PETA kills rates for 2008: 95 percent
By Gina Spadafori
March 25, 2009
Yes, I know the Center For Consumer Freedom is an outfit paid for by industries to keep the public all riled up against any effort to keep said industries from continuing to produce and promote products that aren’t good for you, like cigarettes or crappy processed food. Because, you know, you have a right to eat chili dogs and nachos at the ballpark, God Bless America.
As for their unrelenting campaign against PETA, bless the CCF’s slimy little pseudo-hearts for staying on top this, because it needs to stay out there.
Oh, I know: PETA says they’re “humanely euthanizing” pets who have no hope of finding homes. Whatever. From the folks at the front group:
Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. [...]
According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.
Here’s the document released by the CCF. Why is PETA no longer listed here? I’m checking on that.
And here’s a blog post from last year, when PETA started saber-rattling in the direction of anyone who pointed out their kill rates.
PETA, I bet you could get a no-kill consultant to talk to your shelter operations manager for very little money, probably not even the cost to put on one decent demonstration. You could get that kill rate to less than 10 percent!
As I’ve written before, I have no problem with PETA believing in and advocating an animal-rights philosophy. They have a right to their opinions.
I believe in humane stewardship of animals, and that’s the opinion I have a right to. I very vehemently opposed to factory farming, for example, because it’s environmentally devastating, a threat to our nation’s health and security and gut-turningly cruel to animals.
PETA wants no animals raised for food. I want them raised and killed humanely and treated with respect as part of a decentralized, decorporatized agricultural system. That’s a difference of core belief.
What I do have a problem with is PETA not being as up front as they could and should be about what that philosophy is and what it means. And I believe they don’t do so because they’d have relatively few supporters left if they did — animal-rights true believers only, and that wouldn’t be near enough to bring in the kind of donations they get.
So again, I gotta wonder:
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
Update: Terrierman breaks down the numbers … and the law. Must read.
Update 2: Michael Vick or Ingrid Newkirk? The New York Times ponders. Fortunately for those of us who actual care about pets, there are other options.
Update 3: Every year more people catch to the truth about PETA. One of the first in the animal-advocacy community — credit where credit is due – to scream bloody murder about PETA is Nathan Winograd, no-kill flamethrower and author of “Redemption:The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America.” Today he writes about the latest PETA kill numbers:
In the past, PETA argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much.
In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills savable animals. Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.
Winograd promises more tomorrow, so check back.
What about all the celebrities they’ve co-opted? How many of them would hang around to do those ads if they knew that PETA kills 95% of the animals that fall into their clutches.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 25, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
Probably most would. They seem to believe what PETA tells them and their kids. If the nice PETA people say that 95% were unsavable, it’s easier to believe them.
Particularly to avoid the s#@t storm PETA brings down on Hollywood celebs who dare question
Comment by JenniferJ — March 25, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Well, there is that. But isn’t that what they have “people” for?
Comment by Susan Fox — March 25, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
You’d think. I think it’s going to eventually come to the point that it can’t be ignored. At some point the worm will turn and maybe, just maybe, the MSM will catch on. Then you’ll see celebrities jump ship and probably claim they were just taken in and really didn’t know….the poor things!
Sorry, feeling a bit cynical tonight!
Comment by JenniferJ — March 25, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
Because, although they are despicable scum, they expose the ugly things that the traditional dog world covers up. This includes the cruelties inherent in the Iditarod, which petconnection and the rest of the dog establishment choose to ignore. Petconnection screams bloody murder about the tragic deaths of racehorses, and well it should. But there’s no outraged screaming from petconnection about the dogs who are guaranteed to die every year in the Iditarod. (What do folks think will happen when it’s 50 below and a blizzard hits?) There’s no outrage from petconnection about the sled dogs’ gastric ulcers or lungs filled with fluid when forced into extreme racing like the Iditarod. (We’re not talking about more moderate racing, which is a joy to sledding dogs and much safer.) No outrage from petconnection about the Iditarod musher who was suspended for beating and kicking his dogs—and who will be allowed by the Iditarod committee to race again. Imagine the petconnection outcry if a jockey brutally beat and kicked a horse and was allowed to race again. For the horses, much sympathy, and rightly so. But as far as the Iditarod dogs are concerned—screw ‘em. They’ll get no help here.
And that, Gina, is why people still listen to PETA. When we abandon the moral high ground, PETA—with all its revolting hypocrisy and barbarism—is quick to claim it.
Comment by SusanS — March 26, 2009 @ 2:00 am
Yanno, it’s hard to get riled up over the “cruelty’ of the ‘Idiot-arod’ when PeTA is the organization screaming loudest. PeTA killed 97% of the animals it took in last year according to Gina’s post. 97%. Two thousand, one hundred and twenty four pets.
I have a mental image of Ingrid getting her jollies every time one of those 2,124 animals came through the doors of the Virginia headquarters, singing ” And Another One Bites the Dust” as she personally wielded the syringe. Given PeTA’s antics, I don’t think that’s all that far fetched an image.
So no, I don’t listen to PeTA.
Comment by Anne T — March 26, 2009 @ 4:19 am
People listen to PETA because they agree that animals should be treated humanely. They aren’t aware of PETA’s true agenda; which is the elimination of animals from our lives.
Perhaps it’s pointless to wish a more moderate group would attain the same prominence, when our media outlets look for the sensationalized. Yet I do feel PETA hurts our cause, and should be exposed for what they are.
Comment by WereBear — March 26, 2009 @ 4:58 am
I just clicked on some random “SPCAs” and pounds on that Virginia account sheet, and got a little sick.
The cat slaughter is horrifying.
The dog killing not much better.
And the numbers for “transferred to another Virginia releasing agency” and “transferred to an approved out-of-state facility” tell the tale. These lazy shits are making NO use of rescue organizations.
And there are the ones with almost NO animals on Jan 1 or Dec 31 — because they killed everything for the holidays. Ho ho ho.
Sure, they don’t have the gazillion dollars that PeTA does, but some of them are just as quick with the needle.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 26, 2009 @ 5:18 am
Comment by SusanS — March 26, 2009 @ 2:00 am
When we abandon the moral high ground, PETA—with all its revolting hypocrisy and barbarism—is quick to claim it.
So you’re arguing that two wrongs make a right?
Sorry, but I knew enough to disbunk that particular notion way back when I was in the second grade!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2009 @ 5:36 am
When you go to the PETA website it says very clearly on the front page “animals are not ours to eat, not ours to wear, not ours to use experiment on, not ours to use for entertainment or for any other purpose.”
When I hear people express surprise that PETA doesn’t think it is okay to exploit animals, or people who say they are trying to hide their “true” agenda, I can’t help but wonder if these people are illiterate, or just plain stupid.
Also, if you know the CCF is a dishonest front group that distorts fact, why would you think that their misinformation should continue to “be out there”?
I see a lot of questions for PETA on your “saber rattling” blog. Have you asked these questions to PETA, or are you just making assumptions that you are now trying to pass off as fact?
When I talked to PETA about it, I found out that PETA doesn’t run a shelter and that almost all of the animals they euthanized were picked up from other shelters. These animals were slated to be “euthanized” by such cruel and painful means as being crammed into a metal box hooked up to an exhaust pipe of a truck or shot with a rifle. PETA offers to take animals from shelters that do that type of “euthanasia” and provide them with a painless form of euthanasia via sodium pentabarbital. So, PETA is actually saving pets from death row at some shelters. The fact that they are able to find homes for at least a small percentage of these animals who were slated for death at shelters speaks volumes.
But go ahead and keep helping the CCF distort the facts. Keep asking questions into thin air on your blog instead of to PETA directly and then making assumptions and baseless accusations. Keep expressing dismay that PETA is an animal rights groups, not an animal welfare group, like it so clearly says on PETA’s website. And I’ll keep thinking you are out of your mind, crazy stupid.
Comment by Allen — March 26, 2009 @ 6:23 am
I point to CCF’s documentation because it’s from the Commonwealth of Virginia. And because that commonwealth requires agencies to report pets taken in for the purpose of rehoming, not for the purpose of killing.
PETA never answered those questions. Unless you mean the canned answer you got from them, about their missions of mercy as the angels of a kinder death.
If organizations with far less money can place three-legged dogs, senior cats and pets with chronic illnesses and problems of all kinds, it’s absolute crap that PETA can’t do the same if it chose to, or that PETA couldn’t turn its home base city of Norfolk, Va., into a model no-kill community for everyone else to follow. I bet an effective PETA outreach program could place every three-legged senior pet with chronic illness in the entire country.
So why don’t they? And why do they picket Michael Vick and then call for his dogs to be killed? (Dogs, by the way, who are now mostly happy in new homes.)
I don’t express dismay that PETA is an animal-rights group. As I said, that’s a legitimate philosophy they are free to express and advocate.
But when they are not clear about what that means — the end of all domestic animals — then yes, I have a problem. Because people who do not agree with that end support it because they see PETA as a group that’s working to help the animals with which we share our lives, not see them off the cliff of extinction so they can’t be “exploited.”
Stewardship, compassion and respect. I’m sorry you think I am crazy stupid for holding beliefs that are based in science rather than
religionphilosphy. And that I’m honest about in sharing, which is not true of PETA.Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 26, 2009 @ 7:11 am
Allen, PETA is not doing anything noble by taking these animals who were slated to be killed by one method and then just killing them by another method. That’s just an easy way out.
What would REALLY be impressive is if they took these animals who were slated to be killed and then actually expended some of that huge pot of money they collect from their donors to SAVE THESE ANIMALS’ LIVES.
Otherwise, they’re just taking the easy way out and then patting themselves on the back for it.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2009 @ 7:18 am
The healthy, beautiful, easily adoptable kittens that PeTA promised to “find homes for” at the veterinarian’s office — “saved” by being killed in the van and chucked out at the Piggly Wiggly? Like that?
Wouldn’t it be cheaper for PeTA to fund euthanasia training for these horrible, horrible places they claim to get animals from, even provide the juice and needles? Wouldn’t it be kinder to save the animals the last van ride to death?
Oddly, the number of animals “received from another Virginia releasing agency” is listed as zero. Where are all these terrible terrible places? Not a ONE in the Commonwealth of Virginia?
If PeTA is “saving” animals, let them invite independent evaluators in to determine whether a dog or cat is adoptable.
Let them throw open their doors and show just how wretchedly sick or irrevocably vicious these animals are.
PeTA’s “adoption” rates are consistent with the number of animals that their staff of killers might self-indulgently cherry-pick as pets for themselves.
Oh, sorry, “animal companions.” Other wicked people keep pets. But PeTANs are pure, and the only beings worthy of this self-indulgence.
Not one PeTA donor in a thousand understands that she’s sending money to people who consider her pet cat an exploited slave who is better off dead than living with her.
But actions speak. Better off dead than adopted, means that all owned animals are better off dead.
Feel free to worship death and hopelessness. But don’t project that onto animals. I never yet met a suicidal dog or cat.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 26, 2009 @ 7:20 am
Comment by Allen — March 26, 2009 @ 6:23 am
I think my fundamental disagreement with your stance is that pets slated for euthanasia at Shelter X are killed by PETA using Kill Method Y and so Hurrah. I am absolutely in favor of euthanasia as a means to end suffering for medically hopeless pets. If PETA has veterinary documentation to prove that the 2,124 pets they killed in 2008 were medically hopeless, I’d like to see it. In the absence of that, I’m assuming they were adoptable pets. And killing adoptable pets is absolutely, positively, never, never, NEVER “humane”.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — March 26, 2009 @ 8:25 am
your article is very slanted and biased while decrying the CCF well-known for its mission to slander all animal rights groups yet you still post this non-sense—-I still support PETA, HSUS and all animal rights groups 100%!!!!
nice try…..
Comment by john649 — March 26, 2009 @ 11:03 am
So you approve of PETA killing 95 percent of the animals it takes in? Or you think that they don’t do that?
Just trying to understand if you support the killing or are living in a fantasy world.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 26, 2009 @ 11:21 am
John: Support groups where they do a good job but don’t turn a blind eye to their shortcomings. No person or organization is perfect or in the right 100% of the time.
Support Peta for its work in ending the fur trade. Support HSUS for its work to end horse slaughter in the US. But don’t ignore the fact that while neither of these organizations has a shelter, they are very good at telling others how they should run their shelters.
In my world advocating breed specific murders, euthanizing adoptable animals and advocating that in order to save animals you have to kill them is not supportable.
And neither group will get a dime from me until they change these positions.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 26, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Dear so and so—there is a bad article about us at such and such website that you’ve never participated in before. Please comment and show your support for us. Also, keep those donations coming.
Love,
PETA
No? Cos that’s what these comments feel like to me.
Comment by Original Lori — March 26, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Original Lori, I’m sure you’re right. Still, maybe a few of them will stick around long enough to get some food for thought on how untenable their positions are.
So, john649 - care to tell us in a bit more detail which “100%” of PETa’s position it is that you’re supporting? Specifically in this thread, we’re interested in hearing how you feel about killing saveable animals instead of putting in the hard work it can take to save their lives.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Seems like only yesterday , we were looking at the Peta kill numbers for `07. How sad that some people choose to put blinders on to the truth .
Killing healthy animals is inhumane. There is a home somewhere for every homeless pet.
We, who read and listen and rescue, know this.
My heart breaks for the animals who end up in Peta hands. I also feel sorry for people who refuse to see where their donations are being spent.
Comment by Heather — March 26, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
“When we abandon the moral high ground, PETA—with all its revolting hypocrisy and barbarism—is quick to claim it.
So you’re arguing that two wrongs make a right?
Sorry, but I knew enough to disbunk that particular notion way back when I was in the second grade!”
Huh?
It’s a whole lot easier to make up something I never said and argue against that, than it is to argue against what I really did say. But that is a very low level of discussion, and not what I expect to find here. You can do much better than that, The OTHER Pat.
Comment by SusanS — March 26, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
SusanS, in reference to PETA you state that “they are despicable scum” and you write “PETA—with all its revolting hypocrisy and barbarism”. Your words, not mine. I did not make that up.
So why would I want to support a revolting, hypocritical organization made up of despicable scum? Even if they DO occasionally accomplish some thing or another for the animals?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 26, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
“So why would I want to support a revolting, hypocritical organization made up of despicable scum? Even if they DO occasionally accomplish some thing or another for the animals?”
What on earth are you talking about? Where do I say anywhere that you or anyone should support PETA? I make it totally clear that I despise PETA. Once again, you are making up things I never said. Is there some particular reason you feel compelled to fabricate things?
I am simply answering a good question that has been repeatedly asked here: Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
Speaking very pragmatically, as long as PETA can step in where the rest of us fail, they will gain totally undeserved credibility and support. I would like to see PETA go out of business, the sooner the better. But the rest of us will have to get our act together to make that happen. And that means no excuses for cruelty. Period. Even if it is “just” a sled dog and not an elegant racehorse who takes your breath away when you watch him run.
Here’s how two of the Iditarod dogs died this year:
“The dogs were pretty well freaked out at this point,” Packer said, and some didn’t look good. . . . “The wind was (so strong it) was picking up pieces of ice and throwing them.”
. . . he noticed one of his dogs — Grasshopper — really struggling. He unhooked the dog from the gangline and put it in the sled and started forward again.
“The sled just kept falling over and he looked really bad, and then he died,” Packer said. “I sat there and held him. Horrible.”
There was, however, nothing to do but keep going or everyone was going to die. Packer pressed on. Then Dizzy started to falter.
“I felt his shoulder for hydration, and ice crystals in the skin is what I felt. I think those two guys probably froze to death in the high winds,” Packer said. “I didn’t think it possible.
“Then Dizzy, he died. It was horrible.”
Both of the dogs had been wearing coats to protect them, and one of the dogs was a thick-coated husky of old, not one of the thin-coated animals that have become common as mushers contend with warm winters. Necropsies conducted by veterinary pathologists have found no obvious causes for the deaths, but hypothermia has not been ruled out.
http://www.adn.com/iditarod/2009/story/726933.html
And this:
Advocates say at least 146 dogs have died in the Iditarod since it began in 1973. Iditarod spokesman Chas St. George said he could not find statistics of the total number of dog deaths, though there have been occasional spikes, such as 1985 when a dozen dogs perished in a blizzard.
Packer’s dogs were among five animals that have died in this year’s race, with about a dozen teams still on the trail on Saturday. At least one Iditarod dog typically perishes in the race, often from gastric ulcers that develop on the trail. Three dogs died last year.
Pulmonary edema was a factor in two deaths this year — neither on Packer’s sled.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap.....d-Dogs.php
Comment by SusanS — March 26, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Even if it is “just” a sled dog and not an elegant racehorse who takes your breath away when you watch him run.
Comment by SusanS
Where do you get off telling me what to feel and what to write about?
I get that you have a single-issue focus, and that you don’t care about an issue I occasionally write about. (Like, maybe 10 posts in more than a couple thousand.)
Believe me, I wouldn’t shed a tear if the Iditarod disappeared. Not a single one.
I know the dogs love the work and live to run, and that’s why I’m not at all opposed to races at more reasonable lengths and in more reasonable conditions.
As for them being “just” sled dogs (your words, not mine) — I think an animal doing anything the best it has ever been done is breath-taking. That includes watching Michael Phelps last year, even though I can guarantee that those few minutes I TiVo’d will be the full extent of my interest in swimming for years.
As for why I’ve written about horse-racing but no dog-sledding … that’s pretty easy to answer. I follow horse-racing, and have all my life. It interests me. I have as much interest in dog-sledding as I do in college basketball, which is to say, none at all.
This is my blog, and I get to pick what I want to write about. That’s one of the benefits.
Believe me, there are a million other topics I haven’t written about … and so what? It’s not as if there aren’t other people whose whole lives start and end with getting the Iditarod banned … and some of them likely have blogs for you to enjoy.
Interestingly enough, I think I’ve written more about food animals — cows and chickens in cruel and environmentally devasting factory farms — more than I’ve written about anything except dogs and cats, and certainly more than I’ve written about racehorses.
So much for breathtaking elegance.
146 dogs have died in the Iditarod in how many years? About two racehorse horses die for every 1,000 who start a race, and there are thousands of races across the country every year. Countless hundreds of thousands of animals are tortured and slaughtered in concentrated animal feeding operations (a/k/a “factory farms”) that produce food that’s of lesser nutritional value, and risky safety (hello, salmonella?) as part of a system that’s responsible for incomprehensible devastation of the environment and waste of fosil fuel in light of perfectly time-tested alternatives.
Why don’t YOU care about that?
Don’t bother answering, because honestly, I don’t care why you don’t. I think you can write about what you want to write about — although I’d suggest you have the guts to do it under your own name, as I do.
Now extend me the same courtesy and not dictate terms to me in my own house.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 26, 2009 @ 4:56 pm
Allen and John,(Oh John and Allen where are you?), need to stop indulging in hit and run raids, be real men, and respond to the very reasonable concerns and questions put to them.
And SusanS needs to get a blog of her own-
“as long as PETA can step in where the rest of us fail” ???? The “rest of us” have failed…how? Because we’re not interested in being grandstanding media whores who will lie and say anything to advance our agenda?
If YOU feel like one of the failed, then I suggest you get your butt in gear and start being part of the solution, instead of lecturing the “rest of us”.
What exactly do you do for the animals, as in directly? Do you…volunteer at a shelter, foster kittens, drive dogs to rescue, freeze your a— off like another commenter, who helped save dozens of dogs from a hoarder a couple of months ago? Did you go to Alaska to protest? Have you adopted a rescue Thoroughbred?
Just askin’.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 26, 2009 @ 5:52 pm
Should se try to be consistent?
If we despise HSUS for their “kill them” approach to dog fight victims, but support their efforts to make the lives of farm animals better and want to cut them slack as Gina does, than shouldn’t we be able to despise PETA for their “kill then” approach to shelter animals, but support them for their efforts to stop the cruelty of puppy mills and some animal “sports”?
Or not.
Personally, I think BOTH organizations are scum. I don’t care if one piece of their programs is one I happen to agree with. I don’t trust them, I don’t like them and I won’t praise them.
BTW, I have exactly the same problem with NAIA and with CCF.
Comment by EmilyS — March 26, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
“146 dogs have died in the Iditarod in how many years? About two racehorse horses die for every 1,000 who start a race, and there are thousands of races across the country every year. Countless hundreds of thousands of animals are tortured and slaughtered in concentrated animal feeding operations (a/k/a “factory farms”) that produce food that’s of lesser nutritional value, and risky safety (hello, salmonella?) as part of a system that’s responsible for incomprehensible devastation of the environment and waste of fosil fuel in light of perfectly time-tested alternatives.
Why don’t YOU care about that?”
And where have I ever said I don’t? Again—why make up nonsense that I have never said, and argue against that instead of what I really did say? And where have I ever said you can’t say or write whatever and wherever you please? Since when does disagreement constitute dictating terms to you in your own house? I thought disagreement meant a lively discussion, not sucking up.
As for the Iditarod, it’s a bit of a sore point here simply because of petconnection’s previous favorable attitude toward it. I used to think the Iditarod was cool too, because, hey, the dogs love to run, right? But when I found out about the ulcers and the pulmonary edema and freezing to death and the inevitability of the deaths, I got it.
Susan Shott
Comment by SusanS — March 26, 2009 @ 7:06 pm
I got so angry reading these troll comments.
For those of you who are new to this story do NOT believe the garbage that each of these animals being sick or injured and about ready to die a horrific death when PeTA “saved” them, giving them a kind death.
Flat out bullcrap.
Comment by Sue Cosby — March 26, 2009 @ 7:25 pm
So angry I can’t even make sense typing apparently.
Comment by Sue Cosby — March 26, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
Ms. Stott, perhaps if multiple readers are having a difficult time getting what it is you’re trying to say or not say … the problem of communication may well be yours.
And what I was reacting to was a direct quote from your comment, in which you suggested I didn’t care about dead dogs because they were “just” sled dogs (again, your words, not mine) and questioning why I have written more about horse-racing than the Iditarod.
Discussions are welcome here. But it would help a great deal if you made your points clearly and didn’t resort to insults in an attempt to advance your argument.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 26, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
Peta has blurbs on its front page about not eating meat? When Ingrid Newkirk apparently said in an interview that she eats meat? Which way is the wind blowing today?
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/vide.....id+newkirk
Comment by Social Mange — March 26, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
Ingrid eats meat? Probably baby pit bulls. Or maybe she just drinks their blood
Comment by EmilyS — March 26, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
Does anyone know exactly where PETA’s kill centers are located? It’s not something I can find advertised on their website, funny enough.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to fight fire with fire and get some people on the inside to get footage of PETA doing what they do best with unwanted dogs, maybe even rescue a few dogs while they’re at it. If the infiltrators get caught while trying to spring the dogs, what would PETA say? “Yeah, we’re pressing charges against these people for trying to save dogs we want to kill”?
Comment by Fred — March 27, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
The killing probably takes place at their Virginia headquarters where they have the $9,370 walk-in freezer they bought to keep the bodies in:
http://www.petakillsanimals.co.....secret.cfm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 27, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
It’s so easy to blame big bad PETA for killing animals, but what about all the owners of those thousands of dogs & cats? Does anybody know where PETA headquarters actually is? I’ve been there - I took a tour myself and took the opportunity to see the area they go into. THese are dogs who are chained 24/7, ticks the size of quarters, algae filled water buckets, and half of them don’t know how to walk on a leash. I saw one where this chained dachsund mix was curled out in the rain and dying. The owner didn’t want the dog inside the house becuase “it was gross.”
If any of you people out there saying that PETA’s not making use of their rescue facilities, grow up and stop living in this lovey-dovey puppy-wuppy fantasy. Hard times do not give animals a strong character - a good death is kinder than a bad life. For every animal slated for euthanasia in a shelter (or by PETA), there are a dozen more that are suffering. So why don’t all the people complaining try to help THESE animals first. Instead of the ones who are going to have a painless death.
And if you have an opinion about what PETA should be doing with it’s “kill rate,” how many dead animals have you eaten today? Their deaths are violent and horrible, nothing compared to the dogs and cats being put to sleep. Please look at your own dinner plates before you chastize PETA. They’re not slicing the necks of dogs open, shackling them upside down, and draining their blood while fully conscious.
Comment by butlerfam — March 28, 2009 @ 6:31 am
These are dogs who are chained 24/7, ticks the size of quarters, algae filled water buckets, and half of them don’t know how to walk on a leash.
[…A] good death is kinder than a bad life. For every animal slated for euthanasia in a shelter (or by PETA), there are a dozen more that are suffering. So why don’t all the people complaining try to help THESE animals first. Instead of the ones who are going to have a painless death.
Comment by butlerfam — March 28, 2009
One assumes — or one should be able to — that once a pet gets into the hands of a group called People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, those pets were no longer chained, were given fresh, clean water and the ticks were removed. Teaching a dog to walk on a leash is so easy that there are probably 100 people within 100 miles of PETA headquarters who would have volunteered to do it, if no one at PETA could.
One assumes — or one should be able to — that once a pet gets into the hands of a group called People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, a bad life should become better, and that the only option isn’t a “good death.”
Even if these animals weren’t adoptable on intake — and that’s crap, considering that PETA is required by the Commonwealth of Virginia to report animals taken in for the purposes of adoption — PETA has the money and the ability to hire veterinarians and behaviorists to work with these animals.
They chose, instead, to kill them.
And you think that’s just fine. Admirable, even.
Hmmmmm …. interesting. So does it follow, then, that you would be fine with the killing (or should we call it “euthanasia”?) of food animals if they could be given a “good death”?
—-
If any of you people out there saying that PETA’s not making use of their rescue facilities, grow up and stop living in this lovey-dovey puppy-wuppy fantasy.
Comment by butlerfam — March 28, 2009
So you believe the proper use of “rescue” facilities is as a kill center? Your “lovey-dovey puppy-wuppy fantasy world” is a pile of dead animals? That makes you feel good?
Man, that’s just sick.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 28, 2009 @ 6:41 am
Dis here is dat lodjikal fallassy we callz de FALSE DICHOTOMY. Beloved of lackwits and scoundrels everywhere.
I’d use different terminology if this was my blog and not the nice people at Pet Connection’s.
The choice is not between a miserable life of abuse and neglect and a poetic assisted suicide with Bach playing and pastoral scenes flashing on the jumbotron.
How do I know? Because I’m one of the countless animal welfare volunteers who takes animals who have been abused and neglected, introduces them to normal life as a pet, or sometimes working partner, and places them with nice normal humans who want one or the other.
This miracle occurs thousands of times a day, everywhere. It’s hard work. Much harder than slaughtering animals and claiming to have “helped” them. Much harder than running around nekkid wherever the cameras are rolling.
And those of us who labor at it wouldn’t trade the satisfactions for all of Ingrid’s ill-gotten millions.
Sorry Trollie, try another fallacy.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 28, 2009 @ 6:57 am
Many years ago, I tripped across articles on the ‘net written by a man who either got inside or interviewed people who had been inside PETA. An elderly owner surrendering a beloved pet animal was reassured it would be rehomed; the PETA volunteer took it straight back to the death room.
Just like the PETA employees who took adoptable animals under false pretences, killed them and threw their bodies into dumpsters. What happened to the DEA investigation of PETA giving restricted drugs to unqualified employees?
Remember also that instead of supporting REAL animal welfare organizations, PETA gave money to the Animal Liberation Front, a violent group which I believe has been categorized as domestic terrorism.
Comment by Social Mange — March 29, 2009 @ 6:09 am
PETA gave money for the legal defense of someone associated with the ALF. Not the same as giving money to ALF. Even scum deserve legal representation and there’s nothing illegal or immoral about giving money for such a purpose.
Do I have to add that *I* find PETA to be absolute scum?
Comment by EmilyS — March 29, 2009 @ 7:40 am
EmilyS, the assumption that PETA was supporting terrorism, rather than supporting the principle of even scum need to have decent legal representation, comes from PETA’s own track record. They’ve done some close to the line or over the line stuff in support of their vision of “animal rights” themselves, and they haven’t shown an interest in the abstract principle of the right of the accused to effective legal representation.
Comment by Lis — March 29, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Yeah, if the ACLU was providing defense for the ALF defendants, that’s one thing. That’s their mandate. Representing, say, Illinois Nazis* in a free speech case does not make them Nazi sympathizers.
If a foundation for the protection of defendant’s rights provides representation for a Nazi accused of some crime, that does not make them Nazi sympathizers
But if the Grand Order of The Tighty Whitey Supremacy Coalition sends money for their legal costs, that constitutes support for their actions. At least, most reasonable people will see it that way.
*I hate Illinois Nazis.
— Jake Blues
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 29, 2009 @ 8:55 am
H Houlahan, where do you think the ACLU gets its money to defend Nazi’s and terrorists if not the GOTTWSC? Are you saying the ACLU does not support Nazi’s and terrorists when they defend them, but that the people who send money to the ACLU DO support N’s and T’s?
That distinction can’t hold if we believe that even ACCUSED N’s and T’s.. and assorted other PETA scum deserve to be represented.
ACCUSED criminals can’t hold their right to be presumed innocent if people who support their defense are accused of supporting the crimes of which the defendents are (only) accused.
That way lies Guantanamo.
And Lis, I’m not interested in “track records” in these cases. I’m interested only in the rights of accused individuals to the full legal defense they deserve and their right to be presumed innocent.
Comment by EmilyS — March 29, 2009 @ 10:51 am
EmilyS, ACLU gets the money to defend Nazis etc. from people who support the civil rights, civil liberties, and the principle of proper representation for ANYONE accused of a crimne—not, generally, from the GOTTWSCs, who tend to be passionate in their hatred of the ACLU even when it IS defending one of their own.
And yes, actually, I can and do support the principle of innocent until proven guilty, while at the same time regarding both admitted Nazis and people who espouse political ideas awfully close to Nazi ideas as further expressing their positions on those things when they contribute to the defense of someone accused of crimes related to Nazi political goals.
I.e., if a cross gets burned on the lawn of a black family, and someone is charged with that crime, the fact that David Duke contributes to the accused’s defense fund doesn’t prove that the accused is guilty, but it does lend further support to the idea that David Duke not only was but still is a Klansman.
And when PETA, which distributes to young schoolkids screeds accusing their parents of being animal abusers, and throws paint at women wearing anything that even looks like fur, contributes to the defense of someone accused of trying to bomb an animal research facility (I made that up, too lazy right now to go refresh my memory of the actual details), it doesn’t prove that the accused is the guilty party, but it does support the idea that PETA supports animal-related terrorism, not that they support the idea of a good defense for any accused person.
If they contributed to the defense fund of one of their own members who was accused of an animal-related crime, that would not automatically increase the impression of them being supporters of animal rights-related terrorism, because it’s at least as likely that they’re just defending one of their own members, whom they believe to be innocent.
Do you see the distinction?
Comment by Lis — March 29, 2009 @ 11:10 am
Missed that last bit first time through: EmilyS, track records matter. GLAD doesn’t spend a lot of time and money litigating consumer safety cases, not because they oppose or don’t support consumer safety, but because that’s not what their organization is about. If they suddenly got involved in or contributed to a consumer safety lawsuit, you’d expect to find some connection between either their issues, or some of their prominent members, and that case. And if their weren’t a connection, they’d likely hear about from their major contributers, who’d be upset at the money they gave for one cause, being expended on an unrelated cause.
Comment by Lis — March 29, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Huh, Gina, maybe you have a BNF to ask those direct questions of
http://www.zoominfo.com/Search.....D=14567326
Or a relation perhaps
Comment by JenniferJ — March 29, 2009 @ 11:43 am
Good catch!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 29, 2009 @ 11:52 am
I love teh Google…
Comment by JenniferJ — March 29, 2009 @ 11:53 am
Wow. True believer, indeed!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 29, 2009 @ 11:57 am
OMFG! I am a card-carrying member* of the GOTTWSC! Who knew?
Well, I am very hard to tan. I shoulda suspected somethin’.
Hey, JenniferJ, great googling.
“I’m just a concerned citizen wif no agenda at all … pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
*Rilly. They send a card now, and I mean, how could I not carry it? Like once every two years I get to whip it out during an argument and shut up some blowhard.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 29, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Bwaaa haaa haaa haaaa!!
Some of Mr. Butler’s soaps ‘n’ such contain DAIRY.
DAIRY! No shit!
So Mr. Butler is directly responsible, through his capitalist running-dog endeavors, for the murder of the adorable male baby cows who are first tortured in veal factories. For the enslavement of their milk-factory mothers — tails chopped off, locked in confinement for their short lives of forced lactation. And for a whole lot of other really over-the-top-and-nevertheless-TRUE hyperbole that I don’t have time to grind out right now.
Mr. Butler doesn’t just CONSUME the stolen excreta of industrialized swollen bovine glands, he PEDDLES it.
Oh, and don’t tell us it’s okay because it’s “organic.” We know all about how Big Ag has pirated that word — and nowhere is it more egregious than in the dairy production industry.
Hypocrite, much?
(None of the soap in my bathroom contains dairy. Just checked. Castile — olive oil based soap. On the PeTA Virtue Meter, I kick Mr. Butler’s mealy-mouthed arse. This pleases me so much I think I’ll go downstairs and eat some cold lamb — locally and humanely grown, natch.)
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 29, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Lanolin!
http://www.lushusa.com/shop/pr.....americain-
Sheep abuser.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 29, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Honey!
http://www.lushusa.com/shop/pr...../coeur-mou
Bee oppressor.
Why, I’m becoming cheerful.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 29, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Wow, this entire comment thread has gotten epic. PETA are hypocrites… who knew? =P
Comment by Pai — March 29, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
Hey, I just thought of a whole new line of catchy slogans:
When is it better to be one of Michael Vick’s dogs? When the alternative is PETA!
When is it better to be thrown out of a moving car with sick with Parvo? When the alternative is PETA!
It’s fun and it’s easy! they practically invent themselves.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 29, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Wow, I go work in the garden (virtuously planting vegetables) for one afternoon and you guys take this comment thread…..well, words, almost, fail me.
Sheep abuse? Bee abuse? Nazis? PeTA slogans? And what’s up with Butlerfam? The acronyms went a wee bit out of control too.
And Gina is sitting a home thinking, d—, what do I have to blog about to get 100 comments?
Comment by Susan Fox — March 29, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Gina is sitting a home thinking, d—, what do I have to blog about to get 100 comments?
Comment by Susan Fox — March 29, 2009
I have something coming up …. a sekrit suggestion from Susan herself.
Oh yes, 100 comments will be mine. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 29, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
Gina, just wondering if you got a chance to find out why PETA is no longer listed with VDACS Online Animal Reporting?
Comment by Fred — March 30, 2009 @ 9:06 am
You say: “I point to CCF’s documentation because it’s from the Commonwealth of Virginia.”
Then why not just point to the info from the Commonwealth of Virginia without the misleading editorial from a group that represents companies that kill millions of animals a year, not out of compassion, but out of greed? Why not post PETA’s explanation for its euthanasia policy? http://blog.peta.org/archives/.....thaniz.php
You say: “If organizations with far less money can place three-legged dogs, senior cats and pets with chronic illnesses and problems of all kinds, its absolute crap that PETA can’t do the same”
When 4 million dogs and cats are euthanized in this country every year due to lack of homes, how can you say that other organizations are able to do a better job of placing animals that PETA? PETA euthanized a little more than 2,000 dogs out of the 4 million who were euthanized last year in this country, yet you blame PETA for not doing enough to find homes for these animals. That just doesn’t make any sense.
If PETA turned its offices into a no-kill shelter, it would fill up in about a week. Then they would end up spending all of their member’s donations caring for a relatively few dogs and cats for the rest of their lives while millions of other dogs and cats go without homes around the country. That’s not how I would want my money spent. I would prefer PETA spend my donation money more wisely - to help as many animals as possible.
I think it is admirable that PETA doesn’t take the easy way out and just warehouse some homeless animals and turn their backs on the rest – which is what no-kill shelters do. No-kill shelters are more accurately “leave the killing to someone else” shelters.
If you read PETA’s response to the Vick dog question, you would understand that they think the time and money spent to warehouse and rehabilitate a few dozen of Vick’s fighting dogs could be better spent spaying and neutering thousands of other needy dogs. You know, so that 4 million dogs and cats don’t need to be euthanized every year in this country. Seems like sound logic to me.
You say: “I don’t express dismay that PETA is an animal-rights group.”
But, actually, you do think PETA is trying to hide its true agenda. In your blog you wrote: “What I do have a problem with is PETA not being as up front as they could and should be about what that philosophy is and what it means.”
But on the home PETA’s website it has a very clear definition of animal rights and what that means in the section entitled “Why animal rights.” How could they be any clearer? I think the only people who are confused about what PETA stands for are the people who are too illiterate, crazy or stupid to read the front page of PETA’s website. How more “up front” could they be than by posting their position on the front page of their website?
Obviously the animal rights position, which is clear that animals are not property, would include the idea that animals should not be domesticated because domestication reduces animals to mere property. And the animal rights position clearly states that animals are not property. I don’t think PETA is to blame if some people are too dense to understand that concept.
You say: “I’m sorry you think I am crazy stupid for holding beliefs that are based in science”
Sorry to break this to you, but belief has no place in science. Scientific theories are based on evidence and reason, not faith. Your belief that it is okay to use animals for your own selfish purposes is not backed by scientific evidence. It is purely a belief, or a philosophy (or religion as you say) that you agree with, probably because it suits your own greedy purposes.
Certainly you are entitled to your opinion, but having an opinion does not validate your position. You can still be wrong. And calling your opinion scientific does not make it so. It’s still just an opinion.
You say you care about “pets” and don’t want them to be abused. Well, that’s nice. But that’s just not how things work. Whenever sentient beings are regarded as property, they are inevitably abused. The rights of their “owners” will always outweigh their own personal rights.
I know that people who hold to belief that we “smart” human animals are absolutely superior to all other animals hate it when these types of analogies are made, but that doesn’t make the analogy any less relavent so here goes: Would it be okay to own and use other humans as long as we treat them humanely and with respect? Or is taking someone’s freedom away from them and forcing them to conform to our own selfish desires inherently inhumane and disrespectful?
As the old saying goes, “if you love someone, let them go. If they return they were always yours.” But that’s not the relationship people have with domesticated animals. No, domesticated animals are captives and they have no choice in whether or not they will live with humans in a mutually respectful relationship. Instead, we force our will upon them and then try to pass that off “caring.”
And the worst part is that when people view other animals as property, and the animals have no choice in the matter, then it puts animals at risk of being abused, or neglected, just like human beings are at risk of being abused and neglected when they are considered mere property.
The animal rights position could very easily be translated to a “leave the animals alone” position. And until all of the domesticated (more accurately enslaved) animals are gone (or until we quit breeding them for our own selfish purposes) then people will continue to abuse and neglect them. That is the unfortunate and inevitable result when living, sentient beings are reduced to mere “property.”
Comment by Allen — March 31, 2009 @ 7:43 am
I never got the whole “animal rights” thing with PeTA. They want to give animals the same rights as people, right? “Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. (quote from PeTA website)” Yet Allen (and I am sure many other PeTA supporters) finds nothing wrong with the fact that PeTA euthanizes 95% of animal taken in. Um, people aren’t allowed to euthanize other people. Anyone remember Jack Kevorkian? Yeah, he got prison time. No, I am not saying that I don’t think that euthanization is a good thing for some animals, or that people shouldn’t have the right to choose it for themselves. But, we, as people, don’t have the option of assisted suicide, and we do have the option of euthanizing our pets or other sick animals. Does PeTA ask the animals the kill if they want to die or do they, as Allen states, “[they] force [their] will upon them and then try to pass that off ‘caring?’”
Comment by Jessie — March 31, 2009 @ 8:44 am
Allen, yours is an elegant, well-written, well-argued and concise explanation of the animal rights position. I respect you for your opinion, with the exception of what PETA can, does and doesn’t do with its money — that part is nothing but excuses for a group that prefers media exposure to solutions.
My own beliefs are equally well-thought-out and articulated throughout this blog.
We have a deep-seated difference of opinion. Mine involves stewardship, respect and compassion. It doesn’t involve extinction. I do not believe my pets are “enslaved” and I do believe in the keeping of domestic animals for food, as long as their existence allows them to enjoy normal behaviors throughout their lives and not be in fear at the end.
We will have to agree to disagree on our core beliefs, as intelligent people sometimes do. And for what it’s worth, the science I’m talking about is biology. Predation is a natural part of the natural world, as are we.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 31, 2009 @ 8:48 am
I often wonder if the Animal Rights groups feel guilty about their own ancestors’ beliefs as recently as pre WWII.
The common belief they hold today would have made them extinct as recently as the last century.
As for the use of animals for food, how many of their forefathers would have survived much past the turn of the last century without the careful preservation of their own self sustaining food supply?
Hunting and the procurement of our own food has been practiced for far longer than these people are willing to realize, the only thing one has to do is look at the decay of most indigenous populations the word over after the dubious influence of ‘western culture and ideals”.
Comment by Linda Kaim — March 31, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Oh Allen, if you, and PETA so much believe in science, how do you justify their release of non-native predators (such as farmed mink) into the wild where they wreck havoc on prey animals that have not evolved with this kind of predation? Is that “science”? Whose rights are being destroyed in that case? Is this just another perverse version of the “if we kill them it’s really kindness” philosophy PETA uses to justify taking in pets purely for the purpose of killing them? Do the animals PETA kills so eagerly have no rights?
And if you believe so much in animal rights, what justifies PETA taking on itself the decision that a particular animal would be happier dead than alive in a “warehouse”? Shouldn’t the animal get to make that decision? Or do you hold, as people who abuse children do, that “it’s for their own good”?
In what mental universe do you live where taking in animals solely for the purpose of killing them, and making no effort to find homes for them, is somehow superior to…. taking in animals for the purpose of finding them homes, but sometimes failing and having no good choice but to kill them. Do you think gloating about killing is morally superior to agonizing about it? Ingrid Newkirk has boasted about her past job killing dogs. Do you find nothing morally repugnant about that? Just in contrast, say, to the people who sweated to save Michael Vick’s dogs and agonized over every step of the way to help those dogs find the happy lives most of them are now living.
Are the lives of those 50 REAL saved animals worth less than the lives of the theoretical/rhetorical dead 4 million?
To PETA they clearly are, and in their particular case, since they are “pit bulls”, their lives are worth NOTHING.
Ends justify the means. The end is the elimination of all domestic animals. Kill to be kind. Kill them ALL.
PETA is a collection of deranged, deluded, morally corrupt cretins. And I mean you too Allen for using your evident intelligence to defend their actions and philosophy.
Comment by EmilyS — March 31, 2009 @ 9:18 am
Comment by Allen — March 31, 2009 @ 7:43 am
If PETA turned its offices into a no-kill shelter, it would fill up in about a week. Then they would end up spending all of their member’s donations caring for a relatively few dogs and cats for the rest of their lives while millions of other dogs and cats go without homes around the country. That’s not how I would want my money spent. I would prefer PETA spend my donation money more wisely - to help as many animals as possible.
Oh, this one’s easy. If they don’t want to shelter animals, then they can just keep their hands off them. That way they don’t have to worry about crowding their precious offices with all those dogs and cats, and you don’t have to worry about them using your money on them.
In other words, if they’re not going to put any effort into saving their lives, then just leave them the he!! alone!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 31, 2009 @ 10:21 am
OTHER Pat,
I have finally figured it out, and PETA themselves provided the clue.
Remember the recent “body bag” ad campaign? Every time someone breeds or buys, a shelter dog dies? Like “Every time a bell rings, an angel gets their wings”?
I mean it’s perfect logic.
Hence, every time PETA kills an adoptable animal, a shelter dog or cat is saved! Huzzah!
Oh, wait, something about that feels odd. Can’t quite put my finger on it. Let me go back and look at PETA’s shelter numbers again. No no, don’t tell, I figure it out.
Late 70s 20-21 million killed in shelters Allen. Last year DOWN to approx 4 million. With a good proportion on those needing to be addressed through feral cat management via TNR, something PETA also decries as a fate worse than death. I’ll be sure to tell the fat TNR’d ferals that they would be better off dead when I see them later today.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 31, 2009 @ 10:42 am
Please look at the report from state of virginia:
yes, 988/3175 total, =31%
Our (paid) friends from CCF take the numbers out of context. Yes, their slight of hand seems to make sense. What likely happened is someone at PETA or VA made a typo: notice how ‘reclaimed by owner’ is nearly twice as many as surrendered by owner?
or
look at the total statewide for all shelters:
http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_.....search.cgi
the total euthanized/total is 33017/96000
aprox 30%, same as PETA.
Seriously, if this was a PETA wide conspiracy, you’d be able to audit every PETA run shelter and see the same thing. Always distrsut a single data point.
Comment by Check-yer-facts — April 1, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
But there are NO PeTA run shelters. They don’t operate shelters. They just take animals in and then kill them.
You might want to check YOUR facts.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 1, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
Check your facts, kiddo. Here’s what’s going on, explained by a guy who exposes statistical bullshit for a living — and yes, it’s STILL a 95 percent kill rate:
“PETA, of course, tries to hide all of this, but the state of Virginia is not having any part of it.
Virginia has a legal requirement that all shelters report out how many dogs, cats and other animals are surrendered, how many are placed, and how many are rehomed.
PETA refuses to fill out the forms as asked by the state of Virginia, however, and every year a little charade occurs. This charade appears to be designed to slow down the posting of PETA’s kill information to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services website. PETA, it seems, is embarassed by their own numbers. Not embarassed enough to change what they do, mind you, but just embarassed enough to try to keep comparative data away from the public’s prying eyes.
And so, instead of reporting the data in the form requested, PETA mixes in unrelated spay and neuter data. They have done this for several years running now, and apparently they are doing it again this year, as the numbers are still not up on the Virginia state web site. PETA will eventually cough up the forms properly filled out, of course, but by then several months will have gone by. Heck, several months have already gone by.
[…]
So how do we know what PETA’s numbers are for 2008?
Simple: Just because PETA intentionally mangles the paperwork so that the data does not show up up on time on the Virginia state web site does not mean that they do not file something as a place holder. That paperwork does exist, and you can read it yourself right here and tease out the kill data, just as I have.”
Click for the chart … or just put your fingers in your ears and sing “la la la.”
http://terriermandotcom.blogsp.....ghter.html
If you look at the numbers and you really do care about those pets, you should then read this, by no-kill leader Nathan Winograd, here:
“While those who now dare to call Newkirk’s slaughter for what it is may be threatened with litigation, or be attacked in other ways, history will vindicate them, as it always does for those who—despite the personal costs—defend what is right by challenging tyrants. While those who remained silent in the face of these atrocities—the hypocritical leaders of other organizations who take her telephone calls, shake her hand, stand side-by-side with her, and take personal pride in their association with her—will someday have to answer for this complicity, and will face the shame that comes with answering “nothing” when asked what they did to stop Newkirk’s bloody reign at PETA.
Because engrave this in stone: As soon as Newkirk and her pro-killing cultish devotees are gone, PETA will immediately, completely, and without reservation embrace the No Kill philosophy and become one of its leading champions. When that happens; when her actions are thoroughly and completely seen by everyone for what they truly are; when she is condemned and finally, finally, thankfully, finally, we don’t have to hold our breath, clench our teeth, shake with rage, or cry at the thought of what PETA did to those poor animals, we will all be left wondering just what took us so damned long to rise up and stop this villain in our midst.”
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 1, 2009 @ 7:41 pm
Hoy, Check-yer-facts,
PETA does take in a fair number of dogs and cats for the purpose of spay neuter. Having those numbers mixed in may make PETAs numbers look marginally better on the surface, but doesn’t alter the FACT that all but 7 of the dogs, cats and others they took in as a SHELTER died at their hands.
A 30 MILLION DOLLAR organization saved 7 animals! Hey, give em a medal. While your at it, you can give the little 501c3 my husband is the treasurer for and I helped found a f****g Nobel Prize because on a yearly budget of less than 8 THOUSAND DOLLARS we rehomed 71 dogs last year, including spay neuter and in some cases extensive medical treatment. Over half were shelter dogs, and many who were destined for euthanasia due to various health issues if we had not agreed to take them on. I get the bald sticky ones with ringworm and mange by the way, kind of my specialty.
Cause, see, we don’t have a walk in freezer, so it’s just too much trouble to figure out where to put the bodies so may as well treat them and place them.
We’re talking abused dogs, starved dogs, pregnant dogs, blind dogs, dogs with fractures, 7 year old un-housetrained dogs. Cute dogs, ugly dogs, puppies and geriatrics.
Not all make it. Some die, some are put down for mercy reasons or behavior problems which cannot be reasonably managed or remedied. 90% graduated to a new life and loving homes. We are “open admission” for our breed, and a few extras and on less than ten grand last year we beat out PETA by 1000%.
Fact.
Comment by JenniferJ — April 1, 2009 @ 9:10 pm
Well said, Jennifer!
Comment by Susan Fox — April 1, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
Since when is operating a sterilization clinic for owned animals only “taking in” animals?
When I have an animal neutered, I drop him off in the morning, and pick him up in the afternoon. My vet never owns the critter.
Pretty much the same thing that happened when I had a medical procedure recently.
That’s “taking in?” So all vets, groomers, and doggie daycares are operating an animal shelter?
I suppose by some twisted logic … I mean, they do have a roof and probably four walls …
JenniferJ, I almost peed myself —
Cause, see, we don’t have a walk in freezer, so it’s just too much trouble to figure out where to put the bodies so may as well treat them and place them.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 2, 2009 @ 6:53 am
Peta is a joke.I am an animal lover, I support many animal rights non-profits, I don’t eat or wear animal but I also don’t support peta.How can people be so naive!
peta posts these photos of the worst cases. Many of the animals taken in are healthy or could be but peta has 97% kill rate. They advocate animal rights and get their name in the paper for throwing paint on someone wearing a fur but the fact is they save animal to kill them, even the healthy ones. local shelter average 37% kills so you’d be better off giving locally. Localities have even passed laws to save 85 to 95% of animals they take in and have been successful. Evidently peta doesn’t have the time!
Comment by Barbara Jones — April 3, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
Here is a letter I’ve written to PETA re: Primarily Primates
How do we get the PETA “believers” to know the real truth about PETA?
I am a former long time member of PETA. I am also a former long time member of ALDF. In fact, I personally met Steve Ann Chambers when she was ALDF’s president. I cancelled my membership and stopped my donations to both organizations when you first attacked Primarily Primates.
That attack on a fellow animal rights organization is unprecedented.
You’ve already had two previous law suits dismissed for unsubstantiated claims. Do you honestly believe your members are donating money to PETA so that you can spend money to try to close down an animal shelter?
Primarily Primates animals are typically the throwaways from pet trade and biomedical research facilities and without PPI’s intervention would have had an uncertain future – if any at all.
Why waste monies that could be used to stop animal cruelty and to educate the populace by attacking an animal sanctuary? Why force PPI to spend money defending themselves from PETA… money that should be spent on food, shelter and veterinarian care for the animals in their care?
Have you advised your membership base that you are attempting your third lawsuit? Have you disclosed how much you spent on the previous two lawsuits that were dismissed? Have you advised your membership base that you would rather all of the animals at Primarily Primates be given back to biomedical research facilities or better still be euthanized? Does your membership base know that you have stated that you would come in to work early to euthanize animals?
Comment by Joanne — June 23, 2009 @ 1:05 pm