This Week in Animal Protection

Listen above to an audio version of Why PETA Kills, my book, which tells the story of Maya and the tens of thousands of other animals PETA has put to death.

From October 18 - 19, you can also download the e-book from Amazon for free. (Ignore Kindle Unlimited and click below where it says “$0.00 to buy.”)

On October 18, 2014, two PETA representatives backed their van up to a home in Parksley, VA, and threw biscuits to Maya, who was sitting on her porch. They hoped to coax her off her property and allow PETA to claim she was a stray dog “at large” whom they could legally impound.

Maya refused to stay off the property and, after grabbing the biscuit, ran back to the safety of her porch. One of the PETA representatives went onto the property and took Maya. Within hours, Maya was dead, illegally killed with a lethal dose of poison.

A PETA spokesperson claimed Maya was killed by “mistake,” and, defying credulity, explained that the same PETA representative who had earlier sat on the porch with Maya’s family, talking to them about her care, and who was filmed taking Maya from that same porch, mistook her for a different dog. The “apology” was not only a devastating admission of guilt but evidence that killing healthy animals was business as usual for PETA employees — so commonplace that the only excuse PETA could offer for Maya’s death was that in taking her life, a PETA representative had mistaken her for another healthy animal they had decided to kill. Was it likewise a “mistake” that five other animals ended up dead from the same trailer park and on the same day, too? 

Though PETA claimed to be “devastated” by Maya’s death, the claim was contradicted by the facts and, given its timing, motivated not by honesty, transparency, or genuine contrition but by political necessity as the Virginia Department of Agriculture had opened an investigation into Maya’s killing and Virginia’s governor was weighing whether to sign into law a bill overwhelmingly passed by the legislature aimed at protecting animals from PETA. 

As public outrage over PETA’s killing of Maya spread, a former PETA employee came forward, shedding even more light on how disingenuous PETA’s claim of being devastated at the killing of Maya was. Explaining that killing healthy animals at PETA was not an anomaly but “standard operating procedure,” Heather Harper-Troje, a one-time PETA field worker, publicly uncovered the inner workings at PETA as no former employee ever had. “I know from firsthand experience that the PETA leadership has no problem lying,” she wrote. “I was told regularly to say whatever I had to say in order to get people to surrender animals to me, lying was not only acceptable, it was encouraged.” The purpose of acquiring these animals, according to Harper-Troje, was “to euthanize the[m] immediately.” 

Maya’s family would ultimately sue PETA, alleging conversion of their dog (theft), trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. PETA, in turn, asked the court to throw out the lawsuit based on several questionable claims.

First, PETA argued that Maya was legally worthless because she was not licensed, citing an 1887 law that required a dog “to be properly licensed as a condition of being deemed personal property.” Putting aside the irony of a supposed “animal rights” group arguing that Maya had no value, the statute they cited was repealed in 1966. It had not been the law in half a century.

Alternatively, PETA argued that Maya had no value beyond the replacement cost for another dog. In other words, PETA’s position was that Maya was like a toaster. If you break it, you throw it away and get a new one.

Third, PETA argued that they had permission to enter the trailer park from its owner to remove community cats, so they cannot be guilty of trespassing for entering a private residence in that trailer park to kill a family’s dog.

Fourth, PETA argued that the theft and killing of Maya was not “outrageous,” a prerequisite to the awarding of punitive damages. 

Finally, in an argument reeking with racist overtones, PETA demanded to know if Maya’s family was legally in the U.S.

After arguing and losing most of the pre-trial motions — including rulings that the family’s immigration status was not relevant to the theft and killing of their dog and that such conduct was, indeed, “outrageous” — as well as facing the specter of being forced to turn over records and testify under oath about PETA’s inner workings, and perhaps trying to put the publicity behind their killing of Maya behind them, PETA settled the case, paying Maya’s family $49,000.

But the condemnation only grew following a series of articles I wrote about Maya’s killing, which ultimately led to the publication of Why PETA Kills, my book. Why PETA Kills tells Maya’s story and that of over 30,000 others who have also died at their hands, a number that continues to increase by the thousands every year. In 2022, for example, PETA put to death 1,374 out of 1,737 cats. Another 347 went to pounds that also kill animals. Historically, many of the kittens and cats PETA has taken to those pounds have been killed, often within minutes, despite being young (as young as six weeks old) and healthy.

Not only do those records prove the lie that all of the animals PETA rounds up to kill are “suffering,” but if those cats and kittens were killed or displaced others who were killed, that puts the overall cat death rate as high as 99%. They only adopted out 15 cats, an adoption rate of ½ of 1% despite millions of “animal-loving” supporters, a staff of hundreds, and revenues in excess of $72 million.

While dogs fared a little better, 718 out of 1,041 were killed. Roughly 4% were adopted out. And PETA staff also killed almost 80% of other animal companions: 30 out of 38.

To date, PETA has killed 51,010 dogs and cats and sent thousands more to be killed at local pounds, that we know of. The number may be many times higher. According to Harper-Troje,

I was told regularly to not enter animals into the log, or to euthanize off-site in order to prevent animals from even entering the building. I was told regularly to greatly overestimate the weight of animals whose euthanasia we recorded, in order to account for what would have otherwise been missing ‘blue juice’ (the chemical used to euthanize); because that allowed us to euthanize animals off the books.

Following the release of Why PETA Kills, PETA filed a run-of-the-mill defamation lawsuit targeting The No Kill Advocacy Center (NKAC), my organization, and me in an attempt to intimidate me and others into silence. But they didn’t sue me directly, as they knew it would ultimately fail: truth, after all, is a defense to defamation. More importantly, they feared doing so as suing me would be dangerous for PETA. Not only would it allow me to force the deposition (e.g., testimony under penalty of perjury) of Ingrid Newkirk, the architect of PETA’s killing, as well as others at PETA who do the actual killing, but it would allow me to seek documents from PETA that would augment what public records and the PETA employees I spoke with already revealed: that PETA intentionally seeks out animals to kill and that the majority of those animals are healthy and adoptable. Absent a court case, as a private organization, PETA is not required to release that information under state freedom of information laws and has ignored my requests to do so.

Instead, PETA named me as a “co-conspirator” but not as a defendant in the complaint, a procedural gimmick that gave PETA the ability to issue a subpoena to (try to) seek the names of PETA employees who, fearing retribution, spoke to me on condition of anonymity; information that was used to corroborate newspaper articles, on the record sources, government documents, testimony and information from civil and criminal cases against PETA, videotape evidence, and admissions of killing by PETA officials. At the same time, that procedural ploy would prevent me from demanding documents and depositions of PETA leadership and staff in return.

But PETA’s legal tactic failed to take into account two important factors. First, I would never reveal my confidential informants. Second, I did not have to legally do so, given my First Amendment rights as a journalist. In an attempt to force me to, however, PETA filed a motion in court to compel the disclosure of the names, claiming that as an animal advocate, I was not entitled to the protection of the First Amendment, a point of view they hypocritically reject for themselves and which, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the organization founded to protect the rights of journalists by legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee of Pentagon Papers fame, called “alarming.”

In assisting me with my legal defense, the Reporters Committee noted,

We’re concerned about the legal efforts to require Nathan Winograd to reveal the confidential sources for his reporting on PETA’s practices. Both the First Amendment and California’s constitution protect those who engage in journalistic activity… and any efforts to limit these protections should be alarming for all newsgatherers.

Threatened with a fine and jail time if I refused to reveal my sources, my lawyer argued that California Courts have consistently ruled that the First Amendment protects “investigative reporting.” And investigative reporting includes “authors such as Lincoln Steffens and Upton Sinclair [who] exposed widespread corruption and abuse in American life. More recently, social critics such as Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Jessica Mitford, and others have written books that have made significant contributions to the public discourse on major issues confronting the American people.”

As my attorney argued,

Every crusading journalist in that pantheon of heroes cited by the court would have flunked PETA’s putative ‘journalism’ test, for their journalism was inseparable from their advocacy. Indeed, Sinclair and Nader took their advocacy onto the campaign trail and sought public office. Winograd and NKAC’s intertwined investigative and advocacy work are no different from that done by Nader and his nonprofit Public Citizen.

The court agreed. Despite PETA hiring one of the most expensive law firms in the world, the Court denied PETA’s motion, not only providing me and, more importantly, the animals an important victory but breaking new ground by extending First Amendment protections to new/non-traditional media.

Following that ruling, another whistleblower from inside PETA openly came forward and confirmed what my sources had revealed: that PETA staff lie to people to acquire their animals to kill, kill despite adoption alternatives, and indoctrinate people to kill in a cult-like atmosphere she described as “terrifying.”

[A]s most new PETA employees are blooming animal rights activists, freshly plucked from college and determined to do whatever it takes to succeed in this demanding, low-paying activist world, PETA’s methodology of indoctrination is quite successful. These employees soak it all in like a sponge, as I did at the age of 21 when I started there, and begin to spout the organization’s soundbites at every turn. They will start to do so so naturally that they can’t see where they themselves end and the organization begins.

“Ultimately,” wrote Laura Lee Cascada, a PETA field worker whose job included rounding up animals to kill, “the culture was terrifying and desensitizing — and I gradually felt that my view of death, of taking animals’ lives, was being warped, my emotions being stripped away.”

Like Heather Harper-Troje before her, Cascada’s chilling account described the method whereby employees are intimidated and emotionally manipulated into participating in the killing of animals, an act that came to be euphemistically called to “take care of” an animal (the words “killing” and even “euthanasia” are not used). Employees “were forced to participate in euthanasias they didn’t believe in” or “were fired because they refused to do so.”

[I]f an employee, like many animal rights advocates who believe in the rights and autonomy of each individual animal, wanted to critically assess whether a euthanasia decision was truly the best thing for an individual animal in his or her unique circumstances, there was a real, true fear of being branded as an advocate for hoarding or a secret supporter of the enemy. Thus, speaking up could have meant being booted from the tribe.

Cascada also described numerous examples of healthy animals who were killed for the “good of all animals”:

I rescued and cared for a pair of birds from a cruelty case for weeks, bonding with and growing to love them. When the decision was made to euthanize the boy because of a debilitating medical condition, the girl was also euthanized because it was thought that she would be lonely without him. She was one of those lumped into the ‘unadoptable’ category PETA brushes past as it explains its euthanasia statistics each year. I was expected and required to swallow my emotions for her for the good of all animals. I was expected to welcome her death as a positive outcome in order to maintain my employment.

Another time, I rescued an unloved dog whose body condition and personality were unremarkable, meaning there was no immediate indication for euthanasia. I quickly heard from my mom that she’d be interested in adopting him. I excitedly emailed the manager of the shelter to make this offer but never received a reply. A few days later, I checked in with her and was told that he had already been killed. 

She recounted being told to lie to people to acquire animals to kill and getting chastised for trying to find them homes. For example, Cascada wrote that she,

[R]esponded to a call from a concerned woman who’d found an abandoned days-old kitten under her porch. When I came to pick up the kitten, I had her sign a generic give-up form that spelled out that euthanasia was a possibility. But I was instructed to repeatedly convey that we would do our absolute best, and so that’s what I said, even as the woman described her careful search for an organization she knew would work around the clock to help this tiny being pull through. It was my job to make sure I did not leave without that cat — that I said whatever necessary for the woman not to change her mind.

The entire way back to PETA’s Norfolk, Virginia, headquarters, I sobbed, petting the infant cat in my lap, telling her things would all be OK, even though in my gut I knew it wouldn’t, that she never really had a chance. I even began plotting out how I might take a detour and deliver her to a rehabber instead. But how could I explain a missing kitten to the woman waiting with the needle? I couldn’t, so I complied without a word.

As a result of coming forward, she reported that she was,

[C]ontacted by individuals from all over the country expressing their gratitude, and their own fear, about speaking out about their experiences. People who worked at PETA and were forced to lie about euthanasias, people who were forced to euthanize animals they loved as a condition of their employment, and people who were told by leadership that they were worthless. There are dozens, and maybe hundreds, of us. Most are still afraid to break their silence.

PETA’s lawsuit would ultimately collapse, but four important things came out of my victory against them. First, as noted above, it extended First Amendment protections for investigative journalism to new media for the first time.

Second, it demonstrated that PETA may have deep pockets and has no qualms about misusing the court system in an attempt to intimidate people into silence, but their strategy will always be limited by the fact that depositions and the witness stand could compel employees, including Newkirk, to testify under penalty of perjury. Consistent with the overwhelming evidence already available, such testimony would be damning, and PETA knows it. If people stand up to PETA’s donor-funded intimidation tactics rather than cower to them, PETA will invariably back down. 

Third, their empty saber-rattling may have led to another whistleblower openly coming forward. 

Fourth and finally, it led me to Ralph. 

As fate would have it, on the way to court in the case, my wife and I came upon a little dog who had been hit by a car, bleeding in the gutter. Wrapping him in a coat, we rushed him to the nearest emergency veterinary hospital, where he was given the care he needed, including pain medication. 

After recovering from his injuries at our house, we found him a loving, new home consistent with our belief in the ethical treatment of animals. Were it not for PETA’s meritless lawsuit, we would never have found him. 

For obvious reasons, I am grateful that it was us and not PETA representatives who saw him on the way to the courthouse. If PETA had gotten to him and history is any guide, Ralph would no longer be alive, put to death with a lethal dose of poison.

Because despite all we may still not know about PETA, this much is certain: PETA is letting loose upon the world individuals who not only believe that killing is a good thing and that the living want to die, but who are legally armed with lethal drugs that they have already proven — over 50,000 times — that they are not averse to using.

To receive future articles and support my fight for the animals, please subscribe.

Listen above to an audio version of Why PETA Kills, my book, which tells the story of Maya and those of over 30,000 other animals PETA has put to death.

On October 18, you can also download the e-book from Amazon for free. (Ignore Kindle Unlimited and click below where it says “$0.00 to buy.”)

On October 18, 2014, two PETA representatives backed their van up to a home in Parksley, VA, and threw biscuits to Maya, who was sitting on her porch. They hoped to coax her off her property and allow PETA to claim she was a stray dog “at large” whom they could legally impound.

Maya refused to stay off the property and, after grabbing the biscuit, ran back to the safety of her porch. One of the PETA representatives went onto the property and took Maya. Within hours, Maya was dead, illegally killed with a lethal dose of poison.

A PETA spokesperson claimed Maya was killed by “mistake,” and defying credulity, explained that the same PETA representative who had earlier sat on the porch with Maya’s family talking to them about her care and who was filmed taking Maya from that same porch mistook her for a different dog. The “apology” was not only a devastating admission of guilt but evidence that killing healthy animals was business as usual for PETA employees — so commonplace that the only excuse PETA could offer for Maya’s death was that in taking her life, a PETA representative had mistaken her for another healthy animal they had decided to kill. Was it likewise a “mistake” that five other animals ended up dead from the same trailer park and on the same day, too? 

Though PETA claimed to be “devastated” by Maya’s death, the claim was contradicted by the facts and, given its timing, motivated not by honesty, transparency, or genuine contrition but by political necessity as the Virginia Department of Agriculture had opened an investigation into Maya’s killing and Virginia’s governor was weighing whether to sign into law a bill overwhelmingly passed by the legislature aimed at protecting animals from PETA. 

As public outrage over PETA’s killing of Maya spread, a former PETA employee came forward, shedding even more light on how disingenuous PETA’s claim of being devastated at the killing of Maya was. Explaining that killing healthy animals at PETA was not an anomaly but “standard operating procedure,” Heather Harper-Troje, a one-time PETA field worker, publicly uncovered the inner workings at PETA as no former employee ever had. “I know from firsthand experience that the PETA leadership has no problem lying,” she wrote. “I was told regularly to say whatever I had to say in order to get people to surrender animals to me, lying was not only acceptable, it was encouraged.” The purpose of acquiring these animals, according to Harper-Troje, was “to euthanize the[m] immediately.” 

Maya’s family would ultimately sue PETA, alleging conversion of their dog (theft), trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. PETA, in turn, asked the court to throw out the lawsuit based on several questionable claims.

First, PETA argued that Maya was legally worthless because she was not licensed, citing an 1887 law that required a dog “to be properly licensed as a condition of being deemed personal property.” Putting aside the irony of a supposed “animal rights” group arguing that Maya had no value, the statute they cited was repealed in 1966. It had not been the law in half a century.

Alternatively, PETA argued that Maya had no value beyond the replacement cost for another dog. In other words, PETA’s position was that Maya was like a toaster. If you break it, you throw it away and get a new one.

Third, PETA argued that they had permission to enter the trailer park from its owner to remove community cats, so they cannot be guilty of trespassing for entering a private residence in that trailer park to kill a family’s dog.

Fourth, PETA argued that the theft and killing of Maya was not “outrageous,” a prerequisite to the awarding of punitive damages. 

Finally, in an argument reeking with racist overtones, PETA demanded to know if Maya’s family was legally in the U.S.

After arguing and losing most of the pre-trial motions — including rulings that the family’s immigration status was not relevant to the theft and killing of their dog and that such conduct was, indeed, “outrageous” — as well as facing the specter of being forced to turn over records and testify under oath about PETA’s inner workings, and perhaps trying to put the publicity behind their killing of Maya behind them, PETA settled the case, paying Maya’s family $49,000.

But the condemnation only grew following a series of articles I wrote about Maya’s killing, which ultimately led to the publication of Why PETA Kills, my book. Why PETA Kills tells Maya’s story and that of over 30,000 others who have also died at their hands, a number that continues to increase by the thousands every year. In 2022, for example, PETA put to death 1,374 out of 1,737 cats. Another 347 went to pounds that also kill animals. Historically, many of the kittens and cats PETA has taken to those pounds have been killed, often within minutes, despite being young (as young as six weeks old) and healthy.

Not only do those records prove the lie that all of the animals PETA rounds up to kill are “suffering,” but if those cats and kittens were killed or displaced others who were killed, that puts the overall cat death rate as high as 99%. They only adopted out 15 cats, an adoption rate of ½ of 1% despite millions of “animal loving” supporters, a staff of hundreds, and revenues in excess of $72 million.

While dogs fared a little better, 718 out of 1,041 were killed. Roughly 4% were adopted out. And PETA staff also killed almost 80% of other animal companions: 30 out of 38.

To date, PETA has killed 46,364 dogs and cats and sent thousands more to be killed at local pounds, that we know of. The number may be many times higher. According to Harper-Troje,

I was told regularly to not enter animals into the log, or to euthanize off-site in order to prevent animals from even entering the building. I was told regularly to greatly overestimate the weight of animals whose euthanasia we recorded, in order to account for what would have otherwise been missing ‘blue juice’ (the chemical used to euthanize); because that allowed us to euthanize animals off the books.

Following the release of Why PETA Kills, PETA filed a run-of-the-mill defamation lawsuit targeting The No Kill Advocacy Center (NKAC), my organization, and me in an attempt to intimidate me and others into silence. But they didn’t sue me directly, as they knew it would ultimately fail: truth, after all, is a defense to defamation. More importantly, they feared doing so as suing me would be dangerous for PETA. Not only would it allow me to force the deposition (e.g., testimony under penalty of perjury) of Ingrid Newkirk, the architect of PETA’s killing, as well as others at PETA who do the actual killing, but it would allow me to seek documents from PETA that would augment what public records and the PETA employees I spoke with already revealed: that PETA intentionally seeks out animals to kill and that the majority of those animals are healthy and adoptable. Absent a court case, as a private organization, PETA is not required to release that information under state freedom of information laws and has ignored my requests to do so.

Instead, PETA named me as a “co-conspirator” but not as a defendant in the complaint, a procedural gimmick that gave PETA the ability to issue a subpoena to (try to) seek the names of PETA employees who, fearing retribution, spoke to me on condition of anonymity; information that was used to corroborate newspaper articles, on the record sources, government documents, testimony and information from civil and criminal cases against PETA, videotape evidence, and admissions of killing by PETA officials. At the same time, that procedural ploy would prevent me from demanding documents and depositions of PETA leadership and staff in return.

But PETA’s legal tactic failed to take into account two important factors. First, I would never reveal my confidential informants. Second, I did not have to legally do so, given my First Amendment rights as a journalist. In an attempt to force me to, however, PETA filed a motion in court to compel the disclosure of the names, claiming that as an animal advocate, I was not entitled to the protection of the First Amendment, a point of view they hypocritically reject for themselves and which, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the organization founded to protect the rights of journalists by legendary Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee of Pentagon Papers fame, called “alarming.”

In assisting me with my legal defense, the Reporters Committee noted,

We’re concerned about the legal efforts to require Nathan Winograd to reveal the confidential sources for his reporting on PETA’s practices. Both the First Amendment and California’s constitution protect those who engage in journalistic activity… and any efforts to limit these protections should be alarming for all newsgatherers.

Threatened with a fine and jail time if I refused to reveal my sources, my lawyer argued that California Courts have consistently ruled that the First Amendment protects “investigative reporting.” And investigative reporting includes “authors such as Lincoln Steffens and Upton Sinclair [who] exposed widespread corruption and abuse in American life. More recently, social critics such as Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, Jessica Mitford, and others have written books that have made significant contributions to the public discourse on major issues confronting the American people.”

As my attorney argued,

Every crusading journalist in that pantheon of heroes cited by the court would have flunked PETA’s putative ‘journalism’ test, for their journalism was inseparable from their advocacy. Indeed, Sinclair and Nader took their advocacy onto the campaign trail and sought public office. Winograd and NKAC’s intertwined investigative and advocacy work are no different from that done by Nader and his nonprofit Public Citizen.

The court agreed. Despite PETA hiring one of the most expensive law firms in the world, the Court denied PETA’s motion, not only providing me and, more importantly, the animals an important victory but breaking new ground by extending First Amendment protections to new/non-traditional media.

Following that ruling, another whistleblower from inside PETA openly came forward and confirmed what my sources had revealed: that PETA staff lie to people to acquire their animals to kill, kill despite adoption alternatives, and indoctrinate people to kill in a cult-like atmosphere she described as “terrifying.”

[A]s most new PETA employees are blooming animal rights activists, freshly plucked from college and determined to do whatever it takes to succeed in this demanding, low-paying activist world, PETA’s methodology of indoctrination is quite successful. These employees soak it all in like a sponge, as I did at the age of 21 when I started there, and begin to spout the organization’s soundbites at every turn. They will start to do so so naturally that they can’t see where they themselves end and the organization begins.

“Ultimately,” wrote Laura Lee Cascada, a PETA field worker whose job included rounding up animals to kill, “the culture was terrifying and desensitizing — and I gradually felt that my view of death, of taking animals’ lives, was being warped, my emotions being stripped away.”

Like Heather Harper-Troje before her, Cascada’s chilling account described the method whereby employees are intimidated and emotionally manipulated into participating in the killing of animals, an act that came to be euphemistically called to “take care of” an animal (the words “killing” and even “euthanasia” are not used). Employees “were forced to participate in euthanasias they didn’t believe in” or “were fired because they refused to do so.”

[I]f an employee, like many animal rights advocates who believe in the rights and autonomy of each individual animal, wanted to critically assess whether a euthanasia decision was truly the best thing for an individual animal in his or her unique circumstances, there was a real, true fear of being branded as an advocate for hoarding or a secret supporter of the enemy. Thus, speaking up could have meant being booted from the tribe.

Cascada also described numerous examples of healthy animals who were killed for the “good of all animals”:

I rescued and cared for a pair of birds from a cruelty case for weeks, bonding with and growing to love them. When the decision was made to euthanize the boy because of a debilitating medical condition, the girl was also euthanized because it was thought that she would be lonely without him. She was one of those lumped into the ‘unadoptable’ category PETA brushes past as it explains its euthanasia statistics each year. I was expected and required to swallow my emotions for her for the good of all animals. I was expected to welcome her death as a positive outcome in order to maintain my employment.

Another time, I rescued an unloved dog whose body condition and personality were unremarkable, meaning there was no immediate indication for euthanasia. I quickly heard from my mom that she’d be interested in adopting him. I excitedly emailed the manager of the shelter to make this offer but never received a reply. A few days later, I checked in with her and was told that he had already been killed. 

She recounted being told to lie to people to acquire animals to kill and getting chastised for trying to find them homes. For example, Cascada wrote that she,

[R]esponded to a call from a concerned woman who’d found an abandoned days-old kitten under her porch. When I came to pick up the kitten, I had her sign a generic give-up form that spelled out that euthanasia was a possibility. But I was instructed to repeatedly convey that we would do our absolute best, and so that’s what I said, even as the woman described her careful search for an organization she knew would work around the clock to help this tiny being pull through. It was my job to make sure I did not leave without that cat — that I said whatever necessary for the woman not to change her mind.

The entire way back to PETA’s Norfolk, Virginia, headquarters, I sobbed, petting the infant cat in my lap, telling her things would all be OK, even though in my gut I knew it wouldn’t, that she never really had a chance. I even began plotting out how I might take a detour and deliver her to a rehabber instead. But how could I explain a missing kitten to the woman waiting with the needle? I couldn’t, so I complied without a word.

As a result of coming forward, she reported that she was,

[C]ontacted by individuals from all over the country expressing their gratitude, and their own fear, about speaking out about their experiences. People who worked at PETA and were forced to lie about euthanasias, people who were forced to euthanize animals they loved as a condition of their employment, and people who were told by leadership that they were worthless. There are dozens, and maybe hundreds, of us. Most are still afraid to break their silence.

PETA’s lawsuit would ultimately collapse, but four important things came out of my victory against them. First, as noted above, it extended First Amendment protections for investigative journalism to new media for the first time.

Second, it demonstrated that PETA may have deep pockets and has no qualms about misusing the court system in an attempt to intimidate people into silence, but their strategy will always be limited by the fact that depositions and the witness stand could compel employees, including Newkirk, to testify under penalty of perjury. Consistent with the overwhelming evidence already available, such testimony would be damning, and PETA knows it. If people stand up to PETA’s donor-funded intimidation tactics rather than cower to them, PETA will invariably back down. 

Third, their empty saber rattling may have led to another whistleblower openly coming forward. 

Fourth and finally, it led me to Ralph. 

As fate would have it, on the way to court in the case, my wife and I came upon a little dog who had been hit by a car, bleeding in the gutter. Wrapping him in a coat, we rushed him to the nearest emergency veterinary hospital, where he was given the care he needed, including pain medication. 

After recovering from his injuries at our house, we found him a loving, new home consistent with our belief in the ethical treatment of animals. Were it not for PETA’s meritless lawsuit, we would never have found him. 

For obvious reasons, I am grateful that it was us and not PETA representatives who saw him on the way to the courthouse. If PETA had gotten to him and history is any guide, Ralph would no longer be alive, put to death with a lethal dose of poison.

Because despite all we may still not know about PETA, this much is certain: PETA is letting loose upon the world individuals who not only believe that killing is a good thing and that the living want to die but who are legally armed with lethal drugs that they have already proven — over 46,000 times — that they are not averse to using.

To receive future articles and support my fight for the animals, please subscribe.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues. 

There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.

Australian doctors and scholars are calling on the government to cover some veterinary medicine expenses through its Medicare system. “Unlike in human medicine, where Australians have access to highly subsidized care through Medicare, costs of veterinary interventions are largely borne by animal owners,” and therefore sometimes go untreated.

The authors limited their recommendation to zoonotic diseases (diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans), noting that Medicare should cover the costs “when ruling out a zoonotic disease or performing culture and sensitivity tests to inform antibiotic prescription in an animal patient… due to the implications for human health.”

It’s a start. But it does not go far enough. As philosopher David Pearce writes, 

Over the last century, a welfare state for humans was introduced in Western European societies so that the most vulnerable members of our own species wouldn’t suffer avoidable hardship. The problem is not just that existing welfare provision is inadequate: it’s also arbitrarily species-specific. In common with the plight of vulnerable humans before its introduction, the welfare of vulnerable non-human animals depends mostly on private charity. No universal guarantees of non-human well-being exist.

They should, not only because universal veterinary care will improve human health but because the animals deserve it, and it is within our power to provide. Moreover, "The majority of American dog owners today cannot afford emergency vet care,” and even routine or non-emergency veterinary costs are difficult for people.

For the first time, the U.S. Census’ biennial American Housing Survey looked at how many households have pets. The answer: more than half of all households had at least one pet, and many had two or more. 

Of 129,500,000 households in the U.S., 63,775,000 had animals, and 62,029,000 did not. The others were unknown. The dog was the most popular pet in America, and the cat was a distant second. Specifically, 48,963,000 had at least one dog, and 28,187,000 households had at least one cat.

Since many households rent and some of those do not allow pets, I would not be surprised if some were not honest with surveyors. As such, the numbers may reflect an undercounting of the actual number of households with pets.

Of note, cities with the largest number of single-family homes reported the largest number of dogs. Consequently, cities like New York, with a high apartment rate, reported fewer dogs. Cats were not affected by housing type, but they were affected by housing discrimination.

Eliminating housing discrimination for people whose families include a dog, cat, or another animal companion would decrease shelter intakes by about 20% and allow an additional 8.75 million animals to find new homes, roughly eight years worth of killing in U.S. pounds. Currently, one in four renters lost their homes because of a restriction on pet housing.

The No Kill Advocacy Center has long called for a ban on housing discrimination by extending existing federal law prohibiting housing discrimination for families with children. It also has written model legislation to do so, a guide to get it introduced, and NKAC attorneys stand ready to help.

A new study has found that over 100 species of animals we thought were silent talk to one another, including over 50 species of turtles. The turtles “had a varying range of acoustic capabilities, from chirps and clicks to more advanced, complex sounds of different tones.” Study authors said they would not be surprised to eventually discover that they all talk. The problem wasn’t that they weren’t talking; the problem was that we were ignoring them. 

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues. 

For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 20:21 mark.

There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.

As reported last week, PETA called on Killeen, TX, pound staff to continue killing animals rather than embrace readily-available, cost-effective alternatives to that killing. 

This week, Manteca, CA, shelter staff is using PETA to defend killing in their facility after “Manteca Mayor Ben Cantu has come out strongly in favor of the city pursuing a no-kill shelter for the municipal facility.” 

Despite PETA opposition, the Mayor is undeterred. “Cantu vowed to push for solutions that will work toward eliminating ‘the short time frame to death’ for a number of animals that are taken in at the city’s shelter.” The No Kill Advocacy Center has reached out to Mayor Cantu offering those solutions.

PETA’s position should surprise no one. This week was also the anniversary of PETA’s theft and killing of Maya. On October 18, 2014, two PETA representatives backed their van up to a home in Parksley, VA, and threw biscuits to Maya, who was sitting on her porch. They were hoping to coax her off her property and give PETA the ability to claim she was a stray dog “at large” whom they could legally impound.

Maya refused to stay off the property and, after grabbing the biscuit, ran back to the safety of her porch. One of the PETA representatives went onto the property and took Maya. Within hours, Maya was dead, illegally killed with a lethal dose of poison. 

Maya’s family would ultimately sue PETA, alleging theft, trespass, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. PETA, in turn, asked the court to throw out the lawsuit based on several questionable claims, including their argument that Maya was legally worthless because she was just a dog. But after losing that and other similar claims, PETA paid Maya’s family $49,000.

A series of articles I wrote about Maya’s killing ultimately led to the publication of “Why PETA Kills,” my book. “Why PETA Kills” tells Maya’s story and tens of thousands of others who have died at their hands, which continues to increase by the thousands yearly. It would also lead PETA to sue me (spoiler: I won!).

Why PETA Kills is available on Amazon, but subscribers can also listen to a free audio version of the book.

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues. 

There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.

A majority of domestic violence victims report that their companion animals are also being abused or threatened with abuse. Not surprisingly, 97% of domestic violence victims — almost all of them — reported that keeping their pets with them is an important factor in deciding whether or not to seek shelter. Of those, half said they would definitely “not consider shelter for themselves if they could not take their pets with them.” Yet, less than 10% of domestic violence shelters allow pets. This keeps women and animals in harm's way.

Thankfully, a new effort is underway that promises to make 25% of all domestic violence shelters pet-friendly by 2025. Of course, that’s not nearly enough as they should all be pet-friendly. It will, however, be a marked improvement over where things stand today.

As reported earlier, more than 30 dogs were killed by the McDuffie County, GA, Animal Shelter, even though they had rescue commitments. In addition to killing those healthy dogs, witnesses accused county pound staff of:

* Placing animals “in body bags before they even stopped breathing”; 

* “Choking animals with leashes or kicking or stomping on them to get them under control, particularly if they struggled while being euthanized”;

* “Slam[ming] their heads on the concrete”; 

* “Removing collars from dogs, though those collars suggested the animals had homes” to kill them; 

* Killing animals before their holding period expired and then lying on the paperwork in the event people come looking for their lost pets; and, 

* “Improper euthanasia procedures,” including heart sticking without sedation and on fully conscious animals.

The pound is currently closed while officials investigate. In the interim, McDuffie County officials have recently issued a statement noting that staff is “no longer associated with the animal shelter in any shape, form, or fashion.” They also indicated that they would reopen the shelter with “more internal transparency, community engagement through events, and even reducing their euthanizations” by embracing No Kill programs. 

The No Kill Advocacy Center has reached out in order to offer assistance. 

In “PETA official says no-kill shelters not answer to animal homelessness,” an OpEd published in a Killeen, TX, newspaper, PETA claims that Killeen’s animal shelter faces two extreme choices: kill healthy and treatable animals — which is what PETA prefers — or keep them in kennels and cages for months. 

If those were the only two options, the kennel would still be the more ethical approach. It is better to spend a couple of months or more in a kennel (that includes being walked and socialized) before adoption, instead of being injected with an overdose of poison out of convenience. But there is also a third option: the shelter can embrace the No Kill Equation; a series of programs and services that include foster care, marketing and promotion, community cat sterilization, pet retention, volunteers, offsite adoptions, and robust adoption campaigns, including being open when people are off work and families are together, such as on weekends and evenings. 

Communities across the country that embrace the No Kill Equation are placing 95% - 99% of animals entrusted to their care without turning animals away or warehousing animals. The average length of stay before adoption was only 14 days, about the amount of time a dog or cat would spend at a boarding facility during a family vacation. 

By contrast, PETA kills roughly 90% of the animals it takes in, despite over $60 million in annual revenues and millions of animal-loving members it could adopt out animals to. So why should anyone listen to PETA on how to run a shelter when it is the functional equivalent of a slaughterhouse?

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues, including the appointment of a special envoy for animals at the State Department for the first time ever. According to the announcement, “Overfishing, pollution, pesticides, disease, urban sprawl and, of course, climate change contribute to declines in imperiled species’ populations worldwide.” The envoy’s job will be to help the U.S. and other countries address these threats to animals. Unfortunately, while the act of appointing a person tasked with representing the interests of animals is progress, we fear that the philosophical approach by which this particular envoy will approach this critical task is not. In fact, rather than looking to create a brighter future, the special envoy appears committed to defending an antiquated one that will exacerbate, rather than lessen, non-human suffering and death.

For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 18:25 mark.

There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.

California’s SB 879 banning “the testing of pesticides, chemical substances and other products on cats and dogs” was signed into law. As of January 1, toxicity testing for consumer and industrial goods on dogs and cats will be illegal. Although the legislative sponsor called these tests “barbaric,” the new law allows testing on other animals. It also “exempts medical and federally required testing from the ban.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Senate passed S.2952, the FDA Modernization Act. The bill removes the requirement that drugs “be tested on animals before they could be used on humans in clinical trials.” Instead, the bill “gives drug sponsors the option to use scientifically rigorous, proven non-animal test methods,” including cell-based assays, organ chips, computer models, and other non-animal or human biology-based test methods.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-KY), passed unanimously. It will (hopefully) be taken up and passed in the House of Representatives.

San Francisco is now home to the nation’s first restaurant for dogs. Dogue serves pastries, “dogguccinos,” and on Sundays, soup and “a $75, three-course tasting menu.” Patrons are encouraged to slurp up their soup from the bowl.

If your dog has a knack for being there in times of trouble, it is no accident. Studies have found that dogs can tell human moods by facial expressions and language. They are so good at this, they can figure out whether someone is happy or angry by just looking at the top half of someone’s face. But a new study finds that they do not even have to look at you to know something is wrong. 

The study concluded that dogs could detect when people are upset by smell. Specifically, they detect changes in breath and body odor that results from the release of “Volatile Organic Compounds produced by humans in response to stress.” 

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues, including why intakes are down, redemptions are steady, and adoptions are increasing at shelters that have implemented the No Kill Equation. The conclusion? Shelter killing is a choice. And yet, excuses for it are becoming increasingly absurd. For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 29:35 mark.

There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.

Rabbits with gouged eyes, guinea pigs with no food, hamsters in urine and feces-soaked cages: that is how small animals are kept at Los Angeles City Animal Services, according to a Los Angeles Times report.

Prior L.A. Times investigations have found that dogs spent weeks and sometimes months without getting out of their kennels for walks and that staff hit dogs.

Who gets punished? Not the staff who neglect and abuse the animals. Tragically, it is the animals and the volunteers who speak out in defense of them.

California’s AB 2380 banning the financing of dogs and cats purchased online was signed into law. The law will reduce the number of commercially-bred puppies and kittens entering California via online sales. In 2019, the state banned the retail sale of animals in pet stores. The next step is banning online sales of commercially-bred animals altogether.

Commercial breeders engage in systematic neglect and abuse of animals, leaving severe emotional and physical scars on the victims. One in four former breeding dogs have significant health problems, are more likely to suffer from aggression, and many are psychologically and emotionally shut down, compulsively staring at nothing.

A new report warns families “about an increase in the number of stolen pets.”  Nationally, “Dog thefts are up 40% from last year.” 

“French bulldogs are the number one breed targeted by thieves. That’s followed by Labrador retrievers and Yorkshire terriers.”

As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, the number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing.

* Ewing Township, NJ, reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 99% for cats, and 100% for other small animals.

* Somerset, NJ, reported a 98% placement rate for dogs, 97% for cats, and 100% for other small animals.

These communities and national data prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many, too few homes, or people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.

A new survey finds that:

* 76% of people with dogs allow them to sleep on the bed.

* Of those who don’t, 57% “still keep their pets close by, allowing them to sleep in the bedroom.”

* Single dog owners (80%) are “more likely to sleep with their dog” than married dog owners (73%).

About ⅓ of married couples disagree and fight about it.

“Pit bull owners urged a federal appeals court…  to resurrect their suit claiming their constitutional rights are violated by an Iowa city’s ordinance banning possession of the dogs within the city.” The case is on appeal after a lower Federal Court dismissed their lawsuit “claiming the ordinance violated their constitutional rights of due process and equal protection. The dog owners questioned the city’s statistics and the validity of the city’s use of visual inspections to determine whether a dog is a pit bull.” 

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues, including why temperament testing doesn’t work in shelters, why animals are set up to fail, why they get sick, and what science says shelters should be doing to keep dogs and cats happy and healthy. For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 26:30 mark.

There is also a 15-minute sample of the podcast for those who have not yet subscribed but want to hear what it is like. Sample podcasts are also available on Apple, Spotify, and Google Play.

Residents of Waycross, GA, are accusing the city’s animal control of mismanagement and dereliction of duty after they killed a mother dog and her four puppies, despite pleas from networkers and rescuers who wanted to save them.

According to reports, after killing the mother for snapping (but not making contact) when staff repeatedly prodded her with a pole:

Being a Friday afternoon and employees not wanting to bother with bottle feeding puppies, the puppies were also euthanized. This was a senseless tragedy created by unchecked and uncaring employees who couldn't be bothered with extra work or following protocols because they were just there to collect a paycheck.

Rescuers had asked city officials not to kill them and arranged to pick them up. Residents are also upset because of “screenshots of text messages” from staff that appeared to be “bragging and laughing about euthanizing animals after collecting a surrender fee.” One of the staff texted, “LOL” and told others that the job entailed “surrender fee and euthanasia.” Although it is no laughing matter and shows a lack of caring, fitness, maturity, and temperament for the job, the staff member subsequently claimed she was ‘joking around’ when she said, “stick em all with a needle.”

The city is investigating itself.

The next time someone says “we all want the same thing” and “no one wants to kill,” tell them about the five dogs killed in Waycross despite rescue groups ready, willing, and able to save them.

For those who live in Georgia and want to stop this: The No Kill Advocacy Center has a model rescue rights law that would make it illegal to kill animals when qualified rescue groups are willing to place them, a step-by-step guide to getting it introduced, and NKAC attorneys stand ready to help. 

As previously reported, a recent study concluded that the breed of a dog tells us how the dog looks, not how they behave. Specifically, the study concluded that “for predicting some dog behaviors, breed is essentially useless, and for most, not very good.” 

For example, study authors noted that the “defining criteria of a golden retriever are its physical characteristics — the shape of its ears, the color and quality of its fur, its size — not whether it is friendly.” Likewise, the findings “would seem to cast doubt on breed stereotypes of aggressive dogs, like pit bulls.”

Now, two studies tell us what shelters should do about it: remove “breed” labels on dogs. Not only does breed not tell us how dogs behave, but shelter workers often misidentify breeds – 50% of dogs labeled “pit bulls” lacked DNA breed signatures of breeds commonly classified as pit bulls. And when it comes to dogs identified as “pit bulls,” perception of breed negatively impacts length of stay and rates of adoption. Consequently, removing these labels allows these dogs to be adopted and adopted more quickly. It also results in a better fit between the family lifestyle and the behavior of the individual dog.

Austin, TX, closed its doors to further intakes, saying it is overcrowded despite intakes well below pre-pandemic levels. Austin has been removed from the Saving 95 website that tracks open admission shelters with placement rates between 95% - 100%.

Despite this, shelter leadership refuses to fully implement the 2010 No Kill Plan, including having offsite adoptions, a robust partnership with rescue groups, and being open fully on weekends when people are off work and children are out of school and able to visit and adopt. As a result, the Austin Animal Welfare Commission passed a vote of “No Confidence” in shelter leadership earlier this year. Among the findings, the Commission determined that leadership at Austin Animal Center fails:

* “To adequately manage or support lifesaving foster and volunteer programs and to engage the willing public to help”;

* “To provide adequate services to help reunite or assist taxpayers with lost or found animals”;

* “[T]o implement data-driven, best practices to alleviate the ongoing space crisis”;

* “[T]o tell the public about or market the ‘long stay’ dogs, despite lengths of stay in excess of one year”; and,

* “[T]o accept help from or collaborate with Austin animal stakeholders that could provide immediate, free help to solve the problems the shelter is facing.”

The Commission also found that shelter leadership alienates “partnership organizations, volunteers, and other stakeholders, which has contributed to shelter overcrowding and lack of volunteer support for shelter pet care and adoptions.”

Despite such failures, the shelter is one of the best-funded in the country, with a per capita spending rate of $12 per person. That’s over double the national average and 12 times the rate of how much taxpayers were spending when I achieved No Kill as a shelter director.

In other words, No Kill hasn’t failed in Austin. Austin pound leadership has made the deliberate choice to abandon it. Tragically, while No Kill in Austin deteriorates, Austin Pets Alive is seeking to import animals from other communities despite local animals being threatened and is telling shelters to close their doors to animals in need and leave dogs and cats on the streets, which is what Austin Animal Center is currently doing.

Austin’s demise should not be surprising. Austin Pets Alive’s Human Animal Support Services is a dangerous and growing trend that closes the door of the animal shelter to lost and abandoned animals. Under the APA policy, “Intakes of healthy strays and owner surrenders doesn’t exist anymore,” and there is “No kennel space for rehoming, stray hold or intake.” People who find animals are told to take them into their own homes until their families are located or leave them on the street. Because of HASS, animals are being turned away across the country, including motherless neonatal kittens. Some are being subsequently found dead.

Now Kristen Hassen, one of the chief architects of that policy and a shelter “consultant,” is making the claim that free-roaming dogs living in Mexico have better lives than American dogs living in homes: “As someone who has run shelters for nearly a decade, I truly believe our model is making dogs mentally and physically unwell.” Science contradicts her.

A literature review in Applied Animal Behaviour Science compared the life of the “typical village dog” with the “typical modern suburban or urban dog” to determine which leads to happier and healthier lives. The authors found that the life of village dogs is categorized by “lack of sufficient and adequate food, lack of veterinary care, and human hostility.” Puppy mortality is high (as much as 70%), life expectancy is low (3-4 years, on average), and female dogs face targeted killing (to prevent maternal aggression, mating, and the birth of even more pups).

By contrast,

[T]he typical modern suburban or urban companion dog experiences good welfare in a number of respects. This is especially the case when it comes to security, satisfaction of nutritional needs (though companion dogs have problems with a high prevalence of obesity), and proper veterinary care.

Their average lifespan is north of 10 years.

Of course, we can do more to make the lives of village dogs better, including veterinary care, food, and other protection. But these findings should put to bed, once and for all, any romanticization of village dog life.

Coming (again) soon! 

No Kill Sheltering magazine was first published at the founding of The No Kill Advocacy Center almost two decades ago. At the time, No Kill Sheltering offered the only alternative to traditional sheltering practices that sacrificed the lives of animals to expediency, myths about the need to kill, and a failure to innovate.

It was discontinued as the number of voices championing the No Kill philosophy and the No Kill Equation multiplied. But given recent efforts to close shelter doors to animals in need and other threats to continued success, The No Kill Advocacy Center is resurrecting No Kill Sheltering. It is needed once again and will be available for all members and supporters.

As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace

These are some of the stories making headlines in animal protection:

Subscribers can also listen to the podcast above, which includes extended commentary on many of the issues, including the emergence of Critical Race Theory in the humane movement and how it threatens to upend more than a century of progress in animal welfare and animal rights.

For those who want to skip the news and go straight to the main discussion, it begins at the 21:05 mark.

Utah animal lovers announced planned protests against the use of the gas chamber at North Utah Valley Animal Shelter. The pound admitted that cats who hide in the corner of their cages are gassed to death, often on the same day they come in. The pound also gasses “very friendly” dogs despite rescue groups ready, willing, and able to place them.

There is no progressive sheltering agency of any scope or stature willing to philosophically embrace gas systems for the killing of animals. When the chamber is filled with gas, the animals inside gasp for breath, feel a searing pain in their lungs, and often claw at the chamber door or throw themselves against the sides in a desperate attempt to escape.

A bill to ban the gas chamber in Utah failed for the ninth year in a row because of opposition from regressive pound directors and their allies.

Similarly, in May of 2021, the Green River City Council in Wyoming was asked to vote on getting rid of the gas chamber to kill animals at its local pound. Not one city councilmember seconded the motion and it failed to pass. But after a series of public protests by local citizens, the Mayor directed staff to come up with a plan to replace gas killing. That was nine months ago and the city pound is still gassing animals. 

The Chief of Police who oversees the pound says “the police department is in the process of working towards removing the gas chamber” but refused to indicate how long it would continue to take. In addition to offering one excuse after another, he said pound staff who gas animals to death care about them and treat them “fairly,” a claim no one really believes.

A new California law requires multi-family housing developments financed by taxpayers to be pet-friendly. Specifically, any low-income housing built in the state with funding from the Department of Housing and Community Development or by giving developers tax credits must allow residents to share their homes with pets.

According to the California Senate analysis, 

A lack of pet friendly housing options has put some pet owners in a position of choosing between keeping their household pet or keeping a roof over their head... This puts emotional strain on families, disproportionately low-income households, and burdens county shelters. A lack of pet friendly housing options is regularly cited as a reason that families relinquish their pet to local shelters.

While the new law allows reasonable restrictions, such as the number of animals a resident may have, it does not allow landlords to ban breeds, limit the weight of pets (often used as a proxy for breed restrictions), or charge a “pet rent” or additional “pet security deposit.”

As more people turn to rescue and adoption and more shelters embrace progressive policies, the number of communities placing over 95% and as high as 99% of the animals is increasing.

* Montrose County, CO, reported a 99% placement rate for dogs, 90% for cats, and 96% for other small animals.

These communities and national data prove that animals are not dying in pounds because there are too many, too few homes, or people don’t want the animals. They are dying because people in those pounds are killing them. Replace those people, implement the No Kill Equation, and we can be a No Kill nation today.

Israel’s “Future Meat Technologies has produced its first cultivated lamb – that looks, cooks and tastes like the real thing…” Cultured meat is made from a one time draw of stem cells. The stem cells are then replicated in a laboratory and grown in an animal-free medium to produce real meat from animals without killing. 

According to company officials,

The reason Future Meat’s cultivated lamb is indistinguishable from conventional lamb is because it is, first and foremost, real meat. It sizzles, sears and tastes just like people expect — and it’s amazing.

It is also amazing because the exploitation, neglect, abuse, and killing of animals for food is the greatest source of suffering on the planet. 

“Lamb is the primary meat source for several countries throughout the Middle East, Northern African and parts of Asia. Europe consumes the most lamb in the world,” although Future Meat indicated it is also preparing to offer it in the U.S. 

Meanwhile, Bond Pet Foods announced it will begin feeding trials of its “nature-identical” chicken meat protein in early 2023. The chicken is made through precision fermentation, which does not require killing chickens. Bond announced “a partnership with Hill’s Pet Nutrition to develop a craft meat protein for its product portfolio” and said its meat proteins will be ready for commercialization within two years.

This is a special episode of “This Week in Animal Protection,” my podcast, in which Jennifer and I do not focus on the week’s news followed by a deep dive on an animal rights issue as we normally do, but on answering your questions instead.

I invited my Substack and Facebook readers to ask me anything. I received dozens of questions in response, over 100 comments in all. They covered many issues: whether animals feel pain when killed in shelters, humane vs. aversive dog training, trying to eliminate rental housing discrimination for families that include animals, and more.

I tried to answer as many as possible on Facebook, but Jennifer and I took six of those questions to discuss more fully in this episode of our podcast. We picked those that we believe will be the most interesting and useful. 

They are: 

* Are we making progress?

* Are No Kill and Managed Intake the same? In other words, do we have to limit – or at least, manage – intakes to create No Kill?

* Will No Kill solutions that worked pre-pandemic also work post-pandemic? Or have things changed – the population of dogs, mass surrender of pandemic puppies, or something else – so that the programs and services of the No Kill Equation no longer eliminate killing?

* What’s the most effective way to go about change when you live in a primarily rural, small town community?

* With the demise of Austin, TX, as an inspiration to turn to, what communities can we use as examples of No Kill success?

And finally (cue, eye roll):

* Why are you against purebred dogs? (Spoiler: I am not. I love all dogs. But I am against exploiting and hurting them so that they look a certain way.)

If you enjoy the conversation, we have them every week on our podcast. Those conversations are usually available only to subscribers. We invite you to join us.

As promised in the podcast, here are some helpful resources:

* Winter is Coming.

* Defining No Kill.

* What Shelters Owe Traumatized Animals.

* The No Kill Advocacy Center “Matrix.

* The No Kill Advocate’s Reform Toolkit.

* Saving Lives in Rocket City.

* Nevertheless, They Persisted.

* Saving 95.

* Body Size, Inbreeding, and Lifespan in Domestic Dogs.