"We are writing about your recent post about the animals PETA had to euthanize in 2011. We know that you care deeply for animals, which is why we were disappointed by your post's unfair and untrue statement that 'PETA … doesn't like pets—which it sees as a form of animal slavery.' On a daily basis, PETA works to encourage people to adopt animals from animal shelters, and most PETA staffers (including me) share their homes with animals as well.
"PETA has a small division that does hands-on work with animals, and most of the animals we take in are society's rejects; they are abused, broken, sick, elderly, aggressive, unsocialized, or otherwise unadoptable. We have posted many blog posts about this over the years. PETA's euthanasia rate is, in part, a result of our refusal to turn away any animal who needs our assistance, whether it's veterinary care, affection, food, shelter, or a painless release from a world in which they were abused and unwanted. As Virginia officials speaking of PETA's euthanasia rate acknowledged to USA Today, 'PETA will basically take anything that comes through the door, and other shelters won't do that.'
"As demonstrated by PETA's undercover investigation into Caboodle Ranch—which, as your blog notes (although it doesn't name PETA), broke just this week and resulted in the seizure of hundreds of injured, ill, and neglected cats and the property owner's arrest—a blanket refusal to euthanize can have tragic consequences for animals. The only long-term solution to the animal overpopulation crisis is prevention. That's why PETA focuses on promoting and performing lifesaving spay-and-neuter surgeries, including the more than 10,000 low-cost to no-cost sterilization surgeries that we performed for low-income residents in Virginia and North Carolina last year.
"I hope that this sheds some light into PETA's work and that you will update your post about Caboodle Ranch to include PETA's involvement. If you would like any further information, please let us know. Thank you for your time and for your efforts to help animals."
I appreciate PETA's effort to clarify their position regarding companion animals and the euthanasia rate at their Norfolk shelter, as well as their participation in the Caboodle Ranch rescue.
As always, I am open to hearing opinions regarding my posts. My readers are welcome to leave comments or contact me by email at bunnyjcook@hotmail.com.
Note: this post is not meant to imply support of PETA's euthanasia practices or any other policies, practices or methods employed by PETA.
Thanks for both the original post and PETA's response.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the ins and outs of PETAs intake of animals. But I do know that shelters like the Philadelphia SPCA also take the "worst of the worst." They see a lot of dog fights, serious abuse, neglect and strays.
In 2011 they took in over 43,000 animals. And no, they don't turn anyone away. Also, as the city's animal control facility, they go out looking for animals to bring in.
Their euthanasia rate was 30%. (http://pspca.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PSPCA-2011-Oragnizational-Comprehensive-Performance-Analysis3.pdf).
However, I did look at the Virginia ag stats and saw that 79% percent of pets were euthanized. I suspect you can only get to 95% when you add wildlife and that would increase the kill rate immeasurably.
That said, I'm really concerned about the fact that the euthanasia numbers were released as part of a campaign by the Center for for Consumer Freedom. CCF appears, from looking at their website, to be a lobby group determined to prevent government oversight of anything that is profitable to big business.
I agree that PETA has to be accountable for its treatment of animals. But I'm a little worried about helping the lobbyists who are working hard to keep people from looking too deeply at how animals kept by ag businesses are treated.
I agree with your concern over the Center for Consumer Freedom. They are indeed a lobbying organization that has attacked PETA, HSUS, ASPCA and other animal welfare organizations through an affiliated group called HumaneWatch. It's an issue that I will be addressing in another post.
DeleteI agree that we need to look closely and critically at ANY group with an agenda, included CCF and Humane Watch, etc. Pamela, those euthanasia numbers are a matter of public record -- PETA has to disclose them to the state of Virginia.
DeleteYou can find the official disclosure document if you follow the links in this essay: http://www.honestdog.com/2012/02/23/how-peta-is-betraying-vegans-and-the-animal-rights-movement/
You cannot tell me that nearly ALL of the animals were so "broken" that PETA, with it's massive membership and millions of dollars, couldn't save a measly 2,000 dogs and cats?
Here's PETA's annual revenue: http://www.peta.org/about/learn-about-peta/financial-report.aspx
Even Vick's fighting dogs, those vicious, abused, "broken" dogs, were rehabbed and adopted out. Because the HSUS was basically forced to give them a second chance, because the public spoke up (roared).
"Even Vick's fighting dogs, those vicious, abused, "broken" dogs, were rehabbed and adopted out. Because the HSUS was basically forced to give them a second chance, because the public spoke up (roared)."
DeleteHSUS was never 'forced' to give the Vick fighting dogs a second chance. HSUS never ever cared for those dogs, they were pulled, fostered, and adopted out by private rescues not at all affiliated with HSUS, who kept the dogs alive despite HSUS lobbying for their deaths.
It's a common misconception that HSUS had part in the care of the Vick dogs. HSUS raised money towards their care, which is a HUGE controversy, as none of that money was ever given to the groups who were actually helping the dogs!
I'd like to read more about this Center for Consumer Freedom and their fight with animal organizations, as I have no idea what that is or the (I'm sure) seedy politics behind it. As for PETA, I take what they say with grain of salt. They are trying to spin the facts just like everyone else, the Caboodle Ranch controversy being an example.
ReplyDeleteI knew about HumaneWatch and was aware of their efforts to discredit the major animal welfare organizations, but I wasn't aware that CCF was behind them. And I agree with you, everyone will try to spin this story in their favor.
DeleteHere is my theory on any of those "large" animal groups (PETA, HSUS, ASPCA) - while I am sure they have their place, I would rather support the local non-profits that are struggling to do the right thing. I would rather see my money go toward medical bills and food than personnel costs and advertising. I am sure these organizations have their place, but when Wayne Pacell from HSUS stood next to Michael Vick and said it was all ok now, they all lost my support.....
ReplyDeleteLike you, I had a very hard time supporting HSUS after Wayne Pacell publicly supported Michael Vick, but I also know that they is actively involved in animal rescues - including one last week in Pittsburgh. Large animal groups have resources that smaller, local non-profits simply don't have.
DeleteThat being said, I also agree that if you want to make a difference in your own area then you should support local animal shelters and rescue groups. They are separate and autonomous, and they not funded by the major animal groups as many people believe.
Concentrate on preventing over population, absolutely. But you also need to deal with the animals that are already here. And killing them is not the answer. You can't convince me that 95% of the animals accepted by PETA were so "broken" that there was no other alternative than to kill them. There are plenty of shelters across the country who take in any animal brought to them regardless of their condition & manage to work with the majority of them. I support the legislative & protest work that PETA does. They bring a lot of attention to animal welfare issues. Perhaps they should focus solely on that & get out of the shelter business.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a 95% kill rate is unreasonably high. There are many, many shelters throughout the country that have much lower rates (for example - the Philadelphia SPCA, as mentioned above).
DeleteI believe groups that work to increase awareness and change legislation to help protect animals serve a function, but like you, I believe that perhaps the larger organizations should their resources where it has the most impact and get out of the sheltering business.
I'm impressed that you received an official reply.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do still feel that their euth rate is unconscionable. I find it hard to believe that, "take them all" or not, THAT MANY dogs and cats were entirely unredeemable. Granted, I'm not there, so I don't know. But I'm not entirely willing to buy it.
It does seem unreasonably high. It's hard to believe that out of 1,900+ animals PETA received last year only 24 were "adoptable". Unless all those animals were extremely sick and already on the verge of death, I can't understand why they were killed.
DeleteThank so much for posting both your post and their response. We agree with you - it's hard to think only 24 out of over 1900 were adoptable... *sigh*
ReplyDeleteI'm glad PeTA responded, but quite honestly when your kill rate is steady at 95% over, what, at least 5 years, a couple of points up, maybe 1 point down in that range, it does brand the organization. It is beyond belief that year after year after year nearly all the animals that come to them must be killed. I don't know of an Animal Care and Control facility with such a repeatedly high kill rate.
ReplyDeleteSorry, PETA. "We don't turn anyone away" doesn't jive with a 95% euthanasia rate. Only 5% of animals are recoverable? Hogwash. Plenty of local kill-shelters do better than that.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but it does seem that most people here are rather missing the point. Comparing the euthanisation rate at PETA's Virginia facility against shelters is like comparing apples to oranges. PETA does not operate a shelter. They have a facility which accepts owner surrenders for the purpose of euthanisation. These are animals which the owners realise are suffering. PETA offers a free service to these owners. So, on this basis, clearly their euthanisation rate will be significantly higher than any shelter.
ReplyDeleteAs stated previously, all of the bad press which appears about PETA, HSUS, ASPCA etc originates from the Center for Consumer Freedom. This is a shadowy lobby group which has received millions of dollars from the animal abuse industries for the sole purpose of spreading misinformation about pro animal groups. They aim to turn those fighting animal abuse against their own side. Divide and rule has always been a very successful tactic. It's just sad to see so many pro animal people fallling for it so easily. PETA aren't perfect. I disagree with a lot of what they do. But, they are an excellent organisation for supplying information on the facts about animal abuse to people worldwide. The amount of attacks they recieve over largely incorrect information is disgraceful.
I understand that the numbers were released by the Center for Consumer Freedom. However that doesn't change the fact that the numbers are extremely high. Even PETA does not dispute that. If their "shelter" mostly accepts owner surrenders for the sake of euthanasia, then perhaps it should be reclassified as a euthanasia clinic.
Delete