It was an analogy, of course it was extreme, but it was to help you understand why we must listen to what our leaders have to say.

Do her supporters decide where money goes, PETA is not a democracy, it is not a typical corporation that has to answer to stockholders. Do you really think as supporters, you have any say so? That's the part I'm having trouble understanding.

Just want to add one more thing. As far as these tiny steps- I don't see any. In reality while PETA does work at educating on companion animal issues, they aren't really a major focus of PETA's on any level- much less the eradication of them. There are other organizations whose primary focus is companion animals and PETA leaves it to them for the most part. I just checked the current action alerts (what PET want supporters to focus on)and the top ones (making the first page) are a zoo animal issue, exotic skins, fur and reptiles. If they're trying to take small steps to get support they sure are doing a good job of hiding it from their potential supporters.

I have a say so in who gets my money. If it isn't being used in ways I agree with then they don't get my money. That is how we all get heard. PETA is strictly donation- if they do things that their supporters don't support, they lose the money to finance their agendas. Absolutely supportes have a say.

I do agree with your statement that "In reality while PETA does work at educating on companion animal issues, they aren't really a major focus of PETA's on any level . . ." I think though, most people do believe that PETA was concerned about pets, hence the name PETA. I think most people think it's an organization that promotes pet ownership. Most dog and cat lovers use to think PETA would be the place to give their money, and think of it as a pet friendly organization. By your own words, PETA is more concerned with other issues, and in that case, why would they be entitled to receive money from the Leona Helmsley estate?
So why would they be entitled to any of this money?

But by the time, you don't believe in what PETA's doing; they might already have your money, and all the money they need to accomplish their mission, that what I mean be you have no real power. I don't believe in some of the things they are doing now, but I can't get back my past money.

Well they do have several campaigns promoting responsible pet ownership so I think that qualifies them. It's not the primary focus but it is there and this thread was started to warn about HSUS also- whose primary focus is pets. In reality if it were my decision and I had to chose between the two I would think the HSUS makes more sense for it. This thread ended up so OT and focused only on PETA and I was just responding. I actually never made an argument that PETA would be my number one choice if given one for where Leona Helmsley's money should go, in fact it probably wouldn't be but I don't see any evil if some of it did go to PETA since they certainly qualify.

Totally aside from the estate issue, as far as people's perception that PETA is a pet friendly organization, it is, it just isn't their primary focus. They actually go after what are bigger animal issues than what pets face (IMO of course) and I assume most dog and cat lovers are animal lovers in general and these are issues that I assume matter to us all.

But that is the same case with any organization I would support or you would or anyone. All you can do is look at how they have spent their money in the past, how they say they are going to spend money in the future and seeing if they stay in line with your beliefs.

:goodpost:

I don't think that's such an extreme comparison, considering PETA compares Holocaust victims to chickens.

I'm fairly certain that her $8 million dollars will go to a good cause and neither HSUS or PETA are hurting for money and will do ok without it. Perhaps Simon and Hallie will petition for some funding from it (haha)!

I find both the HSUS and PETA admirable and will continue to donate to PETA for all the good they have done. I think we all know that I'm a huge supporter of the PETA organization and have agreed with most of the work they have done.

PETA is an organization that we will all have to agree to disagree about I guess~

Yay- Me, me, me, I vote for agreeing to disagree!:p The CCF has worked so hard at successfully brain washing people about PETA (when they aren't fighting the evil that is Mothers Against Drunk Driving:D) and it's hard for me to let the misinformation go especially since there are plenty of people reading without posting. Having said that, I'm ready for a break!:D

:thumbup: for agreeing to disagree. My problem with PETA is that it is very clearly anti-dog breeder, and I breed dogs. Since I am one of those being accused of being a "partner in crime" I am a little sensitive. I don't agree with the philosophy that buying a dog from a breeder results in one less home for a shelter animal, that is too simplistic. Although I think it is wonderful when people adopt homeless pets (both my cats are strays) I understand why people might desire a purebred dog from a breeder or no dog at all. I don't agree with the notion that I am promoting genetic diseases in the dogs that I breed. My problem with PETA is a personal one, so as a result I don't support PETA and am happy to explain the reasons why. I do not understand how people who purchase dogs from breeders can support PETA, unless possibly they now regret their decision and have decided next time they will adopt a shelter or rescue dog, but maybe that can be explained to me so that I can understand.

As for "companion" animal issues not being at the forefront, I would agree, but today's "headline" article on the PETA website deals with confessions of people who wish they had been a better "guardian" to their pets (which if you click on the link appears to include buying a purebred instead of adopting and also crating) so it is not like it is something that is taking a back seat either.

Although I agree PETA is not actively lobbying for the eradication of animal "companions" (if they did I am sure they would be a bit harder up for donations) PETA does take the position that no companion animals should be bred or be allowed to breed. If that goal was possible, that would mean no more pets. It is their position that, in theory, pet ownership is wrong:

"We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to."

That last part makes me giggle, although I train my dogs, the notion that they "must obey commands" is something they would think was pretty funny. My dogs do what I ask because they think there might be a cookie in it for them, not because they are "obeying." And they eat and drink whenever the heck they want (without having to hunt it down unless you consider the use of a buster cube hunting), and on occasion, more than one of them has been more than happy to mark my dining room table legs, most definitely without my permission.

I completely understand why you, and all breeders, would be sensitive to PETA's stance on breeding. Though I support PETA, I do not view you, or other responsible breeders, as "partners in crime". I don't have to agree 100% with everything PETA does in order to support them. When I look at the good they've done for animal welfare and the awareness they've brought to animal cruelties all over our planet - it FAR outweighs anything I may disagree with them on, or certain areas where our philosophies diverge.

Listen, if you and everyone else want to rally and start an animal welfare agency that supports responsible breeding, goes after puppy mills, but still goes after animal cruelty the way PETA does - I'd be ALL FOR such an organization. Until then, the only organization that goes into the hellholes, obtains footage, gathers evidence, and provides the public the evidence of these horrors is PETA - so that's why I support them. That's why I can both buy from a breeder and support PETA. I can see both sides. And I'm actually supporting both sides too. :)

I don't understand why you said this, do you really believe that they are the ONLY organization that does this? I am not familar with all the organizations that do this, but I do know that the Humane Society of the United States does it. Stop Puppy Mills

I love the HSUS but nobody beats PETA on general animal welfare successes.

Whether this is true or not, I don't have any facts to argue, however my point is, it is not true to say that they are the only organization that does this, these are the statements that bother me. I realize some of you support PETA, and that is your choice, but anything posted against PETA is deemed 'bashing" and "misinformation." So it's important for both sides to stick to the facts, we use facts, in order to form opinions.

I'm also a member there :)!

My point wasn't that no other organization works against puppy mills. My point was that PETA does something that no other organization really does in terms of breadth across all kinds of animal welfare/cruelty campaigns, all over the WORLD. They also go under cover in ways that I'm grateful for, and can't even imagine the horrors the people go through who obtain that footage for us.

About PETA >> Some Recent Victories

Nancy - if you go back and read my statement - I was basically saying "Then let's all form an agency that does EVERYTHING PETA does, but one that supports BREEDERS too!" - that's really what I was saying in a nutshell. I wasn't saying what you're taking from it. :)

I support a bunch of agencies, PETA is just one of them.

This is the PETA version of the OKRA Thread. :p

This is so funny. Every Dec. we decide as a family on one organization that we will support through monthly donations for the new year. That organization gets the majority of what we are able to spend in monetary donations during the one year time. This year's chosen organization is not PETA. If something else catches my eye through out the year I'll give a tiny bit but mostly other organizations I admire get my support through my time and support of product sales. Last night I was talking about this thread to my husband and all of a sudden he gives me this strange look and says, are we donating monthly to PETA (the answer is no)? Like I was cheating on our family decided cause.:p

My point, besides how funny it was, is I am only "taking a stand" so to speak, on PETA because PETA is what kept coming up in this thread. There are many great animal advocacy groups and there is something for us all. PETA does seem to be the most far reaching on the largest scale and for some reason I still don't fully understand inspires a lot of negative passion on this forum.

My link was provided so that you could see other organizations do indeed go undercover, not to imply puppymills were the only thing that that HSUS were concerned with. Just stating this because I know you know, HSUS is concerned with more than just puppymills, but others may not be aware of this.


I don't know if that was a rhetorical question or not, but for me, it's simply because they believe the end justifies the means. For example, they want people to adopt pets from shelters, and pounds, a very good message; however, they make a video showing a dog in a body bag, and say that's what happens when someone buys a pet from a breeder. I don't think people are going to adopt dogs because they see this video, it's just to make others feel guilty, maybe it will influence children, but not in a way that I would approve. This is just one of many examples, I've seen that uses bullying tactics to get their point across. They also don't seem to have much human regard, I don't like the way I've seen them treat humans, and I would call it abusive, but again, the end justifies the means, this is not a philosophy I endorse, it took me a long time getting there, but I truly do not believe the end justifies the means, and as many have quoted, it's the journey not the destination, that is more my particular philosophy now.

Nancy I don't know if I've ever mentioned this but I don't really care for okra at all.:p LOL, making a sad attempt at a joke.;) I don't agree with every single thing PETA does either but I do agree with most of what they do and certainly don't see them as abusive. I've actually never known an organization, a friend, a business or a political candidate who I agree with 100% either so like anything, I just have to weigh it all out and what is right for my own belief system- same as us all. I am with you all the way that the journey is as important as the destination.:)

I missed the okra thread, now I'm curious.

Oh no how did you miss the never ending okra thread? It was a lot more fun than this one has been but we're giving them a run for thier money on keeping it going.:p

Here ya go http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/off...0517-okra.html
40 pages- I guess they have us beat.:D

How did I miss that thread? I think you should link this thread to that thread, and it would be a perfect infinity ring. :D

:thumbup:Great analogy!! If organizations, like PETA, are allowed to keep slowly chipping away at our fredoms, then we will eventually have no freedoms, no choices. Everything will be under a dictators control, be it animal welfare/rights or human rights and ethics.

:lol tears