Category Archive: Animal Rights Extremism

  1. PETA’s HQ Should Be On “PETA Kills Avenue”

    Leave a Comment

    PETA is getting a taste of its own medicine. We have proposed that Front Street in Norfolk, Virginia—where PETA’s headquarters is located—be renamed to “PETA Kills Avenue.” Other possibilities include “Butcher Street” and “Serial Killer Way.”

    Our proposal can be viewed here.

    This follows PETA’s press stunt demanding the English village of Wool change its name to “Vegan Wool.” A street in a French village, Rue de la Saucisse—or “sausage street”—was similarly targeted by PETA, with the organization demanding the street be renamed “Rue de la Soycisse,” referencing soy.

    Having the tables turned on PETA is satisfying—but there’s something bigger at play here. PETA’s cruelty and unethical treatment of animals is appalling. The organization runs a “shelter” in Norfolk where the staff kills just about every animal that comes through the doors, no matter how healthy or adoptable. Indeed, PETA has consistently opposed pet ownership, called for the killing of all stray cats, and the extermination of pit bulls.

    Renaming Front Street to PETA Kills Avenue would expose PETA’s horrid practices and help the residents of Norfolk be better informed as to the true nature of PETA.

    Watch an interview with us here and please spread the word on social media. And encourage the Norfolk Mayor and City Council to make this animal-friendly street name a reality:

    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]
    [email protected]

  2. Is This PETA’s Dumbest Antic?

    Leave a Comment

    PETA—self-described “press sluts”—has a cheap way to get the media cover its antics.

    It started last week when PETA demanded the small English village of Wool change its name to “Vegan Wool.”

    Yes, you read that right.

    Unsurprisingly, the residents of Wool were not happy about this request. One resident was quoted as saying, “We would be the laughingstock of Dorset if we agreed,” referring to the surrounding county. In fact, the village’s name “Wool” is an ancient word referring to water—it has nothing to do with sheep.

    This week, PETA doubled down on this bizarre strategy that does nothing for animals and demanded a French village change the name of “Rue de la Saucisse,” or “Sausage Street,” to “Rue de la Soycisse,” referencing soy.

    The mayor, with good reason, believed the whole thing was a ridiculous joke at first and has already refused PETA’s request. The sole resident of Sausage Street said the street’s name is not actually a reference to meat, but to a colloquial early 20th century French term for a female villager.

    It seems PETA is ignorant of etymology and lacks the willpower to look into the history of a place. Who’s surprised?

    Should Hamburg be renamed Blackbeanburg? Should the Swiss town of Gruyères change its name to Almond Cheese? And for Bologna, maybe the Italian city can be renamed Portobello? Sardinia can ditch that sardines legacy and change its name to Soydinia.

    Perhaps the most obvious move is for PETA to demand the country of Turkey change its name to Tofurkey. This would certainly generate press coverage. But since Turkey’s leader doesn’t take mockery very well, we wouldn’t recommend PETA’s “Lettuce Ladies” march through Istanbul.

  3. Ad: Anti-Fur Activists Have Anti-Choice Agenda

    Leave a Comment

    On Tuesday the Los Angeles City Council voted to advance a proposal to ban the sale and manufacture of fur garments in the city. The legislation follows a decades-long campaign from animal rights extremists such as PETA and the Humane Society of the United States to ban fur around the country. This move sets a terrible precedent for Americans, and we’ve placed a full-page ad making our opposition known.

    Anti-fur activists are free to try to persuade others to be like them. But this bill is essentially legislating morality. And the religious zealotry of the animal rights movement does not stop at fur.

    PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, and other animal rights groups are also against leather, wool, cashmere, silk, and any other clothing product that comes from an animal. They also want to stop Americans from enjoying meat, dairy, and eggs. They want to shut down zoos and aquariums. And they’re even against pet ownership, with PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk once calling it “an abysmal situation.”

    Quite simply, these groups demand strict adherence to their vegan lifestyles. Anyone who doesn’t is a “sinner.” And to no surprise, they haven’t found many people willing to join their theocracy: Only around 1 percent of the country identifies as vegan, while the vast majority of Americans enjoy eating hamburgers and owning pets.

    Animal rights activists argue that “no one has the right to abuse an animal.” And we’d agree in theory. Except that to animal rights extremists, any “use” of an animal is “abuse.”

    We (and most Americans) believe that animal welfare must be protected. Animals used for food, clothing, etc. should be treated humanely. But animal products shouldn’t be banned because a tiny and noisy sliver of society doesn’t like it. You can’t have a free society if small groups can force others to their whim.

    It’s ridiculous to see activists who got their start throwing red paint on people wearing fur coats now getting the time of day (and much more) in a legislative body. Any parent knows the power of “no” and the importance of not giving a tantrum-throwing brat what he wants. Hopefully the LA City Council decides to be grown-ups and let adults make their own choices.

  4. Did PETA Kill This Dog?

    Leave a Comment

    A video posted to PETA’s Twitter account on Monday shows a dog on a porch in a flooded area of North Carolina being approached by a PETA rescuer. It’s a great video for raising money from pet lovers. We just hope it ended well for the dog.

    Why? Because PETA has a history of killing healthy pets. Nearly four years ago, PETA operatives approached a family’s porch (not flooded), then abducted and killed a healthy and beloved Chihuahua named Maya. They backed up their van to the porch and attempted to coax Maya away from the property by enticing her with biscuits. When this proved unsuccessful, a PETA employee trespassed on the family’s porch and stole Maya.

    Within hours, Maya was dead thanks to a lethal dose of poison administered by PETA.

    The family sued and a court battle ensued. PETA administrators were being threatened to testify under oath and turn over internal documents—thereby exposing their agenda of animal extermination to the entire world. To avoid those consequences, PETA apologized and settled the case by paying Maya’s family $49,000.

    PETA’s president, Ingrid Newkirk, is on the record opposing pet ownership. In fact, she supports the swift euthanization and extermination of all pit bulls, ironically stating, “[a]n unpredictable chihuahua is one thing, an unpredictable pit another.”

    Where is that dog PETA claims to have “rescued” from the flood zone in North Carolina? We don’t know but we can only pray the dog is very far away from PETA’s so-called shelter in Virginia, which has been the killing ground for nearly 40,000 animals since 1998—more than 80 percent of the animals they’ve collected.

    PETA needs to make a full and public accounting of what it does with every animal it takes in from hurricane-affected areas. Otherwise, we’ll have to assume the worst.

  5. Undercover PETA Activist Sued for Fraud

    Leave a Comment

    PETA keeps sinking to new lows in its crusade against pets and pet owners.

    Last month, PetSmart filed suit against undercover PETA operative Jenna Jordan, who worked at multiple PetSmart locations, alleging a years-long unlawful effort to undermine PetSmart’s operations of caring for animals and providing services to pet owners. The allegations against Jordan include animal neglect, fraud, and making false reports to law enforcement personnel.

    A copy of the suit is available here.

    The suit claims Jordan knowingly neglected to provide veterinary care to animals entrusted to her care. To create PETA propaganda, she allegedly filmed the animals in need of medical attention and allowed a bird to die so she could falsely accuse PetSmart of neglect.

    If the allegations are true, this PETA plant is off her leash and facing some serious legal trouble.

    It wouldn’t be the first time an animal rights organization was summoned before a judge. Last year PETA paid almost $50,000 to settle a lawsuit after its employees stole a chihuahua off a family’s front porch and killed it. Elsewhere, the Humane Society of the United States and ASPCA (and a handful of smaller groups) paid $25 million to settle a racketeering lawsuit alleging they secretly paid a witness who lied in court to support animal-rights litigation.

    PETA has made a business out of picking on small groups in court over the past couple of years who don’t have the resources to defend themselves. Now a big dog is taking PETA’s scheming to task. We look forward to what comes to light.

  6. PETA Defends Extremist Group’s Illegal Activity

    Leave a Comment

    If you thought PETA had moderated itself since PETA provided money to an Animal Liberation Front member who burned down a university lab—think again. PETA seems to be heading into a full-fledged romance with Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), a zealous group of young activists with the urge to yell and scream at people enjoying meat in restaurants.

    DxE, with the goal of “total animal liberation,” was founded by Wayne Hsiung, who is now facing felony charges after allegedly trespassing on a farm and stealing a baby goat. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk swiftly jumped to Hsiung’s defense saying he shouldn’t have to go to jail and saying that actions like his are “necessary” for a successful movement.

    And that’s not the only time PETA has defended members of DxE. In May, six DxE operatives (including Hsiung) were charged with felonies for burglary and theft after reportedly breaking into a farm in Utah. Following this incident, the official PETA Twitter account posted a message saying the activists “shouldn’t be punished.”

    PETA’s connections to DxE don’t end there. Last October, Newkirk spoke at a DxE event where Hsiung also spoke, showing that PETA is willing to share the stage with someone willing to break the law. And in San Francisco, DxE hosted a rally with city supervisor Katy Tang, who later received an award from PETA.

    We’ve known that PETA is a radical organization for some time, and its links to DxE only offer additional proof, especially when considering that other animal rights activists have taken steps to distance themselves from DxE.

    Consider noted feminist and animal rights advocate Carol J. Adams, who has called DxE a “counterproductive organization” and a “cult.” Adams writes that DxE’s practices have “led to secret keeping, sexual abuse, and enable[d] an undemocratic decision making process.”

    Sensible people wouldn’t touch DxE with a ten-foot pole, so why does PETA cozy up to these extremists? It might be because sensible people don’t kidnap and kill pets like PETA does. PETA’s support of and association with DxE shows what PETA really is—a radical organization willing to support criminals and dangerous groups.

  7. YouTube Shooter Was Vegan PETA Activist. Will PETA Disavow?

    Leave a Comment

    The perpetrator of yesterday’s shooting at YouTube’s office in San Bruno, California has been revealed to be Nasim Aghdam, a 37-year-old PETA activist and outspoken vegan with an apparent grudge against the social-media company. Reportedly, she was very active on social media promoting animal rights and was upset at a new YouTube policy that de-monetized her channel and others.

    So far, we haven’t seen anything from PETA condemning Aghdam’s actions. PETA is quick to jump on any opportunity to promote veganism; in one instance, PETA used a serial killer, Jeffrey Dahmer, in a campaign to promote veganism. What’s so hard about condemning something like this, even if it doesn’t fit PETA’s narrative?

    This isn’t an attempt to score political points. There’s a serious question about whether PETA’s heated rhetoric goes too far. Does it encourage hateful attitudes—and perhaps even violence?

    There’s evidence that it does. For example, PETA has launched a campaign singling out a Yale postdoc researcher who uses birds in studies, accusing her of “tormenting” animals and “kill[ing] sparrows in cruel tests.” The woman subsequently received threats and has been living in terror.

    PETA might say that it can’t be held responsible for what its followers do. And generally, we might agree. But PETA’s rhetoric of calling people animal abusers who are not, in fact, animal abusers—such as researchers whose proposed work has gone through an animal care and ethics committee—creates a perilous situation.

    After all, if you care about animals, and PETA tells you that so-and-so is a horrible animal abuser, it’s not a stretch to think some activists will do whatever it takes to stop the “abuse,” including violence. That was the thinking of the Animal Liberation Front, which committed felonies to liberate animals and earning the label of a domestic terrorist group from the FBI. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk, however, said: “I will be the last person to condemn the ALF.“ PETA also gave a grant to the Earth Liberation Front, a sister group to the ALF. And more broadly, if one adopts the PETA mindset that 99% of the public is animal abusers—because they aren’t vegan—then it’s easy to see how someone might lash out against society and become increasing spiteful.

    PETA’s rhetoric may help them get in the news or raise funds, but it goes too far. If PETA really is about the ethical treatment of animals—including people—then it needs to condemn its supporters’ bad actions, even when it isn’t convenient. Otherwise, it’d be fair for people to say PETA is, at minimum, a hate group.

  8. PETA Begins New Hypocritical Ad Campaign

    Leave a Comment

    There are few certainties in life. Death and taxes head the list, but near the top is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) using hypocritical rhetoric to obnoxiously push its radical vegan agenda. Focusing on the Newark, NJ, area and looking to expand to the New York City suburbs on Long Island, PETA has begun a new campaign near fast-food restaurants that reads “I’m ME, Not MEAT. See the individual. Go Vegan.”

    Known for its stunts like lettuce-bikini models and celebrity protests, PETA is perhaps the most well-known animal rights organization in the world. But its proclivity for rhetoric that equates rats to people flies in the face of the practice of its own “animal shelter.” Since 1998, PETA has killed over 36,000 animals at its Norfolk headquarters.

    What’s even grimmer, after being busted for dumping the bodies of dead animals in a strip mall dumpster, a veterinarian that turned the animals over to PETA testified that the dogs had been healthy and adoptable, directly refuting the popular claim by PETA that the animals it kills are “unadoptable.”

    If we follow the “logic” of the new ads (that animals and humans are equals) and its shelter philosophy of killing over 85% of the animals in its care, what is PETA’s position on “unadoptable” children? Let’s hope they stick to only killing animals.

    So as Newarkers and New Yorkers face a new onslaught of PETA propaganda, they should remember that PETA can’t even practice what it preaches.

  9. Former PETA Employee: PETA Killed Adoptable Puppies and Kittens

    Leave a Comment

    A new document filed in the ongoing dognapping lawsuit against the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) demonstrates the long-term, systemic pattern of trespassing, pet theft, and killing that occurs as part of PETA’s pet slaughterhouse operation at its Norfolk headquarters.

    Heather Harper-Troje, a former PETA employee who worked on its Community Animal Project, recently submitted an affidavit in the lawsuit making shocking claims that, during her employment, PETA regularly rounded up and slaughtered healthy cats and dogs and even misled their owners:

    • “While employed at PETA, my primary responsibilities included gaining possession of as many cats and dogs and possible, almost all of which were euthanized.”
    • “Ingrid Newkirk was in charge of the Community Animal Project and Ingrid became my supervisor.”
    • “[Newkirk] said that an effort to adopt out an animal was a waste of PETA’s money and effort.”
    • “I was specifically told by my supervisors at PETA to tell people that we would find good homes for the dogs and cats, even though we knew the animals would be euthanized.”
    • “If we saw animals loose, even on someone’s property, we were to take them whenever we could. PETA would not hold them for five days. We would not obtain signed releases if an animal was stolen, but would euthanize the animals immediately.”
    • PETA focused on impoverished neighborhoods because “people from low income neighborhoods were more likely to relinquish their pets to us.”
    • “We would routinely euthanize healthy puppies and kittens and other highly adoptable animals.”
    • “I was instructed by Erica to over-estimate the size of the dogs and cats when euthanizing them so that there would be additional drugs that could be used kill dogs and cats ‘off the books,’ meaning that dogs and cats could be euthanized without reporting their death to the State. Erica told me these instructions came directly from [Newkirk].”
    • “Killing animals ‘off the books,’ was done so that PETA’s kill rate would not look as bad.”

    These claims, made in a sworn affidavit, finally shed light on the abhorrent practices that PETA has engaged in over the past two decades.  Earlier this month, we reported that PETA had killed 1,411 cats and dogs last year, which brought its pet slaughter total – since reporting began in 1998 – to 36,000 animals killed.

    The lawsuit heads to trial in September. There’s little doubt if it gets that far that PETA will be scrambling to settle with a gag order and sweep the mess under the rug. But that would just be setting things up for PETA to continue business as usual. Hopefully Mr. Zarate, the plaintiff, will do the world a favor and expose PETA’s internal killings to the public.

    For more information please visit

  10. PETA’s the Best—At Killing Dogs and Cats

    Leave a Comment

    Another year, another pile of dead dogs and cats for the crematorium, courtesy of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Late Tuesday night—almost literally at the last minute—PETA filed its 2016 animal custody information with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) admitting it had killed nearly 72% of the cats and dogs that came through the “animal shelter” at its headquarters. That’s 1,411 dead dogs and cats at the hands of PETA last year alone.

    Since reporting euthanasia statistics became mandatory in 1998, PETA has killed over 85%, or 36,000, of the animals at its Norfolk “shelter.” A 2010 audit by a VDACS veterinarian found that most animals were killed in their first 24 hours at the facility.

    A deeper look at the numbers shows even more appalling statistics: PETA’s kill rate for dogs was 16.3 times the rate of other private shelters in Virginia.

    Bear in mind that PETA is under no government responsibility to run a shelter or to euthanize animals. They openly admit to the killings of these animals because they say these animals are in some way “unadoptable.” But even a cursory look at statistics from other shelters in the commonwealth shows that PETA is an extreme outlier in their keenness to utilize euthanasia. And when they were caught throwing recently-killed dead dogs and cats in a strip mall dumpster, their victims were cute, adoptable pets.

    PETA should know better but they continue to act in ways that are antithetical to their grandiose name. Join us at and share the news about PETA’s hypocrisy with your friends.