|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True®
|
Pretend PETA Apologist
I really had to chuckle when I got this whine -- it's not from a reader, but rather an apologist for an organization I wrote about last year. Deborah, who didn't say where she is, stumbled across the page on my site about the "controversy" and wrote:
Free Weird Newsletter
I've included some information on Center for Consumer Freedom that you name as your source for your PETA information. CCF is a front for a lobbist [sic] group. I hope you will reconsider posting the PETA 'information'. If you don't want to remove the PETA information, at least inform the readers that your source is a front group.
I replied that she ought to "TRY READING THAT PAGE!" (with the rest of my comments in lower case), pointing out that I already very clearly discussed the nature of the source for some backup material to the story.
In her reply, she whined that I "respond[ed] SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS FOR ME TO READ THE PAGE." Four words in caps is "screaming", and 10 isn't? Sheesh. She clearly didn't read the page. The page she was referring to is my PETA page -- a story about how the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" kills animals put in its care, plus some backup information taken from copies of documents PETA itself filed with government agencies which were posted by (yes) an anti-PETA group, which shows they kill most of the animals put in its care. (Neither PETA nor Deborah claim the documents are bogus, just that they're posted on an "anti-PETA" site, as if that makes them less accurate.)
Had Deborah actually read the page she criticized, she would have seen that all of this is discussed on the page -- I did, in fact, "inform my readers" about the nature of the anti-PETA group. I also published, unedited, a statement from PETA officials in response to the page. But Deborah isn't interested in a debate; all she really wants is to try to bully me into removing the page since it criticizes one of her pet (heh heh) organizations or, failing that, to try to discredit the other side of the debate, as if her side is pure and objective.
There is pure and objective truth: PETA does kill animals. It's undisputed, EVEN BY PETA ITSELF (Oops! A bit more "screaming"!) So what is the real effect of Deborah's attempt to stifle debate? It gives me a reason to write about it again, bringing it to the attention of thousands of readers who missed it a year ago, plus thousands more who subscribed since then, plus anyone who now comes and reads past blog posts. That's wonderful, Deborah! Again, the page that Deborah brings to your attention is here. The link to PETA's response is linked at the very bottom of that page.
RSS
Most Recent Comments
Posted by Jim, Texas on July 19, 2008:
Hmmm - I am NOT a PETA supporter in any way, shape or form; but I have to take exception to Rob's remarks (which were published in This Is True today).
Rob states that "PETA killed over 97% of animals that were left in its care". By following the links Rob provided, you see that PETA took in 9,637 animals and euthanized 2,981. That's more like 31%.
Rob then linked to the Norfolk City Animal Control and Pound Facility figures to use as a foil for his argument. NCAC took in 5,358 animals and euthanized 3,046 of them. That would be 57%.
Summary - PETA took in 5,878 more animals and euthanized 65 fewer animals. NCAC euthanized 57% while PETA euthanized 31%.
Rob's numbers are only valid for animals not reclaimed by their owner - but PETA does a much better job in the "reclaimed by owner" category, they beat NCAC 68% to 13%.
So, based on Rob's sourced links, Fluffy is more likely to be returned to me and less likely to be euthanized if he's in PETA's hands than if he's in the hands of the Norfolk City Animal Control and Pound.
Posted by Rob in Washington DC on July 21, 2008:
To explain the statistics I quoted for Jim's sake:
PETA received 9637 animals in 2006. Of those 9637 animals received, 6575 were reclaimed by an owner. That leaves 3062 animals left in PETA's care. 12 were adopted out, and 46 were transferred to another facility, and 3 died while in the shelter. That leaves 2981 animals which were euthanized by PETA.
I said, "According to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in 2006, PETA killed over 97% of animals that were left in its care" 2981 / 3062 = 97.35%
Norfolk City received 5358 animals in 2006 and returned 697 to an owner. That leaves 4661 animals left in the shelter's care. Norfolk City adopted out 993 animals and transferred 573 animals to another facility. 45 died while in the facility. 3046 were euthanized.
Again, quoting myself, "The Norfolk City Animal Control facility (a city-run facility in the same city as PETA) had just over 65% kill rate" 3046 / 4661 = 65.35% kill rate.
Jim's proverbial Fluffy has a better chance of living if he's turned it to Norfolk City Animal Control than if he's turned in to PETA. Norfolk City adopts out 992% more animals than PETA does (993 adopted out by Norfolk City - 12 adopted out by PETA / 12 adopted out by PETA = 992% more) and transfers animals to another facility 114.5% more than PETA (573 transferred by Norfolk - 46 transferred by PETA / 46 = 114.5% more)
All this from a facility that does NOT have the words "Ethical Treatment" in its name.
Posted by Rob in Washington DC on July 21, 2008:
I don't know what I was thinking, but the last half of the previous comments are just wrong.
If Fluffy isn't picked up by an owner, has a much better chance of living if he's at the Norfolk City Animal Control than if he's at PETA. Norfolk City adopts out 8175% more animals than PETA does (993 adopted out by Norfolk City - 12 adopted out by PETA / 12 adopted out by PETA = 8175% more) and transfers animals to another facility 1145% more than PETA (573 transferred by Norfolk - 46 transferred by PETA / 46 = 1145.65% more).