PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

[Desert Fox]

That contradicts the findings of the state's investigation, which determined it was accidentally mistaken for another animal already in the shelter, that was scheduled for destruction.

How much of that was based on what PETA said and taking the path of least resistance?

 

[blutoski]

Animal control usually has trouble adopting out ten year old dogs because they will only be your friend for a few years. They have no trouble generally adopting out two or three year old animals. A person who works with animals can almost instantly tell how old an animal in generally.

I think the key word there is 'generally' unfortunately... young, yes, ancient, yes, but middle age is a bit iffy, sometimes plus or minus three or four years. Cats are even harder to age, with middle aged cats being "somewhere between four and twelve" and we're very reliant on the serial number on the ear tattoo, if there is one.

A stray could look 5 years older than an identically aged pet with proactive veterinary dental care.

 

[blutoski]

How much of that was based on what PETA said and taking the path of least resistance?

Who knows, but the point is that your claim contradicts available evidence, and is also quite extreme, which bears more than neutral burden of proof.

You're working it more like a Conspiracy Theorist than a skeptic at this point.

 

[Giordano]

That contradicts the findings of the state's investigation, which determined it was accidentally mistaken for another animal already in the shelter, that was scheduled for destruction.





To some extent, PETA is an extreme SPCA, if you will. They have expanded the definition of mistreatment and have conflicting lobbying goals, but also share a lot of other goals, so there's overlap. A broken clock can be right twice a day, as they say.

My point: the goals are less overlapping than many people think. They are not an extreme SPCA as I once thought. The SPCA seeks to prevent cruel treatment of animals. PETA seeks to prevent all human use of animals, no matter how benevolent. Yes, sometimes the results might be overlapping, but the goals are quite distinct and as we have discussed, as a result PETA often doesn't offer animals extraordinary protection, but less protection than does the SPCA.

Again, I only urge people to research exactly what PETA does versus the SPCA, etc. and to give their support to the organizations whose goals and implementations more accurately reflect those of the giver. In my own opinion, giving money to PETA in the name of your cat is ironic indeed, given that PETA does not want you to have a cat in the first place, views your whole relationship with your cat as exploitive and ethically wrong (such evil things as feeding it, housing it, and gaining pleasure from it), and fervently is working toward the goal that there will be no house cats in the world in 20 years.

 

[Desert Fox]

Who knows, but the point is that your claim contradicts available evidence, and is also quite extreme, which bears more than neutral burden of proof.

You're working it more like a Conspiracy Theorist than a skeptic at this point.

Look at the history of PETA?

Granted this is not what one would call a neutral source but
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/#petakills

 

[Macgyver1968]

I agree that they try and not knocking them. While it is a city shelter, I went to the Chesapeake shelter to take my roommate to have her dog euthanized, he was seventeen years old and had become enfeebled. They had animals which could be adopted and you could see their love for the animals.

When I worked for DAS, an elderly woman brought her 15+ year old basset hound to be put down. He couldn't walk and had stopped eating....his time was near. She was so distraught and was crying. I gave her my word that I would care for him like he was my own..and I did what I said. As I took him to the lab, I told him how he had done his job as dog with excellence.. with comforting words, and sang to him to the end.

It was my best day on the job.

 

[Giordano]

IMHO, all animals transferred to a shelter should be keep for a reasonable length of time before euthanasia to allow their original owners (if they exist) to find them. This is independent of the age of the animal or the likelihood of them being adopted out. The only exception is if the animal is actively suffering in a way that cannot be medically treated. Then yes, of course younger cuter animals are more likely to be adopted than older, uglier ones. But the obligation to give the owner a chance to find their pet should apply no matter the animal's age.

And yes, almost all shelters find a need to euthanize some animals because of the danger of being overwhelmed. Plus is it a good life for a dog to live in a concrete kennel for the rest of its life? But it really does look as if PETA is far more into killing the animals in its shelters than most other agencies. Far more. And I can't see any easy explanation for that unless one have evidence that PETA tends to collect only animals that can't be adopted or found by their owners. I can't get around the idea that if PETA truly cared more than the SPCA, it would be doing more than the SPCA to not kill these animals, not less.

 

[blutoski]

Um...did you read the article linked that showed their kill rate was much much higher than other shelters in the same area, and that other animal rights activists want to change the law defining shelters so that peta will either have to start adopting out more animals, or close?

I saw it. That's what I had in mind when I said it might benefit from context. I see the same 'data dumps' when debating healthfraud (It's a fact! People who go into hospitals are more likely to die! Look it up!). There's often an underlying explanation other than 'conspiracy!' such as a systematic selection bias.

Eta: and did you miss my posts about a city shelter that dors not get to select and is the only shelter in the area that will take pits or pit mixes, and all the ways they attempt to kill as few as possible, and how all the evidence points to peta not employing any of those options?

Yes, I don't know the specific rules. Just to add an example, the SPCA won't accept transfers from the other organization I work with (SPCA has transfer limitations in place to prioritize their intramunicipal 'animal pound management' obligations first).

Eta again: I looked up "virginia chihuahua rescue" and guess what! http://chihuahua.rescueme.org/Virginia

So why was any chihuahua on the euthenasia block without the shelter contacting these people or other similar organizations? How come I, who was just a volunteer, figured this out, but the employees of petas shelter don't know it?

Dunno, but like I mention above, maybe they have a notransfer agreement like SPCA and Kitten Rescue do. It's unfortunate, but it happens if there is funding competition.

So many ways to avoid killing either Maya or the alleged other dog (are we sure this dog actually existed, or did authorities just accept this as an explanation?), yet peta tried none of them.

It's probably the same for every unadopted animal that is destroyed, in all kill shelters, PETA or otherwise. Not sure what the state considers minimum efforts to find a home, if any. This sounds like a beef against the regulator.

So where is the evidence they actually want to reduce euthenasia rates?

I'm not sure they do. I don't think anybody here said that they do. I think they're saying they want to reduce the stray and warehoused populations.

 

[blutoski]

Look at the history of PETA?

Granted this is not what one would call a neutral source but
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/#petakills

Basically, no. So the goal would be to find objective information, right?

 

[Desert Fox]

When I worked for DAS, an elderly woman brought her 15+ year old basset hound to be put down. He couldn't walk and had stopped eating....his time was near. She was so distraught and was crying. I gave her my word that I would care for him like he was my own..and I did what I said. As I took him to the lab, I told him how he had done his job as dog with excellence.. with comforting words, and sang to him to the end.

It was my best day on the job.

I had to put Julie to sleep last year (her picture is on my profile) and I went to the Chesapeake animal control. They are less expensive than the vet by far. I think they charged me like 25 dollars and I gave them 50 in the hope that it might help another dog.

I was almost crying myself and I am only in my mid to late forties. Nothing wrong with crying about a loyal friend.

 

[Varanid]

That's why I said "for the most part".

I understand. I think your characterization that "most" aspects/examples of pet breeding are cruel is overly broad.

"Some"? Sure.
"Most"? Not at all.

Don't let the odd segment on the local news covering some god-awful puppy mill cloud your impression of the truth.

But this is neither here nor there as far as the thread goes...

 

[Desert Fox]

Basically, no. So the goal would be to find objective information, right?

This looks like an official state report to me
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/peta_inspection.pdf

Same report with a different source
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/petainspect.pdf

This appears to be what the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies wrote in response, making it seem legitimate:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/VFHS.pdf
The Virginia Federation of Humane Societies are against PETA, shouldn't that make you think?

Might also want to read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/peta-shelter-virginia-bill-sb-1381_n_6942866.html

 

[blutoski]

This looks like an official state report to me
https://www.petakillsanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/peta_inspection.pdf

Same report with a different source
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/petainspect.pdf

This appears to be what the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies wrote in response, making it seem legitimate:
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/VFHS.pdf
The Virginia Federation of Humane Societies are against PETA, shouldn't that make you think?

Might also want to read this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/26/peta-shelter-virginia-bill-sb-1381_n_6942866.html

Agreed, which circles back to my first (many pages ago) comment that they do not seem to have goals that align with running an animal shelter.

I also reiterate my belief that high punitive damages are appropriate, and should be in proportion to the seriousness of the details of the case.

 

[Desert Fox]

Agreed, which circles back to my first (many pages ago) comment that they do not seem to have goals that align with running an animal shelter.

I also reiterate my belief that high punitive damages are appropriate, and should be in proportion to the seriousness of the details of the case.

I think they should also not be allowed to legally run anything considered an animal shelter. When the other shelters tell the state to make them go away, you have an issue. usually shelters want all the help that they can get.

You seem to indicate that it was a mix up that caused the animal to be killed but it really looks like they have no real facilities to care for animals properly. That is why I am dubious about it actually being a mix up.

 

[marplots]

When I worked for DAS, an elderly woman brought her 15+ year old basset hound to be put down. He couldn't walk and had stopped eating....his time was near. She was so distraught and was crying. I gave her my word that I would care for him like he was my own..and I did what I said. As I took him to the lab, I told him how he had done his job as dog with excellence.. with comforting words, and sang to him to the end.

It was my best day on the job.

That was the saddest and sweetest thing I've read in awhile. You are a good person and I admire you.

 

[blutoski]

I think they should also not be allowed to legally run anything considered an animal shelter. When the other shelters tell the state to make them go away, you have an issue. usually shelters want all the help that they can get.

I don't know if we can blanket ban, but if a facility doesn't meet the requirements it should be shut down. The very open question at this point is why they were licensed despite obviously failing inspections. There were attachments that were not uploaded with the pdfs posted earlier, could be some insight there.

You seem to indicate that it was a mix up that caused the animal to be killed but it really looks like they have no real facilities to care for animals properly. That is why I am dubious about it actually being a mix up.

I did. That's what I read from the state's interviews, but it sounds like that was an earlier communication to media inquiries, prior to the final report Desert Fox posted.

 

[John Jones]

This is on the PETA site. Seems apt:
"As difficult as it may be for us to accept, euthanasia (when carried out by veterinarians or trained animal shelter professionals with a painless intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital) is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave a world that has no place for them."

Now that I know it's compassionate and dignified, I'm no longer upset.

So PETA is pro-death penalty?

 

[marplots]

So PETA is pro-death penalty?

They could give advice to all these states having a difficult time figuring out how to kill animals.

"Look, we know you did it. You can confess, tell us where the body is, and we won't seek the death penalty. Otherwise... well, I'll put it this way: we recently hired a PETA tech."

 

[elipse]

I saw it. That's what I had in mind when I said it might benefit from context. I see the same 'data dumps' when debating healthfraud (It's a fact! People who go into hospitals are more likely to die! Look it up!). There's often an underlying explanation other than 'conspiracy!' such as a systematic selection bias.

Okay, I'm willing to listen to what specifically you think might be wrong with the numbers, or what context might be missing. Why does the statement "peta doesn't do what people think they do" qualify as possible conspiracy while "mother Teresa didn't do what people think she did" or "lots or charities don't actually do what people think they do with donated money" do not?
I do not think the notion that a nonprofit might not be giving an accurate impression of its actual activities is either an extraordinary claim nor in the realm of a conspiracy.

Yes, I don't know the specific rules. Just to add an example, the SPCA won't accept transfers from the other organization I work with (SPCA has transfer limitations in place to prioritize their intramunicipal 'animal pound management' obligations first).





Dunno, but like I mention above, maybe they have a notransfer agreement like SPCA and Kitten Rescue do. It's unfortunate, but it happens if there is funding competition.

There might be mitigating factors, therefore we should assume them? Shouldn't it be the other way around, until evidence surfaces of mitigating factors?

O

It's probably the same for every unadopted animal that is destroyed, in all kill shelters, PETA or otherwise. Not sure what the state considers minimum efforts to find a home, if any. This sounds like a beef against the regulator.

Well, no. I mean, my examples are all things that were done at my shelter. By definition, the animals put down there were not put down without trying anything to save them. I must have missed your point here, because the point I think you're maki.g is ludicrous. Can you clarify?

I'm not sure they do. I don't think anybody here said that they do. I think they're saying they want to reduce the stray and warehoused populations.

Okay, right there: that seems to me an admission that peta's goals, as you understand them, are out of sync with what they allow the general public to believe and, moreover, the image that they work to cultivate.


Eta: from the official report, 90% were euthanized within 24 hours. Is it still conspiratorial thinking to wonder if there ever was a second chihuahua, and a mix up, or whether Maya was deliberately killed as peta's par for the course?

 

[Desert Fox]

As people might have read in the reports, the PETA building appears to maintain no real facilities for animals.

I used to live in the Tidewater area (kind of still due but have moved about 70 mines way) and have often driven by the PETA building.

One think I should note is that their building is pretty big and multiple stories. According to Wiki, it houses something like 150 personnel.

At the same time, I have been to animal shelters. Usually the offices are tiny with most of the space devoted towards animals.