We’ve all heard of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). They are the largest and most visible animal rights organization in the world, with more than 2 million supporters and members. PETA’s official mission statement is filled with noble goals. According to PETA.org, it “works through public education, cruelty investigations, research, animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement, and protest campaigns” to focus attention on “the four areas in which the largest numbers of animals suffer the most intensely for the longest periods of time: on factory farms, in laboratories, in the clothing trade, and in the entertainment industry.” Taken at face value, PETA sounds like a lot of other lobbying groups. And who can argue against the ethical treatment of animals? I know I can’t. Actually, before I began the research for this essay I was an avid PETA supporter. But this wholesome sounding work is not what comes to mind when you hear about PETA. In fact, for many people, the first thing you think about is terrorists throwing blood on celebrities wearing fur coats or naked PETA members in cages. PETA is notorious for outrageous stunts like this, which they claim are designed to further its agenda. Most of society says that PETA’s message is being drowned out in controversy. Could it be that PETA’s publicity stunts are so extreme and so offensive that they create a backlash? Are their tactics so radical that they are actually counterproductive to what they are trying to achieve?

PETA’s most recent stunt was the creation of a Super Bowl commercial that had absolutely no chance of ever making it on the air, though it is available online. The ad features a sexy soundtrack that plays while women dressed in Victoria’s Secret-style lingerie begin disrobing – and then start fondling vegetables. One half-naked woman licks a pumpkin while another rubs broccoli on her chest in a hot tub. At the end of the ad, the text reads: “Studies show vegetarians have better sex. Go veg.” You can view the commercial here and another version with CNN commentary here. Whatever clever message PETA was trying to portray about the benefits of being a vegetarian was completely drowned out by the criticism of the perverted images and PETA’s ridiculous assumption that it would be shown during the Super Bowl.

One of PETA’s biggest publicity campaigns is targeted at KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken), or, as PETA would like you to think of it, Kentucky Fried Cruelty. PETA claims that KFC tortures the chickens they serve you, although KFC points out that they don’t own a single chicken farm. They buy their chicken from the same suppliers as McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and supermarkets. If chickens are being tortured (and PETA has video tapes that show that some are), it’s the supplier that is doing it. But KFC is getting the PETA treatment. A website that PETA owns called Kentucky Fried Cruelty features a logo that looks just like the official KFC logo, only Colonel Sanders has a demonic grin on his face, devil horns sprouting from his head, and is clutching a blood spattered chicken by its legs hanging upside down. To many people in the South, this must be something like depicting Robert E. Lee with a Hitler mustache and a Nazi armband in place of his grey beard and Confederate uniform. Can PETA really think they will sell one less bucket of extra-crispy because they make the Colonel out to be the devil himself?

And just when you think they’ve gone too far, PETA decided to desecrate Colonel Sanders’ final resting place. According to local Louisville, Kentucky news sources, PETA tricked the owners of the cemetery where Colonel Sanders is buried. They bought a grave plot near Colonel Sanders’ grave and put up a headstone with the name of a PETA member who is actually still alive. Under the name is a poem, but if you look at the first letters of each line and read down vertically, the letters spell out “KFC tortures birds”. When the stunt was discovered, KFC called it “ a disgustingly disrespectful way to disgrace the resting place of the departed.” I’m sure that’s the way most people feel about messing with someone’s gravesite, and I doubt that many people have decided to boycott KFC based on this stunt. So what’s the point?

According to PETA, these kinds of shock tactics are an effective way of keeping its issues in the news. It seems to me that the only thing these tactics are doing is keeping PETA itself in the news. But if people have negative attitudes about PETA because of their in-your-face tactics, then people will be biased automatically against whatever side of the issue PETA is trying to promote. For example, on the Kentucky Fried Cruelty website, there are links to an order form for PETA’s “Vegetarian Starter Kit.” It’s probably filled with useful help for anyone considering going vegan, but I doubt that anyone turned off by their satanic Colonel Sanders picture is going to volunteer their personal information to PETA.

When thinking about the answer to my initial question: “are their tactics so radical that they are actually counterproductive to what they are trying to achieve?” my personal experience is that most people answer “yes.” PETA’s name has become so notorious that as soon as someone knows they are associated with an issue, they close their minds to PETA’s message, even if it may be an important and excellent one. If people think of them as disrespectful and uncaring about whom they hurt, PETA is killing the message. If you do a Google search for “PETA publicity stunts”, almost every result is a link to a negative website or article, with titles like “When Good Causes Go Wrong: 7 Utterly Outrageous PETA Stunts”. In an age when the internet is the public’s first source for information, PETA has poisoned its own name. In my opinion, all this negativity towards PETA just proves the old saying, “You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.”

So what are the options for those of us who support PETA’s goals, but not their tactics? If PETA is not too militant to take constructive criticism from their supporters, it may be helpful to send them a wake-up call. At http://www.peta2.com/contact.asp, PETA provides their snail mail address and other contact information. If enough of us let our feelings known about our concerns about their publicity, it may have an impact on these techniques. And if you’re more concerned about the issue than the organization, a great alternative to support is the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The ASPCA has been around for a century, and they don’t use extreme tactics or try to get everyone to go vegetarian. While it may not be as trendy or edgy as PETA, the ASPCA has established itself as a serious force in animal rights. For example, they led the investigation into the dog fighting operation at NFL quarterback Michael Vick’s home that resulted in his conviction. You can find out more at www.aspca.org. Either way, the important thing is to get your voice out there in the fight against animal cruelty. After all, isn’t that what PETA is really trying to accomplish?