Tuesday, April 29, 2008

PETA: People executing tame animals

According to Newsweek:

"...what many animal lovers don't realize is that PETA...has practiced euthanasia for years. Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued."

If PETA is going to kill them anyway, why not give them to research facilities that will contract to treat them humanely? That way at least the lives of these animals won't be wasted and people may benefit from the research.


L'oiseau said...

You can't "contract" to treat animals humanely if you're doing research on them.

Dennis said...


I guess that dependson how you define "humanely." I suppose PETA would define any research on animals as inhumane--yet they apparently think it is OK just to kill animals.

But surely there must be some types of research that could be conducted on animals without causing the animals pain beyond the prick of a needle for anestesia.

L'oiseau said...

Isn't that the point of research though? You don't always know what is going to happen?

Dennis said...

l'oiseau, since I know nothing about animal research, I guess I'm not very qualified to answer that (Brent might say that lack of qualification hasn't stopped me from commenting before :-)

Anyway, you may be right but I would think that if the animal were anesthetized the risks would be minimal, if the researchers knew what they were doing.

I would think that minimal risk should be acceptable if they're looking for something like a cure for cancer. Maybe even minimal risk is too much if the researcher is looking for something like a better eye shadow :-)

Brent said...

You said it, not me. :-)

Since my name was brought up I'll throw in my two cents. I'm actually not opposed to a lot of animal research that takes place, even though I would consider myself somewhat of an animal lover. I don't like to talk about myself online, but I will say that I have worked in the past in an industry related to human research, and animal tests are relied upon heavily before determining if a drug or device is safe to test on humans. Personally I wouldn't want to be the first living being to take something we're unsure about. :-)

After saying that though I do respect why others would be opposed to animal tests.

Dennis said...


We may actually agree on this one. I too, like animals and do not want them treated cruely, but on the other hand, I think some research is pretty important.

I'm wondering, from what you know of animal research, do you think most animal researchers take reasonable precautions to try to limit animal pain whenever possible--or is animal cruelty as rampant as PETA or others might think?

Brent said...

I'm not that familiar with the ins and outs of animal research, and I suppose everyone's definition of cruelty is different. I would imagine that these days, for the most part, things are done as humanely as possible, especially by companies or institutions with any regard to their public image. On the other hand, there seem to be cases of abuse that come up in the news now and then.

One other thing to mention is that in your original comments you questioned why animals being euthanized couldn't be used for research, and I think generally speaking only certain kinds of animals are used in this way.

L'oiseau said...

I'm not against all animal research either. (It probably sounded like I am from my posts, as I reread them). I pretty much agree with the both of you on this. Definitely about the eye shadow thing! ;)

I do respect PETA for other things they have done for animals who are really being abused though.

I also wish that something could be done about the animals in America raised for meat. Their conditions are disgusting.