Holy Crap! I had no idea there were this many!
Posted by Ranu on Apr 24, 2008 · Member since Apr 2008 · 207 posts
I assumed that PETA euthanizes, and that it was a part of the work that they do and therefore didn't criticize, but no idea it was this many animals. Don't quite know what to make of it. :blankstare:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
I've been reading PETA's blog daily, but I think I'll add this one in for a little balance.
:sniff:
There is a similar thread about this here, too:
http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=21193.0
(from January)
Um, I wouldn't necessarily take that site as legit. They also run this site: http://animalscam.com/ and on the first page, talks about the insanity of veganism pretty much.
I'm not a full-fledged PETA supporter, but I see value in a lot of their work. I remember reading somewhere that the reason PETA's euthanasia rate is so high is because of the animals they take it--the ones that have been abused, neglected, living in filth, etc. They rescue animals from puppy mills, hoarders, backyard breeders, etc. These animals are likely to be very ill, have severe behavioral problems (i.e. aggression), etc. Compare this to the usual demographic of animals entering rescues, humane societies, and county shelters and the difference in euthanasia rates is more understandable. I don't know if the 97% figure is accurate (I'm guessing not after perusing that site and others managed by that non-profit) and I'm sure it's still appallingly high, but I don't think that is all necessarily PETA's fault. They take animals that no one else would take, or if others did take them, then they would likely have to euthanize them as well and their death rates would be higher as a result.
I don't love peta, but I take issue with such a sensationalized site as well. It doesn't give the big picture at all. What is peta to do if no one wants to adopt the rescue animals? And anyone who jumps up and down shouting, "Look! You're a hypocrite! See what hypocrites you peta-loving, animal rights people are?!" is clearly evading the heart of the issue because they don't know how to debate it intelligently. That's a pretty low strategy.
My opinion you either believe in their work or you don't.
I went to one of their seminars in Atlanta, GA and it was amazing.
Look into some of their work before making judgement on anything.
Being proactive and sharing information with what we know as veg*ns and taking action on those
who are not aware of the benefits of being veg*n.
I think that this site is probably no more sensationalized than the PETA blog and I don't really think that this site is calling us a bunch of crazies for being vegan, it seems like it is aimed at the extremist groups from the heading. It also seems to be taking issue with people that are stuffing their ideals down other people's gullets, which most non-extremists don't do. I do think that you don't have to totally agree with everything PETA does to still think they do some good. For example, I think that the ABC effort is wonderful, but the extreme amount of funding that has been funneled towards extremist groups I think is wrong and don't agree with.
I don't know how credible that site is, and question any organization--including PETA -- that comes off strong, or makes sensationalized claims.
When PETA sent me one of their letters hitting me up for membership/donations awhile back, I mailed the envelope back with the news story from my daily paper on PETA euthanizing pets.
I also don't know how credible the site is in it's entirety, but the article does link to the official Virginian documentation of animal reporting (for the 2006 numbers) and the trial transcripts seem pretty legit (and heartbreaking) with some links about it to some less sensationalized newspapers. The saddest thing is that the animals they were picking up had no chance and their previous owners trusted that they would.
I do think there is a bit of hypocrisy involved when the two convicted for the killing aren't convicted because their defense is "the animals themselves had no intrinsic value, so there were really no demonstrable damages in the case". (From the sun coast article). Regardless if hypocrisy is present or not, that doesn't make the vegan effort any less important.
Um, I wouldn't necessarily take that site as legit. They also run this site: http://animalscam.com/ and on the first page, talks about the insanity of veganism pretty much.
I'm not a full-fledged PETA supporter, but I see value in a lot of their work. I remember reading somewhere that the reason PETA's euthanasia rate is so high is because of the animals they take it--the ones that have been abused, neglected, living in filth, etc. They rescue animals from puppy mills, hoarders, backyard breeders, etc. These animals are likely to be very ill, have severe behavioral problems (i.e. aggression), etc. Compare this to the usual demographic of animals entering rescues, humane societies, and county shelters and the difference in euthanasia rates is more understandable. I don't know if the 97% figure is accurate (I'm guessing not after perusing that site and others managed by that non-profit) and I'm sure it's still appallingly high, but I don't think that is all necessarily PETA's fault. They take animals that no one else would take, or if others did take them, then they would likely have to euthanize them as well and their death rates would be higher as a result.
I think you make an excellent point K--the animals PETA takes in are not happy, healthy, adoptable pets--they are sick, abused, rescued off the street, etc. I think it is really sad that so many have been euthanized, however, I would rather an animal be put to sleep (if it's necessary!!) then to be suffering from abuse, wounds, starvation, etc.
I work with PETA on some of their campaigns and think they play an important role in the animal rights community--but that doesen't mean I agree with everything they do. In an organization as large as PETA scandals are bound to crop up. Love em' or hate em' at least they are trying to do some good for animals.
The newspaper quote I was talking about was from a trial in which PETA was killing a lot of healthy, adoptable animals, then dumping them in dispersed dumpsters. These animals were happy, healthy, adoptable pets and were not sick, abused, rescued off the street.
From one of the article:
In June 2005, two PETA members, Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook, were charged in North Carolina with eight counts of animal cruelty. The pair repeatedly drove to local animal shelters where they picked up animals to euthanize in the back of their van. They euthanized the animals in an effort to relieve the animals' alleged suffering. Because of the smell of dead carcasses in a van during summer, the two disposed of the dead animals by dumping them, rather than bringing them back to PETA headquarters in Virginia. Police where tipped off when a Piggly Wiggly grocery store reported finding dead carcasses in its Dumpster several Wednesdays in a row.
Hinkle told employees of an Ahoskie, N.C., veterinarian and everyone in the office, including a 9-year-old girl, she would find homes for a mother cat and her kittens. She euthanized the cats just after leaving the office. At Bertie County animal control, Hinkle stated she would have "no problem" finding homes for two dalmatians named Annie and Toby. The animals were dead before Hinkle's van left the shelter parking lot.
After a two-week trial in Winton, N.C., a jury found the pair not guilty of animal cruelty, but guilty of littering for disposing the carcasses in a trash bin. The case came down to testimony of whether or not Hinkle lied to county animal controls and veterinarians in order to obtain the animals to euthanize.
The newspaper quote I was talking about was from a trial in which PETA was killing a lot of healthy, adoptable animals, then dumping them in dispersed dumpsters. These animals were happy, healthy, adoptable pets and were not sick, abused, rescued off the street.
From one of the article:
In June 2005, two PETA members, Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook, (snipped the rest)
It seems like every big organization attracts people who want to use it to twist what it's supposed to do for their own evil purposes. These two worked for PETA in order to be able to kill animals easier and some people worked for the Red Cross so they could steal donations for Katrina victims. (I don't have a link to the news article; I just remember reading about it.) I don't think we should blame PETA or the Red Cross for either set of crimes done by individuals.
I didn't even read the article - just scanned the web page. regardless of my feelings about PETA, it's clear the site's biased. that's all I have to say.