Inside PETA’s freezer: Oops! They did it again!
By Gina Spadafori
March 13, 2010
This week, the Center for Consumer Freedom, a group of problematic parentage, to say the least, nonetheless again did some of the media’s heavy lifting for them, getting and releasing one of the Commonwealth of Virginia’s required reports from all “shelters,” in particular the one in Norfolk, Va., that is run by an organization that the lazier members of the media tap for “the animals’ side” of many animal-related issues.
Yes, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA.
Here is that report, including a link to the source document, on CCF’s PETAKillsAnimals.com Web site. Go read it, and come back.
In the meantime, I’ll note that this incredibly successful site (from the opposition’s point of view) recently gained a sibling, HumaneWatch.com, which is now doing to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) what PETAkillsanimals.com did to PETA: Look for things donors don’t know about and might not agree with and publicize those matters, in hopes of gutting support for the organization.
If you think the HSUS finds this development alarming, you’d be right.
OK, welcome back. Let’s recap: So how many animals who came in the doors of PETA in 2009 left in anything other than a body bag?
39, of which 8 were adopted out, the remainder transferred.
8 adoptions out of …. 2,366 animals taken in. Yes, a 97.3 percent kill rate, their “best” since 2006. Since mid-1998, the group has killed 23,640 pets.
PETA tells its donors that the animals they killed were unadoptable … suffering, in many cases. When someone challenges that, they don’t provide veterinary records or behaviorist reports — they send out their lawyer to rattle a saber.
They did that to me a couple years ago. And after that letter I posted this:
[W]ere 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?
In response … nothing.
Another year, another couple thousand dead animals who according to PETA’s legal eagles were absolutely not hoping for new homes when they lined themselves up for the needle in Norfolk. No matter what PETA itself reported to the Commonwealth of Virginia, in reference to animals taken in “for the purpose of adoption.” (For a thought of why, exactly, PETA kills, check out what no-kill flame-thrower Nathan Winograd has to say, here.)
Another year, and again, I have to ask:
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
ugh….
when I read this blog I felt sick.
—-
PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.
PETA rakes in nearly $30 million each year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.
PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts “for the animals.” But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn’t ethical. It’s hypocritical — with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren’t their own doing.
PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us?
——
sick sick sick
I am disgusted.
Ericka
Comment by ericka — March 13, 2010 @ 7:54 am
People don’t want to believe otherwise and they don’t actually do any research before they send money.
Emotional manipulation works and so do those big envelopes that come in the mail soliciting donations.
I always ask people why they support both groups and they argue with me when I attempt to explain.
More and more it seems like people grab onto a cause without looking at it closely.
It makes me want to scream…because they also defend those decisions and remain in denial.
Comment by Ark Lady — March 13, 2010 @ 8:22 am
Is the only way to shut down a group like PETA, is for people to stop donating? Are their other ways? Its very frustrating to say the least.
Comment by Sandi K — March 13, 2010 @ 8:24 am
We’ve had this conversation before (just recently in fact :-) and I’m glad to at least see that you are scratching the surface of who is behind CCF (though dig only the slightest bit deeper and you have a whole host of connections to one of the largest lobbies in the nation: those with a vested interest in keeping Agribusiness unfettered by legislation of any kind.
http://www.consumerdeception.com/index.asp has a brief (though certainly biased) history of Berman’s activities behind the scenes of CCF.
http://bermanexposed.org/ has more, as does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Berman
I HATE PETA’s stance on pets, and I have always challenged them to get out of the “business” of pretending to take on any kind of shelter animal. I get you on that. I really do.
But to ask why anyone still listens to them on the host of other topics that they not only do great work on, but are the ONLY ones (along with the HSUS, as you accurately pointed out are also on CCF’s hit list….for the exact same reasons PETA is, none of which has bupkis to do with pets, or even animal safety) makes no sense to me. All it does is undermine the things they actually do well.
They are one the only ones fighting for more humane treatment of food animals. And by “one of the only ones” I mean out of two groups. Just two. Both of which are being targeted by CCF…successfully it seems, as evidenced by this and many other editorials to be found that use the crappy aspect of what they do to dismiss the vast numbers - in the billions - of animals that they do have a positive impact on.
I get that their track record on companion animals sucks. I totally do! And yet this mentality still seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.
Protest PETA’s treatment of pet animals (I certainly have). But to encourage people to dismiss them entirely, imo, completely plays into the hands of Berman, one of the most cynical and unethical lobbyists in Washington DC today. And I’m sorry, I just can’t get behind that any more than I can get behind PETA’s approach to pets.
Comment by Tara — March 13, 2010 @ 8:38 am
PETA’s shelter policies represent a textbook case of cognitive dissonance.
No wonder they feel such an intense, irrational drive to rationalize what they do…
Comment by Janeen — March 13, 2010 @ 8:49 am
What they’re doing in their facility is not illegal. And it’s even in the range of normal for many “shelters,” especially in rural areas of the South.
Vote with your donations.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2010 @ 8:50 am
It would be great if some high profile media outlet published articles of this nature.
I always feel, in blogland, we are preaching to the choir.
Still, it’s important to do AT LEAST that, to pass the word and truth along. I will be referencing this post in my next blog post.
Thanks, for all your insights and all you do.
Comment by cyndi — March 13, 2010 @ 10:14 am
@Tara, the problem is, for me, that particular ethical sword cuts sharply both ways: just as with CCF, PeTA’s record *does* call into question everything else they’ve done - and just like CCF, there’s plenty to criticize.
Comment by Eucritta — March 13, 2010 @ 10:28 am
@Eucritta,
There’s a profound difference between the two: PETA states its agenda and intentions while CCF does everything possible to hide their agenda and intentions.
No. They are not at all the same. PETA’s record on companion animals calls everything they’ve done *on the topic of companion animals* into question (and I have no argument with that). The fact that they are one of the ONLY groups to work towards more humane conditions for food animals, a decrease in fur use, and lab animals is by far the vast majority of what they do. You’re comparing a small percentage of what they do (badly) and saying that it calls everything else they do into question the exact same way that a fake organization set up by a lobbying group does in regards to every single thing they do? I’m sorry, but that’s a rather large stretch.
Comment by Tara — March 13, 2010 @ 10:51 am
Tara, it’s not just companion animals. PeTA’s publicity campaigns have many times been mind-blowingly cruel and inflammatory, exploitative of horrific murders in full view of the victims’ families, racist, sexist, and ableist; they’ve *absolutely* been dishonest about their eliminationist stance on both companion animals and livestock; just like HSUS they’ve claimed credit for things they didn’t do; and their response, when they’ve been called on it, has typically been, as with Gina, threats and silence.
So, no, I *don’t* see a whole heck of a lot of difference. Both of them have a mighty small baby in a heck of a lot of bathwater.
Comment by Eucritta — March 13, 2010 @ 11:08 am
It’s also not even remotely true that PETA is some kind of lone warrior against factory farms. A wide range of groups are against industrial-scale agriculture for all kinds of reasons, from environmental to economic justice to health and more.
I am not defending the CCF. But the fact that the group’s industry backers pay for them to harass PETA doesn’t mean I have to support PETA.
I don’t. And that’s not going to change.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2010 @ 11:25 am
What I deeply resent is that the media tend to focus on PETA as the main advocate for a more compassionate policy toward animals, and thus, if you or I say anything to those who are being cruel to animals, we get labeled with them.
I’m not afraid of PETA, nor do I hate vegans and those who believe in animal rights— not all of them are crazy. And I share many of their goals for us to become more animal friendly as a nation. I have far more issues with the anti-all regulations people who always use PETA as a foil to shut down debate. I’m more scared of them than I am PETA. They are far better funded and more people take them seriously.
Comment by retrieverman — March 13, 2010 @ 11:36 am
nor do I hate vegans and those who believe in animal rights— not all of them are crazy.
Comment by retrieverman — March 13, 2010
I’ve actually found that very few of them are crazy. People who have gone to the trouble of being ethical vegans are (in my experience) generally highly intelligent people who have put a lot of thought into their decision.
They’ve just come to a different conclusion than I have on the issue. Neither conclusion is without merit. And neither is perfectly “right.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
PETA states its agenda and intentions.
Comment by Tara — March 13, 2010
Really? I bet not one PETA donor in a thousand understands the end goal of the animals rights movement is that domesticated animals need to cease to exist so that they cannot be “exploited” by us in any way, not as food (even if raised and killed humanely), not as service animals (such as guide dogs) and not even as pets.
Are all of those people who don’t know this stupid? I doubt it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
@ retrievermen, you wrote “I have far more issues with the anti-all regulations people who always use PETA as a foil to shut down debate. I’m more scared of them than I am PETA. They are far better funded and more people take them seriously.”
I couldn’t agree more.
@ Gina, you are sorely misreading my words here and elsewhere if you think I’m saying no one else is fighting factory farming. I fight it everyday, and I’m not even a member of PETA.
However, to pretend that they (along with their only major partner in arms, HSUS) aren’t the only *major* players in this via secret taping, privately funded investigations, and lobbying, you are sorely mistaken.
of all the other groups working against factory farms or to improve the welfare of animals being factory farmed, none come close to the impact of PETA and HSUS.
I used to HATE both of these groups. I did for over 10 years, for many of the reasons you state repeatedly. But when I really looked outside of the world of companion animals and looked more closely at who was actually on the ground in force working twards humane treatment of NON companion animals, I simply had to reconsider my view. If I was to extend my concern to animals outside of the the world of companion animals, then I also had to acknowledge that very few groups were making a difference in that area. Very few.
And PETA and HSUS (and now, a teeeeeeeny bit Farm Sanctuary, which you would also be opposed to ideologically and therefore unable to support) are the only major players with lobbyists. So yeah, they do end up being Lone Warriors….in any substantive way.
And I ask you to point out where I *ever* said you should or had to “support” them. Is there no middle ground between supporting something and trying to drum it out of business?
@Eucritta
I’m not sure how a publicity campaign could be called “cruel” in the context of discussing actual cruelty (for example, I do think that euthanizing healthy shelter animals without trying to find them homes IS cruel. So unless that was part of an ad campaign, that word has lost its meaning in that context)
They have absolutely NOT been dishonest about their stance on eliminating livestock. Heck, I can find it in numerous places right on their website. I don’t have to agree with that stance (and neither does Temple Grandin who gives PETA a lot of credit for making changes in that industry by bringing their focus in that direction) to know that the work is still incredibly valuable at this critical stage of possible reform.
But fake front organization set up by a lobbyist who wants to take down every activist group who cuts into his clients bottom line, cynically masquerading as a “consumer freedom” group is somehow the same to you?
I still say you’re stretching really hard to see the same demons.
And I’m no major fan of PETA. But these unreasonable calls to dry up their resources over single issues strikes me as playing right into the hands of those cynical lobbyists. It was even in their plan to do just that…and its apparently working really well. I don’t think its a coincidence that CCF has been showing up a LOT lately in their cries against PETA and HSUS while whispers of reform are finally being heard on the topic of animal agriculture. I think quite a few people are being played here. Sorry, but it just looks that way from this vantage.
Comment by Tara — March 13, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
Tara, what do you want? Do you want me to ignore this for “the greater good” because PETA isn’t the CCF? That isn’t going to happen.
I think it’s reasonable to report the numbers and put the CCF in context so people know what they’re about, as well. But if you’re asking me NOT to pass on this state mandated report at all because the CCF released and promotes it, then that’s just not going to happen.
PETA can fix this “PR problem” in a heartbeat. Why don’t they?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2010 @ 1:09 pm
Wow Gina. That was pretty dishonest. Seriously.
You’re still projecting onto me that I want silence and support for PETA no matter how many times I say otherwise.
You didn’t “put the CCF in context” at all. Context would have been an examination of both groups and why they’ve been pitted against each other. All you did was hedge you lending them credibility by providing a link.
Report all the numbers you want. I’m a huge fan of the truth. I support the truth. Go for it. But don’t pretend that’s all you were doing. That’s disingenuous to the core, Gina. This wasn’t a report, it was a full on attack editorial. And you have a right to do that. You have the right to think what you want and to editorialize all you want….but people are going to point out the other side of that coin and who your hedged sources really are.
And if after all this you are still trying to put an agenda on me that doesn’t fit (where on earth have I asked you to support them, to hide information, or to not report something? WTF?), then I have to assume that you really don’t get at all where I’m coming from….or you’re crossing swords with arguments that I’m not bringing. I’m not sure which, but I’d appreciate the same respect I give to you: I have yet to put any words in your mouth, or concoct an agenda and declare that it came from you. I certainly expect the same in return.
Comment by Tara — March 13, 2010 @ 1:26 pm
A very sad but true post.Talking about suffering or homeless animals rakes in donations. Doing something to help them costs money. I wouldn’t give a penny to the big “humane” groups.
Comment by jansfunnyfarm — March 13, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
No one is putting anything on you. Everytime I ask you to explain what it is you’re trying to say, you attack me. This round, I’m “dishonest,” because … well , again, I’m not sure. But I’m sure if I ask you to explain what you mean, you’ll instead explain that I am really bad in yet another way.
Don’t bother.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
Gina, my calling your comment dishonest was the *very first time* I have said anything at all critical about you or about your approach.
Unless you view disagreeing with yout premise as an attack (in which case there really is nothing more to discuss, since I don’t view disagreement that way at all).
You have projected onto my words:
- That I wanted you to support PETA (I don’t and have never said anything like that)
-That I wanted you to “ignore” facts “for the greater good”. I have never said any such thing.
-That I have said that PETA is the “Lone Warrior” in humane animal agriculture. I haven’t. Ever.
And frankly, I have never once attacked you at all. Not once. Never. not here, nor anywhere else. Prior to my pointing out two pretty disingenuous statements from you just now, I have never said *anything at all* about you. So where you’re getting this “attack” business from I have no idea. The only other time I called something you said “beyond” was when you actually made something up and presented it as an argument. And yeah, I think pointing that out is valid. But rather than hoist agendas and assumptions on you, I asked you what the underlying point was.
And, for the record, aside from asking me for a cite regarding Temple Grandin’s acknowledgment of PETA’s success in animal agriculture, you have never once asked me to clarify a thing. Given what you ended up assuming about my position, I certainly wish you had. So for you to say that every time you ask me, I attack you is….well, beyond. Again, its really beyond unfair.
Comment by Tara — March 13, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Tara, PETA needs the CCF. They are a very convenient bogeyman. PETA can then lump all critics in with them as a means of furthering their lies, lies which provide a smokescreen for their continued killing of healthy and savable pets. They could stop that killing today, either by getting out of the business of running fake shelter (which they alternately claim is a “shelter of last resort” or “not a shelter”—which one is it? Sounds dishonest to me.), or by following the No Kill Equation (something they oppose and also spread lies about). The nice folks at Petfinder provide a service that is free, very widely used, and idiot-simple, yet PETA can’t bring itself to lift a finger to set up a Petfinder site. That alone is inexcusable, yet you appear to be asking that they be absolved of this because of other things that they do.
I don’t think that you will find that absolution here.
Comment by Valerie — March 13, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
@Tara, I used to be mildly approving of PeTA, back in the early 90s. Then they ran an advert during the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer which compared his victims, most of whom were young men of color, to cattle taken to slaughter.
More recently, they’ve staged stunts in which nice middle-class smiling white kids have dressed up as the KKK - the KKK - and compared the breeding of animals to the terror and exploitation of slavery.
That’s just two, but I want you to think, now, of how this reads to people of color. I’m mixed race, and I know how it reads to me - appropriative, cruel, and racist.
And that’s not even getting into the nude young women in cages. Because frankly I don’t even want to go there today.
Comment by Eucritta — March 13, 2010 @ 2:21 pm
Well, Tara, I seem to be a little slow on the uptake today, but I think I have really figured out what you’re asking for.
Attention.
Your main points of contention seem to be that the CCF is a front organization, which is pointed out in the original post. That PETA has fought to make the lives of farm animals more humane, which wasn’t mentioned in the original post because the subject was PETA’s kill rate in its shelter.
You don’t have to agree with me. But I am not interested in continuing to argue over what doesn’t really seem to me to be that much of a difference of opinion, aside from that whole “beyond” and “dishonesty” thing. So if you could just, you know, wrap it up now and move on.
Because honestly, you’re pushing into troll territory.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
This was an interesting blog day.
Comment by ericka — March 13, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
PETA doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt for a simple reason, in my mind:
They claim they see no difference in value between an animal’s life and a human’s (their comparisons of eating chickens to the genocide of Jews, etc). They claim they are ‘horrified’ by eating meat because it is akin to cannibalism.
Then, they kill thousands of animals THEMSELVES simply because they are HOMELESS. Isn’t that the equivalent of a homeless shelter going around and killing transients ‘to put them out of their misery’? So either PETA is made up of sociopathic killers (which, if we judge them by their own ‘moral equivalency’ statements, they clearly seem to be) or else they are simply hypocrites.
Neither option makes them look very good.
Comment by Pai — March 13, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
So, the question that I have is (now that Tara the possible troll is, maybe, gone) how to get the media to break their lazy habit of ringing up Wayne and Ingrid every time there’s an animals in danger/being abused/etc. story? And it looks like CCF has an agenda that isn’t necessarily about animal welfare either.
Who should the media talk to and how do they get pointed in the right direction? Like calling Gina and Christie instead. Does it take the fancy New York office and millions in donations to have credibility with the media? Perfect hair and teeth? Endless street theater?
There’s a dynamic here in how the media dubs someone the “go to” expert that some of us non-journalist civilians would like to be enlightened about. Knowledge is power and all that.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 13, 2010 @ 7:05 pm
PETA , ugh, squick.
They have a well funded, slick as snot program of indoctrination aimed at kids as young as grade school. As a mother, this creeps the hell out of me. Kids are sponges, they do NOT have the capacity for critical thinking or when to be skeptical of one sided propaganda. Educators often allow PETA representatives to come speak or hand out PETA produced materials thinking it is about being kind to animals. I’ve seen some of it. A pamphlet was placed in my kids trick or treat bags this year by someone who answered their door. A pamphlet saying that if Mom or Dad feeds you milk and dairy, eggs or meat, you will have disfiguring acne, smell bad and die early of cancer or heart disease taped to am twix bar is not OK fare.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 13, 2010 @ 7:08 pm
Bob Barker has purchased a 2.5 million dollar property for PETA to use as headquarters in Los Angeles.
As if L.A.s animals didn’t have enough problems
http://cbs2.com/entertainment/.....48511.html
Spit take quote from the article:
“PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk says Barker could have just given the group a refrigerator but instead he paid for an entire building to be renovated.”
I suspect she probably meant freezer but the reporting writer misheard…
Comment by JenniferJ — March 13, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
Susan, Tara’s not a troll, for the simple fact the discussion started on Facebook, and she used her own name there and here.
Trolls don’t do that.
I do think this is one of those things that just can’t resolved between two people online, and that if she and I sat down for coffee and talked face-to-face we’d walk away with respect for the other’s point of view, and a great deal of agreement.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 13, 2010 @ 7:36 pm
Right Gina. I’m not a troll.
I’m clearly nothing more than an attention seeker.
Like I said on facebook, its clear that a civil and reasoned disagreement concerning PETA with you is ultimately not in the cards.
Nevermind.
Comment by Tara — March 13, 2010 @ 8:04 pm
So, here’s a REAL question for folks - who ARE the legitimate voices for farm animal welfare? (Not including the ALBC and their allies, I know those. What I am looking for are groups for commercial, large-scale producers about doing things humanely and as sustainable as possible.) I want links to take to family dinner tomorrow. :P
My google-fu is failing me. “Farm Animal Welfare” brought up a bunch of pages on USDA.gov and a bunch of HSUS stuff.
Comment by Cait — March 13, 2010 @ 8:20 pm
What I am looking for are groups for commercial, large-scale producers about doing things humanely and as sustainable as possible.)
———————-
How can a large-scale meat producer possibly treat animals humanely?
I guess it’s all in how you define “humane.”
Comment by Mary Mary — March 13, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
Well, I don’t know if this is the sort of thing you’re looking for, but maybe it’s a start?
http://www.certifiedhumane.org/
http://www.americanhumane.org/.....m-animals/
Comment by mikken — March 13, 2010 @ 8:38 pm
The Center of Consumer Freedom needs PETA, and I’m pretty sure that CCF is backed by some of the largest corporations in the country. PETA is backed by activists and Hollywood celebrities. People don’t think of CCF as an annoyance. In fact, it has that word freedom in it, so it has to be good, right?
I’m not afraid of PETA, even if they are incredibly annoying. This is kind of like the debate you get about tort reform. The advocates of tort reform use “greedy trial lawyers” as their foil. They don’t point out that they might be backed by greedy corporations who don’t like being sued. Of course, PETA isn’t serving much of a purpose, and lawyers can be pilloried all day— until you need one.
I’m much afraid of people who use PETA as a way of shutting down criticism. If you start making a valid criticism about something in animlas, someone will say, “That’s what PETA says!”
Comment by retrieverman — March 14, 2010 @ 5:17 am
The CFF claims to care about protecting us poor, misguided consumers. What a joke! Ironic that on their “Peta Kills” website, the CFF headlines the article with this gem…
“”Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems”…..
Ha! The CFF is the father of hypocrisy when it comes to “consumer protection” and has zero credibility in my book.
What PETA does or doesn’t do is an issue I’ll learn about from somewhere OTHER than the CFF. Thank you.
Comment by Joy — March 14, 2010 @ 7:29 am
Well, there are the original source documents. I wish that someone other than CCF had posted them, but there they are, linked to in this article. For previous years, the data is online at the VDACS website, such as here: http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_.....;year=2008 (just change the digits of the last number to see other years, and note that you have to ignore the animals brought in for spay-neuter, which they insist on including). You can also read what a former PETA supporter has to say: http://bit.ly/akMzXH
Comment by Valerie — March 14, 2010 @ 9:22 am
All of you who keep carping about CCF - just answer the question: is the information true or false? Throwing tomatoes at the source is a diversionary tactic. The information, as to both PETA and HSUS is ACCURATE. If you must (and I don’t really see them as equivalents, but for the sake of argument) but think of testimony at a trial from an informant, or a co-conspirator who has turned state’s evidence. Countless people have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on just such evidence. CCF is guilty of no crimes, even if you abhor its other activities. And it has done the public a great service in exposing the truth about PETA and HSUS.
True, or false. That’s the issue. The rest is static.
Comment by Susan — March 14, 2010 @ 10:24 am
Well said, Susan.
Comment by Shane — March 14, 2010 @ 11:09 am
Susan, thanks for articulating that so well.
I considered posting a similar response this AM, but my brain is just not coughing up what I need to be concise today. :)
Comment by JenniferJ — March 14, 2010 @ 4:11 pm
Excellent rebuttal, Susan! Thank you!
Comment by Anne T. — March 14, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
Sorry Susan, I’m not clear if you are speaking of actual crime, as in an act punishable by law, or unethical acts.
Comment by Joy — March 14, 2010 @ 5:23 pm
The report that is the subject of the article is a state mandated report that PETA must file because they run a shelter (not that I would personally agree it’s a shelter).
PEAT chooses to do this. The state requires a report. PETA decides what category animals admitted to their facility fall into. They make the decisions about these animals future disposition, the carry out the placements, transfers and killings.
PETA, not CCF, records and reports their own numbers to the state.
PETA is the source for all of the information in this report.
CCF digs it up dutifully each year. Yep they have a bug up their ass over PETA. Yep, they are backed by large agribusiness. Yep, they sure as heck have an agenda. So does PETA.
I do not agree with a bulk of the positions of either entity. I do not appreciate the ethics of either, the morality of either.
But CCF does not generate the numbers. PETA does. The report is from the horses mouth so to speak.
If PETA posts a factual report on a farm conglomerate, my personal distaste for PETA does not make that info invalid. The report that CCF has made available for public consumption is not an opinion piece. It’s a government document whose sole source of information was PETA itself. And to me, it demonstrates once again that PETA puts no more value on the individual lives of pets unfortunate enough to enter their VA facility than they did in 2008, 2007…..
Comment by JenniferJ — March 14, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
“I do not agree with a bulk of the positions of either entity”
should have read
I do not agree with a great many of the positions of either entity
I hit send before doing my edit. :)
Comment by JenniferJ — March 14, 2010 @ 6:10 pm
The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
But he may be bloody well useful.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 14, 2010 @ 9:30 pm
MaryMary - I don’t know what you define as large. :P My dad has a smallish (by Texas standards) cattle business- about a thousand cattle at any given time, shipping some and buying some every month. *I* am comfortable with the process on his end - but I have to admit, I don’t know much about the rest of the production chain that gets them to the grocery store. And THAT’s what I’m trying to find out- what’s the ideal? But in my experience- which is admittedly limited to family- most of the producers that are his neighbors and friends are on the same scale. No, cows aren’t PETS- but they live in nice pastures, have plenty of space and good feed, and recieve appropriate vet care as needed. YMMV.
Comment by Cait — March 15, 2010 @ 8:06 am
Cait, I didn’t know that! I guess my friend’s Texas ranch must be microscopic by Texas standards — not only is her herd small, but her cattle are, too.
There’s really no way of knowing what a meat animal went through to get to a restaurant unless you’re dealing with an outfit that makes “humane and sustainable” part of their marketing message. You can be pretty assured that if they’re not bragging about it, they got everything from the wholesaler at the lowest cost the could. Remember: Few businesses have to survive on tighter margins than a restaurant, so every penny counts.
Yes, YMMV, but for me, I tend to eat vegetarian out if I’m doing something casual, or figure that it’s a rare treat to eat out, so choose a place that costs more but offers meals that match my values.
Of course, here in Northern California, this is pretty easy to do. I think I could hit three places serving “humane and sustainable” meals with a well-thrown rock in any of three directions.
And farmers markets, co-ops and CSAs are everywhere here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 15, 2010 @ 9:11 am
I earned extra cash as a teenager and in Summers growing up working on a couple of large NorCal ranches (gone now to development. :( )
We were wintering young cattle. I would have had no ethical issues eating beef from the herds I worked with had they remained on these premises. They spent their time from weaning until they left on thousands of acres of grass and oaks.
BUT, the herd did not belong to the ranch owners, and, at the end of Spring, the bulk of the cattle would be sent off. Mostly to feed lots.
The ranch owner ran his own small herd, which he had ranch slaughtered for his own families and friends use.
There is a true problem in many parts of the country for those who raise on grass. They are either limited by the amount of cattle they can get processed by on premises slaughter, if they can get permitted to sell commercially the meat they process on premises. Or they have to ship, either to small scale, expensive facilities or larger, cheaper, commercial ones.
For those concerned with welfare, the latter option, while economically sensible, is not an option.
To make meat production more humane, we need more mobile or small scale facilities. (commencing now with not holding my breath)
Comment by JenniferJ — March 15, 2010 @ 9:53 am
This is a very big issue. Once common, local and small scale, and usually family-owned, slaughterhouses — my friend in TX uses one such — are almost gone. And the mobiles … even harder to find.
There are still a couple in surrounding rural counties here. But I read that the one remaining mobile guy in Sonoma County is retiring, with no replacement.
I suppose if the “humane and sustainable” movement really is the real deal, someone will realize the work, although hard and physical, can be lucrative. Time will tell, I guess.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 15, 2010 @ 10:10 am
Hard to say what will happen.
Mendocino County has an increasing number of natural producers, both of beef and bison.
There has been a proposal floated to bring a small scale slaughter and processing facility to the county. The plan, so far as I can assertain, would be to make this a model for future small facilities. The idea would be to appeal to private and small scale producers, be as environmentally sound as possible etc…
Certainly it would make grass fed beef more economically possible and profitable if Mendo growers had access to a facility which could process more animals. It would also lower the cost to local consumers and spare livestock a 6-8 hour truck ride to a big central valley facility where humane care is highly doubtful.
But at this point, the local AR lobby will not let anything move along. I personally will attend meetings etc… if this proposal becomes a real possibility to try to make sure that the facility will be diligent in it’s promise to be as green and humane as possible. But right now, several vocal local personalities with long time ties to PETA and IDA and other animal liberation geared groups are promising the Four Horsemen will ride into town if even a small scale slaughter facility comes to Mendocino County.
Astonishingly apparently we will have more murder, gangs, domestic violence, disease. Property values will plummet, autism rates will rise a reek of death and decay will blanket the county. Flies and pestilence will spread out and make life here not worth living.
It’s all frankly hysterical propaganda, but write enough letters, scream it loud enough over and over and even people who don’t know anything about the whole issue get a vague NIMBY state of mind about it.
I suspect the future for grass and naturally raised meat in California will have to be mobile facilities, probably cooperatively funded by producers. Because getting new plants of any size built in California is going to be a long shot unless they are backed and pushed by big agribusiness which does not help the small ranchers who care about animal welfare at all.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 15, 2010 @ 10:48 am
Wow. That’s depressing. But your analysis is spot-on, I’m afraid.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 15, 2010 @ 11:10 am
Where I live, the responsible care and sustainability of the grassland upon which grass fed cattle are raised is a problem, too. Most pasture here consists of introduced grasses, which were developed years ago when the climate was substantially different from what we’ve experienced in recent years. They require fertilization and weed control pretty much every year to remain productive, even when responsibly grazed. There are very very few companies that provide organic fertilizer/weed control services; there are even fewer sources of native grass seed/sprigs, and if you find a source, the cost is HUGE.
So most producers rely on the big ag way — keep the introduced grass varieties they have going by boom spray application of chemical fertilizer and broadleaf herbicide once or twice a year. Most don’t even remove the cattle from pasture during application.
The guy across the road from me has picture perfect grass-fed cattle on golfcourse-like land. One year I saw a cow get caught in a corner of the pasture during a spray application of fertilizer/broadleaf weed killer/insecticide (for grasshoppers). Sprayed RIGHT OVER THE BACK OF THE COW. Totally doused her.
A cow covered in nitrogen, Grazon, and Sevin, eating grass covered in same. Sadly, not what I would like “grass-fed cattle” to mean.
Comment by Rori — March 15, 2010 @ 12:20 pm
ROri - I think it really varies. We do plant non-native stuff (not everywhere, but in the most heavily trafficked pastures). But herbicides? Why bother? If you get it planted right, it pretty much crowds out the weeds (this is the whole point of using the stuff). It’s a really, really big cow buffet, not a golf course! :P
I *do* think it looks like a golf course, for an hour or two in early spring, before it really takes off. But that doesn’t last long.
Only a few more weeks till Bluebonnet Season- my favorite time of year in Texas. :) My friend Emily is flying down from Oregon to see the wildflowers and take photos of my dogs in them. :) (It’s a Rule. If you live in Texas and have kids or pets, you have to take formal pictures in the bluebonnets at least every other year.)
Comment by Cait — March 15, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
Cait - We’re on sugar sand here, and have really been hurting for rain the last few years. When it has rained, we’ve been shortchanged compared to places even as close as 20 miles away. Even good stands of Coastal and Tifton have really struggled. Freakish weather of the last few years aside, the local culture is astonishingly entrenched in the spring ritual of spraying Grazon on EVERYTHING. It boggles the mind. Glad to know that you don’t follow that practice.
On the plus side of global warming and weed (oops, I mean wildflower) proliferation - my redbuds and bluebonnets are just now starting to bloom! Woo hoo!
Comment by Rori — March 15, 2010 @ 6:46 pm
Rori - ewwwww. I don’t like sand. :P We have nice red dirt. The rain’s not been great, but it’s been worse before, ya know? If it WAS great, we’d have to find something new to complain about.
Comment by Cait — March 16, 2010 @ 5:22 am
Cait - Even when the weather IS great I complain, i.e. not enough time to enjoy it! :D
Comment by Rori — March 16, 2010 @ 6:39 am
in answer to Susan’s post about whether what CCF is stating is fact. I can’t say about peta. but i know a lot of people at hsus, and i can say that ccf’s tactic is to state what may be fact but cloak it in ccf’s own context and meaning, so there becomes a significant difference between fact and truth. take the stuff about hsus not spending much to fund shelter. that’s a fact. but the truth is—that’s not their job!not their mission. NO national organization is a funder for local shelters. And as someone said (maybe tara?)if you look at the totality of what they do, they ARE fulfilling their mission which is addressing the issues affecting all kinds of animals, not just pets, and not just pets in shelters. and hsus doesn’t anywhere, ever, claim to operate or fund local shelters. you only have to spend a minute on their home page to know who they are and what they do. don’t like it? don’t fund them. but to demonize a group for doing what it does well (and wiht regard to CCF, what scares their paying clients)instead of what CCF would like to see them do (which is stop scaring their paying clients) is like saying you won’t support the Catholit church because they aren’t Jewish. It’s a fact, but it’s specious and simply a tactic too many people buy into. And that’s just one example. I could cite dozens of other instances after looking at their blog, but there you go.
Comment by Vi Smith — March 17, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
so there becomes a significant difference between fact and truth.
Comment by Vi Smith — March 17, 2010
Well, no. Not in this instance. The fact is that PETA reports their own shelter statistics to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and CCF is not spinning any of that. They don’t have to: The fact is that the truth of PETA’s “shelter” operation is out of step with what most ordinary self-described animal-lovers would consider a model for other animal organizations to follow. The CCF knows this, and has used it to hammer PETA most effectively.
***
take the stuff about hsus not spending much to fund shelter. that’s a fact. but the truth is—that’s not their job!not their mission.
Comment by Vi Smith — March 17, 2010
You’re correct that the HSUS is an advocacy group, with lobbyists and media outreach. My own personal belief is that there’s a place and a need for that, and I have no problem in theory with them not giving money to shelters as part of their mission.
… BUT …
The problem is that the HSUS raises money not by saying, heh, give us $20 to support our advocacy for animals. They say, give us money to help us help dogs like this one or the Michael Vick dogs — and then they don’t use that money to help those animal at all (unless called out for their behavior, in which case they cough up a little of it).
I am absolutely fine with an HSUS that works to be perfectly clear what it’s about and what it’s doing with the money. In fact, that information is all there if you do your homework, but of course most people don’t. That gap between the HSUS raising money based on assumptions they don’t correct and the work they really do is what the CCF is exploiting now for people who want the HSUS and PETA stripped of any effective voice in the public policy debate over animals.
I say to both PETA and HSUS — and any other charity that allows uncorrected assumptions to raise money for them — be completely and utterly honest about what you do, why you do it and why your work need to be supported, and you got no problem from outfits using the morally questionable but perfectly legal tactics of groups like the CCF. Alternately, change your mission to match your marketing. Either works, but what you’re doing now isn’t going to keep working if you do not change, no matter how much you complain about the industries and the interests of the money that supports the CCF.
The rules of the game have changes, and these organizations need to up their own game if they want to keep their influence. That’s the truth AND a fact.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 17, 2010 @ 2:53 pm
Visit the website No Kill Advocacy Center or no kill blog or read Irreconcilable Differences by Nathan Winograd. There are responsible alternatives rather than killing healthy savable animals.
I agree Peta, Aspca, and HSUS need to use their authority and resources to stop savable healthy shelter animals from being needlessly killed.I called each of them and let them know to change their outdated policies concerning this. I would hate to stop supporting them since they do help other animals.I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one.
Comment by Jeff Rutherford — March 18, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
Actually I stopped supporting the ASPCA since they are working really hard to kill Oreo’s Law.To anyone who’s interested please go to http://www.yesonoreoslaw.com for more info. Will Peta and the HSUS be next of animal “protection” groups to take off my list???
Comment by Jeff Rutherford — March 18, 2010 @ 12:47 pm
I guess I’m able to post websites on this forum.Cool.Well then here’s http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org and http://www.nokillblog.com that I was referring to in my earlier post.Please visit them.
I hope those that call themselves animal protection groups,(such as Peta,Aspca,HSUS,) feel the pressure of the shelter animal loving public who are politely but firmly asking these groups to change their outdated policies of being okay w/killing savable shelter animals.
Comment by Jeff Rutherford — March 18, 2010 @ 12:55 pm
New here? :)
Jeff, it’s always a good idea to actually READ a blog before parachuting in and posting comments like crazy. Nathan Winograd, his books and the No Kill movement are not news to the folks here, believe me.
And because you ARE new here, hiya, I’m Gina. This is my house. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 18, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Re: small-scale slaughterhouses
We have a pretty good density of these here — about four within an easy transport of our farm. And a very economical chicken processor, who unfortunately will not open for business until after Easter, leaving me to do in my turkeys at home.
But in much of the US, there is nobody to slaughter and butcher livestock for a small producer — whether for personal use or local sales. That’s especially true in the big meat-producing states. If you have 1,000 steers or hogs to butcher, no problem. Five — get lost.
I just read that in Vermont, east-coast epicenter of the whole/slow/local/organic/humane food community, farmers are scheduling slaughter six months in advance in order to get a place, as the slaughterhouses are so overbooked. It’d be easier to get a steer into the Montessori school. What do they do when an animal needs to be culled at short notice?
A big issue is the regulatory environment. Of course, I’m all for high standards and regular inspections; but requiring that a facility that might process five or ten animals a day, or a few hundred chickens, to build a separate bathroom for the USDA inspector’s exclusive use is deranged, and clearly has the effect, if not the intent, of quashing this valuable service.
Comment by H. Houlahan — March 18, 2010 @ 8:21 pm
Heather - NO KIDDING.
Comment by Cait — March 19, 2010 @ 4:54 am
What is the point of the sep bathroom for the inspector? So they don’t have to pee where the Mexican workers do? Really, WTF?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 19, 2010 @ 5:39 am
Good post on this from the KC dog blog. PETA writer “informs” others that they kill because they care. What a farce.
http://btoellner.typepad.com/k.....lling.html
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 21, 2010 @ 6:33 am
I propose
“PETA, We Kill Because We Care” become a new motto.
Truth in advertising and all that
Comment by JenniferJ — March 21, 2010 @ 9:54 am
hiya back Gina. After reading your comments I’d rather not be part of this forum. You come off somewhat like a bully and I really don’t care to come into your “house”.
It seems like you have way to much time on your hands.
Gotta go, I have things to do.:)
Comment by Jeff Rutherford — March 23, 2010 @ 10:14 pm
WOW Jeff. Gina was being quite nice, IMO. She was merely pointing out that you were basically carrying coals to Newcastle.
Then again, if that’s how you react to such a mild comment, I don’t think you’d fit in here anyway :)
Comment by K.B. — March 24, 2010 @ 3:14 am
Back to slaughterhouses. It seems that government regulation is just aimed at the big boys, and the rest of us need not participate in the production of food. The separate bathroom thing is because they assume you’re big enough to have a separate office for the USDA inspector that you pay to keep on premises to inspect the 400-500 animals you slaughter every day. USDA inspectors can’t seem to envision a world where food is local and “done in” around the corner from where it grew up. A good book on the subject is “Everything I Want To Do Is Illegal”, by Joel Salatin. I have to wonder how valuable all this inspecting is. We still get e-coli in the beef from facilities with inspectors on site at all times. Oregon has decided to increase inspections on our Farmer’s markets. I heard that last summer a baker selling her goods at a local farmer’s market had to change her labels and remove “Love” as an ingredient, ‘cause guess what, it’s NOT a real ingredient. I feel so much safer now that THAT’S cleared up!
Comment by C.L.H. — March 24, 2010 @ 11:38 am
A very good question!
Comment by jansfunnyfarm — April 30, 2010 @ 4:08 pm