Animal Rights or Wrongs

Discodog

We have had a lot of debate here about the extent that some people will go to regarding protest & the prevention of cruelty to animals. For example Hunt Saboteurs or Anti Vivisectionists.

There was confirmation today that Japan has called off it's whaling fleet one month early because of the effect of the Sea Shepherd campaign. Some of you may have watched the series Whale Wars on Sky TV where the crew go to quite extreme lengths to stop the Whalers.

The actions of the Sea Shepherd verge on the illegal but they have literally saved hundreds of Whales over their long campaign. So is direct action justified & where should it start/stop ?. For example would it be acceptable to raid a puppy farm or a premises where they were killing Greyhounds ?

Honey-ec

Ooh, this is a really sticky one. Sometimes activists are justified in taking the law into their own hands but when you get to the militant level of some rights groups there's a certain part of me that thinks they're sinking to the same level as they people they're trying to stop. It's such a grey area. I mean, take the release of mink from fur farms in Leinster. I don't think anyone here would argue with the fact that these farms need to be shut down, but the released mink are doing huge amounts of damage to our native wildlife. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe two wrongs can make a right.

My own personal feeling? Sometimes they can. Which is no answer at all, in the grand scheme of things.

homerhop

Where do you draw the line?
There are people out there who believe it is wrong to even have a pet, that all animals should be free to roam. So if they feel strong enough about it does it entitle them to break into your house and remove your dogs?

wolfpawnat

The whaling thing is not even an animal rights issue, it is just that the Japanese use loopholes in scientific research laws to hunt whales for their meat and calling it research, since what is not used in the research can be sold on as meat!

Cherry Blossom

TBH the key is to act within the law, if the law is the problem that's where the fight is. You also have to take the consequences of your actions into account, there is no point if it is going to have no positive result and if your actions can be used against your arguement. I don't agree with birds being kept in cages but I'm not going to break into someone's house to set one free. For starters it wouldn't last 2 minutes outside, secondly it will have a negative impact on my own credability negating any future opinion I might have (about anything, related or not). So all I can do is if not have them myself and use powers of persuasion on those considering it.

Discodog

The Japanese government pulled the Whaling fleet because of "safety concerns". Anyone who has watched Whale Wars would have to say that the actions of the protesters are sometimes illegal. In one case they boarded a Whaling ship & were arrested as pirates.

It is a pretty remarkable result to stop the Japanese from Whaling & it could only happen because of direct action. Obviously the release of mink, into the wild, could never be justified. But strangely breaking into an Irish Dog Pound is legal if the purpose is to provided water.

SophieSakura

What about people who steal dogs that they think are being mistreated and rehome them? Even if nothing illegal is happening.

I've seen a few people on here replying to thread about cruelty, encouraging the OP to steal the animal . . . which I think is right sometimes.

doctor evil

Japan has a large stock pile of unsold whale meat. I am not against whale meat (I would try it if offered) but I do have a problem with the method of killing them as it doesn't seem the most efficient. I at times don't get how people can be against the use of an animal while using animals in other ways (meat, milk, leather etc). To me, unless it is endangered or not being treated properly it is pretty much the same thing (tricky sentence to articulate)

Big difference betweed animal rights and animal welfare. The likes of PETA are nutjobs and those that think they can take the law into their own hands should have a rethink.

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

the method of killing them as it doesn't seem the most efficient.

It is very efficient in that they can kill & process a lot of Whales. However any hunting method that involves a chase, an inhumane kill & the separating of parents & young, leaving the young to starve, is unacceptable. The status of the animal, size of population etc has nothing to do with making cruelty acceptable. Whaling is no different to Foxhunting in that respect. The Sea Shepherds do break the law & have the support of the Australian government & wealthy donors like the Red Hot Chilly Peppers.

doctor evil wrote: »

The likes of PETA are nutjobs and those that think they can take the law into their own hands should have a rethink.

Whatever we may think of PETA they have 2 million members & do run some good campaigns & attract a lot of celebrity support. If they are so extreme it seems strange that Paul McCartney, Justin Bieber etc are happy to promote their campaigns.

ISDW

Discodog wrote: »

It is very efficient in that they can kill & process a lot of Whales. However any hunting method that involves a chase, an inhumane kill & the separating of parents & young, leaving the young to starve, is unacceptable. The status of the animal, size of population etc has nothing to do with making cruelty acceptable. Whaling is no different to Foxhunting in that respect. The Sea Shepherds do break the law & have the support of the Australian government & wealthy donors like the Red Hot Chilly Peppers.



Whatever we may think of PETA they have 2 million members & do run some good campaigns & attract a lot of celebrity support. If they are so extreme it seems strange that Paul McCartney, Justin Bieber etc are happy to promote their campaigns.

You do surprise me, I didn't think you'd be the sort to get caught up in the celebrity nonsense that is so prevalent in our society now. Just because some 'famous' person supports them, its validated? Why? I worked in the music business in London for 10 years, lots of musicians did very strange things - and a lot of illegal things. Doesn't mean I have to agree with them. Sometimes celebrity can skew a person's view of the world. 2 millions members worldwide - out of a population of how many? Really not a huge amount is it.

Anyway, I didn't think we were allowed to discuss them on here?

Tranceypoo

doctor evil wrote: »

The likes of PETA are nutjobs and those that think they can take the law into their own hands should have a rethink.

That's a really sweeping, generalised statement about PETA!!

Discodog

ISDW wrote: »

You do surprise me, I didn't think you'd be the sort to get caught up in the celebrity nonsense that is so prevalent in our society now.

Celebrity can have a massive impact. Why do you think that the American animal welfare groups were hoping that the Obama's would adopt a stray ?. Justin Bieber is very carefully managed & his handlers would not of approved him taking part in a PETA campaign if they didn't think that it was positive PR - he features on posters asking people to adopt stray dogs.

In the UK the actress Annette Crosbie (Victor Meldrew's wife) has actively campaigned for Greyhound welfare. Celebrities, like her, can get huge publicity for a cause.

I thought that the charter had been updated but you are right that discussion of a totally legal, public organisation is banned here. God knows why ?.

liah

Discodog wrote: »

Celebrity can have a massive impact. Why do you think that the American animal welfare groups were hoping that the Obama's would adopt a stray ?. Justin Bieber is very carefully managed & his handlers would not of approved him taking part in a PETA campaign if they didn't think that it was positive PR - he features on posters asking people to adopt stray dogs.

In the UK the actress Annette Crosbie (Victor Meldrew's wife) has actively campaigned for Greyhound welfare. Celebrities, like her, can get huge publicity for a cause.

I thought that the charter had been updated but you are right that discussion of a totally legal, public organisation is banned here. God knows why ?.

Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode about PETA may reveal some interesting stuff to you then. I'm not saying you have to agree with them on everything (their style of argument is quite abrasive and they have their biases like anyone else) but you can fact-check what you have discrepancies with against Wiki or another source of information.

It may be pretty eye-opening.

Episode description:

Offers criticism of the animal rights movement, and particular attention to the PETA organization and its ties with the ALF, an animal liberation group, classified by the FBI as a domestic terrorist organization.

ppink

is whale wars still on tv? I did watch it before and saw where their new catamaran was rammed by the japanese ships, did not see any more about it after that.

I saw Oprah interview the producers/directors of The Cove movie and what i found interesting was that they did not want the US to try to dictate that the dolphins should not be killed but for the various countries themselves to be shown the film and act on their own governements to stop the slaughter. They fought hard to have The Cove shown in these countries. Just a different approach I suppose.
Similar ot Gordon Ramsey bringing together the resturaunts in London regarding the shark fins?
Alot of people have no idea where or how their food gets to them.
DD I think you mentioned Gordon R before and the fois gras......I never ate it but I had NO IDEA what it was. It is shocking and disgusting!

Discodog

liah wrote: »

Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode about PETA may reveal some interesting stuff to you then.

I am not a member of PETA & I think that some of their member views are bonkers. However I thought that their fur campaign was brilliant & it had a huge impact in the UK. I have no doubts that with 2 million members that they will have some "wrong" people. The Penn & Teller "investigation" was 13 years ago ?. In the interests of balance there is an interesting comment on the program here

http://all-creation.franciscan-anglican.com/pennteller.htm

The Cove is interesting in that it had little impact in Japan. Tourists still visit Taijii & assume that it is a centre for Whale conservation - there are model Whales & cuddly toy Whales everywhere.

The big unknown is if the Japanese fleet will return to the Southern Ocean next year. Australia is pursuing legal action as the area is supposed to be a protected zone. If they decide to stop Whaling then I wonder whether the Sea Shepherds will look elsewhere. No one in Whale conservation expect or ever imagined that the Japanese would stop a month early.

I know someone who was a volunteer with the Sea Shepherds. She came back a very different woman & now devotes most of her life to conservation. Greenpeace have used the same methods in trying to stop nuclear tests but I am not aware of them being seen as terrorists or criminals.

liah

It's not so much that there's a couple 'wrong' people here and there. It's that the top head of PETA (Ingrid Newkirk) is funding terrorism. It's that they end up killing more animals than they 'save.' Have you looked at the figures?

I don't advocate the support of PETA for those reasons and many more. Guilt tripping and hysteria are no way to win over the public even without the support of terrorism practices. PETA is insane from the top, nevermind the fringe members.

Discodog

liah wrote: »

It's not so much that there's a couple 'wrong' people here and there. It's that the top head of PETA (Ingrid Newkirk) is funding terrorism. It's that they end up killing more animals than they 'save.' Have you looked at the figures?

I don't advocate the support of PETA for those reasons and many more. Guilt tripping and hysteria are no way to win over the public even without the support of terrorism practices. PETA is insane from the top, nevermind the fringe members.

Sorry I was editing when you posted. I have put up a link, not PETA, commenting on the claims made by Penn & Teller. I reiterate that I do not support some of PETA's policies however I have also seen that they have often been misrepresented.

The ISPCA probably kill more dogs than they save. Their kill rate, at the Pounds that they run has consistently been over 50 %. We have had the debate about no kill rescues - it is an impossibility until the number of strays reduce.

liah

Discodog wrote: »

Sorry I was editing when you posted. I have put up a link, not PETA, commenting on the claims made by Penn & Teller. I reiterate that I do not support some of PETA's policies however I have also seen that they have often been misrepresented.

The ISPCA probably kill more dogs than they save. Their kill rate, at the Pounds that they run has consistently been over 50 %. We have had the debate about no kill rescues - it is an impossibility until the number of strays reduce.

Penn & Teller is simply a nice summary of things I've seen and researched for the years leading up to the episode being released. The evidence is there, with far better sources than what you've provided (no offense, I'm just skeptical of the credibility of a website that uses patterned backgrounds in 2011, if you can provide something more reputable I'd be happy to check it against what I know), if you actually look for it.

Again, I suggest watching the full episode and then fact-checking with reputable sources (this is key) yourself.

Condoning an organization who resorts to extremism, hysteria and guilt tripping to try and win over the public doesn't seem smart to me as it's advocating extremism, hysteria and guilt tripping being used to win. Rationality and logic are what's needed here and PETA don't understand either of those words from the way they've conducted themselves.

EGAR

liah wrote: »

It's not so much that there's a couple 'wrong' people here and there. It's that the top head of PETA (Ingrid Newkirk) is funding terrorism. It's that they end up killing more animals than they 'save.' Have you looked at the figures?

I don't advocate the support of PETA for those reasons and many more. Guilt tripping and hysteria are no way to win over the public even without the support of terrorism practices. PETA is insane from the top, nevermind the fringe members.

Oh DON'T mention the name Newkirk to me:

Controlling an animal as deadly as a weapon

Ingrid Newkirk
Wednesday, June 8, 2005

Most people have no idea that at many animal shelters across the country, any pit bull that comes through the front door doesn't go out the back door alive. From California to New York, many shelters have enacted policies requiring the automatic destruction of the huge and ever-growing number of "pits" they encounter. This news shocks and outrages the compassionate dog-lover.

Here's another shocker: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the very organization that is trying to get you to denounce the killing of chickens for the table, foxes for fur or frogs for dissection, supports the shelters' pit-bull policy.

Td, I'm ashamed to say, as a weapon. These dogs were designed specifically to fight other animals and kill them, for sport. Hence the barrel chest, the thick hammer-like head, the strong jaws, the perseverance and the stamina. Pitshe pit bull's ancestor, the Staffordshire terrier, is a human concoction, bred in my native Englan can take down a bull weighing in at over a thousand pounds, so a human being a tenth of that weight can easily be seriously hurt or killed.

Pit bulls are perhaps the most abused dogs on the planet. These days, they are kept for protection by almost every drug dealer and pimp in every major city and beyond. You can drive into any depressed area and see them being used as cheap burglar alarms, wearing heavy logging chains around their necks (they easily break regular collars and harnesses), attached to a stake or metal drum or rundown doghouse without a floor and with holes in the roof. Bored juveniles sic them on cats, neighbors' small dogs and even children.

In the PETA office, we have a file drawer chock-full of accounts of attacks in which these ill-treated dogs with names like "Murder" and "Homicide" have torn the faces and fingers off infants and even police officers trying to serve warrants. Before I co-founded PETA, I served as the chief of animal-disease control and director of the animal shelter in the District of Columbia for many years. Over and over again, I waded into ugly situations and pulled pit bulls from people who beat and starved them, or chained them to metal drums as "guard" dogs, or trained them to attack people and other animals. It is this abuse, and the tragedy that comes from it, that motivates me.

Those who argue against a breeding ban and the shelter euthanasia policy for pit bulls are naive, as shown by the horrifying death of Nicholas Faibish, the San Francisco 12-year-old who was mauled by his family's pit bulls.

Tales like this abound. I have scars on my leg and arm from my own encounter with a pit. Many are loving and will kiss on sight, but many are unpredictable. An unpredictable Chihuahua is one thing, an unpredictable pit another.

People who genuinely care about dogs won't be affected by a ban on pit- bulls. They can go to the shelter and save one of the countless other breeds and lovable mutts sitting on death row. Legislators, please take note.

Ingrid Newkirk is president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (http://www.peta.org) and the author of "Making Kind Choices" (St. Martin's Griffin, 2005).

I wont even get into her statement and let it stand without commenting on it.

Cherry Blossom

liah wrote: »

Guilt tripping and hysteria are no way to win over the public even without the support of terrorism practices. PETA is insane from the top, nevermind the fringe members.

Okay seeing as everyone else is talking about it, I don't really know much about them other than the fact that could have caused massive damage to the reputation of a 5 star hotel I know of, barricaded entrances so if you wanted in you had to stop and listen to them, if you decided you were still going in you got abuse and swear words hurled at you. The reason for all this? Brazillian beef which the hotel doesn't and never has sold, they were invited to look for themselves and refused to do so, when they eventually decided to accept that they don't sell brazillian beef they continued anyway because it's a hotel and there might be a hotel somewhere that does sell it :rolleyes: They are also thought to be responsible for the release of thousands of mink around here (not the most recent ones but some years ago). These are the only times they have been active in my locality, so that tells me as much as I want to know about them tbh.

Personally I think their website can be compared to some sort of cult that looks like it's aimed at children and people with serious intelligence issues it is dumbed down so much.

Discodog

To return to the original theme of the thread would any of you intervene directly if you saw an animal being abused ?. The Sea Shepherd argument is that they physically get between the Whale & the hunter. So if you saw, say a dog being beaten by a child, would you intervene & where would your intervention stop ?.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

To return to the original theme of the thread would any of you intervene directly if you saw an animal being abused ?. The Sea Shepherd argument is that they physically get between the Whale & the hunter. So if you saw, say a dog being beaten by a child, would you intervene & where would your intervention stop ?.

It depends on the circumstances, where is this beating taking place and who else is present?

EGAR

I really don't see where this thread is leading or what it is supposed to accomplish...

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

It depends on the circumstances, where is this beating taking place and who else is present?

Well I was deliberately trying to think of a situation that did not have the obvious problem, that no one will intervene if the abuser is bigger than them - unless they do kick boxing .

Living in Ireland we can be faced with unacceptable animal treatment every day & most of the time we do nothing probably because we are used to seeing it. I found the UK to be very different. The Irish seem very anti protest & anti direct action on all issues.

Cherry Blossom

I don't really get the point of this either What I would do first would depend on the 'exact' set of circumstance and step 2 would depend on the out-come of step 1.

It seems like you are on some sort of fishing expedition of your own

EGAR

Objection, Your Honour, Counsel is leading.

Discodog

I guess that originally I was amazed that direct action had stopped Japan. But it made me wonder under what circumstances any of us would take direct action to save an abused animal. The point has already been raised that posters here have hinted at liberating an abused dog, by leaving a gate open, which is theft.

Having spent time in the UK I am still no nearer to discovering what makes Ireland's attitude to animal welfare so different. Maybe we don't have animal welfare law because we have never taken direct action like Humanity Dick did all those years ago in Connemara ?.

Cherry Blossom

As I've already said the power of persuasion is really the only tool that exists for situations that are within the law. Opening a gate to allow a dog to roam is hardly being responsible.

TBH OP I think you are skating on thin ice with all these threads encouraging 'discussion of illegal activities'.

Discodog

Well I have to accept that if you pose questions here, regarding actions or organisations, that you can be assumed to agree with them. I have never partaken in or condoned violence - I won't admit to not having broken the law as I suspect we all have.

Many of the rights that we enjoy were only won as a result of direct & often illegal action. You already know that we all skate on this ice by sticking up for animals & it can put pressure on friendships, neighbours etc. Right now there is a dog nearby that has not been released from a 12 ft chain in months. It has the cheapest food, water once a day, basic shelter but no bedding & I cannot do a thing about it.

olaola

On the other end of the scale, what about owners that literally kill their pets with love - mainly overfeeding? Animals with diabetes, ruptured joints, damaged spines and so fat they can't walk!? They obviously love their animals, but are shortening their lives significantly and causing them pain and discomfort.

Cherry Blossom

olaola wrote: »

On the other end of the scale, what about owners that literally kill their pets with love

I have 2 of those in my possession One acquired by educating and persuasion and one by a combination of persuasion and hard cash, there was no educating in it, they thought they knew it all and couldn't be convinced otherwise!