PETA killed 95% of the animals it rescued in 2008

[meowmeowmeow 1]

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

Bill,

I decided to do a little searching and found some interesting things. One - this group that is behind these 'truthing out' revelations of PETA, is funding by the food industry, which has been a target of PETA. Not exactly a group that has a stellar record on the ethical treatment of animals. Second, according to one source I found, PETA's objective in taking animals from some shelters is because those shelters gas the animals or shoot them vs. lethal injection, which PETA believes to be a more humane way to put an animal down. Also, according to that report - PETA is only taking animals from the shelter who are scheduled to be euthanized.

Again, I really don't have an opinion either way about the group. The only time I really here about them is when they are target of scrutiny, which seems to happen often. Certainly, if they are breaking any laws, they should be prosecuted. If they are doing anything unethical, we should consider changing the laws to stop them or anyone involved in unethical practices regarding the treatment of animals. However, the idea that a group wishes to be an advocate for the ethical treatment of animals, whether they call themselves PETA or Bill - Friend of All Creatures, Great and Small, is a noble one, IMO.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill,

I decided to do a little searching and found some interesting things. One - this group that is behind these 'truthing out' revelations of PETA, is funding by the food industry, which has been a target of PETA. Not exactly a group that has a stellar record on the ethical treatment of animals. Second, according to one source I found, PETA's objective in taking animals from some shelters is because those shelters gas the animals or shoot them vs. lethal injection, which PETA believes to be a more humane way to put an animal down. Also, according to that report - PETA is only taking animals from the shelter who are scheduled to be euthanized.

Again, I really don't have an opinion either way about the group. The only time I really here about them is when they are target of scrutiny, which seems to happen often. Certainly, if they are breaking any laws, they should be prosecuted. If they are doing anything unethical, we should consider changing the laws to stop them or anyone involved in unethical practices regarding the treatment of animals. However, the idea that a group wishes to be an advocate for the ethical treatment of animals, whether they call themselves PETA or Bill - Friend of All Creatures, Great and Small, is a noble one, IMO.

It is a matter of philosophy and of concern. PETA believes animals ought to be free to live independent of human contact on any level, or dead. PETA can claim victim status if it wants, but it will not deny the accusations against it. To see how a life-oriented shelter works, see the link:

http://www.sonomahumane.org/about_us.php

If you want to see what PETA is doing against other animal rights organizations,

Friends of Animals is an organization whose work is wide-spread and far reaching. I wonder sometimes if people realize how costly it is to run a nation-wide spay and neuter program, print various animal rights literature, conduct legal actions for various non-human animals, run an animal sanctuary with 450 animals in Texas, support Marine Animal Rescue in California, write and publish cookbooks and animal rights books....Right now, money should be feeding mouths at PPI [Primarily Primates], not legal fees

http://www.examiner.com/x-4198-Omaha-Vegan...s-organizations

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

Well, what I do know is that you could have 100 cats kept on your property and you couldn't just decide to euthanize them all legally. People have been charged with animal cruelty and sent to jail for doing less. There are laws against animal cruelty, regardless of the perpetrator. If PETA is breaking the law, they should be brought to justice. If they are within the confines of the current laws, but are engaging in unethical practices, then lets change the laws to stop them.

[S and S 12]

Personally, I never understood why it is such a big thing to take animals off the streets and euthanize them. Yes, I understand some are taken from bad homes or are a danger to other humans, but some animals are fine and healthy with no reason to not be allowed to live free. Many other countries do not euthanize their street animals and have no problem. I don't think anyone has the right to decide if a perfectly harmless, healthy animal should live or die just because it isn't locked in someone's home.

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

Personally, I never understood why it is such a big thing to take animals off the streets and euthanize them. Yes, I understand some are taken from bad homes or are a danger to other humans, but some animals are fine and healthy with no reason to not be allowed to live free. Many other countries do not euthanize their street animals and have no problem. I don't think anyone has the right to decide if a perfectly harmless, healthy animal should live or die just because it isn't locked in someone's home.

I think its a cost factor for most local governments and the problem with population control. Here in CA, there was a controversial Prop. not to long ago that required dog and cat owners to get them spayed or neutered unless they were licensed breeders. The Prop didn't pass and probably for good reason, but the state already spends too much money on stray animals and it's a problem that can't simply be ignored.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Mark&Steph 0]

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

Don't you get me started again.

[Craneman 2]

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.

MICHAL VIC KILLED 15 DOGS, PET KILLS 2000 AND THAT IS BETTER, SOUNDS LIKE JEFFERY DALMER VERSAS ADOLF HITLER AND HILTER IS BETTER?

[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.

MICHAL VIC KILLED 15 DOGS, PET KILLS 2000 AND THAT IS BETTER, SOUNDS LIKE JEFFERY DALMER VERSAS ADOLF HITLER AND HILTER IS BETTER?

Cromagnon,

If according to PETA, those animals they took from the shelters were going to be euthanized (or in your words 'killed'), is there any difference in your mind between gassing or shooting the animals vs. using lethal injection?

[sj5 4]

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

I don't want to catch birds flu, especially Asian Flu(I read about Asian Flu. It's dangerous than other flu.)

Edited April 5, 2009 by sj5

[PlatyPius 5]

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

Ditto.

I've known about their lack of any real substance for years.

[natty bumppo 297]

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

Ditto.

I've known about their lack of any real substance for years.

PETA has substance?

I thought they only had paint.

[*Robert* 2]

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals

[getosled 0]

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.

All this is so fascinating but why just now? They have been doing this for years. Look at their books. They spend a lot of their money on stuff to cover up what they do. Example in 2006 they bought a huge " freezer type thing... I’m not a butcher I don’t know the technical term for It." this thing was bigger than most meat packing and marketing plants. Mainly used for storing large quantities of meat or in their case animal carcasses. They also have many many disliked people that work for them to include arsonists and criminals. Their books also show them donating money to these individuals. My point being every place has a bit of corruption. Stand by what you believe and don’t help out organizations that do not stand for what they are supposed to be about. I never helped PETA and never will. dont want to make anyone made this is just one guy's .02$

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

PETA is political organization first and a animal rights group second. They figured saving animals held very little political benefit.