The Difference Between ALF and PETA

The Iowa State Daily has the best report (okay, the only report) I've seen during the Rubashkin Slaughterhouse Scandal on the difference between PETA and more radical animal rights groups like ALF. (Funny how blogs, online publications and college newspapers have led the coverage of this while the traditional press has fallen far behind. But I digress.)

Josh Nelson reports:

Dan Shannon, senior campaign coordinator for PETA, said the group has developed a mixed view on animal rights. Ultimately, Shannon said, the group believes that animals should not be used for commercial or other practices. In reality, all they can hope for is to increase awareness of animal rights and try to decrease suffering, he said.

"We recognize animals are being used, so it would be irresponsible for us not to address this," he said.

Instead, PETA works to publicize incidents of animal cruelty or abuse, he said. In June of 2003, PETA began correspondence with AgriProcessors, a major kosher cattle processor in Postville, after receiving word that the company might be engaging in abuse. After nearly a year of investigation, PETA then released footage of the plant's operations and filed complaints with the United States Department of Agriculture.

Instead of using attacks similar to the ALF, a group based in the United Kingdom, Shannon said, PETA looks to non-violent, legal means of getting its message out.…

Despite their tactics, PETA hasn't gone to the extremes other animal rights groups have. ALF has carried a reputation of breaking into farms and laboratories to free animals.…

Robin Webb, spokesman for ALF, said in a phone interview from London that the group views animal rights as a struggle for equality, similar to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa.

In 2002, the FBI identified ALF as the largest active terrorist group in the United States.…

Read it all here.