Animal rights activists believe their end aim justifies their means

It frustrates me that animal rights activists continue to be underestimated not just by the general public but those involved in livestock industries.

Animal rights activists are pursuing their aims with one-eyed zeal combined with patience. They are spending a lot of time and money on planning and marketing, with the end goal being the complete abolition of human interaction with animals. No domestic livestock, no children’s pets, no horseriding, no guide dogs or companion animals for the elderly.

It sounds so extreme it’s hard to believe, but dig around on the websites of animal rights activists and it’s all there. Although in recent years even the RSPCA removed their long list of fairly startling aims from public view – realising that the truth would alarm their moderate supporters. But the aims creep out via the rantings of supporters of these organisations, even though the official agenda may now be hidden under the table.

In 2015 a taste of what was to come occurred when Jona Weinhofen featured in a Peta ad holding what was supposedly a lamb, badly treated by shearers. Only when people in the wool industry persistently sought information on the breed type – because it looked so odd – did the truth come out. It was not a real lamb, it was made out of synthetic materials.

Today brought news that Mashable was approached by Peta to run a video featuring fake cruelty against a computer generated cat.

Even those who look closely enough at the disturbing video to realise the ‘cat’ is fake, will have their opinion influenced.

Thankfully Mashable has editorial standards and not only declined to be associated with the video but they wrote about it on the Mashable website.

Why is Peta resorting to styrofoam sheep and CGI cats? And most significantly…what else have they lied about? These are just the two incidents that we know about. How much other fakery has flown under the radar?

It is a solid reminder that zealots believe anything is justified in order to achieve the results they want.

The most concerning trend of late has been the stealth of animal right’s activist tactics – illustrated by the spreading of a daily drip-drip-drip of anthropomorphism.

That cute video of the bloke sitting on the grass beside a dairy cow, obligingly scratching it’s hard to reach places? That you’re about to share amongst your friends or retweet? First check the source. Very often, these videos can be traced back to ‘animal shelters’ and ‘sanctuary farms’, if not directly to animal rights organisations. These videos are animal rights activist marketing material, and all the more powerful because they don’t appear to be. Activists have figured out that a lot of subtle messages over a long period of time will form a solid foundation for whatever ‘shock horror’ videos they want to wheel out, down the track.

The general public are accidentally spreading animal rights activist marketing material, helping to build the view that animals are just people in hairy suits, with an extra set of legs instead of arms.

Google ‘anthropomorphism animal rights’ and you’ll find a whole lot of stuff written about ‘non-human animals’.

Think before you share and retweet images and videos.  Will the content encourage people who don’t have firsthand experience with animals or understand the web of life, to form romantic, unreal views?

All animals – both native and domestic species –  deserve respect and are a vital part of the planet’s web of life.

If animal rights activists had their way:

  • Domestic livestock and pets would become extinct and feral species would be left to proliferate, decimating Australia’s native animals.
  • The majority of the Australian landmass would be denuded of the only food production and business option – grassfed livestock – leaving millions of acres uninhabited, with nobody and no money to look after the environment.