PETA kills more animals than it saves.

[spacheco]

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/index.cfm

 

 

 

Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decades worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to put down 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.

 

 

 

PETAs Animal Record report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets

 

 

 

Just seven animals -- out of the 2,216 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.

 

 

 

Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETAs continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETAs hypocrisy isnt difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.

 

 

 

PETA has a $32 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all unethical.

 

 

 

The bottom line: PETAs leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the nearly six pets they kill on average, every single day.

 

 

 

The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETAs Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget.

 

 

 

Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program.

 

 

 

Now the death toll of animals in PETAs care has reached 21,339, including more than 2,000 pets last year. Thats not an animal charity. Its a slaughterhouse.

 

 

 

 

 

the part in bold really made me pissed.

 

 

 

this hypocrisy is outrageous.

 

 

 

DISCUSS

[ElkNight]

This has already been on these forums before.

 

Maybe not this article but basically the same thing.

 

And everybody already knows peta is bat [cabbage] crazy.

 

 

 

And why do people say DISCUSS.

 

:wall:

[1_man_army]

 

 

 

And why do people say DISCUSS.

 

:wall:

 

 

 

That's truely one of my pet hates as well, it always comes after some copy pasta too. The whole idea of a message board implicitly suggests discussion.

[Mister_T]

:shock: !

 

TIME TO FIGHT FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS@@@@@@@@@

[Ouchy]

All I can say is, they seriously need to rethink there outlook, and get off there arse, and find homes for those animals.

 

 

 

Or, we can find homes for the Peta workers.

[warri0r45]

Why anyone would want to join PETA in the first place is beyond me.

 

 

 

Here's an interesting article I found when doing some research:

 

 

 

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

[sohkmj1]

I'm not all that surprised people wouldn't adopt anything from PETA. Hell, if I had to adopt a pet, I'd go to a typical shelter instead of PETA, those crazy bastards.

[Faux]

People would rather get a new puppy than adopt. That's why [cabbage] ton of animals have to be put down.

[warren211]

This has already been discussed before I believe (one of the quotes in hide tags in my sig are from previous thread) but I guess there can never be too many threads that question the priorities and hypocricies of PETA. Rather than putting that money to use to help the pets in their care, they toss it to advertisements in hopes that they can get other people to do what they neglected to do.

[Star_Fox]

tbh, i doubt they care.

[Seraphi]

I have always seen PETA as extremist nutjobs.

 

This just reinforces my views.

[Cowman_133]

Nothing new. No one took peta seriously anyways.

[Powman3]

Now, where do I keep my torches and pitchforks?

[Hobgoblinpie]

The PETA pisses me off. They want animals to be treated well, when what the real purpose is is to stop killing of animals outright. I'm sorry that god/evolution made animals delicious, but that's not my problem.

 

 

 

The TV show with Penn and Teller (called a name that will get censored) did a show on this, and suffice to say, it showed massive hypocrisy within the PETA (like you mentioned above).

[Hoobs]

PETA is full of idiots who really don't do anything important (sea kittens :lol: ), and this simply shows the failures of their organization.

[Joes_So_Cool]

I've known about this for awhile, found out about it from this forum actually. It's been posted before.

[mmmcannibalism]

Peta is murder

 

 

 

go to class not the slaughterhouse

[bloodkilla87]

Well lets face it, would you want all those dogs that people just abandon or are extremely violet, sick, etc. No. Put them down, case closed. Ethical treatment of animals. Doesnt mean they have to be alive, just not suffering.

 

 

 

peta is awesome though, for real.

 

 

 

Inappropriate images removed ~ Lionheart_0

[mmmcannibalism]

Well lets face it, would you want all those dogs that people just abandon or are extremely violet, sick, etc. No. Put them down, case closed. Ethical treatment of animals. Doesnt mean they have to be alive, just not suffering.

 

 

 

peta is awesome though, for real.

 

 

 

There is a severe difference between ethics and ecoterrorism. The irony here isnt that euthanasia of animals is occuring, I think almost everyone on here would agree it is necessary in many circumstances. The problem is peta declares anything involving an animal as the evils of humanity, ignoring any outside circumstances or reasonability. Hunting for example, while peta stands on its pedastal calling hunters murderers, they fail to realize the need for population control in many areas where woodlands border highways. Ethical treatment of animals. Doesnt mean they have to be alive, just kept from being hit from a car

 

 

 

No, peta is not awesome.

 

 

 

edit--as clarification, this is not a critique of any specific projects, Im sure if we looked through petas list of activities we would find plenty of good work on the behalf of animals. Things like revealing cruelties in the meat industry can be good work, its when peta pulls the ben and jerry's should use human breat milk card that someone has to put them down.

[Alg]

Wouldn't their budget be better spent actually practicing what they preach? If they weren't bat [cabbage] insane they would have a noble cause and recruit members through that

[Skull]

Wouldn't their budget be better spent actually practicing what they preach? If they weren't bat [cabbage] insane they would have a noble cause

 

That's why I support what they stand for but not what they do and how they do it. Because they're [bleep]ing crazy.

[Bloodstain]

Couple years late

[WolfBoy989]

Let me spell it out for you:

 

 

 

|P|eople

 

|E|uthanize

 

|T|he

 

|A|nimals

[KnightLite]

quote from maddox

 

 

 

I was looking over a menu in a restaurant the other day when I saw a section for vegetarians; I thought to myself "boy, I sure am glad that I'm not a meat-hating fascist" and I skipped on to the steak section (because I'll be damned if I'm going to pay $15 for an alfalfa sandwich, slice of cucumber and a scoop of cold cottage cheese), but before I turned the page something caught my eye. The heading of the vegetarian section was titled "Guiltless Grill," not because there were menu items with fewer calories and cholesterol (since there were "healthy" chicken dishes discriminated against in this section), but because none of the items used animal products. Think about that phrase for a second. What exactly does "guiltless grill" imply? So I'm supposed to feel guilty now if I eat meat? Screw you.

 

 

 

What pisses me off so much about this phrase is the sheer narrow-mindedness of these stuck up vegetarian [wagon]. You think you're saving the world by eating a tofu-burger and sticking to a diet of grains and berries? Well here's something that not many vegetarians know (or care to acknowledge): every year millions of animals are killed by wheat and soy bean combines during harvesting season (source). Oh yeah, go on and on for hours about how all of us meat eaters are going to hell for having a steak, but conveniently ignore the fact that each year millions of mice, rabbits, snakes, skunks, possums, squirrels, gophers and rats are ruthlessly murdered as a direct result of YOUR dieting habits. What's that? I'm sorry, I don't hear any more elitist banter from you pompous [roosters]. Could it be because your [cabbage] has been RUINED?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's right: the gloves have come off. The vegetarian response to this embarrassing fact is "well, at least we're not killing intentionally." So let me get this straight; not only are animals ruthlessly being murdered as a direct result of your diet, but you're not even using the meat of the animals YOU kill? At least we're eating the animals we kill (and although we also contribute to the slaughter of animals during grain harvesting, keep in mind that we're not the ones with a moral qualm about it), not just leaving them to rot in a field somewhere. That makes you just as morally repugnant than any meat-eater any day. Not only that, but you're killing free-roaming animals, not animals that were raised for feed. Their bodies get mangled in the combine's machinery, bones crushed, and you have the audacity to point fingers at the meat industry for humanely punching a [bleep]e through a cow's neck? If you think that tofu burgers come at no cost to animals or the environment, guess again.

 

 

 

To even suggest that your meal is some how "guiltless" is absurd. The defense "at least we're not killing intentionally" is [cabbage] anyway. How is it not intentional if you KNOW that millions of animals die every year in combines during harvest? You expect me to believe that you somehow unintentionally pay money to buy products that support farmers that use combines to harvest their fields? Even if it was somehow unintentional, so what? That suddenly makes you innocent? I guess we should let drunk drivers off the hook too since they don't kill intentionally either, right? There's no way out of this one. The only option left for you dip[cabbage]s is to buy some land, plant and pick your own crops. Impractical? Yeah, well, so is your stupid diet.

 

 

 

Even if combines aren't used to harvest your food, you think that buying fruits and vegetables (organic or otherwise) is any better? How do you think they get rid of bugs that eat crops in large fields? You think they just put up signs and ask parasites to politely go somewhere else? Actually, I wouldn't put that suggestion past you hippies. One of the methods they use to get rid of pests is to introduce a high level of predators for each particular prey, which wreaks all sorts of havoc on the natural balance of predator/prey populations--causing who knows what kind of damage to the environment. Oops, did I just expose you moral-elitists for being frauds? Damndest thing.

 

 

 

A number of people have pointed out that the amount of grain grown to feed animals for slaughter every year is greater than the amount of grain grown for humans. So I guess the amount of grain grown for human consumption suddenly becomes negligible and we can conveniently ignore the fact that animals are still ruthlessly murdered either way because of your diet, right? Not to mention that the majority of grain grown for livestock is tough as rocks, coarse, and so low-grade that it's only fit for animal consumption in the first place. Spare me the "you could feed 500 people with the grain used to feed one cow" line of [cabbage]; it's not the same grain. Then there are the people who jump on the bandwagon with "you could plant billions of potatoes on the land used for cows"--good point, except for the fact that not every plot of land is equally fertile; you think farmers always have a choice on what they do with their land? Also, many vegetarians don't know (or care to acknowledge) that in many parts of the United States they have "control hunts" in which hunting permits are passed out whenever there is a pest problem (the pest here is deer, elk and antelope) that threatens wheat, soy, vegetable and other crops; this happens several times per year. Then some of you throw out claims that "we are trying to limit the suffering." How about you limit MY suffering and shut the hell up about your stupid diet for a change; nobody cares. Even if the number of animals that die in combine deaths every year isn't in the millions, even if it's just one, are you suggesting that the life of one baby rabbit isn't worth saving? Are you placing a value on life? Enjoy your tofu, murderers.

[Zierro]

Sounds just like any other media organization. All talk.

 

 

 

PS: To the post above me: hilarious :lol: