PETA: Radicals for the Neglecting of Endangered Animals
The infamous People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) are known for the radical measures they will take to “protect the rights” of animals. Not animal welfare, the humanity with which the animals are treated when used in education, experimentation, or entertainment, but animal rights, or the fringe position based on their specious doctrine, which they have labeled “speciesism.” Speciesism “holds that all animals are the moral equivalents of humans and that any use of animals by humans is a breach of morality.” (McInerney 1992) PETA, given their way, would not only have the whole world become vegan, as indicated by their fervent efforts to promote veganism on both their website and in mainstream media, but would also have us stop using animals in medical and scientific experiments, stop wearing any animal product including leather shoes, stop dissecting frogs and rats in science classes, close all the zoos and marine life interaction parks like SeaWorld, and stop using animals on film and TV sets. PETA spends roughly $31,845,963 per year to achieve their goals of total animal liberation. (PETA.org) They put countless hours into ensuring that their message is reached everywhere from adult TV commercials to children’s games—they even revamped the classic Pokemon video game to reflect their message of animal freedom. However, with all of their concentrated focus on liberating the domestic animals, PETA has overlooked a far more important issue: endangered wildlife.
According to their website, PETA spends $7,181,756 per year on international grassroots campaigns, $8,505,813 on public outreach and education, $10,096,613 on research, investigations, and rescue, $787,681 on the cruelty-free merchandise program, $240,502 on general expenses, and $5,033,598 on membership development. (PETA.org) What is not included anywhere on their website is how much they spend on saving domestic animals vs. saving wild endangered animals. There is no reliable way to discover that budget, unless you believe every outlandish rumor you hear about PETA, such as their rumor that they actually eat the dogs and cats that they rescue (which has never been confirmed or even supported by substantial evidence). If you do a little more in-depth searching of PETA’s website, it’s clear by their layout that wildlife is the last issue on their minds. On their “learn the issues” page, their key issues are, in order: animals used for food, animals used for clothing, animals used for experimentation, animals used for entertainment, companion animals, and finally, wildlife. It gets worse when you click through to their wildlife page, and you see their idea of wildlife: geese, rabbits, insects, raccoons, mice, chipmunks, and pigeons. They helpfully provide links directing the user to humane mousetraps, and a guide for humanely removing insects and other pests from your home.
But where is the section about protecting endangered species like manatees, white tigers, giant pandas, and polar bears? PETA does not address these animals directly, unless they are used on a film set or harvested for skin and fur. PETA’s underlying philosophy seems to be that animals are not in true danger unless they are being used for products or entertainment, killed by pest-control traps, or hunted for sport. PETA worries about the treatment of domestic animals and even has a whole section on their site dedicated to the “correct” way to adopt, raise, and treat a pet. There is nothing wrong with wishing to see pets treated humanely, but according to the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association (APPMA)’s 2005-2006 National Pet Owners Survey, Americans own approximately 73 million dogs and 90 million cats. (Netscape 2013) Meanwhile, “severe threats from humans have left fewer than 1,600 pandas in the wild.” (worldwildlife.org 2013)
According to PETA’s theory, if humans leave animals alone, animals are safe. They do not seem to fully take into account the environmental dangers, except for those caused by humans, and even then environmental concern is an afterthought. The way PETA presents it, if you ever wear leather shoes or wool clothes, eat a burger, or go to SeaWorld, you’re a cruel person who delights in the murder of animals. However, many of their “cruelty-free” products are not necessarily environmentally friendly, as they are produced in waste-causing factories and thus contribute to the pollution factors that harm animals as well as humans. PETA insists that an animal-friendly lifestyle is “healthy for you and easy on the environment,” but they don’t seem to take into account the concept of pollution issues from the factories that make the products that they support, or the human labor required to make those products.
On the PETA website you’ll find a wealth of information about how to protect domestic animals, avoid wearing fur, and avoid eating meat. On the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) website, you will find detailed information about endangered species and how to protect them. Go back to the giant pandas (remember, only 1,600 left in the wild, and that was the estimate in 2004). According to WWF’s website, “Pandas play a crucial role in the bamboo forests where they roam by spreading seeds and facilitating growth of vegetation. In the Yangtze Basin where pandas live, the forests are home to a stunning array of wildlife such as dwarf blue sheep, multi-colored pheasants and other endangered species, including the golden monkey, takin and crested ibis.” (WWF, 2013) Scroll down the page, and you will learn exactly what WWF is doing to protect this species. They were the first international conservation organization to be invited by the Chinese government to work in China, where they worked to assist and influence policy-level conservation decisions by collecting information and communicating their findings, and by demonstrating various conservation approaches. (WWF, 2013) WWF is extremely open about this information, making it very clear that not only do they want to protect endangered wildlife, but they want the public to know exactly what steps they are taking and how the public can help, usually through donations—and when you donate to WWF, they want you to know where your money is going and whom it will help.
PETA, by contrast, does not tell you where your donations are going, but they show you. They show manipulated Pokemon computer games that present benevolent pet owners as vicious animal trainers, done without the creators’ consent and completely misinterpreting the theme of the original games, causing David Ewalt of Forbes to remark, “PETA seems to have missed the single biggest theme of the Pokemon series: That Pokemon should be treated humanely and live as our equals.” (Thalken 2012) Another controversial move of PETA was to release a commercial about veganism that shows a woman walking along in a neck brace, while a voiceover reports that since her boyfriend went vegan, their sex has been incredible—and, judging by her limping and her neck brace, incredibly violent. About-Face, a feminist-friendly website that analyzes mainstream media for both harmful and positive messages, called the advertisement “animal-friendly, human-hating” and said that the commercial does not in any way further PETA’s cause or show people how to safely and effectively switch to a vegan diet. Instead, the commercial sexualizes veganism and puts sexual violence in a friendly light by calling it a “condition” of veganism, known as “My Boyfriend Went Vegan And Knocked The Bottom Out Of Me,” or BWVAKTBOOM. (Mariona 2012)
By being safe and respectful, WWF is doing more good with their minimalist campaigns than PETA could ever do with their exaggerated, intentionally-controversial methods. PETA’s controversial campaigns may get them attention, but by putting the focus on their wild antics, they are taking away from what they insist they truly care about: the animals. If WWF is labeled as “controversial,” it’s only because someone doesn’t like their message—that endangered wildlife should be rescued, period—not the way that message is presented. By continuing their outrageous, no-holds-barred campaigns, PETA will continue to alienate potential supporters. In his article “The Extremist,” which focused on PETA founded Ingrid Newkirk, Michael Specter rhetorically questioned if PETA’s harsh tactics were “so unsavory that they offend many of the very people the group wishes to attract.” (Specter 2003) Specter also went on to point out that most special interest groups won’t change their views just because of the actions of one extremist group, giving the example of hunters refusing to quit hunting just because the National Rifle Association is in favor of assault weapons. But here’s the thing: most animal-rights activists already support groups like PETA; it’s the civilians that PETA wants to attract, and if they alienate those people by “attacking the ninety-nine per cent of humanity that sees the world differently” (Specter, 2003), their campaign won’t stand a chance no matter how many celebrities are willing to smile for their cause.
In his book The Longest Struggle: Animal Rights from Pythagoras to PETA, writer Norman Phelps interviewed an activist who told him, “It’s hard enough getting people to take animal rights seriously without PETA out there acting like a bunch of jerks.” (Phelps 2007) That may be an oversimplification of the situation, but it rings true: the more people are alienated by PETA’s campaigns, the harder it will be to draw attention to animals and other environmental issues. People who engage in animal welfare or animal rights activism are called derogatory names, as are people who are known to care about environmental issues. The term “tree hugger” is frequently tossed around, and I have heard people scornfully call others “animal lovers” as though the phrase itself were a curse word. With PETA giving animal-related activists a bad name, organizations that legitimately help animals like WWF find it harder to get their message out.
The key difference is their approach: while PETA relies on shock tactics and aggression, WWF attempts to educate people and give them pure fact, rather than rely on opinion. The difference is easy to spot. Opinion: eating meat is wrong even if the animal has been killed humanely. Fact: giant pandas are endangered, there are only 1,600 left in the wild. People who are seriously interested in saving animals who need to be saved (as in, actually endangered animals) go to WWF and find out what they can do to help save species like the giant panda. People who are either vainly attempting to be politically correct, or who think they are morally superior because they care more about the welfare of cats, dogs, and insects than their fellow humans, go to PETA and brag about their veganism. Not to mention the issue of what is done with the animals once they’re saved. WWF actually concentrates on keeping species alive so that they don’t become extinct. PETA, however, opposes the no kill movement and favors euthanasia of animals in shelters. (Interlandi 2008)
My personal stance on so-called “animal rights” is pretty simple: I avoid certain types of meat, but it’s for taste preferences, not out of a desire to save those few animals. I don’t wear real fur or leather, but I’m not scrupulously obnoxious about only buying animal-free products (or products that haven’t been tested on animals for that matter). I would never purposefully pick up an animal and hurt it, nor would I do something if I knew the direct outcome would harm an animal. At the end of the day, though, I care far more about the animals in the wild who are endangered, than the lab rats who are used to test the medicines I may or may not buy. But at the heart of it, my opinion is just that: my opinion. I don’t often make a show of telling everyone my opinion, and when I do I back it up with as much evidence as I can. This is where PETA has failed: they haven’t provided enough hard evidence to support their claims. Until they do, they have no business telling the rest of the world how to live their lives under the guise of “saving animals” when, really, they cause more harm--however unintentionally or indirectly--to the animals that they claim to save.
Bibliography
APPMA. "How Many Pets Are in the US?" Petplace.com. American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, 1999-2013. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
Interlandi, Jeneen. "PeTA and Euthanasia: Even among Animal Lovers, Killing Unwanted Pets Is a Divisive Issue." Thedailybeast.com. Newsweek, 27 Apr. 2007. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.
McInerney, Joseph D. "Oppose PETA School Campaign." The American Biology Teacher2nd ser. 54 (1992): 70. Print. 02 Apr. 2013.
Mariona, Nikole. "PETA: Animal-friendly, Human-hating." AboutFace.org. N.p., 6 Feb. 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
"Financial Reports." PETA.com. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Aug. 2012. Web. 2 Apr.
2013.
Phelps, Norm. The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA. New York: Lantern, 2007. Print. 02 Apr. 2013.
Specter, Michael. "The Extremist: The Woman Behind the Most Successful Radical Group in America." Michaelspecter.com. The New Yorker, 4 Apr. 2003. Web. 2 Apr. 2013.
Thalken, Claire. "PETA Releases Pokémon Parody Game 'Pokémon Black and Blue: Gotta Free 'em All' (Photos)." Examiner.com. The Examiner, 8 Oct. 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
"Giant Panda." Worldwidlife.org. World Wildlife Fund, 2013. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment