I found a reply from PETA. They say the numbers are true, but claim all the animals are sick or have too bad of behavioral problems to adopt out (I'm sure Glacier has heard that before). They claim they comb the streets and the worst parts of town and get the animals in the worst shape. Apparently they automatically euthanize many of them on the spot (including any ferals) rather transport them and cause further "trauma and suffering."

Area shelters are overrun with animals, thousands of whom are euthanized for lack of good homes, despite the fact that most are young, healthy, and friendly. The "middle-aged" shepherd mix who literally climbs the walls trying to escape the presence of humans doesn't stand a chance--he will simply mark time cowering in his cage until his date with the needle. PETA opts to euthanize extremely sick or feral animals immediately, rather than subject them to the trauma of further transport and caging that will only, ultimately, end in death. We give them love and attention, food and soothing voices, and yes, a gentle death in our arms.
I have issue with that "middle-aged" shepherd example. Dogs like that CAN be rehabilitated with lots of time and love. I also found a post on a vegan board by a non-anonymous person that while he agrees with a lot of PETA's crusades, he worked at PETA for six months and saw (what he perceived to be) healthy animals being euthanized.

My feelings on it then are this:

Is it exactly as CFF is stating it? No, they are probably out to make it seem as if PETA is killing as many pets as possible because they are against the "pet industry."

Are there unnecessary euthanizations, when more could be done to prevent it? I believe so. I believe PETA would opt for the needle rather than put an animal through what they would consider a traumatic, drawn out rehabilitation.


This is the other side of the issue. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as it so often does.

PETA's reply