A citizen committee has made some public complaints about conditions at the animal shelter in Anderson, SC. Allegations include failure of the shelter veterinarian to provide care to sick animals, poor management by the director and an ongoing problem with large rats at the shelter.
“Neglect and apathy are going on out there,” said Wanda Crane, director of the Anderson County Humane Shelter and a member of the advisory committee. “I think that you need to have some kind of system overhaul to do something about it.”
Of course saying that out loud causes the red light with the dollar sign on it at HSUS to start flashing:
[Eddie] Moore, head of the county council animal welfare ad hoc committee, said he would pursue a study of the effectiveness of the shelter offered as a possibility by the Humane Society of the United States.
Price tag for the 3 day study? $15,000 to $20,000.
Moore also said that a separate salary and effectiveness study of the entire county government, a study for which he is pushing, would also examine the shelter. He said a time-study expert has also volunteered to look at the shelter, which would be in addition to the two paid studies.
So some person who is an expert in time-study is willing to volunteer time and effort to help out the shelter but the Humane Society of the United States needs $20 grand before they’ll help? OK, then. Just so we’re clear on where everyone stands.
Remember, in their defense against the claims that they don’t give $$$ to help shelters, these ‘studies’ were a big part of what they said they do to help shelters in their own defense. Along with having the website, having a magazine (which people pay to receive), and having a conference (which people must pay to go to).
Bless you YesBiscuit. Go look at the Woodward shelter website. It will shock you out of your shoes. Click on global information. 32,000 shelters in 17 nations are said thereon to be dumping foreign puppy mill and foreign strays on the US and Canada. US shelters are creating foreign puppy mills and burying US shelters under foreign dogs. New Englad shelters (where supply does not meet demand) are buying “ordered job lots” of dogs from Los Angeles shelters then remitting about 1/3 of the sales price to the “collection and distribution shelter” in LA when the domestic and foreign dogs are sold in New England shelters. Quite a nasty, vicious, and duplicity filled way to put American breeders out of business immediately and to end dogs in the US within a generation–as gloted and quoted by the animal radical groups. There is no way the foreign dumping in the US of dogs is taking place without the coordinating assistance of the animal radical groups. Also please take a look at Maine’s newest animal law that Governor Baldacci signed. It wipes out Americans’ constitutional protections of due process as well as our rights to freedom from government invading citizens property, homes, papers, and persons WITHOUT a warrant being issued prior to such state authorized invasion. The new senate bill also permits not just property invasion on demand by state agents but also permits on the spot state seizure of any animal, as well, without court ordered warrant. Ignor it and it will be in all states with the speed of light.
I would just point out that this is the price range Winograd charges as well.
UC Davis charges between 5,000-15,000 to have their shelter vet team come out and do a performance eval – they are the most affordable, and from several shelter sources, the most thorough with their review, analysis and suggestion list. I’ve heard great things from shelter directors about them, above and beyond anything I’ve heard about other eval services.
Well shame on Nathan Winograd then for having a $100 million dollar annual budget and misleading donors into giving him money to help shelter pets while charging shelters $20k for an evaluation. Oh – wait…
Oh. I see. If you are a non-profit that happens to make money, then you must therefore offer all your services for free?
At what point would you find it unacceptable for individuals to charge over-burdened, under-funded shelters $17,000 for a 3-day review?
This seems like the sort of thing that the HSUS could and should be doing to earn support from shelters and from the public. They have or should have the resources.
UC Davis like all California institutes cannot afford any pro bono work, lacking a $100 million budget.
I was not commenting on the financial status of any particular individual or organization. I am merely pointing out that what HSUS is asking to pay is not unreasonable, given the context of what other individuals and organizations charge.
(Point of fact, UC Davis’ budget is 2.8 billion (2009), far exceeding HSUS’ budget. I doubt the budget cuts have diminished that to 150 million.)
The UC Davis veterinarian school has taken several million dollars in budget cuts recently. Citing the $2.8 billion for the entire university is beside the point since it has to go for…oh, Nevermind.
UC Davis’vet school takes in about 38 million in state funds annually. Their budget cut will not take them below 30 million.
I know you keep missing the point. If UC Davis reps charged $30,000 – would that be unreasonable? Is it more acceptable for a veterinary university to charge more than a non profit animal welfare organization? Or an individual?
Or is it unacceptable for a non-profit to expect compensation for staff-time and travel? That is only reasonable for for-profit entities and individuals?
Oh, Nevermind!
more like “Never land”.. UC Davis and Winograd do not run millions of dollars of ads on TV and other media sources begging for money to help the “poor puppies and kittens” and then charge thousands to shelters that cannot afford basic needs to produce a boilerplate “study” . HSUS does not produce graduates that will go on to help animals in the future ( unless you consider extinction a “help”).. HSUS does NO research that benefits animals. and people..as UC Davis does..Winograd runs no such ads.. and uses funds from his book sales along with donations..and in most cases ( if not all cases) at least he never recommends that all of the animals in the shelter be killed.. for their own good of course.. nor does he stand up in front of a judge and recommend that 127 “pit bulls” including six week old puppies be KILLED because of “what they might become” .. meanwhile as Brent notes.. they continue to tout the fact that they support shelters by these studies.. and by the “educational materials” they “give out” read CHARGE FOR…
In the meantime.. why do shelters need a “evaluation”?? and one that costs thousands?? can’t they tell when things are going wrong?? can’t they read ANY shelter evaluation and take away what applies to them? Seems petty simple in most cases.. feed , water, medicate, sell.. feed water medicate sell. meanwhile.. CLEAN.. CLEAN ,, CLEAN.. then ADVERTISE.. stay open late.. and on weekends.. get out to the public.. fight to eliminate pet limits so more animals can find homes.. get a group of supporters to go to homes to help people KEEP their pets.. start a senior pet program.. come on this is NOT rocket science..it just costs the same..
Alice in LALA land:
You are so patient in explaining what should be self-evident.
Regarding the HSUS shelter evaluation “services” – here in Dallas, we’re still all sitting around waiting to hear the results of their April 2010 evaluation. My last Web searches have turned up nothing except a mention from humanewatch.org, who described the evaluation as a “spiral bound report card”.
(I DID find a PDF of the HSUS 2001 report, posted by Animal Connection of Texas. However, their current site has no links to it.)
The folks at the Metroplex Animal Commission, who took credit for raising the funds for the $25K HSUS fee (actually, the money came from a single donor) have said absolutely zilch about the evaluation.
Is it possible that the local HSUS Kool-Aid drinkers are finally feeling as screwed as the rest of us?
Wow – we should totally have a contest: Which will come first? BP caps their spewing well in the Gulf or HSUS gets you the results of their April Evaluation?