-
Re: PETA killing animals?
I assume, Michael, that your experience is limited to the Uk. In the U.S. a vast number of animals are kept for their "usefullness" -guard dogs or fighting etc. The utter misery of so many of these animals was painfully apparent to Inrid Newkirk as a animal control field worker. In her role as founder of Peta she well knows that many of these souls cannot be rehomed and to prolong their existence is against their best interests. Every Peta worker I have ever been aquainted with has given a home to rescued animals, found homes for rescued animals, raised money for shelters and campaigned for more shelters. If the situation for animals is better here in the U.K., hallelujah.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Pat, actually, I have more knowledge of rescue in the States than the UK, although I live here. There are, however, guard dogs in this country, too. Probably less in the way of fighting dogs. However, I can assure you a lot of people do manage to rehabilitate and rehome them, both here in the UK and in the US. If PETA does not know how to do this it should learn, not kill. There are also different ways of running shelters for dogs that cannot be rehomed because they are, for example, very old and/or incontinent. The people who give these dogs a life worth living are to be praised. And they do give them a life worth living by creating homes in the shelters and not simply storing the animals in cages. The excuses for the US kill shelter, which would appear to kill in too great a number for these dogs only to be extreme cases in any case, is quite simply contemptible in my opinion. People have brought rescue animals to that PETA shelter in the hope they would be cared for. Killing them (this is not euthanisation - many of them were by all accounts not suffering) was a betrayal of the dogs and of the people that cared enough about them to bring them to PETA (though maybe not enough to actually care for them themsleves). If PETA is not prepared to run animal rescue properly, it should stop.
Regards
Michael
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Has there been any official figures released by PETA on the shelter killings?
Philip Morris backed the petakillsanimals campaign.......... ooh what a nice man, and so honest too!
-
regards, Michael
Well, it appears I assumed too much. But I am a bit confused as to "Peta shelters". Does that imply they are in the business of running shelters or rather that there is a list of Peta approved shelters? The city pound is still where the majority of animals picked up on the street in the U.S end their days.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Pat, I'm not too sure how PETA run stuff in the states, I know its much bigger there than here, maybe a US member can shed some light on it?
As far as I can see on their site, they just list other shelters, non seem to be their own, but I'm not sure. :)
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Quote:
Span
Has there been any official figures released by PETA on the shelter killings?
Philip Morris backed the petakillsanimals campaign.......... ooh what a nice man, and so honest too!
I don't think Peta have given figures. The PM information comes as no surprise. That they're prepared to give money to undermine Peta is testimony to the good work Peta have done in other areas. That's why this shelter buinsess is such a shame.
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: regards, Michael
Quote:
pat sommer
Well, it appears I assumed too much. But I am a bit confused as to "Peta shelters". Does that imply they are in the business of running shelters or rather that there is a list of Peta approved shelters? The city pound is still where the majority of animals picked up on the street in the U.S end their days.
No it's shelters of their own, though most of the crticism is levelled at one in particular.
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
-
Re: PETA shelters?
I still can't find documentation of Peta running shelters. Not from above links nor a Peta site search. Just Peta-helps-locals-create-shelter and Peta-provides-plastic-dog-shelter. oh, and Peta offers to pay for shelter to convert from gas-chamber to injection.
-
Re: PETA shelters?
Quote:
pat sommer
I still can't find documentation of Peta running shelters. Not from above links nor a Peta site search. Just Peta-helps-locals-create-shelter and Peta-provides-plastic-dog-shelter. oh, and Peta offers to pay for shelter to convert from gas-chamber to injection.
Hi Pat. I agree the situation is very ambiguous. I don't want to repeat rumours so I've spent some time checking in to this myself. Two things are clear:
1) People bring animals to PETA
2) PETA finds homes for animals
What name they give the facilities they have to house the animals either before passing them onto shelters, killing (euthanising) them or finding homes is not clear. If, for example, you have a look at this series of articles http://www.bestfriends.org/blogs/ind...E6CE66BFE5347F about PETA's practicies and policies, including the first one by Ingrid Newkirk (PETA's founder) herself, you will for example find this acknowledged. I quote here form Newkirk's article: "Although we have placed dogs and cats from North Carolina in homes, most dogs we have been given...." (my emphasis).
hth
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Well, I suppose in cases like the hurricane rescue efforts, animals are "brought" to Peta. Otherwise they are located in Virginia, no "local chapters. But hey, someone has to take the rap for killing animals: it might as well be them. Saves the guilt from being passed to my dear friends who just went to pick their new purebred puppy; they decided they want a white one.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Quote:
pat sommer
Saves the guilt from being passed to my dear friends who just went to pick their new purebred puppy; they decided they want a white one.
:( :(
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Quote:
pat sommer
Well, I suppose in cases like the hurricane rescue efforts, animals are "brought" to Peta. Otherwise they are located in Virginia, no "local chapters. But hey, someone has to take the rap for killing animals: it might as well be them. Saves the guilt from being passed to my dear friends who just went to pick their new purebred puppy; they decided they want a white one.
Sorry to see this discussion degenerate. The cases mentoned precede the hurricane. More importantly, your reply misses the point that PETA has a kill policy, promotes killing as a policy and campaigns against the no-kill shelter ethos, while exagerrating the current scale of the problem to justify their actions and statements subsequent to criticism of them. I don't see anything very ethical in that. Hopefully PETA will find the courage to re-examine their approach.
Cheers
Mike
PS:
Virginia: "Newkirk did not respond to ANIMAL PEOPLE questions on that occasion, but confirmed to Michael Barakat of Associated Press in July 2000 that her staff killed 1,325 of the 2,103 dogs and cats they received in 1999––63%, above the regional animal control norm of 58%.
Then, according to Virginia state records, PETA in 2003 killed 1,911 of 2,225 animals received: 86%.
Although PETA is not a shelter organization, it killed more animals each year than 75% of the animal control shelters in Virginia.
But don't forget North Carolina, that's where the two were prosecuted and suspended for illegally dumping the dead bodies of euthanised animals.
With regard to the latter also note:
"“We do not advocate ‘right to life’ for animals,” Newkirk handwrote on a post card to neuter/return and no-kill sheltering proponent Nathan Winograd, who then directed the Law & Advocacy Department for the San Francisco SPCA and now does shelter consulting from San Diego.
A former criminal prosecutor, Winograd offered his services pro bono to the North Carolina prosecution."
An interesting statement on what can be achieved, on the other hand:
"I had just posted a comment about an encounter that our SPCA had with PETA last year under the PETA Kills Animals story. Then I read the other comments that were posted. I must say, I am saddened but not surprised by the number of comments that were written in support of PETA and criticizing Best Friends. It is somewhat incomprehensible that people who love animals and work for them support a group that advocates their slaughter and denounce a group that advocates other ways to deal with population problems. Our SPCA struggles with the problems of overpopulation every day, but we also realize that all the years of killing have not solved the problem. We have a humane answer available to us - spaying and neutering every creature we can get our hands on. When we started our spay/neuetr program at the shelter - and especially when we started our TNR program - there were critics who accused us of everything from bankrupting the shelter to providing substandard care for the animals in surgery. One year later, money is pouring in, we've had no surgical problems beyond what you would find in any vet practice, and the amount of good will this program has produced cannot be measured. It is hard work and we all must pitch in. I myself drive around on spay days picking up strays in traps. We won't see immediate results as far as population is concerned, but we will see it eventually. Without groups like Best Friends and Alley Cat Allies educating groups like us and giving us hope, we'd be back to business as usual. When I came on the Board 4 years ago, we were routinely executing 1500 cats every year in our shelter. Last year we euthanized 350 - all for reasons of health, none for space or convenience. If we can do it, everyone can. All that is holding people back is their negativity. I am so sorry to see that surface in so many comments. the animals deserve better. Diane Davison "
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Exaggerating? exaggerating the problem! I support 110% their policy. If they did otherwise I would withdraw my support. I agree to respectfully disagree with other positions. Just putting my name out there so as not to let others shoulder the burden alone.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Quote:
pat sommer
Exaggerating? exaggerating the problem!
Yes. They're using statistics that are out of date to justify their "euthanasia" policy. While more and more shelters are successfully moving over to no-kill in the USA, PETA are propagandising against it.
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
The numbers of animals being handed in to PETA is huge though. To be honest, although I personally feel that deliberate death of any animal shouldn't happen, I think we should understand the immense logistical problems involved in catering to millions of homeless and suffering. The fact is that animals are brought to PETA shelters daily, and there is very limited space in those shelters.
I come from Singapore, and the policy here is not only to spay and neuter, but the SPCA also euthanises the sick and unsocial animals when they are unable to hold any more animals. They try to have people adopt them, but chances are that people will always prefer the pet-shop animals to the ones in shelters.
I don't blame PETA for euthanising animals (though I must say I find it disagreeable) but I won't say they aren't trying hard enough as well. When was the last time I adopted a homeless animal? I think they know there's no justification for it, but it's just something that has to be done thanks to the owners who don't spay/neuter and let their pets loose.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Kerio,
I think you make good points except for when you write
Quote:
Kerio
I think they know there's no justification for it, but it's just something that has to be done thanks to the owners who don't spay/neuter and let their pets loose.
The problem is that PETA does try and justify it. Even worse it actively campaigns against the ethic and work of successful no-kill shelters. By killing almost 90% of the animals it is given. PETA is quite clearly following a systematic policy and devoting little in the way of its human or financial resources to rehoming the poor animals. When one considers the very real sacrifices that the people involved in no-kill shelters devote to avoiding killing animals, that seems to me inexcusable in an organisation who's very name boasts an ethical not a utilitarian approach.
Cheers
Mike
-
trying
I liken the situation to people shouting for help while bailing floodwaters. The reply is "we are upstream trying to reduce the flow"
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Michael,
I agree with that! Ethical treatment shouldn't be putting them to death. But then again, looking at percentages probably isn't very effective. Maybe someone should take a look at the Numbers. Can their shelters hold the 90% of the animals they euthanised? If they could, what are the reasons for euthanising these poor animals?
Did they really not put in their backbone into re-homing these creatures, or did no one want these castaways? What was the time between receiving and euthanising?
If they're terminally sick, or disfigured and suffering beyond imagination - painful as it is, I'd say it's justified. If I was terminally sick and in terrible pain, I'd want the same treatment for myself. If I was healthy, as a human I'd be able to walk out and make conscious decisions to sustain my life and improve my quality of life. Domesticated animals can't do that, unfortunately. They've learnt to rely on humans so heavily that now, it'd be more cruel to throw them out.
Dogs and Cats have now been bred into "Human Playthings". This very connotation is already unnatural by itself. So euthanising them - ethical or not - I guess no one except PETA can answer for itself, and the only way they can do that is to continue to educate the public to stop doing these unnatural things. (Like eating meat, for instance. :p )
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Kerio,
I'd certainly agree with the educating. But I also think it's bad education to disregard animal rights, whatever the history of dog and cat breeding, and to send out the message that it's acceptable to destroy animal lives because of the difficulties that PETA refers to. There are other organisations that show real dedication to the animals people entrust to them.
Though there are no statistics available there is certainly evidence that animals PETA has destroyed were healthy and adoptable. There are likewise statements by people who brought animals to PETA precisely because they trusted it cared about animal rights and would do everything it could to look after them. Needless to say they were extremely disillusioned.
Maybe PETA would do better to work with no-kill shelters than polemicise against them to try and excuse their own mistakes....
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Michael,
Yeah, it'd be great if they did that. I think we can all say that this apparent betrayal of trust from PETA was a heavy blow for all of us. They haven't come up with a response that'd appease everyone, but I don't think they can please everyone.
There are some animal "No-kill" Shelters that treat animals in inhumane ways as well - I think exposing their mistreatment would be a severe blow for people as well, but to compare 'living a terrible life' with 'dying peacefully', I, as a person, would choose 2. No-kill shelters aren't infallible, and I think the best way to help this sad state of affairs would be to personally set up shelters and care for the animals ourselves. Unfortunately, that's not within our means, so that means we just have to wait and hope things will get better. After all, what can we really do?
We can't fight Peta because it's the only rights group that can effectively fight the meat, dairy and egg industry. Even as we blame Peta now for their assumed cruelty, they're out there tending to the sick and injured animals and fighting for humane treatment for the animals. If Peta did send the animals out, they'd most probably be caught and sent for experimentation, or sent to the pound and killed inhumanely. What could they do? I don't know. I don't think I want to fight Peta on their decisions, but that's probably just me. :)
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Any-one who has joined in this thread half way through might like to go back to page 2 and read Eve's reply with the PETA 'explanation'. As one who was involved at trustee level with a no-kill animal sanctuary I can tell you they are not always what they appear. I got involved quite innocently and when I found out all the awful things which went on - too much to write here, but I could feel it all coming back as I read that PETA reply in Eve's post, I and a few committed others set about making changes. It was very hard work but we eventually got a very reputable national animal charity to take the whole thing over. I am not really sure where I stand on this. Yes, there are no doubt animal charities around who will give long stay or unhomeable animals a life worth living, but where that is not possible I really don't see an answer. It is the breeders who must be vilified and stopped.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi again, Kerio,
I'm sure there may be "no-kill" shelters that are either fallible or hypocritical, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they are anything like the majority or that they fail/kill over 80% of the animals sheltered with them, as PETA do. At the same time there are many shelters that devote immense time to building up networks of dedicated rehabilitators and adopters of "problem" animals, including people who provide temporary homes while permanent homes can be found. As far as I am aware PETA does not consider it necessary or "ethical" to use its funds or time to do the same thing.
Consequently, I'm not at all convinced that the PETA-killed animals may not have lived out their days in a happy, caring environment had they been sheltered elsewhere. I certainly believe PETA could have treated them more ethically and achieved that happy outcome if it had a mind to. Instead it plays a blame game and erodes the credibility of other, more compassionate animal rights organisations and activists.
Similarly, I'm not at all convinced that:
Quote:
Kerio
We can't fight Peta because it's the only rights group that can effectively fight the meat, dairy and egg industry.
There are plenty of organisations that do that as effectively or more effectively than PETA, including VIVA! in the UK, Poland and elsewhere.
Let me make it clear that I am not anti-PETA, but I find their arguments about domestic animals, which effectively treat them in the same way that mainstream animal control organisations would treat animals that are classified as "pests", combined with their campaign against and defamation of no-kill shelters, profoundly unethical, anti-animal rights and counter-productive.
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
I'd like to pipe in a bit here and say that I've actually run across some feral cats and dogs before, and I can tell you that Peta's descriptions aren't that far off. These animals are truely dangerous in some cases, especially the diseased ones. And they very rarely stand a chance to become familiar with humans because of their severely devolved sense of attachment to human beings. In many cases they're even wilder than wolves, except with the unfortunate tendency to actually wander into towns and maul young children, etc. (It's happened in my hometown before. A pack of feral dogs basically devolved into wild animals who ran about at night murdering people's cats, livestock etc. Eventually a child was mauled. All of them were destroyed, and I think the community is better for it) I can honestly say that, having seen them first hand, I doubt very much that it would have been humane or possible to keep them alive in a no kill shelter and ever expect them to become used to humans again. They were simply too far gone and desocialized.
edit: I'd like to note my "home town" is actually a rural community surrounded by forests. So this type of thing isn't really common in more human populated areas, but it can happen in places such as this.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Pilaf,
There's no doubt feral dogs and cats can be very difficult and in some cases may need to be put down, but I'm pretty sure that such dogs don't account for over 80% of those PETA receive.
Cheers
Michael
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Michael,
I think 80% may be a play on figures by the newscasters and the anti-peta industries. Put it this way : If the owners of the cats and dogs really cared for their pets, why would they give them to peta?
An animal organisation in Singapore put down 6000 odd strays since being set up, because people here don't spay and neuter, and frequently let their unsterilised cats out of the house. Same goes for stray dogs as well. That particular organisation would like to find ways to house these animals, but no one wants them.
No-Kill Animal shelters are also questionable. A no-kill shelter turns away animals which are unadoptable or when their capacity. What happens to those animals they turn down? When asked, they cleverly avoided the question by saying "The key is to make sure this doesn't happen by educating people". Since it's still happening with strays breeding all over, I suppose they are hoping for tinkerbell to start sprinkling them with fairy dust and sending them off to fairyland.
What would these no-kill shelters who criticise peta do if overloaded with animals? Do they bring these animals home like the peta employees? Somehow, I doubt it.
And also, the shelters that peta exposes as inhumane are in fact, inhumane. Is it wrong to condemn these shelters that promise good care but do not do it? Would it be moral to not condemn these no-kill shelters just so they can avoid killing animals?
Frankly, I just hope the no-kill shelters will live up to their image of being compassionate, animal-loving shelters instead of the nightmarish claustrophobic contraptions they've turned out to be. This is a huge issue, and I don't think it'll be resolved except with people knowing what to do and doing what's right, difficult as it may be.
Sigh...I sure hope compassion will eventually shine through underneath all the greed and love of commerce.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Kerio,
If you check the links above, you'll find the 80% is properly sourced, researched and credible. Also, please note that the dogs are not given by their owners. Certainly all the donors who have spoken publically were bringing PETA unclaimed, lost but healthy and friendly dogs. But even if that were the case, two wrongs don't make a right. The same comment applies to the animal organisation in Singapore to which you refer.
Also, please note, that none of what I have written is against a spay and neuter policy, although there are many who consider that also raises animal rights issues and who suggest that other more humane policies might not be equally effective, particualry since the root of the problem lies not in strays, as you suggest, but in professional and amateur "breeders". My point here is that "Spay and neuter" and "no-kill" are in no way incompatible.
As for no-kill shelters turning animals away, that is really just a convenient generalisation, I'm afraid. Some do, many don't. What's important is that more and more no-kill shelters are working very hard and effectively, rather than washing their hands of the problem and simply killing animals.
Likewise, many no-kill shelters (and it's not so much they who are attacking PETA as PETA who has attacked them to justify its own position when under fire) ARE overloaded with animals. And of course their employees bring home animals, often several. That's not at all uncommon. These people really do care.
Similarly, the situation is slowly improving (again the statistics - govt stats - are there in the articles I provided links to and which led to my assertion that PETA is exagerrating the current scale of the problem to justify itself in the face of criticism). That is not a result of PETA's killing, which is on too small a scale to be nationally significant.
I can see you'd like to be able to justify PETA's behaviour - and I would also love the organisation not to have exposed itself and animals rights advocates in general to this criticism. But there is simply no justification for their behaviour that stands up to scrutiny. What they are doing is expedient but unnecessary and they can't be bothered to devote the resources to managing the situation ethically, when they are ideally placed to do so. Their actions in this respect have not helped the animal rights cause one iota, and nor has the fact that they don't have the ethical commitment or honesty to revise their position, preferring to attack people who are making real sacrifices to help each and every animal that comes into their care.
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Michael,
I see your point now. But to be honest, information is now so subject to propoganda that I don't really know what to believe in anymore.
I could easily say I believe in Peta, or I could say I trust the no-kill shelters are really doing what they can - better than Peta; but the possibility is that I'd have been exposed to some kind of propoganda or sublimal message that has made me think this way.
In the end, I suppose all we can do is hope things will eventually get better. As for my view on Peta - I think I still believe Peta will continue to help promote veganism/vegetarianism, and help the animals in some way, and that's sufficient for me.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Kerio,
there are other organisations with a more coherent/ethical stance in the US, such as Friends of Animals (www.friendsofanimals.org) who also have a very effective spay/neuter programme. You may find their statement interesting in the light of our recent discussion:
FoA Statement On Killing Healthy Pet Animals
June 20, 2005 | view comments | add yours
The idea that killing animals for institutional reasons would be called “euthanasia”? at all is deeply troubling. “Euthanasia,”? properly used, refers to a death in one’s best interest …The routine killing of sentient individuals simply to deal with their large numbers would not constitute euthanasia even if there were a painless method of implementing it. Killing is one of those things that the animal advocacy community formed to stop. Lee Hall, “Kill Them With Kindness,”? Friends of Animals ActionLine (Winter 2002-03).
In Ahoskie, North Carolina, two employees of a high-profile animal protection organization currently face numerous counts of felony animal cruelty, and several misdemeanor counts of illegally disposing of dead animals. Police relate the charges to an alleged pattern of killing healthy dogs and puppies and tossing their bodies into a refuse bin.
An Associated Press report quoted veterinarian Patrick Proctor of Ahoskie Animal Hospital as further stating that authorities found a female cat and her two “very adoptable” kittens among the dead animals, and that “these were just kittens we were trying to find homes for.”
In the wake of this appalling series of reports, we at Friends of Animals would like to state that the Ahoskie killings described in the recent press reports are not euthanasia, and that they are a serious affront to animal rights.
Animal advocates have no business in the killing of healthy sheltered animals. People who engage in such conduct — regardless of killing or disposal methods — convey the message that they and their supporters have accepted a reprehensible practice.
And the issue is not a choice between killing or doing nothing.
Alternatives to the cycle of breeding and killing do exist. For example, Friends of Animals has successfully co-ordinated a national project responsible for sterilizing over two million dogs and cats since 1957. This Spay and Neuter Project effectively intervenes in the tragic cycle of reproduction, and has spared tens of millions at the very least.
In September of 2002, Friends of Animals’ president Priscilla Feral invited animal protection groups nationwide to join this project. If groups across the country were to accept Feral’s proposal and put resources into such a campaign, the amount of animal suffering would decrease beyond the animal advocacy community’s wildest dreams.
Through a concerted effort to stop the breeding of pets, we stem the tide of animals who wind up in shelters in the first place. Only in that radical way — radical meaning at its root — can the problem be resolved.
Excellent examples are also set by shelters and rehabilitators with no-kill policies. No one in the animal advocacy community should be undermining these shelters. By supporting no-kill zones, we press municipalities to face facts: There’s no room in town for breeders.
Moreover, local and state officials will place a high priority on no-kill when their constituents demand it.
Animal advocates must delve deeper than the level of symptoms, and unearth the root causes of suffering. Victory will not come overnight, but with wide support and a serious understanding of our role, we can interrupt the cycle of breeding and killing domestic animals — a cycle which, after all, we human beings put into motion.
Tell others about low-cost neutering: phone the Friends of Animals certificate hotline at 1-800-321-PETS. If your group can support local and national efforts to prevent breeding and killing of domestic animals, write to contact@friendsofanimals.org and join our shelter action list.
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
That's a good post, but Peta does provide free sterilising as well. The other thing is : How far can we trust these animal shelters? Centuries ago people believed the world was flat and no one believed otherwise. A few days before the news about Peta killing animals was disclosed we absolutely trusted Peta. Now the animal shelters are saying they deserve absolute trust as well - who, in fact, can we actually give our trust?
In the end, information reinforces misinformation - no one can truly persuade me that Peta is untrustworthy and a scoundrel of a society any more than they can persuade me that the no-kill animal shelters are trustworthy. The alternatives may be there, but I don't trust them as well, heh heh heh.
Sad, really. However, my belly-aching here changes nothing - if I was really a mover, I'd set up my own animal shelter - but I haven't. So I won't pass judgement on any of these people, and will refrain from doing so unless I happen to be a key figure who is actually in the industry and knows it's inner workings and the difficulties they face.
Cheers, and for all ye Chinese, Happy Lunar New Year!
K
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi Kerio,
Happy New Year to you, too.
I don't really see this as an either/or issue. Whether all shelters are trustworthy or not (and like you I have no doubt some are better than others etc.), that doesn't affect what PETA's policy on so-called euthanasia is and just becuase we may agree with other things PETA does, that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticise it for something like this. Hopefully, they''ll listen and rethink. The policy has certainly lost them a lot of support.
Cheers
Mike
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Absolutely. It'd suffice to say that with all the things Peta has done to help animals, we're all aghast and wondering what the hell they were thinking when they implemented this policy. It seems highly contradictory and illogical, ethically speaking.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
I think Peta should have never started killing animals. They could have built better shelters, they could have brought media attention to the problem. But they should have never gotten in the business of killing.
They are suppose to protect animals not kill the ones no one wants.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Hi,
I would like to say that it's not ethically speaking completely against Peta ethic. Peta is aiming to stop the killing, murdering and animal exploitation for human purposes. Euthanasiating animals is made "to not let them suffer", so it's "for the animals" that they are doing that supposingly.
Do they really suffer that much in their animal shelters to be euthanasiated? I would more likely think that it's because they're too numerous and cost too much to be accomodated that they are killed. it's like mice traps who kills the mice "without suffering", a AR organisation support this, I don't remember which one. But if it would be acceptable to kill animals who suffer too much without their consent (because they can't consent, the aim to survive is the first aim of all mammals and most animals), then would it be acceptable in the same way to kill humans who suffer too much? like elderly people very ill who doesn't ant to die? I think that as a personn, you shouldn't have 2 moral codes, one cold-blooded moral code, practical and ethicless and the other compassionate and loving moral code. So, because most AR activist wouldn't accept to kill humans who are in a deep pain, they shouldn't accept to kill animals who are in a supposed deep pain.
For the case of human euthanasia, I think it's very acceptable if the human want it strongly and if the human is very ill, suffering, hopeless and incurable. But animals never want to die by fact, they'll do all they can for their survival, it's a scientific fact (shown by ethology, zoology,etc).
In the other hand, euthanasiating animals is giving the death to a sensitive beeing, and I don't think that human have any right to kill another sensitive beeing without its approval. (So in a scientific point of view, it means all vertebrates and a few invertebrates including cephalopodas. Other higher invertebrates are not proofed to suffer
but it might be possible due to their nervous system. Lower invertebrates like Cnadarians and Sponges (Poriferas) and non-animal form of lifes are likely not suffering, just biomechanicly responding to stimuli).
But Peta has done so much to defend animals and animals rights so we shouldn't just boycott Peta or disliking it for this reason. It's the biggest AR organisation in the world after all, so if you aren't happy with that, it might be best to try to change this policy from inside. I think most european workers of Peta disagree with that, I don't know how is it like in the US. What does Peta employees think about that? And if most of them agree, I thought it might be a relation with the US education system but well it's probably not the case... I mean they're AR activists so they should be aware of what they are doing.
I will always be gratefull to Peta, even if I disagree with this policy...
All the best to you,
Christophe
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
I believe so too.
Cheers y'all,
K
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
I heard something about that on the news, only in bits and pieces though. Was this just recently, like a week or two ago?
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
A healthy animal should never be exterminated. If PETA authorised it then they're hypocrites.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Well put it this way, if people started rounding up the homeless and killing them how would you feel about that?
Yes, feral cats and dogs do have a reduced life expectancy. So do humans on the street but If you asked one if they would rather be dead I'm sure most would say 'No'.
I never liked PETA's attitude to killing healthy but unwanted pets or feral animals. I don't even believe everything they say now. Ever since I read about their campaign to keep cats in doors and it said 'however far you live from a road, the cat will always find it'. What nonsence. I could imagine a cat with a road map trying to track down the nearest road.
I won't say they don't provide lots of info about animal cruelty but if they can lie about their need to kill animals they can lie about other things too and it just wrecks all their credability.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Side note about cats and roads. You rarely see a dead cat on the side of the road. Sometimes, but rarely in comparison to all the skunks and racoons. I swear my neighbour's cat looks both ways before he crosses!
I'm sure if cats and dogs had a choice they would rather take their chances on the road. I realize that something has to be done, at least in some people's eyes. But I don't think PETA should be the ones to do it. If anything it hurts their credibility, as we see here.
-
Re: PETA killing animals?
Quote:
Geoff
I wonder what you would do with the 10,000 unwanted cats that RSPCA Qld. euthanases each year.
Exactly. The standard procedure for killing the thousands of unwanted "pets" every single day, using gas after shoving a gang of animals in a box is far more cruel. Anyone who has seen Earthlings will testament to this.
All PETA are doing is stepping in to offer a more calm loving end to their lives.
Of course it's inconcievable to go around killing homeless humans but it's a sanitised human controlled world which is made for humans. Human rights protect against any limiting of human numbers.
The ability to suffer and be unwanted is much greater in other species who can't find anywhere to exist.