PETA kills 95% of animals entrusted to its care.

Wow...

You infer everything up the whazoo, so I called you out on it.

You said that is was not a good job nor anything in the general vicinity of acceptable. Take what you want from that.

There are no-kill shelters (like the one in Nevada you mention) and there are kill shelters. The simple fact is:

animals that need adoption >>>>>>> homes that can adopt >> homes that should adopt

Also something you haven't really grasped yet is that PETA takes in animals usually as a last resort. They also take in the ones that other shelters cannot accept. If a dog is aggressive, or shows signs of aggressive behaviour they automatically cannot be caged with the rest of the animals. Since most shelters are operating at 100% capacity, this means that the animal is refused. So what do you do? PETA takes them. They do their own evaluation, and generally it agrees that the animal IS NOT ADOPTABLE FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

You are playing with fire here. My family works very closely with kill shelters and no-kill shelters. In the past couple years we have adopted 2 dogs and 7 cats that would have otherwise been put to sleep because they were not adoptable. This includes a cat that was fed cocaine and kept in a closet for the first few months of its life that could only be handled with 2 layers of thick rubber insulating gloves and a plastic face mask. Now the cat is manageable, but I doubt little Timmy wants the cat from hell as a birthday present. That took about a year of constant training and feedback for that one animal, and if it was in a shelter now as an adoptable animal, it would still more than likely not be adopted because there are again more animals than people than can adopt them.

 

Give PETA your address and prove that you can take care of every one of those animals in a safe and humane fashion. I am sure they will gladly send them to you.

 

Acceptable depends on the circumstances. So where would those 95% go if they were not killed? What about the rest? Should the 5,000,000 to 7,000,000 animals brought to shelters per year (ASPCA | Pet Statistics) just be kept there and stacked up cage upon cage? No? Then what. Don't just spew crap, provide a solution.

Again, answer the question. WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH 7 MILLION ANIMALS PER YEAR? The problem with most no kill shelters are that the animals sit in cages for a very long period of time. Pet adoption is already low. If 60% of dogs and 70% of cats brought to kill-shelters are killed and they are still at maximum capacity, how do you think the no-kill shelters are doing on? Either get a bigger facility ($$$) or stop taking in animals (which is what they do). And then what happens when the no-kill shelters stop taking in animals? They go to kill shelters. And those animals that were taken in by no-kill shelters? Some may be adopted, but most stay in their cage the majority of the time and just sit there. How is that humane? Just like some are adopted at a kill shelter, the rest are put down after a period of time instead of just sitting there suffering.

The US gave military weapons and funds as well as training to Osama Bin Laden... Down with the USA? You're making leaps here...

You find an organization who's employees are repeatedly arrested for child abuse and molestation to be humane and acceptable, i.e. the church. I think we both know that one bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch. Again, this is a big leap.

Ah. I see where you might be getting mixed messages. PETA is not the organization that puts unwanted animals into homes. The ASPCA is what you are probably thinking about and are very different.

PETA's Mission Statement (http://www.peta.org/about/default.aspx):

If you deem stuffing an animal in a cage for 10 years with minimal social interaction "cruelty" (as PETA does), then euthanasia is a viable alternative.

The ASPCA although not actually part of the "Humane Society", pretty much is where that all stems from. The ASPCA spends more of its time on shelters, and PETA spends more of its time on trade industries like subjecting whales to being "slaves" (their words), whaling, and things like that.

Then actually provide a solution instead of ranting about things you clearly don't understand.

And you support those animals being stacked in cages for decades... :thumb:

I don't think anybody will ever accuse you of not making baseless unsubstantiated points.

 

Could this be a foreboding to national healthcare?

 

No.

 

whew.

 

PETA does good: They give us those commercials with hot babes

 

It is a giant illogical leap, much in the same.

Yes, because of what the ratio means. More explained below.

You didn't solve the problem, you moved it...

Your "solution":

Ok. Lets think now.

If a place has 0% kills, and is a kill-shelter, and is not offloading animals to other shelters, then every animal is either being adopted, or is dying of natural causes. Agree (#1)?

Fact: A "no-kill" shelter is where 90%+ of animals are not killed. That 10% is attributed to agressive, red-zone, non-adoptable, and/or non-rehabitable.

Therefore if a place has a 10% kill rate, and is a kill-shelter, and is not offloading animals to other shelters, then every animal that can be adopted, is being adopted. Those that cannot be adopted, are being euthanized. Agree (#2)?

There comes a point, when there are more animals needing adoption, then those that can provide a home. Agree (#3)? I would base this on there are a finite number of people, a finite number of domiciles that would be considered "pet friendly" or safe, a finite number of people that actually want pets, a finite limit on the number of pets per person and per domicile, and a finite limit on the number of pets a person can actually take care of without neglecting any of the others. You can't single-handedly take care of 1 million dogs and give each one your undivided attention, it is not physically possible. Lets say there are "X" number of people that can have pets with all the limits imposed.

Fact: There is a finite number of animals being sent to shelters every year. (Lets call this number Y)

If Y is greater than X, then there are animals that have no person to adopt them. Agreed (#4)?

So if no persons exist to adopt them, what can be gained by relocating the animal?

We already know that there exists no home for the animal. Agreed (#5)?

So best case, Y-X animals will die every year, just because there is no home and these will cause the average kill rates to go above 10%. Agreed (#6)?

So what is the difference between having the national kill rate at 65% being made up of N different shelters all with exactly 65% kill rates, or having N different shelters with some higher, some lower, but on average 65%? We have already concluded that these animals have no home and/or are not adoptable.

And what if we have a subset of shelters that takes the dogs with mangled limbs, missing eyeballs, and have been hit by trucks and then other shelters that take mostly purebreds and cute unwanted litters? The adoptable percentage for the mangled shelter will be lower than the purebred shelter, that is just the way it works. Agreed (#7)?

So if the "nice" shelter has a 50% kill rate, and the "bad" shelter has a 80% kill rate, they still have a 65% kill rate overall. Agreed (#8)?

If you equalized the animals on "adoptabiliy", things like how cute they are, how old, what colour (yes black and dark coloured animals get adopted much much less than lighter coloured animals), state of their limbs, dexterity, general personality, and so on and then distributed them evenly to all shelters you would probably get most shelters to be around 65% where the national average stands now.

So that is why a 95% kill ratio is acceptable for PETA. If you visit a PETA run facility, you will understand why. 10% of animals nationally are classified in the red zone (the dangerous and/or non-adoptable ones) and cannot be taken in by the Humane Society or any no-kill shelter that I know of. They actively refuse them. If you bring in your dog that has a history of violence to your local Humane Society, they will kindly turn you away and tell you they cannot take it. If you set it loose and walk away so their mobile unit picks it up, if it is deemed violent or aggressive after a psych evaluation, it will not be allowed to stay. Where do they send them? PETA organizations, because they would rather put the dog to sleep, then have it live on the streets.

Wouldn't you say this makes the percentage of "unadoptable" animals much higher for that sort of organization than an ASPCA organization? So the kill ratio can be higher and still be acceptable? Because really, the problem is just being moved, just like you suggested in the first place. Instead of everyone killing 65% of the animals, some kill less, some kill 10%, and others are forced to kill pretty much all of them.

PETA is a last resort shelter. If you have ever adopted an animal, did you actually visit a PETA shelter? Most people don't even know where they are. It is generally just the ASPCA and local shelters that even know where they are, and mostly just so they can offload the red-zone animals. If you were going to "adopt a felon" to let live in your home and become part of your family, you would probably visit the tax evaders and cheque fraud people first. Doubtful you would make it down to the maximum security prisons with the murders and rapists unless you either had to (all the other felons were taken) or you really wanted to because nobody else would.

My sister had a 3 legged puppy dog for about a year until it died naturally. This was a kill-shelter she volunteered for that every weekend would bring the animals to local petstores so people could adopt one of them. When this dog was born, the owner of the mother did not want the animals and threw them away. As in, into a dumpster. You can imagine how the trash people found them when the giant crushing bar in the back of garbage trucks came down on the bags from the bin and yelping came out. So it was one of the 2 that survived, the others were either crushed right there or had starved/frozen before. It had to have one of its hind legs amputated. When it was old enough to be adopted, she went every weekend for a couple months with this dog and people were adopting the exact same type of dog but with 4 legs. Nobody wants a 3 legged dog. The last weekend the dog had to be adopted or it would be killed. Nobody looked at the dog as usual, so she adopted it. It had suffered quite a bit so it didn't last long. This wasn't an aggressive dog, it was just 3 legged and kind of silly looking.

When people look for a dog, they want something that they can keep for a long time, become part of the family. Selecting a healthy young puppy is considered the best. But not every dog is a healthy young puppy. Just like not every cat is a cute little kitten that purrs when you just look at it. And as long as there are 7million of these animals coming into shelters every year, breeding farms, purebred stores, "breeders", and so on, there is no short of supply of animals to "choose" from. It is simple math, that some will have to be killed.

 

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare"]Animal welfare[/ame] is different from [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights"]animal rights[/ame]....callers on some talk shows identifying as animal welfare are a$$umed to be animal rights. {sigh}

Keeping pets from roaming and breeding, giving them good homes, adopting as many as practical, humane treatment of livestock animals is animal welfare.

Animal rights go beyond this to advocacy of no pets and advocating Knut be put down before he left infancy among other things. Just saying there are some things I'm concerned with on the animal rights agenda - I still eschew leather products.

 

I have not been to a PETA shelter, but if it has the most unadoptable animals, then 95% euthanization may make sense. On the other hand, no-kill shelters make sure only adoptable pets are let in. That or have the resources to take care of these animals for the rest of their lifes.

I have worked with rescues and the basic problem is too many people fail to spay/neuter their pets and dump them after they grow up.

 

My wife volunteers at the SPCA shelter here in Pinellas County. Everyone that works or volunteers at places like this, including PETA, understands the reality of rescuing, and being unable to rescue pets. If you don't understand, it's a free visit where you will be welcome just to look and learn. Otherwise be careful about telling those that spend significant time there what right and wrong is in the shelter world.

 

Bless her for giving this dog's remainder of it's life a happy one.

 

Eek. What a messy and difficult thread this is. We have two cats, both carefully adopted from local shelters; they are wonderful and well integrated into our family. Both are happy with us and vice versa. They absolutely know we love them. That love is returned in kind. I have long known that the kill ratios (in all shelters) are much higher than most people want to believe, and that is truly sad.

The problems are many, but the main one is how people think - or don't think. Spay and neuter your pets. That's the main reason for un-adoptable pets - too many of them being out there. Not their fault. Ours. Don't get a pet as a toy for your young kids, and don't expect a pet to remain sane if you are constantly out of the house for work. Just common sense, but yet, many people think pets can take care of themselves for long periods of time. Most all can't.

If we could adopt more of them, we would. If and when we get a bigger house, we will. But the big problem isn't the shelters or PETA. The organizations to help promote adoption, however they run their organizations (bad and good), have an absolutely overwhelming situation on their hands due to the pet population. A solution is to teach people what it really means to accept a pet into a house, and that's hard. Clearly, too many people can't figure that out. I can more easily accept the euthanization of that many innocent animals (as difficult a concept as that is to think about) than be willing to live with several dozen stray domestic and feral animals living outside in my neighborhood.

 

Well said.

Multiple paragraphs to explain simple arithmetic and reasoning seems overboard, but then I remembered who you are explaining this to.

 

I am not a member of PETA and I don't support everything they do. I am concerned about animal welfare and I have volunteered at the county animal shelter for five years. Sadly this is a kill shelter. All dogs that I adopted have been rescues. When dogs are in the shelter for several months and I take some of them to adoption events it is hard not to get emotionally involved. The shelter only has so much room and new animals are coming in all the time. Sadly this means that some dogs and cats are euthanized because they haven't been adopted. Most of these animals would have been wonderful companions for someone.
I want to give some information about the Centre for Consumer Freedom which seems to be the prime mover in the OP. My understanding is that The CCF is a lobbyist (some would say a hired gun) for the fast food, meat, alcohol, and tobacco industries. For anyone who is interested here are a couple of links on the CCF

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom]Center for Consumer Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Center for Consumer Freedom: Non-Profit or Corporate Shill? : The Humane Society of the United States

 

What, trreb spewing corporate propaganda against an organization they hate ?!

Who wudda thunk ?

As I said earlier, OP is a troll, and this thread is political poison. Move it to FroPo