PETA kills - the truth uncovered

[BlueIce]

Times Square Billboard Declares: 'PETA Kills Animals'
Monday May 9, 8:45 am ET
Consumer Group: Hypocritical Animal Rights Organization Put 10,000 Animals to Death


NEW YORK, May 9 /PRNewswire/ -- While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has been hiding its own dirty little secret. PETA kills animals, and visitors to New York's famed Times Square during the month of May will see a 60-by-60-foot billboard carrying that message, in a rare splashy advertisement that PETA won't appreciate. Information obtained from the State of Virginia shows that PETA has a long-standing practice of killing thousands of dogs, cats, and other animals at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Along with the billboard, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom is unveiling a new website -- http/www.PetaKillsAnimals.com -- where PETA's hypocritical death toll is on display.
Between 1998 and 2003, PETA put to death over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other creatures that the group publicly calls "companion animals." Not counting those that PETA held only temporarily -- for spaying or neutering -- the group killed over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003.

"PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year," said Center for Consumer Freedom research director David Martosko, "and much of it was from pet owners who thought their donations actually helped animals. Instead, PETA killed them -- while spending millions on programs equating meat eaters with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting kids into a radical animal-rights lifestyle, and even defending arsonists and other violent extremists."

Other animal protection agencies near PETA's Virginia headquarters "put down" a much smaller percentage of the animals entrusted to them. In 2003 the Norfolk SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals. The Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66 percent. PETA could only manage 14 percent.

"We're out to tell the truth about PETA," added Martosko. "This group's duplicity knows no bounds. PETA accepts animal-lovers' donations with one hand while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens with the other. That's not 'ethical.' It's hypocritical."

To see detailed numbers related to PETA's massive euthanasia program,


visit http/www.PetaKillsAnimals.com
The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.


http/biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050509/dcmv001.html?.v=2

 

[Haiku]

I've done a lot of researching about PETA and their affiliated organizations over the past couple years, and have found them to be highly disturbing and at the height of hypocrisy. While I'm cautious to immediately believe written statistics, it certainly wouldn't surprise me if they were accurate. I strongly believe in education about them to pet owners. People should know what is being done with their money. So many believe that it is actually going to help animals.

 

[BettaMomma]

I agree.
The only time I have ever turned to them is when I wanted to sick them on larger corporations who were mistreating their animals, and just make someone take notice, because NOTHING else worked. I figured if anyone would stir up some noise, it would be PETA. And even then I didn't join their cause, I only gave them some reference info to run with.

I believe them to be much too radical an organization and just as was already said - it comes full circle with them, and makes them hypocritical in a sense.

I'm sure this will be a pretty heated topic here, so I would like to VERY STRONGLY point out that this is JUST MY OPINION and I'm not putting it out here like it's the gospel.

 

[MegTheFish]

But think of all the good things they do, if they are shut down, is there any hope for the animals? And you DO know that people tend to exergerate...

 

[BlueIce]

All the good they do...?
You do realize their ultimate goal is that no one own any sort of pet?
That includes fish...
They would rather see an animal put down then see it owned by someone.

 

[Haiku]

PETA's ultimate goal is animal liberation, and ultimately that man have absolutely nothing to do with interfering with animal's lives. This includes food products of any kind from animals as well as pet ownership, which the president of PETA says this about: "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." They also feel if they have to kill/euthanize massive amounts of animals and even fund groups to kill people, then it is worth it to their cause. There are other true animal WELFARE groups out there who are doing work to actually help animals because they want to help animals, but it's not PETA.

I'd suggest reading up a bit more on them. Here are a couple of articles in particular that explain their agenda:

http/www.animalrights.net/ar001.html


http/www.arbreptiles.com/extremists.shtml

BlueIce is absolutely correct, they would rather see an animal die than be owned/used by a human for any reason.

 

[Jessica13]

PETA are just a bunch of psychos!

I particularly hate them as i keep several parrots myself, and work for a parrot rescue and they have recently tried to have a law passed in America which would mean that EVERY parrot in America (at the moment!) that is kept as a pet should be killed

This is a quote taken from a PETA spokeperson

"It is the belief of many here at PETA that birds should be euthanized -
which will end their suffering - as the alternative to being confined to
cages and forced to be companions to humans that just aren't satisfied with
having a cat or dog."


So far they have been successfull in seeing the 'termination' of over 105,000 pet birds... How that is 'animal liberation' i'll never understand!! Freaks...

 

[Chrissy]

Wow. I had no idea PETA was doing things like that.

Euthanizing birds because we keep them as pets? No way. I think that it's horrible they would choose killing an animal over giving it a good home where people can help take care of it. I have a cockatiel, he is out for atleast 1 hour a day and he goes every where in the house with me. To think that if a law like that was passed he would be killed because they don't think he had a good enough home? That disgusts me.

This organization makes it seem like they are doing so much to help animals, but I guess they really aren't.

 

[mm_simb]

I think in their desperate act of trying to "save" animals from horrible owners who mistreat them they have gone overboard. I highly doubt they've been euthanizing animals since the day they started PETA. I just think they need some education and maybe they could straighten up. I for one do not support the many things that they do but I do like how they do the investigations on companies that commit animal cruelty. It's great to see that someone cares enough to not care what happens to them if they are caught video tapping something. Although it is hypocrite that they themselves are euthanizing animals. But in their defense, many shelters also do this to healthy animals. Not trying to bring unrelated stuff to this thread but there are many shelters that euthanize pitbulls for the "sake of the dogs future". I don't support that either since they are not giving good owners the chance to care for these dogs. Just my opinion...

 

[MegTheFish]

Yes, I know they don't want people keeping animals as pets, but on their site they have "care sheets" for many pets. So I guess they do relize no matter what they do they will never be able to stop humans from keeping pets, so instead they try and help those people with pets by making these care sheets.

 

[gaya]

Don't want to burst your bubble blue but the center for consumer freedom is one of the most bulsh*t, corrupt organizations going. Actually it’s right up there with the American beverage association and the revolving door in the USDA. This organization is just another retaliation to healthy living. Their main goal is to have you consume more and fatten up on their products. Every study they base their claims on have been funded by various food companies that have everything to gain $$$. The American public is and has been so easily coerced by propaganda and it’s really sad. Whether or not PETA is good or bad is beside the point but why in the world would you believe anything this organization has to say…it is beyond me. Imho it is not good that you are spreading their bull####. It's a total con.

Their whole stick on obesity is just another manipulation of data and really gets my goat. Obesity may not kill but will give you cardio problems that will kill you. Obesity will give you diabetes that can kill you; it does decrease your insulin receptors. Obesity will shorten your life and it will constrict your vessels.

And always remember that every study you ever read, be it from a private company or a university, it may be completely biased depending on who is funding it. The food and health industry is highly suspect. I’m currently trying to get grant money for a study that I’m working on at the health department at my school and we’ll scratch whom ever’s back we need to, to get the money. If you look for something long enough you'll find it one way or another...meaning what ever data suits your cause.

The idea of a non-profit company means nothing. Look at the corporations funding this advertising campaign.

btw: there is a ton of literature out there on the politics of food and it's very interesting.

 

[NinjaSmurf]

I've read a few things about PETA, there was one article where they told little kids their moms were going to hell because they wore leather or fur, so while I will take this with a grain of salt, like I do everything, I am inclined to think that there is more truth than bull to it. PETA seems to be more of a place for fantics than for even-keeled people.

And while I agree that obesity kills, nobody is exactly force feeding a lot of these people. I'm overweight, and I'm working on it, but I know it's my problem and am not about to run off and sue the Dorito or Oreo people...

 

[gaya]

I hear what you are saying ninja but it’s more involved than that. For example the food pyramid, an idea that I always believed to be altruistic on the part of our government, but it’s not. These corporations are heavy hitters and effect our thinking and our lives in so many ways that we aren’t even aware of it, here is a clip from a paper I wrote this semester:

Dietary goals for the United States was originally release in 1977 as a report that stated six goals, of which the first was to increase carbohydrate intake and the remaining five, clearly meant to eat less; reduce fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar, and salt. Opposition against the report ensued. Cattle ranchers, egg producers, sugar producers, and the dairy industry registered strong protest at the idea that Congress might be telling the public that their products were bad for health. Some scientists were unhappy with the report as well citing unproven science and the need for more expert review. Furthermore, the American Medical Association argued that treating individual patients was preferable to the government’s giving dietary advice that applied to everyone. Consequently, a revised edition of the Dietary Goals was issued. The second edition strengthened advice about obesity and alcohol but made three changes designed to placate food producers. 1. An increased salt allowance. 2. An added statement regarding the easing of the cholesterol goal for pre-menopausal women, young children and the elderly in order to obtain the nutritional benefits of eggs in the diet. 3. A replacement of the statement “reduce consumption of meat” to “choose meats, poultry, and fish which will reduce saturated fat intake.”
Another report, Health People, was issued from the surgeon general that advised eating more complex carbohydrates, more fish, and more poultry but less fat, salt, sugar and red meat. Officials released the report without a press conference due potential unwelcomed attention.

PETA is small potatoes in comparison. 38 billion dollars a year is spent solely on advertising for the food industry. Actually I think that number is strictly for the beverage industry alone. Our kids have been bombarded with Ronald McDonald clowns and other forms of propaganda. It’s on your TV; build boards, newspapers, everywhere. Our government is so intertwined with these industries and our “scientific research” is completely compromised. The fact that people are b*tching about PETA rather than the agriculture industry just goes to show you that all the monies they funnel into conning the public is working.

 

[gaya]

sorry for hijacking blue....but i just wanted to share another clip about how things get done-lobbying.

Lobbying is any legal attempt by individuals or groups to influence government policy or action. The three elements involved in lobbying are 1) promoting the views of special-interest groups 2) attempting to influence government laws, rules or policies that might affect those groups, and 3) communicating with government officials or their representatives about laws, rules, or policies of interest.
Lobbyists provide federal officials with well-researched technical advice about proposed legislations, regulation, and public education. Lobbyists establish personal contacts through meetings and social occasions. They arrange campaign contributions, stage media events, organize public demonstration, harass critics, and encourage lawsuits.
Corporations work to influence government agencies that address agricultural issues in the following ways:
· Recruiting Lobbyists (the revolving door)
· Funding elected officials
· Giving “hard” money
· Giving to Nation Committees (soft money)
· Giving presents
Frequent job exchanges between lobbyists and federal officials, known as the “revolving door”, has been an ongoing practice for several decades and seems to be one of the most influential ways corporations extend their influence on government agencies. In 1968, 23 former senators and 90 former representatives had registered as lobbyists for private organizations. Another example in the 1990s was the appointment of a former president of the National Cattleman’s Associating, JoAnn Smith, as chief of the USDA’s Food Marketing and Inspection Divisions. Two decisions made by Smith show a conflict of interest between consumers and the cattle industry. She approved the euphemistic designation “fat-reduced beef” for bits of meat that had been processed from otherwise unusable slaughtering by-products, and she opposed an American Heart Association proposal to put a seal of approval on certain meat products that were low in fat.
Funding elected officials is yet another mode of exerting influence. For example, lobbyists for the Grocery Manufacturer of American reported spending more than $1.4 million. Donations are classified into two categories of money: “hard” and soft.” Food companies disburse funds to individual members of congress through Political Action Committees (hard money). Donations to National Committees (soft money) allows for contributions of money for administrative and other expenses involved in supporting issues that political parties and candidates might favor.

 

[Opcn]

PETA Lets dogs out inot traffic in Alaska.

Every now and then some one will come along and see a musher with the truck full of dogs and feel sorry for the dogs who sleep in there little holes for a few hours every now and then (and those dogs love there holes I've seen em scramble to get in) and then the PETA pansies will let the dogs out into raffic where they either get hit by cars, or put back after greatly stressing the musher or get lost, in which case they no longer get a diet of fresh fish and good food and medical care and a pack environment and lots of excersize.

Thanks PETA!