Peta is at it again

Uhm... at the risk of having a very unpopular opinion in this forum, not saying I am a PETA supporter, nor do I agree with their stand on Pets and I find the organization too naive and way too Celebrity driven... but I feel they are getting a bit of a raw deal with generalization here?

I quote from the PETA website: "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."
Basically their point seems to be that breeding animals adds to the overpopulation problem, leading to more abuse cases because there are too many more unwanted animals, etc.
Again, I don't agree at all as there are a lot of counter arguments to be made, but to state that their supporters are just all only nutcases may be a little patronizing.
 
Toffee's Mom said:
Uhm... at the risk of having a very unpopular opinion in this forum, not saying I am a PETA supporter, nor do I agree with their stand on Pets and I find the organization too naive and way too Celebrity driven... but I feel they are getting a bit of a raw deal with generalization here?

I quote from the PETA website: "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."
Basically their point seems to be that breeding animals adds to the overpopulation problem, leading to more abuse cases because there are too many more unwanted animals, etc.
Again, I don't agree at all as there are a lot of counter arguments to be made, but to state that their supporters are just all only nutcases may be a little patronizing.
Click to expand...

Very well said and I agree with you 100%.
 
Lynne said:
ALF doesnt seem soooo bad because theyre more action-oriented but dont seem to feel that animals shouldnt be kept as pets, just completely anti-cruelty and will do anythign to prevent it. Which for me, being the slight thrill seeker that I am and being very pro-action rather than passifist. I mean, obviously violence isnt the answer but all the animals they saved woudl have never been saved, and I dont care about the universities being shut down because if they do that to animals they shouldnt be able to teach students... I also believe you shouldnt have to pay for knowledge but thats a whole other story...

And you think stealing or releasing these research animals is right??? Research animals are well taken care of, as an animal stressed due to poor nutrition, dirty enclosures, etc. does not yield accurate results. Years ago I took Vet Tech classes at a university that does animal research, those animals were well treated.

If you feel that strongly about it I urge you to stop seeing your doctor, dentist, or vet. Especially your vet. Where do you think we got the veterinary excellence that we have today and where do you think they did the research so that we can give our animals vaccinations??? Do you own a cat that has had a Feline Leukemia vaccine? Over 10,000 cats were sacrificed so that we can prevent our cats from dying of this disease.

Where do you think we got the medicines that we use to treat human diseases and conditions??? We got it from animal research. Or would you rather have us do research on you or your kids to spare the animals lives???

Stepping down off my pedestal now...
Click to expand...


Well, first of all, animals have different biological configuration I guess you could say, so its not fair that medicines for us get tested on them. Yes, they should 100 % be tested on people. Animals arent here just for us to use for our own gain. I use natural remedies and never go to the doctor ... How can you justify all the animals that are getting mistreated though ? How else are they gonna be saved other than drastic measures? Sure, its good that we get vaccinations for the animals, if theres no harm done to the animals then fine. Does that mean that students testing on animals should be getting amusement out of a brain damaged orangatang (sorry dont know how to spell that haha) ... that doesnt sound like productive testing to me. I am glad to hear the animals that you tested on were well cared for. It was for the betterment of animal health. I dont think we shoudl test on animals for the betterment of our health.
 
Also, I dont feel THAT strongly about it because I havent done that much research, hence why I said " if I am misguided in this opinion so far, do correct me"
 
yeah, well not everything that PETA does is terrible, they do a lot of good don't get me wrong. For the amount of funding they get though, they can do more and should. Theres a lot of controversy about it, and I dont feel I know enough about the organisation to have a valid/un-biased opinion.
oh ya, (I could be wrong on this) Arent they the ones who have been known for releasing dogs at dog shows? If they honestly feel its ok to keep pets then why would they do that? That seems a bit contradictory.. Again I could be mistaken or confusing PETA with another organisation. I really dont want to come accross to strong on this !! I just really enjoy debating, my mother called it argumentative pfft haha
 
Last edited:
Toffee's Mom said:
Uhm... at the risk of having a very unpopular opinion in this forum, not saying I am a PETA supporter, nor do I agree with their stand on Pets and I find the organization too naive and way too Celebrity driven... but I feel they are getting a bit of a raw deal with generalization here?

I quote from the PETA website: "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."
Basically their point seems to be that breeding animals adds to the overpopulation problem, leading to more abuse cases because there are too many more unwanted animals, etc.
Again, I don't agree at all as there are a lot of counter arguments to be made, but to state that their supporters are just all only nutcases may be a little patronizing.
Click to expand...

Thank you! I agree - again, there are sick people out there who do terrible things, but assuming that 1) their actions are connected to an "animal rights agenda", 2) they are part of a larger organization, and 3) that that organization is PETA, with no real evidence on any count, goes too far.

We can certainly say that PETA opposes the purposeful breeding of dogs (they come right out and say so). But it seems a long stretch to imagine that they would also support the covert killing of show dogs.
 
you're absolutely right, there are so many people involved with the organisation that it is unfair to sum it up as a whole ... Im sure some people within the org. are doing it for different reasons than others. Their well-intentioned I think, but just of course not everyone has the same opinions on these things.
 
Toffee's Mom said:
Basically their point seems to be that breeding animals adds to the overpopulation problem, leading to more abuse cases because there are too many more unwanted animals, etc.
Click to expand...

This may be unpopular as well....but I agree to a point that breeding animals adds to the overpopulation.Maybe if there werent soo many breeders people would be more apt to seek pets at shelters. There are millions and millions of animals in shelters and breeders are just adding more and more and more.. I guess if you want a "showdog" you may want a purebred "high quality breed".

And I understand if you want a sheltie ... you probably arent going to find one at a shelter... i saw a sheltie at our local shelter and wanted to go see her.... 2 days later she was gone.. (adopted). Of course i was happy she found a home.
Why is it that most of the dogs at the shelters (well at least the one near me) has mostly pits..rotties.. and bulldogs?? Or weird mixed breeds like a collie/bulldog. Not to sound mean... but they are not attractive animals (imo).


I understand breeding to "better the breed". But IMO there are more breeders than people wanting pets. And with sooooo many animals being killed everyday ....adding more dogs to the list just doesnt seem right.

Breeders please dont attack me :cry:... like i said i understand why you do it and that some people "need" purebred dogs for shows and such. I just hate to see all the animals in the shelters.... every time i go to the shelter i must resist taking one home with me.
 
I think if we only had reputable breeders and all puppy mills and pets store were eliminated...there wouldn't be a problem. Too bad that will never happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top