PETA Killed 95% of Adoptable Pets in Its Care in 2008
Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.
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.
Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA’s continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETA’s hypocrisy isn’t difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs – and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated – requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.
PETA has a $32 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all “unethical.”
The bottom line: PETA’s leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the nearly six pets they kill on average, every single day.
The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget.
Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program.
Now the death toll of animals in PETA’s care has reached 21,339, including more than 2,000 pets last year. That’s not an animal charity. It’s a slaughterhouse.
Read PETA's response to this article, PETA Defends Euthanization of Sick, Injured Animals
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Because CCF is a group of liars?
From YOUR "fact" sheet:
dogs taken in by peta: 3317
dogs euthanized by peta: 555
Hm, that's not 95%--it's closer to 17%.
total animals taken in by peta: 10016
total animals euthanized by peta: 2369
Gee, that's not 95% either.
The thing is, lots of people know that peta isn't an adoption service. Peta takes in animals when there aren't other options for them--the old, the aggressive, the sick animals that aren't candidates for adoption--as a last resort. It's a sad truth, but a humane euthanization is better than the alternatives.
So, by all means, support the SPCA, but don't pretend for a second that if your financial backers had a problem with them you wouldn't be publishing BS hit pieces about them.
You are lobbyists; quit pretending otherwise.
This simplistic notion that PETA should spend its animal rights budget finding homes for unwanted cats and dogs does nothing to address the pet overpopulation problem. Becoming enablers for breeders and irresponsible pet owners only encourages their actions. PETA is not "secretly" euthanizing animals . They're quite open about the pet overpopulation problem in the rural south. If anyone, including the "no-kill" Center for Consumer Freedom wants to open a no-kill shelter there, who's stopping you? Considering the multi-billion dollar corporations that are bankrolling the CCF, I'd say they're as good a candidate as any.
It's easy to say "no-kill" shelters are the answer, but talk is cheap. No-kill shelters fill up fast and rarely have openings. They should be called "selective admission." And some of the unwanted dogs and cats can linger for years in cages. Uzma indicated that she lives in an area where there are waiting lists at the shelters. Those are lucky dogs, and I'm guessing she doesn't live in rural North Carolina or Virginia where PETA operates.
David Martosko, the director of research for the Center for Consumer Freedom, wrote an article last year (also critical of PETA) that nevertheless acknowledged that, "Our few thousand operating shelters simply can't handle the millions of cats and dogs they see each year. It would certainly help if more of us adopted them. But, to put it in automotive terms, few people want a 10-year old Ford Escort. Most Americans would rather have a shiny new Mustang, BMW, or other 'designer dog.' Shame on us."
Until people get serious about spay and neuter programs, including mandatory ones, and restrict breeders, euthanasia is going to be a reality, whether PETA's giving injections or North Carolina is gassing animals in metal boxes or shooting them with rifles.
The misnamed "Center for Consumer Freedom," which wrote this misleading article and runs a "PETA Kills Animals" website is in no position to accuse anyone of hypocrisy. It's a front group for fast food restaurants and junk food companies. It was founded by Richard Berman, who made millions defending tobacco. His own son recently called him "a despicable man: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jan/26/silver-jews-david-berman-father
The truth behind the euthanasia story is not that PETA is running a very unsuccessful pet adoption agency, it's that PETA is located in southern Virginia, near rural North Carolina, where animal shelters were gassing dogs in metal boxes or even shooting them with guns . PETA offered injections as a humane alternative: http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-nc.asp PETA is getting the animals that no one else wants, that were going to be euthanized one way or another.
The real hypocrisy is this phony " consumer " group which has actually taken the no-kill position (without backing it up with money , of course) when it suits them, claiming that pet overpopulation is a myth: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm?article=183 only to turn around months later, when they realized PETA might be getting a share of Leona Helmsley's billions, and claim, "Pet shelters are understaffed and overcrowded. Our few thousand operating shelters simply can't handle the millions of cats and dogs they see each year." http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/370867_leona16.html
They're in favor of lab experiments on live dogs and cats, but don't want them humanely euthanized? Hypocrisy indeed.
As for "Promoting Personal Responsibility," they want Leona's money to go toward "Financial aid for low-income Americans who want to foster an animal."
I await their position on laws that ban people from eating dogs, cats and horses, or wearing their skins.
http://www.bermanexposed.com http://www.consumerdeception.com
Thank you, Anthonyo, for exposing that flim-flam-man extraordinaire, Richard Berman, who fronts the fraudulent "Center for Consumer Freedom." It bears repeating the links below, so that readers can see for themselves the diversity of groups that Berman goes after and what his motives, in addition to lining his greedy pockets with cash, truly are:
http://www.bermanexposed.com and http://www.consumerdeception.com
Jamie59 and anthonyo,
Regardless of what motivated the CCF to come forward with these findings does not change the fact that they ARE REAL. These findings were not uncovered by the CCF, but by other individuals. Just because somebody wants to capitalize on them because they have ulterior motives does not automatically void any valid arguments they may have.
Please be aware that PETA and CCF are basically the same animals . large non-profits who are looking out for their own interests.
Instead of giving money and time to PETA, please support your local animal shelter instead. You will see first hand where your money and efforts are going.
(see my above comment about the techniques and objectives of CCF and other critics of PETA )
I'm not a front for anybody and have no affiliation with either CCF or PETA . Did you even read my last comment here? Because it sounds like you didn't. It's kinda sad that instead of discussing the issue, you'd rather accuse me of being a member of CCF and attack me on that basis alone. And even if you are right (which you sadly are not) it's still a moot point. The issue here isn't CCF vs. PETA. The issue is PETA killing 95% of adoptable pets in it's care in 2008 while simultaneously campaigning for animal rights . That's because PETA is only interested in money . It costs more to care for an animal than to kill it.
This comment is a year old, btw. And I just lost my job , so if anybody from CCF is reading this, I would love a job.
Not sure if you work for the PR firm "CCF" which is paid by the food and beverage industry...
...if not... and if you are actually interested in the truth... then read these sites for starters:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/peta-defends-euthanization-of-sick-injured-animals
http://www.bermanexposed.org/node/119
PETA has done a lot of good work raising awareness of animal rights and calling attention to cruel practices with animals .
But it is a real shame that PETA elected to euthanize all of these adoptable animals instead of trying to re-home them to responsible owners who would have provided a home for life.
is that you believed this article. Also as you judge PETA, I will assume that you are a vegan and have been able to provide homes to animals "for life"!