Lets Give PeTA a Kicking!

How convenient! PeTA are currently running a campaign in the regional and local press in the UK to highlight the alleged cruelty caused by the annual bull running event in Pamplona in Spain. PeTA?s campaign takes the form of either a letter to the editor, or a news/feature piece about someone in the newspaper?s territory who is going to Spain to run the course in a semi-naked state. I?ve already found them publicising the campaign in 12 UK papers. This provides a perfect opportunity to flag up PeTA?s animal killing scandal in the USA, and a letter-to-the-editor-for-publication along the lines below has already been sent to 8 of these. If any fishingMagic forum members sees either the PeTA letter or a feature or news piece publicising the campaign, could they post on this thread where they?ve seen it and action will follow. Here?s the counterpunch;



Dear Editor,



Animal rights organisation PeTA must rank among the World?s biggest hypocrites.. The organisation that was recently reported in your paper to be campaigning against the bull running in Pamplona has been publicly exposed in the USA for killing thousands of the unwanted or uncared for animals donated to them. PeTA have a multi-million dollar annual budget, much of which could have been spent on caring for these poor creatures, but they chose instead to kill them. Details of the scandal can be found on the internet at www.petakillsanimals.com. And it gets worse. Now two PeTA employees have allegedly been caught illegally dumping the carcasses of cats and dogs in a waste bin. It seems that the individuals concerned had killed the creatures themselves by means of lethal injection, which neither of them was qualified to do. They?ve been arrested on 31 felony animal cruelty charges. As well as campaigning against meat eating, PeTA also wants to see pet keeping banned and presumably, in their warped imaginations, a dead cat or dog is better off than one that is somehow enslaved by its owner.



The animal rights movement has been responsible for inspiring and carrying out acts of terror both in the UK, the USA and elsewhere. Their wanton disregard for animal life in this particular instance reveals the sheer perversity of their cause. Those taking part in the Pamplona protest should seriously be asking themselves what sort of organization they are getting into bed with.



Yours faithfully,

Copy to all newspapers Dave, better still how about some emails to these radio presenters as well at the BBC who think the sun shines out of PETA's backside, what a shameful bunch of hypocrites they are.

Oh! how I wish I could print posters I'd pin this sort of thing up on every available surface I could find.

Well done Dave lad
All the trouble we can give this lot is worth the trouble and thanks for info you have so kindly sent. Will support you all the way

And you have my support too.

and mine too mate!

i belong to the alternative PETAeople Eating Tasty Animals!

Madpiker i love it when you talk dirty

Im up for it!

Come on lads, BIG PUSH!!

Sent my letter.

It?s a sad fact, but those who support the notion of ?animal rights? are often confused with those who support ?animal welfare?. Lazy journalists who can?t be bothered to understand the distinction can unwittlingly give animal rights organisations an undeserved credibility by simply referring to them as animal welfare organisations. For a good piece on the distinction between the two, go to today?s post on the Animal Crackers website at

http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/2005/06/ar_vs_aw_a_zook.html

And while I?m on the subject, I was watching a Newsnight piece last night on the subject of climate change. A question arose about how those who continue to deny the reality of man-made climate change, as some right-wing US pressure groups do, were afforded credibility, when the best science globally indicated that they were very, very wrong. One answer that stood out was, that on certain controversial issues, irrespective of the quality of the arguments, journalists always felt obliged to find a critical, contrary or balancing point of view as a counterpoint.

Let?s be honest; numerically there are a mere handful of animal rights activists here and abroad when compared to the huge numbers of people who enjoy zoos, circuses, horse and greyhound racing, meat eating, pet keeping, hunting, shooting and fishing, as well as those who enjoy the benefits of safe medicines that have been tested on animals. Could it be that the desire of broadcasters (particularly public service broadcasters like the BBC) to be ?fair? and ?balanced? has been interpreted so simplistically, that campaigning organisations that represent tiny numbers of people end up being given the oxygen of publicity that enables them to punch way above their weight in terms of the PR they achieve? Maybe the BBC should address themselves to this.

I?m wondering, too, whether anyone else has noticed how the word ?ethical? has been hi-jacked by those who are leftist or Green in their politics? No longer, it seems, are some political operators content to view opposition to their point of view as legitimate and perhaps necessary for the development of a debate. It now seems to be acceptable for those who disagree with causes espoused by the left or the Greens to be tarred with the brush of immorality.

By way of an example, an advertisement in the Guardian promoting a recently-published book on the subject of ?ethical? living, used meat eating as its visual subject matter. Correct me if I?m wrong, but humans as a species have evolved to be meat eaters, with both our teeth and intestines suited to the consumption and digestion of flesh. Culturally, too, meat eating is central our way of life, with only some 5-7% of the population being vegetarian or vegan. How is it that something that is so much part of the human condition, both biologically and culturally, has suddenly become immoral? Which of course, begs the question of PeTA's name????????

Very well put Dave. I can understand someone not wanting to eat meat or fish because they feel (for whatever reason) that they'll be healthier (whether they will or not is another argument), but to turn vegetarian for 'ethical' or moral reasons is downright ludicrous.

Dont forget that there are many animal welfare groups who have done valuable work to protect various animal groups, including the RSPCA despite what was said in another forum, and those who have campaigned for, amongst other things, dancing bears.

Having been to a circus once, I promised myself never to attend again. I just didn't feel comfortable with some of the things I saw.

Like Dave says, journalists have a lot to answer for and as ever would always look to create a story rather than look at facts.

Not eating meat and ethics do not belong in the same sentence, I agree totally with Graham it is ludicrous.

We are being brain washed into accepting certain ideals as standard when they are in fact the insane ramblings of a very tiny minority of people.

e.g

Veggies
Vegans
multi-culturalism
Animal welfare
anti-bloodsports
Human rights
Homosexual equality

The list is endless

Oi Swordsy! How do you know I'm not a batty man? I might have taken offence. My one FM reference to 'the missus' might have refered an asian catamite (great word, look it up if it's unfamiliar)kept at home for the purposes of 'sharing' and 'celebrating' 'diversity'in a 'mutually respectful' and tolerant manner (no doubt sharing with other 'stakeholders').

BTW, do FM forum-ers ever talk about food? You're a chef, I love to cook, the forums do politics and eveything else, and I've got this fantastic Malaysian prawn curry recipe...

Back on the subject, you might wish to dip into the mind of an animal rights fanatic, in ths case one Rodney Coronado, one of the USA's big animal rights troublemakers.

Explore this mentalists world view at
http://omnipresence.mahost.org/rod.htm

Does anyone know a vegetarian that actually looks healthy? I don't. All those I've met looked as though though they needed a bloody good meal and a few hours on a sun bed to get some colour.

i`ve no doubt that the rspca have done a lot for animal welfare campaigning againstthings such as dancing bears,bullfighting,dogfighting,animals in circuses and the general cruelty to domestic animals that is all too common these days.i`m also against battery farming(poultry,pigs etc)and will never buy products produced in this way.if the rspca and other animal welfare groups concentrated on these real issues of cruelty,instead of jumping on the anti fishing\shooting bandwagon,they`d maybe get my respect and support.

Dave Stocker said - "humans as a species have evolved to be meat eaters, with both our teeth and intestines suited to the consumption and digestion of flesh."

Agree, but the main prupose for eating meat was to feed a huge brain for the size of stomach we have. To be that big and that actice it needs vast amounts of protein. If all the human race was to give up meat eating today, in perhaps a couple of thousands years time we'd have 3 stomachs and huge waists over perhaps over 100 inches.

Or we'd lose the power of logical thought all become animal rights activists. )

LOL
:O)

there are a growing number of "lard arses" around that already look like they have 3 stomachs and eat vegetation,perhaps they are evolving quicker than the rest of us!!!
just supposing the whole of the human race became vegetarians,the alf would have sod all to moan about and would probably protest about the lack of civil rights for cauliflowers and the rspca would become the royal society for the prevention of coring apples.