Wednesday, October 31, 2012
ANTI-VIOLENCE campaigners have slammed an animal rights advertisement that equates eating fish with the suffering of sexual assault and domestic abuse victims.
ANTI-VIOLENCE campaigners have slammed an animal rights advertisement that equates eating fish with the suffering of sexual assault and domestic abuse victims.
The video, made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, shows a screaming girl watching a man beat her mother, an attacker grabbing an elderly woman's blouse, and a bloodied schoolboy being kicked to the ground. It then shows a fish on a chopping board, opening its mouth, with the words: ''Some screams can't be heard.'' The has been viewed almost 52,000 times on YouTube.
PETA is also urging supporters to tweet celebrity chefs such as Gordon Ramsay and Mario Batali, calling on them to ''put down the knife''.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/controversial-ad-says-eating-a-fish-is-like-bashing-a-granny-20120609-2038a.html#ixzz2AvTrUrUN
Previously, the group has defended its attempts to ''shake people up'' as a means of sparking debate.
Virginia Geddes, executive officer of the Victorian Domestic Violence Resource Centre, said she was ''horrified'' by the ad. ''I'm appalled that the lives of victims of violence are being compared to the life of a fish,'' she said. ''When PETA talks about 'shaking people up', have they thought about what being shaken up actually feels like for the women and children being abused?'' Karen Willis, executive officer of the New South Wales Rape Crisis Centre, said: ''To throw this in somebody's face without any warning is quite unethical. It re-traumatises them, and no one has the right to do that.''
Ms Willis said PETA ''has its heart in the right place'', but she feels the violent footage renders the ad ineffective.
''When I think of that ad, all I'll remember is the girl screaming and the woman being robbed, not the fish on the chopping block,'' she said.
Media commentator Professor Catharine Lumby said she endorsed PETA's motives but not its method. ''Animal rights is very important,'' she said. ''But I am concerned about the use of violence against women and children being used as bait for political campaigns.''
Claire Fryer, of PETA, defended the campaign as ''an effort to instil empathy for animals, specifically fish, who are widely misunderstood''.
''Billions of fish are dragged suffocating from the oceans or farmed in filthy, severely crowded fish farms, treated in ways that would warrant cruelty-to-animals charges if the victims were dogs or cats.''
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/controversial-ad-says-eating-a-fish-is-like-bashing-a-granny-20120609-2038a.html#ixzz2AvTeV700
The Sydney Morning Herald
Animal Rights Group (PETA) Attacks Pokemon For Promoting Animal Abuse
Animal rights group PETA has condemned the Pokémon media franchise and video game series, saying it “paints a rosy picture of what amounts to thinly veiled animal abuse.”
The Pokémon series tells the stories of young “trainers” who befriend wild critters called Pokémon, help them grow stronger, and coach them through a series of non-fatal sparring matches against other trainers.
In a statement released on October 8, the day after Nintendo released Pokemon Black 2 and White 2, the latest games in the franchise, PETA blathered:
“
Much like animals in the real world, Pokémon are treated as unfeeling objects and used for such things as human entertainment and as subjects in experiments. The way that Pokémon are stuffed into pokéballs is similar to how circuses chain elephants inside railroad cars and let them out only to perform confusing and often painful tricks that were taught using sharp steel-tipped bullhooks and electric shock prods …if PETA existed in Unova, our motto would be: Pokémon are not ours to use or abuse. They exist for their own reasons. We believe that this is the message that should be sent to children.
Aside from the fact that this is clearly a lame attempt to attract publicity on the back of a major video game release (which is why I’m not linking to their site, and you shouldn’t look for it, either) PETA seems to have missed the single biggest theme of the Pokémon series: That Pokémon should be treated humanely and live as our equals. The games are loaded with an endless stream of characters who go on and on about true friendship between man and Pokémon. It’s so saccharine and so completely the opposite of what PETA suggests that it boggles the mind.
As part of the campaign, PETA also developed and released a flash-based parody game which it calls “Pokémon Black and Blue.” It is awful.
Last November, PETA attacked video game icon Mario for wearing “fur” –the Tanooki Suit, a frequent power-up in Mario games that grants the ability to fly.
PETA did not disclose in its statement how many actual, living, breathing animals died waiting for rescue while the organization spent its time and money campaigning against fiction.
Forbes
Saturday, May 26, 2012
PETA wants to put sexy ad on Baltimore fire trucks
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
‘Hunger Games’ star Jennifer Lawrence on squirrel scene in 'Winter's Bone': 'Screw PETA'
Jennifer Lawrence may have been channeling her "Hunger Games" character, Katniss Everdeen, when she recently attacked People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals .
In the new blockbuster film, Katniss hunts animals for survival before she enters in her Capitol city's do-or-die competition in which she must kill her peers for the amusement of her corrupt government. But "Hunger" wasn't the first film Lawrence got blood on her hands.
In a scene from the Oscar-nominated 2010 movie "Winter's Bone," Lawrence had to gut a squirrel, aggressively ripping the fur off its flesh.
The 21-year-old superstar recalls the cringe-worthy moment in recent interview with Rolling Stone, revealing that the squirrel scene was not faked.
"I should say it wasn't real, for PETA," she said. "But screw PETA."
Naturally, after Lawrence's choice words drew ire, the animal rights organization has put up a tough fight.
"She’s young and the plight of animals somehow hasn’t yet touched her heart," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk told Gothamist. "As Henry David Thoreau said, 'The squirrel you kill in jest, dies in earnest.' We are told that this squirrel was hit by a car, but when people kill animals, it is the animals who are 'screwed,' not PETA, and one day I hope she will try to make up for any pain she might cause any animal who did nothing but try to eke out a humble existence in nature."
NYDailyNews.com
In the new blockbuster film, Katniss hunts animals for survival before she enters in her Capitol city's do-or-die competition in which she must kill her peers for the amusement of her corrupt government. But "Hunger" wasn't the first film Lawrence got blood on her hands.
In a scene from the Oscar-nominated 2010 movie "Winter's Bone," Lawrence had to gut a squirrel, aggressively ripping the fur off its flesh.
The 21-year-old superstar recalls the cringe-worthy moment in recent interview with Rolling Stone, revealing that the squirrel scene was not faked.
"I should say it wasn't real, for PETA," she said. "But screw PETA."
Naturally, after Lawrence's choice words drew ire, the animal rights organization has put up a tough fight.
"She’s young and the plight of animals somehow hasn’t yet touched her heart," PETA president Ingrid Newkirk told Gothamist. "As Henry David Thoreau said, 'The squirrel you kill in jest, dies in earnest.' We are told that this squirrel was hit by a car, but when people kill animals, it is the animals who are 'screwed,' not PETA, and one day I hope she will try to make up for any pain she might cause any animal who did nothing but try to eke out a humble existence in nature."
Saturday, March 10, 2012
REFILE-Iowa governor signs law penalizing animal rights activists
By Kay Henderson
DES MOINES, Iowa, March 5 (Reuters) - Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill that could result in penalties on animal rights activists who pose as employees or attempt to get inside agricultural production facilities in other ways to expose possible animal cruelty.
The law has outraged a leading animal rights group known for its controversial tactics to expose animal cruelty, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which said it may mount a court challenge and threatened a possible boycott of Iowa.
The bill, labeled "Ag Gag" by opponents, was signed on Friday but news of Branstad's approval did not emerge until Monday.
Iowa action could set a precedent for other agricultural states as it is the largest producer of corn, soybeans and has the largest number of hogs and the sixth largest cattle herd.
"If somebody comes on somebody else's property through fraud or deception or lying, that is a serious violation of people's rights and people should be held accountable for that," Branstad told reporters on Monday.
The adoption of penalties in Iowa follows a series of cases where animal rights activists gained entrance to what they call "factory farms" including chicken and egg, hog and cattle production and processing facilities.
In one recent example, McDonald's stopped buying from egg supplier Sparboe after an undercover investigation by the animal rights group Mercy for Animals found dead hens in cages and live chicks discarded in plastic bags along with dead one. Sparboe had unwittingly hired a Mercy activist to work at its facility.
Such actions have also prompted food companies to reconsider suppliers who confine hens laying eggs in small cages and sows in crates while they are nursing piglets.
"This is going to come back to haunt Iowa agriculture more than they could ever imagine," said Dan Mathews, PETA's senior vice president. "Iowa has singled itself out as the state with the most to be ashamed of and I don't think that is a very strong message to send to consumers."
Branstad said the new law would not affect whistleblowers, employees who see something and report it.
"Agriculture is an important part of our economy and farmers should not be subjected to people doing illegal, inappropriate things and being involved in fraud and deception in order to try to disrupt agricultural operations," Branstad said.
(Writing by David Bailey; Editing by Greg McCune)
Chicago Tribune
DES MOINES, Iowa, March 5 (Reuters) - Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill that could result in penalties on animal rights activists who pose as employees or attempt to get inside agricultural production facilities in other ways to expose possible animal cruelty.
The law has outraged a leading animal rights group known for its controversial tactics to expose animal cruelty, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which said it may mount a court challenge and threatened a possible boycott of Iowa.
The bill, labeled "Ag Gag" by opponents, was signed on Friday but news of Branstad's approval did not emerge until Monday.
Iowa action could set a precedent for other agricultural states as it is the largest producer of corn, soybeans and has the largest number of hogs and the sixth largest cattle herd.
"If somebody comes on somebody else's property through fraud or deception or lying, that is a serious violation of people's rights and people should be held accountable for that," Branstad told reporters on Monday.
The adoption of penalties in Iowa follows a series of cases where animal rights activists gained entrance to what they call "factory farms" including chicken and egg, hog and cattle production and processing facilities.
In one recent example, McDonald's stopped buying from egg supplier Sparboe after an undercover investigation by the animal rights group Mercy for Animals found dead hens in cages and live chicks discarded in plastic bags along with dead one. Sparboe had unwittingly hired a Mercy activist to work at its facility.
Such actions have also prompted food companies to reconsider suppliers who confine hens laying eggs in small cages and sows in crates while they are nursing piglets.
"This is going to come back to haunt Iowa agriculture more than they could ever imagine," said Dan Mathews, PETA's senior vice president. "Iowa has singled itself out as the state with the most to be ashamed of and I don't think that is a very strong message to send to consumers."
Branstad said the new law would not affect whistleblowers, employees who see something and report it.
"Agriculture is an important part of our economy and farmers should not be subjected to people doing illegal, inappropriate things and being involved in fraud and deception in order to try to disrupt agricultural operations," Branstad said.
(Writing by David Bailey; Editing by Greg McCune)
REFILE-Iowa governor signs law penalizing animal rights activists
By Kay Henderson
DES MOINES, Iowa, March 5 (Reuters) - Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill that could result in penalties on animal rights activists who pose as employees or attempt to get inside agricultural production facilities in other ways to expose possible animal cruelty.
The law has outraged a leading animal rights group known for its controversial tactics to expose animal cruelty, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which said it may mount a court challenge and threatened a possible boycott of Iowa.
The bill, labeled "Ag Gag" by opponents, was signed on Friday but news of Branstad's approval did not emerge until Monday.
Iowa action could set a precedent for other agricultural states as it is the largest producer of corn, soybeans and has the largest number of hogs and the sixth largest cattle herd.
"If somebody comes on somebody else's property through fraud or deception or lying, that is a serious violation of people's rights and people should be held accountable for that," Branstad told reporters on Monday.
The adoption of penalties in Iowa follows a series of cases where animal rights activists gained entrance to what they call "factory farms" including chicken and egg, hog and cattle production and processing facilities.
In one recent example, McDonald's stopped buying from egg supplier Sparboe after an undercover investigation by the animal rights group Mercy for Animals found dead hens in cages and live chicks discarded in plastic bags along with dead one. Sparboe had unwittingly hired a Mercy activist to work at its facility.
Such actions have also prompted food companies to reconsider suppliers who confine hens laying eggs in small cages and sows in crates while they are nursing piglets.
"This is going to come back to haunt Iowa agriculture more than they could ever imagine," said Dan Mathews, PETA's senior vice president. "Iowa has singled itself out as the state with the most to be ashamed of and I don't think that is a very strong message to send to consumers."
Branstad said the new law would not affect whistleblowers, employees who see something and report it.
"Agriculture is an important part of our economy and farmers should not be subjected to people doing illegal, inappropriate things and being involved in fraud and deception in order to try to disrupt agricultural operations," Branstad said.
(Writing by David Bailey; Editing by Greg McCune)
Chicago Tribune
DES MOINES, Iowa, March 5 (Reuters) - Iowa Governor Terry Branstad signed a bill that could result in penalties on animal rights activists who pose as employees or attempt to get inside agricultural production facilities in other ways to expose possible animal cruelty.
The law has outraged a leading animal rights group known for its controversial tactics to expose animal cruelty, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which said it may mount a court challenge and threatened a possible boycott of Iowa.
The bill, labeled "Ag Gag" by opponents, was signed on Friday but news of Branstad's approval did not emerge until Monday.
Iowa action could set a precedent for other agricultural states as it is the largest producer of corn, soybeans and has the largest number of hogs and the sixth largest cattle herd.
"If somebody comes on somebody else's property through fraud or deception or lying, that is a serious violation of people's rights and people should be held accountable for that," Branstad told reporters on Monday.
The adoption of penalties in Iowa follows a series of cases where animal rights activists gained entrance to what they call "factory farms" including chicken and egg, hog and cattle production and processing facilities.
In one recent example, McDonald's stopped buying from egg supplier Sparboe after an undercover investigation by the animal rights group Mercy for Animals found dead hens in cages and live chicks discarded in plastic bags along with dead one. Sparboe had unwittingly hired a Mercy activist to work at its facility.
Such actions have also prompted food companies to reconsider suppliers who confine hens laying eggs in small cages and sows in crates while they are nursing piglets.
"This is going to come back to haunt Iowa agriculture more than they could ever imagine," said Dan Mathews, PETA's senior vice president. "Iowa has singled itself out as the state with the most to be ashamed of and I don't think that is a very strong message to send to consumers."
Branstad said the new law would not affect whistleblowers, employees who see something and report it.
"Agriculture is an important part of our economy and farmers should not be subjected to people doing illegal, inappropriate things and being involved in fraud and deception in order to try to disrupt agricultural operations," Branstad said.
(Writing by David Bailey; Editing by Greg McCune)
The Truth about PETA Hits New York
The first time our exposure of hypocritical pet-killing by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) hit the streets of New York, it looked like this:
Now, the city’s media are joining in the outrage. In response to our revelation that PETA killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats it housed in its Norfolk, Virginia animal shelter, the New York Post editors took the radical animal rights group to task for its hypocrisy. They thought its acronym fit the name “People Eradicating Thousands of Animals.” Needless to say, if PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk had a subscription to the Post, she has probably canceled it.
The Post‘s editors didn’t spare any punches against PETA’s pet massacre, quipping that “people certainly took note when PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk proclaimed ‘a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.’ Except now, the dog is dead.”
The editorial also noted that millions of dollars that pay PETA’s annual budget come from wealthy animal rights foundations. As it turns out, PETA would rather spend most of money on provocative and offensive advertisements and frivolous lawsuits than protecting homeless pets.
With each passing day more and more people are learning the dirty secret once hidden behind the walls of PETA headquarters.
The Center For Consumer Freedom
Now, the city’s media are joining in the outrage. In response to our revelation that PETA killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats it housed in its Norfolk, Virginia animal shelter, the New York Post editors took the radical animal rights group to task for its hypocrisy. They thought its acronym fit the name “People Eradicating Thousands of Animals.” Needless to say, if PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk had a subscription to the Post, she has probably canceled it.
The Post‘s editors didn’t spare any punches against PETA’s pet massacre, quipping that “people certainly took note when PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk proclaimed ‘a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.’ Except now, the dog is dead.”
The editorial also noted that millions of dollars that pay PETA’s annual budget come from wealthy animal rights foundations. As it turns out, PETA would rather spend most of money on provocative and offensive advertisements and frivolous lawsuits than protecting homeless pets.
With each passing day more and more people are learning the dirty secret once hidden behind the walls of PETA headquarters.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
PETA 'killed more than 95 per cent of adoptable dogs and cats in its care last year' shocking new report says
In 2011, government report obtained by nonprofit organization claims 1,911 animals killed
Only 34 adopted in same time span
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states.
The report, released by non-profit consumer group, claims that PETA - which is known for its outspoken stance on animal rights - were responsible for the deaths of nearly 2,000 adoptable animals last year alone.
The records also show that the animal-rights organization has killed
Only 3,159 animals, mostly dogs and cats, were adopted in that time.
Records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture obtained through public records by the Centre for Consumer Freedom show figures that are quite contrary to PETA’s mission.
Records from 2011 alone state that of the 1,992 cats and dogs received, 34 were transferred, and 24 were adopted.
The remaining 1,911 were put down, the report states.
Only 34 adopted in same time span
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals killed more than 95 per cent of animals in its care last year at a Virginia shelter, a shocking new report states.
The report, released by non-profit consumer group, claims that PETA - which is known for its outspoken stance on animal rights - were responsible for the deaths of nearly 2,000 adoptable animals last year alone.
The records also show that the animal-rights organization has killed
Slumdogs: More than 1,900 cats, dogs, and other
animals were put down at the Norfolk, Virginia
PETA shelter last year alone, a report says
Records from the Virginia Department of Agriculture obtained through public records by the Centre for Consumer Freedom show figures that are quite contrary to PETA’s mission.
Records from 2011 alone state that of the 1,992 cats and dogs received, 34 were transferred, and 24 were adopted.
The remaining 1,911 were put down, the report states.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Jury agrees former Lee deputy outed by PETA
Yerk awarded $155,000 in back pay for violation by group of anonymity promise over allegations of police dog abuse.
A former Lee County sheriff’s deputy who filed suit against People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals when the group allegedly broke a confidentiality agreement and cost him his job was awarded $155,000 in back pay last week.A federal eight-member jury decided that an employee with the organization had, in fact, promised former deputy Jason Yerk anonymity if he agreed to corroborate a tip that Cpl. Travis Jelly had abused his police dog. An investigator with the group then released Yerk’s name to deputies looking into the claims.
“This case, for my client, was really never about the money,” said Yerk’s attorney, Jose Font. “This case was about him being vindicated for what had happened to him.”
Font said PETA had assured Yerk multiple times that he would remain anonymous. “They destroyed his career. They destroyed his livelihood.”
In his lawsuit, Yerk alleged he told the PETA worker that “the culture of his employer was to eliminate any employee that took a public adverse action towards a co-employee.” The sheriff’s office declined comment on the allegation.
Yerk, who worked as a police dog deputy with the office for five years and earned a base salary of $42,315, resigned in 2008 after internal affairs investigators determined he lied, telling them he had not spoken with PETA.
He has since declared bankruptcy and been unable to find work in law enforcement.
Phil Hirschkop, one of PETA’s attorneys in the case, said Yerk lost his job not because of PETA’s actions but because he lied to investigators.
“You just don’t lie to internal affairs when you’re under oath,” Hirschkop said. “This guy made his own problems.”
It wasn’t clear, Hirschkop said, whether the group promised him confidentiality and that Yerk had agreed to testify about the alleged abuse, at which point his identity would have been revealed anyway.
He said Yerk called to confirm a tip from the girlfriend of another deputy fired shortly beforehand for lying on an arrest report, telling a PETA employee he witnessed Jelly kick and punch his dog three to six times and suspend the dog by the neck with its leash.
Judge tosses case seeking rights for orcas
The Associated Press
SAN DIEGO — An effort to free whales from SeaWorld by claiming they were enslaved made a splash in the news but flopped in court Wednesday.
A federal judge in San Diego dismissed an unprecedented lawsuit seeking to grant constitutional protection against slavery to a group of orcas that perform at SeaWorld parks, saying the 13th amendment applies only to humans.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller stopped the case from proceeding two days after he became the first judge in U.S. history to listen to arguments in court over the possibility of granting constitutional rights for members of an animal species.
"As `slavery' and `involuntary servitude' are uniquely human activities, as those terms have been historically and contemporaneously applied, there is simply no basis to construe the Thirteenth Amendment as applying to non-humans," Miller wrote in his ruling.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed the lawsuit in October and named five whales as plaintiffs. PETA says the wild-captured orcas are enslaved by SeaWorld because they are held in concrete tanks against their will and forced to perform in shows at its parks in San Diego and Orlando, Fla.
SeaWorld called the lawsuit baseless and a waste of the court's time and money.
"We cannot hope that this is PETA's last publicity stunt but we can now refocus our energy in more positive and constructive ways: delivering high quality education experiences to our guests and providing the highest possible standard of care to our animals," spokesman Dave Koontz wrote in a statement.
Legal experts say it opened an interesting debate about the expansion of animal rights.
PETA attorney Jeffrey Kerr says his organization does not plan to give up the fight to protect the orcas, but he did not specify the next action.
PETA is known for its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns to engage the court of public opinion.
"Today's decision does not change the fact that the orcas who once lived naturally wild and free, are today kept as slaves by SeaWorld," Kerr said in a statement. "PETA will regroup and determine how to continue to work for the legal protection they deserve."
SeaWorld denies any mistreatment of the animals and says its parks have raised awareness that has helped conservation efforts. It also says it has rescued orcas injured in the wild.
CTV News Sci-Tech
A federal judge in San Diego dismissed an unprecedented lawsuit seeking to grant constitutional protection against slavery to a group of orcas that perform at SeaWorld parks, saying the 13th amendment applies only to humans.
U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Miller stopped the case from proceeding two days after he became the first judge in U.S. history to listen to arguments in court over the possibility of granting constitutional rights for members of an animal species.
"As `slavery' and `involuntary servitude' are uniquely human activities, as those terms have been historically and contemporaneously applied, there is simply no basis to construe the Thirteenth Amendment as applying to non-humans," Miller wrote in his ruling.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed the lawsuit in October and named five whales as plaintiffs. PETA says the wild-captured orcas are enslaved by SeaWorld because they are held in concrete tanks against their will and forced to perform in shows at its parks in San Diego and Orlando, Fla.
SeaWorld called the lawsuit baseless and a waste of the court's time and money.
"We cannot hope that this is PETA's last publicity stunt but we can now refocus our energy in more positive and constructive ways: delivering high quality education experiences to our guests and providing the highest possible standard of care to our animals," spokesman Dave Koontz wrote in a statement.
Legal experts say it opened an interesting debate about the expansion of animal rights.
PETA attorney Jeffrey Kerr says his organization does not plan to give up the fight to protect the orcas, but he did not specify the next action.
PETA is known for its provocative anti-fur and pro-vegan campaigns to engage the court of public opinion.
"Today's decision does not change the fact that the orcas who once lived naturally wild and free, are today kept as slaves by SeaWorld," Kerr said in a statement. "PETA will regroup and determine how to continue to work for the legal protection they deserve."
SeaWorld denies any mistreatment of the animals and says its parks have raised awareness that has helped conservation efforts. It also says it has rescued orcas injured in the wild.
Friday, February 3, 2012
PETA to prison officials: Meat-free diet would benefit alleged Connecticut cannibal
By Randall Beach, Register Staff
An animal rights group has a suggestion for how prison officials might calm down a defendant accused of killing a man and eating part of his brain: a meatless diet.
An official with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Thursday wrote to Warden Jose Feliciano Jr. of the New Haven Correctional Center, recommending “you ensure alleged killer and cannibal Tyree Smith swears off flesh forever by providing him with exclusively vegan meals.”
But when the New Haven Register contacted Feliciano for his response, he said, “He’s not here. He’s at Bridgeport (Correctional Center).” The alleged crime occurred in that city, in an abandoned home.
The Register relayed this information to a PETA spokesman, who said the letter would be sent to the Bridgeport facility.
Smith, 35, is charged with hacking a homeless man to death with an ax, taking out his eyeball and a piece of his brain, then eating the brain particle, according to a story moved by the Associated Press.
Smith’s cousin told police Smith had confessed to killing Angel “Tun Tun” Gonzalez, removing his eyeball and brain fragment and eating it. He reportedly added he washed it down with a milkshake.
Smith also allegedly told his cousin that he had developed a lust for blood after eating a rare steak.
Smith is on a suicide watch and psychiatric care at the Bridgeport Correctional Center.
“Studies show that vegetarian meals can reduce violence among offenders -- and if anyone needs a reduction in violence, it’s someone who (allegedly) killed and ate another human being,” said PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “PETA can help New Haven Correctional Center introduce a menu of bean burritos instead of burgers and so save many lives.”
Lindsay Rajt, PETA’s associate director of campaigns, said in the letter: “If Smith did, in fact, kill Angel Gonzalez and eat parts of his body, that would demonstrate a disturbing taste for flesh.” Continued...
“Opting to feed him only vegan foods and denying him meat (flesh) could diminish such a tendency and thus potentially help protect staff and neighboring inmates,” Rajt reasoned.
“In fact, a meat-free meal plan could benefit all your other inmates too,” Rajt added.
According to Rajt, officials at a maximum security prison in Alabama have switched inmates to vegetarian meals and found it helps reduce violence.
Rajt also said every vegan meal served at a prison “would spare helpless animals from their own death penalties” and avoid cruel treatment “not unlike that which Smith allegedly inflicted on Angel Gonzalez.”
The Middletown Press
An animal rights group has a suggestion for how prison officials might calm down a defendant accused of killing a man and eating part of his brain: a meatless diet.
An official with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Thursday wrote to Warden Jose Feliciano Jr. of the New Haven Correctional Center, recommending “you ensure alleged killer and cannibal Tyree Smith swears off flesh forever by providing him with exclusively vegan meals.”
But when the New Haven Register contacted Feliciano for his response, he said, “He’s not here. He’s at Bridgeport (Correctional Center).” The alleged crime occurred in that city, in an abandoned home.
The Register relayed this information to a PETA spokesman, who said the letter would be sent to the Bridgeport facility.
Smith, 35, is charged with hacking a homeless man to death with an ax, taking out his eyeball and a piece of his brain, then eating the brain particle, according to a story moved by the Associated Press.
Smith’s cousin told police Smith had confessed to killing Angel “Tun Tun” Gonzalez, removing his eyeball and brain fragment and eating it. He reportedly added he washed it down with a milkshake.
Smith also allegedly told his cousin that he had developed a lust for blood after eating a rare steak.
Smith is on a suicide watch and psychiatric care at the Bridgeport Correctional Center.
“Studies show that vegetarian meals can reduce violence among offenders -- and if anyone needs a reduction in violence, it’s someone who (allegedly) killed and ate another human being,” said PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “PETA can help New Haven Correctional Center introduce a menu of bean burritos instead of burgers and so save many lives.”
Lindsay Rajt, PETA’s associate director of campaigns, said in the letter: “If Smith did, in fact, kill Angel Gonzalez and eat parts of his body, that would demonstrate a disturbing taste for flesh.” Continued...
“Opting to feed him only vegan foods and denying him meat (flesh) could diminish such a tendency and thus potentially help protect staff and neighboring inmates,” Rajt reasoned.
“In fact, a meat-free meal plan could benefit all your other inmates too,” Rajt added.
According to Rajt, officials at a maximum security prison in Alabama have switched inmates to vegetarian meals and found it helps reduce violence.
Rajt also said every vegan meal served at a prison “would spare helpless animals from their own death penalties” and avoid cruel treatment “not unlike that which Smith allegedly inflicted on Angel Gonzalez.”
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Ringling fights back against animal abuse allegations
Reported by: Jerry Hume
Email: jhume@wtxl.tv
Last Update: 1/27 5:27 pm
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - They're the stars of the circus. And Friday three Asian elephants because the three biggest lobbyists in Tallahassee.
Trainers from the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus showed off their four ton performers to a group of legislative aides, state agency employees and even state Rep. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda.
"I wanted to see how they're taken care of, I wanted to see their relationship between the trainers and the elephants," said Rehwinkel Vasilinda (D-Tallahassee).
The circus has been under heavy fire for years by animal rights groups, including the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, for the circus' treatment of elephants.
Video on PETA's website, claiming to be from the circus, shows poking, prodding and cramp quarters.
"When these animals are not under the bright light in the big top, they are kept in heavy chains, barely able to take a single step and forced to stand for days on hard surfaces," said PETA Celebrity Spokesperson Cloris Leachman.
Ringling denies any animal abuse.
Trainers say the elephants are not just another animal, they're a part of their family.
"The care that we give these animals is of our upmost importance and these animals are treated better in our care than they are in the wildlife," said David Shepp, a governmental consultant for Ringling Brothers.
Ringling says the elephants are trained through reward and repetition. When they retire, they live at a 200 acre conservation center in Central Florida.
So after looking at the circus animals Friday, Rehwinkel Vasilinda is satisfied.
"As far as captivity, I think the elephants here look happy, we had a good time today," she said.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
PETA: Futile efforts and destructive consequences
PETA's messages are inconsistent, disrespectful, and precisely the reason the public is distrustful of their organization -- and mocks the efforts of the committed animal advocate. PETA trivializes animal cruelty with their cartoonish protests and ridiculous stunts. Their unwavering focus on single-issue campaigns confuses people, i.e. fur is bad, but leather is ok? One type of meat is unethical, but another is humane? Credibility is critical to any social movement, and without this trust, any message will fail to connect with anyone who's remotely willing to listen. This is why PETA, after an apparent promising beginning, has become a caricature of the animal advocacy movement. Education to those who do not share their views is entirely absent from their efforts.
Presenting logical arguments that appeal to our emotions and intelligence, educating us in a respectful manner is what motivates change. The animal advocacy movement, inexorably intertwined with the message of veganism, is only as strong as the individuals who make up the effort, and these individuals will collectively force change at the highest levels -- in businesses and legislation. Thus, the only way animal advocacy can succeed is to gain the respect of the individuals of society. One of the greatest challenges for the animal advocate is to communicate the message of veganism impartially, logically, and respectfully -- without this effort, success is impossible. Speak in anger, relying on histrionics, theatrics or with an argument that is obviously biased (or based in absolutes) and you've no possible way to convince the omnivore to consider veganism. There will be an appropriate place and time to debate passionately, but when you are working to communicate a message, it is the facts and an impartial approach that wins minds and enables action.
Activist organizations exist primarily, I would argue, to disseminate a message with the goal of creating change in society. Such a movement must connect with individuals on an emotional level with its message, but it must also associate that emotion with an action -- accomplishing this means that the message must also be logical and it must feel necessary to the individual. Without both sides of this connection, the movement will never succeed in creating a substantial argument for change that the average person will take seriously. For the activist movement, staying on track means a constant critical eye, and avoiding the tunnel vision of their objective. Focusing strictly on the "goal" means losing sight of what the activist group compromises to get there, and forgetting that how they succeed is as important as whether their message succeeds at all.
Accomplishing half of this will gain you the support of those who fundamentally agree with your cause; these individuals need little convincing, but whom will not be enough to make your message a "mainstream" movement. To create change, such a movement must garner the support of those who do not yet understand the need for change -- it is critical that the methods of the activist reach these people, and herein lays the most significant crux. Introducing the concept of change to the average individual is complex, as creating all sorts of reasons why we need not alter our current view of the world (and by extension, denying a proposed transformation to our behavior) is a specialty we all share.
Successful activist movements have a clear, rational and consistent articulated message. It is universally true that when accosted by a message, we cling stubbornly to our beliefs or simply dismiss the messenger as mentally unbalanced. When was the last time you stopped and asked the person with a "The End is Near" sign to back up their message with facts? Similarly, a protest centered entirely on a logical argument requires time and discussion to make your point -- which is why you never see that same doomsayer with a sign that reads,
The End is Near, because despite the numerous benefits that nanotechnology offers humankind, there are consequences that science haven't been fully vetted. Prior to the implementation of nanotechnology in environmental applications, such as waste cleanup (particularly relevant to the recent BP disaster,) proper governmental regulations are necessary as the threat of infinitely reproducing biotech nano-workers would (SEE BACK and/or take a BROCHURE…)It is never ideal to attempt a complex argument, no matter how logical, in a protest setting -- no one would give you the time to make your point and those who do won't be open to a rational discussion. Protest, when the public views you as that person on the street, with an "end is near" sign, is futile. This is where many activist groups breakdown -- unable to understand how to communicate their message in a lucid, consistent and logical manner so that the public is open to education. Alternatively, some activist groups do understand that fact, but lack the demeanor, patience and/or desire to create change -- and thus settle for the spectacle and the illusion of result.
We're skeptical of anything that challenges our beliefs, especially those long-held and deeply ingrained, but provided an effective argument we're willing to consider change when that behavior stands in opposition to our moral beliefs. Personal experiences are anecdotal, but I am an example of someone who chose veganism for those exact reasons -- an argument took hold and proved my actions opposition to my ethical beliefs.
Before I went vegan, animal products made an appearance with every meal, I wore leather, wool -- I was not awash with guilt at this. I readily associated vegans with PETA, and saw veganism as a freakish practice consisting of eating primarily lettuce, and throwing things at people wearing fur. I was the epitome of someone who thought veganism unimaginable because I "just loved meat and/or cheese so much!" It's not that I didn't like animals; everyone "likes" animals (no rational person wants to see an animal suffer,) as long as the animal is a) cute, and/or b) in a movie and a derivative of point a). I never questioned advertising admonishing the very suggestion that an animal anywhere suffered for my choices, such messages just kept me unaware and unthinking. I never questioned the consequences to our planet, bodies or ethics. The human cost of factory farming was not even an issue to consider (and still, one that isn't often discussed in vegan campaigns,) the slaughterhouse employees who have the highest risk of injury, job turnover, and deal with substantial psychological trauma associated with their work.
The cost to animals was a habitual disassociation. Despite the many instances viewing factory farm footage that revealed, if only a moment, the reality of animals place in our society, the effect was fleeting. It's simple to push the thought away in time for my next latte, sandwich, steak or clothing purchase -- rationalizations flooded my mind, it can't be that way at every farm, surely, there are laws that keep that monitor that sort of thing? So much of what the vegan cannot forget, the number of animals killed yearly, their treatment in the food production industry, is not more than meaningless numbers to the non-vegan. We fiercely maintain defense mechanisms, and easily consider the horrific treatment of animals as abstract and remote, until we have an experience that forces personal context. Every single one of us has the necessary facts for epiphany, bouncing around in our minds, just waiting for that context. My context was, to say the least, unexpected. If no one or nothing challenges our logic, we will never consider change.
Those who would fight for social movements do so out of a complex mixture of emotion and logic, aided by timing and human variables -- there is no blueprint to follow that guarantees success. This is the reason why so many find themselves unable, or unwilling, to work for change. It's the reason that many activists, or potential activists, doubt success to the degree that they find half-measures and perpetual compromise so attractive. Unfortunately, when acceptance of inadequate measures are laid on the table, the only side willing to compromise is the side of which is fighting for change -- the opposition has no reason to change, and it places the activist at a place of weakness. This is why we see PETA and similar groups claiming "success" when they've convinced pig slaughterhouses to phase out gestation crates on some far off date, only when it would have become economically unnecessary to continue when cheaper, more profitable alternatives are on the horizon. The only success in such instances is one of public relations, organizations like PETA can send emails claiming a "win," and slaughterhouses can grow its profit by attracting the omnivore who can now feel positive about eating meat -- as far as their concerned, they have the approval of animal rights groups.
Omnivores do not see this as a victory for animals; they see it as a way to eat them without feeling guilty. The PETA'd vegan or omnivore are the only individuals who judge such an event like cage-free eggs as a success for animals. A cage-free egg facility moves the chicken from a small cage to a single large cage. Thousands of birds in a single room, each of whom have their beaks burned off to prevent them from pecking each other to death. Because, that's what you do when trapped in a room with hundreds of others for months, years on end.
PETA argues that by encouraging a reduction in animal suffering in stages -- cage-free eggs, "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" campaigns, more efficient slaughterhouse killings, elimination of gestation crates for pigs and on and on -- the public will eventually stop eating or wearing animals through an apparent paradigm shift in consciousness. Except, PETA never explains how this will happen, nor do they discuss the logical course of events that would lead to such a dramatic change of mindset in the average omnivore. On their website, PETA is strangely vague with what constitutes a "success."
Those in favor of welfarism often see the only alternative to their methods is inflexible veganism, or attempting to coerce omnivores to give up animal products overnight. This is not accurate. Using veganism as the behavior benchmark, the goal for which we should work towards, is not the same as telling the open-minded omnivore that their reduction in eating animals is useless. Choosing logic over fallacies, understanding the issues and working towards phasing out animal products is incredibly simple in 2012. Working towards veganism is a personal timeline, and it won't happen overnight for everyone. As long as the desire to minimize the harm you do is the goal, just start somewhere, and you will get there.
If PETA was truly interested in honest, logical and meaningful protest they would work to educate the public with a consistent message, not a myriad of divisive, nonsensical campaigns. Instead, PETA wastes efforts attempting to "sneak" the message of protection for animals in Dr. Seussian-like single-issue campaigns. As is possible to discern, PETA expects efforts like painting a nearly nude woman in fake blood, lying in a shrink-wrapped "meat tray" to plant a seed of vegan epiphany in the minds of the passing truckers. In such a protest, which is all too common for PETA, the extent of education, of any attempt to communicate are phrases like, "All Meat Comes from a Corpse," printed on their protest signs.
Promoting veganism as the answer to a myriad of complex, serious economical, environmental, human and ethical problems is the best and only successful method possible. No social movement has ever succeeded by using single-issue inconsistent messaging campaigns to work towards a larger goal. These methods have no context for those remotely interested in your message; the crass and intellectually lazy nature of PETAs approach piques nothing but revulsion from the strange use of sexual violence (a bloodied, near-naked woman imitating a piece of meat, really?) Visceral imagery creates disgust, but not association of disgust with eating or wearing animals. You've only succeeded in making your actions disgusting. This is PETAs approach to "targeted" protest, attempting to appeal to our base nature with sexuality, but without any intellectual or logical substance behind their intent. PETA is the Kim Kardashian of social protests.
Stockholder activism is another method of PETAs that has gained attention over the recent few years. Owning stock in companies that are counter to the goals of veganism and animal advocates, PETA states that they invest in these objectionable companies to "change" them from the inside is an illusion of action/result. Their initial attempts, shown on their Shareholder Campaigns page, gives an impressive list of 19 chemical and pharmaceutical companies, including Dow, Monsanto, Merck & Co, and ExxonMobil, of whom PETA and their supporters own stock to negotiate elimination of animals used in research. Each animal testing resolution introduced by PETA failed to accomplish these goals, gaining just enough votes to reintroduce them in the following year…that was 2007. There hasn't been an update since.
Undeterred, PETA tried this tactic with the fast-food restaurant industry. The objective argued is to improve the conditions of animals in factory farms before slaughtering to craft into Big Macs and chocolate shakes. Stock purchases in Burger King, Carl's Jr., Hardee's, McDonald's, and Denny's, claim major concessions from the campaign. As of now, this major effort resulted in a small percentage of eggs purchased from cage-free facilities (i.e. 3%,) and a 15% maximum of slaughtered pigs from gestation crate-free factory farms (i.e. any unknown number under that percentage.) This is a classic move by PETA, and one that confuses the message of veganism -- blaming the industry, deemphasizing education, and making no effort to change how the consumer thinks or eats. In the end, the message is that it is perfectly fine to eat PETA-approved animals from PETA-approved factory farms and fast food restaurants.
If PETA had an interest in real change, putting their investment dollars towards companies like gardein or Daiya (legitimate, healthy alternatives to eating animals) is a productive step towards reducing demand for meat and dairy, and eventually reducing the death of animals in factory farms. The publicity may not be as good, but it’s an actual step towards changing eating habits. Instead, PETA invests in the industry that, by its very business model, depends on PETAs failure as an animal "advocacy" group. PETA won't invest in companies actively providing a viable alternative to animal products because it’s a long-term solution.
However, this particular debate ignores entirely PETA's questionable choice to invest in such companies to begin with. Where is the judgment in purchasing stock, and profiting from the actions of companies like Burger King or Monsanto? It's true that PETA isn't buying shares directly from Monsanto -- publically traded companies work by buying and selling shares from other stockholders. Yet, by purchasing Burger King or McDonald's stock, PETA plays a role in keeping their stock value up, and the CEOs (those individuals directing the company's actions,) stay in bonuses, profit, and have no incentive to change the way that they do business. PETA can argue their case for improved conditions to other shareholders, but they are the same individuals for whom PETA doesn't "waste" time trying to educate on the issues, or present a rational, sane message.
Here is the true irony, even if PETA managed to convince a majority of shareholders of a company like Monsanto to vote along their shareholder resolution, Monsanto is under no obligation to implement the resolution. Shareholder resolutions are simply suggestions for the company -- they are not binding and will have no affect on Monsanto's or Burger King's business methods or profitability. Despite what PETA would have you believe, shareholder resolutions hold little financial or legal powers, and often disregarded by companies. In 2004, the Harvard Law Review considered this very topic, in The Case for Increasing Shareholder Power. PETA, of course, is all too aware of this fact, but you won't find that inconvenient truth of shareholder resolutions on their campaign successes page. In return for placations of which have little effect on the corporation or improvement to the lives of animals, Carl's Jr. or Burger King gets the blessing of PETA and all of the free publicity they could desire -- courtesy of the world's largest animal-rights organization. PETA molds this into a press release for their members, updating them on all of the good their annual donations accomplish.
PETA, by their own hand, is in a position where they cannot make a consistent message of veganism or campaigns of education on the issues. They profit too readily by placing the blame on the factory farm and/or fast food restaurant. After decades of publicity seeking, PETA stumbled onto the formula that provides them the perfect equation for the delusion of effectiveness, used frequently to justify their shock campaigns. Promoting veganism as the only objective that truly minimizes harm to animals would alienate much of PETA's membership and celebrity support, as it would require that PETA actually ask that they work towards meaningful way behavioral change.
This would prove problematic, as PETA would no longer be the group of endless cheap absolution to those who want to feel good about eating animals, wearing them, or otherwise contributing to their suffering and death. Such accountability would mean that animal activism would no longer be a fun, trendy way to spend an afternoon; they would no longer be a meaningless exhibitionist thrill machine, they would not be the tool for vapid celebrities to mock animal advocacy by making it their next Kabbalah bracelet. They would make the idea that the individual is responsible for their choices and actions -- the awful factory farm machine exists because we keep it alive. In short, PETA would become a serious, intentional, clear-headed advocacy organization.
It's much simpler to create endless campaigns targeting single aspects of harm to animals. Without a willingness to educate or rationally discuss the importance or veganism, such individual campaigns, like their shareholder activism, have no meaningful impact. This approach ignores entirely the critical need to connect with the individual -- if we do not understand the reasons for change (as well as exactly what we need to do to create change,) the only result is applauding nonsense like cage-free eggs, and no comprehension of the argument against eating them at all.
The problem? We easily talk ourselves out of change (also known as the "humane meat" reflexive justification -- the greatest stroke of genius marketing since cigarettes were good for you) when an argument only appeals to our emotions. Humane meat is incredibly attractive, and why wouldn’t it be? It offers those who are looking for any reason at all to avoid change -- and they have justification to continue eating animals, guilt free.
Today's demand for meat, eggs and dairy is gargantuan, and it forces production to such an extreme that it has tremendously hideous consequences. It is impossible for the USDA to monitor the billions of pounds of beef, chicken, pork, gallons of milk, and eggs consumed yearly. The CDC estimates 1,300 die yearly from food-transmitted pathogens like Salmonella, Toxoplasma gondii (toxoplasmosis,) and Listeria monocytogenes. Another 1,600 die from unspecified pathogens. That's about 3,000 every year. The demand for meat is so massive the USDA is considering privatizing inspections—starting with chicken in 2012. To put this into perspective, phobia of "chemicals" in skin care and cosmetics has spread like wildfire over the internet and media, with people everywhere convinced that death perpetually stalks them via their moisturizer and lipstick. Despite this nonsense, not a single person anywhere has died, or suffered harm from normal use of their skin care and makeup (no, drinking your sunscreen doesn’t count.) This is an excellent example of our ability to rationalize any behavior we don't want to change -- the furor over scary-sounding chemicals, despite no harm to a anyone, anywhere, compared to the thousands who die yearly from eating tainted animal products.
PETA prospers on the appearance of action, our willingness to fool ourselves, and the illusion of "successes" that make no progress towards improving the life of animals. Rather than speaking honestly and respectfully to the omnivore, they instead choose to dedicate themselves to protests that exist purely for the sake of perpetuating notoriety. PETA is aware that such effort -- protesting outside a KFC, Lettuce Ladies handing out veggie dogs, "cooking mama: Mama Kills Animals" video game, will never change a single mind on the issue of animal advocacy. The tools used to convey the message are so inflammatory they succeed only in ridicule, or fascinatingly bizarre, neither of which helps any animals. As a vegan, I understand the analogizing of the near overwhelming horror of a world that we've created for animals. However, as a former omnivore, I understand PETAs methods won't connect to those who haven't come to this seismic shift in consciousness. The omnivore will only see the crass vehicle for PETA message, and regard it with suspicion and disgust.
I get it. For the animal advocate, the overwhelming nature of the fight is exhausting. It makes one sad to see such vitriol and lack of respect for endless hours of work advocating for animals. PETA let this exhaustion, frustration and sorrow build-up like moss on our efforts -- muddling the message with endless compromises, confusing the public, and stealing the respect hard work for animals deserves. Squandering the greatest opportunity in decades for communicating the benefits of veganism to our planet, health and ethics, by supporting welfarism we've wasted time by perpetuating myths of humane meat, and holding the word veganism in disdain. This is what PETA has done with its early potential, thirty-some years later -- traded their veracity in exchange for headlines so many times like excessively printed money; its value has dropped to a near worthless state.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Mitt Romney Admits Family Dog Rode on the Roof of His Car for 12-Hour Trip
by Ryan Karpusiewicz
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney might have his hands full with PETA and other animl lovers after events involving his family dog from over 20 years ago resurfaced.
Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney might have his hands full with PETA and other animl lovers after events involving his family dog from over 20 years ago resurfaced. Apparently, Romney took his family dog, an Irish Setter named Seamus, on a 12-hour car trip in 1983. . .tied to the roof of his car.
More is that Romney actually admitted to act in an interview on Fox News, and tried to explain that Seamus enjoyed riding on the roof. He asserted that, with a car full of five children, the dog was probably more comfortable up top th n he would have been if he was in the car.
What Romney obviously didn't know is that, as the interviewer points out, putting a dog on the roof of a car (in a kennel or otherwise) is considered cruel and inhumane in the state of Massachusetts. Whoops...
Romney's actions obviously weren't the smartest. Most animal lovers, as the interviewer notes, would just as soon put their animal on the roof of a car as they would their own children.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
PETA Seeks Signs From State to Honor Cows Killed on the Highway
By: Eugene Daniel
PEORIA- PETA wants the state to honor cows killed on the road.
The animal rights group is asking IDOT to install highway signs in memory of cattle killed in two separate vehicle accidents. One of them happened just northwest of Peoria in October.
It happened just east of exit 24 on I-74, near Cambridge.
A truck carrying cattle flipped over and resulted in the death of six cows. The driver admitted to falling asleep at the wheel.
Now, PETA hopes to get a sign made through the Fatal Accident Memorial Sign Program--a state program that memorializes people killed by negligent drivers.
The program is for surviving family members, but PETA requests the state make an exception. PETA says the proposed signs would also let drivers know of their responsibility for the safety of animals on the road.
"Cows are sensitive and intelligent animal and they feel pain just like we do. They feel fear. They develop bonds and relationship with each other. And because there are no surviving relatives for cows who are in the meat industry, we really are the only ones left to memorialize them," said Ashley Byrne, manager of campaigns with PETA.
"I think PETA using the cow is really disrespectful to those who were lost," said Peoria resident Tracey Greenwood.
The group also wants the state to put up a sign near the sight of a similar accident in Chicago.
C.Proud.com
PEORIA- PETA wants the state to honor cows killed on the road.
The animal rights group is asking IDOT to install highway signs in memory of cattle killed in two separate vehicle accidents. One of them happened just northwest of Peoria in October.
It happened just east of exit 24 on I-74, near Cambridge.
A truck carrying cattle flipped over and resulted in the death of six cows. The driver admitted to falling asleep at the wheel.
Now, PETA hopes to get a sign made through the Fatal Accident Memorial Sign Program--a state program that memorializes people killed by negligent drivers.
The program is for surviving family members, but PETA requests the state make an exception. PETA says the proposed signs would also let drivers know of their responsibility for the safety of animals on the road.
"Cows are sensitive and intelligent animal and they feel pain just like we do. They feel fear. They develop bonds and relationship with each other. And because there are no surviving relatives for cows who are in the meat industry, we really are the only ones left to memorialize them," said Ashley Byrne, manager of campaigns with PETA.
"I think PETA using the cow is really disrespectful to those who were lost," said Peoria resident Tracey Greenwood.
The group also wants the state to put up a sign near the sight of a similar accident in Chicago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)