Jump to content
BC Boards

PETA Woes?


etlai
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this is the proper subforum, please move if it is not.

 

I have been swamped over the weekend, and still have a couple hours of work before I am able to fact-check this, but came across this while browsing reddit during my morning cup o' joe. Given the hardcore claims, it warrants a solid fact-check:

 

http://imgur.com/gallery/o2JCYhj

 

It is with great sadness and anger that I report to you that PETA’s 2014 statistics, just released yesterday by the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (VDACS), are as bad as ever. According to VDACS, PETA took in 1,605 cats and killed 1,536 (a kill rate of 96%). They transferred another 43 to kill shelters where they were either killed or displaced others who were killed. That would put the cat kill rate as high as 98%. They found homes for only 16, an adoption rate of 1%.

 

PETA also took in 1,021 dogs of which they killed 788 (a kill rate of 77%). Another 210 were transferred to kill shelters. Like the cats, if they were killed or displaced others who were killed, the dog death rate would also be as high as 98%. Only 23 were adopted.

 

How much money did PETA take in last year from unsuspecting donors who helped pay for this mass carnage? $51,933,001: $50,449,023 in contributions, $627,336 in merchandise sales, and $856,642 in interest and dividends. They finished the year with $4,551,786 more in the bank than they started, after expenses. They did not see fit to use some of that to comprehensively promote animals for adoption or to provide veterinary care for the animals who needed it.

 

By contrast, the Lynchburg Humane Society, also in Virginia, took in about the same number of animals as PETA but saved 94% and without PETA’s millions. Seagoville Animal Services in Texas took in 1/3 of the numbers (about 700 animals) but only 1/20th of 1% of the amount of money that PETA did, saving 99% of them on a paltry $29,700 budget. In fact, hundreds of cities and towns across America are saving over 90% of the animals and doing so on a fraction of PETA’s wealth.

 

While PETA claims the animals it takes in and kills are “unadoptable,” this is a lie. It is a lie because employees have admitted it is a lie. They have described 8 week old, 10 week old, and 12 week old healthy kittens and puppies routinely and immediately put to death with no effort to find them homes. It is a lie because they have been caught stealing happy and healthy animals and putting them to death. It is a lie because rescue groups, individuals, and veterinarians have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable and PETA insiders have admitted as much, one former intern reporting that he quit in disgust after witnessing perfectly healthy puppies and kittens in the kill room. It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making the determination as to whether or not an animal is “unadoptable.” It is a lie because according to a state inspector, the PETA facility where the animals are impounded was designed to house animals for no more than 24 hours. It is a lie because Ingrid Newkirk herself admitted as much during a television interview: when asked whether or not PETA kills healthy animals, she responded, “Absolutely.” It is a lie because PETA staff have described the animals they have killed as “healthy,” “adorable” and “perfect.” It is a lie because PETA itself admits it does not believe in “right to life for animals.” And it is a lie because when asked what sort of effort PETA routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care, PETA had no comment.

 

In fact, PETA lied in its reporting to VDACS. On October 18, 2014, in Parksley, VA, PETA stole Maya, a happy and healthy dog, from her porch while her family was out. They killed her that very day. According to a spokesman for Maya’s family, PETA came to the trailer park where the family lives, where most of the residents are Spanish speaking with few resources. The PETA representatives befriended the residents. They got to know who lived where and who had dogs. In fact, they sat with the family on the same porch from which they later took Maya. Waiting until the family was away from the home, PETA employees backed their van up to the porch and threw biscuits to Maya, in an attempt to coax her off her property and therefore give PETA the ability to claim she was a stray dog “at large.” But Maya refused to stay off the porch and ran back. Thinking that no one was around, one of the employees—who was later charged with larceny—went onto the property and took Maya.

 

When the family returned and found their beloved Maya missing, they searched around the neighborhood before checking the video on the surveillance camera. That is when they saw the PETA van on the film and recognized the woman who had come to their house on prior occasions to talk to them about Maya. They called PETA and asked for Maya’s return. According to a family spokesperson, PETA claimed it did not have the dog. When PETA was told that its employees had been filmed taking the dog, they hung up. Shortly afterward, a PETA attorney called and informed the family that Maya was dead. PETA had killed her. She may not be the only one. On the day they stole Maya, other animals went missing as well. Had a surveillance video not been available, the killing of Maya would have remained unknown, as are the fates of the other animals. Yet in its reporting of Maya to VDACS, she is listed as a “stray.”

 

Why? Why does PETA steal animals and then kill them? Why do they systematically put them to death? PETA refuses to answer questions: http://bit.ly/15kRPFX But employees who have spoken out about PETA's killing say it is the result of the deeply disturbing and perverted version of animal activism promoted by PETA founder and President, Ingrid Newkirk. They explain how employees are made to watch “heart wrenching” films about animal abuse to drill into them the belief that people are incapable of caring for animals and that “PETA was doing what was best for animals” by killing them. PETA tells its employees that people can’t, don’t, and won’t take care of animals, that the lives of animals with people is one of neglect and abuse and that living with dogs and cats violates their rights. PETA also claims that animals cannot live without human care, which is why they do not support letting free-living cats continue to be free-living. The animals are, in short, damned either way and thus killing them is a “gift.” To PETA, animal activism means killing animals and to roughly 2,000 animals every year, that is precisely what is done. Over the last 12 years, 31,250 animals have been poisoned to death by PETA, an atrocity funded by individuals who erroneously believe that their donations will be used to help rather than end the lives of animals.

 

The records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services are here: http://bit.ly/1LsjPrn

 

When you donate to PETA, you fund these atrocities against animals. Learn more: http://www.whyPETAkills.org

 

Main Photo: This photo, reportedly taken at PETA of needles filled with sodium pentobarbital (the drug used to kill animals), was sent to me by a former PETA employee whose job it was to kill animals.

 

-----------------------

 

Addendum: I am NOT deleting comments that disagree with me. I am deleting comments that: engage in ad hominem attacks, use profanity, blame this on "liberals," blame this on "Republicans," blame this on Obama, or refer to PETA as "People for the Eating of Tasty Animals."

 

First, focus on logic and evidence, not ad hominem attacks. Second, do not politicize this. Third, no promoting of violence towards animals. I do NOT criticize PETA because they try to protect animals. I criticize them because--when it comes to companion animals in shelters--they do NOT. They preach killing. They defend abuse. They fight reform efforts. I am a vegan advocate and former PETA volunteer: www.allamericanvegan.com If they were sincere, true to their alleged mission, and defenders of the right to life for all animals, I would be one of their most ardent supporters.

 

Finally, do not believe me. Do not believe PETA. Look at the evidence for yourself:

 

Here is the data, self-reported by PETA to the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, showing roughly 9 out of 10 animals they seek out are killed by them: http://bit.ly/1LsjPrn

 

Here is an inspection report by the Virginia State Vet showing PETA kills 90% of animals within 24 hours without even trying to find them homes: http://bit.ly/1eHkWlD

 

Here is an OpEd piece written by PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk which appeared in newspapers across the country where PETA says it supports a policy that all pit bulls should be killed in all shelters in America: http://bit.ly/XrvcKf

 

Here is a newspaper article about the 2007 trial of PETA employees after they were found to be rounding up and killing animals in the back of a van after promising to find them homes: http://bit.ly/XCSdI3

 

Here is the news station report of PETA stealing Maya, a "happy and healthy" dog and killing her: http://bit.ly/1EIsEHq

 

Here is the surveillance video of the theft: http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.org/maya

 

Here is a video made by Shelby County KY shelter volunteers after PETA celebrated when that shelter announced it was going to resume killing after four years as a No Kill shelter: http://vimeo.com/48651351

 

Here is a letter by the Virginia Federation of Humane Societies asking the State Vet to revoke PETA's ability to take in and kill animals: http://bit.ly/ZgBzfb

Here is a petition to the State Vet that the No Kill Advocacy Center wrote asking the same: http://bit.ly/ZK4kjj

 

Here is a letter written by PETA to a Mayor telling him to kill all pit bulls, not to foster animals, and not to work with rescue groups: http://bit.ly/ZAnrvQ

 

Here are photographs of animals PETA has killed: http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.org/photos/

 

There's more. Much more.

 

Having lived in southwest VA for a number of years, I had visited the Lynchburg Humane Society on a number of occaisions (I was a beagle-man then, how far I have come), so the comparisons struck a bit closer to home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this stuff isn't new. PETA is not what a lot of people think it is. Go to Terrierman and search PETA to learn more. Most of the info has already been discussed there and it is good that the word is spreading among those not engrossed in "dog/rescue/pet" culture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While PETA (like HSUS) gets some big positive publicity from certain exposes (sorry, no accent that I can find), it's not really a group that you want arbitrating the future of our relationships with animals. When you consider PETA's ultimate agenda, as voiced by the founder, there wouldn't be any companion animals, service animals, working animals, food or fiber animals, educational animals, etc.

 

As for the hypocrisy, is it a surprise? A radical agenda supports radical actions.

 

PS - Too bad there are celebrities who support PETA. Their influence is, I fear, much more than it should be simply because they are celebrities. Do they think that if PETA had its way, they would get to keep *their* precious pets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Etlai, I agree that it's always good to fact-check information posted by partisan sources. For example, here are two different versions of the Maya story recounted in your post:

 

The version taken from your reddit quote:

 

 

On October 18, 2014, in Parksley, VA, PETA stole Maya, a happy and healthy dog, from her porch while her family was out. They killed her that very day. According to a spokesman for Maya’s family, PETA came to the trailer park where the family lives, where most of the residents are Spanish speaking with few resources. The PETA representatives befriended the residents. They got to know who lived where and who had dogs. In fact, they sat with the family on the same porch from which they later took Maya. Waiting until the family was away from the home, PETA employees backed their van up to the porch and threw biscuits to Maya, in an attempt to coax her off her property and therefore give PETA the ability to claim she was a stray dog “at large.” But Maya refused to stay off the porch and ran back. Thinking that no one was around, one of the employees—who was later charged with larceny—went onto the property and took Maya.

When the family returned and found their beloved Maya missing, they searched around the neighborhood before checking the video on the surveillance camera. That is when they saw the PETA van on the film and recognized the woman who had come to their house on prior occasions to talk to them about Maya. They called PETA and asked for Maya’s return. According to a family spokesperson, PETA claimed it did not have the dog. When PETA was told that its employees had been filmed taking the dog, they hung up. Shortly afterward, a PETA attorney called and informed the family that Maya was dead. PETA had killed her. She may not be the only one. On the day they stole Maya, other animals went missing as well. Had a surveillance video not been available, the killing of Maya would have remained unknown, as are the fates of the other animals. Yet in its reporting of Maya to VDACS, she is listed as a “stray.”

 

The commonwealth attorney's version, in explaining why he did not bring charges against the two "PETA ladies":

 

 

The facts appear be that PETA was asked to help when an adjacent landowner reported that they should see how his cow with her udders ripped up from abandoned and stray dogs in the trailer park area amounted to a menace not to be tolerated. He complained to PETA that the abandoned and stray dogs attacked his livestock, injured his milking cow, killed his goat and terrorized his rabbits. Abandoned and/or stray dogs and cats have appeared to have been considerable in what is known as Dreamland 2. PETA responded and the trailer park management encouraged their efforts in an attempt to gather stray/abandoned cats and dogs. Additionally the leases provided that no dogs were allowed to run free in the trailer park.

Approximately three weeks before Mr. Cerate's dog was taken by the women associated with PETA, Mr. Cerate asked if they would put traps under his trailer to catch some of the wild cats that were in the trailer park, and traps were provided to him as requested. Additionally, parties associated with PETA provided Mr. Cerate with a dog house for two other dogs that were tethered outside of Mr. Cerate's home.

On or about October 18 a van that was operated by the ladies associated with PETA arrived the at the trailer park. The van was clearly marked PETA and in broad daylight arrived gathering up what abandoned stray dogs and cats could be gathered. Among the animals gathered was the Chihuahua of Mr. Cerate. Unfortunately the Chihuahua wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. It was not tethered nor was it contained. Other animals were also gathered. Individuals living in the trailer park were present and the entire episode was without confrontation. Mr. Cerate was not at home and the dog was loose, sometimes entering the shed/porch or other times outside in the trailer park before he was put in the van and carried from the park. The dogs owned by Mr. Cerate that were tethered were not taken.

Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth, it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing the property of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.

The animals were not euthanized in Accomack County, so this jurisdiction makes no determination on those issues.

I am far from a PETA supporter, but it bothers me when people feel they need to make their case by slanting or misstating the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Etlai, I agree that it's always good to fact-check information posted by partisan sources. For example, here are two different versions of the Maya story recounted in your post:

 

The version taken from your reddit quote:

 

 

 

The commonwealth attorney's version, in explaining why he did not bring charges against the two "PETA ladies":

 

I am far from a PETA supporter, but it bothers me when people feel they need to make their case by slanting or misstating the facts.

I agree with you on principal, but does anyone believe that a Chihuahua was running/attacking livestock? And if the PETA team were working with Mr. Cerate , would they not be aware that the Chihuahua was his dog? At large, yes. But does PETE have the Animal Control contract in that area? If not, they have no business picking up any dog unless requested to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. A Chihuahua could certainly be running/attacking livestock, more likely along with other dogs.

 

2. Depends what you mean by "working with." If "working with" consisted of loaning him cat traps and giving him a dog house for his two tethered dogs, then they might well not be aware that Maya was his dog. If "working with" consisted of sitting around on his porch talking with him about Maya, as the first quote states, then yes, they would be aware that Maya was his dog. I have to ask myself, which is more likely? Bad as PETA may be, do their employees really go around befriending people one by one so they can steal and kill their dogs?

 

3. Apparently they were requested to do so by the neighboring farmer initially, which I agree gives them no legal right. If after that they were requested by the owners of the trailer park on which the dogs were running at large, they may well have had a legal right. That would depend on local law, and the prosecutor did not seem to think any law had been violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only had time enough to check about 3 of the claims in the source I linked. The anecdotal story of Maya is just that: anecdotal. It has been my experience that little heart-grab stories like this are the bread and butter of bait-and-switch or strawman arguments, intended to pull the strings of emotion and distract from rationale.

 

That being said, the op-ed from their founder was an 'enlightening' read. I'm a little lost on how to interpret the VA gov data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago, I was at a dog show in Orlando, at the fair grounds on Hwy 50, near where the East-West, I-4, and the Turnpike all crisscross. PETA idiots came to the show and released dogs. Their reasoning was that that was a terrible way for dogs to live, as if a dog show is representative of how they actually live. I know one dog was hit by a car, others were near misses, and one was never found, it may have starved to death, been hit by car, or ended up as a bait dog, who knows, but those are not good ways to live. They would rather that pets die by any means than live, by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was interesting to read another take on the Maya (chihuahua) story as that story certainly pulls on the heartstrings.

 

But, for me, the overarching issue with the report quoted is the incredibly high euthanasia rates for dogs and cats that enter into the PETA system. The numbers were released by VDACS, and I am assuming that these numbers were reported by PETA themselves for purposes of government oversight (i.e. all shelters/rescues must report the same numbers?) And IIRC, similar levels of euthanasia have been reported in past years for the PETA operation - whose main VA headquarters is in Norfolk or VA Beach (I think) so about 2 1/2 hours from me.

 

I was also gobsmacked by the end-of-year 'profits'. Imagine if those were channeled into true rescue operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the VA Senate will be voting on a bill to redefine the definition of "shelter," which PETA's facility must fall under under current guidelines.

 

I hope the language of the bill is specific enough to prevent their advertizing and adopting only a puppy or kitten or two a year without significantly reducing the numbers of animals they kill.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/petas-record-of-killing-p_b_6591500.html (See the update at the end of the article.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed a page on the PETA website about how horrible crates are?

 

I don't know where the money goes that PETA raises but it sure doesn't go toward finding animals homes. Does anyone know how PETA spends that money?

 

Sure -- they are an advocacy and lobbying organization, not an organization to find homes for animals. They spend most of their money on publicity campaigns in aid of their goals, lobbying and educational efforts, political campaign support, undercover exposes of cruel practices, litigation, etc. I can't imagine anyone thinks they primarily operate animal shelters, any more than people think the NRA primarily spends its money on events featuring rifles.

 

ETA: Mark, I think Terrierman was writing about the HSUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I wish I thought he was right, because a PETA that spends the great majority of its money on direct mail to raise more money to spend on direct mail to raise more money to spend on direct mail is not much of a threat -- all they're doing is taking money away from suckers to spend on stationery and postage and to feather their own nests. But I've never gotten a mailing from PETA -- even though I'm one of those old ladies that care about animals, who Terrierman somewhat condescendingly describes as their best prospects. OTOH, I encounter them spending a heck of a lot of money on "education" and advocacy of every sort in the public sphere, so I kinda tend to doubt him if he were saying that 75% of PETA's money goes to direct mail. Speaking as someone who has held policy-making positions with non-profits, I think it's sloppy to suggest that all non-profits using direct mail follow the same model, or direct the same proportions of their income to direct mail. I also don't agree with him that a mailing that spends 3.5 pages on "the problem" and asks for a donation on the last .5 page is pure fund-raising. I know that if I were sending out 3.5 pages intended to make people aware of a problem and to persuade them toward a certain point of view about it, I would definitely append a brief appeal for funds at the end -- because what the heck, why not? -- and it wouldn't occur to me to consider that to be a pure fund-raising effort. If you don't agree with what PETA is advocating, it seems to me that those first 3.5 pages are a lot more dangerous than the request for donations at the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you read about PETA's campain to stop the Pittsburgh Zoo from using cattle dogs for managing the movements of their elephants? The claim was that the dogs were causing undue stress on the elephants (which may be true, depending upon how the dogs were used). Couple that with this from the PETA website and I wonder how long until using dogs to manage livestock will be targetted by PETA.

 

I cannot tell from the articles on the zoo if the signs of stress in the elephants are for the same level of stress that may be seen in livestock when dogs are used. For example is ear flapping in elephants similar in stress level to teeth grinding in sheep?

 

 

The Hidden Lives of Sheep

 

Like us, sheep experience fear when they’re separated from their social groups or approached by strangers. Sheep’s heart rates have been found to increase by 20 beats per minute when they’re unable to see any members of their flock and by 84 beats per minute when approached by a man and a dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people (the 'general public') do indeed think the HSUS and PETA operate shelters and save animals as one of their main goals (and how many people think the ASPCA is some national shelter organization with locations all over).

 

The little time I have spent on FB pages for rescue groups or yahoo groups years ago, people would constantly proclaim "why isn't PETA or the Humane Society or ASPCA doing something " or "please call/or I called PETA and the HSUS about this puppy mill/dog chained to tree/" whatever situation. People think when they donate money to them that it is going to save animals in bad situations. Those sad ASPCA commercials don't help. Your local Spca is not funded by the Aspca. I know also, a lot of people do understand that they are also involved in passing legislation, lobbying and education.

 

Manu also don't know that PETA has a long held belief that no one should own animals -crates are bad, forcing your cat to live inside is bad, domestication of animals should never have happened and we should either kill or spay all of them until there are none left. Including livestock and animals used as food. Growing up, PETA was big with a lot of vegans and vegetarians. Almost all my friends believed they were an amazing group 10-15 years ago. PETA would set up tables at shows to pass out flyers , postcards, dvd's and such. They would get into heated pointless arguments with kids who did not believe in every thing they said. Now most don't agree with their more militant stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. Plus they spend much of their money on fund raising, which, as the blog post points out, is exactly what many other non-profit organizations do. And, of course, baseless scare tactics suggesting that they might stop people from using dogs with livestock.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree John, PETA is so much in the public eye and for so long now, I think that is why people get upset with them. Not because they think they will pass crazy laws (we can't efen get laws passed to save dogs from freezing to death tied outside) but because they are so well known they give a bad impression to other groups. A lot of times if someone says they are vegan or are trying to pass legislation to protect the basic needs of animals, people throw PETA out as an insult term (what are you a PETA member?).

 

I highly doubt that PETA only admits sick and unadobtable animals at the rate of their euthanasia totals. They kill 82-90+% of all animals, by their own admission. And the 82% seemed to be a fluke that year. You would be hard pressed to find any rescue or shelter killing at rates of 90%+ in the US except the smallest, poorest county/municipal run dog control shelters. And even many of those now team up with private rescues who transport the dogs out of there.

 

I also don't think PETA is fanatical about animal welfare. They clearly state, I know Ingrid has been quoted somewhere in the past or on their own site, that they don't believe that animals should be domesticated and live as pets. So it makes total sense that they kill almost all animals that come into their possession. They're saving them, by that perspective.

 

I also think their idea of what is considered adoptable is different than others. Many places think a dog who is acting out in a shelter environment or who has lived its whole like outside or in a cage in a mill, can't be rehabbed. I think PETA, from what I remember reading a long time ago, thinks this way. They don't offer up dogs to private rescues with the means to foster and rehab dogs. Dogs like the ones from Sprakers or the Olympic sanctuary out west, would have probably been euthanized and "put out of their misery" in PETAs eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...