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 ~_^