PDA

View Full Version : PETA killing animals?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

pat sommer
Aug 3rd, 2006, 09:08 PM
well said, my3 labs. Kill/ no kill. The problem is breeders and the whole 'pet' industry and allowing people to believe there are 'shelters' to deal with the toys, er animals, when we are done playing with them

Korn
Aug 3rd, 2006, 09:24 PM
II think it does send a bit of a mixed message, but I guess I'd rather have them do it than send these animals to a gas chamber.

Talking about gas chambers... the idea of killing animals in small gas chambers (http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=612262006) (and even awarding people behind such methods) is exactly one of the reasons PETA are getting pepper from people who otherwise would have supported them.

my3labs
Aug 3rd, 2006, 09:36 PM
Thanks Korn. I read about that earlier and I guess my feeling is that PETA is trying to recognize them for at least trying to reduce their suffering (ie: painful death).
My neighbor recently had rats in his house and had an exterminator come out and kill them all. They, of course, were poisoned and died painfully.
I wouldn't kill a rat, dog, cow, etc. Please don't think that I'm condoning any company that does. I guess I'm just trying to see this from PETA's point of view; which in my opinion, is to improve things where they can...baby steps.
I guess my theory is that PETA (or any other AR group) is not going to change the world overnight so they take the little victories when they can.
I'm just trying to keep an open mind when it comes to the actions of groups that are really trying to do the same thing we're all trying to do.

pat sommer
Aug 3rd, 2006, 09:36 PM
I will personally send a letter of thanks to the company and request such traps in future places of employment. Ever watch a struggling mouse in a glue trap? I would pick up the glue/mouse and put her/him in a carton then into the freezer to ease the suffering. I get sick just remembering.
any positive steps should be commended. Or perhaps we can hold our breath for an ideal world?

Korn
Aug 3rd, 2006, 09:50 PM
I don't think PETA should give awards to people who make weapons made to kill animals, and I wouldn't expect an anti-slavery organization would give an award to one who was keeping slaves, even if he did it in a slightly nicer way than others.

If you are against that men are being violent against their kids or 'their' women, you just don't give an award to the men who hit's them in the face with less force.

I would have understood their award a little better if they have tried to promote one the already existing mouse traps (see the links below).

http://www.abundantearth.com/store/mousetrap1.html
http://www.themousedepot.com/
http://www.trap-man.com/multi-live-c...mouse-trap.htm
http://www.beautifulbritain.co.uk/ht...mane_traps.htm
http://www.pestproducts.com/runway_trap.htm
http://www.pestfree.co.uk/livemouse.htm


With so many non-killing mouse traps on the market, they choose give an award to one that kills the mice.

my3labs
Aug 4th, 2006, 12:59 AM
If you are against that men are being violent against their kids or 'their' women, you just don't give an award to the men who hit's them in the face with less force.
Hi Korn,
Thanks for the analogy and I certainly see your point.

veganblue
Aug 4th, 2006, 07:36 AM
Note: I apologise in advance for the aggressive tone of this post. This issue is getting really frustrating. :(


I don't think PETA should give awards to people who make weapons made to kill animals, and I wouldn't expect an anti-slavery organization would give an award to one who was keeping slaves, even if he did it in a slightly nicer way than others.


It seems that a lot of vegans (both here and elsewhere) are getting hung up on the word ''award'' and behaving like average members of the population so I will take a moment to explain.

- PETA is a large organisation that does a great deal of work across the globe, this costs money so it is hardly surprising that they have a big budget.

- this budget is not big enough to tackle *everything*, to address the international problems of companion animal excesses, animals in the wild, animals in entertainment, animals for ''food'', animals in ''research'', animals in cosmetics, animals for ''clothing'', animal ''control'' - I am sure that there are some that I missed. It also does outreach, education, vegan promotion, and has done more to raise the vegan agenda in everything than any other organisation in the world (arguably). How much do you think this costs?

- there is not enough money to deal with everything perfectly - but does that mean that it should be ignored? Should PETA concentrate on only a few issues and make big steps and leave such issues as companion animals being gassed in country shelters to the state authorities?

- one of the savings that can be made is in garnering *free* media, which is one of the things that PETA is really good with.

*** Pat Buchannan;*** a known right-wing conservatist, gets an award from a left-wing organisation for promoting the work of Matthew Scully on Intensively Produced Animals. News-worthy? You bet! Are the horrors Matthew wrote about back in the news? Of course!! Is this about promoting Pat?? Are you nuts? Absolutely not!!! How much is this coverage worth? Priceless. I would hate to put a figure on it. Meanwhile the money saved goes into dealing with much tougher issues that idealists turn their backs on.

- this is about resources people!!! and there is no organisation big enough to deal with it all - yet here we have people actively stopping PETA from doing a better job by removing their support!!!

''PETA don't have enough money to do everything perfectly, so I will take my money from them and give it to a much smaller group that cannot impact as much as a large organisation.'' Where is the logic???

Of all the different collections of people in the world - I assumed that vegans would have a close eye on the bigger picture. Some of us do but it appears not all do.

I read the veganfreak posts and again, there is the problem of not considering the scale of the problem. Wonderful - they took in *one* animal from a shelter. Does that then make it okay to turn your back on the THOUSANDS of others? At least PETA has the guts to address the issue. Maybe not perfectly - no thanks to unrealistic idealists.

I have already explained about the gas traps and the rationale behind it. If you take the time to read the post (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=208330&postcount=153) it explains why pushing big industry into humane alternatives is going to cause bigger changes than patting already-existing manufacturers of humane alternatives on the back. Look at the marketshare of Rentokil compared to the small fry quoted here (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=222476&postcount=180) and tell me again that engaging with Rentokil is pointless.

It's a numbers game.


With so many non-killing mouse traps on the market, they choose give an award to the one that kills the mouse.

The objective is not to give an award to Rentokil - but promotion of changes towards investing in humane alternatives. It's not rocket science, but it IS the big picture. my3labs and many others understand - I don't understand why some just *can't*.

veganblue
Aug 4th, 2006, 07:49 AM
I don't think PETA should give awards to people who make weapons made to kill animals, and I wouldn't expect an anti-slavery organization would give an award to one who was keeping slaves, even if he did it in a slightly nicer way than others.

If you are against that men are being violent against their kids or 'their' women, you just don't give an award to the men who hit's them in the face with less force.

I may be the only one but I don't feel that the analogy can be made between violence against women or children which is condemned by all of society, and the killing of animals that *most* of society condones as a necessary activity.

This is not rewarding an individual for doing something that is not as bad as before; this is teaching a major player in the industry a new set of ethics.

Vegan ethics are still the exception - not the rule.

Michael Benis
Sep 17th, 2007, 10:28 AM
As for killing animals, they euthanize animals just like any non-non-kill sheltor does because non-kill sheltors become full and end up just having to stop accepting animals. It does not save lives, there are too many animals for a perfect solution.

That's the party line, but there is evidence from people who brought animals to Peta shelters who would have found other solutions had they known the animals would be killed, just as there is testimony from people that Peta did not "do everything they could" to rehome these animals rather than killing them. Why get involved in shelters if they cannot promote an ethical solution? There are other threads on this on the forum....

Haniska
Sep 26th, 2007, 04:33 AM
I heard they dumped the bodies in a public fast food dumpster.....new kittens who obviously would have had a home....I think they did it for shock value to make a point. I can see someone's warped mind coming up with that idea but not actually going through with killing animals to make a point!

snivelingchild
Sep 27th, 2007, 04:37 AM
Also PETA didn't just talk with Rentokill. They gave them an award! If you award someone's killers it generally means you don't like them very much.

Oh my god, do you scream and berate an omni who just turned vegetarian? No, you say good for you, and encourage them to go further. Every step counts. Every motion towards good IS good. Even is they just cut down on meat, or go from factory farmed to small family farm (since there's less chance of the animals still being conscious when killed, which happens often in factory farms), I still say good.

snivelingchild
Sep 27th, 2007, 04:46 AM
There are MANY overcrowded and unwanted humans in the world. They starve, and suffer, and some experience lives where there is simply birth, excruciating pain, then death. Of course this is the most extreme case, and I don't mean just poverty. I mean they are dying of a disease we can treat here, we, or rather, THEY just don't have the resources to do it. Now, the difference is that we cannot decide for other whether they should live or die. This should be their choice, and I believe many would choose a painless death if at their disposal. Animals we cannot communicate with so effectively. Just like everything else we must decide for them. Yes, Billions of healthy, adoptable animals are killed each year. They are individually adoptable, but NOT COLLECTIVELY ADOPTABLE. We just don't have the resources and the open homes. Now there are always the horror stories of people killing animals in a less-than-humane way, but these are always individuals. There was a story a few years back where Peta members did this. They participated with peta, but they were not instructed by Peta to do this, just as with the terrorist actions. You cannot control the people that follow you. Why blame an organization, unless you expect them to prevent every unfortunate incident?

An organization is constantly changing, as are the people in it. So until the OFFICIAL position of Peta changes in a way I dislike, I remain supportive. Unless there is an irrefutable and uncorrectable level of corruption within, I will always want to support them and try and make them better. If you don't like something they do, do something about it, don't just disassociate with them!

snivelingchild
Sep 27th, 2007, 04:51 AM
If you want to get rid of an animal, but don't want it killed, do your research on your shelters. It's not Peta's fault they didn't know. Peta is very open about their stance, just look on their website! No-kill shelters may seem nice, but they have to operate on such a small scale, and either become full and turn animals away, or accept them into less-than-suitable conditions. Not all will be adopted. I would not want to spend years in a cage myself. This is why I wish more people would foster animals until they are found homes. I have done work with Cat Haven in Baton Rouge, but all their animals were in foster homes, not a shelter. They turned away thousands of cats a year, though, who just wound up at animal control, or worse.

dreama
Sep 28th, 2007, 05:56 PM
There are MANY overcrowded and unwanted humans in the world. They starve, and suffer, and some experience lives where there is simply birth, excruciating pain, then death. Of course this is the most extreme case, and I don't mean just poverty. I mean they are dying of a disease we can treat here, we, or rather, THEY just don't have the resources to do it. Now, the difference is that we cannot decide for other whether they should live or die. This should be their choice, and I believe many would choose a painless death if at their disposal.

I'm sorry but I disagree with this. My mum died of cancer. She was in a lot of pain before she died but according to my dad she still wanted to live.

As for Rentokill and the award, there are already more humane methods of dealing with rats and mice. They are called Humane traps where you catch the rodent and put it somewhere else. Then block off it's way back in.

It's wrong to kill. PETA lost my support for good when they gave that award out and also murdered intelligent animals and dumped them in rubbish bins. Didn't even bother to bury them afterwards. :mad:

snivelingchild
Sep 29th, 2007, 03:59 AM
I'm sorry but I disagree with this. My mum died of cancer. She was in a lot of pain before she died but according to my dad she still wanted to live.
I'm not saying that everyone in a bad situation wants to die. That's why I believe they should have a chioce. My mother-in-law also had cancer. She chose to end her life rather than go through more pain, as her cancer was terminal. My point was, just like every other important decision, we are forced to do this with animals. We put them down when they are in incurable pain or dying. I think we are also forced to have kill shelters that euthanize animals rather than having over-crowded shelters where an animal might stay in horrible conditions, and may go unadopted for years. Many healthy, "adoptable" animals are never adopted because we just don't have enough homes. We don't. If we did, we wouldn't have an animal overpopulation problem. We don't have the resources to take care of them. I think the only options we have are to euthanize some of them, or let them all roam the streets without food or healthcare. The latter is what happens anyway, and this is why we have sick animals spreadind disease and being hit by cars every day.

Again, I think they Peta was just saying thanks for trying to do something a little better. If you had a friend who stopped using personal care products tested on animals, and another friend who bought only vegan personal care products, you wouldn't (hopefully) berate the first friend for not going as far as the other would you? I try and applaude anyone person, group, or organization when they do any little step on imporivement.

If you think what Peta did was wrong, TELL THEM. Try and give your opinion as to what you think they should do. Seeing as they are the biggest organization working towards a more vegan world, don't you think we should have them working for what we want? Try and cause a change.

snivelingchild
Sep 29th, 2007, 04:08 AM
new kittens who obviously would have had a home

I have four cats that I got as kittens because I thought it would be easy to find them homes. I tried to get them into the Cat Haven adoption that I volunteered with, but the program was full, like it is pretty much year round. That was even with me being their foster, they just didn't have the room for more kittens in their adoptions. I have a pit bull, whose sisters and brothers I tried to find homes for. They were pure breed puppies, whose father even had papers. Still not adoptable. Because they weren't adopted, they had to live far to crowded in my sisters house, and almost all died of Parvo. It's not easy to adopt out animals. An insane amount of effort goes into just one. At Cat Haven, there was probably about 2-3 adoptions a month, in a good month. They had over 50 cats in the program at a time. They had to turn down hurndreds. Most ended up staying with their fosters until they were too old to adopt. This made fewer foster homes available as they filled up.

snivelingchild
Sep 29th, 2007, 04:16 AM
http://www.peta.org/Living/AT-Fall2005/nokill.asp
If you do even a little research, you can see that Peta has been pro-eithanization for years. This has never been a secret, and they have never tried to conceal it.

dreama
Sep 29th, 2007, 05:55 PM
Euthanasia is killing an animal that is seriously ill, in a lot of pain and very near to death anyway.

Killing an animal just because you can't be bothered to rehome them is called MURDER.

So PETA is not Pro Euthanasia. PETA is Pro murder.

Noogle
Sep 29th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Sometimes it's justifiable that an animal dies humanely early in life instead of enduring years of 'life' in a shelter.

dreama
Sep 29th, 2007, 09:11 PM
Sorry but I totally disagree with this. Some No Kill shelter make a lot of effort to rehome their animals. I think you are confussing No Kill shelters with animal collectors. Their are some really good No Kill Shelters that deserve a pat on the back not to have PETA lie to them offering to rehome their animals. Then kill them secretly and dump them. No animal diserves that.

Besides I would prefere life in a refugee camp rather then no life at all. At least there is hope then.

Michael Benis
Sep 29th, 2007, 11:12 PM
I totally agree with you Dreama.

I also find the obturate cold logic of Peta's excuses quite nauseatingly hypocritical. It actually does veganism a great disservice.
I get involved in lots of so-called discussions with people who take a negative view of veganism because they associate it with Peta.

Cheers

Mike

snivelingchild
Sep 30th, 2007, 01:01 AM
Euthanasia is killing an animal that is seriously ill, in a lot of pain and very near to death anyway.

Killing an animal just because you can't be bothered to rehome them is called MURDER.

So PETA is not Pro Euthanasia. PETA is Pro murder.

You are right, I misspoke. My point it they are pro-kill-shelters or whatever you want to call it. Give it any name you want, but this is not a Peta issue. Most shelters are not no-kill. I don't believe this is a Peta discussion, but a kill/no-kill discussion.

http://veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16822
Shall we?

pat sommer
Oct 1st, 2007, 11:55 PM
"I am so over having dogs" said the pert blonde 22yr old daughter of a friend after kicking out boyfriend (the pint sized pooches main carer) and starting a demanding new job.

She will undoubtedly pass them along for a moderate price as the bitch has a couple litters left in her before she wears out and gets dumped in a shelter.

Another friend, who has already killed most of her exotic pets, has her eye on a 'Winston Churchill dog'. Her fiance has now promised her a bull dog. How she will afford the vet bills, I don't know. I give it 2 years before she falls for another pet fad.

Let's kill the pet trade. Let's enforce spay/neuter. Let's not let pet owners believe there is a 'place' for their unwanted friends. If people believe there is 'no kill' then watch for an explosion in dumped animals

dreama
Oct 2nd, 2007, 09:29 PM
Michael Benis: Thanks. It's good that I'm not the only one to see through PETA and their killing animals.



If people believe there is 'no kill' then watch for an explosion in dumped animals

I don't think so, as the people you have in mind really don't care what happens to their pets anyway. I know people like that too. Some of them don't even bother taking their animals to shelters. They just let them out of their car and drive off without them. I even know a guy who pushed his 2 greyhounds over the side of a cliff. The less said about him the better.

ClawsyWP
Oct 2nd, 2007, 10:41 PM
Sorry but I totally disagree with this. Some No Kill shelter make a lot of effort to rehome their animals. I think you are confussing No Kill shelters with animal collectors. Their are some really good No Kill Shelters that deserve a pat on the back not to have PETA lie to them offering to rehome their animals. Then kill them secretly and dump them. No animal diserves that.



I thought the Peta workers collected animals from kill shelters who were going to be killed by painful means?