"Why We Euthanize"---A Good Article

[Nikki+2]

I know Ann. And the CCF IS the 'PETA Kills Animals' campaign. Nobody else is behind it- it's all CCF. Here is an interesting article about Richard Berman, the lobbiest who started the CCF using funding from Phillip Morris Tobacco. Center for Consumer Freedom or Deception? You Decide.

"PETA’s recent successes in gaining fast-food industry concessions for more humane conditions for farm animals have sent ripples of fear through the food and beverage service industry. About the same time that McDonald’s buckled to PETA’s demands, Richard Berman changed his front group’s name and stepped up his attacks."

They attack peta because peta protects animals from greedy heartless businesses that put $$ above the most basic human compassion.

Another interesting quote; The president of the American Federation of Teachers referred to the CCF's leader as "a shameless lobbyist who has shilled for pesticide, alcohol and tobacco companies."

They aren't just after PETA. They are a very scary group.

[BubblPopElectrc]

That's really interesting. I had heard that before but it's good to hear it from the source. The pictures are unbelievable. How do people live with themselves?

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by BubblPopElectrc

That's really interesting. I had heard that before but it's good to hear it from the source. The pictures are unbelievable. How do people live with themselves?

I don't know Kyle, I just don't know - no matter how often I see it, I still can't believe this stuff happens. I mean I can, but I can't - I think you know what I mean. The pics in this article were unbelievably disturbing, I honestly don't even know what happened in a few of those pics bc they're just so beyond recognition. Just breaks your heart.

[Woogie Man]

It's hard not to feel tons of sympathy for abused and/or shelter dogs and the folks that have to euthanize some of them. I cannot, however, for the life of me, muster up any support for PETA or the HSUS. They are the two biggest groups in the country that people commonly associate with looking out for animal welfare. They have a combined budget of nearly $150 million annually yet HSUS operates no shelters and PETA has an abominable kill rate for animals they take in. I just heard about the CCF a few days ago through a Fox news report and went to their website. While the CCF clearly has an agenda, does that make their facts any less true? According to the CCF, PETA only adopted 7 out of over 2000 pets in 2008, while 34 were transferred. The rest were killed. I don't care where these pets came from, can anyone honestly say that a group that routinely kills over 90% of pets taken in is worthy of support? PETA's average kill rate since 1998 is 85%. The shame of it all is that so many people put so much stock (and donations) in groups such as this and they routinely fail to fill the role expected of them. For my part, I'll continue to support my local humane society (HSSM) as they are on the front lines in my community dealing with homeless animals. As for PETA, HSUS and CCF, people should do their research on all these groups, pro and con, before forming an opinion. It is far too easy to sway people with disturbing photos, facts and statistics that do little to shed light on the group's true agenda. Here's a link to a CCF page where I found some of the info they are putting out.....PETA Kills Animals | PetaKillsAnimals.com

[jenna22]

this is so sad and the pictures are very disturbing.I just cant believe and understand why these people that had these poor animals let this happend.If you dont care for the animal and cant care for them and love them then why do this.I feel so sorry for all the cats and dogs that go through abuse everyday.I look at Leo and im so thankful for him and would do anything for him.I wish i could help in anyway and adopt more dogs that need a loving home.
Im so sad.when is this going to stop

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

It's hard not to feel tons of sympathy for abused and/or shelter dogs and the folks that have to euthanize some of them. I cannot, however, for the life of me, muster up any support for PETA or the HSUS. They are the two biggest groups in the country that people commonly associate with looking out for animal welfare. They have a combined budget of nearly $150 million annually yet HSUS operates no shelters and PETA has an abominable kill rate for animals they take in. I just heard about the CCF a few days ago through a Fox news report and went to their website. While the CCF clearly has an agenda, does that make their facts any less true? According to the CCF, PETA only adopted 7 out of over 2000 pets in 2008, while 34 were transferred. The rest were killed. I don't care where these pets came from, can anyone honestly say that a group that routinely kills over 90% of pets taken in is worthy of support? PETA's average kill rate since 1998 is 85%. The shame of it all is that so many people put so much stock (and donations) in groups such as this and they routinely fail to fill the role expected of them. For my part, I'll continue to support my local humane society (HSSM) as they are on the front lines in my community dealing with homeless animals. As for PETA, HSUS and CCF, people should do their research on all these groups, pro and con, before forming an opinion. It is far too easy to sway people with disturbing photos, facts and statistics that do little to shed light on the group's true agenda. Here's a link to a CCF page where I found some of the info they are putting out.....PETA Kills Animals | PetaKillsAnimals.com

In Blue: Both are animal welfare agencies. Their focus is on ALL animals- not just pets. Neither has ever claimed to be an animal shelter. That is not where their work is done.

In orange: Who is putting out information, or intentionally misleading information should be important to us all. Have you looked at their other campaigns? Do you agree with those "facts"? If so, congratulations, you've found the perfect group for you.

In purple: This was explained in great detail in the article linked. It was actually the primary purpose for the article.

Everyone has a right to who they support and what they are comfortable with but supporting completely false and extremely misleading statements is inexcusable.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

Both are animal welfare agencies. Their focus is on ALL animals- not just pets. Neither has ever claimed to be an animal shelter. That is not where their work is done.

That's exactly correct.

I don't know if people aren't really reading the article or maybe they don't know about the Asilomar Accords or whatnot - but the bottom line is: PETA has a high euthanasia or death rate because the majority of the animals they rescue during investigations are already NEAR DEATH.

They have an Asilomar rating of U/U - and nothing can really be done when an animal is Unhealthy AND Untreatable.

[Nikki+2]

Ann you are who taught me about the Asilomar Accords. For those who don't know, it is a system set up by animal welfare experts to HELP animals. There are very clear guidelines in place so there is no room for personal judgment or personal error. They are designed to help organizations work efficiently to place adoptable animals, rehabilitate those who aren't so that they may become adoptable and help end the suffering for those who have no hope.

PETA takes in animals who other shelters can not or will not take. They fall under this category:
Definitions

Unhealthy and Untreatable: The term "unhealthy and untreatable" means and includes all dogs and cats who, at or subsequent to the time they are taken into possession,


1) Have a behavioral or temperamental characteristic that poses a health or safety risk or otherwise makes the animal unsuitable for placement as a pet, and are not likely to become "healthy" or "treatable" even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community; or

2) Are suffering from a disease, injury, or congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the animal's health or is likely to adversely affect the animal's health in the future, and are not likely to become "healthy" or "treatable" even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community; or

3) Are under the age of eight weeks and are not likely to become "healthy" or "treatable," even if provided the care typically provided to pets by reasonable and caring pet owners/guardians in the community.


Animals who are treatable and adoptable are referred to a shelter, NOT taken in by peta. PETA is the LAST resort for animals who are suffering and have no hope to be treated because their condition in untreatable. They are animals who will live the remainder of their days suffering because they are UNTREATABLE and nobody else will take the responsibility to put them out of their misery. This might be because of money on the owner's part, and it can also be because shelters not having the funding to take them in (as mentioned by members here at YT who do shelter work) and sometimes so that shelters don't have a high euthanasia putting a bulls eye on them for attack.

These are the categories of animals, as defined by the Asilomar Accords, NOT taken in by peta because they are better served by shelters and are referred to shelters by peta:

Healthy
Treatable
1. Rehabilitatable
2. Manageable

You can read all of the definitions in detail at the above link and can read the guiding principles here: Guiding Principles

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

In Blue: Both are animal welfare agencies. Their focus is on ALL animals- not just pets. Neither has ever claimed to be an animal shelter. That is not where their work is done.

In orange: Who is putting out information, or intentionally misleading information should be important to us all. Have you looked at their other campaigns? Do you agree with those "facts"? If so, congratulations, you've found the perfect group for you.

In purple: This was explained in great detail in the article linked. It was actually the primary purpose for the article.

Everyone has a right to who they support and what they are comfortable with but supporting completely false and extremely misleading statements is inexcusable.

That's a colorful response. I'll keep it more black and white. Both PETA and HSUS are animal rights groups, not animal welfare groups. There is a clear distinction between the two. If PETA doesn't claim to be an animal shelter, then maybe they should close their facility where they euthanize the vast majority of those taken in. I guess you're right, though. A 90+% kill rate wouldn't meet the classic definition of a 'shelter'. My point, which you only selectively 'colored', is that most people donate to these groups, perhaps blindly, in the thought that they are doing something to help homeless pets. What you quoted in orange makes no sense at all. I never said I was a supporter of any group, but the fact is that I don't care if the devil himself puts out the info. It's either true or not. Would you care to address the truthfulness of their data showing PETA's kill rate? Your comment reminds me of those that were going off on the American Sporting Dog Alliance because they broke the story of Oprah's puppy dieing from parvo. People didn't like the messenger so they focused on that rather than the truthfulness of the info, which, by the way, was true. If their (the CCF) data is true, then shame on PETA. I only recently heard of the CCF and to say, "congratulations, you've found the perfect group for you" is insulting. Your comment about what you highlighted in purple (the purpose of the article) could be said about almost any shelter in the country. PETA gets no respect from me by posting a sad story, no matter that it's true. Finally, I agree with you that everyone has the right to support any group they wish. I happen to not support any group other than my local Humane Society. As for the CCF statements, I tend to believe them as I've heard of these kill percentages by PETA from other sources. And I'm free to believe them without supporting their agenda. What is really inexcusable is to damn someone just because they believe some data put out by someone you don't like.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

That's a colorful response. I'll keep it more black and white. Both PETA and HSUS are animal rights groups, not animal welfare groups. There is a clear distinction between the two. If PETA doesn't claim to be an animal shelter, then maybe they should close their facility where they euthanize the vast majority of those taken in. I guess you're right, though. A 90+% kill rate wouldn't meet the classic definition of a 'shelter'. My point, which you only selectively 'colored', is that most people donate to these groups, perhaps blindly, in the thought that they are doing something to help homeless pets. What you quoted in orange makes no sense at all. I never said I was a supporter of any group, but the fact is that I don't care if the devil himself puts out the info. It's either true or not. Would you care to address the truthfulness of their data showing PETA's kill rate? Your comment reminds me of those that were going off on the American Sporting Dog Alliance because they broke the story of Oprah's puppy dieing from parvo. People didn't like the messenger so they focused on that rather than the truthfulness of the info, which, by the way, was true. If their (the CCF) data is true, then shame on PETA. I only recently heard of the CCF and to say, "congratulations, you've found the perfect group for you" is insulting. Your comment about what you highlighted in purple (the purpose of the article) could be said about almost any shelter in the country. PETA gets no respect from me by posting a sad story, no matter that it's true. Finally, I agree with you that everyone has the right to support any group they wish. I happen to not support any group other than my local Humane Society. As for the CCF statements, I tend to believe them as I've heard of these kill percentages by PETA from other sources. And I'm free to believe them without supporting their agenda. What is really inexcusable is to damn someone just because they believe some data put out by someone you don't like.

I highlighted in color the points I was addressing to make my post clear. I personally find long posts, without spacing, that jump around points made in another post, difficult on my eyes and not especially enjoyable to read through. My point about the CCF's other campaigns was simply to point out that if I see a lot of obvious misinformation across every single campaign run by an organization, then I probably won't use them as my source for things I feel strongly about or view them as a valid source of information. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear for you.

Seriously, did you even read the article?

[wildcard]

I am not a PETA fan however my objections have nothing to do with their euthanasia rate. It is my understanding that PETA provides euthanasia services for shelters that don't have the facilities and that is why it is so high, they aren't designed as an agency to take in and rehab adoptable pets. I am unhappy with their positions on political issues, not with their kill rate. The fact is many pets are brought to shelters in unsaveable conditions and euthanasia is the only real option.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I am not a PETA fan however my objections have nothing to do with their euthanasia rate. It is my understanding that PETA provides euthanasia services for shelters that don't have the facilities and that is why it is so high, they aren't designed as an agency to take in and rehab adoptable pets. I am unhappy with their positions on political issues, not with their kill rate. The fact is many pets are brought to shelters in unsaveable conditions and euthanasia is the only real option.

Not that you asked, but I completely respect your point of view. I understand that some people aren't comfortable with peta and some hate their campaigns. We all have a right to an informed opinion and to support organizations that feel right to us personally.

(the following isn't to you personally wildcard)
The problem has nothing to do with those who do not support peta, for whatever personal reason- it's their right. It's those who make intentionally misleading statements and twist the facts so much that they don't even remotely resemble facts any longer. It's a terrible way to get your agenda across.

[simonandhallie]

WOW A whole 24 hours went by before PETA and the Humane Society bashing began. Call me crazy but I think that's a record! WOOT WOOT!

Let me quote myself "I am not posting this to debate any organization and I am well aware of the backlash I am sure to receive however, the article is informative and I think there will be some people here who will appreciate it as much as I did."

If you don't like PETA or the Humane Society I really could care less, the point of the article is about euthanasia and if you want to argue that ANY of those dogs would have been better off living with those injuries.......bring it!

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

I highlighted in color the points I was addressing to make my post clear. I personally find long posts, without spacing, that jump around points made in another post, difficult on my eyes and not especially enjoyable to read through. My point about the CCF's other campaigns was simply to point out that if I see a lot of obvious misinformation across every single campaign run by an organization, then I probably won't use them as my source for things I feel strongly about or view them as a valid source of information. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear for you.

Seriously, did you even read the article?

Yes, I did read the article. Except for the use of 'PETA', this could have been written by any number of shelter workers. Is there something in particular you wanted to draw my attention to? Also, sorry if you found my response difficult to read. I've never responded to a color coded post before. I would add that mis-information is being put out by all the mentioned organizations...PETA, HSUS and CCF. What one thinks of any of these groups doesn't make their statements any more or less true. As I mentioned in my first post, I think anyone should research, pro and con, any of these groups if they wish to support them. I try to keep an open mind and it isn't mandatory for me to support (or not) any group to either accept or reject their statements.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom

That's exactly correct.

I don't know if people aren't really reading the article or maybe they don't know about the Asilomar Accords or whatnot - but the bottom line is: PETA has a high euthanasia or death rate because the majority of the animals they rescue during investigations are already NEAR DEATH.

They have an Asilomar rating of U/U - and nothing can really be done when an animal is Unhealthy AND Untreatable.

I read both the article and the Asilomar Accords. I personally like to enlighten myself when it comes to all aspects of advocacy of animals. I read through both the article as well as the website posted and to me IMO they both seem to make complete sense.

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

If PETA doesn't claim to be an animal shelter, then maybe they should close their facility where they euthanize the vast majority of those taken in. I guess you're right, though. A 90+% kill rate wouldn't meet the classic definition of a 'shelter'.

Your comment reminds me of those that were going off on the American Sporting Dog Alliance because they broke the story of Oprah's puppy dieing from parvo.

I personally have never thought of PETA being an animal shelter that I would adopt a homeless dog from IMO it is reasonable that PETA would be involved in the worst of the worst animal abuse. When I think of PETA it I think seals, whales, dolphins, monkeys, circus animals etc. and advocating inhumane treatment to all animals.

I was one of those "going off on" the American Sporting Alliance when they broke the story of Oprah's puppy dying from Parvo. I for one had no idea who or what the American Sporting Dog Alliance was until that day. It wasn't until after I did much searching online did I decided that I did not personally like what I was seeing in print by founder John Yates. I personally was horrified by what I read. He took actual joy in his words reporting of a puppy's death! After reading his platform I decided to wait until there was a direct comment from Oprah regarding the aforementioned. I then posted
http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/yor...ies-parvo.html

I personally have done my research and stand behind PETA and this article.