Will Dogs in Need Get Billions From Leona Helmsley's Estate?
Things may be looking up for dogs in need! You may already know that Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her Maltese, when she passed away last August. But you may not know that she bequeathed nearly all of her remaining estate (an estimated $5 billion to $8 billion) to the care and welfare of dogs, as explained in a recent New York Times article. This is good news, if the money really goes to the dogs.
Now it is up to the trustees of the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, also the executors of her will, to properly allocate the money. Considerations include animal welfare groups, shelters, and veterinary schools. Beacause Mrs. Helmsley's will did not designate specific charities, the trustees must make some decisions. The question is: Will it all really go to dog-related charities? Where do you think this money should go?
Comments
The “other” beneficiary via the estate distribution should be directed for the reduction of the euthanization of pets for the many reasons that are prevelant today. A happy balance to be drawn between the euthanization timetables that exist today vs the harboring of these pets for adoption etc.
Wayne Pacelle of The Humane Society of the United States listed some ideas for the way the estate could be used on his blog yesterday. He said:
“Such an expenditure, if made wisely, has the potential to solve some of the major dog welfare problems in society, such as ending the needless euthanasia of millions of healthy and treatable animals in the United States, halting the scourge of puppy mills, the barbarism of organized dogfighting, and ending the mistreatment of dogs in the greyhound racing industry. It could also be used to find cures for medical problems for dogs or provide urgent care for suffering animals, or even disaster planning for people and their pets. If also put to use internationally, it can address these problems on a global scale, including the public health problems associated with free-roaming and unsocialized dog populations.”
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3674
July 3, 2008
Animal-Rights Money Grab Spells Trouble
Who knew Leona Helmsley, the legendary “Queen of Mean,” had a soft spot for dogs that measured eight billion dollars wide? And who could have guessed that there were people among us whose greed and cunning surpassed hers? As the executors of Helmsley’s gargantuan estate are about to find out, America’s two largest animal rights groups are drooling like Pavlovian mutts at the prospect of cashing in on a new cache of doggy dollars. And there is no worse place for a massive animal welfare endowment to wind up.
Helmsley’s money, which may amount to as much as $400 million in grants every year, “could make such a difference,” People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) president Ingrid Newkirk told the Associated Press yesterday.
[Newkirk] said at least 3 million dogs are put to death each year for lack of spay and neuter programs. “Many people cannot afford the surgery for their dogs,” she said.
Last year, PETA raised $30 million. With all of this money, it managed to spay or neuter just 6,341 dogs and cats. (PETA also killed 1,997 pets while finding adoptive homes for just 17.) This is an organization for whom fixing the pet overpopulation problem isn’t a top priority. It’s more interested in ending AIDS research, demonizing carnivores, and targeting children for vegetarian indoctrination. If the executors of Helmsley’s estate were looking for a place to invest pet-protection dollars, they could hardly do worse.
Unless, of course, they considered the record of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Here’s HSUS president Wayne Pacelle’s wish-list for the money, as he explained to Britain’s Press Association:
“You could solve the pet overpopulation problem. You could attack dogfighting. You could attack rabies in China and India, where there are tens of thousands of cases a year. You could take care of dogs left behind in disasters.”
Let’s see … Pet overpopulation? Probably best solved by the people who run hands-on pet shelters. And despite its name, the Humane Society of the United States doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.
Dogfighting? Already illegal, and HSUS has already misled the public with dogfighting-related fundraising.
China and India? Not exactly the purview of the Humane Society of the United States.
Pets left behind in disasters? The last “big one,” Hurricane Katrina, netted HSUS more than $32 million in fundraising, and an investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General has focused on where that money actually went. (We still don’t know.)
Pacelle also hinted in a press release yesterday that enriching HSUS with Helmsley’s money would help ensure needy dog and cat shelters get the funds they desperately need:
“While there are 10,000 or so humane organizations in this country, many are poorly funded and overwhelmed by the daily burdens they face. Robust giving by Helmsley’s trustees can remedy this problem, and in a major way.”
Robust giving, yes. But not to HSUS. A look at the group’s latest federal income tax return and some quick math suggests that less than five percent of its budget found its way to actual “humane societies”
and other shelters—the very organizations many of HSUS’s donors believe they are actually supporting with their contributions.
Here’s a modest proposal for the Helmsley estate: Establish a new national Humane Society, an umbrella group devoted solely to distributing money to local pet shelters. No stealth campaigns aimed at winning legal “rights” for chimps, cows, and elephants. Just a real national Humane Society. We’ve had a pretend one for years. Maybe it’s time for the real thing.
I believe that some of that fortune should go to breed specific rescue groups across the country. The rest should go to the Humane Society.
http://www.indianaigrescue.com/
Why not have the money go to required full disclosure on dog foods and elimination of pictures not presenting actual items in the dog food.
The Humane society routinely sends us e-mails requesting donations. We prefer to spend our money by taking in three rescues in addition to our two dogs, both of which were the offspring of a pregnant stray.
Our local animal shelter only takes strays from inside the city limits and not the rest of the county unless they are abuse cases. We have one of those, and two more dogs who were abandoned in our neighborhood to fend for themselves.
We are all now a happy ‘pack of seven’ including my husband and myself. All my ‘furry kids’ have been spayed and neutered, eat the best quality dog food, and have the run of the house, including the furniture.
I believe some of the money should go towards enacting laws requiring the licensing, microchipping, spaying and neutering of all pets. Additional money should be set aside for programs to assist in the cost of the sterilizations.
Funding should be set aside for research on the health problems and medical treatment of dogs. Foster homes for homeless dogs should get funding for the dogs’ medical treatment.
Using dogs for product research that causes the injury and/or death of the dogs should be made a felony, with stiff fines and inprisonment. People who participate in dogfighting should be put to death.
Leona Helmsley may have been considered by many to be the ‘queen of mean’, but I believe she was an intelligent woman, due to the fact that dogs will never stab you in the back like a human would. Love of a dog is unconditional.
I have four rescued dogs, one rescued cat. I agree that alot needs to be done to educate humans on their responsibility to the care of these and other animals, and that needs alot of money to do but am absolutely appalled that the law, a judge, or anyone else could override my will and take away my money and rights to do with it as I wish. I earned my money, no one else. I have the right to spend it as I see fit, no one else. Many people may not agree with my judgement style but our differences is what makes the world go round. Whether someone is mean or not, irrelevant, rich or poor, irrelevant, famous or not, irrelevant. The point is, that the only thing we could count on in this world happening besides dying, was that our last will and testatment would be upheld not only by law but of moral respect to the dead. Think of it this way, let me come to your house and divide all your belongings and money to anyone I want to. You would call me a thief and have me locked up. It’s down right dirty to do it after someone is dead. Oh, that’s it, it’s okay to do this after your dead? Let me divide your belongings after your dead, I won’t go to jail? This Hemsley will override has made me rethink my own will. I am not wealthy, but I’ll burn everything I own including my money before I’ll let any judgemental, mealy mouth, money grubbing, liberal jackass takes my rights way.
Good thing? Are you serious?. They are DOGS! Fine and dandy to help and all, but $8,000,000,000 is insane. This is absolutely sick. Think of what that money could do for the poor of the world that don’t even have access to clean water. This woman (and any who actually think this is “good”) are mentally ill. Period.
Taking care of animals is fine, I guess, but my greater concern would be for children who are at risk, physically or emotionally. Since when did dogs become more important than people, anyway. Maybe she had some bad experiences with people, but maybe she, selfish as she was, gave some bad experiences to others as well.