Skip to main content
  1. Life
  2. Pets
  3. General Pets

A modest proposal: PETA should 'euthanize' only animatronic dogs and cats

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has once again made headlines for suggesting the use of animatronic technology as a means of protecting animals, this time suggesting that Punxsutawney Phil be replaced with a robotic groundhog, on the grounds that having an actual groundhog pop his head out of a hole in front of an audience once a year is a form of animal cruelty.  They had earlier suggested that UGA replace its mascot with 'robodawg' after the untimely passing of Uga's most recent incarnation.  Additionally, PETA has produced a video in which robotic cats attempt to make robotic kittens.  Clearly they are aware of the great potential this technology has for the protection of animals, but they are overlooking one use which would save thousands of dogs and cats every year, and it's right there in front of them.  It is so obvious, how could they not see it?

PETA kills thousands of pets every year, and many, if not most of these pets would be deemed adoptable by a No Kill shelter.  No Kill shelters save 90% or more of the animals that come through their doors, whether or not they are open-admission.  PETA, by contrast, seeks out and kills over 90% of the animals they get their hands on.  In 2006, they killed 97%.  In 2007, they killed 91%.  In 2008, they killed 96%.  There is no reason to believe that 2009 will be any different once the numbers are finally released.*

If PETA were to switch to 'euthanizing' robotic dogs and cats (and the occasional chicken), rather than killing actual living, breathing dogs and cats (and the occasional chicken), literally thousands of animal lives would be saved every year.  Rescuing could be left to real rescuers.  That infamous walk-in freezer at PETA headquarters could instead be filled with tofu burgers.  PETA could inject Fatal-Plus into robots while the cameras roll.  It would be great publicity.  The technology would be very simple, since the robots wouldn't need to do anything fancier than play dead.  They could be reused time and again, which would be much more environmentally friendly than  filling up dumpsters with dead pets.  The money saved by eliminating the need to cremate tons of dead pets could be spent on spay-neuter assistance, or on more  ads featuring naked celebrities.

If PETA would only stick its collective head out of its collective hole, it could catch a glimpse of the growing No Kill movement.

Everyone would live happily ever after.

*Note: The pertinent numbers to look at in these data are the numbers of animals taken in for adoption and the numbers of animals killed.  PETA habitually includes animals brought to its spay-neuter clinic for surgery to obfuscate the true gravity of its statistics.  When calculating the kill rate, the animals brought for surgery were, of course, left out.

If you liked this article and would like to receive future articles from the Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner by email, just click the 'subscribe' button at the top of this page.

Let PETA know about the benefits of 'euthanizing' robotic pets:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
501 Front Street
Norfolk VA 23510
info@peta.org
(757) 622-7382

Comments

  • Erika-Macon Dog Care Examiner 4 years ago

    PETA disgusts me, thanks for the great article!

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Thanks, Erika!

  • Tammy Durham 4 years ago

    PETA is disgusting!! I have a few dogs that they wanted put down. PETA should be run out of town on a rail

  • Jennifer Schwartz 4 years ago

    What a great article! I, too, am disgusted by PETA and their agenda...while giving true animal welfare groups a bad name and reputation.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Tammy, contact me by email (see address in my bio). Thanks all!

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    You fail to mention the other 364 days per year that the groundhog must spend confined to a plexiglass prison. When one "Phil" dies, he is replaced by another. My animal work has included wildlife rehab, and I have had the honor of raising orphaned groundhogs and acclimating them to the wild. Groundhogs, more properly called woodchucks, are extremely intellegent wild animals who build elaborate dens. They belong in the wild, not as toys kept confined to a life in prison so that people can enjoy a few hours of pointless entertainment.
    As for Peta and euthanasia, I direct you to peta.org where there is currently a post by Ingrid Newkirk that should answer your concerns about their pratice of euthanasia. Peta offers free euthanasia for injured, ill, elderly, and unwanted animals, animals that are often referred to them by the no-kill shelters who are full. Go to peta.org and look at the photos and read what Ingrid has to say.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Julie, please check out the in-line links I included in my article. Educate yourself. See the truth. It was demonstrated in the 2005 case that several of the animals PETA swiftly and unceremoniously killed and dumped were healthy and friendly. PETA sends its death van out on search-and-destroy missions every day and calls it 'rescue'. That perversion of the term, and the resulting death toll angers many people. I channel my anger into sarcasm, hence this article. I am well aware of the lies told by Ingrid Newkirk on the peta.org website. I am also well aware that a sense of humor is too much to expect from someone who has been brainwashed. I encourage you to read Nathan Winograd's book 'Redemption'. You will be doing something very naughty if you take my advice, so keep it a secret until you're done, but being naughty in that particular way is legal, moral, and not at all fattening. It's quite liberating, in fact. You can rehab your Marmota monax, and advocate for No Kill too.

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    I do not find it humorous to belittle someone's efforts to free a wild animal from captivity. Why is it that you welfarists show so much regard for some animals and so little regard for others? It has always amazed me to see animal rescuers spend so much time and effort helping cats and dogs and then order for lunch a chicken or roast beef sandwich.
    I have not been brainwashed by Ingrid Newkirk or anyone else, my opinions come from what I have seen in my life and my work. I would like to see the killing end as much as anyone. I devoted years to a low cost and free spay neuter program in rural north GA and housed as many animals as I could manage in order to prevent them from being euthanized. There were simply too many animals and no end in sight. Why don't you quit bashing Peta and go take my place in north GA? With enough time and education it could become a no kill area, but I would not leave a cat or dog waiting in a cage until that time, I would give the animal a peaceful exit.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Julie, what exactly are you trying to say? You've thrown together such a mess of contradictions and assumptions that it is difficult to understand what you are driving at. You appear stressed out and under PETA's spell. They are hypocrites ripe for satire. The number of animals needing low-cost spay-neuter in North GA will not influence my decision to ridicule PETA. If you've read anything of my other articles, you would know that I am a proponent of low-cost spay-neuter clinics. They are an essential component of the No Kill Equation, but not the whole thing. If you knew anything about me, you would know that I advocate for animals who are not dogs and cats. I have future articles planned on reptiles and amphibians, for example. If you are anywhere near Douglasville, GA, consider yourself invited to the workshop on 'Building No Kill Communities' described in another of my articles. It may just change your mind about the prospect of a No Kill Georgia.

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    Are you a vegan? If so, great! If not, you are supporting and participating in the torture and brutal killing of billions of animals yearly while criticizing people who euthanize animals out of mercy or because there is no shelter room availible. If you are not a vegan you are extremely hypocritical.
    I have nothing against no kill advocates except your misleading attack on Peta. You may not be aware of it but you are aiding the "Center for Consumer Freedom" which is a front group for the meat industry. You focus on one stupid act of two people 5 years ago and ignore the good Peta did in N.C. Check out the before and after photos of the shelter. Peta recently did an investigation that freed 26,000 exotic animals from hellish conditions. I am sure many of the animals were euthanized due to their dire conditions. Peta is not a shelter, they offer free euthanasia in situations where death is a kinder alternative than the life the animals are forced to live.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Julie-Now you're playing 'vegan cop', which is tedious, tiresome and pointless, even to other vegans. Please stick to the topic, which is PETA's lies and hypocrisy. There is nothing misleading in the article. PETA kills healthy animals and they actively seek them out to do so. It is well documented. It is not an isolated incident. They continue their disgusting behavior to this day. That the CCF has capitalized on it doesn't change the facts. Because of PETA's insistence on continuing to send out their death van, they continue to present an easy target for that group. At least you've come out as a PETA supporter who just repeats stuff off their website, something you'd denied earlier. You may think that PETA is entitled to behave the way they do. I do not. They are not synonymous with animal protection. They don't even believe that animals have a right to live. They oppose the No Kill Equation, which is the only proven method of making communities No Kill. They are a sick joke.

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    As you say, the topic is hypocrisy, and I am simply pointing out your own. At least Peta has a real reason for killing, whereas you, if you are not a vegan, kill for pleasure, a taste sensation. Simply because you hire a hit man to do your dirty work does not mean your hands are clean. No one is saying that euthanasia is a solution to overpopulation. Spay and neuter is the solution, but if we listen to Nathan Winograd, over-population is a myth. Winograd can give us his math, but he forgets to count the animals sold by breeders and the animals on the streets and in rural back yards, the ones I have seen being eaten alive by maggots and so covered with mange that they are unrecognizable as to what type of being they actually are. If Peta wants to seek those animals out and give them a mercy, they have my blessings. I don't think the 26,000 animals recently rescued by Peta's undercover investigation would agree with your assessment of Peta.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Julie, you are making baseless accusations, whereas I am presenting verifiable facts. You don't know me. PETA's seeking out and killing of healthy animals is a well-documented fact, and one that Ingrid Newkirk herself has admitted in at least one media interview. Use the Google. Pet overpopulation is a myth. Read Winograd's books. He presents abundant evidence for that. It is a conclusion he came to based on facts. Shelters continue to use "pet overpopulation" as a smokescreen to cover their failures--failure to effectively market shelter pets, failure to hire leadership and staff that truly care about animals and respect the sanctity of life, failure to provide basic cleaning and care for animals, failure to reach out to the public or to even treat them civilly, the list goes on and on. PETA is not even a legitimate animal rights organization. They have stated that they do not believe that animals have a right to live, and that is the most basic right of all. PETA is a very sick joke

  • DC Cornelius 4 years ago

    Ms.Julie,
    Thank you for not eating or wearing animals. Like you, I am vegan because I care about the welfare of ALL animals. Ms. Valerie is probably sitting in her most comfortable leather chair eating a bacon double cheese burger while spewing hate toward the greatest animal rights group on the planet. People who slam Peta are ill informed and could give a flip about animal welfare but there are people who agree with what you are saying and I am only one of many.

    To Valerie, Jennifer, and Tammy, if you really care about the welfare of animals then why not take the money you spend at your local grocery store on a weeks worth of bacon, hamburger, steak, lobster shrimp, chicken, turkey, eggs, milk, and butter and try donating it to your favorite animal welfare organization which ever one that it might be? In other words ladies do something positive and stop acting ugly.

    Think peaceful thoughts. Go vegan. The animals will love you for it!
    DC

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Your powers of clairvoyance are no better than your reading comprehension skills, which is to say, pretty lousy. I have presented verifiable facts. You respond with a bunch of nonsense that you made up. Neither of you has addressed the issue at hand, which is PETA's perverse search and destroy missions. Unless people within the organization call its leadership on the carpet over this, they will continue to kill 2000 animals per year, on average, as they have for years. Do you want the organization you believe in to continue it's slide into irrelevancy with its continued opposition to the No Kill Equation? No amount of soy milk can wash the blood off of their hands. Self-righteousness does NOT save lives. Learn the facts. Yes, they are mind-bending, but that is all the more reason to act to stop PETA. For them it is obviously NOT about the animals. They are motivated by a desire to set themselves apart from the rest of society, and punish it by killing healthy and savable pets.
    Abusers

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    I have asked you if you are a vegan and you do not answer, so I assume you are not. If you do not kill animals please correct me. I agree shelters need reform; the way the whole world treats animals needs reform. To say pet over-population is a myth is similiar to saying global warming doesn't exist; even as polar bears are drowning. Winograd mixes truth with lies which is the oldest and most damaging form of propaganda. I use Google and read the most unbiased article I could find about the current conditions at the Tompkins CO SPCA. It is in Ithica, a local newspaper. They have no agenda, they are people who live there simply reporting the news. A Nov. 2009 article reports "at this moment the SPCA is at capacity. If you want to surrender a cat, they schedule an interview...and put you on a waiting list...for a month or more." Also "they raised the fees...many towns opted out and went to private animal control officers." In this unfortunate world I live in, when someone wants to get

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (continued) rid of their cat you do not put them on a waiting list, if you do, the cat will suffer the consequences. We know what private animal control does. That is why Peta euthanizes animals. Peta has done an enormous amount of good in this world, every time you see a label that says "not tested on animals" you should thank Peta. Poring bleach in rabbit's eyes is a horrible thing to do. Stop tearing down good work.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    I did answer you. This issue is not about anyone's eating habits, but here's the easy reader version for you-I am a vegan, though I do find that self-righteous individuals make it embarrassing to admit that. I haven't eaten meat in almost 22 years. I find the discussion of vegetarianism to be tedious at best, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. I am not interested in a condescending little pat on the head from the likes of DC. Are only vegans allowed to criticize PETA? That is patently absurd. As for the TCSPCA, they do intake interviews to determine the urgency of each individual case. Urgent cases are taken in immediately. One of the tenets of the No Kill Equation is that shelters should help people to keep the pets that they already have. An interview may reveal that someone wants to relinquish and animal for reasons which can be remedied. They periodically ask for more money from their contracting municipalities. They are No Kill with a fraction of the funds of most kill shelters.

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    Thank you for your answer. The issue is about killing animals, and that topic should include all animals. I am not self- righteous; I became a vegan because I recognized my own hypocrisy. I was hitting hard on the topic with you because there are many no-kill advocates who support slaughterhouses, and it hypocritical. Winograd did an interview for CCF to promote his agenda to tear down Peta. He is aiding the meat industry in order to promote his agenda and that approach is hurting the animals. I want to see a no-kill future just as you do but not at the expense of other animals lives, the animals in the laboratories, factory farms, and circuses. No one is working to help those animals as much as Peta. Also, I do not want to see a no-kill concept that causes more suffering for cats and dogs. There are two serious problems with TCSPCA, a month or more waiting list for cats and the fact that local towns are turning to private for-profit animal control companies. The article was written

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) before the 100 new animals were rescued from the hoarder. You say they will take the animal if the case is urgent, but how do you judge urgency? There are far too many people who will not wait or endure an interview and will dump the animals on the side of the road. I have seen too much of the horrible suffering of abandoned animals. But the idea of no-kill is wonderful. Why can't you work for a no-kill future without tearing down Peta? Peta is not a shelter, they work to promote low cost spay/neuter, and to end animal suffering in other industries. They also get many calls about abused and neglected animals, and the shelters are full. The fact that there is a waiting list at TCSPCA disputes Winograd's book title. He is a spin artist, and is covering the internet with his propaganda. The animal abuse industries also have their own spin artists. I am not just debating with you for fun, I find it disturbing that people who claim to love animals are working to distroy Peta.

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) I believe you really do love animals but you have a distorted view of Peta, and that you are buying into Winograd's propaganda about Ingrid Newkirk. Please take a closer look at what you are doing.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Most people have more compassion and social skills than you give them credit for. You appear to have given up on humanity and embraced PETA's death machine. Shame on you. A just-published article on Aol News has this to say: "In 2009, PETA euthanized 2,301 dogs and cats--97 percent of those brought in--and adopted only eight, according to Virginia state figures. And the rate of these killings has been increasing. From 2004 to 2008, euthanasia at PETA increased by 10 percent." It goes on to point out that since 2004 their kill rate has climbed 10%. Nationwide, kill rates are declining on average. Theirs are going up. PETA doesn't need me to destroy it. It is destroying itself. They claim to champion animal rights. What rights? The right of healthy kittens and their healthy mother, who had been cared for by a VET up until said vet was duped into giving them to PETA employees for rehoming, to be killed in the back of a van and dumped in a grocery store dumpster? "Not a shelter", indeed.

  • Allison 4 years ago

    I believe the newspaper article to which Julie is referring is one that ran in the Ithaca Times (a free weekly paper). Julie is giving it too much credit for impartial and accurate reporting; all of us TCSPCA volunteers who read it immediately spotted several fallacies. In the interest of fair and balanced reporting, here's the response from the TCSPCA's executive director:

    "To the editor: Thank you for the opportunity to address some elements of the Nov. 11 Times' cover story , "Tompkins County SPCA facing no-kill policy challenges". Off of that article, we'd like your readers to know:

    • People wanting to relinquish a pet are not charged a fee, nor do we request a donation of cat food. A donation is requested to help cover the average $600 it costs the SPCA per animal relinquished, though one is rarely made.

    (cont'd)

  • Allison 4 years ago

    (cont'd)

    • When our finite number of cages and foster homes are full, we schedule intakes of animals a couple of weeks out, when possible, but there is no month-long waiting list.

    • Eva Bayer is no longer receiving FREE spay/neuter surgery for cats—she was not turned away. The SPCA cannot absorb the cost of her rescue work; we will provide the surgery but the fee must be paid.

    • The SPCA does work with cat rescuers: since January of last year, we have provided 105 s/n surgeries for Eva Bayer (free) and 62 for Susan Mix . .

  • Allison 4 years ago

    . . . in additionto subsidizing 56 more surgeries performed by private veterinarians.

    • "No Kill" means that no healthy, adoptable animals are killed; it does not mean animals are not euthanized ever, which is the definition of a sanctuary. The SPCA euthanizes Feline Leukemia positive cats as a matter of policy, and has previously noted that fact.

    • A judge's order for a dog euthanasia only pertains to a "dangerous dog" court case as mandated by New York State Agriculture and Markets Article 7 law and by local ordinance. This involves dog control, not the SPCA itself. As an
    independent 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, government is not involved in any decision making or policy.

  • Allison 4 years ago

    • The SPCA's commitment to the community is to put only safe and manageable dogs up for adoption. Those with severe behavioral issues such as aggression to humans or other animals are euthanized.

    • Finally, New York State Law indicates that cats are `free to roam', therefore we have no legal authority to pickup and transport cats believed to be without owners. Cats are only seized by a Humane Investigator after an investigation
    has been conducted and a warrant has been obtained.

    Abigail Smith
    Executive Director
    SPCA of Tompkins County"

  • Allison 4 years ago

    At least one Tompkins County town (Ulysses) which contracted with another animal control agency last year has returned to using the TCSPCA's services for dog control this year.

  • Allison 4 years ago

    As for PETA not being a shelter, I couldn't agree more . . . but then why are they calling themselves "a shelter of last resort"? Best Friends is REALLY a shelter of last resort, and they don't kill animals just because it's too much work to try to find homes for them.

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    Yes, "a shelter of last resort" because Peta offers free euthanasia to sick and dying animals, and animals who are not adoptable. I will be euthanizing my own beloved elderly cat in the near future to spare him a painful death of kydney failure. Call me a killer if you wish. If you are going to compare Peta's record to that of a shelter's then you ought to compare the true number of animals rescued and saved by Peta next to the animals euthanized by Peta. Rescued and saved, in my mind, means being released from conditions that cause horrible suffering. In 2010, for instance, Peta has already, in one investigation, rescued over 26,000 animals from torturous conditions, and fought two costly court battles to put the owners of the exotic trade out of business, so that they will not be torturing animals in the future. Every company who no longer tests on animals because of Peta's work amounts to countless lives saved from horrible and systematic torture. (continued)

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    Every fashion designer and business that has stopped selling fur because of Peta saves countless animals from being skinned alive. Peta's mobile spay/neuter has sterilized thousands of animals, which saves hundreds of thousand of animals from being born into a world where they are not wanted. Peta ended GM's crash tests on pigs and baboons, saving the animals from having their heads bashed in while fully conscious. Peta rescued animals from horrible neglect and abuse from no-kill shelter "All Creatures Great and Small" and put the owner out of business so she will not be abusing animals in the future. The list of animals saved by Peta goes on and on, and the numbers are enormous. Recently, a Ringling employee gave Peta photos he had taken during his employment at Ringling's training facility. The photo's show horrible abuse of baby elephants being chained, bullhooked, slammed to the ground and shocked with electric devices. (See them at circuses.com) (continued)

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) The Ringling employee gave the photos to Peta and not to another organization because he knew that Peta is the organization who will use them most effectivly and eventually put Ringling out of business. You speak of Peta's record as if sheltering is what they do. Peta refers many healthy adoptable animals to local shelters and euthanizes the ones that are sick and suffering and dying. Valerie, if you are going to continue to bash Peta, you need to come up with a new example of a misdeed by a Peta employee because your single example out of the 30 years since Peta was founded is becoming tiresome. Those two employees were removed from their jobs five years ago because they did wrong. By the way, I did not say that you are destroying Peta, don't flatter yourself, I said that you are trying to destroy Peta. You will not succeed; Peta is on an unstoppable path of victories for the animals.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Julie, I am sorry to hear about your cat. I lost a much-loved cat to kidney failure last year. The incident in 2005 which brought PETA's disgraceful killing practices into the public spotlight was NOT an isolated incident. They kill healthy pets every day. They lie to people to obtain them. The death van still rides. Ingrid Newkirk has admitted in media interviews that PETA kills healthy pets. On the PETA website, however, they say otherwise-lying to their supporters. You seem to be simultaneously claiming that PETA only euthanizes medically hopeless animals, (a practice which is widely accepted by caring pet owners, and shelters following the No Kill Equation) and making a plea that they be absolved of killing animals because of their other campaigns. I see this as an indication that, on some level, you realize that their killing and lies are wrong, and that is causing you some cognitive dissonance and making you uncomfortable, but you can't have it both ways.
    See bit.ly/akMzX

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    I have no discomfort with Peta, I agree with them. Peta does not lie to supporters, they are clear where they stand on euthanasia. Ingrid has said that MOST animals they take in are unsocialized, dying, sick, or aggressive and that they refer adoptable dogs to shelters or adoption groups. I know they refer to shelters and adoption groups because I have witnessed it. If there is no room for an animal, I am sure Peta will euthanize. What are they to do, set the animal on the street? When I was in north GA, I was faced with the same situation, too many animals and not enough room to hold them, and we were doing everything in our means to foster and adopt, even transporting loads of animals bi-weekly to Atlanta adoptions where there were more available and suitable homes. I am not asking you to absolve Peta of anything. I am asking you to look at the totality of their work, the numbers rescued verses the numbers euthanized, just as you would a shelter. (Continued)

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) The problem is that it is more difficult to see Peta's actual numbers. Peta's recent investigation that rescued 26,400 exotic animals, for instance, would not be on record as animals taken in by Peta because the animals were actually seized by Texas officials, but it was Peta's work that lead to the seizure and Peta funded transportation, food, housing, and two costly court battles to prevent the owners from regaining the animals. In other words, 26,400 animals were saved by Peta and if that was the only thing they did all year it would bring down their kill rate significantly, but it will not show that way on paper. I'll give you a different kind of example. After Hurricane Katrina, I was in New Orleans doing volunteer work with Peta. We had a makeshift shelter in a decrepit warehouse that filled up with rescued cats and dogs. A shelter in Florida agreed to take the animals and they were transported to Florida. It was Peta employees down there doing the work and (continued)

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) the animals were saved but they did not legally go to Peta, therefore on paper it will not change their kill rate. Have you ever seen photos of the shelter in North Carolina before Peta's help? It was a wire fence around bare dirt with cats in cages located right in the middle of uncaged dogs and people were gassing animals in an old gas chamber. Peta stepped into help and built them a new shelter. There were some misdeeds by two Peta employees, we can all agree on that. Peta prevented many animals from suffering a death in a gas chamber and they made a very bad situation better but have gotten nothing but grief for it. Where do you get your misinformation that Peta lies and takes peoples pets? From Nathan Winograd? His depiction of Ingrid Newkirk is fiction from his warped imagination. She is the kindest person on earth.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Julie, I'm glad to see that you finally came out as a PETA employee. It sure took long enough. I'm sad to hear that PETA's wholesale slaughter of pets does not cause you discomfort. But you finally admitted, "If there is no room for an animal, I am sure Peta will euthanize." So they kill animals "for space" and they don't have a proper shelter facility, which means that they basically don't have space, unless you want to count that infamous walk-in freezer. They alternately claim that they are a "shelter of last resort" and "not a shelter". Which one is it? Sounds dishonest to me. Those other animals you mention are lucky to have been taken in by other facilities. Had they gone to PETA, they would likely have met the same fate as 97% of the animals that landed in their clutches did last year, which would only drive their kill numbers up. I wouldn't put it past them to want to play some games with numbers, and claim animals taken in by others. I guess the state of VA doesn't allow it.

  • Allison 4 years ago

    PETA has done some good work in calling attention to and hopefully reducing some inhumane practices (e.g. fur as fashion), but that does not excuse its killing of adoptable animals based on its unilateral judgment that they're better off dead than being temporarily confined while homes are sought for them. PETA should stick to what it does best (over-the-top stunts to draw attention to issues) and leave sheltering to groups who actually provide shelter rather than death. I'm not inclined to trust PETA's word for all of the animals they killed being untreatably ill, given their past shiftiness (shelter/non-shelter, different answers in interviews vs. website).

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    Valerie, I am not a Peta employee. If you look at my comment you will see I said I was a volunteer for Peta in New Orleans. I was working there alongside Peta employees. The term "shelter of last resort" is simply a euphemism for offering humane euthanasia to sick, injured, aged, dying, unsocalized, aggressive, therefore unadoptable animals. If I were a dog on a chain with a collar grown into my neck while suffering from heartworms and mange death would be my shelter. How is it that you people are so literal that you could not understand that simple euphemism? Peta went to North Carolina to give humane euthanasia to prevent the animals from suffering terribly in a gas chamber. They did not go there to bring animals back to VA because the shelters in VA do not have the space, it would only flood an already overburdened system, therefore Peta euthanised the animals DUE TO LACK OF SPACE, but the only reason they were there at all was to prevent the animals suffering violent deaths. (Cont.

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) And yes, the Peta employee did wrong, we all couldn't agree more on that subject, and she was removed from her job. There is no contradiction or hidden agenda, at least, not by Peta. You say the 26,400 exotic animals Peta recently rescued were lucky that they did not go to Peta. If it were not for Peta they would all be still trapped in cages starving to death. Will you see that you are making no sense at all?

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    Allison, no one at Peta has ever said that animals would be better off dead than temporarily confined and no one at Peta has ever said anything close to that. That is propaganda offered by Peta's opposition, the meat industry, for instance. See how it spreads and starts to seem like reality?

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Julie, you said you were a PETA volunteer, then you said that PETA employees did work in NOLA and used the word 'we'. I call that a slip on your part, but whether or not you are on their payroll is not my concern. My concern is that PETA kills healthy and savable pets rather than try to find them homes. They have been deservedly criticized for this by many animal advocates, including Gary Francione, a former supporter: bit.ly/akMzX. Your attempt to argue that their use of the term "shelter of last resort" is a euphemism for the euthanasia of irremediably suffering animals is absolutely priceless. Things sure are getting curiouser and curiouser. The term 'euthanasia' applied to the mercy killing of irremediably suffering pets requires no euphemism-for that it is the correct term. You are attempting to apply a new and absurd euphemism (ie a lie)to an old euphemism (lie) that the No Kill movement is causing many to rightfully abandon. PETA kills savable pets-you admitted it. Progress!

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    Gary Francione parted ways with Peta at least 15 years ago because he does not believe animal rights activists should help with animal welfare issues. Francione continually criticizes Peta on that issue alone. He also states that Peta promotes sexism because of the anti-fur ads. It is absurd that a man would call women sexist for using their own bodies for a political cause. Francione has for many years been a major critic of almost everything Peta does, and it is misleading to bring him into this discussion as "a former supporter". I did not say Peta kills savable pets. If the animals in the North Carolina shelter were savable, why weren't you and Gary Francione and all of Peta's other critics going to N.C. and saving them? They were being gassed in an ancient gas chamber and Peta offered a kinder way to prevent the animals from suffering violent deaths. You offer no evidence that Peta is killing savable pets.

  • Valerie Hayes, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    You object to my calling Gary Francione a former PETA supporter, then you say that he parted ways with them 15 years ago, which means that he is, in fact a former supporter. I too happen to find their tactics sexist. If you want your political views to be taken seriously, you need to dress the part. That means wearing clothing. Other social movements advanced their cause while fully dressed. I'm thinking of those who campaigned for womens' suffrage and civil rights or against child labor and so forth. PETA's naked antics are sexist an also serve to trivialize the importance of protecting animals from abuse. PETA kills savable pets. Savable is defined as healthy or treatable. You have admitted that they kill the healthy and treatable. You said (in all caps) that they kill for space. That is what that means. You are so mired in double-talk that you claim to have lost the ability to understand your own words. Where is their Petfinder site? Read my other articles. Several are on gassing.

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    The human rights campaigns that you refer to differ from the animal rights campaign in that with human rights campaigns the oppressed have a voice and can act to liberate themselves, whereas, obviously, animals have no such thing. Barbaric and cruel use of animals is entrenched in humankind's daily exisitance, and there is a mass consensus to not acknowledge the cruelty, as it is the refusal of acknowledgment that allows the majority of people to participate, people who would have no wish to see inside a slaughterhouse. Peta uses sex, not sexism, to draw attention to an idea that almost no one wants to hear because hearing would mean change. Peta has created a message that it is sexy, fashionable, and hip to be kind. I cannot find anything wrong with that. Some people complain because they do not like Peta's portrayal of sexy, but Peta did not create it, society did, and Peta is simply working with the material at hand to create a better world for the animals. (continued)

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) If it isn't effective, how is it that Peta is the largest animal rights organization in the world?
    I have read your articles concerning H.B. 788 and I applaud you for any work that you have done to help with passing the bill. Peta originally went to North Carolina by invitation from a police officer who was distressed at the cruel methods shelters were using to kill animals. If Peta were a no-kill organization they could not have acted on the information they received because action involved teaching more humane ways to euthanize, and it involved Peta having to euthanize. You are a no-kill advocate who is supporting a law for humane euthanasia of shelter animals as oppose to gassing and Peta is an animal rights group that has taught humane euthanasia as oppose to gassing, both are embracing ideas that we all consider halfway and temporary measures, but measures that are certainly better than what currently exists. (continued)

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) You should rethink your criticism of Peta's work in N.C.,
    apart, of course, from the two employees' misdeeds. Peta's work in N.C. has saved many animals from a brutal death in the gas chambers.
    Your definition of savable is that the healthy or treatable are savable regardless of any other circumstances. A Peta employee who formerly worked at a no kill shelter witnessed a pitbull who was kept caged for twelve years. The dog was savable and treatable, but apparently not adoptable. That kind of lengthy confinement is animal cruelty.

  • Valerie, Atlanta Animal Welfare Examiner 4 years ago

    Answer this one question Julie: Why doesn't PETA even have a Petfinder site?

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    In order to have a petfinder site Peta would have to house animals, either in a shelter or a fostering system, while the animals are awaiting adoption on the petfinder site. Peta could afford to run a shelter, of course, but Peta believes that spending time and resources on a low cost spay neuter program and an animal birth control education program is a more effective way to address the homeless pet situation because Peta believes overpopulation is the source of the problem. When working in sheltering, fostering, and adoption, I came to the same conclusion, and started a low cost spay neuter program to address the issue. From my personal experience I learned that animal overpopulation is the biggest reason for homeless pets. Nathan Winograd's math is based on animals that are already in shelters, whereas I am basing my assessment on the animals in the shelters and the abandoned animals in the streets and in rural back yards and the animals being churned out by breeders. (continued)

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    (cont.) Many rural counties do not have shelters at all, yet are flooded with homeless and neglected animals. Those animals do not count in Winograd's calulations. I once received a call from a police officer who was distressed because his fellow officers were addressing dog overpopulation by shooting homeless dogs behind a building. I investigated and found the remains of many dead dogs. The county had no shelter. Those animals do not count into Winograd's calculations.
    The way that Peta's euthanasia rate is being presented on the internet by the no kill community is extremely misleading. Peta, for instance, offers free euthanasia to people with critically injured or dying animals, people who could otherwise not afford a vet. Comparing Peta's euthanasia rate to that of a shelter is deceiving.
    This past winter, my sister was in urgent need of a shelter or foster home for a purebred black lab she had rescued. The dog was totally adoptable, housetrained, neutered, and socialized,

  • Julie Robertson 4 years ago

    but all no kill shelters, all rescue groups, all foster homes were full with a several month waiting list. She contacted quite a few as she was willing to transport the dog but they were all full. As long as no kill shelters are turning animals away, they are not, in reality, no kill, because the animals they turn away are going somewhere, either to open admission shelters or they are being abandoned. No kill shelters turn animals away due to lack of space, and the animals will end up being euthanized somewhere due to lack of space. No kill shelters turn away healthy adoptable pets, letting someone else deal with the dirty reality of overpopulation, while taking the moral highground and criticizing the ones that are dealing with the pets they have turned away. You and I have the same goal, which is to stop the killing of animals unless for humane reasons and to reduce and end animal suffering. The no kill movement is being destructive by trying to tear down the good work of others.

Pages

Add a comment

Join the conversation! Log in here or create a new account if you've never registered before.

Got something to say?

Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!

Advertisement

Life

  • Weight loss
    Doctor's have discovered a potential breakthrough for future obesity treatments
    Video
    Shocking Discovery
  • Sharpen home improvement skills
    Different ways to sharpen your home improvement skills
    Home Improvement
  • Fun 40th birthday
    Planning a 40th birthday is also a great way for you to explore more of your creativity
    Camera
    Birthday Ideas
  • Ornamental trees
    Best small accent and ornamental trees for a yard or garden space
    Ornamental Trees
  • Lindsay Lohan
    Lindsay Lohan suffered a miscarriage while she was taping her reality TV series
    Lindsay Lohan
  • Aquarium trips
    Homeschooling: Making the most out of your aquarium trip
    Camera
    6 Photos

User login

Log in
Sign in with your email and password. Or reset your password.
Write for us
Interested in becoming an Examiner and sharing your experience and passion? We're always looking for quality writers. Find out more about Examiner.com and apply today!