PETA has killed 29,426 dogs, cats, rabbits, and other domestic animals over 11 years

Links234

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

The PETA headquarters is on the aptly named Front Street. While claiming to be an animal rights organization, PETA does not believe animals have a right to live. Instead, it believes that people have a right to kill them, as long as the killing is done "humanely," which PETA interprets to mean poisoning them with an overdose of barbiturates, even if the animals are not suffering. In 2012, 733 dogs entered this building. They killed 602 of them. Only 12 were adopted. Also in 2012, they impounded 1,110 cats. 1,045 were put to death. Seven of them were adopted. They also took in 34 other companion animals, such as rabbits, of which 28 were put to death. Only four were adopted.

I know this is really nothing new, but PETA are a seriously nasty bunch of people, self-serving hypocrites. I hope that anyone who may mistakenly think they're just an innocent animal rights group reads this.

danniemcq

They honestly make things much much worse for animals by their crazy tactics and stupid court cases.

There was a publicity stunt recentlty in Dublin and someone was gonna sit in a car for 15 mins on a hot day to raise awareness for animals in cars. Very serious topic but the way they handled it and did it (15 mins really) was laughable and once again they looked like eejits.

The more of this crap they do the more more people take the piss and distance themselves from them (2 vegan mates recently stopped supporting them for these very reasons).

Amerika

Yeah, PETA is pretty wretched a lot of the time -- especially with their extreme viewpoints, but their protests involving pretty half-naked gals more than makes up for it. :pac:

drunkmonkey

That's Femen with the half naked girls.

Amerika

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's Femen with the half naked girls.

l think they got the idea from PETA.

megaten

Way less than I thought they had.

Jimoslimos

I thought PETA didn't support people keeping pets, so why are people donating unwanted domestic animals to them instead of actual legitimate animal shelters?

BeerWolf

South Park's episode Douche and Turd effectively made up my opinion on them - Entertainment media wins!

Muise...

I lolled when Naomi Campbell strode down the catwalk in fur after appearing in one of PETA's ads. La Campbell is just as consistent and even-tempered as they are. :pac:

Links234

Amerika wrote: »

but their protests involving pretty half-naked gals more than makes up for it. :pac:

Nothing makes of up for it
ಠ_ಠ

Artful_Badger

Whats the problem humanly putting an unwanted animal down ?

FatherLen

I hate the amount of celebrities that endorse these maniacs.

Dravokivich

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Whats the problem humanly putting an unwanted animal down ?

I think it's more so the hypocracy, with their campaigning for Animal Welfare and then in turn kill them.

Jester252

Damn Micheal Vick will be proud

Artful_Badger

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think it's more so the hypocracy, with their campaigning for Animal Welfare and then in turn kill them.

I see no contradiction between campaigning to lessen animal cruelty and putting animals down. No more than I see a contradiction in wanting animals killed humanely rather than cruelly in the meat industry. Animal welfare is to do with not needlessly causing suffering to animals not protecting their lives.

I'll admit I dont know much of PETA other than a lot of people seem to dislike the organisation but I dont see anything wrong with them putting animals down while campaigning for animal welfare.

danniemcq

megaten wrote: »

Way less than I thought they had.

While the number may seem small they kill around 89-90% of animals that they take in

The law requires PETA to submit documents annually to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), and this year's have just been released online: you can examine them here. A quick summary? In 2012 only 10.8 percent of the pets taken in by PETA at their headquarters in Norfolk Virginia escaped the hypodermic; 94.1 percent of the cats and 82.1 percent of the dogs ended up in Ingrid's walk-in freezer.

from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/how-many-pets-did-peta-ki_b_2620660.html

They also claim that they put animals down as an act of mercy and while I have no doubt sometimes that is the case there is also this

Despite its $36 million budget, PETA employees make little effort to find homes for the thousands of animals they kill every year. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk previously indicated to The Virginian-Pilot that the animal rights group could stop killing pets, but it would mean cutting down on press stunts and celebrity photo shoots: “We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work."

from http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Duggy747

They should be focusing more on actually looking after unwanted animals and dedicate more resources in rehoming them instead of their crazy, celebrity-driven campaigns which just tarnishes their image every time with their daft antics.

Remember when they had a problem with Super Mario and his racoon ways? :pac:

Amerika

Links234 wrote: »

Nothing makes of up for it
ಠ_ಠ

Perhaps… But I’ve been protested by them more than once. And never before nor since have I enjoyed so much being yelled at.

I am pie

Spend less money on ineffective adverts and publicity seeking campaigns and spend more money on rehoming campaigns.

Simple.

Muise...

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I see no contradiction between campaigning to lessen animal cruelty and putting animals down. No more than I see a contradiction in wanting animals killed humanely rather than cruelly in the meat industry. Animal welfare is to do with not needlessly causing suffering to animals not protecting their lives.

I'll admit I dont know much of PETA other than a lot of people seem to dislike the organisation but I dont see anything wrong with them putting animals down while campaigning for animal welfare.

Trouble is, PETA do all sorts of crackpot stuff like throwing paint on people wearing fur, trying to get animals recognised legally as persons in court cases, and calling meat murder etc., so you'd expect them to be too hardcore to allow any animals to be put down at all.

Jimoslimos

Duggy747 wrote: »

They should be focusing more on actually looking after unwanted animals and dedicate more resources in rehoming them instead of their crazy, celebrity-driven campaigns which just tarnishes their image every time with their daft antics.

I am pie wrote: »

Spend less money on ineffective adverts and publicity seeking campaigns and spend more money on rehoming campaigns.

PETA don't do rehoming as a rule and actually campaign for an end (or at least reduction in keeping pets)
http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx

For all the batsh1t crazy stuff PETA get involved in this is actually pretty reasonable (although not pleasant). Far more preferable than the old tactics of releasing unwanted domestic animals (and caged zoo creatures) en masse into the wild.

Tar.Aldarion

Artful_Badger wrote: »

I see no contradiction between campaigning to lessen animal cruelty and putting animals down. No more than I see a contradiction in wanting animals killed humanely rather than cruelly in the meat industry. Animal welfare is to do with not needlessly causing suffering to animals not protecting their lives.

I'll admit I dont know much of PETA other than a lot of people seem to dislike the organisation but I dont see anything wrong with them putting animals down while campaigning for animal welfare.

I don't see a contradiction either, but I think it's a horrible thing to do. Re-home them.

It's not as clear cut as they are evil, would those animals have lived horrible lives? Are there too many strays? perhaps. What I dont agree with is just killing them, neuter them and rehome them, let them live their own life, dont decide to kill them. We domesticated them, we have the responsibility to look after them.

Tar.Aldarion

Links234 wrote: »

Nothing makes of up for it
ಠ_ಠ

Just like nothing makes up for this, deaths per second for a diet:
http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html

But perhaps I'll leave that to another thread.

FTA69

Links234 wrote: »

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html



I know this is really nothing new, but PETA are a seriously nasty bunch of people, self-serving hypocrites. I hope that anyone who may mistakenly think they're just an innocent animal rights group reads this.

In fairness PETA have never hid the fact they euthanise animals, they also advocate it as the only realistic solution that is often available to those dealing with rescued animals and to be honest they're right. They may be a pain in the hole, but they aren't being hypocritical in this regard.

FTA69

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I don't see a contradiction either, but I think it's a horrible thing to do. Re-home them.

Where? You realise that most shelters are overcrowded and the animals there have scant chance of being adopted?

tritium

Their "got prostate cancer" as that used Rudy Gulliani did them for me. Shower of cnuts IMHO

Jimoslimos

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Just like nothing makes up for this, deaths per second for a diet:
http://www.adaptt.org/killcounter.html

But perhaps I'll leave that to another thread.

Sorry Tar but the point of that being?? You might as well start counting the animals killed due to habitat destruction in order to provide you with the cosy apartment you find yourself in. The roads you travel to work on. The factory that built the laptop you're typing on. The fields of soyabean that you consume.

Human existence means that animals will inevitably die as a result of being in competition for resources (or being those resources themselves). Nature isn't fluffy bunnies living out carefree lives, it's cruel, unforgiving and a constant struggle to survive. Some of the only animals that do live a (mostly) guaranteed stress-free life by comparison are those kept as pets or as livestock.

Artful_Badger

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I don't see a contradiction either, but I think it's a horrible thing to do. Re-home them.

It's not as clear cut as they are evil, would those animals have lived horrible lives? Are there too many strays? perhaps. What I dont agree with is just killing them, neuter them and rehome them, let them live their own life, dont decide to kill them. We domesticated them, we have the responsibility to look after them.

Does it matter though what kind of lives they would have lived ? I suppose its nice to think they coule re-home them all but a humane end to their lives just removes them as an issue all together. Sounds pretty cold to say it like that but I think its a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem.

Thats just on that one point though. As I said I dont know that much of the organization or whether they are extremists or what.

Jester252

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Sorry Tar but the point of that being?? You might as well start counting the animals killed due to habitat destruction in order to provide you with the cosy apartment you find yourself in. The roads you travel to work on. The factory that built the laptop you're typing on. The fields of soyabean that you consume.

Human existence means that animals will inevitably die as a result of being in competition for resources (or being those resources themselves). Nature isn't fluffy bunnies living out carefree lives, it's cruel, unforgiving and a constant struggle to survive. Some of the only animals that do live a (mostly) guaranteed stress-free life by comparison are those kept as pets or as livestock.

Just to add on nature being cruel. Pets will eat you if they have no other source of food. The world is far from a nice place.

Artful_Badger

Jester252 wrote: »

Just to add on nature being cruel. Pets will eat you if they have no other source of food. The world is far from a nice place.

Nature is cruel because its mindless cause and effect. That's no excuse for human beings who don't operate on that level to accept it as part of how we live our lives. We understand that our actions have consequences and we have the ability to choose the outcome by choosing our actions. I dont think it acceptable to choose to cause suffering to an animal or to allow it for any other reason other than necessity.

I suppose it is debatable whether there is an optimal solution between re-homing the animals or putting them down. Personally I think putting them down is fine as a make shift solution but the real problem being breeding them in the first place and creating this situation.

Galwayguy35

FatherLen wrote: »

I hate the amount of celebrities that endorse these maniacs.

They're a hell of a lot better than celebrities who cover themselves in the fur of dead animals.

Dravokivich

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

They're a hell of a lot better than celebrities who cover themselves in the fur of dead animals.

Or wear leather products...