Does PETA Really Kill 95% of Their Animals?

Elizabeth Flock writes in Washington Post

If you were watching the Oscars … you would have seen an ad that said only one percent of the money the Humane Society of the United States raises from the public goes to local, hands-on pet shelters. The ad was financed by a Web site called

But are the reports genuine?

Both Web sites that released the reports are part of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an NGO founded by Richard Berman, a Washington D.C., lawyer, public relations executive, and lobbyist. Berman runs at least 20 others pro-business non-profit Web sites, including, and Berman has long come under fire by activists who say his NGOs are “front groups” used to lobby for corporate interests. A site called is entirely devoted to investigating Berman and the studies his groups has released.

Read More: Washington Post

10 Comments on "Does PETA Really Kill 95% of Their Animals?"

  1. disinfo sucks today

  2. So what this article is saying is that there’s no evidence that they are saving animals, so they’re calling out the people calling them out. That just makes me distrust both sides.

  3. Anarchy Pony | Feb 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm |

    Humane Society=/=PETA.

  4. PETA would rather burn a million infants than kill a roach, so it seems unlikely that this is true.

    • no they kill a ton of animals that they rescue. they believe pit bulls should be wiped out and deem the ones they rescue un adoptable so they kill them. and they do this for a lot of the animals they rescue. 

      • I hope you’re just a troll, and not really that stupid. You do realize that is a complete spin/BS site, right? I don’t particularly care about PETA–I don’t really like them, but I don’t outright dislike them either. Still, once you connect the dots: PETA attacks a lot of companies with a lot of money (Berman says he doesn’t represent animal abusers, he represents food companies–as if they’re different, lol). These companies don’t like the effect that PETA has on their image and, in turn, business, so they pour money into campaigns that target PETA’s reputation. When people start to question the effectiveness of PETA and other animal advocate groups, it means support begins to decline, and therefore the activities of said groups are less effective, saving big business from the wrath of animal activists.

        In terms of big business, it all makes sense.

    • Monkey See Monkey Do | Feb 29, 2012 at 1:39 pm |

      Obviously human rights are a vital and important cause, but your kidding yourself if you think thats seperate from animal rights. You can usually judge how a society treats its humans by how it treats its animals.

  5. I’ve heard that they kill lots of animals per year. Not for nefarious purposes like Mr Burns 😉 But I have heard they do kill lots for sick, lame, old, and ones they just plain can’t find homes for. I’ve heard that they kill over 1000 per year as a result of not being able to find a home (much like the humane societies across Canada and USA). This is ALL hear-say, but I just point it out that this isn’t the first time I’ve heard this. 

  6. If they did, Richard Berman would have been long dead by now.

  7. Sooo… you really provided no answer here whatsoever.

Comments are closed.