That more people should go past them in shelters and choose other types of dogs. The sheer numbers of them in a shelter may be heart-breaking, but I think more people need to adopt with their heads, and pits are not a breed for most people. In the event you're gearing up to scream "hater!" let me add that I believe this to be true of many breeds. The difference is, there is no gross overpopulation of Akitas or Bullmastiffs.
Honestly, I've seen some of their articles, read some of their stories..
they blow things WAY out of proportion. I feel that they are all about them selves truely and NOT about the animals.
They are trying to make themselves known so they can make profit.
I dont support them, although they have a keen way of "looking" like they are trying.
They need to simmer down and print reality instead of fiction.
they blow things WAY out of proportion. I feel that they are all about them selves truely and NOT about the animals.
They are trying to make themselves known so they can make profit.
I dont support them, although they have a keen way of "looking" like they are trying.
They need to simmer down and print reality instead of fiction.
I support animal welfare, not animal rights. There are many differences.
Animal Welfare vs Animal Rights
Animal Rights is Not Animal Welfare
AnimalScam.com is one of my favorites.
Animal Welfare vs Animal Rights
Animal Rights is Not Animal Welfare
AnimalScam.com is one of my favorites.
This is one PETA stunt that really stuck in my mind:
PETA Set to Distribute "Unhappy Meals"
By Brian Carnell
Monday, July 3, 2000
Just when it looked like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals couldn't possibly go any lower on the poor taste meter, along comes its announcement that if McDonald's doesn't give in to PETA's demands, the group will begin distributing "Unhappy Meals" to children at McDonald's restaurants in at least 40 U.S. cities.
What's an "Unhappy Meal"? It's a mock-up of McDonald's Happy meal with a horror movie-style twist. The outside of the box features Ronald McDonald holding a bloody butcher knife. Inside the box are toy animals with severed limbs and heads, according to PETA.
PETA wants McDonald's to agree to stop buying eggs and pork from U.S. companies who confine chickens in small wire cages and pigs in stalls. PETA also wants McDonald's to refuse to buy from producers who remove the beaks from hens to keep them from pecking each other.
If McDonald's doesn't agree to do so, PETA has threatened to start passing out the "Unhappy Meals" in restaurants and schools.
When asked about the threat, McDonald's spokesman Walt Riker told Reuters, "The only letter PETA should be writing is a letter of apology to all the parents and families who have been sickened by PETA's blood and gore 'Unhappy meal' assault on kids."
As a parent who regularly takes his daughter to McDonald's, the thought that some activist might approach my daughter and hand her this sort of thing is sickening. One of the obvious likely outcomes if PETA follows through on this is that some parent is going to show is lack of appreciation for handing his or her child an "Unhappy Meal" with dismembered toy animals by assaulting an activist.
The next obvious outcome would be a flurry of lawsuits against PETA for causing emotional distress to children. If it wasn't for the fact that this involves children, that might be amusing to watch, but it's hard enough to shield children from the onslaught of violent and gory images in pop culture without PETA taking it upon themselves to expose children to violent images.
This latest bizarre public stunt is typical of the animal rights movement -- it has completely failed to convert people to the animal rights position, so the only thing left open are attempts to manipulate people's emotions (which in PETA's case, typically backfire) or outright terrorism and property destruction.
:yikes:
PETA Set to Distribute "Unhappy Meals"
By Brian Carnell
Monday, July 3, 2000
Just when it looked like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals couldn't possibly go any lower on the poor taste meter, along comes its announcement that if McDonald's doesn't give in to PETA's demands, the group will begin distributing "Unhappy Meals" to children at McDonald's restaurants in at least 40 U.S. cities.
What's an "Unhappy Meal"? It's a mock-up of McDonald's Happy meal with a horror movie-style twist. The outside of the box features Ronald McDonald holding a bloody butcher knife. Inside the box are toy animals with severed limbs and heads, according to PETA.
PETA wants McDonald's to agree to stop buying eggs and pork from U.S. companies who confine chickens in small wire cages and pigs in stalls. PETA also wants McDonald's to refuse to buy from producers who remove the beaks from hens to keep them from pecking each other.
If McDonald's doesn't agree to do so, PETA has threatened to start passing out the "Unhappy Meals" in restaurants and schools.
When asked about the threat, McDonald's spokesman Walt Riker told Reuters, "The only letter PETA should be writing is a letter of apology to all the parents and families who have been sickened by PETA's blood and gore 'Unhappy meal' assault on kids."
As a parent who regularly takes his daughter to McDonald's, the thought that some activist might approach my daughter and hand her this sort of thing is sickening. One of the obvious likely outcomes if PETA follows through on this is that some parent is going to show is lack of appreciation for handing his or her child an "Unhappy Meal" with dismembered toy animals by assaulting an activist.
The next obvious outcome would be a flurry of lawsuits against PETA for causing emotional distress to children. If it wasn't for the fact that this involves children, that might be amusing to watch, but it's hard enough to shield children from the onslaught of violent and gory images in pop culture without PETA taking it upon themselves to expose children to violent images.
This latest bizarre public stunt is typical of the animal rights movement -- it has completely failed to convert people to the animal rights position, so the only thing left open are attempts to manipulate people's emotions (which in PETA's case, typically backfire) or outright terrorism and property destruction.
:yikes:
I agree that more people need to adopt with their heads, and that pit bulls aren't for everyone. Same can be said with ANY breed of dog. Also, if being overpopulated gives us the justification to automatically euth all overpopulated breeds or mixes then we might as well say good bye to Labs, Goldens, Chihuahuas, Boxers, German Shepherds and a host of other popular breeds that (sadly) fill shelters.
Your websites definately have a political bias (eg Keeping animal torture in the form of testing legal) so please becareful when cutting down one wacko group (PETA) by using statements from another wacko group (AMP)
PETA's view of Animals rights is NOT the view of all people who believe in animal rights. That is like saying that Louis Farakan speaks for all black people or David Duke speaks for all Southern whites.
There are groups that make huge amounts of money "testing" products that are used to feed our need for vanity (make up, shampoo etc...). Yes I am against all medical (that cause emotional harm) testing on animals. There are far to many murders and sexual predators in prisons that would give much better results. I've worked in a prison and there are even some who would volunteer for pay and better living arrangements in prison.
If it out rages you that I would suggest Testing on child molesters who ruin lives of entire families, why is it okay to test on a dog who has never done anything wrong accept be born a dog, want some food and someone to love him....hardly crimes deserving torture
PETA or not, I do not support animal rights. And I never said that PETA spoke for all of the animal rights movement. I'm sorry if you didn't like my links, but I simply googled pages looking for a quick summary of some of the differences for those who asked.
I think that the concept of animal rights is fundamentally wrong.
I think that the concept of animal rights is fundamentally wrong.
Could I just once have a conversation on this board that involves the words "pit bull" and yet omits the phrase "ANY breed of dog"? When someone unable or unwilling to handle a pit bull chooses one anyway, the consequences are greater than if someone who couldn't or wouldn't handle a Cocker had adopted one of them. And yes, I've met nasty Cockers and Cockers who had terrible coat problems because their owners neglected to brush them, etc. But all breeds were not created equal. Everything that people love about pit bulls makes them more of a committment. It's not the bias of others, or the ignorance of the media. It's just about size and ability, as well as two crucial factors for too many pit bulls - the rampant breeding for aggression and without regard to stability, and the breed's instinctive tendency toward dog-aggression.
Do not put words in my mouth, I said nothing about automatically euthanizing pit bulls simply because there are more of them. I said that, realistically, more pits are going to be pts than other breeds if the shelter's responsible, because a poorly owned pit bull is a bigger problem, 9 times out of 10, than a poorly owned Chuhuahua or Golden or Boxer or GSD.
I don't particularly like the idea of a dog being euthanized, either, especially if it's a salveagable dog. But I'd prefer that sorry end than that the dog go to someone who can't handle it. I've known great dogs who wouldn't have bitten if you'd beaten them half to death. But I've known dogs who needed to be kept after 24/7 to keep them honest. It's the latter kind that are more common in all breeds, and those are the ones I don't think should be going to halfass, sypmathetic but unprepared homes, even if the alternative is that the dogs be killed.
Do not put words in my mouth, I said nothing about automatically euthanizing pit bulls simply because there are more of them. I said that, realistically, more pits are going to be pts than other breeds if the shelter's responsible, because a poorly owned pit bull is a bigger problem, 9 times out of 10, than a poorly owned Chuhuahua or Golden or Boxer or GSD.
I don't particularly like the idea of a dog being euthanized, either, especially if it's a salveagable dog. But I'd prefer that sorry end than that the dog go to someone who can't handle it. I've known great dogs who wouldn't have bitten if you'd beaten them half to death. But I've known dogs who needed to be kept after 24/7 to keep them honest. It's the latter kind that are more common in all breeds, and those are the ones I don't think should be going to halfass, sypmathetic but unprepared homes, even if the alternative is that the dogs be killed.
They''re complete idiots who endanger animals every day by doing what they think is right. Everything from, releasing dogs at shows, trials and races, to creating complete havoc wherever animal enthusiasts gather. Yes they do SOME good things, but their end goal that no animal will be owned is ridiculous.
Your websites definately have a political bias (eg Keeping animal torture in the form of testing legal) so please becareful when cutting down one wacko group (PETA) by using statements from another wacko group (AMP)
PETA's view of Animals rights is NOT the view of all people who believe in animal rights. That is like saying that Louis Farakan speaks for all black people or David Duke speaks for all Southern whites.
There are groups that make huge amounts of money "testing" products that are used to feed our need for vanity (make up, shampoo etc...). Yes I am against all medical (that cause emotional harm) testing on animals. There are far to many murders and sexual predators in prisons that would give much better results. I've worked in a prison and there are even some who would volunteer for pay and better living arrangements in prison.
If it out rages you that I would suggest Testing on child molesters who ruin lives of entire families, why is it okay to test on a dog who has never done anything wrong accept be born a dog, want some food and someone to love him....hardly crimes deserving torture
PETA's view of Animals rights is NOT the view of all people who believe in animal rights. That is like saying that Louis Farakan speaks for all black people or David Duke speaks for all Southern whites.
There are groups that make huge amounts of money "testing" products that are used to feed our need for vanity (make up, shampoo etc...). Yes I am against all medical (that cause emotional harm) testing on animals. There are far to many murders and sexual predators in prisons that would give much better results. I've worked in a prison and there are even some who would volunteer for pay and better living arrangements in prison.
If it out rages you that I would suggest Testing on child molesters who ruin lives of entire families, why is it okay to test on a dog who has never done anything wrong accept be born a dog, want some food and someone to love him....hardly crimes deserving torture
Because the dog can't say no? Because its easy? Because its legal and cheaper? That's not fair..animal rights speaks up for that..and it doesn't have to be extreme like PETA wants it to be..it can be as simple as deciding not to purchase products that test on animals for cosmetics or hand creams....or by not going to a circus because you believe that elephants have the RIGHT to be free and not lunged around in freight cars to perform in front of people because they're forced by bull hooks and afraid...or by writing to your local government with suggestions on how animals can be replaced with other testing methods in laboratories. How is that fundamentally wrong?
There's nothing wrong with animal rights and there's nothing wrong with animal welfare..both are FOR animals...its when extremists ruin it for everyone that people start holding a grudge against the concept...I think that's wrong and I think we all need to realize that instead of jumping on the bandwagon and yelling out "Oh people who believe in animal rights are fundamentally wrong"...we should first see their goals and how they plan to achieve them.
Why? How?
S
I understand where casablanca is coming from that a lot of the people that adopt these dogs don't know what they are getting into. My problem howeve is that you argreed with what Ingrid Newkirk said that people should pass Pits by and adopt any other dog that is on death row through no fault of their own. I don't think that Pits are there through ANY fault of their own. We as humans caused the pit bull problem, now it is up to us to fix that problem and not kill innocent dogs because of OUR mistakes.
Heh, here's a touchy subject, huh?
Animal testing is a neccesary evil. My father was a working scientist for a couple decades and he did animal experiments, rats specifically. I, as a impressionable youth, wondered aloud how he could inject dozens, if not hundereds of rats... condeming them to death. He explained it to me thusly:
"This is a rat. It has been bred exclusively for scientific research. It would never have existed if I didn't need it here for this experiment. In this experiment I'm testing the toxic level of XXXXX (a certain drug, don't remember). If I don't do these experiments sick people will never get this drug they need. If we somehow did get this drug approved without these tests then there would undoutebly be mistakes where people either became more sick or die. I hope you can understand why I teach you to be kind to all living creatures and then come here every day and do this."
I did understand it. It's not a pretty thought but I'll take the death of lab-bred animals if it means that sick people can be saved.
Cosmetics are another matter altogether. I don't support animal testing for vanity.
Prisoners... someone mentioned this. It's so completely unethical to experiment on other humans the thought boggles my mind. Add to the fact that no one in prison ever makes a truly free choice and you can understand why prisoner testing was banned in the US.
But hey, if they want to sign up for vanity-product testing I'm all for it. Put a non-lethal chemical on their skin or in their eyes if they agree to it in exchange for compensation. If you kill, disable or maim someone along the way, expect a hefty lawsuit.
... don't forget, still no cure for cancer.
Animal testing is a neccesary evil. My father was a working scientist for a couple decades and he did animal experiments, rats specifically. I, as a impressionable youth, wondered aloud how he could inject dozens, if not hundereds of rats... condeming them to death. He explained it to me thusly:
"This is a rat. It has been bred exclusively for scientific research. It would never have existed if I didn't need it here for this experiment. In this experiment I'm testing the toxic level of XXXXX (a certain drug, don't remember). If I don't do these experiments sick people will never get this drug they need. If we somehow did get this drug approved without these tests then there would undoutebly be mistakes where people either became more sick or die. I hope you can understand why I teach you to be kind to all living creatures and then come here every day and do this."
I did understand it. It's not a pretty thought but I'll take the death of lab-bred animals if it means that sick people can be saved.
Cosmetics are another matter altogether. I don't support animal testing for vanity.
Prisoners... someone mentioned this. It's so completely unethical to experiment on other humans the thought boggles my mind. Add to the fact that no one in prison ever makes a truly free choice and you can understand why prisoner testing was banned in the US.
But hey, if they want to sign up for vanity-product testing I'm all for it. Put a non-lethal chemical on their skin or in their eyes if they agree to it in exchange for compensation. If you kill, disable or maim someone along the way, expect a hefty lawsuit.
... don't forget, still no cure for cancer.
There are far to many murders and sexual predators in prisons that would give much better results. I've worked in a prison and there are even some who would volunteer for pay and better living arrangements in prison.
If it out rages you that I would suggest Testing on child molesters who ruin lives of entire families, why is it okay to test on a dog who has never done anything wrong accept be born a dog, want some food and someone to love him....hardly crimes deserving torture
If it out rages you that I would suggest Testing on child molesters who ruin lives of entire families, why is it okay to test on a dog who has never done anything wrong accept be born a dog, want some food and someone to love him....hardly crimes deserving torture
Woot! Agreed! Test on those b@st@rds!!!
:lol-sign:Whats weird is we didnt even domesticate cats. At least from an article I had read it said they sort of domesticated themselves by staying in barns because there were mice so there was food. So its not like we enslaved them, they came to us.
I never knew much about PETA except that is what for vegans and vegetarians but now I am better educated and agree they are extremists.
I never knew much about PETA except that is what for vegans and vegetarians but now I am better educated and agree they are extremists.
Woot! Agreed! Test on those b@st@rds!!! :lol-sign:
:lol-sign:
As for PETA. . .I think they're way too extreme and become a nuisance instead of a help. I'm not completely against animal rights, though. I am a veg. and I don't like animal testing, etc. but I fully believe in keeping pets and "owning" animals. So, no, I am not completely animals rights, but I somewhat agree with SOME of it. PETA"s approach? Sick, strange, and needless.
I do, however, support animal welfare 100% and I am passionate about it.