This just in: PETA’s 2007 kill numbers
By Gina Spadafori
May 12, 2008
Yes, yes, yes, The Center for Consumer Freedom is front group with a fancy name supported by a lot of industries with some practices I don’t agree with, especially with regards to factory-farming. But that doesn’t change the information they got from the state of Virginia:
Last year, PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2006 (containing its official “kill” numbers) didn’t show up on the website of Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) until nine months after it was supposed to. So this year, we pressed the issue. And in response to our written public-records request, VDACS delivered the goods. PETA’s 2007 “Animal Record” still isn’t available online through the Virginia government, but we’re making it available today at PetaKillsAnimals.com.
Here’s what the report shows. Not including the animals PETA spayed and neutered, the group had possession of 1,997 dogs, cats, and other “companion animals” in 2007. And PETA — which professes a belief that animals should never be slaughtered for food, used for medical research, or killed for clothing, nonetheless put 90.9 percent of them to death at its Norfolk, VA headquarters. And despite its official status as a “humane society” and a pet “releasing agency” in Virginia, PETA found adoptive homes for only 17 animals all year. Just 17.
Look. I’m not donating money to the Center for Consumer Freedom, 501(c)3 status or no. But a lot of people who donate money to PETA would be surprised to read the state of Virginia report. Which means they need to see the state of Virginia report and make up their own minds about what it means.
PETA, by the way, doesn’t seem to like this information being shared. They have argued that the animals they kill are not “in search of new homes” but rather were so unadoptable that being killed was the only kind solution for them.
They have, incidentally, threatened to sue people who say otherwise. Except, well, the state of Virginia has pointed out to them — in a letter, copy and explanation here – that the law requires them to report animals taken in “for the purpose of adoption.”
I’ve make it clear that I believe PETA has a right to advocate for animal rights. I’ve also made it clear that I don’t agree with their point of view, which, if taken to its simple, logical conclusion, would mean the extinction of nearly all domestic animals, pets included.
If someone agrees with that position, that’s their right. I just want to make sure people know what they’re supporting before they send a check to any advocacy group.
The bright side: PETA got their dirty hands on *a lot* less pets in 2007 than they did in 2006. Maybe some people are waking up to smell the stench of death - I mean *coffee* - in Norfolk.
Comment by slt — May 12, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
PETA gives “Orwellian” a bad name.
Comment by Susan Fox — May 12, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
“We had to kill the village in order to save it” comes to mind, too. Beyond scary. I pity the poor creatures that fall into their clutches.
Comment by Susan Fox — May 12, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
Mass killing for the ‘greater good’… where have we heard policies like those before?
Comment by Alex — May 13, 2008 @ 1:55 am
I think I was the first one to blog on the 2006 numbers in this little circle, and I didn’t think it could get worse than 2006.
But it did, at least % wise. They saved only 17 animals and killed 1815. That’s a kill rate of over 99%. 17 in an entire year. WTF?
I can only imagine that most of those 17 were internal people taking a pet home. I can’t imagine $1 of their 20-30 million dollar yearly budget went to finding a home for a single pet.
Comment by Christopher — May 13, 2008 @ 3:54 am
I would love to find out if ANY of the 12 or 17 adopted pets from 2006 and 2007 went to owners not affiliated with PETA. Cos they say they don’t have a shelter where the public can come and meet/adopt pets so how did these animals get adopted? I can’t picture people who kill and kill and kill adoptable pets on a daily basis, calling it “kindness”, actually wanting to “enslave” an animal by “owning” it. Is there any believable documentation that these 12 or 17 were even adopted out? Or is PETA simply trying to avoid the 100% kill rate label? PETA is documented as lying about adopting out pets (in the NC Piggly Wiggly dumpster trial) so why should we believe their 12 and 17 numbers?
Comment by slt — May 13, 2008 @ 4:16 am
Just makes me sick to my stomach. How do they get away with it year after year? I’m sure those animals would have chosen “confinement” in a loving home versus dead. Can’t get my brain to even understand their thought processes.
catmom5
Comment by catmom5 — May 13, 2008 @ 6:37 am
I worked as an investigator for PETA a few years back and never heard or saw any of the atrocious attitudes I read about from their adversaries. I don’t agree with everything each PETA member says/does or even with everything PETA says/does as a collective. But then again, I can’t think of any one organization in which I am a indiscriminate supporter of all they say and do.
I do remember the really horrible shelters they worked with; shelters whose means of “euthanasia” included everything from amateur gunshot to asphyxiation by car exhaust.
PETA would work very hard to get those shelters to change their ways but sometimes, as the months dragged on and the officials refused change, and no other organizations could help…PETA would try to curb some of the suffering while working toward change by offering a more humane death by injection. I don’t know if this is some of the “killing” you speak of but I certainly appreciate an organization who steps in when animals are being gunned down or cruelly asphyxiated.
I also don’t really understand the notion that they want to eradicate pets. Everyone I knew at PETA shared their lives with dogs, cats, horses and other domestic pets. At their headquarters employees can bring their pets to work with them and I remember that a lot of them, including Ingrid and Mary Beth seemed to be really enthusiastic about pet ownership and certainly very loving toward their own pets.
I helped them find a home for a particularly difficult to place Pit Bull once, she just had a lot of behavior/emotional issues from a lifetime of abuse. She stayed at the PETA offices for nearly 6 months and went home with staff at night. Everyone there really loved her and were dedicated to her finding the perfect home. She was a really sweet but terribly abused dog. It took awhile but she ended up finding the perfect home with a family who understood her. They cherished her despite her problems; problems that in many places would have ended up making her a candidate for euthanasia.
I thought it was a joke the first time someone told me PETA thinks pet ownership should be eliminated. I asked everyone I could at PETA and none seemed to feel that way. I remember even Ingrid telling me that people were misunderstanding her (admittedly fanatical at times) statements…she said she believes that in a perfect world, maybe we would have never domesticated them because look at how horribly unbalanced that relationship ended up, ya know? Pets suffer and I guess she feels that maybe they wouldn’t suffer so much if we left them alone. That being said, she said she would never suggest anything as radical as banning or even working toward the end of pet ownership. I don’t know, maybe everyone at PETA was lying to me. But I never felt they hated pets or wanted to eradicate them.
Comment by Joy — May 13, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
Were all the pets that PETA offered a “humane death” either:
1. Deemed by Veterinarian(s) to be hopelessly ill?
or
2. Evaluated by behaviorists and determined to be so aggressive that no amount of rehab would help?
If so, did PETA keep records of these professional determinations and are they available to the public?
Comment by slt — May 13, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
“… If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.” — Ingrid Newkirk, 1988
Yes, it’s an old quote. Does she feel differently now?
It’s not about “hating” animals. I cannot imagine anyone at PETA “hates” animals. It’s about wanting to change the relationship we have with animals.
I am well aware there are gruesome shelters. But the choices aren’t just “gas them/shoot them” or “pink needle” them. There is a third way: Community-based shelter reform, including targeted approaches to specific problems with specific kinds of animals, such as feral cats.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 13, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
All we ever ask for here — from our government, from the companies we buy from and from the charities who solicit money from us — is to be straightforward with us so we can make our own decisions, fully informed.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
From PETA.org
“Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and “set them free.” What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren’t home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.”
“Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis”.
Maybe Ingrid has some thinking that might be radical…but I just don’t see where PETA is suggesting we eradicate dogs and cats. To me, it seems Ingrid (who is not all of PETA anyway) is sharing her “in a perfect world” ideas but is PETA out there ACTING to eradicate pet ownership? I dunno.
Comment by Joy — May 13, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
I understand Gina. I‘m not suggesting I know the private motives of PETA or Ingrid or anyone else. I don’t.
But it’s certainly no secret that PETA is a radical group that has never really bothered itself with worrying about public image. I mean, their avid supporters are certainly not mainstream America and I don’t see where PETA tries to make anything look fuzzy or cute or attractive to the mainstream donor. Most people actually don’t support them.
I think PETA has its place in the world and in some ways I think its clear that place isn’t with the welfare community. But I just don’t see them as a big threat to the rescue/sheltering community.
Anyone who donates to or otherwise supports PETA knows they are a zealous group of animal rights activists. And to other zealous animal rights activists I’m sure PETA is quite attractive and appreciated for what they do. So, they donate. And those of us who feel our money might better serve animals in some other organization, donate elsewhere.
Are there really people out there who think PETA is a shelter or rescue organization instead of an AR organization?
Comment by Joy — May 13, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Are there really people out there who think PETA is a shelter or rescue organization instead of an AR organization?
Comment by Joy — May 13, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
According to the testimony in the Piggly Wiggly dumpster trial, PETA took adoptable pets, promising to try and find them homes, only to immediately kill them in the van. So I would say the answer to that question would be YES - at least for the people who testified at the trial.
Comment by slt — May 13, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
My experience as a syndicated pet-care columnist for the last 20 years has been that there are MANY people who think PETA is mainstream animal welfare group. (Including the mainstream media, which routinely calls PETA for comment on any animal issue.)
Now, this is going to sound a little odd, maybe. I used to know someone — an editor at The Sacramento Bee — who went to work for PETA. She was absolutely an animal rights activist, a true believer. And I was grateful for being able to hear her views, and for PETA’s, too. Because having people challenge the mainstream view and push us into looking at things fresh way is always important. I believe that looking at these issues has had a positive affect, overall, and caused changes that have been good.
That’s why I have been so grateful — yes, grateful — for the mess of trouble Nathan Winograd has stirred up with his “Redemption.” It has people thinking, talking and challenging assumptions about how animals end up in shelters, what kinds of animals end up there, how fewer animals can end up there — and how more can get out into forever homes.
New ideas are always dismissed at first, especially when they challenge common beliefs. But some of those ideas turn out to be right in the end.
But … I insist that all groups be absolutely honest about what they believe and that they behave according to those beliefs. I have my own doubts about whether PETA has been doing either, in recent years. If you’re going to claim moral high ground, then honesty ought to be on that mountain with you, in my opinion. If you’re an animal rights organization, don’t behave like an animal welfare organization when it’s convenient to you.
For what it’s worth, I am likewise critical of groups such as the National Animal Interest Alliance, which tells me that to “fight AR radicals” I must support factory farming and puppy-mills. Uh-uh and no bloody way. (I agree with Christie’s take on this issue, here.)
I’m not drinking anyone’s Kool-Aid, thanks.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 13, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
I guess it just comes down to educating people to really check into an organization or corporation before supporting it. Some people might fully support PETA even if all these things are true and of course some won’t.
Personally, I don’t donate to them financially (mainly because I have my own nonprofit to worry about) but I do use their educational materials and do like to stay up to date on their investigations and legislative involvements.
I’m a retailer. I sold Iams and was their #1 account in Florida for years. Had it not been for the work PETA did to reveal the atrocities of Iams animal experiments, I might have unknowingly continued to help finance those merciless cruelties for years more.
I can’t think of another organization that would have or could have discovered (and so aggressively pursued change for) what turned out to be a decades-long practice of torturing animals for the “science” behind, not just Iams, but most ALL pet food companies.
For that, I am very appreciative. It led me to close my shop after 23 years of operation and to revamp. I ended relationships with over 26 corporate pet food/supply companies and opened a new store with a new ethic promising to never sell pet food or supplies from companies engaged in animal experimentation (and trust me, those companies are NOT easy to find these days!).
I don’t really know how I feel about PETA because it is very confusing - the differences between animal rights and animal welfare is hard enough to keep up with, ya know? But I don’t want to disregard all the good they’ve done.
Honestly, I don’t know how to best reconcile my own conflicting feelings. For now I guess I’ll keep using their dog fighting and puppy mill information brochures to help educate the public and I’ll keep checking their site and the news for updates on their investigations/legislative involvements.
Taking the good - leaving the bad? I don‘t know if that’s ethical of me. I hope I‘m not inadvertently hurting animals again.
Comment by Joy — May 13, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
>I hope I‘m not inadvertently hurting animals again.
Joy, from what I’ve experienced of you and your work over the last year and then some, I believe this is something you don’t have to be worried about. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 13, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
Joy, you wrote “I also don’t really understand the notion that they want to eradicate pets. ” But in subsequent posts, you included the following from PETa:
“What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren’t home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or BREEDERS (emphasis mine)”
and
“The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from BREEDERS (emphasis mine) or pet stores”
This is part of a continuing pattern by PETa and other AR groups to lump all breeders together - a breeder is a breeder is a breeder - making no distinctions between Responsible Breeders and all the others. And is such a distinction important? You bet it is! Because if you convince people that all breeders are alike, and then convince them that no one should have the right to be a breeder (another Ingrid quote - “as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out”) you’ve effectively made a case for eradicating pets. Because if no one is allowed to breed, then just where are these pets supposed to come from?
So keep that in mind, Joy, whenever you read a PETa or Ingrid quote or position statement that refers simply to “breeders” with no further differentiation. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, this is absolutely part of their campaign to eradicate pets.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 13, 2008 @ 5:57 pm
Wow. I guess I just don’t see the anti-breeder thing as unique to PETA or Animal Rights groups. To me it’s just a nasty little misunderstanding between most all breeders and sadly, most all animal rights AND welfare/shelter groups.
My work with animals started as a junior handler and I have always been a huge advocate of purebred dogs and cats. I started my first nonprofit rescue/adoption group (which is still going strong) nearly 20 years ago as a teenager. I’ve remained intensely involved in animal welfare my entire adult life.
But because I am not anti-breeder (just anti-cruelty, neglect and unethical business practices whether from breeders or anyone else) I have suffered constant and often quite severe “black sheep” treatment by rescue/adoption advocates. I could tell you horror stories about this…but I’ll spare you the rant. :-)
But seriously, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “there is NO SUCH THING as a responsible breeder” from rescue/adoption groups and shelter workers. It’s been a constant and painful battle for me because I just don’t really “fit in” with most of my peers in rescue because I refuse to join the breeder hate club.
I guess my point is that a whole LOT of people and organizations involved with animal welfare/rights seem to be hoping for the day when purebred dogs and cats become extinct in favor of whatever population the strays, ferals and “oops” litters will create when the breeders are gone.
For a quick lesson in how prevailing this attitude is even outside of PETA, I suggest a visit to any online pet rescue/adoption board (generally not PETA friendly places!) and a mention of the word “breeder”. I was permanently kicked off of one last year for admitting that I was on the board of my local dog fanciers association. Ad I’m the founder of 3 active nonprofit animal organizations, not one of which is focused on purebred pets!
I guess I just take it all as par for the course when dealing with “humaniacs” who, despite their strange ideas about breeder-blame are still doing some good for pets.
P.S: Like most rescues, I take in primarily mixed breed pets because they seem to need help in greater numbers than purebreds (and I do so love mutts!) But breeder-hate? That’s one reason why I MUCH prefer to work with purebred dog/cat clubs that have rescue and adoption programs. Rarely have I met a breeder who would say a single bad word about my work with or love/advocacy for mutts. Best of both worlds. :-)
Comment by Joy — May 13, 2008 @ 8:35 pm
Joy, I know quite a few shelter and rescue workers who support responsible breeders, although they tend not to talk about them as much because the dogs they deal with are so much more likely to come from puppy millers, backyard breeders, and “just one litter” folks.
But even when they rant about “breeders” indiscriminately, it’s because they are overwhelmed with what they’re dealing with, and they haven’t stopped to think about what the real consequences of banning all breeding or “licensing” breeders would be.
PETA has thought it through. They know what they’re saying. And they’re putting a multimillion-dollar budget behind promoting their anti-domestic animal agenda. There is no point of compromise or reasonable accommodation with them; when they succeed in getting general agreement on one point, they then move the bar and demand more, and more, and more. And the people who moved to PETA’s previous positions, they’re now no less evil than before, because they’re not where PETA wants them now.
Look at PETA’s kill statistics. Are these the kill statistics of an organization with PETA’s funding, that believes a loving home is a better option for a pet animal than being dead? Or are they the kill statistics of an organization that believes “better dead than a pet”?
They claim to have adopted out 17 animals last year. How? To whom? They have no shelter, no place where people can come to meet animals and decide to adopt them. And yet, in the dumpster case, they were proved to have taken adoptable animals from shelters and from veterinarians, and promised to find them homes, and then killed those same animals in the van before even crossing the county line.
These are profoundly evil people.
Comment by Lis — May 14, 2008 @ 3:54 am
PETA has a stated goal of a “no birth nation”. When you combine PETA’s extremely high kill rate with their efforts to work toward no new pet births - what other conclusion can possibly be drawn except that PETA wishes to eliminate pet ownership?
http://www.peta.org/feat-abc_campaign.asp
Comment by slt — May 14, 2008 @ 5:37 am
And here - linked to from that same page (there’s an Oprah video there, too - wonder if they asked her or if she knows?) is yet ANOTHER PETA page called “There’s No Such Thing As A ‘Responsible Breeder’”:
http://www.peta.org/campaigns/.....eeders.asp
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 14, 2008 @ 6:00 am
It’s routine/expected for rescue groups to attack “breeders”.
Especially true of pit bull rescue groups.
They make no distinction between the moron breeding for “fighting”, the stupid “one litter for the kids”, the irresponsible “I couldn’t be bothered to keep my intact dogs from reproducing”” and the thoughtful, careful breeder of purebred, health and temperamenat proven APBTs, ASTs and SBTs.
I have NEVER seen a pit bull rescue group praise a breeder, even when they have noted breeders as active supporters. They don’t care about making distinctions between the people who keep the real breeds alive, and those who are destroying them.
Sometimes I actually wonder if they really care about the breeds, despite their claims of love.
Comment by EmilyS — May 14, 2008 @ 7:10 am
I too have had the “there’s no such thing as a responsible breeder” conversation with representatives of rescue groups when I was seeking to become a foster home or contacted them to ID a dog for purebred rescue. That attitude is definitely out there.
Comment by Deanna — May 14, 2008 @ 8:14 am
PETA is not a rescue group or a shelter. As far as pets go, they kill as many as they can and use their money to promote their goal of no new births. They want to end pet ownership and therefore have no reason to make any distinctions among types of pet breeders.
Comment by slt — May 14, 2008 @ 8:32 am
Why do you think that it is “shocking” that Peta is in favor of the extinction of domestic animals and pets? You act like this is some huge secret that only you have figured out. Their position is very simple and very logical - a life of slavery lacks dignity, and it is better never to be born than to be born a slave. According to their position, the only animals that should exist are wild ones. There is nothing shocking about that idea.
Comment by Darrenb — May 14, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
I’m not sure to whom you’re addressing your comment. If it’s me, then what I find shocking is not this point of view — animal-rights activists are entitled to it, although I disagree with it — but that PETA does not seem interested in making common knowledge of this point of view a priority.
Advocacy groups — especially those raising money — have a responsibility to do so ethically, by making sure their work is transparent and their goals are honestly and clearly stated so people can make informed decisions as to which groups to support.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 14, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Gina, are you saying PETA had previously proclaimed to be “no kill” or opposed to the practice of shelter euthanasia?
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 9:22 am
God, Joy. I have to answer this even though I’m not Gina.
NO ONE is opposed to euthanasia, ie, the merciful killing of animals too ill or injured to be saved.
What everyone SHOULD BE opposed to, including those folks at PETA, is KILLING ANIMALS FOR PRACTICAL OR PHILOSOPHICAL REASONS.
Do you really believe that all those thousands of animals killed by PETA were euthanized? Particularly since these numbers they release are, according to the state of VA, animals they took in for purposes of adoption?
Is there some reason that virtually every single animal who came into their hands was hopelessly sick or injured, or vicious, and needed to be killed, when even the highest-kill kill shelters don’t have stats remotely that high?
Be realistic.
Comment by Christie Keith — May 15, 2008 @ 9:27 am
Joy, I was responding to Darrenb, and his assertion that “a life of slavery lacks dignity, and it is better never to be born than to be born a slave.”
This is a level above the discussion of shelter reform, and I’m quite familiar with it, having read Singer, “Dominion,” et al.
I’m saying that any organized group has an overarching core belief, a mission statement, if you will, and all policies and actions should reflect those core beliefs.
And when a group is asking for money, it should be utterly and completely honest about those core beliefs and how they relate to their programs and services.
As I said before, I don’t think the folks at PETA “hate” animals. But how animal-rights advocates would have the problems of domestic animals “solved” — in pure animal-rights core belief fashion — is quite different from my core beliefs regarding the same.
Case in point: Meat.
I am completely and utterly against factory farming. It’s cruel, unnatural, pollutes the environment, uses an incredible amount of natural resources, contributes to global warming, overuses antibiotics (thus creating “superbugs”) and arguably produces meat that’s too “cheap” leading to overconsumption and attendant health issues.
So, like PETA, I am against factory farming.
But I am in support of sustainable and humane animal agriculture. This is a model that has served us well for thousands and thousands of years.
Everything dies so that other things can live. Even on soy farms.
It’s the circle of life, and I’m comfortable with my place in it.
What I’m NOT comfortable with — and WILL NOT SUPPORT — is animal agriculture that treats animals with no respect or compassion, as mere meat-growing machines. (Or milk-dispensing, egg-laying, etc.)
Respect and compassion is my over-arching core belief, and I’m honest about where I am. I expect such honesty from any organization that asks others for donations.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 15, 2008 @ 10:12 am
Okay, I’m confused. I’m genuinely hoping to understand but this is difficult for me to comprehend. Sorry.
So, the issue some people are having is that since PETA has made statements denouncing pet ownership, the organization might be collecting and killing animals in an effort to eradicate the species? And that by failing to reveal this link between their overall belief and their actions, PETA is lying to donors?
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 10:23 am
So, the issue some people are having is that since PETA has made statements denouncing pet ownership, the organization might be collecting and killing animals in an effort to eradicate the species? And that by failing to reveal this link between their overall belief and their actions, PETA is lying to donors?
Yes, Joy, they are lying to people. And it’s not “might be collecting and killing animals”; they are collecting and killing animals—for no other reason than that they believe animals, all animals, are better off dead than being pets.
And while they don’t completely conceal that—you can find it if you read their website carefully, or other materials—they’re very, very careful that that never gets the full glare of public attention, and that to the average person who takes them at face value, they look like an animal welfare organization.
Look at their numbers. Consider that these are are animals that they took in for the purpose of adoption (state law says those are the only animals they have to report), and consider their kill rate. Animal control shelters with minimal adoption programs don’t have kill rates that high. What else do you think is going on? What do you think is the reason all those animals “needed” to be killed?
Comment by Lis — May 15, 2008 @ 11:08 am
I guess I just have a really hard time believing they are collecting & killing animals for no other reason than to eradicate the species.
I mean, if they truly believed no one should have a pet why would they hire pet-owning staff? For that matter, why would they involve themselves in any cruelty cases involving pets or provide winter dog houses for the needy or urge their readers to adopt a homeless pet? I just can’t get my mind around that.
PETA is a lot of things but the first to come to mind is unapologetically radical. I just think if their goal was to kill all the dogs and cats in the world, they would say so and loudly.
But either way, their kill-rate doesn’t mean any more or less to me than any others I read. I’ve seen plenty a shelter with an 80-100% kill rate and none of them seemed to be operating covertly, just stupidly.
Maybe that‘s unfair, maybe I‘m playing the “blame game“; maybe high-kill shelters are doing their best with what they know/have, I don‘t know. But to single out any one of them and get all muddled up in their numbers and the exact wording of their mission statements doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
If the message is that killing adoptable is wrong, that should be the message. Getting caught up in deciphering mission statements, quotes from leaders and euthanasia percentages just seems to serve confusion and off-topic rabbit holes.
Healthy, adoptable pets are being killed by the millions and by the very same people who are claiming to be only interested in protecting them. This practice is wrong and it’s wrong in ALL places, no matter by what percentage they’re being killed and no matter what sort of whacked-out beliefs the leaders of those organizations might have about animals.
I guess I just don’t see PETA as much different than any other place sheltering/killing pets. So, just like with any other place, I’m interested in learning more about their intake model and ways it might be affecting their kill-rate. And I’m interested in what they’re doing to create or inspire change for companion animals. But until I can better understand them as an organization, I just don’t see any need to single PETA out for vilification.
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
“I guess I just don’t see PETA as much different than any other place sheltering/killing pets.”
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
One example of how PETA is radically different from animal shelters is they do not have a shelter at their killing facility. There is no way for adopters to come and look at the homeless pets and see if one might be a match for their family. PETA condemns almost every pet they get their hands on to immediate death - no chance whatsoever for a loving home.
Comment by slt — May 15, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
If a shelter has a 90% kill rate how is that less provoking if they have an adoption facility? I’m curious what sort of intake policies PETA has in place. Does anyone know?
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Joy, if there’s an adoption facility, there’s at least a chance for an animal to get adopted rather than killed.
And no shelters, even animal control shelters, in Virginia have as high a kill rate as PETA. What makes PETA’s circumstances so much worse than any other operation in the state, that they have to kill virtually every animal that comes in the door? In many cases, before it even gets in the door, in their van, before there’s even a pretense of evaluating the individual animal?
But really, I don’t know how you get around this basic fact: PETA accepts and encourages the surrender of animals to them, with the promise that they will find them good homes, but has no adoption facility at all. Do you really believe that that tells us nothing about their intentions?
Comment by Lis — May 15, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
If PETA doesn’t even HAVE an adoption facility for the thousands of animals they’re taking in every year, that ALONE puts them in a different category. Why is that so hard to understand?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 15, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
My understanding is that PETA intakes pets from substandard shelters engaging in inhumane euthanasia practices like gassing and gunshot.
It’s very doubtful they’re only taking “healthy, adoptable” pets from those shelters…seems more likely they’re taking the ones facing an imminent, cruel shelter death; especially since the shelters responsible for PETA’s “owner surrender” numbers are very high-kill places.
If this is even partially true I can see how that would definitely skew their numbers and make it look as if PETA is just a merciless killing machine.
I live in a Maddie’s Funded community in which nearly 100% of the killing is done at the county shelter. The no-kill groups only select the amount and type of shelter pets for which they know they can afford to guarantee a home.
I have no real complaints about this but I also don’t think of my shelter as a merciless killing machine. They’re just the ones charged with the dangerous, diseased and the truly suffering pets the no-kills don’t have the resources to save.
But I’ll tell you, if my local shelter started using car exhaust and shotguns to “euthanize” those pets, you can bet I would have no problem whatsoever if the no-kill groups (or anyone else for that matter) offered to provide a more humane death to those pets until the shelter could be inspired or forced to change.
And if that happened, the euthanasia statistics for those groups would quickly start to look really bad on paper.
…..p.s. does PETA actually encourage people to surrender their pets to them? Does anyone have an example of that?
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
“My understanding is that PETA intakes pets from substandard shelters engaging in inhumane euthanasia practices like gassing and gunshot.”
And where is the documentation proving these animals are irredeemable and must be killed? How about INSTEAD taking them to a shelter that would give them a chance for LIFE rather than turning them over to a group which can only offer them another form of death?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 15, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
I suspect that there are a lot of caring, kind animal lovers volunteering for PETA. I also suspect that they aren’t aware of PETA’s larger goal - to eradicate the domestic animal in all forms and shapes.
PETA shows the face it wants to show and maybe in places it does good, sure. But the truth behind the mask is not for public viewing and would not sit well with most of their base, imo. Even if you buy the “we must kill these (highly adoptable healthy) kittens because there’s nothing else for them”, you have to wonder at the “we must kill these (tended for food and vet care by volunteers) feral cats because their lifestyle isn’t perfect enough” thing.
I mean, if kittens getting a home isn’t “right” and cats living feral with care isn’t “right” then what exactly is the right kind of living arrangement for cats? PETA doesn’t want a home for every pet. PETA doesn’t want a “free existence” for every pet. What does PETA want? Because what they say and what they do are two very different things…
Comment by mikken — May 15, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
“…..p.s. does PETA actually encourage people to surrender their pets to them? Does anyone have an example of that?”
Here’s one from:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial.cfm
“Witnesses from the Bertie County (NC) Animal Shelter and the Ahoskie Animal Hospital later confirmed that the defendants had collected animals earlier that day on the promise that PETA would find them adoptive homes. And a Bertie County deputy sheriff told reporters that Cook and Hinkle assured the shelter ‘they were picking up the dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would find them good homes,’ later adding that persons identifying themselves as PETA representatives have picked up live dogs from that shelter during the last two months.
“Ahoskie veterinarian Dr. Patrick Proctor told reporters that his staff gave a perfectly healthy cat and her two newborn kittens to Hinkle and Cook. ‘This cat and two kittens I gave them last week,’ he said, ‘were in good health and were very adoptable, especially the kittens.’ Dr. Proctor later added in the Virginian-Pilot: “These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county.’”
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 15, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
But that shelter also said they regularly gave PETA animals to euthanize. If these were perfectly adoptable pets, why would the shelter give them to a group with which they had contracted for euthanasia?
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
It has been fairly common practice for a years now for rural shelters to send adoptable animals to shelters in urban areas, with the idea that these areas have a higher number of adopters.
I don’t know what was discussed, understood or agreed on besides that which was sworn testimony in court or reported by the local media.
Interestingly enough, the HSUS grew with the mission to improve the lives of animals by making their deaths more humane. Now, decades later and with millions of donations, you’re telling me that a progressive, innovative and influential organization like PETA can’t improve on the work Phyllis Wright began in 1969?
But my original point remains:
An advocacy group that asks for donations needs to be open and honest with all its operations and programs, and needs to have those programs in sync with overarching goals that the group makes an effort to have known.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 15, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
I think PETA’s mission is simply “dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals” and they operate under the belief that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.”
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Which would include use as pets . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 15, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
… “I think PETA’s mission is simply “dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals” and they operate under the belief that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.””…
Yes, but most average members of the public DO NOT understand that keeping pets is a form of “entertainment”. Ingrid has made it clear from her own statements that she would like to see the whole concept of pets go the way of the dodo.
And in their mass market appeals for money, the phrase “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” does not appear. they try very hard to seem like a mainstream animal welfare organization to the public and the press, whose fundamental understanding of the difference between animal welfare and rights is very lacking.
As only a small proportion of PETA’s operating budget is even involved with what can only be loosely termed a shelter, it is deceitful to collect funds from a public who somehow believes that their very own dollars will go to help actual animals.
And people should be given the information needed to determine if PETA or any other organization is in line with their own philosophy.
I agree with Gina that PETA has a perfect right to exist and have their own opinions. BUT I know a lot of people who have donated to them and other AR minded organizations who did not understand the use to which their money would be put or the fundamental AR agenda.
For most people who wish to directly help animals, they would be better off donating to local shelters or rescues which cannot afford to advertise on a massive scale and are more likely to use most of their donations directly on programs in the community or shelter which will have a direct positive impact on animal welfare ( of course even local organizations should be researched too. My money will go to those dedicated to a No-Kill approach for their communities).
If people are given the information regarding the goals and agendas of organizations such as PETA, and decide to donate to them as they agree with said goals, fine. But the average pet owner who loves their dog/cat/rabbit/bird and who wants simply to help out with animal welfare should be aware that PETA’s founder has a strict and radical AR agenda that, if PETA were to have it’s ultimate say, would end their opportunities and those of future generations to enjoy the companionship of domestic animals.
Comment by JenniferJ — May 15, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
But that shelter also said they regularly gave PETA animals to euthanize. If these were perfectly adoptable pets, why would the shelter give them to a group with which they had contracted for euthanasia?
Because the fact that an organization euthanizes the genuinely unadoptable isn’t, by itself, a reason to believe that, when they take highly adoptable animals with the promise of finding them good homes, they’re actually going to kill them before they even get out of the county.
PETA lied to that shelter, and to the veterinarian who testified in the same case. They promised to find homes for these adoptable animals—and then immediately killed them.
And, although you’re apparently unfamiliar with the practice, moving animals from areas where they have a low chance of adoption to areas where they have a higher chance of adoption, is an established and growing practice, because most shelter workers don’t think adoptable animals are better off dead—unlike PETA.
I think PETA’s mission is simply “dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals” and they operate under the belief that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.”
And if you read through enough of their website, or what Newkirk and others have said elsewhere, they include use as pets in that list of things that animals are not ours to use for. They consider keeping animals as pets to be as inhumane as factory farming. Do you agree with them?
Comment by Lis — May 15, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
OK but does that necessarily translate to a desire to kill off the species by secretly operating a wholesale killing program?
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Sorry, I was responding to The OTHER Pat who said “Which would include use as pets . . . . . .”. Haven’t had a chance to read the posts after hers.
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 5:18 pm
“And in their mass market appeals for money, the phrase “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.” does not appear. they try very hard to seem like a mainstream animal welfare organization to the public and the press, whose fundamental understanding of the difference between animal welfare and rights is very lacking.”
Are you serious? PETA is trying very hard to seem “mainstream”? wow
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Joy, ask the average pet owner on the street if PETA is for animal welfare and they will say yes. Most say that PETA is sometimes a little over the top but they have their hearts in the right place blah blah blah.
Show them the quotes from Ingrid Newkirk and tell them about the AR agenda and they are shocked and often cannot believe it. ( been through it plenty of times with non-animal oriented friends and family) They only know PETA from what they see in the media which it sometimes seems runs to PETA for a quote on everything animal.
Being involved in dogs or rescue or what not means that the folks posting here have been exposed to far more info on PETA and other AR minded organizations. Joe public, who does not follow animal interest stories all that closely still mostly thinks PETA is a sometimes kooky but mostly harmless group of “bunny huggers” (my late father’s description). Most of their contact with PETA will come after events like the Vick dog seizure, or the Derby and the appeals for money in these cases are taking advantage of the emotions of the moment. Few of the folks who send in a donation on these occaisions will bother to educate themselves about PETA or animal right vs welfare etc…
So why would it be so bad for PETA and all other groups looking for monetary aid to have to display their agendas along with any and all appeals? If you were e-mailed an appeal to raise money for cancer research, wouldn’t you want to know if it was an org funded and started and staffed by members of cigarette industry?
Comment by JenniferJ — May 15, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
OK but does that necessarily translate to a desire to kill off the species by secretly operating a wholesale killing program?
Joy, they are taking in adoptable animals, and killing them. They don’t even have a program for doing anything with them except killing them. How do you account for that, other than that they take them in for the purpose of killing them?
Are you serious? PETA is trying very hard to seem “mainstream”? wow
Yes. Seriously. They do not present themselves to the general public as an organization whose purpose is to end all use of all domestic animals. To the general public and the mainstream media, they talk about factory farming, killing animals to make fur coats, use of animals in medical research (always presenting the most extreme and least justifiable examples as the “norm”), and other things that, each taken individually, don’t look very extreme—just a little more zealous than where the mainstream is. Except that as they win any indvidual battle, they keep moving the bar. Originally, it was poorly-designed medical research that made the animals suffer needlessly and didn’t produce scientifically valid results. But as they won one battle, and then the next, and then the next, now it’s any use of animals in medical research—no matter how many lives, including animal lives, might be saved. It used to be factory farming, now it’s anything other than an extreme vegan lifestyle. They’re not against pets, but no breeding should be allowed, all breeders should be shut down, and all pets should be speutered—no exceptions, anywhere, ever. For the good of the pets, of course. Etc.
The face they present to the public is always a little beyond where the public is, but not far enough to look batshit insane. And this is not an accident; it’s an extremely savvy pr campaign, aimed at getting what they want.
And what they want is not a world that has pets, police dogs, guide dogs, house cats, feral cats, any horses, any cattle—any domestic animals at all. They do not present this face to the general public because if they did, everyone would recoil in horror and they’d lose their ability to advance their agenda by stealth.
These are not good people. These are not people who are participating in the democratic proecess in an even remotely honest way.
Comment by Lis — May 15, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
In what way is PETA a threat?
Comment by Joy — May 15, 2008 @ 9:51 pm
In what way is PETA a threat?
Um, to repeat:
And what they want is not a world that has pets, police dogs, guide dogs, house cats, feral cats, any horses, any cattle—any domestic animals at all.
They want to fundamentally change our relationship with animals. Not ensure that animals are humanely treated, but instead to eliminate all use of animals in any way.
No pets—dogs, cats, ferrets, rabbits, nothing.
No guide dogs, no service or assistance animals of any kind. Sorry, blind people, sorry, hearing impaired people, sorry anyone who has an assistance animal of any kind. No use of animals.
No police dogs, no cattle dogs. Not no horse racing, but no horses.
No domestic cats, but no feral cats, either.
Apparently you’re totally cool with that and don’t regard this goal as at all threatening. I do.
Comment by Lis — May 16, 2008 @ 3:55 am
PETA is a lethal threat to the thousands of animals they’ve taken in who were hoping for homes but instead got PETA’s swift “humane death” without ever having a chance to find a loving owner.
PETA is a threat to community responsibility by soliciting funds for pet “welfare” but delivering pet death.
PETA is a threat to groups who desperately need funds to actually try and find homes for pets but are underfunded because PETA has cut so deeply into their target market.
Comment by slt — May 16, 2008 @ 5:49 am
Ah, yet another front for the center for consumer freedom.
Plenty of ‘animal lovers’ though, aka people who love to use animals.
Comment by jojo — July 26, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
jojo … Nice try at smearing the messenger. I suppose you think PETA’s activities are those of “animal lovers”?
These kill numbers are not those of the industry front group. They’re from the Commonwealth of Virginia, required by law to be reported by all shelters.
The fact that the so-called Center for Consumer Freedom was first to report them is irrelevant. PETA kills more than nine of 10 animals that come into its shelter, year after year after year.
THAT is the point. Not how they got reported.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 27, 2008 @ 7:12 am
Ah, yet another front for the center for consumer freedom.
Plenty of ‘animal lovers’ though, aka people who love to use animals.
Comment by jojo — July 26, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
Because real animal lovers prefer to kill animals, right jojo? Like PETA does!
Comment by Lis — July 27, 2008 @ 7:13 am
Seems like the first two sentences of the post should have cleared up any misconception. Or maybe it’s like reverse psychology - like saying “ethical treatment” when what is really meant is “death”.
Comment by slt — July 27, 2008 @ 8:45 am
How many animals do you kill each year by eating meat?
Comment by Tracy — July 27, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Tracy, I don’t lie to people about being a meat eater. Unlike PeTA who lies about saying they’re taking animals to save them when they don’t even have a shelter facility capable of caring for all the animals they’ve taken. They lie to people about why they’re taking their animals.
It’s not even close to being a valid comparison.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 27, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Likewise—I’m a happy, and honest, meat eater. I don’t take pet animals people want to find new homes for, promise to find them homes, and then kill them.
And if you want to play a numbers game, no, in fact, the number of animals that die to supply the amount of meat I personally consume in a year, is not even remotely comparable to the number that die on the altar of PETA’s hatred of domestic animals.
Comment by Lis — July 27, 2008 @ 3:49 pm
This is one of these “heat, not light” discussions that’s going nowhere quickly.
A vegan animal-rights activist who defends PETA’s 90 percent-plus kill rate by attacking others for eating meat is not going to be won over by any discussion of the humane treatment of food animals. “Happy meat” doesn’t play with this crowd.
Same is true of people who insist those of us who believe in the reputable, ethical breeding of our heritage dog and cat breeds have to support puppy mills and factory farms because they believe it’s a “slippery slope” from ending these disgusting animal cruelties to the complete elimination of all domestic animals.
I couldn’t care less about extremists on both sides who drop in and can’t articulate anything beyond off-the-shelf opinions sucked up by drinking their respective brand of Kool-Aid. They come and they go. Please don’t feed the trolls. Thanks.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 27, 2008 @ 4:19 pm