The Center for Consumer Freedom

WASHINGTON DC – Today the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) published documents online showing that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 95 percent of the adoptable pets in its care during 2008. Despite years of public outrage over its euthanasia program, the animal rights group kills an average of 5.8 pets every day at its Norfolk, VA headquarters.

According to public records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 2,124 pets last year and placed only seven in adoptive homes. Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.

Can you say hypocrites?

Found by Randin on Cage Match.

  1. meetsy says:

    Horace….you are my hero

  2. Alex Wollangk says:

    As a fairly liberal person as well as someone who was on the board of directors of a local no-kill animal rescue I find this thread almost more annoying than the article. I pretty much expected as much from PETA. I would never let PETA get my hands on any pet I cared about. They are militantly anti-pet claiming that pets are being “exploited” by their owners. Yeah, just like we “exploit” our children except we don’t expect the pets to do chores…

    Then again, I generally disagree with performing ridiculous, morally questionable acts in order to make a point. Things like their “got beer” campaign against dairy and such.

    Of course, it’s a pretty big organization so I’m sure there are groups that share my views. I even agree with some of their base principles. I think there are times when profit or other concerns end up causing pretty horrific abuse of animals, but pets and dairy cows are not the first animals I think of there…

    This thread also pushed my stereotype button. Any time I hear “typical liberal” or “typical conservative” it makes me want to smack someone. Stereotyping people never helps. PETA’s actions here are actually consistent with their beliefs, believe it or not, but I wouldn’t label those actions as “liberal” OR “conservative.” They’ve gone so far “down the rabbit hole” in trying to be extremely pro-animal rights that they really can’t claim kinship with liberals or conservatives. That one cause has so taken over the organization that the things they do seem to reflect the view that everybody should remake their lives around their pet issue. This belief is irrational and will annoy more people than it will convert.

  3. Dallas says:

    #32 Go ahead and delete it.

    The point of this article was show the merciless killing of cuddly animals by PETA as described by the food and drug industry.

    You are right, that picture does not support that.

    [Well, this IS Dvorak Uncensored. – ed.]

  4. #39 – Me,

    Crap. I pasted my post wholesale from Cagematch and forgot the annoying link issue here. On the upside, somehow my post went through. Amazing.

    [Yes, I’m amazed it made it through too… and I fixed your URLs. – ed.]

  5. Dallas says:

    Good post #39.

    I too followed the money on this article and, as usual, found what I was expecting. As you, I’m not PETA supporter but rather looking at the issue pragmatically.

    Clearly, wrong crowd. This is the tit for tat crowd and it was their turn to tat.

  6. Canucklehead says:

    I think PETA is full of a lot of hypocrites and whackoes, but some of their members / activities may have merit. Regarding this particular issue, there may be another side to the story: (from their Forum)

    Many pet owners voluntarily relinquish those animals to PETA volunteers, due to lack of funds to properly care for those pets, or for other personal reasons. Adoptable pets are turned over to the state of Virginia shelter system. The sickest of these, the most horribly abused of these, the animals who will not get adopted, because they’re old, ill and have endured a lifetime of abuse are humanely euthanized.

    The CCF reporting of PETA’s kill-rate is entirely a manufactured controversy. It specifically, and dishonestly avoids salient facts.

    [Please drop the WWW from URLs as WordPress doesn’t display it properly… plus it’s unnecessary. – ed.]

  7. brm says:

    The people making a big deal about this coming from Rick Berman’s PR company are the same people who eat up everything Al Gore says, even though he stands to make billions in profit from climate change hysteria.

    Almost all information has some profit-driven bias. This story seems to have some documentation to back it up, though.

  8. #14 – The Nuge,

    If God didn’t want us to eat animals, he wouldn’t have made them out of meat.

    Funny. But, have you noticed … people are made of meat?

  9. #16 – Alfred1,

    Typical liberals…

    Professing compassion, liberals usually give less than 1% to charity’s…they are only generous with tax dollars and as former Labor Sectary Reich says…those dollars should not benefit whites…

    You wouldn’t happen to have a link to back up this amazingly stupid statement, would you?

  10. #24 – just another lawyer,

    Thanks for checking the source. It is true that PETA is euthanizing animals. I have a problem with that given their charter.

    If you’re really interested, read both the PETA statement on the subject and the Newsweek article I posted above. The Newsweek article is relatively unbiased and does a good job of explaining both PETA’s position and the controversy on it.

    Personally I have never supported them and have actively and repeated told them that they are too extreme until they finally removed me from their list.

    However, I have a huge problem with biased sources funded by corporate interests trying to pump me full of mercury and tobacco smoke and then hand my drunken neighbor the keys to his car.

  11. Big Spender says:

    Scott, great post! That Berman fellow must be an ex-employee of the ACLU and/ or the daily kos!

  12. denacron says:

    #14 “Funny. But, have you noticed … people are made of meat?”

    The proper term is ‘Long pig’ not people.

  13. Big Spender says:

    Geez Hopper, a little more research please, are you working for limpbaugh or Olberman. let’s see the correct perspective like Scott gave or at least read the story from the horse’s mouth:

    [Posting stuff like this gets people to think and start arguing. It makes for interesting/entertaining comments… or maybe I’m just a comment whore? – ed.]

  14. natefrog says:

    For the many here who are confused:

    PETA != liberal
    PETA = crazy

    Getting the two mixed up is forgivable if you allow us to make up equally useless word games to disparage conservatives, Republicans, and the NRA.

  15. #46 – Big Spender,

    Scott, great post! That Berman fellow must be an ex-employee of the ACLU and/ or the daily kos!

    I don’t understand. Why do you hate people with good intentions more than the scumbuckets who work for big tobacco AND in this case, want to give you mercury poisoning??!!? What is wrong with your brain? Perhaps you need to iron out a few of those misfiring wrinkles.

  16. #47 – denacron,

    #14 “Funny. But, have you noticed … people are made of meat?”

    The proper term is ‘Long pig’ not people.

    Yes. I’ve read Heinlein too. Have you read Terry Bisson?

  17. #49 – natefrog,

    Excellent point. I notice that no one commenting on this thread yet has actually been a supporter of PETA (other than People Eating Tasty Animals).

    Good job too on keeping conservatives separate from repugnicans. The repugs have long since abandoned their conservative base. Most of the thinking members of their former base have become Libertarians, a position I can respect, though I disagree with it.

    Freedom to starve* just isn’t my way.

    * This is not intended as derogatory. Heinlein stated this at least once and probably many times and was certainly a Libertarian before it became a buzzword, even if he didn’t call himself that because it wasn’t a term yet.

  18. Mr. Fusion says:

    #6, dumbass,

    liberals who do the opposite of what they say?

    I find it so ironically funny that conservatives deny that Bush is one of them. I didn’t even know that members of PETA were claiming to be liberals.

  19. Lianne says:

    Can you say faulty sources? It’s disingenuous, to say the least, for the deceitfully-named Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) to complain about the number of unwanted and suffering animals whom PETA has been forced to euthanize because their guardians requested it, or because no good homes exist for them.

    CCF is a front group for Philip Morris, Outback Steakhouse, KFC, cattle ranchers, and other animal exploiters who kill millions of animals every year, not out of compassion, but out of greed. CCF promotes meat-eating and defends corporations that send billions of cows, chickens, pigs, and other animals to terrifying, gruesome, and painful deaths in slaughterhouses.

    PETA handled far more animals than 2,124 in 2008. In fact, we took in more than 10,000 dogs and cats, spaying and neutering all of them at low to no cost. We gave them shots, fixed their wounds and treated their illnesses, and returned them to the community. Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called “pets,” as they had spent their lives on heavy chains, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone’s, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.

    Those figures also do not include the hundreds upon hundreds of dogs and cats whose suffering PETA works to alleviate by providing them with free food when their owners are poor, clean water buckets, sturdy dog houses, straw for winter, and more, or the hundreds of adoptable dogs and cats we will not take in but refer to walk-in animal shelters and adoption centers. Since 2001, PETA’s low- to no-cost spay-and-neuter mobile clinics, SNIP and ABC, have sterilized more than 50,000 animals, preventing hundreds of thousands of animals from being born, neglected, abandoned, abused, or euthanized when no one wanted them. We also actively decrease the number of animals who end up in animal shelters only to be euthanized for lack of good homes by using star power to promote spaying and neutering in ads across the country.
    On a national level, PETA is focusing on the root of the problem through our Animal Birth Control (ABC) campaign. The ABC campaign targets breeders, pet stores, and cat- and dog-breeding mills and in an active way through protests, PSAs, celebrity support, and investigations and puts the blame for the overpopulation crisis squarely where it belongs—with those who breed animals or allow their animals to breed. As long as animals are bred, homeless dogs and cats in animal shelters will die because there simply aren’t enough good homes for them all.

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

    You can read more about this in Ingrid Newkirk’s last blog:

  20. bobbo says:

    #57–Lianne==I don’t fault PETA at all for euthanizing animals as there is NO ALTERNATIVE.

    For my information–exactly who/what is it that CCF fronts for? I take it they front for consumers having the choice of eating meat if they want to? That actually doesn’t make any sense to me as that “right” is under no serious attack (no offense). So–just as you mostly mischaracterize profit motive as greed, what is it you are actually mischaracterizing here?

  21. bobbo says:

    #59–Pedro==you ask an interesting existential question: Does God have a budget? If not, why does he not spend more on time and attention?

  22. Paddy-O says:

    # 59 pedro said, “How many dogs could have been saved with the money spent on a PETA’s ad campaign?”

    It’s not about animals, PETA is about gaining the ability to control peoples behavior. The animal thing is simply a convenient vehicle.

  23. bobbo says:

    #61–Paddy Oh, Sick and Twisted===PETA is over invested in animal rights. No reason to go off the deep end yourself, they don’t want your company.

  24. bobbo says:

    #63–Pedro==I am anti-theist. I don’t hate god because he doesn’t exist. If he did exist, then yes, I would hate him.

    My post is very critical of god. Did you read it too fast or only with your left eye?

    I’ve reread and thought about your posts, nope, don’t see the pun. Could it be the opposite side of the coin that has you not seeing my anti-theism?

  25. Buzz says:

    It’s not a matter of Life and Death.

    It’s a matter of Fur.

  26. meetsy says:

    PETA is a terrorist organization… puts thoughts into the heads of empty headed people.
    Its full of mommy-clock-ticking women who have watched too many cartoons as kids and think that animals are people, and potential stand-in children. The second these women HAVE children, their stand-in pets are tossed aside (hey, read Craigslist Pets…every few posts “must get rid of pet, have baby now”).
    Then, there are the men, who just see a gaggle of single women…and they’ll agree with (and pretend to support)anything, if it will get them laid.

  27. Uncle Patso says:

    Face it: there are millions more where those came from. Too many people are unwilling to control their pets’ reproduction, so there are tens of millions of unwanted cats, dogs, etc. born every year. What else to do with them? Let them run free?

    Meanwhile, in other news, # 13 horacesmiley said, at the end of a _long_ post about his fraudulent trolling and flamebaiting at

    “Whatever the validity of their position on animal suffering, there can be no doubting that the organization is basically full of semi-hysterical nutcases and lunatic females.”

    I certainly hope you can detect the irony in the fact that your own behavior is partly responsible for that atmosphere. Which are you?

  28. #58 – bobbo,

    For my information–exactly who/what is it that CCF fronts for? I take it they front for consumers having the choice of eating meat if they want to? That actually doesn’t make any sense to me as that “right” is under no serious attack (no offense). So–just as you mostly mischaracterize profit motive as greed, what is it you are actually mischaracterizing here?

    CCF fronts for tobacco primarily. They want you to have to sit in smokey restaurants. They also want you to eat fish with mercury. They also want you to drink with dinner and then drive home. See my post #39 above. They were originally spun off from Philip Morris.

    They now attack the AMA, anyone opposed to smoking in public buildings, MADD, PETA and other environmental and humane organizations, and a great many others.

    Oh, and they want you to take responsibility for your own obesity even though they want to make it impossible to find out what’s in your food. Funny, they don’t want to take responsibility for literally killing people with mercury, tobacco smoke, and a massive increase in drunk driving. But then, they are only about personal responsibility, people’s behavior under a corporate umbrella should be protected.

    To call Berman and his crew scum would be an insult to perfectly decent pond scum.

  29. Paddy-O says:

    # 67 Uncle Patso said, “What else to do with them? Let them run free?”

    Process them into food and send to the 3rd world. Win, win.

  30. #63 – pedro,

    But if you say that PETA would be able to save more puppies and kiddies if they prayed more, then I’ll have to take your word (see the pun?)

    I’m not saying I agree with PETA on this, nor that I disagree with them, since I don’t know the numbers and costs. However, PETA is claiming that they stop more euthanizations when they spay more, not pray more.


Bad Behavior has blocked 5303 access attempts in the last 7 days.