Is The “Peta Kills Animals” Site A Load Of Nonsense?

I’d like to first state that I am not a PETA supporter. I’m not in favor or disfavor of PETA, but I am only attempting to point out how the writers for the Peta Kills Animals site (here, henceforth PKA) seem to be misleading the public, perhaps unintentionally.

PETA already freely admits that they euthanize most of the animals they get — this is not news. If you write to them and ask, they will state up front that they do, and that’s a sad fact of affairs that is freely stated as a sad fact. It’s not hidden.

PKA tries to propagandize something we already know (or would have if looked up), and lead you to believe it’s a suppressed morsel of guarded truth, when it’s actually already an open admission of the plain fact.

PETA is essentially a publicity campaign for humane treatment, and isn’t a shelter. I’m not sure how exactly it is interpreted as a shelter, because its operating budget seems to center squarely upon publicity and advertising to get a message out. Shelters don’t have the operating budget or volunteers for a lot of advertising, particularly of the kind PETA employs, so it seems pretty obvious to me that PETA would be taking up the PR helm instead of the actual duty of the shelters, and refers animal owners looking to give away their pet to an actual shelter instead, but is forced (in a humane way) to put down many of the more “broken beings” that would normally be put down at a shelter anyway, saving the shelter costs.

PKA seems to offer pretty much zero evidence of any counterclaim to their sensationalist tale, and mostly just asks questions like, “Do they expect us to believe that?” and “Did you know that PETA does so and so..?” without offering any opportunity to respond, or forum for discussion. They’re mucking up an outrageous-sounding story about something PETA already freely states.

PKA’s sarcastic claim that PETA “has an answer for everything” seems to be taken incredulously — although, wouldn’t it be worse if they couldn’t answer? Wouldn’t having an answer for an accusation be a legitimate part of due process, to actually investigate an accusation instead of just leaving it as an unresearched gripe to stew about silently?

There’s no attempt to suppress the data on PETA’s part — PETA already states these figures outright, but PKA’s writers try to frame the information in the context that it’s a huge secret.

The site also attempts to rebut PETA’s form-response regarding questions about their site, but does a mysteriously inaccurate job of it, here, even calling the response “lame” as if we couldn’t decide for ourselves.

PETA’s response letter states the facility “refers” most healthy/cute animals to shelters instead, but the rebuttal tries to list their documented “transferals”, which are two different things. I would normally associate a transferal, in this context, as an animal you already house, but instead are diverting responsibility for its care to a different facility, rather than a mere verbal referral to whomever brings in a healthy pet to use a shelter instead without even taking the animal on the books.

They also list several supposedly hypocritical actions taken by their celebrity spokespersons, but only offer details about how they were accused of misdeed and no information on what became of the accusation or how the celebrity responded, which could totally absolve them. If there’s any covering-up going on, it’s actually on PKA’s part instead of PETA.

The site also accuses PETA’s hypocritical attitude of not claiming an inability to “afford” a billboard in Times Square (which could have been a non-literal “afford” like how you couldn’t “afford” to sell your only car and just walk everwhere) but only cites two previous times in which they did, both of them 8 or more years ago, before the brunt of current financial strains. “Afford” is in the present tense, meaning it’s not in the budget “right now” as opposed to not in the budget 8+ years ago. That’s not being hypocritical, like the site seems to suggest it is.

I am convinced that PKA’s arguments stand as little more than a good example of how to take ordinary information and twist it into a sordid tale of supposed deceit and secrecy. I might point out that they have a “store” that you can buy products of theirs from. This could simply be a way to fund their efforts, or if I wanted to twist that ordinary fact around, I could suggest that they’re actually only interested in selling merchandise and have concocted this whole tale just to get people to buy from their shop. But I guess I shouldn’t ~_^

10 thoughts on “Is The “Peta Kills Animals” Site A Load Of Nonsense?

  1. PETA Kills Animals does offer clear evidence for their claim. It is right on the front page of their website. 10 years worth of records from the state of Virginia showing that Peta killed 72-73% of animals taken in in the first 4 years, and then, from 2004 on, 95-97% of the animals taken in. PETA admitted in court that the animals are not sick. It is part of PETA’s philosophy, stated many times be Ingrid Newkirk, that being a pet is as much of an enslavement of an animal as is being held and tortured in the circus.

    I do not have a problem with PETA expressing the believe that being a pet is “enslavement.”

    However, I do have a problem with PETA operating a state licensed shelter and killing 95-97% of the animals that come in. PETA lies to people about what will happen to their animals. The head of the Norfolk SPCA said they have received frantic phone calls from people who have given their pets to PETA. In her trial, Adria Hinkle admitted that it was routine procedure to lie to people who gave them animals and then to kill the animals as soon as the animals was in the PETA van.

    Please look into this. I looked at some of your other blog posts and they were quite informational.

    • I’m not saying they didn’t do those things. I’m saying there’s no evidence that it’s a big secret or that PETA has been trying to suppress the information — because it’s plainly available, right out in the open and freely admitted if you ask them.

      I didn’t say they don’t offer evidence of their “big news”, but that there are no *counterclaims* — meaning the story isn’t some big scoop that they discovered and is instead information that has been plainly out in the open the entire time.

      “Sick” and “Injured” or “Unstable” and such are different things. I’m sure a shelter could heal a sick animal, which would be providing for its living care that PETA would rightly refer pet owners to. If PETA is in the practice of deflecting the cost of euthanasia from the expenses for which shelters would otherwise be responsible, then they’re assisting shelter budgets by doing so.

      I also read your news link several times, to realize the topic is actually regarding a court case involving the improper disposal of euthanized animals in an non0designated commercial dumpster — rather than accusations of breaking promises to owners. She did mail a photograph of a living animal in a field, back to the owner who had dropped it off at PETA, after the fact it had been euthanized — but that could be the reason she’s a *former* PETA worker and may have gotten fired for it. The article is a testament to the character of this particular lady, not to PETA as an organization.

      I haven’t seen any evidence that PETA, in policy, lies to owners about treatments of their pets. I’m not sure, however, how exactly a pet owner who considers their pets as close as personal loved ones, completely fail to research the facilities they bring their pets to.

  2. If PETA is so interested in the saving of animals, and they are “not a rescue group”, then they should NOT be taking in the animals PERIOD. Why take them in if you are going to kill them?

    • PETA, in its very *name* is for the ETHICAL TREATMENT of animals, not “saving animals” necessarily. People bring in their ailing pets because they have researched*PETA and know it to be a humane group that deals with the loss of a pet appropriately and delicately.

  3. Are you paid by PETA? I understand that the organization is about promoting the Ethical Treatment of animals and not a shelter….but to put down that many animals seems criminal for an group claiming to have animals best interest at heart. They shouldn’t take any animals at all. They should just continue with putting naked celebrities on their campaigns and their shock tactic protest.

    • No, I receive nothing from them, nor give anything to them.

      They put down animals, to offset the shelters’ costs. When shelters have more funds not spent on euthanasia, shelters can better take care of healthy, adoptable animals instead of being drowned by an influx of crumbling, broken animals who are instead handled sensitively and appropriately by PETA.

  4. when you can spend loads of dollars on advertisement for animal cruelty… and they are worrying about budget for animal shelter??? why not donate those amount to animal shelter??? i think your arguments are flawed… its like… lets kill over populated kids in a family since the parents can’t feed them… in this way, you can have more budget for the remaining kids… you got two options that is acceptable in my opinion… 1) foster care 2) population control… definitely not kill…

    • It sounds to me like you (a) have no idea what animal shelters are for and (b) didn’t read one single bit of this article. It seems amazing to me that you think shelters don’t desperately seek out foster care for animals. Have you ever actually BEEN to an animal shelter and asked questions? Seriously.

  5. Not being a PETA member either but an animal rights campaigner all the same, I have noticed a very decided, and unsubstantiated attack on PETA. I have considered the facts on both sides of the argument and my personal conclusion is that ultimately there is an information war going on. PETA steps on a few pretty significant toes and make powerful people very angry. They do not water down their message and they do not cower in the face of threat and their supporters are among those that are not easily intimidated. They are forceful about their message but calling them terrorists is a laughable accusation! They are the people keeping an eye on slaughterhouses and pet shops and factory farms and in doing so they have selected the most dangerous, heart-breaking part of animal rights work. No one likes to do it, but someone must! The public is going to have to examine their own hearts as to what is right and wrong. PETA’s work is difficult. Helping us to understand that our use of animal products as we have up until now is something we’ve been socialized into for many, many hundreds of generations, but that the habit can be unlearned, that it can be changed, for the survival and betterment of the environment & humanity, is the message. They will infiltrate all sorts of places where lots of money is made from the exploitation of animals in order to expose perpetrators of violence toward animals. Legislators, fat cats in the meat and dairy industries, the pharmaceutical industries, the fashion and beauty industries (all full of corruption and organized violence), to name but a few, all hate PETA’s work BECAUSE POTENTIALLY THEY CAN BE EXPOSED FOR WHAT THEY ARE!!!. Now think please? Who would have motive to discredit PETA? Always find motive and it will lead you to the truth! Be very wary of believing something coming from mainstream media. Remember who owns the media in the first place? Powerful People!

  6. “Some believe that it is only GREAT POWER that can hold evil in check. But that is NOT WHAT I’VE FOUND. I’ve found it is the small things. Every day deeds by ordinary folk that keeps the darkness at bay.” (GANDALF)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.