• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Documents: PETA kills more than 95 percent of pets in its care

I prefer the ASPCA and Humane Society myself. PETA does not as best I can tell run shelters, but they also do not as I can best tell think euthanasia is preferable to finding homes for pets. Further, PETA runs low and no cost spay/neuter programs which help work on the overpopulation issue.

Why We Euthanize | PETA.org (warning: disturbing images)

I remember reading of a group that believes keeping companion animals is making "slaves" of them. I tried finding it the comment but I couldn't, so maybe it wasn't PETA. You can tell, from the links below, though, that they don't think having domestic animals, even well treated ones, is a great thing. They also don't have much use for no kill shelters.

Animal Rights Uncompromised: 'Pets' | PETA.org

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/no-kill-shelters.aspx
 
Last edited:
I feel like it's only hypocritical if one takes PETA seriously. PETA's main objective seems to be to sabotage the pro-animal movement. Kind of like Fred Phelps in that way. So if that is their objective, it's not really hypocritical.
 
It does seem a bit hypocritical of PETA. They champion animal rights and care for animals, yet they euthanize thousands.

Can they really have it both ways and expect to not come under fire?
 
I remember reading of a group that believes keeping companion animals is making "slaves" of them. I tried finding it the comment but I couldn't, so maybe it wasn't PETA. You can tell, from the links below, though, that they don't think having domestic animals, even well treated ones, is a great thing. They also don't have much use for no kill shelters.

Animal Rights Uncompromised: 'Pets' | PETA.org

Animal Rights Uncompromised: 'No-Kill' Shelters | PETA.org

Yeah, like I have said, I am not a supporter of PETA. They go over the top and your first link is a good example of that. I do agree with them on nokill shelters. They create more problems than they solve and I find euthenasia preferable to a lifetime in small cages packed in a room with other stressed animals. It's one of those value judgements some will diagree with and I don't have a problem with the disagreement, it's purely a judgement call kinda thing.
 
It does seem a bit hypocritical of PETA. They champion animal rights and care for animals, yet they euthanize thousands.

Can they really have it both ways and expect to not come under fire?

The idea is that euthenization is preferable to the alternative. Their stance does not make then any less a "champion" for animal rights and care for animals. In their opinion, and it's a very defensible position, they are providing the best care possible for those animals.
 
Yeah, like I have said, I am not a supporter of PETA. They go over the top and your first link is a good example of that. I do agree with them on nokill shelters. They create more problems than they solve and I find euthenasia preferable to a lifetime in small cages packed in a room with other stressed animals. It's one of those value judgements some will diagree with and I don't have a problem with the disagreement, it's purely a judgement call kinda thing.

I think a better solution is mass sterilization.

There'd be far less euthanization.
 
The idea is that euthenization is preferable to the alternative. Their stance does not make then any less a "champion" for animal rights and care for animals. In their opinion, and it's a very defensible position, they are providing the best care possible for those animals.

By giving them death you care for them?

There must be a better way, imo.
 
Some abused animals can be socialized, but it is a painfully long, expensive process.

Yes, that's true, and the sad reality is that not every abused animal can saved. On the other hand, there are some animals that suffer abuse yet never become aggressive to people and can be safely adopted out nearly immediately.
 
I think a better solution is mass sterilization.

There'd be far less euthanization.

You cannot force people to spay/neuter their pets. I think most animal shelters require it of pets they adopt out, which is a good thing. PETA provides mobile spay/neuter clinics for no or low cost.
 
By giving them death you care for them?

There must be a better way, imo.

I wish their was. I love animals alot. However, animal shelters, especially no kill shelters which are more crowded and have longer stays for animals have big problems with disease and loss of muscle on animals that stay there. It gets to be a very poor quality of life. I have been told(and cannot verify, it is strictly anecdote) that no kill shelters especially have a hard time keeping long t3erm help since it is so depressing for those who work there seeing the animals and what they go through.
 
Yeah, like I have said, I am not a supporter of PETA. They go over the top and your first link is a good example of that. I do agree with them on nokill shelters. They create more problems than they solve and I find euthenasia preferable to a lifetime in small cages packed in a room with other stressed animals. It's one of those value judgements some will diagree with and I don't have a problem with the disagreement, it's purely a judgement call kinda thing.

I used to volunteer at a no kill shelter and I still support them financially. What you're saying sounds more like a puppy mill where the people don't give a **** about the animals. That's so not the case, not where I volunteered anyway. Most of the people who volunteered there preferred animals to most people. LOL
 
PETA supports pet euthanization. Call this hypocritical in lieu of their core beliefs, but this doesn't violate what they "stand for" if it's a position they support.
 
You cannot force people to spay/neuter their pets. I think most animal shelters require it of pets they adopt out, which is a good thing. PETA provides mobile spay/neuter clinics for no or low cost.

I meant if PETA were to sterilize any of the animals they handle, whether it's through the animal's drinking water or through needle injection.

It'd be great if people could cheaply buy a sterilization kit, whether a small vial of said chemical w/syringe or whatever, and be able to inject their pets if they want to.

If there were any loopholes to allow mass-sterilization of cats/dogs, it'd be wise to take advantage of them.
 
I used to volunteer at a no kill shelter and I still support them financially. What you're saying sounds more like a puppy mill where the people don't give a **** about the animals. That's so not the case, not where I volunteered anyway. Most of the people who volunteered there preferred animals to most people. LOL

No no no. That is not what I meant to imply. The people who work at those places are incredible people who deserve more credit than they will ever get. The problem is not with the people, but with the limits in time, space and money.
 
I wish their was. I love animals alot. However, animal shelters, especially no kill shelters which are more crowded and have longer stays for animals have big problems with disease and loss of muscle on animals that stay there. It gets to be a very poor quality of life. I have been told(and cannot verify, it is strictly anecdote) that no kill shelters especially have a hard time keeping long t3erm help since it is so depressing for those who work there seeing the animals and what they go through.

I don't know enough on this issue to come up with a definitive stance.

If PETA has/must euthanize(ed), then that's unfortunate. I've seen how those animals live and it tears at the heartstrings.

Perhaps if sterilization were to ensue somehow en masse, this problem would diminish.
 
When I operated a shelter, I got 100% of my cats from death row. These wwre all well socialized cats -= I went to the pound every day and "interviewed" all the available cats and as soon as they started showing the inevitable URI, I would buy them and take them to my medical facility, develop their social skills and rehome them. I did this at a cost of about $300 per cat.

I was accused by another rescue group of being "Hitler" because I chose only the cats that had the best social skills. My contention was/is that the ones with the best social skills are the ones easiest to ultimately find homes for. There was no way for me to take cats that might take years to socialize, I simply didn't have the resources.

If you, or anyone, obtains an animal that is damaged and chooses to invest the hundreds of hours and dollars that socialization requires, I salute you. What a noble thing to do. However, I wanted to save as many as practical and I could not practically make the investment of taking a socially damaged animal in priority over a socialized one.

If you did go to my website, you'll learn that the pound loves to kill animals and does so for the most arbitrary reasons. The ferals have no hope and never even make it to adoption section.

I'm not sure why I'm defending PETA. Hell, I don't know if I am defending PETA. I'm just saying that I understand there is no possible way to save all the lost and abandoned animals that these disgusting humans keep supplying by not fixing their pets or just leaving them when they move. Add to that the ones whose owners die or are arrested. There are MILLIONS of them.

I visit and donate to all the active low-kill shelters (no such thing as a no-kill) and the biggest one here has hundreds of cats living in squalor. So, it's a hard call to make sometimes.

The black one was a feral and it took me years to socialize him. The other 2 are death row cats.

View attachment 67122967


I respect your recue efforts, Specklebang, but you're just flat out wrong to say that abused animals can't be socialized or rehabilitated. Both my dogs are shelter dogs and one of them had suffered a broken jaw and leg in her past. She's the sweetest (and now a very spoiled) dog. Looks just like a living teddy bear.

I remember a NatGeo special about some of Michael Vick's pitbulls taken to Dog Town. The wisdom was that they were just too abused to ever be good family pets and the expectation was that they would just live out their lives at Dog Town. After months of care and rehab, thought, some of those dogs were able to be adopted out, even surprising several of the volunteers there.
 
I believe X was referring to this:

PETA argues that it would have been better for animals had the institution of breeding them as "pets" never emerged, that the desire to own and receive love from animals is selfish, and that their breeding, sale, and purchase can cause immeasurable suffering. They write that millions of dogs spend their lives chained outside in all weather conditions or locked up in chain-link pens and wire cages in puppy mills, and that even in good homes animals are often not well cared for. They would like to see the population of dogs and cats reduced through spaying and neutering, and for people never to purchase animals from pet shops or breeders, but to adopt them from shelters instead.[89] PETA supports hearing dog programs where animals are taken from shelters and placed in appropriate homes, but does not endorse seeing-eye-dog programs because, according to one of their Vice Presidents, "the dogs are bred as if there are no equally intelligent dogs literally dying for homes in shelters."[90] PETA also opposes the keeping of fish in aquarium tanks, suggesting that people view computer videos of fish instead.[91]
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Correct. We went over this actually. In more detail: PETAs position as I understand it is that for the animal(note that key distinction) being domesticated has not been the best thing for them. It's debatable but I can see the argument. Of course for people, domestication of animals has been an absolute good thing(I am not sure if PETA comments on that).

Also note this bit right after your quoted bit:

PETA opposes the no kill movement, and euthanizes an estimated 85% of the animals it takes in.[SUP][7][/SUP] The group takes in feral cat colonies with diseases such as feline AIDS and leukemia, stray dogs, litters of parvo-infected puppies, and backyard dogs, and says that it would be unrealistic to follow a no-kill policy in such instances.[SUP][92][/SUP] They offer free euthanasia services to counties that kill unwanted animals via gassing or shooting—they recommend the use of an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital if administered by a trained professional, and for severely ill or dying pets when euthanasia at a veterinarian is unaffordable.[SUP][93][/SUP] They recommend euthanasia for certain breeds, such as pit bull terriers, and in certain situations for animals in shelters: for example, for those living for long periods in cramped cages.[SUP][94][/SUP]

This is not an unreasonable position to take and in some cases is absolutely the correct action to take. Combine this with their free and no cost spay/neuter on wheels programs and in that area they do good work. My issue with PETA is in their anti-fur and meat campaigns and the tactics they employ.
 
I have two rescue Chihuahuas. One was tattooed and on her way to death when she was introduced as the dog who dislocated the anus of a cat. She was fearful of me and I laid down on the floor in my house and put a treat in my mouth and the dog came over and took it out. Since then she has been with me and has served as a body gaurd for my child since the day she came home. The other one was discarded because she was too much trouble, having a seizure disorder, she is cool and is my shadow.

I would never go through PETA as there missions statement, in part, is as follows:

"PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in laboratories, and in the entertainment industry. We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" as well as cruelty to domesticated animals."
 
Does this not just say it all folks?
Here's more interesting stuff:

PETA Kills Animals: Hypocrisy

ese celebrities are PETA activists, but have shown flexibility with the organization's forceful call for strict vegetarianism, also known as veganism.

Pamela Anderson's Dodge Viper (auctioned to benefit PETA) had a "luxurious leather interior."
Jenna Jameson was photographed fishing, slurping oysters, and wearing a leather jacket just weeks after launching an anti-leather campaign for PETA.
Morrissey got an official okay from PETA after eating at a steakhouse.
Dita von Teese has written about her love of furs and foie gras.
Steve-O built a career on abusing small animals on film.
The officially "anti-fur" Eva Mendes has worn fur anyway.
Bill Maher serves as a board member for PETA and openly admits that he eats meat, just "not much meat".
 
PETA is one of the biggest jokes in world history.

They are a disgrace and should be ashamed of themselves.
 
I respect your recue efforts, Specklebang, but you're just flat out wrong to say that abused animals can't be socialized or rehabilitated. Both my dogs are shelter dogs and one of them had suffered a broken jaw and leg in her past. She's the sweetest (and now a very spoiled) dog. Looks just like a living teddy bear.

I remember a NatGeo special about some of Michael Vick's pitbulls taken to Dog Town. The wisdom was that they were just too abused to ever be good family pets and the expectation was that they would just live out their lives at Dog Town. After months of care and rehab, thought, some of those dogs were able to be adopted out, even surprising several of the volunteers there.

This... times 1,000!
 
PETA wastes a lot of time and money on retarded campaigns like calling fish "sea kittens". They could be so much more effective if they put that money into teaching people how to read and communicate with cats, dogs, and other domesticated animals. People are amazed when Cesar Millan can immediately alter unwanted behavior in dogs. It isn't magic. Instead of reading books about how to rehabilitate animals, people give up and blame the animal for not being able to be rehomed. This is a failure on man's part, not the animals. "Dysfunctional" animals are created by humans. If one knows what they are doing, any animal that doesn't have some medical issue, can be rehabilitated. Yes, there are still too many animals and too few finances and volunteers to save them all, but we could do a helluva lot better.
 
Back
Top Bottom