# PETA lose more credibility



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

in response to being asked why they sheared a lamb and how the heck such wounds were inflicted, PETA responded: "PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) You do realize that isn't a real animal being held in his arms? It's a depiction of what sheep go through. We have plenty of photographs and video on our website taken from actual farms. If you click on the link there's more info and a video."

Well actually nowhere in the picture does it state that the animal is not actually a real animal. And as for photos and videos taken from actual farms, I don't believe it. I know there will always be rotten apples in any community but as seen above PETA are more than happy to deliberately lie to the public and Photoshop is definitely their friend.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

That's terrible.

We don't have sheep anymore....we used to have 300 and never ever have I ever seen a sheep with such injuries from shearing.

Occasionally the odd nick but never anything as bad as that.

If they are deliberately lying to mislead, they should be brought to task about it.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

The whole lot is a joke. Who produce that poster?

You rarely shear lambs


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

What kind of an idiotic picture is that!?ut:
I dont know much about farming but I doubt the lambs/sheep get more then the odd nick. It would make no financial sense to keep shearing animals if you did it so badly you killed the sheep!
PETA really are knobs arent they?


----------



## BeCuBi (Sep 16, 2014)

I'm not a fan of PETA, but is it possible that they mean that shearling stuff, which involves killing, skinning and tanning?

There are also Persian lamb coats, which are just really sad as they are made from foetal lambs


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Well done PETA!


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

What do they mean? *This* is what they mean ...

The Wool Industry | Animals Used for Clothing | The Issues | PETA

International Exposé: Sheep Killed, Punched, Stomped on, and Cut for Wool


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> What do they mean? *This* is what they mean ...
> 
> The Wool Industry | Animals Used for Clothing | The Issues | PETA
> 
> International Exposé: Sheep Killed, Punched, Stomped on, and Cut for Wool


Ah, okay. So PETA are talking mainly about Australian sheep farms, which kind of muddies the picture for us Brits who know little about them.

And I would agree that animals are sometimes mis-treated in the rush for profits, so I can see how this could happen.
However.... that doesn't detract from the misinformation in the original picture.
Say it's a plastic sheep FFS!

Because otherwise, I may well start questioning anything else PETA says about animal cruelty.

But this quote worries me a little:


> "No amount of fluff can hide the fact that anyone who buys wool supports a cruel and bloody industry. There are plenty of durable, stylish, and warm fabrics available that arent made from wool or animal skins."


Well yes there are other raw materials that can be used in clothing manufacturer....but many involve the use of fossil fuels.

Surely a better way would be for regulation to ensure that sheep are humanely treated and not over-shawn, rather than asking us not to wear wool at all?

But that wouldn't make such attention-grabbing pictures, would it?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

PETA = no animals kept by humans, including pets. Doesn't matter if cruel or not.

Another example of life where fanatics spoil an important message.


----------



## Jellypi3 (Jan 3, 2014)

I don't agree with PETA, but what those people were doing in that video posted was shockingly horrific. 

I can only hope the standards are better in this country.


----------



## piggybaker (Feb 10, 2009)

Well that made me feel a bit sick!!


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> So PETA are talking mainly about Australian sheep farms, which kind of muddies the picture for us Brits who know little about them.
> 
> But that wouldn't make such attention-grabbing pictures, would it?


The relevance of that is that Australia produces 90% of global fine wool, two-thirds of the world's total wool exports and a quarter of total wool production globally.
So Australian wool is everywhere.

PETA resort to gimmicks and stunts, true. Personally I find them distasteful.
You could say when you have *truth* why do you need gimmicks and stunts?! The fact is, these things get press attention. It's just like the various Fashion Weeks. A designer will come up with some whacky outfit, which has no commercial mileage, but every newspaper will carry the picture - and name check the fashion house, and that's why they do it.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> The relevance of that is that Australia produces 90% of global fine wool, two-thirds of the world's total wool exports and a quarter of total wool production globally.
> So Australian wool is everywhere.
> 
> PETA resort to gimmicks and stunts, true. Personally I find them distasteful.
> *You could say when you have truth why do you need gimmicks and stunts?! The fact is, these things get press attention.* It's just like the various Fashion Weeks. A designer will come up with some whacky outfit, which has no commercial mileage, but every newspaper will carry the picture - and name check the fashion house, and that's why they do it.


Agreed 

And it must be like walking a tightrope to get the balance right between getting publicity and being ethical.

But often PETA has gone too far and _lost_ supporters with their publicity methods and that's a shame.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

It's PETA the leaders are insane, no animal products except when it's their leader who can use insulin produced from animals all she wants . Just another publicity stunt to convince gullible animal lovers to give them money.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

So they have a perfectly good video showing appalling abuse and instead of showing that they produce a glossy ad with a plastic sheep!
What a pointless waste of money and resources. I have never understood exactly what PETA were all about...weirdos:glare:


----------



## emzybabe (Jun 30, 2009)

I have seen some horrible shearing injuries, but I do find that image disturbing and missleading


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

PETA often gives Vegans a bad name. I used to support them, until I found out their halo wasn't so shiny. But they do raise some valid points and have come out with some good adverts.

What I dislike about them is their use of "celebrities" to promote causes, who clearly care more about their image than the actual animals. Like KOA said, surely the truth should be enough? 

There are loads of awesome Vegan/Animal Rights groups out there who dislike PETA and don't have the same double standards.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> So they have a perfectly good video showing appalling abuse and instead of showing that they produce a glossy ad with a plastic sheep!
> What a pointless waste of money and resources. I have never understood exactly what PETA were all about...weirdos:glare:


PETA are the biggest animal rights organisation in the world and that isn't an accident. What you consider to be a 'waste of money and resources' has probably been very carefully thought out and it's impact considered. The fact that it's a) been posted on this forum when a less shocking campaign wouldn't have been and b) has led to people watching their Australian footage when they otherwise wouldn't indicates it's a success. Many of their campaigns are strategic like this and that's obviously lost on some people.

PETA are actually a publicity machine and there are many organisations that would kill for the influence they have because of it. I certainly don't agree with all their policies but they have made a massive positive impact on animal welfare globally that I think their critics sometimes forget.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

Watched that video a while ago and it still makes me feel sick. I will never understand what sort of sick b*****d can routinely carry out such barbaric acts on another sentient creature knowing full well that they are causing immense pain and suffering. I feel nothing but pure hatred for these people.

Also the Merino sheep have to endure 'mulesing' which involves putting them on their backs in a man made contraption and clamping their hind legs down towards their stomachs so their rear ends are exposed and then cutting lumps of flesh from them with something similar to secateurs to prevent them getting fly strike and all this is done with no anaesthetic whatsoever.

Only the intelligent human race could invent such contraptions of torture.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LynnM said:


> Watched that video a while ago and it still makes me feel sick. I will never understand what sort of sick b*****d can routinely carry out such barbaric acts on another sentient creature knowing full well that they are causing immense pain and suffering. I feel nothing but pure hatred for these people.
> 
> Also the Merino sheep have to endure 'mulesing' which involves putting them on their backs in a man made contraption and clamping their hind legs down towards their stomachs so their rear ends are exposed and then cutting lumps of flesh from them with something similar to secateurs to prevent them getting fly strike and all this is done with no anaesthetic whatsoever.
> 
> Only the intelligent human race could invent such contraptions of torture.


Flystrike is horrific though and spreads so fast. I'm sure there is a better way to deal with it in these sheep but with big flocks that might be too much time for the farmer.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

Pupcakes said:


> What I dislike about them is their use of "celebrities" to promote causes, who clearly care more about their image than the actual animals. Like KOA said, surely the truth should be enough?
> 
> There are loads of awesome Vegan/Animal Rights groups out there who dislike PETA and don't have the same double standards.


To be honest the use of celebs doesn't bother me. Lots of young people look up to and are influenced by celebs and if it gets the message home then I am all for them. Even if they do care more about their image, anything that helps put animal abuse in the spotlight is fine by me.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> It's PETA the leaders are insane, no animal products except when it's their leader who can use insulin produced from animals all she wants . Just another publicity stunt to convince gullible animal lovers to give them money.


You can get synthetic insulin now which is used. Porcine (pig) insulin was used in the past.
Same as Thyroid Hormone replacement used to be porcine that's now synthetic too.


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> Flystrike is horrific though and spreads so fast. I'm sure there is a better way to deal with it in these sheep but with big flocks that might be too much time for the farmer.


Yeah there is, don't keep Merino sheep. They are bred to have heavily wrinkled skin so more surface area so therefore more wool. And most importantly of all MORE money for the farmer. Animals should never have to suffer to that extent for man's greed.

There would be uproar if we did it to pet rabbits so they don't get fly strike. why then is it ok to do it to sheep?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

LynnM said:


> Yeah there is, don't keep Merino sheep. They are bred to have heavily wrinkled skin so more surface area so therefore more wool. And most importantly of all MORE money for the farmer. Animals should never have to suffer to that extent for man's greed.
> 
> There would be uproar if we did it to pet rabbits so they don't get fly strike. why then is it ok to do it to sheep?


All it takes with pet rabbits is making sure they stay clean. I'm not sure how feasible it would be with a large flock. It isn't right to breed problems into animals whatever the species.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Wonder if any of their supporters use Premarin in their HRT treatments?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> PETA are the biggest animal rights organisation in the world and that isn't an accident. What you consider to be a 'waste of money and resources' has probably been very carefully thought out and it's impact considered. The fact that it's a) been posted on this forum when a less shocking campaign wouldn't have been and b) has led to people watching their Australian footage when they otherwise wouldn't indicates it's a success. Many of their campaigns are strategic like this and that's obviously lost on some people.
> 
> PETA are actually a publicity machine and there are many organisations that would kill for the influence they have because of it. I certainly don't agree with all their policies but they have made a massive positive impact on animal welfare globally that I think their critics sometimes forget.


'Biggest' or 'most profitable'?

PETA may have started out with their hearts (and possibly even their heads) in the right place, but I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense can deny they've gradually gone increasingly crazy train over the years. Not to mention hypocritical - and I don't just mean their pet euthanasia operations masquerading as 'shelters'.

If they ever do realise the error of their ways and return to being purely an animal welfare campaign group, they might regain some credibility. I'm not particularly hopeful, though, there's far too much profit in being generally crazy-extreme with occasional genuine exposes.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

PETA advocate vegan diets for dogs and cats - which is animal cruelty in itself. 

Not a fan, sorry.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> 'Biggest' or 'most profitable'?
> 
> PETA may have started out with their hearts (and possibly even their heads) in the right place, but I don't think anyone with an ounce of common sense can deny they've gradually gone increasingly crazy train over the years. Not to mention hypocritical - and I don't just mean their pet euthanasia operations masquerading as 'shelters'.
> 
> If they ever do realise the error of their ways and return to being purely an animal welfare campaign group, they might regain some credibility. I'm not particularly hopeful, though, there's far too much profit in being generally crazy-extreme with occasional genuine exposes.


Not as black and white as it might seem ...

PETA Saves Animals | Euthanasia, No Kill, Animal Shelters, and More | PETA.org

The Curious Case of Nathan Winograd - Why PETA Euthanizes


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

lennythecloud said:


> PETA are the biggest animal rights organisation in the world and that isn't an accident. What you consider to be a 'waste of money and resources' has probably been very carefully thought out and it's impact considered. The fact that it's a) been posted on this forum when a less shocking campaign wouldn't have been and b) has led to people watching their Australian footage when they otherwise wouldn't indicates it's a success. Many of their campaigns are strategic like this and that's obviously lost on some people.
> 
> PETA are actually a publicity machine and there are many organisations that would kill for the influence they have because of it. I certainly don't agree with all their policies but they have made a massive positive impact on animal welfare globally that I think their critics sometimes forget.


I was thinking exactly the same. In terms of column inches, they've probably got themselves a million dollars worth of free publicity with this.


----------



## catpud (Nov 9, 2013)

Not a plug here, but hoping somebody sees what I mean. 

Why is it that PETA feel the need to make all of these statements, twist their truths, sometimes out right lie, when other organisations can make just as much of an influence if not even more without the shock tactics? 

Take a look at some of the other animal welfare organisations out there - I know which ones encourage me personally to support them with their much more rational behaviour. 

How many things have compassion in world farming managed to change? and how do they change it? by providing information, education and encouragement to use higher welfare alternatives to factory farming. I am much more likely to sit up and take notice when somebody says "this is an issue because xyz, here is how the animal behaves in the wild, here are the implications for using this system, here is a higher welfare alternative that is just as viable and productive, here is the science behind it"

PETA on the other hand reads rather like "eating animals and animal products is wrong full stop, no matter how you care for them, feeding animals to your carnivorous animals is also wrong, keeping pet animals is wrong and if you must they had better be kept because they rescued. Here are some half naked women wearing bunny ears to support our cause, be vegan!"

Yup, I know which one grabs me more ut:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Since when have extremists had to make sense? Many of the people in PETA are genuine animal lovers who don't realise just how extreme the leaders are. Shock tactics gets you more attention than sane discussions, ask any tabloid journalist or indeed reality tv "star"


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Anyone seen an un-shorn sheep carying kilos of wool? , hardly able to walk or see? PETA like any extremists cant see the wood for the trees


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Not as black and white as it might seem ...
> 
> PETA Saves Animals | Euthanasia, No Kill, Animal Shelters, and More | PETA.org
> 
> The Curious Case of Nathan Winograd - Why PETA Euthanizes


Well, that's an hour of my life wasted that I won't get back...

I don't think anyone would say it is wrong to humanely euthanise a sick or unrehomeable animal. Neutering campaigns are most commendable, definitely. But are they_really_ trying to imply only 1% of pets signed over to them are rehomeable? I'm not buying it.

The second link seemed to focus mainly on discrediting the head of a no kill advocacy group and proving PETAs high-kill policy is legal. If there was ever a concise explanation of why PETA advocates the euthanising of healthy animals instead of rehoming, I never found it. Unless they are seriously suggesting it's to make space for more animals to euthanise (and therefore save from a life of domestic 'slavery')

Anyway, as I said, that's only one of the many major problems I and many others have with PETA... Still, as long as the money keeps rolling in, I don't expect them to change


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Lexiedhb said:


> Anyone seen an un-shorn sheep carying kilos of wool? , hardly able to walk or see? PETA like any extremists cant see the wood for the trees


Yes, on those rescue programmes. It's horrible they really struggled to walk.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Extremists are truly dangerous in the sense that they ridicule what they are fighting for..


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> PETA are the biggest animal rights organisation in the world and that isn't an accident. What you consider to be a 'waste of money and resources' has probably been very carefully thought out and it's impact considered. The fact that it's a) been posted on this forum when a less shocking campaign wouldn't have been and b) has led to people watching their Australian footage when they otherwise wouldn't indicates it's a success. Many of their campaigns are strategic like this and that's obviously lost on some people.
> 
> PETA are actually a publicity machine and there are many organisations that would kill for the influence they have because of it.


Depends upon what you class as success.

If you count publicity - any publicity - as success, then you are right. If you count numbers of people watcing their videos as success, then you are rught. But if you take away the people who are alientated by the hypocrisy of their publicity campaigns; if you take away the people who watch the videos and find that they can't believe what they are saying because of their dubious credibility, then their shock-horror tactics are not being very successful at all.

So yes, it's been posted on this forum when a less shocking campaign might not have been - but as the majority of people posting have been posting _against_ PETA and their tactics, and as the majority think their credibility has just taken yet another nose-dive, then as a campaign for either halting cruelty or recruiting members, it is a spectacular failure.



lennythecloud said:


> I certainly don't agree with all their policies but they have made a massive positive impact on animal welfare globally that I think their critics sometimes forget.


I don't think they forget it so much as regret that they are not the organisation they could be if the extremists were not in charge.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Depends upon what you class as success.
> 
> If you count publicity - any publicity - as success, then you are right. If you count numbers of people watcing their videos as success, then you are rught. But if you take away the people who are alientated by the hypocrisy of their publicity campaigns; if you take away the people who watch the videos and find that they can't believe what they are saying because of their dubious credibility, then their shock-horror tactics are not being very successful at all.
> 
> So yes, it's been posted on this forum when a less shocking campaign might not have been - but as the majority of people posting have been posting _against_ PETA and their tactics, and as the majority think their credibility has just taken yet another nose-dive, then as a campaign for either halting cruelty or recruiting members, it is a spectacular failure.


Surely PETA's success has to be measured by the impact they have and frankly their impact has been spectacularly good. Their 'shock-horror' campaigns are successful exactly because of their reach, particularly in an internet age. Far more people see them and yes that means that they attract critics but they also influence far more people towards the objectives of the campaign. The powerful nature of the campaigns also influences companies associated with the animal product in question to clean up their act pretty quick to avoid negative associations. There are many other organisations with the same objectives as PETA doing things in a meek, more toned down fashion - with few exceptions they're not as big, not as influential and don't have the success record that PETA do. Just a few things I can think of that PETA have done in recent times:

- Pushed most major retailers here into banning the sale of rabbit angora from china since showing it was live plucked

- Pushed all the major ad companies in the US to ban the use of great apes.

- Caused huge reform in the US horse racing industry including limits on the use of the whip, increased drug testing, better veterinary treatment on course and the first retirement program for ex-racers.

- Made the largest user of circus elephants in the US commit to retiring them by 2017.

- Continually pushes fast food giants into better welfare reforms for their farmed animals. Personally I don't think the importance of this can be overstated - it's made billions of animals lives better.

- After the film blackfish came out they've campaigned against seaworld and have had a pretty devastating impact on their share price, profit and reputation.

- They've been very effective in reducing animal use in military weapons testing and trauma training. The US military has reduced it's use considerably and some countries such as Egypt and Bolivia have stopped animal use altogether.

- Far more people eat far less meat because of PETA campaigns and far more places offer plant based options. Just this week Ikea has made its meat balls meat free after working extensively with PETA.

- Their 'extreme' wool campaign has also been very successful with multiple international retailers banning wool from mulesed sheep. The knock on effect has led to museling fast becoming a thing of the past in the wool industry.

That's by no means an exhaustive list but makes clear that there are few other organisations that have had that kind of impact on animal protection in recent years. I disagree, sometimes strongly, with some of PETAs objectives and they have got some things very wrong but I do recognise how effective they've been on many important issues.



> I don't think they forget it so much as regret that they are not the organisation they could be if the extremists were not in charge.


PETA are the same organisation as they were when founded in the 80s, they use the same campaign tactics and they have the same founder at the helm. PETA have always held the radical line in animal protection and I personally think that historically all social justice movements have needed that element to fuel progress.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Jellypi3 said:


> I don't agree with PETA, but what those people were doing in that video posted was shockingly horrific.
> 
> I can only hope the standards are better in this country.


Sheep welfare is definitely not as high in Aus and NZ as it is in the UK. I have seen plenty of sheep being clipped and NEVER have I seen such atrocious cruelty (or anything like it!) as shown in that undercover video. It sickens and angers me.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vd...acility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2014

No deliberate aim to mislead or marketing. Just figures.

Recently the Virginia Senate passed a bill that defines a "private animal shelter" as "a facility operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes and facilitating other lifesaving outcomes for animals." A lobbyist hired by PETA to advocate against the bill has said that the passage could force PETA's shelter to close.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Goblin said:


> https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vd...acility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2014
> 
> No deliberate aim to mislead or marketing. Just figures.
> 
> Recently the Virginia Senate passed a bill that defines a "private animal shelter" as "a facility operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes and facilitating other lifesaving outcomes for animals." A lobbyist hired by PETA to advocate against the bill has said that the passage could force PETA's shelter to close.


Do you know why these animals were euthanized? Were they adoptable or were they diseased, dangerous or unsuitable for a domestic environment?

A couple of years ago it was revealed that Battersea dogs home kills nearly as many dogs as it adopts out - BBC - Press Office - Panorama: Battersea Dogs & Cats Home puts down record number of dogs

Would you say 'Battersea kills animals!' would be a reasonable campaign to start on the back of those figures? Would you say that Battersea are hypocrites for campaigning for dog protection whilst having these euthanasia figures?

I actually do think some of PETAs policies on stray animals are too harsh - when it comes to pit bulls and feral cats for example. However I think the criticism of the euthanasia figures is slightly absurd considering the millions of unwanted animals euthanised in the US each year and the millions more that spend their lives rotting in 'no-kill' shelters. Surely the only people ultimately responsible for their deaths are the owners who mass produce them, the owners that fail to care adequately for them and the owners that surrender them from their care in the first place.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Lenny will defend animal rights people no matter what :Yawn:. 

The most extreme members of peta want all captive animals freed/killed. They may do some good work and I agree with them on some things, freeing those of the captive cetaceans that can be and improving the lives of those that can't, stopping the fur trade etc. But I can't and won't support them.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> Do you know why these animals were euthanized? Were they adoptable or were they diseased, dangerous or unsuitable for a domestic environment?
> 
> A couple of years ago it was revealed that Battersea dogs home kills nearly as many dogs as it adopts out - BBC - Press Office - Panorama: Battersea Dogs & Cats Home puts down record number of dogs
> 
> ...


Do you know under what circumstances the animals were surrendered? Bit harsh to assume all were cruelty or bored owner syndrome. Any of our rescuers on here will tell you they get plenty of distraught owners having to part with a beloved pet due to a tragic change in circumstances too.

As to Battersea, a 50/50 chance is a heck of a lot better than less than a 1 *in* 50, wouldn't you say?


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Lenny will defend animal rights people no matter what :Yawn:.


No but I will defend them against silly arguments and recognise the positive changes they've managed to achieve when many of those that seek to brand them as extreme lunatics would have sat back and allowed atrocious practices to continue...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

> Do you know why these animals were euthanized? Were they adoptable or were they diseased, dangerous or unsuitable for a domestic environment


Well let's do a simple comparison unless you want to say only PETA gets the difficult cases...







So you approve of them giving money to a convicted murderer as he is an animal rights campaigner? Do you approve of supporting terrorist acts as that is what you are doing by supporting PETA. You either support them or not, you don't support "only the good bits". There are many animal rights groups who have achieved a lot without resort to extremism. Extremism should never be condoned.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Do you know under what circumstances the animals were surrendered? Bit harsh to assume all were cruelty or bored owner syndrome. Any of our rescuers on here will tell you they get plenty of distraught owners having to part with a beloved pet due to a tragic change in circumstances too.
> 
> As to Battersea, a 50/50 chance is a heck of a lot better than less than a 1 *in* 50, wouldn't you say?


I didn't assume they were all cruelty cases but the responsibility for a pets future still lies with the owner, even when circumstances change.

The fact is that Battersea put down more dogs in 2010 than PETA did last year. The animals PETA euthanized may all have been unadoptable (as they claim) and they obviously operate in a different environment to South London, would you prefer it if they incarcerated them indefinitely just to make the figures look nice? To put it in context 2.7 million animals are killed in shelters across the USA, many are still killed en masse in gas chambers.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> I didn't assume they were all cruelty cases but the responsibility for a pets future still lies with the owner, even when circumstances change.


Which I can agree with, unfortunately sometimes things happen which are not possible to avoid. However when PETA cares are you really saying they cannot find homes for around 90% of animals passed to them? Why were they lobbying against a definition which rules that a shelter's primary goal should be to find homes for the animals placed into their care not simply to kill them? Especially when PETA admit they are against pets as principle.

Germany is no kill as far as I am aware unless dogs are dangerous (note the bite figures in the shelter statistics). I am also aware Benny was classed as unadoptable due to being blind. He was in a "pension", no cages run by a lady who'd given up her house and grounds to do so along with volunteers. Whilst not ideal it's an example of something better which can be done by people who really do care as opposed to simply killing animals.

Notice you also skip the question of extremism.


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Well let's do a simple comparison unless you want to say only PETA gets the difficult cases...


They may only get the difficult cases, I don't know. I also don't think an organisations euthanasia rates are indicative of their quality, many 'no-kill' shelters are simply hellish warehouses for animals that will never have decent lives.



Goblin said:


> So you approve of them giving money to a convicted murderer as he is an animal rights campaigner?


I don't actually know who you are talking about but do I think it's acceptable for someone who has served their sentence as delivered by a court of law and is now released into society to be employed? Yes I do.



Goblin said:


> Do you approve of supporting terrorist acts as that is what you are doing by supporting PETA.


I don't support violent action against people as far as I know PETA does not commit such acts although some historical links to ELF/ALF actions may be questionable.



Goblin said:


> You either support them or not, you don't support "only the good bits".


Erm yes I can and I will. I fully support some of UKIPS policies - protecting the green belt and ending the tax on womens sanitary products - I don't support them on most other things. I support amnesty international on most things but I don't like their support of Islamist sympathisers like CAGE UK. I support PETAS stance on a lot of things but not on others, I don't actually support them financially because we disagree on too much but that doesn't make me incapable of recognising the good they do.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vd...acility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2014
> 
> No deliberate aim to mislead or marketing. Just figures.
> 
> Recently the Virginia Senate passed a bill that defines a "private animal shelter" as "a facility operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes and facilitating other lifesaving outcomes for animals." A lobbyist hired by PETA to advocate against the bill has said that the passage could force PETA's shelter to close.


Everything PETA does there is available through public documentation.

A Closer Look at Nathan Winograd's, "Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, Puppies" - Why PETA Euthanizes


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> The second link seemed to focus mainly on discrediting the head of a no kill advocacy group ...


The Center For Consumer Freedom, who sponsors them and what they stand for...

The Center for Consumer Freedom - Why PETA Euthanizes


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

lennythecloud said:


> No but I will defend them against silly arguments and recognise the positive changes they've managed to achieve when many of those that seek to brand them as extreme lunatics would have sat back and allowed atrocious practices to continue...


Well said.

"Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Which is what the anti-PETA and other AR groups campaign is all about. They want to silence and destroy the voices of compassion and humanity that are damaging their profit margins.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> The fact is that Battersea put down more dogs in 2010 than PETA did last year.


First of all, from the link you provided, although the report was from 2010, the figures are for the year 2009.

Secondly, the figures you quoted from Battersea are for _dogs only_, and the figures you are comparing them with are for _all_ _animals_ from PETA.

You are not comparinig like to like and therefore your figures are inaccurate, which makes your argument invalid.

However, given that comparing statistics from 2009 with statistics from 2013 is never going to be accurate, let's continue the comparison you have started and see what the statistics really say when we compare the figures for dogs only from PETA to the figures for dogs from Battersea:

In 2009 *Battersea* euthanised 2800 dogs and rehomed over 3000. Therefore they *euthanised less than 50%* of dogs they took in.
(figures taken from the link you posted)

In 2013* PETA*'s Virginia shelter *euthanised 68.4%* of all dogs they took in.
(figures taken from Goblin's post)

See what happens when you look at the facts rather than twisting figures so that you can justify to yourself your support of these terrorists? You are forced to realise that PETA euthanise a far greater percentage of the dogs they take in than Battersea do.

So when you use statistics to try to make PETA seem less awful than it is, be careful that you are using them correctly - after all, trying to pretend something is other than it really is is one of the main problems all right-thinking people have with PETA.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Moobli said:


> Sheep welfare is definitely not as high in Aus and NZ as it is in the UK. I have seen plenty of sheep being clipped and NEVER have I seen such atrocious cruelty (or anything like it!) as shown in that undercover video. It sickens and angers me.


I couldn't agree more. There is no excuse for the rough handling and shoddy workmanship displayed in that video.
You can understand the human aspect of this. Those men are doing that job day in day out for week after week after week .. They have become totally dehumanized at what they are doing, to the detriment of the animals they are working with.
And it isn't just wool either. This thread cannot pass without mention of live exports ...
Ban Live Export - official site


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> First of all, from the link you provided, although the report was from 2010, the figures are for the year 2009.
> 
> Secondly, the figures you quoted from Battersea are for _dogs only_, and the figures you are comparing them with are for _all_ _animals_ from PETA.
> 
> ...


So the figures were a year out, that doesn't really matter does it?
The year doesn't actually matter at all - the point is that Battersea euthanizes thousands of dogs and so does PETA. (2009 Battersea killed 2800 dogs, 2013 PETA killed 788 dogs).

I didn't deny PETAs percentage was higher but a higher percentage doesn't automatically mean a more evil organisation - it may mean a high percentage of diseased or aggressive animals entering a particular shelter or fewer suitable homes for adoption.

You could argue all day about whether the number or the percentage matter, as pointed out both could be skewed for any number of reasons - I don't actually care about either, I care about why these animals are dead. Nobody has actually provided any evidence that euthanizing these animals was reasonably unavoidable or it was in the animals best interests to keep them alive. PETA claims that they take many of the animals other shelters won't or can't - again nobody has provided any evidence that this claim isn't true.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> So the figures were a year out, that doesn't really matter does it?


Doesn't it? It says a lot about your degree of accuracy - if you are inaccurate about this, how can you be trusted to be accurately reporting the facts at all?

Bit like PETA itself actuallly - once they have proved to have over-exaggerated something, how can they ever be trusted to tell the truth? If they openly admit to having staged a picture of a shorn lamb because they couldn't actually find any horrific enough for the point they were making, then surely the point they were making is vastly over-exaggerated?



lennythecloud said:


> The year doesn't actually matter at all - the point is that Battersea euthanizes thousands of dogs and so does PETA. (2009 Battersea killed 2800 dogs, 2013 PETA killed 788 dogs).


No, the point is that Battersea euthanise a lower percentage of the dogs they take in than PETA - as do most rescue organisations. And the follow-on point from that is why is PETA's percentage so high?

btw - where did you get the 788 figure for 2013?



lennythecloud said:


> I didn't deny PETAs percentage was higher but a higher percentage doesn't automatically mean a more evil organisation - it may mean a high percentage of diseased or aggressive animals entering a particular shelter or fewer suitable homes for adoption.


Not automatically - but it should certainly make people stop and think about whether an organisation that consistently euthanises a higher propertion of animals than any other organisation really has the correct ethics to be rescuing animals.



lennythecloud said:


> You could argue all day about whether the number or the percentage matter, as pointed out both could be skewed for any number of reasons - I don't actually care about either, *I care about why these animals are dead. *Nobody has actually provided any evidence that euthanizing these animals was reasonably unavoidable or it was in the animals best interests to keep them alive. PETA claims that they take many of the animals other shelters won't or can't - again nobody has provided any evidence that this claim isn't true.


I too care about why these animals are dead. The difference is, I'm not so blinded by my admiration of PETA that I either ignore or twist salient facts until they fit in with my mind set.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

lennythecloud said:


> So the figures were a year out, that doesn't really matter does it?
> The year doesn't actually matter at all - the point is that Battersea euthanizes thousands of dogs and so does PETA. (2009 Battersea killed 2800 dogs, 2013 PETA killed 788 dogs).
> 
> I didn't deny PETAs percentage was higher but a higher percentage doesn't automatically mean a more evil organisation - it may mean a high percentage of diseased or aggressive animals entering a particular shelter or fewer suitable homes for adoption.
> ...


Surely in the case of PETA that's not a question which needs asking, as they are perfectly open about their stance that pet ownership is slavery and it's better for them to be dead than pets? Other shelters in their area have drastically higher rehabilitate and rehome rates, despite operating on shoestring budgets whilst PETA have resources the others can only dream of. So how come PETA seems incapable of running an effective - or even any- rehabilitate and rehome campaign, other than not wanting to?

Anyway, as previously mentioned, this is just one issue many people have with their policies and tactics


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Doesn't it? It says a lot about your degree of accuracy - if you are inaccurate about this, how can you be trusted to be accurately reporting the facts at all?


Your being needlessly pedantic. The year doesn't actually make a difference to point I was making.



Spellweaver said:


> Bit like PETA itself actuallly - once they have proved to have over-exaggerated something, how can they ever be trusted to tell the truth? If they openly admit to having staged a picture of a shorn lamb because they couldn't actually find any horrific enough for the point they were making, then surely the point they were making is vastly over-exaggerated?


It is clearly an advert meant to provoke and shock, It's much like the anti smoking advert with the little tumours growing from the cigarette. There is a real problem with shearing and welfare In Australia, shearers paid to be as fast as humanly possible and it causes issues. I think their undercover footage of the wool industry is horrific enough but doesn't lend itself to a still picture campaign.



Spellweaver said:


> I too care about why these animals are dead. The difference is, I'm not so blinded by my admiration of PETA that I either ignore or twist salient facts until they fit in with my mind set.


What facts have I twisted? I made a mistake with the year and that's it. I don't care if an organisation euthanises 100% of the animals they take in if they were justified in doing so. Nobody has given me any evidence at all that PETA were not justified In killing the animals they put down - only speculation and conjecture.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

lennythecloud said:


> Your being needlessly pedantic. The year doesn't actually make a difference to point I was making.


Keep on calling it pedantic if it helps you to ignore the innacuracy of what you were trying to prove 



lennythecloud said:


> It is clearly an advert meant to provoke and shock, It's much like the anti smoking advert with the little tumours growing from the cigarette. There is a real problem with shearing and welfare In Australia, shearers paid to be as fast as humanly possible and it causes issues. I think their undercover footage of the wool industry is horrific enough but doesn't lend itself to a still picture campaign.


It *is* meant to provoke and shock - but is it at the expense of the truth? That's what unblinkered people are thinking. They are asking themselves why a picture had to be manufactured if this is really happening?

The fact that the picture was manufactured definitely seems to have hardened more people against PETA than it has endeared to their cause - so why not print a true picture that, whilst it wouldn't be as graphic, would certainly bring home the message to more people.



lennythecloud said:


> What facts have I twisted? I made a mistake with the year and that's it.


You matched figures for dogs euthanased by Battersea against figures for all animals euhanased by PETA.

You dismiss the fact that PETA euthanases a higher percentage of dogs (and all animals) than any other rescue organisation.



lennythecloud said:


> I don't care if an organisation euthanises 100% of the animals they take in if they were justified in doing so,
> 
> Nobody has given me any evidence at all that PETA were not justified In killing the animals they put down - only speculation and conjecture.


And neither have you (or PETA) given any evidence that they *were* justified - you have merely tried to justify it by twisting facts to make it look as though they are good guys compared with Battersea.

As for others giving you evidence - how about Jesthar reminding you of PETA's stance that animals are better dead than kept as pets? Don't you think that has any influence on the high numbers of animals euthanised by PETA?


----------



## bingolitle (Dec 6, 2014)

Its strikes me that the very best way to discredit an organisation that advocates something - in any area - is to get people on the inside to go too far either with action or publicity.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

bingolitle said:


> Its strikes me that the very best way to discredit an organisation that advocates something - in any area - is to get people on the inside to go too far either with action or publicity.


Their leader supports bsl because it's the start of banning all dogs. Many of their supporters are vegans who own carnivorous pets and force their lifestyle on them. This isn't a few saboteurs joining on behalf of the fur trade or something.

Of course there are plenty of vegans who realise they need to feed their pet the appropriate diet or chose herbivores as pets. And there are sane members of peta who are blind to the worst of the extremists. Just as there are people who will blindly believe anything they say and support everything and anything they do.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Goblin said:


> https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vd...acility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2014
> 
> No deliberate aim to mislead or marketing. Just figures.
> 
> Recently the Virginia Senate passed a bill that defines a "private animal shelter" as "a facility operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes and facilitating other lifesaving outcomes for animals." A lobbyist hired by PETA to advocate against the bill has said that the passage could force PETA's shelter to close.


They are in a low income area and operate a free euthanasia service. Which is largely why the euthanasia total is high and the 'reclaimed by owner' total is low.

What percentage of PF members have had a beloved pet PTS at some point?
99%?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> They are in a low income area and operate a free euthanasia service. Which is largely why the euthanasia total is high and the 'reclaimed by owner' total is low.


Despite all the excuses they trot out - low income area etc etc - the fact still remains that their mantra is that it is better for the animal to put it to sleep rather than rehome it as a pet. Don't forget that when you are praising these people, will you? You may be able to find excuses for that sort of warped thinking, but I can't.



Knightofalbion said:


> What percentage of PF members have had a beloved pet PTS at some point?
> 99%?


Really?  I can't beleve what I've just read. Are you r_eally_ trying to equate the devastation a pet forum member would feel on having to have a beloved pet put to sleep, to the heartless killing of thousands of animals merely because some mindless thug "thinks" it is better to put them to sleep rather than have them face the "slavery" of being owned?

You and Lennythecloud seem to think PETA are goody-goodies - but they are not. Take a look at this site and find out what they are really like.

WARNING - VERY GRAPHIC AND UPSETTING CONTENT ON THIS LINK.

https://www.petakillsanimals.com/


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> They are in a low income area and operate a free euthanasia service. Which is largely why the euthanasia total is high and the 'reclaimed by owner' total is low.
> 
> What percentage of PF members have had a beloved pet PTS at some point?
> 99%?


_Seriously? _

Our family Border Collie was PTS - cancer. The vet came and did it at home and we cried buckets.

That's a lot different than the approach PETA is taking. Although I'm sure they could afford to provide something similar if they were interesting in doing so.

But, of course, if they want to prove people wrong, why not just produce the signed euthanasia consent forms? If that's what people are genuinely handing over the animal for, surely signing a form saying so isn't going to be a problem? Unless they think they are signing a _rehoming_ form, of course...


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Seriously? Ending a sick pet's suffering is nowhere near the same as killing nearly every pet you come across because captivity is evil. Obviously even no kill shelters are going to have to put down animals eventually through illness but few have anywhere near peta's rate of euthanasia. 

Their approach turns people away from them, the utter ridiculousness hides the real suffering that many animals do endure at human hands.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

The persistent defence of indefensible practices is as concerning as the organisation itself. I cannot comprehend how people can think it is justified to euthanise so many animals compared to other organisations, or how forcing animals to be vegetarian is fair.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Despite all the excuses they trot out - low income area etc etc - the fact still remains that their mantra is that it is better for the animal to put it to sleep rather than rehome it as a pet. Don't forget that when you are praising these people, will you? You may be able to find excuses for that sort of warped thinking, but I can't.
> 
> Really?  I can't beleve what I've just read. Are you r_eally_ trying to equate the devastation a pet forum member would feel on having to have a beloved pet put to sleep, to the heartless killing of thousands of animals merely because some mindless thug "thinks" it is better to put them to sleep rather than have them face the "slavery" of being owned?
> 
> ...


Before you go quoting 'smear' websites, maybe it's a good idea to find out who is promoting them and why

The Center for Consumer Freedom - Why PETA Euthanizes

'Environmental Policy Alliance,' PR Firm Front Group, Targets LEED, Green Groups And EPA

Explain if "it's all about the money" why don't PETA save themselves a shed load of money and dodge the flak by shutting that centre?

Like it or not, they are providing a social service. It is regrettable, but sometimes a beloved pet does need to be PTS. 
Furthermore, at the core of this there is the fact that there are, after all best efforts at re-homing, 4 million unwanted cats and dogs in America.

I've just been reading two articles by the President of the American Kennel Club. In one he attacks PETA for euthanizing dogs and says they should be adopted instead. In the other he advocates people getting new bred dogs from breeders rather than adopting from shelters!

If you think you can find homes for those 4 million unwanted animals maybe you should offer your services to PETA.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> _Seriously? _
> 
> Our family Border Collie was PTS - cancer. The vet came and did it at home and we cried buckets.
> 
> ...


The point I was making is that figures aren't always black and white.

Sadly many animals do require euthanasia, so there is a demand for it.
If you've read the links, these are documented.

And as I said in the previous post, the core problem is the huge oversupply of animals. Which is growing.
I don't want to see a healthy animal put down any more than you do, but that is the reality on the ground if 'we' (humans) are going to keep over-breeding animals for which there are no loving homes.

As for PETA, yes, they would be well advised to do what other groups do and dodge the bullet on this issue. I'm surprised they haven't after all the fuss, though it wouldn't alter the situation. It would just mean, presumably, the state authorities would destroy them instead.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> PETA = no animals kept by humans, including pets. Doesn't matter if cruel or not.
> 
> Another example of life where fanatics spoil an important message.


I used to be a member of PETA, I didn't agree with all their policies so stopped my donations & switched to supporting a different animal charity, but I still appreciate all they have achieved to better the lives of animals. Years after I stopped donating they would still send me their periodical magazine, with many accounts of the animals they had saved & successfully rehomed. So what you are saying is inaccurate.

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.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I just love all the excuses, half truths and media bias people bring up to support organisations no matter what they do 
They have very clever wording in that letter tho...So PETA US DON'T adopt out (as that letter states) but they use another shelters figures as an example of the animals that they apparently save 
And to pass the buck to people that do use their low cost PTS service is disgusting...

Yeah ok, whatever you say :huh:

I am not saying that PETA have never done any good in the world of animal welfare but what they do is a fraction of what they could do if they didn't ostracize a huge chunk of the population...:hand: 

Although saying that, that letter proves nothing, it is just lip service to gain someones support back, not facts


----------



## Boonze (Apr 9, 2013)

I absolutely cannot stand PETA. If I'm blunt, faced with the facts I fail to see how anyone could.

When you look at the cold hard proof, PETA has done nothing but kill animals indiscriminately because they think 'Death is better than being a pet'. Dunno about you, but all of the pets I've seen / come into contact with would much rather BE ALIVE.

Their name literally stands for 'People (for the) Ethical Treatment (of) Animals'.

Yet Ingrid Newkirk has actually admitted to killing thousands and thousands of animals, and feels no shame! You can't be for the ethical treatment of animals by killing tons of healthy animals. The level of hypocrisy is absolutely staggering - and they still expect people to take them seriously.

They even admit on their own site that they art a part-owner of Seaworld shares - their excuse is 'so we can ask for policy changes' - I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with the revenue Seaworld drags in.

https://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

_In 2010, a Virginia resident called PETA to ask if it operated an animal shelter. PETA said no. Apparently perplexed, she sent PETAs response to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the government agency responsible for overseeing shelters and animal welfare matters in the state. Responding to the complaint, Dr. Daniel Kovich, an investigator with the VDACS, conducted an inspection of PETAs animal shelter at its Virginia headquarters in July 2010. Dr. Kovich determined the facility does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody._

If that doesn't set off alarm bells in your mind, I don't know what would. They are vicious, malicious, rabid extremists with no place in this world. I would never until my last breath put a single cent into supporting what is to me a terrorist group (obviously not in the conventional sense).

Don't get me wrong - I hate unethical treatment of animals. That's why I raise my own chickens and buy from locally raised animals as much as possible. But there are ways to benefit animals without being the laughing stock.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Before you go quoting 'smear' websites, maybe it's a good idea to find out who is promoting them and why


You may call a website a smear website, but the fact remains that if PETA were not comitting the atrocities it does commit, then there would be no evidence for a "smear" campaign. And there is plenty of evidence.

I honestly do not kow how anyone who professes to care about animals can support this organisation.

They may have had a hand in several campaigns that have resulted in animals being treated more fairly, but that does not absolve them from their wholesale killling of many other animals. I don't buy for one minute their "peforming a public service" excuse and I can't undestand why anyone who loves animals does - other animal shelters perform that service by rehoming and euthanasing only when there is no other course, not by euthanasing as a first resort as PETA does.

In short, they are as bad as any of the organisaitons they have campaigned against, and how any animal lover can sweep all their atrocities under the carpet and excuse their wholesale murder of animals as justified is beyond me.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> You may call a website a smear website, but the fact remains that if PETA were not comitting the atrocities it does commit, then there would be no evidence for a "smear" campaign. And there is plenty of evidence.
> 
> I honestly do not kow how anyone who professes to care about animals can support this organisation.
> 
> ...


Well I love animals with a passion Val. I don't know whether you read the letter I posted?

This is the organisation behind the smear campaign. Center for Consumer Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They have targeted Greenpeace & other reputable NGO's which threaten profit. Do I believe PETA over corporate lobbyists ? hell yes, I do.

,

,


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Boonze said:


> I absolutely cannot stand PETA. If I'm blunt, faced with the facts I fail to see how anyone could.
> 
> When you look at the cold hard proof, PETA has done nothing but kill animals indiscriminately because they think 'Death is better than being a pet'. Dunno about you, but all of the pets I've seen / come into contact with would much rather BE ALIVE.
> 
> ...


Just for the record: The VDACS records relating to the PETA shelter can be seen here.
Understanding PETA's Shelter - Why PETA Euthanizes

Just for the record:
From the Humane Society's official website ...
The number of *adoptable* cats and dogs euthanized in (animal) shelters each year (in the US) - 2,700,000
The number of cats and dogs euthainized by PETA (includes PTS due to illness and injury) - 2200

Just for the record: Why PETA bought some shares in SeaWorld
PETA Becomes Part Owner of SeaWorld | PETA's Blog | PETA


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> Just for the record: The VDACS records relating to the PETA shelter can be seen here.
> Understanding PETA's Shelter - Why PETA Euthanizes


I'm always curious about the background to articles I read on the internet, and particularly so when I read at the bottom of that link:



> Why PETA Euthanizes is a Mary Tully production. The views expressed on this website are the intellectual property of its creator and are not necessarily reflective of the views of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).


So I looked at the About page on the website just to find out more.

Mary Tully gives her reasons why she supports PETA and tries to refute any claims against them. She also says that the two people who influenced her change of attitude to meat and to animals in general are:



> If Bruce Friedrich is the father of my veganism, then Ingrid Newkirk is certainly the mother of my activism.


But her thoughts on Newkirk are less well-explained:



> In 1988, Newkirk made the following statement to Newsday: In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether, a quote that is often used by No-Kill advocates like Nathan Winograd to malign Newkirk as having a deep-seated agenda to eradicate all companion animal species. Ingrid Newkirk thinks it would be lovely to stop this whole notion of meat altogether too, and she has receives similar criticisms for expressing the sentiment.


Here is Tully's explanation of Newkirk's argument:



> She was expressing a desire to see our relationships with animals change and grow, and to see their exploitation come to an end. People who see animals as individuals rage against labels like pets and meat because terminology that defines animals as commodities makes their exploitation infinitely more marketable.


Sounds okay in regards to helping to fight animal exploitations, but is really a very vague remedy which leaves Newkirk's ideas completely open to misinterpretation.

Not taking sides here. Just trying to understand more of this debate.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> The point I was making is that figures aren't always black and white.
> 
> Sadly many animals do require euthanasia, so there is a demand for it.
> If you've read the links, these are documented.
> ...


No one is saying there is no demand for euthanasia - of _course_ there is.

What people object to is the fact that PETAs SOP is euthanasia with no attempt at rehoming, or even the standard three day holding period for strays in case an owner comes forward. Doesn't seem to matter if they are dogs, puppies, cats, kittens, cats WITH kittens - PTS is the default option.

Now, there would be a simple solution for PETA to counteract all criticism in one go, which would simply be to have comprehensive paperwork showing either that an animal was signed over for guaranteed euthanasia, or that that basic health tests showed issues that made then non-adoptable. Something which your average shoestring budgeted shelter (kill or no-kill) manages as a matter of course. So why can't PETA? Or is it more a case, as many people suspect due to their uncompromising unwillingness to be open, of _won't_.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Just saying: snopes.com: PETA Is Stealing and Killing Pets?

Having video evidence is pretty irrefutable.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Well I love animals with a passion Val. I don't know whether you read the letter I posted?
> 
> This is the organisation behind the smear campaign. Center for Consumer Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


Oh Jo - I don't know anyone who loves animals with a greater passion than you do. You weren't in my mind when I wrote "_how any animal lover can sweep all their atrocities under the carpet and excuse their wholesale murder of animals as justified is beyond me_" because you had said in your post that you didn't support them and have changed your donations.

I did read the letter and I do understand what you mean about corporate lobbyists and their "beef" (no pun intended!) with PETA. However, whilst I don't trust their motives for the smear campaign, the facts are that PETA as an orgnaisaiton leaves much to be desired and if there were not things to base the smears upon, the campaign would have ground to a halt by now.

Because despite the smear campaign, and despite PETA's denial, the figures do not add up - WHY do they euthanise so many animals compared to other shelters? Other shelters operate under the same conditions as they do and their euthanisation rates are much lower.

And it's not just this one issue that I find abhorrent in them. My only personal dealings with PETA have been around dog shows. Now, I know that they think dog shows are hell on earth for dogs, but even so the things they have threatened to do at Crufts - and may even have tried to do at Crufts if it were not for the upped security - are not the actions of people who are concerned about dogs. One year they threatened to let all benched dogs out of cages, so everyone padlocked thier cages just in case. How would that have helped their cause? Surely the only ones suffering would have been the dogs? Another year they threatened to let all dogs loose in the car park - what organisation who cares about animal welfare would set thousands of dogs loose in a car park situated between a network of several motorways and A roads? None of that has to do with a smear campaign. All of that disregard for animals, and potential cruelty to animals, is directly the results of PETA's own actions and adverts.

They seem to jump on causes with little evidence and over-react - dog showing is one example and this is another:
Got Autism? PETA's Phony Milk Claims

They take up some worthy causes, and have had good successes in some. But the sad thing is - how much more success would they have in a lot more causes if they ditched the extremism and over-reaction and cruelty to animals, and gained a greater credibility?

Because now, when the name PETA is involved with anything, all but thier die-hard supporters think something along the lines of, "Oh, those loonies!". And their reputation of abusing animals in achieving publicity for their causes is such that the minute something awful happens, people's thoughts fly to PETA - such as the alleged poisonings at Crufts, which many people were attributing it to PETA before the truth was known,.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Well I love animals with a passion Val. I don't know whether you read the letter I posted?
> 
> This is the organisation behind the smear campaign. Center for Consumer Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> They have targeted Greenpeace & other reputable NGO's which threaten profit. Do I believe PETA over corporate lobbyists ? hell yes, I do.


The center For Consumer Freedom is definitely an organisation whose techniques I would think few of us would want to be associated with.

However, just because PETA is being opposed by this group (and quite vociferously too it has to be said), _does not in itself mean_ that PETA is totally ethical in everything they do, or that their stand on euthanasia is the correct one to take.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> I'm always curious about the background to articles I read on the internet, and particularly so when I read at the bottom of that link:
> 
> So I looked at the About page on the website just to find out more.
> 
> ...


Your point? The VDACS documentation comes from the VDACS. The PETA centre would not be operating at all if it failed to meet VDACS standards or was doing anything illegal.

Mary Tully is a freelance writer. She doesn't work for PETA.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> Your point? The VDACS documentation comes from the VDACS. The PETA centre would not be operating at all if it failed to meet VDACS standards or was doing anything illegal.
> 
> Mary Tully is a freelance writer. She doesn't work for PETA.


I explained my point for posting that reply.
Sorry you didn't understand.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> No one is saying there is no demand for euthanasia - of _course_ there is.
> 
> What people object to is the fact that PETAs SOP is euthanasia with no attempt at rehoming, or even the standard three day holding period for strays in case an owner comes forward. Doesn't seem to matter if they are dogs, puppies, cats, kittens, cats WITH kittens - PTS is the default option.
> 
> Now, there would be a simple solution for PETA to counteract all criticism in one go, which would simply be to have comprehensive paperwork showing either that an animal was signed over for guaranteed euthanasia, or that that basic health tests showed issues that made then non-adoptable. Something which your average shoestring budgeted shelter (kill or no-kill) manages as a matter of course. So why can't PETA? Or is it more a case, as many people suspect due to their uncompromising unwillingness to be open, of _won't_.


You're just quoting from those PETA-bashing websites, who are funded by animal abusing companies.

If you read my previous post you'll see that 2.7 million ADOPTABLE dogs and cats i.e. perfectly fit and healthy, just unwanted, are destroyed in the US every year by (Non-PETA) animal shelters.
You and others here seem to have a blind spot on this.

PETA PTS 2200 dogs and cats a year. Some injured, some ill, some unwanted. Could they try harder to rehome more of the unwanted ones? Maybe but I don't think either of us are in a position to say as we aren't there to judge.

The core issue is the oversupply of pets.

'Unwillingness to be open'? PETA supplies documentation for every case, as the VDACS acknowledge.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> You and others here seem to have a blind spot on this.
> .


No, it is you who is being blind.
It is a fact that PETA euthanize a greater percentage of the animals that come through their doors.
Yes thousands of animals are euthanised each year, but at least other organisations actually try to rehome pets before they choose the PTS option.

PETA adopt out less than 1% of the animals that come to them...that is fact..


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> You and others here seem to have a blind spot on this.


But so does the article you referred to (and I referred to also) earlier:



> No one can make reliable claims about the adoptability of the animals PETA--or any other Virginia releasing agency--euthanize, because the State Veterinarian simply doesn't collect that data. And if the State Veterinarian doesn't know how many adoptable animals are euthanized in Virginia, no one does, rendering allegations that PETA euthanizes adoptable animals not only baseless, but also irresponsible.


So according to this, the argument defending PETA on this issue is as useless as allegations on this issue, surely?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> The core issue is the oversupply of pets.


No. The core issue is that despite the oversupply of pets, PETA shelters euthanase far more animals than any other shelter - after all, the oversupply of pets is universal, not just in the areas where there is a PETA shelter.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> No, it is you who is being blind.
> It is a fact that PETA euthanize a greater percentage of the animals that come through their doors.
> Yes thousands of animals are euthanised each year, but at least other organisations actually try to rehome pets before they choose the PTS option.
> 
> PETA adopt out less than 1% of the animals that come to them...that is fact..


No, it is *you* who is being blind.

You could try reading your own report that you PETA-haters have trotted out what must be at least 5 times already.

And 1%? Mathemathics is obviously not your strong point.

4569 animals came through their doors. 
Of that number - as it clearly states - 838 were adopted. And another 65 were transferred elsewhere presumably to more spacious and suitable facilities/treatment.

Of the animals brought in only 7, yes SEVEN owners, came back to reclaim their pets. Why? Because they had brought their animals in either to have them rehomed or to take advantage of PETAs free euthanasia service.

PETA PTS 2,200 cats and dogs - injured, ill or unwanted. 
In comparison non-PETA shelters PTS 2.7 million perfectly healthy but unwanted cats and dogs.
When unadoptable cats and dogs are factored in the total is between 3 - 4 million.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I do not hate PETA, I have no feelings for them what so ever so please stop with the haters rubbish 

Can I just point out that *I* did not write or post a report, and stop with the frigging personal insults...

FWIW I got an A* in maths so it is actually a strong point of mine  But you however fail at comparing statistics, would you care to list how many animals actually came across the doors of other shelters so that you can compare them properly?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> No. The core issue is that despite the oversupply of pets, PETA shelters euthanase far more animals than any other shelter - after all, the oversupply of pets is universal, not just in the areas where there is a PETA shelter.


Other 'shelters' don't offer a free euthanasia service, so you cannot make a direct correlation.
And in the second place with up to 4 million cats and dogs being PTS annually ...
wholesale killing is going on all over the country, so it very much *is* down to chronic oversupply.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> Other 'shelters' don't offer a free euthanasia service, so you cannot make a direct correlation.
> And in the second place with up to 4 million cats and dogs being PTS annually ...
> wholesale killing is going on all over the country, so it very much *is* down to chronic oversupply.


No. The issue we are discussing on this thread is PETA and their methods.
(At least, that's what I was trying to find out more about)


----------



## LynnM (Feb 21, 2012)

Feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong but there has been so much to read in all the links but in the link in post #48 made by Knightofalbion it seems that PETA have been making frequent visits to other pounds and shelters in N. Carolina and Virginia where gassing and bullets are used to destroy animals and they have taken the animals to humanely euthanase them rather than leaving them to suffer the other horrendously cruel option.

Are these animals counted in with the animals that owners have brought to them to be euthanased?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Other 'shelters' don't offer a free euthanasia service, so you cannot make a direct correlation.


Rubbish. All shelters, sadly, have to euthanise animals that they can't rehome. So why is PETA's percentage of euthanised animals much higher than all the others? Why are you so reluctant to admit that PETA see euthanasia as preferable to rehoming because they believe no animal should be a pet?



Knightofalbion said:


> And in the second place with up to 4 million cats and dogs being PTS annually ...
> wholesale killing is going on all over the country, so it very much *is* down to chronic oversupply.


I agree it's down to chronic oversupply and that euthanasia is taking place all over the country - but that is true for all shelters, not just PETA shelters. So why do PETA euthanise a far higher percentage than all the others? Again, why are you so reluctant to admit that PETA see euthanasia as preferable to rehoming because they believe no animal should be a pet?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

LynnM said:


> Feel free to correct me on this if I'm wrong but there has been so much to read in all the links but in the link in post #48 made by Knightofalbion it seems that PETA have been making frequent visits to other pounds and shelters in N. Carolina and Virginia where gassing and bullets are used to destroy animals and they have taken the animals to humanely euthanase them rather than leaving them to suffer the other horrendously cruel option.
> 
> Are these animals counted in with the animals that owners have brought to them to be euthanased?


Not sure if it's the same link (I've read most of them), but there was a reference to the figures on euthanasia being higher for PETA because they take in animals to humanely euthanise, as you said.

There was another point (if I remember rightly), that one of the centres used in the figures takes in sick animals for euthanasia and takes in animals referred from other PETA sources, for euthanasia, so their figures will be overwhelmingly high.

_If _that is the case for the high figures, then it does put a different light on things.

That's why I'm still looking for actual comparison figures here, rather than turning to blaming chronic oversupply at this time (another issue), but everyone's figures disagree because they are not made on the same basis.

Doesn't excuse the other evidence though - that members have left PETA because of the euthanasia policy being applied to healthy animals on a large scale, that members of PETA have taken in and pts family pets, or that extremist members advocate a 'no animals as pets' policy' and some are hell bent on carrying it out. And when you add in very dodgy advertising campaigns and PETA member's attitude to turning pets into vegetarians, I'm not particularly impressed.
But having said that, there are other animal rights organisations I am not overly impressed with either.

There are smear campaigns on both sides here (of one type or another), but no one can prove the actual figures being given from either side, because there is no comparison we can make. Or at least, no one has produced any so far.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Rubbish. All shelters, sadly, have to euthanise animals that they can't rehome. So why is PETA's percentage of euthanised animals much higher than all the others? Why are you so reluctant to admit that PETA see euthanasia as preferable to rehoming because they believe no animal should be a pet?
> 
> I agree it's down to chronic oversupply and that euthanasia is taking place all over the country - but that is true for all shelters, not just PETA shelters. So why do PETA euthanise a far higher percentage than all the others? Again, why are you so reluctant to admit that PETA see euthanasia as preferable to rehoming because they believe no animal should be a pet?


I would have thought it fairly simple to grasp. Other shelters euthanize animals that are in their charge. With up to 4 million cats and dogs euthanized each year the facts and the figures speak for themselves.

The difference is they don't advertise a free euthanasia service to the general community as PETA do, nor do they take in the hopeless cases from other shelters, as PETA do. Which is why their overall figure is higher than others.

It might suit PETA's enemies to go in studs up, but the fact of the matter is you can't make a direct correlation between their facility and others.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> The difference is they don't advertise a free euthanasia service to the general community as PETA do, nor do they take in the hopeless cases from other shelters, as PETA do. Which is why their overall figure is higher than others.


I think you will find that PeTA is not the only organisation to fund euthinasia nor are they the only organisation that take in "hopeless" cases :hand:


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> You're just quoting from those PETA-bashing websites, who are funded by animal abusing companies.
> 
> If you read my previous post you'll see that 2.7 million ADOPTABLE dogs and cats i.e. perfectly fit and healthy, just unwanted, are destroyed in the US every year by (Non-PETA) animal shelters.
> You and others here seem to have a blind spot on this.
> ...


KoA, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that those of us who have issues with PETA are incapable or reading a wide variety of sources and distinguishing between biased rhetoric and actual fact? Or that we are incapable of giving then some credit for things they have achieved?

Yes, I read the numbers in your previous post, but tragic though they are, they aren't actually relevant to the issue being discussed here. Nor is the oversupply of pets.

The issue here is that a shelter run by one of the most well financed animal rights organisations on the planet has both a higher kill rate and VERY much lower adoption rate in comparison with other local shelters, with no explanation other than what amounts to a vague 'it was the best thing to do.'

Now, I'm sure that they do have the legally required paperwork in place - they would be silly not to. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is _comprehensive_, does it? Of course, as I have never seen the paperwork and likely never will unless PETA release it, I have no idea what it is like. However, the logical inference of the simple fact that PETA _haven't_ released it is that it wouldn't help their case or portray them in a positive light.

Why do I think this? Well, let's face it, PETA aren't exactly shy about taking on detractors, are they? So I find it hard to believe that if they had hard evidence their PTS rate was simply due to owner request or medical necessity, evidence which would do HUGE credibility damage to those 'PETA-bashing' sites you mentioned, they would keep quiet about it and instead just send out long, meandering stock cut-and-paste letters to people who query them. Rather, I think they'd have picked their moment to say "Actually - here's proof you're wrong! " and milked every last drop of publicity value out of the moment. It's what I would have done - heck, I'd have specifically designed two separate animal handover forms, one of rehoming, one for immediate free PTS, with just that aim in mind! After all, if free humane PTS for those who can't afford it at a vet is the service I am offering, why not be up front about it in the paperwork and remove all doubt for opponents to prey on? Then on the rehome forms you just need to have a medical/rehoming assessment part for recording reasons behind the PTS/rehome decision, and that's pretty much all bases covered.

And given how good PETA are at publicity, I honestly find it hard to believe they haven't thought of that - IF the evidence would have proved favourable to them...


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

As it seems nobody opened my link about PETA taking pets and killing them:

in at least two cases, PETA workers have been arrested in incidents involving the taking of companion animals that were not subsequently surrendered to shelters.

On 28 January 2015, the Virginian Pilot published a full-page advertisement regarding one such incident which took place in October 2014. Animal rights advocate Nathan Winograd posted a scanned copy of the ad that detailed how a family's chihuahua, Maya, was taken and euthanized by PETA workers:
WARNING: PETA may be in your neighborhood rounding up animals to kill.

Today, this full page ad appeared in The Virginian Pilot (PilotOnline.com: News for Hampton Roads, Va., from The Virginian-Pilot), the newspaper of PETA's hometown. I and other animal lovers paid for it. We will not stand by and allow PETA to get away with "murder."

The Theft and Killing of Maya

On October 18, 2014, in Parksley, VA, PETA stole Maya, a happy and healthy dog, from her porch while her family was out. They killed her that very day.

According to a spokesman for Maya's family, PETA came to the trailer park where the family lives, where most of the residents are Spanish speaking with few resources. The PETA representatives befriended the residents. They got to know who lived where and who had dogs. In fact, they sat with the family on the same porch off which they later took Maya. Waiting until the family was away from the home, PETA employees backed their van up to the porch and threw biscuits to Maya, in an attempt to coax her off her property and therefore give PETA the ability to claim she was a stray dog "at large." But Maya refused to stay off the porch and ran back. Thinking that no one was around, one of the employees  who was later charged with larceny  went onto the property and took Maya.

When the family returned and found their beloved Maya missing, they searched around the neighborhood before checking the video on the surveillance camera. That is when they saw the PETA van on the film and recognized the woman who had come to their house on prior occasions to talk to them about Maya. They called PETA and asked for Maya's return. According to a family spokesperson, PETA claimed it did not have the dog. When PETA was told that its employees had been filmed taking the dog, they hung up. Shortly afterward, a PETA attorney called and informed the family that Maya was dead. PETA had killed her. She may not be the only one. On the day they stole Maya, other animals went missing as well. Had a surveillance video not been available, the killing of Maya would have remained unknown, as are the fates of the other animals. In the last 11 years, PETA has killed 29,426 animals.

Read more at snopes.com: PETA Is Stealing and Killing Pets?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> I think you will find that PeTA is not the only organisation to fund euthinasia nor are they the only organisation that take in "hopeless" cases :hand:


Oh really? Name names then. Give us the names of other shelters that offer a free euthanasia service to the general public, as the PETA shelter does, and take in hopeless cases from other shelters, as the PETA shelter does.
And provide the registered records so we can make an accurate comparison.

To help you work out your percentage ratios bear in mind the population of the Hampton Roads metropolitan area (the shelter's catchment area) is 1.6 million.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> As it seems nobody opened my link about PETA taking pets and killing them


I did... tragic for the families 

I was holding off posting, though as I still haven't been able to track down an official statement from PETA on the issue, and I do prefer to read both sides of a story before passing comment.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> Oh really? Name names then. Give us the names of other shelters that offer a free euthanasia service to the general public, as the PETA shelter does, and take in hopeless cases from other shelters, as the PETA shelter does.
> And provide the registered records so we can make an accurate comparison.
> 
> To help you work out your percentage ratios bear in mind the population of the Hampton Roads metropolitan area (the shelter's catchment area) is 1.6 million.


Quoted from an American friend 



> There are local and regional humane societies and non-profit organizations all over the US that provide all of these services and far more.
> 
> A quick google of humane society virginia or spca virginia gives you tons in the state of Virginia alone.
> And yes they do provide free euthanasia (Ive never paid to have a dog euthanized by a vet, just for cremation), and many provide low/no cost spay and neuter as well as low/no cost vaccinations and routine vet checks.
> ...


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

All the PETA allegations stem from Nathan Winograd, but how many are actually true?

Read on ...

The curious case of Nathan Winograd - National animal rights | Examiner.com


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> Quoted from an American friend


Let me guess, you get an A* in Creative Writing too?

Total fail.

Anonymous source. No figures. Nothing.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> All the PETA allegations stem from Nathan Winograd, but how many are actually true?
> 
> *Read on ...*
> 
> The curious case of Nathan Winograd - National animal rights | Examiner.com


Already did. You posted that same article back in post 28 - from a different website, admittedly:



Knightofalbion said:


> Not as black and white as it might seem ...
> 
> The Curious Case of Nathan Winograd - Why PETA Euthanizes


I haven't read Nathan Winograd's site. I wouldn't even have heard of him if you didn't keep mentioning him and linking to articles about him. I'm just running on numbers and hard logic here.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> Let me guess, you get an A* in Creative Writing too?
> 
> Total fail.
> 
> Anonymous source. No figures. Nothing.


Let me google that for you

And thats just in one tiny area of VA...try Google, you might find you have some fun with it :sneaky2:

Dear dog woman you are infuriating...the eyes will only see what the eyes want to see 

By the way I would give up guessing anything about me as you appear to suck


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> Oh really? Name names then. Give us the names of other shelters that offer a free euthanasia service to the general public, as the PETA shelter does, and take in hopeless cases from other shelters, as the PETA shelter does.
> And provide the registered records so we can make an accurate comparison.
> 
> To help you work out your percentage ratios bear in mind the population of the Hampton Roads metropolitan area (the shelter's catchment area) is 1.6 million.


Name names ...


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Don't think Nathan Winograd wrote the article regarding the stolen chi, nor did he set up the video of the PETA members taking her.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

rona said:


> The whole lot is a joke. Who produce that poster?
> 
> *You rarely shear lambs*


Exactly. You don't normally shear lambs at all - that first one looks like it was done for showing. The injured lamb looks more like the victim of a fox or dog attack, unless a dead lamb was deliberately mutilated for the purposes of publicity.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Already did. You posted that same article back in post 28 - from a different website, admittedly:
> 
> I haven't read Nathan Winograd's site. I wouldn't even have heard of him if you didn't keep mentioning him and linking to articles about him. I'm just running on numbers and hard logic here.


He is the one running and fronting the anti-PETA campaign, so everything comes back to him, so of course he is going to be mentioned.

And it isn't just PETA incidentally....

If you're going to go on an international forum and side with someone, don't you think it would be a good idea to establish who they are, what they stand for and who is funding them - and why ...


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> What do they mean? *This* is what they mean ...
> 
> The Wool Industry | Animals Used for Clothing | The Issues | PETA
> 
> International Exposé: Sheep Killed, Punched, Stomped on, and Cut for Wool


Just to remind everyone of what this thread is supposed to be all about.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> Name names ...


You have google find them yourself...unless you're too scared of what you might find!

Oh and if you had bothered to click on the link that I provided there are these names that you are so desperate for..

But as usual you twist and turn, move the goal posts and do just about anything to stop you seeing another point of view ut:

Have fun with that!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> You have google find them yourself...unless you're too scared of what you might find!
> 
> Oh and if you had bothered to click on the link that I provided there are these names that you are so desperate for..
> 
> ...


I did look at that site myself and couldn't find any reference to a free euthanasia service.

Am I being dim?


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> Just to remind everyone of what this thread is supposed to be all about.


The thread was about whether using a plastic replica of a tiny lamb (far too young to be sheered) enhances or detracts from an organisations credentials and therefore believability. And I'm afraid I think it does. However justified the point they are making may seem to be.

If I read/saw photos of an equivalent message on dog behaviour/mistreatment with clear misinformation being posted I would be as likely to presume that the article was penned by someone ignorant of the facts (or if it was the daily mail, deliberately being misleading) and to be honest cease to read further. When i see news articles/photos about dogs when they can't even get the breed right I don't believe the article that accompanies it. Simple.

I also believe that if an organisation has done its homework it should be able to target the offending areas where clearly there is still room for improvement in animal welfare ...the 'farms' articled are in America and Australia. Go for it. If there is abuse non of us want to see it continue.

But as someone who has lived in the county, worked and played amongst the farming community and has a wife who has used freshly sheered wool (literally hot off the sheep) to spin, I have to say that i have never seen anything more than an accidental nick (and sheerers try hard not to injure any animal). And I have never seen a baby with enough wool to sheer 

So get facts right and fight against abuse. Absolutely. Play with the facts to shock and don't be surprised when credibility is lost.

J


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rona said:


> I did look at that site myself and couldn't find any reference to a free euthanasia service.
> 
> Am I being dim?


Well I never said that they advertise free euthanasia, but they do offer free euthanasia (If KoA wishes to check I am sure she can contact them) if needed.
The American friend that I am referring too has never paid for a euthanasia to date (only cremation), and that wasn't supplied by PeTA!

My point was and still is that PeTA do not own the monopoly on free euthanasia or taking the "hopeless" from other shelters like KoA would like some to believe 
Most shelters that do take the "hopeless" cases don't feel the need to mention it as it is just something they do


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> I did look at that site myself and couldn't find any reference to a free euthanasia service.
> 
> Am I being dim?


That was the answer - no answer!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> That was the answer - no answer!


OK care to show me where PeTA actually advertise a free euthanasia to the general public?
Now I'm not talking about a response to criticism, I am talking about an ACTUAL advert to the general public advertising that they offer a free euthanasia clinic...

I just LOVE how you dismiss anything that doesn't fit in with your views :lol:
I also love how you have zero interest is seeing another's point of view :Yawn:


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Burrowzig said:


> Exactly. You don't normally shear lambs at all - that first one looks like it was done for showing. The injured lamb looks more like the victim of a fox or dog attack, unless a dead lamb was deliberately mutilated for the purposes of publicity.


Lambs aren't clipped in the UK unless they are being kept inside for some reason. I think it is a more common practise in hot climates though.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

PETA statement on euthanasia:

Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option

I've only quoted a little of the statement. *Warning: if you read the link it gives details of euthanasia which you may find distressing.
*


> "Because of the high number of unwanted companion animals and the lack of good homes, sometimes the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered surplus and unwanted...
> 
> "...... Until dog and cat overpopulation is brought under control through spaying and neutering, we must prevent the suffering of unwanted animals in the most responsible and humane way possible. Euthanasia, performed properly, is often the most compassionate option."


The article is actually about 'good and bad' options for euthanasia.
Admittedly, there are very few organisations who bring this issue out into the open while telling people how they euthanise, so credit for that, as most rescue organisations would rather skim over the subject as it is distressing.

But to me, it is the _thinking_ behind PETA's statement on euthanasia, rather than the 'good and bad' versions which I find difficult to accept.

From another PETA website, PETA Saves:



> "Like open-admission animal shelters across the country, PETA performs the heartbreaking task of euthanizing animals who are unwanted for one reason or another: because they are aggressive, sick, hurt, elderly, or at death's door and because no good homes exist for them."


So, PETA themselves say that other animal shelters euthanise animals. They have no argument with that.

And, in fact, on that first link, they give details of how other places who take in abandoned animals are _supposed _to carry this out.

That second link is actually in response to allegations from the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), so hopefully it provides those facts and figures we are all looking for.
(Haven't looked yet - will have a further look later).

I think if we are going to find any evidence for or against PETA, we should at least look through their websites and links they give, even if we read them with a critical eye.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rona said:


> I did look at that site myself and couldn't find any reference to a free euthanasia service.
> 
> Am I being dim?


If it was the 'let me google that for you' link, it is geo-specific, so it reverts to humane societies near your IP address.
I couldn't find any in my area either - not that there aren't any; it is just not discussed online by the societies that came up in the search that the link generated for me.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

silvi said:


> If it was the 'let me google that for you' link, it is geo-specific, so it reverts to humane societies near your IP address.
> I couldn't find any in my area either - not that there aren't any; it is just not discussed online by the societies that came up in the search that the link generated for me.


It shouldn't do, it is supposed to take you straight to the Porstmouth Humane society https://www.google.co.uk/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=http://www.portsmouthhumanesociety.org/services.html&gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei=MKMrVYbdL9HXauK5gNAL

But as I said to Rona, I never said that they advertised the service, I said that they offer the service.
But then no links to advertisements of such a service from PeTA have been provided either - ok they say they offer the service in response to criticism but that isn't the same as advertising to the general public of such a service.

My response was to this:


> The difference is they don't *advertise a free euthanasia service to the general community as PETA do*, nor do they take in the hopeless cases from other shelters, as PETA do. Which is why their overall figure is higher than others.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> Just to remind everyone of what this thread is supposed to be all about.


Actually, as the OP, this thread is _supposed_ to be about what a massive lie PETA have spread, their extreme methods and how they simply turn people off their 'ideals' by using obscenely extreme advertising shock techniques. Oh, and how their employees are on video stealing and killing family pets because they don't believe animals should be pets. If they have their way, we'll end up with feral dogs and cats only.

Please don't try to turn MY thread into something it's not.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> No, it is you who is being blind.
> It is a fact that PETA euthanize a greater percentage of the animals that come through their doors.
> Yes thousands of animals are euthanised each year, but at least other organisations actually try to rehome pets before they choose the PTS option.
> 
> PETA adopt out less than 1% of the animals that come to them...that is fact..


THIS is what you said. That is not "opinion", you are presenting it as a statement of fact.
But it's not true. It's calumny. In fact it's more than calumny, it's libel.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> If they have their way, we'll end up with feral dogs and cats only.


Problem is, feral doesn't seem to be a good option with PETA either 

Feral Cats: Trapping is the Kindest Solution



> Because of the huge number of feral cats and the severe shortage of good homes, the difficulty of socialization, and the dangers lurking where most feral cats live, it may be necessaryand the most compassionate choiceto euthanize feral cats. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your local animal shelter uses an injection of sodium pentobarbital, take the cats there. Please do not allow the prospect of euthanasia to deter you from trapping feral cats. If you leave them where they are, they will almost certainly die a painful death. A painless injection is far kinder than any fate that feral cats will meet if they are left to survive on their own.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> No, it is *you* who is being blind.
> 
> You could try reading your own report that you PETA-haters have trotted out what must be at least 5 times already.
> 
> ...


And THIS is what I said.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> PETA statement on euthanasia:
> 
> Euthanasia: The Compassionate Option
> 
> ...


No-one is denying other shelters euthanise. This is established. Up to 4 million cats and dogs are euthanised by animal shelters every year in the USA.
The don't offer a general free service to the general public though. That's the difference.
Doing the maths PETA euthanises less than 0.01% of that total, so I don't know why PETA are singled out for such vitriol. Or actually I do....

Read this on the CCF, who run the anti-PETA campaign. See who funds them, and why they hate PETA - and notice the other noble groups they attack and campaign against...

Center for Consumer Freedom - SourceWatch


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> No-one is denying other shelters euthanise. This is established. Up to 4 million cats and dogs are euthanised by animal shelters every year in the USA.
> The don't offer a general free service to the general public though. That's the difference.
> Doing the maths PETA euthanises less than 0.01% of that total, so *I don't know why PETA are singled out for such vitriol. Or actually I do....*
> 
> ...


I agree that the Center For Consumer Freedom is a total thorn in PETA's side, as I read all about them in a link given way back in this thread.
So I am entirely open to questioning the figures they give too.

As an aside,I personally would single out the RSPCA also, but that is for another thread....

I'm not someone who believes what they read (and it takes an awful lot to get me to believe anything to be honest), but when I read _on PETA's own website_, their attitude to euthanasia and their attack on rescue centres who have a 'no kill' policy, I find some of their attitudes misguided to say the least.

Add to this a group of 'helpers' many of whom are probably more extreme than PETA would like them to be (in public anyway), and you get situations where healthy pets are pts for no reason other than some misguided 'zeal' of the PETA supporter (and it may only be a few, but even one healthy pet pts against its owner's wishes is one too many)


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> He is the one running and fronting the anti-PETA campaign, so everything comes back to him, so of course he is going to be mentioned.
> 
> And it isn't just PETA incidentally....
> 
> If you're going to go on an international forum and side with someone, don't you think it would be a good idea to establish who they are, what they stand for and who is funding them - and why ...


So, basically, you are saying that if I've read _anything_ anti-PETA, it's all the fault of this one person and his backers?

And given that I'd never *heard* of this person before you mentioned him, how on earth can I *side* with him? You're not making any logical sense here...

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can put this, but I'll try:

I read the official, legal statistics for the PETA shelter.
I compared that with the statistics of other shelters in their area.
I came to the numerically driven conclusion that PETA PTS more and directly rehome a lot less than other shelters.
I observed that they do not indicate how many PTS are due to owner request for free euthanasia, and how many are due to medical reasons and what those medical reasons were. I acknowledged they have no legal reason to keep this information.
However, I also noted that if this information existed and supported their shelter being a 'shelter of last resort', they had every reason to publicise that data as a means of totally discrediting their detractors. Therefore the logical conclusion is that the information either doesn't exist, or would be detrimental to PETA.
Further, if the information doesn't exist, then given how good PETA are at publicity, I can't believe they would have overlooked the opportunity to accumulate data that would exonerate them and discredit their detractors, especially given they have had YEARS to do so; therefore the logical conclusion is still that it would be detrimental to PETA.

So I fail to see how the consideration of hard statistics and drawing a logical conclusion is somehow something to do with someone I'd never heard of until you mentioned them... 

Oh, and I can't find any *adverts* for a free euthanasia service to pet owners, either. Plenty of references to a statement issued on the subject (not many of those on actual PETA websites, oddly), but no adverts. Do you have a link to one I can look at, please?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

silvi said:


> Problem is, feral doesn't seem to be a good option with PETA either
> 
> Feral Cats: Trapping is the Kindest Solution


So cats and dogs ought not to be pets, nor should they be feral, according to PETA. So, I am led to the conclusion that PETA in fact want to eliminate cats and dogs and other domesticated animals or indeed, ALL animals, as they are either domesticated or wild/feral, neither of which PETA wishes to see. Omg! Plus they advocate being vegan, so give it a few generations and there will be no animals at all?!


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> I agree that the Center For Consumer Freedom is a total thorn in PETA's side, as I read all about them in a link given way back in this thread.
> So I am entirely open to questioning the figures they give too.
> 
> As an aside,I personally would single out the RSPCA also, but that is for another thread....
> ...


Yes, it's deeper than just PETA. They have it in for all manner of virtuous causes, groups and campaigners. People need to know what lies behind the facade, what they're doing and why.

I don't doubt that there are a few hotheads at PETA USA - what organisation doesn't have its share of those - and I doubt they are whiter than white, but most PETA USA employees, and those at PETA UK, PETA Germany etc. are thoroughly decent people and genuine animal lovers who dedicate their lives to helping animals at first hand and improving the lot of animals in general. 
To hear people who don't know what they're talking about bad mouth such good people ... Disgusting.

I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick about PETA's policy towards No-Kill.
In an ideal world ... But it isn't an ideal world. 
To have a no kill policy (for domesticated cats and dogs) okay, but for it to work, you'd need a widespread neutering and spaying campaign, and an end to uncontrolled breeding.

At the moment the various animal shelters (In the USA) per annum re-home 2 million cats and dogs. PTS 2.7 million healthy but unwanted animals and 1.3 million sick, injured, behavioural problems/aggressive.
Total: 4 million PTS.

To have a no kill policy without concentrating resources on neutering and spaying, suggesting that there is actually an under-supply of pets, thus encouraging yet more breeding... 
Animal Shelters in the US are the same as in the UK, limited facilities and struggling to make ends meet. To double, treble, quadruple demand without increasing facilities, income, staff ....

PETAs stance might sound callous, I can see that, but it is based on experience and a grasp on reality, however unpleasant that may be.

DEVORE SHELTER FRIENDS: FAILING SHELTERS WHO ADOPTED NATHAN WINOGRAD'S "NO KILL EQUATION"


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> So cats and dogs ought not to be pets, nor should they be feral, according to PETA. So, I am led to the conclusion that PETA in fact want to eliminate cats and dogs and other domesticated animals or indeed, ALL animals, as they are either domesticated or wild/feral, neither of which PETA wishes to see. Omg! Plus they advocate being vegan, so give it a few generations and there will be no animals at all?!


If followed through to the ultimate conclusion that _some _PETA members see as optimum, then that could well be true.

That's why the more I read from PETA, the more confused I get about their overall intentions .


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> *To have a no kill policy without concentrating resources on neutering and spaying, suggesting that there is actually an under-supply of pets, thus encouraging yet more breeding*...
> Animal Shelters in the US are the same as in the UK, limited facilities and struggling to make ends meet. To double, treble, quadruple demand without increasing facilities, income, staff ....
> 
> PETAs stance might sound callous, I can see that, but it is based on experience and a grasp on reality, however unpleasant that may be.
> ...


But PETA isn't the only animal welfare organisation that encourages neutering and spraying. In fact, every rescue and welfare organisation I have come across (both in the UK and Spain) actively encourages neutering and spaying.

It is definitely not only PETA who are encouraging this.

The difference is, that many of these welfare organisations and rescues try their utmost not to put healthy pets down, while PETA, _it appears_, sometimes do not.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Every rescue emphasises spaying/neutering and in most dogs are done before being rehomed. Except for puppies where there's a contract to have them spayed at 6 months. To the point where a lot of rescue people get very obsessive over it and convinced that anyone who has an intact dog is clearly breeding them over and over.

But sure keep drinking the PETA koolaid.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Just to add, that when I was in Spain and working with rescue centres there, there was a very strong campaign to get street dogs spayed or neutered - literally take them from the street, nurse them to health if needed, spay or neuter, care for them until they had recovered, and then, if no homes were found for them, let them go back to the streets.

It was a radical solution, and one that some would find shocking, but the number of street dogs in Spain is massive. They, nevertheless, can find shelter at night and food to eat.
The idea certainly wasn't ideal, but everyone agreed that, if carried out properly, it was better than euthanising healthy animals who were really causing no problems to anyone.

Edit:
But if PETA had been there and got their way, their attitude about feral cats and dogs would not have allowed this.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> But PETA isn't the only animal welfare organisation that encourages neutering and spraying. In fact, every rescue and welfare organisation I have come across (both in the UK and Spain) actively encourages neutering and spaying.
> 
> It is definitely not only PETA who are encouraging this.
> 
> The difference is, that many of these welfare organisations and rescues try their utmost not to put healthy pets down, while PETA, _it appears_, sometimes do not.


Yes, most animal welfare organisations carry out neutering and spaying. Or if they don't actively do it, they support others doing it.
They all recognise that the problem of oversupply is at the root of all this. 
It is something that doesn't sit very comfortably with me I must admit, but what is the alternative? We'd be even more overwhelmed with unwanted cats and dogs otherwise.

This is part of the feud with Mr Winograd/CCF and PETA. 
They say there is actually an undersupply (?!), no reason to euthanize and that PETA are trigger happy killers. 
PETA say there is an oversupply, euthansia is an inescapable consequence of that and they are just being realistic. 
{I would have thought 2.7 million unwanted but healthy cats and dogs being PTS every year proved the point, but there you are ... }

As for the other question. Anonymous people, who presumably dislike PETA, saying that anonymous people at PETA are over-zealous in carrying out euthanasia. That is all a bit vague to me to be able to come to any fair or reasoned judgement, either way.
Though I do know, if there is an over-zealous person or two there, they don't represent the majority of PETA workers.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

No one is claiming everyone who supports peta are the worst of the extremists, just like anything else the extremists are the most vocal. But the fact that many people will justify the worst of what they say and do is disturbing.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> THIS is what you said. That is not "opinion", you are presenting it as a statement of fact.
> But it's not true. It's calumny. In fact it's more than calumny, it's libel.


I am fully aware of what I said and what you said ta - my comments still stand.
Care to share these adverts to the general public that you claimed they made?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> Actually, as the OP, this thread is _supposed_ to be about what a massive lie PETA have spread, their extreme methods and how they simply turn people off their 'ideals' by using obscenely extreme advertising shock techniques. Oh, and how their employees are on video stealing and killing family pets because they don't believe animals should be pets. If they have their way, we'll end up with feral dogs and cats only.
> 
> Please don't try to turn MY thread into something it's not.


Oh that's right. It was YOU who started this thread.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Play the video ...

PETA Saves Animals | Euthanasia, No Kill, Animal Shelters, and More | PETA.org

*Don't believe the hate*


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> Oh that's right. It was YOU who started this thread.
> 
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


How rude!
Quite ironic considering the text in your signature


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> Oh that's right. It was YOU who started this thread.
> 
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


No one should be ashamed of themselves for holding an opinion just because it doesnt happen to go along with yours. Do grow up.

Not everyone likes PETA. Not everyone agrees with the tactics used by PETA. Not everyone appreciates the methods PETA deploy. That is not something to be ashamed of. Its a little thing called opinion.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Oh that's right. It was YOU who started this thread.
> 
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


You cannot really mean this?

What have they to be ashamed about? 

It's given you your platform


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Ah yes peta's site is going to be entirely unbiased towards their mission and definitely more reliable than the anti-sites. Ever take a history or science class?One of the first things you should learn is source analysis.

People are entitled to their opinions, but of course if they air them on an open forum they should expect others to give theirs.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> How rude!
> Quite ironic considering the text in your signature


Coming from someone who resorted to calumny and libel that remark doesn't surprise me.

No respect for *HATE * threads.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> Coming from someone who resorted to calumny and libel that remark doesn't surprise me.
> 
> No respect for *HATE * threads.


Criticism of a campaign does not equate to hate. No person, organisation or group is above critique.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> You cannot really mean this?
> 
> What have they to be ashamed about?
> 
> It's given you your platform


True, but this is a hate thread. It was obvious from the start where this thread was going. It was always going to result in flaming up argument, and bad-mouthing and besmirching good people. I know PETA UK and PETA Germany staff I find it incredibly offensive that they should be subjected to this sort of vilification. And you can see from that video that the Norfolk, VA staff are nothing like how certain people in this thread have insinuated.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't know the original article and poster came from a hatchet group, though they should have checked the source before posting.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> Coming from someone who resorted to calumny and libel that remark doesn't surprise me.
> 
> No respect for *HATE * threads.


And I have no respect for people that sling insults at others that don't have the same views :sneaky2: FWIW I never claimed that the staff at VA were anything so again will you stop adding rubbish to others posts!

I suppose it is easier to label others haters rather than actually listen to what is being said 

You have a bit of a habit of resorting to insults when others don't conform to your thinking - not a nice personality trait my dear!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> Oh that's right. It was YOU who started this thread.
> 
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


You are a massive hypocrite. This is a _pet-lovers'_ forum: one presumes you actually have pets or why would you be on the forum? If you believe in PETA's ethics of no animal should be a pet and no animal should be feral, how can you justify this? One presumes that anyone who is anti-religion would also be labelled a 'hater'? Lord, how I loathe that term, no-one over 15 should use it.



StormyThai said:


> How rude!
> Quite ironic considering the text in your signature


Quite.



Knightofalbion said:


> True, but this is a hate thread. It was obvious from the start where this thread was going. It was always going to result in flaming up argument, and bad-mouthing and besmirching good people. I know PETA UK and PETA Germany staff I find it incredibly offensive that they should be subjected to this sort of vilification. And you can see from that video that the Norfolk, VA staff are nothing like how certain people in this thread have insinuated.
> 
> I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't know the original article and poster came from a hatchet group, though they should have checked the source before posting.


Don't be ridiculous: it's not a 'hate' thread. It's a 'OMG, I cannot believe PETA would publish such a mad advert' post. I had not much opinion on PETA before this, but the advert horrified me and nothing posted so far has changed my mind that they are an extremist group whom I would never be able to support.

No-one has said all their staff are badly behaved, but you cannot deny-although you have so far avoided commenting on-the video surveillance of PETA staff stealing the dog which was then killed on the same day, or that they don't believe animals should be pets.

The sheer irony and hypocrisy of this from your link 

Let them (children) be taught to have pity for the animals that are at our mercy, that cannot protect themselves, that cannot explain their weakness, their pain or their suffering. Soon this will bring to their attention that higher law, the moral obligation of man as a superior being to protect and care for the weak and defenceless. Nor will it stop there, for this in turn will lead them to that highest law - man's duty to man. - Ralph Waldo Trine


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Ah yes peta's site is going to be entirely unbiased towards their mission and definitely more reliable than the anti-sites. Ever take a history or science class?One of the first things you should learn is source analysis.


To give Koa their due, I think it is only fair to consider what PETA actually say, alongside other sites which challenge them. Otherwise you get a rather one-sided picture.

The strange thing is though, that even on PETA's site, I discovered things which I found very difficult to agree with, hence my posting the links.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Oh that's right. It was YOU who started this thread.
> 
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


And who made you forum policeman?

The only person who should be ashamed of himself on here is you.

Everyone else is debating the issue - and there are people debating it from both sides without resorting to name calling just because someone holds a different opinion to theirs.

And as others have said, given your signature, what a total hypocrite you are. What part of "Do no harm to man or beast" fits in with your support of PETA?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

cinnamontoast said:


> You are a massive hypocrite. This is a _pet-lovers'_ forum: one presumes you actually have pets or why would you be on the forum? If you believe in PETA's ethics of no animal should be a pet and no animal should be feral, how can you justify this? One presumes that anyone who is anti-religion would also be labelled a 'hater'? Lord, how I loathe that term, no-one over 15 should use it.
> 
> Quite.
> 
> ...


Opinion is one thing. 
If you're going to make claims make sure they're *true*.

I don't agree with everything PETA says and does, and their methods may be unorthodox at times, but they do a damn sight more for animals and the Animal Kingdom in general, than you or I or anyone else here could ever hope to do.

As for their stance on pets, that's not what they 're saying.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

silvi said:


> To give Koa their due, I think it is only fair to consider what PETA actually say, alongside other sites which challenge them. Otherwise you get a rather one-sided picture.
> 
> The strange thing is though, that even on PETA's site, I discovered things which I found very difficult to agree with, hence my posting the links.


It should be considered yes, but to call others blinded by anti-propaganda and then take all your information from the organisation? That's no better.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> Opinion is one thing.
> If you're going to make claims make sure they're *true*.
> 
> I don't agree with everything PETA says and does, and their methods may be unorthodox at times, but they do a damn sight more for animals and the Animal Kingdom in general, than you or I or anyone else here could ever hope to do.
> ...


Such as? What claims? Stop being so ridiculously mysterious. Specify, please.

PETA don't agree with having animals as pets-that is on their website. They also say feral a should be euthanised. PETA staff stole and killed a chi for no reason-the video proves this. Still no comment on it? And which claim do you think is untrue?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> Opinion is one thing.
> If you're going to make claims make sure they're *true*.
> 
> .


Agreed...so where are these adverts then?


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

A good article on this matter

https://askauntannie.wordpress.com/...es-where-the-animal-rights-movement-is-wrong/


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> As for their stance on pets, that's not what they 're saying.


PETA writing about Animal Rights Uncompromised: 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............
> 
> ........... 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.......


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I've been looking for adverts from PETA re free euthanasia, but can't find any.
What I did find was this:
Response to accusations about their policies on euthanasia

(I think that it may have been referred to before in the thread, but I'm not sure...)

You need to scroll down past their argument with the CCF to find out more details.

I don't agree with some of their arguments for euthanasia (or with their thoughts on keeping pets come to that), but it is quite a thorough explanation for anyone who wants to read it (or to argue against its claims).


----------



## Boonze (Apr 9, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> Oh that's right. It was YOU who started this thread.
> 
> You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


All your sources were either the official PETA website, a PETA affiliate, or huffington post. Hardly reliable sources, as of course the first two are going to be in favour of themselves (  ) and the last one can't be considered a valid source at all due to it's lack of objectivity.

There is ample evidence to the counter the argument that PETA is a beneficial organization in this thread alone - not to mention the rest of the objective evidence that is available online.

It is not a smear campaign, it's proof that has been unearthed of their malpractice - and it shouldn't be tolerated. As mentioned - no person, organization or ideology is above critiscm and it should be encouraged - especially when such deplorable acts are undertaken by said association regularly.

By the way - this isn't a hate thread - it started out as a light-hearted 'wow, can't believe this!' thread. If you _knew_ it was going to take that direction, that's because _some_ people take it personally. There's no need to get childish about it because the evidence isn't swinging the thread in the direction you want it to take.

A parting note for future disagreements - it's quite difficult to take you seriously when you result to ad hominem in lieu of actual evidence / arguments. Just a thought.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> True, but this is a hate thread. It was obvious from the start where this thread was going. It was always going to result in flaming up argument, and bad-mouthing and besmirching good people. I know PETA UK and PETA Germany staff I find it incredibly offensive that they should be subjected to this sort of vilification. And you can see from that video that the Norfolk, VA staff are nothing like how certain people in this thread have insinuated.
> 
> I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't know the original article and poster came from a hatchet group, though they should have checked the source before posting.


I am with this member, the voice of reason!

Pretty shocked to see this reaction on an animal loving forum. PETA on the whole do great work, I am happy to say.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Facts about animal cruelty... 
In some cases, sheep are bred to have skin with many folds, which allows an animal to hold more wool. However, the folds attract maggots, especially around the anus. In a condition called flystrike, the maggots eat the sheep alive. The traditional solution is called &#8220;mulesing,&#8221; in which huge chunks of flesh are sliced from the lamb&#8217;s hindquarters so that smooth scar tissue forms.

Sheep used for wool live mainly outdoors and are shorn at the end of winter when their coats are the fullest, but before they would naturally shed. Australia loses about 1,000,000 sheep per year due to exposure after shearing.

A recent trend in the fur market is astrakhan fur, also known as karakul or broadtail. Astrakhan fur is made from Astrakhan lambs that are killed at just a few days old. Some coats known as broadtail coats are made from the skin of unborn lambs. The mother&#8217;s throat is slit and her stomach is slashed to remove the developing lamb.

But wait you all say that PETA is the bad guy! Really??? I bet most of you wear UGGS (boak)


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> But wait you all say that PETA is the bad guy! Really??? I bet most of you wear UGGS (boak)


Maybe you should actually read the thread before assuming things about people you know nothing about 

FWIW I never have, nor will 
I ever own or wear a pair of UGGs :Yawn:


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> Pretty shocked to see this reaction on an animal loving forum


We're not that keen on the RSPCA either.  And welcome, newbie 

Nope, don't like Uggs, thanks. Impractical and - hah! - Ugg-ly 

...I'll get my coat...


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Fake UGGS involve even more cruelty! They are made of cats and dogs skinned alive. 

I am a fan of both the RSPCA and PETA.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> Fake UGGS involve even more cruelty! They are made of cats and dogs skinned alive.
> 
> I am a fan of both the RSPCA and PETA.


Eh, who mentioned fake Uggs?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> PETA writing about Animal Rights Uncompromised: Pets


And what does the last paragraph say?

(There is also their objection to 27,000,000 healthy cats and dogs - in the US alone - being destroyed every decade due to over-breeding which you need to factor in.)


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Going back to the topic

The original PETA expose on abuse in the wool industry - Australia (and US)
International Exposé: Sheep Killed, Punched, Stomped on, and Cut for Wool

The Australian Sheep Shearers Association acknowledging there is an abuse problem
Fasting of Sheep: Cranky Sheep, Cranky Shearers (Cause and Effect)

And the other side of the coin - live exports [Mild version]
5 Investigations. 7 Countries. 1 Conclusion. - YouTube


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Jesthar said:


> Eh, who mentioned fake Uggs?


I did! 

Maybe I should get my coat?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> Well said.
> 
> "Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Which is what the anti-PETA and other AR groups campaign is all about. They want to silence and destroy the voices of compassion and humanity that are damaging their profit margins.


Amen! .......


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> And what does the last paragraph say?
> 
> (There is also their objection to 27,000,000 healthy cats and dogs - in the US alone - being destroyed every decade due to over-breeding which you need to factor in.)


The last paragraph says:

"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."

There are two very clever potential riders in there, of course. The obvious one is the 'who are well cared for' part, which limits the paragraph to applying to dogs and cats who meet PETAs own definition of being 'well cared for' - whatever that may be in a given time/scenario.

The less obvious one is the word 'want', which could potentially be interpreted to mean 'we don't want to do it, but we won't shy away from it', to paraphrase the heading of one of their articles on euthanasia (from memory). That could just be me being overly cynical, but having seen how twisty PETA logic can often get, I'm keeping an open mind there.

And, of course, there is the beautiful irony of the plea to adopt animals from shelters, as I don't believe their shelter is open to public adoptions?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

There's none so blind as those who will not see


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

patsymatsy said:


> Facts about animal cruelty...
> In some cases, sheep are bred to have skin with many folds, which allows an animal to hold more wool. However, the folds attract maggots, especially around the anus. In a condition called flystrike, the maggots eat the sheep alive. The traditional solution is called mulesing, in which huge chunks of flesh are sliced from the lambs hindquarters so that smooth scar tissue forms.
> 
> Sheep used for wool live mainly outdoors and are shorn at the end of winter when their coats are the fullest, but before they would naturally shed. Australia loses about 1,000,000 sheep per year due to exposure after shearing.
> ...


All of this has already been covered.



patsymatsy said:


> Fake UGGS involve even more cruelty! They are made of cats and dogs skinned alive.
> 
> I am a fan of both the RSPCA and PETA.


Why are we mentioning Uggs? I wouldn't touch them, foul looking things. And seriously, where is your proof of this claim?!


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> Maybe I should get my coat?


Did you join just to answer this thread?

If so, there is a lot of good information here for you to read and comment on, before we move on to a discussion about fake uggs


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> The thread was about whether using a plastic replica of a tiny lamb (far too young to be sheered) enhances or detracts from an organisations credentials and therefore believability. And I'm afraid I think it does. However justified the point they are making may seem to be.
> 
> I also believe that if an organisation has done its homework it should be able to target the offending areas where clearly there is still room for improvement in animal welfare ...the 'farms' articled are in America and Australia. Go for it. If there is abuse non of us want to see it continue.
> 
> ...


On the subject of 'getting your facts right'.

It may have escaped your notice that this campaign hails from PETA Australia. 
This is why it features Australian farms, Australian sheep and Australian sheep shearers.
So your reminiscences about an entirely different continent aren't really relevant. 
Though, that being said, I think it somewhat misplaced to suggest, as rightly or wrongly I felt you seemed to be alluding to, that Britain is a Shangri-la for sheep. Because sheep in Britain endure their portion of suffering and abuse at the hands of man, just as their Australian counterparts do.
Animal Aid: The suffering of farmed sheep

On the subject of wool, I have to say I don't know a lot about British wool, though Ian Hartley CEO of The British Wool Marketing Board, quoted in The Guardian, says that '99.9% of UK sheep farmer's wool will always be a by-product of the meat industry' i.e. slaughterhouse....

As for your statement of playing "with the facts to shock" ... The facts ARE shocking.

PETA Australia's 'Wool' campaign is the third of their campaigns against animal abuse in Australia's huge sheep industry.
I've posted the sheep abuse video enough so no need to repeat that.

They also campaign against the practice of mulesing...
Mulesing ? A Barbaric and Unnecessary Cruelty | PETA.org.au

And the main one is live exports (to the Middle East) 
Though this is the website of Animals Australia, which is much more comprehensive than PETA Australia's. I challenge 'certain members' to watch all those videos in 'Latest Investigations'. And the tale of poor Jacob in the lead video. 
{Honour leads me to warning that the content is distressing and not for gentle souls}
Ban Live Export - official site

I don't support all PETA's publicity events. This one would have been far more powerful using a still from that video rather than a prop. But anything they can do to bring such acts of cruelty to public attention, and through that to bring them to an end - and none of these practices have any place in a modern, civilised society - then all power to them.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

You really are not in a position to rant about facts when you can't/won't provide your own :skep:


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> All of this has already been covered.
> 
> Why are we mentioning Uggs? I wouldn't touch them, foul looking things. And seriously, where is your proof of this claim?!


Tough!

And

Because I wanted to!


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

silvi said:


> Did you join just to answer this thread?
> 
> If so, there is a lot of good information here for you to read and comment on, before we move on to a discussion about fake uggs


Nope, I joined to ask about Lyme disease. Not that it is any of your business. 

I will talk about what I want and when I want. I won't be "policed" by randoms off the internet.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

patsymatsy said:


> Tough!
> 
> And
> 
> Because I wanted to!


You are not helping the PETA cause: random and unsubstantiated hearsay is precisely what people are complaining about on here, but knock yourself out, keep posting stuff that detracts from the points raised. Maybe even post your own nonsensical thread!


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> You are not helping the PETA cause: random and unsubstantiated hearsay is precisely what people are complaining about on here, but knock yourself out, keep posting stuff that detracts from the points raised. Maybe even post your own nonsensical thread!


Charming!

A word to the wise, if you are rude to someone, they are generally rude back. Hence my reply to you!

I have loads of info on PETA, but with Horse&Hound (pro cruelty) types like you, I feel I would be wasting my typing skills and time.

I will skulk back to Dog Chat now, the people are nicer there.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I have not been rude to you. I could be, but I see no need.

Are you another one of my internet stalkers that trail round after me on the Internet or are you yet another incarnation of whatshisface? 

How am I pro-cruelty? Because I own a horse? What utter rubbish! You have no idea about me.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Don't rise to it CT, it's not worth it and will only get your thread closed :skep:


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> I have not been rude to you. I could be, but I see no need.
> 
> Are you another one of my internet stalkers that trail round after me on the Internet or are you yet another incarnation of whatshisface?
> 
> How am I pro-cruelty? Because I own a horse? What utter rubbish! You have no idea about me.


Stalk you??? You are a special kind of person, aren't you. Paranoid much, the doctor can give you something for that!

I am a female, not that I should need to disclose that, but I will. So no, not a male stalker. Crickey!

This thread, and the Grand National one told me all I needed to know, to judge you as a "Horse&Hound" type. 

Oh, I am anti Grand National also. But refrained from commenting on that, I just read it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Funny how the two people on this thread who are being he most disrespectful to others are the two most ardent PETA fans ...

Just sayin' ...


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> Don't rise to it CT, it's not worth it and will only get your thread closed :skep:


Tempted to ask for that, B, bit sick of pro-PETA people blindly crashing through whilst ignoring every reasonable argument or video evidence!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> Tempted to ask for that, B, bit sick of pro-PETA people blindly crashing through whilst ignoring every reasonable argument or video evidence!


It's the same time and time again.
Some people just don't like to think critically about a cause they support, it's how big organisations get away with so much :skep:

As I said before, the eyes are useless when the mind is blind


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

patsymatsy said:


> Stalk you??? You are a special kind of person, aren't you. Paranoid much, the doctor can give you something for that!
> 
> I am a female, not that I should need to disclose that, but I will. So no, not a male stalker. Crickey!
> 
> ...


Not paranoid, someone on here has been following me round on other forums and likes to to quote what I say elsewhere when it's not relevant. Feel free to look at the anti-hunting posts I have made.

Stalkers come in both sexes and if you don't know that, I think you can't ever watch the news.

The Grand National thread, where I said: 'But everyone at my yard (s) feeds big hay nets and not huge feeds: most horses aren't in 'hard work' which to me means hunting or eventing. They simply don't need the feed. I don't give my horse ad-lib hay because he lives on fresh air and would be a barrel. He has a percentage based on his weight which I adjust according to the weigh tape.'

Clearly I am a pro-cruelty HorseandHound type!! My signature shows my horse and 'hounds'. Shock, horror, I am an animal lover! Bad me! My horse is a much loved pet who isn't even ridden except for the occasional meander round the lanes. God help me, I'm a bad owner for spending all afternoon cuddling and grooming him! 

Hilarious!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

StormyThai said:


> It's the same time and time again.
> Some people just don't like to think critically about a cause they support, it's how big organisations get away with so much :skep:
> 
> As I said before, the eyes are useless when the mind is blind


And when they say random stuff without backing it up. What I do appreciate about this is the amount of evidence and links posted: it's all been very interesting.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> You are not helping the PETA cause: random and unsubstantiated hearsay is precisely what people are complaining about on here, but knock yourself out, keep posting stuff that detracts from the points raised. Maybe even post your own nonsensical thread!


After your above insults directed at my posts, I find it hilarious that your Avatar is "Je suis Charlie"!

Rolling on the floor laughing here.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)




----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> And when they say random stuff without backing it up. What I do appreciate about this is the amount of evidence and links posted: it's all been very interesting.


Indeed, it's been a very interesting thread until the personal insults started. It would be nice if everyone could just put their point and leave out all the ad-lib and childish behaviour


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> On the subject of 'getting your facts right'.
> 
> It may have escaped your notice that this campaign hails from PETA Australia.
> This is why it features Australian farms, Australian sheep and Australian sheep shearers.
> ...


Add this {As above} ... 
Help stop sheep cruelty | Animals Australia


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Tempted to ask for that, B, bit sick of pro-PETA people blindly crashing through whilst ignoring every reasonable argument or video evidence!


Oh, please don't, I've got a nice little analytical spreadsheet of the PETA VDACS statistics in the works, it's proving _rather_ interesting 

Yes, I'm a boring analyst geek with an Excel fixation, so sue me


----------



## Boonze (Apr 9, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> Tough!
> 
> And
> 
> Because I wanted to!


WHOA  What a compelling argument! Though, you conveniently ignored the last point. Avoiding the subject? I wonder.. :frown2:


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Im confused

did the OP actually WANT a real lamb carcass used in the picture?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Colliebarmy said:


> Im confused
> 
> did the OP actually WANT a real lamb carcass used in the picture?


No, I wanted to point out that it wasn't a real lamb and that I believe PETA to be untruthful and extreme in using shock tactics.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Colliebarmy said:


> Im confused
> 
> did the OP actually WANT a real lamb carcass used in the picture?


Precisely my first thought when I first read the thread.

Ghoulish people "want to see"!

Lambs, and sheep are badly injured during these "processes". That is a fact! Whether a fake sheep is used is irrelevant.

People moan when PETA use shocking cruelty images to tug on heart strings. But then moan when a fake sheep is used in an ad. PETA can't win!

Like ALL organisations, mistakes are made. But on the whole PETA does more good than bad. And that is good enough for me.

I am an animal lover, I commend (not condemn) charities helping the innocent and vunerable animal kingdom. 

People slag off PETA and the RSPCA, just to look clever or "in the know".

These organisations HELP animals in need for goodness sake. More so than the majority of forum members.

This thread was an epic fail, as Knightofalbion clearly pointed out.

Score card: PETA 1 Forum member 0


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Not paranoid, someone on here has been following me round on other forums and likes to to quote what I say elsewhere when it's not relevant. Feel free to look at the anti-hunting posts I have made.


You flatter yourself too much CT. I own a hunter and occasionally take him out with the bloodhounds, on that basis it's not beyond the realms of reason that I may read horsey forums every now and then. I don't stalk you, just happened to notice that your tone and attitude varies depending upon where you're posting  .


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> Precisely my first thought when I first read the thread.
> 
> Ghoulish people "want to see"!
> 
> ...


Hmm, did I miss this turning from a debating thread into a pointscoring thread?  Either way, I'm not playing that game, I'd rather have a sensible debate involving logic, facts, praise where due and criticism where deserved.

No one sensible can deny PETA has been involved in bringing about some pretty major animal welfare reforms. But that wasn't the topic of this thread. The topic up for debate was 'PETA losing more credibility' - a different kettle of fish (sorry - 'sea kittens' ) entirely.

The caption on the PETA poster is 'Here's the rest of your wool coat.' That caption carries the clear implication that the carcass being held is one of a real sheep that has been rescued from the horrors of a badly run shearing operation. Now, if you stop to THINK about it, that is not logical - there's preservation and transport logistics, plus the fact that it's not very likely any celebrity, no matter how dedicated to the PETA cause, is going to want to hug a rotting sheep carcass.

It also clearly implies that this is what all sheep look like after shearing - which is patently nonsense as no farmer would turn a profit if they mangled their animals that badly! Of course, in the UK, we benefit from seeing sheared sheep frequently in the countryside, so we are perhaps (subconciously) more knowledgable on such matters than people from countries where sheep are not such a common sight.

Yes, you are going to get those who see it and go  - which is what it is designed to do. But you will get plenty more who look at it and think 'well, that's not accurate...'

Now, if PETA had used a caption more along the lines of 'Your wool coat may involve this', then no-one would have anything to complain about. Or, even better, if they had used a still from all the video footage they have along with a more accurate caption. THAT would have been both highly newsworthy AND credible.

I do, of course, appreciate that isn't PETAs style, and is unlikely to become so. It wouldn't get them as much publicity or cashflow, for starters. But they must appreciate that controversy and credibility by their very nature do not walk hand in hand in the minds of many, and thus choosing one of those paths often means a proportionate degree of departure from the other.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lennythecloud said:


> You flatter yourself too much CT. I own a hunter and occasionally take him out with the bloodhounds, on that basis it's not beyond the realms of reason that I may read horsey forums every now and then. I don't stalk you, just happened to notice that your tone and attitude varies depending upon where you're posting  .


I do not 'flatter' myself. I think it highly inappropriate to bring across what was said on an entirely different forum onto here. My ideals and attitude are the same here as elsewhere, anti-fox hunting as I have now said numerous times.  I am interested in hunting-trail and drag, not that I have ever done it or will. At no point have I changed my attitude. I am friendly (online) with certain posters over there, therefore my tone may be different. My attitude does not vary.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> I am an animal lover, I commend (not condemn) charities helping the innocent and vunerable animal kingdom.
> 
> *People slag off PETA and the RSPCA, just to look clever or "in the know"*.
> 
> These organisations HELP animals in need for goodness sake. More so than the majority of forum members.


Not true in my case.

I didn't know a great deal about PETA until I joined this thread, apart from knowing that some of their campaigns were sick and of the rumours about high rates of euthanasia, so I joined this thread and read the links with interest.

I am never someone to take 'evidence' on face value, whatever side it is produced by, and this thread has shown that it is very difficult to correlate evidence, because no one has produced comparable figures. There have always been factors which make comparison difficult.

So I then had a look at PETA themselves. Surely if they _say_ they have certain attitudes to euthanasia, to people having animals as pets, to feral animals, etc, _and what they say doesn't help their case at all_, then we must assume that, either the person writing the article isn't a PETA leader, or that the article is approved for publication by PETA _and therefore reflects their views_.

There is some published evidence on individual cases of 'pet snatching' and one of pet euthanasia, with video evidence to back it up, so that is probably 'fact', but I admit that this is small in comparison to the number of pets that PETA helps.
But when the official website of an organisation states claims about animals that may then lead to some rather extreme members taking these claims to fruition, then that organisation must bear some of the blame, if only because they do not appear to have condemned what has happened.

But the original post was about a PETA advertising campaign which was untruthful in that it used a plastic sheep, told us that all sheep shearing was evil (which many of us Brits who have watched sheep shearing do not agree with at all) and therefore defeated its affect for many of us on this board.
This is not to say that cruelty does not exist on Australian sheep farms - it most likely does. But, despite the horrible videos, the actual _scale_ of that cruelty is still under question, especially as PETA have just proved to us that their claims cannot be taken on face value.

As to the RSPCA - I know someone (an elderly lady) who lost a pet because of their attitude (and because she didn't realise that she could prevent them entering her home). I can never forgive them for their conduct in that case.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

They'd have gained some respect from me if they'd actually used a real sheep. I've no time for people who fanny about attempting to shock people with something that isn't real, if there's a point to prove, issues to expose, then get bloody on with it, provide actual evidence. I won't waste my time on those who want to play games. 
I don't have much time for PETA as it is, I have to force myself to get past my first thought when they come up, which is along the lines of, oh, it's those nutters again, it's difficult, I'm not very tolerant of irrationality, and irrational is how they come off at times. 
Guess that makes me a hater then.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

cinnamontoast said:


> As it seems nobody opened my link about PETA taking pets and killing them:
> 
> in at least two cases, PETA workers have been arrested in incidents involving the taking of companion animals that were not subsequently surrendered to shelters.
> 
> ...


https://www.thedodo.com/community/Mary_Tully/maya-1073817732.html



Spellweaver said:


> Oh Jo - I don't know anyone who loves animals with a greater passion than you do. You weren't in my mind when I wrote "_how any animal lover can sweep all their atrocities under the carpet and excuse their wholesale murder of animals as justified is beyond me_" because you had said in your post that you didn't support them and have changed your donations.
> 
> I did read the letter and I do understand what you mean about corporate lobbyists and their "beef" (no pun intended!) with PETA. However, whilst I don't trust their motives for the smear campaign, the facts are that PETA as an orgnaisaiton leaves much to be desired and if there were not things to base the smears upon, the campaign would have ground to a halt by now.
> 
> ...


I'm not a member anymore & I no longer give a monthly donation to them, but I do still make one off donations. I'm not ashamed to say I recently donated $25 to their shut down SeaWorld campaign Val. PETA are at the forefront of this campaign, I want to help them in their efforts. SeaWorld says PETA 'lies' about killer whales - Mar. 24, 2015 Of course I don't agree with everything they say or do but I can let go our differences because I truly believe there would be a hell of a lot more animals suffering without PETA.

http://investigations.peta.org/petas-rescue-team/

Astro-turfing organisations such as CCF don't need any facts at all. They manipulate the truth to fit their insidious agenda & the fact that they target PETA is proof PETA is danger to the immoral industries the CCF represents.

I was showing my dogs at the time of that PETA allegation Val, did they officially issue a threat to release dogs? Obviously I certainly would condemn this if they did. I know PETA disapprove of showing & breeding dogs, but I cant hold that against them when they have achieved perhaps more than any other NGO to better the lives of animals. 'PETA India''s successes alone have been monumental.

All the smears have come from two sources CCF and Winograd - CCF is a very powerful & dangerous organisation. http://www.theagitator.net/nonprofit-management/anatomy-of-a-smear-campaign/



silvi said:


> The center For Consumer Freedom is definitely an organisation whose techniques I would think few of us would want to be associated with.
> 
> However, just because PETA is being opposed by this group (and quite vociferously too it has to be said), _does not in itself mean_ that PETA is totally ethical in everything they do, or that their stand on euthanasia is the correct one to take.


The CCF would vociferously oppose PETA plus any other organisation which threaten the profits of the corporations they represent - they are an astroturfing organisation. The CCF was set up specifically to undermine PETA and other NGO's.

Coincidentally I've just received this petition in my emails by one of the big funders of CCF, Philip Morris - https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uruguay_vs_big_tobacco_rb/?bOTGQcb&v=56987


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

That's right PetaKills is funded by the CCF.

The fact is there are those who have made an industry - and a fortune - out of exploiting, abusing, mistreating, mutilating and killing animals on a monumental scale.
The campaigns and exposes of PETA (and others) are undermining their businesses and their profit margins, hence they are seeking to kick them down and destroy them, so they can continue exploiting, abusing, mistreating, mutilating and killing animals on a monumental scale and continue raking in the money.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> On the subject of 'getting your facts right'.
> 
> It may have escaped your notice that this campaign hails from PETA Australia.
> This is why it features Australian farms, Australian sheep and Australian sheep shearers.
> ...


*This* ....

We've had here defenceless animals being kicked, punched, stamped on, castrated/mutilated without anaesthetic, kept in appallingly inhumane conditions, bludgeoned, stabbed in the eyes with a knife, hacked at repeatedly with a knife, butchered in the most cruel, vile, despicable manner conceivable and yet 'certain members' here have not uttered a single word of outrage, regret or empathy, nor displayed a twitch of compassion. And this on what is supposed to be an animal lover's forum!
Yet use a prop on a publicity photo shoot and suddenly there's a lynch mob!
This I do not understand.


----------



## IrishEyes (Jun 26, 2012)

I've been reading this thread with great interest but have very little free time so only now can I share my thoughts on this.

I can see both sides to this, PETA have not done themselves any favours with this particular campaign, all it is doing is giving those who dislike them more ammunition. PETA do a great deal of good but sometimes go off the tracks a bit and people tend to focus on their mistakes more than what they are achieving and the difference that they are making.

The fact is that sheep only need shearing because of us. We breed them to produce extra wool, for our benefit! If we had not/did not do this sheep would only produce what they would if left to be natural, they would then shed naturally.... it's as simply as that. 
Yes it's cruel to leave sheep with so much wool that it's causing real issues but the real cruelty is messing with how animals should be naturally! How can people not see this? Humans are the cause of all this suffering but their greed and need to take take and take some more knows no bounds and as a result defenceless animals suffer. And they do.

Until we stop treating our animal brothers and sisters as commodities the world will never know peace.

The following link contains disturbing images.

Animal Cruelty - Wool


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> https://www.thedodo.com/community/Mary_Tully/maya-1073817732.html
> 
> I was showing my dogs at the time of that PETA allegation Val, did they officially issue a threat to release dogs? Obviously I certainly would condemn this if they did. I know PETA disapprove of showing & breeding dogs, but I cant hold that against them when they have achieved perhaps more than any other NGO to better the lives of animals. 'PETA India''s successes alone have been monumental.


Been thinking about this Jo, and I can't put my hand on my heart and say I ever looked on PETA's website at the time to see what they actually said. What I do remember is that there were warnings about PETA in both dog papers. I remember us all buying padlocks for our cages, and I remember us all going in convoy and parking together, and taking it in turns to go to the car park and watch our cars. I can also remember warnings about what to do if they came to the Discover Dogs Stand we were manning. There was no actual trouble; I do remember that. The most I have atually seen them do at Crufts is put up a stall outside the main entrance to the Piazza, and do the run-ons in the best in show ring. (There were warnings about them threatening to egg exhibitors too, but that didn't materialise).

So it might have been rumour - but it was certainly taken seriously and acted upon.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Coincidentally I've just received this petition in my emails by one of the big funders of CCF, Philip Morris - https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uruguay_vs_big_tobacco_rb/?bOTGQcb&v=56987


Sorry, I find that confusing 
Surely the petition is about _stopping_ Philip Morris in the campaign against Uruguay?

(and everyone else, please ignore this as it's an aside to the real issue - just me being pedantic )


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Have to admit I have not read many of the links (there are so many on this thread) but just wanted to say this is an issue I have never really thought much about in the past despite being active in AR for many years when I was younger so in that respect PETA have done a good job in getting the issue out there and being discussed/thought about. I really don't see why it makes any difference that the sheep is not real as thats not really the issue is it? The cruelty involved is the issue and that is what we should be focusing on.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Stumbled across this whilst hunting for PETA VDACS statistics (might be upsetting, I should add):

Rescued By Black Boy


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I really don't see why it makes any difference that the sheep is not real as thats not really the issue is it?


If they make it clear it's only a representation of a possible situation then I think you're right. I don't think they do though and that leaves people feeling duped.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> Stumbled across this whilst hunting for PETA VDACS statistics (might be upsetting, I should add):
> 
> Rescued By Black Boy


It was very upsetting - and tears are rolling down my face now I've read it - but I would urge everyone to read it, especially those who are of the opinion that PETA's euthanasia ethics are a necessary evil in today's society.

No corporate entities working a smear cmpaign here - just a former PETA "soldier" telling the truth.

Thank you for posting this Jesthar.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> *This* ....
> 
> We've had here defenceless animals being kicked, punched, stamped on, castrated/mutilated without anaesthetic, kept in appallingly inhumane conditions, bludgeoned, stabbed in the eyes with a knife, hacked at repeatedly with a knife, butchered in the most cruel, vile, despicable manner conceivable and yet 'certain members' here have not uttered a single word of outrage, regret or empathy, nor displayed a twitch of compassion. And this on what is supposed to be an animal lover's forum!
> Yet use a prop on a publicity photo shoot and suddenly there's a lynch mob!
> This I do not understand.


You and I both! I find this both astounding and disheartening, especially on a pet forum.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I really don't see why it makes any difference that the sheep is not real as thats not really the issue is it? The cruelty involved is the issue and that is what we should be focusing on.


I agree, the cruelty *should* be the focus, but the reason it isn't is entirely due to the fact that they did not use a picture of a real sheep. The fact that they have used a plastic representation, with fake injuries and covered in fake blood, distracts people in two ways:

1. It makes people suspect that if they have to use a model then there are no real pictures of sheep injured from shearing. And that in turn leads people to think that if there are no real pictures, then PETA are exaggerating the problem and so they mentally turn off and don't follow the links to find out the evidence.

2. It moves the focus from the cruelty to PETA and their actions and ethics.

Both of those reasons are why I agree with the OP - the use of a fake sheep has indeed caused PETA to lose more credibility.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> Stumbled across this whilst hunting for PETA VDACS statistics (might be upsetting, I should add):
> 
> Rescued By Black Boy


That was extremely upsetting, but worth reading.

The comments are worth reading also, because they explore more about the author and show more examples of cruel PETA practices given by others.

And for those who say this is just another smear article against PETA, surely all the commenters on that article can't be linked to the CCF?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce comes out swinging against PETA for anti-shearing campaign - ABC Rural (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Animal rights anti-shearing campaign causes outrage - Farmers Weekly

PETA is all about portraying extreme behaviour as the norm. 

As always. a few bad eggs doesn't make all bad


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

IrishEyes said:


> I've been reading this thread with great interest but have very little free time so only now can I share my thoughts on this.
> 
> I can see both sides to this, PETA have not done themselves any favours with this particular campaign, all it is doing is giving those who dislike them more ammunition. PETA do a great deal of good but sometimes go off the tracks a bit and people tend to focus on their mistakes more than what they are achieving and the difference that they are making.
> 
> ...


As I mentioned this is a publicity campaign for PETA Australia, but as we live in a global village, it has gone far and wide.

The young fellow in the picture is a musician. I'm not familiar with his music, but I believe he's an Ed Sheeran type. So his face is well known in Australia.

The idea of something like this is purposely to draw fire. You take a kernel of truth (and lets not lose sight that there is a kernel of truth here, as the video showed and the Australian Sheep Shearers Association recognised there was a problem and instigated the introduction of a new code of practice as a result) put a bit of spin on it and wait for the press to descend on it.
And that's what has happened.

The haters are going to hate. 
The AR people are going to cheer them on. 
The average member of the public is going to say 'Wool is cruel? What's this all about?' And then read up about it, and that'll lead them on to slaughter, live exports etc.

There is good in everyone. It might take a bit of finding in some people but it is there. 
People have been conditioned to certain ways. They don't think, don't know about most of what goes on.

You cannot teach people compassion. What you can do is lead by example, to show them that a better way is possible, and to open their eyes and educate them about what is happening 'out of sight and out of mind', and leave the rest to the Light within.

A lot of people will be jumping off the 'cruelty carousel', giving up buying wool, and eating meat, as a result of this publicity campaign.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> People have been conditioned to certain ways. They don't think, don't know about most of what goes on.


Isn't that the truth...so much so if you dare to have a differing opinion you are labeled a "hater"


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree, the cruelty *should* be the focus, but the reason it isn't is entirely due to the fact that they did not use a picture of a real sheep. The fact that they have used a plastic representation, with fake injuries and covered in fake blood, distracts people in two ways:
> 
> 1. It makes people suspect that if they have to use a model then there are no real pictures of sheep injured from shearing. And that in turn leads people to think that if there are no real pictures, then PETA are exaggerating the problem and so they mentally turn off and don't follow the links to find out the evidence.
> 
> ...


I guess that depends on how you look at things though. If for instance I was going to run a media campaign about FGM I don't think I would go looking for a young female who would be happy to have her genitals photographed and used in a massive PR campaign. I would be more than happy to use a plastic model/diagrams and first hand stories. I don't see how that would detract from the issue or lose credibility. If PETA had used a real sheep with real injuries and spent ages posing for photos there would surely be public outrage that the poor animal was being exploited and should be receiving urgent veterinary care.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

So I followed the woman who wrote the article, 'Rescued By Black Boy'. 
Her name is Heather Harper-Troje and, as well as reading more of her 'mom2nomads' blog on wordpress.com, I had a look at her twitter account.

Here is an article she links to from twitter: Did PETA wrongly euthanize more animals?
It is from local news blog called wavy.com and this article follows on from the illegal seizing and euthanising of Meya the chihuahua by PETA staff.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I guess that depends on how you look at things though. If for instance I was going to run a media campaign about FGM I don't think I would go looking for a young female who would be happy to have her genitals photographed and used in a massive PR campaign. I would be more than happy to use a plastic model/diagrams and first hand stories. I don't see how that would detract from the issue or lose credibility. If PETA had used a real sheep with real injuries and spent ages posing for photos there would surely be public outrage that the poor animal was being exploited and should be receiving urgent veterinary care.


But PETA had videos on their site _already_ and they could have used a still from a video instead of a plastic sheep.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> But PETA had videos on their site _already_ and they could have used a still from a video instead of a plastic sheep.


Exactly. And that would have been a lot more effective, and would not have had the effect of people thinking PETA were exaggerating and so not bothering to read the links about it.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> It was very upsetting - and tears are rolling down my face now I've read it - but I would urge everyone to read it, especially those who are of the opinion that PETA's euthanasia ethics are a necessary evil in today's society.
> 
> No corporate entities working a smear cmpaign here - just a former PETA "soldier" telling the truth.
> 
> Thank you for posting this Jesthar.


Well intentioned but misleading.

Again I ask why single out PETA?????

Across the USA (non-PETA) animal shelters euthanize 2.7 million HEALTHY cats and dogs every year.
With up to another 1.3 million sick, injured and aggressive ones. 
So the grand total could be up to 4,000,000 cats and dogs annually. 
(Of which PETA's contribution is 2,200 or so)

The reason the 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs are euthanized is because there is an over supply i.e. there are no homes for them/nobody wants them.

The 'No Kill' campaign sounds reasonable in theory. But what it means is in ten years time you'd have 27 million, or even 40 million, cats and dogs with no homes.

What are you going to do with them? Have them run free in the public gardens? Lock them up in cages? 
And who is going to provide the food and healthcare?
What about quality of life?

Animal shelters are at breaking point already. HUGE extra demand, but no extra facilities, funds or staff .....

A while ago there was a thread in the other section. A large number of cats and dogs kept in cages on the second floor of a building. You know the one I mean. A lot of the 'certain members' that have been kicking PETA in the face where where down there kicking her in the face!
That's how that philosophy can end up I'm afraid. 
You can't have it both ways.

PETA actually advocate adopting from shelters, which is perfectly reasonable.
Adopting two at a time so the animals have the company of their own kind, which is also perfectly reasonable.
And stopping the reckless breeding of animals which leads to the oversupply, which leads to mass euthanasia. The very core of the issue.

If happy, loving, forever homes can be found for animals then that's great, as we can all agree on, but if such homes can't be found, if there is a saturation point, stemming the oversupply (by reducing breeding) is the only practical answer.

Incidentally PETA say there is no truth to this woman's claims and that she was fired over 14 years ago. So make your own mind up about all that.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> But PETA had videos on their site _already_ and they could have used a still from a video instead of a plastic sheep.


I take your point and generally agree with it, though in the practical sense, many newspapers and internet sites shy away from posting graphic scenes of slaughter and injury, so a mock up, especially using a celebrity figure, would be more practical in getting publicity which is what they want.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> Isn't that the truth...so much so if you dare to have a differing opinion you are labeled a "hater"


But fanatics daren't let you have a different point of view to them. To them, there can only be one point of view - ie thiers. To admit that there is more than one point of view would make them question their beliefs and a fanatic is afraid to do that in case he ends up with nothing to be fanatical about.

And so, when links to evidence to the contrary are posted, when links are posted of ex-PETA members telling what the organisation is really like, the fanatics are in a tight spot. They can't acknowledge the truth of the links, because if they read that people on the inside think PETA's ethics are questionable, they would have to modify their opiniions and bang goes their fanaticism. So they are left with only one resort - to villify and ridicule people for having a different opiniion.

The irony is that, just like PETA, their approach is more likely to turn people away than attract them to a crusade. A different approach wold be much more successful. For example, Knight of Albion and Noushka have both posted about the smear campaign against PETA. Knight of Albion so ticked me off with his "holier than thou" fanatical attitude and his labelling of people as haters just because they did not agree with his point of view, that I wouldn't dream of following any links he put up. Yet Noushka's approach - ie treating people with respect even if they hold different views to her, and explaining why she held these views, and so obviously seeing both sides of the argument - had me following the links and reading and understanding about the smear campaign.

You cannot bludgeon peolpe into believing what you want them to believe. You cannot put derogatory labels on people because they do not agree with your point of view. PETA are trying to bludgeon people into boycotting the woollen industry by using a model of a sheep with mock injuries made up to look worse than any of the actual injuries. Quite rightly, that has angered some and turned others away. And then, ironically, Knight of Albion does exactly the same thing by posting his same viewpoint over and over and over again, refusing to see any other viewpoint, and labelling those who _can_ see the different viewpoints as haters.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Adopting two dogs at one time? I suggest you look up littermate syndrome. Or indeed taking on two adult dogs and the effort it can take to settle one into a home let alone two. Depending on the species of course you should have more than one but a rat is easier to handle than a dog.

But fanatics don't want to see the truth only what fits into their world view.

I think you'll find most people on here will agree with a reduction in the number of animals being bred, that only healthy, mentally sound animals should be bred from. But peta doesn't want that they want them all gone


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

silvi said:


> But PETA had videos on their site _already_ and they could have used a still from a video instead of a plastic sheep.


Yes I understand that - there are also graphic images of FGM out there but if I were running a campaign against it I still wouldn't want to use those "real" images. I just don't see what the big deal is about a plastic sheep. Even David Attenborough's Frozen Planet used film of polar bear cubs in a zoo instead of the real thing in the wild if I remember correctly.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Well intentioned but misleading.


In what way? All I saw was exactly someone who knows exactly what was happening telling the truth.



Knightofalbion said:


> Again I ask why single out PETA?????
> 
> Across the USA (non-PETA) animal shelters euthanize 2.7 million HEALTHY cats and dogs every year.
> With up to another 1.3 million sick, injured and aggressive ones.
> ...


Rubbish. You can't compare national figures for non-PETA shelters with the fiure for ONE PETA shelter. Well, not if you want your argument to be credible, that is.



Knightofalbion said:


> The reason the 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs are euthanized is because there is an over supply i.e. there are no homes for them/nobody wants them.
> 
> The 'No Kill' campaign sounds reasonable in theory. But what it means is in ten years time you'd have 27 million, or even 40 million, cats and dogs with no homes.
> 
> ...


Yet other shelters seem to be able to rehome a lot moer than PETA. Hmmmm.



Knightofalbion said:


> A while ago there was a thread in the other section. A large number of cats and dogs kept in cages on the second floor of a building. You know the one I mean. A lot of the 'certain members' that have been kicking PETA in the face where where down there kicking her in the face!
> That's how that philosophy can end up I'm afraid.
> You can't have it both ways.


I don't know which therad you ar talking about. A link would be good.



Knightofalbion said:


> Incidentally PETA say there is no truth to this woman's claims and that she was fired over 14 years ago. So make your own mind up about all that.


What a surprise! They are hardly going to agree, are they?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> 1) In what way? All I saw was exactly someone who knows exactly what was happening telling the truth
> 
> 2) Rubbish. You can't compare national figures for non-PETA shelters with the fiure for ONE PETA shelter. Well, not if you want your argument to be credible, that is.
> 
> ...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)




----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I know one thing..my uncle had some sheep...just for their own use...the wool was home spun.. Sheep were shorn but not mutilated!
Actually they were jumping about quite happy without their heavy coat!
So maybe have a look how it is really done and judge for yourself!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

IrishEyes said:


> I've been reading this thread with great interest but have very little free time so only now can I share my thoughts on this.
> 
> I can see both sides to this, PETA have not done themselves any favours with this particular campaign, all it is doing is giving those who dislike them more ammunition. PETA do a great deal of good but sometimes go off the tracks a bit and people tend to focus on their mistakes more than what they are achieving and the difference that they are making.
> 
> ...


The most insightful points on the whole thread. Animals should never been seen as commodities.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Strange that this person has waited 14 years though if they were that concerned.


Actually, having read the blog/comments etc., I believe the Rescued By Black Boy (just to reiterate, upsetting content!) blog post was written in response to a friend of hers reading about Maya the chihuahua and sending her a message basically saying "You used to work for PETA, please tell me this isn't possible?"


----------



## IrishEyes (Jun 26, 2012)

rona said:


> The most insightful points on the whole thread. Animals should never been seen as commodities.


Thank you.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

cheekyscrip said:


> I know one thing..my uncle had some sheep...just for their own use...the wool was home spun.. Sheep were shorn but not mutilated!
> Actually they were jumping about quite happy without their heavy coat!
> So maybe have a look how it is really done and judge for yourself!


Your uncle had some sheep? Yes, but was he Australian and did he have 74 million of them?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Actually, having read the blog/comments etc., I believe the Rescued By Black Boy (just to reiterate, upsetting content!) blog post was written in response to a friend of hers reading about Maya the chihuahua and sending her a message basically saying "You used to work for PETA, please tell me this isn't possible?"


Still 14 years though isn't it. If it was true, and that bad, why wait 14 years to flag it up?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> The most insightful points on the whole thread. Animals should never been seen as commodities.


Quite right! A fine post, dear IrishEyes. If only everyone thought like you.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Still 14 years though isn't it. If it was true, and that bad, why wait 14 years to flag it up?


Easily found out from another blog post:

_I used to work in a shelter, and Im a realist, I completely understand that, while working towards a no-kill nation is absolutely the right and possible thing to do, we arent there yet in most parts of the country and, until we get there, animals will continue to be euthanised because of a lack of resources and a lack of homes. As completely crappy as that is I get it. But PETA asserting that the adoptability of the animals they take in is the reason they dont adopt out most of their animals is false. Period. I know, I used to feed people the same BS line when I worked there. Part of me believed it because I had, in a short time, become quite jaded but, eventually, I realized that I was wrong, that PETA was wrong, that they were doing it wrongthats when I burned out on the mission and I became so conflicted about continuing work that I believed in, in many ways, but I also wanted to put an end to the things that I could no longer comply with. Im not writing any of this to jump on the PETA is evil wagon because, for the most part, I dont believe that. I believe in their aims and their mission, not all parts and not always the way they go about it, but the work theyve done with exposing cruelty on factory farms, in the fur industry, in science labs that use animals, in circuses, to name a few, has been groundbreaking and absolutely vital. But their work with companion animalsno. *My belief in the larger good of PETA is the reason it has taken me 13 years to speak out about this* but I cannot, in good conscience, keep quiet when the assertion is made that so many animals are too broken to be saved._


----------



## IrishEyes (Jun 26, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> Quite right! A fine post, dear IrishEyes. If only everyone thought like you.


Thank you


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Easily found out from another blog post:
> 
> _I used to work in a shelter, and Im a realist, I completely understand that, while working towards a no-kill nation is absolutely the right and possible thing to do, we arent there yet in most parts of the country and, until we get there, animals will continue to be euthanised because of a lack of resources and a lack of homes. As completely crappy as that is I get it. But PETA asserting that the adoptability of the animals they take in is the reason they dont adopt out most of their animals is false. Period. I know, I used to feed people the same BS line when I worked there. Part of me believed it because I had, in a short time, become quite jaded but, eventually, I realized that I was wrong, that PETA was wrong, that they were doing it wrongthats when I burned out on the mission and I became so conflicted about continuing work that I believed in, in many ways, but I also wanted to put an end to the things that I could no longer comply with. Im not writing any of this to jump on the PETA is evil wagon because, for the most part, I dont believe that. I believe in their aims and their mission, not all parts and not always the way they go about it, but the work theyve done with exposing cruelty on factory farms, in the fur industry, in science labs that use animals, in circuses, to name a few, has been groundbreaking and absolutely vital. But their work with companion animalsno. *My belief in the larger good of PETA is the reason it has taken me 13 years to speak out about this* but I cannot, in good conscience, keep quiet when the assertion is made that so many animals are too broken to be saved._


" ... so many dogs too broken to be saved." I can respect that sentiment and I can see that she is a genuine animal lover. 
And I can equally understand how you and others might draw the conclusion that PETA are cold and callous in, seemingly, being too quick to destroy animals, that through no fault of their own have had a rough deal in life.

This article might explain why aggressive dogs or dogs with behavioural problems that potentially could cause future issues do not, on the face of it, receive a fair chance ...
Rescuers.com - helping the aggressive dog


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

PETA? PETA creeps me out and the people who run it are wacky and loony to say the least. PETA should have it's non-profit status revoked, IMO. In fact, it should've been revoked long ago especially considering that they kill many pets and that they do have dealings with other extremist groups. The HSUS should have had its non-profit status revoked as well. PETA does more harm than good for animals with their crazy and childish tactics and weird protests. The clearest example of that I can think of is a person being dismissed as a PETA "fruit loop" when giving suggestions to another regarding improving the care of their pets. I just wish PETA would turn into an organization that's compassionate and respectful towards people and all the other animals on this earth. 

I read a comment on the net once that "PETA is the Westboro Baptist Church of the animal world" and that's a very fair comment, IMO.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

I should add that many of the displays that PETA does are great for a good laugh as well. They're ridiculous.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

I like Wacky and Loony - have been called far worse in my time. I find people like to stick such labels on you if you are prepared to stand up for what you believe in whatever that may be :thumbsup:


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Well said, dear Rottie.

Criticism is easy, doing better less so ...

I'd like to know what these people shooting their mouth off are doing for animals.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Well said, dear Rottie.
> 
> Criticism is easy, doing better less so ...
> 
> I'd like to know what these people shooting their mouth off are doing for animals.


Not killing 1000s that's for sure


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Being wacky and loony to the extreme is not the way to get people to take any issue regarding animals seriously. It just trivializes the problems and makes people take them and animal welfare less seriously. I remember a while back they mocked the death of a baby which was disgusting.

In another way, they cause even more damage... thanks to the craziness of American politics and the animal rights groups, it's more difficult to get new animal welfare legislation passed. People fear that animal rights groups such as PETA will somehow take advantage of the laws in a possibly sinister manner.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Sylvia who set up and runs Many Tears in Wales used to work for The Human Society in the US - putting dogs to sleep. Her accounts are very moving. One of the quotes they use at the rescue is

"The soul can have no rainbows, less the eyes have shed some tears". 

When I used to be very involved with AR I was constantly challenged by friends and family about every tiny thing, why I did this and why I thought that and why this or that might make me a hypocrite. I found that really hard to take at first but I soon realised that people did it to try and feel better about themselves. The fact that I was doing something, however insignificant in the grand scheme of things made them feel uncomfortable that they were doing nothing. You put animals before humans was a charge often thrown at me, but when I asked them what they did for humans they couldn't answer me. PETA might not be going about things in the way we all like all of the time but even if they manage to achieve a little some of the time then in my book that is better than nothing


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> PETA might not be going about things in the way we all like all of the time but even if they manage to achieve a little some of the time then in my book that is better than nothing


With similar funding how much could other animal right groups do which do not have the core fundamentals wrong? You can name any group, even the Germans in WWII as an extreme example and highlight some good they did. Didn't mean they were fundamentally wrong and should never have been supported.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

silvi said:


> That was extremely upsetting, but worth reading.
> 
> The comments are worth reading also, because they explore more about the author and show more examples of cruel PETA practices given by others.
> 
> And for those who say this is just another smear article against PETA, surely all the commenters on that article can't be linked to the CCF?


I think saying it's all a smear campaign is naive, blind and just shows the determined refusal to believe that an organisation could possibly have committed such appalling acts as have been proved beyond doubt via video, links etc. Some idols do have feet of clay. Whilst they might not be all bad, there are enough incidences to make even a firm believer query _some_ of their behaviour. Those defending PETA to the utmost are beginning to sound like a cult, utterly brainwashed.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> Not killing 1000s that's for sure


Nor saving tens of thousands


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sylvia who set up and runs Many Tears in Wales used to work for The Human Society in the US - putting dogs to sleep. Her accounts are very moving. One of the quotes they use at the rescue is
> 
> "The soul can have no rainbows, less the eyes have shed some tears".
> 
> When I used to be very involved with AR I was constantly challenged by friends and family about every tiny thing, why I did this and why I thought that and why this or that might make me a hypocrite. I found that really hard to take at first but I soon realised that people did it to try and feel better about themselves. The fact that I was doing something, however insignificant in the grand scheme of things made them feel uncomfortable that they were doing nothing. You put animals before humans was a charge often thrown at me, but when I asked them what they did for humans they couldn't answer me. PETA might not be going about things in the way we all like all of the time but even if they manage to achieve a little some of the time then in my book that is better than nothing


Fine post.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Goblin said:


> With similar funding how much could other animal right groups do which do not have the core fundamentals wrong? You can name any group, even the Germans in WWII as an extreme example and highlight some good they did. Didn't mean they were fundamentally wrong and should never have been supported.


I'd imagine they'd be quite fond of them. If you only said they carried out massive rewilding projects and the leader was a vegetarian.

I'm not accusing peta of being nazis before anyone starts 



Knightofalbion said:


> Nor saving tens of thousands


What tens of thousands are they saving exactly?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> What tens of thousands are they saving exactly?


I would love some credible links to be posted to back this up


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Nor saving tens of thousands


I'm sure many on here have been instrumental in the saving of many many animal lives. Either directly or indirectly.

For me, I've not saved many but I've made the life they've lived eminently better than if I hadn't there. Some work within the systems to try and educate rather than attack


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> What tens of thousands are they saving exactly?


That was a knee-jerk reaction post and on reflection it was a gross underestimate. Their exposes have saved not thousands but millions of lives, by helping to stamp out/hindering the trade of cruel practices and converting people to vegetarianism & veganism.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> That was a knee-jerk reaction post and on reflection it was a gross underestimate. Their exposes have saved not thousands but millions of lives, by helping to stamp out/hindering the trade of cruel practices and converting people to vegetarianism & veganism.


OMG are you serious? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

That's purely down to PETA eh?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> That was a knee-jerk reaction post and on reflection it was a gross underestimate. Their exposes have saved not thousands but millions of lives, by helping to stamp out/hindering the trade of cruel practices and converting people to vegetarianism & veganism.


If you're making a statement like that you have to back it up with actual proof. The reduction in factory farming and the fur trade are good things no one is doubting that. But it wasn't peta alone that did it.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Knightofalbion you have a kind and open soul. You are wasted on these people, and their efforts to paint GOOD people bad.

You have kindness and light in your life, other people have bitterness and darkness in theirs.

No matter how you try to enlighten them, they will always choose darkness rather than light. Some find comfort in darkness, it hides the reflection of their own bitterness reflecting back on them.

Walking in the light exposes oneself, there is nowhere to hide.

You and I my friend chose light! No shame in that, however much others argue that darkness is the right option.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> I'm sure many on here have been instrumental in the saving of many many animal lives. Either directly or indirectly.
> 
> For me, I've not saved many but I've made the life they've lived eminently better than if I hadn't there. Some work within the systems to try and educate rather than attack


Anything which helps is of merit.

'Attack'? Their exposes have exposed cruel practices all over the world. THAT is the way to truly 'educate' people and to change hearts and minds, to show them what is really going on, where defenceless animals meet human greed and cruelty.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Goblin said:


> With similar funding how much could other animal right groups do which do not have the core fundamentals wrong? You can name any group, even the Germans in WWII as an extreme example and highlight some good they did. Didn't mean they were fundamentally wrong and should never have been supported.


You are of course quite within your rights to donate all the money you give to animal charities to others. We all have free choice in these matters.

I think the whole brain washed "Cult" label works both ways in this debate and achieve nothing. Those of you who don't like PETA can support other organisations that you do like and agree with so I really don't understand where all the venom is coming from.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> If happy, loving, forever homes can be found for animals then that's great, as we can all agree on, but if such homes can't be found, if there is a saturation point, stemming the oversupply (by reducing breeding) is the only practical answer.


I think we can all agree that over-breeding is an issue (although PETA's concept of 'over-breeding' appears to include ethical breeders as well as puppy farms....)
But the issue of more concern to me and I would guess to many of us here, is this:


> Contrary to what PETA maintains, the majority of animals it takes in are not beyond hope, in my experience many would be considered highly adoptable by a shelter, the better off dead line is one that is dragged out in order to excuse what they doand its a lie.


Just because over-breeding is an issue does not justify euthanising healthy, adoptable dogs (especially when criteria are put in place to make adoption harder - taking two rather than one dog for example). Neither does it justify euthanising dogs who are not quite so 'adoptable' who might nevertheless find a forever home _if given the chance_.

The more I read about PETA's attitude to pets, the ownership of pets, and of their unbending attitude on how pets should live, plus their attitude to feral animals (which to me appears to say they should be euthanised because of the way they _might_ be treated by unthinking humans...) the more concerned I become.
To me, it seems as if PETA is setting themselves up as all-knowing and very authoritarian. 
Never a good mix .


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

It wouldn't surprise me if many of the PETA protests and displays have backfired. I see quite a few cars nowadays with the "People for Eating Tasty Animals" bumper stickers. I didn't used to see that in the past.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Anything which helps is of merit.
> 
> 'Attack'? Their exposes have exposed cruel practices all over the world. THAT is the way to truly 'educate' people and to change hearts and minds, to show them what is really going on, where defenceless animals meet human greed and cruelty.


But as this thread shows. They alienate the very people they could easily be courting.

If the majority here don't trust them or respect them. Then they have failed. There are many other animal defenders that have far more influence


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> OMG are you serious? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
> 
> That's purely down to PETA eh?


How many lives did this expose save? And how much suffering did it prevent?
https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=5171


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

patsymatsy said:


> Knightofalbion you have a kind and open soul. You are wasted on these people, and their efforts to paint GOOD people bad.
> 
> You have kindness and light in your life, other people have bitterness and darkness in theirs.
> 
> ...


That is very nice of you to say so, thank you, but this is not about me.

They are not bad people, they just don't understand. For now at least ...


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Angora rabbits have to be trimmed and they're not man made, the angora type is an old one. Doing it that way is wrong yes but plenty of people manage it with pets without hurting them.

Some info for you
Fibre | Don's Angoras

And as you can see in the peta video of course a rabbit in pain is fairly obvious and hard to forget. I doubt most pet owners would want to cause their animals pain.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

DogLover1981 said:


> It wouldn't surprise me if many of the PETA protests and displays have backfired. I see quite a few cars nowadays with the "People for Eating Tasty Animals" bumper stickers. I didn't used to see that in the past.


Somehow I suspect anyone of that mentality was already a meat-eater to start with so nothing lost or gained.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> How many lives did this expose save? And how much suffering did it prevent?
> ]


I think you'll find that Animal Aid exposed that long before PETA and CIWF took up the fight also before PETA


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> That is very nice of you to say so, thank you, but this is not about me.
> 
> They are not bad people, they just don't understand. For now at least ...


I did not say anyone was bad, just bitter, and that they choose the comfort of darkness.

I know this is not about you, but slurs of being likened to a fanatic or cult member, is not nice. And I felt compelled to show you support, as I imagine sometimes you may feel like you are banging your head against a brick wall.

It is clear some people's minds are made up on the matter, and no matter how many links or information you give them, they will remain in denial (sadly).


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> I think we can all agree that over-breeding is an issue (although PETA's concept of 'over-breeding' appears to include ethical breeders as well as puppy farms....)
> But the issue of more concern to me and I would guess to many of us here, is this:
> 
> Just because over-breeding is an issue does not justify euthanising healthy, adoptable dogs (especially when criteria are put in place to make adoption harder - taking two rather than one dog for example). Neither does it justify euthanising dogs who are not quite so 'adoptable' who might nevertheless find a forever home _if given the chance_.
> ...


Post 233 ....

And it is the NON-PETA animal shelters that are the ones who euthanize 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs every year. 4 million including sick, injured and aggressive cats and dogs.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> Post 233 ....
> 
> And it is the NON-PETA animal shelters that are the ones who euthanize 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs every year. 4 million including sick, injured and aggressive cats and dogs.


There are too many animals in rescues, too many killed because they can't find a home, too many passed around the free ads because people don't bother to research what they're getting. The answer isn't to stop breeding from healthy, mentally sound animals but to get people to research the pet they want and to stop treating them like throw away toys. Then using that research to get a pet that suits them whether from a breeder or a rescue.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> You are of course quite within your rights to donate all the money you give to animal charities to others. We all have free choice in these matters.
> 
> *I think the whole brain washed "Cult" label works both ways in this debate and achieve nothing. Those of you who don't like PETA can support other organisations that you do like and agree with so I really don't understand where all the venom is coming from*.





rottiepointerhouse said:


> I like Wacky and Loony - have been called far worse in my time. *I find people like to stick such labels on you if you are prepared to stand up for what you believe in whatever that may be* :thumbsup:





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sylvia who set up and runs Many Tears in Wales used to work for The Human Society in the US - putting dogs to sleep. Her accounts are very moving. One of the quotes they use at the rescue is
> 
> "The soul can have no rainbows, less the eyes have shed some tears".
> 
> When I used to be very involved with AR I was constantly challenged by friends and family about every tiny thing, why I did this and why I thought that and why this or that might make me a hypocrite. I found that really hard to take at first *but I soon realised that people did it to try and feel better about themselves. The fact that I was doing something, however insignificant in the grand scheme of things made them feel uncomfortable that they were doing nothing.* You put animals before humans was a charge often thrown at me, but when I asked them what they did for humans they couldn't answer me. PETA might not be going about things in the way we all like all of the time but even if they manage to achieve a little some of the time then in my book that is better than nothing


Ditto the bits in bold.

I like you!

You said exactly what I think....


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

patsymatsy said:


> I did not say anyone was bad, just bitter, and that they choose the comfort of darkness.
> 
> I know this is not about you, but slurs of being likened to a fanatic or cult member, is not nice. And I felt compelled to show you support, as I imagine sometimes you may feel like you are banging your head against a brick wall.
> 
> It is clear some people's minds are made up on the matter, and no matter how many links or information you give them, they will remain in denial (sadly).


Don't worry, dear soul. I know exactly what you meant and how you meant it, and I'm very obliged for your support.

Be it moral or spiritual values you are trying to impart, one comes to recognise that one is planting a seed for the future. It may not happen today, nor tomorrow, nor next week, but if it is right and true, then one day the seed will germinate, take root and flower.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> Post 233 ....
> 
> And it is the NON-PETA animal shelters that are the ones who euthanize 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs every year. 4 million including sick, injured and aggressive cats and dogs.


We are definitely going around in circles here 

To compare numbers from all the non-PETA shelters (in other words, _all other organisations_) against figures from PETA (one organisation) only exposes PETA _statistically_ as euthanising _more_ pets, especially when taking into account the large euthansia numbers for PETA in one state.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Human hospitals and operating rooms make mistakes, people die due to Dr error, and life support machines switched off when life is not viable. 

We don't then condemn the WHOLE of the NHS (scrap it all together?), and tell people to stop donating to cancer charities etc. Like people are suggesting PETA warrant.

Not one organisation or charity exists that can claim a perfect record card, but they try their best. 

The greater good and all that!


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> I think you'll find that Animal Aid exposed that long before PETA and CIWF took up the fight also before PETA


PETA Asia took the footage and broke it to the world's press.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

patsymatsy said:


> Human hospitals and operating rooms make mistakes, people die due to Dr error, and life support machines switched off when life is not viable.
> 
> We don't then condemn the WHOLE of the NHS (scrap it all together?), and tell people to stop donating to cancer charities etc. Like people are suggesting PETA warrant.
> 
> ...


Most do try to deny the worst of the extremists in their ranks though. Peta puts them on full display instead of showing saner members, who I assume are the majority, who just want an end to animal suffering. Or they get "celebrities" who will jump on any passing bandwagon to get more attention


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> They are not bad people, they just don't understand. For now at least ...


Yes, that's right, dear, we're all just thick, God love us!

I ask you again, as you merrily ignore everything I ask you to respond to: do you have pets? Because PETA would not like this, yet this is a pet owners/lovers' forum. If you support them so ardently, as you seem to, surely you follow their basic principles?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Nicky10 said:


> There are too many animals in rescues, too many killed because they can't find a home, too many passed around the free ads because people don't bother to research what they're getting. The answer isn't to stop breeding from healthy, mentally sound animals but to get people to research the pet they want and to stop treating them like throw away toys. Then using that research to get a pet that suits them whether from a breeder or a rescue.


2.7 million healthy cats and dogs euthanized in the USA alone every year. 
The answer is to stop over-breeding.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> Human hospitals and operating rooms make mistakes, people die due to Dr error, and life support machines switched off when life is not viable.
> 
> *We don't then condemn the WHOLE of the NHS* (scrap it all together?), and tell people to stop donating to cancer charities etc.


Those that want to privatise the NHS would definitely use these examples as a reason .



patsymatsy said:


> Not one organisation or charity exists that can claim a perfect record card, but they try their best.
> 
> The greater good and all that!


That is absolutely correct.
The problem comes when the organisation insists that it hasn't made those mistakes. Or insists that things that other people would call inhumane are actually for the animal's benefit.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs euthanized in the USA alone every year.
> The answer is to stop over-breeding.


Yes but this is hardly a peta only message. It's happening in most species we keep as pets, royal pythons are really struggling with it now after an explosion in popularity and in everyone and anyone breeding them for unusual scale patterns. If the message becomes find well bred, well raised animals that suit your lifestyle not go to the first person with cute puppies then the demand is lessened for puppy farmed dogs for example.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs euthanized in the USA alone every year.
> *The answer is to stop over-breeding*.


Could you tell me _exactly_ what you mean by over-breeding?
For example, would you stop licensed breeders from working?
If you found someone breeding animals who didn't have a license, would you recommend instant euthansia of the kittens/puppies?


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> You are of course quite within your rights to donate all the money you give to animal charities to others.


That's a part of the problem. PETA is not a charity at this point and should be paying taxes. The whole issue of PETA may become irrelevant as I would not be surprised to see PETA sued into non-existence someday especially considering the libel laws in some parts of the world or even shut down by the US government.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> We are definitely going around in circles here
> 
> To compare numbers from all the non-PETA shelters (in other words, _all other organisations_) against figures from PETA (one organisation) only exposes PETA _statistically_ as euthanising _more_ pets, especially when taking into account the large euthansia numbers for PETA in one state.


Remove the number brought in for the free euthanasia service and there isn't a great deal of difference. 
It's not a league table you know.

And 4 million ... 50 states ... do the maths. (Average 80,000)


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I really can not believe someone has tried to compare coma patients having their life support switched off too PeTA pts more animals than they rehome 


I really do love that it is ok to label people "haters" because they do not conform!


Can I ask yet again that people stop calling me a hater because I happen to have different views, it is getting very irritating when the people throwing that around have no idea what I do for rescue animals 

One thing I will say tho - the only animals I have been directly involved with the decision to pts have had a medical problem, not one healthy animal has been pts that has come through my doors :thumbsup:


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> Remove the number brought in for the free euthanasia service and there isn't a great deal of difference.


But I can't do that, can I?
Because that would mean looking at all the other organisations who offer free (or very cheap) euthanasia also, but do not necessarily advertise those services.
(But we've been here before.....)



Knightofalbion said:


> It's not a league table you know.


Of course it isn't.
So why keep quoting those figures?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> *Remove the number brought in for the free euthanasia service* and there isn't a great deal of difference.
> It's not a league table you know.
> 
> And 4 million ... 50 states ... do the maths. (Average 80,000)


Ah, actually, you might be able to help me there - I've been looking for those figures (how many animals were signed over specifically for euthanasia) to go on my stats spreadsheet, but haven't been able to find them as it's not a required part of the VDACs reporting. Seems like you do, though, any chance of a link?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Criticism is easy, doing better less so ...
> 
> I'd like to know what these people shooting their mouth off are doing for animals.


You'd like to know what I do for animals, would you? Well, besides all the animals I have lived with and cared for over the years, I support with donations many different groups that actually look after animals rather than kill them. I have had rescued dogs and rescued cats. My OH is a spiritual healer who has healed many animals, and we have in the past had many animal "patients" stay with us until they were well enough to go back to their own homes/be rehomed/be released into the wild.

Your turn. What do you do for animals other than sipport an organisation that advocates killing animals instead of rehoming them?



patsymatsy said:


> I did not say anyone was bad, just bitter, and that they choose the comfort of darkness.


Oh do tell, what do people who can see the truth about PETA have to be bitter about?



silvi said:


> We are definitely going around in circles here
> 
> To compare numbers from all the non-PETA shelters (in other words, _all other organisations_) against figures from PETA (one organisation) only exposes PETA _statistically_ as euthanising _more_ pets, especially when taking into account the large euthansia numbers for PETA in one state.


Now stop being sensible. You know he can't answer that one and just goes around in circles comparing *one* PETA shelter's euthanasia record to *the total records of the rest of the shelters in the US*. If he actually compared like for like he would have to admit he was wrong.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> PETA Asia took the footage and broke it to the world's press.


I think it's easy to get horrifying footage in China, they have no animal-welfare laws you know


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

cinnamontoast said:


> Yes, that's right, dear, we're all just thick, God love us!
> 
> I ask you again, as you merrily ignore everything I ask you to respond to: do you have pets? Because PETA would not like this, yet this is a pet owners/lovers' forum. If you support them so ardently, as you seem to, surely you follow their basic principles?


You asked Knight this question. But can I answer to?

I do have pets!  I support PETA, but I can still hold my own personal views and put those into practice.

For instance some members of PETA have pets (shock horror) and some eat meat (not I).

An example, Cats Protection at it's heart are anti-breeding. But some breeders donate and support CP.

Cats Protection have been known to step outside the law (house breaking/kidnapping cats), to help cats they believe are in danger. But they do not get burdened with scorn for doing so, like PETA would do.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> Yes, that's right, dear, we're all just thick, God love us!
> 
> I ask you again, as you merrily ignore everything I ask you to respond to: do you have pets? Because PETA would not like this, yet this is a pet owners/lovers' forum. If you support them so ardently, as you seem to, surely you follow their basic principles?


Why? I support some elements but not all of many organisations but I also have a brain and whilst I might support and/or fund some of them it doesn't mean I have to live my life by their principles and give up thinking for myself.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> Cats Protection have been known to step outside the law (house breaking/kidnapping cats), to help cats they believe are in danger. But they do not get burdened with scorn for doing so, like PETA would do.


But do they euthanise a large number of the cats they rescue, or do they try to find them new homes?


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

silvi said:


> But do they euthanise a large number of the cats they rescue, or do they try to find them new homes?


PETA is a HUGE world wide organisation, and rescues MILLIONS of different types of animals, so yes, PETA's kill rate will overshadow a niche and small organisation like CP in comparison.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> PETA is a HUGE world wide organisation, and rescues MILLIONS of different types of animals, so yes, PETA's kill rate will overshadow a niche and small organisation like CP in comparison.


Statistically also?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Why? I support some elements but not all of many organisations but I also have a brain and whilst I might support and/or fund some of them it doesn't mean I have to live my life by their principles and give up thinking for myself.


Whilst I understand and agree that it would be impossible to agree with every single thing an organisation does, there are some principles that I will never compromise on, and I will never fund organisations that go against those principles no matter what else they do.

One principle I will never compromise on is the unnecessary euthanasia of animals. So whilst I agree that PETA have been instrumental in some animal cruelty cases, I would never fund them. There are many other organisations who have been instrumental in animal cruelty cases - organisations who don't choose euthanasia as a first-line policy, organisations who don't think that my pets would be better of dead than being a pet. Those are the organisations I choose to support.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> PETA is a HUGE world wide organisation, and rescues MILLIONS of different types of animals, so yes, PETA's kill rate will overshadow a niche and small organisation like CP in comparison.


It's not the amount of animals crossing the door into the organisations that is under scrutiny...it is the amount that don't come back out!

In 2013 the cats protection rehomed *45000* cats and kittens


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> But I can't do that, can I?
> Because that would mean looking at all the other organisations who offer free (or very cheap) euthanasia also, but do not necessarily advertise those services.
> (But we've been here before.....)
> 
> ...


Because you keep bringing it up.

PETA euthanizes 2,200
Non-PETA shelters euthanize 4,000,000


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Ah, actually, you might be able to help me there - I've been looking for those figures (how many animals were signed over specifically for euthanasia) to go on my stats spreadsheet, but haven't been able to find them as it's not a required part of the VDACs reporting. Seems like you do, though, any chance of a link?


You seem to have been working on that stats spreadsheet for some time now. 
Though we've already had that, if you check back, and reposted about six times as I recall. If the state average is 80,000 and PETAs total is 2,200 it doesn't amount to much of an earth-shaking expose.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> I think it's easy to get horrifying footage in China, they have no animal-welfare laws you know


They obviously need more PETA exposes.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

A few shock videos aren't going to change China overnight. What's happening is somewhat of an improvement but you don't get a massive change like welfare because a foreign organisation demands it. Sort of like imposing democracy at gunpoint has never worked, it has to come from the people themselves.

And I'm fairly sure you can't just take such a massive country like the US with so many varying attitudes to animal welfare and divide the number by 50 and say this is how many are killed per state. Statistics is more complicated than that.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> You seem to have been working on that stats spreadsheet for some time now.
> Though we've already had that, if you check back, and reposted about six times as I recall. If the state average is 80,000 and PETAs total is 2,200 it doesn't amount to much of an earth-shaking expose.


I like accuracy, and I also have a life believe it or not! I'm not doing this for my health, or because I want to bash PETA, I'm doing it because you pointed out that most internet available sources were biased one way or the other, and I decided I wanted to see what the exact numbers looked like. Except whilst I'm finding VDACs straightforward, I'm having major problems finding PETAs free euthanasia admission statistics. Then you indicated you knew what they were, so I thought I'd ask 

I'm not talking about the VDACs statistics or the state averages (to do all that lot really WOULD take weeks, and probably a database!  ) I'm talking about the PETA specific statistics for how many animals were signed over to them _specifically_ for free euthanasia programme the shelter apparantly advertises so I can reflect that in the analysis, and how many were signed over on more general terms.

Also, which year is that 2,200 quoted from?  Yes, it does make a difference you know!


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> I like accuracy, and I also have a life believe it or not! I'm not doing this for my health, or because I want to bash PETA, I'm doing it because you pointed out that most internet available sources were biased one way or the other, and I decided I wanted to see what the exact numbers looked like. Except whilst I'm finding VDACs straightforward, I'm having major problems finding PETAs free euthanasia admission statistics. Then you indicated you knew what they were, so I thought I'd ask
> 
> I'm not talking about the VDACs statistics or the state averages (to do all that lot really WOULD take weeks, and probably a database!  ) I'm talking about the PETA specific statistics for how many animals were signed over to them _specifically_ for free euthanasia programme the shelter apparantly advertises so I can reflect that in the analysis, and how many were signed over on more general terms.
> 
> Also, which year is that 2,200 quoted from?  Yes, it does make a difference you know!


For someone 'who has a life' you seem to be on here rather a lot.

You want accurate figures? Then you've only one recourse of action, contact PETA direct and tell them you're working on a spreadsheet in the hope of discrediting and defaming them. I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

You know, I wish the TV stations and web sites would stop reporting about every little thing that PETA does. They'd quickly go away if no one reported about them. They do nothing but insane publicity stunts just to get more donations and do little to actually help animals. With some of the stuff they've done over the years, the people at PETA seem rather sadistic.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

DogLover1981 said:


> You know, I wish the TV stations and web sites would stop reporting about every little thing that PETA does. They'd quickly go away if no one reported about them. They do nothing but insane publicity stunts *just to get more donations and do little to actually help animals*. With some of the stuff they've done over the years, the people at PETA seem rather sadistic.


You can keep on repeating "PETA do little to actually help animals", but you are completely WRONG!

For instance, are you happy for innocent seals to be clubbed to death every year? Because PETA are working tirelessly to end that particular slaughter. Do you support PETA in that? Or are you happy for nothing to be done, and the seals killed?

Animal welfare, cruelty and rescue blog - TEK Journalism UK

"Although some people maintain that the cull of Canadian seals remains vital, and it is now less brutal than in the past, PETA are still attempting to resolve the issue. PETA want and need support for Canadian Senator Mac Harb, who has introduced an historic bill to end Canada's annual commercial slaughter of seal pups."

"Of course some people maintain that the cull is simply a necessity to keep the number of seals under control, blaming seals for damaging the fishing industry.

Perhaps this is why the Canadian government continue to support the seal slaughter. PETA however believs that Liberal and Conservative politicians in Canada are playing a political game. If true it means that the politicians simply voice what they believe voters in swing seats want to hear. These "swing seats" tend to be in areas where the seal slaughter takes place each year.

Whilst PETA acknowledge that the fight to stop the seal slaughter is almost won, it is not ended yet. Please follow the link here to offer support for Sen Harb's Bill, which also aims at getting the government to fill the economic gap abandoning seal slaughter will bring to some communities."


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> Animal welfare, cruelty and rescue blog - TEK Journalism UK
> "...Whilst PETA acknowledge that the fight to stop the seal slaughter is almost won, it is not ended yet. Please follow the link here to offer support for Sen Harb's Bill, which also aims at getting the government to fill the economic gap abandoning seal slaughter will bring to some communities."


The article (and the petition) is from 2012.
From the front page:
"TEKJournalismUK is semi archived and no longer updated"

(although,for anyone interested, you can find the front page of their new site here: NEW TEKJOURNALISMUK)

From Wikipedia page on Marc Harb:



> In March 2009, Harb attempted to introduce a bill that would have limited the East Coast seal hunt to only those with aboriginal treaty rights. He also attempted to introduce a bill in June 2011 that would outlaw commercial seal hunting, and had introduced a third bill against the seal hunt in May 2012. PETA subsequently honoured him as their "Canadian Person of the Year".
> 
> .................
> 
> On December 6, 2012, Mac Harb was named in relation to the Canadian Senate expenses scandal due to expenses for a property in Pembroke, Ontario. He announced his retirement from the Senate on August 26, 2013. On February 4, 2014, Mac Harb was charged by the RCMP with Fraud and Breach of Trust. The trial is currently scheduled to proceed on August 10, 2015, in Ottawa.


Now, this could of course be a deliberate slur on Marc Harb's character, I will admit, but it doesn't bode well for the bill, which has never been passed and no longer appears to have a leading figure to back it.

So that's a shame.

But I'm just showing that it is important to get up to date details about a subject before asking people to support a petition which may no longer be effective.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> *You want accurate figures? Then you've only one recourse of action, contact PETA direct *and tell them you're working on a spreadsheet in the hope of discrediting and defaming them. I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige.


Re the bit of your post in bold - if you cannot give Jesthar a link to the figures you quote that means only one thing - that the figures you have been bandying about are not accurate and exist nowhere but in your head.

As for the bit of your post in red, Jesthar has stated several times that she (?he?) is collecting data in order to find out the truth. Why do you automatically equate finding out the truth to discrediting and defaming an organisation? Unless, of course, you know something you're not telling us ...



Spellweaver said:


> You'd like to know what I do for animals, would you? Well, besides all the animals I have lived with and cared for over the years, I support with donations many different groups that actually look after animals rather than kill them. I have had rescued dogs and rescued cats. My OH is a spiritual healer who has healed many animals, and we have in the past had many animal "patients" stay with us until they were well enough to go back to their own homes/be rehomed/be released into the wild.
> 
> Your turn. What do you do for animals other than sipport an organisation that advocates killing animals instead of rehoming them?


I'm still waiting ...

In the absence of a response from you about what you actually do for animals, I can only assume that you do nothing - ie that you are merely another keyboad warrior.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> You seem to have been working on that stats spreadsheet for some time now.
> Though we've already had that, if you check back, and reposted about six times as I recall. If the state average is 80,000 and *PETAs total is 2,200 it doesn't amount to much of an earth-shaking expose*.


2,200 deaths isn't an earth shattering expose?

I think that sums it up for me...

You say all the right things about animals and then you defend PETA, massive contradiction in my mind

"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is an organization that publicly claims to represent the best interest of animals -- indeed their "ethical treatment." Yet approximately 2,000 animals pass through PETA's front door every year and very few make it out alive. The vast majority -- 96 percent in 2011 -- exit the facility out the back door after they have been killed, when Pet Cremation Services of Tidewater stops by on their regular visits to pick up their remains. Between these visits, the bodies are stored in the giant walk-in freezer PETA installed for this very purpose. It is a freezer that cost $9,370 and, like the company which incinerates the bodies of PETA's victims, was paid for with the donations of animal lovers who could never have imagined that the money they donated to help animals would be used to end their lives instead. In fact, in the last 11 years, PETA has killed 29,426 dogs, cats, rabbits, and other domestic animals."

Source: Shocking Photos: PETA's Secret Slaughter of Kittens, PuppiesÂ |Â Nathan J. Winograd

I get your passion for saving animals but by supporting PETA is a massive contradiction to your own beliefs

Mel


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PETA.2011.pdf


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Ok i hold my hands up and admit i have not read the whole thread, ( unlike me i know). But i thought those of you that are talking about PETA might be interested in these 2 links. Yeah i know, not many read links.*

https://mom2nomads.wordpress.com/tag/peta-euthanized/

Bill to Prevent PETA From Killing Dogs and Cats Passes in the Virginia Senate, 33-5Â |Â Douglas Anthony Cooper


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

rona said:


> http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PETA.2011.pdf


So they killed off pretty much every animal given to them? Horrific, particularly when the number of bite cases was 'zero'.



JANICE199 said:


> Bill to Prevent PETA From Killing Dogs and Cats Passes in the Virginia Senate, 33-5Â*|Â*Douglas Anthony Cooper


Good grief, even the state says PETA kill off every animal they get.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Re the bit of your post in bold - if you cannot give Jesthar a link to the figures you quote that means only one thing - that the figures you have been bandying about are not accurate and exist nowhere but in your head.
> 
> As for the bit of your post in red, Jesthar has stated several times that she (?he?) is collecting data in order to find out the truth. Why do you automatically equate finding out the truth to discrediting and defaming an organisation? Unless, of course, you know something you're not telling us ...


Yet again it's the same time and time again from certain posters...they run out of valid arguments of valid proof to back up their claims so they start with the insults and snark!

I do find it quite amusing when the same people try to play this game because it is them that looks the fool, not anybody else 

I'm still yet to find this media campaign proving that PeTA advertises a free pts clinic to the general public.
So as usual hearsay and make believe gets thrown about as facts to defend an organisation...yet links that kind of prove everyone elses point are branded from "haters"

One thing this does show to me, is that if you get yourself a great PR team then you are free to lie and scheme as much as you like just so long as a few mindless drones (not directed at anyone, unlike some I don't call people names to try to get my point across) follow them along :thumbdown:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok i hold my hands up and admit i have not read the whole thread, ( unlike me i know). But i thought those of you that are talking about PETA might be interested in these 2 links. Yeah i know, not many read links.*
> 
> https://mom2nomads.wordpress.com/tag/peta-euthanized/
> 
> Bill to Prevent PETA From Killing Dogs and Cats Passes in the Virginia Senate, 33-5Â*|Â*Douglas Anthony Cooper


I was very pleased to read this in your second link:

"_The Virginia Senate has passed a bill aimed at preventing PETA from killing dogs and cats at their headquarters in Norfolk.

*PETA nominally operates a "shelter" in Virginia, which has killed well over 30,000 animals*. As I reported yesterday, in 2014, PETA slaughtered over 88% of the dogs and cats taken in. A number of years have seen PETA's kill rate as high as 97%. The VA Senate has been weighing measures to stem this madness.

Senate Bill 1381 was voted on today, with 33 in favor, and 5 opposed. Should this bill pass in the House, section 3.2-6500 of the Code of Virginia will be amended to include language further defining a private animal shelter. A "shelter" will no longer be able to summarily kill the vast majority of animals taken in, because that term will designate: "a facility operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes and facilitating other lifesaving outcomes for animals."

It is a good day for animals._"

Politicians sometimes do get it right, thank goodness. It is indeed a good day for animals. :thumbsup:

And the bit in bold - 30,000 is a lot more than the 2,000 KofA seems to be bandying about - no wonder he doesn't want to give Jesthar the linnks to his figures


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *Ok i hold my hands up and admit i have not read the whole thread, ( unlike me i know). But i thought those of you that are talking about PETA might be interested in these 2 links. Yeah i know, not many read links.*
> 
> https://mom2nomads.wordpress.com/tag/peta-euthanized/
> 
> Bill to Prevent PETA From Killing Dogs and Cats Passes in the Virginia Senate, 33-5Â*|Â*Douglas Anthony Cooper


Maybe you should of, Janice.

1) Why aggressive dogs and dogs with behavioural problems get a raw deal in the shelter systems
Rescuers.com - helping the aggressive dog

2) Looks good on paper, but the reality on the ground is bankrupt and closed animal shelters, shelters closed to new admissions, sick animals left untreated, injured animals left untreated, animals handed over to 'adopters' without proper checks, chronic overcrowding ...
Virginia will go the same way as Delaware
Delaware CAPA: Nathan's No-Kill Is Bankrupting Shelters


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> I was very pleased to read this in your second link:
> 
> "_The Virginia Senate has passed a bill aimed at preventing PETA from killing dogs and cats at their headquarters in Norfolk.
> 
> ...


You know it has to be bad when politicians step in :yikes:
I'm sure they are all just "haters" too


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> For someone 'who has a life' you seem to be on here rather a lot.


I'm a computing professional specialising in online systems. The internet is kind of what I _do_ - all day, every day!  As nice little side effect I touch-type at about 100 wmp. What's your excuse? 



Knightofalbion said:


> You want accurate figures? Then you've only one recourse of action, contact PETA direct and tell them you're working on a spreadsheet in the hope of discrediting and defaming them. I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige.


Oh. I thought by your comment about id you take the free euthanasia service figures out of the equation you get much less controversial results, you meant you actually *had* those figures. Sorry, my misinterpretation. I'll have to run with just VDAC only, then.

And as previously mentioned, I'm not trying to credit or discredit anyone, just get accurate, fresh from the source numbers statistics.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I was very pleased to read this in your second link:
> 
> "_The Virginia Senate has passed a bill aimed at preventing PETA from killing dogs and cats at their headquarters in Norfolk.
> 
> ...


That's in 11 years. Non-PETA shelters in that time have euthanized 44 million cats and dogs.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

StormyThai said:


> You know it has to be bad when politicians step in :yikes:
> I'm sure they are all just "haters" too


Of course 

Funny how we "haters" seem to be the ones who really care about the animals tho! :eek6:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> That's in 11 years. Non-PETA shelters in that time have euthanized 44 million cats and dogs.


Still waiting for you to tell me what you do to aid animals ...


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Spellweaver said:


> Of course
> 
> Funny how we "haters" seem to be the ones who really care about the animals tho! :eek6:


I don't know any animal lover that is OK with a 97% kill rate, and I'm ok with that...
I would much rather surround myself with people that will stand up and speak when things aren't right, than people that defend something no matter what for what to me looks like an ego boast (look at me, I'm a PeTA supporter so must care much more than you) :thumbsup:


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Knightofalbion said:


> That's in 11 years. Non-PETA shelters in that time have euthanized 44 million cats and dogs.


And what about the *BILLIONS* of animals slaughtered over the years by the sponsors of PetaKills, who certain members here are happy to ally themselves with?
'Know your enemy' - and your 'friend' ....

Paul McCartney "If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls.." - YouTube


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

PETA?s Carnage Continues in 2014 : Nathan J Winograd

" How much money did PETA take in last year from unsuspecting donors who helped pay for this mass carnage? $51,933,001: $50,449,023 in contributions, $627,336 in merchandise sales, and $856,642 in interest and dividends. They finished the year with $4,551,786 more in the bank than they started, after expenses. They did not see fit to use some of that to comprehensively promote animals for adoption or to provide veterinary care for the animals who needed it.
By contrast, the Lynchburg Humane Society, also in Virginia, took in about the same number of animals as PETA but saved 94% and without PETAs millions. Seagoville Animal Services in Texas took in 1/3 of the numbers (about 700 animals) but only 1/20th of 1% of the amount of money that PETA did, saving 99% of them on a paltry $29,700 budget. In fact, hundreds of cities and towns across America are saving over 90% of the animals and doing so on a fraction of PETAs wealth."

*Ok now i have been reading more about PETA, which i understand, stands for 
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
Reading the link i have posted here, PETA are anything but ethical. Their kill rate is totally sick, imo.
*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

This thread really does remind me of why I try not to be involved with AR or rescue people directly any more. So much back biting and one-upmanship while the real issues get ignored because personalities just get in the way


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> And what about the *BILLIONS* of animals slaughtered over the years by the sponsors of PetaKills, who certain members here are happy to ally themselves with?
> 'Know your enemy' - and your 'friend' ....
> 
> Paul McCartney "If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls.." - YouTube


Once you start to defend an argument by saying, "Well, this is a bigger atrocity", then you've lost the argument.

Why? Because pointing out a bigger atrocity means that you actually recognise that what you're defending is a smaller atrocity.

The souls of the animals killed by PETA won't be thinking, "Oh, there are millions of animals slaughtered for food so that makes my unnecesary death ok."

ETA - still waiting for you to let us all know exactly what YOU do to aid animals.
.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> PETA?s Carnage Continues in 2014 : Nathan J Winograd
> 
> " How much money did PETA take in last year from unsuspecting donors who helped pay for this mass carnage? $51,933,001: $50,449,023 in contributions, $627,336 in merchandise sales, and $856,642 in interest and dividends. They finished the year with $4,551,786 more in the bank than they started, after expenses. They did not see fit to use some of that to comprehensively promote animals for adoption or to provide veterinary care for the animals who needed it.
> By contrast, the Lynchburg Humane Society, also in Virginia, took in about the same number of animals as PETA but saved 94% and without PETAs millions. Seagoville Animal Services in Texas took in 1/3 of the numbers (about 700 animals) but only 1/20th of 1% of the amount of money that PETA did, saving 99% of them on a paltry $29,700 budget. In fact, hundreds of cities and towns across America are saving over 90% of the animals and doing so on a fraction of PETAs wealth."
> ...


It cerainly is totally sick. And that link knocks into a cocked hat KofA's argument that PETA had to euthanise all those animals because there were no homes for the animals to go to. If other shelters could rehome the majority of animals rather than euthanise them, why can't PETA?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> For instance, are you happy for innocent seals to be clubbed to death every year? Because PETA are working tirelessly to end that particular slaughter. Do you support PETA in that? Or are you happy for nothing to be done, and the seals killed?"


So you would support ISIS if they supported and campaigned for seal protection? After all there are many organizations trying to assist and prevent seals from being killed.

It's the core beliefs of the organization which is at issue and you are supporting.

Let's actually look at some other examples.. Start with the idea that women are sexual objects... Boyfriend Went Vegan | Videos | PETA as well as so many of the poster adverts. Why is it that PeTA is short for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals when PeTA's concern for the ethical treatment of women doesn't exist. Maybe it's because the end justifies the means. I don't agree.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> who certain members here are happy to ally themselves with?


Being against one group does not automatically mean you support another. That's an extremist view.. not with us you are against us. Many on this forum support animals, they do not support PeTA. PeTA are not the only ones who support animals and animal welfare.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I've just read an interesting article, it turns out that although there is a major overpopulation problem with rescue animals in the south, it isn't the same in the north of America.

So to help with this people are setting up transport runs between the states that have an issue to the states that have a demand.



> The North Shore Animal League America, on Long Island, a large no-kill rescue and adoption organization, works with shelters and rescue organizations in the South to transport animals to New York for adoption. Last year it placed *6,672 dogs from Southern states*. More than 5,000 were puppies.


With Rescue Dogs In Demand, More Shelters Look Far Afield For Fido : NPR

I'm really not sure why PeTA would jump at the chance to transport some of those healthy dogs they euthanise. It's not like they don't have the manpower or the resources :eek6:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> I've just read an interesting article, it turns out that although there is a major overpopulation problem with rescue animals in the south, it isn't the same in the north of America.


Reminds me of LA Abandoned Chihuahua Dogs Airlifted To Canada For Adoption | Global Animal


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Right, so here's the post that started me on my spreadsheet route:



Knightofalbion said:


> No, it is *you* who is being blind.
> 
> You could try reading your own report that you PETA-haters have trotted out what must be at least 5 times already.
> 
> ...


The statistics mentioned above I identified as being from the VDACS statistics as being from 2010. 
So, here's the full set of reported figures for that year - cut and pasted from the VDACs site to avoid transcription errors:










For the interested, here's a link to the official legal definitons of all the column categories: http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/animals/pdf/2011 ARS Instructions.pdf

The calculation columns I have added are the ones with the highlighted backgrounds.

So the raw statistics quoted are reasonably accurate. 4569 came in, 7 were returned to their owners, 838 were adopted. 63 were transferred elsewhere, not 65, but close enough. Edit - sorry, missed the two transferred elsewhere

The cat/dog PTS count for that year was 2,345, though, not 2,200. Edit - and that would be me rushing to get this done in a lunch break and reading from the wrong column, silly me. 2,200 it is. Guess I'm human after all!

Now, there is a significant statistical anomaly for this year - namely, the 'Other Companion Animals' category, all 2224 of them. This begins with the Received stats - 35 were Surrendered by Owner (actually a relatively small total for the year), but the other 2189 were received under the 'Others' category.

The 'Others' category is defined as being for: "Animals born in the custody of the reporting entity, held in a pound for safekeeping or other similar legal matter, or animals received from releasing agencies outside of Virginia. The number of these animals taken in shall be reported and described in the column titled "Others"."

I think we can rule out born in custody, as that would mean each of the 35 surrendered was female, pregnant, and gave birth to about 63 babies each! If held for safekeeping or 'another legal matter' then you would expect at least some to be returned to their owners, but none were. That leaves animals transferred in from outside Virginia as the only logical option - maybe the aftermath of a major rabbit/hamster/white mice rescue/liberation exercise - who knows? I didn't manage to find any media releases on the topic, but if anyone does know, please let us know 

But whatever the cause, it is definitely a one off and not repeated in any other year, and also heavily skews the statistics for the year, particularly the rehome/euthanasia rate due to 794 of the 838 rehomed animals being from this group. Which is great for them (although 64.3% were still euthanised), but does somewhat mask that the direct Euthanised/survived percentages was 87.5%/12.5% for dogs, and 97.04%/2.96% for cats. And as some were transferred to other agencies, the direct rehome percentages are even lower at 2.02% for dogs and 1.8% for cats - although as PETA don't rehome to the public that I can find, a low direct rehome rate is probably to be expected. Not quite 1% for this particular year, true, but not far off. 2% would be a perfectly acceptable rounded off number.

For completeness and balance I would have liked to include the numbers for how many animals were signed over by their owners for the express purpose of the free euthanasia service PETA say they advertise, as if that were a large percentage of the animals compared with those signed over in a more general sense it would put a very different interpretation on the statistics, but I can't find the figures, sorry. if anyone knows where I can find a copy, please let me know! 

I'll post statistics from other years if people are interested; I have the data from the year 2004 - 2014, with the exception of 2009 as those figures don't seem to be on VDACs.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Goblin said:


> Let's actually look at some other examples.. Start with the idea that women are sexual objects... Boyfriend Went Vegan | Videos | PETA as well as so many of the poster adverts. Why is it that PeTA is short for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals when PeTA's concern for the ethical treatment of women doesn't exist. Maybe it's because the end justifies the means. I don't agree.


That's a pretty disgusting video: what the hell were they thinking? Idiots 



StormyThai said:


> I'm really not sure why PeTA would jump at the chance to transport some of those healthy dogs they euthanise. It's not like they don't have the manpower or the resources :eek6:


Or money!!


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Right, so here's the post that started me on my spreadsheet route:
> 
> The statistics mentioned above I identified as being from the VDACS statistics as being from 2010.
> So, here's the full set of reported figures for that year - cut and pasted from the VDACs site to avoid transcription errors:
> ...


How embarrassing.

And you got an A Star at Mathematics?! I hate to think what the rest were like.

Can you not read a spreadsheet? 
Transferred to another Virginia Releasing Agency 9 cats and 54 dogs = 63 Plus Transferred by Approved Out-of-State Facility = 2 dogs
63 + 2 = 65 (Not 63 as you've said)

Cat PTS = 1507
Dog PTS = 693
Grand total = 2200 (Not 2345 as you've said)

It's simple primary school arithmetic, not rocket science.

Surrendered by owner (From where we can ascertain the figure of sick/injured/suffering pets handed in to be euthanized)
Cats = 1499
Dogs = 709
Grand total = 2208

Reclaimed by owner
Cats = 1
Dogs = 6
Grand total = 7

And you've even got 3 likes! Fools rush in.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Right, so here's the post that started me on my spreadsheet route:
> 
> The statistics mentioned above I identified as being from the VDACS statistics as being from 2010.
> So, here's the full set of reported figures for that year - cut and pasted from the VDACs site to avoid transcription errors:
> ...


How embarrassing.

And you got an A Star at Mathematics?! I hate to think what the rest were like.

Can you not read a spreadsheet? 
Transferred to another Virginia Releasing Agency 9 cats and 54 dogs = 63 Plus Transferred by Approved Out-of-State Facility = 2 dogs
63 + 2 = 65 (Not 63 as you've said)

Cat PTS = 1507
Dog PTS = 693
Grand total = 2200 (Not 2345 as you've said)
It's simple primary school arithmetic, not rocket science.

Surrendered by owner (From where we can ascertain the figure of sick/injured/suffering pets handed in to be euthanized)
Cats = 1499
Dogs = 709
Grand total = 2208

Reclaimed by owner
Cats = 1
Dogs = 6
Grand total = 7

And you've even got 3 likes! Fools rush in.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> How embarrassing.
> 
> And you got an A Star at Mathematics?! I hate to think what the rest were like.
> 
> ...


Still pretty damning statistics all the same. Maybe we liked for the work and effort gone into the post.
I cannot see how from those figures you can assume that those handed in were not loved pets that people could just no longer cope with for some reason or another. 
You seem to have conveniently left out all the other poor creatures that ended their lives at the hands of PETA


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

If you are going to throw insults at people you may want to check that you are referring to the correct person...but then why am I surprised


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> How embarrassing.
> 
> And you got an A Star at Mathematics?! I hate to think what the rest were like.


Extremely good, actually. Thanks for asking 



Knightofalbion said:


> Can you not read a spreadsheet?


Yes. And I'm also mature enough to admit when I've made a booboo, hence editing the initial post and not erasing the evidence as some would.


Knightofalbion said:


> Transferred to another Virginia Releasing Agency 9 cats and 54 dogs = 63 Plus Transferred by Approved Out-of-State Facility = 2 dogs
> 63 + 2 = 65 (Not 63 as you've said)
> 
> Cat PTS = 1507
> ...


Sorry, but you can't assume that 'Surrendered by owner' = 'Surrendered for euthanasia.' If it were, the euthanasia number for dogs would have to be greater than or equal to the the surrendered number. And it isn't.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Knightofalbion said:


> How embarrassing.
> 
> And you got an A Star at Mathematics?! I hate to think what the rest were like.
> 
> ...


*Well i for one cannot read/understand a spread sheet, and if that makes me thick then so beit.
The fact that PETA'S kill rate is 97% is all i need to know. What the hell are they raking in millions of dollars for? If any other organization did this people would come down on them like a ton of sh*t.*


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> Still pretty damning statistics all the same. Maybe we liked for the work and effort gone into the post.
> I cannot see how from those figures you can assume that those handed in were not loved pets that people could just no longer cope with for some reason or another.
> You seem to have conveniently left out all the other poor creatures that ended their lives at the hands of PETA


Known as discrediting/defammation, Rona! Statistics that were wrong. They should have been right.

The line of the debate throughout has been on the number of cats and dogs PTS, as you know. Hence ...

That any animal has to be PTS, even when its unavoidable, is sad. 
To that end there will always be some euthanasia, but healthy animals being PTS is purely down to oversupply/overbreeding. That's the issue that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Known as discrediting/defammation, Rona! Statistics that were wrong. They should have been right.


Yes, they should have been. And now they are. Thank you for pointing the errors out


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> That any animal has to be PTS, even when its unavoidable, is sad.
> To that end there will always be some euthanasia, *but healthy animals being PTS is purely down to oversupply/overbreeding*. That's the issue that needs to be addressed.


Not in PETA's case it isn't.
Sure, overbreeding is a serious issue, but _putting down healthy animals without really trying to find them a home_ appears to be at the very top of the agenda discussed here.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Extremely good, actually. Thanks for asking
> 
> Yes. And I'm also mature enough to admit when I've made a booboo, hence editing the initial post and not erasing the evidence as some would.
> 
> Sorry, but you can't assume that 'Surrendered by owner' = 'Surrendered for euthanasia.' If it were, the euthanasia number for dogs would have to be greater than or equal to the the surrendered number. And it isn't.


Then fair play to you. But it still should have been right.

Yes, the animal could go for adoption. Though euthanasia is the most likely outcome. And that would explain the higher euthanasia figure.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> Not in PETA's case it isn't.
> Sure, overbreeding is a serious issue, but _putting down healthy animals without really trying to find them a home_ appears to be at the very top of the agenda discussed here.


With respect, have we not covered this enough?

PETA this, PETA that. Okay, so you and most of the others in this thread have the hoodoo on PETA. Okay, lets put that to one side and look at the problem in an even balance.

Non-PETA shelters rehome 2 million cats and dogs every year. A fabulous effort. All credit to them. However they have hit the ceiling at 2 million.

2.7 million HEALTHY cats and dogs are PTS every year (in America) because there are no homes for them.
1.3 sick and injured cats and dogs, and cats and chiefly dogs with aggressive/behavioural problems who cannot be rehomed i.e. for fear of attacking someone are PTS every year.

Now if Winograd's philosophy was gospel in ten years you'd have 27 million healthy cats and dogs with no homes, and 13 million sick, injured and aggressive cats and dogs with no homes
This figure incidentally would include 8 million Pit Bulls (800,000 are PTS every year apparently Why Not?)

So the question is, what would YOU do?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> Yes, they should have been. And now they are. Thank you for pointing the errors out


Respect to you for that. Thanked and liked.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Then fair play to you. But it still should have been right.


"He who never made a mistake, never made anything" 



Knightofalbion said:


> Yes, the animal could go for adoption. *Though euthanasia is the most likely outcome.* And that would explain the higher euthanasia figure.


And THAT is what people are so annoyed about, that they don't even seem to TRY to rehome.

In fact, you know what? If PETA were just to say "OK, we're not going to operate an actual shelter, we're just going to offer free pet euthanasia for those who can't afford it" I don't think people would have much of an issue with that. Mainly because it's honest and open.

Now, I'm sure you are going to say overbreeding is the issue. But if the animal is spayed or neutered when it leaves a shelter, then that animal isn't going to be contributing to the problem, are they? So surely campaigning for and funding programmes for all shelter re-homed animals to be neutered before rehoming would be a more sensible - and ethical - path than PTS _healthy_ animals who just happen to have been dealt a bad hand in life?


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

silvi said:


> Not in PETA's case it isn't.
> Sure, overbreeding is a serious issue, but _putting down healthy animals without really trying to find them a home_ appears to be at the very top of the agenda discussed here.





Knightofalbion said:


> With respect, have we not covered this enough?


Obviously not. 
There is too much evidence that PETA will choose to pts an animal rather than trying to find it a place of refuge for me to give up on this issue.



Knightofalbion said:


> PETA this, PETA that. Okay, so you and most of the others in this thread have the hoodoo on PETA. Okay, lets put that to one side and look at the problem in an even balance.
> 
> Non-PETA shelters rehome 2 million cats and dogs every year. A fabulous effort. All credit to them. However they have hit the ceiling at 2 million.
> 
> ...


If I were a leader of PETA, I would put more of my large income into a long term solution backed up by short-term help.
So I would begin by building more shelters, rather than using the excuse that pets have to be out down because there is no actual shelter.
Yes, overbreeding is a huge issue, as is finding homes for abandoned dogs, but, as Jesthar has argued, if the animal taken into PETA's care is spayed or neutered, it is then no longer part of the overbreeding problem.
Surely the least the poor animal could be offered is the chance of a home?

If one of PETA's main aims is education, then surely educating people to get their pets spayed/neutered would help the situation much more than alienating people who may use them but now refuse to because of PETA's high euthanasia figures?

I have no issue with your argument on overbreeding, or with the argument that something needs to be done to stop it. But I do have an issue with PETA's main solution to the problem.
And however many figures you throw at me, I will still have that problem.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> [/url])
> 
> So the question is, what would YOU do?


I would transport the easily rehomable ones out of state so that they DO find homes, just like other rescues are doing in the states 

Ignoring the links posted doesn't mean that these things don't happen, it just makes you look obstinate - try opening your eyes just for a short period of time, you might be surprised with what you see :yikes:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Known as discrediting/defammation, Rona! Statistics that were wrong. They should have been right.
> 
> The line of the debate throughout has been on the number of cats and dogs PTS, as you know. Hence ...
> 
> ...





Knightofalbion said:


> With respect, have we not covered this enough?


Obviously not if thre are people like you who still maintain that kiling an animal is preferable to finding them a hiome. (How can anyone who calls himself an animal lover advocate that?)



Knightofalbion said:


> PETA this, PETA that. Okay, so you and most of the others in this thread have the hoodoo on PETA. Okay, lets put that to one side and look at the problem in an even balance.
> 
> Non-PETA shelters rehome 2 million cats and dogs every year. A fabulous effort. All credit to them. However they have hit the ceiling at 2 million.
> 
> ...


You are so good at asking questions, but niot very good at answering them.

You very disparagingly asked what I did for animals, and I told you. I asked you what YOU do - several times - and you obviously don't do anything. Either that or you are deliberately ignoring the question - but why would you do that iof you have nothing to hide? And if you do nothing other than spout rubbish at other animals lovers who DO care about animals, then hang your head in shame.

I'd do what all the other non-PETA shelters do - rehome them or ship them to the north USA where ther is no rehoming problem. Much better than killing them. But then, I'm not like you - I care about animals.

What would you do? Oh, wait a minute - you've made your own position very clear. Several times. You'd kill them rather than bother to exert yourself to find them a home. You'd allow them all to die while you sit at your keyboard and call those of us who actually get off our backsides and DO something for animals "haters".

Words fail me at your hypocrisy.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Knightofalbion said:


> Known as discrediting/defammation, Rona! Statistics that were wrong. They should have been right.
> 
> The line of the debate throughout has been on the number of cats and dogs PTS, as you know. Hence ...
> 
> ...


Her stats weren't far off, easy error to make when faced with that many columns/figures. Arguing over semantics does not detract from the fact that PETA appear to kill far more animals than they ever re-home.

And it wasn't Jesthar who mentioned her A* in Maths.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> Obviously not.
> There is too much evidence that PETA will choose to pts an animal rather than trying to find it a place of refuge for me to give up on this issue.
> 
> If I were a leader of PETA, I would put more of my large income into a long term solution backed up by short-term help.
> ...


With respect again, spaying/neutering is a central tenet of PETA's philosophy on this. Together with stopping overbreeding. And adopting from animal shelters.
Bizarrely, Mr Winograd says there is an undersupply of pets and the head of the American Kennel Club advocates buying dogs from breeders rather than adopting from animal shelters.

Animals that have been neutered/spayed are no longer part of the overbreeding problem, true, but they remain part of the oversupply problem.
Neutered or not you'd still have 40 million unwanted cats and dogs ten years from now. (Including those 8 million Pit Bulls.).


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

On the PDF link I gave, if you look at page 4, you will see figures for spay and neuter


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Obviously not if thre are people like you who still maintain that kiling an animal is preferable to finding them a hiome. (How can anyone who calls himself an animal lover advocate that?)
> 
> You are so good at asking questions, but niot very good at answering them.
> 
> ...


Just for the record, I've had you on ignore for the last year due to your rude, disgusting and spiteful behaviour in that other thread.

The only reason I saw this post is because I voluntarily opened it to follow the flow of the thread.

I asked you? I asked you nothing. You responded to a post that wasn't even aimed at anyone in particular.
You started off with an unseemly, ungracious and frankly cringeworthy attempt at telling the world what a compassionate, caring person you are - and your OH.
You then followed up with another statement to Patsy that was spiteful and then another aimed at me that amounted to mockery.

I make no comment on anything that you've said. Other than express disappointment that your proclaimed caring and compassion does not extend to lambs
"Funnily enough we're having roast lamb tomorrow - with new potatoes, garden peas, sweetcorn and mint sauce ... mmmmmmmmm! One of my fave meals "
Or pigs
"We are having pork steak in breadcrumbs, with chips and baked beans - the OH is cooking it even as I type this and it smells delicious :drool:"
And express surprise that someone who proclaims themselves to be such a caring, compassionate, animal-lover, so quick to condemn others and brand others 'hypocrite' is not even a vegetarian.

As for your calumny, I see no reason to respond to that either. What I've said, or not said, is there for all to see.
As yours are. 'By it's fruit ...'

As for your suggestion of transporting 40 million homeless cats and dogs (including 8 million Pit Bulls) to 'the north of the country' where according to you there is no rehoming problem - a statement which would appear to sum up your understanding of the issue. Try Delaware. (Post 306)


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Oh how I sometimes envy ignorant bliss - others don't think the same?
Well you just ignore them of course and name call, you don't want silly things like facts getting in the way of your opinion, that would just be far too much to accept 

The irony in this thread is a joke, but the sad thing is the name callers won't see that irony due to a very closed mind that refuses to see reason :yikes:

*Disclaimer - This is not a post to feel superior of anything, I find this thread incredible sad and disheartening :nonod:


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> Just for the record, I've had you on ignore for the last year due to your rude, disgusting and spiteful behaviour in that other thread.
> 
> The only reason I saw this post is because I voluntarily opened it to follow the flow of the thread.
> 
> ...


Game... set... match! :thumbsup:


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> With respect again, spaying/neutering is a central tenet of PETA's philosophy on this. Together with stopping overbreeding. And adopting from animal shelters.
> Bizarrely, Mr Winograd says there is an undersupply of pets and the head of the American Kennel Club advocates buying dogs from breeders rather than adopting from animal shelters.


Not once in this thread have I directly quoted Mr Winograd. In fact, I have found other commenters (not linked to the CCF) so that you cannot throw the accusation at me that I am reading only 'smear campaigns'.



Knightofalbion said:


> *Animals that have been neutered/spayed are no longer part of the overbreeding problem, true, but they remain part of the oversupply problem.*
> Neutered or not you'd still have 40 million unwanted cats and dogs ten years from now. (Including those 8 million Pit Bulls.).


Why do I get the impression that these animals mean nothing to PETA at all? Is it because the very organisation that frowns upon animals being used as commodities actually talks about them in commodity terms?
(Or, forgive me if I got that bit wrong and it is you rather than PETA who talks about them in these terms)


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> I make no comment on anything that you've said. Other than express disappointment that your proclaimed caring and compassion does not extend to lambs
> "Funnily enough we're having roast lamb tomorrow - with new potatoes, garden peas, sweetcorn and mint sauce ... mmmmmmmmm! One of my fave meals "
> Or pigs
> "We are having pork steak in breadcrumbs, with chips and baked beans - the OH is cooking it even as I type this and it smells delicious :drool:"
> And express surprise that someone who proclaims themselves to be such a caring, compassionate, animal-lover, so quick to condemn others and brand others 'hypocrite' is not even a vegetarian.


Ah, so now anyone who is not _even_ a vegetarian is not an animal lover....
Now we are getting to the crux of the matter for some people in this thread....they feel superior for no reason other than they are vegans.

Sad really.....


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

silvi said:


> Ah, so now anyone who is not _even_ a vegetarian is not an animal lover....
> Now we are getting to the crux of the matter for some people in this thread....they feel superior for no reason other than they are vegans.
> 
> Sad really.....


Sticks and stones....

You are happy to call us names, and mock.

But we all know the truth, meat eaters are (their own) pet lovers, vegans love ALL animals.

You are happy to suggest we are confused and PETA hypocritical.

But how can a true animal lover eat meat?

Meat eaters are responsible for an animal holocaust. Yet you criticise PETA putting to sleep too many animals.

I tell you this, I would rather be pts humanely (if needs warranted it), than end up in a slaughterhouse.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

:Yawn: stop reinforcing the trolls with attention and they'll eventually go away and annoy other people. Any education value in this thread is gone.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Nicky10 said:


> :Yawn: stop reinforcing the trolls with attention and they'll eventually go away and annoy other people. Any education value in this thread is gone.


We are "trolls" just because we support PETA, the RSPCA/SSPCA and are vegan?

I give up! :thumbdown:


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Spellweaver said:


> You are so good at asking questions, but niot very good at answering them.
> 
> *You very disparagingly asked what I did for animals, and I told you.* I asked you what YOU do - several times - and you obviously don't do anything. Either that or you are deliberately ignoring the question - but why would you do that iof you have nothing to hide? And if you do nothing other than spout rubbish at other animals lovers who DO care about animals, then hang your head in shame.
> .


In fairness that was not how I read the post, I read it as a general question asking what people do for animals and not one aimed directly at you. For the record if you had directly asked me the same question you are repeatedly asking Knightofalbion I would not have answered you either. Partly because the money I donate on a monthly basis to animal charities is my business and no one elses and partly because a lot of the things I did in the past were against the law and could still land me in a lot of trouble if I were to detail them on a public forum.

Its so very sad to read some of these very nasty comments and bickering. If we are all animal lovers here why can't we just accept that we all have different views and different ways of going about things. Accept that we all have free will (and yes a brain that thinks for itself and hasn't been washed by anyone else ) and can choose those organisations we support and those we don't. There is room for all out there.

I'm no longer a vegetarian by the way although I eat very little meat and only organic ethically sourced. I believe every little bit helps and that each person should do what they are comfortable doing with knowledge and understanding of the processes involved. None of us are perfect, someone will always come along and pick holes in what you do or find one thing that makes you a hypocrite so I long since stopped trying to please other people and live by my own conscience.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> :Yawn: stop reinforcing the trolls with attention and they'll eventually go away and annoy other people. Any education value in this thread is gone.


Since when does giving your opinion make you a troll?


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

Woah! This thread has certainly progressed since I came on it last!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> Sticks and stones....
> 
> You are happy to call us names, and mock.
> 
> ...


Please point out where you have been called names?
I can give you many examples of names being thrown at me, yet I am failing to see what names have been thrown in your direction 

(just to make it clear, pointing out hypocrisy is not name calling, nor is pointing out fanatical behaviour )

FWIW being a meat eater does not an animal hater make! There are many ways to eat a varied and balanced diet including meat without supporting factory farming.

You say how can a true animal lover eat meat, well I can turn that around and say that a true animal lover should not support mass euthanasia of healthy animals :thumbdown:

Rather than picking up on posts that you can get offended by, or just plainly ignore them why not post proof to show that we are wrong?
I can't speak for anyone else but I would humbly offer my apologies and have a rethink of my opinion if it can a, Be proved that PeTA do advertise to the general public for a free euthanasia clinic b, that this free euthanasia clinic is the reason for the kill rate that has been proven time and time again (ignoring the numbers or detracting from them with sark doesn't make the numbers not true) and c, that the mass number of animals euthanised where not medically or temperamentally sound to rehome OR that Peta transported them from other shelters because they were a "hopeless" case.

I shall expect this post to be ignored or a snarky reply - I'd loved to be proven wrong on this, I really would, so go on...*prove it!*


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

patsymatsy said:


> Sticks and stones....
> 
> You are happy to call us names, and mock.
> 
> ...


I never said I was a meat eater though, did I? 

For what it's worth, I would not call myself a vegetarian because I have never consciously decided not to eat meat. 
But I actually cannot remember the last time I ate meat, because I don't like the taste of it. 
No hypocrisy, no campaign, no following someone else's ideas, _no feeling that what I am doing is the only way_, just _my choice_.

As it is still my choice to be offended by PETA's attitude to the euthanasia of healthy animals.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Knightofalbion said:


> Just for the record, I've had you on ignore for the last year due to your rude, disgusting and spiteful behaviour in that other thread.


Don't know which thread you mean - was it the thread where you were trying to stop people taking cancer drugs in favour of some quack cure? Or was it the thread when you were advising people to eat loads of turmeric despite the possible diuretic side effects of a lot of turrneric? I remember taking you to task for your irresponsibility on both those threads



Knightofalbion said:


> The only reason I saw this post is because I voluntarily opened it to follow the flow of the thread.


Yeah, right - and what about the other posts of mine you have quoted and replied to on this thread? You do tell such lies.



Knightofalbion said:


> I asked you? I asked you nothing. You responded to a post that wasn't even aimed at anyone in particular.


It was a post of yours sneering at people you had labelled "haters" and doubting that all these "haters" did anything to care for animals. I posted to tell you that you were wrong to doubt, and told you what I did, and asked you what you did. You seem to be unable to reply to that, and seem to think it is better to launch a full-out personal attack in order to avoid it. Hmmmm. Wonder why that is?



Knightofalbion said:


> You started off with an unseemly, ungracious and frankly cringeworthy attempt at telling the world what a compassionate, caring person you are - and your OH.


Load of rubbish. It was merely stating facts. The only reason it made you cringe was that it made you realise you knew you were wrong in your assumptions.



Knightofalbion said:


> You then followed up with another statement to Patsy that was spiteful and then another aimed at me that amounted to mockery.


It didn't amount to mockery. It WAS mockery. You deserve mockery.



Knightofalbion said:


> make no comment on anything that you've said. Other than express disappointment that your proclaimed caring and compassion does not extend to lambs
> "Funnily enough we're having roast lamb tomorrow - with new potatoes, garden peas, sweetcorn and mint sauce ... mmmmmmmmm! One of my fave meals "
> Or pigs
> "We are having pork steak in breadcrumbs, with chips and baked beans - the OH is cooking it even as I type this and it smells delicious :drool:"
> And express surprise that someone who proclaims themselves to be such a caring, compassionate, animal-lover, so quick to condemn others and brand others 'hypocrite' is not even a vegetarian.


:lol: - for someone who has me on ignore you seem to be doing a pretty good job of stalking me! Searching through my posts for something to try to discredit me - how creepy is that? (Shudders at the thought of someone even wanting to do something like that)

The irony is that you didn't need to stalk me and, by doing so, reveal to the forum just how creepy you are. All you had to do was ask whether or not I was vegan and I would have told you the truth. I'm not ashamed of eating meat sourced from reputable local non-factory farmers. Perhaps you ought to stalk a little bit more and find the threads where I've spoken about ensuring I buy meat from local, non-factory farms? Or perhaps you did find that but ignored it because posting it would spoil the nasty image you are trying - but failing - to paint of me? And you have the nerve to accuse me of calumny after giving such a marvellous example of it yourself?

As for having to be a vegan to be caring about animals - I'd rather eat non-factory farmed meat and find saving lives of pets important than have your hypocritical stance of being vegan yet applauding and supporting an organisation whose policy is to euthanise animals into extinction. THAT is hypocritical in the extreme.



Knightofalbion said:


> As for your calumny, I see no reason to respond to that either. What I've said, or not said, is there for all to see.
> As yours are. 'By it's fruit ...'


What calumny? I've said nothing about you other than that you have either said about yourself or have revealed about yourself by your words and actions on this thread. I've not had to go stalking through your old threads to try to find something to discredit you as you have tried to do to me. There's enough and more for everyone to see in black and white on this thread alone.



Knightofalbion said:


> As for your suggestion of transporting 40 million homeless cats and dogs (including 8 million Pit Bulls) to 'the north of the country' where according to you there is no rehoming problem - a statement which would appear to sum up your understanding of the issue. Try Delaware. (Post 306)


And yet other rehoming centres in the US are *actually doing* exactly what you ridicule here - look at the links below. It would seem that YOU are the one who does not really undertsand the situation if you think that something that is actually happening is too ridiculous to happen.

Log In - The New York Times

Doomed dogs get on the rescue wagon to other shelters - USATODAY.com

With Rescue Dogs In Demand, More Shelters Look Far Afield For Fido : NPR


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

So.. where does the whole food chain concept come in? Obviously it's a myth.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

silvi said:


> Not once in this thread have I directly quoted Mr Winograd. In fact, I have found other commenters (not linked to the CCF) so that you cannot throw the accusation at me that I am reading only 'smear campaigns'.
> 
> Why do I get the impression that these animals mean nothing to PETA at all? Is it because the very organisation that frowns upon animals being used as commodities actually talks about them in commodity terms?
> (Or, forgive me if I got that bit wrong and it is you rather than PETA who talks about them in these terms)


That was a general comment. Mr Winograd is the figure pushing the anti-PETA campaign.

The 40 million figure comes from non-PETA shelters, so that part has nothing to do with PETA. It only serves to underline the underlying problem of oversupply.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Please point out where you have been called names?
> I can give you many examples of names being thrown at me, yet I am failing to see what names have been thrown in your direction
> 
> (just to make it clear, pointing out hypocrisy is not name calling, nor is pointing out fanatical behaviour )
> ...


Not once have I name called you! 

And due to that lie, I will no longer discuss PETA with you.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> Not once have I name called you!
> 
> And due to that lie, I will no longer discuss PETA with you.


Point out where I said *you* called me names?
Although you have now inferred I am a liar so yeah :thumbdown:

Nice distraction from the questions tho


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Point out where I said *you* called me names?
> Although you have now inferred I am a liar so yeah :thumbdown:
> 
> Nice distraction from the questions tho


Your post insinuated I was calling you names (not my style at all). Did I misread that?

It is clear neither "camp" will be swayed by the other, and going round in circles is not how I want to spend my friday evening. Hence my not entering into any further discussion about PETA. Not a distraction tactic, just tired and feeling disheartened. :sad:


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

> =StormyThai;1064136293
> FWIW being a meat eater does not an animal hater make! There are many ways to eat a varied and balanced diet including meat without supporting factory farming.
> 
> I shall expect this post to be ignored or a snarky reply - I'd loved to be proven wrong on this, I really would, so go on...*prove it!*


FYI you do "snarky" far better than I  I am straight to the point with my view, which is neither "snide" or "snarky" thank you very much!

And not once have I used the word "hater" to describe anyone on this thread!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> Your post insinuated I was calling you names (not my style at all). Did I misread that?
> 
> It is clear neither "camp" will be swayed by the other, and going round in circles is not how I want to spend my friday evening. Hence my not entering into any further discussion about PETA. Not a distraction tactic, just tired and feeling disheartened. :sad:


Yes you have misread. My post merely said that names had been thrown in my direction, I have still yet to see the names you claim to have been called 

You very clearly said that you would no longer discus PeTA due to me lying, if it was due to you being tired please state that rather than insinuate I am a liar when clearly I am not


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> Still 14 years though isn't it. If it was true, and that bad, why wait 14 years to flag it up?


People can carry their secrets, or guilt for a very long time, this shouldn't be news to anyone. I don't suppose you've been in such a situation, lucky you... Those of us who have, have our reasons.


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

StormyThai said:


> Yes you have misread. My post merely said that names had been thrown in my direction, I have still yet to see the names you claim to have been called
> 
> You very clearly said that you would no longer discus PeTA due to me lying, if it was due to you being tired please state that rather than insinuate I am a liar when clearly I am not


You quoted my post, therefore I can surely be forgiven for thinking all the content was aimed at me?!

Right from my first post, there have been names and snidey comments thrown my way. I was the bigger person and chose to turn the other cheek. I am not going to comb through this whole thread to quote examples for you. But they are there....

I am suffering from suspected Lyme disease from a tick bite, I get VERY tired at the moment. And by this time of night my mind is foggy. I can be a tad blunt and straight to the point sometimes, I put my hands up to that. And I will bloody well stick up for myself if I feel unjustly under attack.

But I never resort to name calling.

Life is too short to be arguing with random people on the internet, surely!? So forgive me if I don't want to endlessly debate PETA on a friday night.  I will not be baited into carrying on in circles endlessly.

We will just have to agree to disagree. :thumbsup:


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I'm sorry but I really do not see anyone calling you names


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> Knightofalbion you have a kind and open soul. You are wasted on these people, and their efforts to paint GOOD people bad.
> 
> You have kindness and light in your life, other people have bitterness and darkness in theirs.
> 
> ...


How does not being fond of an organization, disagreeing with some of its practices, beliefs equate to being bitter? 
And maybe some of those who choose to be in the light are simply afraid of the dark, I quite like both, I'd hate to be one dimensional.


----------



## Changes (Mar 21, 2009)

PETA sucks...

It is a massive corporation, extracting money from hard working people who maybe can't afford it, these people love animals and would do anything to help

PETA is like a con artist that knocks on your Granny's door and steals her pension...

PETA kills animals...

PETA kills people...

PETA Sucks

These are my final words on the subject


----------



## patsymatsy (Apr 13, 2015)

Tazer said:


> How does not being fond of an organization, disagreeing with some of its practices, beliefs equate to being bitter?
> And maybe some of those who choose to be in the light are simply afraid of the dark, I quite like both, I'd hate to be one dimensional.


Bitter, as in ALL the name calling and snidey comments being thrown around by the PETA critics, towards us ones trying to point out that PETA does do alot of good. PETA is far from perfect, I acknowledged that, but does far more good than bad.

And as KNIGHT has said MANY times...sadly there is not enough space or homes for them to go to, hence the "kill rate" (endlessly cited by the anti camp).

Just gutted that a forum full of "pet lovers" hate PETA and the RSPCA so much.  and are blind to the good these organisations do, but get a kick at citing only the bad.

As I said before, I do not want to be baited into more discussions on the matter.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

patsymatsy said:


> Just gutted that a forum full of "pet lovers" hate PETA and the RSPCA so much.  and are blind to the good these organisations do, but get a kick at citing only the bad.





> Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt  we are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold the radical line.


Ingrid Newkirk

Personally I support people who actually care about what they are doing rather than do things simply to hold a radical line or do things for publicity. Especially whilst having an end goal such as PeTA.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> Bitter, as in ALL the name calling and snidey comments being thrown around by the PETA critics, towards us ones trying to point out that PETA does do alot of good. PETA is far from perfect, I acknowledged that, but does far more good than bad.
> 
> And as KNIGHT has said MANY times...sadly there is not enough space or homes for them to go to, hence the "kill rate" (endlessly cited by the anti camp).
> 
> ...


Again, please point out the name calling.


----------



## Boonze (Apr 9, 2013)

patsymatsy said:


> I did not say anyone was bad, just bitter, and that they choose the comfort of darkness.
> 
> I know this is not about you, but slurs of being likened to a fanatic or cult member, is not nice. And I felt compelled to show you support, as I imagine sometimes you may feel like you are banging your head against a brick wall.
> 
> *It is clear some people's minds are made up on the matter, and no matter how many links or information you give them, they will remain in denial (sadly).*


The hypocrisy in that last part is obscene. The ignorance and stubbornness displayed in your posts would be hilarious if you weren't in fact supportive of a cult (hurtful? Deal with it).

The difference is, you pick biased 'evidence'. You pick sites which support PETA, which (NO WAY) are going to lean crazily towards PETA's side.

The winning side chose objective sources - which had no opinion, just stated and sited facts. Which, you know - given the very nature of an argument, kind of gives us the advantage.

If you want to be taken seriously (and it seems you do.. :/) provide objective sources. Any sources would be nice from you in particular since you've just been whining about how unfair and blind we are the whole thread.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

The winning side  how can there be a winning side in a forum discussion about animal abuse? The winning side could only be determined by whether or not there is a reduction in said animal abuse and forgive me for being naive but I thought we were all on the same side - the side of the abused not the side of people who post link after link that lets face it most people (yes myself included) do not have the time or inclination to read. Do you think the abused give a flying fig who posted the best links? Seriously that astounds me


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> The winning side  how can there be a winning side in a forum discussion about animal abuse? The winning side could only be determined by whether or not there is a reduction in said animal abuse and forgive me for being naive but I thought we were all on the same side - the side of the abused not the side of people who post link after link that lets face it most people (yes myself included) do not have the time or inclination to read. Do you think the abused give a flying fig who posted the best links? Seriously that astounds me


The post you are answering is in response to one talking about posting links and still not being able to convince people, so it naturally referred to the debate as of two 'sides', because that is how the previous poster saw it also.

But yes, in essence you are right.

This shouldn't be about 'taking sides', or who can 'win' the argument. Because. let's face it, those who support PETA are very unlikely to change their minds, and even if they waver, they are very unlikely to make it known on this thread.

But some of us have actually read the links posted - both pro and anti-PETA.
Yeah, I know, I'm sad.....and sometimes I've been reading about PETA rather than working...., but I think it's important to consider different points made in a debate as serious as this has become before posting (that's my excuse anyway ).

And I would say that many reading this thread have read at least some of the links and articles referred to.

For me (and I would guess others as well) this thread has been quite educational - not only on the subject of PETA, but on many issues surrounding mistreated and abandoned animals, and I am pleased that people took the time to post those links.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> The winning side  how can there be a winning side in a forum discussion about animal abuse? The winning side could only be determined by whether or not there is a reduction in said animal abuse and forgive me for being naive but I thought we were all on the same side - the side of the abused not the side of people who post link after link that lets face it most people (yes myself included) do not have the time or inclination to read. Do you think the abused give a flying fig who posted the best links? Seriously that astounds me


So, you don't look at the information gathered? 

I'd rather deal in known facts not hearsay, and make my mind up when I feel reasonably informed


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> The winning side  how can there be a winning side in a forum discussion about animal abuse? The winning side could only be determined by whether or not there is a reduction in said animal abuse and forgive me for being naive but I thought we were all on the same side - the side of the abused not the side of people who post link after link that lets face it most people (yes myself included) do not have the time or inclination to read. Do you think the abused give a flying fig who posted the best links? Seriously that astounds me


*I know a lot of people don't like opening links and for this reason i often quote from a link i have posted.
But in defence of those of us that do post links, they are for other peoples benefit not ours. Also if we didn't use links, we would be accused of not providing a link to our data.*


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Sorry I didn't mean that you (general) shouldn't post links, I do sometimes too but I'm saying the issue is not about who posts the most or the best links and that in a thread like this with so many links most people myself included will not read all of them. Hands up and step forward who has read every link posted on this thread. I also know that anyone can trawl the internet and find an article/link/statistic to demonstrate pretty much any point they want to so no I do not put all my faith in links posted particularly when there is so much point scoring going on in this thread


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

rona said:


> So, *you don't look at the information gathered? *
> 
> I'd rather deal in known facts not hearsay, and make my mind up when I feel reasonably informed


Sometimes Rona but can you honestly say every thread you take part in you have read all the links and information presented


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Sometimes Rona but can you honestly say every thread you take part in you have read all the links and information presented


I know you asked the question of Rona, but generally if I am debating with someone about something then yes, I do read all the links they provide to qualify their points and I expect them to read links I put up to qualify mine.

For me, a debate is not just looking at something with a closed mind and reiterating your own stance, it is engaging with those who are debating the opposite side and assessing what they are saying. Part of that is reading the links they provide and assessing their accuracy, and then either changing your own mind or providing other inks and arguments to show why their stance has not changed your opinion. Their links are there to explain their stance; how can you understand their stance and decide whether or not what they are saying is going to change your mind about how you feel if you don't follow their links?

There are two instances where I would stop following links.

One is when the person debating the opposite side puts up the same links time and time again, and is obviously not looking at the links that I put up. In those sorts of cases, it has ceased to be a debate because the person taking the opposite stance is obviously not interested in debating properly and looking at anything with an open mind. There's no point in continuing that sort of debate - it just disintegrates and goes round and round in circles.

The other is when the person debating the opposite side realises because their stance is not viable they are unable to continue the debate, and so they begin on the nasty personal attacks. In those sorts of cases, links are the last thing on my mind and I'm very much afraid that anyone who attacks me personally - or any other person if I think their being attacked is unnecessary - gets back as good as they give.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Hands up and step forward who has read every link posted on this thread.(


I have read every link posted on this thread .....but I haven't _re-_read those posted more than once.

(But in my defense, I learned to read fast for my work quite a while ago )


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Boonze said:


> The hypocrisy in that last part is obscene. The ignorance and stubbornness displayed in your posts would be hilarious if you weren't in fact supportive of a cult (hurtful? Deal with it).
> 
> The difference is, you pick biased 'evidence'. You pick sites which support PETA, which (NO WAY) are going to lean crazily towards PETA's side.
> 
> ...


"The winning side"? That's a wholly inappropriate thing to say. Upwards of 4 million cats and dogs (the majority of them perfectly healthy) euthanized annually, due to oversupply.... Animal shelters following Winograd's philosophy suffering chronic overcrowding and facing ruination and closure. 
I'm struggling to see who the 'winners' are.

As for the sheer naivety of your remark that your side has only quoted from "objective sources"?

This is the hidden face of the PETA-bashing campaign
Berman and Company | Berman Exposed
The Curious Case of Nathan Winograd - Why PETA Euthanizes

[And if 'you' want to 'hear the other side' and form a genuinely objective opinion, then you should read both through to the very end.]

Do you really think the sponsors behind all of this, who are responsible for the industrial-scale abuse and killing of BILLIONS of animals, *BILLIONS*, care a stuff about some unwanted cats and dogs?

Ultimately this isn't even about PETA, it's about Big Business animal abusers trying to do down the Animal Rights Movement.

The PETA centre passes EVERY VDACS inspection, 100%, EVERY YEAR.

If they were doing anything amiss they wouldn't even be licensed by the VDACS to operate at all.

And despite all the smearing and dirty tricks, the people who are best situated to make an honest judgement are the local people of Hampton Roads, who are continuing to support the centre. In fact the numbers doing so are increasing.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Knightofalbion said:


> This is the hidden face of the PETA-bashing campaign
> Berman and Company | Berman Exposed
> The Curious Case of Nathan Winograd - Why PETA Euthanizes
> 
> ...


These links have been posted before.....

PETA details about the CCF (and possible links to Nathan Winograd) have been posted before and read before.

That is why I and others have looked for alternative sources.

I agree that what may be seen as the 'demonizing' of PETA by the CCF has to be taken into account. But just because they are being attacked by 'big business' interests, and we may well sympathise with that, does not give PETA carte blanche to do what they like when it comes to animal welfare.

However, I did have another read of the 'why PETA euthanizes' link and found this statement:



> No one can guarantee animals a "right to life," not even the largest animal rights organization in the world.
> But what they can advocate for is that animals have the right to a meaningful life, free from exploitation, deprivation, and suffering.


Now, on the surface, that sounds ideal and a guarantee that PETA cares about animals' lives.

But dig deeper and look at other PETA statements (links posted earlier in the thread) - about what should happen to feral cats for example, and read again about healthy animals euthanised in holding stations (because it seems this was PETA's prescription to 'end their suffering').
And you realises that, if an animal that falls into PETA's care cannot have 'a meaningful life' _in PETA terms_, then it is very much in danger of being euthanised.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> These links have been posted before.....
> 
> PETA details about the CCF (and possible links to Nathan Winograd) have been posted before and read before.
> 
> ...


I think that this bit in bold is the most important thing that has been posted on this thread. *This* is why most animal lovers dislike and distrust PETA. *This* is why most animal lovers find that despite the fact that they have achieved some good, they cannot support them.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

patsymatsy said:


> Bitter, as in ALL the name calling and snidey comments being thrown around by the PETA critics, towards us ones trying to point out that PETA does do alot of good. PETA is far from perfect, I acknowledged that, but does far more good than bad.
> 
> And as KNIGHT has said MANY times...sadly there is not enough space or homes for them to go to, hence the "kill rate" (endlessly cited by the anti camp).
> 
> ...


But that doesn't prove bitterness, that is a particular emotional state, and not the only one which could motivate the comments you reference. 
Hate is a very strong emotion, requiring a lot of energy, not something I'd accuse people of lightly, not without a lot of evidence, or their own admission. 
I do not hate anyone, despite some people giving me damn good reasons to do so. So no, I do not hate PETA or the rspca for that matter, however, I am not a particular fan of either, some of their methods, beliefs, policies, just don't fit with my own personal moral code, I make no apologies for that. 
I respect your desire to not be baited back into the thread, thanks for responding anyway.


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

I believe someone mentioned Sea World earlier in the thread, I might suggest that Black Fish has done more to raise the profile of the plight of such animals in captivity in recent times than PETA, without resorting to some of the tactics employed by the for mentioned organisation. Unless of course, the producer and those involved are members of PETA, in which case, credit where its due, good job.. If anyone hasn't watched it, it's definitely worth a look.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Tazer said:


> I believe someone mentioned Sea World earlier in the thread, I might suggest that *Black Fish has done more* to raise the profile of the plight of such animals in captivity in recent times than PETA, without resorting to some of the tactics employed by the for mentioned organisation. Unless of course, the producer and those involved are members of PETA, in which case, credit where its due, good job.. If anyone hasn't watched it, it's definitely worth a look.


I thought that when it was first mentioned.
The reason Black fish had such a direct impact is the way it was reported...no shock tactics, no stunts, no song and dance, they merely reported what was actually going on and left it to the watcher to make their own choice about what to think.
So no one really switched off before the real message got through, because no one felt things were too far fetched to be true :idea:

As far as I can see PeTA had no input in the program and I would expect them to be shouting it from the rooftops if they had.
Large organisations appear to relish in taking the "limelight" even if they didn't directly effect anything...take the RSPCA and [email protected] for example: [email protected] were transporting 6 week old rabbits from Spain to the UK so they could go on sale by 8 weeks and they were spaying these babies at 5 weeks old 

The RSPCA took all of the credit when [email protected] stopped this trial, when in reality they did nothing more than make their presence known, it was other smaller organisations and the public that stopped that trial before it really started :skep:


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Tazer said:


> I believe someone mentioned Sea World earlier in the thread, I might suggest that Black Fish has done more to raise the profile of the plight of such animals in captivity in recent times than PETA, without resorting to some of the tactics employed by the for mentioned organisation. Unless of course, the producer and those involved are members of PETA, in which case, credit where its due, good job.. If anyone hasn't watched it, it's definitely worth a look.


I have a lot of catching up to do on this thread but just picking up on this post first.

Without PETA Blackfish would not have been so widely publicised. When the tanks at SeaWorld are finally emptied the sustained campaigning by PETA will have played a major factor.

_

The chase scene in the documentary Blackﬁsh felt like someone punched me in the stomach. A convoy of high-speed ﬁshing boats races across the sea in pursuit of a baby orca while the adults in his pod try to intervene. In the end, an orca who will become known as Tilikum is netted and hauled aboard ship. The adult orcas cry. Even the human crew appears pained. Years later, one sailor tells Blackﬁsh director Gabriela Cowperthwaite that trapping Tilikum was the worst thing I have ever done.

For PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), Blackfish was a gift. Since 1998, it has been campaigning to free Tilikum and others like him. National Campaign Manager Katie Arth says, Animals are not ours to use for entertainment. Her organization mixes strategic opportunism and digital technology to promote this view. The Blackfish broadcasts on CNN injected new life into the SeaWorld campaign.

For 30+ years, Tilikum has lived in a chemically treated tank that in human terms is equivalent to a bathtub. He was previously the property of Sealand, but is now owned by SeaWorld. While Tilikums main role is to perform for human audiences, he has a track record for deadly behavior.

In 1991, Tilikum and two other orcas killed 20-year-old Keltie Byrne, a student that was a part-time trainer at Sealand. In 1999, at SeaWorld, he was allegedly responsible for the death of 27-year-old Daniel P. Dukes, who had entered the orca tank after closing hours. In 2010, Tilikum drowned 40-year-old veteran trainer, Dawn Brancheau. Following this fatal incident, OSHA banned trainers from close contact with orcas, a decision that SeaWorld is appealing.

PETA maintains that the orcas are driven mad by inhumane treatment. It advocates for a different theme park modelcoastal sanctuarieswhere people could see the orcas in their natural environment from a whale-watching ship. PETAs initial communications activities generated empathy for Tilikum and other captive orcas, but the message didnt resonate much beyond committed animal welfare activists.

Once PETA began calling attention to Blackfish, support soared, with thousands of people visiting the campaign website, SeaWorldOfHurt.com. According to Arth, PETAs Twitter account set a new record for retweets4,190. The hashtags #blackfish and #blackfishonCNN trended, largely the result of PETAs active marketing team that was live tweeting while watching the broadcast and public discussions. A month later, PETAs tweet marking the 30th anniversary of Tilikums capture from the wild was retweeted more than 4,500 times.

SeaWorld Campaign: 6 Actions Taken

There are at least six major threads to the SeaWorld campaign:
1.A dedicated website (with rich content)
2.Impact litigation (the court case)
3.Direct action (street demonstrations, petitions)
4.Social media marketing (Twitter)
5.Corporate pressure (shareholder activism, business partner boycotts)
6.Mainstream media attention (driven by cultivating controversy)

PETA has a tradition of creative opportunism. In 2012, for instance, they sued SeaWorld in federal court on behalf of captive orcas. Tilikum v. SeaWorld argued that five wild-caught orcas deserved protection under the Constitutions 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery. They lost the case, but gained media coverage, visibility, and more supporters.

In 2013, when SeaWorld sponsored a float in Macys Thanksgiving Day Parade and the Tournament of Roses Parade on New Years Day, PETA volunteers stood along the route to protest. Over 100 were at the Rose Parade this year. At the last Macys parade, 12-year-old activist Rose McCoy received national media coverage when she jumped a barricade while holding a Boycott SeaWorld sign at both parades.

In April 2013, when SeaWorlds stock went public, PETA became a shareholder, giving it the necessary standing to offer a resolution at SeaWorlds annual meeting, calling on the company to create a coastal retirement sanctuary for its orcas. This got attention from serious media, including a major feature on Fox Business, an outlet not usually associated with progressive nonprofits.

Then, in February of this year, SeaWorld attempted to block PETAs resolution by exploiting a loophole in securities law. It petitioned the Securities and Exchange Commissionsuccessfully, it turns outfor permission to ignore the resolution. This sparked additional media attention from top media outlets, including Reuters.

According to a story in the Orlando Business Journal, SeaWorld has deployed tactics such as stuffing the newspapers online ballot box for an opinion poll about Blackfish.

PETA contends that SeaWorld also featured misleading copy in a paid advertising blitz designed to discredit the campaign. Never one to pass up an opportunity, PETA posted a video rebuttal on its website, using social media to drive traffic to it.

Another tactic PETA employs is to target companies that do business with SeaWorld. At the top of the list is Southwest Airlines, which paints its planes to resemble orcas. Activist Robin Merrit recently presented a Change.org petition at Southwests Dallas headquarters, to no avail. Southwest CEO Gary Kelly stated that the airline is not considering changing its relationship with SeaWorld, a response that deeply disappointed Merrit, who noted that many entertainers had cancelled gigs at SeaWorld in response to Blackfish and PETA. I hope Southwest will stop cheerleading SeaWorlds cruelty just like many artists including Willie Nelson, Martina McBride, and Heart have already done, Merrit told Eric Nicholson, a blogger for the Dallas Observer. In turn, Nicholson ended his story with this: Thats right, Southwest. Heart has more moral courage than you. Time to take a good look in the mirror.

By using a wide array of tactics and technologies, PETA reaches different target audiences through the media each prefers. Some people respond to video, others are energized through live protests, others read their local newspapers. PETA identifies multiple pressure points where it can make its influence felt, then bombards its target audiences from every possible angleand they are very tenacious about this. In the case of SeaWorld, PETA has been campaigning for 16 years. Blackfish provided a huge boost, thats true, but part of the reason it had such an impact is because PETA knew how to leverage it_

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/poli...tech-that-drive-peta-s-seaworld-campaign.html


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Of course Blackfish was just as biased as a program called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Both equally valid although PDE didn't have anything to do with PeTA. Strangely everyone raves about one and many complain about the other. Wonder why  

PeTA are now demonstrating about pedigree dogs but then that also matches their No Pets agenda and is good publicity for being noticed. Noticed = more funding.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Yes when Blackfish was launched PeTA bought more shares in Sea World...buying into what you despise and campaign against isn't really playing a part in their down fall in my mind 

PeTA did not have anything to do with that kettle of fish (excuse the pun), they rode off the back of it tho


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Of course Blackfish was just as biased as a program called Pedigree Dogs Exposed. Both equally valid although PDE didn't have anything to do with PeTA. Strangely everyone raves about one and many complain about the other. Wonder why
> 
> PeTA are now demonstrating about pedigree dogs but then that also matches their No Pets agenda and is good publicity for being noticed. Noticed = more funding.


Just as biased as PDE? Cetaceans are wild animals that can NEVER be kept ethically in captivity - never.



StormyThai said:


> Yes when Blackfish was launched PeTA bought more shares in Sea World...buying into what you despise and campaign against isn't really playing a part in their down fall in my mind
> 
> PeTA did not have anything to do with that kettle of fish (excuse the pun), they rode off the back of it tho


You must be getting dizzy with all this spinning
PETA Becomes Part Owner of SeaWorld | PETA's Blog | PETA

.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> I have a lot of catching up to do on this thread but just picking up on this post first.
> 
> Without PETA Blackfish would not have been so widely publicised. When the tanks at SeaWorld are finally emptied the sustained campaigning by PETA will have played a major factor.
> 
> ...


*Noushka i think you will find it wasn't down to PETA but celebrities pulling out of gigs, and social media that made Blackfish well known.*


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I've read that many times Noush and it doesn't change my mind. They have been shareholders for 2 years now and have achieved what exactly?

The RSPCA did the same here by jumping into bed with [email protected], there has been zero changes from their input either 

Being a shareholder does not give you the say in what happens in a company, yeah you can put points forward, but the rest of the shareholders need to agree before anything is done 

But yes, I am tired of going in circles so I will bow out now unless new information is put forward to back up some of the rediculous claims in this thread


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Noushka i think you will find it wasn't down to PETA but celebrities pulling out of gigs, and social media that made Blackfish well known.*


SeaWorld themselves see PETA as a major threat to their business Janice, so much so that they launched a propaganda campaign against them & the Blackfish documentary .

SeaWorld Ads Counter Criticism Over Treatment Of Whales : NPR



StormyThai said:


> I've read that many times Noush and it doesn't change my mind. They have been shareholders for 2 years now and have achieved what exactly?
> 
> The RSPCA did the same here by jumping into bed with [email protected], there has been zero changes from their input either
> 
> ...


Heres one of Peta's recent successes for you dismiss -

Ringling Brothers Circus' Over-the-Top Cruelty | RinglingBeatsAnimals.com

Victory! Ringling Phasing Out Elephant Performances, but Should Elephants Spend 3 More Years in Boxcars? | PETA's Blog | PETA

.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I never said that PeTA had never had any success in other campaigns, nor have I said that they don't do any good what so ever.

That wasn't my point and you know it Noush


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> I never said that PeTA had never had any success in other campaigns, nor have I said that they don't do any good what so ever.
> 
> That wasn't my point and you know it Noush


No, they have had innumerable successes & in many countries, which is why SeaWorld, the meat & fur industry etc despise them & why the CCF was set up to smear their name.

Was your point, peta bought those 'falling' shares to make money? lol

.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

noushka05 said:


> No, they have had innumerable successes & in many countries, which is why SeaWorld, the meat & fur industry etc despise them & why the CCF was set up to smear their name.
> 
> Was your point, peta bought those 'falling' shares to make money? lol
> 
> .


Read the thread, my point has always been clear throughout.

As for the shares here you go as you obviously missed it:


> buying into what you despise and campaign against isn't really playing a part in their down fall in my mind


But I digress, I refuse to be bought back in for point scoring. You can either supply the proof that address the concerns raised in this thread or you can't, if you can't then there is nothing more for me to say as I will just be repeating myself.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

StormyThai said:


> Read the thread, my point has always been clear throughout.
> 
> As for the shares here you go as you obviously missed it:
> 
> But I digress, I refuse to be bought back in for point scoring. You can either supply the proof that address the concerns raised in this thread or you can't, if you can't then there is nothing more for me to say as I will just be repeating myself.


Fighting them from within is a brilliant move imo.

I have only read these last few posts, but from what I saw the other day, I saw people referencing CCF sources & a few unfounded anecdotes, some euthanasia statistics which didn't prove or disprove peta are taking in the worst cases. But I will go back and try to catch up later.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Fighting them from within is a brilliant move imo.
> 
> I have only read these last few posts, but from what I saw the other day, I saw people referencing CCF sources & a few unfounded anecdotes, some euthanasia statistics which didn't prove or disprove peta are taking in the worst cases. But I will go back and try to catch up later.


Fighting from within has been tried many times and always carries risks that the 'infighter' may be accused of being 'tainted' by the company they keep. It is also quite difficult to fight from within and be effective too, and in PETA's case very much depends on the number of shares they have obtained and what action they take as minority shareholders.
But fair play to them if this stance works.

I also think that this thread is already filled to the brim with examples from both sides, without us going off down another route of examples of the good that PETA does (and I don't think that anyone has said that they do not do some good).

As far as I can remember (this is a long thread!) the issues covered have been advertising campaigns, the treatment of sheep _in Australia and new Zealand_, the ongoing campaign against PETA by certain large groups and individuals, PETA's stance on animal rescue, PETA's stance on what is good for animals and what is bad for them, and PETA's stance on the euthanasia of healthy animals and figures and PETA statements to go with this.
That's probably enough to be going on with surely?


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2015)

As a former PeTA volunteer and someone who has been active in shelter work for nearly 3 decades in the US, I feel I may have a valid opinion or two.

First off, in my college days, in the late 80s early 90s I was a PeTA volunteer. I participated in protests, went to meetings, and told anyone who would listen why I was a vegetarian, what factory farming was doing to animals and the environment, and why these issues were important.

At the same time, I was also working at the CSU Equine Studies satellite campus. One of the facilities at that campus housed some Premarin mares. They produced, but also tested the drug. I worked in that barn when assigned, I was well aware of how the mares and foals were cared for.

So imagine my surprise when at a PeTA meeting, they started informing us of the next campaign, against the Premarin mares here on campus. And imagine how much more surprised I was when they showed us photos of how these mares and foals were kept and cared for. Because not a one of the photos were of the CSU facility, nor were any of them accurate representations of how the mares were kept. When I brought it up, the gal in charge told me it didnt matter that they werent accurate, as long as the message got across. To which I replied, what about all the people on campus who have access to that facility who will know right away that these pictures are bogus? We are ON the CSU campus, its not like the mares are kept in a secret barn, theyre out there for anyone to see.

My stint with PeTA was a short one.

As someone who has worked with animals for pretty much my whole life, unfortunately my dealings with PeTA have continued over the years. None of those dealings have done anything to convince me that PeTA has good intentions for pet animals. They dont want pets to exist, and they would rather see an animal dead than a pet. 
A stance that makes sense for wild animals who were never meant to be kept in captivity, but that makes no sense for dogs and cats who have had a close relationship with humans for millennia. Dogs especially have probably co-evlolved with humans, and the thought of admiration from afar with no relationship with them is well, unthinkable. 
Part of understanding and respecting animals includes understanding and respecting the relationship we have with them. Domesticated animals, and pet animals are meant to coexist with humans. How to achieve that coexistence humanely is a worthy goal, getting rid of these animals entirely is not.

I have lived in the south since 1995 and the pet overpopulation crisis here is real.
It is also very real that we have a big network of transport routes and volunteers who move adoptable dogs out of southern states in to states where they have the opposite problem - not enough shelter dogs.

The no-kill movement is also very real, and very successful. There is a new no-kill shelter in our area that is doing fantastic work, working with trainers and volunteers to up adoption rates, help make dogs more adoptable by teaching them leash manners and basic living with humans manners before they leave, properly vetting adopters, and properly assessing the dogs before adopting them out.

If a tiny little shelter in a podunk town can achieve what this shelter has achieved, surely PeTA with all their money can do just as much, yet they dont. Nor are the animals theyre taking in un-adoptable. They would just rather see them dead than pets.

Dont believe me? Then why would these two PeTA workers lie to shelters in North Carolina telling them that they were taking these animals to be adopted out and instead euthanize them and dump them in a dumpster behind a supermarket? 
PETA employees charged with animal cruelty - Health - Pet health - Other Pet News | NBC News

Why would PeTA volunteers steal a chihuahua - a loved family pet - and not even hold her the required time for a stray and instead euthanize her that same day?
PETA laments stolen chihuahua, must pay state fine | WAVY-TV

And finally, what about PeTAs stance on pit bulls? 
PeTA supports BSL, despite all the credible evidence that BSL does not work, does not save dogs, does not prevent injuries to humans, despite all this evidence, PeTA strongly supports BSL and euthanizing all pit bulls who are turned in to shelters.

Vick&#39;s Pit Bulls Face Deadline | Fox News


> "There's no dispute over who owns the dogs," said Daphna Nachminovitch, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. "Obviously this is not going to be a process where someone steps forward and says, 'This is my dog, can I have her back, please?' "
> 
> Though Hudson, who also is handling Vick's criminal case, will determine what becomes of the pit bulls, Nachminovitch said that it's likely that they will be euthanized because they're not adoptable as pets.
> 
> "*These dogs are a ticking time bomb," she said. "Rehabilitating fighting dogs is not in the cards.* It's widely accepted that euthanasia is the most humane thing for them."


The above was in reference to the Michael Vick dogs, their story is well documented, these dogs were not only *very* rehabilitate-able, but many of them went on to be therapy dogs and much loved, well cared for family pets.
I posted a thread on this last week:
http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/396738-ex-fighting-dogs.html#post1064128680

People will make up their own mind and support what they want to support, Im not here to change anyones mind, but to point out that there are many legitimate reasons why a genuine animal lover may not support an organization like PeTA.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> As a former PeTA volunteer and someone who has been active in shelter work for nearly 3 decades in the US, I feel I may have a valid opinion or two.
> 
> First off, in my college days, in the late 80s early 90s I was a PeTA volunteer. I participated in protests, went to meetings, and told anyone who would listen why I was a vegetarian, what factory farming was doing to animals and the environment, and why these issues were important.
> 
> ...


On another thread you said this about revolting Michael Vicks & PETA - _"That's him. Also know for running a huge dog fighting operation, electrocuting dogs, bashing their heads in to concrete, and more. He got out of prison, hooked up with PeTA and a good PR firm, now he has a malinois puppy. For his kids. Gag me with a fork...." _

Do you have any links on him hooking up with PETA?

.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat...-more-dogs.html?highlight=peta#post1062793715


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Do you have any links on him hooking up with PETA?


Michael Vick in Talks to Become PETA Spokesman | News - Advertising Age

Michael Vick In Talks To Become PETA Spokesman - Business Insider


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> 1) I have lived in the south since 1995 and the pet overpopulation crisis here is real.
> It is also very real that we have a big network of transport routes and volunteers who move adoptable dogs out of southern states in to states where they have the opposite problem - not enough shelter dogs.
> 
> If a tiny little shelter in a podunk town can achieve what this shelter has achieved, surely PeTA with all their money can do just as much, yet they dont. Nor are the animals theyre taking in un-adoptable. They would just rather see them dead than pets.
> ...


1) Firstly there's No Kill and no-kill.

Your "tiny little shelter in a podunk town" may be doing okay. But that's precisely because they are a tiny little shelter in a podunk town! Try being a tiny little shelter in a big city and see how you fare.
There is an dog/cat oversupply problem in the US and many other countries too everyone acknowledges that. 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs PTS every year. Up to 4 million altogether with sick. injured and aggressive/potentially aggressive. I've seen figures suggesting it is even higher than that.

2) Don't you think that is a little underhand? A ten second Google search would have easily told you that both defendants were acquitted (not guilty) of all cruelty charges. Though convicted of 'littering'. (Mind you, in a 100 degree heat and with the smell of decomposing animals filling the vehicle, who wouldn't have done the same?)
And this is PETAs version of events
The North Carolina Incident - Why PETA Euthanizes

3) They stuffed up, but it was a left hand - right hand error, nothing malicious
PETAs version of events
http://whypetaeuthanizes.com/maya.html

4) Now, for someone claiming to be knowledgeable on the subject, that is purposely misleading.

Out of every 600 Pit Bulls in America. How many will find a loving, forever home? Answer - ONE. The other 599 will be euthanized.

800,000 Pit Bulls are euthanized in the US every year.

75% of animal shelters (that's ALL animal shelters nationally) will euthanize a Pit Bull on the first day of receiving it without even bother to look to re-home it, because they know they won't be able to.
Other shelters will give it a day's grace and then do it. So to single out PETA?

This article on Chained is a real eye-opener and gets to the sorry heart of the matter 
http://www.chained2011.org/Why_Not_.html

Incidentally how many Pit Bulls have you re-homed? Are you offering to?
I'm sure many have turned out to be happy, loving pets. Though some have also killed and mauled. Perhaps the key reason people don't want to take a chance on them.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

As for the SeaWorld shares matter.

PETA bought the minimum number of SeaWorld shares on the open market that gave them the legal right "to attend and speak at annual meetings and submit shareholder resolutions asking for policy changes" 
They had been barred from the building before, so it was a very smart move.
PETA Becomes Part Owner of SeaWorld | PETA's Blog | PETA


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*For what it is worth i would like to say, i knew next to nothing about PETA before this thread. BUT!, i am learning.
Now from what i can gather, PETA does have it's good and bad points. And for that reason alone, i don't think that is fair to bash them for everything they do.Which i might add, i would have done 24 hours ago.
However, i will never agree to their kill rate.*


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

Why is it so difficult for most of those who support PETA to listen to anyone else, when many of those on this thread who are questioning some of PETA's views and actions are willing to consider that they have done good in some areas?


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> 1) Firstly there's No Kill and no-kill.
> 
> Your "tiny little shelter in a podunk town" may be doing okay. But that's precisely because they are a tiny little shelter in a podunk town! Try being a tiny little shelter in a big city and see how you fare.
> There is an dog/cat oversupply problem in the US and many other countries too everyone acknowledges that. 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs PTS every year. Up to 4 million altogether with sick. injured and aggressive/potentially aggressive. I've seen figures suggesting it is even higher than that.


You've seen figures. I'm here. I think I know what's happening 
Big cities are running successful no kill shelters just like our little one is, using the same principles of properly assessing the dogs, doing basic training, properly vetting homes, and running transports to other states when needed. 
I'm not a naive "save them all" proponent, but when adoptions can be done they should be done. And they can, and are.



Knightofalbion said:


> 2) Don't you think that is a little underhand? A ten second Google search would have easily told you that both defendants were acquitted (not guilty) of all cruelty charges. Though convicted of 'littering'. (Mind you, in a 100 degree heat and with the smell of decomposing animals filling the vehicle, who wouldn't have done the same?)
> And this is PETAs version of events
> The North Carolina Incident - Why PETA Euthanizes


Their acquittal of cruelty charges still doesn't explain why they lied in order to obtain the dogs in the first place. Doesn't explain why they started with live, adoptable dogs and ended up with dead ones dumped in the nearest dumpster. The smell of decomposing animals in a vehicle would not have bothered them if they had not killed the dogs to begin with!



Knightofalbion said:


> 3) They stuffed up, but it was a left hand - right hand error, nothing malicious
> PETAs version of events
> Maya - Why PETA Euthanizes


An "error"? It was a well, planned, well orchestrated, deliberate act. 
I agree that had it been one incident, I'd feel differently, however, this incident coupled with incidents like the one in North Carolina and multiple other incidents of PeTA killing perfectly healthy, adoptable animals becomes a much bigger issue.



Knightofalbion said:


> 4) Now, for someone claiming to be knowledgeable on the subject, that is purposely misleading.
> 
> Out of every 600 Pit Bulls in America. How many will find a loving, forever home? Answer - ONE. The other 599 will be euthanized.
> 
> ...


Again, I am here, in the US, dealing with pit bulls and pit bull mixes on a regular basis, often daily. I think I know better than you what the reality is. The reality is there are stray hold laws that forbid euthanizing ANY animal in less than 24 hours. Most states have a 5 day stray hold, some have a 3 day stray hold. Therefore NO shelter, INCLUDING PeTA should be euthanizing any dog immediately on intake. 
Pit Bulls constantly find forever loving homes. Do you have any non PeTA evidence to support your one in 600 figure?



Knightofalbion said:


> Incidentally how many Pit Bulls have you re-homed? Are you offering to?
> I'm sure many have turned out to be happy, loving pets. *Though some have also killed and mauled. Perhaps the key reason people don't want to take a chance on them.*


What a callous and inaccurate thing to say 
First off, dogs are predators. They kill things, that's what predators do. Greyhounds kill rabbits, terriers kill mice, prey drive is present in many breeds that people gladly "take a chance on."

How many pit bulls have I rehomed? What exactly are you implying here?

For your information, our much adored, loved, loving family pet is a bull-bred mix. He is a certified therapy dog who visits children's hospitals, helps children learn to read, advocates with me for force-free training and child/dog safety. He came to us as a chicken killer, now safe with our rooster.

Our great dane who passed was a rescued ex-feral who we had to fight to avoid euthanasia as he was deemed too aggressive to adopt. He too was a "killer" who helped himself to goats and other livestock in order to survive. He too passed his therapy dog testing with flying colors.

I'm afraid I do not at all share your view about "taking a chance" on rescued dogs with difficult pasts.

BTW, that rooster my husband rescued from the side of the interstate where he was sitting in a cage with a broken, bleeding beak. 
All of our dogs have been rescues and side-of-the road specials.
Our cats have all been rescues and ferals that we neuter, vaccinate, and re-release, some stick around and become tame. 
My horse who passed several years ago was a retired racehorse who was going to action (slaughter) because he was unmanageable. With us he lived a full life and died of natural causes at nearly 30.

Is that a good enough answer for you or do you need my entire CV of what I have done for animals?
I'd be happy to BTW, I love my pets, I love talking about them, and I love sharing information about how best to nurture, train, and care for these animals we all love.

What pets do you have? Maybe we can find a common ground in our love of animals eh?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

silvi said:


> Why is it so difficult for most of those who support PETA to listen to anyone else, when many of those on this thread who are questioning some of PETA's views and actions are willing to consider that they have done good in some areas?


*Silvi i can only speak for myself here. I was 100% against PETA because of their no kill record.
But i guess once you find out more facts, with an open mind,it is hard to admit you were wrong.
I will add though, this thread and the help of my daughter, i am learning.*


----------



## Tazer (Jan 1, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> I have a lot of catching up to do on this thread but just picking up on this post first.
> 
> Without PETA Blackfish would not have been so widely publicised. When the tanks at SeaWorld are finally emptied the sustained campaigning by PETA will have played a major factor.
> 
> ...


I am inclined to agree with another poster, PETA appear to have road on the back of Black Fish, not the other way round. It certainly appears to have had a greater effect on the public in general then the campaigns of PETA and others, despite how long they've been at it 
Thank you for the detailed post though, but whilst we are still on the subject, I've just purchased Beneath the Surface (John Hargrove) a former SeaWorld trainer who also featured in Black Fish, from the exerpts I've heard, it looks a good read.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

silvi said:


> Why is it so difficult for most of those who support PETA to listen to anyone else, when many of those on this thread who are questioning some of PETA's views and actions are willing to consider that they have done good in some areas?


This is the whole point of it for me.

It seems that the majority of those who are anti- PETA because of their policy for euthanasia rather than rehoming are all saying that they do do some good in other areas.

However, those who are pro-PETA seem to see no wrong in their stance on euthanasia, and are scrabbling around trying to find all sorts of reasons to excuse it.

So far we've had:

1. It's all an anti-PETA publicity campaign by corporate business - well, ok so there has been a campaign and that is wrong - but that still does not explain why PETA's euthanasia figures/rehoming figures are dire compared with the rest of the USA. It still does not mean that PETA's policy to euthanise first, ask questions later, stinks.

2. Rehoming is too difficult - well, maybe it is, but that still does not alter the fact that other shelters manage to rehome a much higher percentage of animals than PETA do.

3. People who aren't pro-PETA are "haters" - well, that load of nonsense speaks for itself.

I can't for the life of me see why some people are so blinded by the good that PETA does that they are afraid to admit that they do an awful lot of bad too - especially in the area of unnecessary euthanasia.

Why can't the pro-PETA people just admit that they put up with the bad things that they do because of the good things they do, and then join in the campaign for PETA to stop the unnecessary euthanasia?

It's pretending this euthanasia problem doesn't exist, or finding excuses for it and saying that it's totally reasonable for them to euthanise unnecessarily, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It brings to mind the recent Saville scandal - his supporters excused it and hushed it up for years because of all the good he did for charity. I don't suppose Saville's victims are able to console themselves with thoughts of his good work elsewhere, and neither would it be any comfort to the many animals PETA kill unnecessarily to know that the organisation murdering them has saved a lot of animals elsewhere.

It's brilliant that PETA have been instrumental in lots of animal cruelty cases - but if their euthanasia policy was being undertaken by any other organisation, PETA themselves would be instrumental in protesting against it. So WHY do their followers try to excuse it?


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> 1) You'veseen figures. Im here. I think I know whats happening
> Big cities are running successful no kill shelters just like our little one is, using the same principles of properly assessing the dogs, doing basic training, properly vetting homes, and running transports to other states when needed.
> Im not a naive save them all proponent, but when adoptions can be done they should be done. And they can, and are.
> 
> ...


1) I would agree with you wholeheartedly. To find every shelter animal, a happy, loving, forever home... If only we could. 
US animal shelters re-home 2 million cats and dogs a year. A wonderful achievement and all respect to them. Though 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs are euthanized every year. That's the reality.

2/3) Did you read the links provided? It seems you didn't.

4) You are there. So are these people....

The much respected Animal People
Editorial: The shelter killing of pit bulls | Animal People

And The Examiner
Pit Bulls and euthanasia rates - National Dog Rescue | Examiner.com

And already posted but repeated, CHAINED - not PETA
Why Not?

And even Pit Bull Rescue paints a gloomy picture
Pit Bull Rescue Central

The 5 day rule is just for strays in the dog pound I believe. Dogs given up by their owners are not covered by the 5 day rule. They can be euthanized at any time. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I asked, as a champion of the breed, how many you had re-homed and that is what I meant. A civil question.

I've often said on here how I believe animal companionship makes for better people ('Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened') So I certainly don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the reckless, irresponsible over-breeding that we have at the moment, which can only lead to mass warehousing or mass euthanasia. That's the core of the issue.
And on the general point I have an issue with the organised PETA/animal welfare bashing, which in reality is an attempt by animal abusing Big Business to do down the AR Movement.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Outstanding post. Wanted to rep you, but need to tart myself around first.


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> 1) I would agree with you wholeheartedly. To find every shelter animal, a happy, loving, forever home... If only we could.


 We can at the very least TRY. PeTA doesnt even try.

Here is how a shelter can move from a high kill rate to a lower kill rate:
- Partnering with rescue organizations, transport organizations, and foster organizations.
- Effective assessment of animals on intake, training, and vetting of potential homes.

All of this requires volunteers, time, finances, and publicity, all of which PeTA has in droves, yet chooses to use their millions on questionable campaigns that do things like blame milk for causing autism. Just that ONE campaign could have transported thousands of dogs to other states where they stood a chance of getting adopted in to loving homes.



Knightofalbion said:


> US animal shelters re-home 2 million cats and dogs a year. A wonderful achievement and all respect to them. Though 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs are euthanized every year. That's the reality.


So why is PeTA not joining the other shelters in the US in their rehoming success? Why would they rather see these cats and dogs dead than in loving homes?

The Norfolk SPCA is in the same city as the PeTA shelter, they have managed to be no-kill since 2002 - as in they dont euthanize healthy animals, not that they keep all animals alive at all cost. 
Here is an explanation of what no-kill entails and how it is achievable.
Norfolk SPCA - No-Kill Philosophy
PeTA could achieve very much the same if they wanted to.



Knightofalbion said:


> 2/3) Did you read the links provided? It seems you didn't.


Dont patronize me. Yes I read the links and more. This is my region, we all followed these stories from the beginning, and others where PeTA employees have been caught stealing family pets, hunting dogs, etc. They have powerful lawyers, lobbyists, and PR machine backing them and many of these cases get brushed under the rug, but the fact is, Mayas story, the NC dumped dogs, all of these cases are not an anomaly when it comes to this organization.



Knightofalbion said:


> 4) You are there. So are these people....
> 
> The much respected Animal People
> Editorial: The shelter killing of pit bulls | Animal People
> ...


I never said the situation for pit bulls wasnt dire. I challenged your claim that theyre unadoptable and that pit bulls have killed and mauled and maybe thats why people dont want to take a chance on them. ALL breeds are potentially dangerous.
I also challenge PeTAs support of BSL which over and over has been shown NOT to work to protect dogs or humans.



Knightofalbion said:


> The 5 day rule is just for strays in the dog pound I believe. Dogs given up by their owners are not covered by the 5 day rule. They can be euthanized at any time. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Okay, this is where you have to actually be involved to understand.
In the US, there are shelters and pounds, and there are rescues. Some are private run off of donations, and some are government (local or state) run using tax dollars. 
Government shelters are required by law to keep strays for the 3 to 5 days. Most dogs turned in to shelters are not owner surrenders. For one, there is always a fee for owner surrender, therefore people will say this is not their pet to avoid paying the fee, or they will simply dump the dog outside the shelter after hours. Since there is no way of knowing if the dog is owned or not, the stray hold applies. Even with turn-ins, the stray hold applies since it could be a stolen or lost dog.
Owners who can prove ownership and are willing to pay the surrender fee are virtually non-existent. The few that do come in are encouraged to contact a rescue instead of the shelter, some shelters even employ trainers and behaviorists who work with owners to help keep the dog in the home.
The PeTA shelter in Norfolk is a SHELTER, not a free euthanasia clinic. They are subject to the same laws all other shelters in the commonwealth of VA are subject to. 
There is currently a bill to change the wording of what a shelters responsibilities are, due mostly to the fact that the PeTA shelter in Norfolks kill rate has alarmed so many people. Every other shelter in VA manages to adopt out far more animals that PeTAs does, and that is worrisome.



Knightofalbion said:


> I asked, as a champion of the breed, how many you had re-homed and that is what I meant. A civil question.


Why would I need to own, a pit bull to champion them? 
I am a champion of ALL dogs, not just pit bulls. From the most decorated of pedigree dogs to the muttliest of mutts. I love em all.

And I civilly return the question to you. What animals do you share your life with? Ive never seen you talk about any of your pets, do you have any pets?



Knightofalbion said:


> I've often said on here how I believe animal companionship makes for better people ('Until one has loved an animal, a part of one's soul remains unawakened') So I certainly don't have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the reckless, irresponsible over-breeding that we have at the moment, which can only lead to mass warehousing or mass euthanasia. That's the core of the issue.
> And on the general point I have an issue with the organised PETA/animal welfare bashing, which in reality is an attempt by animal abusing Big Business to do down the AR Movement.


Youre presenting a false dichotomy. Either mass warehousing or mass euthanasia. That is false. 
- Spay neuter programs are working and there are fewer unwanted pets than before, fewer people are buying from pet shops, and more people are adopting from shelters, pounds, and rescues.
- There are homes available, and while dogs are waiting for homes, there are foster homes and animal sanctuaries all over the country that house unwanted animals in enriched, healthy environments. Best Friends Animal Society in Utah is one such place - where many of the Michael Vick dogs were rehabilitated. My friend in Arkansas runs a smaller scale but still sizable sanctuary where she takes in medical cases for however long they need to be treated and then finds well-vetted homes for them, or keeps them at the sanctuary in a loving, well-cared for, enriched environment for life. These pockets of sanctuaries and long term foster care programs exist throughout the country.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I too would like an answer to my question to a Knight of Albion from some pages ago: what pets do you have? Or do you believe in the PETA philosophy of no animal should be a pet? 

I'd also like an answer to what others have said: why can supporters of PETA not allow that not everything that PETA does is correct and perfect? Nobody has yet said that all that PETA does is awful, but there are some issues that need addressing. The kill rate is huge.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> We can at the very least TRY. PeTA doesnt even try.
> 
> Here is how a shelter can move from a high kill rate to a lower kill rate:
> - Partnering with rescue organizations, transport organizations, and foster organizations.
> ...


It seems to me that you've already got PETA hung, drawn and quartered no matter what! 
PETA "doesn't even try". How many of the PETA Norfolk staff do you actually personally know to make that statement with any authority?

Norfolk SPCA.:They're doing good work by the look of it and that is worthy of respect. 
But when you read their website you find the statement "At this time we are currently working from a waiting list for adult dogs, cats and kittens. Due to our space constraints, we cannot admit walk-in or same day surrenders...." Or in other words, they're full.

Non-PETA shelters all across the US euthanize 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs every year. Why do you think this is?

The state of Virginia euthanized 91,146 cats and dogs in 2010. What was the figure for PETA? 2,200 wasn't it? Okay, what about the other 88,000+ not euthanized by PETA?

If you have any evidence of law breaking by PETA I suggest you go down to your local police station and report the matter.

As for Pit Bulls: It's all well and good sounding off, but if you check the figures you'll see that between 2005 - 2014 Pit Bulls killed 203 Americans.

The Best Friends Animal Shelter in Utah (1700 capacity) adopted 992 animals (all species) in 2013. Good but a drop in the ocean.

This from the local Hampton Roads newspaper
"Last year Norfolk based PETA took in 3,031 animals, most of them sick, suffering, dying or aggressive. PETA workers moved 312 to other shelters, They found homes for 162. They euthanized 2454 - 500 of which were brought in by their owners for this purpose.
The organisation can certainly be its own worst enemy. But PETA fills a role that has been abandoned by other organisations. It accepts injured animals - not just dogs and cats, but rabbits, chickens, even rats. It takes aggressive pitbulls and feral cats other facilities others won't accept. 
Last year, its mobile clinics spayed and neutered 10,950 cats and dogs. It provides surgery or other medical services for thousands of pets and brings straw and shelter for animals living in the cold. It euthanizes people's pets for free."


----------



## Guest (Apr 19, 2015)

KnightofAlbion, respectfully, your posts make clear to me that you dont understand the rescue situation here in the US, you certainly dont understand the pit bull situation, and you seem to want to malign the breed as a whole.

Id really prefer not to get in to an explanation of how dog fatality statistics are recorded or the actual reality or that 203 fatalities in 9 years statistic. 

Very quickly, just a few things...
Pit bulls are the only breed where mixes are also included in the stats. So the labXpit mix that mauls a toddler is recorded as a pit bull fatality, not a lab fatality. 
The US population right now is somewhere around 320 million. 203 deaths in 320 million does not a killer make. There are about 70 to 80 million owned dogs in the US. 20 fatalities a year (give or take) out of 70 to 80 million does not equate to a massive problem of killer dogs on the loose. More people are killed by lightning than by dogs.

And what kind of logic is that anyway, that just because a few mistreated dog turn around and use their teeth with purpose all other dogs with teeth should be euthanized?
Cows kill people, should PeTA euthanize cows too?
What about horses? Horses kill people, should there be a mass euthanasia of horses because of the average 20 people a year killed by horses?
Rattlesnakes kill people too, should we support rattlesnake round-ups where masses of them are killed each year? How is that any different than supporting legislation that says pit bulls should be seized and euthanized?
It makes no sense, and is a flawed argument to begin with.

Listen, I have politely answered your questions, a courtesy you have not extended to me neither in politeness nor answering any of my questions. 

I have presented my opinion on PeTA with valid evidence to support it. Take it or leave it. It does not matter to me if you or anyone agrees with me, Im simply sharing my experiences. I dont wish to repeat myself or get in to a game of chase the ever moving goal posts with you. 

Bottom line, to me, helping homeless animals is about educating, rescuing, rehabilitating, and rehoming. Its really that simple. Prevent them becoming homeless, save them when they are, help them recover, find them forever homes. Its not hard, its very doable, its done every single day all over the country.

PeTAs obvious preference to euthanize, and their stance that animals are better off dead than pets does not align with my personal beliefs, therefore I do not align myself with them. Instead I prefer to support the numerous animal welfare organizations that do work to truly rescue homeless pets, not just kill them.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> KnightofAlbion, respectfully, your posts make clear to me that you dont understand the rescue situation here in the US, you certainly dont understand the pit bull situation, and you seem to want to malign the breed as a whole.
> 
> Id really prefer not to get in to an explanation of how dog fatality statistics are recorded or the actual reality or that 203 fatalities in 9 years statistic.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but not much of that makes any sense.

As for not extending the courtesy of politeness. It is you who has snapped at me, twice and you've done nothing but bad mouth throughout all your posts. None of your claims stack up. None of your figures stack up. You seem to be in complete denial about the issue of over-supply and you equally seem to be in completely taken in by the anti-PETA propaganda. No, they're not whiter than white, yes they make mistakes, what organisation doesn't, but the lies and misinformation and twisting of statistics by the Big Business animal abusers are exposed as totally hollow when you look into the actual facts and circumstances.

As for Pit Bulls. Not sure how we arrived at this juncture, but if you're going to again make claims, look at the facts -

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/10-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

and this as a recent example

Pit Bull Attack: 87-Year-Old Man Killed By Rescue Dog

Whilst I'm sure you hadn't intended any offence, 203 deaths - a substantial number of them young children - is hardly something to trivialise or readily dismiss as if it was nothing.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> Sorry, but not much of that makes any sense.


No, if you dont understand the rescue situation here in the US, it wont.



Knightofalbion said:


> As for not extending the courtesy of politeness. It is you who has snapped at me, twice and you've done nothing but bad mouth throughout all your posts. None of your claims stack up. None of your figures stack up. You seem to be in complete denial about the issue of over-supply and you equally seem to be in completely taken in by the anti-PETA propaganda. No, they're not whiter than white, yes they make mistakes, what organisation doesn't, but the lies and misinformation and twisting of statistics by the Big Business animal abusers are exposed as totally hollow when you look into the actual facts and circumstances.


What have I lied about? Where have I quoted big business or animal abusers? Or are you calling me an animal abuser?
I have spoken of my personal experiences as a former PeTA member and volunteer and as someone who has worked with animals and in rescue for decades.

I have answered your questions, will you answer mine? You asked me if I had rehomed a pit bull, I answered. Its not a difficult question for me. Why is it for you? What animals have you rehomed? What involvement do you have with animals? Do you have any involvement with rescue and rehoming of homeless pets? It seems from your lack of understanding of no-kill, rescue and rehoming, and your lack of understanding about dogs that you dont. Id love to be proven wrong.



Knightofalbion said:


> As for Pit Bulls. Not sure how we arrived at this juncture, but if you're going to again make claims, look at the facts -
> 
> http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/10-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf
> 
> ...


We arrived at this juncture from your post, #402 where you said _"Incidentally how many Pit Bulls have you re-homed? Are you offering to?
I'm sure many have turned out to be happy, loving pets. Though some have also killed and mauled. Perhaps the key reason people don't want to take a chance on them._

So yes, do look at the facts. How is breed determined? Again, pit bulls are the only breed where both actual pit bulls and mixes are included in the statistics. In plain english that means that if a dog looks remotely like it might be a pit bull, the bite is recorded as a pit bull bite, but for all other breeds the dog has to actually be that breed. Or in even plainer english, if a pit bull lab mix bites and kills that gets recorded as a pit bull fatality, not a lab fatality or a mix fatality. Do you not see how that can skew statistics?

And none of this explains how does a mistreated dog finally hitting the end of his/her rope equate to euthanasia for all dogs of that breed? 
Yes, euthanize the dogs - regardless of breed - who have proven themselves to be dangerous, but BSL requires ALL pit bulls and similar breeds to be seized and euthanized for simply being a pit bull. That kind of flies in the face of what you advocate in your signature doesnt it? Do no harm to man or beast Euthanasia for no reason other than what breed a dog is seems kind of harmful to me....



Knightofalbion said:


> Whilst I'm sure you hadn't intended any offence, 203 deaths - a substantial number of them young children - is hardly something to trivialise or readily dismiss as if it was nothing.


I did neither. I simply pointed out that 203 deaths out of a population of 320 million is not a lot of deaths. Each death is an unnecessary, preventable tragedy, no argument there.

Actually its kind of ironic that you should make that point as you seem to be trivializing the needless euthanasia of adoptable dogs that PeTA workers lied to obtain and then dumped in dumpsters in NC, or the needless death of an owned, loved pet chihuahua like Maya.

Its been fun n all, but unless you care to have an interaction as equals and give me the same respect of answering some of my questions, Im done with this exchange.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

K of A has chosen to ignore all questions relating to his animal ownership or support for rescue animals. Says it all, really. He can drag up as many links/stats as he likes, but is refusing to share what he does. He also refuses to accept that there have been substantiated links/evidence against PETA. Blinkered. It's annoying that he won't accept that they aren't whiter than white, but pointless asking/arguing when he refuses to accept the facts in front of him.


----------



## Snowdog (Mar 3, 2015)

Seems to me ouesi got you there K of A

Pretty sound argument based upon personal experience and logic and statistical evidence. 
Im not sure a come back that just says "that makes no sense" (when it evidently does), without explaining why it does not make sense, works.
Then you fill in the hole at that point with the diversion of 'you are having a go at me'.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

DOG BITE STATISTICS 1955 TO PRESENT

According to this it's GS and Rotties you have to be most careful of

Analysis of Dog Bites in Children Who Are Younger Than 17 Years


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)




----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Snowdog said:


> Seems to me ouesi got you there K of A
> 
> Pretty sound argument based upon personal experience and logic and statistical evidence.
> Im not sure a come back that just says "that makes no sense" (when it evidently does), without explaining why it does not make sense, works.
> Then you fill in the hole at that point with the diversion of 'you are having a go at me'.


How come? They dodged answering the question 'if there is no oversupply problem in the US why are 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs destroyed every year?' There IS a problem. Every animal welfare organisation acknowledges that there is a problem.
The only noteworthy organisation I've come across who deny this is the American Kennel Club. Whose President advocates buying a new dog from a breeder rather than adopting a rescue dog from a shelter. Though I guess he would say that.

They highlighted two shelters one had adopted out 992 animals of all species in a year. Good, but if that is the best one, or one of the best ones, and the number of homeless/unwanted animals run into millions....

The other place highlighted the Norfolk SPCA is full and only accepting new intake by waiting list.
And that you see is the problem. If you've ever been involved in an animal sanctuary of any sort, you'll know, you're full all the time, you're strapped for cash all the time. But people still expect you to be there to accept, feed, house and care for unwanted animals 24/7, 365. They don't stop to think HOW you are going to do that when there is limited capacity (already filled) and limited resources (already allocated)

If, even with the best of intentions, 'you' exceed that limit, 'you' end up like that case the other week in Leeds. You know the one. The young lady connected, who I'm sure meant well at heart, was 'savaged' by members here.

In an ideal world .... Alas, it's the grim reality on the ground that dictates things.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> No, if you dont understand the rescue situation here in the US, it wont.
> 
> What have I lied about? Where have I quoted big business or animal abusers? Or are you calling me an animal abuser?
> I have spoken of my personal experiences as a former PeTA member and volunteer and as someone who has worked with animals and in rescue for decades.
> ...


It's obvious that you doesn't understand the rescue situation in the US, either that or you're in denial.

No-one accused you of lying or being an animal abuser. Read the post again.

It's not about me. I've been involved in animal welfare for 30 years, though unlike a few here I don't find it seemly to go bragging and sounding off.

Unless I read it wrong, you once had a Pit cross. Okay, great, but if Pit Bulls make such marvellous pets, why don't you go down to your local shelter and adopt one, or even two? There are, as we have established, with 800,000 PTS every year because they're unwanted, plenty of them available. If you can house a Great Dane, you've room for an American Pit Bull.

This organisation collates verifiable statistics on dog attacks in the US and the breeds involved from police and news sources. They disagree with you on the facts. 
Pit Bull Attacks - Advocating for Victims of Dangerous Dog Attacks


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

StormyThai said:


>


Think I'll just copy that and paste it here.....


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> How come? They dodged answering the question 'if there is no oversupply problem in the US why are 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs destroyed every year?' There IS a problem. Every animal welfare organisation acknowledges that there is a problem.
> The only noteworthy organisation I've come across who deny this is the American Kennel Club. Whose President advocates buying a new dog from a breeder rather than adopting a rescue dog from a shelter. Though I guess he would say that.
> 
> They highlighted two shelters one had adopted out 992 animals of all species in a year. Good, but if that is the best one, or one of the best ones, and the number of homeless/unwanted animals run into millions....
> ...


KoA, I don't see anyone disagreeing that there is an oversupply problem. Certainly not ouesi, with their lifetime experience and involvement with rescues.

Where opinions differ is the method of _dealing_ with the problem - ranging from the no-kill 'rehome/foster/transfer to an area of need' approch to the 'immedate euthanasia' maxim of PeTA.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> It's obvious that you doesn't understand the rescue situation in the US, either that or you're in denial.
> 
> No-one accused you of lying or being an animal abuser. Read the post again.
> 
> ...


OMG you are on here promoting a Pit Bull hate site

http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php

DogsBite.org is a public education website about dangerous dog breeds, chiefly pit bulls

DogsBite.org is also the primary whistleblower combating well-funded animal "expert" groups that manipulate the truth about dangerous dog breeds, primarily pit bulls. As maulings, maimings and deaths inflicted by a distinct group of dog breeds continues to accelerate3


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Knightofalbion said:


> It's not about me. I've been involved in animal welfare for 30 years, though unlike a few here I don't find it seemly to go bragging and sounding off.


You are goading now, I lost interest in the "debate" the moment *you* started throwing names about (one of the only members of the debate to do so I might add), however, *YOU* asked what others did meaning that people replied to *your* question (shame you can't afford the same courtesy in return)...No one has been bragging or sounding off, they answered question that YOU posed to them!

If you wish to go through your life with your fingers firmly in your ears then that is fine, but stop insinuating about other members when you quite obviously know jack about any of us here :thumbsup:


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

What do you do for animal welfare, K of A? We keep asking. All talk and no action comes to mind.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> How come? They dodged answering the question 'if there is no oversupply problem in the US why are 2.7 million healthy cats and dogs destroyed every year?' There IS a problem. Every animal welfare organisation acknowledges that there is a problem.


*Im* dodging questions?! Oh thats rich 

Hey Knightofalbion, my words:


ouesi said:


> I have lived in the south since 1995 and the pet overpopulation crisis here is real.


There IS a pet overpopulation crisis in this country. But that doesnt mean the solution is mass euthanasia.

Ive pointed out how different shelters and communities are successfully addressing the problem through:
- education
- free and low cost spay/neuter clinics
- free and low cost training sessions to help keep dogs in their homes 
- transport to other parts of the US that dont have a shelter crisis
- foster care programs
- privately funded no-kill shelters 
- sanctuaries
- euthanasia as a LAST resort, not a FIRST resort.

Across the country folks are getting on board with looking at other options rather than just euthanizing unwanted pets. And these programs are successful across the nation. The humane society of the US estimates that nationwide our euthanasia rates have dropped significantly. "The number of dogs and cats euthanized each year in shelters has decreased, from 1220 million to an estimated 34 million."



Knightofalbion said:


> They highlighted two shelters one had adopted out 992 animals of all species in a year. Good, but if that is the best one, or one of the best ones, and the number of homeless/unwanted animals run into millions....


I used one shelter as an example because its the one Im familiar with, I also pointed out the Norfolk SPCA as they are in the same area as the PeTA shelter, dealing with the same population.

Nation-wide, there are hundreds of thousands of pounds and shelters, and many more rescues, both breed specific and not breed specific. As well as those sanctuaries that you say are a drop in the bucket. Enough drops and you fill a bucket.

Ill just reiterate what helping homeless animals is about *for me*. Its education to prevent the issue to begin with, its rescuing those who do become homeless, rehabilitating them mind and body, and then finding them well-vetted, appropriate homes that will be their forever homes.

PeTA encourages spay and neuter - that part I agree with. However, Im not seeing the rescue, rehab, rehome portion happening with PeTAs shelter. And in fact when it comes to pit bulls they encourage the opposite of rehab, saying that fighting dogs can not be rehabilitated and need to be euthanized. A stance that has repeatedly been proven completely wrong as highlighted over and over in very public cases.



Knightofalbion said:


> It's obvious that you doesn't understand the rescue situation in the US, either that or you're in denial.


Are you seriously pretending to know better than I do what is going on in the country I am living in and have been since the late 80s? What was the last US shelter you volunteered at again?



Knightofalbion said:


> It's not about me. I've been involved in animal welfare for 30 years, though unlike a few here I don't find it seemly to go bragging and sounding off.


Bragging and sounding off? You ASKED me if I had rehomed a pit bull. I answered.



Knightofalbion said:


> Unless I read it wrong, you once had a Pit cross. Okay, great, but if Pit Bulls make such marvellous pets, why don't you go down to your local shelter and adopt one, or even two? There are, as we have established, with 800,000 PTS every year because they're unwanted, plenty of them available. If you can house a Great Dane, you've room for an American Pit Bull.


Excuse me?! Who the hell are you to sit here and tell me what dogs to adopt?!

Dude, I HAVE a bull-breed cross. Still. He will be 7 years old this summer and weve had him since he was a year old. Taken on because his previous home couldnt handle him. The killer dog who people like PeTA say should have been destroyed, yet he goes to schools and childrens hospitals and works with kids, goes to care homes and works with dementia patients to help bring them out of their shell. 
Not that its any of your business, but we take on dogs as they come. We dont look at breed, we look at need and what we as a family can provide for that dog.



Knightofalbion said:


> This organisation collates verifiable statistics on dog attacks in the US and the breeds involved from police and news sources. They disagree with you on the facts.
> Pit Bull Attacks - Advocating for Victims of Dangerous Dog Attacks


Of course they disagree, theyre a pit bull hate site that advocates for BSL. 
Youre going to sit there and have a hissy fit over people citing Nathan Winogard, but you present dogsbite.org as a source? The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

_*"if Pit Bulls make such marvellous pets, why don't you go down to your local shelter and adopt one, or even two?"*_ I have to come back to this. I cant believe you sit here on this forum posting wisdom for the day and talking about no harm to man or beast and then spout pit bull hate and vitriol like this. You, KnightofAlbion, have just outed yourself as a total fraud.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

I would love to adopt a pit or two, sadly due to a bunch of idiots I am not able too without breaking the law :nonod:


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Here we go round and round again, name calling and accusations and who does what :frown2: I really despair of humans sometime. Never mind climate change ending the world (if you believe that) just let the humans get on with it and even those on the so called same side will fight and kill each other.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Here we go round and round again, name calling and accusations and who does what :frown2: I really despair of humans sometime. Never mind climate change ending the world (if you believe that) just let the humans get on with it and even those on the so called same side will fight and kill each other.


And youre making accusations as well 

Im not going to apologize for having something to say about advocating for all pit bulls to be euthanized.

And when my own personal dogs and my own situation are brought in to the discussion if you have room for a great dane, you have room for a pit bull Im going to have something to say about that too.

You have rehomed pets rottiepointerhouse, surely you can see that they are better off living their lives out with you than euthanized because they were once homeless?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Here we go round and round again, name calling and accusations and who does what :frown2: I really despair of humans sometime. Never mind climate change ending the world (if you believe that) just let the humans get on with it and even those on the so called same side will fight and kill each other.


To be fair to ouesi, I'd have to say theirs have been reasonably measured, only moderately pointy replies to some significanty more barbed, and in some cases personal, remarks. 

Both of my cats are second hand - Charlie is a direct rehome, and Lori an 'oops' litter kitten adopted from a small, private shelter. Thankfully PETA don't operate shelters in the UK, but if they did and my girls had ended up there, they'd both be dead now. I think they deserved their second chance - wouldn't you?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> And youre making accusations as well
> 
> Im not going to apologize for having something to say about advocating for all pit bulls to be euthanized.
> 
> ...


Did I quote you or mention your post? I meant in general, the whole thread has gone round and round with accusations and point scoring and pretty much left the original issue about the cruelty to the sheep and whether or not PETA have lost credibility over using a plastic model instead of the real thing. I've said earlier in the thread this is one of the reasons I no longer have anything to do with AR or rescue people directly - the bickering and back stabbing over who does most, who gives what and turning on each other instead of the animal abusers.

In answer to your question yes I have rescue dogs and of course I prefer them to be with me than to be dead but the ethics of rescue are never straightforward. Many people told me I had the blood of English dogs on my hands because I took in dogs from Ireland - one was on his last day in a kill pound. So although I want all domestic pets to be found loving homes I also understand that just won't happen until humans stop breeding more and humans start being more responsible for the dogs they take on so by deduction I understand (although I don't like it) that many healthy dogs are going to end up dead. I've seen the photos of the rubbish skips in Ireland full of dead healthy dogs so no I don't feel guilty for re homing one of them but many "rescue folk" think I should. As in all things I follow my own ethics and do what I think is right as we all must but I try really really hard not to force others to do what I do and to accept that we all have different ways of going about things. I make up my own mind who I support and which organisations I donate to, occasionally I donate to one that I don't 100% agree with but want to support a particular campaign they are running.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> To be fair to ouesi, I'd have to say theirs have been reasonably measured, only moderately pointy replies to some significanty more barbed, and in some cases personal, remarks.
> 
> Both of my cats are second hand - Charlie is a direct rehome, and Lori an 'oops' litter kitten adopted from a small, private shelter. Thankfully PETA don't operate shelters in the UK, but if they did and my girls had ended up there, they'd both be dead now. I think they deserved their second chance - wouldn't you?


Again I did not mention nor quote Ouesi so I don't know why you think my remarks were directed at her rather than other posters. I think I have answered your question about your cats in my post above


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Can I just point out again that there has been no bickering over who does what, a question was asked and some of us answered it. Nothing more, nothing less


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Can I just point out again that there has been no bickering over who does what, a question was asked and some of us answered it. Nothing more, nothing less


Several pages back.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Did I quote you or mention your post? I meant in general, the whole thread has gone round and round with accusations and point scoring and pretty much left the original issue about the cruelty to the sheep and whether or not PETA have lost credibility over using a plastic model instead of the real thing. I've said earlier in the thread this is one of the reasons I no longer have anything to do with AR or rescue people directly - the bickering and back stabbing over who does most, who gives what and turning on each other instead of the animal abusers.
> 
> In answer to your question yes I have rescue dogs and of course I prefer them to be with me than to be dead but the ethics of rescue are never straightforward. Many people told me I had the blood of English dogs on my hands because I took in dogs from Ireland - one was on his last day in a kill pound. So although I want all domestic pets to be found loving homes I also understand that just won't happen until humans stop breeding more and humans start being more responsible for the dogs they take on so by deduction I understand (although I don't like it) that many healthy dogs are going to end up dead. I've seen the photos of the rubbish skips in Ireland full of dead healthy dogs so no I don't feel guilty for re homing one of them but many "rescue folk" think I should. *As in all things I follow my own ethics and do what I think is right as we all must but I try really really hard not to force others to do what I do and to accept that we all have different ways of going about things. I make up my own mind who I support and which organisations I donate to, occasionally I donate to one that I don't 100% agree with but want to support a particular campaign they are running.*


Right... And what I said in my very first post in this thread was as follows:


ouesi said:


> People will make up their own mind and support what they want to support, Im not here to change anyones mind, but to point out that there are many legitimate reasons why a genuine animal lover may not support an organization like PeTA.


Yet somehow here I am defending myself, being told that I don't understand the rescue situation in the US, that I'm in denial about the overpopulation crisis. Defending my own dogs for crying out loud, having to explain that they are rehabilitate-able, and that they do deserve loving homes.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

I don't think we have ever had a pet that wasn't from a rescue (or abandoned on our doorstep in the case of later ones).
Of the dogs we took in in Spain, the younger, appealing ones were re-homed very quickly (after checking where they were going to of course).

But several of our 'long stay' dogs were unique in some way or another:

One of our dogs had no tail, organs back to front and required urinary tract surgery. Our local vet suggested euthanasia, but the dog was actually in good health, so we let him have the op and live his life. He seemed pretty happy to do just that!

One had a very pronounced underbite which prevents him from eating properly and makes him look a little fierce (he isn't). He had been abandoned probably because he couldn't hunt.

One appeared to be a podenco-doberman cross - which put some people off in case she was vicious, but she's actually a total softy.

One was an 'older' dog who had already had several litters. But she had learned to be a survivor and deserved a good life for her remaining years.

And so on....

I dread to think what would have happened to any of our rescue dogs if we had contacted PETA about them, rather than working instead with a local rescue.

But as it is, they have all either lived out their lives with us, or have found forever homes in Germany and the UK (we still get pictures and updates sent to us of most of them and we can see they are doing well).

That's why I am so opposed to the 'euthanise because of overbreeding' attitude that PETA states, rather than imo what should be 'overbreeding needs to be controlled, but we should only euthanise as a last resort'.

People on here talk all the time about what humans are doing to the planet and what we are doing to animals that have as much right to be here as us.
But then the PETA supporters appear quite happy that PETA - _humans_ - think they have the right to euthanise healthy animals.
There's a mismatch going on here somewhere....


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

ouesi said:


> Right... And what I said in my very first post in this thread was as follows:
> 
> Yet somehow here I am defending myself, being told that I don't understand the rescue situation in the US, that I'm in denial about the overpopulation crisis. Defending my own dogs for crying out loud, having to explain that they are rehabilitate-able, and that they do deserve loving homes.


OK, again I'll say I did not quote you nor refer to you and that I meant the thread in general. You don't have to defend yourself or your dogs, you don't have to answer any questions either (although sharing your experiences was very helpful) but neither do other people have to answer questions posed to them quite rudely in some cases either.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Again I did not mention nor quote Ouesi so I don't know why you think my remarks were directed at her rather than other posters. I think I have answered your question about your cats in my post above


My apologies to you, then - it just seemed that way, as ouesi's was the last substational post, and you have been debating on behalf or alternate PoVs in previous posts  I do try not to assume things in general, I assure you!



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Did I quote you or mention your post? *I meant in general, the whole thread has gone round and round with accusations and point scoring and pretty much left the original issue about the cruelty to the sheep and whether or not PETA have lost credibility over using a plastic model instead of the real thing. *I've said earlier in the thread this is one of the reasons I no longer have anything to do with AR or rescue people directly - the bickering and back stabbing over who does most, who gives what and turning on each other instead of the animal abusers.
> 
> In answer to your question yes I have rescue dogs and of course I prefer them to be with me than to be dead but the ethics of rescue are never straightforward. Many people told me I had the blood of English dogs on my hands because I took in dogs from Ireland - one was on his last day in a kill pound. So although I want all domestic pets to be found loving homes I also understand that just won't happen until humans stop breeding more and humans start being more responsible for the dogs they take on so by deduction I understand (although I don't like it) that many healthy dogs are going to end up dead. I've seen the photos of the rubbish skips in Ireland full of dead healthy dogs so no I don't feel guilty for re homing one of them but many "rescue folk" think I should. As in all things I follow my own ethics and do what I think is right as we all must but I try really really hard not to force others to do what I do and to accept that we all have different ways of going about things. I make up my own mind who I support and which organisations I donate to, occasionally I donate to one that I don't 100% agree with but want to support a particular campaign they are running.


A rescue dog is a rescue dog wherever it comes from, so of course you shouldn't feel guilty! It's just a shame that it ever has to come down to a question of _which_ life to save 

As to the thread, well, branching out into other topics is normal for any thread, but the debate seem to keep circling now - though things tend to do that when the 'reset to default argument' button keeps being pushed. I keep feeling like I should apologise for mentioning that wretched 'shelter' in the first place, it was only supposed to be an illustrative point in passing, not the cue for a thread hijack!


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

rona said:


> OMG you are on here promoting a Pit Bull hate site
> 
> http://www.dogsbite.org/dogsbite-about.php
> 
> ...


I am using an American organisation that uses police and media sourced accounts of dog maulings and fatalities, a disproportionate number of which involve pit bulls. I could, as you could, Google these stories or indeed post them here, to verify, but I don't have the time and besides do we really want to see photos of facially disfigured children and adults?

You know the UK's stance on these types of breed. Would you advocate overturning these banning orders?

The overall issue, again, is the over-breeding. Only I in 600 will end up in a happy, loving forever home according to the statistics. It is madness.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

ouesi said:


> Michael Vick in Talks to Become PETA Spokesman | News - Advertising Age
> 
> Michael Vick In Talks To Become PETA Spokesman - Business Insider


Thank you for the links. Yes it seems Ingrid Newkirk etc did meet with the psycho on one of PETAs animal empathy courses. The Day I Spent With Michael Vick | PETA's Blog | PETA There was nothing sinister on PETA's part though .

*Michael Vick Wants a Dog? No. Just  No. *

_
If he had any shame or decency, federally convicted dog murderer Michael Vick wouldnt dream of suggesting that it is somehow unfair (his word) to suggest that he shouldnt have another dog. But now hes out in TV Land promoting a book and expressing his desire to give his son a dog. Perhaps hed have a hard time explaining to his son what Daddy did with the last pet dogs who lived in the house: Vick threw them into the fighting pit and laughed his head off while they were torn apart
Since PETA was instrumental in efforts to make sure that Vicks crimes were taken seriously, people naturally want to know our opinion of Vicks hopes of getting his hands on another dog. As PETAs president, Ingrid E. Newkirk, who met privately with Vick when he attended our animal empathy course following his 2007 arrest, expressed it:

PETA knows from firsthand experience that Michael Vick is a selfish man and a proven liar, probably a psychopath, who, if he had one grain of remorse, would never go near another dog as long as he lives. All things considered, it is a very small price to pay, especially compared to the suffering endured by the dogs who were abused and killed at the Bad Newz Kennels.

Michael Vick lied to my face about how he loved his pet dogs and didnt see them as the same as the dogs he forced to fight to the death. That was before it was revealed that he threw those dogs into the pitand laughed while they were torn apart.

Just as convicted pedophiles arent allowed free access to children, anyone who is responsible for hanging, electrocuting, and shooting dogs and who caused them to suffer in other unimaginable ways should never again be allowed to be within 50 feet of a dog.

Vick needs to teach his children that actions have consequences, that people who cant be trusted with animals shouldnt have any, and that its important to take responsibility for our choices and to make better choices going forwardlike not getting another dog. First, hed have to learn those lessons himself._

Michael Vick Wants a Dog? No. Just ? No. | PETA's Blog | PETA



JANICE199 said:


> *For what it is worth i would like to say, i knew next to nothing about PETA before this thread. BUT!, i am learning.
> Now from what i can gather, PETA does have it's good and bad points. And for that reason alone, i don't think that is fair to bash them for everything they do.Which i might add, i would have done 24 hours ago.
> However, i will never agree to their kill rate.*





JANICE199 said:


> *Silvi i can only speak for myself here. I was 100% against PETA because of their no kill record.
> But i guess once you find out more facts, with an open mind,it is hard to admit you were wrong.
> I will add though, this thread and the help of my daughter, i am learning.*


Aw thank you Janice for being so objective. I don't agree with everything they do or say either, but theres no doubt PETA have saved the lives of countless numbers of animals & improved the lives of many more. The impact PETA's anti-fur campaign has had on the fur trade alone has been massive. But peta ruffle feathers where ever they go, I know many in the show dog world really hate them, but I can overlook their extreme views on showing & breeding because I'm thankful for all the good they have done/do.



Spellweaver said:


> This is the whole point of it for me.
> 
> It seems that the majority of those who are anti- PETA because of their policy for euthanasia rather than rehoming are all saying that they do do some good in other areas.
> 
> ...


Heyup Val. Animal welfare standards in a lot of US states are extremely poor compared to ours, in some states they still gas animals to death. PETA have taken such animals & euthanized them humanely to spare them from this horrific cruelty. ALF have done a good article on this & how CCF have used this to smear PETA.

_Image of gas chamber used in facility. "Before PETA stepped in, the animals in Bertie County were shot and gassed a rusty, windowless gas box. In Windsor, animals were shot; and in Northampton County, animals were gassed in a cinderblock cell (the use of which has been resumed due to the media frenzy that followed this incident) and injected with a paralytic agent that left them to suffocate, fully conscious as their organs seized up. Photos of these facilities can be seen at Companion Animals | The Issues | PETA. Most people don't realize such pounds and gas chambers even exist in this day and age."

Euthanasia statistics & groups that support/oppose spay/neuter & breeding restrictions. N. Carolina euthanasia stats are the 3rd highest in the US at 250,000 dogs and cats a year. Gas chambers are still used in 30 NC counties. High stats are generally attributed to lack of mandatory spay/neuter laws and breeding restrictions endorsed by PETA, HSUS and other animal advocacy and welfare groups as well as most state and local governments. Mandatory spay/neuter laws and breeding restrictions aggressively lobbied against by the American Kennel Club and its mouthpiece the National Animal Interest Alliance. In NC counties with spay/neuter laws (Buncombe Co, 2006) euthanasia rates have decreased. Approximately 9.6 million companion animals are euthanized annually in the US _ http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/AgainstALF/CCFWebofDeception.html

I still haven't caught up with this thread as yet, so are there valid references on here proving that most of the animals PETA euthanize are adoptable?

This is an interesting article on the subject -

_ 
PETA and Humane Society attacked by reports  but are they real?

By Elizabeth Flock

If you were watching the Oscars last night, you would have seen an ad that said only one percent of the money the Humane Society of the United States raises from the public goes to local, hands-on pet shelters. The ad was financed by a Web site called HumaneWatch.org.

A rescue dog. (Issei Kato - Reuters) That ad comes on the heels of another controversial report for animal lovers last week, stating that PETA kills more than 95 percent of the pets in its charge at its Norfolk, Va., headquarters. The report came from a Web site called PetaKillsAnimals.com.

But are the reports genuine?

Both Web sites that released the reports are part of the 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, including TeachersUnionExposed.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.

Responding to the centers allegation that only one percent of Humane Society donations go to pet shelters, Pacelle said: We have never represented ourselves as giving all of our money to pet shelters, not on any ad. In fact, our TV ads say specifically that we do not fund shelters, and that those local groups are independent.

Paccelle said donations go toward the societys work in public policy enforcement, animal rescue and investigations of cases of animal abuse, among other efforts.

A senior research analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom, J. Justin Wilson, told The Post that the recent studies came from facts. You can see the centers research for the PETA study here, and the research for the Humane Society study here.

Wilson acknowledged that funding for CCF came from the food industries, but said the center was not funded by animal abuse industries. From Wilson:

The facts are the facts. The notion that our funding changes the facts is just wrong. I think that these animal rights groups dont like a dose of their own medicine, to some extent. They are more than willing to shoot the messenger. We want people to make informed choices for ourselves. I dont think we are eroding anything [for these groups], we are helping.

A number of media reports over the years have also characterized CCF as a front group.

Berman and Company is quite objectively in the business of manufacturing misinformation, Salon, a progressive Web site, wrote in 2011.

Why do you expect anyone to believe you on matters of science and research if we dont know if you are being paid to say this by people who have a vested interest? liberal TV show host Rachel Maddow asked Berman on her show in 2010.

And in 2009, a segment on the show 60 Minutes also questioned Berman, calling him the booze and food industries weapon of mass destruction, and pointing out that many of his studies were contradictory.

*You're a hired gun, said CBS correspondent Morley Safer.

Berman told Safer he saw his role as policing do-gooders run amok.

Well, I go out to people and I say, Look, if you believe in what I believe, will you help fund it? Now, I dont know if thats a hired gun or not. But, the point is, yes, I do get paid for educating people. If thats my biggest crime, I stand accused.* _ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...are-they-real/2012/02/27/gIQAZdR2dR_blog.html

As I've said before I don't agree with all PETA do or say Val, but the very fact that powerful vested interests who abuse animals for profit have gone to such lengths to try to destroy PETA, is proof enough for me that PETA is a real force for good where animal welfare is concerned.

.

.

,


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

Jesthar said:


> KoA, I don't see anyone disagreeing that there is an oversupply problem. Certainly not ouesi, with their lifetime experience and involvement with rescues.
> 
> Where opinions differ is the method of _dealing_ with the problem - ranging from the no-kill 'rehome/foster/transfer to an area of need' approch to the 'immedate euthanasia' maxim of PeTA.


That's unfair. They rehome, they transfer, they do sterling work out in the community. 500 or so euthanasias are direct bring ins from the owners. Take those out of the equation and their figures would look more in line with others.
If 2 million (cats and dogs) find homes 4 million don't, nationally that's an average of 66% euthanasia.

They also take in aggressive animals other shelters won't handle, RTAs and wild & feral casualties. What would you suggest, leave them dying alone in a ditch somewhere so the figures look prettier?
Easy to judge from a thousand miles away, things might look different from the sharp end.

I would agree though with the overall stance that if PETA want to do a Blue Cross style free service to the community, they should greatly increase their holding capacity and do it as a separate entity to their main body of campaigning work.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Several pages back.


Your point?
Not being argumentative, I really do not understand what you are talking about.
Are we supposed to ignore questions about what we do or?

I see no bickering over who does what, I really don't.
I do see someone trying to use the "I'm better than you" by trying in insinuate that no one else does anything/enough....

Only one person in this thread has tried to discredit others experiences (ironic considering they aren't even there) to make their point have more substance...only a couple of people have name called (ironic again as they accuse others of the same yet can't provide quotes)...the rest has been an interesting debate.

I don't understand the need to come in and berate the rest of the participants if I am totally honest 

Again, not a dig at you. I just don't see what you see I guess.


----------



## silvi (Jul 31, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Animal welfare standards in a lot of US states are extremely poor compared to ours, in some states they still gas animals to death. PETA have taken such animals & euthanized them humanely to spare them from this horrific cruelty.


I know we are talking mainly about the US here, but I thought I'd mention this anyway.....

In Spain if a dog is captured by a warden and ends up in a local perrera it will have only a few days to be claimed or rescued before it is 'euthanised'.

But euthanasia in a Spanish perrera is often not humane - depending on the area, hanging or gasing may be used. And even when 'humane injection' is used, it will often be watered down so that it goes further. The suffering in all these cases is horrible to think about.

So rescue organisations are constantly on 'kill patrol', checking what dogs are due to be euthanised soon and trying to find homes or foster homes for them before their time is up.
There is a limit to the number of dogs that can be saved, but more and more rescues are springing up to take perrera dogs and at least give them a chance of life.
(And it has to be said here, that there are a few perreras who have turned themselves around and now act as rescue orgnisations too - but far too few at the moment).

This is the other way to PETA's way. Spanish perrera dogs are rescued to give them a chance; not to euthanise them. And this is happening in a relatively poor country and is being carried out by groups who often exist on a shoe string.
If they had the money that PETA has, they could do so much more.

It's just a shame that PETA doesn't try to follow their methods. With PETA's resources and funding, rather than constantly bemoaning overbreeding, they could actually give dogs like this a much better chance of life.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Your point?
> Not being argumentative, I really do not understand what you are talking about.
> Are we supposed to ignore questions about what we do or?
> 
> ...


Fair enough, I guess we all see things how we want to see them. I don't agree only one person in the thread has tried to discredit others but I do agree it has been an interesting debate.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Heyup Val. Animal welfare standards in a lot of US states are extremely poor compared to ours, in some states they still gas animals to death. PETA have taken such animals & euthanized them humanely to spare them from this horrific cruelty


Noush, would you happen to know if that's their Norfolk operation? I've seen one or two references to PETA taking in animals from other shelters to euthanise, but the VDAC stats show only under 100 of transfers in from local shelters in the past ten years (one dog, no cats in those figures). So I've been looking for other references, but can't really find anything, not even on PETA/pro-PETA sites. If you can point me in the right direction, that'd be fab! 

Or do they do the euthanising directly at the other shelters so it goes on that shelters figures, I wonder. That would complicate things... Far better than gassing the poor things, though, agreed, that should be banned in this day and age.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> *Im* dodging questions?! Oh thats rich
> 
> Hey Knightofalbion, my words:
> 
> ...


Calm down.

With one breath you say there is no pet over-population problem, then you concede 3-4 million are euthanized every year. That's not a problem?
You paint PETA as the devil incarnate, but these are euthanized by non-PETA shelters. 
Why weren't these 3-4 million rehomed, transferred, etc.? Explain it if you're an expert.

We've already established it, 2.7 million of that number were PTS because there were no homes for them. That's the fact of the matter.

Launching into a spiteful personal attack, that says more about you than about me, is all well and good. But it seems to me a perfectly fair question to raise. If you are saying they make wonderful pets and people should give them a chance, and the shelters are awash with them, why not do your bit, set the example, prove the point and adopt 1 or 2 yourself? I don't think that's an unreasonable suggestion.

I advocate veganism wherever I can and I follow that diet (and lifestyle) even though life would be very much easier not to. You've got to practice what you preach.

I don't want to see any animal euthanized, but what's happening is the direct response of reckless over-breeding. Cause and effect. An inescapable consequence.

And with specific reference to Pit Bulls, there are 800,000 Pit Bulls euthanized every year because nobody wants them. If you have the magic answer to save all these animals lives, then the floor is yours ....


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

And it isn't just PETA they attack

The Humane Society is a target too of their smears and misinformation

Who Attacks HSUS?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> That's unfair.


What's not fair? That opinions differ? That PETA euthanise the larger part of animals that come to them, often within hours?


Knightofalbion said:


> They rehome,


Only internally, as far as I can tell the shelter is not open to the public for adoptions. Which is kind of ironic given that they advocate adopting from shelters.


Knightofalbion said:


> they transfer,


They have slowly been doing better with that in the last few years, true - although I think they only transfer to kill shelters due to disagreeing with no-kill shelters, so being transferred out doen't mean the animal will survive.


Knightofalbion said:


> they do sterling work out in the community.


I don't recall anyone disputing that. Maybe that's what they should stick to.



Knightofalbion said:


> 500 or so euthanasias are direct bring ins from the owners. *Take those out of the equation* and their figures would look more in line with others.


As I've said before, I'd love to! I just haven't been able to find a source for that information - do you have a link? 


Knightofalbion said:


> If 2 million (cats and dogs) find homes 4 million don't, nationally that's an average of 66% euthanasia.


Which is a crying shame, but still better that PETA by between around 5 and 32% depending on species and year.



Knightofalbion said:


> They also take in aggressive animals other shelters won't handle, RTAs and wild & feral casualties. What would you suggest, leave them dying alone in a ditch somewhere so the figures look prettier?
> Easy to judge from a thousand miles away, things might look different from the sharp end.


Wildlife casualties are handled separately in VDACs, and so won't affect the domestic animal statistics. Again, if you've got a link to appropriate figures for the RTAs, ferals etc., I'd love them  Although ferals don't really matter in this case, as whereas others TNR, PETA euthanise, so there's not really much point excuding them from the kill stats, sadly.



Knightofalbion said:


> I would agree though with the overall stance that if PETA want to do a Blue Cross style free service to the community, they should greatly increase their holding capacity and do it as a separate entity to their main body of campaigning work.


I think that would be the best thing they could do, or maybe even just back out of the shelter side completely and openly advertise free euthanasia and neutering. Mind you, they may have to do that anyway with the new laws coming in.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

And the Physicians Committee For Responsible Medicine

Physicians' Group Responds to Smear Tactics by Tobacco/Meat Industry Front Group | Physicians Committee


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Knightofalbion said:


> Calm down.
> 
> *With one breath you say there is no pet over-population problem,* then you concede 3-4 million are euthanized every year. That's not a problem?
> You paint PETA as the devil incarnate, but these are euthanized by non-PETA shelters.
> ...


Are we ever reading the same post here? Ouesi states twice within the opening paragraphs - one as a quote of themselves - that there *IS* a pet overpopulation problem... 

They have also explained that they do have a pit bull type.

And I don't think that anyone is implying they have a magic answer to the problems, just that 'Kill them all' should not be accepted as the correct or ethical response.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Noush, would you happen to know if that's their Norfolk operation? I've seen one or two references to PETA taking in animals from other shelters to euthanise, but the VDAC stats show only under 100 of transfers in from local shelters in the past ten years (one dog, no cats in those figures). So I've been looking for other references, but can't really find anything, not even on PETA/pro-PETA sites. If you can point me in the right direction, that'd be fab!
> 
> Or do they do the euthanising directly at the other shelters so it goes on that shelters figures, I wonder. That would complicate things... Far better than gassing the poor things, though, agreed, that should be banned in this day and age.


No, I don't know Jesther, I'll have a look & see if I can find anything. Here is the ALF article. CCF - Web of Deception The links on there are either broken or wrong. One link - 'helping animals.com' takes you to peta's website where it sounds like there were once photos of the pounds with gas chambers.

.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2015)

Knightofalbion said:


> I am using an American organisation that uses police and media sourced accounts of dog maulings and fatalities, a disproportionate number of which involve pit bulls. I could, as you could, Google these stories or indeed post them here, to verify, but I don't have the time and besides do we really want to see photos of facially disfigured children and adults?
> 
> You know the UK's stance on these types of breed. Would you advocate overturning these banning orders?
> 
> The overall issue, again, is the over-breeding. Only I in 600 will end up in a happy, loving forever home according to the statistics. It is madness.


Yes, I would advocate overtuning pit bull bans and any other breed specific ban.
Breed bans do not work, they do not prevent dog and human casualties, they do not keep dogs and humans safe, they are expensive to implement and enforce, and they result in perfectly sound dogs being needlessly killed.

I will explain again why pit bulls show up disproportionately in these statistics. The way pit bulls are recorded as a breed is pit bull AND pit bull TYPE. In other words, any dog who looks remotely like a pit bull is recorded as a pit bull bite. That means your run of the mill heinz 57 with short hair and wonky ears is going to be recorded as a pit bull attack. 
No other breed is recorded this way.

There is no ONE magic solution to the pit bull situation nor the general overpopulation situation, however, that does not mean that the ONLY option is mass euthanasia. And especially not mass euthanasia based on breed.

Pit bulls DO make fabulous family dogs, as a breed they are ridiculously tolerant of handling (even very stupid handling which is one of the big reasons how they ended up in the state they are - thugs won't last long with a good working line malinois as a status dog). 
Pitts tend to truly adore children (not just tolerate them) they are incredibly devoted to their people, and, as the Michael Vick dogs and numerous other high profile cases since then have shown, pit bulls are very rehabilatate-able even when they come from the most horrific of backgrounds. They are amazing dogs.
I really would encourage anyone who doubts the true nature of pit bulls to please read the article I posted in the thread "Ex Fighting Dogs"

Realistically the tendency towards dog intolerance is real, however this is present in many breeds, certainly not unique to pit bulls.
Prey drive is another breed trait, again, not at all unique to pit bulls. Sighthounds are notorious for killing pet cats and bunnies, yet no one is crying for them to be banned, seized and euthanized en masse.

It's about education, knowing the potential breed traits, and intelligent management.
PeTA's stance on former fighting dogs is just plain wrong. They advocate for these dogs to be imediately euthanized, no behavioral evaluation, no rehab, just euthanasia. 
Former fighting dogs have SO much to teach us not just about dog behavior and training, but about forgiveness, physical and emotional resilience, and second chances. I will fight PeTA all day long on their stance on pit bulls. I am not at all alone in this either.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I would advocate overtuning pit bull bans and any other breed specific ban.
> Breed bans do not work, they do not prevent dog and human casualties, they do not keep dogs and humans safe, they are expensive to implement and enforce, and they result in perfectly sound dogs being needlessly killed.
> 
> I will explain again why pit bulls show up disproportionately in these statistics. The way pit bulls are recorded as a breed is pit bull AND pit bull TYPE. In other words, any dog who looks remotely like a pit bull is recorded as a pit bull bite. That means your run of the mill heinz 57 with short hair and wonky ears is going to be recorded as a pit bull attack.
> ...


Thank you for this post, dear Ouesi.

I'm sorry we crossed swords, but just a point of light issue. Nothing personal.

Thanked and liked.


----------



## Knightofalbion (Jul 3, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Yes, I would advocate overtuning pit bull bans and any other breed specific ban.
> Breed bans do not work, they do not prevent dog and human casualties, they do not keep dogs and humans safe, they are expensive to implement and enforce, and they result in perfectly sound dogs being needlessly killed.
> 
> I will explain again why pit bulls show up disproportionately in these statistics. The way pit bulls are recorded as a breed is pit bull AND pit bull TYPE. In other words, any dog who looks remotely like a pit bull is recorded as a pit bull bite. That means your run of the mill heinz 57 with short hair and wonky ears is going to be recorded as a pit bull attack.
> ...


My general issue with all of this is that at the root of it is animal abusing Big Business that is trying to do down the Animal Rights Movement, because their exposures and campaigning for a more humane, compassionate lifestyle are harming their profit margins.

We appear to have reached an impasse on opinion. My stance remains the same, PETA Norfolk deals with pets voluntarily surrendered and other animals other shelters won't touch, which combined artificially inflates their euthanasia percentage. 
All the PETA staff I've known (UK and Germany) were/are thoroughly devoted and caring animal lovers. Putting aside CCF smears, I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise about PETA US staff. And being a thousand miles away, I'm in no position to make judgements about decisions taken on the ground. And I do not believe anyone else is either.

I would agree with you. I do not believe there is any animal (or human for that matter) who would not respond to kindness and love. So yes, even the most unruly dog could be turned round. The problem there is, whilst it is doable, it does require a considerable investment of time, energy, patience and love. 
The average shelter staff member simply does not have the time to do that.
Especially with an ever increasing backlog of new intakes stacking up.
It is perhaps all too easy to dismiss the attitude towards these dogs as callous. I rather think it is more total disengagement with the thought that they can actually achieve anything.

On the issue of shelters. The fact here is shelters are limited. It's no good expecting shelters to keep accepting more and more and more and more animals, without any increase in holding capacity, staff or funding. 
Many, many more shelters are needed, and in combination with reducing the reckless levels of over-breeding, then we would get somewhere.
Which is something at least we can all agree on.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Thank you for the links. Yes it seems Ingrid Newkirk etc did meet with the psycho on one of PETAs animal empathy courses. The Day I Spent With Michael Vick | PETA's Blog | PETA There was nothing sinister on PETA's part though .


No, I never said that there was.
You found a comment I made on another thread - about Michael Vick. My comment had to do with slimeball trying to cuddle up to PeTA to make himself look good, not anything against PeTA (though their addiction to celebrity spokespeople is not always the healthiest). 
But my comment (from the other thread) had nothing to do with PeTA, just Michael Vick.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> OK, again I'll say I did not quote you nor refer to you and that I meant the thread in general. You don't have to defend yourself or your dogs, you don't have to answer any questions either (although sharing your experiences was very helpful) but neither do other people have to answer questions posed to them quite rudely in some cases either.


Meaning who? Or shall I guess?



Knightofalbion said:


> I am using an American organisation that uses police and media sourced accounts of dog maulings and fatalities, a disproportionate number of which involve pit bulls. I could, as you could, Google these stories or indeed post them here, to verify, but I don't have the time and besides do we really want to see photos of facially disfigured children and adults?
> 
> You know the UK's stance on these types of breed. Would you advocate overturning these banning orders?


And yet in this country, we have a proportionally similar issue surrounding dogs. The last attack resulting in a fatality was a malamute (I may be wrong) and whilst staffies have been demonised by the media, I don't think that leads to us saying they should be euthanised, despite the huge overpopulation of them in the UK.



Knightofalbion said:


> You paint PETA as the devil incarnate, but these are euthanized by non-PETA shelters.
> 
> Launching into a spiteful personal attack, that says more about you than about me, is all well and good. But it seems to me a perfectly fair question to raise. If you are saying they make wonderful pets and people should give them a chance, and the shelters are awash with them, why not do your bit, set the example, prove the point and adopt 1 or 2 yourself?
> 
> I advocate veganism wherever I can and I follow that diet (and lifestyle) even though life would be very much easier not to. You've got to practice what you preach.


No, she does not paint them in that fashion. She has mentioned on several occasions how she thinks they do good in some areas. Wrong of you to sweep some comments across everything she's said.

She's not attacked you at all on here.  she has adopted a pit bull type. Have you?

Practice what you preach? Once more, I would like you to say what you have done: you ask people to tell you then claim they're blowing their own trumpet when they answer. Make your mind up.


----------

