To kill animals in New York, the ASPCA goes after them in California

Oreo, an abused dog, was ordered killed by ASPCA President Ed
Sayres despite the lifesaving offer by a No Kill sanctuary.

Under siege since his callous killing of Oreo, an abused dog who survived being thrown off a rooftop in Brooklyn but could not survive the “rescue” by the ASPCA, ASPCA President Edwin J. Sayres is fighting legislation that would make it illegal for shelters to kill animals a qualified non-profit organization is willing to save. The law is named after Oreo, and threatens to memorialize for all time her betrayal at his hands.

According to inside sources, Sayres is seeking a report to “claim” that California’s Hayden Law, upon which Oreo’s Law is based, is harmful to animals. In the process, he is not only attempting to stall progressive legislation in New York, but he is threatening to turn legislative progress back by more than a decade in California, threatening the lives of animals on both coasts.

Adding further insult to injury, a source close to the ASPCA also reports that Sayres will also commission a survey of rescue groups in New York State to “prove” that they already have access to animals. However, the source reports that they will only talk to rescue groups recommended by New York kill shelters in order to arrive at the pre-determined conclusion. Rescue groups that are denied animals because of the arbitrary policies of shelters and which would provide substantial proof of the need for the law will not be allowed to participate.

Attacking the California Law

Ed Sayres is threatening not only the lives of animals
in New York State, but he is potentially threatening the
lives of thousands of animals in California who are
currently being saved.

When Ed Sayres killed Oreo and the uproar ensued, Sayres assured his colleagues that it would all “blow over in a few days.” Months later, the outcry has still not subsided and Oreo’s Law continues to garner supporters. Sayres has sought to paint the law as dangerous, arguing that there are “fates worse than death,” by lobbying legislators that rescue groups—non-profit organizations just like the ASPCA, only smaller—are dog fighters and animal hoarders in disguise. Putting aside the offensive accusations against animal lovers who do rescue, as well as his desire to kill legislation that would save the lives of thousands of animals to save face, Sayres’ claim has one major problem: he supported and defended similar legislation in California upon which Oreo’s Law is based when he was President of the San Francisco SPCA.

The California law, named after its chief sponsor, then-Senator Tom Hayden, has made it illegal in California for shelters to kill animals if a rescue group is willing to save them and it has been in place since 1998. It is credited with saving the lives of thousands of animals every year, helping create a more comprehensive network of rescue groups, and allowing whistleblowers to regain their ability to rescue at shelters that have retaliated against them.

That law continues to haunt Sayres in terms of the knowingly false statements he is making about Oreo’s Law. Because of that, Sayres is now seeking to destroy the Hayden Law’s credibility by commissioning a report that will claim that the rescue access provision of California’s Hayden Law is harmful to animals. But a fair, impartial report would show the opposite. As a result, Sayres may be turning to Jane Hoffman who runs the Mayor’s Alliance, who also opposes Oreo’s Law as a threat to her position of power, and who is expected to oblige. An ASPCA source indicates that the report will likely be prepared by a committee of lawyers who focus on animal related law, a committee of which Hoffman was past chair and continues to be its most influential member. In that way, it will have a stamp of legitimacy—even in light of its overwhelming bias and predetermined outcome—that it won’t deserve.

With a law in place for 11 years and a state as large as California, there are bound to be a few unfortunate examples that Sayres is said ready to portray as the norm in order to scare legislators. Sayres’ dishonest attempt to take the rare exception and paint it as the norm would be akin to arguing that shelters should not have any adoption programs and should kill all the animals because some of the adoptions fail, or some adopters end up abusing the animals. Indeed, by this very logic, the ASPCA hospital can be classified as “abusive” and should be closed given that a lawsuit is currently pending which accuses the ASPCA of beating and killing a client dog—an incident, it should be noted, Sayres attempted to bury. By his own logic, the ASPCA should not be allowed to accept animals because they are animal abusers in disguise. That would be a proverbial case of throwing the baby out with the bath water, but that is exactly what Sayres and the ASPCA propose.

Adding insult to injury, in an attempt to discredit the Hayden Law, Sayres may be giving ammunition to opponents of Hayden in California to then seek legislative repeal. Doctoring a report that says Hayden’s Law is bad for animals may serve his political purposes. But it is used in California to seek repeal, it could spell the death of thousands of animals every year in that state who are currently being saved. That an organization supposedly dedicated, as their mission statement claims, to “rescue animals from abuse [and] pass humane laws” would actively work to kill abused animals, fight humane laws, and also work to undermine one of the most progressive animal protections laws in the nation, is a travesty.

Sayres Report Shows Benefits of California Law

Sayres knows that any report he commissions questioning the value of the rescue provision of the Hayden Law would be false, as his own analysis, while President of the San Francisco SPCA, found that the law not only saved lives, but also saved municipalities money. According to a San Francisco SPCA report written during Sayres’ tenure which Sayres approved and sent to a State Commission in defense of the law:

With five years of actual experience, we feel strongly that public/private partnerships can work to save both lives and taxpayer dollars not only in San Francisco, but also throughout the State. And it is why we feel the same incentive structures in [the Hayden Law] are so vital to the future of animals in shelters throughout California…

[In San Francisco] Collaborative arrangements with community groups and humane organizations to rescue animals scheduled for euthanasia from the City shelter shifted cost of care from taxpayers to private individuals. These efforts eliminated the killing of adoptable animals, reduced the killing of treatable pets by approximately 60%, increased adoptions, and reduced average shelter length of stay—all at substantial savings for municipalities…. [As a result,] San Francisco has the lowest euthanasia rate of any City and County in the United States accomplished with taxpayer savings of approximately $486,480.00.

Sayres has tried to distance himself from his own analysis, by arguing that those were different times and that the “crisis” of killing in California which justified passing and defending the law doesn’t exist in New York State, but this is unsupportable. In New York City itself, animal control has made pleas to the public for emergency assistance just this past month after it nearly ran out of food (how is it possible that a shelter can run out of food in the same city with the ASPCA which raises tens of millions of dollars a year?), it sends emergency e-mails every single day threatening to kill animals if the rescue community don’t help immediately, and its staff publicly admit to killing healthy animals despite the Mayor’s Alliance’s factual inaccuracies to the contrary. Over 15,000 dogs and cats are killed in New York City’s animal control shelter every year alone. And there is ample evidence that outside NYC, the situation in the rest of the State is actually worse. How is this not a crisis?

As an animal control shelter Director in New York State, I also witnessed firsthand how New York State shelters refused to work with rescue groups, choosing instead to kill them. As the current Tompkins County shelter director writes in her support of Oreo’s Law,

When we began our No Kill initiative, one of the first things we established is a vibrant rescue group network. While some of the rescue groups were local, many were not only based across New York State, but in neighboring ones as well. We are amazed at the broad support we received from all of these groups, but frankly, we were mystified that they were willing to make the drive when they had shelters in their own community. When asked why they rescued from us rather than their local shelter, the answer was always the same: “our local shelter refuses to work with rescue groups.”

In addition, the Tompkins County SPCA was also denied animals from other animal shelters that were killing them. We routinely offered to take animals from neighboring kill shelters and were rebuffed.

Moreover, why does legislation which will save both animals and taxpayer money need to be the result of a full blown crisis? Since the law cuts costs, brings in revenue, and also increases the number of animals saved, it doesn’t.

An analysis by a UCLA Law Professor confirms the finding of a
report commissioned by Ed Sayres as President of the San
Francisco SPCA that rescue access legislation like the Hayden
Law and Oreo's Law saves lives. The Sayres report also found
significant savings to taxpayers.

UCLA Law Professor Analysis Shows Benefits of California Law

In fact, a UCLA Law Professor has already analyzed the impact of the Hayden Law’s rescue provisions and found that they have made a significant and positive contribution in California. According to the report:

As anticipated, right of access legislation provided greater ability of existing rescuers to save animals at risk of killing. As to those existing rescuers and rescue groups, the greater stability of access resulted in greater success in attracting additional volunteers and donors to support the groups’ mission…

The right of access legislation also promoted expansion in the number of groups. At the time the Hayden Law was introduced, there were some rescue groups holding adoption events in some pet food/supply locations. Now, at least in Los Angeles, there are adoption events at all pet supply locations. Even before a new store opens, rescue groups contact store management to secure a time slot and place for adoptions. Some stores have put in permanent cat care facilities where rescued cats can be seen throughout the week…

Now, ten years after it went into effect, it is possible to say that the right of access provision in the Hayden Law was very important to the development of a vibrant network of animal rescue and adoption groups that function more efficiently and optimistically than they could when their ability to rescue animals from shelters was insecure. Animals have benefited directly from their life-saving activities and indirectly from the education and other services they provide.

These are all very positive features of a law that met vehement opposition while going through the legislative process. The stated bases for opposition are similar to those expressed by those who oppose Oreo’s Law: the risk of hoarding of shelter animals, the risk of dogs ending up in dog fighting circles, and increased risks to the public due to irresponsible release of unsuitable dogs to adopters. Despite such dire predictions of increased incidence of public harm and cruelty to animals as a result of passing the right of access provision in the Hayden Law, there is no evidence of increased incidence of either.

Not only are Hayden’s benefits undeniable, but Oreo’s Law goes further, adding protections against hoarding and abuse that California’s Hayden Law did not include. Oreo’s Law, for example, specifically excludes any non-profit organizations that have board members, officers, staff and volunteers who have been convicted of any neglect or abuse laws. Moreover, it also specifically excludes these groups and individuals if charges are pending for neglect or abuse, even before a conviction.

The Sayres One-Two Punch

Sayres also intends to commission a survey of rescue groups in New York State to “prove” that they already have access to animals, but only rescue groups recommended by kill shelters in New York will be allowed to participate. In order to arrive at the pre-determined conclusion, rescue groups who are denied animals because the local shelter will not work with them will not be allowed to take part in the survey. But the killing of Oreo and Max prove that the law is needed. My experiences in Tompkins County prove the law is needed. Complaints across the state by rescue groups denied animals while shelters turn around and kill those very animals prove the law is needed.

In the end, however, the doctored survey also entirely misses the point. First, even if some rescue groups are given access, oftentimes that access is dependent on not publicly disclosing evidence of mistreatment or inhumane conditions in those shelters. If they make those concerns public, they are subject to retribution. Here is just one example of such treatment from California:

A rescue group member sought to save a healthy mother cat and her four healthy kittens impounded in a local shelter. The shelter manager told her to choose one kitten and that he was going to kill the rest, including the mother, because another member of the same group had sent a critical letter about the shelter to the governmental body responsible for overseeing shelters. That manager knew the increased pain he would cause by forcing a choice rather than simply denying access to any of the kittens and their mother altogether. How does a conscientious rescuer dedicated to saving lives choose one of four healthy kittens, knowing that the others are going to be summarily killed?

In other cases, rescue groups were simply barred from saving animals for going public after their requests to shelter managers for improvements in animal care were ignored. Not only is it flawed to only allow rescue groups recommended by killing shelters to participate in such a survey, but those rescue groups who do participate might fear that disclosing any concerns to the ASPCA will lead to retribution by those shelters and they will lose their access as a result. To be fair, a survey must be open to all rescue groups, rather than hand-picked ones which will reflect a predetermined conclusion.

Second, even if some qualified rescue groups do have access to some animals in some shelters in New York State, this would not obviate the need for legislation like Oreo’s Law. Relying on the will of individual directors who choose to work with rescue groups cannot be a long term strategy for widespread and permanent lifesaving success in New York State. Legislation is needed to codify—and therefore cement—needed reforms and changes in order to prevent backsliding. The lack of these laws is why an organization can be progressive one day when a progressive leader like ASPCA founder Henry Bergh was at the helm, and moving in the opposite direction when someone like Sayres takes over.

For far too long, directors of large non-profits like the ASPCA have enjoyed unfettered discretion to kill animals that smaller non-profits in their communities dedicated to the mission of ending the killing are willing to save. The system which gives large non-profits tyrannical power over smaller non-profits is unfair and prevents them from effectively fulfilling their mandate. Even if some directors do not behave as despots while others do, the power given to one person to say “Yes” to saving lives by working with smaller non-profits also gives power to the next person to thwart the will of the entire community by simply saying, “No.”

Every successful social movement results in legal protections that codify expected conduct and provide protection against future conduct that violates normative values. Shelters need to be regulated in the same way hospitals and other agencies which hold the power over life and death are. Oreo’s Law takes away the discretion of shelters to kill animals needlessly in the face of alternatives. In addition, non-profit organizations in communities that already are allowed to save animals need not fear that a change in leadership at the shelter would undermine that policy, allowing them to save lives in perpetuity.

Who Speaks for the Animals?

In the final analysis, it is clear that Sayres’ motivation in fighting Oreo’s Law, and threatening the Hayden Law on which it is based, stems primarily from nothing more than self-preservation, fearing that such a law will forever memorialize his killing of an abused dog. But it also stems from the ASPCA’s (and Mayor’s Alliance’s) desire to maintain the almost unequivocal power their large non-profits have over smaller, less wealthy ones, even though smaller agencies meet the same legal criteria as themselves: both require articles of incorporation, bylaws, registration with the state charities bureau, a board of directors, annual legal and tax filings, and state and federal oversight. It is tyrannical and unjust.

Ed Sayres killed Oreo, despite a readily available lifesaving alternative. A few weeks later and despite the massive public backlash, he did the same thing to a dog named Max. He wants New York shelters to continue to kill animals in the face of alternatives. He is using ASPCA donations to promote self-serving and predetermined reports to claim that the lifesaving promise held out by Oreo’s Law is not needed, and will harm animals, even though he himself knows this to be false based on his own analysis of similar legislation in California. All now he is threatening the lives of thousands upon thousands of California animals out of naked self-interest, too. That he continues to get away it and collect half a million dollars a year to do so simply boggles the mind.

With each desperate attempt Sayres makes to thwart Oreo’s Law, he demonstrates all the more clearly not only why such legislation is necessary, but whose interests he truly represents: his own, and not those of the animals or those of animal lovers. In fact, the California law which Sayres is seeking to malign and potentially destroy is beloved by animal lovers, as the Governor learned when he tried to modify some of its other provisions to lessen protections for animals. The “hectoring barks of animal lovers” initially forced him to recant, essentially shutting down the Capitol switchboard because of the overwhelming response.

Even if they do not care about the animals the organization is threatening, is there anyone on the ASPCA Board of Directors who will put a stop to Sayres’ misuse of donations to promote killing? Is there anyone on the ASPCA Board of Directors who will stop Sayres from undermining the mission of the ASPCA to serve his own untoward means?

Unfortunately, the answers appear to be, “No.” And speculation as to why is focused on one area: “Follow the money.” Sayres struck gold when the ASPCA began airing the Sarah McLachlan “Angel” commercials, bringing in roughly 30 million dollars a year into the agency’s coffers. It appears that as long as he is raising money, even if the message sent by the profitable commercials that the ASPCA will use donations to help animals is untrue, the Board of Directors will look the other way. Tragically, they do not appear to care what deplorable lengths Sayres will go in order to undermine the very cause that organization theoretically exists to promote; nor how many animals are killed in the process.

Subscribe to articles from Nathan J. Winograd: If you would like to receive an e-mail when new articles are available from Nathan Winograd, click on the "subscribe" button at the top of the page.

If you like Nathan's articles, you'll love his books. Redemption is the most acclaimed book on animal shelters ever written and the winner of five national book awards. His new book, Irreconcilable Differences, is a collection of essays on animals, animal lovers, and the No Kill revolution.

Visit his bookstore by clicking here.

Comments must adhere to the terms and conditions of the comments policy.