PETA and Euthanasia
PeTA Files
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549/page/1
or:
http://snipurl.com/2b66y
PETA and Euthanasia
Even among animal lovers, killing unwanted pets is a divisive issue.
Nearly a decade later, Daphna Nachminovitch still remembers the rerelease of the Disney classic "101 Dalmatians" and the tragedy that followed. First there was a spike in sales of the famous spotted breed. Then, in the months that followed, shelters took in hundreds of Dalmatians from disillusioned pet owners around the country. "As soon as the puppies outlived their cuteness and the kids didn't want to scoop the poop anymore, the dogs were dumped in shelters," says Nachminovitch, vice president of cruelty investigations for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). "Many of them had to be euthanized, because there was simply no place for them to go."
But what many animal lovers don't realize is that PETA itself may have put down some of those unwanted Dalmatians. The organization has practiced euthanasia for years. Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. Dalmatians may no longer be the breed of the day, but the problem of unwanted and abandoned pets is as urgent as ever. Shelters around the country kill 4 million animals every year; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy. In recent years those grim statistics have split the animal rights community. Ironically, PETA has emerged as a strong proponent of euthanasia. (The group is better known for its public condemnations of everyone from fashion designer Donna Karan for her use of fur to the National Cancer Institute for its animal research.) In defense of its policy PETA has insisted that euthanasia is a necessary evil in a world full of unwanted pets. But while the group has some well-known allies, including the Humane Society of the United States, a growing number of animal rights activists claim to have found a better, more humane way.
"Over-population is a myth," says attorney Nathan Winograd, whose recent book "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America"" chronicles the rise of the no-kill shelter movement. "With better outreach and public relations, we can find homes for virtually all of the healthy animals we are now killing." As proof he points to a string of communities across the country whose shelters have managed to stop euthanizing all but the sickest animals. Bonney Brown, executive director of the Nevada Humane Society, says that in 2007, the first year her group went "no-kill," her shelters managed to save 90 percent of the 8,000 animals they took in. Among other strategies, the organization ramped up its volunteer force, from 30 to 1,700, expanded its hours so that people could come in after work and engaged in extensive media outreach.
"On balance, people love animals," says Brown, pointing out that animal causes are one of the fastest-growing segments of American philanthropy. "The biggest challenge has been convincing them to trust their local shelters. And with a little initiative we are finally starting to do that."
Shelters in Virginia, New York and San Francisco report successes similar to Nevada's, and communities in more than a dozen states have announced no-kill goals and added legislative mandates to their agenda. King County, Wash., passed a law requiring area shelters to achieve an 85 percent save rate by 2009. San Antonio, Texas, is aiming for zero kills by 2012. And Ivan City, Utah, saved 97 percent of its shelter animals beginning in 2006 when the animal control ordinances were rewritten to prohibit the euthanasia of healthy animals.
Those successes have not persuaded PETA or its allies. The group argues that in order to maintain their no-kill status these facilities simply turn away animals that are unlikely to be adopted, often leaving them to fates worse than death. "No one hates it more than we do," says Nachminovitch. "But we would rather offer these animals a painless death than have them tortured, starved or sold for research." PETA isn't the only group to take that stance. "No-kill is a noble goal," says Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "But the sheer number of animals make it almost unachievable."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Member Comments
-
Posted By: veritas4u @ 05/26/2008 9:19:52 PM
Comment: There is a group on Long Island I would not give you five cents for which flies under the mantle of no kill.
No one proclaims themselves to be a *kill* shelter but anyone can say they are NO KILL including some Kill shelters hiding behind the skirts of no kill. I say that bec. I challenged a local group's ED who said, "Oh we qualify as no kill though yes we euthanize??? quoting some guideline. Tiger Ranch had no money but good intentions, as did All Creatures in NC. PETA went undercover there. Video-ed a dog with a broken pelvis and back leg or two also broken.... and walked away. Could have "adopted??? that dog but left her there. Just there for the photo op. Just as HSUS didn't report the crimes at Hallmark immediately but said no one would do anything so why not wait months to present to the authorities.
End Cruelty goes on to say there is no nexus between the two groups, but doesn't Wayne???s early involvement with PETA count? It's a long blue wall of death for most animals presented by HSUS and PETA, and PETA mostly bec. Ingrid (found of PETA and moving force) ran a shelter in DC and set up guidelines (high euth. guidelines) offered to other shelters and regarded as the gold standard until communities woke up and demanded better. I live in DC. Ingrid poisoned the well here, but eventually the community woke up and protested, thanks in large part to Nathan Winograd who helped mount a campaign to get the shelter contract.
End Cruelty further says>>Unsubstantiated claims against the Humane Society of the United States typically made by those who did nothing for the stricken pets who survived Hurricane Katrina, do yet more nothing for the benefit of animals.
Wrong. Some real people on here and other such lists (Oprah's, Ellen's) are living like paupers trying to help animals ... What are YOU doing Mr. or Ms. End Cruelty?
End Cruelty goes on to say:
>>Peta is nothing if not a transparent organization....
I have been trying to get info on PETA's spay neuter project for some time. It's seems lucrative but maybe End Cruelty can try to get real financial data about it. I think a little is done for window dressing. Additionally, employees of PETA took adoptable, adorable animals and killed them on their van and Ingrid still says that was right. She thinks death is a gift. No one would believe the brainwashing good people undergo to come up thinking this way. We are in a war of live versus death, and PETA chooses death.
PETA and HSUS share a philosophy and employees move back and forth easily between the two orgs, and it won't take helicopters but the written word and both PETA and HSUS can pay for plenty of it. -
Posted By: EndCrueltyNow @ 05/25/2008 8:01:17 PM
Comment: Nathan Winograd feels that immense numbers of American households would gladly adopt millions and millions of homeless pets, yet somehow remain unaware of the plight of shelter animals.
In fact, Americans are well aware of the presence of adoptable animals in government and private shelters, as well as Craigslist, online discussion boards, and every other manner of pet adoption resource. A household that does not wish to adopt a pet, or lacks the resources for the serious commitment to an animal's safety, health, and appropriate veterinary care, cannot somehow be coerced into a suitable pet adopter.
No-Kill shelters and foster networks give individual animals a chance, who might be rushed to an early euthanasia date at overtaxed municipal shelters. The responsible No-Kill organization provides a high standard of veterinary care, and also responds assertively to exceptional needs that arise in individual animals, such as surgery.
However, most No-Kill organizations do not accept animals from the general public. Instead, they obtain animals from open admission shelters. These animals have often received preliminary veterinary care and inspection, prior to rescue.
The Pittsburgh fiasco of "Tiger Ranch" animal sanctuary, in Pittsburgh where rampant disease, death, and mass graves filled with cats, and covered over by bulldozers, were uncovered by animal control investigators, and the proprietor faces a July arraignment on 593 charges of animal cruelty. This was a Potemkin village concealing illness, suffering, and despair, and hiding behind the skirts of legitimate No-Kill practitioners.
Unsubstantiated claims against the Humane Society of the United States (<a href="http://hsus.org">http://hsus.org</a>), typically made by those who did nothing for the stricken pets who survived Hurricane Katrina, do yet more nothing for the benefit of animals.
Peta (<a href="http://peta.org">http://peta.org</a>) is nothing if not a transparent organization, and does not approve of the maintenance of feral cat colonies or proliferation of No-Kill shelters. This is a brash position with respect to companion animals, and differs substantially from many other organizations. Peta does, however, operate spay/neuter projects and pursue animal cruelty investigations.
Peta and Humane Society of the United States are completely unrelated organizations. However, neither will be landing fantasy black helicopters in anyone's backyard anytime soon, and ceaseless rants against two specific groups, among thousands and thousands of nonprofit animal welfare corporations, speak to nothing more than the rigid obsessiveness of animal welfare skeptics.
-
Posted By: macnino @ 05/19/2008 6:12:12 PM
Comment: PeTA and HSUS are terrorist organizations. It is a real shame that people continue giving either of them any money. Keep in mind that the HSUS does not run any shelters, and it's only job is to pay lobbyists to pass laws to make it more expensive and more difficult to keep our animals.