ASPA: From Animal Protection to Animal Extermination

ASPA: From Animal Protection to Animal Extermination

Quelle/Sourdce: Occupy for Animals

Preamble

On June 30, 2010 the Council of the General City Hall of Bucharest decides to form ‘Autoritatea pentru Supravegherea si Protectia Animalelor (ASPA) by their Decision H.C.G.M.B. nr. 117/30.06.2010 privind înfiinţarea Autorităţii pentru Supravegherea şi Protecţia Animalelor Bucureşti – ASPA şi Aprobarea organigramei numărului total de posturi, statului de funcţii şi regulamentului de organizare şi funcţionare ale acestei instituţii publice [1]

According to the Council of the General City Hall of Bucharest’s Decision 117/2010, ASPA is a new organization which replaces the former Administratia pentru Supravegherea Cainilor fara Stapan Bucuresti (ASCSB; The Administration for the Stray Dogs Supervision of Bucharest), it has its own juridical personality, and will be financed with funds from the local state and local revenue budgets (Article 1 and Article 2 of the Decision 117/30.06.2010).

According to the above mentioned decision, is stated that the personnel of ASPA is employed based upon an examination or a competition. [Article 7 (1) of the Decision 117/30.06.2010] Later in this document it will be shown how the Director and Vice-director of ASPA were employed disregarding these rules of employment.

Taspabadhe main objective of newly formed ASPA – according to Decision 117/30.06.2010, Art. 4 (1) is:

“periodic census of companion animals of Bucharest, implementation of the necessary measures for stopping the abandonment of the animals, sanitary-veterinary management of all stray animals and assurance of the conditions to resolve the sanitary-veterinary emergency cases and situations, monitor the application of and compliance with the animal protection existing laws in Bucharest.”

Previously, the Council of the General City Hall of Bucharest, through the Administration for the Stray Dogs Supervision of Bucharest (ASCSB), was dealing with the management of stray animals. According to the Decision 243/June 30, 2009, the Council’s and ASCSB’s objectives and duties were specified as following:

Article 1. Council of the General City Hall of Bucharest, through the Administration for the Stray Dogs Supervision of Bucharest (ASCSB) will create, from public funds, according to the necessities, public shelters for the captured dogs, in the view of their sterilization, and for the lost abandoned or left without an owner, after the death of the owner, for confiscated dogs or for those who, based on different reasons, cannot survive without assistance.

Article 3 (1) a) the Administration for the Stray Dogs Supervision will capture and transport the dogs, by non-traumatizing means, using its qualified employees and its vehicles […] to its shelters.

b) The following dog’s categories will not be captured:
1. The puppies younger than 6 months of age excepting those who need assistance/urgent treatment;

c) The following dog’s categories will not be sterilized:
1. lactating females;
2. dogs whose health status is not permitting the medical intervention; […]

The main question is why one authority (ASCSB) has been replaced with another one (ASPA)?

“The personnel of ASPA are employed based upon an examination or a competition […]” (Article 7 (1) of the Decision 117/30.06.2010): How True is This?

Several individuals were employed in ASPA’s managerial key positions:

– Bogdan Treeroiu, as Director;
– Răzvan Băncescu, as Project Coordinator,
– and later, designated by Treeroiu, as the spokesperson of ASPA;
– and Claudiu Ancuţa, in a managerial position

At the order of Sorin Mircea Oprescu, the Mayor of Bucharest, these three individuals were employed at Bucharest’s public transportation company (RATB) while awaiting their transfer at ASPA.

Bogdan Treeroiu is the godson of Oprescu. Treeroiu after being accountant for ten days at RATB (Autobaza Obregia) was transferred to ASPA as Director, replacing Robert Lorentz. Treeroiu’s transfer Decision 328/01.04.2013 was singned by Oprescu [2]

Răzvan Băncescu and Claudiu Ancuţa were also employed to RATB as ticket controllers and soon after that they were transferred to ASPA. The transfer of these two individuals has been ordered by Sorin Mircea Oprescu after he removed them from the previous managerial team. The Anti-corruption National Department (DNA) highlighted in a later investigation that the transfer of these unqualified individuals has been requested by Oprescu based on the fact that the “acute lack of personnel” is hindering the ASPA’s activity. [3] [4]

Although the municipality has been questioned several times with regard to how these individuals were employed at ASPA, no answer was given by the city authorities. Inside sources from RATB declared that both Răzvan Băncescu and Claudiu Ancuţa submitted requests for being employed by RATB and the director of RATB has been requested to employ them for a short period of time based on the fact they will be quickly transferred to ASPA. The mayor of Bucharest, Sorin Oprescu, has been also asked by one of the counselors of Bucharest, Silviu Văduva, to present the official decisions for employing and delegating Bogdan Treeroiu, Răzvan Băncescu, and Claudiu Ancuţa in managerial positions of ASPA but no answer was provided at that time. [5]

Later it has been shown by the Anti-corruption National Department (DNA) that Treeroiu delegated Băncescu and Ancuţa to occupy managerial positions and to perform managerial activities although they have only high school diploma. Treeroiu delegated Băncescu as vice-director of ASPA (Decision 38/11.06.2013) and delegated Ancuţa to perform managerial activities (Decision 18/10.04.2013). According to DNA, these decisions are illegal; the Labor laws and also the Decision 117/30.06.2010 forbid the individuals without higher education in the requested field to occupy managerial positions. This shows clearly that the city hall, Sorin Oprescu, as Mayor, and Treeroiu were eluding the laws when Băncescu and Ancuţa were named in managerial positions within ASPA. [6]

Răzvan Băncescu has a long history of “collaboration” with Oprescu. Initially, Băncescu has been Commercial Director of Academica Medical Center, the medical clinique funded in 2011 and administred by Oprescu along with his son and his brother. Răzvan Băncescu appears at different medical events as Commercial Director and representative of the Oprescu’s medical clinique. [7]

In 2012, Băncescu volunteered in the re- election campaign of Oprescu as a Mayor of Bucharest. Oprescu stated that Băncescu realized himself a project for the management of the stray dogs in Bucharest and due to this project Oprescu decided to employ Băncescu at ASPA. [8]

ASPA: A long list of illegalities in a short time

The waste of public funds and the failure of spay and neuter program

Over the years, ASPA’s budget has been quite generous.[9] For example, ASPA got:

in 2010 – 1.726.000 RON (approx. 410.000 Euro)
in 2011 – 4.647.000 RON (approx. 1.1 million Euro)
in 2012 – 4.288.000 RON (approx. 1 million Euro)

In 2013, ASPA received a budget of 18,6 million RON (approximately 4,2 million Euros).

Theoretically, the funds have to be spent mostly for:

“periodic census of companion animals of Bucharest, implementation of the necessary measures for stopping the abandonment of the animals, sanitary-veterinary management of all stray animals and assurance of the conditions to resolve the sanitary-veterinary emergency cases and situations, monitor the application of and compliance with the animal protection existing laws in Bucharest.”

[Decision 117/30.06.2010, Art. 4 (1)]. As stated before, these are the main objectives of ASPA.

However, until the end of August 2013, ASPA spent only 2,8 million RON (approximately 600.000 Euro) out of their total budget of 18,6 million RON. Out of this sum, for spay and neutering, were spent only 170.000 RON (approx. 37.000 Euro) and for food for dogs: 70.000 lei (approx. 15.500 Euro).

The rest of the money was spent as following:

– Construction of the Mihailesti public shelter: 854.000 RON (approximately 189.000 Euro);

– Salaries and taxes: 628.000 RON (approximately 139.000 Euro);
Rents and administrative spending: 222.000 RON (approximately 49.000 Euro);

– Gasoline (between January and august 2013): 22.000 RON (approx. 4800 Euro) for the three APAS’ vans;

– Electricity, water and heat: 162.000 RON (36.000 Euro);

– Internet and phone: 40.000 RON (approx. 8800 Euro); and
Other goods and services: 7.7 million RON (approx. 1.711.111 Euro)

All these sums were spent although the public shelters were almost empty. The authorities were unable to explain what are the “other goods and services” and Oprescu agreed on that the ASPA’s accountancy system has to be checked sometimes. [10] [11]

Altough the spaying and neutering was meant to be the major goal of ASPA, the spending for this activity represented only 6% of the 2,8 million RON budget until end of August 2013 whereas the spending with the salaries are almost four times more, respectively 22,4%.

Upon reviewing how the ASPA’s budget has been spent, it becomes obvious that spay and neutering of the stray dogs is the last thing on ASPA’s list. In 2013, the average cost for spay and neutering a dog has been 120 lei (approx. 26 Euros) [12]. It means that, with 170.000 LEI, in the first 8 months of 2013, ASPA spayed and neutered only 1.416 dogs although they had a budget of 18,6 million lei at their disposal. For comparison, it is worth mention that in the same year, 2013, Vier Pfoten alone spayed and neutered a number of 300 dogs, using their own funds. [13] Overall, if NGOs’ efforts are taken into account, it results that a maximum of 5,000 stray dog were spayed and neutered in this period.

Interestingly, in September 2013, Oprescu declared for mass-media that ASPA spayed and neutered 25,000 dogs in 2012 and 11.000 dogs in 2013 !!! [14]

On the other hand, another mass-media source declared that according to ASPA’s official data, the situation of the stray dogs was different: 40,000 dogs were already spayed and neutered (out of a total of 64.704 stray dogs) at a rate of 30 dogs/day and at a price of 80 RON/dog [15]

In another report from 2011, Robert Lorentzy, ASPA manager at the time stated that there were 50,000 dogs in the streets of Bucharest, where 40,000 were sterilized! [16] “Directorul Autorităţii pentru Supraveghere şi Protecţia Animalelor (ASPA), Robert Lorentza precizat că, la ora actuală, în Capitală sunt aproximativ 50.000 de câini fără stăpân, 40.000 dintre aceştia fiind deja sterilizaţi.”

This huge discrepancy between the allocated budget and the actual spending on spay and neutering of the stray dogs depicts the waste of the public money by ASPA. In fact, it seems that most of the money is given on salaries to office employees and on other office items instead on spaying and neutering as a method to control the stray dogs population [17]

Under these circumstances, a justified question can be asked:

How does the General City Hall of Bucharest, the mayor of Bucharest, Mr. Sorin Oprescu and ASPA expect to have results with spay and neutering of the stray dogs since only 0.91% of the ASPA’s budget was effectively spent on this type of action?

SPAY & NEUTER PROGRAMS: How a potential success story became a huge failure with the help of local authorities and ASPA

————

“[…] we have found a particularly close link between animal welfare and human well being. There is an increasing acceptance that animal suffering is not a necessary cost to achieve benefits for people”

– Elly Hiby, Scientific Advisor at WSPA

“Usually, municipal dog culls do not come close to qualifying as “euthanasia” – that is, providing a “good death” for the dogs. Instead, the killing of the dogs is often brutal and involves a great deal of suffering. It is also not a cheap solution and, as the WHO statement above indicates, it is not effective. The number of dogs may be reduced in the short term but the remaining dogs will rapidly repopulate the community. If a government were to tally the true costs of killing programs and designate that same amount of funding to a strategic, long-term program, the problem would be solved.”

Dr. Andrew Rowan, CEO of Humane Society International, about the dog killings in Romania

—————

Preamble

The fact that spaying and neutering is an important part of any program for reproduction control of stray animals is recognized and well documented by World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), World Health Organization (WHO), WSPA etc. The fact that spaying and neutering applied alone has been successful in many countries is not a secret and specialists and authorities in many countries accumulated vast knowledge on how these methods to be applied and on the factors that might influence the success or the failure of such an approach. In spite of all this evidence, spaying and neutering were and still are totally disregarded and negated by the authorities in Romania and euthanasia remained the unique and the preferred measure to be applied “successfully”.

The fact is that in Romania, no past lessons are learned! For example, the last massacre of stray dogs took place between 2001and 2007, when Traian Basescu, the then-mayor of Bucharest and the same “gentleman” who introduced the ‘Romanian Slaughter Law’ (Law 258/2013), launched a campaign that led to the extermination of about 144.000 stray dogs in the capital alone. The spending was almost 9 million Euros (62 Euros per dog) during the period from 2001-2007 whereas the spay and neutering was between 10-20 Euros per dog.

The “success” of the stray dogs’ euthanasia campaigns could be seen nowadays, after 6 years from the last mass killing and in September 2013 a new extermination campaign has been ordered.

WHO stated clearly that there is no evidence that removal of dogs alone has ever had a significant impact on dog population densities or the spread of rabies. Mass sterilization, vaccination and community education are established components of an effective solution to large numbers of street dogs, and there are a number of model examples to look to worldwide. Close cooperation of the authorities with animal protection organizations is a requirement.

WHO and the OIE have repeatedly pointed out that the mass killings as a method to manage the stray dogs’ population is inefficient but the Romanian politicians continue to deliberately ignore these indications and their own failures in applying this method. It is very difficult to understand why the Romanian authorities insist to apply again and again the same strategy when they have to deal again with a failure of their actions.

“It’s a behavior that finds no explanation, as it won’t just cause endless suffering to thousands of stray dogs but it will also create enormous social tensions between animal lovers and those who want to get rid of the dogs” declared Sara Turetta, the president of animal welfare NGO Save the Dogs. [1]

The “myth” of euthanasia’s “success” as the main method to control the stray dogs’ population is totally contradicted by the scientific data and practical experience in different other countries. Mass euthanasia had always the reverse results: increasing of the stray dogs’ population or, at least, to keep the dogs numbers constant. One of the main reasons for which mass extermination of the dogs is not reducing the future numbers of these animals is because it simply does not address the cause (reproduction), but fights only the effect.

Romania consequently ignored the opinion of experts. For years the authorities have euthanized strays. Statistics show that in Bucharest, in 2001 there were 90,000 dogs. In the period from 2001 – 2007, ‘Administratia pentru Supravegherea Animalelor’ in Bucharest reported the capture and euthanasia of 108,000 dogs of which 80% were euthanized and 20% claimed. Another statistic released by the same administration shows that between 2001 and 2007, the exact number was of 144,339 euthanized dogs, as follows:

2001 – 47,916 dogs euthanized
2002 – 33,650
2003 – 10,159
2004 – 13,602
2005 – 14,418
2006 – 13,236
2007 – 11,361

The reader should notice the fact that the countries which applied mass killing of the dogs (Albania, Armenia, Moldavia, Az Republic) are less developed countries with poor population [ ] The poverty in such countries has influence on the social life….

The data was presented in the Stray Animal Control Practices (Europe) Report which was based upon a questionnaire responses returned by Member Societies and Associated Organizations of WSPA and RSPCA International between 2006 and 2007. In WSPA and RSPCA report were discussed the strategies for controlling stray dog and cat populations adopted in thirty-one European countries and their success. Upon reviewing the results of mass extermination of stray dogs, the main question remains:

What is the rationale for spending impressive public funds while mass euthanasia is not contributing to the reduction of the stray dogs’ numbers?

It is worth to highlight the fact that Romania did not respond to the WSPA and RSPCA questionnaire. It seems that the Romanian authorities know it all and they do not need any advices.

Generally, as stated in the literature a successful program for controlling the stray dogs’ population includes:

1. Progressive implementation of legislation including strong animal protection provisions;

2. Law enforcement;

3. Education of population and population compliance. In contrast, Romanian authorities vilified the dogs with the help of mass media and taught the population…

4. Collaboration between authorities, veterinarians and NGOs. None of these requirements were and are coherently applied by the Romanian authorities at national and local levels. Therefore, it is obvious that spending the public funds on mass euthanasia as a method to control the reproduction of stray dogs is futile and is a waste. At national and local level, in Romania, after 1989, the main approaches used by the authorities were mass euthanasia along with sporadic and incoherent spay and neutering programs. After years of failing with mass euthanasia, it is very difficult to understand why the same authorities refused constantly to apply a coherent, continuous spay and neutering program, why they refused the financial and know-how help of international and national organizations (NOGs) and, instead, they keep complaining they lack funds and personnel while killing the dogs. Moreover, the fact that these authorities never put any emphasis on educating the population with regard to adoptions and responsible ownership but still they expect that the population will comply overnight with the provisions of the Law 258/2013, is rather perplexing.

One of the main, serious identified problems is the fact that the Romanian authorities, local or national, refused constantly to take responsibility for the failure of spaying and neutering programs funded with public money. By doing so, these authorities demonstrate(d) that they totally lack ethics, morality and they hide behind different “reasons” of why they could not apply a coherent, consistent, continuous spay and neutering program in the cities and at the country level. Everybody else is guilty except them: the dogs, the NGOs, the population and even the political fights and political antagonism. The authorities’ immoral, inhumane behavior is strongly associated with their refusal to acknowledge and understand at least the science behind the animal control of reproduction programs. At least they should understand the negative, long term social and emotional impact of their murderous decisions as can be seen in the results of their hasty, non-constructive decisions on the Romanian population.

Whereas they throw dust in the eyes of the EU Commissions personnel who questioned their practices, the authorities struggle to force an explanation to the population regarding why they kill the dogs which is “dogs have teeth and spaying and neutering does not remove the dogs’ teeth”.

Of course!!! Dogs have teeth, humans have teeth, too, birds have beaks and claws, bees have stingers… we also heard about humans attacking and biting other humans or animals! According to this rationale do all have to die?

It is obvious that the Romanian authorities’ objective was and is to kill the stray dogs and they had no incentive, ever, to apply any of spay and neutering programs that they pretended to embrace from time to time due to political reasons. No science-based literature on the control of stray dogs’ numbers is mentioning the failure of spaying and neutering programs because dogs “have teeth” and therefore they have to be directly killed for the sake of prevention.

WHILE MASS KILLINGS WILL NOT SOLVE ROMANIA’S STREET DOG PROBLEM

Taken from an article published MARCH 16, 2011 in BUCHAREST – David Newall of Romanian Animal Welfare Coalition (RAWC) puts forward the case for neutering, education and … street cleaning [2]:

“You may assume that, speaking on behalf of an animal welfare organisation, I’m bound to take the ‘softy’ route and condemn legislation permitting municipalities to kill street dogs en masse. And you’d be right. Because the ‘softy’ route is not only the most humane but also the most effective approach to controlling and reducing a street dog population. Here’s why:

Mass killing

We’re not denying there’s a problem. There are thousands of dogs on the streets of Bucharest and Dogs Trust research conducted last year showed that 65% of Romanians consider street dogs to be the number one problem in their local area. The dogs have short, difficult lives and are prone to injury and disease. We don’t want to see them on the streets any more than the local community do.

But rounding them up and killing them en masse isn’t a magic wand to make the dogs disappear. When an area is cleared of dogs, others from surrounding neighbourhoods will simply move in, use the newly available resources and continue to breed.

One female street dog can produce up to eight puppies a year. So if she is lucky enough to live for five years, she could have produced around 40 more street dogs. If you have 500 female dogs on the street, in five years they could produce 20,000 puppies. And then they will start having puppies!

Mass killing is a fruitless, inhumane, ineffective task and certainly didn’t work in the seven years that Bucharest permitted it – street dog numbers did not decline.

If I can’t appeal to your heart strings, how about your purse strings? Aside from the fact that mass killing does not work, it’s also incredibly expensive. According to the ASPA euthanasia costs €60/dog (that includes catching the dog, accommodation for seven days and cremation). The estimated street dog population for Bucharest is 50,000 dogs, so mass killing would cost authorities €3 million (and still the street dog problem wouldn’t be solved).

A NOTE BY OFA: according to our calculation based on figures shared by the Town Hall of Bucharest, the cost for rounding up the dogs, for keeping them 14 days in a death shelter, and to “euthanize” and cremate them, is actually of 167,96 Euros/dog

The better way

It took a long time for the dog population of Romania to reach this stage, so a solution cannot be found overnight. But there is hope. Dog Population Management (DPM) programmes take a long-term approach but are proven to be effective. There are countless examples across the world where situations far bleaker than in Bucharest have been enormously improved after DPM activity: a reduction in the number of dogs and biting incidents.

DPM involves taking an organised, methodical approach. Firstly you need to understand where all the dogs are coming from. In one country it might be ‘latch key’ dogs left to roam and breed in the streets while their owners are at work. In other countries it might be a case of unwanted dogs being abandoned in the streets, others being genuinely lost or being born and bred on the street.

The charity GIA’s figures show that in 2010 approximately 250 dogs (puppies and adults) were abandoned at 10 vet practices (out of a total of 250) in Bucharest. This is a much lower number compared to the number of total dogs abandoned in parks, markets, subway and RATB stations, fields, woods, etc.

This programme has already worked in Romania. In 2003 there were an estimated 4800 street dogs in the Oradea and Bihor area. After just seven years and 18,000 dogs neutered the street dog population dropped by 90 per cent to just 512. An incredible number of approximately 216,000 unwanted puppies have been prevented.”

Based on WHO’s and OIE’s recommendations, a successful dog population control programs needs an integrated approach and the authorities are responsible for implementing them…

How the authorities made it possible that failure occurred since at least from 2008 and 2009 in Romania and in Bucharest, although the legal stage for successfully applying a comprehensive dog population control program was already settled?

The answers are simple:

a) both national and local authorities constantly refused to implement a continuous, coherent strategy for mass sterilization of dogs (with and without owner). No proper census, no micro chipping, were applied;

b) in spite of the existing body of evidence offered by the numerous studies performed by international organizations and specialists with regards to the success of mass sterilization, the authorities insisted on applying a method that failed every time: mass killing of the dogs;

c) the authorities refused the help offered by international and national NGOs with regard to running free of costs spaying and neutering programs. Instead, the authorities preferred to either do nothing or to apply sporadic sterilization programs through external contractors – private companies paid high costs using public money. The effect of this sporadic spaying and neutering can be assimilated to the effect of a drop of water into an ocean.

Promises… promises… promises…

As for Bucharest city, in 2009, Sorin Oprescu declared that he prefers spaying and neutering instead of the euthanasia as a method of controlling the stray dogs’ numbers. He also declared in several instances that he will create partnerships with NGOs for spaying and neutering the stray dogs [3] or that he will use public money to sterilize the street dogs if these will be adopted. Sorin Oprescu, also promised that he will build public shelters with big capacity. [4]

Accordingly, Simona Panaitescu, director of the Administration of Animal Surveillance (ASA), declared:

“Until now we treated the effect and not the cause. I have to mention the fact that on private properties the dogs’ reproduction and abandonment are not controlled. Many of the citizens are abandoning the off-spring of their dogs and these puppies become street dogs and later will reproduce themselves exponentially.

For controlling and limiting this phenomenon, we propose to accelerate the sterilization of the dogs, especially of those existing in private yards. The owners have the possibility to contact a veterinary facility which has a contract with the City Hall and to sterilize, identify and register their dogs using the City Hall funds.

The beneficies of this project could be: the control of dogs’ population and the limitation of the abandonment through sterilization of the dogs. The short term general objective is to not have anymore free dogs on the streets.”

In a later statement, the ASA’s director declared that approximately 850.000 Euro will be given for the extension of the public shelter Mihailesti which is intended to have a capacity of 1000 dogs. [5]

On 30.06.2009, the Bucharest’s city Council and the Mayor, Sorin Oprescu, voted the local decision HCGMB 243/2009. According to the City Council’s decision and the national laws, the local authorities and ASPA (former ASA) were the main responsible for: spaying, neutering and vaccination of the stray dogs, building a unique data base and identifying and registering the dogs in this data base [Article 3 (4) and (5)]. [6] Since 2013, the responsibility of registering the dogs in the unique national data base was treansfered from ASPA to ANSVSA.

According to Vier Pfoten, in 2009 Conform datelor Vier Pfoten, in acest moment, in Bucuresti, sunt peste 30.000

In his re-election campaign, in 2012, Sorin Oprescu kept promising the same things as in 2009: the implementation of a dog population management system which encompasses clear, simultaneous and continuous measures over a long period of time. Spaying and neutering, vaccination, registration and identification through micro-chipping or tagging, preventing the abandonment, and promoting the adoptions were again electoral slogans thrown on the public scene. Sorin Oprescu also reminded the citizens of the construction of the shelter of Uzunu (Giurgiu County) which will offer decent conditions for caring, treating and living of the dogs. [7] In fact, this shelter is a family business for Sorin Oprescu: his son is administrating… [8]

In April 2013, Sorin Oprescu declares again, via mass-media, that “this year over 40.000 stray dogs will be sterilized” [9]

And as stated earlier, in the first part of this article:

Interestingly, in September 2013, Oprescu declared for mass-media that ASPA spayed and neutered 25,000 dogs in 2012 and 11.000 dogs in 2013 !!!

On the other hand, another mass-media source declared that according to ASPA’s official data, the situation of the stray dogs was different: 40,000 dogs were already spayed and neutered (out of a total of 64.704 stray dogs) at a rate of 30 dogs/day and at a price of 80 RON/dog.

In another report from 2011, Robert LorentzA, ASPA manager at the time stated that there were 50,000 dogs in the streets of Bucharest, where 40,000 were sterilized! “Directorul Autorităţii pentru Supraveghere şi Protecţia Animalelor (ASPA), Robert Lorentza precizat că, la ora actuală, în Capitală sunt aproximativ 50.000 de câini fără stăpân, 40.000 dintre aceştia fiind deja sterilizaţi.”

** This article is a work in progress. More information will be added soon.

All references used to compile this article are acknowledged on our website, at: http://www.exposing-aspa.com/the-history-of-aspa.html

————————–

Be part of something unique and powerful by becoming a sponsor today!

YOU can raise a voice of outrage and support. YOU can help OFA to support our brothers and sisters in Romania. YOU can show ASPA that a world is united against such injustice. It is upon such times that change comes… together we now have the opportunity of bringing such change.

Please sponsor gasoline for the Bucharest team by making a donation now!

OFA will apply total transparency and all donations and names of sponsors will be listed here, on this page, along with the expenses. In case you do not want your name to be listed, please provide us with an alias.

Every kind person who will make a donation to sponsor gasoline, starting at as little as 5 euro, will be listed on our website as official sponsor.

Given that OFA is a registered charity organization, your donation grants you a tax deduction, the percentage is depending on your country.

Donations can be made simply and easily by using the PayPal button, but PayPal deducts some costs for donations.

These can be be avoided by sending a donation to: exposing-aspa@mail.com and selecting ‘gift’.

Either option is acceptable and both will provide essential support for the ‘brave ones’ of Romania.

Thank you very much, in advance, for your support!

 

Advertisements