What's your take on PETA?

[Tiggeroshii]

Heard a lot of negativity about PETA, and they are typically referred as an "extremist organization." Is your opinion of PETA mostly positive, mostly negative or in-between?

[Warpy]

1. They do good work

exposing the horrors of factory farming and some animal research centers. They sometimes seem determined to cancel that good work out by their more outrageous PR stunts and more extreme positions on things.

Exposing horrific conditions many animals live under is a good thing. Throwing paint at vain and stupid women who wear fur coats is not.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. Probably the best analysis I've heard on PETA

[ThomCat]

2. I think they're a great organization.

They speak up for views that many people don't agree with, but so what?

The support exactly what their name implies, ethical treatment of animals. They support the idea that animals cannot ever be legitimately hurt, tormented, tortured or experimented upon simply for our convenience. They don't exist for our convenience. They promote the idea that animals have a right to live their lives without us subjecting them to cruel an inhumane treatement, no matter what anyone else may think.

They do not promote violence, and they their methods are mostly public relations, so they're very visible. They exist mostly to get the message out.

Good for them.

[CrispyQ]

15. Well said & I agree.

Their action alerts will break your heart.

To those who have turned against them for one campaign or another, I would suggest reading each of their action alerts. They show the scope & heinousness of the issues PETA speaks out on. http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/actionalerts.asp

Our reprehensible treatment of our fellow inhabitants of this planet diminishes every good thing about us.

What we do to one, we do to all.

[Alamom]

66. I agree, also. n/t

[MrCoffee]

3. that whole "Fishkill, NY" thing really soured me on PETA

http://www.cnn.com/US/9609/06/fishy.name/

take a chill pill already.

[China_cat]

34. Yeah, 'kill' is the Dutch word for stream.

[Gormy Cuss]

40. The 'Fishsave' suggestion was humorous

Upstate New Yorkers were laughing hysterically over it. There are 'kills' everywhere. It was a silly stunt that I've always thought was meant as such rather than an earnest attempt to change the name.

[Leftist78]

64. Wow

I had no idea about that. We've got millions living in poverty in this country, tens of thousands of people around the world die every day from hunger and preventable disease, there's a quagmire in Iraq, our unions are being globalized out of the picture, people who used to make a middle class wage in good blue-collar factories now work for a fraction of those wages in Wal-Mart and 7-Eleven, our environment is in crisis mode, but the most pressing issue these guys can come up with is a fucking town named Fishkill. :eyes:

[Nicole]

80. They tried the same thing in Slaughterville,OK

They wanted the town to rename itself & suggested Veggieville as the new name. They offered to donate thousands of veggie burgers to the school system if it was changed.

The town is still named Slaughterville today & I guess they're still eating soy & beef burgers.

It was a funny topic around the water cooler for a week or so.

[mike_c]

4. I'm a biologist and someone who, on the best of days...

...would likely be characterized as a "vivisectionist" by PETA activists. Still, I'm more-or-less neutral. I'm hosting dinner next Sunday and I think one of the guests will be an animal rights "terrorist" who is under federal indictment unless her status has changed.

[sui generis]

10. many ways to get on the no-fly list I guess

Didn't think cooking dinner was usually one of them, but you never know these days.

Me, no big fan of vivisection at all, and especially NOT domestic animals. Surgery on Octupi is rather less well understood, much less "vivisection". Or rather, if I were to support vertebrate vivisection in the traditional sense (not the over defined PETA sense) I'd like to add death row inmates and even "volunteers" from the credit card and oil companies boards.

Then again, not entirely sure if those last two categories entirely qualify as vertebrate, but slicing them open to see how they get around without a heart would benefit science.

[Zodiak]

18. Another scientist here

I would be a "bug killer" if the PETA people worried about my activities.

I will, however, mention that (as a joke) we went downstairs with signs to "save the flies" where the PETA people were railing against the medical community's use of rats in research in the neighboring building . Yeah, we protested our own Entomology Department while our gels ran (everyone I woked with knew it was ajoke). The PETA people didn't appreciate our joining their protest, though....they got quite agitated even though we did not disrupt their group (we were about 50 yards way).

My opinion is mostly negative. That is because PETA raided our labs in the early 1990's and released 145 Sprague-Dawley rats, many of whom where immunocompromised. Needless to say, those rats were not meant to live outside of the lab and died slowly and needlessly (because no data was collected).

I do not mind the passion. I do mind the ignorance and the disrespect for the work of others.

[ThomCat]

20. Interesting

"Needless to say, those rats were not meant to live outside of the lab and
died slowly and needlessly (because no data was collected).

I do not mind the passion. I do mind the ignorance and the disrespect for
the work of others."

So they were "meant" to be laboratory experiments? That's quite a judgement.

Just because you don't agree with PETA doesn't make them ignorant. From their perspective you're the one who's missing perspective and showing disrespect. So I suppose that goes both ways.

[Zodiak]

24. They were ignorant

They had no idea what they were releasing. The rats were geneticcally inbred to be immunocompromised. They would die of the first pathogen with which they come into contact.

Those inbred strains would not exist except for experimentation. So in that way, yeah, they are "meant" for research and dependent on humans to provide the only environment in which they can live...a sterile one. They were not captured from the wild.

The PETA people also spray-painted the walls and destroyed thousands of dollars of equipment. I do not think my criticism rises to that level of disrespect for another's work or property. For that reason, I reject your analogy.

[ThomCat]

25. You don't think that mutating rats to be nonviable

rises to the mark of being destructive and disrespectful?

Wow.

[Zodiak]

36. not mutating.

Breeding. Years and years of breeding...longer than my lifetime.

As far as the respect to the rats is concerned, that is not the subject to which I was referring. I am referring to respect between PETA and the scientists. Whether or not a laboratory rat deserves respect is an entirely subjective argument of beliefs best left to philosophers. You can believe one way, and I can believe another, and neither can prove the other right or wrong.

Right or wrong in the eyes of the law ends with property damage and data destruction, and that has been one-sided as far as I know. Plus it cannot be denied that the rats released in such a manner died a far slower, more suffering death then they would have through surgical sacrifice. Plus the death would contribute data to research in curing spinal injuries. The normal Spragues would have a hard time in the wild (also inbred for many decades), but the immunocompromised ones would have 100% mortality (not that wouldn't die in the lab..but doesn't that defeat the purpose of releasing them in the first place?).

We do mutate flies so we can understand the functions of genes. I think that fish might be mutated, as well (zebra danios). We also mutate bacteria so they cannot live outside of the lab (so they do not become pathogens). I am sure I am missing some other examples. But rats are not it, nor are any other mammals that I can think of. By the way, I am not ethically against any of the above mutating activities unless they are introduced and promulgated in the wild.

By the way, I disagree with these groups being labeled as terrorists. I am not a fan obviously, but I do not think their criminal acts rise to the level of terrorism. More like vandalism.

[frustrated_lefty]

95. You avoid the issue.

Was it or was it not right to breed these immunocompromised rats? That ISN'T the issue. What IS at issue is the fact that these knee-jerk douchebags didn't bother to take the time to understand what they were doing, and they killed a few hundred animals by "setting them free" and thought they were angels by doing so. PETA reps are ignorant. They're well intentioned, but ignorant.

As to your post, what do you envision when you use a phrase like "mutating rats?" Do you think scientists put on funky binoculars and stare cross-eyed at the animals in question?

[mike_c]

27. heh-heh-- I'm an entomologist too-- someone in another thread...

...last night tried to defend the notion that insects are not animals, and when I showed them their place in the animal kingdom they threw up their hands and said "well, there are differing opinions about that!" What can you say in the face of that?

[Zodiak]

31. Reiterate yourself

I guess that is all one can do other than disengage.

[jmowreader]

54. The Sprague-Dawley Rat...

http://aceanimals.com/SpragueDawley.htm

Sounds like an extremely interesting little animal.

[rexcat]

81. I'm a microbiologist...

and I have killed billions upon billions of bacteria. That would make me a mass killer in the eyes of PETA. Beyond that I don't have much respect for PETA members. They tend to be fanatical and scary, at least the one's that I have run up against.

Currently I work in with Pharma companies in clinical trials as a consultant (Phase I through Phase IV oncology studies). The pre-clinical studies are done in animals before going on to human trials. I have discussed drugs I have worked on with Veterinarians because they have clients who want their pets to receive treatments for various cancers. It is interesting how some things go full circle.

[lizerdbits]

101. I just took a job involving vaccine research

I will be involved in studies using primates and various rodents but I might not do much animal handling myself as I'm mostly going to be testing for antibody response after immunization. The purpose of this of course is to prevent disease in humans. Obviously you will have control groups of animals that will receive a challenge from the agent in question having not received the vaccine and many will become ill and die. If someone doesn't morally approve of this they can just not be vaccinated which I believe is becoming more common- refusing to get required vaccinations for their kids and then the schools objecting. There's 'herd immunity' there so if there's a few un-vaccinated kids then it probably won't be a huge issue. I'd rather get vaccinated and have things like antibiotics available (I believe FDA approval requires animal models for drugs?).

[SaveElmer]

5. I mostly disagree with their tactics...but

Still have a sneaking admiration for them. They sure know how to get their cause in the news, and often it is done with a healthy dose of humor!

Some groups are there to shake things up...and PETA is one of them...

[Mythsaje]

6. PETA doesn't have the best reputation

with people in animal rescue.

[sui generis]

13. yeah I remember that little "we have to kill them to save them"

episode.

Whatever became of that?

On the whole I think they have a beneficial effect and anything that makes us less inhumane adds to the instrinsic value of our humanity.

[warrens]

7. They have a right and they often do positive things

Sometimes they're way nutty, but on the whole, they're right. I'm going to continue to eat meat, but I prefer the animals were treated kindly and killed humanely. And saving a few stinking dollars ain't an excuse for abusing animals.

[Southsideirish]

8. I love them - even when I don't exactly understand all their projects - I still

support them as I know their hearts are in the right place.

[feduppuke]

9. People Eating Tasty Animals?

I love 'em :)

[PistolSteve]

39. original.... n/t

[Fierce]

11. I object to their views on women.

nt

[IntravenousDemilo]

30. Which are...?

n/m

[Fierce]

38. Unstated. But look at their use of women in ads.

Also, they usually go after the rich fur-wearing women and not the rich biker-leather-wearing men.

[AZBlue]

78. You're right - they should douse them both in red paint.

eom

[Fierce]

91. But they don't.

That being the point.

[IntravenousDemilo]

82. Yes, but look at just about everyone's use of women in ads.

I don't really see all that much difference. And a mink or sable coat generally costs a lot more than a leather one, so chucking paint on a fur will be a lot more expensive than on leather. The point is to inflict as much monetary damage as possible. It's the same as why hackers make viruses for PCs rather than Macs. We MacUsers are such a small portion of the over-all market that it's hardly worth it to make Mac viruses, whereas PCs are the standard in the corporate world, in government, and healthcare, so making PC viruses will fuck up vastly more people and their money.

[Fierce]

92. An organization that prides itself on "rights"

and then uses exploitive advertising loses all credence in my book. Saying that everyone else does it is hardly a defense.

And I'm not talking only about their physical, in-person attacks. How come they don't use naked men in their ads, if it's all about "the skin you're in"? Oh, that's right -- because, once again, the revolution likes to roll over women's naked backs. Or in front of their naked boobies, as it were.

[flvegan]

99. You mean like this?

http://www.peta2.com/outthere/page/bentaylor72.pdf

or this (male and female)?
http://www.peta.org/pdfs/ADbossmodelsad.pdf

or this?
http://www.peta.org/feat/frankapotente/frankaFULL300.pdf

or this?
http://www.peta.org/feat/jennaethan/page/Jennahires.pdf

or especially this?
http://www.peta.org/mc/ads/ad-kristoff.pdf

or this?
http://www.peta.org/mc/ads/rodmanthink-72.pdf

or this?
http://www.peta.org/mc/ads/ad-davidcross.pdf

Those are just the shirtless/naked ones.

[IntravenousDemilo]

114. I used to work in the ugly field of advertising and marketing; I felt dirty much of the time.

However, I did learn a few things that certainly coloured my view of advertising. For instance, I look at commercials and print ads, and listen to radio spots, differently from most non-admen, and I understand what makes advertising successful. The most important thing for an advertiser is to make sure the name of the product is remembered afterwards. The sole purpose of an ad is to "sell" (literally or figuratively), and brand recognition sells. One has to take measures that will keep the product in the back of the customer's mind. Many times I see a TV spot that I think is wonderfully entertaining or sexy or witty or has a catchy jingle, but if I can't recall later what the ad was for, I know it's really not a good commercial and the advertiser has wasted his money.

It's a shameful fact -- and one of the things that made me feel dirty when I made my living in advertising -- that the objectification of beauty, more often than not feminine beauty, does sell because it's a powerful tool. Would that it were not so. The reason for this is that most guys like to see T & A. I don't like to see women treated as objects any more than you do, and in fact I would prefer to see a more even and equitable cheesecake/beefcake ratio. I'd love to see more hunky guys in ads, like the beefcake Smirnoff angels,

or the Abercrombie & Fitch models (http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/lifestyles/flash/newfaces/index.html),
or even especially full-frontal, like this guy (http://saltyt.antville.org/stories/183992/).

[benEzra]

106. LOL...

Guess they figured that throwing red paint on Hell's Angels wouldn't do much for their cause...they'd definitely get attention, though...

"Ass Belonging to PETA Activist Gets Kicked by Leather Advocate"

[xchrom]

12. i like 'em.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

14. I like them but I wish they would spend their time on the BIG issues rather than the little ones.

They do a lot of good things for the most part but every once in a while they get involved with some bizarre cause.

I'd like to see them go after the SEVERE and more widespread mistreatment of animals. Sometimes they spend time on some pretty goofy things.

They mistreat and torture a lot of farm animals (chickens, cows, lambs, etc.) and they also pollute and destroy a lot of animal habitat and that to me is the #1 issue.

[IntravenousDemilo]

33. When did PETA start mistreating & torturing farm animals or polluting & destroying animal habitats?

I must have missed that item...

[Buzz Clik]

16. Totally fucking nuts.

There are proper ways to handle protests, and PETA struggles trying to find them.

[Ayesha]

17. I strongly dislike them

When they pulled animals from the pound and KILLED THEM that was the last straw for me. They are far more about publicity stunts than saving actual animals. Their beliefs are very extreme, like thinking that people shouldn't have pets. Some are opposed to service dogs for the disabled. When I first discovered the animal rights movement, I learned a lot from them, and they were more sane, but now they've gone way overboard. I prefer to support those in the trenches who actually rescue and care for shelter dogs, abused farm animals, etc. I'm for animal rights, but against PETA!

[IntravenousDemilo]

29. Excuse me... they... they WHAT?

"They pulled animals from the pound and KILLED THEM?"

So you're saying PETA actually went to the trouble of rescuing animals from the pound and then systematically murdering them? Did they shoot the animals, choke them, stab them, what? Are we living in Mondo Bizarro? This makes no sense whatever.

Such a claim as this, that runs counter to logic, REALLY needs a reference or I simply cannot believe you. Where did you hear/read this?

[donco6]

32. Here's an article.

Biased source, so take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAanimalpeople.htm

[China_cat]

37. Here's one that's not so biased

from the communities where it happened.

http://www.vancnews.com/articles/2005/07/13/warrenton/news/news07.txt

I've kept to the 4 paragraph rule but there's a lot more so please read the whole thing.

Were local animal rescue efforts in vain?

By Luci Weldon, The Warren Record

Local animal rescuers are keeping a close eye on a case in Hertford County in which two People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) representatives are accused of dumping the bodies of dead animals in a shopping center garbage bin.

Hertford County courthouse records indicate that employees of animal-rights group PETA, Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach, Va., and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk, Va., each were charged with over 30 felony counts of animal cruelty and nine misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals after law enforcement officers in Ahoskie found 18 dead dogs and cats in a shopping center garbage bin and 13 dead animals in a van registered to PETA. Both Cook and Hinkle, who were working for PETA's Community Animal Project, were later charged with second degree trespassing as well.

In a prepared statement presented at a news conference soon after the arrests, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk indicated that any dumping of dead animals in garbage bins was in violation of PETA protocol and occurred without the knowledge of organization officials.

However, those recent arrests have left local animal rescuers with more questions than answers.

[Marie26]

46. That's horrible

Did PETA ever offer an explanation? Why would they take animals if they weren't going to find homes for them?

[Beaverhausen]

47. I'm fairly certain those two people no longer work for PETA

read the part again where it says their actions are against PETA's protocol.

[Marie26]

48. It looks like they're now being tried

on felony charges. It may be against PETA protocol, but those people were working for PETA at the time, acted as agents of PETA, and used a PETA van to collect the animals. The organization should have issued some kind of apology or explanation. And I still don't understand why they did it.

"PETA trial begins Nov. 13"

Monday, October 30, 2006 7:31 PM CST

WINTON - After numerous delays, the trial involving two PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) employees is scheduled to begin Monday, Nov. 13 in Hertford County Superior Court. ...

The case involves several charges lodged against Andrew Benjamin Cook of Virginia Beach, Va. and Adria Joy Hinkle of Norfolk, Va. The PETA employees were arrested June 15, 2005 in Ahoskie after allegedly euthanizing 31 animals (dogs and cats) and dumping the dead bodies into a waste container located behind an Ahoskie grocery store.

Cook and Hinkle were originally charged with 31 felony counts each of cruelty to animals as well as one count of illegal dumping and misdemeanor trespassing charges. Since their arrests, Asbell, in an effort to more properly identify the dead animals, replaced the original 31 felony cruelty charges with 22 counts against each of the defendants. In addition, new charges were filed in October of last year as both Cook and Hinkle were accused of three counts of obtaining property by false pretense.

Dr. Pat Proctor, owner of AAH, he said he contacted PETA in regards to picking-up the animals. He further stated that Hinkle and Cook came to his business on June 15 and picked-up the animals, promising to find them good homes. However, the cat and her two kittens, all judged by Proctor as in good health and adoptable, were among the 31 dead animals linked to Hinkle’s and Cook’s possession on the day of their arrest.


http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/articles/2006/10/31/news/news1.txt

And here's the incredibly lame explanation from Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's president -

PETA President says Animal Cruelty Charges Won't Stick

NORFOLK, Va. (AP) --Dumping the bodies of dead dogs and cats in the garbage is wrong, but the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said Friday that animal cruelty charges against two employees won't stick. From PETA headquarters in Norfolk Friday, Newkirk said that the dogs and cats did not suffer in their deaths, so there was no cruelty. ... Newkirk said the workers were picking up animals to be brought to PETA headquarters in Norfolk for euthanization.

Veterinarians and animal control officers said the PETA workers had promised to find homes for the animals rather than euthanize them, according to police. "PETA has never made a secret of the fact that most of the animals picked up in North Carolina are euthanized," Newkirk said.

Neither police nor PETA offered any theory on why the animals might have been dumped. Newkirk said no one from PETA noticed that over several weeks Hinkle was returning from her weekly trips to North Carolina without animals to be euthanized.

PETA spokeswoman Colleen O'Brien said the organization euthanizes animals by lethal injection, which it considers more humane than shooting or gassing them in groups, as some counties do."
http://www.wvec.com/news/local/stories/wvec_local_061705_peta_court.1b0c99cf.html

This really pisses me off. PETA actually kept one of the defendants on the job, even after the arrests. They actually don't find homes for pets, but just kill the animals w/what they considered more "humane" measures than the pound. And the president defended the actions of two people who mislead owners about what would happen to their animals, and then killed & dumped over 80 pets. Even if the actual crimes violated PETA's "protocol", the organization's admitted practices & actions in this case are very troubling.

[Beaverhausen]

50. They did issue a statement- and they fired the employees

Not sure what else you want them to do. :shrug:

[China_cat]

52. That Catholic church issued a statement and fired the

pedophile priest. Not sure what else you want them to do.

See the correlation?

[Marie26]

53. Actually, no

Please see my edited post. They kept one of the employees, Cook, on the job even after he was indicted. And the PETA president's "statement" was incredibly defensive & lame. She admitted that PETA kills almost all of the animals they take, (w/methods they prefer), and didn't notice when the defendant didn't bring back any of the "saved" animals for weeks; then the PETA president tried to say that the defendants' actions WEREN'T CRUEL TO ANIMALS. :wtf: There's no apology, and there's a big attempt to minimize what these employees did. I have no respect for anyone who can justify cruelty to animals, whether that's a makeup company, or PETA.

[China_cat]

63. Oh I agree with you completely.

Add to that that the law doesn't allow the use of euthanasia solution without a licensed veterinarian in attendance.

And for what else PETA could do about this particular outrage...well, they could start by opening their books and showing where the animals they say were adopted out went. Something they've refused to do for the NO-KILL shelter they got animals from.

Then, for their own image, they could quit hiring felons classed as domestic terrorists even before 9/11 and/or paying their legal expenses. (see Rodney Coronado see also the PETA financial statements to see just how much HELP they actually give to animals)

[Marie26]

98. I want to like PETA

Because I love animals. But shit like this makes me think that PETA is a pack of ideologues who care more about The Cause then they do about actually protecting animals. That story is awful, and it seems like the entire scope of the crimes isn't even known yet. Apparently, dead animals were showing up in garbage cans for weeks before the defendants were finally caught & charged w/the latest dumping. An animal rescue volunteer became suspicious & tipped off police after seeing trucks full of 80+ animals leaving no-kill shelters, w/o any paper trail indicating where the animals were taken. And the animal rescue person testified that the officials at PETA assured her, often, that the animals would be placed in homes. This isn't just one rogue operative; it seems to be a systematic practice within the organization.

Looking at the article, it seems like PETA's rate of sucessfully finding homes for animals might even be worse than the pound. The news article says that PETA euthanized 2,278 animals in 2004, and only placed 321 in homes. In 2005, they euthanized 1,946 animals, and only placed 146. A blog has posted the official statistics from the VA Dept. of Agriculture for 1999-2005. According to PETA's own reports, more than 80% of the animals that they take each year are killed. http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf Newkirk alleges that PETA "makes no secret" of the fact that most North Carolina animals that the "Community Animal Project" takes are killed. Here's the website for PETA's "Community Animal Project"; it doesn't even mention that the animals are euthanized. http://www.helpinganimals.com/about_cap.asp I'm willing to bet PETA had the animals shipped up to VA just in order to circumvent NC laws that require a veterinarian to be present during euthanizations. And this is protecting animals? I don't think so. I would never give an animal to this organization.

[nonconformist]

87. It appears that PETA's "problem" with this was only the way the bodies were disposed. nt

[China_cat]

51. Would you expect them to say that it is?

Just looking at the facts...PETA employees, PETA van, PETA contact with NO-KILL shelters to take their animals, PETA employees in PETA van found with vials of euthanasia solution, PETA employees -caught- dumping dead animals (and it wasn't the first time they'd done it...same employees) that were alive when they picked them up. If the word PETA wasn't associated with that story, but another animal group, what would be your first reaction?

[Marie26]

59. Seems like the only thing

that violated PETA protocol was dumping the animals instead of having them euthanized at the PETA organization.

[flvegan]

72. So, you're against

humane euthanasia? The animals that PETA routinely takes in are headed for a gas chamber or a .22.

They don't believe people shouldn't have pets. Many PETA employees have pets, and quite often, bring them to work.

[nonconformist]

88. The animals they took in this case were at a no-kill shelter, and PETA promised to find them homes.

Then they "euthanized" them in a van, without a veterinarian present as the law requires, and dumped the bodies.

[flvegan]

100. At least you believe the spin

you were given by the news. Considering that you were there to hear this "promise" from an organization that has been humanely euthanizing animals for some time now, as an alternative to how these "shelters" were doing it.

Get the whole story, then get back to us.

Thanks.

[nonconformist]

112. Why would the veterinarian and staff at the shelter lie about it?

It's not "media spin", it's what the shelter reported. And this was a NO-KILL shelter.

And "humanely euthanizing" doesn't mean killing them in a van in a parking lot and dumping the bodies, all without a veterinarian present. That's called "violating the law".

Since you so condescendingly point out that us lowly news readers don't have the "whole story", I take it you WERE there to hear the conversations between PETA and the shelter.

[flvegan]

117. That proves a couple things.

Which was a no-kill shelter? The Northampton one or the Bertie one? See, both have been using PETA for QUITE some time to euthanize the surplus animals. Bertie still (until recently) used a FUCKING GAS CHAMBER to do it, that is, until PETA stepped in to do it humanely. PETA has offered money to these folks in the past to upgrade their euthanasia practices (oh, but they're no-kill...right?), which they refused...until ConsumerFreedom offered it to them.

Oh, and as for the vet. The vet's assistant turned the animals over to PETA, as the office has been doing for sometime, as well. They do so knowing full well that PETA is an absolute last resort. Of course, maybe they could've taken those animals to that no-kill you were talking about...

And no, I wasn't there. I read both sides of the story and looked into it further. If PETA was killing animals as many have suggested, I sure as hell wouldn't stand behind them (I value animals pretty strongly as you might have guessed). Some folks, well, just assume stuff to be true when they want it to be. It's easier.

Cry to someone else. I stated you didn't have the whole story. You didn't. I didn't condescend, although you tried to.

[nam78_two]

19. Its a mix for me.....I support a lot of what they work for

but, not many of their techniques...:(

I hate abusive and violent techniques...there are better ways of getting a point across than dousing people with paint.

I have supported them and still do monetarily (though I make a point of writing to them about their techniques), though nowadays I veer more towards organizations like Farm Sanctuary, the HSUS, Compassion over killing, who work for the same things as PETA without some of their approaches...

Also, while I am very strongly for animal welfare, but I don't like getting bogged down with "morality" arguments and eschew getting stuff done that directly helps animals...

They also attack too many organizations that do legitimate work towards animal protection, because they disagree with them on a few issues (WWF being one recent example I can think of). Whatever their beef with WWF, my take on that sort of thing is similar to the internal groaning I do when I see the left attack its own.

Whatever disagreements you may have with an enviro or animal group,I think its more important to attack groups like Centre For Consumer Freedom or the FFA before you start squabbling with people who are at least overall more on your side than not.

Seeing as we aren't living in some utopia where animals are mostly treated well, it doesn't make much sense to me to attack WWF, when there are so many overtly, nastily anti-animal welfare groups out there...
Why not focus on the real enemies first?

I also think dragging in naked celebrities etc., while it may be good for getting attention, trivializes one's cause...

That being said, I do think they are mostly really well-intentioned and I respect the fact that most of them live on what amounts to a pittance to make the lives of animals better, in ways they deem to be the best...

[madrchsod]

21. they do some really good things

and some incredibility stupid things. i think the good out weigh the bad.

[k_jerome]

22. mostly idiotic. nt.

[Catchawave]

23. They do good work..

http://www.helpinganimals.com/

[IA_Seth]

26. They're a political liability...

In the vein of fundies for the right, PETA inhibits our party's stability by alienating huge swaths of the population.

That's MY take.

[DinahMoeHum]

28. I have a slogan for PETA, unfortunately, I once got censored

here at DU for saying it.

If you want to know what it is, PM me.

:evilgrin:

[Gwerlain]

35. Neutral...

they do bring some abusive practices to light, and I think the dialog their very existence stimulates is healthy, but they have problems with their tactics, which both damage the dialog and damage their causes, and they also advocate some pretty dumb stuff sometimes. For example, making a fuss about people keeping pets. Sorry, my pets' other choice is to be dead or live in the wild- I feed them, and I house them, and I take responsibility for their medical care; not to mention, I take the time to socialize with them, and I value them as individuals; the restrictions I impose are the minimum needed for their safety. If you think that's abusive, you can fold it up until it's all sharp corners and edges and...

'Nuff said.

[originalpckelly]

41. Other: Mostly NUTS!

Hypocrites, they kill vegetables ALL THE TIME!

How dare they?

Those cannibals have place criticizing people who enjoy other species than homosapiens.

[durrrty libby]

42. My impression of them is that they are a bunch of

jag offs hiding under the guise of so called good intentions.

[Lilith Velkor]

49. Yyyup.

Precisely.

[MoonRiver]

43. I wish you had a "strongly positive" option. That's how I feel about PETA.

Instead I was forced to choose "mostly positive", which does not really reflect my opinion.

[Yukari Yakumo]

44. Negative

ASPCA does a better job than they would ever do.

PETA is nothing more than attention-whores doing incredibly stupid crap which takes attention away from the issues they really should be focusing on. Most of their members seem to be comprised of ill-informed trust-fund twits and the dumbest of celebrities.

[Beaverhausen]

45. There are many PETA members here

Really nice generalization you just made: "Most of their members seem to be comprised of ill-informed trust-fund twits and the dumbest of celebrities"

Gee, welcome to DU. :eyes:

I love PETA!

[LeftyMom]

68. Got a link for that assertion?

Generally on DU we back attacks up with evidence.

[flvegan]

70. That's as stupid as saying that every DUer with under 150 posts

is a dipshit trolling assbag. Sure, might be true about a few, but it's not a consensus.

[MrSlayer]

55. Hate them.

Definitely an extremist organization.

[ThomCat]

56. That would be interesting if they were extreme.

[trotsky]

57. On the balance, they do far more harm than good to their cause.

This "at least they draw attention to the issue" rationalization drives me crazy. Yeah, they draw attention to it, which is then quickly redirected into "Just look at how nutty those PETA freaks are! Comparing the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust?!?"

I think PETA turns off more people to animal rights than it turns on.

[Feron]

60. They're extremists

I support animal welfare, not animal rights. PETA believes that animals cannot be pets or used by humans in any way. Ingrid Newkirk even believes that seeing eye dogs for the blind is abuse. They are just as bad as the fundie Christians who try to push their beliefs on me.

It's funny because those against animal experimentation have no qualms about accepting treatments that came about because of it. While it would be great if computer modeling could completely replace animals in tests, right now that isn't possible.

And what little good PETA does is overshadowed by their extremist positions and their nutty stunts. PETA's support of ALF doesn't help either.

It's all about choice. No matter how hard PETA tries there will always be fur wearers, hunters, fishermen, meat eaters, and pet owners. Trying to force the world into their vegan image of utopia is a nonstarter. Individuals choosing a vegan lifestyle is one thing, pushing it on your neighbors is another thing altogether.

Not to mention that some morons impose their dietary choices onto their pets. A cat is a carnivore, not an herbivore. You wouldn't feed a lion a salad or a snake a soy rat ,so why do you think that soy is a great cat food?! If meat makes you that squeamish, then rehome the cat.

In short, lobbying Congress to pass fully-funded bills strengthening animal protection laws goes a lot further than putting some guy in a fish suit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Mostly Negative, As Is My Impression Of Any Extremist Zealot Type.

[Kali]

62. Mostly negative

sure they contribute to the dialog (not that the dialog with them is notably productive) but they are extremists. Many animal ARE here because and for human use. They simply would not exist otherwise and I have no problem conducting medical experiments, using, eating or keeping them as pets.

[ThomWV]

65. I Can Not Argue Against Not Causing Pain For Animals, But I Can't Forgo Human Primacy

And so while I certainly agree that it is better not to cause pain in animals than to cause pain or to the notion that to treat animals as no more than a raw resource is inhumane at the same time I put us above them.

So I eat meat, something that as an omnivore (really, just look at my teeth, you'll see its what I was made for) it as natural to me as breathing, and when an animal is killed in my name or I do it myself (I sometimes raise livestock, fish and hunt) I make it fast and as painless as possible. PETA would not accept that as I understand it.

[WritingIsMyReligion]

67. They're extremists, IMHO, and extremism is never good.

Not only does extremism run counter-intuitive to tolerance, but it's also a political liability, especially in the case of PETA.

[Raine]

69. Positive nt

:thumbsup:

[flvegan]

71. 95% positive

I don't like some of the tactics, and I disagree with some things they, as an organization have said.

I do appreciate that they are true to their mission (unlike many charities) in that their ego takes a backseat. I also appreciate that the vast majority of their donations go towards program work and not salaries (also unlike a great number of charities).

I love PETA and the advances that they've made in a number of industries speaks to their effectiveness, like them or not.

[bluedogyellowdog]

73. Neutral

It's a mix of positive and negative.

I agree with them completely on ending animal cruelty in factory farming techniques and other places. I also agree with them on opposing whaling, promoting spaying or neutering your cats and dogs, and so on.

But there are other animal rights groups like HSUS who also work on these issues but without the anti-meat baggage that PETA has. The thing which distinguishes PETA from groups like HSUS is PETA's blanket opposition to hunting and blanket opposition to eating meat. On those issues I think they're wrong. That doesn't mean they're extremist, just wrong according to my own views. So mostly I don't pay much attention to PETA.

[lynne]

74. Mostly Negative-

- the final straw for me was when they stood in the road at our fairgrounds holding signs with a picture of a cow and the slogan "Drink More Beer". That's a great sentiment for children coming to the fair. PETA had traffic backed up for miles as they were literally standing in the road. I called the cops because they were a safety hazard and they were soon gone.

[ret5hd]

75. OH MY GOD!!!

Won't someone think of the children!!!

(too bad you seem more worried about a slogan than the actual act)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LeftyMom]

76. Oh my god, kids might see the word beer!

Wow, my kid has actually seen *gasp* people drinking beer! At the fair too! Enormous cups of beer, and a lot of wine, too! Somebody call CPS, clearly I can't be entrusted with the next generation! Who knew a fair was such an indecent place to bring a child! Oh, the horror!

If they'd had signs showing the cruelty inherent in the dairy industry I'm sure you'd have been horrified by the kiddies seeing that too. I think it's pretty cool that they found a clever way to sneak an anti-dairy message in that wasn't graphic. I hope they had pamphlets and other info available as well for those who wanted to learn something instead of work themselves into a lather over free speech.

[LittleClarkie]

85. Fine, then they can exersize their free speech on the side of the road

No need to stand in the middle and block traffic, was there?

[LeftyMom]

86. Are other demonstrators permitted to do so?

I don't know the details of the site (having only the subthread originator's descrption of the incident) and I have a feeling, based on the somewhat hysterical nature of the post, that "blocking traffic" meant that they were visible from the road and people were rubbernecking. Because of course there's no traffic leading to the fairgrounds without PETA. :eyes:

[jakefrep]

77. negative

They carp incessantly about shit nobody cares about, and in doing so, alienate too many people.

[aikoaiko]

79. I do animal model research ... PETA thinks I'm a monster.

So I have a mostly negative view of PETA because I support the use of animals in research.

[Catchawave]

93. Depends on the research.

If you'll only read up on their position, you'll be pleasantly surprised what they doth protest :hi:

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_experimentation.asp

[aikoaiko]

105. I read PETA's mission statement.

From their mission statement:
PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.


And I experiment on animals (actually I would say experiment with animals).

[Kali]

107. Yep.

And I totally disagree. Some ARE ours to eat, wear, experiment on and use for entertainment. Don't have to be cruel about it but there is no reason not to use animals for human benefit.

[johnaries]

83. Whatever happened to the ASPCA?

How come you never hear about them anymore? :shrug:

[Catchawave]

94. I guess they're not as media savvy ?

But they are working on wonderful animal protection projects:

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lobby_home

[Marie26]

102. They really are

Thanks for posting, you've just inspired me to donate!

[BikeWriter]

84. Puck FeTa!

[Renew Deal]

104. As a Greek

I am offended. :D

[nedbal]

89. On Feral Cats they took the right stand,, euthanize feral cats

I had and have a problem in my neighborhood, and when I quote the peta position only a few will still argue I should pay hundreds to spay and then find homes for them. I've never relocated them to some abandoned area or harmed them, I just deliver them to the pound.

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=141


Because of the huge number of feral cats and the severe shortage of good homes, the difficulty of socialization, and the dangers lurking where most feral cats live, it may be necessary—and the most compassionate choice—to euthanize feral cats. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your local animal shelter uses an injection of sodium pentobarbital, take the cats there. Please do not allow the prospect of euthanasia to deter you from trapping feral cats. If you leave them where they are, they will almost certainly die a painful death. A painless injection is far kinder than any fate that feral cats will meet if they are left to survive on their own.

[Alexander]

90. I'm a vegetarian, and PETA is worthless.

They'd rather raise a stink about street and town names like "Fishkill" and "Rodeo" (pronounced Ro-day-oh, not Ro-dee-oh) then accomplish anything meaningful.

[flvegan]

97. *snicker*

Here's an exceedingly short list of nothing "meaningful" then:
http://www.peta.org/about/victories.asp

PETA has also had major impacts on the animal welfare guidelines as they relate to some of the biggest corporations in the world.

Guess that's not too "meaningful" though.

[Alexander]

109. MADD has done some good things as well. Doesn't mean I like them.

Most of these "victories" happen despite PETA - their reputation as a bunch of shrill nutcases precedes them.

Proposition 204 passed here in Arizona, establishing fines and other punishments for animal cruelty pertaining to pigs and other animals raised for food.

PETA had absolutely nothing to do with that, and I imagine if they did, it wouldn't have passed. Arizona isn't exactly a PETA-loving state.

There isn't a single thing on that biased list from their website that you showed me that couldn't have been done by another group that doesn't pick ridiculous battles, for example town and sign names. Try defending THAT. What's the point of attacking names like "Rodeo" and "Fishkill", when any idiot can find out that the origin of the names has nothing to do with rodeos or killing fish?

PETA had good intentions at the start but has turned into a gaggle of raving lunatics hell-bent on censoring even the mere possible mention of animal cruelty, even when it's clearly not. Much like MADD was once a noble cause seeking to end drunk driving but is now a neo-prohibitionist group.

PETA should be either replaced or reorganized. It's far too easy for right-wingers to point to PETA as a straw man for why animal cruelty should continue, and PETA just gives them more ammunition.

Your defense of PETA...causes me to do this.

:rofl:

[flvegan]

115. Speaking of laughter...

You said that PETA was worthless. I proved you wrong, and don't give a shit who you do or don't like. Get over yourself.

As for Prop 204...that would be the initiative that was largely fronted by HSUS, ADL and Farm Sanctuary, right? Yeah, PETA had no part in that. Okay. Surely they didn't share their activist lists and cross memberships with these other groups, and largely stay away from these ballot initiatives because they're PETA. Okay. Yeah, whoooo...you got me. Guess they ONLY did that the LAST few times (like here, in Florida). Damn, U R smart.

The point of attacking "Rodeo" and "Fishkill" is...well...you remember it, right? Got publicity, right? Mark.

And pity you having to defend poor PETA from right wingers. Better hide that DU bumper sticker before you get a wedgie...

[frustrated_lefty]

96. They're retarded, well intentioned, morons.

[Renew Deal]

103. DU is vociferously anti-Peta

There is usually a monthly Peta bashing thread.

[T Town Jake]

108. Since I had a foot-long chili dog with cheese for lunch today...

...and enjoyed every bite of it, I'd have to say that it's mostly negatory about PETA from my point of view. :thumbsdown:

[Zhade]

110. Had to go with negative. I admire their passion and some of their goals.

I'm all for ending cruelty to animals. I'm unconvinced that the argument for vegetarianism isn't flawed (if it's about not killing for food, better not eat veggies either; if it's about pain, animals can be killed painlessly).

Their tactics need a lot of work, since they tend to piss off even already-sympathetic vegans.

[JacksonWest]

111. They waste time on money on non issues

When there are no hungry or homeless, when we are not killing innocent civilians in a foreign country, when we have social justice and a competent public education system, and decent health care-I'll start worrying about who's wearing fur. Until then-Fuck PETA.

[StraightDope]

113. PETA is petarded

[citizen snips]

116. PETA is a joke.

n/t