[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

It's hard not to feel tons of sympathy for abused and/or shelter dogs and the folks that have to euthanize some of them. I cannot, however, for the life of me, muster up any support for PETA or the HSUS. They are the two biggest groups in the country that people commonly associate with looking out for animal welfare. They have a combined budget of nearly $150 million annually yet HSUS operates no shelters and PETA has an abominable kill rate for animals they take in. I just heard about the CCF a few days ago through a Fox news report and went to their website. While the CCF clearly has an agenda, does that make their facts any less true? According to the CCF, PETA only adopted 7 out of over 2000 pets in 2008, while 34 were transferred. The rest were killed. I don't care where these pets came from, can anyone honestly say that a group that routinely kills over 90% of pets taken in is worthy of support? PETA's average kill rate since 1998 is 85%. The shame of it all is that so many people put so much stock (and donations) in groups such as this and they routinely fail to fill the role expected of them. For my part, I'll continue to support my local humane society (HSSM) as they are on the front lines in my community dealing with homeless animals. As for PETA, HSUS and CCF, people should do their research on all these groups, pro and con, before forming an opinion. It is far too easy to sway people with disturbing photos, facts and statistics that do little to shed light on the group's true agenda. Here's a link to a CCF page where I found some of the info they are putting out.....PETA Kills Animals | PetaKillsAnimals.com

In Blue: Both are animal welfare agencies. Their focus is on ALL animals- not just pets. Neither has ever claimed to be an animal shelter. That is not where their work is done.

In orange: Who is putting out information, or intentionally misleading information should be important to us all. Have you looked at their other campaigns? Do you agree with those "facts"? If so, congratulations, you've found the perfect group for you.

In purple: This was explained in great detail in the article linked. It was actually the primary purpose for the article.

Everyone has a right to who they support and what they are comfortable with but supporting completely false and extremely misleading statements is inexcusable.