Animal Rights, PETA Wrongs

Jennifer Gruettner
November 4th, 2011

On October 26th, 2011 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) announced that they will sue Sea World Inc. for violating the thirteenth amendment rights of five captive orca whales. The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery. PETA is claiming the five whales as plaintiffs in the case, stating that they are “by definition, slaves,” according to PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. Considering that the US constitution explicitly applies to persons, it is unlikely that this lawsuit will be given any significant time in court. However, this blatant and offensive plea for attention has made headlines. It is unfortunate, because publicity stunts such as this distract from the underlying animal welfare issue, completely discredits the organization, and by association, anyone genuinely interested in animal welfare is given a bad name.
PETA is the largest and best known animal rights organization in America, if not the world. They do not promote animal welfare; they promote the total abolition of use of animals by humans in all its forms. This position is as unrealistic as it is impractical. PETA routinely misuses their resources for publicity stunts to promote their agenda instead of working to achieve real change in the welfare of captive, domestic or wild animals.
It would be wise of an organization as large and well-known as PETA to utilize their resources to attempt to enact legislation that protects animals. In the Sea World lawsuit, PETA is claiming that the whales were captured in the wild and that the park is failing to meet the mental and physical needs of these highly intelligent animals. Whether or not these concerns are valid, PETA would be more likely to make a real difference by lobbying to enact legislation that bans the capture of marine mammals for display or monetary gain. If such legislation already exists, they could find the loopholes that they dislike and work with legislators to see them closed. Approaching legal actions like this would demonstrate that the organization is serious about humane treatment of animals, instead of appearing to push an agenda. If the organization approached the legal system in a realistic way, they would be more likely to gain support from captive wildlife handlers, wildlife managers, ranchers, farmers and others who routinely use and care about animals.
Numerous laws and regulations exist to protect animals in captivity and punishments exist for those who do not comply. Some laws may not be perfect, and there may be some debate about whether or not needs of certain animals, such as orcas, can be met in captivity. However, PETA distracts from the goal of protecting animals from abuse, and instead invites stereotypes of people concerned about animals. It is not fair that phrases such as ‘animal welfare’ should be synonymous with “PETA”, when the organization has developed such a bad reputation. It is possible to care about animals and take legal action on their behalf without elevating them to the same status as human beings.