Two PETA employees were detained in the US state of North Carolina in 2005 after disposing 80 animal carcasses in a trash container. They were accused, among other things, of cruelty to animals, but were released at the end of the trial.
The two had collected dogs and cats from veterinarians and in animal shelters, and later they euthanized them in their minibus by means of poison. During the process it was exposed, PETA killed, between 1998 and 2005, a total of 14,000 pets. PETA has its own animal shelter, the majority of the animals delivered there are euthanized. In 2011 96 percent of the pets were killed. In 2012, 733 dogs were brought to PETA, only twelve of them were given, all others killed. The debate following the trial moreover exposed that the organization had killed in the past also test animals, the animal rights activists had previously “freed” from research laboratories. PETA have the money, argued Alex Pachebo in a conversation with the Washington Times. However: PETA is the largest and richest animal rights organization in the world. PETA thinks that euthanasia saves the animals that are not mediable and sick. The high quota of allegedly immediate and thus the high quota of euthanasia is explained by the organization with that there are especially particularly sick animals, which should be euthanized anyway. However, there is considerable doubt about this explanation and furthermore to what extent the organization really tries to convey animals from their shelter, while they consistently reject animal husbandry.
PETA claims that euthanasia saves the animals, which are unreachable and ill. The high quota of allegedly immediate and thus to be supplied to euthanasia animals in the PETA home explains the organization with the fact that there especially especially sick animals, which would have to be euthanized anyway.
At first sight, the practice of animal slaughter seems to be diametrically opposed to animal rights. At a second glance, however, the practice summarizes the utilitarian animal rights ideology of a Peter Singers: The right to life is not defined by belonging to a particular species, not as something fundamental, but as a right which can be negotiated by criteria.