Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Latest PETA plan fails in a blaze orange disaster.

By onyxruby in News
Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 10:07:16 PM EST
Tags: News (all tags)
News

PETA has once again had a spectacular failure. This time they were trying to protect the deer in Ohio from being shot during the hunting season. Their plan was to take advantage of Ohio law requiring Ohio hunters to wear at least 400 square inches of bright orange on their body to help prevent hunting accidents.

Update [2002-1-9 23:18:25 by Driph]: While entertaining, the report is in fact a hoax.


PETA bought several hundred bright orange hunting safety vests and attached them to a total of 405 live trapped deer last week. The net result of this has been that the owner of a hunting store in the area offered awards to any hunter who shot a deer in an orange vest for only a $5 entry fee.

To blockquote the Bowsite article:

As of Tuesday, 308 of the vests had already been recorded as bagged with most of the hunters registering for Mr. Lockey's drawing.

It's so easy, you can see them coming a mile away" said one first year hunter after checking in his first spike buck.

The failure rate (that of preventing these deer from getting shot) for this is an astonishingly high 76% within one week. Regardless, this still leaves the issue of PETA once again playing fast and loose with yet another publicity stunt that places peoples and animals lives in jeopardy. Luckily no hunters wearing their bright orange vests have been shot, and no deer have been found with their vests tangled in brush - yet.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
PETA -
o An irresponsible ecoterrorist group 32%
o Looking out for animals 3%
o Misguided 15%
o Right in what they do 2%
o A group with good intentions and bad implementation 20%
o Members need to take a class or six in logic 26%

Votes: 140
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o failure
o hoax
o Also by onyxruby


Display: Sort:
Latest PETA plan fails in a blaze orange disaster. | 57 comments (57 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
idiots. (3.00 / 9) (#1)
by rebelcool on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 06:55:14 PM EST

PETA is just full of idiots these days. They've long since ruined what credibility they have.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

May not be from PETA... (4.00 / 1) (#2)
by chipuni on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 07:18:55 PM EST

I don't doubt that the people who did this were PETA supporters, but I cannot find any reference to this prank in Peta's news releases , their fact sheets , or their wildlife success stories . Can anyone get collaborative evidence for this?
--
Perfection is not reached when nothing more can be added, but only when nothing more can be taken away.
Wisdom for short attention spans.
don't count on it (3.33 / 3) (#7)
by jacob on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 07:41:40 PM EST

Just a small note: Not all animal liberation supporters are enamored of PETA.



--
"it's not rocket science" right right insofar as rocket science is boring

--Iced_Up

[ Parent ]
They're already announced it as a hoax (5.00 / 2) (#44)
by broken77 on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 03:03:31 PM EST

Here.

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

Maybe? (4.50 / 2) (#47)
by onyxruby on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 05:30:58 PM EST

I have seen this claim that it is a hoax and have emailed Bowtimes (source material for the story) for more information about this.

Now keep in mind that Peta doesn't like to publicize when their stunts fail. Unless they were to keep an absolute perfect record of all of their stunts (including their spectacular failures), than the absence of a particular record is not indicative of anything. I found an excellent source of ecoterrorism records here at US Conservation.org

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
[ Parent ]

Deer kill people too. (4.33 / 9) (#3)
by theboz on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 07:20:00 PM EST

It seems PETA are idiots. Unless things have changed in the past few years, states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have an overabundance of deer. The deer population had gotten so out of hand that the incidents of people running into them on the roads were skyrocketing a few years ago. Since the deer only have one natural predator in those areas (humans), PETA should piss off and let people hunt them. The hunters have limits on the amount of animals they shoot, and the state evaluates this limit, and tries to go after the few people that criminally break the law and take more deer than they are allowed.

I will admit that it is the humans' fault that there are no natural predators to the deer left, but it's too late right now to fix that. So, let the hunters hunt, stop letting the deer injure people by running in front of moving vehicles.

Stuff.

Hunting Deer (4.70 / 10) (#8)
by dasunt on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 07:57:27 PM EST

Quick question:
The DNR's (Department of Natural Resources) main goal in promoting hunting is:

  1. Reduction of deer herds to safe levels.
  2. Promoting a larger-then-natural herd with a high ratio of does to bucks to allow the deer population to rapidly rebound after each hunting season in order to ensure further funding via deer tag fees, and state moneys to promote hunting as a means of economic stimulus.

I live in the northern half of Minnesota, about 90 miles from the Canadian border, and from what I've seen, #1 doesn't seem to be the right answer.



[ Parent ]
worse . . . (4.00 / 5) (#12)
by regeya on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 08:26:53 PM EST

I live in Illinois, and during mating season, it's not safe to go outdoors at times. Bucks get extremely agressive, and have been known to gore people, hunters and animal-rights activists alike.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

overpopulation (2.66 / 3) (#29)
by needless on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 03:19:34 AM EST

Aside from those reasons, the primary reason for hunting is that any animal with little or no natural predators will begin to have a massive population growth that usually ends in rampant disease, sometimes completely wiping out the population in an area. Hunting insures that the population remains stable.

[ Parent ]
Animal Rights morons (2.50 / 2) (#40)
by JonesBoy on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 12:17:22 PM EST

Not all animal rights supporters are fools, but man there sure is an overabundance of them. Here in NJ (an in NY) some idiots started FEEDING the danm things in their back yards. With the added food supply, the numbers continue growing. That is not the bad part, though. Feeding deer brought the animals out of the forests and into residential districts, and ultimately, into the streets. Collisions with cars went way up, and so did property damage.

About 2 years ago, it was really a problem driving in some upstate NY communities. In the town where my friend hit one, the cop said they were seeing 2 a night in that small, relatively untraveled town.

One guy I remember the best. He had about 30 deer (too hard to count accurately) in his yard at a time, and lived about 300 yards from a major highway (Corner of Rt 3 & 56, upstate NY). Don't do 55 on that stretch at night!

Speeding never killed anyone. Stopping did.
[ Parent ]
That guy is insane (4.00 / 1) (#56)
by 0xA on Thu Jan 10, 2002 at 01:59:38 PM EST

One guy I remember the best. He had about 30 deer (too hard to count accurately) in his yard at a time, and lived about 300 yards from a major highway

Wow somebody should explain to that guy just how dangerous an angry deer is. A buck during mating season or a mother with a fawn that feels threatened can cause serious damage. People are seriously injured and sometimes killed.

I live in Calgary, Alberta. About an hour drive to Banff National Park in the Rocky Mountains. You wouldn't belive how stupid people are, I've seen people try and feed elk, bears, mountain goats, just about anything

[ Parent ]

My only experience with PETA... (3.70 / 10) (#4)
by Tatarigami on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 07:27:57 PM EST

...was when they waged a campaign of vandalism against butcheries and corner-store supermarkets in my town a few years back. Windows smashed, fires lit, graffiti scrawled.

Even though PETA denied any official role in organising the guerilla protest, they were widely criticised for their involvement. They made a statement to the press that said something along the lines of "No, it's okay -- because we're only targeting animal abusers."

Sometimes I wonder if these people have ever orbited close enough to lucidity to give it a friendly wave...

heh... (3.00 / 2) (#15)
by rebelcool on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 10:36:30 PM EST

that just seems to draw up pictures of osama bin laden in my mind "I had nothing to do with it, but congratulations to those who did!"

(yes, i know peta doesnt really compare to him, but politics does make strange bedfellows in certain instances...)

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site
[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (2.66 / 12) (#5)
by wji on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 07:36:09 PM EST

It really says something about the f!cked-uppedness of this group that they oppose the brutal slaughter of cattle by sending faux beef jerky to US sailors on an aircraft carrier brutally slaughtering people in Afghanistan.

But hey, if corporations can cynically cash in on a wave of patrioism, why shouldn't illogical political activists, right?

In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.

My answer to PETA. (3.90 / 11) (#6)
by Apuleius on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 07:38:31 PM EST

I'm a vegetarian, partly because the meat industry makes me squamish. But every time PETA does something inane, I turn carnivore for one meal. In honor of this stupidity, I had an elk burger for lunch today. In my Copious Free TIme, I really should organize a site collecting pledges from other vegetarians to do the same.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
Damn... I don't know who to root for... (1.70 / 10) (#9)
by SvnLyrBrto on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 07:58:21 PM EST

I can't decide which side is more loathesome...

The anti-free-speech fascists* of P(ethical)TA,

or the gun freaks who have their sick desire to take high powered weapons into the wilderness and annihilate wildlife?

How 'bout we take BOTH sides and put then in a massive Mad Max style thuderdome and let them wipe each other out. The P(ethical)TA people can be happy to see something other than animals being killed, and the hunters can satisfy their urge to kill anything that moves. Just to be sure, at the end, drop in frag grenades to take out any survivors from EITHER side.



(* peta.oeg used to be owned by a parody site called "people eating tasty animals". P(ethical)TA decided that they were above parody, commentary, or critique, and used their superior legal budget to sue and silence P(eating)TA.)


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...

tasty animals (3.00 / 2) (#11)
by enterfornone on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 08:24:53 PM EST

The tasty animals site still exists, and PeTA have never tried to silence it. But as the trademark holder of PeTA they have the right to the peta.org domain. That's the rules, and PeTA didn't make the rules.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Ever heard of fair use? (4.00 / 1) (#31)
by SvnLyrBrto on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 04:33:13 AM EST

Last time *I* checked, parody was still considered to be fair use. Hell, if I recall correctly, parody is *specificly* mentioned as *NOT* being copyright OR trademark infringement in a number of IP laws...

... unless of course you're the little guy and a big orginization with millions of dollars to spend on its lawyers decides they are NOT to be made fun of.

Nice to see, though, that people got a mirrors of P(eating)TA.org up before it went down. Looks like the P(ehtical) people got to discover the futility of playing internet whack-a-mole long before the MPAA tried to suppress DeCSS.


cya,
john

Imagine all the people...
[ Parent ]

I'm fairly sure (none / 0) (#49)
by enterfornone on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 07:01:45 PM EST

fair use only applies to copyrights, not trademarks.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
well, there's irony there... (4.00 / 2) (#38)
by chopper on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 11:11:49 AM EST

the funny thing is, PETA has a long history of hijacking domain names and stealing other's trademarks for satire.

that's why the PeTA case was so funny (and hypocritical).

give a man a fish,he'll eat for a day

give a man religion and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish
[ Parent ]

I don't know (4.00 / 2) (#10)
by uweber on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 08:18:12 PM EST

Really almost all I've seen from PETA was nice looking nude girls posing on adverts against wearing fur and I really liked those.
(ok, ok thats a ratherunmature post but it's 2 a.m. here and I will turn ow my computer in a minute and I haven't done anithing stuoid today)

Ummmm.... (2.75 / 4) (#13)
by DesiredUsername on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 09:14:43 PM EST

Am I the only that notices a safety issue here? Now hunters are going to slightly (or greatly?) more likely to shoot at an orange vest, hoping it is a deer. I'd like to know of Ohio has a law regarding safety equipment used as a "false alarm" and whether PITA (sic) is going to be prosecuted.

Play 囲碁
Hmmm... (4.50 / 2) (#17)
by enterfornone on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 11:38:04 PM EST

I would be more likely to prosecute those encouraging people to shoot at orange vests, since it seems that in this state an orange vest means "don't shoot".

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
You've got it backwards... (2.00 / 2) (#20)
by Lionfire on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 01:15:17 AM EST

We should be encouraging even more people to shoot at the orange vests -- that way we'll fix the recreational hunter problem and save the deer :)

In fact, we should probably also get the PETA guys to wear the vests too. So many problems solved, and all we need are a few vests! :)



[ blog | cute ]
[ Parent ]
What, like this? (3.00 / 1) (#33)
by FredBloggs on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 06:41:12 AM EST

http://espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/2001/1212/1294865.html

Doh!! Thats gotta hurt! *giggle*

[ Parent ]
er... (4.50 / 2) (#28)
by needless on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 03:14:24 AM EST

That would assume that in the converse, hunters are just as likely to shoot at an unidentified deer-colored thing rather than verifying that it is actually a deer.

If someone hunts like that, odds are that they are dangerous regardless of the circumstances.

[ Parent ]
I disagree with both posts. (none / 0) (#54)
by theboz on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 10:11:54 PM EST

The orange vests direct the attention to where the deer is, but at that point they don't know it's a deer if it's far away. If it is far away, most hunters either have a scope on their rifle, or carry binoculars, so they can see clearly not only that it is a deer, but the sex of the deer and if it's male, the size of the antlers.

So unless the PETA people start running around in the woods in deer costumes, I doubt this could lead to any further deaths due to hunting accidents.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

In PeTA's defense... (3.85 / 7) (#14)
by enterfornone on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 09:29:45 PM EST

You need to keep in mind that PeTA is made up of people that sincerly beleive that animals have the same rights as humans. If you kill a deer, in the mind of a PeTA supporter, it is morally equivelent to killing a human.

Those who don't agree would label PeTA as extremists, but if we had a situation where it was OK to hunt Jews (for example) it would be morally wrong not to do everything in your power to prevent this.

An interesting book that discusses, among other things, whether or not animals do have the same right to life as humans is Practical Ethics by Peter Singer (he also has a book soley devoted to Animal Liberation, which I've never read).

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.

That's not the way I see it. (3.25 / 4) (#16)
by theboz on Tue Jan 08, 2002 at 10:48:38 PM EST

Those who don't agree would label PeTA as extremists, but if we had a situation where it was OK to hunt Jews (for example) it would be morally wrong not to do everything in your power to prevent this.

If it were allowed and encouraged for the Jews to kill one another, then didn't allow Samaritans to kill Jews is closer to the case. It really don't fit that well.

I don't think they have an argument of why humans should never kill animals. Either you go the religious route, in which the bible said that god told Adam to dominate the animals as he sees fit, or you go the naturalist route, which includes man in the animal kingdom and so we should be able to kill each other just like all the other animals do. I do understand the need for conservation, but PETA seems to be of the opinion that man should have no part in nature whatsoever.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

We're not all reading from the same book... (3.66 / 3) (#24)
by epcraig on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 02:31:43 AM EST

You forget in your religious argument that there exist, even in the United States of America, minority opinions who either don't read the Bible, or ignore or reinterpret whatever passages they see fit.
There is no EugeneFreeNet.org, there is an efn.org
[ Parent ]
The majority do.. (2.33 / 3) (#26)
by theboz on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 02:56:23 AM EST

The majority of religions in the U.S. draw their creation myths from the same legends. Christians, Jews, and Muslims all share the same creation myth. I realize that excludes other popular religions such as Buddhism, Paganism, and Hindu, but I don't know enough to talk about them.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Creation... (4.66 / 3) (#30)
by enterfornone on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 03:57:54 AM EST

From Jesusveg - a PeTA site:

Did God give humans dominion over animals?

Historically, the Scriptures have been used to justify slavery, child abuse, spousal abuse, and polygamy, so we must be careful not to misuse them to justify animal cruelty.

According to the book of Genesis, God created animals, including human beings, on the sixth day. In Genesis 1:28, God says: "Have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." Immediately after, in Genesis 1:29, God states: "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food." Whatever the word that is translated as "dominion" means, it does not mean that we have a right to eat animals. In fact, most theologians recognize that this word is more accurately translated as "stewardship" and that the meaning of this text is that humans are supposed to be stewards and guardians, protecting and respecting the beings with whom we share the gift of creation.

Theologian Rev. Andrew Linzey states, "We need a concept of ourselves in the universe not as the master species but as the servant species--as the one given responsibility for the whole and the good of the whole. We must move from the idea that animals were given to us and made for us to the idea that we were made for creation, to serve it and ensure its continuance. This actually is little more than the theology of Genesis Chapter Two. The garden is made beautiful and abounds with life: Humans are created specifically to take care of it."

Genesis 9, the text often cited as justification for eating animals, is recognized by most theologians as either a very temporary post-flood concession (all vegetation had been destroyed) or as a concession to human sinfulness (Genesis 9 is also used to justify slavery). St. Jerome wrote: "As to the argument that in God's second blessing (Gen 9:3), permission was given to eat flesh--a permission not given in the first blessing (Gen 1:29)--let him know that just as permission to put away a wife was, according to the words of the Savior, not given from the beginning, but was granted to the human race by Moses because of the hardness of our hearts (Mt 19), so also in like manner the eating of flesh was unknown until the Flood ..."

No matter how one views God's original intent, the complete disdain afforded animals who are turned into food is absolutely heretical. The fact is that human beings are playing God with animals, genetically breeding them to grow so quickly that their hearts, lungs, and limbs can often not keep up. God's creatures have their bodies mutilated without painkillers, their natural desires totally thwarted, and their every need and desire entirely ignored. At the end of their miserable lives, they are trucked through all weather extremes, without food or water, to a violent, bloody, totally ignoble death. Humans are playing God with animals, and ethical people should have no part in it.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

Cain and Abel (4.66 / 3) (#36)
by PenguinWrangler on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 08:55:11 AM EST

Ok, So if you believe all this bible bollocks, how about the story of Cain and Abel.

Cain brings God some fruit and veg.
Abel brings God some juicy freshly slaughtered Lamb. Mmm, delicious!

Which did God prefer? THE MEAT!

God looked down on Abel with favour, but didn't like Cain's offering one bit, which is why Cain got pissed off and killed Abel.

The moral of the story?
God prefers carnivores. QED.

So don't give me that malarkey about "Dominion" meaning "Oh, we should look after the animals and not eat them."

It's all bollocks!

"Information wants to be paid"
[ Parent ]
ah, but there's a difference. (3.50 / 2) (#39)
by chopper on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 11:21:34 AM EST

Abel did not offer the lamb as food, it was a sacrifice; Cain's sacrifice was pretty weak. i mean, come on, FRUIT? if you ask me, its a damn good thing Cain knifed his ass, cause i don't think anyone who offers frickin' fruit as a sacrifice to GOD is gonna make it very far in life.

anyway, so the sacrifice was supposed to be this big thing, like something really really important to them. so Abel offered up something really huge; he actually killed an animal, something you just didn't do then. Cain's 'sacrifice' was a bowl of piss compared to that.

and BTW, the lamb wasn't really juicy and delicious, since IIRC it was a burnt offering, so it was probably all black and dry and jerky. of course, this is coming from someone who thinks that the charry end bit of the roast is the best part, so YMMV.

give a man a fish,he'll eat for a day

give a man religion and he'll starve to death while praying for a fish
[ Parent ]

It wasn't a Fruit/Meat thing (4.00 / 2) (#41)
by jethro on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 01:59:25 PM EST

Cain brought God the crappiest of his crop. Abel brought the best of his flock. God was mad because Cain was thinking God doesn't deserve the best as sacrifice.

There is actually a Jewish holiday where the tradition was to bring the best of your first harvest to the temple as an offering.

Noe that I'm not really religious, but they forced that stuff on us at school.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
[ Parent ]
That's dumb. (4.50 / 2) (#37)
by jacob on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 09:41:35 AM EST

I don't think they have an argument of why humans should never kill animals. Either you go the religious route, in which the bible said that god told Adam to dominate the animals as he sees fit, or you go the naturalist route, which includes man in the animal kingdom and so we should be able to kill each other just like all the other animals do. I do understand the need for conservation, but PETA seems to be of the opinion that man should have no part in nature whatsoever.

There is (at least) another route: the moral-philosophy-based route, in which you might conclude that since there is no essential characteristic that makes human suffering more ethically significant than animal suffering, it is just as morally wrong to hurt an animal as a human.

That viewpoint is in fact incompatible with your "naturalist" route, an extremely dubious moral philosophy that seems to rest on the assumption that everything natural is good: while such a position is kind of catchy, I think it's unjustifiable when subjected to serious scrutiny.



--
"it's not rocket science" right right insofar as rocket science is boring

--Iced_Up

[ Parent ]
Not the same rights, but a little far (4.33 / 3) (#18)
by bobpence on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 12:15:08 AM EST

A review of peta's FAQ indicates that they do not believe animals have all the rights humans have, and acknowledges that rights are always limited and may conflict. But suggesting that animals do not have the right to vote is not the same as acknowledging that human rights outweigh animals rights; and they continue to use the disturbing analogy of animals and developmentally-challenged human children.

In only one place is the analogy to slavery made, but like the other places I expected to see it, there are better arguments without resorting to drawing such comparisons.

I believe that the majority of people want to avoid cruel practices, but esteem human rights above animal rights to the extent that they would sacrifice thousands of white rats, dogs, or chimps to save human cancer victims. We are closer to a balance there they we were 20 or 30 years ago, when more unnecessary and more painful experiments were done then are today. With consciencious peer, government, and public review as appropriate, this balance will improve further.

Veal isn't my cup of meat, and I think that there are better choices than fur coats. However, I grew up near an agricultural college and I've seen what life is like for cows and chickens. Apart from making the slaughtering process as quick and unexpected as possible, the way they have it is not so bad.

Bob
"Interesting. No wait, the other thing: tedious." - Bender
[ Parent ]
Not quite... (4.33 / 3) (#19)
by enterfornone on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 12:38:27 AM EST

A review of peta's FAQ indicates that they do not believe animals have all the rights humans have, and acknowledges that rights are always limited and may conflict.
PeTA beleive that animals don't have the right to vote because the right to vote is meaningless to animals.

What you and me and the majority of people support is called Animal Welfare. Animal Welfare is very different to Animal Rights and PeTA make it clear in their FAQs that it is the latter that they support, not the former.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]

Not exactly... (4.50 / 2) (#43)
by broken77 on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 02:58:39 PM EST

I grew up near an agricultural college and I've seen what life is like for cows and chickens. Apart from making the slaughtering process as quick and unexpected as possible, the way they have it is not so bad.
As you said, you grew up near an agricultural college. What you saw there and what happens in the livestock and poultry industries are completely different. It shouldn't be too difficult to find some sites that have common complaints about these sorts of things. Here's one. This sort of thing is what sparked the whole "free range" movement (free range chickens, pigs, cows, etc.). Note that most of the meat industry does not use free range practices, as it costs a lot more money and lowers profit margins. Also note, I'm a meat-eater myself. I buy free range whenever I can, and wish that more places offered it. For example, who knows where the meat came from that you're buying when you go out to eat!

I'm starting to doubt all this happy propaganda about Islam being a religion of peace. Heck, it's just as bad as Christianity. -- Dphitz
[ Parent ]

Re: In PeTA's defense... (3.50 / 2) (#25)
by khym on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 02:49:37 AM EST

I think that, at least in this instance, people aren't criticizing PETA's ethical beliefs, but rather the fact that they thought that hunters would be unable to tell the difference between hunters wearing orange and deers wearing orange.

--
Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
[ Parent ]
so misguided (2.66 / 3) (#21)
by Dphitz on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 01:31:06 AM EST

Who's running the show at PETA? These guys have a cause that they could potentially rally a huge number of people around yet they always manage to look like the world's biggest fools. This is right up there with their protest of DreamWorks SKG for the logo of the boy on the moon fishing because "fishing is cruel to fish". How do they hope to gain support when they choose the silliest battles to fight and the silliest ways to fight them. While I don't support sport hunting or inhumane treatment of animals I could never associate myself with this group of morons. They really need to pick the battles that more people will find legitimate. Just to spite them I think I'll start my own PETA; People Eating Tasty Animals.


God, please save me . . . from your followers

Stereotypes still run rampant. (4.27 / 11) (#22)
by Nikkos on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 01:39:51 AM EST

Somehow the idea of a hunter has become that of a beer-guzzeling, rancid-smelling, unintelligent, unshaven, overfed gun nut.

Such is not the case.

I'm a hunter. I shot a deer this year, and I've enjoyed eating venison this winter. I eat what I shoot. I do not drink while hunting, and neither does anyone who hunts with me. The people who hunt with me come from a range of backgrounds such as teachers, businessmen, and members of the Armed Forces. We hunt to share each other's company, to get food for the winter, to relax from school/work. and because it's a link to our ancestors. My father, his father, and so on have hunted. It's part of our culture.

I am also a computer geek. I've consulted on both Apple and PC systems. I have used Linux as my only OS for 3 years now. I also listen to techno, read books, and do other "intelligent" things that "normal" people do. You can't tell me from a crowd of people, only my ideas are different, as yours are from other people.

To be honest, I think alot of people have lived a too-sheltered life. Many people in large cities are too used to having food on storeshelves, ample money, and the ability to pay others so that they may have heat in the winter, and cold air in the summer. I'm sorry to tell you guys, but it's not that way everywhere, not even in the US. As much as people don't want to admit it, we humans are animals. We're omnivores, and we evolved that way.

Wether or not it's "fair" isn't the point either. Nature isn't fair, as many animals have evolved ways and means of gaining an advantage in order to kill others to survive. Humans evolved a brain.

Hunters have done more to conserve the enviroment through license fees, Ducks Unlimited, and other conservation groups than has any other group. Hunters don't do it simply so they have more things to shoot, instead they do it because they are closer to the enviroment and respect nature more than anyone you'll find in a metropolis whining about animal rights.

As always however, there will be bad people ruining good things. Anyone who resembles the stereotype described above is despised by those of us who resent it.

A Better Approach (1.00 / 4) (#23)
by strepsil on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 02:23:58 AM EST



WTF? (3.00 / 1) (#34)
by strepsil on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 07:49:58 AM EST

What the hell happened there? I previewed the bloody thing three times. I remember the typos I fixed.

You're not missing much - just a stupid joke about how maybe it'd be better if PETA people dressed as deer and wandered into the forest.

Grr. Sorry.

[ Parent ]
I Call Hoax! (Or at least rural legend) (4.92 / 14) (#27)
by NihilismUberAlles on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 02:58:45 AM EST

Ok, I saw this story yesterday, and having friends who are into Animal Rights was going to point it out to them. However before I did that I felt I should use a source that wasn't froming some hunting site. At the top of the story it says "Assoc. Press (Columbus, OH)" so I assumed being an AP story that is at least mildly amusing some newspaper would have picked this up. My internet searches for "PETA" & "orange" & "Ohio" & "deer" (searches for PETA and "Katie Reese"(the spokesperson) were also done, along with several other keyword combinations)should turn up at least one legit new source, right? Well no, this site, and other pro-hunting sites plus a bunch of message board sites.

Besides the fact that their is no other legit sites that are running this story consider the facts the article presents. PETA trapped 405 deer. Do you guys know how difficult it would be to trap 405 deer. Besides the shear number of man-hours and effort that would require. In my experience growing in rural areas wild deer that get themselves caught in a trap, hooked on a fence, or otherwise confined tend to struggle, leading to a good chance of breaking a leg bone(which for a wild deer basically means death). So trapping done by Animal Rights people seems rather out of the question. Point two is what kind of vests do you attach to deer. Are normal blaze orange hunting jackets sized to fit the deer, are the PETA members gifted at sewing also(sewing 405 of the suckers). So I believe that just from a logical standpoint the article doesn't hold water.

Conclusion, barring somebody pointing out a major news source publishing this information I don't believe we can accept these extraordinary claims. Thus we should consider this a hoax until there is a better link.

Hoax (4.80 / 10) (#32)
by DarkZero on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 05:21:14 AM EST

How unfortunate. This is a hoax. Look at any site that carries unedited, untainted Associated Press articles, such as Yahoo!, and you'll find nothing even vaguely resembling this article, no matter what keywords you try to search. Sad, really, because it was a pretty interesting story of PETA vs. The Hunters.

Why doesn't PETA understand? (1.66 / 3) (#35)
by ArGh on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 08:25:00 AM EST

Nature knows better. I can't stress that enough. If nature didn't know how to manage it's own domain, then we wouldn't even be here.

It is human nature to consume plants and animals. We've been doing it for 2.5 million years. We're not about to stop.

Man has been using animals for lots of things: to keep from starving, to stay warm, work, etc. If you are against animal testing, then take a stand and offer to take their place.

BTW, don't respond to this by saying "we need to be more responsible about how we use the earth and blah blah blah". I'm saying that we consume. We're the top being, so we can have what we want/need. (My, that's a homo-centric statement, isn't it?) It's not cruel. It's nature's way.
EOT

why don't you understand PETA? (3.00 / 3) (#45)
by tngkicksbum on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 03:05:32 PM EST

Nature knows better. I can't stress that enough. If nature didn't know how to manage it's own domain, then we wouldn't even be here. Humans are an anomaly in the natural world. We have caused drastic changes in the world in an ecologically small period of time. We have caused the extinction of countless species and have signifcantly altered the balance of chemical substances in the world. Thus, it is far from certain what the ultimate effect of human existence will be on the world. Even if your theory that everything will work itself out is true, who is to say that nature didn't give humans the ability to think analytically so that they could regulate their behavior in an environmentally responsible way? It is human nature to consume plants and animals. We've been doing it for 2.5 million years. We're not about to stop. I'm not exactly sure how to understand this. If you're simplify stating facts and predictions, then this is merely a pessimistic viewpoint. If , on the other hand, you are saying that the past action justifies current and future action, I completely disagree. Irresponsible past actions do not justify irresponsible future actions. Man has been using animals for lots of things: to keep from starving, to stay warm, work, etc. If you are against animal testing, then take a stand and offer to take their place. This statement indicates a poor understanding of PETA's position. The fact that certain uses of animals have positive results (such as generation of food) does not justify these uses. PETA stresses alternatives to animal mistreatment that have the same positives without the negatives. Vegetable sources of food, for example, can provide people with all the nutrients they need. Similarly, PETA wants to find ways of curing diseases with minimal unnecessary usage of animals. BTW, don't respond to this by saying "we need to be more responsible about how we use the earth and blah blah blah". I'm saying that we consume. We're the top being, so we can have what we want/need. (My, that's a homo-centric statement, isn't it?) It's not cruel. It's nature's way. Effectively, you're saying it's ok that we consume because we consume. This argument is circular. See my post about "bad arguments".

[ Parent ]
bad arguments (3.00 / 3) (#42)
by tngkicksbum on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 02:34:19 PM EST

The following is in response to several posts, so I'm starting a new thread. 1) People often use the following argument to justify their treatment of animals: Humans are the de facto rulers of the planet, so their treatment of organisms with less power is morally justified. This argument is invalid. Few people would say that the actions of a dictator are morally justified by his or her position as dictator. 2) Using a religious text to hide from an ethical issue is invalid. People seem to think that "God said it was OK" conclusively closes an issue from ethical scrutiny. Quit deferring to a deity, and think for yourself.

I don't use either of those arguments... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by defeated on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 06:25:51 PM EST

People often use the following argument to justify their treatment of animals: Humans are the de facto rulers of the planet, so their treatment of organisms with less power is morally justified. This argument is invalid. Few people would say that the actions of a dictator are morally justified by his or her position as dictator.

I don't believe that humans are the de facto rulers of the planet, but we are most certainly one of the most highly evolved, and our evolution owes its success to the ability to create and use artificial tools. One of these artificial tools could be considered the domesticated animal.

Using a religious text to hide from an ethical issue is invalid. People seem to think that "God said it was OK" conclusively closes an issue from ethical scrutiny. Quit deferring to a deity, and think for yourself.

I offer no such apologies for my use of animals. I have five dogs, four cats, and three horses. The number one role of all of the above is to serve as pets. My bigger dogs also serve as a visual deterrent to bad guys, the horses go on trail rides and used to work cattle, the cats are expected to keep the rodent population down in their spare time, if they feel like it. With the possible exception of the felines, if you "liberated" any of my animals, they would die, probably horribly. They have been selectively bred for centuries to serve humans.

I offer no apologies for eating meat. A few years ago, there was an article in Discovery magazine about vegetarians who were suffering from dementia in their later years due to a lack of a B vitamin (I believe) in their diets. This indicates to me that human beings need animal products as part of their diets.

I offer no apologies for supporting hunters. It is undeniable that in many areas the predator/prey ratio is out of whack in favor of the prey (and I admit, this IS due for the most part to humans, including ranching/hunting lobbies). Human hunters take the place of the mountain lion or wolf, for some part. Again, I admit, human hunters don't do a very good job of fufilling their role in "natural selection", but there you have it.

I'm no fan of whaling or shark finning or trophy hunting, but as an animal lover I prefer to rally against animal abuse, and not for "animal rights."

[ Parent ]

Could it be a hoax? An analysis. (4.00 / 2) (#46)
by Signal 11 on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 04:08:31 PM EST

Firstly, many people have suggested trapping over 400 deer would be extraordinarily difficult. My personal experience is that this is not the case. I lived in a rural area for most of my life, and am familiar with the habits of deer, as well as the difficulty in trapping deer and many other animals. I am not a hunter, however, but most of my family has a hunting background. I've spent a fair amount of time in tree-stands and duck blinds as well - I don't mind being with hunters, I just have an issue with my own use of deadly weapons. Usually I assist by scaring the deer up and driving them in some direction. I have done animal trapping before, mostly small animals.

Firstly, it is not difficult to capture deer. Deer learn what time of year hunting season is and their behaviors are markedly different during this time. Depending on the time period and numbers of people involved, as well as the expertise of those people, it could be very difficult, or relatively easy. Several years ago Wisconsin had a huge surplus of deer, to the point that it was threatening the local ecosystem and causing problems for farmers (the deer were suffering food shortages, which were causing them to move into areas they normally did not). The DNR began trapping the deer and relocating them to other areas. This occurred over the entire summer. By the fall, they still had several thousand "extra" deer, and therefore were very generous in their licensing to hunters. I believe something like 5 deer was the limit that year, but I'm not too familiar with it, I just recall having a lot of blaze orange in the fields that year.

Assuming the PETA members involved (which may or may not have been acting under the direction of PETA-at-large) knew how to track deer, they would simply need to follow the deer trails to their bedding area and either shoot them with tranquilizer darts or use a cage with food and a trap door (and come back later to tranquilize them). Assuming that, say, 40 people were involved, I think the 400 deer figure could be realized within a month with diligent effort.

So this is possible. Practical? I'm not so certain. It would have been easier for PETA to sabotage hunting efforts by having their members in the fields watching for hunters, and then firing shots or making noise to keep the deer away from them. They would do well to emulate the tactics of hunters by going deer spotting, organizing, and putting their members out in those areas during hunting time to disrupt the movement patterns of the deer, IMO. Harassment in local towns of the hunters as well as publicity about the fact that most deer don't die immediately when shot (most hunters don't hit the head, okay?), press releases, stories, etc., would do more to turn public opinion than this stunt, for which it is plainly obvious that people's lives are in jeopardy, as well as the damned deer. If you absolutely have to do something with the vests, why not put some kind of deer repellant on the fabric and resell them? At least that has a chance of success.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.

All I have to say is (none / 0) (#51)
by flikx on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 09:05:30 PM EST

snopes

sheesh


--
One future, two choices. Oppose them or let them destroy us.
[ Parent ]
Factual error! (none / 0) (#50)
by Inoshiro on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 07:57:19 PM EST

From the article: "Hunters who can successfully bag a vested deer can pay $5 for random and biggest animal awards" NOT "the owner of the hunting store where PETA bought the vests has offered a $5 reward for each vest.. "

Basically, if you bag a deer, 5$ gets you into any drawing you want (I can fix this story for you, if you want..)



--
[ イノシロ ]
Corrected (none / 0) (#52)
by onyxruby on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 09:20:23 PM EST

I stand corrected, can you fix this?

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.
[ Parent ]

Done. (none / 0) (#55)
by Inoshiro on Thu Jan 10, 2002 at 06:09:46 AM EST

I reworded parts of it (not that it matters; the datestamp on the linked story is something like a year out of date anyways, and it's a hoax;)).



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Hoax Confirmed (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by onyxruby on Wed Jan 09, 2002 at 09:47:17 PM EST

I have received confirmation from the source site that this story was a hoax posted by a visitor to Bowsite. After hearing that this may be a hoax I emailed the source cite seeking additional information that would confirm the story. Here is my reply:

The story is a hoax.

It was posted by one of our visitors and not by Bowsite.com. It was disabled from our menus but not deleted from our database. We have issued a press release on it which can be found at your link below.

Our apologies for the inconvenience. Bowsite.com

I add my own apologies to all.

The moon is covered with the results of astronomical odds.

Plants have been shown to experience pain. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by la princesa on Thu Jan 10, 2002 at 06:51:18 PM EST

Now when this is mentioned to vegans/vegetarians, the response is often, 'well, we can't understand their response, but we can sure make out an animal's screaming, so it's fine to kill plants to survive.' Nevermind that a century or so ago, it was argued that one couldn't understand animal responses to pain and therefore it was ok to kill them for food since their responses couldn't be compared to human pain responses.

I don't think it's stupid to be vegetarian or vegan. However, it's not ethically superior at heart. Murdering plants overall is just as bad as murdering animals in an absolute sense. So either one can be gracious about the murdering and do what's possible to make it pain-free (clean kills for animals, harvesting on the point of ripeness/oldness for plant life) or one can go the fruitarian route and only consume fallen-off-the-tree/vine plant life. At least, that to me is the sensible pair of ethical approaches, as opposed to insisting that killing is ok if one can't sympathise with the creature in question. By many standards most animals aren't sentient, and neither are plants, but in both cases one has entities capable of experiencing pain. Vegetarians (at least of the PETA-liking sort) seem to think that they are morally superior to cruel old meat eaters when except for plants, it is quite difficult to exist at all without killing to survive.

I eat flesh of plants and animals, figuring that since my body is designed to consume both, I might as well make the best use of my body's design. And if someone wishes to only eat plant flesh for personal reasons unrelated to ethical superiority, that's cool. However, the category of vegetarians/vegans who are into things like PETA walk in convinced their choice is better when in the end, killing is still killing, regardless of whether it's a lifeform whose pain one can heard or one whose pain one cannot.

Latest PETA plan fails in a blaze orange disaster. | 57 comments (57 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!