PETA attacks groundhogs

Not satisfied with seals, animal protection groups are going after groundhogs.

An animal rights group wants organizers of Pennsylvania’s Groundhog Day festival to replace Punxsutawney Phil with a robotic stand-in….

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says it’s unfair to keep the animal in captivity and subject him to the huge crowds and bright lights that accompany tens of thousands of revelers each year in Punxsutawney, a tiny borough about 65 miles (105 kilometres) northeast of Pittsburgh. PETA is suggesting the use of an animatronic model.

These groundhogs are being tortured, apparently. Our first reaction reading that first bit was that these animals are probably coddled and sure enough –

the animal is “being treated better than the average child in Pennsylvania.” The groundhog is kept in a climate-controlled environment and is inspected annually by the state Department of Agriculture. Deeley says PETA isn’t interested in Phil from Feb. 2 on, and is looking for publicity.

They, PETA,  do like publicity don’t they and will do almost anything to get it.

We’d rather watch Groundhog Day.

Advertisements

9 responses to “PETA attacks groundhogs

  1. It’s very cold out today, which of my FUR coats should I wear, the mink or baby seal?

  2. PETA and Greenpeace are becoming nuisances.
    People donate to them and they spend their money foolishly. They are almost as bad as those who want to cover our fields and valley with sludge from the Halifax sewers. What are we? Mushrooms? Object and object strongly with letters to the editor.

  3. Betty raises an interesting issue about the application of Halifax sewage. It might make sense to use the sewage to grow wood for biofuel. (Although one would have to be very very careful not to pollute rivers with wash-off.) Once the biofuel has been burned, I expect the ash may be OK on a garden? But fertilizing the fields with sewage from Halifax does not improve my appetite for locally grown produce.

    So which is more toxic, sewage from Halifax or that produced right here in Wolfville?

  4. There are a few updates to the above posts you might be interested in:

    There is this back lash – a PETA campaigner getting similar pie treatment: http://tinyurl.com/ya65tdh

    And the not surprising revelation that the IPCC report relied not on peer reviewed “stuff” but “stuff” from the like of the WWF [ http://tinyurl.com/yemhqs5 ] and GreenPeace [ http://tinyurl.com/yk9mqhz ]
    and other of like ilk [ http://tinyurl.com/y9u2v8x ].

    Betty we agree with you – nuisances, but also more than just nuisances.

  5. I don’t know the answer to that Brian, but it seems that Halifax would have more concentrated sewage. It isn’t the sewage per se, but all the additives. With all the additives given to farm animals now antibiotics, growth hormones, etc., it probably isn’t safe to either eat them or fertilize our fields with their effluent.
    But somebody must know what is healthy and what is not. Before we all start to glow in the dark.

    • Oh yes, the bio-solid issue. What about the not so solid issue of what is in our water?
      I am not thinking of pesticides, which are obvious dangers, over which appliers have control. I am thinking the not so obvious dangers, which are more important in my humble opinion. Pharmaceutical residues – hormones, anti-depressants, anti-biotics, etc – contributed by all our neighbours which water treatment regimes turn a blind eye to. http://tinyurl.com/377k8a
      – and other non detected additives (e.g cosmetic ingredients) which we ingest (or bathe and shower in) every day. As usual, it’s the classic “shell game”, look over here so that you DON’T look over here.

      People take pills. Their bodies absorb some of the medication, but the rest of it passes through and is flushed down the toilet. The wastewater is treated before it is discharged into reservoirs, rivers or lakes. Then, some of the water is cleansed again at drinking water treatment plants and piped to consumers. But most treatments do not remove all drug residue.

      “And while researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals, recent studies — which have gone virtually unnoticed by the general public — have found alarming effects on human cells and wildlife.”

  6. We can no longer subscribe to the “what we don’t know wont hurt us” parable that we grew up with, but we have spent most of our adult lives with a well and septic tank and feel quite comfortable that both are the best we can do for ourselves, for now.

  7. Sounds like a good choice, Betty!