As it now stands, only the ASPCA and those organizations politically or financially beholden to them—such as the Mayor's Alliance for NYC Animals—have publicly come out in opposition to Oreo’s Law. While the animal loving people of New York State flood the legislature with calls of support, while the
most progressive voices in the companion animal movement have embraced and endorsed Oreo’s Law, and while rescuers anxiously await legislation that will empower them to save the lives of thousands of animals every year, the leader of the nation’s wealthiest SPCA stands alone in defiant opposition, thumbing his nose at them all.
Unable to publicly admit that his opposition stems only from the fact that he doesn’t want the public reminded about Oreo’s killing, Sayres has couched the ASPCA’s opposition as concern that the animals the law would save would actually be better off dead, arguing that rescue groups might be animal hoarders or dog fighters in disguise. Day in and day out, these rescuers show tremendous courage and compassion—visiting what is often the one place on earth hardest for them to go as animal lovers: their local shelters. And yet they go back, again and again. They endure the hostile treatment. They endure the heartbreak of seeing the animals destined for the needle. They endure having to jump through unnecessary and arbitrary hurdles set by shelter directors who are holding the animals they want to save hostage. They endure having to look the other way at abuse of other animals, because if they don’t, if they speak out, they will be barred from saving any animals. And this law would make their lives easier—their work less difficult. It would empower them, tip the balance more in their favor, and lessen their daily burden. That the President of the ASPCA would fail to support such a law, or worse, would dare oppose it by claiming that these dedicated, hard working rescuers are, in reality, dog fighters and hoarders in disguise not only is offensive, but a betrayal of these selfless, compassionate individuals—and a betrayal to the animals whose lives the law would save.
In fact, Best Friends Animal Society asked New York State rescue groups whether they supported the bill, and whether they have seen animals killed by shelters despite their offers to save them, and the overwhelming response was “Yes.” (When Best Friends presented these findings to Ed Sayres, however, he dismissed them as irrelevant.)
Moreover, over
ten years experience in California with virtually identical legislation shows that these concerns are misplaced: the fear mongering about hoarders and dog fighters that also occurred when the bill was pending in California did not materialize. And there are already protections built into the law to ensure that this does not occur.
In fact, Ed Sayres defended rescue group access against the same facile arguments he is making now in New York.
In 1998, California passed nearly identical legislation in a shelter reform package that has come to be known as the "Hayden Law" after its legislative author, then-Senator Tom Hayden. That law, Chapter 752 of the Statutes of 1998 ("Chapter 752/98") was opposed by regressive shelters throughout the State. After the bill was signed into law, the County of Los Angeles filed a claim with the California Commission on State Mandates in 1999, arguing that it should not be enforced. The San Francisco SPCA—under the leadership of Ed Sayres—fought back.
In the legal filing approved by Ed Sayres, the San Francisco SPCA wrote:
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 Chapter 752/98 are so vital to the future of animals in shelters throughout California.
The filing went on to state that shelters can save both money and lives through these partnerships, but without a law giving rescue groups legal rights, many shelters refuse to do so:
Animal shelters can be fiscally responsible, and save more lives, by ... utilizing the resources of private rescue organizations. Without Chapter 752/98, many shelters fail to do this.”
By contrast, since 1994, any dog or cat in the San Francisco City shelter who is not adopted and is subsequently scheduled for euthanasia is made available to our organization, so that we may care for him/her until a suitable home can be found. By allowing The San Francisco SPCA—a private rescue and adoption organization—access to City shelter dogs and cats, together both organizations have guaranteed that no adoptable dog or cat will be killed in the City and County, and none has been killed since 1993.
The Sayres-era filing also goes on to state that:
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.
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.
A Face Saving Overture to the ASPCA
Nonetheless, activists working with Kellner’s Office approached the ASPCA in the hopes of removing Sayres’ opposition to the bill, and offered additional (though unneeded) protections and a face-saving change in the name of the law in exchange for the ASPCA’s support, including suspending any organization with cruelty, neglect, or dog fighting charges or convictions. (These protections are now in the bill.)
In addition, proponents offered to reintroduce the bill without reference to Oreo as “The Animal Shelter Lifesaving & Fiscal Responsibility Act,” since the bill would not only save the lives of animals, but would save taxpayers from paying to hold, kill, and discard the bodies of the animals New York shelters kill, by giving the animals—and the costs—to rescue groups. They also agreed to cease all reference to Oreo as it relates to this bill. They offered to allow the ASPCA to take credit for the law. Finally, they offered that if the ASPCA did not want their support for the newly introduced bill, they would not be publicly involved. In other words, activists offered Ed Sayres the opportunity to do the right thing.
As he did with Oreo, he refused. Ed Sayres firmly and unequivocally rejected the offer, and reiterated that the ASPCA had friends in high places and simply would kill the bill—regardless of how many animals are also killed in the process.
The People of the State of New York vs. Edwin J. SayresRight now, one man—Oreo’s killer—has indicated he intends to thwart the will of thousands of rescuers, and millions of New York animal lovers, by taking a position which—were he to be successful in killing the legislation—would sacrifice the lives of thousands of animals every year in the State of New York.
Right now, one man—who has
consistently betrayed the cause which he is paid half a million dollars a year to champion—is abusing his power by choosing to condemn thousands of animals every year to death as a personal vendetta against those trying to prevent others from needlessly killing animals, like he did with his egregious and indefensible killing of an abused dog.
Right now, one man—who has sullied the name of the ASPCA beyond any recognition—has basically said of the animals of New York State dependant on this bill for their very lives, the ethical equivalent of ‘Let them die!’
This will not stand.
