Fighting for animal liberation and an end to speciesism
What does PETA stand for, again?
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, you say?
More like People Eradicating Thousands of Animals.
The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom last week reported that PETA slaughtered fully 95 percent of the stray dogs and cats it “rescued” in 2011.
And that’s par for the cat-killing course: Overall, PETA has killed more than 90 percent of the animals it’s taken in since 2005.
Bottom line: The organization that claims its members would “rather go naked than wear fur” prefers to kill dogs and cats rather than find homes for them.
Yes, making the effort to find homes for stray pets takes time — of which PETA apparently has precious little.
In 2010, the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services discovered that fully 84 percent of the strays taken in by PETA were killed within 24 hours.
No wonder: The report concluded that PETA’s headquarters “does not contain sufficient animal enclosures to routinely house the number of animals annually reported as taken into custody.”
So, off they go to the gas chamber.
No surprise, though, that the organization is much more adept at fund-raising than it is at finding homes for kittens and puppies.
PETA’s annual budget is $37 million, “most,” it claims, coming from tax-deductible contributions from 2 million members.
But that is also considerably supplemented by foundation support: PETA has received some $18.7 million over the last three years from organizations like game-show host Bob Barker’s DJ&T Foundation.
Certainly PETA loves the outrageous.
Remember when the organization was after the upstate community of Fishkill to change its name to something a tad more ichthyologically sensitive? That pr masterstroke earned it international headlines.
And people certainly took note when PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk proclaimed “a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”
Except now, the dog is dead.
On the issue of low income pet owners we will have to agree to disagree. I'd point out that I know of no shelters that rehome pets until they have been desexed.
The original article referred to PETA killing shelter animals, which you expressed support for. I take it you are still opposed to no-kill shelters which is really what this is about. There are many ways that governments and communities can take steps to keep animals alive. As per previous comments in this thread, killing animals resolves nothing.
If indeed PETA are killing healthy animals I'd take this to be complete hypocrisy on their part. I'm pleased to have seen a new no-kill shelter starting up recently in Melbourne. Hopefully more will follow suit.
Nath Miles said:
You clearly never read my first post.
"If you have a leaking boat you fix the leak you don’t just scoop the water out if you want to fix the problem. The same goes with companion animals we need to fix the “leak” or the problem before it starts."
This refers to breeding. I have always blamed breeding.
In regards to the cost I know how much animals cost to desex an animal. This is why there should be laws that say any animal sold or rehomed by any one including pet shops, shelters, rescue groups; the guy down the road from you and registered breeders must be desexed prior to being rehomed.
There should be laws that say it is an offence to own an undesexed animal without a license.
I'm sorry but I stand by my comment if they cant afford to desex the animal they have they shouldn’t have a pet. Even people on the dole can afford to do the right thing. This has nothing to do with class it has to do with people’s priorities and what’s right.
Anyone who ignorantly allows there animal to breed and refuses to desex there pet has blood on there hands. They are the true killers not the shelters.
Kerry Baker said:
Nath, when comment was made about low-income pet owners you stated they shouldn't have pets if they can't afford $30, then went on to cite examples of people who abandon pets because they can't be bothered, presumably not low-income owners. Two completely different scenarios. As you know it is not $30 to register a pet. You have to get the pet desexed and microchipped plus the cost of registration. Pets that are not desexed cost over $100 to register, so your financials are wrong.
Initially your response was to kill the pets in shelters because of overpopulation. Now you are acknowledging it is the breeders that need to be controlled.
In fact killing pets in shelters only makes the problem worse. Shelters taking in and slaughtering animals is only really participating in the status quo, doing the governments work for them and keeping low cost pet adoptions off the market so pet shops will keep selling animals. The current cost of a kitten in Melbourne, microchipped, wormed etc but not desexed is between around $180 (if you are lucky) and $260 and that's just for a moggy. the cost of a cat from the Greensborough Cat Protection Society is around $95. Those who want to kill the animals are the ones who stand to profit. The government keeps people ignorant about what really goes on and so awareness is minimal. But as we have seen with live animal exports, governments take the attitude that what people don't know works to the governments advantage.
Your statements about having to kill animals in shelters is just adding to, not resolving the problem. And I asked, where are the animal rights in this solution? You seem to have missed the point about their rights to live.
Nath Miles said:
Stop the breeding we stop the killing. I have always said that.
Yes we should stop puppy farms and I agree pet shops are part of the problem. I believe the majority of the problem lies with backyard breeders and irresponsible humans.
I don’t understand how people target and attack Peta and open door high kill shelters, they are the last cog in a vicious cycle.
I am not sure how I am all over the place I have said that we need to stop the breeding, this is where the problem starts. I believe legislation is important in ensuring this occurs.
I won’t be ignorant and blame peta or shelters for the mess.
I think society should reevaluate its relationship with companion animals and our abuse of them.
Kerry Baker said:
Nath, in principle I don't have problems with elements of what you are saying. I'm pleased to hear you like cats although your rant about toxoplasmosis seemed otherwise. But your discussion is all over the place and you are targeting the end of the process not the cause. Killing animals in shelters is simply making room for more.
Take a look at http://www.oscarslaw.org/act-now.php?state=vic
What needs to be done is to put an end to breeders and selling animals in pet shops. It is obscene that the government allows breeders to continue to keep dogs and cats in shocking conditions while thousands of animals are being slaughtered every year. Deal with the cause, not the symptom.
Kerry i am not against the idea of no kill i believe that true no kill can only happen when the breeding stops.
I believe the current no kill propaganda thats being spewed out by self appointed experts and gurus like Winograd is actually hurting animals in the long run.
Sadly Winograds no kill has divided animal people for example if one does not agree with him and his views then we support animal killing which is complete rubbish.
I dont understand how some people see it as a crime against humanity to euthanize a dog or cat (the cute fluffy ones) but its perfectly fine for humans to kill other animals to feed these (cute fluffy ones) Its is blatant hypocrisy and speciesist.
Do you not advocate the lease suffering for ALL animals?
Again, we will have to agree to disagree.
On the subject of your last question, that's one that has no satisfactory answer as has been acknowledged in this discussion. As you are well aware that issue has been done to death in another topic. I have no intention of entering into that debate again.