PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care

[jonesthecurl]

Try Screech-owls.

[hecter]

I looked at the proof that your websites give us. All they did was took the number of euthanized animals and divided that by the number of euthanized animals plus those adopted. Thing is, the proof does not state if those animals are sick, injured, very old, or in any other way not going to live or unadoptable. They only have so much space and they want to get as many animals out there as they can. On top of that, most of the animals they're going to get in are already owned or injured. So they really get very few adoptable pets in. I take this stuff with a grain of salt, as I do with all the other silly conspiracy crap that he posts.

[Juan_Bottom]

You're still argueing that ony 5% PETA's animals are adoptable to begin with? That seems like a pretty low number to me.

[hecter]

You're still argueing that ony 5% PETA's animals are adoptable to begin with? That seems like a pretty low number to me.

No, but they're hardly going to be able to get 100% of their animals adopted. The average for animals euthanized is about 64%*. But that's including animals that are reunited to their owners, which the 5% figure does not. If you do, PETA only euthanizes about 20% of their animals.

* http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/ ... nasia.html

[Neoteny]

I've euthanized 100% of my adopted pets.

[Juan_Bottom]

No, but they're hardly going to be able to get 100% of their animals adopted. The average for animals euthanized is about 64%*. But that's including animals that are reunited to their owners, which the 5% figure does not. If you do, PETA only euthanizes about 20% of their animals.

That still doesn't sound right...

2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes.

80% of the 2,124 animals were returned to their owners? And then 7 were offically adopted. PETA isn't an animal shelter though. It's an activist organization. Organizations like ASPCA are the ones that rescue animals to be adopted. 80% of their animals being lost pets sounds outragously high... especially when there are other groups that are actual shelters operating in the same places.

[TheProwler]

dogs, when in a pack (like police) become extremely brave

Some dogs are pretty brave all on their own...

Here's a couple videos of an example by a bull terrier where a pack isn't needed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE4qoSN5bhM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-__He-LADAs


By the way, I do not like tormenting bulls or bull fights or the running of the bulls or any of that shit....but I do like bull terriers.

[TheProwler]

80% of their animals being lost pets sounds outragously high...

I do some work and some volunteering at my local SPCA. Many of the animals that are brought in are actually just dogs and cats that got loose from the owners and they are claimed within a day or two by the owners (who have to pay a fine).

I would think those numbers are fairly accurate.

It will depend on the municipality. There is a neighbouring city to mine that does things differently. In that city, the SPCA is not responsible for strays. The "City Pound" looks after stray dogs and if a dog is not claimed there, then it gets sent to the SPCA. So I would think their numbers would be quite different than most SPCAs, because they would have a very low number of owners claiming their lost pets.

[Juan_Bottom]

I do some work and some volunteering at my local SPCA. Many of the animals that are brought in are actually just dogs and cats that got loose from the owners and they are claimed within a day or two by the owners (who have to pay a fine).

That's kinda what I'm saying... how does PETA end up with all strays? It's like police putting out a fire. It's kinda related, but the fire dept should be doing it.

[strike wolf]

I looked at the records. only 4 of 559 dogs not reclaimed by owners were adopted. Only 3 of 1572 cats not reclaimed by owners were adopted. Not to mention those numbers were better in other the companion animals (52 out of 295).

[jonesthecurl]

I've euthanized 100% of my adopted pets.

Could you came and euthanize my neighbours' pets?
Hell, come and euthanize the neighbours.

[targetman377]

i agree with PETA 100% .....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
PEOPLE EATING TASTY ANMIALS UMM UMM

[PLAYER57832]

Reminds me of my husband's tee-shirt:

I love ALL wildlife ...

with lots of gravey!

[b.k. barunt]

I've euthanized 100% of my adopted pets.

Could you came and euthanize my neighbours' pets?
Hell, come and euthanize the neighbours.

I've euthanized more than one incessantly barking dog in my time. Pugs are especially noisy.


Honibaz

[neanderpaul14]

I've euthanized 100% of my adopted pets.

Could you came and euthanize my neighbours' pets?
Hell, come and euthanize the neighbours.

I've euthanized more than one incessantly barking dog in my time. Pugs are especially noisy.


Honibaz

I was once set upon by a pack of Pomeranians it was kind of annoying although I did have to admire there spunk, I'm 6'2" and my size 14 work boots are each larger than any of these little punting dogs

No dogs were harmed in the making of this post however

[hecter]

No, but they're hardly going to be able to get 100% of their animals adopted. The average for animals euthanized is about 64%*. But that's including animals that are reunited to their owners, which the 5% figure does not. If you do, PETA only euthanizes about 20% of their animals.

That still doesn't sound right...

2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes.

80% of the 2,124 animals were returned to their owners? And then 7 were offically adopted. PETA isn't an animal shelter though. It's an activist organization. Organizations like ASPCA are the ones that rescue animals to be adopted. 80% of their animals being lost pets sounds outragously high... especially when there are other groups that are actual shelters operating in the same places.

Which makes me feel like their "proof" is simply fake. On top of that, I didn't see any year in the proof where only 7 animals got adopted out. Don't believe everything you read in a blog.

[daddy1gringo]

I have an innate mistrust for people who don't eat meat. It's unnatural. Besides, plants have feelings too.


Honibaz

Saw a bumper sticker once: "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" Not logical, but funny.

[b.k. barunt]

Sounds rather logical to me.


Honibaz

[TheProwler]

Saw a bumper sticker once: "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" Not logical, but funny.

Sounds rather logical to me.

Haha! And that is a perfect example of how logic escapes some people. Ever wonder why dealing with some people is frustrating? It is sometimes because they just don't understand.

Don't believe everything you read in a blog.

Very good advice. But, PETA does euthanize the vast majority of domesticate animals that come into their "care".

Here is how they feel about euthanasia: http://www.peta.org/MC/factsheet_display.asp?ID=39

Hey, little tidbit for those who care....that article mentions both "The Humane Society of the United States" and "The American Humane Association". One is an animal rights group much like PETA, and one is the SPCA. In that order. Don't be fooled.

As I said before, PETA thinks it is better to kill a cat or a dog than to risk putting them into an abusive situation. They trust almost no person. Most of them think it is cruel to have pets.

While PETA goes overboard in some ways (imho), I agree with a lot of their ideas and ideologies. We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being. We are disgustingly selfish and immoral.

[PLAYER57832]

Saw a bumper sticker once: "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" Not logical, but funny.

Sounds rather logical to me.

Haha! And that is a perfect example of how logic escapes some people. Ever wonder why dealing with some people is frustrating? It is sometimes because they just don't understand.

Point made, but probably not the one you wished...

While PETA goes overboard in some ways (imho), I agree with a lot of their ideas and ideologies. We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being. We are disgustingly selfish and immoral.

Yes, except the real damage is not from owning pets or eating meat .. it is from building all those wonderful houses so everyone can have their own, personal garden (organic or not) and totally eco-friendly playgrounds.

Besides, people DO have to eat, DO need clothes.. and despite the cute hype, grazing animals really can and do survive on grass.. which means we can indirectly eat grass (something we cannot otherwise do) as well as use thier waste for fertilizer, hides for clothing.

I am sorry, but I may have petroleum products on my person (bought used), but I am not going to claim that they are more ecologically sound (though again, I bought them used... and that was what was available) than hides.

Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

[TheProwler]

Saw a bumper sticker once: "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" Not logical, but funny.

Sounds rather logical to me.

Haha! And that is a perfect example of how logic escapes some people. Ever wonder why dealing with some people is frustrating? It is sometimes because they just don't understand.

Point made, but probably not the one you wished...

Do you really want to argue whether the point of the bumper sticker was logical or not?

While PETA goes overboard in some ways (imho), I agree with a lot of their ideas and ideologies. We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being. We are disgustingly selfish and immoral.

Yes, except the real damage is not from owning pets or eating meat .. it is from building all those wonderful houses so everyone can have their own, personal garden (organic or not) and totally eco-friendly playgrounds.

Besides, people DO have to eat, DO need clothes.. and despite the cute hype, grazing animals really can and do survive on grass.. which means we can indirectly eat grass (something we cannot otherwise do) as well as use thier waste for fertilizer, hides for clothing.

I am sorry, but I may have petroleum products on my person (bought used), but I am not going to claim that they are more ecologically sound (though again, I bought them used... and that was what was available) than hides.

Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

Who are you arguing with? PETA? They aren't listening. Me? What exactly did I say that you disagree with? Or are you just off making assumptions again?

[PLAYER57832]

Saw a bumper sticker once: "If we're not supposed to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?" Not logical, but funny.

Sounds rather logical to me.

Haha! And that is a perfect example of how logic escapes some people. Ever wonder why dealing with some people is frustrating? It is sometimes because they just don't understand.

Point made, but probably not the one you wished...

Do you really want to argue whether the point of the bumper sticker was logical or not?

(and again Prowler completely misses the point...)

someone else explain it... I am laughing too hard.

While PETA goes overboard in some ways (imho), I agree with a lot of their ideas and ideologies. We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being. We are disgustingly selfish and immoral.

Yes, except the real damage is not from owning pets or eating meat .. it is from building all those wonderful houses so everyone can have their own, personal garden (organic or not) and totally eco-friendly playgrounds.

Besides, people DO have to eat, DO need clothes.. and despite the cute hype, grazing animals really can and do survive on grass.. which means we can indirectly eat grass (something we cannot otherwise do) as well as use thier waste for fertilizer, hides for clothing.

I am sorry, but I may have petroleum products on my person (bought used), but I am not going to claim that they are more ecologically sound (though again, I bought them used... and that was what was available) than hides.

Think cotton is the answer? Think again! Cotton and sugarcane are 2 of the most destructive crops on the planet!

Who are you arguing with? PETA? They aren't listening. Me? What exactly did I say that you disagree with? Or are you just off making assumptions again?

It would be this part here:
quoting TheProwler: I agree with a lot of their ideas and ideologies

Their "ideas and ideologies" in fact are not even consistant with the realities of how to obtain "their ideas and ideologies" ... never mind sensible.

And this part, again, quoting TheProwler: "We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being"
Though true, pretending that we should not use animals for our own good is an untenable position that will ultimately result in the demise of even more animals. It is our need for them that offers protection.

[TheProwler]

(and again Prowler completely misses the point...)

someone else explain it... I am laughing too hard.

Hahaha! You are laughing so hard that you lost the ability to think of a clear explanation?

Try to scrape together a few ounces on maturity and just post what you wanna say.

quoting TheProwler: I agree with a lot of their ideas and ideologies

Their "ideas and ideologies" in fact are not even consistant with the realities of how to obtain "their ideas and ideologies" ... never mind sensible.

How to obtain ideas and ideologies? Haha! You "obtain" ideas by thinking. Haha, I know what you were trying to say, though. And nobody here has said that their methods work in trying to achieve their goals. Who are you arguing with again? Because you really make a lot of assumptions. Clear communication seems to escape you.

And this part, again, quoting TheProwler: "We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being"
Though true, pretending that we should not use animals for our own good is an untenable position that will ultimately result in the demise of even more animals. It is our need for them that offers protection.

Again, you are making assumptions. I said "I agree with a lot...". I did not say "I agree with all...". You must surely be able to see the difference...the question is: "Can you understand the difference?"

I don't think you are showing a high enough level of intelligence to have a discussion with me. Making assumptions, not being able to make clear points, not understand simple phrases...really, friendly advice, seek a position in manual labour. Your brains ain't gonna cut it. I'm just trying to help you with this advice. You need to realize your deficiencies.

[PLAYER57832]

And this part, again, quoting TheProwler: "We humans are the cruelest species on Earth and we don't take the well-being of other species into account unless it impacts our own well-being"
Though true, pretending that we should not use animals for our own good is an untenable position that will ultimately result in the demise of even more animals. It is our need for them that offers protection.

Again, you are making assumptions. I said "I agree with a lot...". I did not say "I agree with all...". You must surely be able to see the difference...the question is: "Can you understand the difference?"

I don't think you are showing a high enough level of intelligence to have a discussion with me. Making assumptions, not being able to make clear points, not understand simple phrases...really, friendly advice, seek a position in manual labour. Your brains ain't gonna cut it. I'm just trying to help you with this advice. You need to realize your deficiencies.

Hmmm you don't understand so , yes ... it obviously means that I am the one deficient in understanding. Interesting logic, that.

Anyway, since you did not seem to understand (or perhaps are just not truly versed in what PETA actually advocates) Every point I made is a direct contradiction to PETAs stands.

I was not simply refering to PETA methods, their entire ideology is ludicrous. Furthermore their entire ideology is so contrary that the only people who could possible really agree with any of it are people who only think they understand animals and the natural world OR who simply don't understand PETA's positions.

Take your pick ... if you agree with PETA... you are wearing the shoes & they fit.

[TheProwler]

Haha! How do I get dragged into such stupid "arguments"?

PETA is against unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals. So am I.

PETA thinks animals have some worth. So do I.

PETA thinks that most dogs should have 4 legs. I agree.

That doesn't mean I agree with all of their ideas.


So time for you to answer a few simple, straight-forward questions:

Do you support unnecessarily cruel treatment of animals?

Do you think animals are worthless?

Do you think that most dogs should have 4 legs?


Just "Yes" and/or "No" answers will be sufficient.