PETA kills animals

I just found out about this on another forum. Pretty interesting read.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Interesting site.....i am buying a shirt ;)

PETA is a bunch of sick SOBs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel1983

Interesting site.....i am buying a shirt ;)

PETA is a bunch of sick SOBs.

---

It should say on the front ''PETA''
Then on the back say "what a bunch of SOBs''
I like that better, of course it wouldn't be in ''short form''
Lol, yeah I'd buy a shirt too.

"PETA" is a bunch of hypocritical fanatics. I hate that there are people out there that fund them.. they are so ignorant.

I signed the petition to remove their tax-exempt, sent the form to my wife and a few friends, and bought the shirt. they need to be stopped!!!

Just looking over that .pdf from the PETA kills animals site. Something with their math just isn't making sense to me.

For 2005 they report on one line that they have, as of January 1, 2005

- 5 cats on hand

- they took in 19 strays

- they had 1,564 owner surrenders

- they had 5,191 "other" (which since it's the largest group of intake animals, seems to me that ought to have to report what "other" actually is)

Okay so those numbers jibe...that's a total of 6,779 cats for year 2005 which is the total number they reported.

Now how in the world does the math work out when on the next area below..."Disposition" clearly states

- Cats - Reclaimed by Owner - 5,193

Now how do over 5,000 cats get reclaimed by owners when owners only surrendered just over 1,564 and only 19 came in as strays which may have been tracked down by their owners????? Let's be honest too, most cats are never tracked down by their owners....they wander off and the owners never find them and a lot are not microchipped. So how do more owners, like over twice as many owners "reclaim" cats that they never "surrendered"????? These cats weren't picked up as strays, they weren't surrendered, or came in from other shelters in VA, they aren't biters or seized for cruelty or neglect????

Where'd those 5,191 "other" cats come from I'd like to know!

Also I noted as of December 31, 2005 they report zero cats on hand. Now that again makes no amount of common sense to me. What shelter/rescue etc. ever "clears the books" just exactly in time for a certain date on a calendar? What the heck, cats suddenly stop becoming homeless by midnight on December 31st?

This report is, when put against my own concepts of what makes sense, total crap and somebody's shuffling numbers obviously and hiding the bulk of the numbers in a vague "other" category. :mad:

Though if you compare the link from the anti-PETA site to the link they provide to this PETA reporting, the numbers they quote don't match either.

peta is so stupid, i can't think of anyone who doesnt have brain damage who supports them.

I have an issue with PETA..being that I love pit bulls and fight for my right to own one. Supporting PETA gets animals killed

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itswGWddk2A
The video is a little dramatic, but it puts the fact that Peta killed shelter animals out there. you would be surprised how many people have no idea that they did this, dumped the bodies in a piggly wiggly dumpster, got caught and had to go to court, Meanwhile I watched the Michael Vick news and there are Peta supporters outside the courtroom.


What ingrid thinks about pit bulls
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

Quote:

---

Controlling an animal as deadly as a weapon
Ingrid Newkirk

Wednesday, June 8, 2005

Most people have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any pit bull that comes through the front door doesn't go out the back door alive. From California to New York, many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of "pits" they encounter. This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover.

Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, supports the shelters' pit-bull policy, albeit with reluctance. We further encourage a ban on breeding pit bulls.

The pit bull's ancestor, the Staffordshire terrier, is a human concoction, bred in my native England, I'm ashamed to say, as a weapon. These dogs were designed specifically to fight other animals and kill them, for sport. Hence the barrel chest, the thick hammer-like head, the strong jaws, the perseverance and the stamina. Pits can take down a bull weighing in at over a thousand pounds, so a human being a tenth of that weight can easily be seriously hurt or killed.

Pit bulls are perhaps the most abused dogs on the planet. These days, they are kept for protection by almost every drug dealer and pimp in every major city and beyond. You can drive into any depressed area and see them being used as cheap burglar alarms, wearing heavy logging chains around their necks (they easily break regular collars and harnesses), attached to a stake or metal drum or rundown doghouse without a floor and with holes in the roof. Bored juveniles sic them on cats, neighbors' small dogs and even children.

In the PETA office, we have a file drawer chock-full of accounts of attacks in which these ill-treated dogs with names like "Murder" and "Homicide" have torn the faces and fingers off infants and even police officers trying to serve warrants. Before I co-founded PETA, I served as the chief of animal-disease control and director of the animal shelter in the District of Columbia for many years. Over and over again, I waded into ugly situations and pulled pit bulls from people who beat and starved them, or chained them to metal drums as "guard" dogs, or trained them to attack people and other animals. It is this abuse, and the tragedy that comes from it, that motivates me.

Those who argue against a breeding ban and the shelter euthanasia policy for pit bulls are naive, as shown by the horrifying death of Nicholas Faibish, the San Francisco 12-year-old who was mauled by his family's pit bulls.

Tales like this abound. I have scars on my leg and arm from my own encounter with a pit. Many are loving and will kiss on sight, but many are unpredictable. An unpredictable Chihuahua is one thing, an unpredictable pit another.

People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pit- bull breeding. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note.

Ingrid Newkirk is president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (http://www.peta.org) and the author of "Making Kind Choices" (St. Martin's Griffin, 2005).

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... D4G1S1.DTL

This article appeared on page B - 9 of the San Francisco Chronicle

---

Does anyone besides me see the hipocracy there as PETA rides the wave of free publicity on the coat-tails of the Michael Vick case???

Even the HSUS has issues
http://www.dogpolitics.com/my_weblog...u_funding.html

I have to admit that I am a "granola crunching hippe" and was devastated when I learned the truth about PETA

I'm no fan of PETA, but they do serve a purpose. Extremist groups have a tendency to moderate current practices. Without groups like PETA, animal rights laws probably would have never come to be. It's the same with almost every industry where pratices were less than ethical (logging being another major example).

PETA has an agenda, as does that site, made clear by the fact that the site compared Vick with an organization of thousands of members. Vick is a pile of crap, PETA is a mild nusance. While there were two PETA members that disposed of animals in a high unethical and unhealthy manor, the majority are euthanized in a proper manor I'm sure. I'm fairly certain Michael Vick didn't kill any of his 8 animals in a humane manor.

Personally, I spend my time supporting the good groups out there, such as the ASPCA and Humane Society instead of bothering with the loud and abnoxious folks at PETA. At the end of the day, I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of PETA's volunteers and donors are good people. But it's the few that aren't, that make the news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyldmoonwoman

Even the HSUS has issues
http://www.dogpolitics.com/my_weblog...u_funding.html

---

The "issues" HSUS has is by trying to seriously reduce the number of specific breeds in shelters. Pitbulls overwhelm animal shelters in some areas, and by sterilizing, they can reduce the problem.

Then again, I have nothing against breed specific legislation, when it's warranted, so I don't see the problem in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jhall1468

The "issues" HSUS has is by trying to seriously reduce the number of specific breeds in shelters. Pitbulls overwhelm animal shelters in some areas, and by sterilizing, they can reduce the problem.

Then again, I have nothing against breed specific legislation, when it's warranted, so I don't see the problem in the first place.

---

This is a passionate subject for me.

My problem with the HSUS is they have singled out a specific breed, the pit bull, and recommend and promote legislation to target a specific breed...which makes it easier to pass BSL in my town. What they should have done is recommend sterilization of all dogs across the board. The HSUS criminalizes pit bull owners, the HSUS calls me a thug and a drug dealer. I am a white upper middle class mom.

The HSUS states that they do not support BSL publicly, but they do when they single out a specific breed and recommend legislation for mandatory s/n of that breed!

It's hipocracy!

I am sorry that you have nothing against breed specific legislation, I really am. BSL does not work. The one simple problem of accurate breed idnetification is a huge issue. And new breeds will fill the spot once they eradicate the pit bull from your town. Enforcing BSL is a huge financial burdon for a municipality. BSL does not make dog owners accountable for their dogs actions. BSL alienates the responsible dog owner and causes the back-yard breeder of unstable dogs to go deeper underground

There are many better, cheaper, more effective alternatives

Put a stop to leash law violations
Strengthen and enforce penalties for dangerous owners and their dangerous dogs
Crack down on dog fighting
Strengthen animal abuse laws
Prevent criminals from owning dogs
Regulate breeders
Fund public spay/neuter initiatives
Educate about dog behavior
Encourage responsible dog ownership
Provide low-cost obedience training classes and behavior help hotlines for dog owners

sorry for the rant...I should go take my medication, lol :rolleye2:

I don't see how anyone could support PETA... I hate them so much!
I hate the fact that they are against killing animals but they kill animals too. Ingrid is an ugly piece of... you know. I hate that woman so much!!
I am a nice person, right? :)
I especially hate that they target young kids like me. There's a poster on that website and it says "Your mommy kills animals"
WTF?!
PETA is a no-no. :colbert:

I thought PETA was "people eat tasty animals" so that is no suprise that they kill them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wyldmoonwoman

This is a passionate subject for me.

My problem with the HSUS is they have singled out a specific breed, the pit bull, and recommend and promote legislation to target a specific breed...which makes it easier to pass BSL in my town. What they should have done is recommend sterilization of all dogs across the board. The HSUS criminalizes pit bull owners, the HSUS calls me a thug and a drug dealer. I am a white upper middle class mom.

---

There's no question if those quotes were by HSUS, they were completely out of line. I don't think the intent was to call all Pitbull owners drug dealers, thus or anything else, but it certainly comes off that way.

The problem with sterilization of all animals, is that some aren't over bred. In fact, some are under bred. You aren't going to find an Airdale in a shelter around here. So sterilizing Airdale's makes little sense.

While I see your side of things, I see the other side as well. If a shelter is being dominated by a specific breed, I understand the inclination to bring legislation that prevents further problems.

The area I live in is middle class USA. The local shelter has more empty cages than full, so animal legislation hasn't been an issue, at least locally. But I've also seen shelters in other areas that are so over run (and often by a single breed) that they don't even have room for anything else. BSL targets a specific problem.

I think the overwhelming majority of Pit owners are good people. But unfortunately, the breed of dog has a bad history, and it's easy to pass judgment.

Quote:

---

The HSUS states that they do not support BSL publicly, but they do when they single out a specific breed and recommend legislation for mandatory s/n of that breed!

It's hipocracy!

---

Actually, from what little research I've found, Pamela Rogers (the one suggesting the BSL) is the director of HSUS for Kentucky. I saw no indication that this was supported by any higher ups in the organization.

Quote:

---

I am sorry that you have nothing against breed specific legislation, I really am. BSL does not work. The one simple problem of accurate breed idnetification is a huge issue. And new breeds will fill the spot once they eradicate the pit bull from your town. Enforcing BSL is a huge financial burdon for a municipality. BSL does not make dog owners accountable for their dogs actions. BSL alienates the responsible dog owner and causes the back-yard breeder of unstable dogs to go deeper underground

---

I think that's a few too many generalizations for my taste. I certainly don't think that anyone wants to eradicate Pitbulls, inasmuch as they want a problem controlled. Now, it's certainly plausible (even likely) a new breed will become the new "favorite" for animal shelters, that doesn't mean we should simply avoid the issue. Murder is a violation of the law, and even though people still kill other people, we have to continue enforcing the law.

While some BSL may not make dog owners accountable, it should. And if it doesn't, that's simply poorly written legislation, regardless if it's breed specific. The same goes for alienation of responsible owners. If that's the case, it's not bad legislation, it's poorly written.

Quote:

---

There are many better, cheaper, more effective alternatives

Put a stop to leash law violations
Strengthen and enforce penalties for dangerous owners and their dangerous dogs
Crack down on dog fighting
Strengthen animal abuse laws
Prevent criminals from owning dogs
Regulate breeders
Fund public spay/neuter initiatives
Educate about dog behavior
Encourage responsible dog ownership
Provide low-cost obedience training classes and behavior help hotlines for dog owners

---

I agree with most of those. However, many of them would cost far more than BSL to enforce, and more importantly, none of them really focus on the problem that currently exists in St. Louis: They are overrun with stray pit bulls. While preventative legislation is a good thing, it seems some people think it's too late for that in St. Louis. If that's the case, BSL should be an open option.

thank for the link , all though i already knew about peta sick ways :cens0r::cens0r:
ill post this around on other forums to let people know what actually happens :gj:

I will admit, even as a vegan, I do not like PETA. They have done good things and they have done bad things. Its that way with any group with a passionate purpose. I love animals and I made the switch to veganism 3 weeks ago. I think PETA is mostly there to shock you and be in your face which is not always the best way to handle subjects like this. I'm all for animal rights and I'm all for people being able to have pitbulls. I do not like PETA. The really extreme members don't even like you to have pets. WTF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jay_Bunny

I will admit, even as a vegan, I do not like PETA. They have done good things and they have done bad things. Its that way with any group with a passionate purpose. I love animals and I made the switch to veganism 3 weeks ago. I think PETA is mostly there to shock you and be in your face which is not always the best way to handle subjects like this. I'm all for animal rights and I'm all for people being able to have pitbulls. I do not like PETA. The really extreme members don't even like you to have pets. WTF?

---

How can you live without any cheese? Or yummy milk with cookies?!
I respect vegans (Im a vegetarian, exept I sometimes eat fish) but giving that up would be just too much for me.
And I agree about how PETA goes overboard.