Does PETA kill animals? ‘Absolutely,’ says Newkirk

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 “Redemption:The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America” 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 “unadoptable.” In fact, PETA’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 Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” 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 PETA’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: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” 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 movement’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 don’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.

Go read it all.

Filed under: pets, connected — Gina Spadafori @ 12:39 pm


  1. I suspect Nathan would love it if PeTA sued him over this latest post.

    Comment by Susan Fox — March 27, 2009 @ 1:18 pm

  2. Gee, think Nathan is holding back? ;-)

    Lawyers do like to talk — a simple “Bring it on!” might have sufficed (but probably wouldn’t have been as much fun to write)! ;-)

    Comment by Dorene — March 27, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

  3. Today’s mail had a envelope from PETA decrying cats/dogs being killed for their fur. In the garbage the package went. Want nothing to do with PETA.

    Comment by VJ — March 27, 2009 @ 3:59 pm

  4. It is ineffably creepy that PETA’s defenders (here and elsewhere) re: the 99% kill rate (per a mathematical correction from one of Terrierman’s readers) assert that all that killing is OK since PETA is only killing those animals that were going to be killed by the shelters holding them, in a “less humane” way. Apparently finding homes for those animals is not a solution.

    There is no delusion beyond the cultist’s capability.

    p.s Winograd, I’m sure, WANTS PETA to sue him so he can bring their crimes even further into the spotlight.

    Comment by EmilyS — March 27, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

  5. It’s like I said earlier in the thread – trying to place the animals is a LOT harder than just killing them. PeTA is taking the easy way out, and somehow we’re supposed to think that’s noble? (Especially considering the fact that PeTA almost certainly has WAY more money than any one of those shelters they are appropriating animals from.)

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 27, 2009 @ 5:14 pm

  6. Ooops! I guess that was a different thread! Oh well – point still holds!

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 27, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

  7. Some PeTA operatives seem to have come through my neck of the woods last week. Just got my copy of the North Coast Journal today. I do believe that a letter to the editor will be in order. Maybe I’ll get my third ice cream sundae coupon for best letter of the week ;-)

    Comment by Susan Fox — March 27, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

  8. Spadafori, I’m not really sure why you keep calling yourself a journalist. You just spout this garbage about how could PETA do this, how could PETA do that, when your own world consists of your computer.

    I can’t imagine if you actually had the opportunity to do real rescue work, instead of what’s masquerading as rescue these days: crossposts of pleas to “pull” animals to be killed in shelters IS NOT RESCUE!!!!!!!!! You’re trying to alleviate some mysterious guilt of your own, and the easiest way to do that is give shelters a hard time and calling yourself a hero by fostering a few dogs. Why don’t you try doing something like running two mobile spay neuter clinics, or spending 12 hours trying to catch a feral cat with a broken leg?

    Most reputable shelters know that no-kill is a joke – in Bensalem the other day, a bulldog puppy was thrown out of a moving car because the rescue said to wait a few weeks and call back. Apparently the person thought that throwing them out of a car was a better option. Nathan Winograd is raking in more money than Ingrid – last time i checked, she didn’t charge appearance fees or for “program costs” like NW.

    Comment by butlerfam — March 28, 2009 @ 6:48 am

  9. We know where you’re coming from, butlerfan, so bravely anonymous:

    Better dead than fed.

    That no-kill is about limited admission shelters or hoarding is another PETA lie.

    No-kill is about communities working together to eliminate the number of animals killed for population control. Not “euthanized.” Killed.

    It’s about leadership, and building coalitions for the good of animals. It’s about a 90-plus percent adoption rate, not a 90-plus percent kill rate.

    But you’d know that if you’d stop drinking the Kool-Aid long enough to see what others are doing and learn about no-kill.

    As for what “reputable shelters” think is a “joke” … given that you think what PETA is doing is A-OK, I daresay you wouldn’t know a “reputable shelter” if it bit you on the ass.

    And by the way, attacking the messenger is the pathetic refuge of someone who doesn’t have the facts, the truth or the future on his/her side.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 28, 2009 @ 7:00 am

  10. And BTW butlerfan, as a rep of the national bulldog rescue network, we always take dogs in jeopardy, and only ask people to hang on for a few days and weeks if they are willing. Many are. Shelter dogs get priority over owner surrenders.

    If someone told rescue they’d wait and then instead of bringing the pup to the shelter or calling rescue again when they could not, threw the animal from a car that’s a prosecutable offense.

    If you have such great history and documentation on a an incident where a puppy was thrown from a car, I assume that the police are involved and charges are pending for animal cruelty? Does bulldog rescue know? Cause in our network you cannot sneeze in Shreveport without Reno and Guam knowing about it ten minutes later and I’ve not heard about it. Or are these assumptions being made by your shelter about how rescue must have failed?

    If this was an english bulldog and english bulldog rescue does not know the outcome, please contact them so that they can examine what happened and try to do better next time. If local rescue dropped the ball contact BCARN and the director will try to help local rescue organize a bit better. Because unlike the “I shake my finger at you! ” crowd, we are always trying to improve, evolve and figure out how to do it better next time, to save a few more, to act more quickly, to make more connections in the community and with other rescues and willing shelters.

    And yes I rescue dogs, bulldogs and whatever mixed breed foundlings that wander across my path. And do feral cat work (14 years now) and support local low cost spay neuter etc…so save those accusations for someone who may be impressed.

    Comment by JenniferJ — March 28, 2009 @ 10:02 am

  11. I wonder if this is the incident he’s referring to?

    I looked it up on GoogleMaps, and Bensalem is about 20 minutes from Morrisville. So they’re in the same area.

    The report says they don’t know who threw the dog from the car, but that a local rescue is looking to place the dog (upon successful completion of treatment for Parvo). So much for “uncaring rescue”, eh?

    And how is it that butlerfam knows the origin of this dog (if this is indeed the dog he’s talking about) when – according to the story – the police are still looking for the owner?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 28, 2009 @ 10:43 am

  12. Poor little thing. Looks like an american bulldog pup to me personally. Glad he’s probably going to land on his feet (no pun intended!)

    If this is the same dog, butlerfam sure has more intimate knowledge than anyone else, or maybe special psychic powers?

    Saddest ,or at least most ironic, part. STILL better off thrown from a car with PARVO than ending up at PETA’s “shelter”.

    Comment by JenniferJ — March 28, 2009 @ 10:50 am

  13. oh wow. so ignornant. humane is the key word. okay sooo i think killing an animal is horrible but if ur euthanizing it there should be a good reason anddd thats more humane than beating it to death boiling it alive throwing it out a car window ect. So stoppp your crap and attackig Peta over it. I think you finally got the chance to attack peta nd ur taking low blows. If your soooo mad about Peta doing this why arent you pissed over puppy mills, slaughterhouses,dog fighting, ect.? hm please explain to me thatt!! So please stop acting like you have no faults i cant stand it at all

    Comment by Harlie — March 30, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

  14. Oh Harlie …. I can only hope you’re the 10-year-old you’re writing like. Otherwise … you poor thing, both illiterate and lacking any reading comprehension abilities.

    As for why we’re not writing about puppy mills, factory farming, dog-fighting, etc. … try reading before commenting, next time. We write about them all the time — just today, in fact.

    Please let us have your mommy’s e-mail addy so we can explain to her why your allowance shouldn’t be going to PETA.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2009 @ 12:38 pm

  15. Harlie states:
    “i think killing an animal is horrible but if ur euthanizing it there should be a good reason…”

    Peta clearly doesn’t need one. They killed 95 percent of the animals they purportedly “rescued” last year. And this is justifiable?

    Comment by Linda Kaim — March 30, 2009 @ 12:44 pm

  16. Oh my, I am chastened, nothing like blithering ignorance and apparently never reading the blog to put it all in perspective. Thanks!

    “low blows” at poor PETA? Nope, just personally think that providing the option of a loving home and a better life is preferable to PETA’s final solution for pets.

    I see an abused, sick, stray dog or cat, I want to make him better and find him a home, not a needle and a dumpster. But I’m just silly that way.

    Comment by JenniferJ — March 30, 2009 @ 12:46 pm

  17. Today on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program he talked about the newest PeTA kill numbers and called it – the murder of adoptable animals. Just one more voice to add to the chorus.

    Not that Mr. Limbaugh and I agree on most things, but he was there when I turned my radio on this morning and almost the first word I heard out of his mouth was PeTA.

    Comment by Dutch — March 30, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

  18. This may go down in history as the only time I have ever agreed with Rush Limbaugh.

    Comment by 2CatMom — March 30, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

  19. Gina, stop insulting ten-year-olds.

    My ten-year-old niece — who writes and speaks and thinks standard English — is offended.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — March 30, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

  20. Okay – so Harlie is nine!

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 30, 2009 @ 4:01 pm

  21. We should be so lucky Harlie is nine. Chances are Harlie is at least 16 and a product of No Child Left Behind. Makes you proud doesn’t it?

    Rush Limbaugh slammed PeTA? Are you kidding me? That’s as much of a miracle as an American child being literate in their native language!

    Comment by Anne T — March 30, 2009 @ 5:20 pm

  22. I’m not surprised on Limbaugh at all. Being of a somewhat liberal persuasion, I’m always surprised how many people assume I LUV PETA and am for the forced spay-neuter of pets. In many circles, PETA, pet extinction and radical environmentalism (GAIA theory … the earth will repair itself if we can just get rid of all the people) are assumed to go hand-in-hand with progressive thought.

    If Limbaugh presumes PETA has mostly liberal members — and it probably does — then yeah, he’d jump all over its kill numbers.

    There’s a reason why I’m a very lapsed Catholic — I have never bought the infallibility of the pope. And there’s a reason why I’m a liberal with an NRA membership and a belief that PETA is an organization that would like nothing more than for people and their domesticated animal “slaves” to vanish.

    It’s all because I think for myself, and don’t howl to anyone’s dogma.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

  23. Hmm, wonder if this works?

    Comment by Anne T — March 30, 2009 @ 5:54 pm

  24. The jacket I am wearing is LL Bean from the 1950’s. The 22 I am holding is a Springfield from the 1910s. I don’t carry an NRA card, but was taught how to care for a gun and how to shoot it from an early age.
    I am also a liberal Dem. But I know the difference a deer in the freezer can make for the families in the area where I choose to live. I don’t want to sidetrack off the PeTA issue. Rethuglicans will use anything they can to divert attention off their appalling incompetence to address our current problems in any way they can.

    Comment by Anne T — March 30, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

  25. It’s a pretty good bet that Limbaugh’s demographic isn’t made up of PETA supporters, anyway. But maybe they’ll mention the kill numbers to someone who is … and the erosion of support for PETA will continue.

    I like to say I’m so liberal I support the Constitution and ALL its Amendments equally. :)

    I love how the dogs’ jackets match yours. :)

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

  26. Gina, you scare me! Supporting the Constitution and every one of it’s amendments? Gosh! Terrifying!
    Yes, the fact our plaids match is a nice touch, I thought.
    And I am all for any erosion of PeTA, and if Limbaugh can help I’ll take it gladly!

    Comment by Anne T — March 30, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

  27. oh you can take it to the bank that RL is only attacking PETA because he assumes it’s a “liberal” organization. I doubt he cares about animals in the slightest.. or certainly not in the way we do. I bet he’d regard Gina’s chickens and the notion that dogs shouldn’t be raised as livestock (not to mention that LIVESTOCK shouldn’t be raised as livestock…) as ridiculous hippie liberal nonsense.

    But anything that brings attention to PETA’s cruelty is OK in my eyes.

    Comment by EmilyS — March 30, 2009 @ 7:25 pm

  28. RL may be a blowhard and certainly not anyone I make a point to tuning into, but there are plenty of republican pet owners out there with a big squooshy soft spot for their dogs and cats and birds and who are every bit as horrified by PETA’s stance and actions as us dems. I know plenty of them. One is a neat gal who started her own 501c3 rescue and won’t buy any meat eggs or fish if it’s not humanely or sustainably raised. Her husband is a sport fisherman who is big time into marine and coastal conservation and activism.

    Let’s remember that people run the spectrum and there party affiliation is not the only thing to define them. There are many staunch republican citizens (not talking politcos who whore for votes here) who I may not agree with on a lot of things, but who can be allies instead of enemies in the arena of promoting animal welfare.

    Comment by JenniferJ — March 30, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

  29. There’s a big difference between REAL Republicans (small government, fiscally responsible, mind your own businees) and what goes as a Republican today.

    Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley are turning over in their graves.

    Comment by 2CatMom — March 30, 2009 @ 8:43 pm

  30. OK, anybody know what this is all about??

    Comment by JenniferJ — March 31, 2009 @ 8:21 pm

  31. Seems like Ingrid is looking to intimidate some ‘soft’ targets. And if she can shut them down and kill all the animals, that’ll really make her day.

    Notice that she hasn’t taken up Wingrod on his dare to sue him. No, cause he’s an attorney and wouldn’t cost him anything but his own time to fight her.

    One of these days, a lot of well-meaning animal welfare/rights people are going to wake up and realize that killing isn’t saving. That they’ve been duped and this women’s philosophies couldn’t be further away from what they thought than if she turned out to be the secret President of Meat Eaters Association.

    I’m always amazed how people will hold on to supporting a belief rather than admit they made a mistake or were duped. Whether its Iraq was behind 9/11, business can self-regulate, or PeTA cares about animals, when the evidence shows your backing the wrong horse, for G-d’s sake, get off and find another bet.

    There’s no virtue in holding onto a conclusion in the face of overwhelming evidence that ITS WRONG.

    Comment by 2CatMom — March 31, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

  32. Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the outfit they’re going after:

    Looks like PeTA feels that PPI is not taking good care of the animals in their charge.

    Kettle, black anyone?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 1, 2009 @ 5:29 am

  33. PETA is a left-wing political organization hiding behind the guise of an animal-rights group. No true animal advocacy group would ever endorse PETA. If you’re looking for the real deal, check out Best Friends – they are a wonderful, compassionate organization that managed to place nearly all the Vick pitbulls – dogs that PETA wanted to destroy – into adoptive homes. PETA is all about hate. Best Friends is all about love and compassion. There’s a world of difference.

    Comment by CMav — April 1, 2009 @ 10:47 am

  34. Ever try to post anything on PETA’s website? The registration process (you can’t post without registering) takes forever – they probably have guerillas who check out your address and where your children are in case they need to “find” you.
    Their responses to negative feedback border on pathological hysteria. But the WORST thing about PETA is that they exploit people’s love for animals to further their own political agenda. There’s only one word for that – EVIL.

    Comment by True animal lover — April 1, 2009 @ 11:16 am

  35. I’m a supporter of ethical treatment of animals, but I would have to say that the euthanasia statistics of PETA suggest to me that their rehabilitation skills render them unsuitable for running an unwanted-animal shelter.

    Comment by Stephen Knor — August 17, 2011 @ 8:50 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments


website design by Black Dog Studios