BY TERESA LYNN CHAGRIN – Honolulu council member Tom Berg should be applauded for his concern for the plight of homeless dogs and cats (“Oahu’s Cats and Dogs on Death Row Deserve Better,” Sept. 24). The legislation he proposes, however, fails to address the source of the problem and would cause more animals to suffer.
Though it’s clear that Mr. Berg has the best of intentions, he fails to consider that the humane society is run by trained professionals familiar with all aspects of the animal overpopulation crisis. Their primary mission is to ensure the safety and wellbeing of animals while protecting the public, not to buoy the spirits of the people who bring animals to shelters.
California’s disastrous Hayden Law, cited by Mr. Berg as the inspiration for his bill, was put together by lawyers and aides with no experience running animal shelters, and it shows: Doing nothing to curb breeding—the real cause of the animal overpopulation crisis—it instead takes away shelters’ ability to keep animals healthy by controlling the spread of diseases and to give the most adoptable animals the best chance of finding a home through necessary means, including euthanasia of animals with little to no chance of adoption.
Under the Hayden Law, shelters couldn’t euthanize the animals they took in unless the animals were already to the point of death—even if that meant enduring prolonged suffering from diseases or injuries that made them unlikely prospects for adoption. One California newspaper, in an article titled, “Too Close for Comfort: New State Law Is Killing Animals,” explained how the law reduced adoptions while raising euthanasia rates.
We all want to see the number of euthanized animals decrease, but the Hayden Law debacle shows that this goal can’t be accomplished just by making it nearly impossible for shelters to use euthanasia to address the current crisis. As one former shelter volunteer explained after visiting an overburdened facility, “As I passed the kennels, each crammed with too many dogs and puppies, many of them sick or diseased, I was reminded again that euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen.”
To become a truly no-kill community means becoming a no-birth community by mandating spaying and neutering of dogs and cats to stop the flow of unwanted litters into shelters. Readers (or council members) who wish to learn more about helping homeless animals can visit www.PETA.org.
Teresa Lynn Chagrin is an Animal Care & Control Specialist for PETA in Norfolk, VA
Keep on doing what you're doing, taking your ONE shelter dog to adoption events and hoping that he'll stay this time, while I'm in low income communities helping poor cat owners get their cats fixed, because they have no transportation/ carriers or money to do it themselves. Approximately 7000 (seven thousand ) times a year, so you no kill fanatics have LESS to "save" from euthanasia when they end up at shelters. There really IS ANOTHER WAY OF LOOKING AT IT! Thanks, I'm so not interested in reading propaganda, I know reality too well to read your recommended blog. Good luck with you adopting your "kill shelter" dog!
Well, if you must know there are many people in my community doing TNR . I like dogs, I have dogs. I happen to also have a foster dog from a puppy mill bust and two other foster dogs whose owners didn't want them. I have saved several dogs from our local shelter and helped them find new good homes. YOU are not the savior of the worlds animals, it is a group effort. Don't be such a hateful little twit. Another way of looking at it – Don't support the killing of healthy/treatable adoptable animals – that's how I look at it. What is your excuse for the unneccesary killing?. You speak of logic but you don't follow through on that logic, The blog was about LOGIC not propaganda. Propaganda is PETA and HSUS
Coming from the state of Delaware, that has enacted similar legislation, I encourage lawmakers to NOT pass this legislation. This legislation has a number of pitfalls from creating a logjam that does allow the opportunity for more health outbreak concerns, and yes we have seen more outbreaks, to taking the judgment away from shelters and forcing them to work with questionable rescues which can also have tragic consequences. In Delaware we saw this within a few months of CAPA being enacted. This first case was not only harmful to the animals, it was also harmful to the fosters that took animals from this rescue. To my knowledge, there is still an ongoing Attorney General investigation into this case, which is also costly to the taxpayers This is the report detailing. https://nokilldelaware.org/sitebuildercontent/site…
To see a picture of the healthy dog released to the rescue in question and the emaciated dog found while under their case, see this site. It should provide you with an illustration of what happens if you pass similar legislation https://delawarecapa.blogspot.com/2011/07/collabor…
Here was the rescue involved in that first case. Considering they launched this FB shortly after made their complaint on May 29, 2011, and the last post was days later on June 3, 2011, do you really think this was a legitimate rescue? This is what you will be opening your doors to with this legislation. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Canine-Nation/2064…
CAPA has been divisive, costly, and harmful to the animals of our state, so I hope consider the ramifications before going down this road. There has been relatively no increase in transfers to rescues, and euthanasia statistics have not gone down in any significant amount. The only thing we have to show for CAPA is an exploding cat population which would be devastating ecologically to a state such as Hawaii. Unfortunately our state officials did not do their due diligence, but you still have an opportunity to consider the issues before you place your shelters and the animals in jeopardy.
Think of a leaky faucet. Do you let the faucet continue to leak and waste the water down the drain? Do you get a bucket to collect the water and use that water for a purpose, like watering your indoor plants? Or do you fix the faucet and stop it from leaking and wasting water? I'll go for fixing the leak. That's what the article is about. Fixing the flow of the animals. PUt monies towards low cost spay/neuter and bring the level of animals to a manageable level.
As a person who volunteers in the NoKill shelter that is so widely aclaimed , let me set the record straigh. Hawaii was just home to an attack by Winograd and Diane Blankenburg , trying to ram No Kill down the throat of the locals. Winograd spews mis information and seems able to sleep through the night in spite of his disgusting misrepresentations.. A man of no conscience he will destroy your shelter and go on to the next city.. Animals will continue to populate, homes will not. We have had as many as 700 cats in our shelter and many of them are locked up in an outbuilding that a private home would get busted for. Winograd wrote a very telling assessment about his prize shelter and in there he stated " since offsite adoptions are not working, use them to socialize aggressive dogs"
Wow, thanks Mr. Winograd.He told us to lie about how long the animals had been in shelter, and to fudge the animals true age. Call a 12 year old dog "senior, but never 12"
We have had 300 dogs in a shelter designed to hold 120. No Kill is an absysmal failure and looking at any state he claims is doing it is a good idea.
https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Truthfully-Repor… If you want a shelter that turns away the animals it doesn't choose to hoard, No Kill is your plan and Winograd is your man. Just say no to No Kill. Please read everything you can about this, because it causes great animal suffering.
Funny. Our kill shelter is JUST as overpopulated. And yet the animals are allowed to get sick (why bother, they will be killed in a couple of days anyway) and then are summarily killed.
Pointing out overcrowding just invites comparisons to the very real fact that kill shelters are often over crowded to the exact same degree. It ends up being a draw on that front.
Nathan Winograd says that pet overpopulation just doesn't add up. He says that research shows that there are 17,000,000 potential American homes for the 3,000,000 adoptable animals who will be euthanized in shelters this year, thus dispelling the myth of companion animal overpopulation. Nathan Winograd is right, it doesn't add up. In order for pet overpopulation to add up, we have to bring the animals who will never enter shelters, but who are making a hard living on America's mean streets into the discussion.
There are 35,000 cities and townships in the US. Larger cities like Detroit estimate that their unowned street dog population census alone is in the tens of thousands. Their stray and feral cat census is estimated to be even higher. But let's say that Detroit's figures are an anomaly. Let's say that each US city and township is somehow limiting their street animal populations to 1,000 homeless animals. That adds up to 35,000,000 homeless animals nationwide. When we include these animals in the discussion, and we certainly should, it's easy to see how companion animal overpopulation can add up in a real big hurry.
Nathan Winograd tries to be very accurate in his portrayal of PeTA, even if he isn't always truthful in it. He has gotten a lot of mileage out of that link, and the carefully crafted patchwork of information contained therein. If there's one thing I've learned about people, it's that they only resort to half-truths when the whole truth won't get them what they want. Nathan Winograd isn't telling the whole truth about PeTA. He doesn't tell that nearly all of PeTA's intake is limited to owner surrenders for the service of humane euthanasia, or that more and more folks are turning to shelters to perform that specific service for them.
A few weeks ago, not being able to take Mr. Winograd's word for it, I began researching the admission policies of the "No-Kill Documented" shelters he often refers to in his interviews, blogs, and Facebook postings. What I found was any number of the shelters limit their admissions, despite their being "documented" as open-admission on the list. Now, when I made this information public, an interesting thing happened: The publisher of the blog, "no-killnews" responded by redefining what "open-admission" means when referring to different types of animal reporting agencies so that some of the shelters that report limited admission policies could remain listed as "open-admission." Turns out I was right not to trust his reporting of those shelters. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Truthfully-Reportin…
Just days after Huffington Post published Douglas Anthony Cooper's piece "Meet the Man Who is Rescuing Animal Welfare," where Cooper interviews Nathan Winograd, and where Winograd references that now redefined shelters, Cooper was caught on his Facebook page discussing the targeting of folks who blog against the no-kill movement. Cooper discussed using "parody" blogs to malign these targets, and indeed, one such blog was constructed and published. The blog remained published while Cooper conducted a poll of his supporters as to whether the blog should remain published, or be removed. After some debate, the blog was removed, and concerns as to the possible legal ramifications were discussed. Dozens of screen shots of this unfortunate activity circulated through the animal rights community, making their way to me. I was appalled by Mr. Cooper's participation in this despicable activity. I sincerely hope that Mr. Winograd will consider the unscrupulous behavior of Mr. Cooper, before allowing him any other interviews, or allowing him to speak on behalf of limited admission sheltering in the future. Clean up you act, Mr. Winograd.
The adversarial types are all here to put their lies before one more innocent city. There is not one open admission No Kill shelter in the United States, think about that. The Nokilladvocaxy center is a consulting firm that sells itself. Nothing more, they have no shelter, notice when they say the " biggest open admission shelter in the country is no kill" That is Austin Texas, and it's not doing well at all. Why are their dogs listed all over Austin Craigslist as saved from 'THE EUTH LIST' if they don't euthanize ? If No Kill worked we would all be beating a path to this man's door, but it doesn't, Lied's Nevada, destroyed by this crraziness. Google Janie Greenspun Gale Animal Foundation. That woman spent 11 million dollars and they had to ask HSUS to come in and bail them out. all the animals were lost to a horrible death. Right now the goof's are over there on Douglas Anthony Coopers FB page trying to figure out how to"get" Rose Bauman. Does that appear sane to the reader?
You're a real sweetheart, Mary. If a bit of a liar and a sneak. The "parody" blog was aimed at one person and one person only: the one who has been libelling me for months. I mean libel, in the full legal sense of the term. She's been accusing me of laundering money, running a puppy mill, being on the lam. And much of the parody blog was just her words — her precise words — with the names changed.
I argued to take the blog down, because she was enjoying it too much. And it's not our way: I believe in truth, and so does everyone I've met in the No Kill movement. (As opposed to, say, you.) And even parody can be regarded as slightly untruthful.
But make no mistake: If you slander me, I will come at you with everything I've got.
As for your most transparent lie: There were NO concerns about the legal ramifications. I remember precisely what was said: "What's she going to say in court? That she was libelling me, and I made fun of her libellous words?"
Oh, and "Pet Person"? I just checked my page, on which you — quite inaccurately — say that people are discussing how to "get" Rose Bauman. Here's what was said:
FRIEND #1: Anyone know that Rose Bauman?
FRIEND #2: Rose Bauman is an anti-TNR advocate who practices TNR in Baltimore. Yeah, that's what I said.
End of discussion. Did I miss something? Care to quote it? (I suppose I might have, but I doubt it.) If I didn't, care to explain how this in any way constitutes 'trying to figure out how to"get" Rose Bauman'?
And yes, this exchange appears quite sane, at least to this reader. Ms. Bauman's TNR practice strikes me as lunacy, but that's not what you're referring to.
With all due respect: why can't you people tell the truth? If what you promote is somehow worthwhile, the truth is in your best interest. If your program is not worthwhile — if it forces you to lie — then for God's sake *change your stance.*
I have no intention of slandering Douglas Anthony Cooper. I wouldn't need to, his behavior is reprehensible all on its own. Read about the shameful behavior he admits to here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Douglas-Anthony-Coo…
The "she made made me do it" defense is never flattering.
Ha. That was YOUR doing, that page? Possibly the least damning evidence of anything I've ever witnessed.
For those who didn't see it: Mary posted screen grabs of a conversation, in which we were discussing, in completely benign terms, a parody blog. The parody was itself relatively benign: one of Mary's less stable friends has been slandering me for weeks, and the parody was mostly just this woman's words, with the names changed.
It is not in any way shameful to parody a slanderer. Or to support the parody of a slanderer. In fact, parody in itself is rarely shameful, even if it's a parody of something much less repulsive than this woman's grotesque blog.
Dunaway will be lucky if all she ever encounters is parody: she's courting a lawsuit (if not a straitjacket).
I had the page taken down, only because of the title — nobody coming to it out of context would be able to make head or tails of the comments, so they'd probably assume I'd done something shameful.
Among the comments was something like: "There's nothing remotely illegal about a parody — especially THIS parody. What would she say in court: 'I was libelling someone, and they made fun of my libel?'"
Any other comments you'd care to post, Mary? Post them here, and I'll explain how they're utterly unshameful. Seriously: post ALL of them.
In short: post them where I can respond to them publicly without being blocked, you coward.
I didn't see where it said Tully put that page up. I was referred to the page while trying to locate another article through a google search. The page showed the same contempt for others that was shown on the Huffington Post articles comment section. Remember some of the commenting names there, the Afghan Hound owner, what a moniker she had.. It did keep you responding to her though.
You have done something shameful on that thread, and many others Cooper, You set out to maliciously damage another person with whom you disagreed I too have many screen grabs of that conversation as well as the one on the Gourmet page. I believe my flash drives serves better than your memory on the comments you made. You may continue to traipse about parading your lack of couth and decency, but their will be consequences in kind. Do you think Terry would be as tolerant of our comments on her business page as Alison was? I believe FB will find your use of their product to be " out of character"
It is as much a violation of someone's first amendment rights to put words in their mouth as it is to take words out of their mouth, Douglas. There is nothing "benign" about duplicating a blog with the expressed purpose of hijacking established screen names and using their voices to publish defamatory messages. If "making fun" of the person you targeted was your objective, you could have accomplished that without duplicating her blog, hijacking screen names, and using their voices to defame her. It wasn't about "making fun," it was about killing the messenger.
You said this about the attack blog: "My argument? it's a whole lot cheaper than suing someone for libel. If this shuts the woman up, then it really is a useful strategy. Hence, I think I;m going to make one too."
After the attack blog was published, you said: "Whoever made this: tone down the pit bull killing–we know she wants them killed, but do we have evidence that she's actually killed them? Again: stick to the wild allegations she's tossing at others. Money laundering? Puppy farms to feed puppy-eating Canadians? Totally cool."
Please. Explain to me how "utterly unshameful" those comments are, Douglas.
Oh, spare me. She accused me of money laundering. So the parody accused her of money laundering (using her own words). She accused me of running puppy farms in Mexico (and has suggested that Canadians eat puppies). So I accused her of running puppy farms and sending the puppies to Canada to be eaten. Etc. In short, I took her wild allegations and threw them right back at her. And you're defending this loon? A bit disingenuous, don't you think?
Yes, I told people to tone down aspects of the parody that struck me as going beyond strictly throwing her own slander in her face. For instance: we know that she favors the slaughter of pit bulls, but I don't have evidence that she has personally butchered them. So that strikes me as unfair. Not that she deserves fairness, but still. And you'd rather I hadn't asked people to tone this down?
But disingenuous is the nature of your game, isn't it Tully. It's your entire modus: the oh-so-concerned troll: big-hearted pro-kill Mary.
.Make up your mind Cooper,. You try to bail water with a light hearted "parody" quite benign "really" just trying to drive this old lady to distraction". I bet everybody believes it was a boyish prank. you just wanted to make her commit suicide ? Cooper… "I don't "disagree" with PD/HonestyHelps. I despise her. She's despicable: a libelous, vulgar stalker. A woman bent on killing cats and pit bulls. One of the very worst people I've encountered on the web, or anywhere. "Disagreement" is a silly understatement. She's disgusting. She should be sued into penury, and she may well be. There: satisfied?""" Cooper that makes the benign parody a little harder to sell doesn't. it? I would say that proves malice As a matter fact count your friends complicit. ..
You despise Pat/Honestyy and you took that personal dislike and mocked her, impersonated her, tried to gain access to her friends, I've been doing back work on this since the second story where you attacked people on the Huff,. Google gets all those screen shots where you were egging people to allison Gourmet page that they will find that " innocent" ? I don't
Look. You're going to have to read my screenshots more carefully. I sent people over to that page to deal with Mary Tully's serial lies: it had grown into a conversation that went far beyond Alison. Every single statement I made about Alison — in public and private — was supportive. Period. I don't think she should have been blamed for PETA's cynical gesture.
As for PD/Honesty: have you READ her blog? Seriously. Before you get all huffy and righteous, READ the bloody thing. It's pure, ranting slander. She's been stalking Nathan for years.
Do I want her to commit suicide? Don't be ridiculous. I don't mean her any harm whatsoever. (Her latest fabrication is that I've been sending her death threats, which she's turned over to the FBI.)
I'd in fact be appalled if she were to harm herself. I mean that. I just want her to shut up and go away. And I'm trying every tactic to accomplish that, short of hauling her into court. And if everything fails, that's a very real option. The reason I suggested taking down the parody site is that it wasn't shutting her up: it was making her worse.
Please. If you're only familiar with Tully's distortion of this debate, READ the grotesque blog and come to your own conclusions.
I don't see where you owned the page, however if you did, or know how to get it back up that would be appropriate. Mr. Cooper feels only his opinion is allowed to take air; were it not deletrious to helpless dogs jammed in overcrowded shelters it would be pathetic humor. And Mr. cooper is bragging that he made it be taken down because it was out of context. Trust me, the thread made perfect sense, as I recall 76 comments. Cooper has bragged that he is very proud of keeping his facebook page public, I think the readers should go and read for themselves. Surely, Surely, such an honorable man would not hide them now ?
Please. Read my page.
a) I assumed Tully put the page up. I may be wrong. I don't particularly care: she's referring people to it, just as I did to the parody. Sauce for the goose, etc.
b) I defended Alison from detractors. Adamantly. Do some reading.
c) I don't "disagree" with PD/HonestyHelps. I despise her. She's despicable: a libelous, vulgar stalker. A woman bent on killing cats and pit bulls. One of the very worst people I've encountered on the web, or anywhere. "Disagreement" is a silly understatement. She's disgusting. She should be sued into penury, and she may well be. There: satisfied?
d) I used to "disagree" with Tully, until she was revealed as a liar. I thought she was genuinely open to debate. She's little more than a mouthpiece for PETA.
e) Please quote all of the supposedly shameful things from those screenshots, so we can address them. I took those threads down only because PD/HonestyHelps, who is unstable, was excited by all the attention.
And let's have your real name.
Hang on. "Deletrious." That's a bit of a giveaway. Pet Person? Are you perhaps Pat?
Sigh. I was just alerted to this. Here's the thing, Tully: parody is an ancient and semi-honorable way of dealing with the likes of you. It's explicitly protected by the First Amendment. I found your friend silly, and I find you in some ways even sillier (because you're sane, and you still blather on about this). God forbid somebody should parody somebody. Damn. That's… that's terrible.
Meanwhile, for those new to this debate: Mary Tully is probably the most prominent pro-death voice on the web. She apologizes for all of PETA's actions, right down to the last dead puppy. Thus far she has refused to answer a simple question, so I'll put it to her again, right here: do you or do you not believe in the extinction of domestic dogs and cats?
Inquiring minds want to know.
(I am seriously considering a parody of your grotesque blog, by the way.)
I noticed the shelters in Virginia were very limited in their admission policies which always reflects in higher euth rates in the surrounding shelters. if you do a topo map , Peta as a green dot that allows or performs the humane euthanasia of an animal in need of that service, is surrounded by "red dot" take what we want and ignore the rest shelter." I do not think the marriage of Mr. Winograd and Mr. Cooper is strange at all. Water seeks it's own level, no reputable auther would interview Winograd without checking the facts, in accurate reporting is essential for Winograd to perpetrate his myth. I feel all the NKNJ's showed their colors on the Gourmet FB page, and then again with the attacks on those who disagree with them. It was all rather petty and smarmy, it showed a clear intent to collude through mis-use of FB . One of the most egregious perpatrators runs a wedding business in Titusville Florida and has testimonials to her " sweetness" she is one who brags about what they do to others. These are very sick people.
.
Did you read anything but the interview? Say, the tens of thousands of words preceding it, in which I checked the facts, and linked to sources?
To those of you who are new to No Kill ideas, and the need for shelter reform, and who are wondering what all the fuss is about, please know that the same bunch of naysayers shows up in the comments on just about any article about the No Kill movement or any article critical of PETA and their rampant killing of healthy and treatable shelter pets. For example, the same bunch was out in force throughout Douglas Anthony Cooper's expose series on PETA in the Huffington Post: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-coo… Their "arguments" have been refuted many times over.
Valerie, you can hardly call Douglas Anthony Cooper's series on PeTA an "expose," when all he did was remanufacture the same disinformation that Nathan Winograd remanufactured from the Center for Consumer Freedom's website. The CCF is dedicated to exploiting PeTA's euthanasia practices as a means to discourage donations to PeTA that will positively impact the tens of billions of animals who are exploited for food, and both Winograd and Cooper admit they they source a lot of "information" from their dubious website.
To be fair, if you're going to use Douglas Anthony Cooper's anti-PeTA series for reference, you should include disclose the source of his disinformation. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center…
And you will notice the same bunch of Limited Admission Movement enthusiasts, the breeders, lobbyists and lawyers were out in force throughout Cooper's PETA attack series. Cooper and Winograd use Richard Berman's, animal industry funded dark PR campaign in an attempt to destroy the reputations of the large, effective animal welfare organizations. Take a look at Beef magazine, the fur industries newsletters, breeder blogs or Silobreaker and ask yourself why these industries that don't give a damn about sheltered animals are pushing Winograd's Limited Admission Movement, and Cooper's attack articles.
Yeah, yeah: we're all breeders and bullfighters who write for Beef Magazine. And we're all on Berman's payroll. And the moon is made of camembert, and you're a sweet, decent, compassionate soul.
(Note: Mary Tully's fully aware of the real source of my information. We in fact directed her — many times — to the Virginia Department of Agriculture's website. She's seen the documents. She pretends otherwise — that these were all cooked up by lobbyists — but she in fact knows the truth. Don't you Mary? Do we have to send you there again?)
I love to discuss the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) Animal Reporting records for PeTA. In fact, I have referenced those records and discussed them every day, several times a day, for over two years. Here's the link I use: https://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_se…
In conjunction, I also reference and discuss what the information on the VDACS Animal Record Reporting Form means, because understanding the information reported on the forms is crucial to understanding the origins of the animals entering Virginia Animal reporting agencies and their disposition. This is the link I use: https://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/forms-pdf/ais/admin…
I never discuss the VDACS Animal Reporting records without referencing Virginia Consolidated Animal Law, because understanding the state's legal guidelines is critical when trying to extrapolate information from them. This is the link I use: https://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusvast3_1_79… , although a PDF file can be obtained from http://www.virginia.gov .
To offer less information than these three links in tandem would be dishonest. It would mean that I have an agenda. It would mean that I was intentionally limiting the information so that I could exploit the public's inability to fully understand the information on the VDACS Animal Reporting records. Nathan Winograd makes a living limiting the information, the Center for Consumer Freedom makes a living limiting the information, and now you make a living from limiting the information.
When you only reference Nathan Winograd's referencing of the Center for Consumer Freedom's referencing of the VDACS Animal Reporting records, and exclude the explanation of the VDACS Animal Summary Report, and Virginia Consolidated Animal Law chapters, you can make pointed comparisons between PeTA's intake of animals and the number they euthanize that couldn't be made in the presence of the other references.
You may be satisfied with being "accurate" in your portrayal of PeTA, but I'd rather be truthful. I think it's important that the public understands that the VDACS records show that where such a determination can be made (the determination cannot be made when animals are received from outside of the state), that nearly all of PeTA's intake for euthanasia are owner surrenders. I think it's important that the public understands that the state of Virginia requires all people surrendering their animals to PeTA to sign a legal release stating that they have been made aware that PeTA may, by law, euthanize their animal at any time. I think it's important that the public understands that more and more people are turning to shelters to perform the service of humane medical euthanasia for ill and injured animals, and away from their veterinarians.That is why I choose NOT to limit the information in my discussions with people. I believe that in the interest of truth, it is important that people have access to as much information as possible. Apparently your mileage varies.
Mary, you keep saying "I think it's important that the public understands that the state of Virginia requires all people surrendering their animals to PeTA to sign a legal release stating that they have been made aware that PeTA may, by law, euthanize their animal at any time."
That doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove that the person surrendered the pet for euthanasia. Why? It doesn't say they "will" euthanize, it says they "may". There's a difference. Once a person surrenders an animal, it is up to the shelter to decide what to do with it. They can take the easy way out and kill it, or they can find it a home. One of my shelters has a release form saying the same thing. But guess what? They rarely euthanize an animal, because its not necessary!
Kayla, PeTA isn't a shelter and they don't want to be one. To compare PeTA to the shelters you work with is like comparing apples to oranges. That's just not what they are about. If they have an immediate home for an adoptable animal (most of the adoptable animals PeTA admits are adopted by PeTA staff), they will accept him or her, if they don't, they refer him or her to high-traffic shelters in the area. Otherwise, they limit their intake to animals requiring the service of medical euthanasia. That is certainly their prerogative.
PeTA is an animal rights organization. They are trying to get animals out of cages and change their status from one of property to one of being an individual with rights. It would be a huge conflict of interest for them to warehouse animals in cages indefinitely, and trade them like so much property. Other conflicts of interest would be having to stock foods and medicines that might have their origins in animal exploitation, or conversely, facing public outcry for their feeding animals a vegan diet. PeTA's running a shelter is rife with problems. Their offering the service of humane medical euthanasia to animals requiring it is completely in keeping with their mission, however. As much undeserved criticism as they receive for providing this service, I doubt they'll ever stop offering it to animals who require it. I mean, what sort of animal advocacy would they be if they turned their back on animals in their most dire time of need?
I get your skepticism, because there's a lot of disinformation out there about PeTA. But when you look at the facts, 1) PeTA doesn't run a shelter, 2) It's a well established fact that PeTA euthanizes the majority of the animals it receives, 3) Owners must sign a release stating that PeTA may by law immediately euthanize their animal, 4) That nearly all of PeTA's intake is owner-surrenders, it just doesn't add up that PeTA is duping people into surrendering healthy animals so that they can euthanize them in some sinister plot. There is absolutely zero evidence that PeTA is misrepresenting what they do to the public. Zero.
Well, a link you so kindly provided says this: "Humane societies, animal shelters, rescue organizations, and related organizations that receive animals for sheltering and/or adoption are also required to complete this form." Why would PeTA be required to complete this form if it were not taking in animals for sheltering and adoption? Because a "euthanasia clinic" wouldn't be required to. And if that is what they were… why don't they advertise that to the public?
This, as you said, explains a lot: "Other conflicts of interest would be having to stock foods and medicines that might have their origins in animal exploitation, or conversely, facing public outcry for their feeding animals a vegan diet." So of course killing as many pets as possible is in line with their mission… their mission to eradicate pets all together! This is obvious because they don't want to feed animal products to pets, which is natural. And they don't believe animals should be in houses, but they want to get rid of feral cats that are "free". See the hypocrisy? Their intentions are obvious to me.
Kayla, I'm only going to entertain your misguided "PeTA has a mission to eradicate pets!" notions so far, because I think they're ludicrous. I see PeTA's mission as elevating the status of animals to be something more that "pets," (or food, clothing, biomedical equipment, and entertainment). I see PeTA's mission as giving animals rights as individuals, as changing our relationship with animals to one where animals are individuals with rights, and people are their guardians, rather than their "owners."
As for your question regarding Virginia Consolidated Dog Law, the answer is in your query.
You've misread the provision.
"Humane societies, animal shelters, rescue organizations, and related organizations that receive animals for sheltering and/or adoption are also required to complete this form."
The "–and related organizations that receive animals for sheltering and/or adoption are also required to complete this form" part is a category in and of itself, describing organizations that are related to, but are not humane societies, animal shelters, or rescue organizations. Laws are written that way to close legal loopholes. There is no "euthanasia clinic" category, but if the category should ever exist in the future, I imagine they wouldn't object to being categorized that way.
PeTA is listed as a "humane Society" and has been listed as such for every single reporting year. While there is nothing prohibiting a humane society from also engaging in animal sheltering, and vice versa, the terms are not mutually exclusive.
As to your "why doesn't PeTA advertise that this is what they do to the public?" question, PeTA discusses their euthanasia practices in major news outlets and national publications like the Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03… , and USA Today https://yourlife.usatoday.com/parenting-family/pet… . And many, many others. I just don't see where you're getting you notions that PeTA is hiding what they do. Call PeTA yourself and ask them about their euthanasia services. They will tell you that they are not a shelter. They will also ask you if you are looking to rehome your animal companion, and if so, they will refer you to area shelters who are accepting owner-surrenders. If you are seeking medical euthanasia, they will provide you with the information you need. How do I know? Because I never take anyone's word for anything. I called PeTA myself. I call and write animal reporting agencies all across the country nearly every day–sometimes as many as a dozen in a day. A LOT of people do take the word of others, and unwittingly end up disparaging organization that do a lot of good work for animals. That's just not me.
You clearly did not read what you quoted. I will paste it again.
"–and related organizations that receive animals for sheltering and/or adoption are also required to complete this form"
Did you read that? Did you? It doesn't matter what they call themselves. If they receive animals for SHELTERING and/or ADOPTION, then they have to be included. Taking in animals solely for euthanasia does not count.
PeTA can try to justify their killing all they want, but that doesn't mean it's right. How can you say PeTA believes cats and dogs should have individual rights, when Ingrid herself doesn't believe in the right to life for them? Without that, nothing else matters. So my notion still stands.
And if PeTA has euthanized over 27,000 animals for owners, why hasn't one of these many owners come to back them up? I had lived in Hampton Roads for over 10 years and haven't heard of one person taking advantage of these services.
Kayla, again, you are misreading the statute. The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Community Services defines humane societies this way:
"'Humane society' means any chartered, nonprofit organization incorporated under the laws of this Commonwealth and organized for the purpose of preventing cruelty to animals and promoting humane care and treatment of animals."
They define "shelters" differently.
According to VDACS records, PeTA is registered with the state as a humane society. As I have said, an animal releasing agency may be one, the other, or both, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
IF the statute read: "Humane societies, animal shelters, rescue organizations, and "all other" related organizations that receive animals for sheltering and/or adoption are also required to complete this form," then I would say you have a case, but considering that Virginia makes a legal distinction between humane societies and shelters, you simply don't. You're obviously reaching to make the nonexistent connection that PeTA is a shelter, but you cannot get there from here.
You can either persist in misinterpreting the statute, or you can do as I suggest: Call PeTA on Monday, and ask them for yourself. They don't bite.
Well it has already been proven that animals have been given to PeTA under the impression that they would be put up for adoption, not killed. We have sworn evidence from vets, rescue workers, and even PeTA workers, that some of these animals given to them were "perfect", "healthy" and "adorable". So your idea that people only surrender their pets to PeTA for euthanasia is demonstrably untrue. No matter what PeTA calls themselves, it's a fact that they kill healthy animals and that's just plain wrong and no where near "humane" to me. And calling them would not do a thing… they will obviously be biased.
I'm done here.
Kayla, there's certainly bias here, but it's coming from you, not PeTA. If you want to discuss the Hinkle and Cook trial, fine. Let's do it, but let's do it truthfully, okay?
The limited admission shelter movement has used that same story for years, trying to hedge their bet. It's idiotic, if you really think about it, and here's why:
1) You're referring to testimony in a trial in which PeTA was not a defendant, I mean, if we're being truthful.
2) Sworn testimony is considered to be evidentiary, but is not considered to be proof. In fact, the very testimony to which you refer was considered insufficient to prove that Hinkle and Cook had unlawfully obtained the animals they euthanized, and those charges were dropped because of it. If that testimony proved anything, it proved that Hinkle and Cook were doing just what they said they were doing: euthanizing animals who were slated to be shoved into a crowded, windowless gas chamber to be euthanized or tied to a post and shot, using humane lethal injection instead. What happened in North Carolina in 2005 was never about whether the animals were "adoptable." What it WAS about was the inhumanity of gas chamber and firearm euthanasia, and doing what was right by those animals. I mean, if we're being truthful.
3) The Hinkle and Cook trial is not a blank check that the limited-admission shelter movement can use to indict PeTA on charges that they are duping the public at large into surrendering animals. There is no evidence that PeTA is obtaining animals unlawfully, despite your regurgitation of this same, tired disinformation, I mean, if we're being truthful.
If we're being truthful, the VDACS records don't back up your charges. If we're being truthful, the fact that PeTA discusses their euthanasia practices publicly, doesn't back up your charges. If we're being truthful, the "proof" you refer to doesn't even back up your charges. You're right though, you're done here alright. you were done before you even began.
How does the expression go? "You cannot wake someone who is only pretending to be asleep." Sorry to have disturbed your sleep, Kayla.
Cooper, do you spend hours futilely searching for some dirt on PETA and the HSUS that doesn't come from Berman, or have you decided that the source, even one that no self-respecting journalist will use, just doesn't matter. Good luck with that. Sources do matter.
Beef Magazine is a godsend to you, Cooper. That one, Silobreaker and the fur industry blogs are promoting the hell out of your writing. Infamy awaits, Cooper.
As a matter of fact he spends HOURS on his FB page begging for people to " find him anything not related to CCF." Guess there just isn't that much legitimate stuff our there. I am sure that Mr. Cooper feels right at home with the bottome feeders, he certainly has no interest in animal welfare. I love when they " break news" that HSUS doesn't do hands on animal work, and Mr. Winograd does what?
Lilly? (HonestyHelps?) I have immensely knowledgeable Facebook friends, who know people with personal experience that doesn't appear online. I canvas them, as well as lots of other people. It's called "research."
Do some.
I mean, real research (as opposed to hovering over my facebook page like a vulture — how much time do you spend there?)
LOL. Thanks Lilly. I knew it. The desperation is apparent.
I spend more than hours, and it's not futile. When I encounter a Berman quote, I go to the source to be sure it's correct. Sorry, but this is the worst kind of ad hominem reasoning: because a Berman site *repeats* information, doesn't mean that the information is incorrect. It just doesn't. Note how Mary Tully was so resistant to the notion of going to the Virginia Department of Agriculture's database. She WANTED these numbers to come from PetaKillsAnimals, so that she could say: Oh, that's Berman; they're forged documents. (Which she did in fact say.)
The truth is this: you rarely find a significant critique of PETA or the HSUS that doesn't get picked up by a Berman site. That's their job: to hunt these down. So that means you or Mary will always be able to dismiss the truth as a Berman lie. Yes, it makes my job harder, because it gives you excuses to sneer at demonstrable facts.
Do what I do: go to the source. And if you find the sources disagree with Berman, let's talk.
Just like we might sneer at the Berman "truth" that the science isn't in on the dangers of mercury in fish, and eating fish and seafood is great for fetuses. We might also sneer at the "truth" that high fructose corn syrup is a sugar just like any other little sugar, no harm no foul. How about the "truth" that trans fat fights cancer, Cooper? Shall I continue. Let me think of some more Berman "truths". There's that mean old CDC trying to overplay the dangers of mad cow disease, the dangers of drunk driving are overplayed and then let's give Berman a big hand for telling Americans that they're not to fat and that fast food won't make them fat,
Cooper, you and Winograd use a discredited and infamous source for your attacks on PETA and the HSUS. Berman used the VDACS data to damage PETA . PETA was listed on a form that the state of VA uses to track euthanasia rates in shelters. PETA doesn't operate a shelter. PETA is not a sheltering organization. PETA provides euthanasia services to poor families in and around the Norfolk/Hampton Roads areas who cannot afford to take their sick and dying animals to a vet and pay for an exam, the euthanasia and the disposal. You've been told this before, Cooper but you and Winograd cynically and knowingly repeat it in order to damage PETA. That makes you know better than Berman who was disowned by his own son. Perhaps those dogs you bought from a breeder will take a cue from Berman's son.
Go. To. The. Source.
I urge you to do your own research into the No Kill approach. I think that you will find that it is a very common-sense approach, and will be surprised and angry that your local shelter is not doing these things already.
The No Kill Equation is the only method that has successfully taken communities to No Kill: https://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/shelter-refor…
It has been successfully implemented in over 50 communities and counting. Yours could be next: http://www.no-killnews.com
Take a look at model No Kill legislation, and learn how you can work to pass it in your community: http://www.rescue50.org
Valerie, no one's saying that shelters that stagger their admissions–or outright limit them–can't manipulate their intake so that they can focus their resources on finding homes and rescues for adoptable animals. No one's saying that comprehensive spay and neuter programs (PeTA has spayed and neutered over 80,000 animals to date, including feral cats), shelter reform, and promoting adoption over buying aren't all very important aspects of ending the companion animal overpopulation crisis. I think what we're saying is that ignoring that there IS a companion animal overpopulation crisis does a grave disservice to 6,000,000-8,000,000 animals who enter shelters, and to the 35,000,000 or more who live on American Streets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjHIwoblf2c
Let's put the pin in the ":No-Kill Equation" until it's been modified to bring ALL homeless animals into the discussion.
Valerie, They why block those who come onto your site and question your statistics? Research should allow one to discover, question and discuss.
With all due respect, Susan: when was the last time you discovered, questioned or discussed anything? Seriously. This constant stream of propaganda: do you even *care* about the truth?
I genuinely wonder whether you are even capable of changing your mind.
Douglas I question the motives, agenda and legitimacy of "movements" that rely on Berman almost exclusively as the basis for attacks on other groups. A movement built upon lies, misdirection and smoke and mirrors will not last. For a good idea of where Winograd's movement is headed take a page from history study Lee Atwater, the Arkansas Project, the 10 year neo-con war on the Clintons.
Having a NK revolution aided and supported by breeders would be as if Robespierre filled the ranks of the Jacobins with members of the court of Louis XVI.
I recognize that those with a vested interest in damaging PETA, the HSUS and our shelters are the same interests who caused the problem of unwanted animals overwhelming our shelters. And no, I won't be changing my mind about that.
Susan, I'm going to post this, and then I'm out of here. But I mean this quite sincerely: what if you're wrong?
What if this isn't really a conspiracy? What if there's nothing remotely hidden about No Kill? What if it doesn't involve Berman, and breeders, and all those things?
What if it really is about what Nathan says it's about: the burning desire to save shelter animals from being killed unnecessarily.
I'm quite serious about this: try it as a thought experiment. What if all of your complex theories are just wrong? And there's nothing hidden about this: nothing whatsoever? No nefarious motives. No ugly hidden actors manipulating things from behind the scenes. Just a group of people genuinely concerned with saving animals.
Now here's the thing. I swear upon everything I hold holy that this is the case. I swear it. And I know Nathan well enough — I've grilled him about every aspect of No Kill — to be able to swear the same thing about him.
There's nothing hidden here. Nothing. What you see is what you get.
I don't expect you to believe this immediately, if ever. But you should really give it some thought. Because then you have to deal with this head on. You can't dismiss it by calling it something that it's not. If you still want to reject No Kill, then you have to reject precisely that: the No Kill program, precisely as it's presented.
Let me see if I can suspend my belief and accept that Winograd is simply a compassionate man. Hmmm…Thinking, thinking…I got it, Cooper!
I understand it now. Winograd is playing some type of advanced 3-D chess game that mere mortals can't understand. He’s luring in the breeders, the petpacs, the lobbyists and then he’s going to deliver the old one-two punch.
Let's see if I can figure out how bashing the HSUS, PETA, the ASPCA and municipal and county shelters while declaring that pet overpopulation is a myth, is an example of a man so compassionate and brilliant that he's got the backing of both the animal industries and some animal advocates. Winograd's got the animal interests promoting and blogging for him. He bashes the HSUS, PETA and the ASPCA, the organizations large and effective enough to be of concern to those same animal interests. Winograd uses the dark PR attack campaign that the animal industries use. He uses Richard Berman as a source. Berman's been at it the longest. Berman went after PETA on behalf of the tobacco industry who were using live animals in cruel research, which PETA exposed and was able to shut down.
Our pedestrian brains cannot fathom Winograd's moves. He's not only 2 or three steps ahead of us he's whole chess games ahead of us. We ask, why would a man who claims to be for sheltered animals be attacking those organizations that started the animal adoption movement? The organizations that reduced the number of animals dying in our shelter from the tens of millions in the 1960's and 1970's to what it is today. This was a time when almost every animal taken in by animal control was put down as a matter of course and no one considered the idea that these animals would make a good addition to someone's family. HSUS, PETA and the ASPCA were the groups who went in and set up adoption programs, adoption hours, cleaned and painted the shelters and began adoption campaigns which forever changed the way the American public viewed animal shelters and more importantly, sheltered animals. Winograd is always two or three steps ahead of the spectators and amazes them with a chess move as stunning as the Panov-Botvinnik Attack. Winograd attacks your local shelters. Those overwhelmed and underfunded county and municipal shelters who most often depend upon volunteers and donations of food and bedding to stay afloat. Wow! What a strategic move, Winograd! Somehow in Winograd’s brilliant mind, attacking the staff and volunteers who on a daily basis perform miracles to save the lives of the animals who arrive at their always open doors, damaging the reputation of those shelters and hence, the reputation of sheltered animals is part of a greater plan. I being an ordinary human with ordinary intellectual capabilities can’t conceptualize Winograd’s strategy here. While it may look like Winograd is pandering to the breeders who view sheltered animals as competition and who are offended by the adopt don’t shop slogan, don’t be deceived. Winograd is actually killing the breeders with kindness. By damaging the reputation of shelters and sheltered animals, Winograd’s blindingly brilliant strategy will bring the puppy mills and brokers to their knees. That I can’t see how this strategy works is my failing not Winograd’s, I’m sure.
Whoo boy, Cooper. That was hard. I understand it, now….I think.
Very well spoken Susan, The more I read the more I see how Mr. Cooper has been duped. He may become vicious under tihe influence of duping, but duped nonetheless. Time will heal that, and his efforts may even move toward helping the shelters vs hurting the very places that deal with the incoming masses everyday.
Animal welfare is not so easy as it looks from behind a keyboard..
Comments are closed.