Peta's website: petsmartcruelty.com I know its truthful but

[crazychic]

You really got quite a reply! I was a little confused as to what exactly your question was but as far as Petsmart being incredibly cruel and the documentaion that Peta shows in regard to Petsmart, I can tell you firsthand that it is 100% true. I worked at Petsmart until I could no longer stand seeing so much animal cruelty that I quit. There is a closet in the back of the store which houses ill animals until they die with no help from medication. Also, many of the animals such as hamsters and guiea pigs travel in unheated/non air conditioned trucks with no food or water for hours upon hours. They are fed bad diets. When I worked there they had 6 guinea pigs all with pnemuonia and the vet/managers had no problems watching them all die with no veterninary help. Also, you would be surprised what goes on in the grooming salons when you unable to see your pets...I watched a manager hit a yellow lab. I could go on and on but my point is that while Peta often is not the best role model and does a lot of "iffy" things they do a good job of going a long ways to try making people realize some of the cruelty going on out there.

 

[Susan9608]

I don't give two cents whether or not you personally support PETA. What I do care about is whether or not you're spreading unfounded rumors abou their philosophies which may *unfairly* influence others not to support PETA.

If you can provide proof that the organization as a whole holds the belief that companion animals should not be altered or kept as pets, that's one thing, but if you can't ... then that's the sort of thing you need to rephrase as "some animal rights activists believe" or just keep to you yourself.

This is a PETA friendly forum - no matter what your personal feelings toward the organization are.

 

[Cagney]

Both sites are based on truth. I would read through them both and come to your own personal decisions and not let either site tell you what to think or believe.

Just requoting myself. Anyone can do the research. Both sites supporting and not supporting PETA are out there. Please come to your own decisions.

 

[Susan9608]

And just to reiterate:

This is a PETA friendly forum - no matter what your personal feelings toward the organization are.

Not only is no PETA bashing allowed, but also, no rumor-mongering. Unless you have concrete proof that PETA as an organization believes in the types of philosophies discussed in this thread and can provide the links/references, then that type of discussion is to be left off the boards.

 

[Henle15]

The people that make up the organization are the ones that are making it look bad. So my question is, why does PETA allow those types of members to remain members if they are not doing what the organization supports?

If the organization would say that these extreme people are not what the organization stands for then I think many people wouldn't have such a problem with them.

I personally think the things that PETA supports is a little to extreme (for me) but I understand where they are coming from and sometimes only the extreme things get noticed. I just think they could focus their attention on other ways to get their mission accomplished.

I may be totally off base here because I am not a PETA member, but if somebody could enlighten me with my question above I would appreciate it.

 

[Susan9608]

I don't think PETA is any different than any other organization, like the Democratic or Republican party ... or the NRA ... or Green Peace or anything like that. Do those groups police their members and throw out the ones whose behavior/ideals don't exactly line up with the "party line?"

Of course not.

 

[Henle15]

Yeah I figured that is what somebody would say and I agree with your observations. Why do a few always ruin it for the others!

Do you think that they should police the people in their organization a little better though...before they get too out of hand? I know it would be tough but at least it would show people that they don't support everything those extremists' do.

 

[salana]

Just requoting myself. Anyone can do the research. Both sites supporting and not supporting PETA are out there. Please come to your own decisions.

No. YOU do the research. YOU say that PETA members support an end to spaying/neutering and pet ownership. Who are they and where is the factual proof? You're the one bringing it up, the burden of proof is on YOU.

 

[sophistacavy]

*meek tiny voice amongst all the heat LoL* "I would just like to say, firstoff, thank you, crazychic, for being honest about where you worked. I really appreciate that, b/c not too long ago, someone posted on this forum that they didn't appreciate petsmart being bashed b/c they and/or a family member of theirs work/ed at petsmart. That really didn't rest easy w/ me, and your post, in my opinion, brings a lot of justice to the issue.
Secondly, I thank those of you who gave the advice of making my own desiscion w/o letting all those crazy anti-peta and other such websites influence me too much. I have come to form my own opinion now, with the help of the info I recieved here that explained about the no-kill v. kill shelters, because I actually never really thought about them in that light before. I --used to-- think that I was against kill shelters because I only thought of them only in the "kill no matter what b/c we need to make more room" way. Now, I see how different the story really is. I may not be a member of PETA, but I've decided I am peta-freindly and supportive of their beliefs. For example, I choose not to be a vegetarian/vegan, but I support their cause all the way b/c I understand how they feel, and I think their ideas are great ones. We honestly can't have solely no-kill shelters. The reason is similar to why some states actually request hunters to kill an alotted # of deer each time period (not sure how often, so I won't say). If responsible hunters didn't control the deer population, then......it could potentially be a "national disaster" in the making. For example, there would be increased automobile accidents concerning deer. And, for those of us who drive, we know that hitting a deer is different then hitting something like a stray pet, squirrel, etc. And, swerving to avoid any animal can sometimes be deadlier(to you/people) then if you ran over it.

There are indeed some very extremist peta members. But, there are also extremist members of every single other organization out there. Nobody should blame PETA,not at all. There is nothing to blame them for, while there are true extremists out there, like in the middle east where people blow themselves up in order to stand up for their beliefs about how their country should be. PETA is not extremist compared to those such people.

Thanks everyone for your comments, especially Susan and crazychic.

~~Katelyn

 

[Susan9608]

If responsible hunters didn't control the deer population, then......it could potentially be a "national disaster" in the making.

This veers off onto a whole other topic, but "responsible" hunting to control population isn't necessary. Populations of prey animals are controlled by many unnatural means, by either habitat destruction or the elimination of their natural predators by human beings or through artificial population control simply to have enough for the "sport" of hunting.

See here for more info: http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=53
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/wildlife/hunting.html

 

[salana]

You know who's great at controlling deer population? Wolves.

 

[MommyOfTwo]

You know who's great at controlling deer population? Wolves.

In a perfect world, this is very true. But the natural world isn't perfect anymore (thanks to humans). Where I live there are no natural predators left to control the deer population. It seems much less cruel to me to open up a limited and regulated hunting season every year to help with the deer population, rather than letting them slowly starve to death because there isn't enough of their natural habitat left to support their numbers.

Euthanization is a widely supported practice to control the pet population. Some methods are cruel, messy, but necessary. What is the difference?

Sterilization, mentioned in one of the articles above, seems like a good long term solution. But it doesn't help with the immediate issues.

*****Edit to add...this is my first time "going out on a limb" to express my opinions here...please be gentle!

 

[frashy]

About the deer population, me living in Wisconsin, the deer population is crazy. Wolves do not live down this far, so deer really have no prey other than cars driving on the road and hunters (humans).

There is no doubt an over population problem. The DNR used to have hunting laws, were it was actually illegal to hunt for deer. Back then, when my parents were kids, it was a rare site if you actually seen a dear. Now, driving at night, it's something you always have to be extremely carefull about. "Watch for deer!" is something people say to eachother around here when they leave at night. If hunting were still illegal, I could not imagine what it would be like. There are a crazy amount of deer accidents, and it's extremely dangerous for drivers the way it is. You can be carefull all you want, have on your bright lights, but when they dash RIGHT in front of you there is nothing you can do. I myself have a bad experience of hitting a dear, and so has many other people I know. And trust me you arn't going a slow speed when you come across these deers, making the situation even more dangerous. It's most certainly not an uncommon thing to see dead deer on the side of the road, driving out in the country, because of getting hit by a car.

Wolves do not live this far down Wisconsin. The deer have learned to come down further south, were there is no prey - besides humans. The "facts" of nature and prey do not apply down here, and I know this from life experience. Believe it or not, until deer have become such a common part of your life, really can you judge if hunting is neccesary. Because as dangerous and bad as it is now, without hunters, I can't even imagine and don't even want to.

Though I'm not sure whether hunting is such the manner to control the population, it's not any less grousom the way a wolve would attack the deer. Humans are animals too, and just because a human imposes death on another animals, It's as though we become guilty, like it's okay for a wolve to hunt, but not a human. We are not carnivors, but neither herbavors. Settelers who first came here, relied on hunting meat for survival. It's just as much of the "cirlce of life". People don't shoot the deer and throw it away. They actually make use of it all.

These deer in the area NEED to be controled. Humans are their only real prey around here. Now lets get this straight, I personaly could never shoot a deer. The accident was pretty truamatizing to see and go through, but as much as I never would shoot a deer, you have to respect other people's beliefes who do.

 

[Henle15]

One of the reasons why people see more deer in their communities is because we are invading their community. I'm from South Dakota (not anymore) and understand that there is a deer problem...but didn't we bring it on ourselves? If we left them alone and stopped building new developments in their territory, we would most likely see just as many as we used too.

We are the ones who build roads and kill the wilderness and build huge homing developments in the country where they live. What are they supposed to do...stay in one area?

 

[frashy]

No..what, are we humans supposed to live in one spot? The problem is with deers moving down south away from the predators. THEY are going into OUR community. Humans are the only things controlling them.

Did we bring this upon ourselves? YES! When the DNR lawed deer hunting as illegal, there were no deer. This only caused them to breed like rabbits and spread like crazy. Without any predators, it was easy for them to do.

What, are we not supposed to build roads and cummunities? If you are honestly going to say "no", you really do not realize how good you actually have it. It's not only convienece, but it's the convience that makes us develope as humans so much, and be the country we are (USA). Without a life like this, we would NOT have such opprotunities. To say we can't advance and grow, because deer need to spread and grow, is ridiculous. So just because there is a deer over population problem, me, my family, and THOUSANDS of other people are supposed to pack up and move because there needs to be thousands and thousands of deers? That's ridiculous. So we all move, and then what..we would end up over populating ourselves within an area. No one would have jobs, people would starve, etc. That would not solve any problems, just create new ones in a different area.

People think so much about animals, they see right through the human species. We are animals too.

I'm sure you don't understand the situation, because you are from FL. Things are easier said then done. So you can judge about it, but really do not have a realistic outlook on it, no offense.

 

[Henle15]

You missed the obvious point of me being from SOUTH DAKOTA. So yes I know what the deer population is about. I was born and raised there and only recently moved here to Florida 2 years ago. SO I have experience with 23 years of dealing with the cold winters and Deer.

Thats interesting you still think that we as humans are not the problem. Obviously I am for progression, but do we need thousands of roads that go to the same place? We as humans think that we should have everything for ourselves and many just see deer as animals. Until they are in our neighborhood that we built within their ecosystem.

There is a reason my fiances parents keep most of their 180 acres of land for animals. Sure they could sell it easily to corporations or developers and make millions, but they believe that the animals have the rights to that land just as much as we as humans do. BTW that land is located in SOUTH DAKOTA, not Florida.

Who says that we have the right to continue to push animals into our neighborhoods...and then complain about it? Did we ever ask those animals if we could build on their land? Many don't care about animals until they become endangered or extinct and then we wonder why.

My point is that how do we know if the problem is really overpopulation of deer or us? How do we know there haven't always been that many deer and we just didn't know because we weren't building on their land and making roads through their land.

Where does it stop? When we become like China and live on top of each other with little to no wild animals?

 

[salana]

Um...frashy, the reason the deer don't have the natural predators (wolves, bears, mountain lions, depending on where you live) anymore is because we killed them. Because oh no, they might possibly kill humans.

Every ecosystem larger than Madagascar has large predators. Or used to, until we got there.

 

[frashy]

Helne - I get that you were from there, but you just said FROM there, not lived there for 23 years. I am not saying we are not the problem. Funny you say how I miss what you say, yet you miss what I myself had to say. I really do not feel a need to restate everything I already said.

salana - "Because oh no, they might possibly kill humans." Like it our not or very survival to become the country we came today, relied on these animals. Not just as food, but for clothes. People didn't have it as good back then, to drive to their local store, buy a nice warm cozy jacket, made from someone working in some factory somewhere, then go back home and be warm. It was not only the people from across sea who did this to the animals, but the Native Americans, who were here before the settelers, and you. Now if only you had the opportunity to say that to the people who came here and made the country what it is today. It ticks me off you would actually say that. It's completely disrespectful to not only me, but to WI and way of life here.

I understand people do sick things, treat animals as nothing, then complain about how they end up suffering from it without taking responsibility, but you are to the point of putting your OWN species actually behind a less intellectually developed/advanced species..er, why? You hate the human species that much? Jeez, I know we are FAR from perfect but wow, loving wild animals before yourself. That does not mean you have to love humans and hate animals, you just need to equalize and actually think about it. Argue the rights for a deer all you want, but really, it's pathetic to sit back and put wild animals in front of you, as your own species dies out (not to apply that is what is actually happening, but what will happen with what you expect). Like as if they have your best interest in mind. What I see special in humans, is that we have the ability to see the best interest in not only eachother, but other species as well. But you need to draw a line.

Things about roads, buildings, is ridiculous. Honestly, you think it is easy as point A to B? Get real. There are too many people on the roads for that to happen for one. Second, though those roads may be pointless to you, to someone else they lead to either their home, work, or somewhere important to them.

I honestly still do not understand how you do not expect us to grow and develope, all because of wild animals. It's ridiculous. There are many sick people out there, but you have to remember about all the people doing GOOD for animals, who would NOT be able to do such without having what we have.

Also, we do not totaly wipe them out. We don't wait until they go near extinction. We don't waist the animals that are hunted either. We are learning to control these animals. We do not let them go instinct, yet try not to let them get out of hand. There ARE limits when it comes to hunting, you should probably know that.

We arn't all as evil as you seem to like to think we are.

 

[Susan9608]

Frashy - there is much about your post I don't understand.

Human beings have hunted many species of non human animals to the point of extinction or near extinction. The fact that they haven't yet done so with wild deer is irrelevant and doesn't make hunting of deer morally right.

And the fact that our ancestral humans had to hunt to survive isn't relevant either. The point is that human beings no longer *need* to hunt to survive. So any animal hunted is a waste, whether or not that animal is eaten or the skin is used for clothing or whatever. It is simply not necessary.

And perhaps human beings have "grown and developed" enough. After all, wild animals, as you put it, were here before us. Perhaps they deserve a little consideration for the space that was theirs. Perhaps human beings could be a little less selfish and not invade every inch of space on this earth and leave a little of the natural order of things left in place.

It's not about "loving wild animals before yourself." Which, by the way, is a selfish a viewpoint as I've ever heard. It's about consider the needs of the greater over the needs of a few. There are more beings on this earth than just humans ... and who is to say those beings deserve less consideration for their interests than humans? You? Who made you in charge?

Besides, hunting isn't as benign as you seem to think. Perhaps death by wolf or even starvation would be preferable. I don't know. I've never been shot. But not every hunter kills with one shot, you know. It's estimated that about 50% of animals shot are wounded but not killed. So those animals then have to suffer being shot again, or bleed to death, or being weakened enough to be attacked by another animal, or being so weak as to be unable to survive and starving to death/dying of dehydration. Not too pleasant, by my estimation.

We are learning to control these animals.

The only animals we need to learn to control are our own species, for our own species - humans - are the only ones who breed without regard for population control, destroy the environment we live in, use and abuse our fellow living creatures, and then complain about the state of affairs around us. Interesting paradox, isn't it?

We arn't all as evil as you seem to like to think we are.

No one said human beings are evil. But perhaps you should take off your rose colored glasses for awhile.

 

[salana]

salana - "Because oh no, they might possibly kill humans." Like it our not or very survival to become the country we came today, relied on these animals. Not just as food, but for clothes. People didn't have it as good back then, to drive to their local store, buy a nice warm cozy jacket, made from someone working in some factory somewhere, then go back home and be warm. It was not only the people from across sea who did this to the animals, but the Native Americans, who were here before the settelers, and you. Now if only you had the opportunity to say that to the people who came here and made the country what it is today. It ticks me off you would actually say that. It's completely disrespectful to not only me, but to WI and way of life here.

Blah de blah blah blah, your way of life is not based on killing off wolves. It's based on killing plants and herbivores. Anything else is stupid and wasteful. People killed the wolves because they were afraid the wolves would kill them, their dogs, and their herbivores. Even though wolves in North America generally avoid human contact. Then all the small farmers disappeared because of factory farming, and there's no herbivores eating all that grass, and no wolves to keep the deer in check, now there's an explosion of deer. Then you complain about the deer and say that the only way to keep them in check is to kill them and mount their heads on the wall. That's stupid and wasteful. Why not re-hire the wolves for the job?

Seriously, you really think the human species will die out if we stop screwing up ecosystems??