ahhh, the life of a diplomatic princess . . .

Molding the Narrative

Yesterday I wrote an entry about Mary Tully’s blog piece about me. One of the things Ms. Tully was seeming to imply with her piece is that Douglas Anthony Cooper has, possibly, lost some faith in me. Mr. Cooper decided he needed to set the record straight on that and he wrote, in part, this:

For the record: I remain utterly convinced in Ms. Harper-Troje’s scrupulous honesty; nothing in her account strikes me as anything but rigorously accurate.

She responded to Mr. Cooper and several comments, back and forth, followed. Then, poof, they disappeared. So Mr. Cooper opened another discussion, which also seems to have disappeared.

This is the trick PETA and PETA apologists use: mold the narrative. If something doesn’t fit their version of the truth, or if the discussion has gone somewhere they don’t like because truth has been revealed, or if someone challenges them, the solution is simple. Delete it. Block them (both PETA and Ms. Tully have blocked me on Twitter and PETA has blocked me from commenting on their FB page). Which shows me that they are afraid of open, honest dialogue. So they do everything they can to mold the narrative to what they want people to believe. There are a lot of comments on my blog that are either not factual or just flat out rude towards me. I was asked by several people why I don’t delete them and I completely understand why someone would wonder this. Nobody likes to see nasty things written about them, it’s not fun. And why leave misinformation up? My philosophy about misinformation is this: I trust that anyone who really wants to form an opinion about this will do their research and research will reveal both misinformation and truth. My philosophy about personal comments is this: folks can call me every name in the book, they can spew lies either about me or about PETA, I don’t care. And my reason for not caring is twofold:

1. Their opinion of me means nothing.

2. I know I’m telling the truth so their lies, also, mean nothing.

This is me, again, channeling the honey badger. Because, really, what does it matter? If I know I’m telling the truth people can say what they like and it doesn’t change the truth. Period.

The narrative mold is always based on either out right lies, or things that have enough of an element of truth that their entirety seems believable, or they are verbal slights of hand meant to distract from the real issue. Miss Tully’s blog about me is full of all three of those things. But why delete comments that challenge you if you know you are telling the truth? Any lie that someone writes or says means nothing. And I find if I just let people speak or write their lies then, eventually, they’ll either run out of steam or shoot themselves in the proverbial foot.

From the very beginning I have asked people to do their research, think critically, make up their own minds. I’m not the only one who has revealed PETA’s practices towards the animals they take in, there is evidence of it in other places, what happened to Maya the chihuahua is just one example. My biggest frustration is that I know there are many other former CAP employees who know the truth and I cannot understand why not one has come forward. All it would take is one or two more people to stand up and let the truth be heard. One or two. That’s it. I know it’s scary, I know it’s intimidating but, I swear, I will have your back and so will many, many others. Remind yourself of this:

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

To be clear, I am not saying PETA is evil. Despite the assertions of Ms. Tully and some others, I am not a PETA hater, I have no bones to pick with them. I hope CAP goes on to continue to do the great field work it does. However, that work should not include the killing of animals. That is evil. I believe that and so do a great many other people.

In the interest of folks getting the full picture, I’ve decided to post the screen shots of the deleted comments on my blog so anyone who wants to read them can do so.



Single Post Navigation

38 thoughts on “Molding the Narrative

  1. You’re so amazing!!! Super proud of you… Beyond words.

    Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________

  2. Did I ever say that I LOVE this blog and the information on it? Well, I do. Keep fighting the good fight!!!

  3. Jackson on said:

    I completely understand why you’re doing it because it’s hard to sit back while idiots slander you, but no one even reads Tully’s sad little site. You and Cooper are bringing more attention to it then it ever had but I guess it comes up in google results so I can understand wanting to set the record straight. The only people who would ever bother to read her long winded PETA apologist garbage are other zealots…Keep on keeping on HB!

    • I was going to write another entry answering specific allegations she made about me in her blog piece but, after writing this, I’ve decided this is enough, I simply don’t have the time or the energy to do that. I think any critically thinking person who reads her will see her for what she is and know that she has either swallowed PETA’s lies completely or she knows the truth and is lying for them. Thanks for your support, Jackson!

  4. Hi Heather,

    The implication of my post was not that Douglas Anthony Cooper has lost faith in you. The implication was that Douglas Anthony Cooper is an opportunist and that he has lost faith that your blogs are the opportunity he had been hoping they’d be

    I’d also like to say that while I admire your ability to entertain downright mean-spirited commenters on your blogs, I choose not to do it on mine. After giving Douglas Anthony Cooper three chances to rise to the occasion, he persisted in being insulting, mean-spirited, and even more dedicated to clinging to beliefs he clearly wants to hold. Rather than waste any more time in a circular argument with him, I decided instead to address his concerns in a section of the blog I’ve dedicated to addressing your allegations. Primarily because I believe that at least some of his concerns are concerns that many people have.

    And I’d be happy to discuss any thoughts, concerns, or feelings you might have about my statements about you, on the discussion forum of my website, anytime you’d like. You and I have very different views regarding your blogs, but you do seem to know how to conduct yourself appropriately.


    Mary Tully

  5. Hi Mary,

    I actually disagree with your interpretation of Douglas’ comments but folks can make up their own minds about all of that.

    I thank you for the invitation but, for now, I don’t see myself discussing my statements about PETA on your blog simply because I’ve pretty much covered everything on my blog and I feel that folks know how to find me.

    Contrary to what some people have stated about me, I have zero interest in publicizing myself, or using the truths I have stated about PETA to publicize myself. I don’t like the spotlight, and, honestly, I would like my blog to go back to its original intent — occasional political opinions, my thoughts about life, and keeping our friends and family around the world up to date about our lives. It is, at its core, a blog about nomads and I would like that to be its focus once again.

    Having said that, I do feel like this is something I need to see through and I do intend on continuing to take actions that I hope are helpful because, ultimately, I do not think PETA should be allowed to have a license to kill animals.

  6. I would like to know your thoughts regarding the VDACS documents pertaining to the PETA staff’s intake of the Dreamland 2 animals on October 18, 2014. Primarily because you’ve been seemingly supportive of others’ statements that these documents indicate that the PETA staff may have purposefully overestimated the weights of the two kittens Wilber Zerate surrendered to them, with the intention of creating a surplus of sodium pentobarbital with which to euthanize more animals “off the books.” The documents just don’t support that allegation, nor should it be suggested by anyone with honest intentions that they do. Like I said, I would be interested in knowing your impressions.

    • I am supportive of those statement simply because I was told to do that so I know the truth.

      However, I think your focusing on the overestimation of weight is really just a way to distract people from the real issue –which is why were those animals killed?

      I don’t want to hear “breach of protocol” because the employees were experienced employees. I also don’t want to hear it because you and I both know it isn’t a breach of protocol, it’s SOP.

      And what about the other animals picked up in Dreamland 2? I have heard nothing from PETA about what happened to them. It is my understanding that the farmer stated PETA, over the course of the time they were working in that area, rounded up tens of dogs and cats. What happened to them? Were they also killed the same day, in violation of VA law? Where are their records? If PETA has nothing to hide why don’t they go ahead and release those records?

      • The cats surrendered by Wilber Zerate were described by Parksley locals as “sick” and “emaciated,” so trapping them and taking custody of them was obviously important in preventing their further suffering.

        There are four legal methods of shelter disposition with regards to animal shelters; 1) returning stray animals to their guardians; 2) transferring animals to other releasing agencies; 3) finding permanent adoptive homes for animals; and 4) euthanizing animals. Shelters cannot re-release animals of whom they take custody, and since feral cats are not considered by the state to be “adoptable,” and because confining them to cages into perpetuity isn’t humane, feral cats are euthanized.

        In 2013, the Portsmouth Humane Society, a Virginia “no kill” facility, was assessed a significant penalty when it was discovered that they had either released, or allowed as many as 91 feral cats to “escape” into a colony they were maintaining on their property, and then subsequently created fake “adoption” paperwork for each of the cats, so it would appear on their records that they had been adopted out. A HUGE “no no.”

        Additionally, we do not know what statements Noelia Perez Gomez may have made to the PETA staff upon surrendering her dogs. Were they socialized at all? Did they have bite histories? Or histories of another type of serious aggression? Despite how you describe your own experiences at PETA fifteen-plus years ago, you simply are not in a position to make statements about the animals Noelia Perez Gomez surrendered to the PETA staff, or about any animals surrendered to PETA since your employ, because you weren’t present.

        And I’m not sure what you mean when you say PETA won’t “release” the records. Any member of the public can walk into any Virginia public or private animal shelter and request to see any animal custody record that was generated in the previous five years. These records may be viewed by the public upon request, with the caveat that the records be viewed at the specific facility. That’s state law, not “PETA law.” PETA’s facility inspection reports indicate that PETA has been in compliance with the state’s requirement that these records be made available to the public, for all reporting years. If you mean, like others who have made this dicey claim, that PETA won’t make copies of their custody records for all reporting years and mail you corresponding copies of some 35,000 documents, at no charge to you, that’s because are not required to do so. And animal shelters shouldn’t have to designate staff, or redirect staff away from serving animals, just to satisfy the curiosities of the public. Are you able to demonstrate that you made the effort to enter PETA’s facility, requested to view their custody records, but were denied access to them? Or no?

      • Mary, how do we know that the 7-pound, 4 month old kittens were described by residents as “sick,” “emaciated,” and “feral.” Where is that recorded and how/where was it documented?

        As far as I know, you are correct that we don’t know what statements were made about the dogs who were surrendered. The dogs who were, in fact, NOT Ms. Gomez’, according to what VDACS told WAVY ( The reason we don’t know anything about their history or temperament (aside from the fact that Ms. Gomez, not being the owner of the dogs, probably did not know anything about their history or temperament) is because PETA’s intake records were so woefully lacking in information. So I guess we just have to take their word for it that the dogs (one of whom, Maya, was clearly healthy and social) were not adoptable. Like we have to take their word for it that residents called the kittens “sickly” and “emaciated.” Any shelter who operates under the best practices possible keeps in depth records about things like history and temperament, in part because they are a tool for future placement in homes. And any shelter who operates under the best practices possible will do their own temperament testing, taking into account that animals may initially be terrified and bewildered and, as such, behave in uncharacteristic ways. Why didn’t PETA do that? Will PETA now do that?

        As far as the paperwork being available, that’s great! Unfortunately, since I live in Honduras, I am unable to go to PETA and request the paperwork but I’ll make sure to tell folks I know that they are welcome and encouraged to do so.

      • “Mary, how do we know that the 7-pound, 4 month old kittens were described by residents as ‘sick,’ ’emaciated,’ and ‘feral.’ Where is that recorded and how/where was it documented?”

        First of all, you might want to read your own Tweets.

        Here’s the same statement made by Stand for Maya, in March, just after the VDACS released the material pertaining to their investigation into the Parksley events. Until Stand for Maya reported the kitten’s health status this way, it was not known that the kittens were sick.

        Here is the statement that Commonwealth Attorney, Gary Agar made about the cats:

        “Mr. Cerate asked them [the PETA staff] 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 he requested.” You can read that document it its entirety, here:

      • This is slight of hand. I asked for documentation that the kittens were sickly, emaciated, and feral.

      • “According to what VDACS told WAVY,” should be amended to read, “according to what WAVY says the VDACS told them,” simply because WAVY misreported important aspects of the VDACS investigation in that article.

        We know that Noelia Perez Gomez signed a state-required document stating that she was the dogs’ rightful owner, that no one else had property rights to the animals, and that she had been apprised that they animals may be immediately euthanized. She was not a “complainant” requesting that three specific “stray” dogs be removed from the community, nor is she described as a “complainant” in any of the VDACS records pertaining to their investigation and penalty assessment.

        I get that you like the language of the Wavy article, but doesn’t it matter to you whether or not it’s actually true?

      • So WAVY is lying? That seems to be your response whenever something doesn’t fit your narrative — it’s a lie. You’ve stated that I’m lying. I’m not. Now you’re stating that WAVY lied. I don’t believe they did. The bottom line is that anyone who isn’t sure what to believe should research all of this thoroughly, think critically, and draw their own conclusions.

      • Mary, Heather would know all about the full context of what’s being tweeted if you hadn’t REMOVED my comment from your site, in which I explain this. Yes, this isn’t the first time Mary’s erased me from her truth-oriented Website of Last Resort.

        I wonder whether you still accuse me of knowingly taking this out of context. Or did you correct that? Because… well, to quote Mary Tully: “Doesn’t it matter to you whether or not it’s actually true?” (Priceless to see those words emerge from your keyboard.)

        To some people it does matter, and yes: I think it’s important to not use that screen shot as evidence of Mary Tully’s employment by PETA. If anything, the full context indicates the exact opposite. It doesn’t PROVE this, since we can’t know with certainty the truth of anything that Mary says, but it’s evidence.

        What it seems to indicate is that Mary Tully — without pay — spends the great majority of her time cooking up mostly dishonest excuses for pet killers.

      • Heather, you’ve been Tweeting something about me a lot lately, and I thought you might like to know the full context of the statement I made, before “sharing” it again.

      • Then I don’t get it. If you are having trouble buying Stand for Maya’s assessment of the kittens, why would you Tweet their posts insinuating that the kittens’ conditions proved your allegations against PETA?

        And again, Commonwealth Attorney Gary went on the record as stating that the kittens were “wild.” Gary Agar made this statement after reviewing the evidence of pertaining to the case.

        Are Stand for Maya and Gary Agar lying, in your opinion?

      • I took the tweet this way: it’s pointing out that sick and emaciated stray kittens are not going to weigh 7 pounds, and that their weight was intentionally overestimated. So were they sick and emaciated 4 month old kittens or were they 7 pound 4 month old kittens ( they can’t be both)? We have healthy, well fed full grown cats who barely weigh 7 pounds. But, again, I see this as a distraction. Where is the documentation that they were sick, emaciated, and feral?

      • It is my recommendation to anyone who wants to know what the VDACS determined during its investigation into the incident to review the actual documents released by the VDACS on the matter, and not to allow WAVY, or anyone else, to interpret their investigation and penalty assessment for you.

      • Hi Douglas,

        Your comment was on my website for almost two months before I even noticed it. I only periodically checked to see what was there, because there are almost never comments there to discuss. I deleted your post about this, but I also added an update to the small section of the blog where I originally posted your Tweet stating that I had “admitted” that I work for PETA. Along with the full body of statements I had actually made, I added, “UPDATE: Douglas Anthony Cooper has since reached out about the mistake, saying that he was given the abbreviated image, and that he posted it on Twitter having made the false assumption that it was a fair and accurate portrayal of the facts.” IMO, that’s sufficient. Unless that’s not a fair assessment of your thoughts on the matter?

      • ‘UPDATE: Douglas Anthony Cooper has since reached out about the mistake, saying that he was given the abbreviated image, and that he posted it on Twitter having made the false assumption that it was a fair and accurate portrayal of the facts.” IMO, that’s sufficient. Unless that’s not a fair assessment of your thoughts on the matter?’

        Actually, that’s more than fair. Thank you.

      • Heather,

        You’re also Tweeting (and re-tweeting) a comment I made on Twitter. If you’re interested in knowing the context in which the comment was made, you can read the entire discussion here, but maybe just to the extent that I can see it. I blocked a lot of the folks who were purposefully taking it out of context to defend their views about Maya. Maybe you can see more comments than I can. Either way:

      • Mary, there are only two comments there (one from you and one from Douglas) so I’m not seeing a context.

      • Click on the link introduction (the image is a live link) and it will take you to the whole thread. Heather, but click on it somewhere other than our names, so it doesn’t take you to a profile.

      • In my opinion, the context makes it even worse. You are blaming Maya’s family for her death, stating that she was seen off the porch and outside the trailer park the day she was taken. But PETA didn’t find her wandering about and pick her up. If they had, and then they’d turned around and killed her, they would have been in violation of the law. Rather, there is video showing one of the workers snatching Maya off the porch and putting her in the van. Then they killed her. And, if I’m not wrong, your assertion is that they were within their legal rights to kill her because Ms. Gomez had signed a chihuahua over to them and it was a case of mistaken identity (despite the fact that they knew Maya and Maya’s family). It sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. And when someone in the thread pointed out that there is video of her being taken off the porch you completely ignored them and used a slight of hand to draw attention away from the truth. So I guess I’m confused as to why the entire thread would change my decision to tweet your comment.

      • Hi Heather,

        I’m extremely hesitant to post this last reply (but it will be my last reply), because you’ve indicated on Twitter that you feel “harassed” by my presence here, and that you are possibly even “afraid” to visit your own blog site because of our discussion.

        But with regards to the comment I made, I was trying to illustrate “comparative negligence.” My intention was to demonstrate that it’s not always a situation where one party is clearly at fault and one party is clearly not at fault. In a lot of cases, especially in matters of civil law, while one person may be more at fault, it doesn’t mean that the other party wasn’t also at fault to some degree.

        The context I was hoping to illustrate by showing you the entire thread was that I didn’t create the “pedophile” analogy, but, admittedly, I did make the mistake of trying to explain my point using that idiotic analogy, once it had been introduced into the discussion by someone else. I do regret providing fodder to those who would endeavor to take the statement out of context.

        This would’ve been a much better analogy:

        When a driver of a car can avoid being involved in an accident with another driver through a prudent effort on his or her part to avoid the accident, then though the other drive may also be at fault, the driver who could’ve avoided the accident is still at fault, and in some cases, even more at fault.

        Hindsight, right?

      • Hi Mary, perhaps a more accurate word for how I feel when I visit my blog (or my email since that is how I receive alerts), on my part, would have been trepidation. Unfortunately, twitter doesn’t really allow for nuance. It isn’t that I’m fearful of your comments, it’s that this all seems like we are going round and round and nobody, myself included, likes to be called a liar. I do, however, feel harassed because of the section of your blog where you are attempting to paint me as a liar. While I am not, personally, bothered by what you think of me it is off putting and extremely uncomfortable to know that there is someone actively trying to smear my reputation. Bottom line is this though — I know I’m telling the truth, those I love and respect know I’m telling the truth, and a lot of people I don’t know also know I’m telling the truth. That’s what matters to me.

        As far as your analogy, I understand it. I do not, however, agree with it. Having a dog, especially one who is clearly being well cared for, stolen off one’s property is not remotely the fault of the family — it’s the fault of the people who stole the dog.

  7. “The implication was that Douglas Anthony Cooper is an opportunist and that he has lost faith that your blogs are the opportunity he had been hoping they’d be.”

    Um, no. If that were the implication, you’d have said as much. What you flagrantly implied was that Heather was lying, and that I’d come to that conclusion.

    Honestly — do you think people can’t return to your blog and see what you’ve written?

    “Opportunist.” Spare me.

    And I was insulting you, was I? I wasn’t calling you something sweet and nice, like an “opportunist”? Poor Mary. Reason enough to delete my comments, yes.

    As for opportunism… hm. I’d like to shut down the killing in Norfolk, and every opportunity to further that cause is something I’ll embrace. But again, that’s not what you meant. With regard to the kind of opportunity this represents: you’re wrong here, as you are elsewhere — I’m quite certain that Heather’s honesty has in fact made a huge impression, and continues to do so. Let’s face it — you’re quite certain of that as well. Or you wouldn’t feel the need to call her a liar, would you?

    Now it’s simply a question of when more CAP workers manipulated into stealing, killing and doctoring logs for Ingrid will have the courage to come forward. You’ll try to discredit them, too, and I’ll make sure you don’t get away with it.

    This is the age of Snowden, and whistleblowers are some of the few heroes we have left.

  8. Reblogged this on SiameseCatTwins4Ever and commented:
    Tully supports PETA and thus is a supporter of PETA’s mass murder of pets. Lowlife.

  9. Terri on said:

    Heather Harper-Troje, I just want to tell you how impressed I am with how you have handled this every step of the way. Smart and classy. You go girl.

    • Hi Terri! Thanks so much for such a nice comment, I really appreciate the support. Part of the reason I can fend off the hate is because of the amazing support I’ve gotten. All the best to you!

  10. Pingback: PETA’s Farce of an “Adopt-a-Thon.” | mom2nomads

  11. veganmeanie = PETA kiss a$$. Mary Tully incognito? Either way, anyone who tries to defend the indefensible…. PETA’s mass murder of animals, is an utter lowlife.

  12. Pingback: Why Hide Comments on Shelter Bill Benefiting PETA? | mom2nomads

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: