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.
6 comments:
PETA’s approach to animal welfare and the stunts the organization uses to bring attention to their concerns are so outlandish! When they try to blur the line between human and animal rights, it’s obvious that they have taken their mission too far. I hope that the majority of people who are thinking about making a contribution to this group do an internet search first. I have faith that most people will not give this group more resources to waste once they have seen some of the incredibly crazy tactics they use to try and establish unrealistic animal welfare goals.
Nice job, Jen, and a really intelligent analysis. I always enjoy your point of view.
Some to the things that PETA does amazes me. I agree with you in the fact that they are being foolish with their resources. An organization with that kind of resources and power could be using them more effectively to get their points across. I don’t agree with many PETA view points but I’m not saying they don’t have a reason to complain in certain cases. In this instance I definitely think they are out of line and are wasting time and money.
Some to the things that PETA does amazes me. I agree with you in the fact that they are being foolish with their resources. An organization with that kind of resources and power could be using them more effectively to get their points across. I don’t agree with many PETA view points but I’m not saying they don’t have a reason to complain in certain cases. In this instance I definitely think they are out of line and are wasting time and money.
I, personally, care deeply about the welfare of animals, but I accept the reality of their use. I agree with some of the things that PETA stands for, (i.e.--humane treatment of animals in agricultural, lab and other settings.) but they seem to be less about protecting animals and more about pushing some outlandish agenda! The worst part of this lawsuit is that it completely distracts from the main issue at hand--the supposed suffering of the whales. If those whales are, in fact, suffering as a result of captivity, PETA is not doing them any favors!
Excellent article Jen. I agree with you completely. The fact that Sea World has animals for entertainment is something I could understand the animals rights -ists having a problem with. Organizations have some fierce competition these days. With technology, the media, and different whole-istic pushes and movements. I'm all for figuring out new strategies of capturing the minds of new potential supporters but THIS IS TOO FAR!! Whenever this game is played, one must play by the rules and go through the red tape. I believe honor and respect COULD HAVE been gained but, I think some serious damage has been done for PETA.
Post a Comment