Many vets are very, very good at dealing with their patients, but don't have as much skill in dealing with their mommies and daddies.

Or he could have had a really, really bad experience with an owner under such circumstances.

They could put the ashes in a nice burial urn and bury the dog under the tree that way. I've got neighbors in my apartment building who once lived in a house with a yard; they had cremation done and buried in an urn so they could take the cat, in this case, with them when they moved. They didn't like the idea of someone else digging in the yard for whatever reason, finding the urn and throwing it away...or throwing the ashes out and keeping the urn.

Did I say you should let the animal suffer?

Like I said, according to the HSUS (and PETA, too, by the way) the ONLY acceptable way to euthanize an animal is by lethal injection. Snapping an animal's neck, is, according to any animal organization, a CRUEL and unacceptable method of euthanasia. In some places you could actually be charged with cruelty to animals by doing it.

It really frustrates me how many people state that they love their pets so much yet they are too cheap or too lazy to bother taking them to a competent vet for proper treatment. If you can't afford or have no interest in providing proper veterinary care for your pets, you shouldn't have pets in the first place. You'll spend $50 at the Red Lobster for dinner without thinking twice about it, but you think that's waste to spend on an animal's euthanasia. Bizarre.

Yeah, you probably are getting in over your head, because you obviously don't seem to know very much about veterinary care and human methods of euthanasia.

By saying the only proper thing to do is take an animal elsewhere to be euthanized, in my area, you are most certainly saying it should be allowed to suffer. Did you read any of what I said? About working for our humane society, and taking a very long time to get any response? Furthermore, since when did the HSUS and PETA become sole arbiters of decency and kindness? Oh wait! They haven't. Now I remember.

And for your information, I have never spent $50 at Red Lobster, because I have never eaten there. I don't eat at chain restaurants. I will thank you to keep your silly generalizations to yourself. You have no idea what my priorities are. If I could keep an animal alive and healthy through veterinary care, I would. But paying to have a hamster euthanized, when it will die very shortly anyway, is ridiculous.

Anyway, as a PETA employee, shouldn't you be railing against people keeping pets at all, rather than for medical intervention? As for being in over my head, well, you know what they say about opinions.

This thread has been hijacked beyond recognition, and out of respect to the OP, I'm backing out of it. Again, sorry to hear about the hamster.

Wow, garnet. That was positively abrasive and obnoxious.

Tell the truth. You're originally from NYC aren't you?

I know many things about human euthanasia.

I could do a seminar ...

This kind of rant is exactly what turns people off to PETA. :(

Awww Bruce, that hurts my feelings...I'm crying. And I doubt PETA really cares about how people like you feel about them.

Calm down, there Jane. A little defensive about that, no? I bettin' you've spent more than a few dollars at the ol' Red Lobster....

Actually, your priorities are pretty clear: you don't care that your pets suffer, especially if that pet is "just" a hamster that only cost $4.

Actually, if you would take the time to educate yourself, PETA doesn't rail against having pets. I have pets, as does almost everyone who works here--animals that have been rescued.

Bruce is a pretty open minded individual, when you write people like him off, you doom your organization to failure.

Yeah, Bruce was real open minded when he referred to PETA employees as "fucking assholes."

Don't flatter yourselves that you will single-handedly be responsible for the "doom" of PETA. PETA is growing everyday. I membership rolls are getting bigger, and we are hiring more staff to cover all the needs. Is your ego really that big that you think that a website like the cellar is going to influence anything? How many people post here regularly? About 15. And I'm guessin' there's good reason for that.

Oh, and I forgot.

Bruce is right. You're a fucking asshole.

But that doesn't stop them from asking for my money, repeatedly. :lol:

Yeah, that's real mature.

That's an interesting website to use as a "source."

Hmmm...a hunting website. I'm sure they wouldn't make up anything about PETA, would they? And I generally don't take websites featuring a large picture of Homer Simpson on their front page very seriously, but gosh, you won me over with this one. I'm sure it's all real accurate.... duh.

Yes, it sure was. It made me feel much better. You call me a liar, which makes me think you're an asshole.

Care to comment on my link, which contains quotes from your organization's co-founder that are in direct opposition with what you are saying re: PETA's stance on animals as pets?

Sorry, you posted as I was typing. Are they misquoting your organization's co-founder?

Then don't give it them. BTW, all the animal rights orgs share mailing lists, if you're on one, you're most likely on them all. Why don't you ask PETA to take you off their list? I can give you the link if it's really that important to you. But somehow I have the feeling it's not.

Yes, they are. I bet the next website you'll come up with is activistcash.com or consumerfreedom.com. Those are real accurate too.

I'm not arguing with you anymore. If I'm such a fucking asshole, why are you bothering with this thread? I could care less what someone like you thinks of PETA (or me). So go have yourself a nice day, OK?

Once again, name-calling is such an effective way of dealing with things...You're making youself look really stupid. OK, I'm waiting with bated breath for you foul mouth to strike back.

Hmmm. Lots of people misquote the same person.

These folks are misquoting too?

Wait, how come you didn't throw in some four letter words there?

Believe whatever you want. Afterall, if it's on the web, it must be true, right? I've never heard of either one of those websites. Maybe you should come up with a quote from CNN, ABC, a wire service, etc. (like I did in the other thread) to back yourself up. Then you might be taken seriously.

Like I said before, PETA could care less what people like you think. So keep posting and keep whining, and we'll keep ignoring people like you.

You know, dar, I actually found this to be just a tad bit more "abrasive and obnoxious":

And check out Sycamore's "fucking idiot" comment in the other thread.

But that's OK, right? They use four-letter words to insult me, and I'm "abrasive and obnoxious."

All these are wrong too? The same quotes? The ones with cites from Harper's and Newsweek? Hmmm... I know! It's a media conspiracy!

Here here and here.

Same quotes, attributed to the same person, the co-founder of the organization, saying that PETA is against animals as pets.

Are you a little slow?

None of these are actual CREDIBLE news sites. Go to CNN.com, ABC.com, etc. or any LEGITIMATE site and see what you find about PETA. You gave me a list of sites I never heard of (and you probably never of) with quotes that came from God knows where. How do I know that "quote" actually came from harpers or Newsweek? Like I said, I could care less what you think. But if you're dumb enough to believe everything you read on some sham website, then that's your problem.

"Even people who care about animals are often unable to recognize or meet animals' many needs. Domesticated animals are in a catch-22 situation--they can no longer survive on their own, yet they retain many of their basic instincts and drives. Usually, they are isolated from their natural packs. Their bodies and souls yearn to roam--but, for safety's sake, they are confined to a house or yard, always dependent on their guardians, even for a drink of water, food to eat, or social contact."

Peta.org Factsheet

Hey PETA says CO poisoning is an acceptable form of euthanasia. This is from a story I pulled directly from the Associated Press' internal database.

"PETA said the video shows Ouderkirk explaining how to kill chinchillas by electrocution and neck-breaking. Because Ouderkirk has sold chinchillas to furriers as well as pet stores and labs, PETA says the USDA should require him to use a more humane method, such as poisoning by carbon monoxide."

Anyway, shame on me for fueling the fire. I really only did that search because I wanted to see where PETA has come up recently, and stumbled upon that nugget of info.

Regardless, may Matilda rest in peace.

No, I'm not a little slow. But it's apparent you're having some kind of problem. I guess if you want you can go hunt through the magazines I've given you cites for. I don't happen to have a 1990 Vogue or 1983 Harper's around, but I'll take about seventy cite's word for it. I first ran across Ingrid Newkirk's proclamation about putting an end to pet ownership in my mother's Vegetarian Times magazine last year. I have since seen it reprinted elsewhere and you can find it all over the web, along with her comment that if one animal could be killed to stop the spread of all diseases, PETA would be against it. She's a crazy bitch. Her principles are ridiculous. Her comments are asinine. And so are yours. I will not waste any more of my time with this nonsense. You're being deliberately inflammatory, talking out your ass about things that you know nothing about. You are making up bullshit about what your employer stands for, what they believe and what their intentions are. You had your ass handed to you many, many times in the PETA thread, and I will let those with who want to continue arguing with you do so here.

I'm off to kick a puppy.

I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of that, and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention in a respectable manner. For my own info, would you mind posting that Asociated Press link for me? I don't believe PETA has OK'd CO2 for euthanasia of cats and dogs, I think it's just for use on fur farms, for chickens, etc. I'd really like to know. Thanks!

Gosh, it sounds like someone has some anger issues. Have you tried therapy yet, sweetheart? Maybe you should look into it.

Like I said, PETA and PETA's President could care less what people like you think. PETA has over 800,000 members, and those people (and the hundreds that join everyday) help us out with what we need. The only thing nitwits like you do is make us want to work harder on our causes. So thanks for the encouragement, hon. Now go take your meds, and maybe you'll calm down a little.

Based on the limited reading I have done (on the USDA sites and some of the AVMA sites plus a few others) and what my vet told me, its not an acceptable method for dogs and cats. I have read it being ok for small rodents (guinea pigs, mice, rats, hamsters, etc) but my vet told me never to use the CO2 chamber to put down a rabbit (not like I had planned to). Something about a rabbits lungs being very sensitive and that it actually causes pain to rabbits and takes an hour to kill them. Haven't heard if its ok for chickens so I am not sure on that. I also have never seen it mentioned as an approved way of putting down ferrets (not that I have really looked) so I am not sure about them either.

by all means put up the link. I've written twice to no avail. :)

In all fairness, if none of these better funded news sites ever hears of or picks up a story, you won't find anything about it there. It's possible that CNN and ABC never ran with it. Even if PETA went to them with a statement, it depends on what else is going on in the world whether or not they run the story. The Olympics, Federal developments, war developments and presidential campaign developments are trumping just about everything else at the moment. And after the feds, the war and the pres. race, there's very little time left on the standard 30 minute broadcast for anything else. And if they do run it, they will make edits to allot for time, they'll paraphrase or take snippets of quotes. I guess the bottom line is, even with these news sites, it's difficult for the viewer to get a good line on a story that isn't part of the public focus right now.

Admittedly, I haven't looked at all those sites, mainly because I'm at work and have to budget my 'playtime' on the web, but (and this question is for anyone, not just Garnet) does it appear that these quotes were taken from an issued statement? Or were they noted during a speech or rally or taken from a personal interview?