JickyJuly said:
PETA does some good things. If you have a problem and your local animal control is not helpful, they will sometimes step in. They're extreme and use shock. Any large group is bound to be flawed, but they get people interested in animal welfare and care. I, personally, wouldn't donate to PETA. Donations are best given to local groups imo.
Edit:
PlayboyMegan said:
I found this article from them contradictory and ludicrous.
http://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
That article makes valid points. Domesticating animals forces them to rely on humans. Most humans are unreliable. The stray animal issue has pretty much become an epidemic for no reason other than pet owners who are too lazy/careless to have their pets spayed and neutered. Not all pet owners are bad, of course, but there are enough bad ones to create a lot of misery and too many animals for those of us who are responsible to care for.
Here's the "points" I had a problem with.
"They are restricted to human homes, where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to."
If I'm going to spend thousands of dollars on food, vet bills, a bed, toys, ect.
Also, many people, like me, "free feed" and have water for him at all times. So I don't appreciate them being so general.
Not to mention, have you ever seen "free" animals? Go to Mexico, you'll see plenty. Those cats and dogs are NOT happy or healthy. I think most dogs would rather be "restricted to human homes" where they are taken care of.
"This is a best-case scenario."
Then they go on to list the WORST case scenarios. MANY people clean their cats litter box and do not declaw.
On one hand they say to adopt pets and spay, cool!
Then on the other hand they implicate that pets should not be "restricted to human homes" or be taught commands.
I am surprised at how poorly the article was written. The tone was all over the place and it seemed to "flip-flip" quite a bit.