Is it just me, or is PETA a little over the top here...

[Blue_In_AK]

PETA seeks statewide king fishing ban
PLEA: Animal-rights group asks governor to save state fish.

By PETER PORCO and DOUG O'HARRA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: February 19th, 2005
Last Modified: February 19th, 2005 at 06:05 AM


In a move sure to evoke derision in this fishing state, the animal rights organization PETA has asked Gov. Frank Murkowski to stop all Alaska fishing for king salmon.

PETA, or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, faxed a letter to Murkowski on Friday, claiming that recent studies show fish to be "intelligent animals who feel pain."

"(W)e are writing to request that you declare King Salmon, the state fish, off limits to fishing," Karin Robertson, manager of the group's "fish empathy project," wrote to Murkowski.

The group targeted kings and not, say, silvers or Dolly Varden or Irish Lords, because "it's the state fish that we're asking him specifically to make a pardon for," and this is just a first step, said Bruce Friedrich, PETA's director of vegan campaigns.

...more

http://www.adn.com/front/story/6188670p-6063351c.html

[BikeWriter]

1. PeTa is way over the top! Some of them value animal life over human!

:(

[apple_ridge]

39. Considering the fact that humans are overpopulating the

planet to a point that we are on the brink and the list of endangered species grows daily on an almost exponential basis, I'd say that animal life has much greater value than human life. Base it on scarcity of resources.

Besides, as the old bumper sticker says, "The more people I meet, the more I like my dog."

But yeah, this proposal of theirs is a bit over the top.

[SheepBootHero]

56. Anyone that places human life below other animals have the suicide option

I choose to protect humans first.

[The Stranger]

81. Nice Right Wing talking point! "PETA puts human life below animal life."

Animals cannot go to the imbecile governor themselves -- someone else has to do it for them.

If you believe suicide is an option -- which is really an odd non-sequiter to this discussion -- you go first.

[RedCloud]

70. Humans are animals! case dismissed.

Simple biology.

let PETA work over the conservative contract on America real good.

When they expect us to live outside while they create Armageddon we will say sure!

Then we will blast open the doors of their underground conservative think/stink tanks at just the right moment so that the fallout of the nuclear ash paid for by robbing social security will give them a lasting "glow".

Go PETA. Save those animals.

[seabeyond]

2. peta is often over the top n/t

[anonymous44]

23. agreed

[SemiCharmedQuark]

3. Truly, they are monsters.

Caring about animals...what is up with THAT?

[liberalmuse]

4. Not really...

Like Murkowski is even going to even give it a second thought. I agree that sometimes PETA does go over the top. However, what we do to animals in this country in the name of gluttony and embellishment is unspeakably horrific, so I'll forgive them some of their tactics. Thank god there's an organization that is fighting for the other sentient beings on this planet.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Yeah, they do shoot themselves...

in their feet a lot.

I've never figured out if they're doing it to get publicity or they're really that nuts.

Methinks a lot of them are really that nuts, but I wish they'd get back to more reasonable protests and stop trying to turn everyone into a veggie.

[mermaid]

6. I Hear That!!

The day they outlaw MEAT is the day I will starve to death....veggies, yuck!

sorry, PETA, but MEAT JUST DAMN WELL TASTES GOOD!!!

No competition here. Maybe, if you guys could produce some veggies that TASTE LIKE MEAT you'd stand a chance...and, no, soyburgers DO NOT FUCKING TASTE LIKE MEAT!!

[exploited]

40. You're very vocal in expressing your beliefs.

I've come across several of your posts in my DU reading today. The topics cover your pride in gender reassignment surgery and your fixation with meat. Now you know what I'm thinking. ;)

Here's a tip. Learn to cook. Food tastes great!

PETA's requests may seem OTT but to reach the moon you have to aim for the stars. A compromise may result in reduced catch limits and more sustainable use of resources.

(Soyburgers wtf! I don't know many vegos who like eating shit food and if they did why would they want it to taste like meat?)

[livinginphotographs]

79. Ignore her.

She seems to have opposable thumbs, but that's about evolved as this one is going to get.

Althought she's pretty good with that caps lock key as well.

[RedCloud]

71. Good luck to your Lastros!

Red Cloud's Redbirds will run amok with the NL Central. Save those red birds. Stop eating meat. It has tons of cancer. Or do you trust the corpses to tell you the stinking truth.

You do not have canines! You cannot defeat a tiger mano a mano. Our only defense is to stink! From our smelly armpits.

[sarahlee]

7. Relevant discussion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3134994&mesg_id=3134994

[4morewars]

8. They bring the center a little closer to the left

God knows we need all the help we can get.

Also, this murkowski, isn't he the one that thinks its OK to shoot critters from a helicopter ? So, I'm pretty sure he wont help the fish.

[Dookus]

9. I disagree

I think they push the center away from the left.

[4morewars]

15. Im talking about the debate...

not the people. Like in negotiations, if i want a one dollar an hour raise, it's best to ask for a ten dollar an hour raise. The boss is then more than happy to give me the one dollar raise. Ya with me?

Re the people moving away from the left, IMO, most of them are never going to come to the left anyway, at least not until they are destitute and homeless, and even then i'm not too sure.

[Blue_In_AK]

14. You're right about that....

....and the thing with the wolves has me pretty pissed off. The wolf kill is just for the benefit of the hunters. I believe that nature -- the wolves, caribou and moose -- should be left alone to balance themselves out. We've got more moose than we can deal with now, as it is, without killing their natural predators.

But, having said that, SALMON???? Come on. We LIVE on salmon up here. I've got a freezer full of it, and if I knew how to post pictures, I'd show you one of me with my 44-pounder last year, which I'm very proud of. Not to mention that the tourism encouraged by our great fishing is a major economic boon for the state, and should be encouraged. It's a lot better than drilling for oil in ANWR.

[4morewars]

18. I'm in favor of hunting and fishing

But I'm also in favor of responsible management of these resources, as I'm sure you are also.

It must have been thrilling to catch a fish that big ! What did you catch it on ? Don't tell me you caught it on a flyrod, as I cant imagine that !

[Blue_In_AK]

19. Oh, no, I'm not that good.

It was a guided float trip down the Kasilof River that we do every summer. The guide provides the poles (or rods, I guess, is the correct way to say it :) ), bait caster reels, with salmon eggs for bait. We've been doing this for several years. The guide's great and has become a friend. All four of us in the boat caught one, but mine was biggest. Yea, me. My husband caught a 52-pounder the summer before. It really is fun and the fish is SO good. Thank god for a vacuum sealer. The frozen fish tastes like it was caught yesterday.

[4morewars]

20. It must be nice...

To live in such a beautiful place. Im in Michigan which is also a beautiful state. But it's also a state that has had its natural resources exploited in a big way.

That fishing trip sounds like a real good time, I must get to alaska one day ! Let me add it to my list !

[sandnsea]

36. No, they don't

They push the center further away, over to the right. Sounds like you don't live in fishing country. This is all Democrats need when we've actually been making progress with fishermen. And it's another case of PETA being absolutely worthless when they could be advocating for salmon restoration money and safe river logging practices.

[Selteri]

10. Peta is the religious right of the democratic party.

Everyone points to them as being part of the Democratic movement even though they are radicals just the same.

There is no good radical.

[cleofus1]

11. just had some baked salmon last night

with some rice...mmmmmmmmm good! Not quite traditional native fare, but the wife and kids loved it anyways. Lot's of native people would find it mighty hard to get some good eats if PETA had it's way. I consider PETA and others of their ilk to be enemies of native people and traditions. I'm not alone in this assessment of them. I won't argue with any of you greenies (I'm thru pushing the boulder up that hill)...fishing is basic subsistance...and my family and my fellow natives support the right of all people to live that lifestyle.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. That's funny -- we had salmon last night, too...

...with broccoli and sauteed yellow squash (South Beach diet, no rice). LOL.

[cleofus1]

17. i tell you buddy

that's some good stuff...and it's best to fish for it becouse it still costs an arm and half a leg at fred meyer!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. You've obviously never bothered to find Peta's stance because if you did..

you would read that Peta has no issue with natives eating any source of meat or fish. But no, it's better to make wild claims about something you know nothing about.


But just to prove it to you, here's directly from their website:

“What about people who have to hunt to survive?”
We have no quarrel with subsistence hunters and fishers who truly have no choice in order to survive. However, in this day and age, meat, fur, and leather are not a necessary part of survival for the vast majority of us.

Unfortunately, many “sport” hunters have borrowed from aboriginal tradition and manipulated it into a justification for killing animals for recreation or profit.

[BikeWriter]

43. So, I disagree with them. If they interfere with my rights to fish hunt...

...own animals, or wear leather. They will come to regret it.

[livinginphotographs]

80. Chill chill, tough guy.

Don't you have some songbirds to save? :eyes:

[Skip Intro]

94. I have to ask - where does your "right" to fish/hunt/kill/wear animals

come from?

Don't the animals you're killing have some right to live?

Why do you get to choose when they die?

Why does your "right" to kill outweigh their "right" to live?

[d_b]

37. That's all i've been eating this winter:

Rice & Salmon.

Dipnetting at the mouth of the Kasilof pays off :)

[Liberal In Texas]

12. Yes, as they frequently are.

They would do a better job for animals if they would moderate their public statements/stands.

[kazoo35]

55. They're over the top and whatnot

but they convinced me to go mostly vegetarian.

It was the slaughterhouse video. I can't get it out of my head.

[Baclava]

13. Like the Alaskan Natives care...

23000 B.C. to present...they survived.

Let PETA try to survive without supermarkets.
When civilization crumbles PETA will be the first to die.
Nature doesn't care...they can all go chew on a rock.

[yinkaafrica]

21. PETA is correct, as usual

[slutticus]

27. Right.

Like the time they compared the food on my plate to holocaust victims.
:eyes:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/3/prwebxml112945.php

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/02/28/peta.holocaust/

[Catchawave]

46. compared or equated ?

There's a difference you know. But the meat industry didn't want you to know that.

I would think DUer's would understand corporate media manipulation by now. We all must find both sides of the debate to make the best possible decisions, for all sentient beings! "A mind is like an umbrella, they only work when they're open" :)

Here's a good start:

http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/interview.htm

<snip>
Interview with Author of ETERNAL TREBLINKA
by Richard Schwartz, Ph.D.

RS: For those not yet familiar with Eternal Treblinka, what's your book about?

CP: It's about similar attitudes and methods behind our society's treatment of animals and the way people have often mistreated each other throughout history, most notably during the Holocaust. This parallel may surprise some people, but as I contend in the book, the exploitation of animals was the model and inspiration for the atrocities people committed against each other, slavery and the Holocaust being but two of the more dramatic examples. In the first part of the book (Chapters 1-2) I describe the emergence of human supremacy and the widespread belief that human beings are the "master species." Then in the next part (Chapters 3-5) I discuss the industrialized slaughter of both animals and people in modern times. The last part of the book (Chapters 6-8) profiles Jewish and German animal advocates on both sides of the Holocaust, including the great Yiddish writer and Nobel Laureate Isaac Bashevis Singer.

more....

[BikeWriter]

54. "We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front ... they act courageously"

"We cannot condemn the Animal Liberation Front ... they act courageously, risking their freedom and their careers to stop the terror inflicted every day on animals in labs. comprise an important part of today's animal protection movement."
PeTA statement issued following vandalism at Northwest Farm Foods Co-op, a mink feed facility in Edmonds, Washington, for which ALF claimed guilt; estimated damage: $500,000; June 19, 1991.

http://www.furcommission.com/debate/words1.htm

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. You quote a site that bases its research on the Hudson Institute

A conservative thinktank currently falling all over themselves to praise the Iraqi "liberation". And even their best attempt at an article is pathetic. They claim to be "non-partisan". They are as non-partisan as Fox News.

[BikeWriter]

68. You did not deny the quote is true though?

I could care less about the source of a quote, as long as it is a true one.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

72. Actually I have no idea if it's true.

However, basing your opinion of a group on the collection of the quotes that would make them look their worst is not very wise. I could do the same for the dems too.

[BikeWriter]

75. LOL! I have hundreds of asinine quotes from PeTa. You want more? ;-)

[The Stranger]

82. LOL! Are they provided to you from Right Wing web sites also?

[BikeWriter]

97. Not at all. PeTa is an extremist group. They want to limit our rights...

...to do with our animals as we please. That don't cut it with me.

[The Stranger]

102. The mass abuse and destruction of animals is an extreme issue.

There is no one to speak for animals, so someone else must speak for them. Your rights "to do with animals as please" are not absolute. So, on some level, it has to cut it with you.

[BikeWriter]

106. No, it doesn't. They only wish they could impose their will on me.

[The Stranger]

107. Actually, I was referring to the law. So yes, it does.

[BikeWriter]

98. More (IMHO) irresponsible quotes from PeTa...

Peter Singer, the philosopher widely credited for being the "father" of the animal rights movement, argued in Animal Liberation that "An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable." 3 Alex Pacheco, the co-founder of PETA, said "We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child, because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence on others." 4

The animal rights movement is dedicated to ending all animal research, no matter how many human and animal lives might be saved. Tom Regan, a philosopher and animal rights proponent, wrote in The Philosophy of Animal Rights, "It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands ... but empty cages." 5 Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA, has said she is even opposed to painless research. 6 "If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me," said Chris DeRose, founder of Last Chance for Animals. 7

http://www.fbresearch.org/animal-activism/welfare-vs-rights.htm

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

25. While I admire their love for animals

They do go overboard.
I remember a campaign they ran fairly recently. Something along the lines of feeding your child meat is ABUSE.
Obviously, they've never seen a physically-battered, scared child before.

[DenaliDemocrat]

26. PETA is ridiculous

Do they realize that a lot of people live in Alaska because it is one of the few places where people can "live off the land?"

We practice subsistance for the most part. Our meat is salmon, halibut, caribou, razor clams, and moose. A sheep if I can get one is also great as in an occiasonal bear. The meat is far superior to beef healthwise.

This is ALASKA FOLKS. If you have never been here, you have no idea. No roads in 99% of the state.

I am against canned hunting, trophy hunting, hunting over feeders, and such; however, a person hunting wild game in their environment and using the meat as a food source is not UNNATURAL it's the most NATURAL thing in the world.

We DO have canine teeth ya know not a cartlidge pad like ungulates

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. We have canine teeth? Really?

Well first off, again, Peta has no problem with subsitance living. Here's what they say:

“What about people who have to hunt to survive?”
We have no quarrel with subsistence hunters and fishers who truly have no choice in order to survive. However, in this day and age, meat, fur, and leather are not a necessary part of survival for the vast majority of us.

Unfortunately, many “sport” hunters have borrowed from aboriginal tradition and manipulated it into a justification for killing animals for recreation or profit.

And now for the tooth thing.

Here are Human Teeth:




Which do they look the most like?

a.)



b.)



c.)



d.)



e.)



f.)

[Selteri]

34. Congratulations

You've shown us pictures of a skull to form evidence in a bushian fashion. Please go to the far right and explain that to them while the rest of us consider that being omniviors means that we are a species that eats both animal and plant matter to gain our sustainence.

I don't care of you're on the atkins diet or a vegan, neither extreme is good for people.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

41. Find me another omnivore that has as pitiful canines as humans do.

Gorillas have huge canines. So do bears. Those animals are true omnivores (actually a gorilla is mostly vegetarian). You won't be able to find an animal with pathetic canines like a human because such an animal, doesn't exist. And ask a person on Atkins if, as you insinuate, all they eat is meat. They'll tell you that that is B.S.

I could post a picture comparing the teeth of every animal known to man and humans would still have teeth most closely resembling a deer or other herbivore.

Further, studies show that meat eaters have a 60% greater risk for cancer and are twice as likely to die of heart disease.

If you want to eat meat, that's your decision. But don't hide behind false logic to do so.

[DenaliDemocrat]

42. What is great

is that you are posting to a guy who is a biologist and toxicologist. I have taken several coourses in comparative vertebrate antomony, have you? As for the bear nonsense, have you EVER seen a bear skull? I have a couple right here now, from a grizzly and from a black bear. Truth is, not all that different from a humans. What is really great is that the bottom picture of your ungulate, you coincindentally left out the very top of the upper jaw, you know, the part that HAS NO TEETH, JUST A CARTLIDGE PAD!!! Why did you do that?????

The truth is, our teeth are NOT similar to animals that eat only vegetable matter, our digestive systems can and do digest BLOOD, readily. We were made to eat EVERYTHING! Animals that typically eat ONLY vegtables have a very different digestive system than we do.

In fact, did you know that most lactose intolerance is a natural thing? As many people age, they lose the enzymes to digest milk, but gain the enzymes to digest blood.

As for your teeth nonsense, how about TURTLES?????

They are omnivores and they don't even HAVE TEETH!!!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. Sure. Here is a bear skull.

Those are canines.

Here is a grizzly


Now, as for systems, most of our digestive system is set up for herbivore activity. For example...


Our jaws grind side to side. They are not powerful enough to rip apart an animal carcass. Further, our digestive tract is long, not short like a carnivore. Why? Our saliva can break down meat, but it is alkiline, not acidic like carnivores.

Now, turtle. Turtles have a very sharp beak for ripping things apart. Humans don't have that either. But most turtles are herbivores anyway. And those that are not, eat jellyfish or animal and plant matter that is already dead or small fish.

I guess the best comparison would be to a gorilla (or actually a chimp). But here is a gorilla skull.

Now, Craig B. Stanford in this article: http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/24543?fulltext=true from the American Scientist writes that "Of all the higher primates, only human beings and chimpanzees hunt and eat meat on a regular basis. The similarities pose an intriguing prospect: Might the close evolutionary relationship between chimpanzees and human beings provide some clues to the evolution of our own behavior?" Chimps do not eat meat on a regular basis, only when for social purposes, not nutritional.

But as a biologist, Im sure you knew that.

[DenaliDemocrat]

47. I sure did know that

I also know that many evolutionary biologists believe that increased consumption of meat, may have allowed humans brains to develop to into modern humans.

You are full of crap regarding our digestive systems, we cannot digest cellulose, the main carboydrate of the cell walls of plants, thus we cannot harness much of the energy of plants. Most herbivors have a sympbiotic relationship with dinoflagelated bacteria that helps them digest and utilize these complex carbohydrates. You also left out the part about our teeth being distinctly different from herbivores, despite your fallacious statement that we are like the bottom skull (an ungulate). Our digestive systems are longer than most carnivors yes, but they are shorter than most herbvibores, you conviently left that out. We don't have multiple stomachs like cattle, buffalo, caribou, etc. We probably do eat TOO MUCH meat, as it was most likely a luxury for early man, and vegetable matter probabbly did provide a large portion of our diets. More than likely early men were like bears and took advantage of plentiful food sources be they plant or animal at the time they appeared.


You are totally incorrect regarding turtles. Suggest you read some of Archie Carrs works. Turtles are mainly carnivorous at a young age, then slowly switch over to a more vegetarian diet as they mature. What does an animal having to be dead matter? Meat is meat. Also, how about corvids? They do not have powerful beaks or jaws, yet they are very willing to eat meat when they find it.

Also, we cannot synthesize all 21 amino acids required for life. We must obtain 8 (essential) from food sources. Of course you will tell me how we can do it with the right combination of legumes, etc. To whch I would reply, how did men during the ice age get those um, legumes??? If our bodies were designed to eat only vegetable matter, why can we not assimilate all 21 amino acids?

As for your american Scientist, not exactly a peer reviewed journal article now is it. That is a MAGAZINE NOT A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL. If you can provide me a peer-reviewed journal article that emphatically states that humans digestive systems are not designed to eat meat from the I concede until then, I will stick with what I was taught --- we are OMINVOROUS.
Why did early man hunt the mammoths to extinction? For fun, nope, for meat. How about all of those clovis points found in the carcasses of mammoths, etc.


Furthermore, the very widespread existence of human beings (geographically speaking) is indeed consistent with a species that is very adaptable to different food sources (omnivores). Specialists are restricted in their range as they are tied to their food sources.
Why are heirogliphics depections of hunting so common?

I guess all of those poor Indians were just politically incorrect and were eating meat whent they should have been eating vegetables.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

48. I'm not saying that humans are not designed to eat meat as PART of their

diet. Im saying that the "we need meat because we have canine teeth" argument is bullshit. Our bodies are meant to live on a mostly vegetarian diet. Not a diet based on meat. Probably something meant to be mostly vegetarian diet supplemented with meat. But, that's the great thing about progress. We don't do a lot of things our ancestors did. The meat they ate consisted of whatever they could catch. Small animals, lizards, birds, small fish, insects...anything that moved. Further, the parts that were eaten were the organs first, then the muscle. It's reversed now. Most people eat the muscle alone. And, most of those peoples needed massive amounts of energy for huge amounts of work. Not the case any more. We live mostly sedentary lives.

That's the great thing about omnivores. I can pull up a bunch of facts supporting a vegetarian diet and you can do the same for a carnivorous diet.
Our saliva acts to break down starches, plants, not meat.
And how am I totally incorrect regarding turtles? I said they are mostly vegetarian and they are. (?)

Bears can't digest cellulose either, but because of their size and speed, usually eat, as you said, whatever they could eat and usually nuts, fruits and the like.

And for mammoths, that was in the absence of vegetation. It was eat meat or die.

And again, as I pointed out, PETA has no problem with subsitance eating. Mass fisheries and factory farms are NOT subsistance eating. Argue for subsistance reasons, not phoney reasons like "we have canine teeth". And what problem do you have with PETA anyway? They do not want to stop subsitance hunters. They want to stop the mass factory farms.

[DenaliDemocrat]

50. Agreed, It's just that

If you want to eat vegetables, eat vegetables, if I want to eat meat, let me eat meat. If an animal is not endangered, and I want to eat it, why does anyone have the right to tell me I cannot. THAT is my problem with PETA. If you don't want to eat King Salmon, don't eat it. As for me, me and my daughter sat and ate kind salmon for breakfast last June under the Alaskan sun at 3:00 AM cooked on an alder fire for breakfast with an Inuit friend of mine. Who is PETA to tell me I am wrong for doing this?

I don't believe in causing any undue pain to any animal with a hgihly evolved nervous system, but it is a simple fact of life that for me to eat meat, something must die, and dying is not a nice process near as I can tell. I like meat, and I like wild game. I do not eat beef for the reason you probably don't either. Mad Cow certianly not one of the least problems.


As for the turtles, your error is stating that turtles that eat meat have powerful beaks. Not really true. Some do, some don't. Temporal fenestrations limit the jaw strength of many turtles, yet they still eat meat, although much of it may be worms, etc.

As for bears, blackies tend to eat more vegetarian, grizzly bears are more carnivorous and tend to hunt mammals very actively, which probably accounts for their larger size.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

51. I agree with that.

As I stated in another thread, I do not believe that intimidation to get meat eaters to become vegetarians is right. One's diet is one's own personal choice. I don't ask anyone to change their diet, and I don't think they should be asked to change their diet. At the same time, people shouldn't hide behind the "nature made me this way I can't help it" argument. If you want to eat meat just say "I want to eat meat" because that is the only reason that matters at this point, unless you are a subsitance hunter.

[Runcible Spoon]

58. I too don't ask people to stop eating meat BUT

ask that they support clean spacious living conditions, an antibiotic/hormone/steroid-free healthy diet, and humane butchering techniques for meat animals.

[BikeWriter]

62. Uh, what problem do we have with PETA? They have a problem with us...

"I openly hope that it comes here. It will bring economic harm only for those who profit from giving people heart attacks and giving animals a concentration camp-like existence. It would be good for animals, good for human health and good for the environment."
(On foot-and-mouth disease occurring in the US; in "Animal rights leader hopes disease comes to US" by Alan Elsner, Reuters, Apr. 2, 2001)
http://www.furcommission.com/debate/words1.htm

[livinginphotographs]

103. I can post links from worldnetdaily that say that Clinton killed

Vince Foster. Doesn't make it true.

And even if that quote is true (why do you always seem to quote that furcommission website?), I happen to agree.

[semillama]

105. Actually, it's the incisors that are used in tearing meat.

not canines. just saying.

And gorilla canines are for display.

otherwise, interesting debate on the evolution of Homo sapiens in regard to diet.

(i fall into the increased calories from scavenging carcasses and opportunistic hunting leading to an increase in brain size, btw)

[Runcible Spoon]

57. eh, kinda but....

you certainly wouldn't argue that most mammal carnivores/omnivores are at least partially if not primarily scavengers by nature. Scavenging is a more effecient use of energy expenditure. Most human groups cannot digest a wide variety of raw meat. You can mention Eskimos/Inuits if you like, but they likely evolved the encessary enzymes to digest raw meat due to environmental restrictions on available diet. And scavenging animals will also eat partially decayed meat, which humans could not, at least without cooking. I find the hypothesis that meat-eating evolved along with the available cultural tools needed to catch and cook it. In other words, I wouldn't say that we evolved in a strict biological sense to eat meat, but culturally.

[BikeWriter]

52. Sure we have canines...

[OneBlueSky]

28. going "over the top" is what PETA does . . .

it's their strategy for drawing attention to animal rights . . . by being outrageous, they garner tons of press coverage, something that wouldn't happen if they adopted the Sierra Club approach . . . I don't necessarily agree with everything they do -- they themselves probably don't believe much of it . . . but I understand their objective, and find it admirable . . .

[jdj]

30. I'm really concerned about the Bush admin plan to count

fish hatchery salmon in with some of the other species so they won't qualify for endangered species status.

I wish the National Park service and Dept of Fish and Wildlife had some PR geniuses like PETA to draw attention to what is going on with those depts thanks to Bush. Sometimes I think Karl Rove runs PETA.

[LisaL]

31. They are always over the top.

[Stirk]

32. So far over the top, they broke orbit years ago.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[FM Arouet666]

35. Fanatics

It is sad that they are categorized as being Left. They are extremist in views and action. From the information that I have seen they equate human life with animal life. Arguments based on emotion alone, with very little science.

Sorry, this sounds more like the modus operandi of the GOP than the democratic party. I see the democratic party as the party which stands for rational thought, skepticism, and scientific endeavors. Peta does not fall into this category.

:evilgrin:

[DeaconBlues]

38. Oh boy

Here comes the daily bashing of PETA, right on schedule. I wonder if the freepers spend as much time bitching about vegetarians and PETA as people on this website do. I doubt it.

I'll never understand why so many people here have so much venom for a group that does stuff like circulate petitions, write letters, and, at their most extreme, set free animals from factory farms and labs, when there are so many groups out there that advocate such things as violence and persecution of others just because of their ethnicity or beliefs.

Way to swallow the right-wing propaganda about animal-rights organizations, people.

[NorthSideCubsFan]

78. From PETA's website, found there today:

“Would you support an experiment that would sacrifice 10 animals to save 10,000 people?”

"No."


That says it all for me. If I have to support this concept to be a liberal, screw it, I'll give up politics.

[Catchawave]

45. Peta teaches awareness

of preventable animal cruelties. Every ethical sportsman should know that :)

[BikeWriter]

53. "If you were aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat..."

Question to PeTA Outreach Coordinator Susan Rich: "If you were aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, which would you rescue?" Rich's answer: "I wouldn't know for sure ... I might choose the human baby or I might choose the dog."
Steve Kane Show, WIOD-AM Radio, Miami, Florida, Feb. 23, 1989.

[SheepBootHero]

59. That is a disgusting remark by susan rich

Karma usually takes care of those that have no human compassion.

[BikeWriter]

60. No shit. She's wasting our air!

[Catchawave]

65. the quote is 14 years old....

...your propaganda source needs to update his website :)

[BikeWriter]

66. So, do you think she's changed her mind since?

If you can call it that...

[BikeWriter]

67. Oh, by the way, why do you call a quote "propaganda"?

[Catchawave]

85. Can you state your source for the quote? Thanks!

[Skip Intro]

91. : )

[BikeWriter]

99. It has a source stated. Google it yourself. It's quoted dozens of places..

[BikeWriter]

100. "a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog." Tom Regan

Here's another.

Audience member: "If you were aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized, would you rescue the baby or the dog?" Regan, "If it were a retarded baby and a bright dog, I'd save the dog." Tom Regan, "Animal Rights, Human Wrongs," speech given at University of Wisconsin, Madison, October 27, 1989.

http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm

[porphyrian]

49. PETA is extremist, though some would argue that's what's necessary.

However, I intend to remain an omnivore, and they can fuck themselves if they think they're going to stop me. What they should work towards is an alternative meat industry (like the free range chicken stuff or Kosher butchers) that don't abuse the animals before killing them, are competitively priced and aren't so hard on the environment.

[ProgressiveConn]

64. Their extreme nature

including the terrorist style tactic of throwing red paint on people they think ate wearing real fur.

I'm pro veggie. I agree with their positions nearly all the time. But because of their red paint throwing terrorism-lite tactics keep me from supporting them in any way and asking my friends not to support them.

Regardless of my support of many of their views...

Keep throwing paint on 50 year old furs and calling all meat eaters murderers and I'll keep my donations and vocal support as far away from them as I can.

[Karmadillo]

61. It's just you.

n/t

[nedbal]

69. On Feral Cats they took the right stand,, euthanize feral cats

I had and have a problem in my neighborhood, and when I quote the peta position only a few will still argue I should pay hundreds to spay and then find homes for them. I've never relocated them to some abandoned area or harmed them, I just deliver them to the pound.

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=38
Because of the huge number of feral cats and the severe shortage of good homes, the difficulty of socialization, and the dangers lurking where most feral cats live, it may be necessary and the most compassionate choice to euthanize feral cats. You can ask your veterinarian to do this or, if your local shelter uses an injection of sodium pentobarbital, take the cats there. Please do not allow the prospect of euthanasia to deter you from trapping cats. If you leave them where they are, they will almost certainly die a painful death. A painless injection is far kinder than any fate that feral cats will meet if left to survive on their own.

[Democrat Dragon]

83. Ok, so this should also be the solution to bums?

You could say the exact same thing about them.

BTW, what if you had a cat who likes to go outside a lot(Plenty of cats like to go outised by themselves around the neighborhood). This cat happens to be allergic to collars and thus cannot wear one. Don't you think he or she might be mistaken for a feral cat and then get trapped and KILLED? BTW, there are cats that are allergic to collars, I know because my aunt and my grandmother have one.

"the difficulty of socialization"

oh and according to this website, feral cats are social:
http://www.saveacat.org/acr_articles/relocation.htm

"Feral cats are social animals. Many biologists have completely overlooked this and consider lions to be the only social felines. Colony cats develop strong bonds with one another. When you relocate feral cats, you may be separating them and consequently causing them undue stress."

[nedbal]

86. We were not discussing bums....

In my case I was referring to a excess of stray cats in the area. Being fed by people who leave the food for them outside, mistakenly believing they are doing good. They then mark their territory to the extent visitors to my front door ask if I have cats. I do not.

>> When you relocate feral cats, you may be separating them and consequently causing them undue stress."

I stated I do not relocate them, other than to the pound.


You ask >>>>"Ok, so this should also be the solution to bums?"

if it were bums or the neighbors children that continuously defecated or marked their territory I would call the police continually.


>>>>Don't you think he or she might be mistaken for a feral cat and then get trapped and KILLED? BTW, there are cats that are allergic to collars,

If you do the research you will find that cats kept indoors live a healthier and longer life. if you truly care about your cat you will keep it indoors.

[Democrat Dragon]

108. I've seen cats that go outdoors

whether the owner likes it or not. My Aunt has a cat that goes outside as soon as the door is open, and cathing her is pretty useless because she jumps over the fence as soon as I or someone else were to try to catch her, and a few hours later she returns.

[Lilith Velkor]

87. Why not just shoot'em?

That way they don't suffer from the stress of being trapped, then waiting on "death row" at the pound.

However, I know full well that Petans don't give a damn about any animal that eats other animals, which is why we find them advocating a Final Solution to the Feral Cat Problem.

[nedbal]

88. It's a suburban area , if it was rural ...

there would be be no feral cat problem. Then the problem might be deer or something else, but not cats.

In this area the pound is the legal way and the way many RESPONSIBLE animal rights groups recommend.

[Skip Intro]

90. I think there must be a better solution

Maybe trapping and sterizing.

One massive effort - wouldn't take that long, and we could feed and treat illness while at it.

That must be more important than some things we are doing.

[nedbal]

92. trapping and sterilizing have been tried by many groups..

a web search will turn up some very organized, good intentioned groups that do this in their area.

yet after they are spayed they still need to be fed by someone and then they would still need to mark their territory and defecate somewhere.

Once again.... They then mark their territory to the extent visitors to my front door ask if I have cats. I do not.


the peta recommendation works for me

[Skip Intro]

96. Is it beyond our ability or beyond our will?

If it were up to me, if I were President maybe, I'd create a national mandate, completely funded, to round up, serilze, treat, feed and house feral cats. I don't believe that is beyond our capabilities, and I don't believe sterilzing them alone is either.

Is there a will to do it - that's the question.

Ending a life isn't trivial thing.

[Blue_In_AK]

73. Good discussion

Here's something I posted somewhere else (an apology, of sorts, if I hurt anybody's feelings) that sums up my thoughts on PETA, etc...

I've been a vegetarian at different times in my life, too, for several years at a time ... it's just always been too hard for me to stay with it when I've been cooking for a carnivorous family. If I were by myself, I'd probably not eat much meat at all.

As for PETA, I agree with them about the fur farms, caged chickens, a lot of animal research, and so on. I just thought that they had gone a little overboard with trying to tell Alaskans that they should ban king salmon fishing. For the Natives in the villages, salmon is their subsistence, what they live on. The commercial fisheries are a big part of our economy, probably second only to the oil. Wild Pacific salmon is so much better than the farmed Atlantic fish, both in taste and healthwise. Sport fishing is a big part of our tourist draw, as well -- also an economic factor.

Another thing is that when the fish are in the rivers, they're getting ready to die anyway. They spawn and then they die, so it's not like we're really cutting their lives short or anything by fishing for them. Maybe it seems cruel to hook them, but soon enough their skin is going to be rotting and falling off anyway, and they're just as likely to be eaten by a bear or something as to be caught by a sport fisherman. Sometimes we see live spawned out king salmon, rotting away, but still managing to move somehow, with seagulls already starting to tear off their flesh. It's not a pretty picture. It almost seems more respectful to the fish to catch him when he first comes into the river and is bright and silver, take him home, cook him up, and please all the happy tummies.



To summarize, eat what you want, but please LEAVE ME MY SALMON.


P.S. I'm glad to hear that PETA supports subsistence hunting and fishing, so I take back the part about their impact on the Native lifestyle.

[LiberallyInclined]

74. PETA is almost ALWAYS "over the top"...

they've turned themselves into a joke of an organization, that nobody in their right mind would pay attention to or take seriously.

i know i don't.

[GOPBasher]

76. I think PETA is usually over the top.

[alarimer]

77. I think their tactics are over the top

They wind up alienating more people than they convince. Here they are just plain wrong. As a marine biologist, I doubt seriously that they feel pain. With a brain the size of a peanut, I doubt that they are very intelligent either. So those arguments just won't wash with me at least. Now, cruelty to animals is not a good thing but I don't equate fishing or hunting with cruelty.

[alarimer]

93. oops

I meant that fish have a brain the size of a peanut, not PETA people, despite my general opinion of them.

[Democrat Dragon]

84. Ok this is nuts

especially since Alaskans Salmon are one of the few fish that can be eaten without worrying much about mercury consumption.

[Skip Intro]

89. So Animal Rights is in the news AGAIN, and we're debating it -

Thank You PETA!

:toast:

[Maine Mary]

95. When is PETA not "over the top"?

I would hope most DUers here are NOT affiliated w/this organization.

[RebelOne]

101. In my opinion, it is those who have no compassion

for animals who think PETA is over the top. I don't agree 100% with a lot of PETA's issues, but I think they do more good than harm for the animal rights movement.

[IronLionZion]

104. PETA is a cult

unless they are the "People for Eating Tasty Animals"

a better name for them would be "Mankind for Ethical Animal Treatment" or MEAT.

whatever, those folks are always over the top, always