Fallout from Oreo's Law teaches us that old habits die hard

This post isn't about Best Friends. Well, not really. I have no interest in piling onto an organization that I have a lot of respect for in a time when they are getting a lot of criticism. I'm a fan of Best Friends. I've been fortunate to speak at their conference. I've learned a lot from their resources. Russ Meade, Ledy Van Kavage and others with the organization have been very supportive of our organization at times when we've needed the help. I've enjoyed their TV show - and their helping of the Vick dogs has been a huge study in how environment, not breeding, or breed, have the most to say about a dog's personality.

And this isn't a post about Oreo's Law. A law that was pushed hard by No Kill Advocates across the country and in the state of New York. A law that was opposed by the ASPCA in New York and became very controversial -- and two weeks ago was tabled by the New York Legislature. 

This story isn't intended to draw lines -- although it might. But I think the two weeks that have followed the tabling of Oreo's Law, the following criticism of Best Friends' "Neutral" stance on the law, and Best Friends' response to the criticism are a perfect symbol of a couple of the problems I think are impeding progress toward us becoming a No Kill society.  And that is what I want this post to be about.

**************************

For those who are uninitiated, Oreo's law was named after a a dog in New York City, Oreo, that was dropped off the roof of a 6 story building. The dog's owner was never convicted of a crime, but Oreo become the property of the ASPCA (who handles animal control in NYC). After rehabilitating Oreo's physical wounds, they determined that they would never be able to heal her emotional ones -- and declared her too unstable to ever be adopted out. So they put Oreo on death row. A New York rescue group, Pets Alive, offered to take Oreo to their sanctuary -- where they would spend the time needed to rehabilitate her -- or, if never completely rehabilitated, would be allowed to live out her life at the sanctuary where she would get plenty of interaction and play time.

The ASPCA declined, and Oreo was killed at the shelter.

Oreo's Law was designed after Hayden's Law in California. The law would provide open access to rescue groups to city run shelters. So 24 hours before an animal would be killed at the shelter, the shelter had to let the public know about the animal, and a licensed, 501c3 rescue group would be allowed to pull the animal and make them a part of the rescue instead of being killed.

Somewhat predictably, the ASPCA opposed the law -- I think the name alone, and the widely public dog that was the namesake, was enough to put them on the defensive and try to defeat the law.  Even with a name change, the impetus for the conversation was probably a deal breaker from the start for the ASPCA.  It probably also didn't help that one of the champions for the law, No Kill Movement leader Nathan Winograd, has had previous personal history with ASPCA leader Ed Sayers that made the proposal of the law (even though Winograd, himself, didn't propose the law - or name it) seem personal. I think the feeling that the law was personal was its downfall and created divisiveness on the issue -- more-so than the merit of the law itself.

Because of the opposition, the bill failed. And in the aftermath, it was Best Friends, an organization that declared themselves "neutral" in the bill, that drew the ire of the those who supported the bill. Because their support may or may not have made the difference in the passing of the law.

And while Best Friends has every right to either support, or not support a law all they want, it is their stated REASON that troubles me most -- because it it appears to be very backward for a forward thinking organization.

**************

Via Best Friends' Facebook page, Best Friends CEO Gregory Castle released his statement on why Best Friends did not support the bill -- along with their history with lobbying on the bill.  The entire statement is well worth the read -- so please go do so. 

Now, I'm going to state for the record here that I'm not an insider in this case. I've met Mr. Castle and find him to be a smart man and have no reason to believe he is being anything but honest in his statements (which I wouldn't say about everyone I've met in the Animal Welfare movement). So I'm going to take his reasoning at his word.

In the statement, Castle notes that he, and Best Friends, favor open access laws for shelters:

"One good thing that’s come out of finding ourselves in the middle of a shelter access debate is that it confirms what we have long espoused: broad shelter access is a basic element of No More Homeless Pets. Moving forward we intend to support shelter access bills in New York and elsewhere."

In this statement we find that Best Friends supports the basic premise of Oreo's law -- even though they did not support the actual law. So why?  According to their statement, it comes down to two basic things:

1) The ASPCA and the mayor's alliance didn't support the bill and Best Friends didn't support the personal hostility that existed on both sides of the equation.

2) The law was open to all 501c3s (unless anyone affiliated with the organization had ever been charged with animal cruelty) and Best Friends thought there should be a qualification threshold that would prevent some unsavory rescue organizations that are hoarders that mask themselves as rescues from participating.

And that's their statement. Their words. and I think both reasons show a shining example of what has been holding back the animal welfare movement in this country for decades.

*********

I'm a big fan of open access laws. It seems so basic. If one organization is "full" and doesn't have the resources to care for an animal any more, but another organization does, then surrendering that animal to the other organization just makes sense. While most shelters in the country work this way to some extent, there are still many municiple shelters that don't. And I've seen the dramatic difference it can make with my own eyes in Kansas City, Kansas.

Only 2 short years ago, the KCK animal shelter was one of the highest volume killers of animals in this metro. They didn't work with rescue groups and refused to do so. And animals died because of it - by the hundreds if not thousands..

A new shelter manager came in, allowed a local rescue group to pull all of the animals they wanted -- and within 6 months every healthy and treatable animal in the shelter was finding a home -- and it has been that way for over a year now. All of the animals weren't saved because the public instantly got more responsible, or because the city become more compassionate, or because the city created better laws. They got saved because one organization was given full access to the shelter to save lives.

If Kansas had an open access law that would have mandated this years ago, thousands of animals would have been saved from that shelter. And so the success that is happening today, could have happened if the shelter had just been open access before.

Open access laws are good to help rescue organizations deal with bad civic shelter directors and we could all probably name a few that fit the description..

******

There is no doubt that there are some hoarding groups out there that mask themselves as "rescues". Every year, dozens of these groups are busted. Regardless of whether or not Oreo's law was passed, these groups will continue to operate in New York and elsewhere unless they are found, charged and prosecuted for animal cruelty. This should be done regardless of whether or not an open access law is passed. It makes no sense to me that we would not pass good legislation, that could potentially save thousands of animals' lives, because people are breaking laws in other areas. Enforce those too! But don't let a small minority of "rescues" that are doing it wrong prevent the passing of legislation that would help hundreds of other rescues do it right.

The whole overarching idea here is the same one that exists in dozens of other ole school ideas of sheltering. We have somehow determined that it is ok to kill animals to prevent the low-probability bad event from happening.  That even though MOST rescues are good, we must kill the animals to prevent the few bad rescues from getting them, instead of taking the steps to stop the bad rescues. And we mask the killing by using a term that indicates the end of suffering, euthanasia, even though the animals aren't suffering.

This same "kill them to save them" idea is why many pit bull rescue groups SUPPORT the decision of civic shelters to not adopt out 'pit bulls' because they cannot do the same type of screening the rescue groups can do. They say they favor the shelters killing the dogs to prevent them from being adopted by dog fighters -- even though even the ASPCA notes that most dogs used in dog fights are bred specifically for that purpose and are seldom if ever adopted from shelters. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen. I'm not saying that we shouldn't use some basic percautions, but killing thousands of dogs in a shelter to prevent the rarest of occurances is a classic "kill em' to save 'em" idea.

It's this same idea that causes many rescues to deny almost as many potential adopters as they accept because they're seeking 'perfect' homes for dogs to avoid the possibility that something might go horribly wrong (even though and extreme few adoptions end up going horribly).

Best Friends knows this. They know that the kill 'em to save 'em attitude exists and have spent countless hours in conference lectures and in writing website copy trying to overcome this attitude. And yet they used the very idea to support why they didn't support a law they philosophically believe in. It doesn't make sense to me.

******

They also said they didn't support the law because they didn't want to be seen as divisive in their support of the law because the ASPCA opposed it -- even though, again, philosophically, they admit that they agree that open access laws are an important part of the No More Homeless Pets (or No Kill) equation.

I want to say, I'm all for everyone being on the same page when it comes to creating new laws -- it is certainly helpful that way. But if recent history has told us anything, sometimes the national organizations need to be dragged along to new ways of thinking. It wasn't because of collaboration that HSUS began supporting TNR programs or deciding that all dogs from fight busts should NOT be immediately killed. Oh sure, EVENTUALLY they got there through collaboration, but only after loud public outcry.

At some point we cannot let the organizatoins with the money and the big names continue to dictate animal welfare policies (or in this case) hold back a progressive one.

At some point you have to just push for what is right -- regardless of who agrees with you. And while collaboration is always preferred, we can't wait around forever, forgoing solid policies while animals die in uncooperative shelters because one organization's feelings were hurt and doesn't want to go along with it.

*******

So where do we go from here?

My hope is that a new open access law will resurface next year in New York and elsewhere. I think the people with a common interest in this should sit down together and figure out what are the necessary precautions to put into place to protect the animals from bad situations. Dooming them to death in the shelter if there are viable options for them is worse than the animal cruelty so many are trying to avoid.

And I would like to think that all parties involved should be willing to work on this together. If it's all about the well-being of the animals, then everyone should be able to put their personal feelings aside and do what is in the best interest of the animals -- and create something everyone can agree on. I hope.

And as an animal welfare commuity, we need to learn from this too. We need to get rid of the mindset that we need to 'kill 'em to save 'em", and we need to realize that creating policies that lead to thousands of animals being killed to protect them from remote possibilities of future danger is not good policy. Don't be careless, but don't kill them to save them either.

And we need to drag those who support bad policies (or don't support good ones) with us. Regardless of their name, or their bank account, we should push these national organizations to move toward policies that help end the killing.  Or force them to step aside.

If we are a humane population, we will do just that. 

For more info:

Winograd - Where have you gone Best Friends?

Best Friends - Shelter Access - Moving Forward

Best Friends - BFAS Statement on Oreo's Law

Winograd - Best Friends "Spin" Machine Goes into overdrive

YesBiscuit! - Best Friends Animal Society and Oreo's Law

For your Entertainment - On Oreo's Law

Change.org - Can there be a future for Oreo's Law?

Comments

[NoKillHouston]

I was incredibly stunned when I learned that BF had not supported Oreo’s Law and I kept waiting for some kind of explanation that would make sense. But, the statements I’ve read seem to contradict each other and most just don’t seem logical to me. And, it is irritating that they are blaming everyone else for their problems right now…. Winograd, Micah Kellner, Animal Ark, Mike Fry, PetsAlive…..

I’m not at insider either but I’ve heard enough from the people who are on the inside to know that Best Friends’ “neutrality” had a lot, if not everything, to do with opening an office in New York. They know that NY is a wealthy city and they don’t think they can open an office, and rake in some of that money, without the support of the ASPCA and NYC Mayor’s Alliance. So of course, they are not going to do something that makes it look like they chose a “side” opposite of the ASPCA.

I used to love Best Friends too. Over a number of years, I’ve donated to them and sponsored various animals there; I’ve gone to their conference; I'm on their email list; I get their magazine; I’m on their “network” and I’ve even advertised in their magazine…. I have friends who go to the sanctuary every year and tell me how great it is, or was….. some have noticed definite, unsettling changes there as well. No doubt that, in the past, BF has done some amazing things for animals, but they seem to want to rest on their laurels forever and you just can’t do that. You have to keep fighting for animals. Every battle that would save more animals should be fought regardless of who the other supporters/detractors are or if they are “fighting” amongst themselves. It should be fought regardless of our friends’ opinions.

Oreo’s law was/is so desperately needed in every state, that to not support it and even try to sabotage it (I do believe Mike Fry when he said BF tried to persuade him to withdraw Animal Ark’s support), is just unconscionable to me. BF should just admit that they screwed up in a very big way, and try to regain some self-respect. I would certainly respect them more if they would just admit this and stop blaming others.

I agree it would be wonderful if everyone collaborated, unfortunately that is not always realistic. Collaboration or not, we should each still pursue the goal of no healthy or treatable pet killed in a shelter. It also would be great if we all really did all want the same thing, but the sad fact is that we do not want the same things. If we did, shelters would not still be killing 3-4 million pets annually 15 years after Avanzino figured out how to stop it. All movements to gain justice or basic rights, such as the right to live, have been born out of struggle and yes, “divisiveness”. Those willing to take the bullet and be seen as divisive are the ones that will take this movement where it needs to be… to a place where it is unthinkable for shelters to kill healthy and treatable pets.

Nathan posted a link to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham jail” in one of his blogs. I realize it is a different topic, but the parallels to what is going on within the no kill movement are remarkable. It’s long but very worth the read.
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

[MichelleD]

Oh, you should provide Laura Allen's links to why she opposed Oreo's Law but supported the puppy mill legislation. Its obivous that she was picking and choosing what she supported based on something other than legislative analysis.

Its becoming obvious that many people want to make sure we continue to have a homeless pet population for their own self-preservation.

[EmilyS]

of course when people say "Its becoming obvious that many people want to make sure we continue to have a homeless pet population for their own self-preservation." apparently referring to the organizations that for a variety of reasons, opposed the law under discussion, they are demonstrating why any future efforts will fail.

Because when it's not enough to disagree, over tactics or over content, but you must attribute bad faith and illegitimate motives to your opponent, then you are saying more about yourself than about your opponents.

And here's your reality: no one can discuss/bargain/negotiate with people whose motives you distrust. So who do Mike Fry, Winograd and the other supporters think they're going to talk to, and who will be willing to talk to them? Or maybe they are under the delusion that they can bypass the other players and have direct exclusive dealings with the legislators.

THAT attitude is what has, and will, turn what should be a productive effort to meet mutual goals. into a mere power struggle. Does Ed Sayres have more power with the legislature than Mike Fry. Does Gregory Castle have more power than Nathan Winograd.

And BTW: So now everyone, from Glenn Beck to Winograd, wants to "own" Dr. King? I find it weird, creepy and inappropriate.

[Diane C.]

Thank you, Brent. You've given voice to my disconnected thoughts and the feelings of dissonance I felt when reading BFAS's statements. Not all, but most.

[Brent]

So should we always just yield to people who have more legislative power if they disagree with our point of view? Sure seems like a scary scenerio given which organization (completely uninivolved with this discussion) has the most legislative power.

[Anthony]

I never believe in conspiracies for two reasons. 1) People are too selfish to keep the secret and 2) people are too dumb to pull it off. I do believe that one person can manipulate others to accomplish things, but I never believe in an over-arching conspiracy. If there's one thing people in the animal world can agree on, it's that everyone else is wrong. I have never found a person or group that completely represents me, so I often find myself doing my own thing. I think both sides in this have merit. Some people don't understand politics. If you ever really want to get things done, you have to play the game. The opportunities to affect change from a truly grassroots platform, and be able to bypass all the bullshit and compromise that comes with politics is a truly rare one. If Best Friends wants to get big enough to really matter, they are just going to have to play those games. We just have to hope that if they do manage to get that big they can maintain a balance between the ideals that got them started and the political know-how that got them big. It sucks but it's the way it is until it changes. Using the same "don't kill them to save them" argument Best Friends is going to have to lose a few battles to win the war. I'm not willing to convict them based on one incident against the preponderance of their past work. If their overall body of work comes to reflect a direction I can no longer support, then I think it would be reasonable to have a stronger reaction at that point. Although idealistic at times, I think the No Kill Movement has a lot to offer the evolving world of animal care and control. Personally I would love to see it's goals adopted more and more around the country. Sometimes it's a little negative for me though. Things are more often changed from the inside-out than the other way around. The rich and powerful have set the system up the way they have. You can bitch and moan about it and piss into the wind, or you can figure out the rules and learn to make them work for you. So I think both sides have merit and both have points. It's not the end of the world. Maybe if they just accept where they disagree, they can work more effectively towards the goals they do agree on. They are different organizations - if they saw eye to eye on everything they would be the same orgs.

[Anthony]

And I second Emily. No more Hitler/Holocaust/Dr.King/Civil Rights references. Not appropriate.

[MaybeSomeday]

I haven't finished reading the article but there are 2 big errors in it so far. First, the POS who threw Oreo off was convicted, but only got 6 months probation and was required to do some training programming. Second, the ASPCA DOES NOT do the animal control for NYC. Animal Care & Control of NY is contracted by the Dept. of Health to do animal control. The ASPCA does the law enforcement and most of the cruelty case actually end up at the ACC. Cases that never get prosecuted. Animals that end up with no justice, only being put down silently while the ASPCA rakes in millions just a few blocks away.

[mary frances]

Thank you as always for your sorting of these complicated matters - I'm really hoping Best Friends will come around and support Oreo's Law...seems like it might could happen....or am I dreaming (just my own dream....not any inappropriate MLK reference)

[MichelleD]

Emily, The fact that you pick EVERY instance to rail against NW leaves anything you have to say about this situation mute.

Best Friends track record? Remember their "dangerous dogs" article and their conference in CO on 'vicous breeds? OH, how quickly everyone has forgotten since they made amends with the Vick dogs. The fact of the matter BF got their bell rung just like H$U$ for their stance on pit bulls.

'm not saying we throw the baby out with the bathwater but they screwed up. And I'm not so sure their calculation to loose this battle is going to be worth it.

[Larn919]

References to Hitler/Holocaust/Dr.King/Civil Rights may be "inappropriate" only to those who believe that animals are not deserving of the basic humanity endowed to people. Many of us DO believe these same rights to decency belong to animals. I had no problem with Dr. Kavorkian, and I don't have a problem with putting down an animal who's health is irremediable. But there is absolutely no difference between the dirt bag who attempted to kill the dog by throwing him off the roof and the ASPCA who succeeded. Poor Oreo got a bad break on both ends. He is the epitomic symbol of our failure, as well as our aspiration.

[Kerry]

Beautifully done.

[John]

I am staggered. A phenomenal analysis.

I think any effort to make the discussion of the law about hoarders is somewhat disingenuous, as a committed hoarder will never have a problem overwhelming themselves with or without access laws. It's pretty much entirely beside the point. I can fill a singlewide today by cruising Craigslist, picking up a stack of newspaper classifieds, sending a van out to some economically disadvantaged areas of the country, or even sticking a sign on my front lawn that says "Drop Kittens Here". No 501c3 required, and for the most part not even an ID.

[Anthony]

Hitler/Holocaust/Dr King/Civil rights is not about dogs. If people in the dog circles ever want to reach outside of their own, and begin to connect with people who don't already agree with them, they need to at least understand how the non-dog enthusiasts see the world and relate to them. People who do horrible cruel things are simply bad people no matter what is on the receiving end. I can see the parallel there, especially considering violence to animals is often a gateway to violence to people. The difference is on the receiving end. While in one person's mind the dog's status is being raised to that of people by making the comparison, in other peoples' minds, the status of people is simply being lowered to that of dogs in that comparison. In fact many of the people such as the bigoted whites and the Nazis justified their positions by saying that the groups they were persecuting are no better than animals so why should they be treated like people? It is a very touchy subject and I think it closes minds that may not otherwise be closed when it is brought up. Of course anyone is entitled to think whatever. I love my dogs LIKE people, but I know they are dogs. Most of my clients who treat their dogs like people have messed up dogs. I simply don't agree with the comparison but respect that some people do.

[MichelleD]

http://www.aspca.org/news/national/07-01-10.html#1

Wait a minute - this happened WITHOUT Oreo's law! How could that be!? Oh yeah, see John's post.

Notice the fear mongering about "some of the cats had FIV" -- well that's probably how they ended up at this place because most rescues won't take them and shelters will kill them. Once again its "the most horrendous conditions I've ever seen" and yet none of the cats had to be euthanized and all 400 are super friendly.

[EmilyS]

yeah, Best Friends never does anything progressive to save animals.
They can never work with other organizations and they should be shunned and scorned.

http://www.safehumanechicago.org/Evidence-Dog-Program

[EmilyS]

forgot to add:
http://network.bestfriends.org/golocal/chicago/15623/news.aspx

[Brent]

Emily,

I'm not even sure who you're responding to. No one here is saying they should be shunned or scorned...

However, their statements are incongruent with their actual beliefs on many fronts...

[mary frances]

EmilyS - in my comment I'm holding onto hope things will work out with Best Friends for their future support of the Oreo's Law -
I would hope HSUS and the ASPCA would support it as well -

If they don't well they won't but there won't be confusion as to where everyone stands.

[Brad Jensen]

I'm curious, with all the thousand of letters and emails sent in support of Oreo's Law, how many were sent in opposition to it?

[Jim]

ES - Of course they can work with other orgs and of course they do a lot of good! It's especially easy for them to work with with Safe Humane Chicago... being that they are Safe Humane Chicago. They fund the program. That would be a case of buying into success - not that there's anything wrong with that, it's always nice for good programs to find funding.

It's also entirely beside the point.

[Donna]

I'm late on this, but it's not surprising that the bill was tabled. Creating a law this important is going to require the support of the ASPCA, and that just wasn't ever going to happen with the whole messy Oreo controversy attached by name.

Everyone needs to cool down, study what CA has learned from living with Hayden, get it together and write something with a new name that everyone can get behind.

Best Friends was wise to side step this one -- they know that any New York legislation needs the A's blessing if it's ever going to work. They're smart about that stuff and I give them credit for taking a step back and watching this thing die on the vine, especially knowing that they'd be heavily criticized for going neutral. They get my "You Got Balls" award.

Onward ho. A Hayden-like law will be in New York soon, with willing partners this time. And the animals will all benefit when that happens.

[MichelleD]

I don't think A would have supported it if the name was "Sayes is AWESOME!" bill.

Donna makes a good point. Quit donating to the ASPCA until they get it thru their thick skulls that they better get behind something and get it passed.

[Susan]

Others have pointed this out, but it's worth reiterating. The ASPCA does NOT handle animal control in NYC. That's the job of Animal Care & Control, which DOES allow other rescue organizations to pull animals placed on the euthanasia list as part of a "New Hope Partner" program of the Mayor's Alliance for NYC's animals which is an umbrella group for 160 rescue organizations in the NY area. In fact, that's the ONLY reason ACC's euth numbers are down. The ASPCA's Humane Law Enforcement Unit does make cruelty arrests in NYC, but it's also not part of Animal Care & Control. So, as a private charity and not the city's municipal shelter, while it would have been great if the ASPCA would have considered giving Oreo to another group, they were under no obligation to do so.