ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1995, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, December 3, 1995 TAG: 9512040089
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAVID FOSTER ASSOCIATED PRESS
ANIMAL ACTIVISTS predict a world without hunting, fur coats and meat-eating. They have reason to be giddy with success.
Grant this much to animal-rights activists: They don't just pick the easy fights. Peter Petersan went to the meat-eating heart of America to take on the Wienermobile, and he did it with relish.
On a sultry August morning in West Des Moines, Iowa, Petersan circled his target: a group of parents and children gathered outside a grocery store for an Oscar Mayer talent contest.
When a boy started singing ``My bologna has a first name, it's O-S-C-A-R,'' Petersan made his move. Wearing a pig costume and a ``Meat Is Murder'' sign, he climbed aboard the hot-dog-shaped Wienermobile and refused to budge.
Police stepped up and threw the pig in the pokey. But not before Petersan got his message across. ``They were exploiting children to sell their product - slaughtered animals,'' he says.
Oh, those wacky animal-rights crusaders: They dress as lobsters to protest cruelty to crustaceans. They persuade fashion models to bare all and proclaim ``I'd rather go naked than wear fur.'' Last month in 10 cities, they showed their holiday spirit by hanging banners saying ``Thanksgiving Is Murder On Turkeys.''
Like clowns in a convent, they succeed wildly in drawing attention to themselves. But do these far-out activists really think they'll ever influence mainstream America?
Surprise: It appears they already have.
A new Associated Press poll has found wide support for beliefs usually identified with a tiny minority of radical animal-rights activists.
Two-thirds of the 1,004 Americans polled agree with a basic tenet of the animal-rights movement: ``An animal's right to live free of suffering should be just as important as a person's right to live free of suffering.''
Two-thirds also say it's seldom or never right to use animals in testing cosmetics; 59 percent say killing animals for fur is always wrong; and 51 percent say sport hunting is always wrong.
The poll was taken Nov. 10-14 by ICR Survey Research Group of Media, Pa., part of AUS Consultants. Its margin of sampling error is 3 percentage points.
The AP poll reinforces other statistics that show declines in hunting, consumption of red meat, and use of animals in research.
``All you have to do is walk into a restaurant and open the menu to see how things have changed,'' says Ingrid Newkirk, co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the nation's largest animal-rights group. ``Even in steak houses, you find vegetarian items.''
To be sure, America is still a killing nation. More than 6.5 billion animals die annually at human hands, mostly for food, says Stanford University researcher Linda Cork. And critics of animal-rights activists say our treatment of animals hinges not so much on dancing lobsters and naked models as on more mundane things such as increasing urbanization and scientific advances.
But no matter how much credit they do or don't deserve, activists like Petersan are smiling inside their pig suits. A lot of things are going their way:
Liberating lab animals
The number of animals used in scientific research has dropped by about half since 1968, says Andrew Rowan, a scientist at the Center for Animals and Public Policy at Tufts University.
Technological advances such as cell-culturing and computer-modeling have reduced demand for rats, rabbits, dogs and monkeys, Rowan says. But animal-rights protests also have played a part, he says, forcing researchers to examine how much they really need animals.
Most Americans appear willing to accept justified uses of research animals. In the AP poll, 70 percent approve of using animals in medical research under at least some circumstances.
But only 31 percent believe it's right in testing cosmetics - and the cosmetics trade is listening.
More than 500 companies now boast they don't test their cosmetics or household products on animals, PETA says. Those that do - Gillette and Proctor & Gamble are among the biggest - find themselves under fire.
``We've reduced the number of animals we have to use for new products,'' says Michael Petrina, spokesman for the Cosmetics, Toiletry and Fragrance Association. ``But we're not at a point where we can completely replace animal testing.''
Fur better or worse?
Whom to believe? Furriers say sales are holding steady and need just a spell of cold weather for a big revival. Anti-fur protesters say the industry is fading like a fox in a leg-hold trap.
PETA keeps a long list of top fashion designers, including Calvin Klein, who refuse to use fur. The Fur Information Council of America has its own long list of designers who do use fur.
Public opinion appears to be shifting toward Calvin. In the AP poll, 59 percent oppose killing an animal for its fur. That's up from a 1989 ABC News poll, worded exactly the same, which found 46 percent opposed.
Happily for furriers, opposition softens among those who actually can afford a fur coat. In households earning $50,000 or more, 50 percent say they oppose killing animals for fur.
The economy, not fear of blood-splattering protesters, is what drives fur sales, says Stephanie Kenyon, spokeswoman for the fur council. Fur sales boomed during the high-rolling '80s, but fell during the following recession.
``It's truly a luxury product,'' she says. ``If you look at the sale of other luxury items, like Jaguars and Porsches, their sales were also up during the mid-'80s, and down during the early '90s.''
Meat still popular
Animal-rights activists say the best way to be kind to animals is to stop eating them. So far, they have few takers - despite the breathless articles in trendy magazines that imply vegetarianism is sweeping the nation.
True believers such as Petersan, 23, are strict vegetarians, or vegans. They don't eat meat, eggs or dairy products. They don't wear leather. They don't visit zoos or aquariums, unless it's to protest. They avoid silk (silkworms are boiled alive) and even honey (bees are smoked cruelly from their hives).
``I don't believe any creature is put on this earth for my benefit, be it a dog, elephant or worm,'' says Petersan, who works at the Silver Spring, Md., office of The Fund for Animals.
Janet Riley, spokeswoman for the American Meat Institute - a frequent target of PETA protests - sees a measure of hypocrisy in the growing popularity of animal-rights groups. PETA claims 500,000 members, up from just 8,000 in 1984, but Riley smells some carnivores among them.
``I don't think a lot of people understand what they're saying when they say they support animal rights,'' she says.
As a proud meat-eater, Riley makes a point of defying today's politically correct bent toward vegetarianism. She recently took a 10-pound ham to a potluck dinner, setting it on the table amid the couscous and hummus.
There were sideways glances. ``But when I turned around five minutes later,'' she says, ``the ham was almost gone.''
LENGTH: Long : 132 lines ILLUSTRATION: PHOTO: 1. AP Animal-rights activist and veterinarian Melinaby CNBMaritasto tends to an injured pigeon at the annual Hegins, Pa.,
pigeon shoot. color
2. chart - Animal right-to-life color AP