Visitor:
Practical Issues > Pets Index > Shelters
"Controversy" between PeTA and Winograd

ed. note: from our perspective, both Winograd and PeTA make good points and yet in presenting their cases they resort to hyperbole and create misleading perceptions*. While it appears that they both are wasting energy, perhaps the "controversy" keeps the issues in front of the minds' of activists. The jury is still out on the value of this debate.

* PeTA creates the impression that no-kill shelters are no better than kill shelters because no-kill shelters simply turn away animals that are not adoptable. In fact, most no-kill shelters DO spend more time and energy looking to find homes for animals than do most kill-shelters (especially city-run kill-shelters).

* Winograd creates the impression that there are currently enough homes for all the unwanted pets and that to kill any animal is unnecessary. He infers that activists in shelters are not doing enough and he implies blame. In my opinion he is referring to what SHOULD BE (when all his policies are used by all shelters) and he is not referring to what IS TODAY. But he confuses and angers all the activists in shelters who are busting their humps to save animals. Ironically this makes it more difficult for his policies to spread, thus working against his own purpose.

from Winograd, with comments below

Not in the Public Interest

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=9418

June 7, 2012 by Nathan J. Winograd

PETA Headquarters on Front Street in Norfolk, VA. The name of the street is itself dripping with irony. PETA is little more than a front for Ingrid Newkirk's dark impulses.

The Mayor of Norfolk, Virginia, wants a No Kill community. But the pet killers at PETA, headquartered in Norfolk, do not. They want the killing to continue, because if Norfolk becomes a No Kill community, the excuses they use to seek out and slaughter 96% of all animals will ring that much more hollow (while PETA wraps the killing they do in the language of pet overpopulation, the truth is that PETA kills because of Ingrid Newkirk's dark impulses).

PETA sent a Freedom of Information Act request to Norfolk asking for all correspondence between the City and I. Normally, a group that requests FOIA documents has to pay for their search and duplication, but PETA asked for a fee waiver saying the disclosure is in the "public interest." Actually, PETA does not represent the public interest nor do they represent the animals' interests. They represent the interest of a deeply disturbed individual who has sought out and killed over 27,000 animals over the last decade.

And while PETA defends the killing, saying all the animals they kill are suffering, that 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. It is a lie because, according to the Daily Caller, "two PETA employees described as 'adorable' and 'perfect' some of the dogs and cats they killed in the back of a PETA-owned van." It is a lie because when asked what efforts they make to find animals homes, they replied "no comment." And it is a lie because the Butcher of Norfolk 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.

I'm going to spare the City of Norfolk some postage costs.

Hey PETA, here's what I sent the Mayor and City Council on behalf of the No Kill Advocacy Center:

We were delighted to read about your desire to increase the save rate in Norfolk shelters. Today, there are No Kill communities (municipal shelters) in Kentucky, Virginia, Indiana, Utah, California, New York, Texas, and elsewhere. Why not Norfolk? No Kill is a humane, sustainable, cost-effective model that works hand in hand with public health and safety, while fulfilling a fiscal responsibility to taxpayers. The success of this approach across the country proves the viability of the No Kill model and the above principles.

If we can assist in any way, please do not hesitate to contact us.


Great for Winograd. Dreadful what PETA is trying to stop.

"N"


"N", I totally disagree with you.

Winograd should be going after puppy mills where there definitely IS an
overpopulation of "pets". Sorry, but that's an affront to my intelligence
that he claims this is a myth. What a waste of Winograd's time and effort
when he should be trying to raise money to save all these animals from
being killed instead of attacking other groups. The ASPCA isn't exempt
from their fanatical attacks either. I think it's shameful.

"S"


I agree with "S" on this one. I stay near bankruptcy due to the so-called "myth" of dog/cat overpopulation. I have to wonder WHY is Winograd in such denial over this issue?!?!?!

"Sh"

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com