I recently spent many hours researching People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and its founder, Ingrid Newkirk. I was very surprised to discover that, though PETA claims “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse…”, the largest animal rights organization in the world has gotten so large and has become so overly busy that, Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s founder, elected to solve the overcrowding in animal shelters using quite an unconventional method, going as far back to her days as a young woman unaware of the issue of animal rights.
Ingrid Newkirk first became aware of the issue of animal rights and welfare in her late teens, well before she co-founded People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the largest, most respected, and well-known animal rights organization in the world, a nonprofit founded by Newkirk herself in March 1980 in Norfolk, Virginia, along with Alex Pacheco.
As a matter of fact, Newkirk had an unusual and, as far as I see, a cruel method of handling the overcrowding in animal shelters across the globe, which is being practiced today by PETA, and it is a practice I find to not only be grossly inhumane but to contradict the values and ethics on which PETA was founded in the first place. Get a load of this:
Would you believe that Ms. Newkirk feels the best way to handle overcrowding in animal shelters, in cases where PETA is unable to rescue the animals themselves, is to euthanize them? Even animals in excellent health and well-being, perfectly able to be placed with families who would give them a good home, instead they have their lives taken away. Doesn’t seem to coincide with PETA’s beliefs, now does it? Check out this anti-PETA blog I happened upon recently, All Against Peta; it will make you think quite differently about PETA.
Makes the animal rights organization seem more interested in animal wrongs, not to mention their obvious belief that they know best? The goal of PETA is to prevent animals from suffering but who are they to decide in what circumstances animals should die? Or to rob any living creature of the right to die naturally. Consider this: PETA condemns people for killing animals in order to eat or wear them, but who are they to place value on an animal’s life in one set of circumstances but not another? Isn’t the goal to value an animal’s life in every possible circumstance? It’s not about being right or in power or more deserving of the right to say what the best solution is. I literally cringe at the thought of a single living creature ever being in pain or otherwise suffering, which leads me to ask myself what better solution exists to address this growing concern.
Being a creative problem-solver, my first thought is to lobby for a budget increase in order to build additional animal shelters in towns in which overcrowding is a concern or, as my friend suggested, why not put those animals on an island somewhere where they have a chance at survival while not being a population problem in populated areas. Surely there’s a better solution than euthanization.
Let me know your thoughts by posting a comment below, stating your opinion on this. Or write me an email at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks for reading!