Wednesday, March 25, 2009

PETA Kills More Animals Than Ever

As we have discussed here at SHS, PETA has killed tens of thousands of dogs and cats at its Norfolk, VA headquarters in the last ten years--apparently including adoptable animals. But based on public records studied by the non profit, food industry-financed Center for Consumer Freedom, the animal rights organization has increasingly resorted to killing and decreasingly to adoption, as the years have gone by.

the CCF is PETA's worst nightmare. Its workers are as edgy and creative as are PETA's activists--giving back to the animal liberationists some of the same grief they give to others. And it has a budget, permitting it to monitor what animal rights group do and say very closely. Understanding that the organization has a bias, over the years I have found its information to be accurate and reliable--the same about which can definitely not be said for PETA. (The PETA employees mentioned in the article linked above, were were eventually convicted of littering when they dumped the animals they killed in containers, which was later overturned on appeal.)

In the past, PETA has been exposed for killing animals transferred from shelters to its headquarters in Norfolk. Some, perhaps many, of these euthanasia deaths may well have been necessary due to the poor condition of the animals. But the number of kills versus adoptions may indicate something else is at work, particularly since its kill to adopt ratio is widening. From the CCF press release:

PETA's "Animal Record" report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets. Just seven animals -- out of the 2,216 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.
This adoption rate is the mirror opposite of the local SPCA, according to the press release.

The CCF also created a chart showing the number of animals PETA has received, killed, transferred, and adopted since 1998. For example, in 2000, PETA received 2,681 animal, of which 2,029 were euthanized, 28 transferred, and 624 adopted, for a 75.7/23.27% rate of kill to adoptions. In 2004, the ratio was 85.9% killed and 13.60% adopted. In 2008, only 0.32% were adopted. That's hard to imagine if the animals' welfare was truly the purpose of PETA's work.

Why might PETA be increasingly resorting to the poison injection? In the past, PETA has said that "many" of the animals are not adoptable. That isn't the same thing as all as saying none were.

Having watched PETA closely now for several years, I suspect that at least part of this seemingly inexcusable kill rate has to do with PETA's ideology that perceives human ownership of domesticated animals as, per se, causing suffering--as a consequence of which, PETA may believe the animals are better off dead than adopted into non animal rights households. The CCF hypothesizes it may be a reluctance by PETA to spend money advertising to the wider community--despite a $32 million budget--that there are animals available for adoption.

Whatever the cause, these kill to adoption numbers may be an indication that there is something very twisted about PETA, and that whatever that something is, it is getting worse.

Labels:

13 Comments:

At March 25, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

From what I've read, PETA has taken animals from shelters that were to be killed in compression chambers, which is a horrific death (not that being put to death in any way isn't horrific in itself, but you know what I mean), and killed them instead by injection. I don't like the terms euthanize, euthanasia, etc., period. Ingrid Newkirk came to animal rights work after having worked in an animal shelter, where she saw animals abused, hit, stepped on, etc. by callous and cruel shelter workers (just as their are sadists in medicine and among those who are supposed to care for humans who are vulnerable, imagine what some who work with animals, in slaughterhouses, laboratories, shelters, etc. are like) and euthanized many to prevent their further suffering and tried to make an environment for them in which they at least wouldn't know they were about to be killed. I understand the ideological differences between better dead than suffering and life as paramount value. But I don't think PETA refuses to place animals because it doesn't believe humans should have dominion over them. In fact, PETA staff bring their pets to work with them. I do think that Ingrid and PETA are well aware of how overwhelming it can be to deal with animals, especially in large numbers. Anyone who's had one dog or cat knows how they take over, and dealing with many indeed can be overwhelming. Knowing that, and in fact being overwhelmed, in combination with knowing how animals, including species that would not exist but for having been created and bred by humans, suffer as the result of human dominion, may be part of PETA's reasoning here. They do a great deal re pet welfare, and their desire to euthanize, by more humane means, animals that were to be euthanized inhumanely makes sense. It's one thing to observe them from the outside, and another thing to be in the trenches. The things PETA is fighting are deplorable; PETA isn't.

 
At March 25, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Not that I think that PETA or anyone else should be killing pet animals. As for CCF (is that it? CCF?) -- FOOD INDUSTRY-FINANCED? Of course they want to discredit PETA, and the reason should be taken into account.

 
At March 25, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Again, as long as we're killing "excess" pet animals, using animals in laboratories -- things done out of public view, to boot -- we're bound to be the victims of our own unethical and callous medical and scientific establishment.

 
At March 25, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

If the Center for Consumer Freedom is so confidant that these animals are "adoptable," why don't they start a "no-kill" shelter in the rural south? They don't seem to be hurting for money, and they seem inordinately interested in the fate of dogs and cats.

They've flip-flopped on whether or not pet overpopulation is a myth. Here it is: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=183 and here it is not: http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/370867_leona16.html

Then again I don't know if I'd trust them to run a shelter, since they might sell the dogs and cats to their buddies at Covance and Huntingdon "Life" Sciences, for experiments. That's right, these humanitarian dog and cat lovers who are so horrified that PETA offered humane injections as an alternative to being gassed in a metal box or shot with a .22, are in favor of lab experiments on live dogs and cats, so that we can have live saving medical breakthroughs like Splenda. What hypocrites!

http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-nc.asp

 
At March 25, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Thanks for dropping by Runaway. But I wonder why the terrorists who attack LA shelters and threaten the mayor, aren't also angry with PETA for doing the same thing--euthanizing animals.

 
At March 25, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

I guess you'd have to ask them, Wesley. They share the CCF's "no-kill" philosophy, but oddly, none of these no-kill noisemakers are willing to fund a no-kill shelter. Talk is very, very cheap.

 
At March 25, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

Wesley and Runaway, not only are the terrorists angry at PETA's euthanasia, they have the CCF's "PETA Kills Animals" logo on their website and appear in an anti-PETA video on You Tube with CCF's David Martosko. Lie with dogs, get fleas.

http://www.animaldefense.com/News/News_080504.html

 
At March 26, 2009 , Blogger SAFEpres said...

I think it's what you said Wesley-that PETA is so ideologically off that it believes it is doing a service when it murders adoptable animals because they will be pets.

 
At March 26, 2009 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

SAFEpres: I'm afraid so. One point: Only human beings can be murdered. The language we use is important. Animals can be abused. They can be killed. But they can't be murdered.

 
At March 26, 2009 , Blogger Unknown said...

SAEEpres and Wesley: I don't think that's why PETA does it. They do it because it's more humane than the form of killing the animals would have experienced in the shelters they removed them from. There are more animals in need of homes than there are homes. That's not how it should be, and it's not right, but it's what there is to deal with, and every home that an animal receives is one less place available for the next animal needing placement. Unless PETA has said specifically that they are doing it for the idealogical reason that it's better to be dead than a pet, it should not be assumed that that is their reason.

As for murder, that's a matter of human definition. What it is to the animal is what matters. "Removal from life support" even against the patient's wishes is not considered murder, either, but it still is. Things can be defined, justified, etc. via human rationale and terminology all day long but that doesn't change what they are.

 
At March 26, 2009 , Blogger Dark Swan said...

"Only human beings can be murdered. The language we use is important. Animals can be abused. They can be killed. But they can't be murdered."

hmmm, looks like it was convenient to use the term murder to make your point against PETA in another thread below...referring to plants and factory farm animals as mudered.

if-meat-is-murder-so-is-vegan

???

 
At March 30, 2009 , Blogger SAFEpres said...

Wesley, you're right-murder isn't really the right word, but it corresponds to my feelings about killing adoptable animals, especially since I voltunteer at an animal shelter where there are so many wonderful, loving animals that would love a good home to curl up in. It's terrible to think of them being killed because of age, disability, space considerations and/or ideology and not because they are deathly ill.

 
At March 30, 2009 , Blogger SAFEpres said...

DS-But, Wesley doesn't think that meat is murder, so he wasn't using murder in the same way I as using it in that article.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home