PETA condemns Obama’s treatment of flies (and does PETA kill animals needlessly?)

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is requesting that the President show a bit more restraint the next time he encounters a fly.

The battle began a couple days ago when a fly with a death wish took it upon himself to attack the President during an interview on CNBC.  After swatting at the fly, President Obama’s fury boiled over and he swung again brutally taking the life of the fly.  Although most people were amused by the incident PETA immediately launched into action.

PETA never one to miss a chance to garner some free publicity issued a statement asking that the President act more humanely in the future.

In addition to offering the President some strange contraption that apparently allows you to catch and release a fly, they also had this to say:

“We support compassion even for the most curious, smallest and least sympathetic animals,” PETA spokesman Bruce Friedrich said Wednesday. “We believe that people, where they can be compassionate, should be, for all animals.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hNw_VW9Dlp19RvvaxvSLo5TZRwSQD98SQ0606

In other PETA related news, they apparently kill animals with reckless abandon.  I read about this a few months ago, but since it’s on my mind I thought I would add it to this post.

What follows is a report from a website called petakillsanimals.com:

Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year.  During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

The article goes on to explain that the SPCA located in a similar area somehow manages to adopt out a far higher percentage of animals on a budget that pails in comparison to PETA’s.

Here is the response from PETA in regard to the website, and the response of those that run the site:

PETA:  “We do not run a traditional shelter. In fact, we refer every healthy, cute, young animal we can to shelters.”

Uh oh. There they go again. In 2003 PETA reported transferring exactly one animal to another shelter. In 2002 PETA transferred just two animals. Click here to see the documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia. Since 1998, PETA has transferred a total of 130 animals to other shelters, and 21 of them were chickens. By comparison, it killed over 10,000 animals.

PETA:  “[M]ost of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option.”

PETA kills 85 percent of the animals it takes in, and finds adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By contrast, the Norfolk SPCA, whose shelter is located less than 4 miles from PETA’s headquarters, found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals in 2003. It’s rather hard to believe that the animals entrusted to PETA are any more likely to be “broken beings.” Dana Cheek, the former (and most recent) director of the Norfolk SPCA, wrote to us recently:

If you want to read more the article is located here:  http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petarebuttal.cfm

Who knows what is true and what isn’t, but the records don’t lie, and it is rather difficult to believe that PETA needs to kill such a drastically high percentage of pets compared to other local shelters.  That damned Freedom of Information Act is always stirring up trouble.

It also sort of makes me feel bad for Michael Vick (although not too bad) whom PETA has gone after pretty aggressively over the past few years.  It would be kind of odd to think that Vick and PETA both have a substantial presence in VA, and PETA is actually killing more animals there needlessly than Vick did.