It wasn't so very long ago that the Center for Consumer Freedom issued a press release announcing that PeTA had killed over 10,000 animals between 1998 - 2003. That number — 10,000 — represented more than 75% of the animals PeTA had accepted at their "shelter," and the raw number of needless deaths gives whole new meaning to one of PeTA's favorite catch-phrases, viz. "cruelty free."
As part of the announcement, CCF placed a billboard in Times Square directing interested people to its website: PETA kills animals.
Initially, PeTA had no comment. Well, that's changed — and CCF is all over it:
We'll say this much for PETA's leaders: they've got an answer for everything. If you write to PETA and ask them about our "PETA Kills Animals" website, they'll send back a form letter including some of the lame excuses below:
"Thank you for contacting PETA about the 'PETA Kills Animals' billboard and the accompanying promotions for it … PETA can't afford billboards in Times Square, so we're grateful for the opportunity that this one provides to discuss the animal overpopulation crisis."
PETA's lying. The organization has erected not one but two Times Square billboards (one in 1997 and another in 2003), both featuring silicone beauty Pamela Anderson. Click here and here to see PETA's own promotional materials about these advertisements. And PETA's annual budget is over $25 million. That's about seven times what the Center for Consumer Freedom spends.
"We do not run a traditional shelter. In fact, we refer every healthy, cute, young animal we can to shelters."
Uh oh. There they go again. In 2003 PETA reported transferring exactly one animal to another shelter. In 2002 PETA transferred just two animals. Click here to see the documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia. Since 1998, PETA has transferred a total of 130 animals to other shelters, and 21 of them were chickens. By comparison, it killed over 10,000 animals.
"[M]ost of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option."
PETA kills 85 percent of the animals it takes in, and finds adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By contrast, the Norfolk SPCA, whose shelter is located less than 4 miles from PETA's headquarters, found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals in 2003. It’s rather hard to believe that the animals entrusted to PETA are any more likely to be “broken beings.”
Okay — my turn. But even if the lion's share of the animals are "broken" . . . that would only make the case against PeTA that much more compelling.
"Broken animals" are precisely the animals that need most what PeTA pretends to offer: compassion and humanity in a world that is hostile to their "rights." If PeTA is to live by their own ideology (yeah . . . right), they shouldn't "off" animals simply because it isn't convenient to keep them . . .
They wouldn't do that to rights-holding human beings, would they? You know — inconvenient people with Alzheimer's disease, or those troublesome cancer patients . . . Surely they wouldn't advocate that!
Or would they?
The Norfolk SPCA's director wrote to us recently:
I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will "find them a good home." Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home … PETA refuses to surrender animals they obtain to area shelters for rehoming. If only the celebrity "deep-pocket" donors on the west coast knew that their donations were going to kill adoptable cats and dogs here in Norfolk.
PETA talks a good game about caring for animals, but seems uninterested in saving the only creatures it actually has contact with. If PETA were sincere, it could use its incredible wealth to buy a huge plot of land where its thousands of victims could live out their natural lives. Instead, these animals meet PETA's hypocrisy head-on, in the form of "tough love."
Well, there you have it . . .
One can only wonder at the deafening silence of the AR community . . . where are the undercover investigators that PeTA looses on corporate America? Lisa Leitten! There's work to be done!
And where is the sober, chin-stroking Jerry Vlasak, MD, to conclude after deliberate thought that killing the PeTA killers is as "morally acceptable" as killing scientists (and, apparently, killing seal hunters as well), and then to openly advocate the practice of assassination itself?
Where is the shallow but verbose Karen Davis, imploring the world to regard PeTA's actions towards the animals in its care as being no different from the slaughter of chickens? And then, to extend herself further and make the despicable, morally-bereft claim that neither killing chickens for food nor killing animals for PeTA's convenience is different from the Holocaust?
And where is the Animal Liberation Front to conduct a "direct action" against PeTA's "sanctuary," and release the unfortunate animals back into their urban habitat, there to live and die as fate may provide?
If the ALF are willing to illegally release foxes with only a "heartfelt hope" that some would somehow survive, if they were up to vandalizing labs, intimidating researchers and absconding with research animals from the University of Iowa, why would they shrink from applying their unique skills in behalf of the animals in PeTA's "sanctuary?"
Surely the animals in PeTA's clutches are no less deserving than foxes and lab animals, and PeTA is no less innocent than fox farmers and researchers!
But alas! I hear only . . . the sound of silence . . .