Not trying to mislead at all... I think that the interpretation of the data is misleading. Of ALL the animals turned in to PETA, the majority were reclaimed by their owners.

The majority of the remainder were euthanised to be sure but there is absolutely NO indication as to whether or not those animals were ADOPTABLE or not. Absolutely none.

SO, maybe the term "Adoptable" should defined more clearly, as it may mean different things to different people.

Does adoptable mean that the owner can't be located, or that the animal has no age, behavioral or health problems that render it less likely to be adopted? If it's the latter,then presumably the animals that were reclaimed by their owners were adoptable as well.

There are plenty of shelters around the country that euthanize animals that go unclaimed by their owners or others after a set time period, so, in and of itself PETA may not, in fact, be doing anything out of the ordinary. The concept of No-Kill shelters is only relatively recently catching on.

So, I still think that the article interprets the data in a misleading way.

[ Show Entire Thread ]