My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Missouri BBB Releases Report on state puppy industry - Puppy Mill initiative still doesn't solve identified problems | Main | Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 3-21-10 »

March 20, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f90869e20120a95a47b2970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PETA Kills 97% of the animals in their care, and then defends the killing:

Comments

BJensen

Yeah Brent, and how many people do you reckon visit the PETA website every day. Thousands perhaps? And is there anything, anything at all, that sticks out in your browser when you hit that that home page to let you know they have animals needing homes? None that I can see.

Yet for some reason, PETA is considered by many (and by law) to be reputable because they are non-profit!

.

 vandervelt

Bob Barker supports organizations that kill animals! We all saw the dead puppies and kittens found in the PETA van that were taken from vet offices based on a promise to adopt them out. I guess that practice rates his $2.5 million.

Did you also know that his girlfriend Nancy Burnet is VP of one of the most heinous killing organzations anywhere, the Humane Society of San Bernardino? Bob Barker has given them hundreds of thousands of dollars, about 100,000 times his average donations to spay clinics. Read about Bob Barker's other favorite charity:

http://humanesocietyofsanbernardinokillings.blogspot.com/

Hey Bob Barker, whose next? The Taliban?

BradJensen

Well to be fair Van, former employees said even some of the people working there were unaware of the after hours euthanasia which had been going on for years.

Matthew

There is no denying that PETA are cowardly murderers. PETA doesnt deny this fact themselves, they just use that "humane euthanasia" B.S. to try (unsuccesfully) to excuse themselves of murder.

The sane, informed and educated among us know better however.

It's not "kind" to kill. It is wrong and demented to kill. If the hypocrites who run PETA were jabbed with a needle containing a lethal solution, they would cry "Murder" and demand that their families prosecute their assassins for their deaths. And they'd be right.

If only they'd wake up from their ignorant, arrogant sleepwalking, and look in the mirror, they'd see themselves as the murderers they are....they'd be staring murder right in the face.

Jack The Ripper may have *thought* he had sufficient excuse to murder someone.He was wrong.

OJ Simpson may have *thought* he had sufficient excuse to murder someone. He was wrong.

PETA may *think* that they have a sufficient excuse to murder someone. They are wrong.

And I think they know better...they just dont care, and since selfish human politicians dont afford their fellow living souls the same rights to life as they do members of their own species (who fund their political campaigns and have the power to vote them out of office), murderers like PETA can get away with their unethical crimes of mass murder. Almost as pathetic, they actualy brainwash millions of ignorant, though kind hearted souls to give money to fund their modern day holocaust. Hey, it worked for Hitler. It works for PETA too. Yet a mass murderer Hitler remains, and mass murderers PETA and kill shelters and pounds remain.


Ingrid Newkirk, head assassin at PETA once said, "A Dog is a rat is a boy". Hey Ingrid, how many boys have you murdered lately? If the answer is "none" it's only because you know you cant get away with THAT, unlike your murders of living souls who are equally as precious as us human animals, and who are equally deserving of life as any human animal is. But since cats and dogs dont vote or fund politicians' campaigns, they dont get rights to protect their lives.

The heads of PETA are hypocritical, homicidal, psychos. If PETA members have any courage, and any heart, they will vow not to support PETA, until the mass murder stops, and is replaced with true ethics.....No Kill ethics.

If I were a cat or dog, I'd run as far away from PETA as I could, as fast as I could. PETA is death itself. PETA doesnt save. They terminate. They dont rescue. They endanger. They dont nurture life. They end life.
They dont love animals, they murder them.

Love doesnt murder....it loves, saves and protects.

Ted

Good post, Brent, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that, despite the best efforts of the public schools over the last 40 years, critical thinking lives on.

What a surprise the organization that espouses an end to all service dog programs, that advocates the closure of all aquariums and zoos, that is asking George Clooney for sweat samples it intends to use to flavor tofu for an upcoming fundraiser, and whose Director and co-founder proudly declared to be "complete press sluts", doesn't hold up well under even casual scrutiny.

Valerie

I have recently been having a back-and-forth with a PETA employee over their killing. Her latest attempt at justification was priceless:
"The term "shelter of last resort" is simply a euphemism for offering humane euthanasia to sick, injured, aged, dying, unsocalized, aggressive, therefore unadoptable animals. If I were a dog on a chain with a collar grown into my neck while suffering from heartworms and mange death would be my shelter. How is it that you people are so literal that you could not understand that simple euphemism? Peta went to North Carolina to give humane euthanasia to prevent the animals from suffering terribly in a gas chamber. They did not go there to bring animals back to VA because the shelters in VA do not have the space, it would only flood an already overburdened system, therefore Peta euthanised the animals DUE TO LACK OF SPACE, but the only reason they were there at all was to prevent the animals suffering violent deaths."
Amazing how they try to use incompatible arguments simultaneously, and how the facts change from one sentence to the next. Coining a new euphemism for an old euphemism. Excellent. Perhaps all the verbal flailing around we're seeing is the death agonies of PETA's killing machine. One can only hope. The emphasis that they kill for space was hers, not mine, btw. And if I was a sick dog with a collar grown into my neck, I'd want a real rescuer to find me and take me to the vet who would remove the collar, tend my wounds, treat my ailments, and then see me into a home. Really, do they think animals are suicidal?

kindness4animals

BOB BARKER IGNORES WARNING ABOUT THE KILLINGS!

Bob Barker was sent a very explicit letter in 2002 by a supervisor of the Humane Society of San Bernardino Valley warning him about the massive number of killings that occurred there for years - both day and night (all the killings were not afterhours). And by the way, most employees knew about the killings, just like most of the Germans knew about the Nazi murders. They simply don't want to admit it. Their job ranks higher on their list of priorities.

The main killer wasn't a vet or vet tech. It was Lynn Hildebrand their 'teacher' who went into public schools teaching small children kindness to animals. Many employees lovingly nicknamed her 'serial killer' and they all thought it was funny.

Bob Barker's response to the killings? The employee received a threatening letter from HSSBV's law firm that the employee should not have contacted Barker and might be sued for defammation even if the allegations were true! And Barker kept sending his huge donations to them! So much for Bob Barker's 'inquiry' into the matter. Bob Barker shame on you. Just because your girl friend was part of this insane society, you turned your back on those animals. Don't you think you are just a little directly responsible for the approx. 100,000 animals or more killed since then because you could have put an end to it all by threatening to withhold your 'donations'?

BradJensen

I stand corrected for giving Barker the benefit of the doubt. Who was the law firm representing HSSBV at this time?

Kathy Doucette

Guys, I posted this info and link to my Twitter account (@kathydoucette)and PETA came out in full attack -- along with one of their supporters. Anybody got Twitter accounts? Hop on over and join in.

Diane

I think you misunderstand things. Animal pounds also end up killing most of the animals they get, and they're not sick either. Animal shelters are the same; they kill most of the animals in their care, and they're not sick. It's not just PETA. These places do it because they're aren't enough homes. Having the biggest budget in the world isn't going to help you find homes because you can't force people to take a pet. And these organizations can't house them forever. So they end up killing them.

Animal sanctuaries are about the only places you can take an animal where they won't be killed. Pounds, shelters, PETA, PAWS, all kill within about a week. It's because people are very irresponsible, thinking nothing about getting a pet then getting rid of it when they're tired of it, or they move, and don't spay and neuter pets to prevent more unwanted animals from being born that we have too many pets and they end up getting killed. So don't pick on PETA alone.

But what else can they do? There isn't room for all these animals. These days, due to the economy, people are abandoning pets because they've lost their jobs and homes and can't afford them, so there are even more.

I would make it harder to get a pet. You'd need to take a test to get a pet license, like a driver's license. And pets would be more expensive. No more free giveaways in the Sunday paper. That might make people think twice about it. Maybe have incentives like a tax break if you spay/neuter your pet.

From what I've seen in my life, many people shouldn't have pets because they don't know how to take care of them and don't understand the responsibilities involved. I've known animals where a week in a PETA shelter and being killed at the end would be far better than what they experience at the hands of their "loving owner."

I've taken this into consideration in my own life. I've never owned a pet because of the expense. I get my "animal fix" by looking after other people's pets.

Brent

Diane,

There is no other shelter in the nation that is killing 97% of their animals. You almost have to TRY to kill that many.

Yes, many local shelters also kill large numbers of animals -- and many of these are just really not doing a lot of the basic things they could be doing to grow adoptions a significant amount -- including promoting their homeless pets, having more convenient hours of operation, off-site adoptions, etc.

There are many basic things shelters can do to improve adoptions -- and until they are doing ALL of them, then they can not complain about irresponsible owners or pet overpopulation. There will always be pets that wind up homeless - this is the very reason the shelter system exists and will always need to exist.

But it is then the shelter's responsibility to find homes for the animals and not just kill them. There is no excuse for killing 97% of the animals you intake.

kelly

Diane- your views encompass everything that the no kill movement is NOT about. You immediately blame the public, and make excuses to justify the killing. I suggest that you do your research, and re think your comments. Also, if you have ever even bothered to read Brent's blog, you would see that PETA is not the only organization that is being "picked on", as you called it. There are MANY ways to get adoptable animals into homes, all it takes is work and effort! Unfortunetly, those leading many of our nation's shelters are not implementing these strategies, and think the same way that you do. It is much "easier" to kill an animal than to get off their butts and have off site adoption events, work longer hours, adverstise, ect.... As for making stricter regulations for pet ownership- this would only lead to MORE killing! Diane, please do a little research before you make such ignorant statements.... all it makes you look like is a complete fool.

CARS

How many of the people who are commenting here are actually in rescue? How many of you are in the trenches and see how some of these animals are suffering? While I may not agree with euthanizing 97% of the animals that come thru PETA's doors, I do realize that there are NOT enough homes in the world to adopt out all the "adoptable" animals there are to loving and responsible homes. Better to put them down humanely than have them end up with people who will use them as "bait" for fights, or turn them mean in order to fight them, or chain them up and forget about them, never feeding them or caring for them. I have seen too much and I have had to make that decisions many times and will continue to make that decision if need be. If I feel it is in the best interest of that animals, then I will have them put down to spare them more misery. I've visited a few Santuary's and I am not impressed when they have vicious dogs who'd just assume eat your face off as lick you or dogs with tumors hanging all over their bodies that you know hurt like hell because they are open and infected, but they are not humanely euthanized because they are a "santuary". And don't get me wrong, I think we should extend the same curtousy to humans as well who are sick and no longer have a good quality of life. It's humane. Call it what you will. We will all have a difference of opinion. And we are all free to express those opinions.

Brent

CARS,

I'd say 99% of the people here are in rescue and in the trenches -- and I'd say the majority here word very hard and embrace ways of saving animals vs looking for reasons to kill them. Death should be the last option for animals -- not the first. And until organizations like PETA, and people who support those organizations, embrace those proven, other options, we will continue to have shelter workers, like you, who are killing animals unnecessarily.

No one is saying that helpless sick, or helplessly aggressive animals should not be euthanized -- but WAY too often, PETA, and it sounds like you, make the decision to kill out of fear of what MIGHT happen under a very rare, worst case scenerio, vs giving an animal the opportunity to live.

CARS

Brent,

I've saved my fair share of animals in the 7 years I've been doing rescue. I am not the same person I was when I first started rescue work. I feel I am a realist when it comes to what I do now. There are simply not enough homes for all the animals out there. I wish there were but there aren't. That means that many innocent animals are put in bad situations. I would rather see an animal humanely euthanized that be tossed out to starve to death, get run over by a vehicle, poisoned, shot, or preyed upon by humans and wildlife alike. Better to fall asleep then die a painful death. I've busted my butt and invested a lot of myself in what I do and I am proud of what I've accomplished. I may not do rescue on a scale like the Best Friends in Utah or the SPCA but I do my share for my area. Like I said, to each their own.

Brent

CARS,

The idea that there just simply are not enough homes for all the animals out there may have been true 15 years ago...but it isn't now. Now, that line of thinking merely excuses the idea of killing in the shelters.

It sounds like you have become far too skeptical of people. The vast majority of pet owners take fabulous care of their dogs - horrible situations like what you describe are, indeed, horrible, but fortunately make up just a tiny percentage of the 76 million pet owners out there. While we should obviously attempt to avoid those situations, we shouldn't standardize killing because we assume something bad might happen. And it's not "to each their own" when someone makes the voluntary decisions to kill animals...

The comments to this entry are closed.