Peta Killed 97% of 'companion animals' (PETS!) in 2k6!

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2008-01-15 03:56pm

PETA Killed 97 Percent of 'Companion Animals' in 2006, According to VDACS

Death toll up to 17,400; overdue report describes PETA's deadliest year ever

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), submitted nine months after a Virginia government agency's deadline, shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it's perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research.

Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 "companion animals" in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.

"Pet lovers should be outraged," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "There are thousands of worthwhile animal shelters that deserve Americans' support. PETA is not one of them."

In courtroom testimony last year, a PETA manager acknowledged that her organization maintains a large walk-in freezer for storing dead animals, and that PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies. In that trial, two PETA employees were convicted of dumping dead animals in a rural North Carolina trash dumpster.

Today in Southampton County, Virginia, another PETA employee will face felony charges in a dog-napping case. Andrea Florence Benoit Harris was arrested in late 2006 for allegedly abducting a hunting dog and attempting to transport it to PETA's Norfolk headquarters.

"PETA raised over $30 million last year," Martosko added, "and it's using that money to kill the only flesh-and-blood animals its employees actually see. The scale of PETA's hypocrisy is simply staggering."

To speak with a spokesman contact Tim Miller at 202-463-7112.

For more information about PETA's massive euthanasia program, visit http://www.PetaKillsAnimals.com.
Website: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/
Website: http://www.PetaKillsAnimals.com/

And I'm responsible for the death of only a few dozen chickens, maybe one cow, and maybe three salmon and tuna in that same period. At least I ate the damn things!

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2008-01-15 03:59pm

Wow, the percentage has gone up that much? Or were Penn and Teller being conservative in their estimate when they brought this up on their show a couple years back?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2008-01-15 04:47pm

Hypocrisy from PETA? Say it ain't so!

From the organisation that brought you "Chicken Holocaust" and a visionary leader who relies on insulin which was, uh-oh, pioneered by animal research.

Someone's got some 'splainin' to do.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2008-01-15 05:01pm

Obviously the Penn and Teller numbers made them realize that they weren't killing enough.

On a serious note this is terrible. The Yahoos waltz around condemning shelters that kill less then a third of the animals they take in and then they go and do this malarkey. This is the very definition of Hypocrisy.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2008-01-17 06:55pm

I keep on wanting to say to Bill Maher that "I'm a diabetic, my your own politics you think I ddeserve to go into a coma and die."

Raw Shark · Post by **Raw Shark** » 2008-01-17 07:33pm

Everybody who has ever canvassed for anything related to animals or the environment knows that PETA are massive douchebags, and why.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2008-01-17 08:29pm

So the South Park parody of them was a bit off.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2008-01-17 08:38pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I keep on wanting to say to Bill Maher that "I'm a diabetic, my your own politics you think I ddeserve to go into a coma and die."

I remember him getting pissed off when Jay Leno had him on a show where he was followed by Jack Hannah showing off a bunch of exotic animals from Bush Gardens.

I'm curious where Maher stands as far as animals. He doesn't seem like he's totally wacky like some of the PETA people but he goes on about being a board member of PETA so I can't help but think that he has to be wacky in some way.

I know he's against using animals as entertainment, circuses and zoos but I'm not sure how he is about people having pets. I think he's said he has a dog or dogs but I'm not sure.

I also haven't heard anything about him saying he's a vegetarian and that would seem like a no brainer for someone on the board of PETA but maybe he has a way to justify that. "Free range burgers for everyone!"

Erik von Nein · Post by **Erik von Nein** » 2008-01-17 08:59pm

He's not a vegetarian. He eats fish and chicken, as well as wears leather shoes (oh, but they were chosen for him by wardrobe, ahaha). I honestly have no idea why PETA's so enamoured with him.

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2008-01-17 09:00pm

Wow, crazy people who come together in a crazy bunch like PETA do something that's, well.. crazy?

Shocking.

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2008-01-17 09:59pm

Tsyroc wrote:I know he's against using animals as entertainment, circuses and zoos but I'm not sure how he is about people having pets. I think he's said he has a dog or dogs but I'm not sure.

HUMAN BEINGS are used as entertainment. If Bill Maher is so outraged when animals do tricks in a circus, why isn't he outraged when human lives are risked on the flying trapeze, the human cannonball, sword swallowing, etc.? Why isn't he outraged when stuntmen and women risk serious injury or death in a Hollywood movie?

Setesh · Post by **Setesh** » 2008-01-17 11:06pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Wow, the percentage has gone up that much? Or were Penn and Teller being conservative in their estimate when they brought this up on their show a couple years back?

Penn and Teller used PETA's own 'official' numbers as at the time the real ones weren't availible. It wasn't until the court case over body disposal that the real numbers started to come to light.

Zablorg · Post by **Zablorg** » 2008-01-17 11:58pm

Sidewinder wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:I know he's against using animals as entertainment, circuses and zoos but I'm not sure how he is about people having pets. I think he's said he has a dog or dogs but I'm not sure.
HUMAN BEINGS are used as entertainment. If Bill Maher is so outraged when animals do tricks in a circus, why isn't he outraged when human lives are risked on the flying trapeze, the human cannonball, sword swallowing, etc.? Why isn't he outraged when stuntmen and women risk serious injury or death in a Hollywood movie?

Are you sure he's not simply referring to the fact that circus animals are allegedly often mistreated?

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2008-01-18 12:04am

Sidewinder wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:I know he's against using animals as entertainment, circuses and zoos but I'm not sure how he is about people having pets. I think he's said he has a dog or dogs but I'm not sure.

HUMAN BEINGS are used as entertainment. If Bill Maher is so outraged when animals do tricks in a circus, why isn't he outraged when human lives are risked on the flying trapeze, the human cannonball, sword swallowing, etc.? Why isn't he outraged when stuntmen and women risk serious injury or death in a Hollywood movie?[/quote

If this is sarcasm, I apologize, for my sarcasm meter may very well be broken. In which case, you can completely disregard the post.

Now, I don't agree with Bill Maher on some things (hell, I don't agree with many libertarian viewpoints in general,) and PETA can go fuck themselves with something long, and possibly pointy. I don't really care too much about using animals in circus acts, so long as they are being treated humanely. Honestly, I never even considered the whole issue high on my priority list.

That being said, if you were indeed serious, and you seriously can't figure out that adult human beings can consent to these acts, while animals can't, then there is something wrong with you.

If you think Bill Maher is wrong about using animals as entertainment, and they should be used as entertainment, feel free to demonstrate. I may even agree with your reasons. But I'm pretty sure saying that someone who gets outraged over using animals that can't consent as entertainment by asking why he doesn't object to the use of humans who can consent is a tu quoque fallacy.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2008-01-18 12:05am

Sidewinder wrote:HUMAN BEINGS are used as entertainment. If Bill Maher is so outraged when animals do tricks in a circus, why isn't he outraged when human lives are risked on the flying trapeze, the human cannonball, sword swallowing, etc.? Why isn't he outraged when stuntmen and women risk serious injury or death in a Hollywood movie?

Because humans have a choice, whereas other animals do not. Using animals for entertainment isn't so fundamentally different from using them for other purposes that they have no choice about, but some people find it unsettling to see animals used for something as trivial as entertainment.

Davis 51 · Post by **Davis 51** » 2008-01-18 12:08am

Fucking quote tags. That's what I get for not hitting preview.

On topic, I had no idea the percentage was this high. I didn't like them before I read the article, but the sheer number is astounding.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2008-01-18 12:23am

I don't necessarily question the 97% as such, but can anyone find a source of this report other than this Center For Consumer Freedom site, of which the OP article is linked to? Every article I search for via Google's news search page brings up this same article, or a reprint of this article.

If someone can show me another news source other than a rehash of this Center For Consumer Freedom, I'd be interested to see it. I certainly can't find anything about this "offical" Peta report.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2008-01-18 01:13am

I found found some numbers for 2006, direct from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services site.

Unless I am making a gross error, it seems to show that in 2006, out of a total of 9637 animals received by PETA, 2981 were euthanized. 6575 were reclaimed by their owners.

That comes to about 31% of total animals that were euthanized.

The OP says:

Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 "companion animals" in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.

That page from VDACS seems to make no distinction between "temporarily" held animals and others, so perhaps there is some funny number picking-and-choosing going on here? Or am I missing something painfully obvious?

Napoleon the Clown · Post by **Napoleon the Clown** » 2008-01-18 02:04am

It's possible that the article was worded poorly. Whether intentionally or not, I couldn't say. It may be that the article means unclaimed pets. Who can say?

In all honesty though, you don't need stuff like this to know that PETA is filled with hypocrites and liars. They're leaders have spoken in favor of terrorist tactics (including things where innocent people may be physically harmed) to fight for animal rights. They are notorious for harassing people and throwing fake blood on them. Hella ethical treatment there.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2008-01-18 02:08am

Napoleon the Clown wrote:It's possible that the article was worded poorly. Whether intentionally or not, I couldn't say. It may be that the article means unclaimed pets. Who can say?

In all honesty though, you don't need stuff like this to know that PETA is filled with hypocrites and liars. They're leaders have spoken in favor of terrorist tactics (including things where innocent people may be physically harmed) to fight for animal rights. They are notorious for harassing people and throwing fake blood on them. Hella ethical treatment there.

I don't have any sympathy with certain actions PETA takes or endorses, but it's still disingenuous to misrepresent some information to make it more palatable, as this Center For Consumer Freedom seems to be doing. If the argument is solid, let it rest on facts.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2008-01-18 03:56am

FSTargetDrone wrote:Unless I am making a gross error, it seems to show that in 2006, out of a total of 9637 animals received by PETA, 2981 were euthanized. 6575 were reclaimed by their owners.

9637-6575 is 3,062. 2,981 is a big percentage of 3,062... It's poorly worded, but the point remains; the overwhelming majority of doggies and kitties they get their hands on are destroyed, not re-housed with new people.

Terralthra · Post by **Terralthra** » 2008-01-18 04:02am

NecronLord wrote:
FSTargetDrone wrote:Unless I am making a gross error, it seems to show that in 2006, out of a total of 9637 animals received by PETA, 2981 were euthanized. 6575 were reclaimed by their owners.
9637-6575 is 3,062. 2,981 is a big percentage of 3,062... It's poorly worded, but the point remains; the overwhelming majority of doggies and kitties they get their hands on are destroyed, not re-housed with new people.

The article even pegs the number taken in at 3061. I'd say the numbers agree pretty well.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2008-01-18 08:03am

Sidewinder wrote:
Tsyroc wrote:I know he's against using animals as entertainment, circuses and zoos but I'm not sure how he is about people having pets. I think he's said he has a dog or dogs but I'm not sure.
HUMAN BEINGS are used as entertainment. If Bill Maher is so outraged when animals do tricks in a circus, why isn't he outraged when human lives are risked on the flying trapeze, the human cannonball, sword swallowing, etc.? Why isn't he outraged when stuntmen and women risk serious injury or death in a Hollywood movie?

How would you feel using children as stuntmen and forced acrobats? Children who don't understand and are pretty much beaten into doing a set routine that they would not normally do? That are then kept in cages when they're moved around from place to place?

You total dumbass.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2008-01-18 11:16am

NecronLord wrote: 9637-6575 is 3,062. 2,981 is a big percentage of 3,062... It's poorly worded, but the point remains; the overwhelming majority of doggies and kitties they get their hands on are destroyed, not re-housed with new people.

Yeah, that's what got me at first, it just sounded funny.

Sidewinder · Post by **Sidewinder** » 2008-01-18 12:49pm

FSTargetDrone wrote:
Sidewinder wrote:HUMAN BEINGS are used as entertainment. If Bill Maher is so outraged when animals do tricks in a circus, why isn't he outraged when human lives are risked on the flying trapeze, the human cannonball, sword swallowing, etc.? Why isn't he outraged when stuntmen and women risk serious injury or death in a Hollywood movie?
Because humans have a choice, whereas other animals do not. Using animals for entertainment isn't so fundamentally different from using them for other purposes that they have no choice about, but some people find it unsettling to see animals used for something as trivial as entertainment.

Conceded.