I am now writing on Substack. While there, sign up to receive an email whenever a new article is published. It is free.

Click the image above or follow this link: https://nathanwinograd.substack.com/

Although no new articles will be published on this website, the existing articles will remain available.

A federal lawsuit filed in California contends that state laws and regulations prohibiting veterinarian telehealth appointments — using zoom and other video conferencing technologies for care instead of in-person appointments — violates the First Amendment.

The current pandemic waiver which allows families with sick pets to conduct zoom appointments with their veterinarians is set to expire in June. The California Veterinarian Board will then require once again in-person exams.

If the lawsuit is successful, millions of animals, including those in pounds, will benefit by:

• Expanding access to care across the state, country, and globe;
• Expanding access to care for pets living with people of limited financial means by reducing costs for such care;
• Allowing shelters to reduce the number of animals who are surrendered because of medical concerns by helping people resolve those concerns in a cost-effective way; and,
• Improving the care of animals already in the shelter by expanding access for small to medium shelters who do not have onsite veterinarians.

“The lawsuit contends pet owners and veterinarians have a 1st Amendment free speech right to telemedicine. Restrictions on veterinarians also violate equal protection guarantees because doctors who treat people can do so remotely, the suit argues.” According to plaintiffs, “People can use telemedicine for themselves and their children, so why not for their pets?”

The Dean of UC Berkeley Law School, a constitutional scholar, said the restriction on telehealth appointments for pets is “obviously is a restriction on speech.” He believes the lawsuit will be successful because the state veterinarian board has “arbitrarily deprived veterinarians of the opportunity to speak with clients using modern telemedicine communication methods, like Zoom, that are available to doctors who care for human beings, and which have become increasingly valuable and essential tools to the delivery of safe and comprehensive healthcare.”

It is not the first lawsuit of its kind and hopefully it won’t be the last. In December, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that a similar Texas law prohibiting veterinarians from giving online advice without a physical examination of the animal violates a veterinarian’s First Amendment rights.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here

Arguing that the “overwhelming majority of the animals of the overwhelming majority of species appear to have significant suffering but little (or no) happiness in their lives,” a growing number of philosophers, biologists, zoologists, and others are calling for proactively working to improve the lives of wild animals. In an article entitled “The wild frontier of animal welfare,” they argue that wild animal suffering is staggering and we ought to do something about it, such as providing medical care, even if humans did not cause that suffering. I agree.

This view, however, has received pushback from ecologists who claim that beside habitat preservation, nature should be interfered with as little as possible. I reject nature. Making the claim that “natural” is better is to accept not only as inevitable, but as normatively preferable, the suffering inherent in nature, despite human capacity to mitigate it.

Indeed, many animals in the wild die prematurely and die violently. Tragically, “the overwhelming number of nonhuman animals [in the wild] die shortly after they come into existence. They starve or are eaten alive, which means their suffering vastly outweighs their happiness.”

So contrary to assertions, “natural” is not better; it is objectively and demonstrably worse. There is no compelling reason why individual animal suffering born of disease or ailments that humans have the ability to cure is preferable to the diminished suffering, extended lifespan, or opportunity to pursue happiness that an animal is afforded when humans provide veterinary and other types of care. Except, of course, an attitude that considers the avoidable suffering of animals or diminished ability to pursue fulfillment as somehow less egregious than that of humans in comparable circumstances.

Thankfully, a growing number of us are calling wild animal suffering a “very serious moral problem.” Once one accepts that pain matters, wild animal suffering advocates argue, what, if anything, can be done about it becomes an urgent concern.”

The question, of course, is how far should and can we go to give animals a happy life: Habitat preservation? Medical care? What about protecting the prey from the predator without killing/harming the predator?

If the latter seems like a tall task, some argue that it may soon be within our power in emerging CRISPR genome-editing technology. What if we could alter the genomes of carnivorous predators to remove both their prey drive and their need for animal-based amino acids?

While the argument sounds fanciful and even dangerous and my “sympathies lie with the skeptical reader who reckons humans will probably mess things up:” if we “reprogram predators,” we can reduce suffering, reduce killing, increase happiness, and ensure longevity for all species involved. Thus getting the proverbial lion/wolf to lay down with the proverbial lamb is not an idea that should be dismissed out of hand, despite the potential pitfalls. And if history is any guide, our species has never benefited from throwing up our hands in the face of what was once seen as an intractable problem.

“The wild frontier of animal welfare” is here.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

It is time to close the book on concerns about COVID-19 transmission vis-a-vis dogs and cats. Despite a year of alarmist headlines, here is what we know, based on peer-reviewed studies:

• Dogs are highly resistant to COVID-19 and in the rare chance they do get it from a COVID-19 positive person in their household, they cannot transmit it to other dogs, other animal companions, or people because they are dead-end hosts.
• Cats and a number of other animals such as rabbits, guinea pigs, and mice have been ruled out as a source of human infection. “There is no evidence that companion animals are playing an epidemiological role in the spread of human infections of SARS-CoV-2” (the virus that causes COVID-19).
• While there is a small chance a cat may acquire COVID-19 from an infected person, it is very, very difficult for a cat to transmit it to other cats and, outside of a laboratory setting and intentional infliction with large doses of the virus, may be impossible.

And, now, comes the final nail on the coffin: a peer-reviewed study of community and shelter cats found no cat-to-cat transmission.

The study was conducted in the Lombardy region of northern Italy, which is significant for two reasons. First, Italy was not only one of the first and hardest hit countries outside of China, but Lombardy was “one of the worst affected Italian regions” with over half a million cases. Second, since community cat programs are government recognized and fairly extensive, all the community cats tested for SARS-CoV-2 had negative baselines prior to the pandemic.

In other words, before the pandemic, all cats tested negative for antibodies. And of the hundreds of samples tested afterward, only one cat “was positive for antibodies” (but tested negative for an active infection). The cat posed no risk to any other cat, did not transmit it to other cats despite being a member of a cat colony, and was almost certainly initially infected by a COVID-19 positive caretaker, not another cat. The same findings applied to shelter-tested cats.

As a result, we can conclude that “there is no indication of SARS-CoV-2 circulating in stray cats.” Combined with similar results in shelter-tested cats and those who live in human homes, cats are not a source of infection for people or other animals. And that, say study authors, “should alleviate public concerns about stray cats acting as SARS-CoV-2 carriers.”

The study, A pre- and during Pandemic Survey of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Stray Colony and Shelter Cats from a High Endemic Area of Northern Italy, is here.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

My article defending dogs from a cruel and racist claim made by University of California Riverside Professor Katja Guenther in her new book that treating them as family perpetuates whiteness and oppresses people of color is the second most read article in Areo Magazine so far this year with over 20,000 readers.

In her book, Guenther argues that treating animals as family and showing them affection are “white” values, while treating animals “as resources, whether protective (as in guarding) or financial (as in breeding or possibly fighting)” are part of the culture of people of color. She claims that rescuers who want dogs to be adopted to “those who will treat their dog as a family member” and will “care for their dog” are using dogs “as instruments for reproducing whiteness.”

As I argued in my piece, the premise is not only factually incorrect, it embraces racist stereotypes, and puts dogs at risk.

Instead of challenging my arguments, Guenther responded by attacking the messenger, arguing that she is the subject of a campaign against her by the “Alt-Right.” Although she does not mention me by name, the timing of her claim — coming on the heels of my article and a series of Facebook posts about it — suggests that she is referring to me.

Not only is name calling a logical fallacy, unbecoming of a university professor; but — to quote Mr. Spock — “Reverting to name calling suggests you are defensive and therefore you find my opinion valid.”

Moreover, I am hardly “Alt-Right,” having voted for President Biden and encouraging others to do the same Moreover, like my condemnation of Guenther’s anti-dog views, I have likewise condemned the National Rifle Association for throwing dogs under the bus. The NRA is blocking a vote on SB 650 to ban the perpetual chaining of dogs in Florida because hunting dogs spend much of their lives on the end of one.

Treating dogs as family is neither a race issue, nor a political one. People of all walks of life want to build a better world for them. But standing in the way of that are extremists on both ends of the spectrum — the NRA on the Right and, on the Left, critical race theorists like Guenther.

And those of us in the middle, who still believe in Enlightenment values — including the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — should stand firm regardless of the political party the person advocating harm to dogs identifies with.

When it comes to dogs, I’m neither a Democrat, independent, nor a Republican. I am a human. And as a member of the most resourceful species on Earth, I have an obligation to use my intellect and abilities to lend a helping hand whenever and to whomever I can. When that help includes other creatures on Earth who cannot help themselves — who are in fact completely dependent on us for their health, happiness, and safety — the debt of kindness and consideration we humans owe should be immediately apparent.

It is for me.

My article, Critical Race Theory is Coming for the Dogs, is here.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

In 2012, Best Friends promised a No Kill Los Angeles by 2017. It didn’t happen and the five-year plan was extended to 10-years. If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. And if you still do not succeed, well, just go ahead and lie about it. That is what Best Friends has done with this week’s announcement by CEO Julie Castle that the City of Los Angeles achieved No Kill in 2020 with a 90% placement rate.  

They did not.

And we know they did not because: 1. The cat placement rate was only 88%; 2. Even if it was 90% (and it wasn’t) it compares poorly with the communities placing 99% of cats now serving millions of Americans; 3. The city pound admittedly killed healthy cats all year; and, 4. It closed its doors for much of the year, turning away even injured animals, resulting in animals being abandoned (including the little cat pictured here).

This much should go without saying: We don’t achieve No Kill by closing the doors to stray and injured animals. We don’t achieve it by killing healthy animals (as long as we keep that killing under 10%). Here’s a shocker, we achieve No Kill by not killing them.

But Best Friends is not a group that lets facts stand in the way of a good fundraising story:

1. The 2020 placement rate for cats was 88%. That’s not a judgment call. It’s math.

2. Even if it was 90% — and it was not — statistics from the best performing shelters in the nation, serving millions of Americans, indicate that ending the killing of all but irremediably physically suffering animals entering a shelter results in a placement rate of 99%+. Best Friends wants to claim that you can kill 10 times as many and still be No Kill, legitimizing the killing of healthy and treatable animals, while betraying the very ethos at the heart of the term “No Kill.”

3. Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) killed healthy “feral” cats, the very opposite of No Kill. In fact, because of a 2009 court ruling, Los Angeles Animal Services has spent the last 11 years, including all 12 months of 2020, killing healthy “feral” cats. The City has long claimed that in order to stop killing these cats, it needed to conduct an environmental impact report, the City Council needed to approve it, and the Court then needed to accept it before it would lift the injunction prohibiting TNR. EIR completion and City Council vote did not occur until December 8, 2020, the last month of the year.

4. For much of the year, the “shelter” closed its doors, stopped taking in animals, including — according to a lawsuit — stray and injured animals. That resulted in cats simply being abandoned, including the little cat pictured here who was left in the parking lot of the pound when the person trying to surrender him was turned away. A rescuer trying to help the cat was told by “shelter” staff that she needed a permit to trap him, would not be given a permit, and was not allowed to even provide food or water on threat of prosecution, hardly a vision for No Kill. 

Not surprisingly, intakes were down almost half (46%) from the year prior, which begs the question why the placement rate was not even higher given the low intake, combined with the massive demand for pets by the public during the extended lockdown. 

Does achieving higher placement rates require closing one’s doors to injured animals? Leaving cats in parking lots with no food or water (and threatening to prosecute rescuers trying to help them)? Killing healthy “feral” cats? Or falsely pretending, as Julie Castle just did, that only animals who are irremediably suffering — those animals for whom killing really is “euthanasia” — are losing their lives? Absolutely not. That’s not what the No Kill movement is about. It is, in fact, its antithesis. And pretending otherwise only leaves animals at continued mortal risk.

If Best Friends and LAAS officials actually did the work to create a No Kill L.A. in earnest — something that should not be hard to do given its extremely low per capita intake rate and its relatively high per capita funding rate — they could actually be the heroes they now only pretend to be.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

The Centers for Disease Control has recently issued guidance on care of pet dogs and cats in the age of COVID-19 and it has led to a number of news articles about it. Unfortunately, that guidance is — I want to say — a bit bonkers, but “bonkers” isn’t a word I normally use in articles, preferring more sober language. It is, though. And I say this as someone who always wears a mask outside, follows strict quarantine procedures, and is waiting patiently (and some days not so patiently) for a vaccine I will get as soon as I am eligible. In other words, I am not someone who is anti-vax, anti-government, mask-politicizing, or prone to conspiracies. To the contrary, I look fondly back — to quote Miss Manners —  at “the halcyon days when we naively thought that facts were immutable and universal.”

That said, the CDC has four recommendations:

1. Keep cats indoors when possible and do not let them roam freely outside.

The advice to isolate cats indoors comes, despite the CDC admitting that the very, very small number of cats who tested positive did so after prolonged contact with an infected person of the same household as the cat. So, presumably, going outside would not put them at risk; to the contrary even. Studies and epidemiological data, moreover, have also shown they get only mild symptoms, can’t spread it from contact with their skin, fur, or hair, do not readily pass it to each other, and can’t infect people at all.

2. Pets or other animals should not be allowed to roam freely around the facility, and cats should be kept indoors.

It is not clear what “facility” they are referring to since this is advice to the public, is entitled “If You Have Pets,” and, as to cats being kept indoors, well, they already said that and it was bad advice to begin with. Saying it twice doesn’t make it more compelling. It is, in fact, the functional equivalent of multiple exclamation points: methinks thou does protest too much. 

3. Avoid public places where a large number of people gather.

It is not clear how this relates to animals, especially since it tracks language in their early advice for people. Like the “facility” comment above, it appears someone at CDC “cut and paste” this from elsewhere and did not go back and edit. Cats are hardly likely to congregate “where a large number of people gather,” and dogs are not readily-infected, the few that did get infected did so after prolonged contact with an infected person in their own household, and they are dead-end hosts, meaning they cannot transmit it to anyone, including other dogs.

4. Do not put a mask on pets. Masks could harm your pet.

I have yet to see a single mask on a single pet, so it is not clear there is an audience for this and I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. If pet mask-wearing was a thing, it would be a thing here. And it isn’t. Moreover, I can’t imagine a cat tolerating anyone trying to put a mask on them. As my old Poli Sci advisor used to quip, this a solution in search of a problem. 

The advice comes one year after the World Health Organization declared a pandemic, three vaccines are in U.S. circulation, and the pandemic begins to wind down. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that pet COVID-19 tips are not a high priority item for the CDC, given how late in the day it comes, given how poorly they were written, and how poor the advice. I get it. There have only been roughly 100 U.S. cases among dogs and cats, compared to 29.2 million people, of whom 529,000 have died. They dialed this one in. But anything worth doing is worth doing well, especially on an issue that is immensely important to most of us.

Thankfully, other (inter-)governmental organizations around the world — including at least one of which the CDC ironically links to — do have long-standing and sober advice: 

1. “There is no evidence that companion animals are playing an epidemiological role in the spread of human infections of SARS-CoV-2” (the virus that causes COVID-19) so we should not do anything to compromise their welfare.

2. If you have COVID-19 and have prolonged contact with your pets, since this is the primary mechanism of transmission for them (although still rare), wear a mask and “maintain good hygiene practices” out of an abundance of caution. 

Noted.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Last year, the Denver Dumb Friends League, the flagship of the regressive sheltering establishment in Colorado, lied to the media, the public, and legislators by claiming that there isn’t a single pound in the state that kills animals: “There are no kill shelters in Colorado.” Worse, the organization and its allies introduced legislation to legitimize the status quo. The bill went by the Orwellian name the “Colorado Socially Conscious Sheltering Act,” which is a euphemism for a poorly run pound that kills animals in the face of common-sense, cost-effective, readily-available alternatives it simply refuses to implement. Thankfully, and rightly, the bill died in committee.

Tragically, it has been revived this year.

The newly introduced bill legitimizes the killing of animals if a shelter says it is out of room, does not require foster care, community cat sterilization, offsite adoptions or any number of other programs that replace killing with alternatives, and defines treatable animals very narrowly. Worst of all, it calls upon animals to be killed based on an animal’s “mental and emotional” state. Not only is there no objective definition of what constitutes mental suffering and no standards to how it will be applied, it legitimizes the killing of animals based on the animals’ perceived state of mind, giving people unqualified to make such a determination discretion to kill animals based on unenforceable, unknowable, and completely subjective criteria, even when — as is the case more often than not — simply getting the animal out of the pound can resolve any “mental and emotional” concerns. This a real and immediate threat to shy and scared animals, as well as community (“feral”) cats and it is a very dangerous precedent to introduce in the animal control laws of our nation.

Because it excuses killing, however, “socially conscious animal sheltering” is, not surprisingly, embraced by some of the most regressive agencies in the state and country. This includes pounds — like the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care & Control (LACDACC) — that allow animals to starve, refuse to embrace programs that replace killing like community cat sterilization, and do not hold even abusive employees accountable. 

Take Mr. Pickles, a little cat surrendered by his family to the LACDACC. Although initially scared, Mr. Pickles turned out to be very sweet, rubbing up against the bars of his cage when volunteers or staff walked by and calling out to them with a soft meow. He was so pliable, in fact, a volunteer put Mr. Potato Head glasses on him, caressed his orange face, and snapped his photo to show others how cute he was.

Mr. Pickles — young, healthy, friendly, already neutered — should have had everything going for him; his stay at an American shelter in one of the richest and most cosmopolitan communities in the world a temporary waystation to a better life. Unfortunately, he entered a pound that did not revere life, did not hold staff accountable to results, and found killing easier than doing what was necessary to stop it. Within a few short days, and without ever being made available for adoption, he drew his last breath. Staff at the pound poisoned him with an overdose of barbiturates.

Embrace of “socially conscious animal sheltering” also includes groups like PETA, which has a history of stealing animals to kill, instructing its staff to lie to people in order to acquire and kill their animals, undercounting the amount of sodium pentobarbital it uses in order to kills animals “off book,” defending poorly performing, even abusive, pounds, rounding up to kill healthy cats and kittens, demonizing cats to fight progressive programs like community cat sterilization as an alternative to that killing, and putting to death as many as 99% of the animals it impounds, while only adopting out 1%. 

If you live in Colorado, now is the time to make your voice heard. Please contact your state Representative and urge a No vote on HB 21-1160.

Also contact Representative Monica Duran, the bill’s sponsor, and politely ask her to withdraw it: monica.duran.house@gmail.com. Legislators rely on lobbyists and constituents and rarely have any real working knowledge about their own bills. This appears to be one of those cases.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

“And homeless near a thousand homes I stood” — William Wordsworth

SB 650, a bill to ban perpetual chaining of dogs, is pending before the Florida legislature. The bill had broad bipartisan support; at least it did until the National Rifle Association objected. In an absurd claim, a lobbyist for the organization called even extended chaining “humane.” It is anything but.

For dogs, as for people, the absence of human attention and affection is tragic. Besides suffering from isolation, a chained dog suffers the added frustration of being unable to act out even the most basic of dog behaviors. The small circle in which he can move about becomes hard-packed with dirt which carries the stench of his waste (even if the fecal matter is routinely cleared away). The odor draws flies and serves as a breeding ground for parasites, which can infect him. After a few weeks, he will begin to show temperament disorders. Over time, he is likely to become aggressive. If he stays chained for months or years, he may even become mentally ill.

Americans of all walks of life and political stripes love their dogs and know that denying them basic liberties by chaining them to a stake is wrong. The NRA — which claims to advocate for freedom — should, too. But the NRA is not alone in their opposition to criminalizing animal abuse. In deference to identity politics, an increasing number of academics are likewise advocating that we turn a blind eye to chaining. 

In a recent book, University of California Riverside Professor Katja Guenther argues that treating animals as family and showing them affection are “white” values, while treating animals “as resources, whether protective (as in guarding) or financial (as in breeding or possibly fighting)” are part of the culture of people of color. She claims that rescuers who want dogs to be adopted to “those who will treat their dog as a family member” and will “care for their dog” are using dogs “as instruments for reproducing whiteness.”

Tufts Professor (Emeritus) Andrew Rowan argues that people of color have “culturally specific” “folk knowledge” that guides their “indigenous” human-animal relations and that shelter workers should lower their standards in deference to these “indigenous” relations, even when doing so is “at odds with the humane society’s own core beliefs about how animals should be cared for.”

Likewise, the University of Denver’s Kevin Morris is calling for eliminating the enforcement of animal protection laws that ban continuous chaining of dogs in backyards because “regulations for adequate care of animals” “criminalize individuals experiencing poverty and people of color who have pets.”

So much progress has been subverted by fringe politics on both ends of the spectrum. It doesn’t matter if you disdain the NRA or are a lifetime member; disdain identity politics or advocate for them, dogs deserve so much better. Dogs who are perpetually chained have few friends, literally and figuratively. We must be. And we should not allow hard-hearted ideologues to stop us from protecting them.  

Dogs offer people undying loyalty and unconditional love. In return, they ask for nothing more than a sense of belonging. To banish a dog permanently to a chain is a betrayal of what should be a loving pact. And that is no way to treat “man’s best friend.”

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.

Newsweek has a recurring feature they call “Fact Check” in which they evaluate various claims circulating on social media, ostensibly to determine whether those claims are true. The magazine recently evaluated the claim that PETA kills thousands of animals every year.

There is no denying that PETA has killed over 40,000 animals. Those records come from PETA itself which it is required to report to the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services. Not surprisingly, Newsweek determined that PETA has in fact killed “tens of thousands of animals.”

Unfortunately, the person who they assigned to evaluate it was not completely up to the task. A recent college graduate — who describes herself as still “finding my voice” — the author excused that killing — labeling it as “Mostly True” instead of just “True” — because she bought into one of PETA’s two big lies as to why they kill so many. Quoting PETA itself, the author claimed that the killing “is to be expected with its open-door policy of taking in many animals no one else would accept.” (The other big lie is that all the animals PETA kills are suffering.)

First and foremost, the excuse ignores the hundreds of municipal and contracted-shelters across the country that also have an “open-door policy” but do not kill. Millions of Americans now live in communities served by municipal shelters that are finding homes for over 95% and upwards of 99% of animals, returning the term “euthanasia” to its dictionary definition: an act of mercy for “hopelessly sick or injured individuals.” These communities are large and small, urban and rural, red and blue, affluent and impoverished, homogenous and diverse. And they are achieving that success on a fraction of PETA’s budget.

In 2020, by contrast, PETA put to death 1,119 out of 1,542 cats. That’s a kill rate of over seven out of 10 cats. Another 407 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.

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 16 cats, an adoption rate of 1% despite millions of “animal loving” supporters, a staff of hundreds, and revenues of $66,277,867. While dogs fared a little better, 600 out of 1,052 were put to death. Less than 2% were adopted out. And PETA staff also killed 83% of other animal companions: 40 out of 48.

To date, PETA has killed 42,573 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 a former PETA employee whose job it was to acquire animals to kill:

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.

Second, PETA does not even try to find homes for many animals, as evidenced by a state inspection report showing PETA kills 90% of animals within 24 hours without doing so.

There’s more. Newsweek also ignored that:

PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk wrote an OpEd which appeared in newspapers across the country admitting PETA supports a policy that all “pit bulls” should be killed in all “shelters” in America.

PETA employees were arrested and put on trial for rounding up and killing animals in the back of a van after promising to find them homes.

Other PETA representatives were arrested after they stole Maya, a “happy and healthy” dog, from her home when her family was out and illegally killed her. (Maya’s family’s sued PETA and after PETA lost a motion where they claimed that the dog was worthless, settled for $49,000.)

PETA employees were told to lie to people by promising they would find homes in order to get them to surrender animals, but the animals were immediately killed instead.

PETA headquarters has a “terrifying” culture of killing.

PETA advocates for the round up and killing of healthy, sterilized community cats.

PETA rounds up to kill or have killed healthy kittens. (Here are more records showing PETA rounds up to kill cats and kittens and here are even more.)

PETA tells public officials not to foster animals and not to work with rescue groups.

The mass killing of pit bulls, the round up and killing of healthy cats and kittens, the stealing and killing of animals who already have homes, the lying to people by promising homes only to kill the animals right away (including in the back of a van), and the call for others to do the same has nothing to do with their “open admission” policy and it is not because the animals are “suffering.” And of course, PETA is not a “shelter” in any commonsense meaning of the word and has no contract to run one. It is not obligated to take in animals and it certainly is not required to kill them. It chooses to do so. The question, of course, is Why?

PETA employees say it is the result of the deeply perverse version of animal activism promoted by PETA founder and President, Ingrid Newkirk. They explain how employees are made to watch “heart wrenching” films about animal abuse to instill into them the belief that people are incapable of caring for animals and that PETA is doing what is best for animals by killing them. PETA also claims that animals cannot live without human care, which is why they round up animals living outdoors in order to put them to death. The animals are, in short, damned either way and thus killing them is a “gift.”

How do we know? In addition to the evidence above, Why PETA Kills, my book that covers this very topic, is based on exhaustive research, including records acquired from civil and criminal court cases, documents received under the Public Records Act, testimony by PETA staff members, and confidential informants.

Of course, all this information was readily available to the young reporter and her editors at Newsweek. Exposes have been published in various publications including the Atlantic, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Huffington Post, CNN, various other publications around the country, and, of course, my own articles and book. A simple Google search would have uncovered them, which makes the cub reporter’s conclusion all the more disappointing.

And while she might be excused for her profound failure as she admits she is still “finding her voice,” that she is a fact checker and did not fact check and, more importantly, that there are life and death consequences to her failure, would mitigate against doing so. More importantly, that doesn’t excuse Newsweek. The magazine was founded in 1933. If it still hasn’t found its voice after almost 90 years, I doubt it ever will.

Why PETA Kills is available for FREE download today and tomorrow from Amazon. (Please note: You don’t need a Kindle or Kindle Unlimited to read it if you click below Kindle Unlimited where it says “$0.00 to buy”.)

It is the book PETA does not want you to read. They sued to intimidate me and my sources into silence; a lawsuit two national journalism organizations called “alarming.” Despite PETA spending tens of thousands of dollars hiring one of the most expensive law firms in the country, however, I won.

————-

Have a comment? Join the discussion by clicking here.