PeTA: A Shelter of Last Resort?

[Carolyn Bailey]

The organization's senior vice president of communications responds to an earlier Atlantic article about how PETA euthanizes thousands of cats, dogs, and other animals every year.

Part of a print public service announcement from PeTA

PETA was floored by the title and tone of James McWilliams' article about PETA's euthanasia of some of the saddest dogs and cats in Virginia. While we appreciate that the editorial included some points on our perspective, it did a disservice to homeless animals by failing to examine the causes of and ways to reduce euthanasia -- something PETA works on every day. It waved aside PETA's vital preventative work -- from the more than 10,000 no-cost to low-cost spay-and-neuter surgeries we performed last year in Virginia alone to the time, money, and effort we spend promoting shelter adoptions and spaying and neutering -- to focus on Nathan Winograd's comments against our organization and against PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk, thereby leaving The Atlantic's readers with a grossly incomplete picture of what PETA does and why. The fact is that we do more than almost any group to reduce euthanasia, and more than most to clean up after members of our society who sorely neglect animals and create such misery to begin with.

We do more than almost any group to reduce euthanasia, and more than most to clean up after members of our society who sorely neglect animals.

The fact that PETA will take in even the most broken animals may not "change the fact that Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent," but it does explain it. That's because PETA refers adoptable animals to the high-traffic open-admission shelters rather than taking them in ourselves, thereby giving them a better chance of being seen and re-homed. As for the "no-kill" shelters, their figures are great because they slam the door on the worst cases, referring them, in fact, to PETA. We operate a "shelter of last resort," meaning that when impoverished families cannot afford to pay a veterinarian to let a suffering and/or aged animal leave this world, PETA will help, free of charge. When an aggressive, unsocialized dog has been left starving at the end of a chain, with a collar grown into his neck, his body racked with mange, PETA will accept him and put him down so that he does not die slowly out there. As Virginia officials speaking of PETA's euthanasia rate acknowledged to USA Today, "PETA will basically take anything that comes through the door, and other shelters won't do that."

The vast majority of the animals with whom PETA interacts are not part of that count. They do not enter our custody at all, because we do everything possible to ensure that they remain with their families. In addition to free veterinary care, including sterilization surgeries, PETA provides bedding, shelter, food, and counseling so that low-income families can keep their dogs and cats instead of abandoning them at shelters. We do this for tens of thousands of animals every year, but the state of Virginia only counts the animals who are given into our custody -- often, specifically so that we might grant them a peaceful death.

Every time someone attacks PETA -- or any other organization -- for doing the heartbreaking work of cleaning up after a throwaway society that thoughtlessly buys, breeds, and discards animals, the puppy millers, breeders, and irresponsible guardians who create the homeless animal overpopulation crisis get off scot-free. At PETA, we know that the only way to a "no-kill" nation is to stop bringing more puppies and kittens into a world that does not offer them the chance for a home. Pointing a finger at us does nothing to help the animals who are suffering today and won't stop animals from having to be euthanized tomorrow. The only way to stop euthanasia is mandatory spaying and neutering and a full-scale ban on breeding -- a fact that this article, unfortunately, ignored.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/peta-a-shelter-of...

[Billy L]

This is one of the times I really wish that an ongoing debate would materialize between Nathan Winograd and PeTA, if not right here on ARZone, which I see as about a neutral ground as any, then at least somewhere beside their respective domains.

As Tim Gier has pointed out (in a discussion about PeTA on ARZone-facebook, and in another discussion about a look-alike demo PeTA orchestrated that was obviously influenced by Animal Equality), Nathan Winograd's facts and figures are questionable at best. PeTA has, for instance, supported the ASPCA in raiding Caboodle Ranch recently, instead of doing all of the wonderful work Ms. Lange touts in this piece as a way of supporting Caboodle Ranch where it needed improvement (at least according to PeTA spies, not the vet records or counterarguments of Caboodle Ranch).

Maybe there is more to be said in the comments on the Atlantic site - seems like there are already some passionate responses from No-Kill advocates and PeTA diehards.

[red dog]

Billy, what makes you say "Nathan Winograd's facts and figures are questionable at best"? I don't see the logical connection between that statement and your statement about Caboodle Ranch. Honestly, I don't know what to believe about the situations at Caboodle Ranch and Angel's Gate and it's very sad. I never doubted the integrity of Alex Pacheco's investigations in the 1980s or Michelle Rokke's investigations in the 1990s and it's disappointing to have to say I don't have the same kind of trust in the information they're putting out now. You've raised a great question, though--if these rescue organizations needed help, why wouldn't PETA help them instead of trying to shut them down?

Here's a related link: http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2012/04/13/why-euthanasi...

It seems pretty obvious to me that this was a premature decision in the absence of any diagnosis.

[Kay Sievers]

It is unfortunate that PETA has become the face of the Animal Rights Movement in America.  Their antics to gain publicity for various issues (even though some have backfired as in the case of models who went back to wearing fur after "joining" their campaign) have gained a lot of attention for them, if not necessarily the animals.  But it is in the area of companion animals that they have completely betrayed the ethics of the movement.  I'm posting a couple of related links with more information.  http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

 

http://www.seattledogspot.com/blog/2011/06/16/this-week-six-years-a...

 

How did this happen?  Why did PETA get in the animal killing business?   The issue of companion animals is a difficult one.  They suffer at the hands of negligent and cruel people.  They consume the bodies of other dead animals that would never have made it to the human tables, making the meat industry more profitable.  But they shouldn't have to suffer at the hands of the AR movement.  So what is the ethical way to treat them?  I always ask myself if the solution would be an acceptable one if we were dealing with humans, making adjustments for differing interests.  The desire to live is a common interest.  I don't think anyone would seriously propose killing the poor and hungry humans in Africa or right here in the U.S.  There is a hard-fought and continuing debate to abolish the death penalty for even the most disgusting and unrepentant human killers.  Isn't the AR movement the voice for the animals?  The defenders of the innocent?  Why does PETA think that the only way to "help" the animals is to kill them?  Is it because Newkirk is a former animal control officer with that carry-over mentality?  Information, education and birth control are the humane solutions to both human and non-human animal overpopulation.  This can't and won't  happen overnight, for humans or non-human animals.  But if PETA, with its huge budget, mounted a campaign to spay/neuter not only in Virginia (as they say they have) but country-wide instead of killing not only difficult animals but adoptable animals (read about the PETA death van) THAT would be an ethical and compassionate action.  PETA says they kill animals because some people are cruel to them.  Some people always were and always will be cruel, but if PETA thinks the way to be kind to animals is to kill them, they are hardly any better.

 

[Anastasia Yarbrough]

"if these rescue organizations needed help, why wouldn't PETA help them instead of trying to shut them down?" That is an excellent question. I wonder the same thing. Why is PETA's first response to dissolve these two organizations that clearly don't have the budget and resources that PETA does? Why assume that these nonprofits trying to run sanctuaries out of their houses are intentionally being malevolent?  Why not intervene in ways that address the root causes?  The only thing I can say is PETA clearly isn't about community, not even the "animal protection" community...

The fact that PETA views "euthanasia is a product of love for animals who have no one to love them" and themselves as "cleaning up after a throwaway society that thoughtlessly buys, breeds, and discards animals..." disturbs me. They think way too highly of themselves, like they, and only they, have the moral judgment to carry this movement on their shoulders. Disconcerting...

Anastasia

red dog said:

Billy, what makes you say "Nathan Winograd's facts and figures are questionable at best"? I don't see the logical connection between that statement and your statement about Caboodle Ranch. Honestly, I don't know what to believe about the situations at Caboodle Ranch and Angel's Gate and it's very sad. I never doubted the integrity of Alex Pacheco's investigations in the 1980s or Michelle Rokke's investigations in the 1990s and it's disappointing to have to say I don't have the same kind of trust in the information they're putting out now. You've raised a great question, though--if these rescue organizations needed help, why wouldn't PETA help them instead of trying to shut them down?

Here's a related link: http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2012/04/13/why-euthanasi...

It seems pretty obvious to me that this was a premature decision in the absence of any diagnosis.

[mary tully]

PETA opposed Nathan Winograd's Hayden Law legislation because shelter overcrowding harms animal, and they oppose his CAPA legislation because it takes rescue oversight out of the "equation." He responds to their opposition by falsely maligning their euthanasia practices. Do you want to know what's especially creepy? I learned who Nathan Winograd was from the Center for Consumer Freedom, after reading their interview with him on their website. They were congratulating him for regurgitating their disinformation in his book. They were obviously very proud of him.

With regards to the Caboodle Ranch fiasco, PETA is an animal advocacy. They would be remiss in their duties as an animal protection organization if they financed animal hoarding so that it could be done "right." Caboodle Ranch didn't endeavor to put tame animals in homes. There was no spay and neuter program. There was no veterinarian care protocol. It wasn't a "sanctuary." 

www.whypetaeuthanizes.com