The Center for Consumer Freedom
WASHINGTON DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters.
According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.
Can you say hypocrites?
Found by Randin on Cage Match.
in 10 years only THAT MANY??
WOW, good controls.
and what Statistic shows how many people VISITED to claim a pet?
Well, they can’t eat them….
What would you expect from People who Eat Tasty Animals?
Maybe they were hungry…
Yea, c’mon, haven’t you guys heard? Euthanasia’s totally ethical now. They’re not the People for the Eternal Preservation of Animals!
I’m a member of PETA : People Eating Tasty Animals
liberals who do the opposite of what they say? guess what? people in china eat noodles. Shocking revelations…
Penn and Teller did a piece on PETA for their Bullshit! show. I think it was in the second season.
My mother runs a dog rescue, and she placed more than 7 dogs last year.
They only kill the ugly ones.
Who can blame them?
Teller’s dead you know *cough…futurama* 🙂
Thanks for the article, I’m sharing this disgust with my colleagues here. We all have pet dogs and this is disturbing :/
Peta is on my shit list.
PETA.org has quite an interesting forum.
Some weeks back I set out to do some trolling, creating a false identity as a forty-something lesbian for myself. I called myself “Kelly Brook” and I claimed to be doing agro-business outreach and speaking at local schools. My goal was to fire up people about No Agenda, claiming that Dvorak and Curry were rabid anti-PETA haters who joked about killing animals, which they referred to as “bio-machines”.
Right off the bat it seemed that the forum was divided between teenage militant anarcho-fascists and middle-aged hippie burnouts lost and delirious in the New Age. I cried and gnashed my teeth and tore my garments about the cruel bullies at No Agenda, how could they say such things when I was spending my time (three days a week) trying to educate, etc. etc. People were quickly up in arms: some claimed the hosts had “small penises” and that’s why they were anti-animal; others claimed that they were just crying for help, reaching out for the type of love only PETA members could give.
The “Admin” said he/she would “look into it” — which I can only take to mean look at the website, or listen to the show. However, one crazy little tart named “Soscha” was convinced from the start I was a troll and kept calling me out. I had the forum turned against her in no time, however, by calling her negative, making appeals to civility, and so on.
I clicked on the girl’s PETA forum profile picture, and it carried a link to her personal blog. It has since been password-protected, otherwise I would include the link here. Anyway, the whole blog, from top to bottom, was of pictures of morbidly obese fat women: women who couldn’t button their pants, women bursting over the edge of their chairs. Along the way there were “updates” that consisted of things like “I am SOOO fat.” The money shot was a photo of an opened trash bag covered with maggots, implying that all food was trash.
The girl clearly had an eating problem. So cranking the trolling up a notch, I called her out on it by making some passing references to it on the forum; in other words, provoking a catfight with the girl as if, indeed, I were a forty-year-old lesbian whose feelings had been hurt in the forum (my nemesis had spent a lot of time calling me “dumb”, telling me to consult a dictionary for my numerous misspellings, and so on).
Now the trolling reached feverish pitch with the forum splitting up into two camps — those for me (“Kelly Brook” forty-year-old hard-nosed lesbian) and for “Soscha” (eighteen-year-old militant anorexic with an emo haircut). All the while, I kept throwing in references to the bullies at No Agenda, putting in plugs for the next show.
“Soscha” and I exchanged hateful e-mails. The big benefit of turning the trolling into a personal catfight, apart from the laughs, was the fact that Soscha seemed to forget her earlier suspicions. Taking it to this new, more recognizable level, she now seemed firmly convinced I, “Kelly Brook”, was driving around upstate New York in my Volkwagen mini-van with a rainbow sticker on the bumper. The insults and venom reached a new, very satisfying pitch.
Finally, the Admin stepped in and wiped out all the flamewar threads. A number of accounts were suspended — sadly, including mine. How many PETA members are now listening to No Agenda waiting for the next anti-animal word, I don’t know.
Whatever the validity of their position on animal suffering, there can be no doubting that the organization is basically full of semi-hysterical nutcases and lunatic females.
If God didn’t want us to eat animals, he wouldn’t have made them out of meat.
The pet situation will keep getting worse as more families give up their pets.
While the numbers are shockingly high, what exactly should PETA do with more animals coming in than there are opportunities to place them?
I only see more of the same old, same old eager to bitch and criticize, yet offer no alternatives.
#15 how about they try feeding them and keeping them alive for starters
if they are so concerned for animal welfare why kill them maybey their ceo could take a pay cut so that the animals could be fed and kept alive
its.
I’m no fan of PETA, particularly of the extremes to which they’re often willing to go, but out of the sake of fairness, it’s worth posting a link to PETA’s response.
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-peta-defends-euthanization-of-sick-injured-animals.
And at the least, PETA seems to be correct in its description of the CCF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
Who wouldn’t eat a little pussy?
(Hey, someone was going to say it.)
Yes, God is a commie.
ahhh…Smug mode!
“Centre for Consumer Freedom”, name would plausibly identify it as a political lobby masquerading as a consumer organization.
Killing so many pets is reprehensible when the SPCA and other shelters, some “no kill,” as well as rescue groups, struggle to place abandoned pets with new owners. I suspect PETA’s position is that no animal should be a pet, “owned,” but I don’t know for sure.
However, the Center for Consumer Freedom does not appear to be a completely independent voice — they are funded in part by corporate entities which it does not identify, but which I suspect might include snack/fast food producers (one of its missions relates to freedom to indulge in moderation). Quoting from their “About Us” page:
“Who funds you guys? How about some “full disclosure”?
The Center for Consumer Freedom is supported by over 100 companies and thousands of individual consumers. From farm to fork, from urban to rural, our friends and supporters include businesses, their employees, and their customers.
. . . . [They’re a 501(c)(3)]
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 and other forms of aggression some activists have adopted as a “game plan” to impose their views, so we respect their wishes.”
horacesmiley: You are a piece of work. Get a hobby. You have way too much spare time on your hands.
While I am not fan of PETA and their anti-natural fibres, anti-pet, anti-farm animals, anti-wild animals, ant-fishing, anti-seal hunting ways I’d much rather see pets be put down than live extended tortuous lives because some sentimental fool can’t tell the difference between an animals that is human and an animal that is not!
Humans are amongst the only animals who actually want to continue to live when we are sick, old and/or incapable (which makes sense giving our unique ability to think abstractly), but our ability to think abstractly doesn’t extend to other animals and keeping a sick or incapable animal alive is often just forcing it to suffer something it cannot understand, and that just isn’t right.
Still, for a group as radical and as big a pain the arse as PETA it takes a lot of fucking gall to try and put farmers and trappers and hunters and fishermen out of business while slaughtering animals on such a scale.
#17 Very clever Mitchel! PETA should just feed the animals. Brilliant!
Along those lines, the answer to the unemployment problem is well, more jobs! Yeah, Problem solved.
#16 “..Typical liberals…Professing compassion ..blah blah..”
Ah yes, Compassion! cries the follower of the most ruthless and intolerant organization on earth.
Under the name Christ, hundred of millions of people have been tortured and slaughtered to send more gold into the Vatican. And you call PETA hypocrites? Good grief Alfred, where’s Batman?
They received 2124, euthanized 95% or 2018, and placed 7 in adoptive homes, leaving 99 unaccounted for. What did they do with the rest of the pets? Release them?
#30 Not being PC, but rather pragmatic. Also, performing euthanasia on animals is often required and humane.
By the way, was this your dog that PETA recently and mercilessly euthanized?
peta.org/archives/Use%20dog%20still%20alive.JPG
Also, shouldn’t you be cleaning something?
Link:
http://blog.peta.org/archives/Use%20dog%20still%20alive.JPG
[What was the point of THAT photo? – ed.]
“I’d much rather see pets be put down than live extended tortuous lives”
Well I couldn’t disagree with you more. Imagine applying that to humans, your grandma, grandpa, mom, dad, siblings, put down rather than having to live extended tortuous lives.
Imagine that 1984 years ago they simply shot Jesus in the head rather than him living extended tortuous life. He might not have risen again, nor been written about in such high esteem.