The organization
known as People
for the Ethical
Treatment of
Animals (PETA)
is comprised of
murderers,
hypocrites, and
vehement haters
of humankind.
Yes, the sad
truth is that
PETA kills
innocent,
healthy animals
by the thousands
while doing
everything in
its ability to
damage the
well-being of
humans.
When farmers,
hunters, and
scientists kill
animals, this is
not murder; the
animals are
killed with a
clear purpose in
mind – be it to
obtain food, to
develop cures
for diseases, or
to engage in a
contest of skill
against an
animal which has
a high
likelihood of
winning. The
people whom PETA
targets – the
people who feed
us and protect
us from disease
– give their
animals a much
higher standard
of living and a
much longer
life expectancy
than those
same animals
would have had
in the wild.
Furthermore,
most of the
people who keep
animals for
commercial
purposes do not
even kill them
at all; they use
them for milk,
eggs, wool, and
other byproducts
that require the
animal to be
alive to produce
and replenish
them.
PETA, on the
other hand,
simply picks up
animals which
pose no threat
to anybody –
healthy,
harmless cats,
dogs, and other
creatures –
allegedly to
give them out
for adoption.
But the numbers
speak to the
contrary.
Between 1998 and
2005, PETA
picked up 17,797
animals, but
only gave 3,047
of them out for
adoption and
transferred
another 331 to
other shelters.
The remaining
14,419 were
simply
euthanized – a
kill rate of
81%. In 2005
alone, PETA
killed 1,946 of
the 2,145
animals in its
custody – a kill
rate of a
sickening 90.7%.
When an animal
is confronted by
a hunter, it has
a chance to run
away, hide, or
even fight back.
Hunters respect
their prey and
will let it
escape if it has
put up a
courageous
resistance.
Furthermore,
hunters do not
target females
or the young –
aware that their
hunting
activities can
only be
sustained if
they allow the
animal
population to
replenish
itself. On the
other hand,
animals who are
euthanized by
PETA have no
chance to defend
themselves, and
PETA kills
puppies and
kittens as often
as it kills
grown dogs and
cats. These
animals do not
pose a public
health risk, so
there can be no
justification
for killing them
to protect
humans from
disease. PETA
opposes eating
animals or using
their remains
for any
commercial
purposes – so it
simply stores
their corpses in
an enormous
walk-in freezer
for which it
claimed a $9,370
write-off on its
2002 income tax
return. So we
should not kill
animals to eat
them or do
research – but
we should kill
them just to
kill them?
PETA argues that
it only
euthanizes the
animals because
of the inability
to bear the
costs of doing
otherwise. Yet
this
organization
takes in about
$29 million per
year – surely
enough to
support around
2500 animals per
year in
tolerable
conditions.
Indeed, if this
much money were
allocated
equally to each
animal, PETA
could afford to
spend $11,600
per year per
creature in its
care! A person
could live on
that much!
Indeed, if PETA
were genuinely
devoted to the
well-being of
animals, it
would focus
all of its
efforts on
providing a
safe,
comfortable
shelter to all
of the animals
in its care,
instead of
embarking on
outrageous and
deleterious
campaigns to ban
drinking milk
and eating
chicken and to
bully honest
businessmen into
accommodating
and paying for
PETA’s bizarre
antics. Cost is
not an
issue here. PETA
euthanizes
animals because
its leadership
wants to
– and thousands
of
well-intentioned
donors,
including young
children, fall
for the trap,
thinking that
PETA will
actually use
their
contributions to
care for
animals and
prevent
needless deaths.
The so-called
“animal rights”
movement
deserves to be
renamed the
“animal wrongs”
movement. What
PETA does to its
animals is
identical in
spirit to the
vehement recent
demands of
“animal rights”
activists in
Berlin to murder
a sweet,
playful, and
friendly baby
polar bear named
Knut – simply
because the bear
had been raised
by the staff of
the Berlin Zoo
after his mother
refused to care
for him. The
activists argued
that the baby
bear ought to
die rather than
suffer the
“indignity” of
being raised in
captivity –
where polar
bears live
considerably
longer than they
do in the wild.
But this was a
mild version of
the true
argument – that
Knut was a
“freak” who
deserved to die
because he was
not raised in a
“natural”
setting. This
was the tone and
content of the
numerous violent
death threats
that the zoo
received.
Fortunately,
Knut was well
guarded and has
been able to
grow up in
safety – in the
meantime
delighting
millions of
visitors and
online viewers
of YouTube films
with him as the
star.
PETA is no
different from
the would-be
killers of Knut.
PETA opposes
all human
uses of animals
– including
keeping animals
as pets – as a
matter of
principle. Thus,
it views pets as
freaks who need
to die – just
like the animal
wrongs
activists’
portrayal of
Knut. Anything
not purely
“natural” is for
PETA deserving
of a swift,
gruesome
elimination. The
ultimate goal,
of course, is to
damage human
beings by
depriving them
of virtually
all the
benefits they
can gain from
the world around
them. PETA’s
ideal world is a
place where
humans cannot
use animals for
anything, even
for
companionship,
and the animals
will ceaselessly
suffer, die, and
go extinct in
the “natural”
way, as they
have for
hundreds of
millions of
years before
human beings
came along and
gave some
animals a
tolerable degree
of security and
comfort.
If you truly
care about the
well-being of
animals and wish
humans to
benefit from
animals as much
as possible
without killing
them
needlessly,
then “animal
rights”
activists ought
to be your
primary foes.
They have the
exact
opposite
objective; they
would rather
harm animals in
order to damage
humans than
permit both
humans and
animals to
prosper
alongside each
other.
People
for the Evil Treatment of Animals