Readers Respond: Anti-Animal Rights Propaganda
Over the past weeks we have received a number of letters critical of an article published on MND in late August. In the interest of balance, we have chosen to publish a few... -ed.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Dear Editor:
I have just finished reading the well-written piece of propaganda by Brian L. O'Connor, PHD.
There are several points that I would take exception to, but the most glaringly offensive is the reference to Fran Stephanie Trutt who attempted to murder Leon Hirsch, and the fact that Peta spent money defending her.
Fran Truttwas a lonely person who was coerced into attempting to murder Leon Hirsch, by someone PAID by Leon Hirsch to convince herto do it! Leon Hirsch felt that it would hurt the Animal Rights Movement if an activist tried to murder a doctor---so he had that event set up. She was unsuccessful because he was in on it the whole time. He got what he wanted: It was all over the news and it made Animal Rights people appear to be terrorists.
What was Leon Hirsch doing to make Fran Trutt want to stop him? He was using live dogs in demonstrations of his surgical staples in order to sell his staples, surgically cutting them up and then stapling them back together. He was killing dogs when he could have been using a model , and the dogs were suffering and dying not to save lives, butfor his financial gain.
This sort of thing is upsetting even to people who might think it is okay for animals to die for "life-saving research". He was found guilty of planning his own murder.
Kelly J. Hayward
Galveston, TX
Dear Editor:
The purpose of the latest PETA exhibit was not to compare humans to animals. It was to show the parallels between human and animal SUFFERING and to remind people that at one time the exploitation and maltreatment of certain people was accepted, even though, in retrospect, we can ALL agree that it was completely unethical.
There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about comparing human and (other) animal suffering. Animals feel pain (physical, emotional, and psychological) just like people do. I have been a nurse for over 25 years and have devoted my life to helping people. When I see someone in pain or discomfort it's my instinct to try to alleviate that pain. That is the reason I became a nurse and it is also the reason I became vegetarian.
I had always loved animals and rescued many cats, dogs, and birds. In the 80's I saw the Animals Film by Victor Schonfeld and Miriam Alaux. In it the horrors of factory farming, stockyard and slaughterhouse abuse and animal experimentation were exposed. I became a vegetarian overnight and have remained one since. Many members of my mother's extended family (who weren't lucky enough to escape from Europe in time) were killed in the Holocaust.
When I read about PETA's Holocaust on Your Plate campaign I was not offended by the comparisons. In my opinion, there are parallels we cannot deny. Suffering is suffering. Compassion is compassion. It doesn't matter what particular species of sentient being one is discussing. People need to evolve and to start to look outside their little cubicles and begin to develop compassion and respect for all forms of life. Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, George Bernard Shaw, Isaac Bashevis Singer, and Alice Walker are just a few of the people who also promoted this concept.
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it best: "The question is not: 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'" All animals can suffer and therefore deserve to be treated humanely.
Rina Deych
Brooklyn, NY
Dear Editor, This letter is in response to the article "Are Humans and Animals Separate but Equal?, by Brian L. O'Connor, PhD, published on 8/24/05.
I take a great deal of exception to Mr. O'Connor's comment "And this is why Animal Rights extremists (that's redundant — there is no such thing as a "moderate" Animal Rights activist)".
I would like to set Mr. O'Connor straight on this. You are WRONG in your assumption that all Animal Rights activists are also extremists. This statement is very much like saying all blue eyed blonde people are NAZI's, or all white people are racist. Get real!
I consider myself an ARA, as I feel that it is morally and ethically wrong to cause suffering to any of God's creatures. I do not eat or use any animal products, as a condition of my activism. My activism also consists of polite letter writing (to printed publications, legislators, and companies that I know still engage in unnecessary animal testing), and speaking, ONLY when its appropriate and someone has shown genuine interest in my views, on the cruelty that occurs on a magnitude that is unimaginable to most of us (billions of cows, poultry & pigs kept in deplorable conditions until they are painfully slaughtered for their meat, hides, etc., outdated animal testing, etc). I will provide literature ONLY when asked for it. I, along with millions of other ARA's, do NOT engage in illegal acts such as breaking & entering, physical attacks on others who happen to not share our views, or any other criminal activity.
We are hard working, honest people, who are simply following our consciences. By the way, Mr. O'Connor, this is the "modus operandi" of 99% of Animal Rights Activists. It is people like you who are misleading the public about what Animal Rights activism REALLY is.
You owe us an apology.
Most Sincerely,
Sandra P. Hays
South Pelham, NC
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to the article "Are Humans and Animals Separate But Equal?" The article is so riddlederrorsthat I hardly know where to begin. I have been an animal rights activist for some time and I don't know a single person who resembles the caricature of animal rights activists presented by Brian O'Connor.His missive misses the mark.
I would like to demystify the animal rightsmovement for O'Connor and readers of Mens News Daily: All animal rights activists want is for people to stop doing horrible things to animals. There is nothing radical about that.
We all know what crimes against animals look like. We recoil from graphic images of animal suffering as if we had touched a hot stove. PETA forces us to confront the hideous suffering we inflict on animas. We kill 1 million animals every hour in this country for food. The notion that animal rights activists are "vicious" would be laughable if the magnitude and ubiquity of animal suffering today was not so heartbreaking.
Most people would rather focus on the two PETA employees who were arrested for dumping dead dogs and cats in a dumpster than confront the painful reality those arrests brought to light. Every single day in shelters across the United States 15,000 homeless dogs and cats are euthanized.
As a former animal control employee I can tell you that if euthanizing dogs and cats and disposing of their bodies was a crime, I, along with almost every animal control officer and animal shelter employee in this country would be guilty of it. PETA, like all organizations dealing with the problem of companion animal overpopulation, euthanizes animals. It is a tragedy and an outrage and animal rights activists will be the first to admit it.
Nobody wishes euthanasia were not necessary more than we do, but a painless death is better than what life has in store for homeless animals who are born into a world that does not want them, that does not care for them and that does not deserve them. PETA employees who euthanize animals are only doing the grim work that our throw away society has delegated to them.
People who are outraged by the fact that the bodies of dead dogs and cats find their way to landfills and rendering facilities by the millions every year should wake up and do something about it. The blood of those animals is on the hands of those who continue to patronize breeders, puppy mills, pet stores and people who fail to spay and neuter their animals. The only thing more tragic than the fate of homeless animals is the fact that their deaths are entirely avoidable. A humane society would prevent them from being born in the first place.
On a separate note, animal rights opponents often suggest that the concept of animal rights is ridiculous because animals and humans should not have the same rights. They claim that it would be preposterous to let cats drive cars. They are right. Cats shouldn't drive cars.
Any dialogue about animal rights must immediately dispense with the notion that animal rights activists believe animals and humans are equal and that animals and humans should have equal rights. The guiding principle of equality that permeates American jurisprudence requires only this: that we treat like beings alike.
Discussions about human rights do not suggest that every human being should have every human right. Minors do not have the right to vote, marry or enter into contracts, yet no one would suggest that minors should not have any rights simply because they do not have every right. Such is the case for animal rights.
Heretofore, civil rights movements have sought solely to expand the class of rights holders to include members of our own species. But extending rights to animals will require more than simply widening our circle of rights to extend beyond the boundary of our own species. Giving animals rights will require us to reconstruct our sense of place in the world. And whatever else this might entail, it will require us to forsake the self-appointed sense of separateness and superiority that has enabled us to behave as if the world and all its inhabitants were made for us.
This means that we might actually have to acknowledge that there is a difference between power and superiority. Throughout history humans have consistently mistaken our capacity to overpower other species as evidence of our moral and intellectual superiority. But if this overwhelming need to subjugate is indicative of anything, it seems to me, it cannot be moral ascendancy.
Sincerely,
Leana Stormont, J.D.
Norfolk, VA
Dear Editor:
PETA’s latest exhibit shows past atrocities of humans to similar current atrocities to animals. The ads are meant to get people to realize their oppressive mindsets. In our history, as we fought for the rights and welfare for each group of people (women, blacks, etc.), the general population was upset at those claiming these groups had any rights just as some are upset now at the thought that animals should not suffer either. In suffering, all species are the same. The point of the ads is to get people to open their eyes to the way we treat humans and other species. For poor circus elephants, for instance, the slave trade still exists. Elephants are ripped away from their families and way of live in Africa and Asia. They are forced to constantly confinement as they travel from town to town in severe weather extremes. They are trained by beatings and sharp bullhooks.
Dick Gregory, longtime social activist, supports PETA’s campaign. I am reminded that Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
Sincerely,
William McMullin
Mt. Morris, MI
Dear Editor:
In his August 24 commentary, Are Humans and Animals Separate But Equal, Dr. Brian O’Connor’s takes the position that “Whatever their intentions, the effects of the AR campaigns aren't very human-friendly.” If human-friendly means that it is acceptable to exploit animals for the benefit of humans, then I would agree with him. The unifying principle of the animal rights movement is, as PETA’s founder Ingrid Newkirk, states, “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.” However, my belief is that those who are active in animal rights are not against humans, they are just for animals.
Within any movement established for change, there are participants spanning the entire spectrum of concurrence. I would cite the anti-abortion movement as a prime example. While adherents believe that human life begins at conception and as such should be protected at all costs, some activists believe in protest, some in lobbying, and some who believe it is acceptable to bomb abortion clinics and kill those who perform abortions. In that context, the same argument Dr. O’Conner makes against animal rights activists could also be made against anti-abortion activists. In fact, almost all movements start with a simple request for change. When the simple request is ignored, some individuals believe that any end justifies the means.
As “the flagship Animal Rights organization,” PETA itself has never participated in any form of terrorist activity. While some may point to their campaigns as being outrageous, each one is architected to educate and inform the public—removing the shroud of validity often protecting the most heinous aspects of animal abuse and mistreatment. This shroud takes many forms that insulate the consumer from the horrific lives animals lead in medical and cosmetic research, the painful existence a factory farm, and the horrors of inhumane death at slaughterhouses.
In their Holocaust on your Plate and Animal Liberation campaigns, PETA draws upon our knowledge of atrocities committed against humans. When these atrocities were committed, the perpetrators and onlookers saw nothing wrong with what was going on. Because of race or nationality, the children of a lesser God were subjected to things that, in retrospect, were contemptible and today we ashamedly avert our eyes from the mere images of the suffering captured on film. The comparison of human suffering and animal suffering is not only valid, but also worthy of consideration by people today. Regardless of Dr. O’Connor’s attempts to the contrary, there are no mitigating circumstances to change the fact that, regardless of species, suffering is suffering. Hyperlinks in his article point back to his weblog, the central purpose of which appears to be attacking PETA and animal rights advocates in general. It is little wonder that many of the hyperlinks on his weblog and in his artic! le point back to Center for Consumer Freedom related websites and their ongoing campaigns against PETA.
This center for "freedom" is PETA’s sharpest critic. It is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and others. It is funded by Tyson Foods, Armour-Swift, Purdue Farms, and a host of other food companies, many of which have been the target of investigation because of their questionable treatment of animals. According to wikipedia.org, “…Richard Berman runs the Center for Consumer Freedom; the key to Berman’s aggressive strategy is, in his own words”, “to shoot the messenger ... we’ve got to attack their credibility as spokespersons.” Dr. O’Connor appears to be an apt pupil of Mr. Berman’s teachings.
When news first broke about PETA’s involvement in euthanizing animals at the North Carolina shelters, The Center for Consumer Freedom was the standard-bearer for PETA critics. Unfortunately, neither Dr. O’Connor nor the CCF researched the circumstances surrounding the situation at those shelters in North Carolina. PETA was contacted by a resident of Bertie County because of the inhumane way unwanted animals were housed and killed at the shelter there. In addition to the $240,000 they spent to improve the conditions for those unwanted animals, PETA provided a humane alternative to the county’s standard practice of killing animals with a .22 caliber firearm or by a slow, painful death in a makeshift gas chamber.
In keeping with the theme of his indictment against PETA, Dr. O’Conner cites statistics from yet another Center for Consumer Freedom site about PETA’s euthanasia records as well as their annual budget. While it would be wonderful if every dog and cat had a loving and responsible owner, it is simply not the case. Beaten, burned, crippled, and abused in ways that would sicken the stomach of even the most fervent PETA critic, the majority of animals PETA euthanized were not adoptable, nor was there room in shelters to place them.
One might ask, with a budget of upwards of $29 million, why couldn’t PETA become a shelter? While most shelters concentrate on household pets, PETA’s mission is the alleviation and prevention of suffering for all animals. Their tax records, available on guidestar.org, list 13 pages of donations made to animal hospitals, animal sanctuaries, and a host of other groups around the world who work on the animals' behalf. The salaries of the officers, management, and staff are significantly below industry and commercial standards, and the monies they have and the monies they collect are used on behalf of all animals.
With a glut of unwanted animals in this country, it is irresponsible to even suggest, as did Dr. O’Connor, that spaying and neutering is “clearly a violation of their natural right to reproduce, to enjoy the pleasures of sexual behavior and to enjoy rearing offspring.” It is unfortunate that a man as learned as Dr. O’Connor would invest his energies in attacking animal rights activists and organizations when his intellect could be used to champion the cause of ensuring the ethical and humane treatment of animals. I find it ironic for him to agree with statements that “Animal Rights advocates (are) vicious (and) deceptive,” when he and his compatriots at the Center for Consumer Freedom are attempting to mislead others and obfuscate the truth at the expense of suffering animals.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Bayer
Norfolk, Virginia
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Dear Editor:
I have just finished reading the well-written piece of propaganda by Brian L. O'Connor, PHD.
There are several points that I would take exception to, but the most glaringly offensive is the reference to Fran Stephanie Trutt who attempted to murder Leon Hirsch, and the fact that Peta spent money defending her.
Fran Truttwas a lonely person who was coerced into attempting to murder Leon Hirsch, by someone PAID by Leon Hirsch to convince herto do it! Leon Hirsch felt that it would hurt the Animal Rights Movement if an activist tried to murder a doctor---so he had that event set up. She was unsuccessful because he was in on it the whole time. He got what he wanted: It was all over the news and it made Animal Rights people appear to be terrorists.
What was Leon Hirsch doing to make Fran Trutt want to stop him? He was using live dogs in demonstrations of his surgical staples in order to sell his staples, surgically cutting them up and then stapling them back together. He was killing dogs when he could have been using a model , and the dogs were suffering and dying not to save lives, butfor his financial gain.
This sort of thing is upsetting even to people who might think it is okay for animals to die for "life-saving research". He was found guilty of planning his own murder.
Kelly J. Hayward
Galveston, TX
Dear Editor:
The purpose of the latest PETA exhibit was not to compare humans to animals. It was to show the parallels between human and animal SUFFERING and to remind people that at one time the exploitation and maltreatment of certain people was accepted, even though, in retrospect, we can ALL agree that it was completely unethical.
There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about comparing human and (other) animal suffering. Animals feel pain (physical, emotional, and psychological) just like people do. I have been a nurse for over 25 years and have devoted my life to helping people. When I see someone in pain or discomfort it's my instinct to try to alleviate that pain. That is the reason I became a nurse and it is also the reason I became vegetarian.
I had always loved animals and rescued many cats, dogs, and birds. In the 80's I saw the Animals Film by Victor Schonfeld and Miriam Alaux. In it the horrors of factory farming, stockyard and slaughterhouse abuse and animal experimentation were exposed. I became a vegetarian overnight and have remained one since. Many members of my mother's extended family (who weren't lucky enough to escape from Europe in time) were killed in the Holocaust.
When I read about PETA's Holocaust on Your Plate campaign I was not offended by the comparisons. In my opinion, there are parallels we cannot deny. Suffering is suffering. Compassion is compassion. It doesn't matter what particular species of sentient being one is discussing. People need to evolve and to start to look outside their little cubicles and begin to develop compassion and respect for all forms of life. Gandhi, Albert Einstein, Albert Schweitzer, George Bernard Shaw, Isaac Bashevis Singer, and Alice Walker are just a few of the people who also promoted this concept.
Philosopher Jeremy Bentham put it best: "The question is not: 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?'" All animals can suffer and therefore deserve to be treated humanely.
Rina Deych
Brooklyn, NY
Dear Editor, This letter is in response to the article "Are Humans and Animals Separate but Equal?, by Brian L. O'Connor, PhD, published on 8/24/05.
I take a great deal of exception to Mr. O'Connor's comment "And this is why Animal Rights extremists (that's redundant — there is no such thing as a "moderate" Animal Rights activist)".
I would like to set Mr. O'Connor straight on this. You are WRONG in your assumption that all Animal Rights activists are also extremists. This statement is very much like saying all blue eyed blonde people are NAZI's, or all white people are racist. Get real!
I consider myself an ARA, as I feel that it is morally and ethically wrong to cause suffering to any of God's creatures. I do not eat or use any animal products, as a condition of my activism. My activism also consists of polite letter writing (to printed publications, legislators, and companies that I know still engage in unnecessary animal testing), and speaking, ONLY when its appropriate and someone has shown genuine interest in my views, on the cruelty that occurs on a magnitude that is unimaginable to most of us (billions of cows, poultry & pigs kept in deplorable conditions until they are painfully slaughtered for their meat, hides, etc., outdated animal testing, etc). I will provide literature ONLY when asked for it. I, along with millions of other ARA's, do NOT engage in illegal acts such as breaking & entering, physical attacks on others who happen to not share our views, or any other criminal activity.
We are hard working, honest people, who are simply following our consciences. By the way, Mr. O'Connor, this is the "modus operandi" of 99% of Animal Rights Activists. It is people like you who are misleading the public about what Animal Rights activism REALLY is.
You owe us an apology.
Most Sincerely,
Sandra P. Hays
South Pelham, NC
To the Editor:
This letter is in response to the article "Are Humans and Animals Separate But Equal?" The article is so riddlederrorsthat I hardly know where to begin. I have been an animal rights activist for some time and I don't know a single person who resembles the caricature of animal rights activists presented by Brian O'Connor.His missive misses the mark.
I would like to demystify the animal rightsmovement for O'Connor and readers of Mens News Daily: All animal rights activists want is for people to stop doing horrible things to animals. There is nothing radical about that.
We all know what crimes against animals look like. We recoil from graphic images of animal suffering as if we had touched a hot stove. PETA forces us to confront the hideous suffering we inflict on animas. We kill 1 million animals every hour in this country for food. The notion that animal rights activists are "vicious" would be laughable if the magnitude and ubiquity of animal suffering today was not so heartbreaking.
Most people would rather focus on the two PETA employees who were arrested for dumping dead dogs and cats in a dumpster than confront the painful reality those arrests brought to light. Every single day in shelters across the United States 15,000 homeless dogs and cats are euthanized.
As a former animal control employee I can tell you that if euthanizing dogs and cats and disposing of their bodies was a crime, I, along with almost every animal control officer and animal shelter employee in this country would be guilty of it. PETA, like all organizations dealing with the problem of companion animal overpopulation, euthanizes animals. It is a tragedy and an outrage and animal rights activists will be the first to admit it.
Nobody wishes euthanasia were not necessary more than we do, but a painless death is better than what life has in store for homeless animals who are born into a world that does not want them, that does not care for them and that does not deserve them. PETA employees who euthanize animals are only doing the grim work that our throw away society has delegated to them.
People who are outraged by the fact that the bodies of dead dogs and cats find their way to landfills and rendering facilities by the millions every year should wake up and do something about it. The blood of those animals is on the hands of those who continue to patronize breeders, puppy mills, pet stores and people who fail to spay and neuter their animals. The only thing more tragic than the fate of homeless animals is the fact that their deaths are entirely avoidable. A humane society would prevent them from being born in the first place.
On a separate note, animal rights opponents often suggest that the concept of animal rights is ridiculous because animals and humans should not have the same rights. They claim that it would be preposterous to let cats drive cars. They are right. Cats shouldn't drive cars.
Any dialogue about animal rights must immediately dispense with the notion that animal rights activists believe animals and humans are equal and that animals and humans should have equal rights. The guiding principle of equality that permeates American jurisprudence requires only this: that we treat like beings alike.
Discussions about human rights do not suggest that every human being should have every human right. Minors do not have the right to vote, marry or enter into contracts, yet no one would suggest that minors should not have any rights simply because they do not have every right. Such is the case for animal rights.
Heretofore, civil rights movements have sought solely to expand the class of rights holders to include members of our own species. But extending rights to animals will require more than simply widening our circle of rights to extend beyond the boundary of our own species. Giving animals rights will require us to reconstruct our sense of place in the world. And whatever else this might entail, it will require us to forsake the self-appointed sense of separateness and superiority that has enabled us to behave as if the world and all its inhabitants were made for us.
This means that we might actually have to acknowledge that there is a difference between power and superiority. Throughout history humans have consistently mistaken our capacity to overpower other species as evidence of our moral and intellectual superiority. But if this overwhelming need to subjugate is indicative of anything, it seems to me, it cannot be moral ascendancy.
Sincerely,
Leana Stormont, J.D.
Norfolk, VA
Dear Editor:
PETA’s latest exhibit shows past atrocities of humans to similar current atrocities to animals. The ads are meant to get people to realize their oppressive mindsets. In our history, as we fought for the rights and welfare for each group of people (women, blacks, etc.), the general population was upset at those claiming these groups had any rights just as some are upset now at the thought that animals should not suffer either. In suffering, all species are the same. The point of the ads is to get people to open their eyes to the way we treat humans and other species. For poor circus elephants, for instance, the slave trade still exists. Elephants are ripped away from their families and way of live in Africa and Asia. They are forced to constantly confinement as they travel from town to town in severe weather extremes. They are trained by beatings and sharp bullhooks.
Dick Gregory, longtime social activist, supports PETA’s campaign. I am reminded that Gandhi once said, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
Sincerely,
William McMullin
Mt. Morris, MI
Dear Editor:
In his August 24 commentary, Are Humans and Animals Separate But Equal, Dr. Brian O’Connor’s takes the position that “Whatever their intentions, the effects of the AR campaigns aren't very human-friendly.” If human-friendly means that it is acceptable to exploit animals for the benefit of humans, then I would agree with him. The unifying principle of the animal rights movement is, as PETA’s founder Ingrid Newkirk, states, “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.” However, my belief is that those who are active in animal rights are not against humans, they are just for animals.
Within any movement established for change, there are participants spanning the entire spectrum of concurrence. I would cite the anti-abortion movement as a prime example. While adherents believe that human life begins at conception and as such should be protected at all costs, some activists believe in protest, some in lobbying, and some who believe it is acceptable to bomb abortion clinics and kill those who perform abortions. In that context, the same argument Dr. O’Conner makes against animal rights activists could also be made against anti-abortion activists. In fact, almost all movements start with a simple request for change. When the simple request is ignored, some individuals believe that any end justifies the means.
As “the flagship Animal Rights organization,” PETA itself has never participated in any form of terrorist activity. While some may point to their campaigns as being outrageous, each one is architected to educate and inform the public—removing the shroud of validity often protecting the most heinous aspects of animal abuse and mistreatment. This shroud takes many forms that insulate the consumer from the horrific lives animals lead in medical and cosmetic research, the painful existence a factory farm, and the horrors of inhumane death at slaughterhouses.
In their Holocaust on your Plate and Animal Liberation campaigns, PETA draws upon our knowledge of atrocities committed against humans. When these atrocities were committed, the perpetrators and onlookers saw nothing wrong with what was going on. Because of race or nationality, the children of a lesser God were subjected to things that, in retrospect, were contemptible and today we ashamedly avert our eyes from the mere images of the suffering captured on film. The comparison of human suffering and animal suffering is not only valid, but also worthy of consideration by people today. Regardless of Dr. O’Connor’s attempts to the contrary, there are no mitigating circumstances to change the fact that, regardless of species, suffering is suffering. Hyperlinks in his article point back to his weblog, the central purpose of which appears to be attacking PETA and animal rights advocates in general. It is little wonder that many of the hyperlinks on his weblog and in his artic! le point back to Center for Consumer Freedom related websites and their ongoing campaigns against PETA.
This center for "freedom" is PETA’s sharpest critic. It is a nonprofit coalition of restaurants, food companies, and others. It is funded by Tyson Foods, Armour-Swift, Purdue Farms, and a host of other food companies, many of which have been the target of investigation because of their questionable treatment of animals. According to wikipedia.org, “…Richard Berman runs the Center for Consumer Freedom; the key to Berman’s aggressive strategy is, in his own words”, “to shoot the messenger ... we’ve got to attack their credibility as spokespersons.” Dr. O’Connor appears to be an apt pupil of Mr. Berman’s teachings.
When news first broke about PETA’s involvement in euthanizing animals at the North Carolina shelters, The Center for Consumer Freedom was the standard-bearer for PETA critics. Unfortunately, neither Dr. O’Connor nor the CCF researched the circumstances surrounding the situation at those shelters in North Carolina. PETA was contacted by a resident of Bertie County because of the inhumane way unwanted animals were housed and killed at the shelter there. In addition to the $240,000 they spent to improve the conditions for those unwanted animals, PETA provided a humane alternative to the county’s standard practice of killing animals with a .22 caliber firearm or by a slow, painful death in a makeshift gas chamber.
In keeping with the theme of his indictment against PETA, Dr. O’Conner cites statistics from yet another Center for Consumer Freedom site about PETA’s euthanasia records as well as their annual budget. While it would be wonderful if every dog and cat had a loving and responsible owner, it is simply not the case. Beaten, burned, crippled, and abused in ways that would sicken the stomach of even the most fervent PETA critic, the majority of animals PETA euthanized were not adoptable, nor was there room in shelters to place them.
One might ask, with a budget of upwards of $29 million, why couldn’t PETA become a shelter? While most shelters concentrate on household pets, PETA’s mission is the alleviation and prevention of suffering for all animals. Their tax records, available on guidestar.org, list 13 pages of donations made to animal hospitals, animal sanctuaries, and a host of other groups around the world who work on the animals' behalf. The salaries of the officers, management, and staff are significantly below industry and commercial standards, and the monies they have and the monies they collect are used on behalf of all animals.
With a glut of unwanted animals in this country, it is irresponsible to even suggest, as did Dr. O’Connor, that spaying and neutering is “clearly a violation of their natural right to reproduce, to enjoy the pleasures of sexual behavior and to enjoy rearing offspring.” It is unfortunate that a man as learned as Dr. O’Connor would invest his energies in attacking animal rights activists and organizations when his intellect could be used to champion the cause of ensuring the ethical and humane treatment of animals. I find it ironic for him to agree with statements that “Animal Rights advocates (are) vicious (and) deceptive,” when he and his compatriots at the Center for Consumer Freedom are attempting to mislead others and obfuscate the truth at the expense of suffering animals.
Sincerely,
Steven R. Bayer
Norfolk, Virginia
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home