This Week in Animal Protection cover art

This Week in Animal Protection

This Week in Animal Protection

By: Nathan Winograd and Jennifer Winograd
Listen for free

About this listen

 For full episodes, visit nathanwinograd.substack.com/podcast. The 90% nationwide decline in shelter killing has been called “the single greatest success of the modern animal protection movement.” Join attorney, journalist, No Kill pioneer, and award-winning writer Nathan Winograd, who was at the center of that success — including creating the first No Kill community in the United States — on “This Week in Animal Protection.” Nathan and Jennifer, his wife and co-author, discuss animal sheltering, veganism, wildlife protection, companion animals issues, and more. Informative, engaging, and untethered from corporate “animal welfare” interests, they cover crucial issues in animal rights that no one else is talking about in ways that no one else is talking about them.

news.nathanwinograd.orgNathan J. Winograd Economics Management Management & Leadership
activate_mytile_page_redirect_t1
Episodes
  • The Short Life & Tragic Death of Maya

    The Short Life & Tragic Death of Maya
    Oct 18 2023
    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. ...
    Show More Show Less
    58 mins
  • U.S. Census: 63,775,000 homes have pets

    U.S. Census: 63,775,000 homes have pets
    Oct 30 2022
    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.orgThese 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. 
    Show More Show Less
    13 mins
  • Report: Wildlife Populations Declined 69%

    Report: Wildlife Populations Declined 69%
    Oct 22 2022
    This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit news.nathanwinograd.org

    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.
    Show More Show Less
    16 mins

What listeners say about This Week in Animal Protection

Average Customer Ratings

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.

Audible.com.au reviews

Amazon Reviews
No Reviews are Available
In the spirit of reconciliation, Audible acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respect to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.