Does PETA Kill Healthy Puppies & Kittens? “Absolutely”

November 9, 2014 by  

On November 6 at the University of Virginia School of Law, I debated PETA’s attorney on the issue: “The Kill Versus No Kill Debate: Which Animal Shelters Are Most Humane?” I argued for a guaranteed right to life for companion animals entering shelters. PETA argued that animals were better off dead. In the interests of full disclosure, I agreed to have the debate videotaped or audiotaped and to make it available to everyone so people could hear for themselves what each side believed and where each side stood on the issue in their own words. PETA refused.

 

As such, over the next several weeks, I am going to post on the fundamental disagreement between PETA, on the one hand, and on the other, myself and what I believe to be the true No Kill and animal rights position.

 

Yesterday, I posted about their call for the mass extermination of pit bulls in shelters. Today, I address PETA’s claim that “no shelter wants to euthanize animals” (including PETA itself, which kills roughly 2,000 animals per year).

 

petano

Today, an animal entering a shelter in this country has a one in two chance of being killed and in some communities it is as high as 99%, with millions of animals—the vast majority of whom are healthy or treatable—losing their lives every year. The reason for this statistic is as shocking as the statistic itself. In the typical American animal shelter, animals are being killed for two primary reasons: habit and convenience.

They are killed when there are empty cages, within minutes of being walked in the door, without ever being offered for adoption, despite rescue groups ready, willing and able to save them, and despite a whole host of programs and services that would provide those shelters alternatives to killing if only shelters would implement them. Hundreds of American communities with shelters which have embraced these alternatives to killing are now saving between 90% and 99% of the animals proving how unnecessary the killing is and how false the historical excuses used to justify that killing are. Unfortunately, most shelters in this country refuse to follow their lead. Why? Because killing is easy, killing is convenient, and killing has become the default. So why bother with the hard work of implementing alternatives?

To PETA, this is as it should be.

They defend abuse in shelters as long as those shelters are “kill” shelters. They have fought legislation that would have banned convenience killing (when there are empty cages or when qualified rescue groups are willing to save them). They fight efforts to legalize TNR in lieu of killing for community cats. They have told shelters not to foster animals or to work with rescue groups, but to kill those animals instead. And PETA does not just defend the killing that others do, they kill animals themselves.

PETA kills roughly 95% of the thousands of animals they take in and seek out every year while adopting out a paltry 1%, despite revenues of over 30 million dollars a year and millions of animal-loving members. They have killed 29,426 animals in the last 11 years, including healthy puppies like these…

dead puppies_0001

And this one…

dead dog

When PETA representatives have been questioned about this killing, they’ve argued that all of the animals they kill are “unadoptable.” But this claim is a lie for numerous reasons.

Groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable, including this mother cat and kittens…

mama-and-kittens1

PETA insiders have admitted they kill healthy animals. As the spay/neuter van goes out in the morning to sterilize animals, one of its jobs historically has been to pick up puppies and kittens and other healthy animals people surrender to PETA on the way back at the end of the day and then deliver them to this little outbuilding in the parking lot of PETA’s headquarters.

CIMG3329

That building serves only one purpose: to kill animals. They are taken out of the vans and immediately put to death, their bodies stored in the giant walk-in freezer PETA installed for this very purpose. It is a freezer that cost $9,370 and, like the company which incinerates the bodies of PETA’s victims—Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater—was paid for with the donations of animal lovers who could never have imagined that the money they donated to help animals would be used to end their lives instead.

Moreover, PETA staff have described the animals they’ve killed as “perfect” and “adorable.” And PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk herself admitted they kill healthy and treatable animals: when asked whether or not PETA kills “adoptable” animals, she didn’t hesitate, stating, “Absolutely.”

 

Of course, she qualifies it by saying it is only done “when we can’t find them a home” but then she admits to another reporter that they don’t even try to find homes, telling the Virginian-Pilot,

“We are not in the home finding business, although it is certainly true that we do find homes from time to time… Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals no one wants.”

Which begs the question: how can people want animals if PETA does not advertise them, fails to make them available for adoption, and kills them right away?

————–

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

PETA: Kill the Victims

November 8, 2014 by  

On November 6 at the University of Virginia School of Law, I debated PETA’s attorney on the issue: “The Kill Versus No Kill Debate: Which Animal Shelters Are Most Humane?” I argued for a guaranteed right to life for companion animals entering shelters. PETA argued that animals were better off dead. In the interests of full disclosure, I agreed to have the debate videotaped or audiotaped and to make it available to everyone so people could hear for themselves what each side believed and where each side stood on the issue in their own words. PETA refused.

As such, over the next several weeks, I am going to post on the fundamental disagreement between PETA, on the one hand, and on the other, myself and what I believe to be the true No Kill and animal rights position.

First up: pit bulls.

“Most people have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any pit bull that comes through the front door doesn’t go out the back door alive. From San Jose to Schenectady, many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of ‘pits’ they encounter. This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover. Here’s another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, supports the shelters’ pit-bull policy… People who genuinely care about dogs won’t be affected by a ban on pits.”

That is what PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk once wrote in an OpEd piece that appeared in newspapers across the country. More recently, PETA sent a letter to the Mayor of Williamson County, TN, telling him not to work with rescuers, not to foster sick animals, and to kill every pit bull in the shelter: “PETA also recommends a ban on the adoption/release of dangerous dogs and fighting breeds (commonly known as ‘pit bulls’).”

There is no dog in America more maligned and misrepresented than those classified by shelters as a “pit bull.” There are no shelter dogs more in need of the humane movement’s compassion, in need of a call to arms on their behalf, and in need of what should be the full force of a shelter’s sanctuary and protection. Many shelters and animal protection organizations, however, have determined that these dogs are not worthy of their help. And no one has been more emphatic and unapologetic than Ingrid Newkirk and PETA in promoting this unfair and deadly double standard—along with the idea that that those who care about animals needn’t concern themselves with the fate of these particular dogs. Moreover, recent research shows that shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time. And as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, “Pit Bull” is not a breed of dog. It is, according to a leading advocacy organization, “a catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’” When it comes to dogs we call “pit bulls,” shelters are not only unnecessarily killing them based on meaningless stereotypes, they are killing dogs they mistakenly think fit those stereotypes by the way they look.

PETA’s answer, however, is to  continue killing the victim, as they tried to do when they stated that the dogs abused by Michael Vick should be put to death. Thankfully, the court declined. Instead of being overdosed with barbiturates, put into garbage bags, and then sent to rot in a landfill as PETA suggested, they were given the chance to:

Play with toys

1

Experience love

2

Get a warm embrace

3

Get showered with kindness

4

Receive affection

5

 Feel safe

6

 Experience joy

7

In short, the happy endings PETA did not want them to have.

 

UVAdebate.condensed

————–

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

PETA Can’t Go ‘Just One Day’ Without Promoting Killing

June 14, 2013 by  

Condemns effort that saved as many as 10,000 shelters animals.

2

Adopted during a Just One Day event at a North Carolina shelter; PETA wanted her dead.

Just One Day is a nationwide campaign which occurs every year on June 11. The No Kill Advocacy Center and Animal Ark asked shelters nationwide to explore and experiment with alternatives to killing that have already proven so successful in those communities which have implemented them so that they, too, can end the killing of the healthy and treatable animals in their care by finding them loving, new homes instead. This year, roughly 1,200 organizations, including some of the largest animal control shelters in the nation, answered the call to participate. They put down their “euthanasia needles” and picked up cameras instead: to photograph and market animals. They reached out to rescue groups, hosted adoption events, stayed open for extended hours, and asked their communities to help them empty the shelter the good way. Last year, this effort resulted in roughly 9,000 adoptions nationwide on June 11, erasing one day’s worth of killing. This year, we hoped to save over 10,000 lives. And by all indications, we did.

In Escambia County, Florida, they had their best adoption day ever. In Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, 76 animals found a home. In San Antonio, Texas, 117 animals were placed. Similar stories occurred in shelters across the country, including shelters with historically high rates of killing and low numbers of adoptions. This is what the dog kennels looked like in Boone County, Kentucky, at the end of the day:

 

The number of groups participating and the number of animals finding homes was truly inspiring and showed what could be accomplished when groups come together, united by the common goal of saving lives, and laser-focus on that achievement. June 11, 2013, was a good day, a happy day, an important day, and an unqualified success: perhaps the safest day for animals in shelters in U.S. history. Thousands of animals were adopted, 1,200 shelters and rescue groups came together, adopters welcomed a new family member, the incinerators remained shuttered and the morgues stayed empty. We erased more than one day’s worth of killing in the U.S. So who could possibly oppose the effort that made it possible?

PETA.

Continuing its long and sordid tradition of undermining the movement to end shelter killing, PETA–an organization which itself kills over 90 percent of the animals they take in, which has killed puppies and kittens after they promised to find them homes, which defends even abusive shelters, which fights efforts to reform killing policies, and which has called for the wholesale round up and killing of animals, including healthy ones–posted an editorial against the Just One Day campaign calling it “smoke and mirrors” and telling those who supported the effort that saved an estimated 10,000 lives to “wake up” because they were being “duped.”

While Just One Day was designed to teach participating shelters how to use innovative programs to find loving, new homes for their animals in lieu of killing, PETA wrote that shelters should be “left alone” and that the animals should be killed rather than adopted; or as PETA euphemistically calls it, “a painless exit from an uncaring world.” And although the campaign is a joint effort by the No Kill Advocacy Center, a national animal protection organization, and Animal Ark, the oldest No Kill shelter in Minnesota, PETA disingenuously implied to their membership that the Just One Day campaign and the sponsoring organizations are a front for breeders and puppy millers–“Who is behind this initiative?,” PETA asks, “Is it breeders? People who receive money from breeders?”–though how breeders would benefit from increased shelter adoptions is a non-sequitur they don’t even attempt to explain. Indeed, every animal adopted from a shelter means fewer people buying commercially bred animals, not more.

They also nonsensically ask if it is ok to “put down the needle” for animals who are sick, inured, elderly, aggressive, feral or otherwise unsocialized. They ask if it is ok to dump animals along the highways, and they ask if it is ok to crowd dogs and cats together so they get sick. Of course, none of these issues has anything to do with an adoption campaign designed to save 10,000 lives and everything to do with trying to obscure a black and white issue with extraneous, disingenuous, unrelated implications and accusations. For the sake of argument, however, let’s answer their unrelated questions: As for overcrowding, 1,200 organizations started June 12 emptier and in many cases, entirely empty as a result of their adoption campaigns of the previous day, the opposite of overcrowding; while Just One Day was about adopting animals into homes, not dumping them along the side of an interstate.

12

Cat kennels at Roanoke, Virginia’s animal control shelter at the end of the Just One Day adoption drive. 

Perhaps more importantly, though, the answer to their first question is actually, “Yes.” It is ok to put down the needle for animals who have special needs because in as little as one percent of cases are the animals who enter our nation’s shelters so irremediably suffering and near inevitable, pending death that their killing actually qualifies as true euthanasia. The other 99%, including the old, the infirm, the feral and the unsocialized, don’t “need” death, they need individualized care. Sick animals need medicine, not an overdose of “fatal-plus,” the poison used to kill animals in shelters. Elderly animals need TLC and a warm lap, not the gas chamber. Feral cats need neuter and release, not incineration. And others need rehabilitative care until they are well enough and well behaved enough for a loving, new home. That is what shelters in the true sense of the word should be. And that is what progressive shelters are already doing.

But what is good news for people who truly care about animals is bad news for PETA, an organization whose employees and volunteers are schooled in and instructed to act upon the perverse idea that animals want to die. For three out of four Americans who believe shelters should not be permitted to kill healthy and treatable animals, proof that adoption can replace killing is cause for rejoicing. For PETA, it is cause for alarm: one more blow to the traditional “catch and kill” sheltering dogma that they have historically used as a shield to avoid accountability. Without the safety afforded in numbers by a nation full of shelters likewise slaughtering healthy and treatable animals, the perversity of PETA’s own killing, including that of puppies and kittens, becomes even more abhorrent and less difficult to explain to an increasingly informed and savvy public that is growing less and less reconciled to the killing. And so they fight any effort to reform shelters, including condemning what to anyone who truly cares about animals can only regard as a good thing: an inspiring, heartwarming, successful campaign to save the lives of 10,000 animals and introduce thousands of Americans to the animals who will become cherished members of their family.

Instead of listening to PETA, true animal lovers should celebrate as thousands of animals walked out of the shelter and into the loving arms of adopters–for Just One Day and beyond; Like this little dog, adopted on June 11 in Louisiana at a participating shelter, who danced his way into a loving, new home and the brighter future that only PETA would deny him:

6

Learn more:

In Just One Day We Saved Thousands of Animals

PETA’s Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies

We Can Do It! Adopt Your Way Out of Killing

————–

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Here is my story: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11902

And this is my vision: http://vimeo.com/48445902

PETA Rattles Its Sabers

May 26, 2013 by  

Ahoski police departmetn Det. Sght jerremy roberts holds a dead dog retrieved from a dumpster, in Ahoski, NC, wastewater treatment plant. Wednesday, June 15, 2005. (AP Photo/Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, Cal Bryant)

A police detective in hazmat suit prepares to bury a puppy killed by PETA. PETA is letting loose upon the world individuals who not only maniacally believe that killing is a good thing and that the living want to die, but who are legally armed with lethal drugs which they have already proven—29,426 times in the last 11 years—that they are not adverse to using. (Photo © A.P. All rights reserved.)

PETA has filed a petition in NY Superior Court demanding that the Huffington Post release names of anonymous commenters to an article I wrote about their killing, an article that has already received nearly a quarter of a million “likes,” has been shared roughly 85,000 times and has generated 5,000 comments.

I believe the purpose is to intimidate critics into silence. This is not the first time PETA has tried to do so. Many animal lovers who have publicly condemned PETA for their killing have received a letter from the PETA legal department. However, because a lawsuit would, among other things, allow for: subpoenas of PETA employees past and present; information as to where the PETA mobile van picked up animals, who it picked them up from, what they were told, who put them to death, when they were put to death, and where the bodies were discarded; the names of people and groups they’ve acquired animals from and what was said or not said to them; as well as records for all animals taken in and killed; and because a lawsuit would open PETA up to a counterclaim for chilling speech—a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation designed to silence, intimidate, or punish those who use public forums to right some wrong—I believe it is unlikely that PETA would ever follow-through with these threats.

Their donor-funded attorneys rattle their sabers, but they know they have a lot more to fear from the public disclosure that would result from a lawsuit than the animal activists who are—given PETA’s threats and intimidation—bravely reporting on PETA’s killing in the hope of bringing it to an end. When you donate to PETA, you not only fund the killing of animals, you fund the intimidation of animal lovers.

To read the Huffington Post article, click here.

 

To read the NY Post article, click here.

————–

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Here is my story: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11902

And this is my vision: http://vimeo.com/48445902

Help Stop PETA’s Killing

April 22, 2013 by  

peta

In the last 11 years, 29,426 animals have died at PETA’s hands including those they themselves described as “healthy,” “adorable,” and “perfect.” In some cases, this includes animals they promised to find homes for, only to put them to death within minutes in the back of a van—a donor-funded mobile death squad on wheels. It includes kittens and puppies. According to Ingrid Newkirk, PETA is “not in the home finding business.” Its mission is to put animals to death. PETA has no adoption hours, it does not keep animals alive long enough to find homes, and it does no adoption promotion. You can learn more in my Huffington Post expose by clicking here. How is this legal? PETA is registered in Virginia as an animal shelter.

Since employees of “animal shelters” are the only non-veterinarians authorized by Virginia law to kill animals, removing PETA’s designation as a shelter will put the brakes on PETA killing. Click here for the petition filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture (VDACS) on behalf of the No Kill Advocacy Center.

Help me end PETA’s mobile death vans. Help me end PETA’s ability to hire mindless “yes men” to kill animals at the whim and discretion of Ingrid Newkirk. Please take a moment to email VDACS Commissioner Matt Lohr and Animal Shelter Inspector Dr. Dan Kovich and POLITELY ask that they grant the NKAC petition to remove PETA’s designation as an animal shelter:

Commissioner Lohr: matt.lohr@vdacs.virginia.gov

Dr. Kovich: dan.kovich@vdacs.virginia.gov

————–

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Here is my story: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11902

And this is my vision: http://vimeo.com/48445902

Wayne Pacelle: PETA’s Puppet

April 11, 2013 by  

It is one of the most common questions I get whenever I post about PETA’s killing and their efforts to undermine shelter reform efforts nationwide: How are they allowed to get away with it? The answer is two-fold. First, although killing healthy animals is morally reprehensible, killing healthy animals is not illegal. Whenever animal advocates attempt to introduce laws such as the Companion Animal Protection Act that would eliminate the ability of people to kill animals in the face of readily-available lifesaving alternatives, PETA works to defeat them, by manipulating not only the public’s false perception and therefore misplaced trust in PETA, but by harnessing their equally naïve membership to write legislators in opposition. Second, in the absence of laws prohibiting such behavior, the other force that should be working to stop PETA’s killing—the animal protection movement—has instead chosen to willfully ignore it and even embrace PETA, in spite of their actions which harm animals.

 

HSUS has not only historically walked in lock step with PETA’s anti-No Kill crusade—allowing PETA to equate the movement to stop shelter killing with hoarding and animal abuse at HSUS’ own animal sheltering conference—but they are the “voice of authority” on sheltering that PETA uses to legitimize their reactionary, pro-killing views to legislators, the media and the public. If you oppose PETA’s campaign of extermination and their efforts to derail shelter reform, you should oppose the groups that give PETA their blessing and a helping hand to do so, as well.

 

Following is my letter to Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS, exposing how PETA’s nationwide effort to harass and vilify No Kill reformers and their systematic program to defend and even perpetuate an antiquated and cruel sheltering model based on killing, are a reflection of many of the regressive and cruel policies likewise promoted by HSUS itself.

newkirk and pacelle big_Layout 1_0001

By Nathan & Jennifer Winograd

April 10, 2013

Wayne Pacelle
Humane Society of the United States
2100 L Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Wayne,

It is time for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to stop legitimizing the deadly actions of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Over the last two decades, PETA has willfully and systematically worked to undermine the welfare and rights of our nation’s companion animals. In addition to seeking out thousands of animals every year to poison with an overdose of barbiturates, PETA is one of the most vocal opponents of efforts to end the neglect, abuse and killing occurring at animal shelters across the country.

PETA undermines the efforts of animal lovers to reform their local shelters, even when those local shelters horrifically abuse animals. They campaign to expand killing, urging shelters not to work with rescue groups, not to foster animals in need, to ban the adoption of many animals, and to round up and kill community cats. They defeat desperately needed shelter reform laws which have been introduced in states across the nation—laws that have been proven to save hundreds of thousands of lives in those states which have passed them. And by continually perpetuating the myth that No Kill animal control shelters do not and cannot exist, PETA is one of the greatest barriers to building a kinder, gentler America for our nation’s companion animals.

Although over 80% of Americans believe that shelters should not round up and kill community cats and even your organization was forced to recant your long held position in favor of mass killing, PETA calls on local governments to reject TNR in favor of trapping and killing such animals. While many Americans share their homes with “Pit Bull” dogs whom they consider cherished members of their family and while activists are working to reform the unfair stereotypes that lead to the mass killing of dogs classified as “Pit Bulls,” once again forcing HSUS to no longer seek their mass killing, PETA remains defiant, calling for a ban on their “adoption/release,” irrespective of their temperament.

When animal lovers have criticized their local shelters for killing full-term pregnant animals (even animals in active labor), rather than sending those animals into foster care or transferring them to rescue groups to give birth, PETA has written public officials encouraging them to continue this practice. When animal lovers have complained of sadistic abuse and systematic neglect of animals in shelters, PETA has written public officials encouraging them to ignore reformers and maintain the status quo.

In several instances when PETA has written in opposition to greater lifesaving in shelters, to promote more killing, and to defend abusive staff, PETA staff attributes their reactionary views to your organization. In February of 2012, for example, PETA wrote the Mayor of Norfolk, Virginia, to oppose shelter reform, stating:

The dangerous, unrealistic policies and procedures pushed on the council by this small but fanatical constituency is part of a national movement to target, harass, and vilify open admission shelters and their staff in an effort to mislead the public into believing that ‘no kill’ is as easy as simply not euthanizing animals… [Quoting HSUS:] ‘There are no municipal shelters in the country that operate as ‘no-kill.’ A few have tried, but have quickly turned back due to overcrowding, inability to manage services, and staff outcry. It is the municipality’s job to accept all animals and conduct responsible adoptions. The reality is there are not enough homes for all animals…’ The goals of reducing overpopulation and euthanasia do not get accomplished by limiting yourself to the category of ‘no-kill.’ It is an unattainable goal that will set you up for failure.

There are many factual inaccuracies in the statement that PETA attributes to your organization, chief among them is that when the original statement by HSUS was made and as you are no doubt aware, Tompkins County, New York was in its fourth No Kill year. By the time PETA released the letter, there were dozens of communities across the nation that had achieved the same level of No Kill success using the Tompkins model, which was also being proposed for Norfolk. And though over a decade has passed since the seminal achievement of the nation’s first No Kill community, neither your organization nor PETA has publicly acknowledged that this success occurred, nor that it has been replicated in economically, geographically and demographically diverse communities across the nation. And to this day, PETA is using inaccurate information released by your organization to willfully mislead government entities on the viability of No Kill alternatives.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

In 2001, Tompkins County, NY became the first No Kill community, a fact which neither HSUS nor PETA has acknowledged so that they can continue lying to public officials that it is impossible. 

To defend the killing, PETA further quotes your organization as having stated that “The reality is that there are not enough homes for all animals,” a fact not only contradicted by the then-success of Tompkins County and the success of numerous communities which have since follow its lead, but by your own study that proves that the demand for animals in the United States outstrips the supply in shelters by over eight-fold. By your own calculations, when shelters compete for the market share of adopters and when they keep animals alive long enough to find those homes, animals live instead of die.

21579534_BG1

Spayed while in the process of giving birth by the Williamson County, TN, pound, her 11 puppies were individually poisoned. She died a few days later as a result of complications from the surgery. A rescue group offered to save her and her puppies. The shelter refused and all 12 of them are now dead. PETA applauded the move.

In March of this year, PETA also wrote a letter to the Mayor of Williamson County, Tennessee, to advocate for greater killing after the shelter killed puppies by spaying a dog in active labor. The puppies, full term and viable, were each individually killed through an overdose of barbiturates during her spay. Although the procedure was risky given the late term of the dog’s pregnancy, the shelter director ordered her to be operated on regardless, causing the mother to also die as a result of complications. Prior to the surgery, rescuers and volunteers had offered to save this dog and her puppies only to be refused the ability to do so. Understandably upset, they were further sickened by their needless deaths and went public with concerns. The shelter director retaliated by instituting a “Volunteer Code of Conduct” that threatens to fire volunteers for exercising their First Amendment rights.

In response, the No Kill Advocacy Center sent a letter to the Mayor informing him that this policy violates the constitutional rights of volunteers, citing both laws protecting the right to free speech and the precedent of similar cases settled in favor of shelter volunteers. PETA, on the other hand, wrote a letter to the Mayor praising the pound director’s decision, thanking him for refusing the volunteer’s request to save the mother and her puppies, and arguing in favor of a shelter policy mandating the continued killing of these animals: “We … urge you to maintain the county’s policy of spaying pregnant animals before release.”  To substantiate their call for more killing, PETA, once again, quoted your agency, stating:

Thankfully, national animal control and sheltering experts have proposed guidelines for handling these issues…The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has these uncompromising recommendations for choosing animals for foster/transfer programs: ‘Don’t place pregnant animals in foster care unless special circumstances demand it… Spay the animal and abort the litter, if you can’ [emphasis added].

Whether it is ethical to spay a pregnant dog is not an “abstract” discussion. It has life and death consequences. If the kittens or puppies are viable, they must be individually killed, usually through an injection of sodium pentobarbital. Even when they are not, when a mother is spayed, the kittens or puppies die from anoxia (oxygen deprivation) due to lack of blood supply from the uterus once the vessels are clamped. They suffocate. That is not consistent with the welfare and rights of animals. Nor is this an “either-or” proposition: either unborn puppies and kittens must die or those already born must. Such an argument condones the atrocity committed against animals who are thrown away as if they are nothing more than garbage. Moreover, your own study proves that both groups can be saved.

trash

Aborted puppies are individually killed and then thrown in the trash, a course of conduct both PETA and HSUS encourage.

PETA, unfortunately, did not stop there. Even though the mother in this case was a Lab-mix, they also recommended a ban on the adoption of all dogs who look like “Pit Bulls,” a policy that will lead to the killing of animals based solely on the way they look. Studies confirm that shelters misidentify breed over 70% of the time, and that, in fact, “Pit Bull” is no longer even a recognizable breed of dog. It is, instead what a national advocacy organization correctly called,

A catch-all term used to describe a continually expanding incoherent group of dogs, including pure-bred dogs and mixed-breed dogs. A ‘Pit Bull’ is any dog an animal control officer, shelter worker, dog trainer, politician, dog owner, police officer, newspaper reporter or anyone else says is a ‘Pit Bull.’

So not only are shelters mislabeling dogs, they are killing them as a result, with the full blessing and encouragement of PETA. To PETA, young puppies and friendly dogs should be systematically put to death as long as someone claims they are a “Pit Bull.”

pitball

PETA has called on animal shelters to ban the “adoption/release” of “Pit Bulls,” and to put them to death instead.

Once again, PETA did not stop there. It also urged the shelter not to transfer sick or injured animals to rescue groups or foster homes, either, but to kill them instead. PETA writes:

HSUS is clear in its recommendations regarding sick and injured animals: ‘Animals needing extensive care should not be fostered because their medical needs can drain limited resources and because few foster parents are trained to provide intensive nursing. Also, avoid placing an animal with a contagious disease in a foster home that already has pets.’

smokey3

PETA cites HSUS for the proposition that animals with medical needs should be killed, not fostered.

To the extent that the County embraces PETA/HSUS positions, animals will continue losing their lives needlessly. If the County carries out its threats of retribution, the animals will also lose their most ardent champions. As the volunteers who were threatened wrote,

Prior to this incident, we knew very little about PETA. What we have learned is that PETA is an organization quick to personally attack local shelter volunteers and rescues who they know nothing about. The author of this letter has never been to our county shelter, or to our county for that matter. She knows nothing about us personally, nor does she know of the countless hours that we devote to our county shelter. But, what is even harder to accept, is our County Mayor circulating this letter as a form of praise for the good works of shelter management under his supervision.

Rather that work alongside animal lovers ready, willing and able to help their local shelter save more lives and who want their tax dollars used in a manner that reflects, rather than hinders, their values, PETA fights them, providing regressive shelter directors political cover and encouraging them to kill even more than they already do.

puppies

Puppies killed by PETA in the back of a van, a donor-funded mobile slaughterhouse stocked with syringes and lethal drugs.

Tragically, they also practice what they preach. PETA consistently kills over 90% of the animals that are entrusted to their care. State inspection reports detail that the facilities PETA has to house the approximately 2,000 animals they take in annually are inadequate for the volume of intake and were designed merely to house animals for no more than 24 hours before killing them, precluding the effective adoption efforts for these animals even if PETA wanted to find them homes, which, by both PETA’s own admission and the individuals who have entrusted healthy animals to their care only to find out that those animals were killed reveal, they are not interested in doing. PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, and doesn’t keep animals alive long enough to be adopted. Ingrid Newkirk herself has admitted that they are “not in the home finding business,” but in the killing one: “Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death…”

dumpster

Garbage bags containing the bodies of animals killed by PETA, animals they themselves called “adorable” and “perfect,” and many who they promised they would find homes for.

As anyone who has witnessed shelter killing can attest, it is often not peaceful and not painless and it is no less violent even if it was, especially when it is inflicted on animals who PETA has admitted were “healthy,” “adoptable,” “adorable,” and “perfect.” Indeed, in 2005, PETA employees were the subject of an undercover investigation by the police department in Ahoskie, North Carolina after many garbage bags full of dead bodies were discovered in a supermarket dumpster. The sting operation resulted in the arrest of PETA employees who admitted to having killed the animals. Among the dead were many young, healthy animals, including several puppies, as well as a mother cat and her kittens who had been given to PETA by a local veterinarian after PETA employees promised to find those animals homes, only to kill them immediately in the back of a PETA van—a mobile slaughterhouse on wheels stocked with a tackle box full of syringes and poison. Since this incident, PETA’s killing has continued unabated, with PETA reporting an annual death toll of roughly 90% or greater for the past 11 years, 29,426 animals in all.

Peta death kit

A tackle box filled with syringes and poison in the back of the PETA death van confiscated by police during a sting operation.

In interviews and articles that she has written, PETA’s founder Ingrid Newkirk has expressed views on the killing of companion animals that are not only the antithesis of those one would expect from an organization claiming to be dedicated to promoting the rights of animals, but views that are perversely outside the norm of how most animal-loving Americans feel about animals as well. While three out of four Americans believe shelters should not be allowed to kill healthy or treatable animals (and most of the remainder falsely believe shelters have no choice because of PETA and HSUS propaganda to that effect), PETA argues that these animals want to die and killing them is a “gift.” PETA has also argued that the movement to save their lives is nothing more than “slow-kill hoarding” and “fanatical,” views they once expressed at your invitation to sheltering officials across the country at Expo, HSUS’ annual sheltering conference.

110510_HSUS_PetExpoSign

HSUS has given PETA a forum to equate No Kill with mental illness to animal control officers and shelter staff from across the nation, urging those officers/staff to maintain a policy of killing.

Unfortunately, using the common public perception of PETA as an organization dedicated to the “ethical treatment” of animals and trumpeting the statements of your organization, Newkirk and her acolytes veil their reactionary views under a cloak of legitimacy to ensure the continued killing of companion animals in shelters across the nation. Disguised as an animal rights organization but perpetuating an agenda that seeks death and defends the continued neglect and abuse of animals in American shelters, PETA is a powerful force for harm working to subvert animal protection in the United States.

As an equally powerful and influential organization that claims to be dedicated to animals and one that is being used by PETA to perpetuate their deadly agenda, you have a moral obligation to speak out against them. Will you? Will you continue to stand idly by while PETA kills thousands of animals a year, undermines the work of animal lovers, defends cruel and abusive shelters, bullies animal lovers and promotes harmful and deadly sheltering protocols using HSUS as a weapon and shield? Or will you do what so many animal lovers across the nation have done: stand up and speak out against them?

Wayne, I call on you to publicly condemn PETA for their continued killing and embrace of killing in the face of readily available lifesaving alternatives. I call on you to publicly condemn PETA for using HSUS to perpetuate neglect, abuse and killing in shelters. I call on you to publicly reject the policies PETA attributes to HSUS in defense of killing. And I call on you to issue an unequivocal public guarantee that you will never again give PETA a forum to share such views at your animal sheltering conference or in any of your publications.

And should you do none of these things, but choose to continue looking the other way while your organization is used as a tool to kill animals, am I to assume that you agree with PETA and support their campaign of extermination?

Very truly yours,

Nathan J. Winograd

————–

Here is my story: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11902

And this is my vision: http://vimeo.com/48445902

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

 

Why I Fight PETA

April 10, 2013 by  

PETA-letter-791x1024

I just did a radio interview on PETA’s campaign of companion animal extermination, based on my Huffington Post expose. Toward the end of the interview, the host asked me about killing rats for medical research and when I tried to speak out against that, too, I was cut off. I want to be clear: I do not oppose PETA because of what they are supposed to be. I oppose PETA because they are not what they are supposed to be.

Over the last two decades, PETA has willfully and systematically worked to undermine the welfare and rights of our nation’s companion animals. In addition to seeking out thousands of animals every year to poison with an overdose of barbiturates, PETA is one of the most vocal opponents of efforts to end the neglect, abuse and killing occurring at shelters across the country. PETA undermines the efforts of animal lovers to reform their local shelters, even when those local shelters horrifically abuse animals. They campaign to expand killing, urging shelters not to work with rescue groups, not to foster animals in need, to ban the adoption of many animals, and to round up and kill community cats. They defeat desperately needed shelter reform laws which have been introduced in states across the nation—laws that have been proven to save hundreds of thousands of lives in those states which have passed them. And by continually perpetuating the myth that No Kill animal control shelters do not and cannot exist, PETA is one of the greatest barriers to building a kinder, gentler America for our nation’s companion animals.

Although over 80% of Americans believe that shelters should not round up and kill community cats, PETA calls on local governments to reject TNR in favor of trapping and killing these cats. While many Americans share their homes with “Pit Bull” dogs whom they consider cherished members of their family and while activists are working to reform the unfair stereotypes that lead to the mass killing of dogs classified as “Pit Bulls,” PETA has called for a ban on their “adoption/release,” irrespective of their temperament.

When animal lovers have criticized their local shelters for killing full-term pregnant animals (even animals in active labor), rather than sending those animals into foster care or transferring them to rescue groups to give birth, PETA has written public officials encouraging them to continue this practice. When animal lovers have complained of sadistic abuse and systematic neglect of animals in shelters, PETA has written public officials encouraging them to ignore reformers and maintain the status quo.

That is why I fight PETA.

But if they did none of these things; if they actually worked to solve problems rather than exploit animals for shock value, fundraising and media coverage while engaging in a systematic effort to exterminate them; if they actually loved animals; if they tried to save them; if they believed in the right to life, rather than the right of people to kill them; and if the Butcher of Norfolk and her acolytes were not associated with the organization; I would be a supporter because I believe all animals deserve the right to live and all the other rights that naturally flow from that.

I hold this truth to be self-evident: that all human and non-human animals are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And because I hold that truth to be self-evident, I fight.

Learn more:

PETA’s Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies

whyPETAkills.org

U.S. No Kill Declaration

All American Vegan

A Man with an Agenda

————–

Here is my story: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11902

And this is my vision: http://vimeo.com/48445902

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

What’s Behind PETA’s Systematic Killing of Animals?

April 2, 2013 by  

15783

By Nathan & Jennifer Winograd.

On my Facebook page, a reader took issue with our claim in Friendly Fire that PETA’s systematic killing of animals and embrace of their killing cannot be understood without a psychological analysis of both Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s founder, as well as those she recruits to do her bidding. In Friendly Fire, we argue that PETA appears to us to be a political death cult, a cover for Newkirk’s dark impulses. You can read an excerpted version by clicking here. In response to that analysis, the reader suggested that PETA’s actions show the failings of the utilitarianism philosophy, as articulated by Peter Singer in what is ironically considered the seminal work of the animal rights movement (ironic because it rejects legal rights for animals), Animal Liberation. While the comment was more nuanced, others have made similar arguments. But we think trying to find a philosophical basis for Ingrid Newkirk’s actions or the actions of her employees, misses the mark. Our response to the reader explaining why is below:

The reason my wife and I wrote Friendly Fire was to respond to the most common question people have when they learn that the biggest roadblocks to a No Kill nation are the large, national animal “protection” groups: Why? 

We attempt to explain the historical, financial and sociological reasons behind this paradoxical opposition so that it makes sense and gives people the confidence to challenge it. If people can set aside the naïve assumption that just because a group has a professed mission it will therefore always act in accordance with that mission, if they can allow for the possibility that such groups can become ruled by greed, pride and self-preservation at the expense of their mission, then they can understand why they act as they do and most important of all, they can expose it for what it is to others, and help people move beyond the deference they now accord these groups, a deference that the groups use to maintain the status quo of killing. 

As I would hope a reading of Friendly Fire conveys, we believe that the reasons behind the opposition of most of No Kill’s detractors can be understood in the context of basic human nature:

“While the result of the opposition to No Kill by shelter directors and others is anything but mundane, the motivation behind their resistance is ultimately attributable to pedestrian flaws of human nature: primarily uncaring, greed and narrow self-interest.”

We don’t, however, think this excuse is adequate to explain the killing done by PETA:

“Ingrid Newkirk is different. She opposes No Kill because the No Kill movement represents the antithesis of her definition of animal activism. To her, killing is the goal because she believes that life itself is suffering and therefore animals want to die.”

Without an appreciation of Newkirk’s particular and aberrant point of view, a whole lot of PETA’s behavior is inexplicable.

I understand the limits of trying to understand an organization via psychological evidence, not the least of which is that it tends to rely on subjective data prone to tautologies. Moreover, there are limits to a madman theory of history. But I do not believe you can discount it either and there is enough intersubjective evidence via comparison to studies of nurses who kill their patients or to the behavior of political death cults in history. Moreover, given the top-down nature of PETA, including firing anyone who admits a different point of view or even questions it, and the very real possibility that PETA is a front for Newkirk’s impulses in this regard, I believe it warrants serious consideration. That doesn’t mean it is the end-all be all, but I do believe that relying on a utilitarian explanation misses Newkirk’s role and denies the power of cults.

Admittedly, it has been 20 years since I read Animal Liberation, but I do not think utilitarianism can explain lying to people in order to take animals, in no danger of being killed, and putting them to death after promising to find them a home in the back of a van stocked with a tackle box full of syringes and poison and garbage bags in which to place their dead bodies (the circumstances surrounding such killing expose how deliberate and premeditated that killing is). Many people have read Animal Liberation but how many of them have created death cults as a result? How many people have read it and then attempted to recruit others to join them in an effort to round up and kill healthy animals? 

Rather than argue that reading Animal Liberation provided Newkirk with the impetus to kill, I think it would be more accurate to say that Newkirk wants to kill, and uses the utilitarian argument proposed in Animal Liberation in the same way she uses PETA: as political cover. To assert the reverse is to imply that no matter how bizarre or out of touch with the norms of human experience a particular behavior may be, if that behavior can be traced back to someone else’s philosophical writings, if it can find justification, then that behavior cannot therefore be considered the result of a disturbed psychological condition. 

I agree that many people who do not work at PETA but support Newkirk even when they learn about PETA’s killing may be influenced by Newkirk’s use of utilitarianism as a decoy and I don’t believe we ever suggested otherwise in Friendly Fire. I also agree, as I think you seem to be suggesting, that given the low regard for the value of animal life in our society, that people, even people who claim to be “animal rights” are unable or conveniently unwilling to “think” their own way out their support for PETA because not only are they reconciled to animals being killed, they are accustomed to the idea that PETA is something they are not—an animal protection organization—and therefore if PETA says the killing is necessary and okay, it must be necessary and okay. 

But I don’t think the same can be said for the individuals she recruits to her cause who work at PETA and do the killing on her behalf. I do believe that these people are under Newkirk’s sway beyond what we would consider a healthy state of mind or a healthy relationship. And I think it is important to point this out because with PETA continually trying to place the killing that they do in the context of “pet overpopulation,” and with people continually trying to ham-fist Newkirk’s agenda into an animal rights context, the urgency of the plight of PETA’s victims is diminished. What is lost in such discussion is the sense of horror at what, in truth, PETA is actually doing to animals. There is no rational basis for supporting PETA, there is no way to reconcile PETA’s philosophy with that of other rights based movements that have come before ours, and to suggest otherwise is in itself a betrayal to the animals. 

That is to say, if humans, rather than animals, were Newkirk’s target, no one would dare suggest there was a rational basis or justification behind her killing, or that that killing could be made to align with the philosophy of a movement intended to protect those people. They would see that such actions are in opposition, in fact the anti-thesis, of such a cause, not a manifestation of it. The flaws in such a suggestion would be immediately obvious to everyone, given our collective reverence for the sanctity of the individual rights of humans. And the only reason it isn’t in this instance is that we don’t collectively recognize the rights of animals in the same way, chief among them, the right to live. 

In essence, Newkirk is allowed to continue killing animals because animals do not have the rights and protections afforded by law that most people erroneously believe PETA exists to promote. It is that very paradox that has for so long shielded Newkirk from greater accountability and which must be pointed out to most effectively overcome their assertions that the killing they do is necessary and humane.

For further reading:

Friendly Fire

 

PETA: A Cult-ture of Killing

 

My Disturbing Encounter With the Mind of PETA

 

You’ve Got to be Carefully Taught

 

The Butcher of Norfolk

—————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

My Facebook page is facebook.com/nathanwinograd. The Facebook page of my organization is facebook.com/nokilladvocacycenter. Many people mistakenly believe that the Facebook pages at No Kill Nation and No Kill Revolution are my pages. They are not.

 

Why PETA Kills

March 17, 2013 by  

PETA WEBSITE BANNER_Layout 1_0001

Today I am launching a new website which exposes the truth about PETA: www.whyPETAkills.org. Filled with photos, documents and quotes by PETA employees which reveal not only PETA’s killing of 2,000 animals a year, but their efforts to mislead people about the nature of that killing, this website is designed to educate animal lovers about PETA’s campaign to exterminate dogs, cats, rabbits and other animals. Why does PETA kill animals? Why do they believe all “pit bulls” should be automatically killed in shelters? Why do they support the round up and killing of healthy cats? Why do they celebrate when shelters announce they are going to kill animals? And why is the PETA shelter usually empty despite taking in 2,000 animals a year? www.whyPETAkills.org answers these disturbing questions.

Visit the website by clicking here.

—————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

This is PETA

March 10, 2013 by  

 Warning: Photographs of dead animals.

dumpster

A supermarket dumpster full of garbage bags. When police officers looked inside, they found the animals below—animals killed by PETA. PETA described these animals as “adorable” and “perfect.” A veterinarian would describe them as “healthy” and “adoptable.”

dead dog

Killed by PETA in the back of a van—a donor funded slaughterhouse on wheels.

dead dog2

Killed by PETA in the back of a van—a donor funded slaughterhouse on wheels.

mama and kittens

A mother cat and her two kittens, all perfectly healthy and adoptable and none in danger of being killed. They were given to PETA by a veterinarian who was trying to find them homes and was told that PETA would have no problem adopting them out. After PETA lied to him and the mother and her kittens were entrusted to their care, they killed them in the back of a van within minutes, maybe before even leaving his parking lot.

Ahoski police departmetn Det. Sght jerremy roberts holds a dead dog retrieved from a dumpster, in Ahoski, NC, wastewater treatment plant. Wednesday, June 15, 2005. (AP Photo/Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, Cal Bryant)

Ahsokie, North Carolina police detective wearing a hazmat suit, getting ready to bury a dead puppy killed by PETA and thrown away by them in a supermarket dumpster. Photograph copyright by Associated Press.

dead puppies_0001

Puppies killed by PETA in the back of a van—a donor funded slaughterhouse on wheels. Despite $35,000,000 in annual revenues and millions of “animal-loving” members, PETA does not even try to find them homes. PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a “humane society.” An investigation by the Department of Agriculture found that PETA’s shelter is too small for the volume of animals, is designed to warehouse and kill animals in the shortest amount of time, 84% within 24 hours. An intern quit in disgust after he saw healthy puppies in the kill room.

beagle_0001

Killed by PETA in the back of a van—a donor funded slaughterhouse on wheels.

beagle2_0001

Killed by PETA in the back of a van—a donor funded slaughterhouse on wheels.

dalmatian_0001

Killed by PETA in the back of a van—a donor funded slaughterhouse on wheels.

Peta death kit

The PETA field killing kit found by police in the back of the PETA death van in Ahsokie, North Carolina.

petapostcard

A postcard sent to me by Ingrid Newkirk herself admitting that PETA does not believe animals have a right to live.

petahq

The PETA headquarters on the aptly named Front Street. While claiming to be an animal rights organization, PETA does not believe animals have a right to live. Instead, it believes that people have a right to kill them, as long as the killing is done “humanely,” which PETA interprets to mean poisoning them with an overdose of barbiturates, even if the animals are not suffering. In 2012, 733 dogs entered this building. They killed 602 of them. Only 12 were adopted. In 2012, they impounded 1,110 cats. 1,045 were put to death. Seven of them were adopted. They also took in 34 other companion animals, such as rabbits, of which 28 were put to death. Only four were adopted. To PETA, animals want to die (because they “might suffer” in the future) and killing them is, in Newkirk’s own words, a “gift.”

petaempty

Many animal lovers who have publicly condemned PETA for their killing have received a letter from the PETA legal department, threatening a lawsuit. However, because a lawsuit would allow for subpoenas of PETA employees both past and present—leading to under-oath testimonies about the grisly reality of what has and is going on at PETA headquarters—it is unlikely that PETA would ever follow-through with these empty threats. Their donor-funded attorneys rattle their sabers, but know they have a lot more to fear from the public disclosure that would result from a lawsuit than the activists who are truthfully—and, given PETA’s threats and intimidation, bravely—reporting on PETA’s atrocities against animals in the hope of bringing them to an end. When you donate to PETA, you not only fund the killing of animals, you fund the intimidation of animal lovers.

BARC-221

A dying kitten in a Houston shelter. Staff “lost” the kitten in the shelter. When he was found, he was already near death. His last hours were ones of suffering. Houston officials put job applicants with a history of violence, a history of criminal behavior, and those who scored the lowest on city aptitute tests in animal control. When I was hired by the Houston Health Department to assess the shelter, my advice regarding staff was to fire people who abuse animals; hire those who care about them. PETA defended this shelter, urging government officials not to listen to me.

BARC 231

A puppy dying of parvovirus in the Houston shelter. She is not given anything soft to lie on as she urinates all over herself. Here she sits, unable to keep her head up, alone in a cold, barren stainless steel cage without veterinary care. Other shelters have a better than 90% rate of saving dogs with parvovirus. In a letter to the editor of the Houston paper, PETA publicly defended this shelter, urging Houstonians to reject my advice on the need for reform and how to do so.

Collier County 171

The PETA solution: dead “feral” cats in a Florida shelter. PETA successfully defeated SB359, a law that would have made it absolutely clear that TNR is legal in Florida. According to PETA, feral cats should be killed because they “might suffer” in the future. According to PETA, “the most compassionate choice is to euthanize feral cats. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your local shelter uses an injection of sodium pentobarbital, take the cats there.” This shelter used “an injection of sodium pentobarbital,” killing the cats in front of other cats, catch-poling them as they tried to flee, while they urinated and defecated all over the kennel. That is how terrified feral cats behave in shelters. Apparently to PETA, this is as it should be.

IMG_1856

A cat in the King County, Washington shelter reaches out, begging for food and water. Cats in the infirmary were not fed or given water over a three day holiday weekend and both their food bowls and water bowls are empty. Although staff were assigned to the shelter, supervisors and staff chose to socialize instead. I was hired by the King County Council to assess the shelter. My advice: Hire supervisors who are not part of the same union so as to eliminate conflicts of interest, all staff should be given a checklist of assigned duties, and supervisors should double check that those duties have been done. In a letter to the King County Council, PETA told officials not to listen to me because I was “radical.”

pitball

If PETA had its way, this dog would be killed in every shelter in America because someone says he looks like a “pit bull.” According to Ingrid Newkirk, a growing number of shelters are enacting policies banning the adoption of pit bulls and requiring their automatic destruction and PETA “supports the pit bull policy.”

Picture1

After finishing the year saving 98% of cats and 94% of dogs, the fourth year Shelby County, Kentucky had 90+ percent save rates, they announced they were crowded and would begin killing animals. Once again, as they have done so many times before, 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” was averted, bringing the population down through rescue, foster and adoption. Unlike Shelby County No Kill Mission, PETA also reached out to officials, but not to 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 animals, 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.

This is PETA. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Here’s the proof: www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11862

Learn more and learn why:

A Cult-ture of Killing

Killed by PETA

My Disturbing Encounter with the Mind of PETA

The Butcher of Norfolk

Beware of PETA Bearing Gifts

Need more? Read Friendly Fire.

If you want to learn who I am, click here.

If you still support PETA after reading all of the above, click here.

—————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here

Next Page »