If PETA can dupe the public, so can any organization. If my no-kill shelter’s policy deems hyperactivity as an “unadoptable” trait or parasites as “untreatable”, so could yours. And if one rescuer can turn out to be a hoarder, any could.

After all these years, I still honestly have no idea what “no-kill” means. To me, it just depends on who you’re asking and how honest they’re being with you…and with themselves.

I think this same anger applies to animal services - if we had a safety net nationally of no-kill shelters think of the peace of mind we’d all have. (Not to mention the lives saved)

They have claimed these are hopeless animals being relieved of suffering. But they are required to report “adoptable” animals to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Better dead than fed remains PETA’s credo.

Yes, the Center for Consumer Freedom, which requested the report PETA is required to provide by law, is funded by industries with a dog in this fight, so to speak. But the numbers and the law speak for themselves.

Comment by Chris Gregory — March 11, 2010 @ 3:33 pm

You’d rather see adoptable animals dead??

First, adoptable animals aren’t “euthanised” — they are killed. Second, there’s numerically no shortage of homes, but a poorly run shelter system that doesn’t reach out to animal lovers to place those animals.

The “ideological principal” of building no-kill communities is that an entire community can — and has — achieved 90 percent live-release rates from its shelters.

How that equates with “suffering” is beyond me.

Other food for thought- the concept of a “humane community” where ultimately the “kill rate” would actually be 100% because ONLY animals who are not “savable” enter the shelter system. So animal control intakes would be close to zero because communities would be humanely controling population with spay/neuter programs, TNR, pet retention and sancturary programs.

http://www.phillynokill.org

Multiply by a factor of 10 to get a rough estimate of nationwide animal shelter stats.