PETA stole dog and immediately euthanized her

Not sure about 'strays' but they have done similar things...
PETA has euthanized the majority of animals they "save" for a long time. There's always going to some animals that are too sick but PETA's numbers are way out of line with other shelters.
That I know...

But, the previous poster asked if they went around "picking up strays". So that's why I posted the reference that I did. It shows them actually going out of their way to obtain animals (as opposed to just killing the ones that were dropped off.)
 
You don't think they cared about their dog?

I'd love to see them get a $9,000,000.00 judgment, it would hopefully put PETA out of business in their area.

They are located in Norfolk VA and where they went wasd about 80 miles from their headquarters.
 
That I know...

But, the previous poster asked if they went around "picking up strays". So that's why I posted the reference that I did. It shows them actually going out of their way to obtain animals (as opposed to just killing the ones that were dropped off.)

Right, right, right but even those were taken from a shelter. In this case the dog was taken right off someone's front porch. That seems awfully proactive. Were they just driving around looking for dogs? Do they have a kill quota? Did someone call them and report a lost, abused or stray animal? There's a lot of questions unanswered here. It's very strange that they just dognapped it. I wouldn't think they'd do something like that. And I know they're not as wonderful as they portray themselves but this is pretty weird.
 
They are located in Norfolk VA and where they went wasd about 80 miles from their headquarters.
I've been there a few times.
goodmorning.gif
 
I've been there a few times. [qimg]http://rationalia.com/z/goodmorning.gif[/qimg]

I am quite sure that the Tidewater area would like them to go elsewhere but I doubt even the full 9 million dollar win would make them move elsewhere.
 
...the previous poster asked if they went around "picking up strays". So that's why I posted the reference that I did. It shows them actually going out of their way to obtain animals
Right, right, right but even those were taken from a shelter. In this case the dog was taken right off someone's front porch. That seems awfully proactive. Were they just driving around looking for dogs? Do they have a kill quota? Did someone call them and report a lost, abused or stray animal? There's a lot of questions unanswered here.
Well, the opening post gives a little insight: It mentions that PETA had been contacted after several large dogs were left behind when people moved out of the area. So they were familiar with the people around there.

It doesn't explain why they assumed a chihuaha was mistaken for one of the "large dogs", why they promised they would find homes for the dogs they did and then killed them, why (if the dog was on the porch) they wouldn't have asked the people there if it was their dog, and most importantly why they killed it right away rather than waiting the 5 days.
 
I don't know much about PETA so I'm not defending them, but $9m? That's a joke.

No, it's not a joke. It's the opening move for possible subsequent negotiations. You should always, always demand more than you're willing to accept from a settlement, otherwise you're giving them no incentive to avoid a trial. It's only a joke if there's no way a jury would ever award anything close to that, but a jury very well might.
 
Another thing that PETA does not publicize because it would hurt donations is that they are "morally" against people keeping pets (um- companion animals) at all: in their view house cats, dogs, etc. should be completely free of human dominance, which PETA realizes really means these domesticated animals would, in practice, be non-existent (allowed to die off). So helping it along a bit may not be a big deal as PETA sees it.

I have loved many pets, but until they offer to help with expenses and the mortgage they are pets and not companions in my view. That doesn't mean that I didn't and don't feel obligated to give them a very comfortable and pleasant life, one that is undoubtably much, much better than a wolf or a bobcat would have in the wild.

I also have noted that PETA has sought to gain publicity by highlighting "dreadful experiments on cats and dogs" to convince people that all lab animals are cruelly treated. Well, by far most lab animals are rodents, which most people are actively trying to kill in their garage and attic by use of cruel traps and poison. The rules on research using even these rodents are very, very strict- any use has to be proposed in a carefully worded, detailed multi-page document that needs to be pre-approved by a separate board that includes vets and non-scientists on it, they almost always question the approach and want it changed to avoid any potential discomfort for the animals, the care, watering, health, and feeding of the animals is supervised daily, the numbers used has to be strictly justified in advance. This had to be done even if the study is only to feed and weight them: to test them even on a balance beam has to be carefully documented as to potential risks to the animals and every means possible has to be used to minimize frightening or harming the animals in any way. In fact, often "toys" have to be provided to all animals (including mice, rats, fish and frogs) to keep them from becoming mentally stressed due to boredom. I am not making up any of this.

Do I have a problem with any of this? No- these lab animals, including mice and rats, should have as good a life as possible and should be highly protected (although the paperwork involved in the approval process often appears to be to be more directed at legal issues rather than real animal health issues). But it annoys me that PETA, who is killing many cats and dogs themselves, is willing to outright lie so much about lab research, which is really carefully regulated and is typically on mice and rats, to gain sympathetic publicity. They have even bombed and threatened people in their stunts (I guess people are not companion animals in their view). PETA is by no means who they claim and anyone can research it and find out. I support the SPCA far more.
 
Last edited:
It's a confusing story. The trailer park seemed to have some other abandoned dogs. The dogs that are rounded up should in fact be identified if possible. Is there some reason PETA wants to pay for the euthanizing? It may be cruel to leave the dogs in some pound and left to be eventually euthanized anyway.
 
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.

As far as I know, established shelters (such as the SPCA) allow owners a short period to find their missing animals at the shelter, and "chipped" or other animals with an ID will spur attempts by the shelter to contact the owners before they are euthanized. I don't know what PETA does, but they certainly don't appear to have a more owner-friendly approach in this story, and perhaps a much less helpful one.

In any case- there are many stray dogs and cats in awful shapes or environments. If you want a pet, for god's sake go down to a shelter and adopt one and save its life. Keep it at home and not roaming the streets. Often shelters can tell if an animal has been well cared for and just recently escaped, or has been left to its own devices by uncaring people for a long length of time, and will make extra efforts at contacting the owners of the former. Ideally have a microchip placed in your pet by a vet to help find it if it gets lost.
 
Last edited:
It's a confusing story. The trailer park seemed to have some other abandoned dogs. The dogs that are rounded up should in fact be identified if possible. Is there some reason PETA wants to pay for the euthanizing? It may be cruel to leave the dogs in some pound and left to be eventually euthanized anyway.

This particular dog wasn't just scooped as part of a round up of other loose dogs. They backed the van up specifically to this home's porch, and one of the PETA employees (Carey, presumably) first tried to lure the dog off the porch with food, and then finally walked up onto the porch to capture the dog. The video of the incident is available:

 
I just thought of an event in which PETA freed all the minks at at fur-raising ranch and released them into the wild (presumably with "Born Free" playing on the humans' iPods). I would never wear fur, but domesticated minks are not able to survive in the wild- in a few days most of the starving minks were found hanging around the ranch hoping to be let in and fed. A good thing, in fact, in that wild minks can be very dangerous and nasty to other animals in the environment. Come on- they are, in fact, big weasels!

I don't mind at all questioning or debating the use of fur, but to have an ideology overcome the reality by doing something that was in fact very cruel to the animals (and financially damaging to a perfectly legal ranch owner) because of the stupidity of the people who make up PETA, really bothered me.
 
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.
First of all, remember that there are "no-kill" shelters available. Such shelters may still euthanize animals (e.g. in the case of serious disease or injury) but otherwise they'll keep them alive as long as possible.

But then, even with shelters that do euthanize animals more frequently, they still do a better job at finding homes for them than PETA, which kills with a much greater frequency than even the most blood thirsty adoption centers.
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.
In my opinion, you are being far too kind to PETA.

PETA has never been about "saving animals". They've always been about controversy and being publicity whores. As far as I've heard, they've never been equipped to be a real adoption shelter. (I suspect the only reason they do any sort of intake of animals is to sucker people in to believing they help animals, because if they were honest and told people "No, we're only a lobby group and don't actually help animals" it would reduce their donations.)
 
I just thought of an event in which PETA freed all the minks at at fur-raising ranch and released them into the wild (presumably with "Born Free" playing on the humans' iPods). I would never wear fur, but domesticated minks are not able to survive in the wild- in a few days most of the starving minks were found hanging around the ranch hoping to be let in and fed. A good thing, in fact, in that wild minks can be very dangerous and nasty to other animals in the environment. Come on- they are, in fact, big weasels!

I don't mind at all questioning or debating the use of fur, but to have an ideology overcome the reality by doing something that was in fact very cruel to the animals (and financially damaging to a perfectly legal ranch owner) because of the stupidity of the people who make up PETA, really bothered me.


By their own lights they did nothing wrong.

They have no interest in any animal's individual welfare. Any pets "rescued" by or surrendered to them are quickly euthanized, with no effort to place them in a home.

They consider that to be animal cruelty. Allowing animals to be kept as pets by humans. They make no bones about this. They have press releases made in response to criticisms of their policies which are very explicit about this.

Of course they are less than forthcoming about it on the scene when owners surrender pets to their "care". PETA is given custody of tens of thousands of animals and nearly all of them are killed within days. Weeks at the most, but they strive to avoid delays.

Any mink which happened to die as a result of their militancy is, in their opinion, a perfectly natural and humane consequence.
 
This particular dog wasn't just scooped as part of a round up of other loose dogs. They backed the van up specifically to this home's porch, and one of the PETA employees (Carey, presumably) first tried to lure the dog off the porch with food, and then finally walked up onto the porch to capture the dog. The video of the incident is available:


Yes, it was the luring and trespassing to kidnap an unattended pet from its home that are damning.

But it's so strange that I'm waiting to hear more information. It's possible that PETA might say she was not acting in an employee capacity at the time, for example. That's a good defense IMO. (that's why JREF was set up, for example)

What surprised me was to learn that PETA has obtained authorization to operate rescue shelters at all. Their policy on pets is clear - they challenge the legality of animal domestication (pets and livestock), period.


Regarding the dollar value: yes this is a starting point for negotiation, but also there is the principle of punitive damages that are intended to change a business' practices so as to prevent repeat events that cause 'pain and suffering' but have insignificant dollar cost. The family could very well be intending to donate the money to a competent animal shelter, or lobbying their city to cancel PETA's current shelter license.


ETA: another thing is that we're assuming the fast euthanization was intentional. We could discover that it was a mixup at the shelter, unrelated to the capture event. That the employee was aggressive with the capture, yes, then turned it over to processing where another mistake occurred that she was not aware of. More information is required before understanding liability.
 
Last edited:
<snip>
ETA: another thing is that we're assuming the fast euthanization was intentional. We could discover that it was a mixup at the shelter, unrelated to the capture event. That the employee was aggressive with the capture, yes, then turned it over to processing where another mistake occurred that she was not aware of. More information is required before understanding liability.


PETA doesn't operate a shelter, however they get it licensed. They operate a holding area for euthanasia. They don't even have any shelter facilities in the sense most of us would understand.

No mistakes were made. PETA doesn't keep anyone's pets. They kill them. They make no efforts to find owners or place animals in new homes.

They are very straightforward about this. They have press statements which make it crystal clear whenever they get called on it.

They just aren't very upfront about it when they collect animals. They have no remorse toward anyone who mistakenly gives an animal over to their custody thinking that the animal has any chance of survival.
 
Last edited:
PETA doesn't operate a shelter, however they get it licensed. They operate a holding area for euthanasia. They don't even have any shelter facilities in the sense most of us would understand.

No mistakes were made. PETA doesn't keep anyone's pets. They kill them. They make no efforts to find owners or place animals in new homes.

They are very straightforward about this. They have press statements which make it crystal clear whenever they get called on it.

They just aren't very upfront about it when they collect animals. They have no remorse toward anyone who mistakenly gives an animal over to their custody thinking that the animal has any chance of survival.

Incredible how lacking in empathy they are towards animals, given their stated aims.
 
I thought PETA is all about helping and saving animals. Why on earth would she steal a dog and put it down?

That woman should be taken out back and treated like the slut that she is.
 
That woman should be taken out back and treated like the slut that she is.

Can you hate the woman without being sexist about it? I mean, what does this even mean? You're going to take her out back and seduce her with a minimum of effort? Offer her a zucchini?

If someone steals and kills a beloved pet, "slut" isn't the descriptor that comes to mind.
 

Back
Top Bottom