PETA Reportedly Killed 2,352 Animals in 2009; Just 8 Adoptions

If the pets could not be adopted out, then life in a cage or shelter is no way to live.
Why don't you scold the people who went to pet shops, gave up the pets and did not spay and neuter, Gary.

I also find it distasteful that PETA kills all those animals in such a wasteful manner.

I'd like to know why the meat wasn't used to make food for homeless people, and why the skin and fur was not harvested to make affordable stylish winter-wear for the working class.
Rabbit's feet are said to be lucky, so we should definitely harvest those.
You may say, "Gregory, that's barbaric!", but I would simply reply that, even a barbarian would object to wasteful killing.

I do find this whole story hilarious. Sure, I'd be sad if MY dog died, cause he's my friend, but I think some of these people here probably break down in a crying jag every time they pass a dead possum on the road. lol.

But dogs and cats don't quite have the intelligence to comprehend that the shot they are getting is not just another vaccination . I have been present when I have had terminally ill and aging pets euthanized to alleviate their suffering and their actions told me they were totally unaware of what was happening to them. Their deaths were peaceful.

I completely support PETA . PETA never denied about the euthanasia rates. They have spoken up openly on their blog The PETA Files on how animals end up at PETA; often with no hope of survival. These animals come to PETA, because they were rejected from other "No Kill" facilities. Just because PETA has the " money " PETA can't "buy" loving & decent homes for these animals. PETA's euthanasia rates has to be blamed on breeders and irresponsible animal guardians who never spay or neuter they dogs & cats. PETA is forced to do this dirty job of euthanizing animals, it's not their faulty.

" PETA does euthanize animals , just like humane societies and veterinary offices across the country. Please re-read the highlighted text below. Many people are not aware that as many as eight million dogs and cats are dumped at animal shelters every year. More than half of them must be euthanized because there is nowhere for them to go—there are simply not enough good homes. Even if there were enough shelter space for that eight million animals, there would be another eight million the next year, and the year after, and so on."

- Heidi Parker, Mail Coordinator, PETA Foundation

PETA fights for more than 50 bil. animals killed worldwide every year. 2,300 is 0.000005% of that number. Smithfield kills that many pigs in two days -- from just one line! PETA has turned tens of thousands into vegans and spared millions of animals from horrific suffering by educating people about institutionalized cruelty. To provide fodder for the likes of immoral shills like CCF over 2,352 animals is precisely what the PR degenerates want so your followers won't focus on the 50 billion. Smithfield Foods had F2007 revenue of $11.9 billion, Hormel Foods had F2007 revenue of $6.2 billion, and Tyson Foods had F2007 revenue of $26.9 billion. These three alone have more than 1,000 times the revenue of PETA's donations in a year. Would you rather have PETA spend a few thousand dollars per animal, times thousands of animals, or work on changing our meat -centric culture?

Yes, 2,352 animals died. But I suspect PETA had no morally acceptable alternative. I’ve asked vets to euthanize many animals to end their suffering and to do otherwise would have been horribly cruel and an abdication of my responsibility to those animals. PETA runs across the most abused animals who are least fit for human-nonhuman animal relationships. PETA has never claimed to be a shelter. Their alternatives would be to turn the animals over to a shelter, or to release them into the wild to starve or to be killed by others. How many "no-kill" shelters do you think you'll find in Norfolk? And if they did find a truly no-kill shelter, most of these animals would no doubt lose out to cuter, younger, healthier and more friendly puppies and kittens in the adoption process, leaving them to experience solitary confinement for the rest of their lives.

But let's assume that all the animals were saved, spayed or neutered, placed in a true no-kill shelter, the vet bills are somehow paid, they don't displace the cuter puppies and kittens (who would then suffer miserable fates themselves), and they end up in homes of people who have the knowledge, patience and desire to rehabilitate traumatized animals. Those 2,352 dogs and cats will no doubt end up eating 1,000 times their total number in fish, chicken, turkey, beef and pigs during their lives. Do they have rightful claim to the flesh of other animals? Dogs could be fed a proper vegan diet (and would do better as a result), and even many (perhaps all) cats could be fed a vegan diet, albeit with great difficulty if my (vegan) vet is correct. But let's be realistic: maybe 3 or 4 out of a couple thousand adopted animals will be fed a vegan diet. This certainly isn't morally justifiable, to rescue one animal only to feed it thousands of others animals who happen to be from other species. Nor is it even morally excusable. Then add in the negative externalities of the animal product industry ( global warming , resource use, pollution, etc.) and you have further nonhuman casualties from the "saving" of these dogs and cats.

But, you say, the "pet" food is generally food not fit for human consumption, so it's a waste product from animals killed for another market. That may be so for most of the "pet" food fed to those animals who eat "pet" food (which are fewer in number following recent scandals in that industry). But an astute risk management approach would tell you, I'm sure, that more animals die by "saving" these physically and psychologically damaged animals than if they are euthanized. So if "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy ", then PETA is truly taking the most humane approach in euthanizing these mistreated animals, tragic as that may seem.

I am sympathetic to the complaint about PETA's misogynistic practices. But I think it is clearly the lesser of the evils, and if a sensational stunt draws viewers toward veganism , then it is arguably morally excusable - lifetimes free from killing animals for food in exchange for a few moments of exposed skin.

As a fellow abolitionist, I was also surprised to see PETA yield any ground whatsoever to "humane meat" in an effort to reduce total suffering. I haven't attempted any in-depth cost -benefit study here, so I’ll leave that debate to others who have studied it in depth elsewhere, and I’d suggest that others do likewise because the “obvious” answer isn’t necessarily the “right” answer.

What is clear is that PETA is an enemy of our enemy. PR shills want nothing more than to divide and conquer the movement. Why argue with your neighbor over whether it is a partly cloudy or partly sunny afternoon when the PR scum on TV is telling everyone that it’s nighttime? Please focus your immense talents on changing the world toward a vegan lifestyle, not on attacking others who spend their days doing the same. When vegans start fighting other vegans, that 1% of the population loses, the PR shills win and nonhuman animals die.

I've been a PETA supporter for over 20 years and I will remain a PETA supporter. There's nothing more catty than a vegan animal rights activist attacking a vegan animal rights group. Maybe you should join the Center for Consumer Freedom in their attacks on PETA? Get your priorities straight! All efforts to help animals are good efforts and should be applauded. What I see here is NOT an effort to help animals.

With all those millions in the bank, one would think PETA would do something like have spay and neuter clinics instead of harassing people. They could also have a real education program instead of offering to put garbage cans in Colorado Springs parks with the message of Go Vegan! on them.
They are all talk and no action IMO. What a shame that people actually contribute money to them. I wonder what salary their president makes?

I've heard of this before. PETA has euthanasia vans that will take in an unwanted animal, then euthanize them on the road. The people who turn the animal over think it's going to be adopted to a good home and instead it's given the Purple Sleep.

PETA believes animals kept as companions are abused. I bet the dogs following my boyfriend around, tails wagging, well-fed, bright-eyed, loving life, would argue that they're not abused. I doubt the cat purring behind me would think she's abused either.

I also found a page on the PETA website against spaying/neutering animals, claiming we do not have the right to make these decisions for animals, that surgically altering them s against their bodily autonomy. I've also found a page in support of surgical alteration to prevent more animals because euthanizing healthy animals is cruel. They double-talk.

But then again, what do you expect of an organization headed by someone who WANTS her body used to make a purse and her flesh to be bbq'd?
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html