Sabyen91:

T-Boy: I didn't think that PETA operated "shelters." I thought they were all about advertising and media. Well, if you get into the shelter business, you should at least try to make it work. Seems PETA isn't really sure what their mission is these days.

It is quite possible they take in the beat up old pets no other shelters will accept. An 85% rate is not at all out of line if you accept 14 year old, arthritic cats with AIDS.

WTF? PETA could only afford the one shill? Blowing up shiat must be more expensive than I thought.

OK, so PeTA kills animals and is registered as a terrorist organization. I vote that they disband.

Also, their assets and income stream be sent to me, because I'm the first to think of this awesome idea.

jtown: This is a repeat from 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, and 1998.

oldnewsissoexciting.jpg

The full chart is here (new window)

I thought this was well known. I've never really understood why "animal lovers" support PETA.

downpaymentblues:

I thought this was well known. I've never really understood why "animal lovers" support PETA.

Because advertising WORKS... and their logo seems friendly.

Jim_Callahan: ib_thinkin:
So, I'm curious - what kind of animals does PETA usually receive, being that it's primarily an advocacy organization and not an animal rescue operation? Oh, this kind: "most of the animals we take in are society's rejects; aggressive, on death's door, or somehow unadoptable."

That's actually more or less a straight-up lie. PETA takes literally any animal that they can legally get their hands on, and a number that they didn't get their hands on entirely legally. Their official position is literally that animals are better off dead than as pets, and no animal is adoptable.

If you're looking for a theoretical organization that actually acts ethically, you'll be wanting the ASPCA, they run shelters that, y'know, actually shelter things instead of the "shelters" PETA runs as described in the article and various other literature that you can find with 30 seconds and google.

The national ASPCA only runs 5 shelter, all in NY state. Two of them are "intake only" meaning they don't even try to get those animals adopted. Their name is not trademarked, we could open the FARK ASPCA if we wanted. They do it so people will think they're a wonderful organization. They only spend half the money they take in and only about 1% of that goes to shelters.

They're essentially the advocacy and lobbying organization for shelters and resist efforts to reform shelters. There is a law in the NY state legislature that would protect rescue groups who report bad conditions in shelters and prohibit shelters from banning a group that complained.

the ASPCA is fighting against the bill. They also wrote and got introduced a bill that allows shelter to kill animals immediately if two people who work there think the animal is "psychologically distressed." Say your pet gets out while you're at work, he could be dead before you knew it was gone. It's to give the shelters cover for any killing they do. There are many stories of people telling a shelter they were coming to get their pet, only to get there and find out the pet was dead. This is the sort of thing the ASPCA wants to protect.

They fight against the No Kill movement and recently referred to a particular no kill rescue group as a "terrorist cell."

I'm on my cell phone, if you want cites and links, reply to this post and I'll get them up on Monday.

If you want to donate money to help homeless animals, give to a local rescue.

Phins: They fight against the No Kill movement and recently referred to a particular no kill rescue group as a "terrorist cell."

At least we all know what happened to that "thought criminal" backstab we expected. It got changed to "terrorist".

Who cares what a terrorist organization does? Screw 'em.

The HSA, TSA, CIA, FBI and some other alphabet soup agencies. Probably why people like shouting "TERR'IST!"

A terrorist organization is defined as one that uses terror tactics to further political, ideological, or religious goals.

In 2003, PETA handed out these "Your Mommy Kills Animals" (PDF) flyers to young children. The intent was to terrorize children for the sake of furthering their ideological goals.

Ergo, PETA is a terrorist organization.

Never donate to PETA or HSUS - Humane Society of United States.... these organizations believe animals have rights... mainly to DIE.

Organizations like ASPCA (which is primarily a NYC organization) and your local humane societies believe it is humanity's duty to treat animals with respect, reduce their suffering and all that...

Much like young children, people with severely impaired mental function, and demented old persons, animals do not have rights that they can understand or exercise. It is humanity's duty to look out for their welfare.... until we kill them for meat in a relatively painless manner. (Beef is bobbed on the back of the head before getting its throat slit.)

/Time to eat a California cheeseburger.

Cpl.D: A terrorist organization is defined as one that uses terror tactics to further political, ideological, or religious goals.

In 2003, PETA handed out these "Your Mommy Kills Animals" (PDF) flyers to young children. The intent was to terrorize children for the sake of furthering their ideological goals.

Ergo, PETA is a terrorist organization.

I'd go more with "flatulently egregious douchebags", personally, but that ain't gonna keep Gitmo in funding and steaks.

bunner: I'd go more with "flatulently egregious douchebags", personally, but that ain't gonna keep Gitmo in funding and steaks.

I wouldn't consider PETA gitmo material. It's just a mostly-harmless pack of attention whore kids who think they're helping somehow. Best way to hurt 'em is ignore 'em. And don't give them money. Give it to a decent no-kill shelter instead. You dog's less-lucky brother will thank you.

mamoru: TV's Vinnie: Is it really needed? It's pretty freaking obvious, brah.

Yes, it is really needed. Because there isn't a lot of demand for such dissection specimens, so if you are suggesting that the shelters and the biosupply companies are cutting corners in order to increase profits, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

This guy

has your citation right here.

/Uneeda Medical Supply... you need it, we got it!

Cpl.D: bunner: I'd go more with "flatulently egregious douchebags", personally, but that ain't gonna keep Gitmo in funding and steaks.

I wouldn't consider PETA gitmo material. It's just a mostly-harmless pack of attention whore kids who think they're helping somehow. Best way to hurt 'em is ignore 'em. And don't give them money. Give it to a decent no-kill shelter instead. You dog's less-lucky brother will thank you.

I'm fine with that.

So, whats with this thread?

I haven't seen one post yet addressing how, ya know, math.

if X were the total amount of animals brought in to PETA each year, then
euthanize 90% over 10 years would be
x * 0.9 * 10 = 9x
so after 10 years, PETA would have 9 times as many animals as they do right now if they didn't euthanize.

So, are their facilities 11.11% full right now?

Well, that's not a fair assessment, I know. They have to put down at least some of them, right? They are probably wasting money here and there. They probably have some employees somewhere who are simply cruel and not abiding by the company policy. Hell, they probably are greedy bastards who grind for donations and then blow it all on god knows what.

Totally!

However, does all this anecdote truly account for the entire wiggle room of that example 90% figure?
Is PETA truely killing animals when it doesn't have to?

Do you have the facts, (and when I say facts, I mean facts, not more conspir-anecdote), to show me that PETA is really euthanizing animals that would other wise be alive either adopted or living in humane shelter conditions were PETA to not exist?

If you got something to show me that I'm not aware of, by all means, enlighten me.

Protricity: If you got something to show me that I'm not aware of, by all means, enlighten me.

How about the possibility of PETA not taking animals they can't take care of, or giving them to a no-kill shelter. Instead of killing them?

As a member of People Eating Tasty Animals, I fail to see the difference between this and a slaughterhouse, except that the slaughterhouse is more efficient. I do believe that animals should be killed humanely, for food.

GeneralJim: I hadn't made that connection... thanks, I guess. You're right about the double dick punch. And, the president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, needs to be sent to Denmark to have gender reassignment surgery, be allowed plenty of time to heal, and then, brought back and TRIPLE cock-punched. I just checked the dictionary for "self-righteous," and "hypocrite," and they had a little picture of her under both entries.

If you aim right, a clit punch would hurt just as much as a cock punch.

/Don't ask how I know about clit strikes
//Just trust me on this
/ow

I know Farkers hate Cracked, and I know PETA doesn't run shelters, but I'm gonna go ahead and leave this here anyways. And for the record, my experience is similar to the author's...

Link (new window)

I apologize if this was already left here.

The PETA shelter folks work long hard hours, 12 hour days.

After 11 and a half hours of "Holier than thou smugness training", they have to work really hard murdering..err, "Ethically Treating" a days worth of animals in 30 minutes.

PETA had no comment when the Daily Caller asked what sort of effort it routinely makes to find adoptive homes for animals in its care.

\Which means "We don't even try, we just take your money and kill the animals. And the quote that "we only kill the animals that are unadoptable" is horseshiat. If those numbers are correct, you can't tell me that out of all those dogs and cats, not ONE was a sweet animal that would have made a good pet for someone. They have no interest in finding homes for these pets.

you know who else killed things out of concern of purity?

Ringshadow: Subby didn't know that? This has been known for years. PETA is classified as a terrorist organization, and they don't give a crap about animals. They hate the entire idea of "domesticated". Their creed is its better for an animal to die than be in the hands of a loving human.

And apparently their goal is for the entire world to be vegan with no domestic animals at all. Near as I can tell. No circuses or zoos, either.

/Nevermind that's totally not sustainable

How is it not sustainable?

I_Am_Weasel: Documents published online this month show that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization known for its uncompromising animal-rights positions, killed more than 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2011.


Otherwise known as PETA files.

Nice.

From Wiki, about Richard Berman

Organizations founded and managed by Berman include:

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), originally named the Guest Choice Network (GCN). CCF serves as an advocate for restaurants, meat, dairy, food processors, and alcohol. The group was formed in 1995 with funding from tobacco giant Phillip Morris.[13][14]

The American Beverage Institute (ABI), which fights against laws increasingly designed to criminalize alcohol consumption, including the push to further lower existing blood-alcohol arrest thresholds.[15] In May 2010, the Humane Society and MADD filed a complaint with the New York Commission on Public Integrity, charging that the American Beverage Institute was in fact lobbying but had failed to register with the state as lobbyists.[16]

The Employment Policies Institute (EPI), which is opposed to raising the minimum wage, particularly in the labor-intensive restaurant industry.[15] It points to academic studies alleging that increases in the minimum wage lead to job losses, particularly among the poor and uneducated.[15]

The Center for Union Facts (CUF), which argues that unions are corrupt and bad for workers.[6] They have run full-page ads in major print media outlets (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post) blaming trade unions for the bankruptcies of American industries. The CUF website purports that it is the largest online database of labor-union reporting on salaries, budgets, and political spending. Recently, they have produced TV ads alleging intimidation by trade unions.[15] CUF is a non-profit; 2007 federal tax returns showed revenues of $2.5 million, with $840,000 being paid to Berman and Company for management services.[11]

What a lot of people do not realize is that not all of the animals that they kill are turnede in by people who can't take care of their pets any more. A lot of them are stolen or coerced from people who think Peta has some sort of law enforcement powers. Some of the activists will threaten old ladys into surrendering their pets due to the fact that they convince Edna that her cat is not healthy and it is because she is not taking proper care of Fluffy. The real truth is that there is nothing wrong with the vast majority of the animals. Peta also uses weasel words such a "reportedly", and "because no good homes exist for them". The latter means that they feel no one is good enough so they have to kill them. It is all part of ther plot to completely destroy any type of husbandry they can, with their ultimate goal of no human/animal interaction at all anywhere in the world.

Also, they are going to spend as little money as possible on anything that does not multiply their bank balances. The actuall animals cost money with no financial return. Advertisments bring in more money than they cost, so they are more than happy to spend that money. The top few administration in Peta are extremely rich and this is their main motivation.

Someone above stated that they are concidered a domestic terrorist org. Actually, if I am not mistaken, they are concidered a secondary terrotist org with ties to the HSUS/ALF which they do concider a domestic terrorist group. Peta provides funds to them, but does not supposedly do the actual dirty deeds. It is the FBI who deems them a terrorist gorup.

WTF Indeed: [k.wigflip.com image 405x304]

I'll just assume that's Michael Vick. If there's one thing worse than PETA it's an asshole like him. How he is not so vilified that no NFL team would hire him is a testimony to how farked up the NFL is.

Fark all you assholes who pay money to support him.

/No I did not watch the Stupor Bowl.
//DIAF assholes

Even With A Chainsaw: Wasn't it awesome how the comments section just kept sliding all the way to the right?

.................Yeah that was totally sick - everyone was all commenting on the very last person's statement.

You've just made Monday a lot easier. =D
I don't see what you did thar, but I lmao'd.

GeneralJim: No, sadly. Penn and Teller's "Bullshiat" (minus filter pwnage) show did a segment on PETA. They kill and cremate, often after keeping the corpses in a freezer. They're slime.

Your point may still be valid, but it's standard practice to put the bodies in the freezer while waiting for them to be picked up for disposal. It's the same thing every vet does with Fluffy after you have him put to sleep.

Sabyen91

Ringshadow: This has been known for years. PETA is classified as a terrorist organization, and they don't give a crap about animals.

Really? By whom? You really should have looked that up first.

/It was probably Greenpeace you were thinking of.

Yes, you really should have looked that up first

USDA Classifies PETA As A Terrorist Threat

PETA And Terrorism: The Real Deal

PETA's $70,000-plus gift to dedicated arsonist Rodney Coronado, Cavuto

...

PETA's own tax returns show a $1,500 gift to the terrorist Earth Liberation Front (ELF), a donation made after ELF activists had been convicted of various violent crimes.

...

PETA's Bruce Friedrich "stood up in front of a public audience and advocated people going out and blowing up restaurants and blowing up medical laboratories,"

...

If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a movement, blowing things up and smashing windows ... I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be great if all of the fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.

-- Bruce Friedrich

You know, you may enjoy being snarky about this, but you're really just playing into the hands of the PETA lunatic fringe.

"Ethical Treatment" doesn't mean "never kill" but if termination is necessary, to do it in a manner that minimizes suffering.

The few PETA members who understand this don't need you feeding ammo to the crazies who think animals are more important than people.

ib_thinkin: FTFA: The documents, obtained from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, were published online by the Center for Consumer Freedom, a non-profit organization that runs online campaigns targeting groups that antagonize food producers.

Ah, Center for Consumer Freedom! Defenders of the defenseless. Good on them for taking on the thankless task of protecting those poor ol' industrial slaughter-houses. Seriously, though, is there a likeable party involved here?


FTA: Kovich also determined that PETA employees kill 84 percent of the animals in their custody within 24 hours of receiving them.

So, I'm curious - what kind of animals does PETA usually receive, being that it's primarily an advocacy organization and not an animal rescue operation? Oh, this kind: "most of the animals we take in are society's rejects; aggressive, on death's door, or somehow unadoptable."

Yea...not really a fan of PETA, but that doesn't mean the article isn't full of shiat.

mamoru: Is it too much to hope that they are at least donating the bodies to science? It's my understanding that most lab supply companies get the majority of their animal specimens for dissections from shelters and such that have put down unclaimed animals. I would hope PETA would do the same, but somehow I doubt it.

Considering that a couple of their volunteers were caught dumping the bodies from the van into a strip mall dumpster a few years back, I think not.

I believe it was that incident that first brought the ludicrously high kill rate to light.

I see no need for reasonable, logical defenses of PETA as they do not exhibit these traits themselves.

Teufelaffe: A perfect time to roll this one out again.

Wyatt Cenac talks to PETA about their lawsuit against Sea World (new window)

^^^^^^^
Best damn Daily Show segment ever, right there. EVER.

Ah, crap. You suck. Now I have to change my underwear. And get a new keyboard. Or, in the words of the old orca spiritual...

ib_thinkin: SharkTrager: But I do not buy for a minute that 95% are "unadoptable".

Look, ask yourself this question: what animals is PETA talking about? Who gives animals to PETA in the first place, and why?

Back when they were caught dumping animal bodies behind a grocery store in Virginia, there were some news articles that interviewed people who'd released animals to PETA.

They talked to this one older woman who said she couldn't care for her dog any more and trusted PETA over the local kill shelter to find him a home. She even made the people who came to pick him up promise her that they'd find him a home.

PETA's records show they killed the dog in the back of the van before they even pulled away from her house.

Like any pet owner, she was devastated when the news broke what they were doing with animals released to them. I think I remember her saying she could have gotten a relative to take the dog if need be, but she thought she could trust PETA.

That's what I thought.

http://www.fark.com/comments/6963589/75220367#c75220367

You people have a serious case of self-imposed ignorance on this one.

1. PETA, with all it's problems, cannot be expected to increase their facilities tenfold to support a no-kill policy, regardless of how much you really really want them to. If their facilities are full now, that means there isn't more room. If you have evidence that PETA facilities are empty, then show it. Yes, they do view it as more humane to painlessly put an animal to sleep rather than let them be stray. You'd rather have rover run in traffic and starve in the alley. One self-righteous trophy being sent your way!

2. You and your neighbors would actually prefer the current system of animal control to one that allows millions of stray cats and dogs in your neighborhood, regardless of how much you really really want to pretend you'd be cool with it. Someone has to deal with our negligent pet owners, breeders, and abused pets. You get the luxury of getting to complain about it all without having to lift a finger or even providing any reasonable alternatives. Feel good about yourself.

You have nothing.

bubo_sibiricus: quoinguy: PETA has one good role--to remind people it's wrong to torture animals

No. That's a function of the *SPCA and *ARLs, which around here do a pretty good job. While the original idea behind PETA may have been noble, it has pretty much disappeared into the mists of history.

PETA's function is to be attention whores. It's about the money.



Point taken.

I was experimenting with tempering my personality a slight bit and give them a small benefit of the doubt. You brought me back to my original thought--leave the common sense to the ASPCA and similar groups. PETA always struck me as a psycho group.

Protricity: That's what I thought.

http://www.fark.com/comments/6963589/75220367#c75220367

You people have a serious case of self-imposed ignorance on this one.

1. PETA, with all it's problems, cannot be expected to increase their facilities tenfold to support a no-kill policy, regardless of how much you really really want them to. If their facilities are full now, that means there isn't more room. If you have evidence that PETA facilities are empty, then show it. Yes, they do view it as more humane to painlessly put an animal to sleep rather than let them be stray. You'd rather have rover run in traffic and starve in the alley. One self-righteous trophy being sent your way!

2. You and your neighbors would actually prefer the current system of animal control to one that allows millions of stray cats and dogs in your neighborhood, regardless of how much you really really want to pretend you'd be cool with it. Someone has to deal with our negligent pet owners, breeders, and abused pets. You get the luxury of getting to complain about it all without having to lift a finger or even providing any reasonable alternatives. Feel good about yourself.

You have nothing.

right because the only known method of population control is mass killings

Polish Hussar: It's been mentioned, but not linked to, so here's the link to the "Penn & Teller: Bullshiat!" episode on PETA (new window)

They picked Ted Nugent to back anti-PETA arguments? The fark were they thinking? I appreciate them getting the facts out, but I am getting some bad vibes off of them too.