If there’s some part of the explanation I’ve provided that you didn’t understand, I’d be happy to clarify it, but I believe I explained that quite clearly.
Let me maybe give you an example: someone’s companion animal is dying of cancer; they can’t afford to have them treated, and there are no systems in place like medicare that would facilitate treatment. They can’t afford to take their animal to a vet to have them euthanized. What should they do? Make their companion animal suffer a painful agonizing death, or take them to a shelter of last resort, such as PETA, who will euthanize their companion animal humanely?
That’s not what PETA is doing though. They are adopting animals from other shelters and euthanizing them, not providing a service to the general public.
It’s not like PETA’s kill rate is a secret; their statistics have been public knowledge for years, and they’ve never tried to obfuscate that. If other shelters are sending their animals to PETA, they understand it’s almost certainly for the purpose of euthanasia, and those shelters don’t want that reflected in their own numbers, but in these cases they also understand that the alternative is a worse outcome for the animal.
Actual answer: because they feel pet ownership and domestication is less moral than euthanasia. I don’t think they actually care about individual animals or harm reduction as much as they hate the idea of animal husbandry.
To be clear, factory farming and almost any commercial industry involving animals is nightmarishly evil. It’d just be nice to have a better advocate against it.
You’re parroting meat industry talking points. PETA’s behaviour clearly indicates this is not the case, as they help substantially more animals than they euthanize. In a given year the vast majority of their interactions are spaying/neutering, providing other free or low cost medical services, and helping unhoused backyard dogs.
They even adopt some of these animals themselves. Why would they adopt them if they were ideologically opposed to adoption. Simple answer: they aren’t.
They’re likely ideologically opposed to the concept of animals as property, as opposed to companions, which is why they use terminology like “guardian/companion” instead of “owner/pet”.
You missed the point. Why is PETA killing animals at all?
If there’s some part of the explanation I’ve provided that you didn’t understand, I’d be happy to clarify it, but I believe I explained that quite clearly.
Let me maybe give you an example: someone’s companion animal is dying of cancer; they can’t afford to have them treated, and there are no systems in place like medicare that would facilitate treatment. They can’t afford to take their animal to a vet to have them euthanized. What should they do? Make their companion animal suffer a painful agonizing death, or take them to a shelter of last resort, such as PETA, who will euthanize their companion animal humanely?
That’s not what PETA is doing though. They are adopting animals from other shelters and euthanizing them, not providing a service to the general public.
It’s not like PETA’s kill rate is a secret; their statistics have been public knowledge for years, and they’ve never tried to obfuscate that. If other shelters are sending their animals to PETA, they understand it’s almost certainly for the purpose of euthanasia, and those shelters don’t want that reflected in their own numbers, but in these cases they also understand that the alternative is a worse outcome for the animal.
Actual answer: because they feel pet ownership and domestication is less moral than euthanasia. I don’t think they actually care about individual animals or harm reduction as much as they hate the idea of animal husbandry.
To be clear, factory farming and almost any commercial industry involving animals is nightmarishly evil. It’d just be nice to have a better advocate against it.
You’re parroting meat industry talking points. PETA’s behaviour clearly indicates this is not the case, as they help substantially more animals than they euthanize. In a given year the vast majority of their interactions are spaying/neutering, providing other free or low cost medical services, and helping unhoused backyard dogs.
They even adopt some of these animals themselves. Why would they adopt them if they were ideologically opposed to adoption. Simple answer: they aren’t.
They’re likely ideologically opposed to the concept of animals as property, as opposed to companions, which is why they use terminology like “guardian/companion” instead of “owner/pet”.