Is it true that PETA would actually kill an animal rather then see it kept as a pet?

Question

Ive heard this a few times and find it absurd.

Answer 1

They'd rather call an animal an "animal companion" rather than "pet".

Answer 2

PETA has a much higher kill ratio among the animals it rescues than any other animal rescue organization in the US.

PETA is opposed in principle to all human-animal interactions, including pets, service and seeing-eye dogs, and zoos, let alone animals raised for food or used in medical research.

ALF, the underground violent arm of PETA, has released animals into the wild where they are certain to die.

Answer 3

Of course not!! I think they oppose the word "pet" and prefer "companion",  but I know loads of PETA supporters, members, and employees who have pets.

Answer 4

No, that's what the companies that profit from animal cruelty want you to believe. An organization that represents meat companies is spreading vicious lies about PETA.

PETA doesn't want people to buy animals from breeders or pet stores because this makes animal overpopulation even worse. PETA encourages adopting pets from shelters instead.

Some quotations about PETA are taken out of context. There are millions of animals euthanized in shelters every year. PETA just wants people to stop breeding animals so that the animals in shelters will have more of a chance.

If you get a chance, intern or volunteer at PETA. You'll see firsthand the amazing work that they do for all animals. They go into very poor areas where dogs are chained up outside in the winter, and give away free dog houses. They operate a spay and neuter van that travels to disadvantaged areas and fixes pets for free.

It just blows my mind that some people are so anti-PETA. They should focus on the real problem, the breeders and pet stores and people who don't fix their pets.

Answer 5

I have no idea if that is true or not but that would make them look like hypocrites.

Answer 6

I personally do not like PETA, and I'm a vegetarian and an animal rights activist. However, I think that the statement that Ingrid Newkirk made was taken out of context. What I believe Peta meant was that they would rather have a wild animal put down then kept as a pet which would in fact be more humane as many wild animals often get so stressed in captivity that they will starve themselves to death. The Cooper's Hawk will even run try to escape so much that it will eventually kill itself, which is why most wildlife rehabbers put them down instead of attempting to rehabilitate them.

Answer 7

Of course it's not true... peta tend to rub people the wrong way. These people get annoyed and start these stupid rumours. Peta may not be perfect but they definitely don't promote killing over keeping pets.

Answer 8

PETA euthenizes allot of animals without giving them the a decent change at getting adopted.

i wouldnt go as far as to say that they would rather kill an animal rather than see it kept as a pet. If 200 people with good homes to offer walked in the doors  to adopt 200 adoptable animals they have, im pretty sure they would rather adopt them out that kill them, this is not the case unfortunately.

Answer 9

NO!

Answer 10

yes it's true. Ingrid Newkirk has been quoted many times that she would rather have animals killed than be kept as pets. She personally advocated the mass extermination and eventual extinction of the Pit Bull breed of dog because she reasoned "they are only used to satisfy that blood lust of humans (as in dog fighting). of course she ignored the fact that Pit Bulls are not solely used for fighting but are more often kept as regular dog companions.

visit this website to learn more about PETA's "ethical" views on pet keeping.

http://www.nokillnow.com

Quotes from Ingrid Newkirk, PETA boss

"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether."

— Newsday, Feb 1988 from Ingrid Newkirk

“Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt ... we are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold the radical line.”

“I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance.”

— The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”

— Harper's, Aug 1988

“Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

— PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, in the September 1989 issue of Vogue, Sep 1989

“Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses. [emphasis added]”

— The Washington Post, Nov 1983

— USA Today, Sep 1991

“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”

— The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990

Newkirk on the press

"We are complete press s***s."

Newkirk on having children

"I am not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity."

On PETA's press strategy

"PETA's publicity formula -- eighty percent outrage, ten percent each of celebrity and truth

finally

On PETA supporting violence

"Its leaders wholeheartedly defend and encourage guerilla groups like the Animal Liberation Front. In fact, Bruce Friedrich, one of PETA's most prominent leaders, says in a speech readily available on the Internet [CCF caught and recorded Friedrich saying this at a 2001 convention] 'I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all these fast food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow

Answer 11

In some cases, it is better to have the animal put down than to let it roam wild and eventually get run over by a car.

So in that sense, possibly.

PETA is for the ethical treatment of animals, not for keeping EVERY SINGLE ONE alive. If that were the case, PETA would support the dairy industry (because the cows are kept alive). Instead, they do NOT support the industry (because the cows, while alive, are practically tortured).

But I'm not completely sure about your question, sorry.

Answer 12

No it isn't true. Lots of people try to bad mouth Peta but in reality they do a lot of good. They are however, against keeping animals in confined conditions with no chance of rehoming, because of the mental stress on the animal. In such cases I believe they would support it being put down. But this would not be until every effort had been put into attempting rehoming and the confinement and lack of a stable home was detrimental to the animal's health..