Who Kills More Animals: PETA or HSUS?

While this is not a website about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the group does occasionally come up. For instance, a number of staffers from PETA have migrated to HSUS. One notable example is HSUS food policy director Matt Prescott, who while at PETA designed the noxious media campaign comparing using animals for food to the Holocaust.

Unlike the Humane Society of the United States, PETA does run an “animal shelter” at its headquarters. And PETA kills the vast majority of cats and dogs in its care at this shelter—about 90 percent, or 1,647 cats and dogs, in 2012 and about 30,000 animals since 1998. That’s shocking to many people, and the news is making waves both here and abroad at the London Daily Mail. (Please join our PETA Kills Animals Facebook page to stay up to date.)

Based on public information, it seems PETA directly kills more animals than HSUS, since the latter doesn’t run a shelter. But what about indirectly? According to HSUS, 3-4 million dogs and cats are put down in shelters every year, and according to our survey, most HSUS donors think their gifts will help care for pets or trickle down to shelters. If HSUS chose to use this money to either run pet shelters of its own or gave the money to other groups, as people think it does, how many pets that are currently euthanized would instead be alive?

Given that HSUS raises over $100 million a year, it’s probably a lot more than the 1,647 cats and dogs that PETA killed last year.

Posted on 03/22/2013 at 2:44 pm by Humane Watch Team.

Topics: Pets

Permalink

  • http://www.facebook.com/sooky.das Sooky Das

    Added to that, TV Program, “Hoarders” (Animals) U.S., always has the HSUS (Humane Soc.) collecting huge numbers of raided/hoarded animals, ensuring the Hoarder that they will find new homes for all the Animals. This lie encourages distressed Hoarders to surrender quietly. And donating viewers to this TV Show believe it too. I’ve always thought, “BS Liars”, HSUS.

    • Sue Ann DeVito

      I don’t watch that show all the time, but the one I saw about a cat lady, they did explain that some of the cats would have to be put down. They even gave her back the ashes of one of them so she could say goodbye.

  • Susan Griffiths

    The problem is that the animal organisations mentioned have limited budgets and it must be heartbreaking for them to decide what cause or campaign gets more or less. The fact is that neither have enough money to do all that they would like and definately all that needs to be done.

    Rather than focus too heavily on critizing such organations we should look at how to help their budget problems. For example if corporations were required to donate a small fee to such organisations each time they advertise using animals and/or a portion of the fine a person pays for neglecting, mistreating or abusing an animal were similarly paid to these organisations, they could do so much more. My question is, why are these organisations not receiving this type of revenue?

    • http://www.facebook.com/pauline.fitzpatrick2 Pauline Fitzpatrick

      Brilliant idea.

      • http://www.facebook.com/Isisinvinyl Molly Brier Bird

        ~love~ the idea that animal abuse criminals should pay a fine directed towards animal care but then I also think human convicts should pay for their own upkeep via work rather than rest on tax payers…fine revenue directed at victims has never really been used to my knowledge as much of the deterrent and useful repercussion that it could..too bad.

  • Mirkka Salo

    Properly and carefully done euthanasia is better for animal than to be given to experiment and sadly sometimes also than to be given to some human and a new home. In Finland one artist (nowadays nominated professor of fine arts) got in 1980′s an abandoned cat from Finnish animals shelter Hesy and promised to take care of the cat, but killed the cat by ax by several blows and masturbated over the suffering and dying cat and filmed it in video what was shown then as an piece of art in Helsinki and other cities. This is how it happened in reality. Many homes are good but most important is that animal gets dignity in life and death. Happy life is wat every living being deserves, but often euthanasia is not the cruellest alternative. It is very important how the animals are killed, the method and respect towards them. Let’s give respect and dignity for all living creatures.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Isisinvinyl Molly Brier Bird

      Yes! death is NOT the worst thing that can happen to an animal…we don’t desire death, but an end of suffering is preferable to suffering …yes?

      • watch_this

        I know your right but I hate to see either

      • Stefan Hansson

        People should’nt suffer either, yes? -_-

    • threenorns

      the bottom line is that we’re not going to be able to adopt our way out of this mess.

      it used to be that when a litter of pups or kittens was born, only the strongest and best were allowed to live. taking the runt of the litter was a gesture of pity – normally, the runt (a sickly, puny little thing) would be put down out of kindness since, statistically, it would dwindle and die anyway.

      but now we have this “life uber alles” attitude where every single living being must be “given a chance” – even though this is in direct contradiction to the laws of nature, which say that only the best survive.

      this is why we have so many unwanted pets and this is why “purebred” is now little better than a joke.

      • Didi Magnin

        you are right!

      • TomKi

        Can you prove that we have “so many unwanted pets”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kay-Lorraine-Lauro/1538261466 Kay Lorraine-Lauro

    hsus kills more INDIRECTLY………….they take money away from caring for animals with their deceptive advertising. Then they cause the death of even more by getting ridiculously restraining laws passed with their lobbying efforts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wesley.smith.37017794 Wesley Smith

    See this is why I get irate with Peta and such. It costs between R500 to R1000 a month to keep a pet, in fact usually less but lets use that as a ballpark. Lets multiply that by the 2000 animals a year they put down (rounded off). So that comes to R24 Million. Which is $2.5 Million. My cats and dogs (2 of each) would cost less than R1000 a month for all 4 together ($110). Did I miss something? Are they putting down the animals because they cannot afford to feed them caviar and moet? Think its time they shut down and let a group that actually cares for animals take over, their priorities are seriously misguided.

    • groggyduck

      Except that one of PeTA’s long term goals is to end pet ownership completely.

      They (the seriously deluded ones) think that all animals should be “released into the wild” instead of being “enslaved” by humans, and genuinely believe that by killing these animals (many of the methods employed are NOT humane euthanasia AT ALL) they are freeing them from the “torment of enslavement”

      • Dave B Nolan

        freaks.

  • mxprivateer

    As a long time volunteer at a local, no-kill shelter, I can say that the best use of anyone’s money (who is considering donating) is to send it to their local, no-kill shelter. PETA, the Humane Society, etc. are large corporations whose directors and upper level staff earn large salaries. The shelter I work at is 100% volunteer and is funded by a thrift store and donations. Each year, we help over 500 cats and dogs find homes and have never euthanized an animal because it couldn’t find a home.

  • Lee Mh

    Please don’t donate blindly, many shelters need the fund to keep going who genuine
    care for these animals

  • Ana Luisa Luque M

    But is not about euthanasia, who is, in every last letter, a terribly death, no. Is telling people to sterilize they pets, so no more puppis and kittes are in the hands af the people who can kill them. Is better a great dog or cat sterilize, that a litter that end up been sleep.
    And for PETA, SHAME, SHAME, SHAME ON YOU!!!

  • SADHU-VEDANT-MUNI

    it is the fight of ego. we are confused. we want animal protection

  • silvana

    killers!!!!!! and they say that to be vegan?????

  • Rehana VN

    No different to SPCA’s! Collect in the name of “caring” but are in fact killing machines. Do NOT donate to any of these organisation as the people who are supposed to be caring for the animals are the ones milking the system by paying themselves exhorbitant salaries, bonuses & riding in the most expensive vehicles.

  • diana d.

    totally agree, death is not the worst thing that can happen to an animal, provided it is done humanely and provided it is done because there is no other choice available… i am obviously not talking about the ones slaughtered for fur and meat, in which case, there is nothing “humane” about the whole process… having said that, still, be careful where you place your donations, large welfare groups can be deceiving sometimes…

  • Denise Brown

    I have to admit reading all the comments and this article has really got me thinking twice about my donations to a couple of orgs that were mentioned. I will donate local. Thanks everyone!

  • Daniel Haney

    And…They were caught red handed dumping cat and dog carcasses into local dumpsters…
    Donate to your local shelters but PLEASE…not these over the top psyco’s who kill dogs and cats but tell us not to kill animals for food.
    Complete hypocrites….

  • Johanna Moreno

    Most of
    the cats suffer when they are adopted for cruel people. People take them and
    promise care them but that is FALSE. Cats and Dogs SUFFER MORE LIVING WITH THAT
    CRUEL FAMILIES THAN GET EUTHANASIA. THE GOOD EUTHANASIA IS BETTER THAN CRUEL
    LIFE. People don’t want good euthanasia for cats and dogs (for avoid more suffering) but
    people don’t say nothing about killing cows, pigs, chickens, geeses, etc…that is not cruel? Hypocrite consumers!

  • hanspy

    Humans!

  • Micha Shepher

    This is not an ethical question but a practical one. Excess pets can be dealt with in the following ways:
    1. Let them starve
    2. Kill them
    3. Eat them.
    Killing them would always be the better option, and killing cannot be humane. Killing is the best available option, unless you consider eating pets.

  • LingYai45

    I lost my sidekick Dweezle on the UCLA campus in 1973. A friendly black and silver miniature elkhound mix who joined me in class, she was a campus mascot – everybody’s friend. I got to the “Humane” Society a day late. I will never forgive those jerks.

    Now I live in Phuket, Thailand where I am closely involved with Soi Dogs. John Daley is a hero. You may have heard how Soi Dogs saved stranded dogs from “islands” during the Bangkok floods, or how Soi Dogs took on the Vietnamese dog meat trade. This in a country far less rich than the US or Europe.

    We also maintain an activist position as well.

    Soi Dogs – http://www.soidog.org – somehow survives in Thailand (and always needs your donations). I have $30/month (B1,000) automatically taken out of my bank account. You can help too.

    My point is that if Soi Dogs maintains a “No Kill” policy – for real – in Thailand, why can’t the “Humane” Society or PETA. do the same in America.

    I will always remember Dweezle,the campus favorite, and the S.O.B.s who put her down. If we have No-Kill in Thailand, there is no excuse for killings dogs and cats in America.

    Screw you, “Humane” Society!

  • Vanessa Thomson

    Terrible!