Why do so many seem so unconcerned that fake litigation was ginned up and used to make money in the name of “charity”?
Two conclusions are inescapable:
1) The average donor to one of these charities has no idea her hard-earned dollars are being used to fund these anti-corporate campaigns, the purpose of which is to deny ordinary people an opportunity they’d never have otherwise: to view these majestic animals up close, in a safe, controlled environment. How many puppies, kittens, and abandoned adult animals could have been spayed, provided shelter and medical attention, and adopted to loving homes for $200,000? Quite a few, according to my favorite animal charity in Washington, the Washington Animal Rescue League (WARL.org), from which my family has adopted two angelic dogs.
2) These self-proclaimed “animal rights advocates” don’t really care about animals. If they did, how could they justify burdening Feld Entertainment to the tune of $22 million with ill-founded litigation? That’s money that Ringling Bros. could have spent attending to its Asian elephants and stable of other fine animals. Ringling Bros. has an obvious incentive, as well as a long-established track record, of actually caring for and maintaining its elephant population.
ASPCA reportedly has assets of more than $400 million, raising more than $111 million in cash in 2011 alone. Its co-defendants — equally ferocious in their battle to destroy the family-owned and much beloved Barnum & Bailey Circus — are similarly well endowed. Isn’t it time charitable, animal-loving Americans (and a newly augmented IRS staff) took a closer look at the non-profits that purport to represent their interests? In this economy, and with their as-yet-undetermined tax increase looming, how can they afford not to?
Buckley Carlson, a Washington-based writer and political strategist, can be reached at Buckley@buckmedia.org.