Look, I like you as poster, but this is a thoughtless thing to post. It’s not OK for PETA or any other organization to do what’s been alleged here (and for what it’s worth, I don’t like PETA and find the claims plausible). But someone you despise doing something wrong does not mean it’s right or moral for you to do whatever.
None of the animal advocates I know agree with PETA, and most are actively trying to distance themselves from any association with it. Furthermore, veganism as a philosophy predates PETA by 36 years, although the impulse is much older. PETA might claim to be vegan, but many if not most vegans are not PETA.
I agree with this, considering what I’ve seen Newkirk say.
PETA claims to be vegan, yet they kill animals and throw them away. (Many) Vegans think people who eat meat are morally or ethically bankrupt; yet here is the pot calling out the kettle. My post was a rhetorical device. And of course PETA murdering animals doesn’t make it ‘right or moral’ for me to eat meat. Especially since there is nothing wrong or immoral about eating meat.
I don’t have a problem with vegans or vegetarians – as long as they aren’t militant about it. I do have a problem with ‘holier than thou’ attitudes.
That “just happens” wouldn’t surprise me. Their shelter in Norfolk, from what I remember, does intake from rural areas in Virginia and eastern North Carolina. Their rationale is that some of these rural areas use inhumane forms of euthanasia such as carbon monoxide poisoning (i.e., back a truck up to a room full of animals and leave the exhaust running), and PETA takes the animals to be euthanized in their facility.
They probably have a higher rate of euthanasia than other shelters in Norfolk, even for animals in Norfolk, for a similar reason. Folks who surrender their animals to PETA are either pig-ignorant or are not hopeful that their animals will be adopted. If your animal is adoptable, would you take it to PETA? Or would you take it to a limited access organization that only takes in as many animals as it can adopt out?
I used to work for an animal shelter in an NC county with a high rural population. We were very happy when we reduced our euthanasia rate to 70%. We euthanized thousands of adorable puppies and kittens every year, simply because there were no homes available for them. We also dedicated a lot of energy to finding homes, and to promoting spaying and neutering. But if we didn’t euthanize those animals, the alternatives for them were even worse.
It’s not me you need to convince, it’s the DA who declined to press charges. Or, when a jury in NC heard the case involving PETA, it’s them you need to convince that they shouldn’t have acquitted.
Yes, the law requires holding the animals for five days. Yes, they screwed up. Again: how common are these sorts of screwups at shelters that impound stray animals?
Rates aren’t relevant. If those other shelters have problems, they should be punished, too. If there aren’t repercussions, it’s just going to keep happening. Why bother improving your ability to not inappropriately euthanize if nothing will happen to you if do?
Maybe not arrested and put in jail, but some fines would be nice. A requirement for compensation for the property they stole and disposed of? If you accidentally break something in a store, you have to still pay for it.
I’ve met some chihuahuas. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a chihuahua TRIED to attack a cow. I would be surprised if the attack inflicted any significant damage on the cow.
This isn’t some little shelter run by city employees, we’re talking about PETA, people who are supposed to be for the ethical treatment of animals. Even if they were allowed by law to do what they did they still shouldn’t want to. They’re supposed to be a higher standard, not worse than your average pound. They took these animals and killed them in same day. What possible reason would they have for that? Who decided that that was the most ethical thing for these animals? They’re hypocrites, screaming and yelling when someone else does something they don’t like, and then turning around and doing the same thing themselves.
Yeah, I’d be down with that. A civil lawsuit against PETA sounds totally appropriate. My question, though, was about which laws were broken. I’m curious about the penalties triggered by violating these laws. PETA should be treated similarly to other shelters, thus my question about how they compare to other shelters.
I know you mean this to be a rhetorical question, but it ain’t. It may very well be that their shelter was completely full at that point and that more animals were coming in from animal control operations in rural NC, and they needed cage space for the incoming animals, and somebody screwed up in choosing which animals to euthanize in order to make room.
When I worked at a shelter, this happened once. It was awful. Everyone involved felt as terrible about it as you’d want them to feel. New measures were put in place to minimize the chance of a recurrence–and in the time I worked there, it never happened again. (I wasn’t involved, in case you’re wondering–I worked in a remote location and never saw the particular dog that was euthanized).
I find it much easier to attribute the euthanasia to incompetence than to malice.
The first and third story are the same one, and it’s one I’ve addressed extensively on these boards before, and it’s again tied back to PETA’s initiative to end carbon monoxide mass killings in eastern North Carolina. The second one is a rehash of Winograd’s misunderstanding of shelter statistics, and I’ve addressed it earlier in this thread.
But it may well be fair to say that the land owners and dog owner who were involved here might have had a mistakenly benign impression of PETA, perhaps likening it to the ASPCA. Considering that in many places the ASPCA has been endowed with some authority to enforce animal cruelty laws, it is of some concern that PETA could conceivably be granted similar enforcement authority by well-intentioned but misinformed local governments.
I have a hard time getting mad at PETA here. Frankly, this seems to be like one of the better things PETA has done.
Yes, stray dogs get rounded up and euthanized. Stray dogs are vermin. They are dangerous to people and livestock.
Yes, healthy animals get euthanized. That’s not just PETA doing that. There are far more healthy animals than there are adoptable animals, and there are more adoptable animals than there are people willing to take them.
if the law requires them to hold the dogs a certain amount of time, and they didn’t, then yeah, they screwed up. They should have euthanized some of their older animals and held on to these ones for however long they had to, and then euthanized them. The strays would have still been killed.
I really think you need to familiarize yourself with what’s going on in rural counties across the south. PETA is far more benign in this regard than a lot of local law enforcement is. I think they made a terrible error in this case in euthanizing the animal before the five day limit, but I think overall the work they’re doing on this particular initiative is pretty defensible, compared either to their crazyshit publicity-whore division or to the horrorshow local animal control in many of the areas they’re covering.
One ought not be surprised that folks deeply involved in a cultish single-issue pressure group are, well, single issue and cultish. IOW, not well attached to what the rest of us call normalcy / normality.
That parenthetical comment about (abusing animals) is kind of key. What exactly did that abuse consist of? How familiar are you with the abuse animals sometimes go through at animal shelters–and especially the abuse animals at shelters went through in the seventies and eighties, before HSUS and AH became more successful at promulgating best practices documents?