PETA goes after Chrysler Group for Iditarod connection
Another action group has set its sights on the auto industry, this time its People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA has the Chrysler Group in its crosshairs for a loose connection it maintains with the annual Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race held in Alask, which officially starts this Sunday. Clearly PETA has a problem with using sled dogs as an engine for ground-based transportation over snow. We get that. What we don't get is why the organization is attacking the Chrysler Group.
Automotive News reports that Dodge actually sponsored the Iditarod for three years in the early '90s. Dodge backed off, however, in 1993 when Alaska's Dodge dealers group took over primary sponsorship of the event. The dealers dropped the sponsorship in 2003, and ever since Ron Udd, owner of Anchorage Chrysler-Dodge (a single dealership) has paid $300,000 a year to be the official sponsor.
PETA claims on its website that DaimlerChrysler is a sponsor of the 2007 Iditarod, which obviously is not the case, and invites its members to contact who it refers to as "DaimlerChrysler Corporation CEO" Tom LaSorda (Uh, that would be Dieter Zetsche, did you mean to say Chrysler Group CEO?). The organization conveniently has a page set up with a letter all written, all you have to do is type in your name and hit send. When did protestors get so lazy?
Regardless of your feelings towards the plight of sled dogs, PETA could at least put in the leg work to get its facts straight before it aims its gun of righteousness at the wrong target.
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
jgp 6:35PM (3/02/2007)
It is a known fact that PETA funds and supports terrorist groups and arsonists.
I don't see why the opinion of a group of people who belong in Gitmo matters.
Reply
Jay 6:36PM (3/02/2007)
>PETA could at least put in the leg work to get its
>facts straight before it aims its gun of
>righteousness at the wrong target.
Why start now?
Reply
Reg Kirby 6:45PM (3/02/2007)
PETA is a bunch of idiots with to much time on their hands. They generally use misinformation to solicit funds for their "causes". I hope Daimler sues their butts off to shut them up.
Reply
Mike Jenkins 6:52PM (3/02/2007)
Having a prefabricated letter to send out makes it that much easier for Tom LaSorda to set his spam filter to block all of them.
Reply
david 7:20PM (3/02/2007)
strange how peta has no e-mail address so we can tell them what a bunch of ass-holes they are.
Reply
s0crates82 7:46PM (3/02/2007)
Registrant Name:Dan Constantineau
Registrant Organization:PETA Foundation
Registrant Street1:501 Front St
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Norfolk
Registrant State/Province:Virginia
Registrant Postal Code:23510
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7576227382
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:dan_c@fsap.org
Whois lookup data. Publicly available, so I don't feel bad providing it.
Also, provided by peta, on their webpage:
http://www.peta.org/about/contact2.asp
PETA
501 Front St.
Norfolk, VA 23510
757-622-PETA (7382)
757-622-0457 (fax)
info@peta.org
Reply
Mike 7:53PM (3/02/2007)
Just what Chrysler needs; more bad publicity, right or wrong it doesn't matter. Bad publicity is bad publicity, why let the facts get in the way?
Reply
Bob 8:33PM (3/02/2007)
Good thing these weren't sucidal robotic sled dogs. Then it would really hit the fan.
Somebody wake me when common sense makes a come back.
Reply
Simon Ritchie 9:01PM (3/02/2007)
I'm not sure what all the aggression aimed at PETA is all about, but I hope that Chrysler puts some pressure on the Anchorage dealer to stop sponsoring that crap. I should rightly be prosecuted for animal cruelty if I ever put MY dogs through that kind of nonsense. Good for PETA for standing up against that stupid dog race.
Reply
far jr 9:00PM (3/02/2007)
I saw a jacked up 4x4 with gun racks and hunting dog boxes in the bed. Oddly it displayed a P.E.T.A. sticker on the bumper. I was curious so I investigated the smaller letters around the P.E.T.A... It said P.eople E.ating T.asty A.nimals... Funny indeed.
Reply
lzaffuto 9:50PM (3/02/2007)
I don't want to hear anything about the "ethical treatment of animals" from an organization that euthanizes thousands of healthy and adoptable dogs per day and throws them in trashbags simply because they think people shouldn't keep them as pets.
Reply
far jr 9:55PM (3/02/2007)
Technically, PETA is likely against peanut butter unless it is organically grown. Any crop that is sprayed to increase productivity could kill those poor little insects that feast on the crop. That is how extreme PETA is. They are so extreme they are funny.
They don't want you to drink milk or eat cheese, yogurt, or ice cream because those poor cows shouldn't need to be milked for your benefit.
They argued that the grub worms and rodents eaten on "Survivor" constituted cruelty.
Fishing should be outlawed because we all know how much Tuna fish suffer when caught.
THAT is the PETA I make fun of!
Reply
Talis 9:55PM (3/02/2007)
Bill Hancock, the sad part is Simon is not kidding. This is actually GOOD for the dogs, as this is what they were bred for. The dogs like doing this and the Iditarod race is supposed to foster good will for everyone.
Peta is just being what it always has been, I whack-o left-wing group dedicated to the destruction of human life. These are the same people who break into pet stores to "free" the pets, who then soon die because the pets do not know how to survive in the wild--many of them not being indigenous to the area they are sold.
In fact, there was a news report not too long about highlighting just how messed up peta is... they actually kill more animals than they help so they are report stats that are always in their favor, in that they are needed because I am a bastard for having a pet dog.
If that's not enough, pets claims that owning a Seeing Eye dog is cruel, and that the practice of helping people live a normal life should be stopped.
PETA must be stopped.
Reply
K Smith 10:20PM (3/02/2007)
Here ya go!
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/IHATEPETA
Reply
Joseff 11:09PM (3/02/2007)
PETA is right! Racing dogs in the Iditarod is just cruel. I propose we race hundreds of Hummers across Alaska instead. How's that?
Reply
Barney 11:14PM (3/02/2007)
Maybe some of the posters who have just written, will actualy go to the dog race and see first hand what these animals must go through. Rather then PETA pulling the sled, maybe the poster should at 30°F below . Actualy it's just another race for money but not man against the elements but man pitting the dogs against it. If the dealer represents the manufacturer, then he will be doing so as a sponsor. The money spent is to advertise the product he sells.
Reply
Barney 11:26PM (3/02/2007)
"This is actually GOOD for the dogs"
And how many have died in this goodness over the past five years, Talis?
Reply
William 11:55PM (3/02/2007)
Yeah, the Iditarod is horrible to dogs. Forcing them to run to exhaustion. A lot of dogs have died in this "race." I hope Chrysler gets some common sense and stops supporing the Iditarod.
Reply
Jay R Howard 1:10AM (3/03/2007)
"strange how peta has no e-mail address so we can tell them what a bunch of a-holes they are"
Oh, they do... and I just did email and call them a-holes. They had several email addresses in plain view on several of their webpages.
...However, several of you lie just as bad as PETA (see below examples), meaning that there are nut-jobs and liars/propagandists on BOTH sides of this issue...
"an organization that euthanizes thousands of healthy and adoptable dogs per day and throws them in trashbags"
There was an acquittal and "thousand of dogs per day" was never even alleged. Therefore this is untrue, and therefore it is LIBELOUS: I'm sure PeTA won’t bother with a nobody like you with a libel lawsuit, but your lie is no better than PETA’s lie.
"This is actually GOOD for the dogs, as this is what they were bred for. They like doing this..."
Several dogs have died in the Iditarod. Are you saying it’s good for a dog to be run to death because he was "bred for it"? Or that the dogs who died "liked doing this"? It’s more like "good for us" than good for them. As such, you also lie as badly as PETA often does.
But certainly I'd agree that the dogs who survive will OFTEN enjoy it, and given that factor, I think the Iditarod just needs more regulation rather than an outright ban. With the number of dogs who've died, the people running the event are not running it well.
It's not "good for" a dog to be forced to run by being hooked to a harness until he is literally dragged as he takes his dying breaths...something which doesn't happen to dogs naturally even within a pack of WILD undomesticated dogs. Do you also think African-Americans were "bred for" slave-masters (They actually were) and therefore they must "like" (They do not) being paid nothing to pick cotton?? Because if you said yes, it would only be logically consistent with your beliefs about dogs, but you can't have it both ways: and of course it's wrong to breed others who have emotions and can feel pain, for your own personal gain. It's wrong whether those "others" are human or other sentient animals...but if you do it to bond with your dogs, that's great.
We have two dogs in my house: and like you said they love to run and play...but they don't like when I tie them to a harness and I doubt they'd start enjoying themselves if I then used the harness to FORCE them to run further than they're physically capable of, and gave them sore paws or killed them in the process as happens all too often in the Iditarod.
"pets claims that owning a Seeing Eye dog is cruel, and that the practice of helping people live a normal life should be stopped."
Source? Citation? You’ll excuse me for not believing you given that one or two of the quotes above which I exposed as untrue were quotes of you...
"people who belong in Gitmo"
This is an opinion, so I can’t say it’s factually wrong or a lie... and yes, PETA funds some bad things, but according to the FBI, PETA and its beneficiaries have never killed anyone. Osama has. Big difference. Some "domestic terrorism" groups also have killed, but they are uniformly RIGHT-WINGERS: anti-abortionists, militias, etc. They (and Crips/Bloods, child abusers, etc. are all better candidates for Gitmo, than the people PETA paid who committed only PROPERTY crimes (you think a child-abuser doesn't cause TERROR in his victims? He's a much worse terrorist than PETA, and so are murderers.)
Yet Bush ignores the worst "domestic terrorist" groups -- those who have KILLED to terrorize their fellow Americans (eg. Bush doesn’t even call them "terrorists" at all, let alone the only "domestic terrorism" laws since he took office were directed at the left-wing groups). Maybe Bush won't even use the words "domestic terrorists" when he's talking about murderous right-wing groups because that would discredit his conservative causes as much as PETA discredits the legit animal right groups like HSUS...or at least I can’t think of any other reason GWB would do that, can you?
With my 900+ HP car (nor will I even recycle, unless my town starts MAKING money from it...), I hardly qualify as an environmentalist, I'd make a much better animal-rights activist... but even I can see the unfairness/relativism when it comes to the (formerly) Republican Congress's attitude toward the enviro-wackos of the ELF: Commit a property-crime for the environment (or animals or seemingly ANY left-wing cause), you get called "terrorist" but commit MURDER for a right-wing cause and Congress doesn't hold hearing like they did on the ALF and ELF nor will the president call you a "domestic terrorist". The president and his cronies are spreading this MORAL RELATIVISM.
PETA terrorizes animal abusers, and that’s wrong. But what else can you call an abuser, experimenter, etc. who makes an innocent animal shake in fear and TERROR as they perform bodily harm and killing of that sentient animal? My PROFESSIONAL opinion as a bioethicist and neurobiologist is that PETA’s targets are usually ALSO terrorists themselves, but they are either just too cowardly to terrorize people who can fight back so they terrorize other animals instead, or do it for other reasons of expediency.
And while PETA is going too far if they claim insects can feel terror or pain (insects might, but there’s no proof), there are a few thousand scientific papers which support the fact that all animals above the phylum of fish can feel "terror"...because (this is the short version)fear/terror is felt in the amygdala proper, which hasn't evolved from fish to humans.
one source: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office in London, England, because scientific studies were collected by the British government used when determining 3 sets of animal-welfare laws.
...Not that some people here probably care about those SCIENTIFIC FACTS about animal anatomy, but perhaps only some people in this forum will be
lying right-wing ideologues on a level as bad as PETA who are lying LEFT-wing ideologues. Neither side is any better when they don't accept the scientific truth.
Reply
JC3 12:24AM (3/03/2007)
Most PETA activists are pro abortion.It's a sorry state of affairs When an unborn human life is worth less than an unborn animal life.Priorities.
Reply