PETA: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

1. PETA is strongly against hunting and the fur industry. Commercial fur farms are bad for the environment; but trappers and hunters are not. Because of PETA and orginizations like PETA the amount of hunters and trappers have rapidly declined. Which has very negative results on the environment. I am going to get most of the rest of this from another website, because I don't have the time to write up my own version, like I normally would. But, your response is lengthy, so mine must be too; and I can't spend all the time on this ONE argument! First, consider the plight of the hunter. The proportion of hunters in the general population has declined steadily over the last four decades, going from 11% in 1960 to 8.3% by 1990 to about 6% in 2001. Almost any statistic you can find about hunting reveals that the U.S. numbers are declining. Another disturbing demographic aspect about hunters is that the actual number of Americans who hunt is declining at an even steeper rate than the percentage. One explanation is that the number of young people who hunt decreases every year. In other words, hunters are getting older; young hunters are not joining the ranks. This is equivalent to a deer herd or duck species having more individuals leave the population each year than are added to it. Recruitment is too low to result in a sustainable population. Do not get the impression that not many people engage in wildlife sports activities any more. According to the most recent survey available to me, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that 82 million adults participated in hunting, fishing, or wildlife watching in 2001. But only 13 million of those were hunters. Yet people who hunt and fish contributed immensely to the national economy, spending more than $70 billion in 2001. Expenditures included licenses, guns, fishing equipment, and the costs of lodging, travel, and other goods and services. Wildlife watchers, meanwhile, spent $38 billion. But why do I say hunting is good for the environment? First, let me define "good" as situations or activities that maintain wildlife at current levels. In that case, hunting is good for the environment because the hunting community ensures that wildlife populations of game species are sustainable from one generation to the next. This requires that a diversity of natural habitats be kept intact, unpolluted, and undisturbed. Hunters support all these efforts. The taxes from hunting activities go to the states or to the federal government for such purposes as enhancing wildlife habitat, managing and maintaining parks and wildlife refuges, and conducting surveys and research to determine the status of not only game but also some nongame species. So, hunters contribute in a big way to benefiting natural environments. Keeping our wild habitats as undamaged, clean, and natural as possible is a key aspect of having suitable places to hunt. But hunters are not the only ones seeking such habitats. Ecologists depend on them for research. Hikers, bird-watchers, and wildflower viewers all prefer habitats that are uncontaminated and full of wild things. Of course, these groups prefer habitats that favor their own interests. Hikers want trails. Bird-watchers want a diversity of relatively quiet habitats. And hunters want land management that favors their favorite game bird or mammal. Also, hunters and the other groups do not like to share the same habitat at the same time. But although time-sharing may sometimes be a problem, a variety of wildlife enthusiasts have a single common vision--healthy outdoor ecosystems. Of course, what makes a "good" forest for a hunter may be different from what other groups consider a "good" environment, and compromises must be made to accommodate all of them. Nonetheless, the time has come when hunters must become involved in partnerships with other groups who have an equally fervent interest in maintaining healthy habitats of forests, streams, and small wetlands. The time has also come when these other groups must look to the hunting community for what they can contribute to environmental prosperity. Indeed hunters are entering into partnerships with research ecologists, groups interested in wildlife recreation, and organizations that focus on habitat protection. Although the ultimate objectives differ for each, the primary goal of saving or restoring forests and other natural habitats benefits all. Hunters depend on and help maintain sustainable populations of their species of interest. Ironically, their own population is facing a serious decline in numbers. 2. They imply that all labs are bad, and all of them must be SHUT DOWN. They think it is cruel to take blood from a monkey, via a shot, to do tests on the blood. And I don't know what other things a lab could do... 3. PETA's job is not to do what police and organizations such as ASPCA are supposed to do, enforce the law. Their job is to create the laws. And since they have created the laws, what else can they do, but make even more extreme laws? Either then have to close their doors for good... 4/5. "The organization is a nonprofit, tax exempt 501(c)(3) corporation with 187 employees, funded almost exclusively by its members." I never said they weren't a non-profit. The thing is, is that they have 187 employees. People that don't want to lose their job because the organization has already done what it was supposed to do, create laws against animal abuse. Which is all PETA does, raise awareness to create laws; other organizations and the police enforce these laws. Not PETA. PETA has already made basic cruelty illegal. Which is good. But now they are trying to make other things illegal, things that are not cruel. Because, they don't have anything else to do, but shut-down. And those 187 people don't want to lose their jobs. "They are not in it "to make money" as my opponent incorrectly assumes." I never said they were, like you incorrectly assumed. 187 people work there, and are paid to work their. They are in it to stay 'in business' so they don't all lose their jobs. 6. You said them, I can respond to them. I never read any rules saying I couldn't respond to things my opponent said... You just trying to make me look bad in front of the voters. 7. Personal opinions have everything to do with a debate. If we just stacked facts next to facts and compared them it wouldn't be a debate, it would be a list of facts. It is our opinions that make it a debate. 8. Conservation is the welfare of animals. The environment and conservation of the environment should be something PETA at least doesn't harm, if they aren't going to help with it. 9. I was talking about the so called 'farms' PETA has all over it's website: http://www.peta.org... In this link PETA talks about a person AUTHORITIES (not them as enforcing the law is NOT their job) who placed a man in jail for abusing animals. Now this person didn't get away with their crimes. And it was and is illegal to do what he did. For what other reason would they have for posting this video, then to imply that all pig farms are horrible and we should shut them all down? 10. A. Actually I can tell how they feel. Do you have a dog? Can you tell when your dog is happy or sad? Cows, sheep, and pigs are the same way. Since you obviously don't work with animals you wouldn't know how loving they can be. And you can't tell what their emotions are like. But, since I do, I can. And they aren't milked 24/7 (This just proves you have NO idea how farms work!) They are milked one to three times a day, for maybe a half an hour each. The rest of the time they are free to roam around and play on acres of land. They are milked more by their calves in the wild, calves that have sharp teeth. In captivity, when the calves get teeth, soft hands milk them instead. And give the milk to the cows. I will respond to B, C, & D in the comments as I ha