Oreo&Amy
Well-Known Member
PETA were exposed for putting puppies and kittens to sleep…..
https://petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/
https://petakillsanimals.com/proof-peta-kills/
PETA kills puppies
- Thread starter Oreo&Amy
- Start date
MiJodsR2BlinkinTite
Well-Known Member
Actually......... I'm gonna come in against the grain here and say that there are a LOT of animal charities out there who try to "save" everything, and that isn't always the most humane thing to do.
The problem is that they are often afraid to euthanise because oh dear it's terribly sad but little Mary's pet pony isn't there any more when she comes to see it, and ohh that is soooh cruel that "they killed it". Instead of saying OK so the pony had laminitis, it had breathing problems, it was in constant pain because of mobility issues, and it was just plain old and ready to go for pity's sake, and the kindest thing to do was PTS.
I am aware of a charity that rescues dogs in Cyprus; and there are a lot of dogs out there having puppies who cannot find homes anywhere. They used to rehome to the UK much more than they do now - but because of COVID, the economy, fees involved in getting them out of Cyprus etc etc., these poor little pup's are likely to spend their lives in a Shelter. Yes realise it is unpalatable, but one cannot help feeling that there would be a kinder solution than to condemn them to living all their lives in a "captive" environment...........???
I'm also involved with a national Cat charity as a Fosterer - have personally had to be there when we've euthanised cats who test positive for FLV who've been brought in as ferals. We can only rehome cats with this disease if they never go outside, and it just isn't kind to do this with a feral, so if a feral cat comes in with this condition we have no alternative but to euthanase if it is obvious that it isn't going to settle to being in effect shut in for the rest of its life. No it isn't "nice", but what else can we do.
For once, I actually see where PETA are coming from.
The problem is that they are often afraid to euthanise because oh dear it's terribly sad but little Mary's pet pony isn't there any more when she comes to see it, and ohh that is soooh cruel that "they killed it". Instead of saying OK so the pony had laminitis, it had breathing problems, it was in constant pain because of mobility issues, and it was just plain old and ready to go for pity's sake, and the kindest thing to do was PTS.
I am aware of a charity that rescues dogs in Cyprus; and there are a lot of dogs out there having puppies who cannot find homes anywhere. They used to rehome to the UK much more than they do now - but because of COVID, the economy, fees involved in getting them out of Cyprus etc etc., these poor little pup's are likely to spend their lives in a Shelter. Yes realise it is unpalatable, but one cannot help feeling that there would be a kinder solution than to condemn them to living all their lives in a "captive" environment...........???
I'm also involved with a national Cat charity as a Fosterer - have personally had to be there when we've euthanised cats who test positive for FLV who've been brought in as ferals. We can only rehome cats with this disease if they never go outside, and it just isn't kind to do this with a feral, so if a feral cat comes in with this condition we have no alternative but to euthanase if it is obvious that it isn't going to settle to being in effect shut in for the rest of its life. No it isn't "nice", but what else can we do.
For once, I actually see where PETA are coming from.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
Totally agree.
smolmaus
Well-Known Member
Your post is absolutely logical and I agree with you MJR2BT.
But the "PETA kills animals" thing is more that they don't attempt to rehome the vast majority of animals that come into their care, healthy or not, and openly state that they are better off dead than being pets at all. Pets are slaves, they would be better dead than slaves etc etc etc its deeply weird and a fair enough thing to have a problem with. Not that I think we need a thread on it as its fairly common knowledge that PETA are weirdos.
But the "PETA kills animals" thing is more that they don't attempt to rehome the vast majority of animals that come into their care, healthy or not, and openly state that they are better off dead than being pets at all. Pets are slaves, they would be better dead than slaves etc etc etc its deeply weird and a fair enough thing to have a problem with. Not that I think we need a thread on it as its fairly common knowledge that PETA are weirdos.
Birker2020
Well-Known Member
This is why kill shelters exist, its so sad. But in the same way you can't put a pint in a half pint glass, you can't put 1000 dogs in a shelter designed for 800. Rubbish example but you get my point. Shelters are full to bursting so something needs to be done. I'm sure some of you have seen the video I put on here about how animals are disposed of in a kill shelter (WARNING DISTRESSING VIEWING) https://www.labroots.com/trending/plants-and-animals/3090/gas-chamber-euthanasia
Instead of killing animals more needs to be done to prevent unwanted animals in the first place by education, spaying and neutering programmes and adoption centres being built. Not just in Amercia, but in the UK where 17,000 healthy animals are pts every year due to lack of space.
https://vocalforpets.org/why-kill-shelters-exist/
Instead of killing animals more needs to be done to prevent unwanted animals in the first place by education, spaying and neutering programmes and adoption centres being built. Not just in Amercia, but in the UK where 17,000 healthy animals are pts every year due to lack of space.
https://vocalforpets.org/why-kill-shelters-exist/
Last edited:
Miss_Millie
Well-Known Member
If people stopped breeding animals indiscriminately then there wouldn't be rescues full to bursting having to put 1000's of cats, dogs etc to sleep every day. Blame the breeders and the people that buy animals from breeders, then dump them when they lose interest.
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I do wonder if keeping a dog in kennels for months and sometimes years, is,
a) in the dogs best interest, and b) cost effective
It's sad that some dogs are not suitable for family home, or live with other pets, that is not their fault, but there are not enough homes for them. If kennels is the only safe option for them, and they could live until they are fourteen.
Until my last two dogs I always rehomed from charities, first from the RSPCA, the last one came from Wood Green, but it has become so difficult to rehome, the only option is to buy, because although we live on a small holding, are at home all day, we are not the perfect home.
My last two contacts with the CPL, the first one the rehomer decided the cat was too good to live outside as a farm cat, so after two weeks of waiting I couldn't have it, and the second they dumped the cat on me because after neutering and removing its teeth, it was so stressed they could not keep it in the house, overnight. It arrived at 10pm at night, and had travelled fifty miles.
So we seem to be in a situation where shelters decrease their pool of homes, and so make a market for puppies, and at the same time are collecting and keeping more animals, which is just not sustainable.
Like the RSPCA, I would be more likely to support them if they enabled people to keep the animals they have with support, or euthanised the animals that were unsuitable for rehoming, and be just less judgemental generally. People make poor choices, but it doesn't mean they can be helped, or would reject help.
I would love to know the cost breakdown of admitting and rehoming a family pet from one of the larger charities, against if possible supporting that pet in the existing home.
a) in the dogs best interest, and b) cost effective
It's sad that some dogs are not suitable for family home, or live with other pets, that is not their fault, but there are not enough homes for them. If kennels is the only safe option for them, and they could live until they are fourteen.
Until my last two dogs I always rehomed from charities, first from the RSPCA, the last one came from Wood Green, but it has become so difficult to rehome, the only option is to buy, because although we live on a small holding, are at home all day, we are not the perfect home.
My last two contacts with the CPL, the first one the rehomer decided the cat was too good to live outside as a farm cat, so after two weeks of waiting I couldn't have it, and the second they dumped the cat on me because after neutering and removing its teeth, it was so stressed they could not keep it in the house, overnight. It arrived at 10pm at night, and had travelled fifty miles.
So we seem to be in a situation where shelters decrease their pool of homes, and so make a market for puppies, and at the same time are collecting and keeping more animals, which is just not sustainable.
Like the RSPCA, I would be more likely to support them if they enabled people to keep the animals they have with support, or euthanised the animals that were unsuitable for rehoming, and be just less judgemental generally. People make poor choices, but it doesn't mean they can be helped, or would reject help.
I would love to know the cost breakdown of admitting and rehoming a family pet from one of the larger charities, against if possible supporting that pet in the existing home.
Birker2020
Well-Known Member
There's two sides of the coin to this question.
I have pondered the same before especially when old dogs have been put in a rehoming centre due to an owners death with very little to no chance of being rehomed. Or maybe its a dog that has been seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act and are waiting to find out their fate, these cases can drag on for years with the dog imprisoned and receiving very little stimulation. How traumatic and deeply upsetting for them. But in the same way a new prisoner will become institutionalised, I assume the same is true of a dog or any animal and they get used to the new norm - I'm not saying this is a good thing btw.
We know that a cage with minimal stimulation for years on end in a rescue centre isn't good either mentally or physically for a dog, or any animal for that matter, but some do adjust and its their new life. Does this mean they are truly happy? Do they have to be rehomed in order to make them happy? You have to ask yourself is it just as detrimental then to rehome it if it has been in the same situation for years and that is all it has known. Will it not suffer huge stress and mental challenges and it gets to grips with life outside its cage? I know that when long term prisoners are released from prison they face similar challenges on the 'outside'. But they are prepared for this and are counselled but they still find it incredibly hard. Is a dog any different just because it 'lives in the day'?
I am not qualified in dog psychology to know if what I am saying is correct but this is how I feel about the situation personally that long term boarding at a rescue centre, or 'releasing a long termer' are both bad in their own ways.
Maybe in a way the euthanasia that happens in kill shelters are 'for the good of the dog' never mind taking into account the over crowding issue. I've seen plenty of cases of people on TV 'rescuing animals' and thus hoarding animals, these people who can't say no to people and are then inundated with too many animals and that becomes an unbearable situation for those animals that they are trying to help. One couple who were prolific hoarders had over 600 dogs in a privately owned shelter! Another 50 cats in one house. I just wish the kill shelters would euthanise in a more controlled, effective and humane manner.
Last edited:
SibeliusMB
Well-Known Member
This, a thousand times this. This isn't about an over population of animals and the reality that space is limited and some have to be PTS. This is about PeTA campaigning itself as a champion of animal rights, taking vast amounts of money under the promise of "saving animals," and then killing animals in large numbers behind closed doors without even attempting to rehome them. They don't want to rehome. See below.
I studied animal rights groups like PeTA at university and they are NOT about making animals' lives better. They are ultimately about eliminating the perceived slavery of animals to the human race. No companion animals (no pets!), service animals, working animals, animals for human consumption, anything. Any interim causes (ie. Racehorse reform, eliminating research animals, etc) they take on are just steps they take to reach their ultimate goal of no animals being exploited by humans ever again.
They're also terribly clever with marketing and earn millions every year from donations from well-meaning individuals (usually middle aged women with lots of house pets...) who aren't aware of their ultimate agenda. PeTA has been caught several times taking money for their shelters, which make very little effort to rehome, and kill most of the animals. It's fraudulent behavior, shady AF, and completely in line with their tactics. Horrible.
However, animal welfare is the movement that acknowledges the importance of the human/animal relationships and campaigns for improving animal husbandry and care practices to improve welfare standards. These animal welfare groups, shelters, etc are absolutely worth supporting.
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I hate the words 'kill shelters' because even if they are only held there for, in the old days it was fourteen days, they had an opportunity to be rehomed, like our own slightly mad collieX. I can imagine what it must be like for staff when the time comes, and they haven't got a home.
It is like termination of pregnancy, it may be the best solution when there are few choices,
It is like termination of pregnancy, it may be the best solution when there are few choices,
Birker2020
Well-Known Member
Yes if you have Netflix and its still available watch In the Dog House.
Two blokes rescuing dogs from kill shelters and rehoming them. Having to go and select dogs from these shelters and having to pick which ones they felt were suitable against those that they didn't feel would be rehomeable (based on colour of dogs and size). I couldn't do a job like that.
One of the clips showed them opening the door to one of the kennels in this particular kill shelter and there were two dogs, one was bigger than the other, but the two were quite clearly friends. He selected the one dog, it wasn't particuarly excited or happy to see him, the other one was clearly delighted for the company of a human and was licking him and wagging his tail like it was going to drop off. He selected the smaller dog, I was hoping the other one had also been chosen but when they next showed the clip of the dogs he selected, that dog wasn't present. I remember feeling sadness that it would have behind to die and only hoped its end was quick. In kill shelters I believe they are only held for 5 days.
Ratface
Well-Known Member
My animals have always stayed with me until the end of their lives. In all cases, I have, supported by trusted veterinary advice, been with them at the end.
I'm old (late seventies) now.
My horse is old, too. Both of us are in good physical health, if a little eccentric, mentally speaking. His safe ending is guaranteed by his breeder, with whom he is stabled.
My cat is a different matter. Having had cats all my life, I was surprised to be informed by my local RSPCA that I was unsuitable to have another of their rescue cats "because you live on a boat". That hadn't been a problem for the preceeding ten years when I had rehomed a FiV cat, who lived a further five years with me, and another cat with kidney damage who managed another five years.
So - a friend found me the imperious feline fiend I currently serve, who was a terrorised stray on an unpleasant local slum estate.
He's gradually becoming more confident and friendly, and his health has improved 100%. He's 13. He's not the easiest cat: he is somewhat wary of people and can be physically aggressive if he is not being handled in a tactful manner.
If I die before him, he's down to be looked after by Cat's Protection with a hefty dowry to smooth his path.
Perhaps I should specify that he should be pts if I die before him?
What do you think? I believe we will meet all our beloved animals again, so at we will all be safe and well together, forever.
I'm old (late seventies) now.
My horse is old, too. Both of us are in good physical health, if a little eccentric, mentally speaking. His safe ending is guaranteed by his breeder, with whom he is stabled.
My cat is a different matter. Having had cats all my life, I was surprised to be informed by my local RSPCA that I was unsuitable to have another of their rescue cats "because you live on a boat". That hadn't been a problem for the preceeding ten years when I had rehomed a FiV cat, who lived a further five years with me, and another cat with kidney damage who managed another five years.
So - a friend found me the imperious feline fiend I currently serve, who was a terrorised stray on an unpleasant local slum estate.
He's gradually becoming more confident and friendly, and his health has improved 100%. He's 13. He's not the easiest cat: he is somewhat wary of people and can be physically aggressive if he is not being handled in a tactful manner.
If I die before him, he's down to be looked after by Cat's Protection with a hefty dowry to smooth his path.
Perhaps I should specify that he should be pts if I die before him?
What do you think? I believe we will meet all our beloved animals again, so at we will all be safe and well together, forever.
Bob notacob
Well-Known Member
Hmmm.! Meeting my beloved animals again is ,to be quite honest ,going to end in an Irish draught style punch up. WHY IS HE WEARING MY SADDLE!,.... THATS MY BEST EXERCISE SHEET. You left it in my horsebox .Who,s horsebox !My rug just makes your arse look big ! And so it starts. St Peter intervenes and a chorus of voices shout ,"its all mikes fault". Ahhh says St peter , he,s not on my list ,so sort it out .
GSD Woman
Well-Known Member
Thanks for making me laugh. I can see variations of the same conversations with my animals.
PurBee
Well-Known Member
PETA = People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
How is killing 43 thousand animals, mostly within 24hrs of receiving them (illegal action btw), many in good health, over a 23yr period, amounting to 83% of the total intake of animals into their ‘shelter’, ethical?
This is blatant killing for the sake of it. They dont consider the animals needs at all - just pursuing an agenda to eradicate ‘pets’ from humanity.
Im shocked at these verified stats to be honest - i knew they were somewhat hard-lined but this info has completely altered my view of the organisation.
Im all for animal welfare - they dont even attempt to rehome the animals they ‘receive’ - many stolen/manipulated from owners to give-up their animals promising a better future, knowing full well they’ll pts within hours.
They were sued successfully for stealing a dog from someones porch and settled the lawsuit for 50k (they had porch cam as proof of the theft), but to rub salt in the wound, they returned to the owner with a fruit basket, to tell the owners their dog was dead. What is that but sociopathic deranged behaviour?
Ethical treatment is a handy marketing slogan for shady fascist mass killing with intent.
Animal welfare isnt being considered when pets are often times lured from unsuspecting owners by non animal lovers with the intent to kill them, spending their last hours likely frightened and concerned, and peta folks parading the streets looking for dumpsters to dispose of the euthanised bodies.
Sickening.
How is killing 43 thousand animals, mostly within 24hrs of receiving them (illegal action btw), many in good health, over a 23yr period, amounting to 83% of the total intake of animals into their ‘shelter’, ethical?
This is blatant killing for the sake of it. They dont consider the animals needs at all - just pursuing an agenda to eradicate ‘pets’ from humanity.
Im shocked at these verified stats to be honest - i knew they were somewhat hard-lined but this info has completely altered my view of the organisation.
Im all for animal welfare - they dont even attempt to rehome the animals they ‘receive’ - many stolen/manipulated from owners to give-up their animals promising a better future, knowing full well they’ll pts within hours.
They were sued successfully for stealing a dog from someones porch and settled the lawsuit for 50k (they had porch cam as proof of the theft), but to rub salt in the wound, they returned to the owner with a fruit basket, to tell the owners their dog was dead. What is that but sociopathic deranged behaviour?
Ethical treatment is a handy marketing slogan for shady fascist mass killing with intent.
Animal welfare isnt being considered when pets are often times lured from unsuspecting owners by non animal lovers with the intent to kill them, spending their last hours likely frightened and concerned, and peta folks parading the streets looking for dumpsters to dispose of the euthanised bodies.
Sickening.
honetpot
Well-Known Member
I have taken cats and dogs in from major charities, when they have been in kennels, and I would rather foster them out to someone I knew. Being in a large cattery/kennels is stressful, one I adopted had been in the cattery for months and would not come out of its sleeping area it was so stressed.
In our family it is an unspoken pact that animals left behind will be rehomed with in the family, in fact when I bought my puppy I was thinking how easy would he to be rehomed within the family. I think cats are easier because as long as they get their own space, my sister took in my mothers farm cat, and are fed, cats are very adaptable.
spacefaer
Well-Known Member
PeTA are shareholders in FB - hence the enforced ban on animal sales on there.
(It was always a rule tbf, but rarely enforced prior to PeTAs arrival.
A friend of mine is a vet nurse working at a small animal practice who used to do work for the local RSPCA centre. The vet involved stopped working with them as he was being asked to euthanase perfectly healthy dogs/cats/small furries for the only reason that they would be harder to rehome. Large black dogs, older cats or dogs, feral cats. He found it ethically too difficult when the charity would spend huge amounts of money on prettier, younger animals with health issues.
(It was always a rule tbf, but rarely enforced prior to PeTAs arrival.
A friend of mine is a vet nurse working at a small animal practice who used to do work for the local RSPCA centre. The vet involved stopped working with them as he was being asked to euthanase perfectly healthy dogs/cats/small furries for the only reason that they would be harder to rehome. Large black dogs, older cats or dogs, feral cats. He found it ethically too difficult when the charity would spend huge amounts of money on prettier, younger animals with health issues.
SibeliusMB
Well-Known Member
"Ethical" is in PeTA's name because in their opinion, any animal use by humans is unethical, and they're fighting for the liberation for all animals. It's important to pause this discussion and remind everyone that the Animal Welfare movement and the Animal Rights movement are two separate (and oftentimes opposing) entities. I'll save you all my 65-page thesis on the animal rights movement's impact on US horse sport from 2006 and try to summarize instead.
Animal Welfare groups and charities acknowledge the importance of the human/animal relationships and encourage responsible, humane pet and animal ownership. It seeks to educate the public on proper animal husbandry and laws, and provide resources to support pet and livestock owners in properly caring for their animals. Welfare groups are the ones on the ground responding to rescue situations, rehabbing animals, and rehoming.
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/news/difference-between-animal-rights-animal-welfare/
Animal Rights, on the other hand, ultimately seeks to end all human use of animals, period. No pets, no research, no working animals, no animals for consumption, no therapy animals, nothing. Known Animal Rights groups include PeTA, the Humane Society of the United States (which cleverly disguises itself as a welfare group to the unassuming), and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). ALF has actually be classified as a domestic terrorist group in the US due their violent attacks on universities and research centers, which have resulted in human death. PeTA has had documented ties to ALF, supporting their efforts in the past in the media and financially.
Animal rights groups cannot simply, overtly state that all us humans should give up our enjoyment of animals. If they were shouting from the rooftops to set ALL the animals free, no one would ever stop to listen to them. Instead, they have gotten incredibly clever about incrementally and systematically attacking certain industries (such as animals used in research, greyhound racing, horse racing, etc) and using social media/advertising to change the general public's minds about already controversial animal use. That then gives them the momentum (slippery slope theory) to slowly start attacking mainstream, more widely accepted forms of animal use. They are experts in using marketing schemes to lure in financial support from well-meaning people (usually middle-aged women who own multiple pets, ironically enough). Only a fraction of the revenue PeTA generates is used in anyway toward animals themselves. Much of it gets poured straight back into their marketing, another majority goes toward paying its top executives.
The only reason animal rights groups like PeTA address any kind of animal welfare concerns, is because it's just a stepping stone toward getting them to their ultimate goal: wiping out that industry completely. They are NOT a welfare organization and never will be.
The other frustrating aspect of animal rights groups and their deceitful, predatory marketing campaigns is that it takes donations and vital support away from the animal welfare groups that really need it, who are actually helping animals. Animal welfare has never been as visible or as vocal as animal rights groups. They have never been as clever with their marketing and getting their message heard. As a result, those well-meaning patrons who think they're donating to saving kittens and puppies and ponies in their local area give money to the animal rights groups, not even knowing the difference.
I think if you were to approach the average pet owner and asked if they would prefer all the pets and livestock in the world be turned loose to fend for themselves (no food, veterinary care, human interaction of any kind....aka animal rights), or if more resources should be made available to promote animal welfare and humane ownership (animal welfare), I believe the extreme majority would vote for welfare.
I'll end this rant with my favorite quote from the movie, The American President. The President's opponent, Rumson, is ever present and constantly spreading lies and disinformation about the sitting President. Shepherd has insisted on not countering the lies or making himself as accessible to the public to counter act the claims. As a result, his aide, Rothschild, finally confronts him in frustration. I love this quote as it perfectly illustrates the struggle with disinformation and public ignorance.
Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.
President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
This is especially scary in the modern age of social media. Fight the good fight, friends. Spread the animal welfare message.
Bluebelltheconnie
Member
hi,
have to be honest, yes you probably are better off euthanising him. Sorry to have to say it.
its carefully worded. They never put a healthy animal down or something along those lines.
once that healthy animal has a cut, scrape, a sniffle - even if it’s treatable- it’s no longer, classed as healthy. Therefore they are within their rights to euthanise even if it’s treatabl.
KittenInTheTree
Well-Known Member
hi,
have to be honest, yes you probably are better off euthanising him. Sorry to have to say it.
its carefully worded. They never put a healthy animal down or something along those lines.
once that healthy animal has a cut, scrape, a sniffle - even if it’s treatable- it’s no longer, classed as healthy. Therefore they are within their rights to euthanise even if it’s treatabl.
That's utter nonsense. Cats Protection rehome elderly cats and cats with assorted health conditions all the time.
Bluebelltheconnie
Member
@KittenInTheTree
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cats-protection-accused-unnecessarily-putting-22321620
I’m not great with technology but hopefully this link works. Also, I was referring to the wording of their policy- they do have the right to euthanis if it even has a small injury or issue.
that’s what is in the contract.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cats-protection-accused-unnecessarily-putting-22321620
I’m not great with technology but hopefully this link works. Also, I was referring to the wording of their policy- they do have the right to euthanis if it even has a small injury or issue.
that’s what is in the contract.
KittenInTheTree
Well-Known Member
I don't read tabloids and I'm not making an exception for you. I regularly take in cats who are at the end of their lives - the old ones, the frail ones, the decrepit ones, the mildly incontinent/might not remember to use the litter tray as opposed to the sofa ones, in short the ones who nobody else wants because they're getting ready to cross over. They spend their final months in a caring home environment, wanting for nothing. As such, I've seen the wing where my local Cats Protection houses their more vulnerable residents. There, along with the very old, are the survivors of cars and dogs and fireworks and general acts of human awfulness. Missing eyes, absent limbs, scarred for life very special care required sorts of cats, all of whom who are alive solely because Cats Protection got them to a vet in time. The right to euthanise doesn't equate to an automatic intent to use it. So you, and your tabloid, can frankly bog off.
Bluebelltheconnie
Member
quitE happy to bog off thanks but facts are facts. That is the wording on the policy, I didn’t create that policy, it’s not my problem if you don’t like it. That is what they state, that’s not on me, so try placing your anger elsewher.
if you don’t like their wording or the repercussions of that, take it up with theM (the cats protection league)