Animal Rights Zone

Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism

What does PETA stand for, again?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, you say?

More like People Eradicating Thousands of Animals.

The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom last week reported that PETA slaughtered fully 95 percent of the stray dogs and cats it “rescued” in 2011.

And that’s par for the cat-killing course: Overall, PETA has killed more than 90 percent of the animals it’s taken in since 2005.

Bottom line: The organization that claims its members would “rather go naked than wear fur” prefers to kill dogs and cats rather than find homes for them.

Yes, making the effort to find homes for stray pets takes time — of which PETA apparently has precious little.

In 2010, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services discovered that fully 84 percent of the strays taken in by PETA were killed within 24 hours.

No wonder: The report concluded that PETA’s headquarters “does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.”

So, off they go to the gas chamber.

No surprise, though, that the organization is much more adept at fund-raising than it is at finding homes for kittens and puppies.

PETA’s annual budget is $37 million, “most,” it claims, coming from tax-deductible contributions from 2 million members.

But that is also considerably supplemented by foundation support: PETA has received some $18.7 million over the last three years from organizations like game-show host Bob Barker’s DJ&T Foundation.

Certainly PETA loves the outrageous.

Remember when the organization was after the upstate community of Fishkill to change its name to something a tad more ichthyologically sensitive? That pr masterstroke earned it international headlines.

And people certainly took note when PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk proclaimed “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”

Except now, the dog is dead.



Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/first_let_kill_all_...


Views: 782

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Kerry,

I dont dislike cats its the exact opposite i love them. I have my own which are all rescues. My cats are NOT allowed outside to kill native wildlife. I practice what i preach. I believe TNR is no solution nor is it fair to them. I believe the only way to stop animals being put down is to reduce the massive over population.

Companion animals are seen by many as above all other animals. This is NOT true, all sentient being are equal and we must consider what is best when it comes to the least amount of harm to ALL animals.

The reality is the current situation is not sustainable. So the only solution is to reduce the number of animals out there, stopping breeding, introducing legislation to force desexing is a must. Scape goating Peta or open door shelters that have to put down the surplus animals is not logical. Peta never bred the animals, Peta never dumped the animals. Anyone who knowingly allows there companion animal to breed has blood on there hands they are taking away homes from animals who need homes.

People say to me my cat had kittens but i found homes for them i reply to them saying well congratulations how many kittens did your cat have and they reply with for example 4, i then tell them well you KILLED 4 animals in a shelter.

What are Peta supposed to do with all these animals? If good homes cant be found would you prefer they were kept in cages and warehoused like no kill shelters do.

To confine an animal to a cage for months or years on end is shocking cruelty in my opinion.

We should be saying why the hell are shelters full? Why the hell are these all these animals out there?

Humans have caused this problem, we domesticated animals for our own selfish purposes. And look at the mess we have caused.

Nath, in principle I don't have problems with elements of what you are saying.  I'm pleased to hear you like cats although your rant about toxoplasmosis seemed otherwise.  But your discussion is all over the place and you are targeting the end of the process not the cause.  Killing animals in shelters is simply making room for more. 

Take a look at http://www.oscarslaw.org/act-now.php?state=vic

What needs to be done is to put an end to breeders and selling animals in pet shops.  It is obscene that the government allows breeders to continue to keep dogs and cats in shocking conditions while thousands of animals are being slaughtered every year. Deal with the cause, not the symptom. 

"It is obscene that the government allows breeders to continue to keep dogs and cats in shocking conditions while thousands of animals are being slaughtered every year."

That is the unfortunate result of the corrupt system the whole world is now a prisoner to - rampant, raving Capitalism. The huge, slavering corporate monster has devoured the whole world.

Because the breeders are part of the corporate capitalist system, they are PROTECTED, rather than persecuted, by governments.

Does anyone else have a problem with the purposeful misinformation, and inflammatory language used in this article? 

First of all, the Center for Consumer Freedom may legally qualify as a "non-profit," but its "donors" are strictly FOR profit, and for a lot of it. Here are a few of the corporations that have donated to the CCF to keep the confinement, concentration, deprivation, and violent disassembly of animals marketed as food, cheap, legal, and private: Monsanto, Outback Steakhouse, McDonald's, KFC, and Coke. Am I the only one that finds it hard to believe that corporations profit off the wholesale slaughter of tens of billions of healthy, viable animals is appalled that PeTA humanely euthanizes around 2,000 sick and injured animals in their clinic annually? That's an awful lot to swallow.

Notice all of the comments about the "strays" that PeTA takes in: 

 "Yes, making the effort tofind homes for stray pets takes time — of which PETA apparently has precious little."

"In 2010, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services discovered that fully 84 percent of the strays taken in by PETA were killed within 24 hours."

According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report regarding PeTA's intake and euthanasia records, PeTA acquired only 35 stray cats and dogs in 2012. The overwhelming majority of PeTA's intake is restricted to "owner surrenders," for the service of humane euthanasia.

Here are the state of Virginia's documentation requirements for "owner surrenders":

"§ 3.2-6546. County or city pounds; confinement and disposition of a...-F. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the immediate euthanasia or disposal by the methods listed in subdivisions 1 through 5 of subsection D of an animal that has been released to a pound, animal shelter, other releasing agency, or animal control officer by the animal's rightful owner after the rightful owner has read and signed a statement: (i) surrendering all property rights in such animal; (ii) stating that no other person has a right of property in the animal; and (iii) acknowledging that the animal may be immediately euthanized or disposed of in accordance with subdivisions 1 through 5 of subsection D.No wonder: The report concluded that PETA’s headquarters “does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.”

"No wonder: The report concluded that PETA’s headquarters “does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.” According to VDACS, PeTA is licensed as a "humane society," and not a "shelter," or "rescue," and as such, can limit their intake to animals requiring the service of humane euthanasia. 

"So, off they go to the gas chamber." Wrong. The use of gas chamber euthanasia in the state of Virginia is prohibited, ironically because of PeTA. § 3.2-6505. Disposal of animals by means of decompression chamber and use of gas chamber for companion animals prohibited


This has got to stop. No matter how you feel about PeTA as an organization, perpetuating disinformation, does animals a great disservice. 

Hi Nath, 

I've not kept up with this thread as I've been offline for a few days. However, I don't see any personal attacks. If you would like us to look at removing anything though, please feel free to email me and explain what you find offensive, and I'll be happy to look further. 

Thanks! 

Carolyn

Nath Miles said:

Can admins please remove personal attacks. Thank you.

Dear Mary: If your goal is to discredit the New York Post and CCF, congratulations. If it’s to defend your organization’s practices to ARZone members—most of whom probably don’t support CCF and expect more thorough answers than the typical Post reader—I think you’ve missed the mark.

Both Bruce Friedrich and Dan Mathews had ample opportunities to defend PETA’s homeless animal policies to this community, and neither one of them offered anything more than copy-and-paste form-letter answers. Neither one of them responded meaningfully to questions about the Hinkle/Cook case, or about what percentage of the animals “euthanized” were truly medically untreatable. Can you?

In previous online conversations about this subject, PETA representatives and PETA supporters suggested all those animals were so far gone that no treatment would have benefited them. Now you say their “owners” surrendered them for euthanasia and cite a speciesist law that restricts how euthanasia can be carried out but places no restrictions on the reasons. If an ordinary dog guardian goes to a vet and requests “euthanasia” for a minor illness, the vet has a right to refuse (and I assume most vets would refuse). Can you assure us that PETA isn’t killing animals most vets would insist on treating? Can you assure us that these “owners” have given their informed consent—meaning a vet has thoroughly explained the animal’s condition and what can (or can’t) be done for him/her?

Someone (I don’t remember who) stated in a previous discussion that PETA provides “euthanasia” for animals whose guardians can’t afford the service. Does it also provide free vet care if an animal is treatable?  



mary tully said:

Does anyone else have a problem with the purposeful misinformation, and inflammatory language used in this article? 

First of all, the Center for Consumer Freedom may legally qualify as a "non-profit," but its "donors" are strictly FOR profit, and for a lot of it. Here are a few of the corporations that have donated to the CCF to keep the confinement, concentration, deprivation, and violent disassembly of animals marketed as food, cheap, legal, and private: Monsanto, Outback Steakhouse, McDonald's, KFC, and Coke. Am I the only one that finds it hard to believe that corporations profit off the wholesale slaughter of tens of billions of healthy, viable animals is appalled that PeTA humanely euthanizes around 2,000 sick and injured animals in their clinic annually? That's an awful lot to swallow.

Notice all of the comments about the "strays" that PeTA takes in: 

 "Yes, making the effort tofind homes for stray pets takes time — of which PETA apparently has precious little."

"In 2010, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services discovered that fully 84 percent of the strays taken in by PETA were killed within 24 hours."

According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report regarding PeTA's intake and euthanasia records, PeTA acquired only 35 stray cats and dogs in 2012. The overwhelming majority of PeTA's intake is restricted to "owner surrenders," for the service of humane euthanasia.

Here are the state of Virginia's documentation requirements for "owner surrenders":

"§ 3.2-6546. County or city pounds; confinement and disposition of a...-F. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the immediate euthanasia or disposal by the methods listed in subdivisions 1 through 5 of subsection D of an animal that has been released to a pound, animal shelter, other releasing agency, or animal control officer by the animal's rightful owner after the rightful owner has read and signed a statement: (i) surrendering all property rights in such animal; (ii) stating that no other person has a right of property in the animal; and (iii) acknowledging that the animal may be immediately euthanized or disposed of in accordance with subdivisions 1 through 5 of subsection D.No wonder: The report concluded that PETA’s headquarters “does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.”

"No wonder: The report concluded that PETA’s headquarters “does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.” According to VDACS, PeTA is licensed as a "humane society," and not a "shelter," or "rescue," and as such, can limit their intake to animals requiring the service of humane euthanasia. 

"So, off they go to the gas chamber." Wrong. The use of gas chamber euthanasia in the state of Virginia is prohibited, ironically because of PeTA. § 3.2-6505. Disposal of animals by means of decompression chamber and use of gas chamber for companion animals prohibited


This has got to stop. No matter how you feel about PeTA as an organization, perpetuating disinformation, does animals a great disservice. 

Stop the breeding we stop the killing. I have always said that.

Yes we should stop puppy farms and I agree pet shops are part of the problem. I believe the majority of the problem lies with backyard breeders and irresponsible humans.

I don’t understand how people target and attack Peta and open door high kill shelters, they are the last cog in a vicious cycle.

I am not sure how I am all over the place I have said that we need to stop the breeding, this is where the problem starts. I believe legislation is important in ensuring this occurs.

I won’t be ignorant and blame peta or shelters for the mess.

I think society should reevaluate its relationship with companion animals and our abuse of them.



Kerry Baker said:

Nath, in principle I don't have problems with elements of what you are saying.  I'm pleased to hear you like cats although your rant about toxoplasmosis seemed otherwise.  But your discussion is all over the place and you are targeting the end of the process not the cause.  Killing animals in shelters is simply making room for more. 

Take a look at http://www.oscarslaw.org/act-now.php?state=vic

What needs to be done is to put an end to breeders and selling animals in pet shops.  It is obscene that the government allows breeders to continue to keep dogs and cats in shocking conditions while thousands of animals are being slaughtered every year. Deal with the cause, not the symptom. 

Kath you are 100% correct.

This is why banning puppy farms will be a very hard task. I personally cant see it happening anytime soon. :(


Kath Worsfold said:

"It is obscene that the government allows breeders to continue to keep dogs and cats in shocking conditions while thousands of animals are being slaughtered every year."

That is the unfortunate result of the corrupt system the whole world is now a prisoner to - rampant, raving Capitalism. The huge, slavering corporate monster has devoured the whole world.

Because the breeders are part of the corporate capitalist system, they are PROTECTED, rather than persecuted, by governments.

It's going to take a long time to solve all the problems that make animals homeless--even if governments pass stronger laws, it will be difficult to track down all the puppy and kitten mills and rescue the animals inside. In the meantime shelters can use the resources they do have to stop people from going to pet stores. They can make adoption a more attractive choice by improving their services and publicizing them. (I'm not referring to PETA here because I don't think PETA should accept animals if they're not willing to treat and/or rehome animals who need it. Even though this discussion started with one article about one organization, it's taken on a broader focus.)

Nath, when comment was made about low-income pet owners you stated they shouldn't have pets if they can't afford $30, then went on to cite examples of people who abandon pets because they can't be bothered, presumably not low-income owners. Two completely different scenarios.  As you know it is not $30 to register a pet.  You have to get the pet desexed and microchipped plus the cost of registration. Pets that are not desexed cost over $100 to register, so your financials are wrong.

Initially your response was to kill the pets in shelters because of overpopulation. Now you are acknowledging it is the breeders that need to be controlled. 

In fact killing pets in shelters only makes the problem worse. Shelters taking in and slaughtering animals is only really participating in the status quo, doing the governments work for them and keeping low cost pet adoptions off the market so pet shops will keep selling animals.  The current cost of a kitten in Melbourne, microchipped, wormed etc but not desexed is between around $180 (if you are lucky) and $260 and that's just for a moggy.  the cost of a cat from the Greensborough Cat Protection Society is around $95.  Those who want to kill the animals are the ones who stand to profit.  The government keeps people ignorant about what really goes on and so awareness is minimal.  But as we have seen with live animal exports, governments take the attitude that what people don't know works to the governments advantage.

Your statements about having to kill animals in shelters is just adding to, not resolving the problem.  And I asked, where are the animal rights in this solution?  You seem to have missed the point about their rights to live.

Nath Miles said:

Stop the breeding we stop the killing. I have always said that.

Yes we should stop puppy farms and I agree pet shops are part of the problem. I believe the majority of the problem lies with backyard breeders and irresponsible humans.

I don’t understand how people target and attack Peta and open door high kill shelters, they are the last cog in a vicious cycle.

I am not sure how I am all over the place I have said that we need to stop the breeding, this is where the problem starts. I believe legislation is important in ensuring this occurs.

I won’t be ignorant and blame peta or shelters for the mess.

I think society should reevaluate its relationship with companion animals and our abuse of them.



Kerry Baker said:

Nath, in principle I don't have problems with elements of what you are saying.  I'm pleased to hear you like cats although your rant about toxoplasmosis seemed otherwise.  But your discussion is all over the place and you are targeting the end of the process not the cause.  Killing animals in shelters is simply making room for more. 

Take a look at http://www.oscarslaw.org/act-now.php?state=vic

What needs to be done is to put an end to breeders and selling animals in pet shops.  It is obscene that the government allows breeders to continue to keep dogs and cats in shocking conditions while thousands of animals are being slaughtered every year. Deal with the cause, not the symptom. 

You clearly never read my first post.

"If you have a leaking boat you fix the leak you don’t just scoop the water out if you want to fix the problem. The same goes with companion animals we need to fix the “leak” or the problem before it starts."

This refers to breeding. I have always blamed breeding.

In regards to the cost I know how much animals cost to desex an animal. This is why there should be laws that say any animal sold or rehomed by any one including pet shops, shelters, rescue groups; the guy down the road from you and registered breeders must be desexed prior to being rehomed.

There should be laws that say it is an offence to own an undesexed animal without a license.

I'm sorry but I stand by my comment if they cant afford to desex the animal they have they shouldn’t have a pet. Even people on the dole can afford to do the right thing. This has nothing to do with class it has to do with people’s priorities and what’s right.

Anyone who ignorantly allows there animal to breed and refuses to desex there pet has blood on there hands. They are the true killers not the shelters.


Kerry Baker said:

Nath, when comment was made about low-income pet owners you stated they shouldn't have pets if they can't afford $30, then went on to cite examples of people who abandon pets because they can't be bothered, presumably not low-income owners. Two completely different scenarios.  As you know it is not $30 to register a pet.  You have to get the pet desexed and microchipped plus the cost of registration. Pets that are not desexed cost over $100 to register, so your financials are wrong.

Initially your response was to kill the pets in shelters because of overpopulation. Now you are acknowledging it is the breeders that need to be controlled. 

In fact killing pets in shelters only makes the problem worse. Shelters taking in and slaughtering animals is only really participating in the status quo, doing the governments work for them and keeping low cost pet adoptions off the market so pet shops will keep selling animals.  The current cost of a kitten in Melbourne, microchipped, wormed etc but not desexed is between around $180 (if you are lucky) and $260 and that's just for a moggy.  the cost of a cat from the Greensborough Cat Protection Society is around $95.  Those who want to kill the animals are the ones who stand to profit.  The government keeps people ignorant about what really goes on and so awareness is minimal.  But as we have seen with live animal exports, governments take the attitude that what people don't know works to the governments advantage.

Your statements about having to kill animals in shelters is just adding to, not resolving the problem.  And I asked, where are the animal rights in this solution?  You seem to have missed the point about their rights to live.

Nath Miles said:

Stop the breeding we stop the killing. I have always said that.

Yes we should stop puppy farms and I agree pet shops are part of the problem. I believe the majority of the problem lies with backyard breeders and irresponsible humans.

I don’t understand how people target and attack Peta and open door high kill shelters, they are the last cog in a vicious cycle.

I am not sure how I am all over the place I have said that we need to stop the breeding, this is where the problem starts. I believe legislation is important in ensuring this occurs.

I won’t be ignorant and blame peta or shelters for the mess.

I think society should reevaluate its relationship with companion animals and our abuse of them.



Kerry Baker said:

Nath, in principle I don't have problems with elements of what you are saying.  I'm pleased to hear you like cats although your rant about toxoplasmosis seemed otherwise.  But your discussion is all over the place and you are targeting the end of the process not the cause.  Killing animals in shelters is simply making room for more. 

Take a look at http://www.oscarslaw.org/act-now.php?state=vic

What needs to be done is to put an end to breeders and selling animals in pet shops.  It is obscene that the government allows breeders to continue to keep dogs and cats in shocking conditions while thousands of animals are being slaughtered every year. Deal with the cause, not the symptom. 

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

ARZone Podcasts!

Please visit this webpage to subscribe to ARZone podcasts using iTunes

or

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Follow ARZone!

Please follow ARZone on:

Twitter

Google+

Pinterest

A place for animal advocates to gather and discuss issues, exchange ideas, and share information.

Creative Commons License
Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) by ARZone is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.arzone.ning.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at www.arzone.ning.com.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Disclaimer

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) is an animal rights site. As such, it is the position of ARZone that it is only by ending completely the use of other animal as things can we fulfill our moral obligations to them.

Please read the full site disclosure here.

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) Mission Statement

Animal Rights Zone (ARZone) exists to help educate vegans and non-vegans alike about the obligations human beings have toward all other animals.

Please read the full mission statement here.

Members

Events

Badge

Loading…

© 2020   Created by Animal Rights Zone.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

Google+