Possible New Charges Against Ex-PETA Employee, Assistant

[SkyeTerrier]

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=3557732&nav=23iibn6m

North Carolina Officials Look at Possible New Charges Against Ex-PETA Employee, Assistant

WAVY News 10 has learned North Carolina officials may consider more charges against two people associated with the Norfolk-based People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals.

10 On Your Side broke the story of Adria Hinkle and Andrew Cook facing charges of animal cruelty and illegal dumping of animal remains last month.

Now, police in Ahoskie, N.C., are trying to figure out if the animals in the case were euthanized. If so, it could mean more problems for PETA.

PETA has been very open about it's work in North Carolina. Its programs includes euthanizing animals it considers to be unadoptable.

But WAVY News 10 has learned only licensed veterinarians can euthanize under North Carolina law, and officials there say Hinkle and Cook are not licensed vets.

<snip>

If it's euthanasia, then two PETA employees have a problem because according to Roberts, "they were basically practicing veterinary medicine without a license," which is against North Carolina state law.
<snip>

"We're investigating the possibility they were euthanized," says Roberts.

Detective Roberts says a recent autopsy on a dog found in the dumpster could point to that.

"The doctor said there was a puncture wound in the vein in the dogs right front paw."
<snip>

[sui generis]

1. oh fer cryin' out loud

it's a fucking witch hunt.

They said "animal cruelty" - but not another word to back up that assertion.

"Practicing Veterinary Medicine without a license" - oh, licensed, but just not licensed in North Carolina.

What kind of piece of shit news reporting is this?

[Squatch]

2. Disagree. If they broke the law, they should be brought up

on charges. Same as anybody else.

[sui generis]

3. irrelevant to my comment about reporting

it's how they are being portrayed in the news.

BTW the law exercises discretion all the time. If it didn't nobody would be able to pass on the highway. The law says if you go one mile an hour over the speed limit you get a ticket. In practice, that is not "strictly" enforced.

If the law suddenly decided to enforce people going one mile an hour over the speed limit only against people with PETA stickers, then it's a problem, regardless of "If they broke the law. . . ."

[LisaL]

13. The law is being enforced because the employees were dumping

bodies into public dumpsters. What do you propose should be done with them?
Give them a cookie and send them home if they promise not to do it again?

[sui generis]

17. save your sarcasm for someone with fewer brain cells

I didn't say anything of the sort.

My problem is with associating this to PETA.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[damntexdem]

5. It's just pointing out what enemies of humanity, and nature, PETA is.

Thank goodness there IS a law under which to prosecute those nutcases.

Here's on DUer who is happy to see his enemies prosecuted.

[sui generis]

6. I'm a PETA supporter

I don't agree with everything they do and think but then again I don't have to. I have brain and can think for myself instead of just repeating propaganda.

[flvegan]

46. Why are they your "enemy" as you stated?

[Beaverhausen]

68. Enemies of humanity and nature? WTF are you talking about?

care to back that up with some facts? and please don't post the link to the Center for Consumer Freedom. We know all about them. :eyes:

[sui generis]

98. Hi Beaverhausen

:hi:

this went out of control as you can see. I wish that all sides here had agreed to get more information first and THEN make a decision, but it looks like it turned into another circular firing squad.

It seems like if we really were concerned about doing the right thing here on DU, the blind Peta supporters would be willing to consider new information and the blind Peta haters would be willing to consider that maybe this policy doesn't reflect the entire national organizations views or even the views of most of its supporters. Instead we have this silly juvenile snipe fest because both sides are afraid their expectations and closely held notions have been violated.

Things get so black and white sometimes - the fact is that Peta has done tremendous good, and that it needs to very strongly clarify this position or else risk never getting another penny, but until that happens I can't say that I am either behind them or against them 100%. Some days it's hard to walk away for a moment and get some perspective, and on those days, Mr. Sui has to drag me outside by my hair kicking and screaming and get me to take a breath, calm down try to be a little wiser ;)

[LisaL]

9. If they are not licensed in North Carolina, then they shouldn't be

euthanizing animals in North Carolina.
I think it's a rather simple concept.

[sui generis]

11. Agreed

so why the big news blowout? find a new hitler to hate? how childish.

[youspeakmylanguage]

40. Big news blowout?

so why the big news blowout? find a new hitler to hate? how childish.

You just violated Godwin's Law, but we'll let that slide. No one really follows it on DU anyway.

It's a report from a local news station. It's local news. I live in NC and frankly, I wish the coverage was more widepsread.

Like it or not, these individuals were members of PETA. In my opinion, there should be more independent investigating by local reporters to find out whether or not these individuals were acting alone or if other members of PETA were involved.

I'm sure you'd like to sweep this under the rug, but it's not going to happen.

[sui generis]

52. you do not speak my language

Peta is in Texas too. I support Peta. Like it or not, I am not the enemy here. I didn't say anything about sweeping this under the rug. If there's one thing that twists my knickers it's when somebody puts words in my mouth.

I was responding to someone who was being disruptive, although not in the most mature manner myself.

In MY opinion, I want a fair and unbiased investigation, not a witch hunt. You certainly don't sound unbiased.

I question what caused you to form your bias in the first place. No doubt brilliant pieces of reporting like the crap in the OP.

[youspeakmylanguage]

125. Give me a break...

You're the one referring to a local news story as "a big news blowout". Perhaps you can provide another motive for using such gross exaggeration.

Any bias I have against PETA stems from their own actions and campaigns. Their radical and often ridiculous activism provides excellent fodder for the right-wing propaganda machine to frame anyone who supports reasonable animals rights as lunatics. I personally believe they've done more damage to the cause than helped it.

You still haven't provided any concrete deep links to anything in the PETA website to back any of your assertions.

[sui generis]

138. oy, the problem with threads that stay alive this long

is that people just stop reading.

I can't help that. Let me point out that I do agree with you on your statement. However I am a pluralist, and I understand that rejecting them entirely means that some of the other necessary activism they do is required just to bring focus to problems.

I didn't like "Act Up" for AIDS either when they were chaining themselves to park benches and slopping pigs blood on themselves, but the nice guys weren't getting any coverage.

That's my take on PETA. They are BOTH necessary and irritating.

More than anything in this thread I have seen outright disgusting posturing from people I used to think of as rational and decent. Why on earth is everyone acting like children? It's silly. This is a real topic that both sides have an interest in seeing resolved, if we are really being fair minded about it. We shouldn't have to bite each other - (not you, just the general tone in this thread)

[Ignis]

154. Hmm, interesting comparison.

I don't think I've heard anyone compare PETA with ACT Up, but I think it's a great way to help promote empathy among those who have a knee-jerk reaction against PETA.

Here's hoping that people learn to separate the actions of individuals from the policies of an organization. I certainly wouldn't want any Wing-Nuts to feel that they have the right to paint the entire Democratic majority of this country with a broad brush simply because I'm a prat. :)

Thanks for keeping a level head in a PETA thread.

[Catchawave]

69. Hello from WAVY-land....

...they are lousy with details and high on sensationalism. It's the local NBC affiliate. :crazy:

[kestrel91316]

84. As a veterinarian I have to say that:

if a person is not licensed to practice veterinary medicine in a particular state, then THEY HAD DAMNED WELL BETTER NOT practice in that state. If they cannot respect the law then they had better quit their profession immediately - they are morally unfit.

[sui generis]

91. laws and morality aren't always entwined

I agree with not breaking the law, but your definition of morality is a little restrictive.

I don't agree with what it appears Peta is doing (at this point) at all, but if I needed to have a critter of mine put down and a vet friend was visiting from out of state, on a Sunday, you can bet that I'd ask that vet to do the moral thing and break the law.

I don't believe the laws of medicine change from state to state, just the revenue from licensing.

[kestrel91316]

101. Well then, sorry to say this so bluntly ...............

You need to go do your homework. Laws regarding the practice of veterinary medicine DO vary from state to state.

How do I know this little factoid???

I AM a veterinarian. Hate to pull rank on you. Now run along.

[flvegan]

109. Do the laws on dispensing, utilizing, etc the meds in question vary

state to state, or is that federally mandated?

I'm no vet, so I don't know.

[sui generis]

139. apparently flea and heartworm prophylaxis are different

in different states, but I'm not a vet so I wouldn't know :eyes: either.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[livinginphotographs]

126. LOL.

Great post. :thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

119. So...

if your psychiatrist friend was visiting from out of state, and you were having a panic attack on a Sunday but didn't want to go to the ER, would you ask him or her to break the law and get you some benzos?

Why would you put your friend's career in jeopardy?

[sui generis]

137. bad example

if I were traveling, which I do a lot, and I got a bad upper resp infection that appeared to be bacterial, I would ask my doctor friend to call in a prescription for antibiotics.

Nuance - not extremes.

Anyway, according to you, I should let my dog suffer until Monday when I can get him to a vet (not that Kestrel ninnie). We all make professional decisions based on professional judgement.

Plus, direct answer to your question, no I would not. I would go to the emergency room, because there are many other things that can cause the sensation of "panic" than psychological difficulties. I'm sure my doctor friend would drive me. If it turned out that I was having a heart attack, he would treat me on the spot, before the ambulance got there to take me to the emergency room.

[HuckleB]

140. You still don't get it.

Your example differs a great deal from the practitioner who is actually out of state -- nevermind that many pharmacies won't fill an Rx from an out of state practitioner, so don't count on your situation working out, anyway.

In the end, you still think it's ok to ask your friend to put his livelihood in jeopardy. I definitely hope that I never have a friend pull that one me.

If your dog is in that much pain, there should be an Animal Hospital within a couple of hours to which you can drive, leaving your friend out of a matter in which you should never have thought about involving him.

[sui generis]

141. I get it - you are the one who doesn't

1. Most pharmacies DO fill Rx from out of state practitioners, provided it isn't for psychotropics

2. It's not putting his livelihood in jeopardy if you read my reply, in fact it is legal to issue an Rx out of state in most cases, and it is certainly legal to administer assistance for a descending aortic dissection.

3. Granted if I had a veterinarian friend he probably would not be traveling with a rig and barbiturates for euthanasia (I would wonder about that), HERE IN DALLAS, and I speak from experience, the only motherfucking animal hospital within hours that was open on a Sunday actually couldn't put down my dog in the actual event that happened -- because they were too busy.

Now, euthanasia is euthanasia, but having my friend do the humane thing and put down my dog would not have put his livelihood in jeopardy.

You need to come back into the real universe. Probably have spent too much time here in theoretical situations and not enough in real situations - I'm not being smarmy or trying to be hurtful, just stating that your opinions here don't at all connect with my reality.

[HuckleB]

145. I read your reply.

But most of what you've written simply doesn't wash or is spun for you to "respond" to that which you want to respond while ignoring the whole. You're incredibly wrong to ask any health care practitioner to do something outside of his or her license for your convenience. That does put their career in jeopardy, whether you want to believe it or not. Further, I don't think you've got much experience with health care in general, or you would not have made the statement you did about out of state pharms. But, hey, I'm sure you'll take what you want from this, spin it into what you want to respond to and do the same old same old.

Whatever gets your goat.

Just don't pretend that it's me who doesn't get it.

[sui generis]

146. please allow me to pull rank

as someone admitted to Johns Hopkins medical school at the tender age of 17, twenty three years ago I do occasionally know what I'm talking about.

You really DON'T get it. Okay, now let's see yours . . . (sound of foot tapping impatiently)

p.s., me asking my vet friend to stand on his head and paint his ass blue, much less help euthanize my pet, means NOTHING, unless I suddenly pick up the phone and call the authorities. It still means NOTHING because I asked him to do so. The "authorities" would laugh. That is reality, not spin. How old are you? You don't sound very old. Shouldn't you be in class working on your school play or something?

You, by the way, have diagnosed yourself in your reply. Brilliant. Unlike the reply.

Now try me again about out of state pharms, if you even have the will to reply left in you.

:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

152. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

149. and another thing

please don't confuse the phrase with the referent. "Laws" of medicine statement did not refer to the state laws of medicine.

I should have said the laws of physics, the laws of biochemistry, the laws of physiology, and then maybe you MIGHT have had to work harder to intentionally misunderstand.

What bug is up your ass anyway? You started the ad hominem tack here - please explain why you think that is an adult form of interaction?

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

155. got caught?

what are you talking about?

Please lay out absolutely EVERYTHING you know about me right here for the public to see - (this should be interesting).

I'm waiting. BTW, where did you go to school? When did you graduate? How old are you, really? Let's do some follow up on your story, since no practicing sane health professional I know would ever act like you have here today.

Sometime later you should read back through your posts - that is, the ones that haven't been deleted.

[HuckleB]

158. LOL!

I love it. The poster who makes numerous outlandish personal attacks because I didn't bow down to him, umm, because I knew that what he was selling didn't wash is now concerned about, what, his reputation.

I know this about you: 1) Your comments regarding out of state pharmacies don't wash. Again, I work in a clinic that deals with this issue every day. 2) You made a statement above that indicates your belief that the only difference regarding laws of physician practice across the country is that each state collects its own fees. Now, considering that this has been a hot topic in this country (especially in regard to "medical marijuana" laws and the Oregon Death with Dignity Act), I'm guessing that you can understand, at some level, why I don't find that statement to hold much water. 3) You don't understand why it's not ethical (to be kind and to minimize it to your benefit) to have "friends" treat you (or your dog) and/or telephone prescriptions to pharmacies for you.

Oh yeah, and I know that you like to attack people as personally as you possibly can whenever you don't like the way the conversation is going. But I'm the one who is addled?

Oh, and, on edit, for posterity, I am what I say I am. I've been on this board for years, and I make no pretenses about what I do and who I am.

LOL!

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

153. Pull rank? LOL!

Again, I deal with this every day, so let's stop pretending, shall we?

But, hey, the personal attacks you've offered are kind of cute. And I am laughing me arse off, so I suppose there is some value to it all.

[sui generis]

157. what is it you deal with every day?

I no longer believe that you are a health professional of any kind. You jumped on the "I am a veterinarian" bandwagon to give yourself credibility.

How pathetic of you.

[ernstbass]

4. They should be punished

You don't present yourself as an animal rescue organization who is going to take dogs to be adopted and then immediately kill them. this sickens me - those poor dogs didn't have a chance. We aren't supposed to eat fish or drink milk but by all means euthanize dogs without giving them a chance to be adopted.:grr:

[sui generis]

7. geee whiz

I don't agree that they should be doing this, but I also know that there has to be some kind of motive here other than they are just crazy sick dog killers, because that does not make sense.

Any other theories?

[LisaL]

8. They decided all pets should be exterminated because

they are better off dead than owned by someone?

[sui generis]

10. but but where are you getting this information?

this is pure utter vile horseshit

go to the fucking website. Read for yourself. And question who told you this information and what their motives were, because it's not factual.

[LisaL]

12. No? Do you have better explanation?

Why were they killing animals they promised to find homes for?

[sui generis]

15. visit the web site

if you don't want to visit the website and report back to me, then please don't bother replying.


I actually agree that what they did was wrong. Where we're off the beaten path here is that it is associated with PETA, and that the statement you made about PETA was just plain wrong. I hope you get the chance to correct that. Not everything PETA does is something I agree with, but they do a lot of good for animals in general.

I don't think that putting an animal down via gas chamber is any better or worse than putting them down via VERY expensive barbiturates - the animal ends up dead just the same.

The money they spent on euthanizing drugs could better have been spent supporting those facilities to help feed animals that would otherwise be put down. Their effort was misguided and misplaced. I don't think they were being evil, just stupid. And "they" are two individuals who are no longer associated with PETA.

My problem with the article and the replies here is that you and others are connecting dots to PETA where there aren't any to connect.

[anotherdrew]

18. so PETA hung these two out to dry then?

so PETA hung these two out to dry then? Sounds like they were doing what they were told to. PETA didn't have a way to dispose of the dead animals? It sounds like it was PETA policy to LIE to animal shelters (at least one we have quotes from the director of) to get the animals in the first place. What possible motivation could there be for this? Why would PETA spend donations to pay these two to do this AT ALL? the animals were in some cases already in a shelter awaiting adoption or euthanasia, so why should holy holy PETA get to come in and take the animals from existing shelters? How many other idiots have been paid by PETA there AND ELSEWHERE to take animals from responsible shelters and kill in the back of vans?

[LisaL]

19. Actually, Peta only fired one of them. The other one still works

for Peta.

[sui generis]

25. I am holding my head

I'll give you this, you're persistent, and I admire that.

I would like to know the REAL story - why anyone would do something like this and think they were doing something constructive. That article is full of pre-judgement and bad journalism and implicates PETA incorrectly, and gets in the way of the truth, whatever it turns out to be.

The world is a complicated place but "PETA" in and of itself is not some überevil organization. They can be a bit crackpot, but they also do good and bring awareness to issues that are not normally talked about.

It is inconceivable (google "Occams Razor") that this would be a policy of PETA for many reasons. I personally don't like hearing the call to "hate" someone or some thing just because I was told to second hand, and when it comes from the news and/or other progressives it really sets off my alarm bells.

I like back my opinions with research - that's why my response has been a bit acid.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sui generis]

26. self delete

working on being civil is harder some days than other

[anotherdrew]

29. look, give me a link to PETA's version of events

I don't see anything on the main peta.org about this.

[sui generis]

31. that's like saying how many times do you beat your wife

Peta doesn't have a version of these events. It wasn't a Peta event.

Anyway, the absence of a news statement on this doesn't prove guilt or complicity. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever for something like this to be a policy of Peta given their official stance on companion animals.

My issue on this thread was the immediate jumping on Peta as the source, and the assertions just aren't adding up to a whole number.

I would like to hear some kind of general statement from them, no doubt - it's in their best interest to do so, and soon.

[anotherdrew]

33. Look, PETA admitted it was a program to find homes for animals

This was a PETA program to go to shelters, pick up animals, find them a home. Thats what they told the shelters. In fact - these folks were picking up animals from shelters and killing them the same day, ALL of them, not just the ones they 'felt' couldn't find a home.

FIRST: Why should PETA barge in on an already existing nation-wide animal shelter system? If people want a pet, that's one of the main places to go. Why compete with an already working system? Is PETA attacking the ASPCA?

SECOND: this is PETA's problem, they were their employees, acting on a PETA initiative. Clearly the folks in charge of the local PETA office were paying ZERO attention to what was going on in their name. FIRE the local PETA boss for god sake is all I'm saying.

[sui generis]

34. oh I agree completely

it just doesn't make sense considering how much those chemicals cost or that Peta would spend money doing something that is essentially anathema to their stated objectives, when they could be spending that money in a positive way.

Also occurs to me that maybe this is similar in some respects to the catholic church problems -- it's a situation that's ripe for abuse and the organization will continue to face criticism since it isn't aggressively stamping it out and distancing itself from those people.

What article did you get the info in PP 1 from?

[anotherdrew]

35. another problem with their handling of this,,,

two people involved, a new guy and a woman who had been doing this program for some time. The local cops started finding dead animals in dumpsters right around the time the new guy was hired, yet oddly PETA chooses to fire the long term woman who had never caused any problems before. Why? I would love to get some indyMedia investigative reports out there to interview these folks.

I'll look around to see if I can find a link to answer your question.

[anotherdrew]

36. in answer to your question...

the info that they were taking animals from existing animal shelters is from the first wave of local newspaper reporting. They interviewed a veterinarian who runs the animal shelter. Other sources of animals were also being used, including other shelters.

HOWEVER: note the groups jumping up and down with this:
http://www.fbresearch.org/deathvan/
that's the "Foundation for Biomedical Research"

I wouldn't be surprised to find this was all somehow a setup with that "new guy" at the heart of the matter. Anyway, this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion by PETAs enemies. So... we'll see what happens.

(the original stories were in hamptonroads.com newspaper website, news.google.com finds the stories "peta dead dogs"

[flvegan]

45. Why would you? It's a CRIMINAL investigation. You think they're going

to say anything, publish anything, etc about it on a website?

[youspeakmylanguage]

41. After a post like that...

...it's clear you have no interest in being civil or discussing this issue in a rational manner. Where is this freeper you're referring to? Is it the reporter? Can you provide evidence to back that claim up?

You claim to know the news report was biased and PETA had nothing to do with this, but the only evidence you can provide is to demand people "go read the website!". You don't even provide deep links to relevant information within PETA's site. You haven't provided evidence of anything.

You're not hurting anyone's feelings, but you should stop before you make yourself look worse than you already do.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

67. Good post.

His/her shrill objections in the face of overwhelming evidence is telling, IMO. Why not just admit that PETA screwed up?

[sui generis]

83. I'm back

it was a stupid post.

"His" objections were not in the face of overwhelming evidence at the time they were written. They were in the face of a bunch of posturing ninnies who didn't have anything but bluster and one liners to snipe with. That's not shrill, unless all defense is shrill.

At any rate, my objections were to the fact that people were shooting their fat lips off with no evidence at all. I am not retracting anything I've said up to this point or editing it, so please feel free to read.

I am perfectly willing to change my opinions in the face OF evidence. Since these posts were written, I have found more articles to study and more research that I will do before I continue to support Peta.

Please put me on ignore - I don't care for your "shrill" observations. In My "Humble" Opinion.

[donco6]

90. I never put anyone on ignore.

What's the fun in that?

[donco6]

53. Yes it's connected to PETA

The only thing the Newkirk condemns is the dumping in bins. She admits to the employees being part of a euthanasia program.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87978&ran=119183&tref=po

"PETA usually takes the animals back to Norfolk to be euthanized, Newkirk said, in a process that involves a single hypodermic shot and a gentle caress.

Very few are ever put up for adoption, she said."

So explain why PETA is taking animals from an adoption shelter to kill them?

[flvegan]

57. Because sodium pentabarbitol is a whole helluva lot better than

a gas chamber or a .22 in the back of the head. The animal "goes to sleep", in a friendly place, and doesn't wake up. Better than the fear and torment of the first, and better than a possible excruciating end from the second.

You agree, don't you?

And they aren't taken from an "adoption center" either. You don't know most of the facts behind this, do you?

[donco6]

59. Uh, read the article.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87978&ran=119183&tref=po

Tonya Northcott , a veterinary technician at the Ahoskie Animal Hospital, said that among the dead found Wednesday were a mother cat and her two kittens picked up that day by PETA.

“There was nothing wrong with them,” she said of the animals, noting that they had been dewormed and that she had been told there would be no problem finding homes for the cats.

“They’ll never get another one

Back off from the PETA Kool Aid.

[flvegan]

62. Back off from the bs. Your ONLY story.

There's nothing wrong with a great number of the 6 million (MILLION) companion animals our shelters in this country will euthanize this year. You gonna blame them too? You gonna blame the ASPCA? Your local humane society? Local rescues? You ever volunteered at an open-intake shelter? C'mon. You fucking answer me. How many of these adoptable animals can I sign you up for? I run a rescue. I served on the BOD of my local humane society (an open intake, BTW), WHILE I put in 25 hours a week in the trenches, WHILE I did their website. SO...you tell me. When you've worked damn hard to find homes for animals, and you get connected, and you put your heart into it, and you walk in the next day, and you know that they've been put down because there's no fucking room, then, and only then, can you even sit at this table.

Please take note that you're taking the word of someone (Tonya Northcott) that you've never met, have no idea of her agenda, no idea of what she knows.

Suck that kook aid down, real slow. Now, go fucking sign up for volunteer duty and talk to me in 90 days. Money where your mouth is, buddy...

[donco6]

78. Why so confrontational?

What is it about PETA that causes you to become so violent?

[flvegan]

80. Strawman bs post.

Why do you hate America?

See, we can both play that game.

[kestrel91316]

89. PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk is on record as ..................

being fundamentally opposed to the very concept of pet ownership. Now go put two and two together.

[Beaverhausen]

92. Are you trying to imply that PETA just goes around killing pets?

just because Ingrid is against it?

Well they don't. You as a vet should know how many thousands of healthy animals have to be put down every year because there simply are not enough safe and loving homes for them. PETA is trying to at least euthanize these animals humanely.

[flvegan]

96. Well, you see, it's easy to take one quote, and use it to one's needs.

Regardless of context, meaning, placement. I expected more from politically active folks. I was wrong.

When folks use the "making companion animals obsolete" sentiment in a post, they should accompany it with a picture from PETA headquarters, where employees are encouraged to bring their animals with them.

[kestrel91316]

105. Just shows PETAs hypocrisy .........

"We want to have OUR pets.....we just want to make damned sure nobody else can have them at some point in the future.........only we the PETA saints are holy enough to have pets." Or some such rot.

[flvegan]

110. So you don't believe in humane euthanasia for what our populus

has deemed surplus? I mean, we're talking about animals numbering in the millions...

[kestrel91316]

115. Don't put words in my mouth ..........I was discussing PETAs

anti-pet ownership stance and hypocrisy.

I am a veterinarian and an animal WELFARIST. Of course I support humane euthanasia. Euthanasia by a layperson without veterinary supervision is potentially extremely cruel and inhumane.

[shockra]

116. Are you a member of the AVMA?

Do you think having a member of the Animal Welfare Committee authorizing thousands of live chickens to be fed into a wood-chipper destroys their credibility?

And that not firing him shows their hypocrisy?

[kestrel91316]

142. Of course I am a member of the AVMA

I am not sure what the credibility of one veterinarian over an incident years ago has to do with PETAs inhumane treatment of animals. Are you saying two wrongs make a right? Or are you saying that because there is at least one bad veterinrian in the world,that makes us ALL bad??

I never manage to follow twisted logic like this.

[Ignis]

156. Point of order:

Why is it out-of-bounds for someone to summarize your professed and implied feelings on this matter, yet you yourself have carte blanche to put words in the mouth of the entire PETA organization?

This may be simple hypocrisy--but if it's not, I'm very interested to hear the thought-process that led you to conclude that either 1) it's official PETA policy to allow pets for PETA-members but deny pet ownership to all non-PETA-members, or 2) all PETA members believe the above assignment of pet ownership to be appropriate, even if it's not on the official PETA platform.

There is a broad cognitive disconnect between those who hate and those who love PETA, so I think it's important to help other DUers understand where we're coming from, don't you?

Cheers.

[LisaL]

108. Do they really? Any pictures show these animals coming out alive?

[flvegan]

112. Coming out of where?

If you're referring to an adoption effort by PETA, I can provide that. If you're trying to make light of individuals that may work for them, that have otherwise rescued, care for, and enjoy the company of these animals in their workplace, killing those same animals, simply because they work for an organization for which you harbor an almost obscene amount of hate, then you're really just...well, I'll let other readers of this post decide how to end that sentence.

[bitchkitty]

121. My observation -

you're obsessed. What a tacky thing to say.

[kestrel91316]

103. If the people doing the euthanizing are not licensed veterinarians .....

then BY DEFINITION what they are doing is inhumane. Veterinarians need to do the deed or be right there to supervise. WE are the ones who took an OATH to look out for animal welfare, not some busybody layperson with a political aganda. WE are the ones with a legal professional responsibility to do the same, and most of us take it VERY seriously.

[livinginphotographs]

127. You keep repeating that accusation

That PETA is on a mission to exterminate all pets, despite the fact that you've provided no evidence besides a 20-year old quote that was taken out of context.

You do realize how insane you sound when you keep posting that, right? Not trying to accuse you of anything, I just feel sorry for you because you seem to be a bit delusional.

[kestrel91316]

143. Do you always accuse people of about which you know nothing ..........

of being insane and delusional merely because you have a difference of opinion with them??

I happen to take Ingrid Newkirk's statement at face value. Now, if you can prove to me that she has since retracted it and now supports pet ownership and no longer considers it to be just another form of that EVIL ANIMAL EXPLOITATION,then I will reconsider my stand. She sets the tone for the whole organization.

[livinginphotographs]

144. The poster is saying that PETA wants to exterminate all pets

and that this was just one part of their evil plot.

I think that sounds pretty insane.

As far as pet ownership, they prefer the term "companion animal" as do I, but there's nothing about abolishing human guardianship of animals in PETA's platform.

http://www.peta.org/about/faq-comp.asp

[Endangered Specie]

14. Just goes to show you how genuine and upstanding PETA is.

:sarcasm:

[sui generis]

16. explain what this has to do with PETA

please read the article carefully before replying.

[LisaL]

21. These people worked for Peta, they were using Peta's name

to get these animals. They were using Peta's van to kill the animals in.
And you have the gull to ask what this has to do with Peta?
:spank:

[sui generis]

28. Why don't you go to their web site?

Are you afraid?

Scaredy cat?

Huh?

Your great powers of deduction require some facts before you continue.

[anotherdrew]

30. where in their web site?

they don't seem to put this story up front or anything

[sui generis]

32. fyi

it is the highest form of irony that a carnivore like myself is defending Peta!!!

Oh well, stranger things have happened. ;)

[donco6]

54. True. Read this article - connets PETA to euthanasia program:

"PETA usually takes the animals back to Norfolk to be euthanized, Newkirk said, in a process that involves a single hypodermic shot and a gentle caress.

"Very few are ever put up for adoption, she said.

"Tonya Northcott , a veterinary technician at the Ahoskie Animal Hospital, said that among the dead found Wednesday were a mother cat and her two kittens picked up that day by PETA.

“There was nothing wrong with them,” she said of the animals, noting that they had been dewormed and that she had been told there would be no problem finding homes for the cats.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87978&ran=119183&tref=po

[AngryAmish]

23. PETA wants to kill your dog,

[sui generis]

27. oh no not you!!!!!

Oh wait, I could not have possibly expected different.

Please provide a link.

Edited to be more civil.

[hughee99]

37. PETA "helping" animals in North Carolina

This is the only thing I could find on PETA's website about this issue.

http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-nc.asp

"PETA has provided euthanasia services to various counties in that state to prevent animals from being shot with a .22 behind a shed or gassed in windowless metal boxes—both practices that were carried out until PETA volunteered to provide a painless death for the animals, free of charge. We believe that euthanasia is a kindness for dogs and cats who are born into a world that doesn’t want them, has not cared for them, and ultimately has abandoned them to be disposed of."

First of all, if PETA is voluntarily providing "euthanasia services" wouldn't it be appropriate to make sure that they have the necessary credentials to do this.

Second, if they do not want animals to ultimately be "disposed of" they should look into other ways of disposing a euthanized bodies. The disposal of animal corpses in dumpsters could prove to be health issues for the surrounding communities.

Third, this doesn't really seem in keeping with some other statements on their website:
http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=129

"As long as an animal is capable of suffering, we should do whatever we can to avoid causing that animal pain. Sometimes it isn’t possible to prevent an animal’s suffering, but just because we can’t stop all suffering, doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to mitigate whatever pain we can control."

Now I guess you can either read this as a repudiation or support of "euthanasia services", so I would have to know more about the animals that were euthanized before passing any judgment on this. Were the animals terminally ill, or merely overpopulated and unsuited for adoption?

[astonamous]

38. A letter written in response to questions asked about this case...

This is an email response to questions that were asked about this case. I don't know who Scott is, but he seems to be someone in the "know" about PETA and the N. Carolina incident. Take it for what it is...

********
June 16, 2005

As for the story about North Carolina, please know that it is against peta’s policy to put the bodies of animals in dumpsters, and we are appalled that a member of our staff apparently did that. There is no excuse for that and, despite the fact that she is a caring soul, we have suspended her from work.

peta has always supported and spoken openly about euthanasia. It is easy to throw stones at those doing the dirty work for society, but euthanasia is a necessary evil until the massive animal overpopulation problem can be solved. We invite anyone who can offer a home to any animal, pay for one or a hundred spay/neuter surgeries, or persuade others not to go to a pet shop or breeder, to please join us in doing these things. In the last year, we have spayed/neutered more than 7,600 dogs and cats, including feral animals, many free of charge and all others at well below our own costs. Support for this program is much needed.

To clarify, we do not run an adoption facility, although we do place animals, approximately 360 in the last year, despite having run out of friends and family members to approach. We are a “shelter of last resort,” taking in and giving a painless death in loving arms to animals who would otherwise have been shot with a .22 or gassed in a windowless metal box, which is what happened in North Carolina before peta offered free euthanasia services to agencies there. North Carolina has the second highest rate per capita of euthanasia in the country—35 animals killed annually for every 1,000 residents—and most do not die a humane death. Sadly, the shelters we work with have no adoption programs or hours set aside for adoption. At the Bertie County dog shelter, residents were throwing unwanted dogs over an 8-foot-high fence, where they became infected or injured by other sick or aggressive dogs from whom they could not escape. Bertie County also had no facility for cats and used to let them go to breed in the woods and fend for themselves until peta built a shelter for them this year. peta has begged for years, through formal proposals and numerous meetings, to have the county allow peta to implement an adoption program as part of a larger picture of sheltering that would also include a spay/neuter program, a humane education program, 24/7 emergency services, and rabies clinics. For more information on our efforts, please visit www.helpinganimals.com.

We try never to take in adoptable animals unless we know we have a home for them—only those who are mange-covered, have parvovirus, are injured, old, unsocialized from life on a chain, or unwanted and for whom there are no good homes available. We also work at the roots, spending more than $240,000 in one North Carolina county alone, to provide shelter in winter for animals left out in the cold, to spay/neuter, to get vet care for animals in dire straits, to send Bertie County’s one animal control officer to professional training, to pay a cleaner to maintain two shelters, and much more.

We have always outspokenly advocated fixing the problems of overpopulation through practical methods. Sadly, those stories don’t get coverage in the media.

We urge you to look closer and do your part to help us help these animals. For information and resources on how to do that, visit HelpingAnimals.com. People across the country have used the information at this site to bring about changes in their shelters and more importantly to change public policy that impacts on companion animals. Cities are directing public funds to spay/neuter, prohibiting chaining of dogs, and so much more.

I know you do your part to help animals in every way you can! Thank you so much for your support and do let me know if you would like to discuss further.

Scott

[The Stranger]

42. Your own post destroys your position:

PETA provided the euthanasia services because otherwise the animals would be "shot with a .22 behind a shed or gassed in windowless metal boxes."

When the animal's only option is suffering and torture, then euthanasia may be the only option.

But the PETA bashers are using this as some sort of indictment?

Get outta here.

[belle]

47. Excuse me; on what basis are they claiming this? Sounds like

hyperbole. And it's self-serving crap. Once they had the animals, they could've set them free if they couldn't or wouldn't find them good homes. That certainly would've been more in line with PETA's ethos of "animals should be free and above all MUST NOT BE HARMED BY HUMANS, which has included setting lab animals free and protesting chicken farming.
But suddenly she gets to play Dr. Kevorkian? "Destroying the animals to save them?"
I don't think so.

The local articles quote locals saying that they found puppies and kittens in the bags. And from her letter, it sounds like she's mostly upset that they got caught by disposing of their little mercy killings improperly.

Look, it really isn't necessary to knee-jerk defend every crackpot who comes along just because they're ostensibly on the left. PETA is repellent and cultlike, and Newkirk is an attention 'ho, pure and simple.

A lot of people thought Bev Harris could do no wrong for a while, too.

You want to do good for stray animals? Support these folks:

http://www.bestfriends.com/

They rescue and keep a lot of the "unadoptable" animals Newkirk is crying that they couldn't possibly have found a home for. You just hear less about them because they don't spend most of their time and money running around courting celebrities, throwing paint on people, putting up billboards with outrageously offensive sentiments like "Got Cancer?", protesting labs that are trying to find cures for human illnesses like cancer, and so on. They just help animals.

[donco6]

63. That's an exaggeration.

They had one shelter in Windsor that was shooting animals. The gas chamber in the other shelter hadn't been used in years. Most were euthanized in the same way PETA was doing it, except they were actually giving the animals a chance to be adopted first, and then sending them to a crematorium for disposal after.

PETA had no business doing what they did.

[flvegan]

66. You know that because you've been there?

Just checking. I don't know, either. I don't let hate convince me, though. Oops...

[donco6]

71. Sigh. No. I read.

You can too.

"For example, the Bertie County shelter had used a small gas chamber to kill animals until 2000, and some animals in Windsor, N.C., were killed with a .22-caliber bullet to the head, Nachminovitch said."

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=88133&ran=19014

[flvegan]

75. Good. Then read this:

http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/

and this

http://richmond.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10714/index.php

and this

http://www.helpinganimals.com/f-nc.asp

[donco6]

81. Thanks. That was helpful.

Even more reasons not to support PETA, from your own article:

Snip

The Center for Consumer Freedom's research into PETA's 1995-2000 IRS tax filings found:

• In April 2001, PETA gave a direct contribution of $1500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF) to "support their program activities." Among its long list of crimes, ELF claimed credit for the 1998 firebombing of a Vail ski resort, resulting in $12 million in damages.

• In January 1995, PETA gave a $45,200 contribution to the "support committee" of Rodney Coronado, a convicted arsonist who firebombed a research facility at Michigan State University. PETA also gave an unreturned $25,000 "loan" to Rodney Coronado's father in 1994.

• In January 2001, PETA gave $5000 to the "Josh Harper Support Committee." Josh Harper is an ALF-affiliated criminal arrested numerous times and convicted for assaulting a police officer. In 1998, Harper told an Oregon newspaper "we're going to continue to be confrontational, we're going to continue to be militant. If people see that as extreme, then so be it."

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

87. You gave me the article.

If it was spin, why did you give it to me?

:shrug:

[flvegan]

95. And you picked the part released by Consumer Freedom to believe.

What specifically aren't you getting? You went right over the Indymedia article. Maybe you'd rather believe a right wing, corporate fundjob over independent news. Hey, whatever.

[The Stranger]

133. NOT so fast, my friend.

What you lifted from that blog was a press release from the "Center for Consumer Freedom," which, as reported in the New York Times editorial this week was responsible for the "PETAkillsanimals.com" smear-advertising on boards in Times Square.

The website for the "Center for Consumer Freedom" even has a link to "PETAkillsanimnals.com" on its web site:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressrelease_detail.cfm?release=6

Also from that website is this, quoted for your enjoyment:

Who funds you guys? How about some "full disclosure"?

The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by restaurants, food companies and more than 1,000 concerned individuals. From farm to fork, our friends and supporters include businesses, employees and consumers.

. . . .

Many of the companies and individuals who support the Center financially have indicated that they want anonymity as contributors. They are reasonably apprehensive about privacy and safety in light of the violence some activist groups have adopted as a "game plan" to impose their views.

Here is what the New York Times had to say about the "Center for Consumer Freedom:"

The Story Behind a New York Billboard and the Interests It Serves

By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Ever since May, a small black-and-white billboard has looked south into Times Square from the top of a building on Broadway. It says simply: "PETA Kills Animals.com." You would think that the visual chaos of Times Square would hide a modest black-and-white sign. . . . Like an increasing number of the signs around us, this one merely points to another source of information - in this case, to a Web site whose name sounds like a headline: PETA Kills Animals. PETA, of course, is the activist animal-rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The sign assumes we know this and that an organization devoted to the ethical treatment of animals probably should not be killing them. But the sign also raises the question, what is PETA Kills Animals.com?

It turns out that this is one of a series of Web sites sponsored by the Center for Consumer Freedom, which describes itself as "a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the full range of choices that American consumers currently enjoy." We live in an age of organizations with anodyne names that conceal their real agenda, and the Center for Consumer Freedom is one of them. We're all consumers, and what could be better than freedom? But C.C.F. was founded by a Washington lobbyist named Richard Berman and is financed, according to at least one watchdog group, by many of the same meat, fast-food, restaurant and beverage companies that have hired him as a lobbyist. Seed money came from Philip Morris.

What strikes me is C.C.F.'s mission description and its implications. Here is the rest of its statement: "In addition to malicious animal-rights activists, we stand up to the 'food police,' environmental scaremongers, neo-prohibitionists, meddling bureaucrats and other self-anointed saints who claim to 'know what's best' for you." There's a hidden equation lurking in this sentence. It assumes that your interests - as a free consumer - are synonymous with the interests of corporations that are being closely watched, and often openly opposed, by organizations like the highly respectable Center for Science in the Public Interest, a lead advocate in the fight against obesity.

In fact, the language of the Center for Consumer Freedom is as Orwellian as it is possible to get. Its basic linguistic strategy could have been taken directly from George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," still the most important single essay on how to lie without seeming to. It would hardly work for C.C.F. simply to tell the truth - to say to consumers, on behalf of the food and beverage industries, "Activists and watchdog groups are trying to stop us from selling you anything we want to sell you." Much better to say, "These groups are trying to prevent you from buying anything you want to buy." Then it becomes a matter of sustaining freedom, protecting individual rights and keeping the prairie of consumer choices unfenced.

The blurring of the distinction between corporate interests and the individual and collective rights of humans is one of the central tropes of our time and the source of much purposeful confusion, of the kind that the Center for Consumer Freedom exploits. It may have its root, philosophically, in the legal fiction that a corporation is a person. But it is used again and again to hide from people exactly how their interests are being abused. It also keeps people from seeing the delicate balance that must be struck between their individual rights and the rights of the community at large. When you hear someone howling about freedom, it is worth asking whose freedom he means.

Protecting "the full range of choices that American consumers currently enjoy" can only be the mission of someone who believes that those choices come without cost and that the only ethic that matters is the bottom line. But every consumer choice carries a cost, and the purpose of a real consumer advocate should be to make those costs - both moral and financial, to oneself and to others - perfectly clear. That, of course, is something that industries profiting from the untrammeled appetites of Americans cannot afford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/opinion/24sun3.html?

[HuckleB]

135. Indeed. "The Center For Consumer Freedom" is corporate propaganda.

And nothing more. It's supports junk science in the name of profits, while working to destroy the good names and reputations of anyone who dares to point to the whole of the literature and to more stringent studies that contradict the message it wants to push.

This organization needs to be exposed for what it is at every turn.

[astonamous]

100. My position?

I didn't think that I posted anything about my position. I just thought the response from "Scott" was interesting. My position is that I hate to see any healthy, adoptable animal have to be put down, because there aren't any home for them. I volunteer for an organization that agrees. I am not a member of PETA, but have many friends that are, including my son. My hope is that this case will shed some light on the fact that there is a serious problem with pet overpopulation. Some people get into the business of saving animals and find out just how hard it is. Talk to anyone who is truly trying to save animals and you will find that they are usually always stressed because one more email or phone call has just come in with a story that would break your heart and they do this several times every day.

It looks to me that most everyone that has responded to this thread are at least sympathetic to the issue of pet overpopulation, but for those that don't understand just how bad it is, here is a link to a clip of a documentary done on the issue.

http://www.roxievideo.com/html/borntodie_video.htm

[flvegan]

102. You're right. Absolutely right. However, I think

that you're misreading The Stranger's post. It's not to you.

If I'm incorrect in my assumption, I'm sorry. But, I still stand directly behind what you said.

[astonamous]

106. That's why the "?"

I wasn't sure who The Stranger was referring to. I'm old and have a hard time following these threads sometimes. LOL!

I think education is the key and getting as many pets spayed/neutered.

[hughee99]

117. My own post destroys my position???

While yes, I would agree that PETA's form of euthanasia is probably better than other methods, is this really the humane thing? Would not euthanizing an animal also be a humane option?

As I asked in my question, what was the status of the animals? Were they terminally ill, not safe for adoption, mildly unhealthy or just overcrowded? Is that an unreasonable question to ask? Does it make me a "PETA basher" to ask it?

[donco6]

55. Read this and see:

Tonya Northcott , a veterinary technician at the Ahoskie Animal Hospital, said that among the dead found Wednesday were a mother cat and her two kittens picked up that day by PETA.

“There was nothing wrong with them,” she said of the animals, noting that they had been dewormed and that she had been told there would be no problem finding homes for the cats.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87978&ran=119183&tref=po

[Blue_Tires]

39. i hope more facts become revealed

I'm from Va. Beach, and this incident just seems so against the behavior and philosophy of PETA employees i've known in the past...I really want to see if these two were directed to do this, or if they were acting on their own (or something more sinister)...

I will say this: I'm in the media, and I can tell you that there are a LOT of people itching for a long time to see PETA burn and implicated in a scandal...we'll see what facts come out

[shockra]

43. Case of cruelty, or compassion?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0725/p11s02-lire.html

<snip>

"Organizations that do euthanize do not want to do that task. They do it because they do not think they have an alternative," says Rich Avanzino of Maddie's Fund, which pledged $16 million to help New York City achieve no-kill status.

PETA argues that while animals wait for homes or safe shelters tomorrow, they are suffering today. "We can't in good conscience oppose euthanasia as a means of overpopulation control when the alternative is animals being chained, deprived of companionship and exercise," says Daphna Nachminovitch, director of PETA's domestic animals issues and abuse department.

No-kill shelters often limit admission, adds Ms. Nachminovitch, leaving people little recourse but to abandon animals or take them to traditional shelters, where overcrowding can lead to discomfort and disease and where the least adoptable animals are often euthanized.

Even the adoptable animals don't always have a chance at a better life, says Kate Pullen of the Humane Society of the United States, which shares many of PETA's positions. "Just because an animal's considered adoptable and healthy doesn't mean there's a home for it," she says.

more...

[LisaL]

48. Compassion? Give me a break?

They took those animals from shelters and vets promising they would find them a home. If you were fostering some kittens, and I came to your home, promised you I would find good homes for your kittens, then killed those kittens and dumped their bodies into dumpster, would you say I was compassionate and caring? Or would you be screaming bloody murder?
Then why do you think Peta employees were compassionate when they picked up those animals promising find them homes, but instead killed them and dumped them into dumpsters?
Not only they were creating health hazard by killing those animals and dumping their bodies into dumpsters, they never tried to find them homes because the animals were killed the same day they were picked up.

[flvegan]

50. You ever volunteered at an open intake shelter? Ever pushed a needle?

I didn't think so. If you had, you'd understand compassionate euthanasia. You don't KNOW that they "promised" anyone they'd find homes for the animals. Do you? Answer that. Did you hear them say it, or are you taking the word of what's been reported?

PETA has been working with Yadkin County for quite some time. Turns out, PETA offered a chunk of change to help them. They turned it down. However, they DID recently accept the SAME amount from The Center for Consumer Freedom. Wonder if that created some bias. I don't know...and neither do you. Do you? Do you? Do you? Do you? I'm gonna ask until you answer. Take your hate elsewhere.

[LisaL]

61. The vet whose cat and kittens they took said they promised

him they would find homes for these animals. Instead, they killed the mother cat and her 2 kittens. This vet is the one who altered the media to it.
Did you know that? Well, did you? And yes, I would believe this vet over Peta any time.

[flvegan]

64. You'd probably believe Rush if he spoke shit about PETA.

You bore the shit outta me.

[LisaL]

70. Do I bore you? Then WTF are you reading my posts?

I wouldn't want you to die of boredom.
:spank:

[flvegan]

72. Countering bullshit. I know right where to look.

[LisaL]

74. They found the mother cat and her kittens bodies.

The cat and kittens were de-wormed that day. They were highly adoptable, according to the vet.
So, where is bullshit? Looks like you are the one who can't stand the facts of the case.

[flvegan]

77. Why didn't the vet adopt them?

Probably not enough space. Common problem. That's why this country euthanizes millions of companion animals every year.

Wait...before you pull out that "they promised" bullshit, when you can provide me a recording of it, I'll believe it. Until then, I believe wheels have been greased, or someone is very, very unaware. Deny it if you want, it's all about your hate anyway.

[LisaL]

104. Why didn't the vet adopt them?

Cause good Peta people promised to find them a good home?
:eyes:
Recording? You need a recording? It's not a required in court to prove crime, you know.
:eyes:
The Peta employees were caught red handed dumping the bodies.
It's not going to be that hard to convict them on that, considering they were caught in the act.

[flvegan]

107. So you were there when the "Peta people promised" right?

Maybe you drank a little tooooo much kool aid, and are now believing what msm is telling you. Didya look into the Consumer Freedom donation? I didn't think so.

As far as "dumping the bodies" I've already stated that if they've committed that crime, then prosecution should be forthcoming. See, I'm honest. I don't judge based on hate. Try it. It's kind of nice.

[sui generis]

51. I don't see anywhere that this is Peta's policy.

Again, it does not make sense even remotely from an economic standpoint that a company would do this.

The drugs used to euthanize an animal are actually very expensive. I can see a lone nut doing this, because there are lone nuts everywhere, but this bizarre and tenacious vendetta against Peta is beginning to make me think that some people here are being paid to be here.

[donco6]

56. You need to read a bit.

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87978&ran=119183&tref=po

It most certainly is PETA's policy, and furthermore they are killing adoptable animals.

[flvegan]

58. And this is your only article.

Sure, you've posted it, what...4 or 5 times? That's Bush's way, isn't it. Repeat it a few times and propaganda becomes thought or fact...right?

Speaking of adoptable animals, how many of the next wave of the 6 million animals this country will euthanize in it's shelters can I sign you up for? You DO have space, right?

[donco6]

60. How many more do I need?

You obviously haven't read that one.

I'm a huge supporter of no-kill shelters and spay/neuter programs. Don't even go there.

PETA is an utterly worthless, lying sack of shit organization.

[flvegan]

65. You don't even know what you're talking about.

No-kill. Support them. It's easy. Support an open-intake. They do the dirty work. That's not easy.

Read my other post, sign up, then talk to me.

Chirp, chirp...crickets.

[donco6]

73. ?

OK. Go on defending PETA to your last breath. I don't really care. They were wrong here, as has been clearly demonstrated.

Here are the no-kill shelters I support:

Front Range Equine Rescue
Ratbone Dog Rescue
Best Friends Animal Society

The spay-neuter program I support is:

Alley Cat Allies

Have a good day.

[flvegan]

79. I'm glad that you support them.

Honestly, I am. However, my original post still stands. I'll be waiting...

[sui generis]

86. thank you for the input

see, I can be nice when people provide facts, however snarkily.

[donco6]

88. Some people drive me to it.

But I get better.

[sui generis]

93. okay darn it

I suck at grudges :hi:

[donco6]

94. Me too.

But hey, a little steam venting can be cathartic!

We agree to disagree on some things, and I can very certainly live with that.

Have a nice evening - I'm out for dinner.

[donco6]

76. Yes.

You're absolutely right.

[anotherdrew]

111. these weren't SPCA shelters, they are county animal control programs

so I did some more reading on this damned story and found some sympathy for PETA's intention. These county animal control shelters aren't (weren't) very nice places at all, and could only keep animals for three days at most. PETA dropped the ball by not having real veterinarians do the putting-down. Also by failing to properly supervise the folks doing the work. Before it got to this, they seem to have spurred the counties to improve their animal control facilities, which is something at least.

Their intention was good, but their follow-through was abominable.

And yes, now some enemies of peta (the bio-medical research foundation for one) are going to blow this one incedint all out of all proportion. I would just really like to see these two youngsters BOSS take some of these police charges.

[flvegan]

113. No, the follow through for these two individuals, possibly

was less than best case scenario. I agree with you on much of what you've said. Thank you for looking at this with an open mind.

[flvegan]

44. Post 'n run...big damn shock.

Too bad that it's not the first time on this topic...

[anotherdrew]

85. what's all this about Youth in Asia wanting our spare pets?

Oh. nevermind.

[HuckleB]

97. What does the Dalai Lama have to say about it?

And why should he have an opinion, anyway?

[HuckleB]

99. Attention all PPs and APs!

I propose, that, from this day forward, instead of "discussing" PETA-related issues and news, we simply post the article and take a poll: PP or AP? (Pro-PETA or Anti-PETA) And be done with it.

Whaddya all say? It sure would save everyone a lot of time and headache. Plus everyone can save their endorphins for other purposes.

[Catchawave]

134. There's already an active poll on GD-P

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=132

It's a generic "animal rights issues" yea/nay poll, since PeTA isn't the only organization promoting activism and issues, it's interesting how many people still put them under the animal protection umbrella.

Like most advocacy groups, rights issues aren't partisan, even Sen. Rick Santorum, who I think is universally despised on DU threads, is the only legislator that brings animal welfare bills to the congressional tables these days! Currently, one that's co-sponsored with Sen. Durbin ! It's called the Puppy Protection Act, which would shut down Puppy Mills, which I'm sure is pissing off the OP of this thread <snark>. But hey, blame PeTA ! So much easier, ya think?

[HuckleB]

136. Yes.

My point is that I can't tell one PETA thread from another, so why not just make it easy on everyone and have a poll instead of forcing everyone to type out the same responses over and over and over again.

Salud.

[anotherdrew]

114. a positive idea: force pet stores to get their animals from shelters

require permits for all animal breeders and do 'secret shopping' to catch unlicensed breeders. This might help get the damn pit bull problem under control too. that shit scum-bag people are pulling with breeding ever more pit bulls is a disgrace.

[SkyeTerrier]

118. That's not a solution either...

Unfortunately, requiring licenses for breeders will simply mean that only responsible breeders will take the time and spend the money to get the license. The irresponsible backyard breeders that are the problem won't bother. It is virtually impossible to check every one of them.

[livinginphotographs]

120. Such an unbiased source

:eyes:

[SkyeTerrier]

122. Care to elaborate?

n/m

[livinginphotographs]

124. Nah. I think you know.

Cropped any ears lately? Declawed any cats lately?

[SkyeTerrier]

128. Well, somehow...

You think you know a lot about me, or are assuming you do. So, let's hear it.

BTW, I realize your attempt in doing this is a weak attempt to draw attention away from the facts of the original topic. That said, carry on.

[livinginphotographs]

129. This topic was already beaten to death on DU.

And you've already posted all I need to know about you and your credibility on this topic.

[HuckleB]

130. What source?

:shrug:

[livinginphotographs]

131. I agree.

Breeders are scum.

[HuckleB]

132. All of them? -eom-

[Moderator]

159. Locking

No longer Latest Breaking News and this thread has degenerated into personal attacks.