House cats - killers?

[00Syd]

I do get the distinction. I know I do my own bit of eye rolling to that behavior. I'm not sure that the English language really has decent words to avoid anthropomorphism. There's no separate word from "sad" to describe a "comparable to human sadness, but in animal form" set of animal behaviors. I guess they're not defined because we don't really know what they are because they can't tell us. It's projecting.

I do think we would need a separate linguistics set for that. But this is just probably indicative of how little thought or priority humans have put into the subject linguistically. Or how little information we actually have about animal thought or behavior. Maybe I'd have to be a zoologist to know there is that set of words available, I just don't know them.

I do know that some people dressing their animals up at Halloween makes me angry. And then some of it makes me laugh my ass off or go "awwww" and then I'm angry and ashamed of laughing. Stupid Halloween.

How about "distressed"?

I also think that there are a lot of people who don't know how to relate to people and so get pets who they then treat like children or confidants. I don't think that's really the best thing for the human OR the pet.

Did you know that there are people who get doctors notes that say they HAVE to take their animals everywhere because they are emotionally distressed and their pets are "security animals"? If that's legit, okay, I guess, but I read an article a while back about people who are obviously abusing this just so that their "babies" never have to be alone, not because they'll have some emotional breakdown or anxiety attack if they leave the house without them. Unless freaking out that Fido is lonely could be considered an anxiety attack worthy of a doctors note.

I'm with WD's version of PETA.

 

[Recidiva]

How about "distressed"?

I also think that there are a lot of people who don't know how to relate to people and so get pets who they then treat like children or confidants. I don't think that's really the best thing for the human OR the pet.

Did you know that there are people who get doctors notes that say they HAVE to take their animals everywhere because they are emotionally distressed and their pets are "security animals"? If that's legit, okay, I guess, but I read an article a while back about people who are obviously abusing this just so that their "babies" never have to be alone, not because they'll have some emotional breakdown or anxiety attack if they leave the house without them. Unless freaking out that Fido is lonely could be considered an anxiety attack worthy of a doctors note.

I'm with WD's version of PETA.

Yes, that's abuse.

I could do without pet psychics too.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

PETA... don't get me started.

From the website PETA Kills Animals:​

July 22, 2009

Exclusive: PETA’s Pet Killing Program Set a New Record in 2008
Public Records: PETA Found Adoptive Homes for Less than 1 out of 300 Animals

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” 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.

Just seven animals -- out of the 2,216 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.

PETA has a $32 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all “unethical.”

The bottom line: PETA’s leaders care more about cutting into their advertising budget than finding homes for the nearly six pets they kill on average, every single day.

The Virginia Beach SPCA, just down the road from PETA’s Norfolk headquarters, manages to adopt out the vast majority of the animals in its care. And it does it on a shoestring budget.

Years of public outrage has not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program.

Now the death toll of animals in PETA’s care has reached 21,339, including more than 2,000 pets last year. That’s not an animal charity. It’s a slaughterhouse.

Pets Killed By PETA
Year . . Rcvd† . . Adopted . . Killed . . Transferred . . % Killed . . %Adopted
2008 . . 2,216 . . . 7 . . . . .2,124 . . . . 34 . . . . . . 95.8 . . . . 0.32
2007 . . 1,997 . . .17 . . . . .1,815 . . . . 35 . . . . . . 90.9 . . . . 0.85
2006 . . 3,061 . . .12 . . . . .2,981 . . . . 46 . . . . . . 97.4 . . . . 0.39
2005 . . 2,165 . . 146 . . . . .1,946 . . . . 69 . . . . . . 89.9 . . . . 6.74
2004 . . 2,655 . . 361 . . . . .2,278 . . . . .1 . . . . . . 85.8 . . . .13.60
2003 . . 2,224 . . 312 . . . . .1,911 . . . . .1 . . . . . . 85.9 . . . .14.03
2002 . . 2,680 . . 382 . . . . .2,298 . . . . .2 . . . . . . 85.7 . . . .14.25
2001 . . 2,685 . . 703 . . . . .1,944 . . . . 14 . . . . . . 72.4 . . . .26.18
2000 . . 2,681 . . 624 . . . . .2,029 . . . . 28 . . . . . . 75.7 . . . .23.27
1999 . . 1,805 . . 386 . . . . .1,328 . . . . 91 . . . . . . 73.6 . . . .21.39
*1998. . . 943 . . 133 . . . . . .685 . . . .125 . . . . . . 72.6 . . . .14.10
Total. .25,112 . 3,083 . . . . 21,339 . . . .446 . . . . . . 85.0 . . . .12.28 ​

* figures represent the second half of 1998 only
† Other than spay/neuter animals
» Skeptical? Click here to see the proof.​

Also from the same website:

PETA's Lame Response
We'll say this much for PETA's leaders: they've got an answer for everything. If you write to PETA and ask them about our "PETA Kills Animals" website, they'll send back a form letter including some of the lame excuses below:

"Thank you for contacting PETA about the 'PETA Kills Animals' billboard and the accompanying promotions for it … PETA can't afford billboards in Times Square, so we're grateful for the opportunity that this one provides to discuss the animal overpopulation crisis."

PETA's lying. The organization has erected not one but two Times Square billboards (one in 1997 and another in 2003), both featuring silicone beauty Pamela Anderson. Click here and here to see PETA's own promotional materials about these advertisements. And PETA's annual budget is over $25 million. That's about seven times what the Center for Consumer Freedom spends.

"We do not run a traditional shelter. In fact, we refer every healthy, cute, young animal we can to shelters."

Uh oh. There they go again. In 2003 PETA reported transferring exactly one animal to another shelter. In 2002 PETA transferred just two animals. Click here to see the documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia. Since 1998, PETA has transferred a total of 130 animals to other shelters, and 21 of them were chickens. By comparison, it killed over 10,000 animals.

"[M]ost of the animals we receive are broken beings for whom euthanasia is, without a doubt, the most humane option."

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.

PETA talks a good game about caring for animals, but seems uninterested in saving the only creatures it actually has contact with. If PETA were sincere, it could use its incredible wealth to buy a huge plot of land where its thousands of victims could live out their natural lives. Instead, these animals meet PETA's hypocrisy head-on, in the form of "tough love."​

 

[graceanne]

I'm good in the ocean. Not in a plane.

Odds are better on a plane, but fuck it. I like the water.

Jellyfish suck. I assume I'm not going to be eaten by sharks. I just do - I go in with the "not likely to be eaten" mindset.

In the NE Atlantic, this is probably a safer bet than in dolphin land.

I don't get in water I can't see through. And believe me, the north pacific is cold enough that very little lives in it - I don't care. I'm not going.

But I freak out on planes, too. lol

Yeah, I'm in Florida. not a good bet here. I did lots of ocean trapising in the Northeast at the Jersey Shore and in Delmarva.

Here's just kinda asking for it.

Kinda like putting a bullseye on your ass?

 

[Keroin]

Well, I agree that there is no need to pay to see a dead fish, but people will do so. There is the impulse to see things out of the ordinary, and animals ping that impulse pretty strongly.

I don't know how your lagoon is, and what fish tend towards the shore. Or, for that matter, what fish kids kill to pimp for dollars. The point was that a safe, comparatively humane display would obviate the "demand" side of the "supply and demand" equation vis a vis seeing fish.

This lagoon is very large and very shallow. The section I live on is very accessible, as is most of the west side. I can swim out to the reef and at no point is the water over my head, in most places it barely comes up to my waist. The water is clear, warm, free of jelly fish and other dangers. The only risk, really, is stone fish and if you keep your hands and feet off the coral then you never have to worry. It is one of the nicest, safest, easiest places in the world to view tropical fish.

From shore, you can easily see about 20 species of fish.

Putting an aquarium here would be like putting a sandbox in the middle of the Sahara.

This has nothing to do with zoos, outlook, or action. This is an argument against population itself. We expand, it's what we do. It sucks, and it is non-sustainable, but it is the nature of EVERY organism. Each population will expand to fill the boundaries it is capable of keeping in whatever environment it inhabits. Put a pair of frogs in a pond and they will multiply until they hit the point that the pond can no longer sustain more frogs, predation keeps them in check, etc.

As a species, we are the apex predators of all time on this planet, and adaptable to any environment (with sufficient technological help). This means we can, and eventually will, expand everywhere. Sans predation, the only check possible will be food/water/etc resources running out in a given area, or just flat worldwide.

You'll find no argument from me about overpopulation. (Reason #124 I have no kids). The problem with humans is that we keep outsmarting the things that should be keeping our population in check. But I mentioned a ski resort, not houses. Housing? OK, unfortunate but necessary. Ski resort? When we already have more than enough ski resorts in that area? Nope, that's just greed.

Well, I can't disagree that things have gotten worse, but that is as much a function of population growth as anything else. How many humans were on this planet in 1970 compared to how many today? All those bodies need places to live.

That said, I will disagree again that attitudes have not changed, and that we are somehow not more aware. I can point to numerous major road construction projects that have been put on indefinite hold or flat halted because of animal or environmental health concerns. Various businesses are forced to be more animal-aware due to public pressure. Green products are becoming more and more common.

Personally, I see improvement. It is counterbalanced by the number of babies we're popping out, but attitudes have improved, and people are more active.

And I can point to the horde of supposedly enlightened tourists I watched throwing coconuts and sticks at the crocodiles beneath the Tarcoles bridge, in Costa Rica, because they were frustrated with the animals just lying there and they wanted them to "do" something, and my list of examples goes on and on.

How about the tourists who flock to swim-with-dolphin facilities all over the world without any shred of concern for how the dolphins were captured or their quality of life. These numbers are increasing, substantially. (Not to suggest that all tourists do not do their homework about these facilities -many choose to swim at only the most ethical facilities - but the overwhelming majority don't know or don't care).

*shrug* I don't blame you. I'd rather they were free too. But I also see the educational and political (referring to the politics of conservation, not human politics) worth of such displays, especially when they are handled like the one I mentioned.

And, for the record, circuses suck.

I believe it is possible to teach people to value, care for and protect wild animals without putting the animals in captivity. I've never seen a snow leopard but after watching Planet Earth and learning of their impending extinction, I was motivated to do something. Also, two years ago I attended a screening of Sharkwater in Nelson, with Paul Watson fielding questions afterward. The movie ended with a standing ovation and the crowd had tons of questions. I saw real action regarding shark protection and conservation come from that film. No aquarium needed.

And I again I'll state that these are my beliefs. I have friends who go to zoos and aquariums, I have friends who've swam with dolphins in captivity, I don't look at them as bad, evil, terrible people. I don't preach at them. Once upon a time, I enjoyed watching animals in captivity, just like everyone else. Then I had one of those famous epiphanies - I think it was right at the same time a wild dolphin looked me in the eye and I saw a mind not unlike my own - where I "got" it. So I'm willing to be that obnoxious person who boycotts and protests because I know if it weren't for us then there would still be gorillas in department store displays.

 

[Keroin]

PETA... don't get me started.

Please don't get me started about people who bitch about PETA.

I don't support them. They are only one of thousands of animal/environmental groups - most of which are caring, legitimate, underfunded, under -recognized, under supported and hard working.

How about shining a spotlight on the organizations that actually do good work, for a change?

Sea Watch is a great start.

 

[Keroin]

I don't get in water I can't see through. And believe me, the north pacific is cold enough that very little lives in it - I don't care. I'm not going.

Nope, wrong. There's tons of life in the North Pacific. Cold water is rich in nutrients. BC is one of the premier diving destinations in the world.

 

[Keroin]

Because I'm feeling particularly feisty this morning...

I ate up some bandwidth to bring you this video.

About two thirds of the way through there is footage from a capture in Magdalena Bay, Baja, Mexico. I was in Baja when this happened. I also protested this facility. I can vouch for everything first hand. It was revolting. I only wish I'd had the resources to sneak in and set these animals free.

 

[graceanne]

Nope, wrong. There's tons of life in the North Pacific. Cold water is rich in nutrients. BC is one of the premier diving destinations in the world.

Dude, I gotta live here.

THERE'S NOTHING THERE.

Let me lie to myself, kay?

 

[WriterDom]

I don't think my cats would hurt me if they were big. But the girl has no bones about fighting me now if I start it. More play than anything though.

I'd love to experiece what it's like to be a cat. See the world through a cat's eyes, ears, and nose, and be able to junp six feet.

 

[Keroin]

Dude, I gotta live here.

THERE'S NOTHING THERE.

Let me lie to myself, kay?

Well, if you're not going to swim in the water anyway...?

 

[Netzach]

I don't think my cats would hurt me if they were big. But the girl has no bones about fighting me now if I start it. More play than anything though.

I'd love to experiece what it's like to be a cat. See the world through a cat's eyes, ears, and nose, and be able to junp six feet.

I always thought this.

M took it one further. He's like "I wish I could pal around with Penguin for a day as another cat."

I think this was totally platonic Bro-love, he meant.

 

[graceanne]

Well, if you're not going to swim in the water anyway...?

My kids get in that water.

I try not to be the kind of mom who won't let their kids do anything cause something 'might happen'. :rolleyes"

But denial is a good thing at times.

 

[Keroin]

My kids get in that water.

I try not to be the kind of mom who won't let their kids do anything cause something 'might happen'. :rolleyes"

But denial is a good thing at times.

Well then, let me assure you the most dangerous thing about our northern water is the temperature. Brrrrr.

We have sharks in the Pacific Northwest but they live offshore, and even if they didn't I wouldn't worry. There are sharks outside the reef - Whalers, White & Black Tips, the occasional Tiger - where I live now and I swim out there all the time. I'm pretty easy pickings, they could munch on me any time they wanted to. They don't.

Yesterday, I had two five year old twins snorkeling outside the reef with me. I wouldn't have let them in the water if I'd thought they were in the slightest bit of danger. They loved it, BTW. "I'm swimming in the deep blue sea!" the boy said to me, with a huge grin.

 

[JMohegan]

PETA... don't get me started.

From the website PETA Kills Animals:​

​

*spits on your source*

Did you go to the 'About us' page at your link?

*spits again*

Center for Consumer Freedom is a front for the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Read this for a nice summary of why I hold them in contempt.​

 

[Keroin]

*spits on your source*

Did you go to the 'About us' page at your link?

*spits again*

Center for Consumer Freedom is a front for the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Read this for a nice summary of why I hold them in contempt.

Well...that was an interesting read. Gee, I wonder what their motives for slagging PETA could be?

I just found out about this new documentary. I wonder if anyone here has seen it? Man, I hope it's still in some theaters when I get back! Going to start spreading the word to friends and family, though. About farking time!

 

[graceanne]

Well then, let me assure you the most dangerous thing about our northern water is the temperature. Brrrrr.

I KNEW IT!

We have sharks in the Pacific Northwest but they live offshore, and even if they didn't I wouldn't worry. There are sharks outside the reef - Whalers, White & Black Tips, the occasional Tiger - where I live now and I swim out there all the time. I'm pretty easy pickings, they could munch on me any time they wanted to. They don't.

Yesterday, I had two five year old twins snorkeling outside the reef with me. I wouldn't have let them in the water if I'd thought they were in the slightest bit of danger. They loved it, BTW. "I'm swimming in the deep blue sea!" the boy said to me, with a huge grin.

So I hear. I read, once, that you're more likely to be attacked by a dog than a shark, but at least on the ground you have a chance of . . . shooting the dog or something. In water, humans are pretty defenseless, cause we need AIR.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

*spits on your source*

Did you go to the 'About us' page at your link?

*spits again*

Center for Consumer Freedom is a front for the food, alcohol, and tobacco industries. Read this for a nice summary of why I hold them in contempt.

CCF *is* basically a front for the food, alcohol and tobacco industries. No argument there. However, the document linked in the fifth paragraph of the second quoted article ("documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia") sure looks like the real thing, no matter *what* the source. And those documents back up the numbers shown in the first article quoted.

Truth is truth, no matter whose mouth it comes from...

 

[JMohegan]

Well...that was an interesting read. Gee, I wonder what their motives for slagging PETA could be?

I just found out about this new documentary. I wonder if anyone here has seen it? Man, I hope it's still in some theaters when I get back! Going to start spreading the word to friends and family, though. About farking time!

When it comes to friends and family, I have a lot of success with clear, succinct messages, like: Don't eat bluefin tuna; it's endangered. I don't have much success with: Come see this really depressing movie about how we'll all starve to death in 30 years.

I certainly don't mean to minimize the message of the film. I'm just saying that all this perfectly valid red flag waving can be overwhelming, and that's a real problem.

After a while, people start going.... the rain forest, the polar ice cap, the pollinators, the entire world of edible seafood.... floods, erosion, drought, mass starvation - FUCK. What's the point? Sounds like I can either shoot myself now and get things over with quickly, or enjoy myself for a few more years until the inevitable end.

In short - the enormity of all these environmental/sustainability issues can overwhelm one's capacity to process the information and respond in a rational way.

 

[JMohegan]

CCF *is* basically a front for the food, alcohol and tobacco industries. No argument there. However, the document linked in the fifth paragraph of the second quoted article ("documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia") sure looks like the real thing, no matter *what* the source. And those documents back up the numbers shown in the first article quoted.

Truth is truth, no matter whose mouth it comes from...

I don't see the document you're referencing. Can you link to it directly here?

 

[graceanne]

Not to hijack my own thread, but I think this thread has gone longer than any thread I've ever started before.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Here ya go.

The paragraph I referenced to is this one:

"Uh oh. There they go again. In 2003 PETA reported transferring exactly one animal to another shelter. In 2002 PETA transferred just two animals. Click here to see the documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia. Since 1998, PETA has transferred a total of 130 animals to other shelters, and 21 of them were chickens. By comparison, it killed over 10,000 animals."​

 

[Keroin]

CCF *is* basically a front for the food, alcohol and tobacco industries. No argument there. However, the document linked in the fifth paragraph of the second quoted article ("documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia") sure looks like the real thing, no matter *what* the source. And those documents back up the numbers shown in the first article quoted.

Truth is truth, no matter whose mouth it comes from...

Let's say it is true - and I've seen this document quoted before - then, yes, not good.

But whenever an animal welfare discussion comes up, inevitably someone on the other side brings up PETA in a negative way. Is PETA the only organization out there?

What about the WSPCA? When I was working with a turtle conservation organization in Costa Rica, the WSPCA was the only group we could count on to consistently deliver much needed supplies and funds. What about Streamkeepers? What about the WWF? What about Greenpeace? What about the thousands of grass roots organizations out there?

Why must everyone latch onto PETA in an attempt to prove that animal lovers are all a bunch of hypocritical extremists? Personally, I think it's a cheap tactic and you, SW, and others here, are better than that.

Did you watch the link I posted here? Can you tell me that those animals do not deserve to have people out there fighting for their rights?

Why do people feel the need to undermine worthy causes?

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Not to hijack my own thread, but I think this thread has gone longer than any thread I've ever started before.

Congratulations... even though it's been jacked in three or four directions.

 

[graceanne]

Congratulations... even though it's been jacked in three or four directions.

I don't really consider that hijacking, I consider it conversational growth. Very few conversations can go on more than five or six pages until everyone has said what they have to say, and then the conversation moves on to something else. A thirteen page discussion on cats killing habits would get REALLY REALLY boring.