We received this e-mail from Rich Pearson, treasurer of Volunteers for Animals, in regards to the story we published April 12 about trapping and treating Batavia's community cats.
I wish to clarify some of the points presented in your recent article on trapping and treating cats under the city's program. I am not sure how Ms. DiFante came to receive the information for this article but this is a completely inaccurate account of recent events. This implication of the article is that the City was involved in this operation.
Ms. DiFante presents this as proof that the city's program is actively working to control the community cat problem. This is not at all true. Two volunteers from Volunteers for Animals initiated the assessment of this particular situation and arranged for spaying/ neutering and vaccinating these cats. Ms. DiFante, Mr. Sheflin and Ms. Brade were not consulted or involved in this issue. There was no coordination requested from nor provided by the city.
The funds to pay for vetting these cats came from Volunteers for Animals community spay/neuter efforts. VFA has been awarded a grant through the ASPCA to cover spay/neuter of pets belonging to low-income families and through a donation from an individual, VFA provides low-cost spay/neuter of pets belonging to families who don't qualify for the ASPCA grant but need some assistance with the cost of the surgery.
Almost all of the information given to you regarding this incident was incorrect, including the location and number of cats. It is correct that all of the cats were treated at State Street Animal Hospital.
The VFA is committed to the spay/neuter of pets and we have spent a great deal of time and effort and have committed volunteers who devote a great deal of personal time to this endeavor. While the city is attempting to use our results to show that they are doing something, the bottom line is that apparently the city has no grant writers who can apply for the grants ASPCA does have for spay/neuter of feral colonies. The VFA actively promotes spay neuter programs while the city flounders in discussions and releases inaccurate press releases.
For the original post, click here.
Everyone notice the operative
Everyone notice the operative word in this response, "grant". A grant is money that is given by the government, and I hope we all know where the government gets their money.
Brian. From Wikipedia:
Brian. From Wikipedia:
"Grants are non-repayable funds or products disbursed by one party (grant makers), often a government department, corporation, foundation or trust, to a recipient, ..."
So, no, grants don't always originate from the government.
I believe there were two
I believe there were two operative words: "grant" and "ASPCA." The ASPCA is not a government agency; it is a private non-profit which derives its revenue from charitable donations.
Waiting, now, for a possible
Waiting, now, for a possible explanation of the seeming difference in the two "stories".
Care to comment, Ms. DiFante, Mr. Sheflin and/or Ms. Brade?
Meanwhile, if someone could let me know what kind of "coats" the captured cats had, I could give my fashion statement. Certainly don't want to disappoint Teri.
Can you believe they wear fur
Can you believe they wear fur?
Well, the simple quoting of
Well, the simple quoting of Wikipedia garnered the highest # of thumbs-up... and a deficient claim that ASPCA is not a government agency gets the next best... ?
To continue with Wikipedia:
"grants most often come from a wide range of government departments or an even wider range of public... trusts and foundations. According to the Foundation Center these trusts and foundations number in excess of 88,000 and disperse in excess of $40 billion every year. Trusts and Foundations are a little more complex to research..."
So obviously none of use know for sure... BUT I'd bet money that funding for ASPCA indirectly comes from taxpayers.
Brian, the point of the
Brian, the point of the article was that the city of Batavia was not involved in the operation.
As far as the ASPCA goes, it actually relies on public donations. Which, I suppose you could argue, if any of those donors are public servants in any way, then it is supported very very very indirectly by your tax dollars.
Brian. From http://www.aspca
Brian. From http://www.aspca.org/about-us
"We are a privately funded 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, and are proud to boast more than 2 million supporters across the country."
I'm not going to get into what a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation is. If you wish to look that up, you are capable, I believe.
As for ASPCA being, or not being, supported by taxpayers, I'm not willing to bet any money either way.
MOST people, outside of little children, are taxpayers, in one way or another. Even people on welfare, though they rarely, if ever, pay income tax, they do pay taxes on many items (be it a bottle of soda, candy bar, box of pencils, etc.). Therefore, yes, I will concede that taxpayers are (most likely) paying for ASPCA.
You win!
From the VFA website it
From the VFA website it states: ""We work in partnership with the Genesee County Animal Shelter." Granted that does not prove they get any financial help from taxpaid money...but if they get any service from the GCAS is that not at taxpayers expense?
As for the implication that a 501(c)(3) does not get taxpayer funding... here's another 501(c)(3) not-for-profit operation... the GRCTF [Greater Rochester Community Transportation Foundation] which is an extension of RGRTA [Rochester Genesee Regional Transportation Authority]. Where do you think the bulk of funding for this "public transportation" operation comes from?
http://www.myrts.com/GRCTF