Embarrassed by our sub-forum about PeTA?

[Pob]

No kill shelters are not a solution! The solution is early age spaying and neutering. If every shelter neuters their kittens and pups before they get adopted out , then the problem solves itself. Offcourse their also have to be strict laws for breeders. And a ristriction of breeders.If animals weren't collected and disposed of and were left to run rampant, then maybe proper legislation would be brought in to deal with problems of overbreeding. The problem is that organisations collecting and euthanising animals works very nicely in controlling the problems of overbreeding, so there's no incentive for proper regulation.

[fiamma]

the reason some of us don't support Peta avoid supporting them because they help people go vegan.

I don't understand what you mean by this Korn... can you please explain? :confused:

[Korn]

Sorry - should have been: "the reason some of us don't support Peta isn't because they help people go vegan". I sometimes try to edit a sentence to improve the English language, and ends up getting it all wrong. Sorrisimo! :-)

That sentence could benefit from having an "of course" in there as well... My point is that we of course think it's great that Peta make some people go vegan, especially of it lasts more than a few months, but that this in itself doesn't mean that Peta wouldn't have been better off with some major changes, or that another organization could have done the good stuff Peta does without what some would describe as the embarrassing sides of Peta.

[Sloth]

.

[wendy]

Some organisations may use nudity , others might not. It takes every kind
I think Peta hasvthhe right approch and so do those who don't use nudity

[cobweb]

If animals weren't collected and disposed of and were left to run rampant, then maybe proper legislation would be brought in to deal with problems of overbreeding. The problem is that organisations collecting and euthanising animals works very nicely in controlling the problems of overbreeding, so there's no incentive for proper regulation.


i doubt that - the main reason there are so many rats around is human greed and carelessness but all that happens is that rats get killed, there aren't huge programmes to stop people being so filthy and wasteful. It's always the animals' fault :(.

[horselesspaul]

.
I liked this post and am sorry you felt the need to remove it.

[Sloth]

I liked this post and am sorry you felt the need to remove it.

:) Thankyou, that's very good to hear. I'm not a confident person and I ended up taking it down because I thought I sounded garbled and silly...

[horselesspaul]

:) Thankyou, that's very good to hear. I'm not a confident person and I ended up taking it down because I thought I sounded garbled and silly...
I thought it was cogent and apposite.
The point about nudity and its use in campaigning is not what should be the perception of it, rather what is.
Obviously feminism has enabled many to feel free to do what they will with their bodies and rightly so. Unfortunately, the vast majority of this sadly male dominated world do not adhere to these principles and cannot see past the constant objectification of women that they crave and upon which their outdated view relies.

[Mahk]

but i am curious to know why no-kill shelters work here but wouldn't work over there, Mahk? :confused:
do we have better animal protection laws over here or is it just the vast size of America and the comlex inter state laws that are the problem?..

I guess I didn't explain it well so I will try again. It boils down to the fact that the [US] discarded/abandoned animal population living on the streets is growing at a much much faster rate than the successful adoption rate from shelters. My informal research suggests that only 28% of dogs and 24% of cats are ever adopted in a given year here in the US. If every shelter in the land were to switch overnight to a "no kill policy" then they would be forced to put a "no vacancy" sign in the front window once they came to full capacity (which would be in a matter of days) and leave it there almost permanently. Literally millions of dogs and cats would be turned away every day and left to die a slow lingering death on the streets instead. That's not very animal friendly.
---

[The balance of this post is not directed to cobweb but instead to everyone]

Yes, I suppose if we build an infinite number of new "no kill shelters" every time one comes to peek capacity and therefor no longer functions then we have *ahem* "solved" the problem.;) Heck, why even have spaying and neutering at all for that matter, just build more of these dog/cat apartment complexes instead and they may have all puppies and kittens they possibly want. :rolleyes:[sarcasm]

Note, we do have some "no kill shelters" here in the US but they are a band-aid approach to a much bigger problem.

[horselesspaul]

Literally millions of dogs and cats would be turned away every day and left to die a slow lingering death on the streets instead.

Domesticated dogs and cats can do pretty well as feral animals, though not necessarily all, perhaps PeTA should devise some aptitude test and release the most suitable into the wild rather than execute them..
Just saying, and being facetious at the same time, but I do get your point.

[cobweb]

Mahk i think your sarcasm is unwarranted, i have worked in two 'no kill' shelters which also ran spaying and neutering schemes (one of which i was manager of for 3 years).
Both places just grew and grew in terms of accomodation due to need. Yes, some animals had to be 'turned away' - sadly there would always be animals in that situation even if we all went out on killing sprees tomorrow and rounded up all the visible strays. There are many other animals who will be abandoned the next day due to people moving/having a baby/not giving a damn :mad:.
I was trying to understand why it's 'normal' for shelters in America to have such a low rehoming rate/high killing rate as opposed to the opposite scenario over here, that's all :confused:.

[Mahk]

I've also come to learn that Peta also serves as a free euthanasia clinic for people who've had their pets hit by cars or are otherwise terminally ill. They will even come to your house to do it for free. Many poor people who can't afford a vet or transportation choose this over watching their pet die slowly.
---

I feel bad for Peta because they are targeted by the unscrupulous Rick Berman, aka Dr. Evil, with his slick "Peta kills animals" websites undoubtedly funded by the meat and pet food industries.

This video is a must see. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2661990n)

I've read in other forums that Berman's own son has disowned his father due to his unwillingness to stop his greed based smear campaigns against Peta and others.

[Mahk]

Mahk i think your sarcasm is unwarranted, i have worked in two 'no kill' shelters which also ran spaying and neutering schemes (one of which i was manager of for 3 years).
My sarcasm wasn't directed at you so please don't take it personally. Sorry, I will re-edit my post to try to make that more clear.

I also think I made it pretty clear that I was addressing the US, not everywhere, because I am only familiar with our very low re-homing rate. Why it is so low I couldn't tell you but my 24% cat and 28% dog adoption rate figures were based on this study (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a783706847~db=all) [alternate link here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16277593)] and I was assuming that Michigan's rates should be typical of the rest of the states, but I don't know for sure. I also know that for certain breeds, notably the pit bull, the successful adoption rate from shelters is only one for ever 600 they take in (http://www.pitprintsrescue.com/html/rehomingyourpit.html)! [Again, US data]

In a community where the adoption rate is much higher or where there are an infinite number of vacancies in no-kill shelters then they work quite effectively at eliminating the millions of starving/freezing/suffering animals that I feel sad for. America does not fit that description was my point.

[horselesspaul]

I've also come to learn that Peta also serves as a free euthanasia clinic for people who've had their pets hit by cars or are otherwise terminally ill. They will even come to your house to do it for free. Many poor people who can't afford a vet or transportation choose this over watching their pet die slowly.
---

I feel bad for Peta because they are targeted by the unscrupulous Rick Berman, aka Dr. Evil, with his slick "Peta kills animals" websites undoubtedly funded by the meat and pet food industries.

This video is a must see. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=2661990n)

I've read in other forums that Berman's own son has disowned his father due to his unwillingness to stop his greed based smear campaigns against Peta and others.
Berman is without doubt one odious lying individual. His kind feed on people's inability to find the truth or to care about whether they do or not.
I wish PeTA was more willing and able, as far as I can make out, to refute his claims though, despite his lack of credibility.

[Mahk]

I wish PeTA was more willing and able, as far as I can make out, to refute his claims though, despite his lack of credibility.

Berman and his various sham organisation fronts have placed "Peta kills animals" billboards in major US cities, including New York.

Here's PeTA's standard response I've copied from their forum (http://www.peta.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5260):

"This is a peta admin response from a previous post similiar to your question.

Recently, some groups have made misleading claims about PETA’s euthanasia rate compared to the rates of various animal shelters. One such group is the deceitfully named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)—a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters that kill millions of animals every year—which is acting not out of compassion but out of greed. These companies are worried about the strides that PETA is making that are changing their industries and compelling them to take animal welfare concerns seriously; they hope to scare people away from supporting PETA by misrepresenting the vital work that we do for animals. To learn more about CCF—which USA Today recently opined should rename its Web site FatforProfit.com—please see the following Web sites:

•http://www.ConsumerDeception.com
•http://www.CitizensForEthics.org/node/19131
•http://www.Prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8984

Although PETA does not run an adoption facility (we refer most adoptable animals to well-known shelters with a high rate of public traffic), we have managed to place hundreds of animals in excellent lifelong homes. For many of the animals we do accept—such as those who are severely injured, aggressive, or otherwise unadoptable—we are often a “shelter of last resort,” offering a humane death to animals who would otherwise suffer a slow and painful end.

While some of the animals we take in are lost companion animals or adoptable strays, many of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option. To cite a local instance, our caseworkers were able to gain custody of a dog who was tied to a 15-pound chain and who was starved until she was severely emaciated. We had to carry her into the emergency clinic because she could barely walk. A vet recommended that the most humane option for her was a peaceful and dignified release from her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their convictions for cruelty to animals. To learn more, please see http://www.HelpingAnimals.com/f-asiasstory.asp. On another occasion, when a power-line transformer explosion burned a flock of starlings, PETA was the only agency to come to the birds’ aid, offering the animals a painless escape from their suffering.

PETA receives calls every week from people who do not have the inclination or money to provide veterinary care. Many of these people request that we euthanize their animals because they cannot afford to have them euthanized by a vet or because the animals would suffer excessive stress and pain if they were transported. PETA will not turn its back on these animals simply because they might make our “numbers” look bad.

Unlike “no-kill” shelters, PETA does not refuse animals simply because euthanasia is the only humane option for them. Many of the animals we take in are given to us because they have been rejected by other facilities.

Thank you for your sincere questions and concerns."

[horselesspaul]

I have seen that, thanks though Mahk.
It does contain a fair amount of doublespeak and obfuscation, imo.
The statement that they have re-homed "hundreds" of animals should be viewed against the time they have been doing it and the total number of animals given to them, I feel.
One person's 'humane' is another persons 'efficacious'..
It cannot be easy for them. I understand that.

[snivelingchild]

Domesticated dogs and cats can do pretty well as feral animals, though not necessarily all, perhaps PeTA should devise some aptitude test and release the most suitable into the wild rather than execute them..
Just saying, and being facetious at the same time, but I do get your point.
Not to get too far off point, but in my community (which I think is very average) there is no 'suitable' to live wild. There's no animal more able to not get hit by a car or attacked by another animal than another. My biggest point is that I personally see a new dead animal on the road every single day I leave my house. There is no wild anymore. We've taken over. Perhaps if there were wildlife refuges in remote cut-off areas but seeing as how those don't exist...

Cobby, I think no-kill shelters would be a great solution when we get over the massive over-population. In the meantime, with almost 10 million animals euthanized every year (in the US), I don't see another choice. That's a number we can't deal with, even if adoption numbers quadrupled!

I get annoyed when people HATE peta, mostly because often they disagree with how they do something that they agree with. Come on. Hate gets you nowhere. Disagree passionately with meat factories and the like. Your personal ideas differ with Peta's? That's subject matter for a "I think Peta would do better if they..." convo than the usual rhetoric of "ZOMFG PETA is teh major SUCKS and I HATE thems becuase of...."

I don't understand how people can talk about abortion and politics in a calm matter, and these same people turn into fanatics when Peta is mentioned.

I also don't consider Peta a vegan organization because of the aformentioned unvegan foods mentioned (and a quote I've read from a higher up that came to the effect of "who cares if it has honey?") and the fact that most members are not vegan. They work on each campaign separately. They get criticized by vegans for having meateaters work on anti-fur campaigns and taking baby steps (and making compromises...something ESSENTIAL for results), and criticized by meateaters for being too extreme and abolitionist. Come on, they can't be both.

[snivelingchild]

The statement that they have re-homed "hundreds" of animals should be viewed against the time they have been doing it and the total number of animals given to them, I feel.
Why so? if they are not an adoption organization? It is not their main focus by far.

[Korn]

the fact that most members are not vegan
If this is correct, Peta looks more and more like a sad joke - especially if they have a million members or more. They may have helped a few animals here and and a few animals there, but think of all they lives that could have been saved, all the suffering that could have been avoided if they would focus on getting their own members do stop harming animals. Maybe they need to 'shock' themselves before they work on figuring out how they can 'shock' others into not haring animals.

[snivelingchild]

^ the point is that they work on different areas of animal cruelty differently. Getting a million people to cut 1/5 of the cruelty out of their lifestyle is better than getting a thousand to go vegan (in the amount of money put to cruel industries that is). If part of the membership is that everyone in the org should be vegan, they'd be a tiny org. You don't have to be veggie to be against veal or fur. That's a good thing. I think once you get it mostly universally agreed upon that fur is bad, you can move on to the next step.

Excepting people to completely turn their lives around, and become vegan is a lot. I will wager to say that most people here turned vegan when they opened their minds to it. NOT because someone went, HEY, THAT STUFF YOU DO IS ALL WRONG!

I like the fact that they have omnis working towards animal rights. Accepting people rather than turning them away for not being perfect or agreeing with them 100% is the way to change minds.

[Korn]

^ the point is that they work on different areas of animal cruelty differently. Getting a million people to cut 1/5 of the cruelty out of their lifestyle is better than getting a thousand to go vegan (in the amount of money put to cruel industries that is).
To a certain degree it's a question of mathematics, and if most of Peta's members aren't vegans, and they have a million members, it's not a question of getting a small amount of people to go vegan, but hundred's of thousands.


If part of the membership is that everyone in the org should be vegan, they'd be a tiny org. Not even The Vegan Society requires that their members should be vegan.



You don't have to be veggie to be against veal or fur. That's a good thing. And: you don't have to be against fur to be a veggie. People may buy fur/leather products once in a while, but non-vegans normally eat animal products several times a day.





Excepting people to completely turn their lives around, and become vegan is a lot. The problem is that if Peta spokespeople use their site to post statements like 'who cares if it's honey on it', they decrease the likelihood that their readers will go vegan, because many of them know that vegans don't use honey, and if some official Peta person states that honey doesn't matter, he more or less directly claims that veganism doesn't make sense.



I will wager to say that most people here turned vegan when they opened their minds to it. NOT because someone went, HEY, THAT STUFF YOU DO IS ALL WRONG! I agree.


I like the fact that they have omnis working towards animal rights. That's better than omnis not working for animal rights - sure. But the whole situation with Peta may end up with loads of people who continue to harm people through their own lifestyle, and use their $25 membership fee as a some sort of indulgence - they feel that they have done something for animals, but their money may simply may have been used to pay someone else's vet bill. If animals are suffering to the degree that their owners want to euthanize them, the bill should either be payed by themselves or by the government (if they can't afford it), and not by poor students who may think that becoming a member of Peta means that your $25 will be used towards promoting a lifestyle free from animal products.

Imagine this scenario:
Peta-member to non-vegan: "Don't use fur!".
Non-vegan: "But you use leather shoes/eat fish/dairy products, and you're even a Peta member?"
PM: "Yes, but I'm only an activist, I tried going veg, but it was too difficult for me. Peta thinks so too, so they don't try to make their members go vegan".

What effect would that have on Peta's target audience?





Accepting people rather than turning them away for not being perfect or agreeing with them 100% is the way to change minds.

But that's again a very different topic. If a person skips only meat twice a week, I don't only "accept it" (as if they would care if I did), I think it's great. It's not a question of accepting what they do, or accepting what Peta does. They're not interested in my acceptance either. Its a question - the way I see it - of what's the best way to use energy/time/money to diminish suffering as much as possible, and for me, that means going vegan.

The main negative side effect of having an organization that's supposed to fight for "ethical treatment of animals" is that if their own members use leather shoes, but are against fur, or promote Peta, but eat fish/chicken/honey/cheese, people will either...


- not take them seriously
- use their use of animal products against them
- falsely assume that you can treat animals ethically and still use animal products

[horselesspaul]

Why so? if they are not an adoption organization? It is not their main focus by far.
I was just pointing out that the language used is a little disingenuous.
Personally I would like to see them spend a little more of the 34.3 million dollars they receive on adoption and its promotion, but I realise that they have their priorities and I have mine.
My point about the feral animals was a frivolous one to add to a point Pob made about people's awareness of the issues being potentially dulled by PeTA's approach to sadly unwanted animals.
Anyone who says that they HATE PeTA is missing the point not only of such an organisation but also the obvious complexity of the whole question of animal rights and welfare in today's society.
My personal preference would be for fewer grand shock tactics (the use of nudity/holocaust comparisons etc) that make them look ridiculous to the majority, and more vegan advocacy.

[cobweb]

i don't hate PeTa i'm just very confused by them as an organisation -
e.g what's the point in something like the 'holocaust' comparison if they are not actively promoting veganism?. Seems a tad hypocritical.

[Korn]

Does Peta have any public document stating what Peta's purpose is?