More windmill tilting from PETA 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   meanandgreen Posted 8:31 am
   17 Nov 2004

   Why on earth are you spending your timemaking fun of the animal rights' movement?  Don't you have anything better to do, like protecting the environment?  Or would you prefer to alienate people like me, who are both  environmentalists and animal rights' supporters?  Frankly, for posts like this, I can head over to Free Republic.  I expected a lot better from Grist!

   Permalink

2. 

   birdboy Posted 11:12 am
   17 Nov 2004

   this gives us a bad nameWhile the folks at PETA proclaim to be animal rights activists, they have a much larger agenda- look into it. I don't think they are helping our cause with stories like this. It seems to me that they are making it harder for us to get attention on really important and critical issues, like disappearing habitat. Whether you eat fish or not, the real problem is that the healthy waters and fragile ecosystem they need are being polluted and destroyed by irresponsible commercial fishing techniques. If you say the fish has feelings and is suffering terribly when we kill and eat it, you loose the attention of most people, and then they lump those of us who worry about the fish's habitat in with them. If we need to 'frame' our cause more carefully, I say we leave out the bit about the little fish trying to find his mommy after she's been hooked by the big bad fisherman. NOT HELPING.
   
   a liberal in redsville

   Permalink

3. 

   Chris Schults Posted 3:38 am
   18 Nov 2004

   Let's focus on the environment peopleDear meanandgreen:
   As the Grist audience has differing beliefs, values and behaviors, so does the Grist staff. While some's diet consists of eating other animals (gasp!), others follow a vegetarian or vegan diet, such as myself.
   I'm not sure why Dave decided to make this post. Perhaps this is his attempt to change the perception that "not every environmentalist is an anti-hunting, anti- medical research vegan" as discussed here. But I would encourage Dave and others to convey this differently, rather than possibly alienating Gristians such as you. Shouldn't Grist be a uniter not a divider???
   I think Dave should take a cue from Umbra and limit the scope of discussions to environmental issues. The PETA campaign in question, to me, seems to be based on more ethical concerns. I believe a more appropriate conversation (for Grist) would be about the ecological impacts of eating fish.
   And in the spirit of framing (again, I direct you to this post), I encourage animal right advocates to concentrate on relevancy when speaking to environmentalists. People decide to change their diet and lifestyle for a variety of reasons, such as human health, ethics and the health of the planet. To be effective, it is important to consider what message will resonate the most with the listener/viewer/reader.
   Lastly, meanandgreen, I would like to point you to the disclaimer at the bottom of the page, which says:
   The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist Magazine, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?
   Dave may work for Grist, as well as manage the Gristmill, but his comments don't speak for all of us.
   Chris Schults, Web Production Coordinator for Grist Magazine
   
   To sign up for Grist by email, visit:
   
   <http://www.grist.org/signup/>

   Permalink

4. 

   meanandgreen Posted 8:43 am
   18 Nov 2004

   Thanks Chris...from the bottom of my (vegetarian) heart, I truly appreciate your thoughtful post and completely concur that Grist should be a "uniter not a divider."  One thing I'm sure we can all agree on is that we've got more than enough of the "divider" stuff with that non-environmentalist, non-PETA-supporter currently occupying the White House! :)

   Permalink

5. 

   Shalini Ramanathan Posted 7:07 pm
   18 Nov 2004

   More windmill tilting from PETAGotta stick up for Dave here...I'm a lifelong vegetarian, and even I don't think we must speak of PETA only in hushed tones of reverence and awe. I think there is a legitimate debate here about whether the enviro movement should be aligning with hunters/fisherfolk who are conservationists but not necessarily liberals, or with animal rights activists. Considering the spanking we got in the election, there's a case to be made that a focus on fish feelings (while delightfully alliterative) is not really the best way to make progress in Red America.
   These boards are going to be really dull if we have to walk on eggshells, not step on toes, and adhere to other cliches in order to protect the feelings of the thin-skinned.

   Permalink

6. 

   spinandshift Posted 5:14 am
   19 Nov 2004

   The PETA mission is worthyPETA's mission is a worthy one.  They don't animals misused, abused, and extict.  
   When releasing a report though, I think PETA should think more about how other people view the topics that PETA cares so much about.
   I don't think talking about a fish's feelings will convince too many fence-sitters (or congressional members) that the story has merit.  Talking about the fish's feelings may get PETA's point across, but, in terms of preaching to those NOT in the choir (the fence-sitters), talking about feelings just aint working.
   Greenpeace, for example, uses "in-your-face" tactics to get their point across, but if you look at their reports, they are different from PETAs.  They have a more down-to-earth quality about them that speaks more to Joe Citizen.

   Permalink

7. 

   meanandgreen Posted 7:14 am
   19 Nov 2004

   I agree...the anti-fishing campaign is not the best way for PETA to go.  They should concentrate on true atrocities towards animals that will really turn people's stomachs, like the inhumane way veal calves are raised, the horrible conditions in slaughterhouses, or the disgusting experiments performed on monkeys.  That's the way to win over public support for their cause, not focusing on fishing.
   Having said that, I presume that we in the environmental community can all agree that our oceans are being stripmined, and that current fishing technologies and massive levels of (unsustainable) consumption are the main culprits.   In general, the answer to this problem -- and many other environmental problems -- is for the 6 billion people on Earth to "eat lower" on the food chain.  In other words, vegetarianism/significantly reduced meat consumption BOTH reduces animal suffering AND helps the environment at the same time.  Animal rights folks and environentalists should be natural allies, not enemies!

   Permalink