It’s also as often false as it is true. There is still such a massive demand for rescue dogs that people will pay a premium for them. There are foster households that are far from overfull. There are high-risk dog ranches that have room for more aggressive dogs, even human aggressive dogs.
Yes, there are times where you just cannot logicially find a match for a rescue. But there are also times where they put down a pet just miles away from someone who would foster or adopt them.
Unwanted animal euthanization rate in the US is arguably at an all-time low. And yet, PETA’s euthanization rate is still high, high enough that groups like the AKC are openly criticizing them for it.
There’s food that goes to waste all over the world. The main issue isn’t the lack of it, but how to get it where it needs to. People might be looking for animals to adopt while PETA euthanises the ones they receive not because they want to, but because the operational costs of shipping / holding until someone will pick up said animal would be unmanageable.
First, the fact other shelters are willing to overpop to take animals in need and are generally not overpopulated right now. Intake counts have been stagnant and predictable year over year. Shelter and adopter supply exists to match the demand and PETA isn’t just getting animals every other shelter is denying.
Second, for their operational costs. If they can’t run a shelter, then they shouldn’t run the shelter. Period. The shelters I know run on a shoestring budget and manage well enough. Perhaps if PETA were primarily a shelter and not primarily an activist organization, fewer animals would have to die.
Look at PETA’s expenses. They bring in $82MM, and spend less than $23MM of it on “Research, Investigations, and Rescue” combined. You’re right, the operational costs are too high, and they don’t want to cut into their $33+16=$49MM investment in advocacy.
Many people involved in animal rescue rightly criticize PETA for fighting for “animal rights” at the expense of the actual animals. That is why.
Animals are not ours to experiment on, eat, wear, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way. Explore this section to learn more about the issues. - PETA’s titular stance on the issues
That is NOT the value statement of an ethical shelter. That is the problem. They even think of having pets as a necessary evil in many ways.
Man that’s rrrrough
That’s why it’s important to reuse the scotch fillet, backstrap, topside roast and brisket.
It’s also as often false as it is true. There is still such a massive demand for rescue dogs that people will pay a premium for them. There are foster households that are far from overfull. There are high-risk dog ranches that have room for more aggressive dogs, even human aggressive dogs.
Yes, there are times where you just cannot logicially find a match for a rescue. But there are also times where they put down a pet just miles away from someone who would foster or adopt them.
Unwanted animal euthanization rate in the US is arguably at an all-time low. And yet, PETA’s euthanization rate is still high, high enough that groups like the AKC are openly criticizing them for it.
There’s food that goes to waste all over the world. The main issue isn’t the lack of it, but how to get it where it needs to. People might be looking for animals to adopt while PETA euthanises the ones they receive not because they want to, but because the operational costs of shipping / holding until someone will pick up said animal would be unmanageable.
While that’s true, it’s ineffective as a defense.
First, the fact other shelters are willing to overpop to take animals in need and are generally not overpopulated right now. Intake counts have been stagnant and predictable year over year. Shelter and adopter supply exists to match the demand and PETA isn’t just getting animals every other shelter is denying.
Second, for their operational costs. If they can’t run a shelter, then they shouldn’t run the shelter. Period. The shelters I know run on a shoestring budget and manage well enough. Perhaps if PETA were primarily a shelter and not primarily an activist organization, fewer animals would have to die.
Look at PETA’s expenses. They bring in $82MM, and spend less than $23MM of it on “Research, Investigations, and Rescue” combined. You’re right, the operational costs are too high, and they don’t want to cut into their $33+16=$49MM investment in advocacy.
Many people involved in animal rescue rightly criticize PETA for fighting for “animal rights” at the expense of the actual animals. That is why.
That is NOT the value statement of an ethical shelter. That is the problem. They even think of having pets as a necessary evil in many ways.