Readers of AC are well aware that two PeTA employees, Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook, were busted and charged with felony animal cruelty counts (31 of them each) and several misdemeanor counts for allegedly unlawfully killing animals and illegally disposing of them in dumpsters. As part of the ongoing investigation, one of the dogs was taken for necropsy, to determine whether or not the animal had been healthy at time of death. Though the toxicology report has yet to be completed, the necropsy itself has been completed, and the dog was healthy:
The results are in from a necropsy of a dog found dead in a dumpster last month in Ahoskie, N.C.
[ . . . ]
Ahoskie police only had one of the dead animals tested. While the results did not show what caused its death, Sgt. Jeremy Roberts said the report shows the dog was fine. "That was a perfectly healthy six to eight-month-old puppy and the only physical problem with the dog was that it had fleas," he said.
Tissue samples are now being tested to determine whether the dog had been poisoned.
In addition to dead animals found in the PETA van on June 15, police say they found a syringe and what appeared to be chemicals used in euthanizing animals.
"From what the doctor told us, about the puncture wound in the vein, leads to they were giving something injected into them," Sgt. Roberts added.
There will, of course, need to be at least one follow-up story to announce the results of the tox screen.
I think the only question the tox report will answer is "what" was used, not "if" something was used . . .
According to the search warrant, police have been finding dead animals in the dumpster since early May. The first time, they discovered 21 dead dogs behind a grocery store. Then June second, 17 dogs and 3 cats were found dead. A week later, 20 more were found.
Finally on June 15th, police say they caught PETA employees tossing bags containing the bodies of 16 dogs in the dumpster. There were another seven dogs and 15 cats in the van, according to records.
Yesterday, I expressed my belief that PeTA employees killed animals in substantially greater numbers than PeTA has reported. (I am not suggesting that PeTA did not accurately report the number of animals they killed in their facility. I do think that far more animals were killed off site than anyone has yet suspected, and that there is no record of those animals, other than what can be estimated on the basis of records from the shelters PeTA employees visited.)
By the way — I just noticed that CCF has posted the number of animals PeTA admits to having killed in 2004 (2,278, or 86% of those they took in). So in the years 1998 — 2004, PeTA admits to having killed 12,473 animals (and remember, the numbers for 1998 are for the 2nd half of the year only). Martosko and crew are doing well, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.
The warrant says the animals were alive when the left the shelter and were dead within the hour.
"The only person that can euthanize an animal in North Carolina is a licensed vet and they were not even supposed to be in possession of the drugs to euthanize animals," noted Sgt. Roberts.
[ . . . ]
Ouch! Sounds like yet another potential charge — illegal possession of drugs to euthanize animals, if they want to tack that on.
News 13 requested a response from PeTA to this story, and this is what they got:
It is difficult for PETA to comment on the necropsy report without actually seeing it,
There's some desperate logic to that — PeTA's experts might be able to find in the report something that might call into question the conclusion that the animal was not normal and healthy. But this strikes me as unlikely: they're buying time, and trying hard to put the best defense forward, with a view towards the future. Which is reasonable and proper for them to do.
But even if so, the law doesn't provide an exemption, as far as I know, for non-vets to euthanize animals because the animals were sick. So this is a moot point, a distraction, at best.
Notice the segue here — from "we can't comment" to "the real problem is with irresponsible people, who don't have their animals spayed and neutered." The implication is that they, PeTA, are hard at work to solve the problem created by others, and are victims of doing the best they can.
That's pretty far away from Hinkly and Cook.
but we do know it is estimated that 7-8 million unwanted dogs and cats in the U.S. are turned into shelters every year and ½ of those are destroyed. In the state of North Carolina, the ratio of unwanted animals who are killed each year to human population is 37/1000 (more than double the national average). Healthy animals are euthanized every day, and will continue to be, as long as cats and dogs are purchased from puppy mills, pet stores, backyard breeders and guardians neglect to spay and neuter their companion animals as there are simply not enough homes. PETA believes in humane euthanasia over gassing and death by gunshot and we encourage everyone to pledge today to not buy from a breeder or pet store and to instead adopt from a shelter. For every animal purchased, a healthy animal is killed in a shelter; it's that simple. For more information on how you can help, please visit HelpingAnimals.com.
PeTA continues to play it's double game: its justification of humane killing is a violation of the core Animal Rights principle. If its unethical or immoral to do something to a human person, it is equally unethical or immoral to do it to a "non-human person." Except for euthanasia, and forced spaying and neutering . . . or would PeTA advocate those practices to deal with damaged or abused humans, or human overpopulation?
Keep in mind that PeTA kills a far greater percentage of the animals they accept than other shelters in their vicinity, and that unlike those shelters, PeTA could become a no-kill shelter overnight.
And keep in mind that PeTA's justification for killing the large number of animals they kill is that the animals are unadoptable, many having become so because they were damaged by abusive humans.
This doesn't wash: if there is ever a subgroup of animals that deserves full Animal Rights protection, it would have to be these animals. Yet PeTA has adjusted their ethical standards, and the damaged, abused status of the animals is cause to strip them of their rights!
This is not inconsistent ethical, moral or ideological thought — it is incoherent thought, or no thought at all.
What are the ALF people thinking?
Thanks to Lisa A for the tip.
Brian