[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

That's a colorful response. I'll keep it more black and white. Both PETA and HSUS are animal rights groups, not animal welfare groups. There is a clear distinction between the two. If PETA doesn't claim to be an animal shelter, then maybe they should close their facility where they euthanize the vast majority of those taken in. I guess you're right, though. A 90+% kill rate wouldn't meet the classic definition of a 'shelter'. My point, which you only selectively 'colored', is that most people donate to these groups, perhaps blindly, in the thought that they are doing something to help homeless pets. What you quoted in orange makes no sense at all. I never said I was a supporter of any group, but the fact is that I don't care if the devil himself puts out the info. It's either true or not. Would you care to address the truthfulness of their data showing PETA's kill rate? Your comment reminds me of those that were going off on the American Sporting Dog Alliance because they broke the story of Oprah's puppy dieing from parvo. People didn't like the messenger so they focused on that rather than the truthfulness of the info, which, by the way, was true. If their (the CCF) data is true, then shame on PETA. I only recently heard of the CCF and to say, "congratulations, you've found the perfect group for you" is insulting. Your comment about what you highlighted in purple (the purpose of the article) could be said about almost any shelter in the country. PETA gets no respect from me by posting a sad story, no matter that it's true. Finally, I agree with you that everyone has the right to support any group they wish. I happen to not support any group other than my local Humane Society. As for the CCF statements, I tend to believe them as I've heard of these kill percentages by PETA from other sources. And I'm free to believe them without supporting their agenda. What is really inexcusable is to damn someone just because they believe some data put out by someone you don't like.

I highlighted in color the points I was addressing to make my post clear. I personally find long posts, without spacing, that jump around points made in another post, difficult on my eyes and not especially enjoyable to read through. My point about the CCF's other campaigns was simply to point out that if I see a lot of obvious misinformation across every single campaign run by an organization, then I probably won't use them as my source for things I feel strongly about or view them as a valid source of information. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear for you.

Seriously, did you even read the article?