Still hate PETA?

[flvegan]

http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-lebanon.asp

Bearing in mind that PETA is there to help animals, while a multitude of others will assist the people, I find that they're doing a good job adhering to their mission.

I'm hoping folks will consider this rescue



as an amnesty to the norm of PETA hatred around here.

If not, well...

[Midlodemocrat]

1. OMG. I hadn't even considered the impact on the animals.

Thanks, flvegan for posting this.

[Fridays Child]

2. Wasn't it PETA who exposed the Iams dog food videos? I'll NEVER...

...buy that brand again.

[Nikki Stone 1]

6. IAMS? What happened?

?

[LeftyMom]

9. link here

http://www.iamscruelty.com/investigation.asp

[Nikki Stone 1]

14. Good Lord!

I never bought Iams and never will

[dionysus]

28. I had a vet tell me once, Iams used to be real good, then

someone else bought the company and turned it into shit... sorry i don't have a link or anything

[Nikki Stone 1]

40. Buyouts often result in the degradation of the original company

The new takeover folks coast on the reputation of the old company until something really awful happens

[LeftyMom]

44. Proctor and Gamble

That's who bought them.

[Sequoia]

344. Soap people.

[Sapere aude]

337. I believe IAMS was started in Dayton Ohio, my home town. I think it was

at the Xenia Ave feed store. It was local and a local concoction. Then at some time after it was sold to a big company.

[Midlodemocrat]

19. Wow. Thanks for posting that. I bought Eukenuba once for

my dog, but it made her stink.

I will never buy Iams again. I think I will contact PetSmart and tell them about this.

[lonestarnot]

77. WTF!

[barb162]

214. I will never buy their products again. Thanks for that link

[Annces]

343. No more Iams for my cat!

[flvegan]

7. Yes, for the most part it was.

Though other groups (In Defense of Animals, for one) were on it as well.

I agree...never again for IAMS nor Eukanuba.

[Vidar]

72. PETA performs a useful function.

[Rabrrrrrr]

3. I like PETA

I disagree with them sometimes, and occasionally cringe - but overall, I love 'em, and I appreciate what they do. They might not be perfect, but they are the only organization that's actually trying to help animals AND the cause of animals.

Go PETA!

[flvegan]

22. VERY well stated.

But then, you didn't need me to tell you that. I feel the very same way.

[Zhade]

133. I admire their goals but think their tactics ensure failure.

NT!

[Carissa]

143. I like Peta too BUT..

There are many other organizations out there that help animals:

The Humane Society www.hsus.org
Noah's Wish www.noahswish.com
The Best Friends Network www.bestfriends.org
Farm Sanctuary www.farmsanctuary.com

Just to name a few. :)

[PinkyisBlue]

255. PETA

The organizations you listed do indeed help animals, through changing laws to protect animals and paying to house abused or unwanted animals. But PETA provides other, equally important types of help for animals, from educating people about animal abuse to actively exposing and stopping abuse.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

218. I agree. Sometimes they hurt the overall cause...

by taking stands that make them look like lunatics, but they are consistent with wanting to protect animals.

[Fountain79]

4. I support some of PETA's actions...

the majority of "cause" groups I would say have some valid points within their organization. I support the ending of bull fighting in Latin America for example. I detest circuses. Still I eat meat, I enjoy it. I understand that there are some health risk but I also understand that I want to enjoy my life while I am here on this earth. I respect a person who has chosen to be a vegan/vegetarian but I would also hope that they would respect my decision as well. The problem is that many of these "cause" groups go too far in their desires, and that's when I have an issue with them.

[trixie]

100. I agree with you

They have turned off the very people that could help them. When my daughter was little (9) she had a fake fur trimmed coat. I wouldn't even call it fake fur, I would call it costumey. You know little girls like the whole princess thing and she had a vinyl coat trimmed in party pink boas, something you would use as a costume. Well anyways PETA nutssos literally through junk on her. It was like a mud/clay stuff and it did stain her vinyl. It was very scary for the whole family and to this day I say to PETA - "SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS". Kids are mammals you know!

What a bunch of whack jobs.

[Zhade]

134. I'm down with ending cruelty, but I'm not going to stop eating meat.

Here's the thing - IMHO, many vegetarian arguments break down due to some inherent flaws.

If the argument is to not deprive a creature of life, well, don't eat plants - they're alive. Eating plants but not animals based on the "don't kill for food" argument is hypocritical.

If the argument is "it's cruel", then eliminate the cruelty. Of course, at some point the argument may shift to "killing animals for food, even painlessly, is itself cruel" - which leads back into the above argument.

So my take is, eliminate cruelty as much as humanly possible, even if it raises prices or reduces the supply of meat, but accept that to live without killing for food is literally impossible (AFAIK).

[Critters2]

221. Many plants live out their natural lives before being harvested--

corn and soybeans, for instance. Look at a corn field at harvest time...the plant has died. Many other plants don't die in the harvest process. This is true for a good many fruits, produced on perennial plants (apples, peaches, pears, etc). The plants give up their fruit and live to produce fruit in the next season.

Most of the people I've known who make this argument don't actually know how food is produced, so they just give this silly "plants have feelings, too" argument. Well, they don't have central nervous systems, so there's no reason to think they have feelings.

And most don't die in the process of producing food.

Animals, otoh...

[Fountain79]

225. Just to be annoying...

there are animals that die in the cultivation of plant life too.

[Critters2]

236. But not intentionally, and their lives are better than those lived

in factory farms.

But you got the annoying part right.

[Fountain79]

302. Hey at least I admitted it...

Would you prefer animals that are raised in free-range/organic situations?

[Critters2]

320. It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef

If you're arguing for the "rights" of plants, supporting the eating of meat is not the best way to go about it. I cause the "deaths" of way fewer plants by eating them directly than you do by eating meat.

Why do you hate both plants AND animals?

[Kali]

340. Only if they are fed grain. (which would have been harvested AFTER the

plant matured and was dead - most grains are annuals) Not needed to to raise beef. Do you eat much grass? Live perennial grass is well adapted to grazing by livestock. How about dead dry grass? Cattle can make high quality protein from it.

Eating grass fed beef is actually eating quite low on the food chain/pyramid/whatever.

My only argument is for the rights of humans to make choices for themselves based on good information.

[CrispyQ]

328. You are right,

"...that to live without killing for food is literally impossible..." However, some of us have chosen to eat as low on the food chain as possible. Or, as another saying goes, to eat as far away from our DNA as possible. ;)

The factory farms of today are abominations & diminish our humanity. We have the potential to be so much better than this, to treat other species & our planet with the care & respect that one should show to one's family, community & home.

--What you do to one, you do to all.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. Yes

they have wreaked havoc and attacked innocents. Two wrongs to not make a right

[flvegan]

12. Anything to support that accusation?

Just wondering what would prejudice someone against another trying to do something positive.

[Solo_in_MD]

17. PETA is to the ALF as Sinn Fein is to the Provisional wing of the IRA

They have openly acknowledged financial support of ALF, which is a terror group. Attacking women wearing fur is another of thier cute activities. There are other organizations that do what they do without the abusvie tactics and without supporting terror groups. They are much more deserving of our support

[LeftyMom]

18. Oh this is gonna be fun.

:popcorn:

[Solo_in_MD]

24. My experience with them is more than academic

Its been up close and personal a couple of times.

PETA leaders clearly sympathize and support ALF and their tactics. The quotes are all over the net for those who care to look. The wink at and then deny public face of PETA is a compelete sham. I've seen it in action on campuses and elsewhere.

I support peaceful protest and boycots but will not countenance violence, esp violence aganist weak (i'm funny like that). On two occasions I have protected older women against harrassment and attacks by the anti fur mobs. I've seen their actions in real time and real life...

[flvegan]

25. Here is where you are wrong

You said:
"PETA leaders clearly sympathize and support ALF and their tactics. The quotes are all over the net for those who care to look."

The "leaders" of PETA have also been largely taken out of context on many statements. I hope you hold the leadership of those groups you support to the same levels. *ahem* dems, progressives, et al. These "quotes" that are "all over the net" don't really mean much, do they?

BTW, you should look beyond the usual RW spin when thinking of this "ALF" of which you speak.

You won't "countenance violence...against (the) weak" Do you even know what that means?

[bunyip]

32. Here's one of those quotes -

"Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
- PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk, 1989

Spin that for us, please :popcorn:

[LeftyMom]

35. Got that in context?

Knowing Ms. Newkirk's writing, that was part of a much larger argument about the ineffectiveness of animal testing and how it allows dangerous medications to come to market. Go get the whole damned thing and get back to me.

[bunyip]

191. The full quote was

"Medical research is immoral even if it's essential. Even if animal testing produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

Without testing, we wouldn't have even the AIDS drugs we have today. Some DUers are only alive because of anti-retrovirals.

PETA is fighting a jihad against science and medicine.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

219. But didn't doctors intentionally ignore Nazi discoveries

that were made in the camps? Ethics are very important in medicine.

And no, PETA is not "fighting a jihand against science and medicine." The quote said "animal testing." While I don't agree with their stance on the medical front, that is not the same as being against science and medicine in general.

Rather like Republicans against stem cell research - they aren't against ALL science and medical research...although since they don't believe that evolution should be taught and think that global warming is a myth, I might have to rethink that.

[PinkyisBlue]

256. AIDS

It's believed that the AIDS virus originated in Africa, due to humans eating the brains of some type of monkey. So if people didn't eat other animals (like PETA recommends), the AIDS virus would not have been transmitted to humans in the first place, and there would be no need to even do AIDS research.

Same for "mad cow" disease, which is also caused by people eating the brains and spinal cords of infected animals. This disease is most likely already in the beef supply, as symptoms of the disease don't show up for 10 years or so. The USDA has cowed (pun intended) to pressures from the beef industry and does very little testing for the presence of this virus in our beef.

[Kali]

258. BSE is not a virus. Chimps are not monkeys, and...

"There is evidence that HIV may have transferred to humans throughout history, but only became an epidemic in the 20th century. The reasons for this are increased sexual promiscuity, civil unrest and movement of people to cities, according to Dr Hahn.

Last year, researchers said they had found the first known case of Aids - in a Bantu man who died in 1959 in the Belgian Congo, now the Democratic Republic of Congo and the home of the sub-species of chimps."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/269306.stm


Too bad peta wasn't around promoting the vegan lifestyle to the Bantu 45+ years ago.

[PinkyisBlue]

291. I didn't call a chimp a monkey.

And BSE is caused by a prion (I think). But it still holds true that AIDS would not have jumped from chimps to humans if the humans didn't eat them.

[flvegan]

39. Don't have to spin it.

Animal testing has proven time and again that animal testing provides largely inaccurate studies.

Got anything else?

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

154. Got any proof of THAT?

For cosmetics, maybe. For scads of new drugs, I really doubt your claim.

[Realityhack]

205. Sorce/Proof/Evidence?

Thats far from beeing a self evident claim. Got a legitimate sorce of some kind?

FYI I do not wish to imply agreement with the poster you started arguing with but this claim needs support or you should drop it.

[flvegan]

248. Okay

look up (and let's go back a little bit)

Thalidomide
then, maybe
Clioquinol

That's just two, from decades ago.

[Nevernose]

250. Okay, name three from my or my parent's generations

This isn't eyeliner we're talking about testing here, it's medicine that could actually help people.

[flvegan]

253. Name some, then name some more?

Whatever. How about you do your own legwork, k? And as far as "generations" go, I find it very close to laughable that those seeking updated information on animal testing are basing that desire on outdated methods.

Oh, well. So long as one feels confident, I guess...

[Nevernose]

257. I didn't make the claim. I asked you to support yours.

A generation, btw, si usually defined as 25-30 years. Let's call it fifty years total, to give you the easy way out. I wan't deisring that you support your own argument based on "outdated" methods, but was willing to accept your arguments whatever years conducted, so long as they were both relevant an not contraindicated by later studies. Aristotle, Skinner, Einstein, Galileo, Bohrs, Newton, Copernicus, DARWIN. I was just desiring that you support your argument by anyything relevant.

Which methods are outdated, precisely? So far, the only method under attack that I've seen is the scientific one.

Fifty years ago, there were probably lots of scientists writing about lots of things, just like today, and not knowing what the outcome would be. Many times, we wouldn't have known that without testing their hypothoses on animals first. Hopefully, we've become more considerate of what gets tested and why than the inverse.

I'm not talking about "medical" testing to see if a dog's eyes were burned out by a new mascara or a pig's heart exploded due to the unfortunate effect of experimental heart medications, but the effects of a diabetes drug on apes before (not instead of) humans.

If you've got problems with the ethics involved, then you've found an ally. But, then again, I'm just one of the many people that PETA hates, and not one of the people within the MAJORITY of Americans, generally, that would make better allies than enemies, but PETA picks out as an enemy "just because."

[Realityhack]

301. What on earth is that suposed to prove?!?

The fact animal testing didn't completely work for two drugs from decades ago is lightyears from showing that it is an invalid method for research.
Your statement is analogus to saying that the police should be disbanded because they don't catch all criminals.

Animal testing is one step in a process. It's not a one thing prooves all process. Its not perfect and nobody ever claimed it was... but it is a very important and scientificaly useful tool.

Care to provide some actual scientific evidence like say published research that shows an overall pattern of failure to be useful in any way? Its your claim you are the one who needs to back it up.

Also perhapse you would like to pledge not to use any medication that has been tested on animals?

[LeftyMom]

26. Okay, I think we're missing a few things here.

1. PETA leaders (I want names and quotes, I won't do your googling for you) are as entitled to opinions as anybody else. Were they speaking for themselves or for the organization when they said something you object to? Please provide quotes in the context of thier larger interviews and articles and not out of context snippets culled from right-wing anti-AR sites.

2. There are two claims here. The first is that PETA leadership sympathizes with the ALF and thier tactics. The second is that they provide support (moral, material, financial, informational, media? you're not clear.) Please back both up, again keeping in mind the distinction between individual opinions and organizational policy and culture and providing evidence that those quoted are speaking for PETA rather than for themselves.

3. Please provide a documented example of a PETA officer flinging paint at a fur-clad person during thier PETA tenure.

4. Should you comply with #3, please indicate how this is violence, rather than a property crime.

[flvegan]

27. 'Tis a good thing

that listening to crickets chirp is something one can do without causing harm...

Just sayin...

[LeftyMom]

29. Earth Balance or Olive oil and nutritional yeast on the popcorn?

I could make kettle corn if you'd prefer. I think we may be in for a wait, might as well have a snack.

How 'bout a movie?

[Solo_in_MD]

47. It would be a PG movie or higher for language and violence

How 'bout a movie?

I used to have a shirt with red paint on it from one of the PETA demonstrations. Was literally just in the area and watched their tactics. Brownshirts at their best. I intervened and helped get a small frail woman to a taxi, getting between her and a protester with a PETA shirt. He did not take being blocked from his intended victim well. After his co-conspirator picked him up off the ground, they both made another futile attempt to dump paint on the woman, and when it failed turned on me. Presumptive they both sought medical attention afterward. The sounds of bones breaking is unmistakeable...I was no longer interested in being nice. This was pre Internet days, but it made the print media. PETA acknowledged it as one of their demonstrations and there were mention of altercations, but not casualties.

4 years later and on a different coast I was downtown and saw the classic signs of a demonstration forming up. PETA and anti-fur. No paint this time. I was in riding leathers, cowhide no less). A growl was enough to convince people to leave the women I escorted to their cars. I was not the only one doing it.

As for the funding issues, it is on their IRS filings that they have given money, putatively for legal defense, to accused/convicted domestic terrorists, though depending on the source, there may have been at $1500 that was not designated. That triggered calls for revocation of their tax exempt status, though I don't know if it got anywhere.

The statements, and there are many,are attributed mostly to Lisa Lange,Ingrid Newkirk, and Bruce Friedrich. They would make Gerry Adams proud.

PETA I am sure does some good things, and the celebs they get to do the commercial are fine, but I have seen the violence first hand. I am sure the rank and file does not buy into it, no reasonable person would, but that does not mean it did not happen and was not sanctioned, supported, and condoned by PETA leadership.

People can make their intellectual arguments and Google what they please. I've BTDT in real life, and IMNSHO it trumps online blather every damn time.

[flvegan]

54. Intriguing.

So a "protester" in a PETA shirt IS PETA? How intruiguing.

The tax-exempt status you allude to was very soundly investigated by the IRS and dismissed. Does that change things?

How about the OP? That has no value?

[Solo_in_MD]

60. Indeed

So a "protester" in a PETA shirt IS PETA? How intruiguing.
PETA acknowledged to the media as one of their demonstrations. Their name was everywhere, they were doing nothing to prevent the violence, IMO, it was their show. I will admit that I did not check the two bubbas I dropped for membership cards.

The tax-exempt status you allude to was very soundly investigated by the IRS and dismissed. Does that change things?
No, IIRC, Fred Phelps group is still tax exempt.

How about the OP? That has no value?
Given my experience, I am scarcely an unbiased source of commentary on PETA. I perceive it at headline grabbing, since what they are doing is not PETA unique.

[flvegan]

61. Your last statement was enough.

The rest doesn't matter. Comparing PETA to Phelps? Low. At best, even given "your experience" as well-regarded and unbiased as it might be. Oh, wait. I didn't even need to say that. You did. Cool, thanks!

[Solo_in_MD]

63. My point was that tax exempt status is no discrimator when it comes

to the worthiness of organizations.

Classic reducto absurdem technique. If the worst of the worst can obtain and retain tax exempt status, having it is meaningless.

[flvegan]

65. Yet what was stated

by you (sorry):

PETA is to the ALF as Sinn Fein is to the Provisional wing of the IRA

They have openly acknowledged financial support of ALF, which is a terror group. Attacking women wearing fur is another of thier cute activities. There are other organizations that do what they do without the abusvie tactics and without supporting terror groups. They are much more deserving of our support

[Solo_in_MD]

99. And it is still true...PETA is to the ALF as Sinn Fein is to the Provos

[LeftyMom]

59. Please provide those quotes in the manner described above

Merely naming a few people and claiming that they said something irresponsible or offensive at some point without a hint of detail isn't precisely convincing.

[Critters2]

316. Throwing red paint strikes you as "violence"

If so, you've lived a really sheltered life.

[Critters2]

226. Corn oil margarine on my popcorn, svp

Gotta support my corn-raising cousins. Thanks

[sproutster]

73. From peta.org

http://www.peta.org/feat/petatomato/

Anything intended to humiliate and any thrown object at a living person is violence - or are projectiles ok in your world??

[trixie]

103. Great post!

:applause:

[Lisa0825]

272. :applause:

:applause:

[cynatnite]

89. Let's see if this fits your criteria:

http://www.cdfe.org/Coronado%20Sentencing.pdf

Here on pages 8 and 9 you will find that Rodney Coronado, a guy who firebombed a research laboratory some time ago, sent packages to Newkirk and another leader of PETA. Now, grant it, no one was hurt when they committed his arson, but most consider it an act of violence.

PETA was also nice enough to contribute a tidy sum to his defense fund.



As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. These should be worth at least several thousand. Photos are posted often here at DU and since I don't care for graphic images, I won't do that here. But here is a link that shows how PETA disposes of those animals it 'saves'.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaTrial2.cfm

Here is also the criminal indictments of those people who are suspected of this horror.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/trialCharges.pdf

Penn and Teller's show called Bullshit really highlights the radicalism of PETA. Here's a link to watch:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1913999390200944075&q=bullshit

IMO, PETA is no better than the radical pro-life groups who firebomb abortion clinics.

[Kali]

98. don't you know those weren't really peta people

just some bad apples, every group has them


:eyes:

[LeftyMom]

102. Yep, they chipped in for his legal defense.

Pardon my saying so, but big fuckin' deal. Isn't one of the ideals of our society that everyone is entitled to a robust defense against criminal charges?

Now go look up who the "Center for Consumer Freedom" is, who pays for thier services and report back to the class would you?

[trixie]

106. Yeah, so what if Bush backs the killing of civilians;

So what if so-and-so helps the defense of Ken Lay.......:shrug:

Your integrity starts with you.

[LeftyMom]

107. Who are you to question my integrity?

Everybody's entitled to a lawyer, and nobody should ever face serious charges with some hack PD.

[trixie]

121. I say this

If you support, with your dollars, an arsonist then I equate you with the arsonist and am appalled by you.

[Critters2]

227. Supporting a legal defense is not supporting a crime

In this country, we believe people are innocent until proven guilty, and have the right to a skilled defense. Or at least most of us do.

[cynatnite]

123. Facts are still facts...

PETA supports ALF and ELF...it's a documented fact. PETA advocates violence as you will see by the quotes below. How much more are PETA supporters going to proclaim 'those quotes are taken out of context'?

What I'm showing here is no different than if I was proving how extreme Operation Rescue is. PETA is cut from the same cloth as Operation Rescue.

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."

-Alex Pacheco, Director, PETA

"Andrew Cunanan, because he got Versace to stop doing fur."

-PETA's David Mathews reply when to Genre request for "Men We Love"

"I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, National Animal Rights Convention '97, June 27, 1997

http://www.peta-sucks.com/araquotes.htm

Pet ownership is an "absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA
(_Washingtonian_Magazine_, August 1986)

"Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt...We are not here to
gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold
the radical line."
Ingrid Newkirk - Founder, PETA
USA Today, September 3, 1991

"We have a lazy, sick society. People bring diseases on themselves.
avoid getting the disease in the first place."
Dan Mathews - PETA spokesperson
USA Today, July 27, 1994

Question to PETA Outreach Coordinator Susan Rich: "If you were aboard a
lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, which would you
rescue?"

Rich's answer: "I wouldn't know for sure...I might choose the human baby
or I might choose the dog."
Steve Kane Show WIOD-AM Radio Miami, FL Feb, 23, 1989

-In response to Animal Liberation Front violence in the Pacific Northwest:
"We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front...they act courageously,
risking their freedom and their careers to stop the terror inflicted every
day on animals in the labs. comprise an important part
of today's animal protection movement."
PETA statement - June 19, 1991

http://fins.actwin.com/nanf/month.200004/msg00047.html

Bruce Friedrich, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).

While disclaiming involvement in violent activities himself, Friedrich devoted an entire presentation to the case for violence, starting with people's natural inhibitions against violence to justification for it "to end animal suffering." "If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands," Friedrich said, "then, of course we're going to be blowing things up and smashing windows. For the record, I don't do this stuff, but I advocate it. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation, considering the level of suffering, the atrocities."

"I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks who (sic) fund them exploded tomorrow," he continued to loud applause.

"I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through windows."

Source: AMP News Service Special Report:
AT THE ANIMAL RIGHTS 2001 CONFERENCE
Saturday, July 7, 2001

http://www.feldentertainment.com/pr/aca/Quotes.htm

[Zhade]

137. What's funny is I used Eric Rudolph as an example before reading this.

Seems we both recognize that supporting violent criminals isn't the best use of allegedly progressive monies.

[Zhade]

136. Isn't it a little unseemly to provide money for defense of an arsonist?

Eric Rudolph was "entitled to a robust defense against criminal charges", but I doubt any of us would speak well of any group that claims nonviolence yet provided money for his legal defense.

Just sayin'.

[LeftyMom]

220. Well, the defense came before the conviction,

so at the time he was only an accused arsonist. That whole innocent until proved guilty thing.

[Realityhack]

210. seems to me...

there are only 2 reasons to chip into a legal defense fund...
1. You beleive the person is innocient.
2. You beleive they are guilty but support what they do.

Contributing to someones deffence fund is absolutely making a statement of support for them. In the case of someone who you beleive actualy DID the thing they are accused of (and this sounds like that case) it is making a statment that you think that what they did is ok/legitimate/should not be punnished.

You asked for evidence and it was given to you. I am not informed enough to completely take sides in this issue but I think you're being dishonest here about saying 'big frikin' deal' when presented with evidence against your case.

[trixie]

105. Very much like the pro-lifers

[PinkyisBlue]

260. You should do more research to know what you're talking about.

Do you work for the meat packers association or something?

I went to your link above, www.petakillsanimals.com..., and found out this site is run by a non-profit group, Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), and links to at least four other sites, all with the sole purpose of bashing PETA. It also bashes Humane Society of the United States. CCF states their mission as follows: "We stand up to "food police", environmental scaremongers, neo-prohibitionists, meddling bureaucrats,..."

However, when you go to another website, Center for Consumer Freedom-SourceWatch, you get the true picture of this hateful organization. According to SourceWatch, CCF is "a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. It runs media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health advocates, environmentalists and groups like 'Mothers Against Drunk Driving'"...

I found that the officers, representatives and advisory panel members of CCF are all employed by the beef, alcohol or beverage industries or a restaurant chain. One of the directors of CCF, Dan Popeo, was paid over $300,000 in salary/benefits in 2000 by a corporate-funded right-wing think tank. Another CCF representative has worked for a variety of conservative causes, including Republican election campaigns.

As far as the rest of your post goes, it's true that a couple of people working on behalf of PETA were not following PETA's policies and animals died as a result. But PETA put a stop to their activities when they found out about it. I remember reading about it a year or two ago, so I don't remember all the details. But it wasn't what the CCF made it out to be.

In any case, PETA's heart is in the right place; it's trying to stop animal suffering. Where's your heart? Do you have animal friends? As informed citizens, we need to question the motives and sources of what we read. But as a member of DU, I thought you already knew that!

[Solo_in_MD]

268. Their publicly stated purposes is clear, but its also clear

that its leadership condones and supports violence and the ends do not justify the means. They are seriously flawed but with a good PR department. There are others that care for animals without resorting to violence and support of domestic terror groups. Their tactics are no better than the anti-choice crowd.

I also know that most members really don't see the whole story. If they did, they would leave in droves. How self identified progressives can defend them in such a knee jerk manner is beyond me. Their "by any means necessary" attitude is the problem and the fish rots from the head...

[cynatnite]

270. Let's see...I posted court documents and tax records...

I posted a link to Penn and Teller's show about PETA...I suppose they probably represent the beef industry or something...hell, they probably kick small animals for fun :sarcasm:

I do find it odd that those who support PETA aren't bothered by their advocacy for violence and for convicted arsonists. Is that okay if their 'heart' is in the right place? That doesn't smack hypocrisy to you?

The truth about PETA needs to come out and their extremist leadership needs to find the door. The way I see it, it's the only way they'll be considered acceptable by more people and not some radical fringe group.

They also give the left a black eye, IMO. Their tactics, support of violence and harsh rhetoric only give the RW cause to paint all of us with the same broad brush strokes.

As PETA stands now, they are cut from the same cloth as extreme pro-life groups like Operation Rescue. That's the kind of help we don't need.

I'm not sure why my personal life has any bearing on anything in this discussion other than you don't like the facts. I find it strange you think it's relevant. Even though you do disagree with my opinions on PETA, there is no way I can pass judgment on you as a person based on your particular POV.

I do practice against PETA principles. I own a dog. We had a cat a few years ago, but she died. Also, if you think this has some bearing on the discussion, my sister is an animal lover to the max. She owns a large farm with a lot of animals. She takes in strays, finds them homes and goes out of her way to make sure they get the best possible care. She just recently started doing horse rescue with two friends. She hates PETA with a passion. Her view is no decent animal lover should support PETA. But what can I say...she's an extremist with many of her ideas.

[Critters2]

224. If you think that's violent

you should see what happens to animals in slaughter houses.

[Solo_in_MD]

231. Violence in slaughterhouses does not excuse violence elsewhere

I could take a reducto absurdum approach on this but it would be way too easy...

[Critters2]

234. But some violence is acceptable to you, right?

That's my point. Violence in slaughter houses gets no reaction from you.

Why is that?

[Solo_in_MD]

240. I never said that what my reaction to a slaughter house violence is,

since it it not relevant.

I stated that it was not justification for violence by one person on another. Violence I and others here have personally seen PETA perpetrate.

[Critters2]

317. Throwing red paint on rich white women is violence!

But the real suffering of animals on a daily basis, so those rich women can have those fur coats, that's not worthy of comment.

Oh, well...if you had a conscience, you wouldn't know what to do with it.

[cynatnite]

279. Is it okay to firebomb a slaughter house?

Keep in mind that groups like Operation Rescue advocate violence to stop abortions.

[Solo_in_MD]

296. I would think that Newkirk would support that

PETA is so much like Operation Rescue. That progessives think that it is acceptable is scary

[Critters2]

321. What?

Who here advocated firebombing a slaughterhouse?

[flvegan]

20. Okay, you stated this

"They have openly acknowledged financial support of ALF, which is a terror group. Attacking women wearing fur is another of thier cute activities. There are other organizations that do what they do without the abusvie tactics and without supporting terror groups."

1. Show the ALF as a "terror group"; Seems this little "group" doesn't so much exist...
2. Prove PETA giving same "financial support"
3. Show PETA attacking women wearing fur;
4. Define "abusvie (sic) tactics" and prove up the "supporting (of) terror groups"

Awesome, thanks.

[sproutster]

74. From peta.org

http://www.peta.org/feat/petatomato/

Projectiles at humans is violence.

[idgiehkt]

118. lol.

that's hysterical!

[Zhade]

138. And yet it still advocates violence.

Yes, one is not likely to die from a drive-by tomato-ing, but it's still a form of violence.

Hell, words can be violent, and they don't even hit a person.

[idgiehkt]

199. it may

and it's probably wrong for PETA to use this campaign just because it can be used against them. However if some disturbed or gullible person does in fact, take the tomato sticker seriously, then I just hope they do it when I am around.

[Zhade]

208. "just because it can be used against them"

Yep, which is kind of my whole argument - PETA is often its own worst enemy.

[PinkyisBlue]

262. Violence

It depends on your perspective. It's a lot more violent to stun and then skin a fox than it is to throw a tomato at someone wearing the fox fur coat (at least from the viewpoint of the fox). Are you saying violence only matters when it's directed against a human and not an animal?

If so, that's very elitist and Republican of you.

[Solo_in_MD]

265. So you support violence against people who have done nothing wrong?

And you claim others are elitst and Repuke?

[PinkyisBlue]

292. I ask again, does violence only matter when it's directed against

a human and not an animal? You forgot to answer the question. (Assume it's an animal that has done nothing wrong).

[Solo_in_MD]

293. You are attempting to join things that have no inate linkage

Doing violence to people because violence is/was done to animals is unacceptable, though it clearly has tacit and at time overt PETA endorsement.

[PinkyisBlue]

299. You are trying to "weasel out" of an answer.

Is violence to animals okay with you? And if it's not, how far would you go to stop it? Would you ever take an active (physical) role to stop it? Does it depend on the circumstances?

Just hear me out. If you saw someone beating a child with a bat, you would do whatever you needed to do to stop this violent act. But what if you saw someone beating a dog with a bat, you asked them to stop and they wouldn't? Would you attempt to take the bat away from the person or move the dog away? It gets a bit murkier, doesn't it? If you were truly sympathetic to animals, it would be very difficult to walk away from seeing somebody beating a dog. If you had to take an active role to stop it, you probably would.

So what is activism and what is violence? Is activism ever justified to prevent further violence? What is the line between activism and violence?

Anyway, I'm no longer making any sense. Time to get some sleep.

Good night.

[Carissa]

147. Education not violence

You know, I don't agree with attacking women (or anyone) for wearing fur - but I understand where the outrage comes from.

Do you know that the fur that comes from China is mixed with dog fur? And that in the fur farms in China they stun the dogs and skin them alive, throwing them in a heap while they are still somewhat conscious?

I think education about these issues is the answer, not violence.

[Zhade]

152. A very fair post. Welcome to DU!

NT!

[Critters2]

223. The accusations that they support "terror groups" have never been

substantiated. They've been investigated for this, at risk of their 501c3 status. Well, status still intact, so the IRS apparently found no terrorist connections. If you know something specific, you should contact the feds.

If not, STFU.

[Solo_in_MD]

229. They have actively given money to and praised people who have

subsequently been convicted of criminal charges associated with eco terrorism. Read elsewhere in the thread for more discussion on that.

As for their tax exempt status, they share that with Fred Phelps group. That there was not enough to pull does not mean they are pure and without blame.

I have personally seen, witnessed, and fought back against PETA's terror tactics and intimidation as have others here. Read the sub threads...start with post 47

[Critters2]

235. If they supported terrorist groups, they'd lose their 501c3

status. You say they do, the feds say they don't. The laws are very clear about this...supporting terrorists is illegal.

[Solo_in_MD]

238. The have given money to ALF

Which is what started the investigation.

http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/Ecoterrorism.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=4&item=eco has a writeup on some of it. Its not definitive, but has a fair amount of detail.

[PinkyisBlue]

263. You certainly know your right-wing talking points.

I'd hate to be a pet at your house.

[Solo_in_MD]

264. My disdain for PETA and their tactics is based on personal experience

with them. Nothing right wing about watching them physically assault people and taking action to stop it. Stopping gang attacks on the weak is a progressive thing to do. See post 47 for the details.

I gather you support their brownshirt tactics?

[Critters2]

315. I consider what goes on in factory farms and slaughter houses

gang attacks on the weak. Wealthy women wearing dead animals to impress others don't qualify as "weak" in my world.

[AZBlue]

329. Anyone who wears fur deserves to be attacked. (nt)

[Kipling]

342. "Something positive"?

That's really only your opinion. I think that much of what PETA believes in comes from misguided anthropomorphising and a thirst for self-righteousness. There's nothing wrong with hunting or eating animals. In fact, it's the best way to get in touch with nature, killing, being killed and eating being the primary concerns of most animals.

[Catchawave]

8. Thank you PETA !

Nice to see the Aussie press covering their efforts. I also noticed, U.S. officials still don't "get it"....

"Kittens are sniffing amid rubble and starving dogs are running frantically down the streets after distraught American citizens were told that they must leave their animal companions behind to starve and die in war-torn Lebanon. While the French and Russian governments made provisions for animal evacuations, U.S. officials did the opposite."

[StClone]

10. During the Heat wave here in the Midwest.

I saw PETA members take to surveying parking lots to assure no children or pets were left in parked cars. I personally witnessed a Boston Terrier saved by the authorities by their efforts. PETA's detractions are over dramatized by those financially involved by the unethical treatment of animals.

[idgiehkt]

119. yes, and those folks and the lobbyists that work for them

for the animal exploiting industries. PETA hurts their bottom line, whether it is the Fur Commission, the Cattle Ranchers, the Dairy Farmers, what have you. These are professional groups that are working on behalf of animal exploiting industries to defame PETA and hide the cruelty in their industries. It's all economic, but these folks are pros...this anti-PETA propaganda doesn't get into liberal heads by accident.

[barb162]

217. They are really dedicated

and when they stop animal cruelty fine with me.

[jobycom]

11. I believe that if PETA miraculously disappeared

someone else would do the same work without the offensive commercials and advertising campaigns that alienate large numbers of people who might otherwise not resist being educating on animal rights issues. More progress would be made, and all the good things PETA does would just be done by other groups.

I won't bash them when they do good, but I won't praise them either, remembering how much harm they have done with their ad campaigns. To me, PETA is the guy who walks up to you, punches you in the mouth, then says "Now that I have your attention, let me tell you why I'm better than you." That guy doesn't win any converts.

[flvegan]

13. You

would likely be wrong, friend.

I don't support all they do, offensive stuff and all, however nobody else will stand in those shoes.

Harm is perception.

[jobycom]

15. Yes they would

There are plenty of groups now who do what they do, just not another large group who does it all. It gets done because people want it done, not because PETA forces it. The hatred of PETA because of their ad campaigns does more harm than good.

[flvegan]

16. Name one.

The hatred of PETA because of their ad campaigns is based upon the decision of the person viewing same to either hate it because of the source (PETA) or the message.

So, and I'm not being combative with you, as we're on the same page on so many things, name one large organization that will "do what they do" in this regard.

[jobycom]

30. Don't have to, it doesn't exist in that capacity yet

If PETA dissolved, though, one of the other animal activist groups would fill its role, or another group would form, maybe from former PETA members. It's a hypothetical point, the point isn't what group would emerge, the point is that the good things PETA does don't have to be tied to the evil it does. There is a role for that side of PETA, and another group could do it without alienating so many people.

Look, it's not perception or perspective or alternate realities. Start a PETA thread, and you get a really hot and angry debate. You know that. Start a thread on an idividual issue--animal treatment after Katrina, animal rescue in war-torn areas--and you get almost unanimous support. It's not PETA's mission people respond to, it's PETA, and to blame that on choices people make over the message is not productive. People will always react that way to being attacked.

Everyone has some horrible memory of PETA ads. For me, it's when they put up a bulletin board asking "Would you give your right arm to know why sharks attack humans?" on the beach were an eleven year old boy was attacked, while the boy was in the IC unit in a nearby hospital with a less than 50% chance of surviving. Who do you think people sympathized with in that case? The sharks PETA was trying to raise awareness of, or the mother crying her eyes out wondering if her child would live, would have brain damage, and would keep his arm?

That's not a question of perception. It's a question of reality. We are outraged when Bush shows that little sensitivity over Iraq or Karla Faye Tucker, but we are supposed to give PETA a pass for it because we like their goals? It's not realistic to expect most people to feel that. PETA preaches only to the choir. I'm in the choir, and I can't stand their preaching. They are about nine tenths of the attitude we have to overcome in others when we say we're vegetarian.

[LeftyMom]

33. I thnk what you're forgeting is that the odds are stacked against getting

the word out.

What you doesn't seem to understand is that circumstances demand the very outrageous, inflamatory, guerrilla marketing stuff that bothers you so. If everybody at PETA got raptured tomorrow and hsus or farm sanctuary or cok or whoever tried to fill in thier rather huge niche, they'd not be able to place ads in mainstream media or get attention by being nice. They'd either have to resort to the same sort of tactics or be more marginalized and less effective.

We do not live in a society that makes it easy to communicate an AR message, which somebody with your sig should have an easier time understanding. This is an uphill struggle against a biased media and a society of people with thier fingers in thier ears to get the word out. Being meek isn't going to save animals.

[jobycom]

49. Yeah, I've heard all that.

This is where I bow out. Anything further will just ruffle feathers, and we're all in roughly the same arena on this issue, anyway. I will say that if you honestly think I "don't seem to understand" PETA's reasoning, you greatly underestimate me.

[flvegan]

36. That is NOT what you said, is it?

Yes, start a thread that involves PETA (your words changed to mine) and you get really hot an angry debate.

However, what's funny is this..."Start a thread on an individual issue--animal treatment after Katrina, animal rescue in war-torn areas--and you get almost unanimous support."

How funny/odd/stupid is it that this thread is about PETA providing animal rescue in a war-torn area?

Maybe it's just the word "PETA" that folks choke on.

[jobycom]

52. I'm a bit stunned

You just proved exactly what I said, as though I didn't say it. That was my point. It is PETA that people choke on. They do so because PETA's ads turn people away from their message. That's my point. Take PETA out of the equation, get somebody else doing the same work with a better ad campaign, and you get more done and win more converts. You've just argued yourself around to what I said in the first place.

[flvegan]

55. Like I said...

what about the OP?

People can choke on what they choke on. It's bias that I'm looking at here.

Bias that has been sadly shown based on what an individual thinks about an organization (that they oft have no real, credible idea about).

Be stunned. We'll be in the same boat then, at least.

[jobycom]

56. I answered that in my first post. We're going in circles.nt

[flvegan]

58. No, actually, and I'll quote you if I may

"I believe that if PETA miraculously disappeared someone else would do the same work without the offensive commercials and advertising campaigns that alienate large numbers of people who might otherwise not resist being educating on animal rights issues. More progress would be made, and all the good things PETA does would just be done by other groups.

I won't bash them when they do good, but I won't praise them either, remembering how much harm they have done with their ad campaigns. To me, PETA is the guy who walks up to you, punches you in the mouth, then says "Now that I have your attention, let me tell you why I'm better than you." That guy doesn't win any converts."

"I won't bash them when they do good, but I won't praise them either..."

I'll sing to your consistency, at least.

[Zhade]

142. "It's bias that I'm looking at here."

In some regards, it's bias you're *imagining* here.

People don't always hate PETA because they're anti-AR (though of course that happens). Often, it's because of PETA's own actions.

[Nevernose]

254. You go verifying bias and opions of PETA. Check

Most of the rest of us will go about verifying the "humane" treatment of animals, and not organizations.

Of course, if we killed animals "humanely," we'd do it in the most painful way possible, and mostly because one breed appealed to us more asthetically. I think that the way a growing number of animal rights activists look at it is that PETA is more concerned with making headlines than actually protecting animals. Even though that I believe this to be true, that PETA cares about animals, they have made a number of bad decisions, which further not the cause of PETA but PETA itself.

[Lisa0825]

38. Thank you. (nt)

[idgiehkt]

120. it's strange, though, because so much of what people

say about PETA is lobbyist propaganda. It's easily debunked, as shown here in this thread.

I don't know why the lobbyists target PETA so much instead of HSUS, or ASPCA, or Physicians for Responsible Medicine, the Anti-Vivisection groups. Maybe because PETA has 'ethical' in their title, and that's a word that the lobbyists and propagandists revile most?

My point is that this perception isn't coming from PETA's actions so much of the time, it's coming from multi-million dollar lobbying firms whose sole purpose is to influence public opinion about things like meat and fur. If it were really coming from PETA then the accusations against them wouldn't be so easily debunked.

[Lisa0825]

127. Debunked? Hardly

What I have seen here amounts to a bunch of "Oh yeah, well, prove it"s and "that doesn't mean anything"s and total redirections, but I haven't seen much outright debunking.

The way people justify Peta actually sickens me. But like with the fundies and anti-abortion radicals, they have absolute faith in their mission, and they can overlook anything that doesn't mesh with their perception.

Well, those of us who don't buy into PETA's propaganda (who are ourselves dismissed as believing outside propaganda) have a different perception, not filtered by that faith.

[idgiehkt]

202. well, I do know that they throw pies.

LOL. Any other claim I've ever heard about them I've been able to debunk with a few minutes on google. I see them being talked about as 'radical, extremist' etc, and then I go to the fur commission or other lobbyist websites and find these exact memes. It's creepy, because people who pride themselves on discretion with regard to PETA show very little when it comes to swallowing these right-wing firms' memes hook, line, and sinker.

[Critters2]

228. They target PETA

because PETA is effective.

[Solo_in_MD]

294. I target PETA due to their ongoing deceitful practices and their

predilection and support for violence.

[Critters2]

319. What violence? nt

[conflictgirl]

287. The "your mommy kills animals" anti-fur campaign

That's one that can't be easily debunked. I'll let you look at it yourself:
http://www.furisdead.com/feat-momfur.asp

Last time I checked, the HSUS and ASPCA don't have such disgusting campaigns TARGETED AT CHILDREN. When an organization such as PETA has campaigns that operate largely on shock value, they should not be surprised when people don't take them seriously when they try to do good works.

PETA's good works may not get enough publicity as they should. But PETA themselves are directly to blame for a lot of the criticism they receive and it's *not* just the result of unfair propaganda.

[jobycom]

310. The Jesse Arbogast billboard hasn't been debunked

And neither have the Holocaust and Slavery comparisons, which PETA defended before backing down on. I don't know what you think in my post has been debunked, but I'll listen if you want to spell it out.

[Critters2]

322. The holocaust comparison

was originally made by a holocaust comparison. I always love it when people who ARE NOT survivors tell one what he can and cannot compare to his experience.

Talk about paternalism.

[Kali]

341. I think you have typo in there, but nevertheless, a whole lot of

other survivors objected VERY strongly.

[Zhade]

140. With all due respect, bullshit.

I never chose to hate PETA or their message - I support some of PETA's goals, just not their tactics.

Their tactics turned me off of *them*, not the goal of eliminating cruelty to animals. Your assertion is unfounded assumption designed to bolster your argument, and it fails to do so.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

222. So all the PETA supporters would evaporate?

Where do they get their funding?

If DU shut down tomorrow, would we all just go away too?

[pitohui]

21. i wish i could recommend a "reply" post

To me, PETA is the guy who walks up to you, punches you in the mouth, then says "Now that I have your attention, let me tell you why I'm better than you." That guy doesn't win any converts.


that's a hole in one, my friend

[flvegan]

23. Yes, it is...

if that is your perception.

Reality differs.

[trixie]

108. My reality sees you

vehemently supporting the organization that violently attacked my child. It is this sort of person that makes me puke and what justice and would like to see every last one of them arrested and jailed.

[Zhade]

144. YOUR reality, you mean.

*You* don't define reality.

[flvegan]

46. BTW...while PETA does the work suggested in the OP

what do you think of that? Not so much about the group, but about the actions.

Where's the support now?

[Kailassa]

126. No, the new group would be infiltrated

by agent provocateurs too.

[Zhade]

139. Excellent point.

NT!

[arwalden]

31. Frankly, Yes.

[LittleClarkie]

34. I don't go around hating PETA just as opposing George Bush isn't a matter

of merely hating him as if it were an emotional thing instead of a factual thing. Those who have criticism for how PETA goes about things are not "haters" no more than those who have something to say about what George Bush is doing in Iraq merely hate America.

I'm sorry if you have trouble seeing people offer up criticism of an organization you obviously support. But I'm sure there is more behind it than mere random emotion.

[flvegan]

41. Been here long?

Criticism v. hate. Check into it. Get back to me.

Thanks!

[LittleClarkie]

42. I don't respond well to being condescended to

and I've seen the two concepts confused enough around here to know of which I speak.

I was a vocal Kerry supporter right after the election after all. Talk about hate being paraded out as criticism. Oye shit.

[flvegan]

43. I didn't condescend.

You wrote off an entire organization based on what you thought of it, yes? Rather, even, wrote off an entire concept?

[LittleClarkie]

50. Where did you get that from what I wrote. I just responded badly to

people being accused of being "haters" as if they might not have a valid point or two.

I'm not even getting into who is right and who is wrong or what I think of PETA or any other organization. Just that people have a right to their opinions without being called "haters".

And yes, you did. I've been here for two years. And I don't need to run off and find anything I haven't already seen.

[trixie]

110. Oh...let me answer please...

Any organization that used violence should be written off COMPLETELY.

[Critters2]

323. Yep, that's why I've written off the meat and fur industries

and refuse to support them with my dollars. I take it you've done the same.

[Zhade]

148. She only wrote off the unfounded concept that hating PETA...

...is driven by sheer hate. LC never wrote off the concept of AR, either.

It's not that simple, dear. PETA often gives itself a bad name while trying to give itself a good name.

[Zhade]

146. How arrogant and dismissive of you.

As much as you may believe otherwise, you actually don't hold all the answers on this issue.

[Kali]

37. Never HATED peta, but I still disagree with a lot of the propaganda

and publicity stunts. And won't fund/donate/or support them. EOM

[flvegan]

45. What about the OP?

Can you support PETA in their efforts there?

[trixie]

111. I hear the KKK

does lots of charity work. They could use your logic.

[flvegan]

145. PETA isn't a hate group. Therefore

your comparison, although bullshit in nature, is...well, bullshit.

[NobleCynic]

48. I don't know about hate

but PETA people still scare me. Fanatics of any breed have that effect.

[flvegan]

51. "PETA people"

scare you? What's a PETA person, and how does that person scare you?

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

86. I hear "PETA people" are like "veggie people" and stuff.

With their scary tofu and their scary sprouts and their scary love of animals.

:scared:

[Zhade]

149. That's a false comparison. I know many nonviolent vegetarians.

Some members of PETA are not, and PETA does not appear to condemn their acts of violence (if I am wrong, kindly direct me to sources of PETA's condemnation of violence).

'Vegetarian' does not equal 'PETA supporter'.

[Critters2]

325. Hehehe

I love tofu.....BOO!

:rofl:

[NobleCynic]

95. Anyone who would rescue an animal from a warzone

before a human scares me.

[LeftyMom]

109. The thing is

Other governments arranged for transport of thier citizens and thier animals. The US government told thier citizens to abandon thier animals to certain deprivation and death.

That sort of callousness scares me and makes me question the inherent decency of humanity.

[NobleCynic]

304. I regard it as a question of priorities.

Resources that went towards rescuing these animals could have fed families, bought medicine, and provided housing foor refugee families.

They put animals too far ahead of people in terms of their priorities.

[LeftyMom]

339. PETA is an animal rights organization

They're supposed to save animals. That's what people send them money for. A lot of those people also chip in with organizations that specialize in human rights and welfare and are equipped to handle large scale human emergencies, which PETA is not. It makes more sense for organizations to specialize in a place or a cause than to take on all the world's problems.

Criticizing PETA for not being Doctors without Borders or the Red Cross/Red Crescent is stupid. They can't do those jobs and thier own job. They're not the Legal Aid society or the Arbor Day Foundation either. All of those organizations do worthwhile things well and stick to matters within thier specialty. If one of thier missions speaks to you more than PETA's, than by all means send them a check.

[idgiehkt]

53. I had heard there was an org. called BETA

Beirut for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, that started doing rescue as soon as the bombing started. I don't know if it's affliated with PeTA or not

[qnr]

57. Never hated them in the first place.

Though, come to think of it, I kind of hate the "People Eating Tasty Animals" bumper sticker type of PETA

[bling bling]

62. They get some bonus points for this from me.

I never hated Peta to begin with, though. But I do understand from other people's explanations why they don't like Peta. If people are offended or turned off by PETA's methods than that's the way it is. Generally, (with the exception of the "War on Christmas" pretending-to-be-persecuted RW X-tians), I prefer that organizations listen and respond to people who tell them that they are offended by their actions. However, PETA must be doing something right. I would think if they were really underfunded, for the sake of the animals they would change their tactics in order to appeal to a wider base of people for donations.

[flvegan]

69. I like your post and your thinking.

Well stated.

[Tom Joad]

64. Yes, i hate PETA. They supported the war against Iraq, but insisted

troops have access to vegetarian diets. What kind of sick value system is that? That said, i know there are peta folks who opposed both, but the leadership is looney.

[flvegan]

66. Supported the war, how?

This is pretty new to me, so I have to ask.

[Tom Joad]

71. Just for starters. PETA Calls For "Cruelty-Free" War

PETA Calls For "Cruelty-Free" War

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) delivered a boatload of vegan cookies during Christmas to the Navy crew aboard the USS Truman. PETA was seeking to promote vegetarianism among the troops and considered the sweet treats to be the "best weapon in the war against cruelty to animals." The controversial animal rights group now is revving up its anti-meat campaign for Valentine's Day. PETA is mailing candy heart boxes to thousands of U.S. and British troops. The boxes contain vegan chocolates and a card with a "Valentines don't eat other Valentines" message.

PETA President Ingrid Newkirk explained, "Even as bombs are dropping around and bullets are flying, we're hoping that by turning to a vegetarian diet during combat, our brave men and woman in uniform will make this a cruelty-free war." Ms. Newkirk insisted that she was not under the influence of hallucinogens. {I think she is under the influence of Anti-Arab racism-- tom joad}
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/15041/

Regarding their helping doggies in Lebanon, why don't they raise their voice to stop the bombing? What freakin' cowards.
Despite their right-wing lunacy of their leaders...

[flvegan]

131. By that logic

if I, or anyone, sent a care package to one of the troops, then I, or that person is supporting the war?

Seems more like supporting the troops to me.

As stated in the OP, they're living up to their mission, "despite their right-wing lunacy of their leaders" whatever the fuck that means.

[Tom Joad]

259. If military invasions are done with troops eating only fruits or vegetable

then they are "cruelty free"?

If only Genghis Kahn had insisted on a vegan diet for his soldiers, history would record him benevolently?

[Zhade]

150. Based on that excerpt, it sounds more like callous marketing...

...than outright support of the invasion. Just heartless exploitation of human suffering to promote the (laudable, to be sure) goal of ending animal suffering.

[medeak]

67. hate PETA

came into my little town and set free Chukar chicks that the bad boys school was raising..let them loose and as next to freeway they were all run over...a blessing I suppose as they were too young to survive on their own.

[flvegan]

68. Not knowing specifics

that experience (as ugly as it sounds) keeps you from supporting the OP?

[-..__...]

70. Peace now!!!! Do it for the donkeys!

http://www.peta.org/feat/arafat

PETA’s letter to Yasser Arafat

February 3, 2003

Yasser Arafat, President
Palestinian National Authority
Ramallah, West Bank
Palestinian Authority

1 page via facsimile: 972 7 282 2365

Your Excellency:

I am writing from an organization dedicated to fighting animal abuse around the world. We have received many calls and letters from people shocked at the bombing in Jerusalem on January 26 in which a donkey, laden with explosives, was intentionally blown up.

All nations behave abominably in many ways when they are fighting their enemies, and animals are always caught in the crossfire. The U.S. Army abandoned thousands of loyal service dogs in Vietnam. Al-Qaeda and the British government have both used animals in hideously cruel biological weaponry tests. We watched on television as stray cats in your own compound fled as best they could from the Israeli bulldozers.

Animals claim no nation. They are in perpetual involuntary servitude to all humankind, and although they pose no threat and own no weapons, human beings always win in the undeclared war against them. For animals, there is no Geneva Convention and no peace treaty—just our mercy.

If you have the opportunity, will you please add to your burdens my request that you appeal to all those who listen to you to leave the animals out of this conflict?

We send you sincere wishes of peace.

Very truly yours,

Ingrid Newkirk
President, PETA

[Zhade]

151. I guess PETA wasn't aware that the source for that claim...

...which, incidentally, appears never to have happened, was the Jerusalem Post, which has had such illustrious directors on their board as one Richard Perle.

The rightwing blogs were all over that alleged incident, though. So does PETA trust rightwing bloggers and neocon-connected fishwraps known to be sources of disinformation?

[Hippo_Tron]

75. IMO, PETA does more harm than good BUT

Pretty much every lobby has its extreme wing and some have groups that are a lot worse than PETA.

[PinkyisBlue]

76. I totally support PETA.

I equate some of their actions with those of Greenpeace, whose members actually put themselves (in boats) between the hunters and the victims (whales). It's true that PETA is not a passive organization, and it relies very much on activism to get the word out about animal abuses. However, PETA does not advocate violence or property destruction; it aims to change human behavior primarily through education. I think it has done a great job in exposing a lot of the animal abuses we would never know about, from circus elephants to IAMS research labs.

I'm tired of hearing the right-wing lies about PETA. Basically, the people and corporations who hate PETA hate them because PETA is costing them money (everything always comes down to profits and money). It costs more money to treat an animal humanely than inhumanely. And there's lots of profits to be made in the industries involving fur, puppy sales, exotic foods (like liver pate), etc.

PETA tries to take urgent action because the need is immediate. If animals are being abused in a research lab, factory farm or circus, those animals need to be helped NOW, not five years from now when the laws regulating animal care may or may not change, or when the inspectors get around to doing their jobs.

I think a lot of one's views on PETA have to do with his/her view of animals in general. If you think animals have basic rights, you probably believe PETA's campaigns taken to ensure their humane treatment is justified. And if you don't think animals have basic rights, you probably think PETA is a crazy bunch of extremists.

[Solo_in_MD]

114. Having seen them in action up close and personal

they do indeed condone violence...see post 47 in this thread

[Zhade]

153. Violence isn't activism.

NT!

[PinkyisBlue]

252. Violence isn't activism.

I agree. What's your point?

[conflictgirl]

78. I usually support PETA's causes, but not their methods

PETA has done some good things, such as in the OP. But some of their tactics are offensive and inappropriate, such as the "your mommy kills animals" anti-fur campaign. I believe that such campaigns do more harm than good, and PETA seems to fall into that problem far too often.

In this particular case, as well, I realize that they're pretty much a single-issue organization, but I'd much rather see them working toward helping the people over there first (or at least work toward helping both).

[Tom Joad]

79. PETA's terrible record on helping animals. And humans.

I don't put that up there to slight rank and file PETA supporters, who may have different views of the leadership of said organization. Still, i see nothing in this about calling for a cease-fire for all of Lebanon, pets and people. And, as you can see above, PETA once called for a 'cruelty-free" invasion of Iraq... meaning US troops eating vegatarian (as they drop bombs on Iraqis... did they even care that animals were also killed?)

this outfit is run by money-hungry pigs. Destpite the good hearts of many that support it.
Edited to say: See post #71

[Codeblue]

80. Totally agree

I watched a program on the Discovery Channel about PETA and the Humane Society. Both Presidents make over $200,000 dollars per year and the organizations as a whole make millions of millions. If they really cared so much about animals, they would use the money they make to open at least one animal shelter in every single state in America. But what do they do with it? Give it to the President of their organization or go into campaigns to get the University of South Carolina to take the tag off of their rooster mascot. It's a mascot! Use your money and time for something better and more productive.

In the same program, the President of the Humane Society said, "An ant deserves the same amount of respect as my child." What? Hey I love animals with all my heart and I am saddened to my core when I see any animal being mistreated...but the human race comes first.

On another note, just because PETA has done a few good things, that doesn't make them a good organization. The Catholic Church has done some good things for humanity too, but you'll find many people on this board who still despise the Catholic Church.

I support this current deed of PETA, yet I do not support many other things PETA has done, nor do I support the leadership of the organization. The leadership is just as fucked up and corrupt as any politican.

[bling bling]

84. Ewwwwwww. Ants get no respect from me. I squish them.

There are very few things that repulse me so much as ants. I get the willies just thinking about them. If they come in my house, my garage, my basement, or my porch, they die. I'm willing to take my chances with the karma I'll get on that.

Spiders are a different story. Unless it's the aggressive yellow-sac spider, I'll let them live. They can do the dirty work of catching and killing the creepy little disgusting ants and any other nasty insect for that matter. Fortunately for me, my cats are avid insect hunters (I don't let them outside so bugs are as close as they get to seeing wildlife) so I don't have to worry about it in the house too much.

[yewberry]

83. Money-hungry pigs:

http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp


OPERATING EXPENSE ALLOCATION
Direct Program Support
Indirect Program Support
Membership Development
84.99%
4.18%
10.83%


PETA is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) corporation funded almost exclusively by the contributions of our members. We strive to use our funds in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible, a commitment illustrated by the fact that 84.99 percent of our operating expenses went directly to our programs fighting animal exploitation. We expended only 10.83 percent on fundraising efforts that drive our operations and 4.18 percent on management and general operations.

The majority of PETA’s dedicated staff, 53 percent, earn only $14,560 to $27,999; 32 percent earn $28,000 to $38,499; and only the remaining 15 percent make more than $38,500. Our president, Ingrid Newkirk, earned $32,000 during the fiscal year ending July 31, 2005.

The financial statement shown here is for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2005, and is based on our independently audited financial statements. A copy of our complete financial statement is available upon request.

[Zhade]

155. Wow, so PETA doesn't even pay a living wage to a majority of their people?

Yeah, that's really humane.

Did PETA forget that humans are also animals?

[PinkyisBlue]

269. You really have it in for PETA.

If they pay the staff too much, they're bad.
If they pay the staff too little, they're bad.


Here's a website I know you'll like, it's all about bashing PETA:

www.Center for Consumer Freedom.


And afterwards, to get the real facts, go to:

www.Center for Consumer Freedom-SourceWatch

I wouldn't want to be Fido at your house.

[Kali]

305. You have made the ridiculous comment about not wanting to be a pet

at two different posters' homes. Just because someone doesn't care for peta's tactics doesn't make them animal abusers. keeeee-riiist!

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

87. Yes, there are vegetarian soldiers out there.

They have a right to be able to eat their diet while in the military. I don't understand how PETA supporting a vegetarian diet for troops that choose to follow one is support for the war.

BTW, I have a friend over there in Iraq, who is against the war, who was against the war before he even went over there (2nd extended tour now) and is a vegetarian. It sucks enough for them to be there. They should at least be able to be meat-free, if they choose.

[peacebaby3]

104. Since you have a friend in the military, you probably already know this,

but they have vegetarian MREs and have for several years. There are several non-meat entrees in regular MRE cases, but there are actually veg cases of MREs as well.

[Tom Joad]

115. I think the main problem was the PETA clown implied that it would be

be a "cruelty-free" war if only the troops ate vegatarian.
Ignore the harm done to Iraqis (basically, the whole war from the outset was a crime against humanity), concentrate on less harm to chickens. If no chickens or cows die, it is "cruelty-free"

Strange thinking. Not even sane, if you ask me.

[Zhade]

156. It does seem very detached from HUMAN suffering.

Besides, as you noted above, bombing from 10,000 feet tends to kill Iraqi chickens and cows, too.

Bizarre.

[PinkyisBlue]

267. A cease-fire for all of Lebanon?

Come on, get real. If our own government won't call for a cease-fire, how can an animal rights group? I know PETA can accomplish a lot, but even they can't end this war.

[cynatnite]

81. Did anyone see Penn & Teller's Bullshit about PETA?

I watched it and the show certainly gave enough reason not to support them, IMO.

[Zhade]

158. Well, to be fair, P&T are b*s* supporters, and not always factual.

They've used CATO Institute shills on their show, too, with no chance of response from other sides of the debate, so I stopped watching them long ago, and wouldn't use them as a source for anything personally.

[Skip Intro]

82. PETA gets PRESS. And that's an ongoing accomplishment I respect.

No one has a right to ruthlessly slaughter another living thing as it fights for its life. How fucking rediculous.

[roguevalley]

85. anyone helping animals gets my support. that dog breaks me in two

[laheina]

92. A good point.

While some of their tactics may be questionable to some, they undeniably draw attention to issues, and that is a worthy accomplishment.

Cheers!

[Zhade]

159. Don't eat plants, then, or you're a hypocrite.

They are also living things.

[Critters2]

230. Not when they're harvested they're not

in most cases.

Have you ever even SEEN a farm?

[Skip Intro]

289. I don't think I am.

Aside from the obvious, let me just say that I don't know if a plant feels pain, I don't think anybody knows, but I don't think plants do feel pain. Just a hunch, maybe I'm wrong.


It has nothing to do with, however, the lack of justification in killing creatures that cleraly do experience fear and pain.

That's what I want to stop.

on edit:

I'm not saying that I want to stop people from eating dead animals. I'm saying that if we must do that, let's do it as humanely as possible. I would hate to be a part of something that didn't do that.

[bunyip]

188. Stop Flipper!

Your Dolphin Murders Fish!

No one has a right to ruthlessly slaughter another living thing as it fights for its life. How fucking rediculous.

[cgrindley]

88. Yep, still hate them

I'd sooner die than support them.

[medeak]

91. ditto! n/t

[Raine]

90. Cheers to PETA

I love them for helping the animals. :thumbsup:

[robcon]

93. Yes, I still hate PETA

It's still an amateur organization which has smeared the name of animal rights.

[Zhade]

160. It MUST be the end of the world, because I agree with you.

NT!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

94. Yes, I do.

Animal testing saves human lives.

PETA campaigns to stop them.

[stray cat]

96. I can support individual actions without supporting the organization

However, I personally believe in using antibiotics to kill bacteria because I do value the life of a sick child more than the live of millions of bacteria. That belief flies in the face of elements of PETA which equates all living organisms as equal.

[PinkyisBlue]

271. You're wrong.

The president of PETA has quoted that a rat is a dog is a bear is a child (or some-thing to that effect) in that they all have the ability to feel pain. It has nothing to do with bacteria, which have no central nervous system and feel no pain (and neither do plants).

When it comes to animals, some people feel so superior!

[robinlynne]

97. I am so glad PETA is there.

I had no idea there was this anger at PETA. And people before animals is your argument. We people are doing a terrible job at taking care of this world. We don't take care of human beings very well at all.
But since we have taken over this world, and are in charge, it is no more than our RESPONSIBILITY to take care of the animals. They are not here only for our pleasure. They have the same rights as we do. I am not a veggy, neither are most animals, but anyone who puts a dog in ac cement cage with a hurt leg deserves exactly the same treatment. I see no difference between killing a puppy and killing a baby. starving a dog or a person. The acts are identical.

[peacebaby3]

101. I respect a lot of what PETA does.

I used to be a huge supporter. Stickers on the car, financial donations, etc., but I had a rather bad experience with them so while I appreciate some of their work, I personally think they are more about being high-profile than substantive. I'm sure they have some great and passionate volunteers, but I'm no longer the supporter that I used to be. I support several other animal rights/welfare organizations both locally and nationally.

There was a raid on a "puppy mill" except these people actually raised and sold many other animals. There were raccoons and ferrets and wolves, etc. All types of caged, hand-raised animals in horrible conditions. The canines and horses were taken in by shelters, but the other "imprinted" yet considered wild animals were ordered to be destroyed. A bunch of us here filed a lawsuit to stop them from being gassed because these were not wild animals, their entire lives had been around people and they were completely tame. We found several sanctuaries for them, but we were not allowed to take them across state lines. We would up finding a local animal sanctuary that was able to take them. Several state animal welfare groups went to inspect and determine if the place was suitable and all agreed it was an excellent place for them to go. All of us were running short on funds and needed legal advice, etc. so I called PETA because I had been a supporter for years and heard and read all of the stories about them helping a young girl save a cow from a processing plant (even though I never even had a chance to tell them I was), etc. so I thought if nothing else they might be able to give me some advice. It took me forever to get someone. I had to call probably a dozen times over several days (and we were on a serious time line)and I left this in detailed messages. I just continued to call until I finally got a program coordinator (after talking with several other ppl.) so I told her the situation and how we had found an in-state sanctuary for them. I was shocked at the reply I got. It was this woman almost shrieking at me about how they would be better off dead than at a bad place. I explained to her that we had checked out the facility and had some experts do the same, but she continued shrieking at me as if she was almost possessed about how most of these places are bad and we should just let the animals die because they would be better off. I told her that I knew that there were bad places, but I knew this place was not one of them, but she refused to listen. I asked her if maybe someone from PETA (either a local group or even the national organization) would come and inspect the place themselves? She said they didn't do anything like that and that she couldn't help me and again said the animals were better off being put down. I finally just got off the phone with her because she had gotten really shrill and almost combative for absolutely no reason. I've never been so disappointed in my entire life. I actually was very emotional after the phone call because I was so disappointed in an organization that I had thought so highly of. I did get some advice, etc. from other organizations like the Fund for Animals, etc. and I still support them. Unfortunately, we lost our court battle and the poor animals were gassed to death. It made me sick since I knew we had a home for them.

I don't really have much of a problem with PETA's anti-fur campaigns. I think fur is one of the most disgusting and cruel things in the world. It is complete and total greed and vanity and not needed in any way.

[Zhade]

161. Agreed on fur, and I'm sorry for your experience.

It certainly supports the contention that PETA often harms itself.

Sucks about the animals. :(

[AngryAmish]

112. Doesn't PETA like to kill dogs?

They just leave them in dumpsters.

[idgiehkt]

116. you might want to know who is pushing that story...

Center for Consumer Freedom
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

"CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, DC, Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains.

The group actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of red meat consumption, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the "nanny awards" to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives.

Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods or soda pop is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association; the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader's group, Public Citizen; the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and the U.S. Department of Transportation.


In a 1999 interview with the Chain Leader, a trade publication for restaurant chains, Berman boasted that he attacks activists more aggressively than other lobbyists. "We always have a knife in our teeth," he said. Since activists "drive consumer behavior on meat, alcohol, fat, sugar, tobacco and caffeine," his strategy is "to shoot the messenger. ... We've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons."

In November 2001, the Guest Choice Network launched a separate web site, ActivistCash.com, which purports to expose the "hidden funding" of various activist groups that support animal rights , food safety and smoking prevention.

In January 2002 the Guest Choice Network renamed itself the Center for Consumer Freedom."

CCF runs the 'anti-peta' website that is pushing that story. CCF sucks. They'd feed people shit on a stick extracted by hand out of a dying pig's ass while telling you it's a lollipop and charging you $25 bucks for it.

[Kali]

122. That's nice, now is the story true or not?

[idgiehkt]

124. I think some kids who were working for PETA

may have been fined for illegal dumping of animals PETA humanely euthanized from an NC animal shelter.

I don't know anything about who these kids were, and I wouldn't be surprised at all to find out that this was a CCF sting for Berman to plaster on his anti-PETA website since he's so concerned with what PETA does with animals that are already dead. I've worked in an NC animal shelter and I can tell you all about the inhumane euthanasia methods these shelters employ. That PETA gave these animals a quick painless death is to be commmended, and if this is all Berman can find on PETA it kind of makes a statement about how desperate they are for dirt.

[Nicole]

128. They were not kids fined for illegal dumping

They were adults charged with felony counts of animal cruelty and obtaining property by false pretenses.

Later in the day the officers staked out a garbage bin in Aahoskie, North Carolina. This was part of a covert operation after a property manager complained that more than 80 dead animals had been discovered at the site over the course of one month. There they observed PETA employees Benjamin Cook, 24, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, dump trash bags containing 18 dead animals. As they drove away they were pulled over on a traffic stop. Thirteen more dead bodies were found inside the vehicle.


Cook and Hinkle were each charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty and eight misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals. These were dismissed on October 14, 2005 but each of the suspects were charged with 25 felony charges in their place, 22 for animal cruelty and 3 felony charges for obtaining property by false pretense. The latter charges are based on PETA having euthanized three cats from an Ahoskie veterinarian after allegedly promising to find the animals new homes.

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

[idgiehkt]

157. somebody is lying.

Both Northampton and Bertie currently use PETA for those services. Officials in both counties said they were under the impression that PETA would first have the animals fully evaluated by a veterinarian and then attempt to find them a good home. If that effort failed, they understood that PETA would euthanize the animals.
http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/articles/2005/06/21/news/news3.txt
I don't see any proof that PETA failed to do what it promised to do; I assume that will be decided at trial. PETA was paying a vet to do this, which was a heck of a chunk of change out of their pocket, so I can't define this as animal cruelty.

The controversy surrounding this story seems to be that the public is surprised that PETA does humane euthanasia for animal shelters. So do HSUS and the ASPCA. I personally think that it is a rare no-kill shelter that can provide proper stimulation for animals over the long term; two that come to mind that do it competently are Pasado Safe Haven and Best Friends. I would bet that many no-kill shelters do not, as many mentally incompetent 'hoarder' types consider themselves no-kill advocates. Needless to say, we are not going to agree on this point; having personally worked in a kill shelter that practiced a kind of selective adoption wherein dogs that were deemed adoptable lingered in cages for weeks or months until they became mentally ill, I can attest that a shot of phenobarbitol into a vein leading to an instantaneous painless death, which I have witnessed many times, is much more humane.

[flvegan]

166. Excellent post! Largely, "no-kill" is a farce.

It's a flag that gets waved, however what's really waived is the responsibility towards an animal. Many "no-kill" shelters simply shrug off pushing the needle to someone else. It's "limited intake" really. "Open intake" shelters do the "dirty" work and they and those that support them get the ire of the masses.

Once an animal enters "the system" it's the job of every shelter, rescuer, etc to find that animal a home. When euthanasia is the end result, we've all failed.

[idgiehkt]

168. I agree

however, I've witnessed so-called cage craziness overtake perfectly healthy animals and I don't think of euthanasia as failure in those cases. Slow decline into insanity is torture, and that is what happens to so many animals in shelters. I hope that all these charges v. PETA will be dismissed except the illegal dumping ones which will probably stick, but they should have followed laws about disposal of the animals. Those animals are in a better place than the ones that I have seen go in worse ways.

And you are so right about open intake shelters. Most are required by law to take all animals. No kills get to be selective and then trumpet their righteousness. I know they mean well, but I'm about sick of hearing it.

[flvegan]

170. 100% with you on this.

Absolute, total agreement. Euthanasia isn't a failure in those cases, no. I was reflecting on the open-intake shelters and their normal "euthanise for space" protocol. However, a shelter that is limited intake should ("should") be able to provide enough stimulation to keep the cage-craze from setting in.

Ah, if only the world were so perfect, right?

[Lisa0825]

311. That is a really sad statement.

Euthanizing healthy animals is a FAILURE. There are entire counties that have began the move toward no-kill protocols, reserving euthaniasia only for quality of life or extreme aggression, rather than adoptability or space issues. By putting more effort, money, education, and enforcement into spay/neuter and adoption, they have found that they can do a better job of controlling local animal populations than in high kill programs.

I volunteer at a 100% no-kill shelter. It ANGERS me that you call it a farce. We do NOT reject selectively based on age, breed, health issues, etc. We get filled to capacity and care for as many as we can at any given time. We make sure everyone gets excellent medical care, even into their golden years. Is THAT what you call a farce?!

That's so nice. Peta cares soooo much :sarcasm: , but I think their dismissal of the no-kill movement shows how far from the truth that statement is. No-Kill CAN be accomplished, and many counties across the US currently have plans to transition to that. But since Peta's ultimate goal is to have absolutely NO relationship between people and animals, I guess murdering them looks like a better alternative to them, huh? No need to promote adoption, when we can just kill them humanely. :eyes:

[yewberry]

314. nt

edit: so not worth it.

[Nicole]

167. Yeah, someone is lying

More dead came from Ahoskie Animal Hospital according to vet Patrick Proctor. “They came to the office last Wednesday and picked up the cat and two kittens," he told Roanoke-Chowen reporters immediately after the arrests. "They were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that...So imagine my surprise when I learned they allegedly dumped dead animals in a trash bin later that same day." He said the animals “were in good health and were very adoptable, especially the kittens.” Proctor was asked to examine one of the dead animals taken from the PETA crime scene. “The animal that I found was a very healthy six-month puppy that had been killed that day,” he told TV station WNCT Channel 9. "It was a six month old lab mix and appeared to be in very, very good shape...and he had received some type of injection in his front right leg," he said. “PETA will never pick up another animal from my practice.”

That vet doesn't think they were killed as a last resort. They killed healthy, adoptable animals.

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

[idgiehkt]

171. this makes no sense.

"some type of injection in his front right leg". Well, duh. I've read several articles on it since your first post and in every one of these people are saying different things, and I mean everyone.

You'd have to be really, really naive not to know that perfectly healthy animals are killed every single day in this country by animal rescue groups. If they were 'adoptable', then why had they not been adopted? Because of over-breeding, there are not enough homes. I don't see what "No Kill Now" thinks it is going to gain by jumping in on the side of lobbyists and de-faming PETA. Let me give you a hint: NOTHING. For many people PETA is a synonym for animal rights causes and activists in general; they lump you in there whether you like it or not. Talk about a circular firing line.

[Nicole]

179. I'm not naive

I know that perfectly healthy animals are killed every single day. I'm just surprised that PETA is one of them that do that and them dump them illegally.

I think No Kill Now's goal is exactly what their name states: No Kill.

I'm involved with a No Kill shelter here in Oklahoma. There are animals who are not suitable for adoption. They are not euthanized, they become permanent residents.

[Zhade]

163. Do you think if animals were killed humanely for food...

...that PETA would be okay with that?

If not, wouldn't that be hypocritical, considering they themselves have killed animals in a humane manner?

[idgiehkt]

165. you have to witness it.

you'd have to leave the realm of the hypothetical and witness the suffering and decline and inhumane death and then weigh that with lessening the animal's suffering. The animal is real. The pain is real. It's only a philosophical debate for people.

[Zhade]

173. So...if humans only ate animals euthanized because of such suffering...

...PETA wouldn't have a problem with that?

Trying to understand.

[idgiehkt]

175. ask PETA

I'm not a member of PETA. I do, however, despise seeing CCF b.s. on a supposedly liberal site since DU and CCF are at odds, mission-wise.
I do think that probably different PETA members would answer that question differently.

[Zhade]

183. Fair enough!

NT!

[Nicole]

129. It's still true n/t

[Solo_in_MD]

162. They are not the only ones...the No Kill supporters dont like PETA either

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm was sent to me this AM by someone lurking on this thread...

[idgiehkt]

164. they aren't lurking any more, lol.

I wish the no-kill people the best, I really do.
Unfortunately they are many unstable people in that movement. They'd do really well to tone that website layout down a little, in my view, it's a little shrill.

Here is a good pictorial of one of those lovely 'no kill' shelters that took some Hurricane Katrina dogs, which led to the owner's eventual arrest. Having a choice between living in my own urine and feces, and euthanasia, I would much rather be dead.
http://www.mhpets.com/hanson/ This was the EDNAH sanctuary run by Tammy Hanson; EDNAH stood for Every Dog Needs A Home

the last few rows are after officials showed up and asked some animal rescue groups to clean up the property. The sheriff in this case was very pro-active, he even had someone fly him over the property so he could get a bird's eye view of the problem.

[Solo_in_MD]

169. I agree that the no-kill crowd over reaches at times

but then they are not assaulting older women (my experience) or children )Trixie's experience. The best examples of the no kill approach is Greyhound Rescue and the like. Very cool, quiet, but effective. No the ineffectual headline hounds that PETA is. However, for those who wanted proof of how PETA and Newkirk *really* treat animals, the links there are pretty damning.

[idgiehkt]

172. I'm sorry, but to me humane euthanasia is not "damning"

I'm also curious why people aren't raising the same ruckus about HSUS and the ASPCA which euthanize millions of 'perfectly healthy, adoptable animals' every year; far more than PETA by a longshot.
From what I've seen any animal that passes with humane euthanasia that is correctly performed is blessed, and I mean that in a purely statistical sense.

[cynatnite]

174. Do you have numbers....

on how much PETA and ASPCA euthanize? You make a claim, please back it up with a source, please.

[idgiehkt]

176. HSUS is the biggest as far as I know.

HSUS euthanizes about 9000 animals a year in my county in NC, based on that I estimated. It depends on who runs your local shelter, and those (HSUS and ASPCA) are the two biggest orgs in that business. PETA as far as I can tell only does euthanasia for shelters in their general area, which would mean their reach is much smaller.
If you want actual numbers, google.

[cynatnite]

177. Since you are unable or unwilling to back up YOUR claims...I found this...

The rate of euthanasia in the animal rescue shelter owned and operated by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in Norfolk, VA, PETA's headquarters, is almost double that of the incidence statewide.

According to statistics collected by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, of the animals received into the PETA shelter that were not returned to their owners, 90% were euthanized in 2005. The incidence of euthanasia in all shelter facilities statewide was 56% for the same time period. In addition, PETA was only able to adopt out 7% of the animals compared to 28% statewide.

http://www.aasp.org/news/story.php?id=1784

[idgiehkt]

181. PETA euthanizing more animals in one shelter

is not the same thing as PETA euthanizing more animals nationwide. You are talking about one state, Virgina, where PETA is located. I am talking about the euthanasia rate nationwide. HSUS and ASPCA run shelters nationwide. Further, they are comparing the statistics of all Virginia shelters against the one shelter that PETA has, and that is not a fair comparison. PETA may have a worse euthanasia rate than some shelters (but trust me there are rural shelters in Virgian that PETA beats, I'm sure) and have a lesser rate than some others. It's not accurate to fold all those varying statistics together and then compare them to the stats of the one PETA shelter, just as it wouldn't be accurate to fold PETA in and then compare the whole lot to ashelter in some arbitrary county. But, if Virginia residents feel like PETA is euthanizing too many animals in Virgina, it wouldn't be that hard to fix that.

Why are you quoting pig vets about PETA anyway? I find that odd, to say the least. I went to their linked sources and one is on the news story about the illegal dumping, and the other is a home page. I'd bank this is a lobbyist press release. Why would it even be on the American Association for Swine Veterinarians' website? Oh, that's right, pig famers hate PETA, because PETA hurts their bottom line. Same b.s, different day.

[cynatnite]

184. PETA's got a hell of a lot of bullshit they swill for gullible people

I picked from one of many sites that have statistics over PETA's rates. If you didn't agree with it, why not google yourself and counter what I put up.

You have a problem with the facts I gave you because of where it came from. This information is widely available on the internet, but rather than offer anything up to back your claim of ASPCA euthanizing more than PETA, you pick apart what I gave you.

I'm amazed that PETA has so many defenders even with their tactics and support of groups like ALF and ELF. They advocate violence just as extreme pro-life groups do. Supporters of PETA are willing to turn a blind eye to the very same thing that they scream about when pro-life groups do it.

[idgiehkt]

190. my problem was that you balked at my estimate of nationwide

euthanasia rates and then provided me with rates for euthanasia rates for one state, Virgina.
Honestly, I do feel that progress has been made debunking misinformation about PETA, since you just referrd to ALF and ELF as separate groups. Progress is slow, but thanks for the ray of hope. My interest lies in just how these memes get into the public consciousness and who puts them there, and who finances the people that put them there. If you want to see an example of who pays for it, go here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom and scroll halfway down and see who donates to CCF. The info is from 2002, but it's quite interesting

[cynatnite]

192. I balked because YOU DON'T BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS...

and you still have yet to do so.

[idgiehkt]

193. what claims?

I estimated a (conservative) euthanasia rate for HSUS and ASPCA, both of whom run shelters nationwide, as compared the euthanasia rate of PETA, which runs ONE (1) shelter in Virgina. Even though you have no concrete figures, can't you make the leap that PETA can't be euthanizing in anywhere near the number of the two dinosaur orgs? It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to understand this.

[cynatnite]

195. How can you make a claim without a source?

:shrug: It's a simple concept.

[idgiehkt]

197. I think it's better to

make an estimation without a source than to post a biased source like "The Swine Vets of America". I personally don't have to know the number, because a rational person can take 9000 per year in one county in NC and extrapolate from that...if it matters that much to you, like I said, google works for you as well as me. This is getting very boring.

[cynatnite]

200. Do you want me to get the same stat from another source?

CNN used it for an interview with Newkirk from PETA and she did a wonderful spin job I thought.

I guess then I can say how many babies are born in Kansas and extrapolate that to a number for the entire nation. :eyes: Geez, that's pretty damn lazy, you know.

[idgiehkt]

201. your statistic isn't relevant to the statement I made.

That is what I am trying to explain to you. There is no way you can't understand this, so I am going to assume you are playing dumb. I guess you are out of arguments to make and are just treading water. I'll say this for the final time: The euthanasia rate of one (1!) shelter, in one state is statistically miniscule compared to the euthanasia rates of two organizations that have shelters all over the country. It's simple math. Very, very, very simple.

[cynatnite]

203. No, you just don't like the numbers...

You don't like the fact that PETA advocates violence, has a disgusting euthanizing rate over almost every shelter in the country, tosses dead carcases in trash bins, and spins to the point their heads almost come off.

You choose to remain blind to the truth which is indeed a shame.

The next revelation is even more appalling: Newkirk has never stopped killing. Not only is she non- apologetic about her murky past, she quietly continues her murderous avocation. She turned PETA's Norfolk, Virginia headquarters into her own personal killing field. There she hauled in more than 17,822 puppies, kittens, dogs and cats since 1998 and executed 14,419 of them. This does not include wild animals - in 2005 alone, PETA admits to killing 141. In 2005 Newkirk killed 90% of her defenseless captives and adopted only 6% - a ratio far worse than almost any pound in the country.



http://www.nokillnow.com/PetaVDACreporting.pdf

According to Newkirk's figures, year after year PETA has killed more animals than 80% of the animal control shelters in the State of Virginia. 1 In 2003 the Norfolk SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals. The Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66 percent. The same year PETA could only manage 14 percent. Note the steady increase in the rate of PETA's killing since 1998. And these are just the deaths PETA admits to. The accuracy of this data came into question the instant PETA was caught red-handed killing animals that it promised to adopt out and hiding the dead bodies in other people's dumpsters in the middle of the night.

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

How anyone can be so blind to their tactics and associations continues to amaze me.

[idgiehkt]

204. animal control shelters are county run.

Animal control shelters house animals that animal control picks up when it goes on calls. Most of them are tiny, and many don't even take in animals from the public. The county animal shelter services are usually contracted out to groups like HSUS and SPCA I'm really not surprised at these numbers since it's very likely that PETA is picking up the cast offs from a lot of shelters simply to keep them from being euthanized in an inhumane way. Some of those methods that have been exposed in NC, besides the gas chamber which is still used in my county, are dropping live animals in cages into bodies of water, a shot in the head at the landfill, or some form of bludgeoning or suffocation.

I think it's tragic that "No Kill Now" is spending all this time and effort going after PETA. Are they waging a similar war against HSUS and ASPCA, or any of the other orgs? I'm starting to think it's a front. I bet it's a non-profit, isn't it, funded by donations? What a tragic, futile waste of funding, not to mention a betrayal of public trust. If Virginia wants to stop using PETA's services, then Virginia can. However, to attack an org that pays a vet to humanely euthanize animals which may result in those animals being inhumanely euthanized is just ludicrous, and stunning, really.

this quote I find a tad bizarre:
"You don't like the fact that PETA advocates violence, has a disgusting euthanizing rate over almost every shelter in the country, tosses dead carcases in trash bins, and spins to the point their heads almost come off. You choose to remain blind to the truth which is indeed a shame."

I've don't think I've expressed any 'dislike' so far, except what I've seen working for HSUS.

[cynatnite]

206. So why not condemn PETA?

I do think PETA could be a worthwhile organization, but under it's current radical leadership it's not worth that much in my eyes.

I think we should do whatever we can to help and protect animals from abuse, neglect and needless experimentation. I don't have a problem with that...I do have a problem with how PETA does business. It's crappy and they should be called on it. It's the same with any other group who claims to help animals.

What groups like 'No Kill Now' and others are doing is exposing the hypocrisy of PETA.

Also, when I said the above statement I was venting and didn't mean to take it out on you. I do apologize for that. There are a lot of PETA supporters who do turn a blind eye.

[yewberry]

209. The numbers are completely misleading.

Peta doesn't run "adoption centers" for animals; they call themselves a shelter of last resort. Most of the animals they take in are NOT adoptable, so comparing their numbers with an organization like the SPCA makes no sense.

from peta2:
http://streetteam.peta2.com/public/folder_view.cfm?pageid=341&option=view_thread&postid=1243205&folderid=728


To clarify, we do not run an adoption facility, although we do place animals, approximately 360 in the last year, despite having run out of friends and family members to approach. We are a “shelter of last resort,” taking in and giving a painless death in loving arms to animals who would otherwise have been shot with a .22 or gassed in a windowless metal box, which is what happened in North Carolina before PETA offered free euthanasia services to agencies there. North Carolina has the second highest rate per capita of euthanasia in the country—35 animals killed annually for every 1,000 residents—and most do not die a humane death. Sadly, the shelters we work with have no adoption programs or hours set aside for adoption. At the Bertie County dog shelter, residents were throwing unwanted dogs over an 8-foot-high fence, where they became infected or injured by other sick or aggressive dogs from whom they could not escape. Bertie County also had no facility for cats and used to let them go to breed in the woods and fend for themselves until PETA built a shelter for them this year. PETA has begged for years, through formal proposals and numerous meetings to have the county allow PETA to implement an adoption program as part of a larger picture of sheltering that would also include a spay neuter program, a humane education program, 24/7 emergency services, and rabies clinics.

We try never to take in adoptable animals unless we know we have a home for them—only those who are mange-covered, have parvovirus, are injured, old, unsocialized from life on a chain, or unwanted and for whom there are no good homes available. We also work at the roots, spending more than $240,000 in one North Carolina county alone, to provide shelter in winter for animals left out in the cold, to spay/neuter, to get vet care for animals in dire straits, to send Bertie County’s one animal control officer to professional training, to pay a cleaner to maintain two shelters, and much more.

Did you seriously not know this?

[cynatnite]

212. Oh, of course...I always believe good spin...

:sarcasm:

[yewberry]

216. Excuse me?

Flowery language and elements of self-promotion aside, it is a fact that peta does not run a traditional shelter/adoption service. They refer adoptable animals to other organizations and take in less-adoptable animals. That isn't spin, and that's why the numbers will never be comparable.

[cynatnite]

233. Anyone can take numbers and spin them...

The repugs are the masters of doing it. They take numbers and use them in a manner that benefits them.

PETA is no less guilty of it.

You don't like the numbers, you don't like the facts, you still haven't backed up your orignal claim with a source and you continue to be an apologist and a defender of PETA in spite of the evidence.

:shrug: I don't see what more there is to say.

[yewberry]

241. Are you thinking of another poster?

I haven't spun any numbers, and I have no idea which "original claim" you refer to.

I've sourced what I've said, and *I* am not having any trouble with facts.

Tell you what: think of a question, and I will do my best to answer it. Otherwise, please reply to whatever poster you meant to.

[cynatnite]

242. My apologies...I was reading titles of posts and not looking at the name..

Sorry about that. :blush:

[yewberry]

243. Mystery solved!

Okey-doke.
No harm done!

[PinkyisBlue]

284. I see no signs that tofunut is spinning anything.

You don't like what she said, so you accuse her of spinning the numbers. Then you compare these non-existent numbers to Republican spin. You have learned well from your corporate masters.

[cynatnite]

286. It has nothing to do with what I like or don't like...

Facts are facts and if you choose to be a defender of an organization that advocates violence, supports arsonists and dumps dead animals in trash bins that is your choice...strange one that it is.

If name-calling is all you can do to defend your position, then I feel sorry for you.

[PinkyisBlue]

282. What your chart shows me, in looking at it quickly,

is that there are too many animals and not enough homes for them. It looks like, since 1999, there has been an explosion in the number of animals received in the shelters, with the % killed increasing and the % adopted decreasing. Could this trend have anything to do with our booming economy? Gee, do you think maybe the number of homeless people has increased, which leads to homeless pets? Or maybe people can't afford to feed and shelter their pets, or they have to move and are unable to bring their pets with them?

Think! Don't be so quick to accept the Republican talking points.

[cynatnite]

285. Um...you know that's a tax form...right? It's their 990

Is there some PETA kool-aid or something?

I suppose one could make the assumption that people are abandoning their pets because of a poor economy...but it's a leap since there is no documentation to make that assumption.

:rofl: You are indeed a very humorous person.

[PinkyisBlue]

295. I'm sorry, it's very late and I'm tired.

I didn't look at the form closely enough. Good night!

[PinkyisBlue]

297. Former apology, oops.

I was right the first time (in my post #282); it's not a tax form I'm referring to. I stand by my statement in post #282. Stop laughing, it's my turn to laugh.
Good night.

[cynatnite]

298. I've been laughing at myself all night...

I damn near broke my neck on a box of candles hubby brought home tonight, I managed to save most of the enchiladas we had for dinner tonight(too long in the oven), and on DU I accused someone of not providing sources when in fact it was the wrong person.

Don't worry about it. :hi:

[PinkyisBlue]

280. PETA has so many defenders...

Hmmm, I wonder why PETA has so many defenders? It's not because there are so many people out there exploiting animals to make a buck, huh? Maybe it's because the animals are not able to speak for themselves?

I find the level of hatred directed at PETA on this thread very strange. Sure, some of what PETA does is over the top, but why condemn the whole organization? Most of what they do is good, as they do bring attention to animal issues and get people talking. Look at the discussion here. PETA must be pretty smart after all.

[cynatnite]

281. Perhaps the condemnation of PETA would let up...

if they didn't advocate violence.

As I said before, I think PETA could be a great organization if it didn't have this kind of luggage.

[Solo_in_MD]

178. It is when you lie about it

Animals were entrusted to them with the promise that they would not be killed.

If I had to give up an animal and the person I gave it to promised it would be found a good home and then I found out it had been killed within hours, rage would not begin to describe what my feelings would be.

PETA is not an organization to be trusted or respected with its history of deceit and violence and support for those who are classified as domestic terrorist.

[cynatnite]

180. Didn't Bill Frist lie about the cats he took from shelters?

You are so right about that, too. We found an injured cat under our deck about six months ago. The Humane Society we have here is tops because they really work their butts off to find homes for pets. The lady that came out said she was pretty sure since the cat seemed domesticated and had a beautiful coat of long black hair, but if they had to put it asleep, I wouldn't be surprised since we weren't sure how serious the injury was.

I am very much against PETA since learning more about them.

[idgiehkt]

182. I worked for HSUS.

Ask anyone who did rescue for Hurricane Katrina about HSUS. I never saw anyone 'working their butts off' for HSUS when I worked for them. By the way, all the instances I've been talking about of inhumane, improperly administered euthanasia, cage craziness, etc, were things that I witnessed working at an HSUS shelter. But believe what you want, by all means, and keep donating; that's what they want you to do.

[cynatnite]

186. I'm talking about the Humane Society we have here...

I have no idea what others do and can only rely on my experiences with this one. Kingsport has a pet problem and this isn't the first pet we've ran across. The first was a puppy we found and I talked to a friend of mine who worked with them in the past. I trust what she told me. She went with me to take the puppy to them. I don't equate them all as the same and I have no doubt some are horrible as you said.

You can bet I sure as hell won't give a dime to PETA.

[idgiehkt]

194. I hope you have a great Humane Society, I really do.

But if I had to point to a single reason that the animals suffer so greatly in these shelters it would be misplaced trust. (Aside from the obvious reason that no one wants to go into a kill shelter and know that those animals they see are going to be killed). Since alot of people can't handle it, a lot of times they end up hiring people who either don't care or are even sadistic. It's really sad.

[cynatnite]

198. I agree and I had heard enough stories...

That's why I talked to my friend. She's an animal lover and I have no reason to doubt her. It was a very nice facility, too.

I think it comes down to using your own judgment when it comes to things like this. A person can only hope for the best when they entrust someone with an animal.

[idgiehkt]

187. you can feel however you want about PETA, that's your right.

It isn't going to make a hill of beans, because just a people have accused PETA here of 'preaching to the choir', these multi-million dollar lobbying firms are also 'preaching to the choir', as you can see from their putting press releases on the swine vet's website. Do you think the swine vets wrote that up? Hardly. From what I have gathered from reading about this all the organizations understood that the animals were at risk for euthanasia if no homes were found for them. It will be interesting to see what charges will stick when the case comes to trial. Any veterinarian knows, better than most people, that when they release an animal to a known kill shelter there is always a chance that the animal will be euthanized. Having worked for my share of veterinarians, I would guess that the vet released the animals to PETA to free up cage space so it could be occupied by a paying client. Why this vet, of all people, is claiming such naivete about what happens to animals released to kill shelters is beyond me. That is something that I can't make sense of, and it will probably only fully come to light at the trial.

[cynatnite]

189. I think it was because he believed them when they said...

they'd find a good home.

Still waiting for your stats, BTW.

[PinkyisBlue]

276. Greyhound Rescue

Greyhound rescue organizations are very admirable and they don't kill the grey-hounds they rescue. But don't forget, they are able to pick out the most adoptable dogs from the track (they can't rescue all of them, there are too many). So they do rescue and place a certain number of dogs. But it appears that PETA is responsible for placing ALL the animals in some locations, which is an impossible task at best. Some animals that are old, sick, combative can't be adopted out, and guess who gets to do the task of euthanizing them? At least PETA lets them die with dignity.

[Critters2]

232. There's no such thing as a "no-kill shelter"

People who turn animals away from shelters guarantee cruel deaths for at least some of the animals they turn away. Too many animals for whom there is no room in "no-kill" shelters, end up shot, abandoned, thrown into rivers or worse. And they could have died peacefully and respectfully in low-kill shelters.
And an over-crowded shelter is no gift to the animals locked in them.

Too many people running no-kills are hoarders with good PR.

[Lisa0825]

312. Bullshit.

NYC has a plan to transistion to no-kill. Many counties across the US have similar plans. Just hoarders with good, PR huh? :eyes:

http://www.maddiesfund.org/nokill/build_com_ny.html

Once it became clear that the City was seriously committed to this and that the leading shelters and rescue groups were on board, it was clear that the Animal Law Committee's work was done and the Mayor's Alliance for NYC Animals was just beginning.

I agreed to be President and Chair of the Board of the Mayor's Alliance. I currently work out of my law office. My motto is "lean and mean." I want whatever money we raise or resources we get to go first and foremost to the animal groups who are doing the work in the trenches. Currently, the work of the Alliance is done by several volunteers who work in the following areas: budget/finance, fundraising, media relations and of course most important - preparing a Maddie's Fund grant application.

To accomplish our goal to make New York a no-kill city (saving all the healthy and treatable animals) by the year 2008 and to better utilize the resources being offered to the Mayor's Alliance, we hope to open a small office and hire a handful of key people in the next few months - funding permitting.

(snip)
Q. What's been the biggest surprise to you over the past several months?

A. The level of enthusiasm. New Yorkers can be jaded. And activists had been rightfully yelling about how bad things were for so long but seemed unable to come up with workable solutions. And the City was closed off to any offers of help.

(snip)

In a way I was surprised at how quickly people came to the table but I probably should not have been, because at the end of the day all that these rescue groups and shelters want to do is get the cats and dogs out of the shelters and into loving homes. They want to save lives.

[Critters2]

318. I work in animal rescue

and yes, they are just hoarders with good PR. Who cause the deaths of a lot of animals.

[Lisa0825]

324. I consider that a personal insult.

Would you like to come down and inspect our shelter and take pictures to post here showing how immaculate it is, how healthy and happy the animals are, and how free to roam most of them are?

Blanket generalizations like yours are ridiculous. Yes, hoarders exist, but that has NOTHING to do with the no-kill animal sanctuary movement.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Critters2]

326. I'm on the board of a low-kill shelter

and we are constantly being brought animals turned away from two "no-kill" shelters in this area. The lucky ones are brought to us, the unlucky are thrown into trashbags and tossed from cars, shot, or otherwise killed.

Each of the "no-kill" shelters is really run by one person (we've asked the state to investigate one for not having a board of directors as required of all corporations by state law), they are filthy, and they pick and choose which animals they take.

We take all animals brought to us. Most are placed for adoption. Those who can't be, for reasons of health or temperament, are humanely euthanized. We do this rarely, but we place the welfare of the animals ahead of calling ourselves no kill.

I stand by my statement. There is no such thing as a no kill shelter. There are just people who drop the responsibility for euthanizing unwanted animals in someone else's lap.

And there are hoarders who call themselves "shelters".

[Lisa0825]

327. Again, BULLSHIT

If you are implying that we drop the responsibility in someone else's lap because we sometimes get full to capacity, then that's just your perspective. From our perspective, we save hundreds of animals a year who would have otherwise been killed, for no fault of their own other than being born.

Is it a BAD thing that we are saving animals? How can you possibly see it that way? You are basing your statements on your own assumptions and your own biases.

We do good work, and it pisses me off that you can be so judgemental and insulting and write off what we do.

I guess it eases your own conscience to look at it that way.

[Lisa0825]

330. IN additon... we NEVER pick and choose....

based on any criteria such as breed, age, health concerns, etc. We take in heartworm positive dogs and have them treated. They'd be put down anywhere else. We have a three legged cats, cats with one eye, and cats and dogs up to 12 years old.

If I have seen anyone "pick and choose," it's been the city and county facilities. They pick and choose who lives and dies, based on which animal is prettier, younger, and more outgoing. We do not sentence anyone to death based on such shallow measures. We help as many as we can every day of the year. Some of those frail, shy, unhealthy, ugly animals have turned out to be the best pets in the world... all they needed was a stay of execution.

[Critters2]

338. The only "picking and choosing" the no kills here do

is to claim they're "full". That's when we get overrun. WE are the ones who take every animal who comes in the door. We are never full. Then we have to start making the hard decisions, the decisions the no-kills never have to make. They just send the hard work our way.

And salve their consciences by not taking responsibility for the animals whose deaths they've contributed to.

[Critters2]

331. MY conscience is clear

I KNOW that I've never turned away an animal who was then killed in some cruel way by people who absolutely didn't want it.

Again, there is no such thing as a "no-kill" shelter. There are people who humanely euthanize unwanted, unadoptable animals, and there are people who let others do it for them.

[Lisa0825]

332. Judgemental jerks like you are what turn people away from

wanting to help. THAT causes more animals to die.

You are presumptuous, condescending, and arrogant.

[Critters2]

333. I've never turned an animal away

We don't ask questions, we don't scold, we don't turn animals away. We get animals from shelters that do.

[Lisa0825]

334. No, you just take their lives away.

And what's worse is you don't even see the need to change the system so that the killing is reduced or eliminated. To you, as long as it's humane, it's OK. Well, it's NOT Ok to me. If I can save lives of these pets who didn't ask to be born, and did nothing to deserve a death sentence, then I will. I just don't understand how you can be so blind to the prospect that there are MANY groups out there like us who do GOOD WORK. Why can't you understand that? I don't even blame you for euthanizing. We can't change the system overnight, but WHY is it BAD to work towards limiting the number of animals that YOU must euthanize? I really can't understand your attitude at all. You baffle me.

[Critters2]

335. Rarely,

and we work to minimize the number of unwanted animals. We sponsor a trap, neuter, and release program, which we have tried to get the "no kill" shelters to partner with us on. They're not interested. We lobbied the largest cities in the county to start charging for dog tags, and asked that they share the funds raised with shelters, specifically for spaying and neutering. The other shelters did not work with us on this initiative, but they still get funds. We require our board members, staff, and volunteers to have "pet friendly" license plates, which support spay and neuter programs throughout the state. We do both spay/neuter and humane education programs, which the "no kill" shelters don't do.

As far as we can tell, they are just animal warehouses.

[Lisa0825]

336. Well, not all shelters are like the ones you deal with...

We do spay/neuter and responsible pet ownership education programs. I am for TNR, but our founder feels that it doesn't address the long-term welfare of the animal, which I can understand, though I still think the program has its place in the chain of things. While we are not required to have those license plates, most of us do have them anyway. We donate to other organizations in the area. We help promote other organizations, like SNAP and others. We take animals the pounds call us BEGGING to take because they don't have the heart to put them down. We run almost entirely on doantions from the community.

And to address another issue you mentioned in a previous post... we DO have a board of directors, and the board includes a well respected vet who partners with us to care for our animals. The founder/director has done a great job starting this on her own, as one person who cared too much. And now we are staffed by about a dozen relentless volunteers, and another 10-20 who help out when they can. No one is paid. We do it all out of love. We have also encountered hoarders in the community, and we have done whatever we can to save as many animals of theirs as we can.

I agree with you that people who hoarde out of a misguided notion that they are helping are hurting the animals they keep. But do NOT lump all no-kill facilities in with the bad ones you have seen. There are other reputable organizations out there like us, and we should be working together with you and similar groups, not against each other.

[benevolent dictator]

113. PETA is sexist.

They routinely degrade and exploit women for the sake of animals.

Furthermore, there are THREE TIMES more animal shelters than battered women shelters.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be animal shelters, but I think that it's a little ridiculous that so many people and organizations would put cows and chickens before human beings.

[idgiehkt]

117. that is a sore spot.

I kind of think we've moved out of that era of puritanical feminism where a woman showing her body in advertising is considered degrading and exploiting. I have an acquaintance who undresses for PETA all the time. None of the women in PETA advertising have been used against their will. There are campaigns that have used shock value that I found questionable (like the 'naughty bits' one) but I see it as harmless. I think Newkirk is British and feminism isn't such a movement in the U.K. from what I understand so maybe that is her influence.

I don't think the battered women's shelter thing is a good comparison. Most animals shelters are part of county government, they are there to control rabies and strays. No battered women are given 3 days to stay in a shelter and then put down. I would say, that if there is an argument to be made, it's that there is a HUGE amount of graft and embezzling going on in county animal shelters in this country, and that if women's activists wanted to demand that that money be accounted for and used to help battered women that would be great, especially since there is such a link between domestic violence and animal cruelty, i.e. they really are not even separate categories except when it's institutionalized cruelty like animal testing and research. Both come from the exact same family disease.

[PinkyisBlue]

288. Art museums

I agree with you. How can we have huge buildings that house works of art when there are people who don't have a home? We should get rid of the art and free up that room for people to live in! How can people spend their time and money visiting and supporting art museums when there are people who need that money?

Do you see how ridiculous it gets? Shelters for battered women are necessary, but so are shelters for animals. If there aren't enough shelters for women, then fight to get more, but don't take away from the animals. They're important, too. Better yet, provide the necessary education to people to discourage battering (like PETA tries to do with regard to animal abuse) so that less women need shelters. Although with the way things are going, it's clear that the need for shelters will increase.

[benevolent dictator]

313. That is a ridiculous argument, but what I was saying

is that PETA is sexist and contributes to the objectification and dehumanization of women. That in turn contributes to the idea that women are worthy targets of men's aggression, and that it's acceptable to control and dominate them through fear and violence.

I'm not saying don't help the animals, I'm just saying don't sacrifice half of the human population to do it.

[RDU Socialist]

125. i don't hate PETA, i hate radical members who make dipshit remarks like...

"you'd eat a fetus if it tasted good."

the people who see eating a burger being as evil as the Holocaust.

[mystique]

130. I don't hate PETA

But sometimes they are too extreme that is a turn off, if not, dangerous.

:hi: everyone. I am a newbie... So please be gentle. ;-)

[flvegan]

132. Welcome to DU!

And I think that's a very valid point. I think that sometimes their member/supporters are too extreme. The organization, in and of itself, I don't think that about, but I don't always agree with it.

[uppityperson]

135. welcome to DU

[bunyip]

196. Hi mystique!

Welcome to DU.

[Lisa0825]

277. Welcome to DU!

And congrats for having the cajones or huevos to jump right in on such a controversial topic! :hi:

[Nicole]

141. I don't hate PETA

This is a good thing. :thumbsup:

I do hate some of their tactics. I think Ingrid needs to step down. :thumbsdown:

[rug]

185. I don't know, those dogs look like terrorists.

[trotsky]

207. No pets, not even service animals?

I support animal rights, but I strongly oppose PETA.

[Catchawave]

211. Animal Rights is Bipartisan.....

According to Humane PAC's 2006 Senate endorsements here:

http://www.humaneusa.org/humaneusaendorsements.htm

I hope this helps the discussion :hi:

[Texasgal]

213. I agree with PETA for the most part.

I do not agree with everything they do, but I do respect the work they do for animals. I have even donated to them and will continue to do so!

[barb162]

215. No, I have contributed to them over the years

[Catchawave]

237. No body should *hate* PETA

..unless they *make profits* off of animals. :party:

[Solo_in_MD]

251. Ok, I despise them for their lack of ethics and penchant for violence

[YellowRubberDuckie]

239. Yep...

Especially since a friend of mine told me about their habit of having animals transferred to their care (even from no kill shelters) then euthanizing them.
Oh Yeah. I just love PETA. :sarcasm:
Duckie

[Karmadillo]

245. Habit? You mean they do it all the time? You mean you aren't going to

be posting a link to back up what your "friend" told you?

[YellowRubberDuckie]

246. If you google it...there are loads of links.

I didn't think we had lazy people here at DU who didn't like to google,so I continued watching this movie. And why did you put friend in quotes? Like I'd make up a friend. Are you thinking I couldn't possibly have intelligent friends who could know anything about PETA?
Duckie

[Karmadillo]

247. I can't believe I'm so lazy I won't look for links to support your claim.

I mean your "friend's" claim.

[flvegan]

249. Your "friend" is wrong.

PETA does euthanise animals, as does hundreds of animal shelters in this country, every day. It's a humane alternative, yes?

Your spin about PETA "having animals transferred to their care" to be euthanised is pretty fucking weak, though. No-kill shelters, were that a reality, wouldn't transfer any animal to any caretaker that might even consider a sodium pentabarbitol cocktail.

You should look shit up before posting about it.

[Karmadillo]

244. Good for PETA. Here's a list of their many, many victories on behalf

of animals. I just snipped the 2006 victories. You can click on the link for other years. Maybe the Dems could learn a thing or two from them about effective advocacy.

http://www.peta.org/about/victories.asp

Scott & White Memorial Hospital Pledges to End the Use of Live Pigs in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) Courses
Live pigs will no longer be subjected to cruel and invasive surgical procedures in Scott & White Memorial Hospital’s “Advanced Trauma Life Support” (ATLS) course. After hearing from PETA about a sophisticated human patient simulator called TraumaMan, a Scott & White executive wrote to us and agreed to end the ATLS animal labs in favor of the novel TraumaMan model: “he Trauma Man System has been evaluated … and will be incorporated into our existing program as soon as possible. We are arranging the funding and curriculum revisions necessary to incorporate this technology to replace our … use of pigs in ATLS training. Every effort will be made to obtain rental equipment for our early February course.”

Covance Fined for Violations of the Animal Welfare Act
One year after PETA’s undercover investigator left the laboratory of animal-testing conglomerate Covance, the U.S. Department of Agriculture fined the company for violations of the Animal Welfare Act based on PETA’s videotape evidence. PETA’s investigator documented that workers were hitting monkeys, throwing them against cage doors, and psychologically tormenting them. Sick and injured monkeys were left in their cages without veterinary care. Deprived of any environmental enrichment to ensure their psychological well-being, monkeys circled frantically in their cages, pulled out their hair, and chewed their own flesh.

Polo Ralph Lauren Bans Fur
In a landmark victory for animals killed for their skins, fashion house Polo Ralph Lauren dropped all genuine fur from its clothing lines shortly after meeting with PETA. According to the company news release, “e feel that the time is right to take this action.” On behalf of the millions of foxes, raccoons, and other animals who suffer and die each year in the fur industry, PETA couldn’t agree more!

Retailers Stop Selling Glue Traps
Retailers CVS, Rite Aid, Safeway, and Albertson’s all ended the sale of glue traps after PETA staff members presented information on this, the cruelest method of wildlife control. Animals trapped in these devices often linger in agony for days before dying of dehydration, suffocation, or starvation. Some attempt to chew off their own limbs in order to escape. We applaud these companies for their responsible decision.

ShopNBC Bans Fur Permanently!
After PETA showed officials at ShopNBC.com, the television shopping channel and online retailer for NBC TV, undercover footage of Chinese fur farms, they agreed to yank all fur from their catalog and adopted a permanent fur-free policy! ShopNBC.com joins the ranks of other major national retailers, including J.Crew, Wet Seal, and Forever 21, which all banned fur from their stores this winter following vigorous PETA campaigns.

Welch's Drops Deadly Animal Tests
After learning that Welch's—a maker of grape juice—funded animal experiments that involved cutting open dogs' chests, forcing monkeys to inhale noxious secondhand cigarette smoke, and injecting rats with toxic chemicals, PETA fired off a letter to company officials asking that they halt their funding of animal tests. On May 16, PETA received confirmation from the company that it will no longer fund or conduct any animal tests! With this announcement, Welch's joins other compassionate juice companies, like Sunny D, Old Orchard, and SunSweet, that have signed PETA's statement of assurance pledging not to fund or conduct any experiments on animals.

Chicago Bans Foie Gras!
On April 26, 2006, Chicago's City Council voted 48 to 1 to outlaw the sale of foie gras, making America's third-largest city the first place in the nation to eliminate this extreme form of cruelty. Foie gras (pronounced "fwah grah") is produced by sticking a pipe down the throats of ducks and geese three times a day and forcing up to 4 pounds of grain per day into their stomachs. This force-feeding damages the birds' esophagi and causes their livers to grow to up to 10 times their normal size, producing "fatty liver," or foie gras. The City Council passed the ordinance after seeing a video about foie gras production produced by PETA and the Animal Protection & Rescue League and narrated by Sir Roger Moore. Alderman Joe Moore sponsored the bill, saying, "The fewer restaurants that serve this product of animal torture, the fewer animals who will be subject to this unspeakable cruelty."

Whole Foods Ends Sale of Live Lobsters and Crabs
er extensive discussions with PETA and other animal protection groups, Whole Foods Market, the country's largest natural foods grocery chain, announced that it would stop selling live lobsters and crabs in all its stores, sparing thousands of animals from enormous suffering.

This announcement followed on the heels of other compassionate decisions by the company, including a ban on the sale of foie gras and a ban on the sale of eggs from hens cruelly confined to battery cages.

lots, lots, lots more...

[PinkyisBlue]

290. Thank you for posting!

Yes, maybe the Dems could learn from PETA. I like how PETA does the right thing by animals, even if it's not the most politically correct thing. And I like how they fight for the rights of all the animals, not just the cute, cuddly ones.

I have heard that some of the research labs get their animal subjects from shelters, so perhaps that is why PETA doesn't adopt out all the animals. The "no- kill" shelters may be allowing unscrupulous people to adopt their animals, which then end up in an Iams research lab. If I was named Fido, I'd rather be humanely euthanized by a PETA employee than spend the rest of my life as a research subject in a cramped cage.

[Renew Deal]

261. Is it time for the monthly Peta bashing thread

Woo Hoo!!! Pile on. :nuke:

[Solo_in_MD]

266. Hard not too considering

- Its PETA
- The OP keeps digging the hole deeper
- His henchman are no better than he

Though admittedly, its not sporting.

[Karmadillo]

273. The OP and his henchmen are probably afraid of your

riding leathers and your growl. One or the other, they could probably stand up to, but both--no way.

[Solo_in_MD]

274. Maybe they could tell I am a real animal....

and therefore support me above all others? :sarcasm:

[LeftyMom]

275. He has henchmen?

Jeez, I wish he'd told me. I could stand to borrow some for a few hours, provided they do lawn work or babysitting as well. :eyes:

[Solo_in_MD]

278. Henchmen are good for that too!

[LeftyMom]

283. Well, it's good that we agree on something

flvegan, my love, please dispatch your armies of vegan minions to wash my car, mind leftykid and launder my underpants at your earliest convenience. I wouldn't ask, but the idea has bipartisan support. :*

[Jamastiene]

300. I don't always agree with PETA, but I won't complain

about them, because I know they do things like this. I agree with their core beliefs, just not some, I repeat, some, of their tactics. This is a good thing they are doing. I say, "Bravo" to them.

[porphyrian]

303. Don't Arabs hate dogs as a culture?

I've heard second-hand that, for the most part, they don't keep dogs as pets, and that the dogs they are familiar with run in wild packs and are thought of with the same level of affection as we have for wharf rats. I'm sure there are exceptions, but isn't that generally true?

[Kali]

306. although several breeds originate in the Arab world, they are

considered unclean, although there seems to be much question about it. I haven't been to the "real" Middle East, but in Turkey there are certainly many more cats running around than dogs. I saw only a few and most were working dogs (anatolian sheppards) - here are some links for more info:

http://www.islamicconcern.com/dogs.asp

http://www.submission.org/pets/dogs2.html

http://www.quran-islam.org/119.html

http://www.geocities.com/forpeoplewhothink/Answers/Dogs_in_Islam.html

[porphyrian]

309. Cool, thanks! - n/t

[stop the bleeding]

307. PETA rocks

anyone who has problem with PETA needs to have their head examined period, end of story, no ifs ands or buts.

[catmother]

308. i've been making a monthly contribution to PETA for years.

they are controversial, but they do great work.