|"W.T.M.?" (What the... Moo?)|
What does 'PETA' stand for?
Inquiring cows want to know...
At the superficial, 'Acronym-based,' level of conversation, 'PETA' stands for (according to their website):
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals"
No. Please do not infer something PETA never implied...
Ethical treatment is NOT 100% universal in regard to the animals which PETA 'treats' ethically.
|Please notice that the fuzzy little bunny is running AWAY from PETA|
PETA, according to their 'About PETA' tab, has a mission - oh, look, here it is now:
Our Mission Statement
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters.
PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time:
- on factory farms,
- in the clothing trade,
- in laboratories, and,
- in the entertainment industry
We also work on a variety of other issues, including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" as well as cruelty to domesticated animals.
PETA works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns.
So, according to their website:
"PETA focuses its attention on the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time..."
This makes a lot of sense - especially when contrasted to the animals who do NOT suffer for the long periods of time. (Keep reading, we'll get there)
Specifically, those animals which PETA is tasked with caring for at PETA's very own shelter (for 48 hours, or less).
No, PETA doesn't shed so much as a tear for them...
|These animals have never been in the PETA Shelter.|
How do we know this? They are still alive...
The Daily Caller Online reports: Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011.
The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers.
Fifteen years’ worth of similar records show that since 1998 PETA has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, VA.
In a February 16 statement, the Center said PETA killed 1,911 cats and dogs last year, finding homes for only 24 pets.
“PETA hasn’t slowed down its slaughterhouse operation,” said Rick Berman, CCF’s executive director. “It appears PETA is more concerned with funding its media and advertising antics than finding suitable homes for these dogs and cats.”
In a statement, Berman added that PETA has a $37 million dollar annual budget.
“The facility does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody,” Kovich concluded in his report.
Kovich also determined that PETA employees kill 84 percent of the animals in their custody within 24 hours of receiving them.
“[PETA’s] primary purpose,” Kovich wrote, “is not to find permanent adoptive homes for animals.”
PETA media liaison Jane Dollinger told The Daily Caller in an email that “most of the animals we take in are society’s rejects; aggressive, on death’s door, or somehow unadoptable.”
Dollinger did not dispute her organization’s sky-high euthanasia rate, but insisted PETA only kills dogs and cats because of “injury, illness, age, aggression, or because no good homes exist for them.”
PETA’s own history, however, shows that this has not always been the case.
In 2005, two PETA employees described as “adorable” and “perfect” some of the dogs and cats they killed in the back of a PETA-owned van. The two were arrested after police witnessed them tossing the animals’ dead bodies into a North Carolina dumpster.
PETA had no comment when the Daily Caller asked what sort of effort it routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care.
With a 95% 'kill rate percentage' for 2011, you'd think Margaret Sanger ran this joint. However, at last report, Margaret Sanger 'continues' to be dead, although her 'death's work' is being aptly carried out day after day by caring, federally-and-privately-funded staffers of Planned Parenthood (your contributions, as always are 'Most Happily Accepted!').
There is NO truth to the rumor that PETA and PP are looking to merge their operations to obtain a better 'Economy of Scale' when it comes to the purchase of dumpsters, syringes, gloves, aprons, and / or ball peen hammers, however.
I guess the bottom line is if you think your contributions are going to PETA to 'SAVE ANIMALS', you might want to inquire as to what your particular donations are actually being used for. More likely than not, they are being used to recruit other unsuspecting contributors to the organization, pay "G & A" expenses of staff, and to fund travel expenses associated with the myriad of 'Boycotts & Protests' across the country, each supported (with a little help from their 3 MILLION members) by PETA.
To justify PETA's euthanasia-prone tendencies, they have issued a formal response, and purchased Paid (SEM) search results from Google. Oh, yes, your Tax-Exempt contributions to PETA are also going to Google, Yahoo, Bing, et al... Sorry, I missed these 'online defense expense bucket expenditures' in the last paragraph.
You can read PETA's response to the above charges HERE, but I wouldn't recommend viewing it if you have an aversion to of 'half-dead' animal photos used to justify PETA's particularly high 'kill rate'.
Apparently, 95% of the animals 'sheltered' in 2011 had facial cancers, infected limbs, and other visually-unattractive diseases as illustrated at via the link above. Yes, of the 100% of the animals they 'sheltered', a phenomenal 95% of the animals looked like the photos they're using to explain their Guest Mortality Rate at the 'PETA Shelter' to their contributors, media, and the curious, in general.
The only humane choice was to kill 95% of the animals placed in their care.
p.s.: As a rule of thumb, when you are taking an animal to a 'Shelter', it is preferable that its survival rate 'in the shelter' be a 'bit' higher than the same animal's survival rate when left alone to fend for itself while surrounded by rabid wolves.
But then again, you may disagree.