A few thoughts on the PETA letter: What’s right and what’s fair
By Gina Spadafori
March 28, 2008
(Revised from original to add a letter to PETA from the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding the adoptability of animals taken in by the group, plus context of that letter with regards to the legal definition in that state of a “shelter.”)
***
I’ve been a journalist almost 30 years, and yesterday’s letter from PETA wasn’t the first such and I’m sure it won’t be the last. When you’re an ethical, responsible journalist, the first thing you do when you get something like that is to ask yourself:
Was I wrong?
Was I fair?
If you can’t say “no” to the first and “yes” to the second, you need to fix things. Not because of the possibility of a lawsuit, but because it’s the right thing to do.
Let’s start with what I am absolutely not wrong about, which is something most people do not seem to know about PETA: That the animal-rights group kills almost all the pets surrendered to it, almost 3,000 killed in 2006 alone. This information comes from PETA itself, as reported to the Commonwealth of Virginia in a report required of all the state’s shelters. More than nine of 10 pets who end up at PETA are killed there.
PETA does not dispute this.
The letter from the PETA Foundation attorney says I was wrong in assuming that an animal-rights group such as PETA would be trying to find new homes for the animals who were killed at PETA. The phrase he takes issue with is that the animals were there “in search of new homes.” Putting aside the matter of how, exactly, PETA’s attorney is able to divine what these animals truly were in search of, then I’d like to know how, exactly, were the determinations made, that, as he put it:
These animals were brought to, or picked up by, PETA because they were unadoptable for a variety of reasons, and had been surrendered precisely because they were not adoptable. Many of these animals were sick, and euthanasia brought them a peaceful release from the suffering that they endured.
So, were there medical examinations by a veterinarian, and written records of the same for each animal killed? A behavioral analysis by a qualified behaviorist, and written records of the same for each animal killed? May we see them? Or were these determinations made by the animal’s previous owners, and if so are there the signed forms standard at every veterinary office and shelter making sure the previous owner understands that they are turning the animal over to be killed? May we see those forms? Alternately, may we get the names of all the previous owners so we can ask each and every one of them if it was their understanding that they animal was unadoptable and would be killed when they surrendered the animal? So we can ask, exactly, what they were told by PETA?
If PETA staff made these determinations that the animals were unadoptable, may we have the names of these people and see their qualification to perform such tasks? Are they veterinarians or certified behaviorists? May we see the records of their medical and behavioral determinations that these animals were not adoptable? May we see PETA’s guidelines for determining adoptability?
Honestly, it’s impossible for me to determine if I was wrong without such documentation. PETA’s kill rate seems awfully high, so it’s natural we animal-lovers should wonder how it got that way. So show us those records, so we can understand. We want to understand.
I realize there must be a lot of records involved in the killing of 2,981 animals in 2006 as you reported to the Commonwealth of Virginia, so we’ll wait while they are compiled. Just give us a time frame, so we can prepare for the work of making all these documents public on our Web site here.
So, that’s the “was I wrong?” part. I have to admit the jury’s still out. But of course until we see these documents, we have no way of knowing if the animals PETA reported that they had killed — animals “brought to, or picked up by” them, in the words of the attorney — at rates far, far in excess of a normal shelter, were killed because nearly all of these animals were unadoptable for reasons PETA has not volunteered, not because they were “in search of new homes.”
Now, was I fair?
I’m simply not going to know that until we all see the documents related to the “was I wrong?” part. Of course, I immediately tried to be as fair as I could be by putting the PETA attorney’s claim both on the top of the blog and in the middle of the post he objected to.
How much more fair I can be will have to wait until PETA reveals how it was determined that the animals surrendered to them were not “in search of new homes” — the phrase their attorney says is wrong — and how that determination of “unadoptability” was made. How fair PETA was in killing these animals, and how unadoptable they truly were, we cannot determine, although it’s interesting to know that the Commonwealth of Virginia:
[R]equires the recordkeeping and reporting of only those animals that are taken into custody by releasing agencies for the purpose of adoption.
Emphasis mine. That, by the way, is from a letter sent to PETA from the Commonwealth of Virginia, with a copy to the same attorney who sent a letter to me. You can read that letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia to PETA here. (And here’s an expansion -- thanks, Patrick — of what that letter means, with regard to the animals surrendered to PETA.)
I’m going to put all these requests in a letter and send it to Mr. Kerr — to be fair, of course. I’ll post that letter, and any response.
Update from Christie: Apparently Mr. Kerr’s been busy telling bloggers to stop picking on PETA. Nathan Winograd got a letter, too (PDF) . And the Center For Consumer Freedom seems to have got wind of this: It’s all over their sites. Here’s the link to their article.
Update from Gina: More food for thought (thanks, Nancy). Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
Bring it!
Comment by slt — March 28, 2008 @ 8:18 am
Gina, you rock!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 28, 2008 @ 8:25 am
The thing with withholding a firm statement until proof is provided, is that guilty parties can keep this from happening by simply not providing, or indeed not having, any such proof. How long is benefit of the doubt to be given?
It seems to me that there are specific people online claiming they gave pets to PETA to be adopted. Approaching them might eb a quicker way to close in on the truth of the matter. If you look at how many dogs or cats were adopted out, and you can find significantly more than that number of credible people who wanted their dog or cat rehomed… well….
Comment by emily — March 28, 2008 @ 9:14 am
However, in the event PeTA’s attorney wants to actually pursue legal action against Gina for the reasons laid out in his letter, it’s likely that the kinds of rebuttal proof Gina is asking for are exactly what would be required to pursue this in a court of law.
Is PeTA REALLY ready to drag this all out into the public record?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 28, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Comment by emily — March 28, 2008 @ 9:14 am
“How long is benefit of the doubt to be given?”
About as long as PETA gives the benefit of the doubt to its “shelter” animals on determining adoptability. I haven’t timed the ride in the PETA death van from the pickup site to the Piggly Wiggly dumpster but that’s about how long I think is fair for PETA.
Oops - time’s up.
Comment by slt — March 28, 2008 @ 9:20 am
That’s the way to do it - get them to prove you wrong. Hope their spin machine doesn’t pop a cog.
It occurs to me that the dogs could have been ‘unadoptable’ if they vaguely resembled those of the bull-and-terrier persuasion. In other words, short-haired, medium sized pups with non-snipey muzzles.
No adoptions for you!
Comment by Caveat — March 28, 2008 @ 9:52 am
PETA was able to stage a protest in front of a fur store in Portland week after week, month after month in the name of free speech. Some customers claimed harassment, but free speech won out in the courts. I don’t wear fur. I don’t like the way the animals are treated. I also did not like PETA’s tactics. I felt they were “strong-arm” and threatening. They really turned me off. However, I respect freedom of speech. It seems to me that the only thing that has been said on this website has related to the reports on PETA’s animal shelter in Virginia. Questioning a verifiable kill rate is not libel and not defamatory. Is PETA suing CNN? It seems to me that PETA needs to respect free speech here inasmuch as THEIR rights were respected in Portland, Oregon. I really want to see their side of the story. After all, I believe in free speech. If vets and shelters are required to keep records on every animal killed, I certainly hope PETA was maintaining those records at their shelter.
If you need to set up a defense fund, I’ll be happy to contribute.
Comment by C.L.H. — March 28, 2008 @ 10:12 am
of course this is b.s.
but you know: it begs the question: why is PETA in the business of collecting animals to be KILLED, almost exclusively?
Don’t they actually have a contract with the state to exterminate animals that are unwanted.. and don’t they get paid for this? Perhaps even on a “piece” basis?
Of course every shelter has to kill some animals. But if you’re only in the business of taking in animals that “must” be killed, well, I think there might be some names for such an operation. But “shelter” isn’t it.
Comment by EmilyS — March 28, 2008 @ 11:37 am
I just updated the post with a link to the letter PETA sent Nathan Winograd.
http://www.rescuenetwork.org/a.....Letter.pdf
Comment by Christie Keith — March 28, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Winograd got TWO pages. And he got “directed” to perform multiple tasks. I think the lawyer must have a soft spot for you Gina, hehehe. I can’t blame him. I think your work is swell.
Comment by slt — March 28, 2008 @ 11:55 am
I’m just curious if other bloggers got letters.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 28, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Whenever PETA has a moment - you know, when they’re not having their lawyer try to bully pet bloggers for saying they don’t like PETA killing 97% of their “shelter” surrenders, and when they’re not busy defending the “cleared of all charges” mobile death van kitten killers/dumpster divers, when they’re not too preoccupied with “educating” the public about how horrible pitbulls are and that they should all be put to death just for being born - if such a free moment ever does come up, I wonder if they might join us on planet Earth.
Comment by slt — March 28, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
Patrick’s (terrierman) gonna get a letter!
bwahahahahahahah
Comment by EmilyS — March 28, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
I haven’t had a letter yet and I was not nearly so ‘fair’ as you were.
I’m feeling kind of neglected, truth be told. I tried.
Comment by Caveat — March 28, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
Where’s my letter? I ran the 97% kill rate story on January 11th a whole 5 hours before Patrick. I feel left out. Sure, PeTA would have a hard time proving damages from my 30 readership, but I’d have a whole lot of fun making fun of their letter.
Comment by Christopher — March 28, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Maybe they should try to become people who treat animals ethically.
Comment by CynthiaW — March 28, 2008 @ 12:57 pm
Looks like someone over at PETA is worried..could it be their house of death is coming under even more scrutiny and that more and more people are becoming “educated”? As for “unadoptable” didn’t the witnesses at the trial all say the kittens and dogs that were given to PETA were all healthy and ready for new homes? Didn’t PETA workers (aka killers) tell them that they were so cute that they would have now trouble rehoming them? I guess their idea of a new home was a dumpster.
“Freinds don’t let friends donate to PETA or the H$U$”
Gina.. you should be proud that you got the letter.. you must be doing something RIGHT!! way to go
Comment by bestuvall — March 28, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Way to p—s me off, Gina! No, seriously I hope you keep up the good work, you and Christie. The world and especially the animals need more defenders like you. All that is written about PeTA really rankles my feathers.
Comment by VJ — March 28, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Since Nathan Winograd is also an attorney, this could get very interesting. I can’t wait to see his response.
Mr. Kerr its really very simple. Either PETA killed animals that were surrendured with the understanding that would be adopted out or there was no such understanding. Criminal liability has nothing to do with it. However, ethical behavior has everything to do with it. And despite your name, I believe that PETA’s actions are very unethical.
Ethics - now that raises an interesting point. I wonder if PETA could be violating fund raising laws - time to call my friend in the state attorney’s office.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 28, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Despite its attempts to be seen as being directly involved in animal welfare, Peta is purely a lobbyist organization. In its twisted way, it seeks to eliminate animal cruelty by eliminating domestic animals altogether. To this end, it is behind much of the draconian anti-pet legislation now being pushed nationwide. Imagine how much money Peta would lose if they actually had to care of all the puppies & kitties they take into their death warehouse? Certainly Peta finds it MUCH more economical to just give their shelter animals the needle (often before the animals even get to the shelter), and intead use that money to influence yet more lawmakers to introduce yet more anti-breeder, anti-pet legislation. The American public needs to wake up to the danger to pet ownership posed by Peta and the HSUS, to not be influenced by the opinions of tiny-minded celebrities whose cause-of-the-moment is eliminating pets. People who love pets, and who want to own them in the future, need to become a political force in their own right.
Comment by Miss_Marbles — March 28, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
Amazing how these ‘guardians of the animals’ kill MORE than they help, and then hide behind rows and rows of lawyers to do their dirty work for them! Not to mention their various and sundry terrorist acts against people and corporations that don’t ‘fit in’ with their ridiculous and hysterical views, which I personally think is a test run for HUMAN rights being extinguished. I have noticed a couple things… Like how is it the vast Majority of PETA-ers are white? There are few, if any, any other ethnic races involved? And PETA seems to like to single out some minorities?
I’m as white as a sheet of paper, and don’t have an ounce of anything in me. I am poor (and observant), tho. I say that once they get what they want, everyone who isn’t middle class and white is going to be screwed.
Comment by Brian — March 28, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
One only needs to see the film, “I Am An Animal” to understand why PETA has euthanized animals.
I would ask Ms. Spadafori why she is so outraged that PETA was responsible for the euthanization of 2,981 animals, while animal shelters in the U.S. euthanized 5+ million cats and dogs in the same period? Many of these animals were perfectly healthy; they were simply no longer wanted or convenient to keep.
Or, better yet, if Ms. Spadafori is so inclined against the euthanization of animals, why isn’t she working with legislators to implement a moritorium on the breeding of domesticated companion animals so that this large-scale annual euthanization is not perpetuated? Could it be because Ms. Spadafori has a vested interest in the continuance of those animals because she has a syndicated column about “pets”?
Comment by Bonnie West — March 28, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
I see someone is thinking along the same line I am. See the other PETA thread for a petition to the IRS to investigate PETA’s tax exempt status. Send it to everyone you know. I know I am - not only to my pet lover list, but to all my other lists.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 28, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
“Could it be because Ms. Spadafori has a vested interest in the continuance of those animals because she has a syndicated column about “pets”?”
Wow, Bonnie, you got me on that one! I am, in fact, not at all in favor of the complete elimination of dogs, cats and other pets. Not because I write about them, but because I love them, and believe they bring great joy to the lives of many of us, myself included.
But thank you for reminding us that many animal-rights activists are indeed in favor of the extinction of all companion animals.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 28, 2008 @ 6:29 pm
Dude. Other animal shelters actually adopt some (or most) of their charges to caring homes. And by “homes” I don’t mean the Piggly Wiggly dumpster.
Comment by slt — March 28, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
animal shelters in the U.S. euthanized 5+ million cats and dogs in the same period? Many of these animals were perfectly healthy; they were simply no longer wanted or convenient to keep.
Then they weren’t euthanized. They were killed.
if Ms. Spadafori is so inclined against the euthanization of animals
I don’t believe Ms. Spadafori is against euthanasia. I believe she’s against killing.
why isn’t she working with legislators to implement a moritorium on the breeding of domesticated companion animals
Because if it works, there will be an end to companion animals? But it won’t work, so there’s that, too. I guess Ms. Spadafori, like most people with a progressive approach to animal issues, believes in doing what works instead of something that has never once succeeded in ending the use of killing as a method of animal population control.
Could it be because Ms. Spadafori has a vested interest in the continuance of those animals because she has a syndicated column about “pets”?
Could it be because Ms. Spadafori loves animals and doesn’t want to see them dying?
Comment by Christie Keith — March 28, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
Could it be because Ms. Spadafori loves animals and doesn’t want to see them dying?
That’s an idea that’s just unimaginable for the animal loathers in PETA, Christie.
Comment by Lis — March 28, 2008 @ 7:24 pm
Bonnie’s thinking is typical of animal-rights “new-think”… to save animals, ELIMINATE THEM. Never mind that humans & dogs have had a mutually beneficial relationship extending back tens of thousands of years. Animal rights fanatics advocate only having “enjoying animals from afar”; in other words, a coyote scrounging trash out in the snow has the right to live, but not the well-loved, well-fed & warm companion dog. Coyotes and other wild canids live short, difficult, often brutal lives (the lifespan of a wolf in the wild is usually no more than 7 years). A 15-year lifespan is not uncommon for dogs, particularly small ones. Yet small dogs are high on Peta’s (and the HSUS’s) “hit-list” of breeds to eliminate. Why? Because they are too small to survive in the wild!! (duhhhhh). The point is: dogs, who came out of the wilderness thousands of years ago to be partners with people, have a RIGHT to exist, and people have a RIGHT to own them. I can’t imagine life without dogs, and I’m certainly not unique. If people want to own dogs, SOMEONE HAS TO BREED DOGS. Decent, ethical breeders of dogs (and other companion animals) should be applauded, not persecuted, for the service they do for the countless families whose lives are enriched by the relationships they have with their pets. Many, if not most, adults can remember how dearly they loved a particular animal in their childhood, and how the relationship with that animal helped teach them kindness, and nurtured the caring person they grew up to be. Are we to deny our chidren the same experience? Animal-rights fanatics are TRUE murderers of companion animals; they would legislate them out of existance. What a terrible loss to humanity, to not be allowed to share our lives with companion animals.
Comment by Miss_Marbles — March 28, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie. Think it through. No breeding, no animals. None, nada, zippo.
Is that what you want?
Comment by Social Mange — March 28, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Well it was only a matter of time before a Troll turned up. Hey Bonnie - go check out the petition to revoke PETA’s tex-exempt status. There are almost 75,000 signatures! You and your pals at PETA are doing a great job at pissing people off.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 28, 2008 @ 8:54 pm
That’s it, time to give them a pet with low-jack, preferably with an internal GPS unit to later track that animal.
Of course, this will require that an animal be sacrificed for the sake of all the other pets. Don’t feel bad. They died for a good cause.
What’s needed:
1) A pet from a shelter. Talk to the shelter and see if they’ll let you have a pet that’s past its due date for being adopted after the doors close on its last day. This way the impending death seems like less of a tragedy. Find one that’s still in good condition, who is healthy, cute, and most of all, ADOPTABLE. Never mind that you got this animal off of death row. PETA won’t know.
2) Low-Jack for animals. I have no idea where to get this, but feeding a working GPS tracker unit that will sit in the stomach until death is probably the best bet. See if any of your technical friends can invent something. If not, be sure to get a dog big enough to swallow one. Never mind that this thing was probably really expensive, as you’ll need a top end one to get it to exactly pinpoint the animal’s location, it’s totally worth it.
3) The ability to lie (sort of). Say you’ve had the animal for years (if it’s older) and that you’re being relocated to another city for your job, and could not find any affordable housing that would let you take it with you. Tell them how sweet the animal is, and how much you want it to go to a good home. SURREPTITIOUSLY VIDEO RECORD EVERYTHING!!! Also make a recording of the pet before you take it in, and find a way to prove the date of the recording. Be sure and point out how adoptable the animal is.
That’s it. Wait a few days. The GPS tracker will never leave the compound. Bring this to PETA’s attention and demand to see the dog that you brought to them, because you think it swallowed the unit on accident. Good luck with that. When necessary, assuming the signal is strong enough to lead to the compound, press charges to get your unit back. Bring up the fact that the animal was never adopted out as they had proposed. GO PUBLIC.
Have fun :)
Also, the best video I know of regarding some of the animals they’ve killed. Note the part about the shelter giving them dogs they thought would be ADOPTED!!!
http://www.youtube.com/v/itswGWddk2A
Sorry about the direct video link, but some spazzoid freak, no doubt a PETA member, reported the video as “inappropriate” so you have to log in to view the actual page. For those of you with a youtube account, here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/v/itswGWddk2A
Enjoy.
Comment by Penguin — March 28, 2008 @ 10:31 pm
Mr. Kerr, this time, has shot PETA in the foot.
I love that old saying, “Give them enough rope and they will eventually hang themselves.”
Comment by Nadine L. — March 28, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
I think the letter from PETA is akin to being banned in China. Congrats!
Comment by kb — March 28, 2008 @ 11:50 pm
Bonnie, Bonnie, Bonnie. Think it through. No breeding, no animals. None, nada, zippo.
Is that what you want?
Yes, it is what she wants! She even says so:
Could it be because Ms. Spadafori has a vested interest in the continuance of those animals because she has a syndicated column about “pets”?
See, if you really loved animals, you’d want to eliminate their existence, at least all the domestic animals. The coyote scrounging in the garbage is Good, the beloved companion at your side is bad.
Or at least that’s what they say right now, while domestic animals still exist. If they ever achieved their goal, likely they’d discover, suddenly, that the lives of coyotes are nasty, brutal, and short, and conclude that real love for animals means eliminating all the wild ones, too.
Comment by Lis — March 29, 2008 @ 2:09 am
Bonnie, last I heard, the Charlottesville-Albemarle SPCA, which, like PETA, is in Virginia, has a 92% live exit rate.
Not 92% of adoptable animals - 92% of all animals entering the shelter, including ferals, sick animals, pit bulls, etc.
CASPCA is an open-admission, animal control shelter.
CASPCA uses Nathan Winograd’s approach to save animal’s lives.
It did work. I know enough about the shelter to know it’s real, not PR.
My belief, strongly, is that wider implementation of the Winograd approach would save a whole lote more animals’s lives.
I think that probably has something to do with why Gina, and Christie, and myself, and a lot of other people here, think that Nathan’s approach is important and helpful.
Comment by Sally — March 29, 2008 @ 4:50 am
The phrase he takes issue with is that the animals were there “in search of new homes.”
Kerr: “The animals that you are referencing were not brought to PETA to find new homes.”
Mr. Kerr’s exception is directly contradicted in an interview given by Ms. Nachminovitch of Peta to the Associated Press Published on: 06/24/05 link: http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAbertiecountytalks.htm
“All animals PETA accepts are supposed to be examined by a veterinarian, but even some healthy animals may be euthanized if PETA cannot find them homes, Nachminovitch said.
“Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe,” Nachminovitch said.”
It is very fair to ask how many that the examining veterinarian deemed healthy were killed because Peta FAILED to find them homes.
Keep asking that question Gina, Nathan and others until we get an answer!
Comment by trucorgi — March 29, 2008 @ 4:53 am
Bonnie, one other comment. Gina has posted, repeatedly, about the potential for Nathan’s approach to eliminate euthanasia of adoptable and treatable animals.
She’s been an important voice getting the word out about an approach that focuses on saving animal’s lives.
I’ll comment, parenthetically, that the euthanasia statistics appear to be between 3 and 4 million, not 5 million, and are steadily dropping.
I dont’ think the average pet lover is remotely interested in a moratorium of breeding pets (I’m sorry, but I’m truly not able to stomach phrases like “domesticated companion animals”) given that most of us ACTUALLY LIKE HAVING PETS.
Someone does have to breed pets in order for the rest of us to have any.
We currently have many more new homes, each year, than the number of pets euthanized. Even a one year moratorium would result in a pet shortage.
The paradigm has shifted. The question should be, why aren’t we doing a good enough job of promoting adoption to get those pets into new homes? What barriers exist? How can we better matchmake between home and pet?
Eliminating euthansia of adoptable and treatable animals doesn’t require breeding moratoriums. It does require a paradigm shift - to a culture that celebrates life and the love of our pets.
Comment by Sally — March 29, 2008 @ 5:02 am
So if VA “[R]equires the recordkeeping and reporting of only those animals that are taken into custody by releasing agencies for the purpose of adoption”
that means
*that every animal in PETA’s 2006 report to the state, which shows a 97% kill rate, was taken by PETA for the purpose of adopting them to homes*.
OR to rephrase it for the benefit of any PETA lawyer or anyone else who may be confuzzled:
those animals were IN SEARCH OF NEW HOMES.
Now that particular issue has been resolved, my new question to PETA is: How many other animals did you kill in 2006 (and every other year, while you’re at it) that were NOT adoptable and thus were NOT reported to the state of VA? Let’s see those numbers. Surely, even though not required to be reported to the state, any responsible animal “shelter” would keep track of those cases via internal records. So let’s see those numbers. Your supporters and the general public has a right to know the true numbers of pets you kill.
Comment by slt — March 29, 2008 @ 5:32 am
I would love it if the owners of the 2 cats and 8 dogs PETA “adopted” out (per their 2006 report) would come forward and share their stories. I would truly be interested to hear about their experiences.
Can you imagine how many filing cabinets it takes to hold all the records of pets killed by PETA in 2006 alone? The thousands who were in search of new homes and reported to the state as killed AND the unknown number NOT taken in for the purpose of adoption and NOT reported to the state. I’m picturing that against this very thin file, wedged in the back, containing the records of the 2 cats and 8 dogs adopted out.
Comment by slt — March 29, 2008 @ 5:57 am
On Winograd’s website: http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/
“Please note: The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the writer and no one else, nor any agency or organization. The author is an attorney and notes that the communications are protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Any attempt to infringe on that right, whether actual or threatened, will be considered a strategic lawsuit against public participation”
He’s a lawyer (or was, at least), and not someone easily intimidated.
I’m looking forward to his response.
Comment by EmilyS — March 29, 2008 @ 7:32 am
I like this one about PeTA’s hypocrisy too:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com.....m/oped/478
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 29, 2008 @ 9:00 am
Well said, Gina.
Comment by Marcy — March 29, 2008 @ 9:02 am
I appreciate the insight, and am somewhat put off by the “us and them” mentalities that erupted in the companion animal/ animal rescue communities.
Although I do think PETA is an EXTREME organization, since they don’t offer animals for adoption and accept unadoptable and sick animals, reporting their high euthanasia rate is like reporting that “hospices” have a high mortality rate…it’s kind of a given.
Comment by Pamela — March 29, 2008 @ 9:48 am
Pamela, a hospice can document the health status of every one of their patients. They can prove that all of these people are in what is well understood to be an “end of life” condition - cancers far advanced, a history of failed treatments or treatments that have run their course, and so on.
What we’re asking for here is similar documentation from PeTA with respect to their claim that the animals they have taken in are “unadoptable” or so sick that continued life is no longer an option. Who makes those determinations, and what criteria are the determinations based upon? This should all be documented, and that documentation should be made available to support the high PERCENTAGE of animals PeTA kills.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 29, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Comment by Pamela — March 29, 2008 @ 9:48 am
“…since they don’t offer animals for adoption and accept unadoptable and sick animals, reporting their high euthanasia rate is like reporting that “hospices” have a high mortality rate…it’s kind of a given.”
The state of VA requires PETA to report only the animals they take in for the purposes of adopting. According to PETA’s report to the state for 2006, they killed 97% of those animals in search of new homes.
As for the unadoptable and sick animals you mention, they are not required to report those numbers to the state so we don’t know how many of those they killed.
Comment by slt — March 29, 2008 @ 10:17 am
Speaking of those 2006 kill numbers from PeTA, no mention of the fact that they were almost a year late in sending them in to VDACS. Now why is that? Perhaps (and this is just speculation) they didn’t want such horrid numbers coming to light so close after the trial in NC?
I have looked at all their VDACS reports over the last few years. They usually have a very, very small number of animals on hand at the beginning and end of each year. Hmm.
I believe the average percentage of animals euthanized in VA is around 45%. Seems a slight bit less than PeTA’s numbers, eh? Said percentages have been on the rise almost year after year. Perhaps they are perfecting their process to reach that goal of 100%?
PeTA is also against animal use for testing drugs and says that we should never use them. That of course does not include upper echelon members from PeTA like Vice President Mary Beth Sweetland who is a diabetic and uses insulin.
I could go on and on, but I don’t want to take up too much space here. Peace!
Comment by medium rare — March 29, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Terrierman’s recent post brings up another excellent point:
http://terriermandotcom.blogsp.....imals.html
With a kill rate of 97%, it is somewhat questionable if PETA meets the definition of shelter/humane society under VA law - go read his post, he cites the pertinent statutes. It may be time for a grass-roots PR campaign to have VA revoke their certification.
VDACS has a number to call to request an inspection for legal compliance. You can find that contact information here:
http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/.....fare.shtml
Comment by John — March 29, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
“kills almost all the pets surrendered to it, almost 3,000 killed in 2006 alone”
Killing 2981 of the 9637 animals received is 31%, less than a third. That is NOT “almost all”. Is there some other statistic you’re using to call it “almost all”?
Comment by zandperl — March 29, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
From their reporting:
On hand at start of year: 2
Picked up as strays: 28
Surrendered by Owners: 3043
Received from other sources not named: 6564
Reclaimed by Owners: 6575
Transferred to another VA releasing facility: 46
Died in facility: 3
Euthanized: 20981
The 9637 number is the total number of animals that came in to the PETA “shelter” by any means, not the number surrendered to it for adoption. Over two thirds were reclaimed by their owners.
Owner surrenders and the animals transferred to them by veterinarians and shelters in the belief that PETA would find them new homes, those are the animals that PETA killed 97% of.
Comment by Lis — March 29, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
http://tinyurl.com/2tlk6l
The columns that we are concerned with are the surrendered by owner vs. euthanized columns - the “other” intake is animals temporarily in their custody for spay/neuter and their return is reflected in the “reclaimed by owner” category. According to their own numbers, they took in 3043 animals and killed 2981.
Comment by John — March 29, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Euthanized: 20981
Um. Obviously that should be 2981.
Bad Lis. No cookie.
Comment by Lis — March 29, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
PETA reported 9637 animals minus 6575 reclaimed by the owners, which equals 3072, 2981 of which were killed. That’s 97 percent.
For a quick comparison, look at the Norfolk City animal control facility. Now, municipal animal control agencies are not really in the business of pushing adoption as a non-profit animal shelter would usually be. And their kill rate was 65 percent after removing owner re-claims from the mix.
Now, look at a non-profit shelter, Norfolk SPCA, which had a 2.7 percent kill rate (no owner re-claims).
Maybe Norfolk SPCA’s kill rate is low because PETA is talking the unadoptables out of the mix, as they say. OK, so let’s look at Portsmouth Humane, which also has an animal control contract with the city of Portsmouth (right across the Elizabeth River from Norfolk AC, Norfolk SPCA and PETA).
Portmouth Humane took in 2831 animals, with 338 reclaimed by the owner, leaving 2493, of which 1160 were killed — 46 percent.
Go ahead and look at any shelter in Virginia to see how unusual PETA’s kill rate is, especially for a non-profit without an animal control contract.
The questions remains: WHY?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 29, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
If in fact PETA actually DOES have a contract to take in/accept “unadoptable” animals from shelters for killing, then that makes the 97% understandable, b-u-t———if you were paid to kill “unadoptable” animals, WHO determined they were unadoptable? And why did PETA not kill 100% of such animals? Their history clearly shows for the past 5 years, they have killed a higher percentage of animals each year. That is public record. And in the last fracas, yes they did say to rescuers they would find puppies/kittens homes but instead they killed them/dumped them but (at trial) were found guilty only of “littering.” If GS is required to defend legally, I have someone who will do it. For the “unadoptables.” *Note: if GS is considered a public figure then her statement must have been made with malice. I don’t see it. And I don’t see any damage to PETA since they couldn’t likely prove how it damaged them. I read the fur case. PETA won the fur case because the Plaintiff did not show how the individual named actually created the damages they claimed. It was an anti-SLAPP case but the plaintiff’s attorneys should have realized they needed more data.
Comment by Kacey Lee — March 29, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Well, I was there when the puppies, dogs, cats, and kittens were killed and dumped in the trash bin in Ahoskie N.C. by PETA. These were some of the sweetest pets I have seen. Unadoptable? I don’t think so. Tiny kittens, little puppies? Come on.
And I have seen the place PETA has it’s headquaters.A beautiful full glassed in building in Va. Beach, norfolk, right on the ocean.
I also know how PETA gets it’s people to say they want to come and buy a pet , and the next thing you know, the animal control officer is at your door.
And You should come and see where the Animal control keeps it’s animals. and the Va. Beach, and Norfolk SPCA. They are Not nice people to work with.
ETC, ETC,
I have lots of proof.
and i just heard they have another court case coming up. they tried to pick up a dog and the owner caught them. he was the Sheriff. Or some other official, i’ll have to look it up. but He is taking them to court.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — March 29, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Comment by zandperl — March 29, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
Let’s look at it another way: According to PETA’s 2006 report, they adopted out 2 cats and 8 dogs (plus 2 “other”). That math is a little easier to do without a calculator. It works out to “almost all”.
I’m imagining the PETA “shelter” as a vari-kennel, set in the corner of a state of the art slaughterhouse.
Comment by slt — March 29, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
from PETA’s website
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=40
On this page, titled “Animal Shelters: Hope for the Homeless” (maybe PETA thinks HOPE=DEATH), they describe the “ideal animal shelter” as including the following:
“Animals are provided with veterinary care, and there are sick wards and rooms for isolating newcomers.”
Let’s see those vet records PETA.
Comment by slt — March 29, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
Comment by slt — March 29, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
They may have adopted out 12 animals in 2006, but that does NOT mean all the other animals were euthanized - 6575 were apparently returned to their original homes and only 2981 were euthanized. I’m not saying that euthanizing 30% of the animals they take in is good, but saying 90% or “almost all” were euthanized appears to just be factually incorrect.
Comment by zandperl — March 30, 2008 @ 5:45 am
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 29, 2008 @ 6:38 pm
Ah, okay that makes more sense. The statistic isn’t how many of the animals that came in the doors were euthanized, it’s how many of the animals that didn’t return home were euthanized. Thanks for the clarification.
Comment by zandperl — March 30, 2008 @ 5:48 am
Comment by zandperl — March 30, 2008 @ 5:45 am
They tried to pad their numbers with animals they “took in” under their spay/neuter program. To say those animals were “reclaimed by owner” is misleading at best. The state of VA sent them a letter to clarify they are not to add in the numbers of animals in the spay/neuter program.
Of the animals they took in who were in search of new homes, PETA killed over 97% of them. Somehow, and I would truly like to know how, 2 cats and 8 dogs managed to make it out alive. I assume all will become clear once PETA makes public their vet records which I hope they do without delay.
Comment by slt — March 30, 2008 @ 7:46 am
Basically, the way I interpret it is that if the animal had a home ready and waiting, the animal lived. But if the animal was homeless - Translation: If it was actually going to take *effort* and - gasp! - MONEY! - to find the animal a home - then out came the needle and the carcass got shoved into the $9,370 walk-in freezer that they wrote off on their 2002 tax return:
http://www.petakillsanimals.co.....nimals.cfm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 30, 2008 @ 7:50 am
I’ve seen articles where it has been mentioned that PeTA staffers sometimes adopt the animals they take in. So I could readily see that accounting for the 2 cats and the 8 dogs . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 30, 2008 @ 7:52 am
I LIKE YOU Gina Spadafori , you have bigger balls then levine or cry baby wayne , keep up the good work .Peta kills and we all know it
Comment by katlady — March 30, 2008 @ 7:55 am
Read down through to the end of this one. Some interesting testimony on “Is PeTA a shelter or isn’t it?”:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day7.cfm
Becomes relevant with respect to what kinds of legal requirements they have to meet when they begin taking in animals for whatever reason . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 30, 2008 @ 8:01 am
Good find Pat! From that link:
“We do not have a public facility that’s open to the public where people can stroll through and pick an animal. That’s not a service that we are able to provide.”
Yeah I guess not. Since the public probably wouldn’t be too keen on strolling through TONS of frozen carcasses to ‘pick an animal’. Which is apparently all PETA has. Tons of dead pets who never had a chance once PETA got their hands on them.
Comment by slt — March 30, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 30, 2008 @ 7:52 am
So does everyone who turns over a pet to PETA realize (and sign a paper indicating same) that unless your pet happens to fall into the less-than-3% category, your pet is going to be killed, possibly within minutes of surrender (as in the NC death van case)?
Let’s see those records PETA.
Comment by slt — March 30, 2008 @ 8:49 am
The vet in NC said he turned over a mama cat and her two kittens - healthy and adoptable - and that PETA staff promised to try to find them homes. I guess after driving off, PETA realized “Doh! - We don’t have a shelter where people can adopt pets therefore how are we going to find these animals homes?’ Instead of turning the van around and going back to return the cats to the vet, they decided to immediately give them that ultimate PETA ‘gift’: death.
Did that Vet know PETA has no shelter and no real means of finding homes for pets and that they would be killed immediately? Because he said publicly he didn’t.
Let’s see those records PETA.
Comment by slt — March 30, 2008 @ 8:56 am
And isn’t it cute how the phrasing makes adopting an animal sound like inherently selfish, self-indulgent behavior.
Comment by Lis — March 30, 2008 @ 8:57 am
This is ridiculous…on both sides. It’s getting to be a pi$$ing match, and the only ones that will suffer are the animals that both sides “claim” to be trying to help…
I really hate the “my rescue is better than yours” mentality that is SO PREVALENT in animal rescue.
It’s really childish…
Comment by Pamela — March 30, 2008 @ 9:09 am
Pamela, there IS no pissing match here. PETA isn’t a rescue … unless you believe “rescue” means 97 percent of what you “shelter” gets killed.
THAT is the very point PETA’s lawyer is challenging. I said the animals came to PETA “in search of new homes.” He says the animals who were surrendered or picked up by PETA were killed — 97 percent of them — because they were unadoptable.
I don’t run a rescue. (Although I have!) I write a syndicated pet-care column, a Web log and pet-care books. I also review DogCars.
PETA is an animal-rights group. They aren’t taking in pets “in search of new homes,” according to their attorney. They take animals who are “unadoptable” (exactly how that’s determined we still don’t know) and kill 97 out of every 100 of them, almost 3,000 dead pets in 2006 alone, all killed because they were “unadoptable” according to PETA.
These kill rates aren’t a matter of opinion, and this is not a “pissing match between rescues.” These kill rates are fact, as PETA reported them to the Commonwealth of Virginia for the year 2006.
If animals are suffering, they should be humanely euthanized. No one disputes that. But the questions remain: Who determined if these animals were too sick to be made adoptable? Who determined if these animals were too mentally unsound to be made adoptable? Were the people who surrendered these animals aware that PETA would most likely consider them unadoptable?
May we see all the paperwork supporting the PETA’s attorney’s statement that these animals were killed because they were unadoptable? Medical records by veterinarians? Behavioral records by certified behaviorists and trainers? May we have the names of the people who turned these animals in so we can determine what they understood about what PETA would likely do with these pets?
That’s the heart of the matter. The kill rate itself — not normal by shelter standards across the rest of the state — isn’t debatable. It’s public record.
The story behind the 97 percent kill rate? We’d all like to know it, and we hope PETA will show us their documentation. If they can back up their attorney’s statements … it’s over. If they can’t … it has just begun.
Look, I don’t have a beef with PETA per se. This is America, and they are entitled to their views regarding how we as a society interact with animals, and they are entitled as well, to any legal way to change that. People who believe likewise are welcome to those views, and also entitled to any legal way to change our perceptions, procedures and laws.
I don’t happen to agree with their overarching point of view — I believe in animal welfare, and I’ll borrow from behaviorist and trainer Diana L. Guerrero to define that as “[…T]hose actions that make sure animals get fair, humane treatment, mental stimulation, enrichment, and the best care possible.”
But whether I agree with PETA’s animal-rights philosophy is not the point here. The point is that PETA threatened me for pointing out a public document they don’t want people to know about, and they want every mention of those unusually high kill rates of theirs to be accompanied by language that reflects their claim that the animals weren’t “in search of new homes” (as I wrote) but rather were “unadoptable” (as their attorney claims).
I’m happy to put that out there for them, because that’s what would be fair and right. And as soon as they provide me with the documents to back up their claims and those are posted here for all to see, well, good for them. I will respect them for their openness and their honesty.
I still won’t agree with their philosophy, and I still will adhere to my own. But this is America, and that’s acceptable on both sides.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2008 @ 9:45 am
I think the problem and the hair-splitting by those in denial is that you have to understand a simple fact.
The animals under discussion were animals owned by Peta. Signed over, etc but owned (wonder how they justify that).
So, say it’s a boarding kennel. Maybe 100 dogs a week are handled but only one or two are abandoned there/signed over with the hope of rehoming.
Only those few animals would show up in a similar reporting system.
So, yes, 97% of the animals they took custody/ownership of were killed.
I’m actually curious about the ‘other’ categories, ie, where did those animals come from and why?
Comment by Caveat — March 30, 2008 @ 10:39 am
Comment by slt — March 30, 2008 @ 8:56 am
Possibly answering my own question:
“Nachminovitch: “It is our policy to have a consent form signed. But our legal counsel has researched this issue, and the State of North Carolina does not require give-up forms to be signed.”
Asbell: “Are you stating that you, as the PETA organization, do not have to follow the rules of Virginia just because you come down to North Carolina and take animals?”
Nachminovitch: “I’m saying that on the advice of counsel, we have give-up forms signed as a matter of policy. But in the State of North Carolina, animals taken into our custody are not subject to a mandatory surrender form.”
Asbell: “Where’s the form that Pat Proctor, or anybody from the Animal Hospital signed on June 15, 2005.”
Nachminovitch: “There was not a consent form.”
Asbell: “Any reason for that?”
Nachminovitch: “I don’t know the reason for that.”
from http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day8.cfm
So PETA, let’s see those records, if you have any. If not, I guess Gina’s post stands as accurate.
Comment by slt — March 30, 2008 @ 11:51 am
If I post those same words, will the P attorney sue me????? I hope so. I just can’t wait. My labor is free. I suggest everyone post the exact same words as GS did (for example you say that GS said X and P said Y) then let’s see P spend some of their $$$$ winning. They will not win. I don’t gamble. I also suggest posting to craigslist bec it will be flagged off, again, proof of the truth of the matter. CL is run by AR people.
Comment by Kacey Lee — March 30, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
Not only have I posted about it, as I did when the numbers came out, I’ve added a permanent banner to the “PETA Kills Animals” site on my sidebar. It’s time to show those that have been duped the light of truth.
Comment by John — March 30, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
There is really nothing productive going on here, that’s the problem I have. Instead of going back and forth, and yes Gina, it is a pi$$ing match, when there is he said/she said and you both play your court case out on your respective outlets…
Instead of everyone taking sides and complaining, why not initiate an investigation, yes it’s possible…complain to someone who can actually do something, like maybe the USDA, um, Animal Control in VA- etc…instead of posting on here, geez. (And before I get the “why are you complaining?” posts- I’m not the one who has a problem with PETA’s alleged “kill” rate, nor am I the one being sued.
Comment by Pamela — March 30, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
>There is really nothing productive going on here.
Well, that would be your opinion, and you’re entitled to it. We disagree.
The point here — and I’m sorry you’re not getting it — is that a lot of people are not aware of what the standard range of kill rates is for shelters, and they might want to know what a given charity is doing with regards to the animals it takes in — and why this is being done — before making any donation to a non-profit.
If you’re good with a given group’s standards and practices, that’s fine. But the point here is that a lot of people do not know what they are supporting with their donations, no matter the group.
In my line of work, letting people know what they may not be aware of so they can make intelligent decisions in line with their own values is what it’s all about.
In other words, I’m obviously not writing for YOU, since you don’t have a problem. But others might have a problem. Or, you might need information on an entirely different issue. And I hope I can help you with that. Again, that’s my job.
And by the way, I’m not being sued. Well, not now anyway.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2008 @ 4:58 pm
You’re right, I don’t have a problem because I wouldn’t donate to anyone without knowing the track record of the organization. I also wouldn’t take ANY animal to ANY rescue because of cases such as this. My point is, don’t keep going over the same “I said this, and he responded with this”- let people know what they can DO to change things or give them places where they will have a positive experience. If you feel that pointing out the negatives without giving any positives is your job…I don’t think your job is very useful.
Point people in the right direction instead of repeatedly going over one group’s faults; that would be more useful (to me and others.)
Comment by Pamela — March 30, 2008 @ 6:05 pm
“We are not in the home finding business, although it is certainly true that we do find homes from time to time for the kind of animals people are looking for. Our service is to provide a peaceful and painless death to animals who no one wants.” —Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, The Virginian-Pilot, July 20, 2005
“(W)e do not advocate ‘right to life’ for animals.” —Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, in a postcard to Nathan Winograd
Comment by Christie Keith — March 30, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
If you feel that pointing out the negatives without giving any positives is your job…I don’t think your job is very useful.
You don’t think journalism is useful?
So you think Woodward and Bernstein shouldn’t have kept hammering at the Nixon White House unless they were ready to run for office themselves?
Comment by Christie Keith — March 30, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
Pamela, how long have you been reading this blog?
There are LOTS of examples of useful, helpful information here if you spend a little time reading back over past entries. The discussions about Nathan Winograd’s No-Kill vision and how it can be implemented to save animals’ lives is but one example.
I get the sense that you’ve only read a couple of entries. But there is more here - much, much more. Just ask all the people who considered this place to be practically a lifeline during the horror of the 2007 rolling recalls.
Spend some time reading a selection of the PetConnection entries over the past few months. If you do so, I don’t believe you will still be able to (truthfully) say that this place hasn’t got anything “positive” to offer.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — March 30, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Pat says, “… But there is more here - much, much more.”
I just looked up how much more. How about 2,200 posts and 45,000 comments in less than two years?
Amazing, huh?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Pet Connection is the “Cat’s Meoow!”
Comment by Marcy — March 30, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
In regards to the past few posts, which were useful? I absolutely think journalism is useful (I have an BA and MA in Journalism)- but I question the objectivity in this case. Let’s be realistic, there are bones to pick…
And whether or not the author is objective, why couldn’t she offer an alternative?
Comment by Pamela — March 30, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Pat says, “… But there is more here - much, much more.”
I just looked up how much more. How about 2,200 posts and 45,000 comments in less than two years?
Amazing, huh?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
??? Please explain…
Comment by Pamela — March 30, 2008 @ 9:44 pm
Whether pamela would take her animal to a rescue or not, who cares? Those that know animal extremists realize many do not know anything about such groups. Most people who donate to groups like Peta don’t check anything. If they ultimately did, they would be in shock. Nonetheless, talking about whether someone has a legal leg to stand on in this case is certainly questionable and therefore worth discussing, even if all are not attorneys. I doubt very much if Pamela knows the difference between AR and AW. If she did, she wouldn’t be lamenting about a pissing match. Even if it was one, who is worried about it? Not me. In fact I am tempted to sue Peta simply based on its allegation that it is a shelter when it does not meet the definiton of shelter in that state. However, that would not stop them from the killing. I don’t think anything will stop them—they may just get better at hiding it.
Comment by Kacey Lee — March 30, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
And whether or not the author is objective, why couldn’t she offer an alternative?
Have you ever read this blog? The body of suggestions on what to do about the issue of shelters killing animals is there. Go look at it, then get back to us.
As to being “objective”? I’m not interested in balance, I’m interested in truth. Facts about what is being done by an organization that claims to be helping animals are part of that truth.
Seriously, you didn’t answer my question: Should Woodward and Bernstein have not kept investigating Watergate unless they were also prepared to offer a plan to undo the damage done by the coverup?
Not point out that there are holes in our national security a mile high and wide until we had a comprehensive program to suggest to fix them?
Please.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 30, 2008 @ 11:25 pm
Various comments by Pamela:
You’re right, I don’t have a problem because I wouldn’t donate to anyone without knowing the track record of the organization. I also wouldn’t take ANY animal to ANY rescue because of cases such as this.
Great! How do you find out about the track record of an organization, if you’re the average person without extensive research skills?
Point people in the right direction instead of repeatedly going over one group’s faults; that would be more useful (to me and others.)
Gina and Christie have rather extensively discussed ways to improve shelters and their live placement rates, in the course of many of those other posts that you haven’t read yet. They’ve talked about shelters and rescues that do do things differently, that do have high adoption rates, and euthanize only to end suffering, not to make space.
Of course, in many cases the “bad” that the good ones were being compared to, still had a lower kill rate than 97%, which is breathtaking almost beyond words. Almost.
In regards to the past few posts, which were useful?
You don’t feel it’s useful to let people know hat PETA’s real track record is, so that they can have a chance of making an informed choice?
You don’t think it’s useful to let people know that PETA is trying to bully and threaten its critics into silence?
Pat says, “… But there is more here - much, much more.”
I just looked up how much more. How about 2,200 posts and 45,000 comments in less than two years?
Amazing, huh?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 30, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
??? Please explain…
Comment by Pamela — March 30, 2008 @
Pat had commented on just how much more there is here than the two or three posts that are, pretty clearly, all that you’ve read. Gina read that, decided to look at the site stats, and was somewhat amazed herself to see just how much more—2,200 posts and 45,000 comments.
And you’re blathering about Gina and Christie not being “useful” because you don’t think that people need know either that PETA kills 97% of the animals it promises to “save,” or that they attempt to bully and threaten their critics into silence, without any awareness of the extensive and varied nature of their posts over the last two years, or any of the other information on this website.
Comment by Lis — March 31, 2008 @ 3:38 am
“not useful”???
I have 3 words for Pamela: “pet food recall”
Comment by EmilyS — March 31, 2008 @ 6:50 am
Methinks Pamela is living under a bridge - you know, a Troll. But regardless, a blog is for folks to discuss things that interest them, if you aren’t interesting in this discussion, please, by all means, go away and find one you are interesting in.
As Gina stated, I agree that PETA has the righ tto expouse any philosophy about animals they choose (Better dead than bred). And they have the right to work toward those goals. What they do not have the right to do is to solicit funds as a non-for-profit under false pretenses. And that’s not splitting hairs, that’s criminal conduct.
Comment by 2CatMom — March 31, 2008 @ 7:02 am
It’s nice to see the “mean girls” from high school have grown up and joined the blogging age… good grief, people.
No need to get so defensive when someone questions you…
EmilyS -the pet food recalls were covered on many news outlets, and most were objective. I don’t understand what your trying to say with that…?
To 2Catmom- so sue PETA! Don’t just complain about it on a blog!
Lis- just keep following the herd…
Christie- you are no Woodward and Bernstein- as for objectivity, apparently you didn’t take Journalism 101…facts ARE OBJECTIVE!!
Kacey- I do know the difference between AR & AW, but like you said…who cares? Obviously not you…and that’s why nothing will “stop them.”
Comment by Pamela — March 31, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Please stop feeding the troll. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 31, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
You know what? I have two dogs (one with wheels due to a back injury) I do home visits for friends looking to re-home animals, and occasionally for a rescue when they can’t provide someone. I’m doing what I can to help, as for PETA, I don’t agree with many of their campaigns, but I also see some of the good that comes from organizations such as PETA (like awareness.)
Instead of everyone going back and forth, go freakin’ do something. Complain to someone who can actually do something, which is what I’ve been saying all along here. What are you accomplishing by b!tching at me on a freakin’ comment board?
Comment by Pamela — March 31, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Please don’t feed the troll. Thanks.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 31, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Trolls should definitely be ignored, unless they are the pet kind - which are unfortunately few and far between.
Comment by Caveat — March 31, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Pamela, your last name can only be be ANDERSON. Apologies, Gina.. I couldn’t resist throwing one more dead fish to the troll. I’m done feeding it now. :)
Comment by Miss_Marbles — April 1, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Rock on! Its about time some thing is said. This needs to be more in the news, tell people what they’re really giving for.
Another thing I see a great deal is how pro or ok PETA places will not accept help from any one that is “ok”, is not strictly “anti breeder”, or is a breeder/show goer (reguardless of excellant vet or personal references!). Try checking with your shelters, ask about volunteering and note that you have experience with x and x for x years as you’ve shown/bred these and could help with the breed or general care of that animal; be VERY careful though, make sure you do not give your location, your real name, normal email (use a free account or some thing that can be deleted), or other personal information as some of these places will seek go as far as to seek you out to do you and your pets horrible harm (IF you get any that are willing, simply explain, I had no problems with this approach other then some very nasty threat emails). I bet that the majority will send back NASTY mails, I’ve been called every thing but human, or send an email saying if any thing comes up they’ll let you know WHILE still driving for help from other people! If they’re truly in it for the animals to help them get new better homes, should they not be willing to accept help with proper references and information at least and not assume that every one is trash that shows or breeds? Out of my 4 wide state shelter/rescue volunteer question I found ONE shelter that would take my help, ONE SHELTER and then 7 monthes later they were closed down due to “internal problems”.
Comment by J — April 3, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
Another scary story: A number of years ago I knew someone who lived in an area in California that had instituted a “limit law” of two with NO grandfather clause. This gal had several dogs, and had three of them with her in the car one day while going through a drive-thru for fast food.
The person in the drive-thru window started by engaging her in some “Aren’t your dogs cute?” kind of patter, and then abruptly changed her tune and started berating her for “enslaving” animals in her home.
And wonder of wonders - a few days later this woman got a knock on her door to be inspected by Animal Control - “someone” had apparently written down the license number on her car and reported her to the authorities.
She didn’t let AC in - called an atorney on the spot - and ultimately ended up moving out of a home and an area she had loved for over 20 years in order not to lose her (quiet and well-behaved) dogs.
This stuff can REALLY get draconian, and if the laws are passed, you never know WHO will report you to “Big Brother”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 3, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Unless it was a drive-thru for a vegan restaurant, I have to laugh thinking of the employee berating the customer for keeping pets!
pets=slavery
factory farmed beef=paycheck!
Comment by slt — April 3, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
Good catch! I never thought of that!
This story happened a while back - before the wiedespread awareness of factory farming, etc. In retrospect, the point you bring up really is pretty absurd!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 3, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
I’m wondering, any further sabre-rattling by the pet killers?
Comment by Social Mange — April 9, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
I will definitely not be supporting PETA or the Humane Society. I am currently in Germany where there is a strict no-kill policy. Many strays are fixed and then adopted to likely candidates.
I own a Labrador and can only pray that our next base, where ever that may be, will not have this policy for him.
Comment by Dina — July 11, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Unfortunately, the U.S. seems stuck in the dark ages when it comes to animal control.
Comment by Pai — July 11, 2009 @ 9:51 pm
Only took about 1-1/4 years, but you hit 100! VBG!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 11, 2009 @ 10:16 pm