[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Unfortunately, in all too many instances, it is true.

For example, no one doubts the idealism of PETA. But their actions, far from putting their altruism, on display, seem instead to advertise their ignorance. Examples abound: one in particular stands out to me because it occurred not far from where I used to live. In July 2017 near Eden Valley, MN, activists snuck into a mink-farming facility and opened the cages of the animals, allowing between 30,000 and 40,000 animals to escape. Unfortunately farm-raised mink are not equipped for life in the wild; approximately half the animals that absconded died of the July heat within a day or two of being released. The rest that were rounded up were put haphazardly into pens, where their social structure meant that they pretty much killed one another.

Also their ill-thought-out public shenanigans end up being more laughable than instructive. Pouring blood on furs is just one: in Canada PETA as an organization was threatened with being classified as a "terrorist group" because of their ill-thought-out actions against those who they saw as people detrimental to animal welfare.

And let's not forget their duplicity when it comes to animal rescue. In an article appearing in The Atlantic, titled "PETA's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad History of Killing Animals", (James McWilliams, March 12, 2012), contains the following quote which contains data that is NOT very supportive of their supposed altruism: "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority (PDF) of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them.

These figures don't reflect well on an organization dedicated to the cause of animal rights. Even acknowledging that PETA sterilized over 10,500 dogs and cats and returned them to their owners, it doesn't change the fact that its adoption rate in 2011 was 2.5 percent for dogs and 0.4 for cats. Even acknowleding that PETA never turns an animal away -- "the sick, the scarred and broken, the elderly, the aggressive and unsocialized..." -- doesn't change the fact that Virginia animal shelters as a whole had a much lower kill rate of 44 percent. And even acknowledging that PETA is often the first to rescue pets when heat waves and hurricanes hit, that doesn't change the fact that, at one of its shelters, it kills 84 percent of supposedly "unadoptable" animals within 24 hours of their arrival."

PETA certainly doesn't stand alone among environmentalist groups in their misguided idealism. There are uncounted instances of idealistic but misguided environmentalists doing more harm than good--far too many to list here. But one article concerning not so much the activities but the mindset behind them deserves mention. The article, "Misguided Misanthropy: Why the “Humans are the Virus” Mindset is Damaging to the Environmental Movement" appearing in the bard dot edu, May 31, 2020, is frightening in its analysis. The title and first sentence, "We’ve all seen the tweets lately: “Humans are the real virus!” “The earth is healing in our absence” and so on. Their message is clear: humans are a plague on the earth..." really says it all. The kicker is that the article is actually PRO environmentalism, but scathing in its criticism of some environmentalist tactics.

In all too many instances, idealism and knowledge are at odds. And it seems the greater the idealism, the less the idealists seem to know about the subject in question.

Obviously releasing 40,000 minks is illegal (and did not EVEN BENEFIT the minks). It sounds to me that PETA has some over-zealous people that give them a bad name. Since they do succeed in getting some stray animals adopted, I would have to do an intensive study to determine whether the good outweighs the bad. Almost ANY situation can be thought of like that. Take for example US FOOTBALL. i was on a MIDGET (yes they call them that then) FOOTBALL team for players 13 years old and younger. One player was underweight for a lineman, yet he was so over-zealous that he hit the opposition so hard that he would literally "knock himself out" 3 or 4 times per game. He did not even play in high School. His brother was bigger and ended up in the PROS. I don't know how long either brother lived. But, I believe that the life span of Pro football players is less than 60 years. I have not looked it up to be accurate. But, the point is, "Is football good or bad for an individual player and society? Football for the average high school player has BOTH positives and negatives.
......I would guess that the same can be said for PETA......both negatives and positives.