Animal Crackers
Last week, my home state of Colorado got hit by a blizzard. Again. In addition to stranding travelers, the inclement weather is threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of cattle and other livestock in the region. You may have seen news footage of National Guard helicopters airlifting hay bales to the stranded critters. It's no small endeavor, to be sure, but I've never really thought about who's paying for it. The taxpayers are, I suppose.
But I learned today who's not paying for it: PETA.
When asked by a Denver radio show if PETA would help pay to feed the stranded animals, spokesperson Reannon Peterson said, "You're going to save them, and then in six months they're going to be killed and end up on someone's plate. So I don't know that it's really the most noble cause."
Okay, point made. But then she was asked about wild animals—deer and elk, that sort of thing. Her response there: "It's an act of God....There's really nothing to be done."
This is the response from an organization that routinely castigates hunters for killing such animals? Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like PETA's concern for saving the lives of animals depends an awful lot on just what they're saving those animals from—humans, namely. Don't you dare kill those animals, they say, but if they happen to die in a blizzard, hey, that's not our problem.
In a couple of radio interviews yesterday, Colorado Governor Bill Owens had some harsh words for the PETA folks—"losers" and "frauds", specifically. "PETA doesn't want us to feed freezing cattle," he opined. And in case anyone missed his point: "What a bunch of losers. Don't give your money to PETA."
Now, lest anyone think I have an axe to grind against PETA, I hasten to point out that the Humane Society isn't doing anything about those stranded cattle either.
Apparently, it's more ethical to let an animal starve to death than to kill it for food, and death by freezing is more humane than the slaughterhouse.
Crackers.
--
Colorado Governor: PETA “A Bunch Of Losers,” “Frauds”
But I learned today who's not paying for it: PETA.
When asked by a Denver radio show if PETA would help pay to feed the stranded animals, spokesperson Reannon Peterson said, "You're going to save them, and then in six months they're going to be killed and end up on someone's plate. So I don't know that it's really the most noble cause."
Okay, point made. But then she was asked about wild animals—deer and elk, that sort of thing. Her response there: "It's an act of God....There's really nothing to be done."
This is the response from an organization that routinely castigates hunters for killing such animals? Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like PETA's concern for saving the lives of animals depends an awful lot on just what they're saving those animals from—humans, namely. Don't you dare kill those animals, they say, but if they happen to die in a blizzard, hey, that's not our problem.
In a couple of radio interviews yesterday, Colorado Governor Bill Owens had some harsh words for the PETA folks—"losers" and "frauds", specifically. "PETA doesn't want us to feed freezing cattle," he opined. And in case anyone missed his point: "What a bunch of losers. Don't give your money to PETA."
Now, lest anyone think I have an axe to grind against PETA, I hasten to point out that the Humane Society isn't doing anything about those stranded cattle either.
Apparently, it's more ethical to let an animal starve to death than to kill it for food, and death by freezing is more humane than the slaughterhouse.
Crackers.
--
Colorado Governor: PETA “A Bunch Of Losers,” “Frauds”
posted by Michael at
6:35 PM
5 Comments:
If we were all vegetarians, this wouldn't be a problem ;)
By
dilliwag, At
January 05, 2007 9:22 PM
Just the kind of hypocracy I would expect from PETA.
I think we eat too much meat, but the way I look at it - humanity didn't fight it's way to the top of the food chain to be vegetarians.
By
Lord Mhoram, At
January 05, 2007 11:14 PM
I'd never heard of PETA before... did a google search and found two options. I don't think you meant "People Eating Tasty Animals." :)
On a marginally related side note, my favorite bumper sticker reads:
"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants."
By
Wendy, At
January 06, 2007 8:47 AM
Wouldn't it be even more hypocritical for PETA to support an industry it clearly opposes? Like I said in my original post, if the cattle weren't there in the first place this wouldn't be a problem. I think that's a more accurate reflection of the PETA position. While I'm not a huge supporter of PETA tactics, I do support their philosophical position (although PETA would surely thrash me for wearing leather boots & belts--life is filled with contradictions).
In all seriousness, shouldn't the National Cattleman's Association be picking up the entire tab for this rescue effort? It's their industry, right?
I love how the linked article closes with the dreaded ad hominem fallacy:
"To this group of tofu-devouring loonies, seeing the livelihood of cattle ranchers evaporate is a cheap thrill."
By
dilliwag, At
January 06, 2007 3:41 PM
I'm sure the Colorado Cattle Feeder's Association will probably see a good chunk of of the bill, eventually. But I'm even more sure that consumers will ultimately see most of it. Look at what a natural disaster did to gas prices this past year.
As for PETA, I can see why they don't want to save beef cattle. But if they were really concerned about animals, and not just agendas, it seems to me they'd jump at the chance to save the deer and elk and whatnot.
By
Michael, At
January 06, 2007 4:52 PM
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home