In defense of animal defenders

Re “L.A.’s deep pockets give creatures comfort,” Dec. 19

I take issue with the derisive tone of The Times’ article on animal welfare organizations and their donors. The piece focused almost exclusively on how lavish the fundraising dinners are, without mentioning that most nonprofit organizations (including ones serving humans) have rich donors and lavish galas. The Times went out of its way to make the article’s subjects seem ridiculous, pointing out that “they generally have a gaggle of their own pets, proudly immortalized in digital photos on their BlackBerrys and iPhones,” and using quotes from activists who said they prefer animals to people. The Times made no mention of the scads of regular, middle-class folks who also donate to animal welfare causes, many of whom identify as Republican or conservative. Not everyone who cares about animals fits into the “rich liberal” stereotype.

Paria Kooklan

Los Angeles

--

The Times fails to note that “animal welfare” -- an honorable movement to ensure that nonhuman animals be treated humanely -- became “animal rights,” a movement that hijacked animal welfare on its way to terrorizing scientific research, ranching, farming and other legitimate uses of nonhuman animals. I was disappointed that The Times didn’t sufficiently distinguish between these two movements. It should be obvious that a person who considers nonhuman animals equal in their “rights” to humans is not in the same universe as a person who considers cruelty toward nonhuman animals unethical, but humane use of them for food, protection and research necessary.

Howard Winet

Pasadena