I’ve been following the story of Tom Skeldon, dog warden of Lucas County in Ohio, mostly over on Brent Toellner’s KC Dog Blog:

Skeldon has been coming under increased fire over the past year.  Most of the roll against Skeldon began last winter after one of Skeldon’s staff shot a tranquilizer into a small dog that was “loose” on his own porch — with enough of a dosage that the dog died.

As people began investigating Skeldon, they found the shelter to continue to operate with a very high kill rate (77%) and an extremely low 13% adoption rate. They found a dog warden that was unwilling to work with rescue groups. And dogs were dying.

A committee was assembled to provide recommendations on improvements to be made at the shelter — improvements that Skeldon, throughout, has been reluctant to even admit were problems.  The Toledo Blade continue to run editorials and editorial cartoons calling for Skeldon’s dismissal.  The committee recommended some strict new rules last week one of which was to cease the killing of puppies.   Skeldon responded by killing 10 healthy puppies after holding them for only one day.

When the Lucas County Commission voted to retain Skeldon anyway — the tie-breaking vote being cast by Skeldon’s cousin — the Toledo Blade had this to say:

Faced with a mountain of evidence that grows higher with each dog killed at the county animal shelter, commissioners Pete Gerken and Tina Skeldon Wozniak voted no on a motion by Commissioner Ben Konop to dismiss Mr. Skeldon.

We believe the commissioners had plenty of cause to fire Mr. Skeldon. With a horrific 77 percent kill rate at the pound, and the warden’s obstinate refusal to cooperate with animal rescue groups on adoptions that would at least slow the slaughter, what more do they need?

[....]

Tom Skeldon no longer deserves the job of dog warden. Failure of his officials bosses to get rid of him only prolongs the agony, not just for the animals on his death row but for the entire community.

Today, however, the pressure finally got to Skeldon, and he resigned. And that’s good, but it’s not the story, and it’s not why my head exploded.

This is: What do you think the fine folks at PETA had to say about our trigger-happy dog warden?

We thank Lucas County Dog Warden Tom Skeldon and his staff for putting animals’ best interests first by not haphazardly adopting out dogs just to make the pound’s euthanasia statistics look better.

No one wants to end the need for euthanasia more than the brave people who hold the syringe, but pushing dogs out the door like clearance merchandise or releasing vulnerable breeds into a world that holds only suffering and death for so many of them isn’t the way to do that. Until the number of homeless dogs is reduced through spaying and neutering, euthanasia will stay a heartbreaking necessity.

Those upset about the number of dogs euthanized for lack of homes should direct their anger at those who are directly responsible: breeders, pet stores, and people who don’t spay or neuter their animals. Animal care and control professionals should be supported in their daily fight to do the right thing for animals and for the important work they do to protect animals and the community.

Jennifer Brown

Animal Sheltering Adviser
People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals
Norfolk, Va.

Understand that Skeldon was not just killing pit bulls — as if that would make PETA’s bloodthirst okay, but at least we already knew they hated pibbles. No, in their obsessive hatred of anything that could ever suggest that all humanity is not hopelessly evil and incapable of actually stopping killing animals in our shelters, and of the no-kill movement in particular, PETA has set itself up as a champion of egregious wholesale dog slaughter.

Why is anyone still listening to PETA?

He said that PETA’s recent press release objecting to President Obama swatting a fly was “laughably insane and out of touch” but also “terribly beautiful. Luminous. Aiming toward something like purity, enlightenment, higher consciousness…”

He suggested that perhaps we should consider that we do, indeed, hold animal life cheap in our society, and that spending a few moments thinking about the value of that life wouldn’t hurt us. Maybe, he seemed to say, however over the top they are with the messaging, PETA has a point.

That sounds good. It does. Because yes, we should spend more time thinking about life in all its incandescent beauty. But Mark, PETA didn’t object to Obama swatting a fly because they have a reverence for life so great that it extends even to the lowest most germy members of the animal kingdom. I know this, because if they did, they’d be incapable of killing 95 percent of the dogs and cats taken into their shelter in Norfolk, Virginia. And yet, that’s just what they do.

Those kill rate statistics come from documents PETA filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which requires that all shelters that “take in animals for purposes of adoption” report how many of those animals leave the shelter alive each year.

Last year, PETA’s total intake of such animals was 2,216 dogs, cats, and a very few other pets. The organization, which has an annual budget of $32 million that they’re obviously very happy to spend on press releases about fly-swatting that the media obediently laps up like thirsty puppy dogs, found homes for exactly seven of those animals.

The other 2,209? They killed them.

Don’t tell me that’s the best they could do. The average kill rate for all shelters in Virginia is less than 50 percent. Many shelters that would die of happiness to get their hands on a fraction of PETA’s budget have save rates as high as PETA’s kill rate.

Camden County, New Jersey, has one of the highest poverty rates in America, and yet its Animal Welfare Association, with a budget less than 10 percent of PETA’s, only euthanized 224 of the 3343 dogs and cats who came in its doors last year.

Maybe PETA just likes flies better than dogs and cats, I don’t know. I do know PETA head Ingrid Newkirk, who never met a publicity stunt she didn’t like, certainly doesn’t seem to feel the same way about cats. Back when no-kill crusader Nathan Winograd was president of the Palo Alto Humane Society, he sought PETA’s support for a program to save the lives of feral cats. Newkirk refused, sending him a postcard saying that PETA does not “advocate ‘right to life’ for animals.”

No, PETA doesn’t have a reverence for life. PETA has a publicity machine that leaps on every little thing that will get them the attention of the media. And why should they stop? It keeps working.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t care if PETA wants to advocate for flies and against cats. This is, after all, America, and they have the right to advocate for every inconsistent public policy that floats their boat. I don’t even care if they’re fooling their own donor base, because if the people who give money to organizations can’t be bothered to take a look behind the curtain, well… that’s a shame, but certainly no shock.

But it’s long past time for journalists to stop taking PETA’s press-released bait, to no longer accept without question the veneer of love for animals and life they put over their less then “terribly beautiful” actions.

Because what PETA does to the dogs and cats who come into their “shelter” is not beautiful at all. It’s just terrible.

***

No-kill flamethrower Nathan Winograd goes through some old boxes and finds a postcard from 1994:

Mr. Winograd:

1) We do not advocate “right to life” for animals.

2) There are always exceptions.

Ingrid Newkirk

More here, on Winograd’s blog.
Winograd said the exceptions Newkirk was referring to was in reference to her point that PETA policy supported the extermination of feral cats.

You just can’t make this stuff up! Points for consistency, if nothing else, from this gang of loons who are now grousing at President Obama for killing a fly but who think it’s just fine to kill more than 90 percent of the pets that come into their care.

Why is anyone still listening to PETA?

***

Yes, VPI is one of our sponsors, but I’d mention this anyway. It’s a nice move:

Due to depleted funds from the increased number of pets helped this fiscal year, the AAHA Foundation had to temporarily suspend grants from the AAHA Helping Pets Fund in April. The generous gift from VPI Pet Insurance [$25, 000]  will enable the AAHA Helping Pets Fund to resume granting funds immediately.

As the benevolent arm of the AAHA Foundation, the Helping Pets Fund helps those in need access quality veterinary care for their sick or injured pets. The Foundation awards grants supporting veterinary care for pets that have been abandoned or whose owners are experiencing financial hardship.

Thanks to the generous support of AAHA members, individuals and corporate donations since its inception in 2005, the AAHA Helping Pets Fund has awarded more than $800,000 in grants to help more than 3,000 pets receive much needed veterinary care.

You can donate, too. Information here.

***

Plea details revealed for Chem Nutra pair linked to pet-food recall: probation and a fine that’s less than a nice new car. VIN News, here. Also from VIN News, Evanger’s says their problem with the FDA is a matter of paperwork, and food irraditation is suspected in neurological problems in Australian cats. … Funny piece on the people you see at a dog show on Frogdog. … Houlie’s husband dishes the dirt on “Did a Cat Shit in Here?” (be sure to read the comments) … Fugly reports on wacky made-up horse registries, just like in dogs! … YesBiscuit! on pet snobbery and the poor. … The UK’s Dogs Trust launches an eZine. …  Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS notes that Gourmet magazine (of all things!) is calling for changes in the food industry with regards to meat.  Michael Pollan  got there first, and so did Slow Food. And so, too, did I.  Compassion, sustainability and support of small family farms: It’s not just for vegans anymore. … I once spent part of a day in the company of a roomful of sun conures. Honestly, I’m surprised I still have my hearing. This are really fun, lively and stunningly beautiful parrots, but I’ll stick with my relatively quiet Caique, thanks. Here’s why, funny story courtesy of Best in Flock. … Saturday addition: Pet Connection BFF Dr. Patty Khuly on how veterinarians feel about Merial using Cesar Millan as the company pitchman for Frontline. Short take: They’re not happy. … Got anything interesting? Aggravating? Head-exploding? Toss it in the comments.

There are certain attitudes, biases, assumptions and cliches that just won’t shift, no matter what real world, documented evidence or reasoned argument is put before them.

—Pets are a luxury, if you ever can’t afford something for your pet, you’re bad and unworthy and don’t deserve a pet.

—S/N is the MOST important measure of pet owner responsibility. Whether you could not afford the procedure or have a health screened titled dog you’ve chosen not to alter, you are bad and irresponsible

—Being intact is cruel. Sorry, being intact, with normal healthy organs is cruel? Nope. But intact pets do need a bit different management and those organs are inconvienent for many owners and after a certain age, the pet will be fine without them. so long as the decision is between a vet and owner I sure as hell have no issue with spay/neuter. Most of my pets are or will be altered, but a male dog in possession of his testicles does not equal suffering

—If you breed a litter you have automatically killed the same number of pets in the shelter. Does not matter that there are more than enough homes and if shelter were able to gain just a small amount more market share, 5-10% depending on regional circumstances, we could get all placeable pets into homes.

—there is no such thing as a responsible breeder, they’re all the same

—All the opposition to MSN is from the wicked breeders

—Breeders ALL make a lot of money (HaH! Ha hahahha We could have bought another HOUSE on what has gone into the dogs over 20 years. I am NOT exaggerating )

—Feral cats are all the fault of bad owners, they are all only one generation out of homes and if we make the bad owners spay and neuter them then the feral problem will magically disappear. And if you click your heels together and wish really hard…

—Those kittens flooding the shelters every spring all come from bad owners cats, because feral cats don’t have kittens where you can find them and remember, the moms weren’t really feral.

—TNR does not work. And even if it works, it’s cruel because the cats would be better of dead than be at risk outdoors. And even if being outside is not cruel, they kill wildlife.

Side note here: Yes, they do kill wildlife. Not to the extent that they are blamed probably. Feral colonies do not belong near endangered species breeding grounds etc.. But in most urban and suburban settings the real killer is development. I’m rural and help manage a colony and because the wildlife has natural habitat, it is thriving in spite of the cats. plus as ferals age, they tend to eshew the birds for the kibble, word.

And even if cats are responsible for every crime they are accused of A century of catch and kill has utterly failed to eliminate ferals. TNR has documented success in reducing numbers and numbers of kittens. Go with what works folks!

—If you ever go into a shelter and see the animals there, you would never breed, oppose MSN blah blah… Sorry, I’ve been in a lot of shelters. Like MANY dedicated breeders I pull dogs from shelters and rescue other breeds and mixes and species when they cross my path.

—Pets are all interchangeble. If the person who wants a small lap dog can’t find one they will be happy to come adopt an 85 lb lag mix or a cat instead.

—People who buy a pet are evil or ignorant. people who adopt acquire automatic virtue. Does not matter what kind of home they actually are.

There are more but you get the idea. And it does not matter what arguments are brought forth or how much hard evidence you present.

Being that rock solid sure of a conviction must be nice for them, but it’s not constructive. We need real-world solutions and strategies that actually work. If something has failed for decades, it’s failed, time to move on and evolve.

Amen, Jen!

The first wrong was the piece itself, which was pulled down after the HSUS cried foul over the contents. This triggered an Internet game of whack-a-mole, as the piece popped up seemingly everywhere, and when that seemed to abate, the transcript was floated around instead.

Mainly, the piece claimed the HSUS raised money under false pretenses, giving the impression that the advocacy group claims direct responsibility for shelter operations, which it does not and does not claim to. But that wasn’t good enough for the TV station, which reported:

Critics tell Channel 2 Action News reporter Amanda Rosseter that this isn’t just consumers misunderstanding who they are giving in to – but an organization actively misleading donors to get money.

“They do their marketing very well, that’s for sure,” said Trey Burley of PAWS Atlanta.

Critics say the national organization takes advantage of people who think they are giving to local shelters. DeKalb’s “PAWS” shelter says there is no regular funding help from the $100 million HSUS budget.

“I think that some of the folks who donate to the national organization may be under the false pretense that that money is going to a local cause,” said Burley.

This isn’t news. In fact, there’s a section in my book “Dogs For Dummies” (1994) that discusses the importance of direct donations to local shelters and rescue groups. When you give to the HSUS, you’re providing mostly for animal advocacy, lobbying for animal laws and investigations. And there’s nothing wrong with any of that.

Without even creasing my brow I can think of a dozen non-animal-related organizations that do the same. Lobbying, after all, is a stand-alone business, and I doubt many of the professional lobbyists in Washington or Sacramento spend much of their time involved with the management of the industry groups  or social interests they represent. (Pulitzer prize-winning reporter John Woestendiek of the OhMiDog blog takes apart the TV piece, here.)

What happened next was perhaps politically predictable but still sleazy: An effort to raise money for anti-forced spay-neuter lobbying efforts,  suggesting that the HSUS was not correcting the record but burying the truth by demanding the TV piece be pulled down.

The perpetrator? PetPac, which has been a tireless fighter against forced spay-neuter laws and the drive by spittle-spewing animal-rights haters to push reputable, ethical breeders into extinction through laws not only opposed  by reputable  breeders but also contrary to policy statements of  the ASPCA and the AVMA. The opposition to forced spay-neuter knows that this kind of legislation is racist and classist, kills more pets than it saves and inserts the government into a medical decision that’s not without negative consequences and that should be left to a pet’s owner, with advice from a veterinarian.

PetPac led the fight against the draconian AB 1634 last year in California, and is working against SB 250 this year. The latter was brought forward by the same folks behind the last bill, especially Judie Mancuso, who insists that all breeders are the same, and all are evil “greeders.”

The HSUS hasn’t taken a position on SB 250, please note. But that didn’t stop PetPac from smearing them anyway, to throw red meat to the rabid HSUS-haters among its own supporters.

In a series of e-mails to suporters (which includes me, by the way)  PetPac’s Bill Hemby questions the motives of HSUS in having the TV piece pulled down, suggesting some nefarious plot to bully the station into hiding the “truth.”

Mr. Hemby knows better. He’s decent guy and a reputable, compassionate and ethical breeder — I first talked to him when trying to find the owners of a pair of lost Borzoi who wandered down my street a few years ago.  But he has been around long enough to know that when a media organization has really got a tiger by the tail, they don’t back down, and sabre-rattling by the group that they’ve reported on is a badge of honor.

Pure politics, this spin, playing to the red state/blue state divide of pets, mortars fired across the scarred battlefield between two entrenched positions. Playing to and scaring the choirs, and it’s done all the time, by all kinds of special-interest groups on all sides of every imaginable issue.

But this sort of behavior, from the extremists in camps that often seem to hate each other more than they care about animals, is counter-productive.

I’ve called the HSUS out on many of their positions, especially with regards to forced spay-neuter (which they have in the past at least tacitly supported) and with what should be done with fight-bust dogs. I ripped them for raising money on the backs of the Vick dogs while their “experts” said the dogs all be destroyed as unredeemable (unredeemable, like Hector here). Not cool, nor is their current deal with Michael Vick himself.

But I believe that for reasons largely driven by changing internal ideology and partly driven by the continued need to tap the zeitgeist so as to keep on tapping wallets for donations, the HSUS is evolving on many of their positions. They’ve embraced trap, neuter and release of managed feral cat colonies, a 180-degree turn from a past position. They have a guide to choosing a reputable breeder that I honestly couldn’t have written much better myself. And they’re spot-on that concentrated animal feeding operations are cruel as well as environmentally unsustainable and a risk to our national health and security. Cheap eggs aren’t worth those kind of risks, folks, cruelty aside.

The agriculture and food industries doesn’t much like that last bit, which is why they have  outfits like the Center For Consumer Freedom out there attacking animal advocacy-groups and scaring the bejeebers out of many good breeders who are now convinced that if they don’t side with puppy-milling scum, they’ll be next to go — a point with some merit, if the Mancusos of the world have their way. (Just to show how complicated this all can get, the CCF has done spectacular work documenting through public records the shameful practices at PETA with regard to their handling of homeless pets in their “shelter.”)

I live on both sides of the great divide, and it’s my job to talk to people on both sides as well.

It’s long past time for the reasonable, animal-loving people of the world to quit allowing the 10 percent of nutjob true believers on the extremes of these issues to dictate the terms of engagement.

For all his good work, Bill Hemby was wrong in calling out the HSUS on this politically motivated crap, just as Judie Mancuso is wrong in lumping the work of compassionate, ethical and responsible breeders in with the careless, clueless breeders or with puppy-milling scum. I hasten to say, though, that it was Hemby’s first mistep, while Mancusco is the ATM of extremism, spitting out hate along with long-discredited ”facts”  whenever anyone punches her buttons.

I will be on the side of PetPac when SB 250, the new Pet Extinction Act, comes to a floor vote in the California State Senate. And I am on the side of HSUS when it comes to investigations and legislation against puppy-milling scum. I am not one of those breeders who defends puppy-millers because of the slippery-slope argument: I believe we need to separate from these dirtbags because we care about what happens to animals in their “care.” I’m a reputable, ethical and compassionate breeder as well as a person who has run a breed rescue and is looking to raise foster litters in the future for shelters and rescue groups, just because I’ve discovered I’m damn good at it.

I will fight forced spay-neuter because it doesn’t work. I will fight for compassionate, reputable and ethical breeders. And I will fight to shut down puppy mills and their Internet and retail outlets.

If any of that bothers you, I bloody well don’t care. Because it’s not about politics and “winning” for me:

It’s about the animals.

Just go read ‘em all. And if you only read one other pet-related blog — other than this one, of course!  – it has to be Dolittler.

The independent VIN News Service, the pet project of another of those voices, VIN co-founder Dr. Paul Pion, continues to develop its own niche. Some of the stories are not of huge interest outside the veterinary community, but others are must-reads for all. VNS also covers the ethics issue at the core of Dr. K’s post, and its top-notch staff of medical, science and trade reporters will continue to break open the industry for the public — and veterinarians themselves — to look at more closely.

Of special note to pet-lovers, Timothy Kirn’s piece on interpersonal skills in veterinary medicine:

Many medical professionals once believed that bedside manner and empathy traits were hardwired — clinicians either displayed compassion or they didn’t — and few schools bothered to teach the skills required to comfort and reassure patients.

Now that notion has been turned on its head. During the past few years, the veterinary profession has embraced the idea that clinicians can be taught to become better listeners and more sympathetic, and some say that in veterinary medicine, this type of training is sorely needed.

More here. And when you’re there, add the RSS feed to your reader.

Forced spay-neuter is still in play in many locales, especially California, where a rehashed version of last year’s defeated bill is now in committee. As usual, this isn’t about reducing shelter populations — forced spay-neuter doesn’t do that — but sticking it to poor people and reputable breeders, while inserting the government into a medical decision that should be made on  an individual basis by a pet’s owner with advice of a veterinarian.  Contrary to wide-spread belief, spaying and neutering are not all pro and no con for the animal involved, although the cost-benefit analysis still leans towards altering for most pets when all factors — including convenience for the owner and behavior — are taken into account.

Over on Lassie Get Help, Luisa lays it all out. The AVMA, the ASPCA and the no-kill nation get it that forced spay-neuter kills more pets and drives pet-owners away from care for their animals. Why don’t the spittle-spewing haters of the animal rights movement, who just keep selling this reheated slop to well-meaning pet-lovers, get it? Oh, sorry …: I already answered my own question. It’s about hate, not saving pets.

From Lassie Get Help:

How is it that being a “responsible” pet owner here in California might soon involve mandatory surgery on your pet rather than, you know, actual responsibility? What kind of state mandates removal of your dog’s reproductive parts – then turns around and punishes people for cutting tails off cows?

More here. And by the way, you know how I feel about factory farming (cruel, environmentally devastating and  a health risk for us all). Cows crammed in these big dairies are unhappy enough.  Let them keep their fly-swatters, fergoshsakes. I support SB 135 as I supported Prop. 2. Farming reform is food reform: It tips the scale back to humane, sustainable and regional family farms and lays a strong anti-cruelty foundation that industrial animal agriculture has long needed.

As for forced spay-neuter, if you’re in California call the members of the  Senate Appropriations Committee and tell them why SB 250 is more about animal-rights vendettas than pet-owner responsibility … and won’t solve the problem of helping people and helping pets.

ConsumerAffairs.com is reporting that Greenies chews will soon be available through veterinarians and pet specialty stores only — no general retailers (hat tip to Shirley at Yes, Biscuit!):

“We believe that pet medical professionals at veterinary hospitals and well-trained, knowledgeable staff at pet specialty stores are best equipped to answer pet owners’ questions about our products and to make the right recommendation,” said Carolyn Hanigan, vice president of marketing for Nashville, Tenn.-based NUTRO.

Now, I have long argued that the problem with Greenies was that it was an entity that actually could be identified and sued, as opposed to, say, the distributor of generic imported rawhide. Anything your dog chews has risks and benefits, and we have to be sure we choose an appropriate chew for our dog’s size and chewing style, and monitor our pet’s chewing.  (Irony of ironies: When I read the story on ConsumerAffairs.com, the Google-generated ad pitched Greenies from a catalog company.)

Got something good? Throw it in the comments.

Michael Vick is in talks to become the new spokesman for PETA.

Yes, you read that correctly. The disgraced one-time NFL superstar serving prison time for funding an illegal dog-fighting ring is primed to do public-service ads for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals upon his release later this month. According to three people with knowledge of the matter, the proposed endorsement is part of a comprehensive PR scheme aimed at rehabilitating the quarterback’s image and gaining him readmission to the league that banned him from playing.

Here’s the rest. Frankly, they deserve each other.

Pardon me, I need to throw up now.

Update: AdAge.com now says the deal’s off; USA Today says no deal was the in the works. Why do I think we all just saw a big ol’ trial balloon float by?

On their killing: Ingrid Newkirk on “why we euthanize.”  Spin without what we need to see to believe what’s being written: Proof that these animals were not truly adoptable (or could not be made adoptable on PETA’s multimillion-dollar budget). In other words: PETA shows us a few truly stomach-turning pictures of sick, injured and neglected animals.  Are they candidates for a humane death? Probably …  but we have all seen abuse/neglect cases as bad as these recover and go on to good homes forever.

Instead of the shocking pictures, show us the veterinary  and behavioral evaluations of the 2,000-plus pets (animals taken in for the “purpose of adoption,” according to the Commonwealth of Virginia report all shelters must file) who left the premises in body bags last year.  Until PETA ponies up the paperwork, it’s hard not to remember those animals said to be adoptable in sworn court testimony, given the needle in a van and dumped by PETA workers in grocery store garbage bins. Newkirk writes:

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can’t afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring “technicians,” or animal abusers.

Don’t know about you, but I absolutely get that it’s a mercy to euthanize an animal whose suffering cannot be relieved. But I also recognize that in many cases “euthanizing” is just a a nice word for “killing,” which is what happens every day to animals who are adoptable or could be made adoptable — and would be adopted with leadership not being shown by PETA.

When you learn what no-kill is really about, you know what a crock the above statement is. There are more than two choices, kill or let suffer.  High time the high priestess of animal rights looked at the options.  There is not a “crisis” of pet overpopulation (shelter populations and deaths have dropped steadily for decades); there is a crisis of the leadership needed to get programs to target people who want to do right, and to get shelter animals into homes.

On the “no kill” movement: PETA continues to claim that “no kill” is about hoarding and warehousing:

Some people have suggested that the solution to companion animal overpopulation lies with so-called “no-kill,” or “limited-admission,” shelters. Sadly, these facilities often have major problems that affect animals. Animals at “no-kill” shelters who have been deemed unadoptable may be “warehoused” in cages for years. They become withdrawn, severely depressed, or aggressive, which further decreases their chances for adoption. Cageless facilities avoid the cruelty of constant confinement but unintentionally encourage fighting and the spread of disease among animals.

The problem with this is that “no kill” is not about hoarding and warehousing. It’s about shelters providing shelter for pets who need it temporarilly, and working with animal-lovers in the community to develop and fund pro-active programs to bring spay-neuter services to people who want to alter their pets but can’t because of money or transportation issues, programs to elicit volunteers to foster pets and help with adoption outreach. And finally, programs to target special needs populations, such as working to manage feral cat colonies through trap-neuter-release program. (PETA’s answer to feral cats, by the way, is here. Surprise! They carefully parse a policy statement that’s largely against feral cat colony management.)

Why does PETA choose blaming others and spreading hate  over working for change and building bridges?  Why is anyone still listening to PETA?

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.

As for their unrelenting campaign against PETA, bless the CCF’s  slimy little pseudo-hearts for staying on top this, because it needs to stay out there.

Oh, I know: PETA says they’re “humanely euthanizing” pets who have no hope of finding homes. Whatever.  From the folks at the front group:

Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008.  [...]

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.

Here’s the document released by the CCF.  Why is PETA no longer listed here? I’m checking on that.

And here’s a blog post from last year, when PETA started saber-rattling in the direction of anyone who pointed out their kill rates.

PETA, I bet you could get a no-kill consultant to talk to your shelter operations manager for very little money, probably not even the cost to put on one decent demonstration. You could get that kill rate to less than 10 percent!

As I’ve written before, I have no problem with PETA believing in and advocating an animal-rights philosophy. They have a right to their opinions.

I believe in humane stewardship of animals, and that’s the opinion I have a right to.   I very vehemently opposed to factory farming, for example, because it’s environmentally devastating, a threat to our nation’s health and security and gut-turningly cruel to animals.

PETA wants no animals raised for food. I want them raised and killed humanely and treated with respect as part of a decentralized, decorporatized agricultural system. That’s a difference of core belief.

What I do have a problem with is PETA not being as up front as they could and should be about what that philosophy is and what it means.  And I believe they don’t do so because they’d have relatively few supporters left if they did — animal-rights true believers only, and that wouldn’t be near enough to bring in the kind of donations they get.

So again, I gotta wonder:

Why is anyone still listening to PETA?

Update: Terrierman breaks down the numbers … and the law. Must read.

Update 2: Michael Vick or Ingrid Newkirk? The New York Times ponders.  Fortunately for those of us who actual care about pets, there are other options.

Update 3: Every year more people catch to the truth about PETA. One of the first in the animal-advocacy community — credit where credit is due –  to scream bloody murder about PETA is Nathan Winograd, no-kill flamethrower and author of “Redemption:The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America.” Today he writes about the latest PETA kill numbers:

In the past, PETA argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. 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 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.

Winograd promises more tomorrow, so check back.