Should "Rescues" Kill Their rescued animals?

Please answer as thouroughly as possible.

An ongoing debate:

If you call yourself a "rescue" and say that you are not a "shelter" and you cannot (or will not) find homes for the animals you "rescue", should you euthanize those animals?

SHould you be immediately euthanizing animals as soon as you get them because you are not a shelter and cannot house them?

I don't want to give my opinion, yet, to prevent altering the outcome of the answers.

In my opinion a rescue shouldn't stop trying to find homes for their rescues. When the person started the rescue they should have been aware that it will take lots of time, money and space. Unless the animal is suffering then there's no excuse for euthanising animals, to do it because you can't find homes for them in my opinion is proposterous. If struggling for space then there's the option to direct animals to a different rescue centre.

Did I understand the question properly Bam? Don't want to rant on about the wrong answer lol

I will answer you and state my opinion shortly. Please continue to discuss and rant and comment until I return.

Ok well if the question reads as I think it does then in my opinion the only reason for euthanasia is animal suffering, if the rescue couldn't deal with a particular animal or didn't have the space then they should pass it to someone that has.

I think I agree that you should not call yourself a rescue or a shelter if you can offer neither to the animal in question. If you take in an animal and then simply euthanise it you are an extermination service.
If the animal in question is beyond veternary help and is suffering then euthanasia should be an option. If the problem lies with behaviour such as aggressiveness the animal should be fostered out with appropriate people or kept till the end of it's natural life.
A rescue is for life not just for christmas!

I've moved this to the rescue related topic

I personally disagree with euthanising animals if people no longer want them, taking them to a rescue centre is giving the animal a second chance therefore their animals shouldn't be put down because of lack of space, space is something the rescue should have contemplated before taking on the animals.

However there is also the consideration of whether you can rehome this animal as it shouldn't have to live out its entire life in a rescue.

All right. Here I go. And I'm about to rant on a topic I feel really stronly about!

I agree with you guys. I feel that anyone that says that they are a "rescue" will find homes or house the animals or at least attempt to find alternative living situations.

If I cannot take in an animal, I try to locate someone who can or I do not accept it. I would not accept it in order to euthanize it immediately. And I'm willing to bet that no respectable rescue would either.

The debate stemmed from an article about PETA:

Quote :

WASHINGTON-- An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), submitted nine months after a Virginia government agency's deadline, shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it's perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research.
(story continued below...)

Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 "companion animals" in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.

"Pet lovers should be outraged," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "There are thousands of worthwhile animal shelters that deserve Americans' support. PETA is not one of them."

In courtroom testimony last year, a PETA manager acknowledged that her organization maintains a large walk-in freezer for storing dead animals, and that PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies. In that trial, two PETA employees were convicted of dumping dead animals in a rural North Carolina trash dumpster.

Today in Southampton County, Virginia, another PETA employee will face felony charges in a dog-napping case. Andrea Florence Benoit Harris was arrested in late 2006 for allegedly abducting a hunting dog and attempting to transport it to PETA's Norfolk headquarters.

"PETA raised over $30 million last year," Martosko added, "and it's using that money to kill the only flesh-and-blood animals its employees actually see. The scale of PETA's hypocrisy is simply staggering."

To speak with a spokesman contact Tim Miller at 202-463-7112.

For more information about PETA's massive euthanasia program, visit http://www.PetaKillsAnimals.com.

These are the actual numbers from that report, found on the Virginia government's web site here:

Quote :

They had 6375 cats, 4410 were reclaimed by the owner, 1965 were left and 1942 were killed (98%)

They had 3175 cats, 2131 were reclaimed by the owner, 1044 were left and 988 were killed (94%)

They had 86 companion animals, 34 were reclaimed by their owner, 52 were left and 50 were killed (96%)

They had 1 chicken, it was never reclaimed by the owner, it was left and it was killed (100%)

And the excuse PETA used to excuse their mass killings:

Quote :

We are not a shelter. We are only a rescue and do not have the facilities to house all these animals.

http://www.peta.org/forums/post.asp?method=ReplyQuote&REPLY_ID=1979&TOPIC_ID=1341&FORUM_ID=4

I believe PETA to be a terrorist organization. I believe that it kills animals instead of housing them and therefore should not be allowed to call itself a shelter, a rescue, or an animal loving organization.

AAH IT'S PETA THAT WANTS EUTHANISING!!!!! I friggin hate that group!

As are rescue or a shelter you accept an animal with the intensions of rehoming once fit and healthy in my book. Ok there maybe circumstances where you don't rehome but they, I fee,l should be few. I am often concerned about this.... if you was to keep every animal that you took in then surely your coming close to be an animal hoarder??? Another topic for another day! But I do feel that no animal should be euthanised if it is healthy and particulary if the rescue or shelter are struggling to find a suitable home. To euthanise it because the rescue/shelter fails to find a home is preposterous! And if they had a decent vet then they would refuse!

Bloody good post Bam - well done matie

I was on another forum and people started to say that the statistics about PETA were written by people who were anti-PETA and weren't correct. They said that no "reliable" source had quoted them and they didn't believe PETA was that bad.

I went ballistic. And I told them that I belong to a rescue forum and would ask a question and bring back the answers.

I did not use anyone's name or give the thread's URL.

Although I will eventually give all those people this Forum's url so they can all join and I will win the big prize that you're giving away for the most new members. Remember, I want my prize hand delivered to Texas, USA!

caimanhunter wrote:

I was on another forum and people started to say that the statistics about PETA were written by people who were anti-PETA and weren't correct. They said that no "reliable" source had quoted them and they didn't believe PETA was that bad.

I went ballistic. And I told them that I belong to a rescue forum and would ask a question and bring back the answers.

I did not use anyone's name or give the thread's URL.

Although I will eventually give all those people this Forum's url so they can all join and I will win the big prize that you're giving away for the most new members. Remember, I want my prize hand delivered to Texas, USA!

Everything I have read about PETA stinks! I have yet to find one positve thing they do.

"Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 "companion animals" in 2006, of which it killed 2,981"

That is f*cking rediculous! To date since May 2005, I have had to euthanise just one animal- that was a boa who was literally dying. I have rescued 261, so far. Approx 45 live here, the majority are terrapins and live in our ponds. 6 have died, so we have literally found homes for 209 animals. So how can it be that PETA who are a huge organisation and have money coming in left, right and bloody centre not have the funds to try harder or pay for these animals upkeep until homes can be found? Why? Because basically, i feel, they just want to stop people from keeping pets regardless and then because the animals are domesticated somewhat, they feel it is cruel and thus shouldn't be rehomed elsewhere and feel they are better off dead!

Quoted from their UK site...
"PETA US and PETA Europe are dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals. Like humans, animals are capable of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use – for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation or any other reason. PETA-named affiliates around the world educate policymakers and the public about cruelty to animals and promote an understanding of the right of all animals to be treated with respect."

"right of all animals to be treated with respect". Good quote, but how does MURDERING INNOCENT ANIMALS / UNTHANISING how does that fit that quote? How is that treating animals with respect?????

Tell us how you really feel, Denise.

See above LOL