PETA killed 95% of the animals it rescued in 2008

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

PETA killed 95% of the animals it rescued in 2008

April 3, 10:36 PM

We Boulderites are known for being animal-loving, tree-hugging, Crocs-wearing, vegan hippie types, prone to committing random acts of kindness and rants of righteous indignation. Well, this article should stir up much of the latter.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, is well-known among the aforementioned animal-loving hippie types around here. PETA is hailed as an activist group that takes itself very, very seriously and gets serious results, at least in the media.

But now there is a new PETA story in the media and I'm hoping against all evidence that it is wrong. PETA recently filed their "Animal Record" report for 2008 with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

#######? PETA killed 95% of the animals they took in? What the hell did they do with the obscene amounts of money ($32 million) their very visible media blitzes brought in if they didn't use it to help the animals? Apparently they used it to create more media blitzes. Like the one in which a struggling, crying person's head is cut off and their flesh eaten to educate the public about the atrocities of the slaughterhouse.

Melissa Clouthier of Pajamas Media summed it up succinctly: "Over 20,000 dogs and cats were killed by PETA since 1998. Meanwhile, they spent millions chiding people for eating meat and chicken and fish. Just a tiny percentage of their massive budget could save thousands of lives and yet they hypocritically lecture others about their lifestyle."

I keep searching for contentions that prove this story false but I just keep coming up with more evidence of it's veracity. I always felt PETA was too radical for me personally but I appreciated what I thought was a heartfelt effort to help animals. I'm disillusioned and worse, I'm terrified about the effect this announcement may have on other, legitimate animal organizations.

So, all my animal friends out there, what do we do about this? How do we rescue the animals that PETA rescues? Nothing seems adequate. I await your suggestions.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5924-Boulder-Pet...rescued-in-2008

Base Article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...adquarters.html

[Nagishkaw 510]

:angry: :angry:

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

and that's why they never get any money out of me.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

You may be right, but check out this search first:

http://news.google.com/news?q=PETA%20and%2...l=en&tab=wn

[DeadPoolX 9]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

PETA's name was damaged long before this article. Oddly enough, PETA did most of the damage to itself.

[Niels Bohr 72]

I have to also add a side note. Lets continue to fight to uncaged the hogs and chickens.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I have to also add a side note. Lets continue to fight to uncaged the hogs and chickens.

Hey! Chickens in cages are mandatory for any movie chase scene!

[Nagishkaw 510]

I have to also add a side note. Lets continue to fight to uncaged the hogs and chickens.

And lets stop supporting zoo's and rodeo's.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

you're right, the math is off.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

You may be right, but check out this search first:

http://news.google.com/news?q=PETA%20and%2...l=en&tab=wn

I don't have an opinion either way about PETA since I don't really know much about the group, but I do know the group has been targeted by other groups who don't like them. As a reader I'd would have liked to know what were the conditions for which they rescued the animals and what is their purpose? Because euthanizing a dog that was removed from Michael Vicks home, for example, most would agree was the better alternative to letting the dog be continuously and sadistically tortured.

[natty bumppo 297]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

You may be right, but check out this search first:

http://news.google.com/news?q=PETA%20and%2...l=en&tab=wn

I don't have an opinion either way about PETA since I don't really know much about the group, but I do know the group has been targeted by other groups who don't like them. As a reader I'd would have liked to know what were the conditions for which they rescued the animals and what is their purpose? Because euthanizing a dog that was removed from Michael Vicks home, for example, most would agree was the better alternative to letting the dog be continuously and sadistically tortured.

And groups that like PETA don't target groups that dislike PETA?

PETA probably made jackets and shoes from the animals ... they didn't find homes for

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

You may be right, but check out this search first:

http://news.google.com/news?q=PETA%20and%2...l=en&tab=wn

I don't have an opinion either way about PETA since I don't really know much about the group, but I do know the group has been targeted by other groups who don't like them. As a reader I'd would have liked to know what were the conditions for which they rescued the animals and what is their purpose? Because euthanizing a dog that was removed from Michael Vicks home, for example, most would agree was the better alternative to letting the dog be continuously and sadistically tortured.

Here is the controversy:

(excerpted)

There is controversy in Norfolk, VA over a PeTA run shelter which euthanizes animals. Euthanizing animals is a sad but necessary part of most shelters. But even shelters with extremely high kill percentages were shocked at this shelter's high euthanasia rates. During 2006, over 97% of animals brought to the shelter were euthanized. By 2008 the numbers were holding steady at 95.8%. PeTA likens an animal's existence as a pet to a life of slavery and freedom through euthanasia is preferable to being someone's pet.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5984-Fayettevill...s-Animal-Rights

[one...two...tree 2,762]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

You may be right, but check out this search first:

http://news.google.com/news?q=PETA%20and%2...l=en&tab=wn

I don't have an opinion either way about PETA since I don't really know much about the group, but I do know the group has been targeted by other groups who don't like them. As a reader I'd would have liked to know what were the conditions for which they rescued the animals and what is their purpose? Because euthanizing a dog that was removed from Michael Vicks home, for example, most would agree was the better alternative to letting the dog be continuously and sadistically tortured.

Here is the controversy:

(excerpted)

There is controversy in Norfolk, VA over a PeTA run shelter which euthanizes animals. Euthanizing animals is a sad but necessary part of most shelters. But even shelters with extremely high kill percentages were shocked at this shelter's high euthanasia rates. During 2006, over 97% of animals brought to the shelter were euthanized. By 2008 the numbers were holding steady at 95.8%. PeTA likens an animal's existence as a pet to a life of slavery and freedom through euthanasia is preferable to being someone's pet.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5984-Fayettevill...s-Animal-Rights

That's why I'm saying as a reader, I want to know what PETA's criteria is for placing these animals? Why are they rescuing animals that are already in shelters? If their views on the ethical treatment of animals are at times extreme then ok....when we have people like Michael Vicks, I'd say they are the lessor of two evils in that sense.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

According to the report, PETA took in 2,216 animals in 2008. They found homes for seven of them. Seven. That means 95% of the animals PETA "rescued" last year ended up dead at their hands.

Yellow journalism at its finest...

You may be right, but check out this search first:

http://news.google.com/news?q=PETA%20and%2...l=en&tab=wn

I don't have an opinion either way about PETA since I don't really know much about the group, but I do know the group has been targeted by other groups who don't like them. As a reader I'd would have liked to know what were the conditions for which they rescued the animals and what is their purpose? Because euthanizing a dog that was removed from Michael Vicks home, for example, most would agree was the better alternative to letting the dog be continuously and sadistically tortured.

Here is the controversy:

(excerpted)

There is controversy in Norfolk, VA over a PeTA run shelter which euthanizes animals. Euthanizing animals is a sad but necessary part of most shelters. But even shelters with extremely high kill percentages were shocked at this shelter's high euthanasia rates. During 2006, over 97% of animals brought to the shelter were euthanized. By 2008 the numbers were holding steady at 95.8%. PeTA likens an animal's existence as a pet to a life of slavery and freedom through euthanasia is preferable to being someone's pet.

http://www.examiner.com/x-5984-Fayettevill...s-Animal-Rights

That's why I'm saying as a reader, I want to know what PETA's criteria is for placing these animals? Why are they rescuing animals that are already in shelters? If their views on the ethical treatment of animals are at times extreme then ok....when we have people like Michael Vicks, I'd say they are the lessor of two evils in that sense.

It seems more shocking from the perspective of Sonoma County, where we "somehow" are able to manage life-oriented and no-kill shelters in the San Francisco Bay Area.