Dead pets and animal rights: PETA’s blue-needle solution
By Gina Spadafori
March 4, 2008
Nathan Winograd ramps up the rhetoric in a post that takes on PETA’s dismissal of the no-kill movement by questioning PETA boss Ingrid Newkirk’s mental health:
It is not just that PETA supports shelter killing; Newkirk actually takes young animal activists, who come to the agency because they seemingly care deeply about the plight of animals, and turns them into dog and cat killers. Newkirk has convinced these activists to join PETA death squads and go into communities seeking out dogs and cats to kill, and they do so with cult-like devotion.
[...]
Any effort to offer a lifesaving alternative to killing is dismissed as “no clue” or “warehousing animals” and any dissent by employees or volunteers is punished by termination or ousting from the group. In talking with an ex-PETA employee, he indicated that during a staff meeting, he was subjected to a PETA video of this kind (No Kill equals hoarding). Having lived in San Francisco during the 1990s when No Kill was in its heyday there and the San Francisco SPCA the nation’s premier shelter, he openly questioned the veracity of the information and was asked to his supervisor’s office and terminated. Another ex-employee complained that Newkirk preferred to kill animals that she could have easily found homes for. Local feral cat caregivers in the Virginia area report that their fully sterilized, well cared for colony cats have been trapped and killed by PETA. And local shelters have complained that they “often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will ‘find them a good home.’ Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner’s home [and that] PETA refuses to surrender animals they obtain to area shelters for rehoming.”
Why?
Check out Winograd’s answer. (And a picture of the PETA mobile death kit.)
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
This is inexcusable. I think people who remember peta from the olden times, anti draze tests for ex., and supported them then simply have no idea of how round the twist they’ve gone. I don’t understand how this has happened, how can concern for animals and the wish to stop animal abuse lead to killing them? I think NW has a point, this is sick.
Comment by sb — March 4, 2008 @ 11:02 am
I worry about organisation that seem personality and propaganda driven, with acolytes, true believers and outcasts. I see this on both sides and I think it creates situations where obedience trumps common sense.
Comment by emily — March 4, 2008 @ 11:47 am
My husband, who is just sort of peripherally aware of such things, seems to have nailed it last week.
Newkirk was the guest on “The Colbert Report.” Within a millisecond of first seeing her face, Ken shuddered and exclaimed “There’s someone who is a stranger to joy!”
When she recounted her “near-death” experience on a scary plane ride, and the “idea” she got from it, it was clear that we’d crossed over the tracks into crazy-town — and not in a fun, wacky way.
See for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/29e87f
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 4, 2008 @ 1:25 pm
Nathan’s right on. His case is intelligently and thoughtfully written with back up. Newkirk will never be able to counter this once it’s out in the airwaves and on the Internet. Thank God.
Comment by Nadine L. — March 4, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
“Why is anyone still listening to PETA?”
They are listening because either they are deluded into believing PETA actually *helps* animals or because they sincerely subscribe to the view that pets are better than dead than - well, anything.
MSM certainly *could* do more to expose or outright boycott PETA but instead they seem to call on them at every turn of animal related stories. And all those celebrity endorsements don’t hurt either. I was very disappointed to see Newkirk on Colbert the other night.
Comment by slt — March 4, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
it’s a righteous rant.. and anything that puts some chinks in PETA’s armor is a good thing.
But he’s off in his use of “Munchausen by proxy’. It’s not about killing for perceived kindness.. that’s Kevorkian syndrome, if there is such a thing.
MSbP, or FII, is something different:
“Fabricated or Induced Illness (FII) is the formal name of a type of abuse in which a caregiver feigns or induces an illness in a person under their care, in order to attract attention, sympathy, or to fill other emotional needs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....ed_Illness
now THAT certainly describes Ingrid.
She’s not about killing for kindness.. she’s about killing to fill her sociopathic need to kill.
Comment by EmilyS — March 4, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
I too was very disappointed to see Newkirk on Colbert. Stephen should certainly know better.
I was thinking about PETA, though. This idea of saving animals by killing them…before I read Redemption, I too was of the opinion that the public was the *cause* of overpopulation of companion animals and that people needed to be punished (via legislation) for being irresponsible.
But Redemption showed me another point of view - that while *some* people are irresponsible (and are going to continue to be, no matter what), *most* people are the SOLUTION to the problem! If you can reach out to the public and make programs available to them, they will give animals homes and help to end the cycle of overpopulation. It’s not “us (responsible people) against them (the irresponsible public)”, it’s a joint effort of “together, we can make this work”.
So what is PETA doing? They’re the extreme view of “us against them”. They aren’t “saving” pets from abuse and a harsh world. They’re “saving” pets from people. All people. Good, bad, and indifferent. They’re saving pets…from us.
The people who would give a pet a good home, food, shelter, a kind word, a gentle touch - maybe not the “perfect” home, maybe not the “best” food, maybe not the cleanest shelter, maybe not lavish praise all day long, etc., but a good home. It’s just not good enough for PETA. It’s not perfect enough. In fact, it’s bad enough that death is better than that home.
Maybe we should ask PETA what kind of life is good enough for these animals? What do they want for them? We know what they’re saving them *from*, but do they think there’s anything worth saving them *for*?
PETA talks about the joy of animals “living wild and free”. But if they’re hunting down (maintained colonies of) feral cats and “saving” them too, “wild and free” can’t be what they’re after.
So what do they want for the domestic dog/cat/rat/ferret/chicken? What would be their ultimate goal for these animals? Because right now, it looks like extinction.
Comment by mikken — March 4, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
The good thing about Newkirk on the Colbert Report is that it was blindingly obvious what a complete and total lunatic she is. Hopefully that will open people’s eyes. Colbert has a lot of guests on that he disagrees with - he mocks them, just as he did with Newkirk. That’s what he does.
Comment by Kerry — March 4, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
mikken…. I have nothing to say to you but:
WORD.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 4, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
There are worse things than PETA, no matter how onerous they may be.
http://www.komotv.com/news/15988507.html
http://www.kirotv.com/news/15189249/detail.html
Comment by Bobby — March 4, 2008 @ 11:12 pm
As someone who maintains a small feral cat colony, I have to agree with Mikken and ask *what* kind of life - if any - does PETA envision for cats and dogs? It seems like they don’t want them as companion animals nor living “wild” as ferals. The cats I care for are spayed/neutered (save for the wily one we have been trying for two years to catch) and spend their days sunning in the yard and chowing down at mealtime. My life should be so rough! The reality is that there is no such thing as a “perfect” life, not for animals, humans, or anything - and to kill something just because it won’t have a “perfect” life (in the wild or in a home) is beyond comprehension.
Comment by Susan — March 5, 2008 @ 1:00 am
Bobby, what connection are you suggesting between the fact that Federal agencies tasked with overseeing how animal studies are conducted have failed (again) to prevent violations and the fact that PETA misleads the public about their intentions and kills animals left in their care?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 5, 2008 @ 7:11 am
[quote]So what do they want for the domestic dog/cat/rat/ferret/chicken? What would be their ultimate goal for these animals? Because right now, it looks like extinction.[/quote]
Exactly right. Their actual motto is ‘One generation, and out.’
Extinction of all domestic animals, period, is their goal.
Comment by Pai — March 5, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
“One generation, and out”?
Are you serious?
Comment by mikken — March 5, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
mikken, yes, they mean no more pets, zoos or meat for dinner.
Comment by kb — March 5, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
“One generation, and out”
This was actually a quote from Wayne Pacelle of HSUS when he was VP.
HSUS in many ways is a better dressed version of PETA under Wayne’s direction.
I suspect for PETA it should read “One generation, and out, except for the ones we can kill today”
Comment by JenniferJ — March 5, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
If Newkirk didn’t show enough of her crazy extremism on Colbert, where she said when she dies she wants her flesh barbequed with onions and served to the unsupecting, check out the rest of her will. http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/
She also wants her feet turned into umbrella stands and her eyeball sent to the EPA. Even if it’s a stunt, it’s sick.
Comment by kb — March 5, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
Bwwaaa haaaa haaaa!!!
If they do a nice job with that leather handbag, I’d be happy to buy it and turn it into a game pouch.
I’ll skip the Ingrid barbeque. Even if they weren’t working with bitter and unwholesome ingredients, where they gonna find a vegan who knows how to grill?
Mmmmm … barbeque … wonder if it’s warm enough outside to fire up the charcoal for my lamb chops tonight …
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 6, 2008 @ 7:40 am
“yes, they mean no more pets, zoos or meat for dinner”
Ok, but I always thought that their message was not *owning* pets, that animals should “be free to live as animals” (yeah, because I’m sure all the little dogs would do really well in the wild and the sick/old dogs would rather “run free” than have a warm, soft place to lie on at home).
But their actions are for no more pets ALIVE, period. They don’t want cats to live feral, they want cats to be exterminated. They don’t want feral dogs, they want all dogs to be exterminated. They want them to not EXIST anymore…why? So that man can no longer exploit them? Well that’s a brilliant plan, that is. When cats and dogs exist only as pictures in books, they’ll be “safe”.
This whole thing makes me wonder what was so special about the 3% of animals that made it out of PETA’s hands alive in 2006? I’d be very curious as to how they were adopted out and to whom?
Comment by mikken — March 6, 2008 @ 8:52 am
“One generation and out” is a statement by HSUS president Wayne Pacelle. It was in this context:
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
Some of us do have a “problem with the extinction of domestic animals.”
Some of us are fighting Trojan Horse measures advocated by HSUS and PETA, such as mandatory spay/neuter laws, that are intended to facilitate “the extinction of domestic animals.”
Not convinced? Read on: http://www.naiaonline.org/arti.....squote.htm
Comment by LauraS — March 6, 2008 @ 8:58 am