P.e.T.A. Kills Animals, Routinely

Has anyone ever adopted an animal from PETA? Worked for them? Volunteered? Why would you believe what they say simply because it was typed up?

 

Which parts are dishonest?
And: Where did you get those details from?
I'm only askin' because it does sometimes seem like you make stuff up/get a little carried away.

The parts I've posted from them seem like it is more truth than a lie...

 

All the parts where they say what amounts to "that's TOTALLY not the case, because we call it something else" - followed by the part about how, actually, it IS the case, EVEN including the semantics, but the only reason that the guy certifies them as a shelter is because they pay him to, and how technically any building that operates as theirs, is a shelter.... well, if they're shelters, and need to be inspected, and do use scheduled barbituates to kill animals..... HOW is it not all relevant or in context?

The page basically takes a long time to say that they resent people using semantics, and that the semantics don't apply and none of it's true, but actually the semantics DO apply and it is true. First it pushes the semantics argument one way, and says that there is no institution accepted as a shelter (presumably listing the SUB-types of shelters) and then goes the other way, and says that all such buildings are shelters but that doesn't mean anything, and that the guy who seemed to take issue with them not knowing that they worked at a shelter was actually being paid by peta, and thus on their side, even if he wrote sort of damning things in the document that they bribed him to file, and so exactly what he wrote is being twisted - when you read the scanned document, I find this hard to believe.


I skimmed it, so I may have made a mistake.... so sue me. The whole air is pretentious, and appears to use semantics and forcefulness to try to alter reality.

This is where it's frustrating to have to type things out, and I see how the youtubers prefer that to this - but this offers some degree of anonymity. I like reading, I like writing, I like arguing, but there's no way I'm going through that page with red text.

It also has a peta kills animals picture, as an example of something that's horribly out of context and possibly entirely untrue and unsubstantiated and unfair -- but the thing is, whatever the other criticism may be, we actually know that picture to be pretty fair, even if PeTA weaseled out of trouble, and even if it was really the fault of the employees -- it did happen, and doesn't need a whole lot of context beyond "peta took animals promising adoption, killed them in the parking lot, and threw them in a dumpster". HOW does anything you say change those facts? No matter how much money PeTA has for defense, it doesn't make things more honorable. If they wanted to set the record strait, they would have let those employees fall HARD, and sided against them -- I believe that the reason that they did not is that they followed standard PeTA MO, and PeTA does not wish to reform that at all, but to defend it. PeTA basically said we're really sorry, we seriously fucked up, we should not have used your dumpster -- without addressing that it was actually just something that exposed HOW fucked up and deceitful their practices for acquiring animals to kill, actually are.



I obviously have a bias -- I think it's a legitimate bias.

 

RooRshack

Atleast read it properly - then answer my question if you can.

I do think that semantics may have been used before any 'inspections' were brought to light, and that PKA's has atleast opened the door for PeTA to be upfront and not hide behind words like 'animal shelter' etc. I suspect they are not alone in attempting to conjure up a perception that isn't 100% true. But, It's difficult to know what they were like prior to 2005, and what type of language they were using prior to being 'exposed'. I can believe that they had nice fluffy pamphlets, but then when you were at their facility it was not so warm and fluffy - although I suspect they were open in what they actually did and did not do. PKA's clearly have avoided presenting the whole truth, and don't seem to care about that at all.

This seems a fairly good argument to me: The efficacy of the disinformation campaign against PETA has its roots in our preconceived notions of what we think "animal shelters" are, and what it is we think they're supposed to be doing for animals. By comparing PETA's small Norfolk animal facility to a traditional “open-to-the-public” "animal shelter" the architects of the respective "PETA Kills Animals" campaigns can manufacture misleading examples of how PETA's efforts "fall short" of those preconceived notions.

What?

What?

If you are happy to skim articles, not defend what you have posted, and generally have a blase attitude - fair enough. I won't sue you.
It's just you come across like that lady on RT - Abby Martin.

Pot / Kettle?

I hadn't noticed

 

Look. There will always be people who want cherry pick the facts so they can justify their hatred of PETA. If you fall into this category, then you probably won't want to hear what I'm saying. That's totally cool with me. Carry on. God speed to you even. BUT, if you actually WANT to know more about PETA's ACTUAL practices, you'll get your news from non-meat-industry sources.

I mean, it's been established that the Center for Consumer Freedom defames animal protection groups. The CCF is in litigation for defaming the HSUS as we speak. And David Martosko? The former Director of Research for the CCF (he's now the editor for the Daily Mail, of all things), admits to posing as an animal rights activist to not only gather info on actual activists, but he doesn't deny trying to incite them to commit violent acts (which they didn't do, thankfully).

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/the-center-for-consumer-freedom.html

And some of you probably like the shock-value of dropping comments about trash bags and dumpsters, but if you're doing that, you're really missing the point. The point is that PETA was in NC euthanizing animals who were going to be (not "maybe," not "probably," but WERE DEFINITELY) suffocated to death in a shit/vomit/blood-filled metal box. No joke, people. And here's what you don't know: PETA saved a LOT of those animals, and found them homes. When they knew the animals wouldn't be found homes, they took them to their van, fed them a tasty meal, cradled them in their arms, and cried their eyes out as they humanely euthanized them so they wouldn't be crammed into as gas chamber. So sure. The trash bags/dumpster thing was awful, but that wasn't PETA. That was ALL on TWO misguided volunteers. Otherwise? PETA LITERALLY inserted themselves between animals and their gas chamber death. Did it always have a happy ending? No. But no one ever said that doing the right thing for animals was always going to be warm and fuzzy.

So please. Don't side with the meat industry against animals. If you actually want to know the truth, then visit this website. And yeah, I'm Mary Tully, and you can probably tell that this gossipy bullshit really pisses me off.

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/index.html

 

The state of Virginia doesn't license animal releasing agencies, so there's no financial impetus for bribing the State Veterinarian to lean in one direction or another for either inspections or non-existent licensure. I actually interviewed the State Veterinarian, Dr. Dan Kovich, DVM, MPH for my website, and when I asked him if PETA as somehow duping the unsuspecting public into surrendering adoptable animals to them so they could euthanize them in some sinister plot, he stated that to the best of his recollection, his office has never received a complaint that PETA was misrepresenting their services to the public. Now factor in that the Virginia Police Department routinely works with PETA to serve and protect community animals, there is ZERO indication that PETA is obtaining animals under false pretenses.

Then's there's the fact that I was able to verify with the Virginia Beach SPCA that they receive adoptable animals from PETA (the VBSPCA is a high-adoption shelter that takes any and all animals from the community), there is ZERO indication that PETA is euthanizing ANY adoptable animals in their facility.

Look. Learn how PETA's shelter works BEFORE speaking about it as though you're some kind of authority.

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/understanding-petas-shelter.html

 

And OdonII? I rather like you

 

So how did you happen upon my post on this forum? Do you just scan the internet for any mention of PETA and then come barging into our forum home raising hell and spreading your PETA propaganda?

I have read that PETA uses these attacks whenever they are confronted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

Anymore of the "STFU" to our members, and you'll be banned. We have rules against this kind of assault on our forum members.

 

*Fixed*

 

It wouldn't be the first time. It's happened on more than one forum I've been on. Hell, it's happened in the cafeteria at my college. That's sort of what they do. Look for conversations that they have no part in and butt into the conversations in a vain attempt to change anyone's mind.

 

She's welcome to have her free speech here unless she breaks forum rules.

 

Like I said earlier, all "PETA Kills Animals" roads lead back to the Center for Consumer Freedom, a notorious meat industry front group that not only constructs elaborate disinformation campaigns against social change organizations, but has admitted to trying to coax animal rights activists into committing illegal acts because the CCF is THAT committed to discrediting the animal rights movement. The same folks who bring you the "PETA Kills Animals" disinformation engine are the same folks who fought tobacco regulation from the 1950s to the present. In fact, the "PETA Kills Animals" website was funded by a grant from Phillip Morris. This is not "propaganda," this is an established fact.

So why does a so-called "animal protectionist" like Nathan Winograd use the Center for Consumer Freedom's disinformation in his own campaign against PETA? Because PETA opposes (very effectively, actually) his dangerous "No-Kill" legislative initiatives, and PETA exposed his "No-Kill Revolution" as a farce, when they released their undercover investigation into the admission policies of the "No-Kill" shelters Nathan Winograd claimed were "successfully ending euthanasia in their communities," and were "open-admission." Again. Not "propaganda." I contacted the shelters comprising Nathan Winograd's "successful No-Kill" list, and the overwhelming (some two-thirds of them) admit that they have to turn a lot of animals away, meaning, they are not "open-admission." You can read their emails here: http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/no-kill-shelter-admission-policies.html

Oh, and I run the http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/ website, so I get feedback about where my website is being accessed. If it's from a discussion forum like this, I try to join the discussion if I can. The CCF's disinformation really shouldn't run unopposed. There's just too much at stake for that.

 

Mary, your discussion is welcome here as long as forum guidelines are upheld.

 

I appreciate that, Aerieanne. I'm very much interested in having an intelligent fact-based discussion about this issue. And I didn't mean to "assault" anyone. I've removed the offending comment from my post.

 

http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.com/why-peta-euthanizes-discussion-forum.html

 

So you run the propaganda site that you keep posting over and over in the hopes that someone will eventually believe these lies? OK. PETA kills animals regularly, I've never heard of anyone adopting an animal from them. But I have heard of people donating money without any previous knowledge of PETA's devious actions. By the way do you know that the SPCA only gives 1% of their donations to local shelters and PETA gets a large chunk of what's left. It sounds like a massive scam to trick weak minded people into giving more and more money so they can pay for their yachts.

 

Look. I'm not here to debate the ASPCA's donations or disbursements, because I have done absolutely no research into their practices. I have to say that I was never under the impression that the ASPCA was anything other than a national organization, or that they were *supposed* to be funding local animal shelters, though.

According to PETA's IRS 990's, PETA paid Ingrid Newkirk less than $38,000 last year (her highest salary yet). So PETA's President isn't getting rich protecting animals. In fact, considering that she drives a used car and owns no other property, I'd say she's pretty much just financially solvent. Conversely, Nathan Winograd paid himself $60,000 in 2011, out of "No Kill" Advocacy Center" donations. Which doesn't seem like a lot, until you consider that it's almost one-fourth of his total budget. But rather than make unfounded accusations about how they spend their money, you can view PETA's IRS 990's here: http://www.peta.org/cfs-file.ashx/_...les/PDF-Main-Sections-About+PETA/PETA 990.pdf

And here: http://www.peta.org/cfs-file.ashx/_...iles/PDF-Main-Sections-About+PETA/AF FY12.pdf

Most of the relatively few adoptable animals PETA receives in their facility are transferred to high-adoption shelters in their area, if they cannot be found immediate homes. I was able to confirm that the Virginia Beach SPCA receives animals from PETA and finds them homes. You can see for yourself here: http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/8/4/16840972/2344745_orig.png

And here: http://www.weebly.com/uploads/1/6/8/4/16840972/634071_orig.png

So please. Stop just flinging crap out there to see what sticks. So PETA's not your cup of tea. Why are you so invested in discrediting them? Why are you so persistent in your defaming of them?

 

In any event, I'm really not interested in debating yet another PETA-hater. You have no idea how old that shit gets. But I AM interested in answering specific questions that folks might have, at least to the best of my ability.

 

I posted this in response to No Kill Nation slamming PETA and other animal advocacy groups and soliciting donations on another web forum. In researching Nathan Winograd it didn't take long to see what he's about. You can't just believe what people tell you, you have to research for yourself. It would be interesting to see who his largest contributors are, (I'm guessing breeders/ puppy mills) but conveniently a 501 c 4 nonprofit doesn't have to reveal their donors. To my animal advocate friends: you may have seen multiple posts from No Kill Nation criticizing other animal advocacy groups and soliciting donations. The animal rescue industry receives millions of dollars of donations each year, it follows that there will be greedy humans ready to exploit that for their own selfish wants. Please, before donating take a few minutes to check a financial statement. OF $350,578.00 recieved in 2011, No KIll Nation spent $247,000.00 ON "PAYABLES TO CURRENT AND FORMER OFFICERS". Is that how you want your donations spent? A copy of a email I sent to a radio station who interviewed Nathan Winograd of No Kill Nation: Hi, You should be aware of the questions and controversy surrounding No Kill Nation and Nathan Winograd. Those of us who truly care for animals, find his attack of other Humane groups instead of focusing on abusers and puppy mills a blatant money grab at the expense of abused and neglected animals. A google search will quickly reveal an abundance of information. I posted No Kill Nations financial statement on their Facebook page and asked for an explanation and it was promptly deleted and I was blocked. Of a total of $350,578.00, $247.000 was spent on "payables to current and former officers". So your interview will go one of two ways; a real interview with hard questions and journalistic integrity, or you will be contributing to the problem of humans exploiting the homeless animal problem for their own benefit. PLEASE, for the sake of millions of homeless/ abused animals, do the right thing.