Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn Doing Excellent Jobs... At Screwing NYC Homeless Animals

Holy Crap...

That's all I can say...

I am writing this after everything went down so there's nothing left to do but recount the timeline of how it was politics as usual in NYC, and who lost out? Those who can't vote (or speak).

1994 - The ASPCA gives up ownership of the NYC shelter system because they didn't want to be so closely associated with the killing machine that was the NYC shelter system. 

You don't believe me? Read this. (That deserves it's own blog - How the ASPCA basically abandoned NYC's animals when they needed them most because it was a PR nightmare and was costing them donors)

1995 -  Animal Care & Control (ACC) is created by Mayor Giuliani and the Department of Health to take over the contract for animal control services. ACC is supposed to be an independent charity, but it was to be controlled and funded by the DOH.

April 2000 - The NYC Council passes a law, mandating new shelters be built for the two shelter-less boroughs - Queens and The Bronx. The law was passed following a scathing audit by the City Council’s Contracts Committee showing the inhumane conditions in the ACC’s overcrowded shelters.

2000 – The DOH budgets $7.8MM for running ACC. 2002 - Mayor Bloomberg gets an extension on building the new shelters.

2002 - The DOH allocates $8.5MM for the ACC.

2005 - The DOH allocates $8.1MM for AC&C.

2006 - Bloomie's extension passes...No one on the City Council says a word.

2009 - Animal rescue group Stray from the Heart says, "Eff this...You don't wanna obey the law, let's see what the courts have to say about it." They file a lawsuit, against the DOH and NYC, in hopes of forcing the city to obey it's law (I couldn't make this up if I tried).

Stray From The Heart won! A Superior Court Judge judge says the city must come up with plan to obey their own law!

NYC appeals (becaaaause...they don't want to follow their own law?)

April 2011 - NYC wins - For some reason, an appeals panel ruled that Stray from the Heart didn't have the "standing" to sue (if they don't, who does?)

SUMMER 2011 - Bloomie, Speaker Quinn, Councilmember Lappin, the ASPCA, and the Mayor's Alliance meet in a dark, smokey, backroom (I'm assuming) somewhere and upon emerging, announce Intro Bill 0655.

I'm not going to get into why this is a horrible bill, just read this statement from Stray from the Heart here.

The worst part of it  is because it reverses the law that the City Council passed in 2000, mandating shelters for Queens and The Bronx, two boroughs so large that population-wise, if they were cities, they'd be in the top 15 in the U.S.

A few other things stood out about this bill...

1 - The vast majority of the "new" funding is backloaded to fiscal 2014 - If anyone believes that the AC&C will see that money, I've got new shelters in Queens and The Bronx to sell ya, if ya get my drift.

2 - I put "new" in quotes because, not only does some of this "new" funding only gives back funds previously cut, if you take inflation into account, even if all the funding does come in, it barely makes it back to 2002 levels, when the shelter was killing about 70% of the animals that came in.

3 - Many don't think mandatory spay/neuter works.

4 - The fact that they are suddenly willing to give all this money to the ACC, given the dire economic straits that the city and the people in this city are in (I don't think links are needed here) tells me that things are even worse at the shelter than we previously imagined. I mean, we've read and saw stories about the filthy cages, animals being killed who weren't supposed to, a volunteer program without volunteers, dogs not being walked, and an executive director so enamored with power, that she's managed to alienate pretty much everyone, from her staff to rescue groups. Is there even more!??!

5 - This op-ed, by Ed Sayres (he runs the ASPCA), telling us why this bill is awesome, kills me. Especially these sentences...

Nevertheless, a few detractors are upset because the city did not agree to build animal shelters in Queens and in the Bronx. Let me be clear -- of course, I want the city to build animal shelters in the boroughs that currently do not have them. But the reality is that the city does not have to do this based on a recent appellate court's ruling (in re Stray from the Heart, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York, April 19, 2011) that a rescue group did not have standing to challenge the City's failure to open animal shelters in Queens and in the Bronx.

Given the appellate court's decision, I believe the agreement we brokered with the city has the animals' best interests at heart for the immediate future

This is funny to me because...

SEPTEMBER 2011 - Stray from the Heart convinces the NY Court of Appeals to hear their appeal from the mid-level decision. All of a sudden, it appears that our State’s highest court is verrrrrrrry interested in deciding whether a rescue group does have standing to sue a City for violating its own law. If Stray From the Heart wins the appeal, it means not only that it had standing, but that the City must build those shelters!!

So, now that the "reality" has changed, I assume Sayres will go back to his buddies (Bloomie, Quinn, Lappin et al) and tell them that he stands by his belief that the city needs the two new shelters and that they should amend the bill to remove the deletion of the law requiring NYC to build them. Right?

Wrong.... Instead...

SEPTEMBER 2011 - We get this Daily News headline

 City Council fast-tracking bill to let city wriggle out of obligation to build animal shelters

(slaps my head)

which leads to this...

This.

Excuse me while I vomit.

Harris Bloom
http://www.stewietotherescue.org/

Ed Sayres (and the ASPCA) to NYC Animals: Drop Dead!

I think more needs to be said about this deal, which I (and others) have railed against, but none so eloquently as Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer here.

The vote to approve this deal is coming up and in order to drum up support for the deal that they apparently helped negotiate, I recently received this email from the ASPCA - 

Dear New York City Animal Advocates,

Annual budget cuts to New York City's Animal Care and Control (ACC) program have had a predictably negative effect on New York's citizens and our at-risk animals.

You used to be able to phone ACC to come rescue and shelter lost/stray animals found in the streets—that's no longer true. Animal receiving centers in the Bronx and Queens have been forced to cut back their hours, and now operate only one or two days a week. And slashed funding has meant a loss of jobs at the city's three shelters, making it harder for remaining staff to provide the best service possible to animals and potential adopters. We would like to stress that none of this is the fault of ACC employees—it is a simple matter of insufficient funding from the City.

It is time to correct the mistakes of the past and implement the type of animal control and sheltering programs to which a first-rate city like ours is entitled. We are excited to announce that Councilmember Jessica Lappin has introduced a bill that will restore vital programs and services and improve conditions at the city's ACC facilities. Along with this legislation (Intro. 655), the City will commit to increasing its investment in the shelters by millions of dollars over the next three years.

A well-funded animal control program creates jobs and decreases potential threats to public health and safety—it's good for both animals and New Yorkers. Please help us seize this opportunity to help New York City's animals!
What You Can Do
Please ask your City councilmember to support and cosponsor Intro. 655. Visit the ASPCA Advocacy Center online, where we've provided a letter of support for NYC Intro. 655 that you can copy, edit to your liking and email to your councilmember. If you prefer, you may also print out the letter and mail to your councilmember. 

Why do I have a problem with this, Ed Sayres and the ASPCA? Let me count the ways...

1 - The main problem that animal advocates have with the "deal" is that it eliminates the law passed by the City Council in 2000 mandating shelters in Queens and the Bronx (two boroughs so large they would be in the top ten largest cities in the U.S. if they were cities)...and yet, nary a mention of this in the ASPCA's email blast. Reading the above statement makes it sound like you're an idiot if you are against it - Because they left out the downside (and boy, what a downside it is)

2 - In his Op-Ed piece, where Ed does mention the loss of the new promised shelters, he says, "...Let me be clear -- of course, I want the city to build animal shelters in the boroughs that currently do not have them. But the reality is that the city does not have to do this based on a recent appellate court's ruling (in re Stray from the Heart, Inc. v. Dep't of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York, April 19, 2011) that a rescue group did not have standing to challenge the City's failure to open animal shelters in Queens and in the Bronx."

Bullshit! 

Who exactly does he think he's kidding? The whole "What can lil' ol' us do?" ain't fooling anyone who knows anything about the animal rescue business. The ASPCA has a LOT of pull, thanks to a huge and well-funded PR department (They helped kill Oreo's Law, for example) And just as they helped negotiate this deal behind the scenes, they can get together with their buddies at Maddie's Fund, Best Friends, and whom ever else (maybe talk to Hemsley's dog), and get these needed shelters financed. 

OR

3. They quoted the Stray from the Heart lawsuit... If the ASPCA agrees that the shelters are necessary, then why didn't THEY take up the lawsuit. With their powers, couldn't they do an inspection, and conclude that the existing shelters are dangerously insufficient? I would think that even the threat of such a lawsuit from the highly respected ASPCA would force NYC to do something to fix the situation.

OR

4. Just as they helped facilitate this backroom deal, they can do another, basically threatening NYC that they will expose the freaking nightmare that is the NYC shelter system (and believe me, they know that it is a disaster) if they don't do something more drastic to help the animals (like, you know, build another shelter or two). All he'd have to do is get his buddies together and threaten to drop their funding if something isn't done. Heck, it wont be hard to Maddie's fund to threaten it, as the ACC routinely breaks their agreement not to kill for space.

5 - His statement that the problems are due to a "simple matter of insufficient funding from the city" is bullshit as well. Horrendous mismanagement (8 ED's in 8 years? 'nuf said) and a BOD that exists only to serve Bloomberg's interests are the real problem. Is the ACC underfunded? Yes, ridiculously so... but it wont be adequately funded until the main problem is fixed, and that's breaking off the ACC from the DOH (as Mr. Stringer suggests). 

6 - Sayres isn't an idiot. He KNOWS what's going on between the walls at the ACC to the poor animals (Even Wikipedia knows). The question becomes why doesn't the ASPCA use their powers of enforcement to bring the real situation to light and maybe make revolutionary change rather than keep spinning the usual politically tinged pr about things getting better?

I think if they actually went in and documented what was going on, they'd have no choice but to take over... something they desperately wouldn't want to do (they had a miserable time running it thru 1995).

Anyway, I'm tired. 

Long story short (I know, too late!), the ASPCA and Sayres are accomplices to this "deal" and the maintenance of the status quo (i.e. DOH oversight), which, as long as it remains, means death to way too many of NYC's animals.

Harris Bloom

Mayor Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn Are Horrible People

First of all, sorry I am late to writing about this, but I was busy dealing with kidney stones, and lemmee tell ya...holy crap are those painful! I wouldn't wish those on anyone...okay, maybe a couple of people.

So... this came out last week -

City grants cash-strapped animal shelters $10 million over next three years

My guess is that the first take on that headline for most people who aren't familiar with the history and current situation of the city shelter is, "Gee, how awesome!"

Of course, those of us who are privy to such things thought, "Hmmm... I smell a rat."

And, as expected, we were correct. The devil is in the details (or, in this case Gracie Mansion)....

To those who want to hear why with agreement sucks but don't really need to hear a long-winded numbers heavy (hey, I'm a numbers guy!), lemmee tell ya with a hypothetical situation....

What if a group of people set fire to building, knowing there were 100 people in there. Then, while the fire was raging, they ran in and saved three people, with the rest dying. When the news cameras arrived, they were interviewed, and congratulated each other on saving those three lives.

THAT is what is happening here. Again, not gonna get into details, but the budget this year, which has been slashed several times in previous years, is the SAME as it was 16 years ago! And it was considered too low then! The point being - They are "cash-strapped" because they the city doesn't grant them any money! And now, they dare claim to be coming to the rescue?!?

btw - I wish I were making this up.

So, now, Bloomberg, Quinn, the ASPCA, and The Mayor's Alliance are falling over each other with congratulations for taking a step in the right direction. At least they are doing that, right? Stepping in the right direction?

Um, no. Not even close.

Here's the key sentence in their press release (which laughably includes the phrase "agreement to enhance services for shelter animals.")...

With the agreement, the Health Department will no longer have a legal obligation to build and maintain full-service shelters in every borough, only to maintain the existing shelters in Staten Island, Manhattan and Brooklyn.

Yup, the devil in the details...

But seriously, they've gotta be shittin' me!

In 2000, The City Council passed a law requiring the city to build shelters in two boroughs which didn't have shelters (The Bronx and Queens) - The city, under animal hater Mike Bloomberg, managed to defy said law for the past ten years, and now, has gotten animal hater Christine Quinn to help change the law (The fact that animals don't vote prolly has a lot do with this, which makes them horrible people), with an assist from The Mayor's Alliance and the ASPCA (nice work guys! btw - as a side note, any time the big boys get together on anything, assume the worst - I'm surprised the Humane Society hasn't come out with a big thumbs-up for this "deal" as well)

So, thanks to this backroom "deal," the largest two boroughs in NY, which, if cities, would both be in the top ten in the United States in population, will have no city-run animal shelters.

Congratulations are definitely in order!

Rock On,

Harris Bloom

http://www.stewietotherescue.org/

Get Yer T-Shirts Hea! Get Yer Red-Hot T-Shirts! Only 20 bucks!

Yup, we finally have t-shirts! They're only twenty bucks each (FREE SHIPPING!)

We have from sizes small to Extra Large....

You can buy via paypal on our homepage....

This is our Director of Mixology Erin Garmont, and her pup Wilson, sporting the very latest in Stewie Fashion...

Thanks!

Rock On,

Harris

www.stewietotherescue.org

Top Ten Pit Bull Myths Debunked!

There is so much misinformation about Pit bulls out there, I have decided to set the record straight...


1 - Pit Bulls' favorite drink is is the Strawberry Margarita.

WRONG!

It's Tanqueray and Tonic!

2 - Pit Bulls are good at math.

WRONG!

It's art history that they excel in (especially Staffies)!

3 - Most Pit Bulls are Republicans.

WRONG!

63% are registered Democrats!

4 - Pit Bulls can eat twice their weight in butterscotch pudding.

WRONG!

It's Lime Jello!

5 - A Pit Bull was the first dog on the moon.

WRONG!

Sally, an American Pit Bull Terrier was the THIRD dog on the moon (FYI- Alonzo, a chocolate Lab, and Peanut, a hairless chihuahua preceded her).

6 - Pit Bulls are notoriously poor at golf.

WRONG!

While most have natural slices, that can easily be corrected with proper training.

(btw - They are also excellent bowlers and squash players - not great skiers, though)

7 - A Pit Bull invented those hand held fans that also spray water.

WRONG!

But a Pit Bull did invent the tricycle.

8 - Most Pit Bulls' favorite TV show is Pit Boss or Pit Bulls and Parolees.

WRONG!

It's Dancing with the Stars!

9 - Pit Bulls' favorite music is country, especially Johnny Cash and Trisha Yearwood.

WRONG!

Pit Bulls' adore hair metal, especially Motley Crue and Queensryche.

10 - Pit Bulls can not be taught to use a knife and fork.

WRO

...oh wait, that's right. I mean, come on!

Rock On,

Harris

http://www.stewietotherescue.org/

The Verrazano Bridge Kitten

I dunno if you you heard about this news item last week - the kitten that was thrown from a car on the Verrazano Bridge - Even Whoopi Goldberg has weighed in. A terrific story, that kitten has no idea how lucky he is to be alive. For more reasons than you think....

First, lets watch this video of Executive Director Julie Bank discussing said kitty....



Watched it? Excellent!

Now, let's discuss what she did right in this, and why I sometimes hate knowing too much (this sounds egotistical, but it's not, you'll see...)

What Julie did right....

1 - The said the "most important thing" to take from this is that if you don't want your pet, bring them to a shelter - Though I do realize that the person who did this may've not wanted to rid themselves of this kitten as much as wanted to commit a crime, I'm sure there are others out there who just leave their pets in the "wild" - Heck, that's how I found our second dog.

2 - She asks for anyone who has info about who may've done this to come forward. I dont' know if they will, but, knowing that this kind of cruelty will lead to serious consequences may make some think twice about it.

3 - She asks for donations. You would think this is a no-brainer, but it isn't, given Animal Care & Control's (ACC) history.

4 - She asks for fosters to step forward. Part of the problem at ACC is that there is no room (let's forget that a lot of that is due to the ACC/DOH/NYC) for now...it is what it is - for now). A call for fosters will only help (I'm sure many don't even realize they can foster dogs or cats - Three years ago, I didn't).

So, I'm sure you don't hear this often (well, other than from the BOD when you cut staff/services and phone lines to balance the budget), but good job on those counts, Julie Bank!

Now, here's why it sucks knowing so damn much...

Julie mentions not once, but twice, how the ACC staffer who happened to see the incident was "at the right place at the right time." While I don't think she did that on purpose, I do think even she realizes what would've happened to that cat if the staffer didn't see the person throw the cat from the car.

UPDATE - Thanks to a comment I read (see first comment), I think it may be possible that by saying this staffer was "at the right place at the right time," Julie was attempting to minimize Mr. Ocasio's contribution, which would make sense given that she seems to feel that all staffers/volunteers are expendable (even given the shortage of said staffers/volunteers)

Assuming the poor kitten made it off the bridge alive, she would have probably been killed, whether she came in as a stray, or God forbid, an owner surrender.


1 - If that kitten had been an ordinary stray (i.e. someone found her and brought her into the ACC), it would be treated like any other orphan kitten. The moment it entered a shelter it would be exposed to, among other things, a cold virus, and probably gotten an upper respiratory infection. If it has to be bottle fed, they can't do that at the shelter. No staff no volunteers. The kitten would have to be held for three days in case an owner shows up. If no owner comes, then she probably would be killed since she'd be sick and/or starving.

2 - If the cat had been surrendered, she may've been killed the day after she was surrendered. The ACC has decreed that as long as the animal appears on the "kill list" for one night, it reserves the right to kill the animal the next day. There is no hold period because there's no doubt about who the owner is.

(In the old days, shelter managers could have owner surrenders killed right away.Two and on-half years ago, volunteers convinced management that every animal to be killed should appear on a kill list sent to rescuers.The kill lists go out at 5 PM every day.)

If an animal arrives on day 1 and is included on the evening euth list, it can be killed the next morning.

Couple of other points about her speech - She said that they were able to give the kitty "some good food ....some good water...love" - Good thing this didn't occur last year when the ACC almost ran out of food and had to go public with donation requests! Also, I'm curious how much love the other strays get, given that she's hellbent on firing all the volunteers who care.

Rock On,

Harris
http://www.stewietotherescue.org/

Congrats?

Hypothetical Question for ya....

YOU have just been hired to run a shelter (Congrats!). It was a high-kill shelter before you arrived, mainly pitties and adult cats. The shelter is underfunded and there is a daily issue of where to keep all the animals(Congrats?).

Another non-profit organization supplies a large portion of your funding, but only on the condition that you do not kill any healthy animals.

On your first day, you find out that your shelter is killing animals because they have kennel cough or similar easily treatable ailments. Someone tells you, off the record, that it is a necessary evil because there isn't space, and if you blow the whistle on your own shelter, you will lose needed funding.


What do you do?

Rock On,

Harris
http://www.stewietotherescue.org/

btw - Come back tomorrow, we'll be discussing this video...

Boycotting michael vick Inc. - How Far Will You Go?

Recently, with the announcements that vick (i refuse to capitalize his name) won the BET/Subway Sportsman of the Year award and was signed to a Nike endorsement contract, animal advocates/fans have announced boycotts of BET, Nike and Subway.

I understand why people do it, heck, I am participating myself, but here's the thing - The only time I watch BET is when Juice is being rerun, I really don't care what sneakers I buy, and I eat (errr, ate) at Subway maybe twice a month, and quite frankly, never crave it - I can just as easily go to Blimpie's/Quiznos/Whereever. Point being, I'm not really sacrificing much, and, not really hurting the corporations who are on team vick by boycotting them (don't get me started on how useless writing e-mails/calling them is).

Now, if we dig a little deeper into it, Nike owns Converse, Cole Haan, and Umbro - How many knew that and are boycotting those too?

Still with me?

What about the Philadelphia Eagles' corporate sponsors? Are you boycotting Pepsi (which also owns Gatorade/Tropicana/Lays/Quaker/Aquafina/etc), Budweiser, US Airways, Miller Lite, Verizon?

I also hear that Coke may sign him to a deal. Will you boycott Pepsi and Coke?

Not as easy, huh?

Slightly tangential, what about the fact that President Obama (in a cowardly move, in my opinion) congratulated the Eagles owner (after vick already was already in the league for two years) for taking a chance on him. Do you now not vote for him? What is he's running against (gasp!) Sarah Palin, someone who not only hunts, but brags about it?

And finally, what if you have a good friend, not really an animal lover, but certainly not an animal hater - What if this person is a big Philadelphia Eagles, or Nike fan? You tell them about the boycott, and they tell you that while they understand why you are doing it, they fell along the (ridiculous) lines of Nike (i.e. They dont care). How does that affect your relationship?

Me? I will do my best to boycott all associated products. In fact, I will use it as an opportunity to improve my health. For example, I drink a soda or two a day. I will stop drinking Pepsi (and Pepsi subsidiaries) now, and if Coke follows through and endorses him, I will give up soda.

I know Dunkin Donuts used to be an Eagles sponsor. They haven't responded to my email. Can anyone verify whether they are or not? I go to Dunkin at least once a day, some days up to four times (I have a day job/comedy job/writing/animal rescue/two dogs/six month old baby - 'nuff said)...I will definitely give that up if they are still sponsoring Eagles games. That will be sacrifice!

Rock On,

Harris
http://www.stewietotherescue.org/

Your Choice...

Your wealthy uncle has passed away (sorry!).

He has made you executor of his estate, and has left you with a ridiculous decision to make, the kind only imagined by Presidents of animal rescues and comedians -

ANYWAY, you can either give $1 million dollars to the ACC OR $500,000 to your favorite animal rescue/shelter. Which will it be?

This may be a leading question but would your answer be different if the ACC weren't an extension of the City's Department of Health?

Rock On,

Harris
http://www.stewietotherescue.org/

If Yer Bored....

I used to write a personal blog here. Since my wife and I had a dog (or two), there were several dog-related posts you guys may be interested in. So, if yer bored, here's a link to them -

http://harrisbloom.blogspot.com/search/label/dog

and

http://harrisbloom.blogspot.com/search/label/dog%20fostering

(some may be repeats)

Anyway, Happy 4th, and don't forget...

You Are Either Part Of The Problem Or Part Of The Solution.

Rock On,

Harris
http://www.stewietotherescue.org/