Here's a very disturbing, article about New York state's ASPCA:
ALMOND - Joe Damrath, attorney for horse owner Robert "Dick Cajun" Dickinson, said he plans on doing everything it takes to ensure his client's right.
Damrath, whose office is located in Hornell, is representing Dickinson, whose horse, Queen, was allegedly taken by Dick Guerin, special investigator for the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and put down by veterinarian Wende Bush.
"I told 'Dick' to keep a level head and leave everything to me," Damrath said. "We want to make sure justice is served in this case."
Still mourning the loss of his 24-year-old horse, Dickinson is questioning the methods and authority of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Serving Allegany County had in allegedly seizing and killing his animal. He said he is being charged with cruelty to animals by the SPCA and he will meet with Almond town Justice Roland Gardner in town court April 25. He is suing the state, Allegany County and the SPCA in the matter.
My concern — and it should be your concern, too — centers on a potential conflict between what the membership of the ASPCA might deem its top priority to be and what the citizenry at large might prefer. When such conflicts arise, as they must, how will they be resolved? In short, how can we be sure that the ASPCA isn't pushing its own agenda — one dictated by its contributors — ahead of the public interest?
Dickinson's horse, who was blind in her right eye, had developed an infection and was given an antibiotic that caused its face to swell up before Guerin confiscated Queen from Dickinson's Bishopville Road farm. According to Queen's veterinarian, Bruce Kaplan, Guerin informed him that Bush had euthanized Queen on the night of March 6, a few hours after being taken by Guerin, with no reason given.
He spoke angrily about the SPCA's power and allegedly not issuing him a warning for seizing and killing the horse. Kaplan, however, said Guerin informed him the Amity-based state police tried to contact Dickinson.
"Apparently, they've got all the authority in the world," Dickinson said. "I didn't get a warrant. All I got was a notice of seizure that (Guerin) put on my barn after he snuck and stole Queen."
Dickinson, who still doesn't know where Queen's remains are, said someone signed a search warrant to take the horse. He suspects an area resident tipped off the SPCA with false information that would lead the organization to believe the horse had a life-threatening condition.
The issue of whether or not Mr. Dickinson deserved to have his horse removed and killed aside, what, exactly, are the limits of the ASPCA's power, and what public/governmental mechanism is designed to identify ASPCA abuses? Whatever those mechanisms might be, they can't be either as stringent or as transparent as one would find in a governmental agency that is accountable to all the people, not just a bunch of donors it must satisfy to survive.
"I'm going to find out who signed the warrant," he said. "Everybody answers to the justice system, but I had to find out from my vet what happened to my horse. (The SPCA) still hasn't told me where my horse is. (Damrath) said to leave everything to him and that he'd call me when he needs me."
According to the state Legislature's Web site on Criminal Procedure laws, Article 2.10, members of the SPCA are considered "persons designated as peace officers." Under Article 2.20-C, these peace officers may "have the power to carry out warrantless searches whenever such searches are constitutionally permissible and acting pursuant to their special duties." Article 2.20-3 states "a peace officer, whether or not acting pursuant to his special duties, who lawfully exercises any of the powers conferred upon him pursuant to this section, shall be deemed to be acting within the scope of his public employment." Nothing the articles state, however, directly mentions the rights of the SPCA actions of seizing or euthanizing an animal.
". . . to carry out warrantless searches whenever such searches are constitutionally permissible and acting pursuant to their special duties."
That's a lot of power to be vested in a private organization, one that rides outside normal governmental bureaucracy, but has within its authority the power to bring the full clout of the legal system to bear on an individual.
An organization with this kind of power should be regularly and carefully reviewed by an independent governmental agency, and the results of those reviews made open to public scrutiney. Self-policing doesn't cut it.
Allegany County Attorney Daniel Guiney said the SPCA Serving Allegany County is a completely separate entity from the county, with some of its authority coming from a state statute on Agriculture and Markets law.
"The county gives them no authority," Guiney said. "They're an independent agency."
Robert Heineman, Allegany County District V legislator, said the county doesn't deal with the SPCA's issues.
That's worrisome . . . at least in my mind.
"At one time they wanted funding from the county legislators to aid in helping with a raid on a facility with many animals, but we refused," Heineman said. "Much of their funding comes from donations, not from financial support from the county."
This is a hugely bad deal — there is an inherent and irreconcilable conflict of interest: if the ASPCA wants its contributions to continue, it must please its constituency, and in this need, it is like any political organization.
The problem is, organizations with police powers should be above politics, and there's no way the ASPCA can be. We just can't afford to grant police power to people who are at the mercy of an agenda driven constituency.
Just think of it: how effectively would the ASPCA enforce cruelty laws if the "Live Cat Burning and Dismemberment Society of America" controlled its purse strings? Or what would the ASPCA's enforcement policies look like if the Animal Liberation Front controlled its funding?
Dickinson said he has received approximately 50 calls in the last two days from supporters who claim they have had experiences with the SPCA allegedly taking their animals. He is hoping to schedule a large meeting in the near future in which area residents can gather to discuss what happened to their pets.
It's a horrible idea for the government to outsource peace-officer powers to privately funded so-called animal welfare organizations: once private funding becomes an issue, impartiality collides with political agenda.
In Oregon, there is a chilling bill before the state legislature (HB 2552), which is strongly supported by the privately-funded Oregon Humane Society, a group which functions roughly as does the NY ASPCA, and which stands to gain police power should the bill pass. NAIA opposes the bill, for exactly the same reasons I do:
NAIA Trust Opposes this measure. We do not believe that police powers should be granted to any not-for-profit body, no matter how responsible or how well trained their personnel. Police powers should be reserved for officials who are directly accountable to the public though chains of command that trace directly back to government agencies capable of efficient oversight and control. Not-for-profit organizations operate from a mission on behalf of members whose goals are not typically identical to those of the general public. This can create conflicts of interest. No matter how much training or how much accountability government attempts to build into such arrangements, they can never be as accountable as ones that flow from properly constituted law enforcement bodies, animal control agencies, for example. Other states have attempted the appointment of humane officers with starkly negative consequences. In recent times whole states have had to rein in out-of-control, gun toting humane agents, and a spay/neuter group in California, the Mercy Crusade, was found in the possession of a massive weapons stockpile. Even when the personnel in a given humane society is superb, leadership changes over time. It's simply not a good situation to give a private organization police powers.
Amen.
I think the key conceptual issue is this: "Not-for-profit organizations operate from a mission on behalf of members whose goals are not typically identical to those of the general public."
The Oregon Humane Society would gain police powers were HB 2552 bill to be passed. Okay — what makes me think that the OHS isn't an organization that could be trusted with them?
The answer is to be found on the OHS FAQ webpage:
2. What is the difference between the Oregon Humane Society and other animal welfare organizations that solicit funds from me through the mail (such as Humane Society of the United States, PETA, American Humane, ASPCA, Friends for Animals, etc.)?
While all these organizations work to help all kinds of animals, what sets OHS apart from the national organizations is that it operates a local shelter that receives and houses animals with a trackable adoption program. OHS works directly with members of this local community to find homes for homeless pets, help increase the value of companion animals, stop abuse and neglect, and solve training and behavior difficulties.
Either through ignorance or intent, the OHS fails to distinguish between the fundamentally different beliefs of "Animal Welfare" and "Animal Rights" groups: and both PeTA and the Humane Society of the United States are Animal Rights groups, not Animal Welfare groups. (If you don't know the difference between AW and AR, you'd better learn. Read this.)
If you aren't familiar with the HSUS, you might think it's an animal welfare group worth supporting. Think again. It is a distinctly unsavory animal rights organization (see this, this and this).
And as for PeTA, regular AC readers will know of the well-defined ties PeTA has to terrorists and terrorist organizations (follow the links).
So OHS's unwillingness or inability to distinguish between AR and AW groups is a big deal, and their acceptance of PeTA and HSUS as bona fide AW groups is ludicrous. What this means is that either OHS is ripe for surreptitious infiltration by PeTA extremists or HSUS operatives, or OHS is sympathetic to them and would willingly embrace their agendas.
Neither of these possibilities is a comforting thought.
In short and in NAIA's words: "Police powers should be reserved for officials who are directly accountable to the public though chains of command that trace directly back to government agencies capable of efficient oversight and control."
Amen.
Let's keep police powers out of the hands of private organizations . . . not just in Oregon, which happens to serve particularly well as a case study, but in all states. To do otherwise is dangerous indeed.
Thanks to Liz Ditz for the tip.
Brian