The problem with PETA

PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk rather famously once said, “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy”, but she was absolutely wrong.

The truth is that a rat is vermin, and a pig could be dinner.

A dog might be a boy’s best friend, but they are obviously different species, rather easy to tell apart.

Don’t get me wrong…I love my dogs, very much. They are my furry babies.

Truthfully, I wouldn’t even think twice about risking my own life by running into traffic to save one of them from an oncoming car.

In fact, there’s precedent for my saying so. Not long ago I foolishly ran onto a major highway near my house and nearly got myself killed, trying to save someone else’s dog that had escaped from under their fence.

The story had a happy ending that day. They don’t always end that way. We both were lucky, the dog and me. I was acting purely on altruistic instinct, a natural reaction that a guy like Jerry Coyne might mistake for goodness.

Nevertheless, if the choice is between saving either a dog or a child, the human life comes first in my mind. That’s also an instinctive decision, a no-brainer.

In my world, God gave mankind dominion over all other animals. That means we have a tremendous responsibility to act as good stewards. In the world I prefer, it’s okay to kill a cow or chicken–as long as you eat it.

It’s even okay to make clothing from the animal’s hide, so nothing is wasted. While doing so, we should most certainly give thanks to its Creator for the sacrifice of the animal for food and clothing, for the life we used to help sustain ours.

However, in the Orwellian world of PETA, all animals are equal…and some are more equal than others. The acronym PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—a curious choice of a name for this particular organization, to be sure. Apparently, the goal is to convince us that the name represents the organization’s philosophy on the whole.

Where is the ethics or morality in suggesting the life of a child and the life of a rat have the same value? Yet in the bizarre world of PETA, humans do not have dominion over the animal kingdom.

Every form of life is considered equal.

Don’t believe me? When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie killed a spider and when President Barack Obama swatted a fly, PETA swiftly produced press releases that offered criticism and condemnation in both cases.

Spider bites have been known to kill a human being. Flies spread germs, carrying all sorts of diseases. And in stark contrast to PETA’s expressed concerns about the health and welfare of spiders and flies, their continued silence about the gruesome barbarism of Kermit Gosnell as details emerge from his murder trial has been deafening.

Obviously, PETA has a serious problem keeping their priorities in order.

The organization has apparently adopted the very strange “ethics” of Peter Singer, author of the uber liberal book misnamed Animal Liberation.

The more appropriate title might have been “Animal Anarchy.”

To be clear, animal rescue and animal care-giving have nothing in common with animal liberation.

In his book, Singer first appeals to animal lovers by offering them a horrible scenario designed to gain their sympathy. He describes how beagle puppies are used as guinea pigs for scientific testing.

Who wants to think about cute little puppies being killed in the name of science?

Then after appealing to our sense of compassion, Singer reveals that he would extend those same “rights” to every animal on the planet. It soon becomes painfully obvious that Singer doesn’t really care about animals or particularly like them; he’s much more interested his radical political agenda to reduce mankind to a herd of mere animals than providing compassionate care to animals in need.

It turns out that he’s equally opposed to the “lab rat” as the experimental beagle puppy.

In Singer’s world, humans and earth worms have equal value. There is no hierarchy.

After dedicating a number of years of my life to animal rescue, I don’t hesitate to criticize the pretenders in our ranks.

If you don’t believe that I’ve walked-the-walk, then please read my collection of short stories about dog fostering called Always a Next One, available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and in a variety of formats at Smashwords.

Now I’m not claiming to be an animal welfare advocate the caliber of Nathan Winograd, but I do greatly admire his work. His dedication to the cause of creating a nation of no-kill animal shelters is nothing short of awe-inspiring.

Frankly, PETA could learn a lot from Mr. Winograd.

In truth, if you surrender an animal to a PETA shelter, there’s better than 95 percent chance that the animal will be euthanized. In 2011, their adoption rate for dogs was an abysmal 2.5 percent and a horrific 0.4 percent adoption rate for cats. That means 97.5 percent of the dogs and 99.6 percent of cats accepted by PETA to be “helped” were put to sleep.

The number of animals too sick or badly injured to be helped that were euthanized by our local “no-kill” shelter where my wife and I volunteered that same year was about the same as PETA’s adoption rate.

Trust me, animals were only euthanized when there was no hope of improvement in their condition. Even the local “high-kill” shelter in our community only euthanized about half their intakes that year.

Why is PETA, an organization allegedly dedicated to the well being of animals, killing so many?

I think I know the answer. PETA is more interested in fundraising and self-promotion than animal welfare. Moving billboards timed to run with the Kentucky Derby cost a lot of money.

So does saving lives of worthwhile creatures, but it’s well worth the expense. It’s a pity that concept seems foreign to PETA.

How can an organization with the word “ethical” in their name know so little about the difference between right and wrong?