A Closer Look at Nathan Winograd's "Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies" Blog Piece
Nathan Winograd's scathing blog piece, "Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies," published in the Huffington Post on April 2, 2013, has been "shared" 110,941 times as of this writing, primarily by well-intentioned people who didn't even think to question its veracity.
The "PETA Kills Animals" phenomenon was a hoax perpetrated by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a slick Washington public relations outfit that protects the interests of animal enterprise industries. They created the hoax to mitigate PETA's impact on their meat and biomedical industry clients' profit margins.
For example, one of the Center for Consumer Freedom's clients is Covance Laboratories, the world's largest breeder of dogs used in biomedical research. Chances are, if you've ever seen an image of a beagle laying dead and disassembled in a research lab, he or she originated from a Covance puppy mill.
Not so admirably, others have jumped on the "PETA Kills Animals" bandwagon to mitigate PETA's impact on their agendas. Nathan Winograd falls into this category. Rather than address head-on PETA's concerns about dangerous and ineffective "no kill" initiatives, Nathan Winograd uses the "PETA Kills Animals" hoax to change the conversation. Unfortunately, for animals in many "no kill" shelters and rescues, PETA's concerns that the "no kill" movement is causing them harm appear to be valid.
Because of my extensive research into the disinformation campaigns targeting PETA's shelter practices, I was neither surprised to see Nathan Winograd's "PETA Kills Animals" blog installment on Huffington Post, nor surprised to see that he had taken so many liberties with the truth in the piece, but others may be.
The "PETA Kills Animals" phenomenon was a hoax perpetrated by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a slick Washington public relations outfit that protects the interests of animal enterprise industries. They created the hoax to mitigate PETA's impact on their meat and biomedical industry clients' profit margins.
For example, one of the Center for Consumer Freedom's clients is Covance Laboratories, the world's largest breeder of dogs used in biomedical research. Chances are, if you've ever seen an image of a beagle laying dead and disassembled in a research lab, he or she originated from a Covance puppy mill.
Not so admirably, others have jumped on the "PETA Kills Animals" bandwagon to mitigate PETA's impact on their agendas. Nathan Winograd falls into this category. Rather than address head-on PETA's concerns about dangerous and ineffective "no kill" initiatives, Nathan Winograd uses the "PETA Kills Animals" hoax to change the conversation. Unfortunately, for animals in many "no kill" shelters and rescues, PETA's concerns that the "no kill" movement is causing them harm appear to be valid.
Because of my extensive research into the disinformation campaigns targeting PETA's shelter practices, I was neither surprised to see Nathan Winograd's "PETA Kills Animals" blog installment on Huffington Post, nor surprised to see that he had taken so many liberties with the truth in the piece, but others may be.
Virginia Shelter Statistics are Public Information
Nearly Every Animal PETA Receives for Euthanasia is Received by His or Her Guardian
Every year, at the close of business on December 31st, and by no later than midnight on January 31st of the new year, Virginia animal shelters are required by the state to prepare their closing entries for the concluding reporting year and submit their final accounting of animals, their “animal reporting summaries,” to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
Every animal taken into custody by a Virginia animal releasing agency becomes part of the state’s public record; each private and municipal shelter within the state is required to account for the origins and disposition of the animals it receives during any given year. At the beginning of each year, VDACS has a pretty good idea of how many animals entered Virginia animal shelters during the reporting period, and how many were returned to their guardians, transferred to other facilities, placed in permanent adoptive homes or euthanized, and how many remain on-hand awaiting their fates in the new year. In the spring, the VDACS publishes this data on its website. Like all public and private Virginia animal releasing agencies, PETA's shelter reporting data is a matter of public information, and because these records are published online, no special records requests are required to view these documents.
When Nathan Winograd uses the word "secret" to describe PETA's euthanasia practices, he's casting a net to ensnare people who aren't aware that PETA even has a shelter, and people who have already fallen victim to the "PETA Kills Animals" hoax and may be looking for material that supports the misguided beliefs they already hold. But to say that there's something secretive about PETA's euthanasia practices is extremely misleading. PETA has always been outspoken about their euthanasia practices, and why there's a need for no-cost humane euthanasia is the impoverished area their shelter serves. This video, produced by PETA this year, goes into quite some detail about the animals they served in their shelter in 2013.
The small, hands-on facility at PETA's Norfolk headquarters isn't a traditional animal shelter, but by comparing it to one, PETA's detractors are able to make it seem like PETA's euthanasia "numbers" are very high and somehow very bad. PETA's shelter operates for the primary purpose of providing no-cost, humane, veterinarian-supervised, medical euthanasia to suffering community animals who require it. This service is offered on an emergency on-call basis only, and it's not advertised in any way.
PETA's Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services animal reporting data and shelter inspection reports confirm that nearly every animal PETA receives for euthanasia is received from his or her guardian for this service. There is no indication that these guardians aren't acting in their animals' best interests by requesting this service from PETA's shelter, or that it's in any of their best interests not to be immediately euthanized.
Though Virginia veterinarians may offer the service of owner-requested euthanasia to the public, the fees are simply out of reach for many Hampton Roads citizens. The average cost of veterinarian-provided euthanasia in the area, as of this writing, is $25 per pound of animal body weight, not including additional costs for cremation services. Affordable Veterinarian Services of Virginia’s fees start at $295 for the procedure itself, with an additional fee of $132 for their cremation service.
Virginia's State Veterinarian, Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, MPH, acknowledged the gap, during our recent interview. “There are several communities that are underserved by veterinarians, or don’t have access to a veterinarian at all,” Kovich stated. “Shelters that offer owner-requested euthanasia are providing a valuable service to the community,” he further explained.
Most of PETA's community work involves helping to improve the quality of life for outdoor dogs and keeping community animals who are in good homes, in those good homes. PETA served over 6,000 outdoor dogs last year in ways that were meaningful to them. Because PETA never takes custody of those animals, they aren't accounted for in their state animal reporting data. Neither are the over 11,000 community animals PETA spayed and neutered last year in their free and low-cost mobile clinics. PETA served over 17,000 animals in 2013 who went on to have happy, healthy lives, but because they don't appear on the animal reporting summaries, they're unfairly absent from conversations about the work PETA does.
Every animal taken into custody by a Virginia animal releasing agency becomes part of the state’s public record; each private and municipal shelter within the state is required to account for the origins and disposition of the animals it receives during any given year. At the beginning of each year, VDACS has a pretty good idea of how many animals entered Virginia animal shelters during the reporting period, and how many were returned to their guardians, transferred to other facilities, placed in permanent adoptive homes or euthanized, and how many remain on-hand awaiting their fates in the new year. In the spring, the VDACS publishes this data on its website. Like all public and private Virginia animal releasing agencies, PETA's shelter reporting data is a matter of public information, and because these records are published online, no special records requests are required to view these documents.
When Nathan Winograd uses the word "secret" to describe PETA's euthanasia practices, he's casting a net to ensnare people who aren't aware that PETA even has a shelter, and people who have already fallen victim to the "PETA Kills Animals" hoax and may be looking for material that supports the misguided beliefs they already hold. But to say that there's something secretive about PETA's euthanasia practices is extremely misleading. PETA has always been outspoken about their euthanasia practices, and why there's a need for no-cost humane euthanasia is the impoverished area their shelter serves. This video, produced by PETA this year, goes into quite some detail about the animals they served in their shelter in 2013.
The small, hands-on facility at PETA's Norfolk headquarters isn't a traditional animal shelter, but by comparing it to one, PETA's detractors are able to make it seem like PETA's euthanasia "numbers" are very high and somehow very bad. PETA's shelter operates for the primary purpose of providing no-cost, humane, veterinarian-supervised, medical euthanasia to suffering community animals who require it. This service is offered on an emergency on-call basis only, and it's not advertised in any way.
PETA's Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services animal reporting data and shelter inspection reports confirm that nearly every animal PETA receives for euthanasia is received from his or her guardian for this service. There is no indication that these guardians aren't acting in their animals' best interests by requesting this service from PETA's shelter, or that it's in any of their best interests not to be immediately euthanized.
Though Virginia veterinarians may offer the service of owner-requested euthanasia to the public, the fees are simply out of reach for many Hampton Roads citizens. The average cost of veterinarian-provided euthanasia in the area, as of this writing, is $25 per pound of animal body weight, not including additional costs for cremation services. Affordable Veterinarian Services of Virginia’s fees start at $295 for the procedure itself, with an additional fee of $132 for their cremation service.
Virginia's State Veterinarian, Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, MPH, acknowledged the gap, during our recent interview. “There are several communities that are underserved by veterinarians, or don’t have access to a veterinarian at all,” Kovich stated. “Shelters that offer owner-requested euthanasia are providing a valuable service to the community,” he further explained.
Most of PETA's community work involves helping to improve the quality of life for outdoor dogs and keeping community animals who are in good homes, in those good homes. PETA served over 6,000 outdoor dogs last year in ways that were meaningful to them. Because PETA never takes custody of those animals, they aren't accounted for in their state animal reporting data. Neither are the over 11,000 community animals PETA spayed and neutered last year in their free and low-cost mobile clinics. PETA served over 17,000 animals in 2013 who went on to have happy, healthy lives, but because they don't appear on the animal reporting summaries, they're unfairly absent from conversations about the work PETA does.
Like Most of the Photos Featured in Nathan Wiongrad's Blog, This Photo Has Nothing to do with PETA's Shelter Practices
In fact, this image has nothing to do with PETA's practices at all. During the summer of 2005, two PETA CAP(Community Animal Project) volunteers unwittingly set into motion what can only be described as a modern day witch hunt, when they, against PETA's policy, disposed of the remains of the North Carolina animals they euthanized that day, in a trash receptacle behind a grocery store. It was later determined that the two CAP volunteers had disposed of animals' remains that way on several other occasions unbeknownst to PETA. This image was taken during the investigation that followed that incident, and it is not indicative of PETA's treatment of animals.
While PETA's supporters were acutely aware of the atrocities occurring in rural Virginia and North Carolina pounds and shelters and actively working to help end them, the uninitiated public was in the dark about was really going on in North Carolina pounds, and about PETA’s Community Animal Project’s heartrending work in those areas.
In 2000, a law enforcement officer witnessed disturbing events at the Bertie County, North Carolina animal shelter, and contacted PETA with shocking photographs he'd taken there--photographs showing a starving dog eating the remains of a dead kitten, a dog lying near death in a flooded enclosure, and rotting puppies lying on the floor outside the shelter’s dilapidated gas chamber, and more.
Outraged by the disturbing conditions at the Bertie County animal shelter, PETA galvanized and dispatched a team to North Carolina. PETA staff and volunteers went to work immediately to improve the conditions at the shelter, and PETA sent experts to talk to county officials about ending their use of gas chamber and firearm euthanasia. Under enormous pressure from PETA and its supporters, four North Carolina pounds and shelters entered into agreements with the animal rights organization to improve pound conditions for animals, but county officials refused to budge on the gas chamber issue.
PETA began working closely with the shelters that year, pouring over $300,000 into bringing the shelters up to code--even building safe animal housing from the ground up. PETA contracted the services of a local veterinarian who would humanely euthanize animals who would otherwise be suffocated to death in a gas chamber at the Hertford County pound. The animal rights organization tried to persuade the remaining three counties to allow local vets to humanely euthanize their animals as well--on PETA's dime--but for whatever reason the shelters’ officials refused. They would allow PETA to remove and euthanize the animals themselves and at their own expense however, and transport their remains back to Virginia for cremation.
Every week, sometimes several times a week, PETA staff and volunteers would make the hours-long trek to North Carolina to clean kennels, feed animals, save as many adoptable animals as they could, and humanely euthanize the ones they would not be able to find homes for. Sick and injured animals on stray holds, who would typically be left to languish in cages, were transported by PETA staff to local veterinarians for treatment. In the words of Daphna Nachminovitch, the head of PETA’s cruelty investigation department, the Community Animal Project volunteers, “broke a matter of trust,” when they acted well outside of PETA’s stated protocol and disposed of the North Carolina pound animals they had euthanized that day, in a private grocery store trash dumpster. PETA was devastated to learn that some of the North Carolina animals had been discarded like trash, but they stood firm in their conviction that sparing animals from barbaric methods of euthanasia had not been an act of cruelty.
"All I can say that on this particular day [the PETA CAP worker] broke a matter of trust. She had made many visits to the animal shelters in your area and has returned to Norfolk with those animals." Daphna Nachminovitch, PETA
PETA had instructed the two volunteers to humanely euthanize the animals who could not be offered for adoption for one reason or another, and transport their remains back to Virginia for cremation as per their agreement with North Carolina pound officials. At trial, one of the CAP volunteers testified that the decision to dispose of the animals' remains in the grocery store trash receptacle was made when temperatures that day reached over 100 degrees, accelerating the decomposition of the animals they had euthanized at the North Carolina pounds and shelters. It wasn't a graceful decision, by any means, but it's not hard to see how in the heat of the day, the interior of the van could become uninhabitable for its living occupants.
Though these events have nothing to do with PETA's Norfolk shelter practices, the North Carolina incident was a gift to PETA's detractors. By exploiting the public's general lack of accessibility to documents and records pertaining to the incident, Nathan Winograd was able to manufacture a tapestry of events that are purposefully and maliciously misleading. Nathan Winograd fails to inform his readers that A) PETA was never a defendant in the case, B) the actual defendants were cleared of all the charges, C) euthanasia by firearm or gas chamber was a foregone conclusion for every animal PETA removed from North Carolina pounds and shelters, D) PETA did find permanent adoptive homes for many of the North Carolina animals, and E) PETA continued to work with nearly all of these North Carolina pounds and shelters after the trial concluded. This is information that should, in the interest of propriety, be disclosed by anyone who introduces the North Carolina incident into conversations about PETA.
When PETA became involved with North Carolina animals back in 2000, their staff quickly and dishearteningly realized that their capacity to impact the lives of animals in pounds and shelters would be extremely limited. While improving the living conditions at these North Carolina shelters and pounds was critical for the animals residing there, PETA had hoped that their massive campaign against the use of gas chambers in North Carolina would result in the cessation of their use. When it didn't, PETA was faced with either walking away from the problem altogether, or taking personal responsibility that the animals in those four North Carolina pounds and shelters wouldn't be shoved into a box soaked with the feces, urine, vomit, and blood of all the animals who were tortured to death before them. History tells us that PETA took the honorable road.
PETA didn't renege on any promises; not to the North Carolina animals they held in their arms and humanely euthanized; not to the pounds and shelters they worked with; and not to the many adoptable North Carolina animals they were able to find permanent adoptive homes for. The PETA volunteers were exonerated, and PETA the organization was never even a defendant in the case. North Carolina's treatment of animals was and continues to be the real crime.
While PETA's supporters were acutely aware of the atrocities occurring in rural Virginia and North Carolina pounds and shelters and actively working to help end them, the uninitiated public was in the dark about was really going on in North Carolina pounds, and about PETA’s Community Animal Project’s heartrending work in those areas.
In 2000, a law enforcement officer witnessed disturbing events at the Bertie County, North Carolina animal shelter, and contacted PETA with shocking photographs he'd taken there--photographs showing a starving dog eating the remains of a dead kitten, a dog lying near death in a flooded enclosure, and rotting puppies lying on the floor outside the shelter’s dilapidated gas chamber, and more.
Outraged by the disturbing conditions at the Bertie County animal shelter, PETA galvanized and dispatched a team to North Carolina. PETA staff and volunteers went to work immediately to improve the conditions at the shelter, and PETA sent experts to talk to county officials about ending their use of gas chamber and firearm euthanasia. Under enormous pressure from PETA and its supporters, four North Carolina pounds and shelters entered into agreements with the animal rights organization to improve pound conditions for animals, but county officials refused to budge on the gas chamber issue.
PETA began working closely with the shelters that year, pouring over $300,000 into bringing the shelters up to code--even building safe animal housing from the ground up. PETA contracted the services of a local veterinarian who would humanely euthanize animals who would otherwise be suffocated to death in a gas chamber at the Hertford County pound. The animal rights organization tried to persuade the remaining three counties to allow local vets to humanely euthanize their animals as well--on PETA's dime--but for whatever reason the shelters’ officials refused. They would allow PETA to remove and euthanize the animals themselves and at their own expense however, and transport their remains back to Virginia for cremation.
Every week, sometimes several times a week, PETA staff and volunteers would make the hours-long trek to North Carolina to clean kennels, feed animals, save as many adoptable animals as they could, and humanely euthanize the ones they would not be able to find homes for. Sick and injured animals on stray holds, who would typically be left to languish in cages, were transported by PETA staff to local veterinarians for treatment. In the words of Daphna Nachminovitch, the head of PETA’s cruelty investigation department, the Community Animal Project volunteers, “broke a matter of trust,” when they acted well outside of PETA’s stated protocol and disposed of the North Carolina pound animals they had euthanized that day, in a private grocery store trash dumpster. PETA was devastated to learn that some of the North Carolina animals had been discarded like trash, but they stood firm in their conviction that sparing animals from barbaric methods of euthanasia had not been an act of cruelty.
"All I can say that on this particular day [the PETA CAP worker] broke a matter of trust. She had made many visits to the animal shelters in your area and has returned to Norfolk with those animals." Daphna Nachminovitch, PETA
PETA had instructed the two volunteers to humanely euthanize the animals who could not be offered for adoption for one reason or another, and transport their remains back to Virginia for cremation as per their agreement with North Carolina pound officials. At trial, one of the CAP volunteers testified that the decision to dispose of the animals' remains in the grocery store trash receptacle was made when temperatures that day reached over 100 degrees, accelerating the decomposition of the animals they had euthanized at the North Carolina pounds and shelters. It wasn't a graceful decision, by any means, but it's not hard to see how in the heat of the day, the interior of the van could become uninhabitable for its living occupants.
Though these events have nothing to do with PETA's Norfolk shelter practices, the North Carolina incident was a gift to PETA's detractors. By exploiting the public's general lack of accessibility to documents and records pertaining to the incident, Nathan Winograd was able to manufacture a tapestry of events that are purposefully and maliciously misleading. Nathan Winograd fails to inform his readers that A) PETA was never a defendant in the case, B) the actual defendants were cleared of all the charges, C) euthanasia by firearm or gas chamber was a foregone conclusion for every animal PETA removed from North Carolina pounds and shelters, D) PETA did find permanent adoptive homes for many of the North Carolina animals, and E) PETA continued to work with nearly all of these North Carolina pounds and shelters after the trial concluded. This is information that should, in the interest of propriety, be disclosed by anyone who introduces the North Carolina incident into conversations about PETA.
When PETA became involved with North Carolina animals back in 2000, their staff quickly and dishearteningly realized that their capacity to impact the lives of animals in pounds and shelters would be extremely limited. While improving the living conditions at these North Carolina shelters and pounds was critical for the animals residing there, PETA had hoped that their massive campaign against the use of gas chambers in North Carolina would result in the cessation of their use. When it didn't, PETA was faced with either walking away from the problem altogether, or taking personal responsibility that the animals in those four North Carolina pounds and shelters wouldn't be shoved into a box soaked with the feces, urine, vomit, and blood of all the animals who were tortured to death before them. History tells us that PETA took the honorable road.
PETA didn't renege on any promises; not to the North Carolina animals they held in their arms and humanely euthanized; not to the pounds and shelters they worked with; and not to the many adoptable North Carolina animals they were able to find permanent adoptive homes for. The PETA volunteers were exonerated, and PETA the organization was never even a defendant in the case. North Carolina's treatment of animals was and continues to be the real crime.
The Curious Case of Dr. Proctor, DVM
"A veterinarian who naively gave PETA some of the animals, thinking they would find them homes, and examined the dead bodies of others, testified that they were 'healthy' and 'adoptable.'"--Nathan Winograd
Nathan Winograd has gotten a lot of mileage out of the North Carolina incident, describing "a veterinarian's" heartrending testimony and how this veterinarian claimed that he had no idea that the PETA CAP volunteers would euthanize the three animals he told them to remove from his office that day.
Nathan Winograd doesn't disclose that this "testimony" came from Dr. Pat Proctor, DVM, the veterinarian whom PETA contracted to humanely euthanize animals who would otherwise be suffocated in the Hertford County pound gas chamber, and that Dr. Proctor performed this duty for several years on PETA's behalf. Over the span of about five years, Dr. Proctor submitted a lot of paperwork to PETA's payroll department to be paid for his veterinary duties at the Hertford County pound. During the course of his professional relationship with PETA, Dr. Proctor was paid in excess of $10,000 for these services.
Nathan Winograd has gotten a lot of mileage out of the North Carolina incident, describing "a veterinarian's" heartrending testimony and how this veterinarian claimed that he had no idea that the PETA CAP volunteers would euthanize the three animals he told them to remove from his office that day.
Nathan Winograd doesn't disclose that this "testimony" came from Dr. Pat Proctor, DVM, the veterinarian whom PETA contracted to humanely euthanize animals who would otherwise be suffocated in the Hertford County pound gas chamber, and that Dr. Proctor performed this duty for several years on PETA's behalf. Over the span of about five years, Dr. Proctor submitted a lot of paperwork to PETA's payroll department to be paid for his veterinary duties at the Hertford County pound. During the course of his professional relationship with PETA, Dr. Proctor was paid in excess of $10,000 for these services.
Dr. Patrick Proctor Euthanized 1,227 Animals for PETA at the Hertford County Pound
|
Dr. Proctor euthanized 1,227 animals at the Hertford County pound, on behalf of PETA, and had asked the animal rights group to remove animals from his private practice on many occasions. PETA found permanent adoptive homes for many of Dr. Proctor's personal projects, even when he had been unsuccessful at doing so himself. No one would know better about PETA's euthanasia policy regarding the North Carolina animals than the man who implemented these policies at the Hertford County pound on their behalf. The cat and two kittens to whom Nathan Winograd refers, had been at Dr. Proctor's office for many weeks, during which time they were available for adoption but had no takers.
|
By focusing on the cat and kittens at Dr. Proctor's office, Nathan Winograd leads his readers to believe that magnitude of the problem had been very small, and rather than take the time to find homes for just one cat and two kittens, PETA had euthanized them without even trying. But in reality, the magnitude of the problem was enormous. PETA had been making the trek to North Carolina several times a week, every week, for the better part of five years by this time, taking every animal who was slated for firearm or gas chamber euthanasia out of those four rural pounds to spare them an agonizing death by suffocation. There's not a rescue organization on earth that could undertake a mission of that magnitude and not euthanize at least some animals.
There are other things Nathan Winograd omits about the testimony at the trial, like how the defense and the prosecution couldn't agree on which of Dr. Proctor's employees had actually relinquished the animals to the PETA volunteer, and how the prosecution's witness admitted upon cross-examination that while she said she thought that the animals might be found homes, she was never actually promised they would be. She also admitted to knowing that the animals might be euthanized, another telling indication that no "promises" had ever been made. Additionally, this same witness admitted to being aware of the work Dr. Proctor was doing at the Hertford County pound on PETA's behalf. How could anyone at Dr. Proctor's office be "naive" about PETA's work in North Carolina, when he had been making the trek to the Hertford County pound, every week for five years, to euthanize animals on behalf of PETA?
Nathan Winograd also fails to mention that when Dr. Proctor was subpoenaed to provide time cards for the employees who were working the day of the incident, he produced an altered time card for one of the prosecution's key witnesses. Without the altered time card, there was otherwise no evidence that the employee had even been present during the incident to "witness" the events.
When you get a more complete picture of the actual events, it's not difficult to see why the jury acquitted the defendants of obtaining animals under false pretenses and cruelty to animals.
There are other things Nathan Winograd omits about the testimony at the trial, like how the defense and the prosecution couldn't agree on which of Dr. Proctor's employees had actually relinquished the animals to the PETA volunteer, and how the prosecution's witness admitted upon cross-examination that while she said she thought that the animals might be found homes, she was never actually promised they would be. She also admitted to knowing that the animals might be euthanized, another telling indication that no "promises" had ever been made. Additionally, this same witness admitted to being aware of the work Dr. Proctor was doing at the Hertford County pound on PETA's behalf. How could anyone at Dr. Proctor's office be "naive" about PETA's work in North Carolina, when he had been making the trek to the Hertford County pound, every week for five years, to euthanize animals on behalf of PETA?
Nathan Winograd also fails to mention that when Dr. Proctor was subpoenaed to provide time cards for the employees who were working the day of the incident, he produced an altered time card for one of the prosecution's key witnesses. Without the altered time card, there was otherwise no evidence that the employee had even been present during the incident to "witness" the events.
When you get a more complete picture of the actual events, it's not difficult to see why the jury acquitted the defendants of obtaining animals under false pretenses and cruelty to animals.
The Photographs Nathan Winograd Doesn't Publish
These animals are absent from conversations about the work PETA performed in North Carolina, though they matter just as much. These are some of the many North Carolina animals PETA saved from gas chamber and firearm euthanasia and found permanent adoptive homes for. One of the North Carolina animals became a permanent resident at PETA's Norfolk headquarters.
And About that Freezer
This is a "cadaver" freezer, and because PETA provides humane euthanasia to suffering community animals and sometimes keeps the remains of those animals on-premises for 24 hours or more, per their cremation contract with Cremation Services of Tidewater, the state of Virginia requires PETA to have one. Virginia state law (statute 2 VAC 5-110-90) requires all facilities that have animal remains on-premises for 24 hours or more, to have adequate cold storage for those remains--whether the facility is a pet memorial facility, an animal shelter, or a veterinary practice.
The Scoop on PETA's 2010 VDACS Site Visit Report
Often mistakenly referred to as an "investigation report," this document is actually a "site visit" report, and it's typically used by PETA's detractors to create drama and confusion regarding PETA's shelter.
In 2010, precipitated by an email to his office asking for clarification regarding the purpose of PETA's Norfolk animal facility, State Veterinarian, Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, conducted a site visit at PETA's Norfolk facility to get a better understanding of the type of work the animal rights group was doing there.
Though PETA's facility had been annually inspected by a State Veterinarian as an "animal shelter" for over a decade, Dr. Kovich felt it prudent at the time to reassess whether or not PETA's shelter currently met the statutory definition of "animal shelter" and whether it would continue to be inspected as such, or considered to be a "veterinary establishment" going forth.
As part of the reassessment process, Dr. Kovich spoke with Daphna Nachminovitch, the vice president of PETA's Cruelty Investigations Department and the person who oversees PETA's shelter. Additionally, Dr. Kovich performed an assessment of PETA's facility and analyzed the data contained in PETA's 2010 Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services "animal custody records." He then constructed charts and graphs that quantified the proportions of PETA's adoptions, transfers, and euthanasia procedures, in an endeavor to determine the facility's "primary purpose."
In 2010, precipitated by an email to his office asking for clarification regarding the purpose of PETA's Norfolk animal facility, State Veterinarian, Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, conducted a site visit at PETA's Norfolk facility to get a better understanding of the type of work the animal rights group was doing there.
Though PETA's facility had been annually inspected by a State Veterinarian as an "animal shelter" for over a decade, Dr. Kovich felt it prudent at the time to reassess whether or not PETA's shelter currently met the statutory definition of "animal shelter" and whether it would continue to be inspected as such, or considered to be a "veterinary establishment" going forth.
As part of the reassessment process, Dr. Kovich spoke with Daphna Nachminovitch, the vice president of PETA's Cruelty Investigations Department and the person who oversees PETA's shelter. Additionally, Dr. Kovich performed an assessment of PETA's facility and analyzed the data contained in PETA's 2010 Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services "animal custody records." He then constructed charts and graphs that quantified the proportions of PETA's adoptions, transfers, and euthanasia procedures, in an endeavor to determine the facility's "primary purpose."
|
When Dr. Kovich generated this site visit report, he documented that according to Ms. Nachminovitch, the majority of animals that were taken into custody by PETA were considered by them to be unadoptable, and that Ms. Nachminovitch had indicated to him that adoptable animals were routinely referred to other area animal shelters for adoption. Consistent with Ms. Nachminovitch's statements, Dr. Kovich documented that according to the findings of his site visit, PETA did not operate a facility that primarily found homes for animals. Operating under the assertion that PETA's facility must operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals, in order to meet the statutory definition of "animal shelter," Dr. Kovich documented that no further action would be taken regarding the findings of his site visit, until such time that Ms. Nachminovitch could respond with material supporting the "legitimacy of PETA for full consideration as an animal shelter."
Asserting the legitimacy of their facility for full consideration as an "animal shelter" was of paramount importance to PETA if they were to continue taking custody of animals for the purposes of adoption and transfer, and reuniting strays with their guardians. Interestingly, however, PETA's facility did not need full consideration as an animal shelter to provide the service of humane euthanasia to community animals who require it, since PETA already operated a "veterinary establishment" that employed at least one full-time veterinarian, and veterinary establishments can perform humane euthanasia as a veterinary service with no requirements that they report their euthanasia "numbers" to the state. |
Ultimately, it was determined that PETA had had the law on their side the entire time. Dr. Kovich had made an honest mistake in asserting that facilities must operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for companion animals, in order to be considered "animal shelters" by the state. At the time, this was the state of Virginia's statutory definition of "animal shelter":
"Animal Shelter" means a a facility, other than a private residential dwelling and its surrounding grounds, that is used to house or contain animals and is owned, operated, or maintained by a non-governmental entity including a humane society, animal welfare organization, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.
There had never been a requirement that PETA's shelter operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals. Because PETA's shelter did operate for the purpose finding permanent adoptive homes for the relatively few adoptable animals they received, PETA's facility already met the statutory requirements for full consideration as an "animal shelter." On March 30, 2011, Dr. Kovich generated a superseding document stating that his office had completely reviewed the materials PETA submitted and that his office was satisfied that PETA's Norfolk facility met the statutory requirements for "animal shelter."
The state has since changed the statutory definition of "animal shelter" to specifically refer to "private animal shelters." PETA's shelter is now considered to be a "private animal shelter" by the state, and it continues to be inspected as such. This is the current statutory definition for "private animal shelter":
"Private animal shelter" means a facility that is used to house or contain animals and that is owned or operated by an incorporated, nonprofit, and nongovernmental entity, including a humane society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.
"Animal Shelter" means a a facility, other than a private residential dwelling and its surrounding grounds, that is used to house or contain animals and is owned, operated, or maintained by a non-governmental entity including a humane society, animal welfare organization, or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.
There had never been a requirement that PETA's shelter operate for the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals. Because PETA's shelter did operate for the purpose finding permanent adoptive homes for the relatively few adoptable animals they received, PETA's facility already met the statutory requirements for full consideration as an "animal shelter." On March 30, 2011, Dr. Kovich generated a superseding document stating that his office had completely reviewed the materials PETA submitted and that his office was satisfied that PETA's Norfolk facility met the statutory requirements for "animal shelter."
The state has since changed the statutory definition of "animal shelter" to specifically refer to "private animal shelters." PETA's shelter is now considered to be a "private animal shelter" by the state, and it continues to be inspected as such. This is the current statutory definition for "private animal shelter":
"Private animal shelter" means a facility that is used to house or contain animals and that is owned or operated by an incorporated, nonprofit, and nongovernmental entity, including a humane society, animal welfare organization, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or any other organization operating for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes for animals.
PETA's Compliance with Virginia Comprehensive Animal Care Law is Well Documented
|
The State Veterinarian routinely inspects PETA's shelter to assess PETA's compliance with Virginia's Comprehensive Animal Care Laws. I recently requested and received all available facility inspection reports available for the animal rights group. PETA's VDACS facility inspection reports confirm that:
|
|
Click on Image to Read Chat
Click to Enlarge
|
Click to Enlarge
|
PETA's Shelter Has Sufficient Enclosures to House the Number of Adoptable Animals They Routinely Handle
PETA Facilitates Adoption Through Their Shelter and They Transfer Animals to Other Shelters for Adoption
|
Click to Enlarge
|
Confirmation that PETA Transfers Adoptable Animals to the Virginia Beach SPCA for Adoption
Why This Post Card has Absolutely Nothing to Do with PETA's Shelter Practices
Photo Credit: Huffington Post
"How can people adopt animals from PETA when they kill the animals they acquire within minutes without ever making them available for adoption? How can people adopt animals when they have no adoption hours, do no adoption promotion, and do not show animals for adoption, choosing to kill them without doing so? In fact, when asked by a reporter what efforts they make to find animals homes, PETA had no comment."--Nathan Winograd
Nathan Winograd makes statements like, "PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a 'humane society' or 'animal shelter,'" all throughout this blog piece, even though PETA's VDACS facility inspection reports indicate that PETA's shelter is open to the public and has sufficient adoption hours, and has for all reporting years. And even though PETA's VDACS animal reporting summaries indicate that PETA both facilitates adoptions through its shelter and transfers a number of adoptable animals to other shelters for adoption.
Furthermore, Nathan Winograd doesn't disclose to his readers that PETA's VDACS facility inspection records and animal reporting summaries indicate that adoption isn't appropriate for the majority of the animals PETA serves in its shelter. According to the information contained in these records, nearly every animal PETA receives for euthanasia is received by his or her guardian for that service, and there is no indication, whatsoever, that either these guardians, or PETA, aren't acting in these animals' best interests by immediately providing them with humane euthanasia. These are not "homeless" animals. These are animals with guardians and their guardians have requested humane euthanasia through PETA's facility.
In order to lead his readers to believe that PETA indiscriminately euthanizes community animals, Nathan Winograd introduces this postcard as "proof" that PETA doesn't necessarily believe that permanent adoptive homes should be found for the healthy, adoptable companion animals they serve in their shelter. The trouble with this is that PETA's shelter is the artifact of their Community Animal Project that debuted in 1998, several years after Ingrid Newkirk mailed the postcard. PETA advocates that animals have the right to a meaningful life, a life free from exploitation, a life that's important to them. If PETA advocated for anything less than that, they simply wouldn't be doing their job. This postcard is a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't belong in discussions about PETA's shelter practices.
Nathan Winograd's "make it fit" attitude is further reflected in other statements he makes about PETA. In the Huffington Post blog piece, Nathan Winograd writes, "when asked by a reporter what efforts they make to find animals homes, PETA had no comment," leading his readers to believe that PETA doesn't make any effort to find homes for the adoptable animals they receive and that they'd rather not talk about it. In the early spring of 2012, just after PETA publicized its animal reporting data for the previous year, James McWilliams and Nathan Winograd got together to tell the world about "PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals," in an article McWilliams subsequently published in The Atlantic. In the article, McWilliams writes, "In an email to me, Winograd elaborated, noting that when the Daily Caller asked PETA 'what sort of effort it routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care,' PETA responded with the ever convenient 'no comment,'" a quote that's very similar to the statement Nathan Winograd makes in the Huffington Post blog piece. With one glaring exception.
On March 15, 2013, Mother Jones broke the story of how, in 2011, the Center for Consumer Freedom's former Director of Research, David Martosko (the public relations operative who created the "PETA Kills Animals" hoax on behalf of the Center for Consumer Freedom, and at the time was the Editor of the Daily Caller), posed as an animal rights activist in several online forums, for the purpose of gathering intelligence on actual animal rights activists. This revelation is immortalized in a deposition Martosko gave during a recent lawsuit where he and the Center for Consumer Freedom were defendants in a defamation suit against--you guessed it--an animal rights activist and his affiliate organization. During this same deposition, Martosko wouldn't deny that he had gone as far as to attempt to incite actual animal right activists to commit acts of violence, in an endeavor to undermine the animal protection movement. After these revelations about Martosko became public, the "Daily Caller" origins of the quote no longer appeared in statements that Nathan Winograd made regarding PETA's "refusal to comment." PETA wasn't interested in making statements to the public relations operative who created the "PETA Kills Animals" hoax on behalf of the Center for Consumer Freedom--and who also happened to be the Editor of the Daily Caller at the time. Because of David Martosko, the Daily Caller is no longer a credible source when it comes to matters of animals rights and PETA, and Nathan Winograd apparently knows it. David Martosko has subsequently become the Political Editor of the Daily Mail.
Nathan Winograd makes statements like, "PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a 'humane society' or 'animal shelter,'" all throughout this blog piece, even though PETA's VDACS facility inspection reports indicate that PETA's shelter is open to the public and has sufficient adoption hours, and has for all reporting years. And even though PETA's VDACS animal reporting summaries indicate that PETA both facilitates adoptions through its shelter and transfers a number of adoptable animals to other shelters for adoption.
Furthermore, Nathan Winograd doesn't disclose to his readers that PETA's VDACS facility inspection records and animal reporting summaries indicate that adoption isn't appropriate for the majority of the animals PETA serves in its shelter. According to the information contained in these records, nearly every animal PETA receives for euthanasia is received by his or her guardian for that service, and there is no indication, whatsoever, that either these guardians, or PETA, aren't acting in these animals' best interests by immediately providing them with humane euthanasia. These are not "homeless" animals. These are animals with guardians and their guardians have requested humane euthanasia through PETA's facility.
In order to lead his readers to believe that PETA indiscriminately euthanizes community animals, Nathan Winograd introduces this postcard as "proof" that PETA doesn't necessarily believe that permanent adoptive homes should be found for the healthy, adoptable companion animals they serve in their shelter. The trouble with this is that PETA's shelter is the artifact of their Community Animal Project that debuted in 1998, several years after Ingrid Newkirk mailed the postcard. PETA advocates that animals have the right to a meaningful life, a life free from exploitation, a life that's important to them. If PETA advocated for anything less than that, they simply wouldn't be doing their job. This postcard is a square peg in a round hole. It just doesn't belong in discussions about PETA's shelter practices.
Nathan Winograd's "make it fit" attitude is further reflected in other statements he makes about PETA. In the Huffington Post blog piece, Nathan Winograd writes, "when asked by a reporter what efforts they make to find animals homes, PETA had no comment," leading his readers to believe that PETA doesn't make any effort to find homes for the adoptable animals they receive and that they'd rather not talk about it. In the early spring of 2012, just after PETA publicized its animal reporting data for the previous year, James McWilliams and Nathan Winograd got together to tell the world about "PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals," in an article McWilliams subsequently published in The Atlantic. In the article, McWilliams writes, "In an email to me, Winograd elaborated, noting that when the Daily Caller asked PETA 'what sort of effort it routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care,' PETA responded with the ever convenient 'no comment,'" a quote that's very similar to the statement Nathan Winograd makes in the Huffington Post blog piece. With one glaring exception.
On March 15, 2013, Mother Jones broke the story of how, in 2011, the Center for Consumer Freedom's former Director of Research, David Martosko (the public relations operative who created the "PETA Kills Animals" hoax on behalf of the Center for Consumer Freedom, and at the time was the Editor of the Daily Caller), posed as an animal rights activist in several online forums, for the purpose of gathering intelligence on actual animal rights activists. This revelation is immortalized in a deposition Martosko gave during a recent lawsuit where he and the Center for Consumer Freedom were defendants in a defamation suit against--you guessed it--an animal rights activist and his affiliate organization. During this same deposition, Martosko wouldn't deny that he had gone as far as to attempt to incite actual animal right activists to commit acts of violence, in an endeavor to undermine the animal protection movement. After these revelations about Martosko became public, the "Daily Caller" origins of the quote no longer appeared in statements that Nathan Winograd made regarding PETA's "refusal to comment." PETA wasn't interested in making statements to the public relations operative who created the "PETA Kills Animals" hoax on behalf of the Center for Consumer Freedom--and who also happened to be the Editor of the Daily Caller at the time. Because of David Martosko, the Daily Caller is no longer a credible source when it comes to matters of animals rights and PETA, and Nathan Winograd apparently knows it. David Martosko has subsequently become the Political Editor of the Daily Mail.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Click on Image to View Entire Document
"Many animal lovers who have publicly condemned PETA for their killing have received a letter from the PETA legal department, threatening a lawsuit. However, because a lawsuit would allow for subpoenas of PETA employees past and present -- leading to under-oath testimonies about the grisly reality of what has and is going on at PETA headquarters -- it is unlikely that PETA would ever follow-through with these empty threats."--Nathan Winograd
When Nathan Winograd published this blog piece, he had no way of knowing that fifty-one days later, on May 23, 2013, pursuant to initiating defamation litigation, PETA would file a document with the New York Supreme Court petitioning the Huffington Post to release any and all identifying information pertaining to three individuals who made several, very serious allegations about PETA's shelter practices, in the comment section of the "Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies" Huffington Post blog. One commenter reportedly made several hundred defamatory statements over the course of several weeks. The petition was withdrawn when PETA was able to otherwise identify the anonymous commenters, but Huffington Post subsequently changed their commenting policy to disallow anonymous comments.
"Their donor-funded attorneys rattle their sabers, but know they have a lot more to fear from the public disclosure that would result from a lawsuit than the animal activists who are truthfully -- and, given PETA's threats and intimidation, bravely -- reporting on PETA's atrocities against animals in the hope of bringing them to an end. When you donate to PETA, you not only fund the killing of animals, you fund the intimidation of animal lovers."--Nathan Winograd
In response to Nathan Winograd's blog and the negative comments it generated, PETA's president, Ingrid Newkirk responded with her own Huffington Post blog piece. This is an excerpt:
"In 2008, a PETA fieldworker I'll call Nancy answered a frantic call on the emergency pager at about 1 o'clock in the morning. The caller had heard an animal crying. Nancy drove immediately to the scene and found two baby raccoons in a trash bin. They were soaked with fluid that had seeped out of the trash bags as well as with beer and rainwater. One was so near death that he was cold to the touch and unresponsive. He died before she got back to the shelter. The other baby wailed all the way. He was bloated and his eyes were sealed shut with crust and mucus. He was also dying but still conscious. She administered an injection of sodium pentobarbital and let the raccoon baby drift off to sleep forever.
"In 2005, Nancy had spent weeks in Louisiana, wading through the gasoline- and waste-filled floodwater in the 'war zone' left behind by Hurricane Katrina. She had been part of a team who had used bolt-cutters to get through fences and crowbars to jimmy open doors to rescue animals, feed them, and transport them to the huge temporary animal-holding facility at Lamar-Dixon Expo Center in Gonzales.
"Arriving at one badly damaged house, Nancy spoke to a man tossing his salvaged belongings into a truck. Yes, he said, he had two dogs. He'd shut them in a room upstairs when he evacuated. He hadn't checked since he'd returned, but he 'figured they were dead.' Nancy ran up the stairs, opened the door and was hit by the stench of decomposing flesh. One dog was still alive but barely. Nancy carried her downstairs. 'Go ahead, you can take her,' the man said. Nancy placed the dying dog in her van. She never forgot that moment or seeing, time and again, that people had simply driven away, leaving their dogs to drown slowly in the rising waters.
"The week she went out on the raccoon call, Nancy drove to a local hospital emergency room, realizing that she could no longer cope with the callousness and horror of what she saw happening to animals. Afraid of taking her own life, she committed herself into psychiatric care.
"About a year later, someone I'll call Carol celebrated her 27th year in animal sheltering and cruelty investigations. She had worked for several shelters and, over the years, had taken a few mental health breaks but would always say, 'Wherever you go, you can't escape what you know.' Eventually, she tried another line of work but then, unable to turn away completely, started a program to provide neglected dogs stuck out on chains in the bitterest of weather with sturdy, straw-filled doghouses.
"One day, visiting a trailer park, she found an old dog tethered in a dirt patch. A logging chain so heavy that it weighed almost as much as he did was locked around his neck. The dog's ribs protruded from his chest and his backbone jutted out. Although so painfully thin and neglected, he had still thumped his tail and looked up at her with hope. Carol started sobbing. She had cried before, but this time she couldn't stop. She had held it together for almost three decades, but in that moment, she knew that she could no longer face the never-ending cruelty. She had a nervous breakdown.
"Yet on blogs and in their comment sections, people like Nancy and Carol are attacked as 'butchers,' 'killers,' and 'psychos' who 'poison' animals and have 'blood on their hands' by detractors who sometimes not only make deriding good people a near-career, but hide, as bullies do, behind the anonymity of made-up names, such as that of a Peanuts cartoon character who posted 375 anti-PETA comments over a period of two weeks. These people even maliciously repeat damning 'evidence' that has been disproved in court."--Ingrid Newkirk
As graduate of Stanford Law School, Nathan Winograd knows that it's not PETA's "fear of subpoenas" that keeps the animal rights group from bringing defamation lawsuits against the majority of its detractors. Remember, PETA and its employees "past and present" have been "under oath" before and they prevailed. What keeps PETA from seeking action against people who make false statements about them is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a US Supreme Court case born of the civil rights movement that extends First Amendment protections to those who make false statements about public figures. The caveat being that the statements are not made with "actual malice." When it comes to defamation, the scales of justice tip in favor of private citizens, meaning private citizens are exponentially more likely to recover damages in defamation lawsuits, and less likely to be sued for defamation by public figures.
"Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (SeeGertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974])."--LawBrain
Nathan Winograd avoids a defamation lawsuit from PETA by framing his blogs in a "I'm Nathan Winograd, this is how I feel, this why I feel this way, and I have every right to tell people about my feelings" format. The Huffington Post commenters were prolific and "personal" in their attacks, and they attacked from behind fake profiles, a scenario that could easily be interpreted as malicious. While it would be very difficult for PETA to sue Nathan Winograd, they can appeal to his sense of decency. Which was likely the intent of the Cease and Desist letter pictured above.
Importantly, Nathan Winograd’s sensational allegations that “animal lovers” and “animal activists” have come forward stating that they have "personal knowledge" that PETA euthanizes “healthy” and “adoptable” animals, have never been substantiated. When I interviewed Virginia’s State Veterinarian, Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, MPH, back in February of 2012, I asked him if he had any reason to believe that PETA misrepresents its services to the public, he replied, "To the best of my recollection, the State Veterinarian's office has never received a complaint from a anyone who felt that PETA had misrepresented their services in any way."--Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, MPH. When the State Veterinarian When I touched base with Dr. Kovich again in September of 2013, he stated that his office has received a small number of complaints regarding PETA since I contacted him previously, but that none had been determined by his office to be credible.
The small euthanasia room at PETA’s Norfolk headquarters is very well attended by the public. For dramatic effect, Nathan Winograd keeps a running tally of the of animals who have been euthanized there, stating that “in the last eleven years, PETA has ‘killed’ 33,000 companion animals” at their Norfolk facility. Inadvertently, he illustrates just how unlikely it is that PETA euthanizes animals against their guardians’ wishes.
Over the span of eleven years, literally tens of thousands of Hampton Roads’ residents have contacted PETA to access their no-cost euthanasia services--thousands of whom have personally entered PETA’s Norfolk euthanasia room to attend the procedure--yet there have been virtually no complaints made against the animal rights group. And of the small number of complaints that do exist, none have been determined by the state to be credible.
To put it another way, if every 1,000 euthanasia procedures performed at PETA’s headquarters generated a single complaint against the animal rights group, there would have been approximately 33 complaints submitted to the Office of the State Veterinarian over the years. It is noteworthy that here have been only three--or an average of one complaint per 10,000 euthanasia procedures, and that none of the claims have been substantiated by the state. Additionally, there was no indication from Dr. Kovich during our interview that the complaints were directly related to PETA’s euthanasia practices. Since my interviews with Dr. Kovich, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has issued a report of their investigation into PETA's handling of an Accomack County, Virginia dog named Maya. You can learn more about Maya here.
When Nathan Winograd published this blog piece, he had no way of knowing that fifty-one days later, on May 23, 2013, pursuant to initiating defamation litigation, PETA would file a document with the New York Supreme Court petitioning the Huffington Post to release any and all identifying information pertaining to three individuals who made several, very serious allegations about PETA's shelter practices, in the comment section of the "Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies" Huffington Post blog. One commenter reportedly made several hundred defamatory statements over the course of several weeks. The petition was withdrawn when PETA was able to otherwise identify the anonymous commenters, but Huffington Post subsequently changed their commenting policy to disallow anonymous comments.
"Their donor-funded attorneys rattle their sabers, but know they have a lot more to fear from the public disclosure that would result from a lawsuit than the animal activists who are truthfully -- and, given PETA's threats and intimidation, bravely -- reporting on PETA's atrocities against animals in the hope of bringing them to an end. When you donate to PETA, you not only fund the killing of animals, you fund the intimidation of animal lovers."--Nathan Winograd
In response to Nathan Winograd's blog and the negative comments it generated, PETA's president, Ingrid Newkirk responded with her own Huffington Post blog piece. This is an excerpt:
"In 2008, a PETA fieldworker I'll call Nancy answered a frantic call on the emergency pager at about 1 o'clock in the morning. The caller had heard an animal crying. Nancy drove immediately to the scene and found two baby raccoons in a trash bin. They were soaked with fluid that had seeped out of the trash bags as well as with beer and rainwater. One was so near death that he was cold to the touch and unresponsive. He died before she got back to the shelter. The other baby wailed all the way. He was bloated and his eyes were sealed shut with crust and mucus. He was also dying but still conscious. She administered an injection of sodium pentobarbital and let the raccoon baby drift off to sleep forever.
"In 2005, Nancy had spent weeks in Louisiana, wading through the gasoline- and waste-filled floodwater in the 'war zone' left behind by Hurricane Katrina. She had been part of a team who had used bolt-cutters to get through fences and crowbars to jimmy open doors to rescue animals, feed them, and transport them to the huge temporary animal-holding facility at Lamar-Dixon Expo Center in Gonzales.
"Arriving at one badly damaged house, Nancy spoke to a man tossing his salvaged belongings into a truck. Yes, he said, he had two dogs. He'd shut them in a room upstairs when he evacuated. He hadn't checked since he'd returned, but he 'figured they were dead.' Nancy ran up the stairs, opened the door and was hit by the stench of decomposing flesh. One dog was still alive but barely. Nancy carried her downstairs. 'Go ahead, you can take her,' the man said. Nancy placed the dying dog in her van. She never forgot that moment or seeing, time and again, that people had simply driven away, leaving their dogs to drown slowly in the rising waters.
"The week she went out on the raccoon call, Nancy drove to a local hospital emergency room, realizing that she could no longer cope with the callousness and horror of what she saw happening to animals. Afraid of taking her own life, she committed herself into psychiatric care.
"About a year later, someone I'll call Carol celebrated her 27th year in animal sheltering and cruelty investigations. She had worked for several shelters and, over the years, had taken a few mental health breaks but would always say, 'Wherever you go, you can't escape what you know.' Eventually, she tried another line of work but then, unable to turn away completely, started a program to provide neglected dogs stuck out on chains in the bitterest of weather with sturdy, straw-filled doghouses.
"One day, visiting a trailer park, she found an old dog tethered in a dirt patch. A logging chain so heavy that it weighed almost as much as he did was locked around his neck. The dog's ribs protruded from his chest and his backbone jutted out. Although so painfully thin and neglected, he had still thumped his tail and looked up at her with hope. Carol started sobbing. She had cried before, but this time she couldn't stop. She had held it together for almost three decades, but in that moment, she knew that she could no longer face the never-ending cruelty. She had a nervous breakdown.
"Yet on blogs and in their comment sections, people like Nancy and Carol are attacked as 'butchers,' 'killers,' and 'psychos' who 'poison' animals and have 'blood on their hands' by detractors who sometimes not only make deriding good people a near-career, but hide, as bullies do, behind the anonymity of made-up names, such as that of a Peanuts cartoon character who posted 375 anti-PETA comments over a period of two weeks. These people even maliciously repeat damning 'evidence' that has been disproved in court."--Ingrid Newkirk
As graduate of Stanford Law School, Nathan Winograd knows that it's not PETA's "fear of subpoenas" that keeps the animal rights group from bringing defamation lawsuits against the majority of its detractors. Remember, PETA and its employees "past and present" have been "under oath" before and they prevailed. What keeps PETA from seeking action against people who make false statements about them is New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a US Supreme Court case born of the civil rights movement that extends First Amendment protections to those who make false statements about public figures. The caveat being that the statements are not made with "actual malice." When it comes to defamation, the scales of justice tip in favor of private citizens, meaning private citizens are exponentially more likely to recover damages in defamation lawsuits, and less likely to be sued for defamation by public figures.
"Where the plaintiff in a defamation action is a private citizen who is not in the public eye, the law extends a lesser degree of constitutional protection to defamatory statements. Public figures voluntarily place themselves in a position that invites close scrutiny, whereas private citizens who have not entered public life do not relinquish their interest in protecting their reputation. In addition, public figures have greater access to the means to publicly counteract false statements about them. For these reasons, a private citizen's reputation and privacy interests tend to outweigh free speech considerations and deserve greater protection from the courts. (SeeGertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 94 S. Ct. 2997, 41 L. Ed. 2d 789 [1974])."--LawBrain
Nathan Winograd avoids a defamation lawsuit from PETA by framing his blogs in a "I'm Nathan Winograd, this is how I feel, this why I feel this way, and I have every right to tell people about my feelings" format. The Huffington Post commenters were prolific and "personal" in their attacks, and they attacked from behind fake profiles, a scenario that could easily be interpreted as malicious. While it would be very difficult for PETA to sue Nathan Winograd, they can appeal to his sense of decency. Which was likely the intent of the Cease and Desist letter pictured above.
Importantly, Nathan Winograd’s sensational allegations that “animal lovers” and “animal activists” have come forward stating that they have "personal knowledge" that PETA euthanizes “healthy” and “adoptable” animals, have never been substantiated. When I interviewed Virginia’s State Veterinarian, Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, MPH, back in February of 2012, I asked him if he had any reason to believe that PETA misrepresents its services to the public, he replied, "To the best of my recollection, the State Veterinarian's office has never received a complaint from a anyone who felt that PETA had misrepresented their services in any way."--Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, MPH. When the State Veterinarian When I touched base with Dr. Kovich again in September of 2013, he stated that his office has received a small number of complaints regarding PETA since I contacted him previously, but that none had been determined by his office to be credible.
The small euthanasia room at PETA’s Norfolk headquarters is very well attended by the public. For dramatic effect, Nathan Winograd keeps a running tally of the of animals who have been euthanized there, stating that “in the last eleven years, PETA has ‘killed’ 33,000 companion animals” at their Norfolk facility. Inadvertently, he illustrates just how unlikely it is that PETA euthanizes animals against their guardians’ wishes.
Over the span of eleven years, literally tens of thousands of Hampton Roads’ residents have contacted PETA to access their no-cost euthanasia services--thousands of whom have personally entered PETA’s Norfolk euthanasia room to attend the procedure--yet there have been virtually no complaints made against the animal rights group. And of the small number of complaints that do exist, none have been determined by the state to be credible.
To put it another way, if every 1,000 euthanasia procedures performed at PETA’s headquarters generated a single complaint against the animal rights group, there would have been approximately 33 complaints submitted to the Office of the State Veterinarian over the years. It is noteworthy that here have been only three--or an average of one complaint per 10,000 euthanasia procedures, and that none of the claims have been substantiated by the state. Additionally, there was no indication from Dr. Kovich during our interview that the complaints were directly related to PETA’s euthanasia practices. Since my interviews with Dr. Kovich, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services has issued a report of their investigation into PETA's handling of an Accomack County, Virginia dog named Maya. You can learn more about Maya here.
Click to Enlarge
|
Click to Enlarge
When the State Veterinarian inspects PETA's shelter, he or she verifies that a custody record exists for every animal PETA has received from his or her guardian during the reporting year. The State Veterinarian can determine the reason an animal was taken into custody by looking at PETA's custody records.
Additionally, guardians requesting humane euthanasia through Virginia's animal shelters are required by law to sign a legal release stating that their animal may be immediately euthanized. These documents are audited by the state during facility inspections. |
PETA's Views on Feral Cats and Trap/Neuter/Release
"Having witnessed firsthand the gruesome things that can happen to feral cats and to the animals they prey on, PETA cannot in good conscience oppose euthanasia as a humane alternative to dealing with cat overpopulation.
"Each situation is different, but it is never acceptable—no matter how noble the intentions—to feed cats without providing them with medical care, vaccinations, and spaying or neutering. Doing so would serve only to endanger the cats and perpetuate the overpopulation crisis and its tragic consequences: the needless deaths of millions of animals every year.
"If you've determined that you have the time and resources to manage a feral cat colony, and the cats are in a safe place, i.e., they are isolated from roads, people, and other animals and located in an area where they do not have access to wildlife and where the weather is temperate, please be sure to follow the following minimum guidelines."--PETA
PETA has in the past, and still does, engage in TNR--when it's in the cats best interests. So clearly PETA's issue with managing feral cat colonies isn't so much with its principles as its practice. In 2013 alone, PETA spayed and neutered 890 feral community cats.
"Each situation is different, but it is never acceptable—no matter how noble the intentions—to feed cats without providing them with medical care, vaccinations, and spaying or neutering. Doing so would serve only to endanger the cats and perpetuate the overpopulation crisis and its tragic consequences: the needless deaths of millions of animals every year.
"If you've determined that you have the time and resources to manage a feral cat colony, and the cats are in a safe place, i.e., they are isolated from roads, people, and other animals and located in an area where they do not have access to wildlife and where the weather is temperate, please be sure to follow the following minimum guidelines."--PETA
PETA has in the past, and still does, engage in TNR--when it's in the cats best interests. So clearly PETA's issue with managing feral cat colonies isn't so much with its principles as its practice. In 2013 alone, PETA spayed and neutered 890 feral community cats.
PETA's Views on Pit Bulls
PETA's Issues with "No Kill" and Why They're Valid
"'No-kill' shelters and 'no-kill' rescue groups often find themselves filled to capacity, which means that they must turn animals away. These animals will still face untimely deaths—just not at these facilities. In the best-case scenario, they will be taken to another facility that does euthanize animals. Some will be dumped by the roadside to die a far more gruesome and horrible death than an injection of sodium pentobarbital would provide. Although it is true that “no-kill” shelters do not kill animals, this doesn't mean that animals are saved. There simply aren't enough good homes—or even enough cages—for them all.
"Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as 'no kill' shelters do. No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world."--PETA
In 2010, Manatee County Animal Services announced that it was going to become "no kill," and that it was going to use Nathan Winograd's "No Kill Equation" to do it:
"Here is the October update on the great dream that we in Manatee County have begun. This past summer, the all-volunteer Manatee County Animal Services Advisory Board approved a resolution to go to the Manatee County Commission. The resolution declared that Manatee County would become no-kill beginning October 2011. That resolution and Animal Services’ no-kill plan will come before the County Commission this month.
"What is a no-kill community? It is a community that has pledged to stop routinely killing healthy dogs and cats who come into the county animal control shelter. In Manatee County, we routinely killed around 55% of all dogs and cats that come in to Animal Services. Why? We didn’t know what else to do with them. Is Manatee County worse than any other county? No indeed. Our statistics are typical of local government-run facilities all over Florida and indeed, all around the country.
"So what has changed? First and foremost an animal lover, Commissioner Carol Whitmore, became the liaison from the County Commission to Animal Services. Combine this fact with the fact Animal Services is under the purview of the Director of Public Safety, Bill Hutchison—another animal lover. And finally, in May the Chief and Assistant Chief of Animal Services Kris Weiskopf and Joel Richmond went, along with three animal advocates, to Houston Texas. There we all spent a full day in class with Nathan Winograd, the author of 'Redemption' and the founder of the no-kill paradigm.
"In Houston we learned that communities can indeed become no-kill, we learned the no-kill equation, and we realized that a number of communities had already been successful at becoming no-kill. I think Houston was the turn-around point. The commitment to no-kill had begun."-- Jean Peelen
In 2010, pursuant to Manatee County Animal Services' endeavor to become "no kill," they began transferring animals to area "rescues," including Napier's Log Cabin Horse and Animal Sanctuary, a rescue that had been the subject of complaints and investigations as recently as 2009, just one year before Manatee County Animal Services entered into an agreement with the rescue:
"Records obtained by the Bradenton Herald under the Florida Sunshine law show county officials have received and responded to complaints about Napier's Log Cabin since at least 2009. Despite those complaints, Manatee County Animal Services entered into a cooperative agreement in January 2010 with Napier and then began transferring animals there in April 2010.
"That was nearly a year after Hillsborough stopped sending animals to the same facility after a veterinarian complained about the condition of a puppy and a subsequent inspection uncovered inadequate conditions.
"Manatee County Animal Services continued to send animals to Napier even after complaints prompted one county commissioner to urge a surprise inspection and to make sure the rescue was following the law.
"In January 2011, Animal Services officials advised the shelter it would no longer schedule its inspections in advance, and would instead rely on surprise inspections, which it never completed. And the county continued to send hundreds of animals for placement at the shelter. From April 2012 until January of this year -- a period during which emails and other records show Manatee officials were aware of complaints about Napier's -- Manatee Animal Services transferred 286 dogs and cats to the facility."--Jessica De Leon, Brandenton Herald
On March 14, 2014, PETA shared its concerns about Manatee County Animal Services' "commitment to 'no kill,'" in a letter to the Editor of the Bradenton Herald:
"The allegations that Manatee County Animal Services sent hundreds of animals to a 'rescue' facility where they were neglected and kept in unlivable conditions are an example of a disturbing nationwide epidemic: In communities where an obsession with 'no-kill' status has trumped concern for animals' welfare, animals often end up suffering and dying slowly and painfully in 'rescues' and 'no-kill' shelters. As 'no-kill' campaigners are increasing the pressure on shelters to end euthanasia at all costs, cases like this one are rising.
"Every week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals receives reports about 'rescues' and 'fosters' abusing, starving, and hoarding animals in tiny, feces-filled cages to 'save' them from euthanasia. In nearly every state, officials must routinely save animals from these facilities.
"Experts estimate that 25 percent of the approximately 6,000 hoarding cases reported annually in the U.S. are 'rescues.' Handing animals over to anyone who will take them may improve a shelter's 'live release rate' but it puts animals in danger of horrific fates. Shuffling animals around will never solve the animal homelessness crisis.
"The only humane way to become a 'no-kill' community is by first becoming a 'no-birth' one, through breeding bans and mandatory spay/neuter laws -- and that's where Manatee County should place its focus."--Teresa Chagrin, Animal Care & Control Specialist, PETA, Norfolk, Va.
Manatee County Animal Services Advisory Board member, Jean Peelan, would also issue a statement about Manatee Animal Services, though this time with a somewhat less optimistic tone:
"We base our recommendations largely on information provided to us by Animal Services. Unfortunately, regarding Napier's refuge, the information that we got from Animal Services was far from reliable. It was misleading."--Jean Peelan
Nathan Winograd has written very troubling "rescue access" legislation into his Companion Animal Protection Act (CAPA) law model. "No-Kill" shelters rely heavily on transferring animals to "rescues" to keep their "live-release rates" high. The "Companion Animal Protection Act" mandates that shelters release any animals they're considering euthanizing to listed rescues, but makes it unlawful for shelters to inquire about other animals in those rescues' care.
PETA opposed Hayden Law because, as predicted, Hayden Law causes dangerous shelter overcrowding, and PETA opposes Winograd's Companion Animal Protection Act (CAPA) initiative because it legislates rescue oversight out of the equation. CAPA requires shelters to make animals they are considering euthanizing available to rescues (both designated 501(c)(3) non-profits and non-designated 501(c)(3) non-profits) and to the public at large before euthanizing for space. Here's where it gets dicey for animals: CAPA makes it unlawful for shelters to ask rescues to disclose the total number of animals from all sources, who live, are transferred, are adopted, are euthanized, or die while in their care. At this time, shelters provide the only meaningful oversight rescues have, and obviously, even that is inadequate.
"Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as 'no kill' shelters do. No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world."--PETA
In 2010, Manatee County Animal Services announced that it was going to become "no kill," and that it was going to use Nathan Winograd's "No Kill Equation" to do it:
"Here is the October update on the great dream that we in Manatee County have begun. This past summer, the all-volunteer Manatee County Animal Services Advisory Board approved a resolution to go to the Manatee County Commission. The resolution declared that Manatee County would become no-kill beginning October 2011. That resolution and Animal Services’ no-kill plan will come before the County Commission this month.
"What is a no-kill community? It is a community that has pledged to stop routinely killing healthy dogs and cats who come into the county animal control shelter. In Manatee County, we routinely killed around 55% of all dogs and cats that come in to Animal Services. Why? We didn’t know what else to do with them. Is Manatee County worse than any other county? No indeed. Our statistics are typical of local government-run facilities all over Florida and indeed, all around the country.
"So what has changed? First and foremost an animal lover, Commissioner Carol Whitmore, became the liaison from the County Commission to Animal Services. Combine this fact with the fact Animal Services is under the purview of the Director of Public Safety, Bill Hutchison—another animal lover. And finally, in May the Chief and Assistant Chief of Animal Services Kris Weiskopf and Joel Richmond went, along with three animal advocates, to Houston Texas. There we all spent a full day in class with Nathan Winograd, the author of 'Redemption' and the founder of the no-kill paradigm.
"In Houston we learned that communities can indeed become no-kill, we learned the no-kill equation, and we realized that a number of communities had already been successful at becoming no-kill. I think Houston was the turn-around point. The commitment to no-kill had begun."-- Jean Peelen
In 2010, pursuant to Manatee County Animal Services' endeavor to become "no kill," they began transferring animals to area "rescues," including Napier's Log Cabin Horse and Animal Sanctuary, a rescue that had been the subject of complaints and investigations as recently as 2009, just one year before Manatee County Animal Services entered into an agreement with the rescue:
"Records obtained by the Bradenton Herald under the Florida Sunshine law show county officials have received and responded to complaints about Napier's Log Cabin since at least 2009. Despite those complaints, Manatee County Animal Services entered into a cooperative agreement in January 2010 with Napier and then began transferring animals there in April 2010.
"That was nearly a year after Hillsborough stopped sending animals to the same facility after a veterinarian complained about the condition of a puppy and a subsequent inspection uncovered inadequate conditions.
"Manatee County Animal Services continued to send animals to Napier even after complaints prompted one county commissioner to urge a surprise inspection and to make sure the rescue was following the law.
"In January 2011, Animal Services officials advised the shelter it would no longer schedule its inspections in advance, and would instead rely on surprise inspections, which it never completed. And the county continued to send hundreds of animals for placement at the shelter. From April 2012 until January of this year -- a period during which emails and other records show Manatee officials were aware of complaints about Napier's -- Manatee Animal Services transferred 286 dogs and cats to the facility."--Jessica De Leon, Brandenton Herald
On March 14, 2014, PETA shared its concerns about Manatee County Animal Services' "commitment to 'no kill,'" in a letter to the Editor of the Bradenton Herald:
"The allegations that Manatee County Animal Services sent hundreds of animals to a 'rescue' facility where they were neglected and kept in unlivable conditions are an example of a disturbing nationwide epidemic: In communities where an obsession with 'no-kill' status has trumped concern for animals' welfare, animals often end up suffering and dying slowly and painfully in 'rescues' and 'no-kill' shelters. As 'no-kill' campaigners are increasing the pressure on shelters to end euthanasia at all costs, cases like this one are rising.
"Every week, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals receives reports about 'rescues' and 'fosters' abusing, starving, and hoarding animals in tiny, feces-filled cages to 'save' them from euthanasia. In nearly every state, officials must routinely save animals from these facilities.
"Experts estimate that 25 percent of the approximately 6,000 hoarding cases reported annually in the U.S. are 'rescues.' Handing animals over to anyone who will take them may improve a shelter's 'live release rate' but it puts animals in danger of horrific fates. Shuffling animals around will never solve the animal homelessness crisis.
"The only humane way to become a 'no-kill' community is by first becoming a 'no-birth' one, through breeding bans and mandatory spay/neuter laws -- and that's where Manatee County should place its focus."--Teresa Chagrin, Animal Care & Control Specialist, PETA, Norfolk, Va.
Manatee County Animal Services Advisory Board member, Jean Peelan, would also issue a statement about Manatee Animal Services, though this time with a somewhat less optimistic tone:
"We base our recommendations largely on information provided to us by Animal Services. Unfortunately, regarding Napier's refuge, the information that we got from Animal Services was far from reliable. It was misleading."--Jean Peelan
Nathan Winograd has written very troubling "rescue access" legislation into his Companion Animal Protection Act (CAPA) law model. "No-Kill" shelters rely heavily on transferring animals to "rescues" to keep their "live-release rates" high. The "Companion Animal Protection Act" mandates that shelters release any animals they're considering euthanizing to listed rescues, but makes it unlawful for shelters to inquire about other animals in those rescues' care.
PETA opposed Hayden Law because, as predicted, Hayden Law causes dangerous shelter overcrowding, and PETA opposes Winograd's Companion Animal Protection Act (CAPA) initiative because it legislates rescue oversight out of the equation. CAPA requires shelters to make animals they are considering euthanizing available to rescues (both designated 501(c)(3) non-profits and non-designated 501(c)(3) non-profits) and to the public at large before euthanizing for space. Here's where it gets dicey for animals: CAPA makes it unlawful for shelters to ask rescues to disclose the total number of animals from all sources, who live, are transferred, are adopted, are euthanized, or die while in their care. At this time, shelters provide the only meaningful oversight rescues have, and obviously, even that is inadequate.
This is Just One Reason Why Rescue Oversight is So Important, and Why Nathan Winograd Probably Needs to Start Focusing on the Animals the "No Kill" Movement is Placing in Trash Bags
On June 5, 2014, authorities discovered four dead puppies and 37 trash bags filled with the remains of dead dogs, on the premises of RRR Service Dogs, a non-profit animal rescue that claims to rescue dogs from "kill shelters" and pair them with disabled soldiers or children with disabilities. Forty live dogs were also recovered from the grizzly scene.
In Conclusion
Encouraging public debate is important. Voicing our opinions in constructive ways can make the world a better place for animals. But whenever someone tries to "inform" us of something that completely defies logic--like the world's largest and most effective animal rights organization indiscriminately euthanizing community animals, we should all endeavor to find out where the "information" is really coming from, and what the messengers have to gain by changing the way we think. Even when the messenger is someone we might otherwise agree with or trust.
