Need critical PETA info, links, etc.

[Luke T.]

That may be, but what does it's own shady dealings have to do with the claim it makes? That is, the claim that PETA euthanizes animals? Are you claiming this isn't so?

Here is a more reputable source:

A month-long investigation into animal cruelty has resulted in a pair of arrests, individuals possibly linked with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).

On Wednesday, Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of 504 Tree Top Street, Virginia Beach, Va. and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, of 1602 Claremont Ave., Norfolk, Va. were each charged with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty and eight misdemeanor counts each of illegal disposal of dead animals.

Yesterday (Wednesday) law enforcement officials with the Ahoskie Police and Bertie County Sheriff's Office were able to observe a white panel van drive next to the commercial dumpster located behind Piggly Wiggly in Newmarket Shopping Center. A person in the van tossed several dark-colored bags in the dumpster before the van attempted to pull away.

At that time, a traffic stop was initiated on the van - a vehicle occupied by Cook and Hinkle.

The bags located in the dumpster contained 18 dead dogs, including one bag containing seven puppies. An additional 13 dead dogs were found in the van.

A license check revealed the van was registered to PETA in Norfolk, Va.

Pittman added that as far as he knew, persons identifying themselves as PETA representatives had picked-up live dogs at the Bertie Animal Shelter for at least the last two months.

Anderson, also involved in Wednesday's surveillance and subsequent arrest, was able to positively identify nearly all of the dogs found in the dumpster as the ones picked-up just a few hours earlier on Wednesday by Cook and Hinkle.

Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald

 

[Luke T.]

The pair is accused of promising workers at animal shelters that the pets would be adopted, then dumping them.

WRAL article

Guess they felt a dog is better off dead than as a pet.

 

[Luke T.]

A more detailed story here about the animal dumping, if anyone cares.

 

[Phil]

Yes. I care. Thanks Luke.

 

[mumblethrax]

That may be, but what does it's own shady dealings have to do with the claim it makes? That is, the claim that PETA euthanizes animals? Are you claiming this isn't so?

No. I'm somewhat more skeptical that this is a secret, however, since PETA has had similar euthanasia scandals in the past. It's something more like an open secret.

Please keep in mind that I'm not defending PETA's behavior in this case. My point is that you should bring a similar critical framework to the sources you use to discredit PETA's arguments, otherwise you're just engaging in a sort of scripted propaganda dance, which is not a valuable way to spend your time. For example, I can't find any credible information that supports the claim that PETA opposes the use of seeing-eye dogs (it's certainly possible that it's true). And it doesn't really stand to reason that they oppose pet ownership in all cases, given that you can adopt pets from their animal shelter. A lot of the claims made are a result of conflation between groups like PETA and ALF.

 

[Valmorian]

My point is that you should bring a similar critical framework to the sources you use to discredit PETA's arguments, otherwise you're just engaging in a sort of scripted propaganda dance, which is not a valuable way to spend your time.

I do. That's why I looked on the site to see the source of their claim that PETA regularly euthanizes animals. There appears to be some rather substantial documentation obtained from outside sources corroborating that claim.

 

[merphie]

For example, I can't find any credible information that supports the claim that PETA opposes the use of seeing-eye dogs (it's certainly possible that it's true). And it doesn't really stand to reason that they oppose pet ownership in all cases, given that you can adopt pets from their animal shelter. A lot of the claims made are a result of conflation between groups like PETA and ALF.

I believe I saw such a reference to pets and aid animals in a speach given by the president of PETA. I haven't been able to find a transcript of it yet.

They view the aid dogs as slavery.

 

[mumblethrax]

I do. That's why I looked on the site to see the source of their claim that PETA regularly euthanizes animals. There appears to be some rather substantial documentation obtained from outside sources corroborating that claim.

It's not controversial that the euthanasia happened. The more problematic question is whether or not it amounts to hypocrisy or a "dirty little secret" on the part of PETA. I certainly disagree with them on this point, but it's well known among animal welfare circles that they've euthanized even adoptable pets for years.

 

[Luke T.]

I believe I saw such a reference to pets and aid animals in a speach given by the president of PETA. I haven't been able to find a transcript of it yet.

They view the aid dogs as slavery.

This is a real hard one to nail down. I've been goggling like mad.

There are lots and lots and lots of sites out there who say PETA is against seeing-eye dogs, but none of them provide so much as a quote to work with or a link to any evidence of that.

The best thing I can find in PETA's own words is this cached factsheet.

Working Dogs

Relationships of mutual respect and benefit are truly wonderful. However, working dogs are often used as a substitute for innovative programs that intelligently address human needs. Sometimes they are used in situations considered too dangerous for a human being and, therefore, too dangerous for the animal. They may even be treated cruelly in preparation for, and during, their lives of servitude. Some people with working dogs love them, and some don't, so working dogs cannot always count on having homes where they are well-treated. Also, some working dog programs contribute to dog overpopulation by breeding their dogs (with the notable exception of programs for the deaf that rescue dogs from shelters).

When working dogs become too old to work, they may be separated from their human companions and either "retired" with another family (always wondering, no doubt, what they did wrong or where their lifelong human companion went), returned to the training center, or even killed. Optimally, human services for the disabled should be improved rather than relying on the breeding and exploitation of animals.

ETA: "lives of servitude" = "slavery" ?

 

[Luke T.]

I found a different version here.

Optimally, human services for the disabled should be improved rather than relying on the breeding and exploitation of animals.

That's about as close to "slavery" as you are going to get, I think.

 

[epepke]

It's not controversial that the euthanasia happened. The more problematic question is whether or not it amounts to hypocrisy or a "dirty little secret" on the part of PETA. I certainly disagree with them on this point, but it's well known among animal welfare circles that they've euthanized even adoptable pets for years.

It's not hypocrisy or a "dirty little secret" on the part of PETA. It's a matter of stupidity or gullibility on the part of people who support PETA on superficial grounds.

PETA has no problem with slaughtering animals, so long as they are not put to any use by humans. They have no problem with whole species going extinct. They are the ultimate apologists for humans being apart from nature, declaring that humans are totally separate from nature and should have no influence on animals.

A while back, PETA set some minks free in England. Some of the escaped minks got into a pen and killed some endangered owls that people were trying to keep alive. To someone concerned with animal welfare, this is a bad thing. To PETA, it's like killing two birds with one stone. It was good to set the minks free, because they were being exploited by humans. It was also good that the minks killed the owls, because they too were being exploited by humans. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.

A little dog adopted me. I had to spend a lot of money to get her free of disease, and I even quit a high-paying job so that I could care for her better. She's lying on the floor near me and gives all the outward signs of being very happy. To PETA, all of this would be bad. To PETA, it would be better if this dog were living on the streets with anemia from three parasites, because it's "natural," and I'm bad for having let that little dog into my life. PETA can take a little squat on the Cosmic Utensil as far as I'm concerned, and possibly sit and spin until they rot.

Now, if someone really knows what PETA is about and wants to support them on that basis of psychotic Darwinism, well, it's a free country, or several free countries. But if someone supports them on a basis of ignorance because they just assume that PETA is going to support the preservation of species, animal welfare, etc. then they need to be disabused of their ignorance.

 

[Sandy M]

Some non-profit

Don't actually know if PETA is supposed to be a non-profit, but there was an article in the weekly magazine Chronicle of the Horse (nationally based magazine re standard equestrian disciplines) that PETA funds had been used to purchase personal dwellings (and quite pricey ones) for some PETA higher-ups. I don't have a link, but I remember being quite surprised (and angry) about that one!

My understanding is that PETA would want me, for instance, to turn my horse out to survive on his own, and if he didn't, well, tough, he wasn't meant to survive. Basically, they think all "pets" should be turned loose to fend for themselves and if they don't survive, well, it's better they die out as species that be kept as "slaves." I'm sure my horse, who has to work about 1, or at most 2 hours a day, 5 days a week, and is in the interim fed, groomed, massaged, blanketed, given high level medical care, regular pedicures (shoeing), etc., would probably be anti-PETA.

 

[Manny]

That's about as close to "slavery" as you are going to get, I think.

To get to the really good stuff you have to go to their people speaking extemporaneously, without their staff of PR people watering it down. Here are some quotes with sources. You'll also want to go to the library and get the interview the New Yorker did with Ingrid Newkirk in late March or April of 2003. Among other things, the author apparently claimed that Newkirk "regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use."

 

[mumblethrax]

It's not hypocrisy or a "dirty little secret" on the part of PETA. It's a matter of stupidity or gullibility on the part of people who support PETA on superficial grounds.

Some of them are certainly not familiar with PETA's (or Newkirk's) position on these issues.

A while back, PETA set some minks free in England. Some of the escaped minks got into a pen and killed some endangered owls that people were trying to keep alive. To someone concerned with animal welfare, this is a bad thing. To PETA, it's like killing two birds with one stone. It was good to set the minks free, because they were being exploited by humans. It was also good that the minks killed the owls, because they too were being exploited by humans. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.

This is an example of the conflation I spoke of earlier. Here's the snopes article on the incident. Notice that those responsible were members of ALF, not PETA.

A little dog adopted me. I had to spend a lot of money to get her free of disease, and I even quit a high-paying job so that I could care for her better. She's lying on the floor near me and gives all the outward signs of being very happy. To PETA, all of this would be bad. To PETA, it would be better if this dog were living on the streets with anemia from three parasites, because it's "natural," and I'm bad for having let that little dog into my life. PETA can take a little squat on the Cosmic Utensil as far as I'm concerned, and possibly sit and spin until they rot.

This is simply not true. PETA makes a point to rescue such animals, and this is precisely why they consider euthanasia to be a better option for those animals. Newkirk's claim is that because they actively seek out animals in situations where they are receiving inadequate care, the animals they "rescue" are less likely to be adopted, and euthanasia is superior to the life of a stray. It's a controversial position, certainly.

 

[mumblethrax]

Here's the New Yorker article: http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2003/2003_04_14_peta.html

 

[merphie]

This is a real hard one to nail down. I've been goggling like mad.

There are lots and lots and lots of sites out there who say PETA is against seeing-eye dogs, but none of them provide so much as a quote to work with or a link to any evidence of that.

The best thing I can find in PETA's own words is this cached factsheet.

ETA: "lives of servitude" = "slavery" ?

I think that is about as close as you are going to get. The whole thing seems to fit into their philosophy.

I saw a video of their president giving a speech where it was mentioned. I haven't been able to find it.

 

[Euromutt]

Notice that those responsible were members of ALF, not PETA.

Which is more or less equivalent to the distinction between Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA.

And yes, PETA is supposedly a non-profit organization, which is why their tax returns are publicly accessible, like on that page ysabella linked to. There's a lot of cross-pollination between "animal rights" groups; funds transferred, certain people performing services for different groups, that sort of thing.

 

[Ducky]

Phil:

I can't seem to find them now, but CNN had a couple of stories about PETA members euthanizing pets in a van and dumping the dead carcasses in dumpsters. Their posession of the euthanization drugs was illegal, as was their dumping.

Though I can't find the darn things now...

ETA:

found one. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/17/peta.arrests.ap/

Though it seems to be missing now. perhaps google cache can bring that one up?

ETA again:

Google cache does have this one. here it is.


Is CNN considered a reputable source?

ETA (again again):

This link reports to have taken a story from another source, the Roanoke - Chowan News Herald:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/10979

It gives a list of dogs and puppies dumped.

 

[RandFan]

The best thing I can find in PETA's own words is this cached factsheet.

ETA: "lives of servitude" = "slavery" ?

From the link:

In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts.

This is misleading propaganda. Wild animals by and large don't enjoy their native environments whether man has interfered or not. Living wild is about survival. Kill or be killed, eat or be eaten, survival of the fittest. The notion that animals are frolicking around their "native environments" and "enjoying" life is just wrong.

 

[LostAngeles]

I particularly like the part where they are opposed to AIDS research if it involves animals, and yet she is okay with using insulin, which comes from animals, to keep herself alive.

Just to clarify on this, the insulin used to manage diabetes was orginally developed from pigs. Now, they can synthesize a substance that's much closer to human insulin, but without the pigs they couldn't have done this. I, in fact, have a cat that takes injections of human insulin to manage his diabetes.

Continue on bashing these idiots like they deserve.