PETA may soon lose the right to kill healthy pets. As I and many others have verified, the headquarters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals in Norfolk, Virginia kills 97 per cent of the animals delivered into its care.
Norfolk, however, may soon pass legislation to make the city a "No Kill" zone.
This is a remarkable development in the growing battle to deny PETA the right to liquidate pets at its so-called "Shelter of Last Resort." The group has already killed over 27,000 creatures. The new laws, a collaboration between the City Council and Nathan Winograd of the No Kill movement, would make PETA's life very difficult. It would either have to stop killing, or move.
It is an ongoing, hard-fought war. Former PETA employees, disgusted with the butchery they have witnessed in Norfolk, have called for PETA's founder, Ingrid Newkirk, not simply to resign, but to face charges. They argue that she ought to be held to the same standards that rightly applied to football player Michael Vick.
The new laws might not put Newkirk in prison, but they would prevent further slaughter.
PETA, however, is fighting the proposed legislation with every legal tool at its disposal: The group has filed a request, under the Freedom of Information Act, requiring the city to reveal its correspondence with Winograd, as a pressing matter of "public interest." Implied is a black conspiracy .
This would qualify as the world's least shady intrigue. A sinister FOIA request is hardly necessary: All you need do is ask. Which I did. Nathan Winograd was happily forthcoming. City Councilman Andy Protogyrou proposed that Norfolk become No Kill; an advocate then contacted Winograd, who offered to help draft legislation, as he has in numerous communities.
PETA's knives came out. Daphna Nachminovitch wrote an ominous letter to the mayor of Norfolk. I have written about Nachminovitch before: She styles herself the "Vice President" of PETA's "Cruelty Investigations Department." And she has personally signed off on the killing of thousands of shelter animals.
"I understand," Nachminovitch wrote, "that the same small group of people whose hysterical, incessant e-mails and calls brought about the severely crowded, filthy, and cruel conditions that animals were subjected to in 2007 are at it again."
What Nachminovitch "understands" is in dismal conflict with reality. I asked Winograd -- since he is guiding the current effort -- whether he was a member of this "same small group."
Norfolk in 2007? I was not involved at all. My understanding is that the shelter director wanted to stop killing, but did not advance any of the programs I advocate: like foster care, comprehensive adoption programs, pet retention efforts, TNR (Trap, Neuter, Release). And the effort failed.
So. This is not "same" group. It is a rather different group. Nor is this current group anything like "small": To PETA's dismay, the No Kill Community is a major national force, and growing worldwide.
Unfortunately, anyone can use the words "no kill" -- just as anyone can use the word "ethical." The No Kill Community is a very specific organization, however, with a very specific and meticulous protocol. Much harder work than simply refusing to kill, the program has been proven, again and again, to succeed.
PETA gets tremendous mileage out of deliberately confusing these two: benighted, self-styled "no kill" organizations (often abusive), with shelters that carefully follow Winograd's No Kill method. The two could not be more different. And PETA knows this.
Nachminovitch caps her fiction with a truly wondrous lie: "These are people who -- despite meaning well, perhaps -- have no actual sheltering experience whatsoever and in fact only take in a few dozen animals annually."
Shall we examine Winograd's lack of sheltering experience? He was, for instance, Director of Operations for the San Francisco SPCA, where he had 150 employees, including a dozen veterinarians and behaviorists. They had a full-service animal hospital, with some 30,000 animals treated annually. Each year they found homes for 5,000 animals.
Does Nachminovitch require another example? In Reno, Nevada, Winograd rewrote the agency's policies and procedures, fired 13 managers, and hired an entirely new team. "That agency sees almost 10,000 animals a year. They are now saving 91 per cent of animals."
PETA's record? "In 2011, PETA took in 2,029 companion animals, mostly dogs and cats, and killed all but 64 of them, which is 97 per cent."
Should you be a connoisseur of grim irony: PETA's grisly records were made public through the Freedom of Information Act. The 2011 kill report, a legal document, was signed by one "Daphna Nachminovitch, Vice President, Cruelty Investigations."
Meanwhile, Nathan Winograd consults with shelters across America who are saving a staggering number of dogs and cats and rabbits from the hypodermic. Flotillas of miraculous arks:
In fact, right now there are about 41 communities nationwide saving at least 90 per cent of the animals. They represent about 200 towns and cities across the country. Some of them are small, taking in a few hundred animals; some are quite large, taking in as many as 23,000 animals a year. All of them follow the model we pioneered to create the first No Kill community in the U.S.
There you have your "small" group of people, who see perhaps a "few dozen animals annually."
Ironically, the group painfully deficient in sheltering experience is PETA. While its preferred euphemism is "A Shelter of Last Resort," PETA's headquarters is in reality -- according to government records filed by Newkirk and Nachminovitch -- an astonishingly efficient killing facility.
In short, PETA, who asserts when cornered that it does not run an actual shelter, are disparaging the experience of one of the most seasoned shelter directors in the nation. A man who has lectured on animal sheltering at Cornell, America's foremost veterinary college.
Yes, all of this is very much in the public interest. Even more important: it is in the interest of America's shelter animals, 4 million of whom will be slaughtered next year.
The historic nature of the showdown in Norfolk cannot be overstated. It will change the landscape of animal welfare in the United States. Norfolk is ground zero in the Right to Kill movement: Everyone who regards it as their duty to kill animals takes their cue from PETA. High-kill shelters look to the lady in Norfolk to rationalize their choices. To make them feel like good people.
If Norfolk properly implements No Kill, PETA will be devastated. Its butchery will be rendered illegal; its propaganda will be revealed as a chorus of lies; and organizations around the world who look to PETA for permission to kill healthy pets will be left without cover.
Ingrid Newkirk tells us that, "No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe." Stirring words. And a few miles shy of the truth. I despise this ugly reality far more than Newkirk does, I assure you. As do Winograd and the legions of animal lovers worldwide devoted to ending this vicious practice.
If Nathan Winograd and the Norfolk City Council succeed, then hard laws will bar this vile cult, permanently, from their current role as PWHS: the People Who Hold the Syringe.
(Part Two of this article addresses PETA's spurious arguments against the No Kill Community: hoarding, and the myth of overpopulation. You can read Douglas Cooper's complete expose of PETA's pet-killing practices starting here).
Follow Douglas Anthony Cooper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dysmedia
http://nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm
I urge you to read this: it includes a number of quotations from veterinarians and rescue workers who delivered healthy animals to PETA, expecting them to be re-homed. The pets were killed, generally on the same day.
(And no, before you suggest it: this site is not maintained by the meat lobby.)
The end result of all these programs is not only one of the highest save rates in the nation, but also great public perception of the agency. Before the changes, we did a series of Town Hall-type meetings and surveys to determine how the Washoe County (Reno), NV community felt about its shelter, the Nevada Humane Society. Those efforts revealed deep dissatisfaction in the community, especially among animal welfare stakeholders (rescue groups, feral cat caretakers, No Kill shelters, and others) with the job being done. The vast majority did not believe the humane society was doing enough to save lives.
Not surprisingly, public perception today stands in sharp contrast to what it was. With the help of the Reno Gazette Journal, a community survey in January 2009 revealed that:
93% support the No Kill initiative;
95% gave the humane society positive ratings on adoption efforts and results; and,
93% say NHS has a good or great public image.
I would say, simply, the animals and the good people of Washoe County beg to differ with the comment.
.http://www.washoecounty.us/repository/files/44/Professional%20Services%20Agreement%20between%20NHS%20and%20Washoe%20County.pdf
That's the agreement that NHS is not following.
And your comment was removed for violating posting guidelines and Mr. Cooper didn't have anything to do with it's removal.
You know, contrary to what you might think, you can't just write anything about someone without some PROOF to back it up.....It's called libel and Nathan Winograd is a lawyer.
I think we now know who you are. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.
" No Kill" June 23, 2009 it's online. Mr. Winograd is trying to come back to California, and Marilyn Reese, you don't want him here. One seminar does not a leader make. Mr. Winograd needs to be careful in his lies about Nevada., even those of us who have moved away are sick of being associated with the loser. Google " Mike Stark No Kill or Torture " or any of the truthful articles out there which expose this " movement" ( good word ) for what it is.
Once we get that cleared up, I'll deal with the facts on the ground in Nevada. But I want to have some idea what kind of character we're dealing with here.
"AnotherPointOfView." Yes, but whose?
And averagezoe, you seem like a nice person, but a bit credulous. This strikes you as "honest"?
Yes, he's researched and tallied up the stats, but so what?? Means nothing in the real world........
There is a really ugly side to animal rescue, one he and most have never witnessed.
People out there playing God with their charges, "saving" as many as they can get their hands on, meanwhile these poor souls exist, with pus filled eyes, oozing ears, matted to the skin, crawling in parasites...... but HEY! They get food, water & shelter...............they've been saved from euthanasia. No thanks
Equating No Kill with hoarding is, quite simply, libel.
The statistics will always be rough, but these ones are widely accepted by people on *both sides* of the issue. They're not just stabs in the dark. And your refusal to accept that they are in fact realistic is doing real damage to the cause.
You don't in fact *need* to accept the numbers. All you have to do is examine and acknowledge the success of the No Kill protocol wherever it has been properly implemented. This you cannot dismiss as wild statistical speculation: it's fully documented fact.
http://www.no-killnews.com/?page_id=8
When you dismiss this fact, you hurt animals. Which, as I say, is precisely the opposite of what your life is devoted to.
Thank you for all who tweeted, shared, reposted this one. It is now by far the most-read article in the PETA series. Please do the same with Part Two: you have my permission to repost it in its entirety.
We WILL achieve No Kill in Norfolk.
Local advocates of No-Kill are not asking for euthanasia to simply stop without a larger plan in place. That is unrealistic. They are asking Norfolk City Council to move towards a higher save rate, which takes time and encompasses many components. Some local agencies (in Norfolk and in surrounding cities) are already working on these components and are on the same page as PETA in regard to reducing overpopulation (and thus euthanasia); unfortunately, PETA is polarizing this issue.
PETA is spreading misinformation, and their arguments are illogical. They refer to a situation at the city shelter five years ago, when the shelter was not headed by animal welfare professionals and was without the current wonderful staff and volunteers. These people would not allow the situation to deteriorate the way it did in 2007.
With their money and power, it would be nice to see PETA instead enable ways for all involved parties to work towards a mutually shared goal - more lives saved.
And I despise PETA. They are evil. Every time I see some moronic celebrity doing a free campaign for them, I feel sick.
PETA kills animals. They deceive people who don't have the time or inclination to research them before supporting them. And they make everyone else think that PETA represents animal rights advocates, giving all of us a bad name.
The Centre for Consumer Freedom published the website 'petakills...' - please look up who funds the CCF. These mega animal exploiters would applaud your view, just as they must have N.Winograd and the author of this blog listed as their heroes; heroes who run an efficient anti-PETA campaign and allow the mega-exploiters to spend more of their time building abbatoirs and torturing animals in factory farms. The welfare of all nonhumans is interrelated so any endeavor to distinguish between the lives of domestic and farmed animals is to create a false dichotomy.
Researching PETA's website and their detailed explanations for the actions they take (acknowledging that rogue employees can present in any field) it is a relief for the billions of the earth's animals that this organisation exists. In regards to this present discussion, do you really want to encourage the breeding of domestic animals ?
Because it helps get them adopted. Which is good.
What do "no kill" advocates propose to do with these millions of unwanted animals?
Shall we warehouse them? Have them live out their natural lives in a cage amongst hundreds of others, all barking, stressed & depressed to the point of insanity, pacing neurotically in their own excrement?
I've seen it, it is so horribly sad I would gladly insert the needle myself to save them one more second of this existance.
No kill sounds all warm and fuzzy. Do you honestly believe homes could be found for these animals? Do the math, there are literally millions more animals than there are homes for them.
We need to address the problem, puppy mills, backyard breeders, pet shops etc etc etc. Until laws are passed PREVENTING the situation we are in now, this problem will only get worse.
Until then, what do we do with these poor souls? Let them exist in misery so our consciences don't have to deal with the decision to euthanize?
Many of these animals had a home once, they were loved, had a warm bed of their own to sleep in. Would you rather see your dog live out it's natural life in a cage? I would choose quick, humane euthanasia in a heartbeat.
That is the harsh reality, stop blasting PETA or shelters that euthanize as opposed to warehouse.
There are far worse things than death............
Roughly 3 million shelter animals requiring adoption annually -- PETA agrees with this. There are roughly 17 million people, however -- according to an HSUS/Maddie's Fund survey -- who will be taking in a pet next year, but have not decided where that pet is to come from. Hence, if you convince a mere 20% of those people to adopt from a shelter, you can end the killing.
"Killing or hoarding" is simply a false dichotomy. It is based on a fundamental statistical error: on a national level, overpopulation is a myth. Nathan WInograd's program has strict safeguards against abuse; none of the shelters that follow the official No Kill Community's protocol have been engaged in hoarding. (Anyone can use the words "no kill.")
The corollary: if you kill healthy pets, you are killing unnecessarily. Which is ugly.
The solution? Warehousing.
Then there's the conundrum of what to do with the unadoptable. They may be perfectly healthy, are they condemned to live out their lives in a shelter?
For anyone to adopt a blanket "no kill" policy leaves the door wide open to neglect, housing for profit, sub standard care etc etc
When did humane euthanasia become so unacceptable?
Of those how many are savable? 90 percent or just over 7 million.
Of those how many will be saved? 4 million.
How many of the savable animals are killed? 3 million.
How many need to find new homes? If shelters are doing their jobs comprehensively, just over 2 million (3 million on the high end). The remainder should be increased reclaims or in the case of feral cats, TNR’d.
Other than those who will adopt from a shelter as a matter of course (those saved above), how many people in the U.S. are looking to bring a new dog or cat into their home next year but have not decided where they will get the animal and can be influenced to adopt from a shelter? 17 million.
So, 17 million people for 2-3 million dogs and cats.
Has this happened anywhere? Yes, there are many communities which have hit the 90th percentile in save rates.
How long did it take them? They did it virtually overnight when new leadership committed to the No Kill philosophy and passionate about saving lives replaced long standing bureaucrats mired in defeatism and excuse making.
Are shelters doing all they can to influence those people to adopt from them? This is a rhetorical question.
It is worth noting, however, that Winograd came to this conclusion himself in 2007 book, Redemption, using data from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the Pet Food Manufacturers Association, and the latest census at the time.
"When I argue that pet overpopulation is a myth, I'm not saying that we can all go home," he said. "And I'm not saying that there aren't certain people who are irresponsible with their animals. And I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of animals entering shelters. Again, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be better if there were fewer of them being impounded. But it does mean that the problem is not insurmountable and it does mean that we can do something short of killing for all savable animals today."
Redemption makes the case that bad shelter management leads to overcrowding, which is then confused with pet overpopulation. Instead of warehousing and killing animals, shelters, he says, should be using proven, innovative programs to find those homes he says are out there. They should wholeheartedly adopt the movement known as No Kill, and stop using killing as a form of population control.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2007/10/02/petscol.DTL#ixzz1yILl2yeJ
Dr. Daniel Kovich, of the Virginia Department of Agriculture, investigated PETA’s headquarters in 2010 to determine if PETA should continue to be classified as a shelter. According to Virginia code, “a shelter means a facility…that is used to house or contain animals…for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.”
After inspecting PETA’s headquarters, Dr. Kovich found that “PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent adoptive homes for animals.”
(1) “The receptionist stated that PETA did not operate an animal shelter. When I indicated that PETA did report to operate an animal shelter and that this office has inspected in it in the past, an additional staff member was called to the desk and reiterated that there was no shelter.”
(2) “The facility contains three rooms designated as animal enclosures. The rooms are not further subdivided into runs or cages. The three animals occupying the rooms were not being held for adoption. The facility does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.”
(3) “290 animal custody records [for 2010] were reviewed. 17 or 6% were recorded as adopted or in foster homes, 273 or 94% were recorded as euthanized. Of these, 245 or 90% were euthanized within the first 24 hours of custody.”
(4) “The shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. PETA reception has historically been unaware of the existence of an animal shelter, and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists. PETA has published suggested guidelines for animal shelters on their website that…their own facility does not satisfy…”
PETA has argued in the past that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” But this claim strains credulity: the data on PETA kill rates come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption;” PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination; rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable; testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster; according to the Daily Caller, “two PETA employees described as ‘adorable’ and ‘perfect’ some of the dogs and cats they killed in the back of a PETA-owned van;” PETA’s founder has admitted they kill “adoptable” animals; and when asked what efforts they make to find animals homes, PETA told the Daily Caller that they had “no comment.”
My understanding is that PETA does not really run a shelter, but they do (or did) provide humane euthanasia services to surrounding areas where "animal control" was gassing or otherwise inhumanely killing animals. That would certainly inflate their statistics. I am not in Norfolk and cannot see for myself.
No Kill has its own issues. When San Francisco went "no kill" that translated to limited admission (we'll only take what we have open cages for) and intake and euthanasia rates in surrounding areas skyrocketed. No Kill has to be community-wide, e.g., Maddie's Fund model.
I disagree. What Vick got for what he did was far too lenient. This woman has made it her mission in life to rid the planet of animals, and she's starting with your pets. She has publicly said that having pets is like having a slave, and it is better to put an animal out of that misery than to allow it to continue to live. And yet so many people are blinded by what they think PETA is all about. Sure, on the outside you see this and say, "Wow, they really care about animals, I'm going to support them." But do your research and you will see, the animals they get, don't make it out of their grasp alive. And guess who's money they are using to do that with. YOURS!
The problem is that eating animals is, as a matter of moral analysis, no different from dog fighting
meat = milk = eggs = dog fighting = wool = honey
of this double
edged sword,
some act of
kindness,
while others
we abhor
Because I can't think of a more repulsive position.
(I responded to this before, but it somehow never appeared.)