Sweden Burns Bunnies to Generate Electricity - and Outrage
Little known fact about Stockholm:
Thousands of rabbits are shot and killed in the city's Kungsholmen
neighborhood every year. To up the gross quotient, the city has taken
to freezing the bunnies' bodies and shipping them off to a power plant,
where they are burned to generate electricity. Eww … it gives a new, vomit-worthy meaning to the term "green," that's for sure.
And if that's not nauseating enough, Stockholm assassins
authorities say that many of the rabbits are tame bunnies who were
turned loose by people who no longer wanted them. Folks, let this serve
as a reminder to never, ever set a domesticated animal loose. Don't even think about it.
I used to have trouble imagining that people could be so
irresponsible until my mom discovered two domesticated bunnies, Eddie
and Lewie, hopping around in a neighbor's yard. They narrowly escaped
becoming a hawk's dinner after chewing their way out of their
dilapidated hutches on the next street over. Their owner had no
interest in retrieving them, so they rule the roost at Mom's house now.
(Shameless plug: Lewie is Mr. April in PETA's 2010 calendar.)
If you're not the kind of scum who would turn a helpless animal loose
to fend for him or herself, then step up and be a hero to the animals
who have had the misfortune to fall out of someone's hands. Whenever
you encounter strays, for heaven's sake, take them to a reputable
animal shelter or bring them into your home where they will be safe
until you are able to locate their guardian or find them a new home. Wouldn't you want someone to do the same if, heaven forbid, your angel were to accidentally slip out the door?
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
Rabbits taste good. They taste quite close to chicken. I can't believe that the Swedes would burn them for fuel. What a waste!
If anyone is at fault here it is the people who buy pets then abandon them when they can no longer take care of them. Stockholm is dealing with the problem of bunny overpopulation in an efficient manner.
It is not as though they are throwing live bunnies into the furnace (while twirling their mustaches)... they are getting rid of a dead animal.
PETA has the highest kill rate of any shelter in existance, at something close to 98%.
The euthanized pets are then sent to rendering facilities where they are ground up, cooked and turned into meat and bone meal, tallow, etc..
Pot calling the kettle black.
I'm not a fan of PETA 's tactics (and I don't entirely agree with their message - although I do support a large degree of animal rights ). However, they make the right decision to euthanize many animals . As they state, any animals who are healthy or capable of being adoped or who are not suffering from terrible pain are referred to local adoption shelters. Thus, they only see the cases where the animals are either too aggressive and will suffer their entire lives without any home or any kind - or, as it the overwhelming number of cases they see, the animal is in such suffering, such pain it is, in fact, an act of humanity to end their suffering.
I support euthanasia for humans and domesticated animals. When life is no longer capable of being enjoyed and pain is all you can experience - then why continue that life?
PETA's blog makes the best case for this.
Viewer warning though, they photographed some examples of the pets that are brought to them and you will be repulsed and horrified.
http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/why_we_euthaniz.php
PETA shows 4 animals on the link you posted, and at least one of them appeared to be suffering from an easily curable condition. They claim to have euthanized over 10,000. As far as "suffering" is concerned, PETA makes quite clear it considers keeping animals as pets causes pets to suffer.
Some years back there was a small colony of feral cats behind the house where I was living at the time. For awhile, I was fairly active rescuing baby cats and finding homes for them. I understand quite well the harsh conditions abandoned pets live under, how important it is for pet owners to get their pets altered, and to act responsibly in taking care of them. I also understand quite well that for the radically limited areas PETA services, it would be fantastically unlikely it would see 10,000 cases a year even remotely resembling the four grusome displays on its site. If there's a single trait typical activists have in common, it's arguing from the anecdotal. One rare case or unusual incident supports an argument for ten million.
But all that misses the point I was making. PETA makes clear in the piece it doesn't approve of recycling euthanized feral rabbits, while PETA doesn't have a bit of problem with recycling euthanized pets. PETA recognizes that feral colonies of any animal can get out of control, creating problems that have to be dealt with, but apparently takes exception when rabbits are involved. You just about have to see how fantastically destructive a feral rabbit colony can be to appreciate the problem being dealt with in Sweeden. There are plenty of examples in this country where the natural balance gets out of whack to the point that some niche in the natural order experiences a population explosion that causes problems. The human kook factor seems to explode right along with it.
While I'd tend to agree with you that not all of PETA's stated goals are unworthy, it doesn't take a whole lot of research into PETA's tactics, methods and philosophies to disgust just about any reasonable person, even those who care about animals. I once read a book published by one of PETA's principals/founders on pet care. It was the only time in my life I have ever thrown a book in the garbage. It really was that bad.
Haven't I been hearing PETA saying that we shouldn't own pets ?
Which one is more cruel, owning pets or setting them free?
I believe PETA is opposed to more breeding and domesticating of animals for pets . They think that we have a responsibility to take care of the animals that are already domesticated.
Neutralizes an animal's instinct?
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Whats your point?
Domesticated animals , on an individual basis tend to survive just fine due to millions of years of instinct. For you to suggest that animals "forget" how to survive on their own is balderdash.
It is bordering on the purposefully untrue. If you can't make the argument with the truth, I suggest that you rethink your position.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.