In 2009, animal rights group PETA set new record -- for killing pets.

[pnwmom]

http://www.petakillsanimals.com /

Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 23,640 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2009, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 97 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2009, PETA found adoptive homes for just eight pets.

Just eight animals -- out of the 2,366 it took in. PETA just broke its own record.

Why would an animal rights group secretly kill animals at its headquarters? PETA’s continued silence on the matter makes it hard to say for sure. But from a cost-saving standpoint, PETA’s hypocrisy isn’t difficult to understand: Killing adoptable cats and dogs – and storing the bodies in a walk-in freezer until they can be cremated – requires far less money and effort than caring for the pets until they are adopted.

SNIP

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petarebuttal.cfm

PETA kills 85 percent of the animals it takes in, and finds adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By contrast, the Norfolk SPCA, whose shelter is located less than 4 miles from PETA's headquarters, found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals in 2003. It’s rather hard to believe that the animals entrusted to PETA are any more likely to be “broken beings.” Dana Cheek, the former (and most recent) director of the Norfolk SPCA, wrote to us recently:

I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will "find them a good home." Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home … PETA refuses to surrender animals they obtain to area shelters for rehoming. If only the celebrity "deep-pocket" donors on the west coast knew that their donations were going to kill adoptable cats and dogs here in Norfolk.

[SunnySong]

1. In before the upcoming firestorm...

[RidinMyDonkey]

2. Can someone convince me that PETA is actually in favor of animal rights?

I'm a big animal rights supporter, but I just don't understand this group. I'm more fond of the ASPCA than I am of PETA. Can someone list some good things they've done? Maybe I'm mistaken.

[trotsky]

6. PETA is in favor of PETA publicity - usually bad.

Oh, and also in favor of putting money in Ingrid Newkirk's checking account. I'm sure she thinks that's pretty good.

[flvegan]

18. Why don't you go to their website and look.

A great many achievements are listed there.

[pnwmom]

24. They don't believe in the domestication of any animals or in pet ownership.

And, toward that goal, they are against the breeding of and for the sterilization of all domestic animals and pets.

[flvegan]

25. I'm against breeding and for spay/neuter of all our domestic animals.

Doesn't mean I'm against having cats and dogs. Spin it anyway you want.

[pnwmom]

31. What would happen if all pets were sterilized and none were bred?

That would mean the end of anyone "having cats and dogs" within about 20 years.

[flvegan]

34. That's as stupid as asking what would happen to all the cows

should everyone go vegetarian with a snap of the finger.

[pnwmom]

37. It's just showing that the real goal of PETA is the end of pet ownership,

and they're very clear about that.

[flvegan]

41. Which is why any time you want to go to PETA's HQ

you'll be overrun by the dogs the employees bring in with them. Your perception can be what it is. Doesn't make anything fact.

[SwampG8r]

58. is it only in the morning you get over run?or all day?it makes a difference

[flvegan]

62. Really?

Do tell what the difference is. Seems like you're scrapping for something.

[Skip Intro]

48. Will you please show me where they are against pet ownership?

[flvegan]

49. You're about to get a canned response of negative context

on a quote from Ingrid Newkirk from years ago.

I've been here before.

[Skip Intro]

50. It does seem pointless doesn't it? Don't understand what motivates people to spread this kinda bs...

That PETA wants to kill animals by the thousands and take your pets from you and tons of other ridiculously evil things to animals because they're evil, evil people. Just stupid, untrue bs. Why do people spend time spreading it when it's so easily proved wrong? What motivates someone to do that?

[flvegan]

53. From my experience

some folks (in this case) hate PETA (and may have some personal reason for doing so) or hate the very idea of an animal rights movement. I will never understand the republicanesque repetition of bullshit to make folks believe it in either case.

[pnwmom]

55. It is not "Republicanesque" to think that no-kill shelters do a better job

at actually saving animals than PETA.

[flvegan]

59. Define "saving animals"

Holy shit, this ought to be good, considering.

[pnwmom]

63. Adopting them out instead of killing them. n/t

[pnwmom]

56. Here, from the PETA website.

http://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-uncompromisingstands.a...

"we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to."

SNIP

Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.

______________________________

In PETA's ideal world, no animals would ever have been domesticated or kept as pets; and all domesticated pets would now be sterilized; with no pets bred by breeders or accidentally.

[Karmadillo]

3. I don't know why people post crap like the OP, but here's why PETA euthanizes animals.

I left out the pictures that accompany this post. Feel free to click on the link for a look if you can stand it.

http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/why_we_euthaniz.p...

In my first year working at a grossly substandard animal shelter in Maryland, I forced myself to go in early to euthanize dogs by holding them in my arms and gently helping them escape an uncaring world without trauma or pain and to spare them from being stabbed haphazardly—while they were fully conscious, terrified and aware—in the general vicinity of their hearts with needles blunt from reuse and left to thrash on the floor until they finally died by the callous people who would arrive later to do the job.

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring "technicians," or animal abusers.

If anyone has a good home, love, and respect to offer, we beg them: Go to a shelter and take one or two animals home. The problem is that few people do that, choosing instead to go to a breeder or a pet shop and not "fixing" their dogs and cats, which contributes to the high euthanasia rate that animal shelters face. Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called "pets," as they had spent their lives chained up in the back yard, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone's, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a painless release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.

Every day, PETA's fieldworkers help abused and neglected dogs—many of them pit bulls nowadays and many of them forced to live their lives on chains heavy enough to tow an 18-wheeler—by providing them with food; clean water; lightweight tie-outs; deworming medicine; flea, tick, and fly-strike prevention; free veterinary care; sturdy wooden doghouses stuffed with straw bedding; and love.

What we see is enough to make you lose faith in humanity. One pit bull we gained custody of, named Asia, looked like a skeleton covered with skin when PETA released her from the 15-pound chain she had been kept on for years. Asia suffered from three painful and deadly intestinal obstructions, which prevented her from keeping any food down. She faced an agonizing, lingering death, so our veterinarian recommended euthanasia to end her suffering. We pursued criminal charges against those responsible for her condition, leading to their conviction for cruelty to animals. That is just one of the dozens of cases we see every week.

The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters). Most of the animals we house, rescue, find homes for, or put out of their misery come from miserable conditions, which often lead to successful prosecution and the banning of animal abusers from ever owning or abusing animals again.

As long as animals are still purposely bred and people aren't spaying and neutering their companions, open-admission animal shelters and organizations like PETA must do society's dirty work. Euthanasia is not a solution to overpopulation but rather a tragic necessity given the present crisis. PETA is proud to be a "shelter of last resort," where animals who have no place to go or who are unwanted or suffering are welcomed with love and open arms.

Please, if you care about animals, help prevent more of them from being born only to end up chained and left to waste away in people's back yards, suffering on mean streets where people kick at them or shoo them away like garbage, tortured at the hands of animal abusers, or, alas, euthanized in animal shelters for lack of a good home. If you want to save lives, always have your animals spayed or neutered.

Posted by Ingrid E. Newkirk

[pnwmom]

5. And the response to that is here:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petarebuttal.cfm

PETA kills 85 percent of the animals it takes in, and finds adoptive homes for just 14 percent. By contrast, the Norfolk SPCA, whose shelter is located less than 4 miles from PETA's headquarters, found adoptive homes for 73 percent of its animals in 2003. It’s rather hard to believe that the animals entrusted to PETA are any more likely to be “broken beings.” Dana Cheek, the former (and most recent) director of the Norfolk SPCA, wrote to us recently:

I often receive phone calls from frantic people who have surrendered their pets to PETA with the understanding that PETA will "find them a good home." Many of them are led to believe that the animals will be taken to a nearby shelter. Little do they know that the pets are killed in the PETA van before they even pull away from the pet owner's home … PETA refuses to surrender animals they obtain to area shelters for rehoming. If only the celebrity "deep-pocket" donors on the west coast knew that their donations were going to kill adoptable cats and dogs here in Norfolk.

[readmoreoften]

9. Awesome. A weirdo right-wing source! Not that I like PETA, but your rightwing is showing.

Thanks for the concern.

[pnwmom]

17. You must have missed the PDF documents from the State of Virginia.

PETA has never denied the statistics.

It doesn't really matter whether a libertarian site put up the documents, or a progressive site. The numbers are real.

[pnwmom]

28. Is Newsweek another right wing source?

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia....

Since 1998 PETA has killed more than 17,000 animals, nearly 85 percent of all those it has rescued.

SNIP
"Over-population is a myth," says attorney Nathan Winograd, whose recent book "Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America"" chronicles the rise of the no-kill shelter movement. "With better outreach and public relations, we can find homes for virtually all of the healthy animals we are now killing." As proof he points to a string of communities across the country whose shelters have managed to stop euthanizing all but the sickest animals. Bonney Brown, executive director of the Nevada Humane Society, says that in 2007, the first year her group went "no-kill," her shelters managed to save 90 percent of the 8,000 animals they took in. Among other strategies, the organization ramped up its volunteer force, from 30 to 1,700, expanded its hours so that people could come in after work and engaged in extensive media outreach.

"On balance, people love animals," says Brown, pointing out that animal causes are one of the fastest-growing segments of American philanthropy. "The biggest challenge has been convincing them to trust their local shelters. And with a little initiative we are finally starting to do that."

Shelters in Virginia, New York and San Francisco report successes similar to Nevada's, and communities in more than a dozen states have announced no-kill goals and added legislative mandates to their agenda. King County, Wash., passed a law requiring area shelters to achieve an 85 percent save rate by 2009. San Antonio, Texas, is aiming for zero kills by 2012. And Ivan City, Utah, saved 97 percent of its shelter animals beginning in 2006 when the animal control ordinances were rewritten to prohibit the euthanasia of healthy animals.

SNIP

But Brown and others insist they have achieved no-kill without turning animals away, and on a fraction of PETA's $30 million budget. "With the resources at their disposal, PETA and the Humane Society of the U.S. could become no-kill in no time," Winograd says. "Instead they have become leading killers of cats and dogs, and the animal-loving public unwittingly foots the bill through taxes and donations."

[flvegan]

32. "Over-population is a myth" ah yes, the reason nobody in this movement

listens to that idiot anymore.

Newsweek upchucked the same number. Doesn't mean anything.

Fact is, PETA is an organization of last resort. They take in animals that are destined to be euthanized regardless. See, that's where you just fucking fail. You leave out the reason. They take animals from shelters that would otherwise put these animals down via a .22 to the head (which hopefully works) or a gas chamber. PETA gives a humane death rather than torture. That's the fact that you've so blissfully let go by the wayside, your bias against all things animal rights shining oh so brightly.

You should start another thread attacking Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Or The Sierra Club. CCF hates them too, and since you're playing lapdog for them...

[girl gone mad]

39. self-delete

[pnwmom]

43. They're not TAKING THESE ANIMALS IN. They're euthanizing them.

And anyone who relinquishes a healthy animal to PETA -- and they get many of them, especially cats --should know that.

[flvegan]

46. See? Facts fail you.

PETA doesn't operate a shelter like that. They get these animals from other shelters/resources that can't adopt them out and would otherwise kill them via the methods I mentioned or would take them to said other shelters/resources.

You can put it in caps, but it doesn't change anything.

Where's that thread where you shit on MADD? I'm waiting for it.

[SwampG8r]

57. how does peta kill humanely?

not a snark
i wonder if you know how peta kills that is less inhumane than the gas chamber mentioned or the 22 to the head?
the virginia shelter woman is quoted as saying peta is killing the animals as they pull away from the donors home
what method is peta using to kill these animals in their pick up vans?
it must be chemical as even a weak dog of moderate size could be expected to respond quite defensively to other methods

[flvegan]

61. Sodium penabarbitol.

The same method your vet will use should, God forbid, you ever need it. First the dog gets knocked out, then the dog dies. Painless.

Anything else?

[Karmadillo]

35. And, of course, you forgot PETA & the Humane Society's response in the same article.

Maybe you should check to see if Berman has a website attacking the Humane Society.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia....

<edit>

Those successes have not persuaded PETA or its allies. The group argues that in order to maintain their no-kill status these facilities simply turn away animals that are unlikely to be adopted, often leaving them to fates worse than death. "No one hates it more than we do," says Nachminovitch. "But we would rather offer these animals a painless death than have them tortured, starved or sold for research." PETA isn't the only group to take that stance. "No-kill is a noble goal," says Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "But the sheer number of animals make it almost unachievable."

Instead of zero kills, PETA claims to be shooting for zero births. "Focusing on the animals that come into shelters is like emptying a river with a teaspoon," says Nachminovitch. "By investing in spay and neuter programs, which are where a lot of our resources go, we can stop unwanted births and prevent four times as much suffering."

more...

[pnwmom]

40. Oh, like you "forgot" to include Brown's response to PETA's claim?

But Brown and others insist they have achieved no-kill without turning animals away, and on a fraction of PETA's $30 million budget. "With the resources at their disposal, PETA and the Humane Society of the U.S. could become no-kill in no time," Winograd says. "Instead they have become leading killers of cats and dogs, and the animal-loving public unwittingly foots the bill through taxes and donations."

[Karmadillo]

44. So he's saying there's never a need to euthanize any animal? Again, look at the PETA response

you seem to be ignoring and you'll see Brown gets the worst of the argument.

[pnwmom]

54. I've read both sides and I believe the response of Brown and other no-kill

shelter people, when they say they're not turning animals away.

[flvegan]

47. There are pockets of no-kill spots in this country.

Parts of California, a good amount of the northeast, etc. Not so in PETA's neck of the woods.

Hey, if Brown/Winograd are so fabulous, then tell them to get on a fucking bus and head to the mid-atlantic and southeast and get to work. Oh how strong the FAIL would be there.

[Karmadillo]

13. Dana Cheek? Heritage Humane Society director fired amid volunteer, employee rancor.

http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-03-16/news/dp-local...

YORK — The executive director of the Heritage Humane Society in York County was abruptly fired Tuesday, said an employee who was in the building when the shelter chief was ousted.

The development came a day after two of the shelter's top-level employees resigned, citing an inhospitable work environment and an unhealthy animal shelter.

Dana Cheek, the executive director who for months has been under fire from former employees and volunteers, was fired Tuesday by the shelter's Board of Directors. Staff was notified around 3:30 p.m. of Cheek's removal, said Kris Magnusson, an adoptions counselor at the shelter.

<edit>

A grass-roots, volunteer-led movement called Save Our Shelter sprung up months ago and pushed for the shelter's board of directors to remove Cheek, who has held her position since November.

Sue Babischkin, a volunteer who regularly fosters kittens and puppies for the Humane Society and who leads the Save Our Shelter movement, disagreed with Cheek's management of the shelter. Nearly 200 people became fans of a page named Save Our Shelter on the social networking site Facebook.

more...

[pnwmom]

19. That's interesting. But it doesn't change the fact that that nearby shelter

is successful in placing far more of its animals that PETA is.

PETA euthanizes the vast majority of animals relinquished to it; the Norfolk shelter adopts out the vast majority. Anyone who relinquishes an animal to PETA should expect it to be killed.

[Karmadillo]

22. Did you read the PETA response? It explains why the population of animals it receives

is significantly different from that of a no kill shelter like the Norfolk SPCA. Look at the pictures in the PETA response and consider the possibility that they needed to be euthanized. I mean, I'm not there, so I don't know from personal experience, but the pictures do seem to support their case. All you can do is provide links from Rick Berman. If PETA was the criminal animal killer you & Berman suggest, I would guess there would be a fair amount of evidence in the mainstream media that is happy to criticize PETA when it has the facts (not links from Berman).

[pnwmom]

23. The Norfolk shelter isn't a no-kill shelter and yet they placed 73% of their animals.

Show me any large kill-shelters with statistics like PETA's, with only 8 animals placed and more than 2000 killed.

[Karmadillo]

30. The Norfolk SPCA claims on their website to be a no kill shelter and

again, you seem not to have read PETA's response. It doesn't get the large number of adoptable animals (by design) that would decrease its percentage of euthanized animals: "The majority of adoptable dogs are never brought through our doors (we refer them to local adoption groups and walk-in animal shelters)."

http://www.norfolkspca.com /

Some animals simply need more time than others. At the Norfolk Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the only "no kill" SPCA in the Hampton Roads area, we don't believe that killing animals is an acceptable means of population control. We focus our efforts on preventing unwanted births and fostering the human-animal bond to ensure that every adoptable companion animal finds a home.

[pnwmom]

33. Sorry, they weren't in 2006. But many shelters have been moving in recent

years to being no-kill, and they're not doing it by sending all the difficult dogs to PETA.

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/04/27/peta-and-euthanasia....

Bonney Brown, executive director of the Nevada Humane Society, says that in 2007, the first year her group went "no-kill," her shelters managed to save 90 percent of the 8,000 animals they took in. Among other strategies, the organization ramped up its volunteer force, from 30 to 1,700, expanded its hours so that people could come in after work and engaged in extensive media outreach.

SNIP
Shelters in Virginia, New York and San Francisco report successes similar to Nevada's, and communities in more than a dozen states have announced no-kill goals and added legislative mandates to their agenda. King County, Wash., passed a law requiring area shelters to achieve an 85 percent save rate by 2009. San Antonio, Texas, is aiming for zero kills by 2012. And Ivan City, Utah, saved 97 percent of its shelter animals beginning in 2006 when the animal control ordinances were rewritten to prohibit the euthanasia of healthy animals.
Those successes have not persuaded PETA or its allies. The group argues that in order to maintain their no-kill status these facilities simply turn away animals that are unlikely to be adopted, often leaving them to fates worse than death.

SNIP
But Brown and others insist they have achieved no-kill without turning animals away, and on a fraction of PETA's $30 million budget. "With the resources at their disposal, PETA and the Humane Society of the U.S. could become no-kill in no time," Winograd says. "Instead they have become leading killers of cats and dogs, and the animal-loving public unwittingly foots the bill through taxes and donations."

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. They do it because PETA is in it for PETA. Newkirk is classic at that

[tekisui]

4. I love their 'About Us':

About Us

"PETA Kills Animals" is a project of the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the full range of choices that American consumers currently enjoy. In addition to malicious animal-rights activists, we stand up to the "food police," environmental scaremongers, neo-prohibitionists, meddling bureaucrats, and other self-anointed saints who claim to "know what's best" for you.

[pnwmom]

7. The PETA documentation on their site, from the State of Virginia's records,

speaks for itself.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnim...

But you are right, it does sound like a libertarian organization.

[Ruby the Liberal]

8. They needed the donations for Ad fees?

Sorry - not a fan, and this does not surprise me in the least.

I will stick to local no-kill shelters without the overhead.

[demmiblue]

10. Wow... Rick Berman B.S.

Please do a little googling on this arse.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. The stats speak for themselves

While they are at it they should Google Newkirk. Quite a piece of work that one

[William Z. Foster]

26. not necessarily

If PETA is referring adoptable pets elsewhere and only taking the desperate cases, then of course the stats would reflect that.

[pnwmom]

20. Who cares? PETA's own numbers, provided to the State of Virginia, show they kill

the vast majority of animals relinquished to them. Last year, they only adopted out 8 pets, and killed more than 2000.

[William Z. Foster]

27. depends

If it is true that they are referring the adoptable pets to other agencies, and only taking the hopeless suffering cases that could never be adopted or even have any sort of decent life that would be reflected in those numbers. I don't know if that is true or not.

[pnwmom]

29. If that is true they shouldn't hold themselves out as a shelter, but as a place

for hopeless suffering pets to be euthanized ( or for healthy animals to be sterilized.)

You might be interested in this link to the Newsweek article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[William Z. Foster]

45. I don't know that they are

I don't know that they are misleading people, as you say. Do you have some documentation on that?

[demmiblue]

14. Rachel Maddow: Meet Rick Berman

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtwDb_3TKWs

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufgcfCLdR4o&feature=rela...

Another one of his lovely websites is called "RottenAcorn." Yes, that ACORN.

[Karmadillo]

15. WOW. Interesting to see Berman has fans here at DU.

nt

[pnwmom]

21. You can be skeptical of PETA without being a Berman fan. My reaction to

PETA is based on their own figures provided to the State of Virginia, which are in the link on the OP.

[Karmadillo]

36. Your reaction should also be based on the PETA response I posted, plus

the Humane Society response in the Newsweek article you posted. If PETA were unjustly slaughtering dogs & cats by the thousands, don't you think you'd be able to come up with better documentation than Berman's site? So far, that's all you have.

[flvegan]

16. Jesus. Bullshit OP. CCF horseshit on DU again.

Big surprise.

[G_j]

38. why don't you stop wasting your time

and help some animals in the Gulf of Mexico.

[Skip Intro]

42. FAIL - You're quoting a front group for a big-industry pr operation. Read and Learn:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consumer_Freedo...


snip:

CCF was set up in 1995 by Richard Berman, executive director of the public affairs firm Berman and Company, with $600,000 from the Philip Morris tobacco company. Berman told The Washington Post that CCF is now funded by a coalition of restaurant and food companies as well as some individuals;<2> according to the group's website it is supported by over 100 companies and thousands of individual consumers.<1> Sponsors are reported to include Brinker International, RTM Restaurant Group (the owner of Arby's), Tyson Foods, HMSHost Corp, and Wendy's.<2> It describes its mission as defending the "right of adults and parents to choose what they eat, drink, and how they enjoy themselves." CCF opposes compulsory warning labels on food, bans on smoking in restaurants, and lawsuits related to obesity. It runs media campaigns and gives out annual "Nanny Awards."<3>

snip:

CCF has campaigned against a number of organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. It maintains several websites devoted to criticizing them.<2>

[NYC_SKP]

51. Sourcewatch: PetaKillsAnimals.com funded by CCF, with clients Monsanto, Tyson, others:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_C...

and, specifically: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berm...

Overview & clients

PetaKillsAnimals.com was created in July of 2004 by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF). According to it's website, they also "stand up to the food police, environmental scaremongers, neo-prohibitionists, meddling bureaucrats, and other self-anointed saints who claim to know what's best for you". They even feature a "Daily Headlines" service which provides "valuable information" about "these activists, and analysis of their activities." They "welcome your support" and "financial contribution".<1>

CCF is an industry-funded organization and front group for the restaurant, alcohol, tobacco and other industries. It is registered as a tax-exempt, non-profit organization under the IRS code 501(c)(3). Over 40% of the group's 2005 expenditure was paid to Rick Berman's PR company, Berman & Co. for "management services". <2> CCF provides virtually no referencing, yet their statements are circulated by other industry groups, animal breeders and brokers, news wires and even some media outlets. CCF does not link back to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), nor any sites of groups or individuals purportedly being "exposed". Richard Berman and CCF clients have included Phillip Morris, Monsanto, Tyson Foods and Coca Cola. Tyson is also a major supplier of restaurant chains, including Kentucky Fried Chicken <3> and McDonalds. <4> Monsanto contracts product toxicity testing on animals out to Huntingdon Life Sciences. <5> All of these corporations, as well as Phillip Morris contract laboratory Covance Laboratories, have subjects of campaigns and investigations by PETA and/or other groups.

[SwampG8r]

60. skip i love ya but

the pdf is from the state of virginia and it does say what is purported in this thread
the state of virginia is not a RW source
it seems throughout this whole thread there has been a lot of "hey look there goes Elvis" going on about who publicized the facts and not about the facts themselves
we are grown up ehough to know that just because we dont like what we are hearing it can be true nontheless
i look at the numbers and i cannot argue what they say
that being said i dont read it as a peta hit piece either
i myself always redog with a rescue animal
i reccomend all setter rescue of florida or see meg over at [e-mail]
i believe man cannot exist without dogs
he has nothing to aspire to
and irish setters fulfill my vicarious life needs
happiest dogs on earth
dumb as a pine stump but pretty and happy
like a nixon daughter



oh and breaking news
this saturdays special was lamb chops
from new zealand and peta is uninvolved in the deaths
so my racoon is prepared to offer 6 shrimp husks
3 slightly used sugar cubes
and not 2
not 3
but 4 lamb t bones
3 with meat and marrow attached

think it over but....time is lamb bones you know?

[G_j]

52. thank you nt

[TrogL]

64. locking

Divisive and questionable source