PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[Dessi]

Another thing that PETA does not publicize because it would hurt donations is that they are "morally" against people keeping pets (um- companion animals) at all

If they were morally opposed to people caring for companion animals, you certainly wouldn't know from their annual adopt-a-thons [1, 2, 3, 4], boatload of pet care advice [5, 6, 7], and foster family networks [8, 9, 10].

 

[Dessi]

You don't have to like PETA to see that the whole "PETA steals peoples pets and kills them" narrative doesn't hold up in this case.

Except they did.

Only if you presuppose criminal intent and completely ignore the facts of the case. Did you miss the part where PETA was contracted to collect strays who were ripping up a farmer's livestock? Or the part where the pet they collected was untethered, uncollared, and unchipped like all the other strays they picked up?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If they were morally opposed to people caring for companion animals, you certainly wouldn't know from their annual adopt-a-thons [1, 2, 3, 4], boatload of pet care advice [5, 6, 7], and foster family networks [8, 9, 10].

That's exactly what they want you to think!

 

[Giordano]

Snopes has a good summary of this, the relevant facts are:



The tl;dr version is:

1) A farmer called PETA to round up stray dogs from a neighboring trailer park because they were attacking his livestock.

2) PETA spoke to the Cerate's to ask if they could put cat traps under his house. They also gave Mr. Cerate a dog house for his dogs.

3) A few weeks later, PETA rounded up stray animals. Mr. Cerate's security camera shows that the chihuahua picked up by PETA was not collared, tethered, or chipped when it was picked up.

You don't have to like PETA to see that the whole "PETA steals peoples pets and kills them" narrative doesn't hold up in this case. PETA was certainly negligence for failed to properly identify and hold on to the strays before euthanizing, but given the facts it is not possible for Mr. Cerate to prove criminal intent.

PETA was filmed luring a pet dog out from its porch. Then they killed it without attempting to identify its owners or holding it for a few days as any other shelter would. I even think this waiting period is mandated by the law. So put away what PETA has convinced you that you want them to be and look at what they really are.

 

[Cain]

Snopes has a good summary of this, the relevant facts are:



The tl;dr version is:

1) A farmer called PETA to round up stray dogs from a neighboring trailer park because they were attacking his livestock.

2) PETA spoke to the Cerate's to ask if they could put cat traps under his house. They also gave Mr. Cerate a dog house for his dogs.

3) A few weeks later, PETA rounded up stray animals. Mr. Cerate's security camera shows that the chihuahua picked up by PETA was not collared, tethered, or chipped when it was picked up.

You don't have to like PETA to see that the whole "PETA steals peoples pets and kills them" narrative doesn't hold up in this case. PETA was certainly negligence for failed to properly identify and hold on to the strays before euthanizing, but given the facts it is not possible for Mr. Cerate to prove criminal intent.

Look, someone defending PeTA. Witch! Witch! Every year PeTA kills thousands of animals dogs and cats. It's an anti-human death cult. Vitamin B12. Insulin. Ingrid Newkirk. Species traitors. Terrorists.

 

[Giordano]

Only if you presuppose criminal intent and completely ignore the facts of the case. Did you miss the part where PETA was contracted to collect strays who were ripping up a farmer's livestock? Or the part where the pet they collected was untethered, uncollared, and unchipped like all the other strays they picked up?

It was on its own porch and they made no attempt to find its owner. None. Instead it was killed and they got a bounty for it.

My cats were untethered, uncollared, and unchipped until I got smarter. But I never thought that made it okay for someone to come to my backyard, snatch one, and gas it.

 

[Giordano]

If they were morally opposed to people caring for companion animals, you certainly wouldn't know from their annual adopt-a-thons [1, 2, 3, 4], boatload of pet care advice [5, 6, 7], and foster family networks [8, 9, 10].

They recognize that people who have pets are an important source of donations. But read what they actually believe about pet keeping on their own sites and in their own publications.

But as you note, I am committing the sin of calling them pets whereas they are campaign animals. But the more you read about PETA you will see that PETA actually seems them as no better than slaves that animals exploit.

 

[Giordano]

Look up the kill rate in PETA shelters vs the SPCA.

 

[Dessi]

On or about October 18 a van that was operated by the ladies associated with PETA arrived the at the trailer park. The van was clearly marked PETA and in broad daylight arrived gathering up what abandoned stray dogs and cats could be gathered. Among the animals gathered was the Chihuahua of Mr. Cerate. Unfortunately the Chihuahua wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. It was not tethered nor was it contained. Other animals were also gathered. Individuals living in the trailer park were present and the entire episode was without confrontation. Mr. Cerate was not at home and the dog was loose, sometimes entering the shed/porch or other times outside in the trailer park before he was put in the van and carried from the park. The dogs owned by Mr. Cerate that were tethered were not taken.

PETA was filmed luring a pet dog out from its porch.

The dog was seen running between the porch, the shed, and outside in the trailer park. Mr. Cerate's other dogs who were properly tethered outside, but his chihuahua was running around like a stray.

Then they killed it without attempting to identify its owners

No attempt identify the owners? The checked the dog for a collar, license, rabies tag, and a chip, but it had none. Absolutely nothing to indicate that the dog was belonged to anyone.

I even think this waiting period is mandated by the law. So put away what PETA has convinced you that you want them to be and look at what they really are.

I am looking at the facts of the case, and presently there is justification for the view that PETA consciously abducted an animal that they believed was someone's pet. Negligence for euthanizing animals before the waiting period, but criminal intent? No.

You don't have to like PETA or their policies, but is it really that unreasonable to assume that PETA acted without malicious intent, and that misidentifying an untagged pet as a stray was unavoidable?

 

[Giordano]

The dog was seen running between the porch, the shed, and outside in the trailer park. Mr. Cerate's other dogs who were properly tethered outside, but his chihuahua was running around like a stray.


No attempt identify the owners? The checked the dog for a collar, license, rabies tag, and a chip, but it had none. Absolutely nothing to indicate that the dog was belonged to anyone.


I am looking at the facts of the case, and presently there is justification for the view that PETA consciously abducted an animal that they believed was someone's pet. Negligence for euthanizing animals before the waiting period, but criminal intent? No.

I am not addressing criminal intent: IANAL. Only if PETA really cares about animals in the way it is trying to get its potential followers to believe. Why is it even rounding up pets and killing them for money? It that the image PETA tries to project? How are they very different from chicken farmers in this regard? They are killing animals for money. They are different from the SPCA, though: the SPCA kills far fewer and adopts out many more animals than does PETA. Again, look it up for yourself.

And do you really think that a healthy house pet is hard to distinguish in looks from a stray that has been living uncared ore for weeks or months? I have to think that the PETA people didn't care enough to even worry about the problem.

 

[Giordano]

I have owned and loved many pets in my life. I cried when each one died in ripe old age. I presume I will have more in the future. I have given money and support to a variety of animal protection groups. But I don't see PETA as one of these, nor a friends to my pets.

 

[Dessi]

If they were morally opposed to people caring for companion animals, you certainly wouldn't know from their annual adopt-a-thons [1, 2, 3, 4], boatload of pet care advice [5, 6, 7], and foster family networks [8, 9, 10].

But read what they actually believe about pet keeping on their own sites and in their own publications.

Errm, note the citations in the post you quoted: I linked to no fewer than 10 articles from their own site spelling out their policies, advice, and success stories concerning companion animals.

The view that PETA is "morally opposed to pets" is false. Just false. Totally and plainly false. The view that PETA opposes pets is a common misconception which is grounded more in anti-PETA hysteria than it's actual policies on the subject.

You don't have to like PETA, but if you want to criticize them, you would make the best case criticizing them for the policies they actually hold.

 

[The Fool]

Look up the kill rate in PETA shelters vs the SPCA.

Its a more complicated issue that that. when "no kill" shelters are at capacity and will not accept animals or respond to calls of animals to be picked up or charge a fee to take in animals and therefore discourage surrender of animals do we credit them with the deaths of animals that result?


"no kill" is a nice sounding policy. It sounds all warm and cuddly. Some of Peta's people are insane...seriously insane....with extreme views. Most are just ordinary people dedicated to lessening the suffering of animals. Shelter kill rates are not a good key performance indicator for the most effective strategy.

 

[Giordano]

"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"

Found in 30 secs. On their website: http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

False? And this is what they are happy to share on their website. Note that they don't say that pet keeping is not always ideal and can be improved. They say that they wish it did not exist. They offer more details on this plan, which involves letting all pets die off, elsewhere.

 

[elipse]

How is not killing a dog, when we kill just about every other species on Earth, not the ultimate unequal treatment of one species over another?

A couple of dogs that nobody was watching decided to play a game with my friend's cat (and by 'game' I mean chase her under the house and rip her to shreds).

That was over 10 years ago, but it still riles me up thinking about that poor animal and the irresponsible owners who let their dogs roam around. As far as I am concerned any dog that isn't 'nailed down' is fair game.

By this logic, your friend's cat was "fair game" for the dogs.

A dog on its owner's property is not fair game, no matter what emotional thing happened once that makes you feel strongly about uncontained dogs.

I type this with difficulty, as the cat in my lap keeps pawing at the hand that she believes should pet her.

 

[Giordano]

Its a more complicated issue that that. when "no kill" shelters are at capacity and will not accept animals or respond to calls of animals to be picked up or charge a fee to take in animals and therefore discourage surrender of animals do we credit them with the deaths of animals that result?


"no kill" is a nice sounding policy. It sounds all warm and cuddly. Some of Peta's people are insane...seriously insane....with extreme views. Most are just ordinary people dedicated to lessening the suffering of animals. Shelter kill rates are not a good key performance indicator for the most effective strategy.

I am not taking "no kill" shelters to task if they need to euthanize some animals. In practice this will almost always be necessary. I am only looking at the adoption rate versus the kill rate of the PETA shelters vs the SPCA. If I was a puppy my chances would be much better at the SPCA. And yet it is PETA that has the reputation of being extra animal gentle.

But yes, I think that many of the people who work for PETA are animal lovers who have bought into the corporate PETA lie.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Its a more complicated issue that that. when "no kill" shelters are at capacity and will not accept animals or respond to calls of animals to be picked up or charge a fee to take in animals and therefore discourage surrender of animals do we credit them with the deaths of animals that result?


"no kill" is a nice sounding policy. It sounds all warm and cuddly. Some of Peta's people are insane...seriously insane....with extreme views. Most are just ordinary people dedicated to lessening the suffering of animals. Shelter kill rates are not a good key performance indicator for the most effective strategy.

Not so fast. It is not simply PETA vs No-Kill:

VDACS collects and publishes information about how many animals are taken in and what becomes of them, for every public and private shelter, humane society, pound and other sort of animal rescue group in the state.

Indeed, as can be seen in this chart, Virginia as a whole has far lower euthanasia rates. And while PETA says it must euthanize animals because it's an "open-admissions" shelter -- meaning that it will accept any animal brought to it -- other such Virginia shelters, like the Lynchburg Humane Society, present far differently:

Linky.

As an "open admission shelter", the numbers don't really work. Rather, a more plausible explanation is that PETA is biasing the sample in some way (i.e. they tell owners they only accept owner releases for euthanasia purposes). There isn't enough info for one way or the other, but they are clearly operating something different than either an "open admission" or a "No-Kill".

 

[Dessi]

"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"

Found in 30 secs. On their website: http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

False? And this is what they are happy to share on their website. Note that they don't say that pet keeping is not always ideal and can be improved. They say that they wish it did not exist. They offer more details on this plan, which involves letting all pets die off, elsewhere.

Did you notice that PETA defines "pet keeping" as the institution of breeding animals as "pets", and that they contrast it with the phrase "animal companion"?

Here's the thing about PETA: PETA has never opposed people caring for animals in their home, just don't call them "pets". They really really really hate the word "pet" (note the scare quotes), which they consider a derogatory term that undermines consideration for animal interests; they believe the entire concept of "buying" and "owning" animals like property harms animal welfare by creating millions of surplus unwanted animals; they believe that a "pet" is rarely regarded as part of the family, but essentially a toy that exists for a person's amusement and can be replaced with another "pet" at will.

I personally think PETA has a stick up their ass about the word "pet", but for 30 years they have vocally opposed the institution of breeding "pets" (scare quotes!) for pet stores and puppy mills, when there are millions of homeless animals waiting to be adopted from shelters instead.

PETA has never objected to people adopting animal companions into their homes, only the practice of commerically breeding millions of animals as "pets".

 

[elipse]

Did you notice that PETA defines "pet keeping" as the institution of breeding animals as "pets", and that they contrast it with the phrase "animal companion"?

Here's the thing about PETA: PETA has never opposed people caring for animals in their home, just don't call them "pets". They really really really hate the word "pet" (note the scare quotes), which they consider a derogatory term that undermines consideration for animal interests; they believe the entire concept of "buying" and "owning" animals like property harms animal welfare by creating millions of surplus unwanted animals; they believe that a "pet" is rarely regarded as part of the family, but essentially a toy that exists for a person's amusement and can be replaced with another "pet" at will.

I personally think PETA has a stick up their ass about the word "pet", but for 30 years they have vocally opposed the institution of breeding "pets" (scare quotes!) for pet stores and puppy mills, when there are millions of homeless animals waiting to be adopted from shelters instead.

PETA has never objected to people adopting animal companions into their homes, only the practice of commerically breeding millions of animals as "pets".

Who cares what they say? Look at what they do with their money. It isn't finding homes for animals. Their kill rates are abominable. The shelter I used to volunteer at was the only one in the county that would accept "pit bull type" dogs, which meant it was always overfull with dogs people were hesitant to adopt, and their kill rate was nothing close to 90%, ffs! And, again, looking at what they did with their money, they ran lots of outreach programs to educate people about pits and to train pit owners and their dogs. If you adopted a pit from them, those classes were free, so that the dog was less likely to end up back in their shelter. They fostered out as many animals as possible, so that they weren't killed, and ran adoption programs, all on a city shelter budget.

Follow the money; look at the actions. **** peta.

Eta: and euthanizing immediately is seriously ********** up. At the shelter I volunteered in, they didn't even allow adoption for 5-7 days (forget which) in case an owner turned up looking. Euthanize an animal the same day? Nope. No way, no how. Because they give a **** about animals. Once more, with feeling: **** peta.

Eta again: and there were dogs too aggressive for volunteers to walk, that the staff worked with, trying to get them rehabilitated so that they could be adoptable. These are the actions that show a concern for the animals in their care. So, really and truly, with everything I've got: **** peta. **** them sideways and backwards, and upside down.

 

[DragonLady]

From their own site:
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.

My bold; as I just want to point out that a) I don't believe the desire to possess or receive love from an animal causes the animal suffering, and b) many, many people are only able to eat, drink, and even urinate when some other human allows them to; but it's hard to make an argument for abuse under reasonable conditions.

Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and “set them free.”

I believe they want to spay, neuter or kill every animal so that eventually there are none left. No animals for food, no animals for clothing, no animals for research, no animals for entertainment, no animals for abuse, no animals for profit...no animals, at all.

I think even they realize that goal is both unrealistic and unattainable, but that's not going to stop them accepting your hard earned money to take care of themselves while trying.