Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

  • Advertisements

Case of cruelty, or compassion?



  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions

By Anna Levine-Gronningsater, Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor / July 25, 2005

Public distaste for the practice of euthanizing unwanted dogs and cats has led many communities and shelters to adopt "no kill" policies. As a result, today almost half of such animals in the US live out their lives in adopted homes or in shelters, compared with just 12 percent 35 years ago.

But even as the trend swings toward no-kill, a debate has erupted among animal-rights groups about the merits - and possible dangers - of keeping "adoptable" animals alive at all costs.

In the middle of the controversy, not surprisingly, is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), a group whose in-your-face protests have sometimes flirted with illegality. Two PETA workers, employees at the group's headquarters in Norfolk, Va., were arrested last month on animal-cruelty charges, alleged to have euthanized dogs and cats they had picked up from area shelters. Police in Ahoskie, N.C. - just over the state line - say they watched the two move animals' bodies from a PETA van to a dumpster.

The case has stirred outrage among some local officials and animal-rights groups, who say they had entrusted PETA to find homes for the dogs and cats - not to euthanize them within the hour. PETA, for its part, has not commented on the June 15 arrests specifically, but it is not alone in arguing that euthanasia is more humane than conditions in overcrowded shelters.

The result is an increasingly hot war of words over animal-control policy in localities across the United States.

"One side is arguing for the ethical, philosophical concept that an animal deserves not to be euthanized just because at that particular moment it is unwanted," says Annette Rauch at the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University. "But every shelter has limited space, so when they adopt no-kill, they fill up. That leads us to the next question: What happens to the animals that get turned away?"

The debate is likely to intensify as more cities designate themselves "no kill" zones. Earlier this year New York set a goal to forgo animal euthanasia by 2015. Upstate, Tompkins County, which includes Ithaca, became America's first "adoption guaranteed" community about two years ago, meaning all shelters, organizations, and public agencies work together to promote adoption for healthy animals and to find lodging and care for unwanted or unhealthy animals.

"Organizations that do euthanize do not want to do that task. They do it because they do not think they have an alternative," says Rich Avanzino of Maddie's Fund, which pledged $16 million to help New York City achieve no-kill status.

Page: 1 | 2 Next Page

  • Print
  • E-mail
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Digg
  • Add This
  • Permissions