Is it so hard to understand what a “shelter of last resort” means? Almost all adoptable animals end up in selective-admission shelters. In the case of animals that are taken to PETA, their guardians are most often simply too poor to afford euthanasia services for their sick and dying animals.
There’s been a concerted effort by industries benefitting from animal suffering (animal agriculture, fast food, etc.) to paint PETA as a villian, an effort which you seem to be intent on propagating for some unknown reason.
Compare the 713 dogs killed in your linked article to the OVER 10,000 animals that were spayed or neutered and returned to their owners. If they wanted to kill animals for the hell of it, or for some other ideological reason, why would they be providing these services?
Why don’t you ask how many euthanasias veterinarians perform each year and then get rabid about how they love to kill animals? That makes about as much sense.
If there’s some part of the explanation I’ve provided that you didn’t understand, I’d be happy to clarify it, but I believe I explained that quite clearly.
Let me maybe give you an example: someone’s companion animal is dying of cancer; they can’t afford to have them treated, and there are no systems in place like medicare that would facilitate treatment. They can’t afford to take their animal to a vet to have them euthanized. What should they do? Make their companion animal suffer a painful agonizing death, or take them to a shelter of last resort, such as PETA, who will euthanize their companion animal humanely?
I tip my hat to you - I think you’ve explained it so clearly that no one capable of using a keyboard and actually applying their mental faculties to this topic could fail to understand it. That includes kids
That’s not what PETA is doing though. They are adopting animals from other shelters and euthanizing them, not providing a service to the general public.
It’s not like PETA’s kill rate is a secret; their statistics have been public knowledge for years, and they’ve never tried to obfuscate that. If other shelters are sending their animals to PETA, they understand it’s almost certainly for the purpose of euthanasia, and those shelters don’t want that reflected in their own numbers, but in these cases they also understand that the alternative is a worse outcome for the animal.
Actual answer: because they feel pet ownership and domestication is less moral than euthanasia. I don’t think they actually care about individual animals or harm reduction as much as they hate the idea of animal husbandry.
To be clear, factory farming and almost any commercial industry involving animals is nightmarishly evil. It’d just be nice to have a better advocate against it.
You’re parroting meat industry talking points. PETA’s behaviour clearly indicates this is not the case, as they help substantially more animals than they euthanize. In a given year the vast majority of their interactions are spaying/neutering, providing other free or low cost medical services, and helping unhoused backyard dogs.
They even adopt some of these animals themselves. Why would they adopt them if they were ideologically opposed to adoption. Simple answer: they aren’t.
They’re likely ideologically opposed to the concept of animals as property, as opposed to companions, which is why they use terminology like “guardian/companion” instead of “owner/pet”.
Why does PETA kill so many animals?
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/
https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-peta-responsible-deaths-thousands-animals-1565532
your article mentions a handful of sentences to this, blames some other organisation, and then moves on and never mentions it again. why?
I assume youll just ban me for pointing out the hypocrisy
Is it so hard to understand what a “shelter of last resort” means? Almost all adoptable animals end up in selective-admission shelters. In the case of animals that are taken to PETA, their guardians are most often simply too poor to afford euthanasia services for their sick and dying animals.
There’s been a concerted effort by industries benefitting from animal suffering (animal agriculture, fast food, etc.) to paint PETA as a villian, an effort which you seem to be intent on propagating for some unknown reason.
Compare the 713 dogs killed in your linked article to the OVER 10,000 animals that were spayed or neutered and returned to their owners. If they wanted to kill animals for the hell of it, or for some other ideological reason, why would they be providing these services?
Why don’t you ask how many euthanasias veterinarians perform each year and then get rabid about how they love to kill animals? That makes about as much sense.
Yes, and the numbers are nothing compared to a lot more.
It is still a ton of uncomfortable work, but someome has to do it.
Its not like they breed those animals and sell the corpses…
You’re commenting on a bit of an old post, but I’m curious about your response. Most of my information was just pulled from PETA directly.
It sounds like you might work/volunteer in the field? I’m always happy to learn more if you’re willing to share.
That the information came from them directly is pretty positive I think.
No I dont work there, but read the article, which was pretty neutral.
I have no idea how many “lost cases” they get, and the rates are really high. But their argumentation makes sense
You missed the point. Why is PETA killing animals at all?
If there’s some part of the explanation I’ve provided that you didn’t understand, I’d be happy to clarify it, but I believe I explained that quite clearly.
Let me maybe give you an example: someone’s companion animal is dying of cancer; they can’t afford to have them treated, and there are no systems in place like medicare that would facilitate treatment. They can’t afford to take their animal to a vet to have them euthanized. What should they do? Make their companion animal suffer a painful agonizing death, or take them to a shelter of last resort, such as PETA, who will euthanize their companion animal humanely?
I tip my hat to you - I think you’ve explained it so clearly that no one capable of using a keyboard and actually applying their mental faculties to this topic could fail to understand it. That includes kids
But what about male models?
I am not really a fan of euthanizing male models or kids, TBH.
That’s not what PETA is doing though. They are adopting animals from other shelters and euthanizing them, not providing a service to the general public.
It’s not like PETA’s kill rate is a secret; their statistics have been public knowledge for years, and they’ve never tried to obfuscate that. If other shelters are sending their animals to PETA, they understand it’s almost certainly for the purpose of euthanasia, and those shelters don’t want that reflected in their own numbers, but in these cases they also understand that the alternative is a worse outcome for the animal.
Are you also asking why vets perform euthanasia?
Actual answer: because they feel pet ownership and domestication is less moral than euthanasia. I don’t think they actually care about individual animals or harm reduction as much as they hate the idea of animal husbandry.
To be clear, factory farming and almost any commercial industry involving animals is nightmarishly evil. It’d just be nice to have a better advocate against it.
You’re parroting meat industry talking points. PETA’s behaviour clearly indicates this is not the case, as they help substantially more animals than they euthanize. In a given year the vast majority of their interactions are spaying/neutering, providing other free or low cost medical services, and helping unhoused backyard dogs.
They even adopt some of these animals themselves. Why would they adopt them if they were ideologically opposed to adoption. Simple answer: they aren’t.
They’re likely ideologically opposed to the concept of animals as property, as opposed to companions, which is why they use terminology like “guardian/companion” instead of “owner/pet”.