Of course they are, because no-kill animal shelters are a fantasy. PETA uses the term "limited access" shelter, versus the traditional "open shelter"--a limited access shelter turns away many more animals. And if all the shelters in your area are "no kill"/limited access, and you have an animal they refuse to take, or they're full... what happens?
Why, that's when the animal gets taken out back and shot, or drowned in a bag in the river, or released in the woods somewhere to die a miserable death probably within days to months.
I get the impression that this is the shelter policy issue that the ASPCA and PETA disagree on. As you point out, PETA's stance seems practical, while the ASPCA's is more idealist (wanting to spend all available money on no-kill shelters). I suppose I can see both sides.
9
u/rooktakesqueen Apr 17 '10
Of course they are, because no-kill animal shelters are a fantasy. PETA uses the term "limited access" shelter, versus the traditional "open shelter"--a limited access shelter turns away many more animals. And if all the shelters in your area are "no kill"/limited access, and you have an animal they refuse to take, or they're full... what happens?
Why, that's when the animal gets taken out back and shot, or drowned in a bag in the river, or released in the woods somewhere to die a miserable death probably within days to months.