Quantcast
 
 
 
ANIMAL RIGHTS

PETA and Euthanasia

Even among animal lovers, killing unwanted pets is a divisive issue.

 
Sponsored by
 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

 

Nearly a decade later, Daphna Nachminovitch still remembers the rerelease of the Disney classic "101 Dalmatians" and the tragedy that followed. First there was a spike in sales of the famous spotted breed. Then, in the months that followed, shelters took in hundreds of Dalmatians from disillusioned pet owners around the country. "As soon as the puppies outlived their cuteness and the kids didn't want to scoop the poop anymore, the dogs were dumped in shelters," says Nachminovitch, vice president of cruelty investigations for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). "Many of them had to be euthanized, because there was simply no place for them to go."

But what many animal lovers don't realize is that PETA itself may have put down some of those unwanted Dalmatians. The organization has practiced euthanasia for years. Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. Dalmatians may no longer be the breed of the day, but the problem of unwanted and abandoned pets is as urgent as ever. Shelters around the country kill 4 million animals every year; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy. In recent years those grim statistics have split the animal rights community. Ironically, PETA has emerged as a strong proponent of euthanasia. (The group is better known for its public condemnations of everyone from fashion designer Donna Karan for her use of fur to the National Cancer Institute for its animal research.) In defense of its policy PETA has insisted that euthanasia is a necessary evil in a world full of unwanted pets. But while the group has some well-known allies, including the Humane Society of the United States, a growing number of animal rights activists claim to have found a better, more humane way.

"Over-population is a myth," says attorney Nathan Winograd, whose recent book "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America"" chronicles the rise of the no-kill shelter movement. "With better outreach and public relations, we can find homes for virtually all of the healthy animals we are now killing." As proof he points to a string of communities across the country whose shelters have managed to stop euthanizing all but the sickest animals. Bonney Brown, executive director of the Nevada Humane Society, says that in 2007, the first year her group went "no-kill," her shelters managed to save 90 percent of the 8,000 animals they took in. Among other strategies, the organization ramped up its volunteer force, from 30 to 1,700, expanded its hours so that people could come in after work and engaged in extensive media outreach.

"On balance, people love animals," says Brown, pointing out that animal causes are one of the fastest-growing segments of American philanthropy. "The biggest challenge has been convincing them to trust their local shelters. And with a little initiative we are finally starting to do that."

Shelters in Virginia, New York and San Francisco report successes similar to Nevada's, and communities in more than a dozen states have announced no-kill goals and added legislative mandates to their agenda. King County, Wash., passed a law requiring area shelters to achieve an 85 percent save rate by 2009. San Antonio, Texas, is aiming for zero kills by 2012. And Ivan City, Utah, saved 97 percent of its shelter animals beginning in 2006 when the animal control ordinances were rewritten to prohibit the euthanasia of healthy animals.

Those successes have not persuaded PETA or its allies. The group argues that in order to maintain their no-kill status these facilities simply turn away animals that are unlikely to be adopted, often leaving them to fates worse than death. "No one hates it more than we do," says Nachminovitch. "But we would rather offer these animals a painless death than have them tortured, starved or sold for research." PETA isn't the only group to take that stance. "No-kill is a noble goal," says Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "But the sheer number of animals make it almost unachievable."

 
Discuss
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Brien Comerford @ 05/12/2008 7:47:32 PM

    Comment: I am totally against slaughterhouses, abortions, hunting, trapping and fishing. It's only acceptable to euthanize an animal if said animal is extremely sick or traumatized.

  • Posted By: jharkincat @ 05/12/2008 4:35:06 PM

    Comment: I just received an email from the No Kill Advocacy Center with a link to this recent cross-county tour by Natahan Winograd: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/ontheroad.pdf

  • Posted By: LancCV @ 05/12/2008 10:03:41 AM

    Comment: Don???t think you get it. No kill sheltering has been a proven success in some urban and rural communities, in more affluent and poorer communities across the nation. Also, no-kill has been growing in popularity as a model for animal sheltering. The reasons for such success and failures have been outlined in Winograd???s book Redemption; the book also debunks the pet overpopulation myth. With all this, why would two national animal protection orgs continue the arcane manta that there are too many animals in shelters and too few homes available and that killing them is the best thing for them?

    We know there is a difference between killing and euthanasia. If you look up euthanasia in the M-Webster???s dictionary, you will see PeTA and HSUS are not recommending such for most shelter animals. They endorse killing healthy, treatably sick and injured, and friendly shelter animals for shelter convenience.

    BTW, I don???t think PeTA or HSUS are all bad.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
The Peek
 
 
STRATEGIES

Harmonix, creator of Rock Band and Guitar Hero, is changing videogames.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
 
CAMPAIGN 2008
republican gop convention periscope mccain

John McCain's choice to manage the GOP convention this summer is lobbyist Doug Goodyear, whose firm once represented Burma's repressive regime.

Sponsored by
 
 
 
loadingLoading Menu