PETA's response to euthanization issue

The Thursday, June 30, San Francisco Chronicle has published a response from PETA to criticism of its euthanization of homeless animals.

Many of us have read about the arrests of two PETA employees who dumped the bodies of animals they had taken from shelters in North Carolina and then killed. (http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87943&ran=155298&tref=po)
It is no secret that PETA takes in animals that shelters have been unable to place and euthanizes many of them. PETA is against breeding animals since we already have too many without homes. But the group is not against euthanizing animals for whom it cannot find homes, rather than warehousing animals. The groups feels that warehousing them provides a poor quality of life and costs a lot of money better spent on sterilizations that will stem the overpopulation crisis.

Many of my subscribers have asked me to comment on the issue. The purpose of DawnWatch is to encourage positive interaction between the animal protection world and the media, and good coverage of animal issues. Therefore my number one 'comment' is a request that people use any stories on this issue as excuses for letters to the editor on the importance on spay-neuter and the joys of adoption.

My own feelings on the issue itself are mixed. Certainly, criticism of PETA's practices coming from anybody who has recently bought an animal from a pet store or even a "responsible breeder" and has thereby directly contributed to the companion animal overpopulation crisis, seems odd. However Best Friends, the wonderful no-kill sanctuary in Utah, also released a statement condemning PETA. Best Friends suggests that if PETA, which does excellent work in some fields, has no positive contribution to make in the area of homeless animals, it should stay out of that arena. My friends at PETA tell me that since there are still far too many animals for available homes, some must be killed, and it is better they die gentle deaths in caring arms than horrifying mass deaths in gas chambers; so to refuse to do the dirty work would be to do the wrong thing by those animals. That is true -- unless Best Friends plans to take every animal out of the North Carolina shelters, which is unlikely.

Yet no organization can do absolutely everything -- all of us abandon some animals to their fate. So I can't help wondering if perhaps PETA should indeed entirely abandon those animals destined for death who it cannot save. I wonder if the better death PETA gives to some animals is worth the cost in public opinion and to the morale of those working towards a no-kill world. In writing that, I do not mean to condemn PETA's euthanization practices -- How can I unless I am willing and able to find homes for all of those animals? I know PETA's choice has come from a good place, and to suggest PETA abandons that work for the sake of public opinion is almost cynical. But public opinion matters, so I float that idea as one I think worth consideration.

Meanwhile, below I share PETA's response to the situation, as published in the San Francisco Chronicle (Pg B9). I think its strong arguments for spending money on sterilizations rather than on more shelters, and for dealing with the world as it is now while working towards the one we hope to have, will soften the opinions of those who have been distressed to find PETA in the midst of this issue.

The piece opens the door for letters to the editor regarding spay-neuter and adoption. The San Francisco Chronicle takes letters at: letters [at] sfchronicle.com and advises, "Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication."

The op-ed mentions that San Francisco kills 1,436 dogs and cats every year. I live in a city that kills about 60,000, where such letters are needed even more than in San Francisco. If your city has a high-kill rate, and your local paper has covered the PETA euthanization issue, I ask again that you please use the story as a jump-off point for a letter to your local editor on the importance of spay-neuter and the joys of adoption. If you have any difficulty finding the email address for a letter to your editor, I am happy to help. And I am always happy to edit letters.



Here's the PETA op-ed:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/30/EDGC9DGTNV1.DTL

The dilemma of the unwanted

Daphna Nachminovitch

Thursday, June 30, 2005

The ugly issue of euthanizing dogs and cats -- and the struggle by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals with it -- is in the spotlight. Painful as this is, it's useful to talk about it.

PETA concentrates on exposing the cruelties of the food, clothing, experimentation and entertainment industries on animals. But we couldn't turn our back when we discovered that in North Carolina, pounds in some rural counties were pitiful shacks where dogs drowned during floods and workers killed animals with a .22 rifle or gassed them in a leaky, rusty, windowless metal box. There were no adoptions, giving North Carolina the second highest kill rate in the nation.

While pushing for reforms and even building a cat shelter from the ground up, we reluctantly assumed the role of "shelter of last resort" in northeastern North Carolina, giving a painless, peaceful death in loving arms to sick, injured and aggressive animals who were slated to be killed inhumanely. Some we managed to place (see the condition of euthanized animals and some of the happy endings on http://www.helpinganimals.com.)

But the most important work we do in North Carolina is promoting and performing sterilization, at no cost, for the dogs and cats that would otherwise be producing litter after unwanted litter. This is what needs to be discussed -- in North Carolina, in California and everywhere. Shelters that accept every dog and cat brought to them don't euthanize animals because we're too cheap to spend money on building more shelters. Building more shelters takes away the resources needed to stem the tide of unwanteds. We're not talking about a few thousand dogs and cats one can scramble to find homes for; we're talking about 3 million to 4 million animals who must be killed every year in the United States because prospective guardians choose to go to pet shops and breeders and still don't sterilize their dogs and cats.

The no-kill shelters, including the San Francisco SPCA, tout the fact that they don't kill animals, but they have awarded themselves the luxury of turning away thousands of animals they deem unadoptable. Where do these "undesirables" go? To those shelters that, like PETA, will do the heartbreaking job of euthanasia. In San Francisco, that place is the Department of Animal Care and Control. In other words, DACC is left to do the area's dirty work. In fiscal year 2003-2004, DACC euthanized 1,436 dogs and cats.

Critics may condemn PETA for supporting euthanasia, but we are not ashamed of providing a merciful exit from an uncaring world to broken beings. We know that we are also working at the roots of a problem, persuading people that buying puppies and kittens from pet stores and breeders means that other animals, literally dying for a home in a shelter, pay for with their lives.

Most important, every time we spay or neuter an animal -- and we sterilized more than 7,600 dogs and cats in southern Virginia and North Carolina last year alone -- we prevent the births of four times its number right off the bat. Three animal generations down the line, that means we prevented the births of nearly half a million animals, which, given the "throwaway rate," means countless thousands were never born only to be euthanized.

We all want to save animals. The way to do that is to prevent the births of more dogs and cats. Leaving euthanasia to someone else solves nothing.

Daphna Nachminovitch is director of the Domestic Animals Issues and Abuse Department for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (http://www.peta.org).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. If you forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts, please do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this tag line.)