PETA (warning: foul language)
Mar 02 2012
WHAT THE FUCK PETA!!!
According to this article, the Virginia branch of PETA euthanized a whopping 96% of the animals they took “care” of in 2011.
“A PETA spokesperson said the organization would rather give animals “a painless death” than risk putting them in a situation where they would be abused, neglected, or sold for research, in an interview last year with Newsweek.”
Translation: They’re too goddamned lazy to 1) utilize an adoption pre-screen and 2) follow up on the adopted out animals and ensure their welfare.
What the fuck is wrong with these people! I tried to find any adoption information on their website and got bupkis!
There’s another article floating around stating this all might be the result of fabricated numbers by anti-PETA people. If that’s the case, then someone please explain to me the following numbers I found on the Government of Virginia’s website.
- 2006 - PETA took in 9637 animals, and euthanized 2981 = 31%
- 2007 - they took in 8362 and euthanized 1815 = 21%
- 2008 - 10016 animals went into PETA’s tender care, 2369 never left it = 24%
- 2009 - no info
- 2010 - 4569 animals were taken in, 3630 euthanized = 79%
- 2011 - PETA took in 2050 and euthanized 1965 = 96%
Anyone else find it just a wee bit odd that there’s a year with no information, and then all of the sudden the fucking Grim Reaper takes over PETA in Virginia?
I’m going to do something now that I promised myself I would never do without financial coercion: create and present a chart.
So I say again, what the fuck PETA? What the fuck, indeed.
113 comments to “PETA (warning: foul language)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. Not a member? Registering is free, and you do it here!
I laughed when I saw ‘PETA (warning: foul language)’ because I basically never talk about them without using foul language. They’re completely insane, and when they’re not talking about how owning a pet equates to slavery, they’re objectifying women. Their latest ad uses domestic abuse as a joke to explain how great veganism is. It makes me sad that so many people think all animal rights activists are like PETA, and I’m not at all surprised to see this sort of thing from them.
Your icon is appropriate, and I completely have to agree with the comment.
The “slavery” thing always cracks me up too. My dog gets to sleep in the bed all day, eat better food than me whenever he wants, watches tv, and goes for long walks in the woods every day. If that is slavery, sign me up!
I have often heard it said that there is a militant anti-pet faction of PETA that has stated that all animals are better off dead than being “enslaved” by humans. Yes, they consider any animal you care for, no matter how loved and cared for, to be your prisoner/slave and to be in a state of exploitation. I’ve heard of animals being turned loose in the streets to fend for themselves, despite how ill-prepared they are for it, just so that they wil longer be enslaved by humans. I have heard or read so much of this kind of stuff, and your figures seem to support that type of thinking.
I mean to say, your figures support that this type of ideaology eists.
I’ve read the opposite. I’ve seen where PETA has encouraged people to bring their dogs and cats inside, and they educate the dangers and risks that cats and dogs are exposed to when they are outside. I have, however, read other animal rights websites that are in favor of all animals being wild and not having contact with humans. I can’t think of the name of the one I was looking at recently. The guy had a TON of interesting information, if you could tune out the extremist parts of it.
Do a google search for “PETA animals better off dead” and you’ll find dozens (or more) hits.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
http://www.seattledogspot.com/blog/2011/06/16/this-week-six-years-ago-peta-employees-were-arrested-for-throwing-pets-they-killed-in-garbage/
http://blogs.bestfriends.org/index.php/2011/01/25/petas-better-off-dead-philosophy/
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/peter-worthington/peta-kills-animals_b_1296370.html
Yes. PETA has always been pretty open about their belief that animals are better off dead than kept as pets. They have slaughtered dogs and cats, poisoned horses, etc. I remember a story of them poisoning a barn full or horses at a show and saying that the horses would “rather” die an agonizing death and be in pain for a relatively short period of time than suffer at the hands of humans for years.
What a bunch of disallusioned assholes.
I heard a great story about some PETA members who thought that animals in captivity of any kind was torture. They were driving in the country when they saw a ‘poor horse’, subjected to a pasture. They opened the gate and went to lead the horse to freedom. It just so happened that this horse was a rather bad tempered stallion with a charging problem… As soon as they entered his territory the stallion charged at them, teeth bared and hooves flying and made it pretty clear how he felt about his ‘liberation’. They ran out of there as fast as they can.
My horse would just sit and stare at them if they tried it in my pasture. He’d wander out to eat the grass in the yard and then walk back to his stall and wait for dinner.
My horse did get out of the paddock one day. She went to her stall. I bet that would make PETA extremely confused! The mare likes her stall….she also nickers when she sees her blanket coming when it’s cold outside. She is a domesticated animal.
My Old Man got out of his paddock once. He wandered up to the back porch of my parents’ house. My mom found him looking through the windows into her kitchen. Basically he was begging for carrots.
Oh yes, but he wants to be free.
My friend’s horse got out- she lives on a large citrus farm. The first thing he did was wander around the yard and eat all of the bird seed out of the bird feeders. After he was done with them, he managed to get into the garage, where he started eating the dog food. My friend came home and she remembers thinking “holy crap that’s a big dog in the garage, where did that come from?” (her horse if 14h 3″. He foundered, but they luckily they were able to save him with no permanant damage. After that, she went to electric fencing.
So her horse would see any liberation attempt on PETA’s part as an invitation to “liberate” anything edible on the property.
It makes perfect sense to me as the number of euthanized animals probably was huge just as the economy tanked. Doesn’t everyone know how many people became homeless and had to give up animals. So it just stands to reason that there wouldn’t be any homes available in such a bad economy. That’s how people act and sometimes they really have no choice. PETA really shouldn’t be in the pound business at all but I guess they run shelters and have their reasons. However, the money that PETA raises and their real mission is not to run shelters it is to change and advocate. How can you do both? Simple – you can’t. Now let’s see how effective the whole rescue/shelter system – it’s not. There are more homeless horses, dogs, cats then ever before. There are more rescues/shelters than ever before. Conclusion shelters/rescues will never work to create change in our society. People keep breeding animals that are going to end up homeless and guess what they don’t give a shit and there’s no reason for them to stop. People will keep abusing/neglecting animals ’cause you guessed it there’s no reason to stop. I suppose you really have to make a decision about where your money goes and I certainly know where I want mine to go and it ain’t going to any shelters or rescues – nope.
You’ve got your logic wrong. Sure, the percent of animals a shelter euthanizes would go up in a bad economy– but killing 96% of them?! That would be like saying that high school students these days are under pressure because of a bad economy, so it’s okay that 96% of them don’t graduate.
PETA, with its millions of dollars, couldn’t adopt out more than 85 animals in a year?? Please. PETA has 300 employees and two million members and supporters. Even the little Dane Co Humane Society here in WI adopts out 85 animals in two MONTHS, despite the bad economy.
You are right about one thing– PETA shouldn’t be in the “shelter” business. If they want to advertise free euthanasia, fine– but they should not pretend to be re-homing animals.
I don’t think PETA wants or can support animals in shelters. I am not saying it was the best possible conclusion for all these animals to be euthanized. I think shelters always talk about the adoption rate but never about the return rate. Most shelters won’t even take animals that are surrendered without charging a fee. Is that also OK. I would rather see all of PETA’s money going to litigation, lobbying, and yes some free euthanasia.
It’s interesting that people get upset about a rescue paying too much to save an animal on one end of the spectrum and then there’s outrage when there’s too much euthanasia. There’s a growing number of shelters and a growing number of homeless animals. So what is the solution then…. I have my answer do you have yours.
It would be nice if all the money peta earned was used for lobbying and other shit to get animal rights taken more seriously. Any time I say I am pro animal rights someone always says “fucking peta loony” or something along that lines. I have never been in favor of peta because they act like a joke. They have no respect for themselves, and in turn most people do not respect them. They try too hard to do the extreme and make fools out of themselves. With all the money they earn and all the celebrity’s that jump in on their campaigns and adds, you think that just maybe they could foster and rescue more animals. Some animals is it more humane to put them down, but with that many? Do they just walk around with paper bags over their heads? I really do not like how they target children. It is just plain wrong. They have gone to schools with an elephant mascot to show children the abuse those animals go through to boycott the circus. (I do not go myself because I do not want to support the abuse ect..) But targeting grade-school kids? Really? Showing them pictures that some adults can not handle. If that happened while I was doing my internship with my second graders, I would explode, it is just not right. If peta could be a decent respectful organization I would support it, but it is not. There vulgar add campaigns, give me a break. I admit it, I love porn. If the actors choose to do it and like it good for them. Using it to advocate animal rights? What the fuck where they thinking? How does an organization think, well I don’t want people eating animals, wearing them, and keep them as pets think yeah porn.. that’s good. Have naked people tell them how bad and wrong it is. If anything it might stop people from watching porn, but not from eating a cow. (I mean really think about that thought process?) Sex sells, but when used with animals…its just creepy as hell. So yeah this turned into a rant.
Hmmm. Well I guess you think litigation is cheap and the lobbyists are free. I honestly don’t see what “saving” a few more animals is going to accomplish especially when there are NO adopters. I don’t think PETA is extreme and I also think that what a lot of people are saying about them is just a whole lot of gossip with tiny bit of truth sprinkled in.
There is a huge difference between animals rights and animal welfare. Animal rights gives them the same rights as we have, freedom, choice, etc. Welfare means we take care of them and make good decisions for them. The animal rights loonies, yeah, they have let dogs loose at dog shows and put antifreeze in their water. These people are sick and dangerous. I truly hope that you are just confusing the terms and are NOT animal rights based.
And I do have to disagree with the numbers going up. Right now there are special vans provided by a number of organizations to move animals from one area of the country to another. The spay/neuter programs have been very successful and puppies and kittens are mostly at a premium in many places. All you can get is adults and there is NOTHING wrong with that. Our small humane society in MI had other ones begging us for kittens when we ended up with a couple of litters a couple of years ago. Not that we don’t regularly have them but they didn’t. We figured so long as they footed the bills, got them neutered, etc, fine, have at it, here’ a dozen for you all. We had quite a few adult dogs go into the upper penninsula of MI where there were humane societies with NO animals at all, they were quickly adopted.
And it’s not a overbreeding population problem anymore, it’s an owner retention problem. If I lost my job, I would be living in a car with my dogs. There is no way I’d ever give them up even if we all had to eat day old bread from the outlet store. My pets are what keeps me sane. People give up their pets because it’s inconvenient, moving or job loss makes the sympathy come and so that is an easier thing to say rather than “that dog is a real pain and now that I’m home all day, I sure as heck don’t want to train it, so get rid of it”. And I have seen some awesome animals given up for these reasons, too. If they are a member of your family, you don’t give them up. If I had for some reason, to have to let my animals go, I daresay I could accomplish this in just a few days, my friends would each take on or two to help me out til I was on my feet again. I get so tired of the “poor little old me” games I see people play. The animal wasn’t that important to them anyhow. They’ll just get a new cute puppy when they settle into the new place.
Sorry, I have to take SOME issue with this.
You have kids. You lose your job. Then you lose your home and have to move into a rental.
It’s not at all unlikely for eighty to ninety percent of the rentals to have NO PETS rules…and I’m sorry, but an adult choosing to sleep in a car rather than give up their pets is one thing. If you have kids…it becomes a different story. And if you have a pit bull or a staffie…or a Rottweiler…forget it. You ain’t getting that animal in any rental property. Big dog? That’s hard too.
I’m not going to criticize people surrendering pets because of genuine hardship. (Now surrendering a dog because you aren’t sure how to ship it three states…if I worked at the shelter, I’d take that person aside and talk to them about their options. Or…)
The other side of owner retention is people who get dogs without doing their research. it’s a bad idea to get a mixed breed puppy that is very young if you have young kids – you don’t know how it’s going to turn out and then where does the puppy end up if it’s not suitable? The shelter. One important aspect of keeping dogs out of shelters is educating people so they get the right dog first time.
I think it would be a great thing if PETA offered free euthanasia – well technically they do, but they’re not upfront about it. Get rid of the bullshit “rescue” image altogether and actually do something good. It would be an invaluable service and it sure beats misleading people into thinking that they’ll put effort into rehoming when clearly that is not the intention.
Can someone please show me the statistical evidence that the numbers of “unwanted, abused, neglected et.al. animals” is proportionately different than it was 10, 20, 30 et.al years ago. As the population increases the number of unwanted animals increases in a proportionate manner I would suppose, much as it does with “unwanted, abused, neglected et.al PEOPLE”…
Lol, you’re just realizing that PETA isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? I’m too lazy to look it up now, but there is tons of information out there about the horror that is PETA. I actually have a hard time believing those facts for the years before 2009, because most of the statistics I see are a lot closer to the 96% they had last year.
I guess I’m not too lazy, here’s the link to the image that provides references at the bottom
http://media.riemurasia.net/albumit/mmedia/oj/tjn/6896/217471/743321428.gif
Have you ever read Ingrid Newkirk’s plans for her body after death? If not, you definitely should. Her will is available on the PETA’s website.
I can’t respect anyone who blindly follows PETA, people need to open their eyes and see what kind of organizations they’re supporting.
I Googled it. She found a pathologist willing to dismember her, so the “parts” can be used in future campaigns. I’m guessing her point will be the fact that it will be compared to seeing documentaries with slabs of hanging beef. Lady’s f’d in the head.
Oh, she’s found someone willing to do it? That’s news to me! Last I heard there was just the will in place, I didn’t think anyone would be crazy enough to actually do that.
Yes, thats correct. They’ve always said that they don’t believe in animals for pets. Period. They do not believe we should have cats or dogs etc. Curious as to what kinds of animals they are euthanizing though, are they monkeys? minks? rabbits? cuz yah, I’d think they’d be a bit harder to rehome, especially coming from a lab? I do not agree that these many animals should be euthanized, no. But.. shelters seem to be overcrowded. atleast where I am. They are no kill shelters now, and won’t take in animals that have been dumped here at my acreage. I can’t look after them all.
No, they’re mostly dogs and cats. A small percentage is other animals.
They have made several blog posts saying that they take in such sick animals, that they are better off dead. But I have seen the pictures of their court case a few years ago, involving two employees dumping dead dogs and cats in dumpsters. Including puppies, kittens, and one pregnant beagle. Aside from being dead, they didn’t look like they were in bad shape (none looked like they had severe mange, were very old, or very skinny, just dead because of PeTA). They were given to PeTA by shelters in the area, under the pretense that PeTA was going to find them homes.
too bad there wasn’t any documented information on the kinds of animals, as it seems to be speculation. As with ANY organization, check to see where you’re surrending your ‘pets’ I mean for goodness sake. Shelters can use the excuse they didn’t know, but I call BS. Thats ridiculous (if even true)
The amount that shelters spend on ‘saving animals’ is very low too in fact, there numbers are pretty interesting if you look into it. They are not such a great rescue either :/
I don’t know about lazy, however I do think they’re of the opinion that most people aren’t good enough to adopt from them. They are crazy extremists after all…
And yet PETA and other RARAs give the carriage owners/drivers of Central Park (NYC) hell. At least those horses are living and breathing and have a job. PETA is really a screwed up group, Stay away from them, very far away…
First off, I’m not defending PETA. I think they’re a bunch of cracks heads. Sure, some of them have good intentions but they muck it all up with their ridiculous media circus.
That being said, I can’t help but think that they’re euthanizing 1,965 animals (while horrible) makes some kind of sense. The shelters everywhere are filled to the brim. Would you rather the nearly two thousand animals be euthanized humanely, or put out on the streets to starve to death, be hit by cars, or be kept by people who shouldn’t have a hermit crab, let alone a cat or a dog?
As usual over breeding is at fault here, not the people who are trying to clean up the problem the best and most humane way they can. IMHO.
Our local shelter used to euth after a given period of time and in recent years has gone under new management and switched to a “no kill” stance. They are now horribly overcrowded and have hundreds of cats and dogs living in the tiniest of kennels. I participate in a group that volunteers there once a year to help build new kennels for them and while all the animals are well cared for, the group is panicking for lack of funds, lack of people to adopt (why go through stringent aplication process and pay hundreds to adopt what you can walk outside your house and find wandering around for the taking?) and lack of space. Most these animals will never be adopted. I would rather see that they were humanely euthed than to spend years trapped in a box with little to no attention or excercise, so I guess I can see what PETA was maybe trying to do here?
I am not a fan of PETA by any means, but I certainly live in an area where the stray population is totally out of control. That said, I think shelters should be allocating more money toward free/low cost spay neuter programs and less toward housing animals.
Sure, I have no problem with euthanasia. My problem is with PETA pretending to be a “shelter” when they’re providing a death service.
From Dana Cheek, former director of the Norfolk SPCA:
“I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will “find them a good home.” Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner’s home … PETA refuses to surrender animals they obtain to area shelters for rehoming. If only the celebrity ‘deep-pocket’ donors on the west coast knew that their donations were going to kill adoptable cats and dogs here in Norfolk.”
PETA’s websites, advertisements and magazines are full of pictures of fluffy bunnies, cute kittens and frolicking puppies– but they don’t actually believe in keeping any of them as pets. It’s their lies I object to.
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2009/03/petas-dog-shelter-is-really-slaughter.html
I regret to say that this is not news. PETA is really notorious in dog rescue circles for killing any animal they get their clutches on. And if the animal has the misfortune to be a pit bull they’ll go to the state house and advocate that everyone else should be killing it too. Google “Ingrid Newkirk” and you will get pathology in its scariest form.
As a number of people have pointed out, it is really quite strange that they are actually fairly good at advocating for baby seals, wildlife, and other animals they don’t have physical custody of, but let them have physical custody of anything and the first thing they do is kill it. For its own good, according to their extremely sick worldview.
They are, depending on where they are on the individual spectrum, anywhere from misguided true believers to very, very bad people.
Surely you’ve read about the famous incidents where they picked up people’s dog’s promising to find them homes, and the dogs were found dead in a dumpster shortly thereafter.
PETA are sexist and racist, and have been seriously off the rails for years. They do a lot of harm to humans, in particular with the exploitation of human women in their advertising, and do very little good for animals. They may have been different in the past, but in recent years they seem to me to be in operation almost entirely to further the peculiar interests of the people who run the organisation.
Peta have deliberately chosen to use porn to further their message: they seem to think that after getting men to look at porn which degrades women they can then persuade those men to support animal rights. To me it’s more likely that those men will just add pleasure in the degradation of animals to their pleasure in the degradation of women.
More here -
http://jezebel.com/5453982/ingrid-newkirk-is-the-worst-person-in-the-world
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/08/24/ditwuss-award-de-la-semaine-peta/
OMG! I know! PETA is crazy sexist! AND they are total biggots. Their campaigns are monsterous. Comparing chicken housing to the holochaust? Really PETA? Really? The Onion has a great video “exposing” PETA’s unethical treatment of women. It is great.
http://www.itsbraintime.blogspot.com
PETA’s ultimate goal — and you can find this in their paperwork with some digging — is the elimination (defined as “extinction”) of all animals on earth. They’ll kill everything to “save” them. People for the Extinction of Animals.
This does not surprise me at all. PETA’s message has always been that they believe in TOTAL freedom for animals– so keeping pets is out. From their website: “We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals’ best interests if the institution of “pet keeping”—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as “pets”—never existed.” Reference link below.
Since PETA’s belief is basically that NO pet care is good enough, they simply euthanize any animal that comes their way rather than subject them to “enslavement” by humans. If you regard PETA as a kind of version of the Humane Society, this looks like hypocrisy– killing animals instead of caring for them. But if you view PETA as it actually IS, a really wacky extremist organization that beliefs in total animal liberation, then this behavior absolutely fits with their goals and beliefs– it’s actually the only NON-hypocritical thing they could do.
They are extremists, and in my opinion WRONG in their beliefs, but they’re not hypocrites.
http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/pets.aspx
From the PETA website…”And hunting creates the ideal conditions for overpopulation. After hunting season, the abrupt drop in population leads to less competition among survivors, resulting in a higher birth rate. If we were really concerned about keeping animals from starving, we would not hunt but instead take steps to reduce the animals’ fertility. We would also preserve wolves, mountain lions, coyotes, and other natural predators. Ironically, many deer herds and duck populations are purposely manipulated to produce more and more animals for hunters to kill.”
Ok, I’m blonde so drop a few IQ points accordingly, but how does hunting increase the population of deer? You mean it’s wrong to kill a deer and feed a family but it would be ok to capture the deer and neuter it? I’ll buy seats for this escapade, who has tickets? PETA scares me, always had. I think what started out to be a charitable group of people has turned into a cult of opportunity. I support the end of using animals in medical research (sorry folks, pain is pain) where the welfare of the animal is compromised. I do not, however, feel the need to be an extremist to the point of attempting to make me a vegan with a plastic purse, saddle and poly-only sweaters. Even if ALL slaughter stopped today, (cattle, chickens, pigs, etc) animals would still suffer painful deaths at the jaws of predators, disease and famine. So what exactly is the gain in that? If PETA types want to drink pureed chick peas, be my guest. I, however, enjoy milk with dinner and an occasional bowl of ice cream after. Why don’t PETA people attack the real cruelty situations like cock fighting, horse tripping, TN Walker Big Licks, etc, etc. And no adoptions in 2011?? Fucking lovely.
I’ve got it…since PETA wants to reintroduce natural predators, let’s do a trial run to determine the effectiveness and launch a program in THEIR neighborhoods with THEIR families and THEIR pets as the largest source of food for the cougars and grizzlies.
I’m not defending PETA either, and I’m not anti-hunting, but it’s important to know the facts:
There’s well-documented evidence that mis-managed hunting DOES increase some animal populations. With animals like coyotes and wolves, only the dominant pair in a pack mate. Kill the alpha male or female, and the pack dynamic gets screwed up, resulting in splintering packs, a struggle for supremacy and an increased number of matings… and thus more puppies.
Prey animals like deer and rabbits respond to environmental pressures by increasing or decreasing their fertility rates. Rabbits in more crowded warrens who experience competition for food have a much lower conception rate. The same applies to deer. However, when there are very few of their own kind around, prey animals come into heat more quickly and produce more offspring.
This survival trait ensures that species are less prone to both over-population and extinction. SOME hunting is certainly warranted– but too much only messes up the natural controls in a population.
As for the idea of North American predators seriously endangering humans…well that is ridiculous.
Since 2010, there’s been ONE fatal wolf attack on a human in the WORLD: in 2010, a teacher jogging alone on a remote Alaskan road was killed. From 1997-2010, there were only 20 wolf attacks on humans, only one of them in North America (Canada). The rest were in remote parts of Russia and Afghanistan.
Bear attacks: There have been 20 fatal bear attacks against humans since 2010 in all of north America, including all species of bears. One of them was from an “exotic pet” kept in captivity, and the rest were in remote National Parks, where hikers were in known bear country.
Cougar attacks: There have only been three fatal cougar attacks against humans since 2000, two of them in remote Wilderness Parks.
Coyote attacks: There have been only two recorded human fatalities from coyotes in North America since we’ve been keeping records; one was an unattended child, the other a hiker in a remote part of Canada.
This is an extremely, extremely lower number of fatal attacks on humans, considering how many humans there are in North America, and how many predators there are. I’m pretty sure you have a greater chance of winning the lottery AND being struck by lightening than dying from a predator attack in your lifetime.
As for livestock deaths, that does happen sometimes– but much less often than you think, and mostly due to farmers not following basic safety precautions in predator-dense areas, like putting animals in a barn at night. The vast majority of what coyotes, wolves and cougars eat is rabbits, fawns and rodents.
I do agree with you in a general sense.. however, to nitpick.. there have actually been quite a few wolf related fatalities in the world. North American wolves are generally harmless unless they are being fed by humans, and even then, the fatalities I think only number two or three total in the last few decades including the Alaskan woman’s death and the Carnegie man’s death (At least by wild wolves. There have been several deaths due to ‘pet’ wolves or wolves in sanctuaries). But in India, Russia, and other parts of the world, the wolves are considerably more dangerous and have accounted for a lot of deaths. And I mean a LOT.
Over 600 people during a period in India were killed by wolves. Another 111 people in Estonia. A lot of attacks in Russia and other areas of Europe seem to be tied to rabies, however. But definitely not even close to all of them.
I always hate to use wikipedia, though it’s honestly not that terrible for general information, but there’s a table at the bottom that lists all documented attacks and deaths and it’s way more than one even in North America: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans
I don’t particularly find that to be a reason to kill them… If I go into a bear’s den and play with its cubs, I fully expect it to kill me. Survival of the fittest, and I lack the natural weapons to fight back and by invading its territory, I challenged the animal. People continue to infringe upon wild animal habitats, and the results are often injury or death to the people.
I don’t vilify animals for being animals and protecting their territory and young in the least little bit. Just clarifying that there are in fact a lot of deaths that have been due to wolves. Admittedly mostly not in North America.. and a lot of the large scale deaths happened before a heavy prevalence of accurate firearms. But still, that’s a pretty respectable amount of death and mayhem.
Re: PETA – Not new info.
I’ve known this about them for years. They have been known to let show dogs go after sneaking behind the scenes at shows… I’m not sure how they think these pampered darlings are going to survive on the streets. Oh, wait. They don’t want them to survive, that’s right.
It’s why we all lock crates now at shows unless we have trusted people watching our dogs while we’re in the ring, especially at big shows.
You should read your own references, Frost. Wikipedia’s table clearly shows exactly what I said before: “Since 2010, there’s been ONE fatal wolf attack on a human in the WORLD: in 2010, a teacher jogging alone on a remote Alaskan road was killed.” Wikipedia goes on to show that in North America, there was one attack in Canada in 2005, and no attacks prior to that until you get back into the 1980s, when there were a couple of “pet” wolf attacks on their owners.
I’m not sure where you’re getting numbers like 600 and 111– unless you’re looking all the way back into the 1800s, which is hardly relevant to a discussion on the current danger of predator attacks on humans. By my count, Wikipedia lists only 363 fatal wolf attacks for the entire world from 1910 onwards. Of course, not all attacks may have been reported, and Wikipedia might not have all the reports… so let’s quadruple that number just to be on the safe side. That would still be only 1,452 fatal wolf attacks on people around the entire WORLD since 1910, which averages out to only about fourteen fatal attacks every year around the entire world. I’m still not seeing any “respectable amount of death and mayhem,” though I’m glad you’re not out to vilify predators.
No need to get your panties in a bunch, as I wasn’t directly disagreeing with any of your points except the point that one death since 2010 makes wolves not the sort of predators to predate on humans. They do regularly -still- in India, in poorer parts of the country where the villages are in the forest. Wolves are happy to eat humans, especially children, if they can make off with them easily and not be caught. They tend to do so in areas where there are not prevalent gun use, as they are intelligent enough to realize what guns mean to them.
Any animal can and does present a danger to humans. The misunderstanding you seem to have is the thought that I really care.. I don’t.
Put yourself in the wrong situation, you’re going to get killed, and I’m not going to feel pity for you. Most of the time, people have invaded the animal’s habitat, and then people are like “OMG that shark KILLED a guy.” Well.. if you’re in the ocean and you look like food to him, he’s going to eat you. It’s not out of malice or mean-spirit.. you’re just food and he’s hungry. Ditto for wolves. We are soft, fairly easy kills, and if they can kill us, they will. In North America, they have learned to fear the guns that are so common here, but before guns were common, the number of kills was respectable here, even if it was nowhere near the kills in countries overseas.
When the kills were isn’t really valid other than from a standpoint that lack of ability to protect ourselves led to more deaths. The number of kills however is very valid and makes it obvious that they have no trouble actually killing us as long as we don’t have copious guns to even the playing field. 111 kills in Estonia, regardless of the time frame, is still 111 kills caused by non-rabid wolves. I don’t know why it bothers you to accept that they do kill people quite happily, but it’s alright, no worries.
I personally am not really bothered by the fact that they’ve killed a lot of people. I wouldn’t care if they were still eating people every day. God knows there’s plenty of us to go around.
There is a peninsula in my state dedicated as a State Park years ago. It is inhabited by deer and their numbers increase to more than the parcel can sustain and there is periodically a hunt to control the population. There is extreme controversy surrounding the kill but what choice is there? Introduce natural predators in a small park? There are too many people to introduce predators back into the wild. There are no deaths here from wild animals (except coyotes taking cats and small dogs) because there are no wolves, few bears and cougars are a constant argument between those who have seen them and the DEP who claims there are none.
Whenever there has been predatorial killing of a person by an animal, the animals is hunted down and destroyed. If PETA had their way, the animal couldn’t be killed. And once they learn to hunt humans, it would become a regular occurance as we can fill their stomachs a lot quicker than rodents and rabbits. Personally, I wish there was a natural balance of all life based on resources available but humans will always claim and destroy at will as the superior life form. Predators will never roam in sustainable numbers again. at least not in the US.
You wouldn’t need a plastic saddle if PETA got their way, because you wouldn’t have a horse to put the saddle on. That would be enslaving the horse.
Self slap ~ point taken! One of my slave cats is now enjoying cheese with me. Shhh, don’t tell anyone.
Really makes you wonder what happened in 2009, doesn’t it? Obviously the people who cared were replaced by AssWaffles who don’t give a shit about actually saving animals… only putting them down. Seems pretty sick to me.
Life’s A Beach
http://www.36andsingle.blogspot.com/
AssWaffles!
That is gold
http://www.operationhorserescue.blogspot.com
PETA: the result of a hypothetical mating between Sue Wallis and Wayne Pacelle.
My father in law, who has always had pets, recently joined PETA. Yet another subject we need to avoid, like veganism (he’s a bit of a sanctimonious zealot, I support sustainable and ethical meat practices and hunting and … gasp … natural fur), and my husband’s upbringing.
As for this, it’s not even the euthanasias, which I could get behind. It’s the “why” of them. Oh, PETA! Just thinking about you makes me tired. I go right past the rage and into the helpless exhaustion.
Not horse related but related to peta
google caboodle ranch as i found out about it from a rv blog seems that peta went after the ranch and focused only on the intake infirmary and published that on u-tube to get the cats seized and the owner charged with animal cruelty
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-03-01/story/ponte-vedra-operator-raided-caboodle-ranch-devastated-supporters-speak
Anyone who thinks PETA or HSUS are worth a crud are deluding themselves.
Anyway. Shameless brag post here! I wrote a book! It took 5 years of on again off again and it’s finally finished. Take a look.
e-book
http://www.lulu.com/product/ebook/partners/18928748
paperback
http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/partners/18928667
I just did the same thing! Also just finished, also took 5 years, same subject, just not told by the horse. Small world!
Do they even claim to save anymore? I had thought they were pretty much up front about being a nearly total kill place. Maybe they still try to hide in order to bamboozle people into giving money.
My own opinion–PETA is run by people who are actually scared of animals so they hate animals.
I consider myself a low-key animal rights activist/animal welfare activist because if I just say animal rights activist, people immediately assume I’m a PETA-phile. I hate PETA with a burning passion. Their organization is geared towards profit, not truly helping animals who are in need. I’ve been responsibly raising and showing rabbits for several years and PETA believes that I’m just as bad as someone who fights dogs because I breed once or twice a year at most, keep animals if I cannot find them a home, allow my old bunnies to have a happy retirement with me, and give my animals proper vet care, proper nutrition and most importantly lots of snuggles and kisses xD
That being said, I am a vegetarian. I could never eat one of my bunnies, so I didn’t think it was fair to eat other animals just because I don’t own them or really become attached to them. I’m not a vegan because that would mean I couldn’t eat things like cheese, which I adore, as well as anything vaguely tasty. What a horrible person I am. Being vegetarian has health benefits too, so I actually feel pretty good about it. I don’t care if you eat meat, although I do think it would be better if everyone learned more about where their meat came from because it can be pretty scary once you start learning about some of the practices in the meat industry.
The sad thing is PETA probably started out as a normal, rational type of organization, but then they got caught up in extremist tactics and money. “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” as a phrase is something I would approve of, but that is not what PETA stands for at all today. I’m glad that they are getting a few people to think about how they use and interact with animals, but they’re doing a better job of pissing people off and their cause will not benefit as much.
I agree with you that admitting to caring about animal welfare has become a dirty word pretty much. Everyone immediately assumes you’re a crazy PETA freak.
As for the meat issue.. I am a farm girl. I know exactly where the meat comes from and it doesn’t change the fact that I like to eat meat. Our family raises grass-fed beef in Oklahoma and a lot of our beef comes from them. I know the animals, I know how they’ve been raised, and I’m fine with it. I also know about the less savory places, and despite being a meat eater, I am still completely in support of more humane, sustainable practices for our food animals.
There often seems to be a huge mental disconnect with vegans and vegetarians between how they live, and a comprehension of how someone can enjoy eating meat and still want better and more humane slaughter options and housing/care for food producing animals. (Not you in the least, just in general.) I always find that really obnoxious.
I’ve often wondered if they regard cats and other animals who eat animals as mass murderers too, or if for some reason we’re the only animals who should pretend we’re not what we are.
Imagine if our horses suddenly decided for ethical reasons to stop killing plants and start eating us.
I’m also curious (I am soooo off topic at this point, I know.) if eating crickets and grasshoppers and such is bad/o in the eyes of a vegetarian or vegan? Is it all -living- things (in which case, it brings up the valid point that plants are in fact living until you pluck them to eat), or is it just animals (in which case, insects are not technically animals and thus exempt)? >.> I’ve just always wondered that and I lack people to ask who are not meat eaters. Also, if eating insects -is- bad, does it cause any kind of distress to consider the ones you accidentally inhale or hit with a vehicle over the course of your life?
My brain comes up with really stupid things sometimes. But I really do want to know.
Meant to say if it’s “bad/off limits” but I got a phone call in the middle of my edit and didn’t realize I hadn’t completed the words.
I’m going to try and answer your question about bugs.
Personally, I consider eating anything with a brain/nervous system (which means it is able to feel pain) to be off limits for vegetarians (I have one friend in particular who has asked me a few times “Oh yeah, I forgot you’re a vegetarian. You still eat fish though, right?” and I explain that anything which was alive and could feel pain is something I don’t feel right about eating anymore).
Now, this part has a lot to do with WHY I’m a vegetarian. I’m a vegetarian because a) I’ve never really loved meat and b) I don’t like the idea of an animal dying or being in pain so I can eat. I’m totally ok with other people eating animals (I prepare meat for my boyfriend all the time), but I don’t personally want to eat it. So, as to whether I feel guilty about smooshing bugs on my car, no I don’t. They don’t suffer or anything when being splattered on the windscreen (at least, I hope they don’t) and if an animal (or bug) dies quickly I don’t have a problem with that, I just don’t want to eat it. If on the other hand someone were to torture a bug in my presence (pulling the wings and legs off a fly, or burning a moth ect) then I would have a huge problem with that.
http://www.operationhorserescue.blogspot.com
Thank you for the answer! I very much appreciate it. I know it was a strange question but it’s something I’ve always wondered about, because I mostly hear “I don’t want to eat animals”, and bugs aren’t animals, and are considered a staple of diets in many countries as well. I was just very curious about what the opinion was about eating chocolate covered grasshoppers, or whatever.
I envy those people who can say they’ve been responsible for every aspect of raising animals for food humanely. I personally don’t have any way to verify how the meat at the supermarket died, so I don’t eat it, but I am so glad that there are some people out there who give a damn about our meat animals. I don’t believe people will ever stop eating meat, at least with the current consumer base meat has across the planet, so it makes me happy that some producers still think some things should be done very differently for the animal’s sake. So kudos to you
As for the bug thing – I’ve never eaten bugs, nor do I really plan on it just because I don’t see them as appealing even if they had no brain or pain sensors. I can see them being a useful protein source but only in large quantities, and I don’t have the stomach to get past all those legs XD
I don’t feel bad when a fat caddisfly goes SPLAT on my windshield when I drive over a bridge, but I’m mortified if I hit a bird or a deer or something more cuddly. I guess I just have a harder time seeing bugs as something intelligent. That’s not to say they can’t think or feel pain, because I don’t know what goes on in their heads, but I’m personally not so bothered. I do see how many vegetarians/vegans could argue otherwise though.
This sort of information has been trickling out about PETA for a long time. Long before the economy tanked a few years ago, their preferred method of ‘rehoming’ was euthanasia.
I live in a rural area. Lots of farms. Lots of people who grew up on farms and used to taking care of animals. We have a local animal shelter who is always begging for support, dog food, help, etc. Yet, I know of three people who went to the shelter to pick out a new dog and the staff REFUSED TO EVEN SHOW THEM THE DOGS. Decided by asking a them few questions that the people were not suitable to adopt a dog. One of my neighbor’s old long haired Collie/Shep mix dog died from old age. It was well cared for on her little goat farm. Yet, when she went to the shelter to give another adult dog a home, she was denied because she planned to keep the big long haired beast outside in a nice dog house. Last I knew, not too many people ever go to the shelter to adopt an older, big, hairy dog. I would have done the happy dance and given her the dog, just so it found a home. The shelter thought it better to kill the dog, than even bother to go look at her farm – 3 miles from the shelter.
Because, you know, keeping them in a kennel in a shelter is sooo much better than being outside on a big farm with a dog house. >.> I keep hearing these stories and I just want to smack these shelter people! (these ones, not all shelter people) My ex got a puppy from a shelter who had spent most of her time inside or on a leash. When she realized she could be in the grass of a big backyard without a leash to regulate what she could or couldn’t do she was in puppy heaven! She is the sweetest little girl too and happily lives most of her time outside, with a dog house and a buddy (who hates living outside, because he’s a spoiled brat) and a couple cats and is so much happier with her new life.
I guess this little thread is getting a bit OT but I have a similar story. I had a foal last year who really liked to wander out to the back of the 80 acres by himself, and being that there are lots of coyotes out there I thought to myself I should get a farm dog! So I spend about a week looking into the best kind of dog to be a working dog on our farm in northern Alberta. It came down to the Great Pyrenees because of their calm gentle personality with people, but a no BS attitude with predators and intruders. I was very picky that I wanted a dog that had already worked on a farm because to me to be a true working dog they need to have apprenticed under another working dog so they know how to be safe. So I went out on my search for the perfect dog. I saw many “farm” dogs for sale on the classifieds, but they were mostly the type that “is better suited to an acreage because I didn’t bother training them when they were small and cute, so now I want to dump them”. Eventually I did come across two rescues that had purebred Pyrenees for adoption. I thought to myself well we are the perfect home for a working dog that was bred to live outside and work with livestock. We respect our animals and keep them up to date on everything and even feed them food that costs more than our own food half the time. So they would think we were perfect right??? Nope apparently because we planned to have this dog outside most of the time, and only bring her in when it was cold out, and all nights in the winter we didn’t fit what they were looking for. Now I don’t know how many people have seen a Pyrenees up close, but they are HUGE HAIRY dogs. The dog we did get is nicknamed bear dog because she is so fluffy. I mean it’s not like I was looking for a short haired lab puppy to come take care of my farm. These dogs were bred specifically to be outside dogs, and have been working farm dogs since the inception of there breed. Most of the time when I think it is too cold out and call our dog in she just looks at me like “screw you I will boil to death in the house”… I guess my point is that it is getting to the point in the rescue world where they are trying so hard to protect dogs that they are denying them their ability to be dogs. Especially with the pure dogs that were bred for a job. This over protection has actually led to animals that will take it upon themselves to make a job for if not given one. IE crazy toy obsessed labs. I guess my point is that we were the perfect place for one of these dogs, and were even willing to pay the crazy adoption fee to get one. But because they couldn’t accept the idea of a working dog, and a dog that would be allowed to wonder a bit in order to patrol her territory they lost a chance to free up a place for another needy dog. The dog I did get is now a spoiled lump of a thing, who takes very good care of the baby, and keep the other 9 horses in order too.
I also had a similar situation years ago. I was looking to adopt, and made the mistake of mentioning I would be keeping the dog mostly outside. I live with my mom (no, I’m not a kid and wasn’t then either) and since it’s her house and she does not want house dogs, that’s my reality. Now my dogs have houses (3 for 2 dogs so there are even choices and sometimes the current 2 end up in the same one even tho they barely fit), a heated water bowl, and if it’s too bitterly cold coem into the garage. I keep 2 as they’re pack anumals and I don’t want them to be alone when I’m not home. They go to the farm with me, camping with me, and are kept up-to-date on vet care and given good food and treats as well. They get walked and have a big yard to play in. But I was turned down due to keeping them outside, even tho I would choose long-haired dogs and would have had no problem with an organization doing a home check first. I know they see a lot of outside dogs being out-of-sight = out-of-mind, but I’m not one of the people who do that and could offer plenty of references to that effect. Oh well, I found the dog that was meant to be mine so it all worked out.
As for PETA, I’ve heard a number of these stories for years. I can understand that sometimes euthanasia is necessary since people won’t do enough spay / nueter. But 96% is way above anything I’ve ever heard of from responsible shelters. And if PETA are going to do that, they at least need to be up-front about it.
I have to say, I agree about some rescues being overly picky.
I rescue horses on a small scale and really I don’t consider myself ‘picky’ in regards to finding new homes. Obviously the new owners will want to come out and ride before purchasing, so at that point I get a good feel for their experience and whether they will be a good fit. I also deliver the horse to the new owners, so I can make sure they aren’t hording 12 skinny horses in a rusted out barbed wire pen (and I state in my ads that the horses are not to be kept in barbed wire) and I make sure they know that if the horse does not work out, I want them to contact me and let me know so that I have the opportunity to buy it back. Then I keep in touch for the few months, making sure that the horse is working out. That’s about as far as I go. I don’t want to frighten off potential (good) homes. If I were as picky as some rescues, I would never get a horse adopted.
I keep our dogs outside in a huge run and I personally think it’s a healthier environment for them. I can see why rescues say that cats must be kept in side (they don’t need as much space as dogs and they live healthier, longer lives inside) but I don’t see the need for it with dogs (unless they are small escape artists or something). .
http://www.operationhorserescue.blogspot.com
I worked for a local humane society and we would not adopt to an outside only home. I did the adoptions and made those calls with the management. Unfortunately we dealt with so many neglect cases that included the dog being chained and/or kennelled in the backyard, of wherever, and forgotten. If there was severe weather, would the animal be allowed in the garage or house? If the dog was a working animal and the owner was hands on most of the time, I honestly see nothing wrong with an outside only dog … especially with a barn or another such shelter. But a dog does like to be close to its owner, in my opinion.
ugh, at this point, I wish people would stop talking about PETA. they’re so extreme that they get off from the shock factor. Their motto should be “any attention is good attention.”
PETA is just a toddler that screams and throws tantrums in spite of its nose.
I am a fan of incredibly sarcastic humour, which is why I watch Penn and Teller. They actually did a segment on PETA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inFtOMx8nDU
It’s funny, but also has a very sobering level of facts and exposes a lot of the things that PETA doesn’t want you to know
Wow, loved the video. I guess I’ve been out of the loop. All this has opened my eyes. Thanks FHOTD
I think that like a lot of organizations, they started out with a good idea. But money talks the wrong language to the wrong people.
Was there a change of board of directors in 2009? I would like to see how much in salary that the top people have been getting for the last ten years. You know, it’s cheaper to euthanize than it is to feed and care for animals. I could have saved myself a lot of money this week if I had shot the 6 half wild cats in my barn rather than getting them fixed and vaccinated. The vet commented on how well they looked. Maybe I should have called PETA to take care of them instead of spending my money to keep the population down. Maybe PETA should be for “People Euthanizing Their Animals”.
People who do like you did with your half feral felines are the ones who actually make a difference. I had a feral tom adopt me years ago and he is now a fat, happy, loveable neutered furball who thinks cuddling on my lap at night is just fine. We do what we can and even small efforts add up in the long run. Neither of us will have kittens to find homes for. I can live with that.
I would love to trap and neuter the feral tom that lurks in my neighborhood but I know that I will just continually catch my own two indoor/outdoor cats. The timid one maybe once but I just know that my other cat will be in that trap every time I set it so I haven’t tried yet. I wish I could domesticate the tom as he is the prettiest apricot color and has a stubby 4″ tail. I guess it is the slavery that I subject my cats to that makes them come inside when we are home or causes them to be everywhere that I am gardening when I’m outside.
“They’re rescuing fewer animals and yet putting a significantly larger percentage of them down.”
I think that’s because more people are figuring out they’re bat$%^ crazy and not giving them any more money. PETA doesn’t know the first thing about the animals it claims to care about. I remember they once complained that it was inhumane to put a saddle & bridle on a horse because they’re made of leather. Apparently the logic was the horse must know that leather is made from a dead animal and therefore wearing it makes them sad for their fallen comrade. (Did you just spay your Coke all over the screen from laughing? Sorry about that). Never mind that some horses love to chew on leather…
FAIL, FAIL, FAIL. There is no way that 96% were unadoptable…. that is NINETEEN in TWENTY. Five in twenty? Sure. Ten in twenty? Maybe. Nineteen in twenty? Major FAIL. Considering the bad name they give legitimate organizations, PETA is worse than useless.
I find it interesting that as the percentage of euths skyrocketed, the number of animals surrendered to PETA plummeted. I remember hearing about this a few years ago — wanna bet that’s the year without data? And perhaps the drop in surrenders indicates that people wised up and stopped surrendering to PETA. I sure hope so.
Their statement really bothers me, because it essentially assumes that every potential home is going to be abusive. My two cats, two dogs, and two horses — every one of them adopted or rescued — would say otherwise! Besides, don’t serial killers often justify their crimes by claiming they were putting their victims out of their misery?
PETA is a huge joke in Virginia. I used to work at the Gloucester-Mathews Humane Society (in Gloucester, Virginia) and we did our best to avoid working with them at all costs. I’m glad you used the Virginia PETA as an example as they need to be called out as much as possible.
I’m confused — I’ve always thought of PETA more as an organization whose mission is to bring about awareness of animal cruelty to the public and to advocate for animal liberation. I’ve never thought of PETA as being a rescue, or animal shelter, or anything like that. I know they do investigate reports of animal cruelty, but I’ve always assumed that if they do rescue an animal, they probably just remove it from the bad situation and refer it either to a shelter, rescue organization, sanctuary, or foster home. Perhaps they euthanize when all of these resources are full?
Isn’t accusing them of not saving all the animals kind of like saying “The Fugly Blog knows about all of these horses being abused and neglected, but they haven’t saved them all!” Rebuttal: The Fugly Blog’s mission is not to rescue every horse out there. The mission is to bring awareness of the issues in hopes of educating the public and hopefully minimize the occurrence of these issues in the future. Therefore, mission achieved, even if it’s not the mission everyone wanted it to be or expected.
I’m not being snarky – I really am wondering if I missed something about what PETA is supposed to be doing – so if I am wrong or misguided, please correct me! I just don’t see what’s so wrong about them not being able to keep all of the animals alive, or when that became their responsibility. I’m one of those who sees euthanasia as a necessary evil brought on by people who continue to irresponsibly allow their pets to reproduce again and again.
No- it would be equal to FOTH saying “we are going to save all these animals we see” and then either stealing/illegally seizing them or buying them, and putting 97 out of a 100 rescued down, and the 3 that are still alive are only alive because FOTH staff would want them- then they go an criticize someone who puts down 25 out of 100 horses each year.
It’s a lying flaming bullshit pile of hypocritical nonsense is all. PeTa goes on protest and shouts and burn down REAL animal shelters/and rescues, whining about their kill rate. Watch the Penn and Teller video WATCH IT. They literally just protest the killing of ANY animal, including shelter animals and burn down shelters trying to help who only have a 25% kill rate, then they go and kill 96%. They don’t have to be a shelter, but if they honestly admitted to “saving” the animals by releasing them from this world, I might like them a bit more.
I’ve been fighting Peta all year long. I have hundreds of nutjob quotes by Ingrid, and of course the vice president who uses medication- which hast to be tested on animal first. But it’s okay-she is practically Jesus, savior of the animals, therefore has a right to be a hypocrite. They make me so mad. They support ALF(Animal Liberation Front) which is under FBI watch and is a terrorist group, who bomb universities and labs. Peta just needs to be put down itself. Sorry for my rant, I’m just so tired of them.
Has anyone seen “Seaworld of Pain” where a Peta spokesperson had an interview on the Daily Show with John Stewart on comedy central? You would CRACK up.
I believe I read somewhere on this site once (in the comments) that PETA turned loose some horses at a show, and let them onto a road adjoining a major highway. I’m not sure if there is any truth in that or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least to be completely honest.
PETA seems to have this warped idea that being dead is better than being in a loving, caring environment!
PETA, if you got to choose between living in the wild, not knowing where your next meal is coming from, having minimal shelter, no medical or dental care (or hoof care for that matter) and possibly being killed in horrible ways BUT never having to do anything, or being kept in a reasonably safe environment, where you get good and consistent food and water, dental care, medical care and hoof care and shelter BUT you need to be well behaved, which would you rather? Wild animals don’t have good lives. No really, they don’t. It’s like being homeless – you don’t have to do a thing you don’t want to, but you don’t have a very pleasant life. On another note, if PETA is an advocate for animal rights, then who the hell gave THEM the right to kill an animal, or choose that it should be set free to fend for itself?
As for their veganism, I seriously wish they would STFU! Basically it’s ok for them to euth animals, but if anyone eats an animal they are cruel? Explain that PETA. There is nothing wrong with being a vegan (I’m a vegetarian myself) but I sincerely hope that anyone who is a vegan does not support the euthing of animals that had every chance of being adopted into loving homes.
They are a massive bunch of hypocrites.
http://www.operationhorserescue.blogspot.com
I didn’t ‘read somewhere’ about PETA people letting animals loose at shows. It actually happened to some friends of mine. Their BELOVED show dog, an Airedale, was let loose from its crate at a show. Hit by a car, thus ending its enslavement. Knowing that it happened to you, directly – or someone close to you – is a far more effective way of realizing what might REALLY be going on than just hearing it through (probably biased) media.
This time – when they talk about duplicity in PETA – it’s not biased. It’s there.
The key word for that dog was “BELOVED”. They continued to enslave dogs for about fifteen years; three of our four dogs (one ‘secondhand’, as a rescue) came from their rowdy bunch of wild and lovely long legged brillo pads.
=O
Wow, I’m sorry for your friends. That must have been horrible. I don’t know how PETA can possibly think that dying in a not so nice way is better than being in a caring home.
http://www.operationhorserescue.blogspot.com
My understanding of PETA is its a gold mine for the management……. they get unsuspecting people to donate thinking they are doing good with the money.
Much of the money goes to living high, and a lot of it goes to ARF, the branch of PETA that’s always breaking the law and needing legal representation.
The bottom line, if you are wanting to donate to animals’ care you want to be sure they are actually using the money to save and feed animals. Places like Best Friends in Kanab, UT are on the up and up.
Do you mean ALF: the Animal Liberation Front? I’m 99% sure ALF is completely unrelated to PETA, other than being another pro-animal organization. Unlike PETA, ALF is a radical, terrorist “action” group that takes animals from labs and fur farms. PETA follows the law and only videotapes bad situations so they can be legally addressed in court.
Hi K9Shrink,
If you google PETA ALF connection or PETA pays ALF’s legal fees you will see a definite connection.
Sadly they do not always follow the law, they’ve become increasingly extremist lately. I visited an elephant sanctuary, they took in abused, old elephants and gave them a safe home over tons of acres with daily care. The elephants all looked happy and well kept, the grass green and the shelters spotless. They let visitors come and observe with scheduled appointment, without interaction, to view the elephants and their daily routine. The closet you could get to touching was to toss the food they gave you to them over the fence. They didn’t allow cameras. Why? Because a few years back PETA had came and taken pictures and videos, and then edited them and spliced them with other footage, to make them appear abused and starved. They tried to claim that they were a horrible place and that the elephants should be free….. I don’t trust anything peta says. They do not do a lot of good for animals and set the animal rights movement back on a regular basis.
Did you read walkinaire’s comment above or 1EvilPony’s near the top? Did you read the article linked from the post? PETA does a lot more than make videotapes. PETA turned a dog loose where he would be hit by a car, poisoned horses, and euthanized most of the pets that they told people they were going to find homes for.
Excuse me, ARF is Tony La Russa’s rescue in Walnut Creek and St. Louis, which rescues lots of animals and is completely non-loony and on the up-and up. Just sayin’.
PETA lost me years ago when Ingrid Newkirk compared broiler chickens to Jews in the Holocaust. The insensitivity she displayed just made me feel sick.
… I got my dog from a COUNTY shelter. A shelter. Not a rescue. Camden County Animal Shelter has a kill rate of about 25%, with an intake of 10,000-12,000 animals every year. But they run like a well oiled machine. I feel that that’s a really low kill rate for a shelter that has animals coming in from… CAMDEN new jersey… fairly big, fairly poor, very crime ridden city. When I found my dog, some of the dogs had been there for over a year, but were healthy and friendly. One dog I loved but wasn’t suitable, had been there over a year. I checked in on him later to see if he needed financial backing to keep him longer, and I was told they finagled him into a foster situation. They CARE. My dog was brought in as a 2 year old with PARVO which is a fairly poor situation, and they took the time to confine him and treat him, I was the first one to see him after a 2 month confinement period. I’m sure that would be considered “too ill” and euthanized elsewhere. They manage to keep the place clean, professional, and have low cost spay/neuter and vaccine/medication available. While I was there an idiot brought in I’d say a 2month old puppy by the scruff of it’s neck and asked when “he could breed it” and they begged him to leave it there (he didn’t.) Also a confiscation of 11 small terriers was brought in. That’s the crap they deal with on a daily basis and they still bring in more animals and adopt out more animals than PETA, who has the financial backing of CELEBRITIES.
So no, economy or not, there’s no excuse.
PETA’s older intake stats included animals they took in for a day for spay/neuter then returned to owners. Those animals were never up for adoption, but it makes the euthanasia numbers look lower. I believe they were then forced to change reporting methods which caused the apparent “sudden jump” in killings. In reality, their kill rate has always been high.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com has a chart showing numbers exclusive of the neutering intake that shows a consistently very high euthanasia rate. Yes, I know that is not an unbiased website but they do appear to have public documentation to back up their claims.
PETA has been on the top of my WFT list for years. No surprise here.
Crazy people taking money from stupid people. HSUS has its problems, PETA is a problem.
Interesting article in Huffington Post rebutting some of the above allegations against PETA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/daphna-nachminovitch/peta-adopt-pet_b_1301826.html
Frankly, that doesn’t surprise me at all. PETA was my first source of for learning about cruelty situations towards animals, but I never much enjoyed having the vegan is the only way mentality shoved in my face everytime I read anything concerning animal welfare. I’m sorry but i just don’t see how eating meat is incompatible with caring for animal welfare. Eating meat does not = animal abuse. There is nothing unnatural about it. Newsflash PETA, animals eat other animals in the wild (shocking isn’t it?). In fact, when done correctly, the slaughter of animals can be done more humanely than the killing in the wild. Farm raised animals for human comsumption also lead damn good lives. So I’d rather spend my efforts trying to improve the living and slaughter conditions of meat animals than trying to convert to veganism (which would never really work, because I really can’t stand eating most vegetables).
As for keeping animals as pets being cruel, ask my fat 13 year old Spaniel sleeping in my bed if she gives a damn. And btw, my dog was sort of a rescue, as when I found her she was roaming around some guy’s backyard only one month old, with no shelter, in the middle of winter and being fed fish bones. I decided then and there she was coming home with me. I also managed to find homes for a couple more abandoned puppies and without a million dollar budget.
By “was my first source” means was the first source of animal abuse I learned.
Sorry, being up early on a Saturday does not work well for me.
“Ethical” They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
My first complaint (of several) about PETA is that they think they have the right to define “ethical” behavior for the rest of us. They don’t. Just like all moral and belief systems, we each have a right and a responsibility to come to our own understanding of appropriate behavior, and the law exists to correct those who can’t seem to do this for themselves.
Yep. You missed something.
I’ve seen these figures being quoted, and was initially surprised to see that PETA is doing any rescue (or euthanasia) at all. The main reason is that PETA is not a shelter. It is a humane education organization whose specialty is bringing publicity to situations in which animals are being treated inhumanely. They do not have a physical shelter, as far as I know.
I have only once heard of them being called in to rescue animals, and that was here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/02/caboodle-ranchs-700-sick-_n_1316573.html. This was a situation where 700 cats were in appalling conditions, and most had to be euthanized. The links will lead to videos of cats having endless seizures, dragging themselves around with paralyzed rear ends and exposed bones, and dying (or dead) from URIs. Many of these cats had contagious, fatal diseases and were in stages too late to treat. Also, adopters would be almost impossible, because their own pets would have been at risk. And without a physical shelter, where was PETA supposed to house the 700 diseased/dying animals? Kennels or vets would have been afraid to take them due to risk of contagion.
If these stats are correct, I’m going to hazard a guess that it’s because PETA is called in only to the most disastrous situations. A euthanasia rate of 90% is commonly seen in some hoarder rescues. These are often 10+ year old pets that are paralyzed, blind, toothless, etc. With many shelters still euthanizing 40-90% of healthy young dogs that come in (due to lack of adopters), triage requires that these older pets–very expensive to treat–be euthanized.
Yes, in a perfect world, we could treat them all. And hopefully that will happen in our lifetimes. However, there aren’t enough funds or adopters to do either of these at present. Money spent on fixing up one pet could be used for an adoption drive that finds homes for 10+ other pets. I’m in the same moral quandary myself. Two weeks ago, an unknown street dog got hit by a car outside my Istanbul apartment, shattering her front leg. When none of the bystanders did anything, I rushed the dog to the vet. I decided to spend $1500 I can’t really spare on treatment (steel pins in the leg), and the dog is doing fine and recovering at a privately-owned, well-run sanctuary that I’ve done volunteer work for in the past. However, I also realize the money I spent on her could have been used to vaccinate 100 Istanbul street puppies against deadly parvo, or build 20 insulated dog houses for street dogs living in the local forests.
As a “business,” PETA is responsible for using donors’ funds to do the most good. While obviously run by animal lovers, I’m sure they’ve done a cost/benefit analysis and decided to use limited funds towards doing things like promoting vegetarianism (which could save millions of animal lives) rather than spending thousands on individual diseased/injured/elderly animals that are unlikely to find adoptive homes.
There’s apparently a rather different side to this story.
Caboodle seizure
Lots of interesting information in the comments.
PETA placed an undercover person in the infirmary building who shot video over the course of about 5 months. This was edited down to 5 minutes of film that showed, no surprise, sick cats. They then turned the information over to ASPCA who actually did the raid. The whole thing appears to have been politically and financially motivated and timed. There is an excellent piece of legislation in process, the Florida Animal Rescue Act, that would allow many more pets to be pulled from shelters, among other things. PETA and ASPCA are opposed to the FARA, and are spinning the Caboodle seizure news in a way to discredit the legislation.
Craig Grant probably needed some help, but if PETA/ASPCA truly wanted to do what was best for the cats, this could have been handled very differently.
The stats are submitted by PETA themselves.
Workers of theirs have been shown to solicit surrender of healthy animals from other shelters and vets. They described some of the kittens and puppies taken as ‘adorable’ and ‘perfect’ and in some cases killed them in transit after pickup. Now it’s possible that the one time we happen to know anything about the kind of animals they take in happens to be the one time we know the animals they killed were adoptable, but it’s not likely.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/24/documents-peta-kills-more-than-95-percent-of-pets-in-its-care/#ixzz1nP1mXYuv
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540785/Peta-workers-dumped-80-dead-animals-in-skip.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/23/EDG11DC9BK1.DTL
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002339482_webpeta17.html
Take publicity and media-savvy like PETA can bring to to the table and you should be able to find a home for any kind of animal you want. Get a blind, deaf, incontinent pit bull to pose with some of the celebrities they’ve worked with and it would be snapped up. But they refuse to offer information about their adoption practices, they don’t share what they consider ‘adoptable’ or any numbers about the condition of the animals they take in, they aren’t promoting the animals they have in their care, and they’re apparently killing damn nearly everything that walks in through the door.
I remember a discussion a while ago about sociopathic people who owned animals. After reading Ingrid Newkirk’s biography I can’t tell if she is the worse sociopath to head up an animal group or is she just a person who will
logically (in her mind) explain why she has to kill all these animals. I wonder is there is such a thing as a person who
will satisfy their need to control and kill animals to the extant that she has gone. The Nazi’s gave very convincing
arguments to explain away their reasoning of killing Jews, Gypsys,the old, the mentally ill,etc., and the people
bought into it.
The fact that she would go into work early to kill the animals alone (so they wouldn’t suffer) screams out loud that this
person is not someone that I would want to give money to. Plus she seems to enjoy the retelling and the number of
animals that she killed.
Ted Bundy thought he had good reasons to kill.
At least he didn’t take donations to support his way of thinking.
http://blog.peta2.com/2011/07/wtf-is-wonder-dust.html
This little gem of a blog just about sums up for me how stupid and misguided so many of the PETA lovers are in their thoughts about the relationships between humans and animals. To think that wonder dust was made to disguise the injuries on circus elephants and rail about it without bothering to do the slightest bit of research just shows how irresponsible these people can be in their rants.
You can’t debate or look for solutions when you charge ahead in ignorance but this concept seems to be foreign to these people.
Holy shit. I give up. You really, really cannot fix stupid.
For those who might think that the grim PETA numbers are due to the general downturn in the economy or whatever, please check the official statistics for the entire state of Virginia here: http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi where you will find that PETA kills a far larger percentage of animals it takes in in that state than does even the most run-down, back-country dog pound. (No insult meant toward country people!)
Sooo… anybody wanna support their plan for a roadside monument to the cows killed in transit? Good use of funds there, eh? (Sorry, I just couldn’t help myself
)
PETA just a shorter way to say Deluded Hypocrite
A hundred times more people kill other people each year than animals do in recorded history. I’d be more worried about the nut job next door, than a bear/wolf/etc. any day!
So, my take on this whole thing: you might think PETA’s goal is to bring attention to inhumane treatment of animals so their situation can be improved. Sorry, wrong…that’s what an animal _welfare_ organization does. PETA is about animal _rights_, and they have decided that any use of animals by humans violates animals’ rights. Euthanization of practically every animal that falls into their hands is entirely in line with this – better dead than exploited. Frankly, I’m amazed they don’t simply release them to turn feral.
I’ve been trying to think of any case in which PETA’s long-term goal was animal welfare. They don’t want food animals treated humanely, they want them gone. They don’t want pets to have better care, they don’t want anyone to have pets. They want all zoos shut down and we can kiss the species that have been saved from extinction by zoos goodbye.
As far as I can tell, this has ALWAYS been PETA’s underlying philosophy. That we humans have no right to own, eat, hunt, work, wear, keep or in any way control animals.
As for no-kill shelters, I think they’re great in theory. In practice, I think every shelter needs to carefully evaluate the long-term prospects for an animal once it comes to them. If it’s not going to be adopted or fostered out before it starts going nuts, I think it’s better to put it down than keep it kenneled indefinitely.
I haven’t read all the comments posted, so I might have missed it… But I’m wondering if the current Fugly bloggers have the same opinion of HSUS as Cathy did? That was one issue that surely divided Cathy from many of the blog readers. She was unwavering in her opinion of the good that group did, unlike many of us …
This is a bit OT but if there are any pitbull lovers on here who are in California, please look up Swaylove on FB. He has taken haunting kennel photos of the dogs currently at the Carson and Downey shelters who desperately need homes. Most are pitbulls but there are other breeds occasionally. Sharing the photos is encouraged to try to save even one. The shelters are high kill and even dogs who have been spoken for have been euthed before they have been picked up. Thanks fellow animal lovers!
This seems to be hitting the actual mainstream press:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials, and stirred up quite the excitement on Gina Spadafori’s page on Facebook as well. Very fetching photo of Ingrid with a chicken.
Every word and action that comes from PETA get me closer to that ever present bull’s Ass. Thay are full of it and I have NO respect for them and thier organization.
When Ingrid became the “POWER” the organization became hard to take serious. I once was a card carrying PETA member and had the experience of meeting the nutcase in more than one occasion. My opinion of her changed drastically once I saw her in action. I generally have respect for people who live what they preach and are totally up front about what they feel is right, even when I totally disagree with them. Be it religion, vegetarianism, gay.vampires, cowboys or used car salesmen, I have respect for anyone who lives their talk. Ingrid does not practice what she preaches, she doesn’t even come close. She has been the downfall of the organization in many ways.
I do have to say that PETA is the reason the mainstream population has become aware of the horrendous ways animals get used and abused in so many different situations that otherwise would have continued unmonitored. The abuse in research or so called research facilities, slaughter houses, zoo’s, circuses, farms, tax supported shelters, puppymills,dog and horse shows, the list goes on and on. I am grateful for this even if I don’t agree with much of what they preach.
I think most of the stories about PETA doing crap like going to dog shows and giving dogs anti-freeze or turning horses loose are a bunch of silly BS. in fact after years of “showing dogs & cats” I would suspect other breeders doing such things way before a AR group. AKC dog shows have more nut jobs involved with them than the average mental institution. As far as being worried that they or anyone else will take our pets or animals away someday, YEAH sure. We can’t even slow down the enormous amount of excess pets/horses that we have that suffer and die for nothing but a lack of a decent home. If we don’t want government or whomever making more rules and regulations concerning our animals then we might want to get our own shit together and start taking some responsibilities concerning the way we treat and respect life around us.
Yeah, well, lots of folks love to say “Fuck PETA”. I could give you a three page list of those who hate them and the “ususal” reasons why. I feel that PETA achieves its purpose–to get people to pay attention in a time when even nano-second news-spots are too long for our overly-stimulated brains. We’re so overloaded with minutia that only major catastrophies and close-up pics of congressional members’ genitalia catch our interest anymore.
Without the daring and sexually explicit antics of PETA volunteers, we’d simply respond with “ho-hum, another boring factory farm investigation” where cold-heared, soul-less brutes, throw baby piglets from one cement pen to another, jump on turkeys until they literally explode, beat defensless calves with crow bars, hang sick sows from front loaders to strangle them to death, use tractors to drag cows so sick they cannot stand in an attempt get them to their feet so they can extract the last crumpled dollar bill from their spent bodies. Want more? I can go on if you like!
Save the old, worn-out, outdated “bullshit” about them “euthanizing animals by the thousands”. They’re not a shelter nor do they maintain shelters.
You want to educate yourself, read this page and the many links listed on it. This is the master-mind? behind the PETA lies.
http://bermanexposed.org/
Fugly, I’m surprised at you. I give you much more credit than that.