PETA's statistics for 2009

[Chris21711]

This is a travesty

**The numbers are finally in. In 2009, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) impounded 2,366 animals. They killed 2,301 and found homes for only 8. Another 31 were transferred to killing shelters and their fates are unknown. That’s a 97% rate of killing**

[14+kitties]

Yeah, they do a great job!!! Thumbs up to them!!!!

[luckypenny]

PETA impounds animals ?

97% kill rate is ethical ?

[quincymycat]

I can't be too sure.....but did I read in the TO Star last weekend that a statement made by PETA claimed that it considers having pets puts the animals in a subservient status, therefore, we should not have pets?
Sometimes I think these people are nuttier than a fruitcake!

[hazelrunpack]

Those stats seem to be pretty typical yearly figures for PETA. They aren't just nutty, they're a danger to animals.

[BenMax]

Originally Posted by hazelrunpack

Those stats seem to be pretty typical yearly figures for PETA. They aren't just nutty, they're a danger to animals.

I agree 100% with this statement. They will not get my support...nor did they ever.

[Chris21711]

Originally Posted by luckypenny

PETA impounds animals ?

97% kill rate is ethical ?

People surrender to them LP, where they keep them ....well, they don't keep them do they

You might want to read this LP....it is a blog by a lawyer that is a proponent of "no-kill" http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=3116

Originally Posted by quincymycat

I can't be too sure.....but did I read in the TO Star last weekend that a statement made by PETA claimed that it considers having pets puts the animals in a subservient status, therefore, we should not have pets?

Yep, you are right QMC...they don't believe in shelters either, they call it warehousing animals and they consider that cruel.


Sometimes I think these people are nuttier than a fruitcake!

Completely off the wall.

[Chris21711]

Originally Posted by hazelrunpack

Those stats seem to be pretty typical yearly figures for PETA. They aren't just nutty, they're a danger to animals.

That is where they hover around Hazel, year after year.....what I don't understand is how the HSUS sometimes entertains their nutbar of a leader to give speeches

[hazelrunpack]

Because HSUS is more a political entity than a boots-on-the-ground animal welfare organization. I'm not a big fan of them, either

[luckypenny]

Originally Posted by Chris21711

You might want to read this LP....it is a blog by a lawyer that is a proponent of "no-kill" http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=3116

Thank you!

[14+kitties]

Originally Posted by Chris21711

People surrender to them LP, where they keep them ....well, they don't keep them do they

You might want to read this LP....it is a blog by a lawyer that is a proponent of "no-kill" http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=3116



Completely off the wall.

I have mentioned Nathan Winograd before on Pets. He has a book out called Redemption. Very interesting.

[ancientgirl]

They are really so hypocritical. Just yesterday I received some survey thing from them, of course at the end of the page they asked for donations. I threw it away.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by hazelrunpack

Those stats seem to be pretty typical yearly figures for PETA. They aren't just nutty, they're a danger to animals.

Originally Posted by BenMax

I agree 100% with this statement. They will not get my support...nor did they ever.

same here

[Tundra_Queen]

I have never liked PETA, but I don't like any fanatical groups like that. But now I really don't like them...that just makes me sick!

Thinking of what best for the animals? right!IDIOTS!

[NoahGrey]

Originally Posted by Chris21711

"]http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=3116[/COLOR]

I own his book Redemption. It is a good read and also visit his site on a regular basis. As for PETA, it is an organization that I can't comprehem.

ACO22

[Jim Hall]

6-8millio dog and cats will end up in animal shelters across the nation, and roughly half of the unwanted dogs and cats who pour into cash-strapped, overwhelmed sheltering facilities will have to be euthanized. Taxpayers fund the capture, housing, and eventual placement or euthanasia of stray and unwanted animals, many of whom lose their lives because there are not enough good homes for them.

The statistics are staggering. In the U.S. alone, animal shelters must spend an estimated $2 billion in taxpayer money to take in, house, euthanize, and dispose of unwanted animals. The estimated average cost of intake, care, and disposition per sheltered animal is $100. Unsterilized dogs are also more likely to attack. According to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, unsterilized dogs are 2.6 times likelier to bite than dogs who have been sterilized .

There is a practical, fiscally sensible solution to this epidemic, and it lies in prevention. Requiring that dogs and cats be sterilized unless their owners purchase an annual breeding permit--the cost of which would fund low-cost spay-and-neuter services--will save animals' lives and taxpayer dollars. The only way to create 'no-kill' communities is to work toward a 'no-birth' nation through legislative measures that mandate spaying and neutering.

Please address animal homelessness and its inherent drain on the budget by supporting mandatory spay-and-neuter laws in your state.

[cassiek]

Thank you Chris for posting this.

I have so many arguments against PETA, I won't even get started as I'm sure my blood pressure will boil through the roof and I may throw something

Besides their obvious cruelty and very "unethical" treatment towards dogs/cats, their whole view on livestock is inaccurate. I work in the livestock industry and will be the 1st to admit that it's not a perfect system and does have its faults, however they take the most extreme cases (that which, btw, is NOT how the livestock industry overall is ran), and use SHOCK value to convince members of the public who know not otherwise to join their cause and support their 'efforts'. I agree that welfare of these animals is of the utmost important, but they are bombarding the public with inaccurate, misrepresented information. There are much better groups to join that promote welfare in the livestock industry that have a real vested interest, and don't rely on shock value, that are much much much better than PETA.

I want to scream and choke someone when I hear that yet another person has joined PETA. I fully support a group that is all for ethical treatment of animals, but that is NOT what they do.

Another recent stat on PETA: "Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 14,400 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2005, PETA put to death over 90 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public"

[NoahGrey]

Cassie, I am happy to hear that you work are a healthy livestock facility. However, I have to disagree with your comment about the livestock industry, while I agree with yes, people use the most extreme cases to raise awareness, but there is a serious problem about the welfare of livestock as a whole.

It is the main reason why I no longer eat meat. I have seen first hand the treatment that livestock endure. Yes, they are great framers out there, who take pride in their work. I have meant quite a few of them.

I think one of the ways, people can get more of a positive outlook on the livestock industry, is to if they livestock industry became more involved in the factory farming process, transportation, laws, etc. They both feed each other. The majority of the public think of factory farming, when they think of the livestock industry. Once they are on the truck, people don't give a crap. The profit is nil.

ACO22

[mummummum]

Ughhh...and yet so many celebu-tantes give them public support.

Btw Jim, I'm stealing this line "the only way to create a no-kill community is to create a no-birth nation". Great sound-byte!

[mummummum]

Originally Posted by cassiek

Besides their obvious cruelty and very "unethical" treatment towards dogs/cats, their whole view on livestock is inaccurate. I work in the livestock industry and will be the 1st to admit that it's not a perfect system and does have its faults, however they take the most extreme cases (that which, btw, is NOT how the livestock industry overall is ran), and use SHOCK value to convince members of the public who know not otherwise to join their cause and support their 'efforts'. I agree that welfare of these animals is of the utmost important, but they are bombarding the public with inaccurate, misrepresented information.

Can't say I agree with you on this one. Not in the global sense. And certainly NOT when it comes to factory farms, which should be banned outright imho.

[cassiek]

Sorry to the OP, I hate to take this post off topic

There are some very serious welfare and environmental issues that should be dealt with in the livestock industry. However, it must be a battle that both the consumer and the farmer unite work forward on together.

Often the consumer has demands that are legit, but are not willing to pay for the price. Obviously, animals are raised in these intensive environments as it is the most economical, is this all it should be based on - no!, but if consumers want to demand that livestock be raised in more humane conditions, they have to be willing to pay for it, and the majority are not (take free-range eggs for example... at least in AB here, you are talking about an extra $3.00 more for a carton vs. eggs raised in typical layer barns!). It has to be a joint venture.

Consumers often don't consider the practicalities of raising livestock. For example, alot of people hate seeing layer hens raised in cages. However there is two sides to it. If they are in groups of 3-5 in a cage, they develop a pecking order much like dogs do and aggressive behaviour is to a minimum. if they are left to free run with hundreds of other hens, they consistently peck and cannibalize each other to death. Some advocate for chickens being allowed to spend time outside. But these chickens are susceptible to predators, extreme temperatures & humidity, and diseases. Inside these animals are safe and living in an controlled climate. I'm not saying that its not possible for them to live outside safely, but it is going to take much more labour, materials, etc. which all comes at a price.

The livestock industry is not perfect and certainly does need some improvement, but I think often the media and groups like PETA pick the wrong battles to fight.

Personally, I think it is much healthier for humans to eat less meat and consume more vegetable matter (and certainly much better for the environment) and I try to practice this in my own life. But we can't forget all the by products from livestock we consume on a daily basis, that the animal still had to be slaughtered for our use. So often, we think of livestock as the steak on our plate, and it extends much, much further than that:

A good article: http://ansci.colostate.edu/files/You...byproducts.pdf

ACO22, the facility I work with represents quite a large role in the livestock industry in AB, SK, MB and especially ONT. I work for a feed manufacturer, and here in Lethbridge I sell broiler feed to approx. 25 farmers who raise and send to slaughter, combined, approx. 1.1 billion birds a year... and thats just in S. Alberta (and we don't feed every single broiler farm there is here!). My expertise in in broilers, but a large chunk of our business is in feedlot cattle, dairies, pigs, sheep, rabbits etc. I feel confident in saying that all 1.1 billion of those birds is raised in acceptable - maybe not perfect - conditions, and every one of those farmers has a genuine care and concern for their animals. And really it makes the most sense, as the farmer saves labour and time and has a larger net return when they do raise them with concerns to their welfare.

Anyone can PM me for more info if they like. If anyone lives in or ever visits S. AB I would be delighted to take individuals out to some of the farms I frequently visit and provide a different perspective. My intent is not to change anyone's mind, just provide a different perspective.

[Golden Girls]

Originally Posted by ACO22

Cassie, I am happy to hear that you work are a healthy livestock facility. However, I have to disagree with your comment about the livestock industry, while I agree with yes, people use the most extreme cases to raise awareness, but there is a serious problem about the welfare of livestock as a whole.

It is the main reason why I no longer eat meat. I have seen first hand the treatment that livestock endure. Yes, they are great framers out there, who take pride in their work. I have meant quite a few of them.

I think one of the ways, people can get more of a positive outlook on the livestock industry, is to if they livestock industry became more involved in the factory farming process, transportation, laws, etc. They both feed each other. The majority of the public think of factory farming, when they think of the livestock industry. Once they are on the truck, people don't give a crap. The profit is nil.

ACO22

I agree. Re Peta not only are they NUTS their a pound very scary. Lecture everyone yet euthanize any animal that comes within their reach they give new meaning to animal liberation

[kandy]

It doesn't surprise me in the least that PETA euthanizes more than 90% of the animals surrendered to them - their main mission is to not have any animals owned by anyone, whether that be livestock in factory farming or pets. IMO they would rather see every single pet on earth set free to die than be owned. They openly support terrorist organizations (like the Animal Liberation Front). The only thing they do or stand for that I can see as a benefit to animals is that they sometimes bring to light situations that need attention, like the plight of animals in factory farming or in the fur industry. Other than that, their subversive actions and their open admission that they long for a day when no one will know the pleasure of having a furkid made me glad that I had never donated to them.