BS: PETA?

Subject: BS: PETA?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:55 AM

Posted On March 25, 2009
   


PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008

Hypocritical Animal Rights Group's 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339


WASHINGTON DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters.

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.

Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia's State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.

CCF Research Director David Martosko said: "PETA hasn't slowed down its hypocritical killing machine one bit, but it keeps browbeating the rest of society with a phony 'animal rights' message. What about the rights of the thousands of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens that die in PETA's headquarters building?"

Martosko added: "Since killing pets is A-OK with PETA, why should anyone listen to their demands about eating meat, using lab rats for medical research, or taking children to the circus?"

CCF obtained PETA's "Animal Record" filings since 1998 from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Members of the public can see these documents at PetaKillsAnimals.com.

In addition to exposing PETA's hypocritical record of killing defenseless animals, the Center for Consumer Freedom has publicized the animal rights group's ties to violent activists, and shed light on its aggressive message-marketing to children.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Becca72
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:06 AM

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/


This is exactly why I do not support ANY PETA causes.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 09:08 AM

People
Eating
Tasty
Animals??

They also said that ALL of the Michael Vick dogs had to be killed. One -- ONE -- had to be; the rest are doing quite well. A few have even been adopted out. I know; the court-appointed "friend" for the dogs is a personal friend of ours.

PETA, ptui. Hypocritical bunch of bastards. I support the ASPCA.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 10:21 AM

The ASPCA also uses scare tactics in their fundraising, though. None of these groups is a pure play, so to speak. I have a friend who used to be a dog catcher in Portland, OR. The stories she tells. . . whew!

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:10 AM

The tone of this bothers me greatly. I have learned over the years that whenever something sounds too good to be true, to check it out. And when something sounds too bad to be true- to do the same.

From the link:

"From July 1998 through December 2007, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed over 19,200 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals." That's more than five defenseless creatures every day."

July 1 through December 31, of any given year, amounts to 184 days. Five pets slaughtered on every one of those days would mean that a total of 900 animals would be killed in that time. A far cry from the 19,200 the article claims.

And then, the article says:

"Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during the last five years."

"Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered,"? What dos that mean? How many pets did they spay and neuter?

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:23 AM

Pets Killed By PETA
Year Received† Adopted Killed Transferred %Killed%Adopted
2008 2,216      7      2,124    34         95.8    0.32
2007 1,997    17      1,815    35         90.9    0.85
2006 3,061    12      2,981    46         97.4    0.39
2005 2,165    146      1,946    69         89.9    6.74
2004 2,655    361      2,278      1         85.8   13.60
2003 2,224    312      1,911      1         85.9   14.03
2002 2,680    382      2,298      2         85.7   14.25
2001 2,685    703      1,944    14         72.4   26.18
2000 2,681    624      2,029    28         75.7   23.27
1999 1,805    386      1,328    91         73.6   21.39
*1998 943    133       685    125         72.6   14.10
Totals
    25,112 3,083    21,339    446         85.0   12.28


* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† Other than spay/neuter animals



July 1998 through December 2007 is about 9 1/2 years- about 3500 days

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:27 AM

Here's a picture of our friend Rebecca and two of the Vick pit bulls (which PETA had said could never be made "sane" and said had to be killed).

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 11:40 AM

Never mind. :)

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 12:26 PM

I'm not a supporter of PETA because I think they're way over the top, but I'd have to see some corroborative evidence before I'd believe everything I read on a site called www.petakillsanimals.com .

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: pdq
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 12:43 PM

"...I'd have to see some corroborative evidence before I'd believe everything I read on a site called www.petakillsanimals.com."

You don't have to believe everything said on that site. A small part of the information will suffice.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:00 PM

How can you be so upset about the killing of animals, and yet be pro abortion?? Methinks its more hypocrisy!

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:42 PM

I'm not upset about the killing of animals.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 01:59 PM

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said - I'd take anything I read on such an obviously biased website with a grain of salt, and wouldn't believe it until I'd checked and verified elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: john f weldon
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 03:25 PM

I hope no one will mind if I repost this jolly link to my song-film: the only thing I like about Peta is....

Peta Gals

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Ref
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:29 PM

People
Executing
Their
Animals

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 09 - 08:44 PM

Ah John, you're just an old softie, you are.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:12 PM

Rap, those dogs in that photo don't look comfortable. Their body language says they're nervous all around. I'd like to see a later, more relaxed photo to feel comfortable about that placement. The position of their ears, and their tails down, they're not in a good place yet at that point in time.

Comfortable body language here--tail out and a little up and wagging, the ears cocked, not laid back, etc. Pit bull on the left, catahoula on the right. Smartest dog I've ever owned. She's so good at reading body language that she's one you could train to do one of those stupid pet tricks on David Letterman. :)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: meself
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:22 PM

It's the pink collars. It's one thing to rescue them from the pits - but to make them wear pink collars ... no wonder they're looking a little touchy.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Maryrrf
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:28 PM

We can't really tell much from that picture. The dogs probably weren't in a familiar environment, possibly were surrounded by strangers, and pictures were being taken with possible shutter clicks, etc. It's not surprising that they weren't relaxed. They might appear very different if they were chilling out in their own back yard. Certainly wherever they are they are better off than when they were owned by Michael Vick.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 03:59 PM

Most of them are in a Rescue Shelter in Utah, others are in the Bay Area.

No, Rebecca says that they aren't yet completely comfortable around strangers but they ARE getting better. Most will require a caring own who has no other dogs and will commit to caring for one of these Vick dogs.

You wouldn't be very comfortable around people either if you'd gone through what these dogs did. Suffice to say that Vick and Co. didn't get anywhere near the punishment they deserved.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 11:10 PM

Body language:

Tentative newcomer (lots of injured spots, ticks, bites, missing teeth)

Laid back body language

Very very comfortable (and a little silly)

Kiss

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 31 Mar 09 - 11:35 PM

I don't get it. Why does PETA kill so many dogs and cats? If they get 32m per year and can hang out at celebrity balls, what's in it for them? The only attempt at an explanation I saw was that they want to ensure the animals are killed more humanely than would otherwise be the case. Hard to believe anything they say, but what is the better explanation?   Why get such horrid PR when they could get such much pet-loving PR in the mainstream, quite cheaply? Is there some deeper philosophy involved?

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 08:20 AM

Yeah.

Hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Apr 09 - 04:35 PM

Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)   Another think tank for information?
I think not!

PETA does some nutty things at times but killing animals isn't one of them.
"Anyone who uses the net deserves all the misinformation they get."....Tom Lehrer.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 02:36 PM

"PETA does some nutty things at times but killing animals isn't one of them."

Care to provide some factual content?

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 06:35 PM

Gee, that's odd. Especially in view of this quote from the SF Chronicle in 2005:

DON'T BE FOOLED by the slick propaganda of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The organization may claim to champion the welfare of animals, as the many photos of cute puppies and kittens on its Web site suggest. But last week, two PETA employees were charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty each, after authorities found them dumping the dead bodies of 18 animals they had just picked up from a North Carolina animal shelter into a Dumpster. According to the Associated Press, 13 more dead animals were found in a van registered to PETA.

or this, from Newsweek, April 28, 2008:

Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. Dalmatians may no longer be the breed of the day, but the problem of unwanted and abandoned pets is as urgent as ever. Shelters around the country kill 4 million animals every year; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy. In recent years those grim statistics have split the animal rights community. Ironically, PETA has emerged as a strong proponent of euthanasia. (The group is better known for its public condemnations of everyone from fashion designer Donna Karan for her use of fur to the National Cancer Institute for its animal research.) In defense of its policy PETA has insisted that euthanasia is a necessary evil in a world full of unwanted pets.

or perhaps this, from PETA.org:

PETA, The American Veterinary Medical Association, and The Humane Society of the United States concur that an intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital administered by a trained professional is the kindest, most compassionate method of euthanizing animals. The American Humane Association considers this to be the only acceptable method of euthanasia for cats and dogs in animal shelters.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 06:55 PM

PETA needs it head OUT of its ass.

"Why is PETA suing animal rights organizations?



Examiner.com


March 30, 2:59 PM



http://www.examiner.com/x-4198-Omaha-Vegan-Examiner~y2009m3d30-Why-is-PETA-suing-animal-rights-organizations


If dressing up like clan members, exploiting women in protests, investing in the animal industry, or euthanizing 80-97% of 'rescued' animals doesn't change your mind about PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, perhaps their recent lawsuit will get your attention.


Is PETA suing KFC as part of their KFCruelty campaign? Are they suing Lowes for selling moustraps? PETA has decided to take it easy on these guys and instead go after the Friends of Animals animal advocacy organization's primate sanctuary.


I mentioned FoA in an earlier post on a new cookbook the president has released offering essential vegan recipes for various occassions. Foa Also hosts "Vegan Means," a site to help those curious about veganism to make the transition.


Why?


I asked FoA's Dustin Rhodes why on Earth would a self-proclaimed animal rights organization sue another animal rights organization, his response: "In essence, we do not know."


Friends of Animals is an organization whose work is wide-spread and far reaching. I wonder sometimes if people realize how costly it is to run a nation-wide spay and neuter program, print various animal rights literature, conduct legal actions for various non-human animals, run an animal sanctuary with 450 animals in Texas, support Marine Animal Rescue in California, write and publish cookbooks and animal rights books....Right now, money should be feeding mouths at PPI [Primarily Primates], not legal fees PETA is disclosing their actions as in the best interests for the animals, but is an organization which lauds euthanasia as the most humane alternative going to shelter these animals?


PETA's latest attempt at shutting PPI down alleges that PPI is in violation of the "dangerous wild animals" statute. The suit asks the Court to force PPI to get rid of all of its "dangerous wild animals," including its chimpanzees, African lion, and baboons. However, the "dangerous wild animals" statute does not apply to animal shelters such as PPI. Although PETA's own recruitee, Mr. Hensley, admits PPI is an animal shelter, his attorneys, who are being funded by PETA, insist that PPI is NOT an animal shelter.



FoA shells out legal fees



"Get rid of"? Where on earth are the primates who fill this sanctuary supposed to go? According to the Primarily Primates homepage, PPI offers rehabilitation and care for the primates: "Many are cast-offs from the pet trade and biomedical research institutions. Individuals who have been accepted into the refuge include chimpanzees once used in space training and testing protocols by the United States Air Force and Oliver, a chimpanzee once paraded on television shows as the "humanzee" due to a habit of walking upright." "



Might be worth writing TO PETA and letting 'em know how y'all feel.



I asked Rhodes how this lawsuit was effecting FoA and PPI and there is no doubt, the outcome of these needless lawsuits are very real: "Whether we are in a recession or the next great depression, that does not alter our responsibilities to animals in any way; donations have dropped off (as they probably have for every non-profit in the country) as people struggle in their own lives, with their own responsibilities. It's one thing to be very frugal and careful with how we use resources; it's quite another when Friends of Animals must literally throw money away to feed a senseless lawsuit. Right now, money should be feeding mouths at PPI, not legal fees."



Shelters across America are in trouble



I'm known to push "opening your schedule, not your wallet" when it comes to activism however in these hard times, sanctuaries and animal rights organizations (who don't have a $30,000,000 annual budget like PETA) are feeling the pain. If you're looking perform a simple act to help some sanctuaries care for living animals, donating to sanctuaries like Friends of Animals, Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary, or the Maple Farms Sanctuary would sincerely help the management of these shelters to feed and shelter their animals.



Rhodes tells me, "First and foremost, PPI needs support. Ideally, people who are able could do whatever they could to sustain PPI during this difficult economy; it'd be wonderful if Friends of Animals did not bear this entire financial responsibility. Even small donations to PPI matter. Secondly, people can boycott PETA—an organization that's worked tirelessly to destroy Primarily Primates. Write letters, e-mails, call PETA: tell them to stop their assault on PPI."



Friends of Animals (Primarily Primates)

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary

Maple Farms Sanctuary



It is not clear whether PETA's motivation is personal vendetta, greed, or a movement to shut down all animal sanctuaries, but this latest assault against PPI threatens every animal sanctuary in the state of Texas. As a $30 million per year organization, PETA can afford to file all the frivolous lawsuits it wants, hire as many lawyers as it wants, and make all of the frivolous arguments it wants. However, PETA is hard-pressed to explain how this lawsuit helps any of the animals in PPI's care. We are asking for your help to stop it.



Source: Priscilla Feral, FoA president: http://www.friendsofanimals.org/news/2009/march/petas-ongoing-assaul.html

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 07:10 PM

Sorry the post is so space-consuming. However, PETA really pisses me off.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Sorcha
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 08:48 PM

Me too, Bruce...and I support my local shelter...which is NOT a 'no kill' shelter. They do their best but some animals are JUST NOT adoptable. Period.

Does anyone besides me remember when PETA hit a mink farm and let a shit load of ranch raised mink loose? Those that didn't die from exposure were found huddled under their cages waiting to be let back in and be FED.

PETA has also been known to go to dog shows and let dogs out of their crates/kennels....creating pure Havoc. Because the dogs are supposedly 'slaves' of their humans...GIVE ME A BREAK!

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 08:49 PM

I do volunteer work for SPCA bingos. I hear you.

PETA treats people like shit--I guess they haven't realized that people are animals, too.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 09:06 PM

PETA wouldn't know ethical behavior if it came up, introduced itself, and bit them in the ass.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: Sorcha
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 09:12 PM

I concur, Rap.

Subject: RE: BS: PETA?
From: heric
Date: 02 Apr 09 - 11:31 PM

I tried to post this last night but couldn't. string's post was a little cryptic, yes.

He was right about the CCF, but PETA certainly kills animals. The CCF numbers appear accurate, but 2K per year is miniscule.

"According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA euthanized 1,946 companion animals (out of 2,138 animals surrendered to them or picked up as strays) in its home state of Virginia in 2005. [ [http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2005 VDACS Online Animal Reporting] ] During that same year, 126,797 animals (out of 228,376 animals surrendered or picked up as strays) were euthanized at animal shelters in Virginia. [ [http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi VDACS Online Animal Reporting] ]"

http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/38498

That aricle also quotes the Humane Society (I'm not assessing its credibility) for euthanesia estimates of 2m - 3m nationwide per year.

They openly and officially disagree with rights organizations that oppose euthenasia.