A Conspiracy of Charity ~ East meets West.
A statement from 'Vshine Animal Protection Group', a local HSI partner organization in China, was sent to a member of the public concerned for Mrs Yang.
At first reading it appears to be a dreadful indictment of Mrs Yang. However, on closer examination more questions than answers are raised by this aggressive 'Joint Statement from Chinese Animal Protection Groups'.
Mrs Yang has been rescuing and caring for dogs and cats for 20 years so why have these cosignatories of 'A Joint Statement from Chinese Animal Protection Groups' now decided to rally against her? And, why has this happened only after the visit to China by two of the trustees of the UK charity 'World Protection of Dogs and Cats in the Meat Trade' AKA 'No To Dog Meat' (NTDM) still holding an estimated £80k+ of her money?
A Shanghai shelter struggles to help dogs rescued from Yulin festival N.B. an important statement from a Shanghai shelter describing what happens when public interest fades: "When the issue was at the forefront of the nation's attention in July, the shelter was showered in funds and aid with dozens of volunteers, veterinarians and food coming in from all over the country, said Chang Fan, one of the shelter's volunteers. Now that the attention has died down, however, the shelter has only three regular volunteers and struggles to make ends meet from donations. The dogs' future thus still remains unclear despite their rescue" the report said.
Now, returning to the Vshine statement ~ we have reproduced the text word for word but, for ease of reading and commenting (in red), we are presenting the text in paragraphs.
Thank you for writing to us at VShine.
1. inflated dog number (She claims she has ober 4000 dogs in her shelter); yet eye-witness account believes there are no more than 1000 or even fewer in her shelters.
Attached please find the English language version of the Joint Statement.
When summer turns autumn, the Chinese animal protection community becomes turbulent. Standing at the center of the turmoil is Ms. Yang Xiaoyun (also called Yang Aiyun). Who created the turmoil, other than the small UK charity that is tenaciously withholding funds raised under UK law on restricted fundraising?
The photos and videos taken in Yang's shelters in Tianjin revealed shocking conditions, hungry and thirsty dogs, a dead dog without head and covered with maggots, and a decomposed dog body that looked like a used rug. These images have gone viral in China and abroad, causing strong reactions. Who have verified the origin of these images?
Charges abound saying that Ms. Yang has been using inflated dog numbers for aggressive fund-raising purposes, her hoarding dogs in dangerous illegal buildings, and her neglect of these dogs. Ms. Yang has so far failed to respond to these charges. Aggressive fundraising? It is doubtful that Mrs Yang even knew that the UK charity was raising money for her.
Ignoring the concerns, inquiries and charges from the public is no solution to the discontent of the public. It has on contrary encouraged more suspicions and criticism, causing potential damages to the image of China's animal protection community as a whole. We would suggest that the 'damage' is being caused by the very people determined to isolate and defame Mrs Yang.
Participants of China's animal protection movement, if accepting public donation, have the responsibility to respond to the concerns, inquiries and questioning of the society. Ms. Yang, a long-time recipient of the financial and material help from the society, must proactively respond to the society. With this understanding and belief, animal protection groups cosigning this joint statement appeal to all the parties concerned to seek truth from facts by making a field investigation of and a visit to Ms. Yang's facilities. From images & videos currently circulating, and a TV documentary in June 2015, it would seem that access to Mrs Yang's facilities have already been obtained?
Second, Yang has failed to comply with her own commitments made to her donors regarding releasing of the conditions of the dogs under her care. We cannot comment since we do not know the source of where or how Mrs Yang made this commitment.
Third, despite donations received over the years, Yang has failed to use the money to improve the conditions of her shelters. Dogs are dying massively out of neglect, food and water deprivation. Her shelters hire no regular workers and she seldom, if not never, have vets to provide medical care of her dogs. Might this possibly be because of the condition of the dogs she takes under her wing and a constant lack of funds? The charges of neglect, lack of food and water, however, are serious but are only 'charges' that have not been substantiated.
Fourth, Yang has claimed that her shelters are "heavens" for dogs. The public asks if the utterly filthy and chaotic shelters are in any way close to a "heaven" for the dogs. They worry that Yang's shelters can even cause additional harm to the dogs. Mrs Yang allowed a TV team to follow her for 4 days in June 2015. They entered the squalid premises and graphically described the appalling conditions that she shares with some of her rescues; no attempt we can observe to persuade the public that she provides 'heavenly accommodation' for her rescues.
Are the concerns and questionings listed above groundless? As a recipient of donation from the Chinese domestic and international donors, Yang has the responsibility to provide an answer. Here we encourage Ms. Yang to open her shelters and allow representatives from the media, a third party, and representatives of the critics to conduct an onsite investigation. We repeat, the media have entered at least two of her 'shelters' in June 2015. One they reported housed 1000 dogs, the other the derelict tenement premises. Ms Sophie Ling posted many photos of one of Mrs Yang's shelters she visited this year. The UK charity trustees, with a group of critics of Mrs Yang, had no problem entering the derelict premises in August this year.
Indeed, the critics have pointed out that Yang herself has in various media interviews provided different numbers of her shelter dogs. For example, on June 25, 2014, Yang claimed during an interview with China Daily that she had 1000 dogs and 200 cats in her shelter. In three interviews in 2015, Yang first said that she had 3000 dogs and then 3500 dogs. In a TV program of Tianjin TV aired on September 8, she produced a higher number, i.e., 4000 dogs, allegedly under her care. It is completely legitimate for shelter owners to use the dog numbers for fund-raising purposes. But, the numbers must be accurate. The bigger the number of the dogs a shelter has, the bigger the responsibility for the shelter owners. Similarly, the bigger the dog number, the greater the need for staff and resources. '..the greater the need for staff and resources' is exactly the reason Mrs Yang should have her fund released by the UK charity.
Whether Yang has inflated her dog numbers will be found out when the media, the third party representatives and members of the critics pay a visit to Yang's shelter and count on the spot. Mrs Yang's critics have said on social media that she has 4 'yards', two have been identified, two are 'said' by her detractors to be secret. If the TV crew reported one yard holding 1000 dogs and that 3 out of four yards are run by volunteers perhaps the quoted numbers of dogs may not be that inaccurate?
Financial management of shelters has room for improvement. Yet, donation expenditure can be checked by looking at the purchasing receipts. It is important that Yang release information on her donation income, expenditures on the major items and receipts, for the audit by a third party. Will her detractors respond to the same scrutiny?
Reporting to the donors on how donation has been used is the responsibility of rescue groups and individuals who receive donation from the society. We agree wholeheartedly, and there is currently a petition requesting exactly that of the UK charity holding her funds.
Yang also has the responsibility to release to the public information about the number of staffs hired in her shelter, cost of water and food, expenditures on vaccination, sterilization, vet services (if veterinary services have been provided), mortality rate, and dead animal disposal methods. Again, will all of her detractors respond to the same scrutiny?
We therefore urge Ms. Yang to take our suggestions seriously and open her shelter immediately so that the various parties can start verifying the dog number in her shelter, release financial reports and the conditions of the dogs and cats. Only in this way can the current questioning be addressed.
We would like to take this opportunity to inform our supporters and the society at large. The majority of the Chinese animal protection community honors the ethical principles guiding the operation of non-profit organizations. They are positive, transparent, trustworthy, and conscious of the need to improve care for the animals. Is this statement suggesting that Mrs Yang is stealing donations to live a luxurious lifestyle?
Animal protection is a new public interest area and animal protection movement is yet to mature. Financial and shelter management calls for improvement. A small number of shelters have a lot to improve in animal care. Fraudulent fund-raising by a very small number of people is likely out there. Yet, we have seen the rise of a large number of shelters that are standardizing operations, maximizing better animal care. Again, is this observation intended to suggest that Mrs Yang is stealing donors' money to the detriment of her animals and to line her own pockets?
The mainstream of China's animal protection community rejects practices that harms animals. The "rescue" of animals is only one step of animal protection. There are a lot more to be done besides "rescue". Providing animals with the right and good shelter, food and water, conducting vaccination, sterilization, vet care, public education and rehoming are all important part of animal protection. With that we are in complete agreement, however, this cannot be achieved without the goodwill of the public; that goodwill is currently being destroyed by the confusing antics of a very small UK animal charity.
Taking animals out of danger is not enough. Animal protection activists must have self-discipline, law-abiding, objective, realistic of own abilities, responsive to the society and the donors on questions regarding donation use and animal conditions.
It is important that animal protection activists know what a good crisis management constitutes. When one faces challenges and questioning, the best way to take is to conduct proactively candid, open and well-intentioned dialogue. Denial, making up of an excuse, abusing and demonizing the critics is poor crisis management that creates a greater controversy, damages own reputation further, and harms the animals. We sincerely hope that the UK charity holding Mrs Yang's fund will read this paragraph. The behavior of the WPDCMT aka 'No To Dog Meat' management has been one of a campaign of disinformation and extreme hostility to questioning since the charity was formed in May 2013.
Those who fund-raise publicly are "public" figures with social responsibilities as well. We suggest that Yang take immediate actions to address the suspicions and charges. We are here to provide whatever assistance necessary.
Cosigning here are the heads of the organizations that join the statement. We welcome inquiries and suggestions from you all.
It has come to our attention that there is a Facebook page called STOP Dog Charity Fraud recently opened.
Previously unseen videos and pictures have been posted on this FB page. The video footage and some of the photos were taken when the NTDM CEO and her fellow trustee, accompanied by a group of people apparently hostile to Mrs Yang, visited Mrs Yang in August this year. Other photos cannot be verified as being taken at any of Mrs Yang's facilities. The page was created at or about the same time as the statement was released, seemingly by an alias account, and purposefully to discredit Mrs Yang. Sadly it was noted that a well respected consultant of HSI appeared to endorse the inflammatory criticism of Mrs Yang. While respecting his right to his opinion of Mrs Yang it is a strange platform for him to choose to express it.
We live in an imperfect world and as one commentator wrote, "The unpalatable truth is that we do not find a 'Saviour' or a 'Hero' in Mrs Yang. We find a desperate woman stretched beyond her abilities and finances – one woman who has been thrust into the limelight and is now forced under the magnifying lens.
A woman whose journey of personal salvation has seen her take in far too many dogs and cats than she can realistically cope with, but who tragically cannot stop herself from continuing to take in more.
We leave you with two images; one at the Rose Bowl Stadium, LA. Sunday 13th Sept. 2015. Left to right: NTDM trustee Robert Donkers, Fia Perera, NTDM CEO Julia de Cadenet, Lori Alan, Brett Allen, Debbie Duncan Dunn, and Brigit Pimm. All but Debbie, Lori and Fia flew out to LA from the UK for another NTDM fundraiser. The other image of the tiny figure in pink needs no description.
As a supporter of Mrs Yang remarked today…..