Thread: PETA Killed 95 percent of adoptable pets in its care last year.

noexit why try to play a game with symantics instead of saying whats on your mind

I'm currently doing a research paper on PETA, and their more extreme off-shoots (Animal Liberation Front namely). Let me give me 2 cents. For one, PETA may have a bunch of loonies working for them, but they genuinely care ALOT about animals. PETA does not keep "adoptable" animals. They give all ones that they deem adoptable to local shelters. Officially, they keep the unwanted ones in hopes that they get better. But really, they just want to make sure that they die peacefully. (They don't use gas chambers, they use intravenous poison, similar to what we use to execute criminals today. Supposedly painless and very quick.) As for me, I have had 2 dogs. Two black lab puppies that we (IE, my dad) found in the streets and nursed back to health. I loved them , and i cried my eyes out when they died 2 years ago.

Point is, PETA wants to lynch anyone and everyone that even spits within 2 inches of an animal, yet it's ok for the to kill, euthanize, put to sleep, etc...any animal they choose? Seems hypocritcal enough to me.

If it's a necessary action then so be it, but don't come after everyone else for much less damage.

PETA does euthanasia out of humane treatment for animals. IE, animals who are terminally ill from neglect.

They "go after" people/groups for inhumane treatment of animals. IE, people who fight dogs, or burn kittens.

I would like to see more replies to this thread are based on research, rather than rash judgments based on personal opinions. I have no problem with people discussing the issues, but let's at least have some facts to back up the bandwagon of judgment.

Here is and interesting story my grandfather got a two year old Springer Spaniel from some whose kids had abused it up to and including shooting it with a pellet gun, the dog was terrified of children and the first time I saw her she was running around peeing in terror. Slowly she got used to us. That summer we were out camping and my grandfather was sitting by the fire and clicked button to adjust the height of cane the dog bolted and went to hide in in the front of the boat by the lake because she thought the click of the cane was a pellet gun.

From what I'd seen I would have never thought that just a few years latter I would be taking her out hunting grouse and rabbits. Just saying "Should we go out and get some bunnies", made the dogs eyes like saucers and she would go wait by my car and get quite annoyed with me when if I took to long. I would never have thought and animal who was so terrified of guns would get excited just seeing one because she knew she was going hunting. She did not become the finest bird dog but she would collect everything I shot and bring it back undamaged.

One huge advantage of acquring a slightly older dog is you can better judge the dogs personality than a puppy's, it takes more patience than with a puppy and a good rapour with animals to turn an abused dog into something special you just have to know what you are looking for.

As to PETA and such I often find them a load of crap as they say animals that are left feral on land that is fully capable of supporting are being treated cruely. Yes the animals may get sick and die, but wild animals get sick and die all the time ever going waling in the woods at the end of hard winter or a really dry summer there will be numerous dead things lying about. More than once I have seen similar societies remove animals that have gone feral from land for what they say is the animals own protection, but don't mention the fact that all they did was cull them. I think I would gladly take the risk of a dog running me down or getting sick with out a vet to help me instead of being rounded up and put to death.

Originally Posted by noexitpath

PETA does euthanasia out of humane treatment for animals. IE, animals who are terminally ill from neglect.

They "go after" people/groups for inhumane treatment of animals. IE, people who fight dogs, or burn kittens.

I'm trying not to laugh at this but....

by the logic of this statement in which you have only presented about a fourth of their targeted group, you are associating people who maliciously torture animals with those people who humanely hunt, kill, and eat animals.

this is by the logic that PETA "goes after", as you have put it, hunters like me as well as the bastards you mentioned.

The problem with asking people to argue facts is that you will never get the real facts. I can give you stats from both sides proving the other is wrong. On top of that i can give you stats from from outside groups that contridict each other. What that leaves you with is personal exsperience, best judgement, and hopefully common sence to argue your side of what the truth really is.

With that in mind how do you justify hunters. On one side you have the people that utilize the entire animal and the other the so called "sport" hunter. Personally i do not see a sport in hunting unless the animal is hunting you as well.

People mention uncurable diseases as a just reason to put an animal down. Going by that logic they we should be putting down every person diagnosed with aids, cancer, and countless other diseases that we can't cure. I don't see that happening seeing as they lock up every one that has helped people commit suicide just to end the pain and suffering they are enduring.

Next they bring up uncorrectable behavior. Now we're talking about a sliding scale. Who judges what uncorrectable behavior is. My buddy Sam (hybrid wolf) was diagnosed with uncorrectable behavior by the humane society. I've had her 3 monthes one of the must loving dogs i've ever had. It just took longer than a week for her to come to grips with the fact she was not going to beaten and starved on a daily bases. Cross that over to how people are treated and you get serial killers the don't even get the chair. They get a nice comfy cell, 3 meals a day, doctor visits, and the rest of there natural life for scientist to find a cure so they can go back to court as say how it wasn't their fault.

The idea of PETA is a good concept but they lost their way along time ago. Like many other organizations it started out doing a job in an effort to help it has since strayed off course. In all seriousness take a good look at 99% of charity type groups and you will find that it used to be about the cause but as time goes on it's less about the cause and more about the publisity and money.

If you doubt my logic thats fine. Do your own research. If your to lazy to do it ask and i'll do it for you. I'll even give a good example to research try the march of dimes. You'll find out it's called the march of dimes only because one dime out of every dollar actually goes to finding a cure. Or you can go after PETA itself and find out 4 cents of every dollar goes to actually helping animals and yet the cheif exective office makes almost a half a million a year.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

The problem with asking people to argue facts is that you will never get the real facts.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

.....research try the march of dimes. You'll find out it's called the march of dimes only because one dime out of every dollar actually goes to finding a cure.

Self fulfilling prophecy much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_of_dimes

The name emphasized the national, nonpartisan, and public nature of the new organization, as opposed to private foundations established by wealthy families. The effort began with a newspaper appeal, asking everyone in the nation to contribute a dime (10 cents) to fight polio.

"March of Dimes" was originally the name of the annual fundraising event held in January by the Foundation.[1] The name "March of Dimes" for the fundraising campaign was coined by entertainer Eddie Cantor as a play on the popular newsreel feature of the day, The March of Time.[2] Along with Cantor, many top Hollywood, Broadway, radio, and television stars served as promoters of the charity. When Roosevelt died in office in 1945, he was commemorated by placing his portrait on the dime. By a happy coincidence, this was the only coin in wide circulation which had a purely allegorical figure (Liberty) on the obverse. To put Roosevelt on any other coin would have required displacing a president or founding father. Over the years, the name "March of Dimes" became synonymous with that of the charity and was officially adopted in 1979.