Let's Kill All the Animals.

[Psychology of Rights and Wrongs]

What does PETA stand for, again?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, you say?

More like People Eradicating Thousands of Animals.

The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom last week reported that PETA slaughtered fully 95 percent of the stray dogs and cats it “rescued” in 2011.

And that’s par for the cat-killing course: Overall, PETA has killed more than 90 percent of the animals it’s taken in since 2005.

Bottom line: The organization that claims its members would “rather go naked than wear fur” prefers to kill dogs and cats rather than find homes for them.

Yes, making the effort to find homes for stray pets takes time — of which PETA apparently has precious little.

In 2010, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services discovered that fully 84 percent of the strays taken in by PETA were killed within 24 hours.

No wonder: The report concluded that PETA’s headquarters “does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.”

So, off they go to the gas chamber.

No surprise, though, that the organization is much more adept at fund-raising than it is at finding homes for kittens and puppies.

PETA’s annual budget is $37 million, “most,” it claims, coming from tax-deductible contributions from 2 million members.

But that is also considerably supplemented by foundation support: PETA has received some $18.7 million over the last three years from organizations like game-show host Bob Barker’s DJ&T Foundation.

Certainly PETA loves the outrageous.

Remember when the organization was after the upstate community of Fishkill to change its name to something a tad more ichthyologically sensitive? That pr masterstroke earned it international headlines.

And people certainly took note when PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk proclaimed “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”

Except now, the dog is dead.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/first_let_kill_all_...

[Julie Pruitt]

This is very strange indeed. I don't trust any of the "big guys"; always go for local, small charities and shelters. News like this doesn't help convince any potential animal rights supporters to take action for animals, but people need to know to stop giving money to Peta. How sad for the loss of so many lives and the loss of our trust in yet another organization...

[Nath Miles]

Why don’t we look at the problem as to why these animals need to go into a shelter or care in the first place?  Blaming shelters or Peta does nothing to solve the massive over population of so called disposable “companion” animals in society.

If you have a leaking boat you fix the leak you don’t just scoop the water out if you want to fix the problem. The same goes with companion animals we need to fix the “leak” or the problem before it starts. If there was no problem then shelters would be empty or close to empty. Instead they are full and always full. This problem has now been made even worse by “no kill” as “no kill” deny that there is a problem.

[Kath Worsfold]

I disagree strongly with this statement:

"This problem has now been made even worse by “no kill” as “no kill” deny that there is a problem." 

Since when have "no kill" shelters, or the likes of Nathan Winograd ever denied that there is a problem? 

A very quick Googling found me many results showing that "no kill" advocates are VERY aware of the problem, and they have solutions, and these solutions are "fixing the leaky boat":

About No-Kill Cat Rescue Shelters

A no-kill cat rescue shelter is one that saves cats that are adoptable and suitable for treatment. Only when an animal is considered unadoptable or too sick for treatment will she be euthanized. An animal that is not suitable for adoption may include one that is violent, aggressive, unhealthy or severely injured. Animals that are too ill or sick for any chance of recovery with treatment may also be euthanized.

Spaying and Neutering Cats

No-kill cat rescue shelters strongly believe in spaying and neutering programs, and consider it crucial for the no-kill objective. Because families with lower incomes are not as likely to spay or neuter their animals, no-kill shelter programs sometimes provide assistance or aid to these families. Controlling the overpopulation of cats and other animals through spaying and neutering can be a greatly effective way to keep no-kill animal rescue shelters going.

Adoption Programs 

Adoption programs help pets find a permanent home, allowing more space for new cats in the shelters. Many no-kill cat rescue shelters remain open during unusual hours so that families that work can visit the shelter and adopt more cats. Facilities that do not use cages may also be used to provide a more intimate and friendly adoptive atmosphere. This may also help animals to be more social and inviting around the public.

Many no-kill cat rescue centers have advertising programs that make their adoption programs more visible to the public. Large pet supply companies will often participate in these pet adoption programs, as well as the advertising.

Read more: No-Kill Cat Rescue Shelters - VetInfo

It behooves us as vegans to support "no kill shelters", neutering and adoption programs, and TNR particularly. Unfortunately TNR can't be done for dogs.

As for PETA and Ingrid Newkirk, AKA "The Butcher of Norfolk", gaaaaaaaah!

Nath Miles said:

Why don’t we look at the problem as to why these animals need to go into a shelter or care in the first place?  Blaming shelters or Peta does nothing to solve the massive over population of so called disposable “companion” animals in society.

If you have a leaking boat you fix the leak you don’t just scoop the water out if you want to fix the problem. The same goes with companion animals we need to fix the “leak” or the problem before it starts. If there was no problem then shelters would be empty or close to empty. Instead they are full and always full. This problem has now been made even worse by “no kill” as “no kill” deny that there is a problem.

[Nath Miles]

No kill and Winograd deny there is an over population of companion animals this is what makes this movement dangerous.

No kill and winograds so called solutions are not solutions at all. They have failed over and over again and will continue to fail. In the meantime millions more companion animals will be euthanized whilst they deny the problem and oppose real solutions.

No kill and winograd oppose any and all legislation and laws that force owners to desex their “pets”.

No kill is not sustainable and how many so called “food animals” have to die to feed so called “companion animals”

Each cat has the same carbon footprint as a small car each dog has the same carbon footprint as a SUV. We should be reducing the number of animals bred and in the community.

As for vegans I thought vegans advocated the least amount of suffering to all animals ? How does a vegan say it is ok for us to kill hundreds of animals just to feed one? What logic is that?

No kill shelters give animals away for free and hand sentient beings our like lollies to a child. This is immoral and wrong. If there truly was a demand for all these animals then shelters wouldn’t be giving them out for free.

Until the numbers of animals bred is massively decreased true open door shelters will have to continue to mop up the problem and euthanize animals that are surplus to societies wants.

Although I don’t agree with all Peta does I do agree with Peta and there stand on TNR. TNR should be illegal it is nothing more than animal dumping. It does nothing to better the animal. Domestic cats whether friendly or feral are still domestic cats. Dumping them back on the cold cruel streets where they are at the mercy of the elements, disease and risk of animal cruelty is not humane. Dumping them back on the streets is not humane or fair to native wildlife. Dumping them back on the streets is no solution at all. It is not sustainable, it is not humane. TNR is legalized animal cruelty in the USA.

[Kath Worsfold]

It is an extremely complex issue.

Here's the situation in New Zealand:

http://www.catrescue.org.nz/trap-neuter-return-tnr.html

Excerpt:

"A colony of cats that are neutered and cared for are relatively healthy, and the population remains stable and reduces slowly over time. A network of neutered colonies is the most kind and efficient way to reduce the stray cat population."

I would also add that at all the TNR colonies I know of, there is a small shelter building built on public land for these cats. They are well fed, so shouldn't affect the wildlife too much - though it would be unrealistic to suggest that they would kill NO wildlife at all. Their numbers decline each year from attrition, until the colony is no more.

And here is information about Nathan Winograd:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/10/02/petscol...

I think you'll find that Winograd does not suggest that pets not be neutered. I believe to say that would be twisting his statements to make them say what you want to believe. I have not read his book "Redemption", so can't speak with true authority, but read this from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-kill_shelter

Excerpt: 

"Some people have called for laws that mandate all pet owners to pay for hysterectomies or castration of their pets through mandatory spay/neuter laws, (see also: AB 1634) to curb what they believe to be pet overpopulation, Winograd and others in the no-kill movement have consistently opposed such measures, asserting that mandatory legislation is ineffective and counterproductive.^[63] They feel that better results are achieved by collaboratively working with legitimate breeders and providing low-cost spay/neuter options to low-income people.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals conducted a study of mandatory spay/neuter laws and concluded that there is no "credible evidence" that such laws work to reduce euthanasia in animal shelters.^[64] There is a widespread consensus against the enactment of mandatory spay/neuter laws among national animal-welfare organizations including the ASPCA, the No Kill Advocacy Center, Alley Cat Allies, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American College of Theriogenologists and the Society for Theriogenology, and the Anti-Cruelty Society.^[65] Best Friends and American Humane also are against mandatory spay/neuter laws.^[66] Critics of mandatory spay/neuter point to the fact that in Los Angeles, shelter killing and intake have dramatically increased after the passage of a mandatory spay/neuter law due to increased owner surrenders and pet seizures by animal control authorities.^[66]"

What he DOES suggest is that there are enough homes for all these unwanted pets that we ALREADY HAVE, but because of bad management practices at the shelters, they are not being placed. The arguments put forth seem very sound to me.

About the killing of some animals to feed others, I have no answer for you, and I believe there are many on this forum who are struggling with this very issue. It would seem at first sight that one should feed their cats with one of the Vegan pet foods available. I have researched this, and found that there are grave failings with these foods - to the point of unexplained illnesses and mass deaths at some Cat Sanctuaries.

Dogs are easily fed a vegan diet and remain healthy, and that is what I would propose that people do for dogs.

To your comment about the ecological footprint of a cat, I have this to say:

Excerpt:

"The average cat's eco-footprint, 0.15 ha, weighs in at slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf, but still 10 times a hamster's 0.014 ha -- which is itself half the eco cost of running a plasma television.
By comparison, the ecological footprint of an average human in the developing world is 1.8 ha, while people in the developed world take 6 ha."

Read more at:

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/business/Dogs-and-cats-leave-a-bigge...

Would you deny a cat his paltry 0.15 hectare, while enjoying your 6 hectares? That is nothing short of Speciesist.

You said: "No kill shelters give animals away for free and hand sentient beings our like lollies to a child."

I see no evidence to support your statement, and I've never heard of a shelter with that criteria. However, on the other side of THAT coin, I have a friend who runs a no-profit animal rehoming service - funded entirely by herself and her husband, with various fund-raising raffles from time to time. She refuses to charge for an animal she homes, saying that it is not right to "sell" animals as if they are property or slaves. She vets homes very carefully, and of course is happy to accept donations, but doesn't ask for them when she rehomes. I agree whole-heartedly with her attitude.

As a vegan, I cannot agree with a 90 - 95% kill rate of healthy pets at shelters. There is more to discuss, though, to try to solve the "killing animals to feed other animals" issue. I'm not happy at all with any of the suggestions I've read about how to solve this dilemma, and I'm not happy with how I feed my cats either. All suggestions gratefully received, except "put them down".

Thanks for this discussion.

Nath Miles said:

No kill and Winograd deny there is an over population of companion animals this is what makes this movement dangerous.

No kill and winograds so called solutions are not solutions at all. They have failed over and over again and will continue to fail. In the meantime millions more companion animals will be euthanized whilst they deny the problem and oppose real solutions.

No kill and winograd oppose any and all legislation and laws that force owners to desex their “pets”.

No kill is not sustainable and how many so called “food animals” have to die to feed so called “companion animals”

Each cat has the same carbon footprint as a small car each dog has the same carbon footprint as a SUV. We should be reducing the number of animals bred and in the community.

As for vegans I thought vegans advocated the least amount of suffering to all animals ? How does a vegan say it is ok for us to kill hundreds of animals just to feed one? What logic is that?

No kill shelters give animals away for free and hand sentient beings our like lollies to a child. This is immoral and wrong. If there truly was a demand for all these animals then shelters wouldn’t be giving them out for free.

Until the numbers of animals bred is massively decreased true open door shelters will have to continue to mop up the problem and euthanize animals that are surplus to societies wants.

Although I don’t agree with all Peta does I do agree with Peta and there stand on TNR. TNR should be illegal it is nothing more than animal dumping. It does nothing to better the animal. Domestic cats whether friendly or feral are still domestic cats. Dumping them back on the cold cruel streets where they are at the mercy of the elements, disease and risk of animal cruelty is not humane. Dumping them back on the streets is not humane or fair to native wildlife. Dumping them back on the streets is no solution at all. It is not sustainable, it is not humane. TNR is legalized animal cruelty in the USA.

[Kath Worsfold]

About this statement that I just quoted:

"They feel that better results are achieved by collaboratively working with legitimate breeders and providing low-cost spay/neuter options to low-income people."

I don't agree with that, and I think it should read "with legitimate veterinarians" instead.

[Kerry Baker]

I agree with Kath's comments.  It is an extremely complex issue, and I don't suggest that there are easy answers.  In Australia animals from no-kill shelters are usually placed for a fee to contribute towards the sterilisation and medical treatment they have received.  Sterilisation however also does have some issues, in that it increases the % of feral cats in a community while the ones being sterilised are those that are the quieter ones less likely to roam. When cats are removed from communities it is generally the experience that rats and mice increase in numbers, creating other problems. Research done on cats here in Australia has shown that they primarily kill introduced species.  There is no simple answer, but I do not begrudge a cat the right to live.  All in all, I consider that humans are the single most destructive and cruel species on this planet by far and we need to clean up out own game before turning attention to others.

On the issue of PETA, this is one that I have several concerns about.  I am neither an advocate nor an enemy of theirs, but it does seem that lately there has been much criticism about them and not always from sources that I am confident are entirely trustworthy. I feel that the statistic quoted is extreme, but would like to know more about the circumstances. For example, are these animals the ones that have been so badly injured they are not able to be rehabilitated?  I haven't admittedly read the report, but what I did read seemed that the total number of animals they were talking about was quite low compared to what I'd expect in a population he size of the US. In Melbourne for example, in one cat shelter alone in 2006 they were taking in 16,000 cats per year. Many were put down, but I believe they have since gone more towards a no-kill policy. Indeed the problem I don't think lies with the no-kill shelters as they do sterilise the animals, but with the pet industry. 

The whole PETA issue is one I'm watching with interest, but these discussions need to be had and I suspect will go on for some time yet.

[red dog]

Others have made really good points and I'll try to avoid repeating them. Nath, it's hard to believe you're serious. Over and over on ARZone, you've misrepresented the beliefs of others: no one denies there's a problem. You call the problem "overpopulation," and we say your attitude is the real problem. If you're serious, that is, and I'm not at all sure you're not just trolling.

[Winograd's solutions and the no-kill equation] have failed over and over again and will continue to fail.

You keep saying this yet you never provide any proof--just links to slanderous websites maintained by unstable individuals.

No kill and winograd oppose any and all legislation and laws that force owners to desex their “pets”.

You keep saying this but you forget to explain why--because those kinds of laws have unintended effects, especially in the absence of subsidized (or better yet, free) sterilization programs. Making the surgery free, accessible and affordable has to be the first priority or animals will lose their homes unnecessarily. I don't condone breeding, and as far as I know Winograd doesn't either--the question is how to stop it effectively without causing more harm to the beings who will be affected.

TNR should be illegal it is nothing more than animal dumping. It does nothing to better the animal. Domestic cats whether friendly or feral are still domestic cats. Dumping them back on the cold cruel streets where they are at the mercy of the elements, disease and risk of animal cruelty is not humane. Dumping them back on the streets is not humane or fair to native wildlife. Dumping them back on the streets is no solution at all. It is not sustainable, it is not humane. TNR is legalized animal cruelty in the USA.

What is your alternative? Unless you have a better solution, I'll support TNR.

Whenever I talk to you I feel like we're not getting anywhere. One thing I've noticed about your posts is that they're always about no-kill and they're always negative. If you're so concerned about wild animals why don't you ever post about hunting or wildlife rehabilitation or wildlife trafficking? If you think no-kill advocates spend too much time on dogs and cats why don't you write about programs to help other animals?

[Nath Miles]

The reality we should be advocating the least amount of suffering to all animals. Winograd denies over population and opposes mandatory desexing laws. It has been reported by some he has links with breeders and puppy farms. This man wants to see thousands of animals born each year only to die. He has become very wealthy spewing his propaganda and sadly sucking some people in.

I ask this, if there is no problem then why does he advocate high volume low cost desexing? I mean if there really is no problem then no one should need to desex there “pet”. Seems this so call expert who is nothing more than a narcissist and is all over the place contradicting himself.

Saying to the public there is no over population is wrong. It sends a wrong message and only encourages more irresponsible owners.

If we are all serious we should be doing everything in our power to stop this vicious and futile cycle.

The only way to stop this cycle is to stop the breeding.

Pretending there are all these feel good solutions is putting ones head in the sand.

Humans domesticated cats and dogs for our own selfish purposes and now look what we have a system where shelters are constantly full. A society that sees companion animals as disposable and a world that has to euthanize millions of companions animals every year.

TNR is opposed by almost everyone except the “no kill cronies”  http://www.tnrrealitycheck.com/welcome.asp

“TNR does not help feral cats. Often miserable lives are simply prolonged in these colonies. These cats may not receive regular meals, as all cats in a given colony may not be accounted for every day. They may not have fresh water during the colder months. Flies can quickly lay maggot eggs on their food during the hotter months. Feral cats usually do not receive regular veterinary care because they are very difficult to trap more than once. Therefore, rabies vaccinations that expire put the cats at risk for contracting and spreading this fatal disease. Cats often have intestinal parasites, including roundworms and hookworms. They also have external parasites, including fleas and ticks. They may have upper respiratory infections or urinary tract infections. All of these illnesses and more are almost always left untreated in these cats after they have been released. Many colonies are poorly "managed" and those that are maintained at artificially high densities simply serve to spread diseases, including fatal feline diseases like feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus. Some cats can never be trapped and thus never altered and never vaccinated.

TNR does not protect wildlife. The "theory" behind TNR is that colonies will reduce in size, thereby lessening the number of feral cats that can predate on wild animals. The problem is that this does not happen. In fact, colonies often grow in size because the cat food attracts neighborhood cats and colonies serve as dumping grounds for irresponsible owners to abandon their pets. Not every cat can be trapped and therefore not every cat is altered. Unaltered cats continue to reproduce. TNR has a harmful effect on wildlife. Every cat has an inherent ability to hunt. This has been extensively studied and scientifically documented. Well-fed cats still hunt. Even if they receive regular food, they are no less motivated to hunt. The areas surrounding colonies in Florida show bird populations at half the normal levels. Furthermore, cats do not perform a service by killing rodents. These cats affect the rodent supply for birds of prey and other animals dependent upon this food source. Also, cats do not distinguish between an introduced species of mouse and native rodents. Cats are opportunistic, prolific killers of birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians.

TNR does pose a risk to human and animal health. Not all cats are trapped; therefore not all cats are vaccinated. Cats are difficult to re-trap for subsequent care and vaccinations. Cats carry many types of bacteria and can transmit disease through bites, scratches and fecal contamination. Cats may defecate in the sand on beaches, in children's sandboxes, in gardens and flowerbeds. Cats are the only species to shed the parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, in their feces. This parasite can live for many months in the environment and causes Toxoplasmosis. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that "Cats play an important role in the spread of toxoplasmosis. They become infected by eating infected rodents, birds, or other small animals." The CDC advises avoiding stray cats, covering sandboxes, gardening with gloves, and keeping cats indoors. Many TNR advocates state that folks are more likely to acquire Toxoplasmosis from eating or handling raw or undercooked meat or eating unwashed fruits and vegetables; however, this can be traced back to cats who have shed the parasite in their feces. Pigs, sheep, deer, and other animals eat contaminated feed or soil or those fruits and vegetables are grown in contaminated soil. Then humans eat that produce or meat.

TNR is not a humane or effective solution to the feral cat problem. There are several companion animal organizations that endorse TNR, but that does not mean that TNR works or is, in principle, humane. The focus for these organizations may be more for cats and less for native wildlife. They may wish to recommend TNR as an alternative to euthanasia, which often is the result for feral cats brought into local area shelters. However, euthanasia may very well be the most compassionate outcome for these cats. Nevertheless, euthanasia does not have to be the only alternative to TNR. Many adult feral cats can be socialized and adopted into homes, despite what TNR advocates claim. Those cats that absolutely cannot be socialized can remain on private property and given sanctuary in an enclosed barn, enclosed cattery, or some other structure that protects them and keeps them separate from wildlife. At a minimum, those folks who have existing fencing on their property may construct an enclosure using PVC piping as a curved barrier, thus keeping cats confined to the property. This will prevent the cats from roaming, however, wildlife may still enter (unless the top is also fenced) and this does little to protect the cats from outdoor weather extremes unless some other structures are available. TNR advocates often state that we cannot socialize or give sanctuary to millions of feral cats. Likewise, we cannot TNR millions of feral cats. In fact, out of the seventy million feral cats in the United States not even one percent has gone through TNR.”

For those who still support TNR this is what you support.

[Nath Miles]

The reality is our human population on earth and our companion animal population on earth is not sustainable.

"Would you deny a cat his paltry 0.15 hectare, while enjoying your 6 hectares? That is nothing short of Speciesist."

There are an estimated 70 million domestic feral cats in the USA that means they would need 10500000 hectares of land. Or in simple terms almost the size of England. This is not sustainable for the earth. 

Imagine how many other sentient beings would have to die to artificially feed 70 million carnivores?

The numbers are staggering and disturbing. If we were to work it out that a single cat ate for example 1 chicken per week that would work out 3640000000 now if we were to consider a single cat eating 1 sardine per day that would work out to be 25550000000 per year.

Then there is all the native wildlife they would kill, Lets say for argument sake they only killed 1 native animal each weekn (personally I believe it to be much more than that)  that again works out to be 3640000000.

Billions and billions of other sentient beings dying and being slaughtered and killed and for what?

The only real solution to this crisis is to introduce legislation that forces sterilization of all domestic cats. Legislation that makes it a legal requirement than any one who breeds cats must be licensed and must only rehome cats sterilized.

[red dog]

I support the socialization and adoption of feral cats if it can be done successfully and if there are enough resources. Animal advocates in different locations have different resources to work with and have to deal with all kinds of different conditions. In Seoul there's a huge population of street cats, and most of these cats are terrified of people. Many people still consider them a nuisance and don't want to take them home and treat them as family members--most people (if they want to adopt cats at all) want friendly ones. TNR programs allow humans and cats to coexist peacefully and keep the neighbourhood livable for both. The residents may not be cat people and may not want the responsibility of taming and caring for them, but (unless they're evil) it should be possible to persuade them to deal with the situation humanely.

[red dog]

[Winograd] wants to see thousands of animals born each year only to die.

That's an outright lie and you know it--he supports sterilization, very much so, and I already explained why he favors a non-punitive approach. You've shown no proof that your alternative would result in fewer births or fewer deaths, and Winograd has produced massive evidence to the contrary. Do you have a personal grudge against Nathan Winograd or some other no-kill supporter? Do you have a stake in maintaining the status quo? Your comments are completely unfounded, and probably libellous.