PETA Killed 95% of Their Pets Last Year

Originally Posted by classicman

Thanks, but that didn't answer the question.

I'm not suggesting that all organizations dont have an agenda.

The point is to educate yourself on any organization's agenda and/or actions before buying into every allegation or news story by other organizations with opposing agendas and with whom you might agree.

Don't jump on any bandwagon until you know the facts.

I dont plan on joining or contributing to PETA nor will I contribute to their biggest, most well-funded detractor, the CCF.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

I don't particularly care about PETA one way or the other, but ...
The CCF is a front group for numerous industries, who don't like PETA's positions

Originally Posted by Redux

Oh...and the CCF is also funded by the tobacco industry which still does animal testing...hooking primates up to round the clock ventilation machines to "prove" no correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

Originally Posted by Redux

The website, PETA Kills Animals, is also a site of the CCF:
The CCF is not interested in representing consumers.

Originally Posted by Redux

I have no doubt that CCF spreads misinformation about PETA that is more in the interest of its industry funders than the public interest.

Originally Posted by Redux

I'm not suggesting that all organizations dont have an agenda.

Nor posters - It seems you are more interested in attacking/discrediting CCF
(not that I care about them)

Originally Posted by classicman

Nor posters - It seems you are more interested in attacking/discrediting CCF
(not that I care about them)

Nope...just presenting their agenda so that both sides are available for all to see, particularly since they spend $millions on an anti-PETA campaign.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Redux

Nope...just presenting their agenda so that both sides are available for all to see, particularly since they spend $millions on an anti-PETA campaign.

But it's not just two sides. In this thread you have seen links that PETA admits they euthanize animals. Wikipedia says it too. Newsweek says it. And so does CCF.

I never heard of CCF before today. Discrediting them does nothing to change the dialog about PETA.

Originally Posted by glatt

But it's not just two sides. In this thread you have seen links that PETA admits they euthanize animals. Wikipedia says it too. Newsweek says it. And so does CCF.

I never heard of CCF before today. Discrediting them does nothing to change the dialog about PETA.

OK...I disagree.

I think including information on PETA's most well-funded detractor is relevant, particularly if the CCF is behind the latest new story (which IMO, is not very well documented) as it has been the "source" of other similar stories in the past.

[classicman]

Please explain how it makes a difference when the same argument about PETA is being corroborated by multiple sources. The only difference I see is that you don't care for one of them so you are attempting to discredit them. That doesn't change the fact that they seem to be correct in this instance.

It looks to me that the initial story in this discussion is right from a CCF press release from earlier this year:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/press...fm/release/258

It it completely accurate? biased? fudging the numbers? I dont know.

Are the other sources with similar numbers, beyond PETA's own admissions of euthanize animals, relying on the same CCF press release. I dont know.

I think the source of the story is relevant.

[Pico and ME]

From the Peta site...

Animal Rights Uncompromised:
'No-Kill' Shelters

Some people have suggested that the solution to companion animal overpopulation lies with so-called "no-kill," or "limited-admission," shelters. Sadly, these facilities often have major problems that affect animals. Animals at "no-kill" shelters who have been deemed unadoptable may be "warehoused" in cages for years. They become withdrawn, severely depressed, or aggressive, which further decreases their chances for adoption. Cageless facilities avoid the cruelty of constant confinement but unintentionally encourage fighting and the spread of disease among animals.

One PETA staffer who used to manage a "no-kill" shelter had a change of heart after seeing a pit bull who had lived in a cage for 12 years. He had gone mad from confinement and would spend the day slamming his body against the sides of his cage, becoming so enraged that the workers were afraid to handle him. After witnessing this miserable life, she realized that some fates truly are worse than death.

"No-kill" shelters and "no-kill" rescue groups often find themselves filled to capacity, which means that they must turn animals away. These animals will still face untimely deaths—just not at these facilities. In the best case scenario, they will be taken to another facility that does euthanize animals. Some will be dumped by the roadside to die a far more gruesome and horrible death than an injection of sodium pentobarbital would provide. Although it is true that "no-kill" shelters do not kill animals, this doesn't mean that animals are saved. There simply aren't enough good homes—or even enough cages—for them all.

Open-admission shelters are committed to keeping animals safe and off the streets and do not have the option of turning their backs on the victims of the overpopulation crisis as "no-kill" shelters do. No one despises the ugly reality of euthanizing animals more than the people who hold the syringe, but euthanasia is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave the world.

Remember the picture of the dog in his cage that the Cap'n posted. Would you all really want to have that poor dog live in that cage for years? I wouldnt. Sure, I would rather see it get a loving home, but I dont think the odds are good for that.

The pet business has a really ugly side to it.

[capnhowdy]

Sometimes killing is an act off kindness. But rarely.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Discrediting them does nothing to change the dialog about PETA.

That pretty much sums up the last 2 pages of dialog. I consider PETA to be a near domestic terrorist organization.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

...
Remember the picture of the dog in his cage that the Cap'n posted. Would you all really want to have that poor dog live in that cage for years? I wouldnt. Sure, I would rather see it get a loving home, but I dont think the odds are good for that.

The pet business has a really ugly side to it.

Would a doggie Escape From New York be better? Pay for their trip to Montana, fence in a big area, build shelters, spay/neuter them, have someone drop in food daily, and let them live out their natural lives. May be expensive, but it would remove the "humans purposely killing dogs" aspect.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

... I consider PETA to be a near domestic terrorist organization.

Of course you do.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Of course you do.

Akin to ALF/ELF. They should be given long prison terms for some of their collective acts.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/g...ETA_ELF_NYPost

[Sundae]

When I was working and living in London I donated to the Celia Hammond Foundation. Ex-model (like Bardot) would rehome as many cats as possible - one-eyed, feline-AIDs, amputees, ferals etc and the rest would be put into special escape proof outdoor enclosures. They lived the lives humans had prepared them for: domestic with human love; feral on farms; overly spooked or 100% inappropriate for adoption, in a special cat refuge. That isn't something every charity can do.

I don't necessarily agree with a no-kill policy. Celia Hammond seemed to manage the funds well enough to operate, but I would not expect every charity to do the same. And even she must have euthanised some cats rescued from grim conditions, simply as a kindness. Cats - as much as I love them - are not people.

PETA are anti-pet. They disagree with animals kept in houses as unnatural. Of course they "mercy kill" most of their animals. Do I agree with that? I'm not sure. There are more animals than there are responsible owners. I know I'm not helping the homeless population by not taking any more on, but I also know I'm being responsible in not doing so. And I eat animals. Why should I mourn more over cats than I do over chicken or pigs.

PETA make their policies clear, so it's not hypocritical - MOST animal charities have to kill UNWANTED animals. Until irresponsible humans (I've said this before) start spaying/ neutering their pets, this situation is going to continue.

Of course, once the neutering commences, PETA can show its true colours and condemn that too. But until that happens, it's the lesser of the two evils as far as I'm concerned. I don't hate PETA for the killing, but I do think those that let their pets breed without having homes for them are at fault.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Akin to ALF/ELF. They should be given long prison terms for some of their collective acts.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/g...ETA_ELF_NYPost

And the NRA and RNC

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

And the NRA and RNC

Eh, I am a member of the NRA. I have never been a member of the RNC and really don't support a lot of them. They collectively are not much better than Demoncrats.