July 24, 2005

This Is 'Ethical Treatment of Animals?'

From Randy Cassingham (who was blogging before blogging was blogging, and getting paid for it to boot) comes this story that exposes PETA for the racket it is:

After more than 100 dead dogs were dumped in a trash dumpster over four weeks, police in Ahoskie, N.C., kept an eye on the trash receptacle behind a supermarket. Sure enough, a van drove up and officers watched the occupants throw in heavy plastic bags. They detained the two people in the van and found 18 dead dogs in plastic bags in the dumpster, including puppies; 13 more dead dogs were still in the van. Police say the van is registered to the headquarters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the two occupants, Andrew B. Cook, 24, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, identified themselves as PETA employees. An autopsy performed on one of the dogs found it was healthy before it was killed. Police say PETA has been picking up the animals -- alive -- from North Carolina animal shelters, promising to find them good homes. [emphasis added]

Not only that, it appears Cook and Hinkle were euthanizing them right in the van, using drugs they weren't qualified to handle:

Ahoskie Police Detective Jeremy Roberts said Tuesday he had received confirmation concerning the drugs found in the van occupied by two workers for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) last month.

"We have received confirmation from the SBI Crime Lab the drugs contained in the tackle box were Ketamine and Pentobarbital," Roberts said.

The Sergeant said the bottles were labeled with the professional name of the drugs.

According to Roberts, the drugs are Schedule III drugs which are regulated by the Drug Enforcement Agency and could only be purchased by a licensed Veterinarian.

. . .

At the request of this newspaper, Dr. Cheryl Powell of the Powellsville Pet Clinic shared information about the two drugs.

Dr. Powell, who is a licensed veterinarian, said Ketamine is primarily used as aesthetic drug that is used to sedate animals.

"You would have to get carried away with that drug to kill," Dr. Powell said.

She said the Pentobarbital was the sedative given to animals to euthanize them.

In both cases, Dr. Powell said a DEA license was required purchase the drugs.

Something doesn't add up here. This is a pattern of behavior by PETA in at least two places - North Carolina and their Virginia headquarters:
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone.
Why would they bother taking animals at all if they knew they'd have to euthanize the vast majority of them? I would expect that this kind of behavior would offend their animal-worshipping sensitivities and that they'd prefer to leave the 'mercy killings' to others.

I have a hypothesis that maybe they're making money on the deal (after all, defending eco-terrorism isn't cheap (see #3 on this page)). I'm looking into it; meanwhile, we have these tantalizing tidbits:

On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

And now, in accordance with my policy, I have to go kill an animal and eat it. I think I'd like some venison sausage this time.

Posted by Chris at July 24, 2005 06:41 PM

Category: Unclear On The Concept

A timely story: The organisation "Save Animals From Exploitation" (SAFE) in Christchurch, New Zealand, had a truck decorated with bright murals. One day a few years ago, some wag with a spray can altered the wording on the side to read "Slaughter Animals For Enjoyment". The owners didn't notice and happily drove it around town for a week until the change was pointed out in the humour column of the daily newspaper. :-)

Posted by: Richard Grevers at July 24, 2005 10:35 PM