Tag Archives: Dan Shannon

PETA Wants NCAA Ban on Gamecock Mascot

Posted on by
4

In August, the National Collegiate Athletic Association issued a report ruling putting restrictions on tournament appearances by teams that continue to use Native American mascots. That as the perfect opportunity, of course, for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to step in and ask the NCAA to do the same thing to some universities that have animal mascots.

Specifically, PETA requested that the NCAA enact the same sort of sanctions against Jacksonville State and the University of South California — both schools use Gamecocks as their mascot.

PETA\’s Dan Shannon was quoted by The Birmingham News as saying,

Our position is that since cockfighting is illegal in 48 states in this country and a felony in South Carolina — you go to jail, period — we don\’t think schools should be promoting this illegal act with their mascots. Our problem with Gamecocks is it promotes cockfighting. That\’s not only illegal, but tremendously cruel to the animals involved. We\’ve been in contact with the presidents of these universities for several years. We\’ve exchanged polite letters back and forth, very polite and respectful, but they have chosen not to change their names. With the NCAA decision about Native American nicknames, we hope that might spur them on — no pun intended — to adopt a nickname more respectful to animals.

PETA\’s Allison Ezell, who sent a letter to NCAA president Myles Brand, said the group does not object to other animal mascots such as the Oregon Ducks or Baylor Bears which, \”highlight the power and beauty in the natural world.\”

Source:

PETA asks NCAA to ban Gamecocks nickname. Mike Perrin, The Birmingham News, August 12, 2005.

PETA asks USC to change nickname. The State.Com (University of Southern Carolina student newspaper), August 12, 2005.

Share

Prosecutor in KFC Supplier Case Receives Threats from Animal Rights Extremists

Posted on by
Reply

WAVE 3 TV reported recently that a special prosecutor assigned to look at allegations of animal cruelty at Pilgrim\’s Pride — which supplies chickens to KFC — has received so many threats that an FBI agent has been assigned the task of investigating each of them.

In 2004, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals made public a videotape showing employees of Pilgrim\’s Pride in West Virginia kicking, stomping and slamming chickens against walls. In January 2005, however, special prosecutor Ginny Conley announced she wasn\’t bringing charges because the videotape was so dark and grainy it was impossible to identify specific individuals for prosecution. She also cited concern that since the alleged abuse took place at a slaughterhouse, that it wasn\’t covered by the state\’s animal cruelty statutes.

Conley subsequently received enough additional information against those in the video to take her case to a grand jury in June. The grand jury, however, refused to indict the identified individuals.

Pilgrim\’s Pride fired 11 people connected to the incidents on the videotape.

Conley told the Associated Press and WAVE 3 TV that she regularly receives harassing e-mails and letters from animal rights extremists, some of which include threats. She told WAVE 3,

There was even an FBI person provided to me to monitor it because the harassment got to such a level.

PETA, for its part, stuck with its \”we don\’t condone it, but we really do\” line. PETA\’s Dan Shannon told WAVE TV that PETA doesn\’t condone the threats, but added that,

At the same time, you can understand how somebody would be so upset by these animals being tortured and abused, thrown against walls and torn apart. They might be moved with that level of passion.

Reminds me of the time that Shannon said PETA didn\’t condone throwing fake blood at KFC\’s CEO, while Bruce Friedrich was off doing just that.

The kicker is that Conley told the Associated Press that the harassment from animal rights activists made it harder to focus on making a case against the Pilgrim\’s Pride workers,

Special prosecutor Ginny Conley had previously said she had no evidence to warrant criminal charges, but said Wednesday that more evidence had been found that persuaded her to present the case to a grand jury. Pressure from the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals did little to sway her, she said.

\”In fact, if anything, the harassment I received from PETA was very intrusive on me performing my duties as prosecutor,\” said Conley. \”However, after I gained the additional information I received, I felt it at least warranted presentation to the citizens of Hardy County.\”

Sources:

PETA supporters upset workers on video abusing chickens won\’t be charged. Erick Flack, WAVE TV 3, July 19, 2005.

Jury Won\’t Indict Chicken Plant Workers. Associated Press, June 8, 2005.

Share

PETA Protests Oklahoma Prison Rodeo

Posted on by
Reply

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals\’ Dan Shannon sent a letter to Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry in August asking the governor to abolish the state\’s long-running prison rodeo.

The prison rodeo has been held in Oklahoma for the past 63 years and features inmates engaging in a number of event such as bull riding and cow milking.

According to Shannon, the prison rodeo encourages inmates to abuse animals,

A prison is the last place in the world that should be encouraging violence. It is time to put cruel events like rodeos out to pasture.

A communications director for the governor replied that PETA\’s request was \”silly\” and that, \”The governor will not consider stopping this Oklahoma tradition.\”

Source:

Request To Stop Oklahoma Prison Rodeo Called \”Silly\”. Associated Press, August 22, 2003.

Share

Activists Throws Fake Blood on Yum! Brands CEO

Posted on by
Reply

German animal rights activists threw fake blood on Yum! Brands CEO David Novak is June as Novak arrived at the opening of the first A&W Restaurant in Germany. Along with A&W, Yum! Brands is the owner of KFC.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been waging a public campaign against KFC for what PETA claims are the cruelties that chickens killed for KFC are subjected to. PETA, however, claims that it was not behind the fake blood incident.

Which is a bit odd, considering that PETA is the group that initially notified the media that the action had taken place and was able to supply photographs of Novak covered in fake blood to news media quickly after the incident.

The brave animal rights activists who threw the red liquid immediately fled the scene.

PETA\’s Dan Shannon claimed that,

It was an independent person, working on their own, on behalf of our campaign [against Yum]. We are not asking or encouraging people to do this sort of thing.

Somebody forgot to tell Bruce Friedrich they\’re not encouraging such actions. In a quote on PETA\’s web site, Friedrich says,

KFC stands for cruelty in our book. There is so much blood on this chicken-killer\’s hands, a little more on his business suit won\’t hurt.

Yum! Brands wasn\’t buying Shannon\’s pathetic spin. Yum! spokesman Jonathan Blum said,

This is the type of corporate terrorism groups like PETA have endorsed in the past. Corporate attacks and personal violence of this nature cross the line from expression of views to unacceptable acts of corporate terrorism. The perpetrator of this crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Sources:

KFC Chief \”Blooded\” In Germany. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, June 23, 2003.

Animal-rights activist douses Yum\’s CEO. Courier-Journal (Louisville, Kentucky), June 24, 2003.

Animal rights activists spray KFC chief with fake blood and chicken feathers. Associated Press, June 24, 2003.

Share

PETA\’s Anti-KFC Billboard

Posted on by
Reply

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals found its latest billboard attacking KFC widely rejected before finding a billboard company in Illinois willing to take the group\’s money.

In a press release, PETA said,

Showing Col. Sanders spattered in blood and clutching a terrified chicken in one hand and a bloody butcher knife in the other, PETA?s new billboard, reading, \”Kentucky Fried Cruelty ? We Do Chickens Wrong,\” has just gone up in Springfield as part of PETA?s international campaign to pressure KFC to crack down on cruel treatment of animals by its suppliers. The billboard was rejected by nervous advertisers in cities all over North America. The billboard is located along North Grand Avenue on the right side, 50 feet east of 6th Street.

In a news report from the Edmonton Sun, PETA\’s Dan Shannon responded to questions about the billboard (an Edmonton billboard owner rejected it) explaining that,

We\’re frustrated. We think this is an important message that people need to hear.

You have to love PETA. Kill a chicken to eat it: bad. Kill a human being as part of a serial killing spree: good.

Sources:

Billboard company chickens out on campaign. Rob Drinkwater, Edmonton Sun, May 9, 2003.

Ad Depicts Knife-Wielding Col. Sanders \”Doing Chickens Wrong\”. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, July 8, 2003.

Share

When Is PETA Going to Sue the CDFE?

Posted on by
Reply

Okay, here\’s something I genuinely don\’t understand — why hasn\’t People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sued Ron Arnold and the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise for libel yet? This is hard to understand for two reasons.

First, PETA is hardly afraid to file lawsuits. Just last February, for example, PETA said it would sue the state of New Jersey after PETA activists Dan Shannon and Jay Kelly hit a deer in that state while driving a PETA-owned vehicle. One news organization I wrote an op-ed about PETA for made me go over it with a fine-tooth comb because of PETA\’s perceived litigiousness. This is not an organization known for holding their lawyers at bay.

Second, Ron Arnold has said a number of things which PETA and its attorneys say are patently untrue and would thereby be libelous. For example, here\’s Arnold describing PETA in no uncertain terms for the New Jersey Herald earlier this month,

We believe the evidence shows that PETA\’s leaders and personnel have been involved in criminal activities of such a magnitude for such a length of time that they have no legal right to a tax exemption.

Or how about its filing with the IRS last year where Arnold and CDFE asserted,

PETA openly and actively induces and encourages unlawful acts . . .

Maybe PETA agrees with Arnold that it actively encourages criminal acts. But no, PETA attorney Jeff Kerr tells the New Jersey Herald,

That is completely ludicrous and they\’ve known about it for a long time. Everything it [PETA] does is directly related to trying to help end the suffering and exploitation of animals. Everything we do is consistent with the charitable mission of PETA.

Well, if Arnold\’s assertions are really that ludicrous, it\’s a bit odd that PETA doesn\’t seek recourse in the courts through a libel action. Either they really know Arnold\’s statement is, in fact, accurate, or they\’re too busy suing states when their own activists hit deer to bother.

Source:

Animal rights group attacked; PETA integrity under question. Pat Mindos, New Jersey Herald, May 6, 2003.

Share

PETA Says It Will Sue New Jersey Over Deer/Car Accident

Posted on by
Reply

On November 16, 2001 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals activists Dan Shannon and Jay Kelly hit a deer while traveling in an automobile owned by PETA. PETA\’s legal counsel, Matthew Penzer, last week faxed a notice to the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife declaring their intent to sue the state of New Jersey for contributing to the accident through their deer management practices.

In a press release, PETA outlined its legal strategy,

PETA argues that by placing the interests of hunters, who amount to barely more than 1 percent of New Jersey\’s population, above the safety of the more than 8 million New Jersey residents and countless out-of-state travelers who use the roads, wildlife agencies are violating the state\’s constitutional mandate to provide protection and security to its people. PETA also opposes the fear, the disruption of herd members\’ relationships, and the bloodshed suffered by deer on grounds of cruelty to animals.

In a letter to Bob McDowell, director of New Jersey\’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, Penzer wrote that,

. . . shortly before 1 o\’clock in the morning on that date [Nov. 16, 2001], while driving a Honda Civic belonging to PETA (and while returning from a PETA campaigning tour) southbond on the New Jersey Turnpike, a deer darted out in front of the car and a collision resulted. . . . Damage to the car was severe, resulting in a repair bill that exceeded $6,000.00 and loss of use of the car for nearly two months. The total amount of damages is, as yet, unkown.

The best way to describe this is frivolous.

Source:

http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685">PETA\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685\”>PETA\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685">PETA</a>\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685">PETA\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685\”>PETA\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685\”>PETA\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685">PETA\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685\”>PETA\”>PETA\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685\”>PETA\”>http:/www.peta.org/news/NewsItem.asp?id=685\”>PETA Vehicle Collides with deer, PETA to sue state game agency. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Press Release, February 14, 2002.

Share

PETA Asks State Park Officials to Ban Fishing in State Parks

Posted on by
Reply

Over the past couple months, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has been sending letters to officials responsible for state parks asking them to ban fishing. The letters are being sent by PETA\’s Dan Shannon, and here\’s a typical one sent to the North Dakota Parks and Recreation,

October 31, 2001

Doug Perchal

North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department

1835 Bismarck Expressway

Bismarck, ND 58504

Dear Mr. Perchal:

On behalf of PETAÂ’s more than 750,000 members and supporters, as well as the fish, birds, and other animals that make North Dakota state parks their home, we respectfully request that fishing be banned in all North Dakota state parks.

According to an article in U.S. News & World Report (\”Parks in Peril,\” July 21, 1997), the park system is bending under the pressure of encroachment, underfunding, overcrowding, and pollution. Eliminating fishing and its harmful effects would take some of this pressure off of the parks and their inhabitants.

The violent process of fishing and its consequences do not complement the peace and tranquility of a state park. As you know, fish have a neurochemical system like ours and thus the brain capacity to experience fear and pain. Fish who are torn from the water suffer from being impaled, thrown, stepped on, or mutilated while alive. Many die slowly and painfully from suffocation.

Fishing has other victims, too: In one case among many, a young bald eagle was found by the National Park Service, near death because of injuries to his feet caused by fishing line that had cut through his flesh, resulting in a systemic infection and intense suffering. He required intensive daily care for three months before he was successfully released. Not all animals are as lucky. Millions of birds and other animals suffer, and many die, from injuries caused by discarded fishing hooks, monofilament line, lead weights, and floats. Animals who become entangled in fishing line are often trapped underwater and drown or, unable to feed, die slowly of starvation. In fact, many wildlife rehabilitators tell us that fishing litter is the single greatest cause of injuries to aquatic animals.

North Dakota state parks have already made the compassionate choice to ban hunting, and we are asking you to take the next step. Fishing is just hunting in the water. The tide is turning on sportfishing with the widespread recognition of the sentience of fish and the desire to live a more compassionate, less harmful life. After reading the enclosed materials, we hope you will make the decision to ban fishing in North Dakota state parks and turn them into true havens for all.

Please contact me if you have any questions. I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Dan Shannon

\”Fishing Hurts\” Campaign

Not surprisingly, PETA does not seem to be having much success. As a spokesman for Missouri\’s State Parks told the St. Louis Dispatch after it received a letter from Shannon, \”I can\’t see any circumstances ever where parks wouldn\’t open for fishing.\”

In fact, while many Americans might be ambivalent about hunting, fishing remains very popular. In a Harris poll of Americans which asked people to rank their favorite leisure activities, fishing came in 3rd tied with spending time with family and kids, and behind only reading and watching television.

Sources:

PETA faces uphill battle on fishing issue. Tim Renken, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, December 29, 2001.

Reading, TV, Spending Time with Family, Gardening and Fishing Top List of Favorite Leisure-Time Activities. Humphrey Taylor, Harris Interactive, August 8, 2001.

PETA Hopes to Sink Fishing in North Dakota State Parks. Dan Shannon, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Press Release, October 31, 2001.

Share

PETA Pulls Its Pro-Shark Ads

Posted on by
Reply

Reuters reported that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals decided to pull its pro-shark ad campaign which featured a billboard that asked, \”Would You Give Your Right Arm To Know Why Sharks Attack, Could it Be Revenge?\” The billboard was a crass attempt by PETA to cash in on the publicity surrounding the shark attack on 8-year-old Jessie Arbogast.

PETA spokesman Dan Shannon told Reuters,

Our message is that humans kill billions of fish, including sharks, each year, in the most hideous ways, and sharks aren\’t really to blame for doing what comes naturally, because, unlike us, they don\’t have choices when it comes to what to eat. But right now people would just shoot the messenger without hearing the message.

Live by public relations disasters, die by public relations disasters. Now PETA needs to come clean about whether or not the Ranger who fire four shots into the shark that attacked Arbogast was morally justified in doing so.

Source:

Animal rights group pulls be-kind-to-sharks ad. Reuters, September 4, 2001.

Share

It Was Only A Matter of Time — PETA\’s Latest Billboard Exploiting Shark Tragedy

Posted on by
Reply

Back in July, I noted that it was odd that animal rights activists had not come out to defend the shark who attacked and almost killed Jessie Arbogast. Apparently People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was just temporarily distracted, because this month they unveiled a new billboard wit the tagline, \”Would you give your right arm to know why sharks attack? Could it be revenge?\”

On its web site, PETA likens the pain and suffering endured by Arbogast after the attack to what sharks experience when fishers catch them. According to PETA,

The recent injuries suffered by shark attack victims offer us a glimpse into the terrifying experience these fish endure when they are hauled out of their environment only to be pitch-forked back into the water after their fins have been sliced off. While their fins are made into \”delicacies\” such as shark-fin soup, the sharks either suffocate or slowly bleed to death.

PETA says that readers can help sharks avoid this fate by going vegetarian, but conveniently forgets to mention that shark finning is already effectively illegal in the territorial waters of the United States thanks to a law signed by Bill Clinton in December 2000. Australia also banned shark finning last year.

Dan Shannon, the coordinator of PETA\’s anti-fishing campaign, told The Sun Herald that the animal rights group intends to \”capitalizes on a news story, which is current right now, and that is Jessie Arbogast.\”

Ironically Shannon added that \”obviously our prayers are with him [Arbogast],\” but if PETA had its way many of the cutting edge techniques used to keep Arbogast alive and treat his injuries would have been impossible since they were pioneered with animal research.

The microsurgery techniques used to try to reattach Arbogast\’s right arm, for example, would have been all but impossible to develop without extensive development and testing with animals — exactly the sort of research that PETA regularly criticizes the medical research community for conducting.

Sources:

Shark Finning Banned in U.S. Waters. Cat Lazaroff, Environment News Service, December 27, 2000.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go Back into the Water. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, web page.

PETA capitalizing on Jessie\’s attack. Reni Winter, The Sun Herald, August 30, 2001.

Share