Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 174

Thread: Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

  1. #126
    Hachiro
    Guest




    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Hi Hachiro,
    Thanks for replying and I am glad that you don`t consider it a waste of time. Also, thanks for acknowledging my convictions. That was kind of you to do so in a positive light.
    By the way, since your reply was rather short, I am wondering if I didn`t do a good job in addressing your original comments. If so, sorry about that and feel free to point it out to me and I will try to do so better. Sometimes I miss things as I get behind in replying to other posts.
    Looking forward to your continued participation in the discussion.
    No I'm sorry I have been rather tied up with work and family these past few days and have very little time to "thoughtfully" reply to posts. I read most of the posts here at around 5 or 6 in the AM and my brain is not always functioning yet.

    Interesting conversation to say the least. Thank you.

  2. #127
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Hey Hachiro, can you ask strongvoicesforward these questions please 'cos he is ignoring me?;

    "Yes but your philosophy on farming is that it is wrong to keep an animal for its benefets and its wrong for farmers to keep animals against their will.
    Surely then you also believe that keeping pets, even in a responsable mannor, is wrong? Or do you not believe that the lady who keeps the slave for emotional comfort is actually keeping a slave? You cant have it both ways.
    Also i would be interested to hear your veiws on fish farming, since surely going by your belief that farming is unesarsary and slavery towards animals, that fish farming is wrong?

    If we stopped all farming tomorrow, there'd be no meat, so what would all the pet dogs and cats do? Or would you rather that millions of animals be euthanised?"


    Do you know why he is ignoring me hachiro? He said he was a flexable person with strong views, i cant think why he doesn't want to answer my questions Hachiro?

  3. #128
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    My main "beef," so to speak, is how ARists may target lower employees and people not necessarilly affiliated with the industries.
    They sometimes target people who work within a department, despite having no real connection to what they oppose (in the 2nd link they target a Volunteer Coordinator).
    Ok, MeAndroo, I have looked at and read the links you gave me.

    This is the problem when orgs fighting for social change have been ignored and the status quo forces them to go underground because they are forced to adopt Direct Action to cause change and to be taken seriously. If they write and picket for years and nothing changes when the urgency of the situation demands action, they find themselves needing to take stronger action. If they were taken seriously and invited to the negotiation table with their most urgent grievances, then many problems could addressed and at least the frustration toward Direct Action pushed back further into the future. The problem with creating a situation in which orgs feel they must go underground is that the public no longer can be certain which group or org is actually doing an act attributed to an org.

    Now, I am not saying this is certain, I am just saying that it is a possibility: It is not so wild to consider that an entity, either be it corporate or government, in an effort to get the public to turn against animal rights, itself does not stage some attacks on animal exploiters in order to shock the public. All that is is a version of the "dirty trick." With orders to discredit ARists or their orgs, an agent could easily do any of those heinous acts on those site links and send a letter of responsibility to the ALF site as an ALF cell and the ALF site would list it as such.

    The organization of the ALF is set up in such a way that no one cell really knows another and there is no leader that directs things. No leader has knowledge of ALF operatives other than what he or she himself may be involved in. So, if a corporate attack meant to make the ALF or ADL look bad were the goal, it would be very easy to do (The ALF let`s any action done on behalf of animals, so long as human physical injury does not come about, to be attributed to it).

    So, a person of a corporation could do an act targeting an exploiter and then send a letter to the ALF site claiming responsibility and if no one were injured ALF would accept that, but the shocking nature of it could have been conceived and produced by an animal exploiter in order to discredit ALF and further move them away from public sympathy -- all part of the strategy of keeping the public from more and more joining ALF efforts. Again, I am not saying that is what happened in those cases, but it is not too inconceivable.

    ALF and the ADL have the experience in planning and most probably the skill of performing an action that could harm someone if in fact they really wanted to. However, they have been around for years and they have not ever caused the death of one person. In fact, all their actions throughout the years have been carefully planned to avoid death or serious injury. As a social movement fighting for change against oppression, taking into account how long they have been around, compared to any other historical social movement against oppression, the ALF and ADL and many of the militant AR groups, have shown remarkable self restraint despite any rhettoric that may come from them from time to time.

    Now, is it wrong that Direct Action targets people for intimidation? Well, if those in those industries (i.e. animal exploitators) are combatants (i.e. on the other side of the spectrum that supports animal exploitation), then they are fair game for targeting. If someone doesn`t view them as part of the apparatus of the exploiting machine, then they should not be a fair target.

    How would one decide if they are a fair target? Many feel that if the machine gets a hiccup because the infrastructure (inanimate or human recourses essential for the smooth functioning of the machine) has been monkeywrenched or in all probability would get a hiccup, then that is a fair target. ALF however, specifically says that people are not to be physically harmed as part of monkeywrenching (if they are targeted for specific physical harm, then that is not an ALF action). But, that does not include "intimidation" techniques that causes worry or causing the setting in of seige mentality. Those have proven to be effective. They work. That is just mere fact and Direct Action in order to intimidate has been used by many social activists throughout history.

    Does intimidating a widow of a former exploiter come into fair play like that was on the link??? Strategists would say that that emphatically underscores a message to those still in the business of animal exploitation -- letting them know that while they are around, they may be able to provide some modicum degree of protection to their family, but if they were to be gone tomorrow, their families would then be vulnerable. It is creating the siege mentality which causes people to not focus on their work or daily lives. It causes people to question themselves if what they are doing is worth it and if their family would be better off if they totally disengaged at a time before things escalate against them. That is the message that is being sent in that particular case. I am sure other exploiters in industries in that company in which he was hired took notice of that fact and had their own inner dialogue voices talking to them.

    The thing is, some point the finger of wrongdoing at Direct Action activists for intimidating others, but fail to point out in the same sentence the terrible tyranny being inflicted on animals in labs, fur farms, factory farms etc... where animals are having painful intrusive actions done to them physically and psycologically. It is no secret that animal activists who embrace Direct Action feel that animals are deserving of the same interests of consideration, so they therefore are moved and compelled by their concience to act in a manner to relieve that suffering just as someone maybe would if they knew there were a Treblinka in the countryside nearby them doing horrible things to humans that have been carted there.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  4. #129
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Hachiro
    No I'm sorry I have been rather tied up with work and family these past few days and have very little time to "thoughtfully" reply to posts. I read most of the posts here at around 5 or 6 in the AM and my brain is not always functioning yet.

    Interesting conversation to say the least. Thank you.
    You're welcome and thanks for adding to the discussion yourself. Yes, AR is an interesting topic. We agree.

    What I think is important is that both sides understand where each are coming from. That doesn`t mean we have to agree with one another, but just understanding the viewpoint and foundation of their thoughts is important and does have value to it.

    I already said to MeAndroo that, "I may understand why southerners in the 50s and 60s were fearful or didn`t want black to have or exercise civil rights, but that I DIDN`T AGREE with it." "Understanding" and "agreeing" are just not the same. For another example, "I understand why America used the atomic bomb on Hiroshiman and Nagasaki, but I most definitely DON`T AGREE with it."

    So, when I am asking someone to understand AR or Direct Action, that does not mean I am asking them to agree with it. If they do agree or come to agree with it, then fine. But, if they don`t then all I can hope for is that a better understanding of the reasons and dynamics are garnered on the point. Indeed, America, Russia, and China, spend hundreds of millions of dollars learning to understand one another -- but that does not mean they are agreeing with one anothers ideologies or policies. Fair enough on that point? I hope we agree on those two words because I think that will aid the discussion to continue.

    When your family and work don`t keep you tied up, be sure to get back to the thread.

  5. #130
    It's Clipper Time! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    MeAndroo's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-07-04
    Age
    37
    Posts
    116


    Ethnic group
    Chinese/Japanese American
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    This is the problem when orgs fighting for social change have been ignored and the status quo forces them to go underground because they are forced to adopt Direct Action to cause change and to be taken seriously. If they write and picket for years and nothing changes when the urgency of the situation demands action, they find themselves needing to take stronger action.
    I think we talked about how people can get impatient with legislation, as the slow moving wheels of bureaucracy affect more than just animals in daily life. Certainly the AR/AW movement has made strides in gaining protection for animals and sites like PETA's detail some of those victories. And I'll be a bit pragmatic here when I say real change is going to take time. I see the AR/AW underground movement as guerilla tactics versus a large, well funded army in the form of corporate interests in industries related to animal use. Sometimes the guerillas can hold their ground, drive back their adversaries and discourage further loss (like a Vietnam). Other times the well-funded army rolls over the guerillas despite inferior tactics (see American Civil War). I understand that they feel the need to take action now, but sometimes I wonder if their all-or-nothing method of attack will backfire. What do you think about it?

    If they were taken seriously and invited to the negotiation table with their most urgent grievances, then many problems could addressed and at least the frustration toward Direct Action pushed back further into the future.
    The tough part about this, and I'm pretty sure we agree on it, is that there isn't a unified front on the part of the AR/AW groups. There isn't a single agenda being pushed. Some people think lab testing is wrong, but eating meat is ok. Some think eating meat is bad but wearing cotton is ok. Presenting a specific common desire, like in the case of the American Revolutionaries or Civil Rights periods like MLK's, was a great rallying point and, I think, a major factor in their success.

    Now, I am not saying this is certain, I am just saying that it is a possibility: It is not so wild to consider that an entity, either be it corporate or government, in an effort to get the public to turn against animal rights, itself does not stage some attacks on animal exploiters in order to shock the public. All that is is a version of the "dirty trick." With orders to discredit ARists or their orgs, an agent could easily do any of those heinous acts on those site links and send a letter of responsibility to the ALF site as an ALF cell and the ALF site would list it as such.
    I agree, this scenario is not unbelieveable. Certainly corporate interests are capable of performing such acts, but there is no real remedy for it, considering the makeup of organizations like the ALF. If they do indeed see it as a war, it's a loss they must be willing to accept.

    Now, is it wrong that Direct Action targets people for intimidation? Well, if those in those industries (i.e. animal exploitators) are combatants (i.e. on the other side of the spectrum that supports animal exploitation), then they are fair game for targeting. If someone doesn`t view them as part of the apparatus of the exploiting machine, then they should not be a fair target.
    How would one decide if they are a fair target? Many feel that if the machine gets a hiccup because the infrastructure (inanimate or human recourses essential for the smooth functioning of the machine) has been monkeywrenched or in all probability would get a hiccup, then that is a fair target. ALF however, specifically says that people are not to be physically harmed as part of monkeywrenching (if they are targeted for specific physical harm, then that is not an ALF action). But, that does not include "intimidation" techniques that causes worry or causing the setting in of seige mentality.
    My view of the side against animal rights activists is slightly different than those engaged in private industry. The closest it has hit me was when bomb threats were made against public sector agencies dedicated to controlling animal populations, i.e. Los Angeles Animal Services. It's not for profit, and the majority of the people working in its central office don't see a single animal during their time there. My friend specifically is an accountant. Yet bomb threats are made, GMs are forced out, and work is indeed disrupted; work that may in fact be contributing to what animal rights activists WANT. The wheels of change spin slowly in the public sector, and disruption of leadership only serves to exacerbate that. In this scenario, an accountant, or a file clerk, or a secretary who is afraid to come to work will not benefit animals anywhere. In fact, it could only hurt them in the long term.

    Does intimidating a widow of a former exploiter come into fair play like that was on the link??? Strategists would say that that emphatically underscores a message to those still in the business of animal exploitation -- letting them know that while they are around, they may be able to provide some modicum degree of protection to their family, but if they were to be gone tomorrow, their families would then be vulnerable.
    But isn't it a bit senseless? Their true target is dead. His family has no connection to any of the problems the activists had with the man, yet they continue to use resources targeting her. Who's to say they won't continue to target the family if the man quits? It's the same result, he no longer engages in the work they condemn. Wouldn't that just encourage tougher crackdowns on said activists? I don't understand how this can be morally justified.

    I don't agree with seige tactics, but I certainly see how they work. Perhaps I just don't see how intimidating say, a CEO, would not encourage the board of directors and shareholders to search for someone more hard-nosed and defiant to any protestors.

    The thing is, some point the finger of wrongdoing at Direct Action activists for intimidating others, but fail to point out in the same sentence the terrible tyranny being inflicted on animals in labs, fur farms, factory farms etc... where animals are having painful intrusive actions done to them physically and psycologically. It is no secret that animal activists who embrace Direct Action feel that animals are deserving of the same interests of consideration, so they therefore are moved and compelled by their concience to act in a manner to relieve that suffering just as someone maybe would if they knew there were a Treblinka in the countryside nearby them doing horrible things to humans that have been carted there.
    True, but that is the burden of proof activists of any kind must face. There are certainly those willing to admit that abuse of animals is wrong, and many not actively involved in protest. But the sliding scale of what is judged to be cruel means there must be a sliding scale of goals, and that ultimately is seen, at least by me, as a weakness.

    A major hurdle I see in the fight for animal rights is the disputed perception of animal's place in a natural hierarchy. ARists see no difference, and the rest see a major difference. Until there is widespread acceptance of the AR point of view on this issue, I don't think real change will ever take place. And I see THAT as the true root of what ARists are fighting for.
    Go Trojans

  6. #131
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    MeAndroo (ok to call you "Roo" for short?), just trying to catch up on these links you had listed before for comment.

    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    The article I referenced doesn't have them gassing tens of thousands of pets, but they euthanized a large majority of them: 1300 out of 2000. Another site I found (here) accuses PETA of killing 80% of all animals it officially takes in. (This site was found by chasing a link from this site. There's an estimated 6 to 8 million dogs and cats made stray each year. PETA takes in 2640 animals in 2004 and kills 2274 of them. It seems to me that they're already being choosy. ... Or am I missing something here...
    Those numbers are probably right as to how they are listed ont those links. I won`t dispute them. On that point you aren`t missing anything.

    However, on what many people do miss when they see those numbers or that site is that those are put forth by the CCF (Center for Consumer Freedom) to discredit PETA. The CCF is a front company that was launched by a conglomeration of corporations such as Tyson Foods, fast food industry, Tobacco, Industry, Ranchers, Alchohol, Firearms industry etc... -- in short, just about every producer of a vice that has been detrimental to society in many ways. Everyone of these industries has come under intense scrutiny from PETA with campaigns and they have seen the threat to their corporate profits posed by PETA. They have decided it is in their best interest to stop ignoring PETA and to in fact try to roll them back.

    The CCF had even come out against Mothers Against Drunk Driving with negative comments resisting some of their goals/campaigns to affect change for the protections of the roads. Remember the tobacco CEOs testifying several years ago on Capital Hill that they didn`t think Tobacco caused cancer? They were lampooned as the 7 Dwarfs for the incredulous statements they were making -- basically perjuring themselves. And the CCF represents this group of characters! Now, if they are going to spin about tobacco and MADD, you can be sure they are going to spin on PETA.

    The thing is, while those numbers above may be accurate, the pets PETA do take in and euthinize are the ones which do have a very low chance at adoption. That may be because of injury or age or temperment. That site also makes it sound like PETA actually "takes them in" which I am not sure is the correct words of choice to describe all those in the numbers referenced. Does all animals euthinized by PETA means that they have become PETA`s and are therefore considered "taken in" by PETA?

    PETA is often called in by shelters requesting that PETA offer their help in euthinizing because they are overrun. Yes, some mistakes are made from time to time when an animal is adoptable is put down and in fact should not be. The fact that PETA has put down a high percentage of the animals they 'take in' is because those are the animals for the most part PETA seeks to offer relief to. Remember, PETA is not a shelter. It just isn`t in their mission statement and to expect them to do that is not right.

    Should they do more. I think I said before and I don`t mind repeating, perhaps yes, and I, myself, would like to see more done and perhaps even an official PETA sheltered open in the future. Could that happen? I think so. The chances are not so remote to dismiss it. There is a much better chance of PETA opening a shelter for animals than the entitities making up the CCF deciding not to kill the billions of animals that pass through their money making centers.

    To say PETA is bad or falls unacceptably short of aiding animals simply because they are not perfect and that a few thousand animals may be euthinized by them and therefore not worthy of support from those concerned with AR and AW, is like comparing a mole hill to 100 Mt. Everests where billions and billions of animals are piled on top of one another with the CCF flag planted at the top. And they have the audacity to look down from the top of the carnage and say PETA is being hypocritical becuase they euthinize??? Well, perfection is not PETA, and they always seek better ways to bring their practices in line with their beliefs at lessening animal suffering -- but one thing is sure, they sit on their molehill of a few animals euthinized knowing that those animals were released from this life in a way that did not see them defecating out of fear and gasping for breath in a CO2 administering gas champer or a not well aimed bullet to their head.

    The CCF on the other hand in their dark caverns that produce the Everest High numbers of death of billions of animals sends animals to vivisections, cruel slaughter, animal testing, skinning precedures, rendering plants etc... where animals meet their end in terror and excruciating pain. If someone were an animal and their end was coming, they should only hope that if they were not 'placeable' to live out a life to their natural end, that instead of an employee from the CCF coming up to it for commodifying it, that a PETA worker with a peaceful drug of injection were coming to it. I know I most definitely would prefer the latter. I pat on the head, a few kind final words, and a few seconds falling into sleep is much more preferable than being forced to smoke to black lungs then vivisected alive, or electronically prodded into a stick pit.

  7. #132
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    That's true, and is one of the reasons I get so frustrated by other AR/AW organizations. PETA straddles the line between ideological and pragmatic better than some of their more extreme brethren, but it still seems wrong to me as an idealist.
    Fair enough. I understand the feeling. I think most who innitially come to PETA do so as idealists when they first begin to get involved with helping animals and are moved to give of their time and other recourses to do so. However, after the enormity of the problem becomes clearer and clearer, pragmatism takes hold.

    Some people around the world look at the U.S. and all her rhettoric for freedom and promoting it, but as we all know from being citizens of the U.S. and inside the system, we just cannot act purely on our ideas to all parts of the world at the same time. Even the richness of our country would break under such a strain if we attempted to do so. Can we do more? Of course. Should we do more? Of course. However, just because decision makers choose their battles to address in a particular order, does not make them wrong. It just makes them constrained by the reality of the situation on the ground.

    In rhettoric and philosophical musings, all things can be said and expressed. But, in action, only those things that can be done at a particular time can be realized. All others must stand in line and wait their turn.

  8. #133
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by MeAndroo
    I guess what it boils down to, regardless of whether I agree with their politics or not, is that it's tough for me to watch groups like PETA claim a moral high ground and engage in the very act they condemn so publicly.
    I understand what you are saying but it is hard for me to agree with it. I think the key phrase in what you said above is "very act." Yes, Peta euthinizes, there is no debate there, but the purposes for that are caused by the pet and ownership industry which creates the problem. In order for PETA to be anywhere near equal in doing the "very act" of the industries in which they denegrate and campaign against, they would have to be doing the same things. And that just isn`t the case. There is a big difference in what Tyson foods and university researchers do to animals that bring about their deaths and what PETA does as a reaction to a system that has caused unadoptable, injured, diseased animals to come to them. PETA for the most part relieves these animals of the miserable lives they have been forced to live by providing them with a peaceful release from this world -- one in which abuse and neglect marked their lives.

    So, one does have to look a little deeper into the euthinizeing policy of PETA rather than just lump it with industry killing. If the two acts were not different, then most people who do not want their pets anymore because they are old, sick, on their last days of life, have gotten temperment problems, would then just take them to universities for research or kill them in anyway they wanted without any thought for how they are killed.

    But, many people do take their animals to vets to be PTSed because eventhough the animal to them is no longer 'fine,' they see a sense of duty and value in ending their life in the most peaceful way as possible. PETA does that but they do it as an org and not as an individual person. Therefore, the numbers of a few thousand animals PTSed under their auspices looks bad. But, in actuality, they are doing nothing worse than a person professing love for their animal/pet but deciding a peaceful exit is what is called for at that time. And just because that person/pet owner criticises their neighbor for having shot their dog or killed it in some other heinous way, it in no way detracts from the moral high ground of administering euthinasia in a kind way.

  9. #134
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registered
    nurizeko's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-01-05
    Location
    aberdeen, scotland
    Age
    34
    Posts
    149


    Ethnic group
    Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
    Country: United Kingdom



    My idea of animal rights is that when i EVENTUALLY catch a bastard mouse in my house, i defend its right to be released in the nearby park and not chucked in with the rubbish bin.

    Meh, i woulda probably kept the bugger as a pet....damn he was small...

    He also likes dog-food it seems.

    Not fish, i like fishing, i mean, i felt sorry for scarface, hacing to get a hook cut out but, he tasted good so i didnt worry much more after that.

    (BTW the mouse escaped again so he will probably be found again unexpected...)

  10. #135
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Looks like a virus could be on the way to put an end to the constant cycling of chicken misery in Eqypt.

    In Cairo people have traditionaly raised chickens on rooftops because people had no land or enough money to rent a bigger space to do so. The government of Egypt is worried that roof top chickens could help spread the desiese from migratory birds. 4 of the 6 birds found to be infected with the deadly H5N1 strain of the 'bird flu' had been rooftopped farmed.

    One housing resident moaned, "They said on television that it's dangerous to mix with the birds but they are my only source of income. Thanks to God, my birds are okay so we will eat those and then we will stop but what other job will I find?"

    Eeeerrrr...how about a job that doesn`t earn money off the blood of living beings?

  11. #136
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    bossel's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-09-03
    Location
    germany
    Posts
    790


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Eeeerrrr...how about a job that doesn`t earn money off the blood of living beings?
    Will you be the one to offer him such a job?

  12. #137
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by bossel
    Will you be the one to offer him such a job?
    If he has the skills for what I am looking for I will. But, as it is right now, my company isn`t looking for anyone with the experience of rooftop farmers who raise animals in small cages and butchers them.

    But, he may apply within any of our offices overseas. One may be in sight of his rooftop -- once he clears all the empty cages away from his roof.

    hahahaha.... Looks like he is really on his way to unemployment now once he eats all his reproducing stock. I guess that is literally someone "eating themselves out of home and kitchen." <snicker snicker>

    A win for a few animals. Fewer rooftop squalid prisons for chickens.

  13. #138
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    GRRRRRRRRRR....

    A bear is stalking Prince Charles and he has taken notice of it. He even has taken the time to have a short chat with it saying, gI recognise you! Ifve seen you in America!h

    BOO!

    And he will be seeing a lot more of The Peta Bear as it vows to be at every public event the Prince shows up for.

    The Bear is getting in his face to remind him and the Queen that the hats made of bear fur for Buckingham Palace should be exchanged for faux fur.

    This is a victory that is not a question of "if, but "when."

    Free, good, and natural:


    Arrogant exploitation for meaningless fashion:

  14. #139
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    I had a look around the web about this. It seems that the hats are made from the pelts of bears which are culled in Canada. The culling would continue whether or not the guards changed to fake fur. I noticed a lot of the animal right sites make out that the bears are killed just for the hats. More objective sites do mention that there is a annual cull in America and Canada and the hats are just a by product of the cull, which will continue whether or not the British army require them or not. I think that PETA must really stop the culling in North America, that way the drive to find a substitute is more pressing. BTW the MOD has been running trials to find a artifical substitute for several years.

  15. #140
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    The culling of black bears is not necessary. Fur for fashion is not necessary.

    If culling is necessary as some conservationists may put forth, then the cull should be the cull. Blood money should not be made off of it. If money is being made off of some cullings, then I would bet that many of those who are for the cull are all for the money to be had, too.

    If a bear is going to be killed for the good of the environment, then at least let its corpse lay where it fell to give back biomass nutrients to the forest. But, of course we know that is not what the hunters want. They don`t want to 'help' the forest that much -- in a way they don`t profit from their fun hunting. They want the fun and the fur to sell and to add 'value' to for their benefit.

    The Guards can have their faux look alike hats and the bears can keep their skins. Sounds like a good trade to me. If the cull is necessary, then let the forest keep what falls in her to reclaim and recycle. I suspect, though, that if the orders for bear hats were to stop coming from Buckingham palace, the number of culls would lessen and surely a drop in prices would come about making it less profitable.

  16. #141
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    I suspect, though, that if the orders for bear hats were to stop coming from Buckingham palace, the number of culls would lessen and surely a drop in prices would come about making it less profitable.
    I doubt it very much. According to statistics around 5000 to 10 000 bears are killed each year, depending on which site you get the figures from. The MOD (not Buckingham palace) order about 60 to 100 pelts a year. That is only 1% to 2% of the pelts are actually used in the making of the hats. I hardly think that cancelling the orders will lessen the culls or make it less profitable. The hats themselves do last a very long time. In some cases over 100 years and do get passed down either through families that join or from old soldiers. The man in the suit is wasting his time. The Queen and the Prince are the wrong people to target.

  17. #142
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    The man in the suit is wasting his time. The Queen and the Prince are the wrong people to target.
    There are definitely others to target. That is for sure. However, The Peta Bear is not wasting its time. It brings exposure to the campaign as news follows the Prince they take note of it and occassionally mention it. Exposure on news is free advertisement. A 30 second spot on TV would cost P&G millions, free news is free and can be just as powerful.

    Besides, that campaign is not the only tact Peta and other groups have taken to get the use of bear fur for hats stopped. Other efforts are ongoing as well. Sometimes success is about location location location. Other times it is about publicity publicity publicity. A good mix makes for good marketing and success.

    I would bet those hats on palace guards will become extinct not too far in the future.

  18. #143
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registered
    SortOf's Avatar
    Join Date
    20-02-06
    Location
    `do K
    Age
    32
    Posts
    24


    Ethnic group
    German
    Country: United States



    I like leather coats though.

  19. #144
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    In recent years PETA has waded right into the center of the corporate world by their new strategy of holding stocks in companies that affect the lives of animals. Holding a certain amount of stock allows them to bring up issues for voting at shareholders' meetings. As of yet, none of their proposals have passed, but CEOs are taking notice of this strategy and have cried fowel to the Security Exchange Commission.

    But, the commission has ruled in favor of PETA being allowed to force votes on issues important to them as shareholders. <<snicker snicker>>

    Furthermore, this generates free news for PETA. And food outlets have at times been receptive to PETA`s message at at addressing, considering, and making changes for the benefit of the animals.

  20. #145
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by SortOf
    I like leather coats though.
    PETA campaigned against the sale of Indian leather in Gap stores about 5 years ago and as a result Gap Inc. agreed to stop carrying items made from Indian Leather.

    Good on Peta.

  21. #146
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    I've looked through the PETA website and something struck me about the organisation. They fight very well for animal rights and against cruelty within the west and fairly developed nations, but they do not seem to do much within Africa and poaching. Surely the protection of animals must also be imperative for those in danger of extinction. Do they operate in Africa against the bush meat trade or the killing of elephants and rhinos for their horns? Or are these targets have too much of a risk to themselves? It strikes me a lot of AR types prefer easier targets in the west rather than risk their lives in Africa. After all it is easier to burn down a labortory in the heart of England than to stop animal explotation in The Congo.

  22. #147
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    I've looked through the PETA website and something struck me about the organisation. They fight very well for animal rights and against cruelty within the west and fairly developed nations, but they do not seem to do much within Africa and poaching.
    PETA is a growing org. Began in the U.S. they have steadily branched out to other countries with official offices and chapters in those countries. Growth takes time. Recently they have opened up a Chinese branch based in Hong Kong. To my knowledge, they do not have an official branch in Africa. But, they do have supporters in Africa. In the future I am sure they will set up an official office in Africa as well.

    Much of PETA`s actions which get news coverage on streets are the results of local activists in that area. Activists are not stupid. They can measure and judge the political climate of an area and not commit suicide by doing something rash in the face of that area`s law enforcement. Sure, they could be a martyre and fall on their sword, but that would do nothing to help animals from that point on. Best to live and fight another day. The animals can`t do it for themselves so they would prefer the ranks of those who can fight stay as full as possible and to chose their battles wisely. That said, I don`t begrudge any activist in a 3rd world country from being much more cautious in the acts they can do for animals under their legal systems. When the time is right, or near right, their can always be surges in activist action.

    Peta does not operate in a vacuum in the world fighting for animals. There are many other orgs and at times they work together to help animals, be it cruelty, conservation, or poaching like you have mentioned. Born Free Foundation, WWF, and In Defense of Animals, to name but a few have worked extensively in Africa to fight against the Bushmeat trade and other problems that beset the animals of Africa. There is no need for PETA to replicate their efforts wholly and to say that PETA has to or should devote the same amount of recourses evenly spread all over the world is unrealistice, not to mention short sighted in strategy.

    Surely the protection of animals must also be imperative for those in danger of extinction. Do they operate in Africa against the bush meat trade or the killing of elephants and rhinos for their horns? Or are these targets have too much of a risk to themselves?
    There are other ways to fight against the Bush meat trade and poaching for various reasons. One of the biggest threats to animals is the loss of habitat. Peta aggressively promotes vegetarianism. Livestock consume more feed than humans do and thus much of the land being converted to crops goes to not support human life through direct consumption, but to livestock creating value added and inefficient use of recourses.

    It strikes me a lot of AR types prefer easier targets in the west rather than risk their lives in Africa. After all it is easier to burn down a labortory in the heart of England than to stop animal explotation in The Congo.
    lol. Oh, cloud the issue between PETA and AR "types" which you have not specifically named. Now which is it -- PETA or AR "types" you are discussing? Discuss them clearly.

  23. #148
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I'm am all for protecting endagered species. Up here in the San Bernardino mountains, we organize bald eagle counts twice annually. We also hosted some andean Condors to study range and feeding patterns for the California condor re-introduction program.

    I used to belong to WWF until they sent me a fund raising flyer (like charitable organizations sometimes do.) for money to save dogs in Korea from slaughter. They showed pictures of a dog slaughter at a family picnic. It seemed more cultural than actually about saving a species. Dogs aren't endangered and if you do want to save an animal, put it on the menu. Food specific animals raised on factory farms don't go extinct.

  24. #149
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    I've looked through the PETA website and something struck me about the organisation. They fight very well for animal rights and against cruelty within the west and fairly developed nations, but they do not seem to do much within Africa and poaching. Surely the protection of animals must also be imperative for those in danger of extinction. Do they operate in Africa against the bush meat trade or the killing of elephants and rhinos for their horns? Or are these targets have too much of a risk to themselves? It strikes me a lot of AR types prefer easier targets in the west rather than risk their lives in Africa. After all it is easier to burn down a labortory in the heart of England than to stop animal explotation in The Congo.
    I don't think that PETA does any work in Africa, but they are in developing nations, especially India. http://www.petaindia.com/

    Well, PETA's objective isn't to save animals from extinction, there are plenty of other organisaition that work in that area like the WWF having too wide a goals will in the end just be counter productive. The type of work required to save animals from extinction I would except to be very different from that working against factory farming. In the same way WWF doesn't try to stop factory farming. "PETA India operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment."

    Activists tend to campagin in their local area. Its a lot easier to set up a protest against the shop selling fur in your highstreet or lobby your MP than to do anything in the congo. :)

  25. #150
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registered
    nurizeko's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-01-05
    Location
    aberdeen, scotland
    Age
    34
    Posts
    149


    Ethnic group
    Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
    Country: United Kingdom



    In regards to the news and free capnaigning, the only thing the news is doing for animal activists is pointing out the un-acceptable level of harrassment they will go to in their minority fanatical driven vandetta against society that shunned them for being freaks.

    Dont get me wrong, SVF has made better constructed arguments then most animal activists, but many activists idea of conservation is to bomb ****, and otherwise commit criminal acts.


    I hope these idividuals make a moronic and poorly thought out activist activity on a buckingham palace parade thing against the parading "bear murderer" soldiers with their SA80's, mainly because over the years ive come to realise idiots who attack non-idiots with guns ussually end up nice and dead.

    And yes, those SA80's are fully functional and loaded, on a public parade with the queen highly visible, of course soldiers, marching in dress uniform or not, are going to be properly armed and have a secondary order to protect the queen should the worst happen.


    Infact i dare say an activist should try and make an attempt on the queens life, this will kill what little pathetically impotent support for activists (mainly from other activists) is left in the UK, as it is, activities of some activists here have effectively profiled animal activists as terrorists more interested in the harrasment and criminal activity then the actual genuine beliefe humanity can release all domesticated animals and pets and somehow society will continue without its infrastructure and the animals and humans will get along.

    But then, reality was never a strong point of some animal activists.


    Thats why SVF has to carry the burden alone of trying to present the activist stance in a halfway realistic and well thought out manner (though from memory, i do believe he had a bumpy start....we love you now SVF <3 ).

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Animal Rights
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 20-10-13, 23:41
  2. Animal testing, your feelings?
    By Tokis-Phoenix in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 20-06-06, 08:03
  3. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 10:06
  4. status, drug treatment and fighting obesity
    By den4 in forum World News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-06-04, 21:03

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •