Heartless in Houston: PETA bashes Winograd, No Kill
By Gina Spadafori
December 18, 2008
No-kill flamethrower Nathan Winograd is one of PETA’s favorite targets, with the animal-rights group continuing to push their “we must kill them to save them” agenda, all the while charging that the “no-kill” movement is about miserable lifelong warehousing for some unwanted pets and about leaving the dirty work of killing the “extras” to so-called “open admission” shelters.
This, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, and an apparent intentional disregard ion the part of PETA as to what the “no kill” movement is all about.
Ya gotta think that by now someone at PETA would have read “Redemption,” which makes perfectly clear that the no-kill movement isn’t about warehousing, and isn’t about hoarding. Heck, it isn’t even about shelters, but rather about building no-kill communities where animal lovers work together to reduce the birth rate, help people keep their pets, and help get pets rehomed when necessary.
As for shelters, their part of this equation is to lead, coordinate and, oh, you know, provide shelter.
Winograd, on PETA’s latest attack:
In a recent issue of the Houston Chronicle, Daphna Nachminovitch of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) [Gina note: here's the link to the PETA letter to the editor, fifth item down] unfairly attacks me and essentially asks Houston to continue its decades-old policy of killing the vast majority of animals in its shelters. For those who are not familiar with PETA, this may seem strange. After all, why would an organization who argues it is wrong to eat animals, experiment on animals, use animals for entertainment, or hunt them for sport, promote the killing of animals in U.S. shelters? But PETA does promote it and has for some time.
[...]
Now in Houston, after officials announce they are considering a review of operations to increase lifesaving, PETA once again goes on the attack. Like their counterparts in Seattle/King County, Pittsburgh, and the federal courts, Houstonites should ignore PETA too. Unfortunately, many animal rights activists blindly follow PETA’s lead, whitewashing killing even in the face of No Kill alternatives and the success. They do so because they see PETA fighting for the right to life of other animals—animals in circuses, on factory farms, in research laboratories, and in other industries. Yet, when it comes to companion animals, they have an entirely different standard. They not only call for the deaths of dogs and cats in shelters, PETA kill dogs and cats themselves—nearly 2,000 per year.
In 2006, PETA put to death an astonishing 97% of the animals they impounded—finding homes for only 12 of the 3,043 animals they claimed to rescue. That’s not a typo. Out of 3,043 animals impounded, they found homes for only 2 cats, 8 dogs, and 2 rabbits despite $30 million in annual revenues and a membership base of millions that includes some of the most ardent animal lovers in the nation.
Despite records rates of lifesaving in shelters which take in thousands more animals at a fraction of PETA’s budget; and despite that new figures report that rates of shelter killing across the U.S. dropped to their lowest levels ever as more shelters embrace the No Kill philosophy, PETA’s killing shows no sign of subsiding. In 2007, PETA killed roughly 91% of the animals they impounded, taking in 1,997 and putting 1,815 to death. A paltry 17 were adopted.
Here’s the rest. And again, I have to wonder:
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
Maybe 2009 will be the year PETA’s supporters start migrating their support to groups more in tune with a progressive approach that says killing pets for population control is simply not acceptable by any group that claims to be a shelter. The fact that PETA doesn’t support this basic notion continues to be beyond my understanding.
The mainstream media has failed to question PeTA in any serious manner. Even “watch dogs” like Bill O’Reilly who rant constantly that liberal bias has given Obama a pass in the papers still have people from PeTA on all the time as “experts” on almost any issue dealing with animals.
O’Reilly’s only criticism of PeTA is their use of sexually suggestive advertising. Sorry Bill, but a little skin never hurt anyone, which can not be said for PeTA and their crusade to liberate pets by killing them.
Comment by Christopher — December 18, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
“Why is anyone still listening to PETA?”
Really good question, and one I find myself asking also.
Comment by straybaby — December 18, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
There is a PETA special on HBO this month. I couldn’t watch more than a few minutes of it. I happened to tune in when there was a Rotti with heartworm in their office and the owner didn’t want to treat it, so they killed the dog. Changed that channel real quick.
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — December 18, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Why is anyone listening to PETA ? I don’t know either is it the darn celebrity endorsements ? Is or has there been a “celebrity” who is NOT a peta peanut ? maybe we need some non-peta celeb’s to spread the word ?
Comment by Lisa C — December 19, 2008 @ 7:06 am
Time and time again, when I speak to well meaning people who really DO want to support animals, I hear that they send donations to PeTA. When they’re informed of the reality of PeTA (no shelters, pro death, high salaries, no interest in hands on welfare work), they respond by saying “Well, I wish I’d known that before I wrote the check”.
Look at the “Peta supporters” who were protesting about the Vick dogs, and were shocked to learn from the Bad Rap crew stunned to learn that Peta actually WANTED the Vick dogs put to death.
We need to keep spreading the word that PeTA lies, plain and simple, and that PeTa has a clear agenda that has NOTHING to do with saving domestic pets. Every time we convince one more person to write that check to an actual, grass roots No Kill group instead of PeTa, it’s another win in our column.
Comment by FrogDogz — December 19, 2008 @ 8:21 am
Well, as Wayne says, when people criticize the HSUS it’s because they are afraid of how successful they are.
So, if Daffy is criticizing Nathan, it must be because she knows he’s right and he’s gaining a lot of support for his No Kill Equation.
So yes, Carol is correct, let’s keep the pressure on, keep writing LTEs every time Peta is quoted on an animal welfare issue, etc. I don’t really care if the papers run my letters because I know they have to read them *wink*.
Comment by Selma — December 19, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Just read an article in the latest Whole Dog Journal called “What’s Wrong with “No-Kill” by Pat Miller. Talk about spouting the HSUS/PETA party lines, I can’t begin to describe my disappointment in the one-sided view represented there.
“Usually when something seems too good to be true, it is. Such is the case with the as-yet empty promise of “no-kill.”
I did write editorial department and suggested they provide a balanced view by interviewing Nathan Winograd, Christie and Gina.
Comment by ChrisRL — January 3, 2009 @ 11:33 am