Episodes
-
Listen above to an audio version of Why PETA Kills, my book, which tells the story of Maya and those of over 30,000 other animals PETA has put to death.
On October 18, you can also download the e-book from Amazon for free. (Ignore Kindle Unlimited and click below where it says “$0.00 to buy.”)
On October 18, 2014, two PETA representatives backed their van up to a home in Parksley, VA, and threw biscuits to Maya, who was sitting on her porch. They hoped to coax her off her property and allow PETA to claim she was a stray dog “at large” whom they could legally impound.
Maya refused to stay off the property and, after grabbing the biscuit, ran back to the safety of her porch. One of the PETA representatives went onto the property and took Maya. Within hours, Maya was dead, illegally killed with a lethal dose of poison.
A PETA spokesperson claimed Maya was killed by “mistake,” and defying credulity, explained that the same PETA representative who had earlier sat on the porch with Maya’s family talking to them about her care and who was filmed taking Maya from that same porch mistook her for a different dog. The “apology” was not only a devastating admission of guilt but evidence that killing healthy animals was business as usual for PETA employees — so commonplace that the only excuse PETA could offer for Maya’s death was that in taking her life, a PETA representative had mistaken her for another healthy animal they had decided to kill. Was it likewise a “mistake” that five other animals ended up dead from the same trailer park and on the same day, too?
Though PETA claimed to be “devastated” by Maya’s death, the claim was contradicted by the facts and, given its timing, motivated not by honesty, transparency, or genuine contrition but by political necessity as the Virginia Department of Agriculture had opened an investigation into Maya’s killing and Virginia’s governor was weighing whether to sign into law a bill overwhelmingly passed by the legislature aimed at protecting animals from PETA.
As public outrage over PETA’s killing of Maya spread, a former PETA employee came forward, shedding even more light on how disingenuous PETA’s claim of being devastated at the killing of Maya was. Explaining that killing healthy animals at PETA was not an anomaly but “standard operating procedure,” Heather Harper-Troje, a one-time PETA field worker, publicly uncovered the inner workings at PETA as no former employee ever had. “I know from firsthand experience that the PETA leadership has no problem lying,” she wrote. “I was told regularly to say whatever I had to say in order to get people to surrender animals to me, lying was not only acceptable, it was encouraged.” The purpose of acquiring these animals, according to Harper-Troje, was “to euthanize the[m] immediately.”
Maya’s family would ultimately sue PETA, alleging conversion of their dog (theft), trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. PETA, in turn, asked the court to throw out the lawsuit based on several questionable claims.
First, PETA argued that Maya was legally worthless because she was not licensed, citing an 1887 law that required a dog “to be properly licensed as a condition of being deemed personal property.” Putting aside the irony of a supposed “animal rights” group arguing that Maya had no value, the statute they cited was repealed in 1966. It had not been the law in half a century.
Alternatively, PETA argued that Maya had no value beyond the replacement cost for another dog. In other words, PETA’s position was that Maya was like a toaster. If you break it, you throw it away and get a new one.
Third, PETA argued that they had permission to enter the trailer park from its owner to remove community cats, so they cannot be guilty of trespassing for entering a private residence in that trailer park to kill a family’s dog.
Fourth, PETA argued that the theft and killing of Maya was not “outrageous,” a prerequisite to the awarding of punitive damages.
Finally, in an argument reeking with racist overtones, PETA demanded to know if Maya’s family was legally in the U.S.
After arguing and losing most of the pre-trial motions — including rulings that the family’s immigration status was not relevant to the theft and killing of their dog and that such conduct was, indeed, “outrageous” — as well as facing the specter of being forced to turn over records and testify under oath about PETA’s inner workings, and perhaps trying to put the publicity behind their killing of Maya behind them, PETA settled the case, paying Maya’s family $49,000.
But the condemnation only grew following a series of articles I wrote about Maya’s killing, which ultimately led to the publication of Why PETA Kills, my book. Why PETA Kills tells Maya’s story and that of over 30,000 others who have also died at their hands, a number that continues to increase by the thousands every year. In 2022, for example, PETA put to death 1,374 out of 1,737 cats. Another 347 went to pounds that also kill animals. Historically, many of the kittens and cats PETA has taken to those pounds have been killed, often within minutes, despite being young (as young as six weeks old) and healthy.
Not only do those records prove the lie that all of the animals PETA rounds up to kill are “suffering,” but if those cats and kittens were killed or displaced others who were killed, that puts the overall cat death rate as high as 99%. They only adopted out 15 cats, an adoption rate of ½ of 1% despite millions of “animal loving” supporters, a staff of hundreds, and revenues in excess of $72 million.
While dogs fared a little better, 718 out of 1,041 were killed. Roughly 4% were adopted out. And PETA staff also killed almost 80% of other animal companions: 30 out of 38.
To date, PETA has killed 46,364 dogs and cats and sent thousands more to be killed at local pounds, that we know of. The number may be many times higher. According to Harper-Troje,
I was told regularly to not enter animals into the log, or to euthanize off-site in order to prevent animals from even entering the building. I was told regularly to greatly overestimate the weight of animals whose euthanasia we recorded, in order to account for what would have otherwise been missing ‘blue juice’ (the chemical used to euthanize); because that allowed us to euthanize animals off the books.
Following the release of Why PETA Kills, PETA filed a run-of-the-mill defamation lawsuit targeting The No Kill Advocacy Center (NKAC), my organization, and me in an attempt to intimidate me and others into silence. But they didn’t sue me directly, as they knew it would ultimately fail: truth, after all, is a defense to defamation. More importantly, they feared doing so as suing me would be dangerous for PETA. Not only would it allow me to force the deposition (e.g., testimony under penalty of perjury) of Ingrid Newkirk, the architect of PETA’s killing, as well as others at PETA who do the actual killing, but it would allow me to seek documents from PETA that would augment what public records and the PETA employees I spoke with already revealed: that PETA intentionally seeks out animals to kill and that the majority of those animals are healthy and adoptable. Absent a court case, as a private organization, PETA is not required to release that information under state freedom of information laws and has ignored my requests to do so.
Instead, PETA named me as a “co-conspirator” but not as a defendant in the complaint, a procedural gimmick that gave PETA the ability to issue a subpoena to (try to) seek the names of PETA employees who, fearing retribution, spoke to me on condition of anonymity; information that was used to corroborate newspaper articles, on the record sources, government documents, testimony and information from civil and criminal cases against PETA, videotape evidence, and admissions of killing by PETA officials. At the same time, that procedural ploy would prevent me from demanding documents and depositions of PETA leadership and staff in return.
But PETA’s legal tactic failed to take into account two important factors. First, I would never reveal my confidential informants. Second, I did not have to legally do so, given my First Amendment rights as a journalist. In an attempt to force me to, however, PETA filed a motion in court to compel the disclosure of the names, claiming that as an animal advocate, I was not entitled to the protection of the First Amendment, a point of view they hypocritically reject for themselves and which, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the organization founded to protect the rights of journalists by legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee of Pentagon Papers fame, called “alarming.”
In assisting me with my legal defense, the Reporters Committee noted,
We’re concerned about the legal efforts to require Nathan Winograd to reveal the confidential sources for his reporting on PETA’s practices. Both the First Amendment and California’s constitution protect those who engage in journalistic activity… and any efforts to limit these protections should be alarming for all newsgatherers.
Threatened with a fine and jail time if I refused to reveal my sources, my lawyer argued that California Courts have consistently ruled that the First Amendment protects “investigative reporting.” And investigative reporting includes “authors such as Lincoln Steffens and Upton Sinclair [who] exposed widespread corruption and abuse in American life. More recently, social critics such as Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Jessica Mitford, and others have written books that have made significant contributions to the public discourse on major issues confronting the American people.”
As my attorney argued,
Every crusading journalist in that pantheon of heroes cited by the court would have flunked PETA’s putative ‘journalism’ test, for their journalism was inseparable from their advocacy. Indeed, Sinclair and Nader took their advocacy onto the campaign trail and sought public office. Winograd and NKAC’s intertwined investigative and advocacy work are no different from that done by Nader and his nonprofit Public Citizen.
The court agreed. Despite PETA hiring one of the most expensive law firms in the world, the Court denied PETA’s motion, not only providing me and, more importantly, the animals an important victory but breaking new ground by extending First Amendment protections to new/non-traditional media.
Following that ruling, another whistleblower from inside PETA openly came forward and confirmed what my sources had revealed: that PETA staff lie to people to acquire their animals to kill, kill despite adoption alternatives, and indoctrinate people to kill in a cult-like atmosphere she described as “terrifying.”
[A]s most new PETA employees are blooming animal rights activists, freshly plucked from college and determined to do whatever it takes to succeed in this demanding, low-paying activist world, PETA’s methodology of indoctrination is quite successful. These employees soak it all in like a sponge, as I did at the age of 21 when I started there, and begin to spout the organization’s soundbites at every turn. They will start to do so so naturally that they can’t see where they themselves end and the organization begins.
“Ultimately,” wrote Laura Lee Cascada, a PETA field worker whose job included rounding up animals to kill, “the culture was terrifying and desensitizing — and I gradually felt that my view of death, of taking animals’ lives, was being warped, my emotions being stripped away.”
Like Heather Harper-Troje before her, Cascada’s chilling account described the method whereby employees are intimidated and emotionally manipulated into participating in the killing of animals, an act that came to be euphemistically called to “take care of” an animal (the words “killing” and even “euthanasia” are not used). Employees “were forced to participate in euthanasias they didn’t believe in” or “were fired because they refused to do so.”
[I]f an employee, like many animal rights advocates who believe in the rights and autonomy of each individual animal, wanted to critically assess whether a euthanasia decision was truly the best thing for an individual animal in his or her unique circumstances, there was a real, true fear of being branded as an advocate for hoarding or a secret supporter of the enemy. Thus, speaking up could have meant being booted from the tribe.
Cascada also described numerous examples of healthy animals who were killed for the “good of all animals”:
I rescued and cared for a pair of birds from a cruelty case for weeks, bonding with and growing to love them. When the decision was made to euthanize the boy because of a debilitating medical condition, the girl was also euthanized because it was thought that she would be lonely without him. She was one of those lumped into the ‘unadoptable’ category PETA brushes past as it explains its euthanasia statistics each year. I was expected and required to swallow my emotions for her for the good of all animals. I was expected to welcome her death as a positive outcome in order to maintain my employment.
Another time, I rescued an unloved dog whose body condition and personality were unremarkable, meaning there was no immediate indication for euthanasia. I quickly heard from my mom that she’d be interested in adopting him. I excitedly emailed the manager of the shelter to make this offer but never received a reply. A few days later, I checked in with her and was told that he had already been killed.
She recounted being told to lie to people to acquire animals to kill and getting chastised for trying to find them homes. For example, Cascada wrote that she,
[R]esponded to a call from a concerned woman who’d found an abandoned days-old kitten under her porch. When I came to pick up the kitten, I had her sign a generic give-up form that spelled out that euthanasia was a possibility. But I was instructed to repeatedly convey that we would do our absolute best, and so that’s what I said, even as the woman described her careful search for an organization she knew would work around the clock to help this tiny being pull through. It was my job to make sure I did not leave without that cat — that I said whatever necessary for the woman not to change her mind.
The entire way back to PETA’s Norfolk, Virginia, headquarters, I sobbed, petting the infant cat in my lap, telling her things would all be OK, even though in my gut I knew it wouldn’t, that she never really had a chance. I even began plotting out how I might take a detour and deliver her to a rehabber instead. But how could I explain a missing kitten to the woman waiting with the needle? I couldn’t, so I complied without a word.
As a result of coming forward, she reported that she was,
[C]ontacted by individuals from all over the country expressing their gratitude, and their own fear, about speaking out about their experiences. People who worked at PETA and were forced to lie about euthanasias, people who were forced to euthanize animals they loved as a condition of their employment, and people who were told by leadership that they were worthless. There are dozens, and maybe hundreds, of us. Most are still afraid to break their silence.
PETA’s lawsuit would ultimately collapse, but four important things came out of my victory against them. First, as noted above, it extended First Amendment protections for investigative journalism to new media for the first time.
Second, it demonstrated that PETA may have deep pockets and has no qualms about misusing the court system in an attempt to intimidate people into silence, but their strategy will always be limited by the fact that depositions and the witness stand could compel employees, including Newkirk, to testify under penalty of perjury. Consistent with the overwhelming evidence already available, such testimony would be damning, and PETA knows it. If people stand up to PETA’s donor-funded intimidation tactics rather than cower to them, PETA will invariably back down.
Third, their empty saber rattling may have led to another whistleblower openly coming forward.
Fourth and finally, it led me to Ralph.
As fate would have it, on the way to court in the case, my wife and I came upon a little dog who had been hit by a car, bleeding in the gutter. Wrapping him in a coat, we rushed him to the nearest emergency veterinary hospital, where he was given the care he needed, including pain medication.
After recovering from his injuries at our house, we found him a loving, new home consistent with our belief in the ethical treatment of animals. Were it not for PETA’s meritless lawsuit, we would never have found him.
For obvious reasons, I am grateful that it was us and not PETA representatives who saw him on the way to the courthouse. If PETA had gotten to him and history is any guide, Ralph would no longer be alive, put to death with a lethal dose of poison.
Because despite all we may still not know about PETA, this much is certain: PETA is letting loose upon the world individuals who not only believe that killing is a good thing and that the living want to die but who are legally armed with lethal drugs that they have already proven — over 46,000 times — that they are not averse to using.
To receive future articles and support my fight for the animals, please subscribe.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.org
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues.
There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.
Australian doctors and scholars are calling on the government to cover some veterinary medicine expenses through its Medicare system. “Unlike in human medicine, where Australians have access to highly subsidized care through Medicare, costs of veterinary interventions are largely borne by animal owners,” and therefore sometimes go untreated.
The authors limited their recommendation to zoonotic diseases (diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans), noting that Medicare should cover the costs “when ruling out a zoonotic disease or performing culture and sensitivity tests to inform antibiotic prescription in an animal patient… due to the implications for human health.”
It’s a start. But it does not go far enough. As philosopher David Pearce writes,
Over the last century, a welfare state for humans was introduced in Western European societies so that the most vulnerable members of our own species wouldn’t suffer avoidable hardship. The problem is not just that existing welfare provision is inadequate: it’s also arbitrarily species-specific. In common with the plight of vulnerable humans before its introduction, the welfare of vulnerable non-human animals depends mostly on private charity. No universal guarantees of non-human well-being exist.
They should, not only because universal veterinary care will improve human health but because the animals deserve it, and it is within our power to provide. Moreover, "The majority of American dog owners today cannot afford emergency vet care,” and even routine or non-emergency veterinary costs are difficult for people.
For the first time, the U.S. Census’ biennial American Housing Survey looked at how many households have pets. The answer: more than half of all households had at least one pet, and many had two or more.
Of 129,500,000 households in the U.S., 63,775,000 had animals, and 62,029,000 did not. The others were unknown. The dog was the most popular pet in America, and the cat was a distant second. Specifically, 48,963,000 had at least one dog, and 28,187,000 households had at least one cat.
Since many households rent and some of those do not allow pets, I would not be surprised if some were not honest with surveyors. As such, the numbers may reflect an undercounting of the actual number of households with pets.
Of note, cities with the largest number of single-family homes reported the largest number of dogs. Consequently, cities like New York, with a high apartment rate, reported fewer dogs. Cats were not affected by housing type, but they were affected by housing discrimination.
Eliminating housing discrimination for people whose families include a dog, cat, or another animal companion would decrease shelter intakes by about 20% and allow an additional 8.75 million animals to find new homes, roughly eight years worth of killing in U.S. pounds. Currently, one in four renters lost their homes because of a restriction on pet housing.
The No Kill Advocacy Center has long called for a ban on housing discrimination by extending existing federal law prohibiting housing discrimination for families with children. It also has written model legislation to do so, a guide to get it introduced, and NKAC attorneys stand ready to help.
A new study has found that over 100 species of animals we thought were silent talk to one another, including over 50 species of turtles. The turtles “had a varying range of acoustic capabilities, from chirps and clicks to more advanced, complex sounds of different tones.” Study authors said they would not be surprised to eventually discover that they all talk. The problem wasn’t that they weren’t talking; the problem was that we were ignoring them.
-
Episodes manquant?
-
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.org
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues.
For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 20:21 mark.
There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.
As reported last week, PETA called on Killeen, TX, pound staff to continue killing animals rather than embrace readily-available, cost-effective alternatives to that killing.
This week, Manteca, CA, shelter staff is using PETA to defend killing in their facility after “Manteca Mayor Ben Cantu has come out strongly in favor of the city pursuing a no-kill shelter for the municipal facility.”
Despite PETA opposition, the Mayor is undeterred. “Cantu vowed to push for solutions that will work toward eliminating ‘the short time frame to death’ for a number of animals that are taken in at the city’s shelter.” The No Kill Advocacy Center has reached out to Mayor Cantu offering those solutions.
PETA’s position should surprise no one. This week was also the anniversary of PETA’s theft and killing of Maya. On October 18, 2014, two PETA representatives backed their van up to a home in Parksley, VA, and threw biscuits to Maya, who was sitting on her porch. They were hoping to coax her off her property and give PETA the ability to claim she was a stray dog “at large” whom they could legally impound.
Maya refused to stay off the property and, after grabbing the biscuit, ran back to the safety of her porch. One of the PETA representatives went onto the property and took Maya. Within hours, Maya was dead, illegally killed with a lethal dose of poison.
Maya’s family would ultimately sue PETA, alleging theft, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. PETA, in turn, asked the court to throw out the lawsuit based on several questionable claims, including their argument that Maya was legally worthless because she was just a dog. But after losing that and other similar claims, PETA paid Maya’s family $49,000.
A series of articles I wrote about Maya’s killing ultimately led to the publication of “Why PETA Kills,” my book. “Why PETA Kills” tells Maya’s story and tens of thousands of others who have died at their hands, which continues to increase by the thousands yearly. It would also lead PETA to sue me (spoiler: I won!).
Why PETA Kills is available on Amazon, but subscribers can also listen to a free audio version of the book.
-
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.org
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues.
There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.
A majority of domestic violence victims report that their companion animals are also being abused or threatened with abuse. Not surprisingly, 97% of domestic violence victims — almost all of them — reported that keeping their pets with them is an important factor in deciding whether or not to seek shelter. Of those, half said they would definitely “not consider shelter for themselves if they could not take their pets with them.” Yet, less than 10% of domestic violence shelters allow pets. This keeps women and animals in harm's way.
Thankfully, a new effort is underway that promises to make 25% of all domestic violence shelters pet-friendly by 2025. Of course, that’s not nearly enough as they should all be pet-friendly. It will, however, be a marked improvement over where things stand today.
As reported earlier, more than 30 dogs were killed by the McDuffie County, GA, Animal Shelter, even though they had rescue commitments. In addition to killing those healthy dogs, witnesses accused county pound staff of:
* Placing animals “in body bags before they even stopped breathing”;
* “Choking animals with leashes or kicking or stomping on them to get them under control, particularly if they struggled while being euthanized”;
* “Slam[ming] their heads on the concrete”;
* “Removing collars from dogs, though those collars suggested the animals had homes” to kill them;
* Killing animals before their holding period expired and then lying on the paperwork in the event people come looking for their lost pets; and,
* “Improper euthanasia procedures,” including heart sticking without sedation and on fully conscious animals.
The pound is currently closed while officials investigate. In the interim, McDuffie County officials have recently issued a statement noting that staff is “no longer associated with the animal shelter in any shape, form, or fashion.” They also indicated that they would reopen the shelter with “more internal transparency, community engagement through events, and even reducing their euthanizations” by embracing No Kill programs.
The No Kill Advocacy Center has reached out in order to offer assistance.
In “PETA official says no-kill shelters not answer to animal homelessness,” an OpEd published in a Killeen, TX, newspaper, PETA claims that Killeen’s animal shelter faces two extreme choices: kill healthy and treatable animals — which is what PETA prefers — or keep them in kennels and cages for months.
If those were the only two options, the kennel would still be the more ethical approach. It is better to spend a couple of months or more in a kennel (that includes being walked and socialized) before adoption, instead of being injected with an overdose of poison out of convenience. But there is also a third option: the shelter can embrace the No Kill Equation; a series of programs and services that include foster care, marketing and promotion, community cat sterilization, pet retention, volunteers, offsite adoptions, and robust adoption campaigns, including being open when people are off work and families are together, such as on weekends and evenings.
Communities across the country that embrace the No Kill Equation are placing 95% - 99% of animals entrusted to their care without turning animals away or warehousing animals. The average length of stay before adoption was only 14 days, about the amount of time a dog or cat would spend at a boarding facility during a family vacation.
By contrast, PETA kills roughly 90% of the animals it takes in, despite over $60 million in annual revenues and millions of animal-loving members it could adopt out animals to. So why should anyone listen to PETA on how to run a shelter when it is the functional equivalent of a slaughterhouse?
-
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.org
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues, including the appointment of a special envoy for animals at the State Department for the first time ever. According to the announcement, “Overfishing, pollution, pesticides, disease, urban sprawl and, of course, climate change contribute to declines in imperiled species’ populations worldwide.” The envoy’s job will be to help the U.S. and other countries address these threats to animals. Unfortunately, while the act of appointing a person tasked with representing the interests of animals is progress, we fear that the philosophical approach by which this particular envoy will approach this critical task is not. In fact, rather than looking to create a brighter future, the special envoy appears committed to defending an antiquated one that will exacerbate, rather than lessen, non-human suffering and death.
For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 18:25 mark.
There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.
California’s SB 879 banning “the testing of pesticides, chemical substances and other products on cats and dogs” was signed into law. As of January 1, toxicity testing for consumer and industrial goods on dogs and cats will be illegal. Although the legislative sponsor called these tests “barbaric,” the new law allows testing on other animals. It also “exempts medical and federally required testing from the ban.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate passed S.2952, the FDA Modernization Act. The bill removes the requirement that drugs “be tested on animals before they could be used on humans in clinical trials.” Instead, the bill “gives drug sponsors the option to use scientifically rigorous, proven non-animal test methods,” including cell-based assays, organ chips, computer models, and other non-animal or human biology-based test methods.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY), passed unanimously. It will (hopefully) be taken up and passed in the House of Representatives.
San Francisco is now home to the nation’s first restaurant for dogs. Dogue serves pastries, “dogguccinos,” and on Sundays, soup and “a $75, three-course tasting menu.” Patrons are encouraged to slurp up their soup from the bowl.
If your dog has a knack for being there in times of trouble, it is no accident. Studies have found that dogs can tell human moods by facial expressions and language. They are so good at this, they can figure out whether someone is happy or angry by just looking at the top half of someone’s face. But a new study finds that they do not even have to look at you to know something is wrong.
The study concluded that dogs could detect when people are upset by smell. Specifically, they detect changes in breath and body odor that results from the release of “Volatile Organic Compounds produced by humans in response to stress.”
-
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.org
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues, including why intakes are down, redemptions are steady, and adoptions are increasing at shelters that have implemented the No Kill Equation. The conclusion? Shelter killing is a choice. And yet, excuses for it are becoming increasingly absurd. For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 29:35 mark.
There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.
Rabbits with gouged eyes, guinea pigs with no food, hamsters in urine and feces-soaked cages: that is how small animals are kept at Los Angeles City Animal Services, according to a Los Angeles Times report.
Prior L.A. Times investigations have found that dogs spent weeks and sometimes months without getting out of their kennels for walks and that staff hit dogs.
Who gets punished? Not the staff who neglect and abuse the animals. Tragically, it is the animals and the volunteers who speak out in defense of them.
California’s AB 2380 banning the financing of dogs and cats purchased online was signed into law. The law will reduce the number of commercially-bred puppies and kittens entering California via online sales. In 2019, the state banned the retail sale of animals in pet stores. The next step is banning online sales of commercially-bred animals altogether.
Commercial breeders engage in systematic neglect and abuse of animals, leaving severe emotional and physical scars on the victims. One in four former breeding dogs have significant health problems, are more likely to suffer from aggression, and many are psychologically and emotionally shut down, compulsively staring at nothing.
A new report warns families “about an increase in the number of stolen pets.” Nationally, “Dog thefts are up 40% from last year.”
“French bulldogs are the number one breed targeted by thieves. That’s followed by Labrador retrievers and Yorkshire terriers.”
As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, the number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing.
* Ewing Township, NJ, reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 99% for cats, and 100% for other small animals.
* Somerset, NJ, reported a 98% placement rate for dogs, 97% for cats, and 100% for other small animals.
These communities and national data prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many, too few homes, or people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.
A new survey finds that:
* 76% of people with dogs allow them to sleep on the bed.
* Of those who don’t, 57% “still keep their pets close by, allowing them to sleep in the bedroom.”
* Single dog owners (80%) are “more likely to sleep with their dog” than married dog owners (73%).
About ⅓ of married couples disagree and fight about it.
“Pit bull owners urged a federal appeals court… to resurrect their suit claiming their constitutional rights are violated by an Iowa city’s ordinance banning possession of the dogs within the city.” The case is on appeal after a lower Federal Court dismissed their lawsuit “claiming the ordinance violated their constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. The dog owners questioned the city’s statistics and the validity of the city’s use of visual inspections to determine whether a dog is a pit bull.”
-
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.org
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues, including why temperament testing doesn’t work in shelters, why animals are set up to fail, why they get sick, and what science says shelters should be doing to keep dogs and cats happy and healthy. For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 26:30 mark.
There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed but want to hear what it is like. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.
Residents of Waycross, GA, are accusing the city’s animal control of mismanagement and dereliction of duty after they killed a mother dog and her four puppies, despite pleas from networkers and rescuers who wanted to save them.
According to reports, after killing the mother for snapping (but not making contact) when staff repeatedly prodded her with a pole:
Being a Friday afternoon and employees not wanting to bother with bottle feeding puppies, the puppies were also euthanized. This was a senseless tragedy created by unchecked and uncaring employees who couldn't be bothered with extra work or following protocols because they were just there to collect a paycheck.
Rescuers had asked city officials not to kill them and arranged to pick them up. Residents are also upset because of “screenshots of text messages” from staff that appeared to be “bragging and laughing about euthanizing animals after collecting a surrender fee.” One of the staff texted, “LOL” and told others that the job entailed “surrender fee and euthanasia.” Although it is no laughing matter and shows a lack of caring, fitness, maturity, and temperament for the job, the staff member subsequently claimed she was ‘joking around’ when she said, “stick em all with a needle.”
The city is investigating itself.
The next time someone says “we all want the same thing” and “no one wants to kill,” tell them about the five dogs killed in Waycross despite rescue groups ready, willing, and able to save them.
For those who live in Georgia and want to stop this: The No Kill Advocacy Center has a model rescue rights law that would make it illegal to kill animals when qualified rescue groups are willing to place them, a step-by-step guide to getting it introduced, and NKAC attorneys stand ready to help.
As previously reported, a recent study concluded that the breed of a dog tells us how the dog looks, not how they behave. Specifically, the study concluded that “for predicting some dog behaviors, breed is essentially useless, and for most, not very good.”
For example, study authors noted that the “defining criteria of a golden retriever are its physical characteristics — the shape of its ears, the color and quality of its fur, its size — not whether it is friendly.” Likewise, the findings “would seem to cast doubt on breed stereotypes of aggressive dogs, like pit bulls.”
Now, two studies tell us what shelters should do about it: remove “breed” labels on dogs. Not only does breed not tell us how dogs behave, but shelter workers often misidentify breeds – 50% of dogs labeled “pit bulls” lacked DNA breed signatures of breeds commonly classified as pit bulls. And when it comes to dogs identified as “pit bulls,” perception of breed negatively impacts length of stay and rates of adoption. Consequently, removing these labels allows these dogs to be adopted and adopted more quickly. It also results in a better fit between the family lifestyle and the behavior of the individual dog.
Austin, TX, closed its doors to further intakes, saying it is overcrowded despite intakes well below pre-pandemic levels. Austin has been removed from the Saving 95 website that tracks open admission shelters with placement rates between 95% - 100%.
Despite this, shelter leadership refuses to fully implement the 2010 No Kill Plan, including having offsite adoptions, a robust partnership with rescue groups, and being open fully on weekends when people are off work and children are out of school and able to visit and adopt. As a result, the Austin Animal Welfare Commission passed a vote of “No Confidence” in shelter leadership earlier this year. Among the findings, the Commission determined that leadership at Austin Animal Center fails:
* “To adequately manage or support lifesaving foster and volunteer programs and to engage the willing public to help”;
* “To provide adequate services to help reunite or assist taxpayers with lost or found animals”;
* “[T]o implement data-driven, best practices to alleviate the ongoing space crisis”;
* “[T]o tell the public about or market the ‘long stay’ dogs, despite lengths of stay in excess of one year”; and,
* “[T]o accept help from or collaborate with Austin animal stakeholders that could provide immediate, free help to solve the problems the shelter is facing.”
The Commission also found that shelter leadership alienates “partnership organizations, volunteers, and other stakeholders, which has contributed to shelter overcrowding and lack of volunteer support for shelter pet care and adoptions.”
Despite such failures, the shelter is one of the best-funded in the country, with a per capita spending rate of $12 per person. That’s over double the national average and 12 times the rate of how much taxpayers were spending when I achieved No Kill as a shelter director.
In other words, No Kill hasn’t failed in Austin. Austin pound leadership has made the deliberate choice to abandon it. Tragically, while No Kill in Austin deteriorates, Austin Pets Alive is seeking to import animals from other communities despite local animals being threatened and is telling shelters to close their doors to animals in need and leave dogs and cats on the streets, which is what Austin Animal Center is currently doing.
Austin’s demise should not be surprising. Austin Pets Alive’s Human Animal Support Services is a dangerous and growing trend that closes the door of the animal shelter to lost and abandoned animals. Under the APA policy, “Intakes of healthy strays and owner surrenders doesn’t exist anymore,” and there is “No kennel space for rehoming, stray hold or intake.” People who find animals are told to take them into their own homes until their families are located or leave them on the street. Because of HASS, animals are being turned away across the country, including motherless neonatal kittens. Some are being subsequently found dead.
Now Kristen Hassen, one of the chief architects of that policy and a shelter “consultant,” is making the claim that free-roaming dogs living in Mexico have better lives than American dogs living in homes: “As someone who has run shelters for nearly a decade, I truly believe our model is making dogs mentally and physically unwell.” Science contradicts her.
A literature review in Applied Animal Behaviour Science compared the life of the “typical village dog” with the “typical modern suburban or urban dog” to determine which leads to happier and healthier lives. The authors found that the life of village dogs is categorized by “lack of sufficient and adequate food, lack of veterinary care, and human hostility.” Puppy mortality is high (as much as 70%), life expectancy is low (3-4 years, on average), and female dogs face targeted killing (to prevent maternal aggression, mating, and the birth of even more pups).
By contrast,
[T]he typical modern suburban or urban companion dog experiences good welfare in a number of respects. This is especially the case when it comes to security, satisfaction of nutritional needs (though companion dogs have problems with a high prevalence of obesity), and proper veterinary care.
Their average lifespan is north of 10 years.
Of course, we can do more to make the lives of village dogs better, including veterinary care, food, and other protection. But these findings should put to bed, once and for all, any romanticization of village dog life.
Coming (again) soon!
No Kill Sheltering magazine was first published at the founding of The No Kill Advocacy Center almost two decades ago. At the time, No Kill Sheltering offered the only alternative to traditional sheltering practices that sacrificed the lives of animals to expediency, myths about the need to kill, and a failure to innovate.
It was discontinued as the number of voices championing the No Kill philosophy and the No Kill Equation multiplied. But given recent efforts to close shelter doors to animals in need and other threats to continued success, The No Kill Advocacy Center is resurrecting No Kill Sheltering. It is needed once again and will be available for all members and supporters.
As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace
-
This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.org
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues, including the emergence of Critical Race Theory in the humane movement and how it threatens to upend more than a century of progress in animal welfare and animal rights.
For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 21:05 mark.
Utah animal lovers announced planned protests against the use of the gas chamber at North Utah Valley Animal Shelter. The pound admitted that cats who hide in the corner of their cages are gassed to death, often on the same day they come in. The pound also gasses “very friendly” dogs despite rescue groups ready, willing, and able to place them.
There is no progressive sheltering agency of any scope or stature willing to philosophically embrace gas systems for the killing of animals. When the chamber is filled with gas, the animals inside gasp for breath, feel a searing pain in their lungs, and often claw at the chamber door or throw themselves against the sides in a desperate attempt to escape.
A bill to ban the gas chamber in Utah failed for the ninth year in a row because of opposition from regressive pound directors and their allies.
Similarly, in May of 2021, the Green River City Council in Wyoming was asked to vote on getting rid of the gas chamber to kill animals at its local pound. Not one city councilmember seconded the motion and it failed to pass. But after a series of public protests by local citizens, the Mayor directed staff to come up with a plan to replace gas killing. That was nine months ago and the city pound is still gassing animals.
The Chief of Police who oversees the pound says “the police department is in the process of working towards removing the gas chamber” but refused to indicate how long it would continue to take. In addition to offering one excuse after another, he said pound staff who gas animals to death care about them and treat them “fairly,” a claim no one really believes.
A new California law requires multi-family housing developments financed by taxpayers to be pet-friendly. Specifically, any low-income housing built in the state with funding from the Department of Housing and Community Development or by giving developers tax credits must allow residents to share their homes with pets.
According to the California Senate analysis,
A lack of pet friendly housing options has put some pet owners in a position of choosing between keeping their household pet or keeping a roof over their head... This puts emotional strain on families, disproportionately low-income households, and burdens county shelters. A lack of pet friendly housing options is regularly cited as a reason that families relinquish their pet to local shelters.
While the new law allows reasonable restrictions, such as the number of animals a resident may have, it does not allow landlords to ban breeds, limit the weight of pets (often used as a proxy for breed restrictions), or charge a “pet rent” or additional “pet security deposit.”
As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, the number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing.
* Montrose County, CO, reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 90% for cats, and 96% for other small animals.
These communities and national data prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many, too few homes, or people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.
Israel’s “Future Meat Technologies has produced its first cultivated lamb – that looks, cooks and tastes like the real thing…” Cultured meat is made from a one time draw of stem cells. The stem cells are then replicated in a laboratory and grown in an animal-free medium to produce real meat from animals without killing.
According to company officials,
The reason Future Meat’s cultivated lamb is indistinguishable from conventional lamb is because it is, first and foremost, real meat. It sizzles, sears and tastes just like people expect — and it’s amazing.
It is also amazing because the exploitation, neglect, abuse, and killing of animals for food is the greatest source of suffering on the planet.
“Lamb is the primary meat source for several countries throughout the Middle East, Northern African and parts of Asia. Europe consumes the most lamb in the world,” although Future Meat indicated it is also preparing to offer it in the U.S.
Meanwhile, Bond Pet Foods announced it will begin feeding trials of its “nature-identical” chicken meat protein in early 2023. The chicken is made through precision fermentation, which does not require killing chickens. Bond announced “a partnership with Hill’s Pet Nutrition to develop a craft meat protein for its product portfolio” and said its meat proteins will be ready for commercialization within two years.
-
This is a special episode of “This Week in Animal Protection,” my podcast, in which Jennifer and I do not focus on the week’s news followed by a deep dive on an animal rights issue as we normally do, but on answering your questions instead.
I invited my Substack and Facebook readers to ask me anything. I received dozens of questions in response, over 100 comments in all. They covered many issues: whether animals feel pain when killed in shelters, humane vs. aversive dog training, trying to eliminate rental housing discrimination for families that include animals, and more.
I tried to answer as many as possible on Facebook, but Jennifer and I took six of those questions to discuss more fully in this episode of our podcast. We picked those that we believe will be the most interesting and useful.
They are:
* Are we making progress?
* Are No Kill and Managed Intake the same? In other words, do we have to limit – or at least, manage – intakes to create No Kill?
* Will No Kill solutions that worked pre-pandemic also work post-pandemic? Or have things changed – the population of dogs, mass surrender of pandemic puppies, or something else – so that the programs and services of the No Kill Equation no longer eliminate killing?
* What’s the most effective way to go about change when you live in a primarily rural, small town community?
* With the demise of Austin, TX, as an inspiration to turn to, what communities can we use as examples of No Kill success?
And finally (cue, eye roll):
* Why are you against purebred dogs? (Spoiler: I am not. I love all dogs. But I am against exploiting and hurting them so that they look a certain way.)
If you enjoy the conversation, we have them every week on our podcast. Those conversations are usually available only to subscribers. We invite you to join us.
As promised in the podcast, here are some helpful resources:
* Winter is Coming.
* Defining No Kill.
* What Shelters Owe Traumatized Animals.
* The No Kill Advocacy Center “Matrix.
* The No Kill Advocate’s Reform Toolkit.
* Saving Lives in Rocket City.
* Nevertheless, They Persisted.
* Saving 95.
* Body Size, Inbreeding, and Lifespan in Domestic Dogs.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
Since the 1990s, the No Kill movement has forced tremendous progress upon a resistant and regressive sheltering industry. That progress includes a decline in the national death rate of 90%, fewer people buying animals and more people adopting, an increasing number of cities and even entire states banning the retail sale of commercially-bred animals in pet stores, half of all Nebraska puppy mills shutting down, and towns making it illegal to engage in commercial breeding to protect “the healthful and humane treatment of dogs.”
Because of the No Kill movement, the embrace of the No Kill Equation, and codifying success into law, the United States is on the verge of ending the killing of all but irremediably suffering animals and moving away from breeding dogs in brutal conditions reminiscent of factory farms. But progress is not linear, and continued progress is not inevitable.
The movement faces six dangers that threaten not only to erase the gains of the last three decades but bring about a return to 1970s sheltering norms when:
* Dogs and cats were left to fend for themselves on the street;
* Neglect and abuse in pounds were rampant;
* People were buying, rather than adopting animals; and,
* Killing in pounds was standard operating procedure.
These threats are:
* Shelters breeding puppies.
* Shelters closing their doors to lost and homeless animals.
* Shelters closing their doors to volunteers, rescuers, families looking for lost pets, and adopters.
* Neo-racist policies excusing animal cruelty.
* Legislation making it easier for pounds to kill animals.
* Acting on the belief that animals want to die and killing them is a “gift.”
These proposals are reckless, but, disturbingly, they are coming from “inside the house” – from a handful of corrupt organizations: the Humane Society of the United States, Austin Pets Alive, Best Friends Animal Society, Maddie’s Fund, the ASPCA, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
In the podcast above and the article below, I discuss why they are dangerous and what appears to motivate the groups involved. I also discuss the irony of groups embracing the very harms they once falsely accused the No Kill movement of doing – undermining spay/neuter, promoting breeding, turning animals away, increasing neglect and abuse, and sacrificing the quality of adoptive homes.
1. The Humane Society of the United States proposes to have shelters breed puppies.
At their 2022 conference, HSUS workshop presenters will argue that shelters should “start[ ] their own breeding programs” to meet public demand for puppies; a proposal Time magazine calls “a shocking idea, like a cocktail hour at rehab.” But it is more than “shocking.”
It is not only a betrayal of animals and animal advocates but is based on several lies: that we have a severe dog shortage, breeding is the only way to meet demand, purposely-bred dogs make better family pets than shelter dogs, and shelters should cater to “consumer choice,” rather than shape that choice given their mission of animal protection.
What makes it so dangerous?
* Non-profit breeding operations will be just as cruel as for-profit commercial breeders, as many of them already are.
* Shelters will be killing young, adult, and senior dogs in one part of the shelter, while breeding dogs for sale in another.
* It will derail hard-won progress in getting Americans to sterilize and adopt rather than breeding and buying.
* It will undermine efforts to ban the sale of commercially-bred animals in pet stores, with half a dozen states and hundreds of cities across the nation already divesting themselves from this pernicious harm and, as a result, half of all Nebraska’s puppy mills shutting down.
* Puppy mills will start breeding mixed-breed dogs, too. Indeed, nothing will stop puppy mills from incorporating as non-profits, calling themselves a “humane society” or rescue group, and selling puppies to the public as “adoptions.”
Animal welfare organizations are supposed to model and encourage ethical behavior. In other words, shelters — through adoption — exist to help animals, not the other way around. To the extent that a subset of the American public continues to want puppies, the effort directed at the suggestion that our shelters be turned into commercial breeding operations could be redirected to building the infrastructure necessary to get at-risk puppies in shelters throughout the country and the world to American homes that want them; a win-win.
Tragically, Maddie’s Fund has embraced the breeding proposal. Likewise, Kristen Hassen, an Austin Pets Alive director, shared the idea with a nationwide audience of shelter directors, noting that the “pet shortage” was a “real issue” for her “respected colleagues,” and we “should give them the benefit of the doubt.” We should not. The health, welfare, and lives of animals are at stake.
For further reading: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory.
2. Austin Pets Alive proposes to have shelters close their doors to lost and homeless animals.
During the pandemic, U.S. animal shelters fell into one of two camps. The first were those who lived up to their mission, stayed open as an essential service, and both met and exceeded their obligations; many having found themselves empty through adoption and fostering for the first time in their history. The second were those who closed their doors, turned animals away, and abandoned the debt and duties they owed animals and residents. These pounds – encouraged by groups like the National Animal Control Association and other regressive organizations – did less work, cared for fewer animals, and all but ceased their adoption programs, even though it meant an increase in animal suffering. As a result, kittens and puppies were left on streets, lost animals were turned away, and people who found animals were told to re-abandon them, including a blind pregnant cat found by one couple walking in circles: “It was just heartbreaking... They told us to release the cat.” Austin Pets Alive wants to make that permanent.
What makes it so dangerous?
* The Austin Pets Alive program encourages shelters to close their doors to stray and owner-relinquished animals. In their own words, “Intakes of healthy strays and owner surrenders doesn’t exist anymore,” and there is “No kennel space for rehoming, stray hold or intake.”
* In Austin, this included a proposed vision of “not accepting strays at the shelter” to limit intakes and reduce shelter budgets accordingly.
* Heeding the advice of Austin Pets Alive, El Paso Animal Services turned away lost and homeless animals, including a little dog with a pink vest and microchip. The person who found her was told to abandon her on the street. He did, and Nesa ended up dead. She would have been reclaimed had the El Paso pound done its job and offered her safe haven. Others will share her fate.
The Austin Pets Alive program is not just a dangerous bait and switch. It is a cynical ploy meant to redefine failure and the abandonment of animals as success and defy the public’s humane expectation that animal shelters have a moral duty to care for the neediest and most vulnerable dogs, cats, and other animal companions in our communities.
To Austin Pets Alive partners, “community sheltering” is a euphemism for no sheltering. That such a retreat should occur at this moment, when the American public has shown itself more enthusiastic and generous in its embrace of animal welfare than ever before, adds to the tragedy of wasted potential inherent to such an approach. Just as our fellow Americans are standing up for animals, Austin Pets Alive would have us stand down.
For further reading: The Co-option of Austin Pets Alive.
3. Best Friends Animal Society proposes to have shelters close their doors to volunteers, rescuers, those looking for lost pets, and adopters without an appointment.
Like Austin Pets Alive, Best Friends Animal Society wants to make pandemic-related closures permanent. Best Friends proposes to close shelter doors to people, including volunteers, rescuers, families looking for lost animals, and adopters unless they make an appointment. Best Friends claims doing so will increase lifesaving (somehow) and reduce animal stress by limiting visitors, activity, and noise levels. For animals, however, visitors mean stimulation, walks, getting played with, and finding homes.
Why is this so dangerous?
* The “appointment only” policy reduces the number of people who go to shelters resulting in fewer adoptions, reclaims, and rescues; a death sentence.
* It reduces the number of volunteers who go to shelters, reducing socialization. Because animals suffer if not provided “mental and physical stimulation, time out of the kennel and close interaction with people,” more animals will be stressed and either get sick or labeled “kennel crazy”/“aggressive” and killed.
* It erases tremendous gains made by the No Kill movement to force greater public access and force better and more sensible adoption and reclaim hours, all of which have been key to reducing shelter killing nationwide.
* Public scrutiny keeps neglect and abuse in check. Rescuers, potential adopters, volunteers, and other public members are the community’s heart, eyes, and ears. If they are not allowed to visit the facility unannounced, animals will suffer in silence. That’s not conjecture; it’s history. At the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control – one of the pounds which has embraced the “appointment-only” policy:
* Animals starved to death;
* Cats died because they did not get an examination, treatment, or vaccinations;
* Animals with torn ears and gouged eyes suffered without rehabilitative care;
* Animals cannibalized their kennel mates because they were not fed by staff to the point of starvation; and,
* Animals were warehoused in filthy conditions and physically assaulted by staff.
Across the country, public scrutiny has forced regressive shelters to improve. When the public hears about neglect, abuse, and killing in their local shelter, they denounce it and demand changes. It is no surprise then that regressive, historically abusive pound systems like those in Los Angeles and New York would reject accountability by closing their doors to the unannounced public.
For further reading: The Growing Threat of Darkness.
4. Maddie’s Fund and others promote neo-racist voices who excuse animal cruelty.
Maddie’s Fund, Kristen Hassen at Austin Pets Alive, and others promote voices, like Professors Katja Guenther and Andrew Rowan, who undermine animal protection in deference to racist ideas equating people of color with substandard care. Although championed under the guise of increasing diversity and promoting inclusion, these authors and others like them have written books and journal articles that:
* Defend dogfighters like Michael Vick, arguing that they should not be prosecuted because they are the real “victims”;
* Criticize placing dogs who survived dogfighting in caring, family homes because “they were effectively segregated from Blackness”;
* Call for permitting dogs to be left on chains 24 hours a day, seven days a week;
* Call for more animals to be killed in pounds or left on the streets instead of rescued and placed in family homes so as not to promote “settler-colonial and racist dynamics of land allocation”; and,
* Argue that shelter workers should lower their standards, even when doing so is “at odds with the humane society’s own core beliefs about how animals should be cared for,” including people who do not feed their animals, get necessary medical care for their animals, or engage in dogfighting.
These claims are based on the racist beliefs that viewing animals as family members, letting them sleep in the house, providing medical care, and showing affection are “middle class,” “white” values; while people of color treat animals “as resources, whether protective (as in guarding) or financial (as in breeding or possibly fighting).”
In the wake of the protests over the death of George Floyd, organizations across the country looked for ways to express solidarity with the cause of civil rights, and animal welfare groups are no exception. But we should not confuse these racist tropes and cruel policies with the cause of animal protection (or human dignity).
Some ways of relating to animals are better than others. Determining which starts with objective norms rooted in the animal’s biology and Enlightenment values, including the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For example, feeding them nutritious food regularly, allowing them to sleep in the house, providing prompt and necessary veterinary care, and showing tenderness and love are ways of relating to animals that increase the well-being of dogs and cats and should be afforded to all of them, irrespective of the ethnicity or race of the human with whom they live. Arguing otherwise isn't animal advocacy; it is the antithesis.
For further reading, The Racism of Low Expectations and its Deadly Consequences for Animals.
5. The ASPCA is trying to pass laws making it easier for pounds to kill animals quickly.
It’s been over 20 years since the achievement of the nation’s first No Kill community, and, with it, creation of the model that provides high-quality care and allows any shelter to replace killing with humane alternatives. And while hundreds of shelters across the nation have already embraced the No Kill philosophy and the No Kill Equation that makes it possible – saving millions of animals in the process – there are still too many animals suffering and dying in shelters that have yet to do so.
Given this – and given all the threats to current and continued No Kill success – laws are needed to mandate how shelters operate. These laws would:
* Eliminate the discretion that allows managers and staff to avoid doing what is in the best interest of animals;
* Require protocols that improve animal welfare through clean, hygienic, and enriched environments; and,
* Result in placement rates of 98% - 99%, returning killing to its dictionary definition: an act of mercy for irremediably suffering animals only.
But the ASPCA is standing in the way.
For example:
* The Shelter Animal Rescue Act, written by The No Kill Advocacy Center, would make it illegal for any New York pound to kill a healthy or treatable animal if a qualified non-profit organization is willing to save that animal. Although modeled after successful legislation in other cities and states that save hundreds of thousands of animals every year, the ASPCA has blocked the legislation from becoming law in New York and has done so every year since 2010, putting an estimated 300,000 animals into an early grave.
2. Instead, the ASPCA seeks legislation that will result in fewer animals making it out of those facilities alive. In addition to making it harder for non-profit rescue organizations to save animals, ASPCA bills create a new justification for killing: “mental suffering.” There is no definition of what constitutes “mental suffering” and no standards for applying it. The proposed legislation allows pounds to kill animals based on an animal’s perceived state of mind and often with no holding period of any kind.
Given that they find their familiar routines upended in a confined place that is loud, often dirty, unfamiliar, disorienting, and hostile, all animals can experience stress on entry to a pound. As such, the ASPCA legislation is not only a real and immediate threat to shy and scared animals, as well as feral cats, but it is a first-of-its-kind, dangerous precedent to introduce in the animal control laws of our nation.
As progressive shelters have demonstrated and peer-reviewed studies have confirmed, most animals classified as having “behavior” issues in pounds are perfectly normal. In addition to co-housing with other animals, socialization, and exercise, simply getting them out of the shelter through adoption, rescue, or foster care would resolve most perceived issues relating to “mental suffering.” Unfortunately, ASPCA bills mandate none of these, and the organization often opposes these common-sense reforms.
For further reading: From the Arms of Angel.
6. PETA believes animals want to die and killing them is a “gift.”
PETA has killed over 40,000 animals, including young, healthy cats, kittens, and puppies, most without making them available for adoption. But the number may be many times higher – a whistleblower who worked for PETA was told to lie and kill animals without reporting it.
Why do they kill? Employees report that they are made to watch “heart-wrenching” films about animal abuse designed to instill the belief that people are incapable of caring for animals and that “PETA was doing what was best for animals” by killing them. On the one hand, PETA leadership instructs employees that people don’t, can’t, and won’t take care of animals, leading to suffering through neglect and abuse. On the other hand, they also argue that animals cannot live without human care, requiring PETA to round them up. The animals are damned either way, and thus, killing them is a “gift.”
To Ingrid Newkirk, killing is the goal because she believes animals want to die. It is, she writes, the “greatest gift of all”; a mindset in which she schools her staff, who then argue, as she does, that killing healthy animal companions is not only morally acceptable, it is morally required.
The result: The arrest of PETA employees and representatives for stealing and killing animals or acquiring them under false pretenses by promising to find them homes only to kill them within minutes in the back of a van, a donor-funded slaughterhouse on wheels. Upwards of 99% of all animals PETA acquires lose their lives (or displace others who are killed). When a movement takes direction from an organization that is itself the functional equivalent of a slaughterhouse, it can’t help but get it pathologically wrong.
For further reading: The Theft and Killing of Maya and Why PETA Kills.
The future is not yet written.
There was a time when No Kill was just a dream. We dreamed it anyway. And because we did, it no longer is. We now have a solution to shelter killing, and it is not difficult, expensive, or beyond practical means to achieve. Thanks to the No Kill Equation, millions of people now live in No Kill communities that place over 99% of all animals entrusted to their care.
We can make pound killing a thing of the past in every American community. We can end the neglect and abuse that is the natural outcome of breeding animal companions for the pet trade. We can turn our shelters into safe havens. And we can build upon those successes to protect other animals, no matter the species, no matter the threat of harm.
To achieve this vision, we need only do what we have always done, what our success thus far has been dependent upon — to neither accept nor emulate the voices of defeatism, of corruption, of those who believe in their own celebrity and put themselves and the dystopian visions of their organizations above the needs and lives of animals.
We must continue to march forward…
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
Listen above to “What’s Past is Prologue” part five of “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States,” a podcast series.
Carl Sagan once said, “The visions we offer… shape the future. It matters what those visions are. Often they become self-fulfilling prophecies. Dreams are maps.”
There was a time when No Kill was just a hope. We dreamed it anyway. And because we did, it no longer is. We now have a solution to shelter killing and it is not difficult, expensive, or beyond practical means to achieve. Unlike the “adopt some and kill the rest” form of animal sheltering that dominated in our country for over a century, needlessly claiming the lives of millions of animals every year, there are now No Kill communities placing over 99% of all animals entrusted to their care.
As we continue our work to make pound killing a thing of the past in every American community and then build upon that success to protect every animal, no matter the species, no matter the threat of harm, what will our map for the future look like? What roads will we take to do so?
There are those groups — like Best Friends and Austin Pets Alive — that instead of promoting the proven cure to shelter killing, are now advising shelters to close their doors, to stop taking in homeless and lost dogs and cats, to stop adoptions, to settle for 90% and even then come by it dishonestly, to be open by appointment only, allowing neglect and abuse to remain hidden. In short, they are telling shelters to take in more money and do less with it and in the process, derail the movement and thwart further progress, leaving animals to suffer whatever fate befalls them.
And then there’s the more optimistic vision, the more humane vision, the one that aligns mission and deeds, that allows for humans and non-humans to peacefully coexist, indeed to universally thrive. To build, in the end, a truly humane society. It is a vision in which our humane societies and SPCAs are not inessential, but indispensable.
To achieve this vision, we need only do what we have always done, what our success thus far has been dependent upon — to neither accept nor emulate the voices of defeatism, of corruption, of those who believe in their own celebrity and put themselves and the fundraising prerogatives of their organizations above the needs and lives of animals.
The founder of our movement did it when his fledgling ASPCA stood up against those who would harm animals, including industries owned by peers and colleagues. We did it when the fledgling No Kill movement stood up to a calcified status quo reliant on killing. And we can do it again by rejecting the self-serving, cynical pronouncements by those we once counted among us who have since lost their way. And do it again we must.
For if history teaches us anything about progress, it is this: that the future belongs to the dreamers. To those who defy convention. To those with the audacity to try something different. To those with the moral courage to proclaim that a naked emperor has no clothes. And to those who believe that tomorrow can always — and must always — be better than today.
150 years ago an animal lover named Henry Bergh stopped a man on the side of a road from beating his horse, and in that act of compassion, found his life’s true calling. At a time when public displays of cruelty to animals were so commonplace as to be unremarkable, he refused to believe in the inevitability of such harm. And he dared to expect, and demand, better.
A century and a half later, we are all the inheritors of his legacy — the kinder, gentler world he bequeathed us, and an unfinished road whose first stones he laid that lead us to an even brighter future.
Bergh’s life’s work is now our work, and thanks to those in his lifetime who likewise admired and sought to emulate his example, thousands of humane societies and SPCAs, too long needlessly shrouded in darkness, already exist that could and should help us realize his broad, encompassing vision.
It is the battle for the souls of these organizations that has defined our efforts for the last three decades, but having reclaimed them — having finally eliminated the harm to animals they have themselves engaged in — a mission lost can once again be found.
Freed of the stultifying myths and excuses necessary to quell the disconnect between noble word and their own harmful deeds, our humane societies and SPCAs become liberated from a prison of their own devising; having laid down the heavy burden of killing, their hands become free to once again pick up and reignite Bergh’s now smoldering torch; a torch that once lit and exposed dark corners where abuse and neglect of animals thrives in obscurity or convention in every American community.
Today, the primary challenge our movement faces to realize Bergh’s dream and to reach the end of the path he placed us upon is to ignore those who have devised new shackles for our imagination; shackles designed to drag us backward or keep us rooted in a place that does not threaten their hegemony.
But just as before, these shackles, too, are a mere illusion; an illusion that gives way the moment we choose to place one foot in front of the other in spite of them, and continue on this journey, of which we have already come so far.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
Listen above to “A glass half full and half empty” part four of “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States,” a podcast series.
This is Part 4 of a 5-part series Jennifer and I call, “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” In it, we’ve done a sweep of animal sheltering in the United States. In Part 1, we discussed the founding of our movement in the mid-19th century by Henry Bergh who incorporated the first SPCA and how his vision of a society dedicated to animals – all animals – gave way to a network of humane societies who became the leading killers of dogs and cats in America to the detriment of every other part of their platforms. It was the movement's original sin, a great betrayal which continues to reverberate to this day.
In Part 2, we discussed the internal battles that occurred throughout the 20th century between those who wanted to hold these organizations to a larger animal rights/animal protection mission – goals that included keeping animals in these pounds from ending up in laboratories to be experimented on – and those who viewed the animals in their pounds as a source of desired revenue. By the time Jennifer and I entered the movement in the 1990s, the regressive forces thoroughly won out. But there was hope, as one city recaptured its roots.
In Part 3, we discussed how we moved our family from the San Francisco Bay Area to Western New York so that I could take over as director of an animal control shelter, creating the first No Kill community in the U.S. We then discussed efforts to spread that model nationwide with the founding of The No Kill Advocacy Center.
This is where we find ourselves, as we take stock of where we are now: deaths are at an all-time low, more people are turning to adoption and rescue, older animals in the twilight of their lives are the fastest growing pet demographic in America, geriatric veterinary medicine is extending both the quantity and quality of pet lives, and collectively we’re spending $100B every year on their care. That’s the good news. But, unfortunately, it is not the only news.
As our movement has become more successful, it is also facing increasing threats from vested interests, from corrupting influences, and from pedestrian flaws of human nature. What those threats are and how we can overcome them is the topic to which we turn to in Part 4, but here is just one example. When a Good Samaritan found a dog tied up and abandoned, she tried to take the dog to the Miami-Dade shelter. Pound staff, however, told her to “put [him] back where you found it, and hopefully it'll go back home.”
The City pound “confirms that the shelter has instructed people who find stray animals on the streets to leave them in the area where they discovered them.” They are following the advice of Austin Pets Alive under a program it hatched called, “Human Animal Support Services” (HASS). Despite its name, the model provides very little support to people who find stray dogs. Sometimes it also goes by the name “community sheltering” but that, too, is a euphemism for “no sheltering,” putting the onus on others to do the job they already pay animal shelters to do. Instead, the APA program encourages shelters to close their doors to stray and owner-relinquished animals – or, in their own words, “Intakes of healthy strays and owner surrenders doesn’t exist anymore” and there is “No kennel space for rehoming, stray hold or intake.”
And that is what Miami Dade Animal Services did.
That is also what El Paso Animal Services did with a little dog named Nesa. Following the advice of Austin Pets Alive, the El Paso pound turned the Good Samaritan who found her away and told him to release her back on the street. He did. It turned out she had a microchip and had the pound done its job and offered her safe haven, she would have been reclaimed from the shelter. In response to Nesa’s killing, the city of El Paso canceled the HASS program and Austin Pets Alive quietly scrubbed their name as a partner from their website.
Nesa cannot be rendered invisible. She cannot be thought of as faceless. And she cannot be forgotten because she mattered. And she is not alone – others will share her fate because it is not surprising (indeed it is entirely predictable) that those embracing HASS are some of the most regressive pounds in the country: Miami-Dade, Memphis, and Los Angeles among them.
And why wouldn't they? Austin Pets Alive’s program is not just a dangerous bait and switch, but an existential threat to the No Kill movement and even animal sheltering itself. It is a cynical ploy meant to redefine failure and the abandonment of animals as success and to defy the public’s humane expectation that their tax and philanthropically-funded animal shelters have a moral duty to provide care for the neediest and most vulnerable dogs, cats, and other animal companions in our communities.
As to the dog in Miami, through tears, the finder said, “How am I gonna just put [him] back in the middle of the street? I'm not gonna do that.” Had she followed the cruel tenet of the HASS program, he might have shared Nesa’s fate.
We have indeed come so far, but we still have a long way to go.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
‘Gumdrop’ was the first ‘pit bull’ to be adopted in Denver after the 30-year ban was repealed. But he wasn’t the last. ‘The Denver Animal Shelter found homes for 100 pit bulls in 2021, enough to make the newly legalized dogs the second-most adopted breed at the shelter.’
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
* Manatee County, FL, “approved a new ordinance that prevents the killing of feral cats. The changes are a result of a Manatee County woman’s loss and efforts to save other cats from the same fate” when her neighbor had the community cats she cared for trapped and killed.
* 1,062,127 animals found homes during the “Home 4 the Holidays” pet adoption drive between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day. That’s 1,062,127 animals who no longer face the needle.
* The Labrador Retriever was named the “most popular” dog breed for the 31st year in a row. But it’s not really true. Despite AKC press releases making that claim and headlines parroting it, mixed breed dogs always take the top spot. And it isn’t even close.
* On the heels of the McPlant burger at McDonald’s and Chipotle’s vegan chorizo, KFC adds plant-based “chicken” at all U.S. locations.
* “Gumdrop” was the first so-called “pit bull” to be adopted in Denver in 30 years after the ban was repealed. But he wasn’t the last. “The Denver Animal Shelter found homes for 100 pit bulls in 2021, enough to make the newly legalized dogs the second-most adopted breed at the shelter.” Banning dogs based on how they look is immoral. It is also ineffective. That's not just opinion; it's science: 50% of dogs labeled as pit bulls lacked DNA breed signatures of breeds commonly classified as pit bulls; Dogs targeted for breed discriminatory laws are not more likely to bite, do not bite harder, and such bans do not result in fewer dog bites or bite-related hospitalization rates; and, Enforcement of the ban is expensive with no measurable impact on public safety. Bans also negatively impact surrounding communities and rescue groups who have to take on the burden for such regressive and selfish policies in order to save the lives of these dogs. “When a city has a breed-specific ban, good dogs die. It’s that simple.”
* As companies seek to bring employees back to the office, human resources professionals are reporting increased calls for their pets to come, too: “more job seekers are looking at pet-friendly benefits and policies in evaluating a potential employer.” This is not just good for dogs, it is good for the bottom line. Studies have found that the presence of dogs in the workplace reduces stress, increases social interactions, leads to improved performance (including fewer errors), longer work hours, reduced absenteeism, and reduced turnover.
* The New Hampshire Legislature is set to decide whether to create a committee that will study how to curtial rental housing discrimination for tenants whose families include dogs and cats. Protecting those tenants will not only keep families together, reduce shelter intakes, and increase adoptions, it will benefit landlords, public health, and local businesses.
* Last May, the Green River City Council in Wyoming was asked to vote on getting rid of the gas chamber to kill animals at its local pound. Not one city councilmember seconded the motion and it failed to pass. But after a series of public protests by local citizens, the Mayor has directed staff to come up with a plan to replace gas killing.
* New Jersey legislators were set to pass a bill that would have allowed courts to order defendants in animal cruelty cases to pay for the costs of animal care and if they fail to do so, forfeit the animals, before conviction. Unfortunately, the bill would have also allowed New Jersey shelters/pounds to kill those animals once they are granted full custody. Seizing animals being subjected to violence and then allowing pounds to commit the ultimate form of violence on them – killing – is a gross betrayal, not only adding insult to a life of injury, but taking us further – not closer – to the goal of animal protection. The No Kill Advocacy Center’s requested amendments to further protect animals were not adopted, but the bill ultimately failed to pass.
* The director of the Memphis, TN, pound is violating the law by refusing to provide the medical records of animals to citizens who request them in order to hide why some animals are dying in their kennels and why others are being deliberately killed. She claims she is doing it to protect the “privacy” rights of animals under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), but such a claim is absurd. One reason why is that a Federal Court has already ruled that, “There is no veterinarian privilege, no animal equivalent of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and no case law suggesting that humans and animals are entitled to the same level of privacy.”
Food for thought:
* In Part 3 of our podcast history of U.S. animal sheltering, Jennifer and I tell the story of the creation of the first No Kill community. We also discuss the subsequent spread of the No Kill Equation model of sheltering nationwide — efforts that continue to spare the lives of millions of animals every year.
* A new study finds that people who live with dogs drive more — and the more dogs they have, the more miles they drive. A fair number of those car trips are to recreate with dogs, like hiking, walking, and playing off-leash. For purposes of reducing traffic, carbon emissions, and improving the quality of life for dogs and dog lovers, urban planners are urged to make their cities more dog-friendly.
* Shelters are stressful places for dogs and they can also be stressful places for potential adopters. Several recent studies, however, demonstrate how to make shelters more welcoming for both: 1. Give dogs the ability to see other dogs; 2. Doggy roommates; 3. Lots of treats; and 4. Sniff holes.
* Cats often fare poorly, too. Making a shelter cat happy is simple according to a recent study: lots of cuddles.
As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, the number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing.
* Fremont County, CO, had its best year ever. It reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 98% for cats, and it placed all but one other animal.
* Ames, IA, also reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 98% for cats, and 96% for rabbits and other animal companions.
* Flathead, MT, reported a 96% placement rate for dogs and 94% for cats.
These communities and the data nationally prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many, because there are too few homes, or because people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.
And, finally, a legal fight is being heard in a Boston, MA, courtroom between a rescue group which wants to amputate a young dog’s leg because of complications from a prior fracture and ongoing infection and the dog’s foster mom, who wants to adopt Kirklin and first try surgery to save the leg (at her own expense).
According to media reports, the foster mom, “took it upon herself to get a second opinion from other veterinarians. Prior to something as drastic as an amputation, she would like to have the plate [in the dog’s leg] surgically removed to see if that allows the leg to completely heal.” The foster mom also said that Kirklin “made big strides in recent weeks since he started taking antibiotics. ‘It’s almost like you can’t even tell there was an issue… The improvement is tremendous.’”
To stop the amputation, she “hired an attorney to take the rescue organization to court and win ownership of Kirklin. ‘We came with our hands open, saying we would pay for surgery and pay for care of the dog’... The dog is perfectly fine. Just let us adopt…”
In a statement, the rescue group disputes that the dog is fine. They note that they, “paid for surgery to try to save his limb and a metal plate was installed. Following surgery, Kirklin was required to be on restricted rest for several months so that his bones could fuse, and he could continue to utilize his front leg,” but the plate failed. They further note that, “The veterinary partners that we rely on as an organization have advised that amputation of the leg is the most clear-cut pathway to recovery. He is suffering in great pain but his happy-go-lucky nature and pain medication masks this. The bottom line is that Kirklin is suffering from a painful infection that could become systemic and life threatening… While it breaks our heart to see dogs who have undergone injuries that result in amputations, those of us who know dogs know that they adjust very quickly to life on three legs, especially when it is a front leg.”
The rescue group’s attorney argued in court that, “It’s not her decision because she doesn’t own the dog. If this foster is allowed to just arbitrarily say, ‘No, it’s my rules now,’ that will bring down the entire foster system.”
Both sides have compelling arguments and both sides seem to be motivated by what they believe is in the best interest of the dog. And that suggests how the court should rule. Rather than decide the issue of “ownership” of the dog, the court could decide what is in the best interest of the dog.
Animals have rights independent of the people they are connected to — or at least they should. Thankfully, more and more of our laws are enshrining those rights into law: in cruelty, divorce, and probate cases. But animals need more legal recognition. They need legal personhood, which will protect them in all cases where an animal’s best interest might be in conflict with that of the people around him/her, as courts do for children and other at-risk groups. A guardian ad litem appointed by the court to be Kirklin’s attorney would give him such a voice.
“Both sides made their arguments in court this week, but the [court] has yet to issue a decision.” And before it does, it would be a good idea to hear from Kirklin, too.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
Listen above to “All of Them: No Kill moves from the theoretical to the real” part three of “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States,” a podcast series.
This is Part 3 of what is shaping up to be a 5-part series Jennifer and I call, “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow.” In it, we’ve done a sweep of animal sheltering in the United States, starting with Part 1: the movement’s founding by the late, great Henry Bergh and the betrayal of his animal rights vision.
In Part 2, we discuss a series of internal conflicts that occurred in the 20th century and led to a highly dysfunctional series of pounds we euphemistically called “animal shelters” but which were little more than slaughterhouses. That’s the broken system Jennifer and I inherited and began to challenge when we joined the animal protection movement in the 1990s. We were inspired by the great success The San Francisco SPCA was having with a new and revolutionary approach to animal sheltering that brought deaths in the city to all-time lows. Sadly, when the city was but a whisper away from achieving the nation's first No Kill community, new leadership at The SF/SPCA began to dismantle the programs and services that made its success possible, causing me to leave the organization in search of a different community upon which that honor could be bestowed.
In Part 3 (this episode), we tell the story of the creation of that first No Kill community in Tompkins County, New York, after I was hired to lead the local SPCA. We discuss the subsequent founding of The No Kill Advocacy Center, our organization, the publication of Redemption, my book and later film and the resulting national tours for both. Finally, we conclude with the national No Kill Conference that brought together thousands of rescuers, volunteers, attorneys, directors, veterinarians, legislators, and reform activists from across the country. These efforts seeded the No Kill Equation model of sheltering nationwide — efforts that would result in the explosion of No Kill communities throughout the nation, saving millions of lives in the process.
This podcast is much more personal than the others given our intimate involvement in spreading the model, but one anecdote captures it best.
When I ran the Tompkins County shelter, I had a love-hate relationship with empty cages. Love; because it meant animals were getting adopted and I had a place to put animals as they came in. Hate; because an empty cage meant a lost opportunity to rescue an animal from another shelter that did not embrace the No Kill philosophy like we did.
Although I once called a kill shelter in a neighboring county and told them they could bring me cats — 20 or 30 of them — no one working there was willing to make the drive. We were told “it was too far.” Tragically, it wasn’t “too far” for the chair of the shelter’s Board of Directors who did make the drive to ask me in person to stop promoting our shelter as No Kill because it was making them look bad. It was so much easier just to kill them.
When they refused to bring cats, I sent my staff to go and get them. While it was gratifying to save those cats, it was often difficult for my staff to leave some cats behind, knowing what their fate would be. So one day, my manager stopped leaving cats behind. When the van pulled into our parking lot and the intake team went out to retrieve the cats, I asked her how many cats she took from the shelter.
“All of them,” she said.
With time, a curious and beautiful thing happened to that shelter. The pressure they were under as a result of our success meant that eventually, instead of us taking their cats, they took our staff. My shelter manager and dog behaviorist went to work for them and some of our volunteers did, too. They became the second No Kill community in the region.
This is one of many such stories we share in this podcast — stories which not only show the strength of love and compassion that exists for animals in every community, but how profound and rapid change can occur when shelters truly commit themselves to their mission statement through concrete action.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
Listen above to “A House of Cards Divided: The fight for the heart and soul of America’s animal shelters,” part two of “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States,” a podcast series.
I recently published several articles and podcasts about how some groups have abandoned their No Kill mission and are now successfully encouraging others to do the same. Concerned about the increasing betrayal of No Kill ideals by organizations that grew influential and wealthy by championing that very cause, I have embarked on a podcast series that will serve both as a refresher on the history and principles of No Kill, as well as provide a roadmap for the future.
In part one, Jennifer and I recount the 1866 founding of the American animal protection movement in New York City by Henry Bergh, who incorporated the nation’s first SPCA. We discuss the values that compelled him to advocate for all animals regardless of species and regardless of who was responsible for inflicting harm to them. Beneficiaries of Bergh’s compassion and determination included working dogs and horses, animals killed for sport or exploited for entertainment, animals in slaughterhouses, animals tortured for medical experiementation, and frequently, the city's cruel dogcatchers.
At the end of that podcast, we recount how the ASPCA took over the pound contract in New York City following Henry Bergh’s death and against his wishes. As a result, it began a century of squandering not only his life work, but more significantly, the ASPCA’s vast potential. As other SPCAs and humane societies followed suit, Bergh’s ideal of a humane agency founded to save the lives of animals was replaced with shelters across the country whose primary purpose was killing animals, whether or not they are suffering. Within a very short period of time, they collectively became the leading killers of dogs and cats in America.
You can listen here to part one: “Regarding Henry: The birth and betrayal of the humane movement in America.”
How was it that organizations focused on the rights of all animals became some of the largest inflictors of harm to them?
In part two, we discuss how these organizations tried to reconcile this contradiction by creating the fiction that killing by shelter employees was not just a unique exception to the rule that animals should not be subjected to violence, but even more disturbing, that shelter killing was itself a form of animal advocacy; a kindness.
We explain how illogical and therefore vulnerable to scrutiny this tenet actually was, likening it to a house of cards that would fracture under the various stressors that would repeatedly test its moral and structural integrity throughout the coming century.
The first test came to a head in the 1950s when the battle over pound seizure (sending animals from pounds to animal research laboratories) exposed the degree to which many of those working at these so-called “animal protection” organizations had become so divorced from their founding missions that they were willing to sell animals to be tortured for profit.
The second occurred in the 1970s, when cultural headwinds transformed dogs and cats into beloved family members, requiring additional and equally absurd philosophical scaffolding to obfuscate their betrayals from an increasingly concerned American public.
And the third occurred in the 1990s when The San Francisco SPCA embraced common-sense alternatives to pound killing and brought the death rate to the lowest of any urban community in the U.S., launching the modern No Kill movement and provoking a backlash from the traditional sheltering establishment that was threatened by that success.
As young, 20-something animal rights advocates working and volunteering at several Bay Area animal protection organizations in the 1990s, Jennifer and I ran head long into the serious dysfunction that had come to dominate animal sheltering, and the animal protection movement as a whole.
Those experiences would come to influence the course of our personal and professional lives to this very day, including the fight to protect cats in California that brought us together. They would also ultimately set the stage for moving our kids, dogs, and over 20 cats across the country to create the nation's first No Kill community.
——————
This holiday season, please consider giving the gift of a Substack subscription to a friend, family member, or colleague. Doing so allows me to keep writing articles and making podcasts on issues not found anywhere else:
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
Listen above to “Regarding Henry: The birth and betrayal of the humane movement in America,” part one of “Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Animal Sheltering in the United States,” a podcast series.
I recently published several articles and podcasts about how some groups have abandoned their No Kill mission and are now successfully encouraging others to do the same. Concerned about the increasing betrayal of No Kill ideals by organizations that grew influential and wealthy by championing that very cause, this is part one of a podcast series that will serve both as a refresher on the history and principles of No Kill, as well as provide a roadmap for the future.
Although a tremendous amount of progress has been made since the publication, 13 years ago, of my first book, Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America, and though millions of animals who would have once faced death when entering their local shelter now find instead a helping hand and a new beginning, our work is far from over. In fact, at the very moment we have achieved unprecedented progress — an achievement that has been called “the single biggest success of the modern animal protection movement” — there are those who would have us abandon the very means that have proven so transformative in shelter after shelter in America, rather than double down on those efforts until every single animal in every single shelter is guaranteed the same.
Explaining how this tragic crossroads has come to pass, what we can do to stop this backsliding, and what future we should be striving for are the goals of this series of podcasts; a series that starts with a story, as I explained in Redemption, that should serve as our movement's true North: the founding of the American animal protection movement in the second half of the 19th century by the late, great, visionary Henry Bergh.
To those who read Redemption or seen the documentary based on the book, Henry Bergh needs no introduction. To those who haven’t, Henry Bergh launched the humane movement in North America.
After he succeeded in chartering the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals — the nation’s first SPCA — in 1866 and then passing an anti-cruelty law shortly thereafter, he put a copy in his pocket, and took to the streets that very night — and every single night thereafter for the remainder of his life — to help animals and punish violators. The annals of the ASPCA describe the first such encounter:
The driver of a cart laden with coal is whipping his horse. Passersby on the New York City street stop to gawk not so much at the weak, emaciated equine, but at the tall man, elegant in top hat and spats, who is explaining to the driver that it is now against the law to beat one’s animal.
Whether fighting for the rights of horses, opposing hunting, trying to clean up slaughterhouses, or protecting stray dogs, Bergh’s ASPCA grew in both scope and influence. In a very short period of time, cities across North America had used the ASPCA as a model for their own, independent humane societies and SPCAs, and the numbers continued to grow.
Although he is not a very well known figure, we and the animals owe him a great deal. Every humane society that stands up for animals; every animal protection group that gives voice to the voiceless; and the millions of animals who have been saved thanks to the efforts of activists and advocates, are a living legacy to his life. Bergh was one of the first Americans to begin weaving the ideals of animal protection into our jurisprudence, the American psyche, and the fabric of American life.
His influence cannot be overstated, but even during the course of his life, Bergh saw trouble ahead. Indeed, Bergh often worried about the future of the ASPCA, stating, “I hate to think what will befall this Society when I am gone.” It didn’t take long for Bergh’s worst fears to come true. Shortly after his death, and against his express instructions, the ASPCA traded in its mission of protecting animals from harm for the role of killing them by agreeing to run the dog pound — something that Bergh rejected during his lifetime: “This Society,” he once wrote, “could not stultify its principles so far as to encourage the tortures which the proposed give rise to.” In fact, Bergh’s answer was the opposite: “Let us abolish the pound!” But after his death, the ASPCA capitulated and took over the pound, becoming New York City’s leading killer of dogs and cats. It was a terrible mistake, one emulated by humane societies and SPCAs nationwide, with devastating results.
Unwilling to harm the animals they were supposed to be protecting, animal lovers fled these groups, and bureaucrats and opportunists with no passion for animals or for saving their lives took them over, paving the way for the crisis of uncaring and killing that would define these organizations for well over a century. What began as a nationwide network of animal protection groups devolved into dog and cat pounds whose primary purpose became, and in too many communities remains, killing animals, even when those animals are not suffering. And the mighty ASPCA, once a stalwart defender of animals, became a stalwart defender of killing them, beholden not to animals or furthering their best interest, but to a ruthless fundraising machine enriching itself and its leadership at the expense of its founding mission.
When the early founders of the animal protection movement died and their organizations took over the job of killing those they had been formed to protect, a fiery zeal was replaced with a smoldering ember that gave little light or warmth and the humane movement went to sleep. People like the tirelessly devoted Henry Bergh were replaced with individuals who care so little for animals as to allow tremendous cruelty and killing to continue unabated, even when they could use the power their positions afford, and the tremendous wealth of their organizations, to stop it.
But after over 100 years of this antiquated and deadly paradigm, the grassroots of the animal protection movement finally woke up and fought back, demanding and winning No Kill solutions, a topic we will turn to in part two of this series.
——————
This holiday season, please consider giving the gift of a Substack subscription to a friend, family member, or colleague. Doing so allows me to keep writing articles and making podcasts on issues not found anywhere else:
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
In the conversation above, we talk about how the global hunger for coconuts is fueling the abuse of primates forced to harvest coconuts in three of the top coconut growing countries: Indonesia, Thailand, and Malaysia. We discuss how we uncovered this abuse while working on a new edition of All American Vegan, our cookbook, how we were able to increase awareness of this issue through our advocacy, and how that advocacy not only led to a study which documented this abuse first-hand, but bans on primate-harvested coconuts by British and American companies.
From body lotions, soaps, and household cleaning products to vegan cheeses, butters, and veggie burgers, coconuts and their various derivatives (including coconut water, coconut oil, and coconut milk) have become ubiquitous, especially in vegan foods and products.
In 2020, the number of plant-based products increased 14% over the previous year. In fact, growth of meat alternatives “is projected to increase from $4.6 billion in 2018 to a whopping $85 billion in 2030,” but that will pale in comparison to dairy alternatives, which are “estimated to dominate the overall plant-based products market.”
Driving this growth is concern about animal cruelty. Yet in an ironic tragedy, the majority of new vegan foods contain coconut-derived ingredients, substituting one form of animal cruelty for another as the majority of coconuts sold across the world come from several countries in Southeast Asia where they are picked by enslaved primates.
Agile and adept climbers, pig-tailed macaques are acquired as infants by poachers who trap them or kill their mothers. They are then chained at the neck and trained to climb trees and pick coconuts. They are beaten regularly, worked to exhaustion, fed non-nutritious food, and deprived of socialization with their kind. They suffer from PTSD and frequently engage in self-mutilating behavior. When they age and slow down, outliving their usefulness and suffering from mental illness, missing teeth, and unable to forage for food or protect themselves from predators — they are left in the wild to die.
After listening to the podcast above, click here to read about a study conducted onsite in Thailand that documented this abuse firsthand.
Click here to learn more about how you can make compassionate consumer choices when it comes to purchasing coconut-based products.
——————
This holiday season, please consider giving the gift of a Substack subscription to a friend, family member, or colleague. Doing so allows me to keep writing articles and making podcasts on issues not found anywhere else:
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
In “Death by a Thousand Cuts,” we discuss how compromises in the pursuit of money lead to corruption and how organizations that start out with great promise and make a fortune challenging the status quo, then become the status quo at the expense of their values, their mission, and the very animals they promised to protect.
Oreo, an abused dog, was killed by the ASPCA, despite a rescue group offering to save her. Two volunteers of the group even went to the ASPCA but were escorted out after the ASPCA refused to meet with them. On a cold, Friday morning, 12 years ago this week, Oreo was killed; not by her abuser, but by those whose mission it was to protect her.
As we solemnly observed the 12-year anniversary of the ASPCA’s killing of Oreo, an abused dog, who a No Kill sanctuary offered to save, new legislation aims to stop this from ever happening again. A new study finds that even quieter sounds, like the low-battery “chirping” of a smoke detector, could trigger fear and anxiety in dogs and the anxiety could be just as intense as thunder or fireworks. A first hand look inside the PETA kill room. A Federal Court of Appeal has ruled that an officer who unreasonably shoots a dog can be held civilly liable for violating the constitutional rights of the dog’s family. Why do animal shelters kill? Impossible foods, a company saving nearly 250,000 animals a year, wants to save even more with the launch of its Impossible meatballs. When “community sheltering” means no sheltering. The number of communities placing over 95% is increasing. And “Death by a Thousand Cuts,” an eye-opening discussion as to how humane organizations become corrupted in their pursuit of money, friendships, and power.
These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:
* We solemnly observed the 12-year anniversary of the ASPCA’s killing of Oreo, an abused dog, who a No Kill sanctuary offered to save. Meanwhile, new legislation that aims to make this illegal will be taken up in New York State next year.
* A new study finds that while most people recognize stress in dogs from loud, unusual noises like fireworks, they were less likely to understand that even quieter sounds could trigger fear and anxiety — and the anxiety could be just as intense as thunder or fireworks.
* A first hand look inside the PETA kill room.
* Police shooting of dogs is an ongoing problem. Thankfully, families are suing and winning. A Federal Court of Appeal has just ruled that an officer who unreasonably shoots a dog can be held civilly liable for violating the constitutional rights of the dog’s family.
* Why do animal shelters kill? The answer is not — as so many people believe — because “there are too many animals and not enough homes.” The answer is because they find killing easier than doing what is necessary to stop it.
* First it was the Impossible burger. Then came Impossible sausage. Then Impossible nuggets. Now comes Impossible meatballs. An industry report says that Impossible Foods saves almost 250,000 animals every year. That will only increase with the launch of the new “delicious” meatballs.
* When “community sheltering” means no sheltering. Regressive shelters are embracing a concept they call “community sheltering,” but which often means little more than closing their doors to animals in need.
As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, the number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing.
* Iron County, WI, reported a 99% placement rate for dogs and 94% for cats.
* Lake County, FL, reported a 98% placement rate for dogs, 95% for cats, and 93% for rabbits and other small animals.
* Oak Ridge, TN, reported a 96% placement rate for dogs and 96% for cats.
These shelters and the data nationally prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many, because there are too few homes, or because people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.
And, finally, how do organizations go from championing lifesaving to defending those who kill animals? From building parvo puppy wards and bottle baby programs to calling for fewer kennels, the cutting of shelter budgets, and closing the doors to needy animals? From hosting conference workshops on how to wage a campaign for No Kill reform to featuring directors who not only kill animals, but allow them to suffer horrifically? And from fighting regressive directors on behalf of shelter reformers to fighting shelter reformers to protect even abusive shelter directors?
In an eye-opening podcast, we discuss how compromises in the pursuit of money lead to corruption and how organizations — like Austin Pets Alive and Best Friends — started out with great promise and made a fortune challenging the status quo, but then became the status quo at the expense of their values, their mission, and the very animals they promised to protect.
(Two short audio clips are of Lester Bangs as portrayed in the 2000 film Almost Famous.)
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
In this podcast, we interview Heather Harper-Troje, a former PETA fieldworker. At the behest of PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk, it was her job “to get as many animals as possible” by promising people that they would find homes knowing that “the vast majority of those animals were [to be] killed.” Harper-Troje says killing is not an ancillary part of the job; it goes to the core of the mission. She also describes how a dog named “Black Boy” set her back on the path to animal rights and away from PETA.
The PETA kill room.
The fact that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has a kill room where it routinely injects thousands of animals a year with fatal doses of barbiturates, including healthy puppies and kittens without ever making them available for adoption, may still come as a surprise to some. Though this killing has been going on now for well over two decades, there are still many people who are unaware and therefore continue to support it through their financial contributions to that organization.
Indeed, killing is not an ancillary part of PETA’s Community Animal Project; it goes to the core of the mission. “The objective of the program,” says Heather Harper-Troje, a former PETA fieldworker, “was to get as many animals as possible and the vast majority of those animals were killed.”
Nothing came between that objective and the staff, including lying to people by telling them that the animals would be adopted: “I was told to pretty much say anything I needed to say to gain custody of an animal… I was told to lie by my direct supervisors directly and then by [PETA founder] Ingrid [Newkirk]…”
The evidence is overwhelming. It not only includes the testimony of Harper-Troje, but another field worker who has since come forward, describing the culture of killing as “terrifying.”
Puppies killed by PETA in the back of a van — a donor funded slaughterhouse on wheels.
It also includes:
* The data, self-reported by PETA to the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, showing most animals they seek out are killed.
* An inspection report by the Commonwealth of Virginia showing PETA kills 90% of animals within 24 hours without even trying to find them homes.
* An OpEd piece written by Ingrid Newkirk which admits that PETA supports a policy that all “pit bulls” should be killed in all shelters in America.
* PETA joining a group whose mission it is to kill dogs based on how they look.
* The trial of PETA employees after they were found to be rounding up and killing animals in the back of a van despite promising to find them homes.
* PETA stealing Maya, a happy and healthy dog, from her home and then illegally killing her.
* A judge's ruling calling out PETA's attorney for “unprofessional” and “contemptuous” conduct in the case of Maya; a lawsuit they settled for $49,000 after losing a motion arguing that Maya was worthless.
* PETA arguing community cats are better dead than sterilized and fed.
* The Virginia Federation of Humane Societies asking the Commonwealth of Virginia to revoke PETA's ability to take in and kill animals.
* PETA telling a Mayor to kill all pit bulls, not to foster animals, and not to work with rescue groups.
* Ingrid Newkirk admitting that PETA kills healthy, adoptable animals.
* Photographs of animals PETA killed.
* Intake and disposition records of kittens PETA had killed.
* Additional records showing PETA rounds up to kill cats and kittens.
* Even more records showing PETA rounds up to kill cats and kittens.
A healthy mother cat and her two equally healthy kittens were given to PETA by a veterinarian who was trying to find them homes and was told by PETA employees that they would have no problem adopting them out. Instead, the PETA employees killed them within minutes in the back of a van.
And not only does PETA kill cats themselves, they demonize community cats in order to get counties to round up and kill them, too. Per PETA, ‘cats smell, they are a nuisance, make too much noise, are a public health and rabies threat, transmit disease and parasites, including “roundworms, hookworms, and even plague,” and “terrorize and kill” 15 billion other animals a year.’ These are hardly the words of an animal-loving rights group.
There’s more. A dog, for example, died following three days of suffering in his kennel, with no medical or supportive care at Sumter County Animal Services in Florida. In response to criticism, county officials maintained that their job was not to save lives, but to provide “euthanasia services” and “culling” of animals. Despite this neglect, PETA sided with the pound, thanking pound staff even though they did not adopt any animals, had no veterinarian onsite to provide medical care, did not allow volunteers to care for animals, and did not allow the public to photograph animals in violation of the First Amendment and Federal law. PETA also thanked pound staff for “standing firmly” against citizens who are working to ensure that neglect is eliminated, lives are saved, adoptioned occur, volunteers are allowed, and constitutional rights are protected.
To learn more and to learn why, read or listen to an audio version of Why PETA Kills.
To learn more about my overwhelming victory against PETA in court, read PETA v. Winograd.
To learn about the neglected dog who set Heather back on the path to animal rights and away from PETA, read Rescued by Black Boy.
Heather’s interview is from August, 2017. It is still very relevant today.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe -
What’s it like to be a dog being experimented on in a laboratory? A cat in the kill room of an animal “shelter”? A cow in a slaughterhouse? A mouse on a glue trap? A deer being hunted? A pig on a factory farm?
Animals have eyes and they see with them, the way we humans see with ours. They have ears and they hear with them; again, just like us. They have legs and they walk with them. They have mouths and they eat with them and so on. The idea that the eyes of animals see, the ears of animals hear, and the legs of animals walk the way they do for us is so obvious, it seems unworthy of comment. Few would doubt that the anatomical structures we share with animals function for them just as they function for us. This seems obvious, logical.
And yet, we convince ourselves that there’s an exception: the brain. Though animals have brains, they don’t think with them like we do: they have no self-awareness, no concept of death, no ability to love, no mother-baby bond, no understanding of what’s to come. It’s all just instinct.
Why is it better for humans to believe this? To pretend that this is true?
If there is no conception of death, a “shelter” can kill cats without any moral repercussions. It’s just like going to sleep, says PETA, except they never wake up.
If there is no mother-baby bond, we can take a newly born calf and turn him into veal, while we take his mother’s milk — his birthright — for our own children to drink.
If there is no understanding of what’s to come for the animal entering a slaughterhouse, then killing animals to eat them poses no moral imperative not to.
Intuitively, we know that none of this is true. How can it be that every body part of an animal functions the way it functions for us, except the brain?
It is often said that our understanding and knowledge of death separates the human animal from all other animals. We alone know that we will die — that one day, suddenly or slowly, our life, our loves, our dreams will end. Surely this awareness sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom, we say, pointing to some of our greatest art, music, and literature — all inspired by what we know: that death awaits every living being. And yet, how very odd it is that we should be the only animal to know what life ultimately has in store for us. We share biological histories and physiologies — DNA, eyes, muscles, nerves, neurons, hormones — with other animals, and these may lead to similar behaviors, thought processes, and emotions — even about death.
The author is right: we are not the only animal to know what life ultimately has in store for us. As scientists now admit, death is a great equalizer among different species. But it is not the only one; so is the capacity to love —“love may be natural selection’s most compelling force, driving us and our fellow animals to care beyond reason for our families, loved ones, and children.”
Pigs, for example, have been found to be optimistic and agreeable, prefer familiar individuals to strangers, are sensitive to the experience of others, make decisions based on empathy, and have unique personality traits that overlap that of humans. They are not alone.
Based on (non-invasive) MRI scans of brains, Dr. Gregory Berns shows how consciousness and self-awareness and similar subjective experiences are not exclusive to humans or even unique among a select few species in the animal kingdom. They are the rule, not the exception.
Using some of the latest findings in comparative neurobiology — specifically the study of how different parts of the brain are connected to each other — he offers scientific proof of what we already intuitively know but conveniently ignore: that when the “structures in the brains of animals” are “organized in the same way as the corresponding parts of our brains,” and “these parts look the same” and “function[ ] in the same way,” then the subjective experiences are the same or at least similar.
Specifically, if the animal has a cortex — like dogs, cats, mice, deer, cows, and pigs — the animal is sentient. And “Beyond sentience lies consciousness and self-awareness.” As such, “its subjective experience can be understood by degrees of similarity to ours”:
With similar brain architectures for the experience of joy, pain, and even social bonds, we can assume that animals experience these things much like we do, albeit without the words for those subjective states…
If you want to know what it’s like to be a dog being experimented on, a cat in the kill room of an animal shelter, a cow in a slaughterhouse, a mouse on a glue trap, a deer being hunted, or a pig on a factory farm, imagine how you might experience those things:
An animal who is aware of his or her own pain and suffering may well experience the existential fear associated with imminent death. And awareness of other animals’ fear can only heighten such terror.
Terror. The same thing we would feel.
That alone should make us kinder to animals, intolerant of their killing, and unwilling to engage in actions which cause them to suffer. We shouldn’t torture a dog in a laboratory. We shouldn’t kill a cat in an animal “shelter.” We shouldn’t hunt deer. We shouldn’t kill rodents with glue traps. We shouldn’t confine a pig on a factory farm. “[L]ogically,” says Dr. Berns, “we shouldn’t eat a cow…”
But deep down, when one strips away the self-serving justifications, all of us already knew that. As does Dr. Berns, who admits — like so many others — that he tragically continues to do so anyway.
This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit news.nathanwinograd.org/subscribe - Montre plus
