HSUS doesn't want to remove dogs in our lives... only PETA is against the idea of pets and breeding (not just a personal opinion of Ingrid Newkirk). I will be happy if HSUS be approved because HSUS still care about human lives.In my opinion, people can really care about other living things if they're in the human level rather than being animals consumed by primordial instincts of sex and aggression. I think the money will be used appropriately for the benefit of animal welfare rather than being used by PETA to support laboratory bombers and arsonists, fund naked celebs, and euthanize adoptable pets.

They should donate at least some of it to Dogtown in Utah, a place that definitely cares for all the animals it takes in and does not discriminate against age

Best Friends Animal Society - Dogtown

It is not her personal opinion, it is PETA's position and is on their website (of course you have to dig for it because I am guessing PETA doesn't want to broadcast it too loud and tick off any of their supporters who have purchased dogs from breeders). I am sure there are PETA members that disagree with PETA's position about breeding dogs (if they were even aware of it), but it IS PETA's position-- it is one of their Factsheets. See PETA Media Center > Factsheets > The AKC and Dog Breeders: Partners in Crime

I have read it and I read it again the first time it was linked. I have no problem with this factual article. I'm sure we all agree that there is a heartbreaking number of dogs put down every year. Educating about puppy mills and encouraging adoption over purchasing is not a horrible thing in my opinion. It is not the same as the statement made by Ingrid at all.

It also includes, in addition to the "facts,": the title "The AKC and Dog Breeders: Partners in Crime," "The AKC’s objective is to study, exhibit, promote, and maintain dog breeds, regardless of the cost to the dogs or to society," "Dogs that don’t meet the breed standard may be given up, sold to pet stores, or euthanized," "As long as there are dogs dying in shelters, there is no such thing as a responsible breeder," "When you find your new best friend, you’ll be glad that you chose to save a life—instead of supporting an industry that breeds suffering and misery every day." I don't think that any of these statements is supported by a citation, instead they are mixed in with the "facts" to be persuasive. That is one of PETA's goals, to try to convince the public that dog breeders are, as they described it "partners in crime." Which is fine, PETA is as entitled to its opinion as I am to mine :) And of course we are all entitled to contact the foundation to plead our case as to what organizations we personally feel represent the best interests of the animals we love.

Most people who have to actually see the enormous number of dogs who are killed are typically pro adoption so I'm not sure what I was supposed to see in your quotes that is different from any other animal welfare agency- they are all pro adoption simply because they want to stop having to kill innocent dogs. That has absolutely nothing to do with trying to keep us from having the right to have pets which is the point I thought we were discussing. It is what you quoted me on and that is what I was responding to.

I have never known PETA to differentiate between breeders and puppymillers/BYBs. That is one of my main problems with the organization. They believe you should adopt and their is no other option. Even then, they believe that pet ownership= slavery. Watch this video, if you have the stomach for it, and tell me where the say puppymiller.

http://http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup...psa&Player=flv

I'm not sure if this was meant for me but not knowing what the video is and being warned that I need a strong stomach kind of convinces me not to click it. Do you want to give me a hint?:p

Harley_chick, I can't work the link, is it the "Buy One, Kill One" video? You can get to it at this link if it is PETA TV > Animal Rights Television > Domestic Animal Issues
Not too suble about being anti-breeder (which is what I thought the infamous Ingrid Newcomb quote was about but maybe I am mistaken)

I have to admit, the "Sex talk" video at the same link does make me laugh...

Yes, it is the "Buy one, kill one" video. Thanks for posting a working link. It is directed at anyone who thinks PETA isn't anti-breeder. While irresponsible breeders bare some of the blame, the only people directly responsible for the animals that die in shelters every year are the owners that let them end up there.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. My post that was quoted, and I have been responding to was in reference to a single statement made by a single person and it was about our legal right to own pets. If we are debating if PETA is pro adoption/rescue, then I concede. They absolutely are, no question. I'm not sure you could find any animal advocacy group who would promote purchasing over rescuing though so I guess I'm confused how this issue would relate to PETA in particular.:confused:

Peta was begun in Ingrid Newkirk's kitchen at her Richmond Va home...before relocating it here to Norfolk, Va. Her statement is Peta's position...whether all her employees agree with it or not.

There is no Peta animal shelter. If you take an animal to Peta it is euthanized. Peta has acknowledged this several times to the media here.

Exactly- I've pointed that out many times- PETA is not a shelter which seems to be something that most people don't understand. They work very hard on animal issues and education and have had amazing successes but being an animal shelter is not what they are. If you were to bring an adoptable animal to PETA they would direct you to a shelter- unfortunately they end up dealing with the unadoptable animals (the one's none of us want to think about but never the less have to be addressed). I'm sure Ingrid Newkirk has personal opinions on a million things as we all do. It does not make it a PETA agenda and nobody has ever, even one time, shown that that is PETA's agenda. It is simply a personal opinion.

One person, Ingrid Newkirk, owns PETA; it isn't a national or federal organization and members have no vote on policy. While Ms Newkirk has advisors or public relations people, she doesn't have to do anything besides what she personally wants to do. She has to answer to no one. This makes her personal views on pet ownership extremely relevant to some of us, and since it's her personal believe that owning any pet is wrong, and it's slavery, many of us are skeptical.

PETA >> Animal Rights Uncompromised: There's No Such Thing as a 'Responsible Breeder'

First paragraph ~


Animal Rights Uncompromised:
There's No Such Thing as a 'Responsible Breeder'

Most people know to avoid puppy mills and "backyard" breeders. But many kind individuals fall prey to the picket-fence appeal of so-called "responsible" breeders and fail to recognize that no matter how kindly a breeder treats his or her animals, as long as dogs and cats are dying in animal shelters and pounds because of a lack of homes, no breeding can be considered "responsible."

Peta thinks it is more humane to euthanize an animal than place it in a no kill shelter...all of our shelters are no kill.

PETA >> Animal Rights Uncompromised: 'No-Kill' Shelters

2004 - University of Virginia Ends Cruel Dog Labs
2004 - Radiation Demonstrations on Mice Ended
2004 - Another 675 Animals Saved From Testing
2005 - Iowa Health-Des Moines Ends Use of Animals in Advanced Trauma Life Support
2005 - The Victoria College Pledges to End the Use of Live Cats in Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) Courses
2006 - Covance Fined for Violations of the Animal Welfare Act
2006 - Welch's Drops Deadly Animal Tests
2007 - POM Promises to End Deadly Animal Tests
2007 - Scott & White Memorial Hospital Pledges to End the Use of Live Pigs in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) Courses
2007 - Multibillion-Dollar Food-Industry PepsiCo Pledges to End Animal Tests
2007 - Beverage Leader Coca-Cola Drops Animal Tests
2007 - National Toxicology Program Nixes Animal Tests
2007 - EPA Denies Sierra Club Petition to Require Animal Tests for Air Fresheners
2008 - Yale Cancels Pro-Animal-Testing Lecture for Kids
2008 - Hunter Fans Drops Cruel Circus Ad

Not exactly sure what this thread is about anymore except maybe PETA-bashing :p, so I'll take the other side of things. Above is a TINY sample of what PETA has done just in the anti-testing arena, and only in the last few years.

This doesn't even TOUCH what they did in their early years: anyone ever see a picture of vivisection? Anyone ever see a video of a dog or a chimp in an automobile crash test? NO, not recently? That's because PETA brought those things into the collective consciousness and those cruelties caused such an outrage that they are no longer done.

And all of those HORRID fur videos that were posted on YT regarding the fur trade in China that caused everyone on here such outrage? Who provided us the privilege of that outrage? PETA. They filmed those horrors for the privilege of our awareness.

Do I agree with everything they do? No. I don't think there is much I agree with in life 100%. But I will support them as long as humans commit what I think are cruelties against animals, and as long as PETA fights those cruelties.

About PETA >> Some Recent Victories

PETA is actually a nonprofit corporation which was, yes, founded by Ingrid Newkirk who is the president. President doesn't mean dictator. PETA is operated on donations- do you seriously think she doesn't have to answer to anyone? Assuming she is single handedly making all of PETA's policies based only on her own personal opinions without input and zero accountability (using donations to do so):rolleyes:, PETA still does not have the power to create laws. They can lobby and support bills but they can't do anything without it being available to the public. They rely on us, private citizens supporting them. So, where is the campaign to make pets illegal? There sure isn't a public campaign and a private one would have no power and make no sense. Everyone who has tried to prove there is one bases it on one single statement made by one single person.

Nobody has argued that PETA isn't pro adoption/rescue as are all animal welfare groups

No kill shelters can be debated all day. Many people think it is inhumane to have an animal live it's entire life in a cage where they very commonly go insane. In fact it could easily be viewed as animal cruelty.

Do these things seriously mean so little to y'all that one statement sways your support? These are pretty huge issues.

Again, I can't deny PETA hasn't done some good in the past, but if I had known then what I know now I would never had been a supporter. I can not see how you can say we are "bashing" PETA by merely using their own quotes, and links.


Who would she have to account to? There are no stockholders, as you say it's a non-profit organization. Do you think she has to account to her employees? How about her members? PETA does have follow rules about money accountability, and I'm not saying that she is misusing funds or living large off donations. In fact, she seems to live a very frugal existence, and is not at all motivated by money for her personal use. You say that they make no laws, however they are a powerful lobby that helps persuade lawmakers. You question of where is the campaign to make pets illegal? There is much to do before she would get this accomplished to be sure, but that is what she wants to see happen. I can't believe so many of you think we should just ignore her words. As for your statement a "single statement by a single person", she has made multiple statement of this, and Ingrid is PETA. I am bewildered so many of you choose to ignore her words. It's truly kind of frightening, and have you ever thought of the possibility of this becoming a reality, and her saying, "I told you this is what I wanted, how could I have made myself more clearer?" Reminds me of a song from the 60's by Al Wilson.

Ingrid Newkirk is not a God, she is simply a human being with the same amount of power on her own as any single human being has. She has created a group who have more power than an individual as any group does. It is the group of people who make the changes- not one individual person. She does not have the ability to make people do things they don't want to do. PETA is operated on private donations- no donations means no PETA so yeah, I pretty darn sure that gets taken into consideration. I am bewildered myself that there is so much viciousness against a group who has done an enormous amount of good for animals based on an irrational fear that pets will be made illegal. Not "some good"- An amazing HUGE amount of good- About PETA >> Victories The only way pets would become illegal is if America supported that. Ingrid Newkirk can think it all day- it only happens if it is supported and I honestly can not imagine that ever happening.

No one said she was a god, and where is all this viciousness you speak of? The song isn't calling her a snake, it saying that people often choose to ignore words that others are saying, and with a Pollyanna attitude, think she couldn't possibly mean that. For others who do believe she means that, you try to persuade people she has little power. She is the one who has final say in where the money goes, and money in this country has power, some would say money has an almost god-like power.

I think this money should be use to pay off some politician so they might FINALLY do something about all those puppy mills.

Not but seriously... Is it is the roots of the problems.

I would like to know which organization focus on shooting them down.

It really is great think to give all your money to help animals.:thumbup:

Her family must be some mad!! lol

Honestly I didn't listen to the song and I wasn't referring to it. I was talking of the perception of God-like power being attributed to her. She can have a personal opinion- it actually isn't the official PETA position, BTW- I'll go find it and paste it but it absolutely isn't illegalizing dogs, but she does not have the power to get a bill passed that nobody would propose, much less support.

The HSUS does a lot of work against puppy mills- http://stoppuppymills.org/:)
And I agree with you 100% that they are the problem.:thumbup:

Here is PETA's position on pets:

“Does PETA believe that people shouldn’t have pets?”

The earliest fossils that resemble the bones of modern dogs are about 12,000 years old, so we know that humans’ fascination with domesticated wolves began at least that long ago. About 5,000 years ago, Egyptians became the first to tame cats, whom they used to control the rodent population. Since then, the breeding and care of cats and dogs has exploded into a love affair, a sport, and a booming business. This international pastime has created an overpopulation crisis, and as a result, every year, millions of unwanted animals suffer at the hands of abusers, languish in shelters, and are euthanized. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter and providing a loving home is a small but powerful way to prevent some of this suffering. The most important thing that animal guardians can do is to spay or neuter their animals and avoid buying animals from breeders or pet stores, which contribute to the overpopulation crisis.

I hate to make the Hitler analogy, but it is the easiest to use to help people understand why some of us have misgivings about this. So, I'm not saying Ingrid is a Hitler; in fact there are many things about her I admire. I'm just using this as an analogy. First, Hitler brings up ideas that millions of people thought were great ideas - more jobs, better pay, training the youth to have strong morals, etc. As he got more power, he said that his goal was the extermination of Jews and other people that he thought were "defects". No one believed him; they denied over and over that he meant this. Even Jewish people could not believe this. Besides he would never have that kind of power, and he did do so many wonderful things. Look it up, Hitler had done lots of great things for improving the economy and factory production, advances in technology, and some might even say "medical advancement." I don't believe in supporting any organization that does, "lots of good", but their leader's main system of belief is extermination of all pets. You say that it would never happen, but these things happen in steps, sometimes tiny steps, and because of this many good breeders are fighting all breeding legislation as well. Sometimes, I think PETA does more harm than good because so many people believe that if PETA's behind a law, it most be bad. I would rather support an organization whose final goal is the same as mine.

This could not be said any clearer. This is exactly why her statement doesn't cause any concern in me, it will just never bear any fruit. Whereas so many of PETA's awareness campaigns do.

Well, I guess that's where we're just going to have to disagree. That seems extremely, um, extreme to me. Do you think Ingrid Newkirk has the level of power of persuasion it would take to make someone even consider a bill that would lead to that? Even though most of her supporters don't even support the idea? I guess if you look hard enough for things to fear, you'll eventually find something but that just seem to be really reaching to me.