Peta

DogAdvocat

You're misreading me. What you're trying to do is to connect my analogy to specific situations that I never intended. I haven't claimed that Peta doesn't morally support the ALF, nor have I claimed that they haven't aided in defense funds. I also have not claimed that they didn't lie when rescuing the animals from negligent shelters. What I do claim is that I understand what happened in that rescue situation based on my knowledge of companion animal overpopulation problems, as well as my queries to their reasons for what happened, which I find totally logical. What is not logical is those who claim they believed that Peta could find homes for all of the homeless animals in that area. Those people obviously didn't have a grip on reality of the overall national problem. So like the man with the car that couldn't go over 60 mph, I feel competent to contradict those that are bashing Peta based on knee-jerk reactions to stories put out by locals who weren't doing right by the animals themselves. The analogy is appropriate.

In the end, this discussion really has nothing to do with whether or not Peta made the right decision. That's up to the individual, but that decision should be made after considering the whole story, and I don't see that happening on Peta bashing boards.

Let me give you another example. When I first became aware of criticism against Peta, it was from those that claimed that "Peta people" were going into dog shows and either releasing the dogs or poisoning their water. Doing nothing but looking at the surface of those stories, I went digging and used some logic. First, I could find no information, nor could any bashers offer any information, on arrests, trials, or convictions of any Peta people for harming show dogs in any way. Second, if you really think about it, with all these stories going around, why would show handlers, breeders, or judges, allow anyone with a Peta t-shirt, or any other item identifying them as Peta, to wander around a dog show without being ready to pounce on them if they went near the dogs and/or why would they leave their dogs unattended if such a person was on the show grounds? And if the person was not wearing identifiable Peta clothing, then how could they know that a Peta person was even there -- especially considering the fact that no resultant arrests and identifications were made?

Now you apparently think that the frequency of such reports indicates that it might be really happening, and all I can do is suggest that you go to snopes.com or any of the other urban legend websites to see how unfounded rumors can rapidly spread. Add rumor-mongers with an agenda, and it's like a wildfire - but that still doesn't mean it's true.

skunkstripe

A discussion of this response deserves better than to get lost in a long post.

This was what I had posted:
Looks like I need to spell out the analogy in very simple terms:

"Sons of Mohammed" (fictional, harmless-appearing advocate of Arab culture) linked to Al Qeada (real, extremist/terrorist self-appointed advocate of radical Islam

analogous to

"PETA" (fictional, harmless-appearing advocate of animal rights) linked to ALF (real, extremist/terrorist self-appointed advocate of animal rights

Is it clear now?

So if the hypothetical "Sons of Mohammed" is indeed offering classes in belly dancing and subsidizing the exhibit on King Tut and the Golden Age of the Pharoahs, that is fine until and unless they start funneling their money to Al Qaeda, whom I do not expect to attempt to rescue anyone from anywhere.

Since PETA's hallmark is the use of analogies to get attention (how about those campaigns equating black people to livestock)
http://www.nhregister.com/site/news....81&PAG=461&dep
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0819-25.htm
(or maybe the one equating the Jews killed in the Holocaust to chickens)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=31211
I would have thought you would have no trouble udnerstanding an analogy.


If the last thing you heard was that the ALF was not killing people, did you not hear this from 2005?

"A militant animal rights activist referred to the notion of murdering medical researchers in order to save laboratory animals as a “morally justifiable solution.”

Jerry Vlasak, co-founder and spokesman for the North American Animal Liberation Press Office, which provides information about the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC) and other militant animal rights movements, made the remark during his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on October 26, 2005.

A day before Vlasak’s testimony, the North American Animal Liberation Press Office posted a “Communiqué from ALF activists” on its Web site saying that ALF called in a bomb threat to the a hotel in Anaheim, California, in order to prevent a representative for Huntingdon Life Sciences, SHAC’s main target, from speaking at a conference there. According to the communiqué, an ALF activists told the concierge, “You’ve allowed HLS to come into your hotel, now you will pay the price…If [name deleted] from HLS takes the stage, everyone dies."

or in 2004:
“I don’t think you’d have to kill -- assassinate -- too many vivisectors,” Vlasak continued, “before you would see a marked decrease in the amount of vivisection going on. And I think for five lives, ten lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, two million, ten million non-human lives.”

or in 2003:
“I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective,” Vlasak Said.

(source: http://www.adl.org/learn/extremism_i...ess_110705.htm )

Or is this more harmless rhetoric, which as long as it comes from PETA or ALF is fine? Maybe these remarks were taken out-of-context?
Can you at least comprehend that someone might actually interpret those statements as death threats? As far as I am concerned PETA can keep their Snip Van is this is the kind of thing they openly support.

DogAdvocat

So are you saying that you no longer want to discuss whether Peta is a criminal organization and does not step up to help the animals, as originally claimed? You now seem to want to discuss the ALF and their supporters. But what you are actually doing is using inflammatory rhetoric to try to back your statement that Peta is a criminal organization, which you have not been able to prove, since there have been no convictions. Nice try, but I'm not buying it, and I hope that anyone with a lick of sense will see through it.

Are there radicals in the movement that make radical statements? Sure there is. It's always reminded me of the radicals in the equal rights movement - the Black Panthers. But just like the Black Panthers didn't represent Dr. King, the Animal Defense League (ADL), with Jerry Vlasak as their spokesperson, does not represent Peta, and there have been incidents where such people have looked on Peta with disgust because they aren't more radical and militant. If you want to discuss the merits of radical speeches, that's fine, but it's not connected to the original premise.

Once again, there are no criminal convictions of Peta or it's officers, other than possible civil disobedience charges, and if you're going to consider them to be a criminal organization for that, then you have to also consider anyone else that uses civil disobedience to demonstrate for their cause to be criminals too, like MLK. Claims that Peta morally or monetarily supports the ALF does not make them criminals, as criminals by definition have to have committed a crime, and again, since their are no convictions, and Peta is still up and running, you can't logically call them criminals.

As for them not stepping up to help the animals, you can't reasonably claim that things like the spay/neuter van don't count because a radical from the ADL makes radical speeches. What one group does, doesn't negate what another group is doing.

By the way, don't you think it's rather ludicrous for you to be stating in one post that you don't like the idea of children being encouraged to commit criminal behavior because they have read message board posts talking about it, and then on the other hand you post a bunch of inflammatory radical statements from animal rights extremists?

skunkstripe

There has been an impressive amount of verbiage in this thread so I will recap. I anticipate that you will disagree BTW.

You originally accused me of not being honest, of being misleading, and of not having sufficient facts to warrant my stance. I responded with a lengthy post, making the facts that were available to me available to all. I have posted of arrests, convictions, recruiting aliens from overseas to deliberately perform illegal acts for the purpose of obtaining media attention, using funds to pay for the legal defense of arsonsists, and you wave your hand and say you don't like one single source (activistcash), therefore none of it is true. This despite the fact that this was one single website among many, and despite the fact that the link you posted to educate me about the true nature of activistcash clearly stated that the factual information which they make available is generally correct.

If I quote the information rather than providing the link, it gets stamped as either "out-of-context" or "rhetoric". You were the one who said I was lumping PETA and ALF together, yet PETA's own literature makes their suport of ALF public. I do not expect you to "buy it" since your mind is firmly made up. It would just be nice if you would provide some evidence for the statements you have made, such as how PETA "sticks up for the animals" or how the Ashokie pair had good reason to break the law and lie to the people they took the animals from about their real intentions to kill the animals as quickly as possible. You have yet to provide any hard evidence other than the info about the Snip Van, which tellingly will snip Pitties for free. Speciesism is bad, but breedism is ok if it is practiced by PETA. That is certainly a group of animals that PETA intends not to help! There was also the persistent reference to RICO (I guess because it had not led to any convictions you wanted to make it look like I had brought it up so you could shoot it down) and allusions to some query you made to the "main office" to convince yourself that there are "two sides to every story" and that the Ashokie case involves justifiable euthanasia (proof?) all I have seen from you has been rhetorical gyrations. That and the knee-slapper about speeding tickets which you keep reviving over several posts.

You can't deny the unambiguousness of the death threats made by ALF, which is being supported by PETA, so now you twist it around and misstate what I said. No DogAdvocat, it was not "message board posts" it was the fact that this person was a moderator, thus enjoying special board status and conveying the impression that her stance was condoned by the owners of the message forum, and had an avatar which (admittedly in my opinion) glorified being in prison. The difference is that the mods on this board are free to delete my posts or even ban me as a member. Now what would you think if you came to this board and here is Skunkstripe, not a plain old civilian member, but a super duper Global Moderator with the power to make posts and threads disappear, reappear and move at will, and instead of two friendly doggies in my avatar, there was something way out of the norm for a mainstream dog board, say, promoting dogfighting. Would that not give you the impression that the entire dog forum was supportive of dogfighting?

PS if you want to start a new thrad, click the "bone" that says "New Thread" when your screen shows the forum you want to post in.

DogAdvocat

Well, you're right about one thing, I do disagree

What you responded with was charges and accusations, not convictions. I agree that I think Activistcash is a bogus source, with a definite agenda, but the rest of your links really do no more than make accusations with no resultant convictions. Once again, if Peta is doing something illegal, then where is the convictions? All you've really been able to point at is arrests for civil disobedience. Please show where Ms. Newkirk, Mr. Pacheco (no longer at Peta, by the way), or any of the policy decision makers have been convicted of the claims you've made about terrorism, or even supporting terrorism. You can huff and puff all you want about all the links you provided - the web is actually full of them - but they still don't amount to a hill of beans when trying to prove that Peta is a criminal organization. Again, if they were, they would no longer exist.


Not true. Even if you supply the link for out-of-context quotes, they're still out-of-context. It's not you that are taking them out of context, it's the ones who removed part of the quote, thereby changing the meaning of the quote. And even if all those quotes were totally accurate, it still doesn't mean they are a criminal organization. Freedom of speech allows them to make inflammatory or radical statements without being concern that they will be labeled as criminal for having done so. A statement saying that animals would benefit if animal abusers were eliminated, doesn't mean that such elimination has or will take place. And such statement IS rhetoric because it hasn't been acted on, and probably won't be. It's simply speech, and no more.

Support is not a link, you know. I might support my local shelter, morally or with funding, but that doesn't mean I am linked with them in any way. And if that shelter does something that is criminal, I certainly wouldn't be considered a criminal too. I could even continue to support them for the good work they do and not be a party to their alleged crimes. And if I had taken part in their crimes, then I should be charged with it - AND convicted - something that hasn't happened to Peta - get it?

You're right, my mind IS firmly made up -- it's called innocent until proven guilty, and you haven't proven them guilty. You offer proof, but it doesn't prove what you're contending. You say they are guilty, but then only offer proof of accusations and charges, and piddly civil disobedience arrests. It's not your websites that I doubt (with the exception of Activistcash), it's that you apparently think they prove something that they really don't prove at all.

You're right, I don't have any proof of that, but then unlike you, I never said I did. I rely on logic, and on what I was told when I queried about the situation - which made perfect sense to me when balanced against my experience. The website that Peta put up about the shelter problems in that area is here http://www.peta.org/feat/yadkin/ -- and though you may doubt their word about it, I don't for the very reason I've previously stated - when one has experience in the field, one recognizes when they are being handed a load of bull.

Puppy & Dog Forums

 

DogAdvocat

Why don't you just admit that you disagree with some of their policies and campaigns? Don't you understand that there is a huge difference between disagreeing with their policies, and bashing them for being criminal or doing nothing? I can disagree with you, for instance, but that would give me no call to accuse you of things you've never been convicted of. It's not necessary to bash a group when disagreeing with them. Like I've said before, good people can come down on both sides of controversial issues.

As for the Pitbulls, I happen to agree with them, and several other groups including Actors & Others for Animals, in their efforts to neuter pitbulls for free. Pitbulls are the breed that has the least chance in this nations shelters, and like with all breeds and mixes, I'd rather see them neutered then producing more unwanted dogs to die in the shelters. I think that effort is a perfect example of the good they are doing for companion animals. And if you have some idea that their efforts will make the breed die out - utter nonsense. Hopefully, it will help to eliminate the BYB and puppymilled pitbulls, which is a good thing. It's hogwash to think that reputable breeders will be lining up for free neutering of their pitbulls, and therefore end the breed. Are you serioiusly indicating that you'd rather they didn't alter pitbulls so that more irresponsibly bred pitbulls can be produced????

You still don't understand the point about RICO? When alleged criminals are difficult to convict, RICO is used. But even that was a dead-end against Peta, proving that there is nothing they can be convicted of. I never said you brought it up.

Yes, it probably would. Some boards set rules that moderators not post their own opinions using their moderator "uniform" and only do so under a "civilian" screen name, while keeping their moderator status secret. But all boards seem to be run differently, and there sure are enough of them on the web that no one is forced to stay on a board that they don't like. But I can see your point. I hadn't realized that the person you spoke of was a moderator.

Thank you

I sense this is winding down. Is it possible that we can come to a meeting of the minds at some point? There are things that Peta does that I don't like, and obviously there are things they do that you don't like. The things I object to are mostly debatable controversial subjects that can be argued on their own merits without even mentioning Peta's name. Any group or individual could be promoting such campaigns, and it would still bring out the same argument. But the point is that no matter what group it is, the subject can be discussed without bashing the group or individual that is on the other side of the controversy. And that was really my only objection. Because in the end, if a group has 100 campaigns, and the focus is on condemning them for 2 of those campaigns, then all the other campaigns are affected as well. When the claims are made that they are a horrible group that isn't worthy of anyone's support, that means that the good work they do with spay/neuter, with building doghouses for backyard dogs, and with exposing animal abuse, also lose support, and those good things have the potential to end - further condemning the animals.

drfong

I think that the last thing you said is ultimately the most important. If an organiztion has 98 good campains, they don't need the other 2. It doesn't matter if its a religious group, an animal rights group, a senior advocacy group, an enviromental protection group, etc. When you get in bed with the devil you eventually get burned. If PETA has never done anything illegal they are tainted because they suport fringe groups rather than denounce them. The problem is they can't really denounce them because they agree with them and they feel they not only have the right to agree (which of course they do) but that they shouldn't have any ramifications for aligning themselves with those types of groups.

DogAdvocat

But the problem with that, is who chooses what the 2 bad campaigns are? Some, for instance, condemn Peta because of their stance on feral cats, without acknowledging that it's a controversial subject with viable opinions on both sides of the issue. Others condemn them for their stance on fur, etc. You apparently think that the biggest problem is failure to denounce, and/or support, of radical activists. And yet an argument could be made that such radical ideas are a necessary part of any movement. And if they believe that's true, based on historical perspective of the civil rights movement, and other incidents where the radical faction has made the moderate faction more acceptable than if the radical did not exist -- you could argue the point, but is it fair to condemn them for recognizing that historical truth?

And please remember, no matter what the rhetoric, no person in this country has been killed. Considering the time that's used to bash Peta for violence that hasn't happened, one wonders why there isn't just as much of a concern for all of the people who have been killed while involved with hunting, or even being an innocent bystander and being killed by hunters. Why is Peta considered violent, or involved with violence when our country's vice president gets off scott-free for shooting someone in the face? Personally, I'd be much more terrorized being around hunters doing their thing, than I would being around a Peta person doing theirs.

skunkstripe

Yes it is winding down. After all the verbiage we have exchanged, any further response from me would either re-hash something I've already said or side-track onto another topic (but I won't take the bait about the Sternberg temperament test!). I hope this posts adds clarity.

Well I don't see it that way. To me, if their policies glorify criminal acts and show lack of respect for human life, then they are doing and or/aiding it, overtly or covertly. You hit the nail on the head about the 98 good making the 2 bad acceptable. I see PETA as more 10 good and 90 bad, thus I don't give them the benefit of the doubt. To use an analogy, this is like seeing a neighbor get hauled off by the cops in handcuffs. If you like him because he takes out your garbage and fixes your plumbing, you might doubt that the charges were justified. However if he hollers obscenities at you over the fence and lets his kids throw rotten eggs at houses in the neighborhood, you might be inclined to think that he really is a crook.

So I will try to clear up some loose ends.

What do I think of when I think of PETA?

1. Shock tactics designed to get our attention and make us sympathetic to systematic mistreatment of animals, but which backfire. The strategy of getting media attention used to work for them. However, in recent memory they have gone so far beyond the limits of decency as to alienate a mainstream that might otherwise have been willing to give them an ear. Is the sight of caged battery hens not appalling enough that it has to be equated to Jews killed in Nazi concentration camps? Or re unnecessary use of animals for experiments (such as cosmetics testing), does PETA need to compare monkeys to black slaves? Is there not a suggestion of lack of respect for humans here? Instead of mobilizing the capacity for outrage against the mistreatment of aninmals, all they have manage to do is mobilize it against themselves. One after another campaign has had to have been withdrawn or modified. PETA's hallmark has become offending whole groups of people. The bit about coercing elementary school teachers to take down the "Got Milk" posters in classrooms in Vermont was a monumental act of stupidity. Carrying it further and turning it into "Got Beer"?, encouraging kids to drink beer instead of milk only raised the ire of MADD. Thumbs up for the "I'd rather go naked than wear fur" campaign (I am a feminist, but I don't see where PETA was treating women as sex objects), but for the most part this aspect is one I can't see as positive. They consistently go for the cheap shot, and it accounts for about 50 % of what I see from them.

2. Encouraging petty criminal activity. Typical example:
http://www.peta.org/feat/petatomato/
I am not going to get too worked up if PETA-inspired,self-appointed "vigilantes" stain a celebrity's fur. Technically it is willful destruction of property, but nobody is injured, the celebrity can handle the financial damage, and more than likely benefits from the publicity. But since when has petty vandalism (including things like spraying graffitti) become noble? I don't buy the "lots of great people went to jail, therefore going to jail puts me in their league" logic. This sentence:
"Many great figures of civil rights movements went to jail because of actions they took to further their cause"
does not say the same thing as:
"Going to jail for actions related to a cause you believe in makes you a hero comparable to those of civil rights movements."
I think some people miss the distinction and also have a screw loose. These are the people PETA is appealing to. Look at that flyer on the rotten tomatoes. What mental stability/degree of maturity is PETA targeting? Frankly I find it disrespectful to suggest that cowardly acts of petty vandalism (standing among a group of likeminded cohorts tossing rotten tomatoes at an actress) are in the same category as courageous acts of civil disobedience practiced by Martin Luther King or Rosa Parks. Hooligans who act on this type of PETA encouragement know they will not be alone if they get arrested. Martin Luther King surely knew he would die for his cause. Rosa Parks was not assured of a fat legal defense fund when she refused to go to the back of the bus in 1955. Thumbs up to the stroke of genius by Greenpeace painting the fur of baby seals. No one gets hurt, the seals live, and humans get the message. Can't PETA come up with something comparable? Instead they glorify crappy things that bad kids want to do anyway and give them a morally acceptable excuse. Again, a big negative for PETA from me.

3. Hypocrisy on the BSL issue. OK I know this is a white hot topic, one that could generate a multi-page thread within hours. I will keep my remarks short, taking the risk of not explaining myself thoroughly and thus leaving it open for misinterpretation. My opinion is that PETA missed the boat big time on this one and left us dog owners all in the cold. Their support of BSL boggles the mind for an organziation that objects to "speciesism". "Breedism" is ok? First there is the messy "what is a Pit Bull anyway" issue. But even if you could define a "Pit Bull" and agree that they should be banned, the broader implications of BSL for things like owning dogs in general and homeowners' insurance in particular are a nightmare. Which breed is next? Chows, Akitas, German Shepherds? Mixes? These are all breeds that currently might cause your homeowners policy to be abruptly canceled if you own one, unless you live in a state that prohibits that practice. I can't accept the they "stick up for animals" line if they choose not to stick up for "Pit Bulls". Pit Bulls are animals too, and deserve as much defense as cows, fish, chickens and monkeys. Again, a big negative in my book, and BTW the one that started me looking deeper into what was behind PETA.

4. Open support of ALF. We have discussed this to death so I will not elaborate here. I will only say that there I see no sharp line between PETA and ALF. The crimes of ALF fall back on PETA, otherwise why is PETA giving them money? DogAdvocat says no, law enforcement has nothing on them, I say, yes, PETA puts in in their literature and policy statements and has spent money on legal defense for AFL members. If DogAdvocat says that the reason I am inclined to believe there is a connection to the hard-core criminal acts is because I disagree with PETA's campaigns and policies, this may be part of it. After all, if an organization has so little respect for the humans whose opinions it is trying to influence, why should I believe that they would not stop short of fronting for ALF to do the real dirty work?

I would add "hypocrisy on the feral cats" issue but I would be on thin ice. My knowledge is mostly from cat boards (where there are strong opinions from knowledgable people). I don't see how PETA can openly proclaim that it would be better for animals to live as they did before human intervention and then go in and kill whole colonies even as said colonies are enjoying the positives of human intervention (such as medical care) without the negatives (being forced to live according to the conveniences of humans). My objection is that PETA's answer is always "go in and kill", and they feel that because they have the moral right on their side that it is justified.

This accounts for 90 % of my impression of PETA. Not much of it is good, and some is REALLY bad. After I saw the Snip Van it even occured to me that offering the speuter for free to Pit owners might have a sinister ulterior motive: if someone says their dog is a Pit to get the free snip, does PETA share that information with someone who could sabotage a homeowner's insurance policy? I think that is a shame, because I easily see the argument that Pit owners need the services. Not all are macho drug dealers and dog fighters. Some are decent people with a heart bigger than their wallet who save these dogs from crappy owners and who want to get the dogs fixed but have trouble coming up with the $100 or so it costs. I don't think that being an "actor" makes someone's opinion more valued (don't some wear fur?) But thanks to PETA's overall stance on the BSL issue, this is how far my opinion has sunk.

I'm sure that Ms Newkirk has a thick enough hide that everyone in the country could think of her as a nutcase and she would not lose any sleep, but PETA influence and credibility has eroded badly in mainstream USA. Peaceful protest and chaining themselves to gates outside of animal testing labs (something misguided because those labs are NOT the root cause of the testing) was not enough for them, but it was plenty for a lot of us. And I am far from an "An Animal's Place is next to the Mashed Potatoes" T-shirt wearing conservative. More like a liberal, hard-core dog lover who simply dislikes extremism.

So much for a brief post! If the PETA topic is winding down, there are plenty of side topics that have come up, and I am guilty of bringing a whole bunch of them up in this post. I am really not trying to drag this on or "have the last word". I need to bow out at least for a time.
I am going to take a break from long debates and go back to simpler, shorter posts for a while. Not that it has not been enjoyable, I just cannot keep up this level of discussion and put dog biscuits and cat treats on the table. Maybe someone else will pick up on it.

Mods, thanks for the soap box,
Dogadvocat, thanks for the thoughtfully written responses. We will agree to disagree.
Happy holidays and happy posting, we shall meet again I'm sure.

DogAdvocat

I don't think you've shown that they show a lack of respect for human life, especially since the ALF expressly dictates that they do not, in any way, condone violence to any animal, human or non-human.

Actually, I believe what I said (or at least meant) was that the 98 good should become more of the focus instead of the 2 bad. And that's especially true when no one has been physically hurt.

Apparently it wasn't appalling to Isaac Bashevis Singer who lived in Warsaw, Poland under Hitler's regime, and subsequently stated that "For the animals it is an eternal Treblinka" which prompted Charles Patterson to write a book called "Eternal Treblinka."

[quote]Or re unnecessary use of animals for experiments (such as cosmetics testing), does PETA need to compare monkeys to black slaves?

And yet **** Gregory made a similar comparison clear back in 1968.

Making comparisons of one group with another does not show disrespect for either. Instead, it fosters empathy, of which there is far too little in this world. Assuming that a comparison between animals and humans is disrespectful to humans shows a speciesism towards animals. When comparisons are made between races, with the aim of educating for equality, is it your contention that it is disrespectful to the dominant race? During the women's rights movement, or even before that, during the efforts to grant women the right to vote, would comparisons between men and women have been disrespectful to men? Speciesism grants that one is lower than the other, and the goal is to bring them to the lowest common point. If speciesism isn't blinding you, they you'd realize that the status of animals are to be raised, not the status of humans lowered.

Your description of the milk/beer incident seems to indicate that they promoted beer to elementary school children. I believe they did ask that the milk posters be removed from the grammar school, but the beer posters were placed at colleges, and last time I heard, college students really don't need to be encouraged to drink beer - they have enough keg parties all on their own. And the point was, that glass for glass, beer is healthier. MADD's response was beneficial to them both, because it got even more coverage.

As for publicity, I can't help looking at all the other groups out there that the public doesn't know about. These are groups that aren't as "in your face" as Peta is, and because of it, they aren't getting the word out as effectively. These include API, ADLF, IDA, ISAR, FFA, LCA, etc. So if you prefer that Peta be less confrontational and less abrasive, like all these groups are, how are they going to be heard? You have to admit that though no one likes the "squeaky wheel", it does get oiled, and it is noticed. The quiet wheels get no attention. It may not be pleasant, but it's a fact of life.

Of course Peta can come up with something comparable to painting the fur seals, and they have, but you condemn it? Consider this -- in the quote above, you talk about petty vandalism being cowardly and certainly not heroic, but at the same time, you give thumbs up to the vandalism of Greenpeace. Don't you realize that those seal pups are someone's livelihood, just like the vandalized building that houses the furrier in the city? This action was so abhorred by the sealers, that during the last season, one (or more) of the sealers assaulted activists that were merely taking video pictures of the seal hunt. They certainly wouldn't consider those activists to be noble, nor would they give them the thumbs up -- but you do, because you apparently agree with that cause. So the problem isn't whether an action is criminal or not, the problem is that you want to judge it by your standards. So what makes that different than anyone else, including me, and Peta? Why do you get to pick which law breaker is a hero, but I have a screw loose? Why is one vandal a coward, and another vandal is a hero?

See next post............

DogAdvocat

What's being missed is that they ARE sticking up for pitbulls. Several years ago I saw a poster at a local humane society that was promoting spay/neuter and had the caption "What isn't born, doesn't suffer." Pitbulls probably suffer more than just about any other breed right now. Not only from negligent and cruel owners, but also because of the numbers dying in shelters. Rescue is hopelessly overwhelmed with this breed. So the defense they deserve just as much as cows, chickens, etc. is the same defense they are getting, because all those animals have their suffering prevented by not being born.

Not only that, but BSLs in my opinion, aren't a bad thing if they are structured properly. Any breed that is potentially aggressive to humans or animals should only be bred by those who know how to selectively breed that trait out of them, and who can be made responsible for the types of homes they put the dogs in. If breeders required their puppy buyers to accept continual training, plus require them to have housing that protects the public from the animals, I'd bet the insurance wouldn't be a problem. Every dog of that nature should have it's CGC. I don't want to see any dog die, and would support a grandfather clause, but it would have to include mandatory spay/neuter with the exception of the above stated expert breeders.

My point was that any legal defense money that Peta has given is not illegal, and also I think you might be lumping the radical rhetoric of extremists with the ALF whose purpose is to release abused animals and destroy the tools of their abuse. Since they clearly state that they are not violent towards humans and non-humans, this again begs the point of how are they different from those "noble" vandals who are causing monetary damage to the sealers, but who you morally support?

Once again, the "in a perfect world" statement never suggested that domestic animals be returned to the wild. What was meant was that in a perfect world, humans would not be connected with animals, except to see them from afar. It refers to the animals as they were before we domesticized them. It would be ridiculous to expect a poodle, for instance, to be able to survive without our help. And though some animals could manage better than others, they all have been changed by domestication. If Ms. Newkirk were suggesting that domestic animals be returned to the wild, then there would be no point in euthanizing feral cats because all that would have to happen is to remove their colony managers. And as for going in and killing - again, it's to relieve suffering.

My point for bringing up actors was not to suggest their opinion is more valued, it was to point out that even well respected groups (like Actors & Others for Animals) s/n pitbulls for free - so it's not some kind of Peta plot.

I'm not trying to drag it out either, but part of winding down is clearing up loose ends. Sorry, but I saw a lot of loose ends in this otherwise excellent post. But I sure know what you mean about it taking a lot of time, especially in this busy time of the year. It's even worse when, like happened to me earlier, I complete a post and then it disappears into the ether. So frustrating.

And I'm ready for a rematch on other subjects whenever you're up for it. Who knows, maybe we'll find one that we agree on.

Puppy & Dog Forums