This is True
bullet  The Truth about PETA

Does PETA protect and nurture the animals placed in its care? Find out -- this story is from True's 17 July 2005 issue. (Letters and more commentary have been added to the very end of this page. Go there.)

"Ethical" Defined

After more than 100 dead dogs were dumped in a trash dumpster over four weeks, police in Ahoskie, N.C., kept an eye on the trash receptacle behind a supermarket. Sure enough, a van drove up and officers watched the occupants throw in heavy plastic bags. They detained the two people in the van and found 18 dead dogs in plastic bags in the dumpster, including puppies; 13 more dead dogs were still in the van. Police say the van is registered to the headquarters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the two occupants, Andrew B. Cook, 24, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, identified themselves as PETA employees. An autopsy performed on one of the dogs found it was healthy before it was killed. Police say PETA has been picking up the animals -- alive -- from North Carolina animal shelters, promising to find them good homes. Cook and Hinkle have been charged with 62 felony counts of animal cruelty. In response to the arrests PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said it's against the group's policy for employees to dump animals in the trash, but "that for some animals in North Carolina, there is no kinder option than euthanasia." (Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald) ...Oops, my mistake: that's "Playing God" Defined.

The more I learn about PETA, the less I think of them. The story of them killing animals isn't even unusual. According to PETA's own filings, in 2004 PETA killed 86.3 percent of the animals entrusted to its care -- a number that's rising, not falling. Meanwhile, the SPCA in PETA's home town (Norfolk, Va.) was able to find loving homes for 73 percent of the animals put in its care. A shortage of funds? Nope: last year PETA took in $29 million in tax-exempt donations. It simply has other priorities for the funds, like funding terrorism (yes, really). But don't take my word for it: I got my figures from http://www.PETAkillsAnimals.com -- and they have copies of PETA's state and federal filings to back it up. The bottom line: if you donate money to PETA because you think they care for and about animals, you need to think some more. PETA literally yells and screams about how others "kill animals" but this is how they operate? Pathetic.

And you know what I wonder? PETA's official count of animals they kill is 86.3 percent. But if they're going around picking up animals, killing them while they drive around and not even giving them a chance to be adopted, and then destroying the evidence by dumping the bodies in the trash, are those deaths being reported? My guess: no. While 86.3 percent is awful, the actual number is probably much, much higher. How dare they lecture anyone about the "ethical" treatment of animals!

For more on this story and letters, scroll down to past the subscribe form or jump to that section now.


A lot of readers have asked for permission to run the above in on their websites, their blogs, their newsletters. Yes: if you use the cut and paste version below, which includes proper attribution. You are of course welcome to add your own comments above or below the text -- even if those comments are to dispute me or disagree with me. Because I'm not afraid of the truth; we'll see if PETA is or not.


Letters

As you might expect I got quite a few letters on this story and my editorial. An extraordinary number of the authors asked me not to identify them -- that's how scared people are of PETA. I will thus identify none of the letter writers, even by first name.

About 90 percent of those who wrote applauded me running the story. One who apparently works with animals wrote, "I had to write and say THANK YOU for alerting your readers to the atrocities that PETA commits. Anyone professionally involved with animal care knows the seemingly unending list of horrors committed by them, but in our crazy world it is the professionals who are scared and on the defensive." The remaining 10 percent were generally pretty calm and rational (vs. ranting), with about half demanding that I acknowledge that there's a huge pet overpopulation problem, and the other half criticizing me for getting the numbers in my editorial from an anti-PETA web site -- Don't I Realize They Have An Agenda?!

Yes, we definitely do have a pet overpopulation problem, but I don't agree with the implication that therefore we must indiscriminately kill and dump animals in dumpsters. Even as bad as it is, the overpopulation problem is NOT at its zenith: it has been reduced dramatically thanks to spay/neuter programs. Currently, 4-6 million dogs and cats are killed per year by in the U.S. by shelters due to overpopulation. Sad, but consider than just 25 years ago, that number was more like 17 million (source: Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine). Still, what does this have to do with PETA taking in animals from shelters with the promise that they'll be giving them good homes, but then killing them in the back of the pick-up van without making any attempt to make good their promise? And what, exactly, is the justification for dumping these animals in the trash? And how is it that PETA kills such a high percentage of the animals entrusted to its care when the closest SPCA shelter to PETA's headquarters is able to find good homes for most of its animals? When I replied to the complaining readers with those questions, I got no answers.

Then there's the web site that I got a bit of backup information from. An anti-PETA web site with an agenda, they say? Well yeah: with a domain like PETAkillsAnimals.com you can pretty much expect that they're an anti-PETA web site with an agenda! Hello? That's why I pointed out that their source was ...PETA! -- the forms PETA filed with the state that details their kill percentages (again, 86.3 percent in the most recent year reported, a number that's going UP year by year). Sure PKA has an agenda, just as PETA has an agenda. But exactly what facts that I got from that site, I asked those readers, did they dispute? You guessed it: no answers.

In a bit of supreme ironic timing, one of the Editorial Board members of the New York Times wrote an opinion piece about the PKA organization the weekend after I ran this story. One angry reader who sent me that link taunted that I'd "never admit" there was such an article critical of the site. The reader didn't stop to think that unlike him, I'm not afraid of the truth.

Indeed, my favorite of the "pro" letters was from a reader who wrote,

  • "I have heard all sorts of pro and con arguments about PETA over the years, and I wasn't sure what to believe. The anti-PETA web site you linked to showed me the problem was much worse than I had ever heard. The numbers are outrageous! But something caught my eye on your own page that instantly grabbed my attention. You gave permission for people to post your story and editorial on their web sites, and even explicitly gave permission for those who disagree with you to do it too. Quoting you, 'You are of course welcome to add your own comments above or below the text -- even if those comments are to dispute me or disagree with me. Because I'm not afraid of the truth.' All I can say is, WOW! I haven't always agreed with you myself, but I can respect you and disagree with you at the same time. Count me as a reader for life."

Do I think PETA is 100 percent evil? Absolutely not, but I think they may be doing more harm than good. (Just imagine if the $29 million they collected last year actually went to local SPCAs!) Some of what they do is great, like promoting spay and neuter programs which has dramatically cut down on the "need" to kill off "excess" dogs and cats. Just remember what TRUE's function is (beyond entertainment!): to promote thought, which also implies driving public dialogue on the issues raised. I think this issue needs thought and public dialogue, and I think the story provoked just that.

The last word on this goes to another reader who works with animals and "gets" that thought-provoking function:

  • As someone who has been in animal welfare for most of my adult life, I was thrilled to see your story and comments about PETA! Unfortunately, many people do not know that there is a huge difference between animal welfare and animal rights. Animal Welfare folks are interested in helping the animals have a better existence, whereas animal rights people place the same value on an animal life as human life -- AR people want there to be no meat eating, no fishing, no pets (dogs, cats, fish, horses, etc.), no farm animals, no hunting, etc. Many people think that when they support a national animal organization, they are helping animals in their community. That is incorrect. The national organizations pump out literature, web-sites, agenda promotion, and guidelines. This includes groups such as the American Humane Association, the Humane Society of the United States, and the International Society of Animal Rights. If people really want to help their community and the animals there they should do three things: 1) Spay & neuter all their dogs, cats & rabbits. 2) Make a lifetime commitment to their pets when they decide to get them. And 3) Support their LOCAL shelter (municipal or private) shelters if they wish to make a donation -- don't give their money to the national groups, it will not help the animals in their community. My job is as a humane educator to let people know these truths. I can go on and on about more ways people can help, but those are the top three. We need forums like yours, Randy, to help spread the word on how people can help! Thank you for doing that, and brightening up my day. It is hard to work in this business, seeing the carnage day after day. You remind me (through TRUE, TSA & HeroicStories) that there is hope for this world. Thank you!
Beyond the Last Word
A reader took me up on my challenge to respond to the
story and my editorial. Read our exchange.

PETA Responds! Their letter to me published in full.

2007 Update

According to the Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot (3 February 2007), Adria Hinkle, now 28, and Andrew Cook, now 26, were found not guilty of animal cruelty, but were found guilty of ...littering. Yes, throwing "trash" (the bodies of the killed animals) into someone else's dumpster came down to "littering". It took the jury 3.5 hours of deliberation to reach their unanimous conclusion.

Hinkle and Cook were each given 10-day jail sentences -- which were suspended -- fined $1,000, and sentenced to 50 hours of community service. They were also ordered to pay $5,975 in restitution, split between them, and serve 1 year of probation.

Before the jury went into deliberation, Superior Court Judge Cy Grant ruled that the state had failed to prove malice or motive, which were necessary to establish the charges as felonies. He thus reduced the charges to eight counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty, and one count of litering. With those few charges to deliberate on, the jury only found them guilty of the littering charge.

There was testimony from an animal control officer and an animal hospital which provided dogs to PETA saying they had no idea that the animals would be killed immediately -- that there would be no attempt whatever to find them new homes. Hinkle and Cook apologized for dumping the animals, but said it was "a very hot day and the smell in their van was unbearable" ...which begs the question of why this happened again and again and again. EVERY day they rounded up animals to kill them was "very hot"?

There was no dispute that Cook and Hinkle were doing their jobs as PETA intended: they picked up animals from shelters and hospitals, and immediately killed them rather than even attempt to find them new, loving homes. Again, it's clear: PETA kills animals. That is their mission. If you love animals, you will never support PETA.

64 Comments on This Entry

All comments on this site are reviewed prior to being published. Spammers: don't waste your time. The posting criteria are simple: if a comment is worth visitors' time to read, it's approved. If not, it's not.


Posted by Tim, Oklahoma City on March 13, 2009:

Yes, I believe PETA is another crazy wacko organization. If people do not believe they are nuts; maybe this will be hilarious enough for them. Try this new idea from PETA: calling all fish "sea kittens" so we will not eat them. The presumption being that you would not eat a cute "kitten". It seems to be geared towards brainwashing children.

Posted by Patty in OR on March 13, 2009:

I'm liberal, as are most of my friends, and we are all anti-PETA and HSUS, while supporting local organizations that help animals, including spaying and neutering. I consider the classification of liberals as being pro PETA or HSUS a cheap shot. Not the ones that I know. The most proactive person I know in helping animals all over the world through personal international contacts with animal shelter workers is strongly liberal and extremely anti HSUS and PETA.

---

For those who don't know, HSUS is the Humane Society of the United States, which is not to be confused with your local Humane Society. Wikipedia has more info. -rc

Posted by brigitte, rhode island on March 14, 2009:

I'm so glad you are speaking out against PETA! They ARE evil! I have to disagree with you on this point: "Some of what they do is great, like promoting spay and neuter programs which has dramatically cut down on the "need" to kill off "excess" dogs and cats." While promoting spay/neuter is a valuable cause, introducing and pushing MANDATORY spay/neuter programs is WRONG. They don't work; shelter populations and euthanasia rates increase dramatically after such ordinances are introduced. Ethical breeders are being punished for caring about their breeds, and breed with small gene pools are facing extinction. And let's not forget HSUS and their dozens of affiliated organizations: see ActivistCash for an eye-opener!

Oh, and PETA and their ilk want you to calls yourselves pet "guardians" (and we're so sensitive and it seems like a "gentle" way of being) so that they can introduce legislation that would basically strip you of all your rights and make pets wards of the state, as they recently did in Oklahoma. As someone else already pointed out: they want us to become vegans and have no rights to own animals of any kind!

---

Don't read more into my words than is there (and there is already plenty!) I said that "promoting" spay/neuter clinics is a good thing. That's a FAR cry from supporting them as mandatory. If PETA has progressed from "promotion" to only advocating mandatory altering, then indeed they have crossed the line. -rc

Posted by Judith, Charleston, SC on March 14, 2009:

PeTA closed down the egg production at Mepkin Abbey recently by harassing the monks, screaming and yelling outside the abbey until they could not pursue their quiet lives. The egg production provided more than 60% of their livelihood and had for about 60 years.

The irony of this piece of idiocy is that within 10 miles of the abbey, including one across the road, there are 3 'hunt clubs' that hold canned hunts. Something that is truly horrendous and SHOULD be stopped. (But this is in the very rural south so you can just imagine trying to even make people realize what a travesty this is.)

I guess it was just easier to harass people who would meet you with silence or soft words and a prayer than those would meet you at the gate with shotguns.

Posted by Seven, Australia on March 15, 2009:

I have been asking PETA some questions also. One in particular about the cruel and wasteful shark fin industry and what was PETA doing about it. The reply; "I am out of the office right now..."

I have been blocked from PETA's facebook page because I have been asking similar questions. I was told that "It's not that Peta doesn't want to hear your oppositional opinion but it's that I personally don't like the confrontational manner in which you're doing it". And "No-one is forcing Peta down your throat so perhaps reciprocate this gesture".

When I responded and asked about PETA targetting school children leaving school property I was not given a reply.

If a group is on the up and up and has nothing to hide, why does PETA avoid so many questions and use distraction techniques?

I hope many people wake up to what PETA is really about.

Posted by Roberta, California on March 15, 2009:

I am sorry to say that seem to have missed the opportunity to read the original article on which this story is based, as it no longer appears to be on the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald site.

I did read with interest your exchange with both Thomas from Pennsylvania and Daphna Nachminovitch of PETA. I was only able to skim the PKA site, as it is rather extensive.

I have noticed that in several places there is mention of the euthanasia being conducted in the back of the pick-up van. Is there any conclusive evidence that this is the case? Could the animals have been euthanized at some facility which did not have the means to dispose of the bodies?

While it is heavily implied, do we know for a fact that the animals being dumped are the ones which had been picked up from the North Carolina animal shelters? Identification of animals from the shelters should be fairly easy if they were only released earlier that day. I didn't see any sitings from the article saying that the animals had been identified.

I am also a little concerned about the method of euthanasia. You quoted the article's reference to a dog's autopsy: "The autopsy did reveal a puncture wound on the dog's front right paw. It is not known if that wound is consistent with a mark left by the insertion of a needle." Was the chemical that is used to euthanize animals present in the dog's system? The PKA site mentions walk-in freezers full of dead animals. Could these animals being thrown into dumpsters be the ones from the freezers? Conversely, could these animals have been frozen to death?

I do find it odd that the PETA workers chose to illegally dump the animal bodies into a supermarket dumpster. Where I live, you can bring a dead animal to the animal control shelter, where it will be cremated or buried in a mass burial. This alternative seems both more legal and more respectful to the dead animals.

I will not pretend to know PETA's agenda, nor do I support them in any way. I have my own, personal reasons for intensely disliking them, but I was raised by a family of lawyers, and I feel I need to have all my facts straight.

Thank you for bringing responsible animal care back into the minds of your readers, and thank you for making us all think a little harder about the organizations we support.

Posted by Gina, Georgia on March 15, 2009:

THREE different Dalmatian rescues tried to get Toby and Anna away from PETA but they refused and told the rescue groups that the Dalmatians were very adoptable. How do I know? Because I am one of those that called.

They killed the dogs, cats, kittens, all healthy and wanted. I saw the photos of the Dalmatians pulled from the dumpster and the black plastic bags pulled away from their dead bodes. These sweet Dalmatians were among several VERY placeable pets.

These were taken from press releases, etc.:

Dalmatian at protest over PETA killing Dalmations:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/pressRelease_detail.cfm?id=129

PETA trial is over:
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day10.cfm

Hinkle and Cook "acted out of love for animals" and "had no criminal intent."

---

Yep: as noted in that last link, the two PETA employees featured in the story were let off after PETA's attorneys argued that the animals "had no value" -- the felony charges of Obtaining Property By False Pretenses covers people who deceive in order to take possession of "money, goods, property, services, or other thing of value" doesn't apply because pets have "no value". Yes, that's PETA making that argument. Mind boggling, isn't it? Again, why would anyone who wants to protect animals be so stupid as to contribute a penny to PETA? -rc

Posted by Chris New York City on March 21, 2009:

I am an animal lover, and although I find this digusting by nature, I can only retain my faith in Peta being against the negative treatment of animals and believe there is a larger picture. Maybe it has to do with getting the animals out of the shelters and putting them to sleep so they don't suffer in cages where they might be mistreated? People are generally moronic and breed puppies to make a few hundrend, or a movie like 101 dalmatians is released and a bunch of bratty little kids bitch and moan until they get one, and then there are all of a sudden 600 extra dalmatians in shelters. That is just one of my thoughts. euthanasia by drug induced coma for only a minute or two VS suffering in a cold sterile cage with no loving hands to make the dog's life a happy one. I hate seeing animals suffer in cages or hostile unhappy environments. I hate seeing strays. As much as i love animals, maybe this is what Peta is doing, and although I could never do it and wouldn't have the heart to witness it, maybe it IS for the best. (If that is in fact the case) This is all speculation, of course, but seems like a sensible answer when Peta has been around for so long and are the epitome of what standing up for animals IS.

---

You're rationalizing. READ what actually happened here. There is absolutely no excuse for their actions. They KILLED animals that had no medical problems that were destined for good, loving homes. They killed them with NO attempt to place them in those homes. How can you excuse such actions? If you love animals, I don't see how you can. Open your eyes and read. Open your mind and absorb. PETA's own records condemn them. End of story. -rc

Posted by William, Amarillo, TX on March 27, 2009:

If, as someone stated in a previous comment, PETA members believe that animals have all the rights of humans, those who killed the dogs and disposed of their bodies in dumpsters should be liable for prosecution for murder.

Posted by Erin, Jacksonville, FL on April 10, 2009:

They say meat is murder, but murder is also murder.

---

The former might be a matter of opinion; the latter definitely isn't. -rc

Posted by Jordan from Minnesota on May 8, 2009:

Thanks for this article. I am doing a persuasive speech called anti-PETA. This had really good insight. PETA needs to understand that it is good to protect animals but you can do it without being psycho.

Posted by Bob Santonio TX on May 11, 2009:

Peta is trying to shut down the animal sanctuary Primarily Primates. See video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smAUkhEnkg8

Posted by Gina, Alabama on May 16, 2009:

Three established Dalmatian rescue groups contacted the county animal shelter and tried to get the Dalmatians that PETA picked up. Their photos were sent out on the rescue network. Two healthy, sweet Dalmatians were very adoptable. I know, because I was one of the three that called and had contacted the others about getting someone to pull the Dalmatians.

We were told by the shelter that they had a rescuer who came regularly. We were guaranteed that the Dals would be taken back, vetted, and put up for placement.

To see what happened to Toby and Annie, read Day 4 of the trial. The last photos I saw of the two were from inside a black plastic bag, torn away from their dead bodies which had been pulled from the dumpster.

This is what PETA said: "Those animals would have been put down anyway."

Please take the time to read the story about Happy the terrier mix and how photos were taken of him before he was killed for the express purpose of sending them to the former foster care/owner to assure him Happy was in good condition.

The veterinarian also trusted PETA. He was in Ahoskie, N.C. His name is Dr. Patrick Proctor. He had to identify the killed pets he vetted, boarded, and released for adoption. He was furious and called the media.

Remember, this was going on for about 2 years !

Toby and Annie: http://www.petakillsanimals.com:80/Trial_Day4.cfm

Happy's last day: http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day9.cfm

I am sure photos are available if they are needed. I don't want to see them again. How could we have known? ...but it haunts me to this day. We should have insisted on rescuing. At least a few would still be alive and loved in new homes.

Posted by Sandy, California on June 6, 2009:

I oppose all killing of animals.

I was shocked to learn that PETA kills more animals than any other organization. The evidence is overwhelming. If you look at the words of PETA President Newkirk, she'll tell you purebred animals and children are an abomination. Is thin the kind of organization you want to donate money to. Ask yourself, next time you donate: How many animals were killed with my donations?

There is no excuse for killing dogs. If there are too many dogs in shelters, stop rounding them up. Dogs that aren't rounded up with go home or will get food from people who care. No dog needs to die. It is the height of egotism to think that only humans have the right to be free and alive.

Posted by Mike71 from Germany on June 7, 2009:

I just happened to come across your website and wonder:
why are you critizising the animal protection organization PeTA so harshly?

---

Well, Mike71, it's quite simple. You would understand it if you merely READ THE PAGE you're posting on. Read it. Understand it. Then tell me HOW in the world you could support them? Oh, and stop posting comments on stuff you haven't even bothered to read. -rc

Posted by Jennifer, Clinton, Me on June 15, 2009:

I am upset to read this stuff about PETA. I have always loved and supported them for the good things they do. Reading the trial about the two PETA workers killing and dumping animals they promised to find good homes for, is a kick in the oblongs! I think it is terrible that they outright lied to the previous owner about the fate of the dog, Happy. It is too bad. I am sad to now know this craziness.

Posted by Jim, Houston on June 20, 2009:

Thanks for publicizing the truth about PETA and other such groups.I support our local SNAP (Spay Neuter Assistance Program) and my local neighborhood animal shelter, and urge others to do the same!

Posted by Andy, Pennsylvania on June 20, 2009:

I have been struggling for several years to stick to a diet plan for health reasons (blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.). I had recently hit on a method for sticking to my plan: I would set aside a dollar every day that I failed to meet my diet goals and send it to the Republican National Committee at the end of the month. As a fairly liberal Democrat I thought this would work - keeping me from straying from my plan. But it hasn't been effective as I hoped. I guess there are actually a few Republicans that I am somewhat sympathetic to, and I don't find the Republican offensive enough to keep me from straying from my plan. Thank you for your reminder of what PETA is actually all about. I am now planning on sending my monthly donation to the bastards at PETA instead.

I am trusting my health will benefit more than PETA will from my decision.

Posted by Neil, Glens Falls NY on June 20, 2009:

Talk about hypocrisy in action... PETA kills 86% of animals entrusted in their care. Healthy, discarded pets. And then has the brass balls to critic the President for killing a FLY. Let's see, you can LEGALLY purchase products designed to kill pesky insects. It is ILLEGAL to kill pets. There goes the last shred of PETA's credibility.

Posted by Dylan from Los Angeles on June 21, 2009:

I'm a 19 year rock fan, and as such I go to a lot of rock festivals. At a lot of these there are PETA booths, and PETA people walking around handing out fliers, pins, and stickers. I used to grab a "no fur" pin to stick on my jeans because even though I'm a meat lover and disagree with a lot of their views, I think that the fur trade is unnecessary. However, after reading this page, following the links, and doing more research, I have resolved to bring fake blood to the next festival I go to, and throw it on any PETA member I see.

Oh and by the way, I've been reading True for two years and I love it. Keep it coming Randy :D

Posted by Tina, Vancouver on June 22, 2009:

After PETA's ignorant rant about the veterinarian conference in Seattle regarding the Flying Fish folks from Pike Place Market, the totally stupid thing with the President and the fly did not surprise me! The deal with the flying fish is that it is a team building experience. My old company had us watch a video the fish market made about it, and we were quite fascinated. But PETA had a problem with people throwing dead fish around, since the fish had rights, too! They had feelings! Good grief!!!!! They are DEAD! They are FOOD!!! But the vets were scared enough to say they would substitute fake fish (or possibly the rubber fish PETA said they'd provide).

And now the Prez and the fly. Give me a break!

Posted by Don in Japan on June 22, 2009:

Wow... I don't know jack about PETA, but I can tell a one sided smear job when I read it. Talk about slanted, biased, and one sided. Whenever someone (you included Randy) spins a yarn like this that doesn't even try to give credible rational explanations for the opposite side's actions and points of view then there's no point in listening to them. This is just a waste of time.

If demonizing the other side is required to "win" your argument, then either you're not very bright or you think your audience isn't very bright.

---

Oh dear: where do I start on this? So one tack might be, you jump in to express your views on a subject you "know jack about" and give one side. So your argument is that there's "no point in listening" to such. You really thought this out, didn't you, Don?

But let's talk reality. PETA spends millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours per year to get their message out, and most journalists just go with their outrageous messages without comment. But I dared to comment with facts gleaned from where? PETA's own records! to bring just a little light to the other side. And I gave PETA space to present their unedited reply. Yet you call that little flicker of light against PETA's propaganda "biased" and not worthy of listening to. You can bury your head in the sand if you wish, but I won't. You may choose to plug your ears to protect your ignorance, but I won't. I think it's rather clear who here is "bright" and who isn't. -rc

Posted by Flip in Pittsburgh on June 23, 2009:

Concerned about bugs? I wonder if any PETA employees drive cars at over 5-10 MPH, walk on grass, etc. I wonder how many dust mites they kill when they launder their bed linens or vacuum their carpets?

Posted by Frank, Phoenix on June 23, 2009:

I hope you never tire of exposing the stupidity of the people that surround us. Your exposure of the PETA fiasco is sorely needed. When I saw them take the Prez to task for killing a fly, I knew someone (maybe many someones) had a screw loose. A FLY is a freaking insect and insects will outlive humans regardless of what we attempt to do to exterminate them. It frankly pisses me off that PETA gets so much publicity and not enough bad press. Alas, such is life. Thanks for exposing their hypocrisy. Keep at it.

Posted by Stephanie of San Jose, CA on June 23, 2009:

Well, I can't say that I'm surprised that PeTA was finally caught dumping animals that they killed. I'm just surprised that it took so long for it to happen.

Penn & Teller's show BS brought this to light in their second season. You can find the episode on YouTube if you just type in "Penn Teller PeTA". Do be warned that if you haven't seen the show before, Penn is not at all adverse to using 4 letter words.

The people at PeTA are bunch of hypocrites that should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by Bob, Nevada on June 24, 2009:

Hmm. Peta is now attacking people who kill nasty insects? What's next, attacking researchers who attempt to kill viruses? It appears that they will do anything to get more donations from people who are ignorant of their tactics.

Posted by Bill, Oregon USA on June 26, 2009:

I have this page bookmarked, and regularly send people to it when they make the slightest pro-PETA noises. Then I send them to www.seakittens.com.....a clear sign that PETA have totally lost their grip on reality if ever they had one.

---

Just a note of warning: the "Seakittens" domain redirects to the PETA site. -rc

Posted by Gerry (Boise, ID) on June 27, 2009:

"Just imagine if the $29 million they collected last year actually went to local SPCAs!"

Sounds like that's the reason they do what they do. It's the money.

Posted by Kim, Japan on June 27, 2009:

I've heard terrible stuff for years about PETA.

Generally, you're better off donating to a local group, where you KNOW where your money is going -- in this case, your local animal shelter -- than some national or international organization where mysterious people spend your money on heaven-knows-what. In this case, they spend the money on lobbying, idiotic commentary about the President, and equipment to kill animals.

Similar things hold true for a lot of "charitable" organizations. Years ago, I stopped donating to United Way because I have no idea where they'd send my money to -- and of course all that bureaucracy and lobbying wastes a lot of money, too.

For those who have posted on here saying "why are you so upset about PETA" and the like, I ask them to read more carefully what you posted here, and what others are saying. Yes, there is a lot of junk on the internet, but there's also a lot of valuable information. PETA may have started out with the noblest of intentions, but I think the nobility is long gone now.

Posted by Robert in Missouri on June 28, 2009:

I used to be on their mailing list. Suffice it to say after reading about their idiotic screed regarding President Obama killing a fly as well as the story that they kill animals entrusted to them for placement, I am no longer on their mailing list. If there is one thing I can't stand, it's hypocrisy.

Posted by Rana, Fl on June 28, 2009:

What makes you think that what the site shows is real or that Peta must respond to every idiotic statement that a site like that puts out? No dogs in dumpster, etc. Ever think about that? Maybe, it's not real, but something someone made up...including tax papers, etc? Just because someone doesn't respond to everything that everyone claims, doesn't mean they're guilty.

---

Well, you're free to ignore the police report, the criminal charges, and the trial. You're even free to ignore the fact that PETA admitted the charges were true. But don't expect the rest of us to subscribe to your delusions. -rc

Posted by Andrew, Melbourne Australia on June 29, 2009:

For PETA to condemn your president for swatting a fly whilst they euthanise lost/abandoned pets in the back of a van prior to illegally (by the sounds of it) dumping the bodies in the bin is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Animals deserve to be treated with respect by people and organisations, especially when the animals for the most part show such total unencumbered affection to their owners and carers.

Posted by Millie in Madison, Wisconsin on July 1, 2009:

Andrew, one other thing to point out - these pets are not all 'lost' or abandoned. In at least one provable case, they took an animal control officer's own pet that the officer was having trouble taking proper care of because they did not have the time to properly train and play with it. It was a good dog, and one they would not have given up otherwise, if PETA had not been there picking up other 'adoptable' animals: animals they knew they were going to kill before they arrived to pick them up. They took cute pictures of this dog with a collar and leash in front of a garden, to send back to this animal control officer to show him how happy his dog was now. Then, they killed the dog and threw away its body in a dumpster. These are proven facts, with eyewitness accounts, pictures, and admissions on the stands by the perpetrators.

That is what makes PETA so frustrating for those of us who really care about lost/abandoned animals. They claim we have no rights to even "own" animals because it is unfair and they have equal value to human life. Then, they pay their employees to go out and kill hundreds of animals they claim are going to find new homes. And then, those employees get off from charges of illegal actions because they are not 'disposing of stolen property', because the animals 'have no real value'? What?

Posted by James, KC, USA on February 3, 2010:

PETA...hypocritical in public arguments.

No meat eating? Bottom line PETA arguments suggest there are simply too many people on the earth. That may be right. Not eating meat is just a delay that allow more people when final crisis comes.

No fur? PETA does not balance the negative impact of synthetic clothes on animals...more oil drilling and tons of non-biodegradable clothes to choke turtles. Recycled stuff is not durable etc.

Bottom line. Inner circle of hardcore PETA is focused on reducing human population...the radical side of that not voluntarily. Lot of serious non-public PETA getting interested in biowarfare that sterilizes or kills only people.

Posted by carrie, virginia beach on February 18, 2010:

I am a subscriber to petas emails and wanted to double check with a hunter I know about the recent article. I feel like peta has a habit of causing hysteria and sympathy. I have been a veg since I was 12 (30) years... I also keep my beliefs to myself generally.

However, I do think some people actually believe in hunting and they do in fact eat the meat. That to me is somewhat different than the people that have never considered what their 'bacon' goes through to get to their plate. (Here I am dogging peta but their video Meet your Meat is great.)

Point is, I don't rule out what other people want to do., I do wish they were more informed, I very much wish they had more regulations on slaughterhouses. I do in fact think peta brings light to these topics. but....they just feel like a big phony front for a money making org.

A few years back one of their people were in my neighborhood for something and I mentioned the local animal control animals to them. The response "we don't deal with them".

The article on the animals killed ran in my local paper, it was real and no one suffered any consequences, (other than the animals that would not have been turned over if the local shelters knew the true outcome).

This was my letter to them tonight:

-----
I would love to be behind your org 100% but I really wonder what your aim is since you euthanized several animals and had them dumped into grocery store dumpsters. The animal control offices that you took them from were assured that you were to place them into homes.

Yet they were euthanized in a van and thrown away, your lawyers represented them. You claimed no responsibility and the 'incident' went away (but not really, as it exists on the internet for all time).

In my opinion you are no better than the rev baker, prey on people and collect money.

How can you possibly be running a story on shelter dogs with your past history. http://www.thisistrue.com/peta.html

I will finish this email and get back to this story as there seems to be more than I even know.

Above all, I doubt this comment will make it onto this site but if it does. The info is not from the web directly, it is from my local paper and I went back and found it.

Maybe we need to do some undercover inv into peta and hope some worthy groups look out for the animals. (ton's of money seems to make even the best of intentions go astray)

You are doing nothing good for the animals if people loose trust in donating to an org that they think will help.
-----

---

I hope they'll listen, since you are their exact target demographic (except that you actually think about the issues, rather than accept the lies they tell). They could do some good, such as improving conditions in meat processing plants, where there are unconscionable abuses, but with their radical agendas and warped point of view, I doubt they truly will get a significant majority to agree to what they're actually doing. -rc

Posted by brian, uk on March 2, 2010:

@millie: actually most of the dogs killed were from people who thought they couldn't look after them. sometimes the dog was killed before they started the car's engine.

Posted by Spud of Texas on March 4, 2010:

I'm hoping an alias of sorts is allowed as I really don't like publishing my first name or even my nickname around. At anyrate I am mostly replying to one comment from an above poster.

'You are doing nothing good for the animals if people loose trust in donating to an org that they think will help.'

So, in theory, you would get at christians for warning people away from the devil, just because they know the devil is bad, but the fools and innocents being tricked by him, were clueless as to his real desires and nature? I'd clap with one hand for you if I could.

Please re-read what you just wrote and what you have just read. Peta KILLED animals for no reason. And you say it's not their fault if they lose donations?

Posted by Charlie, New Jersey on March 4, 2010:

I'm a HUGE dog lover. That being said, today a dog was killed by a bear in wayne New Jersey. I feel terrible that the dog was killed by a bear. The bear is a victom of our own actions. There is so much land clearing in jersey to build stores and homes (especially RT.23 north in jersey). The animals get put out of there natural enviroment and stray to a populated area. This bear is only looking for food and yes he killed a dog but please don't put the bear down. If they do this bear will die because he was hungry. PLEASE SOMEONE LISTEN! I want to be a STRONG member of PETA. SAVE THAT BEAR And every other animal that is punished for absolutley no reason. Who are we to decide when an animal takes his last breath. PLEASE SOMEBODY LISTEN!

---

You plead and plead for others to listen, yet it's obvious that you didn't even read this page! If you had, you'd realize that there's no way to both "love animals" and be a member of PETA. Simply put, PETA kills animals. Wake up and read! -rc

Posted by George, Kanab, Utah on April 24, 2010:

Just heard about your site from a large mailing list of shelters, rescues and many people who help them and the animals. Over the past many years, from their research and my own, I've heard all that you say about PETA and the many issues with some others, such as HSUS. It seems that most organizations that become that large begin shifting their agendas and actions. They retain some amount of true help for the animals, with stories and actions that bring in and hold donors. Enough that, even after finding the whole truth, many donors continue to contribute in order to continue the few good things they do. While smaller and with a different mix of truth/lies, we've found that Best Friends Animal Society is another of the same. Just as you've seen people scared to identify themselves to PETA, only a very few will dare stand up to BFAS.

No, I'm not offering proof now on BFAS. Just raising the issue. Much of the proof went out over mailing lists, as the web sites with them were short lived. In the past two years, we've confirmed over 600 of their donors who have read it have moved to supporting local shelters and rescues. Still, as with HSUS and PETA, many donors remain, more for their own amusement than for the animals.

Posted by Frank, Colorado on April 26, 2010:

PETA, HSUS, BFAS, I know them all well. Little or nothing has improved over the years, no matter what is disclosed here or anywhere. Yet, other fairly large groups like the SanFran SPCA and the Northeast Animal Shelter have maintained a sense of ethics and a focus on helping animals instead of building their control and assets. Perhaps that's why they remain smaller than the first three. Perhaps somewhat analogous to some of our largest financial companies.


The question I raise is where the real problem is at, and how can this be changed? History seems to show that no amount of disclosure will change or stop them. That the real problems are not with them, but the thousands of donors who continue to fund them. Several years ago I read and corresponded with hundreds of those people. For every one I convinced to change, thousands continued as they were. While I applaud your efforts, unless and until those donors change little else will happen, and I do not know how to reach those who do not want to listen.

Posted by Russell, Port Townsend, WA on May 21, 2010:

What burns me is when Eight Belles (the horse who broke her ankle a few years ago and had to be put down on the track) was put down, the folks at PETA went on a rampage, saying that the jockey was "whipping her to almost the point of death". They had no idea that the horse is trained to be tapped and shown the crop to go faster during the race. The inquiry that happened after the incident showed that the horse had a genetic defect. Poor horse. Poor jockey, because he had to ride the horse without knowing. Stupid PETA, because the are sooo ignorant.

Fast forward a few months. Michael Vick is convicted of Dogfighting, one of the WORST felonies I can think of about animals. PETA is NOWHERE to be found. I think this page illustrates WHY. Fast forward to last year's football season. Michael Vick is picked up on option by the Philadelphia Eagles. I don't know about you, but a felony shouldn't carry a reward by reinstatement of privileges and a $1M salary in the NFL. I think that he should have had to fight more for a job like most felons in this country. I don't know about you, but I didn't watch the NFL season last year, except for the Super Bowl. I am on a boycott of the NFL for the foreseeable future until Roger Goddell does what he should have done a year ago. Fire Michael Vick on a lifetime ban from football. They did it to Pete Rose for gambling. Why not a felonious dog-fighting prima donna like Vick?

Posted by Deb, OH on May 27, 2010:

@James in KC - I couldn't agree with you more. I believe Ingrid Newkirk loathes life in any shape or form and wants to play god. My concerns are that she has too many "sheep" in her flock willing to carry out her orders. When will people wake up and realize the veganism and anti-fur campaigns are just a front?

"God is dead." - Nietzsch "Nietzsche is dead." - God

Posted by Hannah, UK on July 19, 2010:

I have been an avid supporter of PETA fors year and I am so shocked by what I have read today.....what is PETAS agenda? Why on earth are they putting dogs down rather than rehoming them?

---

Simply: you have been fooled. NOW what are you going to do? -rc

Posted by Marilyn Naples, Fl on August 8, 2010:

Very disturbing! unimaginable and appalling-I support our local and national/international animal humane groups. For Peta repts to be euthanizing healthy animals and dumping them is in a word-insane-sorry Peta-the gig is up. You've done a lot to make your voice heard re: abuse of animals-looks like you are right up there with the abusers. I would like Peta to come to the forefront and agree or deny that this atrocity is a common practice-or uncommon-matters not does it? Most important thing-we as animal lovers need to get to the truth, and maybe just put Peta out of business if this is their deal-I've contributed in the past, offered info to them about animal abuse in the past, and now wonder-what is their real agenda? In the meantime, no donations to Peta...

Posted by Rochelle TX on October 26, 2010:

I wish more people knew the truth... PETA has over 800,000 likes on facebook... we all need to come together and take them down or eventually we will no longer be able to have a pet.. they will be free to fight for survival and will all either starve to death or die tryin to find food/shelter.... we must stop this!!!!!

---

Knowledge is the key: make sure you spread it. Their mission sounds good -- who doesn't want to improve the general welfare of animals? (which is what's behind the "likes" on Facebook) -- but their actual mission is different from what most people think, and what most people believe. -rc

Posted by Tom, Birmingham on October 27, 2010:

How can anyone know the documents posted on petakillsanimals.com haven't been doctored?

---

Easy: if they were, wouldn't PETA sue the hell out of them? Powerfully refute them? Yet they haven't done so. The documents I reviewed, too, are from "official" (government) sources: people can check, rather than have to trust PKA. -rc

Posted by Jennifer MA on June 27, 2011:

This isn't the first I've heard of PETA recklessly euthanizing animals with the claim that it is more humane than keeping them alive, but it still sickens me. I don't see what they think they're accomplishing. I don't speak for all shelters, but my local animal shelter is a no-kill shelter and works almost entirely on donations because of reduced funding. Even so, the shelter does everything it can to give its animals quality food and life, and there are enough volunteers around to make sure that the animals are clean and socialized. Obviously these people love animals. What about a situation like that makes PETA believe that the better alternative for these animals is death? If they value animal lives as much as human lives, then their actions are that of a heartless and sloppy serial killer. They can't even take the time to give these animals the same post-mortem ceremonies that humans are guaranteed, which even I see as disgusting, and I don't value animals as humans. To me, it all seems very inconsistent; their actions seem more like those of a group of deranged lunatics than those of a legitimate organization. I've never been a fan of PETA, but this is just too far. Thank god they operate far away from me and my precious animals.

Posted by Alyssa California on August 19, 2011:

PETA throws paint on fur coats so that producers go kill more animals to make them. Doesn't it make sense to just let them sell the coats and not ruin them thus saving more animals?

Posted by Russell, Port Townsend on August 22, 2011:

I published a comment on this site a while back, about Eight Bells being put down (because it had to be done) and Michael Vick; and PETA's response to both incidents.

It's very interesting to comment again, because now PETA is going to publish a "XXX" porn site to promote Vegans and Vegetarians. Claiming the same things they did with the "banned" Super Bowl ad (the racy ad with women sodomizing veggeies and promising that Vegetarians have better sex [citation needed on that last part about vegetarians having 'better sex']) they will have celebs and porn stars posing nude and having sex. No joke! They already have Brooke Hogan and Ron Jeremey (among others) who have committed to the "cause." This is just crazy. They alsto stated in other news reports that the content will be mostly "boy and girl next door" (amateur) content, but that any celeb willing to take off their clothes will be included.

Also, Pamela Anderson is posing for them (http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2010/07/15/pamela_andersons_sexist_new_peta_ad). This page features ANOTHER PETA ad gone wrong, and a picture of Pam with some "cuts" (similar to a cow diagram) and saying "All animals have the same parts." Whoa, did I miss something? We are animals now? Darn. I guess morality doesn't have anything to do with it anymore.

Another story from Huliq.com: http://www.huliq.com/3257/peta-plans-xxx-site-new-campaign

Pay close attention to the video at the bottom about the celeb Kristen Johnson. Wow, is that woman really ignorant. About 1:20 into the video. Horses sleep standing up, not laying down! Don't doubt that maybe the NYC horse-drawn carriage system might need some improvements, but please, state facts and don't misinform. Also, why pose nude on a "plastic horse?" Why not get a REAL horse to make your statement clearer?

Just another PETA campaign done wrong.

I don't know who PETA thinks they are, or who's running their marketing program, but I hope they crash and burn. Then, they can end up in the dumpster with their dead dogs. Seriously, this is just the worst marketing ploy I have ever heard of. It's like, "Hey, we're dying. What should we do. I know! Start a XXX site!" Huh?

If you PETA lovers don't think this is real, google it. It is happening. They are also going to have pictures of "animal abuse" (according to the Huffington Post's story, the animal pics will be 'gruesome and graphic' and be designed to turn people away from eating meat). What a site, huh?

Here's the link to the Huffington Post story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/peta-porn-site_n_931509.html

At first I thought this was a hoax, but if you do end up just searching for this story, it is real. Every news agency has carried something about it including cnet.com. It even made headlines on an Australian news site.

I really hope this web site bombs. We should organize a boycott of PETA and all of their atrocities. They kill more animals per year than any other agency, and they really don't care about animals that much in general. The only reason they do something at all is so that they can appeal to the "bleeding hearts" out there and get more money to do stuff like this. I could go on all day about PETA and their agenda, but I think this illustrates just how PETA uses non-information and misdirection to see their goals done. If they could have their way, all animals would be released (yes, no more pets) and we would all be either vegetarian or vegan. That is their stance, people. Nothing less. It is insanity.

END PETA NOW!

---

I worry less about what PETA "is going" to do, and more about what it is proven to have done. While such a porn site sounds pretty icky, I'll believe it when I see it. But I have to admit: if I see it, it won't surprise me, since pretty much nothing PETA does surprises me. Bores me, sure, but no surprises. -rc

Posted by Lisa Trenton, Ontario on November 17, 2011:

Where is PETA when the Rattle Snake Round Ups happen in texas? Does PETA only want rights for the cute and fuzzy. a search for rattle snake round up on their site brings up nothing actually to do with the rattle snakes. at the round ups snakes are skinned alive. you can bet if they were kittens or puppies that peta would be out there protesting.

---

If PETA was what people thought it was, they'd be there. But PETA isn't, so this should be no surprise. -rc

Posted by Noah MN on February 8, 2012:

Think of all the crimes PETA has done and got away with because there "helping animals". I think that's a bunch of BS. I think the only way to get their supporters is to hide the truth, if they put out their statistics nobody would follow. So it's a good thing there's people out there to post those and stand up to PETA. Thanks for taking a stand against PETA.

Posted by Piet, Atlanta on February 22, 2012:

Update: PetaKillsAnimals data from the state reports mentioned earleir, now (2011) show that they kill in excess of the animals received in their shelters.

---

Can you provide a link for that? That's not what I'm seeing on PKA's home page, which shows in 2011 PETA took in 1,992 pets, "transferred" 34, adopted out 24 (a whopping 1.21%!), and killed 1,911 -- "only" 95.9%, and the highest percentage yet (since PKA started compiling figures in 1998). -rc

Posted by Piet, Atlanta on March 2, 2012:

Sorry, bad writing -- should have posted:

they kill in excess of 95% of the animals.

There is quite a debate raging on the Women24 site from South Africa, in response to PETA's latest video ad. As always "banned from the Superbowl".

---

OK, thanks for following up. -rc

Posted by Kakashi Of Canada on March 5, 2012:

This... terrifies and makes me want to yak at the thought of how many animals they killed. They do nothing but waste money. Here in this little city where I live, there are two shelters, one run by the city, and the Humane Society (I have a friend who volunteers there). I've been to the Humane Society, it's clean, well lit and the staff allow people to take the dogs for walkies around the block so they can get some exercise (have done it myself ^-^!). Haven't been to the Shelter yet, but still. Seriously?

I looked at the PETA site... To me their whole stance that meat is bad is bullshit. If we didnt eat them; the population would overrun on certain animals. They had to cull the Elk, what ... last year? Because the population was too high and it was too dangerous for them and the people in the National Parks; especially on Highway 1 (Trans-Canada).

I am disgusted... and NEVER Have I ever donated to PETA.

Posted by Chris, Michigan on June 10, 2012:

If peta considers animals and people to essentially be the same then aren't they, through their own definitions via media bursts and the crap i had to hear in school and their own information, committing genocide?

If that is ethical then i dont think even my own twisted mind could conceive of what they would consider unethical.

---

If your premise is correct, your conclusion seems inescapable. -rc

Posted by Alex, Baltimore on June 26, 2012:

This campaign is not against PETA. Regardless of how ethical or unethical this organization is, it's name is used as an excuse to preserve existing human-centric status quo when everything on Earth has to be a servant to us. The real question that everybody has to ask themselves: IS KILLING, EATING, TORTURING, ENSLAVING ANIMALS JUSTIFIED and HUMANE?

If you answer NO, you will find ways to help animals.

If you answer YES, you will not go to prison for this. It is unrealistic to expect that people would change overnight. But I hope that one day the humane ideas will prevail.

---

I think we agree that the PETA name is only used unethically. -rc

Posted by Brent, Pennsylvania on June 29, 2012:

I'm offended at the notion that animal's lives are not equilivent to that of humans. Why? Who are we to decide whose lives are of value and whose are not. Besides, it's been proven that a vegan lifestyle is healthier. And factory farming is pretty much the most disgusting and appalling atrocity in the first world.

Posted by Piet, Atlanta on July 3, 2012:

@Brent - Do you have any proof for your claims that vegans are more healthy? Other than PETA's own claims?

Humans are sentient, animals are not. In my book that makes human life more valuable than animal life. You are free to disagree with me.

Claiming factory farming is worse than Nazi death camps and the holocaust is a bit of a stretch.

Posted by Steve, Chicago Illinois on July 27, 2012:

PETA is a scam to generate donations. All the useful idiots run around the country terrorizing business and individuals about the ethical treatment of animals and now we find out PETA is killing more animals than would die of natural causes if left alone. Who's ethical.

Join the new PETA......People Eat Tasty Animals and leave the non tasty one's alone, it's more ethical.

Posted by Marcia in FL on November 2, 2012:

I'm a little late in reading/commenting on this, and want to state that am not pro-PETA, despite being a vegetarian myself.

I like to research what I read, and when I find a website with hidden or not-so-hidden motives, I become even more sceptical.

Richard Berman is the guy behind the anti-Peta website, he works for the food and bev industry. (surprise, surprise) He once told a reporter his strategy is to "shoot the messenger".

Look at all the websites he is behind, and make up your own mind. He is also is against the minimum wage....

Thanks to YOU, Randy, for making us think just a bit more, and not cling to what we would LIKE to believe is true.

---

I'm unclear on what revelation you are making here. I've already addressed that the anti-PETA site is biased in several different ways, both in the original post and in the comments -- but the bottom line is STILL that biased or not, they provide original documentation from PETA which confirm the facts. -rc

Posted by Mike from Dallas on November 2, 2012:

I've seen enough scams to recognize the format. I should clarify that; they're not actually "scams" as they do solicit donations for the purpose they claim. It's just that the vast majority of those funds raised are not allocated to the advertised purpose. Some charities skim just enough off the top to pay for the necessities of operation, and upwards of 90% or more does go to the specified cause. While others are really nothing more than a way to support a lifestyle for a group of individuals who do nothing but solicit donations. Apparently there is not much of a law to force a minimum percentage to go where it's advertised.

PETA and HSUS concentrate their ads on common household pets because that's what the market identifies with. But that's not the purpose of their organization. Another unrelated, but similar, scam is that Westboro Baptist Church that protests the war by picketing funerals of fallen servicemen. They play "church" and have all the appearances of such, but basically they consist of two interwed families of lawyers who stir up emotions to elicit physical altercations which can then lead to lawsuits and resulting financial reward.

Before donating to ANY charity, it's best to use a charity evaluator, or several, to get an idea of that charity's worthiness. Right off the top, Charity Navigator is one that attempts to help separate the scams from the genuine organizations. But don't let your emotions be the sole discretion of your decision. THAT'S exactly what scammers target.

---

Charity Navigator rates PETA one star (out of four), comparing very poorly with other animal-related organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Foundation of Ill. and the Animal Legal Defense Fund of Calif., each of which get four stars. As previously noted, if your goal is to actually help animals, there are much better places to donate money to. -rc

Posted by bandit, Albuquerque on November 5, 2012:

There is a place for all God's creatures, right next to the potatoes...

The real problem is when you extrapolate PETA's agenda: no ownership of animals. What happens to all of those animals? Ever seen a feral dog pack? Dogs and cats will become very overpopulated the only course of action will be to trap and kill.

I would point out the hunters are the ones with the guns. Maybe the PETA folks can reason with the wild pigs. I am willing to watch the effort.

PETA is dangerous because they present one face to the world but really do the opposite.

Thanks for being outspoken about these nutjobs.

Posted by TG, New Mexico on January 4, 2013:

I wonder if these PETA fellows realize that, had the ancient hunter-gatherers followed "ethical" and "humane" practices, the human race would have died out long ago. PETA's leadership is nothing more than a bunch of reactionary, idiotic, useless hypocrites who seem to think that it is better to kill helpless, caged animals than wild ones who have a sporting chance against a hunter.

---

I don't think you "get" PETA. I think they'd be happy for humans to be extinct so that other animals would be free to roam without hindrance. -rc

Posted by Heidi, Washington on July 8, 2013:

It's interesting to note that Ingrid Newkirk is an insulin-dependent diabetic and therefore owes her life to animal testing and animal production of insulin (at least until the 80s).

Apparently that doesn't count, though. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

Post a Comment

Read this before posting a comment! Comments are of course the opinion of the poster. All comments must be approved by the site owner before they appear. Only interesting, pertinent comments that have to do with the entry will be approved. Read the existing comments before posting your own to ensure you're not saying something that's already been covered.


Subscribe to Entry Comments without Commenting

Put your e-mail address in the box to subscribe to notifications of comments made on this specific entry. Confirmation required, unsubscribe individually anytime without affecting your regular newsletter subscription.