Blogging About Critters Since 2007

Tuesday, March 2, 2010

PETA Attacks Jack Hanna

Sea World has hired him to defend the use of captive whales. PETA calls him an animal pimp "entertainer." You can read some pretty strong words from PETA here.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , ,

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

I saw Jack Hanna on Larry King last week. He was on with Ingrid Newkirk (PETA).

I must say, Ms. Newkirk was dignified and logical. Mr. Hanna came off as a hack. All for Sea World, keeping marine life in captivity for public education and enjoyment. And stating the trainer took the risk, like astronauts do.

I remember Mr. Hanna's early years with animals. It was a joy. In the past few years, I have often wondered if Mr. Hanna was FOR the animals. Now he appears to be definitely anti-animal welfare, not only with this Sea World tragedy.

March 3, 2010 at 6:59 AM
Andrew Heaton said...

Ana,

I realise that commentary from PETA is not always entirely objective or fair, but if this man has such a poor record with regard to the safe handling of animals as the article implies, then he is not the right man for the job and SeaWorld should not have hired him.

March 3, 2010 at 10:41 PM
Jack Hanna said...

Just for the record, SeaWorld didn't hire me to do anything. I've been an advocate for animals, both in zoos and in the wild, for more than 25 years. I've seen firsthand the amazing things zoos can do, when they are done right. I realize that not all captive situations are acceptable, but it can be done well. I suggest you check out PETA's financial statement on their website- you'll see virtually no money goes to animals, it is one big PR machine. Zoos put their money where their mouth is: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-mark-simmons-captivity-ethics-0312120100311,0,1150702.story

March 15, 2010 at 8:39 AM
Ana said...

Mr. Hanna,

Thank you for your post. We at Critter News are well aware of PETA's shortcomings. They are an advocacy group, not a rescue organization. You may call them a PR organization...but, really, so what they if are? Does that change the essential message?

While zoos may put their money where their mouth is, isn't that because their animals is how they MAKE their money? Why shouldn't they invest in the the one asset they have that they are essentially selling to the public?

I could direct you to some other organizations that work on zoo issues such as Zoocheck Canada and In Defense of Animals, but I'm not sure if you would lend them any more credence than you do PETA. I suggest you simply visit a search engine of your choice and enter the terms "zoos" and "abuse." There are many stories out there that you may wish to consider.

Moreover, I would like to define the term "captivity" to you. Per thefreedictionary.com, "captivity" is defined as "the state or period of being imprisoned, confined, or enslaved." The very nature of captivity is wrong in our opinion.

You need to try a little harder on this, as we are certainly not convinced by your arguments.

March 15, 2010 at 8:01 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
blog stats