Slashdot Mirror


PETA Is Not Happy That Google Used a Camel To Get a Desert "StreetView"

First time accepted submitter flopwich writes Google used a camel-mounted camera to get a 'street view' of a stretch of desert in the United Arab Emirates. PETA's director Ingrid E. Newkirk is upset about it, saying they should have used jeeps. "These days, jeeps are in common use in the desert, as are light planes and even dune buggies, and satellite images could also easily have been taken instead," she said. "(Google) should leave camels out of its activites altogether."

80 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. And? by Hartree · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's Ingrid Newkirk. What did you expect?

    1. Re: And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would someone please think of the camels?!?!?!?

    2. Re:And? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously. If the Camel wasn't hurt shut the fuck up.

    3. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      PETA never shuts the fuck up, ever. Even if you cave to them on something, they just start screaming at you about something else. You see PETA isn't in it for the animals, they're not in it for winning victories, they're not in it to make the world a better place. They're in it for one reason and one reason only: To promote PETA.

    4. Re:And? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's the animal's native environment.

      They have been roaming those desserts long before man came along to pollute air or spoil the environment just to support internal combustion vehicles.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    5. Re:And? by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just came here to say .... "Fuck PETA"

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    6. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't PETA have a horrible track record of killing most of the animals it "saves"?
      When will someone really stop and think of the animals, and I mean Think about them, like oh hey Camels are pack Animals that have been doing hard labor in the desert for thousands of years.

      If PETA were truly concerned about animals they would have done something about the stray problem here in America first before moving to other areas.
      That or maybe protected the White Rhino or any other animal that is or has been poached to death.

      Fuck PETA and their so called Agenda. They cause more harm than good.

    7. Re:And? by SQLGuru · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't we sick Greenpeace on PETA -- get two of most polarizing groups fighting each other? The camel wasn't injured (was probably well taken care of) and was more environmentally friendly than a Jeep.

    8. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doesn't PETA have a horrible track record of killing most of the animals it "saves"?

      Yes.

    9. Re: And? by NEDHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey! Camels gotta earn a living too. Think of their families!

    10. Re:And? by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Funny

      I worked at a Chick-fil-A about 15 years ago. A man walked up to me and asked for the corporate office number.

      Me:

      Sure thing, can I ask what this is in regards to?

      Him, holding up a table-top display:

      I am a member of PETA. I do not like what you are doing to these cows, making them stand up and hold signs while wearing costumes.

      I'm pretty sure I started laughing, until I noticed the guy was completely straight-faced.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    11. Re:And? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Several of their "animal shelters" were closed because the government was going to force them to call themselves "euthanasia clinics" because they killed so many animals. PETA closed them rather than accept the more accurate name.

    12. Re:And? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Funny, just before I read this comment I was thinking, "someone should send a letter to Greenpeace about PETA's lack of regard for the environment."

      Nothing like sicking 2 terrorist organizations on each other and watching the fun unfold.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    13. Re: And? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was pretty much my thought. A camel that's truly pissed off isn't going to be helping you. They're big ornery creatures, after all. Meanwhile in getting the camera view the camel was provided with fodder, water, medical care, as well as all the other help that a domestic camel gets in exchange for walking around.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    14. Re:And? by chuckugly · · Score: 2

      Whereas being turned out to starve and/or be eaten by predators is sweet sweet freedom. Nutcase.

    15. Re: And? by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That was pretty much my thought. A camel that's truly pissed off isn't going to be helping you. They're big ornery creatures, after all. Meanwhile in getting the camera view the camel was provided with fodder, water, medical care, as well as all the other help that a domestic camel gets in exchange for walking around.

      It's been said before, might as well say it again: Stop thinking of PETA as a pro-animal group, and rather think of them as an anti-human one.

    16. Re: And? by davidshenba · · Score: 2

      I am thinking about camel toes!

  2. dolphin? by leomekenkamp · · Score: 5, Funny

    If Google had used a dolphin, I would say that the PETA would have a point.

    --
    Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    1. Re:dolphin? by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Funny

      Especially for a desert data collection mission.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:dolphin? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Funny

      The standards are pretty low... you may as well.

    3. Re:dolphin? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      It probably got to spit on it's handlers, something you likely have never been able to get away with.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:dolphin? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Thanks for explaining the joke. I don't think I would have gotten it otherwise. Can I please nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize?

      Sure, but under the line where it asks why you're nominating the person, just put "for not being George W. Bush."

      He'll be sure to win.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  3. Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    PETA is never happy. Ever.

    Then again, they are a bunch of hypocrites that kill healthy animals that need new homes because they'd rather see them dead than as pets.

    So yeah....PETA can stuff it.

  4. PETA won't be happy until all animals are extinct by Grantbridge · · Score: 5, Informative

    PETA don't like animals having any relationship with humans. They put down the vast majority of dogs they recieve rather than re-home them because they think that's more "humane" (and it's cheaper..)

    They would rather you killed the camel and used a jeep to travel across the desert.

    They are scum, and they won't be happy until there are no animals left on planet Earth except mankind.

  5. Sheesh, what's the problem? by andyring · · Score: 2

    I assume they put a decent camel jockey on the animal, probably brought it food and water, etc. I bet that camel's day was a lot better than it would have been if Google hadn't shown up to put a camera on its back.

    Aren't the PETA folks big environmentalists too? I would imagine a camel puts out a lot less carbon and CO2 than a Jeep.

    1. Re:Sheesh, what's the problem? by dontbemad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Aren't the PETA folks big environmentalists too?

      In a word, no. PETA doesn't concern itself with topics of sustainability and preservation of the planet. It prides itself on a hyper-sensationalized message about how humans are evil and can literally do no right to animals.

      It really is unfortunate. Where there is room for a decent, effective animal rights group to help solve problems of animal abuse and cruel treatment, PETA has decided to completely occupy the space with its lunatic and extreme ideals, berating or silencing anyone that dares oppose their just and righteous mission.

    2. Re:Sheesh, what's the problem? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I'm thankful that we have PETA. Without them the level of comedic material would drop drastically.

    3. Re:Sheesh, what's the problem? by scubamage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Shhhhh! Don't ruin the head-in-the-clouds holier-than-thou bubble that they try to live in! That's like trying to tell a vegan that anywhere from tens to thousands (depending on which study you look at) of animals are killed per hectare in the commercial production of vegetables! Not to mention the native species that go extinct due to native vegetation being felled to make room for their kale smoothie ingredients. Tillers aren't too kind to field mice, worms, or bugs they encounter. But PETA (and vegans) only really give a damn about animals they find "cute."

  6. WTF? by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 3, Informative

    PETA needs to focus on real issues. It's not like those cameras were tremendous burdens, or that the camels were abused.

  7. Let's get our priorities straight here! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google feeds their employees dead cows and chickens on a regular basis. They should have used plants. These days, quinoa is in common use in foodservice, as are beans and eggplants, and lentils could also have been easily used instead. Google should leave beef out of its activities altogether.

    :b

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  8. Hey, wait a minute... by exploder · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When did "News for nerds, stuff that matters" disappear from the Slashdot homepage?

    --
    Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
    1. Re:Hey, wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      News for Nerds is still on the beta page, but stuff that matters is gone all together.

    2. Re:Hey, wait a minute... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's because the world is fucked and nothing maters. At all.

    3. Re:Hey, wait a minute... by JWW · · Score: 2

      Actually Google using a camel to get street views in the desert is kinda nerdy.

      On the other hand PETA having a cow about google using a beast of burden to ya know do something considered burdensome is bullshit that should be ignored.

    4. Re:Hey, wait a minute... by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      That's because the world is fucked and nothing maters. At all.

      Nice Freudian typo there!

      Anyway,
      "Nothing really matters, any more"
      or
      "It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine."

      See, the musicians have it covered.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    5. Re:Hey, wait a minute... by ultranova · · Score: 3, Funny

      something considered burdensome

      Isn't "walking around with a camera and photographing everything" considered a vacation, usually?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  9. Hello PETA my old friend by Gerafin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hope that everyone gets a good chuckle out of this story and then moves on. Just like the Westboro Baptist Church, PETA keeps pulling stunts designed to incense rational people and get free advertising (I know that the point of WBC is litigation rather than advertising, but I still see parallels). Remember how PETA protested the game "Super Meat Boy" with a "Super Tofu Boy" parody? Don't fall for the trap - keep your emotions in check - smile & keep scrolling.

  10. What about the environment? by ugen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So they prefer that Google use large vehicles that consume fossil fuel, emit greenhouse gases and may damage fragile desert ecosystem with their tires? Way to go PETA. I hope a few environmental groups take you on on this one.

  11. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not so much that they're scum, it's that they mistake "ethical" with "imaginary line-in-the-sand absolutist moral law based". Ethics are difficult and nuanced, and sometimes raise questions you don't have the answer to. Those sorts of things aren't especially convenient for large groups united for the sake of ad campaigns and political lobbying.

    If you actually asked the question of "what does ethical corporate usage of beasts of burden look like?", you'd end up with a very complicated answer.

    You'll see this symptom with every political group that's actually genuinely grassroots and purpose oriented.

  12. jeeps and planes? by jehan60188 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    if google had done that, they'd be criticized for not caring about carbon emissions

  13. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by Sigma+7 · · Score: 2

    PETA don't like animals having any relationship with humans.

    Not quite true - PETA is okay with using animals as long as VP MaryBets Sweetland can get the insulin shot. Everyone else should avoid anything to do with animals.

  14. Cue the fat and lazy camels by m_chan · · Score: 2

    "leave camels out of its activities altogether." If not being herded around in the desert, handled by camel herders, then what are camels for? Advertising smokes I guess. And more importantly, won't somebody please think of the dromedaries?

  15. PETA are still hypocrites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow, just wow. "Instead of doing minimal harm to a few pack animals that were specifically bred for this job, you should have used a vehicle that destroys the desert ecosystem because we have no idea how animals actually work."

  16. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by delt0r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is nothing even that consistent with their thought process. They are closer to a terrorist group looking for reasons to justify violence. At least at the top.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  17. Don't feed the trolls by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember? Rule #1 of the internet? PETA wants attention, positive or negative. Just ignore them. Please.

  18. *sigh* by Ignacio · · Score: 2

    I swear, they must do this because they have a moral imperative to remind everyone just how completely batshit insane they really are.

  19. Fuck PETA by Xaemyl · · Score: 2

    srsly

  20. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals. Which is impossible. But they insist on it anyways.

    And they're not terrorists. Stupid, yes. ALF-like-terrorism, no.

  21. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by Major+Blud · · Score: 4, Funny

    Please think of the bacteria!

    --
    If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
  22. The sliding scale of activist groups. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Animal Abuse - Sure a no brainier.
    Fur Coats - I can see that we don't need Fur Coats anymore as there is a big selection of cheaper and effective other sources for coats. (Fur as in they need to kill the animal)
    Food from babies - Veal and Lamb. Tasty but the animal is so cute I loose my appetite when I think of it that way.
    Food meats - Sure people are happy being vegetarian. I tried it myself my body hated me for it. (I will need to add leather although it isn't food, but a product from the animal from the processing of the rest of the food)
    Anything made from animal - Wool, Egg, Milk products come to mind. Now we are going to the crazy zone. These animals although are in sub-human conditions are still much better off then if they were out in the wild fending for themselves. Efforts should be towards improving their conditions not stopping their usefulness.
    Pets and worker animals - These are like family to us, and are treated extremely well often much better then most people who care for them live. Pets like Dogs have evolved (threw breading) to really like being around humans and helping us out. To say the dogs should be wild is actually making go against their nature.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:The sliding scale of activist groups. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      Camels and other domesticated animals have been bred for years to do the tasks they do. They are not going to be 'happy animals' if they can't perform those tasks. If left to PITA, they would be cruelly denied what they are born to do.

  23. Re:PETA can kiss my algore by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

    *sniff* *sniff*

    Excuse me sir. Your algore smells like an asshole.

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  24. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

    Nope, it hasn't been used in ages. It was largely obsolete even back when I was diagnosed with Type I diabetes close to 2 decades ago.

    I'm not sure if it's cheaper, but human insulin IS more effective than pork/beef insulin. Also, pork/beef consumption was going down and insulin demand was rising decades ago, which is why insulin-producing bacteria are one of the first genetically modified organisms ever created.

    These days, human insulin isn't actually that common - there has been a move to modified insulins that have slight differences from human insulin to achieve certain goals. (Lispro/aspart aka Humalog/Novolog reduce insulin's tendency to "clump", which greately speeds up the time to take effect when injected. Insulin glargine, aka Lantus, is designed to provide a very long "peakless" baseline effect for 24 hours.)

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  25. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

    No, they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals

    I'd have more sympathy for them if they were PETP - People for the Ethical Treatment of People. A cause I can get behind is the "leave me the fuck alone" cause.

  26. I'm thinking.... by bobbied · · Score: 2

    We make sure we hire a Jeep with leather seats, burning beef tallow based diesel fuel to keep the AC going and make sure we staff the car with hamburger eating Google engineers wearing natural fur coats. Attach a trailer with a nice BBQ and make sure to hand out as much tasty meat as can be obtained, cooked and dispensed along the way to any hungry persons who asks. THEN we make sure to get a number of camels to pull the jeep along and make meat deliveries. Attache a big sign that says "People Eating Tasty Animals" too.

    Any other ways we can anger the PETA folks?

    These people are fruit cakes... WITH too many nuts. Go back to rescuing abused pets....

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  27. Re:but by SydShamino · · Score: 2

    No kidding. Those burning fuels will kill more animals in the long run than the .... zero animals likely hurt by Google.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  28. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by Oligonicella · · Score: 4, Informative

    "they're pretty consistent that they just don't want people to affect animals" - I'd have to say outright killing +90% of the animals they take in for "adoption" is affecting those animals, wouldn't you? They're scum.

  29. PETA by Instantlemming · · Score: 2

    PETA wants attention like a 3 year old with a tin whistle.
    There is no such thing as negative attention; as long as they are in the news, they will be happy.

  30. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sadly, they see that as consistent with their philosophy. In that putting those dogs in loving homes would be exposing the dogs to human contact for years versus a quick, one-time human contact that ensures that dog won't have to deal with humans ever again.

    When people's beliefs get this twisted, there's no reasoning with them. Just back off slowly and keep a good distance from them.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  31. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was skeptical about the claim that PETA euthanizes so many animals, but studies say it's true, and may even understate the situation.

    The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.

    This is not ethical treatment of animals. There's no "nuance" here. Putting the vast majority of healthy pets to death rather than trying to find homes for them is cruel and highly unusual.

    Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries. The animals are just raw material to be exploited, then tossed in a dumpster

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  32. If two PETA members.... by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 2

    "If two PETA members are fighting, do we still call it a beef?"

    --
    #include bier;
  33. Re: PETA won't be happy until all animals are exti by bickerdyke · · Score: 2

    I had sympathy during the short time when they were known as "people eat tasty animals"

    --
    bickerdyke
  34. PETA by GlennC · · Score: 2

    The headline could have stopped after the first four words.

    --
    Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
  35. Just can't win... by Skylinux · · Score: 2

    Use a drone -> Told you! They produce equipment for the military or CIA.

    Use a plane -> You know how many birds die to props each year? Murderers!

    Use a jeep -> Ohh gawd the environment!

    User solar powered vehicle -> WTF? You never get the energy back!

    Use a camel that is probably better cared for then dogs in PETA kennels -> Think of the animals!!!

    You just can't win.

    --
    Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
  36. No link to PETA, PETA has no article by userw014 · · Score: 2

    The original article doesn't link to any kind of article on PETA's web site. In fact, the only reference I can find to this issue is from Mr. Clint Davis of Scripps.

    This is clearly troll-bait for people unhappy with PETA, whether PETA is engaging in a coverup of sorts, or Mr. Clint Davis has falsely attributed a quote to Ms. Newkirk.

  37. Fact Check Please!!! by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this even true? I did some goggling, and could not find *any* official or otherwise direct statement from PETA.

    In any case, I think PETA badly dilutes its message by frequently saying borderline ridiculous statements.

    No living being should be subject to the kinds of torture in medical tests, period!.

    That begin said, there is no problem with animals and humans cooperating. Camels carry a load, and in return they are fed and cared for. Whats wrong with that. Its called a *symbiotic* relationship in case you forgot sixth grade ecology. If farm animals are well cared for, and killed instantly for meat, well, I guess I'm sort of essentially OK with that.

  38. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by MtHuurne · · Score: 4, Informative

    In the particular case of dogs, I'd argue that having contact with humans is their natural way of living. Over ten thousand years of contact with humans has shaped the species. There is no way you can consider any dog to be not exposed to humans: it's in their genes.

  39. Re:Flip this around in your head by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Well yes, of course. Google likely used a Dromedary Camel as is standard for most uses. Microsoft would have used a Bactrian camel just to be different. That extra hump would have certainly changed the view.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  40. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by bluegutang · · Score: 2

    Of course, with $35 million in annual revenue, who can afford to take care of the animals, what with paying all the salaries for the people working for PETA to exploit them? PETA's job is to raise funds to pay PETA salaries.

    Reminds me of the Westboro Baptist Church...

  41. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by macs4all · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services report on their investigation [huffingtonpost.com] found that 94% of the animals given to PETA for adoption were instead euthanized, 90% within one day.

    Are you kidding me, Barbara???

    Yow!!! As someone who still has nightmares about the two pets (dogs) I have had to have euthanized, one with Osteosarcoma at 17 years old in 2009, and the other with Cronic Renal Failure and Adrenal Gland Cancer at age 13 just last July, something like that makes me insane...

    At the risk of getting flamed for "Godwin-ing", I just thought they were a way-over-the-top animal protection group; not the ones who had the "Final Solution" to animal cruelty...

  42. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    A lot of people are noticing the similarities between the two. Crazy over-the-top behavior and a holier-than-everyone-else attitude.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  43. Re:PETA Won't be Happy by sudon't · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They remind me of a certain person I know who, rather than give away a pair of cats she could no longer keep, had them euthanized. Her logic was along the lines of: No one could love them, or give them a better home than me, so they're better off dead.

    In terms of what they do with their funding, i.e., pay out very nice salaries, PETA is no different from other charities. The biggest beneficiaries of most charities are the executives of that charity.

    --
    -- sudon't

    Air-ride Equipped

  44. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    Put both groups in a sealed room with a puppy, a gay baby, and enough cudgels to go around.

    The problem will solve itself.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  45. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

    Any living creatures are going to evolve from simpler species that needed to struggle with each other for resources to survive. Any species which has some way to maintain knowledge for advanced scientific study is going to have to evolve/learn to work together more recently in their past, or else knowledge dies with individuals.

    The reality is that while morphological and chemical and genetic differences with extraterrestrials will doubtlessly be profound, the inevitable common backstory of evolution will give them some behavioral similarities. "Criminally insane" is our modern, cooperative brains examining our more competitive behavioral roots and seeing the innate conflict.

  46. Re:PETA Won't be Happy by Somebody+Is+Using+My · · Score: 2

    Because most house cats are actually unable to live that well in the wild. Though they have the hunting instincts natural to their species, it actually requires some experience (usually learned during kittenhood and young adulthood) to put those instincts to best use; most cats cannot hunt well enough to sustain them long enough to gain the necessary skills.

    Obviously cats which have lived outdoors - farmcats or free-roaming pets - have a better chance at survival than indoor-only house-cats, but even free-roaming pets fare poorly compared to feral animals that have lived their lives entirely on their own wits.

    Cats also aren't safe from predation; owls and hawks won't pass them by when they are young and even after they achieve full size, coyotes and foxes are known to go after them. Housecats also have a poorer chance at finding good shelter in bad weather, and usually have to fight feral cats for territory, which further hampers their chances.

    Putting a pampered house cat into the wild and expecting it to survive because "it's a cat" is thoughtless; it will likely live a very short life before dying miserably in a ditch somewhere.

    Whether that option is better than euthanizing the animal is debatable and probably dependent on the beliefs of the owner. The proper option is to spend the time and money to get the animal properly placed, but dumping the feline is cruel and shouldn't even be a consideration.

    Sad caveat: the ferals and strays in my town are very well cared for by well-meaning locals; many are fed daily, and have had their shots and been neutered. Unfortunately, this care just encourages more people to dump the animals in our neighborhood.

  47. Re:PETA Won't be Happy by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    They remind me of a certain person I know who, rather than give away a pair of cats she could no longer keep, had them euthanized. Her logic was along the lines of: No one could love them, or give them a better home than me, so they're better off dead.

    ^ THIS.

    We were discussing the killing of his two children by cardiologist Guy Turcotte yesterday (found not criminally responsible, now under appeal). I was arguing with my sister, saying that you'd pretty much *have* to have something wrong in the head to kill your own kids - even if it doesn't rise to the level of insanity. She was saying, No, she could see how some people just get really pissed off and kill.

    I guess if people can think this way about defenseless pets, it might be the same for their children. But it still seems royally messed up to me. If I were a juror on that case, I would want to hear the experts before making a decision, because that whole way of thinking just doesn't compute.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  48. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Come on, putting down an animal just hours after you get it? Not using their network of supporters to say "here, we have these animals that need homes?"

    Given the fact that $35 million is completely insufficient to humanely care for that many animals what would you suggest they do instead?

    They took in just under 30,000 animals. $35 million pays for a LOT of pet food (and pet food manufacturers are big donors to shelters, so even that expense can be mitigated). And shelters use volunteer staff, which, last time I volunteered, didn't cost them a penny.

    Fostering animals out to temporary homes usually costs just the food, while the animal waits for a placement - and a lot of times those foster homes end up keeping the animal rather than let it go back to the pound.

    $35 million a year, to place less than two thousand animals annually? Really? That's a pure for-profit business. Disgusting.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  49. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2
    Did you even READ the links on the Times story? How perfectly healthy animals are euthanized? How a government inspection found that 90% of all animals are euthanized within less than 24 hours? That's not even time enough to do an evaluation.

    To PETA, "somehow unadoptable" translates into "Oh, we can't sell this mutt or this mixed-breed cat to a pet store for big bucks like we could with a pure-bred, so put it down."

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  50. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by quantaman · · Score: 2

    If the 90% euthanization rate within ONE DAY is true, then do you really think that is a fair amount of time to wait for someone to adopt the animal before putting it down? _one_ _day_.

    If they have enough experience to know the animal won't get adopted then yes.

    Think of it this way. PETA is the most extreme of the major animal rights organizations, they're staffed by people who are so passionate that they're willing to endure ridicule and crappy pay to work for them.

    Now either these animal rights nutbags who won't even drink milk because it enslaves cows are at the same time committing a completely unnecessary massacre of pets every day. Or, you've completely underestimated the necessity of euthanization.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  51. Re:PETA won't be happy until all animals are extin by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    I've found that, for me, when I'm finally able to admit it's time to help them on, they really do need my help for that, because as much as they want to stay with me, they're also in a bad way. Cancer is not pretty when it spreads and leaves a once-proud friend a hurting shadow of themselves, just skin and bones and fur.

    I've stayed with every one while the needle went in, and in every case I was losing a best friend, a family member, and (because they were/are all instrumental in helping me deal with ptsd on a daily basis), real life-savers. And writing this makes me cry again, because I know that there is no way that I deserved such good dogs, no matter how much I tell myself that they turned out good because of the way I treated them. They're special, and I'll always remember them.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.