My kids and I just got back from Disney World. It was my Christmas present to my kids. (I thought the folks who told me they’d gone more than once were crazy. I figured I’d get my Disney “card” punched – and be done! I was wrong. I’d go again for a week, but that’s a different column.)
Anyway, our favorite attraction? The “safari” ride at the Animal Kingdom. In open air African-style vehicles, or at least like the ones you see in the movies, we moved through open ranges featuring elephants, hippos, crocodiles, giraffes, antelope and even lions. Given recent events, when I saw the lion I clutched my two littlest ones – as if that would do any good.
In any event, the animals seemed pretty darn happy.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), probably the most well known and certainly the most publicly celebrated of all animal rights groups, would not agree.
I recently perused a book that PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk wrote back in the early 1990s (PETA was founded in the early 1980s) encouraging children to become animal rights activists. I have 4 kids, and my oldest, my 7th grader, brought it home in his backpack one day. I couldn’t resist delving in.
Of course it’s the case that decent people treat their, any animals, well. Even the Bible says that. But there is a difference between “animal welfare” and “animal rights.”
In “Kids Can Save the Animals” Newkirk doesn’t see a difference, or at least not a legitimate one. Only the rights of “other than human beings” matter. For starters, we are told “other than human beings” have “feelings just as you and I do.” Really?
Well sure. Consider chickens. “each has her own personality and feelings. (So learn to appreciate them “for the wonderful individuals they are!”) Fishes do too. “If someone asks you to go fishing, explain why you won’t go. Tell them that fishes have feelings and deserve to live like anyone else.”
(I’m reminded of the time I was having lunch in Los Angeles and one of the party asked, “does anyone mind if I order a cheeseburger?”)
And you know how some animal names are used in a derogatory way for humans as in, “you pig!” Well, that’s a no-no. Not because it might upset the human, but because it’s a slur against the animals.
Needless to say, for these folks, fur is out, so is eating meat or any dairy product, any kind of testing of animal products, and hunting and circuses are so icky. If it’s an animal, it’s only place in your life is as a “companimal.”
I don’t think these folks have figured out that very few people are going to raise a cow or a pig solely for its value as a companimal. And by the way, animal rights folks should check what’s in the food of their animals. By and large, it’s derived from other animals. Now, there’s a conundrum. Shouldn’t all vegetarians insist their companimals follow their example?
I recently wrote a piece which appeared in the Chicago Sun-Times and was critical of PETA and their attack on the “Trolsen Twins” (The Olsen Twins) for wearing fur. I fully admitted to enjoying my old fur coat on these blustery Chicago winter days.
http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/betsyhart/697114,CST-FTR-hart14.article
I was then treated to intelligent responses like this (sic)
“Your article in Fridays sun times newspaper Clearly shows you know very little about Peta!
Your proud of the fact that you have a coat made out of DEAD animals?
You Ignorant Stupid Bitch. I hope someone skins you alive and makes a vest out of you!”
Sheesh.
Of course, for all of its media profile, PETA really doesn’t have much bite. They thrive only because we are a wealthy society that has the luxury of going to extremes when it comes to our animals, moving beyond “animal welfare” and into so-called “animal rights” instead.
But in the end even – and maybe especially – for the animal “rights” activists, it seems it’s less about the animals than about an agenda that people want.
I recently adopted a two-year-old dog and two kittens. The shelters where we got them absolutely wouldn’t let us have them until they had been spayed and neutered. (One shelter did it on site, the other had a volunteer transport the animal to the vet so there would be no slip-ups or sneakiness on our part!) We had no choice in the matter. Fine.
But at the same time that we were removing the private parts, so to speak, of the cats, I arranged to have them front de-clawed as well. The folks at the shelter were clearly prickly about my choice. (There are lots of ways to train cats not to shred sofas, and so on. Um, no thanks.)
Here’s the thing that made me laugh at the idea that these folks are actually for “animal rights” – if we could have given “boy kitty,” as we call him, the choice of which part of his anatomy to have removed, does anyone doubt he’d have chosen the claws?
***
Betsy Hart, a Scripps-Howard syndicated columnist, also writes for The Chicago Daily Observer where she serves on the editorial board. Betsy hosts ‘It Takes a Parent’ on AM1160 WYLL
Rick says:
Tracy Hart is ignorant of the significant amount of investigative journalism that has reported on the fact that parks like Disney serve as sources for canned hunting.
Tracy Hart is ignorant of the wealth of data pointing to the long-term potential harm and immediate pain of de-clawing,a practive banned in many European countries.
In the 1800's the Tracy Harts were commenting on how happy the darkies in the fields seemed to be and how much they prefered to be branded over being hung.
Suzanne says:
You've got it right Tracy. I am consistently bemused that the animal rights people (PETA & HSUS especially) insist that animals shouldn't be used for any purpose and yet they are the first to scream for spaying and neutering. If the animals have real rights doesn't that include the right to keep their anatomy intact? My two Persians were not one bit happy about being altered!
Keep up the good work!
Pat says:
Come and visit the crazy cat woman (not to be confused with Julie Newmar) on my block, but take care not to step in any of the feces that covers the ground hereabouts.
If this individual lived in a suburb with a meaningful animal control department, she would be linked to the Drudge Report.
Michael says:
Ms. Hart,
Since we were very young, we have been taught to believe that all of the other species (humans are a species) exist for our use. This is surely as ingrained and difficult to overcome as the view that women exist for men's use, or that blacks exist for whites' use.
Birds' and nonhuman mammals' emotion-processing brain areas (the basal ganglia and limbic systems) function just as those of humans do. It's scary to think, I know, but there is no reason to believe that the cognitive abilities of normal humans make our emotions any more intense.
And because of our prejudices against taking other animals seriously, we, for example, currently keep six millions breeding sows (who give birth to the pigs we eat) in crates that are 7 feet wide by 2 feet long, inducing them to develop neurotic behaviors like constantly banging their heads against the sides of their enclosures. Their babies are taken days after birth, and the males are castrated, never with anesthesia. These are routine practices, but, thanks to animal rights organizations, it will be illegal in the European Union by 2013, and it is becoming illegal in an increasing number of US states with the backing of HSUS.
It's time to overcome our prejudices and support animal rights.
Cary says:
This is the first time I have ever read one of your columns. I think you have oversimplified the problem somewhat, and rather than address the real issue of animal suffering that concerns so many animal activists, you have simply glossed over the subject and decided to criticize PETA instead. While I do not agree with every statement and act that PETA makes, I am not ready to dismiss them outright. No one is perfect afterall! But that does not devalue what they believe in, or their goals, which I think are basically decent ones, (even if they are uncomprimising). I think your readers could have been better served if you had not focused on your dislike of PETA, and instead written about the real challenges that animals face in a world dominated by a population that is often cruel or indiffernt to their lives and welfare.
Katharine Swan says:
Ms. Hart,
I find it rather interesting that you are complaining about PETA assigning human rights to animals, yet the conclusion of your article clearly assigns human priorities to cats: You are assuming your cat values his "manhood" (a human concept) more than the ability to protect himself.
Every person I know (none of them PETA activists) supports spaying and neutering pets because there are already far more dogs and cats than there are homes. An intact dog or cat can bring dozens of homeless puppies or kittens into the world, whereas the only consequence of intact claws is that your sofa MIGHT get scratched.
Animal welfare versus human vanity... Do we REALLY need to question PETA's reasons for supporting neutering and opposing declawing?
Eugene says:
This article is very haphazard and oddly titled. So, what, exactly is the animal activist's agenda? From this article it sounds like it's promoting animal rights. Well, that sounds good to me. I don't understand what Ms. Hart's problem is. Does she think activists shouldn't have an agenda that relates to their beliefs?
Jack says:
I suggest Betsy do some more reading. Seems she's just scratched the surface in her understanding of animal rights theory. Maybe next time she could read a book for adults instead of children.
Linda says:
This reads like a caricature of a thoughtless, vaucuous sadist. Declawed her cat? Declawing is illegal in most of Europe, and many American veterinarians are critical of the procedure and some refuse to perform it. The two leading national animal protection organizations in the US, the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, strongly discourage or condemn the procedure. The Humane Society of the United States and other animal advocacy groups have supported legislation banning or restricting declawing.
As for "... PETA really doesn’t have much bite.... They thrive only because we are a wealthy society that has the luxury of going to extremes when it comes to our animals, moving beyond “animal welfare” and into so-called “animal rights” instead." Which is it? They have no bite or they thrive? Actually PETA is engaging many thoughtful people who are starting to explore the assumptions ingrained in people like the writer, so hopefully her children are able to think beyond her uncritical and blinding arrogance.
"... for the animal “rights” activists, it seems it’s less about the animals than about an agenda that people want..." Some more twisted gibberish here: yeah animal activists have an agenda; it's for the humane treatment for animals!
I could go on but who has time for a point by point rebuttal? I am always amazed that publications like Chicago Daily Observer prints such drivel, with arguments so ill thought out it defies logical dialogue.
Thank God shelters mandate spaying and neutering; left to her own judgment, I have no doubt a person of Ms. Hart's intelligence would choose to leave her poor little boy kitty's--in her opinion--favorite anatomy. Not only would be be shredded by any rival boy kitty while on the prowl-since he'd be effectively rendered defenseless by his declawing, but his offspring would no doubt join the millions and millions of dogs and cats killed around the country due to lack of homes. Another problem those of us with our "activist agenda" are trying to address.
Ricky says:
Ms. Betsy.
Your article has little to do with your title. Maybe the title was chosen for shock value cause the article had very little to say. Animals are sentient beings. Ever see how fur is harvested? PETA has some footage on their web site. Please take a moment to show your children where mommy got her fur coat from and please write an article about their comments. Millions of cats and dogs are euthanized every year in the USA alone because there are not enough good homes. That is why there are spay / neuter programs with shelters. Oh and the meat you eat it is laced with chemicals and hormones and all kinds of other bad stuff. Animal rights folks like myself aim not only to protect the animals but families like yours that are to close minded to see the truth. Thank you. Ricky. PETA Member.
Anthony says:
Animal Rights are important , because of the terrible cruelty inflicted on them by people in this world. There must be people of conscience and heart to speak out for them, because animals cannot speak in their defense. For people to evolve into good and decent human beings, they must develop respect and compassion for animals.
Samantha says:
What the heck did I just read? Is this woman a real journalist? This "article" is so full of ignorance it's laughable! Obviously the writer knows nothing about pet overpopulation and the millions of pets put to sleep every year because of people like her who would rather keep their animals intact. Obviously she knows nothing about the booming holistic/natural/organic pet food industry. Obviously she knows nothing about PETA. And the most blaring fact is that this woman cares little for any species other than her own. How selfish.
Maria E. Blanco says:
To Ms. Hart,
I just read your column and I hope that you become a wiser person soon so you can educate your children more effectively. As of now, I presume your children don't have any idea that there is a choice between abusing animals and respecting them. Animals DO have feelings, every one of them. I've had cats, dogs, fishes and I could tell you so many events that clearly indicated they knew what was going on and acted accordingly. Do you truly think that chickens caged for their eggs don't feel the anxiety created by being "in jail?" Do you think that it is fine to cage an animal so we can kill them to use their fur an act of "civilization?" If you can say YES to any of these questions, then you have not evolved to being a truly worthy human being. For the sake of your children, I hope you do. And soon.
c. says:
Ms. Hart,
I think you need to start living up to your last name- eventhough it's spelled differently(Hart/Heart).You should really do some research, before you "mock" animals rights people. If you did the proper research you would know that animals do have feelings. They are MAMMALS as we are. They even have the same diseases we do. Have you ever seen a PETA video on the atricoties that animals endure at the hands of us "humans" ? Such as slaughter houses, circuses, laboratories etc.? There, you would see and hear the fear and the voices of these PRECIOUS animals screaming out. Isn't that showing feeling?I think you shouldn't be so proud to wear blood on your back either(PETA has a video on this to I believe).By the way, PETA does have info on veggie dog/cat food recipes and, because domesticated cats and dogs are descendants from the wild they are therefore mostly carnivores by nature. So, if they eat foods that have animal derivatives, it's not against their nature. We on the other hand, are NOT carnivores by nature. WE choose to be. It also says in the bible that God gave the animals grasses etc. to eat and to us, God gave trees (fruits) shrubs(vegetation) to eat.I may not be quoting exactly, but our preist did mention this in one of his sermons.What kin of message are you sending to your own children?
Theresa Siskind RN says:
My heart is weary of your ilk. It is because of people like you, that I often cry myself to sleep.
Joelle Verdier says:
It is very hard to believe that a person of the degree of ignorance, arrogance and unintelligence of Betsy Hart is a journalist. I am french and the Animal Rights that she is making so much fun of are a constitutional law in France and in most of Europe. Just like there are the Human Rights in the Constitution, in France we also have the Animal Rights, posted in all veterinarian offices. Thus, if Betsy Hart ridicules the PETA members with their Animals Rights, does she have the arrogance to imply that the whole French nation is completely stupid along with most of Europe?
It would then imply that Betsy Hart is also ridiculing the much respected Professor Emeritus of Philosophy of North Carolina State University, Tom Regan, whose 400 pages book "The Case for Animal Rights" has been highly praised by The Animal Law Review, Life Science Ethics, the author of "Philosophy and Social issues", the professors of various universities, etc.
She is making fun of the PETA people trying to stop the cruel custom of declawing cats. So here again, who is Betsy Hart to imply the stupidity of the whole population of Europe where declawing has never been practiced, is considered barbaric and is unlawful.
She mentions that the Bible says to treat well the animals. Pigs have been studied as being amonst the 12 most intelligent animals, as smart and affectionate as dogs. Mother pigs live their whole 6 years of life of constant breeding caged in metal wired crates only the size of their body, where they can only lie down and stand up, not even turn around. Their bodies are full of wounds from not being able to move their whole life. The piglets have their testes, their tails and their teeth cut off, all without anesthsia of course. Is this the good treatment the Bible talks about? What would be the reaction if instead of pigs and piglets, dogs and puppies were tortured in that way.
Does a carnivorous animal, as Betsy Hart talks so lightly about, tortures his prey for 6 years before eating it.
I challenge Betsy Hart to print my answer rather than saying that all the PETA people can answer her is "ignorant stupid bitch".
Joelle Verdier
Phil Os says:
It's appalling that some people still wear fur, after they've repeatedly been made aware of the ethical problems associated with the fur trade.
According to Swiss Animal Protection (SAP) "eighty-five percent of the world's fur originates on factory-farms. China is the world 's largest exporter and dog and cat fur is deliberately mislabeled as fur from other species or even as faux fur, so that it can be sold to unsuspecting Americans.
This is the same China who cut safety corners to sell us contaminated pet food, toxic lead-based-painted toys, anti-freeze in toothpaste, melamine in flour,
toxic seafood, defective tires, etc. and it is also selling fur from animals that have been skinned alive (less costly you know).
Everyone from Martha Stewart to Paul McCartney has denounced fur, including some of the most fashionable clothing retailers. J. Crew, Ann Taylor (who has 740
stores in 45 states), Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie and Fitch, and U.K.'s most highly respected fashion chain Topshop, have all stopped selling fur after
seeing the Fur Trade videos. And many stars who had previously
worn fur, denounced it after seeing how it is "produced."
This is not an issue that concerns only animal rights advocates. Anyone considering wearing fur (or wool) has a moral obligation to seek out information about the "production" process before falling for the advertising hype urging them to buy fur. There is nothing stylish abour wearing fur and if Betsy Hart wants to keep warm, she should try synthetic fabrics, which are lighter and warmer and don't require torturing innocent animals.
In January, Care For the Wild, East International, and the Swiss Animal Protection released their Report on the Chinese Fur Industry
here:
Susan P. says:
OK, so while cats and dogs are not voluntarily lining up to be spayed and neutered - it is the only humane choice given the reality of the overpopulation of pets. Given a choice, don't you think a mother cat would choose to be fixed rather than see her kittens eventually be "put down" because they can't get a home? Would you have chosen to have kids if the reality was they would be injected and put to sleep after a couple years because there was nobody to care for them? Humans are able to use contraceptives and can choose whether or not to reproduce. Uh, animals can't make that choice.
Hopefully, your offspring won't be as uninformed about animal issues as their misdirected mother.
Lynn O'Toole says:
Ms. Hart needs to leave Michigan Avenue and her fur coat behind, and spend a few days with an animal rescuer from PETA or the ASPCA. When she's standing on the front lines of animal welfare and comes face to face with the terror in the eyes of the animals or sees the emaciated corpses left in people's back yards, she might understand more about animals, realizing that they do suffer, they do feel, they do fear. To suggest that animals do not have emotions reminds me eerily of the "scientists" who just a century ago conducted vivisection on living, unanesthesized animals, calling their screams nothing more than "reflex reactions."
PETA's approach may offend people because they boldly hold a mirror up in front of our faces, saying "there now, do you really like what you see?" And we do not like what we see. It's a strong dose of reality therapy to view their shocking video footage and photographs. But their approach works and thank God for an organization like them to garner the resources, courage and determination to make us face our shocking shortcomings as a human race. With the grace of God, they will help push us into a more enlightened, kinder world.
Chelsea Dub says:
It is sad that in a world full of unnecessary violence, a “columnist” would spend her time defending it. Using the newspaper as a format to rant about a movement that promotes nonviolence is unjustified, along with being inappropriate. There is nothing wrong or extreme with having compassion for nonhuman animals. They feel and think just like we do. They feel pain, pleasure, sadness, happiness, jealousy, love, fear, they bleed, and they desire freedom and life. Yet, they are often regarded as machines, mere imitations of living beings used to serve people by food, clothing, experimentation, and entertainment. The human species is throwing its humanity out the window to be driven by greed and power. It’s not something that just recently sprung into existence, but has been happening for a long time, and it is getting worse. People being slaughtered for oil, the genocide in Darfur, unfair labor practices, the destruction of the planet among other things, and the mistreatment of nonhuman animals. Animals in the food, clothing, experimentation, and entertainment industries live their lives of misery in confinement, are subjected to various tortures, and are denied to perform any behaviors natural to them. They deserve better, and we should grant it to them. Yet we continue to treat them like commodities because they are not exactly like us. They do not look exactly like us, they do not speak in our language, they do not live in the same way we do. If this sounds familiar, it is because we have treated fellow human beings in the same manner for those same reasons. We regarded Native American tribes as being “dirty” and “uncivilized” because they did not live by our customs, and we treated African Americans as property because of the color of their skin. It is the same pattern of thinking and acting used against nonhuman animals today, and it is just as unfair and wrong. We need to focus on how we and nonhuman animals are alike, instead of how we are not alike, because what we share with them is more important, which is the ability to think and feel. Once we realize this, the world will be better for all living beings.
“The question is not, ‘Can they reason?’ nor, ‘Can they talk?’ but rather, ‘Can they suffer?’” - Jeremy Bentham
Francel De la Huerta says:
Hi Betsy Hart,
It is good to know that you fully enjoyed your old fur coat on the Chicago winter days. At least you are feeling comfortable. I imagine it should be great to have a job where you are been paid, by writing one or two articles that you know will be controversial and this will cause many responses. In that way, if you evaluate your career, you could think that because people read you just to know what new you are going to publish then, you are a good journalist. We humans have the ability to fool ourselves.
From what I read, it seems you share the same opinion as many and I quote: "Needless to say, for these folks, fur is out, so is eating meat or any dairy product, any kind of testing of animal products, and hunting and circuses are so icky. If it’s an animal, it’s only place in your life is as a “companimal.” I can clearly see through your words the laugh in your face thinking that "these folks" are crazy and stupid. Thank you for the compliment Betsy, I am one of those crazy and stupid people who choose to care.
if animals are needed to be spayed or neutered is because maybe, someday you will get tired of your cat because he or she was not de-clawed and you find your furniture in bad shape, and because you will get so mad that maybe you'll decide to get rid of your cat, maybe you just one let your cat in your house again and maybe, it will get lost. So to control the overpopulation of animals like cats and dogs in the streets because some owner decided that the animal was too difficult to have, the animal that now has no home, at least won't breed and therefore newborns won't need to feed from garbage, maybe end under the tires of some driver, or killed by a kid experimenting with a toy gun just given to he or she by the parents.
Yes Mrs. Hart, this does happens in the real world and many other things. But the good thing is that you are feeling comfortable.
Best Regards,
Francel De la Huerta
Maria says:
Betsy, Betsy… If you drink, don’t write (I couldn’t say “think” because, clearly this is not what she’s been doing).
Zelda says:
Needless to say, this writer should be right up there as a prime example of the masses - swallowing media hype, the power-driven television commercials and greedy consumerism that dominates America. The animals at Disney are a long long way from the billions of animals who exist in misery until brutal slaughter in animal production/slaughter or the victims of institutional Animal Abuse who find no mercy or release from endless torture because of people like her - people who never question or for that matter wonder from where their big fat piece of animal flesh came from. Obviously, she is threatened by animal advocates who do question, educate the public and act for the animals who have been betrayed by society. Her article makes clear the need for us to speak for the voiceless animals who endure untold pain and terror for the benefit of empty headed consumers.
Ann Huey says:
Thanks for a well thought through article. Unfortunately PETA has far too much bite and HSUS with its central agenda being to eradicate companion animals within the generation on the ground, is -- as terrorist if not more terrorist in agenda as is PETA. It's disgusting that a few in our society want to become aggressive totalitarian dictators over all others and worse that PETA and HSUS members fit psychological profile. I'm very concerned over beef having been removed from school lunch programs in 36 states as the result of a home movie of highly questionable credibility that well may have been staged deliberately for agenda, political gains, or orchestrated from pure malice toward non vegans. Not at all oddly the withdrawal of beef from school lunches in 36 states was timed in the same week HSUS sued for changed poultry inspection. We must all view with grave suspicion anything in the way of (dis)information that comes from any group whose central agenda is publicly stated as being the eradication of pets being owned within the generation now on the ground. It's long past time because of its propaganda campaigns that HSUS was divested of its tax emempt status as its lobbying is inflammatory and its disinformation based lobbying is causing problems to individuals, businesses, pet owners, and worst even small children.
Aurora Cooney says:
There are so many things wrong with Betsy Hart's article, that I don't even know where to begin. Comparing neutering to de-clawing is absurd. Would you rather get yours tubes tied or all your fingers cut off at the knuckles? Regardless, the main objection I have is she somehow seems to think that it's okay to exploit animals if it's to our benefit. Each animal is an individual. Their life matters to them, regardless if it matters to anyone else. Who are you to deprive them of that? We don't need meat to live, we don't need fur coats or leather products, and we certainly can live without a few moments of entertainment at the expense of the animal's freedom.
Michael says:
Does she really argue that we should keep torturing and slaughtering pigs and cows because only very few people would want to raise them as "companimals?" There's a leap of logic in there somewhere that I must have wholly missed!
Pat Paulsen for President says:
Apparently, the Book of Genesis was not required reading for some of those posting comments here.
Jesus of Nazareth fed the multitudes with loaves and fishes.
He showed the apostles where to fish to net a larger catch.
In his parable of the prodigal son, he spoke of killing the fatted calf to provide a meal for the banquet.
Adolf Hitler was the most infamous vegetarian in world history. He was also an animal fancier. It was human beings that he reviled and hated. He could have been a dues paying PETA member.
I do not endorse cruelty to animals and oppose industrial farming practices, but spaying and neutering is necessary to reduce the number of strays. Hunting deer reduces overpopulation and limits the opportunity for transmitting diseases.
By the way, not all of the headlines accompanying the articles are chosen by the columnists.
Monique Givens says:
It saddens me that you say such things without truly educating yourself first. As a person in a position of power, you have the opportunity to be heard. For you to mock the welfare of animals in such a public forum is pretty disheartning.
I would like to give you a homework assignment. Before you start talking again about how fur is acceptable, please watch a few PETA videos, or go to http://furisdead.com and get educated regarding what these innocent animals go through. No living life form deserves that, and to say otherwise is pretty heartless.
“Life is life - whether in a cat, or dog or man. There is no difference there between a cat or a man. The idea of difference is a human conception for man's own advantage.”
J Carroccio says:
Obviously, here is a journalist, who has the good life, and fails to see the injustices that abound in our society. As she stated, our society indulges itself at the expense of other creatures, but it doesn't make it right. Her comment about neutering is plain foolish; the procedure is performed to stop unwanted pregnancies.
This journalist makes some very insensitive remarks. Perhaps she should sit in a slaughter house for a day, or try another career; maybe working in a country where they skin the animals alive so she can walk around in a fur coat. Maybe the screams will knock some sense into her insensitive and careless attitude.
Two thumbs down to you sister....you make me ashamed by your careless remarks.
Heather says:
She is simply not aware, or doesn't care, that animals are killed for food, clothing, etc..I am reminded of the quote from Paul and Linda McCartney (not necessarily word for word) that "If slaughter houses had glass walls, we would all be vegetarians." Sadly, there will always be people like her.
Bubbly Creek says:
Educate yourself. Before the 1920s, one of the biggest tourist attractions in Chicago was the slaughterhouses. Visitors were permitted to take a guided tour of the facility. A significant portion of Chicago's growth was spurred by the meat processing industry.
How many PETA members support abortion on demand? They obviously exalt animals over children and humans.
Jamie says:
So, in short, you're just lazy. Is that the thesis here?
"There are lots of ways to train cats not to shred sofas, and so on. Um, no thanks." So you prefer to mutilate your cat - who you're too lazy to name ("'boy kitty,' as we call him") - than to take some time to learn humane methods of keeping your precious furniture intact? You're also too lazy to look beyond mainstream pet food (at Dominick's, Target, Walmart) to realize there are dozens of organic/ holistic pet food choices available (at Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, online). Research. Do it.
Linda Camac says:
I'm quite sure if I could take a trip with Ms. Hart to an actual fur farm where animals are skinned while alive and conscious she wouldn't enjoy zipping aroung in her fur coat as much. Same old song...most think animals are strictly here for our whimsy and use. You are wrong.
Monique Givens says:
So, Bubbly Creek...
I am confused by your post. Are you so narrow minded as to believe that there is only enough room in our hearts to care about either animals or humans? Can we not care about both? I don't understand the ignorance associated with that argument, and believe me, I hear it a lot.. so I have had plenty of time to mull it over.
We are outspoken for animals because if we are not, who will be? It is sad, but we are so consumed with our own desires and "needs" that we will destroy anything that stands between us and what we want, with out any regard to the consequences. Sad really.
"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men." ~Alice Walker
Jennifer Weekley says:
In my world, both humans and animals are treated with respect and dignity. Is it so wrong for me to not want to see either suffer? I cry when I see a child that is starving and abused. I also cry when I see an animal that is starving and abused. What is wrong with that? I do not enjoy seeing animals poked and beat to perform for me. I would much rather have the knowledge that I am doing whatever I can to make this world as it should be.
Christine Downs says:
Betsy,
I think your "aw-shucks-I-don't- get-it" oversimplification of the animal rights issue is damaging to animals AND humans. We humans deserve to live in a humane world, and that world includes animals. I believe Ghandi said, "You can judge a society by the way it treats its animals." By that standard, this country is in trouble. The issues surrounding the ethical treatment of animals not so difficult to understand as you try to make it. Stop insulting our intelligence by setting the bar with your own.
Bubbles says:
Read the Bible. According to Genesis, man is given stewardship over animals. There is no equality between humans and beasts.
Do what you think is best for yourself. Donate money to the Humane Society. Treat your pets well, but do not condemn others for pursuing their own legal rights.
Rule #1 of dog training: a well trained dog wants to have an owner who acts as its responsible master.
Christine Downs says:
By the way, your fur coat is made from animals who are abused at every stage in the process- from being raised in tiny cages, then having their necks broken (by hand) or electrocuted. If the animals were imported from China there is a good chance you are wearing cat or dog fur, and that the animal was skinned alive without pain killers. Don't believe me? Check out the videos regarding the Chinese fur trade on the PETA web site. If you view these videos, you'll understand why animal rights activists get so angry when you proudly announce you like your fur. They look at your coat and see an animal with its skin ripped off while fully conscious. Not too glamorous.
Pat Paulsen for President says:
Am I missing something here? Don't animals hunt and eat over animals?
Don't big fish dine on smaller fish? Watch any nature special and witness the unending slaughter that takes place. Tell me that a brown bear is engaged in bigotry when it kills a salmon in order to eat.
Tracy Handzel says:
Being for something, such as animal rights is a good thing. Its positive, productive and shows a desire for progress. Being against anything- animal rights, gay rights, womens rights- shows that one is really attempting to keep someone else down and in a lower position. I'm always hit hard with that when people make fun of those who attempt to protect animals.
Lets face it, as the most resourceful and intelligent species on earth,humans have a much greater ability to exert pain and suffering on animals- even greater than animal enemies found in the wild (which is another deal altogether so Paul for President's argument doesn't even make sense.) Why on earth would an individual, or a group of individuals take issue with protection of a group that needs protection?
Make no question, animals are tortured in unbelievablely cruel ways in order to cover the skin and fill the bellies of humans. These stories are not urban legends. The documentation can be found in a variety of places- those related to PETA and those not. Is that really necessary? And is standing up for eliminating animal torture silly and outlandish as Ms Hart would like everyone to believe?
For those that understand the fictional nature of the Bible, its statements of power over animals does not justify torture. Just as its statements of empowerment over slaves is not justified. Many religions believe that life should be respected- yours, mine and the lives of other creatures. Is that such a bad thing?
Ms Hart, if you and your fans can reflect on your life and find peace in the decisions you've made regarding lives other than your own, perhaps you are doing the right thing. For those of us who chose to live differently, in attempts to move this civilization forward in regards to its view of animals, we would like to believe we are doing the right thing too. We each have a choice and to mock, ridicule and dismiss kindness is an ignorant, weak and insecure thing to do. Is that what you want your children to learn?
John Powers says:
"Being against anything- animal rights, gay rights, womens rights- shows that one is really attempting to keep someone else down and in a lower position"
Do you actually believe that? Isn't it just a tiny bit possible that many of the "rights" campaigns tend to intrude on individual choice, and actually forces people into a government mandated construct that one group wants to smack another with?
I for one have had enough of "rights" campaigns. There are more than enough laws on the books to keep lawyers busy indefinitely (without the least bit of concern towards the well being of animals or humans), I see no reason to generate more.
JBP
Francesca says:
Wow. I am in total disagreement with this column. I truly believe that anyone who does not care about animals and their rights, does not care about anything weaker (politically, physically, economically, etc.) than they are.
PS- I am a PETA member.
Sally-Anne Ryan says:
When I first read this column I thought it must be fake. I scanned up and down to see evidence of a mock up newspaper. It reads like a high school rant of which anybody who frequents PETA message boards will be quite used to.
I am not familiar with Betsy Hart's work so I am not even sure if she doesn't write purely to cause offense, reaction and self publicity? But I will assume not for the moment.
Betsy says "Of course, for all of its media profile, PETA really doesn’t have much bite. They thrive only because we are a wealthy society that has the luxury of going to extremes when it comes to our animals, moving beyond “animal welfare” and into so-called “animal rights” instead." This comment really does not make much sense in any respect. Does Betsy think because she lives in a wealthy country that explains why animals are subjected to more abuse or that we are more able to highlight it with our wealth?? (Goodness she is hard work). Well it may be news to Betsy but there are a lot of poor people in America and around the world and animal abuse happens there too and many people fight it with little or no money at all.
We have similar columnists in the UK, there to shock, hired for their outrageous view points and my hope is that in America or at least in Chicago Betsy is taken with the pinch of salt she deserves.
I love the opening, what a mom hey, taking the kids to Disney World..Tick it off the list. I wonder Betsy when you take your fur coat out of the cupboard and launch the old thing onto your back do you tell your kids where it came from, would you have the guts to show them videos of animals being skinned for your vanity? I doubt it, I guess it will be fairy tales all the way for you Cinderella.
In the mean time I think Betsy should come down from the cloud she lives on and research her thoughts more thoroughly, because at best this article generates a bit of support for the animal rights movement, but at worst it shows journalism is reaching lower depths than junk TV and that is just terribly sad for me, you and all de-clawed cats around the world.
K says:
Is it still permissible to shoot a rabid dog or to eradicate disease carrying rats?
Are some animals more desirable than others?
Where does one draw the line? Some of the PETA rhetoric cited above sounds absolutist.
Meg says:
I can't help but wonder whether Ms. Betsy is actually running a social experiment on trolling reactions. I'm not a fan of PETA at all, but only a fool would seriously brag about supporting animal abuse by buying fur and pulling out their "beloved" kitty's fingernails.
pork chop says:
Thank you for giving three shelter animals homes..intersting to note that no onw who supports th nut jobs at PETA or it 'fancy suit" counterpart H$U$ gives a rats behind ( it is their year after all) that each of these pets had to undergo a major surgery before you could get them. Nor do any of them care that MANY cats lose their lives.. that means they are KILLED in shelters.. due to shredding of furniture, curtains etc.. because places will not declaw them... so let's see.. would they rather be declawed or DEAD..
Another Jennifer says:
Jennifer Weekley--
"I do not enjoy seeing animals poked and beat to perform for me."
You clearly know nothing about animal training; no competent trainer would beat an animal, and definitely not an animal capable of killing him. Most zoo animals are trained by using native psychology and behavior, target training, and positive reinforcement.
The only time punishment is allowable is to stop behavior that could be dangerous to the animal or to others. Remember when your parents grounded you or sent to bed without supper because you were misbehaving?
Didn't you learn that you can't get away with hurting others? Are you abused, beaten, or irreparably harmed by that?
I personally am not. Maybe that's the difference between you and me. If so, I advise you to seek counselling. If you see the world as full of abuse and hurt, no wonder you feel like any animal obeying a command must have been personally hurt.
I invite you to learn how to work with and humanely train animals and learn about them from the experts-- the same people most PETA activists attack and revile.
You will find yourself healing by love and your world as it should be.
pork chop says:
A "mother cat" is called a queen .. a "mother dog" is called a bitch. many of them KILL AND EAT their own young.. so would a "mother cat" actually think about what happens to their "children" NO.Dogs and cats readily abandon their "children" at an early age. Dogs and cats do not recognise "family" the way we do..fathers will readily bred with daughters.. mothers with sons. and not one dog or cats cares. they don't say "Oh you child molester".. or "Oh dear. you have committed incest" Not of course unless you beleive the PETA idiots.
yum says:
PETA KILLS ANIMALS.. they went to trial for it.. they reported that they KILLED 97.3% of the animals they were supposed to HELP last year.. yes 97.3%. I am sure they are shooting ( with a needle of course) for a 100 percent kill rate next year.. and with people like the ones writing her .. they will probably achieve their goal
PETA KILLS ANIMALS AND THEY DARE TO LECURE THE REST OF US
thanks for this article and thanks for saving the lives of three shelter animals
Jill says:
Your article leaves far too many gaping holes in logic to be addressed, so I'll just choose one that stood out as particularly illogical. If indeed PETA can thrive "only because we are a wealthy society that has the luxury of going to extremes when it comes to our animals, moving beyond “animal welfare” and into so-called “animal rights” instead," where do you think the fur industry gets its buyers from? An indigent country? If we all killed our own animals and respectfully used every part of them for food, shoes, and fur clothing, that would be one thing. But your justification of enjoying your fur coat is just plain inane.
Anne B. says:
Betsy, I will show you more kindness than you sound like you show animals. PETA is an organization that is strictly concerned about animals' well-being. There are some inherent truths that it sounds like you need to be educated on.
1. Intentionally causing the death of an animal so that you can look regal in a fur coat is entirely the act of a selfish woman with an inferiority complex and a desperate need for status. I wonder, do you know that you are giving that impression to people who see you clad in the leftovers of a mutilated body?
2. Animals are living, breathing, beings with nervous systems like yours and mine. They physically feel pain like you and I...I'm wondering, if you were being whipped, often deprived of water and food, and even mutilated and tossed to the side like trash, Betsy, would you want someone to stand up for you? Somehow, I bet your answer is yes. This is what PETA does for animals.
3. Animals have no voice to defend themselves against violence and inhumane, insufferable treatment...they depend on you and I to be their advocates.
4. The test of whether or not you should impose or do something to an animal should be whether or not you would do it to your own child. Betsy, would you let your child become another person's next meal? If you're a good mother, I assure you would not.
5. Do you see any other organizations that are organized for the good of another being, i.e., Ronald McDonald Foundation; The Diabetes Association; The American Heart Association, etc., as simply existing because we live in a wealthy society? Surely not. Betsy, PETA exists in America and overseas because there are many compassionate, concerned, humane humans who act on their beliefs.
Perhaps, before your next article bashing PETA or any other animal right's organization, you'll consider some of these things. Then, it would be my hope, that you will use your power as a writer to encourage humanity that extends beyond humans beings and reaches to even the lowest forms of life.
Joseph K. says:
Reading some of the posted comments from PETA members reminds me of the fiction of John Irving.
Specifically, "The World According to Garp." Get some perspective people.
Isabella says:
Not only is this article poorly written, but it exhibits appalling ignorance and a frightening lack of compassion. 80% of the beef and chicken in this country is "produced" by factory farms, which are horribly cruel and terribly harmful to the environment. The animals are fed corn instead of their natural diets and are crowded together in small spaces. They are given huge amounts of medications to keep them from getting sick and these medications make for unhealthy meat. Farming practices have also greatly reduced biodiversity, which is causing virulent diseases, even among wild populations. Americans are eating much more meat than ever, which is the cause of high rates of obesity, cancer, and heart disease, among other problems. No one is suggesting that pigs and cows be bred as companion animals! I also find it horribly offensive how little consideration this author has given to her clothing choices. There are so many more humane and inexpensive choices than fur! Also, it is extremely irresponsible not to spay/neuter; there are many many more dogs and cats than there are homes for them and shelters are over-crowded, which results in having to euthanize the animals. De-clawing is cruel and unnecessary; it is actually an amputation of the cat's toes. Finally, this mother should teach her children compassion, not thoughtless, ignorant cruelty!
Chelsea Dub says:
It is unfortunate that some of you are using the Bible to justify your malice towards nonhuman animals. (Yes, people are animals; suck it up, unless you are indeed a vegetable, which isn’t unconvincing.) If you are going to use the Bible in your defense, you might want to consider a few things first. In Genesis 1:29, God said “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” There being proof that God’s original plan was for people to eat a plant-based diet. However, during the flood in Genesis 9, when resources were limited and people were starving, God gave people permission to eat meat. At that same time, however, God also granted people the permission to use slavery. It is interesting to read the congressional debate between 1820-1865, in which one finds U.S. senators and representatives utilizing Genesis 9 to justify slavery as a part of God's “plan”. Also note that in the Bible it is said that anyone who works on the Sabbath day, everyone who does not believe in God, if you curse your father and mother, commit adultery, are a rebellious teenager, or happen to be homosexual, you are to be put to death (the latter is often used to back up homophobic agenda today). My point is that you cannot pick and choose certain versus of the Bible to follow simply for your own convenience. In quick summary, if you take the Bible literally, according to its content you must believe in sexism, racism, speciesism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry. Therefore, the Bible is a weak tool to use in an argument if you are not to be hypocritical or otherwise inconsistent. The Bible aside, if you believe in a God, should he not be compassionate and merciful? Should he not love the strong along with the weak, the knowing along with the innocent? If you believe in a heaven, surely you do not envision it including slaughterhouses, vivisection labs or war? Many people are anxious to get to the afterlife, the land of “paradise”, but don’t consider making life here on earth that way. What is wrong with living a lifestyle causing as minimal harm as possible, to both human and nonhuman animals? All life is precious, and should be respected and appreciated.
"All beings tremble before violence. All fear death, all love life. See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?" - Buddha
Kira says:
Betsy Hart's article really confused me. Animals have feelings and Peta and animal activists work to prevent their suffering. I'm confused why someone would object to this. In terms of spaying and neutering, it's actually kinder to animals to do so. If you couldn't have sex for most of your life wouldn't you rather not have the drive? As for animals being carnivores, without human participation animals would lead a natural happy life before being eaten. We, however, torture them until they are used for consumption. I'm surprised that a paid columnest makes so little sense.
Alex Hanson says:
How is it possible that someone allows you to say anything? Please, think before speaking or writing, if you possibly could.
Karl Wenzel says:
Ms Hart, you are this kind of people who is always behind your time, following the fashion, creating wars, making this beautiful world a place where peaciful people (including of course non-human animals) cannot live.
J. Lai-Fan says:
Ms Hart, I of course could answer you, but you do not even deserve it. I pity you.
Mario Varela says:
Ms Hart, centuries ago it was decided for one vote that women had a soul. If you had been at that time in that room, women would not have soul.
Harry H. says:
It is YOU who must get some perspective, Joseph
You and Ms Hart belong to the past, are not able to understand, are you?
Lisa Corp says:
Betsy, What concerns me is that you have produced children, they certainly will not be leaders in this world with your influence. Betsy, educate yourself before you put another dead animal on your back. Put down your fur coat and start researching the truth. You have no idea the difference between right and wrong. Good Luck!!
Uralloonies says:
All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat. All things rude and nasty, the Lord God made the lot. Each little snake that poisons, each little wasp that stings. He made their brutish venum, he made their horrid wings. All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small. All things foul and dangerous, the Lord God made them all. Each nasty little hornet, each beastly little squid. Who made the spiny urchin? Who made the sharks? He did! All things scabbed and ulcerous, all pox both great and small. Putrid foul and gangrenous, the Lord God made them all.
Elizabeth says:
Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?
Here are some of the differences:
As animal welfare advocates. . .
• We seek to improve the treatment and well-being of animals.
• We support the humane treatment of animals that ensures comfort and freedom from unnecessary pain and suffering.
• We believe we have the right to "own" animals -- they are our property.
• We believe animal owners should provide loving care for the lifetime of their animals.
As animal rights activists. . .
• They seek to end the use and ownership of animals, including the keeping of pets.
• They believe that any use of an animal is exploitation so, not only must we stop using animals for food and clothing, but pet ownership must be outlawed as well.
• They want to obtain legal rights for animals as they believe that animals and humans are equal.
• They use false and unsubstantiated allegations of animal abuse to raise funds, attract media attention and bring supporters into the movement. (The Inhumane Crusade, Daniel T. Oliver)
http://www.naiaonline.org
http://www.animalscam.com
http://www.petakillsanimals.com
Max says:
Thanks Elizabeth -
peta kills far more animals then 'it' helps - and people are clueless about the truth. HSUS doesn't even have a shelter to it's well heeled name...
'
Animal 'welfare is vital & compassionate -
Animal 'rights' is nannism at it's worst.
Joseph says:
Thanks for setting the record straight, Elizabeth. In the past, I have donated money to the Anticruelty Society of Chicago, which actually does run a shelter and a veterinary clinic.
If PETA had its way, animals would vote and have delegates to the Democratic National Convention. In encounters with this extremists, it is clear that they hate many of their fellow humans and think that they are superior to us and animals are superior to us all.
Chelsea Dub says:
“If PETA had its way, animals would vote and have delegates to the Democratic National Convention.”
Animal rights activists are not seeking to give nonhuman animals the rights to vote, drive cars, or anything else that would be inappropriate. We seek to give them the same basic rights of protection that children have, which is the right to live, not be exploited, and not be subjected to pain and suffering. It really is simple and is not asking too much, but after all, it might be considering we are dealing with selfish, greedy humankind. Yet, I believe that deep down, people (at least the majority of us) do have compassion, and that many have just been desensitized for many years by society, along with being shielded from the hellish places that are factory farms, fur farms, slaughterhouses, vivisection laboratories, and backstage of circuses. If the nonhuman animals are truly in your best interest, and not your taste buds, vanity, amusement, or other comforts, the Animal Rights Movement would not need to exist, because the welfare advocates would actually be caring about the well-being of these creatures they understand have feelings. Animal rights activists are welfare advocates who mean it. You cannot support the senseless slaughter of over ten billions of nonhuman animals yearly (in the U.S.) and then claim to care about their welfare. Below are some links with information on nonhuman animals and the Animal Rights Movement:
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/f...
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/rescue/
http://www.mercyforanimals.org/fur_fa...
http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?p...
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/
http://www.shac.net/SCIENCE/facts.html
http://www.shac.net/SCIENCE/faq.html
Videos:
http://youtube.com/user/InDefenseofAn...
DVD Documentaries:
http://www.uncagedfilms.com/behindthe...
http://www.tower.com/details/details....
Books:
http://www.amazon.com/Dominion-Power-...
http://www.amazon.com/Slaughterhouse-...
Rea Warrecker says:
1) We don't base our treatment of human beings on their intelligence, but rather their ability to feel pain.
1) All animals are also capable of feeling pain
2) Factory farming, fur farming, and animal testing cause pain and suffering in its most extreme forms; it is NOT the same as an animal hunting another animal; it is holding animals captive and torturing them for their entire lives and then slaughtering them without respect or appreciation. No other animal does this. Even when animals 'play' with their prey, the ordeal lasts no longer than a day.
3)We are 'moral' creatures capable of rational thought, which also burdens us with greater moral responsibility towards other animals. As a society, don't we value compassion? Then shouldn't we extend this virtue towards our treatment of animals as well?
4)Ms. Hart makes those who believe in Animal Rights sound like an exclusive, extremist group. In fact, most people in our society believe animals should have rights, we are just selective about which species we choose to grant these rights to. For example, dogs and cats are granted more rights than pigs and cows. There is no acceptable basis for this distinction; it's just convenient for our consciences because we want to eat pigs and cows and it makes it easier to think they are less evolved than our companion animals.
I believe it is unethical to cause another animal to suffer. I choose to seek out alternatives whenever I can and help animals when the opportunity presents itself. For me, this means being vegan, having lots of adopted pets, volunteering, and putting in my 2 cents when I read an article like this.
Joseph says:
Humans evolved as a species of hunter gatherers. The features of the human anatomy support this. The positioning of the eyes is indicative of the hunting nature of the species.
The human digestive system is intended to process a diet which includes proteins, including meats. Arguably, the amount of meat consumed should be somewhat less, but that is a by product of prosperity. Men and women need animal fats to properly produce hormones. Vegetarian females oftentimes have difficult pregnancies unless they add supplements to their diets or consume large quantities of dairy products.
I do not support factory farming and the mistreatment of livestock. I try to be an informed consumer. I dislike foods, including meat and dairy products that contain artificial additives and synthetic hormones. I do not support the mistreatment of domestic animals nor do I attack people on the street based upon the clothing and shoes that they wear. I will not condone anyone engaging in terrorism to advance a political agenda.
jamie says:
shame on you for mocking others who would try to make this world a better place by attempting to minimize animal suffering. who or what gives you or any other human the right to inflict pain on animals? your ignorance is astounding. i thought that journalists were supposed to actually research a topic before writing about it. unfortunately, your indifference to the cruelty that continues to occur on a regular basis (have you ever seen the unnecessary torture that an animal experiences in order to create that fur that you so enjoy wearing?) will be passed along to your children who will continue to think that the torture and abuse that animals experience to make humans happy is okay. animals are living beings who experience pain and suffering like humans. they should be treated with respect.
Orson says:
Given the comments put on display here, I predict seeing hundreds of unmarried and childless singletons talking to their cats as if they were persons.
Chelsea Dub says:
“Given the comments put on display here, I predict seeing hundreds of unmarried and childless singletons talking to their cats as if they were persons.”
Let’s hope so. Humans are overpopulated, which is one of the reasons the environment is in such a disaster. Maybe parentless children will finally have loving homes.
Nancy says:
While reading Ms. Hart article I said to my self, HOLY is this woman getting pay for this?
1: Seams like this was writing by a teenager.
2: she doesn't have a clue about what she is talking about
3: She probably had never even attend a primary school.
Maybe in the future this newspaper will hire someone who actually knows what is talking about or at least a real writer.
I Love animals and for those who say that animals don't have feeling, you are all wrong. But I won't try to convince you, it is not worth it view of the size of your ignorance.
Linda Kuhn says:
I read with interest the article or (blog?) about the woman who had to have her adopted cats fixed but also chose to declaw them. Declawing a cat is animal cruelty as a cat's claws are not the only way they have to defend themselves but they also need them to survive. If the cats ever got outside now they would be helpless and defenseless. Cats also need their claws to hang on to things and to groom themselves. It is an emotional blow to the cats as well to have their claws removed. It is like having your fingernails removed only a lot more serious to a cat. I also read about the lady who still enoys her fur coat. If she ever saw the agony an animal endures having its skin and fur removed for her vanity, well, it just makes me sick. Thank you.
Vicky says:
Ms Hart, you and people like you kill not only animals, who are sentient living beings whose only mistake is having been born at your time, you are killing beauty, kindess, and hope in a better world even for you who do not deserve it.
Susan says:
Ms Hart, people like you have always existed, unfortunately. If you had lived during the Roman empire, you would have been the first in going to the roman circus to enjoy the torture and killing of innocents. It was the fashion, and you do not think further, do you?
If you had been born during the slavery time, you would have bought slaves, why not? If my friend next door gets some, why not me? It is the fashion.
If it were for people like you, women could not vote, they did not even have a soul (it was decided by one only vote, I am glad you were not there).
You and people like you make this Earth a place where innocents are tortured and killed, you make the worst world.
But WE SHALL OVERCOME, not you.
You are the past.
Nick says:
Why is it so difficult to understand that ANIMALS ARE SENTIENT LIVING BEINGS WHO DESERVE THEIR PLACE IN THE EARTH?
That´s it.
Steve says:
Dear Ms. Hart,
You did a wonderful job conveying your message that PeTA is a hypocrisy. I would love for you to write another column asking them what they do with the millions of dollars they take in each year from an unsuspecting public. Last time I checked, they spent nothing on protecting animals. They owned no natural preserves. What about placing animals during Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Katrina. They were no where to be found, except euthanizing aninals in North Carolina and tossing their carcasses in a dumpster. And they call that animal rights?
Cynthia Dodson says:
As I read your column Ms. Hart, what I found missing was your compassion. I truly believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, so I won't as you would expect drive my view down your throat. I do appreciate the articlesince I am able to enlighten you on a few details. There are not just a handful of animals that are tortured, abused, abandoned and killed but millions and I stress millions every year since the beginning of time. According to you, we should just leave well enough alone or remain status quo. Should that be the standard, then black people would still be in slavery, women would have no rights and child labor would still exist. Thank goodness, these horrible atrocities have been addressed and are out in the open. That there were people that cared and had enough fight and compassion in them to help those who could not help themselves. I wish you could see how someone's compassion helps and saves helpless animals. That picture alone is worth a thousand words. In case, Ms. Hart your view does change, it would be most lovely if you would write an article embracing kinder, gentler ways for most of us to feed, clothe, entertain and educate ourselves than by killing animals. Thank You.
Cynthia Dodson
frank staples says:
I agree wholeheartedly with your article. Are you aware the PETA kills ninety seven percent of the animals taken in?? Hardly what you would call "animal rights" or even "animal welfare". And I find that most of the people hollering about animals and how they are treated are still eating them!! I have four cats and a dog in my household and they are happy to be alive...considering that there is a NINETY SEVEN PERCENT CHANCE that they would have been KILLED BY PETA!!!
Roger Carter says:
I am sick and tired of the B.S. from the so-called "animal rights" people who are trying to force normal people to accept their twisted beliefs. I thinks it's time for radical opposition bordering on vigilantism to stop the lunatics who are actually hurting and intimidating people who don't agree with them!
M Lynne says:
All these posted cpmments from people supporting PETA's views scare me. They apparantly have not read about how PETA routinely kills dogs, cats, puppies and kittens that have been taken from over crowded shelters to be put up for adoption.So where are those animal's rights. Yeah, PETA is real concerned about animal welfare.
And HSUS doesn't even have a shelter, yet they take in millions of dollars from animal welfare people. Doesn't anyone wonder where all the money they take in goes?
Bear says:
PETA kills over ninety percent of the animals it "rescues." Don't start on them being broken beings because most of them were perfectly when they were put down. This is not made up by meat industry because the proof is in the VDACS and government records. Check out the VDACS website, and you'll see it. If PETA really cared animals, it would be using its money to fund places that care for them. However, it doesn't. It uses the money on stupid campaigns that do nothing to help animals. It also offends people by comparing the killing of animals to the Holocaust. Wake up to the real world, PETA supporters. It is not some fantasy where all animals get along beautifully. The natural world is harsh and unforgiving, and you have to be tough to survive, or you're screwed big time.
Peter Peta says:
Already, let us all surrender and commit mass suicide and the animals can rule the world and it will be a better place. If suicide is not your bag, all humans could be spayed or neutered. Animals are superior to humans.
Tigress says:
PETA supporters, when will you get it? This organization does not and has never cared about animals. If it really did, more of its money would go to helping them get out of roadside zoos and fund animal sancutaries that have fallen into disrepair, but it doesn't. Most of its money goes to defending criminals, paying their employees, and funding stupid campaigns that do nothing to help animals. I'm sure many animal rights activists do geuninely care about animals and are helping them right way, but there are just as many, if not more, who don't care. This organization uses propaganda to get its point across. I don't condone animal cruelty, but to say I do because I eat meat is ridiculous. True animal lovers like me would never support a hypocritical organization likes this. Most farm animals are not raised in factory farm conditions. Nor are most furbearing mammals raised in deplorable conditions. Medical researchers don't torture animals and minimize the pain the best they can. Most farmers, fur farmers, and medical researchers take excellent care of their animals. There might be abuse every now and then, but most people don't approve of animal cruelty. What's PETA going to say next, gorgeous paintings of the mighty phoenix rising from the ashes condone cruelty to birds or X-Men of Marvel Comics condones animal cruelty because a mutant can shapeshift into any animal? Most importantly, PETA kills over ninety percent of the animals it "rescues." Most of them were perfectly healthy when they were put down. This is not made up by the meat industry because the proof is in the VDACS and government records. Check out the VDACS website, and you'll see it. It dares lecture the rest of us on killing animals when it does the same thing. This is hypocrisy of the worst kind. It's time to wake up to the real world, PETA supporters. This organization does not care about animals. It is using your hard-earned money for its own selfish purposes.
Big Boy says:
You know what's ironic about PETA? They never talk about the real natural world when they slam zoos and aquariums for keeping animals. They know next to nothing about the real "life in the wild." Mother Nature is harsh and unforgiving. Very few animals make to old age, and every one of them faces all kinds of perils, including weather, predation, and competition. Even orcas face a harsh life in the wild. According to a few websites with information on wild orcas, half of all wild baby orcas die before their first birthday. Of the other half that do survive, it is not known how many make it to adulthood or old age. Blaming animal attacks on zookeepers and trainers on captivity is ridiculous because these attacks are just as likely to happen in the wild because people go into animal habitats all the time. Wild orca attacks would happen more often if people got into the water with them a lot more. However, interaction with them in their natural habitat is rare, and that's way wild orcas don't attack people. We just don't interact with them in their natural element enough for the attacks to occur, so saying the attacks happen because of keeping them in captivity is baseless. The PETA supporters need to wake up and smell the black coffee. Life is not some Free Willy fantasy where all captive animals are sad and pining for freedom. They don't have the same romantic notions of being free like we do. It's either I survive or I don't. It is also eat or be eaten in the natural world.
Chelsea Dub says:
I find it irritating that this topic has turned into a PETA discussion. Nice diversion tactic, but I’m not falling for it. We are talking about animal rights as a movement, not just one particularly hypocritical organization. I personally do not support PETA; they are against TNR, no-kill shelters altogether, they think all pit-bulls should be put to sleep, they don’t even run their own shelter or sanctuary, they waste too much money on campaigns alone, and they compromise too much with animal-exploiting industries and companies to the point where they have turned into just another rich, ineffective animal welfare organization. There are better animal rights organizations out there that more accurately represent the Animal Rights Movement and its supporters. Now that has been said, let’s get back on track. First of all, there is no such thing as “compassionate meat” or “humane vivisection”. Those terms are what the sensible would call OXYMORONS. No animal gives their consent to be eaten or experimented on, so it is far from being compassionate or humane to shackle them upside down and slit their throat, or feed them toxic substances through tubes in their nose. Also, some of you are claiming that either we eat animals or be eaten. I’d like a convicted child abuser to try to use the same logic. This is about the strong taking advantage of the weak. Most of us do not NEED to eat, wear, or otherwise use animals, and we know better than to do so. In any case, if the “eat or be eaten” logic was true, predatory animals wouldn’t be hunted by people, which they are. Also, think about gorillas and elephants, who are vegetarians, and generally have no natural predators. I doubt that by not eating animals, I will some day be eaten by a chicken, pig, or cow, and I’ll remind you that most people who have fallen prey to the real predators of the earth were most likely NOT vegetarian. Thus concludes the “eat or be eaten” logic as being flawed, and just plain sad to use in an argument.
PS: To those of you who are offended by the comparison of nonhuman animals to the victims of the Holocaust, I suggest you read “Eternal Treblinka” to better understand the comparison. Here is an interview with the author of the book:
http://www.geradts.com/anil/br/vol_00...
“He who does not possess power loses the right to life.” - Adolf Hitler
"Auschwitz begins whenever someone looks at a slaughterhouse and thinks: they're only animals." - Theodor Adorno, Jewish German philosopher
“As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right.” - Isaac Bashevis Singer, Jewish Nobel Prize-winning author
BadKarma says:
PETA has a 97% kill rate.
That means nearly every single animal some poor innocent turns in to a PETA "shelter" on the mistaken assumption these sick-ass whack-a-dos will find it a "good home" is executed instead. The Center for Consumer Freedom has petitioned the state of Virginia (where PETA is headquartered) to revoke their "shelter" status and reclassify them as a slaughter house.
PETA doesn't give a FAT DAMN about animals. They are solely and exclusively interested in controlling the lives of people, and like the good little Stalin Communists they all are, they will use any lies, terrorist acts, deception, and propaganda they see fit to accomplish that goal.
That is the "inconvenient truth" about PETA, the HSUS, and all the navel-gazing, over-privileged, under-brained, useful idiots who brainlessly support them.
Jessica W. says:
It will be nice when this generation of ignorance is finally gone from the planet- only then will the human race make any progress beyond the club-carrying animal torturing caveman days. If this writer loves her children she should be glad that there are animal activists out there because without them there would not be any child protection laws and 6 year olds would still be working in factories.
Too-da-loo says:
This is why women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Their tiny little minds don't understand anything. Hey, I'm just expressing my opinion like this idiot- the 1st Amendment rules! Wow, I wish animal rights people never existed. That way we could still be getting cheap labor from children because they're the ones who promulgated child labor laws.
Linda.Kuhn says:
I read with interest the response that stated that PETA killed more animals than any other humane shelters combined. I did not know what to believe so I went to the VDACS website and found this to be true. How can PETA now stand up for animals when they are abusing and killing more of them than even others?
Hopeful One says:
Chelsea Dub, you're a lot like many of the ignorant animal rights wackos. You know nothing about the real natural world. It is harsh and unforgiving, and all wild animals face perils such as weather, disease, and predation. The expression eat or be eaten in nature means as a wild animal, you have to find something to eat while avoiding being killed and eaten by predators. You also have to find shelter, defend territory, grow strong, and reproduce in order to survive. That's how nature works. It is not a Disney fantasy where animals hang out together and sing songs. Disney movies with talking animals have nothing to do with animal rights. The animal rights movements isn't about improving animal lives. It's about money, control, and power. It lies about its true agenda and has been known to stage videos of horrific animal abuse. That's not to say that many animal rights activists don't care about animals because many do, but just as many, if not more, don't care. Most farmers, fur farmers, and medical researchers take excellent care of their animals. There's abuse every now and then, but they do their best to make their animals comfortable. Those movements in animals being processed for their meat and fur are muscle spasms. They continue for a while after death. You really need to wake up. If animal rights organizations truly cared about animals, they'd be using their money to help them get out of roadside zoos and fund animal sanctuaries that have fallen into disrepair, but they don't. They are selfish and care for no one but themselves.
Katt says:
Betsy, I hope you respect your children enough to let them explore the issue and decide for themselves. Abuses that were once considered the "norm" have dramatically decreased due to the kind hearts of a new generation. Children's empathy towards animals should be enouraged rather than mocked. Their big hearts are what make them so precious, after all.
Chelsea Dub says:
Hopeful One:
I know about the natural world. Along with being beautiful and mystical, it is cruel. Predators eat animals, yes, but for SURVIVAL. Native Americans hunted for SURVIVAL. People living in the world of computers, Internet, and MP3 players cannot use the “natural order” excuse. Most of us do not live in the natural world. We live in an artificial environment. You are right that “as a wild animal, you have to find something to eat while avoiding being killed and eaten by predators”. Are we what you would call “wild”? I don’t see people running around in loincloths, carrying clubs. We are surrounded by alternatives to animal products. Varieties of produce are available at your local market, which is more natural and healthier than the average American’s diet of overly processed animal-originating foods. People have become too accustomed to the drive-thru window and their microwave and need to learn how to cook! I am a vegan, and I eat very healthy. Not only have I gotten used to reading food labels and can recognize animal derivatives, preservatives, and fats, but since I cook for myself, I am around my food and know what is going into my body. As far as Disney films go, “The Lion King” and “Bambi” were accurate in showing how life can be cruel. People want to live a fantasy life. They want to eat, wear, experiment on animals and use them in entertainment, and yet fantasize about how well they are treated, and that no cruelty or injustice was involved. Take off your blind-fold. “Humane” animal-involved entertainment, food, clothing, and experimentation is an oxymoron. There is no kind way to use an animal like an object. The Animal Rights Movement is about striking at the roots. Nonhuman animals cannot be treated unfairly if they are not used at all. Even with the few so-called “welfare” laws, nonhuman animals are still being mistreated. No farmer, furrier, circus trainer, or vivisector truly cares about animals. There is a barrier formed from arrogance. They see themselves as more important and superior to nonhuman animals. People always teach their children to “treat others the way you want to be treated”. Yet many people think it is okay to exploit and slaughter nonhuman animals, as long as you speak to them softly during, or pray to them before, or otherwise try to sugarcoat it. Animal welfare advocates are hypocritical. On one hand, they believe that animals think and feel like we do, but on the other, they think we can still subject them to unnecessary harm.
Chelsea Dub says:
Child welfare is not compromised in such a way. Interestingly enough, the child welfare movement was started AFTER the animal welfare movement. Scientists used to believe that babies didn’t feel, and that they wouldn’t remember or be influenced by painful experiences. Now children are given basic rights to not be exploited (except for beauty pageants, which are stupid), and to be protected from harm. Those are the same basic rights nonhuman animals deserve. They are just as vulnerable as children and need to be recognized that way. About the “muscle spasms” of animals while being processed, some of them may be. However, you cannot say that for all of them. Veterinarians have observed animals being processed and declare many of them as being conscious. It is not that uncommon. I’ve seen cows hanging upside by one leg, blinking and inhaling their own blood after their throats had been slit, chickens and pigs being scalded alive (for hair and feather removal), and animals being skinned while fully conscious. One particular video will forever haunt me, which shows a fox still alive after their skin was completely removed. They were still breathing, moving their head around, and blinking. That was definitely not a reflex. Reflexes are twitches, not full body movements. I suggest you watch the documentary film “Earthlings” which uncovers the many industries that use nonhuman animals, along with discussing their environmental impacts. While some animal organizations are hypocritical and motivated by memberships and donations instead of genuine concern for nonhuman animals (PETA and HSUS), there are many good, effective animal rights organizations who do help nonhuman animals in roadside zoos along with rescuing nonhuman animals from natural disasters, laboratories, circuses, fur farms, factory farms, slaughterhouses, and other situations of harm. There are many sanctuaries for abused and neglected nonhuman animals, and not just for the “cute” and “pretty” animals like dogs, cats, and horses, but for farm animals as well. A couple of sanctuaries that come to mind are Best Friends Sanctuary and Farm Sanctuary. They do campaigns to spread the word about their cause along with rescuing various animals and giving them a life-long refuge away from cruelty and harm.
Chelsea Dub says:
"As long as humans continue to be the ruthless destroyer of other beings, we will never know health or peace. For as long as people massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, those who sow the seed of murder and pain will never reap joy or love." - Pythagoras
"But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, we deprive a soul of the sun, and light, and of that proportion of life and time they had been born into the world to enjoy." - Plutarch
"A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral." - Leo Tolstoy
"As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures, there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together." - Isaac Bashevis Singer
"It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions. Heaven is by favor; if it were by merit, your dog would go in and you would stay out. Of all the creatures ever made, he (man) is the most detestable. Of the entire brood, he is the only one...that possesses malice. He is the only creature that inflicts pain for sport, knowing it to be pain. The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to the other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot." - Mark Twain
Hopeful One says:
Chelsea Dub,
I've never condoned factory farming or any form of animal abuse. I know most farmers, fur farmers, zookeepers, medical researchers, and animal trainers do care about their animals. There will be some abuse at times, but animal rigthts activists present only the extreme side to the story and never a hint of the real facts. They'll make false allegations of abuse to get people to sympathize with them. There will always be problems with animal captivity, no matter what, because some animals don't do well in captivity, even if they are cared for very well. Many of those videos you see of horrific animal cruelty were staged, paid by people to make them to swindle donations from others for their own purposes. Most of them don't even cite where they were made. When they don't, I don't trust them. In my view, the animal rights movement has never been able improving animal lives. It's always been about control, money, and power to take away people's rights, including yours. It thinks no animal should be used, no matter how humane. It wants to take away people's rights to own pets because they think it is brought on by human manipulation. Animal rights activists have been known to release tame animals into the wild, where they get killed by predators or hit by cars. These tame animals also destroy the ecosystem, of which the activists don't seem to care about at all. They've also been known to allow animals to continue suffering while undercover at alleged places of abuse instead of coming out right away. You probably don't know this, but animals die for vegetarian and vegan diets too. Millions of animals are killed in the harvesting of crops every year. Their homes are destroyed. I love animals, but eating meat and going to the zoo don't make me a hypocrite. Not everyone gets a chance to see animals in their natural habitat, and the zoo, the aquarium, or an nature documentary may the closet they can get. Not everyone agrees with you, and you need to accept that, whether you like it or not.
Emily says:
Im 13.
And I think PETA is great.
Its taught me responsibility and i've been veg in a family full of carnivores.
Khryseos says:
Betsy, your belief that the AR movement won't entrench itself into our system is wishful thinking. They are lobbying (with $millions$) in cities and counties throughout the U.S. to abolish chickens, eggs, beef, pigs, cats, dogs, etc.
I'd love to see a column written by you on this subject.
Note this quote from HSUS president in 1990:
"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state."
-- Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990
Chelsea Dub says:
Hopeful One:
You are supporting animal abuse by supporting industries that use living beings as commodities, whether or not you are willing to admit that. You simply cannot truly care for a living being if you are going to sacrifice their desires for the mere pleasure or convenience of humankind, which is what farmers, furriers, vivisectionists, and other blood-thirsty things do to nonhuman animals. Such was the same for people who “owned” slaves. While not everyone abused their slave, the fact that the desires of the slaves were sacrificed and deemed trivial was wrong, and no reasonable person would actually say that the slave “owners” “cared” about their slaves. All oppressors care about is MONEY and POWER. Oh, and don’t even bother complaining about me comparing nonhuman animals to oppressed humans. If you are offended, that is your fault for being speciesist and believing that walking upright and wearing clothes makes the human species more valuable than any other species (even though we are the most greedy and destructive). As for the animal abuse videos being “staged” and “fake”, I suppose children aren’t really starving and dying of AIDs in Africa, then. After all, fraudulent videos and pictures could be produced to make pocketed donations! Whatever; I don’t doubt facts because I don’t doubt my lifestyle. Doubting the obvious is an easy way out so you don’t have to care or act on atrocities. Some people doubt the Holocaust as well. All I know is that corporate giants are making millions of dollars that are definitely for profit, and I’m not going to take their side. Yes, some animal rights activists do release animals like mink out into the wild. While I agree with you that it could pose an imbalance in the ecosystem, your argument that the animals possibly being run over by a car or eaten by a predator is worse than definitely having their skulls crushed, being gassed (only to wake up while being skinned), or anally electrocuted is any better is stupid. If I had a choice of living in a cramped cage, destined to a definite and painful death, or being free and having the possibility of being run over by a car or eaten by a predator, I’d choose the latter. A person could possibly be run over by a car some day, but that doesn’t mean they should be forced to live inside a cage and have a scheduled death. Maybe you’d like it, but I think I’ll pass.
Chelsea Dub says:
Yeah, some animals would die on a lacto-ovo vegetarian or vegan diet, and those animals are called c-a-r-n-i-v-o-r-e-s. People can be vegan, but they are just too self-centered to do so. Their priorities are their taste buds and vanity, their limited thought capacity being “Meat tastes yummy” or “Fur makes me pretty”. Also, accidental deaths do occur during the harvesting of crops, but you know what? Cows, pigs, chickens, and other farmed animals don’t eat air! Astonishing, I know. It takes an average of 7 pounds of grain to create a single pound of meat. Along with being a waste of grain, it also means more field animals were killed to produce meat, so you’ve lost yet another argument. 95% oats, 90% soy, 70% grain, and 80% of corn is grown for livestock. Over fifty percent of water in the U.S. is used for livestock. The U.N. stated that it is not transportation vehicles, but livestock that is the number one contributor to climate change. You say you love animals, sure. I love my family but none of them are on my dinner plate, oddly enough. It’s funny how you speak of animal abuse videos being fake, yet you think it is o
Tracy says:
Typical Betsy Hart column -- full of ignorance.