TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › I don't want to hijack someone else's thread so I will ask:What is wrong with PeTA?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I don't want to hijack someone else's thread so I will ask:What is wrong with PeTA? - Page 3

post #61 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
Ah gee, John. And I was almost looking forward to another good ol' fashioned PeTA rant! Good to know we covered most of the points.
Would I do such a thing??
post #62 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberThe Bobcat View Post
Would I do such a thing??
Umm yes, and please do. I like your PeTA rant
post #63 of 83
WOW! I never knew all this! I didn't read the entire thread, but I read enough of it to get the picture.. I just threw some of those "free" PeTA address labels that you sometimes get in the mail in the trash. I will not participate in the support of an organization like that!

Thanks to whoever started this thread. I did not know..

~KK~
post #64 of 83
Many people don't because they agree with the basic notions of not wearing fur and what they assume is regular animal welfare rights (not animal rights which unfortunately tend to be more extreme and so do more harm than good for their cause) - but once you look into them they are a scary group and not one many animal welfarists want to become involved with.
post #65 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KittKatt View Post
WOW! I never knew all this! I didn't read the entire thread, but I read enough of it to get the picture.. I just threw some of those "free" PeTA address labels that you sometimes get in the mail in the trash. I will not participate in the support of an organization like that!

Thanks to whoever started this thread. I did not know..

~KK~
Me neither which is why I started it. I wanted to educate myself and figured that there have to be others like me who really were under the impression that PeTA meant good things for animals. Now when I see someone brag about their PeTA association I wonder if they are unhinged lunatics. Animal welfare is something close to my heart and I could have easily been suckered into believing their hype.
post #66 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
Umm yes, and please do. I like your PeTA rant
Glad someone does Well, I am happy to see that people are learning the real truth behind these groups. And rest assured, if this topic comes up again, I will be fully prepared to go on a rant
post #67 of 83
Leona Helmsley (aka the "Queen of Mean") had left $12 million to her dog in her will.
Well her estate valueed at $8 BILLION is supposed to go the "care and welfare of dogs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us...in&oref=slogin

So who is first in line trying to grab the cash? You got it, PeTA and H$U$ is right behind them.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/02/helmsley.dogs.ap/
Quote:
Look at how PETA has spent the money it already has: The group raised more than $30 million last year, and found adoptive homes for 17 animals. Just 17. Meanwhile, it killed 1,815 dogs and cats -- slightly more than the number of naked interns it sent out to "save" cows, chickens, and minks.

And although much of the public (and press) consider HSUS to be an actual "humane society," its record isn't any better. The group's name hides its lack of affiliation with any hands-on pet shelter anywhere in America. Of the $85-plus million HSUS spent in 2006, it gave only 4.2 percent to pet shelters.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...7_leona16.html

Quote:
As reported by the New York Times, Helmsley's "mission statement" stipulates that "virtually all her estate be used for the care and welfare of dogs." With this vast sum of money on the table, animal rights rhapsodist and PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has been posturing to claim a share of the estate, saying "it could make such a difference." No doubt. But what kind difference would it make?
Perhaps the abolition of what Ms. Newkirk describes as "an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation," namely, pet ownership. Ironically, the fortune of the dog-owner Helmsley would be used to squelch this practice that PETA stridently opposes.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/07/02/72167471

So what do they need more money for? Maybe to buy more dumpsters to hide the dogs that they've killed? How could anyone think that putting the money in the hands of these people would help dogs in any way?
post #68 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Leona Helmsley (aka the "Queen of Mean") had left $12 million to her dog in her will.
Well her estate valueed at $8 BILLION is supposed to go the "care and welfare of dogs."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us...in&oref=slogin

So who is first in line trying to grab the cash? You got it, PeTA and H$U$ is right behind them.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/02/helmsley.dogs.ap/

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...7_leona16.html


http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2008/07/02/72167471

So what do they need more money for? Maybe to buy more dumpsters to hide the dogs that they've killed? How could anyone think that putting the money in the hands of these people would help dogs in any way?
Thank you. Reading that makes me feel so much better. Mainstream media is getting hip to their true intentions.
post #69 of 83
What other animal welfare groups should we watch out for besides PETA? I get emails from different groups and I don't know who to trust because of PETA.
post #70 of 83
Quote:
What other animal welfare groups should we watch out for besides PETA? I
The Humane Society for the United States. They are all bark and no bite. I am not speaking about local Humane Society's but the United States one. Of course I do hate the Oregon Humane Society with a passion and wouldn't give them a dime if I had a million of them.

I think when it comes to animal welfare groups. I always go local with the under dog. Visit the facility and make a decision from there.
post #71 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by abbycats View Post
What other animal welfare groups should we watch out for besides PETA? I get emails from different groups and I don't know who to trust because of PETA.
Whats' y'all opinion on ASPCA? I've gave donations to them before and get mail from them all the time....including today. I've read somewhere that they want to limit the amount of pets people can have. I don't agree with this policy at all...people should be allowed to have as many pets as they want as long as they are able to take care of them. Any one else heard anything like this about ASPCA? I'd like to know before I give them anymore money. I'm starting to think Breal is right...stick with the local shelters that you are familiar with.
post #72 of 83
I'm fine with the ASPCA. Granted, there may not be a huge proportion of money donated that goes directly for care and feeding of animals. But they are the only ones to my knowledge that are out there raising awareness about how we treat animals and doing the type of thing that only a large national organization can do.

Here is an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_JqNdp2As

They are a good mainstream, middle of the road outfit and they do good works IMO.

SBM I had not heard anything about the ASPCA wanting to limit the numer of pets people can have.
post #73 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breal76 View Post
The Humane Society for the United States. They are all bark and no bite. I am not speaking about local Humane Society's but the United States one.
I don't like HSUS either. They support many of the same ideas as PETA. Another bad AR group is API, Animal Protection Institute. As for the ASPCA, I haven't heard much that is bad about them, but if they want to push for a limit on the number of pets people can own, that is wrong. As stated, as long as you can properly care for them, there should be no limit. However, I have not heard this about them. The ASPCA appears to really care about the welfare of animals and to prevent cruelty, whereas these extreme AR groups believe the idea of pet ownership is cruel and therefore would like to eliminate pets/animals from our lives.
post #74 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breal76 View Post
The Humane Society for the United States. They are all bark and no bite. I am not speaking about local Humane Society's but the United States one. Of course I do hate the Oregon Humane Society with a passion and wouldn't give them a dime if I had a million of them.

I think when it comes to animal welfare groups. I always go local with the under dog. Visit the facility and make a decision from there.
Why do you hate the Oregon Humane Society. I got Mary from them. They seem well run and were great about answering behavioral questions when I had them.
I volunteer locally but not there. I prefer helping the independents and local ones too.
post #75 of 83
I think before that rumor about the ASPCA wanting to limit pets gets spread around, somebody needs to provide some proof. I searched, and the ONLY thing I found was this:

Quote:
Proponents of pet limit laws argue that these ordinances are necessary to stop animal
neglect and abuse caused by people who take in more animals than they can
adequately care for. Others claim that pet limits are necessary to ensure sanitary
conditions, or to maintain safe and pleasant neighborhoods.
But are pet limit laws necessary to address abuse, neglect, unreasonable noise, and lack
of sanitation? Or, do they end up limiting the availability of loving homes and putting
the lives of dogs and cats at risk?
The San Francisco SPCA has considered the various claims made for strict pet limit laws
and found little in the way of evidence, or common sense, to support them.
What we
found was that pet limit laws:
• are unnecessary to protect the well-being of people and animals
• are arbitrary and intrusive
• penalize responsible pet owners
• force many caregivers to stop providing care to homeless animals
• put the lives of even well cared-for animals at risk
At the same time that household limits discourage responsible individuals from
providing a good home for more needy animals, they do not prevent an irresponsible
one from acquiring unlimited animals. Unfortunately, caring can’t be mandated, and a
pet limit law will only end up punishing those who care.
http://sfspca.org/advocacy/pdf/pdf_c...pet_limits.pdf
post #76 of 83
Thread Starter 
I had never heard of the ASPCA supporting pet limits. I know they are trying to prevent hoarders but a person who hoards is in the category of mentally ill.
No laws are going to stop them.
Someone told me owning 8 in this state is considered hoarding. Which is crazy.
post #77 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
I had never heard of the ASPCA supporting pet limits. I know they are trying to prevent hoarders but a person who hoards is in the category of mentally ill.
No laws are going to stop them.
Someone told me owning 8 in this state is considered hoarding. Which is crazy.

OK I searched where I heard ASPCA had pet limits and it was from a thread on this board:

http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=171599
post #78 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportBikeMike View Post
OK I searched where I heard ASPCA had pet limits and it was from a thread on this board:

http://www.thecatsite.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=171599
Seems a little thin to me...
post #79 of 83
Quote:
Why do you hate the Oregon Humane Society. I got Mary from them. They seem well run and were great about answering behavioral questions when I had them.
Oh gosh..Where do I even start? First I hate the image that they portray in the community that has absolutely cornered the market on donations. They promote their high adoption rate to everyone. However what they have sold the community is an absolute lie. They tell everyone they adopt out 80% of their animals. Yet they don't tell people that if your pet doesn't pass the behavioral assesment they give on the spot that you can either take your pet with you or do a euthanasia request. This fudges their numbers, now instead of having a "surrendered" animal they have a euthanasia request. What sounds better on a report?

Moving along. When I worked at Southwest Humane Society, Oregon Humane turned people away and sent them to us. Oregon Humane is not an open door shelter. Right now their waiting list to take in a cat is 3-4 months. The shelter I worked at was a high kill shelter because it was an open door. Oregon Humane knew full well of our euthanasia policy and they had no problem turning away what they didn't want to us.

Oregon Humane will adopt out animals and not take them back. Or make you schedule an appointment to bring them back. What does that mean? Let's say you adopt a dog and Fido tries to kill your cat. You call them the next day to bring Fido back. They will make you book an appointment sometimes 1 month out. This is unacceptable. So then you tell them "But I can't have this dog living with me! He is trying to kill my cats." Well then, they would refer people to Southwest Humane Society. We would take Fido. Because the microchip traced back to their facility we would call them and ask "Do you want your dog back?" Yes they did, and they would take them in the next day if not same day. What does this do you wonder? Now for their reports they have a transfered animal from another shelter vs. an adoption return. What sounds better here?

If that isn't shady..Why just yesterday I was remind how foul they are. I do not work for Southwest Humane anymore but the county shelter. I received a phone call from a woman. She stated that we took a dog from her car because it was trying to eat her. So to speak. It was her dog that she adopted from Oregon Humane. Now the dog is here on bite quarantine because it attacked someone else. The woman called our shelter director to see if we couldn't transfer the dog back to them after quarantine is lifted. She told us she was a HUGE donator to Oregon Humane. Now, my shelter manager called them and talked to their manager. He told her that the woman would like to see the dog go back to them, and that she was a huge donator. The OHS manager said "Hold on, let me check my computer." came back and said "She isn't a donator, go ahead and keep the dog." So now it's our responsibility to euthanize it.

I really could go on and on and on...I don't discredit the service they give to the community I just hate this image of "goodness" that they are selling everyone when I know first hand how awful they can be. I would never give them money knowing what I know about them.
post #80 of 83
i would like to thank everyone that took the time to post all this information about peta. i like many others used to think they were doing the right thing but since coming to this site and being educated i now feel very differently.

i support my local rescue center who spend very little on advertising, they rely more on word of mouth. they are more interesting in rescuing, caring for and ultimately adopting out their animals. shinobi was one of these and for a paltry £10, this little cat was fostered, vaccinated, neutered and micro-chipped. i give all i can to these incredible people and they in turn give everything to needy animals.

that to me is true animal welfare. not some garish, hideous advertising campaign costing thousands of precious dollars.

the figures from their shelters are shocking. the money they give to extremists is shocking. the amount of animals that are being abused and neglected in their care is shocking.

they missed out the 'a' in their name 'people against ethical treatment of animals'.
post #81 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breal76 View Post
Oh gosh..Where do I even start? First I hate the image that they portray in the community that has absolutely cornered the market on donations. They promote their high adoption rate to everyone. However what they have sold the community is an absolute lie. They tell everyone they adopt out 80% of their animals. Yet they don't tell people that if your pet doesn't pass the behavioral assesment they give on the spot that you can either take your pet with you or do a euthanasia request. This fudges their numbers, now instead of having a "surrendered" animal they have a euthanasia request. What sounds better on a report?
The other stuff I get, but there is a real, valid reason to do this. At an open door shelter, people may not realize that their pet is almost certainly going to be killed after surrender if it has problems. Maybe the Oregon HS is trying to make people think twice, you know, either keep him or ask us to euthanize-- forcing the owner to face what they are doing to their pet, whereas other shelters don't always tell you the truth about what will happen after, letting pet owners assume their pet they surrendered is of course in a loving home now. I wonder how many of those pet owners took the pet home and figured out something that didn't involve surrender, maybe find a friend who wants the pet or make arrangements to keep it after all.
post #82 of 83
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Breal76 View Post
Oh gosh..Where do I even start? First I hate the image that they portray in the community that has absolutely cornered the market on donations. They promote their high adoption rate to everyone. However what they have sold the community is an absolute lie. They tell everyone they adopt out 80% of their animals. Yet they don't tell people that if your pet doesn't pass the behavioral assesment they give on the spot that you can either take your pet with you or do a euthanasia request. This fudges their numbers, now instead of having a "surrendered" animal they have a euthanasia request. What sounds better on a report?

Moving along. When I worked at Southwest Humane Society, Oregon Humane turned people away and sent them to us. Oregon Humane is not an open door shelter. Right now their waiting list to take in a cat is 3-4 months. The shelter I worked at was a high kill shelter because it was an open door. Oregon Humane knew full well of our euthanasia policy and they had no problem turning away what they didn't want to us.

Oregon Humane will adopt out animals and not take them back. Or make you schedule an appointment to bring them back. What does that mean? Let's say you adopt a dog and Fido tries to kill your cat. You call them the next day to bring Fido back. They will make you book an appointment sometimes 1 month out. This is unacceptable. So then you tell them "But I can't have this dog living with me! He is trying to kill my cats." Well then, they would refer people to Southwest Humane Society. We would take Fido. Because the microchip traced back to their facility we would call them and ask "Do you want your dog back?" Yes they did, and they would take them in the next day if not same day. What does this do you wonder? Now for their reports they have a transfered animal from another shelter vs. an adoption return. What sounds better here?

If that isn't shady..Why just yesterday I was remind how foul they are. I do not work for Southwest Humane anymore but the county shelter. I received a phone call from a woman. She stated that we took a dog from her car because it was trying to eat her. So to speak. It was her dog that she adopted from Oregon Humane. Now the dog is here on bite quarantine because it attacked someone else. The woman called our shelter director to see if we couldn't transfer the dog back to them after quarantine is lifted. She told us she was a HUGE donator to Oregon Humane. Now, my shelter manager called them and talked to their manager. He told her that the woman would like to see the dog go back to them, and that she was a huge donator. The OHS manager said "Hold on, let me check my computer." came back and said "She isn't a donator, go ahead and keep the dog." So now it's our responsibility to euthanize it.

I really could go on and on and on...I don't discredit the service they give to the community I just hate this image of "goodness" that they are selling everyone when I know first hand how awful they can be. I would never give them money knowing what I know about them.
I had someone hint something about them but they were so vague I forgot about it until now. I volunteer at a shelter where we DO take kitties back. I feel good about the organization.
I can see that the OHS has played politics but I still would adopt there since those cats need homes too. But I get your point.
post #83 of 83
I have read all 7 pages of this thread( and a bunch of the links given in this thread ) and to say I am am shocked is an understatement.

The kill rate , the un-natural wish to have cats stop eating meat .... are they going to go to Africa next and try that action on lions? I thought they were a little odd but my god they are crazy.

Let them try to take my fur babies , they will have to pull them from my cold dead hands..... people and animals have been living together for thousands of years .... what the hell are they trying to accomplish by separating humans from animals...

My mind is spinning..... holy crud!!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › I don't want to hijack someone else's thread so I will ask:What is wrong with PeTA?