Ingrid Newkirk is the Butcher of Norfolk. The whereabouts of this little dog are unknown. If his fate is anything like 97% of the animals PETA seeks out every year, his lifeless body is in PETA’s freezer.

Attention: Dog and cat killers. Ingrid Newkirk of PETA would like to protect you, shield you, promote you, and defend you. There is only one criterion: call yourself an animal shelter. It doesn’t matter if you kill in the face of readily available lifesaving alternatives. Why should it? They do the same, every single day.

It doesn’t matter if you neglect and abuse them before you kill them. It doesn’t matter if you don’t feed them, it doesn’t matter if you allow puppies to drown in drains, and it doesn’t even matter if you beat them to death. PETA will champion your cause.

They will write letters to the editor for you. They will write Op Ed pieces for you. They will attack anyone who criticizes you. They will threaten lawsuits. Whatever it takes. Because as long as you are needlessly killing animals and as long as you are claiming you have no choice but to do so because of “pet overpopulation,” you are providing Newkirk a valuable service. You are giving her political cover for her own dark impulses, which results in PETA seeking out and killing thousands of defenseless animals every year.

The latest salvo from the Butcher of Norfolk is an Op Ed piece in The Jersey Journal, in response to protests by animal lovers in that community, where she comes to the defense of the Liberty Humane Society’s (LHS) recent killing of animals. The Butcher cites Niki Dawson, the interim director at LHS, who stated that she arrived to find the shelter “abysmal, horrendous, shocking, horrifying… It’s difficult to put into words what it’s like to see 99 dogs crammed into a facility built to comfortably house only 50. What it’s like to witness 274 cats in a building meant for only 80. Perhaps the best description is a word we in this field know only so well: HOARDER.”

Dawson should know; she was accused of the same thing when she was forced out of Camden County’s shelter as the director. In fact, her successors used the same tactic in order to justify the killing of hundreds of animals there after she left. Dawson had more than the claimed capacity at Camden County, and the “excess” were simply executed. But the Dawson who was trying to save animals in Camden knew something that the one who was hired to kill them in Jersey City appears to have conveniently forgotten: it is not the number of animals in the facility per se, but the quality of their care.

The fact that a shelter was built for 50 dogs but has 99 means little if the dogs are kept clean, well-cared for, and socialized. And even if you were to accept her statement at face value, even if it was all true, LHS did not have to resort to the extreme, unethical, and cruel option of killing that the Butcher implies is the only logical recourse. They could have cleaned the cages they claimed were filthy. They could have socialized and fostered the animals they claimed were going crazy. They could have adopted out the ones they claimed were being warehoused. Dawson and I had an e-mail exchange over the numbers of animals at LHS. And in addition to sample flyers and promotions and a guide to increasing adoptions, I sent her the following on August 14:

While I see you have been reaching out to the rescue community, you need to reach out to the public. You are across the river from an adoption market of 8 million people, and Liberty’s surrounding suburbs are a good market for animals, and in that context, [finding homes for] less than 50 dogs and 200 cats is very doable. Keep in mind that in a community of 400,000 people, the [Nevada Humane Society is] adopting out 1,000 animals a month in Reno. The key is to reach out to the public in a positive, engaging way without the hoarder language you’ve been using to get the rescue community’s attention. There is no reason why you could not move the “excess” animals quickly through a positive marketing and adoption promotion, utilizing adoption venues in the shelter, throughout the community, and even, if need be, across the river. I am enclosing a packet of information which I hope will help. It includes adoption promotion ideas, marketing ideas, and more. It will come in two separate e-mails because of the size and amount of information.

Also, keep in mind that shelters can comfortably exceed capacity of design, as long as they do it smartly. There are over 500 animals on any given day at the NHS though the facility was not “built” to house that many but even veterinary critics who thought a shelter should not exceed design capacity changed their minds after visiting for themselves. As long as the animals are clean, well cared for, and socialized regularly, it’s not an issue. Most shelters, including all government agencies, have moved away from engineering standards toward performance standards. You can talk to Sue Cosby at the PSPCA how she comfortable housed animals in the garage, which was not built for animal holding, during a flu epidemic in the shelter so she did not have to kill. Again, the key is to use performance standards for animal well being.

You can literally see New York City, the largest City in the U.S. and a prime adoption market, from Liberty Park in Jersey City. That is eight million people on top of the 600,000 in Jersey City and Hudson County to appeal to for the adoption of 250 animals. They could have adopted all of them and more in a single weekend. But that is not what they chose to do. I went on Liberty Humane Society’s website today. They haven’t had an adoption promotion event since June, during the last administration. The next one is not until September 18, over one month after I suggested it. Feeble efforts lead to feeble results. But I guess it is just easier to scream “hoarder,” blame the past administration, and kill the animals. Just like Dawson’s successors in Camden County did to her.

The irony, of course, is that had anyone been protesting the Camden massacre, the Butcher would have condemned Dawson as a hoarder and come to their defense. But these are just facts. And, like I said, the Butcher is not going to let them get in the way of a sensationalist story. So what does the Butcher do? Lies to the readers of The Jersey Journal by suggesting homes are not available; that there are “far more dogs and cats than there are homes. Millions more.” To prove this, the Butcher of Norfolk does not offer statistics or data. She doesn’t even offer any analysis. How could she? It is, in fact, not true.

There are about 3,000,000 dogs and cats being killed because shelters do a lousy job at adoptions. In fact, some shelters don’t do any adoptions. Every year, however, over 21 million people are looking to bring home a new companion animal in the U.S., a number which is growing every year. Where will that new dog (or cat) come from? Some are already committed to adopting from shelters and they will do so. Others will go to a pet store, breeder, or other commercial-type source. But roughly 17 million people have not decided where their new pet will come from and studies show they have a positive view of shelters, are open to adopting from shelters, and can be convinced to do so. These are the people shelters need to reach to successfully adopt more animals to them. Even if roughly 80% of those people got a dog or cat from somewhere other than a shelter, we could still zero out the killing.

The problem is not a lack of homes, the problem is that the shelters the Butcher champions find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it. They simply refuse to innovate, modernize, and emulate the state-of-the-art sheltering protocols that progressive shelters have followed in order to revamp their adoption programs. Why? Because doing so takes dedication and effort, when it is so much easier to exploit the boogeyman of “hoarding” and use it to attack those who want to end the killing.

Never mind that the average length of stay for animals at the open admission animal control shelter I ran in New York was only eight days and that no animal ever celebrated an anniversary there. Never mind that the average length of stay at the open admission No Kill Nevada Humane Society, which adopts out 10,000 a year, is 14 days, or about a vacation-level stay for a dog in a boarding kennel. Are we really going to accept that these animals would be better off dead?

But, once again, don’t worry about the facts. They just get in the way. After all, the Butcher says, “PETA ran an ad pleading for homes for 28 cats. Three people responded.”  First of all, this never happened. It is made up. If PETA is saying that despite $30,000,000 in revenues, millions of animal-loving members (who falsely believe that PETA is an animal rights organization), and a powerhouse media reach, they could not find homes for 28 cats, we have no choice but to dismiss such a claim as an absurdity and a lie. There are countless examples of shelters emptying their facilities by adoption when they reached out for help. And they do not have PETA’s media savvy, millions of supporters, and unlimited resources.

There is no doubt that the facility in Liberty is run down. There is no doubt that it is need of significant capitalization. The animal holding spaces are inadequate and the shelter is in disrepair. That is the byproduct of the “catch and kill” paradigm that does not value animals. The No Kill movement has redefined not just sheltering, but the actual physical shelters themselves. The No Kill movement has created facilities that eliminate stainless steel cages and chain link kennels. These new shelters are the physical manifestation of the right to life and quality care ethic embodied in the No Kill philosophy.

Compare these No Kill shelters with two killing shelters championed by PETA:

Dogs wait for adoption in Animal Ark’s spacious “kennels.” The physical shelter is reflective of how caring the programs and staff are there.

It’s play time at the Charlottesville SPCA. Good care and socialization are synonymous with the No Kill philosophy.

Cats lounge about and enjoy the sun and fresh air in this cat colony room at the Nevada Humane Society: a clean, caring, comfortable No Kill shelter.

A dog and puppies at Houston’s animal control shelter. Diarrhea is all over the cage floor and in the water bowl but is not cleaned. Shelter staff have allowed puppies to drown in the trench drain, kittens to go without food and water, and one employee beat a dog but was not fired. Employees who scored the lowest on city aptitude tests were placed in animal control. Read a report of conditions by clicking here. PETA has defended this shelter.

A cat begs for food at King County’s abusive pound. Cats were not fed during a long holiday weekend. An employee who came forward as a whistleblower was threatened with violence by union-protected staff. Read a report of conditions by clicking here. PETA told the County Council not to listen to “radicals” who want to improve conditions.

Who really cares about the animals?

But despite the infrastructure challenges at LHS, they are not responsible for the recent spate of killings. Nor can the dirty shelter be blamed. All of that could have been addressed without the needle. It is a little something I like to call “cleaning.” And a little something else I like to call “adoption.” It means marketing your animals, not just once every three months as LHS is doing, but every weekend, every day, to the millions of people who surround you and love animals. You know, those Americans who spend $50 billion a year on their companion animals, who miss work when they get sick, who keep pictures of them in their wallets. The very people the Butcher accuses of being irresponsible and uncaring, even though they send her organization $30,000,000 a year in donations, falsely believing that she will use that money to save animals, not kill them herself and promote their killing by others.

Once again, it is so much easier to lie. To falsely claim, as the Butcher does, that most pounds in this country are good places, where animals receive loving care, and that the No Kill movement is a threat to these wonderful institutions. As the thousands of dedicated activists nationwide working to reform their community’s abusive, medieval shelters can attest, the reality is that “shelters” across the countries are not just needlessly killing; they are neglecting and abusing animals before they put them to death.

We have inherited a paradigm of neglect and killing, of built in excuses that have allowed governments to underfund their shelters, that have allowed wealthy humane societies to kill animals while hoarding the millions of dollars given by animal lovers to care for the animals, that have allowed cities like Houston, the fourth largest in the U.S., to appoint people who score the lowest on city aptitude tests to the animal shelter and then allow them to keep working even when they beat dogs to death (a shelter PETA has openly defended).  And in fact, the so-called “professionals” who work there are not only lazy and inept, they are ignorant of basic protocols: of how to clean and disinfect, of how to keep animals moving efficiently through the system and into loving, new homes, of how to keep them healthy. Even if they did know, many of them wouldn’t care. But the reality is that they do not know, because teaching them and then holding them accountable to those protocols are not a priority for uncaring government bureaucrats and were never a priority for the large national organizations which are supposed to provide oversight, but do not. Instead, they just legitimize the poor care and killing, by blaming the “irresponsible public” and “pet overpopulation.”

And PETA never says a word. Never complains. Doesn’t hold them accountable. In fact, when they do comment, it is to defend these facilities. It is only when someone takes over that kind of shelter and tries to end the killing that the Butcher stands up and says, “Look, the facility is dirty. No Kill is to blame.”  Her conclusion: “Municipalities need to stand firm.” They need to continue killing in the face of alternatives. They need to keep passing punitive laws that are not funded, that cause poor people to relinquish their animals, that cause killing to increase wherever they are passed. Because, in her warped, deluded, twisted way of thinking, the movement to end killing, to provide better care, to build more humane shelters, is the problem. And it is easy to see why she wants people to think so.

If the No Kill movement succeeds, and the killing of animals is no longer legitimized by blaming the public and overpopulation; if, in fact, it is no longer done, then her own killing of thousands of animals every year loses its political cover. It will be universally regarded as the needless slaughter it really is, and the sickening manifestation of a deeply disturbed individual. And how will she ever get away with it then?

———————–

YesBiscuit! broke the story first. Read more by clicking here.

We’ve learned we do not have an animal problem (too many for the too few homes), we have a people problem, but not all people. Specifically, people in shelters, best summarized by the last two paragraphs of my book, Redemption:

In the end, there may be an overpopulation problem in the United States, but it is not the one we traditionally define. What we are actually suffering from, what is actually killing a high number of animals, is an overpopulation of shelter directors mired in the failed philosophies of the past and complacent with the status quo. As a result, a culture of lifesaving is not possible without wholesale regime change in shelters and national animal protection groups. Consequently, the most important single act—and the crucial first step—in achieving a No Kill nation is firing the current leadership of shelters across the country.

In the final analysis, animals in shelters are not being killed because there are too many of them, because there are too few homes, or because the public is irresponsible. Animals in shelters are dying for primarily one reason—because people in shelters are killing them.

The killing is the fault of uncaring bureaucrats, lazy and inept shelter managers, and national organizations committed to ensuring that the killing paradigm is not upended. Right now, today, roughly 3,000 shelter directors, backed by their cronies at the ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, and PETA, are holding back the will of the American people.  And no amount of spin, no amount of revisionist history, and no amount of trying to encourage through the “carrot” rather than the “stick” will change that unassailable fact. But there is no shortage of people trying. And, irrespective of whether their motivations are nefarious, benign, forgiving or strategic, they are not truthful. And the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the sooner we can focus our efforts on overcoming what is really killing shelter animals. Two recent articles highlight this issue.

HSUS’ Legacy: Two Steps Forward, One Step Backward (and that is being generous)

Last week, while the Royal New Zealand SPCA announced it has formally embraced the No Kill Equation model of sheltering, as communities in New Zealand announced they have crossed the goal line, as communities in Wisconsin and Minnesota made formal announcements of achieving No Kill through the No Kill Equation model, as Duluth, MN announced it is very nearly there (88% rate of lifesaving and climbing), as several Canadian communities announced that they are aggressively moving in that direction (one community went from a 16% rate of lifesaving to 76% and climbing), as Australian communities have announced saving 100% of baby kittens, 93% of all dogs, and more, the Humane Society of the United States held its annual conference in Nashville, TN.

Aside from the main conference, which was largely business as usual, Maddie’s Fund held their second all-day workshop at Expo (though separate from the rest of the conference) on creating a No Kill community. They didn’t use that term, HSUS would not allow it (among other things), highly symbolic but perhaps a minor point. The workshop is a very welcome addition, as the people who attend Expo are the ones who need to hear the message the most. These are people who cheered and gave thunderous applause when HSUS’ resident expert on shelter killing announced—at Expo 2006—that shelters are “not killing” animals, that “they are ending their life, giving them a good death, humanely destroy—whatever” and then subsequently said since they are not killing, she “can’t stand the term No Kill shelter.”(Listen to the Orwellian rant—and the response to it—by clicking here.)

Progress? To be sure. To have Bonney Brown, Susanne Kogut, Mike Fry, and others provide living testaments to the ability to achieve No Kill and to do it overnight at HSUS Expo is a sign of the times. But to suggest, as the Richmond SPCA does, that groups like HSUS “have all embraced clearly articulated visions of adoption guarantee as the appropriate model for our nation’s communities and have committed to working for that outcome” and that Wayne Pacelle has “taken courageous steps to help push this issue as a part of a healthy national dialog and to make it safe for so many other organizations and communities to now embrace it” is simply indefensible. It is a lie. It is a lie to write that Ed Sayres and the ASPCA are doing this also. In killing Oreo and Max, in allowing young dogs to be killed, in trying to derail legislation that would create the infrastructure for a No Kill nation; he is actively fighting against it. Providing crumbs with one hand and taking them away with the other is hardly courage and it is hardly a “clearly articulated vision.” It is just that, crumbs. We’ll take them, but we shouldn’t celebrate the mediocrity, especially when we already hold the keys to ending the killing now and forever. And in many communities we have, despite Pacelle and Sayres, HSUS and ASPCA, denying that those communities even exist.

Neither Pacelle, nor Sayres, nor the respective organizations have ever articulated a vision in sheltering out of love of animals or a passion for saving lives. Any concessions—and that is what they are—have been the result of face saving necessity borne of public humiliation over their indefensible posturing in favor of killing. Pacelle has taken hits for supporting and lobbying for mass killing of dogs, of cats, for embracing the most notorious animal abuser of our time even while he lobbied to have the victims killed, and for stealing money from shelters and rescue groups through outright fraud in fundraising. He has no choice in the matter. No choice at all.

That Bonney Brown was able to present at a separate workshop held in conjunction with HSUS Expo that she turned her community right side up (in a community that the former director—a darling of HSUS and member of their national sheltering committee—said was impossible) is the very definition of poetic justice. That Mike Fry, who has two No Kill communities to his credit and who is an unapologetic champion of my work, was able to tell the truth at Expo is also a marvelous sign of the times. But “separate” is not equal, and more than that, not all of the workshop speakers were truthful.

In fact, one of the speakers at the workshop, the last of them, was Jane Hoffman of the Mayor’s Alliance for New York City animals. Besides admitting that even after six years and tens of millions of dollars, they are still failing by killing healthy animals, she told the assembled crowd they should not be made to feel guilty about killing healthy animals. Spit-take! Two steps forward, one giant step backward.

Even if a shelter manager or employee is going to ignore all evidence to the contrary in order to believe that pet overpopulation is real and insurmountable, even if they believe that no one will adopt animals, that they have no choice but to kill them, the very least they could do is feel bad about it. They are, after all, robbing an animal of his or her only life. All the animals have—their very lives—prematurely taken away. If they don’t feel guilty, they should not be working in a shelter, because to kill healthy animals without remorse, is to be cavalier and unfeeling. It is to be a butcher. But that is the message Hoffman was giving them. No remorse. No guilt. Self-medicating absolution for her efforts to undermine Oreo’s Law; to back the ASPCA even when they needlessly kill animals, allow animals to go hungry, allow puppies they are responsible for to be killed, abuse animals in their custody and then try to cover it up, and allow NYC shelters to kill healthy animals, because they write the checks to Hoffman’s group; and for her own failures to achieve No Kill despite tens of millions of dollars and a shelter system with some of the lowest per capita intake rates in the nation and the highest potential adopter base (8 million people).

In the end, the separate, day-long workshop was not the result of a clearly articulated vision of HSUS, courageous leadership on the part of Pacelle, or anything of the sort. It was forced upon Pacelle and HSUS, and while that is “progress,” it is a baby step when we could be at a full sprint; and even that step is undermined every time Pacelle backs killing, as he routinely does and did at the very same Expo. One of his experts and presenters in Nashville was from Multnomah County Animal Services. Under current leadership at MCAS, fewer animals are going home alive than before. The trend is to more killing, not less. And the trend is to greater punitive enforcement, rather than community-based programs intended to make it easy for people to do the right thing—exactly the opposite of what is needed to save lives. In other words, while Brown, Fry, and others were trying to build a bridge to the future, people like Hoffman and the leadership at MCAS dug trenches to the past. And it is costing animals their lives.

Ironically, I use MCAS as a case-study in my presentations on how shelters misuse temperament testing to justify killing healthy, friendly dogs and make it appear that they are doing a better job than they are. Here is just one example: A 35 pound puppy was evaluated by MCAS staff. According to their own reports, the puppy performed as a puppy should:

• Kennel Presentation: “Easy to leash from kennel doorway” “whole rear end wagging”
• Collar Put On: “Gets excited/playful”
• Entering Stranger: “Readily approaches everyone with [friendliness]”
• Handler: “Readily approaches everyone with [friendless]”
• Pet Back: “No guarding seen”
• Ears/Cheeks: “No guarding seen”
• Remove Bowl: “No guarding seen”
• Tail Stroke: “Mouthiness” “Whirl”
• Pick up Two Paws: “Mouthiness”
• Teeth Exam: “Allows exam”
• Hug: “Allows exam” “Interested in attention”

All those results are consistent with normal puppy behavior. This is a clearly a little fellow who loves people, is friendly and eager to please, and as Cyndi Lauper once sang, just wants to have fun. But the puppy was killed for being “vicious.” And it was not an isolated incident. Can you guess what breed the puppy was identified as? These are predetermined conclusions which have led to a rapidly expanding killing rate for these dogs, even while they tell the public the animals are “unadoptable.”

When these facts were brought to the attention of HSUS prior to Expo by Portland rescuers and No Kill advocates, HSUS threw the full weight of their support behind the shelter. John Snyder, a former kill shelter director himself who is now in charge of companion animal programs at HSUS, wrote them back saying that MCAS had HSUS’ unqualified endorsement. The American people and the animals deserve more from the nation’s largest, wealthiest, and arguably, most influential animal protection organization. But they are not getting it, despite the Richmond SPCA’s fantastical view to the contrary.

PETA’s Three Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

The Animal Rights movement deserves better, too. At its core, the movement for animal rights is based on the principal that animals have a right to live and that we give it expression through laws to promote and protect that right. But you wouldn’t know it by listening to PETA. The largest “animal rights” group believes that people have a right to kill animals. As such, they have more in common with the industry groups they claim to be fighting than they admit. And they certainly practice what they preach with a relish unmatched except by the slaughterhouse industry. Last year, they killed 97% of all animals they sought out, the year before it was 96%, and the year before that, 91%. In 2009, less than ½ of 1% of the animals at PETA were adopted. They kill healthy, adoptable animals. They advocate for the mass slaughter of dogs someone says looks like pit bulls. They advocate for the mass killing of free living unsocialized cats. They routinely defend some of the most abusive and draconian shelters in the nation. And they even support breed bans in communities that turn around and forcibly take family pets, and then sell them for animal research. They are, quite simply, the worst of the worst.

They lie to people saying all the animals they kill are irremediably suffering or hopelessly ill. They lie to people by saying that breed bans and rounding up and killing free roaming cats are both necessary and proper. And they claim the animals want to die—that killing them is a “gift.” And then they lie to people through manipulative use of statistics to claim that animals in pounds are being killed because there are too few homes for them.

Actually, by PETA’s own data, there are plenty of homes for shelter animals. In a newly released May 2010 report, PETA says that 8 million animals enter shelters and of these, half are already being saved through a combination of adoption and reclaim. That leaves, by their own admission, “3 to 4 million cats and dogs” being killed, many of them healthy. But the conclusion they reach that they are being killed “because there simply aren’t enough good homes for them” is a fabrication. Moreover, the reality is that the number is closer to, and even well below, the low end of 3 million.

If shelters did a better job returning lost animals home, they could, for example, increase the percentage of dog reclaims from an average of about 25% to 60%. If shelters ignored PETA’s anti-TNR policy, they could release these cats to their habitat, rather than kill them. If they had pet retention programs to help people overcome the behavior, medical, and environmental conditions which cause them to surrender animals, they could reduce by as much as 30% the number of animals coming in to the shelter. If they utilized foster care programs, they wouldn’t kill the underaged animals entering their facility. And if they had good customer service, employed basic marketing principles, and comprehensively implemented an adoption program, they’d have little trouble finding homes for the 2 to 3 million animals being killed in U.S. pounds and shelters who need adoption. That’s potentially 2 million dogs and cats competing for the 17 million people who are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their homes, have not decided where that animal will come from, and can be influenced to adopt from a shelter.

So, once again, animals are being killed in shelters not because of pet overpopulation, but because people in shelters—and butchers like Newkirk—are killing them. But too many people and organizations such as Pacelle and Sayres, HSUS and the ASPCA, who should know better are still speaking PETA’s dead language of pet overpopulation, giving Newkirk and shelter directors across the country the excuse and political cover they need to kill. And they are using it today. They are telling people not to feel guilty about killing healthy animals. And they are writing 10 year plans for what should occur overnight, as it has in communities across the globe.

An Absence of National Leadership

Right now, neither HSUS or the ASPCA has taken a true and comprehensive leadership position on creating a No Kill nation. We best serve the animals by holding them accountable, not by whitewashing the truth in the hopes that they can be gradually influenced in a more life affirming direction through carrots. History proves the latter view wrong, as every gain in this movement, has been fiercely fought for and hard won. But even if people or organizations believe the carrot is better than the stick, it does not warrant misrepresentations of whom and what Ed Sayres and Wayne Pacelle, the ASPCA and HSUS, truly stand for. And what they stand for, pure and simple, is death. There is no courage in that. It is, in fact, the coward’s way, a refusal to stand up for what is right, because they don’t care enough about the animals to do what is in their power to do: demand an immediate end to the whole bloody mess.

It is the rot at the heart of the animal protection movement, and no amount of spin, sanitizer or perfume can eliminate the stink. It must be cut out and discarded. By calling them visionaries, we only embolden them. The end result is both a tragic embrace of incrementalism that needlessly increases the body count of dead animals; and cooption of the language of No Kill, which they then turn around and willfully use to undermine it.

We can end the killing and we can do it today. But that requires leadership, which neither is willing to provide. Their size, their wealth, their influence could be a game changer for the animals. But aside from a few crumbs, neither is offering it. In fact, what they offer with one hand, they take away with the other. Tell the animals needlessly ending up in landfills that these groups are courageous and visionary. And it will literally, very literally and tragically, fall on deaf—indeed, dead—ears.

The numbers are finally in. In 2009, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) impounded 2,366 animals. They killed 2,301 and found homes for only 8. Another 31 were transferred to killing shelters and their fates are unknown. That’s a 97% rate of killing. While the No Kill movement is having unparalleled success and with No Kill communities now dotting the American landscape—in California, Nevada, Kansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Colorado, Utah, Virginia, and elsewhere—PETA continues to move sharply in the other direction. This is the fourth time I have run this very blog. This is my fourth plea to stop the Butcher of Norfolk.

The blog I write is about reforming animal sheltering in the United States. It is about ending the systematic killing of animals in these pounds. But this particular blog isn’t about sheltering. This isn’t about the battle between the No Kill philosophy and its eventual conquest over regressive, kill-oriented approaches. This isn’t about a lazy, inept, or uncaring shelter director who fails to hold his or her staff accountable. It isn’t about shelters that kill animals because doing so is easier than putting in place the programs and services to stop it.

This is about something more nefarious. This is about something truly insidious. This is about a bully who seeks out animals to kill. This is about the creation of death squads that actively go into communities with the specific purpose of finding dogs and cats to kill. And this is about a movement that has utterly failed to defend the innocent animals being slaughtered. This blog is about Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA. This is about an animal killing, arrogant, disturbed person. And enough is enough.

Over three years ago, I wrote a blog opining that the reason PETA slaughters virtually every animal it seeks out and “impounds” has more to do with Ingrid Newkirk’s dark impulses than with any ideology, philosophy, or belief in overpopulation. This followed a staggering 97% kill rate for animals in 2006, despite millions of animal loving members, a world-wide reach, and a budget of tens of millions of dollars. It followed the killing of 1,942 out of 1,960 cats they impounded. It followed the deaths of 988 out of the 1,030 dogs they impounded. It followed the killing of 50 of the 52 rabbits, guinea pigs, and other animals they took in. It followed the killing of the one and only chicken they impounded. That blog earned me a letter from PETA’s attorney threatening litigation for defamation.

Then came the 2007 numbers showing a 91% rate of killing—the killing of 1,815 of the 1,997 animals they impounded. And so I reran the blog. In 2008, I ran the blog once again (it has now been up continuously for over three years) because the slaughter—the needless, senseless, evil slaughter—continued with an equally staggering 96% kill rate. A paltry seven dogs and cats were adopted. A paltry 34 were transferred to an SPCA whose fates are not known. And out of 2,216 dogs and cats impounded, the rest were systematically put to death by PETA.

Killed: 555 of the 584 dogs.

Killed: 1,569 of the 1,589 cats.

Finally, 2009: only 8 adoptions, less than 1/2 of 1% of the animals they took in. Killed: 2,301 out of 2,366.

In the last ten years, they have killed 21,537 animals: that’s roughly 2,000 animals a year every year for the last decade; or over five animals killed by PETA every single day. PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” In fact, PETA’s attorney stated that in his letter threatening a defamation lawsuit if I did not back down. But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much.

In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills savable animals. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.

Why does the animal protection movement tolerate this woman?

No other movement would allow someone to remain in her position without a massive outcry and public condemnation when their actions are so counter, so anathema to their movement’s foremost principles. The child protection movement would not allow someone who kills children to run an organization dedicated to children’s rights. The human rights movement would not allow someone who kills people to run any of their organizations. But the animal rights movement—a movement founded on the principle that animals have a right to life—allows a very public, avowed, shameless animal killer to run an animal rights organization. And with the exception of Friends of Animals, the rest of the nation’s animal rights groups remain deafeningly silent about it.

As if that was not shameful enough, others go further and actually embrace her. The groups which organize the Animal Rights Conference inducted her into their Animal Rights Hall of Fame. Wayne Pacelle and HSUS have allowed her and her pro-killing apologists to give workshops at their national conference, HSUS Expo, to promote PETA’s ghastly vision of killing.

So a notice to all would be animal killers out there. One way to avoid the condemnation by the animal rights/welfare community for your vile actions is to start an animal rights group yourself and use that group as your cover for killing. Because they won’t stand up to you. There will be no campaign to bring you down. They will kowtow to your power and your position. You will become their colleague. Some will look the other way. But others will induct you into their hall of fame. Still others will ask you to present workshops at their national conference.

If history teaches us anything, however, it is that the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to one. The only thing that will stop Newkirk is challenging Newkirk and calling her killing for what it is: the nefarious acts of a disturbed person. Because that’s how history will remember and condemn her, despite the aura of legitimacy her untoward actions now receive from her Board of Directors, the Humane Society of the United States, the groups who promote the Animal Rights Conference, and the other groups which tolerate her leadership position through their silence.

While those who now dare to call Newkirk’s slaughter for what it is may be threatened with litigation, or be attacked in other ways, history will vindicate them, as it always does for those who—despite the personal costs—defend what is right by challenging tyrants. While those who remained silent in the face of these atrocities—the hypocritical leaders of other organizations who take her telephone calls, shake her hand, stand side-by-side with her, and take personal pride in their association with her—will someday have to answer for this complicity, and will face the shame that comes with answering “nothing” when asked what they did to stop Newkirk’s bloody reign at PETA.

Because engrave this in stone: As soon as Newkirk and her pro-killing cultish devotees are gone, PETA will immediately, completely, and without reservation embrace the No Kill philosophy and become one of its leading champions. When that happens; when her actions are thoroughly and completely seen by everyone for what they truly are; when she is condemned and finally, finally, thankfully, finally, we don’t have to hold our breath, clench our teeth, shake with rage, or cry at the thought of what PETA did to those poor animals, we will all be left wondering just what took us so damned long to rise up and stop this villain in our midst.

So here it is again: Round 4. Munchausen by PETA. My opinion.

Munchausen by PETA?

In search of a diagnosis as to why Ingrid Newkirk and PETA seek out animals to kill. And a plea for the movement to stop them so that they won’t continue killing.

In 2006, an official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) shows that they took in 3,043 animals, of which 1,960 were cats, 1,030 were dogs, 52 were other companion animals, and one was a chicken. Of these, they killed the chicken, killed 1,942 cats, 988 dogs, and 50 classified as “other companion animals.” They found homes for only 2 cats, 8 dogs and 2 of the other companion animals.

By the numbers:

• PETA killed 1,942 of the 1,960 cats, finding homes for only 2.
• PETA killed 988 of the 1,030 dogs finding homes for only 8.
• PETA killed 50 of the 52 other companion animals (rabbits, guinea pigs, etc.), finding homes for only 2.
• PETA killed the chicken they took in.

That’s a 97% kill rate. (This was based on PETA’s own reporting to the Commonwealth of Virginia, which only requires “recordkeeping and reporting of only those animals taken into custody… for purposes of adoption.”) Despite $30 million in revenues, they found homes for only 12 animals. An additional 21 cats and 25 dogs were transferred to another agency (likely a kill shelter since PETA has a “policy against No Kill shelters.”) The rest were put to death. Why?

I’ve tried to explain it by the simple observation that the founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, formerly held a job killing homeless dogs and cats at the Washington Humane Society, a shelter with a consistently poor record for saving lives and the subject of historical public acrimony for its over-reliance on killing. But, in my opinion, there appears to be something more disturbing going on here than Newkirk’s history.

It can’t simply be explained by catch phrases like “they are hypocrites” and “they don’t really care.” Those are terms which No Kill proponents may use to describe Newkirk’s and PETA’s position on killing dogs and cats, but they don’t explain it. Nor is this simply a disagreement between No Kill supporters and traditional “catch and kill” proponents. That is the debate going on with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), where their reputations and donations are being threatened. But with PETA, there appears to be something much more nefarious at play.

While Newkirk tries to shield her actions by wrapping them in the language of opposition to “No Kill,” PETA neither has an animal control contract, nor do they operate as a rescue group. Any effort to offer a lifesaving alternative to killing is dismissed as “no clue” or “warehousing animals” and any dissent by employees or volunteers is allegedly punished by termination or ousting from the group. In talking with an ex-PETA employee, he indicated that during a staff meeting, he was subjected to a PETA video of this kind (No Kill equals hoarding). Having lived in San Francisco during the 1990s when No Kill was in its heyday there and the San Francisco SPCA the nation’s premier shelter, he openly questioned the veracity of the information and was asked to his supervisor’s office and terminated.

Why? The closest analogy or explanation that I have found which appears to fit is the same phenomenon that causes nurses to kill their patients, some offshoot of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (See Attack of the Killer Nurses: A look at a curious phenomenon – nurses who kill their patients, National Review, May 28, 2001). In the typical case, the nurse or caregiver kills the patients with lethal injections. They often claim they act from “compassion for their ailing victims,” because they want “to end their suffering,” and because they and their colleagues are “severely overburdened.” In their minds, they are the heroes and those who try to stop them are turning their backs on their patients.

The corollary to PETA’s language about “Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option,” about “overburdened” shelter workers, and about giving animals what Newkirk calls “the gift of euthanasia,” and how “it was the best gift they’ve ever had,” is eerily similar. In her case, she also believes she is the hero and those who try to stop her are turning their backs on the animals. (She recently blasted a No Kill supporter by stating: “How dare you pretend to help animals and turn your back on those who want an exit from an uncaring world!”) Indeed, Newkirk-through-PETA says that blaming shelters for killing animals is like blaming hospitals for killing patients. Is Newkirk trying to tell us something?

Unfortunately, I have no psychological evaluation to support such a diagnosis, except for similarity of language and the acts themselves: the fact of the killing, the death squads, the indoctrination against No Kill, the hateful denunciation of No Kill, and the proactive efforts to stop communities from trying to embrace No Kill principles.

So what is it? (PETA-apologists have suggested that Newkirk has seen terrible suffering and worries about animals, but this is nothing more than Orwellian double-speak. I was a prosecutor. I’ve seen and handled cases involving torture, child rape, murder, arson of animals, and other acts of unspeakable cruelty. I was also an animal control director in a shelter which investigated and prosecuted horrific crimes against animals. I’ve seen terrible suffering to which is why I want to end it, regardless of whether it comes at the hands of a single abuser or systematically by killing)

We may never know. But what we do know and what I can say is that animal rights and animal welfare groups should reject this point of view and actively campaign against it not only for the dogs and cats PETA will kill in the future and whose interests they theoretically exist to protect, but because it undermines our movement’s credibility when we either ignore the atrocities PETA is committing against animals, or make excuses for it simply because those perpetrating them claim to be part of our movement. Moreover, PETA’s position that animals in shelters do not have a right to live subverts the entire foundation upon which all social justice movements are inherently based.

The right to life is universally acknowledged as a basic or fundamental right. It is basic or fundamental because the enjoyment of the right to life is a necessary condition of the enjoyment of all other rights. A movement cannot be “rights” oriented as PETA claims to be and ignore the fundamental right to life. If an animal is dead, the animal’s rights become irrelevant. Not only does PETA not acknowledge the right to life, they have rejected it saying that they “do not believe in right to life,” as it relates to dogs and cats.

Of more immediate concern, it is the relationship between Americans and their animal companions that can open a door to larger animal rights issues. In their daily interactions with their dogs and cats, people experience an animal’s personality, emotions, and capacity both for great joy and great suffering. They learn empathy for animals. It is not a stretch that someone who is compassionate—and passionate—about their pets would over time and with the right information be sympathetic to animal suffering on farms, in circuses, in research facilities, and elsewhere.

Right now, however, the nation’s largest self-proclaimed “animal rights” group is actively working to ensure that that door is never opened—by actively and proactively arguing that dogs and cats do not have the right to life, and that killing them is an act of kindness. In my opinion: It is beyond ironic. It is beyond hypocritical. It is beyond a betrayal. It is beyond obscene. Regardless of whether you believe in “animal rights” or you don’t; regardless of whether you are a vegetarian or not; regardless of where you stand on animal issues unrelated to animal sheltering, I believe PETA’s position is insane.

And despite the fact that PETA’s annual killing of thousands of dogs and cats has been common knowledge among the leaders of our nation’s animal welfare and animal rights groups for years, most of these so-called “leaders” have chosen to look the other way. In fact, HSUS invites Newkirk and her cronies to give presentations at their national animal sheltering conference. Two years ago, Newkirk gave a video presentation on what amounted to why Pit Bulls should be killed and this year, one of her devotees will share PETA’s strategy for how to engage in “damage control” and “public relations spin” when a shelter or community which kills is challenged by No Kill proponents. Why are groups like HSUS supporting her? Do they hate the movement to end the systematic killing of shelter animals which No Kill represents so much that they are willing to embrace a person and organization this zealous in support of the killing of dogs and cats? The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” can’t be it, can it? Is HSUS so threatened by No Kill that they are willing to embrace an organization which appears to be working to undermine their other platforms? With friends like these, the animals truly do not need enemies.

In my opinion, PETA’s position on killing of dogs and cats is irresponsible. But as to the question of why they do it, I am not a psychiatrist and I very much doubt that Newkirk and her followers will submit to a psychological evaluation. As a result, I am afraid I have no clear answer, though my personal opinion leans toward Newkirk suffering from the mental illness of Munchausen by Proxy. And if I am correct, she will never stop killing until she is forced to.

PETA’s Board of Directors, PETA employees, other animal welfare groups, and animal rights activists need to stop drinking the Ingrid Newkirk Kool-Aid. They must stop making excuses for the killing of animals. They need to openly reject views that need to be explained in the pages of the Journal of Psychiatry. And, if they are to protect the thousands of animals whose lives are at future risk from PETA, they must work to remove the political cover provided by her association with PETA which allows Ingrid Newkirk to continue to act on what I believe are deeply disturbing impulses that result in animals being killed.

For further reading:

Said the killing apologist to the killer

Who loves PETA?

Please note: The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the writer and no one else, nor any agency or organization. The author is an attorney and notes that the communications are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Any attempt to infringe on that right, whether actual or threatened, will be considered a strategic lawsuit against public participation.

A writer for PETA gives a shelter director on the defensive for staggering levels of killing advice on how to attack No Kill generally, and me specifically.

I recently uncovered an e-mail exchange, dated June 2008, between Ed Boks, the then-General Manger of the brutal Los Angeles Animal Shelter system, and Lisa Towell, a writer for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. It provides a rare glimpse into the desperate lengths “catch and kill” apologists will go to reject that which does not fit their preconceived point of view that the killing of animals in shelters is both necessary and acceptable, even in the face of overwhelming—and personal—experience to the contrary.

During his tenure in Los Angeles, Boks oversaw a shelter system that killed roughly 20,000 dogs and cats a year, and thousands of other species of animals. In fact, during the period that marked his disastrous leadership, the number of animals impounded and killed increased for the first time in better than a decade. Not only did his draconian policies cause more animals to be intentionally put to death, but the number of animals missing and who simply died in kennel—a reflection of poor care—also skyrocketed. Due to one scandal after another, the City Council finally gave him a unanimous vote of “No Confidence” and he resigned shortly thereafter. The results caused even his initial supporters to bolt, but they were easily anticipated. Boks came to Los Angeles by way of both Maricopa County in Arizona and New York City, both agencies he left under tenures that were marked by high rates of killing that put the lie to his public claims of success. While running the Maricopa County animal shelter system into financial ruin (opening up a $600,000 a year structural deficit), Boks never achieved better than a 50% save rate—the national average—that saw tens of thousands of animals lose their lives annually. In New York City, independent audits found poor and hostile treatment of animals, as well as increasing rates of animals dying in kennels that culminated in a unanimous vote by his Board not to renew his contract. To the dismay of No Kill advocates, the Mayor of Los Angeles hired him anyway.

Towell is a writer for PETA, an organization which seeks out thousands of animals every year to kill. In fact, from 2000-2008, PETA killed 19,328 animals. Once the 2009 figures are released, it will put the total body count well in excess of 20,000 for the decade. In some years, PETA’s rate of killing was as high as 97%, and 2009 promises to be another bloodbath despite over $30 million in revenues annually and millions of animal loving supporters. The rate of killing has led to calls to reclassify PETA from a shelter under Virginia regulations to a slaughterhouse, since its death rates are so far above even the worst performing shelters in the state. In 2006, for example, of 1,997 animals they sought out, only seven dogs and cats were adopted into homes and another 34 were transferred to a kill shelter whose fates are unknown. The rest were put to death. In some cases, PETA has killed animals in the back of a van within minutes of being taken in, despite promises of finding the animals a home to those relinquishing them. Not content with their own mass killing, PETA also advocates policies around the country to encourage the killing of even more animals, including a call to slaughter every dog someone labels a “Pit Bull” who enters a shelter, calls for the continued killing of free-living unsocialized (i.e. feral) cats, and coming to the defense of some of the most abusive shelters in the country. Indeed, PETA supported a Pit Bull ban even in Ontario, which mandates the pound seizure of animals from shelters by companies who use them for animal experimentation—the fate that ostensibly awaited some of the family pets seized under the PETA-supported breed ban. Those policies have earned PETA’s founder, Ingrid Newkirk, who directs PETA’s assembly line of killing and who freely admits that that PETA kills “healthy” and “adoptable” animals, the nickname the “Butcher of Norfolk.”

Towell opens her e-mail to Boks by saying she was glad to have met him at a legislative hearing in Sacramento in support of AB 1634, the mandatory spay/neuter law which would have given Boks’ shelter, and others like it throughout the state, the power and authority to impound and kill even more animals. But giving shelters this power was not the only topic of conversation between Boks and Towell. The e-mail suggests they spent time at their meeting talking about me, too. In the e-mail, Towell embraces the PETA position that No Kill is to be opposed, rather than embraced. She talks openly about how “great” their views are in this regard and, in fact, offers additional strategies to combat No Kill generally and me specifically: “Here is the information I wrote up on problems with no-kill,” she writes to Boks. “You’ll see that I quoted from your blog posts!” She then writes how she is also sending her comments to Daphna Nachminovich, PETA’s Minister of Killing Propaganda, who routinely defends abusive killing shelters and equates No Kill with hoarding. The rest of the e-mail is an attack against my book Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation & The No Kill Revolution in America.

Apparently, Boks—a man who was chased out of Maricopa County, removed from New York City when his Board unanimously voted not to renew his contract, and who resigned in Los Angeles after a unanimous vote of “No Confidence” from the City Council—and Nachminovich—a killing apologist who lies about PETA’s killing and then justifies it by disparaging the No Kill alternative—are worthy of quoting and trusting, but Redemption, a book which champions a philosophy that says we can and should end the killing, which asks for a more compassionate shelter system, is not to be believed or trusted.

Ironically, even though Towell calls PETA’s attacks against me “great,” she realizes after reading Redemption that their attacks are dishonest. In the end, she admits that she agrees with much of what I brought to light in Redemption: “many shelters would benefit greatly from implementing policies and programs that Winograd advocates in the book,” she writes. Programs, ironically, that the organization she holds out as the standard bearer on how society should relate to animals, opposes.

Towell nonetheless does take a break from drinking the Ingrid Newkirk Kool-Aid by admitting that “there is room for improvement at many shelters (even those short on money and resources), and as a volunteer at one of those shelters, I found parts of Winograd’s book quite compelling.”

Towell gives the following example:

At my own shelter, I and other volunteers tried to work with the staff to implement more aggressive adoption outreach for the cats… Problems we tried to fix: unwillingness to use volunteers more extensively (foster, adoption outreach, etc.), insufficient use of media and internet to promote cats, poor customer service, poor proactivity in managing the less adoptable cats. (As it happens, all of these programs/policies are discussed in Winograd’s book).

We had very little long-term success, despite a positive reception from staff for our proposals. I became convinced that you’d have to fire the supervisor and most of the staff to get a different attitude. So, this part of Winograd’s message really resonated for me—some of the cat killings in the last year were the direct outcome of the shelter staff not making straightforward changes that could have saved their lives.

She then openly acknowledged that she “doesn’t know how common this is across the country” even though a simple Google search would have provided the answer. In fact, it is endemic to animal control. In addition to killing in the face of alternatives, the last year alone has seen a significant amount of nationwide media coverage revealing widespread animal neglect and outright abuse at these very institutions. These exposés show a strikingly different reality than the mythical description of heroic shelters portrayed by PETA for whom Towell writes for:

• In Memphis, TN, shelter workers not only intentionally starved animals to death, they took animals who were still alive to the incinerator.
• In King County, WA, an animal control officer turned whistleblower not only confirmed the neglect and abuse uncovered in three independent assessments of the shelter, but indicated that things are worse than ever for the animals, despite the denials of the guild/union that blindly defends itself and its members.  The whistleblower described “cats dying in their cage for lack of treatment, a dog so sick [he] nearly drowned in a stream of water in its kennel and animals of all types in need of veterinary attention, but not getting it.” This is a shelter PETA defended and, in an effort to sabotage reform, painted concerned animal lovers as “radicals” in a letter to the Council.
• In Lucas County, OH, the local dog warden—an incompetent hack given the job out of nepotism—routinely allowed dogs to get sick and then killed them, despite rescue groups offering to save them.
• In Los Angeles County, a news investigation team uncovered officers physically abusing animals.

The list goes on and on and on and on.

These and other cases show shelter workers and Animal Control Officers (ACOs) who kick, beat, baton, and kill puppies. ACOs who cause animals to suffer and die. ACOs who cause animals to cannibalize other animals in their cages because they go unfed. And the very animal control officers who cause these travesties suffer no repercussions because they are “supervised” by their fellow union and bureaucracy-protected shirkers.

But despite evidence of this pervasive and troubling reality nationwide, and after admitting that the shelter she volunteers for finds killing cats easier than doing what is necessary to stop killing, after admitting that for changes to occur, leadership must be replaced with people who care, and after admitting her ignorance about how truly pervasive and endemic this is in shelters across the country, Towell turns around and suggests that Boks, she, and PETA must work together to “discredit Winograd’s philosophy” by painting me as “well-intentioned but naïve,” because trying to paint me as a liar as PETA has done has fallen on deaf ears.

But who is naïve? Towell herself admits she is ignorant of trends in shelter policy, even as the one experience she has—that of a volunteer at her local shelter—confirms what I write in Redemption. And her claims about how wrong I supposedly am are not based on data, analysis, or experience, but her own wild speculation: always prefaced with “I think,” and “as far as I know,” which she later freely admits later not so much.

Towell also admits that the “open admission” shelters I cite in my book as evidence of the potential we have to achieve a No Kill nation are “among the best-performing shelters in the country.” She further writes that they “must be doing something right” and what she “thinks” they are doing right is implementing the programs and services of the No Kill Equation—“all programs that Winograd advocates.” But she then follows-up with the mother of all non-sequiturs: disparaging the No Kill Equation as “naïve.” It is naïve she writes, because even with the comprehensive implementation of those programs, shelters would still be forced to kill because pet overpopulation is real.

Barfing out sheltering dogma before real reflection begins, ignoring the success of communities nationwide even in communities with high intake rates, and thoroughly ignorant of the data, she avers that shelters can’t “adopt their way out of killing” as I claim in Redemption. Ironically, she comes to this conclusion by doing her own back of the envelope calculations. The only problem is that even her own (inaccurate) statistics prove my point.

Towell says that her “own calculations …. suggest” there are homes for 12 million dogs and cats every year. She then admits that “in theory that’s enough to absorb the 3.7 [million] killed in shelters each year.” In other words, she proves that the issue is not one of “too many animals, not enough homes,” but of market share, exactly as I argued in Redemption. But then concludes from that data that her own calculations “topple Winograd’s overpopulation argument.” The basis of this non-sequitur is a profound ignorance of statistical analysis and trends in sheltering to suggest we can never expect 3.7 million of those 12 million to adopt rather than buy.

First of all, national data show that every year over 21 million homes become available and the trend is toward increasing numbers. Some are already committed to adopting from shelters and they will do so, even with poor customer service, dirty facilities, and other endemic problems. Others got their last animal from a commercial or other source and are committed to getting their next animal from the same or similar source. But the data also shows that roughly 17 million are open to adopting from shelters and can be convinced to do so. These are the people shelters need to reach with proactive marketing and public relations, and by modifying policies and procedures in line with those of the No Kill Equation to successfully adopt more animals to them.

In addition, of the roughly 4 million killed, not all of those need new homes. After backing out free-living unsocialized (feral) cats who need neuter and release or should not be allowed to enter shelters in the first place, after switching from passive to proactive redemption efforts thereby increasing by three-fold the number of stray dogs who are reclaimed by their families, and seven-fold the stray cats who are reclaimed by their families, after removing—at this time in history—those animals who are truly and tragically hopelessly ill, irremediably suffering, and vicious dogs with a poor prognosis for rehabilitation, we can cut the number of animals entering shelters who actually need new homes significantly. What that means is that even if roughly 90% of that 17 million got their animal from somewhere other than a shelter, we could still zero out the killing of savable animals. Or put another way, if shelters increased the market of new and replacement homes (a combination of what statisticians call “stock” and “flow”) over the existing pool of homes by 3%, we would empty all the shelters.

Despite this, she then goes on to downplay adoptions, dismissing their importance in ending the killing, and creating a false “either-or” by stating we must focus—indeed deify—spay/neuter. But this ignores four crucial issues devastating to the overly simplistic, indefensible, and ultimately unethical argument she makes. To begin with, adoptions and spay/neuter are not mutually exclusive. Second, communities that have achieved No Kill success did so despite some of the highest intake rates in the nation before a fully functioning sterilization program was even in place (with the exception of feral cats). Spay/neuter is important to reduce the numbers of animals entering shelters, but it is not a prerequisite before the lifesaving endeavor begins or No Kill is achieved (though it certainly makes it easier and easier to sustain). And third, working solely to prevent future killing through spay/neuter but ignoring the animals alive today and condemning them to death is inhumane and unethical. But what is most devastating to her case, even while high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter is a central tenet of the No Kill Equation, even though I am an advocate for low-cost, no-cost and high-volume sterilization, and even while I offered free sterilization at the shelters I oversaw is this: It is naïve to assume that draconian shelter directors will stop killing even when spay/neuter efforts pay off in the form of lower impounds.

Shelter directors kill because it is easier to kill than do what is necessary to stop it. They kill despite rescue groups willing to save those animals. They kill despite empty cages. They kill while turning away adopters with regressive policies, poor customer service, and lack of public access shelter hours. In fact, too many of them neglect or abuse the animals in the process before killing them, some in the most inhumane manner imaginable. In short, as long as they are allowed to stay in their leadership positions, as long as uncaring government bureaucrats treat municipal shelters as nothing more than “jobs programs” for equally uncaring and incompetent staff who are not employable in the private sector or other government agencies deemed more important, and as long as groups like PETA provide them political cover by falsely painting them as “heroic despite pet overpopulation,” they will continue to kill indefinitely. Towell naively and ignorantly assumes that killing is always the result of supposed “space” issues—when the evidence reveals that most of the killing is a result of shelter directors willfully ignoring readily available lifesaving alternatives.

The organization she writes for proves it, an organization with a global reach, tens of millions in annual revenues, and a support base of millions of animal lovers, that kills over 90% of animals they seek out. The shelter she volunteers for whose staff kills cats because they refuse to implement what she acknowledges are simple, straightforward, common sense alternatives to killing which already exist. Ed Boks, the man she admires and quotes, the recipient of her e-mail, also proves it. As head of the Los Angeles pound, he oversaw the killing of roughly 20,000 animals annually despite a per capita intake rate a fraction of No Kill communities and despite one of the best funded shelter systems in the nation.

Towell ends her attack against me by saying that “Winograd disparages the traditional approach of LES (legislation, education, and [mandatory] sterilization).” And then goes on to conclude that the decline in killing nationally—which she fails to realize coincides with the introduction of the programs and services of the No Kill Equation—is, in her words, a result of LES: “I think at least some of it is due to the very LES he dislikes (e.g., differential licensing fees, mandatory S/N, etc.)” But once again, Towell’s conclusion is betrayed by her ignorance and failure to do the most rudimentary of research on the issue.

In the U.S., these approaches have always been and continue to be a failure. In fact, the irresponsible and disastrous legislative foray she supported for the entire State of California, but was passed only in Los Angeles is responsible for the first increase in killing there in a decade. At a time when other communities were seeing death rates plummet—Towell championed and Boks ushered in a legislative scheme that resulted in a 24% increase in dog killing and a 35% increase in cat killing. That is the standard to which Towell aspires. But it is not compassionate, humane, nor effective. In fact, despite calling me naïve a number of times, it is Towell who deserves the moniker—both in terms of buying into Newkirk’s and Nachminovich’s dark, twisted embrace of killing and her lack of understanding as to what happens when the types of laws she champions are passed.

In the end, however, what Towell does prove in her determination to undermine the No Kill philosophy as championed in Redemption, is how very Orwellian this movement has become. That two individuals—one with a sordid history of killing, and the other a writer for an organization whose leader freely admits to rounding up and killing thousands of animals every year—are capable of a communication implying to one another that they are championing the animals’ best interest by seeking to undermine the message of hope and promise in Redemption shows the level of self-delusion the old party line of the “catch and kill” movement both sanctions and encourages.

Likewise, I found it fascinating to glimpse a communication about me between two individuals who, judging from the tone and content of the e-mail, labor under the illusion that Redemption is a slick, carefully crafted attempt at subterfuge, rather than what it is—a sincere and heartfelt plea for greater compassion towards the animals entering our nation’s abysmal and broken sheltering system. But judging by both Boks’ sordid history of killing animals and Lisa Towell’s association with PETA, perhaps it is no surprise that they cannot conceive of honest dedication to the cause they are, by the nature of their jobs, pledged to promote, but which through their actions, they actively seek to undermine.

Of course, given their reaction to Redemption, there is obviously nothing I can say or do which will change their minds. Their opposition is not born of genuine, though misguided, concern.  In Boks’ case, it is nothing more than naked self-preservation, and in Towell’s, a blind devotion to the murderous vision of the Butcher of Norfolk. In this case, proving them wrong—and laying their true motivations bare—is a job best left to the workings of time and its eventual realization of a No Kill nation. And when that day arrives—as it invariably will—I’d love another insider glimpse such as that afforded by this e-mail. I predict that the self-delusion Boks and Towell will need to employ then in order to reconcile their historical desire to undermine No Kill with a society that has fully embraced—and realized—its tremendous promise, will be equally, if not more, fascinating and fantastical.

PETA wants to discredit me. To PETA, I am a threat. Why?

Because I eat meat? No, that can’t be it. I’m an ethical vegan of 20 years living with a vegan wife, two vegan kids, and vegan dogs. I even have a vegan cookbook due out next year.

Mr. Picklechips and Sir Topham Hat recommend Evolution Dog Food!

Because I experiment on animals? No, that can’t be it either. As an intern in law school, I worked with the Animal Legal Defense Fund on two lawsuits against the U.S. Department of Agriculture to enforce Animal Welfare Act standards. I even publicized violations of the Animal Welfare Act by Stanford University’s animal research lab while I was a student there which led to a federal investigation by both the National Institutes of Health and USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

Because I think dogs and cats should be killed? No, that can’t be it. I’m a committed No Kill advocate. I created the nation’s first No Kill community. I am the director of an organization dedicated to ending the systematic killing of animals in shelters. And I’ve worked with communities nationwide to reduce rates of shelter killing.

According to Alicia Silverstone, the actress and PETA spokesperson, Ingrid Newkirk says I want to destroy the animal rights movement. Can that be it? No, I believe animals have a right to live. I have even called for animal rights activists and No Kill advocates to come together on the issue of companion animals.

Could it be that I am a threat precisely because of all of those things? Because I take issue with PETA’s slaughter and cannot be superficially dismissed as part of some group which just wants to exploit animals? That my positions reveal the hypocrisy of PETA’s kill-oriented policies? Because through my association with the No Kill movement, I am helping–along with many others–to strip PETA of the excuses they use to justify their nefarious actions against over 2,000 innocent animals every year? Because I am helping to prove that the anti-No Kill, pro-killing positions PETA advances are regressive, ethically bankrupt, and cruel?

They have threatened to sue me. They’ve taken out ads against me. They’ve written letters to the editor of newspapers lying about me. And they’ve come to the defense of regressive shelters against my reform efforts. But PETA’s latest salvo against me really takes the cake* : “Dog Breeders love Nathan.” That is what PETA recently posted on an internet list-serve devoted to animal rights which was debating the No Kill philosophy in order to undermine my credibility and to champion its policy which favors killing.

Dog breeders love Nathan. Wow—a non-sequitur. I…am…..speechless. And that little gem is supposed to discredit the No Kill philosophy? And that is supposed to absolve the Butcher of Norfolk of her wanton disregard for the value of animal life? And PETA’s lackeys are that gullible that they will accept that claim as a reason to continue supporting the PETA death squads?

Well then, here are mine in return:

Dog killers love PETA. So long as the dog killers call themselves “animal control,” “humane society,” or “SPCA.” Nationwide, animal control directors who would rather kill dogs then save them using readily available lifesaving alternatives and who are under scrutiny from No Kill advocates working to reform their shelters can count on PETA to come to their defense. It seems the worse the shelter, the more PETA rallies, as it did in King County, WA even after it was found that animals were not being fed, were allowed to suffer with untreated injuries and illness, and were neglected and even abused by the staff who was supposed to be their protectors.

Cat killers love PETA. Not only do shelter directors who kill cats despite readily available lifesaving alternatives love PETA for the same reason as those who needlessly kill dogs do, but those who want all feral cats rounded up and killed do too. In fact, Georgetown University cited PETA when it embraced an extermination campaign after I lobbied for them to follow the example of Stanford University, my alma mater, and set up a campus TNR program. In fact, unweaned kittens were found left to starve after the PETA-endorsed campaign rounded up their feral mothers to kill.

Vivisectors love PETA. While PETA claims to be against animal research, they championed a Pit Bull ban in Ontario, even though Ontario allows pound seizure. After 72 hours in a municipal pound, dogs are sold to any researcher from a registered research facility for $6. Its bad enough that PETA endorsed a Pit Bull ban in Ontario that causes people to surrender their animal companions under the threat of arrest. But now these family pets are being sold to laboratories for animal experimentation.

Who else loves PETA?

Vortech Pharmaceuticals, the makers of Fatal-Plus (the drug used to kill animals in shelters), loves PETA. PETA’s own use and PETA’s advocacy for increased use, despite readily available lifesaving alternatives, is increasing Vortech profits.

Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater loves PETA. PETA pays them to pick up the dead bodies of the animals they kill. And since they get paid by weight, and some estimates say that PETA delivers up to 30 tons of dead animals annually, that amounts to tens of thousands of dollars in profits thanks to PETA’s killing rampage.

The company PETA paid $9,370 of its members donations in order for them to install a large walk-in freezer to store all the bodies of dead animals PETA kills at its headquarters loves PETA.

People who want to scapegoat and kill all Pit Bulls love PETA. When anti-Pit Bull advocates introduced legislation in Indianapolis to make it easier to kill Pit Bulls, PETA urged them to go further and ban them outright. Just kill them all!

PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk loves PETA. PETA provides political cover for her dark impulses to seek out innocent animals to kill.

Hypocrites love PETA. PETA has long argued that feral cats are better dead than fed and has blasted people who feed feral animals, including cats. But do those rules apply to Ingrid Newkirk?

In the book, Pigeons: The fascinating Saga of the World’s Most Revered and Reviled Bird, the author tells people not to feed feral pigeons because it inflates their numbers, increases dependence on humans, and increases human-pigeon conflicts which lead to lethal campaigns against them. If you overfeed pigeons, he concludes, you are giving fodder to anti-Pigeon forces seeking to eradicate them. I am not sure I buy into that. I am an advocate for feeding feral cats. Why are pigeons different? Maybe they are. I’ve never seen a skinny Pigeon. I just don’t know enough about it to make the call. But PETA agrees. They’ll tell you not to feed them. They’ll tell you it’s wrong. They’ll agree that if you care about them, you should leave them alone. That is what they’ll tell you. But that is not what Ingrid Newkirk does herself. Here’s a tidbit from Pigeons on p. 239:

Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA. No matter how much she is educated about overfeeding the pigeons on her office balcony in Norfolk, Virginia, she apparently can’t quit the habit.

No surprise there. This comes from a woman who says she believes in animal rights and then demands the right to kill them. Apparently, there are rules for everyone else and then there are different rules for Newkirk. As head of the nation’s largest so-called “animal rights” organization, she’ll tell you that animals have intrinsic value independent of their relationship to humans and they should be treated with respect and compassion, but then she turns around and claims animals do not have a right to live. Her group kills over 2,000 every year. She champions policies, like Pit Bull bans, to kill even more of them. And she attacks those working to save animals who disagree with her.

It would be ludicrous, if it wasn’t so disturbing.

—————————————————————–

* Cake: flour, organic sugar, soy milk, egg replacer, baking powder, vanilla flavor, sea salt. Frosting: Organic powdered sugar, margarine, cocoa powder, water, vanilla powder, sea salt. Walla! Vegan cake.

This is about something more nefarious. This is about something truly insidious. This is about a bully who seeks out animals to kill. This is about the creation of death squads that actively go into communities with the specific purpose of finding dogs and cats to kill. And this is about a movement that has utterly failed to defend the innocent animals being slaughtered. This blog is about Ingrid Newkirk, the President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). This is about an animal killing, arrogant, disturbed person. And enough is enough.

Since 1998, PETA has killed over 20,000 animals. Over one year ago, I wrote a blog opining that the reason PETA slaughters virtually every animal it seeks out and “impounds” has more to do with Ingrid Newkirk’s dark impulses than with any ideology, philosophy, or belief in overpopulation. This followed a staggering 97% kill rate for animals in 2006, despite millions of animal loving members, a world-wide reach, and a budget of tens of millions of dollars. It followed the killing of 1,942 out of 1,960 cats they impounded. It followed the deaths of 988 out of the 1,030 dogs they impounded. It followed the killing of 50 of the 52 rabbits, guinea pigs, and other animals they took in. It followed the killing of the one and only chicken they impounded. That blog earned me a letter from PETA’s attorney threatening litigation for defamation.

Then came the 2007 numbers showing a 91% rate of killing—the killing of 1,815 of the 1,997 animals they impounded. And so I reran the blog. And now we have the 2008 figures and the slaughter—the needless, senseless, evil slaughter—continues with an equally staggering 96% kill rate. A paltry seven dogs and cats were adopted. A paltry 34 were transferred to an SPCA whose fates are not known. And out of 2,216 dogs and cats impounded, the rest were systematically put to death by PETA.

Killed: 555 of the 584 dogs.

Killed: 1,569 of the 1,589 cats.

PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” In fact, PETA’s attorney stated that in his letter threatening a defamation lawsuit if I did not back down. But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much.

In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills savable animals. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.

Why does the animal protection movement tolerate this woman?

No other movement would allow someone to remain in her position without a massive outcry and public condemnation when their actions are so counter, so anathema to their movement’s foremost principles. The child protection movement would not allow someone who kills children to run an organization dedicated to children’s rights. The human rights movement would not allow someone who kills people to run any of their organizations. But the animal rights movement—a movement founded on the principle that animals have a right to life—allows a very public, avowed, shameless animal killer to run an animal rights organization. And with the exception of Friends of Animals, the rest of the nation’s animal rights groups remain deafeningly silent about it.

As if that was not shameful enough, others go further and actually embrace her. The groups which organize the Animal Rights Conference inducted her into their Animal Rights Hall of Fame. Wayne Pacelle and HSUS have allowed her and her pro-killing apologists to give workshops at their national conference, HSUS Expo, to promote PETA’s ghastly vision of killing.

So a notice to all would be animal killers out there. One way to avoid the condemnation by the animal rights/welfare community for your vile actions is to start an animal rights group yourself and use that group as your cover for killing. Because they won’t stand up to you. There will be no campaign to bring you down. They will kowtow to your power and your position. You will become their colleague. Some will look the other way. But others will induct you into their hall of fame. Still others will ask you to present workshops at their national conference.

If history teaches us anything, however, it is that the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to one. The only thing that will stop Newkirk is challenging Newkirk and calling her killing for what it is: the nefarious acts of a disturbed person. Because that’s how history will remember and condemn her, despite the aura of legitimacy her untoward actions now receive from her Board of Directors, the Humane Society of the United States, the groups who promote the Animal Rights Conference, and the other groups which tolerate her leadership position through their silence.

While those who now dare to call Newkirk’s slaughter for what it is may be threatened with litigation, or be attacked in other ways, history will vindicate them, as it always does for those who—despite the personal costs—defend what is right by challenging tyrants. While those who remained silent in the face of these atrocities—the hypocritical leaders of other organizations who take her telephone calls, shake her hand, stand side-by-side with her, and take personal pride in their association with her—will someday have to answer for this complicity, and will face the shame that comes with answering “nothing” when asked what they did to stop Newkirk’s bloody reign at PETA.

Because engrave this in stone: As soon as Newkirk and her pro-killing cultish devotees are gone, PETA will immediately, completely, and without reservation embrace the No Kill philosophy and become one of its leading champions. When that happens; when her actions are thoroughly and completely seen by everyone for what they truly are; when she is condemned and finally, finally, thankfully, finally, we don’t have to hold our breath, clench our teeth, shake with rage, or cry at the thought of what PETA did to those poor animals, we will all be left wondering just what took us so damned long to rise up and stop this villain in our midst.

So here it is again: Round 3. Munchausen by PETA. My opinion.

Munchausen by PETA?
In search of a diagnosis as to why Ingrid Newkirk and PETA seek out animals to kill. And a plea for the movement to stop them so that they won’t continue killing.

In 2006, an official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) shows that they took in 3,043 animals, of which 1,960 were cats, 1,030 were dogs, 52 were other companion animals, and one was a chicken. Of these, they killed the chicken, killed 1,942 cats, 988 dogs, and 50 classified as “other companion animals.” They found homes for only 2 cats, 8 dogs and 2 of the other companion animals.

By the numbers:

• PETA killed 1,942 of the 1,960 cats, finding homes for only 2.
• PETA killed 988 of the 1,030 dogs finding homes for only 8.
• PETA killed 50 of the 52 other companion animals (rabbits, guinea pigs, etc.), finding homes for only 2.
• PETA killed the chicken they took in.

That’s a 97% kill rate. (This was based on PETA’s own reporting to the Commonwealth of Virginia, which only requires “recordkeeping and reporting of only those animals taken into custody… for purposes of adoption.”) Despite $30 million in revenues, they found homes for only 12 animals. An additional 21 cats and 25 dogs were transferred to another agency (likely a kill shelter since PETA has a “policy against No Kill shelters.”) The rest were put to death. Why?

I’ve tried to explain it by the simple observation that the founder of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, formerly held a job killing homeless dogs and cats at the Washington Humane Society, a shelter with a consistently poor record for saving lives and the subject of historical public acrimony for its over-reliance on killing. But, in my opinion, there appears to be something more disturbing going on here than Newkirk’s history.

It can’t simply be explained by catch phrases like “they are hypocrites” and “they don’t really care.” Those are terms which No Kill proponents may use to describe Newkirk’s and PETA’s position on killing dogs and cats, but they don’t explain it. Nor is this simply a disagreement between No Kill supporters and traditional “catch and kill” proponents. That is the debate going on with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), where their reputations and donations are being threatened. But with PETA, there appears to be something much more nefarious at play.

While Newkirk tries to shield her actions by wrapping them in the language of opposition to “No Kill,” PETA neither has an animal control contract, nor do they operate as a rescue group. Any effort to offer a lifesaving alternative to killing is dismissed as “no clue” or “warehousing animals” and any dissent by employees or volunteers is allegedly punished by termination or ousting from the group. In talking with an ex-PETA employee, he indicated that during a staff meeting, he was subjected to a PETA video of this kind (No Kill equals hoarding). Having lived in San Francisco during the 1990s when No Kill was in its heyday there and the San Francisco SPCA the nation’s premier shelter, he openly questioned the veracity of the information and was asked to his supervisor’s office and terminated.

Why? The closest analogy or explanation that I have found which appears to fit is the same phenomenon that causes nurses to kill their patients, some offshoot of Munchausen by Proxy Syndrome (See Attack of the Killer Nurses: A look at a curious phenomenon – nurses who kill their patients, National Review, May 28, 2001). In the typical case, the nurse or caregiver kills the patients with lethal injections. They often claim they act from “compassion for their ailing victims,” because they want “to end their suffering,” and because they and their colleagues are “severely overburdened.” In their minds, they are the heroes and those who try to stop them are turning their backs on their patients.

The corollary to PETA’s language about “Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option,” about “overburdened” shelter workers, and about giving animals what Newkirk calls “the gift of euthanasia,” and how “it was the best gift they’ve ever had,” is eerily similar. In her case, she also believes she is the hero and those who try to stop her are turning their backs on the animals. (She recently blasted a No Kill supporter by stating: “How dare you pretend to help animals and turn your back on those who want an exit from an uncaring world!”) Indeed, Newkirk-through-PETA says that blaming shelters for killing animals is like blaming hospitals for killing patients. Is Newkirk trying to tell us something?

Unfortunately, I have no psychological evaluation to support such a diagnosis, except for similarity of language and the acts themselves: the fact of the killing, the death squads, the indoctrination against No Kill, the hateful denunciation of No Kill, and the proactive efforts to stop communities from trying to embrace No Kill principles.

So what is it? (PETA-apologists have suggested that Newkirk has seen terrible suffering and worries about animals, but this is nothing more than Orwellian double-speak. I was a prosecutor. I’ve seen and handled cases involving torture, child rape, murder, arson of animals, and other acts of unspeakable cruelty. I was also an animal control director in a shelter which investigated and prosecuted horrific crimes against animals. I’ve seen terrible suffering to which is why I want to end it, regardless of whether it comes at the hands of a single abuser or systematically by killing)

We may never know. But what we do know and what I can say is that animal rights and animal welfare groups should reject this point of view and actively campaign against it not only for the dogs and cats PETA will kill in the future and whose interests they theoretically exist to protect, but because it undermines our movement’s credibility when we either ignore the atrocities PETA is committing against animals, or make excuses for it simply because those perpetrating them claim to be part of our movement. Moreover, PETA’s position that animals in shelters do not have a right to live subverts the entire foundation upon which all social justice movements are inherently based.

The right to life is universally acknowledged as a basic or fundamental right. It is basic or fundamental because the enjoyment of the right to life is a necessary condition of the enjoyment of all other rights. A movement cannot be “rights” oriented as PETA claims to be and ignore the fundamental right to life. If an animal is dead, the animal’s rights become irrelevant. Not only does PETA not acknowledge the right to life, they have rejected it saying that they “do not believe in right to life,” as it relates to dogs and cats.

Of more immediate concern, it is the relationship between Americans and their animal companions that can open a door to larger animal rights issues. In their daily interactions with their dogs and cats, people experience an animal’s personality, emotions, and capacity both for great joy and great suffering. They learn empathy for animals. It is not a stretch that someone who is compassionate—and passionate—about their pets would over time and with the right information be sympathetic to animal suffering on farms, in circuses, in research facilities, and elsewhere.

Right now, however, the nation’s largest self-proclaimed “animal rights” group is actively working to ensure that that door is never opened—by actively and proactively arguing that dogs and cats do not have the right to life, and that killing them is an act of kindness. In my opinion: It is beyond ironic. It is beyond hypocritical. It is beyond a betrayal. It is beyond obscene. Regardless of whether you believe in “animal rights” or you don’t; regardless of whether you are a vegetarian or not; regardless of where you stand on animal issues unrelated to animal sheltering, I believe PETA’s position is insane.

And despite the fact that PETA’s annual killing of thousands of dogs and cats has been common knowledge among the leaders of our nation’s animal welfare and animal rights groups for years, most of these so-called “leaders” have chosen to look the other way. In fact, HSUS invites Newkirk and her cronies to give presentations at their national animal sheltering conference. Two years ago, Newkirk gave a video presentation on what amounted to why Pit Bulls should be killed and this year, one of her devotees will share PETA’s strategy for how to engage in “damage control” and “public relations spin” when a shelter or community which kills is challenged by No Kill proponents. Why are groups like HSUS supporting her? Do they hate the movement to end the systematic killing of shelter animals which No Kill represents so much that they are willing to embrace a person and organization this zealous in support of the killing of dogs and cats? The “enemy of my enemy is my friend” can’t be it, can it? Is HSUS so threatened by No Kill that they are willing to embrace an organization which appears to be working to undermine their other platforms? With friends like these, the animals truly do not need enemies.

In my opinion, PETA’s position on killing of dogs and cats is irresponsible. But as to the question of why they do it, I am not a psychiatrist and I very much doubt that Newkirk and her followers will submit to a psychological evaluation. As a result, I am afraid I have no clear answer, though my personal opinion leans toward Newkirk suffering from the mental illness of Munchausen by Proxy. And if I am correct, she will never stop killing until she is forced to.

PETA’s Board of Directors, PETA employees, other animal welfare groups, and animal rights activists need to stop drinking the Ingrid Newkirk Kool-Aid. They must stop making excuses for the killing of animals. They need to openly reject views that need to be explained in the pages of the Journal of Psychiatry. And, if they are to protect the thousands of animals whose lives are at future risk from PETA, they must work to remove the political cover provided by her association with PETA which allows Ingrid Newkirk to continue to act on what I believe are deeply disturbing impulses that result in animals being killed.

Please note: The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the writer and no one else, nor any agency or organization. The author is an attorney and notes that the communications are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Any attempt to infringe on that right, whether actual or threatened, will be considered a strategic lawsuit against public participation.