Thoughts on Gary Francione’s HSUS Vegan Twitition

I'm going to carve a small chunk out of a Golden Calf of the animal rights world: Gary Francione. I'm already outside of his 'circle', so i'm not afraid to critique or challenge his ideas. Sadly, the reality is that if you want to remain on speaking terms with GF, you must also agree with him (at least to his face.) I know several people who have been ousted from GF's world (such as recently being blocked on Twitter) for uttering something as simple as 'i don't agree with all your ideas'. Whoops! No more GF Tweets for you!

I think it's funny that GF has a locked - aka hidden - Twitter account...despite the fact his followers re-tweet [repost] his every utterance. GF's Twitter account is here: http://twitter.com/garylfrancione - the message you're likely to get is: "This person has protected their tweets." Again: no Tweets for you too!

I suppose some of this is 2nd-hand knowledge, as i haven't bothered to request acceptance into the GF Twittersphere, but here's the Twitition, and it's apparently started by GF according to the page: http://twitition.com/cojar

The text, presumably from GF, says: "The promotion of cage-free eggs and supposedly more "humane" forms of animal torture is wrong. We ask that HSUS use a small portion of its considerable resources to promote a clear, explicit, and unambiguous "Go Vegan" campaign."

On the surface this seems like a good idea, right? We want more campaigns for veganism, right?

I think this is a not-so-secret make-work project for GF, who apparently doesn't have enough to critique already. Allow me to explain:

In the Twitition statement, GF points out cage-free eggs and 'humane' animal products, two practices which HSUS supports and advocates for. True that. Hopefully this topic gets more discussion (which is perhaps a valid use for a model like an online petition, although I generally believe them to be useless..please tell me about an online petition that has resulted in some real change...)

HSUS also advocates killing healthy and adoptable cats and dogs in shelters (rather than ensuring they find homes.) They're also advocates (and founders?) of the 'Canadian Seafood Boycott', part of their Seal Hunt campaign. Apparently it's okay to leverage one animal species over another...not to mention that sea life from other country's waters are okay to consume. (And the term 'seafood' is offensive as well, implying that these animals are 'food'.)

These are just a few examples of the quality of 'animal advocacy' that HSUS perpetuates. It's really quite abysmal. And GF wants HSUS to begin a vegan campaign?! Considering how poorly HSUS represents other aspects of animal advocacy, does this make any sense?

Has any thought been given to how HSUS would represent veganism? All we have to do is take a look at their buddies over at PETA to predict how this would unfold.

One example is PETA's section of 'Accidently Vegan' food products. They highlight a significant proportion of junk foods that are 'accidently vegan' - almost all are from multi-national companies that profit from exploiting massive numbers of animals. And further, there's a footnote on the front page that indicates:

"*Items listed may contain trace amounts of animal-derived ingredients."

Gaaaah.. So items aren't necessarily vegan at all, but being offered as vegan fare.

There's no need to critique PETA further at this point (just scroll down to previous entries of my thoughts on PETA), but you can be assured that this type of listing would appear on an HSUS site, and offered as vegan food options. (For a further critique of PETA's list, check this blog: http://my-face-is-on-fire.blogspot.com/2010/01/oreos-where-petas-got-it-wrong.html)

If HSUS started this campaign, we would undoubtedly see them present veganism as an anti-factory-farming movement - not unlike Vegan[sic] Outreach. (When factory farms are gone, we can eat animal products again?)

It’s safe to say their campaign would see veganism reduced to a diet. And to assist in the 'transition', i would be willing to bet the left hemisphere of my brain that they would encourage lacto-ovo-vegans. No joke.

This is the quality of advocacy that we *know* we can expect from HSUS. This is no surprise. And already there are too many groups that misrepresent veganism, and degrade the meaning.

Why on earth would Gary Francione want to encourage yet ANOTHER group to join the ranks of those already mis-representing veganism?? There are too many doing this as it is! So very few promote veganism in a meaningful, honest way. And HSUS is anything but meaningful and honest when it comes to animal advocacy (check this piece about their requests for money to help animals in Haiti: http://www.anairhoads.org/animal/ASPCAlied.shtml ). I do NOT want to see them present their version of veganism...and it would be spread far and wide, considering their influence and money. This might actually be one of the WORST things that could befall veganism.

Is it possible for people 'unsign' from a Twitition? (I’m not going to sign it to find out!) At the posting of this, there were 618 people who signed it...

While GF has many good ideas, not all of them can be, or are. PETA and GF are similar in one respect: they both encourage us to question authority. Well, so long as it's not their authority.

If you do, PETA sends you a form letter. GF deletes you from Twitter, or sends his stooges after you. To disagree with GF can be a death sentence, so to speak.

If enough people speak up (yes, risking expulsion from his camp), perhaps GF will realize he makes mistakes, and will even be willing to admit as much. This would be better for activism and the movement. And if you're an activist, it's time to activate. Tell GF this is a bad idea, that HSUS would only misrepresent veganism, and that the petition should be shut down immediately.

Discussion, as always, is welcome.

UPDATE

My name came up in a Google Alert on Francione's blog, the text from the message is:

 

=======

On Johnny Weir, Single-Issue Campaigns, Treatment, and ... By Gary L. Francione Perhaps that explains why FoA's David Shishkoff was opposing the “Go Vegan” approach that I urged HSUS to adopt. FoA tries to distance itself from HSUS and has done so historically. As I mentioned in the earlier essay, I have extended ... Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach - http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/

=======

 

Yet, the actual blog entry, as of 9am PST on Feb 1st is:

 

=======

Perhaps that explains why FoA was opposing the “Go Vegan” approach that I urged HSUS to adopt. FoA may have been trying to avoid becoming “HSUS lite” [...]

=======

 

Has FoA been vocal on this issue? Any references there Gary, or when you type something we're expected to take it at face value? In case it isn't clear from the lack of my mention of FoA, this blog is my own independent project. When i comment on behalf of Friends of Animals, i'll sign my name with my FoA credentials (which i clearly haven't done here.)

 

Further, why did GF edit his blog and not post that corrections or updates were made? In other words, it could change from day-to-day, and no one would ever know. He can implicate someone, make accusations, and then simply edit it out once confronted..or make false claims, then simply pretend they never existed. Oddly, he's made the wrong edit here, and should be challenging me directly, not Friends of Animals, who's opinion on the issue i'm unaware of - although i would suspect it parallels my own.

Winograd: Taking Back Our Movement

Another excellent posting from Nathan Winograd, a no-kill advocate from California, who has unbelievable had to fight tooth and nail with the likes of PETA to establish no-kill shelters - as PETA has the backwards idea that 'animal rights' for cats and dogs is the right to be systematically murdered by humans.

According to this blog entry, a whopping 17 out of 1,997 cats and dogs were adopted out in 2008. That's a 0.8% success rate. Less than one percent. I think a dog has a great chance of surviving multiple lightening strikes than getting adopted out by PETA.

Enough from me, read on - by the end, join me in telling PETA and their supporters these famous words: I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!

Taking Back Our Movement

PETA is once again on the attack against ending the killing of dogs and cats in shelters and pounds. PETA functionaries like Daphna Nachminovitch and Teresa Chagrin continue to give voice to Ingrid Newkirk’s dark impulses by writing letters to the editors of newspapers, asking supporters to call their city councils, and putting out misleading and false propaganda in communities that have announced plans to lower shelter death rates by hiring compassionate animal control directors, passing shelter reform legislation, seeking No Kill goals, or implementing programs like TNR for feral cats.

Every time a community questions its shelter rate of killing and makes a decision to do something to reduce it in a manner consistent with the No Kill philosophy and the programs which make it possible, PETA goes on the offensive. In Pittsburgh, they called for the City to continue killing feral cats, rather than neutering and releasing them. In King County (WA), they sent robo-calls to supporters asking them to condemn the effort to save 85% of animals in the shelter. In Indianapolis, they questioned the hiring of an animal control director who wants to reduce the death rate by 75%. In Houston, they condemned a review of shelter operations with an eye to increasing lifesaving. In Tompkins County (NY), they attacked innovative strategies to save lives during peak intake periods. And in Charlottesville, they sided with fired employees (who killed animals that rescue groups were willing to save and one of which had a history of cruelty to animals) against a director who pledged to end unnecessary killing. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If a public official so much as questions whether there is something to learn from the No Kill philosophy and whether it might help reduce staggering levels of killing in their community, PETA goes on the offensive chanting kill, kill, kill.

Not surprisingly, PETA itself continues to put to death over 90% of animals they take in (in 2007, they adopted out a paltry 12 of 3,043 animals and in 2008, only 17 of 1,997 were placed in homes). But not content with passively killing animals brought to them as most shelters do, PETA maintains death squads of functionaries who actively seek animals out in order to kill them, as they did in Virginia and North Carolina, which resulted in police involvement for illegally dumping dead animals in supermarket trash bins. (As a "shelter" with the authority to kill, PETA staff was acquitted of animal cruelty charges.)

And what does our movement and our movement’s "leaders" do about it?

Instead of shunning them, the Humane Society of the United States invites PETA to speak at their national conference in a workshop equating No Kill with hoarding.

Instead of condemning them, the Animal Rights Conference inducts Ingrid Newkirk—the architect of its kill policies, and a killer of dogs and cats herself—into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame.

In fact, few national animal welfare or animal rights groups have stood up for the animals by opposing Newkirk or PETA, with notable and rare exceptions—Animal People, Friends of Animals, Alley Cat Allies, and the No Kill Advocacy Center.

How can animal rights/welfare groups expect the public to embrace their goals when the actions of their so-called "leaders" act in ways which are in direct violation of the principles they claim to espouse?

It is time for all animal welfare and animal rights organizations to stand up against PETA's hypocritical, unethical, pernicious, and abhorrent actions. It is time to publicly condemn PETA's policies that allow animals like that poor sweet dog above, to be given an overdose of poison from a bottle marked "Fatal-plus" and then dumped into a garbage bin like nothing more than yesterday's trash—killed despite readily available, proven, life-saving alternatives they simply REFUSE to implement.

PETA's actions are not compassionate. They are not kind. They do not promote the welfare of animals. This isn't a position consistent with a belief in animal rights.

What kind of movement tolerates the serial killing of those they are supposed to protect by the movement's very leaders and groups?

What kind of movement doesn't declare that those they are pledged to protect have a right to live?

What kind of movement inducts unapologetic killers and promoters of a view antithetical to their own core values into their hall of fame?

What kind of movement invites workshops which undermine its goals at their national conferences?

We must not let cowardice keep us from standing up to those who harm animals and hold back progress—just because they claim (falsely) to be part of our movement. We must not let complicity through silence continue to cost innocent animals their lives. And we must certainly not reward them through speaking engagements at national conferences or induction into a hall of fame.

It is time to take our movement back. Back from PETA which defends, promotes and even practices the antithesis of what they are supposed to represent. Which keeps our movement shrouded in the worst kind of darkness. And which kills animals unapologetically, opposes lifesaving alternatives, and does both with a fervor that can only be described one way. It is time to call evil by its name.

Posted by Nathan J. Winograd

UVic Martlet: Campus food outlets recognized for veggie-friendly practices

I had a quick Facebook interview with Kailey Willetts from the University of Victoria weekly newspaper the Martlet, as PETA had awarded UVic 2nd Place in their 'awards' for vegetarian-friendly campuses. Luckily, this turned into an informative article, rather than some skimpy fluff piece that typically results.

I'm guessing for 2009, UVic won't be included, after PETA's effort to highlight and promote themselves backfires in this instance. ;)

- Dave

Campus food outlets recognized for veggie-friendly practices
Nov 19, 2008 02:23 PM Kailey Willetts

If you head to Village Greens for lunch today, you'll find vegetarian fajitas on the menu. Or, if noodles are more your thing, you can opt for a stir-fry with tofu.

It's because of options like these that UVic scored second in Canada in the "Most Vegetarian-Friendly Universities List" from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals youth division (PETA2).

The competition focused particularly on vegan options, and praised UVic for its vegan lasagna, curried faux chicken and potatoes stuffed with chili and soy cheese. Winners were chosen based on their dining options, student nominations and votes.

Last year, UVic achieved fourth place overall.

With this year's second-place finish, UVic beat out nominees Simon Fraser University and the University of B.C., coming second to Mount Allison Univesity in New Brunswick.

According to PETA2, more students are becoming vegetarians or vegans because, on average, they are fitter than meat eaters. Eating animal products has also been linked to heart attacks, diabetes and other diseases, according to the group, which believes becoming a vegan is the best way to end animal suffering and protect the environment.

Dave Shishkoff, director of the UVic Vegan Association, says UVic is a good school to be a vegan at, and he's impressed with the venues offered on campus, like ones in the Student Union Building.

"The SUB apparently labels foods very well, and places like [Finnerty's] have vegan brownies, cookies and muffins, sushi and frozen burritos," Shishkoff wrote in an email interview. "Plus, our annual Vegan Thanksgiving Potluck is by far the most delicious Thanksgiving event in the city."

However, Shishkoff said the vegan message shouldn't be confused with the vegetarian one.

"Sadly, groups like PETA, Vegan Outreach and many others have completely ignored this, and are effectively 'dumbing down' veganism to what vegetarianism now stands for - which is nothing," Shishkoff said. "How many fish and chicken eating 'vegetarians' do you know?"

Shishkoff says that while UVic may be vegan-friendly, the message is meaningless coming from PETA.

However, he sees that the upside of the PETA competition is that it may encourage more vegan students to consider coming to UVic. Shishkoff believes it's important to have more active vegans on campus.

"I think a more useful campaign would be to assist vegans at colleges and universities in [promoting] veganism," he said.

For Shishkoff, being a vegan isn't a dietary or lifestyle choice, but a philosophy of "peace and respect, that argues that we shouldn't be exploiting other animals." He made the choice to become vegan 18 years ago, because it made sense.

"There was no reason for me to consume animal products. There's no physiological need, or requirement for anything that comes from an animal," said Shishkoff. "Other animals deserve respect and consideration as well ...should it really be a misfortune to simply not have been born in a human body?"

Shishkoff says being a vegan is very doable - it just takes a little education about alternatives. He also says it's more difficult dealing with social situations, but that people who take themselves seriously will encourage other people to as well - that they'll respect the "anti-speciesist" as they would an anti-racist or anti-sexist.

For more information about PETA2, visit their website at www.peta2.com.

For information about the UVic Vegan Association, visit their Facebook group: "UVic Vegan Association."

Irish Group NARA Opposes PETA Publicly

Below is another release from the group National Animal Rights Association, from Dublin, Ireland. So great to see them pushing aside common and popular notions, and thinking more deeply about these issues. They're right on with this, and that PETA has absolutely nothing to do with animal rights, confusing those who are interested in serious ideas..and of course they sully the name of animal rights.

Hopefully NARA will look more deeply into the issues; I wonder if they'd find that other groups that they link to, such as Vegan Outreach, to also be conflicting and problematic, and of even more concern, groups like SHAC and the ALF, who rely on threats, intimidation and violence in their attempts to be heard. If veganism and animal rights are a part of the peace movement, with respect and consideration being at the heart of these, perhaps these methods are opposite of our intended goals as well...

***Press Release***
Misrepresenting Animal Rights: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Although Irish organisations and individuals have sought to care for nonhuman animals for many years, animal rights advocacy ~informed by rights-based theory~ is a very recent development in Ireland. Grassroots animal rights advocates in Ireland intend to defend animal rights from the threat of neo-welfarism.

The Literary and Historical Society at UCD are hosting a debate next Wednesday (24th) entitled "The Animal Rights Debate", featuring Mr. Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). We believe that Mr. Friedrich will be contacting the media in Ireland to publicise this event and PeTA in general. He will characterise himself as an animal rights advocate even though he and his employers reject and marginalise animal rights theory. We, the grassroots animal advocates of Ireland, we who take rights, animal rights, and animal rights philosophy seriously, are furious about PeTA's distortion of animal rights, and we want no part in it. PeTA is not an animal rights group even though it claims to be (it claims to be the largest AR organisation in the world). This is misleading: PeTA do not promote animal rights beyond using the term as a rhetorical label and they purposely act against animal rights philosophy.

PeTA are inspired and influenced by animal welfare ethicist Peter Singer (author of the famous non-rights text, Animal Liberation).[1]

PeTA promotes NO animal rights philosophy on their web sites, eg: http://www.peta.org/

"Animal Rights" to PeTA is just a slogan – they are not interested in the philosophy of animals rights and they never promote or mention AR philosophers such as Gary Francione [ http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?page_id=52 ] and Tom Regan [ http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/animalrights/about.html ].

Instead, they deliberately misname Singer as an animal rights advocate (see "why Animal Rights?" http://www.peta.org / – the 'learn more' tag links to Animal Liberation, a utilitarian text by a leading utilitarian philosopher. Animal rights is based on deontological ethics).

Laura Broxson, spokesperson of Dublin-based National Animal Rights Association, said: "We are just beginning to make a mark for animal rights in Ireland. The last thing we need is for people to believe that PeTA's childish stunts [2] and sexist campaigning [3] have anything to do with genuine animal rights campaigning. PeTA cheapen and trivialise animal rights. The message from Ireland: we don't want PeTA's silliness".

Speaking about NARA's philosophy, Laura Broxson said: "We say clearly and openly on our web site that we are opposed to rights violations. Animal rights is more than reducing suffering. It is a vegan position on human-animal relations that says we humans should not use nonhuman animals but respect them as a matter of justice. We at NARA feel we are making headway with our rights-based campaigns and the Irish public are beginning to understand that animal rightists believe that nonhuman animals are rights bearers who rights are frequently and routinely violated. We also would never engage in sexist campaigning like PeTA do".

Asked to comment, Dr. Roger Yates, sociologist and social movement theorist at UCD, said: "It probably would be a serious blow to rights advocates in Ireland if PeTA muddy the waters here with their rhetorical version of animals rights. From the perspective of effective advocacy, it seems logical that it is best for animal rights to be represented by those genuinely committed to rights-based philosophies about human-nonhuman relations. I doubt that Irish animal rights advocates will think that gassing millions of chickens, PeTA's latest 'victory' in Canada in partnership with KFC, has anything to do with animal rights. It is far from certain that such initiatives have much to do even with animal welfare".

"There has been a long standing belief within the animal protection community, at least among animal advocates in the USA and Britain, that animal rights and animal welfare are compatible ideas about the use and treatment of other animals. However, there is growing evidence supporting the contention that traditional animal welfarism and its newer formulations ('new welfarism' - represented by organisations such as PeTA) are antithetical to the aspirations of animal rights advocates", he added.

Contact:

Laura Broxson, spokesperson for NARA – 086 8729 444
Roger Yates (UCD) – 01 716 8586 [mobile 0863912018]

Notes.

[1] Ingrid Newkirk, president of PeTA, endorsed Peter Singer's 2006 collection, In Defense of Animals: The second wave (Blackwell), thus: 'Peter Singer's writings changed my life. I have waited for this book a long time, a quarter of a century in fact...'

[2] http://www.thestar.com/article/497890 http://blog.peta.org/archives/2008/09/here_comes_the.php

[3] http://www.peta.org/feat/abc-striptease/index.asp http://billsnyder.vox.com/library/video/6a00c2251f31f3f21900cd970fc4d04cd5.html

Related Link: http://www.naracampaigns.org

Irish Group Says No to PETA

I came across this inspiring posting on an Anti-PETA group on Facebook. I'm simply going to reproduce it in its entirety:

Misrepresenting Animal Rights: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA).

Although Irish organisations and individuals have sought to care for nonhuman animals for many years, animal rights advocacy ~informed by rights-based theory~ is a very recent development in Ireland. Grassroots animal rights advocates in Ireland intend to defend animal rights from the threat of neo-welfarism.

The Literary and Historical Society at UCD are hosting a debate next Wednesday (24th) entitled "The Animal Rights Debate", featuring Mr. Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA). We believe that Mr. Friedrich will be contacting the media in Ireland to publicise this event and PeTA in general. He will characterise himself as an animal rights advocate even though he and his employers reject and marginalise animal rights theory.

We, the grassroots animal advocates of Ireland, we who take rights, animal rights, and animal rights philosophy seriously, are furious about PeTA's distortion of animal rights, and we want no part in it. PeTA is not an animal rights group even though it claims to be (it claims to be the largest AR organisation in the world). This is misleading: PeTA do not promote animal rights beyond using the term as a rhetorical label and they purposely act against animal rights philosophy.

PeTA are inspired and influenced by animal welfare ethicist Peter Singer (author of the famous non-rights text, Animal Liberation).[1]

PeTA promotes NO animal rights philosophy on their web sites, eg:
http://www.peta.org/

"Animal Rights" to PeTA is just a slogan – they are not interested in the philosophy of animals rights and they never promote or mention AR philosophers such as Gary Francione [http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?page_id=52] and Tom Regan [http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/ animalrights/about.html].

Instead, they deliberately misname Singer as an animal rights advocate (see "why Animal Rights?" http://www.peta.org / – the 'learn more' tag links to Animal Liberation, a utilitarian text by a leading utilitarian philosopher. Animal rights is based on deontological ethics).

Laura Broxson, spokesperson of Dublin-based National Animal Rights Association, said: "We are just beginning to make a mark for animal rights in Ireland. The last thing we need is for people to believe that PeTA's childish stunts [2] and sexist campaigning [3] have anything to do with genuine animal rights campaigning. PeTA cheapen and trivialise animal rights. The message from Ireland: we don't want PeTA's silliness".

Speaking about NARA's philosophy, Laura Broxson said: "We say clearly and openly on our web site that we are opposed to rights violations. Animal rights is more than reducing suffering. It is a vegan position on human-animal relations that says we humans should not use nonhuman animals but respect them as a matter of justice. We at NARA feel we are making headway with our rights-based campaigns and the Irish public are beginning to understand that animal rightists believe that nonhuman animals are rights bearers who rights are frequently and routinely violated. We also would never engage in sexist campaigning like PeTA do".

Asked to comment, Dr. Roger Yates, sociologist and social movement theorist at UCD, said: "It probably would be a serious blow to rights advocates in Ireland if PeTA muddy the waters here with their rhetorical version of animals rights. From the perspective of effective advocacy, it seems logical that it is best for animal rights to be represented by those genuinely committed to rights-based philosophies about human-nonhuman relations. I doubt that Irish animal rights advocates will think that gassing millions of chickens, PeTA's latest 'victory' in Canada in partnership with KFC, has anything to do with animal rights. It is far from certain that such initiatives have much to do even with animal welfare".

"There has been a long standing belief within the animal protection community, at least among animal advocates in the USA and Britain, that animal rights and animal welfare are compatible ideas about the use and treatment of other animals. However, there is growing evidence supporting the contention that traditional animal welfarism and its newer formulations ('new welfarism' - represented by organisations such as PeTA) are antithetical to the aspirations of animal rights advocates", he added.

Contact:
Laura Broxson, spokesperson for NARA – 086 8729 444
Roger Yates (UCD)
– 01 716 8586 [mobile 0863912018]

Notes.
[1] Ingrid Newkirk, president of PeTA, endorsed Peter Singer's 2006 collection, In Defense of Animals: The second wave (Blackwell), thus: 'Peter Singer's writings changed my life. I have waited for this book a long time, a quarter of a century in fact...'
[2]
http://www.thestar.com/article/497890
http://blog.peta.org/archives/ 2008/09/here_comes_the.php
[3]
http://www.peta.org/feat/abc-striptease/index.asp
http://billsnyder.vox.com/library/video/ 6a00c2251f31f3f21900cd970fc4d0 4cd5.html

PETA-Style Animal Rights -- Kill the Rabbits in Kelowna!

Welcome to my new blog. Let's get on with it!

From a story here, about the rabbit killings in Kelowna, BC (Canada). Kristian DeJournett, PETA cruelty case worker is quoted as saying:

"[...]we understand that sometimes animals do have to be euthanized"

This is typical rhetoric from PETA. They bob their heads and idiotically refer to themselves as an 'animal rights' group.

What kind of rights are they advocating? The right for these animals to be killed by humans?

Activists in the area are working desperately to stop the killing of these rabbits. (I've emailed one group in the area, who tells me that PETA contacted NO ONE there. They just write up their media release, and send it out without making any contact. Nice. This isn't at all uncommon either, PETA is infamous for just stomping into areas blindly and doing whatever it is they want to do with little consideration for the local activist community.)

And here is PETA, completely undermining the efforts of these activists, and worst of all: JUSTIFYING the killing of these rabbits!!

And to call it 'euthanasia'? Look it up -- you cannot euthanize a healthy animal. It is an act reserved for the terminally ill. The rabbits were getting along fine. PETA is advocating the KILLING these rabbits, if one wants to utilize accurate vernacular. Someone ought to write to PETA and get them to brush up on their reading comprehension skills.

All the best to the groups in Kelowna who are working to save these rabbits..