So PETA is at it again and thought I might clear a few things up. No Kill is being attacked and I felt the need to jot down some of my thoughts in this post. Much better post from Francis Battista at Best Friends The no-“kill deniers” if you want a good, less snarky rebuttal than mine. But for now, here are my thoughts.
To see the original article from Ingrid E. Newkirk, “‘No-kill’ Is Not the Answer to Animal Homelessness”.
Title – “‘No-kill’ is no answer”
I would say that depends on the question. If it was “What kind of shelter kills more than 90% of all animals it takes in for the last decade.” No Kill is not the answer. That would be PETA. On the other hand if the question “was how did Austin Texas annually save more than 90% of all animals entering it shelter since January 2011?” Then No Kill is the answer. Confusing title without the question. Hope that clears things up a little.
Let’s look at some of the rest put forth in this article.
“Considerable media coverage recently has suggested that the solution to dog and cat overpopulation lies with so-called “no-kill” animal shelters. If this were true, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would be their strongest proponent.”
Except for the fact PETA cannot seem to save more than a single digit percentage of the animals they take in with more than 30 million dollars at their disposal. Kind of rings a little false, doncha think?
Maybe you missed all the articles relating to over 160 communities that actual prove that false. We’ll give it to you that you had no time between killing animals in your shelter to read. But take a little time tonight and check out some OPEN ADMISSION No Kill COMMUNITIES, not just shelters – Austin TX, Rockwall TX, Charlottesville VA, Washoe County, NV, Seagoville TX, Tompkins County NY, Rosemount and Hastings, Minnesota as well as Prescott, WI. 160 communities serving more than 3 times that number of cities and towns. Reading is hard, but check those out. google.com, bing.com might be useful in this instance. Or I can make it easy and send you to http://outthefrontdoor.com/
“They [No Kill Advocates] use inflammatory language and labels such as “puppies” and “kittens” even if the animal was a 17-year-old dog who was unable to walk and gasping for breath because of a heart condition.”
If you kill a puppy or a kitten, I don’t feel bad for using that as an example. even if you kill other healthy animals as well. Check the missing language here as it is very interesting. There is no denial killing puppies and kittens here or healthy dogs and cats. Just language used to suggest No Kill is in some way advocating for the lives of irredeemable suffering animals. Which is clearly not the case. This is where No Kill and regressive shelters clearly are at odds. No Kill wants PETA and others to read the definition of euthanasia. No Kill advocates shelters should never kill a healthy or treatable homeless pet. But PETA does not distinguish between killing and euthanasia. They simply use the word euthanize to kill any animal whether the act is one or the other. It makes some people feel better about what they are doing.
Government compliance does not equal transparency, honesty or truth. Here’s their records – LINK.
“We’d love for the “no-kill” people to join us in working for such a real solution.”
See the OPEN ADMISSION communities above saving lives with the No Kill Equation or check out the 90% club. It works. You will need to stop using this tactic. And the solution is being worked. I suggest you try this real solution in your kill shelter.
‘And it’s easy to have a high adoption rate when a shelter chooses to take in only adoptable animals.”
Simply a ploy to make one think No Kill shelters are limited and there are no open admission No Kill facilities in existence. regardless of the fact that Newkirk knows the first one started in 2001. No Kill Shelters can be and are limited and open admission. See the OPEN ADMISSION communities above saving lives with the No Kill Equation.
“The “no-kill” movement is also responsible for the spike in hoarding cases nationwide. “Rescue” hoarders make up one-quarter of the estimated 6,000 new hoarding cases reported in the United States annually.”
There is no relationship of this rise in reported cases. Hoarding existed long before No Kill. Hoarding is a mental condition, not a strategy. Hoarders save newspapers, trinkets, any item you can think of. There are cases that hit the news about people hoarding animals. They have no connection with the No Kill movement. This is a disingenuous maneuver at best and an outright lie at worst. See this link for more on this.
“PETA’s shelter helps — because no one else will — animals whose guardians can’t afford veterinary care or a dignified death for their beloved companions, animals who have been kept on chains in backyards and have never been socialized”
When does a “guardians can’t afford veterinary care” and “animals who have been kept on chains” have anything to so with killing pets? I’m trolling there. Badly worded on their part but to put those two together as some sort of defense for killing is just silly the way it is worded. But really? PETA helps here? Can anyone give me one good example of when a relatively healthy/treatable homeless person would be helped with a hypodermic needle filled with blue poison? Or more fittingly, a relative, brought into a hospital because you could not afford to keep them so could you “just put them down, Doc?”. A person who brings an irredeemably suffering animal to a shelter to be euthanized because they cannot afford to do so otherwise, might be considered a candidate for euthanasia. But if someone walks in and says, “euthanize my dog” and the animal is not irredeemable untreatable, a shelter should not kill that animal. And they should not call it euthanize if they choose to do so.
“PETA saves more animals’ lives than most of the “no-kills” put together, by stopping animal homelessness (and the resulting need for euthanasia) at its source. We’ve sterilized nearly 94,000 animals”
That doesn’t save lives, it saves births. And any No Kill Advocate would say low cost/no cost spay neuter absolutely helps with future shelter intake. No Kill Programs of Spay/Neuter probably does more per year than PETA, but I don’t think that can be proved either way. And the argument we are making is about the killing, not spaying. You’re trying to trick me….
“We treat — for free — animals like Missy, a dog whose hip was dislocated after she was hit by a car, and Patch, a cat whose bleeding and punctured eyeball had to be removed.”
“We will always consider and respect animals for who they are and what they have been through and do what is best for them as individuals.”
Hope they never do what’s best for me as an individual. Help me if I sneeze when they show up at my door. Killing me because I have the sniffles (or I am old, or I am the unattractive man that I am) is really not what is best for me, or shelter pets, I assure you.
“Blaming shelters won’t solve the homeless-animal crisis.”