PETA a wolf in sheep’s clothing
March 12, 2013
Animal rights activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is known for its theatrics – naked ladies sitting on a grill in protest of eating meat on a street corner and explicit promotional commercials that are banned from airing on the Super Bowl, are just a few of their favorite antics.
While more people are seeing PETA for the extremist group that it is, there are still many who willingly donate money to the organization with the best intentions of saving dogs and cats. However, a new report from the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) shows that PETA isn't a second-chance group for animals in need of new homes, it's the last-chance.
A wolf in sheep's clothing, PETA willingly takes money from consumers, knowing they are going to use it to not save animals but to destroy them. At PETA's national animal care shelter, CCF says that PETA killed 89.4 percent of the animals under its care in 2012, averaging around 30 adoptable dogs and cats killed per week.
According to records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 1,647 cats and dogs last year while placing just 19 in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 29,398 pets have died at the hands of PETA workers.
J. Justin Wilson, CCF senior research analyst says the hypocrisy of PETA is an outrage, and he wants to get the word out, to not only pet owners, but livestock producers, as well.
"It has become painfully clear that PETA makes little effort to get these animals adopted," Wilson said. "Instead of being called an animal shelter, they would be better classified as a euthanasia clinic, or better yet, a slaughterhouse. They don't seem to give the same scrutiny to taking care of animals as they do in putting them down."
Recommended Stories For You
At the core of the matter, Wilson says that PETA's philosophy is to liberate animals from their "horrible lives on earth," something that should concern, whether they own a cat or a herd of cattle.
"Overall, PETA's credibility on the subject of animal welfare is pretty diminished," he added. "Yet, knowing this information shows just how radical this organization is. We need to make sure that PETA's donors understand what they do, but also it's one of those statistics that will shock consumers as they learn about it. As PETA continues this extreme hypocrisy, we need to get the word out."
With a $36 million annual budget, PETA's threat to livestock producers pales to the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), which has a $130 million annual budget and has vowed to abolish animal agriculture in the U.S., while promoting a vegan and vegetarian society. Sounds like an out-of-reach goal, but each year, HSUS is able to support, endorse and pass new laws an regulations, whether through a bill or a ballot initiative, that adds increased pressure on ranchers.
"HSUS certainly has its own black eye when it comes to honesty and integrity in what they do with their money," explained Wilson. "I encourage folks to check out CCF's website, HumaneWatch.org to get more facts on how HSUS deceives its donors and uses that money to work against animal agriculture. So many people think they are doing the right thing by donating to PETA or HSUS, but they would be better off donating to hands-on animal shelters. Neither of these organizations are involved with animal care; in fact, PETA is the exact opposite of animal care, and HSUS does nothing at all. We think consumers have a right to understand who they are, what they do and how they operate."
For more information, on PETA's extreme use of euthanasia, check out http://www.PETAKillsAnimals.com, where CCF has made public PETA's "Animal Record" filings with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for every year since 1998.