PETA 'killed more than 95 per cent of adoptable dogs and cats in its care last year'

[The Straight Story]

PETA 'killed more than 95 per cent of adoptable dogs and cats in its care last year' shocking new report says

In 2011, government report obtained by nonprofit organization claims 1,911 animals killed
Only 34 adopted in same time span

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states.

The report, released by non-profit consumer group, claims that PETA - which is known for its outspoken stance on animal rights - were responsible for the deaths of nearly 2,000 adoptable animals last year alone.

The records also show that the animal-rights organization has killed more than 27,000 animals at its headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia since 1998.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106757/PETA-killed-95-adoptable-dogs-cats-care-year.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

[TheWraith]

1. Wrong link. nt

[The Straight Story]

2. Thanks, fixed (nt)

[Mojambo]

3. But they didn't eat them!

At least I don't think they ate them...

[sendero]

31. LOL..

.... if these are the friends of animals I'd hate to see their enemies!

[Enrique]

4. lol "consumer group":

laughing at the Daily Mail, not you, SS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly the Guest Choice Network, is a non-profit American lobby group. It describes itself as "dedicated to protecting consumer choices and promoting common sense,"[2] and defending "the right of adults and parents to choose how they live their lives, what they eat and drink, how they manage their finances, and how they enjoy themselves."[1]
CCF was set up in 1995 by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company. Berman told The Washington Post that CCF is now funded by a coalition of restaurant and food companies as well as some individuals;[2] according to the group's website it is supported by over 100 companies and thousands of individual consumers.[1] Sponsors are reported to include Brinker International, RTM Restaurant Group (the owner of Arby's), Tyson Foods, HMSHost Corp, and Wendy's.[2]

CCF has campaigned against a number of organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and maintains several websites devoted to criticizing them.[2] The CCF state that "despite their innocent-sounding names, many of these organizations are financial Goliaths that use junk science, intimidation tactics, and even threats of violence to push their radical agenda".[2] Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has responded "If you are in the business of putting veal or beef on the tables of America, and slaughtering more than a million animals per hour, and making an awful lot of money at it, you are going to try to neutralize PETA or other animal-rights groups"[3]

[jsmirman]

13. Exactly, PLEASE, people, the Center for Consumer Freedom

if you don't absolutely hate that organization and realize how scummy and despicable they are, I truly believe it means that you do not belong on this site.

Like, this would literally be a TOS violation.

They are corporate shills, a close cousin of "astroturf," and they represent countless anti-progressive causes (and by represent, I mean slant, skew, distort).

Straight Story, I really think this is an old story that doesn't merit re-posting.

If people don't like PETA, that's up to them. PETA has been a driving force behind many positive changes for animals in the world; I agree with them on some issues, I disagree with them on some issues.

But as to this story, by Berman, who is essentially a Breitbart twin, here's one link as a starting point:

http://campusprogress.org/articles/peta_murders_animals_another_lie_from_the_center_for_consumer_deceptio/

I could get into this one further, but really, is it worth going down this road when you have a story that is presented in typical dishonest fashion by the CCF, being trotted out by one of the shittiest papers on Earth, The Daily Mail?

I'm a former shelter volunteer - very few things touch me more deeply than the plight of the animals in our shelters. But - and I'm just throwing an opinion out here- I don't think this "story" is worth taking much further than the responses that have been presented. This is an old story, this is a slanted story, this is part of a determined campaign by people who use classic Republican-styled dishonesty to advance their agenda (CCF)...

[pintobean]

25. A TOS violation?

If you're going to publicly make that accusation, you need to back it up. The op has been a member of this community for nearly 8 years and has over 37,000 posts. He/she put a story up for discussion and its being discussed. Tos violations result in posting privileges being revoked. You're basically saying The Straight Story should be tombstoned for this post. Please point out exactly what portion of the tos that this violates.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[jsmirman]

28. You misunderstand

You say:

You're basically saying The Straight Story should be tombstoned for this post. Please point out exactly what portion of the tos that this violates.

I said:

Exactly, PLEASE, people, if you don't absolutely hate that organization (the Center for Consumer Freedom) and realize how scummy and despicable they are, I truly believe it means that you do not belong on this site. Like, this would literally be a TOS violation. They are corporate shills, a close cousin of "astroturf," and they represent countless anti-progressive causes (and by represent, I mean slant, skew, distort).

My comment refers to "people," not to TSS. TSS and I are having a productive conversation "off board" - I said I had no intention of alerting, and, of course, I did not. TSS was not aware of the nature of CCF, which, I mean, not everyone is going to be.

My post is directed at anyone who would support the CCF after knowing who they are - and is a general call for people to recognize the CCF for exactly what it is.

Support for the CCF would violate the following:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people... Teabaggers, Neo-cons, Dittoheads, Paulites, Freepers, Birthers, and right-wingers in general are not welcome here.

Democratic Underground is not intended to be a platform for kooks and crackpots peddling paranoid fantasies with little or no basis in fact. (the CCF is actually this - just with suits and ties).

Just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it's ok. If you post anything which is obviously disruptive, malicious, or repugnant to this community, its members, or its values, you risk being in violation of these Terms of Service. (the CCF literally ticks off each of the bolded terms, as this is a progressive website)

.

I don't believe that TSS published a news source's repackaging of CCF's corporatist misinformation to intentionally participate in CCF's (old) campaign of misinformation, and that is why I did not and would not alert. After speaking with TSS, I am certain that TSS had no such intention. But CCF is a bad organization run by a truly horrible person - a person whose views and methods would not allow him to last long on this site. He's a sneaky creep, though (I know people who have had direct dealings with him), so he'd probably play out that string longer than most of his ilk.

I hope you now understand what I was saying.

[pintobean]

30. Thank you for the clarification.

I don't know you and I've seen TSS catch hell from the self anointed witch hunters in the past. That's what this looked like to me. Please excuse my assumption.

[jsmirman]

32. No problem

I can see how my post could have been misinterpreted, although the post above it does give some context.

As I said, I think our off-board dialog has been constructive.

[PSPS]

5. This was quickly debunked when it was first "reported" three years ago.

[LiberalFighter]

6. since when has peta operated animal shelters for purpose of adoption?

[bhikkhu]

7. PETA's side of the story- "Why We Euthanize":

which is pretty graphic and sobering -

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/03/30/why-we-euthanize.aspx

- but worth reading before carelessly engaging the topic on either side, if one is so inclined.

[RKP5637]

9. I read it, it's difficult to read / look at, but very sobering. Almost all of our pets have been

strays that luckily found us and a wonderful home. It can be a very cruel world and some people are nothing short of monsters. Definitely I can see why PETA must euthanize.

[CrawlingChaos]

26. oh Sweet Jesus

I had to click out of that link - couldn't handle the VERY GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING images. Would anyone be willing to give a synopsis of the text?

I don't know if the article mentions it, but I had heard that PETA will take animals from terrible shelters that euthanize with cruel and painful methods (torture chambers really) so the animals can instead be euthanized in a humane manner. I don't want any healthy animal killed, but if it's going to happen, I'd certainly rather PETA do it than some of the unspeakable shelter methods I've read about.

It's tragic how well the "PETA kills animals" smear campaign has worked. I can understand not agreeing with everything they do, but there's no question they do a lot of good.

[justiceischeap]

27. PETA: Why We Euthanize

In my first year working at a grossly substandard animal shelter in Maryland, I forced myself to go in early to euthanize dogs by holding them in my arms and gently helping them escape an uncaring world without trauma or pain and to spare them from being stabbed haphazardly—while they were fully conscious, terrified and aware—in the general vicinity of their hearts with needles blunt from reuse and left to thrash on the floor until they finally died by the callous people who would arrive later to do the job.

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring "technicians," or animal abusers.

It's easy to point the finger at those who are forced to do the "dirty work" caused by a throwaway society's casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals—even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn't have enough heart or homes with room for them. It makes it easy for people to throw stones at us, but we are against all needless killing: for hamburgers, fur collars, dissection, sport hunting--the works. PETA handled far more animals than 2,124 in 2008. In fact, we took in more than 10,000 dogs and cats and work very hard to persuade people to spay and neuter their animals and to commit to a lifetime of care and respect for them. We go so far as to transport animals to and from our spay/neuter clinics, where they are spayed or neutered and given vet care, often for free! Since 2001, PETA's low- to no-cost spay-and-neuter mobile clinics, SNIP and ABC, have sterilized more than 50,000 animals, preventing hundreds of thousands of animals from being born, neglected, abandoned, abused, or euthanized when no one wanted them. And on a national level, PETA is focusing on the root of the problem through our Animal Birth Control (ABC) campaign.

If anyone has a good home, love, and respect to offer, we beg them: Go to a shelter and take one or two animals home. The problem is that few people do that, choosing instead to go to a breeder or a pet shop and not "fixing" their dogs and cats, which contributes to the high euthanasia rate that animal shelters face. Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called "pets," as they had spent their lives chained up in the back yard, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone's, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a painless release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.

Every day, PETA's fieldworkers help abused and neglected dogs—many of them pit bulls nowadays and many of them forced to live their lives on chains heavy enough to tow an 18-wheeler—by providing them with food; clean water; lightweight tie-outs; deworming medicine; flea, tick, and fly-strike prevention; free veterinary care; sturdy wooden doghouses stuffed with straw bedding; and love.

What we see is enough to make you lose faith in humanity. One pit bull we gained custody of, named Asia, looked like a skeleton covered with skin when PETA released her from the 15-pound chain she had been kept on for years. Asia suffered from three painful and deadly intestinal obstructions, which prevented her from keeping any food down. She faced an agonizing, lingering death, so our veterinarian recommended euthanasia to end her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their conviction for cruelty to animals. That is just one of the dozens of cases we see every week.

The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.

As long as animals are still purposely bred and people aren't spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis. PETA is proud to be a "shelter of last resort," where animals who have no place to go or who are unwanted or suffering are welcomed with love and open arms.

Please, if you care about animals, help prevent more of them from being born only to end up chained and left to waste away in people's back yards, suffering on mean streets where people kick at them or shoo them away like garbage, tortured at the hands of animal abusers, or, alas, euthanized in animal shelters for lack of a good home. If you want to save lives, always have your animals spayed or neutered.

Written by Ingrid E. Newkirk

http://www.peta.org/b/thepetafiles/archive/2009/03/30/why-we-euthanize.aspx

[Gabi Hayes]

8. how embarrassing.....Richard Berman?

RICHARD BERMAN??????

[jsmirman]

15. Seriously, Richard Berman = Andrew Breitbart

come on, people.

[IamK]

10. Killing animals is "ok"... eating them after they are dead is the issue...

this is an issue that is obviously easy to defend.... dont eat dead animals..

[jsmirman]

11. What are you saying

and have you read any of the comments in the thread?

[Logical]

12. They are a joke after getting mad at Obama for killing a fly!

[Luminous Animal]

20. This fake story from the right wing Daily Mail is a joke.

[Zalatix]

24. Correction: A sad joke.

[jsmirman]

14. Could people at least READ the comments

before launching pithy broadsides based on the work of the CCF which could not be described in any other fashion than "corporate scum"?

This is really weak.

[veganlush]

16. Bullshit.

[tkmorris]

17. TSS I really hope you do a "mea culpa" and delete this

It's straight up propaganda. It isn't defensible and it has no business being posted here. I assume you didn't realize this but it has been detailed in the thread; I see no reason to debunk it further.

If you do decide to leave it up I hope you will at the least post an explanation why you are doing so.

[saras]

18. The OP title is right-wing flamebait, offensive, vile, and factually incorrect.

What is the purpose of these being posted on DU?

What is the purpose of DU tolerating it? The "discussion" clearly shows that there's no discussion.

[Earth_First]

19. While the credibility of this article is spent...

PETA lost their last shred of credibility with me when the went after Nintento/Tanooki for Mario from Super Mario Bros. wearing a fur suit. A fucking 8-bit, pixelated video game.

Done with them.

http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/

[veganlush]

21. the post is

the biggest load of shit, I'm pretty sure this is the "non-profit consumer group" that was debunked many times in the past. This however apparently IS real:

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/25/10500874-canadian-province-responds-to-sled-dog-killings-with-new-rules

[veganlush]

22. look at their website

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/

this is the group that works for big, big business, telling people that smoking , obesity, mercury, etc, are all actually harmless and really good for you...

as for PETA, they've made mistakes with some of their campaigns no doubt, but it doesn't change the fact that factory farming is torture on animals, and that most Americans are PAYING them to do it. it doesn't have to be this way BOYCOTT CRUELTY - GO VEGAN!

[napoleon_in_rags]

23. Aw! PETA hates animals! The libwals evil!

Don't care. Mickey mouse shit being exalted as more important than serious crimes. STFU.

[Gold Metal Flake]

29. The Straight Story, I think you are diluting your brand.