PETA sends their “chicks” out to “heat things up”

petacage.jpg
Should we be surprised this is the work of PETA? It just never ends. And you have to love their press release on the “demonstration”:

Wearing sexy yellow bikinis outside the legislative meeting of the United Egg Producers in Washington on Wednesday, six PETA beauties will crowd into three cramped cages to mimic conditions for laying hens on factory farms. The ladies will hold egg-shaped signs that read, ‘Chicks Suffer for Eggs.’

One of the women in the cages, Shawn Herbold, made a statement, “I’ll heat things up a little to show exactly what cold-hearted egg producers do to make hens’ lives a living hell.” Nothing hotter than caging women up like chickens.

Join the Conversation

  • http://cola82.blogspot.com Cola

    What ruffles my feathers is that this does nothing. NOTHING. The only thing they’ve done is act out more or less common sexual fantasies.
    They are not in pain. There is nothing grotesque going on. They are using their bodies in a sexualised way. They’re using sex to advertise their lifestyles. It fails as a means of protest.
    You know what kills my appetite? Images of chickens in cages where they can’t move, with their wings and beaks clipped, getting pumped full of antibiotics. This? Looks like anything I might see if I picked up a copy of Playboy.

  • http://profoundsarcasm.blogspot.com Liza

    And yet we continue to give PETA media coverage by blogging about them?

  • http://feministstotherescue.blogspot.com FEMily!

    And yet we continue to give PETA media coverage by blogging about them?
    Which is better than ignoring their sexist tactics. I get what you’re saying, but I think holding them accountable is important, even if negative publicity is still good for them.
    Anywho, I think there’s a huge connection between the way we treat animals (and the environment in general) and the way we treat women in this country. I recently learned that many women who are victims of domestic violence are afraid to leave because their partners threatened to kill their pet. And since there are only like 5 women’s shelters in the country that allow pets, that doesn’t leave most women with many options. I know I would rather live on the street with my cat and dog than live in a shelter without them. Since they know that intimate partner abuse and animal abuse are linked, the American Humane Society set up a program called PAWS (Pets and Women’s Shelters) that helps women’s shelters transition to becoming pet-friendly. Unlike PETA, the Humane Society knows that you can promote animal welfare without dehumanizing women.
    http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=lk_PAWS

  • http://www.elizabethkateswitaj.net/ ekswitaj

    I’m noticing a serious problem in this post and in a lot (not all) of the comments. It starts with the title: ‘PETA sends their “chicks” out to “heat things up”‘. It continues with talk about caging up these women. Language like this obscures the agency of the women involved (and that they themselves are likely part of PETA rather than being possessions of PETA).
    Whether you agree or disagree with this sort of action, I think it’s important to acknowledge that these women made a decision to participate– a choice, incidentally, that animals caged to serve human taste buds don’t get.

  • manifestadestiny

    “Most shelters kill animals, manifest. Some don’t, but that’s generally because they have the luxury of being able to deal with a more manageable number than most.”
    But they have enough money for sexist campaigns that fight against the very thing they themselves do. They are therefore not justified.
    Why not back some other organization that knows that fighting oppression with oppression is not copacetic? I’m beginning to suspect that PETA’s main objective is to use irony to illustrate the objectification of women’s bodies, and that the animals in question are women.

  • http://whyihatefunfaq.blogspot.com/ Sera

    Ah, yes. They “chose” to be there. The same argument that is made in favor of street-level prostitution by women with PTSD and no high school education who are addicted to drugs. The same argument that is made every time someone brings up the women getting hit in the face, strangled, and double-penetrated until they are obviously in pain in violent (read: mainstream) porn.
    This argument only makes sense if you ignore everything about the society we live in and insist that no women internalize sexist messages/that these messages aren’t all that bad, really/that nothing happens in our world which sexually traumatizes women on a massive scale.
    Which lack of understanding would be sort of dumb, coming from a feminist.

  • artwoman

    I think Peta uses whatever works to get the most attention to its cause and in our society, sex sells. This kind of stunt gets them tons of free publicity with many hits to their website where people can view undercover videos of the horrors of the meat industry. I admire the women who are willing to use their sexuality for such a good cause. If I weren’t past my prime, I would like to think I would be brave enough to do the same. Maybe Peta will do some campaign about old hens.

  • PamelaV

    Unfortunately, I can no longer give my $$ support to Peta because of things like this.
    HOWEVER-
    As feminists, I really wish more people on this site would look into the animal agriculture industry. Almost all exploited animals are female. (male chicks are killed straight away, as are veal -male-calves) Milk= female, egg= female. They are abused their entire lives, and then killed. There is a definite connection between “consumption” of female humans, and the literal consumption of female animals and their reproductive products. I don’t think, even if you eat these products, that if you examine it a little deeper, that exploiting the reproductive process of any living creature, especially in these conditions, has to be reconsidered if we wish to call ourselves humane. (this is, of course, if we have a choice and are not starving, etc).

  • Kmari1222

    Pamela V: I totally agree with you.
    I am really upset that the discussions about the industry don’t take place more often. All I’ve seen is PETA shaming, I haven’t seen anything else.
    If we are all so concerned about suffering in the world, then we should also be concerned about the slaughtering of innocent animals.

  • PamelaV

    ugh, sorry about my weird phrasing. I always do that here (accidentally).
    It seems easy to Peta-shame instead of looking at the actual subject of animal rights or animal welfare, and that seems to be what people want to do here. Especially with that “scrambled egg” comment above.
    Peta=/= animal rights. Peta is but one of many, many groups who have animal rights/animal welfare as a goal. Like “not all fruits are apples but all apples are fruits” sort of thing.

  • LogrusZed

    cola: I absolutely agree. The typical model staffed protest has scantily clad women with smiling faces, etc.
    If someone was rating the impact of an image of protest on a scale of 1-10, a typical PETA “hot chicks” protest would be a 1 (particularly since they have been doing the same schtick so long it no longer raises eyebrows) while a monk practicing self-immoliation still ranks at a 10.
    Of course I’m not suggesting PETA people set themselves alight (perhaps the director, who has uses insulin test strips, and animal byproduct dependent item, but would deny others the right to use them), but attractive smiling women isn’t doing the trick.
    PETA isn’t “shocking” they are just annoying.

  • LogrusZed

    PamelaV: Are you seriously suggesting that female animals suffering is a gender/sex issue and not a biological one?
    Do you believe that if roosters laid eggs we would not consume omelets or hollandaise sauce?
    You’re not even considering the fact that in nearly all farmed species the male populace is kept artificially low? That while the female may be used for the bulk of the produce that the male is nearly always exterminated?
    And the killing of the male animals has nothing to do with necessity (face it eggs only come from females, milks is the same story), it is done for convenience. Because one rooster or bull or stud can do the same job as a hundred of the same.

  • Charity

    I for one am tired of the “sex sells” argument. I think it’s intellectually lazy and inaccurate in many cases. Sells to whom, exactly? Basically, you mean “sells to certain men”. Men are not the entire populace nor even the segment of the population who are considered the most important consumers by many manufacturers and corporations these days. Also, somehow I doubt that the men who most appreciate bikini-clad women in cages are the ones donating scads of money to PETA or other such *humanitarian* organizations. Please.
    Someone upthread asked what other kinds of protests or ad campaigns could *possibly* be effective. I can speak to that, personally…the only times I’ve been moved to donate money or change my behavior is in response to heart-wrenching (not even graphic, necessarily) images of animals in danger or animals suffering. Period. And isn’t it common sense that those types of images would be the most effective in spurring compassionate people to put their compassion into action? People who are close to donating to, or joining, organizations that protect animals (but need that extra push) are NOT the kinds of people who respond favorably to dehumanized images of women.

  • Kapek

    PETA is a single-issue advocacy group. Despite being founded by a woman, gender equality is simply not on their radar. Their only priority is putting a stop to the suffering of animals, which they equate with human suffering. In their minds, getting all tied up in knots about the deployment of the same sexist/pornographic imagery utilized every day by commerical advertising, to save the lives of animals, is equivalent to protesting the use of the word “Hun” in anti-Nazi propaganda campaigns intended to arrest the Holocaust. PETA acknowledges that we live in a sexist, racist, prurient society, and goes with it to get its message out, because it thinks its message is too important. In fact, it’s just found a way to circumvent any critique of what is arguably the MOST dominant force in society today, consumerism, with its call for the invention of cloned meat grown in vats, and a cash prize to that effect, so people will stop killing chickens.
    As I’m sure many of us all know, opposing consumerism is a bit like pushing against a tidal wave, or trying to hold the tectonic plates together. Racism and Sexism are a BIT less formidable, but still titanically oppressive. And while self-referentially taking on all of this at once may be very PoMo, it would sap most of PETA’s energy and strength. So they go with the flow, they turn eyes, and they get lots of media attention.
    I mean, sixty-four people here have already added to it.
    And I salute them, as I have saluted other fanatics. There’s something VERY salutary about people wise enough to work within their means, in pursuit of limited ends. One must be cognizent of what one has to work with. I think we could learn much from PETA.

  • natmusk

    My problem with PETA comes from the fact that I feel they are more about the celebrity then the actual activism.
    Although I am not, I have many close friends who are vegetarian/Vegan and they all became so through personally witnessing or reading about the cruelty to animals. None of them support PETA and instead focus on the ASPCA and other such entitities.
    Also, as a pet owner of a “bully breed” dog I am reluctant to put any support behind PETA which advocates terminating any type of dog like that instead of focusing on the fact that it’s bad pet raising that creates dangerous animals.
    Those of you interested in reading more about the issue of shelter over population should read “Redemption” by Nathan J. Winograd. He talks about how shelters can become no kill if they decide to with certain programs. However most shelters kill way more animals than they place and often needlessly.
    Also, a previous poster mentioned that PETA kills animals. There have been a few instances of PETA activists euthanizing many animals at a time and dumping their bodies in dumpsters behind businesses.

  • FrumiousB

    as a vegan, I tend to support other organizations (like Farm Sanctuary, In Defense of Animals, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) which fight for the same issues but manage to do so without these wince-inducing, sexist tactics.

    You do know that PMRC is linked to PETA, right?

  • Zrusilla

    Newsflash, bikinigirls: you don’t count for much more than a steak in the eyes of a great many men.

  • Charity

    “So they go with the flow, they turn eyes, and they get lots of media attention.
    I mean, sixty-four people here have already added to it.”
    And? Yes, they get media attention…but PETA doesn’t necessarily get anything out of that attention…no extra money, no extra support, no extra members, no reputation for educating the public, because the important and detailed information is not distributed and anyone turned off by the “protest” won’t bother checking the PETA website to learn more…there really is such a thing as bad press, you know.

  • megan s.

    PETA makes me ashamed to be vegetarian. They’re not only sexist as fuck, but as other people mentioned they don’t exactly practice what they preach. I think they give vegetarians, vegans, and animal activists in general a bad name with their so-called shock tactics combined with the fact that they kill animals even though they claim that that is the ONE thing that they are against.
    Die hard meat eaters don’t respond to stuff like their protests and shocking sites, they’d be better off to promote lowering consumption, and consuming meats and dairy/eggs farmed organically/traditionally and sustainably. I think more people would respond to it and it would make a greater impact because not everyone wants to go vegan. It is a very huge, not to mention difficult lifestyle change. Those that don’t want to stop eating meat, won’t no matter what tactics are used; PETA’s are ineffective, I know a lot of meat eaters and NOT A ONE of them takes PETA even a little seriously. If they tried to get their ideas across with logic and straightforward information and weren’t so preachy about everything they’d probably get through to way more people. they stink, I don’t like them at all.

  • PamelaV

    LogrusZed-
    I am not sure the nature of your question. What I AM saying is that suffering and cruelty to what (happens to or systematically is due to anatomy) is a largely female population is a feminist issue.
    I cannot see how we can logically or ethically ignore the vast, unnecessary torture of those who can’t speak for themselves. The only justification people ultimately offer is selfishness. To me, ignoring animal cruelty (of male or female animals) is like being a racist vegetarian or a misogynist “charity” worker.
    I’m not here to bat for Peta. They really need to get their shit together, and have the resources to do so, and if they DID, I would support them with my dollars.
    Anyway, thank you for trying to clarify. I would suggest “The Sexual Politics of Meat” as a good read. It illustrates the point more eloquently. I don’t agree with all of it (it seems to have an “all porn is bad” stance) but it’s more thorough than I can put here.

  • hellotampon

    “If I weren’t past my prime, I would like to think I would be brave enough to do the same. Maybe Peta will do some campaign about old hens.”
    Yeah right. If you’re not young, white, thin, and conventionally attractive, you don’t have a chance.

  • LogrusZed

    PamelaV: I guess what I’m saying is that in my conception of feminist issues and misogyny the matter of intent should always be considered.
    The issue of suffering is a first order consideration, while the gender of those doing the suffering should be only a consideration if the conditions which cause the suffering are something ancillary to the paradigm.
    If, for example, we were talking about classical slavery and comparing it to “white slavery” then gender is obviously the central matter to consider in the latter, but less relevant in the former.
    Farmers/ranchers are not inflicting harm or suffering due to the sex of the animal, the sex of the animal dictates the nature of the suffering.
    By making this a gender issue you’re (in my opinion) diverting attention away from the real matter at hand, and potentially causing a rift which need not exist.
    If the situation were thus: Male and female animals produced eggs or milk, etc; and the harvesting was still biased along sexual lines then I would say the argument was valid. But there is no way under the current construct you could convince me that those doing the harvesting are inflicting suffering along sexual lines.
    Any confusion or ambiguity in my original post I’ll ask you to excuse as my spelling and prose is horrid until I’ve had my coffee.
    NOTE: For the sake of clarity; I’m in no way, shape, or form anti-meat. I’ve raised (or been a party to raising) cattle and poultry for consumption on a small scale. As a child I had a rather abrupt eduction in where my meat came from at the hand of my grandfather who explained that my favorite cow (his name was “Friend”, a Holstein who would let me ride on his back) was on my plate during one dinner. I cried a lot but I got over it.
    I believe you can treat an animal with compassion and even love without losing perspective on it’s purpose in the grand scheme of things. My personal ethos does not dictate that I abstain from consuming meat or animal products, but that I do my best to procure same from producers who have a similar awareness. Possibly the only political/ethical thing I am aligned with Ted Nugent is the fact that he personally harvests all of the meat his family consumes (otherwise he’s kind of a jingoistic loon).

  • PamelaV

    LogrusZed-
    I wasn’t harping on any grammatical errors/phrasing (have you seen my posts?! ha).
    Thanks for the background info on you. I think talking about one creature’s “purpose” is a slippery slope, as that can’t be defined by anyone really. There are a lot of people who truly believe a woman’s “purpose” is to pop out as many kids as possible and support her husband in all things. I also do not believe you can love or respect an animal and kill it if you do not need what you are killing it for. (I believe) all that does is placate one’s conscience.
    Thank you for at least being respectful. I guess we just come from 2 different camps and this (our differing opinion) isn’t really something that could be reconciled on a message section of a blog, or anywhere else for that matter.
    To be fair though- the vast majority of meat, eggs, and milk dos not come from where you get it and people need to look into these methods of “raising” before they give one more cent to those large-scale industries. At least you don’t shield yourself from what happens.

  • anneelizabeth27

    When Jessica Valenti used pretty white flesh to sell feminism, in the form of her book cover, Feministing commenters were largely (though not entirely) supportive. If it’s ok to objectify women to sell a liberal cause, then it’s ok to objectify women to sell a liberal cause.
    I’m with Kapek, here. “One must be cognizent of what one has to work with.”
    http://feministing.com/archives/005898.html

  • http://punkassblog.com Kyso K

    Maybe there’d be fewer demonstrations in this vein if people talked about PETA and animal rights outside of complaining about PETA’s ridiculous ad campaigns.
    The fact that they don’t only justifies PETA’s actions.

    Right. PETA’s brilliance is in repeating the same types of campaigns that make people talk about what assholes PETA is rather than animal cruelty. And this makes us the dumbasses somehow.
    Aside, where the hell is PETA getting this limitless supply of earnest hot chicks? They have to be hiring models or something.

  • http://feministstotherescue.blogspot.com FEMily!

    When Jessica Valenti used pretty white flesh to sell feminism, in the form of her book cover, Feministing commenters were largely (though not entirely) supportive. If it’s ok to objectify women to sell a liberal cause, then it’s ok to objectify women to sell a liberal cause.
    I hesitate to compare a torso on a book cover to women in a cage. Torsos are a fact of life. Everybody has one, and they’re hardly offensive to anyone who isn’t a complete prude, even when they’re exposed. Women in a cage — not so much. That should rub everyone the wrong way, and using such imagery along with sexist rhetoric to defend the tactic is, at the very least, in poor taste.

  • Phill

    The campaign has been quite effective it seems, so many people talking about it. No publicity is bad publicity.
    Is it sexist? Not how you think. It’s sexist against the men who might have wanted to be in the cage.
    I don’t think the girls were harmed at all, if being confined in a small space is bad then sending people down mines is going to be a problem.
    You might not like the word “chicks” but it’s a positive word for an attractive woman. If you’re not a “chick” then I can see that you’re going to have issues with it. Like if you’re short you might not like it that tall girls are perceived as being better. You can’t just ban descriptions because you didn’t get dealt a better hand. You just have to take comfort that being attractive is not the only thing in the world and that brains does count for something. Although you have to accept that less intelligent people might get upset that you’re brainy.
    Girls in bikinis are not really sexual. They tend to cover more than most sheer clothes these days. Propogating the myth that bare flesh is sexual and bad is not going to help.
    Saying that this is as bad as abusing a woman is trivialising abuse.

  • Virago

    “Is it sexist? Not how you think. It’s sexist against the men who might have wanted to be in the cage.”
    WTF? I don’t see any men protesting that they weren’t allowed in the cages. In fact, the women in cages theme seems to be what men find erotic. This so-called protest seems to aim it’s message toward only one half of the human species-the male half-while exploiting the female half. I’m all for animal rights, but not at the expense of women. As it is, this protest is sexist.
    “Saying that this is as bad as abusing a woman is trivialising abuse.”
    Exploitation of women is abuse.

  • PamelaV

    I think a more effective campaign would be to just make a few changes. I would not even be opposed if all the demonstrators were women, because all the long-term abused egg-laying hens are female.
    I just think clothed, crammed together in a cage the relative size of the real cage would be more realistic. (2-4 hens per file cabinet-size cage, and make that “people-size”). I think showing humans in the same conditions, even if they are female, is not INHERENTLY sexist. With the “chicks” and the bikinis it seems to be.

  • http://feministstotherescue.blogspot.com FEMily!

    You might not like the word “chicks” but it’s a positive word for an attractive woman. If you’re not a “chick” then I can see that you’re going to have issues with it. Like if you’re short you might not like it that tall girls are perceived as being better. You can’t just ban descriptions because you didn’t get dealt a better hand.
    Do you have any brains at all? What’s ironic about this stunt is that they call women “chicks,” the precise animals that they believe are being abused. It’s a great opportunity to highlight the connection between domestic violence and animal abuse, or early animal abuse and later antisocial behavior against people. Reducing women to an animal that is commonly abused and degraded is obviously dehumanizing, no matter what goat you’re trying to reach.
    And to say that the people here who are against this tactic are somehow jealous of these women’s looks is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read. I’d rather look like Quasimodo’s left ass cheek than be confined to a cage and called demeaning names.
    I don’t give a shit if “taller” is “better.” Says who? The same people who don’t women to be educated and work outside the home. Those assholes are hardly worth anyone’s time.

  • Cha-el-see

    Honestly, I wouldn’t have a problem with this demonstration if they were in something other than bikinis. It’s just another example of someone exploiting female sexuality to get a point across.
    PETA gets another “What the fuck?!” from a fellow vegetarian.

  • jenna

    Uh, Phill? Being referred to as a near-brainless and near-helpless baby animal is not a positive thing, no matter what you look like.

  • LottaTroubleBaby

    “Girls in bikinis are not really sexual. They tend to cover more than most sheer clothes these days. Propogating the myth that bare flesh is sexual and bad is not going to help.”
    The only ones propagating the myth that bikinis are sexual are the folks at PETA. There was no reason to use attractive females in bikinis for this protest…other than that PETA thinks it’s sexy and sex sells and sex gets attention. Just like all their other, Look! Naked models! ads. They’re the ones intentionally sexualizing nude females. And animal abuse, bizarrely.
    Oh, and no one said bare flesh is bad. Just that using the bare flesh of young women as a marketing tool to sell or promote unrelated, random stuff is sexist and gross.

  • jeana

    Where can I learn more about PETA’s anti-woman bias? Or at least the things they do that are sexist? I know they do things that annoy me, but I pay very little attention to them and so am very curious about what else they’ve done.

  • http://lifeaftergonzales.blogspot.com Elise

    Where can I learn more about PETA’s anti-woman bias? Or at least the things they do that are sexist? I know they do things that annoy me, but I pay very little attention to them and so am very curious about what else they’ve done.
    Off of the top of my head, I believe there were a few previous posts on here dealing with some of it.

  • meggpie

    Absolutely no need for them to be in bikinis. Disgusting.

  • spike the cat

    It always helps me to imagine some scenarios in the reverse.
    Future Peta campaigns:
    1. Some athletic men in speedos standing around with their dicks bulging out to protest the use of pigs for making sausages.
    2. Some men on all fours with people straddling them. The men are wearing tight pants so that we can see the outline of their asses as a clever metaphor for the abuses to beasts of burden.
    3. Men in cages to protest puppy mills, with a reference to men being dogs.
    I suspect that most people would find these concepts offensive, despite the well intentioned messages.

  • Krystel

    Why is it that you hate vegetarians?
    Do you enjoy animal suffering and would like them to remain in pain and suffering?
    Or are you jealous that you don’t look that good in a bathing suit.
    PETA is an amazing organization.

  • Krystel

    How the hell are girls in bathing suits sexual? I could have swore there are TONS of women at beaches in bathing suits.
    I agree with 90% of what Feministing says but there anti-vegetarian bias is ridiculous. Skinny Bitch is a great book and PETA does a great job getting it’s message out there.

  • Zardoz

    PETA is like a lot of pro-lifers: The purpose of a protest is to publicly bask in their own righteous self-satisfaction. Any effect on the world outside of their heads is strictly coincidental.

  • jmbehrens

    “As the devoted mother (yes, “mother”) of an animal, I am offended that PETA is wasting its resources on crappy sideshow attractions when it could instead be using its money and celebrity to actually do good for creatures like my adopted furry child.”
    Assuming you’re talking about a pet, have you ever thought that the act of keeping an animal entrapped, conditioning/socializing it on your terms, removing it from its species group, are acts animal cruelty in themselves?
    I make exception for people in rural areas, but I live in Brooklyn, and I can’t help but think that all the people I see taking their dogs out on leashes and then back to their 600 sq. ft. apartments are abusers on some level.

  • CalliopeJane

    sigh…I hate to do this, and I swear I don’t want to make this any kind of “victimization competition” but drawing an analogy to other forms of oppression can sometimes make it clear to someone why a thing is wrong. So here goes:
    To all the people defending these tactics: would you be okay if they had young black men and women who (voluntarily!) were crammed into pens, sold at auction, etc. to bring attention to the confinement and commodification of animals?
    I would hope not, and would hope you’d realize that was especially offensive because of the very real history of black people being penned and sold. Oh, but it would get people’s attention! And then would you say that people who complained about such obvious racism were providing GOOD publicity for the organization who engaged in it? Would you expect black people, or anyone appalled by overt racism, to think “oh yes, I want to hear more about what this organization is promoting! I want to be just like them!”??
    Well, that’s what we’re saying here: that because of the very real history of women being displayed in half-naked states in confined situations, playing on that just makes me think that the people who would do such a thing are assholes and I am certainly not remotely interested in anything they have to say.
    Kristel, I don’t hear anyone here being anti-vegetarian. I hear people being anti-PETA. and anti-sexism, which you should really expect on a feminist site. Sexism for a good cause does not get a free pass. (Nor does yours: “jealous you don’t look that good in a bathing suit”???? Are you f-ing serious???? I guess I’m unsurprised you approve of PETA’s tactics if you aren’t smart enough to realize that’s not exactly an effective argument to a bunch of feminists. sheesh.)

  • Virago

    “Assuming you’re talking about a pet, have you ever thought that the act of keeping an animal entrapped, conditioning/socializing it on your terms, removing it from its species group, are acts animal cruelty in themselves?”
    Would you rather people adopt animals as pets, or throw them back into the wild to starve long after they spent their entire lives being domesticated and lost their ability to survive on their own? I grew up in a rural area, and people who live on farms keep their animals in fenced in areas all the time. They also keep them on leashes and in cages. My friend left her dog run wild, and he was chasing a farmer’s cows. The farmer has a right to shoot any animal bothering his cattle, and this is exactly what happened to my friend’s dog. I don’t agree with it, but her dog would be alive today if she would have kept the dog in her yard. Also, animals who are allowed to run free are vulnerable to being hit by cars, being attacked by local wildlife (coyotes can and do eat people’s pets) as well as being poisoned or shot. Life on a leash isn’t ideal, but it’s better than being dead. It’s people who let their animals run free who are the irresponsible pet owners who are the problem not the solution.

  • Virago

    “I make exception for people in rural areas, but I live in Brooklyn, and I can’t help but think that all the people I see taking their dogs out on leashes and then back to their 600 sq. ft. apartments are abusers on some level.”
    Considering the stray problem in New York, I think animals being adopted as pets by people who live in 600 sq. ft. apartments is better than letting these animals starve or letting them run loose in an area that has a hundred times more traffic than in a rural area. Coyotes also live in urban areas that can make a pet vulnerable as well. Again, life on the leash isn’t ideal, but it’s better than starving or being roadkill.