Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Disappointed in PETA

Sheriffmom
October 19th, 2004, 05:57 PM
Hi guys,
I wrote PETA a letter to find out about their position on BSL, and also to ask for any input on how to fight it. I was shocked by their reply (posted below), I can't believe that PETA has turned their backs on Pitbulls. Also below is my response to them. I believe LL1 was the one that warned me that PETA is pro-ban, I just had a hard time believeing it.... until I got this letter.

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the legislation in Ontario regarding pit bulls. We appreciate your support and are grateful for the opportunity to address your concerns.

While PETA does not believe that every pit bull should be euthanized, we do advocate a ban on the breeding of pit bulls; indeed, we should surely ban all breeding of dogs, given the tragic overpopulation crisis that results in millions of unwanted animals’ being killed every year. However, we maintain that any ban should include a clause protecting all pit bulls already living in caring homes.

Before founding PETA, Ingrid Newkirk was the chief of Animal Disease Control and the director of the animal shelter in the District of Columbia for many years. During her time there, she initiated the first-ever spay/neuter, adoption, and humane-investigation programs in our nation’s capital. She waded into dangerous situations on a daily basis in an effort to help abused and neglected dogs, risking her safety countless times in the back alleys and slums of Washington. Over and over again, she rescued pit bulls from people who beat and starved them, chained them to metal drums as “guard” dogs, or trained them to attack people and other animals. This breed stands out as the most abused in dogdom. It is the relentless abuse of these animals that motivates our desire to stop people from bringing more pits into the world to be hurt and exploited.

Are some pit bulls loving companions? Absolutely. But nice families rarely come to a shelter to adopt pit bulls. Almost without exception, those who want pit bulls are attracted to the “macho” image of the breed as a living weapon and seek to play up this image by putting the animals in heavy chains, taunting them into aggression, and leaving them out in all weather extremes to “toughen” them.

Pit bulls offered for adoption to the public have a higher risk than other breeds of suffering a horrible fate. By advocating a ban on breeding this dog, PETA is trying to protect the dogs from people who would hurt them. This position would save dogs’ lives overall, not take more lives. Any good person could still adopt a dog—just not a pit bull who could be abused or bred to make more animals to abuse.

When shelters are destroying dogs by the tens of thousands, why breed pit bulls or any dogs? There are many, many wonderful dogs in shelters who need homes. PETA urges everyone who can provide a permanent, loving home to spay or neuter and adopt one of these animals.

Again, thank you for writing. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Collins
PETA Correspondent


MY RESPONSE:
Ms Collins,
I find your reply somewhat perplexing. Although I understand your position about the type of ppl who sometimes adopt Pitbulls, and I agree with you that there should be stricter guidlines in place to adopt (Actually to adopt ANY animal). I don't however, agree that just because a Pit might by the wrong type of person, that the breed should be banned. I find this statement by PETA to be extreamly hypocritical. The solution shouldn't be to ban a breed, the solution should be enforcing strict laws on who owns dogs. Enacting laws with teeth to prevent abuse. By simply banning the breed, those you say are the most common adopters will simply move on to a different breed (perhaps Rotti's or GSDs), and where will that leave us? Would we then simply ban any dog, simply because it may be abused?
In your letter you state: "However, we maintain that any ban should include a clause protecting all pit bulls already living in caring homes." What may I ask does PETA advocate they do with Pits in shelters and in non-caring homes?
I thought PETAs position in all things was no-kill. Obviously some animals don't rank as high on that list.
Sincerely

Copper'sMom
October 19th, 2004, 06:08 PM
I sure hope that all shelters aren't adopting dogs out to just anyone who walks in off the street. What's the point in adopting them out if there is a chance they'll just end up back in the shelter or worse? Do they do any background checks on ppl??

melanie
October 19th, 2004, 06:22 PM
sorry but i can not see anywhere in that letter where it says peta are supporting a ban of the breed, it specifically says they SUPPORT A BAN ON BREEDING pit bulls and it states they would desire this for all breeds, to me those issues are worlds apart and i whole heartedley agree with them, all dog breeding should be banned untill the problem of overpopulaiton becomes under control.

weather we like it or not bsl is beconming very popular, saying plain no its wrong is not enough, it is necessary to put foreward other reasonable and effective ideas instead, such as ban breeding, this way it may jsut be done in a controlled manner instead of everyone killing their dogs..they are offereing alternatives instead of just killing, that is really important as it may just be more effective than just saying no and peta might just save a few lives this way, it gives the public something to make them feel like they won the debate but the dogs still get to live, we dont live in an ideal world and we have to work all situations from all angles to get somewhere..

and anyone who breeds more dogs should be dealt with in a very severe manner, as breeding more dogs is not what an animal lover would do, well that is an aware animal lover who knows that the world is sadly overpopulated with unwanted animals.

in the state of australia (NSW) i live in , over 30000 dogs are killed each year in shelters as they are dumped and cannot be rehoused, im sorry but those dogs deserve a little more respect than that and i advocate banning breeding of all animals except under certain programs (such as those that breed dogs specifically for guide dog training etc.). we need to soak upthe excess number, in NSw alone current stats show there is one dog for every 7 ppl, that is there is nearly 1 million dogs in my state alone, that is just criminal and needs to be dealt with seriously.

and by the way, those numbers above, apparently the majority of dumped dogs happens around 3-4 months after christmas, all those cute presents are not so cute after a while.

food for thought

sue fox
October 19th, 2004, 07:08 PM
I agree with Melanie. The situation has a lot of angles. PETA does not support ban but rather stands firm about breeding "any dog" until such is under control. This is really unrealistic as ppl all have their different idea of their "type" of dog and ppl are just not well informed nor do they try to be when "looking" for a dog, probably not looking at all but just take first they see. Don't you think most ppl buy on a whim, which contributes to the problem hence the 3-4mos after christmas being the large numbers at shelters. I was just having a conversation with a neighbor I met in the street(never talked to her before). She is of Portuguese descent and was trying to tell me how nice it was to be able to pet my dog and how terrible about the pit bulls how it made her cry that ppl are so cruel not to take care of their animals and how irresponsible they are not to socialize them. I know you guys have heard all this before sorry didn't mean to "say it again".
Sue

Lucky Rescue
October 19th, 2004, 08:04 PM
PETA advocates the ethical treatment of all animals EXCEPT pit bulls and is a hypocritical, media-driven and terrorist organization.

Ingrid Newkirk herself has this to say: (Italics are mine, pointing out her outrageous, hysterical and erroneous statements.)


PeTA Supports the EXTERMINATION of "PIT BULL" BREEDS!
Ingrid Newkirk: Even ardent animal lovers embrace this euthanasia policy

Thursday, January 27, 2000 By INGRID NEWKIRK

(snip)
"The pit bull's ancestor, the Staffordshire terrier,(This is incorrect ) is a human concoction, bred in my native England, (Ms.Newkirk is not aware that all breeds are "human concoctions??) I'm ashamed to say, as a weapon.
These dogs were designed specifically to fight other animals and kill them,(As were MANY breeds) for human sport. Hence the barrel chest, the thick hammer-like head,(HUH??) the strong jaws, the perseverance, and the stamina. Pits can take down a bull weighing in at over a thousand pounds,(REALLY????) so a human being a tenth of that weight is small potatoes to them. (Comparing animal aggression to human aggression?)

People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits.(You've got that backwards, Ingrid) They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own.(And pit bulls are there through their own fault?) We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note.
By Ingrid Newkirk
-----------------------------------------------

Nice to know that someone who supposedly feels all animals deserve compassion and kindness thinks a breed should be banned and wiped out of existance.

And by the way, it's hard to take this group seriously when they have as their sponsor Benihana. The last I heard, steak is meat. And that is only one example of their hypocrisy.

Sheriffmom
October 19th, 2004, 08:27 PM
Hi, PETA is saying they advocate FOR the ban... and I quote from the letter I recieved "However, we maintain that any ban should include a clause protecting all pit bulls already living in caring homes" and "By advocating a ban on breeding this dog, PETA is trying to protect the dogs from people who would hurt them. This position would save dogs’ lives overall, not take more lives. Any good person could still adopt a dog—just not a pit bull who could be abused or bred to make more animals to abuse. and finally "But nice families rarely come to a shelter to adopt pit bulls. Almost without exception, those who want pit bulls are attracted to the “macho” image of the breed as a living weapon and seek to play up this image by putting the animals in heavy chains, taunting them into aggression, and leaving them out in all weather extremes to “toughen” them."
The above blue script are direct quotes from the letter PETA sent me.

LavenderRott
October 19th, 2004, 08:48 PM
Sorry, PETA thinks that humans should not interfere in animals lives in any way. This means your dogs and cats, too.

I have never been a big fan of PETA. I think they hide their real goals in double speak and their terroristic methods of getting their point across is a real turn off, not to mention - sometimes rather dangerous.

BMDLuver
October 19th, 2004, 09:07 PM
I sure hope that all shelters aren't adopting dogs out to just anyone who walks in off the street. What's the point in adopting them out if there is a chance they'll just end up back in the shelter or worse? Do they do any background checks on ppl??

In answer to CopperMom's post quoted above.....

Shelters like the SPCA, Berger Blanc and AMR, all in Quebec do absolutely no checking and let anyone with the right amount of money adopt from them. We have received several dogs in our care as a result of their lack of investigation when placing a dog .... this said however, they are so overpopulated that I'm not sure how they could do a thorough check with the limited resources the employees are afforded. This does not mean that the funds aren't there, just that those who control the funds do not give a damn. Also, they no longer spay/neuter a pet before releasing to the adopted family and no follow up is done to even see if the pet ever did get altered. I personally found a stray who was unaltered and was returned to the family who had had him for 3 years. The SPCA contacted me to advise to return ... I so wanted to neuter him before returning him but was not sure of the legalities of altering someone else's dog... sigh.. an endless problem!

Sheriffmom
October 19th, 2004, 10:20 PM
I couldn't believe it when we did our rounds at the SPCAs this week that they don't automatically neuter any animal they place. I talked with the staff and told them this was just perpetuating the problem, as anyone needing a new "breeding partner" for their puppymill/BYB could go there and adopt an animal for minimal charge. They said they simply don't have the funds to neuter all the animals. They do however give a $50 rebate if you bring in proof of alteration.
If PETA doesn't believe in altering any animals life... why do they advocate spay/neuter? It seems to me they are being very hypocritical. Become a Vegan... don't eat an animal... eating meat is murder... yet, we don't like the Pitbull, so go ahead kill all the ones in the shelters??? What am I not getting in their philosophy?

heeler's rock!
October 19th, 2004, 10:24 PM
OMG!!! Ingrid Newkirk said that?!?!? What is this world coming to when even a group that revolves around THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS can say such HORRENDOUS and UNTRUE things about a breed whose very existance is being threatened?!?!?

There should be a law labelling pits as an endangered species because it seems that everyone is out to get them!!!!!!

Lucky, you should e-mail her pointing out her misinformation and hypocracy. She can not go around spouting this trash and nonsense! Some people believe everything PETA has to say, and her telling people these un-truths about pits is surely going to cause an even bigger support for the ban.

Thanks for posting that snippit Lucky. It really opened my eyes. Maybe one of PETA's supporters is Mr. Bryant!!!!! :mad:

Sheriffmom
October 20th, 2004, 09:35 AM
Here is the response I got from E. Collins from PETA, to my letter, expresing disappointment in PETAs stance.
I understand your concern and I hope I can answer your questions for you.

Once again, PETA does not believe that pit bulls should be banned. We are opposed to breeding of ALL dogs. Millions of dogs and other companion animals are euthanized every year because there are not enough homes for them. Breeding any animal (including pit bulls) only adds to this tragic problem.

PETA does not support no kill shelters. As we have seen over and over, many of these shelters turn into warehouses for unadoptable, ill or vicious animals. You can read about one of the shelters we are currently working with in North Carolina at http://www.peta.org/feat/acgas/index.shtml. Furthermore, most of these shelters are always full, and are therefore forced to turn away animals. To read more about our stance on no-kill shelters, please go to http://www.helpinganimals.com/Factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=40.

We believe that every effort should be made to find homes for adoptable animals of any breed. If a pit bull is in a "non-loving" home, there is, unfortunately, nothing we can do about it unless a law is being broken. If a pit bull (or any other breed of dog) is turned into an animal shelter and is clearly vicious and a danger to humans or other animals, it is our opinion that those animals should be humanely euthanized. Yes, it is unfortunate, but there is no chance that these animals will ever be adopted into loving homes.

I hope this information is helpful to you, and thanks again for your inquiries.

LL1
October 20th, 2004, 10:06 AM
It's disgraceful. Rescues who pay for everything out of their own pockets alter dogs, so why the heck can't ALL SPCAs and Humane Societies do it!! Toronto Humane doesn't alter all dogs or cats before placement either, and should be ashamed of themselves. One of my adopters adopted a cat from THS. She had come in pregnant and was in foster care while the kittens were weaned. My adopters then adopted the cat. They noticed she was getting chubby..... pregnant AGAIN! No apology from THS, no explanation why they didn't spay this poor creature, or HOW she got pregnant while in their care. No offer of help with the cat either, they said bring her back if you don't want her and that was it. Of course the family kept the cat, spayed her, and she is doing great now.


I couldn't believe it when we did our rounds at the SPCAs this week that they don't automatically neuter any animal they place. I talked with the staff and told them this was just perpetuating the problem, as anyone needing a new "breeding partner" for their puppymill/BYB could go there and adopt an animal for minimal charge. They said they simply don't have the funds to neuter all the animals.

Lucky Rescue
October 20th, 2004, 10:17 AM
heeler's rock, there is plenty more where that came from. (Italics are mine)

PETA is violently against using animals for experimental purposes, right? Well, yes - unless it gets personal:
-------------------------------
PETA Senior Vice President MaryBeth Sweetland on her use of insulin, which was tested on animals:

"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products -- and I have no qualms about it ... I'm not going to take the chance of killing myself by not taking insulin. I don't see myself as a hypocrite. I need my life to fight for the rights of animals."
------------------------------------

And killing animals for no reason is perfectly o.k. if INGRID is doing the killing:
-----------
PETA President Ingrid Newkirk -- in a Machiavellian moment -- explains how killing more than a thousand animals PETA accepted for shelter in 1999 is "ethical," because it frees up more money to mount offensive "press slut" campaigns:


"It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever... It sounds lovely if you're naïve. We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work."
--The Virginian-Pilot, August 1, 2000
-----------------------------------------------------------

In a recent column available exclusively on ConsumerFreedom.com, AMP News Service writes that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is happy to dispense with its rigid vegan-diet-only orthodoxy, provided the price is right.
PETA’s annual fundraising dinner will be held September 8 at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, and the pre-event Internet promotion prominently features the logo of Benihana, the famed Japanese chain restaurant that serves steak in over 80 percent of its meals.
-----------------------
PETA is rabidly opposed to eating anything "with a face", BUT if there is attention to be garnered or money to be made, they seem to forget about that nonsense:

Australian supermodel, PETA supporter, and self-described "world's most downloaded woman" Sarah Jane on her favorite foods:


"...'raw meat', lamb kidney, lamb curry and 'haggis'... Her turnoffs: 'Non animal lovers and over cooked meat.'"
--The Washington Post, February 24, 2004

:rolleyes:

Sheriffmom
October 20th, 2004, 10:34 AM
I found this on the internet.... it made me chuckle.
If you cant see the pic (sorry) try http://www.cafepress.com/wonderbull/378201

SSAC
October 20th, 2004, 04:22 PM
Thankyou LR & Sheriffsmom............................Finally someone speaks the truth of PETA. :thumbs up

heeler's rock!
October 20th, 2004, 05:45 PM
I think PETA needs to communicate with eachother more. They are making themselves look stupid! If you're gonna have reps and such, shouldn't they all be saying the same things? I had no idea about PETA, but now I will most definitely not support any of their endeavours!

It's one thing to be for or against something, it's another to take one side and stick to it! They need to make up their minds! :rolleyes:

tyr
October 21st, 2004, 02:51 PM
All of this has been completely mind blowing....I had no idea!

sammiec
October 21st, 2004, 02:53 PM
PETA is stupid. There are many hipicritical statements like LR shared... I hate them even more after catching a piece of the Howard Stern show the other day when they got naked so that Howard wouldn't "kill" a hamster....
what a bunch of idiots... that's not getting your "purpose" across, but just makes you look like a sloot... :rolleyes:

LL1
October 21st, 2004, 03:10 PM
I'd like to see the full text of some of the quotes. It looks like people's interpretations of what was said. I don't have a problem with the logo being used at all, and just because a model says she is a PETA supporter it doesn't mean she speaks for the organization. I can say I am a Humane Society supporter and send them money and I could even be a member, but things that I say certainly wouldn't be on their behalf. I am also not a fan of never kill shelters where the dogs live in cages for a few years.




-----------------------------------

And killing animals for no reason is perfectly o.k. if INGRID is doing the killing:
-----------
PETA President Ingrid Newkirk -- in a Machiavellian moment -- explains how killing more than a thousand animals PETA accepted for shelter in 1999 is "ethical," because it frees up more money to mount offensive "press slut" campaigns:


"It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever... It sounds lovely if you're naïve. We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work."
--The Virginian-Pilot, August 1, 2000
-----------------------------------------------------------

In a recent column available exclusively on ConsumerFreedom.com, AMP News Service writes that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is happy to dispense with its rigid vegan-diet-only orthodoxy, provided the price is right.
PETA’s annual fundraising dinner will be held September 8 at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, and the pre-event Internet promotion prominently features the logo of Benihana, the famed Japanese chain restaurant that serves steak in over 80 percent of its meals.
-----------------------
PETA is rabidly opposed to eating anything "with a face", BUT if there is attention to be garnered or money to be made, they seem to forget about that nonsense:

Australian supermodel, PETA supporter, and self-described "world's most downloaded woman" Sarah Jane on her favorite foods:


"...'raw meat', lamb kidney, lamb curry and 'haggis'... Her turnoffs: 'Non animal lovers and over cooked meat.'"
--The Washington Post, February 24, 2004

:rolleyes:

tyr
October 21st, 2004, 03:19 PM
There are No Kill shelters though that do not cage their animals because they think it is cruel. Instead they have homes where the animals are fostered and live in homes instead of one big building where they are all caged and crated.

LL1
October 21st, 2004, 03:21 PM
Those kind I do not have a problem with - but many of them are not like that, and are cruel in my opinion.

tyr
October 21st, 2004, 03:37 PM
I agree - but then any irresponsible shelter, Kill or No Kill, who is not looking out for the well-being of the animals within their care are cruel.

LL1
October 21st, 2004, 03:46 PM
True - and there are kill, no kill and never kill as well.

melanie
October 21st, 2004, 04:08 PM
from wha ti have read in the many posts about peta on this board, they seem to take an extremist or very agressive manner to what they do, their actions at time seems to be extreme with not much direction so why would you not expect their opinion to be, i never considered them stable in the first place so that is how their beliefs should be judged, you should not be disapointed with them as they aseem to be acting true to form for peta themselves.

tyr
October 21st, 2004, 04:15 PM
Melanie -

I read your earlier post and I cannot believe that they kill 30,000 dogs alone in NSW. That is a lot of animals considering this is just one State/Territory within Australia! Of course every State/Territory is large but for the size of Australia it is still a pretty small area for all of those killings! I feel so sad right now - even though I realize that this is a very hard reality in every country.

LL1 - I do know that there is Kill, No Kill, and Never Kill. That would actually make a really great perma-post for the Moderators to do so that others who don't know this know the difference.

mastifflover
October 21st, 2004, 04:22 PM
I support some of their ideals but I find them to be a little to fanatical and seem to be all over the board on somethings. Their direction seems to be skewed sometimes

Sheriffmom
October 21st, 2004, 11:18 PM
LL1--- Here is Ingrid's actual full statement:

Thursday, January 27, 2000 By INGRID NEWKIRK

MOST PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA that at many animal shelters across the country, any "pit bull" who comes through the front door goes out the back door -- in a body bag. From San Jose to Schenectady, 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.

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 human 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 is small potatoes to them.

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 have torn the faces and fingers off infants and even police officers trying to serve warrants.

Today, organizing dog fights is a federal offense in this country, yet pits are still king of the ring. Humane officers and other law enforcement agents routinely break up rings in New Mexico, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Florida. They confiscate dog-fighting paraphernalia, including treadmills used to build doggie endurance and drugs used to numb pain from injuries inflicted by opponents and to "jazz up" the dogs. They find mesh bags in which kittens, rabbits, puppies, and other small prey are suspended over the dogs to encourage fighting spirit. Not uncommonly they find what's left of dogs who have lost their battles. They are not always dead. Those who argue against the euthanasia policy for pit bull dogs are naive. One dog that had just been adopted by a family suddenly clamped his jaw onto the thigh of a 7-year-old boy. Two grown men had a hard time getting the dog off and the child suffered permanent nerve damage. Tales like thisabound. 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 pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note.
By Ingrid Newkirk



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ingrid Newkirk is president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. She may be contacted at PETA, 501 Front St., Norfolk, Va. 23501, or on-line at www.PETA-online.org. © 2000 Bergen Record Corp

Lucky Rescue
October 22nd, 2004, 12:16 AM
just because a model says she is a PETA supporter it doesn't mean she speaks for the organization.

You're right. PETA can't help it if some of their high-profile supporters are complete morons, like Sarah Jane and Pink.

But the quote from Marybeth Sweetland is complete, as is the quote from Newkirk concerning PETA killing animals to save money.

Thanks to PETA, anyone expressing legitimate concerns for the treatment of animals is thought of as a "animal rights nut".

LL1
October 22nd, 2004, 10:12 AM
Lucky - I would like to see where the snippet came from. Most of what I see online is people taking a sentence or paragraph and attempting to make PETA look evil. If you have the article where the quote on killing animals to save money that would be great. The one on insulin is just silly and doesn't phase me either way.

Sheriffmom
October 22nd, 2004, 10:18 AM
PETA is also under investigation in the states for funding/supporting terrorist organizations. The IRS and some ppl in congress are looking into their tax exempt status as well, and challenging it due to the fact they have, and continue to support ppl on the FBIs list of "home grown Terrorrists" (Earth Liberation Front, and ALF). I also found a really neat article with PETAs tax returns for the last 5 yrs. They have spent less then 1% of all money on animals. The vast majority is being spent on Court costs... and not court cost that are challenging animal cruelty laws either.... defending "eco-terrorists".
I just find it so distastful that an organization who preaches that eating meat is murder, and wearing fur is evil, support killing off a breed.... although it isn't that shocking considering the original mission statement of PETA:

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from
our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.
The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free
from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our
pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PeTA), 1982),
p. 15.

PS for the info re revoking PETA's tax status, and info re their tax returns go to http://www.cdfe.org/CDFEPetaComplaint.pdf

CyberKitten
October 22nd, 2004, 12:50 PM
Lee than 1%? That's ridiculous!! No reputable charity can get away with that in Canada. (I do Governance workshops for Foundations et al). They are based in the US though, right?

And yep, they have not necessarily helped with the PR of animal rescue. Some of my university students and another prof talked me into protesting at the Shriners' circus last year and I really thought that was a worthy cause (Just looking at some of those poor lions in cages made me ill!). But if you look at other zoos like Busch Gardens for example, the animals are well cared for. And I am oppossed to using animals in experiments but letting those bunnies out of cages to fend for themselves in just as cruel. They have no idea how to look after themselves in the wild. That is just one example I can think of.

Shae
October 22nd, 2004, 04:09 PM
Just like to point something out......Not all members or supporters of Peta have the same ideas, views, etc. There are so many worthy causes that need immediate attention. Now, every protest or demo I have assisted Peta with, the coordinator always reminds everyone to dress and act respectful. Now of course many members do not follow that guideline......but I for one don't want to be judged because some others get out of hand or are more vocal etc. There are certain situations that I think call for more demanding action.......if the animals are in immediate danger for instance. Id on't follow everything Peta asks of me BUT I make up my own mind and follow due course. See, in the end we all care about one thing. The animals. When certain members of Peta say they want the ban of Pit Bulls........I think what they are saying is breeding in general. See, the shelters and humane societies and rescues are all so over-loaded with animals that are on death row. They are desperate for a family / a loving home. I LOVE ALL animals including Pit Bulls. I've had the pleasure of working with many at the hospital and have had more negative experiences with "other" breeds. No, I do not believe there should be a ban on Pit Bulls nec. I think breeding in general needs to come to a halt at least while there are so many in need. The numbers of abused animals.....kittens being tossed into the river to drown, puppies too......one case there was a litter of lab x pups . The guy couldnt find them homes so he took them to his barn and shot them. I repeat I LOVE Pit Bulls. People are to blame for this. The Pit Bull is a strong animal capable of doing major damage if provoked......which is why so many people are taking in these dogs, as "watch dogs" or "fighting dogs". And its the dog that pays the price in the end. The animals are born innocent and unfortunately so many are raised to be "killing machines" and now it has come down to this. I disagree with the breed specific ban as the Pit Bull should not be singled out. How about we start banning irresponsible owners instead??? Stiffer penalties, fines, jail time, change the laws.......no more slap on the wrists and fooling around. There are many responsible loving people whose family include a Pit Bull(s).........and thanks to idiots that abuse or mistreat these dogs, or use them for their own agenda, everyone suffers esp. these dogs!
Sorry, got off topic for a sec......but I hope you know what I'm saying.Please don't judge all those affiliated with Peta (like me) b/c of certain members. I've had the honour of meeting some FANTASTIC people such as a woman named Allison Ezell.(Peta coodinator)...who is very sweet and is only out there for 1 reason.....she cares about animals they way all of us do in here.
Thanks for listening ....hope I didn't babble too much ;)

LavenderRott
October 22nd, 2004, 06:45 PM
While I agree with some of the things that PETA stands for - end to animal abuse and puppy mills, to name a couple, I don't like their stand on other things and I certainly don't approve of their methods of making themselves heard. I don't like the terroristic groups that they support. For those reasons, I will not be a part of anything they do. There are other groups that fight for the things I do, in a manner that I approve of.

If you put YOUR NAME on anything that a group does, then your name is associated with EVERYTHING that group does.

MY name is too valuable to be associated with PETA.

LL1
October 22nd, 2004, 07:22 PM
Very few groups in the world would I support 100%. Even with political parties, I definitely have not found one I support 100% but that doesn't mean I wouldn't vote.

If you put YOUR NAME on anything that a group does, then your name is associated with EVERYTHING that group does.

Sheriffmom
October 22nd, 2004, 09:53 PM
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would support PETA (although I respect that it is your right to do so). I can't understand a group that euthanized over 80% of dogs and cats put into their care in 1999 (Associated press- PETA euthanized 1,325 out of 2,103 animals put into their care.)
Or how about the fact that in 1995 they had 12million in donations and only $3,955 went to shelters, but over $70,000 went to R.Coronado, a convicted arsonist associated with ALF a group the FBI has on their domestic terroist list (from their 1995 tax return).
I don't understand the hypocracy of saying Eating meat is murder, and yet being sponsered by a Steak restaurant? Or Saying all animals are precious, but having an almost 80% Euthanasia rate (national average for Shelters in about 46%)?? Or how about moving an animal to a different zoo is cruelty, but sentencing hundreds of Pitbulls to death isn't because "People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pits. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row through no fault of their own"
I would much rather support a rescue/ SPCA/ Spay & Neuter programs etc... PPL who will use my money and my time to physically help abandoned pets, physicall help to heal abused and sick animals, physically help reduce the problem of overpop. Rather than use my money to defend ppl on the FBIs domestic terrorist list, arsonists, car bombers etc... I would rather my money not go to help someone who in the name of "rescuing" lab animals firebombed the lab....killing the animals and in doing so "rescued them".
Just my 2 cents....

Shae
October 22nd, 2004, 10:01 PM
Some of those stats are news to me. Never heard of those ones. But will be checking that out......as for the SPCA......do you have any idea how many they euthanize? What about Cheech? That whole horror story. What about that poor family that went in to p/u their dog from the SPCA ...there less than 24 hours and they "accidently" put him to sleep?!?!
As I said....I am not a "follower" of Peta.........but I share many of their causes and work hard doing what I can for the animals. As for Peta Euthanizing......hmmmmmmmmmm, like I say, never heard that story but checking it out. I can't see it. Again, judging an entire affiliation b/c of certain members. I'm certainly not a terrorist or arsonist or otherwise. I simply care and do whatever I can.....whether that means doing demonstrations, protests, letter writing, posting in the AR cafe,volunteering educating kids, helping out with the no kill cat shelter....It may not be much but it's something.

Sheriffmom
October 22nd, 2004, 10:16 PM
Hey Shae, did you read the post about the response (the 2nd one PETA sent me) regarding their no-kill policy? If you go to google and type in PETA Pitbulls there are many news articles etc... about PETAs stance on euthanasia. Another article (I will try and find all the links and post them for you) stated that after a convicted dogfighter and drug dealer went to jail PETA attempted to "rescue" 19 of the dogs. The local SPCA would not let PETA have the dogs, as they planned to euthanize them all because "a fighting dog can never be rehabilitated". A few of the dogs were euthanized, however not all of them.
For me anyway, I can't support an organization that I think is being decieving, underhanded, and hypocritical.... even when I believe they have a few valid points. Like I said above I do support many Animal Charities, and with these groups I feel that both my time and my money are going directly to making a difference in animals lives. With PETA I find it too political, and too far removed from the actual animals (and I have serious issue with supporting anyone who has ties, however small, with any terrorist groups.)

Shae
October 22nd, 2004, 10:30 PM
If you mean this one, yes I did.
"However, we maintain that any ban should include a clause protecting all pit bulls already living in caring homes" and "By advocating a ban on breeding this dog, PETA is trying to protect the dogs from people who would hurt them. This position would save dogs’ lives overall, not take more lives. Any good person could still adopt a dog—just not a pit bull who could be abused or bred to make more animals to abuse. and finally "But nice families rarely come to a shelter to adopt pit bulls. Almost without exception, those who want pit bulls are attracted to the “macho” image of the breed as a living weapon and seek to play up this image by putting the animals in heavy chains, taunting them into aggression, and leaving them out in all weather extremes to “toughen” them."

Sheriffmom
October 22nd, 2004, 10:39 PM
actually I meant this one: "PETA does not support no kill shelters. As we have seen over and over, many of these shelters turn into warehouses for unadoptable, ill or vicious animals. You can read about one of the shelters we are currently working with in North Carolina at http://www.peta.org/feat/acgas/index.shtml. Furthermore, most of these shelters are always full, and are therefore forced to turn away animals. To read more about our stance on no-kill shelters, please go to http://www.helpinganimals.com/Facts...splay.asp?ID=40."
But about the quote you wrote.... I just want to know how would not being able to adopt a Pitbull save dogs lives overall? Wouldn't a dog who is not allowed to be adopted just be euthanized?? "PETA is trying to protect the dogs from people who would hurt them. This position would save dogs’ lives overall, not take more lives. Any good person could still adopt a dog—just not a pit bull"

Shae
October 22nd, 2004, 11:12 PM
The thing about no kill shelters though is that now, at least a vast majority can only call themselves No-Kill as they will only accept "adoptable" animals. They refuse ill or aggressive animals due to the fact there would be little or no chance of adoption. The ones that do take "all" animals including aggressive and sickly end up overloaded with animals. Most are non profit and many end up with so many animals that they cannot simply keep up with the work and the large amount of money it costs to run a shelter. In the end the animals are neglected, starved and often abandoned. I have many stories from various news articles on this very subject. Now, the SPCA isnt adopting out aggressive dogs. So many are killed every single day. It all comes down to irresponsible humans. Now, you say you would never help out with any cause that Peta was promoting (or something to that effect) So, tell me this, I am encouraging ppl to help me by writing letters to a local Vancouver radio station that is encouraging ppl to try Iams Pet food.They are heavy into animal testing. I need ppl to send emails to them trying to put an end to promoting this. Would you write to them or would you not simply b/c I do volunteer work for Peta? BTW, this isn't Peta's thing......it was I who heard Karen Daniels promoting this garbage and wanted to get a letter writing campaign going. Would you sooner turn the cheek and allow them to encourage ppl to buy this product so testing may continue ??? I'm just curious .Why allow animals to suffer if you can help out......don't NOT help just b/c Peta may be helping too. You know we all have varied opinions.....sometimes best to agree to disagree. Have a great night!

Sheriffmom
October 22nd, 2004, 11:40 PM
Oh sorry.... I mean financially and in terms of being part of their demonstrations. I have no problem writing letters (and have at your request to Karen Daniels re Iams) regarding animal issues. I won't however mention any affiliation to PETA. Nor will I even mention PETA in my letters.
I wrote to Iams awhile back (there is a thread around somewhere :) ), and their letter back was very evasive (also posted on thread), so I wrote them back asking for clarity on the issue.... and never go a reply (here is the link http://www.pets.ca/forum/showthread.php?t=7348) and my reply to Iams ( appreciate your response, and in a timely fashion. I have visited the site you suggested, and most of it seems to be great (as long as it is infact enforced and implemented). I just had a few quick questions.
You're site indicates the "investigator" de-barked the dogs against Iams wishes, do all employees (especially fairly new ones) have the authority to order surgical proceedures for the animals? If so, should this maybe be addressed? How was the "investigator" able to get the dogs debarked behind Iams's back? (Did she remove the animals to a clinic? or have the proceedure take place in the lab? Did the "investigator" pay for the proceedure, or was it out of Iams pocket? Are dogs currently de-barked in your labs? Are there any de-barked dogs in the labs now that were not de-barked by the "investigator"?

Also, is 30minutes 5 days a week really enough human contact and exercise time for the dogs? Is this the type of time Iams recomends for pet owners?

How does Iams choose which animals get re-used in the lab, which get adopted out, and which go to a "pet retirement" home? Do you have pictures of the "Pet retirement" home? Who works at the retirement home? Do you accept volunteers to come and take care of the animals (play, walk etc...)?

Thanks for your time, I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely

I hope this makes it more clear... I am always getting in trouble from Hubby, because he says when I try and explain myself he needs a translator!!(I tend to get passionate and my words get jumbled and the meaning obscured...sorry :p )

Shae
October 23rd, 2004, 01:00 AM
Hi.....no, please dont apologize for being passionate about certain issues. I know all about that! :) I remember reading your letter awhile back. Very impressive. Iams is pathetic. Not surprised you didnt get a reply to that one email though *L* Your letter was great and to the point. :thumbs up Thanks so very much for writing Karen at JRFM. If you saved a copy I'd love to take a peek. Thanks yet once again for helping out. Its much appreciated.
Sharon (Shae)

Sheriffmom
October 23rd, 2004, 01:10 AM
I'll post a copy tomorrow (I'm on the night shift, and don't have access to my personal emails here). I basically reiterated the ideas that I posted in the reply to IAMS, asking her to ask herself these questions. Asked her if she was so passionate about IAMS to ask for an unrestricted access pass to view their labs, and if after that she was satisfied.... well we'd all leave her to it!
Haven't recieved a reply...at least not that I am aware of yet (again...at work :eek: ) Talk to you soon.
PS_ I really enjoyed our debate. PPl expressing differing opinions without getting nasty!! I love this site, and am sometimes in awe of the ppl on here. Most are just too great for words!! :thumbs up