ArrowTibbs
02-12-2006, 10:51 PM
I just thought this would be appropriate for discussion...I am against PETA, just to say right up front. The idea of animal rights is appealing, but the organization just loses all my respect in how they go about it. They've done some good things, but they have also gone against their own ethical code. Why do they accept animals for adoption if they can't take care of them?! I never liked PETA much based on the experiences of friends of mine who owned show dogs; reportedly PETA was putting antifreeze in the dog dishes because that was somehow better for the dogs (my friends, btw, love their dogs).
Written for my Environmental Politics class.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, was founded in the year1980 (PETA). PETA is a nonprofit organization operating internationally (PETA). Their goal is to educate policy makers that, ?animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment,? which they find unethical (PETA). The group as a whole has mixed reviews, and although the website for the organization puts their actions in a positive light, there are cases in which their members have taken extreme actions which are detrimental to their overall credibility. Some see PETA as being a group of fanatics as a result of some of these extreme actions. To heighten their publicity, they not only will incorporate celebrities? commentary but operate several websites and have many publications(PETA). These include Grrr!, a children?s newsletter, and publications related to their activities such as a handbook on how to be an active animal rights advocate and how to become a vegetarian (PETA). To earn revenue to fund these publications, they have online stores from which members and those wishing to support PETA can purchase said literature, t-shirts, CDs, DVDs, apply for credit cards and purchase checks with their designs, and buy animal toys (PETA). They are also partnered with several shops which agree to donate a percentage of these product purchases? original cost to the organization (PETA). The publications are not always simply handbooks on how to get involved in community, but are more commonly occurring as propaganda aimed towards children. One such piece of propaganda was entitled Your Daddy Kills Animals! (PETA Tells Kids to Run from Daddy).
PETA?s strategies and tactics include many methods. One of the most well known methods is protesting; during these members will often dress up in animal costumes and encourage boycotting a certain company for its practices (PETA). These protestors are also often paid, say multiple sources. They also appeal to legislation, film animal cruelty in action by entering the business in question, and have celebrities speak for them (PETA). The targets of their protests include have included several circuses, basketball tournaments which use leather basketballs, restaurant chains such as Burger King, scientific facilities, fur farms, agricultural practices, animal pounds, fashion industries which use leather and fur, and car crash testing with live animals along with a host of others (PETA). Their usual method to affect policy is to have paid protestors pressure big business into accepting their point of view. However, there are cases of their involvement having influenced environmental policy, such as their 1981 investigation of a laboratory which led to the first ever conviction and suspension of federal research funds on the basis of animal cruelty (PETA). The next year, the group filed a lawsuit to become the guardians of animals involved in experiments (PETA). PETA also achieved the ?first ever permanent ban on shooting cats and dogs in wound labs? as a result of their investigation of a Department of Defense wound lab, which was subsequently shut down (PETA).
In overall evaluation, however, PETA is a hypocritical group in the most extreme way possible. While they promote the ethical treatment of animals, they also kill animals. This is supported by the court case in July of 2005 concerning two members of PETA who dumped the bodies of thirty-one dogs and cats into trash cans after being given the animals by veterinarian clinics and animal shelters in efforts to have them adopted (Barr). The case is covered in further detail at another source which states they were indicted by a Grand Jury of fifty counts of animal cruelty (PETA Kills Animals). Three of these are cases of seizure of property under false pretenses, meaning the animals were taken from the shelters and veterinarian clinics under the impression they would be adopted out (PETA Kills Animals). Witnesses from an animal hospital said that the PETA employees had seized animals found in the trash bins earlier that very same day (PETA Kills Animals). This is not the first instance of PETA going against its own policies; from 1999 to 2004 they killed more than 11, 488 dogs, cats, and other animals which were brought to their facilities (Badame). Their cofounder, Alex Pacheco, reportedly said that they do not have the revenue to fund the adoption of animals; however, they gather $25 million a year and had donated funds to the local shelters they denounced as inadequate for the animals (Badame). The current report on their financial status estimates this as being higher, at $29,309,246 with their total operating expenses estimated at $25,461,648 (PETA). Some of this has gone into their campaigns, including a campaign which ?equated people who eat chicken with Nazis? (PETA Kills Animals). Their current President and fellow cofounder reportedly killed many animals (Badame). In Badame?s article this is clearly represented:
Better results could not be expected from an organization whose co-founder and current President Ingrid Newkirk has been killing rescued animals for three decades. In 2003 The New Yorker profiled Newkirk, and included how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter euthanized the stray kittens she had brought there. She started working at an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained, ?I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.) I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day.?
In short, PETA?s so called ethics are questionable at best. Their organization stands in the way of true environmentally concerned groups and smears the name of the environmental activist, causing the general public to immediately label such people as so-called crazies. The organization holds just as many extremists as any other, as is illustrated by Bruce Friedrich, the PETA vegetarian head, who ?told an animal rights convention in 2001 that ?blowing stuff up and smashing windows? is ?a great way to bring about animal liberation?? (PETA Kills Animals). Their tactics, though often less than savory, are lesser in severity than those of the ?FBI-certified domestic eco-terrorist? organization ELF, known for bombings and other such activities, an organization which PETA is documented as having donated funds to (PETA Kills Animals). Though they are not considered eco-terrorists, the fact they consider themselves just as legitimate as the Sierra Club brings only discredit to those organizations and stands in the way of real progress publicly and governmentally.
Works Cited
Badame, Elizabeth. PETA?s Fraudulent ?Ethical Treatment.? September 14, 2005. The
Cornell Review. February 9, 2006 <http://www.cornellreview.org/viewart.cgi?num=517>.
Barr, Bob. Behind PETA?s Lettuce Curtain. July 23, 2005. Washington Times. February
10, 2006 <http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050722-085338-5284r.htm>.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The Animal Rights Organization.
November 16, 2005. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. February 9, 2006 <http://www.peta.org>.
PETA Kills Animals. February 9, 2006. <www.petakillsanimals.com>.
PETA Tells Kids to Run from Daddy. November 25, 2005. Fox News.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176739,00.html> February 9, 2006.
Written for my Environmental Politics class.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, was founded in the year1980 (PETA). PETA is a nonprofit organization operating internationally (PETA). Their goal is to educate policy makers that, ?animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment,? which they find unethical (PETA). The group as a whole has mixed reviews, and although the website for the organization puts their actions in a positive light, there are cases in which their members have taken extreme actions which are detrimental to their overall credibility. Some see PETA as being a group of fanatics as a result of some of these extreme actions. To heighten their publicity, they not only will incorporate celebrities? commentary but operate several websites and have many publications(PETA). These include Grrr!, a children?s newsletter, and publications related to their activities such as a handbook on how to be an active animal rights advocate and how to become a vegetarian (PETA). To earn revenue to fund these publications, they have online stores from which members and those wishing to support PETA can purchase said literature, t-shirts, CDs, DVDs, apply for credit cards and purchase checks with their designs, and buy animal toys (PETA). They are also partnered with several shops which agree to donate a percentage of these product purchases? original cost to the organization (PETA). The publications are not always simply handbooks on how to get involved in community, but are more commonly occurring as propaganda aimed towards children. One such piece of propaganda was entitled Your Daddy Kills Animals! (PETA Tells Kids to Run from Daddy).
PETA?s strategies and tactics include many methods. One of the most well known methods is protesting; during these members will often dress up in animal costumes and encourage boycotting a certain company for its practices (PETA). These protestors are also often paid, say multiple sources. They also appeal to legislation, film animal cruelty in action by entering the business in question, and have celebrities speak for them (PETA). The targets of their protests include have included several circuses, basketball tournaments which use leather basketballs, restaurant chains such as Burger King, scientific facilities, fur farms, agricultural practices, animal pounds, fashion industries which use leather and fur, and car crash testing with live animals along with a host of others (PETA). Their usual method to affect policy is to have paid protestors pressure big business into accepting their point of view. However, there are cases of their involvement having influenced environmental policy, such as their 1981 investigation of a laboratory which led to the first ever conviction and suspension of federal research funds on the basis of animal cruelty (PETA). The next year, the group filed a lawsuit to become the guardians of animals involved in experiments (PETA). PETA also achieved the ?first ever permanent ban on shooting cats and dogs in wound labs? as a result of their investigation of a Department of Defense wound lab, which was subsequently shut down (PETA).
In overall evaluation, however, PETA is a hypocritical group in the most extreme way possible. While they promote the ethical treatment of animals, they also kill animals. This is supported by the court case in July of 2005 concerning two members of PETA who dumped the bodies of thirty-one dogs and cats into trash cans after being given the animals by veterinarian clinics and animal shelters in efforts to have them adopted (Barr). The case is covered in further detail at another source which states they were indicted by a Grand Jury of fifty counts of animal cruelty (PETA Kills Animals). Three of these are cases of seizure of property under false pretenses, meaning the animals were taken from the shelters and veterinarian clinics under the impression they would be adopted out (PETA Kills Animals). Witnesses from an animal hospital said that the PETA employees had seized animals found in the trash bins earlier that very same day (PETA Kills Animals). This is not the first instance of PETA going against its own policies; from 1999 to 2004 they killed more than 11, 488 dogs, cats, and other animals which were brought to their facilities (Badame). Their cofounder, Alex Pacheco, reportedly said that they do not have the revenue to fund the adoption of animals; however, they gather $25 million a year and had donated funds to the local shelters they denounced as inadequate for the animals (Badame). The current report on their financial status estimates this as being higher, at $29,309,246 with their total operating expenses estimated at $25,461,648 (PETA). Some of this has gone into their campaigns, including a campaign which ?equated people who eat chicken with Nazis? (PETA Kills Animals). Their current President and fellow cofounder reportedly killed many animals (Badame). In Badame?s article this is clearly represented:
Better results could not be expected from an organization whose co-founder and current President Ingrid Newkirk has been killing rescued animals for three decades. In 2003 The New Yorker profiled Newkirk, and included how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter euthanized the stray kittens she had brought there. She started working at an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained, ?I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn't stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals.) I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day.?
In short, PETA?s so called ethics are questionable at best. Their organization stands in the way of true environmentally concerned groups and smears the name of the environmental activist, causing the general public to immediately label such people as so-called crazies. The organization holds just as many extremists as any other, as is illustrated by Bruce Friedrich, the PETA vegetarian head, who ?told an animal rights convention in 2001 that ?blowing stuff up and smashing windows? is ?a great way to bring about animal liberation?? (PETA Kills Animals). Their tactics, though often less than savory, are lesser in severity than those of the ?FBI-certified domestic eco-terrorist? organization ELF, known for bombings and other such activities, an organization which PETA is documented as having donated funds to (PETA Kills Animals). Though they are not considered eco-terrorists, the fact they consider themselves just as legitimate as the Sierra Club brings only discredit to those organizations and stands in the way of real progress publicly and governmentally.
Works Cited
Badame, Elizabeth. PETA?s Fraudulent ?Ethical Treatment.? September 14, 2005. The
Cornell Review. February 9, 2006 <http://www.cornellreview.org/viewart.cgi?num=517>.
Barr, Bob. Behind PETA?s Lettuce Curtain. July 23, 2005. Washington Times. February
10, 2006 <http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050722-085338-5284r.htm>.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The Animal Rights Organization.
November 16, 2005. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. February 9, 2006 <http://www.peta.org>.
PETA Kills Animals. February 9, 2006. <www.petakillsanimals.com>.
PETA Tells Kids to Run from Daddy. November 25, 2005. Fox News.
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176739,00.html> February 9, 2006.