Do you like this story?
If you say something in Canada, does it count?
By Gina Spadafori
December 6, 2008
Last spring, we got in little pissing match with PETA over the kill rates at their “shelter.” PETA’s attorney sable-rattled in a letter by claiming we were off-base and unfair in suggesting that any of the animals killed by PETA after intake (more than nine out of 10) were there “in search of new homes.” Not so, said the attorney. The PETA animals were unadoptable, the killing an act of mercy.
We questioned how, exactly, PETA came to that determination that the animals were not adoptable, especially since the organization was required to report the number of animals “taken into custody by releasing agencies for the purpose of adoption“ to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and these were the pets from which the kill numbers were drawn.
Months go by, not much said. And then a few days ago, PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk gives an interview to a Canadian TV show, first noted by the Canadian blog Caveat and then elaborated on further by no-kill flamethrower Nathan Winograd, another of the recipients of those sable-rattling PETA lawyer letters. Winograd writes (fourth item):
New evidence has come out that not only contradicts the PETA attorney’s assertion, but confirms that PETA “absolutely” kills adoptable animals. And that new testimony comes from none other than Ingrid Newkirk herself, PETA’s founder and the architect of its kill-oriented policies.
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.”
The interview is here, at the 9:50 to 9:57 minute mark.
Kudos to Stroumboulopoulos for not letting the issue drop until he got an answer.
Except, well, the killing of adoptable animals isn’t “euthanizing.” It’s killing.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
It absolutely counts! Thanks for the link I keep attempting to educate people about the militant viewpoints but the PR machine keeps churning and most people are too lazy to investigate.
I met Ingrid at the Book Expo America when she was promoting her Dog Party book and I thought it was pretty odd that she would put her name to such a book when PeTA is so anti pets in the home—the book covers how to throw different types of parties for pets.
Maybe the humanizing efforts are the way into the unsuspecting pet households?
Comment by Ark Lady — December 6, 2008 @ 11:09 am
“If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.”
Since PETA has no shelter or any other facility for the public to adopt pets, perhaps this accounts for their 90+ percent kill rate. Cos it’s kinda hard to find homes for adoptable pets by squeezing your eyes shut and wishing for magic.
So to paraphrase: If we get them, we kill them.
Comment by slt — December 6, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Hey, thanks for the shout-out, Gina!
They just say want they think people want to hear but it’s nice to get statements that show up their hypocrisy. Their slicker cousins do the same thing:
“HSUS really needs to be called to task for its triple sided hypocrisy. When HSUS addresses scientists they say they support animal research as necessary. When HSUS addresses the public they say it is evil but sometimes necessary. When HSUS addresses its members and other animal rights groups, they say it is evil and unnecessary.”
— Dr. Pat Cleveland of the University of California, San Diego
Comment by Selma — December 7, 2008 @ 9:59 am