PETA Killed a Record Number of Pets in 2008

[RealPitBull]

March 25, 2009

PETA Killed a Record Number of Pets in 2008

On "The Fifth Down," the New York Times football blog, a guest contributor posed a provocavtive question today: If you had to give up your beloved pet, would you be better off giving it to disgraced quarterback Michael Vick (of dogfighting notoriety), or Ingrid Newkirk, the president and founder of PETA? Answer: If you truly care about the family pup’s welfare, you should keep it as far from PETA as possible.

It's wise advice -- and timely too.

Today, we're telling reporters that the latest proof of PETA's pet extermination program is available at PetaKillsAnimals. com. This unapologetic hypocrisy has been going on for years. Despite its $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. And its employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year.

Even after years of public outrage over its dog and cat killing, the animal rights group is still putting down an average of nearly six pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters. Every day.

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, since 1998 a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers. Last year, PETA killed 2,124 pets and placed only seven in adoptive homes.
Just seven. Out of 2,124. That's a new record. Can you imagine what would happen if the Red Cross helped one-third of one percent of people who needed their help following a tornado or hurricane? Or if a soup kitchen fed only seven people when a line of over two thousand trailed around the block?

That’s exactly why the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian last year to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.

In addition to exposing PETA’s hypocritical record of killing defenseless animals, we’ve been tirelessly publicizing the animal rights group’s ties to violent activists, and putting the spotlight on its aggressive and grossly inappropriate message-marketing to children.
Read more about PETA’s unforgivable acts here. And click here if you'd like to sign the petition to strip the deceptive animal rights group of its tax-exempt status.

[emilys]

Nathan Winograd is FLAMING:
www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=907

[bubsy]

Here is PETA's response:


Thank you for contacting PETA about euthanasia and the companion animal overpopulation crisis.

Recently, some groups have made misleading claims about PETA’s euthanasia rate compared to the rates of various animal shelters. One such group is the deceitfully named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)—a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters that kill millions of animals every year—which is acting not out of compassion but out of greed. These companies are worried about the strides that PETA is making that are changing their industries and compelling them to take animal welfare concerns seriously; they hope to scare people away from supporting PETA by misrepresenting the vital work that we do for animals. To learn more about CCF—which USA Today recently opined should rename its Web site FatforProfit.com—please see the following Web sites:

· www.ConsumerDeception.com
· www.CitizensForEthics.org/node/19131
· www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=8984

Although PETA does not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place hundreds of animals in excellent lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept—such as those who are severely injured, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable—we are often a “shelter of last resort,” offering a humane death to animals who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.

While some of the animals we take in are lost companion animals or adoptable strays, many of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option. To cite a local instance, our caseworkers were able to gain custody of a dog who was tied to a 15-pound chain and who was starved until she was severely emaciated. We had to carry her into the emergency clinic because she could barely walk. A vet recommended that the most humane option for her was a peaceful and dignified release from her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their convictions for cruelty to animals. To learn more, please see www.HelpingAnimals.com/f-asiasstory.asp. On another occasion, when a power-line transformer explosion burned a flock of starlings, PETA was the only agency to come to the birds’ aid, offering the animals a painless escape from their suffering.

PETA receives calls every week from people who request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain if they were transported. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our “numbers” look bad.

Unlike “no-kill” shelters, PETA does not refuse animals simply because euthanasia is the only humane option for them. Many of the animals we take in are given to us because they have been rejected by other facilities.

As you may know, the best way to save the lives of homeless animals is through spay-and-neuter programs. Our spay-and-neuter clinics focus much of their work in disadvantaged neighborhoods, where we offer free and low-cost surgeries. To date, our clinics have sterilized tens of thousands of animals. With $45, a person could either care for a dog in a “no-kill” shelter for about three days or sterilize one animal, preventing the births of at least eight animals from that animal and her offspring in just one year—and preventing the births of as many as 67,000 dogs in six years and 420,000 cats in seven years. For more information about PETA’s efforts to reduce animal overpopulation—and how you can help promote spaying and neutering in your community—please visit www.HelpingAnimals.com/about_snip.asp.

Please see www.HelpingAnimals.com for more information about these issues. Thanks again for writing to us and for your concern for animals.

Sincerely,

The PETA Staff
www.SupportPETA.com

[emilys]

Of course they don't even try to deny that they kill virtually all the animals they take in.
And that's the thing: they don't even try to adopt them. They have no adoption program. They take these dogs only so they can kill them ("more humanely").
They are sick, twisted, disgusting barbarians.

[bubsy]

I'd like to know who is calling PETA to euthanize their pets? Nice that they take a dig at no kill shelters, I guess that includes most small rescue groups too.

[emilys]

Mar 30, 2009 13:05:35 GMT -5 bubsy said:

I'd like to know who is calling PETA to euthanize their pets? Nice that they take a dig at no kill shelters, I guess that includes most small rescue groups too.

Oh that's another lie. Most people don't give up their pets to be euthanized. They "give them up" and take them to a shelter deluding themselves that the dogs will find another home. If people knew the true odds that their pet would be killed (if shelters were honest about their kill rates) they might try to keep them. Or they'd just take them out into the country and dump them.

[bamapitbullmom]

In my area several well-known, much supported "no-kill" shelters boast their 0 euthanasia numbers but what the public doesn't know is that if a pit bull (or anything remotely resembles one) comes in, they are hauled off to the County shelter where they are euthed.

So, technically the "organization" can call themselves a "no-kill" b/c they don't do it themselves, instead they send them where they are and be done with it.

I think it is more respectful to be responsible and do what you have to do rather than weasle your way around it AND blatantly lie to the public about it AND get Maddie's Fund monies.

People relinquish dogs (owned or strays) feeling that they will find a home b/c it's a guaranteed no-kill.

If they only knew the truth.

[emilys]

NO real "no kill" open admission shelter claims "O" animals killed. Which is one of the reasons I don't like that term for what Winograd envisions. Even he says that 90-95% saved dogs is maximum because there will always be some dogs so sick or so irredemably vicious that killing is really the only solution. Under his vision, "no kill" means no dogs killed to free up space or for minor health or correctable behavior issues.

[RealPitBull]

Pretty 'funny' that PETA somehow tries to spin what they do into a positive thing. Note with all their money, hardly ANY homeless animals saved and placed into new homes.