PETA is killing thousands of healthy and adoptable animals

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**MeanGreenStompa**

I didn't put the pictures in because they'll depress the gak out of you. This organization needs to go. Spread the word on this to any animal lovers you know and lets get this wack-job shut down and it's funds relocated to worthy animal shelters and charities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an organization that publicly claims to represent the best interest of animals -- indeed their "ethical treatment." Yet approximately 2,000 animals pass through PETA's front door every year and very few make it out alive. The vast majority -- 96 percent in 2011 -- exit the facility out the back door after they have been killed, when Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater stops by on their regular visits to pick up their remains. Between these visits, the bodies are stored in the giant walk-in freezer PETA installed for this very purpose. It is a freezer that cost $9,370 and, like the company which incinerates the bodies of PETA's victims, was paid for with the donations of animal lovers who could never have imagined that the money they donated to help animals would be used to end their lives instead. In fact, in the last 11 years, PETA has killed 29,426 dogs, cats, rabbits, and other domestic animals.

Most animal lovers find this hard to believe. But seeing is believing. And if it is true that a picture speaks a thousand words, the following images speak volumes about who and what PETA really stands for.

***images left off this post***

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.

A supermarket dumpster full of garbage bags. When police officers looked inside, they found the bodies of dead animals -- animals killed by PETA. PETA described these animals as "adorable" and "perfect." A veterinarian who naively gave PETA some of the animals, thinking they would find them homes, and examined the dead bodies of others, testified that they were "healthy" and "adoptable."

A mother cat and her two kittens, all perfectly healthy and adoptable and none in danger of being killed until they were given to PETA by a veterinarian who was trying to find them homes and was told by PETA employees that they would have no problem adopting them out. After PETA lied to him and the mother and her kittens were entrusted to their care, they reportedly killed them, within minutes, in the back of a van.

Puppies killed by PETA in the back of a van -- a donor-funded slaughterhouse on wheels. Despite $35,000,000 in annual revenues and millions of "animal-loving" members, PETA does not even try to find them homes. PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a "humane society" or "animal shelter."

According to inspection reports by the Virginia Department of Agriculture, the PETA facility "does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody... The shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody."

Routine inspections often found "no animals to be housed in the facility" or, at best "few animals in custody," despite thousands of them impounded by PETA annually. Since they take in thousands per year, where were they? "90% [of the animals] were euthanized within the first 24 hours of custody," according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture inspector. How can people adopt animals from PETA when they kill the animals they acquire within minutes without ever making them available for adoption? How can people adopt animals when they have no adoption hours, do no adoption promotion, and do not show animals for adoption, choosing to kill them without doing so? In fact, when asked by a reporter what efforts they make to find animals homes, PETA had no comment.

A postcard written and signed by Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's founder, admitting that PETA does not believe animals have a right to live, despite its public perception of PETA as an "animal rights" organization. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. It is fundamental because without it, no other "rights" are possible. How can animals be guaranteed the right to food, water, shelter and protection, when those things can be taken away by killing them?

ot only does PETA kill animals, they also defend the killing of animals by others. This is a dying kitten in a Houston shelter after staff "lost" the kitten. When he was found, he was near death. His last hours were ones of suffering. Houston officials put job applicants with a history of violence, a history of criminal behavior and those who scored the lowest on city aptitude tests in animal control. When I was hired by the Houston Health Department to assess the shelter, my advice regarding staff was to fire people who abuse animals; hire those who care about them. PETA defended this shelter, urging government officials not to listen to me.

A puppy dying of parvovirus in the Houston shelter is not given anything soft to lie on as she urinates all over herself. Here she sits, unable to keep her head up, alone in a cold, barren stainless steel cage without receiving necessary veterinary care. Other shelters have a better than 90% rate of saving dogs with parvovirus. In a letter to the editor of the Houston paper, PETA publicly defended this shelter, urging Houstonians to reject my advice on the need for reform and how to do so.

fter finishing the year saving 98% of cats and 94% of dogs, the fourth-year Shelby County, Kentucky had 90+ percent save rates, they announced they were crowded and would begin killing animals. Once again, as they have done so many times before,the Shelby County No Kill Mission, a private organization both responsible for and dedicated to ensuring that Shelby County remains No Kill, went to work and the "crisis" was averted, bringing the population down through rescue, foster and adoption.

Unlike Shelby County No Kill Mission, PETA also reached out to officials, but not to help save the animals. PETA didn't ask what they could do with their $35,000,000 a year in revenues and millions of animal-loving members to help save animals being threatened with death, as donors intended and as supporters assumed. They didn't offer to help the Shelby County shelter find homes, build temporary kennels, board animals, foster animals, adopt animals or even just get the word out across Kentucky that animals need help. Instead, PETA sent Shelby County government and shelter officials a gift basket, with a note thanking them for their decision to start killing again after four years. "Thank you for doing the right thing" wrote PETA.

These pictures reveal the truth about PETA, a reality that is deeply at odds with the public's perception of that organization as a radical animal rights group. In practice, PETA is the functional equivalent of a slaughterhouse, while their efforts to undermine the lifesaving work of animal lovers throughout the country continually derail urgently needed reforms that would further the rights of our nation's homeless dogs and cats.

By defending regressive and cruel shelters and sheltering policies that mandate killing, by calling for the death of certain groups of animals entering shelters and by injecting thousands of animals with a fatal dose of poison every year, these actions are not only inconsistent with the mission of an animal rights organization, they are the antithesis of one. Only one question remains: Why is anyone still donating to PETA?

**KingCracker**

Just to play devils advocate here, if they killed over 29 thousand animals last year, how are they supposed to afford care,that being medical and food of course, for them? How many did they adopt out last year? Im sure the numbers are huge. Hell even local animal shelters have to get rid of animals at some point, theres just too many to keep alive and wait to be adopted.

**MeanGreenStompa**

I also questioned that, but this:

Despite $35,000,000 in annual revenues and millions of "animal-loving" members, PETA does not even try to find them homes. PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a "humane society" or "animal shelter."

answered it for me.

**Frazzled**

Yes, this is known in the pet world. They are killers and should be treated as such.

**MrMoustaffa**

This is old news sadly. The sad part being that it gets reported constantly yet nobody seems to want to shut this thing down. If other (helpful) organizations got a 1/4 of the money PETA gets they could do a lot of good in the world.

**Frazzled**

SPCA or just google your local rescue center

Grey Muzzle Organization
Central Texas Dachsund Resuce
Diamond Dachshund Rescue
Citizens for Animal Protection

Good reminder, I'm off to make another donation!

**Breotan**

This has been known for years. Penn & Teller even did an episode of Bulls**t about it. Episode linked below and is NSFW due to language.

Spoiler:

**KingCracker**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I also questioned that, but this:

Despite $35,000,000 in annual revenues and millions of "animal-loving" members, PETA does not even try to find them homes. PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a "humane society" or "animal shelter."

answered it for me.

$35 million in revenues, still how much does it cost to run this company? I know that MANY non profits and such cost a gak load to run and keep in the black, I bet they are the same. In saying that though, Im also of the mind that the big oil companies need to cut gas prives in half, and still be able to enjoy their billions of profits, so we can enjoy not paying what we all do

**purplefood**

Charities don't pay taxes do they?

**whembly**

KingCracker wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I also questioned that, but this:

Despite $35,000,000 in annual revenues and millions of "animal-loving" members, PETA does not even try to find them homes. PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a "humane society" or "animal shelter."

answered it for me.

$35 million in revenues, still how much does it cost to run this company? I know that MANY non profits and such cost a gak load to run and keep in the black, I bet they are the same. In saying that though, Im also of the mind that the big oil companies need to cut gas prives in half, and still be able to enjoy their billions of profits, so we can enjoy not paying what we all do

That's a lot of jack... there must be some high paying positions in that organization.

That's why I never donated to PETA or any LARGE organization... I stay local.

**easysauce**

PETA spends all its money on ads, and PR campaigns to make it and its members look good.

IE turd polish

support ACTUAL animal welfare stuff like spca ECT, not peta,

peta is a waste of $ at best, and a total $ SCAM at worst

**Velour_Fog**

It's kind of the same as the RSPCA. There might be people who genuinely care at the bottom of the organisation, but the ones at the top are only concerned with raking in the money.

**dogma**

Velour_Fog wrote:
It's kind of the same as the RSPCA. There might be people who genuinely care at the bottom of the organisation, but the ones at the top are only concerned with raking in the money.

Well, yeah, because the organization needs money in order to function.

whembly wrote:

That's a lot of jack... there must be some high paying positions in that organization.

Not enough to materially reduce the company's overhead.

Also, bear in mind that the people that actually do garner large salaries can always just go somewhere else, because they have very good résumés.

**easysauce**

dogma wrote:
Velour_Fog wrote:
It's kind of the same as the RSPCA. There might be people who genuinely care at the bottom of the organisation, but the ones at the top are only concerned with raking in the money.

Well, yeah, because the organization needs money in order to function.
.

and its function is to collect money, to pay the large salaries of those who "work" there, to apparently not save any animals, and keep the donators/low level workers/voluteers thinking they do save animals.

**Velour_Fog**

dogma wrote:
Velour_Fog wrote:
It's kind of the same as the RSPCA. There might be people who genuinely care at the bottom of the organisation, but the ones at the top are only concerned with raking in the money.

Well, yeah, because the organization needs money in order to function.

No gak, man. But when it's at the expense of what's supposed to be its purpose?

**Desubot**

People still support PETA?

personalty I'm more for

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals

That I would support.

**dogma**

easysauce wrote:

and its function is to collect money, to pay the large salaries of those who "work" there, to apparently not save any animals, and keep the donators/low level workers/voluteers thinking they do save animals.

As I already stated, the salaries of the people involved in actually running organizations like PETA are generally of no consequence. I mean Charity Navigator claims that the Administrative expenses of the organization amount to less than 250,000 USD which, from my experience with NPOs, is not surprising. So the notion that these people have exorbitant salaries is, at the very least, in doubt.

Velour_Fog wrote:

No gak, man. But when it's at the expense of what's supposed to be its purpose?

The highest paid member of the PETA administrative staff earns less than 80,000 USD per anum. I mean, I guess you could claim that they shouldn't spend so much money on fundraising, but if they did that they also would raise as many funds; at least assuming reasonable efficiency.

**Ahtman**

KingCracker wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I also questioned that, but this:

Despite $35,000,000 in annual revenues and millions of "animal-loving" members, PETA does not even try to find them homes. PETA has no adoption hours, does no adoption promotion, has no adoption floor, but is registered with the State of Virginia as a "humane society" or "animal shelter."

answered it for me.

$35 million in revenues, still how much does it cost to run this company? I know that MANY non profits and such cost a gak load to run and keep in the black, I bet they are the same. In saying that though, Im also of the mind that the big oil companies need to cut gas prives in half, and still be able to enjoy their billions of profits, so we can enjoy not paying what we all do

They could always take the money they pay people to protest actual Humane shelters for euthanizing animals that don't get adopted after a time and use that try and not euthanizing animals so quickly and opening up an actual shelter. It has to be somewhat pricey to pay people all over the country to protest what you are doing at home in far greater volume.

**hotsauceman1**

Personally EnTitled A******
They suck, Their logic is that it is better t die then t be a pet.
Really I think PETA is just a front.

**CthuluIsSpy**

As someone who adopted a cat from death row, this entire organisation offends and disgusts me.

They should be the ones injected with whatever foul concoction they've been using.

Or shut down. Either one will do.

**Ahtman**

There are a lot of really good groups dedicated to animal causes, and PETA isn't one of them. On the other hand, if you want to be part of an organization that makes you feel morally superior without any effort or reason, and that also has celebrities posing nude for ads, they are the only game in town.

**hotsauceman1**

I can get celebritie nudes other places

**Noir**

Yup, PETA being doing this for years. Just like Red Cross, I or anyone else should never give to either. This is way people should check into any organization they plan on donating to. But, here is a tip if you see a "celebritie" wearing a shirt with a organization on it, give some where else.

P.S. Except for Betty White, she smart and supports the SPCA. If you care about animals, that where want to give.

**Kovnik Obama**

Breotan wrote:
This has been known for years. Penn & Teller even did an episode of Bulls**t about it. Episode linked below and is NSFW due to language.

Spoiler:

Without supporting PETA, at all, that video was packed full with pseudo arguments and sophistry. The part about having to jail animals as soon as we had given them rights was quite spectacular in it's stupidity.

At least they featured Ted Nugent to act as a warning.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Personally EnTitled A******
They suck, Their logic is that it is better t die then t be a pet.

Don't you have a State who's devise is 'Live Free or Die'?

**nkelsch**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Personally EnTitled A******
They suck, Their logic is that it is better t die then t be a pet.
Really I think PETA is just a front.

No, their argument is "better to die than spend the rest of your life in a No-Kill shelter where you are neglected, never adopted, not socialized, no human or animal interaction to be driven mad by isolation and lack of freedom and to die alone in a cage after 15 year hellish existence."

No-Kill shelters are often poorly run, underequipped and flat out cruel and are the equivalent of a jail for insane animals after they spend extended time there.

Would it be better if every pet had a loving home where it lived a fulfilling life of freedom and love? Of course. The truth is there is neither the funding nor households to provide legitimate homes to all these animals. There is not enough room or facilities to shelter them and let them live a 'good enough' life in a shelter or sanctuary. No-Kill shelters abuse animals via neglect and maddening imprisonment, Other shelters euthanize them if they cannot find them a sustainable home. Both are terrible, but what is the alternative? I can't support No-Kill Shelters after what I have seen, but I also feel a lot of pet owners are horribly neglectful monsters who have pets for the wrong reasons, and it makes me sad when I see that animal neglected and then sent to a shelter because they don't want it anymore. Lots of animals live abuse-filled and neglected lives in homes as well as shelters.

**djones520**

nkelsch wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Personally EnTitled A******
They suck, Their logic is that it is better t die then t be a pet.
Really I think PETA is just a front.

No, their argument is "better to die than spend the rest of your life in a No-Kill shelter where you are neglected, never adopted, not socialized, no human or animal interaction to be driven mad by isolation and lack of freedom and to die alone in a cage after 15 year hellish existence."

No-Kill shelters are often poorly run, underequipped and flat out cruel and are the equivalent of a jail for insane animals after they spend extended time there.

Would it be better if every pet had a loving home where it lived a fulfilling life of freedom and love? Of course. The truth is there is neither the funding nor households to provide legitimate homes to all these animals. There is not enough room or facilities to shelter them and let them live a 'good enough' life in a shelter or sanctuary. No-Kill shelters abuse animals via neglect and maddening imprisonment, Other shelters euthanize them if they cannot find them a sustainable home. Both are terrible, but what is the alternative? I can't support No-Kill Shelters after what I have seen, but I also feel a lot of pet owners are horribly neglectful monsters who have pets for the wrong reasons, and it makes me sad when I see that animal neglected and then sent to a shelter because they don't want it anymore. Lots of animals live abuse-filled and neglected lives in homes as well as shelters.

Many of the no-kill shelters I've worked with have significant turn over rates. Very few animals are permanent residents. And quite frankly, arguing that killing tens of thousands of animals within 24 hours of taking them is better then being placed in a no kill shelter, well that's just not a winning argument.

**Breotan**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Breotan wrote:
This has been known for years. Penn & Teller even did an episode of Bulls**t about it. Episode linked below and is NSFW due to language.

Spoiler:

Without supporting PETA, at all, that video was packed full with pseudo arguments and sophistry.

Yes. It's what Penn & Teller do.

Still, the video does expose PETA for what they are and did it several years ago. I'm just surprised that this keeps popping up as "new news" every few years.

The most astonishing thing about all this is that nearly everyone posting here is on the same side of the argument - that almost never happens in OT. Any union of interests, purposes, or sympathies among posters in the OT must be quashed immediately. Quick! Someone alert the MODs before this plague of commonality spreads and vile solidarity finds root in the OT.

**Kovnik Obama**

Breotan wrote:

Still, the video does expose PETA for what they are and did it several years ago. I'm just surprised that this keeps popping up as "new news" every few years.

Oh, that it does. I had never seen the 'Holocaust on your plate' ad campaign, but god damnit that's bad taste.

Eh, just an idea like that, how about giving households with pets a tax deductible that would scale with the value of the pets and the amount spent on food? Too large of a deductible, and it wouldn't be viable for the government, but with one just the right size, you'd have an incentive to adopt a pet, and the government could cut down on the shelter funding.

Define legally the maximum amount of pets a household can have (which should have already been done) and then you avoid the crazy old cat lady going to bank over her 25 cats.

Thoughts?

**Fafnir**

That actually sounds pretty reasonable. Perhaps put the limit somewhere between 2-3 animals per household, and exclude dogs bred from puppy mills, or even limit it exclusively to shelter/rescue animals. Perhaps vary that limit based on the size of animals adopted, which would make sense from a deductible point of view, since larger dogs tend to eat more than smaller dogs (Except for pugs. Pugs can and will out-eat anything, and they will eat anything) or cats.

**djones520**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Breotan wrote:

Still, the video does expose PETA for what they are and did it several years ago. I'm just surprised that this keeps popping up as "new news" every few years.

Oh, that it does. I had never seen the 'Holocaust on your plate' ad campaign, but god damnit that's bad taste.

Eh, just an idea like that, how about giving households with pets a tax deductible that would scale with the value of the pets and the amount spent on food? Too large of a deductible, and it wouldn't be viable for the government, but with one just the right size, you'd have an incentive to adopt a pet, and the government could cut down on the shelter funding.

Define legally the maximum amount of pets a household can have (which should have already been done) and then you avoid the crazy old cat lady going to bank over her 25 cats.

Thoughts?

You'll be driving animals into homes that won't treat them as they need to be in that situation. People who want pets, to take care of them, do it already without such incentives.