Reptile & Amphibian Forums

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/r/258-peta-killed-95-percent-of-adoptable-pets-in-its-care-during-2008

Disgusting.

Bill

Did you take a look at the supporting documents (link in the article)? I'm not clear on how they arrive at the 95% figure.

The numbers for euthanised animals for 2008 are 2369 out of 10016 handled by the organization: this includes animals other than just cats and dogs.

So, it appears that fewer than 25% of the animals that were processed by PETA were euthanised, and there's no data on how many of those, if any, were adoptable.

They have freezers full of them. This made the network news years ago, when an undercover worker took pictures and it blew over rather quickly,unfortunately. Mostly dogs, then.

Another question I would ask myself is how they compare to other "Kill" shelters around the country (pounds and shelters that euthanize after a certain period of time). While tis certainly seems hypocritical on their part and undermines their animal rights stance, are they any worse than other 'shelters' in this regard? I don't know.

I'm not keen on PETA for a number of different reasons but I do like to get accurate information before jumping to conclusions. Given that the reptile community has been the victim of exaggeration, rumor and outright lies, I would think that some here would be more attuned to the risk of believing every negative thing they hear.

>>Another question I would ask myself is how they compare to other "Kill" shelters around the country (pounds and shelters that euthanize after a certain period of time). While tis certainly seems hypocritical on their part and undermines their animal rights stance, are they any worse than other 'shelters' in this regard? I don't know.
>>

Here ya go steph! MADACC or Milwaukee Area Domestic Animal Control Commission is an open admission facility WITHOUT an adoption program. This is their numbers. And in regards to the other, I would like to proudly state that no reptile is euthanized at this facility unless it is insanely ill.
Milwaukee euth numbers.

-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

So, Milwaulkee represents.

I haven't had a lot of time to look at each and every shelter, however I though that a good place to start would be other shelters in VA, as posted on the VDACS website. For example, the Buckingham County (comes to mind coz I'm headed to the county tomorrow)pound has a euthanasia rate that approaches PETA's at 90%.
Lunenberg Co. is closer to 95%...at a glance there were several county/city facilities that were in the 70%-80% range.

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?

But, since there are comparatively few shelters and rescues reporting figures to any single nationwide clearinghouse of information, there really aren't any firm statistics. And since those statistics that are available *can* include figures from NO-KILL shelters, the numbers are likely skewed.

>>So, Milwaulkee represents.
>>
>>I haven't had a lot of time to look at each and every shelter, however I though that a good place to start would be other shelters in VA, as posted on the VDACS website. For example, the Buckingham County (comes to mind coz I'm headed to the county tomorrow)pound has a euthanasia rate that approaches PETA's at 90%.
>>Lunenberg Co. is closer to 95%...at a glance there were several county/city facilities that were in the 70%-80% range.
>>
>>http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?
>>
>>But, since there are comparatively few shelters and rescues reporting figures to any single nationwide clearinghouse of information, there really aren't any firm statistics. And since those statistics that are available *can* include figures from NO-KILL shelters, the numbers are likely skewed.

Actually I am not going to get into the no-kill movement, that is not the basis of this discussion. The information on the agency I supplied is a facility that does NOT have an adoption program active. They do NOT have adoptions. PETA's facilty does. MADACC does transfers to other organizations. PETA does not. MADACC holds the county contract for animal control, it is not a functioning humane society. Milwaukee county had 953,328 residents in 2008. That means animals are taken in legal issues, illegal ownership, dog fighting raids, drug raids, etc. They also maintain the stray hold. As far as I am aware, PETA does not hold this contract. Having been very familiar with the inner workings of this shelter as well as many, I do feel safe in judging PETA's shelter as having an excessively high and deplorable euthanasia rate.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

...there are two ways of looking at those numbers, ya know...you can do the calculation the way your example does, in which case PETA'S
euthanasia rate comes in at 20-25% OR you can hold other shelters to the same standard that you hold PETA and not count animals reclaimed by their owners, in which case your example's numbers rise, probably up to the 75% range or higher...I really don't have the time or inclination to do the math on every month.

So, again, compare apple to apples if you want something approaching accurate figures.

I took a look at the numbers, Steph, and it appears to me that you are trying to mislead everyone here.

Here are the numbers I get using 2008, which you used for some unknown reason, instead of 2009:

10016 total animals processed by PETA
-7525 animals reclaimed by owners (note: this is NOT adoptions)
-34 transferred to another agency

2457 total animals which PETA had available for adoption

2369 animals were euthanized by PETA - out of 2457 available animals

So, the percentages look about right to me. Did I miss something, Steph?

Sorry, Steph, I did miss something... the article the OP linked to used 2008 instead of 2009. 2009 looks just about as bad as 2008 for animals in PETA's care, though.

Not trying to mislead at all... I think that the interpretation of the data is misleading. Of ALL the animals turned in to PETA, the majority were reclaimed by their owners.

The majority of the remainder were euthanised to be sure but there is absolutely NO indication as to whether or not those animals were ADOPTABLE or not. Absolutely none.

SO, maybe the term "Adoptable" should defined more clearly, as it may mean different things to different people.

Does adoptable mean that the owner can't be located, or that the animal has no age, behavioral or health problems that render it less likely to be adopted? If it's the latter,then presumably the animals that were reclaimed by their owners were adoptable as well.

There are plenty of shelters around the country that euthanize animals that go unclaimed by their owners or others after a set time period, so, in and of itself PETA may not, in fact, be doing anything out of the ordinary. The concept of No-Kill shelters is only relatively recently catching on.

So, I still think that the article interprets the data in a misleading way.

Nope, in my opinion, it is you who is misinterpreting / misrepresenting the data, Steph, but the numbers are clear and I will let others come to their own conclusions.

However, here are two more references to consider:

Exclusive: PETA’s Pet Killing Program Set a New Record in 2009
Public Records: PETA Found Adoptive Homes for Just 1 out of 300 Animals

Percentage of Animals Put to Death in Shelters Reaches Low

So, as you can see, Steph, while other shelters have a "kill rate" below 50%, PETA's "kill rate" is in the 95% range.

This is just more proof that PETA cares more about fund-raising than animal welfare (but we all already know that) - what cruelty and hypocrisy PETA demonstrates!

The bottom line would be cost containment.

That equates to the judgment that it is more worthwhile to maintain the coffers at PETA, rather than concern themselves with the as yet unachieved goal of a humane/improved life situation for the animals they take in, as it does not justify the expense.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Let me ask you this: how does the report define "Adoptable"?

For that matter, how do you define "Adoptable"?

Next question: Does PETA in Hampton Roads even operate a shelter/adoption center? Their website refers people to other area shelters if they have found an animal w/o ID...

And lastly, I would like to point out the fact that the article you linked to on the % of animals euthanized pertains top New York City shelters ONLY. That doesn't NOT represent figures nationwide.

Thanks for the potentially misleading assertion: good thing I read the articles in full!

Steph, I am curious. Does PETA pay you hourly, or are you salaried?

Curious enough to read my other posts?

Like the one where I stated "I'm not keen on PETA for a number of different reasons but I do like to get accurate information before jumping to conclusions"?

Doh!

It's fun to see how some in the reptile community are so resentful of people distorting facts or jumping to conclusions about herp enthusiasts, but lack the maturity to hold themselves to the same standard when judging others.

Like the one where I stated "I'm not keen on PETA for a number of different reasons but I do like to get accurate information before jumping to conclusions"?

I worked with a bunch of peta people for a few years. I personally don't need any statistics to tell me they are a bunch of whack jobs and hypocrites. I haven't looked at the numbers mentioned I personally don't need to. I am not sure if they actually publish "animal agenda" but they all subscribe to it, that would be a good place to start. The articles in there where they compare animal ownership to slavery complete with graphic illustrations would be a good start. I'm white and found that one a little sickening I can imagine how a black person would react if they had read that one. Perhaps we should dig that one up and send a copy of it to our president, it might change his tune on supporting those kooks.
I have come across various other publications while working amongst the kooks some of them from peta some from other organizations that are affiliated to peta. They print plenty of stuff on their own for people to draw their own conclusions on these organizations without having to verify numbers from outside sources.

They sure don't get my charity $$. They certainly do engage in kooky activity that just makes me cringe. However this particular article, to me, makes assumptions that aren't necessarily appropriate.

Context is important.

I'm not your personal research assistant, Steph, so please do some research on your own! I will, however, indulge you this time:

"Each year, approximately 6-8 million dogs and cats end up in 4,000-6,000 shelters throughout the US. About half of those (3-4 million, one every nine seconds) are euthanized – the leading cause of death for healthy animals."

Source: dishmag.com/issue51/pets/2160/-every-nine-seconds-a-shelter-animal-is-put-to-death-what-can-you-do-/

Half means 50%, Steph, which is what I posted.

The definition of "adoption" has nothing to do with this issue - animals that are reclaimed by their owners are not part of the adoption pool - it's as simple as that, regardless of how you define adoption.

Actually the point is that no one has even determined if there was an adoption pool to begin with.

BTW there are no firm statistic on euthanasia rates nation wide, and they can vary wildly from shelter to shelter.

BTW, did you happen to notice that nearly ALL of the animals euthanized by PETA were owner surrenders? I wonder if PETA deliberately misled those people and told them that PETA would find loving homes for the animals. Or maybe they inform the public that they dod not adopt out animals...maybe those owners specifically took their pets to PETA to be euthanized.

Really, while the figures do seem alarming, when you (*if* you) think about it, they just raise more questions.

I'm confused...how do we know when we surrender animals, if PETA is getting them or the local Animal Shelter is getting them? I did not know PETA had any facilities.

I think when PETA is in on a sting or a bust of some sort for the purpose of seizing animals, the party they plunge down on, will often offer to voluntarily surrender the animals to PETA, in order to avoid prosecution. Somewhat of a plea deal. Kinda like deferred adjudication.

Then PETA hands the animals over to some other volunteer organization to rehabilitate, care for, and place if possible.

So, like I said, where's the baseline reference point for statistical inference? That may be what you guys are discussing. Like I said, I'm confused.

Just my thoughts.

jsc

-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

This is what I'm trying to determine: the article presumes that the animals that were euthanized were in fact adoptable...the data cited as evidence does not make that distinction.
I prefer not to pass judgment on PETA based on this particular screed. Of course there is plenty of other, well documented, evidence of the group's bone-headedness that makes me avoid anything associated with them.

In my area, you can just ask how things work. I think that many shelters are required to tell you what their policy is. required to tell you.

For instance, the city pound works closely with rescue groups AND the local SPCA and "foster homes" in order to minimize the number of animals that end up being euthanized. My understanding is that while the pound will euthanize, they don't pass an animal off to another group that will.

It's not even clear to me whether or not PETA operates a shelter: I can't find anything on a website that indicates that they do. Their website also makes no mention of being in the adoption business in their mission statement. I shot them an e-mail but may have to wait a couple of weeks for an answer due to volume issues.

The only thing I was aware of them having was a sanctuary for primates in (of all places) Dilley Tx. That in itself is kind of comical. There is nothing ethical about to condemning primates to the hell known as Dilley Tx.. I lived in Pearsall for a year and a half and went to church in Dilley so I know the area well. It is extremely hot in the summer and rather cold in the winter. There is quite literally a scorpion under every thing large enough for one to hide under. Lots of horned lizards. It's a great place for herpers and for people with something to hide. The latter is probably why they chose it.

Born Free is its own thing - http://www.bornfreeusa.org/a3_captive.php

They "own" that primate sanctuary in TX -
http://www.bornfreeusa.org/a8_sanctuary.php

It, like many of these "animal welfare" - in reality, animal rights, "sanctuary" type entities, with huge animal rights related agendas, defy the imagination on hypocrisy. They don't think people should ever keep or have these animals, but almost all of the folks, the MOST loud about it keep the very animals they want to see federally banned. Sure, its allied with Peta, the HSUS and other similar orgs. They are the same sort of thing that Tippy Hendren has with http://www.shambala.org/ - Check it out.

All of these places are discussed in DETAIL at http://www.rexano.org/

Its like the herpocrites among us - Those that think their select group of whatever should be saved, and allowed to be kept, and that the species they have deemed improper, shouldn't be. They have been going after the fringe among us (animal keepers & breeders) for years. They have been successful at a number of those battles, and are now, once more, focusing all they have on us.

Many parrot sanctuaries and rescues are the same exact sort of thing, claiming they want to see an end to aviculture - meaning, these parrot owners believe no one else should own birds. A great example is "The Avian Welfare Coalition - Who want to see birds kept as pets - http://www.avianwelfare.org/aboutus/conduct.htm

They use that "Welfare" line.

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/a3b_exotic_pets.php
Read what they have to say at "Born Free" about exotic pets above - All these humaniac groups want to see what all of us do, ENDED. And no matter if we keep burms, budgies, or even box turtles, we are in their demented cross hairs.

End/Rant

So true. We need to identify and call out all these people. Need to compile a handy data base of the ones that think only THEY are good enough to manage captive animals.

I'm sure there is a psychological description of this mind set, but I can't think of it off hand.

I hear the Austin Zoo thinks that way. Maybe they just want to lock out the competition.

Once again, the minority is screwing the majority.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Even back when I was a kid Austin was a left-wing hell hole. It's much worse now than it was then. I'd pay good money to see some of those people walk into the Whataburger in Alice.

Austin is a Bureaucrat's dream...an incubator of and for Big Government. A smaller version of D.C., Berkley, and San Fran all combined.

I call it the Emerald City, where the perverse amalgamation of environmental green and capital green is so deftly intertwined as to be indistinguishable.

It's a party town and a great place to live if you have the means and the free time, but not a whole lot of fun for a person of modest means such as myself.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I certainly hope that you're not lumping ALL rescues and shelters in to this category...There are many that really do a GREAT job of finding better homes for their charges.

PETA exhibits the same sort of hoarding behavior that is getting so much attention these days.

I am lumping all the rescues and shelters that don't believe people who should have animals they rescue or shelter in that category.

I know there are plenty of shelters and rescues out there that do good, and I generally support their policy of not putting the animals they take in back into breeding situations if that is what they want for them. (Though it seems that it wouldn't be practically enforceable for the most part)

I know that the "hate the breeder" mentality is all the rage at these places, and that is something that will probably never change. Sure there are sleazebags who breed animals and take poor to no care of them, and there are plenty of slimy folks out there who try to sell animals with the "It will never outgrow its tank" stuff, but really, its just as much the person who purchases the animals fault that they have gotten into whatever they have, if not more.

I hear all about "spur of the moment" purchases, and "they didn't tell me that at the shop" but really in today's day and age, many of the people who say these things have phones that put search engines like google at their fingertips, and places like kingsnake.com are more assessable then they ever were. They are just to lazy or too thick to bother, or to busy texting.

I definitely think that the reptile & parrot rescues that think people should not breed parrots or reptiles animals or in the long term own these animals are absolutely a bunch of overstuffed high on themselves hypocrites who have no place owning or working with these animals if they really believe the crap the peddle. They have lost sight of reality.

And that is exactly the kind of thick minded individuals that are cozies right up to the non factual garbage spewed from the mouths of the HSUS & PETA spokesmorons, who are all about pusing the agenda to make it so no one can legally keep or breed any animals.

You know, given PETA's positions on certains issues and their mission statement in general, this isn't isn't exactly hypocritical of them, if you think about it.

Of course it doesn't make much sense to the rest of us. We know they're strange.

I know this (killing all/most of the animals they take in rather then looking at the option of adoption) actually does jive with Petas "core values", and is not as hypocritical as the fact that most of the members/supporters have pets, or say use medicines to stay alive that were tested on animals & come from animal based products.

They are all a bunch of lunatics. They need to try go to Africa and try to convince more lions to to go vegan...

"hey are all a bunch of lunatics. They need to try go to Africa and try to convince more lions to to go vegan..."

That's a good one!

What a bunch of idealistic drivel. Wouldn't it be nice if...?

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Actually, why send them to Africa? Millions of years of evolution show us that humans are omnivores...one look at our dentition proves that!

Why fight Mother Nature?

I got fed up with a newly converted vegetarian neighbor a few years back...pointed out to her that switching to a diet that per force included out of season and exotic vegetation that had to be shipped in from long distances using heaven knows how many tons of fossil fuels, as well as heavy supplementation wasn't exactly environmentally friendly either... LOL finally got her to shut up. With me at least.

Adoptions, intake, owner surrenders, euthanasia.

What other sort of facility does this?

Having spent some years working in a humane society, I am quite familiar with the paperwork that needs to be filed annually. I am also a certified vet tech and hand to completely a course and learn a few laws that pertain both locally and nationally.

To administer the injectable euthanasia solution you need to be either a Humane Society (not a rescue, but a physical location with an on staff vet of sorts be it paid or volunteer) or you must be a veterinary clinic. In a humane society you do not need to be anything more than a CET. Certification may vary. In wisconsin, where I am you only need to complete the course 1 time and you are certified for life. In Illinois for example you must take the course either annually or bi-annually. I would have to pull my paperwork to confirm.

The drugs used are controlled substances and each ML MUST be accounted for. Paperwork must be filed by state laws and each injection must be reported. Also most states require reporting by organizations operating as a humane society as to the placement of animals if they hold stray, municipal or wildlife contracts. This paperwork is a matter of public records.

If you look at Page 2 of the 25 page PDF, this is the official paperwork submitted. It lists PETA as a HUMANE SOCIETY.

I would assume that the state of Virginia charges for this report which is why it was probably printed and put into a PDF Format.
Peta 2009 report

-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

No actually the data for each and every shelter, rescue, pound or animal control facility in VA is readily available online, going back several years. Here's a link to their database:

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?

So, you see, the anti-PETA bunch could have easily done some homework and seen that yes, many organizations do a stellar job, but there are also plenty that have absolutely horrible records. Given that some of the worst offenders (aside from PETA) are in sparsely populated, poorly funded locations and may still use inhumane euthanasia techniques, PETA may actually come up smelling like roses in some respects.

Really, making assumptions does not reinforce anyone's argument.

In fact, resorting to using the same sort of distortion, rumor mongering, and hyperbole that PETA uses diminishes the credibility of their opponents.

>>So, you see, the anti-PETA bunch could have easily done some homework and seen that yes, many organizations do a stellar job, but there are also plenty that have absolutely horrible records. Given that some of the worst offenders (aside from PETA) are in sparsely populated, poorly funded locations and may still use inhumane euthanasia techniques, PETA may actually come up smelling like roses in some respects.
>>
Really? PETA looks good for their high euth rate because it compares to shelters in poor locations? This statement makes no sense. See the way I understand it and have seen things work in my years working in shelters is the poorer shelters have less resources available to do things like medical treatments, behavior and training, more public outreach etc. This in turn has been proven to lower euthanasia rates. So given that, if I were to compare the amount of donations taken in annually by an organization such as PETA and then see their insanely high euth rate, no matter what name was on there, I would be very judgmental of the organization. I am not sure how vast your experience in the animal welfare field is, but I have been working both rescue and shelters for the last 16 years. I have also watched and seen many organizations work very successfully to reduce euthanasia rates, even with the increase of intakes due to the recession. So PETA's facility increasing percentages over the year truly isnt satisfactory. I can show pictures as insane as many of those abuse photos on their site and show after adoption photos. The organization that I sit on the board of directors of doesnt make in 1 year the amount PETA gets in 1 week, yet we are able to rehabilitate and place dogs.

However the purpose of my post was to explain that PETA did in fact operate a Humane Society of some respect.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

n/p
Link

Reminds me of the old SNL skit were they refered to the "Youth in Asia".

And then when corrected, Gilda would just say..."Nevermind".

Just heard back from a PETA representative:

"Unfortunately, PETA does not operate a physical animal shelter at this time, but thank you for contacting us about this."

So, they aren't in the shelter business. I think that I'd certainly want to verify the circumstances of all those surrenders and euthanisations before drawing a conclusion based on the numbers presented.

The rep made several helpful suggestions on where to take an animal to have a good home found for it.

"I think that I'd certainly want to verify the circumstances of all those surrenders and euthanisations before drawing a conclusion based on the numbers presented."

Please do! Perhaps a follow-up question to the PETA rep could be to please explain why 97% of the animals that were not reclaimed by their owners were euthanized, according to PETA's own report to the Commonwealth of Virginia - Agriculture and Consumer Services located here:

VDACS Animal Reporting

And, if PETA does not operate any shelters, how, then, did 11,096 animals come to be in PETA's care, during 2009, in the first place?

Perhaps this might explain my second qestion:

PETAs SNIP Program

LOL...why not do the research yourself instead of asking me to do it for you?

As has been previously noted, "owner surrender" may represent part of a seizure agreement or some other similar scenario.

You are jumping to conclusions on this particular facet of the PETA issue, and I happen to think that there is inadequate information on which to base such a assumptions.

"LOL...why not do the research yourself instead of asking me to do it for you?"

Because you suggested doing it yourself...

"I think that I'd certainly want to verify the circumstances of all those surrenders and euthanisations before drawing a conclusion based on the numbers presented."

Don't you practice what you preach?

Another thing I like to do is evaluate where the so called fact based accusations are coming from. Who exactly is behind these websites that seem to exist for the sole purpose of bashing certain non-profits?

http://www.bermanexposed.org/

So, it looks like the guy behind the Consumer Freedom organization may in fact just be a hired gun.

You can try as hard as you like to turn this in to a totally futile circular argument, but the fact remains that the numbers don't provide the necessary context for making the assumption that any destroyed animals were in fact adoptable.

Give it a rest.

My understanding of the facts and circumstances, all be it second hand from news reports, seems to support the claim that PETA does in fact have quite a lot to do with the intentional killing of animals. They are a very active and very willing participant. By using their own discretionary judgment, they are a perpetrator of animal killings with premeditated intent. The necessity for which is justified only by them, of course.
Not good! No percent is acceptable. They need to get out of the God Playing Business.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

This may actually explain elevated euthanasia numbers:

***PETA offer free euthanasia services to counties that kill unwanted animals via gassing or shooting. They also offer a service for severely ill or dying pets when euthanasia at a veterinarian is unaffordable.***

So, if they're intervening on behalf of underfunded pounds or shelters that use inhumane euthanasia methods, then that would explain a percentage of the animals euthanised.

Context, my friend, context.....

I would like to know more in regard to those claims. What percentage of their budget and what percentage of their work does this entail? I'll bet, not much. Probably just window dressing.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Hey! I'm full of accusations...just like our detractors. Please prove me wrong. Just like I proved our detractors wrong!

PETA, show me the data that documents your assertions. Give me evidence to prove your claims. Let's see some financial records. Let's look at some Balance Sheets.

Just call me Cynical John...been lied to too many times.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Let's continue that quote of yours:

"They offer free euthanasia services to counties that kill unwanted animals via gassing or shooting—they recommend the use of an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital if administered by a trained professional[52]—and for severely ill or dying pets when euthanasia at a veterinarian is unaffordable. They recommend euthanasia for certain breeds, such as pit bull terriers, and in certain situations for animals in shelters: for example, for those living for long periods in cramped cages."

Source: On euthanasia

So equally likely is that the euthanized animals could be pit bulls or any animal in a cramped cage for longer than PETA deems appropriate. I also believe it equally likely that any animal PETA deems inappropriate as a pet, i.e. all reptiles, would be euthanized.

Context, my friend, context.....

p.s. Steph, part of being a good researcher is to attribute your sources, just say'n...

We obviously consulted different source material.

It wasn't obvious to most of us.

I got banned from their forum for not agreeing with their ideas on when reptiles should be euthanized. I thought if a animal was ill beyond recovery or geriatric and unable to feed itself. They want a vegan substitute for snakes. After that I have spent plenty of time digging up the facts on what they are about. All this came from wanting to get their opinion on reptile rescues. That's my reason for calling them the smut pedaling scourge and money grubbing media whore hypocrites they are.

Some people just can't accept the idea that many animals CANNOT be vegetarians. I've seen articles on how to turn your dog into a veggie. Canine, carnivore.....

Actually, canines are more omnivorous: it's felines that are the carnivores. Even bears load up on grasses and fruits...

But yes, it's silly to try to make a dog go veggie.

Tell my dog he's an omnivore when he throws up after eating grass

Tell my dog he's strictly a carnivore...for some reason he LOVES these:

http://www.iateapie.net/images/brands/edyslimefuitbar.jpg