Aye Yi Yi! Airlifted California Chihuahuas Encounter (Some) Turbulence Upon Arrival in New York

The January 6th red-carpet arrival of 15 shelter Chihuahuas from California to the ASPCA in New York has generally been proclaimed a good thing by most of the mainstream press thus far, but some animal welfare advocates are silently snarling.


Perhaps the most vocal of those questioning the now-herald migration of the Chihuahuas--who arrived from the West Coast in movie star style at JFK Airport on Virgin America's tab--is Ada Nieves, head of the 750-plus member New York City Chihuahua Meetup Group.


"Help has no boundaries," Ms. Nieves, well known in the New York City small dog community as a high-end dog clothing designer, party planner, and overall cheerleader of all things Chihuahua. "New York City is a very caring city, however, I'm very disappointed in the way California is handling their so-called 'surplus' of dogs, specifically Chihuahuas." Ms. Nieves is also a Small Dog Scene columnist at the online Examiner news site and host of 'Vida Doggie' on Pet Life Radio.


Take My Pitbull, Please
New York City's own shelter system is overflowing with large-breed dogs; Pit Bulls and pit-bull mixes make up a sizable number of them. In addition to what some call the 'bad rap' Pit Bulls have as vicious, unpredictable dogs, many apartments in New York City impose weight restrictions on dogs residents may own--weight restrictions pit bulls and other large breeds easily exceed. Other buildings flatly refuse to permit Pit Bulls or mixes, period, even though the legality of such specific breed bans in New York is sketchy. Recent New York City Housing Authority restrictions on dog ownership may have further exacerbated the problem even more, with residents surrendering their dogs for fear of losing their subsidized apartments.


"California claims bigger dogs get homes faster than small dogs," Ms. Nieves says. "In that case, let's do a swap. We have a large amount of [pit bulls] in our city shelters. So, California, give us your Chihuahuas, and please, take our Pit Bulls. They are wonderful dogs and hey, they are big!"


Supply and Demand -- Doggie Style

But dog-trading is not that simple, says ASPCA senior vice president Gail Buchwald, who reports the phone has been 'ringing off the hook' since the California Chihuahuas arrived. Ms Buchwald's public comments that New York City "never [has] enough supply for the huge consumer demand for small dogs" raised more than a few eyebrows, but she steadfastly stood by her comments in an exclusive interview with New York Tails Magazine.


"It's easy for people on the outside to become confused as to why we're transporting dogs across the country to be adopted here," Ms. Buchwald says. "But it's the basic business model of supply-and-demand. If there is a tremendous demand for small dogs in our part of the country, and our shelters are filled with Pit Bulls, people who are in the market for a Chihuahua are not going to adopt a Pit Bull. Believe me, we've tried."


Before the arrival of the 15 Chihuahuas from San Francisco Animal Care and Control there was nary a Chihuahua to be found at the ASPCA, but plenty of Pit Bulls. "We promote adoption for our many fine, wonderful Pit Bulls waiting for homes, but nobody's coming," according to Ms. Buchwald. She points out the Agency has had more success in rescuing Pit Bulls in other ways, including helping to break up a large, multi-state fighting ring this past summer.


Critics should view the transport of the Chihuahuas to New York as a way to discourage people here from buying them from pet stores or 'puppy mills', Ms. Buchwald says. "We recognized their was a demand for Chihuahuas in our part of the country. If we were to say it doesn't make sense to bring them here, we would be, in essence, be saying we'd rather have people go to pet stores to get them. We have to face that reality."


A 'swap' of sorts of New York's surplus Pit Bulls for California's Chihuahuas had been discussed between New York and California animal adoption advocates, but was rejected. "We did ask this question," Ms. Buchwald says. "My thought was the Chihuahuas had 'replaced' California's own Pit Bull problem, but the answer was no."


Puppies and Photo Ops -- Not Only In New York
Transporting what are perceived to be more 'desirable' dogs from one part of the country to another is not uncommon here, and for the media it's an easy, feel-good photo op. The North Shore Animal League in Port Washington, Long Island, often brings in puppies and other 'rescue dogs' from other states, especially the South. Even the transport of Chihuahuas specifically from California to the East Coast is not without precedent. About a month ago, "Grey's Anatomy" actress Katherine Heigl financed a flight for 25 California Chihuahuas to Nashua, New Hampshire. All were adopted within hours of their arrival.


These arguments don't sway people like Ms. Nieves, who maintains these much-publicized Chihuahua transports generate lots publicity--and money--for the groups and businesses involved. Such money and resources could be better spent strengthening anti 'puppy mill' laws and improving shelter conditions in the dogs' home states, including educating people on responsible pet ownership. The latter point was recently addressed in a rare New York Times editorial about animals. In part, the editorial described Chihuahuas as "little handbag companions [that can be] nervous, yappy, fragile", and prone to an array of health problems.


So long as city folks want Chihuahuas and someone is willing to foot the airfare, the ASPCA intends on keeping them coming. "We sincerely hope to do more transports in the future. Even more importantly, we hope breeders will stop breeding over zealously and over-optimistically. But as long as there is a problem, we will help."

Who's Money Is It Anyway? Helmsely Fortune Challenged By Animal Groups

Don't have time to write a full, flavorful commentary for you guys just this minute, guys, but I just got back from the press conference with the Big Three (Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA and Maddie's Fund) of the animal welfare/rescue/adoption universe vs. the Leona Helmsley estate. Let's just say it's on now, baby.
Here's what the Helmsley trustees say:
http://www.helmsleytrust.org/news/message-trustees/
Choice excerpts (again, this is what the Trustees say, you can look for yourself on the website)
Did Leona Helmsley intend for this charitable trust to focus on the care and help of dogs, rather than people? Absolutely not. Have the trustees of this vast fortune acted improperly and ignored Mrs. Helmsley's instructions? Again, absolutely not.
Later on...
One final thought. Mrs. Helmsley was not known for reticence. Here, her actions spoke as clearly as the words of the Trust documents. In the eight years between the formation of the Trust and her death, Mrs. Helmsley contributed (as the sole trustee of this Trust and otherwise) over $55 million to charitable causes; of that amount, she made only one gift to a dog-related charity, for one thousand dollars.
And:
Even more telling is this: The claim that the Trust was established for dog-related purposes relies on a document entitled "Mission Statement" signed by Mrs. Helmsley in 2004. Between her signing that document and her death – during which time she alone controlled the Trust – Mrs. Helmsley and the Trust gave over $29 million to charities; of that, the amount she and the Trust gave to dog-related charities was exactly zero.

In other words, what I think they're trying to say is they're doing as she did, not as she said--in her will, anyway.

ASPCA (100K); Canine Companions for Independence (100K); Canine Partners for Life ($100K); Dogs for the Deaf ($100K); Guide Dogs for the Blind (100K); Guiding Eyes for the Blind (Yorktown Heights, NY) 100K; Leader Dogs for the Blind (100K); National Education for Assistance Dog Services (100K); Puppied Behind Bars (100K, New York); The Seeing Eye (Morristown, NJ) 100K.

Below is the press release the Big Three issued, and in general it captures what was said at the press conference today. However--and again, I apologize for not having time right now to write a comprehensive story on the notes I took--they left out a lot of juicy bits. For example, the lawyers for the Big Three pretty much accused the Trustees, in part, as a type of 'sex discrimination' against the wishes of rich women like Ms. Helmsley who have asked for substantial amounts of money to be left to animals, and they cited several examples. (I have to admit this is the first time I've ever heard of someone trying to make an argument that rich, primarily white women are the victims of discrimination. Somehow I think that particular argument is going to be a tough row to hoe.) They also described the Trustees, several times, as having 'disdain' for animal welfare causes.

Anyway, take a look, let me know what YOU think. I stick to my original assessment, which was also echoed in the press conference today--that this has the potential to set precedents on how people's monies are distributed after they die, especially if they are left to 'unconventional' charities, like animal welfare causes.

LANDMARK HELMSLEY LEGAL TRUST CHALLENGE BY AMERICA'S THREE PRE-EMINENT ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS (press release issued by Maddie's Fund)

HSUS, ASPCA, and Maddie's Fund Charge That Helmsley Trustees Are Misdirecting Funds Despite Clear Direction from Late Heiress to Help Dogs

NEW YORK (Aug. 11, 2009) -- Three of the country's most prominent animal welfare organizations -- in what they are terming the most significant financial litigation in animal welfare history -- have filed suit in New York's Surrogate Court to intervene in the matter of Leona Helmsley's $5 billion estate.
The groups are seeking to force the Helmsley Trustees to follow Mrs. Helmsley's expressed intent to help dogs. According to the groups, less than $100,000 of the initial $136 million Helmsley grants have gone to dog welfare.
"Mrs. Helmsley's Trust Agreement was clear: Help dogs. And the Trustees have not done this, and instead pursued their own agendas with Mrs. Helmsley's money," said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. "Every person with a will or estate, and every charity that relies on bequest income, should be profoundly concerned about this misdirection of funds."
The three organizations believe that State Attorneys General have a responsibility to protect the wishes of any heir or heiress, and also to protect the entire charitable sector from the whims of trustees who wish to ignore detailed and unambiguous estate planning instructions. In this case, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo failed in his charge to protect these interests.
"Literally hundreds of millions of dollars that have been willed by people nationally, who cared about dogs, have not gone to provide for dogs as was intended," said Rich Avanzino, president of Maddie's Fund. "The ignoring of donor intent in this country has become an unspoken national shame.
With $5 billion at stake this is a game changer. We want to work with the Helmsley trustees to arrive at a figure that is consistent with Mrs. Helmsley's intentions and would change injustices in dog care and welfare overnight.
For instance, even a small fraction of this money makes it possible to virtually empty all animal shelters in America of dogs without homes."
"There has been a sea change in recent years in how we treat animals and the Helmsley trustees don't understand that change," said Ed Sayres, president and CEO of the ASPCA. "Mrs. Helmsley understood the importance of animal welfare and was determined to help. She had a vision for her worldly estate to make our society a better place for dogs and animals, and consequently, people. We want that noble cause to go forward. Dogs give us so much in our lives, and the least we can do is make sure they are not harmed, exploited, or neglected, and the Helmsley estate allows us to do so. It is not an overstatement to say that the fate of dogs in this country could very well rest on the decision of this lawsuit."
The trustees went to court last fall to invalidate Mrs. Helmsley's express wishes, asking the Court to declare that they "are not bound by the expression of Decedent's wishes...."
The Trustees disregarded Mrs. Helmsley's wishes and obtained court sanction for doing so. The process deprived the parties most affected by their decision -- dog welfare charities -- of any fair opportunity to have a say on the issue. Neither the Trustees nor the Attorney General contacted any of these three nonprofit organizations, which are widely recognized as the leading advocates for dog welfare in the country if not the world -- or any other organization that might speak up on behalf of the charitable community that Mrs. Helmsley had a right to expect would receive "special emphasis" in the Trustees' grant-making.
After a judicial ruling without hearing from the only charitable category of recipients specifically listed in Mrs. Helmsley's mission statement, the trustees distributed the initial round of grants from Mrs. Helmsley's trust, blatantly disregarding Mrs. Helmsley's express wishes. The trustees allocated less than .1 percent to dog welfare charities.
"These three leading organizations tried to reach an amicable solution with the trustees; unfortunately, the trustees were unwilling to discuss this with us. Now these organizations are forced to resort to litigation to correct this abuse," Pacelle said. They have filed a motion to intervene and vacate the initial order.

Wave of Dog Surrenders Possible In Wake of NYCHA Dog Breed/Weight Ban

Some city public housing residents are already finding themselves entangled in eviction proceedings since a rule banning Pit Bulls, Rottweilers and Dobermans, and any dog over 25 pounds, was enacted May 1st.

"The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) has commenced tenancy eviction termination proceedings against [some] residents, although we don't know how many at this point," Debora Bresch, legislative liaison in government relations for the ASPCA says. "We do know that NYCHA residents have relinquished a number of dogs since April '09, some explicitly because of the pet policy." Other residents may have relinquished their newly-banned dogs for the same reason without expressly stating so at the time of surrender, Ms. Bresch says. "Of course, the dogs belonging to residents against whom proceedings have been initiated are at risk - as is any dog in violation of the policy."

The percentage of dogs who may find themselves back in the shelter system after having found homes with families who live in public housing may quickly reach the double-digits if early numbers obtained by New York Tails staff are any indication. Six percent of all dogs available for adoption from Animal Care and Control were adopted by public housing residents between January and April of this year, according to the ASPCA's preliminary count, approximately 172 dogs in total. Under the NYCHA housing rule, 107 of these 172 dogs are not supposed to be there, making them at risk for being returned back into the shelter system. Additionally, the rule states only one dog or one cat is allowed per apartment.

Memos informing tenants of their rights and ways they might be able to keep their pets are available at city shelters in the hopes they might prevent some surrenders. However, in an effort to reach people before they've brought an animal to the surrender point, the ASPCA and others are working with grass-roots organizations and local community groups to distribute the memos throughout public housing residences. Efforts are underway to translate the memos into Spanish, Chinese, and Russian and to publish them in respective foreign language newspapers. A copy of the memo can be found here: http://www.aspca.org/aspca-nyc/nycha-tenants-rights.html. "The purpose of the memo is to help guide residents through these adversarial proceedings," Ms. Bresch says.


Please check back often as New York Tails Magazine continues our in-depth coverage of this story.