But the methods do not justify the means.

Check this out (link is no good so I can only post the passage highlighted my appolgies):

quote:
PETA Urges Hamburg, N.Y., to Change Name

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-PETA-Town.html

A national animal rights group has offered Hamburg officials $15,000 to change the town's name to Veggieburg.

"The town's name conjures up visions of unhealthy patties of ground-up dead cows," said Joe Haptas, spokesman of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, in a letter faxed Monday to Hamburg Supervisor Patrick Hoak.
Oh no! Dear me! Anyone else realize that the town's name predates the use of 'Hamburger' to describe a slab of beef between two buns? Note the use of 'unhealthy' stuck in the sentence. They don't give up, do they? Never mind some of are in great health and do consume meat daily.

Let do a run down on PETA's policies (taken from www.peta.org )

Animals in Entertainment

PETA stands against rodeos, greyhound races, zoos, circuses, horse racing, bull fighting, traveling animal acts, marine mammel parks, stationary exhibits, and cockfighting.

Now they make a good point about the animal fighting. I mean, who dicided attack roosters were cool to bet on? Whatever. That involves dragging out the killing of an animal, something that I don't like. Some circuses can pull it off, but it is hard work. All the same, if they can pull it off, more power to them.

I am reminded of when Lowry Park Zoo opened up years ago in Tampa. All of the animals were in solitary bar cages with not a lot of toys and shelter. This is an example of poor zoo management. However, that was over twenty years ago, and things change. The managers (as did many zoos across the nation) learned how animals need stimulation. Now you go to Lowry Park and the animals are kept in huge cages filled with native vegetation and toys.

The races still need reform. Reform, not abolishment. They can be done in such a way to not be at the expense of an animal. PETA does not understand the bond between horse and rider. There is a certian companionship, this immortal bond that's been around since man domestication the wild stallions eons ago. That bond is manifested in the rodeo and in the races. Do we need drugs? No way. Horses can become junkies just like humans. Do we need to make sure breeders weed-out bad conformation in horses (nothing is more disgusting to me than to see a horse than can run but has a parrot mouth -- who the hell missed that one?)? Absolutely. Castrate anyone that doesn't fit the requriments and give them to a private non-racer. Ditto for the greyhounds. Several people that visit the vet's office I work at own retired greyhounds. Its a great program that needs more support so it gets more attention. The trick is to get owners and managers that are interested in the integrety of the purebred horses and dog as well as the wellfare of the animal.

Clothing

PETA stands against all forms of the fur and leather industry.

Now again, I agree...to a degree. Any traping that lenghtens the killing is wrong. It has to be quick and painless. And frankly, isn't a bear trap counter-productive? I mean, what happens when it cuts the animal in half. Now instead of two square feet of fur, you have two one-square foot pieces. Oh yeah, real smart there.

What's really funny is the silk and honey stances. I'm sorry, but I am not worried about the welfare of insects.

I think it is possible to produce leather and fur with farm-raised animals. Granted, I'd like to see some reform -- there's a self-cleaning cage system we use with the pigs here at UF and I think a smaller version for rabbits and ferrets and other fur animals would keep things sanitary and smelling good. Mental stimulation is as simple as a cardboard box stuff with hay for rabbits (which also doubles as a food).

Wildlife

Do I really need to tell you PETA's stance on this? Take one lucky guess. They are also against fishing, predator control (as well as pigeon control), and horse round ups.

Now large-scale round ups are not a good idea. Granted, a cattle rancher should be able to remove wild horses from the grazing areas. Frankly, I've always been pissed at PETA's views on horses -- they don't give a shit about the horses being shipped to France. Older horses are being sold at less than a dollar per pound and shipped alive to France and no big outcries from PETA. Because if the French do it, its okay. I'm not surprised -- these are the same people that consider the poultry industry equal to the Holocaust.

Again, hunting can be reformed (I am so not opening that can of worms only to say what I've said already -- go check out the thread yourself). But fishing? Whoa...fish are down there at the bottom of the intellecual chain. They are only slightly above insects. Heck, octopi and squid are more intelligent. I hate fishing (my only catch being less than six inches) and prefer farm-raised fish anyways but no complaints from me about those that like the sport.

As far as 'Population Control' the key word is 'overkill'. The Passanger Pigeon use to be seen in huge swams in the sky. Now, less than a hundred years later, they are extinct (I wonder why no one has propsed cloning them). On the other hand, I will practive population control when rats infest Dakota's feed and it threatens his life. I had to kill several before I moved to college when my other rabbits were getting attacked. I'm sorry -- my animals have a priority before vermin (this is coming from someone that's owned rats as well...).

Companion Animals

In this respect, PETA is not the most extreme group. More extreme is to see companion animals as slaves and owners as slave masters. I do support the use of the words 'pet' and 'owner' because I see it as most fitting. Companions pay bills (like my roommate's boyfriend). Dakota, on the other hand, costs me an arm and leg monthly. So he will remain a 'pet' until he gets a job and pays for the extra-expensive pellets I buy.

PETA does support some extremly obvious things (in other words, you are missing a few screws if you think these are bad). They are things everyone can agree on. Spaying and neutering, enthanasia (though I wonder why they are against inhaled forms), and puppy mills are main examples. There are a lot here.

Now I do disagree on some points. First of all their idea of flea protection. I have had no problems with Frontline and Frontline plus. They do the job. PETA recomends ceder and thats damaging to rabbits'liver, so I have no clue what wacko suggested that.

I don't like the idea of wild-caught exotics or fish. However, breeders can produce captive-breed fish. So you can still have your clownfish.

Now their policy on breeding irks me. PETA always sees anyone that makes money off of animals as greedy bastards. Talk to any rabbit breeder and you learn pretty quickly two things: 1) they don't make shit its all out of love 2) they have more pictures of the rabbits in their wallet than of their husbands. Dakota himself lacks the markings for a show rabbit (he is not spotted enough) -- so I had him castrated and kept him as a pet. Truth is, the best breeders out there -- be it horse, dog, cat, or rabbit are out there to maintain the intergrety of the breed. What happens is inexperienced breeders don't know how to check for genetic mishaps. For example, when we bred our Labrodor, Tracy, my family was concerned about hip dysplasia, a common defect in larger breeds. So what did we do? We checked Tracy's records to make sure there was no case of hip problems. We then examine the male and his records (all are certified by the AKC). The result? Out of a total of eighteen puppies (two litters) NOT ONE had the condition. From other resources, we know that the two pups that were breed also produced dysplasia-free dogs.

The only advantage mixed dogs have is what's called a hybrid-vigor, which might make them more immune to certain diseases. I think any animal that does not fit the requriments for their breed, as well as an mixed animal, should be castrate or spayed -- no bones about it. I have worked at spay and nueter clincs and this can be done quickly and effiecently.

But of course, PETA would rather you adopt mutts. That's fine, but they MUST be fixed. Otherwise the cycle begins all over again. PETA does not mention any of the pluses to a purebred animal and is clearly biased. While I'll be the first to admit there are problems with purebreds, none have happened on my watch. It all boils down to responsiblity. I support responsible breeding.

Vegetarianism

PETA supports vegetarianism and condemns the meat industry in any form.

If you want to do it for health reasons, fine. If you don't have the willpower to moderate your meat intake, than you shouldn't. I can, so I will continue to eat meat.

There is no middle-ground here for PETA, and that's where I support the Humane Socity's stance.

I think the large-scale meat producers are in need of reform. Last election proved to me though how things can go wrong. There was a certain restraining device used on pregnant pigs (Florida doesn't even have a huge pig industry). Now I thought it was wrong to keep the pigs in this for the duration of their pregnancy, so I was all for voting for the amendment. However, I also knew that restaining device protects the vet administerins shots. So I didn't want to see it abolished. The end result? The device cannot be used and now it takes five grad students to administer one vaccine. Oh yeah, that's moving on up.

And PETA does not support the small time farmer. PETA's agurments against eating meat are only on the welfare of the animal and the health benefits to humans. My roommate raised her own cow and it is currently is in our freezer. The cow was free-range, recieved all vaccines, and was killed in a humane fashion. The result? Enough meat to last a sememster from an animal that did not suffer in a cage or a pen that is actually healthier than any beef from a store. Take that and shove it up your ass, PETA!

Animal Experimentaion

Again...overkill is bad. But no scientist sits there, twiddles his thumbs, and thinks 'Oh boy...how many rats will I kill today!' I'd much rather have animals be used instead of the 'Hitler Approach'. I mean, where are we going to find human test subjects? Homeless people? Poor people? Jeez, that is the stuff for Nazis. Now granted, some things can only be done by humans. While there is a feline form of Immunodeficiency Virus (called FIV, the human form is HIV, which causes AIDS) virus tend to resemble their host more than they resemeble other virus. So almost all viral work would have to be done with human cell cultures. Though no one would volunteer for AIDS research unless they already had the disease. PETA also is, at best, out of date on the original of AIDS -- it can be traced to a non-lethal form found in primates (evidence taken from molecular clocks shows around 1910-1950).

Basically, save the really important stuff for animals. Molecular technology is improving, but it would be naive to think we can go with no animal research whatsoever.

Now...dissection and endotracheal tubes...oh dear, where to begin? I am an Animal Science student -- and no vet's office would hire me if I didn't know how to put a tube down an animals throat. And for human health -- which sounds better to practice on -- a stray cat dying or a seventy-year old heart transplant patient?

So, to sum up the longest...post...ever...there are several lesser known groups that are not as extreme as PETA. Support needs to go to these people, not the looney bin.