PETA killed 90% of animals in their care

Has that fucking old wrinkly faced woman with the accent (Newkirk) said anything about it. She was very quick to crucify Vick (hey I talked some shit about Vick too), shouldn't she own up to this shit? If she has, send me the link, I love to see self righteous people squirm.

I'm a little skeptical of this website.

Take this quote:

Dana Cheek, the former (and most recent) director of the Norfolk SPCA, wrote to us recently:

"...Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home …"

Really?

Sounds like bullshit. It just doesn't add up so we should probably take it with a grain of salt. Is this person real? Can we conteact them? Are they disgruntled? Are they getting "donations" from factory farm owners to "expose" PETA? It doesn't really add up.

I may be wrong, but c'mon. What's the motivation? Who founded PETA? Why did they crate this organization? Who volunteers for PETA?

And now we're suppose to believe that these crunchy hippie PETA volunteers routinely (keyword) drive to people's houses, pick up an animal and then IMMEDIATLEY kill it?

Really? Why?

Yeah, it could be possible but ya gotta admit it sounds like bullshit put out to discredit an organization that is a thorn in the side of factory farms. It's PETA that goes into these factory famrs and films them abusing the cows and chickens --- so wouldn't it be a huge benefit to these CEO's if there were a "independent" website that "exposes" PETA as the "enemies" they really are?

I'm willing to give PETA the benefit of the doubt on this one.

I’m in favor of helping animals, I have a cat and dog.

Found this on Wikipedia –

“PETA is against the no kill movement and euthanizes the majority of animals that are given to them.”

“According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA euthanized 1,946 companion animals (out of 2138 animals surrendered to them or picked up as strays) in its home state of Virginia in 2005.[84] During that same year, 126,797 animals (out of 228,376 animals surrendered or picked up as strays) were euthanized at animal shelters in Virginia.”

I have a problem with PETA’s statement: “When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.” -Ingrid Newkirk

I would like to know how many that were euthanized were boys?

I’m not surprised by this story at all. PETA is not perfect and either is their philosophy. If we are to believe that animals should have the same rights as humans then it is pretty ironic that PETA would euthanize animals. We don’t euthanize people so why does PETA euthanize animals? Like I said PETA is no different then anyone else.

Go tell Mike Vick about this.

LET'S REMEMBER THIS " WE ARE HUMANS" YES, NO SHIT...WE ARE THE ONLY CRIMINALS LIVING IN THIS UNIVERSE, SO FAR...

WE KILL EVERYTHING!

So.. they want to stop the suffering of animals, so any they find suffering, they just "put down?"

Oh dear kitty, I can't stand to see you suffer any more.... there's an agency with just the solution for you!

Just another organization parading around as something it's not, using celebrities to entice us to give them money and for what? To sell doggie t-shirts that say "I love PETA"? The best thing anyone can do for animals is to respect their right to life, spay or neuter and only get your pets from shelters or your local pound. Because it seems to me the only thing PETA is good at is making money.

You have 5,000 pitbulls in a shelter.

100 homes are available.

And the solution is to....do what exactly?

Keep them in a cage for the next 5 years of their life?

Oh, what am I saying? Of course there are TONS of people that want to adopt a 8 year old formerly abused pitbull (nice and aggressive!) with hip joint displatia (only $2,000 to surgically correct!)

I think we should give PETA a break. It's a tough call and one I wouldn't want to make -- the bottom line is that we're assuming that all these animals are perfectly healthy 1 year old adorable puppies (awwww!) when the reality is that it's probably a lot closer to 8 year old dogs and cats with a variety of expensive medical problems. Thus not a lot of demand for these animals. Does that mean they deserve to die? Well, let's look at what PETA is dealing with:

Can they afford to keep them for 4-10 years in-house and feed them and pay for all their medical problems? Probably not.

Could they find homes for these animals if they didn't give a shit what kind of person picked them up? Probably.

Would it be in-keeping with their humane philosophy to simply give every gangbanger living in South Central LA with a history of assualt and drug posession charges pitbulls just because they showed up at the door and thought, "Hey man! A pitbull is, like, cool and shit, yo. We'll train it to kill people and shit! Yeah! I'll take 3 of them. They'll love my studio apartment!"

It's a tough call.

Living in a cage for 5 years isn't a good life by PETA's own standards (and I agree it's not humane to force a animal to live in a cage for YEARS). And PETA probably can't physically afford to PAY to house all these animal indefinitely. Plus there waaaay more animals then there are people who can give them a good home.

It's not quite so cut and dry.

Now look at the crazy "pet hoarders" out there. You know, the ones that show up in the news every once in awhile who have -- what -- 75 cats starving to death is a filthy apartment that have never left their cages in years.

They always haul these batshit crazy "animal lovers" out and these people look into the TV cameras and are baffled! "I'm not doing anything wrong! I love animals! I just wanted to help them all! Why am I being arrested?"

Which is worse? Euthanizing a 9 year old pitbull with multiple medical problems that is fairly unadoptable -- or is it more "merciful" to hand that same animal over to someone that really isn't going to give it a good quality of life (starving to death with a "pet hoarder" or being neglected and beaten by a gangbanger?)

Ha ha. This world is screwed up if PETA the "defender of animals" kills 90% of them. What hope is there for us. Though... we need to make sure this is real

Good point crob80227 but I think mostly people are angered over how PETA does not really "save" animals, their message is now unclear and they appear to be something else then originally thought. There is an amazing place called Angel's Gate run by a handful of people that gives a home to over 200 "unadoptable" animals funded only on small donations. If they can do it, why can't PETA? Where does all that money they have go anyway?

I think we might be taking things out of context with PETA.

Does PETA screen poetential owners to see if they are fit to have one of their animals placed with them?

This is a big controversy as some shelters do and some don't.

The ones that don't usually place a really high percentage of animals.

And that could be what's happening here. I don't know for certain, but I would suspect that an organiation like PETA wouldn't just hand over a pet to anyone who walked in off the street and I doubt they would feel comfortable transferring those animals to other shelters that do.

And that could be where the big problem is.

What are the standards?

Many, many shelters simply don't have any. If someone shows up, plops down a few bucks in cash -- bingo bango they walk out with a pet.

What kind of person did they just hand that animal over to? 99 percent of most shelters have zero standards. They don't do home visits. They don't require any information or background checks. Nothing.

So, yeah, if a resuce shelter is using the good old "zero standards" test then they will seem holier-than-PETA because they never kill a single dog.

The fact they sold it to someone living in a 300sq ft trailer with 25 other dogs and that dog was found dead 2 weeks later because of neglect....might give us reason to pause.

Is PETA wrong for euthanizing some animals?

Are other rescue shelter "right" for just handing them over to anyone who shows up with zero questions asked?

It's a gray area.

When did south central become the center for animal abuse and who says “yo” anymore?!

Seriously though I get what you are trying to say. PETA has its back against the wall and in a desperate situation chooses to euthanize its undesirables instead of passing the poor pup to the hands of a nineteen ninety two-ish street thug with racer stripes and a tri-colored “Paco” tee. You have still neglected to address the real problem.

Hellssatans is right. Shouldn’t PETA care for these undesirables instead of wasting their money on ridiculous media stunts? If animals should have the same rights as humans do how can you justify killing them just because no one wants them? Are PETA members so privy to the feelings of an animal they can tell when it wants to be killed? Does that mean PETA believes in assisted suicide?! Or is Cesar Millan a fascist bastard who destroys the free will of doggies?

PETA has lost all credibility in my opinion.

Thanks Ricky84 for the laugh, I loved the comment on assisted suicide. I am glad to see so many people even commenting on this issue. But the issue exists for really only a couple of reasons, the biggest, the failure of millions of pet owners to spay or neuter! I think we can all agree on that.

The dog Whisperer! HAHA!
I propose a PETA pet city. AN entire city devoted to pets suffering without a home! We'll put a border around it and all those who have no home, we can just throw in! Thats a great idea right!? Atleast they wont be caged for years! Im sure it will work great!

Ricky84 -- you make a good arguement that street culture has evolved a lot since I was in high school and Vanilla Ice was topping the charts and (sigh) I admit my use of the word "yo" was unfortunate.

But as for the broader discussion:

What are the options?

We can't just assume that PETA has unlimited resources and money and COULD easily keep all animals indefinitely forever and ever.

Can they?

No.

Well, if they can't personally keep every single animal then what are the options? There are only two: they can try to find homes for them (which they try to do) or they can euthanize them.

Again, it's important to remember two critical points. Point 1: PETA cannot personally afford to keep every single animal indefinitly. Point 2: PETA believes it is actually more humane to euthanize an animal rather than keep in locked in a cage for 4, 5, 6 years of it's life -- or even for the entirety of its life!

PETA are the guys that break into labs (or they used to) to free the monkeys because they thought keeping them locked up (not to mention the experiments) was cruel.

So now we're mad at them because they feel that euthanizing the animals after a set period of time is "going against their stated philosophy"? Seems like it is in exact keeping with their philosophy.

And, again, PETA isn't going to simply hand over one of their animals to anyone who shows up and asks for one -- unlike the majority of rescue shelters!

PETA is obsessed with the quality of life of their animals and that means they are much, much, much more strict in their screening process than most. This means that their idea of a "good home" is much different than the nice old lady running the resuce shelter than hands over pitbulls (or cats) to people that you and I would probably find very, very questionable.

I would make the counter arguement that it's the zero-standard rescue shelters that are the morally questionable operators. Handing over animals to people and giving ZERO thought to that owners ability to provide a humane quality of life to that animal makes them culpable to any future suffering of that animal.

PETA made a choice and we can agree or disagree with it -- but how can we seriously argue that they are acting in a manner contrary to their stated philosophy. Living in a cage for YEARS is suffering. Handing pets over to owners who they don't believe can provide them with a humane quality of life is suffering. They feel (and I see their point) that euthanizing is more humane than letting it live in a cage for years or simply handing it over to someone who may abuse it.

I think it's clear they are acting in strict accordance with their moral beliefs

Let me put the question to the group:

Which is more moral -- handing over pets to anyone that asks for them (as most places do) or adhering to a stricter set of placement standards that may result in that animal being euthanized?

Personally I feel there are obviously more animals then there are quality homes to place them in -- and as tough as the chocie is I fall in the category of rather euthanizing pets than a) placing them in homes were there is a higher chance of them being abused then I'm cofortable with or b) creating opportunities for even more unwanted pets because the owners didn't spay or neuter the pets.

On the surface, yeah, the outfits with the high placement rates may seem really awesome. But you only get those high numbers if your basically handing them over to anyone who asks for a pet. Don't we have a responsibility to ensure that the pets are properly placed?

As someone who has volunteered in animal shelters, cleaning up vomit and poop, I have firsthand witnessed the overpopulation problem. Although euthanasia is not ideal, there are just not enough resources for even the most animal-loving people to care for all the animals abandoned and mistreated by their owners.

People who collect animals but then can't care for them are known as hoarders. It's a form of animal abuse that PETA doesn't practice.

Keep in mind PETA's far-reaching campaigns to better the conditions of millions of animals on farms, ranches, in zoos and laboratories, hugely outweigh the euthanasia practice.

But thanks, Ricky, for the post.

i really don't see any reason why PETA shouldn't promote exported dog meat as a means to aid world hunger relief , it's not like "bush meat" isn't one of the greatest causes for species extinction in 3rd world countries whose forests are being clear cut - maybe PETA should be sending dog meat to logging co.'s and feeding it to the paid-like-shit guys who're rapidly deforesting the planet - protein is protein - if the loggers will eat monkeys i'm sure they'd eat dog meat , the meat just needs to be canned and labeled as " meat" .

If they accept a "gray area" about euthanasia then why all the "black and white" stands on their other issues?

It's not that I think that they have much other choice than euthanasia sometimes, but if they will accept compromises to pragmatism on some issues, then why be so hypocritcal on others?

PETA has pretty much set themselves up to be seen as animal WACKOS! I love animals and fight for their wellbeing, but they have lost sight of reality...

Hell that makes no sense whatsoever. The same groups of people that argue for the ethical treatment of animals are the same people who say the death penalty is unjust. Now keep in mind I do realize there is a difference between condemned criminals (who are sometimes innocent) and undesirable animals so with that in mind don’t try to call me out. Even if you did it would not change the overall point I am trying to make.

How the hell is PETA going to look at a lame, deaf and blind dog and say, “Hey boy we know no one is going to adopt you so we’re going to make all the pain just go away?” Are you telling me this dog has no chance of enjoying the rest of his life? Has food lost its taste? Has the gentle caress no longer produced a wag of his tail?

We certainly don’t tell people who are serving life sentences that,” You can live the rest of your life in this nine by nine cell, or you can proceed with me over to this little gurnee so nurse Teasdale can off your ass.” Once again someone is probably saying about now,”We’ll if you’re serving a life sentence then you’re being punished.” Ok then how about the boy in the bubble, does he get the option of offing himself? Seriously who gets that choice?

The only person I can think of who has that option is someone who is in a coma with a will that states,” Please pull the plug if I am too far gone.” We all know animals don’t write their own wills, they can’t.

I know PETA is put in a horrible situation by having to care for these animals that no one wants. In the end they are forced to put them down so they don’t go bankrupt and lose the money they have to argue their cause. However, if they don’t practice what they preach how can they uphold the idea of animal rights? If you believe in animal rights you cannot justifiably kill an animal for any reason.

It sounds to me like PETA should be campaigning for animal welfare instead of animal rights because they cannot even uphold their laws. Which in the end I can say is fine. I don’t think it is cool to abuse animals. I just think its ridiculous that someone can tell me I cannot eat something for sustenance when they kill animals because caring for them does not fit into their annual budget.

If you can't handle the job, then don't do it at all and especially don't criticize other who do the exact same thing as you, sans your self-imposed 'responsibility'.

What's the difference between a race horse with broken legs and these TONS of lame animals PETA euthanizes to put out of their misery? Well, PETA sure as hell talks a lot more about the first one. Wonder why...perhaps we'd find out a lot more if they allowed themselves under the microscope?

Waitaminute.

Are we putting words in PETA's mouth?

Did PETA ever say that euthanizing was wrong?

No.

So we should stop saying they are hypocrites.

What they did say and what they are all about is the quality of life of animals. Even if they had the resources to keep these animals alive -- just being alive isn't enough (a point I agree with PETA on.)

Yeah, if they theortically had the money to keep the 8 year (hypothetical) pitbull alive and in a cage for another 5 years it would not be moral because the quality of life would be so diminished.

I have to agree with PETA on this one. Physically keeping an animal alive is not where or moral responsibility ends. We must consider the quality of that life we're extending.

This actually ties in with many right-to-die arguements.

The Conservatives tend to think physical life is all that matters. So long as you're not technically dead -- then that's all that matters. I would argue that quality of life must be considered for humans as well as for animals.

"What's the difference between a race horse with broken legs and these TONS of lame animals PETA euthanizes to put out of their misery?"


PETA was upset about horse racing in general -- the race horses have a lot of genetic problems because of selective breeding and they feel that racing them is inhumane.

It wasn't that the horse was injured and put down, it was the entire situation (professional racing) that the horse was living in that they objected to.

f-k horse racing - how about grey-hounds ? you wanna talk about a "sport" which kills more animals in a year than horse racing does in decades?

You’re seriously advocating the right to die based on your quality of living?! Ok what about all those misplaced people in Darfur? No one is applauding that systematic genocide on the grounds that,” Hey they don’t have anything good going for them. I bet they’re happy to be shot in the desert. It not like they have water or food out here anyway.”

I’ll say it again. PETA has no business trying to re-determine what the value of a life is. If they believe the rights of an animal are the same as man then they are no better than the government of Sudan or the Khmer Rouge or any other organization that justifies murder.

80227
It sounds like PETA is taking the place of God and rather than trust anomymus owners, they're deciding that only they know whats best for animals. Imagine if doctors had the right to do this. Animals clinics should have laws that they are govern by as well, and it sound like this is one that definately needs to be examined.

PETA is a lie

Crob- you make the most sense.

Paolabear- elaborate?