http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2005.227.1775?cookieSet=1&journalCode=javma

results?

Sorry, I lost the tiny amount of respect I had for Peta about 15 years ago. That's when they became a cult instead of a group that raised awareness about animal cruelty.

They (and the H$U$) advocate mandatory sterlization across the board, including juvenile, because of an unproven myth about 'pet overpopulation'. In Peta's lexicon, any pets are 'pet overpopulation' - they want to end domestic animal husbandry and ownership. They make no secret of it, you don't have to dig deep. I can't be bother to fish out any quotes, since I presume everyone here is familiar with them.

Both organizations oppose the No Kill movement, saying it's impossible to implement. They oppose TNR. They support breed-specific mandatory sterilization.

They lobby for and promote breed bans, especially of the nonexistent 'pit bull', because it casts a very wide net indeed. They took animals in NC from clinics ostensibly to find them homes and immediately killed them in a van outside.

Their hypocrisy is what galls me the most. They are supposedly against research studies using animals other than humans, yet use drugs like insulin. Ingrid was lauding painkillers and IV drips recently. How do they think their blue solution was developed, the one they are being investigated for using illegally across state lines by the DEA?

They've given money to support ALF members in court, Randy Coronado and others.

They are on the way out because they take in $31 million a year or so from naive people who think they are about animal welfare. They are not.

I actually wouldn't bother so much about the radical AR groups except that mainstream media, behind the curve as always, keeps consulting Peta and H$U$ as if they somehow speak to animal welfare, are experts and represent pet owners and others who care about kindness to animals. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Their agenda is very different from that of the animal welfare community.

If you want to help animals, then donate to local rescue groups and shelters. The local groups will appreciate the money and it will be spent on animals in your area, not on lobbying, advertising, interfering in the legislative process and plotting the demise of interspecies relationships that have been around for millennia.

"Feral cats need a safe area which is isolated from roads, people, and other animals and where they do not have access to wildlife and where the weather is temperate."

Conditions which rarely if ever can be found all together in one spot on earth, in other words, necessitating that nearly all feral cats be killed.

And Jeff? PETA seeks to end "animal exploitation" by eliminating domestic animals. All of them. They've said so. And no, that information doesn't come from the Center for Consumer Freedom; it comes from PETA.

On PETA-bashing: I will cheer for PETA's successes when it reaches goals I deem laudable. In fact, I support a great number of its causes. I will never, however, support PETA as an organization because its strict anti-animal use concerns do not resonate with my own personal philosophy, among other reasons.

Given the presence of so many animal abusers and examples of animal cruelty in this world, it may seem frustrating to see PETA as an occasional target for the ire of people like me. It would seem all of us interested in the rights of animals in a broad sense should be able to come together at some level to support one another.

However, PETA plays by its own set of rules. While the rest of us would happily leave them alone to do their work in peace, it's become increasingly difficult for me to do so now that their "work" has begun to more obviously impact my own.

Euthanizing an overwhelming percentage of animals in "shelter" settings for unverifiable reasons has put this vet on the PETA offensive. I want to know why.

This situation smacks of the kind of hypocrisy I abhor far more than the everyday ignorance I write about routinely. And PETA will have to prove to me that it's not what it looks like before I'll shut up about it.

Jeff - A group that takes in animals on the pretext that they will find good homes for them (if possible) and then kills them moments later is evil IMHO. Peta has done a lot to raise people's awareness about wearing fur and industrial animal cruelty, but they are way off base on the issue of pet ownership (or parenting, or companioning).

Like the HSUS they'd be a lot better off sticking to issues of animal rights. Once they enter the sphere of animal welfare their view that animals are better off dead than living in homes is so contrary to most people's thinking that they'll do anything to keep this knoweldge from the public. They are smart enough to recognize that people who love animals (and generally have pets) are not going to be donating to an organization that expouses the end of any domestication of animals including pets.

As I've said elsewhere, PETA is entitled to their views. And they are entitled to raise money from people who are anti-fur, anti animal testing, etc. They are not entitled to raise money on false pretenses that they are a shelter nor are they entitled to lie to people who are surrendering their pets by telling them that PETA will find them a good home when they will actually be killed within moments of surrender.

And by the way, please note that I am not anti-PETA per se. This is America, and they are entitled to their animal-rights views and to advocate for them in any legal and honest means.

I don't agree with their overarching philosophy that "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment," since I believe (to quote from my own blog and from Diana Guerrero) in animal welfare, "[T]hose actions that make sure animals get fair, humane treatment, mental stimulation, enrichment, and the best care possible."

There's a lot of things I agree with PETA, and a lot I do not. Do you homework, and make an informed decision.

It is somewhat disturbing to read comments on a supposedly animal friendly blog which reference a group that is a front for animal abusing industries. Misrepresenting the PETA, a group that actually works to end animal exploitation and abuse by these industries, plays right in to their hands. A lot of the (mis)information present on here can be traced back to the Center for Consumer Freedom (http://www.cspinet.org/new/200302201.html, http://www.consumerdeception.com/).

Instead of going after an animal rights group that actually is working to end animal exploitation, shouldn't we all be focusing on the real evils?

To clarify any confusion: PETA is not categorically opposed to TNR for feral cats, as long as the animals are returned to safe, well-managed colonies. As any humane person would agree, simply dumping feral cats back onto the streets to struggle to survive for the remainder of their short, hard, lives is unacceptable.

Feral cats need a safe area which is isolated from roads, people, and other animals and where they do not have access to wildlife and where the weather is temperate. They also need dedicated caretakers who visit the colony daily to ensure that all cats are sterilized, vaccinated, provided with a sanitary feeding station with fresh water and food, given access to shelter, treated for illnesses and injuries, and accepted by neighbors and landlords. In 2007, PETA spayed and neutered 440 feral cats for local groups which are humanely managing colonies in this manner. To learn more about PETA’s position on feral cats, please visit www.HelpingAnimals.com.

Lindsay Pollard-Post
Staff Writer
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Margherita: PETA believes, as the HSUS did before 2006, that euthanasia is the correct solution to overpopulation of cats. It believes that feral cat suffering can only be diminished by ending their lives. It seems, however, that eliminating entire colonies of cats sets up vacuum conditions to which new poulations will enter and colonize with amazing alacrity. TNR instead allows for stabilized cat populations of ferals ,which seems to suppress the huge population booms that come from the vacuums. PETA doesn't buy it.

Why is PETA opposed to TNR?

M: Stands for Trap-Neuter-Release, a program which relies on neutering/spaying and releasing back to the same habitat to decrease population levels of cats. It's been deemed most effetive and most humane for its ability to stabilize cat populations in areas previously overrun by feral cat populations.

What's TNR?

I hope this blows the lid off those nutbags and spreads the truth about them even farther. They've been given legitimacy by the public and the media for far too long now.

WARNING: VERY DISTURBING

www.petakillsanimals.com

I wonder if any vet did necropsies on those dogs they tossed in the dumpster a couple of years ago? Oh, right, those were just some wackos in PETA, who truly didn't represent PETA's real mission. Yeah, right.

It's my OPINION that PETA gives all the animal rights organization (that I respect) a bad name for all the outrageously over-the-top campaigns that, in my opinion, scare children MUCH worse than the actual offense does. There's enough video documentation available now days that's so totally disgusting on its own, that I feel there's no need to over-dramatize them to the point of portraying parents as bloody knife-wielding murderers, and making clowns out to be psycho-killers.

It seems many others are tiring of PETAs antics, going by how many forum and blog commenters are eating a bigger hunk of meat than usual just to spite PETA, and how many celebs and rich folks have started wearing fur again.

Even though their penchant for using naked celebrities it their ads really targets my demographic, it's pretty hard to support PETA anymore.

Most of what I hear them say is evil, bat-shit crazy, or both.

Either they are horribly misunderstood, or they do more good than harm and just can't get they story heard above the din of the hard-core wackos among them.

(my personal theory is they have been taken over by SPECTRE. Stavro Blofeld aims rid the planet of all pets until only his white Persian is left. Then he will laugh maniacally and offer DNA to re-populate the cat population for 1 millleeeeooonnn dollars. I could be wrong, but it all sorta makes sense if you drink enough.)

Good for Gina. Legally, I don't think she has anything to worry about. PETA can threaten all they want, but if I recall correctly, in a defamation case the plaintiff generally must prove that the defendants statements were false to win.

And/or that the defendant knew these statements were false or made these statements with reckless disregard for the truth.

The bar for defamation is high, thank goodness. There is NO WAY PETA can prove that all those animals were so sick they were unadoptable.

And I'm betting they are lying about that, given their known euthanasia tactics.

SOmetimes I am with PETA, sometimes I am against them. It just depends on what makes sense. But anytime someone tries to stifle speech that casts them in an unflattering light and they can't prove the speech is false, but simply try to bully the critic into silence -- that makes me livid.

Go Gina!

The critical numbes are: Surrendered by Owners: 3043
Euthanized: 2981

The 6564 in the "Others" column of that report is animals that were in their custody temporarily, for spay/neuter, etc, and were reclaimed by their owners, as were apparently some of the 28 strays.

Of the animals surrendered to them, they killed 97%.

I'm confused about something: where does the 90-97% euthanized statistic come from? The number on the Commonwealth of Virginia webpage says that PETA received 9637 animals and 2981 of them were euthanized. 2981/9637= 31%, not 90-97%, which is within the normal range that you list of 30-60%.

As a long time member of PETA along with 12 other animal rights/welfare groups, I tend to agree with Jeff, as well as with PETA's stand that "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment," & don't really understand how anyone could have a problem with that belief. Anytime you find man USING animals as a means for making money, you will find rampant & widespread abuse. Remember, just because you don't SEE it, doesn't mean it's not happening. And the reason that most of the general public are aware of the horrific cruelty going on in these arenas? PETA. Period. Many of PETA's members risk their own personal safety~ their very lives to obtain much of the evidence we see, & no one, group or single person, has done more to get benifical laws for animals passed than PETA. Like any large (& to some extent "powerful") organization, PETA has its share of enemies with their own agendas. I would hope that like in any situation, members would not blindly follow any directives they didn't personally believe were right. I wouldn't, & don't. As for PETA, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water... like you, I don't agree with everything they do, I don't agree 100% with anyone I know. But they are still (one of) the best AR groups, & they get things done. One other thing~ you all might want to check into the groups you support or who you think are doing exactly what you want them to do~ they probably have lots of practices you are unaware of & don't agree with. Think the ASPCA really protects animals on film sets? Check it out.
I hate to see so much misinformation being thrown around about a group of people so dedicated to animals, & who do so much more for them than any one of the people here shooting off their mouths about an organization they probably aren't even a member of.