Documents: PETA kills more than 95 percent of pets in its care

“In a February 16 statement, the Center said PETA killed 1,911 cats and dogs last year, finding homes for only 24 pets.”

Read more:
The Daily Caller reports:

Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011.

The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers.

Fifteen years’ worth of similar records show that since 1998 PETA has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, VA…

Read the entire report.

7 thoughts on “Documents: PETA kills more than 95 percent of pets in its care”

  1. I like how so many people claim this information is a hoax because it flies in the face of their belief system and so cannot be accepted. Forget the fact that it is public record and people can go to the site and look up these numbers themselves independent of any questionable source that links to it. Fact checking helps as opposed to a blanket disbelief if you find the source distasteful. Kudos for posting this and not being a sheep, and shame on any who would say they love animals and then still support PETA given the information that is available to any who would take five minutes to look for it.

  2. Hey guys calm down We shouldn’t take stories at face value just because it confirms an existing dogma we might already. & I wouldn’t have published it here (as well as it being off topic ? maybe). Much as I despise PETA I wouldn’t like a Climate Skeptic organisation to be reported on in the same manner,
    Applying some 5 minute critical thinking
    1. It seems to good too bad to be true …extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
    2. It doesn’t seem objective at all’s published on a Friday night, which is an old trick to deny the other side the opportunity to answer back .. it’s not as if it’s time crucial as it’s the same story the anti-PETA org runs year after year
    3. It doesn’t appear on multiple independent news sites
    4. It perhaps shows aspects of cherry picking, by giving high rates for certain areas instead an average of all areas..perhaps there are other areas where the rate is lower ?
    5. It fails to context the story .. if you are dealing with the bottom end of the market the rate will be higher as you are caring for the most sick & most abused pets etc. In the UK even the RSPCA & Battersea Dogs Home euthanize about 30% of dogs they get, arguing keeping unwanted animals alive in the pound is just a life time prison sentence.
    – Having said that it’s not like the internet is full of coherent arguments saying PETA don’t kill 95%, and 95% is a hell of a lot more than 30%.
    – The story also doesn’t talk much about solutions : maybe sterilisation should be encouraged, & buy your pets from the rescue centre rather from pedigree pet shops.
    – “Ra ra ra skeptics are paid by oil companies” is the lazy chant of the alarmists.
    It harms our credibility if we stoop too their level.

  3. I’m willing to bet that PETA does this the good, old fashioned, capitalist way. They are the low bidders and minimize costs by holding the animals a minimum time before slaughter. I’m sure part of the PETA bid package is their humane and adoption policies. Unlike the animal rescue folks and other organizations who keep the animals for a while, treat them and advertise them, PETA maximizes profits. They are very cynical and these frauds need to be exposed for what they are. PETA will never get the hard look it needs from the adoring media. Where else are you going to get a photo-op of some near naked idiot saving the earth?
    The problem with a vast oversupply of pets needs to be addressed, quite possibly by slaughtering them. A lot of people think having a pet is cool until they actually have to care for them and rearrange their lives because of the pets. There is/was an organization in the midwest that rescued large cats from folks who thought the little kitties were cute and then found out that they weren’t quite so cuddly and darned expensive at 300-400 lbs.

  4. There is a procedure or method for rounding up these animals and turning them over to PETA. How else would they get 27,000 animals? Those complicit in this mass-murder operation must be exposed and vilified, and put into labor camps, even though that would be excessively humane. Those incarcerated would include those who abandon their animals. Finding people willing to volunteer as guards for the labor camps would not be difficult.

  5. I don’t know, but I would GUESS that if PETA is against slavery for animals, (preferring to then KILL them!), they wouldn’t PERMIT us to run around as “wage-slaves”. –Off to the Gulags for all but PETA apparacheks, probably. They’re Leftists, and as Liberalism is a “mental disease”, they would THINK we have the terminal- disease of Conservatism, and should be released from that “slavery”, immediately. So once we arrive at the Gulags, we’ll be shunted Left into the gas-chambers/cremetoria, imo.

  6. PETA believes that keeping pets is slavery and that death is preferable to slavery. That’s the real story. I hate to see what their solution to overpopulation is.

  7. Any leftist wouldn’t bat an eye about a “Noble-death”, because they’re always FOR “Omlets, which one can’t have without breaking (murdering) eggs (people, animals).” IS…euthanasia a “Noble-death”? Only to the propagandist and the executioner–NOT to the deceased, unless they asked for it, in irrevocable, but fully rational decline. I think it’s more “noble” to suffer and live. I wonder which breeds of animals were PLACED, and, I wonder where. Did those placed go to heavy contributors, or even to staffers that “put-in” for them? If a domestic animal was turned into a biter/”vicious”, perhaps those were necessary deaths, but shouldn’t they be kept for more than 96 hours, to determine if they were truly pathological, rather than in shock/other trauma? We find that PETA kept them less than 24 hours, because those euthanized were killed WITHIN 24 hours. I think they are hypocritical, for HOW can they “advocate” for decent treatment, when an animal in their care is speedily dispatched. Is THAT what Ethical treatment is, –a quick death, and nothing else? As PETA thinks animals are as valuable as people, I guess it’s a very good thing, no one turns the Homeless in to PETA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.