[News]HSUS, PETA Make Grab For $8 Billion Trust Fund--Action Alert!

[iLuv Reeses]

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.

[sarahcarp]

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

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

Since this was already brought up, before somebody links Ingrid Newkirk's quote about not believing we should breed dogs anymore- you're right she did. That is her personal opinion and she has every right to her own personal opinions but it is not on PETA's agenda. Some PETA supporters probably feel that way and many don't.

.

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

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

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.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by wildcard

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.

[Harley_chik]

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

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by Harley_chik

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?

[wildcard]

Originally Posted by Harley_chik

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

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...

[Harley_chik]

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.

[Nikki+2]

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.

[bchgirl]

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.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

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.

[Nancy1999]

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.

Despite her approach to improving animal welfare, Newkirk is an abolitionist, and remains committed to the idea that "[a]nimals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."[4] She has been criticized in that regard for her support of actions carried out in the name of the Animal Liberation Front. Her position is that the animal rights movement is a revolutionary one, and that "[t]hinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out.[10] Ingrid Newkirk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[bchgirl]

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."