PETA did WHAT?
Posted by cutething on Jan 12, 2008 · Member since Sep 2007 · 139 posts
This cannot be true, and yet everywhere I go to find information that debunks it... I find more support. In 2006, PETA killed 97% of the animals in its shelter, placing only 12 of the 3,000 animals in its care in new homes. This is an outrage.
The Story
body dumping
prosecution (lame)
So seriously? i know this is two years old news, but what the heck?
I think PETAs concern is quality of life. Perhaps they think it is more humane to kill an animal than subject it to experimentation, for instance, or neglect. I can also see PETA being more strict when placing animals than other places might be, to ensure a higher success rate with their adoptions.
what about this story?
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20068762,00.html
Edit: If she didn't rally for the spay and neuter program for PETA, they might go after her like they did Jennifer Lopez. I find that very hypocritical of them.
s.
I think PETAs concern is quality of life. Perhaps they think it is more humane to kill an animal than subject it to experimentation, for instance, or neglect. I can also see PETA being more strict when placing animals than other places might be, to ensure a higher success rate with their adoptions.
This is a shock, but I living the day in day out pain-filled life I do, I can understand their reasoning. For me, life is pretty meaningless without a certain amount of quality.
I think PETAs concern is quality of life. Perhaps they think it is more humane to kill an animal than subject it to experimentation, for instance, or neglect. I can also see PETA being more strict when placing animals than other places might be, to ensure a higher success rate with their adoptions.
This is a shock, but I living the day in day out pain-filled life I do, I can understand their reasoning. For me, life is pretty meaningless without a certain amount of quality.
??? If Japan is so bad, couldn't you move?
I'm curious to see what the % is for other kill shelters, like the HSUS, etc--just for comparision sake. I have friends that work at HS of Mich and they say it's pretty high--it's so hard to find homes, and more animals come in then go out--not to mention all the abuse cases they go on--I'm always hearing those sad stories where they go on a call and bring back like 100 animals from one place--makes me so extra sad :'(
The articles reported that the kill percentages were much lower in other shelters, closer to 35% I believe. I have a hard time believing that of thousands of animals, only 12 could be placed in loving homes. The additional stories of animals being killed in vans (e.g. never even getting a shot), kittens and puppies being dumped in garbage bags -- it's pretty sickening. And yeah, this is stuff that's been reported by credible news sources.
I think we also have to consider that PETA just doesn't take in happy healthy animals. Usually the ones they get are pretty beat up and ill and need rescuing from their harsh life.
I would take the stats with a grain of salt, but that they compassionately euthanize is not news to me.
I think we also have to consider that PETA just doesn't take in happy healthy animals. Usually the ones they get are pretty beat up and ill and need rescuing from their harsh life.
That's what I was thinking...it's not like they're going into people's houses and taking their pets. PETA is probably under a lot more scrutiny than any other shelter, since people tend to blindly hate them.
Every time I see kill-shelter statistics, I can't help but think of the mindless assholes who BUY animals. >:(
Yep. Grr.
PETA has a new forum/mesageboard feature, where you can ask admin questions. Someone brought this topic up, their response sounds like a parroted press release, but here is the link http://www.peta.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1341
I think PETA also realizes it's a problem. They've recently started an Animal Birth Control campaign.
Every time I see kill-shelter statistics, I can't help but think of the mindless assholes who BUY animals. >:(
I usually can't help thinking of the mindless assholes who don't take proper care of their pets and allow them to breed or just dump them when they get tired of them, which is of course where the problem comes from. Tens of millions of animals are put to death in this country every year and they were animals that once lived in people's homes, or were born to animals that people kept as pets. Those pet owners are the real culprits.
Personally, I think spaying/neutering of a pet should be mandatory, unless you apply for an exemption. So if you don't get your pet neutered or spayed, you go to jail.
I think PETA also realizes it's a problem. They've recently started an Animal Birth Control campaign.
Every time I see kill-shelter statistics, I can't help but think of the mindless assholes who BUY animals. >:(
I usually can't help thinking of the mindless assholes who don't take proper care of their pets and allow them to breed or just dump them when they get tired of them, which is of course where the problem comes from. Tens of millions of animals are put to death in this country every year and they were animals that once lived in people's homes, or were born to animals that people kept as pets. Those pet owners are the real culprits.
People who don't properly care for the animals that they choose to give a home to certainly are a huge problem. But are you seriously saying that breeders don't contribute to the problem? That's... just... *headdesk*
I usually can't help thinking of the mindless assholes who don't take proper care of their pets and allow them to breed or just dump them when they get tired of them, which is of course where the problem comes from. Tens of millions of animals are put to death in this country every year and they were animals that once lived in people's homes, or were born to animals that people kept as pets. Those pet owners are the real culprits.
Personally, I think spaying/neutering of a pet should be mandatory, unless you apply for an exemption. So if you don't get your pet neutered or spayed, you go to jail.
I'm actually doing my undergrad thesis on mandatory spay/neuter programs (the state of California is trying to get a bill passed to do this) and why spay/neuter has been emphasized so greatly. There actually have been no long-term studies done on the effects of spay/neuter on euthanasia rates. There are a lot of things that contribute to shelter overpopulation, not the least of which are irresponsible people who think that animals are disposable. A large number of animals entering shelters are adults who are turned in because of a family move, "behavioral problems", a new baby, etc. While obviously spay/neuter helps b/c there aren't as many unwanted litters, this has little impact on people's sense of responsibility when it comes to life-long care of an animal.
I'm sure there are others here that know much more about this than I do, but I just thought I'd throw it out there that spay/neuter is not the answer to solving companion animal overpopulation (although it is definitely a part of it) and sometimes can give people a false sense of "betterment" that since they've had their pet sterilized that they are fulfilling their duty; however, about half of animals entering shelters are spayed/neutered. In regards to breeders, although I would never buy an animal from a breeder because I think it sets up a strange human/animal relationship, I think that legitimate breeders are actually not as big of a problem as people tend to think and can actually be very beneficial in regards to making sure that their animals will be taken care of for their entire lives (they often do extensive interviews, home visits, don't allow those who purchase their puppies/kittens to breed them without permission, give training advice, etc.). Good rescue organizations also do this. However, shelters, pet stores, "backyard breeders", and those who irresponsibly allow their animal to breed and put out "free ads" do NOT do this; as a result, the animals that are most often turned into shelters were obtained via one of the latter groups.
I have literature on all of this if anyone is interested. Sorry for the novel, but I just wanted to say that I think there is more to the story than "all breeders are bad" and "spay/neuter is the only way to reduce shelter populations" because unfortunately, this polarization hasn't helped to benefit the animals much :-\
I have literature on all of this if anyone is interested. Sorry for the novel, but I just wanted to say that I think there is more to the story than "all breeders are bad" and "spay/neuter is the only way to reduce shelter populations" because unfortunately, this polarization hasn't helped to benefit the animals much :-\
I know that there's more to the story than "all breeders are bad". BUT. Breeders ARE bad. It is unethical to treat a living being as a commodity... something to be manipulated. Putting a monetary value on a life in turn makes it disposable, contributing to the problems... over-population, abuse.
I have literature on all of this if anyone is interested. Sorry for the novel, but I just wanted to say that I think there is more to the story than "all breeders are bad" and "spay/neuter is the only way to reduce shelter populations" because unfortunately, this polarization hasn't helped to benefit the animals much :-\
I know that there's more to the story than "all breeders are bad". BUT. Breeders ARE bad. It is unethical to treat a living being as a commodity... something to be manipulated. Putting a monetary value on a life in turn makes it disposable, contributing to the problems... over-population, abuse.
Definitely true. That's the "strange human/animal relationship" that I mentioned. I think that it is a very bad relationship to establish--human as consumer, animal as commodity. However, what I meant was, that the standards that some breeders adhere to are beneficial to the animals that they "sell"--screening, training, health and nutrition advice, restricted breeding, etc. I think that shelters and other rescue groups could learn from these techniques because I think that they help to prevent animals entering into shelters since people become more educated about how to care for their animal and what responsibilities they have. Perhaps the reasons that breeders adhere to these standards are different from the reasons that rescue groups would adopt them (breeders want more people to want their dogs), but if they both result in fewer animals entering shelters, then I think it's a good thing. However, until someone funds and carries out a comprehensive, long-term study on companion animal overpopulation, we're not going to find a good solution since we don't know all the "parts".
The techniques that you mentioned (screening, training, advice, support post-adoption) are great and should be used by shelters/ rescues. When talking about them being used by breeders, however, I cannot get past the human entitlement element. So, while some breeders may have better methods of placing than others, they still EXPLOIT animals. I'm not a welfarist, so there you go.
When talking about them being used by breeders, however, I cannot get past the human entitlement element. So, while some breeders may have better methods of placing than others, they still EXPLOIT animals. I'm not a welfarist, so there you go.
Agreed. ::puppy: (why are there no cat emoticons?)
I think PETA also realizes it's a problem. They've recently started an Animal Birth Control campaign.
Every time I see kill-shelter statistics, I can't help but think of the mindless assholes who BUY animals. >:(
I usually can't help thinking of the mindless assholes who don't take proper care of their pets and allow them to breed or just dump them when they get tired of them, which is of course where the problem comes from. Tens of millions of animals are put to death in this country every year and they were animals that once lived in people's homes, or were born to animals that people kept as pets. Those pet owners are the real culprits.
People who don't properly care for the animals that they choose to give a home to certainly are a huge problem. But are you seriously saying that breeders don't contribute to the problem? That's... just... *headdesk*
I don't think responsible breeders are a problem. I really don't. I'm not talking about puppy mill breeders of golden retrievers. I'm talking about truly responsible breeders who raise the dogs in their own homes, etc. Those breeders do not sell to pet shops. Cat breeders produce even fewer cats--maybe a small litter every two years or so. Responsible breeders require spaying and neutering and usually require that the owner needs to return the animal to the breeder if they ever want to give it up. So while I agree that they do add to the problem of an already overloaded pet supply, I do think it is a drop in the bucket and not at all the root cause of the problem.
And I understand the feeling that it is wrong to charge money for pets and treat them as commodities. But the FLIP side of that is that when you don't charge anything--or next to nothing like the local pound does--then frequently people don't value what they're getting. It's a weird psychological situation that occurs with goods and services and I think with pets too. I am sure that if everyone had to shell out as much money as they will for an xbox or a wii or whatever else they are willing to spend big $$ on, then there would be a lot fewer dogs and cats dumped off at the local shelter.
To me, this is a problem that needs to be mostly addressed at the supply side, not the demand side. The supply is caused by irresponsible pet owners who let their pets breed and/or get tired of them. I think you need to have mandatory spay/neuter and no puppy mills. But I agree that doesn't even half address the problem, because it will not prevent people from dropping their pets off at a shelter or (even worse) just letting them loose on the highway. So while your pet is having its mandatory spay/neuter, there should be a microchip implanted on a random part of its body. If it turns up on some random street corner, we can find the owner. If you want to bring your dog/cat to a shelter, fine, but then it will cost you $5,000 to make sure the dog is properly cared for until it has a new home. And if the animal cannot ultimately be placed in a new home and needs to be euthanized, then you and your entire family (including your children) must be present for the procedure.
Okay, so now I've entered the realm of mad rambling.
And I understand the feeling that it is wrong to charge money for pets and treat them as commodities. But the FLIP side of that is that when you don't charge anything--or next to nothing like the local pound does--then frequently people don't value what they're getting. It's a weird psychological situation that occurs with goods and services and I think with pets too. I am sure that if everyone had to shell out as much money as they will for an xbox or a wii or whatever else they are willing to spend big $$ on, then there would be a lot fewer dogs and cats dumped off at the local shelter.
I think that while there is some truth to this, pet store puppies are very expensive (usually over $1000) and you can get animals from good breeders for quite a bit less than this (I think a girl I work with paid around $800 for her Aussie puppy from a really great lady who did tons of socialization, training, health screenings, etc. before the girl I work with took him home at 9 weeks old). Also, rescue groups who do extensive screening and the like usually don't require more than $200 for an adoption fee, and this usually includes spaying/neutering, vaccinations, vet exam, and sometimes even training. This is what is so difficult about the whole companion animal situation--it's so hard to pinpoint one root cause and even looking at multiple causes doesn't provide incredible amounts of insight. Unwanted litters are a problem, people not valuing animals is a problem, etc. Tough stuff :(
hummm...I can like, feel my blood boiling as I try to type this...(deep breaths, zealy...)
Okay, I have known people who have a male/female pair of dogs in their home as pets. They allow the female to become pregnant about twice a year. In the year an half i have know them she has given birth to 4 litters of 3-5 puppies per litter. So, like whats that? 15 puppies? They sold each of the puppies (malitpoos) for about 300-500 each. and if each of those puppies are well cared for yet still produce 15 of their own puppies, we are looking at an exponential growth rate! It really doesn't matter that the parents are being well cared for or that the homes are well screened. So, my thought is...people want dogs. They are willing to pay literally hundreds of dollars to have dogs. If even those 15 puppies had not been born and sold, the adopting families would have had to look elsewhere for puppies....and if there was mandatory spaying and neutering...they would probally have to....look into RESCUING a dog/puppy. Until all shelters are empty, there is really NO reason to go on breeding animals. Every animal that is breed and sold takes a home away from a discarded pet.
In my city alone, over a dozen dogs have been euthanized in the past WEEK. And all dogs who come in pregnant/lactating/less than 8 weeks old, are automatically going to be euthanized unless one of the local rescues step up and foster it until it can be adopted. The rescues are so full of puppies, that they cant take any more animals into their programs. So, I think the argument about not being able to adopt a puppy is moot. There are adoptable puppies available at animal shelters. And if the argument is in favor of breeders because you can get standardized breeds, then the public needs to also be aware that there are pure/breed dogs in shelters on any given day.
I like the idea of having to apply for an exception to spay/neuter...maybe one of the requirements should be that the individual has to hold a few animals in a shelter while its euthanized because of overcrowding???
Pages