There was a recent post here about the craziness of PETA and ASPCA, so I thought I'd post this here. Only somewhat zoo related.

The Penn & Teller: Bullshit episode on PETA is excellent for a basic primer in how screwy they are. My favorite thing is, at the end, they look into their tax returns and find that they purchased industrial size freezers which are generally used for two purposes: storing meat (unlikely, given their vegan population) and storing cadavers. Creepy stuff.

I dislike TYT more than PETA. I'd recommend OP starts watching something less obnoxious. PETA does no understand that the differences between humans and non-human animals, while not enough to justify killing them for food willy nilly, is enough to justify regulated ownership. What I mean by regulated ownership is that your pet is your property but you can not abuse it like any regular inanimate object.

I have a very strong distaste for TYT and PETA.

[removed]

The Young Turks as terrible as ever.

I mean I do have to give them some credit that they actually did some minimum amount of research into what actually happened, but the presentation kills it again.

They weren't "allegedly" asked and the stray dogs weren't "supposedly" dangerous.

Easily found on snopes there's a full quote by Accomack County’s commonwealth’s attorney Gary Agar:

The facts appear be that PETA was asked to help when an adjacent landowner reported that they should see how his cow with her udders ripped up from abandoned and stray dogs in the trailer park area amounted to a menace not to be tolerated. He complained to PETA that the abandoned and stray dogs attacked his livestock, injured his milking cow, killed his goat and terrorized his rabbits. Abandoned and/or stray dogs and cats have appeared to have been considerable in what is known as Dreamland 2. PETA responded and the trailer park management encouraged their efforts in an attempt to gather stray/abandoned cats and dogs. Additionally the leases provided that no dogs were allowed to run free in the trailer park.

Approximately three weeks before Mr. Cerate’s dog [Maya] was taken by the women associated with PETA, Mr. Cerate asked if they would put traps under his trailer to catch some of the wild cats that were in the trailer park, and traps were provided to him as requested. Additionally, parties associated with PETA provided Mr. Cerate with a dog house for two other dogs that were tethered outside of Mr. Cerate’s home.

On or about October 18 a van that was operated by the ladies associated with PETA arrived the at the trailer park. The van was clearly marked PETA and in broad daylight arrived gathering up what abandoned stray dogs and cats could be gathered. Among the animals gathered was the Chihuahua of Mr. Cerate. Unfortunately the Chihuahua wore no collar, no license, no rabies tag, nothing whatsoever to indicate the dog was other than a stray or abandoned dog. It was not tethered nor was it contained. Other animals were also gathered. Individuals living in the trailer park were present and the entire episode was without confrontation. Mr. Cerate was not at home and the dog was loose, sometimes entering the shed/porch or other times outside in the trailer park before he was put in the van and carried from the park. The dogs owned by Mr. Cerate that were tethered were not taken.

Whether one favors or disfavors PETA has little to do with the decision of criminality. The issue is whether there is evidence that the two people when taking the dog believed they were taking the dog of another or whether they were taking an abandoned and/or stray animal. There have been no complaints on the other animals taken on that same day, and, like the Chihuahua, [they] had no collar or tag. From the request of the neighboring livestock owner and the endorsement by the trailer park owner/manager the decision as to the existence of criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt must be made by the prosecutor. More clearly stated, with the evidence that is available to the Commonwealth, it is just as likely that the two women believed they were gathering abandoned and/or stray animals rather than stealing the property of another. Indeed, it is more probable under this evidence that the two women associated with PETA that day believed they were gathering animals that posed health and/or livestock threat in the trailer park and adjacent community. Without evidence supporting the requisite criminal intent, no criminal prosecution can occur.

These are just the facts. The statement of the guy

Zarate had alleged that PETA operates under a broad policy of euthanizing animals, including healthy ones, because it “considers pet ownership to be a form of involuntary bondage.”

just makes no sense and its only purpose is to confuse people into these kind of bullshit arguments like exactly the one the hosts of this show start DIRECTLY after the woman clarifies that it's the claim of the guy suing - and the obnoxious guy ends up saying "even if PETA is worried about the bondage". First, what a weird choice of words. Second, PETA is obviously not worried about it, at this time. That's why they heavily advertise to people to adopt animals from shelters, hold adoption rallies, provide free stuff for pets some of which even the guy who sued here has taken, and generally provide services to help people keep their pets instead of abandoning them. If they were all about taking pets from people because they disagreed with pet ownership, then why did they only take the one dog who was not recognizable as being a pet of the guy and not the two others who were recognizable as belonging to someone?

I get it, having an animal taken from you by mistake is still a terrible mistake. But the amount of bullshit reactions this story generates in people is just unbelievable.

The PETA workers undeniably didn't follow the rules for waiting 5 days and that was wrong. Less clear is the policy of euthanizing the strays. Were they really dangerous? I don't know. Could they have been rehabilitated? I don't know. For rehabilitating how many stray dogs would PETA have the resources, without compromising the other work they do to help pets? I don't know. But I have a hard time believing the people who would join an organization like PETA would jump at the chance to kill animals. Wouldn't those people rather rescue all the animals they can and only euthanize them when they see no other way?

And then I still don't know whether is name is Cerate or Zarate. Are these different ways to transcribe his name to english?