I can’t say I was overly surprised when PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, founded in 1980 by Ingrid Newkirk and boasting a membership of two million members world-wide) came out earlier this week saying it was cruel for Punxsutawney Phil (the official weather groundhog of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania.) to be exhibited on Groundhogs Day, and that he should be replaced by a robot. Really? I should think PETA would be against the entire operation, but replacing him?--With a robot? Puh-leaze! It would be laughable, except they’re 100% serious.
First, let me say that Groundhog Day is one of my favorite holidays out of the year, precisely because it does involve these furry creatures. One look at Phil and you know that he is a pampered pet—and he doesn’t seem to mind in the slightest missing out on hibernation in favor of all the publicity. Not to mention that his home town rakes in the dough, thanks to Phil. Remember Bill Murray and Andie MacDowell in the 1993 movie Groundhog Day? Losing Phil would put a major dent in the local bottom line, I’m sure. It would probably not be a good day for Phil, either.
What I want to know is where it will end with PETA? For an organization which equates the rights of a rat with those of a human boy, who knows? According to Wikipedia,
"PETA is an animal rights organization. It rejects speciesism, and the idea that animals may be regarded as property. It therefore opposes the use of animals in any form: in animal testing, as food, entertainment, clothing, furniture, decoration, companionship for people, seeing eye dogs for the blind, or as working in any form such as shepherding sheep. PETA would like for all animals to be completely free from dependency on humans to survive." (For more please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_for_the_Ethical_Treatment_of_Animals)
Please don’t misunderstand me, I am 100% behind them when they target abuses in research or the meat industry, for example, but I believe that some of what PETA takes exception to is way out of line. According to them, none of us could have pets anymore, no more service animals, nor could dogs be trained to sniff out drugs or explosives in order to protect us from terrorists. No more horseback riding, especially jumping over courses, no more . . . anything to do with animals! Gosh, I guess we wouldn’t need to worry about preserving endangered species anymore either. Forget the world going to the dogs, there would be nothing here but wall to wall people!
Nearly all of the people I know have had pets sometime during their lives or lived on farms, and aside from the occasional irresponsible person, have regarded their animals as trusted friends and companions. For some, their pets are more like their kids. Farm animals, which are expected to earn their way and eventually end up as food, are valued and cared for humanely, and yes, oftentimes even loved too. I don’t think I speak out of turn when I maintain that animals greatly enrich the quality of our lives just by being there. The few times I’ve been without a cat or dog to share my life have been lonely and miserable, because they give back something that the companionship of other humans does not. They don’t judge us, and they are always there and glad to see us, whether we’ve been gone five hours or five months. When they are finally gone, we are heartbroken, and the grief is just as real as for a human being. I remember every cat, dog, horse, and goat that has been kind enough to share my life, and I miss each and every one of them.
So PETA, please forget replacing Punxsutawney Phil with a dead thing made of electrical wires and plastic. No matter how realistic, it wouldn’t come within a million miles of being what Phil represents to the rest of us. To even make the suggestion makes me wonder if you truly care about animals at all. You certainly must have never loved one—or had one love you.
