By Gina Spadafori
March 27, 2009
PETA kills animals by the thousands, and that fact is indisputable. The official explanation from the group is that those killings are acts of mercy, but no-kill advocate Nathan Winograd, the author of â€œRedemption:The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in Americaâ€ and a former prosecuting attorney, calls that a lie.
Yesterday he promised to follow up on the by-the-numbers look at PETA’s 2008 kill statistics. From today’s post on the no-kill advocate’s blog:
PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are â€œunadoptable.â€ In fact, PETAâ€™s attorney stated that in his letter threatening a defamation lawsuit if I did not back down. But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginiaâ€™s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody â€œfor the purpose of adoption.â€ It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETAâ€™s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much.
In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: â€œDo you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?â€ To which Newkirk responds: â€œIf we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.â€ In short, Newkirk admits that PETA â€œabsolutelyâ€ kills savable animals. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.
Why does the animal protection movement tolerate this woman?
No other movement would allow someone to remain in her position without a massive outcry and public condemnation when their actions are so counter, so anathema to their movementâ€™s foremost principles.
So why does the animal protection movement not only tolerate her, but defend her? Winograd offers his opinion, here.
He also writes:
Engrave this in stone: As soon as Newkirk and her pro-killing cultish devotees are gone, PETA will immediately, completely, and without reservation embrace the No Kill philosophy and become one of its leading champions. When that happens; when her actions are thoroughly and completely seen by everyone for what they truly are; when she is condemned and finally, finally, thankfully, finally, we donâ€™t have to hold our breath, clench our teeth, shake with rage, or cry at the thought of what PETA did to those poor animals, we will all be left wondering just what took us so damned long to rise up and stop this villain in our midst.