PETA Killed 97% of Pets Up For Adoption

January 11, 2008

A suprisingly hefty but not in the least shocking report out that People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals had to put to death 97% of the pets it received for adoption.

Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 “companion animals” in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.

“Pet lovers should be outraged,” said [Center For Consumer Freedom] Director of Research David Martosko. “There are thousands of worthwhile animal shelters that deserve Americans’ support. PETA is not one of them.”

 Indeed.

Of course, one should remember that the problem here is not really the killing of animals without homes (although the sheer number does inspire something like regret). The main issue is PETA, whose loud and noxious campaigning to “humanize” the way we treat our pets has gained political capitol over the years. Animal rights now finds itself a front and center issue that many politicians address very squarely. PETA has now demonstrated that it is incapable of living up to its own standards. Sometimes animals have to be killed. It’s unfortunate, as is the fact that meat for human consupmtion only comes at the expense of animal life. But they are both facts of nature that no amount of picketing or politicking can change.

That seems to be the real problem with folks like PETA. You can preach a worldview, but can you live it? Historically, philosophers have deemed an unlivable worldview a false one. A belief system that does not match what really happens in the world (or in this case, animal shelters) is not a valid belief system: it is at best utopian idealism, and at worst emotional hypocrisy.

PETA has shown they cannot do what they demand of others to do. Does this make cruelty to animals morally acceptable? Absolutely not. What it shows is that when it comes down to real life and how to live, political special interest groups are not the best places to learn from.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “PETA Killed 97% of Pets Up For Adoption”

  1. whentosay said

    Horrible. As an animal-lover I allowed myself to believe PETA was doing some ‘good’ amongst all their talk. Turns out too much of it was just talk. I understand the need to put animals to sleep, sometimes it has to be done, but coming from an organization that brow beats people about such things, well, its ridiculous. They cut their own legs right from under themselves.

  2. Tracy said

    First, your headline is inaccurate. It implies that 97% of pets in the United States (or in the world) were killed.

    Second, it’s important for people to know what the Center for Consumer Freedom is. It’s a deceptively named group that was founded with money from the tobacco industry. (For more information, visit SourceWatch or ConsumerDeception.org.) The CCF’s goal was to put a positive spin on smoking. When that failed, they moved to other industries and are now funded by the restaurant, alcohol, meat and dairy industries.

    The CCF opposes Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And their MO is to try to discredit those groups that oppose the CCF. Peta is one of those groups because it cares about animals and doesn’t want people to murder them for food.

    Even if you disagree with Peta — and I know a lot of people do — please realize that even some animal-rights groups do not agree with everything Peta does. So if you hate Peta, look into supporting less-outrageous animal-rights groups like Vegan Outreach or Farm Sanctuary.

    The bottom line is that we all care about animals and don’t want to see them suffer.

  3. Tracy said

    Sorry — ignore my first paragraph. This piece of bs from the CCF has been making it way across the Internet, and most of the headlines are inaccurate.

    Yours, however, is inaccurate for a different reason. These animals were not for adoption. Many were not adoptable and were euthanized for that reason.

  4. Tom said

    I DO care deeply for animals and do not want to see an animal suffer in any way, which is why I HATE PETA. They are a bunch of hypocrites. I won’t even mention all the other things I personally believe is wrong with these idiots. I’ll just stick to the pure hypocrisy of these fools. They preach about the killing of animals, of ETHICAL hunting, BUT they have NO ANSWER for alternative methods of managing animal populations, such as deer, elk, and other such game animals. Instead, they would rather these animals be killed in huge numbers on the highways, and roadways of America. They would rather they suffer ungodly amounts of pain starving to death. They would rather they die from disease such as bovine TB due to overpopulation and eating nose to nose foraging for the last bits of food. PETA thinks there is only ONE way of treating animals humanely, and that’s THEIR way. I also think that they just might change their tune if one of their children were decapitated by a deer flipping up and through the front window of car because the population is just too high. Personally, I think that thousands of starving animals is the exact definition of INHUMANE. Like I said, hypocrites.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: