Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow

September 29, 2012 by  

On July 1, 1998, two little dogs were born at the San Francisco SPCA. They came to live with us. We lost our beautiful boy Top Top, two years ago today. His chubby hind end still wiggles in my mind. His brother, Pickles, sits beside me.

He can no longer go up the stairs without assistance. He struggles when he walks. We are doing everything we can to make him comfortable. In fact, Pickles is now on weekly injections, pain medication, anti-inflammatory drugs, and supplements. Because of that, I am not sure who hurts more: me or him. After Topham died, I still found myself looking for him, sometimes calling him from the dark when I woke up, quiet and careful not to wake my wife. “Come on Boys,” I’d call softly, but only Pickles would be there to heed the call. Soon, not even he will answer.

Here’s my essay, For the Love of Dog.

Ethical Consistency for True Dog Lovers

September 25, 2012 by  

I once sat on a panel discussion during a conference when the panel was asked the following question: “Given that pet overpopulation is a myth, should we still fight to stop pet stores from selling puppies?”

My answer was “Yes.” Because even if every shelter embraced the No Kill philosophy and the programs and services that make it possible, even if no dog or puppy was killed in a shelter again, we’d still want to close down puppy mills. You don’t have to believe in or perpetuate the lie of pet overpopulation to work on efforts to curtail harm to dogs in puppy mills. Puppy mills fuel inbreeding, provide minimal to no veterinary care, lack of adequate food and shelter, lack of human socialization, overcrowded cages, and cause neglect, abuse, and the killing of animals when they are no longer profitable. That is a distinct and separate harm from the fact that shelters are needlessly killing them.

The animal protection movement is a wide and varied field. While some of us are focused on stopping “shelter” abuse/killing, others of us are focused on stopping puppy mill abuse/killing, and still others are working in other areas, we are all working to prevent harm to dogs (and other animals).

True dog lovers embrace the No Kill philosophy because they want to prevent harm to dogs, such as their systematic slaughter in shelters. True dog lovers also want to shut down the puppy mill trade because they want to prevent harm to dogs, such as their systematic abuse. That is ethically consistent. To claim to want to shut down puppy mills, but to ignore or fight reform efforts to stop shelter neglect, abuse, and killing (as groups like HSUS and PETA do) is not only ethically inconsistent, it is morally bankrupt. PETA claims to want to stop puppy mill abuse but will defend the exact conduct if it occurs in a shelter. HSUS claims to want to stop puppy mill abuse but will give awards to shelters that sadistically abuse animals. Neglect is neglect, abuse is abuse, killing is killing regardless of by whose hand that neglect, abuse, and killing is done. To look the other way at one because that neglect, abuse, and killing is done by “friends,” “colleagues,” or simply because the perpetrators call themselves a “humane society” is indefensible.


Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

My Kool-Aid Drinking Days

September 23, 2012 by  

I did not wake up one day and say “Pet overpopulation is a myth.” Nor did I think that someday I would champion the fact that it was. I did not even set out to prove it. It unfolded as part of my journey in the humane movement and the facts began to compel further analysis. In fact, at one time, I too drank of the Kool Aid. The dedication of my book, Redemption, says it all:

To my wife, Jennifer. Who believed long before I did.

I once actually argued with her on a date, before we were married, that “There were too many animals and not enough homes” and “What were shelters supposed to do with them?” I am ashamed of having done so, but I did. She correctly argued that even if it were true, killing them was still unethical. She also correctly argued that if we took killing off the table, human ingenuity and human compassion would find a way to make it work. But, more importantly, she asked me how I knew it was true. In other words, she asked me what the demand side of the supply-demand equation was.

How did I know? Because I’ve heard it repeated a thousand times. Because I took the fact of killing in shelters and then rationalized the reason backward. But I was too embarrassed to admit so. Here I was: a Stanford Law student who wore my 4.0 department GPA, my highest honors in Political Science, my Phi Beta Kappa, and my Summa Cum Laude, as a badge of my smarts and I came face to face with my own sloppy logic and slipshod thinking about the issue. “It just is,” I said (lamely).

But therein began a journey that started in San Francisco, then Tompkins County (NY), then then visiting hundreds of shelters across the country, reviewing data from the ASPCA, HSUS, the AVMA, and others, and then the data of over 1,000 shelters nationwide (almost one-third the total), and more research and crunching of numbers, and several national studies. And the conclusion became not just inescapable, but unassailable. And rather than bury it, ignore it or downplay it, I did what anyone who truly loves animals would have done. I celebrated it. Why? Because it meant that we had the power to end the killing, today.

And what kind of person would rather that not be true?

No Kill 101

Adopting Your Way Out of Killing

They Know What They Know 

Learn more:


Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Join the Discussion

September 20, 2012 by  

Join the discussion on Facebook by clicking here.

Dear Friends,

Due to a heavy project schedule, including the upcoming release of Friendly Fire, I’ve been blogging a lot loss and posting on Facebook more.

Please join the conversation on many topics including:

My Facebook page is at

Please note: Some people erroneously believe that my facebook page is No Kill Nation or No Kill Revolution. They are not. I am not affiliated with either of them. My page is above, although I may also post to the facebook page of the No Kill Advocacy Center at

PETA’s Good Little Soldiers

September 4, 2012 by  

Some people seemed to have lost sight of what’s important: the animals. PETA supporters certainly have. PETA has released a statement after being taken to task for sending Shelby County, Kentucky, shelter officials a basket of very expensive vegan cookies to thank them—and encourage them—after they announced they would killing animals again after four years as a No Kill shelter. In the statement, PETA says they did so after receiving a news report that the population of animals in the Shelby County shelter was high and that if it continued, the health of the animals would be put in jeopardy. They claim Shelby had to double animals in cages and that this was unacceptable. They call No Kill advocates and No Kill shelters “unrealistic disservice groups,” “hell holes” and “slow-kill hoarders.” They further claim that No Kill advocates are bullies. Giddy at the thought of not having to reexamine the misplaced faith they have in PETA, their supporters are already circulating the statement they believe shows PETA is blameless. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Since it appears that PETA supporters—desperate to maintain their support of PETA on which their identity is based—love animals so little that they are not willing to spend the two minutes required to critically assess the PETA statement, I’ll do it for them. PETA’s statement is notable for seven primary reasons:

1. PETA does not deny that Shelby County has been No Kill for four years, despite claiming for years that No Kill is impossible.

2. PETA does not deny that Shelby County also puts the lie to their claim that so-called “open admission” shelters cannot be No Kill. Shelby’s motto is “Our door is always open.” Yet, they finished 2011 with tops in the nation save rates: 98.5% for cats and 94.5% for dogs.

3. PETA claims that the shelter was crowded, which could lead to unsanitary conditions, possibly further leading to animals getting sick and thus (if, like PETA, the shelter refuses to provide medical care) being killed. In short, PETA is arguing that in order to prevent animals from being killed, we should kill them, an inherent contradiction. If PETA was worried about crowding, and they were genuinely concerned that this would lead to unsanitary conditions, the answer is not to cause the very thing—and the worst thing—that could possibly result from such conditions. The solution to “crowding” or fears of unsanitary conditions is not to kill those who are at risk, it is to do what is necessary to change those conditions. It is to get the animals out: by adoption, foster care, and transfer to rescue groups, exactly what Shelby County officials did after ignoring PETA’s advice.

4. PETA’s claim that No Kill shelters are “hellholes” and “slow-kill hoarders” cannot be squared with the dozens of successful No Kill communities, of which three are highlighted in this video:


5. PETA claims that Shelby County was forced to double up animals in cages and this is unacceptable. Says who? This is one of the most enduring, deadly and baseless of the traditional sheltering dogmas used to rationalize killing. If animals need to be doubled up in a cage so that no one dies, that is what ethics compel. And no one outside the sheltering profession would ever think, for a moment, that that wasn’t the proper thing to do to save an animal’s life. In fact, even if half the shelter was empty, it should double up animals. They are social creatures and benefit from the presence of a friend.

Close your eyes and imagine you are a shelter director. All your cages and kennels are full, and it is your job to pick which animals because PETA is telling you that kittens cannot share a cage or two dogs who get along with each other shouldn’t be cohoused. You enter the cat room and look around. Will you kill that black cat over there? How about that little orange tabby? Or what about that kitten making such a racket, sticking his paw outside the cage, begging for some attention? Yes, that little kitten has got to go. You instruct an employee to take him to the kill room, he gets excited thinking he is going to play. But this is what will happen to him instead, as described in a local newspaper,

A kitten with a hand gripping the scruff of [his] neck and a needle in [his] belly will squeal in terror, but once you’ve pulled out the needle and placed [him] back into a cage… [he] will shake [his]head and start to get on with [his] kittenish business. Then [he] starts to look woozy, and begins to stumble around. [He] licks [his] lips, tasting the chemical absorbed into [his] system. Soon, [he] becomes too sedated to stand. The animal collapses, and when [his] lungs become too sedated to inflate, [he] stops breathing.

Then it is on to the dog kennels. Who will die today? Will it be the little Jack Russell jumping up and down excitedly, hoping you might take him for a walk? What about that quiet, shy chocolate lab lying on his bed? Yes, how about him? And, again, you instruct a staff member to lead him to the kill room, and then clean that cage so it is ready for a dog that may or may not arrive. The dog looks up at you, shyly at first, but once the leash is on, he starts to walk with more confidence. He meets your eye and for the first time since he arrived, he looks, well, happy. He’s going for a walk. He’s going home. Of course, neither is true. Instead, you take him into a room, a room filled with the smell of antiseptic. If it is a regressive shelter, he’ll see the other dead dogs and start to panic and resist. But you’ll hold him down, or you’ll put a catch pole around his neck and drag him into the room. Either way, he’s going to die. You ordered him killed even though he could have shared a kennel with another dog, but which PETA tells you is unacceptable. Perhaps someone’s heart would have broken seeing how sad he looked, and chosen to adopt him, but, again, it’s too late for him now. He’s already dead, his body in the freezer, stacked on top of the large pile of dead dogs that were killed to make room for other dogs over the last few days, including the one that was killed to make room for him.

6. After four years as a No Kill shelter, with no public complaints of unsanitary conditions, Shelby got jammed. All shelterskill shelters and No Kill shelters—do during periods of peak intakes. The difference? The latter don’t use that as an excuse to take the convenient, reactionary and violent way out: by killing. They use it to double their own efforts and seek the help of others. Rather than reach out to Shelby and ask what they could do to help them so that they do not throw in the towel on four successive No Kill years, PETA sent them an expensive basket of cookies with a note encouraging them to just go ahead and kill the animals despite $32,000,000+ in annual revenues and millions of self-proclaimed “animal loving” members. Shelby needed to place only 100 animals—if PETA truly loved animals, they could have found them all homes in Just One Day.

7. Another group, operating on a fraction of PETA’s budget (which they make up for in the unending amount of love they have for animals which PETA lacks) reached out also. But they did not bring cookies. They brought foster parents, adopters, and rescue groups. And all the animals PETA was granting Shelby County absolution to kill—claimed Shelby County had no choice but to kill—have instead been saved:

What does this prove? It proves No Kill works. It proves open admission shelters can be No Kill. It proves that killing is not a “last resort” for PETA, but the first and only one. It proves they were wrong because the animals did not need to be killed for the simple reason that they weren’t: they were adopted, placed in foster care, and transferred to rescue groups, a glaring omission from PETA’s statement. And it proves that PETA is not motivated by doing right by animals. Instead, it remains motivated by what all political death cults are motivated by—remaining subservient to their charismatic founder’s dark and disturbing impulses. It also proves that PETA supporters who are circulating this statement on behalf of PETA value animals so little they are willing to grant people absolution to kill animals for the most capricious of reasons; and—side by side with PETA—to defend a cruel, antiquated and barbaric animal “sheltering” system that has no place in a truly humane society.

As to No Kill advocates being bullies—another baseless accusation. We are exercising our constitutional rights through legal, democratic means. We are not threatening anyone. We are not throwing pies in anyone’s faces. We are peacefully, without compromise, standing up for those who cannot speak for themselves and do not want to die. To PETA, those who advocate adoption instead of killing are bullies; those who advocate transporting animals to rescue groups instead of the morgue are bullies; those who believe that when a shelter needs help, you give that help in a life-affirming way, rather than in the form of cookies and encouragement to poison animals with an overdose of barbiturates, are bullies.

To add irony to insult to injury, everywhere there are local animal lovers calling for reform of abusive shelters and trying to help shelters maintain No Kill, PETA is also there, fighting the effort: calling for all Pit Bulls to be banned, asking shelters to stop adopting them out, encouraging people to round up and kill—rather than neuter and feed—feral cats, and opposing legislative efforts to reform neglectful and abusive shelters. We champion life. They champion death. And they are willing to use their $32,000,000+ to force that view onto others. They are the bullies. And because the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to them, that is what we will continue to do.

The fight is on. And we intend to stop this evil.

For further reading:

PETA’s “Thank You”for Killing Shelter Pets

The Butcher of Norfolk


Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Here Comes the Sun

September 4, 2012 by  

“It was like the sun had been behind a cloud for years, and it came out…”  

Can a handful of people change the world for animals even in the face of entrenched opposition? You bet they can.

Watch the video above and then read:

Learn how other people have done the same in their own communities: in Austin, Texas, in Shelbyville, Kentucky, in over 50 communities representing hundreds of cities and towns across America.

And then do the same in yours:

From Cruel, Crazy, Beautiful World:

We were an engineer, a retired school teacher, a librarian, an archivist, a newscaster, a lab technician, a veterinarian, a retired secretary, a few grad students, a paralegal, an Army reservist, a couple of future veterinarians, a Schutzhund enthusiast, and more. I look back and marvel at how badly we were treated despite the considerable skills we collectively possessed and everything we had to offer. Shelter killing makes for some insane situations, and a disregard for basic human decency is one of them.

From Friendly Fire:

Today, we are a movement in transition, struggling to reach our fullest potential by overcoming internal forces that for years have prevented progress and substantive action behind what until now has been mere empty rhetoric. The battle now raging within the animal protection movement is a battle not of degree, but of kind—evidence of hopelessly incompatible contradictions within the movement itself: one championing death, and the other, life. This tension is vital to help the movement reclaim the spirit, determination and goals of its early founders. And it will end only when the need to distinguish between “No Kill” and “the animal protection movement” no longer exists, because both sides will have finally become what they should have been all along: one and the same.

As you move confidently into that future, prepared to meet the challenges, ready to fight when that is what the situation calls for, your allegiance never wavering from the animals, know that you are not alone. Know what was once called “impossible,” and then “improbable,” is now “inevitable.” To see what the future holds requires nothing more than a motivating backwards glance to see that you are truly standing on the shoulders of giants. We are continuing the struggle to build a more perfect union. And we’ve already come so far.

At this bright new dawn, let us seize the day…



Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Setting the Record Straight

September 3, 2012 by  

Allison’s Gourmet and the Fight to Stop PETA’s Nefarious Agenda

There is a debate raging on the Facebook page of Allison’s Gourmet over recent events in Shelby County, Kentucky. As I posted two days ago, PETA sent an Allison’s giftbasket to officials there thanking them for making the decision to start killing healthy and treatable animals again after four years as a No Kill shelter, with tops in the nation-level save rates.* Although I never asked anyone to go to Allison’s Gourmet Facebook page—the call went out from two other separate and distinct pages dedicated to No Kill—I’ve become at the center of the fight there and I am being blamed for putting a“neutral” business that had no agenda in Shelby County into the line of fire. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor did I put her in the crosshairs. PETA did that.

In fact, one of my Facebook pages, All American Vegan, has a history of promoting Allison’s products. When I first posted the PETA story, I gave Allison the benefit of the doubt about this issue and my original post about the gift basket merely explained where the gift basket came from and stated that,

If I was Allison of Allison’s Gourmet, I would send Shelby officials another gift basket at my own expense, apologizing for being used as a pawn in PETA’s extermination campaign and thanking them for doing the right thing by not killing the animals.

I did not condemn her or her business.

As Allison is a Facebook follower of All American Vegan, I also knew that she had most likely been exposed to the many posts on that page attempting to educate vegans about PETA’s nefarious, anti-animal agenda, so I was discouraged that she sent the gift basket on behalf of PETA. Nonetheless, I proceeded as though she was perhaps ignorant of PETA’s motives which is why my language in describing her involvement was neutral. Later, when people suggested that we start a campaign against Allison’s Gourmet, I urged restraint, asking people not to jump to conclusions, but rather to adopt a wait and see attitude until Allison responded, if at all—again giving her the benefit of what at that time was genuine doubt about where she stood on the issue.

However, when Allison did respond, she responded in a very tragic way—by claiming we should not criticize other groups and that we should all work together. She did not condemn PETA for trying to encourage others to harm animals, she did not say she was opposed to killing and regrets her inadvertent involvement. Instead, she intimated that those working to bring awareness of atrocities being committed against animals were divisive. Does that sound familiar? It is exactly what Allison asked the former editor of VegNews to post on my Facebook page in asking me to back off of criticizing Allison or having others do so, which again I never did to begin with. It is also precisely what we have been told by groups like HSUS and the ASPCA whenever we have tried to reform abusive shelters. It is exactly the attitude of most so-called animal rights activists for the past 20 years. And, more importantly, it is the reason PETA has been allowed to poison over 27,000 animals, including those they themselves described as “healthy,” “adoptable,” “adorable,” and “perfect” without even trying to find them homes, after lying to people saying they would find them homes and in spite of readily-available lifesaving alternatives. It is wrong. It is inconsistent with a vegan philosophy of respect for life. It is hypocritical. And it ultimately condones violence.

When Allison posted her “let’s all get along” response, I did post a comment on her Facebook page taking her to task for it. (It is also worth reminding people that PETA accuses the No Kill movement in general,and me specifically, of being a hoarder or promoter of hoarders, radical, and lunatic. I’ve been accused of being for “torture” of animals. The ASPCA and its consultants have called me a domestic terrorist and an extremist. And HSUS has implied I am less trustworthy than Michael Vick, the most notorious dog abuser of our generation. When these groups say we should all get along, parroted by those who do not want the discomfort of standing up for the animals against those they consider friends, the rules only run in one direction. They are free to do what they want. Historically, it is only when those who represent the status-quo and power within the animal protection movement are questioned and not when the powerful condemn the grass roots that the “movement unity” card is pulled out. )

Moreover, Allison is not just a business. Allison is an activist and has promoted PETA. She isn’t neutral. She wants the benefits the association with PETA gives her business, but none of the costs. And we do not have to accept that. We did not have to accept that when companies did business in Apartheid South Africa. We do not have to accept it when companies give money to candidates and causes that violate our values. And we do not have to accept it here. In fact, Allison herself promotes campaigns against companies, asking people to contact those companies and express their opposition. Why is it wrong when people do the same thing to a company that promotes PETA, a group which has put to death over 27,000 animals and defends neglectful and abusive shelters? And like the CEOs of those other companies, Allison has the power to end it: by releasing a statement disassociating herself from PETA’s campaign of extermination. Why does she refuse to? If animal lovers brought to her attention that the CEO of a company which runs slaughterhouses across the country sent an Allison’s gift basket thanking their lobbyist for defeating animal protection legislation and people brought it to her attention, what might her reaction have been? Would she have posted a “let’s all get along” response? Or would she have apologized for being used as a pawn to celebrate the continued killing of animals?

If Allison is now being taken to task by animal lovers for not disassociating herself from an organization she has promoted, an organization that kills animals, that fights shelter reform efforts, that defends abusive and neglectful shelters, and that used her and her company in a ploy to promote the killing of animals without any statement of clarification other than to tell us that criticizing groups is “divisive” and we should all get along, then the condemnation she is receiving is totally warranted. If she was one of the animals PETA was encouraging Shelby County officials to kill, I am sure that the warped allegiance to PETA or to a “let’s all get along” philosophy which is clouding her judgment and her heart would instantly vanish, and it would be clear that we don’t all want the same thing. It would be clear that the myth that we should never criticize an organization because it claims to be an animal protection group even as it behaves as the anti-thesis of one, does not serve the animals, but our own narrow self-interest—the desire to spare ourselves the discomfort of recognizing, and more importantly, having to act as ethics compel on the unpleasant and disturbing truth.

Moreover, contrary to Allison’s assertion that this sort of debate is harmful to the cause of animal protection, it is, in fact, evidence of incredible progress. Unlike many of the people who have been working in this movement for decades who have refused to use the power afforded by their positions to champion No Kill and to expose PETA for what it really is, there is a new generation of animal activists who have not been schooled in the “look the other way and pretend Ingrid isn’t injecting those animals with poison” Kool Aid that the animal protection movement has been swallowing for decades or the “we should not criticize” crowd which is willing to hand PETA a blank check to kill as payment for some other perceived good, such as the promotion of a vegan diet. We are not, as Allison and others like her suggest, a fractured movement. We are finally cleaning house.

As I told the former editor of VegNews in my response to her: when she was the editor of Veg News, how many articles did she write calling PETA to task for killing? Not one. In fact, VegNews then and VegNews now continue to praise them. Why? It benefits the bottom line. Association with PETA helps bring in business, so they act like those they claim to abhor: companies who make money off of the suffering of animals. But in so doing, they keep people ignorant. And ignorance is what PETA relies on to continue seeking out and systematically putting to death 2,000 animals a year. Case in point: When I first posted the story about the gift basket, many PETA supporters said they did not believe it, they claimed it must have been sarcastic if it were true, they claimed I was lying, and they claimed that someone else must have sent the basket and written PETA’s name on the card because PETA would never do that, even though neither PETA nor Allison’s denied it and it is completely consistent with PETA’s nationwide effort to undermine the No Kill movement. Ignorance allows the killing to continue unchecked, while the donations to put those animals to death continue to flow into PETA coffers.

As I write in Friendly Fire, my upcoming book (co-written with my wife),

Today, we are a movement in transition, struggling to reach our fullest potential by overcoming internal forces that for years have prevented progress and substantive action behind what until now has been mere empty rhetoric. The battle now raging within the animal protection movement is a battle not of degree, but of kind—evidence of hopelessly incompatible contradictions within the movement itself: one championing death, and the other, life. This tension is vital to help the movement reclaim the spirit, determination and goals of its early founders. And it will end only when the need to distinguish between “No Kill” and “the animal protection movement” no longer exists, because both sides will have finally become what they should have been all along: one and the same.

This movement no longer belongs to people who are willing to look the other way while animals are killed by our movement, or worse, have the audacity to defend them and to call us “divisive” for trying to keep them from doing so. The fight with PETA is on. And we intend to stop this evil.


* Shelby County remains No Kill. Learn more by clicking here.

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Beware of PETA Bearing Gifts

September 1, 2012 by  

Four years ago, Shelby County, Kentucky ended the killing of healthy and treatable animals. In 2011, they finished with a save rate of 98% for cats and 94% for dogs. Like all shelters, they get jammed periodically. Shelby County seems to get jammed more than other No Kill shelters because they have not fully and rigorously embraced all the programs of the No Kill Equation. But unlike most shelters, when the cages got full for the last four years as they can do for both kill and No Kill shelters, they have not taken the easy, convenient and violent way out: by killing animals to reduce the population.

Despite their success, I have been frustrated with Shelby County officials because even though they’ve been No Kill for four years and their save rate last year was tops in the nation despite a paltry budget of $147,000, a remote location and a depressed economic base, they will threaten to kill animals, though they never do. I’ve told them that threatening to kill animals is not No Kill and it is not “reaching out” to the public for help. When No Kill advocates and No Kill shelters post pleas that include threatening to kill animals if people don’t respond by rescuing or adopting by a certain date, we become that which we claim to oppose and I hope never to hear such threats from organizations and groups that claim to value life. Threatening the ultimate form of violence condones that violence and is not how you create a society where every animal is respected and cherished, and where every individual life is protected and revered. But though the periodic threats are not good for the movement and do not faithfully represent the No Kill philosophy, Shelby County has not killed and that is what matters for the animals.

Recently, however, it happened again: another threat, this time with a date. An article in a Louisville, Kentucky newspaper stated that Shelby County officials announced they would start killing again today, on September 1, because the population was too high (over 200 animals). On behalf of the No Kill Advocacy Center, I reached out to Shelby County to offer advice, guidance and whatever help I could give. But it wasn’t needed. Once again, as she and her team have done so many times before, Kelly Jedlicki at the Shelby County No Kill Mission, a private organization both responsible for and dedicated to ensuring that Shelby County remains No Kill, went to work and the “crisis” has been averted, bringing the population down to 82, through rescue, foster and adoption.

But I wasn’t the only to reach out to Shelbyville when the story broke. PETA did also. Unlike the No Kill Advocacy Center, they did not offer assistance. Unlike Shelby County No Kill Mission, they did not help save the animals. PETA didn’t ask what they could do with their $35,000,000 a year in revenues and millions of animal loving members to help save animals being threatened with death, as donors intended and as supporters assumed. They didn’t offer to help the Shelby County shelter find homes, build temporary kennels, board animals, foster animals, adopt animal, or even just get the word out across Kentucky that animals need help.

Instead, PETA sent Shelby County government and shelter officials gift baskets, with a note thanking them for their decision to start killing again after four years. “Thank you for doing the right thing” wrote PETA in its gift offering from Allison’s Gourmet which included vegan cookies,* baked without eggs or dairy, because—you know—harming animals is wrong.

Before the first cat was poisoned with an overdose of barbiturates, the PETA staff had begun to celebrate the mass killing proposed. This is what the Butcher of Norfolk and the rest of the PETA death cult stand for. But now PETA will have to put away the party hats because the animals are safe. They’ve been adopted. They’ve been fostered. They’ve been placed under the protective embrace of rescuers.

Ingrid Newkirk is death.

Kelly Jedlicki is love.

PETA is death.

No Kill is love.

Don’t let anyone tell you differently.


Watch the video that Shelby County No Kill Mission created in response to PETA:

Shelby County No Kill Mission vs. PETA from No Kill Advocacy Center on Vimeo.

Learn more from Shelby County No Kill Mission. Please join them on Facebook by clicking here.

* If I was Allison of Allison’s Gourmet, I would send Shelby officials another gift basket at my own expense, apologizing for being used as a pawn in PETA’s extermination campaign and thanking them for doing the right thing by not killing the animals.

For further reading:


PETA: My Disturbing Encounter With the Mind of PETA

Shelby County: The Court is Now in Session

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.