July 2, 2008
The Third Door
A recent newspaper article highlights a sanctuary that cares for animals who would have faced certain death in animal shelters: a blind dog with brain damage who was savagely beaten, a paralyzed Chow, a tabby cat also the victim of cruelty. According to the article, the animals are well cared for, loved, enjoy a good quality of life, and are even described as playful and “content.” It is heartwarming. But not everyone is applauding.
As usual, the animal sheltering world criticizes it. At issue is not the quality of the animal’s care. Although they are trying to sound benign, saying that the resources used to care for these animals are better spent on spaying and neutering or on more easily to place through adoption animals; once again, the voices of tradition are chanting “kill, kill, kill.” They do this, while ignoring the fact that saving lives is not zero-sum and compassion is not limited. We can do all three (spay/neuter, adopt out savable animals, and provide lifetime care and hospice to those who need it).
Also, PETA is at it again. In a recent article published in their magazine, they equate No Kill with animal hoarding. The timing is not coincidental. It comes after a revelation that they killed 91% of the dogs and cats they took in last year. PETA’s act of desperation is losing out to the voices of animal welfare advocates, animal rights activists, and everyday pet lovers who are increasingly standing up and voicing their opposition. Type in “Peta kills pets” on Google and you’ll get—according to Google—“about 127,000 hits in 0.26 seconds.” Clearly, a light of truth and compassion shines, which PETA’s darkness cannot overcome.
While I don’t agree with the overall philosophy of some of those voices—and some of those voices will oppose anything PETA says or does regardless of the veracity of the claims—as it relates to the PETA position that killing dogs and cats is a “gift,” “kindness,” “a compassionate option,” despite the reality of No Kill alternatives and without a hint of irony that George Orwell himself would blush, even these opposing voices are correct on this score, regardless of their overall agendas on other issues.
