In Defense of PETA--Yes, You Read That Right--and the Fly Response
Published June 17, 2009 @ 07:14PM PT
*6/18: See the end of this post for an update*
I am all for criticizing PETA (or any other animal rights or welfare organization) when, and as often as, the group deserves to be criticized. That's probably become clear over the last nine months. I have no allegiances. But when people manufacture reasons to complain about a group or fail to scratch beyond the surface when they make their belittling complaints, in order to figure out what it is they're actually criticizing, I get annoyed.
Everyone with a computer--from mainstream bloggers to eco bloggers to my fellow animal rights bloggers (the latter two of which I expect better from) to anti-AR Twitterers--is commenting condescendingly or with what I imagine is a lot of eye-rolling about a very short remark that someone at PETA made in reference to President Obama swatting a fly during a televised interview. The angle everyone is playing up is that PETA went charging after Obama because of the fly-swatting: PETA doesn't know how to pick its battles! PETA did something crazy again! Except none of that is true.
Could we please, please take notice of the fact that PETA did not come out swinging but rather was asked for its opinion? As I'm sure has happened in some other instances that have led to bad press for PETA, a gossipy tabloid site and other media outlets went to PETA (with a bit of snickering and condescension themselves, I imagine) to get a response, not the other way around. And so naturally, someone at PETA responded when asked--not with extremeness and not with fury, but calmly and, I thought, maturely:
He isn’t the Buddha, he’s a human being and human beings have a long way to go before they think before they act.
Am I really the only one who thinks they're simply (and politely) saying, "No big deal; he's not perfect"? I repeat: PETA was asked for a comment, in order to create a news bite because those poking PETA knew the group would have to respond once asked and knew that the manufactured story would get attention because PETA is an easy target. Seriously, even the Guardian had a snarky article up about the "incident" before PETA finally complied, briefly, with requests for a response (and the Guardian was mocking PETA and Ingrid Newkirk for not having responded yet--in cases such as this, PETA and Newkirk are obviously damned if they do, damned if they don't).
So maybe instead of all of us arrogantly telling PETA to pick its battles with politicians, we should consider picking our battles with PETA. Both PETA and other mainstream animal organizations say and do things a lot more harmful, to animals and to the movement, than responding moderately to requests for comment.
---
Here, for the record, is the "official" PETA response that came after media outlets started asking for (and publishing) it: Obama and the Fly.
Image: from the asinine TMZ.com article that led to much of the online drama about this.
---
Update: Since those initial responses to TMZ and other outlets, PETA's Bruce Friedrich has indeed said more about the matter--that although he and PETA appreciate Obama's voting record on animal issues, they do wish Obama hadn't killed the fly, and they will be sending him a catch-and-release contraption. And even news outlets the likes of CNN, MSNBC, and the AP are all over it. And my reaction remains, "So freakin' what?" They were already being slammed in the news and blogosphere for saying something completely benign in response to being asked, so why not take the opportunity to also point out--still politely, I might add--that both the president and the rest of us do have a choice in these situations?
I don't have a problem with asking people to take bugs outside (obviously); no one is asking Obama or anyone else to build a three-story mansion for insects--they're simply saying, "Hey, please try to remember that killing these tiny animals isn't necessary, and why kill any being if you don't have to?" PETA isn't going over the top here--they're not shouting and protesting and calling Obama a murderer; they're simply saying, after being asked, "We do wish he hadn't done it, but he's not perfect. But now that the media is all over it and us anyway, we'll go ahead and send him a humane bug trap." Again, I find it extraordinary that bloggers and news outlets are chiding PETA for not picking their battles more wisely when they themselves are making such an unwarranted fuss about PETA's barely-there reaction. As I said at the start of this post, I encourage people to challenge PETA, HSUS, and any other group when it's warranted--and it often is--but this is not one of those cases, and the outcry is ridiculous.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
Author
-
Stephanie Ernst is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull. In her advocacy, she works to challenge prevailing perceptions of animals, to show the connections between animal exploitation and other injustices, to help people see that animals are more like us than different, and to encourage compassionate, nonviolent living and eating.
word.
fwiw, I just caught this story on CNN and they framed it the same way in the teaser and story opener - as though PETA was chastising Obama for killing a fly. It wasn't 'till the end of the story that they actually read PETA's apathetic response.
Manufactured controversies, who needs 'em.
Posted by Kelly Garbato on 06/17/2009 @ 07:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks for the whole story surrounding this. Just more attempts by the media to make what animal rights activists stand for look crazy, extreme, trivial, and ridiculous.
Posted by Lindsey Sanders on 06/17/2009 @ 07:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks for posting about this. I've been somewhat bothered of late about how "in" it seems to be amongst AR folks to bash Peta. As if instead of facing our real common enemy we want to set ourselves against the most vocal AR group. It's really kind of annoying.
I recently saw a story on the CBC website about Peta's seal hunt campaign and how it's aimed at Inuits. The problem is, it isn't aimed at Inuits at all, but is squarely aimed at the Canadian Winter Olympics coming up in 2010. The story was full of just this same sort of contrived drama.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/12/peta-inuit-olympics-612.html
It's been a long time since I've been a wholehearted supporter of Peta, but when something comes along where the mainstream is using Peta to bash AR, can't we find some solidarity and stand up to tell the truth, or at least do our best to put the focus where it should be (on the abusers and exploiters of animals)?
Posted by Glenn Gaetz on 06/17/2009 @ 10:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"It's been a long time since I've been a wholehearted supporter of Peta, but when something comes along where the mainstream is using Peta to bash AR, can't we find some solidarity and stand up to tell the truth...?"
Exactly. Much of what ARAs (including me) criticize in PETA, I don't consider bashing at all--much of it I consider justified criticism--but this just isn't the case this time. And whether we like it or not, the mainstream still conflates PETA and animal rights, so in an instance such as this one, it does us more good to point out the absurdity of the criticisms of PETA than it does to join in making them.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 06/18/2009 @ 06:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for some sanity.
Posted by Elaine Vigneault on 06/17/2009 @ 10:31PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said.
Posted by Michelle Taylor on 06/17/2009 @ 10:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Out of all the things PeTA has done to get criminal footage & few felons put away over the past year, this is what u picked 4 them.
Bruce Friedrich answered compassionately as any AR would.
Call it as u c it, I guess.
Say what u want, but they do a lot of good things.
They continually fight with the big agribusinesses & their financial backers.
They do the best they can.
If some1 can do better, I say wholeheartedly 2 go 4 it & open up a foundation of their own that will take on the most powerful industries & any government that gets in the way.
Posted by L C on 06/18/2009 @ 03:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Excellent point L C. I can't imagine the years of hard work, effort and risks PETA members experience on a daily basis. I'm proud to be a member and supporter of AR organizations like PETA, Farm Sanctuary, Sierra Club, etc.... The changes they help create for non humans is something to focus on. I believe the philosophy of Animal Rights Organizations is the path to a more peaceful and harmonious future for all. :)
Posted by maria brullo on 06/18/2009 @ 11:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree fully with all of you. PETA has a tough job, and the laws (which I find unconstitutional and absurd) protect corporate terrorists. All we want is for the nonsense laws that create a felon by passing corporate lobbyists protection laws makes the corporations the true "we the people", instead of "We the people" the 300 million American individuals. Our government is a disgrace, putting corporate interests over the "people". It's all about money and the power that goes with it. Unfortunately, our government now is run by "big industry" and it's corruption flows through all three sections of our so called "checks and balances" government. It's a bit like Gov. Sanford having an affair and being in the party of "Family Values. It so hypocritical and just as the US claims to be the country of rights and freedom, it is just as hypocritical. We have become the do as I say and not as I do country. Where the rights and freedom are given to the elite (corporate concerns). I am not a USA basher, just to be bashing, I see so much wrong, and it doesn't change until enough people demand it. I guess most people however frustrated by this government, still just what to go about their lives and get through the best they can. For many that is really all they can do. We need big lobbyist in Washington to at least have a chance against the hugh entrenched status quo there now. I fight the Interior Dept. on weekly basis, for all the things Sec. Salazar has allowed that Bush wanted all along. I am not surprised, because Salazar is a rancher, big game hunter and attached to big oil. He is in my opinion in direct violation of "conflict of interests" laws. This is the man Obama choose to protect or land and wildlife? Yes, unfortunately. I have so much to talk about but I now I went of topic some time back. I ask your indulgence for my long windedness.
Thank you,
Paul Hester, LT, USNR, ret. DAV
Posted by Paul Hester on 06/25/2009 @ 04:30AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So you ask yourself: "If the media called me and asked my comment on the President swatting a fly." do I:
A. Take the high road and say "No Comment?" or B. Make an insane comment comparing Obama to Budda?
Most Americans think PETA are off their rocker, and this seemingly benign statement defending a fly solidifies that thinking.
They should stick to what they do best, publishing nude photos of women dressed up as animals.
Posted by Ed S on 06/18/2009 @ 04:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Notice that PETA didn't "compare" Obama to Buddha. They referenced Buddha as a personification of some version of "absolute goodness" as a means to display all of our, including President Obama's, many shortcomings. Causing suffering or killing unthinkingly would be one such shortcoming.
Is "publishing nude photos of women..." really what PETA does best?
Posted by Alex Melonas on 06/18/2009 @ 09:03AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Uh, yeah.
I went to the website again to review all they have done. I see in the past they have done some good for tortured animals, and brough to light criminals who were killing or abusing for fun or profit. Most people will agree that's wrong.
This is from the PETA website: "Given the chance, cows nurture their young and form lifelong friendships with one another. They play games, have a wide range of emotions, and demonstrate personality traits, such as vanity."
They are trying to convince the public that we should care about animals as we would care about each other. They are attempting to humanize animals to make us feel sorry for them and their plight. You don't see them calling for other predators to be arrested or detained for killing animals, why us? Perhaps they should start a campaign to get Wolves and Coyotes to become vegitarians, that would certainly save many sheep, pets, and other farm type animals. But you can't because it's not in their nature to be vegitarians and for most humans it's not in our nature to either.
Then instead of declining to comment on Obamas wanton murder of a fly, then make an asinine comment "referencing" Buddha. Implying that Obama should think before killing an innocent life form such as a fly. One wonders how deep PETA's defense of living things would go.
So yeah, if this is the course they are taking then the nude women photos they publish is, in my opinion, some of their best work.
Posted by Ed S on 06/18/2009 @ 11:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't believe PETA is attempting to "humanize" nonhuman animals (that's an inherent contradiction). They're forcing us through images, argument, etc. to acknowledge a prejudice we have against these animals which manifests in us ignoring their interests without ethical justification.
In response to your statement about getting wolves to become vegetarians. I would not "begrudge" a lion for eating an antelope any more than I would "begrudge" A) any other natural carnivore for eating from their only possible source of nutrition (i.e., flesh, by definition). Nor would I "begrudge" a B) human child for causing harm to another human because that human child isn't capable of understanding that Ethics place moral constraints on her actions and therefore certain things aren't allowed, ethically (i.e., she isn't a "moral agent"). Therefore, on two fronts Ed, your argument is deeply flawed.
You are a moral agent Ed and your are an omnivore, and this is why we are trying to convince you that eating flesh isn't justifiable but we aren't running a similar campaign to influence the coyote.
What do you mean by "nature"? Are you arguing that human animals cannot live healthily as vegans or vegetarians? Or are you arguing that we "naturally" are omnivores and therefore veganism is "bad" (and omnivorism is "good")?
Posted by Alex Melonas on 06/19/2009 @ 11:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ed, I must correct you when you say that it's human nature to eat meat. It's not nature but cultural conditioning. We were raised to eat meat, and it's sold everywhere. We also could have been raised 100% vegan and never would have known the difference if meat wasn't used as such a major food source. Believe me, you wouldn't be out stalking prey if you had never eaten meat and were well-fed on a plant-based diet. Do you have the same nature as a lion who can chase down prey and kill it using nothing but what nature equipped him with? Our anatomy and physiology is MUCH more similar to herbivores in the animal world than to that of an obligate carnivore who needs meat because of his/her nature.
Posted by Lindsey Sanders on 06/19/2009 @ 11:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ed,
Here's an article about humans and vegetarianism-as-"natural."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html
I also failed to mention the curious nature of your statement about how it isn't in the nature of "most humans" to be vegetarians. What do you mean "most humans"?
Did some of us human animals evolve from a different source thereby making me, for example, capable of living healthily as a vegan but you aren't?
Posted by Alex Melonas on 06/19/2009 @ 12:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Firstly, erm Ed, you're not a carnivore sweetie, you dont have a fixed jaw and all carnivores do. You are not designed to catch or eat animals, as Lindsey points out meat eating is culturally conditioned into you. Opportunistic industries manipulate people into thinking that meat is good for you and natural, its neither, they just want your money and don't give a damn about your health. The biggest marketing manipulation technique is to make people feel insecure and that the product will eliminate this insecurity. The most oft used one by the meat industry is to tell you that you are more manly if you eat animals. So those who are insecure about their 'manliness' are the ones who are most often sucked in by it. Pretending that you are a carnivore may make you feel more in control and elevated in status but its just not true.
Secondly, humans are animals Ed. Peta are not trying to humanise animals, they are pointing out that all animals are the same in their capacity for emotion and suffering. It is very ignorant and arrogant to insist otherwise and shows a need to elevate ones own status due to insecurity or in order to manipulate for marketing etc.
Posted by Red N. on 06/23/2009 @ 01:33AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks for all your responses, friends. Check the bottom of the post for an update since last night.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 06/18/2009 @ 05:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I notice more often than not that people tend to have a difficult time making time for animals and time to help them. However, when opportunity knocks to slander someone or create a big dramatic event out of something small like this, they all jump on it.
So, all of these bloggers exaggerating and stretching the truth about this situation can be proud to be put in the same category with TMZ- a place that makes a living out of thriving on the embarassment and humiliation of others. Bravo to them :-)
Posted by Philosophia and Animal Liberation on 06/18/2009 @ 07:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Actually, I think you're completely accurate in describing how this has been taken out of context. BUT, what you fail to mention is the fact that if you DO use the tactics that PETA does to try to constantly make headlines for your cause, then it's easier for the public to attach something like this to you when maybe you didn't intend for it to happen that way.
What you may be witnessing is more of a backlash against PETA for ALL of its antics. This was just the spark that lit the fire. And PETA really has no one to blame but themselves. They DO need to pick their battles more carefully.
Posted by benjamin larson on 06/18/2009 @ 07:33AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Great post!
I yearn for a day when the mainstream media shuns sensational non-stories.
Posted by Tracy Habenicht on 06/18/2009 @ 09:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
i can't stand a ton of what PETA does, and i REALLY have no respect for them with their position on pitbulls.
on the other side, i WAS finally able to make the leap over to vegetarianism because of some PETA videos.
but yeah, it sounds like the world is pullin' a PETA and gettin' all up in a fuss out of complete whatever.
Posted by Anthony Trott on 06/18/2009 @ 10:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Obama is certainly not Budha. And his secretary of Agric is certainly no animal lover. The biggest PETA bashers is the agric animal farmers in the USA. They will go to any lenghts to spread disinformation about PETA. And if wacky PR stunts gets the message out, then the job is well done.
I don't agree with some of PETAs policies, but there is not another organisation on this planet who has done as much as PETA for the rights of animals.
God bless Ingrid Newkirk, and a thank you from my heart for her courage - PETA, I salute you.
And may McDonalds see the light and also insist their suppliers use the CAC method for killing the chooks. If you must kill to eat, then dear God, do it as painlessly as possible.
Posted by Eureka Morrison on 06/18/2009 @ 03:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree.
Unfortunately for the animals, the omnivores/carnivores are not just going 2 stop eating meat becuz we aren't eating it.
In Utopia, that would b the case, but we don't live there. Grim reality shows us that we must pick the lesser of 2 evils & try 2 do what we can with the little bit of money, power & public education since we can not burn down every single slaughterhouse. (Hmm...if only)
The companies will have more animals being brought in & another place 2 set up shop the next day.
One day the world will wake up.
Posted by L C on 06/19/2009 @ 02:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It could very well be a backlash i think, but they still do a good work in my opinion. They have my support.
Posted by mary strobridge on 06/18/2009 @ 10:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Very good points, Stephanie. Journalists from these outlets def. took something way beyond the point of newsworthiness -- right from the start, I'd say, when that portion of the interview was not simply edited out in favor of more substantive content.
I, too, will go way out of my way to avoid smooshing any insect that is not a roach (a luxurious position that I can indulge, living in a region where poisonous insects are rare). Some of it is squeamishness: I'd much rather open the screen and let the flies zoom off to their own fates than have to clean up a dead insect.
But please just keep in mind that as far as human health is concerned, house flies are infectious disease vectors, pure and simple. Handling a trap and release device could only expose one further to tens of potential diseases or pathogens carried by house flies.
I'm not a doctor, but I'd say it would be a good idea to be careful with using or handling such a device, if one feels compelled to offer house flies this much compassion.
Posted by Emily Gertz on 06/19/2009 @ 08:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've lived with house flies my entire life and not once have I even heard of a disease resulting from an encounter with a house fly.
Posted by Alex Melonas on 06/20/2009 @ 09:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've been asked about this multiple times (everyone seems to want my vegan opinion on it.) Each time I say "It's probably the least offensive thing PETA has done all year." From frivolously suing Primarily Primates sanctuary (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smAUkhEnkg8) to dressing its activists in KKK gear (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-02-09-peta-westminster-kkk-protest_N.htm) to sexism (http://www.feministing.com/archives/009854.html) to trying to exploit the experience of those who suffered imprisonment at guantanamo (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/americas/guantanamo/story/991490.html), I am consistently offended by PETA. So they set the bar pretty low, but their comments about Obama and the fly are definitely the least offensive thing I've heard outta them. That would NOT be what I would pick to criticize.
If only PETA understood "vegan" to be the true philosophy of respect that it is!
Posted by Leila Fusfeld on 06/19/2009 @ 02:09PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I haven't heard of the PETA and the fly story until I read your post. But I'll take your word for it. There a lot of campaigns on behalf of animals that PETA has challenged and I am very grateful they have. Except this would not be one of them. A foolish choice of a "battle" on their behalf.
I also don't have a problem criticizing an animal rights organization or rescue center if it deserves it. And on the whole, from what I've seen, most organizations and rescue centers are doing a good job of trying to help animals in need. However, there have been allegations that some of these places aren't doing what they claim and/or miss using monies donated to them for various causes. That to me is a serious problem.
And as in the case of one Colorado rancher/ supposed horse rescue owner, who got busted taking donations then starving numerous horses, that is infuriating! When the officials arrived at his ranch they found dead horses and some so far gone they had to kill them. For all of this, instead of multiple counts of cruelty to animal violations, he got one count. I wish that while he serves his short prison time that he's starved for a period of time to let him see what it feels like. That won't happen, but it should be part of his sentence.
If PETA chooses to go after Obama, or whomever, for swatting a fly and killing it, that's not a serious issue to me; it just makes PETA look asinine. However, by pulling a stupid stunt like that they'll loose credibility, at least a percentage of the population, as an animal rights organization. In doing so, they may also loose credibility (and donations) for the important campaigns they're working on and those they may try and help in the future. Unfort., that means the joke isn't just on them, it's also on the animals who need help.
Posted by Nakia Anderson on 06/21/2009 @ 02:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Please list the colorado rancher, so we may know who he is & where u saw it.
Posted by L C on 06/21/2009 @ 05:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You don't mean the Nebraska owner of Three Strikes ranch for adopted wild mustangs, do you? If so, the one count rose to 140+ counts, if I'm not mistaken.
Posted by Olivia White on 06/25/2009 @ 10:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I see (further down) that you found it and it is the Nebraska case. Sorry I should've read further first.
Posted by Olivia White on 06/25/2009 @ 10:30PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Remember, PETA was accused of animal cruelty in 2005 for dumping animals they had euthanised in the dumpster of a grocery store. They had told the people who gave them their animals that they would be adopted, instead, among bags of IAMS food, they euthanized many adoptable animals, including kittens and puppies. Their mobile van(a la T-4 protocol) has murdered countless of animals, including whole colonies of TNR cats. They refuse to adopt Nathan Winograd's no kill policies as well. The worst PETA moment was that white dog murdered by Newkirk in the I AM A HUMAN "documentary" for having heartworm.
Were all these victims human, we would not be having any discussions about any one erroneously attacking PETA. It would be self evident from the cruelties they have inflicted, but because these are non human animals there is still quibbling about how much good they have done. Imagine PETA as a human rights organization and all of their victims as humans and then ask yourself if an organization killed men, women and children would they still be considered a human rights organization?
Posted by Nancy Correa on 06/21/2009 @ 06:01PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Your post is grossly inaccurate. Although its nice that you at least noted they were "accused" and not convicted. I wonder why? Maybe because there are legitimate reasons for euthanization! Please look at PETA's response at http://blog.peta.org/archives/2009/03/why_we_euthaniz.php. Although their tactics are sometimes zany, they truly DO care about ALL living creatures.
Posted by Brooke Calderon on 06/21/2009 @ 11:14PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What is the big deal.....it is manufactured sensationalism against PETA. Let's focus on real issues + real news - not sound bites. I could care less what a commentor thinks....they speak to the level of a fifth grader. There is no serious journalism in the US anymore (except for PBS)....just watch the BBC and notice the difference in quality.
Posted by Kathryn Robertson on 06/21/2009 @ 07:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am not really a fan of PETA, but it's insane how the media and people are blowing him killing a fly and making up things PETA did not say here.
Posted by Avita F on 06/21/2009 @ 08:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
To LC -- couldn't find a reply option to your post, so I'm adding this to the thread in general. Thank you for asking about the rancher story. I'd love to give you a direct link to the article, but I don't have it on hand.
I found the article awhile ago on the cbs4denver.com site. I forwarded it at the time to family and friends, but don't have a copy of that email. I just checked the CBS site under their "pets/animals" section where they'll store stories like this. I didn't see it under any of their more current stuff. Will go back later and check through their archives to see if I can find and post it for you.
Posted by Nakia Anderson on 06/21/2009 @ 10:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ahh, found it. One of the earlier links to the rancher story:
http://cbs4denver.com/pets/horses.rescue.nebraska.2.995958.html
Am sorry....as I was rereading it, I realized I got my states mixed up. The ranch was in Neb. and some of the horses have been relocated here in CO. The rancher's name is Jason Meduna.
I also heard more coverage of this story during the time the story came out on our local television news stations, but no text of that to share with you.
As I was looking for this link for you I also found a more current one on the CBS site:
http://cbs4denver.com/pets/horses.rescue.nebraska.2.1002259.html
To Stephanie -- my apologies for going off-topic with these links in your thread. I just wanted to answer LC's question about the story the best I could.
Posted by Nakia Anderson on 06/21/2009 @ 10:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
@Nancy Correa, You are answering a question that no one asked; you are completely off-topic. Having said that, I will remind you of something: every open admission shelter (like PETA's) has to euth animals. I know this because I volunteer at an animal shelter. The resources and money and staff simply run out. “No kills” are no solution-- they just tell people to take their problems elsewhere. As long as there are far more animals than loving homes, open admission shelters will be left to do people's dirty work. If you think that is false, then I invite you to go out and save every unwanted animal in your area. If you do not have a solution to the pet over-population problem, perhaps you should be less quick to pass judgment. And keep your lies and misinformation about PETA to yourself. I am surprised you did not bother to give the petakills.com website in your post, like some 14 year old kid. PETA is open about its euth policy. The answer is spay/neuter and a zero birth nation. Since every open admission shelter is carrying out euth, one wonders why you would target PETA, unless you are a proxy for the meat, vivisection, fur, or pet industry. You may be just another deluded self righteous noisemaker, long on criticism but short on solutions.
Posted by Jamie Rivet on 06/21/2009 @ 11:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Maybe you should read Nathan Winograd's Redemption before you indict all no kill shelters.
Posted by Olivia White on 06/25/2009 @ 10:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Ok, although i must admit this comment was taken way out of context. PETA are extremists and i can see why it would be taken out of context. I am all for animal rights activists, I LOVE ANIMALS AND DO NOT EAT THEM but they(PETA, not all activists) can be a bit rediculas and have been caught in some pretty hypocritical situations. Visit this,i'm sure you know what i am referring to http://www.petakillsanimals.com/. So i can not really come to their defense. Go HEMP, GREEN, VEGETARIAN!!
Posted by Cam J on 06/22/2009 @ 07:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What's "extreme" about PETA Cam?
Posted by Alex Melonas on 06/22/2009 @ 09:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Please do your research first on www.petakillsanimals.com and the $$$$ behind the site before you cite it!
Posted by Kathryn Robertson on 06/23/2009 @ 07:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Cam,
4 an ARA u sure have not done yor homework, nor your research behind websites & their agenda.
Look up Richard Berman & u will have the TRUTH.
I'm so SICK & TIRED of hearing about CCF's websites.
Do u know about the CCF? (Center for Consumer Freedom)
Berman's own son has publicly disowned his father & calls him earth's satan incarnate.
Yes, Peta's workers were doing a job that a shelter would eventually have done.
It's hard to be in this field & have to euthanize an animal or yur own companion. It's the most terrible thing when one has 2 make that choice & the toughest call in your life becuz some of us can't stand the suffering.
There's 2 many reasons 2 give if u have not been on that end.
To all of you peta haters, stop judging & dumping on them.
BTW, GO VEGAN.
Posted by L C on 06/23/2009 @ 11:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If u want 2 call me an extremist, so b it.
Abolitionist & very PROUD of it.
Although, we prefer the correct terminology & truthful meaning to our deeds...FREEDOM FIGHTERS.
Posted by L C on 06/24/2009 @ 12:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, indeed thank you for some sanity. Unfortunately we are not only dealing with insanity, but also ignorance. I have to listen to some many people misinformed or down right ignorant commenting on this story, that makes my ears ache. There is nothing extreme when it comes to defend animals and creatures with no voice other than the organizations such as PETA gives them. We also need to research the accuracy of those websites such as petakillsanimals.com before we tell people to check them out. Yes, let's focus on the important issues about animal cruelty and put our efforts to achieve real change. I agree, there is no serious journalism in USA, except for public television such as PBS, and even if anyone has access to French TV5 can realize that people in Europe focus in real issues not only locally but around the world. We should learn from them.
Posted by elsa beatriz herrmann on 06/22/2009 @ 05:05PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I cant see how Peta are in any way extreme, especially when in comparison to the tactics used by the companies and industries they oppose. And most importantly in the context of what they are opposing; animal abuse is very extreme. Most of the critisism of peta is generated by the companies and individuals that feel threatened by Petas work. Then its just stupidy repeated by those who cannot seem to think for themselves. The fly comment was typically taken out of context, and very typical of the American media. I support Peta and see no conflicts with my activism. Peta reach all of the audiences that traditional campaigns do not. Most AR campaigns are aimed (intentionally or not) at those allready interested in supporting them, so we allways seem to preach to the converted. Where as Peta target the most difficult and hard to reach sections of society, and they are effective. If pictures of nude women can convert your steriotypical mainstream 'manly' males to the cause then i have no problem with it at all. Even Morrissey has pointed out that it works. Petas campaigns are very effective and thats all that matters.
Posted by Red N. on 06/23/2009 @ 02:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If any other person in this country was photographed swatting a fly, no one would give it a second thought. Isn't it amazing how "much to do about nothing" is applied here because Obama is our president, and there are people who will attack him for anything at all because they don't like him.
If there is an insect in my house that I can safely take outside, I will. HOWEVER, if I am being bitten by a mosquito, a flea or a tick, that insect is gone. Instinct takes over before anyone can bat an eye. Besides having already been exposed to Lyme Disease and having serious skin problems because of insects, I cannot afford to take chances.
Posted by Barbara McNamara on 06/23/2009 @ 10:36AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for exposing the truth behind this nonsensical reporting. This was another low for the corporate media. It seems that if there isn't any news from the far-right, Fox "News" propagandists, or any other crazies, then they have to invent an issue. Shame on all who are responsible for this. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta
Posted by Rev Bookburn on 06/23/2009 @ 05:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
awesome opinion
Posted by Jean-Luc Grosjean on 07/28/2009 @ 01:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.