Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
#4 is the only thing you should ever need to read to understand what PETA really cares about

This is them screwing up. Not them purposefully killing or harming animals.
I am not surprised they can screw up big time. But OP does not speak about a screw up.

Their own records show that they euthanize nearly 98% of the animals they "rescue". What part of that doesn't show to you that they kill animals, purposefully, all the time?

Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.

I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.

I think the dozens of points in this thread do a pretty good job in condemning them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
#4 is the only thing you should ever need to read to understand what PETA really cares about

This is them screwing up. Not them purposefully killing or harming animals.
I am not surprised they can screw up big time. But OP does not speak about a screw up.

Their own records show that they euthanize nearly 98% of the animals they "rescue". What part of that doesn't show to you that they kill animals, purposefully, all the time?

Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.

I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.

PETA is well known for euthanizing perfectly healthy and adoptable animals. None of this is new information.

Their kill rate is abominable, and indefensible. Plain and simple.

"They came to the office last Wednesday and picked up the cat and two kittens.... They were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that.... So imagine my surprise when I learned they allegedly dumped dead animals in a trash bin later that same day." He said the animals "were in good health and were very adoptable, especially the kittens."

Proctor was asked to examine one of the dead animals taken from the PETA crime scene. "The animal that I found was a very healthy six-month puppy that had been killed that day," he told TV station WNCT Channel 9. "It was a six-month-old lab mix and appeared to be in very, very good shape... and he had received some type of injection in his front right leg," he said. "PETA will never pick up another animal from my practice."

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.

I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.

PETA pays people to protest animal shelters that euthanize animals while simultaneously doing the same thing. There is a disconnect somewhere.

More than that, what animal shelter euthanizes puppies and kittens? Barring serious medical problems, there's no reason for puppies and kittens not to be adoptable. PETA claims it only kills the sick, but the case in NC years ago proved that wasn't true, and their kill rates say they kill everything, not just the sick. I know of no shelter that goes around promising to find animals homes and get them adopted (as PETA regularly does) then ships them off to a death chamber and kills them all within the same day.

I don't think anyone is arguing that "PETA euthanizes animals and thus is bad." The argument is "PETA, an organization proclaiming to fight for animals rights, protests animal shelters, pet ownership, and animal use, gather up animals and kills them en masse daily." That later statement is, completely bonkers because its completely true. PETA is an organization that runs on insane troll logic.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Many dog rescues have to put down a lot of their dogs because the ones that aren't taken on by new owners can't be sustained for ever as there is limited space.

I'm not saying that excuses PETA, but your point does not condemn them.

PETA pays people to protest animal shelters that euthanize animals while simultaneously doing the same thing. There is a disconnect somewhere.

I think the major difference between actual shelters and PETA, is that one actually tries to adopt out pets. Most that I've talked to (my wife and I have been looking for a dog for some time now, but haven't found the right one yet) have some sort of time table from the moment a dog or cat is brought in.


Most shelters now, when the bring a dog in, they clean it up, check it out medically, then "test" the dog's behavior for any issues with children, other dogs, cats, etc. Obviously, if they fail medical then they're euthanized. If they cannot be trained, and have a pretty violent streak, they'll get put down. Beyond that, they'll be in the shelter for whatever period of time the shelter has. There's also a ton of adoption agencies that take those dogs out of euthanizing shelters and have foster families, etc. until they are adopted.


I think PETA probably just takes them on a van ride to the "doggie oven", and probably doesn't even try to adopt out. Probably also due to their public stance that having ANY kind of animal is cruelty to that animal.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Different topic, same debate, same people on the side of evidence, same people on the side of wishful thinking and willful ignorance.

You are being a bit rude here.
In the face of so much evidence, I am going to agree that apparently, PETA has no qualm with killing animals. Yes, it has taken me some time to accept the fact, and I am still quite surprised from it, but I am not the willful ignorant you describe. Do you change you mind instantly on any subject without calling for more information and taking time to reconsider and all that?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Different topic, same debate, same people on the side of evidence, same people on the side of wishful thinking and willful ignorance.

You are being a bit rude here.
In the face of so much evidence, I am going to agree that apparently, PETA has no qualm with killing animals. Yes, it has taken me some time to accept the fact, and I am still quite surprised from it, but I am not the willful ignorant you describe. Do you change you mind instantly on any subject without calling for more information and taking time to reconsider and all that?

I don't have a "reconsider" phase, if I believe something and it is proven wrong then I must then accept I was wrong and adapt what is right to myself, there is no "considering" things.
I don't let feelings impact facts.

But maybe I am an odd sort, but to me it's just logical to keep feelings away from facts like that, probably why I can't at all comprehend religion since a lot of it is based on feelings.

You just make up your mind instantly?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
I don't have a "reconsider" phase, if I believe something and it is proven wrong then I must then accept I was wrong and adapt what is right to myself

You do not need time to check the proof that it was wrong? For most people, it takes time to do that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You just make up your mind instantly?

(more seriously, I doubt anyone makes up their mind instantly, but I think we've all seen how even we ourselves will often jump to conclusions about a variety of subjects). I wouldn't say Hybrid, especially being from France probably not as familiar with PETA as us 'Muricans, is being ignorant or stubborn with being skeptic, especially with certain comparisons made in thread.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You just make up your mind instantly?

If the evidence is solid then, basically yes.

I mean obviously it's a bit more indepth then hear something, think its true, believe.
Generally things don't just jump out at you to change one's perceptive of something, but take this for example. I mean all the evidence needed is clearly present and offered and if I had come here believing PETA to be good, what would I need to dwell upon, there's proof they kill animals, alot of it.
What's to think over?

 Rainbow Dash wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You just make up your mind instantly?

If the evidence is solid then, basically yes.

I mean obviously it's a bit more indepth then hear something, think its true, believe.
Generally things don't just jump out at you to change one's perceptive of something, but take this for example. I mean all the evidence needed is clearly present and offered and if I had come here believing PETA to be good, what would I need to dwell upon, there's proof they kill animals, alot of it.
What's to think over?

Not that I wan't to jump to Oxayotl's defence, but there is allot to think about.

The general's public perception of PETA, especially to people outside the US, is that they are a genuinely good organization when it comes to the defence of animal rights and having that perception take a 180º turn takes a bit of getting used to. Personally it took me another thread like this one a few months ago to make me investigate PETA's actions a bit more thoroughly and be able to spot the appalling behaviour that goes on bellow all the PR crap that makes up PETA's public image so I can understand how it took Oxayotl a bit of time to see it as well.

I am a bit skeptical to how things like this is reported. There still might be more to it. And from being friends to animal rights people in Sweden, I know that the prejudice against vegans sometimes makes reporters believe anything.

But if there is any truth to it, PETA are just hurting the cause for animal rights and veganism.

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Without the article actually talking about how the animal was "stolen" it seems like it could be a fairly routine "pick up a stray, put it down because shelters are not nice" kind of situation.

This op-ed is not even trying to be an article.

How does taking the family's pet from their front porch constitute "pick up a stray"?

Is the porch enclosed or open? Did the dog have a collar and a tag?

We have cats, rabbits, and even a dog or two on our porch sometimes. All of them were strays and did not belong to us.

none of your points matter,

*at all*

its on private property, you cannot just walk up and take it... let alone walk up, take it, and kill it.

im sure your porch could have your neighbors package delivered to it by mistake too... doesnt mean PETA or some fly by night postal rights activist group can steal it and destroy it...

PETA is well known outside of the "believe everything on facebook" type emotionally driven zealots who unquestioningly support it for being full of warp gak

Takes a special kind of "skepticism" to look at a video that directly proves someone from PETA stole the dog off private property and ask "yes, but are we SURE peta stole the dog? maybe that dog had a sign off camera asking to be put down or something?"

Considering that petakillsanimals.com is a campaing from The Center for Consumer freedom, which wikipedia describes as...

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), formerly the Guest Choice Network, is an American non-profit entity founded by Richard Berman that lobbies on behalf of the fast food, meat, alcohol and tobacco industries.

...this whole affair makes me even more worried that it is just some part of some kind of media war.

I think part of the issue is that, even more so than Feminism or Gun Rights, the Animal Rights movement suffers from a lot of talking heads with really bad PR (in the US) that horribly influence the public perception of the movement.

Take a look at the Cracked article I linked, #3 specifically. While I actually understand the position of the Humane Society in its support of Vick, that press is bad. Bad. Bad. BAD. Throw in that the 2 most well known groups State side are the ALF, due to many high profile and reported incidents in the 90's, and PETA, and people get a really bad idea of Animal Rights activists and the movement.

Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.

I know in my area, a dog being outside without appropriate shelter and a leash, even on private property, especially when the weather is cold is illegal. I have numerously had dogs seized by authorities because people would leave them outside during the cold or simply 'put' the dogs outside.

Even in good weather, many areas have laws where dogs are not supposed to be outside for consecutive periods of time without appropriate shelter and there are specif rules for tethering.

The reason PETA will not be charged is a reasonable call that this dog was being neglected or abused due to the situation he was in could be made. And I guarantee someone called PETA if/when the local animal people didn't address it. When they found a dog, outside, in close to freezing weather, the took him.

So seeing the situation the dog was in, and knowing the weather of that period of time, that dog should not have been outside, alone, unattended, period. While I would have preferred the dog was taken to a shelter and found a new home, that dog needed to be removed from that house. If I would have observed that happening to a dog, I would have had animal services investigate and seize he animal.

 jorny wrote:
...this whole affair makes me even more worried that it is just some part of some kind of media war.

Everything in the US is a media war, but facts are facts and there's a long list of incidents in PETA's past that make this believable, a lot of it coming from PETA themselves or public records. Petakillsanimals.com is a rather fancy presentation of mostly public record information, not something invented or proclaimed by CCF.

CCF of course, has its own issue, namely that it exists solely for Richard Berman's tax benefits. And it has a super deceptive name

There are various levels of animal rights activism. The I might say "normal or mainstream" level is the RSPCA and RSPB, and their US equivalents, who are large, popular organisations with a high level of governance, proper charitable constitution and so on. The kind of people who ensure that "No animals were harmed in the making of this movie".

At the far-out end of the spectrum are the kind of people who dig up the graves of the parents of biologists who use animals in drug safety testing.

PETA in the UK has the image of occasionally throwing paint on to supermodels on the catwalk wearing fur coats, that kind of thing. Thus would be in the middle of the range.

To accept PETA or the completely off-piste as representative of the whole animal right movement, requires people to ignore the huge, influential mainstream organisations who are often in the news, or doing charity drives and the like.

That looks to me like cognitive bias.

nkelsch wrote:
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.

Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.

I do know some animal right activists that I would consider completely out of touch with reality. But really, some of us are just people trying to be good without harming anyone in the process.

wow...just wow... people are trying to jusitfy killing a living animal because it was outside for a bit? in 40 degree weather.... about +4 celcius to the whole planet outside of the states...seriously... thats not cold, not even a little bit. ESP not to animals with fur.

Since there is no proof the animal wasnt outside for an unreasonable amount of time, nor proof that there wasnt a dog house or shelter for it, its not a valid arguement to make.

the person in the vid who stole the dog didnt even attempt to knock and talk to the residents... what a lack of good faith.

"hey fred, that dog looks cold, how cruel. I know Id want someone to kill me if I was outside, and to err on the side of killing me even if there was a good chance i was just outside to poop."

 Kilkrazy wrote:


That looks to me like cognitive bias.

I'd say public perception pretty much runs of cognitive bias and the people with the best PR are the ones best able to exploit said bias'.

nkelsch wrote:
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.

I know in my area, a dog being outside without appropriate shelter and a leash, even on private property, especially when the weather is cold is illegal. I have numerously had dogs seized by authorities because people would leave them outside during the cold or simply 'put' the dogs outside.

Even in good weather, many areas have laws where dogs are not supposed to be outside for consecutive periods of time without appropriate shelter and there are specif rules for tethering.

The reason PETA will not be charged is a reasonable call that this dog was being neglected or abused due to the situation he was in could be made. And I guarantee someone called PETA if/when the local animal people didn't address it. When they found a dog, outside, in close to freezing weather, the took him.

So seeing the situation the dog was in, and knowing the weather of that period of time, that dog should not have been outside, alone, unattended, period. While I would have preferred the dog was taken to a shelter and found a new home, that dog needed to be removed from that house. If I would have observed that happening to a dog, I would have had animal services investigate and seize he animal.

So you are saying that it was better for the dog to die than for it to be cold, is that it?

Its entirely the owners fault that their dog was taken from their private property by a private company that has 0 legal jurisdiction and KILLED within a period of hours, because it was cold? Is that it?

In your eyes, its illegal and neglectful for a dog to be placed in a cold environment, but its perfectly A-OK to kill that same dog for no reason?

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.

Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.

In the UK, the police accompanied by RSPA people would attend and recover a dog to a refuge if it was reasonably clear that it was being ill-treated by its owner. But they would not kill it without good cause, such as it having suffered extreme neglect leading to permanent ill-health.

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.

Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.

I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.

But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.

Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.

I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.

But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.

One does not base it off "In their opinion" for legal law.

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.

Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.

I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.

But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.

No, the primary reason why they will not be charged is because the joke that you guys call a justice system is designed to protect companies and not individuals.

So apparently it is now legal in the US for a company to go into your house, steel your property and destroy it! FREEDOOOOM!

PhantomViper wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.l.

Then you call them. You don't steal the dog and kill it. bastards.

I call Animal Services... Other people call PETA, either because they agree with them, or out of ignorance because they assume the 'police' or 'animal services' is being too slow or non-responsive.

But that is going to be the primary reason they will not be charged, the dog was 'at risk of abuse' in their opinion, and they might have been right.

No, the primary reason why they will not be charged is because the joke that you guys call a justice system is designed to protect companies and not individuals.

So apparently it is now legal in the US for a company to go into your house, steel your property and destroy it! FREEDOOOOM!

Don't count on that...

PhantomViper wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
Considering the conditions of the home, and the dog being 'outside' when it was no higher than 40 degrees for the entire week in Norfork VA, that dog was a candidate for being seized by animal services due to neglectful owners.

So you are saying that it was better for the dog to die than for it to be cold, is that it?
reason?

better dead then forced to suffer +4 degrees C!!!


dont tell PETA what the weather is in canada... we will all be put down...


seriously... does peta go around shooting every animal ever in +4 weather?

that is warm... calling +4 weather a fate worse then death, to justify killing an animal is just silly.

The fact that PETA killed the dog within hours speak volumes to how little they care about the dog and its owners.

they didnt look for a dog house, they didnt knock or in any way confirm the dog was being left out for extended periods of time, they did NOTHING but walk up, steal the dog, and kill it as fast as they could.

heck, got someone you dont like? do they own a pet?

call PETA on them and get that pet killed, risk free, no questions asked!

There are other organizations in the US that are for animals, such as the Human Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). It isn't as if it is just PETA or no one. PETA just happens to be louder and more obnoxious than the others.