2017.11.07; PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/
























Magazine

ManaETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals
Like The Atlantic? Subscribe to The Atlantic Daily, our free weekday email newsletter.

The organization, which claims to be dedicated to the cause of animal rights, can't explain why its adoption rate is only 2.5 percent for dogs.
In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority (PDF) of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them.  These figures don't reflect well on an organization dedicated to the cause of animal rights. Even acknowledging that PETA sterilized over 10,500 dogs and cats and returned them to their owners, it doesn't change the fact that its adoption rate in 2011 was 2.5 percent for dogs and 0.4 for cats. Even acknowleding that PETA never turns an animal away -- "the sick, the scarred and broken, the elderly, the aggressive and unsocialized..." -- doesn't change the fact that Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent. And even acknowledging that PETA is often the first to rescue pets when heat waves and hurricanes hit, that doesn't change the fact that, at one of its shelters, it kills 84 percent of supposedly "unadoptable" animals within 24 hours of their arrival.
Nathan Winograd insists that PETA's kill rate is due not to poor management but to "something more nefarious."
When I contacted PETA for a comment on these numbers, Amanda Schinke, a spokesperson for the organization, sent a thoughtful and detailed response. In it she explained how "euthanasia is a product of love for animals who have no one to love them." She called their killing a "tragic reality," one that forthrightly acknowledges how "sometimes [animals] need the comfort of being put out of their misery -- a painless release from a world in which they were abused and unwanted." Noting that PETA, unlike many "no-kill" shelters, turns no animal away, Schinke added, "we do everything in our power to help these animals." The harsh reality behind the grim numbers, she noted, should never be forgotten: "Millions of homeless animals are euthanized in animal shelters and veterinary offices across America because of simple math: too many animals and not enough suitable homes."
But is this really a simple math problem? Nathan Winograd doesn't think so. Winograd, a Stanford Law graduate and former corporate lawyer, is the author of Irreconcilable Differences: The Battle for the Heart and Soul of America's Animal Shelters. When the data on PETA dropped, he posted a scathing article insisting that the organization's almost 100 percent kill rate was due not to laziness or poor management but to "something more nefarious." Winograd asserts that PETA's failure to find homes for impounded companion animals is the result of founder Ingrid Newkirk's "dark impulses." Performing a virtual psychological vivisection, Winograd diagnoses Newkirk as a "disturbed person," a "shameless animal killer," and the executrix of a "bloody reign" of terror over dogs and cats. At one point, he even compares her to nurses who get a thrill from killing their human patients.





Look past the rage, though, and it becomes clear that Winograd has an important case to make. In PETA's response to me, Schinke wrote, "Winograd dishonestly and viciously attacks all open admission shelters, those that do not shut the door to any animal, even those for whom peaceful release is a mercy." This is another way of saying that because PETA accepts so many dire cases, cases in which euthanasia may very well be justified, it should be excused for killing over 99 percent of the animals under its care. Winograd, however, argues persuasively that PETA euthanizes far more than just the unadoptable cases. In the following excerpt from his blog, he reveals that Newkirk admits to killing animals that are "adoptable":
In a December 2, 2008, interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: "Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?" To which Newkirk responds: "If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely."
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." He also observes that the numbers PETA reports historically come from Virginia, which compiles data only for animals taken into custody "for the purpose of adoption." Winograd thus concludes that PETA's claim that it kills so many animals because they are unadoptable is, as he puts it, "a lie." He goes on:
It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA's hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. It is a lie because, according to The Daily Caller, "two PETA employees described as 'adorable' and 'perfect' some of the dogs and cats they killed in the back of a PETA-owned van."
So yes, Winograd is angry. But even if his argument is only half right, an animal rights organization with a $30 million budget should be able to do a whole lot better.

Latest Video

The Master of a Secret Machete Martial Art

Tire Machet is a mysterious martial art practiced by a select few.

About the Author

Ads by Revcontent

From The Web


Check Out Top SUVs for 2017. Search Deals
New SUVs - Sponsored

20 Makeup Tips All Older Women Should Know
Trending Moms

10 Worst Mistakes People Make After Retirement
The Financial word

Most Popular

Presented by


Aaron Bernstein / Reuters

Democrats Get Back in the Catbird Seat

David A. Graham

Wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere are cathartic for a party that saw a devastating defeat a year ago—but are they an indication of things to come?

What a difference a year makes.

On the eve of the anniversary of Donald Trump’s surprise victory in the 2016 presidential elections, Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere notched a surprisingly robust round of victories Tuesday night in elections that have been widely interpreted as a referendum on the Trump presidency and a potential augur of the 2018 elections.

The results in Virginia, where the prospects of gubernatorial candidate Ralph Northam gave Democrats severe heartburn over the last week, were particularly surprising: Not only did Northam coast to victory over Ed Gillespie, a Republican who had embraced the Trump message if not the president himself, but Democrats won legislative races across the Old Dominion, putting control of the House of Delegates—not generally expected to be up for grabs—within Democratic grasp. Bob Marshall, a particularly outspoken anti-LGBT conservative, was defeated by Danica Roem, who becomes the first openly transgender legislator in state and U.S. history.

A color photo of a family in which the father is blurred and black-and-white
Miho Aikawa / Getty / Katie Martin / The Atlantic

How to Hire Fake Friends and Family

Roc Morin

In Japan, you can pay an actor to impersonate your relative, spouse, coworker, or any kind of acquaintance.

Money may not be able to buy love, but here in Japan, it can certainly buy the appearance of love—and appearance, as the dapper Ishii Yuichi insists, is everything. As a man whose business involves becoming other people, Yuichi would know. The handsome and charming 36-year-old is on call to be your best friend, your husband, your father, or even a mourner at your funeral.

His 8-year-old company, Family Romance, provides professional actors to fill any role in the personal lives of clients. With a burgeoning staff of 800 or so actors, ranging from infants to the elderly, the organization prides itself on being able to provide a surrogate for almost any conceivable situation.

Yuichi believes that Family Romance helps people cope with unbearable absences or perceived deficiencies in their lives. In an increasingly isolated and entitled society, the CEO predicts the exponential growth of his business and others like it, as à la carte human interaction becomes the new norm.

Taylor Swift in the 'Look What You Made Me Do' music video
Universal

The Pitfalls of Taylor Swift's Anti-PR Campaign

Spencer Kornhaber

A cease-and-desist letter to a blogger earned rebuke from the ACLU and attention to the star’s white-supremacist following.

It’s four days until Taylor Swift’s Reputation comes out, and the singer herself has not said a word to the public about it. There has been no in-depth magazine profile of the once omnipresent star. No magazine covers. No radio station call-ins. No live stream of her addressing the world from a talk-show set—though, Tuesday, she posted some short videos letting the world know that a group of handpicked fans recently listened to the album in Swift’s own home.

Maybe the journalism is still to come, under embargo until the release date. But it seems increasingly likely that she was serious with this recent Instagram caption (and possible lyrical preview): "There will be no further explanation. There will just be reputation." It was paired with an image of Swift’s Reputation tie-in magazine, on sale at Target with her new album on Friday. She is closing in, cloistering herself with her diehards on one side of a wall and everyone else on the other.  

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

What Carter Page's Testimony Revealed

David A. Graham

The former Trump aide’s appearance before the House Intelligence Committee suggests a man deeply connected in Russia—and in way over his head.

The old adage that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client has seldom been demonstrated quite so colorfully as in the transcript of Carter Page’s testimony before the House Intelligence Committee on November 2.

Page, a former foreign-policy adviser to the Trump campaign,  does not have a lawyer. He agreed to testify on the condition that the transcript be made public, and while it’s hard to know what motivated him to make that deal—in fact, it’s often hard to figure out what motivates him—the result does not reflect kindly upon him.

If there is one major focus to the 243-page transcript, it is Page’s July 2016 trip to Russia, where he delivered a commencement speech at the New Economic School in Moscow. Page made the trip in a private capacity, rather than as a Trump campaign official, as he took pains to point out. One of the people in attendance was Arkadiy Dvorkovich, a deputy prime minister of Russia.

Joshua Roberts / Reuters

Why the AR-15 Is So Lethal

James Fallows

"The little bullet pays off in wound ballistics."

Americans who know nothing else about firearms are all too familiar with the name AR-15. It’s the semi-automatic weapon that murderers have used in many of the most notorious and highest-casualty gun killings of recent years: Aurora, Colorado. Newtown, Connecticut. Orlando, Florida, San Bernardino, California.  Now, with modified versions, in Las Vegas, Nevada, and Sutherland Springs, Texas.

What is this gun? Why is it the weapon that people who want to kill a lot of other people, in a hurry, mainly choose? Tim Dickinson offered a useful history of the AR-15’s emergence as the main implement of mass murder last year in Rolling Stone ("All-American Killer: How the AR-15 Became Mass Shooters’ Weapon of Choice"), and Megan O’Dea in Fortune and Aaron Smith for CNN also had valuable reports.

A close-up of a sizzling pork steak
David W. Cerny / Reuters

The Perks of Fasting, With None of the Work

Olga Khazan

A new drink mimics the effect of eating very few carbs—and promises the attendant performance boost—while you scarf all the donuts you want.

"If there’s a downside, it is kind of crazy tasting," said Geoff Woo, the founder of HVMN, a Silicon Valley company that makes nootropics, or performance-enhancing supplements. We were in a conference room in The Atlantic’s office building, and he was bracing me for my trial run of his latest product.

It was a small, clear vial labeled "Ketone," a new type of energy drink his company is releasing this week. Its nutrition label says it contains 120 calories, but no carbs, no fat, and no protein. Instead, it’s all ketones, the chemical that Woo and his company are calling a "fourth food group." He hopes the drink will allow people to reap the benefits of occasional fasting—high ketone levels inside the body—without actually having to not eat.

Virginia governors race
Aaron Bernstein / Reuters

A Big Night for Democrats

Clare Foran

Ralph Northam won the Virginia governor’s race on Tuesday, while Phil Murphy won the New Jersey governor’s race.

Tuesday delivered a string of high-profile victories for Democrats in gubernatorial races. Democrat Ralph Northam won the Virginia governor’s race in what had become a nail-biter of a contest, defeating Republican Ed Gillespie in the election to replace outgoing Democratic governor Terry McAuliffe. In New Jersey, Democrat Phil Murphy prevailed in the race to replace Republican governor Chris Christie, an expected victory over Republican Kim Guadagno.

The New Jersey gubernatorial Democratic win paves the way for the party to enact progressive policies statewide. Christie has clashed with the state’s Democratic-controlled legislature. Murphy’s win could set the stage for tax increases, marijuana legalization, health care, education investments and the enactment of other liberal policy priorities.

Mohammed bin Salman waves in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Reuters

The Saudi Crown Prince Is Gambling Everything on Three Major Experiments

Hussein Ibish

A perceived failure on any of these undertakings could produce a crisis of legitimacy.

Call it shock and awe. Call it a purge. Call it a clean sweep. However it’s characterized, the mass arrest of some of Saudi Arabia’s most prominent royals, administrators, and tycoons last weekend has completely upended both the structure of the Saudi elite and the country’s way of doing business. It’s not exactly the Night of the Long Knives, as the luxurious Ritz-Carlton hotel in which the detainees are being held is hardly a nightmarish gulag. But it is the latest installment in an astonishingly rapid series of upheavals whereby all power is being concentrated in the hands of elderly King Salman and his 32-year-old son and heir, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MbS.

If MbS is behaving like any of his predecessors it is King Abdel Aziz ibn Saud, who founded the modern Saudi state in 1932. He is essentially positioning himself as a new Abdel Aziz who will create a new Saudi Arabia for a new era and a new economy. Clearly, he intends to do that by wiping the slate clean and beginning with an overwhelmingly strong hand that brooks no opposition. The purges are being carried out under the rubric of anti-corruption, in a populist spirit and with what appears to be a strong constituency of public support, especially among the youth. The prince is simultaneously implementing his Vision 2030, which includes an emphasis on local tourism and entertainment, and social changes deemed necessary for both modernization and economic diversification, particularly regarding women’s rights like the right to drive.

Jasu Hu

Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?

Jean M. Twenge

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. "We go to the mall," she said. "Do your parents drop you off?," I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. "No—I go with my family," she replied. "We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes."

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. "It’s good blackmail," Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. "We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people."

JFK's Very Revealing Harvard Application Essay

Eleanor Barkhorn

At 17 years old, the future president seemed to understand that the value of an elite education is in the status it offers.

John F. Kennedy is one of the most mythologized figures in contemporary American history. At age 17, though, he was just a kid trying to get into college (a kid with a wealthy, famous father, of course).

The Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum has a digitized version of Kennedy's 1935 Harvard application, which includes his grades and his response to the essay prompt, "Why do you wish to come to Harvard?" Here's how the future president answered:

The reasons that I have for wishing to go to Harvard are several. I feel that Harvard can give me a better background and a better liberal education than any other university. I have always wanted to go there, as I have felt that it is not just another college, but is a university with something definite to offer. Then too, I would like to go to the same college as my father. To be a "Harvard man" is an enviable distinction, and one that I sincerely hope I shall attain.

April 23, 1935
John F. Kennedy

The 'First Lady of ISIS'

Nicolas Pollock

The ex-wife of the highest-ranking American member of ISIS reckons with her extremist past and attempts to build a new life.

How to Turn Anxiety Into Excitement

Jeremy Raff and Olga Khazan

It takes three words.

‘Holy Shit, We’re in a Cult’

Jaclyn Skurie and Nicolas Pollock

EnlightenNext was an organization that promised spiritual awakening. Instead, it turned into a complicated, often-sinister community.

Watch Video

Subscribe
Get 10 issues a year and save 65% off the cover price.
Name Address 1 Address 2 City
State
State
Zip Code Country Email Address
Newsletters+
The Atlantic
The Atlantic Daily
This Week
This Month
New Photo Galleries
Top Videos This Week
Politics & Policy Daily
CityLab
Today’s Top Stories
This Week's Most Popular Stories
I want to receive updates from partners and sponsors.
Email Address


TheAtlantic.com Copyright (c) 2017 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All Rights Reserved.
Close


Skip to article in Skip Ad >

Close