Peta Accused Of "slaughtering Pets"

[merledogs]

Link to story Edited March 31, 2009 by merledogs

[collies r best]

if the article is right that is totally horrific

[one.eyed.dog]

I remember some thing like this acouple of years ago on DP.

 

Not good.

[jane-f]

Dosen't suprize me - after all PETA would prefare it, if no one had pets of any kind.

[celeste]

This is quite an old story, at the time the accusation was that PETA workers were collecting unwanted pets and putting them down in the back of a van, I think it was then revealed that the accuser was one of the big companies that PETA had gone after, who do you believe .

[mole]

Dosen't suprize me - after all PETA would prefer it, if no one had pets of any kind.

 

 

I would agree with this....PETA have an agenda contrary to keeping animals as pets.

[tails4wagging]

I have been having this conversation about pet ownership on another forum. This was a link. Interesting.

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-we-keep-pets

[BillyMalc]

I used to be, but am no longer a fan of PETA (since well before any of this started to surface) and it is true that this accusation has reared its ugly head already a couple of years ago, when it was then milked too, for all it was worth, in the press. I would also be extremely suspicious of believing anything printed by the Daily Mail; the paper is known for being very vicious and sensationalist, and I can see it being quite liberal with the truth. However, if this is true, it might be worth paying attention to the quote at the end: IF the animals "dumped" at their headquarters were really unsocialised, aggressive and fearful and IF because of that those animals would not have a quality of life, would it not be kinder to the animal to put them to sleep? I would really really hope that if this has taken place, that the sole reason would be quality over quantity. PETA is for animal rights, I'd hope however that they'd be for an animal's right to quality of life, rather than sticking them in a cage or kennel somewhere, to cope with being alive until their natural end. That is no life, and I can't see anyone disagree with that.

 

To think that PETA would actively put pet animals to sleep, "because they are against people having pets" would really be oversimplifying things. PETA, as far as I know, is indeed against breeding animals, but all for adopting animals once they have been put on the planet (and I do realise that this discussion in itself can again open up a whole can of worms - I think we've already had the pro/against breeding dogs discussion more than once ).

 

I'd basically like to hear the whole story from a more reputable source than the Daily Mail - I trust those guys as far as I can throw them

[Nettie]

I'd basically like to hear the whole story from a more reputable source than the Daily Mail - I trust those guys as far as I can throw them

 

Here are the facts. The link takes you to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs to whom PETA has to report every year, their main centre is in Virginia

 

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/V...7&year=2007

 

 

This is the latest report, to look at previous year's figures just change the '2007' at the end of the link to the year you want to look at.

 

According to PETA's figures 6,466 companion animals were reclaimed by their owners, 17 were adopted, 35 transferred to other release facilities in Virginia, 1 died in their facility, 1815 were euthanised, 18 were still in the facility on the 31st December 07 and 10 were miscellaneous (haven't a clue what happened to them).

[BillyMalc]

Thanks for that Nettie

Those are indeed an awful lot of animals

[sproggie14]

So that's 28% euthanased. Which is high but Battersea admit to 10% and I'd be pretty sure that the RSPCA were comparable to PETA to be honest.

[Yantan]

I am not standing up for PETA, as I am unsure myself about their operations but I did just want to mention something I found out whilst on holiday in Vermont, USA, a few years ago.

 

I visited an animal rescue centre there. At the time I was on the committee of a local animal rescue and told the lady on reception whilst I was buying a few bits and pieces and making a small donation so I was invited to a full behind-the-scenes tour. It was very impressive and they had some wonderfully dedicated volunteers.

 

However the figures they quoted for the numbers of abandoned animals was horrific as was the figures for euthanasia. They told me there just weren't the homes to go round nor the funds to keep animals indefinitely and that this was commonly the case for all most all American rescues.

 

This was not a large rescue place and when we compared the size of the area they covered it was similar in size to my home rescue. When I told them we had rescued and rehomed 2,000 cats in 10 years they told me that they had in excess of that figure per year but generally could only find homes for between 500 -700. The figures, as I remember, were similar for dogs.

 

For them euthanasia was deemed the only option, as it was to many other overworked, overstretched rescues there that just don't have enough people coming forward to adopt the animals. It wasn't a decision taken lightly and the volunteers I was talking to were clearly upset over it.

[ReikiAnge]

I am not the fan of PETA that I used to be, but I think it's difficult to judge without knowing more, including the health (both physical and mental/emotional) of the animals pts and the number of homes offered, the number of animals pts by other animal welfare groups working in the same state etc.

 

It's always shocking to hear of animals pts but while none of these animal welfare groups are perfect, they are not the ones causing the problem of overbreeding/unwanted pets, they're just the ones left to pick up the pieces.

 

The pts figures in the US are hideous from what I've read. I'm sure I recall millions of dogs being pts in one state alone in the past.

 

So that's 28% euthanased. Which is high but Battersea admit to 10% and I'd be pretty sure that the RSPCA were comparable to PETA to be honest.

 

It would depend on which branch of the RSPCA you were looking at. I'm not sure of other figures but I know our local branch has a non-pts policy (obviously excluding dogs in very bad health) and keeps dogs for years in the hope of finding them a new home - but then some would criticise for that too. Sometimes these places can't win, no matter what they do.

 

It's a shame the newspapers don't take more interest in the disgusting puppy farming industry, unscrupulous breeders, owners who get bored and give up their pets etc. If people in general had more compassion, maybe none of these organisations would even need to exist.

[snow]

Umm it's not 28% it's over 90% ... look at their own figures closely ...

 

1971 surrenders, 17 "on hand" & 13 strays = 2001

 

6361 others were all reclaimed NOT rehomed plus an additional 105 are in the reclaimed column - these were not dogs that PETA was responsible for more like the way a pound works, these dogs were never up for rehoming they were "reclaimed".

 

So that leaves 2001 - they were directly responsible for of those:

 

17 were adopted, 35 transferred to other agencies, 1 died, 10 are listed as *Miscellaneous and 18 were "on hand" 105 are somehow in the reclaimed column leaving a balance of 1815 ALL of whom were euthanized.

 

As a percentage of 2001 - 1815 is in excess of 90%

 

Moreover PETA actually contract to several counties to supply euthanasia services which they charge for, they have a mobile van which goes out and does the work which they claim is because if they didn't do it "humanely" then the dogs they kill might have suffered a more painful death due to shelters using methods they don't approve of so they prefer to supply a more "humane" service which they charge for - this came to light when the workers who perform the service were taken to court for dumping the bodies of the animals they destroyed in dumpsters by the side of the road - they were fined for "littering". It's a matter of court/public record and not attributable to any anti PETA group.

 

PETA receive in excess of $25 million dollars a year in income - I find it very hard to believe that they do not have the resources to have cared for these 1815 animals until they could have been rehomed.