Partagez | 


Aller en bas 

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 18:17

I don't know if it's true, hope not

December 23, 2010

Exclusive: PETA’s Pet Killing Program Set a New Record in 2009
Public Records: PETA Found Adoptive Homes for Just 1 out of 300 Animals

Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 23,640 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2009, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 97 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2009, PETA found adoptive homes for just eight pets.

Just eight animals -- out of the 2,366 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.

Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA’s continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETA’s hypocrisy isn’t difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs – and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated – requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.

PETA has a $33 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all “unethical.”

The bottom line: PETA’s leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the six pets they kill on average, every single day.

The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget.

Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program.

Now the death toll of animals in PETA’s care has reached 23,640, including more than 2,000 pets last year. That’s not an animal charity. It’s a slaughterhouse.

Click here to sign our petition to revoke PETA’s tax-exempt status.

» read more

Celebrity PETA Supporters Have Blood on Their Hands
Today the Center for Consumer Freedom criticized the celebrity supporters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in a full-page advertisement in Variety for endorsing the animal rights group even as it kills thousands of animals in its care.
» read more

All About the PETA Trial
The North Carolina animal-cruelty trial of two PETA employees ended with a surprising result, but the animal rights group admitted under oath that it does, indeed, kill large numbers of animals. Our daily reports from inside the courtroom provide a rare look at one of the radical organization's most secret programs.
» read more

» Day 1 » Day 2 » Day 3 » Day 4 » Day 5 » Weekend
» Day 6 » Day 7 » Day 8 » Day 9 » Day 10
» Summary

PETA Spent $9,370 on a walk-in freezer

Shocking Crime-Scene Photos
» read more

PETA's Dirty Secret
Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.
» read more and see the proof

PETA's Lame Response
We'll say this much for PETA's leaders: they've got an answer for everything. If you write to PETA and ask about our "PETA Kills Animals" website, the group will send back a form letter including some of these lame excuses.
» read PETA's weak response

PETA Trial in the News
» CCF op-ed in the Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA)
» The Sunday Standard-Times (New Bedford, MA)
» The Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk, VA)
» The Daily Trojan (University of Southern
» The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC)
» The Sunday Telegraph (London, UK)
» The New York Post
» Court TV

Press Release: Watchdog Group: PETA’s Shower Protest is All Wet

Spread the word about PETA's dirty secret! Link to us with any of our standard-size banners. » read more

Pets Killed By PETA

Year Rece-
ived† Adop-
ted Killed Trans-
ferred %
Killed %
2009 2,366 8 2,301 31 97.3 0.34
2008 2,216 7 2,124 34 95.8 0.32
2007 1,997 17 1,815 35 90.9 0.85
2006 3,061 12 2,981 46 97.4 0.39
2005 2,165 146 1,946 69 89.9 6.74
2004 2,655 361 2,278 1 85.8 13.60
2003 2,224 312 1,911 1 85.9 14.03
2002 2,680 382 2,298 2 85.7 14.25
2001 2,685 703 1,944 14 72.4 26.18
2000 2,681 624 2,029 28 75.7 23.27
1999 1,805 386 1,328 91 73.6 21.39
*1998 943 133 685 125 72.6 14.10
Total 27,478 3,091 23,640 477 86.0 11.25

* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† Other than spay/neuter animals
» Skeptical? Click here to see the proof.

Recent News

Phony Physicians Committee Earns Itself Free Press (But not a Free Pass) (12/16/10)
Here we go again. The ridiculously misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM is a PETA front-group and a “physicians committee” in name only) has released another red-meat advertisement that bought it a juicy and succulent round of controversy. (That's not offensive, is it?) It... » read more
The “Humane Society” That Isn’t (10/20/10)
Our analysis last year of the Humane Society of the United States’ 2008 tax return drew a lot of eyeballs, because HSUS’s animal-rights priorities became clearer than ever before. Just one-half of one percent of HSUS’s 2008 budget consisted of grants to pet shelters. Meanwhile,... » read more

Did You Know?
From July 1998 through December 2009, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed over 23,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals." That's more than five defenseless creatures every day. PETA has a walk-in freezer to store the dead bodies, and contracts with a Virginia Beach company to cremate them.
Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during the last five years. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.
» read more

» Read profiles of PETA and The Humane Society of the United States
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 18:25

Peta's the best association on earth, let's not believe what these people say, they're against peta, because they think humans are more important than animals, which is totally untrue, animals are way more important than humans, so yes, even if there was a cure for cancer by testin on animals if would be unethical, totally not ok, wrong, cruel, coz we can find a cure for cancer by testing no something else than animals

| More
7 Things You Didn't Know About PETA

1) According to government documents, PETA employees have killed more than 19,200 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens since 1998. This behavior continues despite PETA’s moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by farmers, scientists, restaurant owners, circuses, hunters, fishermen, zookeepers, and countless other Americans. PETA puts to death over 90 percent of the animals it accepts from members of the public who expect the group to make a reasonable attempt to find them adoptive homes. PETA holds absolutely no open-adoption shelter hours at its Norfolk, VA headquarters, choosing instead to spend part of its $32 million annual income on a contract with a crematory service to periodically empty hundreds of animal bodies from its large walk-in freezer.

2) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means the complete abolition of meat, milk, cheese, eggs, honey, zoos, aquariums, circuses, wool, leather, fur, silk, hunting, fishing, and pet ownership. In a 2003 profile of Newkirk in The New Yorker, author Michael Specter wrote that Newkirk has had at least one seeing-eye dog taken away from its blind owner. PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals, including research aimed at curing AIDS and cancer.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to Rodney Coronado, an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) serial arsonist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing memorandum, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich has also told an animal rights convention that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation,” adding, “Hallelujah to the people who are willing to do it.”

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, even waiting outside their schools to intercept them without notifying their parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 1.2 million minor children, including 30,000 kids between the ages of 6 and 12, all contacted by e-mail without parental supervision. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

5) PETA’s president has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.” And PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, solely because they support animal-based research aimed at curing life-threatening diseases and birth defects. And PETA helped to start and manage a quasi-medical front group, the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, to attack medical research head-on.

6) PETA has compared Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust to farm animals and Jesus Christ to pigs. PETA’s religious campaigns include a website that claims—despite ample evidence to the contrary—that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn’t be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compared the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide to farm animals.

7) PETA frequently looks the other way when its celebrity spokespersons don’t practice what it preaches. As gossip bloggers and Hollywood journalists have noted, Pamela Anderson’s Dodge Viper (auctioned to benefit PETA) had a “luxurious leather interior”; Jenna Jameson was photographed fishing, slurping oysters, and wearing a leather jacket just weeks after launching an anti-leather campaign for PETA; Morrissey got an official “okay” from PETA after eating at a steakhouse; Dita von Teese has written about her love of furs and foie gras; Steve-O built a career out of abusing small animals on film; the officially “anti-fur” Eva Mendes often wears fur anyway; and Charlize Theron’s celebrated October 2007 Vogue cover shoot featured several suede garments. In 2008, “Baby Phat” designer Kimora Lee Simmons became a PETA spokesmodel despite working with fur and leather, after making a $20,000 donation to the animal rights group.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 18:30

what peta's doing in great, this website sucks!!! they criticise stuff that in fact are positive stuff, and they say it as it was something bad, for isntance that peta talks to a lot of kids, it's a great thing coz the more they're young, the more they understand about animal cruelty, sayin people not to eat animals milk ect sayin that you're mom'as a killer, it's true, if you are an omni, you kill animals, so they're not really criticizing peta in fact they're sayin compliments about peta!!

PETA's Dirty Secret

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through December 2009, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed over 23,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals." That's more than five defenseless creatures every day. PETA has a walk-in freezer to store the dead bodies, and contracts with a Virginia Beach company to cremate them.

Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90 percent of the animals it took in during the last five years. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

Year Received† Adopted Killed Transferred % Killed % Adopted
2009 2,366 8 2,301 31 97.3 0.34
2008 2,216 7 2,124 34 95.8 0.32
2007 1,997 17 1,815 35 90.9 0.85
2006 3,061 12 2,981 46 97.4 0.39
2005 2,165 146 1,946 69 89.9 6.74
2004 2,655 361 2,278 1 85.8 13.60
2003 2,224 312 1,911 1 85.9 14.03
2002 2,680 382 2,298 2 85.7 14.25
2001 2,685 703 1,944 14 72.4 26.18
2000 2,681 624 2,029 28 75.7 23.27
1999 1,805 386 1,328 91 73.6 21.39
*1998 943 133 685 125 72.6 14.10
Total 27,478 3,091 23,640 477 86.0 11.25

* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† other than spay/neuter animals
» Skeptical? Click here to see the proof.

On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. And during a 2007 criminal trial, a PETA manager (testifying under oath) confirmed the obvious -- that the group uses the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA rakes in nearly $30 million each year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.

PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us?
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 18:38

je pense kil faut faire confiance à Peta, il ne faut pas croire ce qui inventent des mensonge sur peta, c'est une très bonne assoc

10 mai 2010

Animaux familiers
Foire aux questions (FAQ)
Chez PETA, pensez-vous qu'on ne devrait pas avoir d'animaux familiers?
Les fossiles nous montrent que les ancêtres de nos chiens ont été domestiqués il y a 12 000 ans. Quant aux chats, les Égyptiens s'en servaient déjà pour chasser rats et souris 5000 ans auparavant. Depuis ces temps-là, partout les humains ont pris goût à la compagnie des chiens et des chats, et leur élevage et entretien sont devenus aujourd'hui une industrie gigantesque. Cet engouement a abouti à une crise de surpopulation, si bien que chaque année, des milliers d'animaux en surnombre subissent des mauvais traitements, se morfondent dans des refuges, ou sont euthanasiés. Adopter un animal dans un refuge pour lui offrir un foyer chaleureux permet de prévenir une partie de cette souffrance. Si vous voulez aider à réduire ce problème de surnombre :
faites stériliser votre animal
n'achetez jamais un animal dans un élevage ou une animalerie.

Mais si j'arrive à placer tous les petits, pourquoi ma chatte ou ma chienne n'aurait-elle pas le droit de faire une portée?
Il est impossible de prévoir ce que deviendront ces animaux une fois placés.
Cette année comme chaque année, des milliers d'animaux en parfaite santé vont passer la porte d'entrée d'un refuge, pour en sortir par la porte de derrière, dans un sac poubelle. Beaucoup d'autres seront abandonnés sur la voie publique. La stérilisation pourrait prévenir tous ces malheurs et toutes ces morts. Chaque animal abandonné ou maltraité est né d'un animal non stérilisé.

Mais les chiots des animaleries ont autant besoin d'un bon foyer que ceux des refuges, non ? Et si je veux choisir une race?
Parmi les chiens vendus en animalerie, beaucoup proviennent de véritables usines à chiots où les chiennes sont détenues dans des box extérieurs, sans protection contre les intempéries. Elles sont privées de compagnie et de confort. On les traite comme des machines à produire. Leurs petits leur sont arrachés très jeunes pour être entassés dans des caisses et transportés à des centaines de kilomètres vers des animaleries. Les mauvaises conditions d'élevage conduisent à des problèmes de santé, comme des infections, des malformations, des maladies des oreilles et des yeux, et bien d'autres encore. Arrivés dans les animaleries, les chiots sont serrés dans des cages trop petites, ce qui est un stress supplémentaire les rendant encore plus fragiles devant la maladie.

Pendant que les éleveurs inondent le marché de milliers de chiots, des milliers d'autres sont tués, faute d'un foyer accueillant. Beaucoup d'autres sont abandonnés. Les refuges ne réussissent à trouver un bon foyer que pour une faible proportion des animaux qu'ils accueillent. Les autres devront être mis à mort. Dans une situation de surpopulation massive, l'élevage « responsable » n'existe pas.

Si vous avez le temps, l'énergie, la place et les moyens de vous occuper d'un chien, rendez visite au refuge le plus proche de chez vous, et adoptez un animal. Les chiens de type mélangé, les bâtards et les corniauds, sont généralement plus robustes et faciles à vivre que les chiens de pure race. Mais si vous y tenez vraiment, vous pourrez trouver des chiens de race dans les refuges.

Au lieu d'euthanasier les chiens et les chats, pourquoi ne pas construire davantage de refuges ?
Le refuge n'est pas une solution au problème des animaux familiers sans foyer. Ils ont besoin d'autre chose que d'être simplement nourris et logés. Ils ont besoin d'attention, d'affection, de compagnie humaine, et aussi de pouvoir jouer et courir. Même s'il est difficile pour nous de l'accepter, l'euthanasie est souvent la meilleure fin, et la moins cruelle, pour ces animaux dont personne ne veut.

Ne vaut-il pas mieux faire dégriffer un chat plutôt que de devoir s'en débarrasser ?
Demandez à votre chat ! Dégriffer un chat consiste à lui faire subir dix amputations douloureuses qui affaiblissent ses pattes, ses épaules et les muscles de son dos. Beaucoup de vétérinaires refusent de dégriffer les chats. D'ailleurs, le dégriffage est interdit par la loi en France depuis le 18 mai 2004 (Décret n° 2004 - 416).
Privé de ses griffes, un chat est pratiquement sans défense, et cela peut conduire à des névroses ainsi qu'à des problèmes de peau et même de vessie. Si on lui offre un griffoir, ou poteau à chat, et qu'on se montre patient et ferme, on apprend facilement à un chat à ne pas griffer les meubles.

Quel est l'avis de PETA sur l'euthanasie ?
Des milliers de chiots et de chatons naissent chaque jour. Il est impossible de trouver assez de foyers pour tous les accueillir. Les refuges assument la mission difficile de se charger des animaux non désirés. Parce qu'il y a des gens qui ne font pas stériliser leurs animaux et d'autres qui achètent dans les animaleries au lieu d'adopter, l'euthanasie reste encore aujourd'hui une abominable nécessité.

Que pensez-vous de la pratique qui consiste à piéger, stériliser et relâcher (P.S.R.) les chats errants ?
Nous avons vu appliquer cette méthode, et nous avons observé des colonies de chats libres « gérées » par des humains. Malheureusement, ces méthodes ne rendent pas vraiment service aux chats.
On nous rapporte d'innombrables histoires de chats qui ont souffert le martyre avant de mourir parce qu'ils ont été obligés de se débrouiller seuls dans la nature. Quand on a vu les horreurs qui arrivent si souvent aux chats sans foyer, on ne peut pas recommander le P.S.R. comme solution au problème de la surpopulation.
Les chats errants méritent autant d'égards que les autres, et il est de notre responsabilité à tous de soulager leurs souffrances et d'assurer leur sécurité. C’est pourquoi nous ne pouvons pas encourager le vagabondage des chats sans foyer. D'ailleurs, s'occuper d'un chat errant pour ensuite le relâcher constitue un acte d'abandon. Stériliser les chats errants prévient la souffrance de générations futures, c'est vrai, mais cela n'améliore guère la vie de ces chats, ceux qui sont déjà là, et qui doivent se débrouiller seuls. Pour eux, chaque jour est une lutte pour survivre dans un monde hostile. Ce n'est pas leur rendre service que de les laisser ainsi à l'abandon.

Malgré tout, PETA n'a jamais préconisé l'euthanasie de tous les chats errants. Nous croyons que le P.S.R. est acceptable si les conditions suivantes sont réunies : les chats doivent vivre loin des routes, des gens et des animaux qui pourraient leur nuire ; être suivis et nourris régulièrement ; recevoir les soins vétérinaires essentiels ; ne pas être exposés à des conditions climatiques extrêmes ou aux animaux sauvages. Malheureusement, ces conditions sont quasiment utopiques.

Où est le mal à garder un chien attaché dehors ? C'est mieux que de le laisser divaguer, non ?
C’est le condamner à une vie de solitude. C'est l'exposer à la chaleur, au froid, à la pluie, au vent. Il risque un coup de chaleur, des engelures ou d'autres problèmes de santé. La chaîne peut s'accrocher ou s'enrouler autour d'un objet. La gamelle d'eau peut se renverser. La nourriture peut se gâter en été, ou geler en hiver.

Les chiens à l'attache deviennent souvent hyper craintifs face aux inconnus et agressifs dès qu’il s’agit de défendre leur minuscule territoire. Ils sont des victimes faciles pour des passants malintentionnés qui s’amusent à les narguer. Ces chiens finissent par ne plus faire confiance à personne. Il n'est pas étonnant que certains deviennent dangereux, alors que les chiens qui vivent au sein d'une famille et reçoivent de l’attention mordent très rarement.

Le pire pour ces chiens à l'attache, c'est leur terrible solitude. Les chiens sont des animaux sociables qui vivent normalement en groupe. Lorsqu’ils vivent avec des humains, ils aspirent par-dessus tout à en être aimés et à participer à la vie de la famille. Priver un chien de compagnie est tellement cruel que certains deviennent littéralement fous de solitude.
La chaîne, c'est la peine… à perpétuité.

Pourquoi les chats n'auraient-ils pas le droit de sortir librement ?
Les chats peuvent se promener librement dans un jardin soigneusement clôturé. Par contre, ils ne devraient affronter les rues qu’en laisse, comme les chiens. Leur sécurité en dépend.

A l’extérieur, d’innombrables dangers les guettent : ils risquent d'être renversés par une voiture, blessés par d'autres animaux. Ils sont à la merci de personnes malintentionnées et de toutes sortes de maladies : leucémie féline, SIDA du chat, péritonite, toxoplasmose, typhus, coryza, rage, infections parasitaires. La plupart sont très contagieuses et peuvent être transmises à d'autres animaux de la famille.

Par ailleurs, les chats errants sont considérés comme nuisibles par beaucoup de gens qui n'apprécient pas qu'ils viennent faire leurs besoins, creuser les plates-bandes, manger les plantes et tuer des oiseaux et autres petits animaux dans leur jardin. Bien des chats laissés en liberté sont empoisonnés, tués par balles ou piégés par des voisins excédés.

Quel mal y a-t-il à garder des oiseaux en cage ?
Tous les oiseaux en cage ont été soit capturés dans la nature, soit élevés en captivité. Dans leur milieu naturel, la plupart ne demeurent jamais seuls. Ils évoluent en groupes et maintiennent un contact permanent les uns avec les autres. Ce sont des êtres sociaux qui se toilettent mutuellement, aiment se nourrir et jouer ensemble. C'est à deux qu'ils partagent la construction du nid, l'incubation des œufs et l'élevage des petits. Chez certaines espèces, le couple est uni pour la vie. Si l'un d'eux vient à perdre son partenaire, il n'en prendra jamais d'autre.

La vie en captivité est une condamnation à mort pour beaucoup d'oiseaux. Ils souffrent souvent de malnutrition, de solitude et du stress d'être détenus dans un environnement mal adapté. La détention en cage modifie le caractère de certains. Ils connaissent des crises de colère ou de cafard. Beaucoup deviennent obèses et développent de graves problèmes de comportement : hurlements, agressivité, picage, automutilations. C'est particulièrement fréquent chez les perroquets. Selon James Serpell, spécialiste des oiseaux, « les perroquets sont les primates du monde des oiseaux. Ils ne peuvent se contenter de rester figés sur un perchoir et de babiller. »

Les oiseaux sont victimes des trafiquants plus souvent que tous les autres animaux. Après le traumatisme de la capture, beaucoup d'entre eux sont nourris de force, leurs ailes sont rognées, on leur ferme le bec avec du sparadrap et ils sont drogués avant d'être dissimulés dans toutes sortes de cachettes pour le transport. Les douaniers les découvrent dans des roues de voiture, des tubes en plastique, des poches de manteau ou simplement dans des valises. Il est courant que 80 % des oiseaux d'un lot meurent pendant le transport.

Les oiseaux capturés dans la nature sont un danger pour la santé des gens et des animaux domestiques. Les perroquets peuvent transmettre la psittacose aux humains, qui risquent d'en mourir. La maladie de Newcastle, qui a dévasté les élevages de volaille aux États-Unis dans les années 70, est sans doute arrivée avec des perroquets introduits clandestinement d'Amérique du Sud. L'apparition récente de la peste aviaire en Asie, et surtout sa transmission aux humains, a encore augmenté encore le risque sanitaire que représentent les oiseaux capturés dans la nature.

Quant aux oiseaux nés et élevés en captivité, ils ne s'en tirent guère mieux. Ils naissent, vivent et meurent derrière les barreaux. Ceux qui ont dépassé l’âge de huit à dix semaines deviennent difficiles à vendre. Parmi eux, certains sont gardés pour la reproduction et sont donc condamnés à vivre dans une cage minuscule pour le restant de leurs jours.

Si vous aimez vraiment les oiseaux, d'abord, n'en achetez jamais. Vous pouvez en revanche contacter une association de protection des oiseaux pour participer à leurs activités. Vous pouvez aussi devenir bénévole dans un centre de soins pour oiseaux sauvages en détresse. Dans tous les cas, vous pouvez rendre votre jardin ou votre balcon accueillants pour les oiseaux. Mais souvenez-vous : chats dehors, oiseaux morts !

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 18:43

02 mai 2010

Comment PeTA déshonore la question des refuges

PeTA, une organisation multi-millionnaire, qui récolte 29 millions de $ par an. Mais elle a lancé une campagne de dénigrement des refuges. L'idée de PeTA, c'est que les refuges ne pratiquant pas l'euthanasie doivent fermer. L'argent doit aller à des campagnes de stérilisations.

Ainsi, sous prétexte que les refuges n'ont pas assez de moyens, que certains animaux ne seront jamais adoptés, PeTA considère que la seule solution, c'est l'euthanasie. Une euthanasie que PeTA pratique elle-même dans ses propres refuges, sans commune mesure, puisque chez PeTA le taux est énorme et ne cesse d'augmenter!

Année Reçus{ Adoptés Tués Transférés % de tués % d'adoptés
2005 2,145 146 1,946 69 90.7 6.8
2004 2,640 361 2,278 1 86.3 13.7
2003 2,224 312 1,911 1 85.9 14.0
2002 2,680 382 2,298 2 85.7 14.3
2001 2,685 703 1,944 14 72.4 26.2
2000 2,684 624 2,029 28 75.6 23.2
1999 1,805 386 1,328 91 73.6 21.4
* 1998 943 133 685 125 72.6 14.1
Total 17,806 3,047 14,419 331 80.1 17.1

* seconde moitié de 1998
{ autres que pour stérilisation
A la SPA en France le taux d'adoption est officiellemet de 93%

De plus, PeTA prône les méthodes de stérilisations les moins chères (castration et hystérectomie, soit l'ablation de l'utérus), qui ont des conséquences nocives sur l'équilibre physiologique de l'animal, au lieu des méthodes correctes (vasectomie et ligature des trompes).

Et tout cela diffuse l'idée qu'il y a une différence entre l'"animal de compagnie" que l'on veut et celui que l'on ne veut pas. Cela est faux - tous les animaux vivant ont des droits, que les humains en aient besoin ou pas, qu'on puisse en faire (malheureusement) de prétendus "animaux de compagnie" ou pas !

Le plus catastrophique a été que deux personnes de PeTA ont été arrêté par la police américaine pour maltraitances sur animaux et que les informations qui en sont ressorties l'ont été par des lobbys totalement opposés à la protection et la libération animale.

Ces réactionnaires se sont gargarisés du fait qu'entre juillet 1998 et la fin 2004, PeTA a tué 12.400 chiens, chats et autres animaux de compagnie à Norfolk en Virginie. Ils diffusent partout la demande de remboursement aux impôts faite par PeTA pour un... freezer géant de 9.370$. Un freezer dans un refuge sert à conserver les cadavres...

En fait en 1991 PeTA avait déjà un refuge où étaient tués des lapins et des poules en bonne santé parce que l'argent devait aller... aux campagnes de PeTA.

Tout cela montre que pour PeTA, tout est dans les apparences. Sous prétexte de critiquer les refuges mouroirs, les personnels indignes et cruels, PeTA liquide les refuges eux-mêmes. Mais ne faut-il pas faire plus plutôt que moins?

En France des enquêtes affirment que dans le plus grand refuge d'Europe, celui de la SPA à Gennevilliers, on voit passer deux fois par semaine un camion-benne de la société Saria, principal équarrisseur et fabricant de farines animales en France.

Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Ven 24 Déc - 4:36, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 18:45

Must Love Dogs … to Death
By Jeff Perz

The Abolitionist Online asked Jeff Perz to comment on PeTA’s killing policy. This is his response.

Note: Since this article was written PeTA was eventually nailed for charges of littering not animal cruelty for dumping dozens of dogs and cats in a rubbish bin. [Editor]

PeTA’s Position Statement
In “The Disturbing Facts About ‘No-Kill’ Shelters”, PeTA makes a couple of points that appear to be consistent with animal rights. Since PeTA is not an animal rights organisation 1, however, it also makes several suggestions that are anti-animal-rights, and it does all of this within an overall context of legitimising both the exploitation and murder of non-human animals.

First, PeTA correctly implies that most shelters that are labelled “no-kill” do not have adequate resources. Instead, however, they have employees whose actions show a lack respect for the rights of the non-human animals 2. The result for the non-human animals, as PeTA correctly notes, is that the shelters “warehouse them for years on end” 3 and this implies that they die slow miserable deaths.

Second, PeTA correctly observes that when no-kill shelters are full, they are forced to turn away non-human animals, many of whom end up in kill shelters that use painful methods of execution. PeTA proposes the alternative of diverting funds from no-kill shelters to sterilisation programs. That way, new non-human animals are never born and thus are never subjected to suffering and death. 4

The above two policies, taken in isolation and described in the best possible light, are consistent with animal rights. When the above two policies are considered in the context of PeTA’s overall statement, however, it becomes clear that they result in the abhorrent violation of animal rights, murder and grievous assault.

A positive reading of PeTA’s “The Disturbing Facts About ‘No-Kill’ Shelters” would conclude that the vast majority of resources intended for cats and dogs should be put into reputable sterilisation programmes, and any remaining resources should be put into creating many more genuine no-kill shelters that have sufficient resources and staff who respect non-human animal rights. This would be consistent with animal rights but, unfortunately, it is not what PeTA says.

Although PeTA does say that more resources should be put into sterilisation programmes because this serves the long-term goal of stopping “unwanted” non-human animals from being born and then killed, PeTA also suggests that no funds should be put towards genuine no-kill shelters. For, argues PeTA, the presence of relatively few no-kill shelters amongst many kill shelters in a society with multiple millions of dogs and cats who fend for themselves on the streets results in those dogs and cats being funnelled into certain sorts of kill shelters that PeTA disapproves of. Instead, argues PeTA, no-kill shelters should be totally scrapped and kill shelters ought to do their murdering by using painless “humane” methods. 5

Mutilation by Any Other Name
PeTA advocates “spaying” and “neutering” desexing programmes. In other words, hysterectomies (removing the uterus and ovaries) 6 and castrations (removing the testes). Hysterectomies and castrations are commonly done so cat and dog owners can more easily control their non-human animal property. These procedures result in acute pain and chronic destructive medical conditions, including very harmful hormonal imbalances 7. That is why humans never undergo hysterectomies or castrations unless they are taking a last resort to stop the spread of cancer. The viable sterilisation alternatives – tubal ligations and vasectomies – have little or no ill effects 8. Tubal ligations and vasectomies for cats and dogs are more expensive at present because they are not yet common practice and more veterinarians need to be trained in them 9. Resources should be put into tubal ligation and vasectomy sterilisation programmes for cats and dogs. Hysterectomies and castrations, however, violate the basic rights of cats and dogs: their bodily integrity, mental and physical health, well-being and freedom from pain and suffering. Tubal ligations and vasectomies do not violate their rights. 10

“Unwanted” for What Purpose?
PeTA states that its long-term goal is to “end to the killing” through “a commitment to preventing the births of unwanted animals.” 11 Why has PeTA distinguished between “unwanted” and “wanted” cats and dogs? The answer is that both are property under the law. “Wanted” cats and dogs are the property of individuals. They are commonly bought in “pet” stores and exploited for their companionship. If they turn out to be “bad” companions, they are returned to the store, subjected to harsh disciplinary treatment and control measures or are “euthanised”—i.e. the killing of healthy non-human animals, otherwise known as murder. “Unwanted” cats and dogs, on the other hand, are the property of the state and are viewed as “pests” or “vermin.” Thus, the state looks favourably upon their being killed.

By only expressing concern about preventing the births of “unwanted” cats and dogs, PeTA assumes and thus perpetuates the legitimacy of the institution of “wanted” or exploited cats and dogs. Although PeTA recommends not buying non-human animals from pet stores or breeders, and instead recommends sterilisation 12 , I would not be surprised if these recommendations disappeared when “pet overpopulation” is no longer a reality. In other words, breeding and selling “pets” for our companionship would be acceptable as long as there were no “unwanted” cats and dogs roaming the streets. This would violate the rights of non-human animals not to be bred—that is, imprisoned, raped, kidnapped and used until “defective”.

“There Are ‘rights’ and Then There Are Rights”: 13 PeTA’s Double Standard
Regarding PeTA’s argument that no-kill shelters cause more deaths by indirectly funnelling non-human animals to kill shelters, consider the following quotation from PeTA that I have modified so that it refers to human refugees instead of cats and dogs:

“No-kill” refugee camps should really be called “leave-the-killing-to-someone-else” refugee camps. Even though the Red Cross and Doctors Without Boarders are usually well meaning, they can never put up enough tents to house the millions of human beings who are dispossessed by war and famine each year. When “no-kill” refugee camps turn people away because their facilities are already bursting at the seams—what happens to these people? If they don’t die of starvation or get killed by militants, they go to camps that never turn away a refugee in need, camps that have made the difficult choice to take in every single human refugee brought to them, including those who are diseased, badly injured, aggressive, elderly, or unsocialized after spending their lives at the end of a chain in a sweatshop—people who have little chance of being adopted by rich Westerners. They take them all in, even if all they can offer the refugees are a meal, kind words, a loving touch, and a painless release [i.e. death by lethal injection] from an uncaring world.

For example, the Director of Refuge In Peace (R.I.P.) in Uganda says “There’s not a ‘no-kill’ refugee camp in this country that does not turn people away every single day. It’s a sham and a scam as far as we’re concerned.” 14

In other words, human refugees should be given a final meal, music should be played on the way to the lethal injection chamber and refugees should be given a “loving touch” of death. Respecting fundamental human rights is “a sham and a scam”.

Of course, PeTA does not make the above claims with respect to human animals. The above parody is a PeTA quotation that has been modified so that non-human animals have been replaced with human animals. But this parody shows PeTA’s double standard: human animals have the fundamental right to life, but non-human animals do not. PeTA’s double standard must be rejected, and with the following understanding:

With respect to human refugee camps that are full to capacity, the unintended side-effect of turning away people who may then die is not caused by the camps. Rather, these deaths are caused by war and starvation, which have root political causes. The causes of war and starvation should be addressed whilst simultaneously creating no-kill refugee camps, and forgetting about the ludicrous idea of having “kill refuges”. This is what we already do because humans have rights. Similarly, with respect to cat and dog shelters that are full to capacity, the unintended side-effect of turning away cats and dogs who may then die is not caused by the shelters. Rather, these deaths are caused by breeding cats and dogs and by those who operate “kill shelters.” These root causes should be addressed whilst simultaneously creating no-kill shelters, and forgetting about the oxymoron of “kill shelters”. This is what we should so because non-human animals have rights.

Not Surprising
Last June, two PeTA staff were charged with cruelty to animals. 15 PeTA staff took dogs from shelters and then personally killed them. 16 “PeTA says it routinely picks up animals at pounds to have them adopted or, if necessary, euthanized. … Among the dead animals, though, authorities found a female cat and her two ‘very adoptable’ kittens taken from Ahoskie Animal Hospital, veterinarian Patrick Proctor said. ‘These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for,’ Proctor said. ‘PeTA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county.’” 17

An anti-animal-rights organisation, the “Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)”, focuses its attention on exposing and condemning animal welfare groups such as PeTA. I strongly reject the basic anti-animal rights assumptions of the CCF. Nevertheless, it has uncovered the officially documented fact that “From July 1998 through the end of 2004, PeTA killed over 12,400 dogs, cats, and other ‘companion animals’ – at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters.” 18

In 1991, PeTA had a non-human animal “sanctuary” called Aspen Hill where it killed healthy rabbits and turkeys. 19 PeTA said it did this because it wanted to spend the money that would have been required to house the rabbits and turkeys on its other campaigns. At the time, PeTA’s budget was over six million U.S. dollars per year. 20 Imagine if, during the time when humans were slaves, someone giving runaway slaves refuge murdered the slaves in order to spend more resources on other, more effective, anti-slavery advocacy. The right to life of the people in question would have been violated. The essence of a right is that it protects the individual regardless of how others might benefit. Without this principle of right, vivisection conducted upon either human or non-human animals would be justified. PeTA uses the same ends-justifies-the-means mentality that is used to justify vivisection in order to justify the murder of healthy cats and dogs in so called “shelters”. We would never tolerate this if it were applied to human beings. Thus, animal rights activists should reject PeTA’s killing policy, and the organisation itself. 21


1. “Perz on Abolition,Veganism and the Work of Gary Francione” By Claudette Vaughan, Abolitionist Online, Issue 1, August 2005,
2. “The Disturbing Facts About ‘No-Kill’ Shelters”, By PeTA, Cruelty-Free-Living, Fall 2005,
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Technically called ovario-hysterectomy, which is the most common procedure for female cats and dogs. Ovariectomy, removal of the ovaries only, also refers to “spaying” but is a less common procedure.
“Sexual Hormones” By Cynologie
“Health” By the Society Against Neutering,
“Sterilisation” By the Society Against Neutering,
“Ethics” By the Society Against Neutering,
“Neutering Male and Female Dogs” By Mary C. Wakeman, D.V.M.,
“Female Pets” By,
“Male Pets” By,

7. Ibid.
8. “Veterinarian Listing” By,
9. It might be objected that one of the definitions of “genocide” is the mass sterilisation of a group, no matter how it is done. Or, one might object that by performing tubal ligations and vasectomies upon non-human animals (who are incapable of saying “yes” or “no” or understanding the decision) one is preventing them from having babies—something they would be inclined to do if left alone. Thus, it might be concluded that tubal ligations and vasectomies violate non-human animal rights. I disagree for the following reason. Although the mass sterilisation of domesticated non-human animals could be said to constitute a kind of genocide, this would be the only (unideal) response to an immoral genesis that has repeatedly taken place for millennia: namely, a) the imprisonment of paired non-human animals in close quarters for the purpose of breeding and acquiring desired traits that are favourable to the animals being exploited, which is a kind of rape or b) rape by artificial insemination for the same purpose. By continuing to reproduce non-human animals who have been genetically programmed and exploited in this way, one is perpetuating their exploitation and that of their children. It is not in the interest of a dog to give birth to puppies who will, due to past breeding and domestication, exhibit desired production traits of “beauty,” docility, obedience, aggression, strength, etc. It is not in the interest of a dog to give birth to puppies who will have these programmed traits at the cost of never being able to survive and flourish in a forest as her ancestors once did and as her wolf cousins currently do. It may be in the interest of a dog in a genuine sanctuary or refuge to have sex with other dogs. Tubal ligations and vasectomies do not prevent this sex in any way, whereas hysterectomies and castrations do. Thus, performing tubal ligations and vasectomies upon domesticated non-human animals does not violate their rights. Rather, doing so prevents them from giving birth to genetically selected “good” slaves. Performing tubal ligations and vasectomies upon free-living non-human animals, however, would violate their rights—because these animals have never been subjected to an immoral human-induced genesis for the purpose of exploitation.
10. Op.Cit., “The Disturbing Facts About ‘No-Kill’ Shelters”, By PeTA.
11. Ibid.
12. Quotation attributed to legal scholar Lawrence Tribe, referring to his alleged view that chimpanzees should be legal persons yet, at the same time, at least some vivisection conducted upon them is morally acceptable.
13. Parody of original quotation found in Op.Cit., “The Disturbing Facts About ‘No-Kill’ Shelters”, By PeTA.
14. “Two on PeTA staff charged with cruelty to animals” By DARREN FREEMAN AND SETH SEYMOUR, The Virginian-Pilot, June 17, 2005
[requires fee]
[no fee]

16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. “PeTA’s Dirty Secret” By the Center for Consumer Freedom,,
19. “Animals Put Down by PeTA” By Arlo Wagner, Washington Times, 13 April, 1991, p. A1.
“‘Rescued’ Animals Killed: Animal Rights Group Defends Euthanasia” By Susan Okie and Veronica Jennings, Washington Post, 13 April, 1991, p. A1.
“Notes on the Care of Chickens, Sheep, Rabbits, and Turkeys at Aspin Hill” By David J. Cantor, 4 Humane Innovations and Alternatives in Animal Experimentation, 175, 1990.
20. Ibid.
21. Op. Cit., “Perz on Abolition,Veganism and the Work of Gary Francione” By Claudette Vaughan, Abolitionist Online.

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 19:09

Mardi 15 juin 2010 2 15 /06 /2010 11:36 Huit animaux adoptés et 2 352 tués chez PETA
Les euthanasies meurtres chez PETA, on pourrait dire de même en France de la SPA qui tue un nombre énorme de chiens et de chats chaque année.

Les animaux ont la volonté de vivre, ils ne veulent pas mourir. Les animaux en refuge pourraient avoir un avenir devant eux mais aucun effort ait fait pour qu'ils en aient un.

Huit animaux

Par Gary L. Francione

Chers Collègues :

Ce matin figurait dans les News d’AOL l’article Les taux d’euthanasie chez PETA déclenchent des critiques rageuses.

Celui-ci révèle que PETA:

euthanasie plus de 90 % des chiens et des chats abandonnés dans son siège central à Norfolk, en Virginie. En 2009, PETA a euthanasié 2301 chiens et chats – soit 97 % des animaux recueillis - et procédé à l’adoption de seulement huit d’entre eux, selon les statistiques de l’Etat de Virginie. Et le taux de ces tueries est en augmentation. De 2004 à 2008, l’euthanasie chez PETA a progressé de 10 %.

J’ai vérifié les documents que PETA a déposé au Département de l’Agriculture et des Services à la Consommation de Virginie. Je confirme que l’article d’AOL est exact. PETA a tué 681 chiens et 1620 chats. PETA a également tué 51 « autres animaux de compagnie ».

Cela fait un total de 2352 animaux.

Et PETA a adopté huit animaux. Huit animaux.

C’est une honte. La mort par « euthanasie » est donnée dans l’intérêt des humains ou des nonhumains euthanasiés. L’euthanasie n’est jamais dans l’intérêt d’un être en bonne santé.

PETA partage apparemment l’opinion de Singer selon laquelle une mort relativement sans douleur ne constitue pas un mal pour les animaux nonhumains, pour la raison qu’à la différence des humains, la plupart d’entre eux n’auraient pas conscience d’eux-mêmes et ne pourraient comprendre ce que signifie « avoir une vie ». Selon ce point de vue, il faut être humain pour avoir un intérêt à poursuivre son existence. Aussi PETA n’a pas vraiment fait de mal aux 2352 animaux qu’elle a euthanasiés : de toute façon, ils se moquaient d’être en vie, et rien par conséquent ne leur a été pris quand ils ont été tués.

Quel total non-sens spéciste.

Selon l’Institut de Recherche Economique, les revenus de PETA s’élèvent à 31.053.316 $, et ses avoirs à 19.759.999 $.

Quelle part de cet argent va à un programme d’adoption ?

Combien parmi les célébrités enrôlées par PETA encouragent l’adoption des animaux recueillis par l’organisation au lieu d’enlever leurs vêtements et d’ « aller nues » pour la gloire, la publicité constante et la promotion de PETA ?

Huit animaux ? Il semblerait que le personnel du bureau aurait pu en faire adopter davantage.

Combinez cela avec le sexisme de PETA et vous obtiendrez des prix décernés à des concepteurs d’abattoirs ou des chaînes d’épicerie vendant de la viande et des produits d’origine animale « heureux ». Il est clair que PETA n’est rien d’autre qu’une immense blague, bien que, pour les animaux, c’en soit une des plus tragiques.

Gary L. Francione
©2010 Gary L. Francione

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 19:14

April 28, 2008

PETA and Euthanasia
Even among animal lovers, killing unwanted pets is a divisive issue.
(Page 1 of 2)
Nearly a decade later, Daphna Nachminovitch still remembers the rerelease of the Disney classic "101 Dalmatians" and the tragedy that followed. First there was a spike in sales of the famous spotted breed. Then, in the months that followed, shelters took in hundreds of Dalmatians from disillusioned pet owners around the country. "As soon as the puppies outlived their cuteness and the kids didn't want to scoop the poop anymore, the dogs were dumped in shelters," says Nachminovitch, vice president of cruelty investigations for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). "Many of them had to be euthanized, because there was simply no place for them to go."

But what many animal lovers don't realize is that PETA itself may have put down some of those unwanted Dalmatians. The organization has practiced euthanasia for years. Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued. Dalmatians may no longer be the breed of the day, but the problem of unwanted and abandoned pets is as urgent as ever. Shelters around the country kill 4 million animals every year; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy. In recent years those grim statistics have split the animal rights community. Ironically, PETA has emerged as a strong proponent of euthanasia. (The group is better known for its public condemnations of everyone from fashion designer Donna Karan for her use of fur to the National Cancer Institute for its animal research.) In defense of its policy PETA has insisted that euthanasia is a necessary evil in a world full of unwanted pets. But while the group has some well-known allies, including the Humane Society of the United States, a growing number of animal rights activists claim to have found a better, more humane way.

"Over-population is a myth," says attorney Nathan Winograd, whose recent book "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America"" chronicles the rise of the no-kill shelter movement. "With better outreach and public relations, we can find homes for virtually all of the healthy animals we are now killing." As proof he points to a string of communities across the country whose shelters have managed to stop euthanizing all but the sickest animals. Bonney Brown, executive director of the Nevada Humane Society, says that in 2007, the first year her group went "no-kill," her shelters managed to save 90 percent of the 8,000 animals they took in. Among other strategies, the organization ramped up its volunteer force, from 30 to 1,700, expanded its hours so that people could come in after work and engaged in extensive media outreach.

"On balance, people love animals," says Brown, pointing out that animal causes are one of the fastest-growing segments of American philanthropy. "The biggest challenge has been convincing them to trust their local shelters. And with a little initiative we are finally starting to do that."

Shelters in Virginia, New York and San Francisco report successes similar to Nevada's, and communities in more than a dozen states have announced no-kill goals and added legislative mandates to their agenda. King County, Wash., passed a law requiring area shelters to achieve an 85 percent save rate by 2009. San Antonio, Texas, is aiming for zero kills by 2012. And Ivan City, Utah, saved 97 percent of its shelter animals beginning in 2006 when the animal control ordinances were rewritten to prohibit the euthanasia of healthy animals.

Those successes have not persuaded PETA or its allies. The group argues that in order to maintain their no-kill status these facilities simply turn away animals that are unlikely to be adopted, often leaving them to fates worse than death. "No one hates it more than we do," says Nachminovitch. "But we would rather offer these animals a painless death than have them tortured, starved or sold for research." PETA isn't the only group to take that stance. "No-kill is a noble goal," says Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "But the sheer number of animals make it almost unachievable."

Instead of zero kills, PETA claims to be shooting for zero births. "Focusing on the animals that come into shelters is like emptying a river with a teaspoon," says Nachminovitch. "By investing in spay and neuter programs, which are where a lot of our resources go, we can stop unwanted births and prevent four times as much suffering."

But Brown and others insist they have achieved no-kill without turning animals away, and on a fraction of PETA's $30 million budget. "With the resources at their disposal, PETA and the Humane Society of the U.S. could become no-kill in no time," Winograd says. "Instead they have become leading killers of cats and dogs, and the animal-loving public unwittingly foots the bill through taxes and donations."
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 19:20

Animal Rights Uncompromised: Euthanasia
..Euthanasia is a sad reality caused by people who abandon animals, refuse to sterilize their animals, and patronize pet shops and breeders instead of adopting stray animals or animals from animal shelters. Every day in the U.S., tens of thousands of puppies and kittens are born, and there will never be enough homes for all these animals. Animal shelters and shelter workers are stuck with the heart-wrenching job of dealing with unwanted animals.

Some people wonder why "surplus" animals can't simply live in animal shelters instead of being killed. Even if government-sponsored and private animal shelters had the resources to house the millions of homeless animals born in the U.S. each year (and they don't), "no-kill" shelters do not provide a solution to the problem of companion animal homelessness.

Dogs, cats, and other companion animals need much more than food, water, and a cage or pen. They also need lots of loving care, regular and sustained companionship, respect for their individuality, and the opportunity to run and play. As difficult as it may be for us to accept, euthanasia (when carried out by veterinarians or trained animal shelter professionals with a painless intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital) is often the most compassionate and dignified way for unwanted animals to leave a world that has no place for them.

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 19:22

December 5, 2010

No Kill NOW!

Ingrid Newkirk Should Resign!
If you donate to PETA, read where your money is going

Email this article to a friend - Place a link to this article on your site here.

On Achieving No-Kill
Building a No-Kill Community
Going No-Kill
Converting to No-Kill
It Takes a Community
Stop the Killing
Saving Dogs in Shelters
Temperament Testing
Starting a Fostercare Program
Feral Everywhere
Release cats FIVpositive?
Feral Cats Deserve Attention
Adopt Hard-to-Place Animals
Older Pets Need Proper Care
Diary of a No-Kill Director
Perspective: Asilomar Accords

PACCA Blistered by Expert
Expert Envisions No-Kill Phillie

Press Releases:
No-Kill Animal Control


NKN's No-Kill Effort
Rancho Seeks No-Kill Director
County is History!
RC to Go No-Kill!
No-Kill Eval OK'd

NKN's Articles
No-Kill: An Act of Will
When the Cages Are Full
Impossible You Say?
Shelter Achieves No-Kill!

No Kill References
Defining No-Kill
Shelter Law
No-Kill Resources
Shop Shelters


Ingrid Newkirk PETA


- PETA Attacks No-Kill Shelters!
- PETA Staffers Face 62 Felony Cruelty Counts
- PETA Employee Arrests After Animal Killings
- PETA Founder Admits Personally Killing 1K Dogs/Cats
- Best Friends Sanctuary On PETA's 'Euthanasia' Position
- PETA Calls for Killing All Impounded Pitbulls
- Letter to PETA - Stop Pitbull Genocide!
- Furious Rescue: "PETA Pissing Up Wrong Tree!"
- Sweet T Ranch Appalled by PETA's No-Kill Position
-Australia! Yes to No-Kill No to PETA's Killing!

People Exterminating Thousands of Animals
Click here for an EXPLICIT collection of press photos showing DEAD ANIMALS found at the PETA crime scene.

Note: We are animal advocates and were PETA members until the facts stated below were unveiled. Read more about NoKillNow!

We do not relish publicly criticizing an organization striving to help animals. BUT, when one has engaged in a pattern of conduct so egregious as to threaten the credibility of the entire animal rights community, a strident disapprobation is not only warranted, it is mandated.

More importantly, when an animal 'defender' is in fact a lethal perpetrator killing innocent animals, they must be stopped! It is with grave disappointment that we call for Ingrid Newkirk's resignation. We believe an investigation is warranted to determine if Newkirk committed any criminal acts resulting in animal deaths. If she did, she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, the same as any other animal abuser. PETA wouldn't have it any other way, right? 1 2 3 4 5 INGRID NEWKIRK PETA

If you think this is about 'one' incident, read on. It's about a history of deception, secrets and mass killing stretching decades under Newkirk's command.

Since the inception of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal [PETA] in 1980, Ingrid Newkirk has loudly renounced the torture and killing of a myriad of animals, including cows, minks, monkeys, elephants, fox, pigs and chicken. Hundreds of thousands of animal sympathizers, horrified by dramatic exposés, rushed to join PETA's ranks to end the suffering.

But for a quarter of a century Newkirk was conspicuously silent on the slaughter of hundreds of millions of companion animals at municipal pounds. PETA was mum on the tradition of executing man's closest friends and housemates: dogs and cats. INGRID NERK PETA

However all of that changed recently. In the wake of a growing global cry to end pound deaths, followers and foes alike demanded PETA take a position. Slow in coming, they finally got their response. It was nothing short of explosive. INGRID NEWKIRK PETA

In 2003 we learned for the first time that Ingrid Newkirk - tireless defender of animals - has another face. During the 1970's her chosen profession was "dog catcher" and killer. Newkirk unabashedly describes her zeal for killing in her own words: "I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself...I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." She was so good at it she rose through the ranks to become director of District of Columbia's high-kill pound where she reigned for some years. There, under her rule, untold thousands more died. INGRID NEWKIRK

The next revelation is even more appalling: Newkirk has never stopped killing. Not only is she non- apologetic about her murky past, she quietly continues her murderous avocation. She turned PETA's Norfolk, Virginia headquarters into her own personal killing field. There she hauled in more than 17,822 puppies, kittens, dogs and cats since 1998 and executed 14,419 of them. This does not include wild animals - in 2005 alone, PETA admits to killing 141. In 2005 Newkirk killed 90% of her defenseless captives and adopted only 6% - a ratio far worse than almost any pound in the country. Read her own grim statistics: INGRID NEWKIRK PETA

% Killed
% Adopted








* 1998


* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† other than spay/neuter animals -column G on PETA's paperwork
See PETA's paperwork

According to Newkirk's figures, year after year PETA has killed more animals than 80% of the animal control shelters in the State of Virginia. 1 In 2003 the Norfolk SPCA found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals. The Virginia Beach SPCA adopted out 66 percent. The same year PETA could only manage 14 percent. Note the steady increase in the rate of PETA's killing since 1998. And these are just the deaths PETA admits to. The accuracy of this data came into question the instant PETA was caught red-handed killing animals that it promised to adopt out and hiding the dead bodies in other people's dumpsters in the middle of the night.

Newkirk's killing spree doesn't stop there. For years Newkirk has been hawking PETA as killers-for-hire to pounds throughout the state. Instead of using its annual budget of $29,000,000 to negotiate a better life for these animals, Newkirk has been offering to do the pound's killing for them in her 'softer and gentler' way. Just how many kittens and puppies she's responsible for killing may never be known.

Newkirk Opposes No-Kill Sheltering
Newkirk staunchly opposes a no-kill goal despite an avalanche of worldwide supporters including several dozen shelters in PETA's home state which have adopted the philosophy. In 2005 PETA came out with a scathing cover article on why no-kill shelters won't work and says its supporters 'have no clue'.

In 2000 Newkirk told a reporter: "It sounds lovely if you're naive. We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn't do as much work." If by 'work' she means killing, many would agree. Reportedly PETA has been quite busy rounding up thousands of animals statewide from vet offices, pounds, rescues and guardians; leaving each group with the indelible impression the donated animals would be adopted; then procuring and warehousing enough chemicals to kill thousands; and finally, disposing of all those bodies without anyone catching on..... The latter was probably the most challenging task for a notorious organization that for decades has been vehemently protesting the killing of animals at anyone else's hand. Some dead bodies presumably wound up in a huge freezer, which cost PETA $9,370 according to a tax return. (What else would vegans do with a walk-in freezer?) Others mysteriously popped up in commercial dumpsters at shopping centers. Each known drop was on a Wednesday in the wee-hours, about 30 carcasses per load, the bodies always encased in heavy-duty black plastic bags. These regular 'deliveries' were first noticed 18-months ago.

Newkirk has doggedly defended PETA's killing to date. But the question begs: if she truly believes her killing is justified, why the wee-hour dumping and the cover up?

PETA Endorses Trapping and Killing Feral Cats
Killing seems to be a continuing theme at PETA. Apparently death is Newkirk's "all-sizes-fit-one" solution for stray cats as well. PETA publishes instructions encouraging the public to end their misery by trapping them and disposing of them at the neighborhood pound where they are almost certain to die. The manual reads, "Please do not allow the prospect of euthanasia to deter you from trapping cats." Newkirk ignores the long-standing practice of TNR or TNRM- Trapping, Neutering, Releasing and Monitoring. This allows cats to live unfettered outdoors for years with the help of human caregivers who provide food and medical treatment including spay and neuter.

In September 2003, PETA battled local rescuers to block a neuter/return program proposed to the city of Newport News. 1

PETA is the last major animal advocacy group in the U.S. that overtly opposes TNR feral cat control and no-kill sheltering. 1

In March 1998, Animal People published an allegation of Norfolk cat-rescuer, John Newton. He claimed that for three years 'a hit squad,' led initially by Newkirk, trapped colonies of cats they knew were being cared for by rescue Meower Power and took many to their deaths at kill pounds.

Newkirk's Employees Caught in the Act - a Story about Deception and DeaTH
THE STAKE-OUT after entering the van. The dead animals found on June 15 came from at least three sources - where each were led to believe PETA was saving the day by helping to find homes for the adoptable.

Bertie County Manager Zee Lamb said he believed the animals were being taken for evaluation and "the ones that were adoptable would be adopted," and euthanasia would be only a last resort. Sue Gay, health director for Northampton County, said she assumed the same.

Others animals came from Northhampton County pound where Veterinarian James Brown worked. He said he turned over many animals to PETA. “When they started taking them, they said they would try to find homes for them,” he told the Virginian-Pilot. “Nobody ever checked on them.”

More dead came from Ahoskie Animal Hospital according to vet Patrick Proctor. “They came to the office last Wednesday and picked up the cat and two kittens," he told Roanoke-Chowen reporters immediately after the arrests. "They were just kittens we were trying to find homes for. PETA said they would do that...So imagine my surprise when I learned they allegedly dumped dead animals in a trash bin later that same day." He said the animals “were in good health and were very adoptable, especially the kittens.” Proctor was asked to examine one of the dead animals taken from the PETA crime scene. “The animal that I found was a very healthy six-month puppy that had been killed that day,” he told TV station WNCT Channel 9. "It was a six month old lab mix and appeared to be in very, very good shape...and he had received some type of injection in his front right leg," he said. “PETA will never pick up another animal from my practice.”

Since 2001, PETA has taken animals from shelters in Bertie, Hertford and Northampton counties and the town of Windsor. No one knows how many of those were killed by PETA or dumped in trash cans.

Read about 220 more dead animals found in trash bags, infra.

PETA issued apologies after the criminal acts but these were limited to the dumping of the bodies in someone else's dumpster. No apology was given for killing adoptable kittens, puppies and small dogs.

David Harrell, who manages the store where the animals were dumped, received a letter from Newkirk apologizing and offering money, stating, "If it is true, as it appears, that our staff members have done this, PETA owes you a huge apology. Such conduct is hideous and absolutely violates PETA policy. Although the case is pending, I would like to pay for any expenses that you might have incurred in dealing with body disposal or related matters. Please let me have a bill for that and I will see that it is promptly attended to." 1

PETA issued another apology limited to the dumping of the bodies on August 15, 2005 in response to an article on the PETA arrests by Randy Cassingham of This is True:

"A terrible mistake was made with the dead bodies, but no secret was made of the fact that PETA euthanizes animals and that the animals retrieved from the pounds would be provided with a humane death." But veterinarians and animal control officers disagreed. They told police PETA workers promised to find homes for the animals rather than euthanize them. The grand jury apparently did not buy PETA's version. Criminal indictments were handed down charging PETA staff members with obtaining animals under false pretenses.

Read additional details about the PETA crime and charges: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

more allegations of peTA deaths, crimes & disappearances
The Ahoskie dumping on June 15, 2005 was not an isolated incident. Harrell said over a period of 18 months, dead animals were found on a regular basis in Ahoskie dumpsters, apparently dumped in the wee hours on Wednesdays. In every instance, the bodies were inside industrial-strength black bags. 1 Harrell told a Norfolk television station, "They just slung the doors [open] and started throwing dogs ... beautiful cats. I saw a [dead] beagle last week that was pregnant ... last week it was 23 or 24 dogs ... it's happened to us nine times ... they drove straight from there, straight here, and disposed of the dogs in 30 seconds."

Inquiring minds are asking: Where else were bodies dumped that have yet to be discovered?

A few days after the arrests, officials in Greenville, North Carolina told WNCT-TV News they found in excess of 70 dead animals that could possibly be linked to PETA. They are in addition to the bodies found in grocery dumpsters.

Just prior to the June, 2005 PETA arrests, an eerily similar event occurred. On April 8, 2005 MSNBC reported that 150 euthanized dogs were found in industrial-strength trash bags in PETA'S home state. A construction worker made the grisly discovery on a remote road outside of Gate City. The bags contained various breeds, including Rottweilers, German shepherds, Labradors and a few small-breed dogs. Sheriff’s investigator Chris Holder said, “I’ve never seen anything like it. It looks like a deliberate dumping.” 1

Just the tip of the iceberg?

A former PETA employee told a reporter: "a teary-eyed man showed up at PETA headquarters one day with his beloved pet rabbit. The man had grown old and sick and was no longer able to care properly for his friend. He supplied a cage, bed, toys, and even vet records for this pet. He was assured by PETA workers that they would take "good care" of his rabbit and find him a home. The man left distraught but no doubt believing that his friend would be able to live out the rest of his life in a loving, compassionate home...PETA workers carried him to the 'death house' immediately and ended his life!" The employee said there are many similar examples. 1

Former director of Norfolk's SPCA, Dana Cheek, wrote "I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will "find them a good home...Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home."

The recent arrests have local rescues frantic with worry about the animals they gave PETA.

When Ruth Brown worked with no-kill Rainbow Rescue in Roanoke Rapids in December 2003, she received an email offer to help provide foster homes from someone who claimed to have connections with PETA's Community Animal Project, where cruelty suspects Hinkle and Cook worked.

"I thought it was the answer from heaven," Brown said. "We just thought 'PETA is the godfather for animals.'" Brown was thrilled when PETA agreed to take the animals. She was told that the animals she transferred to PETA 'would be prepared for potential adoption.' One of her contacts was Hinkle. Several transfers took place.

"We asked them about the animals and they said they only had to put one to sleep because of congenital heart failure." Brown questioned her PETA contacts on a number of occasions as to the others. "They reassured us the animals were adopted." Warren County rescuers even held fundraisers to pay for spaying and neutering and care of the animals transferred to PETA in the hopes they would be adopted.

On one occasion Brown's husband met Hinkle at Roanoke Rapids to deliver animals.

Brown recalls that around June 2004 she and another rescuer became suspicious during a transfer when her original PETA contact arrived in a large truck containing over 80 animals. The other rescuer followed the truck to Ahoskie to allay their concerns.

Once there, the rescuer was not allowed inside the building where the animals were taken. After lunch, however, the rescue went inside only to find an empty building and syringe caps and blood.

When Brown asked her contact what had happened to the animals, she was told that cats may need to be sedated when transferred from crate to crate. But despite repeated efforts, she could not get more specific information. "They told us that they were adopting, fostering, vetting, protecting our animals," she said. "I was still suspicious," she said. "There was no paper trail that the animals even existed after (we gave them to PETA). We had talked people into giving animals to us. We would give them to PETA."

Brown said that PETA continued to reassure her that the animals from Warren County were adopted. However, the relationship between local animal rescuers and the Brown's PETA contact grew tense. "Towards the end, it got ugly," Brown said. "We were horrified."

In June of 2004, several local animal rescuers cut ties with PETA. A Rainbow Rescue representative said the organization "will definitely not have anything to do with PETA."

After that Brown didn't hear from her PETA liaison until June 18th, two days after the Hinkle and Cook arrest. A 1:20 a.m. e-mail warned her not to give animals to Hinkle.

Brown still wonders what happened to some 1,000 animals from Warren County transferred to PETA. "PETA, I want to know - where are they?" she said. "We had faith," Brown said. "This is PETA... Isn't this deception? We believed in them."

San Francisco Chronicle's Debra Saunders wrote: "This is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously "rescued" from a research facility. "We just don't have the money" to care for them, then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times. "The PETA animal shelter had run out of room."

Director of Best Friends: “We have received unsolicited reports from former PETA staff, describing how they joined [PETA] because they wanted to help animals, only to find that they were sent out to kill them. We have also heard from numerous sources who were visited by people calling themselves PETA volunteers,” Mountain said, “offering to ‘find a good home’ for homeless pets, and saying that the animals would be taken to a ‘PETA shelter.’

“These people discovered too late that there is no PETA shelter and that no one at PETA would even tell them what had become of the animals. Local rescue groups reported that PETA basically competes with them, trying in many cases to kill the animals before they can be rescued,” Mountain charged.

A myriad of PETA employees reported similar incidents regarding PETA's regular practice of setting traps across several counties not only for stray cats but for those that were known to be part of TNR colonies supervised by local rescues. Hundreds if not thousands were hauled into PETA's headquarters and killed. Many allegedly had collars and tags but owners were never called before the animals were killed.

In 2000, PETA donated a euthanasia technician Teresa Gibbs to the no-kill Visakha SPCA in India. Gibbs sought to undo the no-kill policy and before she was fired, she did severe harm to the organization’s donor, staff, and community relations.

Gibbs then joined the Animal Birth Control program managed by Ahimsa of Mumbai, and did similar damage. 1

In June 2005 Newkirk published her position on Pit Bulls. Her title: "An Animal Deadly as a Weapon"
"Most people have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any pit bull that comes through the front door doesn't go out the back door alive. From California to New York, many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of "pits" they encounter. This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover.

"Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, supports the shelters' pit-bull policy, albeit with reluctance. We further encourage a ban on breeding pit bulls.

"Those who argue against a breeding ban and the shelter euthanasia policy for pit bulls are naive.

"People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pit- bull breeding. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row. We can only stop killing pits if we stop creating new ones. Legislators, please take note." 1

Not only does Newkirk support the wholesale extinction of Pit Bulls, she goes to extraordinary measures to seal their deaths. For example, in 2001 PETA wrote a letter asking an Alabama judge to exterminate 32 pit bulls confiscated after their owners were arrested for dog fighting. In the end, the court ordered 28 dogs destroyed but held that 4 Pit Bull puppies could be adopted because they were 'not lacking any useful purpose' or 'vicious' as PETA claimed. 1

PETA supports BSL or breed specific legislation. 1 BSL permits an entire breed to be designated as 'dangerous' such as in Denver, Colorado where Pit Bulls and their look-alikes are killed if not removed from the State. 1 See our arguments against SB861, BSL which passed in California August, 2005 : 1 2

No Kill Now director, Vikki Shore, former PETA member: "While Newkirk's conduct may be explainable, it can never be acceptable. She couldn't undo her killing past, so she repeats it over and over to justify it. Tens of thousands of animals have died as a result. It is up to the members who bestowed Newkirk with her power base and sphere of influence to withdraw it. We owe it to the animals before she kills more! "

She didn't just deceive pounds when she promised to adopt those kittens and puppies and instead killed them. She deceived the world about who she is and what she stands for. She deceived every one who cares about helping animals and ending their suffering. She deceived the helpless kittens and puppies who trusted her most of all. She repaid that trust by becoming their boogieman and Freddy Kruger in the last moments of life. Newkirk, their last hope, became their worst nightmare. She snuffed out forever their fondest dream of finding a loving home and the possibility of a fulfilled life. Now every time we see blood in her ads, we'll see blood on her hands. When we see pictures of PETA 'rescues' we'll ask, 'After they were rescued, did they kill them?'

"When the media lights were turned off and everyone went home, PETA killed the very animals it 'freed' from a research lab just moments before. PETA killed animals they promised to adopt. This puts into question every animal rescue PETA has ever made.

"I personally know of millions of dollars of donations that have been diverted from PETA. Those dollars will never come back as long as Newkirk or anyone like her stands at the helm.

"Where should your donations go now? Perhaps the greatest difference anyone can make to help abandoned companion animals is to give to local animal rescues that NEVER kill and to spay/neuter programs you are familiar with.

"Some will say Newkirk is indispensable. However no credible movement relies on one individual. The ideal we strive for - a world where humans treat animals compassionately and make provisions for them to co-exist in comfort- is not copyrighted. Millions share this vision and worthy leaders will surface where a void exits.

"I wonder how many celebrated actors would lend their faces to PETA campaigns if Newkirk 'saved' minks, cows and elephants the way she 'saves' dogs and cats - by marching them out of view and promptly killing them.

"It is OK to occasionally share the same side of the fence as your adversaries. Circumstances make strange bedfellows. Just because animal-rights detractors denounce PETA and Newkirk, doesn't mean you should defend them when they are hurting animals. If you care, it is the ANIMALS you should side with.

"No, it is not OK to accept a leader who kills just because he or she 'does other good things.' The faux pas here isn't mismanagement or an accounting malfeasance. This is about the heart and soul of what PETA is suppose to stand for. My God, Ingrid Newkirk is a zealous animal killer. There is no reconciliation or justification, period.

"Newkirk should step down!"

Best Friends Editorial: 1

"...Newkirk said, that PETA believes euthanasia is the kindest gift to a dog or cat unwanted and unloved. We simply couldn't disagree more. The kindest gift to a homeless animal is a good home. The kindest gift to an unloved dog or cat is a loving, caring place to go.

"We know perfectly well that there are still more homeless animals each year than shelters feel capable of placing in new homes. But the number of animals being killed in shelters has dropped from about 17 million just 15 years ago to less than 5 million today. And we can now look forward to a day, quite soon, when there will be No More Homeless Pets in this country.

"This remarkable goal is being accomplished through the work of increasingly progressive humane groups and shelters, where good people are working to save lives, not destroy them. Any organization that's aspiring to a leadership role in relation to companion animals needs to be encouraging people to save more lives, rather than to go on repeating the failed policies and practices that helped create the problem in the first place.

So we consider it to be extraordinarily irresponsible for a single animal rights group with a loud voice and a reputation for protecting animals to grab the headlines and tell the world that the best thing we can do for homeless pets is kill them. While PETA is in the forefront of many animal-related issues, they are way behind the times when it comes to companion animals. We would hope that they will continue to lead in the areas where they do well, and to stay out of areas in which, by their own words and deeds, they have no positive contribution to make.

Best Friends runs a sanctuary in Utah that is home to about 1,500 animals and promotes a No More Homeless Pet program nationwide. It's director claims it is the world's largest respite for abandoned animals of its kind.

Nathan Winograd [No Kill Sheltering Jan/Feb 2006]:

"They fight for chickens and cows and other animals. But when it comes to dogs and cats in shelters, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has the biggest blind spot of them all. PETA not only kills thousands of dogs and cats themselves. They not only have a policy against No Kill. But they also support a ban on Pit Bulls, a position which condones the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands of dogs in pounds across the country every year. It is an ugly fact that PETA does not hide."

In 1994 when Winograd wrote to Newkirk asking for assistance regarding the safety of some feral cats, Newkirk responded:

"we do not advocate 'right to life' for animals" and "I'm not clear how the cats you referred to (who were at odds with their owners landlord) are to be allowed to live out their lives...we do have a policy against no-kills..." [emphasis added by Newkirk].

Winograd directed the Law & Advocacy Department for the San Francisco SPCA and now does national no-kill shelter consulting from San Diego. Winograd, also a former criminal prosecutor offered his services pro bono to the North Carolina prosecution currently handling the pending criminal case against PETA staff. 1

Lee Hall, Legal Director of Friends of Animals:

“FOA would like to state that the Ahoskie killings are not euthanasia, and are a serious affront to animal rights. Animal advocates have no business killing healthy sheltered animals. People who engage in such conduct––regardless of killing or disposal methods––convey the message that they and their supporters have accepted a reprehensible practice."

Kanak Roy, M.D. for the Animal Aid Alliance in Virginia Beach:

“I have had disagreements with Newkirk in the past, but regardless of her troubling philosophy, I have continued to defend her publicly...However, the belief that PETA’s unconscionable actions are in support of animal welfare, and the idea that they are any way reducing suffering, is pathological.”
PETA Statements

"We do not advocate 'right to life" for animals" - Ingrid Newkirk wrote on a postcard to Nathan Winograd, no-kill shelter consultant and TNR advocate.

"‘PETA believes euthanasia is the kindest gift to a dog or cat unwanted and unloved.’ - Ingrid Newkirk at a press conference following the arrest of two employees.

"It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever," Newkirk said in a 2000 interview with Matthew Barakat. 1

"[M]ost of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option." 1 According to Vet Patrick Proctor, he gave PETA adoptable kittens and a dog that were killed within one hour.

"This is a good time to revisit a comment from Ingrid Newkirk's mentor because it puts today's events in perspective:

"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." - Peter Singer, acknowledged founder of the animal rights movement.


I really don't know what to think : is it true or not? at first it seemed obvious it was untrue but know, i have doubts, what a corrupted world, even in animal welfare there's corruption, it's a crazy cruel world, we can trust nobody but ourselves, the true vegans who really want animals to be adopted and not euthanazied
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Jeu 23 Déc - 19:39

Posté 14 novembre 2007 - 19:49

14 nov. 2007 02h00 HE
CCF lance une campagne mondiale pour dénoncer l’historique des massacres d’animaux à l’actif de PETA
"PETA tue des animaux" lance un site Web en cinq langues

WASHINGTON, DC--(Marketwire - November 14, 2007) - Tout en se plaignant à voix haute du traitement "non-éthique" affligé aux animaux par les propriétaires de restaurants, les magasins d'alimentation, les agriculteurs, les scientifiques, et les détaillants de vêtements, la PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ; personnes pour le traitement éthique des animaux), dissimule son sale petit secret depuis longtemps. Les archives publiques de l'État de Virginie montrent que la PETA a tué, à son siège social, au moins 14 479 chiens, chats et autres "animaux de compagnie". Aujourd'hui, Le CCF, organisation à but non lucratif, centre pour la liberté des consommateurs (Center for Consumer Freedom), relance son Site Web très populaire, en se concentrant sur cette hypocrisie -- -- en langues anglaise, français, italienne, allemande et russe.

"PETA n’est pas ce que les apparences donnent à penser", a déclaré David Martosko, directeur de recherche au CCF. "Le groupe tue environ 90% des animaux en bonne santé qu’il recueille. Alors que PETA essaie de mondialiser ses détestables messages de "libération animale", les gens à travers le monde se doivent de connaître l’énorme hypocrisie du groupe".

Les collectes de fonds de PETA s’élèvent à plus de 30 millions de dollars américains chaque année, provenant en grande partie des propriétaires d’animaux de compagnie, qui croient faussement que leurs dons aident au bien-être des animaux. En réalité, PETA tue des animaux depuis de nombreuses années. Entre-temps, PETA a dépensé des dizaines de millions de dollars dans des programmes assimilant les carnivores à des nazis, s’opposant à la recherche médicale qui vise à sauver des vies, effrayant les jeunes enfants en vue de les décourager à boire du lait, et même défendant des incendiaires et autres extrémistes violents.

"Quelqu'un doit dire la vérité au monde à propos de PETA", a ajouté Martosko. "PETA accepte les donations des amoureux des animaux d’une main, tout en administrant avec l’autre, une injection létale aux chiots et chatons".

Les documents et les photos se rapportant au massacre de masse des animaux sont maintenant disponible en ligne sur :

Anglais :
Français :
Allemand :
Italien :
Russe :
En 2007, lors d'un procès pénal aux États-Unis, un employé de PETA a reconnu avoir tué des animaux domestiques et de s’être débarrassé de leurs corps en les jetant dans une benne à ordures. Un autre employé de PETA a témoigné que PETA possède une chambre de congélation pour le stockage des animaux morts, et que chaque mois, PETA utilise un service de crémation pour éliminer plus d'une tonne d'animaux morts.

Pour une entrevue ou des renseignements supplémentaires, contactez :
Tim Miller
SOURCE: Center for Consumer Freedom

Envoyez vos commentaires

Qui sont les responsables des abandons = Les propriétaires point barre! ce n'est pas PETA!

Plusieurs SPA ont aussi recours à l'euthanasie, ils n'ont pas le choix vu le nombre effrayant d'abandons, les coupables sont les propriétaires des animaux qui abandonnent lâchement les animaux

Pourquoi cet organisme en veut aux activistes des droits des animaux, car ce n'est pas la première fois que cet organisme s'en prend a des organismes pour les droits des animaux


Qui sommes nous "Center for Consumer Freedom" (CCF)

"PETA tue des animaux" est un projet du Centre pour la Liberté des Consommateurs (CCF), une organisation à but non lucratif destinée à protéger les choix qui sont proposés actuellement aux consommateurs américains. En plus des militants malveillants pour les droits des animaux, nous surveillons la "police alimentaire", les alarmistes qui exagèrent les problèmes environnementaux, les néo-prohibitionnistes, les bureaucrates qui se mêlent de tout et les autres saints autoproclamés qui prétendent "savoir ce qui est le mieux» pour vous.

Notre service "Revue de presse quotidienne" propose des informations sur ces activistes et analyse leurs activités. Si vous voulez vous inscrire à ce service et recevoir des informations par e-mail, cliquez ici. Parmi les autres sites du CCF on compte , , PhysicianScam , et le site primé .

Pour toute remarque ou commentaire et pour toute question ou plainte, n’hésitez pas à nous contacter.

Ce n'est pas un organisme, c'est un lobby contre les activistes

Voici des compagnies qui donnent des dons à ce supposé organisme "Center for Consumer Freedom"!
Companies that have publicly acknowledged making donations to CCF include Coca-Cola; Wendy's; Tyson Foods; and Pilgrim's Pride. Initial funding for the Guest Choice Network organization came from Philip Morris, with the initial donation of $600,000 followed by a $300,000 donation the following year. "As of this writing, PM USA is still the only contributor, though Berman continues to promise others any day now", wrote Philip Morris attorney Marty Barrington in an internal company memorandum dated March 28, 1996.[27]

Supporters as of December 1996 included Alliance Gaming (slot machines), Anheuser-Busch (beer), Bruss Company (steaks and chops), Cargill Processed Meat Products, Davidoff (cigars), Harrah's (casinos), Overhill Farms (frozen foods), Philip Morris, and Standard Meat Company (steaks). The group's advisory panel comprised representatives from most of these companies, plus further representatives from the restaurant industry, Senator George McGovern, and Carl Vogt of law firm Fulbright and Jaworski.[28]

In subsequent years, GCN acquired more donors, but was still almost solely funded by a few large corporations: the IRS Form 990 for the six-month period from July to December 1999 shows income for that period was $111,642, of which $105,000 came from six unnamed donors.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Ven 24 Déc - 10:09

this is a website against peta, don't know what to think : be against peta or for peta
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Ven 24 Déc - 13:00

20 de diciembre de 2010

PETA mata animales
Creo que toda la gente que esta actualmente apoyando a PETA no saben que la eutanasia de animales es una de sus practicas.

En el 2005 PETA mato un 90% de los animales que habia alojado.
14,419 animales ha matado PETA desde 1998

Les dejo un PDF con los datos oficiales provenientes de PETA

Las fotos que hay a continuacion fueron tomadas por un fotografo poco tiempo despues que los Adria Hinkle y Andrew Cook, ambos empleados de PETA fueran arrestados in Junio de 2005, por haber matado a 31 animales en condiciones de ser adoptados y tirados a un container.

interior de la camioneta de PETA en el detalle se puede ver el alimento para animales AIMS (PETA ha hecho campañas contra este alimento, inclusive ha subido un sitio con la campaña

encontre esta opinion en inet que creo dice todo.
En julio del año pasado cuando recién me iniciaba en el tema del veganismo y antiespecismo, una de las primeras organizaciones de defensa animal que encontré fue PETA (supongo que para muchos ha sido así). En la actualidad después de analizar bien el asunto considero que PETA (y otras organizaciones) podría lograr más y mejores resultados utilizando el mismo tiempo y dinero si cambiara su estrategia. No voy a hablar de esto como tema general ahora, hoy quiero centrarme en un aspecto concreto.

Una de las primeras cuestiones que leí acerca de PETA es aquella contracampaña de las empresas explotadoras que seguro muchos de ustedes ya han leído: PETA KILLS ANIMALS!!!! (!!!!PETA MATA ANIMALES!!!! - no humanos-).

A pesar de que yo prácticamente estaba seguro que esta era una campaña tendenciosa y malintencionda me permití escribir a esta organización (a PETA España) para que me explique exactamente en que se basaban sus detractores o en todo caso que me aclaren el asunto.

Su respuesta fue la siguiente:

¨Gracias por su mensaje. Las páginas de internet que usted ha visto son el producto del Center for Consumer Freedom o Centro para la Libertad del Consumidor. Es un grupo que incluye a empresas como la Philip Morris, KFC, madereros y ganaderos. Están furiosos de ver los cambios que PETA y sus activistas están efectuando y por lo tanto están intentando esparcir mentiras. Pero más bien agradecemos la oportunidad para explicar a las personas quienes realmente somos. En primer lugar, PETA no apoya ningún tipo de acción violenta en contra de cualquier ser vivo. En segundo lugar, en PETA creemos que la eutanasia a veces es la única opción para animales que están severamente heridos o enfermos. Y, esto es muy triste pero no hay hogares suficientes para ellos y terminan sufriendo terriblemente en la calle, donde pueden ser atropellados, torturados por personas crueles, envenenados, atacados por otros animales y un sin fin de destinos mil veces peor que una muerte compasiva. Si gusta, puede ver esta página de fotos de animales que hemos ayudado Le advierto que contiene imágenes muy fuertes. Son seres quebrantados, muertos en vida. ¡Y esto es sólo en Carolina del Norte! Cada año, sólo en los E.U., llegan de 6 a 8 millones de animales a los refugios y albergues. A la mitad más o menos hay que hacerles eutanasia porque no hay hogares para ellos. ¿Qué podemos hacer? Hablar con las personas. Explicarles porque es tan importante esterilizar a nuestros animalitos para que no tengan crías. Para cada cachorro o gatito que nace, otro tiene que morir en un albergue. Podemos explicarles a las personas que nunca se compra un animalito, siempre se adopta, por que los criaderos son lugares de gran sufrimiento también, además que, como dije, por cada uno que nace, otro muere en el albergue. Aquí le mando nuestro folleto acerca de esto
Muchísimo de nuestro trabajo se centra en el rescate de miles y miles de animales de compañía. Si pueden ser adoptados, los llevamos a refugios que operan humanitariamente, para que tengan una oportunidad a una nueva vida. PETA no tiene un refugio ni albergue. Dependemos de los refugios que sabemos son buenos. En muchos casos, reunimos a animales con sus familias. Aquí le mando dos sitios de internet que explican mejor esta situación con el CCF. Están en inglés. Espero que no le sea muy inconveniente. Espero haberle aclarado sus dudas. Si aún tiene preguntas, por favor no tarde en mandármelas. Muchísimas gracias.¨

Los enlaces adicionales que me proporcionó fueron los siguientes (es importante que los lean si tienen dudas ya que los que iniciaron la campaña PETA KILLS ANIMALS!!!! no lo hicieron precisamente porque se preocuparan por los animales a lo cuales se le practicó la eutanasia sino que utilizaron esta situación como arma para arremeter contra una organización (PETA) que ponía en juego sus intereses económicos o de otro tipo):

A pesar de las buenas intenciones que hayan podido tener considero inaceptable recurrir a la eutanasia a menos que sea en casos extremos donde el sufrimiento del animal en cuestión es incompatible con una vida digna. Si bien es probable que algunos perros/as o gatos/as cumplían con esta condición es también ciertamente probable (es más confirmado diría yo considerando las imágenes que aparecen en las webs que proporciona Sisley Aragon-Milroy -la persona que me respondió y activista de PETA-) que muchos/as de ellos/as no la cumplían y estoy seguro que de haberse tratado de animales humanos no hubieran considerado esa posibilidad. Es más existen muchos humanos que viven en situaciones aun peores que las de los canes y felinos en cuestión y nadie (incluyendo los activistas de PETA) consideraría la posibilidad de aplicarles la eutanasia. Por ello considero que esa actitud fue claramente especista.

Incluso una prueba más (aparte de las fotos) de que no todos los animales en cuestión se encontraban en condiciones paupérrimas que podrían ameritar quitarles la vida es que primero dice: ¨creemos que la eutanasia a veces es la única opción para animales que están severamente heridos o enfermos¨ y más abajo dice: ¨A la mitad más o menos hay que hacerles eutanasia porque no hay hogares para ellos¨.

En otras palabras a muchos les quitan la vida no porque estén severamente heridos o enfermos sino solamente porque no tienen donde albergarlos.

En mi opinión, si no se puede encontrar albergue para un animal no humano abandonado simplemente se debe dejar que continue con su vida. Si se le puede ayudar en buena hora pero es claro que no siempre es así y justificar hacerle la eutanasia aduciendo posibles peligros que pueda pasar es equivalente a decir que hagamos eutanasia a los venados ya que pueden pasar hambre o ser atacados por animales carnívoros.

Por otro lado adicionalmente al perjuicio causado a los animales al quitarles la vida, esta actitud presenta efectos colaterales ya que genera una mala imagen de la organización dado que muy pocas personas se tomarán el trabajo de investigar las motivaciones que llevaron a los activistas a tomar esta determinación y lo único que pensaran es: ¨una organización que defiende a los animales mata animales¨. Esto tiene como consecuencia altamente probable el rechazo a cualquier otro mensaje que pueda impartir la organización.

Y sólo como una aclaración adicional que si bien no tiene relación con el tema central de este comentario, considero importante recalcarlo siempre: PETA (1) (así como todas las organizaciones antiespecistas) intenta reinvindicar los derechos de los seres sintientes no de los seres vivos como menciona la activista que me respondió dado que no hay fundamento para sostener que un ser sea incluido en nuestro círculo de respeto y consideración solo por el hecho de estar vivo como ya aclararé con detalle en un texto posterior.

(1) Aquí considero a PETA como antiespecista a pesar de que muchas veces realicen campañas que no presentan esta connotación o que muchos de sus miembros no son veganos y antiespecistas ya que de todas formas su objetivo es la abolición del estado de propiedad de los animales no humanos (aunque utilizando una estrategia neobienestarista).

En esta pagina, oficial de PETA, la misma justifica la eutanasia de animales (esta en ingles)

Fuente Avisos Google
Chaussures homme Zalando - Evitez la corvée shopping du samedi Evitez la corvée shopping du samedi
40Me gusta0 Compartir en:.Seguir PostAgregar a FavoritosDenunciar6
Favoritos 10.767
Visitas 40
Puntos 0

PETA animales Categoría: Info
Creado: 27.09.2007 a las 13:33 hs.
Otros posts que te van a interesar:
Peta! (Famosos desnudos Pro-Animales) Megapost! (apto) peta organizacion pro animales Así Protesta PETA Contra Maltrato A Los Animales Videos de Peta Justin Bieber se une a PETA para fomentar la adopción de an unanse a PETA Peta utiliza a Tiger Wood para la castración de los animale Activistas famosos de PETA PETA contra Britney Spears Vive y deja morir (Greenpeace, Peta, McCartney) 36 Comentarios
The-Loko dijo Más de 3 años: .Basta de esto por el amor de dios....... . duzzz dijo Más de 3 años: .pobres animalitos .... . panterametal dijo Más de 3 años: .son una mierda . seba94st dijo Más de 3 años: .qe hijos de puta . Hyperblade dijo Más de 3 años: .Rgalan... Sos un genio. Mañana te dejo 10 puntos por este post.

Hay un especial de Penn AND Teller en el cual los muertan tal cual son.

Te felicito, yo hace timpo que queria deschavarlos porque sabia la verdad sobre ellos.... pero no me daban los tiempos para hacerlo. Las fotos no son fuertes, fuertes son las que ponen los manipuladores hijos de mil putas de PeTA (que lucran a costa del sadismo) .

Y te digo mas, para mi que el video que hicieron circular lo rodaron ellos. Se filmaron a ellos mismos matando al animal.

SAlutes y felicitaciones por demostrarme que en T! sobra gente pensante . MaNuLP dijo Más de 3 años: .no puede existir gente tan hdp! con los perros no!

ahh que caraj* es PETA?? . Emis80 dijo Más de 3 años: .Muy buena la info pero yo no hubiera puesto las fotos de los perros,es solo mi opinion.
Saludos . maxita dijo Más de 3 años: .lo q pasa q el target de peta son los animales en extinción no los pobres perro y gatos . wolfmann dijo Más de 3 años: .yo creo que si no te gusta no lo lees es muy facil no? . Azrael dijo Más de 3 años: .a esa gente habria que atarlos en una plaza y cagarlos a palazos frente a todo el mundo !
esa gente no tiene corazon ni dos dedos de frente. . Cerrado dijo Más de 3 años: .ya lo sabia, tambien que en los parques acuaticos de EEUU hay una ley que les prohibe capturar los delfines y las orcas y solo pueden comprar estos bichos ya capturados a otros parques,por lo que las trafican y blanquean con otros parques tematicos como mar del plata aquarium o mundo marino quienes no tienen esta limitacion para blanquear furtivos. que en el zoo de lujan llevan a cuanto animal rescatan en la provincia de buenos aires, pero que esta acusada de drogar a los animales y fueron filmados cagando a trompadas a un periodista de canal america por preguntar. . TonyCaconi dijo Más de 3 años: .No estoy a favor ni en contra de PETA, estoy a favor del animal. Y creo que estas fotos son muy montadas, no hay ningun indicio de que los que aparecen en las fotos sean de PETA, tampoco parece que sean muy "dificiles de sacar" esas fotos, como que al camarografo lo dejaron sacar las fotos, sabiendo todo el quilombo que les puede generar a los del PETA. . Inana dijo Más de 3 años: .mayonero, me parece que vos lo que queres es seguir viviendo tu vida en paz sin ningun cargo. Con todo respeto, la solucion a estos problemas no es callarlos.

Por otro lado, estoy totalmente en desacuerdo con la eutanasia en casos en los que el animal no esté sufriendo a muerte. Mucho menos por el simple hecho de no tener hogar. Pido eutanasia para Peta y tambien para petakillsanimals que aprovecha situaciones que dañan la sensibilidad de las personas para continuar una guerra por intereses económicos. A propósito, lo que hacen con las vacas para que uno pueda comerse un asado el domingo no es eutanasia, es genocidio. . rgalan dijo Más de 3 años: .PETA
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(Personas por un trato etico de los animales)

(estoy sin acentos se nota?) . Kannon dijo Más de 3 años: . . Tio Malandra dijo Más de 3 años: .Existen solo dos posibilidades con respecto a este informe:
1- Los datos son verdaderos
2- Los datos son falsos . kirchner dijo Más de 3 años: .Hijos de mil un perras, odio estas organizaciones que se la dan de salvadores y son mas mierda que la mierda. . rgalan dijo Más de 3 años: .Estimado TonyCaconi, PETA reconoce que ellos matan a los animales.

link directo del dia a dia del juicio a PETA . shaqazulu dijo Más de 3 años: .sólo el ser humano mata a su mejor amigo...

..que nos haga mierda un asteroide . maxtron dijo Más de 3 años: . . Mugar dijo Más de 3 años: .hay tantos boludos q d tanto estar al pedo se ponen a hacer campañas en contra d cualquier organizacion.Desconozco lo q hace Peta,posiblemente maten animales,pero tmbn posiblemente haya gente al pedo q rompe las bolas escrachando organizaciones.por lo pronto sigo del lado de los animales y odio a cualquier pelotudo/organizacion q lucra o hace campañas a costilla del sufrimiento animal . arimoyano dijo Más de 3 años: .+5, me parece increible la frase en el mail de que si no le encuentran lugar a los pobres bichos los asesinan, asi nomas. . Pinchita dijo Más de 3 años: .dio smio k lokura...k animal k es el ser humano a ellos habria k darle la inyeccion.
Me dio tanta cosa k taba comiendo un yogurt y se lo termine dando a mi perro ja.

Pero para el k es perrero loko esto es una mierda asesinos. . miburo dijo Más de 3 años: .Increible, peor lo vi...tenes que estar muy enfermo para matar animales, y peor de enfermo es trabajar para una asociacion que dice defenderlos y hacer lo mismo. . shnnypperh dijo Más de 3 años: .La raza humana es una mierda, cruel por naturaleza . wolfmann dijo Más de 3 años: .tio malandra no te olvides
3- hay datos que pueden ser verdaderos y otros que pueden ser falsos.
la verdad no lo lei por que estoy no me gusta esa organizacion poir que vi south park jajajajja . Cerrado dijo Más de 3 años: .las organizaciones que piden millones en donativos que hacen exactamente lo contrario deben ser escrachadas... . nadieninguno dijo Más de 3 años: .Eutanasia para los que presiden estas instituciones. . JavierVM dijo Más de 3 años: .Estoy TOTALMENTE de acuerdo con la practica de "eliminar" a estos animales, este tipo de oragnizaciones solo hacen lo que ciudadano comun no hace (cuidar a su mascota, su reproduccion y cuidado)hay que pensar que estamos inundados de perro y gatos callejeros y el tenerlos mientras se busca donarlos cuesta mucho $$ y creeme que TU no das un centavo para esto, asi que sistematicamente se tiene que eliminar..por triste que paresca o sea. Mi opinion!! . Mugar dijo Más de 3 años: .javiervm,sistematicamente habria q eliminar a tipos q piensan como vos... . yionony dijo Más de 3 años: .JavierVM, la superpoblación mas notoria del planeta es de la especie humana.... si seguimos tu razonamiento.....
Espero que no lo digas en serio, por que la verdad el planeta esta como esta por gente que piensa como vos.
Me gustaria saber si a vos te gusta que decidan otros si tenes derecho a vivir o no . diegogonzi dijo Más de 3 años: .Esos perros no parecen callejeros, mas bien parecen perros bien alimentados que seguramente podrían ubicarlos en algún lugar. . Cerrado dijo Más de 3 años: .para mi PETA es una gran estafa, piden y reciben millones en donaciones. . maxtron dijo Más de 3 años: .a la k vea asi x la calle me la garcho de una


Personas por la Ética en el Trato de los Animales (PETA), con más de 800,000 miembros y simpatizantes en más de 20 países, es la organización de derechos de los animales más grande del mundo. Fundada en 1980, PETA está dedicada a establecer y proteger los derechos de todos los animales. Operamos bajo el simple principio de que los animales no son nuestros para comer, vestir, experimentar o para usar con fines de entretenimiento.
PETA se concentra en las cuatro áreas en las que la mayor cantidad de animales sufren más intensamente y por más tiempo: la industria alimenticia, los laboratorios, la industria de la ropa y la industria del entretenimiento. Mediante investigaciones de actos de crueldad, rescates de animales, legslaciones, litigaciones, campañas internacionales, boicots y materiales educativos, PETA combate el abuso y sufrimiento animal donde sea que éstos ocurran.
PETA es una organización sin fines de lucro que se mantiene en base a donaciones de individuos, fundaciones y corporaciones. Aproximadamente el 80% del presupuesto anual de PETA es destinado directamente a programas que detienen el abuso de animales y salvan vidas. .

aqui estan las fotos : fotos fuertes
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur

Masculin Nombre de messages : 21885
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   Ven 26 Juil - 16:13

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
Contenu sponsorisé

MessageSujet: Re: PETA   

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Revenir en haut 
Page 1 sur 1

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
 :: Divers :: Les infos de Végétalienne-
Sauter vers: