Tuesday, January 6, 2009

PETA and the Pitties

First of all, thanks for the comments. Good or bad ... I sincerely welcome and appreciate them all. For tonight, I am going to address a few of them.

Although I cannot nor will not agree with any comment on my No Kill blog that tells us to "kill all the animals" to solve the issue, this comment from i hate animal control does open a door to say: Isn't that what we're doing already? It is impossible to do away with animal control services (there's the little pesky business of having to protect the public's health and safety involved here), but I advocate for a care and control model instead of a strictly control and punishment one.

Thanks also to VR for the insight on where our current cat leash laws originated. I have not lived in Las Cruces that long to know all the history, but this does show how one person's decisions--if he/she is a lawmaker or influences lawmakers--can have such lasting and disastrous effects for many years. Putting animal-welfare into law should never be taken lightly or based on personal feelings; our local lawmakers need to be well- and fully informed before voting on each law they pass. Those local lawmakers that will make up the oversight board for our shelter should also do what many of us do: become well-read and informed about all aspects of sheltering before you put policy and procedures and programs into practice.

We see the disastrous effects of laws passed for years to come in other communities as well--not just here. Look at Denver's anti-pit bull laws. For me, reading "The Pit Bull Placebo" by Karen Delise is teaching me things I never knew; it is a must-read for anyone interested in how sensationalism and misinformation can grow into discrimination and prejudice and laws put into place that do more harm than good and don't address the true nature of canine aggression nor how to prevent bites and attacks in the first place.

VR also asked about the possibility of asking PETA for assistance. I'm sorry to say that the likelihood of that is very low. Unfortunately, some powerful animal-rights groups do not all have the same progressive views about animal welfare nor companion animals as I wish they did. (Yet, if they did, imagine how much closer to No Kill we would be right now with the backing of not only their power and reputations but also their multi-million operating budgets?)

If you have not read my blog post entitled "Old Guard vs. New Guard" from August 14 of last year, please do so. It explains the long history of sheltering in our country and how many of the powerful groups in the nation divide up into different philosophical camps. Unfortunately, PETA not only supports the high-kill, old-fashioned model, that organization actually kills many of the animals they "rescue" as well.

In 2006, they got into some very hot water over this issue. PETA does have a shelter, but they are not like Best Friends ... at PETA, they don't spend their funds on lifesaving ... most animals go there to die, I hate to say. In 2006, their kill rate for animals they took in was over 90%. If you Google "PETA kills animals", the newspaper articles might still be available that also talk about some PETA workers getting caught throwing away dead cats and dogs in public dumpsters.

For the most part, the only assistance PETA offers for companion animals is for spay/neuter. It is not a secret that Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's president, is looking forward to the day that dogs and cats go back to being only in the wild and not in people's homes. Ultimately, I think they truly believe that people have no business having animals in the home.

There is alot of detail about this at Nathan Winograd's No Kill Blog (also a must-read). He says it best and provides all the details about PETA. In doing so, he has earned their wrath, and PETA has been coming out with anti-No Kill literature and false claims that all No Kill shelters are equivalent to animal hoarders. What a shame this is the road PETA is taking.

Nathan Winograd's entire website has just been revamped recently as well. Please visit it again if you haven't done so recently. Go to www.nokillblog.com to read his No Kill recap of 2008 -- the winners and losers and what we can expect from this new year.

Thanks also to jacksonthornton for the insight that referring to any and all criticism as pointing fingers is a smokescreen our leaders often hide behind and the way they keep many of us at bay. It is very rare for there to be real dialogue about actual issues with our leaders. Many of us have tried for some time now. Unfortunately, the best reason to be open and have such honest dialogue is lost in our community as well, which is to come up with solutions and partner with everyone who can help to reach some No Kill goals.

Petey is looking for a home

This cute pittie pictured in today's post is named Petey. He was rescued from life at the end of a chain by a rescuer in Hobbs for Dogs Deserve Better. He is young, friendly and playful with everyone(including other dogs), and he is in desperate need of a foster home at this time and a permanent home as well. This rescuer, as many in small towns, is overwhelmed with the lives she works to save on a daily basis. I have met and known many a small-town rescuer. What they do with zero infrastructure and support is amazing.

To find out more about Petey or if you can offer any assistance, please contact me at cheressemm@gmail.com, and I can get you in touch with Petey's rescuer. She also has another sweet female pittie named Sunny who was hit by a car, has an amputated leg, but has a heart of gold.

You can learn more about Dogs Deserve Better at their website:


Shia said...

PETA may not be all it's cracked up to be, but if you want to get someone on your side, get Sir Richard Branson. If this town can waste all that money on his space port, they certainly can spend some on a new building for the shelter. The current one is small and outdated and not even up to any kind of proper code. If you get backing by Sir Richard, then the town will bow down to anything he wants, just to have that thing built here.

Anonymous said...

You should publish the rude and ignorant remarks. It gives a better idea what the mentality is on the people that oppose no kill goals. You could edit the nasty stuff with a bleep, but leave it as is otherwise. Not putting out the opposing side crudeness is doing them a favor. Start putting a face on the things that live under rocks.