Friday, March 22, 2013

Hot, Naked Women for Blending Puppies

Animal rights charity PETA killed almost 90 per cent of dogs and cats placed in the care of the shelter at its Virginia headquarters last year, it has been revealed today.

The charity, well-known for attention grabbing publicity campaigns such as the 'I'd rather go naked' anti-fur campaign, (NSFW link) euthanized 1,647 cats and dogs last year and only placed 19 in new homes according to the data submitted to the Virginia Department for Agriculture and Consumer Services.
90%?  That seems a bit excessive. Do think their celebrity strippers knew this before they agreed to take their clothes off for the cause?

PETA told Mail Online that the animals they take in at the center are 'unadoptable', however 89.4 per cent of pets is much higher than their own approximation that half of animals taken to shelters end up being euthanized. According to the statistics 1,110 cats and 733 dogs were handed in to the charity in 2012.

22 cats and 108 dogs were transferred to another shelter, two cats and three dogs were reclaimed by their owner while 1,045 cats and 602 were euthanized.34 cats and 7 dogs were placed under a category entitled 'Miscellaneous'.
I think 'unadoptable' is a moving target; there seem to be a lot of well heeled, if not necessarily well dressed people who support PETA; I wonder how many 'unadoptable' pets they have adopted.  Or is it a whole lot easier to just take your clothes off for a few minutes and go on with their celebrity life? (Do they get a tax deduction for doing it?  Hmm, now there's an idea).

The statistics have been promoted by a restaurant advocacy coalition called Center for Consumer Freedom, which has had numerous run-ins with the charity in the past.

They say that since 1998 the shelter has euthanized a total of 29,398 pets.

Justin Wilson, CCF Senior Research Analyst said: 'The animal rights group is talking out of both sides of its mouth – on one side preaching its animal liberation agenda, while on the other signing the death warrant of over 89 percent of pets in its care. It’s beyond hypocritical.'
There's a 'beyond hypocritical?' I thought it was way out there all by itself.

A later statement added: 'PETA refers adoptable animals to the high-traffic open-admission shelters where they have the best chance of being seen and finding a new home.'....

In response to the post, supporters of the charity were torn on the issue but many said a charity in its position on issues such as medical testing, the fur trade and as advocates for veganism should never allow the killing of healthy animals over a lack of suitable home.
I find it ironical that PETA has met and absorbed people more extreme than the organization can afford to practice.  Maybe if they just gave a little more each...
'In my book, the only time it's acceptable to kill animals is the same as the only time it's acceptable to kill people: when their illness is painful and terminal.'

'Anything else is a speciesist double standard. As soon as I hear of a campaign to kill homeless people because it's 'more humane' then I might consider it an acceptable option for homeless animals too,' said one post.
In fairness to PETA, this link goes to a post showing some of the animals that needed to be euthanized.  Content warning; they're not nearly as good looking as these pictures; but then I doubt they fairly represent all 2000 euthanized animals either.

I have no issue with the necessity of euthanizing old and sick animals when they reach a stage beyond which life no longer gives them any apparent enjoyment.  I fear that point rushes up on me all too soon.  But I don't appreciate the nagging about fur, food, medicine and pets that seems to always come from them.

Linked by Proof Positive in this week's "Best of the Web* Linkaround." Wombat-Socho has the original Rule 5 Sunday special "Time after Time" up on schedule at The Other McCain.  Even in tax season!

No comments:

Post a Comment