Even among animal lovers, killing unwanted pets is a divisive issue.
Comment: PETA kill more animals than all of us hunters put together!!!
Comment: I hope that those who are against any form of euthanasia are willing to take any and all animals into their lives and pay for their care. I have seen animals tortured, starved, and tormented and there will be more of this if there are not slaughterhouses, animal shelters,hunting, animals not allowed to be sold to others and people do not control the breeding of the animals. When an animal is part of your life. It is your responsiblity for its lifetime. Humans do not seem to see that for their children. How can we expect it for the animals? There is something to the Eastern Cultures "Dying with Honor" phylosophy.
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.
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.
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
Comment: It is very very easy to sit here in front of ur PCs and keep criticizing other. Both these organization are doing a great work out there helping animals & making this world a better place to live in. BTW there is a lot of difference between killing & euthanasia. Euthanasia is one of a noble way to stop someone from suffering further; I think PETA has done the right thing for those suffering animals and those who couldn???t find decent homes.
Comment: It is very very easy to sit here in front of ur PCs and keep criticizing other. Both these organization are doing a great work out there helping animals & making this world a better place to live in. BTW there is a lot of difference between killing & euthanasia. Euthanasia is one of a noble way to stop someone from suffering further; I think PETA has done the right thing for those suffering animals and those who couldn???t find decent homes.
Comment: Cleveland Amory (may he rest in peace -- a wonderful animal advocate) co-founded HSUS, and also the Fund for Animals, which Wayne Pacelle headed for a while. After Wayne became president of HSUS, the Fund for Animals became part of HSUS, which thusly acquired a sanctuary. In the 50s there were no internet sites, no email, and no warehouse type pet stores supporting animal adoptions. Home-based animal placement organizations are fairly recent too. As Americans raised their war babies, few were overly concerned with animal welfare. Now we are in an information age, but still implementing HSUS protocols devised by Phyllis Wright, HSUS VP for Companion Animals, namely never declining to accept animals, while callers are told shelters are best equipped to rehome animals. It is a recipe for disaster, which claims a lot of animal lives. So much animal euthanasia (or being put to sleep ??? PTS ??? a term coined by Ms. Wright I believe) creates in fact a vacuum so when accidental litters arrive, because the shelters are not working too vigorously to find homes for animals, putting them down and continually taking animals out of circulation, people have space for the kittens and pups. If more effort was put into placing adult animals those adults would occupy space litters ??? most given away unaltered -- occupy. If people could trust shelters to place more cats, for instance, it would reduce the stray and feral cat population. Salesmanship is needed to interest potential adopters in adult animals. Where is it? North Shore Animal League in NY has adopters coming in for young animals view older animals before adopting, but committed volunteers or paid staff greeting visitors and conversing with potential adopters and make them feel as important as someone visiting a fine jewelry shop or new car dealership could make a difference. Two sales adages are: Do not go into business if you cannot smile, and people do not care how much you know until they know how much you care. I have met a lot of grumpy people in animal welfare, and HSUS with all its money does not seem inclined to spend money to change things through education. It has moved on to animal issues other than companion animals. Good shelter guidelines should save all animals even if it takes thinking outside the box techniques such as seen here: http://tinyurl.com/5k9usk
Comment: I beg to differ at PeTA headquarters in Virginia they have quarantine rooms and a walk in freezer to store dead animals; laws covering "animal shelters," defined in Virginia in such a way that PETA fits the bill:
"... a facility, other than a private residential dwelling and its surrounding grounds, that is used to house or contain animals and that is owned, operated, or maintained by a nongovernmental entity."
to find out more about PeTA please go to the following link:
www.petakillsanimals.com
Comment: Continuation:
The problem with HSUS is the organisation???s considerable influence over shelters nationwide. As Nathan Winograd points out, their magazine, Animal Sheltering, is sent to shelters nationwide. They hold sheltering conferences and expos, which draws shelter staff from across the country. More than that, Winograd says, shelters nationwide look to the HSUS for guidance and direction. HSUS set guidelines and standards for shelter operations and many shelters like to proclaim that their shelters are in line with HSUS policies. For many shelters, the HSUS standard is the ???gold standard???. Shelters are publicly judged by HSUS principles, and when shelter come under scrutiny for perceived failures, HSUS personnel are often asked to perform ???external audits??? of procedures. And yet, the HSUS though it claims to embrace No-Kill, actually publicly maintains that killing treatable sick/injured and perfectly healthy shelter animals is necessary and is done out of kindness, and responds by defending shelter leaders and their failures. Rather than using their enormous influence towards national shelter reform and true No-Kill advocacy, the HSUS denigrates No-Kill by maintaining and perpetuating mistruths that no-kill sheltering is not always possible, unreasonable to expect, akin to ???warehousing??? and ???hoarding???, some dog breeds are too vicious and aught to be killed, etc. HSUS prevents reform by lobbying for pet-inhibiting laws like mandatory spay/neuter, breed-specific laws, etc., and using distraction like puppy mills and pet shops, public failure to spay/neuter and make lifetime commitments to their pets as reasons for high kill-rates in shelters. But it???s shelters that do the killing, not the public who just surrender the animals. It is failed shelter leadership that is the real reason for high kill-rates. Because the HSUS sets the ???gold standard??? for many shelters, as Winograd says, no other agency has the power to truly challenge the status quo, to fight for those rights it alleges animals have to their lives, and to profoundly influence animal shelters in a life-affirming way and to bring about a No-Kill nation faster. But, because it is such a bureaucracy, it is probably much more interested in self preservation than truly saving animal lives.
Comment: True, PeTA and the HSUS don???t run shelters, though their bloated budgets could finance and operate state-of-the-art no-kill shelters, or at minimum they could further champion their call for spay/neuter by supplying every state with enough low- and zero-cost spay/neuter clinics, including mobile ones (for community access). I realize that PeTA and HSUS are more about exposing (what it perceives as) animal abuse and informing us about our responsibilities towards animals. Anybody can expose and inform, and most animal welfare groups do that anyway. What matters for shelter animals also is that we also actually do something to help them and place them in caring homes.
The hypocrisy and ultimate betrayal to animals is that for PeTA, e.g., animal have fundamental moral and legal rights. PeTA???s public championing of euthanasia (killing healthy, friendly, and treatable sick and injured animals) and PeTA???s long-standing habit of collecting and killing treatable sick and injured as well as perfectly healthy cats and dogs is in direct contravention to ???rights??? and undermines PeTA???s credibility. PeTA can, without running a shelter, do way more to work to place ???adoptive??? animals in adoptive homes. It should be fully and unequivocally endorsing No-Kill, but its founder and leader, Ingrid Newkirk, whole prior experience with animals is that of killing homeless dogs and cats in the shelter she worked, and she brings that regressive status quo mentality, that killing healthy animals is necessary, to her PeTA work and employs people with the same lack of vision.
Comment: There are many wonderful organisations specialised in sheltering that may have nothing in fact to do with animal rights, and they receive donations for their purposes.
PETA never stated that its goal is to find happy homes for abandoned cats and dogs.
The purpose of this organization is to stop animal suffering or at least to reduce it by creating and implementing programs to educate public so they make conscious consumer and lifestyle choices that could benefit animals, environment and as the result humans themselves.
If I donate to PETA, I know I am not donating to a shelter, but to the animal rights advocacy organization: it is clear from both their mission statement - http://www.peta.org/about/index.asp, and financial reports -
http://www.peta.org/about/numbers.asp
Resources of such obviously "commercially" successful organizations as PETA and HSUS are still limited. It is up to organization management to decide how their resources are distributed in order to fulfill their mission statement. Don???t want to sound cynical, but spending money on professional managers, campaigns and public education may be a more effective way then to maintain no-kill shelters.
Animal Rights organisations do not value so called ???companion??? animals more then farm or wild animals stating that every living being deserves life free from suffering (at least caused by us humans). Food for thought: The site of the UK animal rights organisation VIVA! states that one may save around 11 000 lives going vegetarian: http://www.timetogoveggie.com/ttgv/menagerie/index.html.
Thanks to PETA thousands of people went vegetarian, and therefore I think organization is achieving its goals.
The problem comes when people donate money particularly to PETA and HSUS shelters or bring pets to them without knowing their policies. This must be a responsibility of these organizations to inform public about their policies and explain them.
Unlike PETA, HSUS does mention sheltering animals as a part of their mission statement: http://www.hsus.org/about_us/. Apparently HSUS daughter organisation, www.fundforanimals.org/, was created specifically to provide animal-care facilities.
In this case it would be necessary to carry an investigation of funds that this organization is receiving to maintain its??? sheltering facilities and to see whether indeed no-kill policies can be implemented.
The article mentions that according to some sources there is no such thing as animal over-population, and that big non-profits have enough resources to implement no-kill sheltering programmes allowing the high standarts of care for the sheltered animals without necessity to turn away new arrivals.
I believe that without a proper investigation of this fact, information collected by an independent party from the variety of sources, and conclusions based on numbers and facts it is difficult to judge PETA and HSUS policies and insist that no-kill shelters is the only humane way to go.
V
Comment: PETA and HSUS are telling everyone that they should be ethical and responsible in what they eat, wear, and how they entertain themselves, but animal companions they can dispose of like tissues or paper plates. No need for personal responsibility, or hard work and resources to help these abandoned animals - just send the to glorified waste disposal companies called "humane societies".
Comment: I've always been surprised at how many dog lovers and kennel visitors I've spoken to have not understood the animal rights movement. Most had no idea about the goals of the HSUS. Here is something you should download and pass on to friends, puppy clients, neighbors, etc....
Seven Things You Should Know About H$U$
(The Humane Society of the United States)
1. H$U$ does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter. Buried deep within H$U$'s website is a disclaimer noting that the group "is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies. When H$U$ merged with the Fund for Animals they acquired some animal sanctuaries but those are usually full when someone tries to send an animal there - unless the animal comes with a big check.
2. Since its inception, H$U$ has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, fur trapping and medical research.
3. H$U$ raises enough money to help finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn't operate a single one anywhere. Instead, H$U$ spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. H$U$ spends $2 million each year on their own travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.
4. While most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, H$U$ has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. It is not a government agency, and in fact has sued the federal government in the past in a bullying effort to get their vegan way.
5. The current president of H$U$, Wayne Pacelle, is a former officer of PeTA. His, and other officers of H$U$ all bring in six figure salaries, plus ???expenses??? at the cost of millions donated to help animals. His famous quotes include: ???One generation and out??? ??? pushing the mandatory spay and neuter programs now being considered or acted upon in cities across America.
6. H$U$ is currently under investigation by the Attorney General of Louisiana in regards to the disposition of Katrina funds. H$U$ has been under investigation by the FBI for their links to domestic terrorist organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). One of their current officers, John P. Goodwin is a former member of ALF and a convicted felon for acts of terrorism related to animals.
7. H$U$ consistently jumps on the bandwagon of any animal issue to raise funds even if they are NOT directly involved. Most recently they used the Michael Vick case as a major fund raiser, even though H$U$ had nothing to do with the investigation or care of the Vick do
Comment: Part IV:
The No-Kill model of sheltering is already a proven success in some jurisdictions, and has been achieved without pet-inhibiting laws like mandatory spay/neuter, breed-specific legislation, suggestions for breeding moratorium laws, and such. The HSUS, who provides workshops for training shelter leaders as well as sets guidelines and standards for shelter operations, needs to fully and without reservations embrace No-Kill without its defeatist ???but??? this, ???but??? that. The HSUS needs to understand how shelter leadership and operation policies are culpable in their own shelter killings and show shelters just that as well as hold shelter staff accountable and stop making excuses for them, lest the HSUS shall appear to have ambivalence in their commitment to No-Kill and no-kill sheltering.
Cheers, thanks.
Comment: Part III:
The No-Kill Equation deals with every single problem that the HSUS considers a countervailing force to achieving community-wide No-Kill. They include compassionate and creative shelter leadership; how to achieve high-volume/low- and no-cost spay neuter programs; medical and behavior rehab with veterinary practice involvement and veterinary students to volunteer at shelters; pet retention programs with counseling help and in-home help to solve pet-owning issues as well as pet-friendly rental programs; viable foster care programs; comprehensive on-site and off-site adoption programs; making shelters a welcoming place and an important pulbic resource; working with rescue groups; how to establish a larger and stronger volunteer base; rebuilding and maintaining public relations/community involvement ??? and more, all to increase the market share to get people to want to come to shelters, support them and adopt shelter animals rather than buy from disreputable breeders, puppy-mills and pet shops.
No-Kill proves that ???pet overpopulation??? in terms of unwanted pet pregnancies that lead to the progeny entering shelters and in terms of too many animals for too few available homes is an absolute myth, regurgitated over and over again by many bureaucratic shelters, animal control agencies, and money-bloated animal rights/???protection??? organisations that are more focused on self-preservation and maintaining the status quo than on innovative leadership and vigorous implementation of mission policies to save animal lives. We already know that with a booming puppy mill and pet shop trade, there must be a market for pets and enough homes available. We have reliable data showing that the number of dogs and cats in homes have increased over the years. There are stats from reputable orgs showing 70-80% of owned cats and dogs are already spayed or neutered. Shelter stats show most shelter dogs and cats (not counting feral cats and kittens) were surrendered by their owner, i.e., most shelter animals already had homes. Also, most are not puppies and kittens (or the result of unsterilized cats and dogs), but teen/adult previously-owned pets. We also know that some shelters have waiting lists of people who want to adopt from their shelter, so these shelters meet the demand by taking animals from other shelters. Shelter animals can compete with pet shops and puppy mills that supply them, other breeders and rescues and there is no need to lobby for the end all breeding, nor vilify and kill off specific dog breeds.
Comment: Part II:
I am particularly concerned about the killing of healthy, adoptable pet cats and dogs in shelters. We are already a nation and race of animal killers and we kill systematically and en masse. We slaughter for food 8-9 billion animals a year in this country alone. Every year in the US we kill 100 million animals for purposes of population management, recreational hunting and food. Also, approximately 17-22 million animals annually are used and end up being sacrificed in biomedical research and testing. Gosh knows how many animal forms we directly and indirectly kill because of or pesticide and other chemical use.
I shan???t argue the ethics of killing animals for food, etc., and that in order to eat, hunt, test and research animals need to be killed. But, our cats and dogs are pets or companion animals. They, in their role as pets and family members, are not supposed to be killed. They are supposed to live their full lives out with us being responsibly cared fore and loved.
It is the job of a shelter to provide temporary haven and care for shelter pet animals until they are re-homed. It is the responsibility of shelters to do what is necessary to make these pet animals adoptable again and find them homes and help pet-owners to make life-long commitment to their pets. It is not the mission of a shelter to kill healthy pet animals. Euthanasia, yes, when animals are untreatably sick or injured or when the individual animal is genuinely vicious. But not killing, which is putting to death healthy, friendly and treatably sick and injured, thus, adoptable, pet animals.
I believe the No-Kill method of shelter management as put out by Nathan Winograd???s book ???Redemption??? and his No Kill Advocacy Center is a workable solution to the problem of shelter pet killings (and the feral cat issue). Indeed, the No-Kill protocol for sheltering has proven very successful in both urban and rural areas and in richer and poorer communities, per the examples we already have, and I see no reason why such can???t translate right across the country in every pet-human community and in a very short time. It is all about whether those in power to run shelters, oversee them, and provide political cover for shelters really believe and embrace the No Kill idea that the killing must stop, now, by actually implementing the programs and services that are necessary to achieve No Kill, and get rid of employees, policies, procedures, and defeatist mentality that give legitimacy to shelter killing. It is much more about this than public failure to neuter/spay pets, pit bulls being vicious dogs, too many animals and too few available homes, puppy mills, etc., all which exist but should not be the reason for shelter killing.
Comment: Long Post, Part I:
I am particularly concerned about the killing of healthy, adoptable pet cats and dogs in shelters. We are already a nation and race of animal killers and we kill systematically and en masse. We slaughter for food 8-9 billion animals a year in this country alone. Every year in the US we kill 100 million animals for purposes of population management, recreational hunting and food. Also, approximately 17-22 million animals annually are used and end up being sacrificed in biomedical research and testing. Gosh knows how many animal forms we directly and indirectly kill because of or pesticide and other chemical use.
I shan???t argue the ethics of killing animals for food, etc., and that in order to eat, hunt, test and research animals need to be killed. But, our cats and dogs are pets or companion animals. They, in their role as pets and family members, are not supposed to be killed. They are supposed to live their full lives out with us being responsibly cared fore and loved.
It is the job of a shelter to provide temporary haven and care for shelter pet animals until they are re-homed. It is the responsibility of shelters to do what is necessary to make these pet animals adoptable again and find them homes and help pet-owners to make life-long commitment to their pets. It is not the mission of a shelter to kill healthy pet animals. Euthanasia, yes, when animals are untreatably sick or injured or when the individual animal is genuinely vicious. But not killing, which is putting to death healthy, friendly and treatably sick and injured, thus, adoptable, pet animals.
I believe the No-Kill method of shelter management as put out by Nathan Winograd???s book ???Redemption??? and his No Kill Advocacy Center is a workable solution to the problem of shelter pet killings (and the feral cat issue). Indeed, the No-Kill protocol for sheltering has proven very successful in both urban and rural areas and in richer and poorer communities, per the examples we already have, and I see no reason why such can???t translate right across the country in every pet-human community and in a very short time. It is all about whether those in power to run shelters, oversee them, and provide political cover for shelters really believe and embrace the No Kill idea that the killing must stop, now, by actually implementing the programs and services that are necessary to achieve No Kill, and get rid of employees, policies, procedures, and defeatist mentality that give legitimacy to shelter killing. It is much more about this than public failure to neuter/spay pets, pit bulls being vicious dogs, too many animals and too few available homes, puppy mills, etc., all which exist but should not be the reason for shelter killing.
Comment: Its about time that mainstream press exposed PETA and the HSUS for the animal killers they are. Thank you for the article
Comment: Enter Your Comment
How low can an organization stoop - for PETA - apparently very, very low. Misguided quasi -anarchists who were brought up with a silver spoon, never having to feel the pain, do the work, carry the load. Say what you want about horse racing - like it or hate it - I dont care. To attack a jockey for a tragic accident - just to get your name in the paper. They think they 'fight' 'the man' - well they are 'the man' - falling into the dung pit of life by jumping upon a tragedy to promote and, maybe, be heard. If Paris Hilton was an organization - it would be PETA.
Comment: Enter Your Comment
How low can an organization stoop - for PETA - apparently very, very low. Misguided quasi -anarchists who were brought up with a silver spoon, never having to feel the pain, do the work, carry the load. Say what you want about horse racing - like it or hate it - I dont care. To attack a jockey for a tragic accident - just to get your name in the paper. They think they 'fight' 'the man' - well they are 'the man' - falling into the dung pit of life by jumping upon a tragedy to promote and, maybe, be heard. If Paris Hilton was an organization - it would be PETA.
Comment: Enter Your Comment
How low can an organization stoop - for PETA - apparently very, very low. Misguided quasi -anarchists who were brought up with a silver spoon, never having to feel the pain, do the work, carry the load. Say what you want about horse racing - like it or hate it - I dont care. To attack a jockey for a tragic accident - just to get your name in the paper. They think they 'fight' 'the man' - well they are 'the man' - falling into the dung pit of life by jumping upon a tragedy to promote and, maybe, be heard. If Paris Hilton was an organization - it would be PETA.
Comment: What passion. I guess you don't go along with God granitng man permission to eat meat (animals) after the flood? Let me suggest something else to you Ms. (or Mr.) Animal Rights person: elephants survived in Asia because they worked -- they were great loggers. Circuses employ elephants and Ringlling Bros. has a retirement home for elephants ... Does HSUS or PETA? For all the crying about seals, whales, bears they would not dream of setting up a suitable habitat for such ... They are all about publicity and if your leader is Ingrid ... I feel so sorry for you and all the other young people mislead by her death wish for herself and for animals. No I don't work full time in AR. I work FT to support a non-profit to actually FEED and rehome animals and answer phone calls and help people with animal problems - something neither HSUS or PETA or most other esp., AR type organizations does. Louisiana shelters got some blog time and money but of course we must brag about it from HSUS bec the AG was after HSUS. They need to spend a half or at least a third of their budget deputizing people to do more for compansion animals and from there people might care about animal welfare for farm animals ....But the worse the abuses in slaughtering or keeping animals the happier PETA and HSUS are bec. they are all about not eating meat ... There are 30 species of carnivores. I wonder after mankind falls for their new world order, will they climb into the oceans to destroy the big fish who eat the little fish? I did not design the paradigm but if people do not underrstand or see the passion in such as this poster, then they don't understand the people who flew planes on 9/11. Or Communism. Or Hitler. People snooze when crazy peopel rant but look back in history: then they lost bec. if you snooze you lose. Your freedom. Your right to think that the God of the Old Testament who said man could eat animals meant it ... and was (a) God and (b) right. I mentioned my full time job to support my animal charity. My pay is 60K and last year I put 20K into the animal chairty, and thre reason why is bec. most animals groups esp with an AR tilt are scamming the public. If you or anyone reading this works for them, get out. Save yourself and your soul and don't drink the Kool Aid for God's sake. (hurriedly on wireless laptop so not easy to spell check or edit ... I hope my passion comes through though and the truth of what I believe and am trying to convey .... )
Comment: ???if you are not against eating meat, fishing, hunting, wearing fur, animal experimentation, circuses, rodeos, don't even think of getting in a discussion on no-kill.???
I don???t get your point. If one doesn???t eat meat, one is against fishing, hunting, etc., is it okay to get in a discussion that makes excuses for killing healthy, adoptable animals in shelters?
Comment: CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG AND TRY TO HELP AS MANY ANIMALS AS POSSIBLE INSTEAD OF QUOTING SITES OF PROPOGANDA FUNDED BY THE BIOMEDICAL AND FACTORY FARMING AND FUR ASSOCIATIONS?
I WORK EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE TO HELP ALLEVIATE ANIMAL SUFFERING, DO YOU? I START BY NOT EATING CREATURES WHO ARE AS SENTIENT AS THE BELOVED RESCUED ANIMALS WHO LIVE WITH ME.
IF YOU DON'T SPEND EVERY WAKING MOMENT TRYING TO ALLEVIATE ANIMAL SUFFERING, meaning if you are not against eating meat, fishing, hunting, wearing fur, animal experimentation, circuses, rodeos, don't even think of getting in a discussion on no-kill.
And get this.....Peta is not HSUS. They have different goals, members, employees and leaders. Learn your facts and look at your own life.
Comment: MissBobbi: Every one of your posts on the No Kill Movement and no-kill communities vs. no-kill shelter(s), and explaining what the policies Winograd is advocating, and why we are failing to get animals into homes, are right on. Thank you so much for the education.
GustoMaybe: Thank you for raising the issue of the very real problem we have of pet "relinquishment" (rather than pet "overpopulation").
Comment: MissBobbi: Every one of your posts on the No Kill Movement and no-kill communities vs. no-kill shelter(s), and explaining what the policies Winograd is advocating, and why we are failing to get animals into homes, are right on. Thank you so much for the education.
GustoMaybe: Thank you for raising the issue of the very real problem we have of pet "relinquishment" (rather than pet "overpopulation").
Comment: Finally someone who is not afraid to tell the truth about PETA and H$U$.
They are trying to take your pet away from you. Better dead than a pet seems to be their motto.
Comment: ". . . says Nachminovitch. "By investing in spay and neuter programs, which are where a lot of our resources go, we can stop unwanted births and prevent four times as much suffering."
Well, yes, we can see how successful PETA have been with this approach. And HSUS.
Comment: " Peta is an organization that promotes non-violence, compassion, and tolerance of animals. "
A compassionate and tolerant organization that kills 97% of the animals it "rescues"? And feels GOOD about it??
Comment: FREINDS DON'T LET FRIENDS DONATE TO PETA OR THE HSUS. PETA would rather kill the animals it takes in.. they don;t even TRY to find homes. Te H$U$ supports NO shleters.. but does manage to CHARGE them for a hefty "consult fee" as high as $20,000 plus .. GIVE TO YOUR LOCAL SHELTER. SUPPORT NO KILL.. IT CAN BE DONE
Comment: FREINDS DON'T LET FRIENDS DONATE TO PETA OR THE HSUS. PETA would rather kill the animals it takes in.. they don;t even TRY to find homes. Te H$U$ supports NO shleters.. but does manage to CHARGE them for a hefty "consult fee" as high as $20,000 plus .. GIVE TO YOUR LOCAL SHELTER. SUPPORT NO KILL.. IT CAN BE DONE
Comment: The HSUS supports NO shelters.. in fact they CHARGE shelters a "consult fee" . This fee can be in the five figure range. PETA KILLS almost all of the animals they take in even when they are able to be placed in himes. PETA would rather see an animal dead than in a home. The HSUS is notning but PETA with a nice watch. FRIENDS DON"T LET FRIENDS DONATE TO PETA OR THE HSUS.. support your LOCAL shelter
Comment: This portrayal of the Humane Society of United States on this issue is non correct in several areas - The HSUS supports No kill Animal Shelters, supports local animal shelters and has always been a defender of pet ownership, and their main wish for the problem of overpopulation is that getting your pets spayed and neutered and not purchasing from Puppy Mills, but from Animal Shelters. More of the HSUS stance on this can be found at http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2007/11/not-killing-pet.html
Comment: Stop donating money to this TERRORIST ORG!
Comment: **I meant to say....Unadoptable animals should be placed with rescue orgs....typo on my part...
Comment: Are you kidding me??!! Unadoptable animals with rescue orgs, - there are way too many organizations and caring private individuals (running their own rescues or shelters) ... A nationwide, even international, campaign soley advocating the importance of spaying and neutering, and programs to assist with the costs for low income families, would be the number one way to reduce the numbers of animals and begin to make them more manageable. I just can't believe PETA can't come up with a better resolution for the amount of money they bring in - sounds like they need to get rid of the executive members on their board and replace them with some new, fresh-thinking, more innovative members, whose inspiration comes from their hearts and their willingness to overcome the challenges they face - FOR THE SAKE OF THE ANIMALS the organization was founded to protect in the first place. Those animals do not have to die!! Sandra D. Cassidy, Washington
Comment: Comment: Janeen- shame on you...This article is extremely narrow minded..... Very 101 about no-kill, PETA and HSUS!
Nathan Winograd is pie in the sky...Please come to NYC Nathan and put into practice what you preach...please find homes for all of the animals. You create unnecessary dissention with your simplistic rhetoric, Nathan.......actually we should start calling you Preacher Jaramiah Wright
Comment: yes. Let's just keep doing what has been being done. and --hmm -- how's that been working?! Not so good. People adopt pet rocks and this morning I listened to ad to adopt a teddy bear by calling to speak with a counselor ... We CAN adopt older animals with gentle temperaments and less tread on them for the commitment phobic who do not know where they will be in five years never mind able to guarantee they will be there for a youngster animal's lifetime. Then those homes will be filled with more interesting animals and people will have the glow of having done the right thing in choosing to adopt an older animal. There enough homes for all the animals if the danged HSUS and PETA guided shelters stopped accepting all the killing and in fact recommending it as the only solution.
Comment: This is the most iased and unbalanced article I have read in a long time. Nathan Winograd has a proven track record of success. Peta has lost all credibility. Their solution is business as usual - keep on killing. For the people who support this stand, I have one question. Why do you advocate continuing to cling to the same failed policies rather than trying a different approach? OK, one more question. Are you so heavily defnded that you are incapable of comprehending that there are practices and policies that save lives? Mr. Winograd is a hero who has the courage to blame the slaughter in shelters on the people doing the slaugthering. What a novel concept. They try to deflect the blame to eveyone else. In our community they even blame the hard working no kill groups for the killing that they, the killing shelter, does! Incredible mental gymnastics to avoid facing the blood on their own hands. And, as another commentator has said, please stop calling it euthanasia. Killing healthy animals is not euthanasia( taking the life of someone who is very ill and suffering is euthanasia.) Killing is killing. It really is time for a revolution. And Jeneen Interland should be fired for doing an appallingly bad job covering this very important topic!
Comment: This is the most iased and unbalanced article I have read in a long time. Nathan Winograd has a proven track record of success. Peta has lost all credibility. Their solution is business as usual - keep on killing. For the people who support this stand, I have one question. Why do you advocate continuing to cling to the same failed policies rather than trying a different approach? OK, one more question. Are you so heavily defnded that you are incapable of comprehending that there are practices and policies that save lives? Mr. Winograd is a hero who has the courage to blame the slaughter in shelters on the people doing the slaugthering. What a novel concept. They try to deflect the blame to eveyone else. In our community they even blame the hard working no kill groups for the killing that they, the killing shelter, does! Incredible mental gymnastics to avoid facing the blood on their own hands. And, as another commentator has said, please stop calling it euthanasia. Killing healthy animals is not euthanasia( taking the life of someone who is very ill and suffering is euthanasia.) Killing is killing. It really is time for a revolution. And Jeneen Interland should be fired for doing an appallingly bad job covering this very important topic!
Comment: This is the most iased and unbalanced article I have read in a long time. Nathan Winograd has a proven track record of success. Peta has lost all credibility. Their solution is business as usual - keep on killing. For the people who support this stand, I have one question. Why do you advocate continuing to cling to the same failed policies rather than trying a different approach? OK, one more question. Are you so heavily defnded that you are incapable of comprehending that there are practices and policies that save lives? Mr. Winograd is a hero who has the courage to blame the slaughter in shelters on the people doing the slaugthering. What a novel concept. They try to deflect the blame to eveyone else. In our community they even blame the hard working no kill groups for the killing that they, the killing shelter, does! Incredible mental gymnastics to avoid facing the blood on their own hands. And, as another commentator has said, please stop calling it euthanasia. Killing healthy animals is not euthanasia( taking the life of someone who is very ill and suffering is euthanasia.) Killing is killing. It really is time for a revolution. And Jeneen Interland should be fired for doing an appallingly bad job covering this very important topic!
Comment: Janeen- shame on you...This article is extremely narrow minded..... Very 101 about no-kill, PETA and HSUS!
Nathan Winograd is pie in the sky...Please come to NYC Nathan and put into practice what you preach...please find homes for all of the animals. You create unnecessary dissention with your simplistic rhetoric, Nathan.......actually we should start calling you Preacher Jaramiah Wright
Comment: Janeen....shame on you...This article is extremely narrow minded..... Very 101 about no-kill, PETA and HSUS.!
Nathan Winograd is pie in the sky...Please come to NYC Nathan and put into practice what you preach...please find homes for all of the animals. You create unnecessary dissention with your simplistic rhetoric, Nathan.......actually we should start calling you Preacher Jaramiah Wright
Comment: Even seasoned animal-rights veterans were surprised in April 2000 when the Humane Society of the United States sent John ???J.P.??? Goodwin on an anti-fur junket to China. Goodwin was not just any animal activist: he was then an avowed member of the terrorist Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Less than a year later he was formally identified as an HSUS legislative affairs staffer; Goodwin would later change his rhetoric to match HSUS???s corporate policy of not endorsing violence as a protest tactic.
Goodwin, a high-school dropout who had previously co-founded the Texas-based Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, pulled no punches when it came to his priorities. ???My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture,??? he had written to one Internet activist mailing list.
Goodwin himself has been arrested and convicted for being the ringleader of a gang that vandalized fur retailers in multiple states during the 1990s. The animal-rights newspaper Animal People News profiled Goodwin in 2000, noting that he ???gleefully announced a string of Animal Liberation Front mink releases and arsons against furriers and fur farms??? while a ???spokesman??? for the underground terrorist group.
Goodwin also fielded press inquiries after a Petaluma, California, slaughterhouse arson in February 1997, and shocked the public with his comments on the March 1997 arson at a farmer???s feed co-op in Utah. Referring to a fire that caused almost $1 million in damage and could easily have killed a family sleeping on the premises, Goodwin told The Deseret News: ???We???re ecstatic.???
J.P. Goodwin doesn???t represent HSUS???s only intersection with the animal rights movement???s violent underbelly. Miyun Park, a Washington, DC anti-meat activist hired by HSUS in 2005, was acknowledged in 1999 as a financial benefactor of No Compromise magazine, a publication that supports the ALF and promotes arson and other violent tactics. And in the investigation leading to the 2005 animal-enterprise terrorism trial of six SHAC (Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty) activists, Park was among those named in at least six federal wiretap warrants.
And Ariana Huemer, an HSUS government-affairs employee, may figure in the case of fugitive animal-rights bomber Daniel Andreas San Diego. An FBI evidence recovery log from the search of San Diego???s car describes a check Huemer wrote to him. San Diego, currently on the FBI???s ???Most Wanted??? list, is presumed responsible for 10-pound shrapnel bombs detonated in 2003 at two California biomedical research companies. One of these bombs was accompanied by a ???secondary??? device, timed to detonate after paramedics and firefighters arrived on the scene.
Comment: It takes tens of millions of dollars to run campaigns against so many domestic targets, and HSUS consistently misleads Americans with its fundraising efforts by hinting that it???s a ???humane society??? in the more conventional sense of the term. Buried deep within HSUS???s website is a disclaimer noting that the group ???is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies. These are independent organizations ??? HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter.???
For instance, a 2001 member recruitment mailing called those on the HSUS mailing list ???true pet lovers,??? referring to unspecified work on behalf of ???dogs, puppies, cats, [and] kittens.??? Another recruitment mailing from that year included ???Thank You,??? ???Happy Birthday,??? and ???Get Well Soon??? greeting cards featuring pets such as dogs, cats, and fish. The business reply envelope lists ???7 Steps to a Happier Pet.???
A 2003 recruitment mailing also included those ???Steps,??? as well as free address labels with pastel pictures of dogs and cats. The fundraising letter subtly substituted the animal-rights term ???companion animals??? for ???pets.???
???Our mission is to encourage adoption in your neighborhood and throughout the country,??? reads another HSUS fundraising appeal. ???Even though local shelters are trying their best to save lives, they are simply overwhelmed.??? That last sentence, at least, is true. But don???t count on the multi-million-dollar conglomerate HSUS to do anything about it. HSUS doesn???t operate a single animal shelter and has no hands-on contact with stray or surplus animals.
In 1995 the Washington (DC) Humane Society almost closed its animal shelter due to a budget shortfall. HSUS, which is also based in Washington, DC, ultimately withdrew an offer to build and operate a DC shelter, at its own expense, to serve as a national model.
In exchange for running the shelter, HSUS wanted three to five acres of city land and tax-exempt status for all its real estate holdings in the District of Columbia. The DC government offered a long-term lease, but that wasn???t good enough. HSUS refused to proceed unless it would ???own absolutely??? the land. The district declined, and what might have become the only HSUS-funded animal shelter never materialized.
So what does HSUS do with the millions it raises using the furry faces of Fido and Fluffy? In 2002, the multi-million-dollar conglomerate gave less than $150,000 to hands-on humane societies and animal shelters.
Worse, HSUS employees have complained to the press that their organization wastes its resources on fundraising expenses and high salaries for its chief executives. Robert Baker, an HSUS consultant and former chief investigator, told U.S. News & World Report: ???The Humane Society should be worried about protecting animals from cruelty. It???s not doing that. The place is all
Comment: Despite the words ???humane society??? on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it???s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a ???humane society??? in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn???t operate a single one anywhere.
Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.
HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: ???We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts ??? [and we???re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.??? More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on ???a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.??? A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: ???Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.???
Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build ???a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.??? And now, as the organization???s leader, he???s in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new ???Animal Protection Litigation Section??? within HSUS, dedicated to ???the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.???
HSUS???s current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless ???Breakfast of Cruelty??? campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers ???help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products.??? Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.
Comment: Imagine that a few people think we humans just aren't good enough to own or use animals. In fact they're so convinced of this that they have formed large organizations that work tirelessly around the clock and around the world to eliminate animal farming, eating of meat, use of animals in research, hunting, circuses, zoos, and yes, owning animals as pets.
This isn't just a bad dream ??? it's real. These people are called the ???animal rights' (AR) movement. While there probably aren't more than a thousand people in the U.S. who accept the whole idea ??? that humans should be completely separated from our animals even if that means that many species become extinct ??? they are supported by many more who back important parts of the movement's ideas.
---> Many supporters believe that eating meat is wrong.
---> Others think that medical research using animals is unnecessary and cruel.
---> Yet others believe most pet owners are irresponsible.
It is those people ??? the ones who are deeply committed to their own small parts of animal rights ??? who are the foot soldiers, carrying the movement forward.
Fewer than a thousand run the AR corporations, make the plans, draft the laws, organize the conferences, deliver the speeches, and do the on-the-floor lobbying. Tens of thousands back laws in narrow areas: animal rescuers may support anti-tethering laws to ???stop irresponsible owners', misguided home breeders back anything labeled as fighting ???puppy mills,' and animal shelters support close regulation of pet breeders and rescuers.
The money to support the animal rights agenda comes from millions of Americans who love animals and who, without understanding how their money will actually be used, mail checks to HSUS, PeTA, and other lesser known AR organizations.
This is America: It is our right to believe whatever we want and to try to convince others of what we believe. However the AR movement goes beyond that. The biggest thing they do is pass laws that make animal use, breeding, and ownership steadily harder and more costly.
Comment: Imagine that a few people think we humans just aren't good enough to own or use animals. In fact they're so convinced of this that they have formed large organizations that work tirelessly around the clock and around the world to eliminate animal farming, eating of meat, use of animals in research, hunting, circuses, zoos, and yes, owning animals as pets.
This isn't just a bad dream ??? it's real. These people are called the ???animal rights' (AR) movement. While there probably aren't more than a thousand people in the U.S. who accept the whole idea ??? that humans should be completely separated from our animals even if that means that many species become extinct ??? they are supported by many more who back important parts of the movement's ideas.
---> Many supporters believe that eating meat is wrong.
---> Others think that medical research using animals is unnecessary and cruel.
---> Yet others believe most pet owners are irresponsible.
It is those people ??? the ones who are deeply committed to their own small parts of animal rights ??? who are the foot soldiers, carrying the movement forward.
Fewer than a thousand run the AR corporations, make the plans, draft the laws, organize the conferences, deliver the speeches, and do the on-the-floor lobbying. Tens of thousands back laws in narrow areas: animal rescuers may support anti-tethering laws to ???stop irresponsible owners', misguided home breeders back anything labeled as fighting ???puppy mills,' and animal shelters support close regulation of pet breeders and rescuers.
The money to support the animal rights agenda comes from millions of Americans who love animals and who, without understanding how their money will actually be used, mail checks to HSUS, PeTA, and other lesser known AR organizations.
This is America: It is our right to believe whatever we want and to try to convince others of what we believe. However the AR movement goes beyond that. The biggest thing they do is pass laws that make animal use, breeding, and ownership steadily harder and more costly.
Comment: It's about time these Animal Rights Groups get exposed for the ecoterrorist groups they are...Why people continue to support these groups is beyond me. All of these groups are or have been on the FBI's terrorist watch list..(ALF, ELF, SHAC, PETA, HSUS) all of these groups have ties to one another, and have caused millions of dollars in damage to property attempting to free animals. They put the life of an animal above that of a human, and cheer when a hunter is either injured or dies in a hunting related accident, what a sad pathetic group these "terrorist" are! Start calling them what they are: TERRORIST!
Comment: "Instead of zero kills, PETA claims to be shooting for zero births." - This is the heart of the matter as far as PETA is concerned. They believe that no one has the right to have a pet...not now, not ever. They are trying to kill as many as they can and stop ALL cats, dog, cows, horses, etc from being born. Only when there are NO animals in our lives at all will they be happy. Most of the healthy pets being euthanized in shelters are feral cats, pit bull breeds and behavior problems...not adoptable pets. Most dog breeds have active rescues who will accept responsiblity for any homeless dogs that are their breed...
PETA and HSUS wish to end all animals in our lives. Period. They are slowly taking away our rights and soon we will live in a world without any animals except for a few in the wild,
Pam Bartholomew
Comment: Website reference in above message should have been: http://jharkinhome.googlepages.com (or http://tinyurl.com/66om5h ) If you follow the link you will find some quotes. Three more:
All beings tremble before violence. All fear death. All love life. See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?
Perhaps what we are called to do may not seem like much, but the butterfly is a small creature to affect galaxies thousands of light years away. ~ Madeleine L Engle
???Then I will tell you a great secret, Captain. Perhaps the greatest of all time. The molecules of your body are the same molecules that make up this station and the nebula outside, that burn inside the stars themselves. We are starstuff, we are the universe made manifest, trying to figure itself out. As we have both learned, sometimes the universe requires a change of perspective." Babylon 5
Today's mighty oak is just a nut from yesterday that held its ground.
Shalom.
Comment: Cats do not have an 'environment' - they are not part of the ecosystem.
Comment: This was the most biased and unbalanced article I've read in a long time. Peta is well known for having a lethal attitude towards companion animals. Not long ago two of their operatives were arrested because they were taking animals from vets and shelters, with the ruse that they were going to find them homes. Then they killed them and threw the bodies in dumpsters. And the president of Peta, Ingrid newkirk completely supported and defended them. Peta has no credibility. And eveyone knows that low cost spay/neuter is essential and that puppy mills need to be closed down. The article made it sound like this was all Peta's idea. Nathan Winograd has developed a comprehensive program that, when properly implemented, saves lives. How can this be a bad thing. This man is a hero because he has the courage to put the blame for the killing on the people who deserve it - those who are doing the killing. I became involved in shelter work as a Board member about 10 years ago. I came on the Board a naive animal lover thinking that all the people in the shelter would be devoted to the animals' welfare. I quickly learned that this was not true. Nathan is exactly right. People running shelters don't do nearly enough to save lives. Part of the cause is cultural - the belief that animals are diposable and it's alright to kill them . Part of it is because of erroneous beliefs. And part of it is just laziness. We staged a coup and took over the Board and became No Kill about 3 years later. It was damn hard, but worth every bit of effort. Instead of arguing and clinging to a 19th century paradigm, just stop the killing and get with the program. And whoever wrote that article should be fired.
Comment: Too many (as seen here) lack knowledge as to how various humane societies (private, governmental, open-admission, limited admission, high-kill, low-kill, sanctuaries, breeders, pet shops, national and international organizations, SPCAs, lone ranger one-person operations and species or breed specific placement agencies) function. Those who never turn animals away often hold contracts for animal control and are contractually obligated not to turn animals away; others have no space and do not want to euthanize animals but do not want to lie to the public. Others mislead the public out of concern of animals being abandoned or killed. There are those who believe there will never be enough good homes for animals extant so better to put down the animals acquired even by subterfuge and good adopters to acquire other animals. Then there are those shelters who as a practice never take the public's animals (though you would never realize it from their literature) who mainly acquire animals from other shelters. Every animal deserves a home and perhaps it is better to save nine pet-quality animals instead of tying up space for one who may take months to rehome, might become sick or depressed from being in a shelter, and who would use space nine others could have had in the amount of time it might take that one animal to get adopted. Shelters are not designed for long-term retention of animals. Sanctuaries on the other hand are designed to offer long-term care to animals. Best Friends trades out adoptable animals with other shelters and for their harder to adopt animals. It has a plethora of support for often independent animal rescuers. Among home-based rescue groups there are those who show animals perhaps out of a dozen PetsMarts as one in this area does in contrast to others who do a great deal of due diligence but rehome far fewer animals. Many people involved with animals cherish animals. I think all decry euthanasia though some accept it more readily as collateral damage. They are what I think of as the old guard, usually detesting feral cat programs which is another though related topic. They receive what Nate calls political cover from some of the national organizations including the two in the story. I founded a small animal charity and do the following: I answer calls and call people back promptly including sometimes callers who hang up without leaving a message because I know that that a few moments of my time may help a distraught person who does not know what to expect from the system. The second thing I do is provide information as to how to find a home for an animal or how to find a shelter even though I cannot accept their animal. I have put together a free Google website to help the callers who can do things themselves (http://jharkin.googlepages.com). Feral or stray cats and TNR along with bully breed legislation are two other key elements of the pet overpopulation problem.
More anon perhaps.
Comment: This was the most biased and unbalanced article I've read in a long time. Peta is well known for having a lethal attitude towards companion animals. Not long ago two of their operatives were arrested because they were taking animals from vets and shelters, with the ruse that they were going to find them homes. Then they killed them and threw the bodies in dumpsters. And the president of Peta, Ingrid newkirk completely supported and defended them. Peta has no credibility. And eveyone knows that low cost spay/neuter is essential and that puppy mills need to be closed down. The article made it sound like this was all Peta's idea. Nathan Winograd has developed a comprehensive program that, when properly implemented, saves lives. How can this be a bad thing. This man is a hero because he has the courage to put the blame for the killing on the people who deserve it - those who are doing the killing. I became involved in shelter work as a Board member about 10 years ago. I came on the Board a naive animal lover thinking that all the people in the shelter would be devoted to the animals' welfare. I quickly learned that this was not true. Nathan is exactly right. People running shelters don't do nearly enough to save lives. Part of the cause is cultural - the belief that animals are diposable and it's alright to kill them . Part of it is because of erroneous beliefs. And part of it is just laziness. We staged a coup and took over the Board and became No Kill about 3 years later. It was damn hard, but worth every bit of effort. Instead of arguing and clinging to a 19th century paradigm, just stop the killing and get with the program. And whoever wrote that article should be fired.
Comment: This was the most biased and unbalanced article I've read in a long time. Peta is well known for having a lethal attitude towards companion animals. Not long ago two of their operatives were arrested because they were taking animals from vets and shelters, with the ruse that they were going to find them homes. Then they killed them and threw the bodies in dumpsters. And the president of Peta, Ingrid newkirk completely supported and defended them. Peta has no credibility. And eveyone knows that low cost spay/neuter is essential and that puppy mills need to be closed down. The article made it sound like this was all Peta's idea. Nathan Winograd has developed a comprehensive program that, when properly implemented, saves lives. How can this be a bad thing. This man is a hero because he has the courage to put the blame for the killing on the people who deserve it - those who are doing the killing. I became involved in shelter work as a Board member about 10 years ago. I came on the Board a naive animal lover thinking that all the people in the shelter would be devoted to the animals' welfare. I quickly learned that this was not true. Nathan is exactly right. People running shelters don't do nearly enough to save lives. Part of the cause is cultural - the belief that animals are diposable and it's alright to kill them . Part of it is because of erroneous beliefs. And part of it is just laziness. We staged a coup and took over the Board and became No Kill about 3 years later. It was damn hard, but worth every bit of effort. Instead of arguing and clinging to a 19th century paradigm, just stop the killing and get with the program. And whoever wrote that article should be fired.
Comment: This was the most biased and unbalanced article I've read in a long time. Peta is well known for having a lethal attitude towards companion animals. Not long ago two of their operatives were arrested because they were taking animals from vets and shelters, with the ruse that they were going to find them homes. Then they killed them and threw the bodies in dumpsters. And the president of Peta, Ingrid newkirk completely supported and defended them. Peta has no credibility. And eveyone knows that low cost spay/neuter is essential and that puppy mills need to be closed down. The article made it sound like this was all Peta's idea. Nathan Winograd has developed a comprehensive program that, when properly implemented, saves lives. How can this be a bad thing. This man is a hero because he has the courage to put the blame for the killing on the people who deserve it - those who are doing the killing. I became involved in shelter work as a Board member about 10 years ago. I came on the Board a naive animal lover thinking that all the people in the shelter would be devoted to the animals' welfare. I quickly learned that this was not true. Nathan is exactly right. People running shelters don't do nearly enough to save lives. Part of the cause is cultural - the belief that animals are diposable and it's alright to kill them . Part of it is because of erroneous beliefs. And part of it is just laziness. We staged a coup and took over the Board and became No Kill about 3 years later. It was damn hard, but worth every bit of effort. Instead of arguing and clinging to a 19th century paradigm, just stop the killing and get with the program. And whoever wrote that article should be fired.
Comment: First of all, this is the most biased, unbalanced article I've read in a long time. Peta is well know for it's lethal attitude towards companion animals. Not long ago two of its workers were arrested for taking animals from vets and shelters, claiming that they were going to find them homes - and then they killed them. Then they threw the dead bodies in a dumpster. And Ingrid Newkirk, their president, totally supported and defended them. Peta has no credibility. Nathan Winograd has developed a comprehensive program that, when properly implemented, saves lives. How can anyone consider this a bad thing. And of course, he and everyone else who cares about companion animals supports low cost spay/neuter. When he was Director of Operations at the San Francisco SPCA, they even paid people for bringing their animals in for neutering. And, everyone supports closing puppy mills. The article made it sound like it was all Peta's idea. This article was so poorly done, the reporter should be fired.
Comment: NATHAN WAS MISQUOTED IN THE ARTICLE.
I was just checking Nathan Winograd's blog and he wants to set the record straight about comments attributed to him in this article.
http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/04/for-record.html
I guess he's too much of a gentleman to address some of the libelous comments that have been made here about his being in the pocket of commercial dog breeders, etc. You know, he is a lawyer...
Comment: All of you seem to be missing the point. The point is called "being responsible for your own actions". That means you don't stand around telling everyone else what's wrong with them. You be responsible for your actions and I'll be responsible for mine. Laws do not make people responsible. Education and values hopefully learned during childhood can make you responsible. I take care of my animals. If I don't want to spay or neuter that is my choice. (I do spay and neuter) I'll be responsible for me and mine and you be responsible for you and yours.
Comment: One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins. Your freedom do anything (drive, smoke, drink, breed animals) ends when it impinges on my freedom. When people keep allowing surplus pups and kittens (so cute -- can stand in shopping market parking lots and give away -- but to homes who in about 9-12 mos. may not have vetted them or want them -- possibly even allowed those ones to reproduce) and society has to deal with surplus animals, then it becomes our collective problem to do something ethical about it. I don't want to the killing of adoptable animals to continue. To avoid it however is labor and cost intensive (finding homes including vetting, marketing, boarding....keeping healthy, exercised and socialized). Mandatory legislation to neuter or license the animals or the households does not work because people duck it ??? the same way where people where cell phone use is outlawed still talk on non-hands free cell phones but additionally then are distracted looking for the police! Or what about parking illegally. Some will do it in a pinch hoping to get away with it. We collectively (being after all Americans with American know-how and ingenuity) however should be able to devise a plan. Maybe just asking everyone if their animal is fixed and if not offering to advance the money and help with transport back and forth to a clinic. A lot of people want to get their animals fixed but it is hard. They look at Fluffy who is enjoying life and identify with the surgery, so they delay even though they intend to have it done. After all, who wants to have their stomach cut open and ovaries removed ???and some males really recoil at castration of male animals. However, if we can find a way to entice people into getting the surgeries done prior to having a few litters, then we would be getting ahead of the bad curve behind which we find ourselves.
Comment: People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
Comment: Enter Your Comment
Comment: I'm with PETA... My only experience with no-kill shelters was being turned away after finding a litter of kittens a renter in my neighborhood left behind. After a couple of weeks, I ended up dropping them off at the local shelter. I'm sure the kittens got adopted, but i doubed the mother did. I'm all for no-kill, but the shelters are far and few between.
Comment: The No Kill Movement isnt about no kill shelters. No kill shelters are simply shelters that choose not to euthanize (which is their right, BTW)
The No Kill Movement, which is what the article is discussing, is an approach to bring entire communities (not just individual shelters) to no-kill of adoptables, by increasing adoptions, increasing availability of low cost s/n, making communities more animal friendly, providing support to keep animals in their homes, and a host of other services. The emphasis is on INCREASING ADOPTIONS to get more animals into homes.
This is a truly useful approach. To learn more, visit the No Kill Advocacy Center online.
Comment: Please stop using the word "euthanasia" to describe the killing of healthy or treatable animals. Although it is common practice to use the word in this way, it is grossly incorrect. Webster defines euthanasia as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals...in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." The vast majority of animals killed in so-called "shelters" and by PETA are neither hopelessy sick nor hopelessy injured. To use this word in this way perpetuates the idea that killing them is doing them a favor. It is not.
Comment: Please stop using the word "euthanasia" to describe the killing of healthy or treatable animals. Although it is common practice to use the word in this way, it is grossly incorrect. Webster defines euthanasia as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals...in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." The vast majority of animals killed in so-called "shelters" and by PETA are neither hopelessy sick nor hopelessy injured. To use this word in this way perpetuates the idea that killing them is doing them a favor. It is not.
Comment: Please stop using the word "euthanasia" to describe the killing of healthy or treatable animals. Although it is common practice to use the word in this way, it is grossly incorrect. Webster defines euthanasia as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals...in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." The vast majority of animals killed in so-called "shelters" and by PETA are neither hopelessy sick nor hopelessy injured. To use this word in this way perpetuates the idea that killing them is doing them a favor. It is not.
Comment: Please stop using the word "euthanasia" to describe the killing of healthy or treatable animals. Although it is common practice to use the word in this way, it is grossly incorrect. Webster defines euthanasia as "the act or practice of killing or permitting the death lf hopelessly sick or injured individuals...in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy." The vast majority of animals killed in so-called "shelters" and by PETA are neither hopelessy sick nor hopelessy injured. To use this word in this way perpetuates the idea that killing them is doing them a favor. It is not.
Comment: My area shelter, in a small city in New Hampshire, is a no-kill shelter.
What that means for people looking to surrender less than desirable breeds of dogs (Pitts and Rotties, for instance) or older, big dogs is that the shelter refuses to take them.
Until all the elements are assembled--readily available, affordable spay/neuter programs, buying only from COE breeders, or acquiring a dog from breed rescue groups or shelters, no-kill is a beatiful theory that fails in practicality.
Comment: The
