Pamela Anderson On Vivisection: “I Don’t Know Much About That Part”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ celebrity spokeswoman Pamela Anderson was interviewed by Larry King recently, Anderson’s knowledge of and adherence to her animal rights views pretty much speaks for itself (emphasis added),

King: Why are you a vegetarian?

Anderson: I don’t like meat. I don’t like, you know, I don’t like meat. I don’t like the texture of meat. I don’t like where it comes from. I don’t like the cruelty that’s involved. And being involved with PETA so long, you get to know a lot about how meat is prepared and slaughtering and all that stuff. So, I’ve chosen, after I’ve kind of educated myself, you know, through PETA, that I don’t want to eat it.

King: No fur coats?

Anderson: No.

King: Leather soles?

Anderson: Sometimes — I have a lot of leather shoes actually — a lot of — but I’ve tried to actually create a clothing line — a shoe line that is non-leather and I have a lot of great shoes, too, from Stella McCartney that are non-leather as well.

But that’s the hardest thing is the leather part of it. A lot of things are leather. Even your car interior. I just ordered and car, and I’m getting all, you know, pleather interiors. There’s no leather interior in the car that I’m getting, bt the car that I have has a leather interior.

King: Are you against vivisection, the treatment of animals to detect disease?

Anderson: I don’t know much about that part. Sorry.

King: But you’re certainly against the killing and slaughter of the animal?

Anderson: Yes and the slaughtering. You know, PETA is — they really — they just want people to be humane about killing animals, too, when it comes to fast food restaurants like KFC. And it’s just so inhumane, how they handle their animals and that’s the first step.

King: Good luck in all you do, Pam.

Anderson: Thank you.

King; Great seeing you.

Anderson: Thank you. Vivisection. I thought you meant vasectomy.

King : no.

Anderson: I’m against those, too. No.

Not quite sure whether she’s against vasectomies or animal research in that last comment. If it is animal research she is against, she has an easy method of protesting against the alleged horrors and cruelties involved in such researcher — simply stop supporting the pharmaceutical industry by continuing to buy things like the medicine she takes to treat her Hepatitis C.

Given that she cannot even give up leather shoes (while complaining about others’ wearing of fur), don’t expect her to leave the stable of PETA hypocrites anytime soon. Presumably she and Dawn Carr can get together and commiserate at how horrible it is that their lives are prolonged due to the efforts of animal researchers.

Source:

CNN Larry King Life, August 22, 2005.

Stella McCartney: Its Not Dead, Its Vintage

The Daily Telegraph profiled fashion designer and anti-fur activist Stella McCartney in January Ethical Treatment of Animals, but don’t think that stops her from wearing animals skins. The Daily Telegraph’s Sabine Durrant writes,

. . . When she [McCartney] arrives the first thing I notice is her cowboy boots, the color of pale calf, slightly battered. They looks so much like leather it’s uncanny.

‘Yeah, I know,’ she says, and tucks them out of sight. They must be the ones she sells — the veggie shoes that have been such a hit in her shops. I bend to admire them again, to touch them, but she’s tucked her feet so far under her stool I can’t reach them. It’s only then it dawns that something dead may, actually, have walked out of her door.

‘Oh, these are leather,’ I say. ‘No, wait, these are vintage,’ she replies.

I see. Fur is dead, but leather is vintage! Come to think of it, that steak I had the other day was (recent) vintage!

Source:

Stella gets her groove back. Sabine Durrant, The Daily Telegraph, January 25, 2005.

PETA Launches Campaign Directed at Mercedes-Benz Leather Interiors

In January, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals launched a campaign to convince DaimlerChrsyler to offer non-leather alternatives for the interiors of high-end Mercedes Benz vehicles.

According to PETA, a number of top-of-the-line Mercedes Benz models only come with leather interiors and the company has so far been unwilling to accommodate buyers who prefer non-leather interiors. Mercedes earlier caved to a similar PETA campaign and agreed to offer non-leather interior options for cars assembled and sold in India.

Of course as PETA notes in its materials on the DaimlerChrysler campaign, offering an alternative is only the start. “Ultimately, PETA wants car manufacturers to stop using leather,” PETA said on its web site.

Sources:

PETA protests all leather seats in Mercedes. UPI, January 27, 2004.

Merciless-Benz: DaimlerChrysler Under Fire. Press release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, January 2004.

PETA Falsely Takes Credit for NCAA Basketball Change

This week the National Collegiate Athletic Association voted to begin using synthetic basketballs in its tournament games rather than leather basketballs. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals’ Dan Shannon was quoted in an Associated Press story as taking credit for the change — a position which was reinforced by AP writer’s Dan Gelston focus on the animal rights group as the sole reason the NCAA made the change. In fact, Gelston appears to have fallen for PETA’s standard puffery.

In his article, Gelston wrote,

The leather basketballs used in NCAA tournaments have been permanently benched.

The organization said it would make the swtich next season to balls made of synthetic materials. The decision comes after animal-rights activists complained about the use of leather.

This implies that PETA had a lot of influence on the decision, but according to the NCAA this is not accurate.

AnimalRights.Net reader Craig Jakeway wrote to the NCAA to get to the bottom of this, and the reply from Division I Men’s Basketball Championships Managing Director Gregory Shaheen tells a slightly different story than Gelston’s. According to Shaheen,

– The overwhelming majority of colleges and universities (NCAA membership) have used the composite basketball for several years. Of the 64 teams that participated in the first round of this year’s Division I Championship, 58 teams used a composite ball for all of their games this season. Each of the Final Four teams used a composite ball for all of their games this season.

– The composite ball provides greater “gribability” favored by players and coaches. The composite ball received “overwhelming” support by member-coaches of the National Association of Basketball Coaches at its annual convention.

. . .

– The request from the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) arrived as the consideration of change to the composite ball was already in progress. The comments from PETA were provided to the committees for their additional information, as was all other feedback from the aforementioned groups, for and against such a change. To indicate that PETA was a primary or sole influence in this decision is an overstatement. Rather, PETA provided reasoned input on the matter that was considered in conjunction with the variety of other substantial information on the subject. Specifically regarding your comments on PETA, this process was specifically excluded from consideration of any political aspects of any entity involved. The decision was based on the merits of the factors indicated above. The NCAA did not issue a release on this matter.

The Associated Press ran a follow-up story written by sports writer Steve Wilstein that quoted Shannon suggesting that the whole idea to replace the few remaining leather balls used in the tournament with synthetic ones came directly from PETA. Shannon told Wilstein,

We proposed the idea to them. I don’t know that they would have come to the decision on their own. The information we provided and the argument we made in favor of synthetics swayed them.

But Wilstein then quotes Shaheen as saying that PETA’s request “was not even a factor” in the decision.

The real factor, as Wilstein notes, was almost certainly money. The NCAA switched from Rawlings to Wilson as its basketball supplier. Wilson has spent a lot of money marketing its $75 Ultimate basketball which just happens to be made out of composite materials. PETA can claim that this was done to save animals and the NCAA can claim it was done because the composites are superior to leather balls, but the bottom line is this deal was done because it makes more money for the NCAA and Wilson.

Just how dedicated are Shannon and PETA to the truth? Shannon told Gelston that, “The production [of synthetic basketballs] is simpler and it doesn’t involve raising animals which is a very costly procedure.” Shannon told Wilstein that, “I would call it a victory for PETA, a victory for the NCAA and a victory for all the cows out there who are killed for their skins.”

But, of course, almost all leather sold in the United States is a byproduct of the meat industry. Nobody goes out and raises cows just to slaughter them to use to make basketballs. The NCAA’s switch to synthetic basketballs won’t prevent the slaughter of even a single cow.

But then, for PETA, it’s all about style over substance.

Sources:

No more leather basketballs for NCAA. Dan Gelston, Associated Press, May 14, 2002.

NCAA to Replace Leather Balls. Steve Wilstein, Associated Press, May 16, 2002.

PeTA what an error!. E-mail message, Craig Jakeway, May 16, 2002.

PETA: Sports Teams Should Stop Using Leather Balls

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is angry that both the National Football League and Major League Baseball continue to use balls and other equipment made out of leather, and is urging animal rights activists to contact professional sports leagues and ask them to end the practice.

Not surprisingly, it takes relatively few animals to meet the needs of professional sports. In its press release, for example, PETA notes that, “it takes 3,000 cows to supply the NFL with enough leather for a year’s supply of footballs!” That’s not exactly an impressive figure, especially since that leather is obtained from animals who are slaughtered for food anyway. PETA might as well urge major stadiums to stop selling hot dogs and other food items made from meat.

If PETA wants to stop the use of “athletic shoes, and other gear supports the cruelty of factory farming,” though, it could start with its own celebrity activists. Why not begin by protesting James Cromwell who has guest starred at several PETA protests but recently told a reporter of his fond love for leather shoes.

Not that PETA will actually do anything about that, since it always puts potential publicity ahead of its principles.

Source:

Help Get Leather Out of Sports. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Press Release, October 18, 2001.

India Leather Exports Surge; PETA Threatens Renewed Protests

According to the The Times of India, exports of leather goods from India to the West continues to surge, approaching the $2 billion level in the most recent fiscal year. Mohd Hasham of India’s Council for Leather Exports told The Times,

The growth rate in the sector of leather and leather goods has gone up to 25 percent and could further rise to 31 percent. Though there has been a shortage of raw materials, the export figures are expected to go up to $2 billion from $1.59 billion from 1999-2000.

The announcement of the increase in exports coincided with an announcement by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that it would renew its campaign against Indian leather goods if the Council for Leather Exports doesn’t keep its promise to “improve transport and slaughter methods by May 2001.”

PETA claims that the leather exporters have made no effort to improve the conditions of animals and promises a vigorous campaign if they don’t follow through. In it statement PETA said a new campaign against Indian leather would be “fueled by 12 months of bottled-up feelings and all the frustrations born of patience and hope that came to naught, that will make previous attempts to decry the Indian leather industry look like child’s play.”

Sources:

Leather exports to touch $2 billion. The Times of India, March 4, 2001.

US animal rights group to re-launch campaign against Indian leather. Agence-Frances Presse. March 6, 2001.