PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

elipse said:
What does any of this have to do with my questions? My questions are not about the ethics of euthanasia in general, or as generally used in an animal shelter.
Click to expand...

I said do not mind me, but was it not obvious? If there are, for example, no capacities to take care of the animals in question, I stated my opinion to your question: I dunno about ethical but its practical.
 
elipse said:
Do you think it is ethical to euthanize animals within 24 hours, thereby leaving no time for owners to find them?
Click to expand...
Better to end their misery quickly than wait for the irresponsible owners to not turn up. Or do you think it is more ethical to prolong their suffering?

Do you think it is ethical to euthanize healthy, adoptable animals without trying to adopt them out? Do you think it is ethical to actively seek out such animals and then euthanize them?
Click to expand...
There are way too many animals out there which are not being properly looked after or just left to fend for themselves. Some may be adoptable, but overall it's just perpetuating the problem. Perhaps one day we will become enlightened and realize that keeping 'pets' is unethical.
 
Perhaps one day we will become enlightened and realize that keeping 'pets' is unethical.
Click to expand...

Okay; I'll bite. Why is keeping pets unethical? Or maybe, we should start more simply with "what is ethics?"

If you define "ethical" as "standards of behavior our society deems acceptable" then what is your argument that pets are unethical?
If you define "ethical" as "what I personally feel is right or wrong" then what is your argument that others do not share your feelings of right or wrong should nevertheless see pets as unethical?
 
Dessi said:
My apologies, AR is my hot button topic. I should have guessed a Poe.
Click to expand...

It's mine as well (though not necessarily the subject of PETA specifically).

Unfortunately, I regularly see AR and PETA discussions play out with arguments nearly verbatim to what your satirizing. Without a winking smiley, there are times when I really can't tell whether I'm being trolled or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen some doozies. Pretty sure the one above is serious. I've also posted much more blatant Poes that have gotten treated as serious.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Better to end their misery quickly than wait for the irresponsible owners to not turn up. Or do you think it is more ethical to prolong their suffering?
Click to expand...
Should the rescue I worked for have just killed the 20,000+ cats & dogs we adopted out?

There are way too many animals out there which are not being properly looked after or just left to fend for themselves. Some may be adoptable, but overall it's just perpetuating the problem. Perhaps one day we will become enlightened and realize that keeping 'pets' is unethical.
Click to expand...
Who said all of the animals were adopted out as "pets"?
 
Giordano said:
In contrast, I see a number of very public actions and statements by PETA that prove that they are not, in fact, an animal welfare agency but instead one that is strangely focused on a philosophical principal that they define as specieism.
Click to expand...

All of Giordano's last post but especially this ^

PETA has been very successful at attracting the support of very high profile-very sexy people who in turn make PETA an attractive proposition. It could be that Dessi is more fully aligned with PETA's full position (IIRC Dessi is vegan) that the average PETA supporter who looks at the high profile campaigns and believes that PETA is an animal welfare charity.

In this regard I see it a bit like Scientology, a group which has massive support from the beautiful, rich and famous, which presents a view of itself and its operations which superficially attractive but which actually is much more radical than most supporters believe.

Like many organisations however, PETA's primary interest is in the ongoing promotion and existence of PETA itself.
 
Giordano said:
Dessi, I suggest that the key issue for you is: do the policies of PETA truly reflect your goals or not.
Click to expand...
My goals as an AR activist are to minimize the harm that we cause to animals.

I support PETA because I believe they further that goal. For example:


Yes, I find room to criticize the organization for campaigns that I find entirely too dumb or too wasteful (lettuce ladies, sea kittens). Additionally, I get so much physical junk mail from PETA that I seriously wonder if they could boost revenue by switching to an all-electronic mailing campaign instead. These problems, however, generally aren't a deal breaker for me.

There are a lot issues in which I legitimately don't know if I should support. For example, the entire debate concerning no-kill vs. euthanasia. My ethics will almost always gravitate toward animal shelter policies which minimize harm as much as possible, especially harm that is easy to avoid. This is a grey issue for me, because I don't know which shelter policy is actually more humane than the other in practice. It's hard to say whether PETA's official policy against no-kill shelters actually furthers the AR goals I support.

That aside, the bulleted items above absolutely do reflect my goals, they're the reason why I've been a literal card-carrying member of PETA since 2007, and why I've given them money in the past and will probably do so again in the future.

This would not be the first charity which spends a huge percent of income on fundraising and public posturing, and frankly part of what PETA seeks are changes in policy for which "outreach" is probably legitimate. I don't question the salaries of their employees either: in fact I suspect that a lot of the people working for them are underpaid and are motivated by their intense interests/concerns as to proper animal/human interaction.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but the hypothesis that PETA is posturing sounds positively conspiratorial. This is not an argument I'm willing to accept without evidence.

You can easily find the extraordinary kill rate of PETA for the strays they have collected, and the non-existent adoption and animal care facilities that they operate.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of their kill rate. I'm also not surprised, because PETA provides owner-requested euthanasia and cremation at no cost and animal shelters send unadoptable animals to PETA specifically for euthanasia services:
[Some] shelters send animals to PETA that they know are not adoptable, including animals that need to be euthanized for medical reasons.

Among those shelters is Portsmouth's. While [PETA's] Norfolk's city shelter takes animals from owners who cannot afford to have them euthanized at a vet, Portsmouth directs such cases to PETA. When it is full, Portsmouth makes people wait to surrender animals, sometimes weeks, which Nachminovitch argues is often no different from turning animals away. Norfolk does not use wait lists.

Portsmouth charges a $50 fee to surrender an animal. Norfolk charges $15. Portsmouth has no limit for how long animals can stay and has kept dogs as long as two years.

"These are differences that the numbers alone don't tell you," Nachminovitch says. She thinks the euthanasia rate at Norfolk's shelter is understandable given that it is "truly open-admission." She says it has turned itself around since 2007, when a state inspector found woeful overcrowding and disease after the shelter was pressured to improve its save rate.

"Animals were dying in cages because this exact thing was happening," Nachminovitch says. "This is a rerun, except there are new people on the City Council now."
Click to expand...
I share your concern that PETA should improve it's save rate, however euthanasia referrals and PETA's willingness to accept unadoptable animals unavoidably inflates its euthanasia rate. There might be an argument that PETA's euthanasia rate is too high (82% in 2013, 81% in 2014), but that argument would be on the assumption that the vast majority of animals are adoptable. Unfortunately, I simply do not know if that claim is true or false, nor do critics; the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which tracks animal releases from shelters, does not record or make any determination of a euthanized animal's "adoptability", nor does it differentiate owner-requested euthanasia from all other euthanasia. Without that evidence, the the argument that PETA euthanizes far to many healthy adoptable animals lacks justification.

All that said, bear in mind that there is no shelter policy which would actually please PETA critics, who will oppose any PETA policy regardless of what it it is:

- If PETA supports euthanizing strays, critics will scream "hypocrite! You're an animal rights organization that kills animals! No-kill shelters are more humane!"

- If PETA opposed euthanizing strays, the very same critics will charge "hypocrite! You are letting strays die a slow, lingering death from rabies / starvation / hypothermia / disease! No-kill does not mean No-suffering! Euthanasia is more humane!"

- If PETA supported sheltering strays in no-kill shelters, critics will bark "the supply of adoptable animals exceeds demand! No-kill shelters inevitable run out of space, overcrowded animals spread disease and live their whole miserable lives in cages!"

You have seen the statements from PETA's own websites that they are against pet keeping on philosophical grounds
Click to expand...
I have seen statements that PETA disapproves of people buying animals from commercial pet breeders and puppy mills, on the grounds that overcrowded shelters put down millions of adoptable animals a year because their aren't enough homes for them, why breed more?

I have seen them argue that the word "pet" is a pejorative which causes people to treat animals as inconsequential, replaceable thing that you buy from the store for your own amusement. PETA's understanding of a "pet" is loaded with assumptions that are not present in colloquial use. Knowing PETA's distinction between "pets" and companion animals explains why they oppose the institution of "pet keeping", while simultaneously advocating for shelter adoptions.

Aside from exotic animals, I have never seen PETA object to people adopting animals into their home.

Their dream, which they have stated publicly, is a world in the near future with no cats and no dogs.
Click to expand...
Can you cite one of their public statement where they state that they all cats and dogs should be eliminated?

Why on earth would a true pet-friendly organization be so willing to kill almost all of the "stray" animals that they acquire
Click to expand...
I imagine that determination is based on an adoptability asssement, particularly with regard to disease, injury, sickness, rabies -- which are overrepresented in stray and feral animals.

with no facilities to promote adoption
Click to expand...
They publicly promote their adoptable animals here.

especially when other nearby organizations are doing the exact opposite?
Click to expand...
This must have been before no-kill shelters began turning away feral cats.

But again, rather than me go through more details, you are an intelligent person: research exacting what PETA claims and does without a pre-supposition. If you think something is anti-PETA propaganda, look and and judge the validity of the source. Then decide if you support their agenda or not. You might, but be certain what you are buying into first.
Click to expand...
I've been interested in PETA's animal advocacy for a long time, and I like to fact-check criticicms of PETA. I am well-acquainted with their policies.

As near as I can tell, PETA doesn't have secret agenda to kill everyone's pets, their argument for animal rights is rooted in a concern for suffering (not cuteness), their views supporting the categorical abolition of animals raised for food production and medical experimentation coincides broadly with the view of the animal liberation movement. PETA's stance on no-kill shelters is controversial, but it would be controversial even if it accepted the no-kill view; the no-kill vs. euthanasia issue divides the AR community, much in the same way that consequentialist vs. kantian ethics divides the AR community.

My best judgement is that PETA's goals are not drastically different from my own.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
My impression from reading PETA's website and working with vets in an animal rescue nonprofit is that PETA is leaning towards James RachelsWP style utilitarianism. An animal's capacity for pleasure and pain would apportion the value of its life, death, happiness, and suffering.
Click to expand...

Okay. My familiarity with utilitarianism and animal rights is fairly limited.

Sounds like there is some similarity between Singer and Rachels, but (if I read you right) Rachels essentially ranks species depending on capacity, whereas differences in capacity come into Singer's reckoning only at the level of individual acts and not prior to that.

What you say about PETA's philosophy contradicts what Giordano said.
Giordano said:
In regard to PETA's position on ants and other insects: it appears that on their public website, although they acknowledge that insects may need to be dealt with by a "lethal defense... just like a knife welding mugger," they actually only list and advocate ways to "control" them with a goal of not harming them. http://www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/what-about-insects-and-other-pests. On this basis (especially the phrase I underlined) and combined with PETA's other public writings, it seems to me that their view of the inherent rights of insects is that they are very, very close, or even equal, to those of humans beings. I gather from their writings that attacking "innocent" insects or "innocent" human beings is a no-no, but that self-defense against either can be considered, if only when absolutely necessary.
Click to expand...
 
blutoski said:
Actually utilitarians disagree on abortion because it's a bit more complex and we assign different enjoyment weights to living a society with certain values. There's the mother's future life enjoyment to account for, and the social, economic, and biological (mostly genetic) implications on the population's hedon calculus as well.

Just as an example, if the grounds for barring abortion are that the fetus has a right to override the mother's expectation of body autonomy... well what's so special about a fetus? What if I need a kidney from her to survive? Does the same reasoning (a whole life has more value than the loss of life from a medical process, we must force the medical practice on the candidate best able to save the life) not apply?
Click to expand...

Okay, thanks for the information. I haven't read any strictly utilitarian accounts of abortion.

But I think my point still stands. That is, the future happiness of the fetus should count in the calculation of whether abortion is acceptable or not. As you point out, there are other considerations that perhaps lead to the conclusion that the fetus's future happiness is not the deciding factor.
 
Dessi said:
I share your concern that PETA should improve it's save rate, however euthanasia referrals and PETA's willingness to accept unadoptable animals unavoidably inflates its euthanasia rate. There might be an argument that PETA's euthanasia rate is too high (82% in 2013, 81% in 2014), but that argument would be on the assumption that the vast majority of animals are adoptable. Unfortunately, I simply do not know if that claim is true or false, nor do critics; the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which tracks animal releases from shelters, does not record or make any determination of a euthanized animal's "adoptability", nor does it differentiate owner-requested euthanasia from all other euthanasia. Without that evidence, the the argument that PETA euthanizes far to many healthy adoptable animals lacks justification.
Click to expand...
In this specific case, can you tell me with a straight face that this family pet, who was lured off the property by humans, wasn't socialized enough to hold for a few days and try to adopt it out?

Christ, were any of the dogs picked up in this little operation even evaluated to see if they were adoptable?
 
Cleon said:
In this specific case, can you tell me with a straight face that this family pet, who was lured off the property by humans, wasn't socialized enough to hold for a few days and try to adopt it out?

Christ, were any of the dogs picked up in this little operation even evaluated to see if they were adoptable?
Click to expand...

Maybe PETA read "pets" as "pest".
 
Cleon said:
Christ, were any of the dogs picked up in this little operation even evaluated to see if they were adoptable?
Click to expand...

The evaluation wasn't necessary. No one wants to adopt a dead dog. There's an efficiency built into the method.
 
Dessi said:
My goals as an AR activist are to minimize the harm that we cause to animals.

I support PETA because I believe they further that goal. For example:


Yes, I find room to criticize the organization for campaigns that I find entirely too dumb or too wasteful (lettuce ladies, sea kittens). Additionally, I get so much physical junk mail from PETA that I seriously wonder if they could boost revenue by switching to an all-electronic mailing campaign instead. These problems, however, generally aren't a deal breaker for me.

There are a lot issues in which I legitimately don't know if I should support. For example, the entire debate concerning no-kill vs. euthanasia. My ethics will almost always gravitate toward animal shelter policies which minimize harm as much as possible, especially harm that is easy to avoid. This is a grey issue for me, because I don't know which shelter policy is actually more humane than the other in practice. It's hard to say whether PETA's official policy against no-kill shelters actually furthers the AR goals I support.

That aside, the bulleted items above absolutely do reflect my goals, they're the reason why I've been a literal card-carrying member of PETA since 2007, and why I've given them money in the past and will probably do so again in the future.


I'm sorry, but the hypothesis that PETA is posturing sounds positively conspiratorial. This is not an argument I'm willing to accept without evidence.


Yes, I'm aware of their kill rate. I'm also not surprised, because PETA provides owner-requested euthanasia and cremation at no cost and animal shelters send unadoptable animals to PETA specifically for euthanasia services:

I share your concern that PETA should improve it's save rate, however euthanasia referrals and PETA's willingness to accept unadoptable animals unavoidably inflates its euthanasia rate. There might be an argument that PETA's euthanasia rate is too high (82% in 2013, 81% in 2014), but that argument would be on the assumption that the vast majority of animals are adoptable. Unfortunately, I simply do not know if that claim is true or false, nor do critics; the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, which tracks animal releases from shelters, does not record or make any determination of a euthanized animal's "adoptability", nor does it differentiate owner-requested euthanasia from all other euthanasia. Without that evidence, the the argument that PETA euthanizes far to many healthy adoptable animals lacks justification.

All that said, bear in mind that there is no shelter policy which would actually please PETA critics, who will oppose any PETA policy regardless of what it it is:

- If PETA supports euthanizing strays, critics will scream "hypocrite! You're an animal rights organization that kills animals! No-kill shelters are more humane!"

- If PETA opposed euthanizing strays, the very same critics will charge "hypocrite! You are letting strays die a slow, lingering death from rabies / starvation / hypothermia / disease! No-kill does not mean No-suffering! Euthanasia is more humane!"

- If PETA supported sheltering strays in no-kill shelters, critics will bark "the supply of adoptable animals exceeds demand! No-kill shelters inevitable run out of space, overcrowded animals spread disease and live their whole miserable lives in cages!"


I have seen statements that PETA disapproves of people buying animals from commercial pet breeders and puppy mills, on the grounds that overcrowded shelters put down millions of adoptable animals a year because their aren't enough homes for them, why breed more?

I have seen them argue that the word "pet" is a pejorative which causes people to treat animals as inconsequential, replaceable thing that you buy from the store for your own amusement. PETA's understanding of a "pet" is loaded with assumptions that are not present in colloquial use. Knowing PETA's distinction between "pets" and companion animals explains why they oppose the institution of "pet keeping", while simultaneously advocating for shelter adoptions.

Aside from exotic animals, I have never seen PETA object to people adopting animals into their home.


Can you cite one of their public statement where they state that they all cats and dogs should be eliminated?


I imagine that determination is based on an adoptability asssement, particularly with regard to disease, injury, sickness, rabies -- which are overrepresented in stray and feral animals.


They publicly promote their adoptable animals here.


This must have been before no-kill shelters began turning away feral cats.


I've been interested in PETA's animal advocacy for a long time, and I like to fact-check criticicms of PETA. I am well-acquainted with their policies.

As near as I can tell, PETA doesn't have secret agenda to kill everyone's pets, their argument for animal rights is rooted in a concern for suffering (not cuteness), their views supporting the categorical abolition of animals raised for food production and medical experimentation coincides broadly with the view of the animal liberation movement. PETA's stance on no-kill shelters is controversial, but it would be controversial even if it accepted the no-kill view; the no-kill vs. euthanasia issue divides the AR community, much in the same way that consequentialist vs. kantian ethics divides the AR community.

My best judgement is that PETA's goals are not drastically different from my own.
Click to expand...
I am glad that you have begun doing research and that you find PETA's policies to generally be to your liking. I am not surprised, because we all see facts, especially in heartfelt issues such as religion and politics, through the lens of our own beliefs. I think it would be silly to try to change your beliefs. But I do have just a few facts I would like to run past you once more, and then you can just think about them at your leisure:

I hope you noticed that the quotes you provided from a newspaper article justifying the extraordinary kill rate at PETA are not really the reporter's or from an unbiased source, but are actually quotes from a senior PETA official, "Nachminovitch, who has worked at PETA for 16 years" and is in charge of their "anti-cruelty" campaign, of all things. Frankly I would like to see those "word of mouth" claims documented from other sources, rather than a PETA official attempting to answer the accusation of PETA's hypocrisy on this issue. Remember how many false claims PETA made as to the existenace and facilities in their "shelter" when asked (see up thread). Specifically: exactly how many animals were examined by other shelters and found to be terminally ill, or who have previously been given the opportunity to be adopted but were not, were actually transferred to PETA specifically for euthanasia? If PETA is performing this service for other humane societies, why is the local organization of humane societies on record (see up thread) as seeking to condemn and end PETA's actions in this regard? Why did PETA round up the dog that is the subject of the OP and kill it within hours? PETA claims to have accidently mixed up the identities of the new dog and an old one (would a truly caring and dedicated hospital kept such poor records that they accidently sent me to hospice instead of a 102 year old man with terminal cancer)? Was the "original" dog scheduled to be euthanized (in the mix-up) given the opportunity to be adopted out if PETA has no facilities to allow this? Were any of the dogs rounded up that day given a chance to be adopted before being killed? In fact, given PETA clearly is willing to go out and round up dogs, at least on request of property owners, does PETA first send any of these dogs to shelters that do have adoption facilities?

I support a euthanasia policy (after a good chance for adoption or in response to a suffering, incurable animal) because I don't know of an alternative. That the SPCA and many other shelters do this seems unavoidable to me. What upsets me is that PETA claims that even owning a pet is imposing a human's will on another animal (see the quotes from the PETA site up thread), but then feels perfectly fine to impose their will as humans on animals by rounding them up and killing them because PETA's judgement says it is the best policy. This angers me because it is hypocrisy, not because euthanasia is itself inherently wrong; it is PETA's willingness to condemn my own ethics because my own loving care of my cat is unethical speciesism, but then to state that killing pets is the right thing for PETA to do.

I would also urge you to read in more detail about how PETA views pet "ownership." It is not just commercial breeding and pet stores. They seek no breeding, period. They urge that ALL cats and dogs to be neutered. If there is no breeding and all pets are neutered, clearly no one will have a cat of a dog pet in 20 years. And PETA has stated more than once that this is their GOAL: all cats and dogs become extinct. My own children will never have another chance to share their lives and love with a cat or a dog. If you enjoy owning a cat or dog right now, you should realize that will end for you and everyone else in 15 to 20 years if PETA achieves their public goal. I have always neutered my own animals, who I found at a shelter (good thing it wasn't a PETA "shelter" or they would have killed my three cats and 2 dogs before I ever met them, huh)? But I realize that some breeding must take place, in a healthy and caring environment, if anyone is to be given the opportunity to have a dog or a cat as a pet in the future. Yes, we have way too many dogs and cats versus loving owners (such as yourself) right now, but I don't think that we should reduce that number to 0.

You will undoubtedly read whatever you find with the desire to support PETA because it is human nature. I don't expect you to change your mind right now. But think about it, do some more research, and in time who knows? You may still agree with PETA, which is your right, once you know the facts. Or you may change your mind as I did. And I changed my mind because I love animals a lot. Not because I don't care about animals enough.

In the meantime, if you have pets, please make certain that you are always very, very careful to keep them locked up or tethered (even though this imposes your will as a human on another animal). For God sake, if they do get out even briefly I hope that the SPCA and not PETA finds them first.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the delay, but I thought I should also post some documentation to my remarks. I thought the most convincing might be the quotes from PETA and its leaders:

“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. 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.”-PETA website

“Even people who care about animals are often unable to recognize or meet their animal’s many needs. Domesticated animals can no longer survive on their own yet they retain many of their basic instincts and drives. They may yearn to roam but are confined to a house or yard and are dependent upon their guardians for water, food, and social contact.”-PETA website

"...eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance." -Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles -- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it... The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." -John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." -PETA's Statement on Companion Animals

"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, "Animals," May/June 1993

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." -Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Washingtonian, August 1986

Some quotes are quite current, although some are older. In regards to the latter, I think that PETA has become a bit more clever and is less willing to be so brutally frank in public. Notably, however, I don't see any sign in their current public statements that any of their prior views have changed. Reading the current PETA website does not show any denial or contradiction of any of the views quoted above; the same concepts are alluded to, but the details are simply omitted.

I am amazed that anyone can read these remarks and believe that PETA is just against irresponsible commercial breeders or the use of the term "pet" but are okay with the concept of companion animals. They are against companion animals period, but are generous enough to allow us to keep our animals for now, but hope to have cats and dogs extinct in the next 20 years because looking after them as pets or companion animals is fundamentally immoral.
 
Last edited:
Does PETA only kill animals that other shelters or their owners wish to have euthanized? And do they treat the animals to be euthanized well?

Sadly, no:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=11813

Start with the paragraph, "Testimony at the trial..."
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom