Animals Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty

strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
Mycernius said:
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.
 
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.
 
SortOf said:
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.
 
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.
 
Mycernius said:
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.
 
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.
 
Mycernius said:
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. :)
 
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 :p :cool: ).
 
Nuri - you seem to have an unfairly negative view of activists. Agreed, there are some who go too far and give activists a bad name. But activism can be peaceful too. Here is a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist. When I was a child, both my parents were activists in animal rights and trade unions. Their activism consisted of fund raising activities, writing letters to newspapers and MPs, taking part in peaceful protests and marches, sitting on committees, boycotts and trying to live their lives in accordance with their principles. Nowadays, my husband is a union activist, which consists in his being the elected rep for his department and representing his co-workers at meetings and hearings.

Please don't condemn people who work hard because they feel strongly on an issue just because you think a few of them go too far! :relief:

Edit: Just an addition - there is another form of peaceful activism, that I am taking part in today: industrial action.
 
Last edited:
My lovely wife taped the show "Extreme Home Makeover," (a show I seldom watch) while I was at work today. I enjoyed it after coming home.

The Makeover Team went to Texas to build a new home for a family that was into animal rescue. They had over a hundred dogs, about 10 horses, pigs, and an assortment of other animals. The mother, father and children did all the caring for these animals while at the same time the parents had regular 8 hours jobs. The house was just falling apart because the family had no time to do regular up-keep because of all the time they had to spend taking care of the animals.

Needless to say, a great new home was built for them with all the extra frills thrown in for the animals (e.g. kennels, stalls, special rooms, 10 yr supply of dog food, etc...).

It warmed me that this show could go out of their way and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on this family for their efforts for helping abused and negelected animals and that many professional builders and carpenters saw it worth their time to aid this effort.

Another reason I smiled at it is because I know from certain members who post here that they cannot see the value in spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in a way to help animals when they know that that money could be used to help many needy families. I am guessing their "value" of human life would cause them to grimace hard at this expenditure of funds. lol. After all, surely in the same community there must have been several needy families they could have helped for the same amount of money that was spent on 'mere' animals. Hah!

Great to see the animals moved to the front of the line and that the producers of this show saw the need and "value" of it.


*This doesn`t exactly match this thread which I created, but maybe it does in some way since in some way it is fighting cruelty. I just didn't think it right to make a whole new thread for this.
 
Oh, another zoo falls short and the animals are at risk:

News excerpt:
Tito's hungry elephants spared
Tue Mar 28, 10:48 AM ET

ZAGREB (AFP) - A pair of elephants that were once part of the private zoo of Yugoslav's former dictator Tito have been saved by a food donation from Croatia's top tennis player.

"Ivan Ljubicic and his wife Aida have put a certain amount of money on the account of the national park to help us feed the elephants," Morena Milevoj, spokeswoman of the zoo on Brijuni island, told AFP.
Ljubicic made his offer after press reports that the park's management warned it might not have the means to feed the voracious elephants to the end of the year. ...

Full story HERE.


The warm part about this is that two very kind hearted people stepped up and came forth to help with securing food for these creatures. I see great value in compassion in helping these elephants. The cynics amongst us believing people are more deserving than animals, failing to admit or recognize that all are important and have value, must be wondering how that thousands of dollars could be spent in providing meals or shelter for children or the poor. After all, why should elephants eat to live when people are starving or homeless?

But then, too, if I ask them why they don`t sell their cars and buy compacts and then send the remaining margin to the poor, they become silent.

I`m glad many do not succumb to that flimsy argument put forth by cynics that human life trumps all acts of kindness that may be directed at animals.
 
Continued from post #138 above:

That PETA bear is still stalking Prince Charles at all his public events. This time it caught his eye all the way in India.

Holding a sign reading, "Save my skin," the bear standing on the road was seen by Charles. Prince Charles, now used to the stalking bear waved and said, "Hello." The hunt for the royal family`s compassion for bears continues.

It takes one whole bear to make one prissy little black hat for fashion. These hats will go the way of the Dodo bird and it will be the Peta campaign that causes it. Until then, blood junkies will keep causing bears to bear the pain of fashion.

GO PETA BEAR!

Full story HERE.
 
Why do I love the UK?

The no#1 reason is that they are the hot bed of Animal Rights with regards to Direct Action in the world. SHAC (Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty) got its start in the UK targeting the animal testing lab Huntington Life Sciences. There, in the UK, SHAC has honed its tecniques of Direct Action and then exported it to the US and Canada, not to mention much of Europe.

The #2 reason is because of Brook Johnston, Miss UK Universe -- just a beautiful lady inside and out. Her heartfelt care for animals has caused her to lend herself to promoting vegetarianism. Here she is with PETA`s "Turn Over a New Leaf" campaign all decked out in cabbage. Hmmm...looks yummy.

24mlesunsetlesautres.jpg
 
Reiku said:
I prefered the "I'd rather show my buns than wear fur" campaign.

And here is two time emmy award winning actress Charlott Ross of NYPD in the "I`d rather show my buns than wear fur" campaign -- doing it for the animals.

peta_crossad-vert_small.jpg
 
Yeah, that one was a much better campaign--too bad it didnt cach on with the general public. :evil:
 
Reiku said:
Yeah, that one was a much better campaign--too bad it didnt cach on with the general public.

Things take time.

Patience, patience, patience. When does the sword strike? The two stand motionless grasping their swords raised toward each other, peering into one anothers eyes -- they seem as if they are statues held in place by the other. Strength in their patience, but eventually one will strike...

Peta will lunge, Peta will parry, Peta will slash -- and so will the opponents in the industry of animal exploitation.

Things take time. Patience, little grasshopper. The smaller chooses the time when it wants to harry the larger with all its force.

---------------------------------------------------------
*tailored that analogy specially for you Reiku, since I think I do recall your fondness for swords: "strike me down with your sword." Therefore, thought I would make it easy for you to understand the dance between two adversarries.
 
I can think of more appropriate ways to promote those causes :eek:kashii:
 

This thread has been viewed 154543 times.

Back
Top