Anna Nicole Smith's Dogs Boycott Iams

[Cassiepeia]

Yeah, Kade...see that's kinda what I was getting at in my post about where she bought her dogs.
I wondered if she had bought her dogs from breeders (read...BYB or puppymill) or adopted them from a shelter. I can't find any info on her dogs, just lots of stupid pictures of her treating them like dolls and fashion accessories.

It seemed a bit strange to have someone as a poster girl for a PETA campaign, who totes around her dogs like the latest paris fashion.

Of course, I hope I'm wrong and she's rescued them from a shelter somewhere instead.

Cass.

[RIo&Nickysmommy]

Hi Not to change the subject but I will Kade what type of dog is that in your pciture so beautiful and cute. I love doggie pictures.
Rio&Nickysmommy

[EscapeTurn]

What are you guys talking about? she's obviously right. everyone should boycott IAMS because a girl with big boobs says so.

[Mom2Many]

Originally Posted by ilovemyhounds

Why is everybody knocking PETA? They have done some pretty good things in the past, as well as raise awareness about many issues. I do not consider myself to be a radical either

They support terroist groups, arsonists, freeing our beloved pets into the wild, etc. They are not a group to be supported, any money you send in will help with court costs and lawyer fees to get their criminials off. These people set fires to labs, allowing all the animals to die, or they set all the animals loose to fend for themselves which they are not capable of doing since they are domesticated. This is a short reason to not support peta, a bit of research on your part should clear the clouds.

Edit to add: They also recuit teachers to spread their propoganda to small children, telling them that their mommy's and daddy's are animal killers because they eat meat!

[ilovemyhounds]

Mom2Many, don't you think you are just a wee bit biased? Peta has also heightened awareness about wearing fur, seal hunting, poor factory farming conditions , and the use of animal testing, especially in situations where it is totally unnecessary and meaningless. Additionally, they have come a long way in decreasing vivisection in school.
I think you take them too literally. PETA is not for setting free all pets; they are for treating animals with the dignity they deserve. Interpret it however you want, but you are dead wrong. Perhaps you should do some reaearch.

[Cassiepeia]

Perhaps we should all stop favouring sides and all do some research. PETA is both a great and terrible organisation.

Cass.

[Owned by Lucy]

Originally Posted by ilovemyhounds

PETA is not for setting free all pets; they are for treating animals with the dignity they deserve. Interpret it however you want, but you are dead wrong. Perhaps you should do some reaearch.

I agree that PETA is not all bad because nothing is all bad and I am sure there are a couple of people within the organization that have morals and a conscience. However...

It is clearly stated in their mission and vission statements that they are for the "Total Animal Liberation." This not only inculdes stopping the use of fur, leather and bettering the conditions in farming. They means no meat consumption, no milk consumption, no zoos, no circuses, no fishing, no animal testing to create lifesaving medicines and NO PETS.

You can look at their publicly available financial statements and see line items in which they have given money to groups classified as terrorist by the FBI and CIA. You will also see that only about 1% of their budget actually goes to helping animals (anually 85% of the animals in their shelters are PTS and only 20% of those came from owner surrenders the remainder comes from "other" sources)

[ilovemyhounds]

Peta FAQs

I think this may clear up some questions for you.

I think PETA does some good work. I will also tell you that PETA does not operate shelters. Their focus is on education, not direct animal care.

Like any ideology, take from it what you want. For example, I am a long time vegetarian, but not a vegan. I wear leather, but refused to do animal research in school, even going as far as to fail ninth grade biology for my refusal to dissect animals.. And that is fine; I do what makes me comfortable. And believe me, I am no radical.

Thanks to organizations like PETA, some practices, such as animal testing on cosmetics, are changing. There are now alternatives to classroom vivisection. If you will check this out Digital Frog; I used to work at this place on their Science Matrix, and there no reason in the world for frogs to have to be dissected in the name of biology class . Without PETA and such organizations, these alternatives would not be available.

Oh, by the way, if the CIA and the FBI says they are terrorists, then it must be true

[Kade]

Originally Posted by RIo&Nickysmommy

Hi Not to change the subject but I will Kade what type of dog is that in your pciture so beautiful and cute. I love doggie pictures.
Rio&Nickysmommy

Thanks! I'll whisper. He's a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel.

[jcsperson]

...the words of Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA:

On hoof and mouth disease in Europe: "I openly hope that it comes here. It will bring harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration-camp like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment." (Reuters News Service, April 2, 2001, article by Alan Elsner)

On animal rights arson and violence: "Would I rather the research lab that tests on animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes." (New York Daily News, Dec. 12, 1997)

On dog breeding and pet ownership: "People don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats…if people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind." ("Animals" Magazine, May/June 1993)

On dog breeding and pet ownership: "Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought on by human manipulation. We would no longer allow breeding. As the surplus of cats and dogs declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship-enjoyment at a distance." (Harper's Magazine, August 1988)

Here are some others:

"The life of an ant and the life of my child should be accorded equal respect." (Associated Press, Jan. 15, 1989)

"We are not superior. There are no clear distinctions between us and animals." (Washingtonian Magazine, February 1990)

- Michael Fox, Vice President, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

"We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of selective breeding. One generation and out."

- Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

I don't think there is too much room for interpretation there. Newkirk's Hoof and Mouth Disease statement is particularly chilling.

Make no mistake about what these people are after.

[Cassiepeia]

*sigh*

Cass.

[TribalRats]

Perhaps we should all stop favouring sides and all do some research. PETA is both a great and terrible organisation.

I agree Cass

[Mom2Many]

Originally Posted by ilovemyhounds

Mom2Many, don't you think you are just a wee bit biased? Peta has also heightened awareness about wearing fur, seal hunting, poor factory farming conditions , and the use of animal testing, especially in situations where it is totally unnecessary and meaningless. Additionally, they have come a long way in decreasing vivisection in school.
I think you take them too literally. PETA is not for setting free all pets; they are for treating animals with the dignity they deserve. Interpret it however you want, but you are dead wrong. Perhaps you should do some reaearch.

No, I really don't think that I am a "wee bit biased". I love animals, I would love for all animals to be treated with the greatest of respect. That is not what peta does though...I wrote my paper for my college ethics class on peta so I have done plenty of research seeing that I had to present both sides of the story. I will never endorse peta and that is my choice that I have come to based upon empirical evidence that I have found that proves peta does more harm than good. They could be a great organization but sadly they employ terroristic mannerisms in their pursuit for animal rights. That is not somthing I can support, it goes against my morals, values, and ethics.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/peta...als.cfm...just one site of hundrends.

[Tiffany0204]

^^ I'm going to have to second that.

They are taking a potentially good idea and turning it into something extreme. I personally find that they feed off of people's sympathies for animals, but then use the said means (terrorist, arsonists etc) to get their point across.

They have the right idea, they just need to stop with the extremist attacks. JMO

[ilovemyhounds]

I agree tht they are both good and bad. I also agree that they have the right idea, but they do take it too far. Unfortunately, that turns a lot of people off and in some ways does more harm than good in helping society to change some of its animal practices.