Report From PETA Shows 97% Of Animals In Their Care In 2006 Euthanized

In a Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Online Animal Report, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) reported that in 2006, they took in 3,043 animals that were surrendered by their owners.

Of these 3,043 animals (1,960 cats, 1,030 dogs, 52 other companion animals, and 1 chicken), the organization reported that 2,981 animals were euthanized. The report filed by PETA shows that only 2 cats, 8 dogs, and 2 companion animals from the 3,043 animals were adopted out. This means 1,942 cats, 988 dogs, 50 other companion animals, and one chicken were euthanized which makes PETA’s euthanization rate 97%.

In response to this report and to many people asking them about their 97% kill rate, a PETA administrator wrote this on the PETA Forums:

PETA makes no secret of having to euthanize most of the animals we take in. Although we do not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place animals in excellent, lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept-such as those who are injured, elderly, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable-we are a “shelter of last resort,” offering a humane death to those who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.

Unlike “no-kill” shelters, PETA does not refuse animals simply because euthanasia is the only humane option for them. Many of the animals we take in are brought to us because they have been rejected by other facilities. PETA receives calls every week from people who request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain if transported. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our “numbers” look bad.

PETA’s not interested in playing a numbers game. When animals come to us most of them are absolutely horrible conditions. They are being ravaged by diseases and have been neglected for months and years. In these cases euthanasia is clearly the only compassionate decision we can make. People don’t drop off healthy animals at PETA’s office (since we don’t have an adoption service). We deal with the worst of the worst situations.

Source: VDACS Online Animal Reporting, PETA

(Thanks k)

60 Responses to “Report From PETA Shows 97% Of Animals In Their Care In 2006 Euthanized”

  1. G in INdiana says:

    On the one hand just looking at the numbers, this looks vile. That said, at least the PETA folks are an option for those who have tried to place their pets elsewhere or who do not want to just dump them in rural communities, leave them in empty foreclosed homes, or in general tie them in the back yard till they die.
    Those numbers do not say exactly what those animals are. Are they 15 year old Labs who are at the end of their lives? Are they healthy adoptable 2 year old Maltese? One needs to look more deeply into exactly what those numbers mean before one jumps to false conclusions (as is so often the case in the world today…)

  2. Steph says:

    People need to do their research and open their eyes to the belief system of PETA. I am all for animal welfare and proper treatment. However, there are plenty of great animal shelters that you can donate your money too. I used to think they were a great organization. However, I just can’t support a group that belives keeping an animal as a pet is cruelty. To each their own. And in some ways PETA has done good things, but it’s overshadowed by some of their own cruelty. In the end, it’s about giving animals of all kinds they great life they diserve.

  3. Concha Castaneda says:

    PETA…just lazy. Too lazy to have solution based thinking. They won’t get a penny from me. Wish I could get the donations I have given them before I knew that they really are nothing more than a kill shelter…I mean KILL SHELTER!

  4. stefani says:

    No one could convince me that all of these animals were completely unadoptable, dealing with end stage illness or such aggression they could not be placed. First off, it is mostly cats, who rarely need to be euthed for aggression.

    PETA may be good at raising awareness of factory farm cruelty and the obsceness of fur trade — but they should stay out of the companion animal business. They should stick with the larger, global, less personal campaigns and keep their paws off pets.

    Stefani

  5. anon says:

    A humane death may be the best thing for these animals. If there were enough good people who wanted pets, pet overpopulation would not be such a problem.
    There certainly _is_ a problem and it gets bigger each year. I am all for ending it or failing that, making it less.
    Educating people to be better pet parents is a sweet, if naive thought, but not something to pin hopes on, it hasn’t worked so far.

    PETA gave these animals better than they could have gotten anywhere else.

    They could have been in loving homes and eating slow poison.

    The loving homes the pets had threw them out or raised them dangerous and until there is less of that, there is going to be more suffering every year.

    PETA is not an organization that I see eye to eye with on most things, but a humane death is better than a lot of pets get.

  6. Linda's Cats says:

    Folks, PETA makes no bones about the fact that they do not believe animals should be pets of any form. They do not belive in keeping animals in cages for ANY length of time, even while waiting to be adopted.

    They are NOT a group you want to be giving money to, if you belive in life for animals. They are not Pro-Life, they are something i can’t even identify. “pro-freedom-even-if-freedom-means-death” or something.

    it’s really sad that they convince people they are “pro-life” for animals.

  7. Max says:

    Peta, in my opinion is a vile cult - based upon elitists thinking regarding their world view. They espouse that animals ’should’ live naturally in the wild, yet they kill off any feral cats on their own properties.

    People who actually do love animals should never support organizations with this agenda - like Peta and HSUS - both are hell bent to end all rights to own animals, and along with it, end our right to private property.

    If they have their way, we will all be forced into greater dependence on oil and chemical by products to replace things like wool and leather etc.

    I don’t speak for everyone, but I am getting sick and tired of all these ninnie-nannies telling me they know best.

  8. Andrea says:

    http://petakillsanimals.com/

    They kill more than just the “unadoptable”.

  9. Hazel Chambers says:

    I am a long-time member of both groups…and have many friends who are…and also have a house full of cats and dogs…and adopted a horse on his way to the slaugther house. He is lame and can never be ridden…but deserves to live his life. I had him gelded and vetted….he is healthy and happy.

    I have never seen either group state they are against having pets. In fact I have friends with these groups and know for a fact they have pets.

  10. janet says:

    As a former Peta supporter, I think they do a lot of good for farm animals and lab animals but if you really think about it, they want a world with no animals existing in it. They think e verybody should be a vegan and nobody should have a pet. No animals, no cruelty. I support my local humane society.

  11. Steph says:

    Just because you are in the group doesn’t mean you don’t have pets. It’s well known that PETA supports not having dogs or cats as pets. They think it’s cruel. Check out their website for their views. That’s like saying everyone who supports PETA is a vegan. I would never waste my money on that group. Donate to your local shelter. Let PETA try and help the farm and fur industry end cruelty and leave the domesticated animals to shelters that actually care for them.

  12. trucorgi says:

    Hazel Chambers says: I have never seen either group state they are against having pets.

    Then you are not listening.

    Quotes from Peta:
    “In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
    — Newsday, Feb 1988

    “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.”
    — The Harper’s Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223

    “The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats… If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
    — Animals, May 1993

    I agree with you Max!

  13. Dianne says:

    It is about time this was made public. PETA are just vile. In the Norfolk case, they killed a litter of healthy kittens. They killed animals and dumped their bodies behind the Winn-Dixie,IIRC. The weren’t convicted of cruelty to animals, they were convicted of LITTERING.

  14. Steph says:

    I’m so impressed with most everyone who has posted on this blog. I’m so sick of hearing PETA supporters who don’t even know what they are talking about. If you truly believe in what PETA stands for then fine donate to them. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs. However, don’t try and say that they aren’t cruel to domesticated pets. It’s well documented the tactics they have used to euthanize animals and store them in freezers or throw them like trash into the dumpster. They are more worried about the ethical treatment of fish and silk worms then dogs and cats.

  15. EmilyS says:

    PETA “makes no secret of having to euthanize most” animals??
    Well, that’s a lie.
    They certainly didn’t tell the shelters they collected animals from under the guise of finding them new homes, then killing and dumping them in trash bins.

    What kind of sick organization isn’t ashamed of killing almost all of the animals it takes in ?

    I think one that GETS PAID by the state of Virginia for each animal it kills.

  16. The Lioness says:

    I believe they do some good things; however, due to their warped attitude toward domesticated animals, I will never give them a penny.

    I will write letters via their campaigns to support broader causes, but they will never get a dime from me.

    They are just too nuts on some things. My money goes to other organizations, including some local ones.

    ~The Lioness

  17. anon says:

    Most people are simply not going to study day and night to find out the best information on pet food, vet care, the latest news on what might be deadly or anything else, heck, you can’t get most people to spay and neuter!

    PETA has an agenda? DUH, this is no surprise. Even people who do pet rescue work have an agenda.
    What no one has, so far, is a way to make the suffering and abuse and neglect better next year than it is this year. Not even next _decade_ has any hope for the animals until there are a hell of a lot FEWER pets. Period.

    If PETA gives the unwanted a better death than starving or freezing to death, then I give them credit.
    Did they toss the corpses and the chemicals into dog or cat food? No, as far as I can tell PETA does not make pet food, deadly or otherwise.

    Then the only thing more I might ask is that they return the bodies to the lousy folks who caused the situation, along with a big bill for the euthanasia and a court order saying “No more pets for you.”

    It is a shame that it has come to the point that it has, but facts are facts.
    PETA or anyone else that kills the unwanted in a humane way has my support for that action.

    Of course, a pet organization that wants to do it another way would be welcome but they better get to ideas for SOLVING the problem .

  18. Lis says:

    Other organizations DO do it better.

    And Nathan Winograd and Richard Avanzino have been laying out quite clearly the path to solving the problem–and they’ve implemented their ideas with great success, in different communities, in very different kinds of communities–large and small, rich and poor, urban and rural.

    PETA isn’t attempting to solve the same problem most animal welfare people are struggling with; they’re not trying to save the animals. They’re trying to end the existence of domestic animals, and the practice of keeping pets.

    PETA’s claim that other shelters won’t take these animals is false; even No Kill shelters euthanize for the same reasons that loving owners would euthanize. It’s also well-documented that they got many of those animals they killed by lying–by telling owners forced to give up pets, and vets and shelters with abandoned, but healthy and adoptable, animals that they would find homes for them. And then they killed them, and dumped them in the trash. Every shelter in my area buries or cremates the animals they have to euthanize; they don’t throw the bodies out with the trash.

    PETA’s claim to love animals is a lie.

  19. mittens says:

    PETa says they’re not an adoption agency while at the same time carping about their alleged high moral ground vis a vis animals and yet they have the audacity to take in animals they claim to be helping by killing? the ignorance and hypocrisy astounds and seems to have no limit for this fascist people hating, animal exploiting and controlling organization and those who opt to shill for it.

    there have been numerous examples of PETA scamming animals out of shelters- animals handed over one assumes because the employees assumed that PETA meant to save them- only to have them killed in the back of a van by untrained non-vets. that’s ‘ better treatment’ then a no kill shelter or one of the numerous animal rescuers out there who only euthanize the truly seriously ill and unable to live sustainable lives or the seriously aggressive? you believe that sort of crap? it defies logic . this forum itself has on it rescuers that may just beg to differ concerning peta’s self serving assessment of their ethical ‘ treatment of animals”.

    i know those who out of their own limited funds, people not flushed with donations by celebrity nitwits and not represented by what are basically psychologically unhinged pet terrorists who get seriously hurt strays all the medical care they need and then strive to find them good homes. if the home is not forth coming they keep the animal well fed, vetted and safe and do not resort to murdering them for want of an adopter. THAT is ethical, humane treatment of animals by those whose ONLY agenda is to save the lives of highly vulnerable creatures. my cats all rescues, all happy and well adjusted are showered with toys, treats and love- they want for nothing- theyre a part of the family- not just a pet- and THAT is the humane outcome for an unwanted feral left to the streets- not a van full of deranged hate filled hippies who in fact care nothing for animals and only for the furthering of their own control over other humans. screw PETA and the dead horse they rode in on and probably killed themselves even though one assumes their massive amount of funds could have easily kept the animal alive and knee deep in hay and oats. but a dead animal seems preferable to a live one to PETA as long as theyre the ones on the other side of the knife or the needle.

  20. anon says:

    No, other organizations do not do better.
    Every year there are more and more unwanted animals, more abuse, more cruelty.
    That is not doing better, that is plugging a dike with your finger while the water gets deeper on the other side.

    Laws and all the rescue work in the world will not solve the problem.

    Maybe the pet food companies are going to cheaper stuff because there is just not enough high quality protein on this planet to feed the people and the pets.

    Overpopulation has ugly consequences for everyone, expect it to get worse and it may never get better.

  21. Linda's Cats says:

    Anon,

    Yes other organizations do it better. Our local shelter (Boulder Colorado) is not a no kill, they are a low kill.

    Right now, while peta is off killing these “Unadoptable” animals, our shelter is adopting those very same animals OUT.

    Our shelter has a 8% kill rate, down from about 12 % 5 years ago, down from 20% just ten years ago. Why? cause they started getting more involved in how they place animals, TNR for ferrals, Ferrel rescue, etc.

    Peta blatantly says it is wrong if a pet is kept in a cage, especially more than a week or so. All three of my cats (2 living, one dead) are resuces from my local shelter that peta would have “killed”. one was scared, but turned out to be a great pet with just a bit of love. one had a missing eye. All three had been at the shelter for more than 2 months, in hopes of getting them homes.

    Pets lies about what they do, cause they’d stop getting money if they simply said “we think killing is better than leaving them in a cage to ’suffer’ while waiting for adoption”.

  22. 2CatMom says:

    Actually anon, the number of homeless animals has decreased dramatically in the US due to agressive spay and neuter programs. The problem is still bad, but not getting worse.

    I’m astounded that you make the blanket statement that “no, other organizations do not do better.” You are just plain wrong. Let’s see PETA kills 90%+ of the animals it takes in, Tomkins County NY which is an open admissions shelter (takes all turned in animals) has a save rate exceeding 90%. You don’t see the difference?

    I think you are well meaning but terrible ill-informed. I would suggest you take the time to read Winograd’s redemption, check out the No Kill Advocacy web site, the ASPCA Mission Orange program and Maddie’s fund.

    You’ll find a new committment at many shelters to placing all animals possible or giving them life-long homes, not writing them off because they are old, have treatable medical conditions (even if those conditions have been present for month), or correctable behavioral problems.

    You may be a PETA supporter and that’s fine. I think they do some good work - they certainly changed my perception of wearing fur. But they are just out in bizarro land when they advocate that killing an animal is better than placing him in a loving home.

  23. Anonymous says:

    sorry, i don’t see a good spot to add this, but Sunny Boy is back in the news again - TRYING TO FOIST CLONED MEAT ON US - AND YOU CAN BET IT WILL BE FOISTED ON OUR PETS FIRST IF IT ISN’T ALREADY:

    brief excerpt:”But Stephen Sundlof, director of the F.D.A. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said food from cloned animals was “indistinguishable” from that of conventionally bred animals.

    “It is beyond our imagination to even have a theory for why the food is unsafe,” he said.

    The F.D.A.’s approval extends to cloned cows, pigs and goats but not other farm animals like sheep; the agency cited insufficient data on cloned sheep. The F.D.A. said meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring would not be labeled because it was the same as conventional food and did not pose a safety risk.

    However, Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, has introduced legislation to require labels on cloned products, and consumer groups suggested that labeling would be a battleground in the near future.

    The F.D.A.’s announcement came with an asterisk, given the Agriculture Department’s request for a continued moratorium on the sale of clones into the food supply. That request is likely to have little effect, since producers are not looking to sell clones; each still costs thousands of dollars. But it could force a few owners of dairy clones to dispose of milk from the animals rather than sell it.”

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2tqljz

  24. anon says:

    There are simply not _enough_ homes for all the animals now.

    There will be more abandoned next year.

    No kill shelters make it easier to abandon pets and the same people who will not spay and neuter WILL abandon more.

    Less need for shelters, less need for rescue, anyway you look at it, the only way to do that is less pets.

  25. Mikken says:

    Anon, please, please read Nathan Winograd’s book Redemption.

    There ARE enough homes for the animals RIGHT NOW. Some shelters are IMPORTING animals from other countries to meet demand. That’s right - shelter animals from India and China and all.

    Why are some shelters killing for space, then? Because they lack LEADERSHIP. Nathan Winograd has proven (*twice*) that you can take a high kill shelter with no space and no hope and turn it around into a true shelter that saves lives, finds homes, and WORKS as a shelter instead of just a “control facility”.

    It’s been proven that killing more animals isn’t the answer - areas with the highest kill rates also have the highest rates of shelter turn-ins.

    The killing isn’t necessary, it’s just one more step in allowing the problem to continue.

    There is a better answer. Redemption.

  26. Don Earl says:

    PETA left me cold when I read a book about cats published by one of their officers. Someone who knows I like cats gave it to me, and the cover was the best part of it. Among other things, it recommended a vegetarian diet for cats. Cats are obligate carnivors, they don’t eat veggies. That was the most extreme example I found, but most of the rest of it was very radical. I ended up throwing the book in the trash, and I think that’s the first and only time I’ve ever thrown away a book.

    I’ve been putting food out for what I believed was a feral cat for several months. In the last few days the little fellow has been letting me pet him, is very affectionate and tries to come in the house. Unfortunately, I can’t let him in the house with my indoor only cats unless I’m 100% sure he’s healthy. Now I’m stumped.

    I know I annoy some folks being the opinionated cuss that I am, but raising a cat to think it’s people, then abandoning it, strikes me as an act of bad faith of the lowest sort. This little fellow is now too shy to show well at a shelter and a best guess needs at least several hundred dollars worth of medical care before he could be adopted into a home with other cats. Gaining a cat’s trust is tricky. If I grab him, stick him in a box and haul him off to a vet as things stand, it’s going to ruin most of the progress I’ve made with him so far, and is likely to get both myself and the vet scratched up for our trouble. At the same time, I don’t think he deserves to die for something an irresponsible human did to him.

    PETA isn’t an outfit I have a very high opinion of, but those who make it possible for outfits like PETA to thrive are worse. The little fellow sitting on my back deck is a prime candidate for PETA’s euthanization program, but it sure as hell wasn’t PETA that put him there. I’m not in line with PETA’s philosophy, so I’ll do as I think best in the current situation and try to give the little fellow a second chance but PETA isn’t the problem, PETA is a symptom of the problem.

  27. Denise says:

    I say giving to a animal shelter, humane society or a rescue group is much better than this. they will never get a dime out of me. we give to the michigan humane society, the aspca is another one that rescues animals and tries hard to place them. PETA they need to be run out of the USA.

  28. judi says:

    I do not support PETA due to the fact they believe that an animal young or old would be better off dead than being alive. They do not give the animals a chance to be adopted nor do they strive for this.

    While I agree that they do some good as far as boycotting companies that abuse and test on animals they have no compassion for the ones they rescue. They will be put to death only by their methods. And to them that’s ok??? To me it’s not ok and I will not support them.

    Obliviously an animal being abused & one that is tested on has a horrible life and they need to be taken out of that environment. However, those animals should be given the chance and opportunity to have good loving homes as many of them would but PETA believes that they would be better off dead.

    PETA should stay out of the rescue business and only be used to boycott the many horrible companies and labs that are out there. They should rely on a no kill rescue organization that has the compassion and ability to find good homes.

  29. Wescott20 says:

    I truly believe that the only time euthanasia of an animal is even remotely defensible is if that animal is terminally injured or ill, there is no hope for improvement, and the animal is suffering. I believe that companion animals deserve to live just as much as we do, and they deserve a life free of suffering, just as we do. PETA, HSUS and ASPCA take in millions and millions of dollars in donations…most is used for self serving purposes and publicity. They are hypocrites. Nathan Winograd is the true hero…a man who has already saved millions of lives…and his book “Redemption” is a very important book. It’s best to spend your donation dollars on organizations that share Winograd’s philosophy….they might be smaller and not as well known as the big three but they do much more good and are sincere. One of my faves is the Best Friends Sanctuary, and another is the Winging Kitten Rescue, which rescues cats off of the gas chamber death rows in Georgia kill shelters.

  30. Sean says:

    Don Earl, I understand your concern about putting the little feral guy in with your cats until you’re sure he’s free of FeLV and all….I’ve been there, but it did work out all right in my situation. I grabbed the little feral kitten I’d been feeding and she was quite upset, but I got her checked out at the vets and then kept her apart from the others in a separate room for a couple of weeks until I was sure everything checked out ok. Now she’s a happy indoor cat who wouldn’t dream of a life outside, so I’d say that maybe you should give it a try with the little feral cat if you’d like to adopt him. He’ll be annoyed at first, but he’ll probably forgive you soon enough and adjust to indoor living.

  31. Sean says:

    I have neighbors who’ve done this successfully with adult outdoor cats too…it takes about a month for the adjustment to indoor living and to be sure the cat is healthy enough to be around other cats…in all of these cases, the cat showed an interest in coming into the house. That’s often a pretty good indicator that they will adjust successfully to becoming indoor cats.

  32. stefani says:

    Re - Don Earl:

    [PETA book recommended] “Among other things, it recommended a vegetarian diet for cats. Cats are obligate carnivors, they don’t eat veggies.”

    Tell me about it. I did attend a PETA event once because I thought I might learn something from the workshops about organizing, etc. and I got into a conversation there with a woman who talked about making her cat vegan. My heart just SANK!!!! That is CRAZINESS!!! I may feel bad about buying meat for myself when I know how badly the animal was treated before slaughter, but if I am going to have obligate carnivores as pets, I’d better darned well be willing to kill for them/bring meat into this house, or I have no business having carnivores here. Its my choice to have carnivores, therefore, I need to overcome whatever my feelings are about bringing killed animals into this house for them to eat, because it’s necessary.

    Re: “but raising a cat to think it’s people, then abandoning it, strikes me as an act of bad faith of the lowest sort”

    This is a good point, and in my book, this is true for all domesticated animals. The fact is, cats and dogs cannot fend for themselves in our world, because of the way WE have changed the world, and also because of their growing level of dependence on us. We have domesticated them. With that choice, comes responsibility. This is why I feel we have special responsibilities to companion animals, above other animals: We have changed their evolution, taken it into our own hands. We have a symbiotic relationship with them. We feed and care for them, they give us companionship.

    We are responsible for them. And that INCLUDES the unwanted ones, because they are also a member of the class we have domesticated. There is a surplus of them because of US, and because of the way we have changed the world, and our lack of responsibility in caring for them.

    I must admit, I have respected the degree to which PETA has succeeded in raising awareness about the cruelties of the fur trade, and about farm animal treatment. But when it comes to the issue of companion animals, and what they have done killing so many, they have lost my respect.

    Stefani

  33. Velvet's Dad says:

    I agree with Mikken. Anon, you should either read Winograd’s well researched and documented book or keep your ignorant views to yourself. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

    And Don Earl, I think you were right to trash the book recommending cats be given a vegan diet. While I am a vegetarian, I wouldn’t for the life of me expect the same of my cat. Cats are the ultimate carnivores. They cannot exist healthfully without animal fat and protein.

  34. Don Earl says:

    Thanks Sean,

    My cats are ferals I rescued as kittens, and like you say, as grown cats it doesn’t make a speck of difference. If anything, I think they run to a higher intelligence than average and tend to be more interesting companions as a result. I didn’t have a cat at the time I rescued them though, so quarantine issues weren’t a problem then.

    From what I’ve read on ferals, there’s kind of a magic window between 6 to 8 weeks old where they can easily make the transition to domestic. Much younger than that and there are problems with taking them away from their mother too soon, and much later than that they tend to be locked into the pattern of their wild ancestors.

    I’ve read a few accounts where someone taking care of what they thought was a feral cat, turns out to be a stray. That seems to be the situation I’m in at present. In the last few days it’s like someone flicked a switch and he suddenly remembered being a house cat.

    I contacted a local shelter to see if maybe they can help with checking him out then putting him in foster care with me for awhile to see if it’ll work out.

    I’ve worked with ferals a little bit in the past. It’s pretty sad. Their lives are short and their living conditions are poor, with the only relief from constant hunger coming from those willing to put food out for them. Still, when that’s all they’ve ever known, they do okay with it. Abandoning a cat raised to think it’s people to that kind of life is pretty terrible in my book. Under those circumstances, I can almost understand the PETA view it would be kinder to put the poor thing to sleep.

    The one I’ve been feeding seems to be a very sweet cat. He now purrs on contact and does shoulder rolls against the glass door whenever he sees me. This is a cat I’ve been catching glimpses of since at least last Summer, that was so terrified of people I was sure he was feral. I don’t know what kind of person would do that to a nice cat. I really don’t.

  35. jean says:

    to Stefani–if you’ve never read Vicki Hearne’s Adam’s Task, I think you’d really appreciate it. Very strong philosophical argument about the responsibility we face when we choose to domesticate animals.

    I have no great love for PETA, but I also have mixed feelings about some “no kill” shelters. There are many in my state, but the reason they are “no kill” is that they send those poor animals to the shelter in my city to be euthanized.

  36. Sharon says:

    PETA is nuts and the people who support it either don’t know what it stands for or are crazy themselves. I wish there was enough publicity about them to put them out of business.

  37. Jackie says:

    The ONLY way any shelter can remain “no kill” is by continually turning away animals - in fact, ALL no-kill shelters turn away more then they take in - that is the only way they can remain “no kill”. It boggles my mind that no one even realizes this - or wants to admit it. Realistically - what does anyone think happens to all of those animals that are turned down by these “wonderful no-kill shelters” that everybody seems to love????? Do you think that thousands of people on a daily basis just say “OK, we wanted to give up our pets but now since the no-kill shelters can’t take them we’ll just keep them?” NO THEY DON’T - they end up taking them into shelters that might not be able to guarantee them homes! Re: PETA - People are very quick to forget the pre-PETA days when no one knew or cared about animal suffering of any type! Thanks to PETA things are much more out in the open and are being worked on to improve the quality of life for all animals. We can’t agree 100% with everything anyone or any group does - but PETA has the best record of any group out there for alleviating animal suffering.

  38. trucorgi says:

    BS Jackie!
    Only a licenced vet should be able to “alleviate animal suffering” via euthanasia and the law should be changed accordingly. It’s not a tool for population control.

  39. Jackie says:

    trucorgi, I was referring to the suffering of circus animals, farm animals, lab animals, etc. Prior to PETA, no one acknowledged that there was any abuse or suffering of any creatures going on!

  40. trucorgi says:

    Wrong! The SPCA pre-dates Peta by a long shot.
    PETA’s mission is NOT to advance animal welfare through humane treatment. Its mission is to promote the radical agenda of animal liberation, which holds the world view that animals are better off dead than to be put to an “immoral” use. This includes research, food, entertainment and pets. If you believe this philosophy then you should just say so, but don’t try to say that the ends somehow justify the means or pretend that this ideology is not seriously flawed at its core. I keep hearing here that this organization does “some” good. How can this be when welfare is not the mission?

  41. Jackie says:

    trucorgi, I’m not going to get into an arguement with you but I will close my end by saying that SPCA’s are local agencies that are not involved in large scale animal rights issues - PETA is. I do not agree with everything that PETA does, but I remember very vividly what it was like before anyone was involved in “animal rights” or “animal welfare” which PETA did bring out into the open. They have done and continue to do a lot of good and they speak up for animals louder than anyone else. And yes, I do believe an animal is better off dead than in a laboratory being tortured physically or psychology or in a circus being tortured with a bullhook or a whip! You’re certainly entitled not to agree.

  42. trucorgi says:

    The fact remains that the 2,981 “companion” animals that were euthanized at the hands of peta last year were not “in a laboratory being tortured physically or psychology or in a circus being tortured with a bullhook or a whip”. They were in the care and custody of peta. No matter how loud one’s voice is, you can not change that fact. Peta didn’t give them rights. They gave them death. Cherry picking something else and calling it good may make you feel better but it doesn’t change the cold hard facts.

  43. Jackie says:

    Oh trucorgi, I think we’re talking apples and oranges - how do we really know what type of animals PETA chose to take from people? I was in sheltering for many years and it seemed that an awful lot of people wanted to put their 16 year old, kidney failing dog or cat up for adoption - it seems that putting them to sleep, even if it was their time, was NOT something some people wanted to do! The same applied to people with animals that bit repeatedly - they couldn’t handle them and refused to keep them anymore - but they didn’t want them put to sleep either! There are also other situations I remember when euthanasia was really the kindest option but people wanted to dump their problem or elderly or infirm pets on others. Is it possible that PETA chooses to take animals from situations or from people who might not be doing the right thing? We’ll never know because people love to knock PETA! The bottom line is that the overpopulation situation (dog and cat) is enormous - there are not enough homes and anyone who says there are is in “la la” land. Things are getting better, but it’s going to be many, many years until we can end the problem!

  44. Don Earl says:

    Jackie,

    Calling PETA a “shelter” for pets is like calling Auschwitz a shelter for Jews.

    There’s no sheltering involved. It’s a death camp.

  45. Jackie says:

    I did not call call PETA a shelter - please read a little more carefully Don Earl. They are an animal rights group and a pretty damn good one!

  46. Jackie says:

    I did not call call PETA a shelter - please read a little more carefully Don Earl. They are an animal rights group and a pretty damn good one! Oh - aren’t you the one in an earlier post who was sticking up for hunting? Aren’t you the one who put no value on an animal’s life if it wasn’t a dog or cat? I seem to remember something very strange about your value system. . .

  47. Jackie says:

    I did not call call PETA a shelter - please read a little more carefully Don Earl. They are an animal rights group and a pretty damn good one! Oh - aren’t you the one in an earlier post who was trying to make strong arguments for hunting? It doesn’t surprise me that you’d love to attack PETA for what they’re trying to accomplish every chance you get! As I’ve already said - we don’t know what condition the animals were in that PETA accepted. Nowhere on their site are they asking for animals to be turned into them. Nowhere on their phone message are they asking for animals to be turned into them. If they have accepted animals from people who no longer want them, I would bet that they are in dangerous situations or that they are elderly, infirm and/or dangerous. And why is it always the non-Jews who bring up the camps like that? I am Jewish and really resent the comparison!

  48. Jackie says:

    Very sorry about the multiple posts! Obviously I did something wrong when responding this last time. . .

  49. Jackie says:

    Don Earl - the more I thought about your comparison the angrier I got - how dare you!!! PETA did not torture those animals, experiment on them, starve them, burn them, or force their children to shoot their parents and then dig their graves. How dare you!!

  50. trudyjackson says:

    Why don’t some of you look up–PETA Kills Animals. And go to trial part. Read about the Whole trial. those animals were not in pain and they were very adoptive. I would have adoped them Myself if PETA hadn’t lied to our face and then killed them. you need to get the facts.

  51. trucorgi says:

    If you look at the stats
    Stray 28
    Surrendered by Owner 3043
    Others 6564
    Seized 0
    Bite Cases 0
    on Hand 2
    Received From Another Agency 0

    Even if all the owner turn ins were elderly and or infirm, which is doubtful, it would only account for less than 1/3. What about the 6564 “others” and the 28 strays? Are they all the “dangerous” ones? Bites are 0. Seizures are 0. That takes care of the “dangerous situation” theory. I would be willing to bet that 0 are from laboratories and circuses. It is clear that you give them a pass for an inordinately high kill rate because you believe that they do “good” animal rights work. No one is attacking, just stating facts and their opinions drawn from them.

  52. Don Earl says:

    RE: “the more I thought about your comparison the angrier I got”

    Good for you. Anger and fear are very close to the same emotion. So, what is it about my comparison that makes you afraid? Is it because the analogy is close enough to the mark to sting?

    Hitler and PETA kill for philosophical reasons. Hitler figured Jews were better off dead. PETA figures pets are better off dead. They both had a picture of a self created perfect society they believe they’re justified in dictating to others.

    If you find the words offensive, the thing the words describe is worse.

    PS. From the article, quoting PETA: “we are a shelter of last resort”

  53. Pam says:

    I got turned off by PETA a long time ago, but the anti-PETA zealotry is getting to be just as big of a turnoff to me now. It’s starting to bring to mind anti-abortion type extremism seen in groups like Operation Rescue.

    If you don’t like PETA - LEARN FROM THEIR MISTAKES! Don’t mimic their holier-than-thou histrionic tactics, please. You’ll end up churning even more donations for them.

    I am so sick of seeing PETA KILLS, PETA, PETA, PETA….AD NAUSEUM that I truly wonder about the motives and or stability of those seemingly obsessed by that organization.

    PETA mania is unconstructive and just gives them way too much free publicity, IMO.

  54. Jackie says:

    Don Earl - you’re an idiot and your comments did not frighten me, they repulsed me, as you do.

  55. Don Earl says:

    RE: “Don Earl - you’re an idiot and your comments did not frighten me, they repulsed me, as you do.”

    I always consider the source. From you I consider that a complement. Thank you.

  56. Amy says:

    It seems to me that what a lot of people, in their anti-PETA rage are missing, is the fact that the animals that PETA has taken are animals that have been rejected by other facilities for adoption. Like PETA or not, they’re very upfront about what they do and why they do it. If they were accepting adoptable animals and euthanizing them, they would be honest about it in their attempts to make a point of some sort. “PETA receives calls every week from people who request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain if transported. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our “numbers” look bad.” They’re admitting that they’re not a shelter but that they’re not going to turn animals in need away - especially from poor people who can’t do right by them at the end of the lives. I think it’s a safe bet that if these animals were healthy and adoptable, PETA wouldn’t be afraid to say so!

  57. MM says:

    I just do not believe that PETA is the only option for these animals. I foster dogs, and the group of folks that I work with don’t always agree with the guidelines of our parent organization, so we formed our own 501(c)3 to take in the animals that would be rejected by the parent group. So we keep the dogs that are old, have NLT health problems, and are generally considered unadoptable. For those animals that do have life-threatening health problems, we put them in a home where they will be loved and have a good life until the time comes to put them down; we try to give them one good season of play at the least. The supposition that these animals are surrendered to PETA because there is ‘no one else’ is purely spin and completely false. Any shelter or animal control agency in this country would put that animal down post haste. All one would have to do is say it bit someone, and people do it all the time. Don’t be fooled. PETA would like to see an end to ALL human-animal interaction, and any statement to the contrary is a bald-faced lie.

  58. Patty says:

    Are there statistics for 2005? I know PETA had Katrina dogs and would love to know how many were returned to owners or euthanized.

  59. Vikke says:

    Please do not support this murderous group of hypocrites.

    I’m a long-time animal activist, advocate & rescuer. I’ve been veg for 24+ yrs. I used to respect & admire PeTA.

    I cannot forgive PeTA for KILLING helpless animals. I know they’ve done a lot for animals in general (understatement), but they can’t save animals w/ one hand & kill them w/ the other. How is it they think other people/animal experimenters/slaughterhouse workers/fur trappers, etc etc should not kill animals but it’s ok for PeTA to kill them? They must be retarded to think that no one would notice this hypocrisy & not find it patently ridiculous.

    For PeTA to claim these animals were ALL beyond rehabilitation & death was the only humane option is also an insult to the intelligence of anyone in rescue & anyone who’s found a hungry stray or taken in an abused animal. Actually, to any reasonable person.

    They’ve become quite insane & it’s sickening to think they’re trying to have it both ways. I think they actually believe death is preferable than living under the dominion of humans even as a cherished pet. The 2 morally bankrupt PeTA employees who were found to have killed all those animal in NC & dumped them - those animals were totally adoptable.

    PeTA called for the killing of the Vick dogs (as did the HSUS) & disparaged Best Friends (who took 22 of the dogs & is successfully caring for them & rehabbing some) a “so-called sanctuary”. See http://blogs.bestfriends.org/b.....-dogs.aspx
    They’ve clearly never been there & are totally opposed to the wonderful life-saving work BF & rescues/sanctuaries do.

    See http://www.peta.org/about/numbers.asp for PeTA’s financial report. “Total Operating Expenses - $30,959,406″ - I THINK they can afford to house, rehabilitate & adopt out the 3000+/- animals they kill ea year. They could start w/ a www.petfinder.com account, which is free.

    I find it hard to comprehend that they only adopted out 8 dogs & 2 cats in an entire year. And that their kill rate is HIGHER than the average kill shelter - it’s a disgrace that an ANIMAL RIGHTS ORGANIZATION w/ their resources has a higher kill rate than average. That is unacceptable.

    If a small fry like me can save animals on a shoe string budget, like MANY people & rescues do, there’s no reason why PeTA can’t do it. Several horribly-run high-kill shelters have been turned around & gone no kill very successfully. All it takes is commitment to saving animals (duh!). PeTA needs to get with the No Kill movement pronto - see http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org
    More info: http://www.bestfriends.org/nom.....llindex.cf m
    See all files/info on Nathan Winograd & files under COMMUNITY-WIDE NO-KILL PROGRAMS

    Plus, PeTA is OPPOSED to TNR & prefers that all feral cats are KILLED.

    I’m aware of all the PeTA-hating groups & have seen their sites. They hate PeTA for the wrong reasons. I’m not among them & I don’t hate PeTA, but I still haven’t found the right word for how I feel about PeTA. Betrayed, shocked, disgusted, horrified, repulsed, insulted, outraged… They need to clean up their act pronto if they want to salvage their credibility.

    Just a few thoughts!

    Vikke
    CATS RULE! Feline Rescue >^..^

  60. David says:

    ‘we are a “shelter of last resort,”’

    What gets me is that the IRS recognized non-profit with a multi-million dollar budget aspires to be no more than a shelter of last resort.

    But I wont bash Peta. Instead, I just choose not to support them, or any high kill facility, for that matter.
    If PETA outrages you, then SUPPORT a good NO-KILL shelter, and if theyre all volunteer….all the better.


Close
E-mail It