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.

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.

According to you I abuse my dog because I leave my dog outside to play in the snow. He loves snow. He is a Labrador Retriever, he actually wants to be outside, so your telling me I am neglectful for having my dog outside to play in the snow for lets say... An hour?

Because I want him to be healthy?

That is your logic. I know he won't run because he's 12. Wheres he gonna go. I know when he needs to come in, because he will be at the door.

Whose to say that this family didn't do that?

 whembly wrote:

Don't count on that...

Better keep that shotgun ready and a constant watch though, because it took them less than 30 seconds to get in and take that dog. If you had to use the bathroom your dog would be long gone (and probably already dead). And PETA would have been completely within the law to do so, apparently...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
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.

I do apologize for my previous comment.

I come from a place with a strong militant vegan presence. I've grown allergic to being judged inferior by some arbitrary code of ethics that seems to me invented specifically so some people can feel superior to others.

I am also a biologist, meaning I am professionally trained in animal testing, so I get branded a monster for much more than just my dietary choices.

I don't think any normal person condones animal suffering just for the sake of it. But we can differ in what we deem an acceptable trade-off.

I've never met someone who enjoyed sacrificing lab animals. My animal physiology professor at uni said they only ever had one such student, and he was convinced to drop out.

 jorny wrote:
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.

Its quite common of animal right activists to harass and threaten honest working breeders in Sweden. They earned their reputation

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I don't think any normal person condones animal suffering just for the sake of it. But we can differ in what we deem an acceptable trade-off.

Yes. I consider creating medicine that can save human lives (and other animal lives, too, sometime) a completely acceptable trade-off. I do not consider getting tastier food an acceptable trade-off, so I do not eat meat. And I would defend my choice against people attacking it, or even just initiating a discussion on it themselves, but I basically never push for this kind of discussion, that ends up unpleasant most of the time.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I do not consider getting tastier food an acceptable trade-off, so I do not eat meat.

How is eating meat conflated with animal testing? I think there is probably to much meat in peoples diets in the US but I'm not sure how you got from A to B here. People have been eating meat (and veggies) long before animal testing. Are you referring to things like Factory Farms?

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
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.

I do apologize for my previous comment.

I come from a place with a strong militant vegan presence. I've grown allergic to being judged inferior by some arbitrary code of ethics that seems to me invented specifically so some people can feel superior to others.

I am also a biologist, meaning I am professionally trained in animal testing, so I get branded a monster for much more than just my dietary choices.

I don't think any normal person condones animal suffering just for the sake of it. But we can differ in what we deem an acceptable trade-off.

I've never met someone who enjoyed sacrificing lab animals. My animal physiology professor at uni said they only ever had one such student, and he was convinced to drop out.

My Philiosphy teacher was actually a veterinarian, he operated on dogs and cats, but he became an ethics veterinarian officer and closed down many animal shelters for dog fighting and everything.

He had seen it all, he was probably the most intelligent person who more degrees than I had fingers.

There is nothing wrong with eating meat, I actually eat balanced. Only 1 type of meat a day.

 Ahtman wrote:
How is eating meat conflated with animal testing?

It is not. I was giving example of what I consider an acceptable trade-off for animal lives and what I did not consider an acceptable trade-off for animal lives.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
How is eating meat conflated with animal testing?

It is not. I was giving example of what I consider an acceptable trade-off for animal lives and what I did not consider an acceptable trade-off for animal lives.

I think there is too much killing of animals for food. You should have some meat and a lot of vegetables.

 easysauce wrote:
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."

My old mountain dog pants when its 40 degrees, even with a stiff wind.

I want to know more about why the prosecutor didn't pursue charges. "Couldn't prove criminal intent"? WTF is that? The woman trespassed onto the mans property, stole some of his property, and it's on video. I mean, she knew it wasn't her dog, right?

Again, why would the woman return with a fruit basket? The whole thing is sort of wacky.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
PETA is to animal rights as what tumblr is to feminism

The pest part about this thread is how you awkwardly tried to shoehorn in some tumblr\feminism\SJW derp despite this being utterly, wholly unrelated in any way and no one at all even breathing a whisper of anything relevant. Keep trying, sir! No matter what the topic is, make sure everyone knows about your weird little obsession!

 Ahtman wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I do not consider getting tastier food an acceptable trade-off, so I do not eat meat.

How is eating meat conflated with animal testing? I think there is probably to much meat in peoples diets in the US but I'm not sure how you got from A to B here.

No, he's right. I do actually consider meat eating as part of that trade-off scale. Not arguing morals or biology here, just the fact that meat eating does increase animal suffering and you have to ask yourself if you're okay with that.

I am, under certain conditions (humane treatment of livestock) and I think everyone's free to decide for themselves that they're not... but it doesn't make them better people. Morals are a personal choice, not a cosmic 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.

The reason no one will be charged, direct from the horse's mouth in the article, is that the prosecutor doesn't believe he can prove intent. Essentially, there's no way to prove that this woman who takes the animal is directly responsible for euthanizing it. That is all.

This whole "dog was at risk" bs is exactly that. bs that you have made up in your head and presented as an argument. With no factual basis or proof of anything, beyond the animal was outside. We can show, with factual evidence, that this woman walks up takes the animal. Later, a basket of fruit is delivered with a "we killed your dog" message from two PETA reps. This is factual; it's in the frelling article. There is no other explanation, no other anything. Anything else is bs you made up in your frelling head.

 Ouze wrote:

Again, why would the woman return with a fruit basket? The whole thing is sort of wacky.

Isn't that an admission of guilt?

I have no choice but to wonder who is actually behind this.

PETA dognapping and killing pets doesn't make sense.
PETA demonstrating against factory farming and animal testing in research centers makes sense.

Like most animal lib pressure groups its not very well organised and it probably has a very loose reign on its members. Just about anyone who wants to save the fluffy bunnies can join, and in all likelihood most don't think much beyond that.

However PETA and groups like that stand in the way of big business. Factory farming is lucrative, and frankly the only way to keep large populations flush with foods like bacon. Medical research and cosmetic research is also lucrative, and in many cases necessary. PETA is not the first relatively small pressure group to come up against big business, and isnt the first to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.

I cannot believe that the mainstream of PETA is behind this.
Is it not reasonable to suggest that PETA has been infiltrated? The motive to discredit them is there, and it would be easy to do. Get your guy to join PETA with green credentials and a veneer of competence, then when inside quietly recruit crazies with extremist agendas, animal rights crazies who hate pets aren't that hard to find. Mobilise them to commit repugnant acts in PETA's name, PETA's reputation is tarnished increasingly over time, so when it comes to the lobbying to remove gestation crates or stop dripping hair conditioner into rodents eyes they have very little moral standing to get the changes they want.

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.

They are not government employees. they trespassed and killed the family dog. I'd be hunting them.

 Asherian Command 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.

According to you I abuse my dog because I leave my dog outside to play in the snow. He loves snow. He is a Labrador Retriever, he actually wants to be outside, so your telling me I am neglectful for having my dog outside to play in the snow for lets say... An hour?

Growing up we had beagles -- hunting dogs -- who lived outside year round. We insulated their boxes with straw, and brought them inside during bitter cold snaps. But otherwise they lived outside and acclimated to the weather. I don't know how well-equipped a chihuahua is for dealing with cold, but yeah, that statement seems pretty over the top.

Besides, Snoopy lived outside year-round. Should he have been seized from Charlie Brown, the world-famous animal abuser?

 Ouze wrote:
Again, why would the woman return with a fruit basket? The whole thing is sort of wacky.

Er... it's actually MO for PETA. For instance, when a shelter told its public "we're out of space and will have to euthanize if animals aren't adopted"*, PETA sent them a fruit basket that said "keep up the good work".


*Article mentions it, but I'll post it here for those that don't read the article. The shelter has stopped using the scare tactic of "adopt or animals will have to be euthanized".

Also, from the article:

The last animal killed for lack of space in Shelby County was on May 27, 2008. Since then, they've enjoyed a save rate that is almost precisely the inverse of PETA's kill rate. Whereas PETA slaughters 97% of the pets delivered to their hellish "Shelter of Last Resort," in 2011 Shelby saved 98.52% of the cats and 94.46% of the dogs in their care.

Shelby County runs an open admission shelter: They do not turn animals away. They have an impeccable history -- despite PETA's dire predictions, their No Kill community has never been associated with hoarding or animal abuse of any kind. (In fact, none of the legitimate No Kill organizations has been guilty of these crimes, but that's another story.) The Shelby program has a tiny budget: $147,000. Compare that to PETA's annual plunder: over $32.3 million from unsuspecting donors.

While we're talking numbers, I should mention Shelby's 2011 live release rate for creatures other than dogs and cats (rabbits, etc.): a sterling 99.5%. This is a relatively small category -- just a handful of animals -- but I'm one of those people who believes that even a single rabbit matters. And in this category, PETA managed a live release rate of 7%. (For the mathematically challenged, that means that in 2011, 93% of these animals did not survive their visit to PETA's headquarters in Norfolk.)

Not going to bother underlining/bolding. Those three paragraphs tell you all you really need to know.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I think there is too much killing of animals for food. You should have some meat and a lot of vegetables.

I disagree. Pasta are not considered vegetables, and neither is bread (cue: pizza) .

PhantomViper wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Don't count on that...

Better keep that shotgun ready and a constant watch though, because it took them less than 30 seconds to get in and take that dog. If you had to use the bathroom your dog would be long gone (and probably already dead). And PETA would have been completely within the law to do so, apparently...

Mine has torn apart three pit bulls, been bitten twice by a water moccasin and shrugged it off. Bring it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Again, why would the woman return with a fruit basket? The whole thing is sort of wacky.

Isn't that an admission of guilt?

police won't prosecute PETA. Bad PR.

 Orlanth wrote:

I cannot believe that the mainstream of PETA is behind this.
Is it not reasonable to suggest that PETA has been infiltrated? The motive to discredit them is there, and it would be easy to do. Get your guy to join PETA with green credentials and a veneer of competence, then when inside quietly recruit crazies with extremist agendas, animal rights crazies who hate pets aren't that hard to find. Mobilise them to commit repugnant acts in PETA's name, PETA's reputation is tarnished increasingly over time, so when it comes to the lobbying to remove gestation crates or stop dripping hair conditioner into rodents eyes they have very little moral standing to get the changes they want.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or genuine tin-foil hat gak.

PETA's own tax records, which are public record thanks to their status as an NPO, show that they give money to known eco terrorists. That they euthanize the vast majority of the animals that they take in. That a convicted felon is on their payroll, showing college students how to make gas bombs.

I try to avoid posting Pen and Teller's bs, since many people just write off anything they say, but here. If you can look past some of the grandstanding that they do, you can and will see numerous accounts, factual accounts, of PETA's bs.

They are, never were, and probably never will be a "pristine" organization. They are as dirty as it is possible to be. They are basically the clean glitzy public face of a very ugly, ugly group of people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:

Growing up we had beagles -- hunting dogs -- who lived outside year round. We insulated their boxes with straw, and brought them inside during bitter cold snaps. But otherwise they lived outside and acclimated to the weather. I don't know how well-equipped a chihuahua is for dealing with cold, but yeah, that statement seems pretty over the top.

Besides, Snoopy lived outside year-round. Should he have been seized from Charlie Brown, the world-famous animal abuser?

There are also plenty of products available now for animals outdoors. Our cat has a heated pad, for instance, that will keep her warm to about -40. -40. +40 is frelling nothing.

 Orlanth wrote:
I have no choice but to wonder who is actually behind this.

PETA dognapping and killing pets doesn't make sense.
PETA demonstrating against factory farming and animal testing in research centers makes sense.

Like most animal lib pressure groups its not very well organised and it probably has a very loose reign on its members. Just about anyone who wants to save the fluffy bunnies can join, and in all likelihood most don't think much beyond that.

However PETA and groups like that stand in the way of big business. Factory farming is lucrative, and frankly the only way to keep large populations flush with foods like bacon. Medical research and cosmetic research is also lucrative, and in many cases necessary. PETA is not the first relatively small pressure group to come up against big business, and isnt the first to be on the receiving end of dirty tricks.

I cannot believe that the mainstream of PETA is behind this.
Is it not reasonable to suggest that PETA has been infiltrated? The motive to discredit them is there, and it would be easy to do. Get your guy to join PETA with green credentials and a veneer of competence, then when inside quietly recruit crazies with extremist agendas, animal rights crazies who hate pets aren't that hard to find. Mobilise them to commit repugnant acts in PETA's name, PETA's reputation is tarnished increasingly over time, so when it comes to the lobbying to remove gestation crates or stop dripping hair conditioner into rodents eyes they have very little moral standing to get the changes they want.

I used to be a major fan of PETA to supporting them finacially. Then they went off the deepend into the areeas of enviro terrorism.
I doun't know about GB. But there have been a couple of scandals now about PETA and pets. I suggest you do more research, They are not what they started out being.

 Frazzled wrote:


police won't prosecute PETA. Bad PR.

1.) The police don't prosecute anyone

2.) Bad PR for who? That a private organization stole and killed a little dog isn't exactly the sort of thing you can put a spin on. Would you want to defend that case in court? There's no winning it.

3.) Putting aside animal ethics, how is this any different from them walking up to this guys porch and stealing 400 dollars?

1. I' m sorry I should have said the criminal-industrial complex will not prosecute.

2. PTA protesters outside their buildings are bad PR.

Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.

 Asherian Command wrote:


According to you I abuse my dog because I leave my dog outside to play in the snow. He loves snow. He is a Labrador Retriever, he actually wants to be outside, so your telling me I am neglectful for having my dog outside to play in the snow for lets say... An hour?

Because I want him to be healthy?

That is your logic. I know he won't run because he's 12. Wheres he gonna go. I know when he needs to come in, because he will be at the door.

Whose to say that this family didn't do that?

If you leave a dog outside, in the snow, for 1 hour, unsupervised without appropriate food/water and shelter, you are abusing your dog by the laws of many areas. There are laws for tethering, confined spaces, appropriate shelter, length of time and unsupervised periods of time for animals which vary for jurisdiction. You are also putting your community at risk as an unsupervised and untethered dog is a danger to himself and others, and it would be your fault for putting him in that situation.

Cold temperatures, and outside is a red flag for animal neglect and abuse. Many people do not provide the needed insulated shelter an outside dog needs to have at his disposal and don't provide the adequate square footage required for tethered or tethered outdoor activity. Just because your dog loves the snow, doesn't mean you are not obligated to provide him a shelter outside should he want to use it. If you lived in my area, your actions would be considered animal neglect and you would be breaking leash laws.

The problem is people abuse their animals, they neglect their animals. They push them outside and leave them there in cold temperatures way too long. They don't supervise them and they don't give them the needed options the animal should have if forced to be 'outside'.

If I saw a dog, outside, not in a fenced area, without supervision when it was below 40degrees outside, I would call animal services to investigate. If I heard a dog barking outside for an extensive period of time on a 40degree day, I would call animal services to investigate. The same way I will call the police when I see a dog in a car on a 90 degree day.

I have testified in court multiple times as the reports resulted in finding animal neglect and cruelty. And those dogs found better homes because of it. No more sitting in a car while the owners eat a 90 minute meal at a steakhouse, no more being tied to a chain outside after 9pm when it is freezing outside.

A lot off people abuse and neglect their pets and claim to love them and morally equivocate 'my borderline neglectful 'loving home' is better than the alternative of shelter or death. That is why hoarders have dozens of animals they can't give appropriate care for or owners believe 'they are just dogs, they are here to serve me at my whims, who cares if they are cold outside'. I believe it is better to seek help and rescue the dogs opposed to letting them languish in abuse and neglect.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gorgon wrote:


Growing up we had beagles -- hunting dogs -- who lived outside year round. We insulated their boxes with straw, and brought them inside during bitter cold snaps. But otherwise they lived outside and acclimated to the weather. I don't know how well-equipped a chihuahua is for dealing with cold, but yeah, that statement seems pretty over the top.

Besides, Snoopy lived outside year-round. Should he have been seized from Charlie Brown, the world-famous animal abuser?

Appropriate shelter is the key. There are laws about length of tether, square footage needed for roaming and food/water/shelter which all factor in to how long an animal can be left outside.

Lots of people do not have insulated outdoor shelters for their dogs when they push them outside for periods of time. And depending how they do it, they may be breaking local laws.

40degrees is too cold for a dog to be outside without being directly supervised, or provided appropriate shelter. From the story and the videos, It does not appear as if either of those were the case so it does sound like animal services should have investigated this situation. I would be genuinely curious to see if someone had reported neglect and it went unanswered or not investigated... or if it was investigated and found to be ok.

I have seen and reported a lot of animal neglect and abuse, I am always disgusted on how poorly people treat animals they claim to love.

 Ouze wrote:
Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.

I'm with Ouze on this one Frazzie...

@Thread: Do we have more info on this besides the original post? I'm trying google-fu here and I'm all over the map.

 Ouze wrote:
Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.

They will have banners screaming fur is murder and how they're being evilly opppressed and oh yea fur is murder. Come on dude you know how this stuff works. This is TV news dream come true.

What about this dog?

Do you know if that's abuse?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Again, protesting what? That they have the right to steal peoples dogs and kill them? Think about how that's going to play on the news for a second here.

They will have banners screaming fur is murder and how they're being evilly opppressed and oh yea fur is murder. Come on dude you know how this stuff works.

I think most folks mock those kinds of protest nowadays Frazz...

Thing is despite the laws, they do not have legal rights to seize a animal off a private property and to decide to kill it.

They are not a gov organisation thus not legally empowered to do such. Only can with the owner of the animals say so.

Moral does not change legal.
And the fruit basket whilst a gesture is a futile one, you just killed someone's pet....
Thats not going to change much.