW YORK.
Oreo, a victim of harsh and unprofessional, misleading and deceptive propaganda... In the hands of the wrong people, deciding her fate, when help and rehabilitation from her traumatic past to a loving future was on the way.....
ASPCA New York, an example of how hope and success are stolen at the hands of impatience, misjudgment and provocative individuals, who think they are in the right to present to the world their outrageous claims to justify the murder of an innocent dog who had EVERY right, EVERY chance, and EVERY opportunity to become again, what she was born to be: a dog that could trust humans - Your example is setting an unacceptable standard that is calling for reform now.
ASPCA is radical in it's decisions, recreantly apologetic for it's own premeditated injustice on an innocent being, and mostly : IN DIRE NEED of REFORM of it's moral values... unless ASPCA rectifies such inexcusable actions - may you lose respect and financial gain to further exploit others and murder innocents.
The world is not buying the story, ASPCA, and hopefully many will stop supporting your institution as it clearly is in a deep conflict with it's own mission statement.
Shame on you.
I got a fund raiser in the mail today from ASPCA.Wrote back that my $ is going to pets alive.
How many Oreo's have there already been that we will never know about? How many more will be killed needlessly in the future?
Read Shelly's comments carefully. That is what guilt sounds like.
I find this unforgivable. . If the SPCA has an animal, and another agency is willing to take that animal and take responsibility for it.....WHY in the hell would they not allow it to happen ? WHY in the hell is it okay to KILL this abused animal ? There needs to be a law mandating, that if another agency will take and care for an animal when the SPCA does not want to....that the animal by law is released to the willing agency...period.
I for one have long had it with massive salaries for the ASPCA and Humane heads - especially if they are selling the animals down the river as they continue to do. Most telling is Nathan's tale of his offer to stand in stead for the red-listed dogs and the answer that boomed back from behind Sayer's pricey desk: No. that says it all to me. these type of 'leaders' must be fired and replaced with people who understand what caring for animals really means.
Hopefully enough people will make it their business to get him OUT of office. Can't move forward without that as a starting point.
@Brandy:
How much do you make working for the ASPCA?
Very sad and upsetting. And sadly repeated in a variety of shelters. Directors, and help don't care about their shelter quests, and often a rescue is willing to help out, even when the shelter makes it so difficult. Their prioritys are not saving these sweet babies. Over haul of many need to be done, starting with NYSPCA.
Anyone who insists that abused aggressive dogs can never be rehabilitated must be wilfully ignorant of the rehab of the Vicktory Dogs at Dog Town by Best Friends Animal Sanctuary. If a dog that was trained to be a fighting dog and was abused terribly by humans, can be rehabbed and even adopted, why are some of you so darn sure that Oreo was not worthy of getting that chance?
I currently own a dog that at one time was deemed irretrievable aggressive. She spent over a year in a rescue kennel waiting for the right owner. Ed Sayers would have killed her without a second thought. But I saw potential. I signed the waiver to bring her home. I learned what her triggers were and we worked through them. With patience, love, and lots and lots of desensitization and training, last year she passed her test to become a certified therapy dog. Today she has doggie friends and is considered bomb-proof around people of all ages and infirmities. She works with senior citizens on an almost daily basis.
There is no excuse for killing a dog who has a home or sanctuary to go to.
Brandy: "Again, review the facts. Oreo was very, very aggressive and would have likely lived out her life in unhappy isolation no matter which organization took over."
Inexcusable, indefensible and immoral. There was a no-kill shelter BEGGING the ASPCA to give Oreo over to their care. They SPECIALIZE in rehabilitating aggressive dogs. Do you have any idea what that even means?
I have personally seen the progress of Michael Vick's fighting pit bulls at Best Friends Animal Sanctuary, and it is nothing less than astonishing. I don't know what it's going to take to get this through your head, you and everybody who thinks like you do, but you need to understand this:
Every dog can be rehabilitated. EVERY. DOG. No amount of backpedaling or making excuses will change that. Saying she would have lived out her life in misery is flat out ignorant. What the ASPCA did in this case was abhorrent. Intentionally declining the chance to rehabilitate Oreo was sadistic, cruel, and indefensible.
@Brandy
The number of animals that is truly beyond rehabilitation is so tiny as to be statistically insignificant. Killing is NEVER a kindness - regardless of your twisted reasoning.
There is one way to get this idiot out of office and that is to stop funding them! I have been involved with animal rescue for a very long time and under no circumstances is it ok to kill an animal that is wanted by a rescue or sanctuary. In fact it isn't ok to kill any animal unless the animal is suffering. Living in a sanctuary is no different for a dog as living in a home. They do not know the difference, because in general there isn't any. Nathan is a genius when it comes to protecting animals from death. I know all too well that shelters all over the country kill simply to be killing. Start on the lower level, make it a felony to breed or own an un-spayed or un-neutered dog/cat without an expensive license. Start tossing people in jail for causing the over population problem and maybe some lives will be saved.
KICK SAYRES OUT OF HIS POSITION HIS ISN'T WORTH THE TIME OF DAY, SUCH A COWARD & UNCARING MONSTER STOP FUNDING THE ASPCA AND TELL THEM WHY YOU WILL NO LONGER SUPPORT THEM.
All of you can say what you will, but the help was there and offered. They should have taken that help regardless of what they thought of the dog. They should have given the dog to a no kill organization... PERIOD! SHAME ON THEM! To think I have given them donations!
I wonder how many donations came in to save Oreo after being tossed from 5 stories? When she served no other purpose, she was eliminated. I am a veterinarian and 19 years ago I started an animal welfare organization, Common Sense for Animals The main premesis is that all animals are to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of how they fit into our lives(food, medicine, entertainment, companion pets, family members, etc). We operate a no kill shelter. I have had death threats and criticism from certain organazations and individuals for being no kill. Upon occasions we have had to make hard choices regarding terminally ill, chronically ill and behavior problems and the one thing we beg for is homes and facilities that will help with the less than desirable. Oreo was a survivor, deserving a chance. The SPCA, USHS, and other groups like PETA do not have the best interest of animals at heart. Power and money unfortunately is the motive and Oreo paid the price, without respect.
@Brandy
I find it very disconcerting that you do not the difference between killing for expedience and euthanasia. Wow.
Just because you claim that not every animal can be saved doesn't make it true. I rehabilitate aggressive dogs and I have yet to see a dog that was not able to be rehabilitated. If the ASPCA was unable to do the job, they should have given another agency a chance. There didn't have to be "other organizations" there only had to be one - and there was one.
Even the animals that cannot be socialized or adopted should be allowed to have a life, especially if someone is willing to take the dog. Brandy... you are a DUMBASS and have no clue what you are talking about. Get educated BEFORE you open your pie hole!!
1. Oreo was not vicious!
2. The decision to kill Oreo was made weeks ago and they waited only to let the publicity die down
3. Pets Alive and other reputable sanctuaries were ready to accept Oreo with an eye toward rehabbing her for eventual homing or offering her permanent santuary should that not be possible. Pets Alive was willing to sign a waiver releasing the A of all legal liability.
4. Pets Alive was NOT going to let her live a life of isolation and seclusion, which is exactly the life the ASPCA gave her until her death
5. The ASPCA brought all of their employees together and coerced them into supporting their decision. They were told that they must support the A's decision and that they were not to speak to anyone who was protesting the decision.
6. The Humane Law Enforcement team that rescued Oreo was forbidden to see her
7. Ed Sayres did not respond to any of the offers of help.
8. Rescue Ink offered to transport Oreo to Pets Alive. They went to the A in person and were refused and threatened with arrest The police were called to remove one activist who only wanted to see Oreo with his own eyes. That person lives close to the ASPCA and was a regular donor.
9. Oreo did not receive the personal attention that Ed Sayres claims that she did. She was left in isolation and was fed through a slot in the cage. Staff had to sneak in to visit her.
10. The behaviorist wanted Oreo dead (and said as much) from the moment she first laid eyes on her.
11. The second behaviorist was brought in to support the decision of the first (they are friends and colleagues) and only after the controversy hit and they wanted to kill her quickly. Oreo never had a chance. The A behaviorist insisted on being in the room when the "Safer Test" was administered. The only portion that Oreo failed was the hand that pulled the rawhide chew away.
Brandy you're a PETA member, aren't you.
12. In the face of all of this opposition and questioning, the ASPCA quickly killed Oreo. They lied to people about when they were supposed to do it and gave callers the run around. We mourned Oreo's death a total of three times because of the ASPCA's misinformation.
13. this is not the only case. There are others that were high profile rescues that languished at the A for many months. When they were going to killed some staffers took pity on these animals and pulled them.
14. Most important of all, we know people who work for the A who have said that although Oreo was distrustful at first (no doubt for her previous abuse and her isolation at the hands of the ASPCA), Oreo showed affection to volunteers, wiggled when they came by and licked faces/gave kisses. Some sat in the cage and gave her belly rubs. Does this sound like a hopeless situation?
@Lisa
Well, you let me know when you market and sell that magical power of yours that somehow manages to save All Animals, Everywhere, Everytime, Forever. I'll be the first in line to buy some, for use on everything from aggressiive dogs to mangled wildlife to kittens suffering from FeLv.
Brandy, go visit Mike Arms at the Helen Woodward Animal Center. You would gain some beneficial insight in the saving of lives movement. He knows what he's talking about.
Also, you might have heard of the Vick dogs... I would assume. Some are certified therapy dogs now. Quit bickering and wasting everyone's time here. You don't agree.. that is fine. But clearly, this article is on the injustice on her death, not on your opinion.
Oreo would have been rehabbed just fine. Never should one label all dogs the same and put them in the same drawer. Again, Vick dogs... your shortsighted vision on this reflects a very pessimistic view and is not what Oreo needed. We are in a position to save lives, and when we can, we need to.
Also, you might learn a thing or two if you attend a Best Friends conference. It might open your mind and heart to what we can be : rescuers at heart. Not killers, judgmental minions or simply, unknowing morons who give no one the chance of day.
@Lisa:
If you have a 100% success rate, why didn't YOU take Oreo a month ago?
Brandy it's not magic. It happens every day with the dogs that I and many, many other trainers work with. It's sad that your experience in companion animal rescue is so shallow that you can't allow for the possibility that just because you or the ASPCA can't fix something, doesn't mean there is someone else out there who can.
Monika thank you for filling us in on the details of Oreos killing at the hands of the ASPCA. It should never come as a surprise to anyone that groups like the HSUS, ASPCA and PETA kill animals not out of compassion, but for political reasons. I guess Oreo failed to meet this month's donation quota.
Brandy, I didn't have to do anything. Oreo was already offered a place to go. Regardless of who offered to take Oreo, Ed Sayers was dead-set on killing the dog and that is exactly what he did.
Brandy, here is the link:
www.animalcenter.org
Mike Arms revolutionized animal welfare and has adopted out 5 million animals. One that was very hurt, just like Oreo was, was the incentive to do so. Mike has made a difference.
He spoke at the conference and earned a standing ovation.
Also, you might learn something from Bill Bruce, who changed Calgary to an almost no-kill standard. His philosophy is contagious as is makes us feel powerful - and useful. Your vision needs amendment, just like the ASPCA needs reform.
In a modern society, we cannot and must not tolerate discrimination against any animal, be it BSL, abused and tortured, or any other circumstance. We must help the animal in question. Gestapo methods in any situation are out.
@Monika:
I *am* a rescuer. I am also a wildlife rehabilitator, vegan, animal lover, pet caregiver, foster, pet rehabilitator and volunteer.
I have also seen many animals die. I have seen them die because there was nothing more to be done for them, medically, behaviorally, or even ethically.
Sometimes the best thing you can do for an animal is to be selfless enough to want them to be at peace.
Sometimes we have to euthanize them, because they are broken and cannot heal, no matter how much we want them to. Whether it's injured wildlife or abused animals, sometimes release is the kindest choice.
There is no excuse for killing Oreo. All you have to do is look at what Best Friends is doing with the Vick dogs. Oreo could have lived a much better life at Pet's Alive than he had before. It takes time to rehabilitate an abused dog and it takes kindness,love and people knowing how to do it. The ASPCA should be put out of business. Sayres should be fired, and everyone who agreed with him. Sayres had no right to end Oreo's life just because he did not want to be bothered with the problem. That is abuse in it's highest form.
Brandy, WHAT chance did they give Oreo ?
- questionable assessment testers ?
- rejecting outside rescues very willing to take this dog in ?
- rejecting Rescue Ink to come transport the dog ?
- refusing to address calls or ANY inquiries ?
PLEEEEASSE !! Give me a break ? Your self-defense is running out of ideas ! Get real !! We sent the inquiries on Oreo nationwide - whilst the ASPCA sat on a golden throne playing God.
Brandy, if you don't have anything smart to say, why don't you just shut up ?
Brandy: so you are all that good stuff. Wow. Are you bipolar too ?
Are you saying that all others have no ability ? That Oreo who was isolated within ASPCA shelter environment would have not improved in a loving home where she got more attention and integrity ? Please ask Ed Fritz at Best Friends, what he thinks
Or any of the Vick dog rehabilitators. Please ask them and get back to us.
Judging Oreo in the environment she was held is sure a limited way to gain insight on the future she could have had. You seem to have made up your mind that she needed to be killed. If you are within ASPCA too, I hope you get fired as well.
If you are so sure of yourself, please reveal with which rescue you work. I would like to send them a packet of information.
You can contact me at Tcourt5096@aol.com
If you have guts, do it. If you only have a big mouth, stay on this blog and keep bickering.
I am deeply sadden and angry at whomever is responsible for Oreo's death. What purpose is the ASPCA serving if they are not willing to rescue those who needed most..Oreo deserved a chance for a happy loving home. If someone was willing to take Oreo, then why wasn't he given to that family/ rescue organization? Shame on those responsible!!!!
Brandy - in WHAT WAY did the ASPCA give Oreo a chance? The ASPCA was offered the chance to get Oreo into rehabilitation with no cost to them, they wouldn't even have had to transport her.
They REFUSED. How is that giving Oreo a chance? They KILLED Oreo. How is that giving Oreo a chance? Do you just have a different definition of "giving Oreo a chance" than the rest of the world?
If the ASPCA was even remotely interested in Oreo's well being, the choice would have been obvious. In fact it was an obvious choice to just about everybody except the ASPCA, and you apparently. But in your blind and ignorant defense of the ASPCA, you are missing the fact that they intentionally and purposefully refused to ALLOW her the chance to be rehabilitated, and was dead set on killing her instead.
How is that giving her a chance? What chance did she have when the people that were holding her were determined to kill her at any cost? There is absolutely NO EXCUSE. NONE.
Brandy: When the Wilkes dogs were so mercilessly killed last February, under the minions of the HSUS, I made it my mission to expose the corrupt leadership under the guise of being "experts". I will make it my mission here to expose ASPCA for what is stands with the latest killing example of Oreo.
AFter a scandal arose, HSUS started to sing a different tune... public pressure... an almighty great tool to get the egotistic and greedy headhonchos to change their views... it is not compassion what makes them tick... it is a timebomb, called public pressure and exposure.
I will never accept the murder of innocents. Oreo was innocent and betrayed twice. I am waiting to hear from you.
BRANDY : ""Like I said, I'd love to visit your amazing, death- and conflict-free planet. Send me directions. ""
It's called honesty, integrity, courage, optimism and fairness.
I think you missed the turn long ago. But if you do some honest rethinking and quit being so self-defensive, you might have a second chance to find this planet, just as Oreo would have had with other people than the ASPCA.
The bottom line here is than an innocent dog was killed by the hand of man before ALL options were considered. Oh,and they gave him his last meal of "premium kibble" as if that would soften the pain of that needle full of death for him.
And Brandy there are many, many people working in this country to save animals like Oreo, both on local and national levels. WE little groups ARE trying to help. Just because we do not support this decision by the ASPCA doesn't mean we are working to save animals and to try to right wrongs such as the one committed by the ASPCA. They clearly let this dog down when there were other, very viable, alternative solutions for redemption of this innocent dog.
Brandy: Thanks for your email. There is no hope for you. If you don't like to lose a battle of wits, that's too bad.
Here the email of a woman who claims to know it all, but has no clue or class indeed:
""Why don't you tell me what it is that YOU do, your High and Mightiness?
Which RESCUE? Singular?
Don't be so narrowminded.
I am not going to tell you who I rescue for, because, frankly, I don't
need a cyberbully harassing my organizations.
But:
Four wildlife rehabilitation groups
Two international wildlife rescue groups
Three animal shelters
One farm animal rescue group
And two worldwide animal welfare organizations""
AMEN !!!!!!!!!!
Most excellent, your points are directly on target, within reason, and fact checked. What about you Brandy?
Brandy said: Again, to those of you so angry at the ASPCA:
THEY were doing something.
Where were YOU? What did you do?
Uh- actually Brandy they were collecting large financial donations, and last I knew they held onto Oreo like their pot of gold, and wouldn't let anyone near her. Many wanted to help, they wouldn't share her. Many are now wondering when they actually killed this dog?
...So what did you do, to make you such an authority on this subject? Ms. Brandy???? Enlighten us.
Pages
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!