Personal Reasearch about PETA

PETA has absolutely no merit to consider themselves a reputable organization. They are neither animal advocates, nor are they credible as a non-profit organization. You are right in challenging people to find their own truth. However, I hope that you did your research in a lot of other places than just that website. Understand that biasness exists everywhere, even there. I hope that you explored other resources as well.

I am all for people believing what they want, and if that is a belief in animal rights, then so be it. However, I do not agree that PETA as an organization is the right avenue to follow.

Please spell check your articles before posting. It makes you look irresponsible as a writer.

And about that ONE site that people keep referring to ("Peta Kills"). Peta put to sleep animals that would have languished in an animal shelter that resorts to less humane killing methods (gas versus injection).

And just so we're straight here, the humane society and animal shelters ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY, put animals to sleep every day. Thousands of them! Why pick on PETA for doing the same thing? Putting animals to sleep...humanely.

If you aren't vegetarian or vegan, I don't expect you to understand at all, and you need to look into your own hypocrisy. EVERY meal you eat with meat in it, involves cruelty. More than Peta has ever done. So hold your self up as a MURDERER as well. Okay? Thanks.

FYI, I disagree with handing out coloring books like that to children without parental permission, and I do not give money to peta.

Well I tought about joining PETA,but I drink Milk and won't give that up. And Also like fish, so no thanks PETA!

Also saying that "your mommy kills animals" IS HORRIBLE! These people should be ashamed of themselves!

-For food for tought, read my other blogs
"http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/contymua"

I agree that it does seem hypocritical to bash Peta while you are responsible for about 100 brutal deaths a year (if you eat meat). Do I agree with everything they do? Absolutely not. I do not believe in *not* adopting out shelter animals and our dog is a huge part of our family. He has a second chance. There wouldn't be millions of animals killed in shelters every year if people started being responsible with spaying/neutering and stopped buying from breeders.
Peta is known because of its publicity stunts. What people don't understand is that Peta has been effective in many animal welfare campaigns, including getting J Crew to remove fur from their line and exposing the meat/dairy industry for what it really is. They have video of cat and dog fur rade in China and aired an expose on a "kosher" slaughterhouse. People don't understand that PETA writes letters and repeatedly asks companies/people to up their standards. Only after being ignored do they resort to demonstrations. Only after seeing obvuis abuses for YEARS.. are people supposed to sit back and let cruelty happen? Change can occur only with action.

This comment bothered me:
"..They say they are for no pets, zoos, circuses, leather products, milk, eating of any animals or animal products, no wool, no animal testing, and no slaughtering of animals..".
I am not saying the poster was trying to justify the items on this list but I would like to review them:

I get the point and I do not agree with not at least trying to find these animals homes. I am with you there. Peta needs to seriously reform that. However, the list of offenses are there for a reason. We already discussed pets.
Zoos- some are rehab centers, but most animals are taken from the wild. Even if they aren't, who are we to confine a bird, who was born to fly, to a cage? The space these animals are given compared to their natural habitat is like putting a person in a closet. Imagine being gawked at and kept in a closet.
Circuses- I would like to know how beatng an elephant so it will do tricks is ethical in any way. I have personally seen bullhooks at a Ringling show. (We were there to protest). The incredibly intelligent ticket salesman told me that elephants are "pachyderns" (yeah, he said it with an "N") and that a bullhook is like a feather on our skin...(which is why they are scared of it? That makes sense.)
Leather products- leather is popular because of the meat industry, which is inherently cruel. We have to do something after we string up the cow by its leg and dismember it, right?? Though it can be considered a by-product, it is a huge money maker and the chemicals used are awful
Milk- Responsible for the veal industry. Being artificially inseminated, hooked up to a machine, force-fed hormones, and having your kids taken away from you (the boys go to veal, the girls get your same fate) is awful. Besides, there is pus in milk. It isn't necessary for humans at any lifestage and is pretty gross when you break it down. Eat some leafy greens, drink some fortifed oj, and get outside!
Wool- sheep go through a process in which their hind tissue is cut off with no pain killers. They are often sold for meat. They often die in transport. Obviously this is not all sheep but labels do not say anything about where the wool comes from
Animal testing- for cosmetics, it is especially revolting. For medicine, it has proven to not be great science. For some reason, rats aren't people. Hmm. Heard of Vioxx? There was also a drug for pregnant women that okayed on animals but the children were born with flippers. Oops. That was just a few examples. There is absolutely NO protection for rats and mice under the Animal Welfare Act, but they make up 90% of animal testing "models". The torturing done by "charities" under the pretense that they MIGHT help humans is pretty disgusting. We don't have to torture animals to help people. Please visit humaneseal.org for humane charities
Animal slaughter- I feel this does not need an explanation. We do not need to kill animals for food. It has never ben easier to go vegetarian. All the excuses in the world do not matter. Taking the life of a sentient being for a bite of flesh really has no ethical or environmental backing.

Regarding children- there were children's books about the circus but thing about childrens' parents being cruel, etc. I am very cautious when children are involved but it is not ok to lie to them either.

Sorry if there are typos. I am on the laptop and it's harder to type on.

More personal research needed

Since you did such a good job of researching PETA, you might want to research petakillsanimals.com a bit as well! That website is run by a group called the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). The CCF was established by a man named Richard Berman, and was started up through a $600,000 "donation" from tobacco giant Phillip Morris. Have you seen the movie Thank You For Smoking? Richard Berman = the MOD Squad. They've attached Mothers Against Drunk Driving, arguing against a MADD initiative to lower the blood alcohol content (BAC) limit for drivers by claiming that the stricter limits would punish responsible social drinkers. He has claimed that U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warnings about salmonella-related food poisoning are just “whipping up fear over food.

ohh peta , yep fun times

First of all, Being a omnivore (and yes people that is what humans are biologicly meant to be) Does not make me a hypocrite when i bash peta. Peta is a "non profit" organisation that advocates killing your everyday pet. Oh yes they don't want to spend the money on a no kill shelter because it's CHEAPER to just kill any animals they get thier hands on. They claim to not have the funds needed to open a shelter. YEah i can see that especially when you consider the fact that they spend money on people like Rodney Coronado and donate money to ALF (Animal Liberation Front) and ELF (Earth Liberation Front) all of whom are on the FBI's DOMESTIC TERRORISM list for a damn good reason.

Lets see now, Peta likes to protest KFC, oh yes that famous video of people in a chicken plant bashing chickens. Lets look at the facts.

1. Those workers featured in the video were immideatly fired.
2. Do you have any idea what beaing of any animal does to the meat? When peta
complains about it, think again simply be cause of the fact that beating he animal is counter productive to the quality of the meat.
3. In slaughter houses. Peta has complained about the inhumane treatment. Ok who here has ever been in a slaughterhouse? comeon raise your hands. A bolt to thehead is the most humane death anyone can give a cow at the slaughter house. If the cows or chickens for that matter are still twitching, well guess what, those animals are DEAD. Take a chciken, chop it's head of and it will still run around. The nerves take a lil bit longer to die than the brain.
3. Hanging chickens upside down and slitting their throats. By this poiint, after the electrified bath, the chickens are senseless. The slitting of the throat is needed. You know we have to drain the blood somehow. It's called health reasons.

Yeah Peta has been advocating gassing the chickens to death, wow can anyone else draw a parrallel between that and the holocaust? Speaking of the holocaust. lets look at Peta's "Holocaust on your plate" or better yet lets look at Peta going around the country to various colleges and staging events where they compare the Slavery and lynchging of black people (showing images from the 1800's and early 1900's) to cows in a slaughter house. And they wonder why they got such a bad reaction to it. Hell they don't even realise how lucky they are to actually have been abole to just walk away from that at all.

IF youve ever been to the peta2 site, look at their forums, if you'll notice quite a few of the threads in the forum look like their missing rather large chunks of the discussion. Wonder why? Well Peta doesn't like to have any members of differeing views. if you speak your mind or ask a question they don't like, you'll get banned and everything you post will be deleted.

Do a search on google, look up peta dumping animal bodies in a dumpster. Yes i know peta says that the people invoolved were fire or suspended. but did you know that the girl Adria Hinkly is married oto one of the higher ups in peta? You know if you have any common sense and your running a group like peta. and you get some emplooyees caught in something as shady as that, normally you'd fire them immideatly, not pay for their defence and try to get as much distance from them as possable.

Lets look at http://petakillsanimals.com yes it it run by the Center for Consumer freedom. They also have sites like http://activistcash.com http://fishscam.com and many other. Is that a bad thing? no, because peta has more sites under different names as well. These people actually do the homework and research before they make thier statements.

Did you know that second hand smoke causes no harm? http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm
the american lung association did that study and kept quite about it.

Tell you what, join these forums and ask hese people what they think about peta. Quite a few of them are FORMER Peta members..

http://www.peta-sucks.com/smf/

http://www.peta-deception.cjb.net/forums/

comeon and join our forums, express your views and debateif you feel like it. we won't ban you or delete your posts. Try to prove us wrong about peta.

oops here's my homepage

Regarding the last post...

You obviously know nothng about common industry practices. If you think that your "meals" die easily and with little pain, then I am sorry you are so easily bought. Slaughterhouse lines go so quickly that it is impossible to properly stun all the animals before killing them (which is required by law). Many have their throats cut open. Some die in the actual dismemberment process, chickens commonly get boiled alive. I highly suggest the book "Meat Market" by Erik Marcus. It is well researched and discusses these issues further. It is an easy read and is not expensive.

"Meant to be omnivores" implies that there is destiny or creator involved. I am sure such a creator who advocates killing some of its cratures advocates killing all ofis creatures so please. feel free to grill your mother or child or dog for dinner. The animals that you eat every day are sentient.
You evolved to have a brain. Use it. While we are discussing biology, humans are actually closer to herbivores than not. Our intestinal tracts are long (carnivores have short intestinal tracts) and our teeth are better suited for rough plants than meat. We do not have long claws to trap prey (like, say, a lion). Many of our plant-eating primate cousins have even sharper teeth, yet don't eat meat. Check out a cat's teeth. Cats are true carnivores. In any case I have heard the "tooth" argument more times than I can count, to which I say that I am smarter than to let my teeth make my decisions for me. People are survivors. We have sharp teeth. Big deal. Men have nipples. Does that mean they are "meant to" breastfeed?
You have the *choice* to be cruel or to be kind. This is something that no other animal has. You have the choice to contribute to an industry that is inherently disgusting and cruel. There is absolutely nothing you can say (in your head or in your poorly backed and defensive response) to make that fact go away. Feel free to use the Bible argument, the "you can't get protein" argument, or the hundreds of others that I have heard from little boys back in high school. I have heard them all.

Peta does not ADVOCATE killing pets. They have a website for almost all of their campaigns. Please link me to the one where they tell me to kill my pets. I would love to see it so I can write them a lively and strongly-worded email.
You mentioned animals "twitching". Dead animals do not get up and run out of the door. This video should be a piece of cake for you.

http://www.goveg.com/jsfkosher.asp

Abuses in the farmed animal industry are common and widespread. The industry cannot police itself. I do not agree with euthanizing a healthy animal that is not suffering. No one defended Peta on this. And you might want to check more than one source. The person who posted above you mentioned quite a lot about the people behind the petakillsanimals site (CCF).

There are plenty of resources to locate information on real, common slaughterhouse practices (besides Peta). Just because an organization you do not agree with advocates vegetarianism does not discredit vegetarianism itself. I really hope you look this up. Anyone who has clearly sees you haven't.

PETA has some good ideas, but their actions outweigh any benefits they achieve.

They are not as innocent as they try to portray themselves as.

afterhoursdjs.org
"facts are like kryptonite to the left" - vn_luborimi

I wrote a blog like this a few days ago encompassing the whole of the eco-fascist agenda. I haven't seen that website yet, thanks for the reference! :)

--Mike

PETA genuinely wants to help animals and help people adopt healthy lifestyles. I respect their wishes to help, but I ultimately disagree with the extremes they sometimes take.

PETA advocates having no pets - complete animal liberation, no pets. I had my last dog for nearly 12 years, and how could I have possibly set her free? As a pup she hurt her hind leg. As a free animal (and in Minnesota, where winters are very harsh), she wouldn't stand a chance. My family and I did our best to keep her happy, stimulated, well-nourished, and well-cared for. I don't believe that abolishing all ownership of pets is wrong. I do believe in raising the standards for pet ownership and in raising the punishment for people who torture, abuse, or neglect their animals.

PETA advocates a meat-free diet and a vegan lifestyle. Humans were meant to be omnivores, but they were meant to primarily eat fruits and vegetables. Think of the hunter-gatherers of our very early days: it was easiest to pick fruit and happen upon plants/roots, and those were staples in our diets. Catching an animal for meat was much harder and much rarer, but that doesn't mean we weren't meant to eat meat. It's just that we are currently eating faaaar too much meat, and consequently the meat industry can get away with hazards to our health (hormone enhancements) and animal cruelty because the demand of meat is so high that people would rather eat their meat than reduce meat consumption to enhance meat animals' lives.

I believe the biggest concern with PETA's killing of animals is that they take them from animal shelters, where they have yet the opportunity to be adopted, and put the majority of them to sleep. To me, it seems unfair that they deny the animals a second chance to a life with a family. Yes, animal shelters do put some of their animals to sleep: but they try to find homes for them first. PETA rescues animals from the shelters and more often than not puts them to sleep. I think that it is a wrong thing to do either way, but PETA's methods really don't make sense to me.

One can be a supporter of animal rights without being a member of PETA and without being as extreme as PETA is. What irks me most about PETA is that they say you can't be an environmentally concerned person without being a vegetarian, and that you can't be for animal rights without being a vegetarian, and you can't support X without doing Y.

Of course, there are members of PETA who do not go to the preceding extremes but simply want a better and more just world for animals. Like I said before, PETA has honourable intentions that I can respect, but I hate the way they deal with problems, and I could never join PETA.

Oh yes, Peta wants to help.. IN THIER OWN BRITAL WAY.

hmm you say that us HUMANS are supposed to be herbivores? And you cite our teeth? Look at our teeth, our molars are for grinding,the canines are for tears and the front teth are for shearing.

hmm slaughter houese huh? have you ever been in a slaughter house, have you ever slaughtered an animal? why don't you go to a slaughter house, or go hunting. Actuially learn about it first hand. The quicker the death, the better the meat. If you make the animal suffer, that animal releases aniti oxidents in it's own blood which changes the quality of the meat.

Oh I know you'll cite peta videos. BUT guess what, those same peta videos are crap. Back in the 90's peta "exposed" an orgatang trainer for abusing the chimps.. What was later found out in a lawsuit, was that the undercover "activist" was the one who was beating the monkey, and getting it worked up for the video.

here's a site for your peta videos
http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsC7.htm

Following are some examples of people who have tried ... and been exposed:

1964: Film of a seal being skinned alive is used by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to vilify Canadian sealers, and is screened on CBC television. Following a public outcry and investigation, a man in the film signs an affidavit declaring that he was "employed by a group of photographers ... to skin a large seal for the film. I solemnly swear before witnesses that I was asked to torment the said seal and not to use a [club], but just to use a knife to carry out this operation, where in normal practice a [club] is used to first kill the seals before skinning them." A Federal Standing Committee castigated CBC "for not enquiring into its accuracy before screening," but the damage had been done.

Campaign tactics of this kind were largely responsible for the introduction in 1972 of the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, which stands to this day. Among the impacts of this draconian and scientifically unjustifiable law was the end to imports of marine mammal products from Canada to the US, and the subsequent devastation of local economies across maritime Canada. (See FCUSA Press Kit Special Feature: Marine Mammal Protection Act)

1972: The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping produces a film entitled They Take So Long to Die. Scenes of animals suffering horribly in inappropriate traps are subsequently aired on CBS television. It is later learned that the animals had actually been caught in the wild and released into a compound to be trapped and filmed at leisure. The film is withdrawn from circulation, but the footage appears in another film, Canada's Shame, produced by the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals.

Mid-1980s: Greenpeace Australia distributes film of two men mutilating live kangaroos as part of a campaign to ban 'roo products in Europe. Greenpeace only withdraws the film after a court convicts the men for breaking the law, and concludes that they were paid to do so by the film crew.

1988: Footage of dolphins being mangled in the gear of a Panamanian vessel fishing illegally is presented by Earth Island Institute as "tragically representative" of the US fleet, despite the fact that the fleet carries government observers on every fishing trip. The footage leads to drastic regulation. By 1992, the US fleet is reduced by half.

1994: Posing as representatives of an American hunting magazine, a film crew commissioned by IFAW tricks a man into committing acts of extreme cruelty against kangaroos. The film is used by the animal rights group Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!), which claims it shows an "experienced, unlicensed but commercial killer" and portrays standard industry practice. The film crew flee Australia before they can be prosecuted, but the shooter in the film is taken to court. During the trial, it is discovered that he is not a licensed 'roo shooter, does not supply 'roos to the commercial industry, and did not have permission to shoot on the property he was filmed on.(1)

Despite the findings, Viva! continues to use the film, claiming that it shows kangaroos being hung via gashes in their legs "whilst still alive". In fact, movements seen in the tails and other limbs are clearly muscle spasms.(4)

Mid-1990s: In 1996, video footage of a brutal dolphin slaughter is used in a campaign to raise money and generate public support for embargoes against Venezuela's two exports, oil and tunafish. As they market the video, various groups claim the film "proves" that 40,000 dolphins are killed annually in a country where dolphin kills are illegal. No proof exists except the film. When the uncut film footage is finally discovered, it becomes obvious that the film was staged. The filmmaking crew had represented themselves to the fishermen involved as scientists from the local university, saying they needed to kill a dolphin for research and that they would take total responsibility. "Act natural!" yells the cameraman to the fishermen. The filmmakers supply the knife used to inhumanely butcher the animal while they direct the action. "More blood! Get me more blood!" yells the cameraman.

1997 - 2003: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals releases edited videotape of a facility in Illinois which shows acts of cruelty to foxes, plus electrocution of foxes, a method of euthanasia not approved in Illinois. PeTA claims the footage depicts "modern fur farms" in the US, and complains about lack of regulation.

Subsequent investigation reveals that the facility in question is not a fur farm but a scent-producing facility, its main business being to sell scent to wildlife biologists and others as a lure for wild animals. It is permitted not by the Illinois Department of Agriculture but by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and does not qualify for an agricultural operations exemption from DNR permits since the bulk of its animals, which include fox, raccoons, deer and other critters, come from the wild.

The Illinois Bureau of Animal Welfare becomes involved, and fines and penalties follow. But PeTA's assertion that this is a fur farm is shown to be untrue. Also shown to be false is PeTA's assertion that regulation is lacking. The State of Illinois not only responded quickly,(2) but showed layers of bureaucracy in place to prosecute those who break animal welfare laws.

As of 2003, PeTA still has not delivered the full, unedited footage with sound to the fur industry, the media or officials in Illiniois (who had been forced to prosecute the owner from the edited clips only). Meanwhile, PeTA has exported the edited film around the world, misrepresenting its source and using it to smear responsible fur farmers while raising donations for its coffers.

1998: Using videotape supplied by commercial news company SweepsFeed, US television stations air footage of dogs and cats being abused. The footage, claims the Humane Society of the United States, had been taken in China, and depicted the source of fur which will be mislabeled and exported to the US. On Jan. 16, 2000, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. investigative program "UnderCurrents" reports that SweepsFeed executives could not vouch for the origin or accuracy of this video; it had been given to them by an animal-rights group, and SweepsFeed had not verified its authenticity. Says a SweepFeed spokesperson, "How do we know that video wasn't a fake video? We don't, because we didn't shoot it in that case, and that's a rare instance [that we don't produce our own programs]." (See FCUSA Press Kit special feature: HSUS Furry Trade-Barrier Campaign)

1998 - 2002: In a case filed by the Canadian government against Jason Penney and other Newfoundland sealers for acts of alleged cruelty, the court refuses to admit as evidence a gory videotape produced by IFAW. The footage lasts 23 minutes, and contains no fewer than 77 cuts, suggesting some changes could have been made, says the judge, who also calls the cameraman "a sophisticated con man". (See Court Finds IFAW Video "Evidence" Inadmissible FCUSA press release, Apr. 21, 1999) The Crown appeals and Penney is subsequently convicted by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, but in 2002 the Court of Appeal overturns the conviction after finding that the trial judge admitted the video as evidence without considering the credibility of the witnesses.

In its ruling, the court writes: "Evidence establishing that the video has not been altered or changed is a precondition to its admission as evidence. Current technology is such that it is not difficult for a competent person to alter visual evidence. In this case, the video was, for a lengthy period, in the possession of a company that edits videos."(3)

1999: Members of the organization New South Wales Animal Liberation break into a a licensed possum abattoir in Tasmania and install hidden fiber optic cameras. The resulting video shows possums being stunned with a captive bolt pistol and then bled. The footage is run on a national current affairs program, with the allegation that it shows extreme cruelty. This claim is based on movements seen after bleeding has begun, which the activists say indicate the animals are still alive. In fact, the movements are merely muscle spasms. The footage is subsequently reviewed by the Tasmanian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, a non-government body made up of veterinary representatives from government, tertiary education, private practices and animal welfare organizations. The AWAC concludes there is no evidence of any breech of the detailed Animal Welfare Code of Practice for the operation, that the video shows a standard well-conducted slaughter operation, and that the operators appear to take "inordinate care" in all procedures.(4)

1999: In a campaign to have fur products labeled with how the animals involved may or may not have been killed, dozens of hours of interviews are surreptitiously conducted with furriers and retail clerks in Beverly Hills, then edited to make nonsense of their answers. Snippets of discussions about farm-raised animals are played off against remarks about trapping. While the many correct and informative answers are edited out, every incorrect answer is used. Luke Montgomery, a leader in the campaign, states on National Public Radio that furriers consistently referred him to the fur retailers' trade association for more information. Not one of these referrals makes it into the final edited tape.(5)

Trapping scenes used in the film, when reviewed by professional trappers, reveal startling discrepancies only trappers would notice.

For good measure, footage is added of a man struggling to kill mink in a highly irregular manner, carelessly tossing the animals into a bucket. This raises the eyebrows of fur farmers who review the tape, not only as to the non-standard method of kill, but also because animals prized for their pelts are always laid out carefully and separately. If they are laid together, let alone all tossed into one bucket, the body heat will cause "singe".

2000: A British court throws out a private prosecution brought against a fur farmer by Mark Glover of the animal rights group Respect for Animals. The principal evidence for the prosecution is video allegedly showing poor animal housing and other conditions. The judge rejects the evidence as being "selective" and filmed by people with an interest in stopping fur farming. In 1992, a jury was unanimous in finding Glover guilty of libelling another fur farm with allegations that were without foundation, untrue and unfair. He and his co-defendants were ordered to pay £40,000 damages. (See Judge Says Animal Rights Campaigner Produced "Selective" Evidence Against Farmer, British Fur Trade Association press release, Nov. 3, 2000)

2000: America's NBC Dateline uses video provided by the Humane Society of the US, produced as part of the animal rights group's boycott campaign against the use of karakul lamb (broadtail) pelts in clothing. The video, shot in Uzbekistan, claims that Russian karakul is produced from unborn lambs removed from pregnant ewes killed for this purpose. Common sense, of course, tells us that killing breeding ewes for the value of lambskins would quickly put the sheepherder out of business. Sworn affidavits from the producing regions attest that this is not practiced and that the claim made by HSUS is false. Among them is an unequivocal written judgement of the video's authenticity by Uzbek Karakul Company, which states: "Having thoroughly investigated the matter, we can confirm that the killing sequence in the footage was staged. The sequence was taken at the request of HSUS representatives, following a scenario suggested by them. The farm workers (Hasan, Zakir, Mutfullo, Fachretdin) were asked personally by the HSUS representatives to bring a sheep, cut off its head and remove the unborn lamb." (See also Animal Rights Group Attacks Remote Sheep Herders, Fur Information Council of America press release, Dec. 12, 2000.)

2001: Jesse Power, a vegan student at the Ontario College of Art and Design, enlists two other young men to film the brutal torture and killing of a house cat. Acts committed on video include hanging the cat by a noose, then cutting its throat while stabbing it, and finally slitting its chest open. At trial, Power's lawyer argues that the project was conceived as an "artistic protest" against meat-eating.

2005: The jury is still out on this one, but the evidence is highly suspect. Video purporting to show fur production in China is distributed early in 2005 by an animal rights group, Swiss Animal Protection Organization. By Spring of the same year, the footage is being distributed by North American animal rights groups with additional scenes added.

Dollar Farming ...
... or how to make money from snuff.

Produced by the Belgian association Brok (a freedom-of-choice movement) in cooperation with the Belgian Fur Trade Federation, "Dollar Farming" explains the simple business drive that often lies behind animal snuff films. All rights for using and distributing this movie belong to Brok.
Highly edited, the video shown in the U.S. includes footage of a fox farm where a dog is heard barking excitedly, a shot of a highly agitated fox (perhaps offered food) surrounded by calm foxes, plus mink on a farm illustrating distressed behavior, perhaps due to unusual activity on the farm out of camera range.

The video includes clips of foxes and raccoon dogs (tanuki), both animals which are also taken from the wild, in a marketplace setting. One man appears wearing a butcher's apron as he quickly kills a raccoon dog. However, another man, wearing street clothes (black leather jacket and pleated black pants) brutally skins alive a raccoon dog that he has hung on the back of a truck (license plate removed). The animal tries to bite the man and struggles aggressively, making the process extremely difficult.

The camera comes in close on a skinned, but still moving animal on a pile of animal carcasses. While the moving animal is covered in blood, showing its heart was pumping during the process, the animals beneath it are clean, as they would be if skinned while dead, which, of course, is the standard, normal procedure and the ONLY acceptable one by humane standards.

Another scene shows a man wearing tattered shoes, hitting a fox on the head with a knife, temporarily stunning but not killing it. He then struggles to skin the obviously alive, moving animal, alternating with beating it with the knife. The animal struggles so much as to make the job impossible, and a shot is seen of the man's shoes on the animal's head.

It is nonsensical to suggest that skinning an animal alive is normal practice since even this film of inhumane behavior proves this process to be difficult and dangerous, and furthermore the pulse of the living animal would cause extensive bleeding and damage to the fur. It is therefore highly likely that these scenes were staged.

The fur industry in Europe requested the original unedited footage from the Swiss animal rights group and was refused. The China Fur Commission and China Leather Industry Association challenged the authenticity of the material, saying: "Pictures showing animals being skinned alive are obviously plotted. All those with common sense would not choose this slaughter method to attain fur." The government of Suning County, Hebei Province also issued a statement outlining welfare practices on its fur farms, calling the alleged practice of skinning animals alive "unimaginable", and urging Swiss Animal Protection Organization to "respect the truth".

The media and general public should be highly suspect of this footage and work with the fur industry to determine the true story behind its production. (See Media wary of latest shock video, FCUSA commentary, May 25, 2005.)

2005: The animal rights group Mercy for Animals releases video and posts photos on its website of dead and injured chickens, claiming they were taken the previous November at Ohio Fresh Eggs, formerly Buckeye Egg Farm, in Croton, Ohio. The Columbus-based group alleges hens at the farm suffered bloody and open wounds, were immobilized without access to water, trapped in the wires of the cage, covered in feces and left in cages along with rotting corpses. But a spokesman for the farm states that the pictures could not have been taken at Ohio Fresh Eggs. "We have no idea when or where they took the pictures," says spokesman Harry Palmer. "There's no proof they took them at any of our facilities. The cages didn't represent our houses. Our birds are very different. We deny and dispute that it's our birds in the first place."(6)

Take a good look at Peta, do your own research and look at the from the other side, You'll find out that what you support isn't all that it pretends to be

Peta doesn't want to help. Hell they do everything they can to show they don't want to help. They advocate killing, they show it every day. This year alone they jumped up to a 90% kill rate. Look at the HSUS and the fatrina flood victims pets. They made a big deal about reuniting a FEW pets with their owners, While at the same time negelcting and letting other animals suffer and die in the heat.

You seriously think peta wants to help? Al peta wants to help are the cute critters. they don't care about the not so cute dritters.

In ohio (look in google news for this) peta threw a fit because Petland made a deal with the state (or county) to buy puppies and kittens from the animal shelter (also stating that they would give them vet care and spay or neuter them) giving those animals another and better chance at life. But before petland came into the picture, PETA wasn't doing a damn thing to help.

Why don't you stop listening to stupid brainless celebrities reading from a prompt board and think for yourself?

PETA reveals its deception by showing the world two faces. Currently PETA is railing against KFC/Yum Brands over its alledged treatment of chicken without acknowleging that KFC gets its chicken from outside suppliers. It was confirmed that some employees from one supplier Pilgrim's Pride did in fact abuse the chickens, the supplier responded by repremanding the employees and promptly fired them.

Now take PETA, where almost one year ago two of their employees were caught illegally euthinizing animals and then proceeding to dump the carcasses in dumpster. Does PETA fire these emplyees? No. Does PETA even repremand them? No. Andrew Cook gets suspended, Andrea Hinkle same deal but she still gets paid, all they get is a slap on the wrist and a pat on the back. Meanwhile PETA goes on a publicity blitz to justify their wholesale slaughter by lying blame on those that don't spay or neuter their their pets or claim they were saving the animals from an unloving existence.

Bullshit. With over 800 000 members and 29 million dollars in donations, PETA could just as easily find most of those animals loving homes. The fact of the is they won't, they are under the delusion they can decide which animals live and which die. PETA founder and president Ingrid Newkirk even admitted to killing thousands of animals (though I suspect that she is embellishing) because she thought they were better off dead than living humans.

I could go on forever, but I think I made my point here. PETA is a corrupted organization of liars, hypocrites and terrorists that have their hands drenched in the the blood of thousands of animals. They are good hiding it from their followers, many of whom are living in denial, knowing that they contributed to the great pet genocide.

As for any PETA-philes who are reading this, I dare you to go PETA Sucks for a civilized debate. Unlike PETA2, they won't delete your thread if they don't like it.

I recieved this email personally from a PETA staff member.

PETA does believe in total animal liberation. This includes companion animals. (my comment to this.. if they did believe in total animal liberation, why are they trapping and killing feral cat colonies that have been spayed or neutered, recieve vet care and are fed and taken care of.. these cats are not reproducing and are not suffering, they are liberated an living free with readily available food and shelter set out for them) We advocate for a no-birth nation, which means that no more puppies and kittens will be born because all current companion animals have been spayed or neutered. The reason being because the world we live in is no place for a domesticated animal. There are people who torture animals, hoarders you gather them for experiments and cars that can hit them. Because of this animals are best kept in doors unless on a harness of some sort to keep them out of harms way. It is not an ideal situation, but it is the best thing that we can do for them and one day we will hopefully live in a world where all animals are free.

If PETA got their way, you would have to explain to your grandchildren was a dog or cat is and what it was like to have a pet/companion animal.

BTW, Pyro.. Cook was not disciplined at all and Hinkle was suspended with pay. Also, PETA is paying their legal fees. How many thousands of dollars are being diverted AWAY from animals to defend these two "murderers"?

here is another excerpt from an article about PETA (not CCF source)..
A former PETA employee spoke of one particular incident that burned into her mind forever: 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!

now if former slaughterhouse employees are considered viable sources for PETA's propaganda, this former PETA employee should also be considered viable as well, correct?

This article also includes these tidbits..
Car loads of cats are regularly brought to PETA headquarters by employees and volunteers whose job it is to 'round them up'. One such volunteer has brought in hundreds of cats, many wearing tags bearing the name and address of their owner. The animals are loaded into a small storage shed, where they sometimes sit for several hours in the heat and cold...awaiting their date with the executioner.

In researching this article, I spoke to former PETA employees as well as people whose pets have been stolen by PETA (which were undoubtedly killed). Everyone of these people were willing to talk to me but insisted I not divulge their names or even the cities in which they now reside! When I asked one of these people why she was so afraid of retribution from PETA, I was told..."They will take it out on my animals".

I'll end with a few choice quotes from the fine upstanding animal loving mover and shakers at PETA..

Pet ownership is an "absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA

Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are "acceptable crimes"
when used for the animals' cause.
-Alex Pacheco (PETA)

But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

It would be really great if all these fast-food outlets, slaughter houses, these laboratories and the banks who fund them exploded tomorrow -- Peta Spokesperson Bruce Friedrich.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.

"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, "Animals," May/June 1993

"I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic. Twice a day I take synthetically manufactured insulin that still contains some animal products--and I have no qualms about it." --PeTA VP Mary Beth Sweetland

When ALF member Roger Troen was convicted of burglary and arson at the University of Oregon, in which $36,000 in damage was inflicted, PeTA paid Troen's $27.000 legal fees and his $34,900 fine. Gary Thorud testified under oath that "we were illegally funding this individual with money solicited for other causes, and Ingrid was using that money, bragging to
the staff that she had spent $25,000 on the case."
Deposition of Gary Thorud, Berosini v. PeTA, at 49-50.

Rodney Coronado, a member of the Animal Liberation Front, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 57 months in prison for the destruction of an animal diagnostics research lab at the University of California, Davis in April, 1987 (total damage estimates: $4.5 million). PETA sent $ 45,200 to Coronado's 'support committee,' which was a sum 15 times greater than what PETA spent on animal shelters nationwide in all of that year.

I have never been a fan of PETA. The group makes no sense to me. Especially now after reading your blog. I show dogs and I've heard stories from the older Owners/Breeders/Handlers who have seen PETA show up to a dog show and let the dogs out of their crates because its cruel punishment to keep them in a crate. Hello!!! The crate is to keep the dog from running rampant around the dog show site and to keep it from other dogs who don't necessarily have the greatest temperment or its vice versa. But PETA just makes me shake my head and go No, I don't believe a word you say. I understand that people want to help animals but there are better ways of doing it than killing animals in shelters or turning the human population into herbivores or even letting dogs out of crates at dog shows. So yeah, I'm going to stop before I really get going.

You obviously know nothng about common industry practices. If you think that your "meals" die easily and with little pain, then I am sorry you are so easily bought. Slaughterhouse lines go so quickly that it is impossible to properly stun all the animals before killing them (which is required by law). Many have their throats cut open. Some die in the actual dismemberment process, chickens commonly get boiled alive. I highly suggest the book "Meat Market" by Erik Marcus. It is well researched and discusses these issues further. It is an easy read and is not expensive.

Comments like these, often rehashed and recycled by PeTA and other animal-rights groups, do little but show the same ignorance and illogics in meat production that they claim their dissenters have. Few that I come across have little to no actual knowledge of the processes of meat, outside of suspiciously cropped and outdated video footages, and the shady "papers" and FAQs that their cult leaders hand to them. The first problem with this claim is that they ignore the fact that slaughterhouses (at least those that supply the stores and restaraunts that your average Joe hs access to) are frequently audited and constantly monitored by the USDA. These USDA officials are there to make sure the meat is grown and processed with regards to the health of the consumer, and in compliance with Animal Welfare Acts. Meaning slaughterhouses that kill their animals improperly get punished.

Only someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of slaughterhouse procedures would think a squawking, struggling, flapping animal would be missed among the mulititudes of stunned/dead ones lying still on the line, especially as they pass not one, but many inspectors and checkers who are there to make sure animals are stunned/dead. Please do tell, how a chicken can be boiled alive when it goes through a stun bath, THEN a head removal and the entrails put on display, THEN USDA members inspecting the carcass and the entrails before they're removed, before they even reach the plucking process. Even slaughterhouses who cut the neck instead of removing the head have checkers immediately after to make sure the animals are killed. Yes, despite what PeTA wants you to think, more than one checker is there. To say that chickens are "commonly" boiled alive is false.

"Meant to be omnivores" implies that there is destiny or creator involved. I am sure such a creator who advocates killing some of its cratures advocates killing all ofis creatures so please. feel free to grill your mother or child or dog for dinner. The animals that you eat every day are sentient.
You evolved to have a brain. Use it. While we are discussing biology, humans are actually closer to herbivores than not. Our intestinal tracts are long (carnivores have short intestinal tracts) and our teeth are better suited for rough plants than meat. We do not have long claws to trap prey (like, say, a lion). Many of our plant-eating primate cousins have even sharper teeth, yet don't eat meat. Check out a cat's teeth. Cats are true carnivores.

A very common PeTA/AR tactic is comparing humans to carnivores and herbivores. True, humans are NOT carnivores, but nor are we herbivores -- we are OMNIVORES. Since we're comparing humans to other animals, how about comparing our teeth to that of, say, a raccoon, which is an omnivore: sharp and flat front teeth, pointed canine teeth, flat molars. Kind of like ours, yeah? Our intestinal tract is too short to compare with herbivores, and lacks the ability to properly digest cellulose and more fibrous vegetables. We wouldn't even be able to digest CORN if we didn't break it up first. Anyone who's been to the bathroom a few days after eating it can see that. Also, our stomach contains hydrochloric acid, a chemical that herbivores lack.

To say that veg*anism is "kind" while eating/buying meat is "cruel" is deceitful. For which is a kinder death, a strike to the brain with a bolt, or having your guts and limbs ripped out by a harvester? What about starvation and disease? Both eating habits have blood on their hands. At least the meat-eaters are big enough to admit it.

Peta does not ADVOCATE killing pets. They have a website for almost all of their campaigns. Please link me to the one where they tell me to kill my pets. I would love to see it so I can write them a lively and strongly-worded email.
You mentioned animals "twitching". Dead animals do not get up and run out of the door. This video should be a piece of cake for you.

http://www.goveg.com/jsfkosher.asp

Of course PeTA won't say up front that they want pets eliminated through any means necessary, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LOSE ALL THEIR PRECIOUS DONATIONS. They state over and over that they want all breeding gone, pets sterilized until they can no longer make offspring -- and when they've all died out, then good riddance! They admit up front that they don't believe animals have a right to life.

As to the video you posted... nice try there, trying to hide a PeTA source behind a different name. GoVeg.com is owned by PeTA. Other Kosher slaughterhouses were appauled and surprised by the footage. Slaughterhouses tend to be extremely humane, considering a cut to the throat severs major arteries, causing immediate hemmorhaging and oxygen starvation in the brain, and rendering the animals insensitive in seconds.

Abuses in the farmed animal industry are common and widespread.

Wrong.

The industry cannot police itself.

Hence, the government "policing". Also, people seem to ignore the logistics in letting animals -- the bread and butter of meat industries -- suffer... which would produce poor meat.

I do not agree with euthanizing a healthy animal that is not suffering. No one defended Peta on this.

And yet you defend PeTA here and now. PeTA only apologized for the illegal dumping of the animals. They fessed up because they got caught. But they STILL think they're justified in killing any animal they can get their hands on. Even the healthy and adoptable ones.

No, PeTA is not animal-friendly. They're hypocrites and liars. Period.

I feel I have to comment here. If Peta is a legitimate non-profit organization and not 'agents provocateurs', then I have some suggestions to the people in the organization. Firstly, if we really truly care for the treatment of animals, we cannot act militaristically no matter how outraged you get about slaughterhouses, animal shelters, leather, wool, and even bees etc. Human consciousness expands when each person is perceived to be 'educable' and not viewed as monsters because they eat meat. Eating meat has been customary for quite a few thousand years, however disagreeable I may be to it. For many people, even those who eventually become vegatarian, will tell you how difficult it is to make the transition, including myself and my family. It requires a lot of patience and education. Hitting people, so to speak, with labels and accusations is not conducive to an environment where people will be 'open' to change by their own 'wills'. Forcing change, no matter how noble, loses integrity with everyone. It does a great disservice to the animals in question and the grassroots endeavours, if the people organized to 'help' protect animals are in any way harboring violent thoughts toward those who really are not ready to make the change to veggies. Active, compassionate awareness and ongoing education for the public is all we can really do until there will come a time when for the most part people will change, but on their own, and when they will welcome it naturally. If you think it is horrible what some humans are doing to animals, just take a look at what they are doing to 'enemy combatants' or those they label 'terrorists', women, children and men who feel they must try to protect their own homeland from invasion. If we truly want to be the 'lightworkers', we must educate and disseminate information responsibly, and honour others who are not ready, without name calling. We have all the facts about the wrongness of meateating and farming and all the facts of the putrefaction in our colons and how it blocks our systems making us vulnerable to disease. But then we really must take a 'balanced' approach with this issue if we want to make any inroads for change and I really do believe it will come universally, in fact, simply because, like oil, gas, chemicals, etc. it is simply NOT SUSTAINABLE. Keep in mind we must be circumspect about this AND NEVER NEVER INVOKE VIOLENCE, otherwise you are being the perpetrators too. Be careful, be loving, be compassionate of all others and change will come. Thank you.