Yet Another PETA Thread!

[Kahalachan]

I don't think PETA is an animal shelter, and I don't think they have the resources to care for huge numbers of animals. They also provide euthanasia services for other shelters who don't have the means to euthanize animals humanely.

What's keeping them from allocating funds and resources used for activism to sheltering more animals to ease the burden for having to euthanize them?

I could easily stand behind PETA if their efforts were more on conservationism and saving more pets and not the other stuff.

 

[Dessi]

Really?

"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, "Animals," May/June 1993

How about we actually try to put some context to those comments.

For a start, PETA opposes breeders and puppy mills, a view they've held consistently for decades:

Breeding Trouble

Producing more animals—either to make money or to obtain a certain "look" or characteristic—is also harmful to the animals who are produced by breeding. Dogs and cats don't care whether their physical appearance conforms to a judge's standards, yet they are the ones who suffer the consequences of humans' manipulation. Inbreeding causes painful and life-threatening genetic defects in "purebred" dogs and cats, including crippling hip dysplasia, blindness, deafness, heart defects, skin problems, and epilepsy. Distorting animals for specific physical features also causes severe health problems. The short, pushed-up noses of bulldogs and pugs, for example, can make exercise and even normal breathing difficult for these animals. Dachshunds' long spinal columns often cause back problems, including disc disease.

PETA is not the first group to point out the harm caused to animals in breeding mills, especially when animals are bred faster than they can be adopted to homes. Problems are commercial puppy farming are well documented, leading to Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act in Missouri in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Welfare Act in the UK, both of which are intended to set minimal standards of care for animals in breeding facilities.

PETA is also not the first to point out the ethical implications of creating purebreed animals, many animals are born serious diseases, trouble breathing, inability to walk, deformities resulting from inbreeding, see wiki article on linked documentary. To the best of my knowledge, the documentary is fairly accurate, even breeder organizations like the Kennel Club acknowledged the health problems animals (particularly show quality pedigrees), they revised their health standards in response to the documentary.

And PETA's comment that animals are not toys is exactly correct. Too many examples of people abandoning animals, or killing pets to punish their kids or get back at ex-girlfriends, or forcing animals to participate in blood sports.

Newkirk's comment states that, if people treat their animals as toys which sometimes poop, they have no business caring for animals. This is NOT a blanket objection to people caring for companion animals in principle.

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

I'd love to see the original text of the article this quote is lifted from, because there are three unrelated views being mashed into one.

The first sentence is mentions squirrels and starlings, so the context is either related to keeping undomesticated animals as pets, or the problems with keeping those kinds of animals in particular. Its impossible to tell because the quote contains exactly no context. Whatever the case, I've received PETA newsletters in the past which comment on people being unable to properly care for squirrels, either kill them or release them outside where they are unable to care for themselves. PETA has also long criticized the problems of keeping birds in cages for life. There's no way to tell what Newkirk is criticizing in the quote above.

Next sentence reiterates the problem of pet shops and animal breeding again, a view which is held by the ASPCA, RSPCA, Humane Society. PETA's view on the subject is, and has been for decades, that people should adopt animals from shelters, not breeders.

The only out of place comment here is that dogs should live their natural lives in the wild, and ellipses joins the comment that dogs should not spend all of their time indoors waiting for their guardians to come home. I would really love to see the full context of this quote, because ellipses appears to be joining two statements together which have no relation to one another. I've only seen the comment that animals should live their natural lives in the wild in reference to undomesticated or exotic animals captured as pets; I've only seen the view that dogs should not spend all of their time at home waiting for a guardian to come home used to justify a view that dogs should not be kept in kennels all the time, or chained up in the backyard all day, or that people should adopt two animals so they can keep each other company while their guardian is at work.

I really doubt the quote fragments above voice an opposition against people caring for animals in principle -- and I don't say that because I happen to like animal rights, but because I'm actually familiar with PETA's policies, have been receiving their newsletters for years, and involved with likeminded animal rights activists for years. The whole time, I've never seen PETA express the view you accuse them of holding. As is usually the case with quotemining copypasta, context is everything.

 

[ixolite]

That's why they've vocally advocated adopting and caring for companion animals fairly consistently for decades. They do not hold the view that animals are better dead than being cared for, and I doubt its possible to rationalize that view with their animal rights ethic in the first place.

Really? Those are some of the dead animals peta is responsible for:
http://blog.myletsadopt.com/2010/08/23/the-trouble-with-peta/
Those puppies and the mother cat with her kittens were surely all terminally ill.


And this:

Many are in "managed" colonies, which usually means that they are fed. Having witnessed the painful deaths of countless feral cats, we cannot in good conscience advocate trapping, altering, and releasing as a humane way to deal with overpopulation and homelessness.

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/feral-cats.aspx

Feral cats are apparently better off dead. (That doesn't go for wildlife though, they can suffer all they want out there, Peta doesn't care. )

Not to forget that those idiots want for dogs and cats to go vegan.

Statistics on the killing rates of peta:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

(Btw, over here we only have no kill shelters.)

 

[bookitty]

Really? Those are some of the dead animals peta is responsible for:
http://blog.myletsadopt.com/2010/08/23/the-trouble-with-peta/
Those puppies and the mother cat with her kittens were surely all terminally ill.


And this:

http://www.peta.org/about/why-peta/feral-cats.aspx

Feral cats are apparently better off dead. (That doesn't go for wildlife though, they can suffer all they want out there, Peta doesn't care. )

Not to forget that those idiots want for dogs and cats to go vegan.

Statistics on the killing rates of peta:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

(Btw, over here we only have no kill shelters.)

Fix and release does help keep feral cat colonies from growing. It doesn't do much for the life of the cats. Feral cats have very short lifespans compared to indoor cats. They are prone to disease, wounds from fighting, getting hit by cars and other trauma that leads to a slow painful death. There are also so-called feral cats that are simply dumped house cats. They should be rescued and placed but the funds to get them to the vet and hold them until they can be adopted just aren't there. Some, like Siamese mix who is on my lap right now, find people to take them in. The rest live brief lives of hunger, ending in pain.

Personally, I accept that feral cats are wild animals and live with the same dangers as other wild animals. (although the idea makes my heart ache for them.) I do believe in spaying/neutering them because populations can get out of hand and are very bad for native wildlife. I don't think that euthanizing them is the answer but I understand where that philosophy starts.

It all goes back to spaying and neutering, we (here in the US) need better laws.

 

[Ausmerican]

Newkirk's comment states that, if people treat their animals as toys which sometimes poop, they have no business caring for animals. This is NOT a blanket objection to people caring for companion animals in principle.

No it isn't. The next sentence that you didn't address; "If people want companionship they should seek it with their own kind." is however.

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."

-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

I'd love to see the original text of the article this quote is lifted from, because there are three unrelated views being mashed into one.

The first sentence is mentions squirrels and starlings, so the context is either related to keeping undomesticated animals as pets, or the problems with keeping those kinds of animals in particular. Its impossible to tell because the quote contains exactly no context. Whatever the case, I've received PETA newsletters in the past which comment on people being unable to properly care for squirrels, either kill them or release them outside where they are unable to care for themselves. PETA has also long criticized the problems of keeping birds in cages for life. There's no way to tell what Newkirk is criticizing in the quote above.

Next sentence reiterates the problem of pet shops and animal breeding again, a view which is held by the ASPCA, RSPCA, Humane Society. PETA's view on the subject is, and has been for decades, that people should adopt animals from shelters, not breeders.

The only out of place comment here is that dogs should live their natural lives in the wild, and ellipses joins the comment that dogs should not spend all of their time indoors waiting for their guardians to come home. I would really love to see the full context of this quote, because ellipses appears to be joining two statements together which have no relation to one another. I've only seen the comment that animals should live their natural lives in the wild in reference to undomesticated or exotic animals captured as pets; I've only seen the view that dogs should not spend all of their time at home waiting for a guardian to come home used to justify a view that dogs should not be kept in kennels all the time, or chained up in the backyard all day, or that people should adopt two animals so they can keep each other company while their guardian is at work.

I really doubt the quote fragments above voice an opposition against people caring for animals in principle -- and I don't say that because I happen to like animal rights, but because I'm actually familiar with PETA's policies, have been receiving their newsletters for years, and involved with likeminded animal rights activists for years. The whole time, I've never seen PETA express the view you accuse them of holding. As is usually the case with quotemining copypasta, context is everything.

I am honestly dumbfounded that you are having any confusion parsing the context of this comment. It reads very simply.

1. You dont have to own animals that live around you in the wild to derive pleasure from them.
2. We would like dogs and cats to live in the wild so you can derive your pleasure from them the way you do starlings and squirrels.

How you go from there to trying to say that she is talking about the problems of keeping squirrels and starlings as pets is beyond me.

 

[Dessi]

What's keeping them from allocating funds and resources used for activism to sheltering more animals to ease the burden for having to euthanize them?

Probably the same thing keeping poor people who have no bread from simply going out to the store and buying cake instead?

A lot of people criticize PETA's euthanasia services, as if there were some readily available alternative allowing the millions of unwanted animals to be loved and cared for until the end of their natural lives. If someone knows what this alternative is, I want to hear it, and I promise the PETA wants to hear it too.

I could easily stand behind PETA if their efforts were more on conservationism and saving more pets and not the other stuff.

Like PETA's undercover investigations which lead to the rescue of hundreds of neglected cats at a "rescue sanctuary", brought a lawsuit on the US Department of Defense "wound lab leading to the first ban on shooting dogs and cats in military experiments, PETA and the ASPCA's pressure on GM to stop using live animals in crash tests lead to the development of crash test dummies and the end of live animal testing worldwide.

On the less morbid side of things, PETA volunteers rescued and cleaned dogs and cats who were victims of the BP oil spill in 2010, the animals were spayed, neutered, microchipped, and relocated to Virginia's to be placed in homes at the Virginia Beach Adopt-a-thon -- all out of PETAs pocketbook.

PETA really does do a lot of good things for animals, that's why they have my support.

 

[Kahalachan]

PETA isn't poor.

Say it took X amount of dollars for PETA to make this.

http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/

Why not have that X amount of money put to actually helping an animal?


I understand for public awareness and a mission statement this is needed.

http://www.peta.org/

But the other stuff?


To me PETA is like this rich Catholic church that does some charitable actions. Yes, some money went to good stuff but a lot of money was also wasted on garbage that helped no one.

 

[Dessi]

No it isn't. The next sentence that you didn't address; "If people want companionship they should seek it with their own kind." is however.

I am honestly dumbfounded that you are having any confusion parsing the context of this comment. It reads very simply.

1. You dont have to own animals that live around you in the wild to derive pleasure from them.
2. We would like dogs and cats to live in the wild so you can derive your pleasure from them the way you do starlings and squirrels.

How you go from there to trying to say that she is talking about the problems of keeping squirrels and starlings as pets is beyond me.

You're asking why I'm having trouble parsing a tiny quote with zero context, put together by anti-PETA naysayers out of half a dozen tiny slivers of cribbed comments to prove that something Ingrid Newkirk said 20 years ago is the exact opposite of her organization's policies have advocated consistently for decades?

Seriously, for as long as I've been involved with PETA, I've never seen them argue that people shouldn't care for animals, unless those people treat their animals poorly. PETA has never been shy about voicing controversial opinions, and all of its policies are readily accessible to anyone looking through their site or receiving their newsletters. The view that PETA wants to take away everyone's pets never occurs in PETA's own site or literature, except to refer to it as a myth. The myth only ever occurs on anti-PETA websites, and its only ever repeated by anti-PETA people claiming secret knowledge about PETA's "true" goals which are otherwise inaccessible to any actual PETA member on the planet. How does this not immediately set off your skeptical alarm klaxon?

I understand why people criticize PETA, but in all seriousness, instead of starting out with the point of view that PETA is bad and looking for quotemined copypasta to prove your bias, why not put on your skepticism hat and comb through PETA's site yourself and criticism them for views they actually hold?

 

[luchog]

I don't think they have the resources to care for huge numbers of animals.

Do you know what their yearly budget is? Try over US$30 million. The vast majority of which gets spent on their high-profile advertising campaigns. Imagine if they spent that on pet shelters.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I would be inclined to think this is nothing but beating a dead horse, but then again, PETA would be all over us for beating that poor dead horse.

 

[Ausmerican]

Do you know what their yearly budget is? Try over US$30 million. The vast majority of which gets spent on their high-profile advertising campaigns. Imagine if they spent that on pet shelters.

Or maybe they could buy a big chunk of land, fence it ala Monkey Jungle in Florida and let the former pets run free as nature intended and PeTA would seem to prefer, the kitties frolicking with the puppies enjoying a rich full life.

Or they could keep using it to help pay the legal fees of people like ALF terrorists like Rodney Coronado.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Seriously, for as long as I've been involved with PETA, I've never seen them argue that people shouldn't care for animals, unless those people treat their animals poorly.

That doesn't at all seem like what Newkirk is saying in those quotes. To me, it sounds like she's arguing we should've never domesticated animals in the first place. Which does, by the way, jive with other comments PETA has made more recently.

Essentially, I think the ultimate goal of PETA when it comes to domesticated animals is to sterilize the remaining population and let them die off naturally in the care of others. Newkirk may be alot of things but she's not an idiot, she's perfectly aware that releasing domesticated animals back into the wild is going to seriously upset any number of ecosystems and likely result in the very painful deaths of millions of animals through starvation because they cannot compete with existing predators or being eaten by said predators.

Do you know what their yearly budget is? Try over US$30 million. The vast majority of which gets spent on their high-profile advertising campaigns. Imagine if they spent that on pet shelters.

To be fair, if PETA wasn't spending all of that money objectifying women they wouldn't have $30 million+ to spend.

 

[Kahalachan]

Do you know what their yearly budget is? Try over US$30 million. The vast majority of which gets spent on their high-profile advertising campaigns. Imagine if they spent that on pet shelters.

So wait.

You're saying this isn't helping out animals?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/e...-vernon-meat-protest-20120131,0,2498164.story

Giving an animal a home or volunteering to help at a shelter does absolutely nothing. Laying around naked is the way to go.

 

[Dessi]

Seriously, for as long as I've been involved with PETA, I've never seen them argue that people shouldn't care for animals, unless those people treat their animals poorly.

That doesn't at all seem like what Newkirk is saying in those quotes.

Quotemining and cribbing comments out of context happens all the time, particularly with hotbutton issues like animal rights. I would very strongly suggest that if people use those quotes, they cite the full text articles instead.

To me, it sounds like she's arguing we should've never domesticated animals in the first place. Which does, by the way, jive with other comments PETA has made more recently.

Which part of that article are you referring to? It contains the usual complaints about breeders mistreating their animals, and suggests tips for caring compassionately for fish.

Essentially, I think the ultimate goal of PETA when it comes to domesticated animals is to sterilize the remaining population and let them die off naturally in the care of others. Newkirk may be alot of things but she's not an idiot, she's perfectly aware that releasing domesticated animals back into the wild is going to seriously upset any number of ecosystems and likely result in the very painful deaths of millions of animals through starvation because they cannot compete with existing predators or being eaten by said predators.

PETA's ultimatum is to oppose animal cruelty, a big part of that is opposing animals bred for profit or treated as property which -- and its hard to find instances otherwise -- creates conditions harmful to animals. That position is not equivalent to opposing people caring for animals in principle; there's always a place for animal companionship, and it fits in very well with their philosophy of kindness to animals.

 

[luchog]

How about cases where PETA representatives explicitly compare keeping animals to slavery:

http://news.yahoo.com/peta-lawsuit-seeks-expand-animal-rights-222219887.html

Or some direct quotes:

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington DC, PeTA, 1982). p. 15

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." -PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals

"In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether." Ingrid Newkirk PeTA (Newsday, Feb. 21, 1988)

"I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's speciest language. I prefer 'companion animal.' We would no longer allow... pet shops... Eventually companion animals would be phased out." Ingrid Newkirk PeTA (Harper's Magazine, Aug. 1988)

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights" (symposium) Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

And finally, a quote from PETA guru Peter Singer"

"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." -- Peter Singer*, Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.

 

[Number Six]

I would be inclined to think this is nothing but beating a dead horse, but then again, PETA would be all over us for beating that poor dead horse.

I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and bestiality but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.

(Yes, bestiality is spelled that way. I had it spelled beastiality but the red underline told me it was incorrect so I had to look it up. Why they heck is there no "a" near the beginning?)

 

[Dessi]

You're saying this isn't helping out animals?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/e...-vernon-meat-protest-20120131,0,2498164.story

Giving an animal a home or volunteering to help at a shelter does absolutely nothing. Laying around naked is the way to go.

Just how effective are stunts of women laying around naked?

Following PETA's campaign, Lane Bryant confirms its shops won't sell fur.

PETA successfully lobbied retailer Cole Haan to eliminate exotic animal skins from its product lines.

Overstock.com followed suit, no longer sells shoes or luggage made from exotic animal skins. In a statement, CEO Patrick Byrne thanked PETA for "informing us of these issues and presenting us with evidence that factored into our decision." The move follows Overstock's boycott of fur and ivory goods.

In response to pressure from PETA, one of Britain's largest department stores, John Lewis, has pledged to no longer buy wool from Australian mulesed lambs.

And what exactly does PETA do for animals anyway, besides nothing?

Following PETA's seven month undercover investigation at US Global Exotics, a PETA investigator gathered evidence of animal cruelty, resulting in the largest seizure of animal seizure in history.

North Carolina research lab closed following 9 month PETA investigation revealing cruel treatment toward dogs, cats, and rabbits, a massive rescue effort coordinated by PETA and the US Humane Society worked to place around 200 animals in homes and rescue shelters.

Their goofy stunts really do help and put pressure on companies to minimize the harm they cause to animals.

 

[luchog]

That position is not equivalent to opposing people caring for animals in principle; there's always a place for animal companionship, and it fits in very well with their philosophy of kindness to animals.

The statements in my previous post demonstrate otherwise.

Just a few more:

"I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn't be harming anything." Ingrid Newkirk PeTA (Washington Post, November 13, 1983)

"Probably everything we do is a publicity stunt... Ingrid Newkirk PeTA (USA Today, September 3, 1991)

I don't think kindness is really a motivating factor for PETA.

"Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause." Alex Pacheco, Chairman of PeTA (Gazette Mail, Charleston, WV, January 15, 1989)

"Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person, Sometimes it is not wrong at all." – Peter Singer "Practical Ethics" (Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Torturing a human being is almost always wrong, but it is not absolutely wrong." --Peter Singer, as quoted in Josephine Donovan, "Animal Rights and Feminist Theory," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Winter 1990, p. 357.

PETA also supports known eco-terrorist organizations:

When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted, PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was using that money, bragging to the staff that she had spent $25,000 on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.

Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California, Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PeTA sent $45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times greater than what PeTA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of that year.

Read those bolded parts until they sink in. PETA doesn't care about animals or people, only in their image; as evidenced by their strong ties to to eco-terrorist group ALF.

PeTA Statement, June 19, 1991, in response to ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT Vandalism at Northwest Farm Foods Co-op:
"We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front... they act courageously, risking their freedom and their careers to stop the terror inflicted every day on animals in the labs. (ALF's activities) comprise an important part of today's animal protection movement."

"I would be overjoyed when the first scientist is killed by a liberation activist."
Vivien Smith, Animal Liberation Front (ALF) (USA Today, September 3, 1991)

"And I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, two million, ten million non-human lives"
Jerry Vlasak, Animal Liberation Front Spokesperson ("Animal Rights 2003" National Conference August 3, 2003)

 

[epepke]

The statements in my previous post demonstrate otherwise.

Just a few more:

That's nice, but everyone who gets enough protein for proper brain functioning has figured out already that PeTA are a bunch of hypocritical, idiotic, brain-dead schmucks. You can't do much about the rest.

 

[luchog]

Their goofy stunts really do help and put pressure on companies to minimize the harm they cause to animals.

Never mind that groups like the ASPCA do far more to promote animal welfare and anti-cruelty initiatives in one year than PETA have done in their entire career; without resorting to objectifying women with soft-core porn adverts and publicity stunts, and without advocating and illegally supporting terroristic violence the way that PETA does. And they are a much higher rated charity, with 80% going to actively fund programs, only 20% on fundraising, publicity, and administrative costs.

They are also actively involved in drafting and promoting legislation to reduce animal cruelty, and help fund efforts to actively enforce existing legislation; which does far more to reduce animal cruelty than PETA's publicity stunts. In fact, it's the ASPCA, not PETA, who has been the primary motivator of both federal and state legislation against "pet mills". They also support spay and neuter programs that dwarf PETA's miniscule contribution.

And despite PETA's high-profile claims of disaster-area pet rescues (nearly all of which were subsequently killed); the ASPCA has done far more to ensure that pets in disaster areas are adequately cared for, with the federal Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act.

PETA leadership is nothing but a bunch of attention whores and nutcases. If you really care about animal cruelty and welfare, you'll do far more good supporting groups like the ASPCA.