I think there's sufficient evidence of people who care MORE for their animals than for other people (Hitler, say), to disprove the notion that respecting animal rights goes hand in hand with respecting human rights.

I believe the NYTimes article also mentioned that the courts would give the executors of the will some lattitude in fulfilling their mandate. So perhaps the money can be put to good use by creating programs that create jobs for people to help care for dogs. If these programs were made available to people who need jobs, then this could be a valuable form of charity. Maybe the money could be used to create veterinary schools, or programs where people train seeing eye dogs, or rescue dogs. Or perhaps there could be Animal rescue shelters that are run from prisons, or by ex convicts. If there are many people who have an easier time relating to animals than to humans, it would be a blessing for them to be paid for working with animals.