Yet Another PETA Thread!

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I think everyone here knows that they euthanise, but I was extremely surprised at how often:

In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority (PDF) of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them.

These figures don't reflect well on an organization dedicated to the cause of animal rights. Even acknowledging that PETA sterilized over 10,500 dogs and cats and returned them to their owners, it doesn't change the fact that its adoption rate in 2011 was 2.5 percent for dogs and 0.4 for cats. Even acknowleding that PETA never turns an animal away -- "the sick, the scarred and broken, the elderly, the aggressive and unsocialized..." -- doesn't change the fact that Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent. And even acknowledging that PETA is often the first to rescue pets when heat waves and hurricanes hit, that doesn't change the fact that, at one of its shelters, it kills 84 percent of supposedly "unadoptable" animals within 24 hours of their arrival.

Linky.

I really have to wonder why the rate is so insanely high.

 

[bookitty]

I think everyone here knows that they euthanise, but I was extremely surprised at how often:



Linky.

I really have to wonder why the rate is so insanely high.

It's not just PETA. All shelters which euthanize will kill a huge percentage of the animals. Even no kill shelters get too full and need to turn animals away to be euthanized.

There is simply no way to keep up with the current rates of problematic breeding. Focusing on PETA is useless. Changing our current laws to include strict limitations on breeding, punishing backyard breeders, encouraging or regulating spay and neuter programs is far more effective.

 

[IDB87]

Focusing on PETA is useless.

Euthanizing animals in certain circumstances can be ethical.

I don't see the problem.

 

[xjx388]

Or, just accepting that the pet population is something that we absolutely cannot control; therefore, euthanization is the best way to deal with it. Sometimes simpler is better.

 

[tyr_13]

Euthanizing animals in certain circumstances can be ethical.

I don't see the problem.

The problem in regards to PETA is that they have attacked people working for animal welfare on the grounds that they euthanize animals at all. They've picked animal shelters and people's private homes calling them Nazis and murders. This is for something that they themselves do.

The criticism isn't that euthanizing animals is always wrong, it's that PETA is so utterly and manifestly hypocritical.

But other than that, what bookitty said.

 

[sadhatter]

It's not just PETA. All shelters which euthanize will kill a huge percentage of the animals. Even no kill shelters get too full and need to turn animals away to be euthanized.

There is simply no way to keep up with the current rates of problematic breeding. Focusing on PETA is useless. Changing our current laws to include strict limitations on breeding, punishing backyard breeders, encouraging or regulating spay and neuter programs is far more effective.

It is essentially a triage esque situation. 100% saved is not a reasonable goal, 50% saved is not a reasonable goal, there are simply too many. So instead the goal is "As many as possible." which is why they tend to euthanize injured animals fairly quickly ( not just the petards specifically, but all shelters.). They take up more resources that could be spent on an animal that is more likely to find a home.

 

[sadhatter]

The problem in regards to PETA is that they have attacked people working for animal welfare on the grounds that they euthanize animals at all. They've picked animal shelters and people's private homes calling them Nazis and murders. This is for something that they themselves do.

The criticism isn't that euthanizing animals is always wrong, it's that PETA is so utterly and manifestly hypocritical.

But other than that, what bookitty said.

For sure, peta is just ****** in general. The issue is more interesting when expanded beyond them, as many people like to throw pragmatism out the window when it comes to pet euthanasia and get angry any time they read the stats for how many pets get put down.

 

[WildCat]

It's not just PETA. All shelters which euthanize will kill a huge percentage of the animals.

It does appear to be just PETA.

"Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent"

44% vs. 95%. PETA isn't even trying to find homes for these animals, they see pet ownership as slavery and think the animals are better off dead than living as a slave.

 

[bookitty]

It does appear to be just PETA.

"Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent"

44% vs. 95%. PETA isn't even trying to find homes for these animals, they see pet ownership as slavery and think the animals are better off dead than living as a slave.

National rates are somewhat higher
http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/cat-and-dog-adoption-and-euthanasia-statistics-a179507

Approximately 4,132,231 cats and dogs are euthanized in shelters each year in the United States alone. Extrapolating from California statistics, where about 61% of these are cats and 39% dogs, (Social Compassion in Legislation, 2009), the total numbers would be about 2,520,661 cats and 1,611,570 dogs euthanized in the U.S. each year.

In 1997, 56.4% of all dogs and 71% of all cats entering U.S. shelters were euthanized (National Council on Pet Population, 2009).

The problem here is 4 million dead animals, not PETA's almost 2000.

 

[TragicMonkey]

A few years ago PETA got in trouble when it came out that they were driving across the state line to dump the bodies of cats and dogs in dumpsters. Real noble people for their cause. I can't help but wonder how many animals they could save if they didn't spend so much money on advertising. And legal defense, of course. You can't just dump hundreds of pet corpses in a dumpster.

 

[Dessi]

I really have to wonder why the rate is so insanely high.

I don't think PETA is an animal shelter, and I don't think they have the resources to care for huge numbers of animals. They also provide euthanasia services for other shelters who don't have the means to euthanize animals humanely.

 

[sadhatter]

National rates are somewhat higher
http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/cat-and-dog-adoption-and-euthanasia-statistics-a179507


The problem here is 4 million dead animals, not PETA's almost 2000.

I wouldn't say that is really a fair assesment ( i also wouldn't say 4 million dead is a problem the shelters contribute to, but rather that people in general do.).

Let's say we have 2 companies that produce cars. One a massive conglomerate, and the other a small independent company. Both with the same technical know how and access to resources.

Now, the conglomerate sells 200,000 cars. Of which 1000, fail catastrophically. Now, the smaller company sells 2000 cars, out of which 100 fail catastrophically.

Who would you rather buy a car from?

The point is, percentages, not raw figures , matter. And by these numbers, people would be doing much more good supporting non-peta animal shelters.

 

[WildCat]

National rates are somewhat higher

But nowhere near the rate for PETA.

PETA isn't even trying.

 

[WildCat]

I don't think PETA is an animal shelter

Then why are they accepting animals?

Why not refer those bringing animals to them to real shelters?

Of course, the answer is that PETA prefers these animals to be dead than to live as "slaves".

 

[Dessi]

Then why are they accepting animals?

Why not refer those bringing animals to them to real shelters?

PETA refers to itself as a "shelter of last resort". Most of their animals come from other shelters which are overpacked, not the other way around.

Of course, the answer is that PETA prefers these animals to be dead than to live as "slaves".

44% vs. 95%. PETA isn't even trying to find homes for these animals, they see pet ownership as slavery and think the animals are better off dead than living as a slave.

PETA does oppose animal slavery, they don't view pet ownership as slavery however. As in, they don't oppose people caring for animals, they simply don't like the words "pet" or that people "own" them.

They use the phrase "companion animal" in place of pet to stress the relationship people should have with animals in their care, and to emphasize that animals are feeling beings with emotional lives. The language here is important, people shouldn't "own pets", they should care for their animal companions -- big difference if you're familiar with the animal rights community.

That's why they've vocally advocated adopting and caring for companion animals fairly consistently for decades. They do not hold the view that animals are better dead than being cared for, and I doubt its possible to rationalize that view with their animal rights ethic in the first place.

 

[Aepervius]

National rates are somewhat higher
http://jennifercopley.suite101.com/cat-and-dog-adoption-and-euthanasia-statistics-a179507


The problem here is 4 million dead animals, not PETA's almost 2000.

No the problem is that PETA is pretending to have the high ground , diverting fund which would be better spent on animal shelzter which saves a higher percentage of animals. In reality they are a bunch of ***hat hypocrite. Animal right ? My ***. You don't euthanize animal which they pretend have right. If they were not ***** in the *** ****** of my **** then they would operate like a nokill shelter. But they don't and they overwhelmly kill animals with a higher kill rate than the national average.

You can't pretend animal have right, and then slaughter them. If you want to pretend they have right, then start by the right to live, and make yourself a nokill shelter.


But we already knew they were hypocrite, it is only anotehr evidence of it.

 

[mike3]

PETA refers to itself as a "shelter of last resort". Most of their animals come from other shelters which are overpacked, not the other way around.





PETA does oppose animal slavery, they don't view pet ownership as slavery however. As in, they don't oppose people caring for animals, they simply don't like the words "pet" or that people "own" them.

They use the phrase "companion animal" in place of pet to stress the relationship people should have with animals in their care, and to emphasize that animals are feeling beings with emotional lives. The language here is important, people shouldn't "own pets", they should care for their animal companions -- big difference if you're familiar with the animal rights community.

That's why they've vocally advocated adopting and caring for companion animals fairly consistently for decades. They do not hold the view that animals are better dead than being cared for, and I doubt its possible to rationalize that view with their animal rights ethic in the first place.

What do you think of this view and why? And what do you consider "owning pets" to be? Do you think it's bad for an animal to be owned as a pet?

 

[Dessi]

That's why they've vocally advocated adopting and caring for companion animals fairly consistently for decades. They do not hold the view that animals are better dead than being cared for, and I doubt its possible to rationalize that view with their animal rights ethic in the first place.

What do you think of this view and why?

What do I think about the view that PETA doesn't hold? I agree with them, animal companionship is good for animals.

Note that there's no actual disagreement between Wildcat or PETA on this point.

And what do you consider "owning pets" to be?

I don't really get hung up the words "pet ownership", but just feel its important to correct people who repeat the myth that PETA opposes animal companionship for some bizarre reason.

Do you think it's bad for an animal to be owned as a pet?

Like most other people feel, it depends on how the animal is treated.

 

[Ausmerican]

PETA refers to itself as a "shelter of last resort". Most of their animals come from other shelters which are overpacked, not the other way around.





PETA does oppose animal slavery, they don't view pet ownership as slavery however. As in, they don't oppose people caring for animals, they simply don't like the words "pet" or that people "own" them.

They use the phrase "companion animal" in place of pet to stress the relationship people should have with animals in their care, and to emphasize that animals are feeling beings with emotional lives. The language here is important, people shouldn't "own pets", they should care for their animal companions -- big difference if you're familiar with the animal rights community.

That's why they've vocally advocated adopting and caring for companion animals fairly consistently for decades. They do not hold the view that animals are better dead than being cared for, and I doubt its possible to rationalize that view with their animal rights ethic in the first place.

Really?

"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."

-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.

 

[Cain]

Obviously the PETArds are evil hypocrites who KILL animals. Anyone else see the Penn & Teller thing, like, 500,000 times? Is that humane -- KILLING animals with a sharp NEEDLE. Or maybe they're more evil than I thought and use dull needles. A pox on them. At least slaughterhouses have a unionized worker with benefits hold up a gold-framed picture of a green pasture while Enya plays over the loudspeaker and then hippies come and hug them to death.

PETA has a HUGE freezer and kills nearly 2000.00000000000 animals a year!! That we know of. Using possibly sharp needles.

Who can say where the road goes,
Where the day goes,
Only time...