If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(State of Virginia)   PETA - Proudly Euthanizing Thousands of Animals   (vi.virginia.gov) divider line 72
    More: Sad, street address, euthanasias  
•       •       •

10482 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Mar 2013 at 8:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-21 09:01:30 AM
7 votes:

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


From the link, PETA Virginia's stats: 1,877 animals taken in, 1,675 euthanized, about 90%

Looking at the same source, for all humane societies (including PETA): 10,143 animals taken in, 2,519 euthanized, about 25%

That means that for non-PETA humane societies in Virginia, you're looking at 8,266 animals taken in and 844 animals euthanized, about 10%.

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?
2013-03-21 09:19:49 AM
4 votes:
I suggest PETA should protest itself with dozens of naked women hurling buckets of paint over each other in symbolic protest at this mass murder. Everyone else can call them what they are - attention whoring hypocrites. There are dozens of far more deserving and reputable animal welfare organisations who should receive donations before these clowns.
2013-03-21 09:00:39 AM
4 votes:

karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.


The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.
2013-03-21 08:57:57 AM
4 votes:

heywood-jablome: [i.imgur.com image 300x300]


They took in 1877 animals and euthanized 1675.  That is 89.24% KILLED by PETA.
The coont that runs PETA is a giant farking hypocrite.
2013-03-21 08:43:59 AM
4 votes:
Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.
2013-03-21 08:43:06 AM
4 votes:
i.imgur.com
2013-03-21 09:34:04 AM
3 votes:

Carn: Well, I assume at least nobody ate them after they were pumped full of death chemicals?  Everybody listen to Bob Barker and get your pets fixed.  Kill shelters suck, but I understand the necessity.


Anyone with sense knows that kill shelters are sometimes necessary.  The problem is that being dropped off at PETA is a death sentence

They aren't a kill shelter, they're a kill factory  and this isn't news.  They've been operating this way for years.

I'll slightly disagree with the hypocrite part.  They're more pure con artists, making money off the ignorant masses that think they're doing something to help poor fluffy when they donate.

TheGreatGazoo: Generally the incinerate the corpses so they don't spread disease

.

Generally, but he's in luck if he's talking about a PETA facility.  They will indeed just toss them in the dumpster.

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2007/01/24/testimony-underwa y- in-peta-trial/
2013-03-21 09:04:27 AM
3 votes:

DeathCipris: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

The PETA morons are indefensible. They protest, quite loudly in fact, that killing animals is wrong for ANY reason, yet they euthanize animals for the same damn reasons the pet shelters they protest. The reason is because it is the only humane thing to do.


No, they don't.  They euthanize at a VASTLY, indefensibly higher rate than any legitimate shelter.
2013-03-21 08:48:19 AM
3 votes:

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


Pretty sure with a budget of 36 million, they could afford decent living accommodations for a few thousand cats and dogs
2013-03-21 08:47:11 AM
3 votes:
I'm okay with this. If people would properly spay and neuter their pets, the stray animal population would be a non-issue and people wouldn't end up with litters they didn't want.

Euthanizing the animals may be sad, but the reason for their deaths is because people don't care enough to have a simple procedure carried out on their pets.

It's far better these animals are put down quietly and humanely than to have them die of starvation, used as practice targets, run over by cars, poisoned, or mauled by other animals.
2013-03-21 08:47:05 AM
3 votes:
Do as they say, not as they do.
OMG YOU'RE WEARING FUR, I'M THROWING BLOOD ON YOU!!!!*

*as soon as I kill about 50 dogs today
2013-03-21 08:02:04 AM
3 votes:
What?  Did you expect them to do something humane like care for them?  That would get in the way of making money for PETA!
2013-03-21 01:43:51 PM
2 votes:

Theaetetus: nocturnal001: Theaetetus: nocturnal001: From the PETA website.  "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."   This statement combined with their other stances logicaly transaltes to the idea that animals have the same rights as humans. I.e. we don't kill animals to save human lives for example.  Putting down animals should be their very last resort if they really folowed their philosophy.

That's the very definition of a strawman argument.
1. PETA makes statement X "don't eat/wear/experiment on animals or use them for entertainment".
2. You present it as statement Y "animals have same rights as humans".
3. You attack PETA based on their lack of adherence to statement Y.

Well, it would be a strawman if they didn't believe that. You are either being disingenuous or naive if you think they don't believe that.  If animals can't be owned, killed, abused, etc. by humans then doesn't that exactly mean they have the same rights?  It does, yes.   PETA's wording could be swapping into the Decleration of Independence and the original meaning would be unchanged.


http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/why-animal-rights.aspx
Supporters of animal rights believe that animals have an inherent worth-a value completely separate from their usefulness to humans. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering. Animal rights is not just a philosophy-it is a social movement that challenges society's traditional view that all nonhuman animals exist solely for human use. As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, "When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife."

Doubling down on your strawman still doesn't mean it's what PETA believes.
Look, if you can't argue using their actual words, and instead have to create some "animals have the same rights as humans" derp, then you have to expect some pushback.


So their actual words that I posted don't mean exactly what I have said? Do we need to have a semantics debate?

Its pretty clear unless you are just arguing to rile people up.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money for other projects.


You are right. Technically they are not hypocrites. However their philosophy is not logically consistent and probably immoral by most measures.
2013-03-21 09:54:01 AM
2 votes:
I wonder how many of the people who surrendered their pets to PETA did so because they believed that PETA would not kill them.
2013-03-21 09:37:57 AM
2 votes:

SwiftFox: National humane organizations have a problem: Either they are the ones like PETA that operate and support animal shelters, which inevitably results in euthanasia for homeless animals that can not be placed with new owners and complaints that they are wasting money with any political work they do, or like the Humane Society of the United States they are organized for advocacy work and run no shelters - which results in complaints they are illegitimate or hypocritical as a humane organization because they run no animal shelters.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.


No they aren't.  PETA doesn't kill animals that can't be placed, they just kill them all and have done so for decades.

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/Better-dead-than-fed- PE TA-says-2626614.php

PETA's final solution is indeed the animal version of Hitler's.
2013-03-21 09:22:28 AM
2 votes:

notto: meanmutton:

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.


That's quite an interesting hypothesis.  What evidence do you have to back that up?  Are their intake rules such that they ONLY take in severely sick or injured animals?  If so, please feel free to provide some evidence to back up that assertion.
2013-03-21 09:10:44 AM
2 votes:
I live in VA. My previous job involved a lot of driving, and everytime I took the highway through Norfolk, I'd roll down the window and flip off their headquarters building as I drove past. I'm not sure how much good this did, but it did make me feel better. I like to imagine that at least one crazed animal lover/killer saw me flipping them off, got to thinking about why someone would hate PETA so damn much, and decide to reevaluate their life.
2013-03-21 09:09:15 AM
2 votes:

Ringshadow: This is old news. PETA is a bunch of raging hypocrites that has stated it's bad to use animal derived medicine while they have insulin dependent VIPs. They've also stated that it'd be better for all pets to be dead than in the hands of caring owners.


This thread has already shown that there are people unaware that the way they run their shelter is vastly different from the way reputable animal shelters are run.
2013-03-21 09:06:22 AM
2 votes:

notto: phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?

You are more than welcome to go free the animals and take on their care if you disagree with their decision.  They will even carry them to your car.  See the difference?


I never once saw a film with NAZI's commenting on it being their, and everyone's, duty to safeguard Jews and to not use Jew derived products (even while doing so).

Yes I do
2013-03-21 09:03:45 AM
2 votes:
I've heard of No-kill shelters, but these guys seem to run Kill-Kill shelters.

/Fark Peta with a rusty nail
2013-03-21 09:03:33 AM
2 votes:

SwiftFox: National humane organizations have a problem: Either they are the ones like PETA that operate and support animal shelters, which inevitably results in euthanasia for homeless animals that can not be placed with new owners and complaints that they are wasting money with any political work they do, or like the Humane Society of the United States they are organized for advocacy work and run no shelters - which results in complaints they are illegitimate or hypocritical as a humane organization because they run no animal shelters.

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.


PETA doesn't behave like regular animal shelters.  They don't make any effort to place animals; they just euthanize them.  If you want to look at how shelters  should operate, the local chapters of the Humane Society tend to be very good examples.
2013-03-21 08:59:41 AM
2 votes:
the'ere a buncha militant jackasses
we already knew this
they kill thousands of the animals they anthropomorphize into people
many of us already knew that, also
does that make them murderers to their own kind of idiot bipeds?
2013-03-21 08:59:26 AM
2 votes:
I'm going to find a place where they're euthanizing animals close to my house, rummage around in their dumpsters, and make clothes with  the fur from animals they've euthanized.
 That way no animals are killed specifically for their fur.  The animals that are killed don't go to waste.  And since my clothes are made locally, rather than arriving in shipping containers from Asia, I'll be reducing carbon emissions as well as striking a blow to sweat shops and chid labor.  I'll be the greenest muther effer on the block.
2013-03-21 08:51:24 AM
2 votes:
PETA sucks but this argument is stupid.
2013-03-21 08:49:59 AM
2 votes:

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


Hey everyone! Point and laugh at the idiot who's white knighting PETA!!!
2013-03-21 08:48:16 AM
2 votes:
I forgot the link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inFtOMx8nDU  Skip to the 26 minute mark about what was revealed on the Penn and Teller BullShiat PETA episode..
2013-03-21 08:47:27 AM
2 votes:
This is not news. Ask anyone who lives in the Hampton Roads VA area what they think about all the times PeTA has been caught putting dead pets in dumpsters.

 And I predict that, like usual this will just go down the memory hole, and PeTA will just keep on marching smartly forward. Once you reach a certain rarefied level of political correctness, you really ARE above and beyond any and all criticism or questioning.
2013-03-21 08:46:52 AM
2 votes:
1045 cats euthanized, well that's a good start at least, but they're really going to have to step it up if they're going to solve the problem.
2013-03-22 02:48:44 PM
1 votes:
2012 is not an aberration either. PeTA has a history of abysmal placement rates and indiscriminate euthanasia.

PeTA's kill rate was 96% in 2011 and 79% in 2010. They apparently tried to lower their kill rate numbers in 2005 by dumping dead cats and dogs in a supermarket's dumpster. The testimony at trial gave some of the awful details of the dumping. The PeTA employees were not  convicted of animal cruelty; they were convicted of littering. Very odd since they dumped their "trash" in a dumpster.

www.petakillsanimals.com
One of the puppies dumped in supermarket dumpster by PeTA's Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook.
2013-03-22 09:33:47 AM
1 votes:

CourtroomWolf: Are we to take these two clear statements - "animals have value even the absence of humans" and "animals have a right not to be tortured" - that PETA believes that animals should have the right to jury trials? Or that animals should be free from unreasonable searches? Or that animals should be allowed to vote?

Of course not. Clearly, their philosophy does not extend to the hyperbolic extremes you've cast it as.

Your turn.

They clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of right to not be hurt, killed etc. They object to harming animals to save human lives, but also dont mind killing animals to save money for other projects.

On the contrary, they clearly state that animals are equal to humans in terms of a right to "live free from pain and suffering".You can tell that that's what they say because I used quote marks, rather than your paraphrasing attempt to enlarge their statement to a right not to be hurt or killed. They are not hypocrites, because painless euthanasia does not infringe that right.
Similarly, I believe that humans also have that right, but I also believe in euthanasia or assisted suicide for the terminally ill. In fact, it's not a "but", but a "therefore" - I don't believe people should be forced to live out their days in pain and suffering. It would, instead, be hypocritical to believe that no one should ever be allowed release from pain.

You are right. Technically they are not hypocrites. However their philosophy is not logically consistent and probably immoral by most measures.

What's your opinion on torture? And what's your opinion on assisted suicide?


4/10.  You blew it when you tried to compare it to things as dissimilar as torture and assisted suicide after such a ridiculously pedantic and legalistic rant.  You could salvage a few points by coming out in full support of the euthanasia of neglected but perfectly healthy human children.


This is true, he is pretty good at playing the verbal gymnastics game (I like to think that I am also) but he made the mistake of claiming that he is not a supporter of PETA or their ideology.  Nobody without skin in the game would defend PETA unless they were just trying to F with people.  It can be fun to take a retarded position in an argument and attempt to defend that position, but this can be dangerous as random idiots reading the thread might be swayed or have their own version of crazy validated.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7656714/83169966#c83169966" target="_blank" data-cke-saved-href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7656714/83169966#c8 3169966">Keizer_Ghidorah: Mambo Bananapatch: cynicalbastard: KawaiiNot: karnal: At least no poultry was harmed

I sense a biasis against non-edible animals on PETA's part.

There are non-edible animals?

No, but there are the less tasty ones.

Poison-arrow frogs are definitely non-edible.



FWIW, once they are in captivity they rapdidly lose their poison. The belief is that they build up the poison due to their diet of ants. Likely they would still be nasty to eat.

karmaceutical: I'm telling ya, pets make some people crazy. Texas makes it legal to execute humans for trespassing and no one cares... but PeTA drives people into frothing lunacy.

There are plenty of asshats in the world that deserve scorn.

As I've said before, the funny thing is that a great many people (myself included) would agree with the majority of PETA's positions. The problem is that PETA is not honest about their motivations, and their other positions are batshiat crazy.
2013-03-21 04:50:29 PM
1 votes:
Phins: And where exactly on PETA's web site do they tell the public they're running a slaughterhouse? Since it's such a great service and all, I would think they'd publicize it.
cousin-merle
You mean like this?
http://features.peta.org/petasaves/


I quickly lost count of the lies on that page. Apologists for PETA's killing have argued that all of the animals they kill are "unadoptable." But this claim is a lie for numerous reasons. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable and PETA insiders have admitted as much, one former intern reporting that he quit in disgust after witnessing perfectly healthy puppies and kittens in the kill room. It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making the determination as to whether or not an animal is "unadoptable." It is a lie because according to a state inspector, the PETA facility where the animals are impounded was designed to house animals for no more than 24 hours. It is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much during a 2008 television interview: when asked whether or not PETA kills healthy animals, she responded, "Absolutely." It is a lie because PETA staff have described the animals they have killed as "healthy," "adorable" and "perfect." It is a lie because PETA itself admits it does not believe in "right to life for animals." And it is a lie because when asked what sort of effort PETA routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care, PETA responded that it had "no comment."

Or how about this:
PETA sent a congratulatory gift basket to a shelter when it announced it was going to start killing after four years of being no kill.

Or this:
Pictures of healthy adoptable animals killed by PETA, animals described by PETA as "adorable" and "perfect." WARNING: graphic pics of dead animals.
2013-03-21 04:42:26 PM
1 votes:
karmaceutical:
What is the angle for PeTA?  If they are really hellbent on killing as many pets as possible, how come this problem is contained to one lousy cat killing factory in Virginia?  Or maybe there is an even bigger, more clandestine, gabillion dollar conspiracy to euthanize cats?

The angle for PETA is to raise huge amounts of cash. The dog- and cat-killing factory in Virginia is a side business to their main business of raising money for PETA. Their marketing campaign makes it looks like they give a shiat about animals, so they're stuck with pesky people dropping off these pesky animals, so they kill them. And then they say, "See how horrible people are? We peacefully helped these babies say goodbye to their horrible life! Send money!"
2013-03-21 04:28:49 PM
1 votes:
Wow.

For comparison, I looked up the Nebraska Humane Society. They're not "no kill". They euthanize animals who have severe health issues or behavioral problems (they call it "no suffering" - can't say whether I know that's true or not). They'll take any animal you bring them, wild, feral, or tame. They list their stats online: out of 17,000+ animals received last year, about 4,800 were euthanized. That's about 28%.

According to that report, PETA took in a total of 1877 animals and euthanized 1675, which works out to 89%.

Treating animals ethically: you're doing it wrong.
2013-03-21 04:27:38 PM
1 votes:
cousin-merle That's not what the VA inspectors found.
"The findings of this site visit support the assertion that PETA does not operate a facility that meets the statutory definition of an animal shelter as the primary purpose is not to find permanent homes for animals. . .the shelter is not accessible to the public, promoted, or engaged in efforts to facilitate the adoption of animals taken into custody. . .and has stated to enquiring members of the public that no such facility exists"
You are making things up.


The point is that PETA tells people they will take good care of the animals and find them homes.

ANIMAL PEOPLE in mid-2004 received detailed complaints from several North Carolina no-kill shelter volunteers and one ex-PETA employee who charged that PETA was taking animals from them who had been sterilized and vaccinated in preparation for adoption, promising to place them in homes, and then refused to account for them. The volunteers believed the animals were being killed. The ex-PETA employee affirmed their suspicions, but the complainants had no physical evidence to support their case.
"The arrests have left local animal rescuers with more questions than answers," summarized Luci Weldon of The Warren Record.
Macon animal rescuer Ruth Brown told Weldon that "In December 2003, while she was working with Rainbow Rescue, a no-kill organization in Roanoke Rapids, she conducted e-mail correspondence with an individual who described herself as being active in animal rescue and who used the Community Animal Project, run by PETA, to provide foster care for the rescued animals.
"I thought it was the answer from heaven," Brown recounted.
Wrote Weldon, "Brown said that she was told that local animals transferred to PETA would be prepared for potential adoption. As animals were given to PETA, Brown said she had contact with a representative of CAP in Norfolk, where PETA is headquartered, as well as contact with Adria Hinkle."
Said Brown, "We asked them about the animals and they said they only had to put one to sleep because of congenital heart failure," Brown said. "We questioned them on several occasions. They reassured us that the animals were adopted."
Continued Weldon, "Brown said that Warren County animal rescuers held fundraising events to pay for spaying and neutering and other needs related to the care of the animals transferred to PETA."

And where exactly on PETA's web site do they tell the public they're running a slaughterhouse? Since it's such a great service and all, I would think they'd publicize it.

2013-03-21 03:39:52 PM
1 votes:
notto: Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.

All city/county/government shelters accept any animal that comes in the door. They're required by law to do that. PETA isn't performing some special service that's not available elsewhere.


scallywaghotness: In many cases of abandoned animals, euthanizing them is the only humane outcome. But hey it's a PETA hate thread.

Less than 10% of animals that come into a shelter truly need to be euthanized. There are 300+ no kill communities in the U.S., every single one of them has save rates of 90+%. Some of them have save rates of 97% or 98%. That's how few shelter shelter animals need to be euthanized. And those are open-intake shelters, meaning they take every animal and don't turn any away.


rnatalie: Admittedly, any shelter that doesn't turn away animals is going to have to euthanize a lot.   Many are just not adoptable either because they have health or temperament issues that render them unplaceable (abused animals are frequently poorly socialized to begin with) or just not cute enough to fill the demand.

Nope. See above. There are more than 300 open-admission no kill communities in the U.S. Save rates of more than 90%.


skozlaw  It's much higher, but it's hardly indefensible. PETA shelters accept any animal in any condition. Very, very few shelters do that. They also take in a huge number of surrenders which can be euthanized the same day.

Once again, any city/county/government shelter takes animals in any condition. The lazy ones kill the animals. The good ones work to get them adopted.
2013-03-21 03:05:53 PM
1 votes:
notto:

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.

Trivially wrong. Austin is open admission, takes in tens of thousands of animals per year, and saves over 90%. Reno too. There are dozens of open-admission shelters that have over 90% live outcome. PETA runs a slaughterhouse. Only an animal hater, or someone ignorant and wishing to remain so in the face of all evidence to the contrary, would stick up for these butchers.
2013-03-21 01:51:22 PM
1 votes:

Securitywyrm: Their 'shelter' is nothing more than a slaughterhouse.


That's because it isn't a shelter and doesn't say it is, except when fund raising.  It's a kill center, and they claim no one brings healthy animals to them because everyone knows they will kill them.  Only they spin this like a good thing.
2013-03-21 01:49:16 PM
1 votes:

cousin-merle: If you go look at all other facilities, only about 1/3 are surrendered by owner. I know the Humane Society by me won't take any animal, but I do not have a list of all the animals given to both PETA/other facilities in the state of Virginia and their CARFAX reports to determine which were the healthy ones.


Ok, so that may be enough to help their numbers if they were only 30 to 50% higher in their rates.  Their rates are so much higher they don't even make sense to compare.  They kill about 130 animals for every animal they lives, compared to the state average that's close to 1 to 1, according to that inspection report.  Even granting them that they deliberate take hard cases, they are claiming to justifiably kill 10% of all animals killed by shelters in Virginia.  That one shelter kills 1 in 10 animals euthanized in Virginia, which may be okay if Virginia was the size of Rhode Island, but there's more than 10 other shelters that are offering the exact same services as PETA claims to provide with radically different results just in Norfolk, where this kill center is located.

I know you really want to believe it's just a fall out of the numbers because they take on hard cases, but it's a lie.  Their numbers reflect their view that no one should raise animals in their home, if it can at all be avoided.
2013-03-21 01:40:25 PM
1 votes:

cousin-merle: nickerj1: nickerj1: Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.

PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.

Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.

Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.

PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.

If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.

shiat, it was supposed to be 8949-1875: 7074 total taken in
644/7074 = 9.14%

Your numbers are still wrong.  In 2011 (the 2012 numbers on VDACS are wonky and 2011 is more typical), statewide, 53,634/111,131 = 48.3% of cats were euthanized and 31,071/125,787 = 24.7% of dogs were euthanized.  Of course, when you consider that PETA specifically takes in sick animals, for free, so people can afford a humane death for their pet instead of going to the vet, the PETA numbers don't look so bad.  They don't even run a public adoption service.  This whole thing is a smear campaign based on a false premise run by an industry lobbying group.


My numbers weren't wrong.  I was comparing them to other humane groups.  You're comparing their numbers against a stat that rolls in city and county run animal controls depts.  So what's PETA's purpose?  Their %euthanization and %adoption rates are worse than the county and city animal controls.  Compared to other humane groups (which in 2011, all other humane groups only euthanized at 19% compared to PETA's 96%) they're vastly inferior.  Compared to rescue groups their rates are vastly inferior.  Compared to everyone their adoption and euthanization rates are vastly inferior.

If their rates are so poor, why do they do it?  They're certainly not helping the animals out.  You assert it's because they take in animals who are sick, thus they have to euthanize more of them.  I would wager that the county and city run animal control depts are perfectly capable of euthanizing the sick animals.  Also, I can't imagine that 80% of the animals they take in are near-death (to account for the 80% euthanization difference).  So your "they take in more sick animals" argument isn't really persuasive.  Your comment regarding the smear campaign is also unpersuasive, as the source being cited is Virginia DACS.
2013-03-21 01:04:44 PM
1 votes:

cousin-merle: Mr Guy: Except they don't.  They take every single animal they can, pressure you to give them animals you don't want to give, and kill almost every single one of them, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

You're reading the defense's accounts and ignoring any motivation they have to lie.

I'm reading the state of Virginia's inspection report posted on petakillsanimals.com, and the inspector agrees with the defense, but feel free to attack the source and make up whatever you want.  If they were doing what you said, wouldn't they be killing more than ~2,000 of the 90,000+ pets euthanized in Virginia each year?


Reread your single inspection report.  It says absolutely nothing about whether or not it's true that all the animals they kill were unadoptable.  It says that's what the receptionist claims, and the inspector agrees with her that they clearly kill every animal they get, because there's no facilities to store them.  The finding of the inspector is that they don't count as an animal shelter because they are, in fact, an animal execution location.He then goes on to use numbers to demonstrate that, proving that over the last six years, they USED to try to transfer a small number of animals, but in the last couple years, they are down to 16 of 2,301 animals.  He's saying they declare 99% of animals they see to be unadoptable, with no proof what so ever, and promptly execute them.

Now it's your turn to provide any evidence that they actually have any higher percentage of injured, infirm, or socially maladjusted animals than anyone else.  You need to provide some evidence that they manage to select only unadoptable animals and not keep any records of all the animals they claim to transfer, but the inspector found they didn't.  You need to prove that 16 animals is even remotely reasonable as the correct number of animals that were salvageable, when every comparison against shelters that have more funding and more community presence shows there should be more adoptable animals that animals that need to be put down, and yet the consistently manage to kill 99% of the animals they see.  They claim to have records of all these transfers showing they don't kill everything, but their records turned out to be 16 dogs or cats compared to 2,301 they killed.
2013-03-21 12:46:28 PM
1 votes:
"Meat is murder," they cry as they euthanize approximately five animals a day.
2013-03-21 12:23:41 PM
1 votes:
theaetetus
that's just how I've posted here for years, but I do get it.

PETA has done a bad job for a long long time.
 You overlook that they support bad people  who are burning things and blowing things up
they have been killing critters for years
It's a cult, not helpful portion of society

Are you just trolling or are you a sycophant?
In the wake of facts that dispel the belief in this system that you are backing on fark
why is your opinion the same?
2013-03-21 11:17:02 AM
1 votes:

FeatheredSun: Is this the thread where we magically turn peoples sickening disregard for their own animals into hate against the agency cleaning up after them?


No, this is the thread where people defend a villainous organization by misrepresenting and distorting the record of what that organization has done and has stated they intend to do.

But, you see, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric which makes people bemused and angry.  The very name "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" sends the message that anyone who disagrees with their policies in the slightest is unethical.  So you've insulted the rest of the world before even opening your mouth.  And now here we have one of their defenders using the phrase "peoples sickening disregard for their own animals" to mean anyone who even owns a pet is "sickening" and devoid of compassion.

This why we hate you.  And yes, in some cases things have progressed to utter hate.  Because you and your ilk are sanctimonious, judgmental hypocrites.  Even if your basic philosophy is one that others sympathize with, even admire, your combativeness turns potential allies into enemies.   There is sadly, little room for compromise once people start describing the people they disagree with as "disgusting."

I fear we really are getting closer to the point where the animosity transforms into outright violence.  I am reminded of anti-abortion activists who blow up medical clinics and shoot doctors in their own homes.  Once you convince yourself that a fetus or a cat deserves the same rights as a human being, you've started down a path that is likely to lead you to shooting someone or blowing something up.  Then even people who AGREE with you want to see you locked up.  But long before you get to THAT point, you will reach a stage where people really do hate you.  Not just oppose you, but downright hate you and all that you stand for.

So now would be a good time to take a step back and ask yourself how we got here, and is there not some less-offensive way to get your message across?
2013-03-21 10:33:36 AM
1 votes:
Two weird things I noticed:

1) No animals died in facility (except the ones euthanized).  None.  If PETA takes in animals in any condition. and makes any sort of effort to save at least some of them instead of euthanizing them right away, wouldn't they have lost a few?  It seems to me that the only way to make sure you have no non-euthanasia deaths is to euthanize every animal ASAP.

2) Only one animal, a dog, was on hand on December 31.  This sort of supports the "euthanize every animal as soon as you get them" scenario.
2013-03-21 10:33:30 AM
1 votes:

WhippingBoy: So that makes them wrong?


Does that look like an honest website to you?  Do they mention that PETA offers free euthanasia service for people who can't afford to take their pets to the vet?  They also offer this service to animal shelters.  There is a link on that site though that will give you a better idea of the real story from VA inspection.  Basically, they take in the bad animals and refer the good ones to actual animal shelters.  PETA doesn't run an adoption service open to the public.  Here's an excerpt from the VA inspection report:

"Ms. Nachminovitch indicated that the majority of the animals that were taken into custody by PETA were considered by them to be unadoptable.  Adoptable animals were routinely referred to other area animal shelters; conversely PETA often took custody of animals denied admittance by other area shelters.  Ms. Nachminovitch confirmed that the shelter was not accessible to the public, and that most adoptions of animals were to PETA employees and affiliates."

They aren't trying to find homes for animals.  It is a straw man argument because they intentionally take in the sick animals to give a humane death, for free.  Now, as for the classification as an animal shelter per VA law, maybe they deserve to lose that and whatever legal/tax benefits it offers.
2013-03-21 10:30:45 AM
1 votes:

karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.


They believe owning a pet is akin to slavery, as far as being degrading to animals.  These people are that whacked out.  They have associations with ALF, IE paid them large sums of money.  ALF is a militant PETA.  Not in the figurative way, but the literal way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Liberation_Front

Don't mistake that for Alf, the funny alien from the sitcom.  Though there is an odd thing there, Alf was always trying to eat the cat.
2013-03-21 10:29:16 AM
1 votes:
stop with your whining about how peta helps, is a benevolent organization blah blah
it's a cult for weak minded and overly sympathetic
animal companion..really

supporting domestic terrorists
firebombing buildings,
releasing non native species to the wild in the name of freedom
helping and hiding members of elf and alf
setting up protests

inspiring idiots with crap information
apparently, like you
2013-03-21 10:24:52 AM
1 votes:
Admittedly, any shelter that doesn't turn away animals is going to have to euthanize a lot.   Many are just not adoptable either because they have health or temperament issues that render them unplaceable (abused animals are frequently poorly socialized to begin with) or just not cute enough to fill the demand.

The problem is that PeTAs numbers however are staggering.   The truth of the matter is that they actively propose against keeping pets, so it seems they have somewhat of a conflict of interest trying to place animals.   8/1000+ cats is horrendous.   In fact, there's no practical way for the public to adopt a PETA "rescued" animal.  The shelter is not open to the public.   There is, in fact, no attempt to place these animals.

In fact, PeTA is a bunch of sanctimonious hypocrites.   They publish their own "standards" that shelters should follow, but their own shelter misses the proposed standards by a mile.

In fact, the shelter in the article was operating illegaly and the Virginia humane people (DACS) found that they were not treating the animals humanely.
2013-03-21 10:19:31 AM
1 votes:
We must kill them all to save them from how cruel life is.  Don't you get it?

Actually, I don't really disagree with euthanizing animals before they over-breed and create a situation where even more animals will suffer and die.  I just think most people that are part of PETA are self-righteous douche bags that get into other people's business (specifically food choices) way too much.  Is it even possible for someone to become a vegetarian without becoming a peachy little biatch about it anymore?
2013-03-21 10:19:28 AM
1 votes:

meanmutton: Ringshadow: This is old news. PETA is a bunch of raging hypocrites that has stated it's bad to use animal derived medicine while they have insulin dependent VIPs. They've also stated that it'd be better for all pets to be dead than in the hands of caring owners.

This thread has already shown that there are people unaware that the way they run their shelter is vastly different from the way reputable animal shelters are run.


This.

These people defending PETA, they're the Fark people you interact with every time you post on fark.

Even if some are trolls, you know people all over actually support PETA.  It's not like they're a legitimate business.  They have people all over completely snowed and that's where the money comes from.

Why the organization can no longer support itself, then it's old news.  Till then, they deserve any and every negative news story that comes their way.
2013-03-21 10:18:02 AM
1 votes:

Hofheim: Hmm.... look around the web site folks.  It's an ugly PETA picture.


PETA took in 1875 (removing the 2 that had on 1 Jan) and killed 1675  for a corpse factor of 89%

Don't compare them to a pure rescue shelter - differing goals.


Compare them to VA statewide humane societies!

Overall, 8949 taken in with 2519 killed for a mere 28% corpse factor.


Even statewide the figure (13727 killed of 34253 taken in) gives a 39% corpse factor.


PETA is failing in this.  Close them down to give animals a better chance - statically speaking that is.


If you subtract out PETA from the statewide humane societies you get the following:
8949-1675: 7274 total taken in
2519-1675: 644 killed

644/7274 = 8.85%
All humane societies in VA, excluding PETA, have a combined 8.85% euthanization rate.
Only when including PETA with their high rate and large numbers does it jump all the way to 28%.
2013-03-21 10:16:47 AM
1 votes:

nocturnal001: karmaceutical: nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.

I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.

Their basic philosophy is that animals have rights similar to or the same as humans.

When you claim you believe that, and spend your budget protesting other causes while killing animals that you could instead care for?

IMO Peta is a bad thing for animals all in all. Legitimate problems like poor care in some zoos (and I believe for any intelligent animals like dolphins) are ignored by the general public because of fringe behavior from these nut balls.


Those "protests" you keep railing on about don't cost PeTA money... they MAKE PeTA money.  Do you think that PeTA would be a household name both here and abroad if not for these admittedly zany protests?
2013-03-21 10:08:52 AM
1 votes:

phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?


Arf! *bite* macht frei.
2013-03-21 10:00:23 AM
1 votes:
PETA shares a flaw common with a number of social justice movements: They're so utterly and completely convinced that theirs is the One True Way that they don't ever consider the need to pick their battles. As such, they come across as a lunatic fringe element who's ideals (even the good ones) are summarily dismissed.
2013-03-21 09:46:50 AM
1 votes:
2013-03-21 09:41:58 AM
1 votes:
Here we have the Portage County (Ohio) APL.  They run a no-kill shelter; yes there are such things.

They provide many services to the residents of Portage County--one of which is an "admissions service for those who must give up their pet or turn in an animal".
Their focus is "care and welfare of the abused, abandoned, sick and injured dogs and cats that come through our doors".  As opposed to exploiting animal suffering to generate outrage and contributions.

There are many such organizations--they don't get much press because their purpose is not to glorify their own importance.  If you care about animals or pets in particular and want to really help them, find such an organization in your area and get involved.

If there isn't one locally, contact a distant one and ask them how they did it.  And start one.
2013-03-21 09:33:17 AM
1 votes:

nocturnal001: karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.

Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.


I don't believe it is hypocritical to believe that Zoo's are degrading to animals while also believing that the humane course of action for ill or discarded pets is euthanasia.
2013-03-21 09:24:15 AM
1 votes:

karmaceutical: Some people just can't wrap their head around the meaning of "Ethical" I guess.

And by some people I mean some  blithering Fark dimwits.


Uh...wtf are you talking about?

Sure euthanizing animals may be the most humane choice, but an organization like Peta doing this smacks of hypocrisy. Maybe they should stop spending their money on advocating the end of all pets/zoos/research/meat and instead oh I don't know, use that money to care for unwanted pets?

Peta, we care about animals, unless it costs us money then f them.
2013-03-21 09:21:48 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: I'm okay with this. If people would properly spay and neuter their pets, the stray animal population would be a non-issue and people wouldn't end up with litters they didn't want.

Euthanizing the animals may be sad, but the reason for their deaths is because people don't care enough to have a simple procedure carried out on their pets.

It's far better these animals are put down quietly and humanely than to have them die of starvation, used as practice targets, run over by cars, poisoned, or mauled by other animals.


bob barker is that you?

but i do agree
2013-03-21 09:16:46 AM
1 votes:
meanmutton:

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?

Because PETA intake rules and guidelines are more lenient than other shelters.   They will take anything that comes in the door as a surrendered animal or from other shelters.  Not all organizations do that.
2013-03-21 09:12:45 AM
1 votes:

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


congrats you support terrorism and murdering animals because its wrong to treat them to a life of luxury where their biggest worry is whether to sit on the couch or carpet.

but its for their own good.
2013-03-21 09:06:23 AM
1 votes:
This is old news. PETA is a bunch of raging hypocrites that has stated it's bad to use animal derived medicine while they have insulin dependent VIPs. They've also stated that it'd be better for all pets to be dead than in the hands of caring owners.
2013-03-21 09:02:58 AM
1 votes:

Louisiana_Sitar_Club: I'm going to find a place where they're euthanizing animals close to my house, rummage around in their dumpsters, and make clothes with  the fur from animals they've euthanized.
 That way no animals are killed specifically for their fur.  The animals that are killed don't go to waste.  And since my clothes are made locally, rather than arriving in shipping containers from Asia, I'll be reducing carbon emissions as well as striking a blow to sweat shops and chid labor.  I'll be the greenest muther effer on the block.


Generally the incinerate the corpses so they don't spread disease.

Plus the chemicals you would need to use to stabilize the skins would make you decide that this was a bad idea very quickly.
2013-03-21 09:02:52 AM
1 votes:

meanmutton: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

From the link, PETA Virginia's stats: 1,877 animals taken in, 1,675 euthanized, about 90%

Looking at the same source, for all humane societies (including PETA): 10,143 animals taken in, 2,519 euthanized, about 25%

That means that for non-PETA humane societies in Virginia, you're looking at 8,266 animals taken in and 844 animals euthanized, about 10%.

Why does PETA have a 90% euthanasia rate while the rest of the humane societies in Virginia combine for a 10% rate?


Because they would rather paint some twat green and parade her around downtown Seattle.
2013-03-21 08:56:30 AM
1 votes:

phrawgh: notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 512x406]
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?


You are more than welcome to go free the animals and take on their care if you disagree with their decision.  They will even carry them to your car.  See the difference?
2013-03-21 08:53:24 AM
1 votes:

notto: Yeah, they should keep them in small cages for the rest of their natural lives, that would be the ethical and humane choice, right?

Euthanasia in these circumstances is the ethical and humane choice.  If you don't agree, then go get yourself 10 cats and a few dogs to help out.


www.holocaustresearchproject.org
So you're saying this is PETA's final solution?
2013-03-21 08:52:02 AM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: If people would properly spay and neuter their pets

the pet population would dwindle down to zero with no viable mating pairs...

2013-03-21 08:46:35 AM
1 votes:
2013-03-21 08:44:32 AM
1 votes:
Wildlife Received and Disposition information:  Euthanized: 72

WTF? They're euthanizing wildlife too?
=Smidge=
2013-03-21 08:42:53 AM
1 votes:
I don't get it. What am I looking at?
2013-03-21 08:19:37 AM
1 votes:
Yeah, they're hypocrites...what else is new?
2013-03-21 03:45:29 AM
1 votes:
Mostly cats, to look on the bright side.
 
Displayed 72 of 72 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report