Irvine-based Dog Fancy magazine has found itself on the receiving end of piece of guerrilla marketing after the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals covertly placed a classified ad in the magazine’s July issue.
The classified ad contains a phone number for owners of new purebred puppies to call to receive a “free gift bag”. There aren’t any toys or pet food samples to be had, however: the number offers callers a “body bag” to represent the shelter pet killed when people choose breeder or pet store animals. From the PETA press release on the issue:
The recorded message explains the hard facts to callers: Buying a puppy means that a dog in an animal shelter loses the chance for adoption, which means that one more dog will be needlessly destroyed. Callers are also told to practice their ABCs—animal birth control—by getting their new dog “fixed” to avoid adding further to the canine overpopulation crisis. Callers are encouraged to adopt, not buy, their next canine companion. The ad is the latest salvo in PETA’s national ABC campaign.
Dog Fancy editor Susan Chaney posted a response on the magazine’s message boards, saying “DOG FANCY does not knowingly accept advertising from PETA and does not agree with its extremist views.” Folks I spoke with at the magazine didn’t have any further comments on the issue, saying they didn’t want to get into a dialogue with PETA.
The LAV’s take: While I’m sure the magazine doesn’t appreciate getting shown up like this, you’ve got to wonder why they didn’t (or don’t, as policy) call every number/visit every website that advertises in their magazine, to stop this or other inappropriate content. Regardless of your thoughts about PETA and their tactics, it’s a sad fact that thousands of animals die each year in shelters, usually because of massive overcrowding. Spending hundreds or thousands of dollars for a breeder or pet store animal doesn’t help this situation at all.
More: For more recent news on what happens to shelter animals in Orange County, check out Teri Sforza’s Watchdog series, parts 1 and 2.
Depending on whose statistics you read, the figure of unwanted animals killed in shelters in the US every year is between 4 and 10 million!
(I refuse to use the word “euthanasia” in this context. Killing a healthy animal — be it human or nonhuman — against its will cannot be considered to be a “good death.”)
As a person who volunteers part-time for a small animal rescue organization, I find it absurd that people who call themselves “lovers” of cats and dogs can stomach the idea of breeding, selling or buying animals in a nation where every year million of public funds are spent killing the “unwanted” millions.
This scale of killing is no longer a byproduct of the pet industry, but one of its main products.
There is a moral schizophrenia at work here that really deserves some thought. Every cat or dog “lover” in America who supports the idea of “pet” commerce ought to see a psychologist before participating in this trade.
Meanwhile, Americans spend a good deal of time and energy decrying the treatment of cats/dogs in other countries, such as China.
As an American, I’m ashamed of the fact that our “humane” societies and “shelters” have become killing machines.
Even the Humane Society of the United States, the wealthiest animal welfare society on the planet, still uses the word “pet” — as opposed to “companion animal” and still supports the continuation of an industry that is unethical, creates enormous suffering and wastes enormous public resources.
To me, it seems that breeders, pet stores, pet websites, magazines and humane societies are essentially now all in the same business. Given the vast numbers of animals simply abandoned by owners, the situation is now that humane societies have become like the garbage engineers for the breeders.
Breeders ought to be required to register each animal with a microchip, and ought to be responsible for their “product’s” health and safety over the lifetime of their “product.” They should be charged for the expenses of rescue, rehabiliation, and the so-called “good deaths” of their “product” when no one wants them anymore. If their “product” “needs” to be “put down”, they ought to be summoned to the pound or humane society and given a court-order to either find the animal a new permanent home, or face stiff penalties or jail time.
HSUS and Peta are both bizarrely invested in euthanasia as a solution. I don’t know why. Despite real-world examples of “no-kill” solutions, neither organization seems to be especially creative when it comes to saving lives of animals who clearly want to live.
Book recommendation: Nathan Winograd published a book called Redemption, which talks about the idea of acheiving a “no-kill” nation, and offers an approach in which both Peta and HSUS seem uninterested.
Orange County has the resources and intelligence to achieve a “no-kill” goal, if the political will was there.
Don’t buy puppy mill puppies from pet stores. There are many wonderful dogs available at animal shelters. People who breed dogs should pay dog support if one of their puppies ends up at the pound.
JUST READ http://WWW.PETAKILLS.COM
While I understand how they feel on overcrowding, and I completely agree with not supporting puppy mills, I also feel it is the person’s right to decide how they will do things. I have taken in animals from the shelters and will continue to do so. But what PETA did–false advertising–was wrong. Pure and simple. It is no different than if instead of a diaper bag at a baby shower, the expectant mother received a child-sized coffin.
Please PETA!!! Stop acting in this manner. I have a hard enough time as it is trying to defend myself and others who care about animal rights. But since you’ve come along, we are nothing more than a joke.