Saturday, 23 July 2005

The PETA Principle

With apologies to Dr Lawrence J Peter, author of the original, here's a new statement:
"Anyone Sufficiently Fanatical becomes Indistinguishable from the worst of those they're fighting against"

The following story is from This is True dated 17 July 2005. It is Copyright 2005 Randy Cassingham, all rights reserved, and reprinted here with permission:

"Ethical" Defined

After more than 100 dead dogs were dumped in a trash dumpster over four weeks, police in Ahoskie, N.C., kept an eye on the trash receptacle behind a supermarket. Sure enough, a van drove up and officers watched the occupants throw in heavy plastic bags. They detained the two people in the van and found 18 dead dogs in plastic bags in the dumpster, including puppies; 13 more dead dogs were still in the van. Police say the van is registered to the headquarters of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the two occupants, Andrew B. Cook, 24, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, identified themselves as PETA employees. An autopsy performed on one of the dogs found it was healthy before it was killed.
Police say PETA has been picking up the animals -- alive -- from North Carolina animal shelters, promising to find them good homes. Cook and Hinkle have been charged with 62 felony counts of animal cruelty. In response to the arrests PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said it's against the group's policy for employees to dump animals in the trash, but "that for some animals in North Carolina, there is no kinder option than euthanasia." (Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald) ...Oops, my mistake: that's "Playing God" Defined.

In his author's notes section, Cassingham had more to say about this

The more I learn about PETA, the less I think of them. The story of them killing animals isn't even unusual. According to PETA's own filings, in 2004 PETA killed 86.3 percent of the animals entrusted to its care -- a number that's rising, not falling.
Meanwhile, the SPCA in PETA's home town (Norfolk, Va.) was able to find loving homes for 73 percent of the animals put in its care. A shortage of funds? Nope: last year PETA took in $29 million in tax-exempt donations.
It simply has other priorities for the funds, like funding terrorism (yes, really). But don't take my word for it: I got my figures from -- and they have copies of PETA's state and federal filings to back it up. The bottom line: if you donate money to PETA because you think they care for and about animals, you need to think some more. PETA literally yells and screams about how others "kill animals" but this is how
they operate? Pathetic.

And you know what I wonder? PETA's official count of animals they kill is 86.3 percent. But if they're going around picking up animals, killing them while they drive around and not even giving them a chance to be adopted, and then destroying the evidence by dumping the bodies in the trash, are those deaths being reported? My guess: no. While 86.3 percent is awful, the actual number is probably much, much higher. How dare they lecture anyone about the "ethical" treatment of animals!

(This is True is a weekly column featuring weird-but-true news stories from around the world, and has been published since 1994. Click the link for info about free subscriptions.)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The so-called "PETA Principle" has largely been debunked... it presupposes the notion that PETA's mission statement would have somehow been advanced by other organizations, or organically, in a more effective fashion than PETA themselves could carry out... had only PETA (and its mission statement) had not existed. Only one problem to this: PETA, like most legitimate nonprofits, has demonstrable efficacy in the form of measurable results, as published in their annual reviews. And each year, they make clear year-to-year progress.

Unfortunately, and as Ringling Brothers has since proven in Court (Feld Vs. PETA)— PETA has been incredibly successful in each year since 2005, has more than doubled in its membership size in the past 5 years, increased in its funding by millions, and has yet to diminish in their size and scope.

Moreover, their campaigns have led time and again to measurable successes that have demonstrably advanced their very straight-forward, and concise, mission statement.

The PETA Principle was written by someone so intellectually disinterested in supporting research with actual research, the author never even stepped foot on the very offices that are critiqued. Used toilet paper has touched upon more reliable research sources than that book.

And Consumer Freedom's very existence is a testament to just how fearful corporations are to PETA's "failure" to achieve their objectives.

The group is funded by lobbying dollars from the industries PETA campaigns against. Ask yourself this: If PETA is so ineffective, why would Consumer Freedom raise so much money from these industries? Because they secretly want to lose money?

If you think PETA's a failure, or their 2 million members and annual donations nearing $30 million represents a fringe radical splice of the world, I have some tinfoil hats to sell you. In an election campaign in the U.S., do you know what 2 million represents in voters? There are far smaller interests groups either Presidential candidate would kill one another over to gain if they could.

The lunatic in the room is usually the one pointing to someone else. Drink some chamomile tea and calm down. Big Animal Protection ain't going anywhere, so deal.