PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[Giordano]

I also must add why, if PETA believes that humans should not impose their control on other species, is it okay for PETA to round up and kill "real" stray dogs? Even sheep killers (hard to believe of a chihuahua, but okay). Who are we to impose our sense of what is proper on another animal who is just doing what is natural for it? Especially when morally we are not allowed to develop cures for human disease if that means exploiting rats and mice?

At the same time one of the heads of PETA states that her use of insulin, the development of which required many animal experimentations before any was available from engineered bacteria, because she is important, whereas I presume that I and my children are not important enough to share similar benefits from animal research.

I love animals both in the abstract and in my personal life. But the more I found out about PETA the less wonderful they seemed and the less I was convinced that the organization loved animals in the ways most people think of the term. A lot like Mother Teresa. I had nice warm thoughts- until I learned the facts.

Finally I am not trying to condemn all the people who work in or support PETA. I think that many of these people actually care. Which makes it worse to me, because I see the PETA organization as exploiting, but not sharing, in these people's concerns.

 

[Giordano]

Yes- that is one thing notably about dog and cat breeds- one individual looks a lot like another to people who not their owners. So any round up and killing of animals in a shelter inherently has to have a process in place to ensure there are no mistakes. Most shelters do, but they care about the individual animals and not just a philosophical principal.

 

[blutoski]

They did not wait the required four days. . . How the hell is that a tragic mistake?

They confused it with another animal that had fulfilled the waiting period. That was what I referred to as a tragic mistake.

Edit: If you have ever been at a shelter, even a city run one, they are given little tags similar to what patients at hospitals are. You look at the date and time on the tag.

I think that's the root complaint from the regulator: that they had sloppy identification methods that led to the euthanization of an incorrect animal.

I'm sure process varies. Different sites will operate differently, and some methods will be better than others. For example, I volunteer at an SPCA shelter in Vancouver, and work with a kitten rescue nonprofit. We don't tag dogs or cats as you describe. We put dogs and cats in individual containments whenever possible, and their info is on the door. Sometimes we put a whole litter of very similar kittens in one unit, and honestly I can't tell them apart.

I suspect the importance of unique identification is much lower in no kill shelters. We have adopted out animals that had owners, and fortunately that mistake is reversible. What it isn't is evidence of a plot or policy to do so.

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes- that is one thing notably about dog and cat breeds- one individual looks a lot like another to people who not their owners. So any round up and killing of animals in a shelter inherently has to have a process in place to ensure there are no mistakes. Most shelters do, but they care about the individual animals and not just a philosophical principal.

I don't think they have any onsite facilities to hold animals beyond a few for a spay and neuter program. . . Interestingly enough, there are better choices for that.

 

[Giordano]

I believe the question was asked: What criminal negligence was PETA guilty of?

To quote the original article in the OP:
"The state conducted an investigation and determined that PETA violated state law by failing to ensure that the animal was properly identified and failing to keep the dog alive for five days before killing it, according to the notice from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services."

Again, IANAL but this appears to me to be at least worthy of a fine and a civil court settlement.

 

[Giordano]

I don't think they have any onsite facilities to hold animals beyond a few for a spay and neuter program. . . Interestingly enough, there are better choices for that.

Sure- the issue (and I think you see it this way too) is that PETA should never have agreed to removing the animals from the trailer park site without having either their own appropriate facilities or a deal with another shelter that had them. In the original article it is indicated the PETA promised the residents to not harm the dogs. But without the correct resources it was inevitable that PETA was lying and was, in fact, committing to killing some or most.

 

[blutoski]

I also must add why, if PETA believes that humans should not impose their control on other species, is it okay for PETA to round up and kill "real" stray dogs? Even sheep killers (hard to believe of a chihuahua, but okay). Who are we to impose our sense of what is proper on another animal who is just doing what is natural for it? Especially when morally we are not allowed to develop cures for human disease if that means exploiting rats and mice?

At the same time one of the heads of PETA states that her use of insulin, the development of which required many animal experimentations before any was available from engineered bacteria, because she is important, whereas I presume that I and my children are not important enough to share similar benefits from animal research.

I love animals both in the abstract and in my personal life. But the more I found out about PETA the less wonderful they seemed and the less I was convinced that the organization loved animals in the ways most people think of the term. A lot like Mother Teresa. I had nice warm thoughts- until I learned the facts.

Finally I am not trying to condemn all the people who work in or support PETA. I think that many of these people actually care. Which makes it worse to me, because I see the PETA organization as exploiting, but not sharing, in these people's concerns.

I think this is consistent with their philosophy. They don't think people should own animals, but they do think that once the animal is here, we have an obligation to reduce its suffering. Dogs and cats are not wild animals - they are a domesticated species - and having created them we are obliged to reduce their suffering. Strays do not get protection from predators, medical attention, &c. The thinking is that adopting them out is less suffering, and ultimately, if there aren't resources to care for them, that euthanasia is better than warehousing in miserable conditions.

IMO, there is an important distinction between how we manage wild environments with wild animals in them versus what we are going to do with domesticated species.

I bring this up with my in-laws, who don't believe in spaying or neutering. My opinion is that when humans created dogs to serve our purposes (be that working or companion breeds), we undertook a responsibility for their care and we're 'the brains of the operation'. My impression is that this is PETA's view as well. They're acting on behalf of our species, when the specific individuals who abandoned the animals in question have reneged on their responsibilities.

I should point out that this is aligned with the SPCA's view. We have been morally accountable for their quality of life since the second we started breeding them to suit our needs.

 

[blutoski]

I believe the question was asked: What criminal negligence was PETA guilty of?

To quote the original article in the OP:
"The state conducted an investigation and determined that PETA violated state law by failing to ensure that the animal was properly identified and failing to keep the dog alive for five days before killing it, according to the notice from the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services."

Again, IANAL but this appears to me to be at least worthy of a fine and a civil court settlement.

I agree. They've been fined $500, which is the maximum for this type of error, and that doesn't feel like enough. Hopefully a damages settlement will inspire a global change in their shelters' identification procedures.

 

[elipse]

The call was from the landlord, who said stray dogs were running around (abandoned by previous occupants). There were no specific descriptions.





This I agree with, yes. There must be processes in place to reduce misidentification of animals with similar appearances (such as putting them in different containment, with unique identifiers).





That's correct. The regulatory body did find wrongdoing. If I were to speculate, I'd figure it was in the intake step, creating an environment where animals similar in appearance and with no other unique identifiers could be confused for one another.

It's worth mentioning that this was the first time regulators fined this operation. It certainly feels like a tragic mistake, rather than a pattern of malicious behavior.

Except for the abysmal kill rate. That's a pattern. I can't say if it is malicious, but it is unacceptable to me, and directly in contradiction to what peta likes to promote as its image.

 

[Desert Fox]

With regard to it being the "first time"
How about this?
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Better-dead-than-fed-PETA-says-2626614.php

DON'T BE FOOLED by the slick propaganda of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The organization may claim to champion the welfare of animals, as the many photos of cute puppies and kittens on its Web site suggest. But last week, two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA.

The arrest followed a rash of unwelcome discoveries of dead animals dumped in the area. According to veterinarian Patrick Proctor, the PETA people told North Carolina shelters they would try to find the dogs and cats homes. He handed over two adoptable kittens and their mother, only to learn later that they had died, without a chance to find a home, in the PETA van. "This is ethical?" Proctor railed over the phone. "I don't really think so."

By the way, there is an Eastern Shore animal control. . . This should be their job and I will bet money that they do a better job than PETA.

 

[Giordano]

I think this is consistent with their philosophy. They don't think people should own animals, but they do think that once the animal is here, we have an obligation to reduce its suffering. Dogs and cats are not wild animals - they are a domesticated species - and having created them we are obliged to reduce their suffering. Strays do not get protection from predators, medical attention, &c. The thinking is that adopting them out is less suffering, and ultimately, if there aren't resources to care for them, that euthanasia is better than warehousing in miserable conditions.

IMO, there is an important distinction between how we manage wild environments with wild animals in them versus what we are going to do with domesticated species.

I bring this up with my in-laws, who don't believe in spaying or neutering. My opinion is that when humans created dogs to serve our purposes (be that working or companion breeds), we undertook a responsibility for their care and we're 'the brains of the operation'. My impression is that this is PETA's view as well. They're acting on behalf of our species, when the specific individuals who abandoned the animals in question have reneged on their responsibilities.

I should point out that this is aligned with the SPCA's view. We have been morally accountable for their quality of life since the second we started breeding them to suit our needs.

Absolutely- I feel that we are morally responsible for domesticated animals and pets, and treating them as kindly as we can.

And had all of my pets (strays every one) neutered. My view is that there are too many newborn cats and dogs to allow them to be adopted by caring owners. But this is not the same as wanting to eliminate the species entirely and to deny pet ownership to those who seek it and would be kind and generous owners.

If one believes that all cats and dogs should be sterilized so that there are none in 20 years, then okay: that is one of the examples I gave of knowing what PETA believes, and supporting it oneself. This of course means that the joy you have had with your own pets will not be available to your kids, or even to you as you get older. And that any pleasure those animals might have had as (hopefully) pampered pets will never be. All on the concept that it is morally wrong to keep a pet, even when that pet can have a life better than that of many people.

It also assumes that one doesn't want any animals to be used for medical testing or the development of new drugs and other medical procedures. Again, okay, if you don't mind the first time a drug or procedure is tried it may be on you or your kid. And given only a very tiny fraction of drugs that are tested on animals prove safe and effective, then chances are you or your kid will be damaged by it, or die from the original disease. I disagree, but others may feel differently. I only ask that they be fully aware of this deep commitment of their own and family's health and safety to protect a rat, than to vaguely believe that the PETA concept only is to stop spraying hair spray into the eyes of kittens (which is not done) and to Free Shamu from Seaworld. You may also wish to keep in mind that this moral rejection of the development of medical treatments using animals is not considered as applicable by one of the heads of PETA to the treatment of her own diabetes... because she is doing something important!

As to the italics: yes, trying to eliminate pet species by attrition is absolutely consistent with PETA's philosophy of eliminating pet ownership. I disagree with this concept, as I suspect would many of their supporters, but this is not what I believe is inconsistent. It is PETA's willingness to round up animals and kill them that I believe directly contradicts their image of being extremely animal friendly and kind, and violates their philosophy humans not being free to kill animals for our own convenience.

 

[marplots]

I'm not sure I even accept the idea that strays should be euthanized. It seems to be predicated on the notion that strays will necessarily suffer because they aren't under the constant care and supervision of a loving human. But is even that reasonable?

In the general case it may be, but for any specific animal, I can envision quite a decent life in an urban setting. Norfolk Virginia, for example, doesn't get impossibly cold in the winter (average low temp around 33 deg at worst), and people may be quite willing to offer food/water. But even in those cases where an animal isn't doing well on its own, that ought to be obvious to a trained veterinarian instead of assumed.

What is the case for killing a healthy animal who is out on its own? It must be based on some predicted and feared outcome and used as a preventative. But it is odd to think that a healthy stray should die "for the good of dog-kind." If dogs are packed-up and attacking, that's a good case, but sans a valid reason, why don't they do the catch-neuter-and-release they might do for cats?

I know one justification for this round up was livestock predation, but then the chihuahua would be hands off. "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out" doesn't seem fair. It sounds like PETA supports animal rights, except for the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because, if you want to see a happy dog, watch one running free.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Yes but I prefer focusing on the here and now with moral questions: The person is dead, which is itself harm to that person and their loved ones.

 

[blutoski]

With regard to it being the "first time"

I'm referring to that specific shelter, quoting the state regulating body's report from their investigation. I don't think the state is colluding... I think they're reporting what happened pretty objectively. It was a mistake, not a malicious policy.

 

[Desert Fox]

I'm referring to that specific shelter, quoting the state regulating body's report from their investigation. I don't think the state is colluding... I think they're reporting what happened pretty objectively. It was a mistake, not a malicious policy.

As far as I know, there is a single PETA location. . . .That location is in Norfolk Virginia. I even just a google search for PETA locations and that is the only one which came up.

Even if there is a location somewhere else, maybe Hollywierd, there is not likely to be more than a single location between North Carolina and Virginia.

 

[Giordano]

I think that trying to balance out potential and loss of potential becomes very difficult very quickly. For animals, should we balance out the potential low-awareness pleasure 145 tree frogs might get if their habitat is keep intact versus the potential and higher awareness pleasure that 103 people might have if that wet land was converted to condos to house the people? 146 people? I would disfavor the development whatever the balance. Sure it is subjective, but often times choosing the correction thing to do is subjective.

I began discussing the abortion element, but then knew what would happen to the thread. If you wish to discuss abortion there are lots of other threads in which to do it.

 

[blutoski]

Except for the abysmal kill rate. That's a pattern. I can't say if it is malicious, but it is unacceptable to me, and directly in contradiction to what peta likes to promote as its image.

It's tough to compare without context.

We're lucky in Vancouver, we have a large and relatively wealthy population (GVRD is closing in on 3 million) that can absorb lots of transfers from rural no-kill shelters across the rest of the province. With very few exceptions, all our animals find a home. (some with extreme medical problems take a long time)

But that's largely because we get to select! So the destruction of animals we rejected must take place at the local municipal shelters. The whole system may have a good or bad rate, but our great rates are at the expense of their horrible rates; it's not a reflection of their sincerity. They work just as hard as we do to find homes.

 

[TragicMonkey]

As far as I know, there is a single PETA location. . . .That location is in Norfolk Virginia.

But to give them proper credit, they're very mobile! They drove all the way across state lines into NC in the dead of the night to illegally dump loads and loads of euthanized dog and cat corpses into dumpsters there. I think that's the sort of spirit and attitude that truly shows what PETA is all about.

 

[Desert Fox]

But to give them proper credit, they're very mobile! They drove all the way across state lines into NC in the dead of the night to illegally dump loads and loads of euthanized dog and cat corpses into dumpsters there. I think that's the sort of spirit and attitude that truly shows what PETA is all about.

I looked at the Wiki page on PETA (Not giving PETA hits) and they sem to have something in DC but I bet that is just a lobbying office
http://www.costar.com/News/Article/PETA-Buys-Office-Near-Dupont-Circle/109616

 

[blutoski]

I'm not sure I even accept the idea that strays should be euthanized. It seems to be predicated on the notion that strays will necessarily suffer because they aren't under the constant care and supervision of a loving human. But is even that reasonable?

It sounds reasonable, but we could always look for statistics. My best friend is a vet, and she's the one that got me into the kitten rescue program. Most of the suffering and death is young ones, the survival rate for the first few months is very low. Some females are constantly pregnant, and may have up to 100 kittens in their lifetimes, of whom perhaps only a few survived infancy.

My friend had originally been involved in capture/spay/release programs in BC and Alaska, and has done research for the veterinary college on the topic. Her opinion is that they are futile if the goal is to reduce the suffering of stray cats. You won't get them all, and a year later there will be a new generation of fertile females.

In the general case it may be, but for any specific animal, I can envision quite a decent life in an urban setting. Norfolk Virginia, for example, doesn't get impossibly cold in the winter (average low temp around 33 deg at worst), and people may be quite willing to offer food/water. But even in those cases where an animal isn't doing well on its own, that ought to be obvious to a trained veterinarian instead of assumed.

This is why I'm deferring to my friend who is a vet. Her opinion is that strays generally suffer. The ones we see are the healthy ones who are ambulatory. The really sick ones are hiding, getting eaten, out of sight, mostly newborns.

What is the case for killing a healthy animal who is out on its own? It must be based on some predicted and feared outcome and used as a preventative. But it is odd to think that a healthy stray should die "for the good of dog-kind." If dogs are packed-up and attacking, that's a good case, but sans a valid reason, why don't they do the catch-neuter-and-release they might do for cats?

I know one justification for this round up was livestock predation, but then the chihuahua would be hands off. "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out" doesn't seem fair. It sounds like PETA supports animal rights, except for the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because, if you want to see a happy dog, watch one running free.

It's certainly an acceptable point of view, but it's worth noting that PETA's approach is aligned with the profession, so your beef is with the College of Veterinarians, the SPCA, and others, not specifically with PETA.

There is some politics involved as well. Kill shelters are a hot potato, so some governments get desperate to be seen doing something to reduce the residual population, and capture/spay/release looks good on paper and sells to the public.