‘Pedigree Dogs Exposed’ producer blasts PETA
By Gina Spadafori
January 8, 2009
E-mail just in from Jemima Harrison, the producer/director of “Pedigree Dogs Exposed,” the BBC documentary that has rocked the UK dog world — and the Cruft’s dog show — with its look at how breeding for extremes from small, closed gene pools has made a mess out of many breeds of dogs:
The makers of Pedigree Dogs Exposed, the BBC documentary film that led to the BBC withdrawing from televising Crufts Dog Show in the UK are furious with PETA for jumping on the film’s bandwagon.
Earlier this week, PETA called for the US networks to stop televising Westminster Dog Show, citing the BBC film as evidence of unacceptable deformity and disease in pedigree dogs.
Pedigree Dogs Exposed was the result of two years’ careful research. The film highlighted serious health and welfare concerns in pedigree dogs that many experts agree need to be addressed urgently. However, the filmmakers have no connection to PETA and are idealogically opposed to PETA’s aims.
“I am horrified that PETA is using the film to further its own, warped agenda,” says Jemima Harrison, of Passionate Productions, which made the film for the BBC. “Our film is about animal welfare, not animal rights.
“PETA’s animal welfare record is appalling. It kills 97 per cent of the dogs that come to its shelters and admits its ultimate aim is to rid the world of what it calls the “domestic enslavement” of dogs as either pets or working dogs.
“In stark contrast, and the reason we made the film, is that we believe pedigree dogs are of tremendous value to society and that something needs to be done to arrest the damage caused by decades of inbreeding and selection for ‘beauty’. The film is a passionate call for urgent reform to save them before it is too late. To do that, there needs to be urgent reform of breeding practices and dog shows.
“PETA is a bunch of crackpots who do not care about anything but publicity and making money. They have not bothered to contact us – and, indeed, if they did we would make it very clear we do not want their support. It devalues and marginalises a film that raises a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and quickly.”
“Crackpots” seeking “publicity and money” … “appalling animal welfare record … killing 97 percent of the dogs that come into its shelter” …
Couldn’t have said it better myself! Hat tip to Patrick at Terrierman for asking Ms. Harrison to drop us a note.
Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
Regarding your closing question: I suspect because our Media still listens to PETA. After all, they are a basically a mail order business, using their donations to solicit more donations to solicit more donations. I can’t remember if it was Bernie, Christopher or PB who pointed that out so eloquently last year about how this organizations function( sorry guys). The bulk of their donations go to fund themselves and the next mailings, not the cause they pretend to espouse. They flood the Media’s fax machines with press releases, so when a situation occurs requiring animal expertise, who ya gonna call?
Comment by Anne T — January 8, 2009 @ 3:09 pm
Patrick, here and here. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 8, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
Nope, that’s not the post I was thinking of, but it really doesn’t matter in the long run although I do like to give credit where credit is due. It may have been Bernie, and if I had the time right now, I would research it myself.
All of you bloggers deserve immense credit for keeping us up to date on issues that affect our dogs/cats and companion animals, and linking your sources.
It was PB’s blog today with his link to DogMagazine.Net that grabbed my attention this time. Next time it may be you or Christie or Kim, Selma, Retrieverman (thank you by the way…thru your post that mentioned Temple Grandin and serotonin involvement in epilepsy I found Stephen Lindsey’s books online at Google, Dry, but great stuff!) or whomever who shows up here. You and Christie have set excellent examples because of your years of reporting, so you back up your sources, and have passed on the skill. It makes it easy for the rest of us less skilled to pursue a topic of interest!
By the way, I do urge you all to go to USA and network and send an email requesting they don’t give into PETA. I don’t have the links because I haven’t researched it yet, but apparently PETA supports are demanding they cancel Westminster.
Comment by Anne T — January 8, 2009 @ 4:04 pm
apparently PETA supports are demanding they cancel Westminster.
Comment by Anne T — January 8, 2009
Yes, PETA’s latest grandstanding is what Jemima Harrison is respounding to.
USA Network feedback.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 8, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
How to leave comments at USA Network
http://www.usanetwork.com/feedback/
Comment by Anne T — January 8, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
“crackpots who do not care about anything but publicity and making money.”
also, could not agree more, these guys are total idiots who think they know what is best for animals, when in actual fact they are clueless.
Comment by Dogs — January 8, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
sorry, if you make a film attacking breeding and dogshows, you have no cause to whine when those who agree with you choose to jump on your bandwagon. I despise PETA for all the reasons we’ve talked about, but they have every right to use the BBC film to support their agenda of exposing pedigree breeding which is also the BBC producer’s agenda
What’s the difference between Crufts/ UK breeding programs and Westminster/AKC breeding programs? If Harrison supported pulling out of Crufts, why shouldn’t she support pulling out of Westminster?
Comment by EmilyS — January 8, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
EmilyS —
As someone who does a lot of politcal networking, it’s always polite to ask first. Using someone else’s name/company/product to push your own views without contacting them first is just bad form.
The developer that I’m dealing (:-P) with has been using the name of another non-profit to justify his own project — without contacting that non-profit first. The Executive Director is furious because HIS reputation is being used as a cover for the developer’s project, and thus trying to pit my non-profit against this other one — who would normally be natural allies.
Harrison has a right to be angry — if someone wants to be your ally, they contact you first. Otherwise, you’re being used — and who wants that?
Comment by Dorene — January 8, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Hey, gotta give her credit for at least realizing what PETA is out to do. Oh, and I was rather getting rather worried when I heard the BBC would televise Crufts. Figured it was only a matter of time before PETA reared its ugly head.
Comment by Alex Verrastro — January 8, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
What’s the difference between Crufts/ UK breeding programs and Westminster/AKC breeding programs? If Harrison supported pulling out of Crufts, why shouldn’t she support pulling out of Westminster?
Comment by EmilyS — January 8, 2009
She may well support that, I don’t know.
But the point is: “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” was produced to point out the problems with a closed breeding system and with breed standards that call for — and shows that reward — unhealthy structure (such as dogs who cannot take the stress of having press photos taken without overheating and must sit on ice packs).
PETA isn’t about opening the breeding system or changing breed standards to improve the health of dogs. They have been clear over the years that they believe in the end of all domesticated animals. They call for the killing of pit bulls without regard to the temperaments of any individual dog, and they kill more than 90 percent of the animals that come into their “shelter,” per figures reported to the Commonwealth of Virginia.
For animal-rights extremists, the end game is no pets.
If I were Jemima Harrison, I’d be pissed, too, to be associated with these extremists.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 8, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
I’d still rather have the thing televised and hear commentary by REAL experts — not regurgitated pap about thus and such breed’s imaginary historie moste noble y anciente and delusional justifications of the misshappen beasts as functional.
I still remember the time that Joe Garagiola was insisting that the OES couldn’t possibly see, and mush-mouthed Roger Caras kept “correcting” him that the dog could see just fine and that hair obscuring his eyes made him better able to herd sheep. Joe wouldn’t back down.
Joe was spot-on, of course. First thing any sensible trainer does with a dog who has hair obscuring his eyes is pick up a pair of scissors.
I would be thrilled to script the commentary on the breeds. Oh please!
And lose the self-serving segments in which the AKC tries to take credit for such things as the border collie’s stockdog ability or the GSD’s versatility.
Comment by H. Houlahan — January 8, 2009 @ 7:33 pm
If that’s two years of careful research, I’d hate to think how long it would have taken her to do more than find shock-value illustrations for her points.
Comment by Cait — January 9, 2009 @ 12:22 am
If I were Jemima Harrison, I’d be pissed, too, to be associated with these extremists.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 8, 2009 @ 7:20 pm
I actually had some photos I took “co-opted” for other rescuers’ mission and I was pissed. {it was def a popcorn event for those on the sidelines!} I had stated I was forwarding the images for info only, they were copyrighted and could not be used for anything else, etc. While I agreed with the basic principle of those that co-opted the images, I didn’t want the dog or situation exploited to the “extreme” end. And they did exactly what I wanted to avoid. Note, these were not anon or unknown people who did this, but folks I “worked” with at the shelters. They were trying to use the dog to make a point with the ongoing (at the time?) issue with Disney and Dals. The images I took were to help get her into a rescue, NOT to be a poster child for an animal rights agenda.
Said dog is sleeping at my side . . . It would be nice if we could take a good look at breeding, where it is at, where adjustments need to be made, etc without having the extreme breaking down of the conversation to promote their agenda. And if PETA wants to get down on the front lines at MSG (Westminster), well I’ll just say hello to them as I exercise my right to enjoy some beautiful PB dogs and all the dog lovin’ people in the building ;)
Hmm, that reminds me. I need to buy tickets for Westminster! Everybody cross yer fingers that the Dals aren’t showing first thing in the morning PLEASE!!!
Comment by straybaby — January 9, 2009 @ 12:40 am
How awesome would it be if this led to an in-depth documentary/expose on PETA?
I know the information is out there, already, but the breeding one clearly had a uniquely powerful impact.
Comment by Christine S — January 9, 2009 @ 7:17 am
I have never had a problem with PETA’s having, advocating or lobbying for their point of view. Never.
What I have a problem with is them presenting themselves as some warm fuzzy animal-help group to people who don’t know better for the purposes of fund-raising and attention, while being pretty consistent and widely well-documented as believing that domestic animals should become extinct, pets included.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 9, 2009 @ 8:20 am
“Using someone else’s name/company/product to push your own views without contacting them first is just bad form.”
Who contacted PETA before using their response to this show to further push the opinion that PETA wants to kill everything on the end of a leash?
I don’t agree with everything PETA (or any other single organization) represents but I am not dismayed or surprised that they pointed to this documentary to further their views.
The documentary was graphic,shocking and extremely upsetting to watch. Even before PETA got involved, people were responding to the show with statements of hatred and disdain toward breeders, dog show people and everyone else involved in what the show portrayed as greed and absolute cruelty toward pedigreed animals.
The show opened with a statement that, after 2 years of research into dog breeding, they had uncovered “The Greatest Animal Welfare Scandal of our time” and continued throughout with statements about “breeding them to death” and words like “cruelty” and “greed” and “suffering”…..what response did they think people would have to that sort of statement?
Ingrid herself could have written that script.
Comment by Joy — January 9, 2009 @ 9:33 am
Ingrid herself could have written that script.
Comment by Joy — January 9, 2009
Only if the proposed solution was killing them all.
And Joy … it’s not my opinion that PETA wants an end to pets. It’s Ms. Newkirk’s, in her own words, such as:
“…Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance.” — Ingrid Newkirk
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 9, 2009 @ 9:35 am
True. I’ve had several conversations with Ingrid and my interpretation is that she feels pet ownership has led to a whole lot of suffering and that “in the end” or “in a perfect world”, we would not own pets.
She certainly has never kept her opinions secret - she loves dogs and cats but feels they shouldn’t be confined to human ownership; feels they suffer from the fact of domestication and ownership.
If her ideal world would be one with no purpose-bred and owned pets, then so be it - let her dream. She acknowledges that will never happen but wishes it would.
I think some people believe that Ingrid has armies of murderous volunteers going around slaughtering pets for her - personally, I just can’t make that jump. The euthanasia done under the umbrella of PETA is disturbing but, in my opinion, not any more disturbing than the euthanasia of pets done in the name of “humane” in shelters everywhere.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. I just don’t like the idea of making the unnecessary killing of animals acceptable or unacceptable based solely on who is doing it and what is motivating them. Ya know?
Comment by Joy — January 9, 2009 @ 10:07 am
I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong. I just don’t like the idea of making the unnecessary killing of animals acceptable or unacceptable based solely on who is doing it and what is motivating them. Ya know?
Comment by Joy — January 9, 2009
I hear ya.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 9, 2009 @ 10:17 am
“I have never had a problem with PETA’s having, advocating or lobbying for their point of view. Never.”
I agree because freedom of opinion and expression is one of the building blocks of a democracy.
However, I do have several problems with Peta’s approach.
Number one is their complete hypocrisy - they themselves kill animals in astounding numbers, support shelter killing, support ‘breed’ bans and all the rest of the sad anti-animal programs. The holier-than-thou attitude is what really grates with me.
Number two is their unwillingness to openly state their agenda when being quoted by media or when writing letters to media outlets. They pretend it’s all about animal welfare, when in fact animal welfare initiatives are diametrically opposed to the animal liberation agenda.
Number three is the complete lack of logic which is found with any group of fanatics, religious and otherwise. They want animals to express their natural behaviour. Humans are animals. Humans are expressing their natural behaviour. Dogs are expressing their natural behaviour in living with humans. They seem to prefer us to their own kind. Who are these Johnny-come-latelys to tell either us, or our long-time friends, that this living arrangement is ‘unnatural’? I’d say 50,000 years trumps 25+ years.
Finally, the existence of Peta and its antics makes them look like circus clowns - which they are. In being so ridiculous, they make much more dangerous organizations such as the Hsus appear measured and rational.
The latter is, of course, the whole reason for Peta’s existence.
I just wish mainstream media would stop buying into the names of these organizations and start looking at what they actually do. There has to be Pulitzer or two out there - why can’t they see it?
As for the program, yes, it was interesting. However, the UK is basically a iiving laboratory for closed genetic pools for several reasons. Furthermore, the show focused on a handful of breeds which are known to be in trouble, then found some rather odd individuals to represent breeders of these dogs.
It is true, though, that the kennel clubs over here have their heads just as far up their a**es as the one in the UK. Denial, denial, all is denial - when it isn’t rationalization and storytelling.
Comment by Selma — January 9, 2009 @ 11:34 am
Word. Mostly. Except you know I don’t agree that the HSUS is a lost cause, and I certainly don’t think it’s more dangerous than PETA.
I have known many HSUS staffers over the years. Good people, all.
And it seems — maybe — the HSUS as an organization is coming around on no-kill.
Your mileage may vary, and time will tell. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 9, 2009 @ 11:40 am
“…Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance.” — Ingrid Newkirk
Symbiotic …? I do not think this word means what she thinks it means. Or, rather, what it *does* mean is a close relationship between two species … like, say, ourselves and the other animals that live with and on us, including our pets.
Comment by Eucritta — January 9, 2009 @ 11:50 am
The Hsus will say things to pander, yes. They tend to blow with public opinion in their press releases, like any politician.
They are more dangerous because they are better organized, better funded, smarter, bigger, more connected and very well entrenched as lobbyists across the continent.
While I actually support a lot of what they say, especially relating to farm and wild animals, I don’t want them mucking around with my friends, the dogs. Had they kept their tentacles out of the dog houses (and cat beds) of the nation, I’d probably support them myself, but only if I didn’t know what their true agenda really is.
Louisville, Albuquerque, AB1634, Pennsylvania, the whole bounty on ‘dog fighters’ thing, the lies, the support for killing - that’s the Hsus I know.
Breed bans, mandatory neutering, anti-breeding - that’s the Hsus.
We’ll see. I just don’t think that hard-core animal liberationists, such as Goodwin, Pacelle and a few others are going to change their spots, regardless of what they say publicly.
I’m sure that the majority of their supporters are unaware of who is steering the ship and that many people who work for the Hsus are also unaware of their anti-pet, anti-farming ideology and legislation.
The beauty of it is that you can’t really argue against animal welfare and appear reasonable. It’s a great game, years in the making. The endgame will take most people by surprise because this plan is no short-term strategy. It’s been decades in the making, incrementally changing pet ownership from a good, easy thing to a bad, complicated thing.
Then one day, everybody will look around and wonder what the hell happened.
A long term stealth, propaganda and spin campaign is what will have happened but those of us who ‘get it’ are all wearing tinfoil hats. Right?
Comment by Selma — January 9, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
“I still remember the time that Joe Garagiola was insisting that the OES couldn’t possibly see, and mush-mouthed Roger Caras kept “correcting” him that the dog could see just fine and that hair obscuring his eyes made him better able to herd sheep. Joe wouldn’t back down.”
(Comment by H. Houlahan — January 8, 2009 @ 7:33 pm)
I remember Wayne Cavanaugh, now of the UKC, going on about OES during the airing of the Crufts’ show several years ago, and stating that the breed had “naturally bobbed tails.” Thought that was pretty amusing!
Comment by stellaluna — January 9, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
This isn’t about PETA’s so called misuse of the BBC documentary to me (not that they need anyone’s permission). It’s about Harrison’s faux outrage that after she produced a “shocking expose” of pedigree dogs, extracting the maximum attention and results (withdrawal of sponsorships in Crufts) she now wants to limit who can use her information . She’s not accusing PETA of violating copyright, as they would if they stole her photographs or words. As a journalist, she should know better, and be scorned rather than applauded, for attempts to control (or take back, really) her message.
No, this is more like if after Christie (as one noble example) exposed the shocking truth about our pet foods, she then became outraged if people tried to put Menu Foods out of business using her information.
We wouldn’t have agreed with Christie if she had done that, would we? Or stood behind Menu Foods when they defended themselves?
PETA is a disgusting bunch of slime, but they are not the issue.
Harrison and the others behind the BBC don’t like what’s happening with purebred dogs (as most of us don’t, in fact). Why SHOULDNT Westminster be shunned and boycotted for the same reason Harrison and BBC did with Crufts? We’re not going to support bizarre creations like the bulldog or the Pomeranion just because PETA has an agenda to end pet ownership and kills most of the dogs it “shelters”. Are we?
Comment by EmilyS — January 9, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
What’s wrong with Pomeranians?
Comment by Pai — January 9, 2009 @ 4:48 pm
No, this is more like if after Christie (as one noble example) exposed the shocking truth about our pet foods, she then became outraged if people tried to put Menu Foods out of business using her information.
We wouldn’t have agreed with Christie if she had done that, would we? Or stood behind Menu Foods when they defended themselves?
Uh, no. It’s more like if Christie had become outraged by someone trying to use her information to eliminate the entire pet food industry. PETA is not about eliminating certain deeply trouble breeds, or eliminating purebred dogs. They’re about eliminating dogs, and cats, and horses and pigs and cows and any other domestic animals you can think of.
Comment by Lis — January 9, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
I think Jemima Harrison was brilliant to issue a well-timed well-written news release attacking PETA. Since her film already has garnered wide attention and since PETA tried to exploit it, Harrison’s broadside back at PETA is helping to spread the word about what those extremist nutjobs are really about. Not “faux outrage”, but rather a cunning battle maneuver.
Comment by LauraS — January 9, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Comment by EmilyS — January 9, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
But what if Christie didn’t want to put Menu out of business, just wanted them to produce safe food?
I think there’s a difference between wanting things done right or straight up elimination.
And while there are problems in the dog world in regards to PBs and breeding, not all breeders/breeds are the issue. Problems need to be corrected, pedigree dogs don’t need to be eliminated. You have two distinctly different outcomes there. PETA would love to continue to move people away from pedigree breeders (and pets!), others would like to educate and perhaps change what’s going on. For me, it is similar to not all breeders are bad. Nor are they puppy mills etc. We expose puppy mills and educate about responsible breeders. People change where they get their dogs. They eliminate the problem (pets stores and puppy mills) and promote more responsible venues like responsible breeders and shelter adoptions. What they don’t do is eliminate dogs.
Is Westminster the problem, or is it the breeders/breed clubs? Seems to me, if we are going to boycott, it should be specific. Otherwise, we should be boycotting all dog shows. Those same breeds show in the Thanksgiving day show, dump that one also (and that show actually tries to give info to prospective owners)? Maybe it’s just more education vs punishing the entire field? I haven’t watched the whole docu yet, but it seems to me some of the issues are being addressed here with breed lovers. And isn’t that what we want? We need to make more educated choices and make sure that education is more widely available. Expose what’s right and wrong. PETA kinda gets in the way of that. For some, if PETA attaches their name, they just shut down and don’t listen, because they think PETA is made up of “animal freaks” (the nice term!). PETA makes it very hard to educate some. Can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to clarify AW is different than AR (PETA) very gently. I actually saw Vick getting some support from otherwise what seemed to be well meaning commenters online because PETA was involved. The wrong association can change the tone of a message.
Comment by straybaby — January 9, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
Totally Off Topic:
FDA scientists have written the Obama transition team requesting a restructure:
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj
{prays to the big spotty Dawg in the sky that they are heard ;) }
Comment by straybaby — January 9, 2009 @ 6:36 pm
PDE doesn’t define the “the problem” as “puppymills and pet stores”. Nor is it about a small number of isolated breeds. It’s about the “damage caused by decades of inbreeding and selection for ‘beauty’” in many many breeds.
Comment by LauraS — January 9, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
LauraS, I realize the PDE doesn’t define the problem as pet stores and puppy mills, it was an example of a problem with a redirect vs elimination. And I also realize that the pedigree prob has been going on for quite sometime. I do think there are degrees of the problem in the various breeds/and locations. Some breed clubs are addressing, some are debating, and some are continuing on. PETA would like to magnify the “myth” that all PB dogs are too inbred, over bred, sickly (imo of PETA) and this vehicle works for them. The puppy mill “comparison” by me is an example of exposing a problem and educating vs just flat out trying to eliminate all dogs because there’s a problem in an area of dog breeding/purchasing. Educate the population and correct the problem. Don’t get rid of all dogs :)
I’m a Dalmatian lover, but I’m also watching what’s going on with the addressing of the genetic stone issue. I’d love a well bred spotted puppy in my future, but depending on where the club goes, it will make a difference in my decision on registry and breeder (along with other things I’m looking for in a pup). That’s because of education and learning more about the breed and the breed club. And that info doesn’t come about through PETA efforts . . . I don’t have a problem with exposing issues, just how they are exposed and the “goal” of the ones exposing.
Honestly, what I’ve seen of PDE, I think it’s interesting and would be helpful in getting future dog owners going to breeders to ask the right questions. In the pet insurance thread here, I actually learned about an eye issue that effects some Dals that I had never heard of. It’s one more question I can ask a breeder about. I’m all for people learning this kind of info. I’m not for “all PB dogs are genetically sick” as a blanket statement and then just eliminating them :)
Comment by straybaby — January 9, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
(sorry I don’t know how to do italics)
Lis said: “Uh, no. It’s more like if Christie had become outraged by someone trying to use her information to eliminate the entire pet food industry.”
That happened! And seriously, there are still PLENTY of people who have given up all faith in the pet food industry and would like to see it vanish …but not to starve pets to death…rather IN FAVOR OF going back to the days when everyone fed their pets real food.
“They’re about eliminating dogs, and cats, and horses and pigs and cows and any other domestic animals you can think of.”
Again, I’m pretty sure the idea doesn’t end with “to eliminate”. From everything I’ve ever heard/read from Ingrid, I’ve gathered that she wants to end domestication…not to cause mass extinction but IN FAVOR OF allowing domesticated animals to eventually revert back to the wild and live free.
Those are quite radical ideas all by themselves - even without the added insinuations. But I think it’s important we at least try to understand the WHOLE of an idea before reacting to it.
I know far too many regular-everyday (not PETA radicals) animal welfare/rights people who feel strongly that ALL breeding must end immediately. And I’m NOT a fan of that idea any more than I am of many of PETA’s ideas. But if I really think about it and listen to them, they’re usually just misguided or misunderstood. They are frustrated with the cruelty and greed and think that if the breeding stopped it would end “overpopulation” which in turn, would end the cruelty. In my opinion, that is wrongheaded and unsound thinking but to make the jump that those anti-breeding people are out there eying my purebred dog with a shotgun behind their backs….I just think that’s a bit much.
Comment by Joy — January 10, 2009 @ 8:26 am
Joy, domestic dogs do not exist in the wild. They did not evolve in the wild; they evolved as a result of humans and wolves together finding out that there were advantages to teaming up.
Cats—an interesting situation. The North African wild cat essentially is a domestic cat with a shorter intestinal tract. And they still spontaneously “domesticate” themselves, moving in to human habitations of their own volition.
Ingrid Newkirk opposes Trap-Neuter-Release for feral cats, and she opposes simply leaving them to fend for themselves. She advocates killing them. That’s not letting them return to a state of nature. That’s extermination.
There is no space, without eliminating large numbers of humans, for large numbers of horses, cattle, pigs, or sheep to “roam free” and revert to a state of nature. The mustang herds of the American west are subject to careful management in order to keep them around and yet not a problem.
Domestic cattle are not the same critters that still roam wild in some places. If they are eliminated from our farms and ranches, they will not “revert to nature”; they will die.
And so on through the species. What she claims to want, she must know to be impossible. And her solution for the animals that don’t fit her ideas of what is “natural” is to kill them.
That’s what happens to the animals unfortunate enough to fall into PETA’s clutches. They are killed. A 97% kill rate—the most indifferent, heartless Animal Control shelter in the country would blush to have a kill rate that high. PETA is not an organization run by people who care about what’s in animals’ best interests.
Oh, and your first point:
Lis said: “Uh, no. It’s more like if Christie had become outraged by someone trying to use her information to eliminate the entire pet food industry.”
That happened! And seriously, there are still PLENTY of people who have given up all faith in the pet food industry and would like to see it vanish …but not to starve pets to death…rather IN FAVOR OF going back to the days when everyone fed their pets real food.
No, Joy, choosing to home-cook for your own pets is not the same thing as attempting to eliminate the pet food industry and removing the ability for other people to make their own choices.
Jemima Harrison wants changes in the practices of purebred breeders and the kennel clubs, to increase the health and preserve the existence of our purebred dogs. PETA wants to eliminate domestic dogs. Ms. Harrison has every right and every reason to be absolutely furious at PETA attempting to exploit her work to advance their ends and making it appear that she endorses their extremist, anti-domestic-animal agenda.
Comment by Lis — January 10, 2009 @ 9:32 am
As I said in my small post on this topic, I am actually surprised that Harrison is surprised (but obviously am thrilled with her comments, which I notice were also run in the LA Times).
I had assumed that the study which led to the show, and the show itself, was the result of the animal liberationists’ agenda, especially as it came from the UK.
The Peta bunnies are misguided and are following a religion, one which does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. I suspect that the leaders of the organization are suffering from either massive guilt or some sort of missionary complex. Or maybe they are just stupid - always a possibility, often overlooked.
I’m not a hunter but where I live many hunt deer in the fall. I don’t have a problem with it. You have to see deer trying to barge into our bakery (it happened, Peter held her off with a tray) or running across the street through the Post Office parking lot to get to the fields which surround our village to understand that since the predators have been largely exterminated, failure to control the deer population to even the small extent that the hunting season allows would make it very difficult and dangerous to live here. While I would have no problem with the reintroduction of native predators, I’m sure most people would oppose the idea due to myths and stories about big, bad wolves - the ‘pit bulls’ of the natural canine world.
As for dogs, I’ve seen pariah dogs and followed a pack around for awhile in Trinidad. They are a sorry lot overall and that’s in the tropics. Dogs roaming free as pariahs around here would be open to starvation, disease, exposure, wanton cruelty and unhappy deaths through accident, predation and target practice.
The whole premise, that animals should not have any relationship with humans, is based on an unnatural and false ideology.
I used to admire Peta because they brought attention to issues that needed to be aired. That ended a long time ago, unfortunately, as I watched them descend into corruption and fanaticism.
Such a shame.
Comment by Selma — January 10, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Lis: Believe me, there ARE people out there who want to see the final END to the pet food industry. My point was that, while that might be a radical idea, it’s not fair to jump to the conclusion that those radicals are hoping to starve pets to death….they just want to remove an aspect (yes, a choice) of how we feed our pets.
As far as Ingrid/PETA, I just meant to point out that her quotes (if taken in their entirety) seem to always point to her dream of a world with no domesticated animals - not a world with no animals at all. I don’t have to agree with her (I don’t) but I also don’t see any reason to make her radical ideas even more radical by suggesting she wants all domestic animals killed.
Comment by Joy — January 10, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
And those who want to eliminate the pet food industry would be misusing Christie’s words, and would rightly be the target of her ire, if they used her words in such a way as to suggest that they supported her goal
As for Ms Newkirk and PETA—they want a world with no domestic animals at all. Which means that they want all domestic species extinct. They kill essentially all of the animals they get their hands on. They advocate killing of more shelter animals, not fewer. They advocate killing feral cats, rather than TNR. They support breed bans and killing all pit bulls—including young puppies—seized in dog-fighting raids.
They actively collect pets from people, shelters, and veterinarians, promising to help the animals find new homes, and kill those animals.
Yeah, they don’t publicly say that they want to kill all our pets. They know that wouldn’t fly. But given what they do say, and do do, it’s asking me to take an awful lot on faith, to believe that there are any circumstances whatsoever in which it would be wise or safe to permit Ms. Newkirk or her co-conspirators unsupervised access to any animal anyone cares about. What if she decided to “free” my fifteen-year-old cat in early stage renal failure, who is seriously petrified of open doors that lead to Outside? She has no survival skills, she’s old, and she needs a special diet. Putting her outside would not be “freedom”; it would be a death sentence.
Or maybe Ms. Newkirk would simply have her killed by a vet, or a vet tech, or somebody who watched E-Vet Interns once, because being a loved and pampered pet is such a terrible fate.
What we do know she wouldn’t do, is find her a new home where she’d be loved and cared for.
Comment by Lis — January 10, 2009 @ 5:08 pm
“They actively collect pets from people, shelters, and veterinarians, promising to help the animals find new homes, and kill those animals.”
Balderdash! They rescue these animals so they won’t be subjected again to the horrors of “humanity.” Furthermore PETA do not conduct their business for a profit.
Additionally the world is well aware on how humans treat livestock. Without anaesthetic, tails are chopped off, as are testicles and backsides. Pigs and chickens have their teeth filed and their beaks burnt off. Then there’s the cow where a rouseabout enters its backend, replete with shears to hack out its ovaries. And you object to PETA’s objections? I know who the sickos are and it’s certainly not PETA! Sadists!
Comment by Ozzie — September 13, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
Ozzie, stop drinking the Kool-Aid. What are you, 12?
According to the Commonwealth of Virgina, PETA’s “shelter” kills more than 90 percent of the pets it takes in. And those are pets “taken in for the purpose of adoption” according to the requirements of state reporting.
Unless you really do believe that it’s better to be a dead pet than a loved one.
As for livestock, well … welcome and read on. Many of us here believe that food animals should be treated with respect and compassion, and allowed to engage in normal behaviors before being given a quick, fear-free and painless death. Now you may not believe we should eat animals at all, and that’s fine, but I personally believe in the circle of life — we are all food for another being. Even if you are a vegan, living things are dying for your meals — birds and small mammals in the fields, etc.
To my mind, keeping animals for food is acceptable, but torturing them is not. I eat little meat — most of my meat is purchased for the dogs and cats here — but what I do buy is from sustainable, regional sources committed to humane treatment.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — September 14, 2009 @ 7:09 am