RT: PETA killed 90 percent of adopted animals

[AsburySkinsFan]

As if I needed a reason to dislike PETA more.....

http://rt.com/usa/peta-animals-shelter-euphanasia-621/

Despite PETA’s anti-animal cruelty advocacy, the organization itself has killed nearly 90 percent of all the cats and dogs dropped off at its Virginia shelter in 2012.

Critics have slammed the People for the Ethical Rights of Animals (PETA) for its hypocrisy and have referred to PETA’s facilities a ‘euthanasia clinic’ rather than a ‘shelter’. In its defense, the organization claims that the euthanized animals were disease-ridden and ‘unadoptable’.

Of the 1,647 cats and dogs that PETA took in last year, only 19 ended up in new homes, according to the Virginia Department for Agriculture and Consumer Services. And of the 34 ‘other companion animals’ that were taken in, such as rabbits and guinea pigs, 28 were euthanized and only four were adopted.

Dogs at PETA’s shelter had the worst fate: 1045 out of 1110, or 94 percent, were euthanized in the facility. The organization’s kill rate is significantly higher than that of most other US kill shelters. In an interview with USA TODAY, PETA spokeswoman Jane Dollinger acknowledged that most shelters euthanize about 39 percent of their animals.

More at link

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

[Cheers, Beers and Mountaineers]

While on the topic of PETA

[twa]

They could have at least sent the meat to starving children in Africa.

[Cheers, Beers and Mountaineers]

They could have at least sent the meat to starving children in Africa.

I prefer a fine fur coat.

[Kosher Ham]

They are borderline terrorists.

A cult mentality is seems at times.

But this new news is the same as before... I think they have around an 85% rate typically.

[pointyfootball]

I don't like PETA, at all. However, this shouldn't be shocking or even considered hypocritical of PETA, unless they lied and said they don't kill animals, IMO.

[GhostofSparta]

A little OT, but is it bothering anybody else that the percentages at the bottom are only adding up to 97%?

[zoony]

I don't like PETA, at all. However, this shouldn't be shocking or even considered hypocritical of PETA, unless they lied and said they don't kill animals, IMO.

I agree

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't like PETA, at all. However, this shouldn't be shocking or even considered hypocritical of PETA, unless they lied and said they don't kill animals, IMO.

I agree

When their kill average is 85% over a 14 year span when other shelters average anout 50% then yes it is a problem. What's more is that this is the same group the protested poisoning rats, and now they are killing animals at a much higher rate than the majority of animal shelters.

Maybe they need to get out of he sheltering business and stick to nude photo shoots and splashing people with paint.

---------- Post added March-22nd-2013 at 07:48 AM ----------

A little OT, but is it bothering anybody else that the percentages at the bottom are only adding up to 97%?

There isn't a percentage column for "transferred", only adopted and killed.

[Corcaigh]

I'm no fan of PETA tactics, but you might want to look at the source of this article as the information comes from a lobbying organization, Center for Consumer Freedom, set up to promote the interests of the fast food industry.

Aside from their we site petakillsanimals.com you might enjoy: http://www.obesitymyths.com/

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm no fan of PETA tactics, but you might want to look at the source of this article as the information comes from a lobbying organization, Center for Consumer Freedom, set up to promote the interests of the fast food industry.

Aside from their we site petakillsanimals.com you might enjoy: http://www.obesitymyths.com/

The www.petakillsanimals.com is not the source of the article, only the chart, which given the other ES threads in years past on this very subject, seem fairly accurate. What's more is that if you read he RT article you'll find that PETA does not dispute the percentages.

Dogs at PETA’s shelter had the worst fate: 1045 out of 1110, or 94 percent, were euthanized in the facility. The organization’s kill rate is significantly higher than that of most other US kill shelters. In an interview with USA TODAY, PETA spokeswoman Jane Dollinger acknowledged that most shelters euthanize about 39 percent of their animals.

http://rt.com/usa/peta-animals-shelter-euphanasia-621/

[Elessar78]

A little OT, but is it bothering anybody else that the percentages at the bottom are only adding up to 97%?

Those 3% have been targeted for rendition and subsequently enhanced interrogation techniques. Everyone talks under torture. Everyone. They are being held in PETA black sites around the world in hopes that they'll give up the leadership of Al Caenine.

[pjfootballer]

What this tells you is, even PETA can't stop the over populating of house pets. People aren't getting their pets spade and neutered enough, which is the real problem.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What this tells you is, even PETA can't stop the over populating of house pets. People aren't getting their pets spade and neutered enough, which is the real problem.

Then why is the average for other kill shelters only 39%? A number which PETA does not dispute.

[pjfootballer]

Then why is the average for other kill shelters only 39%? A number which PETA does not dispute.

I don't care what the percentages are, there are too many domesticated animals that are born that shouldn't be and too many people throwing their pets away.

Example: My Mom had a German Sheppard when we were kids to teenagers. Then 20 years later she decided she wanted another dog. She has a Lab mix that is 9 years old. She's doesn't really want to take care of the dog anymore and the dog has become a burden. But luckily, she can't/won't take her to the pound but I know she can't wait for the dog to pass. Her dog is a rescue dog.

People have to realize that taking on a pet is at least a 10 year committment or more. That's why I'll never have another pet again, not even a goldfish. I had them growing up, but they are a big pain in the ass to me.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't care what the percentages are, there are too many domesticated animals that are born that shouldn't be and too many people throwing their pets away.

I completely agree, but this thread topic is about the giant disparity between the kill percentage at most kill shelters 39%, and PETA's 90%.

[twa]

probably can't find enough ethical adopters.....death is preferable to impurity(or feeding and caring for them)

probably a large crossover to those that support exterminating humans for their own good

[scruffylookin]

While on the topic of PETA

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/bigpot6.jpg

I prefer a fine fur coat.

Extremely inappropriate and immature.

If you have an issue, please keep it to yourself and don't try to antagonize people who have a conscience and are actually capable of empathy.

As for the subject of the thread, there are several factors at play that one should consider when comparing PETA rescued animals and other shelters.

First, as has been mentioned, look at the source doing the "reporting". Not exactly the beacon of impartiality. However I would in fact believe that unfortunately PETA shelters would have a higher "kill rate" than regular shelters for two main reasons.

One:

Public awareness. How many people know where a local PETA shelter is versus the Humane Society or ASPCA shelter? I bet PETA does not get nearly the same amount of people coming to their shelters looking to adopt like other shelters. Now it would be on them to promote the locations of course, but I still bet that given the choice John/Jane Q Public would go to a Humane Society/ASPCA shelter before a PETA shelter because of the name recognition.

Two:

PETA takes in animals rescued from labs, farms and other not so nice places. So their population of animals are not simply made up of strays and domestic pets that were given up by somebody. These rescued animals are far more difficult, if not impossible, to place.

So in the end, I find it always laughable and frankly revealing when someone tries to imply that a group like PETA doesn't really give a damn about animals and that they have some other motive. Sorry folks, the big money isn't in saving animals. PETA and any other animal welfare group combined does not have the cash nor the lobby that the Research, NRA and Meat industry have. So to imply that PETA's motives are not pure and that they are in it for some other reason just doesn't hold.

But I know it doesn't matter, alot of folks (probably the majority) when push comes to shove are closer in thought and heart (or lack thereof) of the poster I quoted abover rather than myself and that is very sad.

[deejaydana]

^^^^ that was an informative post. If PETA is taking animals from sources where the animal has gone thru unusual trauma it would make it very difficult to place. I haven't read thru the piece but I'd be interested in knowing what their resources were because this ultimately plays a huge role in kill rates.

[Corcaigh]

What's more is that if you read he RT article you'll find that PETA does not dispute the percentages.

So what is your point. That PETA likes to kill animals? Do you think there are other factors at play?

[AsburySkinsFan]

First, as has been mentioned, look at the source doing the "reporting". Not exactly the beacon of impartiality. [/Quote]

Ok...first PETA does not dispute the percentages, so that the source is irrelevant, because PETA agrees that these numbers are accurate.

However I would in fact believe that unfortunately PETA shelters would have a higher "kill rate" than regular shelters for two main reasons.

One:

Public awareness. How many people know where a local PETA shelter is versus the Humane Society or ASPCA shelter? I bet PETA does not get nearly the same amount of people coming to their shelters looking to adopt like other shelters. Now it would be on them to promote the locations of course, but I still bet that given the choice John/Jane Q Public would go to a Humane Society/ASPCA shelter before a PETA shelter because of the name recognition.

Fine, so maybe less public demonstrations protecting the endangered New York sewer rats, and more public awareness about their shelters.

Two:

PETA takes in animals rescued from labs, farms and other not so nice places. So their population of animals are not simply made up of strays and domestic pets that were given up by somebody. These rescued animals are far more difficult, if not impossible, to place.

Read the article! It specifically cites the dog and cat numbers....i.e. NOT lab rats.

So in the end, I find it always laughable and frankly revealing when someone tries to imply that a group like PETA doesn't really give a damn about animals and that they have some other motive. Sorry folks, the big money isn't in saving animals. PETA and any other animal welfare group combined does not have the cash nor the lobby that the Research, NRA and Meat industry have. So to imply that PETA's motives are not pure and that they are in it for some other reason just doesn't hold.

In the end PETA's kill rates are more than double the other kill shelters and for none of the reasons you have just posted.

But I know it doesn't matter, alot of folks (probably the majority) when push comes to shove are closer in thought and heart (or lack thereof) of the poster I quoted abover rather than myself and that is very sad.

We see PETA for what they are, ever notice that the same level of animosity does not exist for the American Humane Society? Ever wonder why?

---------- Post added March-22nd-2013 at 10:34 AM ----------

So what is your point. That PETA likes to kill animals? Do you think there are other factors at play?

They say they want to protect animals, and then the shelters they operate kill almost three times the number of animals as other evil (non-PETA) shelters. PETA needs to get out of the sheltering business and stick with their publicity stunts.

[twa]

http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/03/17/petas-definition-of-being-ethical-to-animals-kill-them/

[AsburySkinsFan]

http://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/pug.jpg?w=300&h=288

http://ethicsalarms.com/2011/03/17/petas-definition-of-being-ethical-to-animals-kill-them/

Your source is obviously biased......

In 2010, out of 2,345 dogs and cats PETA took in under Virginia law on the pretense that it was facilitating those animals’ adoption, PETA found new owners for just 44. 63 were transferred to another Virginia facility, and seven were reclaimed by the owner. The rest, 2200 of them, were euthanized. These statistics are from PETA itself, in the documentation it is required to supply Virginia at year’s end. 2010 was actually a good year: since 1998, PETA has kept alive only one out of every 300 dogs and cats that it has “rescued,” killing more than 25,000.

Oh the source is PETA........

[Riggo-toni]

Those 3% have been targeted for rendition and subsequently enhanced interrogation techniques. Everyone talks under torture. Everyone. They are being held in PETA black sites around the world in hopes that they'll give up the leadership of Al Caenine.

Funniest post of the week!!

[talk show host]

Extremely inappropriate and immature.

If you have an issue, please keep it to yourself and don't try to antagonize people who have a conscience and are actually capable of empathy.

Lighten up dude, he was just trying to be funny.

As for the subject of the thread' date=' there are several factors at play that one should consider when comparing PETA rescued animals and other shelters.

First, as has been mentioned, look at the source doing the "reporting". Not exactly the beacon of impartiality. However I would in fact believe that unfortunately PETA shelters would have a higher "kill rate" than regular shelters for two main reasons.

One:

Public awareness. How many people know where a local PETA shelter is versus the Humane Society or ASPCA shelter? I bet PETA does not get nearly the same amount of people coming to their shelters looking to adopt like other shelters. Now it would be on them to promote the locations of course, but I still bet that given the choice John/Jane Q Public would go to a Humane Society/ASPCA shelter before a PETA shelter because of the name recognition.[/quote']

If PETA were really interested in saving these animals, they would do a better job of letting people know about their shelters so they could save the animals.

Two:

PETA takes in animals rescued from labs' date=' farms and other not so nice places. So their population of animals are not simply made up of strays and domestic pets that were given up by somebody. These rescued animals are far more difficult, if not impossible, to place.[/quote']

I would argue PETA is doing the animals a disservice then. They are "rescuing" animals from labs and farms just to kill them? I imagine the animals would rather remain on the farms than be kidnapped, taken to a dirty cell and then executed. Screw PETA.

So in the end' date=' I find it always laughable and frankly revealing when someone tries to imply that a group like PETA doesn't really give a damn about animals and that they have some other motive. Sorry folks, the big money isn't in saving animals. PETA and any other animal welfare group combined does not have the cash nor the lobby that the Research, NRA and Meat industry have. So to imply that PETA's motives are not pure and that they are in it for some other reason just doesn't hold.

But I know it doesn't matter, alot of folks (probably the majority) when push comes to shove are closer in thought and heart (or lack thereof) of the poster I quoted abover rather than myself and that is very sad.[/quote']

I would feel much better about our society as a whole if people were more like the poster you quoted and less like you. There are alot more worthy causes out there than an institution filled of self-righteous nutjobs who ultimately do more harm than good.