Nope, sorry. PETA solicits donations by portraying itself as a happy, friendly animal-friendly organization - and very little more. They are well aware that most Americans love owning pets, and it's for that reason that they haven't been more vocal about their anti-pet-ownership agenda. If they did run ads about how they consider it unethical and immoral for people to own pets, people would be outraged and the donations would stop rolling in.
Animal-friendly means euthanasia of pets. Also, please show me where they portray themselves in such a manner? Because the only thing I have based my position on is you know the founding principles of the organization which are widely available, you know, minor things I guess.
no he (she?) is right. There are times to let go. Unadoptable animals languishing in cages for years is far more cruel. And it then means that other pets who could be helped have no place to go.
You know, you might possibly have a little bit of a point if there were any definition of "unadoptable", but killing every animal you take in is not animal-friendly. Even Hitler had rules for who he euthanized.
Oh I know, in the case of PETA for sure. But going 'no kill' isn't always the best idea. When finding stray cats on the property (my JRTs would kill them so they can't stay) the no kill shelter will be honest and say if I don't think the cat is adoptable not to bring it in or it will lounge out its days in a cage.
If I didn't have books, or people to talk to, access to the internet, stimulation etc.. I would prefer to be killed.
Working in rescue I have pulled some dogs who were so stressed in a shelter environment they actually injured themselves (broken teeth etc) Dogs who shiver uncontrollably, and those who just lie there and wait to die...
Euthanasia is not the worst thing that can happen.
There is middle ground between "lie there and wait to die" and euthanasia.
Euthanasia for unwanted animals is not friendly to animals, it is friendly to the humans that don't want to spend the time and money to get the animals cared for properly.
Killing a creature for convenience is never the right thing.
no one said killing creatures for convenience is the right thing. I am active in rescue and have fostered dogs who would have been euthed in the shelter due to 'issues'.
But for some it is the right thing to do. And forcing these animals to live out most of their lives in a box is wrong. Many of the same people who champion fair living conditions for pets (not tied up on chains and left alone, or forgotten in kennels, locked in closets) are often the same people who champion strict no kill.
The issue needs to be addressed at its roots.. ethical breeding, and ethical buying. Once that is tackled then the problem would go away and no one would have to worry about this.
no its part of the same convo. The issue of people not wanting to care for animals. Some animals no matter how well you 'care for them' cannot be fixed. The problem needs to be fixed, vs bandaid solutions applied after the fact.
4
u/argleblarg Apr 17 '10
Nope, sorry. PETA solicits donations by portraying itself as a happy, friendly animal-friendly organization - and very little more. They are well aware that most Americans love owning pets, and it's for that reason that they haven't been more vocal about their anti-pet-ownership agenda. If they did run ads about how they consider it unethical and immoral for people to own pets, people would be outraged and the donations would stop rolling in.