They aren’t against the concept of having pets themselves they just don’t like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn’t find homes.
…and yet PETA shelters have higher kill rates than many/most others.
It’s an out of context stat. They run a kill shelter of last resort. It saves hundreds of animals a year who would be killed otherwise, but as it’s a last resort, as one would expect it has a higher kill rate than the other shelters they transfer failed adoptees from.
It’s shocking how many people parrot the decontextualized fact without ever looking up it’s context, which is readily available. Like a half dozen times in this thread alone.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren’t going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren’t likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren’t likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren’t uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
A stat divorced from it’s context in order to make a benefit look like a failure certainly feels like misinformation. It definitely results in misinformed people.
…and yet PETA shelters have higher kill rates than many/most others.
Why?
It’s an out of context stat. They run a kill shelter of last resort. It saves hundreds of animals a year who would be killed otherwise, but as it’s a last resort, as one would expect it has a higher kill rate than the other shelters they transfer failed adoptees from.
It’s shocking how many people parrot the decontextualized fact without ever looking up it’s context, which is readily available. Like a half dozen times in this thread alone.
This is yet another example of anti-peta misinformation.
Peta has high kill rates in their shelters because they have a no turn away policy. They will take any animal into their shelter and unfortunately many animals typically the older less cute ones are harder to find homes for and rather than keep them locked up in cages for the rest of their lives they settle for the less cruel option which is putting down the animals that aren’t going to find a loving home.
No-kill shelters have a trick up their sleeve where they look good on paper but in reality they turn away animals that aren’t likely to be adopted or even send animals that aren’t likely to get adopted to peta where they are then put down. In other words peta aren’t uniquely evil and bad at their job, the system funnels more animals into their hands because the alternative is leaving animals on the streets or locked up in cages for the rest of their lives.
so… it’s not misinformation
A stat divorced from it’s context in order to make a benefit look like a failure certainly feels like misinformation. It definitely results in misinformed people.