"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
-PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?
"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. 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 vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
2007-06-24
12:31:36
·
18 answers
·
asked by
raven blackwing
6
in
Pets
➔ Dogs
want more.
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
"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.
"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Washingtonian, August 1986
2007-06-24
12:33:15 ·
update #1
Do you want to lett these few people tell us how we should live and what to do in this kind of personal thing? Do you want a group that helps people fire bombing our own country and kills 90% of the animales they take in to control if we have pets or not? Why give money to groups who prech aginst medical expemments yets uses that same stuff for thier health? Why help them tell us whatb we should eat and wear? Why give them any money
2007-06-24
12:37:52 ·
update #2
I don't think there should be law that makes us "fix" our pets. I DO, however, think there should be a law against BYB and puppymill breeders. I don't think just anybody should be breeding. There are too many ignorant people that are breeding dogs and they have no idea what they're doing! Breeders are suppose to improve the breed and BYB and the like are inbreeding poor quality animals with major health problems.
I am NOT now, nor have I ever been a breeder and I have no intention on becoming one in the future.
2007-06-24 12:43:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Pom♥Mom Spay and Neuter 7
·
4⤊
3⤋
PETA is a ridiculous excuse for an animal rights group. Lovely Ingrid, Miss-Animal-Lover, supports breed-specific legislation. She said something like, "People who really love their companion animals won't be affected by these bans," which is a horrendously false statement. Pit Bulls have loving families, along with the other breeds that are banned in some cities, German Shepherds, Doberman Pinschers, Chow Chows and Akitas.
I used to think PETA was a good organization, but then I did just a little bit of research and realized how terrible they are.
Only a few months ago, two PETA people took several very adoptable animals from an animal shelter and killed them, then they dumped the kitten and puppy, dog and cat carcases into a dumpster. Very loving, huh?
Also, Ingrid, who used to work as a dog catcher, admits to have euthanizing hundreds and hundreds of adoptable pets at the shelter she worked for. Again, very loving, right?
If PETA really cared about the welfare of animals, companion or not, they would stop aiding the Pit Bull genocide and actually go out on the streets to rescue starving animals as they preach.
2007-06-24 12:47:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Actually, although you are right, this isn't a question as far as I can see. That said, I'd propose a question of my own: How do you educate people who don't know that HSUS and PeTA want to elimninate pet ownership? How do you change the way they've been brainwashed into giving these jerks the millions of dollars they are getting from pet lovers who *think* they are helping animals? Anyone intersted can look at the financial picture of HSUS here: http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overvie w.cfm/oid/136 http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070621/20070621006072.ht ml?.v=1
Added: If there are soooooo many dogs, how come some shelters are IMPORTING them from places like Peurto Rico and Mexico and Thailand? See: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-30-d ogs-usat_x.htm
2007-06-24 12:53:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
If you're willing to take in and give a home to the millions of animals that are killed every year because there aren't enough homes for them, please let me know. I would LOVE for shelters and rescue groups to be come extinct because there weren't any more homeless animals.
Until then, the only way to stem the incredible tide of death is to mandate spay/neuter for pet animals and put an end to the irresponsible backyard breeders, hobby breeders, and puppy mills.
As for PeTA, the organization was initially a good idea that has gone very, very, very wrong, and is now overrun by complete whackos who have no concept of reality.
2007-06-24 12:50:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Nandina (Bunny Slipper Goddess) 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
You are absolutely right, let's not give them any more of our hard earned money and invest it instead in programs to teach people like you how to spell so other people don't have to strain to get your point.
I'm not supporting PETA per se, but I am definitely against backyard breeding of any type of animal. Leave the breeding to those that know what they are doing. I am all for mandatory licensing of breeders of any kind.
The unlicensed living room and backyard breeders are the reason why the HSUS HAS to euthanize so many animals. Their room and resources are limited and face it, some animals will never find a forever-home.
2007-06-24 12:58:11
·
answer #5
·
answered by Huh? 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
The reason so many jump on the bandwagon and support these groups is because like most other things no research is done. They HEAR or READ certain things these groups say and it sounds good so they think it is a good idea but because they follow like a herd of sheep rather educate themselves, they really have no idea what it is they are supporting or if what they are told is true or not. When things like the laws in California are passed people do not realize what it is that will be accomplished, and that is the end all pet ownership because with those kinds of laws all domestic animals will become extinct and in the end people will say "wow, how did this happen". Ignorance and oblivion seems to be a widespread disease.
I will add, not one dollar of my hard earned money ever goes to groups like them. I like OWNING dogs and would like for myself and anyone else who wants to own a pet always to have that choice.
2007-06-24 12:52:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by Shepherdgirl § 7
·
6⤊
2⤋
I could care less if you choose to fix your pets or not,that is not my business, but, it is my business when your gaggle of animals come into my yard and use my lawn for a toilet.
So, if you choose not to fix, great, I have no problem with that, but keep them in your own yard, or risk loosing them.
I am also in ageement with those that would like to see all cities, counties and states require a license for all animals. including cats, and place a limit as to how many pets one can have on his or her property. I say this because there have been cases in my neighborhood where one woman had 29 cats, none fixed and none were kept indoors or confined to her yard, and this is infringing on the rights of all her neighbors.
This woman I speak of did not live on a farm, rather in a city with a small lot, so guess who had her mess to clean up yep, the neighbors.
2007-06-24 12:49:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
The California Healthy Pets Act, AB1634, would not empower animal control agents to go door to door, searching for unsterilized pets.
Rather, it will be one of many tools to ensure that pet owners treat their pets in a humane manner, consistent with the health of the community.
Veterinary schools do not receive substantial funding just for the benefit of cute animals. Society has a strong interest in careful veterinary care of diseased livestock, which can harm consumers through such deadly, transmissable agents as Mad Cow Disease.
Similarly, the vaccination and sterilization of domestic pets reduces the incidence of rabies--a disease with no cure, fatal to humans--and other potentially deadly diseases.
PETA is to a large degree a philosophical organization. It often discusses its ideals in very broad strokes. The concept of reducing or eliminating the pet/owner relationship was first introduced by animal ethics authors, prior to PETA's creation.
However, PETA advocates also provide testimony in everyday, mundane animal abuse cases in many cities throughout the world.
PETA is also especially prone to being contacted by the press, when a lively quote is desired.
2007-06-26 06:44:23
·
answer #8
·
answered by Dave_in_Maryland 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
You are annoying. If you dont want to donate then dont. Those are there opinnions so leave them alone. and every actavist group has extremist that blow up buildings. the only reason the have to kill 90 % of the animals they get is because people buy from puppy mills and breeders any the dogs and cats dont get homes and have to be humanly euthinized. Its alot more painless then the way they could go if they were a no kill shelter, they would get killed by owners that dont want them in a worse way or get abandon things worse then death. We arent in kindergarden anymore so stop spending your time anoying other people, there are much better things to do, like donate to peta. :P
I hope this helps XD
2007-06-25 14:26:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by I ♥ Pie 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
There are a lot of people on this site who share these feelings. I noticed that certain people were always jumping on anyone who asked a question about breeding their dog, and asked why--many of the responses that I got said that NO dog should be bred, ALL dogs should be spayed/neutered, etc. I can understand someone advocating responsible pet ownership and breeding, but if all dogs were fixed, that would be the end of the species, and apparently that is what these dog haters, posing as concerned animal lovers, really want.
2007-06-24 12:44:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by kk 4
·
1⤊
3⤋