Can “National

Heritage” status

save elephants

in ever more

crowded, faster

moving India?

DELHI, GUWAHATI––

The largest of land animals, but nei-

ther faster than a poacher’s speeding

bullet nor more powerful than a loco-

motive, elephants are now officially

protected with tigers as “National

Heritage Animals of India,” declared

Indian environment and animal welfare

minister Jairam Ramesh on October 21,

2010. Unclear is whether National

Heritage status will help elephants any

more than it has helped tigers, who

since gaining their National Heritage

designation in 1973 have been poached

and illegally poisoned for preying upon

livestock to the verge of extinction

across most of India.

National Herit-age status

helped to secure land and funding for

tiger conservation, and for about 30

years the tiger population was believed

to be recovering, but more recent find-

ings have shown a steep decline that

(continued on page 14)

European Commission to seek suspension

of cloning animals for food (page 10)

Rescued puppy mill Chihuahuas. (North Shore Animal League America)

Missouri voters approve

anti-puppy mill initiative

Won by a coalition called

Missourians for the Protection of Dogs,

Proposition B was backed by the Humane

Society of the U.S., the Humane Society of

Missouri, the Best Friends Animal Society,

and the American SPCA. It requires dog

breeders who keep 10 or more breeding dogs

to provide dogs with larger cages that allow

them freedom of movement, with access to

opportunities for outdoor exercise; prohibits

keeping dogs on wire floors and in stacked

cages; and mandates that every dog in a

breeding kennel of 50 or more dogs must

receive an annual veterinary examination. Ill

or injured animals must receive prompt treat-

ment. Breeders will not be allowed to keep

more than 50 breeding dogs.

Early on election eve HSUS presi-

dent Wayne Pacelle admitted in his blog to

concern when Proposition B was overwhelm-

(continued on page 11)

ST. LOUIS––Missouri voters on

November 2, 2010 approved Proposition B,

to increase regulation of dog breeders, by a

margin of more than 60,000 votes.

Indian elephant. (Kim Bartlett)

ANIMAL

PEOPLE

News For People Who Care

About Animals

October 2010

Volume 19, #8

Chinese government announces a

crackdown on zoo animal abuses

B E I J I N G––Moving to bring zoos

suggestions laid out include providing neces-

into compliance with regulations included in a

sary health care and banning animal perfor-

draft Chinese national anti-cruelty law, the

mances to ‘prevent animals from being

Ministry of Housing & Urban/Rural

alarmed or provoked,’” Agence France-Press

Development on October 27, 2010 “suggest-

continued.

ed” in an official web posting that zoos should

Added Associated Press,

“The

adequately feed and house animals, should

Ministry of Housing & Urban/Rural

stop selling wild animal products and serving

Development said zoos could be shut down or

wild animal parts in restaurants, and should

receive a citation if they disobey the guidelines

stop staging circus-like trained animal acts.

during the three-month inspection period that

The ministry “said inspections would

began on October 15. But the ministry did not

be carried out to see if zoos were complying,”

say whether the requirements would eventually

reported Agence France-Press. “The ministry

be made permanent, as would be accom-

pointed out that some zoos had been turned

plished by passage of the draft anti-cruelty law.

into for-profit organisations, leading to poor

Wildlife Conservation Society

management and to some animals dying in

researcher Sun Quanhui, working in Hunchun,

abnormal conditions or maiming people. The

told Associated Press that the suggestions from

the housing ministry were “very

welcome news,” but are only a

step toward legislation.

“We feel that these new

guidelines are good because they

could improve the welfare of ani-

mals in zoos and help standardize

conduct at zoos,” said Sun. “We

hope that in the future we will have

an actual animal welfare law that

helps guarantee the basic needs of

animals in zoos and elsewhere.”

Headquartered in New

York City, the Wildlife Conserv-

ation Society operates the Bronx

Zoo, Central Park Zoo, Prospect

Park Zoo, and New York Aquar-

ium. The society became involved

in China through visits by WCS

field biologist George Schaller in

1973, 1988, and 1996.

In recent years the Wildlife

Conservation Society has helped to

develop the Chang Tang Nature

Reserve, a site three times the size

of the largest U.S. wildlife refuge,

and a “Peace Park” that spans the

transborder regions of China,

Afghanistan,

Pakistan,

and

Tajikistan––but WCS has had only

a low-profile, behind-the-scenes

role in Chinese zoo issues.

(continued on page 8)

Leghorn rooster & hens at Pasado’s Safe Haven sanctuary. (Kim Bartlett)

Controlled atmosphere poultry

stunning moves ahead

FREDERICKSBURG, Pennsyl-

v a n i a––Controlled atmosphere stunning on

October 22, 2010 moved an influential step

closer to U.S. industry acceptance when New

York Times business writer William Neuman

broke as an exclusive the decisions of the pre-

mium niche poultry producers Bell & Evans

and Mary’s Chickens to introduce controlled

atmosphere systems in mid-2011.

Bell & Evans, Mary’s Chickens,

and MBA Poultry of Nebraska, which has

used controlled atmosphere stunning since

2005, have among them about half of 1% of

U.S. poultry industry market share. Bell &

Evans kills about 840,000 birds per week,

Neuman said, while Mary’s Chickens kills

about 200,000. Their combined annual

slaughter volume is about equal to the weekly

volume for Tyson Foods.

But Bell & Evans, of Pennsylvania,

is prominent within the poultry industry as a

major supplier to Whole Foods Markets, and

as one of the oldest companies in U.S.

agribusiness, begun circa 1895. Mary’s

Chickens, of California, founded in 1954,

has been operated for three generations by

Don Pitman and descendants. MBA Poultry,

marketing “Smart Chickens” since 1998, is

known for technological innovation.

All three companies advertise that

they meet a variety of humane and organic

certification standards, and feed their chick-

ens a strictly vegetarian diet.

Announced People for the Ethical

Treatment of Animals spokesperson Robbyn

Brooks, “Following talks with PETA, Bell &

Evans has pledged to implement within one

year’s time the most advanced slaughter tech-

nology for better animal welfare, a system

called ‘slow induction anesthesia.’”

Explained Brooks, “Slow induction

anesthesia, also referred to as controlled-

atmosphere killing, is used to ensure that

birds experience little discomfort while they

are put to sleep; birds are not removed from

the transportation drawers until after uncon-

sciousness has been induced. Also appealing

to the company is the fact that the system is

simple and easy to use, operate, and clean.

The birds do not suffer broken wings and legs

while being shackled upside down and are

(continued on page 7)

2 - ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2010

Editorial feature

Charitable standards & the

ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2010 - 3

discerning donor

ANIMAL PEOPLE has over the years often criticized the charity evaluation meth-

ods of both the Wise Giving Alliance, a project of the Council of Better Business Bureaus,

and Charity Navigator, whose easily accessed online star ratings of charities are now by far

the charity evaluation method most used by donors.

The Wise Giving Alliance evaluations, as ANIMAL PEOPLE has in the past

explained in detail, require charities to meet a set of standards for governance which for ani-

mal charities and most small charities actually work at cross-purposes to the goal of maintain-

ing a strong focus on the charitable mission.

In particular, the Wise Giving Alliance standards practically exclude founders from

governance of a charity if they have built the charity successfully enough to begin drawing a

salary at some point. Founders sometimes use their own money to start charities, but even a

sizeable fortune will run out eventually. More often, founders begin subsidizing their charita-

ble work with money they earn from other jobs, which are ultimately given up in favor of

working full-time for the charities.

Charity Navigator assigns stars, like a restaurant or hotel reviewer, based on com-

puterized number-crunching using data supplied on IRS Form 990 filings. Because Charity

Navigator does not do program verification, it tends to reward the organizations that have

learned to game the system through stratagems such as claiming fundraising mailings are "pro-

gram service" under the heading of "public education." Sometimes Charity Navigator awards

stars to charities whose filings appear to be designed to mislead, while penalizing charities

whose filings include basic errors or accurately reflect temporary imbalances of program,

fundraising, and administrative expense resulting from embarking on a major donor acquisi-

tion or capital campaign late in a fiscal year.

ANIMAL PEOPLE has since 1999 published our annual Watchdog Report on

Animal Charities to help animal charity donors make better informed judgments in response to

the unending deluge of appeals which every year peaks between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

The ANIMAL PEOPLE standards for governance and accountability are based on the reali-

ties of funding and directing animal charities as we have observed, reported about, and expe-

rienced them for more than 20 years.

The 2010 edition of the ANIMAL PEOPLE Watchdog Report on Animal Charities

reviews 155 charities in all, looking at policies, programs, and administrative issues, as well

as at the bare numbers. At $25 per copy, each review costs the user just 16¢––barely a third

of the cost of postage to mail a donation first class.

The typical animal charity donor contributes more than $2,000 a year to favored ani-

mal charities, but based on having reviewed hundreds of donors' lists of charities supported,

ANIMAL PEOPLE estimates that as much as a third of the money goes to organizations

whose policies and practices are just plain not what the donors believe, and often are misled

into believing by misleading appeals. By helping donors to avoid such mistakes, the ANI-

MAL PEOPLE Watchdog Report on Animal Charities may help the typical animal charity

donor to increase the effect of his or her contributions by a third or more.

Like the Wise Giving Alliance and Charity Navigator evaluations, the A N I M A L

PEOPLE Watchdog Report on Animal Charities will also help donors to avoid supporting

charities that spend excessive amounts on fundraising and administration. Exposing excessive

spending on fundraising and administration was the focus of the ANIMAL PEOPLE project

that evolved into the Watchdog Report, called “Who Gets The Money,” begun in 1991.

The animal charity field is still plagued, like other branches of charity, with direct

mail mills which annually spend well over two thirds of the funds they raise on sending out

further fundraising appeals. There are also still instances of animal charity chief executives

collecting compensation well in excess of what they could be expected to earn in the private

sector. But these bad examples are far fewer now, proportionate to the whole of the animal

charity sector, than 10 and 20 years ago. As critical as we are of Charity Navigator, one job it

does well is crunching huge amounts of data to produce meaningful norms for the nonprofit

field. A few weeks ago Charity Navigator released its 2010 CEO Compensation Study, based

on IRS Form 990 filings for fiscal 2008 from 3,005 of the most prominent U.S. charities in all

fields. Among them were 210 animal charities.

SEARCHABLE ARCHIVES: www.animalpeoplenews.org

ANIMAL PEOPLE

News for People Who Care About Animals

Published by Animal People, Inc.

President & Administrator:

Kim Bartlett – anpeople@whidbey.com

Editor: Merritt Clifton – anmlpepl@whidbey.com

Web producer: Patrice Greanville

Newswire monitor: Cathy Young Czapla

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236-0960

ISSN 1071-0035. Federal I.D: 14-1752216

Telephone: 360-579-2505. Fax: 360-579-2575.

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

Copyright © 2010 for the authors, artists, and photographers.

Reprint inquiries are welcome.

ANIMAL PEOPLE: News for People Who Care About Animals is published

nine times annually by Animal People, Inc., a nonprofit, charitable corporation dedicated

to exposing the existence of cruelty to animals and to informing and educating the public of

the need to prevent and eliminate such cruelty. Donations to Animal People, Inc. are tax-

deductible. Financial information on Animal People, Inc. and other charities can be

accessed at <www.guidestar.org>

Subscriptions are $24.00 per year; $38.00/two years; $50/three years.

Executive subscriptions, mailed 1st class, are $40.00 per year or $70/two years.

The ANIMAL PEOPLE Watchdog Report on Animal Protection Charities,

updated midyear, is $25.

ANIMAL PEOPLE never sells names and addresses of subscribers and donors

to other charities or to businesses. Very infrequently we do give other animal welfare orga-

nizations permission to use our mailing list on a one-time basis to send information about

their programs. If you are an ANIMAL PEOPLE subscriber or donor and do not wish to

receive material from other animal charities, you may so indicate by writing to us at the

postal address or emailing <anpeople@whidbey.com>.

ANIMAL PEOPLE is mailed under Bulk Rate Permit #2 from Clinton,

Washington, and Bulk Rate Permit #408 from Everett, Washington.

The base rate for display advertising is $9.50 per square inch of page space.

Please inquire about our substantial multiple insertion discounts.

The editor prefers to receive queries in advance of article submissions; unsolicit-

ed manuscripts will be considered for use, but will not be returned unless accompanied by

a stamped, self-addressed envelope of suitable size. We do not publish fiction or poetry.

Charity Navigator compared chief executive salaries within nine different mission

categories. The overall median chief executive salary was $147,273, about 3.25 times more

than the median U.S. annual wage for all occupations of $45,113, but 14% less than the

$167,280 median salary for business chief executives. The median chief executive salary for

animal charities was $106,030, only 2.35 times the median U.S. annual wage for all occupa-

tions, and just 63% of the median salary for business chief executives.

Only the religious sector pays chief executives less than the animal sector––largely

because many chief executives of religious organizations are nuns, monks, or others who

have taken vows of poverty, whose low incomes offset the excesses of popular televangelists.

The environmental sector pays chief executives about 12% more than the animal charity sec-

tor. The educational sector pays chief executives 2.6 times more.

Animal charity donors should continue to be vigilant about giving to direct mail mills

and charities that appear to operate chiefly for the benefit of the top management. Yet donors

also need to recognize that animal charities need to pay their best people wages sufficient to

keep them on the job. Few skilled people are able to donate much of their time for very long.

Much is made of the U.S. having an “all volunteer” army, for example, but U.S. soldiers are

volunteers only in that they voluntarily enlist for military service. They are compensated at

competitive rates, counting fringe benefits, combat pay, and re-enlistment bonuses.

In addition, animal charities need to invest in fundraising and donor acquisition to

ensure that they will have enough income in the future to continue helping animals.

Animal charities over the past 20 years have spent an average of 28% of their annual

budgets on fundraising and administration, about 25% less than the norm for all charities.

Fundraising and administration are nonprofit functions comparable to the sales and

management aspects of running a for-profit business.

For-profit retail businesses often spend 50% or more of their operating budget on

sales promotion and management.

Overlooking the need of a charity to raise funds and ensure that the money is effec-

tively spent, donors often specify that their contributions are to be used only for program ser-

vice. This practice tends to erode effective program service––or accountability––because if

donor intent is honored, little or nothing is left for overhead.

U.S. animal charities whose programs include funding humane work overseas,

including ANIMAL PEOPLE, are often asked to relay large sums to the foreign projects,

with scant attention paid by the donors––or none––to the costs incurred by the U.S. charities

transferring the money abroad. These costs include the considerable staff time needed to

maintain the much reinforced accountability standards that the Internal Revenue Service now

requires.

Properly keeping oversight of funds forwarded to foreign charities now requires

documented regular communication, access to audited financial statements, and site visits at

least every few years by a staff representative or reliable third party. Realistically, it is diffi-

cult to facilitate making an overseas grant or donation for less than about 25% of the total

amount provided.

It is reasonable for animal charity donors to expect that more than 70% of each dollar

they contribute goes “to the animals,” as many phrase it. Expecting greater “efficiency” than

that is unrealistic, and is an invitation to be misled by fundraisers who have no scruples about

promising what they cannot deliver.

This is not an argument that animal charities should spend anywhere near as much on

fundraising and administration as the 50%, approximately, that retail businesses spend on

advertising, public relations, and management.

Neither is this an argument that animal charity personnel should be paid more, or

even as much, as counterparts in the private sector. Choosing to work in the nonprofit sector,

ANIMAL PEOPLE believes, should entail a conscious choice to sacrifice wealth for the

opportunity to do good deeds supported by the generosity of others.

ANIMAL PEOPLE is advocating only that donors should take a realistic view of

what is necessary to sustain animal charities, rather than holding expectations that reward

those who either mislead donors or, instead of investing in actual charitable work,

keep

enough money in the bank and stock market to operate largely on interest and dividends.

ANIMAL

PEOPLE

thanks you for your

generous support

Honoring the parable of the widow's mite––

in which a poor woman gives but one coin

to charity, yet that is all she possesses––

we do not list our donors by how much they give,

but we greatly appreciate large gifts that help us do more for animals.

Heather Abraham, Ginette Anttila, Elisabeth Arvin, Mary Ruth Aull, Judith Baker,

Joy Batha, Alexandra Bechter, Robert Berman, Laura Black, Elizabeth Buley,

Michael Burton, Barbara Castaneda, Gale Cohen-Demarco, David Conklin,

Susana & Dave Crow, Marcia Davis, Richard Debenedictis, Madeline Lia Duncan,

Claudine Erlandson, Lewis Feldman, Linda Forsberg, Debra Giambattista,

John Green, Don Henrico, Joyce Hodel, Anna Jaholnycky, Jerome Kahn, Sally Karste,

Heather & Lawrence Kren, Richard Leonard, Peggy Lieber, Vida Lohnes, Barbara Mann,

Tim & Jackie Martin, Rabbi Steven Mason, Suzi Megles, Judy Meincke,

Melissa's Rescue/Mimi Wriedt, Lola Merritt, Diana Mitchell,

Kathie Nelson/Oregon Spay/Neuter Fund, Evelyn Oynebraaten, Steven Pagani,

Mary Pipkin, Thomas Porreca, Jean Shea, Kathleen Shopa, Magda Simopoulos,

Lindy & Marvin Sobel, Mr. & Mrs. William Stamm, George Stassinopoulos,

Beverly Steffens-Claudio, Donald Tayloe, Mimi Taylor, Dee Tharpe, Betsy Todd,

Seth Vaughn, Edith von Fraunhofer-Brodin, Ronald Winkler, Louise Wunsch,

Mr. & Mrs. Hugh Yaeger, Arlene Yahre, Carla Zimmer

pleads for registry data standards

4 - ANIMAL PEOPLE, October 2010

Pet-Abuse-com founder

Recently, legislation has been proposed by state and

code, and by standardized characteristics of cases, such as

local governments to initiate individual animal abuse registries.

those that occurred within the context of a domestic dispute or

Similar to Megan’s Law for sex offenders, this legis-

argument, whether the abuser claimed to be punishing the ani-

lation would require individuals convicted of animal abuse

mal for bad behavior, or cases where drugs or alcohol were

crimes to register with the public database or potentially face

involved.

fines and/or jail time.

Each case is broken down by an extensive set of data

We at Pet-Abuse.Com wholeheartedly support these

points that have evolved over time through constant discussion

efforts, and applaud the legislators, advocacy groups, and

and revision with law enforcement, prosecutors, animal advo-

individuals who have worked so hard to get them this far. We

cacy organizations and researchers. Our goal is to standardize

were founded on the belief that such registries are vital to the

the data we collect, so that these common data points can be

safety and welfare of animals and humans alike, and it has

help to gather longterm statistics and recognize patterns in cru-

been exciting to see such progressive movement in this direc-

elty to animals.

tion over the past year.

As new legislation evolves to create individual reg-

However, as we watch the momentum behind legis-

istries for animal cruelty crimes, the need for standardization

lation for registries continue to build, we become increasingly

becomes glaringly apparent. Without standardization, each

concerned that what seems like a step forward might actually be

new registry will function as an autonomous entity, with no

a step backwards if the planning and technical execution of

possibility of data being cross-referenced or collated.

these registries are insufficiently considered.

Data from one regional database might never be com-

Pet-Abuse.Com was founded in 2001, and was the

pared to data from another region, or be added to an overall

first searchable database of criminal animal cruelty available on

database. In the long run, this not only means a loss of mean-

the internet. We made the conscious decision not to call our-

ingful statistics, but also splinters the information into dozens

selves a registry because the term registry implies that law

and eventually hundreds of individual databases, making it

enforcement agencies are required to report, and we felt that

nearly impossible for agencies to determine whether a suspect

was misleading to the public. There is still no true animal

has a previous animal cruelty conviction. It is challenging

abuse registry online as of October 2010.

enough to convince people to use one database, let alone

Websites that listed cruelty cases before we went

dozens.

online consisted of passionate-but-informal collections of sto-

Imagine there are 300 people in a room, each with a

ries presented in a flat HTML format that was neither search-

piece of a puzzle which, if completed, could lead to a signifi-

able nor standardized. Hundreds of cases were painstakingly

cant, quantifiable reduction in domestic abuse, gang activity,

catalogued by concerned members of the public, but were ulti-

and cruelty to animals. But each of those 300 people speaks a

mately meaningless to someone looking for very specific infor-

different language, and none can communicate with each other.

mation, or attempting to derive meaningful patterns and statis-

Now imagine that there was a way to provide a translator, a

tics from the incidents.

Rosetta Stone, that would allow everyone in that room to share

For many years Pet-Abuse.Com website users have

puzzle pieces without having to learn each others’ languages.

been able to search our archives by name, state, county, zip

That’s what standardizing this data would accomplish.

Individuals convicted of animal cruelty often change

locations, move to different counties and states, and even

move out of the country. Habitual offenders, the individuals

that animal cruelty case registries are most needed to track,

move the most frequently.

We understand that it is not the responsibility of a

state or county to maintain a national database. However,

agencies moving forward without a strong technical plan will in

effect be stepping backward in time nearly a decade.

We implore the lawmakers and agencies responsible

for proposing and creating these new registries to form a com-

mittee that sets a minimum standard for data collection and