PETA Tries to Intimidate Critic of Its Animal Killing

Apparently the critical word that PETA euthanizes dogs and cats has gotten under the skin of its leadership. Thus when Gina Spadafori, a writer about pet issues, contended that these animals were brought to PETA to be placed in homes, PETA threatened to sue for defamation. From the lawyer’s letter:

Hmmm. The use of the word “many” in the above passage indicates that at least some of the animals PETA killed were not sick. Moreover, sick animals are sometimes adopted. Besides, what is or is not an adoptable animal is a pretty subjective matter, in addition to which, PETA as a very public organization would have an almost impossible time winning a slander lawsuit based on its lawyers complaint. This is just bullying.

Spadafori was unbullied. She responded forcefully:

So, were there medical examinations by a veterinarian, and written records of the same for each animal killed? A behavioral analysis by a qualified behaviorist, and written records of the same for each animal killed? May we see them? Or were these determinations made by the animal’s previous owners, and if so are there the signed forms standard at every veterinary office and shelter making sure the previous owner understands that they are turning the animal over to be killed? May we see those forms? Alternately, may we get the names of all the previous owners so we can ask each and every one of them if it was their understanding that they animal was unadoptable and would be killed when they surrendered the animal? So we can ask, exactly, what they were told by PETA?

Wanna bet dinner those kind of detailed records don’t exist about the thousands of animals PETA has euthanized? Certainly, when PETA’s employees picked up animals from shelters in N. Carolina, killed them in their van, and then threw the carcasses into garbage receptacles—for which they were eventually convicted of littering (now on appeal)—they did not bring the animals to veterinarians for checkups and indeed, there were some seemingly adoptable animals killed. Moreover, as I wrote in the NRO:

In contrast, animal shelters located near PETA’s headquarters had a far superior adoption-to-kill ratio in 2003. According to the statistics compiled by the Center [For Consumer Freedom], the Norfolk SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent and Virginia Beach adopted out 66 percent, compared to PETA’s meager 14 percent.

These numbers don’t necessarily prove anything—for example, PETA may merely have had fewer adoptable animals to handle than did the nearby shelters. But then again, they may prove something. A PETA representative answered “maybe”when asked last week whether any of the group’s euthanized animals had been adoptable. Indeed, nine of the 31 animals Hinkle and Cook are charged with killing were highly adoptable puppies and kittens. Thus, PETA’s high kill-to-adoption ratio could mean instead that the animal liberationists set unrealistic standards for the adoption of rescued cats and dogs, preferring to kill the animals than let them live in homes that are deemed ideologically incorrect.

If PETA follows up with answers and I find out about it, I will post that info here at SHS. But I am not holding my breath.