As I read a few posts on a Public Group page named “No Kill Nation Discussion,” I was again struck by the fact that there are 89 members, but only a handful of these members actually participate in any “discussions,” and the administrator is the one doing most of the posting. This is a new version, as the older “No Kill Nation Discussion” page was closed because a certain person was using it to wage his personal battles and did not do so with finesse. This person opened the new “No Kill Nation Discussion” page and has it out for the No Kill movement in general and targets Nathan Winograd of “The No Kill Advocacy Center” and Debi Day of “No Kill Nation” mercilessly.
Mr. Randy/Sherlock DeCarlo considers himself the epitome of what an animal rescuer truly is; a self-taught “expert” who is highly opinionated and seems to believe that his opinion is indeed fact if he repeats it often enough, and repeat it he does…over and over and over and over… Let’s just say that when he has found his target, his tirades can go on for hours, even days, and they go from innuendos to completely ridiculous accusations. He then recycles past ridiculous accusations and treats them like facts to support his new arguments.
His latest attacks against the No Kill movement and Nathan Winograd accuse Mr. Winograd of being a “breeder enabler” because his No Kill movement formula does not address licensing breeders. He goes on to praise the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for all their efforts in bringing about reform of animal protection laws and the fight against puppy mills and he insinuates that Nathan Winograd and the rest of the No Kill movement enable and even support inhumane breeders and puppy mills because we know that HSUS, PeTA and possibly the ASPCA do not have the best interests of our companion animals in mind.
He incredibly implies here that Nathan Winograd, and those of us who support the No Kill movement, are friends of breeders “who want to make sure their breed never goes extinct by breeding more” and that we are not on the side that seeks to end the suffering, exploitation and killing of our companion friends. He goes on to accuse No Kill advocates of being uncaring, but of course, he thinks HSUS cares.
Let’s be very clear here; organizations like HSUS, PeTA and ASPCA are doing a wonderful job of exposing animal cruelty, the fur industry, slaughter houses and the horrors of animal testing, but they are not advocating against breeders because they care about our “companion animals.” They do not believe we should have companion pets. They believe that our companion pets are no more than slaves to humans, and would be better off dead, freed from that slavery. You don’t have to believe me, but, you can see it for yourself.
In spite of their name, HSUS has no affiliation to local or community humane societies; over 71% of the population believes they are the “umbrella” group over all of the societies. They are not, but they are cashing in on that misconception by advertising for funds to help shelter animals. They do not run even one single shelter and the money raised “for shelter animals” actually goes into operating costs, lobbying, large salary hikes for the CEO and directors, padded expense accounts and generous pension’s packages.
“You can help save the life of one desperate animal right now,” reads the narrator as pictures of adorable cats and dogs with sad expressions are paraded across the screen. “For just $19 a day you can make a difference in the lives of these shelter animals.” HSUS raised over $100 million from the public with ads like these yet gave only 1% of it to shelters, usually to promote spay and neuter programs only.
Let’s let them tell it in their own words:
“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals. I did not grow up bonded to any particular nonhuman animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals…” – CEO Wayne Pacelle in Bloodties, 1994
“I don’t want to see another cat or dog born.” – CEO Wayne Pacelle in Bloodties, 1994
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding … One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.” – CEO Wayne Pacelle, as reported in Animal People News, May 1993
Ingrid Newkirk, founder and president of PeTA,explains their philosophy and agenda pretty clearly here:
“I don’t use the word ‘pet.’ I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer ‘companion animal.’ For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA, “Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights”, Harper’s, August 1988, p. 50.
Here is the reality Mr. DeCarlo; because of your hatred and vendetta against the No Kill movement and Nathan Winograd, you now blindly support the very groups that want to put an end to companion pets all together. They do not support shelter reform! When it comes to shelters, Ingrid Newkirk has made it clear that she opposes No Kill because the No Kill movement represents the antithesis of her definition of animal activism. To her, killing is the goal because she believes that an animal’s life as a pet itself is suffering and therefore animals want to die. She refers to those laboring to bring an end to the unnecessary killing of all animals through simple, common sense alternatives such as foster care, adoption, working with rescue groups and TNR, as dangerous “slow-kill hoarders” who want to put animals in “hellholes.”
What do you think they would say about a man who has “rescued hundreds of hounds” from being killed in shelters and now owns 26 of them himself? They would call you a hoarder and say that those hounds would have been better off killed at the shelter.
Silly man! Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!