(h/t KC Dog Blog)
Imagine if Toronto Animal Services or the OSPCA or even the Toronto Humane Society reported a 97% kill rate for the animals admitted into their facility. Out of, say, 2366 animals, what if they euthanized 2,301 and only found homes for 8. Would you call that a success or a failure? Would you call that agency with the appalling save rate a humane agency or a slaughterhouse?
Would you call it PETA?
For the umpteenth year in a row, PETA has killed off the vast majority of the animals relinquished into its care. The official numbers are reported here. PETA, an organization with a core value of not eating dead animals, sure is good at making meat.
Their excuse is that no one wanted the animals they took in so they had to kill them. You'd think that with a revenue of $34 million in 2009, PETA could have paid someone to post some ads up on Petfinder to help find homes for some of the animals or they even could have just created homes for a few of those dogs and cats instead of blowing their time and cash on frat boy antics like dressing up as KKK members.
PETA is like some UFO suicide cult. They're all too caught up in their bullshit neo-religion, getting wet just fantasizing about their god/leader, Ingrid Newkirk. It's too easy to point out their obvious pathological behaviours and beliefs but that's not going to change the fanatics' minds about how animal death equals animal salvation and all that other crap their gurus feed them. Or maybe injecting healthy pets with death has become for them some kind of sacrifice ritual to their animal rights deity. How did they ever get so twisted?
PETA's new mantra should be "We love animals so much, we just want to kill them all."
For more on how PETA helps animals, check this out.
Showing posts with label PETA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PETA. Show all posts
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Monday, March 30, 2009
Newsflash! PETA saves 4 dogs and 3 cats!
Hooray!
And kills 2124 in 2008.
Oops.
In 2007, PETA saves 17 and kills 1815
In 2006, PETA saves 12 and kills 2981
In 2005, PETA saves 146 and kills 1946
And on it goes.
It does seem unbelievable that an organization that purports to care for animals, spends so much time killing them. It's like something Orwell might dream up. Or maybe just someone with a hate on for PETA and yet here is the animal accounting filed by PETA to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for 2008 (the numbers under the column heading "Reclaimed by Owner" are for spay/neuter services and aren't added into the adopted/euthanized figures). Click on image for larger size:
PETA's submissions to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for earlier years can be found here:
For 2007
For 2006
For 2005
etc.
PETA's usual response to this massacre is basically akin to the reasoning they gave for suggesting that all the Vick dogs be euthanized. From PETA's blog:
Every day that these dogs remain in kennels at animal shelters is a day of increased euthanasia rates for the potentially adoptable animals that the shelters must put to death for lack of space. There is only so much space, and resources are limited. May I humbly suggest that instead of raising hell and raising money to try to “rehabilitate” these dogs, and instead of flying to Virginia to “save the Vick dogs,” we do less “heroic” but even more important things to save dogs’ lives. When it comes to euthanasia, every day’s real world choice is of which not if — making the choice to demand that fighting dogs be “saved” is a soothing fantasy, more about public relations and, in some obvious cases, about fundraising, than about truly helping the most dogs in the most productive ways.
There is so much wrong with the whole of that particularly twisted blog entry, it's mind boggling, but let's just stick with the paragraph above. It's essentially saying that because of real world constraints, decisions need to be made as to which dogs deserve to be saved and which ones deserve to die. On the surface, that sounds like a pretty valid point.
Unfortunately, in practice, that's bullshit. No one carries around a list of traits to check off for animals that can be saved versus traits for animals that can't be saved. Acts of compassion aren't based purely on cost/benefit analyses. If that were the case, we'd all be too busy haggling over the list of the most worthy causes to ever actually do anything worthwhile.
I have to wonder what the cut-off is to make the grade at PETA to not be killed.
Euthman: Okey dokey, we've got 10 dogs here. Let's see which one of you lucky ones gets to be put up for adoption and which get snuffed.
Euthwoman: This one's all chewed up. Looks like it's been in a lot of dogfights.
Euthman: Well, then that one's no good. Obviously money can be better spent on dogs that are healthier. Sorry buddy but it looks like no tomorrow for you. No hard feelings?
Euthwoman: This one looks kind of sick. Its nose is dry.
Euthman: Yeah, I left the hand cleaner behind so if that one's sick keep it away from me. Nix.
Euthwoman: This pup's looking at me funny.
Euthman: That's a sure sign of aggression. Can't be wasting money on aggressive animals when there are so many friendlier ones out there.
Euthwoman: This one keeps licking my hand.
Euthman: That's some kind of obsessive compulsive disorder for sure. Probably suffers from separation anxiety too. Nix.
Euthwoman: These five are running around playing with each other.
Euthman: Yes, it's sad isn't it?
Euthwoman: Why's that sad?
Euthman: They've been so mistreated all their lives they're scared to death of people. We can't possibly allow their mental anguish to continue. PTS all of them.
Euthwoman: Okay and this last one. Mmm, uhh, I don't see anything wrong with it. Oh wait. It's dead already.
Euthman: Perfect.
There was an interesting, though short-lived, dialogue which recently went on at The New York Times between sports writer, Toni Monkovic, and Ingrid Newkirk, president and co-founder of PETA, in which Monkovic decided that if he had a choice between surrendering his dog to Michael Vick or PETA, he'd pick Vick because it would have a better chance of coming out alive. Newkirk took exception to that editorial and wrote one back:
It’s easy to point the finger at those of us who are forced to do the “dirty work” caused by a throwaway society’s casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals — even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn’t have enough heart or homes with room for them. It makes it easy for people to throw stones at us, but we are against all needless killing: for hamburgers, fur collars, dissection, sport hunting ― the works.
Yes, but is PETA against the needless killing of animals for the sake of needless killing?
Nathan Winograd, the world's foremost promoter of no-kill shelters has something to say about that in his blog post The Butcher of Norfolk:
PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” ... But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much.
In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills savable animals.
Here is that interview starting at the 10:00 mark:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=947929514
Of course, I'd like to know how much effort PETA puts into finding suitable homes for the animals they grab.
Daphna Nachminovitch, the supervisor of PETA's Community Animal Project, CAP, gives some good insight into PETA's philosophy put into practice. In early 2007, she was on the witness stand in a trial involving two PETA employees caught dumping dead animals they had just killed in their van into a grocery store dumpster.
From Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald's article "DA probes into PETA procedures" (the paper did some in-depth coverage of that trial): Nachminovitch added that the CAP protocol for field visits included euthanizing the animals at the site.
Hmm. Euthanized at the site. Doesn't sound like they spend much time at all looking for potential homes.
Oh, but wait. Maybe all those animals they euth'd were all sick and on the verge of death anyway.
At least one of the dogs found dead in an Ahoskie dumpster on June 15 has been diagnosed as healthy.
That is according to an autopsy performed by the North Carolina Medical Board. They forwarded their findings to Ahoskie Police Chief Troy Fitzhugh who had solicited the Medical Board's assistance to help determine the cause of death of 31 animals in the care of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).
Oops.
Okay, so maybe that was a slip up.
On Wednesday of last week, the longtime Hertford County veterinarian handed over a mother cat and two kittens to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) representatives Andrew Benjamin Cook of Virginia Beach, Va. and Adria Joy Hinkle of Norfolk, Va.
The felines, all strays brought to Proctor's business - Ahoskie Animal Hospital - were in good health, according to the local vet. He said there was no one on his list that had expressed an interest in adopting cats, so he contacted PETA.
"They (Cook and Hinkle) came to the office last Wednesday and picked-up the cat and two kittens," Dr. Proctor recalled. "So, imagine my surprise when I learned they allegedly dumped dead animals in a trash bin later that some day."
As Britney would say, Oops, I did it again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
Here is, I think, the best quote from that series of articles on that particular trial:
Who else [but PETA] could have a department known as Domestic Animal and Wildlife Rescue and then claim they are forced to end the miserable lives of these poor, unwanted animals. If that is their definition of rescue, I sincerely hope that if I’m drowning, they’re not the first on the scene. I may be on the receiving end of a cinderblock rather than a life preserver.
And please don’t respond with the tired excuse that all the pets at our local pounds are unhealthy and have to be put to sleep. That’s your wet dream, not ours. If it were the case, then how has an under funded group of volunteers, aka PAWS of Hertford County, adopted out nearly 300 animals since July of last year. If PETA’s “rescue” program had their way, those 300 pets would all be dead by now.
That, of course, is PETA's excuse for killing put into practice. There will always be "better" animals to save so why not just kill the one you've got.
It may sound like a dilemma - which animals deserve saving - but it's not really. The answer's pretty simple if saving animals is the real goal for PETA.
Here's one answer to PETA's dilemma: You save the one that is in front of you.
A doctor walking to work sees a traffic accident where a pedestrian is hit by a car and may not survive. The doctor stops and aids the victim. According to PETA, though, the doctor should ignore the victim and just keep going because she's got lots of patients already waiting for her at the clinic with much easier problems to solve like colds and sprained fingers.
Here's another answer: You save the one that you can readily save.
A young man eating a sandwich is sees an older man, hungry, sitting on the sidewalk. The younger man gives the older man half his sandwich. According to the PETA philosophy, the younger man is in the wrong and instead should have searched out the hungriest person in the world and sent the sandwich to that person.
And here's another: You save the one you want to save.
There are often no clear cut reasons for putting more effort into one being over another. Maybe it all comes down to the level of emotional attachment. Maybe it's because someone likes short haired dogs over long haired ones. Whatever. The important thing is that an animal is saved. Of course the problem with this answer arises if you don't actually want to save anything.
Which brings us back to the PETA statistic of 2124 killed versus 7 which were allowed to live.
Those 7 must have been fuckin saints.
There's been much written about this already so if you want to read more, you can start with Gina Spadafori's blog entry at Pet Connection Blog and then follow her links.
And kills 2124 in 2008.
Oops.
In 2007, PETA saves 17 and kills 1815
In 2006, PETA saves 12 and kills 2981
In 2005, PETA saves 146 and kills 1946
And on it goes.
It does seem unbelievable that an organization that purports to care for animals, spends so much time killing them. It's like something Orwell might dream up. Or maybe just someone with a hate on for PETA and yet here is the animal accounting filed by PETA to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for 2008 (the numbers under the column heading "Reclaimed by Owner" are for spay/neuter services and aren't added into the adopted/euthanized figures). Click on image for larger size:
PETA's submissions to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for earlier years can be found here:
For 2007
For 2006
For 2005
etc.
PETA's usual response to this massacre is basically akin to the reasoning they gave for suggesting that all the Vick dogs be euthanized. From PETA's blog:
Every day that these dogs remain in kennels at animal shelters is a day of increased euthanasia rates for the potentially adoptable animals that the shelters must put to death for lack of space. There is only so much space, and resources are limited. May I humbly suggest that instead of raising hell and raising money to try to “rehabilitate” these dogs, and instead of flying to Virginia to “save the Vick dogs,” we do less “heroic” but even more important things to save dogs’ lives. When it comes to euthanasia, every day’s real world choice is of which not if — making the choice to demand that fighting dogs be “saved” is a soothing fantasy, more about public relations and, in some obvious cases, about fundraising, than about truly helping the most dogs in the most productive ways.
There is so much wrong with the whole of that particularly twisted blog entry, it's mind boggling, but let's just stick with the paragraph above. It's essentially saying that because of real world constraints, decisions need to be made as to which dogs deserve to be saved and which ones deserve to die. On the surface, that sounds like a pretty valid point.
Unfortunately, in practice, that's bullshit. No one carries around a list of traits to check off for animals that can be saved versus traits for animals that can't be saved. Acts of compassion aren't based purely on cost/benefit analyses. If that were the case, we'd all be too busy haggling over the list of the most worthy causes to ever actually do anything worthwhile.
I have to wonder what the cut-off is to make the grade at PETA to not be killed.
Euthman: Okey dokey, we've got 10 dogs here. Let's see which one of you lucky ones gets to be put up for adoption and which get snuffed.
Euthwoman: This one's all chewed up. Looks like it's been in a lot of dogfights.
Euthman: Well, then that one's no good. Obviously money can be better spent on dogs that are healthier. Sorry buddy but it looks like no tomorrow for you. No hard feelings?
Euthwoman: This one looks kind of sick. Its nose is dry.
Euthman: Yeah, I left the hand cleaner behind so if that one's sick keep it away from me. Nix.
Euthwoman: This pup's looking at me funny.
Euthman: That's a sure sign of aggression. Can't be wasting money on aggressive animals when there are so many friendlier ones out there.
Euthwoman: This one keeps licking my hand.
Euthman: That's some kind of obsessive compulsive disorder for sure. Probably suffers from separation anxiety too. Nix.
Euthwoman: These five are running around playing with each other.
Euthman: Yes, it's sad isn't it?
Euthwoman: Why's that sad?
Euthman: They've been so mistreated all their lives they're scared to death of people. We can't possibly allow their mental anguish to continue. PTS all of them.
Euthwoman: Okay and this last one. Mmm, uhh, I don't see anything wrong with it. Oh wait. It's dead already.
Euthman: Perfect.
There was an interesting, though short-lived, dialogue which recently went on at The New York Times between sports writer, Toni Monkovic, and Ingrid Newkirk, president and co-founder of PETA, in which Monkovic decided that if he had a choice between surrendering his dog to Michael Vick or PETA, he'd pick Vick because it would have a better chance of coming out alive. Newkirk took exception to that editorial and wrote one back:
It’s easy to point the finger at those of us who are forced to do the “dirty work” caused by a throwaway society’s casual acquisition and breeding of dogs and cats who end up homeless and unwanted, but at PETA, we will never turn our backs on neglected, unloved, and homeless animals — even if the best we can offer them is a painless release from a world that doesn’t have enough heart or homes with room for them. It makes it easy for people to throw stones at us, but we are against all needless killing: for hamburgers, fur collars, dissection, sport hunting ― the works.
Yes, but is PETA against the needless killing of animals for the sake of needless killing?
Nathan Winograd, the world's foremost promoter of no-kill shelters has something to say about that in his blog post The Butcher of Norfolk:
PETA has argued that all of the animals it kills are “unadoptable.” ... But this claim is a lie. It is a lie because the numbers historically come from the State of Virginia’s reporting form which only asks for data for animals taken into custody “for the purpose of adoption.” It is a lie because PETA refuses to provide its criteria for making that determination. It is a lie because rescue groups and individuals have come forward stating that the animals they gave PETA were healthy and adoptable. It is a lie because testimony under oath in court from a veterinarian showed that PETA was given healthy and adoptable animals who were later found dead by PETA’s hands, their bodies unceremoniously thrown away in a supermarket dumpster. And it is a lie because Newkirk herself admitted as much.
In a December 2, 2008 interview with George Stroumboulopoulos of the Canadian Broadcasting Company, Stroumboulopoulos asks Newkirk: “Do you euthanize those pets, the adoptable ones, if you get them?” To which Newkirk responds: “If we get them, if we cannot find a home, absolutely.” In short, Newkirk admits that PETA “absolutely” kills savable animals.
Here is that interview starting at the 10:00 mark:
http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/videos.html?id=947929514
Of course, I'd like to know how much effort PETA puts into finding suitable homes for the animals they grab.
Daphna Nachminovitch, the supervisor of PETA's Community Animal Project, CAP, gives some good insight into PETA's philosophy put into practice. In early 2007, she was on the witness stand in a trial involving two PETA employees caught dumping dead animals they had just killed in their van into a grocery store dumpster.
From Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald's article "DA probes into PETA procedures" (the paper did some in-depth coverage of that trial): Nachminovitch added that the CAP protocol for field visits included euthanizing the animals at the site.
Hmm. Euthanized at the site. Doesn't sound like they spend much time at all looking for potential homes.
Oh, but wait. Maybe all those animals they euth'd were all sick and on the verge of death anyway.
At least one of the dogs found dead in an Ahoskie dumpster on June 15 has been diagnosed as healthy.
That is according to an autopsy performed by the North Carolina Medical Board. They forwarded their findings to Ahoskie Police Chief Troy Fitzhugh who had solicited the Medical Board's assistance to help determine the cause of death of 31 animals in the care of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals).
Oops.
Okay, so maybe that was a slip up.
On Wednesday of last week, the longtime Hertford County veterinarian handed over a mother cat and two kittens to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) representatives Andrew Benjamin Cook of Virginia Beach, Va. and Adria Joy Hinkle of Norfolk, Va.
The felines, all strays brought to Proctor's business - Ahoskie Animal Hospital - were in good health, according to the local vet. He said there was no one on his list that had expressed an interest in adopting cats, so he contacted PETA.
"They (Cook and Hinkle) came to the office last Wednesday and picked-up the cat and two kittens," Dr. Proctor recalled. "So, imagine my surprise when I learned they allegedly dumped dead animals in a trash bin later that some day."
As Britney would say, Oops, I did it again.
And again.
And again.
And again.
Here is, I think, the best quote from that series of articles on that particular trial:
Who else [but PETA] could have a department known as Domestic Animal and Wildlife Rescue and then claim they are forced to end the miserable lives of these poor, unwanted animals. If that is their definition of rescue, I sincerely hope that if I’m drowning, they’re not the first on the scene. I may be on the receiving end of a cinderblock rather than a life preserver.
And please don’t respond with the tired excuse that all the pets at our local pounds are unhealthy and have to be put to sleep. That’s your wet dream, not ours. If it were the case, then how has an under funded group of volunteers, aka PAWS of Hertford County, adopted out nearly 300 animals since July of last year. If PETA’s “rescue” program had their way, those 300 pets would all be dead by now.
That, of course, is PETA's excuse for killing put into practice. There will always be "better" animals to save so why not just kill the one you've got.
It may sound like a dilemma - which animals deserve saving - but it's not really. The answer's pretty simple if saving animals is the real goal for PETA.
Here's one answer to PETA's dilemma: You save the one that is in front of you.
A doctor walking to work sees a traffic accident where a pedestrian is hit by a car and may not survive. The doctor stops and aids the victim. According to PETA, though, the doctor should ignore the victim and just keep going because she's got lots of patients already waiting for her at the clinic with much easier problems to solve like colds and sprained fingers.
Here's another answer: You save the one that you can readily save.
A young man eating a sandwich is sees an older man, hungry, sitting on the sidewalk. The younger man gives the older man half his sandwich. According to the PETA philosophy, the younger man is in the wrong and instead should have searched out the hungriest person in the world and sent the sandwich to that person.
And here's another: You save the one you want to save.
There are often no clear cut reasons for putting more effort into one being over another. Maybe it all comes down to the level of emotional attachment. Maybe it's because someone likes short haired dogs over long haired ones. Whatever. The important thing is that an animal is saved. Of course the problem with this answer arises if you don't actually want to save anything.
Which brings us back to the PETA statistic of 2124 killed versus 7 which were allowed to live.
Those 7 must have been fuckin saints.
There's been much written about this already so if you want to read more, you can start with Gina Spadafori's blog entry at Pet Connection Blog and then follow her links.
Friday, February 20, 2009
PETA vs China
Warning. This post is about a highly disturbing dog video which PETA has been using as an awareness/funding tool. I'm going to try to keep the details to a minimum but you may want to skip this posting if you think it may be too much to handle.
I received an e-mail the other day from a good friend of mine asking me to sign and forward an attached PETA petition asking the Chinese government to stop allowing the skinning of live dogs in the Chinese fur trade.
Before I go into that, though, I'd like to share some personal background.
For one year, many years ago, I lived in China. It was in the Northeast where the air always hung heavy with coal smoke. I lived on an university campus there and taught English to a class of engineers. Everyone still wore mostly Communist grays and greens and blues. What colour there was, was generally muted by the soot in the air.
Every morning, I would wake up at 6:00 and go to an outdoor basketball court where I'd be taught kung fu by an English student of mine. He wasn't very good. Imagine a guy who looked like Spock with thick glasses but with no Vulcan super powers. I suspect he didn't know a damn thing about martial arts other than what he'd seen in Chinese censored versions of Enter the Dragon. I wasn't very good either, though, so it didn't matter. At least it gave me something to do.
A dog used to come by the court in the mornings while we practiced our kicks and punches and secret death kill grips. It was a dingy, brownish mutt. At first it was cautious but curious around us, not sure if what we were doing was threatening or a game it might be able to join in. Eventually, over the course of a few weeks, it decided that we were neither dangerous nor terribly interesting, but still, it would come over daily for a quick visit - maybe to check if that day was the day we had finally brought it a snack - and then it would return to the ugly concrete and stone house it came from.
That house was lived in by one of the labourers at the university. Every morning, the coal faced man would put out a bowl of rice gruel for the dog to eat. The dog would gulp down the food and then settle down on the front doorstep of the house and that's usually where the dog was when we finished our practice sessions in the morning.
One morning, after the dog had finished its visit with us, it walked back towards its house. Its owner came out and with a bowl of food in his hand and started calling to the dog. This was a little unusual because I'd never heard the man talk to the dog before. The dog approached the man excitedly, sniffing the scent of the food. When the dog got close enough, the man dropped the food then grabbed the dog by the scruff of the neck and stuffed it into a dirty sac. While the dog struggled and yelped, the man tied up the sac then beat it with a club until the struggling stopped. Then the man tied the sac to his bicycle rack and rode off.
I tell you this because I want you to understand that I know about cruelty to dogs in China. I make no excuses for them. It didn't matter that the man who did this was some shmuck who would have been lucky if he made $5 a day. My disgust was visceral. It was like getting punched in the gut. It wouldn't have mattered if the person throwing the punch was rich and educated or poor and ignorant. Either way it would have still sucked the air right out of me and left me feeling ill.
Now back to the PETA e-mail petition.
In my version of the e-mail, it didn't actually mention that the events described take place in China but I suspected as much and later the suspicion was confirmed.
Here's an excerpt:
There is no need to see the video, but if you must, be aware, it's horrible.
The following video is of excruciating violence. Its painful silences affect
us all deeply. If we don't protect animals from this type of brutality, we
become accomplices.
Please sign and forward to all your contacts - this has to be stopped!!!
I explain the process below:
With a hidden camera, animals were filmed being SKINNED ALIVE!!! They say
it's done to get a more perfect ''cut''; afterwards the carcasses are tossed
into a pile, still alive, and for up to 10 minutes you can see their hearts
still beating, in agony, their eyes still blinking, and the puppies' little
paws still shaking. There was one pup, that still lifted his head and gazed
at the camera with bloodied eyes.
If you don't care to see the video, please sign and forward to your friends:
this monstrosity has to be stopped, we have to act!!
When the list reaches 500 names, please forward to: PETA2@peta.org
Thank you.
The e-mail links to a PETA site (I'm not linking to it due to its graphically violent nature) which has the video. I scanned the site and saw a couple of images that showed more than I needed to see. There was no way I was going to watch the video but there's enough descriptions of it from many varied sources that I'm pretty sure the event it records is horrifically real. The are questions, though: How and why?
All sides of this bother me. Mostly, I am sickened by the suffering imposed on the dog. Again, it's visceral, no logic involved. It makes me want to scream and hit and destroy the destroyer. It makes me want to condemn the butcher, his family, his country all to Hell. I weep for that dog and will always weep for that dog when I think about what it was put through. I sit here seething at my impotence to act against such inhumanity, to help the helpless. What can I do? What can I do?
These reactions are real. They are inescapable. And of course these are the reactions PETA wants.
Animal rights organizations have had a long history with using animal snuff films to generate public debate, awareness and, of course, funds. Unfortunately, some of these films have come at great expense to the animals involved. Instead of a quick death, a more torturous end is staged and the animal is forced to suffer excruciating pain - all for our viewing (dis)pleasure.
Here's an excerpt taken from the Fur Commission USA website which is a lobby group for American mink farmers (so, yes, there may be spin on this but I haven't found anything to contradict the information provided):
1964: Film of a seal being skinned alive is used by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to vilify Canadian sealers, and is screened on CBC television. Following a public outcry and investigation, the man in the film, Gus Poirier of Prince Edward Island, signs an affidavit declaring that he was "employed by a group of photographers ... to skin a large seal for the film. I solemnly swear before witnesses that I was asked to torment the said seal and not to use a [club], but just to use a knife to carry out this operation, where in normal practice a [club] is used to first kill the seals before skinning them." A Federal Standing Committee castigated CBC "for not enquiring into its accuracy before screening," but the damage had been done.
Here's another one:
Mid-1990s: In 1996, video footage of a brutal dolphin slaughter is used in a campaign to raise money and generate public support for embargoes against Venezuela's two exports, oil and tunafish. As they market the video, various groups claim the film "proves" that 40,000 dolphins are killed annually in a country where dolphin kills are illegal. No proof exists except the film. When the uncut film footage is finally discovered, it becomes obvious that the film was staged. The filmmaking crew had represented themselves to the fishermen involved as scientists from the local university, saying they needed to kill a dolphin for research and that they would take total responsibility. "Act natural!" yells the cameraman to the fishermen. The filmmakers supply the knife used to inhumanely butcher the animal while they direct the action. "More blood! Get me more blood!" yells the cameraman.
The Venezuelan government charged the filmmakers with fraud and treason (since the film was part of an orchestrated attack on key Venezuelan exports), but the filmmakers fled the country. They have never been caught to face the charges.
And here's one that readers in Toronto might remember:
2001: Jesse Power, a vegan student at the Ontario College of Art and Design, enlists two other young men to film the brutal torture and killing of a house cat. Acts committed on video include hanging the cat by a noose, then cutting its throat while stabbing it, and finally slitting its chest open. At trial, Power's lawyer argues that the project was conceived as an "artistic protest" against meat-eating.
The Fur Commission site lists more than a dozen other staged animal snuff movies created and/or used by animal rights organizations including Greenpeace, IFAW, HSUS and, of course PETA. It also talks about the dog skinning video.
The implication from the video is that live skinning is standard operating procedure for the dog fur trade in China. However, outside of entertaining sadistic psychopaths who fester in every society, skinning any animal live for its fur doesn't make any sense because it's inefficient.
Here's an excerpt from a press release by the Chinese government (http://www.china-embassy.ch/ger/4/t185836.htm) regarding this video:
Pictures showing animals being skinned alive are obviously plotted. All those with common sense would not choose this slaughter method to attain fur. Reasons are as follows: First, the animals are bred for quality fur and those with a thinking mind know this method would seriously affect the quality of the fur. Second, animals being skinned alive would struggle and might hurt the skinner, which would increase the difficulty of skinning process. At last, the method is a very inefficient one to attain fur. To a fur farm with hundreds, even thousands of animals, it's ridiculous and infeasible to adopt the method.
So where does the truth lie? I'm guessing somewhere in between. I agree with the arguments presented (once I've managed to control my nausea) that it would be stupid to perform the act shown on the video on a large scale but I also find it hard to believe that such occurrences would never happen simply because the humans involved in the butchering will inevitably make mistakes. And anyway, the whole dog fur industry is so appallingly grotesque - especially when you realize that it's being used to counterfeit other animals' fur sold to western countries, either directly or through European countries - that the argument over whether or not this particular video was staged or not seems moot.
Well, not for this particular dog.
And so the eternal question, does the end justify the means?
What is the desired end in this case? That China cave in to foreign pressure and put a stop to its dog fur trade? Has China given Tibet more autonomy due to foreign pressure? No. Has it reduced its rate of capital punishment due to foreign pressure? No. Has it improved its human rights record due to foreign pressure? No.
Well, maybe then the video will turn off enough people from wearing fur that the dog fur industry (and counterfeit animal fur industry) will dry up in China. Maybe but I'm not betting on it. Before the credit crunch hit, fur had its biggest year ever propelled by all the new wealth in Russia and China. People who wear fur aren't thinking about animal suffering. They're concerned about how they look.
And so, I believe that the dog in the video was put through a terrible death in vain. I believe that it would have been enough just to film what regularly happens to dogs in China - stuffed in cages like you'd stuff a suitcase, butchered in open markets - without having to resort to creating such extreme additional suffering - even if it's only the suffering of one dog - to get the message across. If the film makers staged the torture scene, they stepped over the line. They would have become the tormentors and tormentors deserve to rot in hell.
But still, did I sign the petition? Of course.
I received an e-mail the other day from a good friend of mine asking me to sign and forward an attached PETA petition asking the Chinese government to stop allowing the skinning of live dogs in the Chinese fur trade.
Before I go into that, though, I'd like to share some personal background.
For one year, many years ago, I lived in China. It was in the Northeast where the air always hung heavy with coal smoke. I lived on an university campus there and taught English to a class of engineers. Everyone still wore mostly Communist grays and greens and blues. What colour there was, was generally muted by the soot in the air.
Every morning, I would wake up at 6:00 and go to an outdoor basketball court where I'd be taught kung fu by an English student of mine. He wasn't very good. Imagine a guy who looked like Spock with thick glasses but with no Vulcan super powers. I suspect he didn't know a damn thing about martial arts other than what he'd seen in Chinese censored versions of Enter the Dragon. I wasn't very good either, though, so it didn't matter. At least it gave me something to do.
A dog used to come by the court in the mornings while we practiced our kicks and punches and secret death kill grips. It was a dingy, brownish mutt. At first it was cautious but curious around us, not sure if what we were doing was threatening or a game it might be able to join in. Eventually, over the course of a few weeks, it decided that we were neither dangerous nor terribly interesting, but still, it would come over daily for a quick visit - maybe to check if that day was the day we had finally brought it a snack - and then it would return to the ugly concrete and stone house it came from.
That house was lived in by one of the labourers at the university. Every morning, the coal faced man would put out a bowl of rice gruel for the dog to eat. The dog would gulp down the food and then settle down on the front doorstep of the house and that's usually where the dog was when we finished our practice sessions in the morning.
One morning, after the dog had finished its visit with us, it walked back towards its house. Its owner came out and with a bowl of food in his hand and started calling to the dog. This was a little unusual because I'd never heard the man talk to the dog before. The dog approached the man excitedly, sniffing the scent of the food. When the dog got close enough, the man dropped the food then grabbed the dog by the scruff of the neck and stuffed it into a dirty sac. While the dog struggled and yelped, the man tied up the sac then beat it with a club until the struggling stopped. Then the man tied the sac to his bicycle rack and rode off.
I tell you this because I want you to understand that I know about cruelty to dogs in China. I make no excuses for them. It didn't matter that the man who did this was some shmuck who would have been lucky if he made $5 a day. My disgust was visceral. It was like getting punched in the gut. It wouldn't have mattered if the person throwing the punch was rich and educated or poor and ignorant. Either way it would have still sucked the air right out of me and left me feeling ill.
Now back to the PETA e-mail petition.
In my version of the e-mail, it didn't actually mention that the events described take place in China but I suspected as much and later the suspicion was confirmed.
Here's an excerpt:
There is no need to see the video, but if you must, be aware, it's horrible.
The following video is of excruciating violence. Its painful silences affect
us all deeply. If we don't protect animals from this type of brutality, we
become accomplices.
Please sign and forward to all your contacts - this has to be stopped!!!
I explain the process below:
With a hidden camera, animals were filmed being SKINNED ALIVE!!! They say
it's done to get a more perfect ''cut''; afterwards the carcasses are tossed
into a pile, still alive, and for up to 10 minutes you can see their hearts
still beating, in agony, their eyes still blinking, and the puppies' little
paws still shaking. There was one pup, that still lifted his head and gazed
at the camera with bloodied eyes.
If you don't care to see the video, please sign and forward to your friends:
this monstrosity has to be stopped, we have to act!!
When the list reaches 500 names, please forward to: PETA2@peta.org
Thank you.
The e-mail links to a PETA site (I'm not linking to it due to its graphically violent nature) which has the video. I scanned the site and saw a couple of images that showed more than I needed to see. There was no way I was going to watch the video but there's enough descriptions of it from many varied sources that I'm pretty sure the event it records is horrifically real. The are questions, though: How and why?
All sides of this bother me. Mostly, I am sickened by the suffering imposed on the dog. Again, it's visceral, no logic involved. It makes me want to scream and hit and destroy the destroyer. It makes me want to condemn the butcher, his family, his country all to Hell. I weep for that dog and will always weep for that dog when I think about what it was put through. I sit here seething at my impotence to act against such inhumanity, to help the helpless. What can I do? What can I do?
These reactions are real. They are inescapable. And of course these are the reactions PETA wants.
Animal rights organizations have had a long history with using animal snuff films to generate public debate, awareness and, of course, funds. Unfortunately, some of these films have come at great expense to the animals involved. Instead of a quick death, a more torturous end is staged and the animal is forced to suffer excruciating pain - all for our viewing (dis)pleasure.
Here's an excerpt taken from the Fur Commission USA website which is a lobby group for American mink farmers (so, yes, there may be spin on this but I haven't found anything to contradict the information provided):
1964: Film of a seal being skinned alive is used by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to vilify Canadian sealers, and is screened on CBC television. Following a public outcry and investigation, the man in the film, Gus Poirier of Prince Edward Island, signs an affidavit declaring that he was "employed by a group of photographers ... to skin a large seal for the film. I solemnly swear before witnesses that I was asked to torment the said seal and not to use a [club], but just to use a knife to carry out this operation, where in normal practice a [club] is used to first kill the seals before skinning them." A Federal Standing Committee castigated CBC "for not enquiring into its accuracy before screening," but the damage had been done.
Here's another one:
Mid-1990s: In 1996, video footage of a brutal dolphin slaughter is used in a campaign to raise money and generate public support for embargoes against Venezuela's two exports, oil and tunafish. As they market the video, various groups claim the film "proves" that 40,000 dolphins are killed annually in a country where dolphin kills are illegal. No proof exists except the film. When the uncut film footage is finally discovered, it becomes obvious that the film was staged. The filmmaking crew had represented themselves to the fishermen involved as scientists from the local university, saying they needed to kill a dolphin for research and that they would take total responsibility. "Act natural!" yells the cameraman to the fishermen. The filmmakers supply the knife used to inhumanely butcher the animal while they direct the action. "More blood! Get me more blood!" yells the cameraman.
The Venezuelan government charged the filmmakers with fraud and treason (since the film was part of an orchestrated attack on key Venezuelan exports), but the filmmakers fled the country. They have never been caught to face the charges.
And here's one that readers in Toronto might remember:
2001: Jesse Power, a vegan student at the Ontario College of Art and Design, enlists two other young men to film the brutal torture and killing of a house cat. Acts committed on video include hanging the cat by a noose, then cutting its throat while stabbing it, and finally slitting its chest open. At trial, Power's lawyer argues that the project was conceived as an "artistic protest" against meat-eating.
The Fur Commission site lists more than a dozen other staged animal snuff movies created and/or used by animal rights organizations including Greenpeace, IFAW, HSUS and, of course PETA. It also talks about the dog skinning video.
The implication from the video is that live skinning is standard operating procedure for the dog fur trade in China. However, outside of entertaining sadistic psychopaths who fester in every society, skinning any animal live for its fur doesn't make any sense because it's inefficient.
Here's an excerpt from a press release by the Chinese government (http://www.china-embassy.ch/ger/4/t185836.htm) regarding this video:
Pictures showing animals being skinned alive are obviously plotted. All those with common sense would not choose this slaughter method to attain fur. Reasons are as follows: First, the animals are bred for quality fur and those with a thinking mind know this method would seriously affect the quality of the fur. Second, animals being skinned alive would struggle and might hurt the skinner, which would increase the difficulty of skinning process. At last, the method is a very inefficient one to attain fur. To a fur farm with hundreds, even thousands of animals, it's ridiculous and infeasible to adopt the method.
So where does the truth lie? I'm guessing somewhere in between. I agree with the arguments presented (once I've managed to control my nausea) that it would be stupid to perform the act shown on the video on a large scale but I also find it hard to believe that such occurrences would never happen simply because the humans involved in the butchering will inevitably make mistakes. And anyway, the whole dog fur industry is so appallingly grotesque - especially when you realize that it's being used to counterfeit other animals' fur sold to western countries, either directly or through European countries - that the argument over whether or not this particular video was staged or not seems moot.
Well, not for this particular dog.
And so the eternal question, does the end justify the means?
What is the desired end in this case? That China cave in to foreign pressure and put a stop to its dog fur trade? Has China given Tibet more autonomy due to foreign pressure? No. Has it reduced its rate of capital punishment due to foreign pressure? No. Has it improved its human rights record due to foreign pressure? No.
Well, maybe then the video will turn off enough people from wearing fur that the dog fur industry (and counterfeit animal fur industry) will dry up in China. Maybe but I'm not betting on it. Before the credit crunch hit, fur had its biggest year ever propelled by all the new wealth in Russia and China. People who wear fur aren't thinking about animal suffering. They're concerned about how they look.
And so, I believe that the dog in the video was put through a terrible death in vain. I believe that it would have been enough just to film what regularly happens to dogs in China - stuffed in cages like you'd stuff a suitcase, butchered in open markets - without having to resort to creating such extreme additional suffering - even if it's only the suffering of one dog - to get the message across. If the film makers staged the torture scene, they stepped over the line. They would have become the tormentors and tormentors deserve to rot in hell.
But still, did I sign the petition? Of course.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Purple haze - part 2
I fall asleep and hear Ingrid say to Wayne, "Wayne this one's all yours, baby," and she hands him the pup but Wayne is busy preaching to the television cameras about love and respect for all of God's beautiful creatures so he passes it along to his darling, John, and John lays the pup down and casually crushes it with his foot all the while picking food out of his white teeth and smiling. "You are a good boy", says Wayne and he brings out a tub of crystal clear water and washes John's feet.
I move away from them and walk amongst the 100 and more remaining dogs who are snarling and cowering and barking and crying and I want to take them out for a just a while, a small thing, a stroll along some city sidewalk but I can't because my arms cannot reach them and suddenly they are so far away I can barely see them.
"I cannot see the way," I say to Wayne and he says, "Do not fret, they are in our good hands now," and he opens a cage door and takes out a dog and the dog is unsure but wags its tail. "See how it loves me," and he smiles for the television cameras and pockets a cheque for one thousand dollars and then he gives the dog to Ingrid and she swallows it whole.
"Yummy in the tummy," she says.
Then Wayne takes another dog, a puppy, and cradles it like a child for the cameras and pockets a cheque for two thousand dollars and then is about to give the pup to John but as it passes by I reach out to touch it but John snatches it away and says, "Mine, you prick!" and he takes it and he swallows it whole.
Wayne reaches in for a third dog and this dog is scarred and blind and when Wayne reaches in, the dog doesn't sense his presence until he touches it and then the dog nuzzles the hand and Wayne pockets a cheque for three thousand dollars as the news cameras record and then he lifts the dog up out of its cage where it has spent almost all of its short terrible life and he carries it out and he lifts it high and then he winks at it just before he swallows it whole.
And in the dream, they continue but I don't remember any of it until the end when all the cages are empty and the trinity unfold their blood red dragon wings and fly away.
On Feb. 17, after seizing dogs from an operation that bred fighting dogs, Wilkes County Animal Control euthanized 146 Pit Bulls, including 19 new born puppies, under the recommendations of Humane Society United States. No proper individual dog behavioural assessments were done to see if any could be saved. Best Friends volunteered to do the assessments but they were denied. KC Dog Blog and Caveat have the details and the links.
I move away from them and walk amongst the 100 and more remaining dogs who are snarling and cowering and barking and crying and I want to take them out for a just a while, a small thing, a stroll along some city sidewalk but I can't because my arms cannot reach them and suddenly they are so far away I can barely see them.
"I cannot see the way," I say to Wayne and he says, "Do not fret, they are in our good hands now," and he opens a cage door and takes out a dog and the dog is unsure but wags its tail. "See how it loves me," and he smiles for the television cameras and pockets a cheque for one thousand dollars and then he gives the dog to Ingrid and she swallows it whole.
"Yummy in the tummy," she says.
Then Wayne takes another dog, a puppy, and cradles it like a child for the cameras and pockets a cheque for two thousand dollars and then is about to give the pup to John but as it passes by I reach out to touch it but John snatches it away and says, "Mine, you prick!" and he takes it and he swallows it whole.
Wayne reaches in for a third dog and this dog is scarred and blind and when Wayne reaches in, the dog doesn't sense his presence until he touches it and then the dog nuzzles the hand and Wayne pockets a cheque for three thousand dollars as the news cameras record and then he lifts the dog up out of its cage where it has spent almost all of its short terrible life and he carries it out and he lifts it high and then he winks at it just before he swallows it whole.
And in the dream, they continue but I don't remember any of it until the end when all the cages are empty and the trinity unfold their blood red dragon wings and fly away.
On Feb. 17, after seizing dogs from an operation that bred fighting dogs, Wilkes County Animal Control euthanized 146 Pit Bulls, including 19 new born puppies, under the recommendations of Humane Society United States. No proper individual dog behavioural assessments were done to see if any could be saved. Best Friends volunteered to do the assessments but they were denied. KC Dog Blog and Caveat have the details and the links.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
