In case you missed it:
- Another one bites the dust. Dogs identified as “pit bulls” are welcome again in Garfield Heights, OH. The city council voted to eliminate its breed ban. It joins other cities in Ohio and other states which have recently done the same. Banning dogs based on how they look is immoral. It is also ineffective.
- A new study analyzing 15 years of intake and outcome data for animal shelters in Colorado finds that shelters can dramatically increase adoptions, reduce killing, and maintain high placement rates, even at municipal facilities. Even more exciting, it can be done on a statewide scale. How? The No Kill Equation.
- The No Kill Advocacy Center issues a call to arms to save the puppies of Los Angeles that city officials admit are “immediately put to death in our shelters.”
- Best Friends claims there are 4,000 No Kill communities in the U.S. It is just not true. Here’s how they and the communities they claim are cheat on statistics. But that doesn’t mean No Kill isn’t possible. It is. And a lot of communities are legitimately achieving it.
- Legislation pending in South Carolina and Missouri would ban anyone convicted of animal abuse from having animals. It would also allow shelters and rescuers to check a registry of those who are banned before adopting out animals.
- 80% of cruelty cases in Connecticut were dismissed or not prosecuted. Not anymore. “[L]awmakers gave a voice to these victims when Connecticut became the first state to allow courts to appoint an advocate in criminal cases involving cruelty against cats and dogs.” And it is working.
- PETA’s mass killing continued in 2018. Just released statistics show that once again, they killed thousands of animals. Here’s the latest data, what the Press Freedom Defense Fund says about their efforts to silence dissent, and why it is important that more whistleblowers come forward.
And speaking of PETA, the California Superior Court in People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Winograd (California Superior Court, Alameda County, RG18907174) denied PETA’s motion to compel my disclosure of confidential informants. The PETA employees agreed to speak with me as whistleblowers. They expressed grave concerns about what they saw and wanted the public to know. They trusted me with the information and with protecting their identity because they reasonably fear retribution. This is a victory for the animals, a victory for investigative journalism, a victory for new/non-traditional media, and a victory for the First Amendment.
Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.