Wednesday, December 5, 2001
|
Wednesday, December 5, 2001 |
|
Animal rights activists show true colors in shark protection program People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), came very near to making one of the most outrageous public relations gaffes in history, according to the New American magazine. In so doing, however, the animal rights group has revealed that it stands for animal over human rights. The theme of its just canceled ad campaign was "Would You Give Your Right Arm to Know Why Sharks Attack, Could it be Revenge? Go Vegetarian, PETA." This campaign was nearly launched, despite the fact that an 8-year-old Florida boy had recently had his arm torn off in a shark attack. Is this insensitive? Mean-spirited? Regardless, it provides further insight into PETA's twisted logic. Sean Paige, of Washington's Competitive Enterprise Institute, has discovered that, since the Clinton-Gore "reinvention of government," the federals have been ordering deep cuts in the number of sharks that can be caught by commercial and recreational fishermen off U.S. coasts. This is part of a "shark stock rebuilding program based on the questionable premise that sharks are in decline worldwide." Paige continues, "As the quantity of sharks being caught has fallen, the frequency and number of shark attacks have been on the rise, reaching record levels last year." In Florida, he says, where the majority of attacks occur, federal and state protections for sharks have led to a more than 80 percent decrease in sharks taken during the 1990s. At the same time, state restrictions have created de facto shark sanctuaries in waters closest to shore, where human-shark interaction is most likely to occur, and wherein one of the sharks most often implicated in attacks on man the bull shark is known to frequent. It may not have occurred to the bureaucrats that sharks eat game and commercial fish, as well as threaten dolphins. The more sharks there are, the fewer are the other types of fish. According to the Washington Times of Aug. 30, a lawsuit has been filed blocking the federal government from imposing another major reduction in Shark fishing at last someone is thinking. Is the animal-rights lobby pleased? Not according to the Audubon Society, whose web site declares: "Even with current fisheries regulations, more recent analysis suggests that large coastal sharks are in worse shape than reported in most recent assessments..." One can only guess this means they don't outnumber swimmers yet. Hopefully, the Bush Administration will be moved by such incidents as the above and take action to roll back the ban. They should also declare that our government's policy will henceforth be to favor human life where there may be some conflict between humans and animals. This "pro-life" policy doesn't mean we can't encourage the animal population it merely means that we must put big government in the proper perspective, and recognize the rule of unintended consequences. We can probably count on PETA opposing such common-sense initiatives. William Fielder Peachtree City
|
||