PETA is Trying For More Lighthouses
By Sue Clark on Jul 30, 2007 in Opinion 
Print This Post
Well, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment for Animals) is at it again. As Matt Prescott of PETA indicated last week to Lighthouse-News, the intention on their part was to keep on trying for a lighthouse until they got one. Using a lighthouse as the base for their “Fish Empathy” project was a spur of the moment decision for their group. This time, PETA has sent letters of interest regarding New York Bay Lighthouses Old Orchard Shoal Lighthouse, roughly 2.5 miles offshore from Great Kills Harbor on Staten Island and West Bank Lighthouse, which is 4.7 miles south of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, to serve as their base of operations for fishinghurts.com, and to put their “Fish Empathy” quilt on display. Both of these lighthouses are active aids to navigation.
PETA’s press release describes their argument for ownership in these excerpts:
From their Press Release:
The Fish Empathy Project aims to inform people that fish are intelligent, intriguing animals who feel pain just as all animals do and that they don’t deserve to be violently killed for food, painfully hooked for “sport,” or cruelly confined to aquariums. If PETA is awarded ownership of one of the lighthouses, renovations would include interactive educational displays; an exhibit of its 300-square-foot Fish Empathy Quilt, which consists of 100 artful squares conveying the importance of showing compassion to fish; and a cafe that serves faux fish sticks and other delicious vegan “seafood.”
From their letter to Ms. Meta Cushing:
Biologists have found that fish develop relationships with other fish and show affection by gently rubbing against one another. Fish have individual personalities, talk to each other, and grieve when their companions die. Fish are capable of using tools, and they gather information by eavesdropping. Dr. Sylvia Earle, the world’s leading marine biologist, said, “I wouldn’t deliberately eat a grouper any more than I’d eat a cocker spaniel. They’re so good-natured, so curious. You know, fish are sensitive, they have personalities, they hurt when they’re wounded.”
Unfortunately, I do not believe that PETA’s ideas of renovation to display a quilt and “interactive fish displays” jibe with historic preservation of these iconic lights. And although I consider myself more liberal than conservative, and am open to different uses of lighthouses to save them from the scrap heap, I cannot justify these uses in my mind. As Pam Meister at Blogmeister says:
“Fish are interesting, quizzical animals with unique personalities,” he (Prescott) said.
I’ll check with my brother-in-law, who enjoys fishing in the Sound, how many “interesting, quizzical animals with unique personalities” he has come across. Come to think of it, I’ve enjoyed some of them myself, thanks to his generosity!
Perhaps PETA could create a display with the same tasteful “Holocaust” theme they have used in the past. After all, we know how much more important fish and other animals are to the folks at PETA than, you know, actual folks.
Prescott also mentioned PETA wants to “run their fishinghurts.com website” from these lighthouses. And how will this be accomplished? These beacons are several miles offshore, you generally don’t call your local power company to turn the lights on. I also envision confrontations with the fishermen in the Sound, who rely on the fishing grounds for their livelihoods.
I feel this is very poorly thought out, as most “spontaneous” ideas are, and PETA would be wise to cast their net elsewhere than at these lovely beacons of the night.
Photo at top left is of the Westbank Lighthouse, clicking on it leads to information at lighthousefriends.com. Photo at lower right is the Old Orchard Shoals Lighthouse. That also leads to the information page about it at lighthousefriends.com.
What do you think? Should PETA take control of our lighthouses and renovate it to fit their agenda? Or should another non-profit group dedicated to lighthouse preservation step forward to save these ladies of the sea? Leave a comment and let us know what you think.
Keep up with Lighthouse News. Get articles by 
Email or in a 
Reader.
August 1st, 2007 at 8:39 am
I agree that PETA’s proposed use for these lighthouses is not in the structures’ best interest. And it’s very apparent that the organization fails to comprehend how difficult it is to access these offshore sites. They seem to think a steady stream of visitors would stop by to see their displays and eat faux fish sticks, but it’s not that simple. Maintaining an offshore lighthouse with difficult access is completely different from maintaining a mainland lighthouse, and I don’t think the federal government should be treating all lighthouse the same under the NHLPA. Offshore lights should have special protection.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
The idea for offshore lights having a different level of protection is an excellent idea. These are the ones that often end up in the scrap heap, and yet those have been just as important if not more so than the land based lights.
PETA apparently hasn’t read anything about the lighthouse preservation act. The theory behind their “faux fish stick cafe” is that they are a nonprofit group, so the monies they’ll get aren’t going to profits, it’s thereby okay to run a commercial enterprise out of the lighthouse. And of course, who will come out there? The local fishermen? I think not.
And if that wouldn’t fly, they figured they’d “work something out with the government.” Kind of clueless, wouldn’t you say? And there was absolutely no idea of the cost of insurance, both liability and property. If an unorthodox (to us) group is going to “buy” a lighthouse, such as in Conneaut Light’s situation, let’s all hope they’re a little more grounded in reality than PETA.
At least they withdrew their letter of interest for Penfield Reef Lighthouse. The reason for that? They didn’t know that Fairfield wanted it.(!?!?!)