# PETA and wool on This Morning



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

"Animal rights charity PETA is best known for its naked anti-fur stunts but these days they're more concerned about our woolly jumpers. Co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has recently come out saying that cutting sheep's wool is just sheer cruel.

We're joined today by animal activist Elisa Allen who agrees that wool is cruel, as well as farmer Charles Sercombe who disagrees, saying that shearing sheep is essential for the animal's welfare.

So are PETA trying to wrap us all in cotton wool or are the farmers trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

http://www.itv.com/thismorning/weve-ditched-fur-but-is-it-cruel-to-wear-wool"

****

I don't watch daytime TV and am just off out to check on my sheep and walk dogs but will record to watch with interest later. I am not a fan of PETA and animal rights (animal WELFARE yes, animal RIGHTS no) and rarely agree with a thing this organisation says, but they really are scraping the barrel with this one.

Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about sheep will know that shearing is a welfare issue and is required to keep sheep free of flystrike, maggots and overheating in the summer months. We do not make money on wool, in fact money is lost when hiring contract shearers to do the job. Mountain sheep wool is worth anywhere from 20p-90p a fleece and it costs just over £1 per sheep to be clipped by contractors. I reiterate it is a welfare issue and it doesn't hurt or unduly stress the sheep when they are handled correctly.


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

Wow is that all you get!! I always presumed that sheep were sheered at that time of year so they would be cooler, its one of those nobody loses things i thought, sheep is cooler and farmer makes money, shows how wrong i have been. So how can a farmer make profit on sheep, is it just the meat or can a lowland farmer make profit on wool?


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

TBF I think that PETA are at the extreme end of animal activism, I dont think they even believe in keeping animals as pets.
Im staying away from wool though. Even though its probably in the best interests of sheep to be sheared when you are talking about mass produced garments you cant tell if that wool is a byproduct of of the meat industry, so its more then likely the sheep that provided the wool was then horribly killed and eaten!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Moobli said:


> "Animal rights charity PETA"


Enough said


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Moobli said:


> Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about sheep will know that shearing is a welfare issue and is required to keep sheep free of flystrike, maggots and overheating in the summer months.


Absolutely. I remember seeing an Australian animal welfare programme where one of the cases was a sheep which hadn't been shorn for years. The poor thing was in a dreadful state, one of the most shocking things I've seen.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> TBF
> Im staying away from wool though. Even though its probably in the best interests of sheep to be sheared when you are talking about mass produced garments you cant tell if that wool is a byproduct of of the meat industry, so its more then likely the sheep that provided the wool was then horribly killed and eaten!


I think you'd be safe having woolen garments, most lambs are killed in their first autumn if born early in the year, so not shorn, or go through the winter as "store lambs", to be slaughtered the following spring, when good grass helps them finish growing well . A sheep is not sheared until it's second late spring/early summer, so those destined for slaughter are not shorn first and then slaughtered.

Once slaughtered, skins and attached wool go for tanning as sheepskins.

So you can wear wool with no guilt.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Moobli said:


> "Animal rights charity PETA is best known for its naked anti-fur stunts but these days they're more concerned about our woolly jumpers. Co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has recently come out saying that cutting sheep's wool is just sheer cruel.
> 
> We're joined today by animal activist Elisa Allen who agrees that wool is cruel, as well as farmer Charles Sercombe who disagrees, saying that shearing sheep is essential for the animal's welfare.
> 
> ...


Not agreeing with PETA one bit but interested in why you say animal RIGHTS no - don't you think any animal has a right to anything?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Not agreeing with PETA one bit but interested in why you say animal RIGHTS no - don't you think any animal has a right to anything?


I think I sort of get it. It isn't that an animal doesn't have rights but it's a tag which can be spouted by anyone to mean anything whereas welfare is a practical thing. If I came across an animal in need my immediate concern would be its welfare rather than its rights.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

catz4m8z said:


> TBF I think that PETA are at the extreme end of animal activism, I dont think they even believe in keeping animals as pets.
> Im staying away from wool though. Even though its probably in the best interests of sheep to be sheared when you are talking about mass produced garments you cant tell if that wool is a byproduct of of the meat industry, so its more then likely the sheep that provided the wool was then horribly killed and eaten!


This might interest you 

*Izzy Lane: cruelty-free wool*

Isobel Davies started her company, Izzy Lane, to produce ethical yarn from rescued sheep, and soon had a flock of 600. She focused on Shetland and Wensleydale sheep, for the best wool quality, but took on any sheep that had outlived its use for its owner.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> I think I sort of get it. It isn't that an animal doesn't have rights but it's a tag which can be spouted by anyone to mean anything whereas welfare is a practical thing. If I came across an animal in need my immediate concern would be its welfare rather than its rights.


Yes I understand that, attending to an immediate need is to do with compassion and welfare but what about its long term needs, one could argue that you can't address the welfare issue of animals being farmed for human consumption without addressing what their rights are and its about time we started to also address what humans have the right to do to animals for their own benefit.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

Why is wool unacceptable but it's okay for PETA to put down healthy animals because they don't want to pay to feed and house them.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Long term needs are welfare too aren't they? PETA are the most famous animal 'rights' organisation out there and yet they would rather see an animal destroyed than rehomed because they believe it has the right not to be owned.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Let's not forget PETA is an organisation which is pushing for dogs to be killed simply for the way they look.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> Long term needs are welfare too aren't they? PETA are the most famous animal 'rights' organisation out there and yet they would rather see an animal destroyed than rehomed because they believe it has the right not to be owned.


I'm not sure PETA are the most famous animal "rights" organisation in this country, plenty of people watching This Morning have probably never even heard of them. I don't think we can judge all animal "rights" organisations in this country based on PETA though so I'm really not going to bother trying to defend their stand on anything. As far as long term needs go yes welfare comes into it but fundamentally if you don't believe an animal has any rights then I'm not sure how you can legislate for its welfare. The two go hand in hand. I always find it interesting how people are prepared to dismiss the rights of animals to be consumed but would defend the rights of their domestic pets.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

I could understand if they were talking about angora wool, most of which (supposedly) comes from China where animal welfare is non-existent. But there are some odd people around: we had two at the stables who thought putting shoes on horses was barbaric. So they hobbled around with bruised soles when the ground was hard/frozen solid.
(I didn't see the programme, so can't comment on what was said.)


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> I think you'd be safe having woolen garments, most lambs are killed in their first autumn if born early in the year, so not shorn, or go through the winter as "store lambs", to be slaughtered the following spring, when good grass helps them finish growing well . A sheep is not sheared until it's second late spring/early summer, so those destined for slaughter are not shorn first and then slaughtered.
> Once slaughtered, skins and attached wool go for tanning as sheepskins.
> So you can wear wool with no guilt.


Interesting. But as somebody said that keeping sheep just for their wool isnt cost effective Im assuming that the sheared off wool is still a byproduct....but what of?? (I mean if the sheep arent eaten or producing sheep milk or cheese!)



Lurcherlad said:


> This might interest you
> 
> *Izzy Lane: cruelty-free wool*
> 
> Isobel Davies started her company, Izzy Lane, to produce ethical yarn from rescued sheep, and soon had a flock of 600. She focused on Shetland and Wensleydale sheep, for the best wool quality, but took on any sheep that had outlived its use for its owner.


That sounds like an awesome idea! I mean its not like sheep go bald when they get old is it!? LOL


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

I read not long ago that in Australia there have been reports of extreme cruelty to sheep during shearing (abuse if you like) resulting in court action. But very different and separate from regular routine shearing . . .these were just sadistic bas****s apparently enjoying causing unnecessary fear and suffering.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Anyone who wants to look at PETA should look for the "Penn and Teller PETA" video.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It's odd isn't it, how every other species of animal can cope perfectly well without metal nailed to their feet, but horses can't. If a horse is lame on hard or frozen ground and his soles bruise that easily, there's something seriously wrong imo. In some countries they ride camels and elephants and use dogs to pull sleds over frozen tundra, yet horses can't stand in a field without shoes on. Wimps.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

catz4m8z said:


> Interesting. But as somebody said that keeping sheep just for their wool isnt cost effective Im assuming that the sheared off wool is still a byproduct....but what of?? (I mean if the sheep arent eaten or producing sheep milk or cheese!)


You need sheep to make lambs.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

catz4m8z said:


> Interesting. But as somebody said that keeping sheep just for their wool isnt cost effective Im assuming that the sheared off wool is still a byproduct....but what of?? (I mean if the sheep arent eaten or producing sheep milk or cheese!)


It's for welfare mainly, see the OP.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> As far as long term needs go yes welfare comes into it but fundamentally if you don't believe an animal has any rights then I'm not sure how you can legislate for its welfare


I do think it's possible to agree on welfare standards without getting into the issue of rights.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I suppose if it's cruel to shear a sheep, poodles are in real trouble.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> I do think it's possible to agree on welfare standards without getting into the issue of rights.


Why? Is there something some humans find incredibly challenging or threatening about considering an animal having rights? Humans have rights, children have rights, unborn children have rights (beyond a certain number of weeks), prisoners have rights, mass murderers and terrorists have rights but mention animals having rights and well its just not the done thing, you must be an extremist :Joyful I think it comes down to the fact that most humans know deep down that we totally abuse animals for our own ends so it makes us feel better to pretend they are somehow inferior beings not worthy of having rights but it makes us feel a bit better to consider their welfare even though in reality the conditions and treatment we dole out to them are far from acceptable.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Part of my reply is inside your quote in italics underneath, part after it. Was trying to respond to 2 points but stuck answer to first point inside your quote.


catz4m8z said:


> Interesting. But as somebody said that keeping sheep just for their wool isnt cost effective Im assuming that the sheared off wool is still a byproduct....but what of?? (I mean if the sheep arent eaten or producing sheep milk or cheese!)
> 
> _I see what you mean, ewes bred to produce lambs for meat are sheared for their welfare, so technically their wool is a byproduct. However, this isn't the wool used in cardigans etc, as
> 1) meat producing breeds tend to produce lower quality wool
> ...


No, but they do get "broken mouthed" so poor at eating and digesting ( bearing in mind how much cudding they do to release nutrients from grass), or get creaky and arthritic. Retirement is a great idea, small scale with a caring owner, but a large flock of elderly sheep wouldn't make a profit from their wool unless sold at a premium. Just Googled - marketed as a luxury fashion brand.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Calvine said:


> I read not long ago that in Australia there have been reports of extreme cruelty to sheep during shearing (abuse if you like) resulting in court action. But very different and separate from regular routine shearing . . .these were just sadistic bas****s apparently enjoying causing unnecessary fear and suffering.


Normal shearing, with a person they trust, is not stressful. How do I know? Because my sheep will actually stand there cudding whilst I do it to them. Some don't even realise when the gate is opened to let them out again, as dozed off in the sun :Yawn. Only bit they don't like is me putting my free hand over their willy if they are a ram ( but the alternative is risking snipping it off as I use the old hand held shears with spring blades :Jawdrop:Nurse)


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

So you don't put them on their back or turn them upside down to do their bellies?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> So you don't put them on their back or turn them upside down to do their bellies?


Nope, I bend down just to get any long bits, but their bellies are normally hair or very very short wool, so shaving to the skin not necessary.

I normally start at the base if the tail and "open them up" down the line of their back, to the neck, then work down first one side of the sheep and then the other.


----------



## kittih (Jan 19, 2014)

Wild species of sheep have coats that aren't excessive and shed easily. Domesticated sheep which have been bred to produce wool (or sheep previously bred to produce wool which are now produced for meat) have coats that grow much longer / thicker / have different characteristics to wild sheep.

Because they were bred to be shorn, not shearing them can cause the fleece to restrict the sheep's ability to function properly (heavy fleeces can cause a sheep to be cast on its back for example) as well as leading to skin issues, fly strike etc.

Not shearing sheep bred to produce wool results in cruelty to those sheep. Given the majority of UK breeds (and possibly all) have somewhere in their heritage been developed as wool producers to a greater or lesser extent, I think PETA should rethink their argument.


----------



## Mirandashell (Jan 10, 2017)

Catharinem said:


> Nope, I bend down just to get any long bits, but their bellies are normally hair or very very short wool, so shaving to the skin not necessary.
> 
> I normally start at the base if the tail and "open them up" down the line of their back, to the neck, then work down first one side of the sheep and then the other.


Interesting! I've only ever seen the blokes who try to do 80,000 sheep in 3 mins or whatever and they tend to throw the sheep around somewhat.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Elles said:


> It's odd isn't it, how every other species of animal can cope perfectly well without metal nailed to their feet, but horses can't. If a horse is lame on hard or frozen ground and his soles bruise that easily, there's something seriously wrong imo. In some countries they ride camels and elephants and use dogs to pull sleds over frozen tundra, yet horses can't stand in a field without shoes on. Wimps.


I don't think it's so much a problem if they aren't being ridden, etc. Nor if they have never been shod in the past.

If they were living in the wild, natural wear would keep their hooves healthy and short.

Whether horses should be ridden, driven, etc. is another debate.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Catharinem said:


> Normal shearing, with a person they trust, is not stressful. How do I know? Because my sheep will actually stand there cudding whilst I do it to them. Some don't even realise when the gate is opened to let them out again, as dozed off in the sun :Yawn. Only bit they don't like is me putting my free hand over their willy if they are a ram ( but the alternative is risking snipping it off as I use the old hand held shears with spring blades :Jawdrop:Nurse)


Sounds absolutely fine (and no worse than clipping a horse or grooming a dog - both having been gently accustomed to the practise) but honestly, how many sheep are so lucky?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> If they were living in the wild, natural wear would keep their hooves healthy and short


It's not much of a problem when people provide a more natural environment for them either. Trouble is horses tend to be kept either in the equivalent of keeping your dog crated 24/7, or outside in a small grassy area that becomes a quagmire in winter. Then charge accepting liveries a fortune for the privilege. Still change is afoot.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

steveshanks said:


> Wow is that all you get!! I always presumed that sheep were sheered at that time of year so they would be cooler, its one of those nobody loses things i thought, sheep is cooler and farmer makes money, shows how wrong i have been. So how can a farmer make profit on sheep, is it just the meat or can a lowland farmer make profit on wool?


Selling female breeding stock brings in the most revenue, followed by the lambs that enter the food chain (usually sold from anywhere from £1.30-£1.70 per live kilo and the week after they will be in the butcher £16 per kilo!). There is very, very little profit to be made in wool by any type of sheep farmer in this country. Merino sheep are farmed for their wool and therefore would make a profit.

http://www.britishwool.org.uk/price-schedule.php


----------



## Smuge (Feb 6, 2017)

I have very few nice things to say about Peta


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

Catharinem said:


> but the alternative is risking snipping it off as I use the old hand held shears with spring blades


, Wow how many do you do, i tried a pair of those and a few minutes was all it took to get a sore hand LOL


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

It does strike me that the sheep farmer gets screwed all ways, i know how much a wool jumper costs (so does my sister after she shrunk it) .....One thing that struck me on that list is the Bluefaced Leicester is 3 times more than most of the others and 15 times more than some, does it produce special wool, Steve


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Elles said:


> It's not much of a problem when people provide a more natural environment for them either. Trouble is horses tend to be kept either in the equivalent of keeping your dog crated 24/7, or outside in a small grassy area that becomes a quagmire in winter. Then charge accepting liveries a fortune for the privilege. Still change is afoot.


Like I said, a whole different debate.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Not agreeing with PETA one bit but interested in why you say animal RIGHTS no - don't you think any animal has a right to anything?


Mainly because I am an advocate of animal welfare, which, to my mind means proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthansia. I believe in improving the treatment and well-being of animals.

Animal rights, to me, means that animals have rights similar or the same as humans and that humans do not have the right to use animals at all for any reason - such as working alongside us, as pets, in wildlife parks, farms etc etc etc

http://www.fatpet.com/elvessa/rights.html


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

steveshanks said:


> It does strike me that the sheep farmer gets screwed all ways, i know how much a wool jumper costs (so does my sister after she shrunk it) .....One thing that struck me on that list is the Bluefaced Leicester is 3 times more than most of the others and 15 times more than some, *does it produce special wool*, Steve


In a word, yes!  Not all breeds produce wool which is suited to use in yarn (I have a friend who introduced me to drop spindle handspinning a couple of years ago, and a spinning wheel restoration project on the go). Blueface has a curly, fine fleece with a long staple (fibre length) and an unusual natural lustre that makes it one of the best fleeces for spinning. The yarn it produces is soft and strong, and has a natural sheen to it. It also takes dye well (retaining the sheen of lustre after dying) and retains it's strength even with a looser spin.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Calvine said:


> I read not long ago that in Australia there have been reports of extreme cruelty to sheep during shearing (abuse if you like) resulting in court action. But very different and separate from regular routine shearing . . .these were just sadistic bas****s apparently enjoying causing unnecessary fear and suffering.


On the This Morning programme they did show a short clip of a covert shearing taken in a shed in Australia and it was horrible. Sheep being kicked and hit on the head with the shearing hand piece. This is NOT the norm. I have seen thousands of sheep clipped and never have I witnessed anything like that.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> Like I said, a whole different debate.


It is a different debate, but you said whether horses should be ridden etc is a different debate, not their welfare, which was my response. 

Unfortunately you brought up one of my soapbox issues on a thread about sheep and I couldn't let you get away with it lol. Baaaa


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Moobli said:


> On the This Morning programme they did show a short clip of a covert shearing taken in a shed in Australia and it was horrible. Sheep being kicked and hit on the head with the shearing hand piece. This is NOT the norm. I have seen thousands of sheep clipped and never have I witnessed anything like that.


Just watched it. They said they've covertly filmed 30 sheds over 3 continents.

A massive cross section of the industry, then.  #sarcasm


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

steveshanks said:


> It does strike me that the sheep farmer gets screwed all ways, i know how much a wool jumper costs (so does my sister after she shrunk it) .....One thing that struck me on that list is the Bluefaced Leicester is 3 times more than most of the others and 15 times more than some, does it produce special wool, Steve


Yes BFL wool equals Merino in softness. It is classified as a "longwool breed" because of the way their locks of wool are formed. Its fleece is in high demand because of its softness and lustrous shine. It is very light, with a demi-lustre which is thought to be the best of any native coloured sheep.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Moobli said:


> Mainly because I am an advocate of animal welfare, which, to my mind means proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and, when necessary, humane euthansia. I believe in improving the treatment and well-being of animals.
> 
> Animal rights, to me, means that animals have rights similar or the same as humans and that humans do not have the right to use animals at all for any reason - such as working alongside us, as pets, in wildlife parks, farms etc etc etc
> 
> http://www.fatpet.com/elvessa/rights.html


Moral and ethical issues are always tricky as we are of course all guided by our own moral compass with a bit of self preservation thrown in. I find the site you have linked too a gross generalisation, neither PETA nor the Humane Society represent the views of all people who believe animals have rights anymore than those sheep sheerers shown on the video represent all sheep sheerers. Its cosy to think all animals used by humans to produce food or to experiment on are housed properly (intensive farming would need to be eliminated overnight then) treated responsibly and handled humanely (I don't call making a cow pregnant every year then wrenching its calf away so that we can drink the calf's milk either responsible or humane) and as for humane euthanasia that is something generally reserved for domestic pets - there is no way slaughter houses can make sure every single animal is stunned before they slit their throats and I don't believe for one minute anyone on this forum would allow their pet to be euthanized in such a fashion .


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Mirandashell said:


> Interesting! I've only ever seen the blokes who try to do 80,000 sheep in 3 mins or whatever and they tend to throw the sheep around somewhat.


15- 20 mins per sheep, not terribly efficient, but then I don't have scared animals.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Nothing overly stressful about this


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/881565545988071424


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

My hubby and the assistant shepherd used to clip our own (3000 sheep) but now we get contractors in. If they treated our sheep the way that was portrayed on the short PETA clip they would be thrown off the farm!


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Catharinem said:


> 15- 20 mins per sheep, not terribly efficient, but then I don't have scared animals.


How many sheep do you keep?


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

Moobli said:


> How many sheep do you keep?


Only a few, normally around 25-30.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Smuge said:


> I have very few nice things to say about Peta


When I read that Heather Mills/McCartney was involved with the organisation I thought they might be somewhat suss.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

When I think of PETA and animal rights I think of the ridiculous court case they brought against the poor photographer who made absolutely no money out of the photo that was taken by the monkey. There are animal rights and then there's PETA animal rights


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Elles said:


> It is a different debate, but you said whether horses should be ridden etc is a different debate, not their welfare, which was my response.
> 
> Unfortunately you brought up one of my soapbox issues on a thread about sheep and I couldn't let you get away with it lol. Baaaa


Start a new thread? Sounds like it could be an interesting one


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

MiffyMoo said:


> When I think of PETA and animal rights I think of the ridiculous court case they brought against the poor photographer who made absolutely no money out of the photo that was taken by the monkey. There are animal rights and then there's PETA animal rights


As a supporter of animal welfare, I would be very interested to know what animal rights supporters consider to be the rights of animals (if not in agreement with PETA).


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

I love threads like this where you learn stuff ;o)


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Moobli said:


> As a supporter of animal welfare, I would be very interested to know what animal rights supporters consider to be the rights of animals (if not in agreement with PETA).


I can only answer for myself, I don't think there is a rule book  Like I said earlier we are all guided by our own views on the world/ethics/moral compass whatever you want to call it in much the same way as people hold their own views on human rights. For instance most people probably agree that even murders have the right to be fed, watered, have access to some form of daily exercise, not be tortured and receive medical care when they are sick but beyond that people will hold very different views on things like should they be allowed visitors/a family life, time alone with a partner, access to education, access to follow religious beliefs or special diets etc etc. People hold similarly differing views about the rights of animals. So I would say for instance that your list earlier of welfare issues should be the "right" of the animals involved and that anyone involved in the care of animals in whatever setting should be made by law to provide those rights and be prosecuted if they don't. How far those rights go and who decides it is a much bigger question which is so way beyond the realms of anything ever likely to happen that it isn't worth arguing about the minute details, I'd be happy just to see some movement in the right direction (such as banning intensive farming practices and much closer/tighter monitoring and penalties in slaughter houses) although ultimately I would like to see a day when animals are not mass produced for humans to eat when there are perfectly good alternatives that are better for our health and the health of the planet.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Moobli said:


> On the This Morning programme they did show a short clip of a covert shearing taken in a shed in Australia and it was horrible. Sheep being kicked and hit on the head with the shearing hand piece. This is NOT the norm. I have seen thousands of sheep clipped and never have I witnessed anything like that.


I never seen sheep sheered like that either ......... but it makes better footage than a more sheep friendly sheering. And Peta are never one to shy away from scoring a point. However, if these issues are present target the* culprits* not 'everyone'. I saw a man hit his dog once ...it doesn't mean all dog owners are cruel.

J


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Moobli said:


> As a supporter of animal welfare, I would be very interested to know what animal rights supporters consider to be the rights of animals (if not in agreement with PETA).


It's the practicalities of that I always think of. PETA don't think any animal should be owned so who is responsible for upholding those rights? Is it up to me to ensure every wild animal has access to food, water and necessary veterinary care? How is that meant to work?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Anyone who wants to look at PETA should look for the "Penn and Teller PETA" video.


Penn & Teller are mouth pieces for the insidious Cato Institute, Goblin. CI was set up to attack organisations/science which affect corporate profits. It was founded by the notorious Koch brothers to spread disinformation - Cato has long been at the forefront of climate change denial propaganda. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Penn_and_Teller

*Cato Institute*
Penn and Teller are fellows at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington DC. Penn Jillette is an H.L. Menkin Research Fellow and writes the "Final Word" column for Regulation Magazine. A profile of Penn on the Cato Institute's website describes it as a program that "looks to debunk junk science, scares and scams with reason and logic." [1] Cato has received financial support from the oil industry, tobacco industry, the pharmaceutical industry and Wal-Mart, as well as conservative foundations like the Koch Family Foundations and Scaife Foundations oil fortunes. See also Cato Institute.

*Contrarianism*
Penn and Teller have have lampooned such subjects as global warming, environmentalism, recycling, smoking bans, alcohol bans, twelve step programs, gun control, alternative medicine, organic food, vegetarianism, animal rights, anti-hunting, anti-animal testing, religion and metaphysics, prostitution bans, drug bans (especially marijuana), the death penalty, restrictions on immigration, creationism and government surveillance of citizens. They've defended Wal-Mart, the flat tax, gay marriage, and pornography

*Animal testing/animal rights issues*
An April of 2004 episode was heavily critical of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). According to the synopsis:

"PETA is against all forms of medical testing involving animals - regardless of the potential benefits to human beings... PETA supports banning the ownership of pets and advocates releasing them into the wild... It's enough to make a vegetarian eat meat!"[8]
PETA does not "ban the ownership of pets" or advocate "releasing them into the wild". PETA is actually very clear and concise about their views on vivisection as a danger to human health. Since they (like many animal advocates, health advocates and scientists), consider animal testing to be misleading and dangerous, it cannot have "potential benefits for human beings". They advocate extensively for companion animals as well. See also PETA and animal testing, section 6.

Two corporate front groups also appeared in the episode. The program featured the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise(CDFE)[_citation needed_] and David Martosko of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) as a "consumer advocate". CCF and CDFE represent collectively, industries such as oil, tobacco, fast food, alcohol, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and vivisection, etc. Both CCF and Cato receive funding from Phillip Morris, which contracts animal testing to the notoriously abusive Covance Laboratories. Covance and other companies represented by CCF, have been subjects of PETA investigations. See also Richard Berman cares about animals: clients exposed.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> It's the practicalities of that I always think of. PETA don't think any animal should be owned so who is responsible for upholding those rights? Is it up to me to ensure every wild animal has access to food, water and necessary veterinary care? How is that meant to work?


PETA are just one organisation, they are not the mouthpiece for all people who believe animals have rights. Of course it isn't up to you to ensure every wild animal has anything - they are wild but it should be up to governments and welfare organisations to ensure legislation exists to prevent humans from exploiting and abusing wild animals whether that be in zoos/circuses or hunting/shooting.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Penn & Teller are mouth pieces for the insidious Cato Institute, Goblin.


So please. List the faults with the video. Do you want me to post the actual destruction lists for the peta controlled "rescues" showing almost all animals being put down for example. PETA itself is a marketing machine with this "protest" most likely a publicity stunt.

I know you support them. I think they give animal rights a bad name and reputation. I will stick to that opinion unless you can show they do not kill animals to "save them". They do not support things like Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). Whilst they do some good things, the core is rotten.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> So please. List the faults with the video. Do you want me to post the actual destruction lists for the peta controled "rescues" showing almost all animals being put down for example. PETA itself is a marketing machine with this "protest" most likely a publicity stunt. I know you support them. I think they give animal rights a bad name and reputation. I will stick to that opinion unless you can show they do not kill animals to "save them". They do not support things like Breed Specific Legislation (BSL). Whilst they do some good things, the core is rotten.


If those lists come from a reputable source, yes please. Is it the video where they quote the Centre for Consumer Freedom? The CCF is another front for corporate interests which also run the 'PetaKills'' website.

I certainly don't agree with PETAs stance on BSL, but there is plenty of evidence to show that they have mostly been a force for good for animals hence why they are hated by greedy corporations.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

_The *Center for Consumer Freedom* (CCF) (formerly called the "Guest Choice Network (GCN)") is a front group run by Rick Berman's PR firm Berman & Co., originally primarily for the benefit of restaurant, alcohol, tobacco and other industries. It runs media campaigns that oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, health_ _advocates, animal advocates, environmentalists and groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, calling them "the Nanny Culture -- the growing fraternity of food cops, health care enforcers, anti-meat activists, and meddling bureaucrats who 'know what's best for you.'"_

_More recently CMD revealed that the Milwaukee-based Bradley Foundation is funding CCF to attack environmental groups with pop-up websites, like the "BigGreenRadicals.com" website, as well as to assist and train other Bradley-funded organizations in crisis communications (more below).[1]_

_CCF changed its name to the *Center for Organizational Research and Education* in early 2014[2] but uses both names._

_CCF is registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit organization under the IRS code 501(c)(3). Its advisory board is comprised mainly of representatives from the restaurant, meat and alcoholic beverage industries. As of its most recent (2015) tax filing, Berman was its principal officer and held its books

Over 40 % of the group's 2005 expenditure was paid to Rick Berman's public relations company, Berman & Co. for "management services. [4] As part of its operations, CCF runs a series of attack websites, including ConsumerFreedom.com, ActivistCash.com, CSPIscam.com (attacking the Center for Science in the Public Interest), Animal-Scam.com, FishScam.com, ObesityMyths.com, Sweetscam.com, PhysiciansScam.com and PetaKillsAnimals.com_. [


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Moobli said:


> As a supporter of animal welfare, I would be very interested to know what animal rights supporters consider to be the rights of animals (if not in agreement with PETA).


Well indeed. I get confused, as what I see as a right, is welfare. I don't think animals have rights to the copyright on a photo they took, but the do have rights to not be abused etc (welfare). IMO, not shearing sheep is abuse.

I watched the video on the Twitter link you provided, and the sheep look a lot more relaxed than Lola does when I'm trying to brush her. Although I haven't the foggiest about sheep body language. Does that mean that PETA think I ought to stop brushing her, because she hates it? Is it her right to choose not to be brushed, and therefore suffer all the side effects of that course of action? Or are they speaking out of their bottoms again, in an effort to get more publicity?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> Well indeed. I get confused, as what I see as a right, is welfare. I don't think animals have rights to the copyright on a photo they took, but the do have rights to not be abused etc (welfare). IMO, not shearing sheep is abuse.
> 
> I watched the video on the Twitter link you provided, and the sheep look a lot more relaxed than Lola does when I'm trying to brush her. Although I haven't the foggiest about sheep body language. Does that mean that PETA think I ought to stop brushing her, because she hates it? Is it her right to choose not to be brushed, and therefore suffer all the side effects of that course of action? Or are they speaking out of their bottoms again, in an effort to get more publicity?


No but I would imagine they might have something to say about it as would all of us if you kicked her and hit her around the head with the clippers like those ba--tards in the video did, I couldn't even watch the whole thing as it made me so angry I want to punch someone.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> No but I would imagine they might have something to say about it as would all of us if you kicked her and hit her around the head with the clippers like those ba--tards in the video did, I couldn't even watch the whole thing as it made me so angry I want to punch someone.


Well of course, but as has already been pointed out, that's not the majority. Yes you do get *holes in all walks of life, and they need to be prosecuted (I'd quite like tit for tat, but apparently that's bad thinking). Labelling all farmers as abusers is extremely unhelpful and libellous


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> Well of course, but as has already been pointed out, that's not the majority. Yes you do get *holes in all walks of life, and they need to be prosecuted (I'd quite like tit for tat, but apparently that's bad thinking). Labelling all farmers as abusers is extremely unhelpful and libellous


As I haven't watched the whole thing and am not a particular supporter of PETA I have no idea whether they are saying all farmers/sheep shearers are abusers or not. However I do think that people need to wake up and appreciate that the vast majority of animals reared and killed for humans to consume live a pretty horrendous life and have an even worse death. Things will only change if consumers demand that they do by not buying the products.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> As I haven't watched the whole thing and am not a particular supporter of PETA I have no idea whether they are saying all farmers/sheep shearers are abusers or not. However I do think that people need to wake up and appreciate that the vast majority of animals reared and killed for humans to consume live a pretty horrendous life and have an even worse death. Things will only change if consumers demand that they do by not buying the products.


I can't vouch for their quality of life, but I'm guessing @Moobli and @Catharinem will have a far more educated view.

This is Moobli's opening post, which certainly sounds like they're labelling the whole industry:



Moobli said:


> "Animal rights charity PETA is best known for its naked anti-fur stunts but these days they're more concerned about our woolly jumpers. Co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has recently come out saying that cutting sheep's wool is just sheer cruel.
> 
> We're joined today by animal activist Elisa Allen who agrees that wool is cruel, as well as farmer Charles Sercombe who disagrees, saying that shearing sheep is essential for the animal's welfare.
> 
> ...


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> As I haven't watched the whole thing and am not a particular supporter of PETA I have no idea whether they are saying all farmers/sheep shearers are abusers or not. However I do think that people need to wake up and appreciate that the vast majority of animals reared and killed for humans to consume live a pretty horrendous life and have an even worse death. Things will only change if consumers demand that they do by not buying the products.


The PETA stance was that abuse in shearing sheds throughout the world was extremely common. That any farmer/shearer who did not abuse sheep while being clipped was highly unusual 

I can categorically state you are wrong to say that the vast majority of animals reared for the food chain live a "pretty horrendous life". Death is not pleasant in its many forms, but I do agree with stricter regulations and cctv for all abattoirs in the UK. Death should be as quick and humane as is possible and the majority of the time, that will be the case. However, I would far prefer to see a reversal of the large, intensive farming practices and a return to small, mixed farms with local abattoirs reintroduced, meaning animals don't have to travel often long distances and being held in areas where other animals are being killed. Even better, I would like to see livestock slaughtered at home.

Unfortunately, while the supermarkets and buying public demand cheaper and cheaper meat the chances of the above happening are miniscule.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> I can't vouch for their quality of life, but I'm guessing @Moobli and @Catharinem will have a far more educated view.
> 
> :


I'm sure they do have a view of what happens on their farms but neither as far as I'm aware practice intensive farming.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Moobli said:


> The PETA stance was that abuse in shearing sheds throughout the world was extremely common. That any farmer/shearer who did not abuse sheep while being clipped was highly unusual
> 
> I can categorically state you are wrong to say that the vast majority of animals reared for the food chain live a "pretty horrendous life". Death is not pleasant in its many forms, but I do agree with stricter regulations and cctv for all abattoirs in the UK. Death should be as quick and humane as is possible and the majority of the time, that will be the case. However, I would far prefer to see a reversal of the large, intensive farming practices and a return to small, mixed farms with local abattoirs reintroduced, meaning animals don't have to travel often long distances and being held in areas where other animals are being killed. Even better, I would like to see livestock slaughtered at home.
> 
> Unfortunately, while the supermarkets and buying public demand cheaper and cheaper meat the chances of the above happening are miniscule.


I disagree, farming practices in this country like elsewhere in the world have become more and more intensive which therefore means the vast majority of livestock are reared in these conditions which in my view equates to a "pretty horrendous life". To add insult to injury we are also following in the footsteps of the US and seeing CAFCOs rise their ugly heads although there are plenty of equally vile smaller scale operations.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-07-17/intensive-numbers-of-intensive-farming

*Nearly 800 mega-farms*
Our investigation has also shown the UK is now home to at least 789 mega-farms or what the US calls CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).

To meet the definition of a Cafo, a facility must have at least 125,000 broilers (chickens raised for meat), or 82,000 layers (hens which produce eggs) or pullets (chickens used for breeding), or 2,500 pigs, 700 dairy cattle or 1,000 beef cattle.

The majority of the UK mega-farms - 575 - are poultry, with 190 pig, 21 dairy and 3 beef units.
*
Seven of the 10 largest poultry farms - producing meat or eggs or both - in the UK have the capacity to house more than one million birds. The biggest two farms are able to hold 1.7 million and 1.4 million birds respectively. The biggest pig farm is able to hold 23,000 pigs, while the largest cattle farm - in Lincolnshire - can house approximately 3,000 cattle.*

Most intensive farms in the UK are poultry farms, our analysis has shown. They make up 86% of the total numbers of permit-holding farms.

Between 2011 and 2017 there was a 27% increase in permit-holding poultry farms across the UK.

Overall, the number of large intensive farms - pig and poultry - with an Environment Agency permit in the UK is currently 1,674 - an increase of 26% since 2011 when there were 1,332 facilities requiring a permit. The figures are as of July 2017 for Scotland, March 2017 for England, and Northern Ireland and January 2016 for Wales.

Some areas of the UK saw particularly sharp rises: in Northern Ireland the number of pig and poultry factory farms has increased by 68% from 154 in 2011 to 259 in 2017.

*Supermarket links*
The Bureau's investigation also established that many UK supermarkets and fast food chains buy from companies operating such US-style mega-farms, including Tesco, Sainsbury's, Co-op, M&S, Morrisons, Asda, McDonalds and Nando's.


Poultry supplier Hook 2 Sisters is a joint venture between PD Hook and 2 Sisters Food Group. It operates farms that supply birds to 2 Sisters Food Group whose customers include Tesco, Morrison's, Sainsbury's, M&S, and Asda. Data shows that Hook 2 Sisters operates 37 Cafo-sized facilities across the UK. 
Faccenda Foods, which supplies poultry to Asda and Nando's, among others, operates 26 Cafos in the UK. Moy Park, which supplies Asda, McDonalds and Burger King, has 19 Cafos across the country. 
JSR Farms, which rears pigs, says it is in partnership with Sainsbury's and Morrisons, and operates 4 Cafos, according to our analysis. J C Lister, another major pig producer, operates 2 Cafos and reportedly has supplied Tesco, Co-op and Aldi.
A large Cafo-sized farm called Pawton Dairy supplies milk to Arla. Arla butter and cheese are sold in Co-Op.

I also disagree that death is quick and humane in the majority of cases, I think that is what people want to believe.

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c.../animal-cruelty-figures-show-need-for-cameras

Cameras will be installed in every abattoir in England as part of government plans to reduce cruelty.

The announcement was made as new figures obtained by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism show an increase in the number of incidents where animals are subjected to needless pain or distress as part of the slaughter process.

CCTV will be introduced in all areas where live animals are present, with government vets being given unrestricted access to the footage. Abattoirs found to be failing welfare standards could face a criminal investigation, staff licenses suspended or revoked or enforcement letters.

*The announcement comes as the Bureau's new figures show how more than 1,600 serious breaches of animal welfare standards were recorded in England and Wales between July 2016 and early February 2017 - that is seven a day - including livestock being ineffectively stunned, crushed, trapped and injured, and large batches of animals dying during transport.*

In one case more than a quarter of a shipment of poultry died from heat stress before even reaching the slaughterhouse.

These were the most serious breaches - meaning animals were subjected to "avoidable pain, distress or suffering" in abattoirs or during transport to slaughterhouses.

I do agree with your last point though  The drive for cheap meat no matter what is involved in producing it is shameful.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Think Im going to stick with the 'opt out' option...even if shearing is good for sheep! Unless that animal was kept lovely conditions and then died of natural causes its still a living thing that potentially suffered and lost its life for a burger or jumper I dont need.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> If those lists come from a reputable source, yes please. Is it the video where they quote the Centre for Consumer Freedom? The CCF is another front for corporate interests which also run the 'PetaKills'' website.


How about PETA's own declarations necessary by law? No doubt they are dubious sources. I notice all you can do is try to complain about the source of information, not the content. Lots of other animal welfare groups with far better grounding and beliefs even if they do not get the publicity. Others actually also value people.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> How about PETA's own declarations necessary by law? No doubt they are dubious sources. I notice all you can do is try to complain about the source of information, not the content. Lots of other animal welfare groups with far better grounding and beliefs even if they do not get the publicity. Others actually also value people.


Years ago I wrote to them about the accusations - this was their reply (below). I'm afraid I don't trust dubious sources full stop. I know how astroturfing works, its why millions of people are climate 'sceptics' & deniers. Astroturfing entities are a serious threat to us all - to the planet. And the fact that corporate interests who abuse & exploit animals for profit & care nothing about animal welfare go to so much trouble to discredit & silence organisations like PETA & the Humane Society proves to me they must be doing something right.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I'm sure they do have a view of what happens on their farms but neither as far as I'm aware practice intensive farming.


I did for 20 years and I can say it very much depends on the stockmen, I'm pleased to say that the vast majority care about their stock. Why on earth would anyone work in agriculture looking after stock if they didn't like the animals? There's no money in farm labouring, very long hours and lots and lots of shit............particularly the shit spouted by animal rights


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I can put a whole host of videos of people abusing pets. Does that mean that you are all cruel evil b**st**ds?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Years ago I wrote to them about the accusations - this was their reply (below). I'm afraid I don't trust dubious sources full stop


So you simply trust PETA and are happy using them as a source as they told you animals were "finding happy homes"... as penn and teller stated B**ls**t. Would it shock you that I went digging, not trusting a single source. I found official forms filled in showing the kill rate at their shelters from the official government web sources, nothing to do with so called lobby groups. No shock that the shelters were listed as PETA (not simply peta transporting animals) with kill rates far in excess of other shelters in the same area. Seem to remember 80%+ Don't have the link currently though.

Edit: PETA's letter matches their argument for BSL though. Killing animals somehow saves them.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

rona said:


> I did for 20 years and I can say it very much depends on the stockmen, I'm pleased to say that the vast majority care about their stock. Why on earth would anyone work in agriculture looking after stock if they didn't like the animals? There's no money in farm labouring, very long hours and lots and lots of shit............particularly the shit spouted by animal rights


Oh come on Rona, you told us yourself about some cruel practices you witnessed when you worked on the pig farm and how one of the men was your boss so you didn't report him. I do have a memory. I'm sure in la la land every single worker loves animals, treats them with kindness and compassion and cradles them in their arms while they slit their throats with the other hand. Pull the other one. Nursing involves long hours, low pay and lots and lots of shit too but we wouldn't tolerate nurses treating our elderly people in the same way as intensively reared animals are treated or slaughtered . So the 1,600 serious breaches of animal welfare standards in one 6 month period are all OK with you are they? or perhaps you think its just animal rights shit :Hilarious:Hilarious



rona said:


> I can put a whole host of videos of people abusing pets. Does that mean that you are all cruel evil b**st**ds?


No but it does mean those people are just as those involved in intensive farming and the vile practices they use are cruel evil b**tards. You worked with pigs so lets just have a look at them

Warning link contains videos that I'm sure most people don't want to watch including me

http://animalaid.wpengine.com/the-i...nvestigations/undercover-investigations-pigs/

*York Wold Pig Pro Ltd (2016)*
We investigated several farms run by York Wold Pig Pro, a company planning a new factory farm in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

*Bedfordia Farms pig units (2013)*
We filmed inside three pig units - Arnoe Farm, Highfields Farm and Twinwood Pig Unit - belonging to Bedfordia Farms Ltd, which is endorsed by the Red Tractor scheme. Films taken inside each unit can be seen on this page.

*Edneys Farm (2013)*
Animal Aid investigators have gone back to a pig farm they first visited five years ago to see whether conditions have improved.

*A visit to two Midlands Pig Producers farms (2010)*
In response to Midlands Pig Producers (MPP) planning application for a huge pig farm in Foston, Derbyshire, Animal Aid visited two MPP farms in July 2010.

*BPEX pig farm investigation (2009)*
Animal Aid visited seven farms owned or run by five directors of the industry levy board, the British Pig Executive (BPEX). All were appointed to BPEX by Defra. The seven farms were secretly filmed between April 2008 and January 2009. More footage from each film can be seen for Greenway Farm, Evergreen Farm, Manor Farm, Melrose Farm and Norway Farm, Grayingham Grange Farm and Sandhouse Farm.

More than 10 million pigs are killed in British slaughterhouses every year.

At the slaughterhouse, pigs are first given a powerful electric shock to their heads - an attempt to render them 'insensible to pain' - before their throats are stabbed with a knife (known as 'sticking'). Electric stunning is reversible so it is vitally important that the stun is delivered for the correct duration, in the correct place and using the correct current; and that the animal's throat is cut as soon after stunning as is possible (recommended time between stunning and sticking is no longer than 15 seconds). Secret filming by Animal Aid inside 11 randomly chosen British slaughterhouses revealed breaches of this law in almost every slaughterhouse that used electric stunning. If electric tongs are applied incorrectlly they can cause agonising pain and still leave the animal fully aware. Animals who are left too long after stunning can regain consciousness before being killed. Even when stunning is done 'correctly', some observers believe that animals are simply 'frozen', rather than rendered insensible to pain.

And from Compassion in World Farming (I know you have said before you respect them)

https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/pigs/pig-welfare/

Fattening pigs are bred for meat and often kept in barren, crowded conditions. This can be on slatted concrete floors without straw for bedding or rooting. These pigs have no access to outdoors and will never experience fresh air or daylight. They are unable to behave naturally and become bored and frustrated. They tend to fight and to bite each other, sometimes causing severe injury, particularly to their tails.

In addition to tooth cutting, most piglets have their tails docked to discourage tail biting. Both of these procedures are painful and performed without pain relief. Stress, illness and conflict often result when piglets are abruptly weaned and mixed with unfamiliar young pigs.

Most male piglets in Europe (but not in the UK and Ireland) are castrated. Public pressure has led to a voluntary declaration aimed at ending the surgical castration of pigs in Europe by 2018. As a first step, signatories will ensure that prolonged pain relief is used for surgical castration of pigs from 2012.

So forgive me if I don't believe everything in farming is rosy for the animals


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

rona said:


> I did for 20 years and I can say it very much depends on the stockmen, I'm pleased to say that the vast majority care about their stock. Why on earth would anyone work in agriculture looking after stock if they didn't like the animals? There's no money in farm labouring, very long hours and lots and lots of shit............particularly the shit spouted by animal rights


@rona, out of interest, how many animals/livestock were on the farm you worked on?

I ask because I've noticed a pattern in your replies whenever a thread such as this comes up, and from them, I get the distinct impression that it was a fairly small farm? However, @rottiepointerhouse is clearly talking about intensive farming - not the same thing at all.

Why would anyone work in agriculture if they didn't like (or care for) animals? Well, for the same reasons as puppy farmers and BYB breed dogs - money, or, in the case of abattoir staff, "it's a job, innit?"


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Surely its simple really? Do you need that lamb chop to live? no...Do you need that leather coat to stay warm? no... in which case you just killed an animal for no reason at all. Def not the work of an animal lover that's for sure!

As for shearing, great if its for the animals welfare but maybe we should stop breeding animals to use for our benefit?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> So you simply trust PETA and are happy using them as a source as they told you animals were "finding happy homes"... as penn and teller stated B**ls**t. Would it shock you that I went digging, not trusting a single source. I found official forms filled in showing the kill rate at their shelters from the official government web sources, nothing to do with so called lobby groups. No shock that the shelters were listed as PETA (not simply peta transporting animals) with kill rates far in excess of other shelters in the same area. Seem to remember 80%+ Don't have the link currently though.
> 
> Edit: PETA's letter matches their argument for BSL though. Killing animals somehow saves them.


No of course not, but the fact is people who _are _actual animal abusers have launched a smear campaign against them. (just like the hunting lobby have done with the RSPCA & the RSPB here)And that in itself speaks volumes to me. With this brexit lark I'm also more aware than ever that animal welfare in the USA is way below ours so PETAs letter does sound credible to me. I'm not disputing your figures but figures alone don't tell the whole picture. More importantly to me is do we have evidence from a reliable source which says _why _these animals were pts? If not then the reasons they state in the letter could be true.

Astroturfers work by skewing evidence to undermine the truth. Penn & Teller are mouth pieces for Cato - Cato was set up solely to spread lies & misinformation, they care nothing about animals, so naturally I don't trust them. They have committed crimes against humanity by deliberately muddying the waters on climate change. The people behind Cato, involved with Cato, are pure evil.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

catz4m8z said:


> As for shearing, great if its for the animals welfare but maybe we should stop breeding animals to use for our benefit?


Sounds so simple. Why bother having search dogs for earthquakes or other rescue situations? Companion animals are just an arrogant luxury - but what about assistance animals? In all such situations we are exploiting animals for our benefit.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

LinznMilly said:


> how many animals/livestock were on the farm you worked on?


200 sows with followers and breeding stock for sale. About 2000 pigs altogether at one time and 700 acres of crops.

Small compared to some but not a hobby farm. We used to sell breeding stock all over the country and export a few too. It was a member of a company formed to promote well bred pigs. It was called Premier Pigs. One of the biggest pig companies at that time


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

havoc said:


> Sounds so simple. Why bother having search dogs for earthquakes or other rescue situations? Companion animals are just an arrogant luxury - but what about assistance animals? In all such situations we are exploiting animals for our benefit.


TBH Im not a fan of training animals and putting them in dangerous situations like earthquakes, riots or war zones either! Id rather we used equipment not living creatures.
Assistance animals are abit different coz they arent in a potentially hazardous environment, they are with an owner who loves them, for their natural life....also we generally dont kill them with a bolt gun to their heads, wear their skin as a hat and make labrador sausages out of the rest of them!LOL


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

catz4m8z said:


> Assistance animals are abit different coz they arent in a potentially hazardous environment, they are with an owner who loves them, for their natural life....also we generally dont kill them with a bolt gun to their heads, wear their skin as a hat and make labrador sausages out of the rest of them


So is the argument for animal rights only about how they meet their end and what we do with them once they're dead. The most loved pet or assistance dog is still living a life which would be defined as modern slavery if we want them to have rights akin to humans. It's still only being used for the benefit of a human owner.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

havoc said:


> Sounds so simple. Why bother having search dogs for earthquakes or other rescue situations? Companion animals are just an arrogant luxury - but what about assistance animals? In all such situations we are exploiting animals for our benefit.


My thoughts exactly. All breeds who were bred with work in mind including guide dogs, assistance dogs, SAR and police dogs, companion dogs can go, cats are a luxury that require a meat diet so let's get rid of them, horses can go as they have no use other than for exploitation by humans, all livestock will obviously need to disappear as we have no need for it if we are all going to become vegan, our countryside predators should be extinguished as another living being has to die for them to live ....

I wouldn't like to live in the world you are envisaging Catz.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> So is the argument for animal rights only about how they meet their end and what we do with them once they're dead. The most loved pet or assistance dog is still living a life which would be defined as modern slavery if we want them to have rights akin to humans. It's still only being used for the benefit of a human owner.


I do wish people would stop asking about "animal rights" as if there is a rule book that some higher being has drawn up and which anyone who thinks animals do have rights will completely agree with. Every single person who thinks animals have rights will have different views just like most people have differing views on human rights - I used the murderer/terrorist as an example earlier.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

catz4m8z said:


> TBH Im not a fan of training animals and putting them in dangerous situations like earthquakes, riots or war zones either! Id rather we used equipment not living creatures.
> Assistance animals are abit different coz they arent in a potentially hazardous environment, they are with an owner who loves them, for their natural life....also we generally dont kill them with a bolt gun to their heads, wear their skin as a hat and make labrador sausages out of the rest of them!LOL


A bolt gun looks gruesome but death is instantaneous when done correctly. Of course, most of us would not wish our beloved pets to be given death this way BUT is that down to human sensitivities rather than for the good of the animal? If death is instantaneous then for the dog, sheep, cow, horse etc the end is the same.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

Those of you who are against farming should watch This Farming Life series. It shows life as it really is on most farms in Scotland. I am not a fan of intensive practices either, and so everyone should be supporting their local farms to ensure their survival.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b094mqlx


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Moobli said:


> A bolt gun looks gruesome but death is instantaneous when done correctly. Of course, most of us would not wish our beloved pets to be given death this way BUT is that down to human sensitivities rather than for the good of the animal? If death is instantaneous then for the dog, sheep, cow, horse etc the end is the same.


"When done correctly" Unfortunately with the massive numbers being processed in the larger slaughterhouses I doubt it is done correctly. I don't know the figures for this country but in the US some slaughterhouses "process" one thousand pigs per hour. The Journal of Animal Science reports 38% of all cows (again this is for the US) arrive at the slaugherhouse showing signs of lameness and crippling. None of the cows wants to leave the truck so they are struck with electric prods or dragged off with chains and forklifts. A former inspector reported cows having prods poked in their faces and up their rectums. They are then pushed through a channel and shot in the head with a bolt gun to stun them, the line moves so quickly and the workers are poorly trained so many cows are still fully conscious when their throats are cut". A reporter from the Washington Post described "within 12 seconds of entering the chamber the fallen cow is shackled to a moving chain to be bled and butchered on a fast moving production line. One worker (with 20 years experience) described how he frequently had to cut fully conscious cows and explained that slowing down the line to ensure animals are properly stunned/killed is unheard of.

And this article posted by @DT

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/28/blood-sweat-deceit-west-midlands-poultry-plant

How can 6,000 chickens a day be processed humanely?



Moobli said:


> Those of you who are against farming should watch This Farming Life series. It shows life as it really is on most farms in Scotland. I am not a fan of intensive practices either, and so everyone should be supporting their local farms to ensure their survival.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b094mqlx


I don't think most of us are saying we are against ALL farming just some of the practices and most definitely all forms of intensive farming and the resulting slaughter.


----------



## Moobli (Feb 20, 2012)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't think most of us are saying we are against ALL farming just some of the practices and most definitely all forms of intensive farming and the resulting slaughter.


Well I am in agreement with you against intensive farming and inhumane slaughter.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> No of course not, but the fact is people who _are _actual animal abusers have launched a smear campaign against them.


Smears just like PETA constantly uses perhaps. They aren't bothered with the truth, all they care about is headlines. Do you need the quotes from PETA leadership for that? Smears, witchhunts, lies and misinformation. Interesting that blatant lies and misinformation come from PETA own "donor development liaison". What position is that again.. "donor development".. says so much in itself. Don't get on your high horse about sources without showing what is said is false. you haven't. You have shown me PETA blatantly lies and misinforms, playing the sympathy card to get around facts.

At it's core PETA is sick with no respect for people. I'm all for animal rights, there are far better organisations to support.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Smears just like PETA constantly uses perhaps. They aren't bothered with the truth, all they care about is headlines. Do you need the quotes from PETA leadership for that? Smears, witchhunts, lies and misinformation. Interesting that blatant lies and misinformation come from PETA own "donor development liaison". What position is that again.. "donor development".. says so much in itself. Don't get on your high horse about sources without showing what is said is false. you haven't. You have shown me PETA blatantly lies and misinforms, playing the sympathy card to get around facts.
> 
> At it's core PETA is sick with no respect for people. I'm all for animal rights, there are far better organisations to support.


I accept peta often use sensationalism to get results, but there is no doubt they are responsible for improving the lives of countless animals, the work done by PETA India alone has been outstanding. And I haven't got my high horse, but the burden of proof _on you_ to provide evidence from a credible source to support your claims. You haven't proved the letter is lying yet. Fronts for giant corporate entities are not credible sources.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> You haven't proved the letter is lying yet. Fronts for giant corporate entities are not credible sources.


Neither is PETA, it's own "corporate source".


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Neither is PETA.


You must be aware of the many campaigns fronted by PETA. By raising awareness they have furthered animal welfare. They have millions of animal loving supporters out there. CCF is a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers they target PETA because PETA threatens their profits. So of course PETA gets results.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> You must be aware of the many campaigns fronted by PETA. By raising awareness they have furthered animal welfare. They have millions of animal loving supporters out there. CCF is a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers they target PETA because PETA threatens their profits. So of course PETA gets results.


So as Hitler (extreme but then PETA uses it frequently for "shock value") did some good things we should idolise him? Why support PETA when there are morally better animal welfare groups?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> So as Hitler (extreme but then PETA uses it frequently for "shock value") did some good things we should idolise him? Why support PETA when there are morally better animal welfare groups?


Hitler? oh dear.

ETA, just to be clear Goblin, I don't donate to PETA (though my hubby makes regular donations, but hes his own man lol), I will sign PETA petitions, because many of the causes they champion are really valid causes. Like fur farming for example. I have my own animal charities & I personally haven't made a donation to PETA for many years.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Hitler? oh dear.


Shows your double standards doesn't if you are saying that and push supporting PETA.

You realise your argument has been so far: Ignore sources "smearing" PETA.. don't mind PETA smearing others though as "they do good things for animal welfare".


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Shows your double standards doesn't if you are saying that and push supporting PETA.


I haven't pushed PETA.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

@Goblin in case you missed my ETA



noushka05 said:


> Hitler? oh dear.
> 
> ETA, just to be clear Goblin, I don't donate to PETA (though my hubby makes regular donations, but hes his own man lol), I will sign PETA petitions, because many of the causes they champion are really valid causes. Like fur farming for example. I have my own animal charities & I personally haven't made a donation to PETA for many years.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Shows your double standards doesn't if you are saying that and push supporting PETA.
> 
> You realise your argument has been so far: Ignore sources "smearing" PETA.. don't mind PETA smearing others though as "they do good things for animal welfare".


No that's not true at all. I asked for valid sources because all you provided were astroturfing entities.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

I just think PETA's 'president' sounds a bit bonkers.

https://www.peta.org/features/ingrid-newkirks-unique-will/


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> ETA, just to be clear Goblin, I don't donate to PETA (though my hubby makes regular donations, but hes his own man lol), I will sign PETA petitions, because many of the causes they champion are really valid causes. Like fur farming for example. I have my own animal charities & I personally haven't made a donation to PETA for many years.


Yet by the very fact you sign petitions you are being used as marketing by PETA sustaining them. Catch 22 I know which is why I will not support PETA in any way shape or form. To support "part" of it is to endorse all of it.

Oh: unable to get originals from the Viriginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services but: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/PETA2014.pdf


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I do wish people would stop asking about "animal rights" as if there is a rule book that some higher being has drawn up and which anyone who thinks animals do have rights will completely agree with. Every single person who thinks animals have rights will have different views just like most people have differing views on human rights - I used the murderer/terrorist as an example earlier


That's exactly my point - how do we legislate without agreement? We have laws on welfare because we can agree on certain minimum standards - not good enough in many cases I know. They can be measured and people can be held accountable. Enshrining something as a right makes it far more difficult, a much bigger court case, less likely to be followed through.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> That's exactly my point - how do we legislate without agreement?


In the same way we legislate on everything else, why is the issue of whether animals have rights any different? We have legislation on human rights and on the rights of unborn children - at some point a committee of experts has to draw up proposals and present them to the government and they vote on whether to pass it or amend it so I would imagine it would be a similar thing. I just don't understand why people find having rights for animals any different.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Goblin said:


> Yet by the very fact you sign petitions you are being used as marketing by PETA sustaining them. Catch 22 I know which is why I will not support PETA in any way shape or form. To support "part" of it is to endorse all of it.
> 
> Oh: unable to get originals from the Viriginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services but: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/PETA2014.pdf


I'll sign anyones petition if its a cause close to my heart. Thank you for the info, though it still doesn't explain why the animals were pts so the reasons provided in the letter could of course be valid. The biggest animal abusers on the planet hate PETA because they are excellent at raising awareness which knocks corporate profits, the fact they have even gone to the trouble of setting up fake organisations to attack them proves PETA is doing something right. You disagree. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

noushka05 said:


> Hitler? oh dear.
> 
> ETA, just to be clear Goblin, I don't donate to PETA (though my hubby makes regular donations, but hes his own man lol), I will sign PETA petitions, because many of the causes they champion are really valid causes. Like fur farming for example. I have my own animal charities & I personally haven't made a donation to PETA for many years.


Same here Noush, I have donated to them in the past if a particular campaign has caught my eye (I think it was fur) but I don't donate/support them as such and don't really follow much of what they are doing as there is so much else I prefer to be involved with. I will sign their petitions in just the same way as I would sign any others I agree with and delete the ones I don't.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> We have legislation on human rights and on the rights of unborn children


It's a good comparison. A foetus cannot bring a case nor can a case be brought on behalf of an unborn child. (eta talking UK, can't comment on other countries) Now if a dog's rights were breached I can see that maybe a human could bring a case on its behalf - I just don't think it would be as effective as prosecuting under existing welfare legislation.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Same here Noush, I have donated to them in the past if a particular campaign has caught my eye (I think it was fur) but I don't donate/support them as such and don't really follow much of what they are doing as there is so much else I prefer to be involved with. I will sign their petitions in just the same way as I would sign any others I agree with and delete the ones I don't.


This is exactly like me x. And I know signing petitions doesn't often make a difference, but I'm not going to not do it if there's even a tiny chance it might help.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> TBH Im not a fan of training animals and putting them in dangerous situations like earthquakes, riots or war zones either! Id rather we used equipment not living creatures.
> Assistance animals are abit different coz they arent in a potentially hazardous environment, they are with an owner who loves them, for their natural life....also we generally dont kill them with a bolt gun to their heads, wear their skin as a hat and make labrador sausages out of the rest of them!LOL


My, this thread has progressed whilst my back was turned! From wearing wool to why we don't eat labradors!

We all use/abuse animals in one way or another, but we like to justify our own choices to ourselves.
Assistant dogs are expected to put their own lives at risk to help their owners cross the road / use household equipment on a daily basis.

They don't always stay in a loving home for the rest of their natural lives, and when retired at 10 or 11 often have age related health problems for the new owner to consider before adoption:

http://www.guidedogs.org.uk/supportus/rehoming-a-guide-dog#.Wc4lRZ_TXqA

Farm animals are killed with a bolt gun to their heads, because holding them still whilst finding a vein to inject in the lethal drug would stress them more ( leaving aside the fact you can't then use their meat if injected). Our very elderly ewe Snowy will need pts before the cold damp nights make her arthritis too painful. As she's a bit wobbly ( she is 12 bless her) for going on a trailer she will be killed at home - by captive bolt. An act of mercy. Never wondered why horse vets use a captive bolt on beloved horses when pts is the only option?

We don't use assistance dogs' skins as hats, or turn them into sausages because of the human emotion associated with living close to them and sharing lives for so long. But once dead, would it matter to the dog if it was used for hats and meat, buried as worm food, incinerated and scattered or kept in an urn, or stuffed by a taxidermist? Many people say once you are dead you are dead, and donate their organs, or have the simplest green burial. I beleive our dogs, having been there for us throughout their lives, would trust us with their dead bodies to do what makes us happiest. We don't wear them or eat them because of our feelings, not theirs.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> Well of course, but as has already been pointed out, that's not the majority. Yes you do get *holes in all walks of life, and they need to be prosecuted (I'd quite like tit for tat, but apparently that's bad thinking). Labelling all farmers as abusers is extremely unhelpful and libellous


Quite so. Nobody would say all doctors kill their patients ( how many before he was finally caught?) , or all care home workers torment the elderly.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Catharinem said:


> Quite so. Nobody would say all doctors kill their patients ( how many before he was finally caught?) , or all care home workers torment the elderly


It does happen though in spite of the victims having human rights - they don't create any magical protection.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't think most of us are saying we are against ALL farming just some of the practices and most definitely all forms of intensive farming and the resulting slaughter.


And here we can agree. Small farms, small abbatoirs, killing small batches. But that costs more, so people need to be educated about the true value of their food, and to demand higher standards.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

havoc said:


> It does happen though in spite of the victims having human rights - they don't create any magical protection.


I know it ( doctors killing patients and careworkers tormenting elderly) happens, hence my example. My point was, some farmers being cruel does not make us all so. Imagine if the videod evidence taken in some care homes, and even hospitals, meant that the caring professions were labelled as abusers.

Rights versus welfare. Let's use @rottiepointerhouse as an example. Over again she has championed animals, talks a lot of sense on dog chat as well as general, has turned vegan and produces clear arguments for what she beleives in. So, just to be clear, this is absolutely not an attack, just an example using her dogs. Her dogs' welfare means she should provide food, shelter, excercise, vet treatment, pain releif etc. 
However, I remember a post where she sadly admitted she could no longer trust a recall with, I think, Colt , and he would not be let off the lead when walking. His WELFARE ( and that of livestock) means he can't be allowed to bugger off and come back when he's good and ready. His RIGHT is to bugger off and do what dogs do.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I'll sign anyones petition if its a cause close to my heart. Thank you for the info, though it still doesn't explain why the animals were pts so the reasons provided in the letter could of course be valid. The biggest animal abusers on the planet hate PETA because they are excellent at raising awareness which knocks corporate profits, the fact they have even gone to the trouble of setting up fake organisations to attack them proves PETA is doing something right. You disagree. So we'll just have to agree to disagree.


The problem with PETA is that the zealotry, profiteering and quite frankly gangland tactics are overwhelming any positive side to their operations. Their founder, quite frankly, appears unhinged to a level comparable with Trump. Their MO in recent has veered sharply from shocking but relatively sane into outright sensationalism with an almost slanderous and definitely ridiculous dimension (anyone remember their last anti-wool campaign - "Here's the rest of your wool coat" with some celebrity muppet holding a plastic 'skinned' sheep? The amount of ridicule that provoked from people pointing out that's not how you shear a sheep was astounding!). They have also developed a range of bullying and intimidation tactics against private individuals that cricitise them that are edging into Scientology territory, both legally and online.

Now, I know some will argue that they have to do that to get attention. Problem is, if you get peoples attention with sensationalism that is so easy to discredit with a few moments rational thought, you lose the debate before it is even had, and also any credence you had in the eyes of those saw through it. And you don't have to go anywhere near Penn and Teller or the other organisations you hate to see some of the areas where they are clearly off the rails. For example, the high kill rate at their supposed 'shelter' (which at last check didn't even have any shelter facilities) - from research I did previously, they claim it is because they mainly take animals that are too ill to save, but that is not held up by the statistics or by the testimony of former employees who became disillusioned with the constant killing of healthy animals without any attempt at rehoming. None of their counter arguments and statements made logical sense or held up to scrutiny, and challenges tended to result in ad hominem responses, not rational debate. Therefore, please excuse me if I take any official statements or responses to enquiries by PETA with a rather large shovel full of sodium chloride...

So unfortunately for them, for me PETA have long ago reached the point where I mainly regard them as the animal equivalent of an unholy hybrid of Nigel Farage's version of UKIP, and the National Front. As such, I will not support them even in matters I may agree with, and that extends to even low-end involvement like petition signing. Quite frankly, I value my integrity too highly, and whilst I know no organisation is perfect, there are plenty who are far more worthy of my consideration that PETA.

Incidentally, when I read their stuff on how pets are basically slaves for the pleasure of humans, I did feel guilty and go home and immediately throw my cats out to fend for themselves as nature intended. Unfortunately, my attempt to give them the wild life they were born to have ended rather abruptly when they insisted on coming back home for supper, cuddles, and a nice cozy spot by the radiator...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> The problem with PETA is that the zealotry, profiteering and quite frankly gangland tactics are overwhelming any positive side to their operations. Their founder, quite frankly, appears unhinged to a level comparable with Trump. Their MO in recent has veered sharply from shocking but relatively sane into outright sensationalism with an almost slanderous and definitely ridiculous dimension (anyone remember their last anti-wool campaign - "Here's the rest of your wool coat" with some celebrity muppet holding a plastic 'skinned' sheep? The amount of ridicule that provoked from people pointing out that's not how you shear a sheep was astounding!). They have also developed a range of bullying and intimidation tactics against private individuals that cricitise them that are edging into Scientology territory, both legally and online.
> 
> Now, I know some will argue that they have to do that to get attention. Problem is, if you get peoples attention with sensationalism that is so easy to discredit with a few moments rational thought, you lose the debate before it is even had, and also any credence you had in the eyes of those saw through it. And you don't have to go anywhere near Penn and Teller or the other organisations you hate to see some of the areas where they are clearly off the rails. For example, the high kill rate at their supposed 'shelter' (which at last check didn't even have any shelter facilities) - from research I did previously, they claim it is because they mainly take animals that are too ill to save, but that is not held up by the statistics or by the testimony of former employees who became disillusioned with the constant killing of healthy animals without any attempt at rehoming. None of their counter arguments and statements made logical sense or held up to scrutiny, and challenges tended to result in ad hominem responses, not rational debate. Therefore, please excuse me if I take any official statements or responses to enquiries by PETA with a rather large shovel full of sodium chloride...
> 
> ...


Can you provide me with some credible references please Jester, so I can take a look for myself. I don't mean about their sensationalist tactics, I acknowledge they are guilty of that lol. And employers could well be bought off, plants or disgruntled employees, so I'm not really interested in hearsay. I'd just like to see some solid evidence refuting what they say in their letter. I know some of their campaigns are mad, as I say I cut off my membership years ago & switched to donating to other animal charities.

But the corporate fronts attacking PETA are some of the most dangerous on the planet & that is not an exaggeration Jester. We are now in the midst of climate breakdown thanks to the psychopaths who fund them. CCF exists solely to discredit PETA & other profit damaging entities. Millions of $$$ are pumped into it to spread propaganda against PETA etc. So clearly PETA must be having a positive impact for animals if animal abusing industries are going to all this trouble to silence them. Theres lots I don't agree with PETA on, but they're not the bad guys imo.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Catharinem said:


> My, this thread has progressed whilst my back was turned! From wearing wool to why we don't eat
> 
> No labradors!
> 
> ...


I've never had a vet even suggest using a captive bolt to euthanase any of my horses - lethal injection every time.



Catharinem said:


> And here we can agree. Small farms, small abbatoirs, killing small batches. But that costs more, so people need to be educated about the true value of their food, and to demand higher standards.


Yes I agree education is needed about how animals are reared and killed but at some point government has to act and legislate rather than leave it up to individuals.



Catharinem said:


> Rights versus welfare. Let's use @rottiepointerhouse as an example. Over again she has championed animals, talks a lot of sense on dog chat as well as general, has turned vegan and produces clear arguments for what she beleives in. So, just to be clear, this is absolutely not an attack, just an example using her dogs. Her dogs' welfare means she should provide food, shelter, excercise, vet treatment, pain releif etc.
> However, I remember a post where she sadly admitted she could no longer trust a recall with, I think, Colt , and he would not be let off the lead when walking. His WELFARE ( and that of livestock) means he can't be allowed to bugger off and come back when he's good and ready. His RIGHT is to bugger off and do what dogs do.


No its Arthur - Colt has a good recall  However I'm not sure I agree its his right to bugger off and do what dogs do because that means his rights would supersede those of other animals as well as the safety of road users and probably his own safety too. Again it comes down to different peoples interpretation of what rights animals should have, I don't think most of us are talking about the right to do exactly what they want to when they want to no matter the consequences as humans don't have the right to do that either


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Jester


Are you havin' a laff? 



noushka05 said:


> Can you provide me with some credible references please Jester, so I can take a look for myself. I don't mean about their sensationalist tactics, I acknowledge they are guilty of that lol. And employers could well be bought off, plants or disgruntled employees, so I'm not really interested in hearsay. I'd just like to see some solid evidence refuting what they say in their letter. I know some of their campaigns are mad, as I say I cut off my membership years ago & switched to donating to other animal charities.


I don't know exactly what you wrote in your original letter, but I do note that in their reply there are no actual specific answers to any specific concerns you may have raised, only a very broad and generic "nasty people are saying bad things about us but you shouldn't believe them, here's some examples of stuff we do, which may or may not be directly related to your original query" statements. It's not too much of a stretch to suspect a generic cut-and-paste of legally approved acceptable statements job, considering they didn't even manage to personalise the letter with your name. That said, I'm not sure exactly which statements you would be interested in refuting? I do note that they refer to 'false and misleading claims' being made against them, but they don't state what those claims are or correct them.

The raw kill rate statistics for their Norfolk shelter are publicly available via the website of the US equivalent of their local council if memory serves (it's been a year or two since I did my digging, sorry, and I don't have the link itself to hand right now) as it is a legal obligation for them to be submitted. There's a rather objective and to my mind fairly balanced analysis of the 2015 statistics here in lieu:

http://stories.barkpost.com/good/op-ed-peta-euthanization-statistics-2015/

No idea if you consider them a credible opinion site or not, sorry. I just like the logical analysis of both the shelter issues and the wider pros and cons of PETA policies.

I also found a piece by a former employee of the shelter who now regrets their time and actions there, Rescued By Black Boy, very compelling a few of years ago. PETA has (somewhat predictably, I suppose) branded her a disgruntled employee, but despite an energetic smear campaign against her the lady in question has managed to largely remain calm and dignified, plus produced hard evidence to refute many of the personal claims PETA has made against her, and even (somehow, she's obviously a better woman that I might be under such circumstances!) maintains her support for the positive aspects of PETAs work. You can find the original piece and the rest of her blog here:

https://mom2nomads.wordpress.com/20...ed-dog-set-me-back-on-my-path-away-from-peta/

it's obviously not going to be an unbiased source, but I read quite a lot of her blog, and in particular her responses to questions and criticisms in the comments sections (fully expecting her to be exposed as bitter or malevolent, to be honest), and obviously there will always be points on which people will disagree, but I still remain impressed with her general attitude and conduct.

PETA do have a section on this lady in on their Why Peta Euthanizes website, although it is more ad hominem that evidenciary, regrettably.



noushka05 said:


> But the corporate fronts attacking PETA are some of the most dangerous on the planet & that is not an exaggeration Jester. We are now in the midst of climate breakdown thanks to the psychopaths who fund them. CCF exists solely to discredit PETA & other profit damaging entities. Millions of $$$ are pumped into it to spread propaganda against PETA etc. So clearly PETA must be having a positive impact for animals if they're going to all this trouble to silence them. Theres lots I don't agree with PETA on, but they're not the bad guys imo.


To be frank, corporate spats (and PETA seems to conduct itself as a corporation these days in all but name, if you look at it objectively) are par for the course. PETA itself also runs websites, either directly or indirectly, dedicated to discrediting other organisations using similar tactics to the entities you list above, including some more or less dedicated to taking down a single person. Perhaps I am being too demanding in expecting people supporting ethics and preaching ethics to behave ethically themselves, but there are ways and means of dealing with and disproving criticism and opposition without stooping to the level of your opponents. As far as I am concerned, 99.999% of the time the end does NOT justify the means.

PETA is a big organisation with massive resources. If they sensibly channeled those resources into the projects and initiatives on the ground that actually directly impact animals, _sensible_ exposes and into specifically targeting areas that need fixing in various areas of animal welfare (such as the shearing sheds where abuse is actually happening), I think they would achieve a heck of a lot more and garner far more respect than their half-baked fruit-loop sensationalism will ever manage. As it is, I'd suggest the corporations who you point out invest so heavily in discrediting PETA actually secretly rather like PETA doing what PETA are currently doing, because if PETA hadn't become such an easy target to ridicule to the point where your average Joe considers them either a laughing stock or wingnut extremists before they even say anything, those corporations would have have to spend an awful lot MORE time and money on deflecting away from their bad practices. Having such a readily available (and seemingly willing!) patsy plays right into their hands, really...


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

MilleD said:


> I just think PETA's 'president' sounds a bit bonkers.
> 
> https://www.peta.org/features/ingrid-newkirks-unique-will/


hmmmm...:Shiftyits not that she's thought about doing this, its that she has thought about it in such detail that makes it really creepy.:Nailbiting
I think PETA can be its own worst enemy TBH. They do alot of good raising awareness and campaigning for animal rights but every so often they come out with something so crazy sounding that the average 'normal' punter just rights them off as total loons!



Catharinem said:


> My, this thread has progressed whilst my back was turned! From wearing wool to why we don't eat labradors!
> We all use/abuse animals in one way or another, but we like to justify our own choices to ourselves.
> Assistant dogs are expected to put their own lives at risk to help their owners cross the road / use household equipment on a daily basis.
> 
> We don't wear them or eat them because of our feelings, not theirs.


wow, I never considered that crossing the road with a dog was animal abuse! By that logic then 'forcing' a dog to wear a lead, neutering, walking them where _we_ want to go, feeding them what _we_ want to eat not what they want could all be abuse! Like my above point, you can go to quite silly extremes if you arent careful!:Wacky
And why should our feelings only extend towards a few animal species and not the rest? There are plenty of videos on Youtube of people cuddling their pet cows, chickens and pigs. Makes you realiese that all these animals we so blithely use, abuse and throw away are thinking, feeling creatures.
The real question is not 'do animals have rights?' but 'does our right for a cheese sandwich supersede their right to live a long happy life?'.

It just seems like a no brainer. Eating animals means you are killing living creatures, destroying your planet and ruining your health...on the other hand, mmmmm bacon.rool As a species we really are cruel and so so stupid.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Are you havin' a laff?
> 
> I don't know exactly what you wrote in your original letter, but I do note that in their reply there are no actual specific answers to any specific concerns you may have raised, only a very broad and generic "nasty people are saying bad things about us but you shouldn't believe them, here's some examples of stuff we do, which may or may not be directly related to your original query" statements. It's not too much of a stretch to suspect a generic cut-and-paste of legally approved acceptable statements job, considering they didn't even manage to personalise the letter with your name. That said, I'm not sure exactly which statements you would be interested in refuting? I do note that they refer to 'false and misleading claims' being made against them, but they don't state what those claims are or correct them.
> 
> ...


No I'm not Oh gosh I'm so sorry, I've just looked back & realised what you mean That was a genuine mistake, I am sorry. I'll be more careful from now on x

As I said previously, I'm not disputing the numbers but without knowing why these animals were pts the reasons stated in the letter could well be true.

The video on your link seems credible to me.






I am looking at it objectively & PETA is absolutely nothing like CATO & CCF. These are _astroturfing organisations_ set up with the sole intention of undermining those who damage corporate profits. They run campaigns that oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, environmentalists as well as animal welfare advocates like PETA. They should be locked up for the damage they have done to our climate by muddying the waters about climate change. We are now on the precipice of unstoppable, catastrophic climate breakdown.

This is the SourceWatch page on PETA. I didn't think to look on here before to see what SourceWatch had on them -
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals

It was the undercover PETA video which exposed the horrendous suffering of angora rabbits with their legs stretched and the fur ripped from their bodies. I'm proud I supported that campaign to raise awareness & pressure shops to boycott the farms. Because it worked, shops like M&S stopped selling the angora clothing. If it means my integrity is in tatters now, so be it lol

I'm also very grateful to PETA & Peter Dinklage for raising awareness about the plight of my breed too.


----------



## Catharinem (Dec 17, 2014)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I've never had a vet even suggest using a captive bolt to euthanase any of my horses - lethal injection every time.
> 
> Yes I agree education is needed about how animals are reared and killed but at some point government has to act and legislate rather than leave it up to individuals.
> 
> No its Arthur - Colt has a good recall  However I'm not sure I agree its his right to bugger off and do what dogs do because that means his rights would supersede those of other animals as well as the safety of road users and probably his own safety too. Again it comes down to different peoples interpretation of what rights animals should have, I don't think most of us are talking about the right to do exactly what they want to when they want to no matter the consequences as humans don't have the right to do that either


This is where rights and welfare get muddled. You can legislate for welfare ( sufficient food to keep a healthy weight for example, or prompt veterinary treatment) but a right can be argued til the cows come home.

Reminds me of my daughter, clearly well educated at school to recognise abusive behaviour and say no, saying " It's my body and I say no" to me holding her hand near a road or, cruel mum that I am, insisting she wears socks or a coat!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

https://www.wcl.org.uk/why-nature-conservationists-should-back-british-farming.asp


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> No I'm not Oh gosh I'm so sorry, I've just looked back & realised what you mean That was a genuine mistake, I am sorry. I'll be more careful from now on x
> 
> As I said previously, I'm not disputing the numbers but without knowing why these animals were pts the reasons stated in the letter could well be true.


Ah, I can answer that one. When I was doing my research, I found the paper forms PETA use do not have a place to record reason for euthanasia. They are extremely basic.

It's worth noting that the lady who wrote about Black Boy also said employees were encouraged to overstate how much drug was used in recorded euthanasias (it being a controlled drug and all that) in order to have a ready supply for off the books (and therefore unrecorded) kills.



noushka05 said:


> The video on your link seems credible to me.


Didn't watch the video as it's not relevant to the points being debated. It's the data and analysis that is of interest to me.



noushka05 said:


> I am looking at it objectively & PETA is absolutely nothing like CATO & CCF. These are _astroturfing organisations_ set up with the sole intention of undermining those who damage corporate profits. They run campaigns that oppose the efforts of scientists, doctors, environmentalists as well as animal welfare advocates like PETA. They should be locked up for the damage they have done to our climate by muddying the waters about climate change. We are now on the precipice of unstoppable, catastrophic climate breakdown.


I never said PETA were _like_ them, I said PETA were frequently guilty of employing the same kind of unethical _tactics_ in the way they operate. Big difference. I don't expect ethics from corporate lobbyists, but I like my ethical organisations - well - ethical, on all fronts.



noushka05 said:


> This is the SourceWatch page on PETA. I didn't think to look on here before to see what SourceWatch had on them -
> https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals


https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals
Sourcewatch are also known for being non-neutral, and the PETA page is very clearly written by PETA supporters and enthusiasts, given it's style, structure and self-referencial sources. I prefer hard data.



noushka05 said:


> It was the undercover PETA video which exposed the horrendous suffering of angora rabbits with their legs stretched and the fur ripped from their bodies. I'm proud I supported that campaign to raise awareness & pressure shops to boycott the farms. Because it worked, shops like M&S stopped selling the angora clothing. If it means my integrity is in tatters now, so be it lol


The thing is, if that were the kind of thing they focussed on and stuck to, we wouldn't be having this debate...


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> Ah, I can answer that one. When I was doing my research, I found the paper forms PETA use do not have a place to record reason for euthanasia. They are extremely basic.
> 
> It's worth noting that the lady who wrote about Black Boy also said employees were encouraged to overstate how much drug was used in recorded euthanasias (it being a controlled drug and all that) in order to have a ready supply for off the books (and therefore unrecorded) kills.
> 
> ...


SourceWatch is of course going to be seen as biased towards the left lol Social, green & animal welfare movements are on the left as is science these days, sadly - they are all 'the enemy of corporate power'. The right appear to be more ideologically (& profit) driven than science driven & that is why many more on the right are climate 'sceptics'. Science shouldn't be politicized but it has been, even on the most serious threat we face. 'Written by peta enthusiasts'? lol SourceWatch is a fully transparent organisation, it doesn't solely base its findings on PETA references, in their investigations, they access files & outside sources too. You say you prefer hard data yet figures alone don't prove anything without knowing why the animals were euthanize. The forms you say were basic & that doesn't prove anything either. Unsupported assertions. Its easy to skew information without the full picture. And that's exactly what those who are strongly biased against PETA do. Battersea put down 1,309 dogs last year & they are getting flack for that.

I have bred & showed dogs, I could be offended and outraged with PETAs position on breeding & showing. I could feel offended personally but I look at the bigger picture & that is _they have_ helped millions of animals with their undercover investigations & campaigns, . I wish some of their campaigns weren't so bonkers & I am disgusted by their position on BSL of pitbulls in the US, the main reason I will never donate to them again. But its undeniable PETA are good at getting results, so I'm not going to turn a blind eye if they are campaigning against something that touches my heart. This is the latest campaign I've spotted being shared by Ricky Gervais. I want to do my tiny bit to try to help these poor dogs, so I have signed their petition.

*PETA*‏Verified [email protected]*peta* Sep 26

@*rickygervais* Discarded greyhounds are being kept in this outdoor shed just so their blood can be sold. Help! http://peta.vg/dogblood

You imply that people are being unethical by signing PETA petitions & raising awareness of PETA campaigns - like the one which pressured retailers into boycotting the angora rabbit farms . How would boycotting the campaign have helped those suffering rabbits? What exactly does this achieve? This is exactly what animal abusing industries want & why they invest so much money trying to shut PETA down. The ethics of the WWF are far more questionable ime, yet still I will join in their campaigns on issues I feel strongly about. Even the RSPB isn't above criticism - but the good they do for wildlife conservation by far outweighs any negatives. Like the corporate lobby groups with PETA, the animal abusing hunting set have mounted a smear campaign to shut the RSPB down too. This in itself proves how effective the RSPB is as a force for good. The bad guys aren't the RSPB.

Who runs SourceWatch - https://www.prwatch.org/cmd/index.html

*What We Do*
*The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) is a nationally-recognized watchdog that leads in-depth, award-winning investigations into the corruption that undermines our democracy, environment, and economic prosperity.*
_
The Koch brothers and their network of billionaires are operating with a reach and resources that exceed those of political parties and they are using that power to erode the integrity of our elections and sap taxpayer dollars away from investments in public infrastructure, education, and healthcare to benefit narrow special interests and global corporations.

"Every day, companies and their front groups are spending millions of dollars to benefit narrow corporate interests in ways that hurt the lives and livelihoods of people in every state - and they are trying to do this from the shadows. Our investigative work is focused on giving regular people a clear view into the deep-pocketed billionaires, pay-to-play groups and corporations that that are damaging our democratic institutions." - Lisa Graves, Executive Director of CMD

CMD's investigations, public information requests, and lawsuits have ignited national conversations on money in politics and the distortion of U.S. law and democracy - at every level of government and in every region of the country. We believe in the public's right to know how government operates and how corporations influence our democracy - and the true motivations for their actions. When necessary, CMD litigates to defend that right and ensure those in power follow the _law.
_(_full article in link)
_
_
Do you dispute the SW findings that PETA were humanely euthanizing animals which would have been cruelly gassed? And if so could I see your references please.

I_n 2000, PETA was contacted by a police officer who was appalled by the terrible suffering of animals in local North Carolina shelters. Some "shelters" were nothing more than exposed, unheated or cooled shacks that left animals to either drown or freeze, depending on the weather. PETA became involved in assisting shelters with cleaning, adoptions, training, staff, providing supplies, conducting cruelty investigations and providing adequate shelter to animals. PETA has spent over $300,000 on services to NC shelters in the last few years. Many pounds in the area had no adoption programs or even operating hours. Unwanted animals were either shot, gassed in windowless metal boxes or injected with a paralytic agent that caused them to slowly die of suffocation. These practices were carried out for decades until PETA began providing humane euthanasia. Although veterinary services for lethal injection were secured for one of the four pounds they discovered, animals at the other shelters would have been gassed, shot or died of suffocation had they not been picked up by PETA staff for euthanasi_a.
_
Although some of the animals have been adopted out, most of the dogs and cats from NC shelters have suffered from various debilitating conditions. These include Parvo, heart worms, mange, Lyme disease, untreated injuries, embedded collars, broken and exposed bones and severe parasitic infestations. [32
_
*NC euthanisia statistics & gas chambers*
_Over 250,000 homeless animals are killed in NC shelters annually. *In NC, over 20 county shelters still use gas chambers and other inhumane methods.* Animals gasp for breath while they slowly suffocate. Witnesses have seen animals struggling and wailing for up to ten minutes before succumbing to carbon monoxide poisoning. In their panic, some bite themselves and each other and beat their heads against the walls while they choke and vomit. Groups of up to 25 animals are gassed together and some will not die the first time. Even low levels of carbon monoxide from malfunctioning gas chambers may cause health problems. A Tennessee shelter employee died from asphyxiation while unloading dogs from a gas chamber. At least 3 NC gas chambers have exploded and four government employees who operate gas chambers have died from heart and lung problems in recent years.[34]

(more information on link)
_

When I was a PETA member they would send a breakdown of their annual spending in their brochure. In a previous post you seemed to be implying that they were a profiteering racket. So are you disputing these figures?

*Financial statement & salaries*
_PETA reported $34,568,954 dollars in total revenue for the fiscal year ending in July 31, 2009. The breakdown for this amount was $32,242,134 in donations; 1,033,519 in gross merchandise sales and $1,293,301 in interest, dividends, royalties and other income. According to their financial statement, PETA is funded almost exclusively by member contributions. Funds are utilized in the most effective and efficient way possible. 80.87% of operating expenses went directly into programs addressing animal exploitation. Only 15.09% was spent on fund raising and 4.04% on administration. 32% of PETA's staff earn annual salaries of between $14,383 and $29,999; 44% earn $29,000 to $39,999 and only 24% earn over $39,999. PETA's president, Ingrid Newkirk, earned $36,997 in 2009.

A detailed breakdown of expenses is available on their financial statement, which was independently audited_

http://www.consumerdeception.com/index.asp

*What Is the Center for Consumer Freedom, and Why Is It Attacking PETA?*
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit corporation run by lobbyist Richard Berman through his Washington, D.C.-based for-profit public relations company, Berman & Co. The Center for Consumer Freedom, formerly known as the Guest Choice Network, was set up by Berman with a $600,000 "donation" from tobacco company Philip Morris.​
Berman arranges for large sums of corporate money to find its way into nonprofit societies of which he is the executive director. He then hires his own company as a consultant to these nonprofit groups. Of the millions of dollars "donated" by Philip Morris between the years 1995 and 1998, 49 percent to 79 percent went directly to Berman or Berman & Co.

Richard Berman is an influence peddler. He has worked out a scheme to funnel charitable donations from wealthy corporations into his own pocket. In exchange, he provides a flurry of disinformation, flawed studies, op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, and trade-industry articles, as well as access to his high-level government contacts, who are servants of the industries he represents.

Berman's name might sound familiar. In 1995, Berman and Norm Brinker, his former boss at Steak and Ale Restaurants, were identified as the special-interest lobbyists who donated the $25,000 that disgraced then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was hauled before the House Ethics Committee for influence-peddling over the money. Berman and Brinker were lobbying against raising the minimum wage.

Richard Berman is a spin doctor. For example, he has argued against a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) initiative to lower the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers by claiming that the stricter limits would punish responsible social drinkers. He has claimed that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warnings about salmonella-related food poisoning are just "whipping up fear over food."

Here's how an internal Philip Morris memo described Berman's spin: "His proposed solution would broaden the focus of the 'smoking issue,' and expand into the bigger picture of over-regulation." Smoking won't kill you; over-regulation will.

Berman is "a one-man wrecking crew on important issues." His approach has been described as "misleading" and "despicable." Berman has been called "a tobacco company whore," but he's branched out since then.

Using "freedom of choice" as his battle cry, Berman has now taken on PETA and a number of other groups and organizations whose points of view could have an impact on the profits of his clients by waking consumers up. Berman's Guest Choice Network has an "advisory panel" whose members in 1998 included officials representing companies ranging from Cargill Processed Meat Products and Outback Steakhouse to Minnesota Licensed Beverage Association and Sutter Home Winery. Berman's clients are companies with vested interests in low employee wages; cheap, unhealthy restaurant-chain food, particularly meat; and tobacco, soft drink, and alcohol consumption-companies like Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, Armour Swift, and Philip Morris, whose product line includes Kraft Foods and everything from Marlboro cigarettes to Oscar Meyer wieners and which is a major shareholder in its former subsidiary Miller Brewing, now known as SABMiller.

*PETA's recent successes in gaining fast-food industry concessions for more humane conditions for farm animals have sent ripples of fear through the food and beverage service industry. About the same time that McDonald's buckled to PETA's demands, Richard Berman changed his front group's name and stepped up his attacks*.

The key to Berman's aggressive strategy is, in his own words, "to shoot the messenger ... we've got to attack their credibility as spokespersons,"-an interesting remark from someone whose background and funding so severely challenge his own credibility.

PETA has since created a response site, PETA Saves, which discusses Richard Berman and the CCF's smear campaign.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> SourceWatch is of course going to be seen as biased towards the left lol Social, green & animal welfare movements are on the left as is science these days, sadly - they are all 'the enemy of corporate power'. The right appear to be more ideologically (& profit) driven than science driven & that is why many more on the right are climate 'sceptics'. Science shouldn't be politicized but it has been, even on the most serious threat we face.


I AM a scientist, with a BSc from a top university to prove it. Aside from sourcewatch, you're preaching to the choir 



noushka05 said:


> 'Written by peta enthusiasts'? lol


Yes, written by PETA enthusiasts. I also have training in source analysis (as well as statistical analyisis), both historical and modern, and the PETA page at Sourcewatch falls firmly into the category of very heavily biased.

Now, note that biased does not necessarily mean wrong or inaccurate. it simply means a pre-disposition to a certain way of thinking. Bias, therefore, is inherent in nearly all sources and not necessarily bad - but higher levels of bias, if unidentified, can lead to a very skewed perception of a situation.



noushka05 said:


> SourceWatch is a fully transparent organisation, it doesn't solely base its findings on PETA references, in their investigations, they access files & outside sources too.


The vast majority of the references both in article and listed in the reference section (yes, I do read that boring stuff) are links to official PETA sites, other sourcewatch articles and positive perspective opinon pieces. I don't have an issue with the positive perspective pieces, but self-referencial source selection is rarely a good sign regarding the quality of an article. I note there are no sections in the article regarding any negative perceptions of PETA (other than a brief reference to two of their employees being cleared of animal abuse after dumping the bodies of euthanised animals). Much of it simply a graphic restating of PETA campaigns and positions as opposed to an analysis of the organisation; not really offering more than if I went straight to a PETA site.



noushka05 said:


> You say you prefer hard data yet figures alone don't prove anything without knowing why the animals were euthanize. The forms you say were basic & that doesn't prove anything either. Unsupported assertions. Its easy to skew information without the full picture. And that's exactly what those who are strongly biased against PETA do.


I never implied that the forms being basic proved or disproved anything. I simply stated that was why we didn't know. Now, as you have raised the issue, then yes, it could be considered that the decision to omit 'Reason for euthaniasia' from the reporting forms a deliberate attempt to obfuscate. As much as I personally hate excessive paperwork, I can't think of many reasons why such a key piece of basic information should be excluded from collection. You are correct that it is very easy to skew information without the full picture - but that is WHY I question why that specific data is not available. It could, theoretically, offer a very easy way of justifying their kill rate, after all.



noushka05 said:


> Battersea put down 1,309 dogs last year & they are getting flack for that.


And quite rightly so - still, they would have to triple their euthanasia percentage rate to match PETA. And it appears (from the general reporting) that Battersea at least record the reason for PTS, even if we find some of those reasons questionable.



noushka05 said:


> I have bred & showed dogs, I could be offended and outraged with PETAs position on breeding & showing. I could feel offended personally but I look at the bigger picture & that is they have helped millions of animals with their undercover investigations & campaigns, . I wish some of their campaigns weren't so bonkers & I am disgusted by their position on BSL of pitbulls in the US, the main reason I will never donate to them again. But its undeniable PETA are good at getting results, so I'm not going to turn a blind eye if they are campaigning against something that touches my heart. This is the latest campaign I've spotted being shared by Ricky Gervais. I want to do my tiny bit to try to help these poor dogs, so I have signed their petition.


As I said, if it were simply sensible campaigning on animal welfare issues, we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. Personally, I prefer to find other ways to make a difference. And I do 



noushka05 said:


> You imply that people are being unethical by signing PETA petitions & raising awareness of PETA campaigns - like the one which pressured retailers into boycotting the angora rabbit farms . How would boycotting the campaign have helped those suffering rabbits? What exactly does this achieve? This is exactly what animal abusing industries want & why they invest so much money trying to shut PETA down. The ethics of the WWF are far more questionable ime, yet still I will join in their campaigns on issues I feel strongly about. Even the RSPB isn't above criticism - but the good they do for wildlife conservation by far outweighs any negatives. Like the corporate lobby groups with PETA, the animal abusing hunting set have mounted a smear campaign to shut the RSPB down too. This in itself proves how effective the RSPB is as a force for good. The bad guys aren't the RSPB.


I signed alternate petitions about angora farms, and avoided PETAs. I sign alternate petitions about most animal welfare issues I feel strongly about, and avoid PETAs. I very much doubt PETA were the single dominating influence in the angora situation, although they undeniably do the best job of claiming responsibility. The RSPB may have their shortcomings, but they'd have to go a lot further off piste to be in PETAs league.



noushka05 said:


> When I was a PETA member they would send a breakdown of their annual spending in their brochure. In a previous post you seemed to be implying that they were a profiteering racket. So are you disputing these figures?


Bit old, try these from 2015 

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4314

According to that, Ingrid herself still only draws a compensation of $37,121 (this includes bonuses and expenses - though not benefit plans or deferred compensation schemes) - although it's hard to track down what other financial resources she has in comparison with other people of similar stature. The only estimate I could find was a personal estimated wealth of $300,000 and I'm not really sure how accurate that is.

The page does list three other salaries of note, Kathleen Guillermo (Senior Vice President) at $106,727, Rosalind Zayas (Veterinarian) at $103,376, and Tracy Reiman (Vice President) at $89,984.

But that's an aside. Profiteering comes in all shapes and forms, as the basic definition simply covers making a profit by methods considered unethical. I consider a significent chunk of PETA tactics to be unethical, therefore it follows that I consider any finances raised as a result of those actions to be profiteering. Some might be unhappy with that interpretation as the term is historically associated with the sale of physical goods or services by businesses, but they are free to use a different word if they choose.

Anyway, this has become an exercise in minutiae I never intended, sorry. All I really meant to point out was that to your average Joe in the street, you mention 'PETA' and they think 'wingnuts and weirdos' - worse, that because of them, animal welfare organisations in general have been pigeonholed by many into the same end of the spectrum. And that IS a problem.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> I AM a scientist, with a BSc from a top university to prove it. Aside from sourcewatch, you're preaching to the choir
> 
> Yes, written by PETA enthusiasts. I also have training in source analysis (as well as statistical analyisis), both historical and modern, and the PETA page at Sourcewatch falls firmly into the category of very heavily biased.
> 
> ...


I hope you don't think I was questioning your educational credentials Jesthar, I wouldn't do that. I know you're a very smart cookie I was merely stating the fact that corporate fronts such as CATO & CFF are anti science. And as such are a threat to us all.

That's the point, without firm evidence we don't know why the dogs were pts - we can only assume. Looking objectively, even for all their faults, there is plenty of evidence to show PETA have improved the lives of millions of animals. Many of their successes are well documented ( & not just by PETA lol). PETAs KFC Canada campaign alone improved the lives of millions of chickens. No other AR/AW org can be credited with that. http://www.cbc.ca/news/feathers-settle-in-peta-kfc-canada-battle-1.769518
CCF is an astroturfing organisation set up to mitigate the impact of PETA etc on their corporate clients profits - this in itself should speak volumes. Covance laboratories are one of CCF's clients, it was an undercover PETA investigation which exposed their cruelty to monkeys .

You really don't believe it was due to PETAs undercover investigation & their campaign which led to retailers boycotting the angora farms?. Two charities I support, Animal Aid & World Animal Protection (formerly WSPA) joined forces with PETA to raise awareness & pressure retailers to stop buying the fur on the back of PETAs evidence. If other AR/AW organisations had their own independent angora campaign going at the same time, were they using their own undercover footage?. On the petition you signed for the rabbits where did the evidence of this cruelty come from? I'm curious to know if it they were using PETAs undercover evidence or their own, that's all?

PETA are extremely successful at mobilising animal lovers. They are by far the wealthiest & most influential AR/AW organisation on the planet. That's why CCF are going above & beyond to undermine them. CCF don't go to all this trouble to target moderate, low key less effective organisations. PETA are exceptionally successful at what they do. They excel in grabbing publicity for their campaigns - that is why corporate power seeks to undermine them.

PETA are one of the few AR organisations targeted by those corporate fronts so they obviously are getting results in forwarding animal welfare... & that's why I'll always add my voice to their campaigns I feel strongly about.

Minutiae:Wideyed Well that's a new one on me - I'll add it to my very limited vocabulary


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

noushka05 said:


> Minutiae:Wideyed Well that's a new one on me - I'll add it to my very limited vocabulary


You've plainly never watched the original Guardians of the Galaxy film


----------

