PETA's Stance on Hermit Crabs as Pets

[Guest]

don't even talk to me about PETA the jerks came to a dog show and were trying to let our dogs and several others out. Apperantly they belived the crap that was on CSI NY with there Don't drug your dogs! signs but I am glad to say I sent one to the ER with a broken nose but if I hadnt there would have been a dog fight. You see two of our *****es ((mother and daughter)) hate each other its impossible to get them apart and with all the dogs the pack instincts would have kicked in and the losing dog would be killed

[Ariel]

My personal belief about PETA, in a nutshell, is that they care more for their own mental wellbeing than the wellbeing of animals I absolutely dispize their organization (or corporation, as Gertie wisely puts it ). I'm a proud supporter of animal welfare and they have done so much harm to the cause; it's outstanding. Nowadays, someone can say "Don't kick your dog like that. It's not right." and they'll get a "Oh, go back to your PETA convention" because they have made the movement for animal welfare a caracature.

[Guest]

Kjirsten, That was hilarious. I can safely say that if I were you in that situation, I would have only wished I could have gotten up the courage to do that! And to think that they showed up at a dog show of all places. How silly. I think that my original post has truly enticed some anger toward PETA as a whole, not that it shouldn't have. I just find PETA too utterly ridiculous to take seriously. If they wanted to help things out, maybe they shouldn't be so over the top and offensive. I just can't help but laugh at them and their idealistic views.

[Guest]

quote:Originally posted by bpbatch:Sorry, LauraB, but the organization's mission—as well-documented in NewCrabber's post above—is to eliminate all animals in domesticated situations, as well as the elimination of all animals from dinner plates.And not peacefully, I must add...http://www.cdfe.org/conference.htmPETA has more than once been condemned for donating funds to groups supporting domestic terrorism, simply for the sole purpose of having their message heard. As you can see from the article linked above, the FBI has tracked their link to the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, groups which in similar ways of the Irish Republican Army use force and violence to proclaim their wishes.PETA hides their filth under the guise of "cute" little web sites, like PETAkids.org, to teach kids that—for purposes of this group—taking care of hermits is offensive, disgusting and wrong. That site, in my opinion, is no more gross than watching a little boy take a lollipop from a stranger.I respect your individual decision to believe that the respect and nuture of animals in general is a worthy cause, however, I would find another group with which to associate yourself that offers no hidden agenda, including the death and dismemberment of humans to save animals. I don’t believe you read my all of my posts. I never said I agreed supported PETA, nor did I say universal vegetarianism is not one of their primary objectives. I am well aware of their support for the ALF and I oppose that support. I oppose many of PETA’s objectives and would never associate myself with them. I believe we should oppose them as an organization, for many reasons, many of which have been listed in this thread.That said, I simply think we should stick to attacking them on things for which we have proof in order to maintain our own credibility. If we stretch the facts, they can blow us off as a misrepresentation. If we stick to things they can’t deny, we have a better chance of being persuasive with them and, more importantly, with the public.The contention I disagreed with is that PETA opposes keeping dogs and cats as pets, and is “happy” about homeless animals. They oppose humans selectively breeding animals, as do I, under nearly all circumstances. However, they have done nothing in regards to homeless animals but actively promote the adoption of homeless dogs and cats into loving homes. Quotes from Newkirk are indicative of her options, not necessarily those of the organization, unless she was speaking on their behalf. PETA’s message, which I linked to on their website, is that homeless dogs and cats deserve homes. There is certainly no indication that PETA wants to kill domesticated animals, as one poster contended. They universally oppose killing animals. Comparing their work to that of ***** is ridiculous. When we start stretching the facts to make them out to be worse than they are and create anger, we become no better than they are. We do ourselves, and the public we try to educate, a huge disservice. They’re the ones who use scare tactics and compare people to *****, we shouldn’t follow that example.As I said before, there are plenty of reasons to respectfully disagree with PETA. We don’t need to make up attacks.

[GSnicklegrove]

Who's integrity is at stake? Who is making up attacks??? lolNewkirk, before having the honors of restructuring PETA, was a shelter executioner in both Montgomery County, Maryland and Washington D.C. "Sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever," NewkirkLet's talk about August, 2000, when PETA'S own shelter was exposed. In an investigation reported on by the Associated Press (AP), the prior year, Peta at its Norfolk facility euthanized 1325 doga and cats, over half then the total number of animals taken in. In comparison, the local SPCA shelter only puts down a third of the animals they took in. PETA sure is making a difference.Peta is primarily, and firstly a lobbying organization. They are lobbying for many restrictions on pet ownership, and lobbying fiercely for laws that would shut down all pet stores and all breeders. The lobbying, in fact, has gone so far, that the whole pet industry is lobbying back in Congress.Integrity, schmegrity, if I were going to confront PETA, I would only do it with the truth, and not trying to figure out what they can or cannot deny. If I were to confront PETA, it would be with public records. What they say, don't say, or publish in their literature is irrevelant.PETA is a lobbying organization. It is not some grassroots organization amongst animal lovers any more. It primarily deals with politics, and the ad-hoc campaigns that continue the organization and the flow of money. Lobbyists on Capitol Hill do not work for free, unlike many sincere hearted local PETA campaigners.Got Prostate Cancer? Talk about a loss of integrity and stretching the truth. Ethical treatment of animals, apparently carries many definitions!But first, watch out Northern Washington State! Peta is here! There just a little bit too tired of some of us reptile owners. Thank goodness I live in south western washington. ALthough, I may have to move up to Seattle in the next couple of years. I think Peta has a point. My pets would be better off euthanized than living in their huge naturalistic terrarium, organic eating cricket lifestyle. Just think how much money I could save by not having to take my pets into the vet any longer! Why, I could go out and buy a human instead with the money I would save! You know, if I euthanize them now, just think of all the health care costs I would save!How about, if they WIN. How about the people who will not take their mini-breeding operations to the vet for euthansia, or may hide their pets, and thus, not be able to obtain legal vet care in longer. You go there PETA! You go! Teach me some compassion!heehee Please forgive, I do have a strange sense of humor. I'll leave with this."If anybody wonders about what's this with all these reforms, you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation."(Animal Rights 2002 national convention, US)Another Ingrider:"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought on by human manipulation."(Washingtonian Magazine, August 1986)Oh, here is a little tidbit background about Alex Pacheco, Peta cofounder.ALEX PACHECO LEAVES PETA, FORMS NEW ANIMAL GROUPApril 25, 2000AMP NewsAlex Pacheco, who founded People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals withIngrid Newkirk in 1981, left PETA at the end of 1999 to head a new animalorganization that differs from PETA on the issue of no-kill shelters. Thefocus of the Humane America Foundation is on cats and dogs, and it aims tomake the United States a "no-kill nation." This is in contradiction to PETA,which has always stood strongly against no-kill policies for animalshelters. Joining Pacheco at the Humane America Foundation is executivedirector David Mayer, who was executive director of Last Chance for Animalsfrom 1995 to 1998. Pacheco serves as president. Initial efforts are focusedon Los Angeles, where Humane America formed a coalition of 30 LA area animalrescue and advocacy groups. From the Foundation's website: "1-800-SAVE-A-PETis an unprecedented collaboration of over 30 organizations and numerousindividuals working with the City of Los Angeles to provide FREE spay/neuterservices and DOUBLE the city's yearly adoptions of homeless animals.Together we will prevent the needless killing of hundreds of thousands ofanimals in Los Angeles. We will take our program to every city in the U.S.,working in collaboration with local groups, until we have a No-Kill Nation."And that folks, is not me saying anything.

[Guest]

PETA already lacks integrity; there’s no reason to sink to their level. I recognize that PETA lobbies, although they are technically a non-profit organization, which significantly limits their lobbying ability. Lobbying is not their primary activity. If it were, they would have to be registered as a political action committee. People have tried to get them for that in court, it hasn’t worked. They are an animal welfare organization, even if we disagree with methods.I further recognize that virtually all animal shelters are unfortunately forced to euthanize homeless dogs and cats because they do not have the proceeds to care for them or, usually due to abuse, the animals cannot be safely adopted. That is the reality of the pet overpopulation problem in this nation. Anyone who would criticize animal shelters for euthanizing animals had better be writing some big checks to these agencies to pay for the care of animals the agencies can’t afford. If shelters can’t afford them, should we let them starve or die from lack of medical care? It’s heartbreaking that 9 million animals are killed each year, but that’s the consequence of unchecked breeding. PETA opposes breeders for that reason, and I completely agree with them on that point. I wish they would focus more on that issue and less on, for example, militant vegetarianism. PETA also sees problems with no-kill shelters because some (not all) of them warehouse animals in tiny cages for their entire lives with little if any human contact. That’s not much of a life for a social animal. They argue that no-kill shelters are not automatically kinder to animals, which I also agree with.No one is advocating euthanizing your hermit crabs or reptiles, but there aren’t millions of unwanted hermit crabs that will die without human care. It’s a vastly different situation. Again, PETA is not even remotely saying we should euthanize reptiles, so why make it out like they are? Stick to what they are saying.Giving more quotes from individual members, even founders, does not make those comments representative of the entire organization. I founded the International Politics Club at my university. I believe all kinds of things about international relations that the rest of the members don’t. My positions are not reflective of the stance of the organization, even as a founder, the same applies here. The point is that, with PETA supporters, we’ll spend our time arguing about what is and is not their position and not enough time exploring the flaws in positions they openly hold, where we have plenty of ground.We should argue with PETA’s official positions as an organization. That’s not hard. Heck, look no further than the horribly offensive “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign, need we say more? Why stretch the truth?

[GSnicklegrove]

Twice I responded to this, and twice it didn't take. I am keeping this short. I'm tired.Political action committee-you haven't considered that most lobbying is done with political partnerships, networking and lawyers, which is perfectly legal with the lawyers organizing it. (Really, the only successful way to lobby, especially for non-profits)I know about shelters.I merely put that in for juxtaposition..two shelters in the same town, SPCA and PETA's, and PETA has a horrendously high euthanasia rate. >>>No one is advocating euthanizing your hermit crabs or reptiles, but there aren’t millions of unwanted hermit crabs that will die without human care. It’s a vastly different situation. Again, PETA is not even remotely saying we should euthanize reptiles, so why make it out like they are? Stick to what they are saying.<<<Yes, PETA is advocating and causing havoc here. Not hermit crabs yet in Washington. They are lobbying right now, thank you. They do not care where some of these exotics go if banned. Individual owners have to get rid of them within a 7 year period. May be a slight tangent, but it shows plain intention. So, yes, not directly advocating any reptile euthanization. They are lobbying for banning, not containment after the fact. To euthanize or move, or get rid of them someway, will be left to the owners to decide.>>>Giving more quotes from individual members, even founders, does not make those comments representative of the entire organization.<<<I thought it was pretty funny that ALex Pacheco left PETA to start his own humane animal organization that supports no kill shelters, humane treatment to animals, and public education about the issues effecting animals. He left in 1999. Apparently, even though he cofounded PETA, it was not quite was he was looking to do. lol>>>I believe all kinds of things about international relations that the rest of the members don’t.<<<You'll come to find people believe in all sorts of funny things. Beliefs can actually seperate people more than anything, even if they have value.>>>we’ll spend our time arguing about what is and is not their position and not enough time exploring the flaws in positions they openly hold, where we have plenty of ground.<<<Not a tactic I would use. In a debate, you cut to the quick. Find your facts if you want to disprove. Pull up public records. Actions are worth more than all the words of the world. It is what an organization DOES.>>>We should argue with PETA’s official positions as an organization. That’s not hard. Heck, look no further than the horribly offensive “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign, need we say more? Why stretch the truth?<<<Again, I don't know what has been stretched. I see what I call. I see what PETA is up to, and have heard from PETA what they are up to. It is no secret, and they are hard at work! Maybe not the majority of the members, but their lobbyists sure are!BTW- PETA NEWS, August 7, 1990 They stated their intention, as an organization, to stop the ownership of animals as pets. On a personal note, I actually agree with alot of what PETA does. I am a vegetarian, I care about animals, etc. I don't condone violence, nor do I condone condemming people for their dietary habits. In fact, it is unhealthy for some people to become vegetarian, and vegan is pretty dangerous down the road, unless you know what you are doing. Too bad PETA cannot lobby like the Audobon Society, much quieter, much more respectfully. Gertie

[NewCrabber]

I think it unfair to imply the truth is being stretched. Just because the vision of truth for one differs from another, doesn't make it "the" truth.This might be an example of one vision of the truth: quote:There is certainly no indication that PETA wants to kill domesticated animals, as one poster contended. I'm sure the person who made the statement I first quote in my earlier post feels she made it with good reason and it wasn't based in made up attacks. I'd also be willing to bet she doesn't feel she is stretching the truth or making unfounded accusations.Another quote from that person:"PeTA lawyers, funded in great part by unsuspecting pet owners, work hard to make sure that all pit bulls "rescued" from dog fight situations be destroyed - no matter how friendly, loving or non-aggressive the dogs may be."I don't know about other areas of the country, but the ownership of pit bulls in some counties in New York has been banned. Those that are discovered are automatically euthanized. No evaluations, no questions asked, just death. (No fact stretching there.)Newkirk/PeTA support this. Here is a differing vision:Seems in direct contradiction, to there not being "any indication that PeTA wants to kill domesticated animals" and that "they universally oppose killing them.""I have scars on my leg and arm from my own encounter with a pit. Many are loving and will kiss on sight, but many are unpredictable." (Newkirk)Well, there is a reason to just kill off an entire breed. Just another example of their opposition to euthanasia. I didn't make a comparison to *****, to say otherwise is not a fact, but an assumption. I merely posted something I found interesting. Had I, it might have been to mentality and skewed agenda.quote:My positions are not reflective of the stance of the organization, even as a founder, the same applies here. If giving an interview as the founder of your organization and you were credited as such, would you say "we" in comments expressing only your views?"One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals." (Newkirk)I don't read that as an individual view.The comments expressed, as quoted, may very well be the opinions of Newkirk, but when being interviewed as the president of an organization, etc., what is said is representative of that organization. In my opinion, of course.

[Guest]

Newcrabber, I’m confused, because the first quote is mine (taken out of context) but the second isn’t, you imply that the same person said both of them. Euthanasia of dogs previously used for fighting is a very difficult issue. I have worked in an animal shelter myself and saw some such dogs. I have never heard of one passing behavioral tests, they are bred and trained to be aggressive, which is horribly cruel as it is not necessarily in the nature of the dogs themselves. If they are not safe to adopt out we really don’t have many options in dealing with them. I don’t oppose behavioral tests if there is some indication the dog might pass, so PETA and I disagree on that point. However, when I said PETA doesn’t favor killing domesticated animals I was responding to the argument that PETA wants to kill all dogs and cats rather than have them in loving homes, which is completely untrue. PETA does not support killing animals for that reason, which is what my previous post was saying.Sure I might say “we” when not referring to the organization. I may be referring to myself and those who agree with me. “We” makes you sound more credible, it’s smart to use it when answering questions. Even if I say “we” and refer to the organization’s membership there’s no guarantee that I’m not speaking out of turn. If I say something that directly contradicts the official position of the group, clearly I’m not reflecting their interests. Regardless, most of the quotes you give me don’t say “we” so it’s a moot point.Anyway, this has gotten completely off-topic. Do we all disagree with PETA’s stance on hermit crabs? Yes. Can we effectively argue that they are wrong? Yes. Is there any need to bring other issues, on which we disagree, into the debate to distract from the issue we’re most concerned about? No. Why make this harder than it is?

[Ariel]

I think we're just beyond talking about hermit crabs and this is a healthy debate/discussion about the most voiceful animal welfare/rights group out there. It's not an irrelevant topic or anything.quote:two shelters in the same town, SPCA and PETA's, and PETA has a horrendously high euthanasia rate. I think that says a lot. PETA seems to want animals to be roaming free in the wild, or not existing at all. That IS quite a delimma, when there are millions of domestic cats and dogs in the country that can't be set free. One must ask, how does an organization with no tact, who's ads blare one viewpoint or another, draw the fine line between supporting both the proper care of domestic animals, and not wanting them to exist at all?

[GSnicklegrove]

I only brought to this discussion, originally, that PETA works on another agenda, in addition to their membership and propaganda campaigns, and part of that agenda is working on ways hinder pet ownership, and yes, they are wanting this for dogs and cats too,as they themselves have stated.My intention when talking about the deaths in PETA's shelter in Norfolk Virginia was merely a comparison. The SPCA's shelter put down a third of all animals collected during 1999, while the PETA shelter, put down more than half of their animals. Any conclusions about this situation, about these facts as reported by the Associated Press (AP) are open to analysis. I was presenting a fact. While, of course I have drawn my own conclusion on what it means, I did not say that PETA wants all animals euthanized or dead. This is what it is, I did not make up a fact from a fact, merely presented it.ABout the lobbying in my own state, it's being reported in my local paper, and is of concern, as if it takes in this country, it will be bad news. When I was sarcastic that PETA doesn't care how companions get rid of their companions, once again, I was not making an all inclusive statement PETA wants to euthanize. I said PETA wants to ban, they could care less how people get rid of or euthanize their charges if this passes into law. While I was being mildly sarcastic (to PETA), I only made a statement about my opinion, no PETA. And lets face it folks, unless we have all the super duper inside PETA papers everyone is just taking a side according to their view, understanding and available facts.In my experience, nothing is all good and all bad, it's a hazy combination of both, the reflection of human made institutions. In the eighties, when PETA was a little milder, yeah, they were alot better. Now, they are like a propaganda terrorist machine, using the media and lobbyists to spread a strict view on what is right and what is wrong, what is suffering, and what is not suffering. It's hard, if you're trying to work for a better world, if you have fallen to deep in the whole of nihlism. PETA has little to no VISION. Vision is required if their sincere desire is to improve conditions for all animals, to make a more compassionate society. PETA is simply adding more uncompassionate views and practices, no matter how grounded in morality they may seem. Vision, hard work, solutions, a little different than taking a hard line espousing a minorities view, and beligerently demanding everyone to subscribe to it.Yes, this discussion has gotten way off topic, I just kind of ran off with what I read. lol It's all the same. The philosophy with hermit crabs is their philosophy with all animals.I never said PETA wants to kill all animals, or all dogs and cats, reading what I said, that is a misunderstanding.It is also a misunderstanding, sometimes when I am in a discussion, or even in a debate, things may be talked about, that are not necessarily even my viewpoint, or, in the case of a fact, it's not something I necessarily have to have a viewpoint on. I honestly could care less about PETA, wouldn't go into a debate with anyone there. There are so many other worthwhile resources for my mind and energy to bend around, I don't know I would purposely engage a PETA person. heehee

[Jenn]

ROTFL kjirsten...My Language teacher told us that they showed up at a dog show once before. They had some people marching around with signs saying "Don't crate your dogs!" Later they released about 12 German Shepherds there for showing purposes,unfortunately they were near a highway. All 12 dogs ran onto the highway (their owners didn't know they had been released) and were hit by cars. Another time somebody went undercover into a testing lab,stole a bunch of rabbits,and left them in their car. The rabbits died of heatstroke. Ironic,eh? Poor animals. They do go way overboard,I have mixed feelings about them. They're ok with the "Go Veg" campaign,got a couple of my friends into it even But the hermit crab thing is too much. That doesn't look like a land crab from the picture,does it?

[Guest]

My main question to PETA is as thusly:If global vegetarianism eventually DOES exsist, what are we going to do with all the cows that are bred for strictly beef purposes? Let them go? Their instincts have been all but bred out of them from hundreds of years of domestication and human protection. I would know, my family has a herd of 70 or so. Not to mention, if they were all freed, theyd overgraze and ruin wild herbivore populations. Another question:If we did happen to set all our pets free, wouldnt that just royally throw the ecosystem out of wack? All the carnivores killing off birds/rodents/deer/all those newly freed cattle/amphibians etc etc. The wild animals would get killed off and where would we be then? Living in a world of feral pets and very few naturally wild species left. Not to mention wolves would go extinct from breeding with all the domestic dogs. (sorry, love wolves, had to input)

[Guest]

No one on this forum supports PETA, clearly. However, PETA is not “happy” about homeless pets, they don’t want to kill off everyone’s dogs and cats, that’s all I wanted people to acknowledge. The only place to go in order to find out what PETA’s positions are is their position statements. It’s not fair or accurate to report what you’ve heard about PETA from Joe’s home page, or to take from the quotes from a random member and claim they represent the entire organization. It’s true that all we have are the available facts, but let’s stick to them. This thread is a perfect example of the kind of argument we’ll get into with PETA supporters. You can throw out some sensational tidbit you’ve heard about PETA, they’ll argue it’s not an accurate depiction and that’s where the discussion will go. Why not just focus on the issues of concern? Hermit crabs can live happy lives in captivity. The problems with pet stores and misinformed buyers can be solved by education. Those are strong points. We know more about hermit crabs than they do, by far. They know more about their organization. Let’s stick to what we know.quote:Originally posted by bpbatch:... I kinda thought it started to get off topic when you suggested we accurately represent PETA's stance on animals as pets, which you did inaccurately... I was responding to comments made by others, and I did so accurately, by linking to PETA’s official positions on the issue. Regardless, I don’t really think it’s important or helpful to blame people for the direction of this thread, especially when your post added nothing to the discussion but to attack me. Thanks.

[NewCrabber]

quote:Newcrabber, I’m confused, because the first quote is mine (taken out of context) but the second isn’t, you imply that the same person said both of them. I'm sorry you were confused by something in my post, but I'm not sure what it is that confused you. Taken from one of your posts:quote:There is certainly no indication that PETA wants to kill domesticated animals, as one poster contended. I'm sure the person who made the statement I first quote in my earlier post feels she made it with good reason and it wasn't based in made up attacks. I'd also be willing to bet she doesn't feel she is stretching the truth or making unfounded accusations.Another quote from that person:"PeTA lawyers, funded in great part by unsuspecting pet owners, work hard to make sure that all pit bulls "rescued" from dog fight situations be destroyed - no matter how friendly, loving or non-aggressive the dogs may be."I'm not sure if that is what you refer to. The other quote...quote:My positions are not reflective of the stance of the organization, even as a founder, the same applies here. ...also taken form one of your post.Often times this form of communication can be confusing. You just misunderstood, my apologies. Hmm, well, when I listen to, or read an interview from someone who represents an organization, etc., I take what they say as reflective of the group's views, ideals, etc. But you're correct, that doesn't guarantee it is.There are a few facets to this discussion, I don't think it has gotten off topic, really. It's just been a discussion of our views and thoughts regarding this organization. It seems there is really only one we don't all agree on. I don't think there is a "need" to bring to the conversation what we don't agree on, just a desire to voice our individual thoughts. If it makes it easier not to continue along that line and limit it to only what we do agree to, that is fine.