Kitty Block and PETA are like a dog and its bone—inseparable.
Recently, a company called Paws for Effect, which trains animals that are used in films, filed a defamation lawsuit against PETA. According to the suit, longtime PETA exec Lisa Lange defamed the company by reaching out to a Sony executive (and perhaps others in Hollywood) falsely claiming that Paws for Effect had violations under the Animal Welfare Act. It does not.
You may remember Lange—she was the deer-in-the-headlights PETA rep who took the brunt of a Daily Show segment a few years ago after PETA sued to free Orcas from SeaWorld under the U.S. Constitution’s anti-slavery clause.
Back to the lawsuit. One little tidbit was interesting: The complaint reveals Lange contacted HSUS CEO Kitty Block in January about Paws for Effect.
Kitty Block—and HSUS as a whole—has tried very hard to maintain public separation from PETA. After all, unlike HSUS, PETA is very honest about its agenda to shut down zoos and aquariums and ban meat. HSUS can’t be associated with that radicalism publicly.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sure has a weird way of showing what it’s all about. In a recent lawsuit against the organization, PETA is accused of stealing and murdering a Hispanic family’s beloved dog named Maya in southeastern Virginia.
PETA’s response has hit a new low in hypocrisy and stupidity. It has filed several motions to dismiss the case on the grounds that the dog was legally worthless and that what they did was not “outrageous” conduct. This from the group that tried to make the case that killer whales housed at SeaWorld should legally be considered slaves and released because of the 13th amendment.
PETA has even stooped as low as blaming the family for the death of their murdered dog. PETA has suggested that the family was “negligent” because “they did not keep the subject dog restrained and did not keep proper identification or marking of ownership which resulted in the dog being removed at the time.” (The dog was sitting on the owner’s front porch when it was stolen by PETA.)
That’s like saying the burglary victim asked for it by leaving his back door unlocked. And the gross euphemism of “removed” highlights the contempt with which PETA has for people’s pets like the deceased Maya.
Surveillance video of the theft shows that it was quite obvious that Maya was obviously not a stray dog. The footage shows a dog sitting on her porch, timid of the intruders, and only willing to leave the porch briefly because of the coaxing of the two defendants in this case throwing a biscuit to her. But like most dogs belonging to a family, Maya returned – to dismay of the defendants – to the safety of her porch.
Unfortunately for Maya this did not stop the defendants from trespassing illegally onto the property and ripping her from her home.
Maya was killed that very same day.
Don’t mistake this tragedy as an isolated incident, PETA routinely engages in the activity of killing domesticated animals like Maya every year. PETA’s body count exceeds 30,000 animals and its sympathy seems nonexistent.
Justice may be served in the end for the family of young Maya, but that will do little to rid them of the grief of a family and their young child losing their loyal furry companion.
Years ago, we published a report, Holy Cows, on the willingness of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to manipulate religious teachings to peddle its radical animal liberation agenda. Nothing has changed. Just this week, Sarah Withrow King—the director of PETA’s self-serving religious affiliate, Jesus People for Animals—penned an opinion piece that managed to somehow find a way to use the Pope as a vegan archetype.
The article, entitled “Go on vegan diet for Pope Francis,” claims that Pope Francis’ recent emphasis on environmental stewardship amounts to a papal endorsement of veganism. According to PETA, we should “honor Pope Francis’ dedication to the environment by choosing a healthy and humane vegan diet.”
But sources suggest that the real way to the Pontiff’s heart is meat—and lots of it. A review of the Vatican cookbook, a collection of Pope Francis’ favorite recipes published last year, summarizes his appetites: “Pope Francis eats like a fairly typical Argentinian: He loves a good steak, empanadas and dulce de leche.” (Argentines eat more beef per person than any other nation, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.)
In other words, dieting like the Pope means dairy and meat—not bovine liberation and lima beans.
This isn’t the first time PETA has distorted, and then exploited, the words of Pope Francis. Less than a month ago, PETA and its animal liberationist comrades jumped all over media reports of Pope Francis hinting that animals might go to heaven.
Animal lovers were delighted by the news, which validated hopes that their furry family members would join them in the afterlife.
But vegan radicals like PETA and HSUS were thrilled for a different reason. Both groups seized the news stories—which, incidentally, proved completely false—as opportunities to insert animal rights ideology into theology.
PETA’s eagerness to capitalize on the cultural reverence invoked by the Pope is despicable, and just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, PETA seems to only worship at the altars of hypocrisy and greed.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is claiming that cows on a North Carolina dairy farm are being mistreated, and the group has released footage of the animals slogging through knee-deep manure to prove it. One problem: The so-called undercover footage stinks of PETA misinformation. So strap on your muck boots, because we’re about to wade through the filth of PETA’s latest complaint.
According to PETA, the dairy cows are forced to eat, walk, and sleep in a pool of thick manure. But as another dairy farmer’s analysis notes, the cows in the video are suspiciously clean: Their stomachs, tails and backs are relatively unsoiled. A cow living in PETA’s purported conditions would be submerged in feces every time it laid down to rest, which would cover its hips and underside. And cows use their tails to swat flies—tails that would be soaked with manure were PETA’s story accurate. That doesn’t seem to align with the clean cows in PETA’s “eyewitness” film.
Inspectors from the North Carolina Department of Agriculture inspected the dairy after PETA’s video dropped. They found no evidence to support PETA’s claims that the cows were being mistreated. The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), however, has ordered to farm to clean up—but let’s put that in context: Local officials pointed to temporary house-cleaning issues that had been aggravated by bad weather.
While the dairy farm certainly needs to clean up, it doesn’t appear to be the site of prolonged or deliberate animal abuse. The Mountaineer notes:
PETA claimed the cattle were emaciated and forced to remain in a several-inch deep pool of their own waste. However, the Haywood County Animal Control department found that cattle were pastured in a clean area next to the barn and a pasture across the road when they weren’t being milked. There was no evidence the cattle were either emaciated or in poor health, said animal control officer Jean Hazzard, a county official who has come down hard on those who abuse animals in the past.
In an email Hazzard wrote, “I have responded to the dairy and met with the owner and reviewed the alleged deplorable confinement and living conditions, which were unfounded.”
The paper concludes that “PETA resorted to false and exaggerated claims to make their point. In doing so, the organization has caused unwarranted damage to innocent parties and has undermined consumer confidence in our food supply without justification.” It’s hard to see how one could determine otherwise once all the facts are considered. (Just don’t count on PETA to deliver the full story. We can’t find anything about the Haywood County Animal Control’s findings on PETA’s site.)
PETA apparently got something else wrong, too: Harris Teeter, the company PETA said was supplied by the purported “dairy factory,” says that it does not receive products from the dairy. Harris Teeter is demanding the animal liberation group retract that claim. (The dairy also only has 30 cows—hardly a “factory.”)
PETA’s faux pas is nothing new for the animal rights movement. Remember when animal activists dragged the Ringling Bros. circus through court for a decade under allegations that the circus abuses elephants? Not only was their case thrown out, but the presiding judge found animal rights activists had covertly paid the key witness nearly $200,000—a witness who lied under oath. Ringling countersued under anti-racketeering statutes, and animal liberation activists led by the Humane Society of the United States paid almost $16 million in May to settle this bribery and fraud lawsuit.
Looks like PETA is just the latest animal rights group to step in it.
USA Today reports that companies are trying to reverse the effects of sedentary lifestyles by redesigning office layouts. This “active design” is intended to get desk workers moving around the office and not just sitting at their desks. One of the ideas from our “Small Choices, Big Bodies” report was that changes encouraging sedentary lifestyles led to obesity: If “active design” becomes a trend, we should see less sedentary behavior and less obesity.
Neal Barnard, president of the deceptively named “Physicians Committee” for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), is hitting the road this month on a book tour to promote his 21-Day Weight Loss Kickstart program. The casual observer might think this is yet another hardcover to fill up the self-help section. But if you know a thing or two about PCRM (or weight loss, for that matter), you’ll quickly realize that – much like Barnard’s group – this book is not what it seems.
And finally, we believe the majority of people picking up this book as a quick fix will be sorely disappointed in the results. Long-term weight management requires a total lifestyle approach – not a scientifically flimsy diet you only have to stick to for 21 days. And that is ultimately what makes this just another weight-loss gimmick that will line the bargain bin in a few months.
Daytime television’s self-promoting “YOU Doc” Dr. Mehmet Oz entertained us Wednesday with his assault on meat and dairy, offering up his talk show's couch to a vegan activist group that twists medical research to claim non-tofu proteins come with major health risks.
In typical Oz fashion, he promised to tell his audience what they “need to avoid in order to avoid getting cancer and heart disease.” And who better to fill everybody in than Neal Barnard?
Oz promoted his guest’s agenda as “a different way of thinking about what you do in your day-to-day life.” Yes, we suppose that’s true. Barnard’s past claim that “to give a child animal products is a form of child abuse” is certainly, um… different. And Oz never told his audience that Barnard (a non-practicing psychiatrist) was once the president of the PETA Foundation—the organization that owns PETA’s office building and pays its salaries.
Eating nutrient-rich vegetables and fruits is a great idea, but so is eating nutrient-rich animal products. It’s difficult to swallow a stealthily masked, ideology-fueled prescription when it’s passed off as a cancer cure-all.
Has the good doctor (Oz, not Barnard) been fooled or is he a willing accomplice?
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) typically has a knack for making ugly things sexy (and vice-versa). Ironically, the radical animal rights group still hasn’t figured out a way to spin the fact that its own animal shelter has euthanized more than 25,000 homeless pets since 1998—so PETA prefers to keep it quiet. Good thing we have access to public records.
According to its 2010 “Animal Record,” filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 94 percent of the cats and dogs in its shelter last year. PETA rationalizes that “open-admission shelters” like the one it operates provided these 2,200 animals with “a painless release from a world that does not want them.”
These new statistics bump PETA’s body-count up to 25,840 since 1998. Conversely, 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 (85% adoption rate in 2009). Talk about the difference that “going the extra mile” could make for helping an unwanted pet find a new home.
Years of public outrage still have not been enough to convince PETA to eliminate its pet eradication program. Sadly, we are not expecting 2011 to be any more promising for homeless cats and dogs condemned to live out their last days on PETA’s version of “death row."
Instead of investing in the lives of the adoptable pets in its care, PETA prefers to spend a sizeable chunk of its $33 million annual budget on glitzy media campaigns telling Americans—especially impressionable young children—that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all “unethical.”
For the 12th year in a row, PETA’s leaders prove again that they care more about preserving their advertising budget than finding homes for the six pets per day, on average, that they needlessly kill. Let’s see them try to make that statistic sexy with a head of lettuce and a supermodel.