PETA Woes?

[simba]

So we have an outright lie about them stealing someones dog and guilt by association when some people who may have been associated with PETA did something irresponsible and not condoned by the organization...

 

While I'm not a member of PETA and don't agree with them on a lot, I think it's pretty clear that they are being demonized simply because people find their ideas threatening. Given that, I think I'll give them the benefit of the doubt when they say that the animals that they euthanized weren't candidates for adoption. It doesn't make much sense to me that an organization that is fanatical about animal welfare is needlessly killing animals.

 

'Waffles' is correct about their beliefs. But they are a tiny minority and are in no way able to advance any of these beliefs politically. In this country even the simplest of things that most people agree on are impossible to get passed into law. Does anyone seriously believe that PETA's agenda will come to fruition?

 

Personally, I like having groups like PETA around, if only to get a different take on things. And I really don't get all the fear/anger directed at them. There are certainly groups of people with far more toxic belief systems out there.

An 'outright lie'? There's no question that they took someone else's dog, and killed it. The issue is whether (a) the lack of collar justifies the death, ( how far they knew what they were doing (did they know it was an owned pet or think it was a stray). No-one, including Peta, seems to be disagreeing that they took someone's dog, off that dog's own porch, and killed it. There is video showing them do this. The people involved don't seem to have been fired or reprimanded.

 

I'd like to see someone try the 'but I didn't MEAN to steal it!' defense for stealing anything other than a dog. "The car was just sitting there, it didn't have a tag... That chair was on your porch, I mean, that's outside!"

 

Taking someone else's dog, not calling them or knocking on the door later to see if they own it (because even though it doesn't have a collar, you know which house it came from!), and killing it for lack of doing such a simple thing.... that sounds like needless killing to me. Killing 90% of what they take in, killing every pit bull, killing healthy puppies and kittens (scroll down to find Ingrid Newkirk on video stating this), that sounds like needless killing. Given the evidence, given their own statements, the purpose of their facility is to kill animals, including healthy and adoptable ones.

 

You seem to be saying we should only disagree with organizations if they can legally enforce their policies. If they are being stupid, if they are being hypocritical, if they are working towards goals and using methods that ordinary members disagree with, then it is appropriate to criticise them and make that public. Otherwise all we get is their promotional view of how they are doing and people will support organizations they would find reprehensible if they only knew.

 

I sure as hell find their ideas 'threatening' if you by that you mean 'reprehensible, evil, and actively doing wrong in this world'. I won't ever wear fur. I agree with stopping battery farming and promoting vegetarianism.But I do not agree with killing dogs, with ending pet ownership, with automatically murdering every animal with a blocky head in every shelter, and I think it discredits the causes they support to be supported by them.

 

I'd love to see, and would support, a legitimate group supporting, educating on, and lobbying for veganism and animal welfare. I'm not going to okay Peta killing dogs because, well, they do nice stunts and they like some things I like. The animals are no less dead and the action is no less hypocritical. I would be happy to demonize any group that kills 90% of the animals they take in, while purportedly believing animals have rights as humans do- and says that to do otherwise, to refuse to kill healthy adoptable animals and instead try to rehome them, is wrong.

 

'Surplus' and 'unwanted' animals should be dead, according to Peta. Ingrid Newkirk has said "We are not in the home finding business, although it is certainly true that we do find homes from time to time… Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals no one wants.” Doesn't sound much like they really think those animals have rights to me- humans still have rights even if others don't have a use for them. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[etlai]

Ya, I didn't know how to tackle the 'outright lie' claim. I don't think based on your claim that you meant your post to read as a PETA apologetic, JohnC, but that's how it comes off. Whether or not that was the intent, I suppose that's fine too.

 

Regarding people acting out, while merely being affiliated and not actual members of an organization.. I'm always reminded of the French Foreign Legion. Where one may claim innocence via exposing 'guilt by association', another can sniff out guilt via the claim 'where there's smoke there is fire'. Lack of decisive reprimands from the parent organization (you ended a dog's life that wasn't sanctioned by us? we're ending our relationship) indicates to me these people are at the very least acting as a proxy, doing the dirty work. Again, all around us in society, and the FFL comes immediately to mind.

 

I still don't get the 90+% kill rate, as reported by them to government. I should be better at reading data sheets, alas.

[Tommy Coyote]

I'm certainly not a PETA expert but it is my understanding that Peta does not run shelters. Therefore they don't have any place to hold animals. I don't get why they just don't tell people that they don't take animals. Why do they take them and then kill them?

 

I read something about the woman that is the head of PETA and she claims to have personally euthanized 1,000 animals. These people think that they are somehow being martyrs to the cause if they endure the awful pain of euthanizing animals themselves. It is a really sick take on things. The animals are better off dead than living in captivity.

 

What they did here was to take some perfectly adoptable animals from the shelter saying they would find homes for them. They took them out to their van and euthanized them. Then they dumped the bodies into a grocery store waste bin.

 

They are also against No Kill shelters but I don't know why on that one. I simply cannot follow their logic on anything.

 

And they are already against using dogs for any kind of work. Herding is especially bad because the dog is a slave to it's human masters and the sheep get hurt.

[Eileen Stein]

I guess I'm always surprised when people say, in effect, "There are two versions of what happened in this instance, and even though I really don't have enough information on which to draw a conclusion about what happened, I'm going to believe X, and proclaim X. I will assume whatever facts I can argue to support X (e.g., the "fact" that the employees --or maybe they were volunteers--were not reprimanded; the "fact" that any organization will fire an employee/volunteer if they make a mistake, therefore PETA's not firing employees/volunteers proves that PETA approves of what they did).

 

It seems to me that a more reasonable option is: "I recognize that I don't have enough information on which to draw a conclusion about what really happened in this instance, so I'm going to withhold judgment."

 

I wonder if this will come across to some as a PETA apologetic. Probably.

[JohnC]

Well, first let me say once again that I'm not affiliated with Peta in any way and don't agree with a lot of their positions. In fact, until this thread I hadn't paid much attention to them at all since my college days. But after doing a little research, it's pretty clear that there is a coordinated propaganda campaign out there on the internets funded by something called the “Center for Consumer Freedom”, which is actually a front group for the meat industry and companies that supply animals for research purposes. The links provided by simba to Nathan Winograd's site are a good example. Here's a link about him and his site to provide some balance:

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/the-curious-case-of-nathan-winograd.html

 

As for the idea that Peta is killing lots of adoptable animals, that seems to be untrue. Yes, the percentage is very high, but it's misleading. The actual numbers are relatively small at less than 2,000 animals. And they are not running a traditional animal shelter, but rather providing a euthanasia service for people who can't afford to pay for it.

 

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/a-closer-look-at-nathan-winograds-shocking-photos-petas-secret-slaughter-of-kittens-puppies.html

 

The small, hands-on facility at PETA's Norfolk headquarters isn't a traditional animal shelter, but by comparing it to one, PETA's detractors are able to make it seem like PETA's euthanasia "numbers" are very high and somehow very bad. PETA's shelter operates for the primary purpose of providing no-cost, humane, veterinarian-supervised, medical euthanasia to suffering community animals who require it. This service is offered on an emergency on-call basis only, and it's not advertised in any way.

PETA's Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services animal reporting data and shelter inspection reports confirm that nearly every animal PETA receives for euthanasia is received from his or her guardian for this service. There is no indication that these guardians aren't acting in their animals' best interests by requesting this service from PETA's shelter, or that it's in any of their best interests not to be immediately euthanized.

 

And no, Peta did not steal anyones dog. They were authorized to go into that neighborhood and round up strays, same as if they were your cities animal control officers. They weren’t there to try to find out who owned each dog.

[waffles]

I went to that one link and it has a column for "surrendered by owner" and then shows later that most were euthanized. When I take a pet to my vet to by euthanized, I don't think it is counted as "surrendered by owner". So why would it be for PETA? Why do they operate as a shelter and expose themselves to public reporting? If people are walking in and saying their dog has cancer or their 18 year old cat is in renal failure, can you help us with free euthanasia, then why does it get categorized as a surrender and not just a vet providing a service? I ask sincerely, not to be smart. I find the information confusing.

 

If people are truly surrendering and saying the animal is sick and walking out the door, does PETA do anything to make sure the animal is indeed suffering, sick, etc and not easily treatable or healthy and adoptable? Why not just set up a low cost clinic, don't they already do a lot of that (mobile clinics, reduced spay/neuter). Would anyone then even know how many they were euthanizing? I don't think my vet has to report how many animals he euthanized every year? Our local "no kill" spca even offers $20 euthanasia (with you taking the body) to owners with ill animals. Years ago my cat was dying from lymphoma and my vet wanted $100+ with me taking his body so we went to the spca, where he came from originally.

[etlai]

@ Eileen

 

I surmise from the wording in your last sentence it referred to me? Regarding acting as a proxy, perhaps I should state I don't believe that anyone can properly claim innocence. Be it upbringing, education or training: any position that I hold I am an ambassador of the party that sends me. This sentiment is echoed at least in small part when we witness PR training and the like. Basically: if I (employer/organizer or employee/volunteer) do something not in keeping with the laws, bylaws, goals, or belief structure of another party (or vice versa), then I would expect to get the axe, absolutely.

 

IDK I prefer to not claim 'unbiased' for anything. One of the biggest hoaxes in politics is the fictitious 'middle ground'. Everyone has a bias, and I err on the side of the person who doesn't have a voice, albeit the sole voice speaking out against a multimillion dollar giant is just as readily used for ammo but one of the giant's opponent's.. which brings me to the second point.

 

@ JohnC

 

Lobbyists lobby. To find a group that is opposed to another does not strike me as noteworthy. Strike me a non-believer on this matter but 'surrendered by owner' to the sum of 2000 (vs 40 strays) for Norfolk seems to be misreporting. That's orders of magnitude different. Then again, I could be wrong about how I'm interpreting this data sheet.

 

-----

 

Reviewing the 2 sides of the tale linked by Eileen, there are certain discrepancies between the 'owner' and 'attorney' versions, and some facts neither dispute. What constitutes a 'stray' and why do two women apparently make that call? LEO talks to charges other than the claim of larceny. Video was claimed, but not addressed by attorney. Two questions left unanswered for me: 1. This may not be a PETA issue, if it is an EHO one: were fliers posted 30 days (or whatever VA state law dictates) notifying tenants of inspections/work orders? 2. Where the 'strays' held for a period of 30 days for claiming should the two women have made misjudgements about them?

 

Perhaps it would help to state my bias? I dislike controls altogether, and believe any form of government beyond bare necessity is waste in and of itself. The farce of a duopoly political system and by derivative, lobbyists, is what really salts my bacon.

 

That's the ideal world tho: alone on a hilltop, just me and my dogs.

[Eileen Stein]

I'm not sure why I posted to this topic, since I've found discussions about PETA to be an incredible, futile time-sink, and never once have I felt that anyone understood any point I have tried to make in one. Therefore, this will be my last post on this thread.

 

@ Eileen

 

I surmise from the wording in your last sentence it referred to me? Regarding acting as a proxy, perhaps I should state I don't believe that anyone can properly claim innocence. Be it upbringing, education or training: any position that I hold I am an ambassador of the party that sends me. This sentiment is echoed at least in small part when we witness PR training and the like. Basically: if I (employer/organizer or employee/volunteer) do something not in keeping with the laws, bylaws, goals, or belief structure of another party (or vice versa), then I would expect to get the axe, absolutely.

A point of view that you are certainly entitled to hold. But you must be aware that not every organization, agency or company follows a "one strike and you're out" rule. Many do not. Many (including rescues and other non-profits) do not axe for one error. Therefore it's illogical to argue that, because PETA did not fire someone who did X, then that shows they approve of doing X.

 

 

I prefer to not claim 'unbiased' for anything. . . . Everyone has a bias, and I err on the side of the person who doesn't have a voice . . .

 

Nope, not everyone has a bias. Some people feel very strongly about whether there should be instant replays in different sporting events, for example. I have no interest or preference on that subject, and if it were referred to me to arbitrate, I could investigate, consider and decide without being influenced by any bias whatsoever. On issues where there are strong biases evident in the arguments of different parties, OTOH, or where parties have a strong interest in bending the facts a certain way, it always surprises me when those biases are not taken into account when people evaluate those arguments.

 

 

 

Reviewing the 2 sides of the tale linked by Eileen, there are certain discrepancies between the 'owner' and 'attorney' versions, and some facts neither dispute. What constitutes a 'stray' and why do two women apparently make that call? LEO talks to charges other than the claim of larceny. Video was claimed, but not addressed by attorney. Two questions left unanswered for me:

1. This may not be a PETA issue, if it is an EHO one: were fliers posted 30 days (or whatever VA state law dictates) notifying tenants of inspections/work orders? 2. Where the 'strays' held for a period of 30 days for claiming should the two women have made misjudgements about them?

It's odd to me that you characterize the second of these as the "attorney" version. Is it the version of an attorney for the owner? No. The biases of those on the owner's side are reflected in the first statement. Is it the version of an attorney for PETA? No. There is no account presented here from PETA's side; if there were, we would have to expect it to be biased to some degree also. Rather, it is an account by the prosecutor of the county in which the incident took place, who is charged with investigating the case, analyzing the evidence and determining what it proves. I suppose it's possible that he had a bias, but there is nothing indicating bias in what he wrote, and no reason to conclude that he was any more biased then I am about instant replays. He did not voluntarily get involved in this matter -- it was his job. I don't know what LEO or EHO refers to. I don't know the answer to your question 1, or whether the assumptions underlying it are correct (i.e., that under VA state law fliers are required to be posted for a certain period of time notifying tenants of inspections/work orders). With respect to your question 2, there's good reason to believe the dogs were not held for a period of 30 days, but no statements or evidence of why that happened or how long they should have been held.

 

 

Perhaps it would help to state my bias?

 

I don't see why. What does your political attitude about government controls or a duopoly political system have to do with anything?

 

[etlai]

Ah, well then I misunderstood on whose behalf the attorney's claims were made. That's a reading error on my part, I'll own it. And that completely changes some take-aways for me.

 

Regarding 'one strike you're out': I understand the line in the sand varies from person-to-person. I (opinion inc) believe if you're doing something as drastic as ending the life of a person's property, a slap on the wrist is hardly proper punishment.

 

Regarding bias: 'soft-science' research papers these days commence with stating the bias, rather than claim there is none. It is from this practice that I derive my statement.

 

Sometimes it helps to offer outside information to frame statements (context). I suppose it isn't important in the least.

[simba]

Well, first let me say once again that I'm not affiliated with Peta in any way and don't agree with a lot of their positions. In fact, until this thread I hadn't paid much attention to them at all since my college days. But after doing a little research, it's pretty clear that there is a coordinated propaganda campaign out there on the internets funded by something called the “Center for Consumer Freedom”, which is actually a front group for the meat industry and companies that supply animals for research purposes. The links provided by simba to Nathan Winograd's site are a good example. Here's a link about him and his site to provide some balance:

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/the-curious-case-of-nathan-winograd.html

 

As for the idea that Peta is killing lots of adoptable animals, that seems to be untrue. Yes, the percentage is very high, but it's misleading. The actual numbers are relatively small at less than 2,000 animals. And they are not running a traditional animal shelter, but rather providing a euthanasia service for people who can't afford to pay for it.

 

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/a-closer-look-at-nathan-winograds-shocking-photos-petas-secret-slaughter-of-kittens-puppies.html

 

The small, hands-on facility at PETA's Norfolk headquarters isn't a traditional animal shelter, but by comparing it to one, PETA's detractors are able to make it seem like PETA's euthanasia "numbers" are very high and somehow very bad. PETA's shelter operates for the primary purpose of providing no-cost, humane, veterinarian-supervised, medical euthanasia to suffering community animals who require it. This service is offered on an emergency on-call basis only, and it's not advertised in any way.

 

PETA's Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services animal reporting data and shelter inspection reports confirm that nearly every animal PETA receives for euthanasia is received from his or her guardian for this service. There is no indication that these guardians aren't acting in their animals' best interests by requesting this service from PETA's shelter, or that it's in any of their best interests not to be immediately euthanized.

 

And no, Peta did not steal anyones dog. They were authorized to go into that neighborhood and round up strays, same as if they were your cities animal control officers. They weren’t there to try to find out who owned each dog.

Again, the links I provided were in support of two quotes. One is of Newkirk on video saying things that are in accordance with what she has written and said before- the other is a written quote, which is not essential to the discussion . So the 'balance' is not germane to the discussion- it seems to be simply trying to discredit the source, which is unnecessary.

 

Either you disagree with killing adoptable animals because there are too many of them (/overpopulation and space reasons), in which case Peta disagrees strongly with you, or you find that acceptable as a policy and it wouldn't be a problem that Peta do it. Remember, in those sources, all I've asked you to look at is people from Peta saying they follow policies they endorse on their own website.

 

The reporting data confirms only that animals are 'owner-surrendered', and the way that it is being reported confirms that this is apparently being run as a shelter rather than as a euthanasia service ("Peta's only animal shelter which assists animals in underserved areas"). It's also more than a little convenient that this service isn't advertised, because that way we have no confirmation that this is actually the case! Remember, Peta feels that any dog that looks like a pit bull should be killed on entrance to the shelter: why don't they keep a record of how many are owner-requested euthanasia, how many are euthanised strays on the recommendation of a vet, how many died of blocky-head disease. Either they aren't keeping these records, which is frighteningly slack, or they don't want you to know about it. It would be easy, and a great way to show up their detractors, to get a teen in to put together the data.

 

Again, if these animals are hard to adopt- they are now in the hands of Peta. Why no fundraisers, why no showcasing of the success cases if they are really going out to help these animals? Why no transparency until people raised a fuss about the statistics they are legally obliged to report?

 

Who defines 'unadoptable' given that Peta on their own website state that 'unwanted' healthy animals should be killed, given also that they feel that any pit bulls in a shelter should be killed, given that they have said they 'absolutely' kill healthy baby animals, given that they feel 'for space' is a great reason to kill animals, given that the veterinarian who had worked with them (Peter Proctor), who had supported them, said they killed healthy adoptable animals he gave to them?

 

I've read the defense on 'whypetaeuthanizes.com' for that, and frankly, it's fishy as hell. They reckon it's his fault because he didn't make the Peta members promise they wouldn't kill the healthy cat and kittens. So it was perfectly acceptable for them to kill them in the van as they drove off. Yeah, piss-poor excuse right there. I have no doubt that the woman who runs that website really believes what she writes, and I'm not going to engage in the kind of "But they were at an event together!" link-finding she engages in. But I believe she is engaging in motivated reasoning.

 

And the city's animal control officers, if they took someone's dog off their porch and killed it, would rightly be castigated for their incompetence at their job. Peta don't get a double standard on this. They knew where it came from, it would have taken two seconds to knock on the door, to leave a note. To do what they have done is sheer heartlessness and indifference. And it's part of a pattern that is obvious to anyone who looks at what Peta do and what Peta themselves write.

[geonni banner]

More fun with PETA...

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

PETA's Norfolk operation is licensed under Virginia Law as an animal shelter. The state has concerns.

 

Donald McCaig

[Mark Billadeau]

Check out Terrierman's blog post from yesterday: The Death Cult of PETA's Ingrid Newkirk

 

Go read the blog by the person who was recounting her experiences at PETA.

 

https://mom2nomads.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/rescued-by-black-boy-how-a-neglected-dog-set-me-back-on-my-path-away-from-peta/

[Tommy Coyote]

Mark: That's what I have read and heard about PETA, too. That Newkirk was bragging that she had personally killed over 1,000 animals. She is one twisted sister.

 

They took some dogs out of a shelter here, too. Took them out to their van and killed them. And then dumped them in a grocery store trash bin.

 

I read later how that case was resolved and nobody did anything about it. They just skated.

 

These are some really, really sick people.

[waffles]

Check out Terrierman's blog post from yesterday: The Death Cult of PETA's Ingrid Newkirk

 

Go read the blog by the person who was recounting her experiences at PETA.https://mom2nomads.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/rescued-by-black-boy-how-a-neglected-dog-set-me-back-on-my-path-away-from-peta/

Thanks for posting the link to that ladies blog post. Just confirms What I already knew, about how PETA does not operate a shelter in any normal definition of the word. If their main goal, like Ingrid says, is to provide free euthanasia for people who cannot afford vet care for their dieing pets, they would open a clinic, not a shelter.

 

I like that the lady wrote in a non emotional, non sensational way. When these stories go to the media it is hard for people to believe it is true. It comes off like the people are a little crazy or as if the person has some other motive.

 

It's too bad people donate so much to them and don't support their local rescues or causes. There are some amazing local rescues (and not so great, one near me just had her house raided and found 45 dogs/cats in awful shape) that people can see first hand and get involved in. If PETA didn't bring in so much money they couldn't continue to operate as they do.

[Mark Billadeau]

VA has defined a private animal shelter as "operating for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes".

[gcv-border]

Thanks for posting that update here, Mark.

 

This is an outtake from Nathan Winograd:

"Today, the Virginia House of Delegates overwhelmingly passed SB 1381, requiring shelters in Virginia to be "operated for the purpose of finding permanent adoptive homes." The bill has already passed the Senate, although the two bills need to be reconciled. "

 

I don't know what "the two bills need to be reconciled" means. I am thinking that the language was slightly different between the two bill. Hopefully reconciliation will proceed quickly.

 

Reading back through this thread, I started musing why PETA's headquarters are in VA. Because VA's animal protection laws were lax to begin with? I don't know, but it got me wondering.

[GentleLake]

PETA has apparently been fined $500[!] for killing the chihuahua.

 

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/02/peta-devastated-after-dog-taken-porch-euthanized

 

And a bill in VA to define shelters has passed both the Senate and House of Delegates and is waiting the governor's signature.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/petas-killing-machine-los_b_6737238.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/peta-will-be-fined-all-of_b_6770420.htmlwhich

[waffles]

PETA has apparently been fined $500[!] for killing the chihuahua.

 

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/02/peta-devastated-after-dog-taken-porch-euthanized

 

And a bill in VA to define shelters has passed both the Senate and House of Delegates and is waiting the governor's signature.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/petas-killing-machine-los_b_6737238.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/peta-will-be-fined-all-of_b_6770420.htmlwhich

That articles proves two things:

 

They did indeed take the dog and kill it, so now people can stop denying they did it.

 

And second, it proves that they do take owner surrenders and kill them the same day without ever trying to adopt them out. Exactly why the bill was passed along to redefine a shelter in VA. If a lady did indeed surrender her chihuahua and two other dogs, did she really do it thinking PETA was going to kill them the same day? She probably thought they were going to find them new homes. What makes it even worse is that they took the wrong dog off a porch without verifying whose dog it was and killed it immediately.