PETA rakes in $34 million, but only saves 8 animals
posted at 6:12 pm on March 17, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
PETA is in hot water over their euthanasia rates right now. Despite reporting an annual revenue of an astounding $34 million in 2009, they only saved the lives of 8 animals. Every other animal turned over to PETA was euthanized. This has critics furious, and rightly so.
The organization euthanizes over 90 percent of the dogs and cats relinquished to its headquarters in Norfolk, Va. 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.
The numbers are remarkable in contrast to nearby shelters. In the same town, the Norfolk City Pound euthanized 54.7 percent of its dogs and cats in 2009. In 2008, the most recent year on record, the Norfolk SPCA found homes for 86 percent of its dogs and cats and euthanized only 5.3 percent.
But of course, don’t blame PETA. They’re doing the best they can. Right?
“Our euthanasia program has never been a secret,” said Daphna Nachminovitch, vice president of cruelty investigations at PETA. “This is one of many, many things that we do to alleviate the suffering of animals.”
Nachminovitch brushes aside the idea that there is a financial motive behind their practice. PETA reported an annual revenue of more than $34 million in 2009. She says shelters don’t cost much money to build or maintain, but when they are jam-packed with homeless pets, the caged animals suffer. The culprits aren’t the shelters that euthanize animals, she adds, but the breeders and pet shops that fill society with 6 million to 8 million shelter animals each year.
“Money can’t buy a good home, so it’s not a matter of money,” she said. “You could build the nicest shelter in the world, but if you don’t have homes for them, they’re still going to sit in a cage.”
And that is the problem with Winograd’s movement, according to PETA. The emphasis on “no-kill” means shelters are overcrowded and animals suffer. Instead, the emphasis should be on “no-breed.” PETA promotes spaying and neutering with this in mind and sterilized 8,677 animals last year.
While this is indeed a good point, it’s still hard to believe that there was nothing PETA could do to save the lives of more of the animals they took in.
Let’s look at the projects they’ve been spending their money on recently. Maybe that could give us an idea of just why PETA finds themselves forced to kill thousands of animals every year… yet still call themselves an “ethical” organization when it comes to the treatment of animals. They wanted to make tofu with George Clooney’s sweat. They tried to open a “lobster empathy center” (no joke). They campaigned to get ice cream made with human milk instead of cow milk and to get fish renamed “sea kittens”. They actually had billboards aimed at fat girls called “Save the Whales”, telling them to “lose the blubber… go vegan”. And who could forget their near-pornographic Super Bowl ad, titled “Veggie Love”. Of course, there’s also all of the naked women they feature in ad campaigns.
Maybe it’s just me… but could the loonies at PETA perhaps stop using their money on such crazy ideas, and maybe use it to try to get more of their animals adopted? I don’t know, maybe they could use it to buy some newspaper ads or something. Maybe instead of billboards telling fat girls to go vegan, they could buy billboards advertising the animals they have available for adoption. An animal shelter in my hometown would have a “pet of the day” feature on the morning news every day to advertise their adoptable pets — perhaps PETA could try that. I don’t know, those are just a few of my ideas. But apparently PETA has more important things to spend their money on than saving the lives of animals.
Now, yes, PETA is not an adoption agency. But it seems to me that they’re playing an extremely hypocritical game. They want to shame people who eat lobsters into taking trips into a “lobster empathy center”, but they euthanize almost every single animal that falls into their hands because they can’t possibly do anything more to find them homes? It doesn’t seem like these animals are being euthanized because of health reasons or issues with agression. They’re euthanizing them because they don’t want to put them in a shelter, which is “cruel”. Killing them for pure convenience? Not so cruel. Yes, that sounds really ethical. Let’s recap. Eating fish or lobsters or meat? Horrible, terrible, and unethical. Euthanizing animals out of laziness and for convenience? Completely ethical!
It seems clear that there is literally no reason for anyone to support PETA anymore.
Recently in the Green Room:
- Two House Dems demand Lerner resignation after using lobbyist to stage modified limited hangout
- Feelgood video of the day
- New liberal idea: Let’s raise $660 million online in a month to buy the LA Times before the Koch brothers can
- Of Course It Troubles Me. Are You Kidding Me?
- Friendly reminder from the White House about ObamaCare: “It’s. The. Law.”