Cat Sick

“Humane” Goals: Are Animal Rights and Welfare Groups Hurting or Helping?

Amid accusations that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) kills massive numbers of adoptable animals each year instead of finding homes for the dogs and cats, it’s now worth wondering whether some of these organizations are doing more harm than good to the animal welfare cause.

The issue made headlines in April 2013 when Nathan J. Winograd, Director of the No Kill Advocacy Center, wrote a special exposé for The Huffington Post alleging that PETA euthanizes thousands of dogs and cats each year without giving them a chance to be adopted – some within minutes of receiving the animal. “Approximately 2,000 animals pass through PETA’s front door every year and very few make it out alive,” the article read. “The vast majority – 96 percent in 2011 – exit the facility out the back door after they have been killed.” According to the source, these animals weren’t euthanized because they were in pain. They weren’t sick or even elderly. In fact, in certain cases, veterinarians had deemed these animals “adoptable” and “healthy,” and they had reached out to the non-profit corporation for the specific purpose of finding these pets a loving home.

Cat Sick

Many animal lovers and animal welfare organizations respect the decision to humanely euthanize an animal (whether a well-loved pet or a stray, abused, or neglected animal) that is sick or injured beyond recovery, especially if the animal is suffering. The concern is whether PETA is killing animals that could be saved and adopted. Photo Credit: Flickr.

“PETA prefers to spend donations, apparently, not caring for flesh-and- blood animals entrusted to it but on campaigns attacking medical researchers, meat-eaters or women wearing furs. It is as if PETA prefers the idea of animals to animals themselves,” reported the San Francisco Chronicle’s SF Gate news site back in 2005, after a controversy in which evidence linked PETA employees to the killing of animals. “Why does PETA kill animals that might otherwise find a home?”

Why We Can’t All Just Get Along

PETA is, of course, firing back at accusers – but not in any way you might expect, where grand revelations of the truth clear the organization’s name. The truth, in fact, is every bit as grim as it sounds in the article in The Huffington Post. “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals acknowledged Wednesday that it did euthanize 95% of the animals at a shelter at its headquarters last year,” USA Today reported. “But it defended the practice and said accusations that ‘PETA kills animals’ are being made by a group representing ‘animal exploiters who kill millions of animals every year.’”

Instead, PETA put their time, energy, and substantial funds (the corporation takes in $35,000,000 per year, The Huffington Post reported) into making this video of no-kill shelter staff across the country essentially explaining that their shelters are full to capacity or even overcrowded, and that they can no longer accept any additional animals. Some shelters had months-long waiting lists. The point, PETA argues, is that even “no kill” shelters don’t have the capacity to hold all of the animals in need of homes and must turn them away to shelters that do kill.

Sanctuary Cats in Cubes

In No Kill sanctuaries and shelters, like Rikki’s Refuge, every spot is often full because animals that are not adopted right away live out their lives in the facility, being cared for by shelter workers and volunteers. These facilities do a world of good for the animals they help, but resources are limited, and they can’t help everyone. Photo Credit: Flickr.

Is the PETA video factual? I have no doubt. Overcrowding, if not overpopulation, is often a problem in shelters. But I think the bigger question here, the most important question, is why is this relevant?

Unfortunately for animal lovers everywhere and for the general public, the debate here exemplifies a problem that exists within the field of animal rights and welfare. When organizations that most people believe are similar don’t actually have the same goals, is it any wonder that they can’t get along? Rather than addressing the problem of overcrowding or the reason behind euthanizing animals without any attempt to find a home, these animal (fill-in-the-blank) organizations would rather throw up smokescreens, arguing over who is more hypocritical.

Abused dog

Shouldn’t we all be more concerned about how to help abused animals like this dog than about which animal rights/welfare organization is best or who is the most hypocritical? With veterinary care and a loving home, this dog recovered – and so could many others. Photo Credit: Flickr.

There’s probably not an easy, short-term solution to the overcrowding problem, but killing animals on the spot isn’t exactly the “humane” answer that animal lovers everywhere are seeking. In some ways, when I hear the voices in PETA staff’s video making the point that even no-kill shelters must allow some animals to be killed, I have the impulse to say, “So what?” Are they actually arguing that if all animals cannot be saved, no animals should be saved? That makes about as much sense as saying that we’re all going to die someday, so life – human life, animals’ lives, all life – is irrelevant, period. Not a great standpoint for an animal rights organization to take.

The Trouble of Trust

This isn’t the first time that PETA has faced accusations of animal cruelty, but the news still shocks readers every time. Perhaps it’s because we as a society trust PETA not to harm animals, even if we disagree with some of their radical viewpoints and publicity stunts. Yet the accusations keep coming.

For those of us who aren’t in the inner circles of animal welfare and rights organizations, we don’t know who to trust. Go to PETA’s website, and you’ll see cute, sometimes sad animals, accompanied by sensationalized headlines and celebrities posing for awareness. You’ll believe (or want to believe) that the organization doesn’t kill animals

Dog Street Injured Tail

Images of sad dogs like this one are typical fixtures on animal welfare marketing materials – but is the organization trying to help these animals find homes, or just raise awareness of the issue? Photo Credit: Flickr.

PETAkillsanimals.com makes some bold claims against PETA, and the site has some pretty condemning evidence to back up their accusations, including photographs and inspection reports. The problem is that PETAkillsanimals.com is run by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group that comprises restaurants and food manufacturing companies that have every reason to discredit PETA, regardless of whether or not the euthanasia claims are true. Even the journalist behind the exposé in The Huffington Post isn’t objective, being involved with the No Kill Advocacy Center. “There appears to be bad blood between PETA and the No Kill Advocacy Center – and Winograd, specifically – but it is unclear if and how the conflict goes deeper than disagreements about how to control animal overpopulation,” wrote the International Business Times. In fact, Winograd and PETA frequently write blog posts and articles condemning each other’s practices, and he has also publicly criticized the practices of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).

“PETA and Humane Society attacked by reports – but are they real?” read an aptly-titled article on the topic in The Washington Post. While the article is full of statistics and quotes, it never reaches a definitive answer. Instead, it just undermines the credibility of virtually every party involved in the controversy.

Nobody’s Right If Everybody’s Wrong

I’ve made the case before that animal cruelty is a public health concern, and that it affects all of us. When we run into this situation where animal rights and animal welfare groups are so divided that they seem to spend more time smearing each other’s reputations than actually helping animals, it’s not just a problem of politics and power. The movement has let down the general public and animals everywhere. They say there are three sides to every story (yours, mine, and the truth), but in this case, I honestly don’t care who is “right.”

Injured Kitten with Neck Cone

In some ways, all of this attention on various organizations actually takes attention away from the real issue – protecting animals like this poor abused kitten. Photo Credit: Flickr.

I’m not discouraging you from supporting PETA, the Humane Society, the ASPCA, or any other organization you choose. I don’t have the answers. Does PETA have a “good” reason for their euthanasia rates? I wish I knew. Is the Center for Consumer Freedom twisting numbers simply to push an agenda? They wouldn’t announce it, if so. What does the Humane Society do with their fundraising money? Whatever they want, basically. Why has the ASPCA allegedly killed animals that other rescue organizations offered to accept? In each case, I suspect that the real truth, whatever that may be, is buried so far below press statements, public relations campaigns, and mudslinging attacks that those of us who aren’t part of the in-crowd will never know the answers.

Sad dog in cage

It’s true that being caged up for years probably isn’t much of a life – but that doesn’t mean there’s no hope for stray, abandoned, neglected, or abused animals to find homes. If they are healthy enough to recover, these animals deserve a chance to be adopted. Photo Credit: Flickr.

I do, however, have a suggestion for animal lovers everywhere. Before you let the sad puppy eyes on a heartbreaking commercial or the next outrageous publicity stunt force you into opening up your wallet, find out first what your money is actually going to. If you want to contribute to awareness campaigns, then by all means, do so. If you want to find a loving forever home for an abandoned pet, skip the politics and consider supporting your local animal shelter, instead. Whether you contribute money, time, or materials, you can see the real results of your donation and know for sure that you’re helping the cause that you chose. A misleading non-profit can be just as unscrupulous as a for-profit company, and there’s nothing charitable about deceiving caring people into funding causes that are at odds with what they truly believe. When that poorly-defined cause leads to the needless killing of animals, it’s not just a matter of morality, but a threat to safety that impacts our communities and our families.

Real Money: Political Campaign Donations and Our Teeny Tiny Votes

How much campaign spending does it take to win a seat in the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives? If you’re Elizabeth Warren, it took $42.5 million to win her senatorial bid in Massachusetts as the Democratic nominee, according to our own accumulated data from the Federal Election Commission. Her challenger, Republican Scott Brown, spent $28 million in a losing effort. The roughly $71 million spent on just one political position in Washington, D.C. pales in comparison when examining the total amounts of money spent by industries on all Congressional campaigns. A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon we’re talking about real money.

2012 Political Donations

Top Donating Industries in the United States

Is it much of a surprise that the healthcare industry was the largest political donor in 2012 given the pitched battle for universal health coverage still being waged? Healthcare industry spending on political campaigns during 2012 totaled a staggering $484.2 million. You could make The Hobbit (Peter Jackson version) three times over and still have enough spare change to buy several mansions and a fleet of luxury cars.

The finance, insurance, and real estate industries combined to place second with a total of $482.9 million spent on Congressional political campaigns. Is it a shock to anyone that these industries would have a vested interest in the actions of the federal government given the recent volatility of the housing and financial markets over the previous several years? There’s obviously a pattern when it comes to industries needing the ear of our national politicians and the amounts of money companies choose to float to their election campaigns. The more money spent, the louder their voices.

Richest Political Campaigns in the Country

Political campaigns with vast stores of capital can wage carpet-bomb style media campaigns to drown out the voices of their competitors. They can be on every channel, every radio station, and every place people are expected to gather. The richest campaigns, and the political figures attached to them, didn’t even run for reelection in 2012, according to the Federal Election Commission. The campaign with the largest cash store, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, raked in $37.6 million in 2012. John Boehner and Harry Reid, numbers three and two respectively, had donation halls of $34.2 million and $36.8 million.

A close examination of the highest individual donors for these politicians shows the influence of the largest donating industries at work. Take Boehner, whose largest donor was AT&T, one of the nation’s largest telecommunications companies. The communications and electronic industries were the third-largest donors to campaigns in 2012 with $390.1 million total. McConnell, on the other hand, received the bulk of his individual donations from Kindred Healthcare, which is obviously a member of the most generous industry in the nation when it comes to elections.

Money may speak much louder than votes when it comes to electing people to the most powerful positions in government. These men and women are decision makers, and big businesses take a keen interest in shaping those opinions, convincing them that their side is the appropriate angle. Is there a better motivator than hundreds of millions of dollars?

The Science of Prejudice: Why Our Brains Are Stupid

Our eyes are in the front for a reason. We don’t need 360-degree vision to avoid predators, or dodge fly swatters on muggy back porches. Top of the food chain design: what we see is what we want, and it’s likely the direction we’ll head in next. Visual perception can dominate our decision making from the foods we eat to the people we love. What our eyes interpret can also lead us to discriminate, even hate those different from us. New scientific research may indicate these tendencies are automatic, but that sounds like a poor excuse for justifying prejudice. Haven’t we evolved to the point that we can defeat our baser urges? As it turns out, we might need a parlor trick or two to make that happen.

Prejudice and Power are not Invisible

We don’t see power, or authority, until someone chooses to exercise it. The President is just another lawyer, until he issues an executive order and drone strikes a foreign nation. A doctor could be just another face in a crowd, until she saves a dying man from a sudden heart attack.

powers of the U.S. PresidentFiring one of these guided missiles with a single command is a power granted to select few in the United States. Photo Credit: Flickr

As Mos Def said: True power move quiet.

That’s not the case with those who fall into minority categories we’ve traditionally oppressed or marginalized to the fringes of society. These groups almost always identify by characteristics of skin color, race, sexual preference, or country of origin. When I say, “we” I mean European whites. We don’t have a great track record when it comes to treating people fairly, and that’s putting it mildly. Since the earliest days of colonization, we’ve segmented and classified those different from us, openly declared those of different skin color as “less than human.” That’s not an automatic tick of the human brain. That’s purposeful oppression and racism on a grand, evil scale.

In comes automatic categorization. Analyzing a spate of research culled from studies done throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the BBC reported in April 2013 that subjects “effortlessly” remembered the ethnic group of people portrayed in photos scientists asked them to look at and recall later. Decades long research failed to identify a single test that could prevent subjects from categorizing by race as a matter of instinct, according to the BBC. Evolutionary psychologists rung their hands, tugged on ever-receding hairlines in despair. Simply saying ‘prejudice is automatic’ isn’t a valid way through the argument, or a means to justify inequality.

Race may be a powerful mechanism for categorization, but as it turns out, so is the group we ‘belong’ to.

Favoritism is Stupid     

Segregation in the United States Favoritism and prejudice are powerful forces that can lead to the oppression and intimidation of entire populations. Photo Credit: Flickr

To find a way around race or ethnicity as means of labeling, psychologists conducted more tests. They, specifically Henri Tajfel, devised a social experiment that became known as the ‘minimal group paradigm.’ It’s a simple framework: testers divide subjects into two separate groups by some random means—hair color, eye color, nothing in particular. The subjects are aware they’re being put into groups. Next, testers isolate group members so they’re alone when they ask them how testers should divide rewards amongst both groups.

In results that shocked no one, subjects showed favoritism to their own group when divvying up money and other rewards. However, group members also favored their own ‘teams’ when the choice may cost them imaginary cash or other incentives. Favoritism just for the sake of it wins out some of the time, even in a situation where the choice may not have a direct impact on the chooser. Apparently, it takes very little pushing for people to show favoritism.

How can we stop such a seemingly arbitrary phenomenon? If group membership can trump ethnicity and race when it comes to favoritism, is it better to avoid identification altogether? Is that even possible?

test for colorblindness We teach our children to be “colorblind,” but the reality of race perception may predispose them to categorizing others around them. Photo Credit: Flickr

Tricking the Brain to Eliminate Prejudice

Researchers used a technique called ‘memory confusion protocol’ to trick the brain into scrambling the characteristics it remembers when categorizing people to recall later. According to the BBC, testers showed subjects a series of photos to gauge how their brains focused on race. They added a wrinkle to the testing – colored shirts. Half of those pictured wore yellow basketball shirts, and the other worse grey. Without the shirts, subjects categorized people in photographs by race. With the shirts, categorization did not occur. Team membership, researchers discovered, became the dominant category that testers fixated on.

Is it a trick? Yes and no.

Group membership is powerful. As we stated earlier, it can lead people to show favoritism to other group members based on the flimsiest associations. Stuff that doesn’t matter and has no bearing on their lives or who they may be as people become tie-breakers for prejudicial decisions. The test, as noted by researchers, tricks testers into believing one categorization (shirt color) is more important than another (race).

Think about how ethnically diverse fan bases of sports teams are, and many pro teams have millions of devoted followers. A team wears the same set of colors, which gives everyone involved something else to focus on besides race, hair color, or any other irrelevant determiner. Show up to a Yankees home game in dark blue pinstripes, receive love and acceptance. Arrive at Fenway Park in the same uniform, the outcome is likely to be decidedly more hostile.

Yankee Stadium nightThe hallowed halls of Yankee Stadium can be inhospitable grounds to those rooting for the visiting team. Photo Credit: Flickr

 Hate Crimes in the United States

When we classify people by race, it’s not a stretch to make assumptions about those people based on our predispositions and stereotypes. These suppositions can lead to anger, then hate. In 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported 6,222 hate crime incidents in the United States. These events involved more than 7,000 criminal charges, of which 46.9 percent were racially motivated.

A hate crime (18 U.S.C. §245) is any felony or violent offense motivated by a victim’s race, skin color, national origin, or religion. Many states have also passed laws to include sexual orientation in this classification. These criminal offenses visit a blend of physical and psychological harm on both the victims themselves and the communities they belong to, according to the University Counseling & Testing Center at the University of Oregon. In essence, a hate crime says to a community, “You’re not safe. You do not belong here.” Adverse mental health effects of hate crime activity can include post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and difficulty concentrating. Hate crimes in the United StatesA hate crime reverberates through an entire community striking fear in those who survive it. Lynching, a type of mob violence involving public assault and hanging, is now a felony in all states in the country. Photo Credit: Flickr

Race is the largest motivating factor in crimes of hate in the United States. While we may classify people by race unconsciously, we can’t make the same argument that we harm others based on that information involuntarily as well. Hate is a learned behavior, as are stereotypes. We are not born with them. According to the FBI, recent criminal data suggests that more than half of those committing hate crimes in the country are less than 25 years old and do not belong to any hate group identified by the federal government.

·          From the U.S. Justice Department: 31 percent of hate-based violent offenders and 46 percent of hate-based property offenders are under age 18.

If it takes so little for us to show favoritism and discrimination against others, we have to be ever vigilant about the messages we send to our children and the ways we group those around us. They’re watching our actions. They hear the things we say. They internalize them as fact, as lifestyle.

Homework: the next time you tell a story to a friend, try talking about the people in your story with no racial, ethnic, or physical identifiers. Talk about them on an emotional level. Craft a narrative out of events, and not skin color. Repeat.