The basis of most non PETA advocates rain on the side of the ‘amount’ of animals they euthanize, but don’t take into the account of the reasons they do so by trying to alleviate their suffering from injury and disease. It isn’t just some evil entity comprising ways to kill every animal they take in, but this seems to be the overall consensus and outrage by those believe this is why PETA bases their work on–and clearly this couldn’t be any further from the truth. You can’t base anecdotal evidence and percentages of kills against PETA with numbers just by euthanation alone. You have to factor in the reasons why they do humanely euthanize these injured and diseased animals.
The amount that are adopted out and saved that would otherwise have been killed by other shelters is a reality, and because PETA is a last resort shelter that takes in the overflow of other shelters, and shouldn’t be judged by the animals that can’t be saved because of their injuries. Euthanizing an animal in the face of injury or disease, and suffering is the moral thing to do. Some don’t believe ending the suffering of an animals is ethically and morally the right thing to do. I disagree. Contrary to some nay-sayer of PETA, they do not think keeping pets is immoral. They clearly are trying to advocate on behalf of the animals that are treated inhumanely, and had they not, many more thousands of animals would have been savagely injured and killed by the hands of those who treat animals in a inhumane and un-ethical way.
This includes the many companies that like KFC for instance, who submerge chickens upside down while alive in scolding water then electricuting them. PETA is trying to change legislation on how farm animals are brutally slaughtered. No one else advocates as rigorously on the behalf of the humane treatment of animals as PETA.
This is a statement by PETA founder: “In my first year working at a grossly substandard animal shelter in Maryland, I forced myself to go in early to euthanize dogs by holding them in my arms and gently helping them escape an uncaring world without trauma or pain and to spare them from being stabbed haphazardly—while they were fully conscious, terrified and aware—in the general vicinity of their hearts with needles blunt from reuse and left to thrash on the floor until they finally died by the callous people who would arrive later to do the job. I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can’t afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring “technicians,” or animal abusers.”
The word Humane means: Marked or motivated by concern with the alleviation of suffering–and this is the mission of PETA. Those who don’t understand that or have a skewed view of what PETA is trying to accomplish by saving animals that would have been otherwise brutally killed or injured beyond saving, may not realize that these are helpless animals who are suffering everyday around the world.