Posted on 03/30/2009 10:33:09 AM PDT by OneVike
PETA is a non-profit organziation and the funds it uses are from donations, however a number of recent news stories indicated the donations may not be going to where they were intended. Like most of you, I thought PETA was mostly about lobbying and protesting for animal rights. I was surprised to know they run animal shelters that they claim are for finding dogs and cats good homes. I was even more suprised to find out that 95% of pets in their care...were killed. So where are all those many millions in donations going, executive salaries? One thing is for sure, the money is not going to find good homes for the animals in their care!
(Excerpt) Read more at norcalblogs.com ...
HSUS is also very misleading to the public. They do not run shelters. They are a lobbying group.
ping
This is the 3rd thread on this that I’ve seen! LOL. I was told that in Virginia, they only set up this building for animals to be humanely euthanized (needle) since Virginia uses gas and causes suffering. This place being referenfed is not an adoption center....so to be fair, this should be disclosed too.... I wish Peta did help with the spay/neuter of animals...but I was told that all they do is work at animal cruelty ..not adoptions, etc.
www.petakillsanimals.com
PETA is more about being a personality cult than being about animals.
Big euthanasia.
Hi Fawn,
I know you really love animals, and so do I. But PETA doesn’t. They hate people, they don’t love animals. When you realize this, then all of their behavior comes into focus.
They say things that to a person that loves animals seems sweet and caring. Then they behave differently. It seems confusing until you see it from their point of view.
They hate pets. Why? On the surface it would seem that they view having a pet as a form of enslavement to the animal. But what they really hate is animals comforting and loving people.
See, to PETA, it isn’t enough to treat animals ethically, we have to rid our world (the human world) of them completely. It’s not about giving nature back to the animals that inhabit our planet, it’s about cutting people off from nature entirely.
- Can’t eat meat: hurts animals
- Can’t wear leather or fur: hurts animals
- Can’t use wood: takes away animal habitation
- Can’t mine: hurts animals habitat and drinking water
- Can’t walk in the woods: spooks animals and trespasses on their terrain
- Can’t use pesticides to grow food: might hurt animals by poisoning the food chain.
- Can’t grow gardens: introduces unnatural flora to the environment and that might hurt animals
- Can’t have big farms: unnatural control of the land might make animals upset
Again, all of the above are couched in language that an animal lover might see some reason in. But look at it from the point of view that they hate humanity and want to seperate us from animals and nature.
Unfortunately, PETA members in the past, in various articles have stated outwardly that OWNING a pet, whether it’s a dog, cat, bird, or otherwise is against the natural being of the animal and should be discouraged. They are against pet-owning at all and have stated as a policy (until it was brought out in the open in articles) that they would rather see the animals in question dead, than be SLAVES of the pet-owners. How’s that for animal rights? Nice, huh...
I don’t care what people say about PETA - I find them to be a complete waste of human flesh. Period.
I knew all of that. I was just pointing out that the article didn’t point out that they do not adopt out animals.......
Also....I don’t love all animals.....some dog breeds & raccoons could be eradicated —and that wouldn’t bother me. :)
Unfortunately their name is deceiving and people give, give and give some more. Most are not aware that the HSUS has close ties with PETA. In my mind they're one in the same and both groups stink.
Absolutely. And with ties to ALF.
In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.
* Newsday, 1988 February 21
I don’t use the word 'pet.' I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship — enjoyment at a distance.
* The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223
You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.
* The Chicago Daily Herald, 1990 March 1
The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.
* Animals, 1993 May 1
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ingrid_Newkirk
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.