“Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.”
 - Ingrid Newkirk, in the April 8, 2002 issue of US News & World Report (April 8, 2002)

I can never trust an organization like PETA.  When I see ads that are anti-fur and pro-animal rights that contain leather and suede furniture, I’m definitely thrown off.  This was paid for by PETA?  Using materials that they themselves deem inappropriate?

We’re talking about an organization that instead of a no-kill shelter, instead has a kill shelter.  Between 1998 and 2008, PETA has “destroyed” more than 21,000 defenseless dogs, cats and other companion animals.  Within the last five years (just to add insult to injury), they’ve found homes for less than 5% of the animals that were put into their care.  The rest?  Put to sleep.  But why?  PETA rakes in nearly $30 million every year.  Since most of these are donations, they are also tax exempt — that’s nearly $30 million in cash.

In January of 2008, the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom formally petitioned Virginia’s Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), requesting that the government agency officially reclassify PETA as a slaughterhouse.

The  SPCA in PETA’s hometown of Norfolk, VA managed to find homes for 73% of animals put into their care.  A vast difference from the amount PETA saves.  We have to keep in mind that PETA offers no open-adoption centers in Norfolk, and they choose to instead spend part of their income on crematory service to periodically empty hundreds of animals from a large walk-in freezer (the same you would find a slaughter house to keep meat fresh — they filed it on their taxes as a business expense).

Let’s look at this fact: In 2006, PETA euthanized 97.4% of all pets that were in their care, while the rest of the state’s average for humane societies was less than 35%.  In this year, PETA transferred 46 animals to other agencies, and in the end PETA themselves only adopted out 12 animals.

PETA, in the end, wants to ban hunting, fishing, rodeos, circuses, and zoos.  They also want to end the assistance of using animals to cure terminal illnesses such as AIDs and cancer.  They’ve also taken assitance animals away from their needing owners (like a seeing-eye dog away from a blind owner).

Lucky for us, since PETA is run mainly off of donations — we get to see what they spend the money on, as well as how much they bring in, how many animals are killed every year, and other important information.

Such as the fact that this organization has donated money to criminals — including the North American Earth Liberation Front, an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” that received $1,500 from PETA in 2001.  And let’s not forget that in the 1990’s, PETA paid $70,200 to Rodney Coronado from Animal Liberation front.  Coronado is a serial arsonist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory.  During his sentencing memorandum, a federal prosecuter implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in the crime.  PETA campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich has told an animal rights convention that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”  He then adds, “Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.”  So, committing crimes really helps people want to join your organization in praise, eh Friedrich?

How about the PETA ad that is obviously geared towards children — “Your mommy kills animals!”?  A PETA vice president told Fox News Channel that “our campaigns are always geared towards children, always will be.”  Almost sounds like Marlboro instead of PETA.

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
 - Ingrid Newkirk Harper’s (August 1, 1988)

“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild … they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
 - Ingrid Newkirk The Chicago Daily Herald (March 1, 1990)

PETA states that keeping domestic animals is cruel and must be abolished.  For some reason, they don’t think we are capable of giving an animal a good home — so what would become of all of these animals?  I’m sure most of them would end up getting killed.  PETA officials even show up in cases involving pit bulls to make sure these “unpredictable” breeds are destroyed.  Any dog can be unpredictable, not just the breed.  It’s not like an animal can communicate to us in words what they’re feeling.  Not only does PETA mention this about “pit bulls” (a now extinct breed, but 3 breeds are currently referred to as pit bulls), but also about rottweilers, and doberman pinchers.

I don’t get it, eliminating breeds that are raised and bred to be aggressive by their breeders and owners is better than eliminating these breeders from being able to breed the animal?

So, dogs that were created for domestic breeds, should no longer be domestic?  It would be difficult for them to survive in the wild, and I would hate to see what would happen to my boston terrier, who follows me from room to room, goes on walks with me every day, and is my best companion.  I don’t think he’d do so hot under such circumstances.  Not to mention the amount of animals killed by vehicles would increase dramatically…. I agree that puppy mills are awful and terrible, however I don’t see anything wrong with breeding animals to be companions for humans.  Has it not been that way for over a millennium?  Let’s not forget that animals become extinct in such instances.

PETA is an outrageous organization who is willing to take radical steps in order to meet their agenda — including slaughtering more animals than any animal shelter in the state of Virginia, as well as not allowing open-adoptions so that these animals can find a good home.  How are these animals supposed to get a good home if they are not given the opportunity?

Links:

Tags: