23 responses to “Animal Cruelty Arrests Associated With PETA”

1. 

   Mark

   June 16, 2005 at 10:51 pm

   Treating animals ethically indeed.
2. 

   Rick in Rochester

   June 17, 2005 at 7:25 am

   And the definition of Irony is?…
   Good to hear this fringe group of nuts that has posed for years as a legitimate non-profit is finally getting the kind of exposure it deserves. (naked supermodels, notwithstanding)
3. 

   MarkR

   June 17, 2005 at 9:32 am

   The Humane Society of the United States does not oppose the ownership of companion animals and encourages the proper aquisition and care of companion animals. The HSUS is not the same as PETA, please develop an INFORMED view of the differences between the two organizations.
4. 

   Seuss

   June 17, 2005 at 9:44 am

   PETA (as well as the Humane Society of the United States) are not animal welfare organizations, nor do they do work in placing homeless pets. They are hard left animal rights groups that are against the ownership or use of animals in any capacity.

   Really?

   http://www.hsus.org/about_us/about_hsus_programs_and_services/about_hsus_companion_animals.html

   we assist people in becoming more responsible and empowered pet owners through our ambitious Pets for Life Campaign. In fact, our pet care experts can help you choose a dog groomer, find pet-friendly rental housing, select the perfect pet from your local shelter, and much more.

   &

   http://www.peta.org/about/

   Note that even on the PETA page it says…

   PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment.

   Nowhere does it say it is against people keeping companion animals such as housepets. I know MANY hardcore PETA members, animal rights activists & vegans etc who have housecats or dogs as pets and that is fine. PETA and the HSUS only insist on proper treatment of animals under our care.

   I love the jumping to assumed guilt of the organization these 2 work for rather than thinking what is likely true… that these two acted on their own and PETA knew nothing of their actions. In 25 years of PETA’s existence nothing like this has ever been attributed to the organization, what makes people assume this would be something PETA would condone?

   Remember innocent until proven guilty? Let more facts come to light before you rush to judgement on this.

   At the very least get your facts straight and approach your journalism with an open unbiased mindset.
5. 

   Kate

   June 17, 2005 at 10:32 am

   As a dog breeder, I am well aware of the political activities of HSUS in promoting legislation that would make our hobby unsustainable.

   Here’s a better link: Activist Cash. Click on the “select an activist group” and you will find HSUS.

   To quote:

   What comes to mind when you hear the words “humane society”? Likely your local animal shelter that takes in stray, neglected, and abused cats and dogs, promotes their adoption to new homes, and runs spay/neuter programs so that fewer unwanted animals will end up mistreated or euthanized.

   That’s exactly what the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is banking on. This intentional misdirection has made HSUS the richest animal-rights organization on earth. HSUS has over $85 million in assets. It raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare. But it is not affiliated with any local “humane societies”, nor does it operate a single animal shelter.

   […]

   The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John (J.P.) Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.

   The change brought more money and media attention. Hoyt explained the shift in 1991, telling the National Journal, “PETA successfully stole the spotlight – Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency – have been ignored.” Hoyt agreed that PETA’s net effect within the animal- rights movement was to spur more moderate groups to take tougher stances in order to attract donations from the public. “Maybe.” Hoyt mused, the time has come to say, ‘Since we haven’t been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing.’”

   The current goals of this misnamed “Humane Society” have nothing to do with animal shelters. The group took aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless “Breakfast of Cruelty” campaign. HSUS even wants to put an end to lifesaving biomedical research: as early as 1988 the group’s mailings demanded that the U.S. government “eliminate altogether the use of animals as research subjects.” HSUS has never budged from this extreme position.

   Since its inception, the Humane Society of the Unites States has systematically tried to limit the choices of American consumers in dozens of areas. The organization is against any kind of dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping. And that’s just the beginning.

   end quoting

   There’s much much more….
6. 

   McGehee

   June 17, 2005 at 11:51 am

   HSUS got in trouble in Alaska for calling the Iditarod “cruelty to animals.”

   HSUS is not the same as the more established, more respectable American Humane Association.
7. 

   michael

   June 17, 2005 at 1:30 pm

   I know MANY hardcore PETA members, animal rights activists & vegans etc who have housecats or dogs as pets and that is fine. PETA and the HSUS only insist on proper treatment of animals under our care.

   You know “many” of the PeTA members? How many of them? There are only three: Ingrid Newkirk, Jeanne Roush and Michael Rodman. Don’t believe me? See http://www.crcmn.org/review/peta.pdf.

   You’ve fallen prey to myth #1,232,342 promulgated by these masters of deception. Yes, certainly there are many people who donate money to PeTA and think of themselves as members – PeTA of course is counting on this and are quite successful at harvesting millions per year from the gullible. But in reality these financial supporters have nothing to do with setting the agenda for this extremist group.

   Newkirk (the group’s founder) is on public record dozens of times advocating “total animal liberation” and the elimination of pets. Of course you won’t find any of those quotes on PeTA’s many websites – dog and cat lovers almost certainly provide the majority of PeTA’s funding, after all. But you certainly don’t have to look very hard to find the truth. They’re counting on the fact that most people won’t.

   By the way, did you know that the FBI considers animal rights extremists to be one of the most serious terrorism threats to the nation? See http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/19/domestic.terrorism/. Note the carefully-worded quote from PeTA in this article: “PeTA has no involvement with alleged ALF or ELF actions.” Funny; I think most people would consider financial support to be “involvement”, wouldn’t you? And the group’s financial records establish that they have made such donations. It’s a federal crime to provide “material support or resources” to terrorists, whether foreign or domestic… so this is pretty serious stuff.
8. 

   Bigone

   June 18, 2005 at 2:44 pm

   I can’t help noticing how nothing is ever mentioned as to the “cause of death” of these dogs and cats. How can they charge “cruelty to animals” if all they did was dispose of the animals after they were dead? There is not even a hint or mention of any evidence that these animals were killed in any cruel or inhumane manner. What the hell is going on here; claims of “cruelty” to DEAD animals now?!!!
9. 

   Angela

   June 19, 2005 at 8:52 pm

   I worked with Andrew Cook for over two years at a Hampton Roads area animal shelter. If he is the “evil kitten killer” that he has been portrayed to be, than he sure fooled me. This is a 24 year old young man who went above and beyond the call of duty on behalf of animals more often than not. When most of the area ran for higher ground during the hurricane of 2003, Andy stayed at the shelter, CARING for the pets that were left behind. Please, innocent until proven guilty! That is the cornerstone of the American legal system, and yet, it is the first thing to fly out the window at the first hint of scandal. If I hadn’t known Andy personally, I too might become overcome with disgust. However, from the articles I have read, Andy was a new PETA employee on a ride-along with seasoned PETA employee Adria Hinkle. Sounds like she took him on one hell of a ride!
10. 

    noam

    June 20, 2005 at 1:07 pm

    I interned at PETA, and not only did the people there support having pets, many of them brought their pets to work with them. Whoever makes comments like this has been listening to false proganda put out by industries that abuse animals who, unable to defend their cruelty, try to discredit their critics with ad hominem attacks.

    The “Activist Cash” website is created by an industry front group (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom) with no credibility. They even oppose efforts to encourage people to eat healthier. The Humane Society of the US is a very conservative animal protection organization that opposes puppy mills (not all breeders) because of the horrible conditions suffered by such animals, and because animal shelters must deal with the pet overpopulation crisis that they contribute to.

    You can tell someone has gone over the extremist edge when they try to lump the Humane Society of the US with extremism. These are groups that oppose any consideration for animal welfare at all.
11. 

    Bigone

    June 22, 2005 at 7:51 am

    Still I ask: How can they even charge the man or woman (Hinkle OR Cook), with “cruelty?!!” Felony Cruelty – no less! Since when can you just make up the rules of law as you please?

    Cruelty clearly means making something suffer needlessly (or otherwise), not simply KILLING IT. In fact, the law specifically says what killing methods are deemed to be NOT cruel.

    Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but I still don’t see any mention of these animals being killed in a legally defined “cruel” way! If these two individuals euthanized these animals in a legal manner as prescribed by law, how in HELL can they be accused of “felony cruelty?” And I have a hunch it would be a pretty safe bet that these two people did not kill these animals in a cruel way.

    They may have committed “fraud” of some sort in the apparent way that they obtained the animals, and may indeed have disposed of the remains in an illegal manner. Though that still needs to be proven as well. After all, what’s the difference to public safty between throwing out discarded meat products, verses the apparently healthy remains of the euthanized animals?

    And many may not agree with what ever reasons that they thought these animals needed to be euthanized. But the simple fact that they “were killed” can NOT in any common sense of reason be defined as “cruelty.” Ordinary, reasonable sense says there has to be clear evidence to indicate the deaths involved unlawful suffering!

    “31 counts of felony animal cruelty!!!!!” Give me a #@*%ing break! The “authorities” need to show the evidence, or stop their petty TERRORISM against these two people. Threatening to prosecute someone with completely outlandish, grievous charges is no less terrorism than threatening to kidnap them at gunpoint! The cops have guns, and will kill you if you seriously resist their efforts at arrest and imprisonment. Even if it’s for false reasons – just like a terrorist would.

    The authorities need to make at least “reasonably” sure they have legitamate charges, or they are no better than a common terrorist abusing the power of the gun.
12. 

    Anonymous

    June 28, 2005 at 8:59 pm

    I lived with Andrew Cook for several years and I believe he is capable of doing much worse than euthanizing animals. Those who think that Hinkle is solely responsible don’t have complete knowledge of what Andrew is capable of.
13. 

    Bigone

    June 29, 2005 at 1:43 am

    On June 28, an “Anonymous” person wrote:

    “I lived with Andrew Cook for several years and I believe he is capable of doing much worse than euthanizing animals. Those who think that Hinkle is solely responsible don’t have complete knowledge of what Andrew is capable of.”

    If either of the “accused” are capable of doing cruel things to animals, there is yet no evidence presented that they have done anything other than “euthanize” those animals.

    And it would not surprise me to find that a man rather than a woman would be more likely capable of doing cruel things to animals. Though I can’t even begin to count the number of females that I have met (over my 54 years), who find it funny or entertaining to torture (or watch the torture of), some creature that they do not like. It’s amazing how many women will admit to this if they are reasonably certain that they will not be “condemned” for admitting it.

    I would be curious to know what Andrew Cook has done to animals that could be defined as cruel? I, personally, don’t find humane methods of euthanization to fall under an “ordinary, reasonable” definition of “cruel.” The reason’s for euthanization have no reasonable bearing on whether the euthanization method is cruel.

    Just as an afterthought; I have also noticed that it is often those who are the most vocal and “outraged” by something (like animal cruelty), that are the most “fascinated” and “thrilled” by that which they loudly condemn. Very few people are ever “completely” above suspicion.
14. 

    Brad

    June 29, 2005 at 9:13 am

    If either of the “accused” are capable of doing cruel things to animals, there is yet no evidence presented that they have done anything other than “euthanize” those animals.

    They were caught red handed illegally disposing of the bodies in a dumpster. The evidence is so overwhelming PETA has bought a full page ad in the paper to apologize.

    I know Andy Cook. He lived with me for a while when he first moved to Virginia Beach. Nice enough guy. I truly believe he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if he went on more than one trip he is guilty. I don’t know about you, but if my job included killing 30+ animals and then throwing them in a dumpster I would look for another job, quickly. I was actually surprised to hear he worked for PETA. Everyone in Hampton Roads knows they are a bunch of crackpots. (People Embarrassing the Tidewater Area)

    When most of the area ran for higher ground during the hurricane of 2003, Andy stayed at the shelter, CARING for the pets that were left behind. Please, innocent until proven guilty!

    No one ran for higher ground during the hurricane of 2003. Andy went to work and fed the animals. So technically he was CARING for them.
15. 

    Shaky

    June 29, 2005 at 10:14 am

    Did someone say there was a Chinese Buffet at said Shopping Center ?

    I have no doubt these two aren’t the types who would engage in any “cruelty to animals”. Yeah yeah luvey duvey puppy dog kitty cakes. Whatever.

    YOU DON’T THROW PILES OF DEAD ANIMALS IN A FRIGGIN’ DUMPSTER. BECAUSE, HELLO.
16. 

    eatmeat

    June 29, 2005 at 10:34 am

    “31 counts of felony animal cruelty!!” Give me a #@*%ing break! The “authorities” need to show the evidence, or stop their petty TERRORISM against these two people. Threatening to prosecute someone with completely outlandish, grievous charges is no less terrorism than threatening to kidnap them at gunpoint! The cops have guns, and will kill you if you seriously resist their efforts at arrest and imprisonment. Even if it’s for false reasons – just like a terrorist would.

    The authorities need to make at least “reasonably” sure they have legitamate charges, or they are no better than a common terrorist abusing the power of the gun.

    This cracks me up. Someone get BIGONE back on his meds.
    Can you say – stake out?
    Can you say – caught in the act?
    Can you say – Kerry supporter?

    Run chicken little – run.
17. 

    Bigone

    June 29, 2005 at 6:55 pm

    Regarding “eatmeat’s,” last “message.” I think it’s more than clear to anyone who even puts a small effort into thinking about what they read, that my point was; The two accused PETA members are NOT GUILTY OF CRUELTY to animals for MERELY DUMPING ANIMAL REMAINS IN A DUMPSTER (illegally or otherwise), or FOR MERELY EUTHANIZING THEM IF DONE IN A LEGALLY PRESCRIBED HUMANE MANNER. And as I clearly stated in a previous post; even if there is a law against dumping the animals the way they did, it’s no different than a store dumping any other kind of meat that has spoiled.

    I still don’t see any justification for charging these two with any “felony.” Disposing of the animal remains in an illegal manner would NOT be a felony, and certainly would not be “felony cruelty” to animals.

    And once again, if police agencies bring extreme charges against suspects (charges that are seriously void of credibility), then they are CLEARLY doing so to TERRORIZE the suspects. And the last time I looked in the dictionary, TERRORISTS are people who TERRORIZE others. The police are the ones with the guns, and you had better be afraid of their power, or they can (and WILL), kill you if you seriously resist.

    And even though the policing agencies are more frequently JUSTIFIED in using their power to subdue a resisting suspect (at least in this country), there are far too many times when they use that power as a tool to terrorize those whom they dislike or disagree with.

    And “eatmeat”; most people find it very self-demeaning to resort personal attacks when attempting to discuss something in an intelligent manner. It reflects poorly on the credibility of their opinion.
18. 

    DieKitty Die

    June 30, 2005 at 1:18 pm

    You really are a Bigone, huh? So the police find all these dead animals in the van, and they are supposed to think that these 2 morons euthanized them humanely? What a complete idiot you are to think the cops should say “we found these 31 dead animals, but they were killed humanely, so we won’t charge you with that”. That is the real stupidity. That’s like finding a guy holding a smoking gun standing over a dead body, claiming he didn’t do it. The police have to assume, based on facts at the scene of the crime, that since these two people were illegally dumping the animals, then more than likely, they killed the animals. Its basic police work, Bigone. It is not up to the police to decide guilt or innocence, that is up to our court system. So Bigone, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, maybe you should learn a little something about how our system works before you you rattle of idiotic ideas.
19. 

    eatmeat

    June 30, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    Regarding “BIGONE’S” (aka Chicken Little)last “message”. Sorry if I offended you. I didnt mean to personally attack you. After reading your post it became painfully obvious how unbalanced you are.

    “31 counts of felony animal cruelty!!” Give me a #@*%ing break! The “authorities” need to show the evidence, or stop their petty TERRORISM against these two people. Threatening to prosecute someone with completely outlandish, grievous charges is no less terrorism than threatening to kidnap them at gunpoint! The cops have guns, and will kill you if you seriously resist their efforts at arrest and imprisonment. Even if it’s for false reasons – just like a terrorist would.

    What has caused you to become so unhinged? Has someone been trampling on your civil rights? I get the feeling you wish someone would so you could get on CNN. After a short but profitable jaunt on the daytime talkshow circut you could write a book about how our country is turning into Nazi Germany and big brother is creeping up from behind.

    And once again, if police agencies bring extreme charges against suspects (charges that are seriously void of credibility), then they are CLEARLY doing so to TERRORIZE the suspects. And the last time I looked in the dictionary, TERRORISTS are people who TERRORIZE others. The police are the ones with the guns, and you had better be afraid of their power, or they can (and WILL), kill you if you seriously resist.

    I love your use of the word clearly. Were you there? Did you see the dead animals or the drugs they were using to kill them? How did you arrive at the conclusion the situation was so crystal clear? If I caught two people dumping 30 dead animals illegally I would probably assume the worst case as well. You do know the cops were there because “someone” had been dumping dead animals for weeks, right?
    Hey here is an idea. If you are worried about the cops killing you, don’t resist. Didnt your mom and dad teach you to respect the law, as well as the officers whos job it is to enforce it? Maybe not.
    So anywho, sorry if I offended you or got your pink panties in a bunch. Please go on with your life thinking the MAN is after you, and the cops are trying to figure out how to get us all in jail. Hopefully one day you will wake up and see things are not as bad as you imagine they are.
20. 

    Bigone

    July 1, 2005 at 7:32 am

    Poor “eatmeat.” Though it seems like you would really like to present a credible, sensible argument, you simply can’t keep from destroying you credibility by desperately adhering to a rabid need to resort to personal insults. It’s as though your half-truths and blatant misrepresentations of what I posted, wasn’t degrading your credibility enough. How sad.

    And how well it betrays your own intellectual and emotional dysfunction, when confronted by reality and sense.

    Whether or not you’re apparent unstable and distorted perception of reality is threatened by the truths and reasonable statements that I made, is of little importance.

    What I said previously still stands unrebutted by any rational argument. As it should be. Though please, if you wish to concede that you were completely mistaken in your unwarranted attacks, do so by posting another response to this topic. And be sure to deny that you are “conceding” by doing this. Have a nice day.
21. 

    eatmeat

    July 1, 2005 at 9:22 am

    Smooch