The ASPCA typically has a lower euthanasia rate than PETA because it often employs more selective admission policies, focusing on adopting out animals rather than accepting all animals regardless of their condition. In contrast, PETA operates as an open-admission shelter, which means it takes in all animals, leading to higher euthanasia rates due to the number of unadoptable or severely ill animals it receives.
They both are helpful just in different ways. Ideally wed have the ASPCA and Peta working together for a better outcome, but unfortunately thats not usually the case.
“Focusing on adopting out animals” which results in >90% fatality? I would laugh but that’s just not funny. The reason PETAs kill count is so high is because they fundamentally don’t believe in livestock or owning pets, they see killing dogs, cats, and horses as a mercy.
The ASPCA typically has a lower euthanasia rate than PETA because it often employs more selective admission policies, focusing on adopting out animals rather than accepting all animals regardless of their condition. In contrast, PETA operates as an open-admission shelter, which means it takes in all animals, leading to higher euthanasia rates due to the number of unadoptable or severely ill animals it receives.
Doesn’t the aspca also spend more on advertising than helping animals? I remember them also having a suspicously high CEO pay.
You should remember, it is outlined two comments up this chain.
They both are helpful just in different ways. Ideally wed have the ASPCA and Peta working together for a better outcome, but unfortunately thats not usually the case.
“Focusing on adopting out animals” which results in >90% fatality? I would laugh but that’s just not funny. The reason PETAs kill count is so high is because they fundamentally don’t believe in livestock or owning pets, they see killing dogs, cats, and horses as a mercy.
You should re-read my post because you are attacking a point I didnt make.