PITA.

More PETA-bred rabble rousing.

But seriously, put humans in cat suits, and let them bear the indignity of entertaining stands full of beer-swilling screaming half-wits with team-color letters painted on their chests. Sometimes the guys can act a bit uncivilized, as well.

By the way, is it pronounced jag'-whar or jag'-u-ahr? Just wondering.

I can't think of any logical reason why one needs to own an animal to use it as a mascot. Would LSU's team be less Tigers without owning a tiger or UT's less Longhorns without owning a steer? No.

Or UGA less bulldogs without owning a bulldog?

There's a good debate there, for sure. And my point with this post was the PETA is not raising that issue; they're using the Roy Horn incident to try to stir up the "safety" issue, which is ridiculous and pathetic for them to do.

LSU's tiger, Mike V, was purchased from the Busch Gardens people, so he's living in a Baton Rouge cage instead of a St. Louis one. LSU has upgraded his home twice in the past decade and is currently raising $2.5 million for yet another upgrade.

So I'm sure his happiness level is somewhere between being a wild Bengal and being Mike Tyson's pet.

And another reason to argue for such mascots is that because Mike is in a university setting, he is cared for and studied by veterinary medicine students and faculty, thus leading to a better understanding of the Bengal tiger.

"By the way, is it pronounced jag'-whar or jag'-u-ahr? Just wondering."

Depends on whether you speak English (latter) or American (former).

I'm reminded of the incident at the San Diego Zoo, where a 28-foot python decided to asphyxiate and swallow a poor snake tech. I almost PETA my pants just imagining what the poor guy went through -- the tech, that is. There was no PETA campaign concerning snakes. You know why? Because although snakes are animals, they are not considered to be beautiful and majestic, like, say, jag-u-ars (and shouldn't the South/Central Americans have dibs on the pronunciation?) or tigers. PETA couldn't rabble rouse by appealing to a damnable legless, eyeless, unPETAble, antisocial beast. They are clearly an opportunistic bunch.

PETA goes too far -- again.

I'm all for the "ethical treatment of animals" - what disturbs me is the running implication that animals are somehow superior to humans, and that the perceived needs of animals should trump those of people

Well, some animals are much RARER than people, and therefore less, er, expendable. ;-)

Aren't MOST animals higher up the depth chart than insects rarer than humans?