Sorry I know it's a bit long but it's a good read and hits the nail on the head with a lot of key points on why Peta is bass ackwards. enjoy- and oh i'd
interested to hear your views ( like you were gonna keep your mouth shut
bejavascript:emoticon('')

Nathon Winograd once wrote in his personal opinion that PETA's Ingrid was
suffering from Munchausen by proxy. I drew this analogy based on PETA's animal
rights philosophy that tends to encourage "humane euthanasia" as a viable
option to end an animal's suffering.

Based on their own reporting PETA has a mind boggling 97% rate of killing
animals in their care. Much of this Munchausen illness translates into PETA's
"animal rights" policy that defends being opposed to No Kill philosophy's,
dumping the bodies of "saved" animals in dumpsters, identifying those who
rescue as demented hoarders, rigid opposition to TNR for feral cats, a morality
that shelter animals are better served by being humanely euthanised while
holding a moralistic approach that killing animals is reprehensible.

This philosophy of defending policies of humane euthanasia while professing
to protect animal rights is a contradiction that can not be explained. One
would assume that at the point an animal is killed any right or lack of it the
animal might be entitled to becomes a mute point.

A few years back I made the choice to distance myself to such thinking that
included a vision of the future that returned domesticated pets "to the wild"
as a philosophy that did not represent my core values. After all, if PETA
has an issue with those of us who "own" our pets then am I too a villain and
therefore a target of their thinking.

Owning and enjoying pets should be about choice and responsibility. The
nucleus for moderate animal advocate philosophy must include legal opposition to
pet limit laws, BSL, mandatory spay/neuter and nuisance animal laws
including sentencing provisions that allow for impounding and killing as a sentencing
guideline.

Those of us who include ourselves as part of an animal advocate movement
must speak out and oppose the extreme positions of killing with kindness that
the extreme animal rights movement like PETA promote.

"In 2006, an official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) shows that they took in 3,043 animals, of which 1,960 were cats,
1,030 were dogs, 52 were other companion animals, and 1 was a chicken. Of these,
they killed the chicken, killed 1,942 cats, 988 dogs, and 50 classified as “
other companion animals.” They found homes for only 2 cats, 8 dogs and 2 of
the other companion animals."


To understand why Ingrid Newkirk and PETA seek out animals to kill we must
understand the vast differences in political philosophy those of us who
advocate for to owning and rescuing animals has as opposed to those who seek to
destroy that human/animal bond.

By PETA's own admission they have a 97% kill rate. This is based on PETA's
own reporting to the Commonwealth of Virginia, which only requires "record
keeping and reporting of only those animals taken into custody... for purposes
of adoption." It does not include those animals taken into "rescue" that are
not for adoption but instead end up being humanely euthanized and deposited
in a convenient dumpster.

Despite $30 million in revenues, PETA found homes for only 12 animals. An
additional 21 cats and 25 dogs were transferred to another agency (likely a
kill shelter since PETA has a “policy against No Kill shelters.”) The rest were
put to death. Arguing "animal rights" for animals that are just been killed
seems to be an exercise in disingenuous thinking.


There is also something far more disturbing going on here than Newkirk’s
history. Newkirk has been a long time opponent with "No Kill" sheltering.
Groups like PETA, ASPCA and HSUS have historically supported sheltering policies
like extreme temperament testing and the twisted practices of self proclaimed
"temperament goddess" Sternberg who herself should be classified as an
animal abuser.

Temperament testing that lacks any scientific clarity has proven to be the
tool utilized in killing shelter animals where otherwise justification does
not exist.


Animal advocates can describe the theories behind this extreme thinking but
they can not explain how killing a confused shelter animal protects that
animals rights. If we really care about supporting animal rights as opposed to
the rights to humanely kill without reason then there is no alternative then
to oppose such negative thinking.

This is not just a disagreement in philosophy between No Kill supporters and
traditional “catch and kill” proponents. That is the debate going on with
the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), where their reputations and
donations are being threatened. With the Humane Society of the United States
the philosophy of manipulation and over regulation of animal ordinances which
take away our choices and responsibility have come in question. HSUS can not
explain the humane choices they support that allow for impounding and
killing the very pets they claim to advocate for. Advocating to kill is simply
not humane.

HSUS is the nation's largest and wealthiest humane advocacy organization in
the nation. It has assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and it has
a budget in excess of one hundred million dollars annually. It claims the
support of twelve million members and it has a powerful media presence.

More importantly, their magazine, Animal Sheltering, is sent to shelters
nationwide. Their animal sheltering conference, HSUS Expo, is the nation's
largest, drawing sheltering staff from across the country. In fact, HSUS Expo
invites Newkirk to give presentations at their national animal sheltering
conference.

Two years ago Newkirk gave a video presentation on why "Pit Bulls should be
killed" to unwitting shelter directors who swallow this garbage philosophy
and transform it into policies that all but eliminate even the meekest of pits.
Armed with PETA's "kill all pits" ranting's and the twisted temperament
testing theology of Sue Sternberg is it any wonder that pit bulls have become
the target of every maniac with a message to kill?

Yet, Sternberg continues to be "awarded" for her contributions to humane
treatment of animals by the ASPCA while animal rights followers worship at
Ingrid's altar. While the leaders of the animal rights movement can continue to
look the other way in seeking life saving alternatives do those who truly
support humane treatment for all companion animals do the same with an undying
support?

PETA’s strategy for engaging in “damage control” and “public relations spin
” when a shelter or community which kills is challenged by those seeking an
alternative to systematic killing of shelter animals only undermines their
other platforms. After all, how can an animal rights proponent so opposed to
the killing of chickens lobby, promote and support theology that kills pit
bulls and feral cats? Chickens and livestock deserve the right to live but
feral cats and pit bulls do not?

With animal rights friends like these, animals truly do not need enemies.

Animal shelters nationwide look to the leaders of PETA and HSUS for guidance
and direction. Many have blindly followed the slick spin of huge
advertising budgets that allows them to "drink the kool aid spiked with killing
philosophy that run amuck with this "gift of euthanasia" philosophy. In all my
years of doing rescue and advocating for shelter animals I have yet to encounter
one who wants to die. In fact, animals are terribly resilient and only
understand a genetic disposition to survive.

When activists in communities working for reform pressure local government
to embrace the alternatives to killing, HSUS responds by defending shelter
policies, their failures and refusal to change, calling advocates for change
"impossible", "unreasonable," and even professing "hoarder tendency" - after all
"we can't save them all from this miserable world in which we live". By
sowing seeds of doubt among public officials, including our county leaders in
government, our county attorney's and animal control we are now inundated with
extreme animal ordinances which mystify the constitutional legal community.

It is time that the extreme animal rights movement be held accountable. It
is no longer acceptable that animal advocates swallow every attempt to
tighten the noose on those who lack the knowledge of how to be a responsible pet
owner with a huge net that also ensnares those who are responsible pet owners.

No kill does not support hoarding. Yet, the insinuations of hoarding have
been used to justify pet limit laws, total bans of tethering, nuisance dog
barking ordinances and veterinary care laws that counter a philosophy of
education as opposed to persecution in the new wave of animal ordinances being
promoted throughout the country.

Those who support total bans on tethering have theorized that tethering
causes social issues in dogs that leads to aggressive canine behavior. There is
no scientific data or studies that support these claims. In fact, as long as
a dog is trained, socialized, and given proper attention the containment
method used is not a factor in it’s behavior, or temperament. Dogs left in
fenced enclosure who are not socialized or given proper attention will display
the same behavioral characteristics as dogs who are constantly tethered.

An unsocialized dog, regardless of containment method with be genetically
disposed to try and escape. Dogs lacking socialization will display "guarding"
tendacies regardless of the method when forced to survive in an
unsocialized environment. Dog behavior, including running at large and aggressive
behavior only becomes problematic when a dog is not properly trained, not
properly socialized, and not given proper attention, to think otherwise is simply
Orwellian double-speak.

Yet, animal rights groups continue to support legislation that allow
tethered animals to be impounded to enforce what in effect are total tethering bans.
This thinking is not to be confused as supporting chaining or tethering any
animal 24/7, in fact, those who advocate for animals would not support
fencing to contain an animal 24/7 as being more humane. Pet owners need to be
taught and offered other alternative on teaching their pets to be part of the
family as opposed to part of the landscaping that surrounds one's home.

Ingrid Newkirk once said “How dare you pretend to help animals and turn your
back on those who want an exit from an uncaring world!”. The uncaring world
she is describing is the ignorant of thinking that an animal would prefer
death as the only alternative to survive. That has always been the disconnect
the hard core animal rights movement cannot defend. You can not espouse
"rights" on an animal you want to see killed - well, unless those are "last
rights".

Those who truly advocate for an animals "rights" to existence should
vehemently reject this point of view and actively campaign against it. Not only for
the dogs and cats that HSUS and PETA propose to kill in the future but whose
interests in theory they exist to protect. Moreover, HSUS and PETA’s
position that animals in shelters, pit bulls, feral cats, confused dogs, do not
have a right to live subverts the entire foundation upon which animal advocates
claim to support. Once you understand that philosophy then it becomes
apparent why supporting animal advocating attorney's who include impounding and
killing tethered animals, dogs genetically predisposed to bark or dogs and cats
that simply need medical attention contradicts the universally accepted
fundamental right advocating for shelter animals to live.

In any truly humane movement enjoyment of the "right to life" is a
necessary condition of the enjoyment of all other rights. A movement cannot be “rights
” oriented and ignore this fundamental right to live. If an animal is dead,
the animal’s rights cease to exist, the rest of this theology become
irrelevant.

We can not reject nor refuse to acknowledge the right to life as it relates
to dogs and cats while supporting those same rights for other animals
including chickens and pigs. It is condescending for PETA to claim one can not "eat
a hamburger" while wanting to kill my dog. We can not advocate against
"fur" while wanting to kill off feral cats.

Nathon Winograd wrote "The relationship between Americans and their animal
companions can open a door to larger animal rights issues. In our daily
interactions with dogs and cats, people experience an animal’s personality,
emotions, and capacity both for great joy and great suffering. They learn empathy
for animals. It is not a stretch that someone who is compassionate—and
passionate—about their pets would over time and with the right information be
sympathetic to animal suffering on farms, in circuses, in research facilities, and
elsewhere."

Teaching compassion and responsibility towards animals as opposed to this
blatant attempt to criminalize far too many aspects owning pets will not only
support a true movement of those who understand rights for animals, but more
importantly the rights of people to continue to own animals as pets.

I am not my dogs "guardian" - I am their keeper with ownership rights
recognized by our legal system. It is a folly to think we will have more
protective rights to "keep" our pets if we simply follow the twisted thinking of an
animal rights movement that quite frankly doesn't appear to understand the
relationship domestic companion animals have in our lives. As a guardian of my
pets am I therefore subjected to more governmental bureaucracy on the choices
I make in caring for and raising my pets?

Regardless of whether you believe in “animal rights” or not; regardless of
whether you are a vegetarian or not; regardless of where you stand on animal
issues unrelated to animal sheltering, PETA’s position of "killing for
kindness" is not only insane but irresponsible as well. Giving money to support
irresponsible political posturing simply supports the very killing animal
advocates oppose.


The best gift we can give is the gift of death to a truly inhumane animal
rights movement.

so...since no replies, i'm wondering if we have some PETA followers. maybe i'm out of place posting this article here. i hope i didn't offend anyone.

ICARUS wrote:


I just do not have time to read something so long from work - usually I read the longer posts from home!

It's very long - I made it through most of it.
I think the biggest problem with Peta is the first thing we think of when it comes to animal rights, but people have no idea what they stand for. They have a completely backwards way of thinking. I hate to say it like this, but it's like they are taking the easy way out. It's very upsetting to think of how many animals they have killed because they had a 'bad temperament', when really they just don't want to put in the effort.

Cathy wrote:


In total agreement here. I tend to avoid the Peta thing because it so irratating to me. Kinda how you would feel about a wierd cult,ya know?

blankenship7 wrote:


I agree with you both. When I first heard about PETA i thought "what a wonderful group of people. Aniaml rights..yada yada yada. Then I found out what they are all about. What a bunch of kooks!! Just my opninion. Hope I don't offend anyone. I just don't get where they are coming from. They say animal rights on one hand, but kill dogs and cats and throw them in a dumpster. Then the idea that domesticated pets should not be owned and there should only be wild animals??? What is that mess about?
Anyway, I will get off my soap box before I really get on it!!

Lisa