ASPCA gives only 2% of its budget to pet shelters

Do you donate to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals thinking that they fund pet shelters and adoption centers? Think again, they pay themselves massive salaries and spend their money going after farmers. It seems they also sell pet insurance which appears to be practically useless according to the report.

Link

A think tank released a new bombshell report this week revealing that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals only provides 2% of its total budget to pet shelters throughout the United States, despite having hundreds of millions of dollars and providing many employees with six-figure salaries.

According to CEW, the ASPCA's most recent tax filings revealed that the nonprofit had $390 million in revenue and $575 million in assets, including roughly $11 million in offshore Caribbean accounts.

"The same filings show that only about 2% of the ASPCA's budget is given as grants to community pet shelters," CEW reported.

The report alleged that 259 ASPCA employees made six-figure incomes, including the organization's CEO, Matt Bershadker, who made $856,785.

Despite its misleading name, the ASPCA only operates one animal adoption center and is not affiliated with local SPCAs, CEW stated.

environmentandwelfare.com...

Most people think the ASPCA is about dogs and cats. But the ASPCA has increasingly become a radical
animal liberation organization. Hiding behind its undeserved reputation, the organization has utilized
unethical financial schemes to boost its bottom line and pay its executives huge salaries.

Hoarding Money While Shelter Pets Die

While nearly 1 million animals are euthanized each year in the U.S., the ASPCA is paying its executives huge
salaries and sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars–including millions socked away in the Caribbean.

Numerous clients of the ASPCA pet insurance have complained that the program is a ripoff. Out of 280
reviews on Yelp, 222 were for one-star out of five–with several reviewers wishing they could give zero stars.
Denials of coverage for “pre-existing condition(s)” are allegedly common.

$9.3 Million Racketeering Settlement

In 2012, the ASPCA paid $9.3 million to settle a racketeering and fraud lawsuit filed against it. The lawsuit
alleged that the ASPCA and other activist groups engaged in a scheme to pursue frivolous litigation
against the owner of the Ringling Bros. circus. The court found that the key witness for the animal rights
activists was “essentially a paid plaintiff” and “not credible,” and dismissed the ASPCA’s claims.
Few charities have faced a lawsuit under the RICO Act, a federal law passed to combat the mafia. But the
ASPCA has, and paid $9.3 million to settle it.

About twenty two years ago my stepfather had a standing donation on his checking account...only two bucks a month. He died and I called repeatedly to get it taken off so we could close the account but they would not stop it. So since I was handling the estate I put a stop order at the bank and did some investigation into it's use of the donations. At that time it spent most of it's money on salaries of high paid office people and also quite a bit on advertising with networks. I showed the info to my mother before stopping the payment and it upset her. I think back then it was about two percent that actually went to helping animals too.

I do not know how that charity is allowed to exist in this country, they seem to cause chaos more than anything else. I have always tried to support the local animal shelter and knew some of the people working and running the place personally. The Humane society here was a really good thing, they were concerned about animals but did not trash people and farmers like some of the agencies did that destroyed people's lives because they would not take a very old family pet to the vet to get put down. We will not have our animals put down at the vet, we want to spend time with them at the end of their lives. Most of our cats lived way longer than average.

We have a gold fish that for ten months cannot float up right, it must have ruptured it's swim bladder. My kids and grandkids think it is cruel to keep it alive, yet that gold fish does not agree with them. We feed it and talk to it and I try to hold it in my hand a few times a week and bring it to the surface so it feels better. It is inconvenienced, but it is ok and has been that way since late June last year. It is used to being disabled.

I sure hope if I get a little crippled that my kids and grandkids do not kill me to reduce my suffering...I lost a little trust in them over this gold fish. My brother and I took care of my mother after her stroke, we did not stick her into a nursing home. She found god and her attitude was good but she did suffer a bit. She went into a nursing home for two months and wanted out so we took her home with us for about a year and a half till she finally died because she got liver cancer. I feel good that she came and lived with us and that goldfish will have plenty of food till it dies too. Now one of these agencies would probably say that keeping it alive is cruelty to animals....the goldfish would disagree.

You would think there would be legal standards for charities that a specific amount of a donation goes to their cause. Whatever that stated cause may be. And said minimum should be around 60% to 80% of the donations.

Though I imagine that's the reason some politicians in the US create "foundations" though. So those who want to influence them can contribute to the foundation and the politicians can get the cash via salaries. And as the article the OP is referencing to political action committees masquerading as charities.

As this BLM cartoon shows.