That's what I call efficiency!

http://sev.prnewswire.com/publishing-information-services/20080111/DC1129510012008-1.html

"Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 "companion animals" in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in."

Hey pet, God save you from PETA!!!

P.eople for the
E.thical
T.ermination of
A.nimals

What !? So that's what she's up to now... :bugeye:

lol

Really though.. WTF ! :mad:

Is anyone really surprised that they are hypocrites?

PETA's total disregard for any kind of life is no surprise to me.

Better dead than enslaved.

This is old news, of course. Penn and Teller talked about this on an episode of Bullshit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTQCQ1eI7Is). It's obviously the exact same case. Even talking about the refrigeration unit used to store the corpses.

I do wonder, however, how much possible spin there is here.

Is it possible that these animals were old, sick, etc?
Also, have their practices changed since then?

I'm not defending PETA. They're a bunch of radical crazy fuckers.
But, I do wonder how much spin is going on.

www.petakillsanimals.com

Here is an idea that you can count on. Once you are talking about thousands of animals You are talking about a similar spread of the different breeds, ages, health, and adoptability. When someone like PETA gathers their animals from a random sampling of owners and shelters along the Eastern seaboard, they ain't no such thing as an anomaly that would cause them to need to euthanize 97 percent of their animals.

I am convinced that we are facing a group hysteria and insanity.

Animals that need rescuing are most likely to be sick or injured. Consider.

Exactly. Theres no need to let an animal go to waste. A good meal is a good meal.

This is from
http://www.chincare.com/ConfrontingCruelty.htm

If PETA can be regarded as the drastic extreme of animal rights,
big business interests are simply the flip side of that coin.
For instance, the "war on PETA" is almost entirely the work of one man, Rick Berman
(ref- sourcewatch.com), who simultaneously runs a nonprofit "consumer advocacy" group and a Washington lobbying firm
(.doc). The sole purpose of the nonprofit is to launch smear campaigns
against those who get in the way of the businesses that back the lobbying firm:
"From his offices a block from the White House, Berman wages a never-ending public-relations assault on doctors,
health advocates, scientists, food researchers, and just about anyone else who highlights
the health downsides of eating junk food or being obese. He also targets groups that
want animal-treatment standards for the meat industry,
such as PETA, and trial lawyers who want to sue the food industry...
Such people, Berman notes on the center's Web site, are 'food cops, health care enforcers,
militant activists, meddling bureaucrats and violent radicals who think they know what's best for you.'
However, while Berman presents himself as a defender of consumers against overbearing bureaucrats and health zealots,
he's really defending the interests of another group: restaurant chains, food and beverage companies,
meat producers, and others who stand to see profits hampered by government regulations,
or even by increased health awareness on the part of customers." (ref- prospect.org, also see additional links and articles: (.doc)


A prime example of Berman's total disregard for the truth can be found in his website devoted to the claim
that "PETA Kills Animals" (ref- petakillsanimals.com). It attempts to capitalize on the 2005 scandal (.doc)
that involved PETA members dumping euthanized animals; PETA doesn't "kill"
animals any more than the Humane Society or Animal Control, they euthanize our country's unwanted pets
and that's BEEN common knowledge. Berman has no use for the whole truth because in his world of greed and power
he knows that a lie told often enough will spread, carried forward by ignorance and
others who stand to gain from it and that's enough to do the job- to discredit and destroy his adversaries.


People need to take a good look at where their information is coming from,
investigate the source before drawing a conclusion or choosing sides.
That's the only way to make educated, informed decisions because
it would be moronic to give a vote of blind allegiance based on the fascade
of either PETA or Berman's "Center for Consumer Freedom" (ref- sourcewatch.com).
We need to insist on what's positive, decent, humane and kind and object to what's not;
ultimately we can make the good win out, if we persist.
PETA is definitely not above reproach but they're still capable of doing good for animals in a reputable, honest capacity.
Seeking their assistance in such a capacity when there is a case of chinchilla neglect
or abuse hanging in the balance should not be discouraged,
it can save lives while encouraging good conduct on the part of animal right's "mad diva."

Rick Berman is known by his enemies as "Dr Evil"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/05/60minutes/main2653020.shtml

Better dead than enslaved.

This is old news, of course. Penn and Teller talked about this on an episode of Bullshit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTQCQ1eI7Is). It's obviously the exact same case. Even talking about the refrigeration unit used to store the corpses.

I do wonder, however, how much possible spin there is here.

Is it possible that these animals were old, sick, etc?
Also, have their practices changed since then?

I'm not defending PETA. They're a bunch of radical crazy fuckers.
But, I do wonder how much spin is going on.

Interesting that Penn and Teller made no mention of who runs the organisation which is giving out this information. They just state that it is the "Centre for Consumer Freedom", which sounds like an independent organisation that protects consumer choice. Who could be against that? This is a video showing where the organisation gets some of its money from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAS4RO4J8lk&feature=related


One possibilty regarding the 97% figure, is that PETA may be against keeping animals as pets at all and they think that death is preferable to a life with nasty humans. That would be fairly loony.

Their meetings do look like cult meetings, but no more so than any large corporation.

Some of P&Ts stuff might hit the mark, but this clip would make me very wary of believing a word they say.
Who produces this Bullshit program anyway? Is it just on the internet or on TV as well?

Bullshit is on the Showtime channel. I watched the programs on the net and except one I agreed with them and found it fair and balanced and well argued, showing both sides of the issues....

Old news, spun by the CCF (shower of arseholes IMO).

Rick Berman is right on the money, his information is completely accurate and verified, and some people bash him because he caught PETA with their trousers around their ankles.

PETA keeps screaming for laws but won't obey any law that inconveniences their terrorists.

I hate to say it but I suspected they were not a squeaky clean org. And those stats are pretty bad, i think too many people are out to get rich or famous. Rescuing and protecting animals is not the place for it.

Yeah, none of the suffering animals are put through is unnecessary.
No companies test frivolous products on animals.
No scientists do research that involves the suffering of animals and has little likely benefit for humans.
Animals are treated well, especially in circus, research facilities and in US agribusiness.
Any group complaining about this is just nuts.
Any suffering that is happening is absolutely necessary and who cares anyway.

(the scary thing is that some people will take this seriously, and worse some of them will agree)

Animals that need rescuing are most likely to be sick or injured. Consider.

What about the fact that other shelters kill about 37 percent on the average?

If PETA were on the up and up, and there is absolutely no chance of that, then they would adopt more animals out and kill fewer animals than the national average.

Yeah, none of the suffering animals are put through is unnecessary.
No companies test frivolous products on animals.
No scientists do research that involves the suffering of animals and has little likely benefit for humans.
Animals are treated well, especially in circus, research facilities and in US agribusiness.
Any group complaining about this is just nuts.
Any suffering that is happening is absolutely necessary and who cares anyway.

(the scary thing is that some people will take this seriously, and worse some of them will agree)

It is better to take those views seriously, for both humans and animals. If you have believed anything that PETA or other animal rights groups have told you, throw it out. They ARE lying.

It is better to take those views seriously, for both humans and animals. If you have believed anything that PETA or other animal rights groups have told you, throw it out. They ARE lying.

If you have believed corporate brochures, government oversight agency assurances and the media about how animals are only mistreated is very rare occurances, you need to look again.

If you have believed corporate brochures, government oversight agency assurances and the media about how animals are only mistreated is very rare occurances, you need to look again.

Actually, you are somewhat right. Government agencies like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Commission and the CDC treat the HSUS's propaganda as more or less reliable information. The FWC quotes HSUS's sources when filing environmental impact statements. The HSUS is run by Wayne Pacelle, one of PETA's drones.

The HSUS essentially tries to make PETA's radicalism look respectable. They're not very good at that.

Rick Berman's material is as reliable as it can be made by tracing it to primary sources.

US fish and wildlife does not have jurisdiction over the main players. A look at how corporations are checked on, including, for example, pharmaceutical companies and agribusiness would show the revolving door between industry and government oversight ESPECIALLY since Bush got in. Hell, people lose their jobs for trying to enforce the laws.

Anyone who wants the majority of animal species to survive is far better off helping pet ownership remain legal and helping animal use industries stay viable.

Also, no Fish and Wildlife Commission should have any jurisdiction over captive bred animals.

Anyone who wants the majority of animal species to survive is far better off helping pet ownership remain legal and helping animal use industries stay viable.
I assume this is one of Peta's intended goals - the getting rid of pet ownership. My reaction to your posts is not, oh, no PETA is just peachy. I just see the focus in society on PETA when it comes to corporate abuse of animals is a distraction. If you think they are not unnecessarily abusing animals, I think you are naive. If you think we as a society could not look into the issue and start whittling away at the worst abuse and brainstorming together ways of minimizing abuse, I think that is also naive.

What happens is we end up debating if PETA is moral, as if their being immoral or not let's us off the hook for our tacit approval of what is done to animals.



Also, no Fish and Wildlife Commission should have any jurisdiction over captive bred animals.
Not an issue I have made a postion on.

Mr. or Ms. Dark, if you get your information from a source that lies, cheats, steals, and practices terrorism, you get information from a source that lies, cheats, steals, and practices terrorism. We cannot use any information from PETA. It is unreliable. About all that we can argue, and we have to do that carefully, is that the internal logic from their information is wrong, if we even use it for the sake of argument at all.

As if PETA had anything BUT a dark side: (http://www.huntingtons.info/MT/archives/2003/09/the_dark_side_o.html)

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals provides aid and comfort for the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). The two groups are responsible for more than 600 crimes since 1996, causing (by a very conservative FBI estimate) more than $43 million in damage. ALF�s �press office� brags that in 2002, the two groups committed �100 illegal direct actions� -- like blowing up SUVs, destroying the brakes on seafood delivery trucks, and planting firebombs in restaurants.

Also:
(http://www.huntingtons.info/MT/archives/2003/09/the_dark_side_o.html)

�I will be the last person to condemn ALF,� says Newkirk. And in another interview: �I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren�t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I�d light a match.� In ALF�s publication Bite Back (yes, this terrorist group has a newsletter), Newkirk has said: �You can�t have all politeness and patience, all potlucks and epistles � Some people will never budge unless [they are] pushed to budge.�

Perhaps Newkirk�s most telling comment, though, came in a 2002 U.S. News & World Report feature. �Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective,� she admitted. �We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.�

It is time and more than time for the terrorist tactics to have the effect that they should have. People should repudiate the goals of the terrorists.

I assume this is one of Peta's intended goals - the getting rid of pet ownership. My reaction to your posts is not, oh, no PETA is just peachy. I just see the focus in society on PETA when it comes to corporate abuse of animals is a distraction. If you think they are not unnecessarily abusing animals, I think you are naive. If you think we as a society could not look into the issue and start whittling away at the worst abuse and brainstorming together ways of minimizing abuse, I think that is also naive.

What happens is we end up debating if PETA is moral, as if their being immoral or not let's us off the hook for our tacit approval of what is done to animals.


The point is that PETA should not be allowed to control that hook in any way, shape, or form.

Animals that need rescuing are most likely to be sick or injured. Consider.My sister in law is part of a Pug Rescue program. She personally adopted a blind, deaf, morbidly obese pug. The thing can barely breath, it has cancer. It's really sad.

She also has a normal, healthy pug, and often will pick up a third or fourth animal she'll temporarily take care of while they're trying to find it a home.

So she's clearly not a hypocrite. But it sure sounds like PETA is. So we'll add that to their list of deficiencies.

I think that the Confronting Cruelty site had it right.
These two groups are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Most people want humane treatment of animals, whether as pets or as livestock. Trouble is, when it comes to shelling out extra money at the supermarket for ethically kept food animals, most people will turn a blind eye to how the animals are kept.

WTF ? People get this worked up over Animals ? Why not the Palestinians ? Or the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections ? Why not the actions of Fox ?

What about the fact that other shelters kill about 37 percent on the average?

I'm not sure where you got that figure from, but my guess is that it is an under-estimate.

Many many pets are dumped every year. It is impossible to rehome all of them, and the result is that most are put down. I know that this is the case for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) in Australia, and I see no reason why the situation would be any different in the US.

My sister in law is part of a Pug Rescue program. She personally adopted a blind, deaf, morbidly obese pug. The thing can barely breath, it has cancer. It's really sad.

She also has a normal, healthy pug, and often will pick up a third or fourth animal she'll temporarily take care of while they're trying to find it a home.

So she's clearly not a hypocrite. But it sure sounds like PETA is. So we'll add that to their list of deficiencies.

i.e. you'll believe any anti-PETA propaganda, regardless of its source, just like MetaKron.

Most people want humane treatment of animals, whether as pets or as livestock. Trouble is, when it comes to shelling out extra money at the supermarket for ethically kept food animals, most people will turn a blind eye to how the animals are kept.

For most people, it is a case of "out of sight, out of mind". Most people don't care to know anything about the process which led to the landing of their steak on their plate.

WTF ? People get this worked up over Animals ? Why not the Palestinians ? Or the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections ? Why not the actions of Fox ?

People get worked up about all those things.

Do you have a problem with getting worked up over the mistreatment of animals? If so, why?

is PETA the US version of the RSPCA?

For those who dont know the RSPCA in Australia has the responcability to rescue animanls from cruel conditions, investigate aligations of crulty to animals, prosicute the aligations and also house and rehome those animals that are either dumped on them or are rescued by them. Im not sure on this but i think it is also them that destroy animals that are concidered dangerious by the local councils after atacking other animals or people

Therefore they find themselves destroying alot of animals who are unable to be homed (especially cats of irisponcable owners who dont desex there animals) or are to injured or ill to be treated humanly

James, tell me that you're not a PETAphile, please.

is PETA the US version of the RSPCA?

For those who dont know the RSPCA in Australia has the responcability to rescue animanls from cruel conditions, investigate aligations of crulty to animals, prosicute the aligations and also house and rehome those animals that are either dumped on them or are rescued by them. Im not sure on this but i think it is also them that destroy animals that are concidered dangerious by the local councils after atacking other animals or people

Therefore they find themselves destroying alot of animals who are unable to be homed (especially cats of irisponcable owners who dont desex there animals) or are to injured or ill to be treated humanly

PETA is more like an animal Hamas.

MetaKron: you do realise that tells me nothing except that you dont like them

Oh and i forgot one role of the RSPCA, to advocate for the protection of all animals, for instance they are against the live transport of sheep because of the high death rates ect and they are lobbying for the abolistion of battery hens

oh and they are a volentieer group, tough gig huh:)

www.petakillsanimals.com

is PETA the US version of the RSPCA?

No. PETA is an animal rights/animal liberation organisation. It is private and has nothing to do with the government, unlike the RSPCA.

PETA believes that animals should not be kept and treated as property. It is an animal rights organisation, whereas the RSPCA is an animal welfare organisation. The RSPCA's position is that having things like a meat industry are fine, as long as animals are killed "humanely". The RSPCA is concerned about inflicting pain and suffering on animals, but accepts that animals are the property of human beings and that human owners can dictate how they want to "use" an animal, within certain bounds.

Have you read about the RSPCA's conduct LATELY?

James, tell me that you're not a PETAphile, please.

What does that mean?

There's no need to take the extreme position you take that everyone either totally supports everything PETA does or else they decry everything PETA does.

In some respects, PETA makes perfectly reasonable and legitimate arguments concerning animal rights. In other ways, it can be extremist.

Your own position appears to be that you occupy the opposite end of the extremist spectrum from PETA.

MetaKron i would LOVE to know what your refering to.

I'm not sure where you got that figure from, but my guess is that it is an under-estimate.

From the opening post and linked news story. Although, he actually overstated the number. The article stated 34.7 percent for 2006, not 37 percent. Also, the numbers are for only one state and not necessarily representative for numbers nationwide, but are probably close enough. Sure as hell close enough when faced with a number like 97% from Peta.

Peta clearly would rather destroy an animal rather than allow it to live in captivity. That's sickening.

Of course, there is, as I've mentioned, the possibility that some of these animals were injured, close to death, etc. But 97% is a huge number. Far too large to be anything other than a systematic policy of destruction of an animal rather than allowing it to live in captivity.

What does that mean?

There's no need to take the extreme position you take that everyone either totally supports everything PETA does or else they decry everything PETA does.

In some respects, PETA makes perfectly reasonable and legitimate arguments concerning animal rights. In other ways, it can be extremist.

Your own position appears to be that you occupy the opposite end of the extremist spectrum from PETA.

You didn't have to accuse me of believing uncritically every criticism of PETA. The sources for the information that I have include the FBI and PETA itself. Much of it is in PETA's own words. Why do you call it "propaganda"?

From the opening post and linked news story. Although, he actually overstated the number. The article stated 34.7 percent for 2006, not 37 percent. Also, the numbers are for only one state and not necessarily representative for numbers nationwide, but are probably close enough. Sure as hell close enough when faced with a number like 97% from Peta.

Peta clearly would rather destroy an animal rather than allow it to live in captivity. That's sickening.

Of course, there is, as I've mentioned, the possibility that some of these animals were injured, close to death, etc. But 97% is a huge number. Far too large to be anything other than a systematic policy of destruction of an animal rather than allowing it to live in captivity.

37 percent was a misreading. I need new eyeglasses. I intended to say whatever number the article said.

There is no good reason to keep people from owning animals, and every reason for people to own animals. One of the reasons for people to own animals is to preserve their lives and their species. We are better off with huge numbers of animals being killed in shelters than we are with no animals. They are better off living with us than living where humans don't exist, which is nowhere.

I have to agree with you there. I have a marine fish tank (which i love and care for dearly). Apart from being great to look at and improving knowlage about marine life they may unfortunatly become the only places some of these species (especially some of the coral) are found if global warming continues which would be a terrible shame

Edit to add: But you still havent answed my question on what has the RSPCA done that you disagree with so much

Information about euthanasia of animals in shelters is available from the Humane Society of the United States (http://www.hsus.org/pets/animal_shelters/common_questions_about_animal_shelters_and_animal_ control.html).

It says:

The HSUS estimates that animal shelters care for between 6–8 million dogs and cats every year in the United States, of whom approximately 3–4 million are euthanized. At this time The HSUS can only estimate these figures because there is no central data reporting agency for animal shelters.

This overpopulation of companion animals is widely acknowledged across the country by professionals and experts in the animal welfare field. Overpopulation is a tragedy. There are simply not enough responsible homes for all of these wonderful, innocent animals. At this point in time, it would be impossible to humanely house every unwanted animal in the United States.

See the link for much more information.

Another source is American Humane (http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_fact_sheets_animal_euthanas ia).

Here is its summary:

Using the National Council's numbers from 1997 and estimating the number of operating shelters in the United States to be 3,500 (the exact number of animal shelters operating in the United States does not exist), here are the statistics:
Of the 1,000 shelters that replied to the National Council's survey, 4.3 million animals were handled.
In 1997 roughly 64% of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters. These animals may have been put down due to overcrowding, but may have been sick, aggressive, injured, or suffered something else.
56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. More cats are euthanized than dogs because they are more likely to enter a shelter without any owner identification.
Only 15% of dogs and 2% of cats that enter animal shelters are reunited with their owners.
25% of dogs and 24% of cats that enter animal shelters are adopted.

It is from these numbers that we estimated what is occurring nationwide. It is widely accepted that 9.6 million animals are euthanized annually in the United States.

I accept no information from the HSUS as being true, and I don't know anything about "American Humane"

I have to agree with you there. I have a marine fish tank (which i love and care for dearly). Apart from being great to look at and improving knowlage about marine life they may unfortunatly become the only places some of these species (especially some of the coral) are found if global warming continues which would be a terrible shame

Edit to add: But you still havent answed my question on what has the RSPCA done that you disagree with so much

Stuff like this:
(http://banhunting.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RSPCA/RSPCARedirect&pg=otherissues&marker=1&articleId=1181306037166)

Following many years of campaigning by animal welfare organisations a ban on hunting with dogs in England and Wales came into force in 2005.

Since 1996 the RSPCA has worked in partnership with the International Fund for Animal Welfare and the League Against Cruel Sports through a group known as Campaigning to Protect Hunted Animals (CPHA).

Can i just point out that the RSPCA that James and I are refering to is a statitory body here in Australia

Not the UK branch

These people?

http://blog1.rspcasa.asn.au/

The South Australian branch of the RSPCA is extremely happy to hear that the barbaric sport of duck shooting has been banned for this season. While the government says the cancellation is due to the drought and low duck numbers, the RSPCA believes duck shooting should be banned because of the severe injuries it inflicts on ducks.

Yes those people. As i said they also have a role in advocaton of animal welfare. What is so wrong about that?

I accept no information from the HSUS as being true, and I don't know anything about "American Humane"

Hmmm.... so is it just that you don't accept any information from any animal welfare or animal rights organisation, or do you have something in particular against HSUS?

You seem to be against animal welfare.

I heard that the HSUS had actually been designated as a terrorist organization by the FBI. Do you think that I should accept their information?

I will consider that one about the HSUS as a rumor. What is not a rumor is that they employ one John Goodwin as a vice president, who has been convicted of activities that we would call terrorism now, and arson in any age.

There is also the fact that the HSUS employs Wayne Pacelle, formerly one of the loudmouths from PETA, and that Ingrid Newkirk of PETA gave aid and comfort to Rodney Coronado who was also jailed for incidents involving arson. We definitely have a case for labelling both organizations as animal rights terrorist organizations, and as organizations that give support to domestic terrorists. What then about their credibility? I can prove this. It is common knowledge.

James,

64% is still a damn site shy of 97%.
Peta is extremely efficient in its animal murder program.

notice you havent responded to my post MetaKron

notice you havent responded to my post MetaKron

Yes I did.

Yes those people. As i said they also have a role in advocaton of animal welfare. What is so wrong about that?

Where have you answered to this post?

is PETA the US version of the RSPCA?
Just looking at the initials, I'd say the RSPCA is more like (and probably related to) the ASPCA. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is a respected organization. Unlike PETA, which is famous for throwing paint on people's fur coats and just being generally luney to the point of supporting terrorism in support of "animal rights".

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer

Where have you answered to this post?

look up

Just looking at the initials, I'd say the RSPCA is more like (and probably related to) the ASPCA. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is a respected organization. Unlike PETA, which is famous for throwing paint on people's fur coats and just being generally luney to the point of supporting terrorism in support of "animal rights".

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer

The SPCAs more or less went AR quite some time ago. Google the name Roger Caras.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0880119.html

The links to the RSPCA do uncover animal rights type activities like seeking bans on hunting. For some reason they're after duck hunting. That's animal rights.

Sorry mad i didnt make this clear

RSPCA
Royal Sociaty for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

http://www.rspca.org.au/

Charter

RSPCA Australia believes that man must treat animals humanely. Where man makes use of animals or interferes with their habitat, he should bestow a level of care befitting man's own dignity as a rational, intelligent, compassionate being, and a level of care merited by the nature of the animal as a sentient creature capable of responding to man's care and attention. Such care should be marked by sympathy, consideration, compassion and tenderness towards animals.

RSPCA Australia believes that national and international adoption of set minimum standards of treatment and husbandry, and the observance of the following points, will enable all species of animals to live according to their behavioural needs as provided by a compassionate and responsible community:

1. Animals have an intrinsic value of their own and, accordingly must be considered to possess the right to live in a way which enables them to have a positive life and to develop and enjoy their inherent qualities.

2. No animal should be used for the production of food or fibre, either by farming practice, transportation, or method of slaughter which in any way may cause suffering, injury or distress.

3. No animal should be used for sport or the entertainment of man when such use may increase the risk of injury, suffering or distress to the animals, or is contrary to its nature.

4. Animals should not be used in direct combat, either one against the other or in warfare.

5. Animals should not be used in experiments which inflict pain or suffering upon them and which are not essential for the benefit of man or animals. The use of animals should be replaced by reliable alternative techniques immediately they become available.

6. No animal should be used in excessive breeding programs or programs which produce deformed or weak offspring.

7. Domestic animals must be effectively protected from adverse weather conditions, predators and disease.

8. Domestic animals must be kept in such a way which will enable them to socialise, move freely, stretch, lie down, and have access to clean water, a suitable balanced food supply, and to prophylactic and corrective medicines.

9. Native animals and birds shall be maintained safely in their natural environment and shall be free from hunting, trapping and captivity. Culling may occur, but only when proven necessary for the preservation and benefit of the species. Culling must only be carried out under proper supervision and control.

10. Any animal suffering from disease, injury, or debilitation, must be given first aid or appropriate veterinary attention quickly. If the affliction cannot be cured, or if it involves permanent and serious disability, the animal must be humanely destroyed.

11. The State shall enact and enforce laws, regulations and codes for protecting animals from exploitation, and for ensuring that their basic individual needs are maintained at all times and that their environment is kept free from illegal or irresponsible intrusion.

12. The State shall also develop and implement suitable educational programs or ensure that man's responsibility towards animals is taught in all schools and in the wider community.

Man has an obligation to protect the interests of animals at all times. He should be encouraged to willingly accept this obligation. But, if he does not do so, then the force of the law should be used to ensure that all animals are treated humanely.


sorry this is so long its posted straight off there website

Definitely animal rights.

The RSPCA (Australian branch, at least) is an animal welfare organisation, as is clear from its charter.

I will ask for the second time. WHATS WRONG WITH THAT????

or is it just that you want to be able to slaughter animals with a clear contious, how about waling would you like a go at that? what about having a shoot at the bilby (a highly endangered species)

Your critisiums on the PETA sound less and less crediable the more you critisie the statuary body in charge of making sure that animals are treated humanly

Pure animal rights tripe. There is almost everything wrong with it.

This is a link to the PETA Forum (http://www.peta.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1341).
The PETA ADMIN doesn't seem to disagree with the charges.

I will ask for the second time. WHATS WRONG WITH THAT????
Well, while I support treating animals humanely. I do not recognize animals as having any rights whatsoever.

PETA, on the other hand, wants "total animal liberation". Which means:
No wearing of leather, fur, or any other animal product; no eating meat or drinking milk; no eating of eggs or honey; no zoos, circuses, 4H, or any other animal exhibition; no fishing or hunting; no medical testing of any kind upon animals, and no pets.
What would the world look like in the unlikely case that PETA achieved its goals?
There would be no farming of cattle or chickens, no meat, eggs, or honey in your grocery store. Millions of farmers around the world would lose their livelihoods, and a major part of the human food supply would be gone. Children, who need milk as a crucial part of their growth, would be crippled.

Anyone who likes to hunt or fish, whether for recreation or to obtain the furs, skins, and meat, would be a criminal. All leather, fur, and even silk would be banned. (PETA says it is cruel to use the silkworms to make silk.) The county fair will have no animals of any kind. 4H would have to close up shop. All zoos would have to close. Knut, the adorable polar bear cub in a German zoo, would have never been born, despite his entire species being in danger. All the species preservation and conservation work conducted and funded by zoos would end. Entire species that only exist in captivity would become extinct.
No milk, no pets, even using silkworms is banned? WTF?

Another interesting fact, PETA spends only 1% of its funds actually helping animals:
according to PETA's own records (which are available for public review) PETA spends less than 1% of its $13 million budget on actual care, housing, feeding, and home-finding for animals?Of course, a group that wants the ownership of pets banned can't be expected to help find homes for pets. Instead, they kill them. Clearly, they have no concern for cats and dogs. What do they think will happen to them if the ownership of pets is banned? Clearly, the answer is they will be killed, as are 97% of the pets PETA gets its hands on.

As if all that were not bad enough, their activities and support for terrorist organizations makes them contemptable. PETA directly provides funds and support to two groups, ALF and ELF. Those acronyms stand for Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front. These two groups make it their business to attack innocent people for wearing fur or leather, attack and burn research labs, harass and intimidate scientists and workers, and attack and burn people's new homes, just for having been built somewhere ALF and ELF disagree with! These people fit the definition of terrorists: persons who use fear, intimidation, and infliction of harm in order to achieve radical goals.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/282260/peta_when_animal_rights_becomes_terrorism.html

"7 Things You Didn't Know About PETA." The Center for Consumer Freedom. URL: (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/134)

John Hawkins, "Quotes from the Animal Rights Movement." Rightwingnews.com. URL: (http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/animal.php)

James Jarboe, "Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI, Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, February 12, 2002,"The Threat of Eco-Terrorism." FBI. URL: (http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm)

You can stick a sign on a steaming pile of manure that says anything that you want it to say, but it will still be a steaming pile.

The list of items from the RSPCA might as well have been written by PETA. If you read the wording carefully and don't listen to people who try to weasel their way around it, it says no hunting, no farming, no pets, and the animal rights organizations decide and second-guess your decisions, with a heavy hand.

I have every right to criticize the "statutory body."

Thank you, Mad Anthony. Terrorists and supporters of terrorism deserve nothing and should be given less than that.

Mad i agree with you that is just unstatanable and to a large exstent wrong, we are not ment to be vegatarian for starter

MetaKron

actually it doesnt. It say humane farming (ie no batery hens and no live exports) sustainable fishing (exactly what the DSE wants as well), culling only lawfully santioned (by the DSE), the humane treatment of pets (pets are good and the shelter around the courner deals with all kinds including fish)

Seems to me the only one you got right is hunting, would you be surprised to learn there is very little hunting in Australia at all and we are no worse off for it?

They are the body in charge of enforcing the laws relating to animal protection and they do a very good job at it even though it shouldnt have to be there responcability at all

You're not fooling me, Asguard. You might be fooling yourself. Read what it actually says.

Item 11 asks the state to end all exploitation of animals. That means no human use period. Item 2 literally excludes all use of animals for food and fibre, with the possible exception of milk, but if you really want to get picky, use for milk would be excluded too, as would the use of wool. Item 9 rules out pets.

I have no respect for an organization that claims not to be animal rights when it uses animal rights precepts and is weaselly, like animal rights groups, about how it applies its precepts. You're trying to tell me that they didn't say what they said, and you approve of an anti-hunting agenda, which amazingly has actually pretty much passed in England and the Australia, and that alone is adequate reason for the destruction of the animal rights and animal welfare organizations.

item 11 refers to the fact that the STATES enact laws in regard to the prevention of cruelty rather than the federal government and that the RSPCA will then administer those laws. (thats there JOB)

Item 2 requires that farming, transportation and slaughter be down humainly, under LAW as is there job

Item 9 refers to the treatment of NATIVE animals under LAW

Item 6 refers to the treatment of animals breading for PETS

item 7 refers to minium conditions required for animals kept for farming AND as pets

item 8 refers specifically to pet conditions

If you disagree try reading the INTRODUCTION

RSPCA Australia believes that man must treat animals humanely. Where man makes use of animals or interferes with their habitat, he should bestow a level of care befitting man's own dignity as a rational, intelligent, compassionate being, and a level of care merited by the nature of the animal as a sentient creature capable of responding to man's care and attention. Such care should be marked by sympathy, consideration, compassion and tenderness towards animals.

RSPCA Australia believes that national and international adoption of set minimum standards of treatment and husbandry, and the observance of the following points, will enable all species of animals to live according to their behavioural needs as provided by a compassionate and responsible community:

I have highlighted the most relivent point for you. You DO understand what husbandry is dont you? why would they advocate for minimum standeds if there goal was to abolish all animal use. You should get over your own bias

People get worked up about all those things.

Do you have a problem with getting worked up over the mistreatment of animals? If so, why?

People should prioritize. Human beings, (their own kin) are being treated like animals everyday. Take care of your own before taking care of others...

I have highlighted the most relivent point for you. You DO understand what husbandry is dont you? why would they advocate for minimum standeds if there goal was to abolish all animal use. You should get over your own bias

My own bias? They are the ones who wrote that they planned to stop all exploitation of animals. Advocating "minimum standards" is just a tool that they use to abuse people into giving up farming, hunting, and keeping pets.

Thank you, Mad Anthony. Terrorists and supporters of terrorism deserve nothing and should be given less than that.

MK, what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Why do you hate animals so much?

MK, what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?

Why do you hate animals so much?

Who says I hate animals? I happen to want them to live. With the help of the RSPCA and other animal rights organizations, they will cease to live.

Who says I hate animals? I happen to want them to live. With the help of the RSPCA and other animal rights organizations, they will cease to live.

Why do you want them to live ?

Why do you want them to live ?



No reason. That's a really stupid question.

Pfft.

fpppppt.

So that you can have sex with them.

No reason. That's a really stupid question.

Not really..
There can't be no reason, if you want something there is a reason.
I think you know what I was getting at. You only want them to live for your benefit, is it not ?

Not really..
There can't be no reason, if you want something there is a reason.
I think you know what I was getting at. You only want them to live for your benefit, is it not ?

Would that be so bad? I want a world to live in, not whatever the hell it is that the animal rights people want.

Would that be so bad? I want a world to live in, not whatever the hell it is that the animal rights people want.

Would that be so bad ?

It just tells me what kind of person you are...

Carry on.

Would that be so bad ?

It just tells me what kind of person you are...

Carry on.

What kind of person are you who has a problem with me wanting animals to live for my benefit? Most if not all of the ARs seem to be really maladjusted sociopaths.

an idiot, that what kind of person he is. Is it so hard to realise that force feeding gease so there livers expand or keeping chickens in battery is wrong?

how does banning battery hens and ONLY having barn lay or free range even affect you.

What about banning the live export of sheep to the middle east becasue the way they are slaughted over there is compleatly unethical, so WE will slaughter the animal and send them the meat. Not just that it helps create jobs in Australia so good all around

What about people using SAINIDE to stun fish in order for them to be caught and sold for pets? Does THAT benifit you? HELL NO i dont want to pay $100 for a blue tang only for it to die a week later because it was poisioned.

What about sustainable fishing and catch limits so that the fish and seafood you eat will be there for the future? how does that NOT benifit you?

What kind of person are you who has a problem with me wanting animals to live for my benefit? Most if not all of the ARs seem to be really maladjusted sociopaths.

I am the kind of person that thinks animals and humans have an equal right to existence, regardless if the animals are beneficial to humans or not.

an idiot, that what kind of person he is. Is it so hard to realise that force feeding gease so there livers expand or keeping chickens in battery is wrong?

how does banning battery hens and ONLY having barn lay or free range even affect you.

What about banning the live export of sheep to the middle east becasue the way they are slaughted over there is compleatly unethical, so WE will slaughter the animal and send them the meat. Not just that it helps create jobs in Australia so good all around

What about people using SAINIDE to stun fish in order for them to be caught and sold for pets? Does THAT benifit you? HELL NO i dont want to pay $100 for a blue tang only for it to die a week later because it was poisioned.

What about sustainable fishing and catch limits so that the fish and seafood you eat will be there for the future? how does that NOT benifit you?

Yet in spite of all these things, I and my trusty shotgun deny that you have any right to attempt to control my actions.

You see, I consider the animal rights activists to be the aggressors here. They use issues that appear on the surface to be valid, to excuse bombings and other terrorist actions. Unfortunately to date not one animal rights activist that I know of has had its fool head blown off while in the act. This is something that should change. Animal owners should lay traps and when someone approaches their car or home with a firebomb, they should give them the double-ought solution.

Do you realise that if you atack an animal welfare officer that is EXACTLY the same as atacking a police officer. Infact most of the times they go in WITH the police. So its likly to be YOU who gets his head blown off

Do you realise that if you atack an animal welfare officer that is EXACTLY the same as atacking a police officer. Infact most of the times they go in WITH the police. So its likly to be YOU who gets his head blown off

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

You see, I consider the animal rights activists to be the aggressors here. They use issues that appear on the surface to be valid, to excuse bombings and other terrorist actions. Unfortunately to date not one animal rights activist that I know of has had its fool head blown off while in the act. This is something that should change. Animal owners should lay traps and when someone approaches their car or home with a firebomb, they should give them the double-ought solution.

Do you think someone should be allowed to beat their animals or starve them to death? Do you think we should not be held accountable for any bad or unethical treatment of our animals? Do you think a farmer should be allowed to hack off one leg off each cow because they are his property, for example?

Do you think someone should be allowed to beat their animals or starve them to death? Do you think we should not be held accountable for any bad or unethical treatment of our animals? Do you think a farmer should be allowed to hack off one leg off each cow because they are his property, for example?

What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

Do you think that because you happen to own an animal, you are somehow absolved from treating it humanely because it is deemed to be your property?

Do you think that because you happen to own an animal, you are somehow absolved from treating it humanely because it is deemed to be your property?

I am not going to answer that question in this context.

I am not going to answer that question in this context.

lol of course not.. chicken ?

Do you think that because you happen to own an animal, you are somehow absolved from treating it humanely because it is deemed to be your property?
Animals should be treated as humanely as possible. Someone who intentionally treats animals in a sadistic manner is liable to do the same to humans. It's evidence of a sick mind.

But that doesn't mean animals have "rights". I'll recognize an animal's rights, when a lion or tiger or bear recognizes mine.
I am the kind of person that thinks animals and humans have an equal right to existence, regardless if the animals are beneficial to humans or not.
So, if rats infest your home, you'll welcome them with open arms? They have just as much a right to exist as you.

Or cockroaches. I sure hope you don't use any pesticide. You're violating the right of those bugs to exist! Or antibiotics. Don't take those. Those bacteria have just as much a right to exist as you.

maybe he secretly WANTS to be locked in a cage to small to move his arms for his whole life

I am not going to answer that question in this context.

What context?

I can give you the answer I would give to such a question. I do not believe that my ownership of my pets grants me (or anyone else) the right to treat them inhumanely, just because they are 'my property'. See? Not too hard, now is it?

Meh.. you're choice really.

Animals should be treated as humanely as possible. Someone who intentionally treats animals in a sadistic manner is liable to do the same to humans. It's evidence of a sick mind.

But that doesn't mean animals have "rights". I'll recognize an animal's rights, when a lion or tiger or bear recognizes mine.

They do though, animals recognize your existence and do not try to rid themselves of you. Unless they feel they are threatened or when they want to feed on you. I'd say humans should to do exactly the same but there's this little problem. We are too many... on top of that we have the ability to show compassion and the mental capacity to come up with alternatives.

i always get sick and tired of watching people go out hunting a white pointer shark because it has bitten someone. of corse the thing bit you, its main sence is taste and your in ITS enviroment. Idiots

They do though, animals recognize your existence and do not try to rid themselves of you. Unless they feel they are threatened or when they want to feed on you. I'd say humans should to do exactly the same but there's this little problem. We are too many... on top of that we have the ability to show compassion and the mental capacity to come up with alternatives.

But animal rights activists are getting rid of animals, killing them to save them from the "evil" humans.

What context?

I can give you the answer I would give to such a question. I do not believe that my ownership of my pets grants me (or anyone else) the right to treat them inhumanely, just because they are 'my property'. See? Not too hard, now is it?

Meh.. you're choice really.

Why do you ask that question in this thread?

They do though, animals recognize your existence and do not try to rid themselves of you. Unless they feel they are threatened or when they want to feed on you. What you're saying is that animals "recognize" our existence and do us no harm unless doing so somehow benefits them.
I'd say humans should to do exactly the same I'd say we already do.
i always get sick and tired of watching people go out hunting a white pointer shark because it has bitten someone. of corse the thing bit you, its main sence is taste and your in ITS enviroment. Idiots
What makes it their environment? If we want to go there, it's our environment too. As Spicolli said,
http://www.moviecritic.com.au/images/fast-times-at-ridgemont-high-spicolli.jpg
"If I'm here, and you're here, doesn't that make it our time?"

Why do you ask that question in this thread?

It was in reply to a comment you made.

See Meta, this is a forum. You make a statement or comment and others reply to them and sometimes will ask you questions.:p

And one funny thing is that humans gather groups of animals and breed them to make larger groups. This is to the net benefit of the exploited species.

It was in reply to a comment you made.

See Meta, this is a forum. You make a statement or comment and others reply to them and sometimes will ask you questions.:p

In the context that you asked it, it was a loaded rhetorical question that is used maliciously.

What you're saying is that animals "recognize" our existence and do us no harm unless doing so somehow benefits them.
I'd say we already do.

No we don't, we don't just kill animals to eat of to defend our selves..
We kill/mistreat loads of animals for other reasons then for food or defense.

Also, I meant that even if that was what we do now.. it can't go on like that forever. There are too many people..

In the context that you asked it, it was a loaded rhetorical question that is used maliciously.

Maliciously?

Ok, granted I'll accept that. I will say if you had answered yes, I would have felt a malicious distaste. After all, what kind of sick bastard tortures or treats an animal inhumanely and then deems they are allowed to do so because the animal belongs to them?

Had you answered no, then you would not be a sick bastard who deems himself above the law because the animals belong to you.

:)

Id say we have an ETHICAL obligation to treat animals humainly, for our own benifit in most cases. For instance how many drug trials tested on animals are then found to be toxic to humans? (i can rember atleast one case in the UK) so if we can eliminate testing on animals in favor of more acurate methods great

How about improving farming practices, well inproving the health of farm stock means that they are in much better health when slaughtered and are worth more money.

How about improving slaughter practices, well if an animal is NOT killed quickly the meat tenses up and is of poor quality, therfore worth much less

what about pet health, well improving pet health also inproves the human health of those who live with the pets benifiting both.

Animal welfare is a 2 way street, it benifits the animals yes but it also benifits the rest of us

Maliciously?

Ok, granted I'll accept that. I will say if you had answered yes, I would have felt a malicious distaste. After all, what kind of sick bastard tortures or treats an animal inhumanely and then deems they are allowed to do so because the animal belongs to them?

Had you answered no, then you would not be a sick bastard who deems himself above the law because the animals belong to you.

:)

No, it is used maliciously to imply that anyone who is not with the animal rights groups is an abuser.

Id say we have an ETHICAL obligation to treat animals humainly, for our own benifit in most cases. For instance how many drug trials tested on animals are then found to be toxic to humans? (i can rember atleast one case in the UK) so if we can eliminate testing on animals in favor of more acurate methods great

How about improving farming practices, well inproving the health of farm stock means that they are in much better health when slaughtered and are worth more money.

How about improving slaughter practices, well if an animal is NOT killed quickly the meat tenses up and is of poor quality, therfore worth much less

what about pet health, well improving pet health also inproves the human health of those who live with the pets benifiting both.

Animal welfare is a 2 way street, it benifits the animals yes but it also benifits the rest of us

For crying out loud. First you deny that the RSPCA is animal rights, then you defend it for being animal rights. The initial denial means that you know that people rightly abhor animal rights groups. "Animal welfare" is the term that the animal rights groups use to disguise themselves and make it seem less acceptable to hate them. Most people hate animal rights groups.

Id say we have an ETHICAL obligation to treat animals humainly, for our own benifit in most cases. For instance how many drug trials tested on animals are then found to be toxic to humans? (i can rember atleast one case in the UK) so if we can eliminate testing on animals in favor of more acurate methods greatMore accurate? Like what? We need to test on animals, unless you'd rather we test on humans. Computer models are no substitute.

More accurate? Like what? We need to test on animals, unless you'd rather we test on humans. Computer models are no substitute.

Why test on animals when we can use humans ? That's what the products are meant for..

Why is it right to test on animals while it's wrong to test on humans ?

We do not need to test on animals... it is just the cheapest way.

No, it is used maliciously to imply that anyone who is not with the animal rights groups is an abuser.

Where did I say that?

I do not belong to an animal rights group and I can assure you, I do not abuse my animals.

I personally disagree with a lot of what PETA does (eg killing animals in captivity because they are in captivity is one of the things I find abhorrent and inhumane). But I do agree with them in that animals should be treated humanely. Just because I disagree with their methods, does not mean I do not agree that animals should be treated humanely.

Mad i didnt mean we should replace them YET, the technology isnt there. I was refering to the fact that if we DID get a more acurate method than testing on animals then it would be in our own best intrest to use it. Oh and By the way we ARE cutting down on animal testing anyway, yes its a stage that a drug still has to go through but its now quite late in the testing where as previously it was the only method we had. So yes in that case it would be unethical to START with animal testing before we even knew if the drug would pass other tests, it would also have no logical purpose other than to be cruel and I think that computer modling in the early stages is much less expencive than animal testing in the early stages and probably acurate.

Where did I say that?

I do not belong to an animal rights group and I can assure you, I do not abuse my animals.

I personally disagree with a lot of what PETA does (eg killing animals in captivity because they are in captivity is one of the things I find abhorrent and inhumane). But I do agree with them in that animals should be treated humanely. Just because I disagree with their methods, does not mean I do not agree that animals should be treated inhumanely.

Your timing sucks.

Your timing sucks.

Well I was born on NYE.:)

Well I was born on NYE.

Hmmm.... I was born on NYD.

Hmmm.... I was born on NYD.

Ha! Well they do say ladies first.:p

My mother still reminds me about how I stopped her from going to a ball with my father on that night.. It is a yearly birthday reminder. 9 months pregnant and going to a ball.. honestly.. She was offended if I asked her if she wore a 4 man tent as a dress.

Happy Belated Birthday to you James.:)

Bob Barker here, reminding you to help control the pet population; have your pet spayed or neutered :D

Who says I hate animals? I happen to want them to live. With the help of the RSPCA and other animal rights organizations, they will cease to live.

MK, care to answer my first question?

And one funny thing is that humans gather groups of animals and breed them to make larger groups. This is to the net benefit of the exploited species.

How did you work that out?
Being born into slavery is supposed to be a GOOD thing?? :confused:

But animal rights activists are getting rid of animals, killing them to save them from the "evil" humans.

Yea and if that's true it's fucked up..

MK, care to answer my first question?

No.

How did you work that out?
Being born into slavery is supposed to be a GOOD thing?? :confused:

Oh yeah, you prefer extinction, right?

Being born into slavery is supposed to be a GOOD thing??

Slavery?
You do realize that slavery is still a problem within the human species? You really feel that human slavery is equivalent to owning a pet?
That's sick.

Yea and if that's true it's fucked up..

It is that fucked up, and I count the ones that they do indirectly also.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that PETA was an arm of the meat industry. What better way to disrupt the activities of organisations like the British RSPCA, who work to improve farming conditions and treatment of pets, than have some lunatic organisation opposing corpocracy?

Just ignore them, they are madmen, people would say.

If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would say that PETA was an arm of the meat industry. What better way to disrupt the activities of organisations like the British RSPCA, who work to improve farming conditions and treatment of pets, than have some lunatic organisation opposing corpocracy?

Just ignore them, they are madmen, people would say.

What better way to disrupt the operations of the humane organizations than by making them as corrupt as possible?

Oh yeah, you prefer extinction, right?

No, I didn't say anything about extinction.

Slavery?
You do realize that slavery is still a problem within the human species? You really feel that human slavery is equivalent to owning a pet?
That's sick.

Nexus, what are you on about?
I was talking about all industry that uses animals.

No, I didn't say anything about extinction.

You didn't have to.

I'm not surprised about this, and it's probably true. PETA has always seemed shady to me.

If an organisation wants to spend all it's money on promotion, it's a perfect solution. Alive, animals need food. And food cost money.

...... But why don't they kill the other 3%? Could it be the number of animals they get which are worth selling?

They have to have some token survivors to show around.

It seems a pity that this crummy commercial organisation should have found such an easy target in PETA. Responsible animal welfare organisations must feel that they are being tarred with the same brush.

No-one has disputed that the mass killing of animals is a policy of PETA.

Is there anyone on this site who would support PETA's policy of destroying unwanted animals rather than rehousing them?