PETA puts to sleep 97% of adopted pets

  • Thread starter Mk
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Sleep
In summary: This is where the story gets interesting.PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies.So, they adpoted them to save the animals from being killed only to kill them themselves and they still talk down on animal shelters? Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.Yeah... PETA is my third favourite thing--right after AIDS and Taxation Canada.
  • #1
Mk
2,043
4
http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20080111/DC1129510012008-1.html
I know we all love PETA here.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), submitted nine months after a Virginia government agency's deadline, shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
So, they adpoted them to save the animals from being killed only to kill them themselves and they still talk down on animal shelters? Talk about the kettle calling the pot black.
 
  • #3
Yeah... PETA is my third favourite thing--right after AIDS and Taxation Canada.
I've never been ashamed to admit that a celebrity was a Canuck until Pam Anderson got into that ****. :mad:
 
  • #4
I have 0 respect for PETA, if I have the money for to donate to charity I would donate to the local humane society in a heartbeat ( they don't euthanize no matter how long the animal remains unadopted) but I would never give a penny to PETA.
 
  • #5
"and that PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies."

What does this mean? It doesn't mean that they have been put the responsibility by the state to take their lives if they can't find a shelter for them? Or did 'noone' know they were 'disposing' of that many?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
PETA=People for the Eating of Tasty Animals?
 
  • #8
First, your headline is inaccurate. The animals that Peta euthanized were not "adopted pets."

Second, the CCF headline implies that 97% of pets in the United States (or in the world) were killed.

Also, in many cases these animals were not adoptable. In other cases, they came from shelters where they were going to be euthanized anyway, but with gas. Peta euthanized them with injections, which is quicker and more humane.

Finally, it's important for people to know what the Center for Consumer Freedom is. It's a deceptively named group that was founded with money from the tobacco industry. (For more information, visit SourceWatch or ConsumerDeception.org.) The CCF's goal was to put a positive spin on smoking. When that failed, they moved to other industries and are now funded by the restaurant, alcohol, meat and dairy industries.

The CCF opposes Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And their MO is to try to discredit those groups that oppose the CCF. Peta is one of those groups because it cares about animals and doesn't want people to murder them for food.

Even if you hate Peta, please look into the source of this press release -- the CCF. As people who care about science, it would seem that you'd go out of your way to look at unbiased sources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
I thought this thread would last a little bit longer before heading for a crash course. I'd hardly call chooseveg.com an unbiased source as they too have an agenda to push.
 
  • #10
Those three things at the bottom are my taglines. They weren't meant to be offered as sources related to the CCF press release.
 
  • #11
Ahh well fair enough. My apologies.
 
  • #12
The Center for Consumer Freedom is basically a libertarian organization. I know that means to a lot of people that it means "they're a bunch of nutjobs."

I checked on that Mother's Against Drunk Driving (how can you be against that? you're pro-drunk driving?). It turns out they're against them because MADD isn't about keeping down drunk driving as much as it is against alcohol use period, they say.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2554
 
Last edited:
  • #13
From SoureWatch.org:

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists ...

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
AnimalLover said:
First, your headline is inaccurate. The animals that Peta euthanized were not "adopted pets."
They were animals to be saved and then put up for adoption. They were intended for adoption. Close enough.
 
  • #15
"Cuckoo" is spelled like this. And, Cyrus, you're clearly a very nice guy.
 
  • #16
AnimalLover said:
First, your headline is inaccurate. The animals that Peta euthanized were not "adopted pets."
Obviously they weren't adopted, because PETA killed them first. It's a headline. The rest of the story is available to read...headlines are never the full story.

Second, the CCF headline implies that 97% of pets in the United States (or in the world) were killed.
No, the story points out that 97% of the animals that PETA took in were killed (only about 40 some odd percent in other shelters in the state were killed as unadoptable).

Also, in many cases these animals were not adoptable. In other cases, they came from shelters where they were going to be euthanized anyway, but with gas. Peta euthanized them with injections, which is quicker and more humane.
Irrelevant. PETA is the psycho organization that tells people that all those other shelters are bad for euthanizing animals, ANY animals, even the ones that are so badly behaved as to be unadoptable, and then turns around and euthanizes almost all the animals they took in. Hence, the hypocrisy claims. Most everything PETA does harms animals they claim to be saving.

Finally, it's important for people to know what the Center for Consumer Freedom is. It's a deceptively named group that was founded with money from the tobacco industry. (For more information, visit SourceWatch or ConsumerDeception.org.) The CCF's goal was to put a positive spin on smoking. When that failed, they moved to other industries and are now funded by the restaurant, alcohol, meat and dairy industries.
I agree that organization is also highly suspect, but the PETA story has been reported previously by the mainstream media organizations. This is just a report that it has led to an official conviction, basically just reporting the outcome of the prior allegations against them.

Peta is one of those groups because it cares about animals and doesn't want people to murder them for food.
:rofl: PETA cares about lining their pockets. But, yeah, that's the whole point of the story, isn't it. PETA tries to tell people that animals have equal rights to people, so euthanizing an animal is tantamount to murder, yet they've euthanized the vast majority of animals in their care. That would be the definition of hypocrisy.

Even if you hate Peta, please look into the source of this press release -- the CCF. As people who care about science, it would seem that you'd go out of your way to look at unbiased sources.
The source isn't really important if they are reporting only factual claims. They are reporting information that would be available in the public record, and doesn't diminish at all what PETA has done.
 
  • #17
PETA:

raised: 2 million,

cost of parties, administration and advertizing: 1.9 million
 
  • #18
rewebster said:
PETA:

raised: 2 million,

cost of parties, administration and advertizing: 1.9 million

Yep. If you really care about animals and want to help them, DON'T donate to PETA, you're just throwing your money away and no animal will ever be helped by it, but I'm sure you'll get a nice, shiny calendar or pamphlets from them, the production of which undoubtedly polluted a stream poisoning some aquatic animals that they don't talk about because they aren't cute and furry. Donate to your local humane society or other shelter, volunteer time at one, or spring an animal from the pound yourself and give it a loving home.
 
  • #19
Moonbear said:
spring an animal from the pound yourself and give it a loving home.

This really the best way to help. I know that not everyone can do this, but whenever I have decided that the house needs a pet, I NEVER EVER go to the 'pet store' (it's almost as sickening as PETA).

There are millions of wonderful pets waiting in shelters for a home. That's where I found my cats Legolas and Aragorn.
 
  • #20
jimmysnyder said:
Meat is murder
Oh, man... that's hilarious! :rofl:

Where can I get one of those to stick on my barbecue?
 
  • #21
Danger said:
Oh, man... that's hilarious! :rofl:

Where can I get one of those to stick on my barbecue?

Yeah...murder tastes good. I think I'll go downstairs and have some right now!
 
  • #22
Proof that Peta is corrupt

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21

Peta also killed 90% of it's animals in 2007 that it took in, oh and they also don't like people to have any pets at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Substitute the word "claim" for your word "proof".
 
  • #24
Some animals are too sick to be taken care of and need to be put down. They state themselves that they take animals that would otherwise be killed and often because they would have been shot or gassed by the shelters instead of lethally injected (the manner in which PETA killed them).
Do we know that these animals were healthy or could be healed?

I don't agree with all fo PETAs practices but they should be treated as fairly as anyone else.
 
  • #25
I was figuring that directly counter-arguing the OP would be futile, as this subject, like religion, is usually personal opinion and values (and thus inarguable). I figured it would be more effective simply knock the pins out from under an argument that claimed to be way stronger than it is.
 
  • #27
Correct, I have merged them.
 
  • #30
Them being healthy or not makes no difference.
 
  • #31
Cyrus said:
Them being healthy or not makes no difference.

What? Some animals need to be put down because of how sick they are. They can go on and on dying slowly so long as they are being taken care of, and that is not at all humane. Even PETA can see the sense in euthanizing them. The animals being taken, from what I have read, were in shelters where they would have been euthanized in what PETA considers an inhumane fashion (gas and shooting) and the PETA people taking the animals were euthanizing them in what PETA advocates as the humane way to do so (injection).
 
  • #32
TheStatutoryApe said:
Even PETA can see the sense in euthanizing them.
That's also a pretty bold claim. I rather suspect (I don't know for sure, so I won't claim) that the organization doesn't feel good about this policy - and I can assure you (that I do know for sure, knowing a few PETA members) that many members do not.
Some animals need to be put down because of how sick they are.
Certainly. But is "some" 90%?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
russ_watters said:
That's also a pretty bold claim. I rather suspect (I don't know for sure, so I won't claim) that the organization doesn't feel good about this policy - and I can assure you (that I do know for sure, knowing a few PETA members) that many members do not.
So you think they would rather see an animal suffer?
Certainly. But is "some" 90%?
They were specifically taking animals from shelters that would have been euthanized anyway so that's that question... Were all of these animals they killed in a condition that required euthanization or not? I haven't seen an article that mentions it.
 
  • #34
TheStatutoryApe said:
They were specifically taking animals from shelters that would have been euthanized anyway so that's that question... Were all of these animals they killed in a condition that required euthanization or not? I haven't seen an article that mentions it.

Well below there is a a site that actually followed the court case where 2 PETA workers were euthanizing animals in their van and then proceded to dump the bodies in a dumpster. They did pick up animals that MAY have been euthanized in the future, however the pair of kittens that they killed may have been adopted . A dog that they picked up in their van did not need to be euthanized and was healthy. They assured the shelter people that they would "find it a good home" and they even did this in front of the people that they took those animals from. They explained that the injections were to "sedate" the animals and make them calmer for transportation, but in reality they were injecting them with sodium pentobarbital.

I don't doubt that PETA gave them the bottles of solution and ordered them to go out in their van and do this.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day1.cfm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
~christina~ said:
I don't doubt that PETA gave them the bottles of solution and ordered them to go out in their van and do this.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh?
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top