PETA doesn't help animals in blizzard

[MtnBiker]

Who ReallyCares about Animals
01/12/2007

by Gary Truitt

A series of devastating winter storms have caused havoc in cattle country. As many as 340,000 cows and steers have been stranded in Colorado alone. The National Guard has been called out to help distribute emergency supplies of hay. Fences are buried or blown down, and herds are scattered across a wide area. So who, besides ranchers, is jumping in to help? Not the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

Last week a spokesman for PETA told Denver radio station KRFX that the organization was not interested in helping the Colorado National Guard rescue and care for animals stranded by the blizzard. PETA spokesperson Reannon Peterson then launched into a diatribe against ranching and the methods used by ranchers. She blamed the ranchers saying the situation could have been avoided if the animals would have been treated differently. After being repeatedly asked how an organization that was supposed to care about animals could let thousands of cattle starve to death she replied, “Why are we so worried about keeping them just so we can kill them in six months so they can become a steak dinner?”

At this point Colorado Governor Bill Owens, who was appearing on the same program, lashed out calling PETA “frauds and losers.” Needless to say, PETA is getting lots of bad press in cowboy country. Not that these nutcases are bothered by this. Yet, top Colorado officials and many high profile people are urging people not to give money to these losers. Hitting PETA in their overstuffed bank accounts may be the best tactic yet.

http://www.hoosieragtoday.com/wire/c...als_163302.php

[jillian]

The PETA people are a bunch of hypocrites. I have major issues with anyone who puts animals before kids. They'd also rather see the animals die than be used by humans. If you look at their manifesto, Peter Singer's Animal Liberation, they say it doesn't matter if they lie to achieve their objectives.

[Gaffer]

The PETA people are a bunch of hypocrites. I have major issues with anyone who puts animals before kids. They'd also rather see the animals die than be used by humans. If you look at their manifesto, Peter Singer's Animal Liberation, they say it doesn't matter if they lie to achieve their objectives.

I agree with you jill, peta is a bunch of screwballs out to extort money

[sear]

Question:

Does treating an animal ethically require that we rescue them from natural adversity?

I UNDERSTAND.

We are obliged to not kick the dog, set the cat on fire, etc.

Fine.

And occasionally when a cetacean gets snarled in fishing nets & mooring lines, humans will go out to cut it loose.

BUT !!

Such fishing gear is not a natural adversity. It's a trap such wild animals haven't had enough time to evolve defenses against.

Does ethical treatment of animals require us to rescue animals from NATURAL adversity?

If a deer walking across a frozen pond falls through the ice, are we obliged to risk our own welfare to save it?

If instead of a wild deer, it's an apparently domesticated dog, with a collar around its neck, should that make a difference?

What are the standards of "ethics" here?

[jimnyc]

Thread starter hasn't been back in years. Other 'tard is banned and long gone. And our beloved Gaffer has since went to a better place than this earth.

[Abbey Marie]

[hjmick]

I should have know which dipshit was practicing Thread Necromancy...

[Black Diamond]

I learned a new word. Thanks abs.

[sear]

Our culture has a double-standard.

If gramma needs an operation that will cost a $quarter $mil,
some may not wish to dip into the kid's college fund to pay for it.

BUT !!

We can't just have the vet put gramma down.

There's no such taboo about euthanizing Fluffy or Fido.

Some have criticized this double-standard.
Some say we treat animals more humanely than humans.
We'll shoot a horse, to spare it an agonizing, protracted demise.

But a human terminal cancer patient?