Earlier this week, Mike Vick was released from a Federal prison and returned to Virginia. The topic of course has been discussed on sports blogs around the US. The New York Times Sports blog is not different. However, the New York Times blog had an interesting hypothetical yesterday. Here's the scenerio:
"You have to give up your beloved family pet, a pit bull terrier, and you have the choice of entrusting it to Ingrid Newkirk, president and founder of PETA, or Michael Vick, trusting that whoever you pick will find a good home. Who do you choose?"
The answer sounds easy -- unless you're familiar with the folks at PETA.
However, also yesterday, the Center for Consumer Freedom released numbers from PETA in 2008 -- another year in which PeTA killed 95% of the animals that were entrusted into their care -- killing 2,124 pets last year and placing only 7* in adoptive homes. That number brings the total number dogs and cats killed by PETA to 21,339 since 1998 (hat tip: The Pet Connection).
* I want to put the "7" in perspective here. On a $32 million budget, PeTA was able to find homes for only 7 animals. Last year, I think my wife and I found homes for 7 animals -- and we work on a significantly lower budget figure than $32 million. That's absurdity.
That's a lot of dead animals. PETA isn't an organization that saves animals (which is what they try to lead people to believe). They are actually one of the largest killers of animals in the united states.
So now, knowing that, given the hypothetical, what would you do. The writer finishes:
"If I delivered my pit bull to Newkirk, I would at least know his fate -- hed' be headed out the back door in a plastic bag by the time I drove back home. I couldn't be completely sure about Vick, but I think I'd have to take my chances with him."
You can read his entire rundown at the NY Times here.
Folks, this isn't animal welfare people talking. It's sports people. Is the general public finally seeing the light on PeTA?
I think it's a hyperbolic hypothetical at best, at worst it's a great example of what I like to call "silly logic quandaries."
For example, I sometimes get asked if I was on a deserted island and had to choose between dying and killing the last chicken also on a deserted island, what would I do? Go!
That's as likely as me deciding to climb Mt. Everest wearing shorts and a tank top.
It's a silly proposal to ask someone to pick PeTA or Michael Vick for your pit bull. I am probably not going out on a limb by saying no one is going to ever be in that position.
I do appreciate that it's supposed to make people "think" about the irony of PeTA's name and it's statistics regarding euthanasia while also tying in sports. It's hard for me to get past the ludicrous premise, though.
Posted by: Rinalia | March 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM
I don't think it was ever intended to be a realistic hypothetical. Of course no one is going to be put in that situation...any more than the whole "who would you rather be stuck on a deserted island with" games we used to play as kids. I'm unlikely to ever be on a deserted island, and if so, I'm unlikely to have my choice of who to spend time there with.
The whole idea was just to create discussion around the idea of, who is more friendly to 'pit bulls', a gruesome dog fighter, or an organization that claims to care about the welfare of animals....and to create the point that unfortunately, the answer may not be what many would exepect.
Posted by: Brent | March 26, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Not to mention the outrage over Vick when the public is actually FUNDING PETA's slaughter!
Posted by: MichelleD | March 26, 2009 at 05:20 PM
Wow, PETA actually found homes for 7 dogs of the 2131 dogs in their "care"? Those must have been the ones that escaped.
Posted by: Fred | March 27, 2009 at 09:42 AM
Nice comment Fred.
I am happy to see some people learning the facts about Peta.
It's too bad, Peta could be doing so much good with the budget they have, but they are wasting everyone's time when it comes to companion animal welfare. Disappointing, very disappointing.
Posted by: PoochesForPeace | March 27, 2009 at 10:52 AM
This is great news - that the NY Times is starting to slam Peta. Hopefully, it won't be long before they are widely viewed for what they are - an unfortunate band of fanatics who support a flawed premise that can't work in reality and who kill pets in record numbers. Gee, that sounds like the pro-BSL crowd, doesn't it? Peta bunnies are like them in many ways.
Posted by: Caveat | March 27, 2009 at 07:29 PM