PETA Kills Animals

H

Harley

Imported from Detroit
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
1,499
Age
37
Location
MI
Sineya
I saw this article today and I want to know what people think about it:

Exclusive: PETA's Pet Killing Program Set a New Record in 2009
Public Records: PETA Found Adoptive Homes for Just 1 out of 300 Animals

Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade's worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to "put down" 23,640 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.

PETA's "Animal Record" report for 2009, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 97 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2009, PETA found adoptive homes for just eight pets.

Just eight animals -- out of the 2,366 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.

Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA's continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETA's hypocrisy isn't difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs "“ and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated "“ requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.

PETA has a $33 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all "unethical."

The bottom line: PETA's leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the six pets they kill on average, every single day.

The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA's Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget.

Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program.

Now the death toll of animals in PETA's care has reached 23,640, including more than 2,000 pets last year. That's not an animal charity. It's a slaughterhouse.
Click to expand...

Source

I found this on PETA's side:

Why We Euthanize

In my first year working at a grossly substandard animal shelter in Maryland, I forced myself to go in early to euthanize dogs by holding them in my arms and gently helping them escape an uncaring world without trauma or pain and to spare them from being stabbed haphazardly"”while they were fully conscious, terrified and aware"”in the general vicinity of their hearts with needles blunt from reuse and left to thrash on the floor until they finally died by the callous people who would arrive later to do the job.

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion"”aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance"”as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring "technicians," or animal abusers.


It's easy to point the finger at those who are forced to do the "dirty work" caused by a throwaway society's casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals"”even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn't have enough heart or homes with room for them. It makes it easy for people to throw stones at us, but we are against all needless killing: for hamburgers, fur collars, dissection, sport hunting―the works. PETA handled far more animals than 2,124 in 2008. In fact, we took in more than 10,000 dogs and cats and work very hard to persuade people to spay and neuter their animals and to commit to a lifetime of care and respect for them. We go so far as to transport animals to and from our spay/neuter clinics, where they are spayed or neutered and given vet care, often for free! Since 2001, PETA's low- to no-cost spay-and-neuter mobile clinics, SNIP and ABC, have sterilized more than 50,000 animals, preventing hundreds of thousands of animals from being born, neglected, abandoned, abused, or euthanized when no one wanted them. And on a national level, PETA is focusing on the root of the problem through our Animal Birth Control (ABC) campaign.

If anyone has a good home, love, and respect to offer, we beg them: Go to a shelter and take one or two animals home. The problem is that few people do that, choosing instead to go to a breeder or a pet shop and not "fixing" their dogs and cats, which contributes to the high euthanasia rate that animal shelters face. Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called "pets," as they had spent their lives chained up in the back yard, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone's, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a painless release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.

Every day, PETA's fieldworkers help abused and neglected dogs"”many of them pit bulls nowadays and many of them forced to live their lives on chains heavy enough to tow an 18-wheeler"”by providing them with food; clean water; lightweight tie-outs; deworming medicine; flea, tick, and fly-strike prevention; free veterinary care; sturdy wooden doghouses stuffed with straw bedding; and love.

What we see is enough to make you lose faith in humanity. One pit bull we gained custody of, named Asia, looked like a skeleton covered with skin when PETA released her from the 15-pound chain she had been kept on for years. Asia suffered from three painful and deadly intestinal obstructions, which prevented her from keeping any food down. She faced an agonizing, lingering death, so our veterinarian recommended euthanasia to end her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their conviction for cruelty to animals. That is just one of the dozens of cases we see every week.

The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.

As long as animals are still purposely bred and people aren't spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis. PETA is proud to be a "shelter of last resort," where animals who have no place to go or who are unwanted or suffering are welcomed with love and open arms.

Please, if you care about animals, help prevent more of them from being born only to end up chained and left to waste away in people's back yards, suffering on mean streets where people kick at them or shoo them away like garbage, tortured at the hands of animal abusers, or, alas, euthanized in animal shelters for lack of a good home. If you want to save lives, always have your animals spayed or neutered.
Click to expand...

Source Warning - site contains very graphic pictures.
 
The first article has a point, but sounds very one-sided. While it does make PETA sound like a bunch of hypocrites--I'm not exactly for their extremist policies--I volunteer in an animal shelter, and I know how many animals there are versus how much room and supplies are available. It's never an easy thing. However, if PETA really devoted most of their budget to advertisement, and none of it to rehabilitating those animals, then that is a strike against them. I don't fully believe either article; both seem way too invested in the stance they chose.
 
I definitely agree that there must be some sort of compromise between the two. Has anyone seen the trailer for that documentary 'Your Mommy Kills Animals'?
 
I've known PETA is one of the biggest killer of animals for a couple years now.

From personal experience of working at an animal shelter, I can say... And I'm just trying to choose my words wisely... some are better off being put to sleep humanely.

For example, there was a HUGE number of cats at the shelter - probably 30 cages in one room, some cages with 2 cats to a cage. I remember two cats in a cage, specifically. They were siblings (almost identical), and they were very friendly and playful and all around nice animals. However, for whatever reason they were both missing an eye and had some sort of neurological problem which caused them to jerk around randomly. This would cause them to spill food, spill water, they'd knock their litter box over and then roll around in it all night. The cage would be filthy by the time I came to work the next day. While they were nice cats, I thought they would be better off being euthinized than kept in a cage covering themselves in their own filth for the rest of their lives.

In terms of dogs, shelter dogs, for the most part, are less cuddly and happy than other pets. Yes, I remember taking care of lots of dogs who just wanted to play and be petted. But, the greater amount of dogs in shelters have behavior problems whether it be food aggressive, race aggressive (i've seen TONS of dogs who will get fighty with african americans), or just all around angry. These dogs are less likely to be adopted when there are places like Shake-A-Paw or breeders, with cute fluffy, nice dogs. Shelters, from what I've seen from the 4 in Jersey i've been too, are about 80% filled with pitbulls, which have gotten a huge, huge bad rap over the years. So people don't want them. Again, while I love animals and hate to say it, I feel like aggressive dogs who have a vary low chance of getting adopted should be put down. Why keep it in a cage? Animals like dogs and cats need space to roam and play. I believe that our pets move on to the afterlife as well, and by putting it to sleep, I believe its soul is running around a huge meadow somewhere surrounded by others who will take care of it.

That is my defense of PETA.

Now for my offense of PETA lol

8 dogs/animals in a year? Are they serious? A shelter in a dangerous neighborhood that I worked at had bars on the windows, cages and cages of ferril cats, roaches, aggressive dogs, and just all around should have been put out of business.... and we STILL were able to rehabilitate and adopt out AT LEAST 20 dogs a year and AT LEAST 30 cats that year. Plus a hamster, a snake, and 12 bunnies. And we survived on those fees and donations alone. So, how does a shelter with 30,000,000 a year (compared to our little 50,000) adopt out 1/6 of what we were able to? It doesn't make sense.

Is PETA spending all its funds getting people like Pamela Anderson to pose nude for "i'd rather be naked than wear fur" adds or commercials? Why aren't they spending that money building a new shelter, or promoting the great animals they probably do have? From the sound of the article above, it sounds like they are spending all their money on the shots to put the animals down.

And they pretend to be soooo for animal rights, with throwing flour on actresses who wear fur, and just all around pretending to be high and mighty. If those stats in the original post are correct they aren't doing ANYTHING to help the treatment and rehabilitation of animals, they're just killing them off.

so, yes, why I agree sometimes it is better to put animals down so they don't live in cages the rest of their life, the lack of effort PETA is showing towards adopting out animals says to me - they have really good animals there who are adoptable, they're just too lazy to TRY and help them. The animals deserve a chance, and once the chance shrinks to nothing, then do what has to be done. But I don't think it's right to kill animals without giving them time and hope.
 
K
Kelsey
Great post. Agreed!
Hero said:
And they pretend to be soooo for animal rights, with throwing flour on actresses who wear fur...
Click to expand...

I always thought that was silly. Won't they just buy another one, which means another animal would die to replace that item?
 
LookingGlass said:
I always thought that was silly. Won't they just buy another one, which means another animal would die to replace that item?
Click to expand...

I personally have always hated this practice. I get being against fur, but if someone paid a ton of money for a very nice fur coat, how dare you destroy their private property? I don't wear fur (besides feeling sad for the animals, I live in Florida), but if someone ever did that to me, I would chase them down.

Are we allowed to destroy houses or buildings because they decimated a forest in order to build? Of course not, so we shouldn't be able to destroy somebody's expensive fur coat.
 
I agree with both of you. I feel like it's wrong to wear fur, but it's someone's right and you can't just go around destroying their property.
 
It seems like the PETA text says that they take a lot in a lot of aggressive animals, that can't be adopted, thus causing so few animals to be adopted. Anyone think that's realistic?
 
PETA might have started out as an animal rights organization, but over the years they have "evolved" into a political lobbying group with causes that in no way support or even pertain to animal rights. The people who contribute to the organization think that their money is being spent on animal rights when instead a large portion of it is being spent wooing political figures in order to gain their support for issues that in no way benefit animals. In fact, they have been instrumental in initiating bans on the so called "dangerous" breeds, such as Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, American Bulldogs, and others, requiring their owners to either comply with totally ridiculous, as well as exorbitantly expensive regulations including spaying and neutering, in some cases, even licensed breeders, or have their animals killed. As far as actually benefiting animals, as unlikely as it might sound, the National Rifle Association and its Hunters' Rights Committee actually saves and protects far greater numbers of animals than PETA has ever thought about doing, including supporting legislation to assist in preserving and protecting endangered species and providing safe animal sanctuaries throughout the United States. (And, no, that doesn't just apply to game animals)
 
What I don't get is if your company has millions upon millions of dollars, freakin build some huge shelters & put all the animals there. Then there will be a place for them. They say it's not fair to the animals to be brought into such a cruel world that doesn't have room for them & they're probably right but guess what, they're already here. It's not up to you to play God & take their lives from them. I don't agree with anyone doing that. With as many freakin people as there are in the world, it's sad that we supposedly have too many animals than we can care for. Things like this make me disappointed in the human race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom