It has become popular lately to dismiss PETA as a group of radical extremists who are best ignored, or better yet, ridiculed. With 450,000 members, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is the nation's largest animal rights organization. Acco rding to PETA, it is unethical for humans to exploit animals for profit or relaxation. Groups like the NRA and PPF (Putting People First) oppose this concept, maintaining that animals are there for people to use. Since animals act by instinct, it follows that they can't think, and therefore have no rights. However, the right to hunt is vociferously defended - after all, it is man's basic instinct. Despite much opposition, PETA remains committed to the belief that all living creatures have rights, and dese rve equal respect.
Are PETA activists really unbalanced fanatics? Using peaceful demonstrations and advertisements, these dangerous agitators publicize acts of indefensible cruelty - like the miserable imprisonment and butchering of foxes for their fur; or the research at R ockefeller University in New York, where one scientist was placing cats in restraint devices and lopping off the tops of their skulls. Suggest using instead convicted murderers and child molesters for these experiments, and you will be told that the idea is unthinkable; people are clearly more deserving than animals, and only humans need rights.
PETA is now tackling the "sleeping giant" of sport fishing. With an estimated 60 million anglers in the United States, this is quite an undertaking. Doomed to failure? Maybe not entirely; PETA did succeed in influencing public opinion toward fur farming, resulting in a drop of 25 percent in U.S. fur sales between 1989 and 1992. Wearing fur is now considered by many to be unacceptable. Why? Because we were invited to stop and think about the cruelty behind the coat - and many of us did.
"Fishing isn't cruel," enthusiasts protest. "What's the problem?" Look at it this way: While one participant in the sport gets a soothing afternoon in the country, the other swallows a sharp hook and is forcibly dragged out of its environment, thrashing i n terror. Sport just isn't the adjective that springs to mind. Consider how you'd feel if a house guest sat restfully beside your fish tank at home, flicking the fish out one by one to flop gasping on the rug. Your fish would be seriously traumatized. But it's okay, he has a reason:
"You know," he confides, "I find this so relaxing after a long, hard week at the office."
Fishermen, hunters and others frequently assert that animals have no souls, and therefore no rights. You need only look into your dog's eyes to know this for a fallacy. But how much is a dog's life really worth? Imagine that a gunman points a weapon at th is same dog. He gives you a choice: either he kills your dog, or he shoots a grouchy, 82-year-old woman in another state, whom you have never met. Okay, it's a hypothetical situation, the actualization of which you don't acknowledge, as William F. Buckley Jr. once said. But how would one choose? I wonder.
Many people reject as inadmissible the "extremist" view that animals' lives could be as important as humans', and that we have no right to exploit them. "Extremist" is the epithet commonly applied to people who have the courage to challenge an entrenched, but fundamentally unjust, paradigm. It's easy to see why the mention of PETA provokes so much defensive reaction.
The concept of exploitation isn't new. Slavery raised many of the same questions as the animal rights issue, and provoked similar justifications. So did the idea of rights for women. Blacks, women and animals have all experienced being forced into subordi nation and labeled inferior. The prosperity and well-being of "naturally superior" others depended on them. Thanks to the radical actions of extremists, the rights of blacks and women are now recognized and protected under the law. Animals are still waiti ng.
PETA can be reached at (757) 622-7382.
Kaye Patchett is a creative writing senior. Her column appears every other week.