LeesburgSkinFan Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm/release/258 PETA Killed 95 Percent of Adoptable Pets in its Care During 2008 Hypocritical Animal Rights Group’s 2008 Disclosures Bring Pet Death Toll To 21,339 WASHINGTON DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters. According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers. Despite having a $32 million budget, PETA does not operate an adoption shelter. PETA employees make no discernible effort to find homes for the thousands of pets they kill every year. Last year, the Center for Consumer Freedom petitioned Virginia’s State Veterinarian to reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse. CCF Research Director David Martosko said: “PETA hasn’t slowed down its hypocritical killing machine one bit, but it keeps browbeating the rest of society with a phony ‘animal rights’ message. What about the rights of the thousands of dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens that die in PETA’s headquarters building?” Martosko added: “Since killing pets is A-OK with PETA, why should anyone listen to their demands about eating meat, using lab rats for medical research, or taking children to the circus?” CCF obtained PETA’s “Animal Record” filings since 1998 from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. Members of the public can see these documents at PetaKillsAnimals.com. In addition to exposing PETA’s hypocritical record of killing defenseless animals, the Center for Consumer Freedom has publicized the animal rights group’s ties to violent activists, and shed light on its aggressive message-marketing to children. 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. For media comment, contact our media department at 202-463-7112 ext. 115 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 yeah, they're a bunch of ****ing hypocrites. They have a walk-in freezer for storing animal carcases and while they fight insulin shots because of something or another involving animals, their own vice president uses them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Why do they freeze them? Arent there any Chinese restaurants in the area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wysknz1 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Why doesn't PETA offer free abortions for cats and dogs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick86L Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 PETA reminds me a lot of the church of Scientology. PETA claims they help animals but kill them and Scientology claims they help people but kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmacop Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 We already had this discussion a year ago: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=233685 Here was my response then: Okay, let's dispel a few misconceptions here. First off, let's look at the messenger, the "Center for Consumer Freedom." It was founded by Philip Morris and is basically a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries. They criticize all kinds of groups which may undermine their ability to increase their profits -- including anti-obesity campaigns and drunk driving opponents (they fight efforts to decrease the blood alcohol limits). And they purposefully set it up to make it seems like they are "independent" of such industries so that it could more easily sucker people (like some on this thread) into blindly supporting their ideas without stopping to cast a critical eye on their "conclusions." Is it any wonder why they oppose PETA when its advisory panel includes representatives of the National Steak & Poultry Co., Outback Steakhouse, Ruth's Chris Steakhouse and Cargill Processed Meat Products, and gets contributions from Tyson Foods, Wendy's, White Castle, Perdue Farms, Hatfield Quality Meats, etc. (the list goes on)? For those who want to read more about how biased this lobbying group is, here's a link: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?tit...nsumer_Freedom And as for PETA's euthanasia rates, here's an explanation from PETA's forum administrator: PETA makes no secret of having to euthanize most of the animals we take in. Although we do not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place animals in excellent, lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept -- such as those who are injured, elderly, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable -- we are a "shelter of last resort," offering a humane death to those who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end. Unlike "no-kill" shelters, PETA does not refuse animals simply because euthanasia is the only humane option for them. Many of the animals we take in are brought to us because they have been rejected by other facilities. PETA receives calls every week from people who request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain if transported. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our "numbers" look bad. Sounds like a good explanation to me. http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=4752248&postcount=34 Maybe we can avoid discussing this same incorrect drivel again a third time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedlightG20 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Alright I'm not big PETA supporter or anything, I eat as much chicken and beef as the next guy. But this article is garnished with some serious crap. I don't doubt that PETA kills animals. At the heart, they are against the cruelty of animals. Sure, they want you to stop eating meat and wearing leather shoes, but at the core, they know they have the best chance of changing people's minds by pushing their agenda regarding the treatment of animals. It's a fact that there are way too many adoptable pets. Animal shelters are overrun with stray cats and dogs, and are normally understaffed and underfunded. Now this article says that PETA kills off thousands of animals. PETA is not an animal shelter--there are tons of animal shelters all around to do that. Also, this article says nothing about the health of these animals. What is an "adoptable" pet? Is it young? Old? Blind in both eyes? For all we know, these animals are being euthanized for their own benefit. These animals may be in such bad condition that they would be better off killed in as much of a non-cruel manner as possible. The bottom line is that there are too many homeless animals and not enough resources for housing and caring for them. It's a sad situation, sure, but sometimes it may be best for the animals to have them killed in a humane way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 that's fine, kc. but when peta writes letters to the editor of newspapers telling us how to kill less ****roaches, and they lobby against a video game (cod w@w) because dogs are killed in it (it's WORLD WAR II, they weren't playing fetch), and generally seem to care more about the welfare of animals than humans...then they open themselves up to scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmacop Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 that's fine, kc.but when peta writes letters to the editor of newspapers telling us how to kill less ****roaches, and they lobby against a video game (cod w@w) because dogs are killed in it (it's WORLD WAR II, they weren't playing fetch), and generally seem to care more about the welfare of animals than humans...then they open themselves up to scrutiny. I think PETA's point is that the welfare of these particular animals is best served by a humane euthanasia. So there's nothing inconsistent here, since they are acting on behalf of animals in all instances you mentioned. They may be over the top in some cases (that's their MO and how they get attention). But there's no hypocricy here that I can see. And if you want to talk about scrutiny, how about you look at the outfit, "Center for Consumer Freedom", that put this report out in the first place? Why are you not critical of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I'm confused. Are they still going to force everyone to hate Michael Vick or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Is this really news? We all know that PETA is run by a bunch of whack jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I am not a fan of PETA in any way, but this "news article" seems more then a little suspecious to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I pretty much hate PETA, but this article is awfully biased. PETA makes no secret that they euthanize animals b/c no one else will. Also, PETA members arent animal lovers like most people think of the term. They dont think animals should be kept as pets at all. They think animals should have the same rights as people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10fttall Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think PETA's point is that the welfare of these particular animals is best served by a humane euthanasia. So there's nothing inconsistent here, since they are acting on behalf of animals in all instances you mentioned. They may be over the top in some cases (that's their MO and how they get attention). But there's no hypocricy here that I can see. Chicken farms equals the holocaust? Meat is murder? Yeah, how the hell could anybody call PETA killing animals hypocritical? :doh: The only way PETA could be kiling ANY animals and remain consistent with their message, is if every single employee had 4 dogs and 2 cats, or they actually gave subsidies to aid in pet adoptions. I'm pretty sure we got a glimpse of the real MO of these guys the other year when the 2 employees were caught picking up loads of animals to "find loving homes for," and that home ended up being a shopping center dumpster after the PETA employees injected them and liked them in the van without even pretending to try to actually find homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 If you are for the ethical treatment of [insert species here] and you're caught slaughtering them.. You should have to forfeit the name by default. At the very minimum give them to a front group to kill. or... set them free to live or die in freedom... (gasp) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I think PETA's point is that the welfare of these particular animals is best served by a humane euthanasia. So there's nothing inconsistent here, since they are acting on behalf of animals in all instances you mentioned. They may be over the top in some cases (that's their MO and how they get attention). But there's no hypocricy here that I can see.And if you want to talk about scrutiny, how about you look at the outfit, "Center for Consumer Freedom", that put this report out in the first place? Why are you not critical of them? i'm not saying it's right or wrong, but peta pisses a lot of people off. i agree w/ you here, the hate is probably a bit mis-guided. as for the center for consumer freedom, i admit i know very little about them. they've never told me not to eat beef though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
December90 Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I thought PETA was People Eating Tasty Animals Testing on Animals is Fine with me. Otherwise we humans become the "guinea pig" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 many PETA members are too stupid to understand, but if the choice is between euthanasia and cruel treatment (like kept in cage for a long time) then the ethical thing would be euthanasia. It's not like they can just release animals into the streets. It's a shame that a worthy cause like ethical treatment of animals has to have a bunch of whack jobs getting all the visibility, but for what it's worth I don't think arguing for vegetarianism and euthanizing animals are contradictory. The conditions that animals have to live in before they are slaughtered for food is pretty bad, and it's pretty easy to make the argument that they are treated cruelly, though it's a very efficient way to make food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I don't like PETA, but this "article" is total bull, for reasons stated above. actually, sometimes I do like PETA - when they do the protests with the hotties in the lettuce bikinis and stuff. also this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.