PETA are said to want to ban guide dogs for the blind, and they have seized the opportunity to push for a ban on all horse-drawn carriages in Vienna, after a drunken driver caused an accident.
I wonder, do PETA members squash flies, let ants and spiders invade their houses, and let ticks, fleas and leeches suck as much blood out of them as they please? Are their beds full of bed bugs and their hair full of headlice (who are simply doing what they have to in order to survive). Do they let fleas and ticks suck the blood out of their pet dogs, and do they let worms infest their insides?
Do PETA members have any understanding of the complex web of life? Are some living things considered more equal than others (i.e. domestic pets more equal than parasites)? How do PETA members decide what is worthy of pedestal treatment, and what is not? If they grow their own tucker, do they squash the bugs and slugs eating their lettuce, or do they pat them on the head and say ‘no worries mate, eat all you like, and go forth and multiply to the point in which you exterminate all lettuce plants from the face of the earth. If you eat all my tucker, I’ll just go and eat my (synthetic) carpet’? They’ve got a rabbit as their motto. Do they not know that rabbits bred up in rural Australia to the point in which vast tracts of land were denuded of all plant life, causing massive erosion and the starvation of all native animals- except those that ate the rabbits?
How do PETA devotees reconcile the cruelty of all living things towards one another – from a mob of chooks pecking a newcomer to death to brumby stallions kicking colts out of the mob. As anyone on the land knows, there’s nothing crueller than nature. Surely it is up to the human race to ensure that every living thing is cared for and treated with respect (this means removing feral animals and addressing any detrimental population imbalances) – so that the web of life is kept in balance as much as possible? That we scratch the back of domesticated animals and they scratch ours – it’s a mutual benefit association?
Surely PETA’s massive financial resources could be much more effectively used in helping to raise the living conditions in third-world countries, thus raising education standards, and the treatment of animals in such places, where animal welfare isn’t a consideration because getting a daily meal is such a challenge?