peta kills animals, apparently
Life
www.petakillsanimals.com is claiming that PETA (the American organisation that tries to stop acts of animal cruelty) has killed 10,000 animals in the 5.5 years from July 1998 through the end of 2003
. That is around 5 animals per day, in case you were wondering. They do not say why they kill them, but they do mention that PETA uses lethal injection to do the job.
If they have it right and PETA has killed this many animals, why do they do it? I thought maybe it could be for the same reason as why animal shelters around the world have to kill the unwanted pets they are sheltering: people do not claim them and they cannot keep them forever, so they must be put down. The website does not seem to mention why, so I sent them this email:
Hi,
I could imagine an organisation like PETA killing domestic animals - this is pretty common practice at animal shelters that cannot find homes for abandoned pets.
Is that what is going on here? If not, why are PETA killing these animals? You do not give any reason on your web site.
Mike.
I will post any response I get back from them.
Curious to see who is behind the website, I went to the Center for Consumer Freedom. These guys claim responsibility for it. On their about page, they state:
The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals. From farm to fork, our friends and supporters include businesses, employees and consumers.
So it's pretty clear why they do not like PETA. Most probably, they are quite tired of getting harrassed by PETA and, well, they deserve it. The food industry is the biggest source of animal cruelty on the planet. We are, after all a bunch of greedy, meat eating bastards.
Apparently 35,734,600 cows were slaughtered in the United States in 2002. That is over one cow killed per second, or around 98,000 per day. Maybe if the more than 1,000 concerned individuals
actually gave a fuck about the animals, they would become vegetarian and put PETA to shame. Together, in their lifetime, they would cause less animals to die than PETA has apparently killed in those five and a half years.
So do these guys have reasonable grounds for criticising PETA? No. Should PETA be killing these animals? I guess that depends on if it would be more cruel to keep them alive.
Comments
Yeah, there's a billboard near Times Square advertising petakillsanimals.com. I'll see if I can find a photo of it when I'm not at work.
Posted by: Dave Hill on June 23, 2005 01:30 AM
believe it or not, you can find such a photograph by pointing your browser towards http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
or http://www.petakillsanimals.com/images/billboardNYC.jpg for a larger picture
Posted by: matty on June 23, 2005 03:53 AM
True, the Center for Consumer Freedom has a vested interest in shutting down PETA, but I think PETA takes things too far sometimes:
from:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=134
"PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals."
PETA support terror to protect animals. This war makes as much sense as a 'war against terror'. Fighting violence with violence is a stupid tactic.
Posted by: matty on June 23, 2005 04:09 AM
Ahh, I didn't even bother looking at the site. It's kind of odd they put a picture on their website of a billboard advertising their website.
Here's my photo that I was refering to:
http://www.djh.id.au/~david/images/usa/new_york/manhattan/2005-06-13/gallery/IMGP1725.html
Posted by: Dave Hill on June 23, 2005 08:21 AM
Oh, PETA's methods can be questionable, no doubt. At least they are fighting for something good however, rather than fighting for increased profits for the food industry, which is all the CCF seems to be about.
PS: Dave, I found the website because I was looking at one of your photos, saw the billboard and wanted to find out what the hell they were on about.
Posted by: Mike on June 23, 2005 09:22 PM
Modern "consumer ethics" is a fashion statement and little more. This is a minor point; you can do what you want in your own time if it makes you look cool.
But: all intimidators - the USA, Al Quaeda, Microsoft, PETA and everyone in between - can go fuck themselves. I really don't care what your goal is or how laudable your self-justification may be, you're still an asshole.
Posted by: Joel on June 24, 2005 03:32 AM
Mike said:
"At least they are fighting for something good however, "
What is that Mike?
It is NOT for the animals.
It is to create a vegan world.
Interstingly as I talked to a customer in the store not so long ago, she was very destressed to find out that ALL face creams sold in the store were tested on animals. She was quick to tell me she was a vegan.
How ever she did take headache tablets which were tested on animals, she did wear leather shoes, quickly telling me they were hand downs . . .
. . . ha, ha ha ha.
PETA is no different.
Someone should invest some time and some investigating on what excaly PETA people are truly consuming and wearing.
Their ture agenda is clear, they tell everyone on their web site just that they sell in wrapped in the very pretty paper of *stop animal cruelty* and tie a lovely ribbon of *it's to help the animals* and poeple buy it.
Gees the name is even misleading . . .
. . . Ethical!
What exactly is ethical about fire bombs, about killing animals while at the same time leaving their owners to believe they will be re-homed, about associating with ALF, about giving ALF money?
Posted by: Sally on October 28, 2005 07:18 AM
/me shrugs
I do not think it would be too surprising that an organisation who's goal is to stop people from mistreating animals wants to create a vegan world, or vice versa: It would not be possible to use animals or animal products for anything and truthfully claim to not be cruel to animals.
What's your beef with veganism? While they may not be perfect, at least most of them are doing something about the problem in a positive way; by trying to just not use animal-based products. That is much better than going around and blowing things up.
While I do not agree with PETA's methods, I do with their sentiment. Their true agenda does seem to be pretty clear - to stop animal cruelty. Who is the ALF? Why should I care? Are you saying that people *should* be cruel to animals? If not, then why are you complaining about vegans?
Posted by: Mike on October 28, 2005 09:56 AM
"I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's specieist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding ... as the surplus of cats and dogs declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance." - Ingrid Newkirk, in Harpers Magazine
13 Mar 2000 PETA launches their "Got Beer?" campaign in which they encourage college students to drink beer instead of milk. Citing Beer's lack of fat, cholesterol and hormones, PETA claims that a glass of beer is more healthy than a glass of milk. The campaign is timed to coincide with St. Patrick's Day celebrations being held later in the week, and PETA claims they will have ads in campus newspapers with their new slogan. Among the other items associated with the promotion are bottle openers with the slogan "Drink Responsibly. Don't Drink Milk." A firestorm of controversy immediately erupts, including a condemnation from MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) who call the campaign irresponsible.
30 Mar 2001 "During the hoof and mouth disease outbreak in Europe, PETA President Ingrid Newkirk calls for mass animal deaths on both sides of the Atlantic: "If that hideousness came here, it wouldn't be any more hideous for the animals-- they are all bound for a ghastly death anyway. But it would wake up consumers." Later, she continues: "I openly hope it [hoof and mouth disease] comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment." Note that such an outbreak would bring the deaths of millions of animals, including those not used for slaughter, such as dairy cows. BBC interview.
"“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.”
— Washingtonian magazine, 8/1/86"
Ingrid Newkirk for you. I'm not a vegan, but I do love animals and try to help them as much as I can. But this woman is obviously insane in her holier-than-thou quest for what she thinks is right. I see PETA with suspicion.
Posted by: Audrey H. on December 4, 2005 12:59 AM
Sigh. I think people are missing the point. Regardless of what anyone thinks of PETA, I am most certainly against hypocritical, industry-funded lobby groups that actively promote their backer's interests to the detriment of everyone else.
For example, organisations (that are backed by the meat industry) that campaign against animal rights under the pretense of being pro- animal rights.
Posted by: Mike on December 5, 2005 02:51 PM
Add a Comment