Peterson added that wild animals caught in the blizzard’s wake – the same animals PETA routinely criticizes
hunters for bagging – also weren’t worth spending PETA’s money to save. “It’s an act of God,” she said.
“There’s really nothing to be done” [click to listen].
Enter Governor Owens. In addition to labeling PETA “losers” and “frauds,” he expressed amazement that “PETA
doesn’t want us to feed freezing cattle” [click to listen] and stated that “it’s symbolic of what PETA stands
for” [click to listen]. Finally, Owens declared that PETA is “a strange group of people. Don’t send money to
PETA” [click to listen]. Asked a few hours later by KRFX sister-station KOA-AM to reiterate his position on
PETA, he put it plainly: “What a bunch of losers. Don’t give your money to PETA.” [click to listen].
We couldn’t agree more. As we’re telling the media today, the Colorado snowstorm is exactly the kind of emergency
that should send PETA into action. But PETA – whose president publicly wished for a foot-and-mouth epidemic
in 2001 – has a stubborn anti-meat bias. To this group of tofu-devouring loonies, seeing the livelihood of
cattle ranchers evaporate is a cheap thrill. This may also be the reason why the vegetarian-oriented Humane
Society of the United States isn’t spending any of the $145 million it raised last year on Colorado helicopter
rentals and hay bales.
I guess their point is that they are going to die anyway and so it’s better for the ranchers to lose their profit. Hardly helps their cause, though. They’d get far more done if they gave their public image even a little thought.
I was thinking about this during my dinner tonight, beef…mmm, and decided that I regard PETA in the same manner as I do the United Nations.
I think an organization such as this, one that cares about the humane treatment of animals and is vocally and publicly against animal abuse, is a good thing and should exist.
However, like the UN, this noble ambition has been hijacked and co-opted by a bunch of nut cases whose ignorant, radical zealousness and need for self-serving publicity has rendered their original message completely unpalatable to the general public.
IMO, both groups should exist - but are heavily in need of a complete house-cleaning and restructuring to get back their original ideals.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]I was thinking about this during my dinner tonight, beef…mmm, and decided that I regard PETA in the same manner as I do the United Nations.
I think an organization such as this, one that cares about the humane treatment of animals and is vocally and publicly against animal abuse, is a good thing and should exist.
However, like the UN, this noble ambition has been hijacked and co-opted by a bunch of nut cases whose ignorant, radical zealousness and need for self-serving publicity has rendered their original message completely unpalatable to the general public.
IMO, both groups should exist - but are heavily in need of a complete house-cleaning and restructuring to get back their original ideals.[/quote]
I hate to agree with you, TC, but I do on the PETA bit (not the UN bit … unless you meant to type ‘US’ ).
i don’t know the first thing about them but this is obviously a simple political ploy to make them look bad in a state with powerful ranching interests. why would they save cattle so that they can be, in their view, tormented and murdered for profit. that would just be silly.
Exactly. Even if you don’t agree with PETA’s beliefs, when those beliefs are followed to their logical conclusion, this is the perfectly reasonable result (within the confines of their beliefs).
It seems like PETA considers the suffering of animals as being equal to the suffering of humans, or at least very close to it. Imagine then a country in the world that enslaved some of its people, kept them in small cages their entire life, killed them cruelly and ate them rapaciously. Now an organization exists within the country that is solely devoted to bringing down the cannabilistic system. Then suddenly a storm frees some of the humans, and they become isolated, bound to starve or freeze to death. And who does the cannabilistic government turn to to help their not-yet-victims? The organization that exists for the purpose of abolishing cannabilism. Now that is ludicrous.
I’m sure PETA would rather spend its money trying to abolish the system. However, I agree that were PETA to help these doomed-anyways animals, it might give a boost to its failing PR campaign. But PETA is famous for never compromising on its principles.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]i don’t know the first thing about them but this is obviously a simple political ploy to make them look bad in a state with powerful ranching interests. why would they save cattle so that they can be, in their view, tormented and murdered for profit. that would just be silly.[/quote]Yeah…thats what they said. And thats what the Governor responded to when he called them “A Bunch Of Losers,” “Frauds”. And thats what this thread is about.
And that’s why Tempo Gain is pointing out why the Governor is wrong. [/quote]Pardon…I wasn’t aware you were appointed as spokesperson for Tempo Gain.[quote=“MikeN”]How about PETA making a deal- they’ll feed those animals if the ranchers guarantee not to kill them later?[/quote]Looks like they passed on the offer to help help with these animals.
The cows are private property of the ranchers. Why should PETA be given someone elses’ private property without due and agreed upon compensation?
There is a long tradition of farmers and ranchers helping each other and the community out in times of trouble. Helping get a crop in when someone in the family is sick or injured, rebuilding a bridge to a field that is washed-out ruined by a flood, fixing a tractor or loaning one out, helping round-up and returning cattle/animals that have gotten out due to a broke-down fence…things like this are pretty common in rural farming and ranching areas.
I think the Gov’s comments were made to show the hypocritical position of PETA in this instance and how it is the other side of the fence from those who work with these cattle and do so for their livelihood.
I don’t think the farmers will have the deaths of these cows “hanging over their heads” for very long. Isn’t PETA after a guilt trip here, or are they just enjoying the irony?
Whilst I agree that PETA need to take a good look at their PR (I was a supporter but now am not), I disagree that they are being hypocritical here. PETA does not approve of farming animals, and, to them, it is better that the animals die than go through that.
There was the big hooha a while back when PETA ‘rescued’ a lot of dogs and puppies from anmal shelters but then immediately killed them, as they believe it is better for the dogs to have no life and be killed humanely than to be held in cages to await what may or may not be a more cruel death.
It’s not a policy I can agree with, but that’s who they are, and that’s why they’re not being hypocritical when they refuse to help keep cattle alive just to be farmed until they are killed several months later; if they did, they would be supporting a trade they abhor.