Quote:
Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom  I absolutely respect this because I understand the position from where your opinion is coming from (political).
~~~~~~~
To others - I think what is making this confusing is that people are still slamming the euthanasia/death rate - and that's why some people are asking if the article was even read and/or understood.
I'm not sure where to go from here, other than to ask - since the death rate is so troublesome, what would folks have PETA do? Would you rather they rescue these near-death, totally-beyond-treatment animals and force them to stay alive so the animal can die an excruciating and prolonged, but natural, death? Just so that PETA has a more acceptable death rate?
Look...I have no issues w/ folks who just don't want to support PETA, I get it - feel free to support what feels right. But putting down animals who are in a tortured physical state of health, who are beyond repair, is the kindest thing that can be done for these animals - and I support PETA for being stuck with this awful job of rescuing the worst of the worst. I have a lot of empathy for those people on the front lines who rescue these animals and have to make these decisions. It saddens me to have what they do criticized and misunderstood, but I do understand where that comes from - I do understand why PETA is not an easy organization for some folks to accept. |
IMHO, this is blatant exploitation. They play on the emotions of those of us who love our pets passionately for the purposes of fund raising and politics. To read Newkirk's article, you would think she was the only one in the US who could end a life humanely. I think there are 10s of thousands of Euthanasia Techs in the country who might disagree. The vast majority do their jobs with competence, compassion, respect and profound reverence. The life they end will never again suffer.
I was slow to understand that PETA changed, and I feel duped by them. I was never a big donor, but I wish I could have the money back that I sent them.