No, the article states "the women, who acted on their OWN..." - it then says that PETA released a statement saying they "supported" what the women did.

I'm a member of PETA - that does not mean if I go somewhere and do this or that in support of animals, and then later PETA says "we support what Ann did" - that PETA PLANNED that event...do you not see that?

To use your logic in an analogy then, I'm going to assume that Yelena is a YTCA member - and that the inappropriate photo she posted here the other day from the Westminster show was also of a YTCA member (I mean, I have no real proof, so?) - so looks to me like the YTCA supported this kind of "event". If you are going to make assumptions about members of organizations, I guess the same luxury should be afforded me then and you would be okay with that?

And like I said earlier, I AM okay w/ PETA or any other group of Americans protesting events - within the LAW. These women acted on their own. That said, PETA (or any group) has a right to come out and state "I support these women's messages".

[


Ann, I know you're a PETA supporter, I do respect you and know of your position when this discussion comes up here. I see you as a very well informed person, capable of being a PETA supporter, still capable of supporting and understanding ethical breeding and pet ownership. But, I don't believe the average PETA supporter is like you or Kim.

I find it an exteme contradiction to say that your a strong supporter of PETA and to have purchased and own pure bred Yorkies. This is completely hypocritical and goes against one of the group main focuses which is the purchasing of purebreds. Look at the outcry from PETA when the Obama's chose to get a purebred. Even though the dog was from a rescue.

IMO...If you support a group...you support it and all of it's actions and beliefs. An example would be "I support the NRA but don't think people should own guns. But then you own one. Doesn't make since does it? Kind of the same situation to me....All I'm saying is you have every right to support and belong to any organazation or group that you want....I just just personally believe in Walking the Walk...thats all. In My Opinion!

And JenCar - you *know* I love ya, and you know I still will cook you a steak dinner whenever you come to Phoenix - we have a standing date :D. Even though you and me come from different angles on this issue, I always feel we're on the same "team", always :).

I don't disagree that the average PETA supporter might not be like me and Kim - but maybe there are more like us than people know/realize and we can have an effect on the membership :p. Just for all to know...I do let PETA know where I disagree with them (as a member)...I fully realize that they've alienated plenty of people. I fully support pet ownership and ethical breeders - I'll say it a million times, if you want me to :D!

This train of thought baffles me......it is nearly impossible to believe in EVERYTHING a group supports (regardless of what the group is) and I don't think anyone here is saying they do. Surely, you can agree that PETA, although extreme in a lot of things, raises awareness with the public. You may not like everything they do but you can't argue that the public responds to it......that's what happened here.

You may not like PETA but you sure are talking about them.

So, really, by the very nature of this thread we are all supporting PETA's mission to raise awareness......right?

Well, it must be nice to live in a world where everything in *your* life is black and white - and you agree with ALL of your politicians, leaders, organizations, etcetera 100%.

I've never lived in a black and white world, but if I ever do - you will be the first to know :). In the meantime, I will continue to support the kill shelters, non-kill shelters, rescues, sanctuaries, activist organizations, welfare organizations etc - all of whom I agree with about 95% of the time.

Did the YTCA come out and say they supported this picture you speak of, like PETA did of this lady? I am not aware of the photo you are talking about.... But to me, anyone that wants to "claim" they acted on their own, only to have the organization come out and offer their support really is one of the same. PETA has used this same strategy over and over so much so, that any person or group wanting to protest would assume they would get the support from PETA should controversary arise, which it usually does, and supprisingly, PETA comes out to offer a statement of support.

No Yelena is not a YTCA member and the photo was taken of an exhibitor at the YTCA Specialty.

I respect your right to be a member of PETA, I just don't agree with what they stand for.

My point was (which you just made for me) that people make assumptions about PETA *and* it's members. So, it would be no different if I did that about YTCA and their members. I'm not saying it's the right thing to do, I'm saying - here's an analogy - how does that analogy feel? As a member of PETA, I'd appreciate it if people would not makes assumptions about me. I offer that same respect to people who are members of other organizations of their choosing.

You missed the point...see my response to ChaCha.

I totally respect what you are saying....I truly do. However, there is a difference when PETA has built a reputation of this practice. Denying that they organized the protest, but they will conveniently support it now that it happened. It is totally different than an isolated incident.

First of all supporting a political party where the choices are between two is quite different. Supporting rescues, shelters, and organizations that protect the inhumane treatment of animals is quite different. This group has radical agendas that are well known. It not realistic to compare the ASPCA and PETA. Seriously...is that what you asking. You are quite correct that everything is not black and white however in a group who is known for extreme views on pet ownership the issue is very black and white. They make that very clear. There are so many wonderful groups out there that support all animals. Groups that provide guide dogs for the blind and service dogs for the disabled and therapy dogs for sick children, a plethora of excellent groups that provide NO KILL shelters for dogs and cats. I just find a contradiction in supporting Peta and owning a purebred and supporting breeders. AGAIN this is my opinion!!!!!!!! I personally could NEVER hunt and kill an animal but I respect the fact that people like to hunt. I believe that animals should be treated humanely when they are raised for the food industry. I completely support the right of someone to protest any issue. But only in the legal since and when and where appropriate. They should support OUR right to raise and breed when done ethically and humanely. But that is the difference.....that is my point. PETA wants to tell me what I can and cannot do with an animal. So I can support their rights but they don't support mine. I don't know how else to put it.

By the way....if you were to ask. PETA would tell you their issues are very BLACK AND WHITE.....

This looks like it could get pretty heated so all I am going to say is this:

I would never give a cent of my hard-earned money to any terrorist organization.

If you** are proud of the fact that the group you are associated with illegally murders and dumps adoptable animals in dumpsters, believes in the extinction of pet ownership and goes out of their way to POISON dogs at shows by leaving tainted bait around that's is your choice.

You can argue that PETA management isn't advocating the murdering/poisoning of dogs or any of the other horrible things that they do but the fact of the matter is they are PETA members and as such their actions reflect on the organization.

You cant agree with some of their stances and choose to ignore the ones you dont agree with--your annual dues go to support ALL of their stances and prerogatives.

(**the "you" is a generality and not intended to isolate any one person)

Peta
 

This is an article and very lengthy. While the article is somewhat focused on HSUS it directly linked to PETA and to educate on the differance between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare:

Do you know the Real PETA and Humane Society

You will not often see negative articles in our newsletter, but every now and again we are forced to make a stand, and to speak out about what we know is for the better good for all involved. This one such instance. We can no longer stand back and watch to see what will happen. I think that it is past time to publicly expose the real agenda of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and their cohorts in crime, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and the animal rights agenda.

This article is long so it'll be posted in several posts.

For many years we have all enjoyed the companionship of our dogs and other animals. We have been busy playing with them, taking care of them, finding fun things that we could do with them, and gerally just having a great time with all the animals that live in our houses. While we have been enjoying the love and fun that our animals provide to us, there have been groups out there organizing on a grand scale trying to get our rights to own those animals taken away. Yes, that is excactly what I meant. Make no mistake about it. These people have organized on a large scale to infiltrate many major city councils and governments in the country to spread their propaganda. Their agenda is easily defined and simple. Their main objective is to take away your right to own animals. They do not want you to have the companionship of any animal. They do not want you to have the companionship of any animal, whether that is a dog, cat, horse, mouse, frog, fish or any other animal that you can think of. They are pooling their resources to get this accomplished, and have millions of dollars in there war chest for this effort.

This is a statement made by Ingrid Newkirk, the President of PETA: "I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's sopecieist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees ffrom the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (rtificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would turn to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance. ' TYhe Harper's Forum Book. Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

This is the point I was trying to make....well said!