PETA’s Word is not Its Bond

PETA is trying to destroy the Australian wool industry via boycott because, as I wrote here a few years ago, of an unpleasant but necessary animal husbandry practice called mulesing needed (at present) to prevent an awful maggot infestation known as fly strike. The Australian wool industry eventually sued PETA, and as is often the case in such suits, eventually PETA and the industry settled, as a part of which it agreed to call off its boycott while attempts were made to find an alternative to mulesing. Naturally, PETA soon broke its word.

Well, it has done it again, only this time announcing a boycott from a manufacturer that doesn’t even use wool from the merino sheep in question. From the story:

Matalan, a discount chain with about 200 stores across Britain, agreed to the boycott after meeting with animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). “We have instructed our suppliers they must not source Australian merino wool for any future orders,” Matalan spokesman David Mellett said in an email to PETA.

But the Australian Sheep and Wool Industry Taskforce said on Thursday the boycott was a joke because Matalan had never sourced wool from Australia. “This is just another PETA beat-up,” the taskforce’s secretariat manager Norman Blackman told AAP. “Obviously, any
retailer coming out with a public statement like that is not what we like to see.”But this retailer has not been using Australian wool and, given the nature of their product range, they are unlikely to do so in the future.”

PETA’s word is obviously not its bond. But this is the thing: Industries should know by now that PETA isn’t interested in compromise, or in finding a reasonable accommodation, or in middle grounds. It will settle cases to keep itself out of hot water or to advance the agenda, but may or may not keep its word depending on how its leaders perceive the situation as promoting the overall cause.

Industries keep thinking that by settling with PETA or accommodating animal rights activists they can find some peace. What leaders clearly don’t yet get—perhaps because they don’t yet understand the zealous mindset and ideology of animal rights isn’t about being nicer to animals—is that these groups are their implacable enemies who want to obliterate all animal industries. Activists understand that they can only accomplish their goals incrementally, but every time an industry shows weakness—or acts irresponsibly as with the recent beef recall—they strengthen the very forces who live to see them gone.

The sooner industry and animal researchers look at this with a clear eye, the sooner they will adopt a more aggressive and effective advocacy strategy to combating animal rights, while at the same time, ensuring proper standards of animal husbandry and welfare.