“To SusanElizabeth1949 who said this: "I require meat due to the simple fact that vegetarian meals digest so quickly that I'm needing a snack a very few hours later." SusanE. that is a testament in FAVOR of NOT eating meat because that is exactly how we were designed to eat! Our bodies are made to eat "digestible" foods (not non-digestible meats that can stay in GI tract for up to 2 weeks), foods that will give us fiber so that we can eliminate properly, & nutrient rich snacks are also part of how we are designed to eat, as we are natural grazers, by grazing/snacking we keep our blood sugar even as long as we aren't snacking on sugar junk. There are lots of reasons a person can be hungry constantly, not eating enough fiber, or dark greens, or enough variety, not drinking enough water, eating too many articificial sweets especially diet sodas which stimulate the appetite. Most of the meat eaters that I know are snacking just as often as my vegan self & they are snacking on the most sugar laden foods. The question is "can it be more ethical to eat meat?" Of course not, not if you are aware of the heinous crimes committed toward animals on factory farms and some small farms, not if you are aware that there is no humane way to kill, not if you are aware that it takes 17 lbs of grain to make 1 lb of meat.”
“You have to be a psychopath to think the torturing of bulls is fun! Spain will continue to have a bad rep as long as they allow this barbaric and twisted spectacle to go on, it is one of history's most deviant and brutal acts.”
“Hi, I don't always agree with PETA, but I do agree on this subject, and those pictures are absolutely pertinent and vital to this issue, those pics are the REASON animals have to be mercy killed as opposed to being left to starve or being caged for ever, or worst case being abused. The pics are reality. The reality that PETA faces, the reality that Winograd runs away from, they MUST be shown!”
“To Pantsy:You couldn't be more wrong! People NEED to see what PETA is faced with every single day, if you aren't faced with that and if you back Winograd then you have no right to tell PETA not to show what they endure day after day! How dare you!”
“I'm so glad that you finally defended yourselves! Cage-Keeper Winograd's math has never added up, he leaves out all the animals on street, leaves out animals dumped 3-4 TIMES at a shelter, leaves out all the animals in hoarding situations (which are on the rise since Winograd started in 2004), all this while you guys do the dirty work of mercy killing! Shame on Winograd and his cronies! Winograds notions have only allowed for far more abuse of far more animals either on street because no-kills were forced to turn them away or in cages by so called "rescuers"”
“I meant PETA haters are unrealistic, not realistic. When we get rid of all breeders, all dumpers, all abusers and all hoarders, then you can talk realistically about no-kill, nothing wrong with striving for no-kill, but to say 'make America no-kill now', is to say make America slow-kill. Did you guys know that Nathan Winograd believes cats can be adopted out to homes where they let them outdoors? So for all the cats and dogs that were torched in people's backyards, stolen from frontyards, beaten to a pulp, Nathan Winograd is here to rescue you by making sure that there will be more OF you abused!”
HoofHugs on Apr 24, 2012 at 00:26:30
“There is noting universally wrong with having a cat live indoor-outdoor. I had a cat that lived happily this way for 14 years. While I will not leave my dog outside when I am not home, I find nothing wrong with having an outdoor dog. Many dog owners use dogs to protect their property. There is not one size fits perfect life for any companion animal. We usually pick them out, but they do better if they get a chance to pick us.”
Medley on Apr 9, 2012 at 16:09:24
“Studies have shown that cats' longevity outdoors is about the same as indoor pets. Besides getting to live, outdoor cats may enjoy a higher quality of life (more stimulation and exercise) than indoor-only cats. From www.alleycat.org: "In addition, the lifespan of feral cats compares favorably with the lifespan of pet cats. A long-term study (published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in 2003) of a Trap-Neuter-Return program noted that 83% of the cats present at the end of the observation period had been there for more than six years—meaning that the cats’ lifespans were comparable to the mean lifespan of 7.1 years for pet cats." I also think your fear of animal abuse is disproportionate to the actual incidence.”
Nicole Bruck on Mar 23, 2012 at 20:05:07
“You think cats should be kept indoors all the time? Keeping cats inside all the time is just as cruel as keeping dogs inside all the time. They need to be outdoors to meet many of their physical and mental needs, just as dogs do. If you knew your facts, cats that go outdoors live longer than those locked up inside. Europe is centuries ahead of the US where it comes to animal issues. Their problem with pet homelessness is a fraction of the problem here, as is abuse, etc. Their laws are decades ahead of ours. In many European countries, if you kept a cat inside, you would be prosecuted for animal cruelty and have your cat seized as it is cruel and inhumane to keep a cat in all the time.”
Shannon FitzGerald on Mar 23, 2012 at 16:04:36
“And cats can also be adopted to homes that will keep them prisoner inside a house and deny them access to the outdoors. For shame.”
val2zap on Mar 23, 2012 at 08:12:55
“that is just a ridiculous comment about Nathan Winograd as to why he is a "bad" person. A cat's natural tendency is to hunt and it is probably more unnatural to keep them indoors. But there are reasons to do so in heavily populated areas because of the threat of getting hit by cars. But since I live on quite a few acres, why can't I let my cat outside to hunt the mice, play with the worms and enjoy sunning himself?”
ktbird67 on Mar 23, 2012 at 07:43:40
“Another blatantly incorrect post...
Nathan Winograd believes that feral cats should be relocated to living outdoors. They are called barn cat programs and they are very successful when implemented successfully. Nathan's own cats do not live outdoors because they are not feral.”
dogfriend456 on Mar 23, 2012 at 01:23:42
“It's true, people should keep their cats indoors, but they should do it because they could be hit by a car or fight with or get diseases from another animal, not because they are likely to be "torched in people's backyards," "stolen from frontyards" or "beaten to a pulp." Those are EXTREMELY unlikely things to happen just from letting your cat outside. Yes, they can happen,but to say that an animal is better off euthanized than risk someday "being torched in their backyard" is, frankly, the kind of insanity that many people associate with PETA.”
bestuvall on Mar 22, 2012 at 23:34:02
“oh my GOD not that.. not allowing an animal OUTDOORS what could people be thnking”
jmpurser on Mar 22, 2012 at 22:30:04
“PETA does a LOT I don't like and specializes in being controversial. However this is neither reprehensible nor controversial. It looks from the original form like a lot of people bring their pets to one PETA office to have their pets put down humanely. This "scandal" is the work of a lobbyist for the meat industry.”
“Here we go again, PETA haters with absolutely ZERO answers for all the animals who are NOT in shelters, all the animals who are suffering in hoarder homes, all the animals being dumped right now, all the animals that are being dumped for 2nd & 3rd times, all the abused animals, thank GOD PETA is there to provide mercy killing for them! You people have NO CLUE! You aren't there when PETA gets phone calls telling them there are 100 animals or 50 animals or 7 or 700 suffering somewhere, you aren't there when PETA is alerted that 150 animals will be gassed at 5:00 am the next day and there isn't any place or anybody else to rescue them! There are MILLIONS of animals who will die HORRIBLE deaths if they are not mercifully injected! The problem here is that PETA haters are dealing with reality, you are just spewing hate for the sake of it. If you reform shelters to make them get better homes, by screening properly, home visits, that will be a great thing because that will at least ensure that animals don't get dumped 3,4, 5 times! But in order to have shelters running great, they will not be able to "take in" as many animals, so even MORE animals will end up with hoarders if Winograd & the rest of you have your way! Death is NOT the worst fate, get real about that!”
Medley on Apr 9, 2012 at 16:37:37
“Actually, yes, I am there. I've been doing volunteer animal rescue for 10+ years and have helped with hoarder cases, protested puppy mills, lobbied my state for stricter breeding laws, fostered, adopted, cleaned litter boxes, and mourned lost fur friends. I personally do not think any of the cats or dogs I've met would prefer death to a few days, weeks, or months in a cage if it meant they got to live the next months or years in a loving home. Again, you are only looking at a few very bad cases and assuming it is like that for all. Is it worth killing millions to save a few hundred from potential abuse?”
val2zap on Mar 23, 2012 at 07:02:50
“1. I don't think anyone is arguing that there are times and places for euthanasia, as some other poster noted, a lot of owners have to make the difficult choice of putting down their beloved pets due to health reasons.
2. The argument here is the fact that PETA considers themselves a "shelter" so most people who surrender their animals to shelters do so hoping they will re-home those animals. PETA should not call themselves a shelter because they don't rehome the animals. Maybe they should market themselves differently for that shelter and truly say what they do and the reasons for why they are there and then people wouldn't be so pissed off by these atrocious numbers.
3. There was a documentary on HBO a couple of years ago about Ingrid and the shelter. I remember seeing them test a dog for agression. so, they had the dog eating food out of a bowl. They would thrust a rubber hand that was attached to a broom handle into the bowl to see how aggressive he was. He attacked the hand. They deemed him unadoptable. It's obvious this dog never had proper training or care. Why did they need to put the dog down? Why couldn't they spend some of their money REHABILATATING this dog or TRAINING this dog? In most cases these dogs can be turned around AND rehomed! So, I don't believe the supporters about the reasons why all of these animals were killed.
MFM008 on Mar 23, 2012 at 01:47:32
“My support of this organization is at an end. This all makes sense now. They are more interested in getting celebrities in the group to fuel their own ends.
Apparently it is not 'all for the animals' is it? There is no excuse for this group not to have genuine NO KILL shelters. .How can you be mercifully killed.
I always thought they did no kill shelters. I guess I was misinformed.
All animals dont end up in hoarder homes, thats an excuse to defend PETA euthenasia..
Thats it, im unsubbing now.”
Verjean Lunenschloss on Mar 23, 2012 at 00:12:08
“No. Death is a permanent fate. And one which ANY creature, sentient or otherwise, would opt against. Quite frankly, I think we've provided PLENTY of alternatives to simple, mass volume killing. We have shelters here that are very successful at placing animals. And these successes are being done in open admission shelters...those that are required by law to ACCEPT ALL ANIMALS! How are they going to die HORRIBLE deaths if they are in a shelter? Unless shelters themselves are HORRIBLE! And the only option is a needle? You folks are making less and less sense with every post. I think it's the PeTA supporters that aren't dealing with reality. They have made a fantasy in which they see killing as a good thing. Can't sugar-coat that...I don't care how many layers of frosting you put on that cake...killing healthy, adoptable animals is NEVER a viable option. It may, unfortunately, become a reality in some shelters, but it should NEVER EVER EVER BE EMBRACED, and it should never be justified. And EVERY alternative should be tried, again, and again. Healthy, adoptable animals can be, and ARE...placed every single day across the country. PeTA doesn't even try.”
“I would just like to add that I hope the City Council will keep in mind that those who defend animals are no less intelligent than those in the Industry who claim to know all about horses. We the defenders of horses are well aware that not every driver stands over their horse with a whip. We do not speak of such blatant cruelty in broad terms. We DO speak of the cruelty of the NYC environment, it is inherently cruel to horses whose primal instinct is to bolt. Bolt at unexpected or loud noises, like drums, bolt at unfamiliar places, people, or sirens, bolt at construction noises. And we have all seen far too many horses standing in water, urine and manure, and deprived of drinking water for anyone to say that blatant cruelty is also not a factor!”
belacani on Feb 18, 2011 at 21:07:38
“Do you know why a driver carries a whip? It is not to beat the horse. Any driver of a horse-drawn vehicle is referred to as The Whip, because it is used as a guide for the horse much as a rider's legs are used under saddle. As a matter of fact, it is considered dangerous and bad horsemanship not to carry a whip, because it is needed as an extension to help guide the horse. Under saddle, dressage riders carry a longer whip for the same reasons - generally to guide the horses hindquarters. It's gentle pressure, not whipping. Now, I know someone will say they saw some driver whipping a horse, but if it happened very often it would be on Youtube and certainly in the Moss movie. These are draft horses. Look up the meaning of draft - it is not because they catch cold easily. This is what they bred to do, and draft horses built much of the city of New York. They were bred for working partnerships with human beings. I would also like to see the financial plans for retiring these horses. My conservative estimate is that it would cost a million dollars to purchase them at approximately $5,000 each, and a minimum of that amount to care for them annually. That doesn't include vet or farrier bills for horses that need special care. Is Mr. deBlasio going to suggest that NYC pay for this? Are you also anti- NYPD police horse?”
“I am a resident of NYC, and I support Intro86A because this bill now includes wording that would prevent all carriage horses from going to slaughter. Under the DOH regulations there is NO protection from slaughter for the horses that pull carriages! The only thing the DOH does is offer minimal protection for horses sold in NYC! The vast majority of these horses are not sold in NYC, try the Pennsylvania auction where they go to killer buyers! Who is responsible for the fate of the horses? The owners and drivers of course! How many have they sold to slaughter? Does the City have a record? What kind of shoddy bookkeeping is this? Our City Council has a duty as elected officials to once and for all HEAR the voices of New Yorkers when we say we want a BAN on the Horse Drawn Carriage Industry, and LEGAL protection for these horses from slaughter. Everyone knows that horses and NYC traffic do not mix, it is a cruel environment for horses, and dangerous for the public! Horses and people will continue to be severely injured and/or killed as long as this Industry and our Elected Officials turn a blind eye to the public safety and cruelty involved. This cruelty is adversely effecting all of us city dwellers who witness it daily and we want to FINALLY be heard! Please pass Intro 86A WITH the section to prohibit slaughter of any of these fine animals!”