Está en la página 1de 3

P.E.T.

A
Beneficial activism or a big waste of resources? PETAPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. A great idea motivated by both good intention and heartfelt concernat its conceptionbut then, so was Communism. I do not mean to discount all of what PETA stands for nor all they preach. PETA has done some great work over the years. I do how ever have some serious concerns about the organization and its membership. PETA has done more damage to my ability to function effectively as a rescuer than any other single source. I will begin by saying that I will not on any level get into an argument about eating meat, slaughterhouses, or any other such topic. Are there horrors out there in the world? YES, but in no way do I overstate my importance in this world enough to think that I could ever convince my southern born, farm raised, construction worker neighbor that eating meat is promoting cruelty and that he is less of a man than I for doing it. He may well know about such things and, like myself, still want a steak with his beer on Friday's. The eating of "animal flesh" is a reality. The people of PETA touting and displaying the horrors of the food industry in an effort to convince the world to become vegetarian is quite simply time that could be much better spent. Not that the movement does not have value or is futile, just perhaps over emphasized. As far as the vegetarian issue goesthe Druids believed that plants, like people and animals, are living things endowed with power and spirit. What will the vegetarians do if the Druids ever get organized and develop a national agenda? What will we eat then? The thought of a bunch of people dressed in robes standing outside a vegetarian market, screaming slogans and holding signs that read "you are killing my friends" may seem comicalbut much of PETA's actions would have seemed as comical to my grandfather. Let us start simplewith the definition of ethical. Webster's defines ethical as "in accordance with the accepted principles of conduct." The question arisesaccepted by whom? Much as social norms," accepted principles of conduct" are most often determined by the majority of ones peers. Meaning that it is not ethical to run around naked in New York becausethe majority of people wear clothes. It is not ethical for a doctor to assist in the suicide of a patient becausethe majority of his peers have said that it is not. PETA's own numbers, used to show the extent of slaughterhouse horrors, can also be interpreted another way. The majorities of Americans are eating meat and are not really concerned with the truths of how and where their Wendy's Double Stack came to be. So if ethical behavior is set by a majority and the majority of Americans eat meatwell you see the point. PETA and its membership are in the decided minority of this country. I do not feel that this is a reason that PETA and its members should not make strong efforts for change. There is, without a doubt, a great need for change. I do not question their agendaI question the methods in which that agenda is put forth.

Having worked in rescue, one thing I learned very early in my work is that you have to make choices. You may not always enjoy the choices you have to make, and you may not always want to make a choice at all, but there are always choices. Rescuers and Animal welfare workers of any skill are always forced to examine each situation they encounter and ask themselves this question"What is going to be the best thing for these animals?" Here I will give you an example A situation we were indirectly involved in a few years back involved a man, who claimed to be a hunter, had 60+ Beagles on his property. Firstly the man was no hunter. Hunters take better care of their dogs than this man. The man was a hoarder. The dogs were in every imaginable condition from bad to dead. I can say it was one of the most gruesome things I had ever seen. Animal control "stormed" his property and assaulted him with every manner of threat. The man, who lived on a small farm in a rural area just then becoming suburbia, blamed his troubles on the "Starbucks drinking, Beemer driven yuppies" that moved in down the road . He refused to give up even one dog. Animal Control immediately went to work trying to prosecute the man. Months went by and dogs suffered. Animal Control, in typical fashion, went in heavy handed touting law and order and immediately created an adversarial situation that took months and thousands of dollars to resolve. (as a side note: our local animal control has made sweeping changes in the manner in which they operate and manage these situations. Public outcry, combined with new politcal leadership has made improvements in leeps and bounds.) We took a different approach. We, through friends of his and local hunters, put out word that we were willing to help. We approached the situation from an educational stand and made effort to show the man how it would benefit him to release the dogs. We made effort to show him how his keeping the dogs caused suffering. While we were not able to do anymore than just get started before Animal Control's interference with our efforts, we did manage to get the man to release a few of his dogs. By being a little "political" we were able to create a workable understanding with the man. He knew how we felt about the situation but we offered him no threatswe offered him helpand he took it. Is that what I WANTED to do? NO! What I WANTED to do was take the guy out behind his pole barn and beat him with the claw end of a hammer and feed his body to his starving dogs...but I had a decision to make. That decision had everything to do with the dogs and very little to do with my own feelings on the matter. PETA is an organization who seems to have lost all ability to make good decisions. PETA is an organization that, with its status and growing political influence, has great potential to affect a wealth of good in the animal arena. An organization with vast financial backing, popular public icons and celebrities in their corner, could do so much more than organize rallies to insult the patrons at the local Burger King. The fanatical memberships and PETA's association with small splinter groups who condone domestic

terrorism through acts like the bombing and burning of laboratories has one effect...and PETA in case you did not know this, here it isit makes the general public view PETA as a fools and fanatics. PETA has and continues, with each rally and grotesque picture of atrocity, to loose the respect of the people in means to educate and, there by, loose its ability to effect change. People will not listen nor will they care about a message offered by those they do not respect and do not view as credible. Real change comes through education, cooperation, and offered alternatives to questionable practices. I mentioned earlier that PETA has done great damage to my work as a rescuer. There are those who assume that because I work in rescue that I must be "one of those animal rights people"or "one of those PETA freaks". Some have refused to work with me on that basis alone. The PETA name has become synonymous with radical fanaticism and foolishness. Until PETA cleanses themselves of their fanatical membership they will continue to be an ineffective organization. PETAlets face itthe day will never come when you convince the world not to eat meat. I am not asking you to like itI am just saying that this is the cards you have been dealt, so play the best hand you can while at the table. The money spent on the printing of signage and flyers for rallies alone could go a long way in research of more humane slaughter (again I am not saying you should like it), in providing laboratories with alternative methods of research, in educationthe money could be better spent! Rather than developing hate and mistrust with those you seek to changehow about actually trying to teach them something. Rather than organize rallies to insult, shock and horrifyhow about offering us some ACTUAL SOLUTIONS! How about some alternatives? I do not mean to say that PETA has not done good work. They have gone a long way to be the catalyst for the development of things like free range ranching and other beneficial programs. They have done much in raising awareness and educating the public. PETA has done much good work that never gets publicized. It is their continued association with radicals that greatly damages both their reputation and their ability to educate. PETA, with the resources at their disposal, could be a leader in the animal movement. PETA could stand at the forefront of the development of things like genetics computer modeling to eliminate the need to use live animals in testing. PETA could work entirely as a support organization for other welfare and education organizations. How much more value would each dollar PETA has spent on advertising and rallies have had if it were spent onlets say donations to areas of Michigan where dozens of Shelters have been forced to close due to budget constraints. of the money PETA and its membership spent on signage and rallies last year could have helped thousands of animals in Michigan alone. In my opinionit is all about choices. Each questionable choice PETA makes and each time their membership does some silly thing that makes the rest of America raise it eyebrows and question their very sanityeach time this happensPETA looses a little more of itself. It looses another person who may have listened, may have been able to be educated. With each act, each rally, each grotesque flyer and photo, PETA looses another morsel of respectand one day I fear thatPETA, like many of the animals it seeks to protectwill find itself starving.
Darin E. Lee

Houndsong Rescue

También podría gustarte