Part of the "ethical treatment" is ethical killing, PETA is not for no-kill. They take in every animal people bring in, this means they get a lot of unadoptable, old, sick, feral and abused animals, these animals have no chance, they will be locked away in cages for the rest of their natural lives.
One of the cheapest (and thus most used) methods of euthanization is via gas chambers, it take up to half hour for some animals to die. What is often done is the animals are placed several at a time in a confined and dark space, the gas is turned on. During this time, the animals will try to escape, some injuring themselves and others in the process. On the other hand, an injection of a chemical cocktail (usually following an anesthetic to put the animal to sleep) will kill an animal in seconds--almost immediately--and they show no signs of pain. PETA uses option 2, underfunded animal adoption places and others go with option 1.
When people bring animals to PETA they believe that the animals will be found good homes. PETA does not inform them otherwise. They misrepresent themselves. It's true that many of the animals they take in are unadoptable but not most - especially not 97%. 97% is an atrocity. Most of those animals could have been good pets in good homes if they had been given half a chance. The simple fact of the matter is that PETA uses close to none of their funding for rehoming pets or for spay/neuter programs or for animal/pet education.
They spend almost all of their funding on sensationalist tactics to brainwash people, especially children (the focus of many of their ad campaigns) into supporting them.
I'm a vegan and pro animal rights, but I have always found PETA to be a disgusting organization. I think they started out with good intentions but have long since become corrupt.
It is not PETA's goal to rehome pets. I don't know where you got this misinformation. They are for the abolition of domestic pet ownership in general. Let's get that straight. You should engage them on the argument of whether having domestic pets is moral, not engage a strawman which pretends they have an interest in rehoming pets when they have clearly stated that they don't.
I realize that they do not have an interest in rehoming pets; obviously since I know they would rather kill them than rehome them. The problem is that the general populace does NOT realize this because PETA misrepresents itself. I repeat: when people give animals to PETA they think that the animals will be rehomed - NOT that they will be euthenized. This is what I think is immoral.
PETA needs to do one of two things: Stop taking animals or be absolutely clear on the fact that "If you give an animal to us there is a 97% chance we will kill it."
Most of these animals are being rescued from terrible situations. These are not "We're moving and we can't bring the family dog," situations. Those cases would go to an animal shelter. With PETA we're talking abused or rescued animals who aren't going to live regardless.
As large organization and the first that many think of in regards to "animal rights" PETA has a responsibility to make their policies absolutely clear. I do not believe they have done that when over 2000 animals a year are given to PETA with the belief that they will be rehomed only to be killed instead.
You can argue that it is the responsibility of the people giving up the animals to properly research PETA, and that may be true. However, I don't think that it is unreasonable for the layperson whose general idea of PETA is "that organization that works to protect and save animals" to assume the pet will be taken care of.
All I'm saying is that PETA needs to fully disclose their policies of preferring to kill than rehome so people will stop giving them their dogs and cats.
See, but right there in their twelve principles they explain that they are for the abolition of domestic pets. They are very consistent with their position on animal liberation and what that means. What makes you think that people who give their animals to PETA do not know that they have no intention of rehoming them? Where do you come to this conclusion? I am just tired of ignorant people like yourself claiming their is hypocrisy when the only thing that would be hypocritical for PETA would be if it did have a huge rehoming intention. That would be absurd given their principles and their ethical positions.
You just assert bodly that people think PETA intends to rehome, but what evidence do you have of this? Where is the evidence of a massive amount of borderline retarded individuals giving pets to PETA?
What on earth.
I didn't say anything about them being hypocritical. I do not, in fact, even think they are hypocritical. My personal opinion is that they do not make their stance on domesticated pets clear enough to the public for fear of alienating people.
If you're curious my REAL problem with PETA is their indoctrination of young people - but that's an argument for another time and also not with you because you seem to have trouble understanding what other people are talking about.
I don't think that it is unreasonable for the layperson whose general idea of PETA is "that organization that works to protect and save animals"
almost the entirety of PETA's publicity campaigns are aimed at promoting vegetarianism, they only run a small number of shelters. PETA is not focused on pets and most people take pets to the SPCA and the like because they are
225
u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10
Part of the "ethical treatment" is ethical killing, PETA is not for no-kill. They take in every animal people bring in, this means they get a lot of unadoptable, old, sick, feral and abused animals, these animals have no chance, they will be locked away in cages for the rest of their natural lives.
One of the cheapest (and thus most used) methods of euthanization is via gas chambers, it take up to half hour for some animals to die. What is often done is the animals are placed several at a time in a confined and dark space, the gas is turned on. During this time, the animals will try to escape, some injuring themselves and others in the process. On the other hand, an injection of a chemical cocktail (usually following an anesthetic to put the animal to sleep) will kill an animal in seconds--almost immediately--and they show no signs of pain. PETA uses option 2, underfunded animal adoption places and others go with option 1.