Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:

You'll be driving animals into homes that won't treat them as they need to be in that situation. People who want pets, to take care of them, do it already without such incentives.

We have similar programs for autistic people without family to take care of them. It's the same thing as a full-time carer. If it's good enough for humans, it should be good enough for pets. Of course, that doesn't mean there's no abuse of autistic people by their supposed carer, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority have their needs answered.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

You'll be driving animals into homes that won't treat them as they need to be in that situation. People who want pets, to take care of them, do it already without such incentives.

We have similar programs for autistic people without family to take care of them. It's the same thing as a full-time carer. If it's good enough for humans, it should be good enough for pets. Of course, that doesn't mean there's no abuse of autistic people by their supposed carer, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority have their needs answered.

Well pets and autistic children are on completely differant scales. You don't already have millions of families welcoming autistic children into their home because their looking for companionship.

 djones520 wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

You'll be driving animals into homes that won't treat them as they need to be in that situation. People who want pets, to take care of them, do it already without such incentives.

We have similar programs for autistic people without family to take care of them. It's the same thing as a full-time carer. If it's good enough for humans, it should be good enough for pets. Of course, that doesn't mean there's no abuse of autistic people by their supposed carer, but I'm pretty sure the vast majority have their needs answered.

Well pets and autistic children are on completely differant scales. You don't already have millions of families welcoming autistic children into their home because their looking for companionship.

Well, yeah, hence the need to either a) reduce drastically the number of pets or b) motivate potential owner to become actual owners.

While I don't cry everytime I see a dead squirrel, or restrain myself from eating tasty meat, I still think unilaterally following a) is... well, crass.

Hell, scale that deductible so that it builds up slowly in regard to each pet over the years, and you have an incentive to see your pet reach old age happy and healthy.

 djones520 wrote:


Many of the no-kill shelters I've worked with have significant turn over rates. Very few animals are permanent residents. And quite frankly, arguing that killing tens of thousands of animals within 24 hours of taking them is better then being placed in a no kill shelter, well that's just not a winning argument.

But another issue with No-Kill shelters is many of them turn away animals due to the bandwidth they can support. So the animals who do get 'sheltered' are peachy, but the ones that they can't support end up with the same fate as going to a shelter who euthanizes. So while they are 'no-kill' that doesn't prevent animals from getting killed, it just causes those animals to be possibly displaced to other shelters which are forced to euthanize them due to the harsh reality of lack of space and funding.

A lot of those animals will be denied access to a no-kill shelter and killed anyways, I am not saying PETA's way is better, but the alternative often has just as much issues and the shelters in the middle are forced to euthanize animals simply because there is no alternative.

Noir wrote:
Yup, PETA being doing this for years. Just like Red Cross, I or anyone else should never give to either. This is way people should check into any organization they plan on donating to.

What's wrong with the Red Cross?

That was a good episode of Bullsh*t.

 Ouze wrote:

Noir wrote:
Yup, PETA being doing this for years. Just like Red Cross, I or anyone else should never give to either. This is way people should check into any organization they plan on donating to.

What's wrong with the Red Cross?

Yeah, I'm curious too.

IIRC They received donations for hurricane sandy but only a portion of it went there to help. the rest i have no idea.

 Desubot wrote:
IIRC They received donations for hurricane sandy but only a portion of it went there to help. the rest i have no idea.

This was true for any disaster they service. They allocate X amount based upon whatever calculations they come up with, and any excess goes into the general fund, and any shortage comes out of the general fund.

I'm not clear this is true anymore, after 9/11 - I believe this changed.

Red Crosses overhead is horrible, and it's very rare that what you donate goes to what you donated for.

 djones520 wrote:
Red Crosses overhead is horrible, and it's very rare that what you donate goes to what you donated for.

How horrible is it? Like, administratively... percentage-wise?

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Red Crosses overhead is horrible, and it's very rare that what you donate goes to what you donated for.

How horrible is it? Like, administratively... percentage-wise?

Well, I may have heard wrong on that. According to the Combined Federal Campaign, Red Cross (at the national level) is only 7.6%, which isn't that horrible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Back on Topic, the blurb that PETA uses in the CFC starts with "Fight cruelty. Save lives!"

....

Oh, and they have a 17.7% overhead.

This thing about how "the Red Cross is a terrible charity" has been an interesting meme around these parts for some time, now.

And while they're not great, for the size of the organization, they're not bad, either. Certainly nowhere near as bad as they're often referred to.

Note I have no connection to these guys (or any other charity) in any way; just sort of fascinated by how resilient this idea is in the face of facts saying otherwise, as you saw yourself when you looked into it a little.

 djones520 wrote:
[Oh, and they have a 17.7% overhead.

Charity Navigator says 9%.


PETA is pretty awful though, on that I think there is consensus.

 Ahtman wrote:
There are a lot of really good groups dedicated to animal causes, and PETA isn't one of them. On the other hand, if you want to be part of an organization that makes you feel morally superior without any effort or reason, and that also has celebrities posing nude for ads, they are the only game in town.

Nice one, would I be able to quote this if PETA is brought up again?

 Frazzled wrote:
Yes, this is known in the pet world. They are killers and should be treated as such.

PETA seem to exist to further their own crass stunts. If anyone actually cares about animals go to a local rescue shelter, adopt a retired racing greyhound, etc. One of our dogs is a rescue dog with a disability, and my mother-in-law's dog was also rescued from abuse. I'm glad PETA didn't get their hands on them.