P.e.T.A. Kills Animals, Routinely

ThePoetSappho

From what I can gather, the centre in question takes in a high proportion of animals that were destined to be euthanised - including animals from other centers (in theory lowering the other centeres figures and increasing their own).
PeTA's HQ is not an animal sanctuary/shelter/home per se.
So, it seems, comparing it to other places isn't fair - especially 'no kill' shelters (that can turn away any animal they like - especially the ones that are likely going to be put down).
It looks like the PeTA's HQ does not 'advertise' itself as an animal shelter etc, but a place where animals are/can be put down in a more humane way than other places - explained in their 'why' website.
What I couldn't figure out is how many animals PeTA take in or look after.
The figures that relates to the 95% seems to be a particular sub-set.
Imagine if every animal shelter took in all the animals that came through their doors, and didn't turn any away - what do you think their 'kill rate' would be?
If you wish, you can accept that PeTA put down 95% of the animals that cross their HQ's door.
But, to be fair, you have to add many caveats to that figure (e.g's above).
And like I've said, it's probably not a good idea to listen or compare PeTA's HQ policy to a 'no kill' animal shelter who's remit and admittance policies are not the same.

What I do know for certain is that they don't want all pets killed. I think one or two people have got a little carried away here.

 

PeTA's page on Animal Rights.

I think you have to be able to read between the lines here, as with everything else you read in life.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/default.aspx

 

And, perhaps, read the entire page - rather than the first few lines.

 

Odon, proof is great.

But common sense is great too. If you have two and you have two, you have to be able to add them up, there may not be a peer-reviewed paper that tells you that two and two is, in fact four. But it's still the case. Because there isn't a PETA statement saying "we want to kill all animals that have ever seen a human, because we have re-defined ethics" does not mean that this is not the case, especially when their is abundant evidence that, especially nearer the top, PETA thinks that way, and has a very twisted view of what exactly constitutes ethics.

I don't care who takes what animals, a lot of shelters take any animals, and euthanize the ones that need it, but are still able to do so without being reprehensable, as PETA is.

Just like you don't need obama say, upfront, that he has been the single most destructive figure on american civil liberties or global human rights in world history, and you don't need quantatitive proof, to see that this is clearly the case.

 

Yes, let's not get carried away here.



It's a cheap shot, I know. But we're talking about the people who handed those comics out to impressionable young children to scare and guilt them into not eating meat. PETA's tactics are by definition, getting carried away, and personally, I think they're beyond reprehensible for their tactics alone, and that's not even getting into what they say and believe which is even worse. So getting carried away in a response to complete fucking lunatics like PETA is a completely reasonable response, I think.

 

You are a bit of a drama queen aren't you? You don't seem to need any proof 'you just know'. I don't quite work like that. If you were not so melodramatic I might find it all plausible.

I can only really post what they say with regards to pets - and you are likely to say: 'They would say that'.

So I don't think we can get anywhere on that...

RooRshack

Earlier, you said: "Well, PETA says that they take the ones slated to die, and give them a better death. They do care about the drugs used to kill them.

But they still take in a huge number of allegedly savable animals, and kill most of them right off the bat. They seem to just adopt out enough to take cute pictures for their "why we euthanize all our animals" web page."

Is there any evidence they take in a 'huge number of allegedly savable animals'?

Given 'from what I can gather' - The Virginia office isn't necessarily there to find homes. And possibly doesn't have a 'huge number of allegedly savable animals'. They are there to humanely kill animals and take away the ability of certain pets to reproduce. Which doesn't seem like only a PeTA standpoint. As an organisation (not just their HQ), I have not found out about their activities regarding finding homes for animals, and how many animals they send on to other more suitable shelters (shelters with a high traffic of visitors).

The charge is PeTA kill animals routinely. I'm starting to think they do. But that seems to be what their Virginia office is set up to do.

It's not the same as no kill shelters or the lovely shelter you mentioned earlier.

Other shelters who are set up to find homes seem to be killing animals routinely, and the so-called no kill shelters just sift through the animals to find the ones that they can find homes for, and and the ones that are not on deaths door.

I'm starting to see you point - I just think you are slightly melodramtic, and don't base everything on anything more than your feelings. Which is ok, just a tad ott for me.

 

Those comics seem to be highlighting the cruelty of fishing and eating rabbits. I can see where they are coming from. More so with the fishing.
I think it is a good idea for children to realise what they are doing to fish.
I agree that some of their tactics do get carried away. I'm not trying to defend every single thing about them.

 

Thanks, that makes sense. it's not right to compare it to shelter because it's not, and PETA never said it was.
I still think they could euthanize less, but I have a better understanding of why they do what they do.

Same here.... everyone's been saying how outrageous the comics are; okay, they're a little dramatic, but they are telling the kids what is happening.... it would be wrong if it weren't true, but yes, animals are being cruelly slaughtered. we can't lie to our kids about everything.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/euthanasia.aspx
http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/no-kill-shelters.aspx

I heard they were anti-pet, but I don't read anything that says they want to take my cat, and I'm glad they don't support cats being "outdoor cats"
http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/outdoor-cats.aspx
http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/outdoor-cats.aspx


And here,
http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx
We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus."
"Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."
ok, fair enough.
and here's some things they've accomplished
http://www.peta.org/about/victories/default.aspx

 

I imagine some of the same people 'outraged' or who would thumb down those pictures would thumb up etc

That's why I said: 'And, perhaps, read the entire page - rather than the first few lines.'

Top:

'We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. '

Bottom:

'Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.'

 

No. Do not derail my thread with this crap.

 

I wasn't planning on going off in a tangent. It was just an e.g of what does and does not offend people - that's all. I guess you got that, right?

 

Just stay on the topic of P.e.T.A., please.

 

I don't get it; I highlighted some important parts- that yes, tended to be towards the top and bottom of the page. I was trying to save space.... I guess you'd rather I copy and paste the whole page, HTML and all?

 

Topic - - - please.

 

Odon, I agree that that facility seems to be set up to kill animals, including of course, those who actually need to be euthanized. But I just think peta has a very broad view of what needs to be euthanized. As one might expect, it seems that those who work there have become rather aggressive with their killing, to the point of weaseling animals out of vets and other shelters with the promise of adoption, to kill them before even getting back to the facility.

I'm not saying that everybody who has anything to do with peta is bad, obviously a great many good people are involved in one way or another, simply because "people for the ethical treatment of animals" seems like a good way to spend your money or time or verbal support -- see sappho, who's reluctant to stop supporting them, simply because they're loud about animal rights. They may not stand for the rights that she thinks of when she thinks animal rights, but they're large, and well known, and very well funded, and have a name that makes it sound awkward to oppose them on the grounds of animal rights.

It seems like peta is the anti-puppy mill. The puppy mill thoughtlessly cranks out dogs as fast as they can, and peta thoughtlessly kills as many as they can. I think both are highly immoral.

As far as ethics and adoptability, I'm rather sure that my family's cat who's had a tumor removed (twice) would have been killed by peta. I'm sure that the cats adopted as kittens who had gotten too big to be cute, would have been killed by peta. I'm sure that the little yappy growly dogs would have been killed by peta, on the grounds of them being bred into some sort of toy state where they couldn't be alive ethically. I'm sure that the cats who moved in when their owners moved away would have been killed by peta. I know a lot of people who have or have had animals like this, that found them or got saved from a shelter, and peta would probably have killed every single one. I think my friend who paid something like a thousand dollars to save his (now three-legged) dog when she jumped out of a truck, is one of the most ethical people I know, and his dog obviously loves life - but I think peta would have euthanized her on the spot. Every one of these animals is spayed or neutered, and not contributing to any population problem, and every one of them is healthy and comfortable in life, and gets to do about whatever it wants.

Peta doesn't want to confiscate pets, because, seriously, what group could get THAT much in donations, on the platform of confiscating and killing pets? Well, they also say that they don't want to confiscate them and set them free.... they don't see domestic animals having to exist as being moral, from all I can tell. They just want to kill them any chance they get.

I'm not arguing for no-kill shelters, those are usually disasters. But there are a great many shelters that seriously limit their euthanasia, and do just as well as any other, they do it where it's really needed and simply put all that work into helping animals, instead of killing them.

 

PeTA does not operate an animal shelter. Even though their HQ is registered as one because that's what allows them to legally purchase the chemicals they use to kill the animals. Apparently in order to buy them you either have to be a vet or a shelter with the primary purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes. Here is the report from a 2010 site visit.

 

Lol - no not you. Notice I posted: 'And, perhaps, read the entire page - rather than the first few lines.' - before you posted those quotes.
I was trying to say you actually managed to get to the end of the article.
Anyhoo, it was a general point and not aimed at anybody in particular.
Alright?

 

RooRshack

We simply have no idea if this is true. You are obviously free to spin your thoughts as far and wide as you see fit. I'd rather not. I think we should agree to disagree as your posts are getting a little too - well, I'm a gent, i'll keep that opinion to myself.

Perhaps she is in two minds - I dunno. You'll have to ask her.

Read the first line of your post (minus your cynicism) : I agree that that facility seems to be set up to kill animals, including of course, those who actually need to be euthanized.

As far as I can tell, the people that take their animals to the HQ are fully aware of what is likely to happen...that, or that is precisely why they are taking the animals there in the first place.

 

Well we do know tht it's happening, we just don't know to what degree.


This shows that two PeTA employees were picking up animals from vets offices every week, under the deception that they would be put up for adoption. When they were actually being killed in the van that picked them up and dumped into a grocery store dumpster. Animals that were healthy and adoptable, who could have had a chance to find a good home.....but PeTA thinks its best to kill them because they MIGHT suffer one day.


http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2007/01/24/testimony-underway-in-peta-trial/

 

Between disgusting shit like this and how PETA financially supports eco-terrorist groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front and individuals like Rodney Coronado, I'm absolutely baffled about how and why people actually support PETA.

Seriously, how can anyone defend that?