>>So, you see, the anti-PETA bunch could have easily done some homework and seen that yes, many organizations do a stellar job, but there are also plenty that have absolutely horrible records. Given that some of the worst offenders (aside from PETA) are in sparsely populated, poorly funded locations and may still use inhumane euthanasia techniques, PETA may actually come up smelling like roses in some respects.

>>

Really? PETA looks good for their high euth rate because it compares to shelters in poor locations? This statement makes no sense. See the way I understand it and have seen things work in my years working in shelters is the poorer shelters have less resources available to do things like medical treatments, behavior and training, more public outreach etc. This in turn has been proven to lower euthanasia rates. So given that, if I were to compare the amount of donations taken in annually by an organization such as PETA and then see their insanely high euth rate, no matter what name was on there, I would be very judgmental of the organization. I am not sure how vast your experience in the animal welfare field is, but I have been working both rescue and shelters for the last 16 years. I have also watched and seen many organizations work very successfully to reduce euthanasia rates, even with the increase of intakes due to the recession. So PETA's facility increasing percentages over the year truly isnt satisfactory. I can show pictures as insane as many of those abuse photos on their site and show after adoption photos. The organization that I sit on the board of directors of doesnt make in 1 year the amount PETA gets in 1 week, yet we are able to rehabilitate and place dogs.



However the purpose of my post was to explain that PETA did in fact operate a Humane Society of some respect.
-----
Cindy Steinle

PHFaust

Visit kingsnake on Facebook!

Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

[ Show Entire Thread ]