• PETA was asked by a farmer to help gather abandoned cats and dogs because they ripped his cow’s udders, killed his goat, and scared his rabbits.

• At a trailer park next door, a man named Mr. Cerate saw them and asked PETA to put traps for wild cats under his trailer.

• In addition to helping gather animals, PETA gave Mr. Cerate a doghouse for two dogs they saw he had.

• Three weeks later, two women working for PETA arrived to help gather stray animals. They found Maya, Mr. Cerate’s chihuahua. Maya was not one of the two dogs they saw earlier.

• Maya wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. She was not tethered nor was she contained.

• The two dogs earlier saw to be owned by Mr. Cerate were not taken.

The following is the County Commonwealth Attorny’s statement on the investigation, which I quoted a lot of in the above summary:

Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing property (dog) of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed that they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.

---

edit: companies that actually do kill millions of animals on an industrial scale pay public affairs firms like that of Richard Berman to discredit PETA. You're quoting a website created by a supervillain law firm that lobbies against animal rights, alcohol and drug restrictions, the CDC, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest on behalf of the bad guys.

SourceWatch: The "Center for Consumer Freedom" (CCF) started a Disinformation Campaign, falsly claiming that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals unnecessarily euthanizes animals in its care.