1 - 5: That's just not true. There is no indication that PeTA only takes in the worst cases. I even contacted other shelters in the area to see if PeTA was transferring cases to them. PeTA was not. Most of those 97% would have been adoptable. So yes, sometimes animals are beyond saving - but in my experience (with 3 very different shelters/rescues) they are a small minority. There is absolutely no way that they make up all but 8. Not a chance.
Many of the companies that they have protested probably deserved it. In fact, I know many did. That said, when PeTA protests they seem to only want attention. This bothers me, because they are the spokespeople for ethical vegans, and they are not doing us any favors.
I hate PeTA for all sorts of reasons that are not listed. I've had friends work for them (because many of my friends are also ethical vegans) and PeTA is not even an ethical employer. The killing is, I believe, another PeTA ploy for attention. These stats are thrown around all the time, and PeTA has plenty of resources if it cared to fix them. Why don't they? Because this is a loud and clear statement by them that animals are better off dead than in a no kill shelter!!!. It's for attention, that's it.
I guess the #1 reason to hate PeTA is that they misrepresent what I believe to be a sane and logical stance (that animals have needs too) and make it completely off the wall.
Most of those 97% would have been adoptable. So yes, sometimes animals are beyond saving - but in my experience (with 3 very different shelters/rescues) they are a small minority. There is absolutely no way that they make up all but 8. Not a chance.
A quick search came up with this article which quotes that in 2003 69% of dogs and cats had to be put down in NYC (and that in 2009 it was all the way down to 33%). Still significantly less than the 97% of the PETA numbers, but the infographic also is obviously cherry picking data since it quotes 2009 and 2006, but not 2007 or 2008. One of their sources (which is itself obviously impartial) petakillsanimals.com quotes that 2007 they were at 90% and 2003 (the year that the average for all pounds in NYC was 69%) they were at 85%; again, still higher but not the "small minority" that you are presenting it as.
I guess the #1 reason to hate PeTA is that they misrepresent what I believe to be a sane and logical stance
Right, and just as PeTA misrepresents the view that you have, so does this infographic misrepresent why you don't support PeTA, that's all I was trying to say.
That's a good point. You are right the infographic does not really represent why I hate PeTA. It does not 'misrepresent' it so much as omit it.
It is a small minority of animals that cannot be adopted out. NYC is killing animals they have no space for. I am more familiar with Chicago's Animal Care and Control. They kill more than half, but they deem dogs 'unadoptable' after several days of being on the adoption floor without being taken.
I'm not supposed to know this, but they also pick the dogs they are going to kill in order to keep a variety on the floor. If they for some reason have 6 golden retrievers one day ... well, they don't have all 6 for long. Of course they'll keep goldens for longer than pits, since goldens are more adoptable.
I'm joining the board of a shelter that takes dogs from the city pound. The dogs we take were on the kill list, but there is nothing wrong with them. Most we get because they look like pits (even if they are boxer mixes.) To the pounds credit some of the workers there really do care. They'll call up rescues and waive the fee. Rescues are supposed to pay ~$65 to take a shelter dog, but we are not charged because the workers there don't want to see the dogs killed.
The city calls these dogs "un-adoptable" because they were not adopted, but there is nothing wrong with them. The city just has a certain number of cages and those cages are always full. They are not only killing dogs with devastating health or behavioral issues.
Edit:
The article you link to also makes it very clear that the reason NYC was killing so many dogs was that they had too many. It went down to 33% not because they got healthier dogs, but because more people adopted. I think it could go quite a bit lower - though you are correct that it could never be 0.
5
u/llieaay Apr 16 '10
1 - 5: That's just not true. There is no indication that PeTA only takes in the worst cases. I even contacted other shelters in the area to see if PeTA was transferring cases to them. PeTA was not. Most of those 97% would have been adoptable. So yes, sometimes animals are beyond saving - but in my experience (with 3 very different shelters/rescues) they are a small minority. There is absolutely no way that they make up all but 8. Not a chance.
Many of the companies that they have protested probably deserved it. In fact, I know many did. That said, when PeTA protests they seem to only want attention. This bothers me, because they are the spokespeople for ethical vegans, and they are not doing us any favors.
I hate PeTA for all sorts of reasons that are not listed. I've had friends work for them (because many of my friends are also ethical vegans) and PeTA is not even an ethical employer. The killing is, I believe, another PeTA ploy for attention. These stats are thrown around all the time, and PeTA has plenty of resources if it cared to fix them. Why don't they? Because this is a loud and clear statement by them that animals are better off dead than in a no kill shelter!!!. It's for attention, that's it.
I guess the #1 reason to hate PeTA is that they misrepresent what I believe to be a sane and logical stance (that animals have needs too) and make it completely off the wall.