PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[Cain]

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


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.

The central argument against animal ownership/companionship is that cats and dogs eat meat. I would not mind if somebody had a bunny, but a lot of ******** (and by ******** I mostly mean magicians) lock them up in cages because "they eat my electrical cords."

 

[Dessi]

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.

Not addressing criminal intent? You flatly accused PETA of snatching up pets and gassing them.

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.

Someone posted an interesting comment up-thread on animal euthanasia that you might want to read:

Like it or not there are more strays than people willing to adopt them. This is why the pre-existing shelters almost always have had to euthanize a large percent of the animals that they obtain. The choice is to leave these animals suffering and uncared for in the real world, or accept them in the shelter, give them some chance at being identified and returned to their original owners or being adopted by new owners (which I have typically done for all my own pets), and if this doesn't work, euthanizing them. I think that PETA began by believing that the pre-existing system was cruel and that they would just make certain that all of their stays would be adopted, but then rapidly found out that the reality of the situation differed from the theoretical ideal. There are simply too many strays and too few homes to place them, and leaving the ever increasing numbers of these unadopted strays in small concrete boxes for years is both cruel and too expensive.

In any case, who says PETA was paid to collect stray animals from the trailer park? I don't see any evidence that PETA accepted money for the job, can you cite a source showing that they did?

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?

The chihuahua that was euthanized was allowed to run around the trailer park unleashed and unattended while it's caretaker was at work, it was not just a "house pet". But to answer your question: yes, I think it can be hard to distinguish a well-cared for pet -- who has no collar, no rabies tag, no chip, no identifying tags -- from a stray.

 

[elipse]

But to answer your question: yes, I think it can be hard to distinguish a well-cared for pet -- who has no collar, no rabies tag, no chip, no identifying tags -- from a stray.

Well, at the shelter I volunteered at, they looked at behavior/ socialization, overall health and weight, whether the animal was neutred, and, in the case of dogs, evidence of being housebroken.

So maybe in the odd case one might mistake a dog for being a stray when it was really just underweight, dirty, with poor teeth or health, unneutred, poorly socialized or super skittish at being in the shelter, and not housebroken.

Not that they kept this dog long enough to really evaluate all that.

 

[elipse]

The central argument against animal ownership/companionship is that cats and dogs eat meat. I would not mind if somebody had a bunny, but a lot of ******** (and by ******** I mostly mean magicians) lock them up in cages because "they eat my electrical cords."

Mine also used to steal my chocolate and run underneath the bed where I couldn't reach it except with a broom handle. You'd think chocolate poisoning would handle the "natural consequences" part of things, but it turns out a 10 pound rabbit can eat an entire hersheys kiss on at least two occasions and suffer no ill effects.

That bunny was kind of an *******.

 

[elipse]

Oh! Another trick for not euthanizing animals that the shelter used (if euthenasia is something you want to avoid): there are people who are obsessed with breeds of animals. So if you''re full up, and one of the animals is a Doberman, or a pug, or a Siamese, or a CHIHUAHUA, you call up the local insert-breed-rescue and say, "hey, we've got an insert-breed, and we are out of space. Can you take it?" And they find someone to take the insert-breed, and that's one more space you've got for a mutt, or a pit bull, because the pit bull rescue never has any room because there are so many surplus pit bulls.

So IF your goal is to reduce euthanasia, you at least try to see if any rescues will take the dog. Of course, the dog has to be a breed...like a CHIHUAHUA. And you have to keep it alive long enough to make a phone call, or maybe even several phone calls. I know, crazy talk. But that's one of the things you can do, IF your goal is to reduce euthanasia.

So rather than listen to what a homeopath, or a psychic, (or a nationally recognized nonprofit that purports to care about animals) SAYS, skeptics look at the evidence, right?

So...what's the evidence that peta wants to reduce the amount of animal euthanasia?

 

[mikado]

I find it difficult to accept that you cannot tell the difference between a beloved family pet, generally overweight and cosseted and a stray unkempt, and underfed.

 

[Meed]

The central argument against animal ownership/companionship is that cats and dogs eat meat. I would not mind if somebody had a bunny, but a lot of ******** (and by ******** I mostly mean magicians) lock them up in cages because "they eat my electrical cords."

My bunny gets free range of the house 24/7. She eats halal meat, though.

 

[marplots]

The chihuahua that was euthanized was allowed to run around the trailer park unleashed and unattended while it's caretaker was at work, it was not just a "house pet". But to answer your question: yes, I think it can be hard to distinguish a well-cared for pet -- who has no collar, no rabies tag, no chip, no identifying tags -- from a stray.

However, the video shows them trespassing to obtain the dog; they didn't hold it to see if an owner inquired; and the basis for the round-up - livestock predation, wouldn't apply to a chihuahua. Unless I am supposed to believe the chihuahua was attacking goats and a cow?

The whole purpose of holding the animal for awhile before offing it is to prevent exactly what happened in this case. If the local PETA people don't have the facilities to do this, then they are not properly equipped for such projects.

It will be interesting to see where the lawsuit goes on this.

 

[Meed]

"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 pet breeding industry is very cruel, for the most part.

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 define "pet keeping" as "breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'" in your quote from them above.

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.

So you think because, say, elephants are used in entertainment, that when they say "no animals for entertainment" they are saying that they wish to bring about the extinction of elephants? Or might "no animals for entertainment" simply imply that they wish for people to stop using elephants for entertainment?

 

[marplots]

They define "pet keeping" as "breeding animals to be kept and regarded as 'pets'" in your quote from them above.

So you think because, say, elephants are used in entertainment, that when they say "no animals for entertainment" they are saying that they wish to bring about the extinction of elephants? Or might "no animals for entertainment" simply imply that they wish for people to stop using elephants for entertainment?

It seems like a category difference there. I don't know that dogs have an alternative in the wild form, unlike elephants. If dogs are not bred for captivity and companionship, they won't be bred at all.

The story in the OP is one of rounding up feral/stray dogs.

No bred dogs and no feral/stray dogs seems like a longer version of saying no dogs at all.

 

[Belz...]

I guess I live under a rock or something as I'd never heard of seakittens.

http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/

I'm horrified to find this.

"People don't seem to like fish. They're slithery and slimy, and they have eyes on either side of their pointy little heads—which is weird, to say the least."

Don't tell them about horses.

 

[Meed]

It seems like a category difference there. I don't know that dogs have an alternative in the wild form, unlike elephants. If dogs are not bred for captivity and companionship, they won't be bred at all.

The story in the OP is one of rounding up feral/stray dogs.

No bred dogs and no feral/stray dogs seems like a longer version of saying no dogs at all.

Pretty big difference between that and "no animals at all".

 

[Belz...]

A person killed painlessly still loses out on the joy she would have experienced had she not died.

Hmmm. I don't like this argument because it reminds me too much of the anti-abortionists' "potential person" nonsense. Not saying I don't agree with it emotionally, but...

 

[Belz...]

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.

Convenient. Maybe they should've checked with some humans living in the area.

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?

Body of work.

 

[Meed]

Hmmm. I don't like this argument because it reminds me too much of the anti-abortionists' "potential person" nonsense. Not saying I don't agree with it emotionally, but...

I can see a relevant difference between an actual person with a future ahead of him/her and a potential person with a future ahead. In the first case you are denying something to a person (most would agree that a person is worthy of moral consideration). I don't think a "potential person" is worthy of moral consideration in the same way. Of course, some would argue that an embryo, zygote or fetus is an actual person, but that would be a separate argument.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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?

I've seen wild packs of chihuahuas totally devastate tree farms.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know much about PETA so I'm not defending them, but $9m? That's a joke. I guarantee that this family didn't love their dog more than I love mine, but if someone did this to me I wouldn't for a minute think of becoming a multi-millionaire on the strength of it (and it wouldn't do me any good in any event as I'd likely be in jail for making paraplegics of the people who'd done it). If there's a call for millions in compensation then let the bulk of it go to other animal charities, not a greedy family profiting from the death of their dog.

The only legal recourse they have is monetary. And as such the judgement needs to be enough to effect PETA policy.

 

[marplots]

Pretty big difference between that and "no animals at all".

I agree. The one doesn't automatically follow from the other.

 

[DragonLady]

So you think because, say, elephants are used in entertainment, that when they say "no animals for entertainment" they are saying that they wish to bring about the extinction of elephants? Or might "no animals for entertainment" simply imply that they wish for people to stop using elephants for entertainment?

Honestly.... I think they've set the goal at "no human/animal interaction". But, I'm not sure they would be opposed to the extinction of elephants, or any other species. I really don't think they care. I'm not sure they recognize the total extinction of animals would mean the extinction of humans, but I'm not sure they care about that, either. I'm not sure they're convinced humans have any purpose whatsoever, other than possibly the purpose of eradicating other animals.

I can't believe they don't recognize that if every one stops keeping pets and domestic livestock, most of those species will become extinct. We simply don't have "native populations" of wild (undomesticated, non-feral) cats and dogs, and I'm not sure the wild cattle, horses, goats or other common food animals would survive long without many of the measures we take to manage their environments and numbers. I know here in Arizona the mustangs, burros, and wild bighorns all have legal protections and groups constantly campaigning for them when they believe something may become a threat. If we stop people breeding cattle, how long before the wild burros and mule deer are on everyone's plates -legally or otherwise? I'm sure the PETA people are able to think that through (they eat, too, right), but I don't think they care.

 

[blutoski]

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.

Well, same applies to your friend's cat, though. Protection of other animals is a big reason SPCA and other animal quality of life organizations advocate for keeping cats indoors.

Our neighbour's cat single-pawedly wiped out the local hummingbird population two years ago. It was with great sadness we took down the long-unused feeders last month.