PETA as 'last resort'
In his letter “PETA & its tactics II” , Will Coggin of the Center for Consumer Freedom failed to mention that he is paid by a front group for enterprises that profit from intensively confining and slaughtering billions of animals every year. The group is run by notorious lobbyist Richard Berman, who has fought legislation to curb drunk driving and claims it is a myth that obesity lowers life expectancy.
The group's self-professed strategy is to attack the messenger. It sees the impact PETA has in changing buying habits and educating consumers about cruelty to animals. That's why Mr. Coggin and his colleagues carefully mischaracterize euthanasia PETA carries out to help animals whose appalling condition can be seen at PETASaves.com.
PETA is proud to be a “shelter of a last resort” and to provide a merciful release to abused and broken beings, especially when guardians cannot afford veterinary services. We welcome aggressive dogs who have been chained 24/7 and suffer heart failure from advanced heartworm disease; feral cats ravaged by contagious, fatal diseases; and other suffering and unadoptable animals. We transfer adoption candidates to other open-admission shelters — those that, unlike “no-kill” shelters, never turn animals away — for a chance at finding loving homes.
Unlike Coggin's group, PETA believes all animals deserve respect. Sometimes, that means respecting their need to leave behind a world of suffering.
The writer is senior vice president in the Cruelty Investigations Department of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (peta.org).
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.