www.groups.yahoo.com/group/veggiejews
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeggieJews/message/4796
by Pete Cohon
Despite People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' (PETA's) victory
in last week's North Carolina jury trial, in which 2 PETA employees
were acquitted of cruelty to animals and fraud in obtaining animals
(although convicted of littering), the trial has raised questions
among ardent and sincere animal activists who are concerned to learn
that PETA euthanizes animals. Ironically, the folks at PETA, who
taught so many of us to put our compassion into action, now appear
hypocritical to some animal activists for preaching animal liberation
while performing euthanasia. Former PETA supporters are threatening
to withhold donations and disparaging the organization for what some
see as unethical conduct. But are the criticisms and threats fair
given all the circumstances of the situation? Let's look at the facts:
I was not at the trial but, based on numerous newspaper articles that
I've read, it seems that two PETA employees, who were volunteers in
2005 when these events occurred, went to an Ahoskie County animal
hospital and picked up some unwanted companion animals who were
slated to be turned over to County authorities to be killed.
Although gas is used for euthanasia in many North Carolina counties,
the prescribed method for killing unwanted animals in Ohoskie County
is, apparently, shooting, an exceptionally cruel method of killing an
animal in the absence of an alternative as the possibility of needing
more than one bullet is very real. Of course, if you've ever seen
films taken of animals being gassed inside small death chambers, you
know that this method of euthanasia is also horrific and cruel as the
animals struggle to get out of the chamber until death finally slows
their fight for life.
In order to save companion animals in Ahoskie County from being shot,
as well as animals in danger of gassing in other counties, PETA had
for some time been picking-up unwanted animals in that county. PETA
knew from long experience that other facilities in the area as well
as private breeders were selling or giving away animals and that
there was no "market" for these Ahoskie County animals, which means
that there were no adoption prospects in the real world. The only
thing that PETA could do to give these animals a better death than
either shooting or gassing was to euthanize them peacefully and
lovingly by lethal injection. That is what PETA did and, as the jury
found, it was not done out of malice but out of respect for the
animals and in recognition of the fact that there was no more humane
alternative. In a world in which unwanted animals are gassed and
shot by the hundreds of thousands, a humane and peaceful death was
all that anyone, even PETA, could do for these animals.
Although PETA has worked tirelessly for decades to encourage folks to
spay and neuter their animals and to acquire companion animals from
shelters, not breeders and puppy mills, some folks criticize PETA for
not holding onto the Ahoskie County animals until homes could be
found for them. But that completely disregards the severity of the
situation in which a never-ending conveyor belt of animals with no
hope of ever being adopted seems to be headed to our "shelters". If
you think that PETA over-reacted to the endless stream of unwanted
animals, ask yourself this: How many of those animals would you take
into your home to save their lives? None? One? Five? Ten? Even
if the answer is over 100, sooner or later you will get to the point
where your sanctuary doors must be closed. What will you do then as
more and more animals in need of homes are brought to your doors? If
you turn them away, they might die in "shelters" of bullets or gas
or, if left on the streets, they could die terrible deaths of
starvation, disease or abuse. But, if you take them in, you'll have
too many animals to care for properly and, once again, the animals
will suffer. What do you do? In this world of seemingly endless
pain and suffering for our fellow but non-human animals, what do you
do when all the alternatives are unpalatable?
PETA's answer is to provide relief in the most humane way possible,
even if it is not popular with some PETA supporters. It would be
easy for PETA to mollify its disgruntled supporters by simply
terminating the current policy of saving animals from cruel deaths,
even if it's only to give them more dignified and peaceful deaths.
But, that would mean condemning numerous animals to terrible deaths
solely so that some PETA supporters could feel better about
themselves and forget about the never-ending line of unwanted
animals. The folks at PETA have made the decision to do what they
always do at PETA - they decided to put the best interests of the
animals first, even if it costs them donations. That's because PETA
is not about donations. It's about helping animals in any and every
way possible, even when it's not popular to do so. PETA has the guts
to do the hard jobs that nobody else is willing to do, even when
they're especially unpleasant. PETA has the guts to take the heat
for doing the right thing, even when it hurts them. And PETA has the
determination to work for the day when euthanizing animals simply
because they are unwanted will be a sorry and sad part of history,
but not the present or future. That's why I support PETA.
[Pete Cohon is the founder of VeggieJews:
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/veggiejews
