Wimbeldon vs. PETA

Remove all ads!

In my book anything that upsets PETA (not that it is hard thing to do) can't be a bad thing.

 

Can't we just go straight to the source & shoot the PETA members first?

 

Excuse me, but isn't pidgeon **** all over the tables of an open air restaurant a public health concern?

 

It usually is when you are doing it in a crowded London suburb that isn't zoned for hunting...

 

I don't really like PETA, but without extremists to set a high bar for what 'moderate' means, nothing ever gets done. They serve a vital function in balancing politics.

 

When it comes to PETA, and many other similar organisations, it just boggles my mind to see people get so involved about animals. Animals are nice and important but there are millions upon millions of human beings that die and suffer for even worse reasons than what we do to animals. How can people dedicate their lives and all their money to give homes to stray cats when children are dying in droves all over the world and it would take so little to make a difference? For the time and effort to save a mangy cat you could be saving a human being. When we learn to treat each other right then I think we can start working on treating other species right.

I don't engage myself in anything but I do not understand the priorities of people who spend their entire lives helping animals. Then again, it is not only animals our charity and engagement priorities are completely screwed. We are spending millions upon millions of charity money on research in treating various "luxury" diseases (cancer, alzheimer, parkinson). Diseases that generally strike older people and which are basically part of "natural cause of death" when there are children dying of malnutrition.

I don't know, I just think that if you are a person who wants to help, who feels the need to ease your guilty conscience or just plain is a good person why not start with the most basic and urgent problems in our world? Why spend all your time and efforts knitting sweaters for hairless cats in colder climates?

 

But...But... they look so cute in those fuzzy little pink sweaters!

 

Frankly I like cats better than children, and there are too many humans on the planet already. If I want to give money to Cats Protection or the RSPCA to help animals that have been suffering due to human cruelty, neglect or ignorance, then that's my perogative.
Having said that, I abhor deliberate cruelty to any living things (including children), but culling a few pigeons, if done humanely and without endangering anyone, is fine with me. I'm assuming they'll have got the correct permissions to do this - it would be a bit stupid of them if they hadn't.

 

Of course it is your perogative just as it is my perogative to not give anything to anyone. I personally find it quite repulsive how so many people value animals over humans. I have seen so many people making similar comments to yours Cal, how a cute fuzzy little cat (it is very often cats, cat people are wacky) missing a meal is such a huge tragedy while they could not care less about all the human suffering in the world. To me it is like spending your time adjusting the paintings on your walls while the house is burning down around you. Sure, it is nice with paintings that are hanging straight but dealing with the burning house might be a tad more urgent.

 

To be honest, the problem is that 90% of human suffering is caused by humans.

We arent this awesome species that everyone wants to be like, we are as bad to each other as we are to animals and plants.

A lot of 3rd world poverty and hunger is a direct result of the greed of those in power in the respective countries, and the profiteering of those supposed to help them.

A hungry cat, in a place where no natural prey can be found, only has humans to be blame.

 

Anyway, to actually talk about the topic at hand:

Not that they are jumping to conclusions much.

I'm not going to lose much sleep over getting rid of what is, in this case, some pests. They've tried something else (hawks), and maybe some others, and deemed that this was the best way to deal with the situation.

Agreed.

 

I'm with Joaqin on this one -- these losers need to get a life. Human needs take priority over animal needs in my book, and that doesn't mean I advocate torturing animals for fun, it just means I have logical priorities.

However, I also agree with Drew (STOP THE PRESSES!) in that I am not sure that I am comfortable with the idea of people shooting guns off in a populated area, no matter how good as marksmen they are. It's one thing to use a gun to kill a filthy criminal. That's a valid reason to use a gun. It's another thing to use a gun to kill a pigeon. The risk to innocent bystanders is too great.

 

There's a good documentary about the woman who co-founded PETA.

There's a scene in it where she takes a dog to a vet to get medication for heart-worm and I thought "she's killing those poor worms! Don't they deserve to live just as much as the dog?"

I guess even PETA draws the line somewhere; the question is where?

 

LKD, they are probably using air rifles shooting pellets. Some of the better models can propel the pellet as fast as a firearm using compressed co2.

 

Martaug, the question of collateral damage still remains. If the pellet is going that fast going up towards the pigeons and it misses, it will be going almost that fast when it comes back down toward a crouded city street.

Of course, it may be a situation where this isn't an issue, like the restaurants are set up so that the marksmen are shooting from one high building onto the roof of another where the pigeons congregate. In that case, stray pellets would just bounce around on the roof-top and not be a problem. Like others, I would assume the Wimbeldon officials considered all this and got proper approval beforehand.

 

I suppose I would be a bit less nervous about airguns, but still, one bad shot and some tennis spectator ends up at the first aid station.

Though I have to say, I'd rather be shot than actually be forced to watch tennis!

 

Well, not really, actually. Once the pellet reaches the peak of its trajectory, it will start falling down guided just by the force of gravity. Upwards it was propelled by compressed air, giving it high velocity. Once it starts falling down, its velocity will be determined by its mass and the air resistance. The pellet has a very low mass, and the air resistance will limit its speed to a certain value, which cannot be exceded, regardless of how much the pellet exceeds the height required to generate that speed.

My point being, the pellet falling down would have very low potential of doing any serious damage. It's small, rather light, and uncapable of producing the velocity needed for a harmful impact.

On topic:

I'm against harming animals in any way, but it seems that they tried the hawks solution and it failed. Maybe something else should have been tried too, but this amount of fuss is not necessery, imo.

There are so many endangered species out there that could use the attention that those pigeons are getting.

 

So what alternative has the PETA suggested?

Funny how there is a fuss about pigeons, yet not seagulls and all. Considering there are similar tactics used against them.

 

Hehe, I'd use hawks. Much cooler, too. That'll please PETA, I'm sure

Joa,
I wholeheartedly agree with you about creeps who value animals over or equal to humans. That's silly. I only recently had an exchange with one of those people who call butchering 'murder'. I took delight in drawing his ire when I pointed out that murder is the voluntary killing of a human, qualified through special intent or conduct, as opposed to the destruction of a thing with a few (granted, important) special rights.

However, I find your comments about cats utterly reprehensible and extremely incomprehensible