PETA kills 97% of its adopted animals

madanthonywayne said:
Just looking at the initials, I'd say the RSPCA is more like (and probably related to) the ASPCA. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is a respected organization. Unlike PETA, which is famous for throwing paint on people's fur coats and just being generally luney to the point of supporting terrorism in support of "animal rights".

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer
Click to expand...

The SPCAs more or less went AR quite some time ago. Google the name Roger Caras.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880119.html

The links to the RSPCA do uncover animal rights type activities like seeking bans on hunting. For some reason they're after duck hunting. That's animal rights.
 
Sorry mad i didnt make this clear

RSPCA
Royal Sociaty for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

http://www.rspca.org.au/

Charter

RSPCA Australia believes that man must treat animals humanely. Where man makes use of animals or interferes with their habitat, he should bestow a level of care befitting man's own dignity as a rational, intelligent, compassionate being, and a level of care merited by the nature of the animal as a sentient creature capable of responding to man's care and attention. Such care should be marked by sympathy, consideration, compassion and tenderness towards animals.

RSPCA Australia believes that national and international adoption of set minimum standards of treatment and husbandry, and the observance of the following points, will enable all species of animals to live according to their behavioural needs as provided by a compassionate and responsible community:

1. Animals have an intrinsic value of their own and, accordingly must be considered to possess the right to live in a way which enables them to have a positive life and to develop and enjoy their inherent qualities.

2. No animal should be used for the production of food or fibre, either by farming practice, transportation, or method of slaughter which in any way may cause suffering, injury or distress.

3. No animal should be used for sport or the entertainment of man when such use may increase the risk of injury, suffering or distress to the animals, or is contrary to its nature.

4. Animals should not be used in direct combat, either one against the other or in warfare.

5. Animals should not be used in experiments which inflict pain or suffering upon them and which are not essential for the benefit of man or animals. The use of animals should be replaced by reliable alternative techniques immediately they become available.

6. No animal should be used in excessive breeding programs or programs which produce deformed or weak offspring.

7. Domestic animals must be effectively protected from adverse weather conditions, predators and disease.

8. Domestic animals must be kept in such a way which will enable them to socialise, move freely, stretch, lie down, and have access to clean water, a suitable balanced food supply, and to prophylactic and corrective medicines.

9. Native animals and birds shall be maintained safely in their natural environment and shall be free from hunting, trapping and captivity. Culling may occur, but only when proven necessary for the preservation and benefit of the species. Culling must only be carried out under proper supervision and control.

10. Any animal suffering from disease, injury, or debilitation, must be given first aid or appropriate veterinary attention quickly. If the affliction cannot be cured, or if it involves permanent and serious disability, the animal must be humanely destroyed.

11. The State shall enact and enforce laws, regulations and codes for protecting animals from exploitation, and for ensuring that their basic individual needs are maintained at all times and that their environment is kept free from illegal or irresponsible intrusion.

12. The State shall also develop and implement suitable educational programs or ensure that man's responsibility towards animals is taught in all schools and in the wider community.

Man has an obligation to protect the interests of animals at all times. He should be encouraged to willingly accept this obligation. But, if he does not do so, then the force of the law should be used to ensure that all animals are treated humanely.
Click to expand...

sorry this is so long its posted straight off there website
 
The RSPCA (Australian branch, at least) is an animal welfare organisation, as is clear from its charter.
 
I will ask for the second time. WHATS WRONG WITH THAT????

or is it just that you want to be able to slaughter animals with a clear contious, how about waling would you like a go at that? what about having a shoot at the bilby (a highly endangered species)

Your critisiums on the PETA sound less and less crediable the more you critisie the statuary body in charge of making sure that animals are treated humanly
 
Asguard said:
I will ask for the second time. WHATS WRONG WITH THAT????
Click to expand...
Well, while I support treating animals humanely. I do not recognize animals as having any rights whatsoever.

PETA, on the other hand, wants "total animal liberation". Which means:
No wearing of leather, fur, or any other animal product; no eating meat or drinking milk; no eating of eggs or honey; no zoos, circuses, 4H, or any other animal exhibition; no fishing or hunting; no medical testing of any kind upon animals, and no pets.
Click to expand...
What would the world look like in the unlikely case that PETA achieved its goals?
There would be no farming of cattle or chickens, no meat, eggs, or honey in your grocery store. Millions of farmers around the world would lose their livelihoods, and a major part of the human food supply would be gone. Children, who need milk as a crucial part of their growth, would be crippled.

Anyone who likes to hunt or fish, whether for recreation or to obtain the furs, skins, and meat, would be a criminal. All leather, fur, and even silk would be banned. (PETA says it is cruel to use the silkworms to make silk.) The county fair will have no animals of any kind. 4H would have to close up shop. All zoos would have to close. Knut, the adorable polar bear cub in a German zoo, would have never been born, despite his entire species being in danger. All the species preservation and conservation work conducted and funded by zoos would end. Entire species that only exist in captivity would become extinct.
Click to expand...
No milk, no pets, even using silkworms is banned? WTF?

Another interesting fact, PETA spends only 1% of its funds actually helping animals:
according to PETA's own records (which are available for public review) PETA spends less than 1% of its $13 million budget on actual care, housing, feeding, and home-finding for animals?
Click to expand...
Of course, a group that wants the ownership of pets banned can't be expected to help find homes for pets. Instead, they kill them. Clearly, they have no concern for cats and dogs. What do they think will happen to them if the ownership of pets is banned? Clearly, the answer is they will be killed, as are 97% of the pets PETA gets its hands on.

As if all that were not bad enough, their activities and support for terrorist organizations makes them contemptable.
PETA directly provides funds and support to two groups, ALF and ELF. Those acronyms stand for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. These two groups make it their business to attack innocent people for wearing fur or leather, attack and burn research labs, harass and intimidate scientists and workers, and attack and burn people's new homes, just for having been built somewhere ALF and ELF disagree with! These people fit the definition of terrorists: persons who use fear, intimidation, and infliction of harm in order to achieve radical goals.
Click to expand...

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/282260/peta_when_animal_rights_becomes_terrorism.html

"7 Things You Didn't Know About PETA." The Center for Consumer Freedom. URL: (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/134)

John Hawkins, "Quotes from the Animal Rights Movement." Rightwingnews.com. URL: (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/animal.php)

James Jarboe, "Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, February 12, 2002,"The Threat of Eco-Terrorism." FBI. URL: (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm)
 
You can stick a sign on a steaming pile of manure that says anything that you want it to say, but it will still be a steaming pile.

The list of items from the RSPCA might as well have been written by PETA. If you read the wording carefully and don't listen to people who try to weasel their way around it, it says no hunting, no farming, no pets, and the animal rights organizations decide and second-guess your decisions, with a heavy hand.

I have every right to criticize the "statutory body."
 
Thank you, Mad Anthony. Terrorists and supporters of terrorism deserve nothing and should be given less than that.
 
Mad i agree with you that is just unstatanable and to a large exstent wrong, we are not ment to be vegatarian for starter

MetaKron

actually it doesnt. It say humane farming (ie no batery hens and no live exports) sustainable fishing (exactly what the DSE wants as well), culling only lawfully santioned (by the DSE), the humane treatment of pets (pets are good and the shelter around the courner deals with all kinds including fish)

Seems to me the only one you got right is hunting, would you be surprised to learn there is very little hunting in Australia at all and we are no worse off for it?

They are the body in charge of enforcing the laws relating to animal protection and they do a very good job at it even though it shouldnt have to be there responcability at all
 
You're not fooling me, Asguard. You might be fooling yourself. Read what it actually says.

Item 11 asks the state to end all exploitation of animals. That means no human use period. Item 2 literally excludes all use of animals for food and fibre, with the possible exception of milk, but if you really want to get picky, use for milk would be excluded too, as would the use of wool. Item 9 rules out pets.

I have no respect for an organization that claims not to be animal rights when it uses animal rights precepts and is weaselly, like animal rights groups, about how it applies its precepts. You're trying to tell me that they didn't say what they said, and you approve of an anti-hunting agenda, which amazingly has actually pretty much passed in England and the Australia, and that alone is adequate reason for the destruction of the animal rights and animal welfare organizations.
 
item 11 refers to the fact that the STATES enact laws in regard to the prevention of cruelty rather than the federal government and that the RSPCA will then administer those laws. (thats there JOB)

Item 2 requires that farming, transportation and slaughter be down humainly, under LAW as is there job

Item 9 refers to the treatment of NATIVE animals under LAW

Item 6 refers to the treatment of animals breading for PETS

item 7 refers to minium conditions required for animals kept for farming AND as pets

item 8 refers specifically to pet conditions

If you disagree try reading the INTRODUCTION

RSPCA Australia believes that man must treat animals humanely. Where man makes use of animals or interferes with their habitat, he should bestow a level of care befitting man's own dignity as a rational, intelligent, compassionate being, and a level of care merited by the nature of the animal as a sentient creature capable of responding to man's care and attention. Such care should be marked by sympathy, consideration, compassion and tenderness towards animals.

RSPCA Australia believes that national and international adoption of set minimum standards of treatment and husbandry, and the observance of the following points, will enable all species of animals to live according to their behavioural needs as provided by a compassionate and responsible community:
Click to expand...

I have highlighted the most relivent point for you. You DO understand what husbandry is dont you? why would they advocate for minimum standeds if there goal was to abolish all animal use. You should get over your own bias
 
James R said:
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?
Click to expand...

People should prioritize. Human beings, (their own kin) are being treated like animals everyday. Take care of your own before taking care of others...
 
Asguard said:
I have highlighted the most relivent point for you. You DO understand what husbandry is dont you? why would they advocate for minimum standeds if there goal was to abolish all animal use. You should get over your own bias
Click to expand...

My own bias? They are the ones who wrote that they planned to stop all exploitation of animals. Advocating "minimum standards" is just a tool that they use to abuse people into giving up farming, hunting, and keeping pets.
 
MetaKron said:
Thank you, Mad Anthony. Terrorists and supporters of terrorism deserve nothing and should be given less than that.
Click to expand...

MK, what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Why do you hate animals so much?
 
wsionynw said:
MK, what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Why do you hate animals so much?
Click to expand...

Who says I hate animals? I happen to want them to live. With the help of the RSPCA and other animal rights organizations, they will cease to live.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top