PETA Killed 95% of Their Pets Last Year
 

Assholes.:eyebrow:

link

"Seriously, killing animals while advocating for treating them ethically is like hiring a bomb squad to disarm a bomb, then activating it in an orphanage.

Don’t support this practice."

While I generally make fun of PETA along with almost everyone else, I'm going to reserve judgment on this one. Googling only found that one source, plus the math doesn't work out.

If I've done my algebra correctly there were originally ~2236 pets (2124 being ~ 95% of 2236). 2236 original pets - 2124 killed pets leaves 112 not 7. I guess it's possible that the rest are still in holding but not placed. But the difference made me suspicious.

But... but... How can you not believe it, it was on the innerwebz!

I dont particularly care about PETA one way or the other, but the source of this story is an innocuously named organization, Center for Consumer Freedom

The CCF is a front group for numerous industries, including beef/poultry who dont like PETA's position on regulating processing plants, restaurant/fast food industry who dont like PETA's position on menu lableing and industries heavily involve with product testing on animals.

I didn't do the math, but the numbers seemed off to me too.

However, there was a similar story about PETA killing pets a few years ago. It's been going on for a while. There's a thread here somewhere...

Oh...and the CCF is also funded by the tobacco industry which still does animal testing...hooking primates up to round the clock ventilation machines to "prove" no correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

On their own website, PETA explains why it euthanizes animals. Don't click this link unless you want to see disgusting pictures of abused animals.

So they admit they do it. They don't say how many.

According to a Newsweek article last year, they killed 85% of all the animals they took in.

wiki

The website, PETA Kills Animals, is also a site of the CCF:
The CCF is not interested in representing consumers as much as they are representing industry groups opposed to regulation of food/drug/tobacco products.

I don't care about CCF.

Are you saying PETA doesn't euthanize animals? Because their own website says they do.

Isn't that really true for most of these groups? I mean really what group is selfless enough to want to take care of or look out for others moreso than their own self interests, power and/or profits?

I have not doubt that PETA euthanize animals....just as I have no doubt that CCF spreads misinformation about PETA that is more in the interest of its industry funders than the public interest.

My point is to not look at all allegations against PETA in a vacuum.

There are numerous consumer advocacy groups that are not funded by industries with a $$multi-million agenda.

As I said, I dont particularly care about PETA one way or the other, but if I ran into a PETA person, I would say shame on you for your inhumane treatment of unwanted pets and thank you for your role in advocating stronger meat/poultry processing regulations and food/drug labeling...and you need to give a little on product testing on animals...it serves a purpose but should be regulated to ensure that it is done as humanely as possible.

Thanks, but that didn't answer the question.

I'm not suggesting that all organizations dont have an agenda.

The point is to educate yourself on any organization's agenda and/or actions before buying into every allegation or news story by other organizations with opposing agendas and with whom you might agree.

Don't jump on any bandwagon until you know the facts.

I dont plan on joining or contributing to PETA nor will I contribute to their biggest, most well-funded detractor, the CCF.

Nor posters - It seems you are more interested in attacking/discrediting CCF
(not that I care about them)

Nope...just presenting their agenda so that both sides are available for all to see, particularly since they spend $millions on an anti-PETA campaign.

But it's not just two sides. In this thread you have seen links that PETA admits they euthanize animals. Wikipedia says it too. Newsweek says it. And so does CCF.

I never heard of CCF before today. Discrediting them does nothing to change the dialog about PETA.

OK...I disagree.

I think including information on PETA's most well-funded detractor is relevant, particularly if the CCF is behind the latest new story (which IMO, is not very well documented) as it has been the "source" of other similar stories in the past.

Please explain how it makes a difference when the same argument about PETA is being corroborated by multiple sources. The only difference I see is that you don't care for one of them so you are attempting to discredit them. That doesn't change the fact that they seem to be correct in this instance.

It looks to me that the initial story in this discussion is right from a CCF press release from earlier this year:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/258

It it completely accurate? biased? fudging the numbers? I dont know.

Are the other sources with similar numbers, beyond PETA's own admissions of euthanize animals, relying on the same CCF press release. I dont know.

I think the source of the story is relevant.

From the Peta site...


Remember the picture of the dog in his cage that the Cap'n posted. Would you all really want to have that poor dog live in that cage for years? I wouldnt. Sure, I would rather see it get a loving home, but I dont think the odds are good for that.

The pet business has a really ugly side to it.

Sometimes killing is an act off kindness. But rarely.

That pretty much sums up the last 2 pages of dialog. I consider PETA to be a near domestic terrorist organization.

Would a doggie Escape From New York be better? Pay for their trip to Montana, fence in a big area, build shelters, spay/neuter them, have someone drop in food daily, and let them live out their natural lives. May be expensive, but it would remove the "humans purposely killing dogs" aspect.

Of course you do.:cool:

Akin to ALF/ELF. They should be given long prison terms for some of their collective acts.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/g...ETA_ELF_NYPost

When I was working and living in London I donated to the Celia Hammond Foundation. Ex-model (like Bardot) would rehome as many cats as possible - one-eyed, feline-AIDs, amputees, ferals etc and the rest would be put into special escape proof outdoor enclosures. They lived the lives humans had prepared them for: domestic with human love; feral on farms; overly spooked or 100% inappropriate for adoption, in a special cat refuge. That isn't something every charity can do.

I don't necessarily agree with a no-kill policy. Celia Hammond seemed to manage the funds well enough to operate, but I would not expect every charity to do the same. And even she must have euthanised some cats rescued from grim conditions, simply as a kindness. Cats - as much as I love them - are not people.

PETA are anti-pet. They disagree with animals kept in houses as unnatural. Of course they "mercy kill" most of their animals. Do I agree with that? I'm not sure. There are more animals than there are responsible owners. I know I'm not helping the homeless population by not taking any more on, but I also know I'm being responsible in not doing so. And I eat animals. Why should I mourn more over cats than I do over chicken or pigs.

PETA make their policies clear, so it's not hypocritical - MOST animal charities have to kill UNWANTED animals. Until irresponsible humans (I've said this before) start spaying/ neutering their pets, this situation is going to continue.

Of course, once the neutering commences, PETA can show its true colours and condemn that too. But until that happens, it's the lesser of the two evils as far as I'm concerned. I don't hate PETA for the killing, but I do think those that let their pets breed without having homes for them are at fault.

And the NRA and RNC :stickpoke

Eh, I am a member of the NRA. I have never been a member of the RNC and really don't support a lot of them. They collectively are not much better than Demoncrats.