No Pity for PETA

Then she started to annoy me for nailing to the wall the wrong guys:

PETA Urges Ben & Jerry's To Use Human Milk

Yes, the wrong guys, because we all know the high standard of ethic this company and its founders stand for: organic milk, "free range" cows, social justice, recycling of their containers, and so forth. Why not targeting another milk company than the good guys? Like one that grows their cows with hormones and feed them with antibiotics, for example! PETA is firing within its own camp rather than helping the cause in general !  Now c'm'on! Those guys are trying to do good here! Do you have so much hate for diary or meat eaters than you can't sort out which one is respecting animals, which one is not?

And then I saw this staggering news from Newsweek:

PETA and Euthanasia

Here is the most important point from the article:

"But what many animal lovers don't realize is that PETA itself may have put down some of those unwanted Dalmatians. The organization has practiced euthanasia for years. Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. Dalmatians may no longer be the breed of the day, but the problem of unwanted and abandoned pets is as urgent as ever. Shelters around the country kill 4 million animals every year; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy."

On PETA's website, they have the other side of the story:(warning: pictures may be extremely shocking, severely wounded animals; actually wounded animals beyond what you can imagine "wounded" means)

why we euthanize

They go on explaining:"it's easy to point the finger at those who are forced to do the "dirty work" caused by a throwaway society's casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals—even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn't have enough heart or homes with room for them."
And given the pictures, it totally is understandable. We all have a story of an animal we owned or a relatives pet who had to be euthanize. I had a kitty whose legs were crushed in thousand parts by a car; surgery was not an option because his bones were to soft. So we had to let him go.

BUT...Newsweek s talking about more than 85% of animals killed at PETA! Unless PETA gets only the wounded animals, that seems like a hell lot of animals being killed. Newsweek's article suggests that PETA says "those animals have no love and no hope because they are violent or dangerous, or have a past that's to difficult to overcome".

Trouble is, my friend Ilana recommended me to check out the Dog Whisperer, who seem to say there is no broken dog a proper education cannot get back on its feet (or paws). And he shows it! So now, instead of spending money in campaigning against Ben and Jerry, couldn't PETA open a dog whisperer institute and hire teachers to *fix* dogs? And make them "lovable" again? Granted, I'm not a PETA member nor a shelter care taker so I may not know all the whereabouts. But it seems to me PETA is wasting its time on causes that make them look like  a bunch of nutcase, and take them far away from what they originally fight for.

So I wrote a comment on the PETA website; we see if I get an answer!
Here is what I wrote:
"I came to seek for the 2 sides of the story. If I understand, given the pictures, that some animals would better be off, Newsweek is talking about over 85% animals euthanized at PETA. Are criteria only wounded animals, or "animals who cannot find love" which is, an odd criteria for deciding which dog gets to go or stay. Here is the excerpt from NW: http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549?digg=1 [repeat of the extract you read on top of this post]"