"Why We Euthanize"---A Good Article
 

I just read this blog from PETA about why they euthanize so many animals and while it is VERY DISTURBING (that's a warning) it is a very well written, heartfelt article that explains a lot. There are pictures so please be aware before you look.

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.


The PETA Files: Why We Euthanize

Good article.

I second the warning though. DO NOT view the link if you cannot handle very graphic and sad pictures!!

Good article but
I´m speechless. I can nothing do against animal cruelty and for those poor pets and will have a sleepless night. I can´t say nothing more to this. I see the photos and my heart breaks.

I am reposting the article below without the very graphic pictures. This way when you come to this thread you DO NOT HAVE AN EXCUSE not to be informed! You need to arm yourself with as much information as possible for the sake of animals.

That is a very informative article from PETA and a very sad reality of the world that we live in. I'm sure that everyone here is sick of me saying this but before you shop you need to adopt. There are plenty of pets in shelters DYING for a loving home.



In my first year working at a grossly substandard animal shelter in Maryland, I forced myself to go in early to euthanize dogs by holding them in my arms and gently helping them escape an uncaring world without trauma or pain and to spare them from being stabbed haphazardly—while they were fully conscious, terrified and aware—in the general vicinity of their hearts with needles blunt from reuse and left to thrash on the floor until they finally died by the callous people who would arrive later to do the job.

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring "technicians," or animal abusers.

It's easy to point the finger at those who are forced to do the "dirty work" caused by a throwaway society's casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals—even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn't have enough heart or homes with room for them. It makes it easy for people to throw stones at us, but we are against all needless killing: for hamburgers, fur collars, dissection, sport hunting―the works. PETA handled far more animals than 2,124 in 2008. In fact, we took in more than 10,000 dogs and cats and work very hard to persuade people to spay and neuter their animals and to commit to a lifetime of care and respect for them. We go so far as to transport animals to and from our spay/neuter clinics, where they are spayed or neutered and given vet care, often for free! Since 2001, PETA's low- to no-cost spay-and-neuter mobile clinics, SNIP and ABC, have sterilized more than 50,000 animals, preventing hundreds of thousands of animals from being born, neglected, abandoned, abused, or euthanized when no one wanted them. And on a national level, PETA is focusing on the root of the problem through our Animal Birth Control (ABC) campaign.

If anyone has a good home, love, and respect to offer, we beg them: Go to a shelter and take one or two animals home. The problem is that few people do that, choosing instead to go to a breeder or a pet shop and not "fixing" their dogs and cats, which contributes to the high euthanasia rate that animal shelters face. Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called "pets," as they had spent their lives chained up in the back yard, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone's, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a painless release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.

Every day, PETA's fieldworkers help abused and neglected dogs—many of them pit bulls nowadays and many of them forced to live their lives on chains heavy enough to tow an 18-wheeler—by providing them with food; clean water; lightweight tie-outs; deworming medicine; flea, tick, and fly-strike prevention; free veterinary care; sturdy wooden doghouses stuffed with straw bedding; and love.

What we see is enough to make you lose faith in humanity. One pit bull we gained custody of, named Asia, looked like a skeleton covered with skin when PETA released her from the 15-pound chain she had been kept on for years. Asia suffered from three painful and deadly intestinal obstructions, which prevented her from keeping any food down. She faced an agonizing, lingering death, so our veterinarian recommended euthanasia to end her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their conviction for cruelty to animals. That is just one of the dozens of cases we see every week.

The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.

As long as animals are still purposely bred and people aren't spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis. PETA is proud to be a "shelter of last resort," where animals who have no place to go or who are unwanted or suffering are welcomed with love and open arms.

Please, if you care about animals, help prevent more of them from being born only to end up chained and left to waste away in people's back yards, suffering on mean streets where people kick at them or shoo them away like garbage, tortured at the hands of animal abusers, or, alas, euthanized in animal shelters for lack of a good home. If you want to save lives, always have your animals spayed or neutered.

Posted by Ingrid E. Newkirk

good idea on posting the article without the pictures. this way everyone can read without the shock value of the pictures.

Such a great article...Thanks for sharing it with us...Its very important that we not only educate ourselves but REALLY need to educate our youth. They are the future..

This article is incredibly heartbreaking, however, it says in pictures what I've tried to say many times regarding PETA and euthanasia. PETA, during the course of investigations, often rescues the *very* worst of the worst - the indescribable, the animals you almost wish you'd never seen bc their state may haunt you for the rest of your life. That is why PETA's euthanasia rate is higher than many.

For those unfamiliar w/ the Asilomar Accords, I'd suggest checking them out before judging an organization's euthanasia rate - those guideposts for assessing an animal are what animal welfare organizations use - and like I said, PETA takes in the worst. It's tragic, but when an animal is so near death or so untreatable, choices have to be made and sometimes euthanasia is the kindest path for certain animals, as sad as that is. :(

Omg
 

This article is so good, but so hard to take, I cannot believe that people are so mean....Why???????? This just broke my heart I wish I had not seen the pictures, but it was to late..Just made me cry...:(

I know what you mean. As I was 12 I got my first dog. He was a shelter dog a bassethound. He was two years. He was friendly and nice and the best friend for me and my sister. At the age of 19 I moved in my own very little rooms in another town. Basco as we called him stayed into my mothers house with a big garden and my mother had much more time for caring him and for going walking with him as I. I saw him every weekend. As I was 25 he had some illnesses and was every month treated by the vet. He was slowly and blind but had no pain. A year later he changed his personality and attacked my mother so she must stayed in hospital some days.
Basco was now 17 years old. It was very hard to decide what to do. Mother feared him now and sister was attacked by him too. And I had no chance to get him because I had only 1 room for living and was every day working about 12 hours. I took him to the vet and the diagnose was brain cancer. How sad. Our hope in the past was that he sleep at one evening and never wake up at the morning because he was 17 and this is a very very high age for a basset hound.
It was so hard but I spoke with my family and took him to the vet again for putting him to sleep. I think that was a heartbreaking but best decision for him. A friend of mine was angry and said I should him give to another owner or a shelter. But Basco was 17 and had brain cancer and other illnesses (urea, heart, blind) - he had never understand what is going on and why he lost his home. I couldn´t took him to another owner because he had attacked him again. And I couldn´t took him in a shelter - that were no life for him. He had a long life as a beloved pet and I´m sure that he had us forgiven.

What a very sad story of your beloved pet Basco. I too had to have our lab put to sleep for brain cancer as well. It is called doing the responsible things for the love of your pet when you make the hard decision to have to PTS your pets. Although it is a very hard decision to make it is also out of love that we had to make our decisions. It is those that inflict pain and suffering upon god creatures that make me sick. People that cause pain and needless suffering to animals that should be held accoutable for what they do. I am sure that your Basco knows that you loved him now and always. :(

Excellent Point Made!!

those pictures show the worst of the worst. that one picture of the dog with the cancer ridden face is still in my mind. I have no idea how that dog was alive like that. its very very sad. 3 of those animals clearly had horrible cancers and their owners should have done something about it long before it got to that point....... it just makes me so mad. the only escape from pain for those animals is euthanasia and thankfully someone was there to help them finally lose the pain.

I know you don't want an argument - and honestly, I'm not wanting to start one - but I am also trying to understand all of this & the report that came out last week reporting that PETA killed 95 percent of its adoptable pets in 2008. I'm just trying to understand how PETA explains this?

Press Release | PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008

Posted On March 25, 2009




PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008

Hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339

WASHINGTON DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters.

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.

Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.

CCF Research Director David Martosko said: “PETA hasn’t slowed down its hypocritical killing machine one bit, but it keeps browbeating the rest of society with a phony ‘animal rights’ message. What about the rights of the thousands of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens that die in PETA’s headquarters building?”

Martosko added: “Since killing pets is A-OK with PETA, why should anyone listen to their demands about eating meat, using lab rats for medical research, or taking children to the circus?”

CCF obtained PETA’s “Animal Record” filings since 1998 from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Members of the public can see these documents at PetaKillsAnimals.com.

I was wondering how those dogs & cat got like that...cancer?! Awful, but I think PETA is helping those animals end their suffering.

Excellent article. It's heart wrenching but the evil of some people is inconceivable for most of us. I know many animal organizations don't want to deal with these worst of the worst cases because of messing with their statistics and suffering the kind of backlash that peta is now. None of us like seeing horrifying pictures of abused and neglected animals but I think it is important to at least take a quick glance at the link to grasp the level of animal that peta handles.

It is extremely important to know who peta's main detractors are and where pretty much most of the negative "facts" about them come from. The CCF Center for Consumer Freedom is a group of lobbiest working for the industries that are hurt when peta steps in for animal welfare.

Center for Consumer Freedom - SourceWatch
The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network") is a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

CCF can turn fiction into fact like nobody's business. They are the definition of a propagandist group. I mean, this is a group that is *against* MADD bc it hurts the alcohol industry. :(:(:(

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.

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. :(

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

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 :(

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 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.

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

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?

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.:thumbup:

(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.

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!

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.

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.

I personally have never thought of PETA being an animal shelter that I would adopt a homeless dog from :confused: 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! :mad: 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.