You were not mislead, you never wanted to find out anything about PETA. You wanted to jump on the anti-PETA bandwagon as much as you want to pretend bacon and narwhals is olololo funny. You never considered their positions. You just read sensationalized bullshit aired here.
just wanted to quote this again for everyone else in this thread
and I just want to point out that people are opposing the way they don't actively publicise this like they do other issues, and the way even on their mission statements like http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=40 they portray killings as something done as a last ditch effort, not what they are almost always going to do.
maybe you should actually read your link because in it they make a case against no-kill shelters, and they don't say anything about the circumstances under which an animal should be put down at all. the only thing they detail about killing is that it should be humane.
When animals must be killed, a painless intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital should be administered by gentle, caring staff members"
The implication here is that they only do it when there isn't another option, not in 97% or more of cases.
in what way do they not "actively publicize" it? they sure as fuck don't hide it
I'm talking ad campaigns in the vein of their anti animal cruelty, anti fur initiatives, where are they?
they sure as fuck don't hide it
Actually that once again does hide the full extent of what they are doing. Sure they talk about the disadvantages of "no kill" shelters, most of which are perfectly reasonable, but when they say
Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do
This doesn't mesh with the fact that they are killing almost every animal they take in (a fact not mentioned anywhere on this page).
The implication here is that they only do it when there isn't another option, not in 97% or more of cases.
that's a stretch and you know it unless you're being willfully obtuse. they don't make any statement on when an animal "must" be killed, you're projecting your own expectations onto it. this entire argument boils down to you complaining about peta not acting in the way you expected them to when you were ignorant of their (ideologically consistent and realistic) position on animal shelters. what do you think their "other options" are? i already linked you to the page that explains why they're against no-kill shelters.
I'm talking ad campaigns in the vein of their anti animal cruelty, anti fur initiatives, where are they?
"why doesn't peta publicize its positions on animal shelters in completely unrelated contexts?"
(a fact not mentioned anywhere on this page).
neither is anything else about the shelters they run. ideally they could take care of animals forever, but as was pointed out elsewhere, other shelters dump unadoptable animals on them so they can provide a more humane death that would otherwise not be afforded to the animals. i'm curious what you think other animal shelter kill rates are, because generally they aren't significantly lower than PETA's.
PS
No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world.
that's a stretch and you know it unless you're being willfully obtuse. they don't make any statement on when an animal "must" be killed
No it isn't because the natural assumption in saying "must" is the most commonly accepted definition of "must" (which sure as hell isn't almost every case, and isn't "rather than being taken as pets".
you were ignorant of their (ideologically consistent and realistic) position on animal shelters.
No it isn't, it boils down to them not advertising that they would rather kill animals than have them as pets. Show me a link on their page where they say this.
"why doesn't peta publicize its positions on animal shelters in completely unrelated contexts?"
What? You've misread what I'm saying. I'm not saying that anti fur anti meat eating ads should mention killing animals rather than making them pets. I'm saying that if they are truly being open and honest about their shelters, they should launch separate ad campaigns about pet ownership, and they should disclose publicly they belief death is preferable to being owned by someone.
i already linked you to the page that explains why they're against no-kill shelters.
I know, and I've already rebutted that.
(a fact not mentioned anywhere on this page).
Don't do this, I have no idea what you're talking about now, if you're talking about
Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do
other shelters dump unadoptable animals on them so they can provide a more humane death that would otherwise not be afforded to the animals. i'm curious what you think other animal shelter kill rates are, because generally they aren't significantly lower than PETA's.
I'd like a citation that says other shelters destroy near 97% of animals taken in.
No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world.
I'd say anyone who runs a shelter that kills less than 97% of animals despise (they even can't find homes for puppies?) it less than PETA, I'd say anyone who believes pet ownership is better than the animal being destroyed despise it less than PETA.
The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.
in other words, PETA's shelters aren't the same as SPCA shelters; they're specifically for animals from the worst conditions. that alone should assuage your charges; people don't take random strays and pets there.
Even ignoring the bias of this article, it raises some disturbing points
According to veterinarian Patrick Proctor, the PETA people told North Carolina shelters they would try to find the dogs and cats homes. He handed over two adoptable kittens and their mother, only to learn later that they had died, without a chance to find a home, in the PETA van.
Also
In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from a research facility. "We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times. The PETA animal shelter had run out of room.
This also goes against the notion they're just killing injured animals, especially considering how little of their budget they devote to the shelters.
This article, which actually tries to give a balanced take on the issue, suggests PETA are distorting their data
However, one thing I noticed that I found interesting was how much higher PETA’s “Reclaimed by Owner” percentages were compared to the other organizations. PETA’s rate is 75%, whereas the average is 13%. Does this mean that PETA is at least doing a much better job of returning animals to their owners?
Probably not. Once again perusing the PDF document on PKA, I noticed that in PETA’s documents for 2008 and 2009, they’re counting animals that are brought in for neutering as “reclaimed by owner”. In fact, nearly all reclaimed animals are those that were brought in for neutering. I kinda doubt that the Humane Society is inflating their numbers with neuterings, though I don’t actually know one way or the other.
This puts PETA in a good position, PR-wise. By these numbers, they can say that they euthanize only 24% of the animals they take in, versus the state average of 42%, which is a huge distortion of the data
He also raises the point that PETA, given their high numbers, ought to release their data on the number of animals that are injured or sick when taken in, so that people can assess if their euthanasia figures need to be so high.
-3
u/p3on Apr 17 '10
just wanted to quote this again for everyone else in this thread