There are many organizations that advocate animal rights and protect animals from cruelty that are worth supporting. PETA is not one of them. PETA was spawned as a terrorist organization that used real terrorist tactics prior to 9/11. Since then they have become a propaganda machine that uses ill-informed celebrities and baseless studies to support their agenda. They still continue to encourage unethical and illegal acts in support of their "cause" and rely on bullying and information used out of context to further their messages. They even advocate illegal activity in the last paragraph of the article posted in the beginning of this thread where they encourage spreading human hair and/or deer repellant in hunting areas. That is illegal and anyone caught doing so in my hunting areas would leave in handcuffs. The fact that anyone on this site would feel that PETA has any redeeming qualities is a perfect example of how persuasive and powerful their marketing and messaging is. My suggestion would be to do further research on PETA as a group to find out if they are an organization worth supporting in any fashion. I'm confident that once additional information is obtained the facts will speak for themselves.
HuntingBry, great post. I couldn't agree more. I admit, that I have been naive, thinking that PETA just had a bunch of bad eggs that did the things you mentioned. In reality, the whole organization stinks to the high heavens and needs to go, along with the HSUS. After doing a lot of thorough research, especially after this post got started, I can't believe the things I found.
The PETA organization was actually founded with good intent (albeit in gray areas) but they did have some solid goals in its earliest years. Now.. much of the organization is just plain insane. I remember a campaign a few years back trying to get kids to stop their fathers from fishing. They released a comic book depicting each kids dad as the Stalin of fish rights. I have to admit although disturbing... it was rather funny. But I wouldn't want my kids to ever see it. I recently read an article about PETA getting in bed with some smaller Christian based American religions.. I can only wonder how far that will go. I dig you trying to find some truth Finch.. that's the way it should be.. too often people today know little about what their dishing out.. they just know that someone told them what someone told them. Good for you!
I'm not really sure about this quote. PETA has been linked, though never charged, with supporting and advocating the acts of the ALF and ELF, both of which are on the FBI's domestic terror watch list. Additionally, while PETA publicly says they do not support violence members have been documented in cases of throwing paint on fur wearers, attacking them, as well as supporting the removal of animals from research facilities through illegal acts. We as hunters denounce poachers and do not include them as members of our ranks as they engage in illegal activities, despite the fact that they would be allies against groups such as PETA. PETA does not discriminate in that regard. There is nothing grey about that.
There is nothing I like more than being misunderstood. Although I thought my first sentence was clearly written. To sum it up.. I spoke of PETA's beginnings.. and their animal rights goals with somewhat decency in gray areas.. by gray areas I mean animal abuse on cattle farms etc. Those are definitely gray areas since their going to die anyway. Where you pulled that paragraph above from out of my first sentence.. I cannot fathom. However, I would assume you were enraged at the idea of PETA being good in any way whatsoever.. which spurred this emotional comment. I mean I get it.. and know that what you say in the above paragraph is true.. but I just said it wasn't always so. Calm down dude.. grab a snickers bar.
Thanks Muzzyman. Glad you know where I was coming from. LMAO, Matt...you are frickin hilarious. :D Where do you come up with this stuff? I mean really...you have a great imagination. "Ingrid"? Pfft...not even close. Duke...you're right. I was always under the assumption that PETA actually did some good but had some twisted views on hunting since they were animal lovers. Never knew of their hidden agendas. Definitely an eye opener. I'm glad I now know.
Almost everything that has been said can be found in the this link. 7 things you did not know about PETA. http://www.animalscam.com/peta_7things.cfm
Duke, calm as a cucumber brother. It seems as though I was the one who was misunderstood. There really was no emotion in my response. Admittedly, I did not follow what you were referring to as grey areas and now that you've cleared that up I see where you are coming from on that. I still disagree that the organization has good intent, but I guess that is in how you interpret their intent. Some see their intent as fighting for animals so that they are not needlessly put through suffering for human benefit. Personally, I don't buy that. I believe they use that angle to tug on the average Joe's heart strings to drum up support. The fact that they euthenize 85% of the animals they "save" proves to me they are interested in nothing more than furthering their agenda. That is how they got their start. They picked a "cause" (Silver Springs monkeys) to attack which would provide a high-profile platform and gain a lot of media attention and used that to push themselves into the limelight. There are many other causes they could have gone after, such as the 1,000s of animals killed in the fur industry, but they recognized that the fur industry in the 80's was booming and well armed with lots of money to fight back, instead they chose to go after a research facility without a lot of funding over 17 monkeys. There were other causes that would have affected many more animals, but they ignored those to pursue the one that served their purposes the best. I just don't see any redeeming qualities in an organization that operates like that. They are very self-serving. Again, no emotion in this, just stating my viewpoint on the organization that is based on more than a decade of following what they do (I like to know my enemy). I know through the years you've gotten used to people getting all riled up and firing back at you, but I'm just a guy putting my thoughts out there between emails and conference calls. So, before you have an visions of a guy angrily banging on his keyboard in response to your post, I assure you that is not the case.
LMAO, I know you're not bro. It's all good. GABowhunter, thanks for the edit. That makes more sense that way. PT, stop picking on Mike. He's not mean, he's just misunderstood.
Sorry but you're wrong Mike. Peta was founded by two animal rights extremists*, Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pachecho. They've always had a violent and wacko agenda. "There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation." -Ingrid Newkirk "We are not here to gather members, to please, to placate, to make friends. We're here to hold the radical line." -Ingrid Newkirk “Our nonviolent tactics are not as effective. We ask nicely for years and get nothing. Someone makes a threat, and it works.” -Ingrid Newkirk "I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match.” -Ingrid Newkirk “Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause.” -Alex Pacheco The fact that people don't really know about the agenda with groups like this is because 1) People don't pay attention (and they don't care) and 2)Because they hear people say "Well, some of the stuff they do is okay". *I hate to use 'animal rights extremists' because I think the notion of animals having 'rights' is extreme all by itself.
I have a theory that Ingrid is part horse, judging by her appearance. Perhaps this is why she fights for animal rights so vigorously?
Seriously.. quotes out of content. I thought better of you Christine. I did a paper on the organization a few years back.. and I thought that yes.. their helping to get the Animal Welfare Act of 1985 passed does qualify them as founded on better principles than they have now. If we really want to get into this we will.. although I must repeat I am in no way supporting what I believe to be a messed up and crazy organization. But.. there are like several layers of PETA... but we regular humans only get to see the crazy one. That's how they're so sneaky you see. Anyway... years ago one of those "sects" wasn't all that bad.. albeit (once again) in gray areas. I repeat.. I am not defending this insane organization.. I think they are insane... insanity is their behavior.. insane... insane... insane! By the way.. Ingrid IS considered the craziest of all... she's insane!!
