PETA kills 97% of its adopted animals

sowhatifit'sdark said:
If you have believed corporate brochures, government oversight agency assurances and the media about how animals are only mistreated is very rare occurances, you need to look again.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are somewhat right. Government agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission and the CDC treat the HSUS's propaganda as more or less reliable information. The FWC quotes HSUS's sources when filing environmental impact statements. The HSUS is run by Wayne Pacelle, one of PETA's drones.

The HSUS essentially tries to make PETA's radicalism look respectable. They're not very good at that.

Rick Berman's material is as reliable as it can be made by tracing it to primary sources.
 
US fish and wildlife does not have jurisdiction over the main players. A look at how corporations are checked on, including, for example, pharmaceutical companies and agribusiness would show the revolving door between industry and government oversight ESPECIALLY since Bush got in. Hell, people lose their jobs for trying to enforce the laws.
 
Anyone who wants the majority of animal species to survive is far better off helping pet ownership remain legal and helping animal use industries stay viable.

Also, no Fish and Wildlife Commission should have any jurisdiction over captive bred animals.
 
MetaKron said:
Anyone who wants the majority of animal species to survive is far better off helping pet ownership remain legal and helping animal use industries stay viable.
Click to expand...
I assume this is one of Peta's intended goals - the getting rid of pet ownership. My reaction to your posts is not, oh, no PETA is just peachy. I just see the focus in society on PETA when it comes to corporate abuse of animals is a distraction. If you think they are not unnecessarily abusing animals, I think you are naive. If you think we as a society could not look into the issue and start whittling away at the worst abuse and brainstorming together ways of minimizing abuse, I think that is also naive.

What happens is we end up debating if PETA is moral, as if their being immoral or not let's us off the hook for our tacit approval of what is done to animals.



Also, no Fish and Wildlife Commission should have any jurisdiction over captive bred animals.
Click to expand...
Not an issue I have made a postion on.
 
Mr. or Ms. Dark, if you get your information from a source that lies, cheats, steals, and practices terrorism, you get information from a source that lies, cheats, steals, and practices terrorism. We cannot use any information from PETA. It is unreliable. About all that we can argue, and we have to do that carefully, is that the internal logic from their information is wrong, if we even use it for the sake of argument at all.
 
As if PETA had anything BUT a dark side:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals provides aid and comfort for the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The two groups are responsible for more than 600 crimes since 1996, causing (by a very conservative FBI estimate) more than $43 million in damage. ALF�s �press office� brags that in 2002, the two groups committed �100 illegal direct actions� -- like blowing up SUVs, destroying the brakes on seafood delivery trucks, and planting firebombs in restaurants.
Click to expand...
 
Also:


�I will be the last person to condemn ALF,� says Newkirk. And in another interview: �I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren�t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I�d light a match.� In ALF�s publication Bite Back (yes, this terrorist group has a newsletter), Newkirk has said: �You can�t have all politeness and patience, all potlucks and epistles � Some people will never budge unless [they are] pushed to budge.�

Perhaps Newkirk�s most telling comment, though, came in a 2002 U.S. News & World Report feature. �Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective,� she admitted. �We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.�
Click to expand...
 
It is time and more than time for the terrorist tactics to have the effect that they should have. People should repudiate the goals of the terrorists.
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
I assume this is one of Peta's intended goals - the getting rid of pet ownership. My reaction to your posts is not, oh, no PETA is just peachy. I just see the focus in society on PETA when it comes to corporate abuse of animals is a distraction. If you think they are not unnecessarily abusing animals, I think you are naive. If you think we as a society could not look into the issue and start whittling away at the worst abuse and brainstorming together ways of minimizing abuse, I think that is also naive.

What happens is we end up debating if PETA is moral, as if their being immoral or not let's us off the hook for our tacit approval of what is done to animals.
Click to expand...

The point is that PETA should not be allowed to control that hook in any way, shape, or form.
 
James R said:
Animals that need rescuing are most likely to be sick or injured. Consider.
Click to expand...
My sister in law is part of a Pug Rescue program. She personally adopted a blind, deaf, morbidly obese pug. The thing can barely breath, it has cancer. It's really sad.

She also has a normal, healthy pug, and often will pick up a third or fourth animal she'll temporarily take care of while they're trying to find it a home.

So she's clearly not a hypocrite. But it sure sounds like PETA is. So we'll add that to their list of deficiencies.
 
I think that the Confronting Cruelty site had it right.
These two groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Most people want humane treatment of animals, whether as pets or as livestock. Trouble is, when it comes to shelling out extra money at the supermarket for ethically kept food animals, most people will turn a blind eye to how the animals are kept.
 
WTF ? People get this worked up over Animals ? Why not the Palestinians ? Or the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections ? Why not the actions of Fox ?
 
MetaKron said:
What about the fact that other shelters kill about 37 percent on the average?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got that figure from, but my guess is that it is an under-estimate.

Many many pets are dumped every year. It is impossible to rehome all of them, and the result is that most are put down. I know that this is the case for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Australia, and I see no reason why the situation would be any different in the US.

madanthonywayne said:
My sister in law is part of a Pug Rescue program. She personally adopted a blind, deaf, morbidly obese pug. The thing can barely breath, it has cancer. It's really sad.

She also has a normal, healthy pug, and often will pick up a third or fourth animal she'll temporarily take care of while they're trying to find it a home.

So she's clearly not a hypocrite. But it sure sounds like PETA is. So we'll add that to their list of deficiencies.
Click to expand...

i.e. you'll believe any anti-PETA propaganda, regardless of its source, just like MetaKron.

Captain Kremmen said:
Most people want humane treatment of animals, whether as pets or as livestock. Trouble is, when it comes to shelling out extra money at the supermarket for ethically kept food animals, most people will turn a blind eye to how the animals are kept.
Click to expand...

For most people, it is a case of "out of sight, out of mind". Most people don't care to know anything about the process which led to the landing of their steak on their plate.

Challenger78 said:
WTF ? People get this worked up over Animals ? Why not the Palestinians ? Or the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections ? Why not the actions of Fox ?
Click to expand...

People get worked up about all those things.

Do you have a problem with getting worked up over the mistreatment of animals? If so, why?
 
is PETA the US version of the RSPCA?

For those who dont know the RSPCA in Australia has the responcability to rescue animanls from cruel conditions, investigate aligations of crulty to animals, prosicute the aligations and also house and rehome those animals that are either dumped on them or are rescued by them. Im not sure on this but i think it is also them that destroy animals that are concidered dangerious by the local councils after atacking other animals or people

Therefore they find themselves destroying alot of animals who are unable to be homed (especially cats of irisponcable owners who dont desex there animals) or are to injured or ill to be treated humanly
 
Asguard said:
is PETA the US version of the RSPCA?

For those who dont know the RSPCA in Australia has the responcability to rescue animanls from cruel conditions, investigate aligations of crulty to animals, prosicute the aligations and also house and rehome those animals that are either dumped on them or are rescued by them. Im not sure on this but i think it is also them that destroy animals that are concidered dangerious by the local councils after atacking other animals or people

Therefore they find themselves destroying alot of animals who are unable to be homed (especially cats of irisponcable owners who dont desex there animals) or are to injured or ill to be treated humanly
Click to expand...

PETA is more like an animal Hamas.
 
MetaKron: you do realise that tells me nothing except that you dont like them

Oh and i forgot one role of the RSPCA, to advocate for the protection of all animals, for instance they are against the live transport of sheep because of the high death rates ect and they are lobbying for the abolistion of battery hens

oh and they are a volentieer group, tough gig huh:)
 
Asguard said:
is PETA the US version of the RSPCA?
Click to expand...

No. PETA is an animal rights/animal liberation organisation. It is private and has nothing to do with the government, unlike the RSPCA.

PETA believes that animals should not be kept and treated as property. It is an animal rights organisation, whereas the RSPCA is an animal welfare organisation. The RSPCA's position is that having things like a meat industry are fine, as long as animals are killed "humanely". The RSPCA is concerned about inflicting pain and suffering on animals, but accepts that animals are the property of human beings and that human owners can dictate how they want to "use" an animal, within certain bounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top