Now, this is going to sound a little odd, maybe. I used to know someone — an editor at The Sacramento Bee — who went to work for PETA. She was absolutely an animal rights activist, a true believer. And I was grateful for being able to hear her views, and for PETA’s, too. Because having people challenge the mainstream view and push us into looking at things fresh way is always important. I believe that looking at these issues has had a positive affect, overall, and caused changes that have been good.

That’s why I have been so grateful — yes, grateful — for the mess of trouble Nathan Winograd has stirred up with his “Redemption.” It has people thinking, talking and challenging assumptions about how animals end up in shelters, what kinds of animals end up there, how fewer animals can end up there — and how more can get out into forever homes.

New ideas are always dismissed at first, especially when they challenge common beliefs. But some of those ideas turn out to be right in the end.

But … I insist that all groups be absolutely honest about what they believe and that they behave according to those beliefs. I have my own doubts about whether PETA has been doing either, in recent years. If you’re going to claim moral high ground, then honesty ought to be on that mountain with you, in my opinion. If you’re an animal rights organization, don’t behave like an animal welfare organization when it’s convenient to you.

For what it’s worth, I am likewise critical of groups such as the National Animal Interest Alliance, which tells me that to “fight AR radicals” I must support factory farming and puppy-mills. Uh-uh and no bloody way. (I agree with Christie’s take on this issue, here.)

I’m not drinking anyone’s Kool-Aid, thanks.

Comment by Joy — May 13, 2008 @ 2:53 pm

According to the testimony in the Piggly Wiggly dumpster trial, PETA took adoptable pets, promising to try and find them homes, only to immediately kill them in the van. So I would say the answer to that question would be YES - at least for the people who testified at the trial.

But it’s certainly no secret that PETA is a radical group that has never really bothered itself with worrying about public image. I mean, their avid supporters are certainly not mainstream America and I don’t see where PETA tries to make anything look fuzzy or cute or attractive to the mainstream donor. Most people actually don’t support them.

I think PETA has its place in the world and in some ways I think its clear that place isn’t with the welfare community. But I just don’t see them as a big threat to the rescue/sheltering community.

Anyone who donates to or otherwise supports PETA knows they are a zealous group of animal rights activists. And to other zealous animal rights activists I’m sure PETA is quite attractive and appreciated for what they do. So, they donate. And those of us who feel our money might better serve animals in some other organization, donate elsewhere.

Are there really people out there who think PETA is a shelter or rescue organization instead of an AR organization?

“Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and “set them free.” What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren’t home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.”

“Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis”.

Maybe Ingrid has some thinking that might be radical…but I just don’t see where PETA is suggesting we eradicate dogs and cats. To me, it seems Ingrid (who is not all of PETA anyway) is sharing her “in a perfect world” ideas but is PETA out there ACTING to eradicate pet ownership? I dunno.

Yes, it’s an old quote. Does she feel differently now?

It’s not about “hating” animals. I cannot imagine anyone at PETA “hates” animals. It’s about wanting to change the relationship we have with animals.

I am well aware there are gruesome shelters. But the choices aren’t just “gas them/shoot them” or “pink needle” them. There is a third way: Community-based shelter reform, including targeted approaches to specific problems with specific kinds of animals, such as feral cats.

The pet food poisonings could have easily been prevented if the industry insisted on testing for TRUE protein content rather than CRUDE protein.

The tests for crude protein only test for nitrogen. Those tests (the Kjeldahl method and Dumas method )will NEVER be able to detect accidental or intentional contamination with non-protein nitrogen sources like melamine and urea.

Because they are inter alia…foods used as the sole source of nourishment….things like infant formula must be tested using only amino acid analysis for true protein content rather than crude protein.

So, since pet food is being sold as a “complete and balanced” product meant as the as the sole source of nourishment, it too should be tested for TRUE protein to determine the protein content.

If the industry made this simple change, raw ingredients like corn and wheat gluten could not be adulterated with nitrogen sources to falsely inflate their protein content. It would easily be detected and Viola! an end to the still common unscrupulous business of putting fake protein.. sometimes in the form of dangerous or deadly raw ingredients… into pet food.

I do remember the really horrible shelters they worked with; shelters whose means of “euthanasia” included everything from amateur gunshot to asphyxiation by car exhaust.

PETA would work very hard to get those shelters to change their ways but sometimes, as the months dragged on and the officials refused change, and no other organizations could help…PETA would try to curb some of the suffering while working toward change by offering a more humane death by injection. I don’t know if this is some of the “killing” you speak of but I certainly appreciate an organization who steps in when animals are being gunned down or cruelly asphyxiated.

I also don’t really understand the notion that they want to eradicate pets. Everyone I knew at PETA shared their lives with dogs, cats, horses and other domestic pets. At their headquarters employees can bring their pets to work with them and I remember that a lot of them, including Ingrid and Mary Beth seemed to be really enthusiastic about pet ownership and certainly very loving toward their own pets.

I helped them find a home for a particularly difficult to place Pit Bull once, she just had a lot of behavior/emotional issues from a lifetime of abuse. She stayed at the PETA offices for nearly 6 months and went home with staff at night. Everyone there really loved her and were dedicated to her finding the perfect home. She was a really sweet but terribly abused dog. It took awhile but she ended up finding the perfect home with a family who understood her. They cherished her despite her problems; problems that in many places would have ended up making her a candidate for euthanasia.

I thought it was a joke the first time someone told me PETA thinks pet ownership should be eliminated. I asked everyone I could at PETA and none seemed to feel that way. I remember even Ingrid telling me that people were misunderstanding her (admittedly fanatical at times) statements…she said she believes that in a perfect world, maybe we would have never domesticated them because look at how horribly unbalanced that relationship ended up, ya know? Pets suffer and I guess she feels that maybe they wouldn’t suffer so much if we left them alone. That being said, she said she would never suggest anything as radical as banning or even working toward the end of pet ownership. I don’t know, maybe everyone at PETA was lying to me. But I never felt they hated pets or wanted to eradicate them.