PETA

[Boasnsuch]

PETA's latest campaign, they want to ban the online sale of all exotic animals, including "dangerous reptiles"

PETA - Article about online exotic trade

 

[Gary Walsch]

As far as I am concerned PETA can go pound salt !!!!  They will not be happy until we all comply with their " Secret Agenda " which is that we all stop eating or drinking any product derived from animals.  In my humble opinion I think one of the worst things in this world is fanatics with a hidden agenda.  Also another thing that makes me crazy is intolerance, and PETA defines this.  They want nothing more than for all people everywhere to quit using animals for any purpose including pets.  They want us to just look at them from afar or in a book.  They really need wake up to reality.  I am 100% against animal abuse and I do feel that animals do have rights but PETA needs to understand that they are unreasonable and unrealistic in their views and goals.  They have accomplished some good things in the past but I think they are out of control now.

 

[cnjreptiles]

And speaking of out of control, these guys were here in Richmond, Va handing out their pamphlets and stuff outside of one of the junior high schools.  These kids are what, 10-13 years old? And they are catcing them coming and going from school to spread their message.  That kind of activity is out of line.  And also, weren't they the ones that were caught giving money to one of those environmental terrorist groups or was that the HSUS?  I can't remember, but they are both out of line and need to be stopped in my book.  Maybe we need to start our own group,  PUTIA(like Fuschia), People for the UNETHICAL treatment of IGNORANT Activists.

These people really piss me off.

 

[Ken Harbart]

As I grow older, I grow more extreme in my dislike for extremists.

Jeff, it was indeed Peta that supplied money to domestic terrorists. PETA also assists with the legal defense of domestic terrorists.

Peta's national lecturer, Gary Yourofsky. Yourofsky has openly advocated arson and violence in the name of animal rights. He has also gone on record to say that he would unequivocally support these attacks if they resulted in the death of humans.

Commenting on the hoof and mouth epidemic that plagued Europe, Ingrid Newkirk (Peta's president)stated, "I openly hope that it comes here."

Ingrid Newkirk has also trivialized the plight of jews in WWII Nazi concentration camps.

Alex Pacheo, Peta's director, had this to say, "Arson, property destruction, burglary and theft are 'acceptable crimes' when used for the animal cause."

Peta's official staement about the terrorist acts of the Animal Liberation Front- "We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front... they act courageously, risking their freedom and their careers to stop the terror inflicted every day on animals in the labs. (ALF's activities) comprise an important part of today's animal protection movement."

 

[Boasnsuch]

PETA, HSUS, and ALF are not the only wackos out there.  There is one group dedicated to the concerns of poultry.  You want a nice quote? check out the last 2 paragraphs of this letter.  I'd post it but I don't know if it would be a copy right issue if i did:

Karen Davis, PhD
President
United Poultry Concerns
Letter to the Editor

 

[cnjreptiles]

Thanks for the link to that letter.  I work for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, our local newspaper, and we recently had a front page artical in our Sunday edition about the chicken catchers that work in eastern Virginia.  Luckily, I have the good fortune to work with someone who is vegan, and a semi-activist.  She also felt the need to write a letter and did so to our own newspaper relating to the article.  Now I will agree, the article made me want to skip any chicken dinners.  But the stance and actions some of these groups take is way out of line.  Comparing chickens to 9/11 victims?  Give me a break.  

I can accept animal rights, I agree with that.  I do not agree that animals have MORE rights than people.  Let's just look at it from a natural viewpoint.  Survival of the fittest right?  We are the fittest for now. When any species evolves that takes our place, so be it.  Now I don't agree that we should be driving species to extinction, but I don't think we should have to worry about that anytime soon when it relates to animals like chickens.  

As this all relates to reptiles, it still doesn't work.  Lets take all these animals that have been captive bred, or LTC and put them back where they came from.  Lots of these animals are bred for traits that would make them easier targets in the wild.  And a lot of these animals are endangered or soon to be in their native habitat.  You can take all the animals any of us own and put them in their native homes and watch them die.  Yeah, that's ethical.  Let's release all the domesticated animals as well, that will work.  I wonder if any of these people realize domesticated animals don't occur in the wild.  Dogs and cats bred to be pets are not wild animals and would not be likely to survive if released en masse, not to mention the effect it would have on the ecosystem.  Same thing goes for ferrets, there are no wild ferrets.  What should we do with all of these?

 

[Florencia R.]

While I agree that PETA are extremely obessessive and unrealistic, and this herp-ban idea is *ridiculous!*, I have to say that they still have some good ideas, in theory--mainly the ones about compassion for animals, not only for the sake of the animals themselves, but also for the sake of the environment, public health, etc. (For info, see www.taxmeat.com--it's a silly idea and it's run by PETA but it has info that I can prove to you is true.) The problem is that the people getting all the media coverage are PETA, ALF, Greenpeace, and other crazy extremists that give all us hippies a bad name. <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>  A slightly more realistic, non-psycho group that you all should check out is The Physicians' Committee For Responsible Medicine (www.pcrm.com, probably.) I think they associate with a few of these people but they base their opinions on real, factual information.
Also, I just HAVE to say it..."Survival of the fittest" doesn't mean using power because you have it. I mean, you don't go shoot people with your brand-new gun just because you can, and similarly, you don't kill and eat animals just because you can. And it IS possible to live without eating, drinking, wearing, or testing medications on animals.
And as I said in a previous post... How can you love animals called pets and eat animals called dinner? I love my hognose snakes, ball python, leopard gecko, cats, veiled chams, axolotls, rat, etc. way too much for that.


But jeez, a ban on reptiles? ####in' PETA....

 

[Florencia R.]

Now that I keep thinking about that ban thing I remembered more because I read about it when they first released it to the media. Before they came up with this part of the campaign--the one that Boasnsuch posted a link to--they had another, which was something to the effect of "Make all airlines and package companies ban trafficking live animals". As if herpers don't have enough problems with shipping! They quoted various Post Office and airline workers telling their sob stories about seeing shipments of chicks and other animals, mostly feeders, coming in and "...almost all of them were dead" (probably not shipped overnight, or the fault of the shipper). Their goal was to get an airline--Alaska, I think--to add themselves to the list of "compassionate airlines who refuse to ship live animals". I don't agree with people keeping exotic mammals as pets, since they're highly intelligent animals that never adapt well to captivity, but herps are another issue. Especially CB ones. PETA needs to quit bitching and looking for things to be angry about.
This isn't really a long post and yet I feel like I'm rambling...Well, it's late...wait, 8:19??...Okay, well, I'm tired and this would have made more sense had it been posted when I was fully awake, HOWEVER you get the idea...So to sum it all up, PETA used to be somewhat cool at one point, when they had Pamela Anderson posing nude, but now they just...uh...suck.

 

[Julliet]

I agree with Gary. They can go pound rock salt. There has to be a healthy medium somewhere however Peta just is not it.  
 Florencia...I do love my animals I also enjoy a good steak as well. One does not negate the other persay. I also believe in responsible hunting as a viable means for conservation. Without it a good deal of animals would starve to death due to the fact that we humans have chosen to invade thier habitat for our own use. This does not mean killing for the sheer pleasure of killing, however I for one would rather see a herd of deer survive and be healthy with a few killed and ate then to have the whole herd half starved due to diminished food sources. Nor do I believe that reptiles or any animal should be banned as a pet etc... as long as there is responsible care given to the animal in captivity. I also disagree that some animals shouldn't be kept due to thier intelligence level. I have found some reptiles to be more intelligent then given credit for and some warm blooded animals ( yes that includes humans) that show an unbelievable amount of stupidity.  


Alison Crews

 

[BEN SPARKS]

Hi all!!

Welp I just have to add my .02 here.

Personally I have no problem with the people of PETA having
a cause and feeling passionate about it, even if its something
I dont agree with. They have the God given right to disagree.
I even feel that people who dont believe in God have the
right to do so, God gave them the choice to believe or not.
 However its how they choose to convey their message that
I and many others have a problem with. They do support domestic terror financially and here are some examples :

monetary donations to the ELF - The FBI recognizes the ELF
as a domestic terrorist organization that has underground cells
throughout the U.S. (according to FBI agent David Szansy)
The ELF amitted to torching the US forestry lab in Penn. causing 700,000$ in damage and loosing 45 years of research.
In 1998 the group claimed responsibilty for the arson of a Vail
resort causing 12million in damage. ELF said they wanted to stop the expansion of the resort. PETA vice president Bruce Friedrich said "I think it would be great if all the fast food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tommorrow".

Other payouts include:
5000$ to Josh Harper, convicted of assaulting police and firing
on a fishing vessel.

2000$ to Dave Wilson, convicted of fire-bombing a fur cooperative.

7500$ to Fran Trutt, convicted of attempted murder of a medical executive.

20000$ to Rodney Coronado, convicted of burning a research
lab at Michigan State.

Right now Represenative Scott McInnis (Republican) is probing
into PETA's ties to domestic terrorism.

I read a report written by a US Fish and Wildlife employee who
was sent to PETA's annual convention back in 2000 to see what all transpires over the 5 day event every year. Anti everything was the theme. They taught classes on how to target the young because they are weak-minded and easy to convert, how to intimidate people, how to organize protesting,
etc.... They also had private classes after hours but the gentleman didnt attend any of them.'

Recently in Milwalkee (sp ??) PETA tried to protest their local
major leage baseball games. Apparantly during half time they
have a man dressed up in a "hot link sausage" outfit and PETA
is protesting that should have a vegatarian sausage outfit during half time also.

I have friends who have been victims of PETA. One of which had 40+ porcipines that he rescued off of a Ranch where the owner wanted to just kill them. PETA broke into his place and
opend all his pens and cages. Everything from the porcupines
to prairie dogs, cus-cus (one of two breeding projects in the U.S.), sqirrels, chipmunks, etc... where released in the middle
of the night at his place, beside a major highway. Needless to say almost half of the animals were dead on the road by morning. Only about 1/4 of them were recovered alive. (is this the way to save animals PETA??)

Having a cause is fine. We live in a free place where we can agree to disagree. But going about it the PETA does is wrong,
just wrong.

<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt='???'>
God Bless
Ben Sparks
Christian Reptile Center

 

[Clay Davenport]

In reality animals have no rights at all. The idea that they do is a result of human ideology and has no basis in nature. In fact the notion is an example of illogical reasoning.
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I can accept animal rights, I agree with that.  I do not agree that animals have MORE rights than people.  Let's just look at it from a natural viewpoint.  Survival of the fittest right?  We are the fittest for now. When any species evolves that takes our place, so be it.  Now I don't agree that we should be driving species to extinction, but I don't think we should have to worry about that anytime soon when it relates to animals like chickens.  </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

The Survival of the Fittest is an excellent example, but not in the way it was intended in the above quote.
By definition, SOF allows for no inherent "rights" for any organism, but only the tools to survive as best it can.
An antelope has no more right not to be eaten by a lion than it does a human animal (which is what humans must be classified as according to the principles that accompany SOF).
Throughout nature we see the recurring theme of the strong using the weak to better their own chances of survival. On what basis are humans excluded from this natural order?
The result of the support of animal rights is not the raising up of the status of animals, but tearing down that of people.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And as I said in a previous post... How can you love animals called pets and eat animals called dinner? I love my hognose snakes, ball python, leopard gecko, cats, veiled chams, axolotls, rat, etc. way too much for that.
</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

This argument has always amused me when presented by pet keepers, particularly those who keep reptiles.
How about a reversal of sorts on the above statement.
How can you love animals others call dinner, while confining to a virtual prison animals you call pets?

Take the following examples:
1) I shoot a deer. The deer is dead within minutes and I have meat in my freezer for the next few months.
2) You buy a hatchling kingsnake, bring it home and put it in a cage, where in one form or another it will spend the next 15 years in complete subjection to your whims.

You cannot deem the first example cruel and not the second.
You cannot be against some utilitarian uses of animals (food, clothing, medical research) while not only tolerating, but participating in others (such as pet keeping). In regard to reptiles as pets, it is a utilitarian use, because it serves only the needs of the keeper, be they emotional, psychological, or financial, with no coresponding benefit to the kept.
I am not condemning the keeping of reptiles by any means, merely demonstrating the absurdity of this line of thought.

Animal rights is an all or nothing prospect. You cannot choose selective application according to personal interests.
Take for instance a reptile keeper who believes killing a pig for food is wrong. Then take a pig farmer who believes reptiles are wild animals and should not be confined to cages. They are both right from their own perspectives.
If animals do have rights, they must supercede human beliefs and opinions. Since the idea that animals have rights at all is not based on nature, but instead is only a result of human beliefs and opinions, this is an impossibility.

It is a great display of arrogance for one to believe that just because they feel eating meat or wearing leather is wrong, that makes it so.
By what cosmic provision does your opinion carry the ability to set moral standards while mine, or anyone else's does not?

 

[Clay Davenport]

On the subject of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
This organization is little more than PeTA with a facelift. As some people would say, it’s like putting purfume on a pig.

To begin with the name is misleading. Physicians make up only 5% of the total membership. This 5% is equivalent to only 0.5% of the nations doctors. They are hardly a physicians committee by any stretch of the term.

The president of the PCRM is Neal Barnard, a psychiatrist, who at one time if not still today, was the medical and science advisor for PeTA. He still maintains close connection with that group.
Himself along with Ingrid Newkirk are on the board of the Foundation to Support Animal Protection. This foundation is a money funnel between PeTA and other animal rights organizations, and is also a large supporter of the PCRM. The foundation also pays the mortgage on PeTA’s Norfolk offices.

The American Medical Association has issued several resolutions against the PCRM for their irresponsible and inaccurate information concerning nutritional advice and medical research. The fact that the AMA, one of the most respected medical groups in the country denounces the findings on the PCRM with statements such as it “finds the recommendations of PCRM irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the health and welfare of Americans” brings into serious question any possibility that the opinions they put forth are based on anything resembling factual data.

Neal Barnard has also worked with Kevin Jonas, who is with a violent animal rights group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty. This man was formerly known as Kevin Kjonaas when he was a spokesperson for the Animal Liberation Front, a group deemed by the FBI to be domestic terrorists.

The PCRM also maintains several other websites one of which being www.CharitiesInfo.org where they attempt to convince people not to donate to such charities as the March of Dimes and the American Heart Association based on the sole reason that they support medical research involving animals.

In the year 2000 the PCRM received funding from a number of sources, but the top few were these:
Nearly $600,000 from Foundation to Support Animal Protection
Over $500,000 from New England Anti-Vivisection Society
Over $250,000 from PeTA
Looking only at who supports the group tells a tremendous amount about what their true agenda is.

 

[cnjreptiles]

Just to clarify my earlier statement about survival of the fittest.  I didn't mean to imply we had the "right" to destroy fauna at will just because we can.  I meant that even if you take away all of our tools and gadgets, we would still be killing animals for food, furs, etc.  Just like our ancestors did.  Those thumbs are great ain't they?

 

[franklinedwards60]

One point I have to say is this

From the good book


Genesis 9:1-3

1   So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."
2   "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand."
3   "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs

 

[BEN SPARKS]

<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>
Well said Frank, well said !  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

God Bless !
Ben Sparks  <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

 

[Florencia R.]

Nobody has yet explained *why* they eat some animals but not others.

Clay...You bring up some great points, however I have to disagree with you on your "all or nothing" theory, while at the same time applying it to all of you. That is, either you think ALL animals are the same and you'd eat the meat of a crow or a hagfish or a tarantula or whatever...or...NOTHING: you won't eat any animals because they all hold the same value to you.
2nd: I indeed CAN keep pets while being a vegetarian. True, I'm opposed to hurting or killing animals. And okay, my pets eat crickets, mice, etc. but these feeders are actually kept and killed in much better conditions than the average slaughterhouse animal. Really. (This does not apply to Berlin...There was a new law passed last year that pig farmers must spend an average of 15 seconds with each pig, either by giving it physical attention like petting or by looking at it so it "knows it has someone who takes care of it" or something.) And whether my ball, Charlie, is in captivity or in the wild, he'd still be eating little animals. (It's not his fault that he's a carnivore. I'd never make any of my carnivorous animals be vegetarian like those vegans who only feed their cats vege kibble, essentially destroying their innards, I'm sure.) And *that*, my friend, is the benefit of being a captive pet: free food on a regular basis, plus freedom from predators.

Again I have to point out that I never said that what I believe is the ultimate right. I, of all people, would be the last to say something like that because right and wrong are personal opinions, nomatter what. But whereas my idea is not hurting animals, your idea is to hurt animals for our use. Don't argue that point; I'm just trying to simplify. My point is, I'm not hurting anybody, literally! And yet everyone makes it harder for me to stress my point. It doesn't make much sense.
PCRM...I've read a lot of their reports, none of which were a "hazard to human health" or anywhere near that. Besides, while we're talking about endangering human health, how about the World Health Organization intentionally refusing to release information about the dangers of tobacco? Of how about that food pyramid you all adhere to? Did you know that the USDA board of 13 members who came up with it happened to have 9 members of the agricultural industry, including reps from pig farms, egg & poultry, dairy, and beef organizations and businesses. Hmm....

The reason they're anti-March of Dimes is because they do old-fasioned animal testing to research things we already know. For example, much of their testing involves injecting pregnant apes and monkeys with various drugs, including nicotine, cocaine, etc. to determine the harm to the fetus. Now, call me crazy, but didn't we all know already that crackheads give birth to sick, often mentally-retarded preemies? So why are they spending thousands of dollards on these things when it could be spent actually helping babies, their "cause"?

Now, to reiterate, I'm not Christian and I've read only pieces of the Bible, however...
1) the Bible is people's word, not God's word. It's just how they interpreted what he said, and though he is perfect, people are not BY FAR!
2) There is plenty of anti-animals-as-food scripture in the Bible as well.. [a little self-contradicting, isn't it?]
3) Hello, have you ever heard this one?

THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

I don't see any ambiguity in that. If you do, well damn, I'm not going to repeat myself again, just read my post on the other thread.

 

[sexysnake]

Well,

    Florencia not are you way off base about pretty much everything you know nothing of the bible.   It is God's word interpreted by people.  Thou shalt not kill is in context to humans not animals.  
    So, by all means stick to what you know ..... nothing, and please don't repeat yourself, you are babbling about things that even you admitted to not knowing anything about.  
    Testing on animals can be a very important to the overall human race, if you or one of your family members got sick and they had a vaccine but it was tested on animals would you refuse that vaccine?   NO!  I think not!  
    I have to agree with the bible scripture and my overall belief that animals were put on this earth for us to befriend, and to live off of.  
     I am sorry that you are so misguided, read the bible and then tell me where I can find the anti-animal scriptures, all I can remember was that it was forbidden fruit that got people in trouble! <img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':0'>

 

[franklinedwards60]

So your snake is a carnivore, and as of no fault of his own he has to eat meat and Vegans are tearing up the insides of their cats by feeding veggie kibble.

So sense we are omnivores, meant to eat meat and plants.

Then you are saying you are tearing up your insides by not doing so. Sense this is how you were born and you were fed off the breast of your mother. And in doing so started life off as carnivore.

As to what animals we eat and do not eat that is all by choice and they would all be good for you in some way.

You say you are not hurting anything but you feed your snake mice?

As to the Bible it is a book of God's word written down by man. So man was his secretary, he wrote down what he was told.

As I do not know anything of other religions. I can not debate what they believe. I do know the Bible does not say what animals to eat and what no to. Most is based on what they are best for. As an Ox could be used to plow fields, dogs to help hunt and cows food. And I'm sure when your dog is old he could be eaten if you choose.

This is one comment that is the reason people are talking to you in the way they are.

You said (Florencia R.)

"I have to say that they still have some good ideas, in theory--mainly the ones about compassion for animals, not only for the sake of the animals themselves, but also for the sake of the environment, public health, etc. (For info, see www.taxmeat.com--it's a silly idea and it's run by PETA but it has info that I can prove to you is true.)"

What people read is that you agree with PETA but not the way on which they pass on their message. And PETA would like to see all humans eating plants not animals. Also if they have their way no one would have any pets even your pet snake. So make sure you side with the people on your side. We all have ideas and ewe need to protect those ideas and not try to change laws so all people have to go by what I believe.

 

[Florencia R.]

*sigh*...

 

[cnjreptiles]

Just to make another point, regardless of what your beliefs are, creationism or evolution, we are still meant to eat meat.  Either we were made that way or we evolved that way but that's how it is.  Nothings going to change that fact, true you have a choice to not eat meat, or to not use products that come from animals but you are fighting your nature, regardless of where it came from.

Question, how can PETA support groups that kill or hurt people and fight for animal rights?
Are we not living creatures as well?  Do we not have rights as well?  That's like saying I'm going to kill all the minks on this farm so they don't have to suffer by being turned into fur coats.  (Not that I am in support of senseless uses of animals such as fur coats, just an example)  How does that help the animals?
And blowing up buildings and setting fires sure as hell can't be all that great for the environment.

No I don't wear fur, nor snake/lizard/alligator skin anything.
Yes I do wear leather
Why?
Because that's what cows are for, burgers, steak, car upholstery, and my favorite pair of Gladiator boots.
Why can't we get this many people to band together and fight something totally senseless like rattlesnake roundups and the like.