New developments in the practices of the “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” recently released reveals employees for the controversial organization consider a “trash can” an “ethical” place for homeless pets in America.
According to the Ashville Citizen-times report (Feb. 10, 2007) two PETA employees went on trial for animal cruelty amongst other charges.
According to the newspaper’s account, the employees “collected stray animals from shelters and veterinarians in several eastern North Carolina counties, euthanized them (these employees were not licensed veterinarians or even vet technicians with training) in the back of a van and threw them in dumpsters behind a grocery store.”
The two PETA agents were found guilty of “littering,” but not guilty of animal cruelty? Where is the logic in that verdict? I later learned PETA hired some very high-priced attorneys to wage a defense against the defenseless creatures they decided to murder.
Good news! The authorities confiscated the van! I am sure that will put a dent in their activities?
According to PETA, euthanasia is preferred to an animal shelter because the organization considers the animals confined in a cage waiting for new homes to be cruel treatment; therefore, they would rather send them to “pet heaven” instead. They justify in their demented minds that they are some kind of “angels of mercy.”
This philosophy literally blew my mind into tiny pieces. What part of “ethical” do they not understand?
The verdict of “littering” is simply insulting to those of us who care very deeply about the homeless companion issue. The very concept that our companion animals would even be considered “litter” is obscene to my senses. Maybe I am just too sensitive when it comes to those beloved sad eyes reaching into our hearts to find a place in our homes. They did not ask to be born. They certainly did not deserve a dumpster for a burial site. Many are outraged the “offenders” got off so lightly.
I wonder if the 1.6 million strong in membership endorses this “throw-away” policy? Did they send out a referendum ballot for every dues paying member to vote on the issue? It will be interesting to watch the enrollment numbers in the future, as those who stay on board will surely be called upon to defend this radical animal activists’ organizational philosophy that states in no uncertain terms that euthanasia is better than a “no-kill shelter” which offers hope of a second chance at freedom in the loving arms of a devoted family.
Currently, the organization is in the midst of a new campaign membership drive utilizing naked women on their web site to entice the unsuspecting to donate to their “worthy causes.” The only reason I know of this tacky tactic is because it was featured on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Show a few weeks back. Beware! Investigate the causes they support before you sign your name as a PETA member. They may be coming to a shelter near you to send our homeless animals to the nearest dumpster and make away with the cash.
For many years now, I have been an outspoken critic of PETA and its terroristic tactics foregoing the democratic process of debate. Some years back there were rumors circulating they even threatened to spread hoof-and-mouth disease among the livestock ranchers just so the herds would have to be destroyed in a futile attempt to prevent American citizens from consuming animal entrees.
Most ranchers took them seriously considering their contemptuous history.
I have spoken out against these coercive tactics publicly - on the radio in Grand Forks and at the State Capitol in Bismarck, ND. I love beef and have a deep respect for the hardworking family ranchers who strive to uphold the most excellent standards in cattle ranching.
The radicals at PETA do not see it that way and insist on forcing their vegetarian diets down our throats, utilizing hostile propaganda which only incites emotional responses instead of supporting and participating in rational debate to confront the realities of livestock processing and eliciting sound, practical solutions to address existing animal welfare concerns.
Upon further investigation, I found PETA actually donated $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (April 20, 2001) to support their “program activities.” Sounds benign enough? The FBI is on record stating that ELF is “the largest and most active US-based terrorist group.”
You think that is outrageous? What until I drop the next bomb: PETA has killed 41,000 “companion animals” from July 1998 to December 2005, according to the Ashville Citizen-Times report. Further, this policy of “disposing of the bodies” represents over 90 percent of the animals it took into their programs in the year 2005 alone.
I love animals as much as the next person, but I never want to be under the dictatorial rule of a PETA fanatical wing. The organization began with good intentions and credible messages for the most part, including the questionable practices of using animals for scientific experimental research; but it is their methods that dictate an immediate rewrite.
Until they come to the table with an open mind and responsible leadership in place to debate the animal advocacy goals in a civilized fashion allowing for the free discourse by all parties involved, you will never find my name on their membership rolls in the future. When they ask for money, I freely give them exactly one penny for the one animal they did adopt into a loving home. I will not be on record supporting the 90 percent that made it to the dumpsters.
Contact Bezanson at columnist@coastalcourier.com
According to the Ashville Citizen-times report (Feb. 10, 2007) two PETA employees went on trial for animal cruelty amongst other charges.
According to the newspaper’s account, the employees “collected stray animals from shelters and veterinarians in several eastern North Carolina counties, euthanized them (these employees were not licensed veterinarians or even vet technicians with training) in the back of a van and threw them in dumpsters behind a grocery store.”
The two PETA agents were found guilty of “littering,” but not guilty of animal cruelty? Where is the logic in that verdict? I later learned PETA hired some very high-priced attorneys to wage a defense against the defenseless creatures they decided to murder.
Good news! The authorities confiscated the van! I am sure that will put a dent in their activities?
According to PETA, euthanasia is preferred to an animal shelter because the organization considers the animals confined in a cage waiting for new homes to be cruel treatment; therefore, they would rather send them to “pet heaven” instead. They justify in their demented minds that they are some kind of “angels of mercy.”
This philosophy literally blew my mind into tiny pieces. What part of “ethical” do they not understand?
The verdict of “littering” is simply insulting to those of us who care very deeply about the homeless companion issue. The very concept that our companion animals would even be considered “litter” is obscene to my senses. Maybe I am just too sensitive when it comes to those beloved sad eyes reaching into our hearts to find a place in our homes. They did not ask to be born. They certainly did not deserve a dumpster for a burial site. Many are outraged the “offenders” got off so lightly.
I wonder if the 1.6 million strong in membership endorses this “throw-away” policy? Did they send out a referendum ballot for every dues paying member to vote on the issue? It will be interesting to watch the enrollment numbers in the future, as those who stay on board will surely be called upon to defend this radical animal activists’ organizational philosophy that states in no uncertain terms that euthanasia is better than a “no-kill shelter” which offers hope of a second chance at freedom in the loving arms of a devoted family.
Currently, the organization is in the midst of a new campaign membership drive utilizing naked women on their web site to entice the unsuspecting to donate to their “worthy causes.” The only reason I know of this tacky tactic is because it was featured on Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Show a few weeks back. Beware! Investigate the causes they support before you sign your name as a PETA member. They may be coming to a shelter near you to send our homeless animals to the nearest dumpster and make away with the cash.
For many years now, I have been an outspoken critic of PETA and its terroristic tactics foregoing the democratic process of debate. Some years back there were rumors circulating they even threatened to spread hoof-and-mouth disease among the livestock ranchers just so the herds would have to be destroyed in a futile attempt to prevent American citizens from consuming animal entrees.
Most ranchers took them seriously considering their contemptuous history.
I have spoken out against these coercive tactics publicly - on the radio in Grand Forks and at the State Capitol in Bismarck, ND. I love beef and have a deep respect for the hardworking family ranchers who strive to uphold the most excellent standards in cattle ranching.
The radicals at PETA do not see it that way and insist on forcing their vegetarian diets down our throats, utilizing hostile propaganda which only incites emotional responses instead of supporting and participating in rational debate to confront the realities of livestock processing and eliciting sound, practical solutions to address existing animal welfare concerns.
Upon further investigation, I found PETA actually donated $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (April 20, 2001) to support their “program activities.” Sounds benign enough? The FBI is on record stating that ELF is “the largest and most active US-based terrorist group.”
You think that is outrageous? What until I drop the next bomb: PETA has killed 41,000 “companion animals” from July 1998 to December 2005, according to the Ashville Citizen-Times report. Further, this policy of “disposing of the bodies” represents over 90 percent of the animals it took into their programs in the year 2005 alone.
I love animals as much as the next person, but I never want to be under the dictatorial rule of a PETA fanatical wing. The organization began with good intentions and credible messages for the most part, including the questionable practices of using animals for scientific experimental research; but it is their methods that dictate an immediate rewrite.
Until they come to the table with an open mind and responsible leadership in place to debate the animal advocacy goals in a civilized fashion allowing for the free discourse by all parties involved, you will never find my name on their membership rolls in the future. When they ask for money, I freely give them exactly one penny for the one animal they did adopt into a loving home. I will not be on record supporting the 90 percent that made it to the dumpsters.
Contact Bezanson at columnist@coastalcourier.com