Thanks for a thoughful article, and the links. The chambers pictured in your article are "good ones." Some chambers are not much more than huge metal boxes and multiple animals are put at the same time. It's one thing to have a chamber like this as a back up. It's another to use it as the primary method of dispatching unwanted animals. Aggressive animals can receive an intramuscular injection to heavily sedate them, and then be euthanized via IV. 

Feral cats are humanely spay/neutered by the hundreds every day in this country. To use them as an excuse for needing a gas chamber is evidence that many shelters are simply unaware of changes that have taken place in animal handling. Ferals can be humanely euthanized by the same restraint method   used in spay/neuter: intramuscular sedation in a wire cagetrap or squeeze cage. It can then be followed by IV injection for euthanasia. However, funding is needed so that shelters have the tools to handle  fractious cat humanely (feral cat dens, etc).

The issue is one of funding and training. If a shelter uses regulated drugs, they have to buy them. and store them according to regulations. They have to have veterinary oversight, and they have to train staff. There is high turnover in shelters, so training is ongoing. It's easy --and costs nothing-- to teach someone to place an animal in a box and turn a dial. It costs money to send them to a class that is held only periodically.  Municipalities usually are underpaying their shelters already. They don't want to invest more in animal control, and municipal shelters are already emotional pounded to the point that they feel it is impossible to even try to ask for more funding. Usually it takes a "mover and shaker" (new director, media publicity, etc.) to shake an overburdened shelter out of complacency, motivate the municipality to invest more, and urge the community to donate, to make changes. Now and then, inside staff lobby for changes. and succeed. These staff members should be heralded as heroes, because it takes a lot to rise above the status quo.

Thousands of shelters long ago stopped using the gas chamber or have it only as a backup. It's time we started realizing that animal control costs money, and the price of handling animals is that we are subject to public scrutiny. We need to increase our professionalism as new options become available.

Susan April 4th, 2009 09:32:09 AM

unwanted animals in shelter settings.

My opinion doesnt mean much , and I know that.

But the above excerpt makes me sick in its wording. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an unwanted animal . Using the word shelter along with the use of gas boxes in said shelters is just sad.

These killing places that call themselves shelters need to try alot harder at rehoming or transferring to rescues .Having BSL in place is also so very wrong. If a dog or cat is beyond repair either mentally or physically, then they should be respectfully sent to the bridge with love and dignity by injection which includes a seditive.

I do believe there may be a place for gassing of food animals if its done quickly and the gasses used are harmless to humans . The less suffering the better for all . God gave us animals to use for our benefit, imo. Companion animals benefit us alive, not dead.

Thankyou for caring enough to stand up for truly humane euthanasia

Heather April 4th, 2009 09:47:15 AM

An institution that is killing on a scale that makes a gas chamber "necessary" for routine use rather than a backup isn't a shelter, and what it's doing isn't "euthanasia." It's killing healthy or treatable animals for population control, because they can't be bothered to do the work necessary to actually save saveable animals.

Lis April 4th, 2009 10:46:29 AM

I have a video on my work computer that shows dogs being put into a huge outdoor container in multiples in some backasswards state in the south, tails wagging and happily trotting to their own group Auschwitz, the lid being closed in silence, then their terrible cries and howls as the gas is turned on ... death by gas is neither humane NOR painless NOR terrorless. Then, as if that isn't bad enough, these same fkging workers TAKE PUPPIES AND PLACE THEM ON TOP OF DEAD CORPSES and do same ... with the same horrible, terror filled cries of death emanating from the torture chamber. I also have contacts in GA, NC & SC who are working hard to outlaw gas in their states. I believe Ohio as well still uses gas chambers. If any of you live in these states and are interested I'll locate their e-mail addresses and see if I can upload the video. Moreso than being visually disturbing the sound track will break not only your heart but damned near your human spirit. I was in anguish after viewing/listening to it BUT ITS THE TRUTH.

Lee April 4th, 2009 12:02:23 PM

Thanks for reminding me why I'm vegan, and reaffirming my various positions on the "ethics" of animal ownership.

Marjorie April 4th, 2009 12:40:30 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mfpUF2DgJQ&feature=related

Evet April 4th, 2009 01:46:55 PM

Well spoken, Lis.

LaShelle April 4th, 2009 02:26:32 PM

Why PETA euthanizes. . .read their blog--http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/why_we_euthaniz.php

Fotini April 4th, 2009 02:56:57 PM

It also should be mentioned that very old and very young animals and also those with respiratory illnesses have a much slower (and barbaric) death in these chambers. Operatives in shelters are not often well paid or well trained. Search the net for blogs written by those who work in kill-shelters to read of the atrocious practices that go on with the use of these chambers. It makes for very distressing (and enlightening) reading.

Jane April 4th, 2009 03:55:52 PM

Not to mention the animals that don't actually DIE in the chamber...that come out foaming at the mouth, covered in the body fluids of the dead corpses around them. I've even heard stories of strays picked up at landfills that were taken to animal control...only for animal control to realize that the animal in front of them had been gassed and disposed of.

Kristie April 4th, 2009 03:56:05 PM

Also, let me point out, that it is not the function of any Animal Control agency to take in unwanted animals for the purpost of finding them new homes. Those that can and do...they are fabulous. But any shelter run by a municipality is there for the purpose of giving the public a place to dump their animals rather than just turning them loose, as well as investigating cruelty, etc. That's why rescues exist. They are the organizations that can spend the time and resources to rehome adoptable animals. If the pet owners who drop their animals off at shetlers were at all responsible and committed animal shelters would simply be a place to reunite owners with lost animals. Blame society for the need to euth. for space, not the government run agencies that are tasked with carrying it out, regardless of what disgusting method they use to accomplish it.

Kristie April 4th, 2009 04:03:52 PM

Regarding PeTA, call me a cynic, but after the scandal in VA a few years back (accepting adoptable animals- including puppies- under false pretenses, then euthanizing them and dumping the corpses), I have a hard time taking anything they have to say on the matter seriously.

As far as feral cats go, I'm with the poster who mentioned traps and squeeze cages. In cases where it is necessary to euthanize a feral, conventional methods should be no problem provided the animal is contained in the live trap. In cases where s/he's already been relocated to a holding cage or crate, why not just slip a sedative into some food? In my experience, most of these guys will eat pretty readily even if they're frightened. Thomas was *horrendous* for the first couple of months, and after he managed to break someone's skin through a pair of welding gloves, he was sedated for anything that was absolutely necessary (moving, veterinary appointments) and required extensive/prolonged handling during that time. Might not be enough that you'd be able to restrain for euthanasia, but you could certainly get in an IM sedative or get the cat into an anesthesia tank. (Latter might be cost-prohibitive, I don't know.)

If a shelter or AC organization is overwhelmed with so many ferals that they are forced to gas mass quantities on a regular basis, it's time for them to get more proactive in addressing the problem, IMO. Using gas chambers for population control is not only inhumane, but ultimately ineffective.

Ramen Connoisseur April 4th, 2009 04:12:46 PM

I applaud all the states revamping their animal welfare statutes, including what is considered humane euthanasia.

New Hampshire has had a humane euthanasia statute for many years, HOWEVER, one may be confused as to why it is so vague, perhaps "open to interpretation". Well, this is not so. "If an animal must be put to death by an animal retaining facility....it must be done so HUMANELY...." It just so happens that in 1994 a "white paper", signed by then State Veterinarian Clifford McGinnis "clarifying what is considered humane methods" exists on file. It was put in writing that humane was: an FDA approved euthanasia solution or CO gas chamber via canisters & not engine exhaust.

I do not know, if or where, CO chambers, are or were, utilized in New Hampshire. Gas chambers were, and still are, listed as conditionally acceptable in the AVMA euthansia guidelines as early as 1993 to the present time.

From my interpretation of these AVMA guidelines, if properly utilized & administered, some forms of gas administration may not be cruel. Problem arises in misuse & overload, etc. And Dr. K. as you so aptly noted, euthanasia by IV injection may not be performed by the best and always compassionate bunch either! (Baber) Still injection w/ pentobarbital for the most part, must have less error, be quicker & go unconscious faster, without greater distress.

My belief, if that one act cannot be given with skill & compassion at all times...a person should not engage in it, period.

A HREF="http://walnut-hill.bravehost.com">Pocket's Story from New Hampshire

Barbara A. Albright/NH advocate for ethical & compassionate veterinary care

"Pocket's Mom" April 4th, 2009 04:37:15 PM

Kristie- if government-run agencies are euthanizing via inhumane means, then I *do* blame them for it. When there are humane alternatives, there's no excuse for resorting to gassing. Especially if it's being done so ineffectively that some animals aren't being killed the first time around and are actually regaining consciousness at the dump.

In that case, they are perpetrating the very cruelty they supposedly strive to prevent. It's inexcusable, and I absolutely do blame them. Additionally, if the shelters are that overcrowded, reform is necessary because mass killing is a temporary fix that ultimately leads to more of the same. Blaming the public won't solve anything. Educating the public, implementing low-cost spay/neuter programs, taking steps to encourage adoption (and ensure that adoptions will be successful), making shelters more welcoming to the general public, alliances between shelters and rescue/foster organiations, TNR to reduce the number of feral kittens (who are almost invariably euthanized once AC gets involved) born.. these things can all help to reduce the need for euthanasia.

The public can pose certain problems, yes.. but they also represent your pool of potential adopters and allies. When an organization squanders attempts to educate or involve the public by adopting an overly critical/punitive view of the public at large, IMO, they have nobody to blame but themselves when the program fails. Alienating the public benefits nobody, least of all the animals.

Just my two (ten?) cents.. :)

Ramen Connoisseur April 4th, 2009 04:38:43 PM

As I've recounted here before, I was briefly a vet receptionist in college. After hours, a "vet assistant" who I believe to have been mentally deranged used to gas cats in a chamber. She came out cackling and sadistically bragging about how they cried and struggled and went crazy in there. This was of course one factor in my quitting so soon, the other being the fact that they were selling dead bodies to rendering plants. Granted, it was the 80s, but I know everything I need to know about gas chamber deaths from that wacked out woman's account. Clearly, inhumane, BEYOND inhumane. Oh, and I should have learned everything I needed to know about veterinary empathy as well, but apparrently, I was naiive enough to have to learn the latter lesson multiple times in a variety of settings.

Stefani April 4th, 2009 06:27:35 PM

PS -- Kudos to Lis for pointing out that this cannot be called "euthanasia." "Euthanasia" means "good death." There is no good death when you are frantically struggling to breathe. Soulless people do this stuff.

Stefani April 4th, 2009 06:32:11 PM

"Why PETA euthanizes"

because Ingrid hates cats and is bed with the head of PCRM (literally)and it's all a very ugly organization full of dirty politics?

I am not making that up...I know someone who did work for both places.

PETA is an organization that gives everything a bad name.

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=907

LorriM April 4th, 2009 07:29:07 PM

Here's another....

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

LorriM April 4th, 2009 07:33:38 PM

<p>An organization with roughly a million supporters can't be that diabolic. . .

<p>Marjorie admitted that she is vegan and most likely she is a PETA supporter; on the other hand, I know that most veterinarians oppose PETA and its theories and philosophies.

Fotini April 4th, 2009 10:20:46 PM

I don't mind animals being killed by gas chamber necessarily - after all, we've rigged a a donated carrier at my clinic to allow us to pipe in sevo from the anesthetic machine. We've only had to use it twice, both times on SUPER aggressive cats who couldn't really be safely handled, even just to IM some Telazol. The cats went down fairly quickly without any struggle whatsoever, and then were euthanized via cardiac stick. Some might find it disturbing, but it really was the best way to do it - no struggling, no stress from handling. But this method would get pretty expensive pretty quickly, and the average shelter worker can't perform a cardiac stick. But using sevo/oxygen is equivalent to "masking" down an animal for general anesthesia - these cats weren't suffocated to death w/CO. That kind of death is inexcusable, even for the shelter system, and truly disturbing. It's a shame we're so irresonsible as a society as to allow this type of thing to happen...if we humans would get our crap together, maybe the "shelters" wouldn't be so overburdened in the first place. Shame on us.

anna April 4th, 2009 10:22:29 PM

Within the past decade, the county dog pound in the mostly rural midwestern community I grew up in was still using exhaust fumes from the truck to dispatch the excess animals (with only 8 dog runs, they had to do a lot of killing). In the late 90's, the local paper did a bit of an expose on how animals were dying in the pound, and the public outcry was enough to force the local officials to invest in one of those "fancy" chambers like pictured above. I can remember as a child visiting the pound, and my dad pointing out the pipe from the gassing box that emanated from the block wall of the building--it served as the point of connection to the truck. It gave me nightmares. Dr. Patty, would you like to address the potential ethical dilema of vets participating in the euthanasia of healthy animals in shelters? I know some communities contract vets to do the eutanasia. I have to imagine this is a contentious issue within the ranks of your profession.

Bill April 4th, 2009 11:49:00 PM

Fotini: I think the vast majority of humanity opposes PETA and its philosophies. I include myself among the naysaysers of PETA's practices. But to respond to your claim, veterinarians are almost certainly overrepresented as PETA supporters relative even to the average US citizen. 

Dr. Patty Khuly April 5th, 2009 07:52:59 AM

Bill: You raise an issue that dogs us constantly on Doittler: The veterinarians' credo of 'do no harm' vs. 'alleviating suffering.' Our oath more explicitly states that our aim is to alleviate suffering, whereas the human medical profession's credo is more 'primum non nocere"-based. 

Shelter deaths are viewed by veterinarians who perform them as alleviating suffering. That's why, believe it or not, it is not a contentious issue at this level. Veterinarians who are comfortable with this practice self-select for this kind of work. The rest of us simply close our eyes to the whole scene and hope we'll never end up in the position where we'd be asked to do the same. (At least, that's how I see it.)

Where it becomes more worrisome and contentious for vets is when small animal veterinarians who do not work in shelters are asked to euthanize healthy patients. We call that 'convenience euthanasia.' Some employers resent it when associate veterinarians choose not to comply with owner requests in these scenarios. But it's nonetheless a widely accepted area in which veterinarians' personal ethics are respected.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 5th, 2009 08:05:23 AM

Dearest Fotini,

I have to say, I was quite surprised to look at the most recent comments and read your inference that I support PeTA. (I'm sure Caveat, and others who may know me, are giggling equally as hard as I am at the prospect.)

For the record, I do not support, and have never been a supporter of, PeTA, or any of the other popular animal rights groups. In fact, I'm not a member of any organization that I can think of.

Marjorie April 5th, 2009 08:57:01 AM

Oh, and I'm so sorry, Fotini, to have neglected to include that I'm sure you meant no disrespect with that comment. :-) It was just such a surprise for me to read it, since I've never been alligned with PeTA.

Marjorie April 5th, 2009 10:14:36 AM

Fontini, that picture isn't why PETA takes in healthy, adoptable animals promising to find them homes, and immediately kills them. They kill animals because their philosophy is "better dead than fed"; they kill animals because they are committed to the complete elimination of domestic animals.

Most of the people who send them money have not investigated much and believe that they are what their name implies--an organization dedicated to animal welfare. PETA works so hard to obscure their eliminationist kill rate because, if it were widely known and recognized, it would make too many people wake up to what their real purpose is.

Kristie, it's quite true that local Animal Control authorities have as their primary purpose ensuring that animals do not become a problem to the public. However, when any institution, public or private, calls itself a "shelter", the general public expects that that institution is in the business of helping animals, not the business of convenience killing of healthy, adoptable animals. Even the local Animal Control in my city, a city with just about the lowest per capita income in the state and a complete inability to survive without financial life support from the state, distinguishes between impound, where they hold the animals who might yet be claimed by owners or who are "problems" in some way and may be put down soon, and the shelter, where they hold animals judged to be available and adoptable. And for the shelter, they keep "want lists," so that if a match comes up, an available animal can be rehomed as quickly as possible. With barely any budget at all in a city with no more money to give them, and without imaginative and creative leadership, they strive to keep their kill rate as low as they can.

"Shelters" who think their purpose is disposing of unwanted animals, are not "shelters" in the sense the public understands the word.

Dr. Khuly, you said:

Shelter deaths are viewed by veterinarians who perform them as alleviating suffering. That's why, believe it or not, it is not a contentious issue at this level. Veterinarians who are comfortable with this practice self-select for this kind of work. The rest of us simply close our eyes to the whole scene and hope we'll never end up in the position where we'd be asked to do the same. (At least, that's how I see it.)

Maybe if veterinarians started criticizing other veterinarians for killing--not "euthanizing"--healthy, adoptable animals given no realistic chance to find a home, just because "their time is up" or "there's no space", maybe there would be less of it. Drip, drip, drip, but that drip, drip, drip can have an impact.

Lis April 5th, 2009 10:15:58 AM

Fontini

<<An organization with roughly a million supporters can't be that diabolic. . .>>

then I believe there are roughly a million supporters who do not or refuse to see the truth. Or simply like that truth and that is sad.

Even educated people can be mislead. History shows that quite clearly.

LorriM April 5th, 2009 11:45:42 AM

Here's another little tidbit...I can come up with one for every defense of PETA

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2339

Dr. K, that is interesting that vets support peta. I know a bunch and I've never met one who does, but I believe you and it certainly is food for thought.

LorriM April 5th, 2009 11:53:41 AM

The question would be, do vets support PETA believing it is an animal welfare organization, or do they support it knowing that it is dedicated to the elimination of domestic animals? I suspect the former.

Lis April 5th, 2009 12:12:44 PM

Ramen C.: I support your statement 100%, but realize that in many states that a lot of shelters and programs are supported solely through private donations, therefore are still in need of state regulation applicable to "all facilities".

On the subject of humane animal welfare to include euthanasia specifics, I hope to appeal to other NH readers of Dolittler, to enlist sponsoring reform through their representatives & senators for clarification & revamping of statutes.

I attempted to do so, two years ago, but am prevented via our state constitution, until "statute of limitations" surrounding my experience with Pocket expires.

There is lots of animal welfare reform needed in New Hampshire, just like many other states, that do not cost $$$ to the citizen/taxpayer, but can provide safeguards for pets/animals and owners alike.

Pocket's Story from New Hampshire

Barbara A. Albright/NH April 5th, 2009 02:19:38 PM

Re: "Veterinarians who are comfortable with this practice self-select for this kind of work"

I suspect that they are among the percentage of your field who are psychopaths/sociopaths/sadists. It is my personal belief that the vet field is one of the magnet fields for those types. Victims who can't talk! Adoration from the public! The ability to carry out the most sadistic scenes you can imagine without being questioned!

Stefani April 5th, 2009 03:25:23 PM

Marjorie:

No disrespect towards you!  Because PETA promotes vegan, I thought you were a supporter.  

Although I personally don't agree with some of their philosophies, PETA opened my eyes to the atrocities my companion's internist inflicted upon companion animals at the university where he was employed.  For that I will be grateful to PETA for life!

LorriM:  I am very well aware of CCF and what they represent. . .profits will enlist wars. . .

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1107304683 0 0 159 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; font-size:10.0pt; mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family:Arial; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-font-family:Arial;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <a href="http://alabamavetboardwatch.110mb.com/Asp-index.htm">Asproolee’s Story</a>

fotini April 5th, 2009 07:17:52 PM

Fotini,

I know. I know. Irony of ironies, I know all about too many (nightmare-inducing) animal-use practices; factory farms are almost single-handedly responsible for my veganism. (I'm not against eating meat, per se. That's just nature. I'm against needless cruelty, unethical conduct towards animals, etc.) Yet one of my earliest web design projects (I had my own business in advertising, including graphic/web design) was for the animal care and use department of a large, respected university. While I'm almost completely against any further use of animals for medical experimentation, there I was, designing a web site concerning the rules for doing so. :-( I can't even blame it on youth. It was only about 9 or 10 years ago!

Marjorie April 5th, 2009 07:30:44 PM

Stefani: Welcome back! Missed your comments on the web site blog, a few days ago!

Fontini: I agree, although most of us view Peta & HSUS too extreme in most doctrines, both organizations have brought a lot of attention and media to expose various forms of animal cruelty. And both spend lots of money lobbying at the national and state levels, something small groups and individuals cannot usually accomplish as easily.

Marjorie: I can't help but be 100% against any "live animal teaching tools" whether experimentation, education, what-have-you. However, this is different from participating in ethical, up-front clinical trials that are heavily guided by not allowing suffering of great measure and/or discontinuing participation upon decreased quality of life (just as in human trials). We have evolved with enough alternative methodology.

Barbara A./NH

Pocket's Story from N April 5th, 2009 09:57:18 PM

http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/

LorriM April 6th, 2009 08:22:05 AM

Stefani,

You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion. What you are not entitled to are your own facts. And unless you can cough up some facts, such as citation showing that sociopaths are unevenly distributed among job classifications, than you are offering an opinion with no foundation whatsoever. 

The value of that is nill.

Gina Spadafori April 6th, 2009 09:11:44 AM

<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

It’s disingenuous, to say the least, for the deceitfully-named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) to complain about the number of unwanted and suffering animals whom PETA has been forced to euthanize because their guardians requested it, or because no good homes exist for them.

CCF is a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters who kill millions of animals every year, not out of compassion, but out of greed. CCF promotes meat-eating and defends corporations that send billions of cows, chickens, pigs, and other animals to terrifying, gruesome, and painful deaths in slaughterhouses.

PETA handled far more animals than 2,124 in 2008. In fact, we took in more than 10,000 dogs and cats, spaying and neutering all of them at low to no cost. We gave them shots, fixed their wounds and treated their illnesses, and returned them to the community. Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called "pets," as they had spent their lives on heavy chains, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone's, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.

Those figures also do not include the hundreds upon hundreds of dogs and cats whose suffering PETA works to alleviate by providing them with free food when their owners are poor, clean water buckets, sturdy dog houses, straw for winter, and more, or the hundreds of adoptable dogs and cats we will not take in but refer to walk-in animal shelters and adoption centers. Since 2001, PETA's low- to no-cost spay-and-neuter mobile clinics, SNIP and ABC, have sterilized more than 50,000 animals, preventing hundreds of thousands of animals from being born, neglected, abandoned, abused, or euthanized when no one wanted them. We also actively decrease the number of animals who end up in animal shelters only to be euthanized for lack of good homes by using star power to promote spaying and neutering in ads across the country. 

On a national level, PETA is focusing on the root of the problem through our Animal Birth Control (ABC) campaign. The ABC campaign targets breeders, pet stores, and cat- and dog-breeding mills and in an active way through protests, PSAs, celebrity support, and investigations and puts the blame for the overpopulation crisis squarely where it belongs—with those who breed animals or allow their animals to breed. As long as animals are bred, homeless dogs and cats in animal shelters will die because there simply aren't enough good homes for them all.

As long as animals are still be purposely bred and people aren't spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis. PETA is proud to be a "shelter of last resort," where animals who have no place to go or who are unwanted or suffering are welcomed with love and open arms.

You can read more about this in Ingrid Newkirk's last blog: http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/why_we_euthaniz.php

Lianne April 6th, 2009 09:15:29 AM

It’s disingenuous, to say the least, for the deceitfully-named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) to complain about the number of unwanted and suffering animals whom PETA has been forced to euthanize because their guardians requested it, or because no good homes exist for them.

  Animals that you euthanized because the owners requested it are not supposed to be included in the numbers you report to the State of Virginia. You're only supposed to be reporting the numbers of animals that you took in for the purposes of adoption.

CCF is a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters who kill millions of animals every year, not out of compassion, but out of greed. CCF promotes meat-eating and defends corporations that send billions of cows, chickens, pigs, and other animals to terrifying, gruesome, and painful deaths in slaughterhouses.

  Yup, but what they're providing are the numbers you reported to the state of Virginia, and filtering out the animals that are reported by you disingenuously for the purpose of obscuring your horrific kill rate on animals surrendered to you for adoption.

PETA handled far more animals than 2,124 in 2008. In fact, we took in more than 10,000 dogs and cats, spaying and neutering all of them at low to no cost. We gave them shots, fixed their wounds and treated their illnesses, and returned them to the community. Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called "pets," as they had spent their lives on heavy chains, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone's, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.

  Animals brought in by owners to take advantage of your low-cost speutering services are not supposed to be included in the reported numbers. Those animals were not surrendered to you, were never owned by you, and have nothing to do with the numbers Virginia is trying to collect.

Those figures also do not include the hundreds upon hundreds of dogs and cats whose suffering PETA works to alleviate by providing them with free food when their owners are poor, clean water buckets, sturdy dog houses, straw for winter, and more, or the hundreds of adoptable dogs and cats we will not take in but refer to walk-in animal shelters and adoption centers. Since 2001, PETA's low- to no-cost spay-and-neuter mobile clinics, SNIP and ABC, have sterilized more than 50,000 animals, preventing hundreds of thousands of animals from being born, neglected, abandoned, abused, or euthanized when no one wanted them.

Those numbers are not supposed to be included. Virginia is collecting the numbers of animals surrendered for adoption, and what their ultimate fates are: adopted out, released to another shelter or rescue organization, or killed. PETA's kill rate is over 90%--a kill rate that would embarrass most poorly-run, underfunded municipal animal control facilities. Most of them manage to adopt out a much higher percentage of the animals they take in.

We also actively decrease the number of animals who end up in animal shelters only to be euthanized for lack of good homes by using star power to promote spaying and neutering in ads across the country. 

Promoting spaying and neutering of pets is a good thing, yes, even when it's PETA doing it.

On a national level, PETA is focusing on the root of the problem through our Animal Birth Control (ABC) campaign. The ABC campaign targets breeders, pet stores, and cat- and dog-breeding mills and in an active way through protests, PSAs, celebrity support, and investigations and puts the blame for the overpopulation crisis squarely where it belongs—with those who breed animals or allow their animals to breed. As long as animals are bred, homeless dogs and cats in animal shelters will die because there simply aren't enough good homes for them all.

Yes, you target responsible breeders who health-screen and temperament-screen their animals, breed only when they have homes lined up for more puppies or kittens than they expect to be born, micro-chip the animals, socialize them properly, place them in carefully screened homes and only with spay/neuter contracts OR already spayed or neutered, and with return clauses guaranteeing that the animal never has to wind up in a shelter even if the buyer can't or won't keep it, exactly as if they were puppy millers and kitten millers. Because your goal is not animal welfare, but the extinction of domestic animals. "Better dead than fed," right?

Lis April 6th, 2009 10:30:44 AM

It is indeed "disingenuous, to say the least," for the  squicky CCF to release PETA's kill rates for its "shelter," but how very convenient for PETA to cherry-pick its sources on what is, in fact, a report required by Virginia law, to be given to to the CCF but to the state. Virginia requires that shelters report animals taken in "for the purpose of adoption." More than 90 percent of those never leave PETA, except in a body bag.

To see how others who are trying to solve the problem by getting animals homes instead of "release"  feel about PETA's "shelter of last resport," read "The Butcher of Norfolk" by Nathan Winograd ... start <a href=http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=926>here</a>/.

PETA just can't wait until all domestic animals are extinct ... so they can't be "exploited" -- pets very much included. There are other solutions, including leadership in the shelter industry to get more pets adopted, free or incentived spay-neuter programs and a fast-tracked phase-out of factory farming , which is not only cruel to animals but also environmentally unsustainable and a risk to our national security both in terms of food safety and in the continued dependence on fossil fuels. A movement to return to a farming system that would allow food animals the ability to behave in normal ways and live without pain and fear is gaining ground.

Solutions, not extremism. Leadership, not slogans.

PETA offers none of the above.

Gina Spadafori April 6th, 2009 10:43:25 AM

My opinion is based on review of many individual stories involving individual veterinarians (including many involving convictions for animal cruelty). While those individual stories are not statistics (or percentages of DSM classifications for diagnosed illness, which I NEVER alleged to have -- I used the words "suspect" and "opinion") they are nonetheless facts.

Also, when you stated:

"If you're a psychopath/sociopath/sadists you're not going to choose to go through a long and rigorous academic program for the opportunitiy to pursue the desire to torture . . . In fact, you'd probably not want to take time away from being a psycho to study so long and hard."

That also was a statement of opinion with NO FACTUAL basis. Your statement basically asserts that, by definition, NO ONE who chooses to go through a rigorous academic program, is a psychopath/sociopath/sadist. All it would take is one documented example to disprove that assertion based on nothing but your opinion.

Food for thought from an article on pedophilia:

"Pedophiles . . . may select professional contexts in which access to children is assured. Within the medical profession, pediatrics offers such access."

Similar concept.

Stefani April 6th, 2009 12:36:50 PM

Topics like this really bring out the hippies and zealots.  If we weren't meant to eat animals we wouldn't be able to digest meat!  Any animal that isn't smart enough to run away doesn't deserve to avoid my plate if I want to eat it!  This year I'm hunting deer, moose, rabbit, grouse, duck, and goose!  I don't even eat any of those animals!  They are going to provide a supplemental diet for my dogs!  I have no problem with people having different beliefs and traditions, but when you start trying to push those onto other people that's where you step over the line (like the door to door Mormons and Jehovah witnesses)!  But soon we can all breath a sigh of relief as after the nuclear and/or zombie apocalypse vegetarians will be the first to die becasue the meat eaters will be hunting them!

And by the way if you are vegan or vegetarian aren't you hurting animals by eating their natural diet?  Every vegitable you eat could have been fed to an animal....freaks.....I hate hippies!

Chuck April 6th, 2009 01:36:22 PM

Psychology has shown that those who exhibit disdain and hatred for animals usually move on to display disdain and hatred towards humans.

Marjorie April 6th, 2009 04:56:59 PM

Psychology has shown that those who exhibit disdain and hatred for animals usually move on to display disdain and hatred towards humans. -- Majorie

Mission accomplished, in Chuck's case.  He hates hippies!

Chuck, join the new century. No one has seen a hippie in, oh, 30 years.

Gina Spadafori April 6th, 2009 06:34:25 PM

Sorry I'm late to this thread. I was blissfully kayaking then driving home. Because it's so amusing and insults perfectly balanced on all sides, I will invoke blogger's privilege and not delete a thing. 

I will, however, take exception to Chuck's 'kill more animals for food' concept (and I'm no hippie) as well as Stefani's claim that the veterinary profession attracts sadists (puh-lease!). Generalizations like these two are not helpful to furthering the discussion--and they really don't endear anyone to your POV. Well, not me anyway. But I have to say, Chuck, your three zoobies in a pot made me chuckle. Here's hoping your tongue is firmly pressed into your cheek.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 6th, 2009 06:55:37 PM

Yes, I actually only hunt duck and Grouse, and I eat both.  But it's just as rediculous as some of the stuff others say on PETA's behalf.

Chuck April 6th, 2009 08:28:26 PM

Psychology has shown that those who exhibit disdain and hatred for animals usually move on to display disdain and hatred towards humans. -- Majorie Marjorie, that fact has been researched and published numerous times and for numerous reasons. Also is a valid reason that law enforcement should, and often does, take animal abuse seriously, especially should the perpetrator have a spouse or children.

Gina: I am certain there are sociopaths, etc. in every walk of life or profession, or country, etc. But one thing that is hard to argue, that once discovered or have good reason to be "discovered", very little, and next to nothing is done to prevent future harm or repetition of abuse, either to animals and/or including invisible harm to people, when it involves a "veterinary professional".

That you might have admit to be found as "fact", or maybe visit the Bad Vet Daily blog for a 'sample' of published "facts".

And we have a saying in the USPS, when one claims to have committed a wrong-doing for the "first" time......."Yeah, right, like we believe that one!"

All invites open to visit an "unproven" example of NH animal abuse, cruelty, and negliegence : Pocket's Story from New Hampshire ----any comments good or bad, I can take it---pittance compared to the described experience, I assure you!

Barbara A. Albright/NH April 6th, 2009 09:10:20 PM

Re Vegans, Sometime look at what a combine does to the local mammal populations. It is pretty darn aufull, and that is how they harvest grain. You absolutely 100% support the wanton destruction of animal life if you consume any sort of bean, seeds or grains. If people don't support particular farming methods, fine, support those farmers who don't use those methods. If you don't like the use of battery hens fine, if you say you are not going to eat eggs, well you just removed yourself from relevence. I dislike battery egg practices, so I go to my local egg farm, where I can see how they do it. They have quite a number of chickens and turkys but I am comfortable with the care they get and so I vote with my money. I support financialy the farming methods I support moraly therby doing my part to make those methods financialy viable. Re No live animals for education, this is absurd, both from a reasonable level and a conservation level. I am a falconer and very much look forward to being able to give conservation educations with my raptors. While I think the best thing possible for the environment is for every kid to go out and play in the nearest vacent lot, catch and take home all sorts of wild things and try to keep them alive for a long as possible, just for the fun of it. That is what does the most for instilling a respevt and apreation for the natural world. Failing that live animal demonstrations can bridge that gap and make more real something that was previously only a picture on tv. Maybee you were refering to them in a medical setting, there a person still has to 'practice' on their first live animal. Would you rather it be someone's cherished pet or a shelter 'volenter' needing attention. What matters in not the live animal for education but the supervision the student gets. Jacob L'Etoile Farmer, conconscientious consumer, hunter, and more knowlageable about the naturel world than 90% of the people I meet as a result of those 3 things. Sorry for the poorly spelled rant, some things get my hackles up.

jacob April 7th, 2009 09:54:42 AM

Jacob: Thanks for that. I don't care about spelling. You more than got your point across. 

As for children: Anything that truly helps children get the point about animals is more than OK with me. One more well-educated child is worth at least a few dolphin swims. But I do worry that the many of these children are not being taught. They're being entertained.

Ultimately, it's up to parents like you to instill a sense of respect for animals. That's what counts, be it up close or from afar. After all, even television has its merits if it's tuned in to the nature shows. ;-)

Dr. Patty Khuly April 7th, 2009 04:22:22 PM

Dr Khuly: A respect for animals is very important, but I would argue it is not enough. People need a understanding of the naturel world in order for real conservation to be sustainable. What I see happening and fear happening is a generation of parents now are to afraid to let their children play out doors in nature, the vacent lot the field behind the . . . whatever. These children are getting their aprecion and respect of nature from mediated sources, tv, magizines, zoos. What these types of mediated experiences teach is -nature is way over there in some exotic place- not their back yard. THat we should protect the rainforest but it is ok to soak our driveway with glysophate (btw I am not an organic farmer but I know what I spray and where I spray it and do my best to contain it's effects) to kill a few weeds. Now these kids parents are doing most of the policy making but what happens when these kids come of age, what will they teach their kids? I heard a great line the other day on the difference between conservation and protection. We are going to keep building homes out of wood, what we say when we 'protect' a forest from logging is, we will just get our wood form some country that can't afford to protect their forests. The answer is not 'protection' but conservation to make sure we have the resourses we need now and in the future. I don't believe this type of nuanced view is fostered by mediated experiences, at best they inspire a person to go out and have some unmediated experences. This blog entry (no gassing as euthinasia), the one on dolphins and the one on large animal vetenary practices have kind of run together in my mind but they all touch on something very important about our (as a nation) current way of life and it's imapct on our future way of life. I am sorry for touching on all of them in this blog entry instead of a newer one.

Jacob L'Etoile April 8th, 2009 03:45:56 PM

Jacob: Message received, no matter where you post it.

Dr. Patty Khuly April 8th, 2009 06:19:58 PM

The problem seems to stem back to one thing,spay & neuter!...it doesn't matter much to many humans in the end if you chose to end an innocent animals life thru gas or needle injection given by a shelter staff member who is poorly trained and really does not care. Either of these methods clearly suck, especially for the animal. When... oh... when will we adapt a proactive social attitude towards responsible pet ownership. I am so weary of all the death......SPAY! SPAY! and NEUTER! As someone who has spent too many years in the shelter world and witnessed continued ignorance and excuses in people as they dump off their cardboard boxes full of unwanted litters....gassing and needle injection euthenasia are both unacceptable forms of birth control.

sheri4dogs April 9th, 2009 01:28:23 AM

Know what? I typed a whole entry and deleted it as this is about GAS CHAMBERS not vegans and hippies and Chuck. No matter what anyone says pro/con there is NOTHING HUMANE about gas chambers. It's been a tough week nad I forgot to find that link to the dogs dying in a NC chamber but I will - IT WILL ROCK YOUR WORLD, I promise. As for vets "euthanizing" healthy pets for clients it's a for profit mentality, nothing more, nothing less. One of my vets (whom I use less and less frequently the more I learn) told me: "If a client wants a pet killed they'll get it done somewhere. Why shouldn't I do it?" That reasoning doesn't sit well with me but I imagine many vets hold similar viewpoints when it comes to financial wellbeing. In some screwed way he's convinced himself he's doing the animal a favor hence not betraying his oath to do no harm since "his" death is better than someone else's "unknown" method. On the other hand, some vets who refuse to put down an animal that can be "cured" when the owner hasn't the financial resources is equally mistaken; a kind death is better than suffering a natural death in many instances. As for shelter killing (it's rarely qualifed as "euthanasia" hence I refuse to use the word) that, too, is an economically driven reality: the vet(s) need the job. Book closed. As long as it's legal and they receive a paycheck they'll do it whether they ethically believe in it or not. I hope they have trouble looking themselves in the mirror and sleeping at night, altho I highly doubt either. A human's ability to rationalize is amazing.

Lee April 12th, 2009 01:31:41 PM

Stefani said "I believe that ALL VETS who use carbon monoxide gas chambers are sadists. I bet I'm not alone in that opinion." I think you meant to say carbon dioxide, because carbon monoxide is probably the easiest death possible. It's extremely difficult to get, however. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is stressful, but highly unlikely to accidentally kill yourself when using it.

Margaret April 13th, 2009 04:38:03 AM

Lee: I see Stefani is not alone in her rationale. I too wonder how professionals that participate in "inhumane" killings can look in the mirror. I also wonder how the support staff that knows they are particpating in fraud and prolonged suffering can look in the mirror.

Margaret: Are you suggesting that CO2 is often substituted for CO, because it is easier to obtain? If so, one can only wonder about "all" the shelter personnel that participate in these deaths.

My story is old & repetitive, but bears an important message because it is true:

Pocket's Story from New Hampshire

Barbara A. Albright/Pocket's Mom April 13th, 2009 10:20:13 AM

Ever since I saw a video of dogs being gassed in Yadkin, NC on YouTube, I've cared about this issue. I didn't even know this existed until a year ago. As an owner of shelter pets, it was especially disturbing and hard to watch. There's no excuse for this either. Even feral, aggressive or rabid animals could be knocked out with a pole syringe. I'm convinced as more people learn about this we'll see more states ban it. Shelters that favor gassing know it which is why you seldom, if ever, see this procedure done in it's completion on public tv. My local shelter showed a black lab euthed by injection on the 6pm news once to show potentially unresponsible pet owners what happens when their animals wind up at the shelter. It inspired a bump in adoptions and although it was sad at least the animal didn't howl, moan and cry in terror. Could you imagine how the public would react if they showed gassing, from start to finish with audio on the 6pm news? That's why you'll never see it and that tells me even the shelters that support it know it's wrong.

Charlie April 14th, 2009 01:57:54 AM

Charlie: I can't go to youtube & watch, but I am sure glad you described it.Thank you.

I am still putting pieces of my "case" together, more than 2 1/2 years later, perhaps that would explain the ZERO support from NH shelters & "humane" societies regarding my own pet's cruel 'euthanasia' death....because gas chambers are or were legal in my state of NH, though not "cited" in the humane euthanasia statute, but on FOIA "white paper".

Another sad, but good reason for me to speak up.

Anecdote: I distinctly remember picking up a rescue Scot (formally named Herschel) from a far-south Mass. shelter. The rep gave me a full tour and with pride, showed me the euthanasia "room". Now I really know why she was so "proud", and dummy me, just took it for "granted". I even wrote about it for our regional newsletter (back in '93)

Barb. A./NH April 14th, 2009 06:09:44 PM

شات

amal_ May 22nd, 2009 09:46:20 AM

The timberland classic safety of the people is the highest timberland men's custom law. It is only in marriage with the cheap timberland boots world that our ideals buy cheap timberland can bear fruit; divorced from it timberland men's 6 inch,they remain barren.http://www.officialtimberland.com/

Timberland boots October 10th, 2009 11:31:10 PM

weight loss tips

blackberry cases

coach handbags

cvs November 3rd, 2009 02:49:09 AM