by Judy Franklin
On Wings April/May 2001
Senator Dick Durbin (*see Notes at end of this article) , D-IL, one of the darlings of the animal rights crowd, introduced Senate Resolution 70 on April 6, honoring the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals "for its 135 years of service to the people of the United States and their animals."
Co-sponsoring the resolution was another AR favorite, Senator Bob Smith, Republican of New Hampshire, who briefly left his party to make a run for the Presidency last year. He was the recipient of financial contributions from a number of officials of animal rights organizations during his run: Patricia Forkan, Senior VP of the HSUS contributed $250; John Grandy another VP for the HSUS gave $250; Ingrid Newkirk of PETA gave a similar amount; Wayne Pacelle, national director of the HSUS contributed $1000.
The Resolution was subsequently considered and agreed to by the august Senate body. It read as follows:
"Whereas April 10. 2001, is the 135th anniversary of the founding of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA);
Whereas ASPCA has provided services to millions of people and their animals since its establishment in 1866 in New York City by Henry Bergh;
Whereas ASPCA was the first humane society established in the western hemisphere;
Whereas ASPCA teaches children the character-building virtues of compassion, kindness, and respect for all God's creatures;
Whereas the dedicated directors, staff, and volunteers of ASPCA have provided shelter, medical care, behavioral counseling, and placement for abandoned, abused, or homeless animals in the United States for more than a century; and
Whereas ASPCA, through its observance of April as Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Month and its promotion of humane animal treatment through programs on law enforcement, education, shelter outreach, poison control, legislative affairs, counseling, veterinary services, and behavioral training, has provided invaluable services to the people of the United States and their animals: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved.
SECTION 1. HONORING THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS.
IN GENERAL. — The Senate honors the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its 135 years of service to the people of the United States and their Animals.
TRANSMITTAL. — The Secretary shall transmit a copy of this concurrent resolution to the president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals."
A similar resolution was introduced in the House by Representative Carolyn Maloney (D- NY) on April 4, but had not yet been agreed to by press time. Durbin, in introducing the resolution, commended the organization of its anniversary. "The success of the organization," he said, "has made the term ASPCA synonymous with animal rescue, animal shelter, animal adoptions, and humane education."
Maloney, as well, had kind words for the organization: "The ASPCA has made a real difference in the lives on animals in New York and all over this country. In these times of growing alienation among our young people, the ASPCA teaches children -- and indeed, all of us -- compassion and empathy for all living beings."
Humane Organization, or Animal Rights Front???
The ASPCA was founded by New York philanthropist Henry, Bergh, and was originally dedicated to improving the lives of farm and work animals in New York City. As such, it began a program of monitoring slaughterhouses, furnishing ambulatory transport of carriage horses in the city, and other issues of animal welfare.
It has now grown to head a large network of programs designed to "help animals nationwide," through a number of educational and legislative programs throughout the country.
It still operates a veterinary hospital in New York City, and performs animal-related law enforcement activities under contract with that City, but many of the ASPCA's hands-on programs have been replaced with activities more in keeping with the animal rights movement than with concerns for animals' welfare.. The group has even put out --The Animal Right Handbook - which rails against factory farming, trapping, pound seizure and hunting. The ASPCA lobbies against dissection in the schools, against animal usage in laboratories, and against the raising of animals for the fur industry. It was in the forefront of lobbying efforts to include mice, rats and birds under the Animal Welfare Act and was active in New Jersey's ban on the sale of wild caught birds.
The ASPCA has also been responsible for the drafting of state legislation aimed at increasing the penalties for animal-related cruelty. This draft legislation also almost invariably serves to increase the powers of so-called 'humane organizations.
Dr. Larry Hawk, current ASPCA President, said of the Senate bill, "We feel very fortunate to have Senator Durbin and Congresswoman Maloney on our side. Their constant advocacy is truly saving animal lives every day. For that , we thank them."
And the ASPCA is right to thank them, for it is not just the animals that are benefiting from the publicly that Senate recognition will give the group.
The grateful Dr. Hawk, as President and CEO of the ASPCA received compensation of $240.385 in 1999, with another $11,788 allocated for employee benefits and deferred compensation, and another generous $46,707 for his expense account, and related allowances.
His Senior VP and CFO, Stephen Eudene, received $103,119 in compensation and $10,497 in other benefits. SrVP and Chief of Operations officer Stephen Musso was the recipient of a $100,646 salary, with another $10,474 in benefits.
Forty employees of the ASPCA were paid over $50,000 per year. Those include Senior VP Julian Hopkins, with compensation and benefits of $117,000 and $10,628 respectively; Poison Control Center Senior VP Dr. Steven Hansen at S 103,805 and $8,576; Senior VP for Education Dr. Stephen Zawistowski at $101,600 and $10,483; Senior VP and General Counsel Tatyana Doughty-Olyphant at $92,854 and $4,501; and veterinarian Dr. Douglas Giacalone at $86,801 and $10,344.
The ASPCA paid $222,150 to O'Brien, McConnell & Pearson for fundraising, and another $159,985 to the Shjare Group, another fundraising organization. Legal Services were handled by Kupfer, Rosen and Herz, LLP for $122,273, and their web-site consultant, Iguana Studios, was compensated in the amount of $84,806. Lobbying expenses totaled $506,471 for 1999.
The ASPCA made cash contributions to a large number of humane organizations, some of which have a decided animal rights bent. Among these are the anti-hunting, anti-trapping American Humane Association ($7,000); the Animals' Agenda ($5,000); HSUS ($4,000); Animal Allies ($2,000); Oklahoma Coalition Against Cockfighting ($8,000) and others.
You'd Think All That Money Should Buy A Top Notch Shelter but Read On
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has been going state by state encouraging legislators at the state level to enact laws making animal abuse a felony, and giving so-called humane investigators greater powers to investigate and enforce animal cruelty cases. An ASPCA drafted proposed legislation in Illinois, for instance would have increased penalties for animal-related crimes, added seizure provisions, allowed the local humane associations to share in fines and to receive compensation for costs associated with seizures, boarding and veterinary expenses related to animals the agencies seized and to provide these humane agencies easier and faster procedures to obtain ownership of seized animals.
The problems with this situation are not immediately evident to lawmakers unfamiliar with the pitfalls of working with agencies that may have animal rights tendencies, however, and such legislation has passed in some states. The Illinois legislation is thought to be dead for this session but will likely be back. This and other legislation drafted by the downstate ASPCA attorney will likely be revived at a later time.
We have covered a number of cases of wrongful or malicious prosecutions of persons by humane organizations. We have seen that many people lose animals wrongly and are forced into running up huge legal bills. The threat is real. The humane associations go along their merry way under ASPCA's legislation and put animal owners on the defensive as their rights erode.
New Jersey in the Crosshairs
Two years after the New York State Legislature incorporated the ASPCA, the state of New Jersey formed its own SPCA whose job it was to enforce the laws on animal cruelty.
Now, it seems that the SPCA could more correctly be termed the Society for the Perpetuation of Cruelty to Animals. New Jersey's State Commission of Investigation (SCI) recently completed a report of the state's SPCA chapters, and the results were not to anyone's liking. The report recommends that the State take away the SPCA's authority to enforce animal cruelty laws, and turn over animal welfare enforcement duties to police agencies.
Though lower level help did not always come in for criticism, many of the county administrators came in for criticism by the SCI. Bergen County, Hudson county, Monmouth County, Warren and Ocean County facilities were among those that came under fire, and the quality of the general operation of the various county SPCAs has been characterized as mixed-to-poor, by even a known animal rights proponent.
Although not all county SPCAs ran their own animal shelters, some did and some of those came in for the worst of criticism. Hudson County's SPCA , for instance, was charged with running a filthy shelter. Adoptees there were not screened, euthanasia records were falsified and dogs were found laying in feces in crowded cages. A shelter employee was charged with bludgeoning a dog to death with a shovel and one employee was charged with loaning dogs out to a guard dog company. There were reports of shelter workers provoking fights among the dogs there, and dead kittens were found in a cage. The shelter was fined over $17,000 for the deplorable conditions discovered there.
The Hudson County shelter was found to be overcrowded and feces were everywhere. Gloucester County's shelter was so neglected due to the age and infirmity of its SPCA president, that when it was finally inspected, investigators found decaying corpses, foul water and cages so crowded that the legs of several cats had atrophied from lack co use. The unfortunate woman had become a hoarder and collector, of the worst sort.
The Cape May shelter was closed in 1998 after conditions there were found to be 'deplorable.'
The SCI contends that some county chapters had become corrupted by thievery, misconduct and financial improprieties; at the same time. says the SCI, these agencies frequently ignore blatant cases of abuse. while running shelters rife with filth and disease. Money was found to have been diverted in six of the sixteen county SPCAs; vehicles and credit cards had been abused in others. Phony invoices were used for high-tech law enforcement tools and weaponry, some so blatant that criminal charges will be filed.
Bergen County was the poster boy for such mismanagement. Jason Peters and his brother reportedly spent thousands of dollars on bulletproof jackets, guns, holsters, knives, clothing and 5,000 rounds of ammunition. Personal debts were satisfied on SPCA checks, as was a traffic ticket Peters' brother received in Florida.
Ocean County also came under fire for financial irregularities, including fraudulent invoices, inflated expenses and other mismanagement. Financial irregularities were also found in Warren County, where six SPCA employees were found to have registered personal vehicles to the agency in an effort to evade taxes. Instances of credit card and telephone abuse were also reported there.
Fourteen thousand dollars was reportedly 'skimmed' from the Hudson County SPCA in 1999 alone. Burlington County's SPCA treasurer used thousands of SPCA funds to pay her personal bills. Cape May county's SPCA was also charged with wrongdoing.
The SCI reported that some SPCAs had become virtual gun clubs, in which individuals who rarely if ever conducted investigation, but instead used their SPCA status to carry weapons. "It was widely known in certain circles that the SPCA was the shortcut to a carry permit," read the report, which went on to recommend that the SPCA be stripped of all police powers.
SCI's counsel, Ileana Saros, had harsh words for many of the county agencies: "These are groups of private citizens who are self-appointed, self-directed, lacking in formal training and unsupervised. It is shocking that they have the power to carry weapons, make arrests, execute search warrants, yet are accountable to no government authority.
The ASPCA, which does not supervise its state chapters, had no comment on the SCI report.
In the past, animal control officers have generally been charged with routine enforcement of dog laws, acting as local 'dog catchers' and running county shelters. As a reaction to charges of poor enforcement by the county SPCAs, a New Jersey bill passed in 1997 would have given the animal control officers the right to investigate cruelty cases once they had passed a state-certified course on the subject. Unfortunately for countless animals, the course was not given until March of 2001. Only a few animal control officers attended, and plans for the next one have not been finalized.
Even as the ASPCA continues its state by state push for greater police powers for 'humane officers,' the situation in New Jersey illustrates the grave dangers of allowing poorly trained, unaccountable people to enforce animal cruelty laws. And despite these facts, state legislators are loathe to oppose a bill that appears on its surface to be "for the animals." It is up to those who truly care for their animals to set these legislators straight. We do not need forty-nine more New Jerseys before our politicians wake up.
Thanks ASPCA, but no thanks.
* Durbin has long time ties to The Prairie PAC which is located in Springfield, IL. In 2008 alone, the Humane USA PAC gave $3,500 to the Prairie PAC.
Recently, Durbin introducted the federal PUPS legislation, Senate Bill 3424. The measure, called the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act (PUPS) is a complete revision of previous measures by the same name (PAWS). This bill would require individuals who breed and sell more than 50 puppies a year over the internet or directly to the public to be regulated by the USDA.
The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act in the following specific way:
1. Defines anyone who breeds and sells more than 50 puppies a year as a High Volume Breeder Retailer. High Volume Breeder Retailers would be required to abide by current USDA dog dealer regulations. These regulations require kennels to:
•Obtain a USDA license,
•Meet federal minimum standards of care,
•Be inspected (generally not less than once every two years) by the USDA.
2. Requires new exercise standards that allow a dog daily access to exercise that enables it to move sufficiently to maintain normal muscle tone and mass, the ability to achieve a running stride, and is not a forced activity.
The area for exercise should have flooring that allows for this type of exercise.
•It should be constructed of solid flooring or non-solid, non-wire flooring that is safe and appropriate for the breed, size and age of the dog, is free from sharp edges, and is designed so that the paw cannot extend throughout and become caught in the flooring.
•The flooring must be cleaned at least once daily, be free of infestation and designed to prevent escape.
•The bill provides an exemption from exercise for dogs that should not exercise for reasons of health/condition/well-being as certified by a licensed veterinarian.
This measure does not limit the number of dogs a person/kennel may own or define commercial breeders based on the number of dogs they own.
A bit more about Durban:
2009 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2009.
2009 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society Legislative Fund 83 percent in 2009.
2008 In 2008 Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance gave Senator Durbin a grade of 0.
2007-2008 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2007-2008.
2007-2008 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society Legislative Fund 100 percent in 2007-2008. Members of Congress who led as prime sponsors of pro-animal legislation received "extra-credit" equivalent to one vote or one co sponsorship, 17% for a Senator or 8% for a Representative of the House.
2007-2008 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in both sessions of Congress in 2007-2008.
2007 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2007.
2007 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in the first session of Congress in 2007.
2005-2006 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 91 percent in 2005-2006
2005-2006 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society Legislative Fund 100 percent in 2005-2006.
2005-2006 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2005.
2004 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the American Humane Association 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 50 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Doris Day Animal League 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society Legislative Fund 100 percent in 2004.
2004 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2004.
2003 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the American Humane Association 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Doris Day Animal League 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society Legislative Fund 100 percent in 2003.
2003 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2003.
2002 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Sportsmen and Animal Owner's Voting Alliance 0 percent in 2002.
2001-2002 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the American Humane Association 89 percent in 2001-2002.
2001-2002 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 89 percent in 2001-2002.
2001-2002 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Animal Protection Institute 89 percent in 2001-2002.
2001-2002 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Doris Day Animal League 89 percent in 2001-2002.
2001-2002 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 89 percent in 2001-2002.
2001-2002 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society Legislative Fund 89 percent in 2001-2002.
2001-2002 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 89 percent in 2001-2002.
2000 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation 100 percent in 2000.
2000 Senator Durbin supported the interests of the The Humane Society of the United States 100 percent in 2000.
1999 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 1999 , Senator Durbin voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1995-1996 On the votes that the The Humane Society Legislative Fund considered to be the most important in 1995-1996, Senator Durbin voted their preferred position 75 percent of the time.
1995 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 1995 , Senator Durbin voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1993-1994 On the votes that the The Humane Society of the United States considered to be the most important in 1993-1994 , Senator Durbin voted their preferred position 42 percent of the time.
To look at all the animal related bills Dubin has introduced and supported, go to this link, and search "all congresses" for Durbin animal animals - and see what you discover.
