PETA kills 97% of its adopted animals

MetaKron said:
James, tell me that you're not a PETAphile, please.
Click to expand...

What does that mean?

There's no need to take the extreme position you take that everyone either totally supports everything PETA does or else they decry everything PETA does.

In some respects, PETA makes perfectly reasonable and legitimate arguments concerning animal rights. In other ways, it can be extremist.

Your own position appears to be that you occupy the opposite end of the extremist spectrum from PETA.
 
I'm not sure where you got that figure from, but my guess is that it is an under-estimate.
Click to expand...

From the opening post and linked news story. Although, he actually overstated the number. The article stated 34.7 percent for 2006, not 37 percent. Also, the numbers are for only one state and not necessarily representative for numbers nationwide, but are probably close enough. Sure as hell close enough when faced with a number like 97% from Peta.

Peta clearly would rather destroy an animal rather than allow it to live in captivity. That's sickening.

Of course, there is, as I've mentioned, the possibility that some of these animals were injured, close to death, etc. But 97% is a huge number. Far too large to be anything other than a systematic policy of destruction of an animal rather than allowing it to live in captivity.
 
James R said:
What does that mean?

There's no need to take the extreme position you take that everyone either totally supports everything PETA does or else they decry everything PETA does.

In some respects, PETA makes perfectly reasonable and legitimate arguments concerning animal rights. In other ways, it can be extremist.

Your own position appears to be that you occupy the opposite end of the extremist spectrum from PETA.
Click to expand...

You didn't have to accuse me of believing uncritically every criticism of PETA. The sources for the information that I have include the FBI and PETA itself. Much of it is in PETA's own words. Why do you call it "propaganda"?
 
invert_nexus said:
From the opening post and linked news story. Although, he actually overstated the number. The article stated 34.7 percent for 2006, not 37 percent. Also, the numbers are for only one state and not necessarily representative for numbers nationwide, but are probably close enough. Sure as hell close enough when faced with a number like 97% from Peta.

Peta clearly would rather destroy an animal rather than allow it to live in captivity. That's sickening.

Of course, there is, as I've mentioned, the possibility that some of these animals were injured, close to death, etc. But 97% is a huge number. Far too large to be anything other than a systematic policy of destruction of an animal rather than allowing it to live in captivity.
Click to expand...

37 percent was a misreading. I need new eyeglasses. I intended to say whatever number the article said.

There is no good reason to keep people from owning animals, and every reason for people to own animals. One of the reasons for people to own animals is to preserve their lives and their species. We are better off with huge numbers of animals being killed in shelters than we are with no animals. They are better off living with us than living where humans don't exist, which is nowhere.
 
I have to agree with you there. I have a marine fish tank (which i love and care for dearly). Apart from being great to look at and improving knowlage about marine life they may unfortunatly become the only places some of these species (especially some of the coral) are found if global warming continues which would be a terrible shame

Edit to add: But you still havent answed my question on what has the RSPCA done that you disagree with so much
 
Last edited:
Information about euthanasia of animals in shelters is available from the Humane Society of the United States.

It says:

The HSUS estimates that animal shelters care for between 6–8 million dogs and cats every year in the United States, of whom approximately 3–4 million are euthanized. At this time The HSUS can only estimate these figures because there is no central data reporting agency for animal shelters.

This overpopulation of companion animals is widely acknowledged across the country by professionals and experts in the animal welfare field. Overpopulation is a tragedy. There are simply not enough responsible homes for all of these wonderful, innocent animals. At this point in time, it would be impossible to humanely house every unwanted animal in the United States.​

See the link for much more information.

Another source is American Humane.

Here is its summary:

Using the National Council's numbers from 1997 and estimating the number of operating shelters in the United States to be 3,500 (the exact number of animal shelters operating in the United States does not exist), here are the statistics:
  • Of the 1,000 shelters that replied to the National Council's survey, 4.3 million animals were handled.
  • In 1997 roughly 64% of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters. These animals may have been put down due to overcrowding, but may have been sick, aggressive, injured, or suffered something else.
  • 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. More cats are euthanized than dogs because they are more likely to enter a shelter without any owner identification.
  • Only 15% of dogs and 2% of cats that enter animal shelters are reunited with their owners.
  • 25% of dogs and 24% of cats that enter animal shelters are adopted.
It is from these numbers that we estimated what is occurring nationwide. It is widely accepted that 9.6 million animals are euthanized annually in the United States.​
 
I accept no information from the HSUS as being true, and I don't know anything about "American Humane"
 
Asguard said:
I have to agree with you there. I have a marine fish tank (which i love and care for dearly). Apart from being great to look at and improving knowlage about marine life they may unfortunatly become the only places some of these species (especially some of the coral) are found if global warming continues which would be a terrible shame

Edit to add: But you still havent answed my question on what has the RSPCA done that you disagree with so much
Click to expand...

Stuff like this:


Following many years of campaigning by animal welfare organisations a ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales came into force in 2005.

Since 1996 the RSPCA has worked in partnership with the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the League Against Cruel Sports through a group known as Campaigning to Protect Hunted Animals (CPHA).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Can i just point out that the RSPCA that James and I are refering to is a statitory body here in Australia

Not the UK branch
 
These people?

http://blog1.rspcasa.asn.au/

The South Australian branch of the RSPCA is extremely happy to hear that the barbaric sport of duck shooting has been banned for this season. While the government says the cancellation is due to the drought and low duck numbers, the RSPCA believes duck shooting should be banned because of the severe injuries it inflicts on ducks.
Click to expand...
 
Yes those people. As i said they also have a role in advocaton of animal welfare. What is so wrong about that?
 
MetaKron said:
I accept no information from the HSUS as being true, and I don't know anything about "American Humane"
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... so is it just that you don't accept any information from any animal welfare or animal rights organisation, or do you have something in particular against HSUS?

You seem to be against animal welfare.
 
I heard that the HSUS had actually been designated as a terrorist organization by the FBI. Do you think that I should accept their information?
 
I will consider that one about the HSUS as a rumor. What is not a rumor is that they employ one John Goodwin as a vice president, who has been convicted of activities that we would call terrorism now, and arson in any age.

There is also the fact that the HSUS employs Wayne Pacelle, formerly one of the loudmouths from PETA, and that Ingrid Newkirk of PETA gave aid and comfort to Rodney Coronado who was also jailed for incidents involving arson. We definitely have a case for labelling both organizations as animal rights terrorist organizations, and as organizations that give support to domestic terrorists. What then about their credibility? I can prove this. It is common knowledge.
 
Asguard said:
is PETA the US version of the RSPCA?
Click to expand...
Just looking at the initials, I'd say the RSPCA is more like (and probably related to) the ASPCA. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is a respected organization. Unlike PETA, which is famous for throwing paint on people's fur coats and just being generally luney to the point of supporting terrorism in support of "animal rights".

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top