127,000 Hits in 0.26 Seconds

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is at it again. In yet another irresponsible act of overreaching to disparage the life-affirming movement to save animals in shelters, PETA once again equates the No Kill movement with animal hoarding in another hit piece published in their magazine this month.

The timing is not coincidental. After every PETA scandal, they seem to go on the offensive, trying to distract attention from their own untoward acts by attacking No Kill. After the story broke about PETA death squads killing animals in North Carolina and disposing of their bodies into supermarket dumpsters, PETA published a story arguing that animals suffer because of No Kill. After it was revealed that in 2006, PETA had the grisliest year in their history, killing 97% of all dogs and cats they took in, they published another hit piece. Recently, it was revealed that in 2007, newly released Commonwealth of Virginia records showed PETA killed 91%, adopting out a paltry 17 of the 1,997 who entered PETA’s doors. Low and behold, this month PETA attacks No Kill again.

I have long believed that the attack on No Kill by PETA has more to do with providing political cover for Ingrid Newkirk’s dark impulses than with any true philosophical opposition (to saving lives?); but regardless of what motivates PETA, it isn’t working.

PETA’s act of desperation is losing out to the voices of animal welfare advocates, animal rights activists, and everyday pet lovers who are increasingly standing up and voicing their opposition. Type in “Peta kills pets” on Google and you’ll get—according to Google—“about 127,000 hits in 0.26 seconds.” Clearly, a light of truth and compassion shines, which PETA’s darkness cannot overcome.

While I don’t agree with the overall philosophy of some of those voices—and some of those voices will oppose anything PETA says or does regardless of the veracity of the claims—as it relates to the PETA position that killing dogs and cats is a “gift,” “kindness,” “a compassionate option,” despite the reality of No Kill alternatives and without a hint of irony that George Orwell himself would blush, even these opposing voices are correct on this score, regardless of their overall agendas on other issues.

It is what is right, not who is right that matters, a fact often lost on the activists who would blindly follow Ingrid Newkirk’s band of pet killers off the metaphorical cliff of their own beliefs if she asks them to, simply because Ingrid Newkirk is the one asking. No matter that the killing is a violation of the core beliefs of the animal rights activists themselves.

The right to life is universally acknowledged as a basic or fundamental right. It is basic or fundamental because the enjoyment of the right to life is a necessary condition of the enjoyment of all other rights. A movement cannot be “rights” oriented as PETA claims to be and ignore the fundamental right to life. If an animal is dead, the animal’s rights become irrelevant. Not only does PETA not acknowledge the right to life, they have rejected it saying that they “do not believe in right to life,” as it relates to dogs and cats. (Apparently, they do not believe in right to life for other animals as well. Rabbits, chickens, and others have also been killed by PETA.*)

In addition, it is the relationship between Americans and their animal companions that can open a door to larger animal rights issues. In their daily interactions with their dogs and cats, people experience an animal’s personality, emotions, and capacity both for great joy and great suffering. They learn empathy for animals. It is not a stretch that someone who is compassionate—and passionate—about their pets would over time and with the right information be sympathetic to animal suffering on farms, in circuses, in research facilities, and elsewhere.

Right now, however, the nation’s largest self-proclaimed “animal rights” group is actively working to ensure that that door is never opened—by actively and proactively arguing that dogs and cats do not have the right to life, and that killing them is an act of kindness. In my opinion: It is beyond ironic. It is beyond hypocritical. It is beyond a betrayal. It is beyond obscene. Regardless of whether you believe in “animal rights” or you don’t; regardless of whether you are a vegetarian or not; regardless of where you stand on animal issues unrelated to dogs and cats in shelters, I believe PETA’s position is insane.

And I am not alone. From CNN to Newsweek, from the San Francisco Chronicle to the bloggers, read a small sampling of what is being said about PETA on the issue of life and death, dogs and cats, and the local kill shelter:

* ‘People for the Extermination of Thousands of Animals’ from No Kill Now (nokillnow.com): http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

* ‘Better Dead Than Fed, PETA Says’ from the San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL

* ‘Were Local Animal Rescue Efforts in Vain?’ From the Western Record (vancnews.com): http://www.nathanwinograd.com/linked/petarescue.pdf

* ‘A Few Thoughts on PETA’ from Pet Connection (petconnection.com): http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2008/03/28/petakerr/

* ‘PETA’s Dirty Secret’ from Peta Kills Animals (petakillsanimals.com): http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petasdirtysecret.cfm

* ‘PETA and Killing’ from Newsweek (newsweek.com):
http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

* ‘PETA Kills Pets’ from CNN (cnn.com): http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2005/12/17/peta.kills.pets.cnn

* ‘Guess Who is Killing Animals?’ from Fredericksburg News (fredersicksburg.com): http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2005/102005/10042005/128223/index_html?page=1

That more voices are condemning the PETA death squads and their position on shelter killing generally, is to be celebrated. Not only to try to save the dogs and cats PETA kills and will kill in the future, but because it undermines our credibility as advocates when we ignore the atrocities PETA is committing against animals, or make excuses for it simply because those perpetrating them claim to be part of our movement even as their actions clearly demonstrate the opposite. At the end of the day, when it comes to saving dogs and cats, we must always support compassion whenever it presents itself, especially when it gives meaning to an animal’s right to live—even when that right is not supported by the groups who (falsely) claim to be the standard bearers of our relationship to animals: PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, AHA, and any other national organizations complacent about shelter killing, mired in the failed philosophies of the past, or which have not unequivocally and unapologetically embraced the No Kill philosophy as articulated in the U.S. No Kill Declaration.