Follow @theurbancountry on Twitter Find us on Facebook Subscribe to theurbancountry.com via e-mail Subscribe to theurbancountry.com via RSS
Follow @theurbancountry on Twitter Find us on Facebook Subscribe to theurbancountry.com via e-mail Subscribe to theurbancountry.com via RSS

What’s this about PETA? 2

puppy

(“Puppy Love” is courtesy of pietroizzo’s photostream on Flickr)

I haven’t made up my mind on PETA yet (People for the ethical treatment of animals). I’ve heard a lot of things about them; I’ve heard a lot of badgering that they do to prove their point (which reminds me of the Greenpeace folks as well), but at the same time they stand behind a very admirable cause: “The Ethical Treatment of Animals”.

But, somehow, I feel like every time they try and make a point, they use fear-mongering and shock-value to get their point across and get people on their side (though, sometimes they use pretty girls (NSFW)). This reminds me of the Toronto Sun and all the fear-mongering they use, but that’s another topic. (And I think this is a good plug for torontosunsucks.com which I find hilarious).

I mean, here’s a link from their site (warning: it’s graphic): I call this fear-mongering, because they show all these graphic pictures so that viewers will get a shock and will support PETA. As I said, I haven’t made up my mind on PETA, but I guess it’s obvious which way I am leaning.

I was inclined to write this post, because I fell upon this article today: PETA Killed 95% of Adoptable Pets in its care during 2008. Here’s a quote from this article:

“Since 1998, a total of 21,339 dogs and cats have died at the hands of PETA workers.”

And another quote from PetaKillsAnimals.com.

“PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year.  During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.”

The Centre for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is non-profit organization promoting consumer choices. The CCF makes all these claims against PETA and claims the the group has ties to violent activists and uses aggressive message-marketing to children. I find these claims very easy to believe. PETA has some explaining to do.

Once again, I haven’t made up my mind on PETA. I’m sure they have their side of the story. Further research (PDF) provides some PETA come-back lines such as: “we were relieving them of their suffering” and “this story is complete fabrication”.

I haven’t made up my mind on PETA, but they use aggressive measures, they use shock-value and fear-mongering, and this latest news is one more strike against them; at least in my books.

On another note, I went on the PETA website while writing this post and saw an article against the seal hunts in Canada. Yet another good shock-value story. I have some opinions on that topic too – but that’s for another post.

  • http://www.georgepechtol.com/ george

    this was really thought provoking. any entity that seeks to educate and improve the human condition must definitely be held to the highest possible moral standard to maintain credibility – that much is certain. however, we all have to be wary of the reflexive response to compare them with the basest elements in our world.
    PETA lives and thrives on the fringe of popular tolerance – that is a given. However, their intent is loud and clear – they want to treat all life with dignity and respect. Like I was telling UrbanCountry’s editor today, criticizing PETA for failing to save a bunch of feral or suffering animals is a little like criticizing a doctor in a palliative care ward in a hospital for not saving his doomed patients. I’m fairly certain that PETA would not callously exterminate a bunch of animals if it were possible to save them. Don’t buy into the mainstream hype that would tarnish our perception of agents of change!
    As for PETA employing “fear-mongering” tactics – I think that it’s one thing to do that to attack notions (of hunting for food) that mankind has had since it was forced to hunt for food while being prey to just about every other living being on the planet, and another to sell a daily rag full of advertising and photos of scantily clad men and women. i’m certainly not saying that PETA is beyond reproach, but they have a far greater objective in mind than liberating a news-consumer from 75 cents of cash.
    keep questioning, and keep posting! you are an inspiration to your generation!
    - g

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/03072059905978001982 wilsonjb

    Information on the Center for Consumer Freedom at SourceWatch:

    http://tinyurl.com/ar9g4