PETA and the Groundhog

[desertranger]

you make this sound like a bad thing? for all the good work they do to bring about awareness about animal rights and animal welfare issues i think we can give them a pass every now and then for going over the top anal regardless, it has been proven time and time again that the media warps the message peta is trying to portray anyway - ESPECIALLY fox news.

 

For all the good work they do? What good work? Killing thousands of innocent animals? PETA is a major fail as far as I'm concerned. My next door neighbor is a member of PETA, an active one. She's always calling the cops every time a dog barks or when she sees my dogs off lead in the front yard. He son was caught torturing cats last month. When she was called on it her comment was he's just a boy. Seems to me she needs to teach her kid about the ethical treatment of animals herself. She even called the cops on me for abusing my dogs about a month after she moved in. So while she runs around town screaming her rhetoric about how we shouldn't have pets, that laboratories are inhumane and that processing animals for food is cruel she's in her backyard BBQing steaks. Nothing like a little hypocrisy.

 

If your going to be a member of PETA you shouldn't be a Person Eating a Tasty Animal.

[Guest echoica]

For all the good work they do? What good work? Killing thousands of innocent animals? PETA is a major fail as far as I'm concerned. My next door neighbor is a member of PETA, an active one. She's always calling the cops every time a dog barks or when she sees my dogs off lead in the front yard. He son was caught torturing cats last month. When she was called on it her comment was he's just a boy. Seems to me she needs to teach her kid about the ethical treatment of animals herself. She even called the cops on me for abusing my dogs about a month after she moved in. So while she runs around town screaming her rhetoric about how we shouldn't have pets, that laboratories are inhumane and that processing animals for food is cruel she's in her backyard BBQing steaks. Nothing like a little hypocrisy.

 

If your going to be a member of PETA you shouldn't be a Person Eating a Tasty Animal.

 

so you have had a bad experience with this one person - who clearly is an ignorant lunatic!! and i absolutely agree that you cannot be an animal rights advocate and eat meat. just like you also cannot be an environmentalist and eat meat either. etc etc. huge contradictions. as far as this organization's failings, could you please cite some references and facts other than your experiences with this one neighbor?

 

also IMO, i find the usage of that particular acronym above a little distasteful and immature.

[Eileen Stein]

The wild groundhogs on our property are quite accustomed to us and our dogs. We can get within a few feet of them before they run off and they are not disturbed by loud noises (yelling, clapping our hands, etc.).

 

This surprises me. The wild groundhogs on my property flee as fast as they can when they see me or my dogs, and loud noises do startle them. I suspect that is closer to the norm.

 

I disagree. I believe you must also take a hard look at a group's ideology and consider this as much as their actions. History is filled with examples of groups whose ideology clearly indicated there will be problems even though there were periods when their actions "did more good than harm".

 

The thing I don't understand is the scary power that so many here ascribe to PETA. PETA cannot compel people to follow their ideology just because they proclaim it. They can persuade individuals not to eat meat, for example, but they can't persuade the government to legislate against eating meat unless they convince most people to support such a law. It's the same with all their other initiatives. The good that they do is in getting people to think about the ethics of our use of animals, when it doesn't occur to most people to think about that or most people would rather not think about it. What position people take after they've thought about it is up to them. I'm not afraid of their ideology, and I think it's good that someone is advocating it in the marketplace of ideas.

[Guest echoica]

The thing I don't understand is the scary power that so many here ascribe to PETA. PETA cannot compel people to follow their ideology just because they proclaim it. They can persuade individuals not to eat meat, for example, but they can't persuade the government to legislate against eating meat unless they convince most people to support such a law. It's the same with all their other initiatives. The good that they do is in getting people to think about the ethics of our use of animals, when it doesn't occur to most people to think about that or most people would rather not think about it. What position people take after they've thought about it is up to them. I'm not afraid of their ideology, and I think it's good that someone is advocating it in the marketplace of ideas.

 

You said that a gazillion times better than I ever could!!! Thanks for that Eileen...that's exactly how I feel about it...even if I could not get it out as eloquently

[Tommy Coyote]

What I don't like about PETA is that they give a bad name to animal rights groups. I support animal rights and I am probably further to the left than lots of people on this board. But I don't think I am crazy about it. I just happen to believe that all sentient beings are creatures of God and that they all diserve to be treated with kindness and respect. But I really don't believe in "liberating" animals so that they can be killed in horrible ways once they are "free." And I'm certainly not against people having pets or having working animals as long as they are treated well.

 

I don't think that PETA is really about animal rights. Its more about human agendas and ego.

 

I've got to say that when I see that the Greenpeace ships are setting sail to save the whales I am standing right there cheering them on.

[JohnLloydJones]

I don't think that PETA is really about animal rights. Its more about human agendas and ego.

 

Peta is an organization that holds an extremist agenda and, you're right that their antics cause considerable harm to animal welfare and rescue groups.

[Mark Billadeau]

The thing I don't understand is the scary power that so many here ascribe to PETA.

I believe a majority of the general public is swayed into accepting as fact things that they see or read in the media multiple times. The more times the same message is repeated in the press the more likely the general public will believe it to be true. The more press time PETA gets, the more the general public will believe PETA's repeated message. This is true of any organization, the more times their message can be repeated in the press the more likely it is accepted as fact and the less likely it is debunked.

 

A recent great example is the believed linked between autism and vaccines; despite the fact that the study included many disclaimers (might, could, the data suggests) and the fact that the study only included 12 children (a very small sample size out of the entire population) a large number people believe the link exists.

[Tommy Coyote]

When I found out that PETA people were taking animals out of shelters under false pretenses and then euthanizing them - thousands it turns out - that was the end of that for me.

[Debbie Meier]

The thing I don't understand is the scary power that so many here ascribe to PETA. PETA cannot compel people to follow their ideology just because they proclaim it.

 

 

I don't think they have "scary power", but it's the influence they are having over the general public whose only expirence with animals is that of owning a pet or maybe even they have never had a pet.

 

 

Just look at a few things that are considered inhumane treatment by some in regards to dogs, chaining a dog, keeping a dog in a kennel, using a crate, correcting a dog in any fashion, heck, even destroying a dog is considered sinful to some regardless of the reason. Probably each of us can add something to the list.

 

 

Anyway, to me the big threat is the attitude changes and adjustments they are causing in society, some may be needed but the median attitude appears to be moving a bit more toward the extreme, that change is PETA's legacy. They don't have to get people to embrace their ideology, just sway them a little more their way with each generation.

 

 

 

Deb

[G. Festerling]

I don't think they have "scary power", but it's the influence they are having over the general public whose only expirence with animals is that of owning a pet or maybe even they have never had a pet.

 

That to me is it right there!

I have no issues with animal rights groups. By god, in todays world we seem to need them.

But the underlying damage that is done to the animals themselves as well, that is what is scary.

[Guest echoica]

When I found out that PETA people were taking animals out of shelters under false pretenses and then euthanizing them - thousands it turns out - that was the end of that for me.

 

ok...i can't help myself

 

so those animals should have been left there to rot and suffer...neglected without required medical and behavioral interventions?...no loving homes to go to...some living in deplorable shelter conditions who are ill-equipped to handle the intake #s...or on route to a shelter...living chained up outside and neglected by their owners with no medical care for illness and no resources to even provide for a humane escape from their tortured existence...or be gassed! *gasp*

 

no-kill is a wonderful idea - but not feasible until PET populations are under control. someone has to do the "dirty work". and something to think about: in the SAME year that the 2000+ UNWANTED, NEGLECTED animals were euthanized (which is far less than what is euthanized DAILY at shelters in NA without PETAs assistance), over 10,000 were spayed and neutered through PETAs no-cost or low-cost clinics. preventing 100,000+ more unwanted animals...

[Debbie Meier]

over 10,000 were spayed and neutered as well because of PETA through no-cost or minimal-cost clinics. preventing 100,000+ more unwanted animals...

 

Can you share as to how you come about to crediting PETA for this occurance?

 

 

 

Now, in regards to the no kill vs. kill, where did the attitude come from that kill shelters are a bad thing? Also, where did the attitude come from that is against breeders from euthenizing animals that do not meet their breeding criteria (deaf, blind, don't work, other health issues). Where is the attitude coming from that leads people to stand up and say "They all deserve to live!"

[Guest echoica]

Can you share as to how you come about to crediting PETA for this occurance?

 

it is a known fact that PETA holds spay/neuter clinics. and if you calculate the # of litters produced annually as a result of those pets NOT spayed/neutered (whether that is through BYB, "miracle of life" breedings, whatever)...then the avoidance of 100,000 unwanted animals is a reasonable estimate *if not understated* because of these same clinics.

 

SPCA figures for just cats:

1st year 3 litters = 12 offspring

2nd year 144 offspring

3rd year 1,728 offspring

4th year 10,736 offspring

7th year 370,192

 

Data from PETAs "SNIP" program alone:

2007 TO PRESENT

Total Surgeries: 12,734

Feral Cats: 1,045

Prepubescent: 4,505

 

Now, in regards to the no kill vs. kill, where did the attitude come from that kill shelters are a bad thing? Also, where did the attitude come from that is against breeders from euthenizing animals that do not meet their breeding criteria (deaf, blind, don't work, other health issues). Where is the attitude coming from that leads people to stand up and say "They all deserve to live!"

 

...because the comment I quoted in my previous post implies that there is something wrong with euthanizing animals from shelters.

 

[Eileen Stein]

I believe a majority of the general public is swayed into accepting as fact things that they see or read in the media multiple times. The more times the same message is repeated in the press the more likely the general public will believe it to be true. The more press time PETA gets, the more the general public will believe PETA's repeated message. This is true of any organization, the more times their message can be repeated in the press the more likely it is accepted as fact and the less likely it is debunked.

 

Well, it doesn't seem to be working for PETA, as far as I can see. The press they get is largely negative, and the media rarely run a story on a controversial claim without soliciting and publishing a view from the opposing side. If PETA's case is weak on a particular issue, the more coverage they receive, the more likely their position will be discredited.

 

A recent great example is the believed linked between autism and vaccines; despite the fact that the study included many disclaimers (might, could, the data suggests) and the fact that the study only included 12 children (a very small sample size out of the entire population) a large number people believe the link exists.

 

Do you think that more and fuller press coverage of this issue would be beneficial or harmful? Seriously.

 

I don't think they have "scary power", but it's the influence they are having over the general public whose only expirence with animals is that of owning a pet or maybe even they have never had a pet.

 

Just look at a few things that are considered inhumane treatment by some in regards to dogs, chaining a dog, keeping a dog in a kennel, using a crate, correcting a dog in any fashion, heck, even destroying a dog is considered sinful to some regardless of the reason. Probably each of us can add something to the list.

 

My parents thought that chaining a dog, keeping a dog in a kennel, and using a crate were inhumane. That was long before PETA came into existence. I think the trend, at least in the US, has been toward acceptance of crates for dogs, not the other way. Of the people I've heard argue against correcting dogs, none of them have ever cited PETA or anything PETA says as a basis for their opposition -- they cite behavioral theory. And it's strange to read here that PETA is blamed both for euthanizing dogs and for causing people to oppose euthanizing dogs. The "No Kill" movement is championed by those who oppose mandatory spay/neuter -- which side do you think PETA is on?

 

Seems to me you are giving PETA too much credit for social attitudes they've had little or nothing to do with causing. Scary PETA.

[Debbie Meier]

Seems to me you are giving PETA too much credit for social attitudes they've had little or nothing to do with causing. Scary PETA.

 

You are probably right.

[Mark Billadeau]

What is called the press now is less about news and more about entertainment. I don't think more entertainment coverage of science will be helpful. I think science needs to do a better job at educating the public on what science is and is not and what it can do and cannot do. Hence my avatar.

 

The media distills scientific study results down into one sentence without the caveats that all these publications have and then the public looses confidence in science when the media reports the results of the next study which may or may not confirm the first study.

 

The media has learned how to get the public's attention and the public allows the media to sway them. Extremists and activists are learning how to get the media to feed the public its message, or at least keep their organization’s name in the public eye. Brand recognition is key to collecting money.

[juliepoudrier]

Sort of OT, but related to one of Mark's posts: this morning in the Early Show was a segment about the supposed link between vaccines and autism. One of the people interviewed, and sorry I was only half listening as I fed the dogs, commented on getting ready to vaccinate a child who had a seizure *right before* the vaccine was given. His comment was something to the effect that if they had given the vaccine a minute earlier, the seizure would likely have been attributed to the vaccine. The mother likely would have been interviewed, and she would have described how the child has a seizure almost instantly after receiving the vaccine, thereby establishing a cause and effect that might not even exist. And yet anyone watching that interview would likely draw the conclusion vaccine = bad.

 

To bring this back on topic, I dislike PETA's extremism at times, although considering as someone else noted that I'm all for Greenpeace, I guess it's a little hypocritical of me. PETA can have a very good message and I think some of what they've championed have been really good causes that might never have seen the light of day otherwise, but I find some of their tactics and rhetoric disturbing as well, as well as their seeming hypocrisy on some issues.

 

I agree with Mark that today's news is all about entertainment and sensationalism and when it comes to science, things get a little twisted around at times. After all, it's much more attention grabbing to focus on the negatives (XXXXX number of people have died from the H1N1 virus) than on the positives (perhaps we've forestalled a pandemic, or here are some simple rules to follow to protect yourself--and I'm not saying these latter things weren't put out there, but the media really focused on the deaths above all else). The physical sciences are hard enough for the average person to grasp, but usually they follow certain hard and fast rules that can be readily explained, at least at the most basic levels. Biological, and especially medical, sciences are full of grey areas. Explaining that science in our sound-bite media world isn't the way to get any useful message across, IMO. As Mark said, most often a conclusion is seized upon as the "take away" message, but all the caveats and suppositions, etc., leading up to that conclusion get lost along the way. Members of the public who are interested can dig around and find the full information, but most folks will just run with what they hear on the TV news.

 

Take any group who has a simple and compelling message covered by the media and most folks will accept it at face value (heck, they do the same with political ads, which are rarely the whole truth and sometimes barely even touch the truth), whether or not it's true. This sort of tactic can move large segments of the public, to be sure, but it can also grossly misinform them when the message isn't entirely true.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

Sort of OT, but related to one of Mark's posts: this morning in the Early Show was a segment about the supposed link between vaccines and autism. One of the people interviewed, and sorry I was only half listening as I fed the dogs, commented on getting ready to vaccinate a child who had a seizure *right before* the vaccine was given. His comment was something to the effect that if they had given the vaccine a minute earlier, the seizure would likely have been attributed to the vaccine. The mother likely would have been interviewed, and she would have described how the child has a seizure almost instantly after receiving the vaccine, thereby establishing a cause and effect that might not even exist. And yet anyone watching that interview would likely draw the conclusion vaccine = bad.

 

But this guy made a good point (debunking "post hoc ergo propter hoc"), on a TV show. Maybe he got that point across to some people through his media appearance. If so, it was a good thing, right?

 

I agree with Mark that today's news is all about entertainment and sensationalism and when it comes to science, things get a little twisted around at times. After all, it's much more attention grabbing to focus on the negatives (XXXXX number of people have died from the H1N1 virus) than on the positives (perhaps we've forestalled a pandemic, or here are some simple rules to follow to protect yourself--and I'm not saying these latter things weren't put out there, but the media really focused on the deaths above all else).

 

I just haven't found this to be true. It seems to me the tendency is toward the few simple rules to protect yourself, if anything. But maybe I'm not paying enough attention, or maybe I'm reading/watching different media.

 

I sympathize with Mark's frustration as a scientist, that so many people aren't able to evaluate the quality of different scientific studies. But in all fairness, the concern about autism being caused by vaccinations arose from a study published in a respected medical journal, which did not repudiate it until this week, twelve years after publication. If ordinary people formed the opinion in the interim that it was possible that vaccinations could cause autism (very few accepted it as a certainty), how is that attributable to the popular media? And I don't think it has much relevance to PETA, which very seldom bases its advocacy on scientific studies.

 

Take any group who has a simple and compelling message covered by the media and most folks will accept it at face value (heck, they do the same with political ads, which are rarely the whole truth and sometimes barely even touch the truth), whether or not it's true.

 

What makes you think most people accept political ads at face value? They have to be rejecting at least half of them, don't they?

 

Do you think the populace are going to demand that Punxsutawney Phil be replaced by a robot?

[kelpiegirl]

I think folks will once again dismiss PETA as the radical illogical group they are. If they WANTED to make it better for poor Phil, then they would come up with actual suggestions to do so- you know, protocols on care, feeding, time allowed on display, environmental enrichment. You know, sensible things. Instead they say we should use a robot- bottom line, they don't want people using animals for ANYTHING = pets, food, service dogs, lab animals, zoo animals, etc. Phil is just a pawn in their grab the spotlight whenever possible m.o.

[Guest echoica]

If PETA is extreme and radical...what do we call ALF? That is totally rhetorical! I am sure you all could come up with some interesting names

[Mark Billadeau]

If PETA is extreme and radical...what do we call ALF? That is totally rhetorical! I am sure you all could come up with some interesting names

Terrorists

 

While I do not agree with PETA, ideologically, they for the most part work within the law.

ALF has no problem working outside the law to further their ideological goals.

[kelpiegirl]

Not sure where people have been, but PETA supports ALF, ELF, among others.

 

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

 

How about people who support PETA, ALF, ELF, and any other groups akin, do some real tangible work, and help animals in need?

[Guest echoica]

Not sure where people have been, but PETA supports ALF, ELF, among others.

 

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_blackeye.cfm/oid/21

 

How about people who support PETA, ALF, ELF, and any other groups akin, do some real tangible work, and help animals in need?

 

 

Actually PETA does not publicly support ALF or they could lose their non-profit status. Ingrid Newkirk has even had press releases and news interviews to that affect. But the keyword there is publicly of course...

[Mark Billadeau]

True, no public support for the group, only financial support for individuals within the group helping them cover legal fees incurred while defending themselves for their terrorist activities. In other words, PETA financially supports individual AR terrorists but not AR terrorists groups.

The ALF is considered a terrorist group, whose purpose is to bring about social and political change through the use of force and violence.

 

Source: Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI

[juliepoudrier]

I've re-orderd your post for ease of addressing your comments.

 

But this guy made a good point (debunking "post hoc ergo propter hoc"), on a TV show. Maybe he got that point across to some people through his media appearance. If so, it was a good thing, right?

 

I sympathize with Mark's frustration as a scientist, that so many people aren't able to evaluate the quality of different scientific studies. But in all fairness, the concern about autism being caused by vaccinations arose from a study published in a respected medical journal, which did not repudiate it until this week, twelve years after publication. If ordinary people formed the opinion in the interim that it was possible that vaccinations could cause autism (very few accepted it as a certainty), how is that attributable to the popular media? And I don't think it has much relevance to PETA, which very seldom bases its advocacy on scientific studies.

 

I'm not saying it wasn't a good thing. I guess I wasn't clear that I was using the point to illustrate that human nature is to look for the easy answer or the most obvious cause-effect relationship, when in fact most cause-effect relationships aren't quite so clear cut. This was in response to Mark's comments regarding autism and vaccines (which is why I included your paragraph on autism here). Yes, the editorial board of the Lancet is at least partially at fault for not speaking up sooner to caution that the published study shouldn't be taken as gospel, but I also think the fault lies with our collective social desire for easy answers to medical issues. I have not kept a close watch on autism research, but ISTM that there have been at least a few voices in the wilderness crying "wait!" all along. It's just that a good number of people chose not to listen to those voices. And I think while it may be true that few accepted it as certainty (I don't know where that statistic could from anyway), I think enough people believed there may be a connection that they avoided vaccines that perhaps they shouldn't have. Actually, that's what the news segment was about, but I couldn't tell you which vaccines were being discussed and I didn't include the information regarding the numbers of children that became victims of disease as a result of skipped vaccines (because of the purported vaccine-autism connection) because I wasn't paying real close attention and so didn't take notes on the data in order to share it (since I didn't expect the subject to be broached here). I considered going to the news channel's website yesterday, but frankly didn't feel like it. So the whole story was addressing the number of children who were exposed to (experienced) disease because their parents *believed* the supposed vaccine-autism connection. If you're interested in the full story, I can try to find it and post a link.

 

And I also want to point out that scientific and medical data are published all the time--peer reviewed and everything--that are later found to be partially or completely wrong. Just because it's published in a prestigious journal of any sort doesn't make it true. Usually other researchers will try to replicate the work and in so doing either provide support for the original researchers' conclusions or cast doubt on it. Like I said earlier, autism isn't an area of great interest for me, so I've not followed the research, but even I, who haven't followed the research, knew that there were questions about the validity of the original conclusion of a direct correlation between vaccine and autism. (Compare that to, for example, the evidence for the occurence of vaccine site cancers in cats, which has in fact changed the way cats are now vaccinated.)

 

Re: My comments on media coverage of H1N1:

I just haven't found this to be true. It seems to me the tendency is toward the few simple rules to protect yourself, if anything. But maybe I'm not paying enough attention, or maybe I'm reading/watching different media.

 

Every news story I saw (morning news) led off with the latest number of deaths. I'm not saying the other information wasn't covered--it was--but that they chose to *lead* with the deaths because that was the sensational part of the news.

 

What makes you think most people accept political ads at face value? They have to be rejecting at least half of them, don't they?

 

Just personal experience among friends who are at the opposite end of the political spectrum from me. Average folks who do take the ads at face value. I'm not claiming that the ads swayed anyone, but rather that the folks who were already on a particular side would just parrot what they heard in the ads, never bothering to look any deeper to find how true (or not) they were. This happens for supporters of both political parties and speaks to my point that people will take what's fed to them in an easy sound bite and repeat that as fact without ever actually *looking* to see if it is true. That is, that many people seem to lack a healthy dose of skepticism and just want information fed to them. I know it's an oversimplification to compare political ads to medical data, but I was just trying to illustrate our societal failure to actually research information instead of just taking as gospel whatever we hear on the news (or in ads).This may not be as prevalent among folks who tend to read the medical literature, but if the news media take a sound bite out of a scientific report, they well could give people a particular impression about, say, study results that may not be completely true. And I think it's fair to say that many people aren't going to go to their computers and do their own research (unless the subject of the study is something that directly affects them) to find the whole story, just as they wouldn't go to their computers to see if a political ad were true.

 

Do you think the populace are going to demand that Punxsutawney Phil be replaced by a robot?

I doubt it. And none of my prior comments in this thread were directly related to PETA except those that I said were, but rather were directed to Mark's comments about science and the media, which perhaps is peripherally related to PETA. I don't see PETA as some great evil, but as I said before I do fear situations where a group makes claims that aren't necessarily backed by real facts/science and then an uninformed public takes that and runs with it. As I said before, I think PETA does some good, but they have a great potential to do harm as well, and I don't trust their real agenda. I think there's a lot of hypocrisy within the group as a whole, and it's why I don't support them with donations, nor do I champion them to others.

 

J.