From: "Robert Cohen" <notmilk@...>
Date: Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:12 pm
Subject: If I Had $40 Million



If I Had $40 Million

Last week (December 28, 2005), Ingrid Newkirk, the founder
and director of the People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) was in Bethlehem (Palestine) on her
well-financed personal world tour.

Dollar for dollar, how many camels or donkeys did she save?
How much more peace is there in the world these days after
your donations enabled Ingrid to travel from her Virginia
home base to the holy land to make asses of her contributors?

In 2003, PETA enjoyed a budget of $16,414,174. In 2003,
PETA's sister organization, Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine (PCRM) received $2,667,912 in donations.
What have they done with the money? Can you see the results?

Last year, PETA and PCRM found that their budgets jumped
from just under $20 million in 2003 to over $40 million.
God bless their ability to generate funding. So what if more
animals per capita are being eaten by Americans? While PETA
euthanizes healthy shelter dogs and cats in the back of their
killing van, people continue to eat more meat and PETA continues
to raise more money by lulling consumers into a false sense of
believing that animals are treated better. That they are not
is inconsequential to the bottom line. Animal rights business
is better than ever!

The system is running away from the once good people whose
first priority is to now keep their well-oiled money making
machinery in prime working order.

Here is the formula for animal rights success. Raise one million
dollars. Invest half of that to hire more people to raise more
money to promise to help more animals. The second round, raise
two million. Invest one-million to hire more employees and
churn mailing lists to raise more money. Buy Farm Sanctuary's
mailing list. Yes, it's for sale. Actually, it's for rent. You
can use the list just once before you must pay the fee again.
This time, raise four million dollars. Hire more activists to
work within your organization. Assign them the task of gathering
names and addresses so that your organization can derive income
by renting lists. Next round, raise eight million dollars.
Throw charity functions on each coast of the United States. Bring
celebrities along and award them imaginary plaques for their
imaginary work in the animal rights movement. Give them a standing
ovation and ask them to pose naked and say a few nasty words
about fur. Include details of celebrity events in your next mailing.
Be sure to include details of how veal calves were once abused
in crates 20 years ago, and represent that this is the state of
affairs today. The next young person who approaches me and says
"...and calves are kept in crates so small, they cannot turn
around..." will get a stern lecture on Farm Sancturary's mailings
as they apply to lies and deception.

Of course, you'll be guaranteed to raise even more funds by use of
lies and clever marketing tactics. And for what?
What have we in the AR movement become? Phonies? Liars?
Only in it for the money folk who have lost their direction,
and now call money raising their number one activity and priority?

What has PETA or other organizations done lately for the animals?

If I had one-tenth of their budget, there would be 100 million
more vegetarians in America. Of course, that would mean that PETA
is no longer needed, right? That ain't ever gonna happen. They
cannot afford to that that mistake.

Ask yourself two questions. First, other than their continuing
solicitations to your mailbox for more funds, have you heard
anything from or about PETA lately? Second question. Has PETA
changed that which is evil or offensive in this world, or have
they become a part of it?

Is it just PETA? Absolutely not. Money seems to universally corrupt.
A few years ago, there was a settlement to the famous McDonalds
burger chain lawsuit. It seems that french-fried potatoes were
cooked in animal fat. Millions of dollars were distributed to do-
nothing vegetarian organizations. One such group's main contribution
to the so-called movement is a once per-year summer festival in
Pennsylvania to which the same 300 or so people show up every
year to eat raw red potatoes and unripened fruit. Another recipient
hosts a yearly vegetarian Thanksgiving meal at a New Jersey
restaurant.

Millions of dollars in hush money, paid to those who hope for a
yearly stipend. While one group fought another two years ago amid
much publicity (and depositions), have you heard even a hint about
how any of these dollars were spent? Neither have I, and I've been
searching real hard. Perhaps if I had a million, I could do my
investigative work from a lounge chair on a beach in Aruba.

Robert Cohen
http://www.slaughterhousecam.com

Ron wrote:

<snip>

> In 2003, PETA enjoyed a budget of $16,414,174. In 2003,
> PETA's sister organization, Physicians Committee for
> Responsible Medicine (PCRM) received $2,667,912 in donations.
> What have they done with the money? Can you see the results?

Yes, actually, I can.

I can't see why people insist on dumping on PETA. I've been
a member since 1984, and in the years since then, PETA
has been very important in bringing issues of animal welfare
in front of the public, in suggesting alternatives to things
like dissection in school, in providing funding and volunteer
effort in crises like Katrina and other natural disasters, and
in ongoing programs like providing shelters for outdoor dogs.
PETA has been central in making the issues visible, from
medical lab abuses to abuses of farm animals raised for large
corporations, to anti-fur messages, and many more. They are a
populist organization, not a scholarly one, and they make no
pretense to be anything other than an activist group. More
extreme organizations and individuals criticize them, but they
are the basic organization that has brought animal welfare/
animal rights (less so than in earlier years) to public attention.
They are visible, they make the issues visible, and they have been
a major, major factor in bringing hard animal welfare to a
position where it is discussed in mainstream media. They have real
clout, and they have made changes. They're not perfect, but
what organization is?

<snip>
> Buy Farm Sanctuary's
> mailing list. Yes, it's for sale. Actually, it's for rent.

That's reasonable. People who contribute to Farm Sanctuary
will probably also be interested in PETA -- if they don't
know about PETA already (which I doubt). I belong to both,
and contribute to both. Most groups work this way -- and
PETA is certainly much less obnoxious than some of the
charities which have obviously gotten my name off another
charity's membership list.

<snip>

> If I had one-tenth of their budget, there would be 100 million
> more vegetarians in America.

Really? Prove it. PETA started with 2 organizers and a minuscule
budget. If you can do better, show us. Then maybe I'll contribute
to *your* organization.

<snip>
>
> Ask yourself two questions. First, other than their continuing
> solicitations to your mailbox for more funds, have you heard
> anything from or about PETA lately?

Oh, yes. All the time.

> Second question. Has PETA
> changed that which is evil or offensive in this world,

Some of it.

<snip>

In article >, says...
> Ron wrote:
>


Yeah PETA was picking up puppies for people in Virginia last year and
instead of saving them smothered them and put them in a dumpster. They
were caught by local police and it made the local paper. Never made
National News. They don't really want to save pet type animals. They
just use the money for other things. I'd give to the ASPCA if it were
me. I used to have a copy of the article if I can find it I'll post it.

I wouldn't give PETA my surplus dog poop.

Glorfindel wrote:

> Ron wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> In 2003, PETA enjoyed a budget of $16,414,174. In 2003,
>> PETA's sister organization, Physicians Committee for
>> Responsible Medicine (PCRM) received $2,667,912 in donations.
>> What have they done with the money? Can you see the results?
>
>
> Yes, actually, I can.
>
> I can't see why people insist on dumping on PETA.

Because they're a bunch of grandstanding,
self-promoting extremists who are only exploiting
animal welfare issues as a way of seeing themselves in
the media.

SlipperySlope wrote:
> Glorfindel wrote:
>
> > Ron wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> In 2003, PETA enjoyed a budget of $16,414,174. In 2003,
> >> PETA's sister organization, Physicians Committee for
> >> Responsible Medicine (PCRM) received $2,667,912 in donations.
> >> What have they done with the money? Can you see the results?
> >
> >
> > Yes, actually, I can.
> >
> > I can't see why people insist on dumping on PETA.
>
> Because they're a bunch of grandstanding,
> self-promoting extremists who are only exploiting
> animal welfare issues as a way of seeing themselves in
> the media.


PETA didn't start out that way. Hopefully they will change back to what
they once were.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 02:35:20 GMT, John Wesley > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>> Ron wrote:
>>
>
>
>Yeah PETA was picking up puppies for people in Virginia last year and
>instead of saving them smothered them and put them in a dumpster. They
>were caught by local police and it made the local paper. Never made
>National News. They don't really want to save pet type animals.

They want to eliminate them:
__________________________________________________ _______
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.

http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla...ights/pets.txt
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
and people who want to promote decent AW for domestic animals
should keep that in mind, much as "aras" apparently do *not!* want
them to:
__________________________________________________ _______
From: "Dutch" >
Message-ID: >

> wrote

> AW means better lives for animals. "AR" means the elimination of
> farm animals, and as much as you obviously want to believe they're
> the same thing, they are completely different objectives.

Shut the **** up you stupid ****ing moron. Do the world a favour and go blow
your stupid ****ing head off with the biggest ****ing gun you can find.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>They
>just use the money for other things. I'd give to the ASPCA if it were
>me. I used to have a copy of the article if I can find it I'll post it.

Please do. Here are some that are related to the same thing:
__________________________________________________ _______
From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows
no sign of changing.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
[...]
According to the Associated Press (AP) PETA killed 1325 dogs and cats
in Norfolk last year. That was more than half the number of animals is
took in during that period. According to Virginian-Pilot Reporter, Kerry
Dougherty, the execution rate at PETA's "shelter" far exceeds that of the
local Norfolk SPCA shelter where only a third of animals taken in are
"put down."
[...]
http://www.iwmc.org/newsletter/2000/2000-08g.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Web posted Friday, April 27, 2001
State Veterinarian, PETA Head Differ On Outbreak
[...]
On Thursday, Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals, renewed her claim that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease
in the United States would benefit herds by sparing them from a tortured
existence and the slaughterhouse.

A PETA spokesman said it's inconceivable that anyone would fail to see
the sense of Newkirk's statements, which have rankled politicians and
livestock farmers from Texas to Canada.

[...]
In a telephone interview from Richmond, Va., Newkirk reiterated her
hope that foot-and-mouth -- which has ravaged herds in Europe -- reaches
U.S. shores.

''It's a peculiar and disturbing thing to say, but it would be less than truthful
if I pretended otherwise,'' she said.

People would be better off without meat because it is tied to a host of
ailments, Newkirk said. And animals would benefit because the current
means of raising and slaughtering livestock are ''grotesquely cruel from
start to finish.''
[...]
http://www.pressanddakotan.com/stori...427010026.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>I wouldn't give PETA my surplus dog poop.

Ron wrote:

> SlipperySlope wrote:

<snip>

>>Because they're a bunch of grandstanding,
>>self-promoting extremists who are only exploiting
>>animal welfare issues as a way of seeing themselves in
>>the media.

> PETA didn't start out that way.

<snip>

And they are not that way now. There are a lot easier ways
to get money and media attention, if that is what you
actually want.

dh@. wrote:

<snip>
> From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats,
> and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's
> more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and
> cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of
> the animals it took in during 2003 alone.

<snip>

To evaluate this data, one would have to know the condition of the
animals involved. All humane groups euthanize animals, or they
turn over the ones who must be euthanized to other groups which do
it for them. Euthanasia is sometimes the most respectful and
humane thing one can do for an animal -- or a human. Since PETA
is often a last resort, I doubt they get many healthy adoptable
animals. They do rescue many, and they do the best they can for
the animals under their care, but sometimes the best they can do is
provide a humane death.

<snip>

Karen Winter lied:
> Ron wrote:
>
>> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Because they're a bunch of grandstanding,
>>> self-promoting extremists who are only exploiting
>>> animal welfare issues as a way of seeing themselves in
>>> the media.
>
>
>> PETA didn't start out that way.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> And they are not that way now.

Yes, they are. That's why there *always* is a huge
element of outrageousness to every public act they
undertake.

Karen Winter lied:

> dh@. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs,
>> cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia
>> headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not
>> counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to
>> death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone.
>
>
> <snip>
>
> To evaluate this data, one would have to know the condition of the
> animals involved.

No. *All* you need to know is they have *never*
adopted out any pets. They don't believe in it; they
believe in killing them all.

SlipperySlope wrote:

<snip>

> *All* you need to know is they have *never* adopted out any pets.
> They don't believe in it; they believe in killing them all.


That is absolutely false, as reading any of their literature makes
clear, and their track record with rescued animals. You are either
grossly ignorant or deliberately lying.

The ultimate goal of animal rights organizations is indeed
to end the pet trade and allow animals to live free of human
domination, which is a form of slavery. But that *never*
involves killing of existing animals, except in cases of
euthanasia where death is to the benefit of the animal. It
*always* means preventing existing "pet" animals from breeding
new generations. PETA has much in its publications about
proper care of existing companion animal, including an entire
book Ingrid Newkirk has written about care of companion cats.
PETA is also involved in a variety of outreach and rescue
programs for companion animals.

In article >, says...
> SlipperySlope wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > *All* you need to know is they have *never* adopted out any pets.
> > They don't believe in it; they believe in killing them all.
>
>
> That is absolutely false, as reading any of their literature makes
> clear,

Thier record is clear. They Euthanise 85% that come in. Our local
Animal Control has much a better record than that.

> and their track record with rescued animals. You are either
> grossly ignorant or deliberately lying.
>
> The ultimate goal of animal rights organizations is indeed
> to end the pet trade and allow animals to live free of human
> domination,

They would get deseases and die.

> which is a form of slavery.

You are totally insane. My dog doesn't pick cotton for free.

> But that *never*
> involves killing of existing animals

Yes it does. Volunteers were convicted of smothering puppies in
Virginia.

> , except in cases of
> euthanasia where death is to the benefit of the animal. It
> *always* means preventing existing "pet" animals from breeding
> new generations. PETA has much in its publications about
> proper care of existing companion animal, including an entire
> book Ingrid Newkirk has written about care of companion cats.
> PETA is also involved in a variety of outreach and rescue
> programs for companion animals.
>
>

PETA is evil. They kill pets. They want to turn the world vegetarian.
That is there real goal. They care nothing about pets.
>

John Wesley wrote:
> In article >, says...

>>SlipperySlope wrote:

>><snip>

>>>*All* you need to know is they have *never* adopted out any pets.
>>>They don't believe in it; they believe in killing them all.

>>That is absolutely false, as reading any of their literature makes
>>clear,

> Thier record is clear. They Euthanise 85% that come in. Our local
> Animal Control has much a better record than that.

Which animals are turned in/picked up by your local shelter vs those
turned in to PETA? PETA is not primarily a shelter organization;
that is not their main purpose.

>>and their track record with rescued animals. You are either
>>grossly ignorant or deliberately lying.

>>The ultimate goal of animal rights organizations is indeed
>>to end the pet trade and allow animals to live free of human
>>domination,

> They would get deseases and die.

So do humans. Do you approve of human slavery? (And, BTW,
do you have any evidence that human slaves in general
receive better health care than free humans?)

>>which is a form of slavery.

<snip>
>
>>But that *never*
>>involves killing of existing animals

> Yes it does. Volunteers were convicted of smothering puppies in
> Virginia.

I don't believe it.

<snip>

>>, except in cases of
>>euthanasia where death is to the benefit of the animal. It
>>*always* means preventing existing "pet" animals from breeding
>>new generations. PETA has much in its publications about
>>proper care of existing companion animal, including an entire
>>book Ingrid Newkirk has written about care of companion cats.
>>PETA is also involved in a variety of outreach and rescue
>>programs for companion animals.

> PETA is evil. They kill pets.

No, but they may euthanize animals in appropriate circumstances,
as do *all* animal-care organizations. If you disapprove of
PETA's criteria for euthanization, then criticize the guardians
who turned in animals to them.

> They want to turn the world vegetarian.

Absolutely. So do I.

> That is there real goal. They care nothing about pets.

They actually care a great deal about companion animals, as well as
all animals. One of their latest publications details a number
their programs, which include mobile spay/neuter vans, a program
to provide warm doghouses and bedding to outdoor dogs of poor
people, an article on the bad aspects of so-called "no kill
shelters", their efforts in helping companion animals during
Katrina, their program against mulesing sheep, a program to
help working bullocks, donkeys, camels, ponies and horses in
India with vet and welfare supplies, and several pages on good products
for companion animals, including Newkirk's book on _250 Things
You Can Do To Make Your Cat Adore You_.

Why don't you criticize factory farm organizations? They kill
100 per cent of the animals they hold, one way or the other,
after keeping them in very inhumane conditions.

In article >, says...
> John Wesley wrote:
> > In article >, says...
>
> >>SlipperySlope wrote:
>
> >><snip>
>
> >>>*All* you need to know is they have *never* adopted out any pets.
> >>>They don't believe in it; they believe in killing them all.
>
> >>That is absolutely false, as reading any of their literature makes
> >>clear,
>
> > Thier record is clear. They Euthanise 85% that come in. Our local
> > Animal Control has much a better record than that.
>
> Which animals are turned in/picked up by your local shelter vs those
> turned in to PETA? PETA is not primarily a shelter organization;
> that is not their main purpose.


Then why do they take in animals and put 85% of them to sleep. This is
there own reported number.
>
> >>and their track record with rescued animals. You are either
> >>grossly ignorant or deliberately lying.
>
> >>The ultimate goal of animal rights organizations is indeed
> >>to end the pet trade and allow animals to live free of human
> >>domination,
>
> > They would get deseases and die.
>
> So do humans. Do you approve of human slavery?

Again my dog does no work for me. He picks no cotton. How is he a
slave. He has better medical care than I do. He has a wonerful bed to
sleep in inside a heated house. He eats all the food and treats he
wants. Anyone who compares that to slavery is a certified nut case and
needs to have some mental help.

> (And, BTW,
> do you have any evidence that human slaves in general
> receive better health care than free humans?)

That has nothing to do with the discussion.
>
> >>which is a form of slavery.
>
> <snip>
> >
> >>But that *never*
> >>involves killing of existing animals
>
> > Yes it does. Volunteers were convicted of smothering puppies in
> > Virginia.
>
> I don't believe it.
>

I have the article around here somewhere. Its on the net. Its common
knowledge to anyone that cares. Its in the Virginia Court records.
> <snip>
>
>

> Why don't you criticize factory farm organizations? They kill
> 100 per cent of the animals they hold, one way or the other,
> after keeping them in very inhumane conditions.

Because I like to eat them animals. They taste goooood!!!!!!!!! My dog
does too!

John Wesley wrote:

> In article >, says...

<snip>

>>Which animals are turned in/picked up by your local shelter vs those
>>turned in to PETA? PETA is not primarily a shelter organization;
>>that is not their main purpose.

> Then why do they take in animals

Because the animals need to be removed from their existing situation.

> and put 85% of them to sleep. This is
> there own reported number.

Because the animals would be better off humanely euthanized
than in their existing condition.

<snip>

>>>They would get deseases and die.

>>So do humans. Do you approve of human slavery?
>
> Again my dog does no work for me. He picks no cotton.

Because you do not assign him any. If you did, he
could not refuse, or you could punish him. Many
dogs *do* work.

> How is he a
> slave.

He is your chattel property under the law. You have
legal authority to do almost anything you want to him,
short of what is seen as "unnecessary" cruelty ( similar laws
applied to human slaves). You have the legal authority
to have him killed if you wish. You can dispose of him
to any other person by sale, bequest, or gift. How is he
not a slave?

>He has better medical care than I do. He has a wonerful bed to
> sleep in inside a heated house. He eats all the food and treats he
> wants. Anyone who compares that to slavery is a certified nut case and
> needs to have some mental help.

Some slave concubines were similarly cherished and cared for.
How a slave is treated has nothing to do with his legal/social
status as a slave. It is your choice to treat him well or chain
him in the back yard.

<snip>

>>>Yes it does. Volunteers were convicted of smothering puppies in
>>>Virginia.

>>I don't believe it.

> I have the article around here somewhere. Its on the net.

where. And who were these "volunteers"?

<snip>

>>Why don't you criticize factory farm organizations? They kill
>> 100 per cent of the animals they hold, one way or the other,
>> after keeping them in very inhumane conditions.

> Because I like to eat them animals. They taste goooood!!!!!!!!! My dog
> does too!

Some people like to eat dogs. If you lived in a culture where that
was common, you could do the same, because your dog, like a chicken
cow or pig, is your property. It is a cultural choice which species
are food, and which "pets". There is no rational basis for the
choice.

snip the racist spew from karen.....

PETA's Dirty Secret

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly
complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant
owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other
Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through the end of 2004, PETA killed over 12,400 dogs,
cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia
headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not
counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to
death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And
its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

Year Received† Adopted Killed Transfer % Killed % Adopted
2004 2,640 361 2,278 1 86.3 13.7
2003 2,224 312 1,911 1 85.9 14.0
2002 2,680 382 2,298 2 85.7 14.3
2001 2,685 703 1,944 14 72.4 26.2
2000 2,684 624 2,029 28 75.6 23.2
1999 1,805 386 1,328 91 73.6 21.4
* 1998 943 133 685 125 72.6 14.1
Total 15,661 2,901 12,473 262 79.6 18.5

* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† other than spay/neuter animals
» skeptical? click here to see the proof


On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off
for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker
or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or
dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's
using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque
tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually
taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a
no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA raked in nearly $29 million last 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.

You can't deny the truth!



Animal cruelty trial delayed for a month

By DARREN FREEMAN, The Virginian-Pilot
© September 14, 2005 | Last updated 9:52 PM Sep. 13

A court hearing for two PETA employees charged with animal cruelty,
illegal disposal of animal carcasses and trespassing was again postponed
Tuesday.

The probable-cause hearing was rescheduled because a defense attorney
had a scheduling conflict in an unrelated case, Assistant District
Attorney Donnie Taylor said.

The hearing is now set for Oct. 14.

PETA employees Andrew B. Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach and Adria J.
Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk, were charged with 31 felony counts of animal
cruelty, eight misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals
and one count of trespassing.

Both have been released on $35,000 bond, and PETA is paying their legal
fees. PETA suspended Hinkle for 90 days and did not discipline Cook.

Police began investigating this summer after carcasses in plastic bags
were found in a supermarket garbage bin in Ahoskie every Wednesday for
four consecutive weeks.

At least 80 animals were found.

Officers say that on June 15 they followed a van after it left Bertie
County’s animal shelter, staked out the garbage bins and arrested two
PETA employees. They found 18 dead dogs in a bin and 13 other animal
carcasses in the van, which was registered to PETA.

PETA had been picking up animals in northeastern North Carolina since
2001, when a caller informed the group of poor conditions in shelters,
according to a written apology PETA President Ingrid Newkirk sent to
Bertie County officials.

Bertie County and Northampton County officials and one Ahoskie
veterinarian said they believed that adoptable animals would find new
homes, while sick, injured and wild animals would be euthanized.

Newkirk has since said that dumping the animals into trash bins violates
PETA policy. PETA typically euthanizes animals in Norfolk and cremates
the carcasses, Newkirk said in a June 17 press conference.

Bertie and Northampton officials cut ties to PETA pending the trials.
The counties are now euthanizing animals without help from PETA. One
veterinarian in Ahoskie is continuing to receive financial support from
PETA to euthanize animals from Hertford County and some from Northampton
County.

Reach Darren Freeman at (252) 338-0150 or
.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/comme...5338-5284r.htm


Behind PETA's lettuce curtain

By Bob Barr
July 23, 2005

Here's what the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wanted you
to see this week: two Playboy Playmates -- clad only in lettuce --
handing out vegetarian hot dogs on Capitol Hill Wednesday as cameras
clicked away.
Here's what PETA didn't want you to see: two PETA employees
attending a court hearing Tuesday in North Carolina on charges they
killed and dumped 31 cats and dogs in a shopping center's trash bins.
While the court case is pending, the controversy swirling around PETA
and associated animal rights extremists, is again Page One news.
Veterinarian clinics and animal shelters turned the pets over to
PETA in hopes they could be adopted. Instead, they were killed by an
organization dedicated to "ethical" treatment of animals.
It's just another example of the misguided agenda, and hypocrisy, of
the animal rights movement. It's a campaign that affects not only PETA
and its supporters, but hurts each and every one of us.
In our 21st-century world of wonder drugs and lightning-fast
advances in medical technology, we live longer, healthier lives than
ever. Every day, researchers in hospitals, universities and -- yes --
private corporations like pharmaceutical companies, come closer and
closer to curing, or at least postponing death from, such scourges as
cancer, heart disease, diabetes and mental illness. Like it or not, much
of this progress is achieved by testing cures on animals and not because
the men and women working for such companies are cruel people. They do
this because they view life as precious, devote their professional lives
to preserve it, and because federal law mandates and regulates it.
On the other hand, we have the extreme wing of the animal rights
movement, often operating behind the shield of its more recognized
visage -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA. These
folks believe there can never be any justification for animal testing.
If achieving their goal means humans must suffer, then inflicting
needless pain, trauma, grief and death on people is merely a necessary
means to a worthwhile end. And, a report by the Anti-Defamation League
-- hardly a bastion of extreme conservatism -- says radical
environmental and animal-rights groups have wreaked more than $100
million in damage over the past two decades.
I'll begin with a disclaimer. I like animals. Playing fetch with our
chocolate Lab or watching her frolic with our grandchildren are
activities I enjoy greatly. That said, I also love people. As ethical
and moral creatures, we have a responsibility to care for and show
compassion for all creatures of the Earth. But we also have a duty to
protect our fellow human beings, which includes working to find cures
for pain, suffering and disease.
However, to extreme animal-rights advocates, researchers who work to
this end are not brave scientists fighting to cure disease, but greedy
degenerates who cut corners and torture animals for little or no public
benefit.
To show how wildly inaccurate these assumptions are, let's review
some facts. First, research labs using animals are extensively
regulated. Agencies from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the
National Institutes of Health regularly conduct surprise site visits,
and no lab director would risk losing funding -- or subjecting
themselves to possible criminal jeopardy -- by flunking an inspection.
Further, major labs employ licensed veterinarians to safeguard the
animals' health.
Another argument often bandied about by animal-rights activists over
a decaf latte in a "Fair Trade" coffee shop turns on the ludicrous claim
animal research makes no real contribution to saving lives. Examples to
the contrary could fill an encyclopedia, but let's look at just one --
diabetes.
Before scientists discovered insulin treatments, there was little
more they could do for severe diabetics than send them home to die.
However, by injecting animals with insulin, they learned to manage the
disease, greatly enhancing quality of life and saving an immeasurable
number of human lives. Ironically, that same knowledge now allows pets
to receive insulin injections, saving the lives of dogs and other
domesticated animals.
Given this reality, there can only be one argument from animal-
rights activists: Human lives are worth less than animal lives. If you
don't believe the animal rights movement's radical fringes actually
think this way, look at what they actually do.

http://www.vancnews.com/articles/200...ews/news07.txt

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp...2&nav=23iibn6m

http://www.roanoke-
chowannewsherald.com/articles/2005/06/21/news/news3.txt

In article >, says...
>
> He is your chattel property under the law. You have
> legal authority to do almost anything you want to him,
> short of what is seen as "unnecessary" cruelty ( similar laws
> applied to human slaves).

Bull crap. They beat the living snot out of slaves on a daily basis.
If they ran away they cut the fronts of there feet off so they couldn't
run. They worked them in the fields until they dropped. Our animals
are treated 10 times better than most slaves.

> You have the legal authority
> to have him killed if you wish.

Euthanized if he is sick yes. Killed no. If I shot him I would be
arrested.

> You can dispose of him
> to any other person by sale, bequest, or gift.
> How is he
> not a slave?
>
>
Slaves are human. Dogs are not human. They can't survive for long on
there own (especially mine, he is a chihuahua, hed freeze to death).
They need us.

When I was a child I worked on my dads farm. I had no choice. I just
did it. I got food and a nice house to live in. I had loving parents
that took care of me. I couldn't leave. Was I a slave? no and neither
is my dog. Hes like my kid. I take care of him and do whats best for
him.

Anyone who thinks a dog is a slave needs to have his head examined by a
professional.

John Wesley wrote:
> In article >, says...

>>He is your chattel property under the law. You have
>>legal authority to do almost anything you want to him,
>>short of what is seen as "unnecessary" cruelty ( similar laws
>>applied to human slaves).

> Bull crap. They beat the living snot out of slaves on a daily basis.

"They" who? Slaves were valuable property and it was counterproductive
to injure them "unnecessarily". Yes, some masters were cruel and
irrationally inhumane. Some masters of animals are also, as all rescue
and humane law enforcement organizations know.

> If they ran away they cut the fronts of there feet off so they couldn't
> run. They worked them in the fields until they dropped. Our animals
> are treated 10 times better than most slaves.

>>You have the legal authority
>>to have him killed if you wish.

> Euthanized if he is sick yes. Killed no. If I shot him I would be
> arrested.

Yes, but if you take him in to be euthanized by a vet, the vet can
legally do it even if he is healthy (although many vets won't).

>>You can dispose of him
>>to any other person by sale, bequest, or gift.
>>How is he not a slave?

> Slaves are human. Dogs are not human.

Slaves are property. Dogs are property. Their legal status is
the same.


> They can't survive for long on
> there own (especially mine, he is a chihuahua, hed freeze to death).

Some can, some can't. It depends on the dog.

> They need us.

Usually yes. We've made them dependent.

> When I was a child I worked on my dads farm. I had no choice. I just
> did it. I got food and a nice house to live in. I had loving parents
> that took care of me. I couldn't leave. Was I a slave? no

No, you weren't property.


> and neither
> is my dog.

Yes, he's property.

> Hes like my kid. I take care of him and do whats best for
> him.

That's nice. He's still property.

John Wesley wrote:

> You can't deny the truth!

This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
authorized by PETA.

<snip>
> PETA suspended Hinkle for 90 days and did not discipline Cook.

<snip>

> Newkirk has since said that dumping the animals into trash bins violates
> PETA policy. PETA typically euthanizes animals in Norfolk and cremates
> the carcasses, Newkirk said in a June 17 press conference.

<snip>

"Glorfindel" > wrote
> John Wesley wrote:
>
>> You can't deny the truth!
>
> This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
> indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
> authorized by PETA.

Do you accept that excuse when animals are abused by workers in the meat
industry?

rick wrote:
> snip the racist spew from karen.....

Please tell Fidelity you will not do business with them, because of
Paul McCartney's affiliation with PETA who has promoted their agenda
thru hate by appealing to America's cultural intolerance regarding what
animal is not okay to eat:


800-343-3548

Fidelity Investment:

I am disappointed to find out Fidelity have decided to affiliate with
Paul McCartney, and will reconsider doing business with you. As you may
know, last year Mr. McCartney announced his decision to boycott China,
at the urgent of animal rights activists such as PETA.

While I agree animals should be treated humanely by all, especially
food animals each country/culture farms. What I can not agree is the
anti-China message Mr. McCartney and PETA have employed to further
their agenda.

By exploiting our society's cultural intolerance regarding what animal
is not okay to eat, with emotional appeals such as "companion animal"
aimed to project a false perception of China and its 1.24 billion
citizens, not only obfuscate the real issue of advocating humane
farming practice, this position also unnecessarily fosters bigotry
against other's society and culture, and rekindles the racism that was
once rampant in our society.

America has the right to love our pets, but the issue of what animal to
eat is a complex one, especially when crossing the cultural divide. I
hope Fidelity will consider this issue carefully, and evaluate its
support for insensitive speech and actions.

Sincerely,

Dutch wrote:
> "Glorfindel" > wrote

<snip>
>>This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
>>indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
>>authorized by PETA.

> Do you accept that excuse when animals are abused by workers in the meat
> industry?

There's no evidence the animals in this incident were abused. They
were shelter animals transferred to PETA. The technician who
euthanized them was licensed, and they weren't "smothered" as
alleged. The issue was proper disposal of the dead bodies.

Glorfindel wrote:
> John Wesley wrote:
> > In article >, says...
>
> >>He is your chattel property under the law. You have
> >>legal authority to do almost anything you want to him,
> >>short of what is seen as "unnecessary" cruelty ( similar laws
> >>applied to human slaves).
>
> > Bull crap. They beat the living snot out of slaves on a daily basis.
>
> "They" who? Slaves were valuable property and it was counterproductive
> to injure them "unnecessarily". Yes, some masters were cruel and
> irrationally inhumane. Some masters of animals are also, as all rescue
> and humane law enforcement organizations know.
>
> > If they ran away they cut the fronts of there feet off so they couldn't
> > run. They worked them in the fields until they dropped. Our animals
> > are treated 10 times better than most slaves.
>
> >>You have the legal authority
> >>to have him killed if you wish.
>
> > Euthanized if he is sick yes. Killed no. If I shot him I would be
> > arrested.
>
> Yes, but if you take him in to be euthanized by a vet, the vet can
> legally do it even if he is healthy (although many vets won't).
>
> >>You can dispose of him
> >>to any other person by sale, bequest, or gift.
> >>How is he not a slave?
>
> > Slaves are human. Dogs are not human.
>
> Slaves are property. Dogs are property. Their legal status is
> the same.
>
>
> > They can't survive for long on
> > there own (especially mine, he is a chihuahua, hed freeze to death).
>
> Some can, some can't. It depends on the dog.
>
> > They need us.
>
> Usually yes. We've made them dependent.
>
> > When I was a child I worked on my dads farm. I had no choice. I just
> > did it. I got food and a nice house to live in. I had loving parents
> > that took care of me. I couldn't leave. Was I a slave? no
>
> No, you weren't property.
>
>
> > and neither
> > is my dog.
>
> Yes, he's property.
>
> > Hes like my kid. I take care of him and do whats best for
> > him.
>
> That's nice. He's still property.

Pet ownership may be analogous to slavery in terms of legal status
but it is not analaogus in a practical sense. Wesley's dog
has, we assume, a large degree of freedom and is no worse off than he
would be in the wild. The relationship between Wesley and his dog
is almost certainly close to the relationship between parent and child
than master and slave.

rick wrote:
> snip the racist spew from karen.....

How is it racist?

The real animal related issue with China is not that they eat dogs and
cats,
which are no more worthy of protection than pigs or cattle. The real
issue is the unconscionable way they treat bears.

Dave wrote:

<snip>
> Pet ownership may be analogous to slavery in terms of legal status
> but it is not analaogus in a practical sense.

It is, very much so. If you are familiar with animal care and
control organizations or SPCAs working on cruelty cases, the
perpetrator often can't be charged unless it is proved that
he had legal authority over the animal. Legal status varies,
but is always weighted in favor of the "owner". Last night there
was an episode on "Animal Cops Phoenix" where the humane team could
not remove sick animals from a hoarder because the hoarder would
not allow them to enter the house. The individual "owner" may
love the animal and provide excellent care -- as did some slave
owners for their human chattels. Or the "owner" may provide a bare
minimum of care -- a doghouse in the backyard and a chain. As
long as unnecessary cruelty is not proved, the animal cannot be
removed, even if most of his needs are not met. He can even be
mutilated by cosmetic surgery, as in ear cropping and tail docking,
or killed by the owner (if a cooperative vet can be found, or if
the owner does it himself). It IS legal in most places for an
owner to euthanize his own animal -- it is his property -- as long
as he does it "humanely".

There are a number of books on dog legal status, including _Dog Law_
on the practical facts, and, of course, Francione's _Animals,
Property, and the Law_ on the more abstract level.

> Wesley's dog
> has, we assume, a large degree of freedom and is no worse off than he
> would be in the wild.

He has the freedom Wesley *allows* him. That's the point. He
has no real freedom or rights of his own, and he does not own
himself.

As for being in the wild -- many dog breeds have been so mutilated
by humans for vanity or other human purposes -- like the chihuahua --
that they cannot even survive in the wild. Owners congratulate
themselves on this, but it is little different from chopping off
a person's legs and then congratulating oneself because one provides
a wheelchair.

> The relationship between Wesley and his dog
> is almost certainly close to the relationship between parent and child
> than master and slave.

It may feel that way to those involved, but it does not alter the
legal and ethical status of animals.

Working in a humane organization or shelter is a very difficult
and stressful situation, rather like being the doctor in a
concentration camp. It frequently leads to strange psychological
reactions, as it evidently did in the PETA case, and people either
"shut down" emotionally or snap and go off the deep end. I have
worked as an ACO, and I've seen the dead pile in the back of an
inner-city shelter. It's a terrible situation, and I tend to cut
the people involved some slack.

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> snip the racist spew from karen.....
>
> How is it racist?
>===========
Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
are black to dogs.
That you don't see comparing them to animals as racist says
alot...

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Glorfindel" > wrote
>
> <snip>
>>>This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
>>>indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
>>>authorized by PETA.
>
>> Do you accept that excuse when animals are abused by workers
>> in the meat industry?
>
> There's no evidence the animals in this incident were abused.
> They
> were shelter animals transferred to PETA. The technician who
> euthanized them was licensed, and they weren't "smothered" as
> alleged. The issue was proper disposal of the dead bodies.
======================
ROTFLMAO Death isn't abuse. What a hoot!!

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

>>rick wrote:

>>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....

>>How is it racist?
>>===========

> Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
> are black to dogs.

There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
country," and historically there have been slaves of every
ethnic group. How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
legal status of animals: both are chattel property.

<snip>

"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>
>>>rick wrote:
>
>>>>snip the racist spew from Glorfindel.....
>
>>>How is it racist?
>>>===========
>
>> Comparing slaves, which in this country and in her comparisons
>> are black to dogs.
>
> There were slaves of other ethnicities even in "this
> country," and historically there have been slaves of every
> ethnic group. How about the blond, blue-eyed British,
> German, and Irish slaves of the Roman Empire? Your lack
> of historical education ( not to mention grammar) is showing.
> It is the legal status of slaves which is analogous to the
> legal status of animals: both are chattel property.
>
> <snip>
=========================
All racists try to cover their hatred... You're not doing a very
good job.
Your comparisions are bogus. Thanks for proving you have
nothing, should I also submit posts to you for spell-checking
too?



>

> There's no evidence the animals in this incident were abused. They
> were shelter animals transferred to PETA. The technician who
> euthanized them was licensed, and they weren't "smothered" as
> alleged. The issue was proper disposal of the dead bodies.
>

Are you crazy. It was stated they were smothered. Thats why they are
being charged with 31 felonies. They were found in a dumpster near
where they took the animals. They were puppies and the people who
turned them in were told they were being put up for adoption. You are
in denial.

jw

In article >, says...
> John Wesley wrote:
>
> > You can't deny the truth!
>
> This is obviously an unusual episode, and, as the article
> indicates, was contrary to PETA policy, and not
> authorized by PETA.
>

What do you think they would say?

We do this all the time.

jw

In article .com>,
says...
>
> Pet ownership may be analogous to slavery in terms of legal status
> but it is not analaogus in a practical sense. Wesley's dog
> has, we assume, a large degree of freedom and is no worse off than he
> would be in the wild. The relationship between Wesley and his dog
> is almost certainly close to the relationship between parent and child
> than master and slave.
>
>
>
Thanks,

Glorfindel will never get it.

jw

John Wesley wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...

>>Pet ownership may be analogous to slavery in terms of legal status
>>but it is not analaogus in a practical sense. Wesley's dog
>>has, we assume, a large degree of freedom and is no worse off than he
>>would be in the wild. The relationship between Wesley and his dog
>>is almost certainly close to the relationship between parent and child
>>than master and slave.

> Thanks,

For what?

> Glorfindel will never get it.

I certainly "get it." It is the way I feel about my own companion
animals, and why there is a movement today to replace "pet owner"
with "companion animal guardian" as the preferred term. But
until the *legal* status of animals changes -- until they are
no longer property -- nothing will really change.

In article >, says...
> John Wesley wrote:
> > In article .com>,
> > says...
>
> >>Pet ownership may be analogous to slavery in terms of legal status
> >>but it is not analaogus in a practical sense. Wesley's dog
> >>has, we assume, a large degree of freedom and is no worse off than he
> >>would be in the wild. The relationship between Wesley and his dog
> >>is almost certainly close to the relationship between parent and child
> >>than master and slave.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> For what?

For having an intelligent response!

>
> > Glorfindel will never get it.
>
> I certainly "get it."

I don't think you do, but at any rate I'm growing tired of this.

jw

Glorfindel wrote:
> John Wesley wrote:
>
>> You can't deny the truth!
>
>
> This is obviously an unusual episode,

You have no way of knowing that, Karen.


> and, as the article
> indicates, was contrary to PETA policy,

Correction: the article quotes PeTA as *saying* that
it was "contrary to PeTA policy". You don't know what
their policy is, and what else would they say in that
situation?



>> PETA suspended Hinkle for 90 days and did not discipline Cook.
>
>
> <snip>

"snip" is right, Snip Queen Karen. Not surprising you
don't have a comment about the slap on the wrist.

>
>> Newkirk has since said that dumping the animals into trash bins
>> violates PETA policy.

OF COURSE she would say that.


>> PETA typically euthanizes animals

Exactly.