PETA

[MissingNo.]

Wait a minute, PETA advocates spaying and neutering your pets? Isn't their whole ethos that animals should have the same rights as humans? Doesn't that mean they're advocating involuntary castration?

[Twoflower]

I read an article that PETA thinks that bulldogs shouldn't breed anymore because they have a hard time breathing. Or something stupid like that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... robot.html

I think PETA started out with good intentions, but now they have gone over to the bat shit crazy side of things.

On a funny note my dad wants to put a PETA sticker on his gun when he goes hunting.

[Woodbutcher]

Because of their extreme and irrational views on some issues, they damage the important efforts of mainstream organisations to improve the welfare of animals in practical ways, if only by making the general public resistant to messages about real animal cruelty. Extreme green organisations have done a similar disservice to the environmental movement...

I'm with you 100% on that.

[JimC]

I read an article that PETA thinks that bulldogs shouldn't breed anymore because they have a hard time breathing. Or something stupid like that.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... robot.html

I think PETA started out with good intentions, but now they have gone over to the bat shit crazy side of things.

On a funny note my dad wants to put a PETA sticker on his gun when he goes hunting.

Actually, some breeds such as pugs and bulldogs have developed breathing problems due to artificial selection for flattened faces. There is a case for breeders to alter their practices in this area. It does not have to mean no breeding, but simply altered criteria when selecting which animals to breed...

[PairOfFeet]

They also don't approve of vegetarians and want everyone to go 100% vegan.

That kind of annoys me. While I agree being vegan is a good idea(I am vegan), it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be vegan. They should be happy that some people at least are making an effort by just being vegetarian. I can see from there point of view: vegetarians still support the egg and dairy industry which is pretty bad, but they could do worse. They should just be glad the vegetarians have good intentions.

[Twoflower]

They also don't approve of vegetarians and want everyone to go 100% vegan.

That kind of annoys me. While I agree being vegan is a good idea(I am vegan), it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be vegan. They should be happy that some people at least are making an effort by just being vegetarian. I can see from there point of view: vegetarians still support the egg and dairy industry which is pretty bad, but they could do worse. They should just be glad the vegetarians have good intentions.

Im a veggie and try to eat only organic eggs and only drink organic milk. Its hard though at uni with a meat loving roommate.

[PairOfFeet]

They also don't approve of vegetarians and want everyone to go 100% vegan.

That kind of annoys me. While I agree being vegan is a good idea(I am vegan), it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be vegan. They should be happy that some people at least are making an effort by just being vegetarian. I can see from there point of view: vegetarians still support the egg and dairy industry which is pretty bad, but they could do worse. They should just be glad the vegetarians have good intentions.

Im a veggie and try to eat only organic eggs and only drink organic milk. Its hard though at uni with a meat loving roommate.

I'm glad you're conscious and are careful about what you choose. I know you're doing your best. I'm thanking you for doing a good job. Unlike PETA.

[Twoflower]

They also don't approve of vegetarians and want everyone to go 100% vegan.

That kind of annoys me. While I agree being vegan is a good idea(I am vegan), it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be vegan. They should be happy that some people at least are making an effort by just being vegetarian. I can see from there point of view: vegetarians still support the egg and dairy industry which is pretty bad, but they could do worse. They should just be glad the vegetarians have good intentions.

Im a veggie and try to eat only organic eggs and only drink organic milk. Its hard though at uni with a meat loving roommate.

I'm glad you're conscious and are careful about what you choose. I know you're doing your best. I'm thanking you for doing a good job. Unlike PETA.

I know, I was just pointing out that even people who arent vegan care about animals. Something PETA doesnt seem to notice.

On a side note, and Im not including you in this statement, almost all vegan that I have met come across as pretentious stuck up snobs. Maybe I have just been unlucky and have met people who are pretentious stuck up snobs who happen to be vegan, but thats what I have noticed IRL.

[Fact-Man]

They overlook the fact that with the exception of the few wild places left on the planet nearly all animals are domesticated and 'systemic' - i.e symbiotic to some extent with human beings. Dogs evolution (and later selective breeding) makes them pretty well totally symbiotic with human beings. They learn to respond to human facial movements innately for example.

Cats. Well we can all fuck right off as far as they are concerned I guess.

I've a feeling (and I could be wrong) that most PETA members are creationists, so "dog evolution" would mean diddly-squat to them.

Well, based on my experience, you'd be quite wrong there, mate.

I've read the thread to this point only but it definitely appears as though I'll be among a small minority among the groupthink I've been reading. Anyone here ever actually work with PETA on a project or research what they actually do and actually say?

I didn't think so.

I spent seven years working with them in getting a non-leghoold trap made standard in Canada, a project that got its start in the 1980's when, after suffering a lot of abuse over leghold traps, the Canadian government held a competition for a non-leghold trap, the winner would get $50K and his or her trap would become the new standard. Leghold traps would be phased out.

My neighbor Ed, who has run a trap line up the valley in which I reside for years, invented what became the winner of that competition, a box trap that has a spring loaded hammer that whacks an animal on the head to produce instantaneous death, i.e., no long-running suffering as animals often endure when trapped in leghold traps. Much more, how shall we say it ... humane.

Ed asked me if I'd help him shepard his trap through the bureaucratic hoops (and there were many), sell its concept and efficiency to trappers, get it through a lot of required testing, and into production. I didn't say no.

The first thing we ran into was the financial clout and political conections of the leghold trap manufacturing industry, a couple of members of which like Have-a-Heart and Conibear have owned the leghold trap market for decades, sold them round the world by the zillions, and wanted no part of any competition, prize winner or not. They pulled out all the stops to stop Ed's box trap from becoming the new standard. It was war.

And thus ensued a long, often bitter and agonizingly hard fought campaign to get Ed's trap certified as the standard, part way into which I was advised that an organization called "PETA" might be able to offer Ed and me some assistance. I met with them, and learned their leadership was made up of a bunch of Eastern women of the intelligentsia, writers and professors and professionals of myriad stripes but all upper class and well educated. Their main agenda struck me as being one of curbing animal suffering and since leghold traps are historically known to cause lengthy bouts of suffering among the fur bearers that trappers trap, they were all for supporing our efforts.

Notice they didn't back off because Ed's trap too would be used to kill animals. The recognized the right and the need of Inuit trappers in the North to make a living, or any trapper to take a crack at earning some income. They said they'd address harvest issues via the regulatory route, to ensure that populations weren't being exploited out of existence.

And assist me they did, mainly because of their connections, their mailing list, and their skill at bringing political pressure to bear on recalcitrant bureaucrats, of keeping the leghold trap issue going in the media, and to use the threat of lawsuit with purpose and the funding to back it up.

We did some trials in the North, among trapping communities The Inuit complained that a woman didn't have the strength to cock Ed's box trap, so he lightened up the spring specs a little, did some testing, and produced a rendition a woman could cock. Weight became an issue we had to work on. There were a million obstacles, many of them thrown up or instigated by the leghold trap industry, who went so far as the buy off and bribe the testing crew in Alberta that was doing the certification tests in the field.

The leadership cadre of PETA pretty much remained in the hands of those women all though my long ordeal. There wasn't a religionist among them. They were intellectuals. Pretty level-headed ones too. I never heard a prayer nor saw a Bible.

It seems fairly obvious that some of PETA's grass roots people are whacked out, ahh, American and British youth, half whacked out most of the time. I don't think the leadership cares too much about that, it's the price of doing business, because they figure some news is better than no news. PETA boasts 2 million members, and if the crowds of them I saw and interacted with at annual conventions are any measure, they are sane and ordered people.

Much of what's bee issued forth in this thread so far strikes me as more rumor and unfounded allegation than anything factual or evidenciary. I'm struck by the groupthink nature of it.

PETA did mount an animal rescue op right after Katrina, for example, sending teams into NOLA to rescue pets who had obviously become lost or disconnected from their owners. And they consistently promote careers in animal husbandry and veterinary medicine, offering scholarships and such. The list of good things PETA has managed to get done far outweighs the bad or stupid things they have done, and the general tenor of their membership is pretty calm and rational. I think their propensity to take their cause into radical actions is a function of the difficulty of keeping public attention focused on the issues. They get frustrated and end up trying too hard.

I expect a good share of the negativity toward them arises from our general inability to appreciate just how widespread cruelty to animals had become by 1985, in moviemaking, animal exhibitions, circuses, medical research, food production, and the like. It was way out of any reasonble hand ... and PETA has managed to roll a lot of that back and animals now get a much better deal because of it, which I've seen on movie sets many times. I count that as progress.

Your mileage may vary.

[MissingNo.]

Much of what's bee issued forth in this thread so far strikes me as more rumor and unfounded allegation than anything factual or evidenciary. I'm struck by the groupthink nature of it.

As opposed to your anecdotal story. Some of us are more familiar with PETA's practices than others. All of the people in this thread also happen to dislike their practices, to varying degrees, I might add. Even though it's generally agreed in this thread that PETA sucks, we all seem to think they suck to varying degrees. I seriously doubt anyone commenting in this thread isn't doing so based on external information. I appreciate you providing a different perspective on the issue but please don't condescend to us and tell us we're not thinking for ourselves. From my experience, everyone here is an open-minded and freethinking individual and if there's evidence against what's being said, we're open to hear it. As for your story, I will look into it, see how it relates to PETA's standard practices and get back to you.

[floppit]

I think there are some fundamental issues with many large animal charities, ones which stem from the appeal to emotion over reason, the level of power they can accrue, the amounts of money involved, and the almost religious support they receive from parts of the greater community (ie a loss of critical evaluation and an increased sense of being an 'authority' on animals). I don't want to tar all with the same brush though, I don't have the knowledge to do that - all I would say is that it's something worth considering.

Like most things I think the bottom line is that each action, statement, and position needs to be seen by it's own merit. Smaller animal charities make this easier because they often deal with only a few issues and do so in a simple way (rehoming greyhounds etc). I know what I'm supporting when it's a little charity rather than a huge and far reaching one. What I would like to see is more smaller animal welfare groups that join to get behind issues rather than the campaigns being ultimately led by the big ones. In years to come I think the net will allow this to happen more - I look forward to that.

[Fact-Man]

I think there are some fundamental issues with many large animal charities, ones which stem from the appeal to emotion over reason, the level of power they can accrue, the amounts of money involved, and the almost religious support they receive from parts of the greater community (ie a loss of critical evaluation and an increased sense of being an 'authority' on animals). I don't want to tar all with the same brush though, I don't have the knowledge to do that - all I would say is that it's something worth considering.

Like most things I think the bottom line is that each action, statement, and position needs to be seen by it's own merit. Smaller animal charities make this easier because they often deal with only a few issues and do so in a simple way (rehoming greyhounds etc). I know what I'm supporting when it's a little charity rather than a huge and far reaching one. What I would like to see is more smaller animal welfare groups that join to get behind issues rather than the campaigns being ultimately led by the big ones. In years to come I think the net will allow this to happen more - I look forward to that.

I'd agree that smaller is better in many instances and that smaller groups and organizations can band together to push national issues.

But when PETA came alive nobody outside the SPCA was seeking to curb abuses that were widespread in food production, medical research, movie making, trapping, puppy raising, the cosmetic industry, circuses, animal exhibition venues, dog fighting, and myriad other endeavors that involved the use and handling of animals, so that when they took on the issue of cruelty to animals it was already very widespread and needed a national effort if progess was to be achieved.

And a lot of progress has indeed been achieved on these fronts since the 1980's.

[maiforpeace]

I think there are some fundamental issues with many large animal charities, ones which stem from the appeal to emotion over reason, the level of power they can accrue, the amounts of money involved, and the almost religious support they receive from parts of the greater community (ie a loss of critical evaluation and an increased sense of being an 'authority' on animals). I don't want to tar all with the same brush though, I don't have the knowledge to do that - all I would say is that it's something worth considering.

Like most things I think the bottom line is that each action, statement, and position needs to be seen by it's own merit. Smaller animal charities make this easier because they often deal with only a few issues and do so in a simple way (rehoming greyhounds etc). I know what I'm supporting when it's a little charity rather than a huge and far reaching one. What I would like to see is more smaller animal welfare groups that join to get behind issues rather than the campaigns being ultimately led by the big ones. In years to come I think the net will allow this to happen more - I look forward to that.

Agreed. For every kind of cause that exists you will find a some that are radical, terrorist or hypocritical about what they do. Animal rights is no exception.

[Animavore]

"The problem with movements is they always go too far" - Bertrand Russell.
I notice, Fact-Man, your anecdotes are from the 80s and I've no doubt they started off with good intentions.
What do you think when you read something like this from one of its most prominent members.
http://www.peta.org/feat/newkirk/will.html

[floppit]

I'd agree that smaller is better in many instances and that smaller groups and organizations can band together to push national issues.

But when PETA came alive nobody outside the SPCA was seeking to curb abuses that were widespread in food production, medical research, movie making, trapping, puppy raising, the cosmetic industry, circuses, animal exhibition venues, dog fighting, and myriad other endeavors that involved the use and handling of animals, so that when they took on the issue of cruelty to animals it was already very widespread and needed a national effort if progess was to be achieved.

And a lot of progress has indeed been achieved on these fronts since the 1980's.

It is possible for a bad organisation to achieve some useful ends however that alone does not make it worthy of wholehearted support. Where my issues begin with large animal charities who put themselves forward as expert in good animal treatment is the point where they depart from reason and err towards emotion. My issue with doing so is twofold, firstly it increases the likelihood of extreme and harmful human behaviour being seen as justified and secondly, in the long run, it appears to have an effect on the organisation itself, reinforcing circular and emotional argument for what should happen to animals over reasoned and changeable opinion. There was a video posted here a while back of a comedian describing the suffering of lambs castrated in the way PETA supports versus the faster recovery of lambs done the way the farmer finds most effective (with his teeth!). Now I wouldn't expect PETA to say 'fair enough we'll change the dictate' based on that evidence but I would expect, over time, to see dictates changed constantly in the light of new info by the 'mother' charities, yet I don't. I see dictates added to but as yet have never seen one reversed. This is such an important factor in good reasoning, rationality requires that being open to persuasion given new evidence - [sarcasm]unless blessed with wisdom of holy texts or amazing and flawless intuition[/sarcasm] it is not possible to hold opinions on a large range of complex issues without such changes evident. It is what is not there as opposed to what is that is conspicuous by it's absence.