# Opinions on PETA



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

What are people's opinions on the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals group? I personally am not a fan of them. People unaware of PETA can research the group. Poll is located above. You may also post your thoughts on PETA.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

A minority group of people trying to force their own extreme views on the majority by scare tactics and threats

I don't think it's just a case of agree or disagree because obviously some of what they do benefits animals, the majority not however


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

PETA do not condone what I do and so I consider that makes them far too extreme for their own good.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

I would have gone for 'load of nutters' option in the poll, but it wasn't there.

I believe animals should be treated ethically, but PETA take it too far, beyond rationality.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I agree with some of their campaigns that highlight the serious & very real welfare issues that animals face.

But I don't like the way they try to get their message across, & their reputation for killing perfectly adoptable animals in the so-called 'shelters' they run is disgusting, so I do not support them.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Burrowzig said:


> I would have gone for 'load of nutters' option in the poll, but it wasn't there.
> 
> I believe animals should be treated ethically, but PETA take it too far, beyond rationality.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Whatever I read from them that I have personal knowledge of I know is totally made up therefore I do not believe anything they publish. I think they are very dangerous because some people do believe their made up rubbish.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Haven't voted because its never that black and white. Some of their campaigns I agree with but many I don't, some of their supporters are good, kind people and some are not. Over the years I think they have raised awareness of some issues but also think they have gone too far with others. They get people talking about issues they might never have thought about before and if that gets us to question/examine how we treat animals then I applaud that but I don't agree with using violence/intimidation and I don't agree with their policy on keeping pets/killing of healthy dogs.


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2016)

I think they are a very dangerous organization that anyone who enjoys the company of animals should be wary of.
PeTA is just one of many AR groups that make a mockery of the worth “ethical” and do more harm than good in the long run. 

There is a situation on our side of the pond right now about an upstate NY farmer - organic, free range farmer, who had his (pet) horses taken from him because during the worst of the winter last year he was struggling to keep their water unfrozen. Mind, there was zero evidence that ANY of the animals on his farm were suffering from dehydration, but they took the horses anyway, arrested him, his mugshot all over the news... They kept the horses for months, until finally dropping all charges and returning them, but not before he had spent a fortune in legal fees and still had to pay for boarding the horses and the vet bill for a foal who was born while they were out of his care. Thank goodness the small farming community rallied around him and helped with legal and other costs, but it was a horrible ordeal to put this man and his animals through that never should have happened. 

This is what extreme AR agendas lead to. And it affects ALL of us pet owners.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> I think they are a very dangerous organization that anyone who enjoys the company of animals should be wary of.
> PeTA is just one of many AR groups that make a mockery of the worth "ethical" and do more harm than good in the long run.
> 
> There is a situation on our side of the pond right now about an upstate NY farmer - organic, free range farmer, who had his (pet) horses taken from him because during the worst of the winter last year he was struggling to keep their water unfrozen. Mind, there was zero evidence that ANY of the animals on his farm were suffering from dehydration, but they took the horses anyway, arrested him, his mugshot all over the news... They kept the horses for months, until finally dropping all charges and returning them, but not before he had spent a fortune in legal fees and still had to pay for boarding the horses and the vet bill for a foal who was born while they were out of his care. Thank goodness the small farming community rallied around him and helped with legal and other costs, but it was a horrible ordeal to put this man and his animals through that never should have happened.
> ...


Poor bloke, what an awful thing to happen. And yet if you report truly neglected animals nothing happens!


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2016)

Blitz said:


> Poor bloke, what an awful thing to happen. And yet if you report truly neglected animals nothing happens!


The whole investigation started off a phone call. 
He has pigs, sheep, cattle, that he pasture raises and sells for meat. He is one of the few small farms who is trying to get away from factory farming and be more ethical about raising animals for food. Who knows who made the phone call, it could have been an AR person with the police's ear, it could have been a factory farm supporter with the same. Either way though, some of the charges were just ludicrous. His sheep were locked in an unheated barn without access to food and their water was frozen. So he brings the sheep in for the night, they eat their food overnight, and their water freezes overnight. And a heated barn for sheep? What?!
Two independent vets visited the animals and found NOTHING wrong with them, yet he was still arrested. And the animals they seized were horses, so apparently all these other animals are suffering, but they only took the horses. The whole thing is just very strange and frankly scary.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> I think they are a very dangerous organization that anyone who enjoys the company of animals should be wary of.
> PeTA is just one of many AR groups that make a mockery of the worth "ethical" and do more harm than good in the long run.
> 
> There is a situation on our side of the pond right now about an upstate NY farmer - organic, free range farmer, who had his (pet) horses taken from him because during the worst of the winter last year he was struggling to keep their water unfrozen. Mind, there was zero evidence that ANY of the animals on his farm were suffering from dehydration, but they took the horses anyway, arrested him, his mugshot all over the news... They kept the horses for months, until finally dropping all charges and returning them, but not before he had spent a fortune in legal fees and still had to pay for boarding the horses and the vet bill for a foal who was born while they were out of his care. Thank goodness the small farming community rallied around him and helped with legal and other costs, but it was a horrible ordeal to put this man and his animals through that never should have happened.
> ...


Do PETA have legal powers/inspectors in the US like the RSPCA over here?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Total bunch of crazies.......


----------



## Guest (Jan 17, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do PETA have legal powers/inspectors in the US like the RSPCA over here?


No. Well, not really... It's complicated.

First off, PeTA pays obscene amounts of money for lobbyists. Lobbyists hobnob with politicians and even if they don't get their laws passed, they still have a lot of influence and obviously the politician's ear. It's not out of the realm of possibilities for a local governor to pressure a local police force to investigate one place and not another. And of course lobbyists are instrumental in getting bills read and passed in to law. So there is that.

PeTA also operates a shelter in Virginia (one measly shelter) and through operating that shelter they are allowed to collect "strays" and go to other shelters and collect dogs as well. So technically they could go to a "stray" and collect/confiscate the dog. However, all that may be changing following the investigation and subsequent law changes - all because of what PeTA was doing with that shelter status.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

I wish I knew about the PETA shelter in Virginia in the summer. I visited Virginia in August and if I found the shelter, I would have gone in and released all of the prisoners-I mean pets.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Who is the one person who voted that PETA are helping animals? I will find you. Mark my words.


----------



## SpicyBulldog (Jun 30, 2012)

Bunch of nutters!


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I think they are a very dangerous organization that anyone who enjoys the company of animals should be wary of.
> PeTA is just one of many AR groups that make a mockery of the worth "ethical" and do more harm than good in the long run.
> 
> There is a situation on our side of the pond right now about an upstate NY farmer - organic, free range farmer, who had his (pet) horses taken from him because during the worst of the winter last year he was struggling to keep their water unfrozen. Mind, there was zero evidence that ANY of the animals on his farm were suffering from dehydration, but they took the horses anyway, arrested him, his mugshot all over the news... They kept the horses for months, until finally dropping all charges and returning them, but not before he had spent a fortune in legal fees and still had to pay for boarding the horses and the vet bill for a foal who was born while they were out of his care. Thank goodness the small farming community rallied around him and helped with legal and other costs, but it was a horrible ordeal to put this man and his animals through that never should have happened.
> ...


How ridiculous!! My horses water is always freezing in the winter! ( they live out 24/7 ) it's just making sure to crack the ice and get most of it out... Still freezes up again though! My horses are hardly dehydrated! Poor man  and stupid Peta! I'd never support them! Bunch of extremists and can be down right dangerous.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't agree with their policy on keeping pets.


Exactly what I was driving at when I posted my comment.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> No. Well, not really... It's complicated.
> 
> First off, PeTA pays obscene amounts of money for lobbyists. Lobbyists hobnob with politicians and even if they don't get their laws passed, they still have a lot of influence and obviously the politician's ear. It's not out of the realm of possibilities for a local governor to pressure a local police force to investigate one place and not another. And of course lobbyists are instrumental in getting bills read and passed in to law. So there is that.
> 
> PeTA also operates a shelter in Virginia (one measly shelter) and through operating that shelter they are allowed to collect "strays" and go to other shelters and collect dogs as well. So technically they could go to a "stray" and collect/confiscate the dog. However, all that may be changing following the investigation and subsequent law changes - all because of what PeTA was doing with that shelter status.


OK - thank you for explaining. I'm just not sure how PeTA are responsible for having the farmer's horses seized if they don't have any legal powers.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I don't agree with everything they say but there's no doubt they have achieved a great deal to raise awareness & improve the lives of millions of animals. So for that reason I can put aside our differences & get behind their campaigns that matter to me. So i'll still continue to support their campaigns against the fur industry and so on.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2016)

Hanwombat said:


> How ridiculous!! My horses water is always freezing in the winter! ( they live out 24/7 ) it's just making sure to crack the ice and get most of it out... Still freezes up again though! My horses are hardly dehydrated! Poor man  and stupid Peta! I'd never support them! Bunch of extremists and can be down right dangerous.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> OK - thank you for explaining. I'm just not sure how PeTA are responsible for having the farmer's horses seized if they don't have any legal powers.


To be clear, I did not say that PeTA was responsible for the farmer's horses being taken, I said that extreme AR agendas lead to the kind of thinking (and laws) where good, caring owners have their animals taken away. There is no evidence that PeTA is behind this particular case, but it is indicative of the mentality of the extreme AR agenda that freaks out over a horse having a frozen bucket of water overnight or think that sheep need a temperature controlled barn.

IOW, people who are not real animal people deciding how the animal needs to be treated.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> To be clear, I did not say that PeTA was responsible for the farmer's horses being taken, I said that extreme AR agendas lead to the kind of thinking (and laws) where good, caring owners have their animals taken away. There is no evidence that PeTA is behind this particular case, but it is indicative of the mentality of the extreme AR agenda that freaks out over a horse having a frozen bucket of water overnight or think that sheep need a temperature controlled barn.
> 
> IOW, people who are not real animal people deciding how the animal needs to be treated.


Yes sorry I should probably have quoted @Hanwombat as I'd asked for clarification on whether PeTA had legal rights hoping that would demonstrate they weren't responsible for the farmer's horses being taken away.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2016)

Right now probably my biggest issue with PeTA is that even all these years after the Vicktory dogs and so many others have shown themselves to be perfectly good candidates for rehabilitation and rehoming, PeTA still stick to their euthanasia policy for seized fighting dogs and continue to push for laws to ensure these dogs will be euthanized without even an evaluation. 
They continue to stand in the way of the NoKill movement and given their track record, it actually does seem like they would rather a dog be euthanized than live as a pet. It makes me shudder really...


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

The article I read by PETA that really sticks in my mind was about sheep. It claimed that sheep farmers give their ewes hormones to get them to lamb in January and then leave them on the hills so all the lambs die from the bad weather. So scary that anyone would think to talk such rubbish. Some pedigree sheep are given hormone treatment so they cycle earlier and lamb indoors or with shelter to produce lambs that will be born as close to January 1st as possible so that the ram lambs are old enough to be used in their first year. Also well grown lambs for showing and early meat lambs while the prices are good.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> I don't agree with everything they say but there's no doubt they have achieved a great deal to raise awareness & improve the lives of millions of animals. So for that reason I can put aside our differences & get behind their campaigns that matter to me. So i'll still continue to support their campaigns against the fur industry and so on.


You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as is everyone but when you know that a lot of what they say is made up dangerous rubbish how can you actually believe anything they say on any animal welfare subject. I would be interested to know what they have done to improve the lives of millions of animals. Others are putting forward examples of the bad things they do, how about some examples from the other side.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Individuals associated with PETA have done good things. PETA itself along with it's leadership is not something to support. How can someone on a pet forum support a group who equates any pet ownership with slavery? Then again, this has been argued before several times with people prepared to turn a blind eye which is what PETA relies on.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I can't stand PETA. I think their ideologies are bat poo crazy, although I think some of the people involved are clever, manipulative, and dishonest enabling them to spread their clearly bonkers ideals to the wider public. 

I'm with Blitz on this one. The issues I actually know something about I can clearly see that PETA either outright lie or hugely twist and misrepresent the facts to suit their own agenda.

They are not bringing issues to light imo, they are making them up. Telling people "fight against so-and-so because they do xyz" is meaningless if so-and-so don't actually do xyz! 

I think that aside from the outright bull, they are dishonest in the way they present themselves as an animal welfare organization. They are nothing of the sort, they are animal rights extremists, and I doubt if many of their supporters really agree with their anti-pets, pro-bsl, etc ideals. 

Any campaign I want to be involved in I can do so without supporting PETA. There are literally hundreds of ways to help animals - none of which need these nutjobs!


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Colette said:


> I can't stand PETA. I think their ideologies are bat poo crazy, although I think some of the people involved are clever, manipulative, and dishonest enabling them to spread their clearly bonkers ideals to the wider public.
> 
> I'm with Blitz on this one. The issues I actually know something about I can clearly see that PETA either outright lie or hugely twist and misrepresent the facts to suit their own agenda.
> 
> ...


So well stated.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I think they are a very dangerous organization that anyone who enjoys the company of animals should be wary of.
> PeTA is just one of many AR groups that make a mockery of the worth "ethical" and do more harm than good in the long run.
> 
> There is a situation on our side of the pond right now about an upstate NY farmer - organic, free range farmer, who had his (pet) horses taken from him because during the worst of the winter last year he was struggling to keep their water unfrozen. Mind, there was zero evidence that ANY of the animals on his farm were suffering from dehydration, but they took the horses anyway, arrested him, his mugshot all over the news... They kept the horses for months, until finally dropping all charges and returning them, but not before he had spent a fortune in legal fees and still had to pay for boarding the horses and the vet bill for a foal who was born while they were out of his care. Thank goodness the small farming community rallied around him and helped with legal and other costs, but it was a horrible ordeal to put this man and his animals through that never should have happened.
> ...


Just to set the record straight ...

You're talking about Joshua Rockwood, right?

"Extreme AR agendas"?

He was arrested by the New York State Police after an "extensive investigation".

It was NOTHING to do with PETA.

It was NOTHING to do with any AR group.

The only 'extremism' came from supporters of Mr Rockwood who menaced, harassed and threatened the owner of the horse sanctuary, that the police had entrusted the care of the seized horses to.

http://news10.com/2015/03/17/glenville-man-arrested-for-not-feeding-farm-animals/


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Blitz said:


> The article I read by PETA that really sticks in my mind was about sheep. It claimed that sheep farmers give their ewes hormones to get them to lamb in January and then leave them on the hills so all the lambs die from the bad weather. So scary that anyone would think to talk such rubbish. Some pedigree sheep are given hormone treatment so they cycle earlier and lamb indoors or with shelter to produce lambs that will be born as close to January 1st as possible so that the ram lambs are old enough to be used in their first year. Also well grown lambs for showing and early meat lambs while the prices are good.


well yes, because to a farmer, letting all the lambs die makes total and utter financial sense doesn't it? Thems crazy I tell ya, crazy.......


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

​Only a fortaste of what PETA actually wants. This is what those who support PETA really support.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Can I also ask how you partially support PETA? Is it just you nod, and agree with some of their policies? Or share things of theirs in social media etc ? Or go to protests? Or do you actually part with cash? And encourage others to do the same?
I only ask because if its the later how can you be sure your money I being spent on the things you agree with and not on the things you don't?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Just to set the record straight ...
> 
> You're talking about Joshua Rockwood, right?
> 
> ...


I think that article sounds quite ambiguous as the police are not experts on animal welfare and if you read the comments there seems to be a lot more to it including a report from a vet who found nothing wrong. It would be interesting to know the truth but obviously we never will.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2016)

Blitz said:


> I think that article sounds quite ambiguous as the police are not experts on animal welfare and if you read the comments there seems to be a lot more to it including a report from a vet who found nothing wrong. It would be interesting to know the truth but obviously we never will.


Two independent vets found nothing wrong and the farmer has since been cleared of all charges and his horses returned. 
I agree there is more to this story, and I also clarified that there is no evidence that PeTA is involved.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Two independent vets found nothing wrong and the farmer has since been cleared of all charges and his horses returned.
> I agree there is more to this story, and I also clarified that there is no evidence that PeTA is involved.


that is good news. The police seem to home in on certain things and miss out on the important ones (if they are there)


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2016)

Blitz said:


> that is good news. The police seem to home in on certain things and miss out on the important ones (if they are there)


From what I can piece together the issue stemmed from this farmer struggling to provide fresh, unfrozen water. 
Last winter was a horrible one in much of the northeast with record low temps that continued on and on for much longer periods that we're used to. 
With his usual water supply frozen over, he was having to hand water the livestock, either bringing water out to them or moving the livestock to the water. He has chickens, pigs, sheep, cattle and horses, so I'm not sure how he was providing water, probably a combination of moving stock and moving water. The charges stemmed from him not having fresh water readily available.

Ironically, at the time this farmer was being charged and his horses taken away (despite the vet having found NOTHING wrong with any of his animals) people all over the country were freezing to death, water pipes were freezing and vulnerable people and facilities were without water also. 
Because of the way this all went a lot of people are very suspicious about an AR group involvement. That I know of, no one knows who originally called in the complaint, but farms like his - who work hard to make raising animals for meat more ethical, environmentally friendly, and do it successfully, have drawn the attention of certain AR groups who don't like the "evidence" that you can give an animal a good life even if you are going to eventually use the animal for meat.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Blitz said:


> I think that article sounds quite ambiguous as the police are not experts on animal welfare and if you read the comments there seems to be a lot more to it including a report from a vet who found nothing wrong. It would be interesting to know the truth but obviously we never will.


The truth is it was nothing to do with PETA, or the AR movement, as had been the insinuation.

Rather shocking to me that Americans consider that (the land shown in the video) to be 'free range pasture'. Though given the proliferation of feed lots in the US ...

My understanding is there was no trial and the charges were dropped. Though I doubt the police would have taken the action they did without due cause. And the overgrown hooves (shown in the video) suggest animal husbandry was not as it should have been.


----------



## Guest (Jan 18, 2016)

@Blitz this is a good summary of all the complex factors involved in the Joshua Rockwood case and others like it cropping up as sustainable farming gains momentum.
http://civileats.com/2015/06/02/how-one-pasture-based-rancher-is-caught-in-the-crosshairs/


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

The PETA bashing campaign is funded by The Center For Consumer Freedom, an industry funded pressure group.
http://www.bermanexposed.org
It is nothing to do with saving cats and dogs. The companies behind this pressure group are responsible collectively for the exploitation and killing of billions of animals.
The true aim is to diminish the support, status and funding of PETA, and thus diminish PETA's ability to campaign against them, expose their misdeeds and harm their profit margins.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

And here is a level-headed account from someone who actually worked for PETA at their Norfolk shelter, reminding us of the grim realities on the ground
http://www.thedodo.com/community/Laura_Lee_Cascada/animal-lovers-battle-over-euth-1003485507.html


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

PETA criticism is people who see past the marketing and spin PETA produces. Your level headed account, what a joke description.. let's appeal to people's emotions (typical PETA spin). Easier than talking real facts like looking at kill % vs rehomes of similar shelters in the same or similar areas for comparisons. Rehoming, not keeping dogs for years in kennels. Instead PETA propaganda would have people believe only PETA has and handles sob stories.

Interesting thing to notice isn't it, the image at the top is a pitbull which PETA want to destroy simply as they exist.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2016)

Goblin said:


> PETA criticism is people who see past the marketing and spin PETA produces. Your level headed account, what a joke description.. let's appeal to people's emotions (typical PETA spin). Easier than talking real facts like looking at kill % vs rehomes of similar shelters in the same or similar areas for comparisons. Rehoming, not keeping dogs for years in kennels. Instead PETA propaganda would have people believe only PETA has and handles sob stories.
> 
> Interesting thing to notice isn't it, the image at the top is a pitbull which PETA want to destroy simply as they exist.


A no-kill rebuttal: 
http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2013/07/19/the-no-kill-deniers/


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as is everyone but when you know that a lot of what they say is made up dangerous rubbish how can you actually believe anything they say on any animal welfare subject. I would be interested to know what they have done to improve the lives of millions of animals. Others are putting forward examples of the bad things they do, how about some examples from the other side.


Their achievements are too many to mention Blitz. They have had huge victories along with countless small ones.

Here are some of them

ETA It was PETAs recent undercover investigation that exposed the horrific cruelty behind the angora wool industry. This expose has led to many retailers & fashion designers dropping angora totally.

http://www.peta.org/blog/james-perse-los-angeles-confirms-end-of-angora-wool-sales/?utm_campaign=1215 James Perse Los Angeles Confirms End of AngoraWool Sales Tweet&utm_source=PETA Twitter&utm_medium=Promo

This was a big win against KFC Canada - http://www.cbc.ca/news/feathers-settle-in-peta-kfc-canada-battle-1.769518

http://www.peta.org/about-peta/milestones/

http://www.petaindia.com/blog/peta-looks-back-successful-2013/


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2016)

Lexiedhb said:


> Can I also ask how you partially support PETA? Is it just you nod, and agree with some of their policies? Or share things of theirs in social media etc ? Or go to protests? Or do you actually part with cash? And encourage others to do the same?
> I only ask because if its the later how can you be sure your money I being spent on the things you agree with and not on the things you don't?


You can't be sure financially. If you donate to PeTA there is no way of knowing if those funds are going towards lobbying to shut down Circus performances involving animals or if those funds are going towards lobbying for stricter BSL laws. And PeTA does both. 
Fortunately, there are other national organizations in this country like the ASPCA who also lobby to shut down circus acts while being aware that these animals have to go somewhere when they're no longer owned by the circus, and who are also adamantly opposed to BSL, support NoKill and work tirelessly to end animal suffering in other areas. That and the local charities who do a lot of good.


----------



## Snoringbear (Sep 26, 2008)

I went with load of nutters, because that's what they are.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

ouesi said:


> You can't be sure financially. If you donate to PeTA there is no way of knowing if those funds are going towards lobbying to shut down Circus performances involving animals or if those funds are going towards lobbying for stricter BSL laws. And PeTA does both.
> Fortunately, there are other national organizations in this country like the ASPCA who also lobby to shut down circus acts while being aware that these animals have to go somewhere when they're no longer owned by the circus, and who are also adamantly opposed to BSL, support NoKill and work tirelessly to end animal suffering in other areas. That and the local charities who do a lot of good.


Exactly. I would far prefer to support the shelter where I got my dogs from and also Animal Defenders International


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> @Blitz this is a good summary of all the complex factors involved in the Joshua Rockwood case and others like it cropping up as sustainable farming gains momentum.
> http://civileats.com/2015/06/02/how-one-pasture-based-rancher-is-caught-in-the-crosshairs/


Interesting reading but I am afraid my hackles were rising just a bit. He agonised over giving his boar antibiotics. What is he on about, if if was ill and needed antibiotics then it should get them. His dogs need minimal shelter because of their breed. I am sorry, I would need to see what goes on before making a judgement. We have far too many 'hobby farmers' round here where neglect through ignorance and reading too many books is rife. We had a neighbour who claimed he had read you should not assist a cow calving till she had been in labour for 24 hours - and he stuck to it.



Knightofalbion said:


> The PETA bashing campaign is funded by The Center For Consumer Freedom, an industry funded pressure group.
> http://www.bermanexposed.org
> It is nothing to do with saving cats and dogs. The companies behind this pressure group are responsible collectively for the exploitation and killing of billions of animals.
> The true aim is to diminish the support, status and funding of PETA, and thus diminish PETA's ability to campaign against them, expose their misdeeds and harm their profit margins.


I do not need to read any PETA bashing to form an opinion. I only need to read PETA's lying and rubbish propaganda.



noushka05 said:


> Their achievements are too many to mention Blitz. They have had huge victories along with countless small ones.
> 
> Here are some of them
> 
> ...


I have only read the angora one but all I can say is that if they are banning a whole industry because of how it is being done in China (where dogs are skinned alive) then I do not think much of their campaign.


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2016)

Blitz said:


> Interesting reading but I am afraid my hackles were rising just a bit. He agonised over giving his boar antibiotics. What is he on about, if if was ill and needed antibiotics then it should get them. His dogs need minimal shelter because of their breed. I am sorry, I would need to see what goes on before making a judgement. We have far too many 'hobby farmers' round here where neglect through ignorance and reading too many books is rife. We had a neighbour who claimed he had read you should not assist a cow calving till she had been in labour for 24 hours - and he stuck to it.


The reason he was agonizing over giving the boar antibiotics is because if he did, he could not sell the meat. And maremma sheepdogs really don't need much shelter, they're a very hardy LGD breed who are much happier out with their flock and are build to withstand very cold temperatures.

But no, I agree with you, there are definitely a lot of people saying "oh, I'll just start up my own farm" without realizing what they're getting in to. I think Joshua Rockwood falls under this category. He was in over his head and most definitely made mistakes.
The question then becomes, are his mistakes worthy of getting his mug shot plastered all over the news, his horses taken away, and his livelihood threatened in insane legal fees?
His donkey had overgrown hooves - How many of us have seen dogs covered in mats with nails grown out to obscene lengths? And when the owner finally gets the dog to the groomer, are they arrested and their dog taken away?
How many posts on here have we seen of dogs in labor or with serious medical issues the owner is trying to treat at home when the dog needs to go to the vet? When they do finally get the dog to a vet, is the owner arrested?

I don't know what the right answer is, I just don't think it's as clear cut as some make it out to be. 
There is room for improvement in how we treat animals in all areas. But vilifying someone like this who is clearly trying to do better by the animals by giving them free range and a pleasant life instead of the sorts of conditions factory farmed meat animals live in, is not the right answer IMHO.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

ouesi said:


> The reason he was agonizing over giving the boar antibiotics is because if he did, he could not sell the meat. And maremma sheepdogs really don't need much shelter, they're a very hardy LGD breed who are much happier out with their flock and are build to withstand very cold temperatures.
> 
> But no, I agree with you, there are definitely a lot of people saying "oh, I'll just start up my own farm" without realizing what they're getting in to. I think Joshua Rockwood falls under this category. He was in over his head and most definitely made mistakes.
> The question then becomes, are his mistakes worthy of getting his mug shot plastered all over the news, his horses taken away, and his livelihood threatened in insane legal fees?
> ...


I do largely agree with you but would want to see first hand before being sure of the rights and wrongs.

Why couldn't he sell the meat if he gave antibiotics. If he was organic then he still has to treat animals when they are ill. I heard some years ago of an organic farmer who was prosecuted because he refused to treat a cow that was in dire need of antibiotics. I am afraid I tend to avoid organic meat as I have my doubts on how humanely it is reared. I prefer a compromise. Not saying that Joshua Rockwood was in the wrong or deserved what he got though.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> PETA criticism is people who see past the marketing and spin PETA produces. Your level headed account, what a joke description.. let's appeal to people's emotions (typical PETA spin). Easier than talking real facts like looking at kill % vs rehomes of similar shelters in the same or similar areas for comparisons. Rehoming, not keeping dogs for years in kennels. Instead PETA propaganda would have people believe only PETA has and handles sob stories.
> 
> Interesting thing to notice isn't it, the image at the top is a pitbull which PETA want to destroy simply as they exist.


Hate propagandist's rely on ignorance and gullibility.

Euthanasia is an unpleasant business, but when it's necessary, someone has to do it. Unless of course you'd rather have animals abandoned to die in agony at the side of the road, or tied up in a sack and thrown in the river.
And if it is necessary, better a quick, painless injection than the above, or a slow contorted, choking death in a Corporation gas chamber, which was what was in use before PETA introduced their humane service.

Easy to throw stones, but how many pets have you and others here had PTS over the years? Was the vet an animal-murdering hypocrite? Are you/they an animal-murdering hypocrite? When its necessary, it's necessary.

PETAs figure includes a free euthanasia service for people on low income in their area (Did you not wonder why the 'reclaimed by owner' figure is so low?). They also euthanize animals sent to them by other animal shelters who don't have their own facilities for doing so. And they euthanize wild/stray animals injured through RTAs and the like, which the others don't do.

And other shelters? From the latest figures I have, these are the euthansia figures for other animal shelters in the Hampton Roads area:

PETA Norfolk 1647
Chesapeake Animal Services: 1953
Virginia Beach Animal Care and Adoption Center: 2427
Norfolk Animal Care Center: 2912
Peninsula SPCA; 4260

But the PETA bashers don't highlight these figures because these groups unlike PETA aren't going toe to toe with them threatening their profit margins.

4 million cats and dogs are PTS every year in the USA.
2.7 million or so perfectly healthy, but no homes can be found for them.
800,000 pitbulls are PTS every year in the USA because no homes can be found for them. 
But again, the PETA bashers don't publicize these figures.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Hate propagandist's rely on ignorance and gullibility.
> 
> Euthanasia is an unpleasant business, but when it's necessary, someone has to do it. Unless of course you'd rather have animals abandoned to die in agony at the side of the road, or tied up in a sack and thrown in the river.
> And if it is necessary, better a quick, painless injection than the above, or a slow contorted, choking death in a Corporation gas chamber, which was what was in use before PETA introduced their humane service.
> ...


This is a UK site and everyone accepts that a large number of dogs in rescue do end up being put to sleep. They are all put to sleep humanely and do not need PETA to help do it. Personally I would never support a rescue that claimed never to put to sleep as I think in a lot of cases it is not in the dogs' best interest but that is hugely different from providing a free service to destroy pet dogs.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Extreme example simply to get the point across.. Hitler actually achieved positive things for those who supported him before he was stomped on. Does that mean everybody should have supported him? People and organisations should be judged not just on the positives done by individuals in their name but the total including goals, overall objectives and methods.



Knightofalbion said:


> Hate propagandist's rely on ignorance and gullibility.


Reliance on gullibility/ignorance and playing on emotions are the normal tools of PETA. You want to forget people also look at facts and PETA's own declarations.



> PETAs figure includes a free euthanasia service for people on low income in their area (Did you not wonder why the 'reclaimed by owner' figure is so low?). They also euthanize animals sent to them by other animal shelters who don't have their own facilities for doing so. And they euthanize wild/stray animals injured through RTAs and the like, which the others don't do.


You really expect people to believe nobody does anything like, you know, run a shelter other than PETA. Are you saying other rescues don't take in strays if in an RTA now?



> And other shelters? From the latest figures I have, these are the euthansia figures for other animal shelters in the Hampton Roads area:


So what % of rehomes compared to deaths as that would be more meaningful. Independent database (Animal Custody Record Online Reporting System) not going to be available until Feb for direct comparisons but 88% killed in 2014 doesn't seem to be standard.



> But the PETA bashers don't highlight these figures because these groups unlike PETA aren't going toe to toe with them threatening their profit margins.


Once again deflection. How many pitbulls are rehomed sucessfully? How many live happy content lives in homes without any problems throughout their lives? How many pitbulls are used as service dogs? How many golden retrievers are PTS each year as "no home could be found for them"? Again, figures PETA wouldn't advertise, easier to prey on people's prejudice and ignorance. How many places has BSL actually been successful?

These are some dogs PETA was directly pushing to be put down "to save children" http://barkpost.com/vicktory-dogs/


----------



## StrawberryBlonde (May 27, 2015)

I voted Yes, they are helping animals BUT this is solely applies to PETA UK. PETA in the States have some questionable (!!) policies.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> I don't agree with everything they say but there's no doubt they have achieved a great deal to raise awareness & improve the lives of millions of animals. So for that reason I can put aside our differences & get behind their campaigns that matter to me. So i'll still continue to support their campaigns against the fur industry and so on.


They euthanase animals for stupid reasons that could be cured: the dog has fleas, put it down. The cat has a limp. Put it down. The amount of adoptable pets that they put down is disgusting. I read that PETA have a less than 5% adoption rate. Saved millions of animals, haven't they?
They also state that they disagree with owning pets. Animals we have as pets today have lived alongside humans for thousands of years. I can guarantee that my neighborhood dogs have better lives living with humans, than they would have in the wild. Wild animals have to fight and scavenge for food. Pets generally have wonderful lives and how PETA can disagree with the ownership of these loyal companions is beyond me.
PETA also attempt to scare children into becoming vegans, by providing countless videos and games about animal abuse and slaughter. They have complained that Pokemon is animal abuse. Pathetic. They have also made parodies of Pokemon and Cooking Mama, which include links to videos of slaughter. Children should not be exposed to graphic content such as this. By exposing impressionable children to this content, PETA are attempting to scare them into avoiding use of all animal products. 
I would like to spread awareness that PETA are not a nice bunch. Sure, they have some good ideas, but these are sparse. I wonder if PETA's 2 million + members are actually aware that they are members of a lying, false propaganda-spewing group.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

TehSnoipah said:


> They euthanase animals for stupid reasons that could be cured: the dog has fleas, put it down. The cat has a limp. Put it down. The amount of adoptable pets that they put down is disgusting. I read that PETA have a less than 5% adoption rate. Saved millions of animals, haven't they?
> They also state that they disagree with owning pets. Animals we have as pets today have lived alongside humans for thousands of years. I can guarantee that my neighborhood dogs have better lives living with humans, than they would have in the wild. Wild animals have to fight and scavenge for food. Pets generally have wonderful lives and how PETA can disagree with the ownership of these loyal companions is beyond me.
> PETA also attempt to scare children into becoming vegans, by providing countless videos and games about animal abuse and slaughter. They have complained that Pokemon is animal abuse. Pathetic. They have also made parodies of Pokemon and Cooking Mama, which include links to videos of slaughter. Children should not be exposed to graphic content such as this. By exposing impressionable children to this content, PETA are attempting to scare them into avoiding use of all animal products.
> I would like to spread awareness that PETA are not a nice bunch. Sure, they have some good ideas, but these are sparse. I wonder if PETA's 2 million + members are actually aware that they are members of a lying, false propaganda-spewing group.


She did say that she doesn't agree with everything they say. I never get why people get so worked up about it, if you don't like PETA then don't support them but why does it bother people so much when others choose to for whatever reason? We all have to choose how we live our life and by what moral compass so whilst I don't choose to be vegan I admire those that do and whilst I choose to keep pets I can also understand why others might feel its wrong. There are plenty of charities/campaign groups/political parties that we can agree with in part but not in full, so as adults we make up our minds whether to overlook the bits we don't agree with in order to support something we do agree with or if the bits we don't agree with are more important to us then to walk away. I tend to make my own mind up at the time, there are some organisations I will never give my money to (such as those that experiment on animals) and some that I might after careful consideration but I'm not about to tell other people who they can and can't support


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> She did say that she doesn't agree with everything they say. I never get why people get so worked up about it, if you don't like PETA then don't support them but why does it bother people so much when others choose to for whatever reason? We all have to choose how we live our life and by what moral compass so whilst I don't choose to be vegan I admire those that do and whilst I choose to keep pets I can also understand why others might feel its wrong. There are plenty of charities/campaign groups/political parties that we can agree with in part but not in full, so as adults we make up our minds whether to overlook the bits we don't agree with in order to support something we do agree with or if the bits we don't agree with are more important to us then to walk away. I tend to make my own mind up at the time, there are some organisations I will never give my money to (such as those that experiment on animals) and some that I might after careful consideration but I'm not about to tell other people who they can and can't support


I agree with you that it's none of my business if someone else disagrees with keeping animals as pets. I'm fine with that. 
What I'm not fine with is an organization that is working to remove MY dogs from MY home. 
If PeTA members don't agree with pet ownership, fine, they can not keep pets. But PeTA has been and continues to be instrumental in creating and supporting legislation that endangers my ability to own the dogs I do. That is where I end up having something to say


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> The PETA bashing campaign is funded by The Center For Consumer Freedom, an industry funded pressure group.
> http://www.bermanexposed.org
> It is nothing to do with saving cats and dogs. The companies behind this pressure group are responsible collectively for the exploitation and killing of billions of animals.
> The true aim is to diminish the support, status and funding of PETA, and thus diminish PETA's ability to campaign against them, expose their misdeeds and harm their profit margins.


Best Friends Animal Society fought PeTA in court to save the Vick dogs. Best Friends has nothing to do with CCF, factory farming or any industry whatsoever. They are nothing but an animal rescue group. They are not "bashing" PeTA, they're simply disagreeing with PeTA's stance on several animal welfare issues.

This is verifiable account of the rift between PeTA and BFAS. Worth a read and explains well why so many of us who love animals and want to work to make their lives better, take issue with PeTA.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/sports/football/12rhoden.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
Am I the only one who sees irony in PeTA accusing BFAS of going for the "celebrity" dogs and doing something for attention and cash? *sigh*


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> She did say that she doesn't agree with everything they say. I never get why people get so worked up about it, if you don't like PETA then don't support them but why does it bother people so much when others choose to for whatever reason? We all have to choose how we live our life and by what moral compass so whilst I don't choose to be vegan I admire those that do and whilst I choose to keep pets I can also understand why others might feel its wrong. There are plenty of charities/campaign groups/political parties that we can agree with in part but not in full, so as adults we make up our minds whether to overlook the bits we don't agree with in order to support something we do agree with or if the bits we don't agree with are more important to us then to walk away. I tend to make my own mind up at the time, there are some organisations I will never give my money to (such as those that experiment on animals) and some that I might after careful consideration but I'm not about to tell other people who they can and can't support


Surely thats a bit like saying I dont support beating animals- but if you want to then thats ok........ when clearly its not.

Edited as first example wasnt a good one................


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Lexiedhb said:


> Surely thats a bit like saying I dont support beating animals- but if you want to then thats ok........ when clearly its not.
> 
> Edited as first example wasnt a good one................


I don't think so - I think its more like saying you might vote for a certain political party even though you don't agree with every single policy. Or possibly a better example - I don't give to charities who spend a proportion of it on climate change but during a disaster appeal I will put that opinion aside and donate or some supporters of rescue centres donate/help/support but might not 100% agree with the rescue's policies on euthanasia for behavioural problems or bringing in dogs from abroad. So my motto is if it really bothers you then find another rescue/charity to support rather than rip shreds off the people who are trying to do a good job even if we can't completely agree with them.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't think so - I think its more like saying you might vote for a certain political party even though you don't agree with every single policy.


I wouldn't vote for the British National Party (BNP) even if I agree with some of what they say as I do not approve of the fundamental goals and methods. I will also argue against people voting for them and try to dissuade people from doing so.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Goblin said:


> I wouldn't vote for the British National Party (BNP) even if I agree with some of what they say as I do not approve of the fundamental goals and methods. I will also argue against people voting for them and try to dissuade people from doing so.


Good for you  You are using an extreme though aren't you? I've not found one political party yet that I agree with on everything and I dare say if I got involved with the majority of charities/rescues I wouldn't agree with everything they do either so like I said a few posts back we all have our own moral compass to guide us in deciding who to support and donate money to. I just don't get why with PETA people always get so worked up about anyone else thinking they do "some" good work. I've already asked @ouesi whether they hold any legal powers in the US which they don't so although they might campaign to ban people from keeping pets I might campaign to ban people from drinking alcohol on Saturday nights but neither are going to be successful are they? However if PETA campaigning against the keeping of pets makes a few owners examine their relationship with their pet and their husbandry then good.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Good for you  You are using an extreme though aren't you?


Am I? Don't PETA support, even fund people involved in "direct action" when they feel it appropriate? How is firebombing a laboratory different from say firebombing a mosque? In my mind both are extremists and not to be condoned or supported.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Good for you  You are using an extreme though aren't you? I've not found one political party yet that I agree with on everything and I dare say if I got involved with the majority of charities/rescues I wouldn't agree with everything they do either so like I said a few posts back we all have our own moral compass to guide us in deciding who to support and donate money to. I just don't get why with PETA people always get so worked up about anyone else thinking they do "some" good work. I've already asked @ouesi whether they hold any legal powers in the US which they don't so although they might campaign to ban people from keeping pets I might campaign to ban people from drinking alcohol on Saturday nights but neither are going to be successful are they? However if PETA campaigning against the keeping of pets makes a few owners examine their relationship with their pet and their husbandry then good.


But by donating money to folk like PETA, you are supporting every single one of their policies as you can not be sure what your donation is being spent on surely.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Surely it is not just a case of disagreeing with some of their aims and policies it is the fact that they are blatantly dishonest in the way they put them forward.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Blitz said:


> This is a UK site and everyone accepts that a large number of dogs in rescue do end up being put to sleep. They are all put to sleep humanely and do not need PETA to help do it. Personally I would never support a rescue that claimed never to put to sleep as I think in a lot of cases it is not in the dogs' best interest but that is hugely different from providing a free service to destroy pet dogs.


Yes, but topic is PETA. As you say, it is always regrettable, but sometimes it is necessary to have an animal PTS. In the case of PETA what existed before in their area was a Corporation gas chamber and multiple dogs were loaded in there and gassed at the same time. That's not a humane death, so PETA's quick, peaceful injection is a much more humane alternative.

I don't see your point. We have many people here who have to resort to the services of Blue Cross etc because they can't afford vets bills. All health services in the States are a lot more expensive than here. 
So PETA's service, especially as Hampton Roads is quite a deprived area is a socially valuable one. And they also provide other fee healthcare facilities for animals.

I think we should be pragmatic about it. There is a need, like many others, they are responding to it.
My personal opinion is that they if they want to provide a free Blue Cross style animal healthcare facility they should do it on a separate basis to their AR campaigning work.

Again, don't believe the hate. The local people of the Hampton Roads District take their pets in to be humanely euthanized for the same reason you or I might do so, because the animal is terminally ill, suffering and has no quality of life. If they were more affluent they'd probably pay a vet to do it, but either way the result would be the same.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Having worked at a pharmaceutical site in the past, and been abused, shouted at, pelted with "missiles" as I leave work, a colleague had someone throw themselves in front of his car as he was leaving work then they reported him to the police.... He was a 65yo chippy, not a scientist, and we didnt do any testing on site, at all, ever. It caused him a huge amount of stress and distress having to deal with the fallout.

Some Extreme Animal rights groups, like PETA, are known to take some very unfortunate actions against people who simple don't deserve it. Following employees home, harrassing them, causing criminal damage or threatening human lives - none of this is excusable.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Hitler? What has Hitler got to do with anything? He was a dark soul and black magician. He would never have come to power in the first place had there been a just peace settlement after WW1, instead of the Allies wanting from the Germans not just a pound of flesh but humiliation as well.

As far as I know PETA have no plans to invade Poland.

PETA Norfolk pick up the wild and stray casualties in their area.

Don't you think you are the one trying to 'deflect'. Four million cats and dogs alone in the USA are PTS every year (actually much less than it was) 2.7 million perfectly healthy. Its other shelters and municipal authorities who are doing it, not PETA. And they aren't doing it for fun.

Why seek to personalize the Pitbull issue? 800,000 are PTS every year because homes can't be found for them. That's the bottom line.
And yes, you don't need to say it, they are a victimized breed - paying the price for irresponsible owners.
I don't doubt with proper love, care and training anyone of that number could be a welcome companion animal. But there is a chronic oversupply in terms of numbers. 
There was also a case where a family adopted a Pitbull and it attacked one of the family and they sued the shelter that rehomed it with them on the grounds that it was dangerous and not a 'family dog'. 
Shelters do not have the resources, nor perhaps the will, to tackle the issue in a different way. Certainly not on that scale.



Goblin said:


> Extreme example simply to get the point across.. Hitler actually achieved positive things for those who supported him before he was stomped on. Does that mean everybody should have supported him? People and organisations should be judged not just on the positives done by individuals in their name but the total including goals, overall objectives and methods.
> 
> Reliance on gullibility/ignorance and playing on emotions are the normal tools of PETA. You want to forget people also look at facts and PETA's own declarations.
> 
> ...


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

StrawberryBlonde said:


> I voted Yes, they are helping animals BUT this is solely applies to PETA UK. PETA in the States have some questionable (!!) policies.


I also voted 'Yes'. I concur some of the PETA USA campaigns are a little too brash for my liking. I much prefer PETA Deutschland. They have done some powerful videos. The silent vigil at the Brandenburg Gate was a memorable one.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Why seek to personalize the Pitbull issue? 800,000 are PTS every year because homes can't be found for them. That's the bottom line.


PETA's answer - kill them ALL, that's the bottom line.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> Hate propagandist's rely on ignorance and gullibility.
> 
> Euthanasia is an unpleasant business, but when it's necessary, someone has to do it. Unless of course you'd rather have animals abandoned to die in agony at the side of the road, or tied up in a sack and thrown in the river.
> And if it is necessary, better a quick, painless injection than the above, or a slow contorted, choking death in a Corporation gas chamber, which was what was in use before PETA introduced their humane service.
> ...


This will be my only post on this thread but if you are going to post these numbers and you want me to believe them then also show me the animal intake as well so we can see the percentages per group of intake and PTS.I could tell you that my small shelter has only PTS 20 dogs last year but if they only took in 20 dogs i guess that would be bad and if they took in 20,000 dogs that would be good so it is all comparative.Spewing out numbers no matter what they are for should have all the numbers for comparasin


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Best Friends Animal Society fought PeTA in court to save the Vick dogs. Best Friends has nothing to do with CCF, factory farming or any industry whatsoever. They are nothing but an animal rescue group. They are not "bashing" PeTA, they're simply disagreeing with PeTA's stance on several animal welfare issues.
> 
> This is verifiable account of the rift between PeTA and BFAS. Worth a read and explains well why so many of us who love animals and want to work to make their lives better, take issue with PeTA.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/sports/football/12rhoden.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
> Am I the only one who sees irony in PeTA accusing BFAS of going for the "celebrity" dogs and doing something for attention and cash? *sigh*


Yes, but what if every animal shelter and municipal authority packed their unhomed animals off to the Best Friends shelter and put them to their word? If there is an oversupply there is an oversupply.

I noticed in an article the head of the AKC was advocating buying a new dog from a breeder and NOT adopting from a shelter. With that mindset the problem isn't going to be addressed any time soon.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> PETA's answer - kill them ALL, that's the bottom line.


And out of curiosity, which of these animals would you have 'saved'?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/euthanasia-we-wont-run--fr_b_3036311.html

PETA advocate adopting from a shelter rather than buying a new bred, which given the chronic overcrowding of animal shelters seems like sensible advice to me.

You do realise that PETA are not a pet charity? And given their mission statement they're hardly likely to condone the slaughter industry.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> And out of curiosity, which of these animals would you have 'saved'?
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/euthanasia-we-wont-run--fr_b_3036311.html
> 
> PETA advocate adopting from a shelter rather than buying a new bred, which given the chronic overcrowding of animal shelters seems like sensible advice to me.
> ...


And out of curiosity why do you come up with so many defenses with no proof to back it up and ignore the people that really take you to task.I am not for peta for my own reasons and am not going to get into that argument but i have been fallowing it along.I have yet to see serious proof and backed up proof for many of the accusations made so why keep trying and suffice to just say i like peta and in my OPINION this is why because from everything i have seen all that you have backed up is opinions.

My opinions are of my own and they can be changed with proper proof to make me see something i dont right now.I dont need anyone to defend my opinion or agree with it as it is my opinion alone.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> And out of curiosity, which of these animals would you have 'saved'?
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/euthanasia-we-wont-run--fr_b_3036311.html
> 
> PETA advocate adopting from a shelter rather than buying a new bred, which given the chronic overcrowding of animal shelters seems like sensible advice to me.
> ...


Also how many shelters do you think would have saved any of those animals?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> And out of curiosity, which of these animals would you have 'saved'?
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ingrid-newkirk/euthanasia-we-wont-run--fr_b_3036311.html


Is showing animals in pain and suffering the sole argument when many dogs killed by PETA would not be suffering? 88% of animals placed in a PETA shelter were killed in 2014. Now are you telling me the majority were in a state like those given as examples in your link. That is what you are suggesting.

My avatar shows Benny, a rescue dog who would have had no chance with PETA being blind. Currently enjoying life and enriching ours.



> And given their mission statement they're hardly likely to condone the slaughter industry.


What else would you call an 88% kill rate?


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> Why seek to personalize the Pitbull issue?


Because PeTA specifically calls for the banning and euthanasia of this individual breed.


Knightofalbion said:


> PETA Norfolk pick up the wild and stray casualties in their area.


Do they? They *say* they do a lot of things, the reality may not be quite as they say though. 
First off, they don't pick up stays. No rescue or shelter does that in the US, only AC (animal control) does that. Now, AC may bring the dogs in to PeTA, but usually they go to whatever municipality has jurisdiction over wherever the dog was picked up. 
PETA workers drove all the way to North Carolina to a shelter there to pick up dogs to say they were brining them to their shelter, but instead they euthanized the dogs, puppies, and cats and dumped the bodies in a dumpster. They also *stole* a family's dog off their front porch and euthanized the dog. This is all in court records.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Because PeTA specifically calls for the banning and euthanasia of this individual breed.
> Do they? They *say* they do a lot of things, the reality may not be quite as they say though.
> First off, they don't pick up stays. No rescue or shelter does that in the US, only AC (animal control) does that. Now, AC may bring the dogs in to PeTA, but usually they go to whatever municipality has jurisdiction over wherever the dog was picked up.
> PETA workers drove all the way to North Carolina to a shelter there to pick up dogs to say they were brining them to their shelter, but instead they euthanized the dogs, puppies, and cats and dumped the bodies in a dumpster. They also *stole* a family's dog off their front porch and euthanized the dog. This is all in court records.


see this is proof and therefore decision making and opinion changing.PROOF is in court records and tells the whole story.........


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Rott lover said:


> And out of curiosity why do you come up with so many defenses with no proof to back it up and ignore the people that really take you to task.I am not for peta for my own reasons and am not going to get into that argument but i have been fallowing it along.I have yet to see serious proof and backed up proof for many of the accusations made so why keep trying and suffice to just say i like peta and in my OPINION this is why because from everything i have seen all that you have backed up is opinions.
> 
> My opinions are of my own and they can be changed with proper proof to make me see something i dont right now.I don't need anyone to defend my opinion or agree with it as it is my opinion alone.


The PROOF is 4 million cats and dogs, 2.7 million being being perfectly healthy, being PTS every year in the USA. And you and the resident lynch mob are sounding off because PETA are euthanizing 1600. That's not even 0.1% of the total. And even then that number includes a sizeable proportion of sick pets, brought in by their owners, requiring to be PTS (which is why the 'reclaimed by owner' total is so tiny) animals sent to be euthanized by other animal shelters that don't have such facilities, sick and injured animals rejected by other animal shelters and wild and stray animals injured in RTAs.

And if you'd bothered to read the article you'd see that annually they treat/treated for no or minimal fee over 10,000 cats and dogs, and adopted out hundreds of animals.

If you believe the hired-gun hate propagandists they're running an 'animal Belsen'! Which is a bit ironic seeing as the people funding the PETA bashing campaign are exploiting, abusing and killing animals - for profit - on an industrial scale. People responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of animals.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Rott lover said:


> Also how many shelters do you think would have saved any of those animals?


You said it! They would have done exactly the same as PETA did.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Am I? Don't PETA support, even fund people involved in "direct action" when they feel it appropriate? How is firebombing a laboratory different from say firebombing a mosque? In my mind both are extremists and not to be condoned or supported.


Well seeing as I support and have funded people involved in "direct action" and taken part in "direct action" myself that is hardly going to put me off although I have never been in favour of violence and that is where I draw "my" line. I'm not aware of anyone firebombing a laboratory and if they did I would of course be against that given there are animals inside.



Lexiedhb said:


> But by donating money to folk like PETA, you are supporting every single one of their policies as you can not be sure what your donation is being spent on surely.


As I already said I don't agree that by donating to a specific campaign I am supporting every single one of their policies anymore than I agree that by voting for a political party I am supporting every single one of their policies or that by supporting other charities I am agreeing with every single thing they do. I think it is entirely up to an individual to decide who they support and why. I haven't actually given financial support to any PETA campaign since the big one against the fur industry but that doesn't mean I won't in the future if there are involved with something I feel strongly about.

Funnily enough there is a thread running in General Chat about the RSPCA along similar lines. They also do some things I don't agree with and sometimes do nothing at all when I think they should but on the whole I'm glad this country has an organisation like them and so I do support them from time to time although they wouldn't be anywhere high up on my list of priorities given how much money they already have,.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Is showing animals in pain and suffering the sole argument when many dogs killed by PETA would not be suffering? 88% of animals placed in a PETA shelter were killed in 2014. Now are you telling me the majority were in a state like those given as examples in your link. That is what you are suggesting.
> 
> My avatar shows Benny, a rescue dog who would have had no chance with PETA being blind. Currently enjoying life and enriching ours.
> 
> What else would you call an 88% kill rate?


1) See previous post

2) Unless a volunteer could be found to happily care for the dog, most shelters would PTS a blind dog.
That's not to say they're callous, the thing most people don't understand is that animal shelters are pretty much always full, always under-funded, always under-staffed and always under-resourced


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've already asked @ouesi whether they hold any legal powers in the US which they don't so although they might campaign to ban people from keeping pets I might campaign to ban people from drinking alcohol on Saturday nights but neither are going to be successful are they?


Oh if only that were true though...
Sadly PeTA has been successful in many of their campaigns to ban and restrict pit bulls and similar dogs. 
And they do have legal power in the form of lobbyists. The way our government works, if you have an effective (well funded) lobby, you have power to get laws enacted.


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> 2) Unless a volunteer could be found to happily care for the dog, most shelters would PTS a blind dog.
> That's not to say they're callous, the thing most people don't understand is that animal shelters are pretty much always full, always under-funded, always under-staffed and always under-resourced


Many rescues in parts of the US are sitting empty (a wonderful thing). We end up transporting dogs from here (southeast) to shelters in other parts of the country that don't have as many available dogs but do have people willing to adopt.

There is a lot that can be improved in how shelters are run to save lives. 
This article about what NoKill means and how we can achieve it is very good IMO:
http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2013/07/19/the-no-kill-deniers/

From the article:

No-kill means achieving a community-wide status where animals are not killed as a method of population control or to make space for other animals. Rather the number of animals entering a given system is reduced through economically targeted free and low-cost spay/neuter services, shelter surrender intervention programs, adoption follow-up programs, and progressive community cat programs. At the same time, the number of animals leaving the system is maximized through high-volume adoption strategies, collaboration with rescue partners, and the transfer of animals to agencies in communities with a complementary high demand for the types of animals likely to be killed in the system - for example, small dogs from Southern California shelters who are snapped up in other cities where small dogs are not common in shelters or rescues and are otherwise only available from breeders or pet stores. The idea that there simply aren't enough homes for them all is outdated. According to Maddie's Fund, 17 million Americans who want to adopt a companion animal into their home each year are undecided about where their next pet will come from. With an estimated 4 million animals dying in shelters, the math is pretty simple: If just a fraction of those 17 million could easily access and chose to adopt a shelter pet, the nation would indeed be no-kill.
A no-kill community must include the open-admission municipal shelter(s). And, while there may be any number of small or large limited-admission shelters, their collective responsibility is to help ensure that the community's open-admission shelter has the resources and partners to not resort to killing for space. Many open-admission shelters support no-kill and commit to working collaboratively with others in the community in order to achieve it.
No-kill does not mean that animals who are irremediably suffering from injury, disease or age-related infirmities are denied the deliverance of legitimately employed euthanasia. The same applies for animals who are too dangerously aggressive to be safely adopted to the public and for which no safe and humane management option exists.
No-kill does not foster hoarding. Hoarding is a mental disorder that pre-dates the no-kill movement. Perhaps one contributing factor to hoarding is the carnage that takes place in high-kill shelters that motivates individuals with a hoarding mentality to gather up as many animals as possible rather than see them killed in a shelter.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Because PeTA specifically calls for the banning and euthanasia of this individual breed.
> Do they? They *say* they do a lot of things, the reality may not be quite as they say though.
> First off, they don't pick up stays. No rescue or shelter does that in the US, only AC (animal control) does that. Now, AC may bring the dogs in to PeTA, but usually they go to whatever municipality has jurisdiction over wherever the dog was picked up.
> PETA workers drove all the way to North Carolina to a shelter there to pick up dogs to say they were brining them to their shelter, but instead they euthanized the dogs, puppies, and cats and dumped the bodies in a dumpster. They also *stole* a family's dog off their front porch and euthanized the dog. This is all in court records.


They're in agreement with the UK Government then.

With the chihuahua, a PETA employee made a mistake, broke agreed procedures and was sacked as a result.
In the North Carolina incident, PETA was never on trial for any reason. Two unpaid volunteers were charged, went to trial and were acquitted.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> The PROOF is 4 million cats and dogs, 2.7 million being being perfectly healthy, being PTS every year in the USA. And you and the resident lynch mob are sounding off because PETA are euthanizing 1600. That's not even 0.1% of the total. And even then that number includes a sizeable proportion of sick pets, brought in by their owners, requiring to be PTS (which is why the 'reclaimed by owner' total is so tiny) animals sent to be euthanized by other animal shelters that don't have such facilities, sick and injured animals rejected by other animal shelters and wild and stray animals injured in RTAs.
> 
> And if you'd bothered to read the article you'd see that annually they treat/treated for no or minimal fee over 10,000 cats and dogs, and adopted out hundreds of animals.
> 
> If you believe the hired-gun hate propagandists they're running an 'animal Belsen'! Which is a bit ironic seeing as the people funding the PETA bashing campaign are exploiting, abusing and killing animals - for profit - on an industrial scale. People responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of animals.


now i am going to have this argument........I am not in the lynch mob so drop the attitude twords me.I also posted my opinion on some key facts that had nothing to do with your peta vs who cares argument in this thread...........Now back to the facts and numbers....So you restate all the numbers at the tail end of things.What are the front numbers.you say peta is only PTS 1600 animals.How many animals are they bringing in?you say that is out of 2.7 million


----------



## Guest (Jan 20, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> They're in agreement with the UK Government then.


I don't know what you mean by this... Are you saying then that it is a good thing to ban, restrict, and thus euthanize dogs simply because of how they look?



Knightofalbion said:


> North Carolina incident, PETA was never on trial for any reason. Two unpaid volunteers were charged, went to trial and were acquitted.


Unpaid volunteers... PeTA keeps their nose clean.... How convenient..... The truth is there for all to see.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Rott lover said:


> now i am going to have this argument........I am not in the lynch mob so drop the attitude twords me.I also posted my opinion on some key facts that had nothing to do with your peta vs who cares argument in this thread...........Now back to the facts and numbers....So you restate all the numbers at the tail end of things.What are the front numbers.you say peta is only PTS 1600 animals.How many animals are they bringing in?you say that is out of 2.7 million


so how many are being brought in to bring this number.If peta only brings in 2000 animals of course this is a horrable record but it looks good compared to everything else.Now if we can just stick to the facts and not go for the throat things would work out much better.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> The PROOF is 4 million cats and dogs, 2.7 million being being perfectly healthy, being PTS every year in the USA. And you and the resident lynch mob are sounding off because PETA are euthanizing 1600. That's not even 0.1% of the total. And even then that number includes a sizeable proportion of sick pets, brought in by their owners, requiring to be PTS (which is why the 'reclaimed by owner' total is so tiny) animals sent to be euthanized by other animal shelters that don't have such facilities, sick and injured animals rejected by other animal shelters and wild and stray animals injured in RTAs.
> 
> And if you'd bothered to read the article you'd see that annually they treat/treated for no or minimal fee over 10,000 cats and dogs, and adopted out hundreds of animals.
> 
> If you believe the hired-gun hate propagandists they're running an 'animal Belsen'! Which is a bit ironic seeing as the people funding the PETA bashing campaign are exploiting, abusing and killing animals - for profit - on an industrial scale. People responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of animals.


Also if you are going to accuse me of something you had better make sure i am what i am being accused of.The only thing i stated in my thread was i didnt like peta for my own reasons.I never gave reasons but asked you for info and proof of numbers and suddenly i am part of a lynch mob?Why?Is it because i called you out and am forcing you to prove what you say?Again i am not going to have a peta argument and honestly my point and my argument is with you backing up and proving what you say.If one can not back and prove what they say then it is nothing but an opinion and not fact and can not be passed off as such.So unless you can actually bring some true number facts and ALL the numbers from beginning to end i guess there is no proof of anything and such my argument is done unless you want to keep saying i am something i am not.

to all others i apologize having to read this my rant is done and i am sorry if this offends anyone.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I don't know what you mean by this... Are you saying then that it is a good thing to ban, restrict, and thus euthanize dogs simply because of how they look?
> 
> Unpaid volunteers... PeTA keeps their nose clean.... How convenient..... The truth is there for all to see.


The truth is there for all to see. 
The truth is PETA were never on trial for anything whatsoever. 
The two volunteers were sent to trial but were acquitted on all charges.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> although I have never been in favour of violence and that is where I draw "my" line. I'm not aware of anyone firebombing a laboratory and if they did I would of course be against that given there are animals inside.


Rodney Coronado - has recieved over $70000 from PETA. Jailed in 1995 for 57 months for torching a university research lab and has openly admitted several others. In January 2003 he was demonstrating to a university class the "correct" way to build firebombs.



Knightofalbion said:


> They're in agreement with the UK Government then.


You say that but obviously haven't looked into it http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/95/9507.htm#note61



> *We accept that the current ban on certain dog types in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has not prevented attacks by dogs either of a banned type or those of types not banned. It is not helpful for policy to focus on the breed type since any dog may become aggressive in the hands of an irresponsible owner. Rather, the policy focus should be on preventing attacks through improving the behaviour of breeders and owners.*


So doesn't work. Why is it in place? It's in place, killing innocent dogs, simply as groups such as PETA, who are supposed to know what they are talking about actually push the idea that it will solve problems.

How about the white house:


> We don't support breed-specific legislation -- research shows that bans on certain types of dogs are largely ineffective and often a waste of public resources.
> 
> In 2000, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention looked at twenty years of data about dog bites and human fatalities in the United States. They found that fatal attacks represent a very small proportion of dog bite injuries to people and that it's virtually impossible to calculate bite rates for specific breeds.
> 
> ...


Instead we get PETA with comments like:


> It is important to bear in mind that nice families rarely come to a shelter seeking Pit Bulls





> They are very determined dogs and when they lock onto their victim it's hard to let go. Their jaws have to be pried apart. They also shake their victims which can cause a great deal of damage to babies


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Rott lover said:


> so how many are being brought in to bring this number.If peta only brings in 2000 animals of course this is a horrable record but it looks good compared to everything else.Now if we can just stick to the facts and not go for the throat things would work out much better.


I don't see anyone 'going for the throat' as you put it. I only see people propagating blatant mistruths.

US shelters euthanize 4 million cats and dogs a year. 
(This figure comprises 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs a year.) 
They adopt 2.7 million cats and dogs a year.

Of PETAs 1600, a third are brought in by owners to avail themselves of the free euthanasia service.
Take these out of the equation and take the animals other shelters send to them for euthanasia out the equation, and they'd be below the average euthanasia rate.

You say 'horrible record. What is your vets euthanasia rate? It's a sorry fact of life for sick, injured and unwanted animals.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

88% kill rate in 2014 according to official records. How is that a blatant mistruth? Can you show where other shelters charge for a euthanasia service? Wait, they may actually take a healthy dog and rehome it instead.

As for vets euthanasia rates, well my dogs have been into our vets loads of times.. they've come out each time so far.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Goblin said:


> 88% kill rate in 2014 according to official records. How is that a blatant mistruth? Can you show where other shelters charge for a euthanasia service?
> 
> As for vets euthanasia rates, well my dogs have been into our vets loads of times.. they've come out each time so far.


Yes. It is really disgusting how PETA put down animals without a reason for doing so. Many PETA shelters also euthanase pit bulls because 'they're pit bulls'. Saying all pit bulls are dangerous and need to be killed is a vicious stereotype of the breed.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Rodney Coronado - has recieved over $70000 from PETA. Jailed in 1995 for 57 months for torching a university research lab and has openly admitted several others. In January 2003 he was demonstrating to a university class the "correct" way to build firebombs.
> 
> You say that but obviously haven't looked into it http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/95/9507.htm#note61
> 
> ...


Over 21 years ago (!) they donated money to the Support Committee that bore his name to support their work in exposing horrendously cruel and unnecessary vivisection experimentation. The donations were filed in their IRS tax returns and were a matter of public record.

American Pit Bulls and several other fighting dog breeds are illegal in the UK. Any such dog found would immediately, or as soon as practical, be destroyed.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> Over 21 years ago (!) they donated money to the Support Committee that bore his name to support their work in exposing horrendously cruel and unnecessary vivisection experimentation. The donations were filed in their IRS tax returns and were a matter of public record.
> 
> American Pit Bulls and several other fighting dog breeds are illegal in the UK. Any such dog found would immediately, or as soon as practical, be destroyed.


Stupid British laws. Banning a dog breed is unnecessary. #usaforlife


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

TehSnoipah said:


> Yes. It is really disgusting how PETA put down animals without a reason for doing so. Many PETA shelters also euthanase pit bulls because 'they're pit bulls'. Saying all pit bulls are dangerous and need to be killed is a vicious stereotype of the breed.


Actually, you'll find the argument also includes the "a dead pitbull is one which isn't suffering" as only dog fighters and the like own them.

Would like to highlight https://www.facebook.com/stevie.wonder.dog/info?tab=page_info a dog which would have been killed with PETA.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> The truth is there for all to see.
> The truth is PETA were never on trial for anything whatsoever.
> The two volunteers were sent to trial but were acquitted on all charges.


http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8255324/ns/health-pet_health/t/peta-employees-charged-animal-cruelty/
They were cleared of all charges because PeTA hired them some good lawyers. Doesn't change the fact that they DID euthanize healthy dogs and puppies without even attempting to get them adopted out. And then dumped their bodies in the nearest dumpster.



TehSnoipah said:


> Many PETA shelters also euthanase pit bulls because 'they're pit bulls'.


PeTA only runs one shelter, there is no PeTA sheter*s *(plural). They do urge municipal shelters to euthanize pit bulls though, and many have shared letters received by PeTA asking them to do exactly that. Euthanize the dogs and don't adopt them out, no matter how adoptable and how healthy or adoptable.



Knightofalbion said:


> American Pit Bulls and several other fighting dog breeds are illegal in the UK. Any such dog found would immediately, or as soon as practical, be destroyed.


 Unless they get an exemption. 
I'm not sure how this is a supporting argument for anything? Unless you support destroying pit bulls?


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

ouesi said:


> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8255324/ns/health-pet_health/t/peta-employees-charged-animal-cruelty/
> They were cleared of all charges because PeTA hired them some good lawyers. Doesn't change the fact that they DID euthanize healthy dogs and puppies without even attempting to get them adopted out. And then dumped their bodies in the nearest dumpster.
> 
> PeTA only runs one shelter, there is no PeTA sheter*s *(plural). They do urge municipal shelters to euthanize pit bulls though, and many have shared letters received by PeTA asking them to do exactly that. Euthanize the dogs and don't adopt them out, no matter how adoptable and how healthy or adoptable.
> ...


Shelters is correct...Peta run multiple shelters in the US. Maybe there's only one in the UK, but there are more elsewhere.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

TehSnoipah said:


> Peta run multiple shelters in the US.


Nope, just the one. The Norfolk VA facility. I'm in the US


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

TehSnoipah said:


> Yes. It is really disgusting how PETA put down animals without a reason for doing so. Many PETA shelters also euthanase pit bulls because 'they're pit bulls'. Saying all pit bulls are dangerous and need to be killed is a vicious stereotype of the breed.


Have you not been reading the thread? 800,000 pit bulls (nothing to do with PETA) are PTS every year in the USA because nobody wants them.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> Have you not been reading the thread? 800,000 pit bulls (nothing to do with PETA) are PTS every year in the USA because nobody wants them.


No, not because nobody wants them - how do you even measure something like that and claim it as fact?

Pit bulls are euthanized in obscene numbers for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is policies like PeTA's that forbid the adoption of pit bulls from shelters. That along with legislation that makes is difficult to own the breed have caused many completely safe, lovely, family pets to be euthanized or never get a chance to be adopted.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8255324/ns/health-pet_health/t/peta-employees-charged-animal-cruelty/
> They were cleared of all charges because PeTA hired them some good lawyers. Doesn't change the fact that they DID euthanize healthy dogs and puppies without even attempting to get them adopted out. And then dumped their bodies in the nearest dumpster.
> 
> Unless they get an exemption.
> I'm not sure how this is a supporting argument for anything? Unless you support destroying pit bulls?


They were cleared of all charges because they were innocent!

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/the-north-carolina-incident.html

There are NO exemptions.
Irresponsible owners have brought us to this situation. They're banned here. They're killed by the hundreds of thousands in your country.
What I am against are irresponsible owners and the reckless over-breeding of a breed for which there is no effective market.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> No, not because nobody wants them - how do you even measure something like that and claim it as fact?
> 
> Pit bulls are euthanized in obscene numbers for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is policies like PeTA's that forbid the adoption of pit bulls from shelters. That along with legislation that makes is difficult to own the breed have caused many completely safe, lovely, family pets to be euthanized or never get a chance to be adopted.


That's exactly the reason. They can't be found homes for.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Have you not been reading the thread? 800,000 pit bulls (nothing to do with PETA) are PTS every year in the USA because nobody wants them.


Obviously you fail to look at facts of professionals who all say if it wasn't pitbulls it would be another breed. You have also failed to provide figures for how many pitbulls live happy contented lives. You have also failed to see or have ignored the fact that part of that figure is due to the continuation of myths which PETA is actively contributing to. You have also failed to see or acknowledge that high levels of deaths are partly due to policies which are pushed by PETA that pitbulls should never be rehomed but killed instead. Considering a 2012 study conducted by VetStreet, the American Pit Bull Terrier ranked among the top 3 pets in 28 states how many potential homes do these policies prevent meaning if people want a pitbull, they can't go to a shelter but have to go to a breeder?


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> That's exactly the reason. They can't be found homes for.


There are plenty of good, responsible homes for pit bulls. 
But when shelters have policies of not adopting out pit bulls, those homes can't adopt them. It's a sneaky way of making it look like no one wants a pit bull or only thugs want pit bulls, but that's not the reality.

It goes back to the Victory Dogs and PeTA going to court in an attempt to make sure the Vick dogs did not get adopted out and were euthanized instead. Thank goodness they lost and those dogs went on to show the world how wrong PeTA was and still is.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

@ouesi I'm confused. I still don't understand how PeTA have any legal powers in the US other than from what you have said that they can lobby. Not sure if that means the same here as in the US but lobbying MP's here doesn't mean you will get what you want. Are you saying that just because PeTA lobby their views become law in the US? Also if they only have one shelter in the US how do they get to forbid the adoption of pitbulls from shelters or do you just mean from their own shelter? Genuine questions as I'm struggling to understand,


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Over 21 years ago (!) they donated money to the Support Committee that bore his name to support their work in exposing horrendously cruel and unnecessary vivisection experimentation. The donations were filed in their IRS tax returns and were a matter of public record.
> 
> American Pit Bulls and several other fighting dog breeds are illegal in the UK. * Any such dog found would immediately, or as soon as practical, be destroyed*.


No, they can continue to live as long as they're insured 3rd party, neutered, microchipped and kept on lead and muzzled in public.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Individuals associated with PETA have done good things. PETA itself along with it's leadership is not something to support. How can someone on a pet forum support a group who equates any pet ownership with slavery? Then again, this has been argued before several times with people prepared to turn a blind eye which is what PETA relies on.


I use to be a member of Peta, I use to get the periodical magazine & there were always articles on unwanted pets they had found loving homes for.

Here is their policy statement.
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/



Lexiedhb said:


> well yes, because to a farmer, letting all the lambs die makes total and utter financial sense doesn't it? Thems crazy I tell ya, crazy.......


Believe it or not one of the main causes of livestock mortality is poor husbandry.



Blitz said:


> Interesting reading but I am afraid my hackles were rising just a bit. He agonised over giving his boar antibiotics. What is he on about, if if was ill and needed antibiotics then it should get them. His dogs need minimal shelter because of their breed. I am sorry, I would need to see what goes on before making a judgement. We have far too many 'hobby farmers' round here where neglect through ignorance and reading too many books is rife. We had a neighbour who claimed he had read you should not assist a cow calving till she had been in labour for 24 hours - and he stuck to it.
> 
> I do not need to read any PETA bashing to form an opinion. I only need to read PETA's lying and rubbish propaganda.
> 
> I have only read the angora one but all I can say is that if they are banning a whole industry because of how it is being done in China (where dogs are skinned alive) then I do not think much of their campaign.


You asked me to back up my claim they had improved the lives of millions of animals - so I did.

It is also Petas undercover footage that exposed animals in China being skinned animals alive for the fur trade.

As you have only read about the angora rabbits here is an interesting article on that story. 'Can angora production ever be ethical'? http://www.theguardian.com/world/sh...production-ethical-peta-video-chinese-rabbits

_Indeed, even Peta accepts that - when done on a very small scale - angora production can be ethical. "If you had someone who has a companion angora rabbit who sat on their knee, and they put their fingers through their coat and, as happens, they find the fur gently comes away, then if somebody wanted to collect that and make a pair of gloves that would be entirely different," says Yvonne Taylor, Peta's campaigns manager_



TehSnoipah said:


> They euthanase animals for stupid reasons that could be cured: the dog has fleas, put it down. The cat has a limp. Put it down. The amount of adoptable pets that they put down is disgusting. I read that PETA have a less than 5% adoption rate. Saved millions of animals, haven't they?
> They also state that they disagree with owning pets. Animals we have as pets today have lived alongside humans for thousands of years. I can guarantee that my neighborhood dogs have better lives living with humans, than they would have in the wild. Wild animals have to fight and scavenge for food. Pets generally have wonderful lives and how PETA can disagree with the ownership of these loyal companions is beyond me.
> PETA also attempt to scare children into becoming vegans, by providing countless videos and games about animal abuse and slaughter. They have complained that Pokemon is animal abuse. Pathetic. They have also made parodies of Pokemon and Cooking Mama, which include links to videos of slaughter. Children should not be exposed to graphic content such as this. By exposing impressionable children to this content, PETA are attempting to scare them into avoiding use of all animal products.
> I would like to spread awareness that PETA are not a nice bunch. Sure, they have some good ideas, but these are sparse. I wonder if PETA's 2 million + members are actually aware that they are members of a lying, false propaganda-spewing group.


I use to be a member of Peta - you have misinterpreted their views on pets. You say you don't think children should be exposed to 'graphic' video games. Can ask if you then, are you also opposed to exposing children to the hunting & killing of real live animals?

Though I was no longer a member when I heard all the reports over the internet that they were destroying dogs rather than rehoming I was shocked & really upset. So I wrote to PETA. Here is their response.







ouesi said:


> I agree with you that it's none of my business if someone else disagrees with keeping animals as pets. I'm fine with that.
> What I'm not fine with is an organization that is working to remove MY dogs from MY home.
> If PeTA members don't agree with pet ownership, fine, they can not keep pets. But PeTA has been and continues to be instrumental in creating and supporting legislation that endangers my ability to own the dogs I do. That is where I end up having something to say


Here is Petas policy statement on pets. 
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/

We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"-i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"-never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus."

This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.

Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to houses, yards, or cages for their own safety

This is a best-case scenario. Millions of dogs spend their lives outdoors on heavy chains in all weather extremes or are kept locked up in tiny chain-link pens from which they can only watch the world go by. Millions more are confined to filthy wire cages in puppy mills, forced to churn out litter after litter until they wear out, at which time they are killed or dumped at the local animal shelter. Even in "good" homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have the tips of their toes amputated through declawing. Dogs often have to drink water that has been sitting around for days, are hurried along on their walks, if they even get walked, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.

Most compassionate people never imagine that anyone could throw a litter of kittens out the window of a moving car, and they would certainly be shocked by PETA's inches-thick files on cases of dogs and cats who have been shot with arrows, blown up with firecrackers, doused in gasoline and set on fire, cooked in microwave ovens, used as bait in dogfights, tortured in satanic rituals, beaten with baseball bats by bored kids, dragged behind cars to "teach them a lesson" for running away, or bound in duct tape to silence their barking. Abuses such as these occur every day.

Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters-never from pet shops or breeders-thereby reducing suffering in the world.







ouesi said:


> There are plenty of good, responsible homes for pit bulls.
> But when shelters have policies of not adopting out pit bulls, those homes can't adopt them. It's a sneaky way of making it look like no one wants a pit bull or only thugs want pit bulls, but that's not the reality.
> 
> It goes back to the Victory Dogs and PeTA going to court in an attempt to make sure the Vick dogs did not get adopted out and were euthanized instead. Thank goodness they lost and those dogs went on to show the world how wrong PeTA was and still is.



I am totally opposed to BSL, I believe every dog deserves the chance of a loving home whatever the breed. But on twitter I see loads of people desperately trying to find homes for unwanted pits on death row. A lovely ex pf member spends most of her time on twitter trying to raise awareness in the desperate hope someone will see them & give them a home before they are destroyed. Its clearly a huge problem.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> @ouesi I'm confused. I still don't understand how PeTA have any legal powers in the US other than from what you have said that they can lobby. Not sure if that means the same here as in the US but lobbying MP's here doesn't mean you will get what you want. Are you saying that just because PeTA lobby their views become law in the US? Also if they only have one shelter in the US how do they get to forbid the adoption of pitbulls from shelters or do you just mean from their own shelter? Genuine questions as I'm struggling to understand,


Yes, I'm saying that because PeTA has a *powerful* team of lobbyists with lots of money to back them up, they can and do get their views turned in to laws. That's how it works here in the US - money talks. And PeTA has a lot of money. They have also recently joined forces with another very vocal anti-pit bull group (dogsbite dot org) who are also gaining power as a legislative influence. If we're going to say PeTA has been successful in some areas to protect animals, we have to assume they will also be successful in their other endeavors - like getting pit bulls banned, and restricting pet ownership in general.

As for their own shelter, they themselves have the policy of not adopting out any pit bulls no matter how healthy or adoptable. That translates in to, euthanizing all pit bulls or dogs who remotely look like a pit bull in their care. 
They also urge other shelters to do the same and try to get local laws changed to make sure that pit bulls are not available for adoption. There is overwhelming evidence of this policy of theirs and their efforts are behind a lot of the laws already in place.
Evidence:
http://www.dogpolitics.com/my_weblog/files/PETA_-_Ban_Pitbulls.pdf
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081128/A_OPINION02/811280302/-1/A_OPINION0611
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081128/A_OPINION02/811280302/-1/A_OPINION0611
This last site has links to the citations:
http://www.swaylove.org/peta-vs-pit-bulls-the-truth-in-their-own-words

So yes, part of the reason I'm so vocal about PeTA, their policies and their stance is because I feel people need to be very aware of exactly what it is that PeTA will do and has done so that they can fight against these policies in whatever arena applies (court, legislation, passing of laws etc.). 
Many animal lovers still think of PeTA as kind of odd, but generally harmless and don't realize how much work they do quietly, behind the scenes, to get pit bulls banned, and pet ownership restricted. For those of us who don't want that to happen, we have to stay aware, stay informed, and make sure to be vocal about opposing proposed legislation and policies when they show up. 
Obviously if there are those who want pit bulls and pet ownership restricted, they can also stay aware and support those proposed laws if that's what they choose also. My hope though of course is that the former mentality will prevail


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Though I was no longer a member when I heard all the reports over the internet that they were destroying dogs rather than rehoming I was shocked & really upset. So I wrote to PETA. Here is their response.


So blame it as a smear campaign, ignoring the facts of killing 88% of animals placed in the shelter. Facts confirmed not through a smear website but actual records. Highlight some of the animals may have been unwell. Do you really expect people to believe 88% of animals where so unhealthy they should have been put down? Wait, doesn't their official statement push for people to get dogs from shelters. Hard to do when you've killed them.

PETA are masters of media manipulation, marketing and spin. Actions show a different story.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I'm saying that because PeTA has a *powerful* team of lobbyists with lots of money to back them up, they can and do get their views turned in to laws. That's how it works here in the US - money talks. And PeTA has a lot of money. They have also recently joined forces with another very vocal anti-pit bull group (dogsbite dot org) who are also gaining power as a legislative influence. If we're going to say PeTA has been successful in some areas to protect animals, we have to assume they will also be successful in their other endeavors - like getting pit bulls banned, and restricting pet ownership in general.
> 
> As for their own shelter, they themselves have the policy of not adopting out any pit bulls no matter how healthy or adoptable. That translates in to, euthanizing all pit bulls or dogs who remotely look like a pit bull in their care.
> They also urge other shelters to do the same and try to get local laws changed to make sure that pit bulls are not available for adoption. There is overwhelming evidence of this policy of theirs and their efforts are behind a lot of the laws already in place.
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to explain, I'm still not sure I totally get how they manage to have so much influence just from lobbying and one shelter - why do other shelters take any notice of them for instance or are they state run shelters?


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you for taking the time to explain, I'm still not sure I totally get how they manage to have so much influence just from lobbying and one shelter - why do other shelters take any notice of them for instance or are they state run shelters?


Same way the NRA have so much influence with a relatively small membership. Celebrity spokespersons, lots of money backing them, and powerful lobbyists with a lot of experience in politics who can make sure bills get written and passed through. 
In the US anyone can write a bill and present it to a governor or senator and have it proposed as a law. With good lobbyists you can make very favorable conditions for bills to get passed through the house and senate and then eventually signed in to law, right or wrong, that's how our system works. From federal laws (nation-wide) to the tiniest of municipalities enacting ordinances.

The problem is, a lot of these bills go through without anyone other than the people who propose them being aware. Depending on what you're proposing, you may want to be very quiet about it. And PeTA knows to be quiet about their proposed pit bull laws. So unless the general public is paying attention, they may not know about these bills until they are about to be signed in to law, where often it is too late because the behind-the-scenes negotiations have already taken place. 
Where we need to pay attention is when these bills are only bills and not proposed laws, that's where the "little" people have the most pull. By 1) being aware of what powerful bodies like PeTA are proposing, and 2) making sure to let our local legislators know we don't agree (basically letter-writing campaigns).

Their shelter doesn't have any influence really, and might even be shut down. It has been repeatedly investigated and because of PeTA's actions an amendment to the definition of "shelter" has been proposed (might have already passed) in the state of VA. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/pets-shelter-euthanization-rate_n_6612490.html

I would like to say that with threads like these and other ways of sharing information PeTA is starting to lose some of their power, but I'm not going to rest too easy any time soon. I don't think people really understand the kind of fear it is to live with the possibility of having your dog become illegal. All you have to do is look at the history of what happened in Denver and Miami to see how easily you end up losing your dog. 
Say for example my county decides to enact a pit bull ban and grandfather-in existing pit bulls. In order to have your dog grandfathered-in, you have to have special registration, make sure they're neutered, and perhaps pay additional liability insurance. The very first question then becomes, "what is a pit bull?" Do I have to take Bates down to the local AC and have him registered? How do I know? What if I take him and whoever is there says, no, he's fine, but then later someone sees him and says he's not? And now, I don't have any of the requirements for him (except neutering). So the county is nice and says we'll give you a chance to get his registration and insurance sorted, you have one month to comply. Okay, what if the liability insurance is astronomically expensive and I can't afford it? What if my insurance policy decides to drop me because I have a "dangerous" dog? It's not so simply as "just comply and you'll be fine".

This is exactly why so many pit bulls and dogs that remotely look like a pit bull get euthanized in obscene numbers. People are forced to give up their dogs, shelters are forced to euthanize because either they're not allowed to adopt or people are scared to adopt - not because they are scared of the dog, but of the legalities that come from owning a dog that has been labeled. 
And then PeTA turns around and says things like "no 'nice' family wants to adopt a pit bull". But that's in large part because of the mess THEY have created by demonizing these dogs! It makes my blood boil really...


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Same way the NRA have so much influence with a relatively small membership. Celebrity spokespersons, lots of money backing them, and powerful lobbyists with a lot of experience in politics who can make sure bills get written and passed through.
> In the US anyone can write a bill and present it to a governor or senator and have it proposed as a law. With good lobbyists you can make very favorable conditions for bills to get passed through the house and senate and then eventually signed in to law, right or wrong, that's how our system works. From federal laws (nation-wide) to the tiniest of municipalities enacting ordinances.
> 
> The problem is, a lot of these bills go through without anyone other than the people who propose them being aware. Depending on what you're proposing, you may want to be very quiet about it. And PeTA knows to be quiet about their proposed pit bull laws. So unless the general public is paying attention, they may not know about these bills until they are about to be signed in to law, where often it is too late because the behind-the-scenes negotiations have already taken place.
> ...


It's terrifying, I really feel for you. There is someone I follow on Instagram who has a pitty in London. When BSL was introduced here, their dog was confiscated and they had to go to court numerous times, spending thousands and had to prove, time and again, that he passed all the required personality tests. Now they have him back he has to be muzzled when out, and they still run the risk of having him euthanised if someone makes a complaint about him. Unfortunately, a lot of people over here still cross the road when they see a pitty type, and especially a muzzled one, so it's not beyond the realms of imagination that someone may make a completely bogus report on him. And he really is a beautiful boy who wouldn't say boo to a goose


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> So blame it as a smear campaign, ignoring the facts of killing 88% of animals placed in the shelter. Facts confirmed not through a smear website but actual records. Highlight some of the animals may have been unwell. Do you really expect people to believe 88% of animals where so unhealthy they should have been put down? Wait, doesn't their official statement push for people to get dogs from shelters. Hard to do when you've killed them.
> 
> PETA are masters of media manipulation, marketing and spin. Actions show a different story.


As I have said I don't agree with everything Peta does or says, but you have to be in denial if you don't think Peta has achieved a great deal to better the lives of countless animals. And proof of their success is when you have big corporations setting up 'Front Groups' whos sole aim is to smear the likes of Peta because they see peta as a threat to profits. I don't know the truth behind the statistics in the shelter, what I do know is, however wrong or misguided they may be on some issues on other campaigns they have been incredible and saved the lives of countless animals from horrific suffering. I have to say this kill percentage does remind me of the pro- hunt set in this country with their deliberate misinterpretation of the RSPCAs pts figures to forward their agenda to neuter the RSPCAs powers of prosecution.

This is interesting (its referenced as well )

https://doespetakillsanimals.wordpress.com/

*The Truth About the PETAKillsAnimals.com Site*
The Center for Consumer Freedom, a lobbyist front group for some of the worst industries (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, animal agriculture, junk food, etc) created "PETA Kills Animals" to attempt to discredit People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals since getting people to be humane to animals is devastating to animal agriculture big business.

A lot of people critize PETA and think that they go around killing animals for fun. This couldn't be further from the truth. They published a counter argument at PETASaves.com

*From a Washington Post article on PETA Kills Animals ads:*
… Center for Consumer Freedom, an NGO founded by Richard Berman, a Washington D.C., lawyer, public relations executive, and lobbyist. Berman runs at least 20 others pro-business non-profit Web sites, includingTeachersUnionExposed.com, FishScam.com and ActivistCash.com. Berman has long come under fire by activists who say his NGOs are "front groups" used to lobby for corporate interests. A site called Bermanexposed.org is entirely devoted to investigating Berman and the studies his groups has released.

PETA told the Post that it does euthanize animals, but only because of "injury, illness, age, aggression, and other problems, because their guardians requested it, or because no good homes exist for them." PETA has posted a number of blogs about this issue over the years.

According to a 2010 report by the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, of the 4,569 pets received by PETA that year, 3,630 were euthanized. In 2011, out of 2,050 pets PETA received that year, 1,965 were euthanized.

PETA spokeswoman Jane Dollinger called CCF a "front group" for "animal exploiters who kill millions of animals every year."

"CCF's goal is to damage PETA by misrepresenting the situation and the number of unwanted and suffering animals PETA euthanizes," she said.

The Humane Society has a whole page on its Web site devoted to the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of HSUS, said he also believes that CCF "is funded by animal abuses industries."

*Bloomberg Outs the CCF and Richard Berman*

The article includes info on desire to create an anti-PETA documentary, being a phony non-profit, and more.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...profiting-from-non-profit-may-breach-irs.html

*PETA's response to PETA Kills Animals and the CCF*
Thank you for contacting PETA about the "PETA Kills Animals" campaign.
This campaign is the work of the deceitfully-named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters who kill millions of animals every year, not out of compassion, but out of greed. These companies are worried about the strides that PETA is making that are changing their industries and compelling them to take animal welfare concerns seriously, so-since they can't argue with us on the facts of the animal abuse they fund-they hope to scare people away from caring about animals by spending millions on smear ads, mailings and Web sites like this. To learn more about CCF-which USA Today recently opined should rename its Web site "FatforProfit.com"-please see the following Web sites:
· http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=20200
· http://www.ConsumerDeception.com
· http://www.CitizensForEthics.org/node/19131
·http://www.Prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8984

Despite its deceptive intent, we welcome the opportunity that this provides to discuss the animal overpopulation crisis. We are on the front lines of the battle to turn back the tide of unwanted dogs and cats, and we need your help. PETA is on the front lines of the battle to turn back the tide of unwanted dogs and cats. Our caseworkers tirelessly rescue homeless animals from environmental dangers, as well as cruelty and neglect (http://www.HelpingAnimals.com/about_cap.asp). They crawl through sewers, poke through junkyards, climb trees, and dodge traffic in order to reach animals in danger. During floods and storms, they are out saving lives at all hours.

Some of the animals we take in are lost companions with loving families who miss them; we are always happy to return such animals to their homes. We have also managed to catch and return some highly elusive animals other agencies had given up on. PETA does not operate a shelter, but-even though we foster many healthy homeless animals that we have rescued in homes (often our own) or take them to shelters to await adoption-the reality is that thousands of adoptable animals are euthanized every day in shelters across America due to the lack of good homes.

Because most area residents take healthy, adoptable animals directly to local shelters, the majority of the animals we receive are extremely sick or injured beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option (http://www.PETA.org/feat-overpopulation_crisis.asp). To learn about one local instance, please seehttp://www.HelpingAnimals.com/f-asiasstory.asp. On another occasion, when a power-line transformer explosion burned a flock of starlings, PETA was the only agency to come to the birds' aid; if our trained technicians had not been ready to end these starlings' misery, the injured birds would have suffered in agony for days before finally succumbing to a painful death.
In addition, PETA provides free euthanasia services for local residents who have very sick, critically injured, or geriatric companions but can't afford to take them to a veterinarian. One family, lacking money for vet care and transportation, turned to us for help for their cat, who had barely crawled back home after being mauled by a pack of dogs. We were able to help by giving the cat a peaceful end to her intense pain.
We also began offering our services to shelters in North Carolina in 2000, after PETA was contacted by a police officer who was distressed by conditions in a county pound. North Carolina has the second-highest kill rate per capita in the country-35 animals killed annually for every 1,000 residents-and most do not die a humane death. When we step in to properly euthanize animals (at no cost to the participating shelters) as we do in this instance, our involvement prevents animals from being shot to death with a .22 caliber firearm, gassed to death in an rusty metal box, or injected with a paralytic that causes slow suffocation without loss of consciousness. It prevents their suffering for weeks on end from disease and illness, or worse. We know from bitter experience that for homeless animals-even those in some shelters-there is such a thing as a fate worse than death. To learn more about the conditions that led to our involvement in North Carolina and about some of the many improvements we've been able to make, please visit http://www.HelpingAnimals.com/f-nc.asp. We also hope you will read this recent editorial that sheds more light on the issue of animals suffering in pounds near the North Carolina and Virginia border: http://tinyurl.com/2wkr8n.

We wish that there were other acceptable options available. We cannot bring the majority of these animals back to Virginia for placement-the same issues regarding adoptability of injured, sick, or old animals exist everywhere, and "open-admission" shelters, which never turn their backs on any animal (unlike so-called "no-kill" shelters, which turn many animals away) are already unable to cope with the overpopulation of animals. There simply are not enough homes for them. Using Virginia shelters also means that there would be fewer homes for animals already in Virginia adoption facilities

(the article goes on - & on. So i'll leave it there)


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Thank you for taking the time to explain, I'm still not sure I totally get how they manage to have so much influence just from lobbying and one shelter - why do other shelters take any notice of them for instance or are they state run shelters?


As far as lobbying goes, have a look at the NRA at the lobbying power that has. NRA is obviously a completely different topic but demonstrates how powerful lobbyists can be.



noushka05 said:


> https://doespetakillsanimals.wordpress.com/


You may believe people only take unwanted/ill pets to PETA shelter. Other shelter and animal organisations, not Center for Consumer Freedom condemn their practices.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

I will say this from the USA.I live in Wisconsin.Have you ever seen a friends and a neighbors along with many other people you know have their dogs taken from them and PTS for nothing more than being a pit bull.I have.The reason this happened is because PETA decided to lobby and push to have the breed banned.Also i dont know about the rest of the country but there is no Peta shelter here so all the numbers that @Knightofalbion are false for around my area.Peta can lobby and get people to pass these laws but of course Peta does not put the needle in any dogs or get their hands dirty.So of course they look squeeky clean as they have everyone else do their dirty work and it therefore makes all the shelters look like the bad guys along with the municipality/county/city/state for enforcing the rules and laws they lobbied to have put in.They have money here and therefore have influence.However in recent months people are finally uncovering the truth of Peta and they are finally in a landslide back to where they belong.It is a horrible thing to see my neighbors kids bawling as their dog is ripped away from them by animal control for doing nothing wrong and being a very sweet dog.I lost all my faith in Peta on that day and thanks to a lot of journalism the truth is becoming clear to a lot of people.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Here is Petas position on pit bulls - along with some pits they have helped.

http://investigations.peta.org/breed-specific-protection/

http://www.peta.org/blog/peta-position-pit-bulls/


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Here is Petas position on pit bulls - along with some pits they have helped.


Spin and marketing, not what they actually do. They push for breed bans = take pit bulls off families and kill them. Why pit bulls when people will simply move to a different breed? Why push the ideas of pitbulls being a breed no respectable family would want?

Noushka.. if the tory party was producing spin would you accept it or complain saying that's not what they are actually doing?


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Here is Petas position on pit bulls - along with some pits they have helped.
> 
> http://investigations.peta.org/breed-specific-protection/
> 
> http://www.peta.org/blog/peta-position-pit-bulls/


I think a more accurate representation of PeTA's position on pit bulls can be found in the legislation they back, and the quotes from their representatives. PeTA is very good at presenting things in a light that favors them (and we know they will also lie and misrepresent the truth if need be - I have shared my own personal experience with this back when I was a member of PeTA). IOW, I don't think links off PeTA's site explaining their position are the most unbiased source of information on what PeTA is really doing...

I posted this link earlier in the thread, it has links back to the quotes and the legislation.
http://www.swaylove.org/peta-vs-pit-bulls-the-truth-in-their-own-words

BTW, the above is not a CCF link, it's just a fellow dog owner who makes it their business to stay in the know.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Here is Petas position on pit bulls - along with some pits they have helped.
> 
> http://investigations.peta.org/breed-specific-protection/
> 
> http://www.peta.org/blog/peta-position-pit-bulls/


Ya talk is cheap and after you have seen what i have seen and after they outlaw your dog and send animal control to your house and rip your dog out of the arms of your children while they are balling their eyes out let me know how you feel and what you think.This is what was set in motion by peta and carried out by law enforcement.Still they claim they "support the breed"Kiss my sunny cheerful back side.Nothing they do would do or could ever do will erase those visions from my mind.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> I use to be a member of Peta, I use to get the periodical magazine & there were always articles on unwanted pets they had found loving homes for.
> 
> Here is their policy statement.
> http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
> ...


I don't have a problem with kids being exposed to graphic video games-I've been playing Grand Theft Auto since I was eight. 
PETA's games for kids contain ACTUAL videos of animal abuse. It's not just pixels like normal video games. And most normal games do not contain realistic depictions of animal abuse. 
PETA's use of graphic content within their parody games is supposed to scare children into becoming vegans, because they will feel sorry for the animals in the food industry. That is not a good way to convince people.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Actually, you'll find the argument also includes the "a dead pitbull is one which isn't suffering" as only dog fighters and the like own them.
> 
> Would like to highlight https://www.facebook.com/stevie.wonder.dog/info?tab=page_info a dog which would have been killed with PETA.


So...you're saying that all people who own pit bulls make their dogs fight? That is also a stupid stereotype.
You're basically using the stereotype: "The pitbull owner owns a pitbull called Tyson who lives in Compton. He takes his burly dog into a back street to make his dog with his friends dogs to win money."
Sadly, this is how many people see the pitbull and its owner. The pitbull is really a loving, caring dog and is a great family pet when raised correctly.

I also looked at the Facebook link. Touching.


----------



## Guest (Jan 21, 2016)

TehSnoipah said:


> So...you're saying that all people who own pit bulls make their dogs fight? That is also a stupid stereotype.
> You're basically using the stereotype: "The pitbull owner owns a pitbull called Tyson who lives in Compton. He takes his burly dog into a back street to make his dog with his friends dogs to win money."
> Sadly, this is how many people see the pitbull and its owner. The pitbull is really a loving, caring dog and is a great family pet when raised correctly.
> 
> I also looked at the Facebook link. Touching.


No, Goblin's post was arguing against the stereotype. Context from the quoted post helps


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

ouesi said:


> No, Goblin's post was arguing against the stereotype. Context from the quoted post helps


@ouesi ..I know i have asked i just dont remember where abouts you are in the US


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

TehSnoipah said:


> I don't have a problem with kids being exposed to graphic video games-I've been playing Grand Theft Auto since I was eight.
> PETA's games for kids contain ACTUAL videos of animal abuse. It's not just pixels like normal video games. And most normal games do not contain realistic depictions of animal abuse.
> PETA's use of graphic content within their parody games is supposed to scare children into becoming vegans, because they will feel sorry for the animals in the food industry. That is not a good way to convince people.


I would have a problem with kids being exposed to graphic video games.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Sweety said:


> I would have a problem with kids being exposed to graphic video games.


I don't have a problem with kids playing violent games such as Grand Theft Auto, as long as they know that it's just a game, and that they know not to run around stealing items and throwing people out of cars in real life.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Obviously you fail to look at facts of professionals who all say if it wasn't pitbulls it would be another breed. You have also failed to provide figures for how many pitbulls live happy contented lives. You have also failed to see or have ignored the fact that part of that figure is due to the continuation of myths which PETA is actively contributing to. You have also failed to see or acknowledge that high levels of deaths are partly due to policies which are pushed by PETA that pitbulls should never be rehomed but killed instead. Considering a 2012 study conducted by VetStreet, the American Pit Bull Terrier ranked among the top 3 pets in 28 states how many potential homes do these policies prevent meaning if people want a pitbull, they can't go to a shelter but have to go to a breeder?





ouesi said:


> There are plenty of good, responsible homes for pit bulls.
> But when shelters have policies of not adopting out pit bulls, those homes can't adopt them. It's a sneaky way of making it look like no one wants a pit bull or only thugs want pit bulls, but that's not the reality.
> 
> It goes back to the Victory Dogs and PeTA going to court in an attempt to make sure the Vick dogs did not get adopted out and were euthanized instead. Thank goodness they lost and those dogs went on to show the world how wrong PeTA was and still is.


Again, 800,000 pitbulls are PTS every year in the USA because nobody wants them. It's as simple as that. It's not my fault. It's not PETA's fault. It's not Obama's fault.

The great majority of animal shelters have pretty much given up on the Pitbull. Several reasons, but the main one is the danger of being sued for a king's ransom if the adopted dog attacks someone as happened here ....
http://www.animals24-7.org/2014/05/15/shelters-sued-for-attacks-by-rehomed-pit-bulls/


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> No, they can continue to live as long as they're insured 3rd party, neutered, microchipped and kept on lead and muzzled in public.


It's against the law to own an American Pitbull in the UK. 'You' can face a fine of up to £5,000 or 6 months in prison.
True, there are APBs in Britain, but illegally held, in the hands of criminal gangs.
There are nine dogs on the 'legallly exempt list', none of them APBs.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> Again, 800,000 pitbulls are PTS every year in the USA because nobody wants them. It's as simple as that.


And again, I will say you are wrong, it is NOT because nobody wants them, as I've already explained. 
This is the silly going around in circles we did last time we had this discussion. If you're not going to read anything but PeTA's propaganda there isn't much of a conversation to be had here.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> So blame it as a smear campaign, ignoring the facts of killing 88% of animals placed in the shelter. Facts confirmed not through a smear website but actual records. Highlight some of the animals may have been unwell. Do you really expect people to believe 88% of animals where so unhealthy they should have been put down? Wait, doesn't their official statement push for people to get dogs from shelters. Hard to do when you've killed them.
> 
> PETA are masters of media manipulation, marketing and spin. Actions show a different story.





Goblin said:


> So blame it as a smear campaign, ignoring the facts of killing 88% of animals placed in the shelter. Facts confirmed not through a smear website but actual records. Highlight some of the animals may have been unwell. Do you really expect people to believe 88% of animals where so unhealthy they should have been put down? Wait, doesn't their official statement push for people to get dogs from shelters. Hard to do when you've killed them.
> 
> PETA are masters of media manipulation, marketing and spin. Actions show a different story.


I'd say you are the one doing the smearing. They treat over 10,000 cats and dogs, adopt out hundreds and if you take the free euthanasia service they offer for local residents out of the equation, (around a third of the 1,600 total) and the other animal shelters who send animals to make use of PETA's facilities, PETA's figures are not out of the ordinary. 
Non-PETA animal shelters in the USA are destroying 4,000,000 sick, injured and unwanted but healthy cats and dogs every year.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> And again, I will say you are wrong, it is NOT because nobody wants them, as I've already explained.
> This is the silly going around in circles we did last time we had this discussion. If you're not going to read anything but PeTA's propaganda there isn't much of a conversation to be had here.


Going round in circles, yes. Very simply, 800,000 a year. That's 4 million Pitbulls in the next 5 years.

If you can think of a way to successfully socialize, pacify, train and safely rehome 4 million Pitbulls in the next 5 years, and presumably ad infinitum, then you should get yourself on the national news with your proposals.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> If you can think of a way to successfully socialize, pacify, train and safely rehome 4 million Pitbulls in the next 5 years, and presumably ad infinitum, then you should get yourself on the national news with your proposals.


"Pacify" pitbulls? What are you talking about?

And I don't need to be in the national news, people are already doing it - like this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/n...-rise-amid-reforms-at-new-yorks-shelters.html


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

It's been shown and demonstrated that PETA pushes and supports laws which take pitbulls from homes and kill them?
It's been shown and demonstrated that PETA have a shelter which an 88% kill rate far higher than other identical shelters.

@Knightofalbion Guess the fact that you attempt to defend these shows what people supporting PETA really stand for. The idea of PETA and their marketing, not what they are shown to actually do. That also shows why PETA is a dangerous organisation and shouldn't be supported as even it's own membership and supporters will not hold them accountable.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Is this still going on.
Problem with pit bulls is how can you blame just PETA when they are illegal in this country and loads of family pet look alikes are seized and put to sleep. Is KnightofAlbion correct that no pitbulls are on the exempt list - and only 9 in total. Seems rather unlikely. I know nothing about pitbulls but if they are such lovely pets why have they got such a bad reputation. There must be a reason even if not a very good one.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

TehSnoipah said:


> I don't have a problem with kids being exposed to graphic video games-I've been playing Grand Theft Auto since I was eight.
> PETA's games for kids contain ACTUAL videos of animal abuse. It's not just pixels like normal video games. And most normal games do not contain realistic depictions of animal abuse.
> PETA's use of graphic content within their parody games is supposed to scare children into becoming vegans, because they will feel sorry for the animals in the food industry. That is not a good way to convince people.


I'm not saying I agree with the peta video games I've never seen one & I cant find any evidence on the internet that they use actual footage of animal abuse. But is it so wrong to educate our children about where our meat comes from & for them to 'feel sorry' for animals that are killed for meat? It isn't 'scaring' them into becoming vegans its removing the veil of ignorance so they can make an informed decisions for themselves. You failed to answer my question about hunting? How do you feel about the people who desensitise children to the killing of living breathing animals?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> And again, I will say you are wrong, it is NOT because nobody wants them, as I've already explained.
> This is the silly going around in circles we did last time we had this discussion. If you're not going to read anything but PeTA's propaganda there isn't much of a conversation to be had here.


Isn't it true that they are more difficult to rehome though? I read somewhere that a lot of landlords wont accept pit bulls & insurance companies refuse to cover them?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Blitz said:


> I know nothing about pitbulls but if they are such lovely pets why have they got such a bad reputation. There must be a reason even if not a very good one.


First thing is.. define a pitbull. Pitbull isn't a breed as such it's a look. Why did "alsations", now known as German Shepherds or Rotties have such a bad reputation when I was growing up? Unfortunately "pitbulls" were/are used in dog fighting rings. So we have a type of dog associated with aggression. They are powerful dogs. They simply became an easy scapegoat when politicians needed one and wanted to be seen has handling the "dog attack" problem. Generally speaking media showed a dog attack. Government needed to be seen doing something.. blame and ban pitbulls. Result.. wrong kind of people want them and people assume other dogs are safe. BSL has been proven to not work. You asked how can we blame PETA.. they are pushing BSL laws to be implemented as well as saying things like no respectable family would own one. Doesn't save dogs, doesn't prevent dog bites, doesn't educate about the need for all dogs to be treated well and owners to be responsible for their dogs.








noushka05 said:


> I'm not saying I agree with the peta video games I've never seen one & I cant find any evidence on the internet that they use actual footage of animal abuse. But is it so wrong to educate our children about where our meat comes from & for them to 'feel sorry' for animals that are killed for meat?


I agree, children should be educated to believe meat doesn't get created wrapped in plastic. Never seen the videos myself either however shock shouldn't be a default education method for children. There are plenty of ways to educate without using shock tactics. Children being involved in hunting, if the result is then processed and eaten is education even if I wouldn't personally do it. Children hunting for hunting sake I don't agree with.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Isn't it true that they are more difficult to rehome though? I read somewhere that a lot of landlords wont accept pit bulls & insurance companies refuse to cover them?


Yet people still want to adopt them. Why is it a minority of landlords will not accept them? The continuation of myths etc spread by people like PETA. Or are you agreeing with the idea that no decent family would own a pitbull? Again, 3rd most common type of dog in 28 states.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> First thing is.. define a pitbull. Pitbull isn't a breed as such it's a look. Why did "alsations", now known as German Shepherds or Rotties have such a bad reputation when I was growing up? Unfortunately "pitbulls" were/are used in dog fighting rings. So we have a type of dog associated with aggression. They are powerful dogs. They simply became an easy scapegoat when politicians needed one and wanted to be seen has handling the "dog attack" problem. Generally speaking media showed a dog attack. Government needed to be seen doing something.. blame and ban pitbulls. Result.. wrong kind of people want them and people assume other dogs are safe. BSL has been proven to not work. You asked how can we blame PETA.. they are pushing BSL laws to be implemented as well as saying things like no respectable family would own one. Doesn't save dogs, doesn't prevent dog bites, doesn't educate about the need for all dogs to be treated well and owners to be responsible for their dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Goblin said:


> Yet people still want to adopt them. Why is it a minority of landlords will not accept them? The continuation of myths etc spread by people like PETA. Or are you agreeing with the idea that no decent family would own a pitbull? Again, 3rd most common type of dog in 28 states.


I don't know why, but I assume its because they have an (unwarranted) bad reputation? I didn't say a minority of landlords, the impression I got was it was a lot. I cant find said article but it wasn't a 'PETA like' source either, it was someone who owned a pit. Why would you even assume I would think no decent family would own a pit bull? :/ I happen to LOVE pit bulls, and I have already said I don't agree with BSL. I think there needs to be a big drive towards educating people never to buy a pit bull puppy from a breeder as there are NO ethical breeders of pit bulls. I agree with Peta on that.

ETA I found this - http://www.ambassadorpitbulls.org/renting-with-pit-bulls.html It isnt the article I was referring to but it also says how hard it is to rent with a pit bull.

I think taking a child out to kill a real animal is far more shocking than any video game could possibly be. And its damaging because it risks desensitising them. You only have to look at the hunt/shoot fraternity to see how little they value life. For a big percentage killing animals has become a 'sport'.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I didn't say a minority of landlords, the impression I got was it was a lot.


As stated 3rd most popular dog in 28 states. No doubt in some areas it would be difficult, others not so. A lot does not mean a majority.



> Why would you even assume I would think no decent family would own a pit bull?


That is the message that PETA is spreading and you are supporting.



> I think there needs to be a big drive towards educating people never to buy a pit bull puppy from a breeder as there are NO ethical breeders of pit bulls. I agree with Peta on that.


Back that "NO ethical breeders" statement up please. Define your definition of ethically. Just as it's not a recognised breed does not mean people cannot breed them ethically.



> I think taking a child out to kill a real animal is far more shocking than any video game could possibly be. And its damaging because it risks desensitising them. You only have to look at the hunt/shoot fraternity to see how little they value life. For a big percentage killing animals has become a 'sport'.


So, it's not you want to educate, it's you want to only educate your way to achieve your purpose.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Blitz said:


> Is this still going on.
> Problem with pit bulls is how can you blame just PETA when they are illegal in this country and loads of family pet look alikes are seized and put to sleep. Is KnightofAlbion correct that no pitbulls are on the exempt list - and only 9 in total. Seems rather unlikely. I know nothing about pitbulls but if they are such lovely pets why have they got such a bad reputation. There must be a reason even if not a very good one.


I don't blame PeTA for pit bulls being illegal in the UK, but I do take issue with PeTA for their efforts to ban pit bulls in this country. 
As for why do they have such a bad reputation, there is a long history there that has culminated in what we see now. Much as dobermans, GSDs, and rotties were once considered devil dogs. The problem with pit bulls is that there is no clear definition of what a pit bull is (not legally, in show rings there definitely is). But they are not dangerous dogs, any more than any other breed is dangerous. Restricting them has not shown in any situation to make them or humans safer. 
There is a great documentary called "Beyond the Myth" that I have posted before (it's an hour long so I don't think many watched it, but it's worth a watch) that talks about the history of these dogs and how they have become the pariahs they are now. 
One thing about that video that stands out to me is the stark difference in how the city of San Francisco responded to two very horrific dog attacks. 
In 2001 Dianne Whipple was killed by two Presa Canarios who were living in an apartment building and who residents had repeatedly complained about. When Ms. Whipple was killed in the presence of the dogs' owners who were powerless to stop them, even though the dogs were on leash, the city of SF didn't feel the need to ban presa canarios.
However, four years later when a mother left her 12 year old son Nicholas Fabish home alone with an intact male and female pit bull who she was allowing to breed, and was worried enough about her son's safety that she locked him in the basement, but the child let himself out and was killed by the dogs, the city decided pit bulls were dangerous and needed to be banned. Makes absolutely no sense when you look at the circumstances behind each death.

This is a shorter video of what happened in the most visible dog fighting bust in this country and where the tide has turned as far as what we know and understand about rehabilitating fighting dogs. It's an amazing testament to the true temperament of this breed. I can't think of any other breed who could go through what these dogs went through and come out as sound, stable, safe family pets at the other end. They are really an amazing breed when it comes to resilience and tolerance. This is both a blessing and a curse for this breed. No other breed will can go through this kind of abuse and still be okay enough to function. If thugs chose working line malinois for their guard dogs they's lose their limbs. Pit bulls are just entirely too forgiving and resilient for their own good....







noushka05 said:


> Isn't it true that they are more difficult to rehome though? I read somewhere that a lot of landlords wont accept pit bulls & insurance companies refuse to cover them?


They are difficult to rehome because of the many restrictions unfairly put on the breed. Landlords buy in to the negative propaganda just like anyone else. Insurance companies jack up the prices on several breeds, including pit bulls. We're talking home owner's insurance here, which is where most of the liability comes from in dog bite cases. So yes, they become difficult to rehome for anyone living in an area where they are restricted, where insurance for them isn't available, and if you don't own your own home and might find yourself unable to find a place to live because of the breed of dog you have. 
However none of that is the fault of the dogs. IMO we should be arguing against the restrictions instead of arguing for euthanizing the dogs because of the restrictions.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> As stated 3rd most popular dog in 28 states. No doubt in some areas it would be difficult, others not so. A lot does not mean a majority.
> 
> That is the message that PETA is spreading and you are supporting.
> 
> ...


Did you read the link?
*Renting with Pit Bulls*
*We aren't going to lie. It is HARD to find a home to rent when a Pit Bull is part of your family. We know. Many of us have been there. And those of us who have rented in the past and been lucky enough to become homeowners recognize that it hasn't gotten any easier. If anything, it has gotten more difficult.
*
I have made it crystal clear I dont support everything PETA say or do, but I'm certainly not going to deny the fact that they have made massive achievements to improve the lives of a countless number of animals.

The fact that you even question my definition of breeding ethics regarding this unregistered, exploited/over populated, and highly abused breed certainly speaks more about your ethics. Wow.

It is education I want, I dont think they can make an informed decision kept in the dark & blissfully unaware what happens to the animals we eat. However I'd personally rather children weren't indoctrinated into a passtime of killing animals as it does tends to desensitise them. I think its wrong to risk them losing their empathy. How many youngsters go from hunting for the pot to hunting for sport?? Have you ever seen pics of American kids posing with poor animals they have killed with big grins on their faces? They are all over the net. Where's the reverence for life?? Gone! They revolt me and their parents need locking up imo. Its tantamount to child abuse. I would shoot _myself_ if I was responsible for rearing one these emotionally bankrupt little psychopaths- http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/19/trophy-hunting-children-images_n_8010756.html


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

@Blitz this is another good read on the history of the breed and how they have become so maligned today. But like I said, the tide is turning (and why I continue to try and educate and argue against myths whenever possible). I hope to see the day all breed specific bans are dropped in this country and in the UK 

http://www.badrap.org/breed-history


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

ouesi said:


> I don't blame PeTA for pit bulls being illegal in the UK, but I do take issue with PeTA for their efforts to ban pit bulls in this country.
> As for why do they have such a bad reputation, there is a long history there that has culminated in what we see now. Much as dobermans, GSDs, and rotties were once considered devil dogs. The problem with pit bulls is that there is no clear definition of what a pit bull is (not legally, in show rings there definitely is). But they are not dangerous dogs, any more than any other breed is dangerous. Restricting them has not shown in any situation to make them or humans safer.
> There is a great documentary called "Beyond the Myth" that I have posted before (it's an hour long so I don't think many watched it, but it's worth a watch) that talks about the history of these dogs and how they have become the pariahs they are now.
> One thing about that video that stands out to me is the stark difference in how the city of San Francisco responded to two very horrific dog attacks.
> ...


You have things well in hand here and the only thing i want to clarify a little that you did touch on here as i am going through the same thing right now with getting a rott.As a landlord they must adhere to what their home owners and rental insurance says.My landlord right now owns german shepards and know that we want to get a rott.Neither dog is allowed to be owned by us in that house because his insurance will not allow it.he does not mind rotts and would love for us to own one however his insurance wont allow it.It is the same with several other breeds including pitt bulls.So even if the person that rents to you would love for you to have a pitt and if the city/county/municipality/state doesnt have a ban on them if their insurance wont allow it then you are not allowed to have one.It is the way it is.All this comes from the bad rap that pitt bulls have.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Rott lover said:


> You have things well in hand here and the only thing i want to clarify a little that you did touch on here as i am going through the same thing right now with getting a rott.As a landlord they must adhere to what their home owners and rental insurance says.My landlord right now owns german shepards and know that we want to get a rott.Neither dog is allowed to be owned by us in that house because his insurance will not allow it.he does not mind rotts and would love for us to own one however his insurance wont allow it.It is the same with several other breeds including pitt bulls.So even if the person that rents to you would love for you to have a pitt and if the city/county/municipality/state doesnt have a ban on them if their insurance wont allow it then you are not allowed to have one.It is the way it is.All this comes from the bad rap that pitt bulls have.


Exactly, which has nothing to do with people not wanting the dogs or the dogs being unadoptable. 
It's policies like the restrictions PeTA encourages and supports that *make* these dogs hard to own responsibly. Not the dogs themselves. 
Then PeTA turns around and says these dogs are hard to adopt and responsible owners don't want them - yeah, because of what THEY are doing!! It's a very frustrating argument...


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Exactly, which has nothing to do with people not wanting the dogs or the dogs being unadoptable.
> It's policies like the restrictions PeTA encourages and supports that *make* these dogs hard to own responsibly. Not the dogs themselves.
> Then PeTA turns around and says these dogs are hard to adopt and responsible owners don't want them - yeah, because of what THEY are doing!! It's a very frustrating argument...


exactly........This thread has come full circle and is going nowhere.It seems that peta lovers just dont want to back up any claims with cold hard facts but it is funny how those that oppose them can always come up with tons of cold hard facts to back up claims.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> "Pacify" pitbulls? What are you talking about?
> 
> And I don't need to be in the national news, people are already doing it - like this:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/n...-rise-amid-reforms-at-new-yorks-shelters.html


Remove the aggression that causes some of them to attack people.

I'm not familiar with these schemes. What difference have they made to the annual PTS number?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Did you read the link?
> 
> It is education I want, I dont think they can make an informed decision kept in the dark & blissfully unaware what happens to the animals we eat. However I'd personally rather children weren't indoctrinated into a passtime of killing animals as it does tends to desensitise them. I think its wrong to risk them losing their empathy. How many youngsters go from hunting for the pot to hunting for sport?? Have you ever seen pics of American kids posing with poor animals they have killed with big grins on their faces? They are all over the net. Where's the reverence for life?? Gone! They revolt me and their parents need locking up imo. Its tantamount to child abuse. I would shoot _myself_ if I was responsible for rearing one these emotionally bankrupt little psychopaths- http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/08/19/trophy-hunting-children-images_n_8010756.html


I think you will find that the majority of people that hunt have a deep knowledge and understanding of animals and would bring their children up to feel the same. Of course there will be exceptions, just as there are pet owners that abuse their animals.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> Hate propagandist's rely on ignorance and gullibility.
> 
> Euthanasia is an unpleasant business, but when it's necessary, someone has to do it. Unless of course you'd rather have animals abandoned to die in agony at the side of the road, or tied up in a sack and thrown in the river.
> And if it is necessary, better a quick, painless injection than the above, or a slow contorted, choking death in a Corporation gas chamber, which was what was in use before PETA introduced their humane service.
> ...


Bounce!


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> Remove the aggression that causes some of them to attack people.
> 
> I'm not familiar with these schemes. What difference have they made to the annual PTS number?


As I've said numerous times, focusing on ways to improve adoptions has made enough of a difference that in areas like mine we end up transporting dogs to other states because their shelters are empty and they still have people coming in looking to adopt.

Have you read any of the Best Friends links I've shared in this thread that explain how NoKill works?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> The great majority of animal shelters have pretty much given up on the Pitbull. Several reasons, but the main one is the danger of being sued for a king's ransom if the adopted dog attacks someone as happened here ....
> http://www.animals24-7.org/2014/05/15/shelters-sued-for-attacks-by-rehomed-pit-bulls/


And bounce this as well. It's ridiculous to attribute everything at the door of PETA. Most shelters have given up on Pitbulls and fear just this - being sued - if something goes wrong.
And when something does go wrong, its headline news.

As I said further up the thread, the core of the problem is irresponsible owners - and breeders.
Our own iconic British Bulldog, you don't see that many about these days, but those that are as gentle and soppy as they come. They wouldn't hurt a fly. Yet back in the day they were a full-on fighting dog. The aggression has been bred out of the breed and I would like to hope the same thing can happen to the American Pitbull in the fullness of time.
Great Danes also, a very big, powerful dog, yet gentle and full of fun.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> As I've said numerous times, focusing on ways to improve adoptions has made enough of a difference that in areas like mine we end up transporting dogs to other states because their shelters are empty and they still have people coming in looking to adopt.
> 
> Have you read any of the Best Friends links I've shared in this thread that explain how NoKill works?


How much of a difference? It was 800,000 and static. What impact have these measures made?
Correct me if I'm wrong but US adoption figures have levelled out. If there is an oversupply, you either have to PTS or 'stack' (cage) dogs in a system that keeps them alive but miserable and with no quality of life.
Of course you might well argue that you can magic 4 million Pitbull owners of the blue in the next 5 years, but how likely is that? Especially with most shelters fearful of litigation if they re-home a rogue dog.
Realistically the only answer is to get a grip on breeding levels.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> And bounce this as well. It's ridiculous to attribute everything at the door of PETA. Most shelters have given up on Pitbulls and fear just this - being sued - .


Just from this line alone you took everything you worked so hard for people to understand and completely flushed it all away making all of what comes out of you completely useless and not worth reading.You are the weakest link bye bye.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> Most shelters have given up on Pitbulls and fear just this - being sued - if something goes wrong.


Can you qualify this statement? Can you back it up with evidence? Which shelters? Where? In communities where pit bulls are banned? Or shelters in communities where pit bulls are still legal?

Are you reading any of the links I post? I just told you that we transport dogs to shelters in the northeast because they don't have enough dogs for the demand. This is happening throughout the country.

The county north of us achieved NoKill two years ago, and this county is in the process of making the same changes to also achieve NoKill. 
This is how it looks nation wide:
http://www.maddiesfund.org/no-kill-progress.htm

@Knightofalbion are you in the US?


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> The aggression has been bred out of the breed and I would like to hope the same thing can happen to the American Pitbull in the fullness of time.
> .


Please i got to know how you breed out agressiom


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Goblin said:


> First thing is.. define a pitbull. Pitbull isn't a breed as such it's a look. Why did "alsations", now known as German Shepherds or Rotties have such a bad reputation when I was growing up? Unfortunately "pitbulls" were/are used in dog fighting rings. So we have a type of dog associated with aggression. They are powerful dogs. They simply became an easy scapegoat when politicians needed one and wanted to be seen has handling the "dog attack" problem. Generally speaking media showed a dog attack. Government needed to be seen doing something.. blame and ban pitbulls. Result.. wrong kind of people want them and people assume other dogs are safe. BSL has been proven to not work. You asked how can we blame PETA.. they are pushing BSL laws to be implemented as well as saying things like no respectable family would own one. Doesn't save dogs, doesn't prevent dog bites, doesn't educate about the need for all dogs to be treated well and owners to be responsible for their dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Alsatians are not 'known as Rotties'. Rotties are Rottweilers. Who told you that incorrect info?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Rott lover said:


> Just from this line alone you took everything you worked so hard for people to understand and completely flushed it all away making all of what comes out of you completely useless and not worth reading.You are the weakest link bye bye.


That just about sums up the blinkered attitude you've displayed throughout.

An animal shelter can be held legally responsible if they re-home a dog after having cleared it as 'safe' to be re-homed and the liability can be substantial, 6 or 7 figures.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> I'm not saying I agree with the peta video games I've never seen one & I cant find any evidence on the internet that they use actual footage of animal abuse. But is it so wrong to educate our children about where our meat comes from & for them to 'feel sorry' for animals that are killed for meat? It isn't 'scaring' them into becoming vegans its removing the veil of ignorance so they can make an informed decisions for themselves. You failed to answer my question about hunting? How do you feel about the people who desensitise children to the killing of living breathing animals?


Look up "Cooking Mama Kills Animals". It's a PETA game that contains footage of abuse.
As for hunting-I'm not bringing that into this.


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

TehSnoipah said:


> Alsatians are not 'known as Rotties'. Rotties are Rottweilers. Who told you that incorrect info?


You've completely misread Goblin's post.

Why don't you read it again.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Sweety said:


> You've completely misread Goblin's post.
> 
> Why don't you read it again.


Yes, my bad. It makes sense now I have read it again.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> An animal shelter can be held legally responsible if they re-home a dog after having cleared it as 'safe' to be re-homed and the liability can be substantial, 6 or 7 figures.


 Not quite that straight forward. 
In this country, rescues can assume responsibility for a dog being held at a pound/shelter. We pulled a great dane being held a the local pound who had been assessed as aggressive. He was tested and he climbed up the assess a hand and went for the human holding it. The shelter would not give him to us as individuals, but allowed us to take him as volunteers for MAGDRL a breed specific rescue. The shelter gave full disclosure of the dog's assessment, and MAGDRL assumed responsibility for the dog, we signed several documents to that nature. 
Good lawyers can protect well-run rescues 
I wish you would watch the video I posted about the Vicktory dogs, it explains the liability issue also.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> That just about sums up the blinkered attitude you've displayed throughout.
> 
> An animal shelter can be held legally responsible if they re-home a dog after having cleared it as 'safe' to be re-homed and the liability can be substantial, 6 or 7 figures.


Yes it has since the drivil has yet to be backed up by you.I have never ever ever in my entirety of 45 years ever seen a shelter afraid of an animal.As for your sued bit of drivel a shelter here cant get sued for something like that unless something goes so absolutely terribly wrong and even then there is a slim to none chance money changes hands so again howdy do and i know nothing so i should bow down and get on my knees to the all powerful knows everything Knightofalbion and kiss your feet since you are always so right........Pffffff


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I think you will find that the majority of people that hunt have a deep knowledge and understanding of animals and would bring their children up to feel the same. Of course there will be exceptions, just as there are pet owners that abuse their animals.


Hunters/shooters are putting enormous pressure on already struggling wildlife populations, Blitz, right across the globe. In this country many hunters use commercial shoots & driven grouse shoots where predators are not tolerated, any creature that threatens game is ruthlessly eradicated. Driven grouse shoots have almost wiped out our hen harrier. People with this mentality don't understand animals, they have no understanding of even basic ecology & wildlife population dynamics. They see animals that threaten the target species as 'vermin'. Commercial shoots, driven grouse shoots are a catastrophe for wildlife. We have hunters in this country shooting amber & red listed species. All waders are in serious decline but they are still fair game to the shooting fraternity. The snipe has declined by 89% in 25yrs, the woodcock is red listed its population is in free fall yet I've seen people on this very forum boast about shooting woodcock.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

TehSnoipah said:


> Look up "Cooking Mama Kills Animals". It's a PETA game that contains footage of abuse.
> *As for hunting-I'm not bringing that into thi*s.


Surprise, surprise lol


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Fine, I'll bring hunting into this. You asked for it.Isn't the aim of hunting to reduce the amount of threatening predators?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

TehSnoipah said:


> Fine, I'll bring hunting into this. You asked for it.Isn't the aim of hunting to reduce the amount of threatening predators?


No. The aim of hunting is to provide entertainment for those who enjoy killing animals. Foxes are a threat to nobody.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

TehSnoipah said:


> Fine, I'll bring hunting into this. You asked for it.Isn't the aim of hunting to reduce the amount of threatening predators?


'Threatening predators'? Most predators don't need their populations controlling. Although this is the sort of ignorance many hunters use to justify killing them.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> 'Threatening predators'? Most predators don't need their populations controlling. Although this is the sort of ignorance many hunters use to justify killing them.


Judging by what titles you have under your profile picture, I can tell that we're not going to get on. Let's just leave the topic of hunting alone.


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

TehSnoipah said:


> Isn't the aim of hunting to reduce the amount of threatening predators?


No.
There is no need to kill "threatening predators" in fact it has been shown that removing apex predators is the worst thing you can do environmentally. 
I have a friend who will only eat meat if it is game she has shot herself and knows it was killed humanely. That I have no problem with.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

TehSnoipah said:


> Judging by what titles you have under your profile picture, I can tell that we're not going to get on. Let's just leave the topic of hunting alone.


Why? its relevant to thread, Peta are strongly against hunting. http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/cruel-sports/hunting/ Peta might teach you something


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

TehSnoipah said:


> Judging by what titles you have under your profile picture, I can tell that we're not going to get on. Let's just leave the topic of hunting alone.


I'm afraid you can't control or dictate what is discussed on any thread.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Sweety said:


> I'm afraid you can't control or dictate what is discussed on any thread.


No, I mean that I'm not going to discuss hunting here. Anyone else can feel free to talk about hunting here. I'm not bothered.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

TehSnoipah said:


> Anyone else can feel free to talk about hunting here.


Oh tar. I went on my first hunting trip today and as a result shot my very first rabbit.

Like shooting fish in a barrel really.

Except this fish was in its hutch.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Zaros said:


> Oh tar. I went on my first hunting trip today and as a result shot my very first rabbit.
> 
> Like shooting fish in a barrel really.
> 
> Except this fish was in its hutch.


I'm confused. You shot a rabbit that was in a hutch?


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

Zaros said:


> Oh tar. I went on my first hunting trip today and as a result shot my very first rabbit.
> 
> Like shooting fish in a barrel really.
> 
> Except this fish was in its hutch.


:Facepalm


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Zaros said:


> Oh tar. I went on my first hunting trip today and as a result shot my very first rabbit.
> 
> Like shooting fish in a barrel really.
> 
> Except this fish was in its hutch.


I too have been hunting today Zaros and I was most successful Daaaahling.

I bagged a plumptious chicken, which is now roasting in the oven. Very convenient too ........... it was in my local Butcher's shop.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Can you qualify this statement? Can you back it up with evidence? Which shelters? Where? In communities where pit bulls are banned? Or shelters in communities where pit bulls are still legal?
> 
> Are you reading any of the links I post? I just told you that we transport dogs to shelters in the northeast because they don't have enough dogs for the demand. This is happening throughout the country.
> 
> ...


That's not what I'm saying. 800,000 Pit Bulls PTS every year and only 1 in 600 getting adopted.
The proof of the pudding and all that. What's the latest figure - year or part year? Have these measures made any difference? I'm not trying to score points, I'm asking.
Nobody wants to see healthy dogs be PTS, but until the problem of oversupply is solved, that is going to be the consequence. People get emotive and understandably so but without following that path every animal shelter would soon be filled to capacity, unable to take in new arrivals, but still requiring to pay for food and medicine. They'd go bust.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

TehSnoipah said:


> I'm confused. You shot a rabbit that was in a hutch?


Did too. Sitting duck it was. Except hunting ducks is out of season at this time of the year. This is probably due to the fact that the majority of lakes, ponds and rivers are frozen over and they've nowhere to sit until the big thaw.



Sweety said:


> I too have been hunting today Zaros and *I was most successful Daaaahling.*


Got a 'link' with that Zsa Zsa? And are you having a leg?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)




----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> That's not what I'm saying. 800,000 Pit Bulls PTS every year and only 1 in 600 getting adopted.
> The proof of the pudding and all that. What's the latest figure - year or part year? Have these measures made any difference? I'm not trying to score points, I'm asking.
> Nobody wants to see healthy dogs be PTS, but until the problem of oversupply is solved, that is going to be the consequence. People get emotive and understandably so but without following that path every animal shelter would soon be filled to capacity, unable to take in new arrivals, but still requiring to pay for food and medicine. They'd go bust.


Please read the links I've shared...
Please back up your figures with non PeTA evidence....


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Rott lover said:


> Yes it has since the drivil has yet to be backed up by you.I have never ever ever in my entirety of 45 years ever seen a shelter afraid of an animal.As for your sued bit of drivel a shelter here cant get sued for something like that unless something goes so absolutely terribly wrong and even then there is a slim to none chance money changes hands so again howdy do and i know nothing so i should bow down and get on my knees to the all powerful knows everything Knightofalbion and kiss your feet since you are always so right........Pffffff


Dignified and mature.

Educate yourself
http://www.animals24-7.org/2015/05/...vocate-as-community-dogs-program-coordinator/


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> View attachment 260144


Love it


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Please read the links I've shared...
> Please back up your figures with non PeTA evidence....


No mention of Pit Bulls ...

And read this
http://www.animals24-7.org/2015/11/17/why-we-cannot-adopt-our-way-out-of-shelter-killing/


----------



## speug (Nov 1, 2011)

I used to teach at a posh prep school and there were a few pupils who would list deer stalking as one of their hobbies. Helped keep the numbers down and they usually ate the venison so don't see a problem with it. A couple of them also kept chickens for the eggs and would happily eat them when they were too old to lay. I don't have a problem with anybody hunting as long as it's for food - sometimes go fishing myself even though I can't eat fish as I know enough people who do and would appreciate fresh fish. Knowing where your food comes from and how it lived is fine by me. Some of the things PETA campaign for are good but I disagree with too many of their ideals to support them in any way.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Please read the links I've shared...
> Please back up your figures with non PeTA evidence....


hmmm apparently i am uneducated but i can still figure this one out.I like it


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> No mention of Pit Bulls ...


Because it includes all dogs - put bulls are dogs 

Seriously, there is no point in having this conversation if you're not going to read anything that refutes your pre-conceived notions about how we can improve adoption rates and reduce euthanasia. It's like you ask a question, I go to reply, and you stick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalalalala I can't hear you" and then tell me I'm not answering the question.

Either you want to figure out how to stop killing shelter dogs or you don't. I've explained how NoKill works. I've explained how it is already successful in communities throughout the US, I've explained how laws that PeTA supports contribute to the shelter crisis instead of remedy it.

I'll ask again, please read the links I have shared. The answers are there.


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

ouesi said:


> Because it includes all dogs - put bulls are dogs
> 
> Seriously, there is no point in having this conversation if you're not going to read anything that refutes your pre-conceived notions about how we can improve adoption rates and reduce euthanasia. It's like you ask a question, I go to reply, and you stick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalalalala I can't hear you" and then tell me I'm not answering the question.
> 
> ...



I am sorry can you repeat the answer,I mean question


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> And read this
> http://www.animals24-7.org/2015/11/17/why-we-cannot-adopt-our-way-out-of-shelter-killing/


This I've already answered in this post from Best Friends on what NoKill means:
http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2013/07/19/the-no-kill-deniers/

No-kill means achieving a community-wide status where animals are not killed as a method of population control or to make space for other animals. Rather the number of animals entering a given system is reduced through economically targeted free and low-cost spay/neuter services, shelter surrender intervention programs, adoption follow-up programs, and progressive community cat programs. At the same time, the number of animals leaving the system is maximized through high-volume adoption strategies, collaboration with rescue partners, and the transfer of animals to agencies in communities with a complementary high demand for the types of animals likely to be killed in the system - for example, small dogs from Southern California shelters who are snapped up in other cities where small dogs are not common in shelters or rescues and are otherwise only available from breeders or pet stores. The idea that there simply aren't enough homes for them all is outdated. According to Maddie's Fund, 17 million Americans who want to adopt a companion animal into their home each year are undecided about where their next pet will come from. With an estimated 4 million animals dying in shelters, the math is pretty simple: If just a fraction of those 17 million could easily access and chose to adopt a shelter pet, the nation would indeed be no-kill.
A no-kill community must include the open-admission municipal shelter(s). And, while there may be any number of small or large limited-admission shelters, their collective responsibility is to help ensure that the community's open-admission shelter has the resources and partners to not resort to killing for space. Many open-admission shelters support no-kill and commit to working collaboratively with others in the community in order to achieve it.
No-kill does not mean that animals who are irremediably suffering from injury, disease or age-related infirmities are denied the deliverance of legitimately employed euthanasia. The same applies for animals who are too dangerously aggressive to be safely adopted to the public and for which no safe and humane management option exists.
No-kill does not foster hoarding. Hoarding is a mental disorder that pre-dates the no-kill movement. Perhaps one contributing factor to hoarding is the carnage that takes place in high-kill shelters that motivates individuals with a hoarding mentality to gather up as many animals as possible rather than see them killed in a shelter.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

speug said:


> I used to teach at a posh prep school and there were a few pupils who would list deer stalking as one of their hobbies. Helped keep the numbers down and they usually ate the venison so don't see a problem with it. A couple of them also kept chickens for the eggs and would happily eat them when they were too old to lay. I don't have a problem with anybody hunting as long as it's for food - sometimes go fishing myself even though I can't eat fish as I know enough people who do and would appreciate fresh fish. Knowing where your food comes from and how it lived is fine by me. Some of the things PETA campaign for are good but I disagree with too many of their ideals to support them in any way.


That made me laugh. First of all I read it wrong and thought you said you used to EAT at a posh prep school. Then I imagined the pupils deer stalking and getting shot to keep their numbers down. I know posh schools have different standards but letting out the pupils to be shot strikes me as a bit ott!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Did you read the link?


Yes but that isn't universal. If it was you wouldn't have so many pitbulls.



> The fact that you even question my definition of breeding ethics regarding this unregistered, exploited/over populated, and highly abused breed certainly speaks more about your ethics.


So, dogs which are brought into this world, healthy, found great homes are not ethical whereas dogs which are bred to fulfill looks and are genetically ill to maintain a specific "breed" are. An average pitbull is likely to have a longer, more healthy life than say a bulldog. Says more about your ethics than mine. It's not a matter of ethics, it's breed snobbery. Your comment about abused breed is certainly true. Then again, if it wasn't pitbulls, what would happen, which breed would be next or do you think dog abusers would just give up? No, they'd move to another breed. Singling out a breed isn't going to work and it doesn't. No dog should be abused, that is the message. Dog fighting should be stopped, not dog fighting involving pitbulls. On one hand you say you don't agree with BSL yet you argue and agree with the idea when PETA are pushing for it as "it's justified". Which is it?



> It is education I want, I dont think they can make an informed decision kept in the dark & blissfully unaware what happens to the animals we eat. However I'd personally rather children weren't indoctrinated into a passtime of killing animals as it does tends to desensitise them. I think its wrong to risk them losing their empathy.


So, children in amazon tribes, grown up in a hunting environment have no empathy. Good to know how narrow your viewpoint is. Personally I think they are more in tune and have more empathy for their surroundings and the world around them. I'd prefer children to learn the truth, good and bad, rather than be shown images designed to shock and panic, providing only a one sided viewpoint to achieve a personal goal. That's not educating, that's indoctrinating.


Knightofalbion said:


> Remove the aggression that causes some of them to attack people.


Pitbulls are no more aggressive than many other breeds. Less aggressive to people than golden retrievers. That's scientific fact and has been proven through studies accepted in courts.



ouesi said:


> The county north of us achieved NoKill two years ago, and this county is in the process of making the same changes to also achieve NoKill.
> This is how it looks nation wide:
> http://www.maddiesfund.org/no-kill-progress.htm


Germany is officially NoKill and officially does not have a rescue or stray dog problem unlike countries such as the UK. It didn't create that situation by killing dogs to "save them".


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

TehSnoipah said:


> Alsatians are not 'known as Rotties'. Rotties are Rottweilers. Who told you that incorrect info?


Alsations as stated are known as German Shepherd Dogs. One of the reasons I think for the name change in the UK was to shed the poor image. I've heard that originally the name Alsation was used as having "German" dogs was not acceptable during and after WWII but not sure how true that is.

You may find it interesting from a German Court case where the government ruling on BSL was overturned for Lower Saxony:

The chief justice raised the question of German Shepherds. He asked the government witness, how why the GSD was not on the banned list, with over 25,000 of them in Lower Saxony and a high incident of bites, but the single Tosa Inu registered was on the list.

The gov. replied the GSD has been around a long time and the people are comfortable with them and accept the accidents that happen. So the judge said, 'So...it is like the Masai tribesmen in Africa...one is not really a man until he fights a lion. The same as in Germany, you have not gone from boyhood to manhood, unless you are bitten by a German Shepherd.'
Everyone was laughing.....except the gov. witness. He looked confused and said, 'Uh, excuse me Your Honor, but I am afraid I don't understand what you are asking me'.

All dogs can bite, singling out types and making scapegoats doesn't work.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Educate yourself
> http://www.animals24-7.org/2015/05/...vocate-as-community-dogs-program-coordinator/


So where are the references for the statistics? Where are the comparisons for other breeds rehomed? It's not uncommon in the states to simply sue with no chance of actually winning in the hope of an out of court settlement which can actually work out cheaper than lawyer fees for the accused. I can post newpaper articles showing bloodhounds as child killers. How about a pomeranian, could do that. Why, when all dogs could be.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Yes but that isn't universal. If it was you wouldn't have so many pitbulls.
> 
> So, dogs which are brought into this world, healthy, found great homes are not ethical whereas dogs which are bred to fulfill looks and are genetically ill to maintain a specific "breed" are. An average pitbull is likely to have a longer, more healthy life than say a bulldog. Says more about your ethics than mine. It's not a matter of ethics, it's breed snobbery. Your comment about abused breed is certainly true. Then again, if it wasn't pitbulls, what would happen, which breed would be next or do you think dog abusers would just give up? No, they'd move to another breed. Singling out a breed isn't going to work and it doesn't. No dog should be abused, that is the message. Dog fighting should be stopped, not dog fighting involving pitbulls. On one hand you say you don't agree with BSL yet you argue and agree with the idea when PETA are pushing for it as "it's justified". Which is it?
> 
> ...


A breed snob? Because I don't support BYBs? Imo only the most unscrupulous breeder would breed a breed to supply an already oversaturated market, one that could fall into the hands of dogfighting psychopaths. Pit bulls generally have large litters - how can any breeder be 100% certain a puppy they bred will never be used for fighting?. Because I love dogs so much there is no way I would breed from a pit bull, not for a trillion £££. How anyone could be so selfish to breed them is beyond me. Yet again you twist my words? I DO NOT support BSL. What I actually said was people should be educated not to buy a puppy from a pit bull breeder. See above why. I'd be really surprised if anyone else on this thread disagreed with me on that.

No I'm not saying children in amazon tribes have no empathy. You're very good at jumping to the wrong conclusion & misinterpreting posts lol. Indigenous people hunt to survive they respect all the creatures, EVEN predators! Its because they live in harmony with nature they are known as guardians of the rainforest.. How on earth you can't seem to differentiate between these amazing peoples and the shooters of the ilk I was talking about is absolutely astonishing.

I do know pit bulls are one of the most trustworthy breeds. I think they are lovely dogs.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Alsations as stated are known as German Shepherd Dogs. One of the reasons I think for the name change in the UK was to shed the poor image. I've heard that originally the name Alsation was used as having "German" dogs was not acceptable during and after WWII but not sure how true that is.
> 
> You may find it interesting from a German Court case where the government ruling on BSL was overturned for Lower Saxony:
> 
> ...


I knew all along that Alsatians are known as German shepherds. I said that Rotties are not the same thing. Did you even read my post?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> A breed snob? Because I don't support BYBs? Imo only the most unscrupulous breeder would breed a breed to supply an already oversaturated market, one that could fall into the hands of dogfighting psychopaths.


Wait, a dog may be abused.. kill them all just in case. Ignore the fact another dog will simply be used in it's place. Your definition of BYB is different to mine. Mine doesn't include breeders looking after their dog's health and temperament. Who spends time looking for decent homes and is prepared to take dogs back throughout their lives.



> how can any breeder be 100% certain a puppy they bred will never be used for fighting?.


How can any breeder be certain their dogs will be looked after well? There is no difference between a pitbull and any other breed. Put it is perspective. I don't agree that bulldogs should not be bred. I believe that decent breeders should be encouraged to breed for health and recover the bulldog breed from the pitiful state it is currently in. There will always be a reason to say "stop X breed" if you want to find it.



> How anyone could be so selfish to breed them is beyond me. I DO NOT support BSL.


Two mutually exclusive views. You are targetting a specific breed due to prejudice and therefore supporting the idea of breed specific legislation in doing so. The difference you want to make is it's not due to the reputation of pitbulls. Doesn't change the fact that you are being breed specific which is wrong.



> No I'm not saying children in amazon tribes have no empathy. You're very good at jumping to the wrong conclusion & misinterpreting posts lol. Indigenous people hunt to survive they respect all the creatures, EVEN predators! Its because they live in harmony with nature they are known as guardians of the rainforest.. How on earth you can't seem to differentiate between these amazing peoples and the shooters of the ilk I was talking about is absolutely astonishing.


I'm not misinterpreting your posts. I'm giving examples demonstrating how your views are biased and limited. Not all hunters are mindless killers, even gun toting americans. That is an assumption and generalisation. Indoctrination isn't the answer, education including teaching respect is. Harder in a lot of ways but more effective.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> A breed snob? Because I don't support BYBs? Imo only the most unscrupulous breeder would breed a breed to supply an already oversaturated market, one that could fall into the hands of dogfighting psychopaths. Pit bulls generally have large litters - how can any breeder be 100% certain a puppy they bred will never be used for fighting?. Because I love dogs so much there is no way I would breed from a pit bull, not for a trillion £££. How anyone could be so selfish to breed them is beyond me. Yet again you twist my words? I DO NOT support BSL. What I actually said was people should be educated not to buy a puppy from a pit bull breeder. See above why. I'd be really surprised if anyone else on this thread disagreed with me on that.
> 
> No I'm not saying children in amazon tribes have no empathy. You're very good at jumping to the wrong conclusion & misinterpreting posts lol. Indigenous people hunt to survive they respect all the creatures, EVEN predators! Its because they live in harmony with nature they are known as guardians of the rainforest.. How on earth you can't seem to differentiate between these amazing peoples and the shooters of the ilk I was talking about is absolutely astonishing.
> 
> I do know pit bulls are one of the most trustworthy breeds. I think they are lovely dogs.


What about bufflalos (or was it bison)


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> A breed snob? Because I don't support BYBs? Imo only the most unscrupulous breeder would breed a breed to supply an already oversaturated market, one that could fall into the hands of dogfighting psychopaths. Pit bulls generally have large litters - how can any breeder be 100% certain a puppy they bred will never be used for fighting?. Because I love dogs so much there is no way I would breed from a pit bull, not for a trillion £££. How anyone could be so selfish to breed them is beyond me. Yet again you twist my words? I DO NOT support BSL. What I actually said was people should be educated not to buy a puppy from a pit bull breeder. See above why. I'd be really surprised if anyone else on this thread disagreed with me on that.


*Hesitantly puts my hand up*
I disagree that no one should be breeding pit bulls.
We desperately need good pit bull breeders who are trying to preserve the breed, the breed's true temperament, and who are breeding responsibly and advocating for the breed. If the responsible breeders stop breeding the great dogs, the ambassadors for their breed, all we'll be left with is the messes, and the breed is lost. 
The way you make sure your puppies never fall in to the hands of dog fighters is by drawing up super strict buyer contracts with the help of lawyers who specialize in this area, you microchip the puppies in your name before they go to their new home, and you keep up with the progeny for the life of the dog. 
A friend of mine has a lovely, well bred pit bull bitch who she ended up with after the breeder repossessed the dog because the owner broke the contract. The breeder was able to repossess the dog because of the strength of his contract and because he made sure to keep up with where the dog was and what was going on with her.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

I'm asking you! 

The Pit Bull figures were:

800,000 PTS every year

Only one in 600 shelter Pit Bulls adopted.

What are they now? How effective is your plan?


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> I'm asking you!
> 
> The Pit Bull figures were:
> 
> ...


If this is directed at me, I have answered already many times in several shared links.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Let's see. As you seem to want to push for, many shelters are not legally allowed to rehome "pitbulls" leaving no choice but to put them down. Is it any wonder that affects numbers. Also where do you get that figure from? Maybe you should look at something called Pitbulls and Parolees. A pitbull specific recue which deals with prejudice like yours on a regular basis. Or watch the film, Beyond the Myth which shows PETA seems to be the only "animal" organisation which approves of the indescrimate killing of pitbulls simply as they are pitbulls. Even animal control officers complain about the practice being forced to kill pitbulls out of hand when they could be rehomed. That is facts, you just don't want to admit any numbers you come up with, even if true are due to policies you are pushing for, not due to lack of demand for rehoming pitbulls.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> This I've already answered in this post from Best Friends on what NoKill means:
> http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2013/07/19/the-no-kill-deniers/
> 
> No-kill means achieving a community-wide status where animals are not killed as a method of population control or to make space for other animals. Rather the number of animals entering a given system is reduced through economically targeted free and low-cost spay/neuter services, shelter surrender intervention programs, adoption follow-up programs, and progressive community cat programs. At the same time, the number of animals leaving the system is maximized through high-volume adoption strategies, collaboration with rescue partners, and the transfer of animals to agencies in communities with a complementary high demand for the types of animals likely to be killed in the system - for example, small dogs from Southern California shelters who are snapped up in other cities where small dogs are not common in shelters or rescues and are otherwise only available from breeders or pet stores. The idea that there simply aren't enough homes for them all is outdated. According to Maddie's Fund, 17 million Americans who want to adopt a companion animal into their home each year are undecided about where their next pet will come from. With an estimated 4 million animals dying in shelters, the math is pretty simple: If just a fraction of those 17 million could easily access and chose to adopt a shelter pet, the nation would indeed be no-kill.
> ...


You said it No Kill does not mean no kill. No kill shelters commit their share of euthanasia.

This is from the SPCA Norfolk website. Plenty of ifs, buts and maybes
http://www.norfolkspca.com/no_kill.html

And you asked for figures. Well here they are. This is the online website of The Virginian Pilot, which is the local newspaper for the Hampton Roads area.
You'll notice the number of cats and dogs euthanized in the area - over 91,000. Which straight away puts PETA's figures into perspective.

Also notice the paragraph on Norfolk SPCA. Full, turning animals away, selective in who they take in. 
The 'others' get washed up on someone else's doorstep to do the necessary - and take the flak for it.

http://www.pilotonline.com/opinion/...cle-1b236863-bb22-5759-b72f-1474e70dc9e3.html


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Let's see. As you seem to want to push for, many shelters are not legally allowed to rehome "pitbulls" leaving no choice but to put them down. Is it any wonder that affects numbers. Also where do you get that figure from? Maybe you should look at something called Pitbulls and Parolees. A pitbull specific recue which deals with prejudice like yours on a regular basis. Or watch the film, Beyond the Myth which shows PETA seems to be the only "animal" organisation which approves of the indescrimate killing of pitbulls simply as they are pitbulls. Even animal control officers complain about the practice being forced to kill pitbulls out of hand when they could be rehomed. That is facts, you just don't want to admit any numbers you come up with, even if true are due to policies you are pushing for, not due to lack of demand for rehoming pitbulls.


It's not 'facts'. The only facts are only 1 in every 600 Pit Bulls in animal shelters will ever find a happy home. That's nothing to do with me, nothing to do with PETA, nothing to do with with Obama, whoever.
There's no market for them. Or at least - and this is the problem - not at that level.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Your reference is written by.. editorial opinion, probably written by PETA themselves, hence why it's listed as opinion, not facts.

Obviously, when you see people travelling across multiple states to adopt a pitbull it's that nobody wants to adopt them.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Let's see. As you seem to want to push for, many shelters are not legally allowed to rehome "pitbulls" leaving no choice but to put them down. Is it any wonder that affects numbers. Also where do you get that figure from? Maybe you should look at something called Pitbulls and Parolees. A pitbull specific recue which deals with prejudice like yours on a regular basis. Or watch the film, Beyond the Myth which shows PETA seems to be the only "animal" organisation which approves of the indescrimate killing of pitbulls simply as they are pitbulls. Even animal control officers complain about the practice being forced to kill pitbulls out of hand when they could be rehomed. That is facts, you just don't want to admit any numbers you come up with, even if true are due to policies you are pushing for, not due to lack of demand for rehoming pitbulls.


But why are pit bulls illegal in UK? It's so sad.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> If this is directed at me, I have answered already many times in several shared links.


I've obviously missed it in the mass of posts. Write it down for me if you please.
Though I already checked it myself.
The pro-Pit Bull Facebook page puts it at a least a million and the even more biased Real Pit Bull website puts it at 1.25 million. So according to them it has gone up, not down.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Your reference is written by.. editorial opinion, probably written by PETA themselves, hence why it's listed as opinion, not facts.
> 
> Obviously, when you see people travelling across multiple states to adopt a pitbull it's that nobody wants to adopt them.


That's 'editorial' as written by the editor (of the newspaper)


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

TehSnoipah said:


> But why are pit bulls illegal in UK? It's so sad.


Pitbulls are illegal in the UK because politicians needed to be seen to be doing something after a dog attack. They decided to simply use a scapegoat, example several breeds they could classify as "dangerous". Since they've been banned, dog bite numbers have gone up, not down.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> No kill shelters commit their share of euthanasia.


Not at a rate of 88%

The editorial you linked is arguing the same points that I explained in my post that you quoted. NoKill is a COMMUNITY endeavor that includes all the things that are being said in that editorial you linked. 
Did you read the whole post before you chose to argue against it?

I still would like to know where you get your 1 in every 600 pit bulls figure from - do you have any sources that are not PeTA backed?


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> Write it down for me if you please.


Are you kidding me?! 
I've written it down for you and anyone who wants to see now a ridiculous number of times on this thread - even I'm sick of myself at this point! 
I'm not sure what is the point of me writing things down for you not to read them.

Look. You agree with PeTA's stance on pit bulls and mass euthanasia of unwanted cats and dogs. Fine.
I don't. I have explained my reasons clearly and backed them up with evidence. That's really all I can do. If you choose not to see or hear or read anything that I am saying, I'm not going to force you.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Since they've been banned, dog bite numbers have gone up, not down.


As they have in several US communities as well.

Breed bans do not work, they are expensive to implement, they do not benefit dogs, they do not benefit humans, and they do not keep either safe.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> That's 'editorial' as written by the editor (of the newspaper)


Not necesarily, can be written by others. It is meant to represent the official viewpoint of the paper in question which is why it's listed only as opinion rather than actually being fact. I obviously believe everything in the Sunday Sport as well, it's written down, must be true.






​
Let's look at BSL and the record.. Spain, study in journal of veterinary Behaviour (2007) showed the Dangerous Animals Act (2000) had no impact on reducing dog related injuries. Italy 2009 abolished breed specific regulations as according to Italy's undersecretary "Dangerous breeds do not exist".

UK, Defra confirmed public sentiment overwhelmingly favors repeal of the UK's breed-specific law. 88% stated it doesn't protect the public, 71% called for a repeal.

Netherlands, 2009 repeal of nationwide ban on pitbulls after study showed it didn't work. Education for adults and children on proper interaction with dogs was implemented instead.

US: Denver has a higher rate of hospitalisations for dog bites than Boulder which has no breed specific legislation. Denver is half the size.

So BSL doesn't work and is recognised not to work. It's people like PETA which constantly push the stereotype of pitbulls being only associated with ruffians and dog fighters. They claim to "save the dogs" you must kill them, it's kinder even though the policies they support rip family dogs away from their families. Twisted logic at the best of times as the owners who have pitbulls for the wrong reason will simply move to a different dog breed. Unless PETA of course want to simply get rid of all dogs in the long run.. you know that first they targetted pitbulls, next they targetted the rottie..

Here you have Kinghtofalbion whose only argument for supporting BSL is stating how X amount of pitbulls are killed each year. Yet PETA pushes for pitbulls to be killed and not to be allowed to be rehomed. In fact this policy is in place in several parts of the states. The fact these policies are in place are then used as "proof" pitbulls are "not wanted" as rehoming numbers are low. If you don't allow rehoming, is it any wonder dogs aren't rehomed?


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

Goblin said:


> In fact this policy is in place in several parts of the states. The fact these policies are in place are then used as "proof" pitbulls are "not wanted" as rehoming numbers are low. If you don't allow rehoming, is it any wonder dogs aren't rehomed?


It is at the very least disingenuous isn't it?
First, perpetuate stereotypes about pit bulls, make a huge fuss about the Michael Vick dogs, argue in court that they're ticking time bombs and rehabilitating them is not in the cards.
Support breed bans, include made up facts about how "dangerous" these dogs are.
Then get policies passed that forbid shelters from adopting out any dog who remotely looks like a pit bull.

Now when no one is able to adopt a pit bull because of either bans or shelter policies, make the claim that no one want to adopt pit bulls and therefore they should all be euthanized.

Yeah... That about sums it up....

PeTA says that pit bulls should be killed instead of adopted out because there is a chance that someone with bad intentions might adopt that dog.
It's a better off dead philosophy.
It's a sick and twisted philosophy IMO. Kill the abused to prevent them being abused. In any other context is sounds exactly as sick as it is.

Instead of pushing for pit bulls to be killed, why not push for catching and prosecuting the dog fighters to the fullest extent of the law? Don't punish the abused, punish the abusers.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Not at a rate of 88%
> 
> The editorial you linked is arguing the same points that I explained in my post that you quoted. NoKill is a COMMUNITY endeavor that includes all the things that are being said in that editorial you linked.
> Did you read the whole post before you chose to argue against it?
> ...


Did you?! Full to capacity, a waiting list just to be considered for admission, selection, charging fees ... and still euthanizing though not promoting the fact. And passing the buck to other shelters and agencies on all the other animals they can't or don't want to take.
I'm not saying it couldn't work, it could, but not at these numbers.

I can see your passion, but you're fighting their corner and you don't even know the basic facts?
The PB euthanasia figure is edging up not down - and yes, only 1 in 600 PBs get adopted.
This is a blatantly pro-Pit Bull website, telling it as it is; acknowledging that oversupply is the core problem and - respect to them - putting their actions and their money where there mouth is.
http://www.baltimorebullycrew.com


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> It is at the very least disingenuous isn't it?
> First, perpetuate stereotypes about pit bulls, make a huge fuss about the Michael Vick dogs, argue in court that they're ticking time bombs and rehabilitating them is not in the cards.
> Support breed bans, include made up facts about how "dangerous" these dogs are.
> Then get policies passed that forbid shelters from adopting out any dog who remotely looks like a pit bull.
> ...


More nonsense! Blame PETA for this, blame PETA for that.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Vicks case was in 2007.
The number of Pit Bulls euthanised by animal shelters in the USA in 2006 - 967,300

New York Mayor Edward first sought to ban Pit Bulls back in 1987. Denver introduced the first Pit Bull ban in 1989.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

PS: As a result of the ban Denver is one of the few US cities that have had no fatal dog attacks in the last 20 years.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> PS: As a result of the ban Denver is one of the few US cities that have had no fatal dog attacks in the last 20 years.


No, Denver is not unusual in having no fatal dog attacks because dog bites that result in death are exceedingly rare anyway.
Actually Denver's rate of hospitalization for dog bites is higher than neighboring Aurora where there is not a pit bull ban in place.



> *PLEASE NOTE -- DOG BITE FATALITIES ARE HIGHLY UNUSUAL*. Incidents of dog bite fatalities by ANY breed are very rare. There are approximately 15 to 20 dog bite fatalities in the United States a year, and that's out of the 65 million dogs that Americans keep as pets.
> Janis Bradley, dog bite researcher and the author of 'Dogs Bite: But Balloons and Slippers Are More Dangerous,' states, "Dogs can be dangerous. And they are more dangerous to children than adults. Not as dangerous, of course, as kitchen utensils, drapery cords, five-gallon buckets, horses or cows. Not nearly as dangerous as playground equipment, swimming pools, skateboards, or bikes. And not remotely as dangerous as family, friends, guns, or cars.
> 
> A child is more likely to die choking on a marble or balloon, and an adult is more likely to die in a bedroom slipper related accident. Your chances of being killed by a dog are roughly one in 18 million. You are five times more likely to be killed by a bolt of lightening."
> ...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> PS: As a result of the ban Denver is one of the few US cities that have had no fatal dog attacks in the last 20 years.


Really, from 1994-1999 39 children were admitted to the Children's Pediactric Denver Hospital for injuries associated with dog bites. In 1998, one of the children died. None of these were caused by pitbulls. 31 of these attacks never appeared in any media, something you could guarantee would happen if a pitbull was involved. The authorities have never discussed banning the breeds of dogs concerned.

Portland Oregon is a similar size to Denver. In 1986 it enacted its "Potentially Dangerous Dog Ordinance". This allows animal control to identify a dog as dangerous according to it's behaviour, not breed. It has not had any human fatalities from dogs of any breed since 1986.

Despite having a breed ban, from 2005-2007, the city of Denver killed 1,667 "pit bulls" dogs. Many of these confiscated and killed, taken when they were family companions residing peacefully in their homes.

Information from the national canine research council.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Lets have a quick look at the UK.. Very quick search.. In April 2012, 2 month old Aiden McGrew killed by golden retriever. In November 2012, newborn baby killed by a jack russell. Another death of a new born in 2014 caused by an Alaskan Malamute. Maybe if the focus wasn't on "dangerous breeds", pretending others are safe and the money spent persecuting owners of breeds which may look dangerous was actually spent on education, tragedies such as these could be avoided.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Goblin said:


> Pitbulls are illegal in the UK because politicians needed to be seen to be doing something after a dog attack. They decided to simply use a scapegoat, example several breeds they could classify as "dangerous". Since they've been banned, dog bite numbers have gone up, not down.


I wouldn't be surprised if SBT's are banned soon as well. The amount of stories on the news about staffie attacks are unbelievably high. It's the uneducated owners' fault, not the dog's.


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

TehSnoipah said:


> The amount of stories on the news about staffie attacks are unbelievably high.


Whenever you get information it's best to evaluate that information for the credibility of the source, the context, the purpose of the person sharing that info... You know, good old fact checking 'n all 

Here is the thing. 
a) Most reporters are not very good at dog breed identification. Just because the headline reads "staffy attack" doesn't actually mean it was. 









b) Media bias is also real. There are tons of news stories about dog bites with the standard stock photo of a sneezing staffy even if the breed involved wasn't remotely any sort of bull-breed.
c) Numbers skew the stats. When the most common breed out there is a staffy or staffy mix, that increases the odds that any dog you encounter will be a staffy or staffy mix, and given that most dogs you encounter are of that breed, that also increases the odds that a bad encounter will involve that breed. 
d) Dog bites by any breed are actually quite rare. News sources make them seem like they aren't because the same incident gets reported and shared many times making it seem like many incidents, but the reality is, dogs in general are not the huge danger they are made out to be and certain breeds are not either.

I can't imagine the UK will manage to get any more BSL laws passed, they are ineffective, expensive to implement, and they just flat don't work to keep humans or dogs safe. 
But IDK, I never thought Trump would make it this far either....


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Whenever you get information it's best to evaluate that information for the credibility of the source, the context, the purpose of the person sharing that info... You know, good old fact checking 'n all
> 
> Here is the thing.
> a) Most reporters are not very good at dog breed identification. Just because the headline reads "staffy attack" doesn't actually mean it was.
> ...


You are correct. I hope that SBT's stay legal, they are wonderful dogs.
But...what does the man DT have to do with this?


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2016)

TehSnoipah said:


> You are correct. I hope that SBT's stay legal, they are wonderful dogs.
> But...what does the man DT have to do with this?


Nothing other than my own powers of clairvoyance 
I was saying I can't imagine the UK would ban staffies as it wouldn't make much sense, but I could be wrong as I also couldn't imagine Donald Trump having made it as far as he has in his bid for US president 'cause that sure doesn't make sense either. IOW, what do I know...


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> It's not 'facts'. The only facts are only 1 in every 600 Pit Bulls in animal shelters will ever find a happy home. That's nothing to do with me, nothing to do with PETA, nothing to do with with Obama, whoever.
> *There's no market for them.* Or at least - and this is the problem - not at that level.


There's no market for them. OK, let's assume you are correct in that. So now the question is: WHY is there no market for them at this point in time?

Is it because they are more inherently vicious and dangerous, despite for many years having the reputation as an ideal family pet because they were so great tempered with all the family?

Or is it because the abuse of SOME of them by SOME evil people as fighting dogs has led to the demonising of the abused as well as the abusers, until you have the mad situation where anything 'bull' like can't fart in a public park without the risk of provoking a media panic and mass denunciation of the breed as a psychotic menace and not a breed for 'nice' people, yet the majority of actual dog bite incidents result from other breeds (and never make the press)?

I found this article interesting  http://pets.webmd.com/dogs/features/pit-bulls-safety

Although I will agree with you that PETA aren't specifically targetting Pit Bulls by supporting breed specific legislation breeding them, as they freely admit they would support breeding ban legislation against ANY breed from Great Dane to Chihuahua should the opportunity arise.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Wait, a dog may be abused.. kill them all just in case. Ignore the fact another dog will simply be used in it's place. Your definition of BYB is different to mine. Mine doesn't include breeders looking after their dog's health and temperament. Who spends time looking for decent homes and is prepared to take dogs back throughout their lives.
> 
> How can any breeder be certain their dogs will be looked after well? There is no difference between a pitbull and any other breed.
> 
> ...


Nothing in life is certain. But pits are perhaps_ the _most abused breed type, so the risk for them is greater. This is the fate pits face if they fall into the wrong hands! http://www.pbrsd.com/resources/fighting.htm And this is what this rescue thinks about breeding pits_ - . There is absolutely no logical reason why people are still breeding these poor dogs_

I'm not prejudice against any breed, but its a fact that there is a massive welfare crisis in this breed. We have a similar welfare crisis with staffies in this country & I'm strongly opposed to breeding staffy types too. I believe potential puppy owners should be educated not to support these breeders either. And I think you'll find most people involved in welfare advise people not to buy puppies from breeders who use unregistered dogs as well. This goes for most breed welfare organisations I suspect. It does tend to be the obvious sign of a BYB.

Wow you actually have gone & done it again lol You are misiterpreting my posts. I have never said all hunters are mindless killers. I know some hunters don't hunt for sport only for the pot & have respect for other lifeforms including the species many hunters see as 'vermin'. I knew someone like this myself. But it was Blitz who said 'the majority' of hunters have a deep knowledge & understanding of animals. I disagree, because if that were the case hunting wouldn't be one of the contributing factors for the decline of many species How many hunters do you know oppose destructive commercial shoots and driven grouse shoots?. How many hunters shoot foxes and other predators falsely claiming predator populations NEED 'managing'?



Blitz said:


> What about bufflalos (or was it bison)


It wasn't the indigenous people of America that decimated the north American Bison herds, it was white hunters, they almost wiped them off the face of the earth. Before they came along the bison population was in the region of 30 million.



ouesi said:


> *Hesitantly puts my hand up*
> I disagree that no one should be breeding pit bulls.
> We desperately need good pit bull breeders who are trying to preserve the breed, the breed's true temperament, and who are breeding responsibly and advocating for the breed. If the responsible breeders stop breeding the great dogs, the ambassadors for their breed, all we'll be left with is the messes, and the breed is lost.
> The way you make sure your puppies never fall in to the hands of dog fighters is by drawing up super strict buyer contracts with the help of lawyers who specialize in this area, you microchip the puppies in your name before they go to their new home, and you keep up with the progeny for the life of the dog.
> A friend of mine has a lovely, well bred pit bull bitch who she ended up with after the breeder repossessed the dog because the owner broke the contract. The breeder was able to repossess the dog because of the strength of his contract and because he made sure to keep up with where the dog was and what was going on with her.


lol don't be shy.

I am a little surprised by your views, but thank you for expressing them all the same. There is the AKC registered Amstaff but Pit bulls are a type not a breed. In the UK we have a similar dreadful welfare crisis with unregistered staffy/staffy types. Imo, no matter how water tight the contract or how well bred they may be, especially when rescues are full to bursting, its highly irresponsible to breed these as well. There use to be a very ethical Stafford breeder on this forum & I remember her saying even some of the best breeders in the show world had stopped breeding because they were so horrified by the crisis & they weren't even the ones contributing to it. Even with the best contract in place it isn't always possible to keep up with the progeny for their entire lives. Pits like staffs tend to have large litters, its not always easy finding perfect homes for every puppy & the more puppies you breed the more difficult it becomes to keep trace of each individual.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Nothing in life is certain. But pits are perhaps_ the _most abused breed type, so the risk for them is greater.


So, to stop hunting the solution would be to only ban AK47's (okay bad example rifle, don't know guns)? Do you really think the people who abuse pitbulls would simply stop.. incredible.



> I'm not prejudice against any breed, but its a fact that there is a massive welfare crisis in this breed. We have a similar welfare crisis with staffies in this country & I'm strongly opposed to breeding staffy types too. I believe potential puppy owners should be educated not to support these breeders either. And I think you'll find most people involved in welfare advise people not to buy puppies from breeders who use unregistered dogs as well. This goes for most breed welfare organisations I suspect. It does tend to be the obvious sign of a BYB.


Again, you don't tackle the abuse at all, you simply move it. Define unregistered, you mean closed registries for only a few pure bred breeds? A lot of people are actually happy with healthy mutt. So you have now banned pitbulls, staffies, while you are at it, we can ban bulldogs, pugs, boxers, cavalier king charles all due to ill health (same logic) and many more.. shall we go on or should we actually tackle the issue at hand and solve it through education and by changing what the public is prepared to accept? Hell we may as well ban dogs as that would solve the problem. Wait.. they'd move onto cats.. ban them. PETA's wish to "free" pets fulfilled.



> Wow you actually have gone & done it again lol You are misiterpreting my posts.


No, you've indicated your viewpoint. I've pointed out your viewpoint is wrong. You want to force policy for everyone taking the worst case as norm as using it as the sole reasoning.



> It wasn't the indigenous people of America that decimated the north American Bison herds, it was white hunters, they almost wiped them off the face of the earth. Before they came along the bison population was in the region of 30 million


Really.. check your facts. Wasn't unknown for the indigeneous americans to slaughter thousands of bison by driving them off cliffs and leaving the majority of them dead and rotting. Romanticised viewpoints are not necessarily true. Now, if they had the weapons who knows what the result would be. There was a reason for them being nomadic.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Nothing in life is certain. But pits are perhaps_ the _most abused breed type, so the risk for them is greater. This is the fate pits face if they fall into the wrong hands! http://www.pbrsd.com/resources/fighting.htm And this is what this rescue thinks about breeding pits_ - . There is absolutely no logical reason why people are still breeding these poor dogs_
> 
> I'm not prejudice against any breed, but its a fact that there is a massive welfare crisis in this breed. We have a similar welfare crisis with staffies in this country & I'm strongly opposed to breeding staffy types too. I believe potential puppy owners should be educated not to support these breeders either. And I think you'll find most people involved in welfare advise people not to buy puppies from breeders who use unregistered dogs as well. This goes for most breed welfare organisations I suspect. It does tend to be the obvious sign of a BYB.
> 
> ...


You are correct there. I think hunting is fine when the animal is shot and killed quickly by a hunter who is going to use it to feed his family. I'm sure the animal would rather die quickly by getting shot, rather than getting ripped to shreds by a predator, right?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> There's no market for them. OK, let's assume you are correct in that. So now the question is: WHY is there no market for them at this point in time?
> 
> Is it because they are more inherently vicious and dangerous, despite for many years having the reputation as an ideal family pet because they were so great tempered with all the family?
> 
> ...


 Milllons get bitten by dogs, getting bitten by an APB is a different matter because of its strength it can cause more severe injuries and there are a disproportionate number of fatal dog attacks by PBs. So obviously the press report these incidences, really because shock news sells papers.
The back wash of that is criminal elements desire the breed and families seeking a dog choose another breed.

As I keep saying there's an oversupply of PBs and an undersupply of people willing to adopt PBs. Until that is addressed the terrible number of PBs PTS, with only one in 600 finding a home, is going to continue

And addressing the adoption problem in general by saying X number of people don't have a dog, therefore get Y number to take one and the problem will be solved is naive. 
It doesn't work like that. The X don't have a dog for multiple reasons i.e. they don't want one; they don't like dogs; they live on the 15th floor!; they live in rented accommodation and the landlord doesn't allow pets; they're at work 8 - 6; they have an active social life/like to travel ... 
On top of that in an economic downturn people dump pets and adoption numbers fall, because people can't afford to keep them, so the 'market' is hugely unpredictable.
Add to the mix the damage a fatal PB attack report and any plan, no matter how well intended, goes off the rails.

Having researched the matter, fatal PB attacks are very largely generational. So criminal and irresponsible owners and breeders at fault certainly. 
I'm also wondering what part unsuitable owners and environment play? i.e. not enough space and interaction.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> There is the AKC registered Amstaff but Pit bulls are a type not a breed.


The American Pit Bull Terrier is very much a breed with a registry and standard just like any other breed:
http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/Terrier/AmericanPitBullTerrier

Though I very much agree with you that what most people mean by a pit bull and what breed bans target is a type of dog, not a breed. A "type" under which my own mutt of unknown origin would fall.



Knightofalbion said:


> Milllons get bitten by dogs, getting bitten by an APB is a different matter because of its strength it can cause more severe injuries and there are a disproportionate number of fatal dog attacks by PBs.





Knightofalbion said:


> Add to the mix the damage a fatal PB attack report and any plan, no matter how well intended, goes off the rails.


Please stop spreading misinformation and propaganda.

Pit bulls do not have the potential to cause any more damage when they bite than any other dog of their size. Bite damage has much to do with the dog's bite inhibition and general tolerance than size anyway. I've been bitten by both a toy breed and a great dane, both dogs very much meant to bite me and make a point. The toy dog did more damage.









More info:
http://www.westword.com/news/3-497-dead-dogs-and-other-numbers-from-denvers-pit-bull-ban-5834767
http://nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com/uploaded_files/tinymce/Denver_fnl[1].pdf


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> Milllons get bitten by dogs, getting bitten by an APB is a different matter because of its strength it can cause more severe injuries and there are a disproportionate number of fatal dog attacks by PBs.


Do you even check the facts before posting such drivel?

PB aren't even the top breed when it comes to jaw strength...As for the disproportionate number....Yes, yes there is if you only go by the good old daily "rags" but in reality it isn't even close...
@ouesi pointed out to you why some breeds appear more in the press, well done for ignoring bits that don't fit in with your agenda 

I wasn't going to comment in this thread because I am tired of my own voice on this subject when it comes to certain members...but I could not let that ridiculously inaccurate comment go, especially when it has been explained to you over and over again from someone that has actual knowledge of the subject.

:Stop

ETA: woops, Ouesi got there first lol


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

TehSnoipah said:


> You are correct. I hope that SBT's stay legal, they are wonderful dogs.


It's all confusing though isn't it? SBT's are clearly Pit Bull types if you read the description in the dangerous dogs act. So aren't they subject to the same restrictions as any other Pit Bull type. There's no exemption for pure bred Staffys is there? (I agree they are just lovely dogs.)


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> As I keep saying there's an oversupply of PBs and an undersupply of people willing to adopt PBs. Until that is addressed the terrible number of PBs PTS, with only one in 600 finding a home, is going to continue


Simple question. You support a policy where pitbulls are not allowed to be rehomed which is implemented in a lot of places. How are you expecting them find a home if shelters are forbidden to rehome them?



> Having researched the matter, fatal PB attacks are very largely generational. So criminal and irresponsible owners and breeders at fault certainly.
> I'm also wondering what part unsuitable owners and environment play? i.e. not enough space and interaction.


Please post this fabulous research. I'm fascinated by your conclusions, especially the way you are pushing criminals as one of the main causes now. Things like dogs being chained up outside does play a part, that's education though and applies to all breeds. Any education about dogs and dog bite avoidance is applicable to all breeds. Dog breed plays no role in effective dog bite prevention.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> Simple question. You support a policy where pitbulls are not allowed to be rehomed which is implemented in a lot of places. How are you expecting them find a home if shelters are forbidden to rehome them?
> 
> Please post this fabulous research. I'm fascinated by your conclusions, especially the way you are pushing criminals as one of the main causes now. Things like dogs being chained up outside does play a part, that's education though and applies to all breeds. Any education about dogs and dog bite avoidance is applicable to all breeds. Dog breed plays no role in effective dog bite prevention.


Here is the data. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

As you'll see Pit Bull kills are almost exclusively generational i.e. within the last few decades.
That could be of course due to numbers, I don't have the data on Pit Bull numbers in the 50s and pre-war.
I don't think there is any dispute that the Pit Bull is the dog of choice for criminal & hoodlum elements and the sheer number of new births each year are testament to irresponsible breeders.

All well and good to sound off, and try and pin the blame on others, but the fact of the matter is Pit Bulls have been getting euthanised on a massive scale for the last 30 years and in the preceding years in significant numbers. 
Depending on whose figures you believe between 800,000 and a million a year.

Now if only one in 600 ever get adopted and the other 599 destroyed, doesn't it make a lot more sense to just breed the one you can find a home for? And in the hands of responsible breeders, I'm assuming there is an accredited breeder's association, rebuild the what you might call honour and credibility - and understanding - of the breed?
So, a moratorium on breeding to the above ends, yes, that seems to me like a route out of the current maelstrom.
The alternative is a continuation of the status quo and I don't think that serves anyone.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Please stop spreading misinformation and propaganda.
> 
> Pit bulls do not have the potential to cause any more damage when they bite than any other dog of their size. Bite damage has much to do with the dog's bite inhibition and general tolerance than size anyway. I've been bitten by both a toy breed and a great dane, both dogs very much meant to bite me and make a point. The toy dog did more damage.
> 
> ...


Well, as the old saying goes "Even toothless dogs can bite"

Mind you I've yet to hear of a chihuahua or Lhasa Apso killing a child or leaving it needing a thousand stitches,so I'll take all that with a pinch of salt


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2016)

Knightofalbion said:


> Well, as the old saying goes "Even toothless dogs can bite"
> 
> Mind you I've yet to hear of a chihuahua or Lhasa Apso killing a child or leaving it needing a thousand stitches,so I'll take all that with a pinch of salt


So you really believe that a dog's breed determines how dangerous or safe they are?

I guess I'm back to what I said earlier. @Knightofalbion I'm not interested in changing your opinion, I'm interested in putting accurate, factual information from credible, verifiable sources out there. And when misinformation is shared I will correct it. That's all.

If it doesn't change your views, it doesn't change your views, but anyone reading this thread (god bless 'em) will at least have accurate information to look to as well


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> Well, as the old saying goes "Even toothless dogs can bite"
> 
> *Mind you I've yet to hear of a chihuahua or Lhasa Apso killing a child or leaving it needing a thousand stitches,so I'll take all that with a pinch of salt*


I've stayed well away from this thread - for the record, I cannot stand Peta. I will never donate to them but this comment is grossly inaccurate.

http://amarillo.com/stories/100900/usn_pet.shtml#.VqTm8NDJvjA

The link above details an attack, and subsequent death of a 6 week old child by a Pomeranian. When we used to travel I personally witnessed a 6 month old Labrador removing the bottom lip of a child.

There is no place within this society for dangerous dogs. Period. No matter the breed.

ETA - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-baby-died-bitten-terrier-dog-Sunderland.html - child is killed by a small terrier.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/savage-shih-tzu-mauls-child-20111221-1p69w.html

- child had surgery due to attack by Shih Tzu.


----------



## Pappychi (Aug 12, 2015)

And there is more!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-injuries-Labrador-savages-Poole-Harbour.html - child injured by a Labrador, the traditional 'family pet'.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/17/nation/na-maul17 - dachshund attacks child.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DACHSHUNDS+KILL+MONTH-OLD+TOT+IN+JEALOUS+RAGE.-a061124133 - dachshund kills child.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...park-springer-spaniel-tore-lip-bit-cheek.html - child is attacked by a Springer Spaniel.

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/study-chihuahuas-bite-vets-most-lhaso-apsos-inflict-worst-injuries - a study which I found most interesting - Labradors deliver the highest % of bites on children - almost *DOUBLE* the amount than a Pit Bull. Regarding Chihuahuas, they are responsible for 4.2% of bites on children according to this study.

Lhasa Apso are also mentioned as being responsible for some of the more severe attacks.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Ohhhh you get your "facts" from Wiki...
You should have said, it would have saved me bothering to comment...what I find sad is the complete and utter stubbornness to even see the real facts when posted by people in the know!
It is people such as yourself that keep these poor dogs in the "devil" dog status, and it is views such as this that puts dogs at risk of being killed for nothing more than how many boxes they tick :Rage


----------



## Rott lover (Jan 2, 2015)

And everyone wonders why I gave up on this thread


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2016)

Paulo Coelho is a wise man and he says "the world is changed by your example, not your opinion."

Here are my examples:










Both unwanted rescued dogs. 
Both dogs labeled unadoptable because of "aggression". Both with a history of having killed other animals. Both dogs that PeTA and it's supporters say are better off dead. I happen to disagree.

Tell me it is right to euthanize dogs just because of someone else's uninformed opinion based on myths and propaganda. 
Tell me these two dogs would be better off dead than having the chance to live in our home.

This is my example of not only doing something but showing others what can be done.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Love Bates


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Paulo Coelho is a wise man and he says "the world is changed by your example, not your opinion."
> 
> Here are my examples:
> 
> ...


Unrelated to the topic (Cba to waste my breath) but your video with bates playing in the stream and the moment your son (?) is using bates to help steady himself while they walk together along the stream, I found quite touching.

Living up to the claim of "gentle giant" if you ask me


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Here is the data


Still waiting for the answer to the question. Do you think the fact that shelters are not allowed to rehome pitbulls could be a reason pitbulls are not rehomed and killed? Can you not see any connection?



> As you'll see Pit Bull kills are almost exclusively generational i.e. within the last few decades.


Did you actually read the source of the data. Mostly media reports which have been shown to be sensationalist and not a good source of breed identification. What is more important, isn't the breed, it's the circumstances involved which is normally common across dog bites relating to all breeds.



> So, a moratorium on breeding to the above ends, yes, that seems to me like a route out of the current maelstrom. The alternative is a continuation of the status quo and I don't think that serves anyone.


No the alternative is not to focus on breed at all and actually work towards a culture change where all dogs are treated properly and people, especially children are educated using facts not hysteria and myths.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2016)

stuaz said:


> Unrelated to the topic (Cba to waste my breath) but your video with bates playing in the stream and the moment your son (?) is using bates to help steady himself while they walk together along the stream, I found quite touching.
> 
> Living up to the claim of "gentle giant" if you ask me


Aw thank you @stuaz 
That's actually Lunar who passed a few years ago. The black dog in the first video is Bates - who is classed "of type" by many breed ban standards.

Lunar was our Dane boy who came to us a right mess from the local pound. He was never put up for adoption, he was old, sick with heart worms, aggressive, had been running feral for a long time, and very wary of humans. Honestly our only intention initially was to just give him a few warm meals and let him know human kindness before having him PTS. 
But he wasn't ready to go quite yet, and he ended up having 4 wonderful years with us, even passed the therapy dog test. A true testament to dogs' resilience and power of forgiveness. 
And yes, he always adored the kids, from the very first day, they were the only ones he didn't flinch from.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

I think it is wonderful that the odd dog can be rehomed to the correct home that can turn them round. I do not though think that such dogs should be kept alive for months and years just in case that rare home turns up.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2016)

Blitz said:


> I think it is wonderful that the odd dog can be rehomed to the correct home that can turn them round. I do not though think that such dogs should be kept alive for months and years just in case that rare home turns up.


I totally agree, as I said, we really thought we were just going to give Lunar a few days of happiness before PTS. 
But nor is the answer mass euthanasia, especially not for the perfectly healthy, stable, uncomplicated dogs that are also euthanized en masse for no other reason than what they look like. 
There are a lot of things shelters can do (and are doing) to raise adoption rates and lots of things communities can do to reduce the number of dogs being given up or ending up homeless. Combine those things and you end up with no kill communities - as in 90% adoption rate, some dogs will have to be euthanized for health or behavior reasons.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Aw thank you @stuaz
> That's actually Lunar who passed a few years ago. The black dog in the first video is Bates - who is classed "of type" by many breed ban standards.
> 
> Lunar was our Dane boy who came to us a right mess from the local pound. He was never put up for adoption, he was old, sick with heart worms, aggressive, had been running feral for a long time, and very wary of humans. Honestly our only intention initially was to just give him a few warm meals and let him know human kindness before having him PTS.
> ...


A true testament indeed, not just for Lunar though, but for you and your family. Just goes to show that sometimes a bit of love and compassion can help change a life. (I sound like a hallmark greeting card now!).


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> The American Pit Bull Terrier is very much a breed with a registry and standard just like any other breed:
> http://www.ukcdogs.com/Web.nsf/Breeds/Terrier/AmericanPitBullTerrier
> 
> Though I very much agree with you that what most people mean by a pit bull and what breed bans target is a type of dog, not a breed. A "type" under which my own mutt ofdf


I didn't realise that & I had never heard of the registry, so I'll take your word that its a reputable one.

Can I ask you then, how do you feel about people breeding unregistered pit types? Do you believe, like I do, that potential puppy buyers should be educated to steer clear of them?



Goblin said:


> So, to stop hunting the solution would be to only ban AK47's (okay bad example rifle, don't know guns)? Do you really think the people who abuse pitbulls would simply stop.. incredible..


You sound just like the NRA:Hilarious





Goblin said:


> Again, you don't tackle the abuse at all, you simply move it. Define unregistered, you mean closed registries for only a few pure bred breeds? A lot of people are actually happy with healthy mutt. So you have now banned pitbulls, staffies, while you are at it, we can ban bulldogs, pugs, boxers, cavalier king charles all due to ill health (same logic) and many more.. shall we go on or should we actually tackle the issue at hand and solve it through education and by changing what the public is prepared to accept? Hell we may as well ban dogs as that would solve the problem. Wait.. they'd move onto cats.. ban them. PETA's wish to "free" pets fulfilled..


OMG, you just can't stop yourself, can you? Where have I said they should be banned?? Show me. Because you'll be looking for a hell of a long time! I have never ever said ban any breed. I actually DID say EDUCATE potential owners not to support people who breed pits and staffy types. You just make things up as you go along.

Heres what I actually said (in response to one of your posts lol ) word for word -


_ I happen to LOVE pit bulls, and I have already said I don't agree with BSL. I think there needs to be a big drive towards educating people never to buy a pit bull puppy from a breeder as there are NO ethical breeders of pit bulls. I agree with Peta on that._




Goblin said:


> No, you've indicated your viewpoint. I've pointed out your viewpoint is wrong. You want to force policy for everyone taking the worst case as norm as using it as the sole reasoning. .


Obviously you are misinterpreting my posts (see above for latest)




Goblin said:


> Really.. check your facts. Wasn't unknown for the indigeneous to slaughter thousands of bison by driving them off cliffs and leaving the majority of them dead and rotting. Romanticised viewpoints are not necessarily true. Now, if they had the weapons who knows what the result would be. There was a reason for them being nomadic. .


However primitive their method of killing may appear, respect for the natural world was ingrained in the whole of Native American culture! Your wild theory that had they had guns they may have disconnected with nature is just that - a wild, unfounded theory.



TehSnoipah said:


> You are correct there. I think hunting is fine when the animal is shot and killed quickly by a hunter who is going to use it to feed his family. I'm sure the animal would rather die quickly by getting shot, rather than getting ripped to shreds by a predator, right?


I'm sure farmed animals would rather not be killed for their meat either lol

You don't seem to care very much for predators or have very much understanding of nature. Human hunters kill indiscriminately or worse still they deliberately target the biggest, strongest animals. In nature the strongest, fittest animals generally survive to pass on the strongest genes. Predators generally target the weak, sick, old. A healthy population of predators is vital for a healthy, fully functioning ecosystem. In nature all things are connected. And apex predators, such as wolves, are ecosystem engineers. They create trophic cascades - they _give_ life  Can I ask you to watch this video by my environmental hero, George Monbiot? I think it might just change your mind about predators & the natural world in general. All species are important, they all have their role to play in nature.


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Can I ask you then, how do you feel about people breeding unregistered pit types? Do you believe, like I do, that potential puppy buyers should be educated to steer clear of them?


I feel about irresponsible breeding of pit bulls the same way I feel about irresponsible breeding of any dog - it shouldn't be done, and puppy buyers should not be supporting it by lining the pockets of unethical/irresponsible breeders. 
So yes, of course I feel puppy buyers should be educated to steer clear of these breeders. 
I don't think PeTA should be the one doing the educating though. PeTA still spreads way too many lies about pit bulls, calling them as deadly as weapons, unpredictable, misrepresenting pit bull related bite statistics, etc.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> You sound just like the NRA:Hilarious


That's a joke. Peta wants to ban pitbulls, a breed specific legislation which you support unless it's named as such when you don't. I highlight breed specific legislation is like removing one type of rifle from the hunting fraternity and then I'm like the NRA. You don't handle animal cruelty by targetting one breed. You don't handle gun control by removing one gun. You handle the issues by controlling all dogs and controlling all gun types.



> OMG, you just can't stop yourself, can you? Where have I said they should be banned?? Show me. Because you'll be looking for a hell of a long time! I have never ever said ban any breed. I actually DID say EDUCATE potential owners not to support people who breed pits and staffy types. You just make things up as you go along.


You are supporting the stance of PETA which is to ban the breed. You cannot support that position and say it's not related. Most of the rest of us are supporting controls across all breeds, targetting none specifically as all dogs are equal. A registry would be great if one existed, an organisation looking out and lobbying for laws to prevent abuse and raise standards. There are none that deal with all dogs equally.



> However primitive their method of killing may appear, respect for the natural world was ingrained in the whole of Native American culture! Your wild theory that had they had guns they may have disconnected with nature is just that - a wild, unfounded theory.


Romanticism, not fact but you've ignored that scientific and archealogical evidence regarding that before. They polluted the environment, overhunted etc. It's population numbers and technology level which made a difference. Now tribes in the amazon, or the inuit are actually better examples. They don't have the "shamanism" romanticism attached though.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

;Sorry clicked the wrong button & dont know how to delete. I will reply later.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> I feel about irresponsible breeding of pit bulls the same way I feel about irresponsible breeding of any dog - it shouldn't be done, and puppy buyers should not be supporting it by lining the pockets of unethical/irresponsible breeders.
> So yes, of course I feel puppy buyers should be educated to steer clear of these breeders.
> I don't think PeTA should be the one doing the educating though. PeTA still spreads way too many lies about pit bulls, calling them as deadly as weapons, unpredictable, misrepresenting pit bull related bite statistics, etc.


Then we feel the same about these breeders and breeders in general. I don't agree with breeding any species of animal to supply the pet trade. Exploiting animals purely for profit has never sat right with me, as I have said countless times on this forum.



Goblin said:


> That's a joke. Peta wants to ban pitbulls, a breed specific legislation which you support unless it's named as such when you don't. I highlight breed specific legislation is like removing one type of rifle from the hunting fraternity and then I'm like the NRA. You don't handle animal cruelty by targetting one breed. You don't handle gun control by removing one gun. You handle the issues by controlling all dogs and controlling all gun types.
> 
> You are supporting the stance of PETA which is to ban the breed. You cannot support that position and say it's not related. Most of the rest of us are supporting controls across all breeds, targetting none specifically as all dogs are equal. A registry would be great if one existed, an organisation looking out and lobbying for laws to prevent abuse and raise standards. There are none that deal with all dogs equally.
> 
> Romanticism, not fact but you've ignored that scientific and archealogical evidence regarding that before. They polluted the environment, overhunted etc. It's population numbers and technology level which made a difference. Now tribes in the amazon, or the inuit are actually better examples. They don't have the "shamanism" romanticism attached though.


You are wilfully misiterpreting what I said, Ive seen you do this a lot & not just to me. I'm not peta, I have my own views, I DO NOT support PETAs stance on BSL. So let me reiterate for you one more time so you are absolutely clear. As I keep saying I do not agree with everything they do or say - I answered the question on the opening post honestly - PETA have done a lot of good for animals - millions of them!. But I DO NOT agree with BSL. I DO agree with educating people NOT to buy pits - on this point I DO agree with peta. Are we clear now? Or are you going to carry on with the spin? If you are going to keep dishonestly taking what I mean out of context thats your prerogative. I'm not going to keep spelling it out for you over & over & over again

Taken from a link KOA posted. A pit bull rescue, people who genuinely, unselfishly care for these poor dogs & I totally agree with them.

*BBC works to inform the public of the truth there are not bad dogs, just bad owners! Education and awareness is a must if the bully breeds are to have half a chance of survival. Only 1 in every 600 pit bulls in shelters and rescue groups will find a home, the other 599 don't. With staggering numbers like that, why breed? Spay and neuter your dogs right away, no excuse not to. We just try to do our part in helping the most misunderstood and abused breed. FIGHT ABUSE NOT DOGS!*

http://www.baltimorebullycrew.com/

You've always made it clear you support breeders of, well, basically anything. Pit types & staffie types, it matters not to you that rescues are full to bursting with them. How anyone can support people who selfishly breed for ££ is beyond me.

Not romanticised at all, I accept some tribes sometimes had a negative impact on their environment. But it was the colonialism by European settlers & successive US Govts that ravaged the environment. They brought about the demise of not only the bison but the indigenous peoples themselves! The First Nations didn't embrace colonialism, it was forced upon them. Their lands were stolen, resources plundered, they were subjugated and they were murdered in their millions. In fact the Native Americans suffered the greatest holocaust in human history! Your statement that it was population & technology contradicts these facts; early mesolithic hunter gatherers (low population/primitive weapons) are believed to have brought about the extinction of the continents megafauna. The care with which many Native Americans engaged with their environment appears to have come later. But they quite clearly did engage with 'mother earth' & many still do today because even now its Native Americans & other indigenous peoples at the forefront in the battle to save our planet from being destroyed by capitalist greed.

This is relevant. Leonardo Di Caprio's speech at the Golden Globes as he pays respect to the First Nations & Indigenous peoples across the world. He urges us to stand with them to protect their lands from corporate interests & urges us to listen to their voice to protect this planet for future generations.






Taken from the Assembly of First Nations. http://www.afn.ca/en/about-afn/national-congress-of-american-indians

Declaration of kinship and Cooperation among the Indigenous Peoples and Nations of North America
We, the people knowing that the Creator placed us here on Mother Earth as sovereign nations and seeking to live in peace, freedom and prosperity with all humanity in accordance with our own traditional laws are united in our sacred relationship with the land, air, water and resources of our ancestral territories. We are bound by common origin and history, aspiration and experience, and we are brothers and sisters, leaders and warriors of our nations.

We, the Assembly of First Nations and the National Congress of American Indians meeting in joint assembly as the largest convocation of indigenous leadership in North America in the 20th century, make the following declaration:

From time immemorial, the lands that are now known as Canada and the United States of America have been and continue to be the sacred home of Indigenous Peoples and Nations;

While our Indigenous Peoples and Nations have distinct identities, cultures, languages and traditions, we have also been guided by many common purposes and beliefs, which have been shaped by many common experiences;

We have all retained the inherent right to self-determination. In shaping our own destinies we will remain faithful to the time honored traditions of our ancestors and we will work to secure the greatest possible freedom, dignity and prosperity for our descendents;

We have all known ourselves as people who live in harmony with our environment and cherish and protect our traditional homelands;


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I DO NOT support PETAs stance on BSL. So let me reiterate for you one more time so you are absolutely clear. As I keep saying I do not agree with everything they do or say - I answered the question on the opening post honestly - PETA have done a lot of good for animals - millions of them!. But I DO NOT agree with BSL. I DO agree with educating people NOT to buy pits - on this point I DO agree with peta.


Yet by that very fact you are by singling out a specific breed agreeing with labelling and singling out breeds. The fundamental part of BSL in that it is breed specific. Singling out a single breed is wrong as I stated as people will just move breeds. If you single out breeds and the produce legislation on that, that is BSL. If you are educating, what is different about pitbulls, why not educate for all dogs?



> *BBC works to inform the public of the truth there are not bad dogs, just bad owners! Education and awareness is a must if the bully breeds are to have half a chance of survival. Only 1 in every 600 pit bulls in shelters and rescue groups will find a home, the other 599 don't. With staggering numbers like that, why breed? Spay and neuter your dogs right away, no excuse not to. We just try to do our part in helping the most misunderstood and abused breed. FIGHT ABUSE NOT DOGS!*


Spay and neuter your dogs, fine.. just not only pitbulls. Nothing should be breed/type specific. Also, as mentioned, with so many states etc having a policy not allowing shelters to rehome pitbulls (policy supported and pushed by PETA), what is the true number of pitbulls which could find a home? When people can't get a pitbull from a shelter and want one, what alternative other than a breeder is there?



> You've always made it clear you support breeders of, well, basically anything. Pit types & staffie types, it matters not to you that rescues are full to bursting with them. How anyone can support people who selfishly breed for ££ is beyond me.


Interesting you seem to immediately equate "all dogs" are equal, to only breeding for ££. You are correct, I see no differrence between a pedigree and mongrel. They have both equal value in terms of being a living being. Both are frequently bred selfishly, only not always simply for ££. You are right and I cannot understand it. How can anyone for example support a culture of breeding ignoring illness and not campaign against it? Yet people do. Even those not supporting the practice don't cry out for stopping the breeds or killing off the breed but, if they do anything, push for change and education.

Ban breeding pitbulls.. what type will be next, both in large numbers in rescues and the need to stop the breeding of them?



> The care with which many Native Americans engaged with their environment appears to have come later.


Let's make it clear to start with I do not condone the loss of rights or grounds for the native americans. When you lose something, unfortunately that is when you tend to realise the value of what you have lost. Quick question.. hunting eagles for eagle headress.. what's the difference between hunting for fur or for a trophy on a wall?



> This is relevant. Leonardo Di Caprio's speech at the Golden Globes as he pays respect to the First Nations & Indigenous peoples across the world. He urges us to stand with them to protect their lands from corporate interests & urges us to listen to their voice to protect this planet for future generations.


Not actually relevant when using an historical argument.



> We, the people knowing that the Creator placed us here on Mother Earth as sovereign nations and seeking to live in peace, freedom and prosperity with all humanity in accordance with our own traditional laws are united in our sacred relationship with the land, air, water and resources of our ancestral territories. We are bound by common origin and history, aspiration and experience, and we are brothers and sisters, leaders and warriors of our nations.


Evidence is not simply what people say, it's based on actions.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> inform the public of the truth there are not bad dogs, just bad owners!


I can't take anyone seriously once I see them say those words.

Although I agree about neutering (for the APO), but this should be for all dogs, not just a particular breed or type IMO.


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> I DO agree with educating people NOT to buy pits - on this point I DO agree with peta.


Not buying pits or not adopting a pit through any means?
PeTA is spreading lies and misinformation about pits in order to dissuade people from *owning* pit bulls. This includes not adopting healthy, temperamentally sound dogs from shelters.

This is Newkirk in her own words in an opinion piece she titled "Controlling an animal *as deadly as a weapon*." (Emphasis mine.)
_Most people have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any pit bull that comes through the front door doesn't go out the back door alive. From California to New York, *many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of "pits" they encounter.* This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover.

Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, *supports the shelters' pit-bull policy,* albeit with reluctance. We further encourage a ban on breeding pit bulls._
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openf...g-an-animal-as-deadly-as-a-weapon-2629558.php

The title itself is a lie and that lie is going to attract MORE unscrupulous people to the breed. No dog is a weapon.
And here in clear black and white (okay, blue and white), you see their support for a policy that means no pit bull will ever be adopted from shelters. Effectively condemning these animals to death for no reason other than they look a certain way. I just can't get over that....

The whole article is an interesting read on how the organization's leader really feels about these dogs (and it's not compassion I'm reading in her words).
She mentions her own scars from a pit bull, claiming this type of dog is unpredictable (not true, they are no different than any other type of dog).
I have scars from dogs, horses, and cats. My dog scar is from a toy breed. My sister has scars from a doberman bite, my mom had her hand mangled by a great pyr. None of us have ever felt the need to warn anyone off any of these breeds or seek to have them banned. Yet someone who is supposedly the epitome of compassion for animals seeks to have the breed who scarred her banned. Interesting.

She also brings up Nicholas Fabish as an example of how these dogs are dangerous. 
Let's be very clear. Nicholas Fabish died as a result of his caretaker's behavior. His mother left him at home with an intact male and female in heat. She was concerned enough about his safety around the dogs that she locked him in the basement when she left. He let himself out of the basement and was killed from bites inflicted by the dogs who remember were left loose in order for them to breed.

And not for nothing, 4 years earlier, Dianne Whipple was killed by 2 Presa Canarios in the presence of their owner who had them on leash and could not prevent them lunging and attacking Ms. Whipple. At the time of this tragedy, no one, not even PETA called for the banning of Presa Canarios or any other breed. 
So basically a dog who will kill a human while on leash in the presence of his owner is not a danger according to these people, but a dog who is left to breed with a 12 year old child thrown in the mix is. Anyone who knows even the most rudimentary information about dogs knows how ludicrous this is.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Yet by that very fact you are by singling out a specific breed agreeing with labelling and singling out breeds. The fundamental part of BSL in that it is breed specific. Singling out a single breed is wrong as I stated as people will just move breeds. If you single out breeds and the produce legislation on that, that is BSL. If you are educating, what is different about pitbulls, why not educate for all dogs?
> 
> Spay and neuter your dogs, fine.. just not only pitbulls. Nothing should be breed/type specific. Also, as mentioned, with so many states etc having a policy not allowing shelters to rehome pitbulls (policy supported and pushed by PETA), what is the true number of pitbulls which could find a home? When people can't get a pitbull from a shelter and want one, what alternative other than a breeder is there?
> 
> ...


You're just on a wind up:Hilarious E.D.U.C.A.T.E not ban. I do NOT support BSL full stop! I do not support BYBreeding of any breed/type/cross/species. And people who breed ANY species for money tick one of my criteria of what makes a BYB!

I'll throw a party the day there are no pit bulls - or staffies, or huskies in rescues. Even with a big education drive that day is unlikely to come anytime soon.

That you can ask me what the difference is between Indigenous peoples hunting an animal they revered & trophy hunters who kill for fun can only mean YOU believe there ARE comparisons to be made?



StormyThai said:


> I can't take anyone seriously once I see them say those words.
> 
> Although I agree about neutering (for the APO), but this should be for all dogs, not just a particular breed or type IMO.


They are saving the lives of these poor dogs, but you can't take them seriously because you don't agree with one statement. How sad is that.



ouesi said:


> Not buying pits or not adopting a pit through any means?
> .


I regularly try to raise awareness on twitter of pit bulls on death row desperately needing a home. If I were in the US & in a position to, I would consider rescuing one myself. My hubby has said the same when I've shown him the beautiful pits waiting to be euthanized, he wishes we could save them.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> You're just on a wind up:Hilarious E.D.U.C.A.T.E not ban. I do NOT support BSL full stop! I do not support BYBreeding of any breed/type/cross/species. And people who breed ANY species for money tick one of my criteria of what makes a BYB!


You want to educate and stop breeding of specific a type/breed as they are automatically BYB's. That is breed specific no matter how you try to talk around it.



noushka05 said:


> That you can ask me what the difference is between Indigenous peoples hunting an animal they revered & trophy hunters who kill for fun can only mean YOU believe there ARE comparisons to be made?


I'm just pointing out just one instance which demonstrates how they were no different from those you normally rail against. So, killing an animal is fine so long as you "revere" an animal. For me killing for a trophy to wear is still killing for a trophy and shouldn't be condoned or recommended. Doesn't matter if you "revere" the animal if you are not using the animal for anything but a trophy. I'm sure modern trophy hunters will tell you how much they revere the animals they kill. Whole point of having it as a trophy after all.



> They are saving the lives of these poor dogs, but you can't take them seriously because you don't agree with one statement. How sad is that.


Hardly a single statement but a statement backed up by ongoing policies and actions. What is sad is the excuses and leeway given to support such a group.



> I regularly try to raise awareness on twitter of pit bulls on death row desperately needing a home. If I were in the US & in a position to, I would consider rescuing one myself. My hubby has said the same when I've shown him the beautiful pits waiting to be euthanized, he wishes we could save them.


How about campaigning to stop the automatic slaughter of pitbulls placed in rescues due to policies pushed for by PETA instead of making excuses for them?


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> I regularly try to raise awareness on twitter of pit bulls on death row desperately needing a home. If I were in the US & in a position to, I would consider rescuing one myself. My hubby has said the same when I've shown him the beautiful pits waiting to be euthanized, he wishes we could save them.





Goblin said:


> How about campaigning to stop the automatic slaughter of pitbulls placed in rescues due to policies pushed for by PETA instead of making excuses for them?


This is a good summary of the general frustration with PeTA and their policies towards pit bulls. 
If you are trying to help pit bulls get adopted but at the same time supporting PeTA you're basically pissing in to the wind. 
PeTA very clearly does not want *anyone *to adopt or own pit bulls. 
It is in large part because of the policies PeTA advocates and supports that it is so difficult to get these dogs adopted and in to good homes.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> You want to educate and stop breeding of specific breeds as they are automatically BYB's. That is breed specific no matter how you try to talk around it.
> 
> I'm just pointing out just one instance which demonstrates how they were no different from those you normally rail against. So, killing an animal is fine so long as you "revere" an animal. For me killing for a trophy to wear is still killing for a trophy and shouldn't be condoned or recommended. Doesn't matter if you "revere" the animal if you are not using the animal for anything but a trophy. I'm sure modern trophy hunters will tell you how much they revere the animals they kill. Whole point of having it as a trophy after all.
> 
> ...


No I didn't say that at all lmfao. I said I want people educating to stop supporting BYBs . Feel free to twist away though. 

Again I never said anything was 'fine'. I may not like what Native Americans did to eagles but I accept that they believed the bird was sacred. They killed eagles as part of their beliefs, unlike trophy hunters they had no impact on eagle populations. Indigenous people were interconnected with nature. There is NO comparison between these people and trophy hunters. Trophy hunters are psychopathic. Even if they 'say' they revere' the animals they kill only an idiot would believe them! These morons must be well aware many species they hunt are are in massive decline. Trophy hunting is unsustainable. They take out the biggest, strongest specimens out of the gene pool. They bid in auctions to shoot particular animals. An animal that could either be in an enclosure or could be out in the wild but located by guides. Trophy hunters are a sick & destructive scourge on our planet - the exact polar opposite of indigenous tribes people. Rich people paying to kill animals for fun & you seek to tar Native Americans with the same brush How low can you go.

What are you talking about 'excuses' & 'leeway given' ?? Here are some of the pit bulls they have rescued https://www.facebook.com/FightAbuseNotDogs/photos_stream Rescues like this one have my FULL support.

I already do support anti BSL campaigns 



ouesi said:


> This is a good summary of the general frustration with PeTA and their policies towards pit bulls.
> If you are trying to help pit bulls get adopted but at the same time supporting PeTA you're basically pissing in to the wind.
> PeTA very clearly does not want *anyone *to adopt or own pit bulls.
> It is in large part because of the policies PeTA advocates and supports that it is so difficult to get these dogs adopted and in to good homes.


I don't agree with PETAs stance on BSL, so could never support them on it. However, I do agree with many of their campaigns. So I will continue to support Peta campaigns on these issues of animal abuse I feel strongly about. I signed this petition today http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/poll-support-bullfighting-spain-low/

And I'm pleased to have supported this campaign. Really great news 

Thanks to the more than 53,000 PETA, peta2, and PETA Latino members and supporters who urged GUESS to stop selling angora, *the company announced today that it will no longer sell angora*, which comes from rabbits who have their fur ripped out of their sensitive skin as they scream in pain or who are tethered or suspended in the air while they are aggressively sheared. We're pleased that GUESS made the compassionate decision to stop selling a product that causes rabbits a tremendous amount of pain, distress, and suffering. More than 110 retailers around the world, including Gap Inc., French Connection, H&M, and now GUESS, are angora-free.

http://www.peta.org/action/action-alerts/guess-stop-selling-angora-wool/?utm_campaign=0216 VICTORY GUESS to Ditch Angora Wool Tweet&utm_source=PETA Twitter&utm_medium=Promo

Personally I would support a campaign by those apostles of cruelty the 'Countryside Areliars' (Countryside Alliance) if they had a campaign to stop some animal abuse or other - and I despise this organisation with every fibre of my body.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> agree with PETAs stance on BSL, so could never support them on it. However, I do agree with many of their campaigns. So I will continue to support Peta campaigns on these issues of animal abuse I feel strongly about. I signed this petition today http://www.peta.org.uk/blog/poll-support-bullfighting-spain-low/


See, this is just more PETA spin if you ask me.

Do you know how many organizations have been working tirelessly for decades to end bullfighting? 
Stop our Shame (SOS)
Bullfighting free Europe, 
Humane Society International
World Animal Protection
Etc., etc...

I don't need to support an online petition from PETA to get something done about bullfighting. Nor do I give them any credit for having worked to end the suffering of bulls, and horses, and humans in this blood sport. They're just good at making themselves visible, let the "little people" do the grunt work, and then they swoop in and take the credit. 
No thanks. I'll go directly to those working in the trenches


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> No I didn't say that at all lmfao. I said I want people educating to stop supporting BYBs . Feel free to twist away though.


We'll let people who read your posts decide 



> How low can you go.


Well, excusing one group doing exactly the same as another group which you label as totally lacking in morality is something I call hypocritical. Think that's way lower than I am prepared to go. This isn't about sustainability, it's about the basic principle. Hunting for trophy = hunting for trophy, normally to prove worth, not because of religion. Romanticism has little place when talking facts.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> See, this is just more PETA spin if you ask me.
> 
> Do you know how many organizations have been working tirelessly for decades to end bullfighting?
> Stop our Shame (SOS)
> ...


Sorry not sure which bit you mean is peta spin? I cant see where PETA are taking credit for anything on the bullfighting link? They just say the IPSO MORI poll suggests bullfighting is on the way out. http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/636496/poll-shows-bullfighting-on-way-out And ask people to sign the petition to keep the pressure on Rayjoy

I'll sign anyones petition if its something I feel strongly about. As it happens we are long standing donors of World Animal Protection (or WSPA as it use to be called). But PETA are also very much in the trenches as you put it. They organise demonstrations, obtain undercover video footage of animal abuse - they are very proactive, this is indisputable. And the fact that insidious animal abusing industries see PETA (& HSI) as a threat to their profits shows just how effective PETA really are. Then they are the biggest AR organisation on the planet. They have a hell of a lot of members so a lot of clout.

IMO the more organisations the better uniting collectively behind a cause to exert pressure to help stop animal suffering the greater the hope of achieving a better life for those animals.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree where PETA is concerned lol



Goblin said:


> We'll let people who read your posts decide
> 
> Well, excusing one group doing exactly the same as another group which you label as totally lacking in morality is something I call hypocritical. Think that's way lower than I am prepared to go. This isn't about sustainability, it's about the basic principle. Hunting for trophy = hunting for trophy, normally to prove worth, not because of religion. Romanticism has little place when talking facts.


Yes let them see your deliberate misinterpretation. Heres what I said - six times I corrected you

_1) Yet again you twist my words? I DO NOT support BSL. What I actually said was people should be educated not to buy a puppy from a pit bull breeder. See above why. I'd be really surprised if anyone else on this thread disagreed with me on that.

2) I believe potential puppy owners should be educated not to support these breeders either. And I think you'll find most people involved in welfare advise people not to buy puppies from breeders who use unregistered dogs as well. This goes for most breed welfare organisations I suspect. It does tend to be the obvious sign of a BYB.

3) OMG, you just can't stop yourself, can you? Where have I said they should be banned?? Show me. Because you'll be looking for a hell of a long time! I have never ever said ban any breed. I actually DID say EDUCATE potential owners not to support people who breed pits and staffy types. You just make things up as you go along_.

_4) But I DO NOT agree with BSL. I DO agree with educating people NOT to buy pits - on this point I DO agree with peta. Are we clear now? Or are you going to carry on with the spin? If you are going to keep dishonestly taking what I mean out of context thats your prerogative. I'm not going to keep spelling it out for you over & over & over again

5) You're just on a wind up:Hilarious E.D.U.C.A.T.E not ban. I do NOT support BSL full stop! I do not support BYBreeding of any breed/type/cross/species. And people who breed ANY species for money tick one of my criteria of what makes a BYB_

_6) No I didn't say that at all lmfao. I said I want people educating to stop supporting BYBs . Feel free to twist away though_

.

You must be dizzy as hell with all that spinning. You have no interest in facts, only deliberately lying about what I said. And now you're trying to make out Native Americans are no better than trophy hunters & they didnt kill animals as part of their spiritual beliefs. You're trolling my posts lol What an apt user name you have Goblin.

Educate yourself -

American Eagle & Native American Indian http://www.eagles.org/programs/eagle-facts/american-indian.php

"When the Eagle returns, we will again be a great nation." - _Jonas Shawandase, Spanish American War Veteran & Tribal Elder of the 1950s_

"Our culture is derivative of the natural resources. If our culture dies, the only reminants are its physical attributes, which will soon be dispersed to the natural environment. If that happens, there will be no trace of our living culture." - _Stuart Harris, a Cayuse Indian & senior staff scientist, Department of Natural Resources, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation_

Most all Native American Indian Peoples attach special significance to the Eagle and its feathers. Images of eagles and their feathers are used on many tribal logos as symbols of the Native American Indian. To be given an Eagle feather is the highest honor that can be awarded within indigenous cultures.

Both Bald and Golden Eagles (and their feathers) are highly revered and considered sacred within American Indian traditions, culture and religion. They are honored with great care and shown the deepest respect. They represent honesty, truth, majesty, strength, courage, wisdom, power and freedom. As they roam the sky, they are believed to have a special connection to God.

According to traditional American Indian beliefs, the Creator made all the birds of the sky when the World was new. Of all the birds, the Creator chose the Eagle to be the leader... the Master of the Sky.

The Eagle flies higher and sees better than any other bird. Therefore, its perspective is different from other creations that are held close to the Earth, and it is closer to the Creator. The Creator also has a different perspective of what occurs below in this world of physical things in which humankind resides. The Eagle spends more time in the higher element of Father Sky than other birds, and Father Sky is an element of the Spirit.

The Eagle is considered to be a messenger to God. It was given the honor of carrying the prayers of man between the World of Earth and the World of Spirit, where the Creator and grandfathers reside. To wear or hold an Eagle feather causes the Creator to take immediate notice. With the Eagle feather, the Creator is honored in the highest way


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Then they are the biggest AR organisation on the planet. They have a hell of a lot of members so a lot of clout.


Yes, this is what I was saying earlier in the thread. PeTA does have a lot of clout, which makes their stance on pit bulls and BSL very scary to those of us with dogs on their target list. 
When I mentioned PeTA's influence, I was questioned about how much influence could they have. 
You can't have it both ways, either PeTA has clout and we should be worried about their influence on BSL, or they don't have clout and them supporting BSL isn't an issue.



noushka05 said:


> I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree where PETA is concerned lol


Yup....


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Yes let them see your deliberate misinterpretation. Heres what I said - six times I corrected you


It's in black and white where you actually were supporting things based on breed. To me that is BSL.



> You have no interest in facts, only deliberately lying about what I said


I am dealing with historical facts, not modern spin and romanticism. As with a lot of things, actions speak louder than words. Check your historical facts based on archaelogical evidence. Thousands buffulo driven off cliffs and simply left poisoning river downstream has already been an example given. Now you are trying to excuse trophy hunting due to religion, yet you would argue against Halal slaughter as that is religious and things like the Gadhimai festival.


----------

