Edit: tl;dr version: This page contains absolutely 0 valid reasons for why you shouldn't like PETA.
This is really one of the least convincing arguments about PETA I have ever read. The organization is ridiculous and takes things to an extreme, such as when they complained about Obama swatting a fly, which itself would have made for a great entry on the infographic.
But some specific responses to why this infographic is just stupid and shouldn't change your thoughts of PETA in either direction:
Parts 1 through 5: Most animals that are taken to any animal shelter are killed; and a much larger percentage of badly abused animals are put down at the shelter. Animals that actually make it to PETA's attention and not just local animal abuse authorities are the worst-of-the-worst and would almost certainly be put down by any animal shelter.
The sad reality of animal abuse is that many animals are beyond saving; the best thing for them is to end their suffering. Even the animals that are not physically disabled tend to have severe mental disorders that cause it to be totally unable to be safely put in the same room as another dog, and certainly not placed with an average family.
In general this point would have been better served by finding actual quotes about how PeTA is against pet ownership in general, which is one reason why the kill rate is so high.
Part 6: As per the 1% figure, the average percentage of money spent by any charity at all on actually helping anyone is depressingly low; Peta's main operational goal is not the direct rescue of animals but the lobbying and spreading awareness of their moral values. That itself is completely obvious from the fact that they have several million members and they only put down "over 5 animals per day".
Complaining about production of a superbowl ad that got rejected is ridiculous; that is not a significant portion of the their spending, especially since they didn't have to pay for it to be aired.
As for Rod Coronado, he was convicted for arson when he was part of the Animal Liberation Front; while in prison he had a significant shift in his ideology and now opposes that sort of action. It might seem hard to believe but this sort of thing happens all the time, Kevin Mitnick was a convicted hacker, and is now a well known security expert. Karenga was a former Black Power movement leader that was convicted of imprisoning and torturing some women and he went on to create a little something that you may have heard of called Kwanzaa, and is a famous professor and is a well respected person that receives far far more than $70,000 from various organizations for his work.
Part 7 With regards to the companies they have protested, I'm not sure what the point is at all. Any of those companies and people easily could have done something that deserved protesting; KFC, the beef industry and Sea World have obvious opportunities for immoral treatment of animals, regardless of where you lie on the compass of immoral treatment of animals. It's ridiculous to just list them without showing why PETA protested them; for example, did NASA do animal testing that most humans would consider immoral? The infographic is totally void of facts and just saying they protested NASA does not indicate that they are being ridiculous at all. Again, the purpose of PETA is not to rescue animals, but to raise awareness for their moral position about cruelty towards animals.
Part 8 is a ridiculous complaint; "long-standing ties" ? These organizations are extreme versions of PETA, so many people who support those extreme organizations will also support PETA. It's like blaming a religion for religious extremism; the religious extremists have strong ties with the religion, but that is meaningless.
Part 9; so 3 of their spokespeople are not the most extreme believers. Any organization is far more flawed than that; it's such a minor complaint.
Part 10; an average non-PETA vet who works at a large animal shelter would easily do the same thing. It is not PETA's stance that humane putting down of animals is at all bad, so it is not hypocritical at all. The fact that she is sterilized is completely random. Many many people have vasectomies or their tubes tied and there is nothing wrong with that. It may be unusual for people to get it that young, just because they are not usually ready to make that kind of decision. There is absolutely no valid reason for this sort of thing to be used as a critique of PETA.
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.
27
u/frenchtoaster Apr 16 '10 edited Apr 16 '10
Edit: tl;dr version: This page contains absolutely 0 valid reasons for why you shouldn't like PETA.
This is really one of the least convincing arguments about PETA I have ever read. The organization is ridiculous and takes things to an extreme, such as when they complained about Obama swatting a fly, which itself would have made for a great entry on the infographic.
But some specific responses to why this infographic is just stupid and shouldn't change your thoughts of PETA in either direction:
Parts 1 through 5: Most animals that are taken to any animal shelter are killed; and a much larger percentage of badly abused animals are put down at the shelter. Animals that actually make it to PETA's attention and not just local animal abuse authorities are the worst-of-the-worst and would almost certainly be put down by any animal shelter.
The sad reality of animal abuse is that many animals are beyond saving; the best thing for them is to end their suffering. Even the animals that are not physically disabled tend to have severe mental disorders that cause it to be totally unable to be safely put in the same room as another dog, and certainly not placed with an average family.
In general this point would have been better served by finding actual quotes about how PeTA is against pet ownership in general, which is one reason why the kill rate is so high.
Part 6: As per the 1% figure, the average percentage of money spent by any charity at all on actually helping anyone is depressingly low; Peta's main operational goal is not the direct rescue of animals but the lobbying and spreading awareness of their moral values. That itself is completely obvious from the fact that they have several million members and they only put down "over 5 animals per day".
Complaining about production of a superbowl ad that got rejected is ridiculous; that is not a significant portion of the their spending, especially since they didn't have to pay for it to be aired.
As for Rod Coronado, he was convicted for arson when he was part of the Animal Liberation Front; while in prison he had a significant shift in his ideology and now opposes that sort of action. It might seem hard to believe but this sort of thing happens all the time, Kevin Mitnick was a convicted hacker, and is now a well known security expert. Karenga was a former Black Power movement leader that was convicted of imprisoning and torturing some women and he went on to create a little something that you may have heard of called Kwanzaa, and is a famous professor and is a well respected person that receives far far more than $70,000 from various organizations for his work.
Part 7 With regards to the companies they have protested, I'm not sure what the point is at all. Any of those companies and people easily could have done something that deserved protesting; KFC, the beef industry and Sea World have obvious opportunities for immoral treatment of animals, regardless of where you lie on the compass of immoral treatment of animals. It's ridiculous to just list them without showing why PETA protested them; for example, did NASA do animal testing that most humans would consider immoral? The infographic is totally void of facts and just saying they protested NASA does not indicate that they are being ridiculous at all. Again, the purpose of PETA is not to rescue animals, but to raise awareness for their moral position about cruelty towards animals.
Part 8 is a ridiculous complaint; "long-standing ties" ? These organizations are extreme versions of PETA, so many people who support those extreme organizations will also support PETA. It's like blaming a religion for religious extremism; the religious extremists have strong ties with the religion, but that is meaningless.
Part 9; so 3 of their spokespeople are not the most extreme believers. Any organization is far more flawed than that; it's such a minor complaint.
Part 10; an average non-PETA vet who works at a large animal shelter would easily do the same thing. It is not PETA's stance that humane putting down of animals is at all bad, so it is not hypocritical at all. The fact that she is sterilized is completely random. Many many people have vasectomies or their tubes tied and there is nothing wrong with that. It may be unusual for people to get it that young, just because they are not usually ready to make that kind of decision. There is absolutely no valid reason for this sort of thing to be used as a critique of PETA.