Funny things people who claim to care about animals do. When I was married we had a golden retriever. Kids were pretty bad about making sure the gate to the back yard where it was kept was latched and the wife and kids got tired of hearing me harp about latching it so I finally shut up. The dog eventually got out and got hit by a car and broke its shoulder. I didn’t care one way or another about the dog, and was for having it put to sleep rather than spend $500 for surgery but the wife prevailed and the dog got the surgery and recovered. Years later we divorced and she takes the dog. She goes on holiday and leaves the dog on a leash and it strangles trying to go under the fence. I never cared for the dog but I was better at looking after its welfare then my animal loving ex was.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Punoqllads *
They can have my cat when they pry him from my cold, dead, hands. 
Actually, though, I think you’re taking it just a little too far. Every movement has its fanatics and its moderates; you shouldn’t judge the group just from the writings of their fringe wing.
[QUOTE]
In this case, it is the group leaders that hold the goal of doing away with companion animals.
Well, here’s another misconception. The reason you have so many animals in shelters has nothing to do with the urban legend of animal overpopulation. The reason most dogs are turned in to shelters are for behavior problems or perceived behavior problems. Which also distorts your kill figures. Most dogs that are euthanized are unadoptable.
If you are interested in further facts regarding this please take a look at the letter I sent to the City Board of Little Rock. You can find it at http://www.geocities.com/shofar_k9s/legal/part1web.htm
In all seriousness and with all respect? Why carry the card and support the group that wants to outlaw companion animals, that encourages people to attack those who choose to eat at McDonalds, who go to dog shows to release dogs from their crates so they can get run over on the street? Why not support an animal welfare group instead of a group that believes animal welfare gets in their way of their goals?
Just curious.
For a minute there, I read this as “slip COVERS”, and some interesting images went thru my brain.
“Never mind”.
Well, first of all, PETA does not encourage people to “attack” people who eat at McDonald’s. Suffice to say that that is a gross misconception of the “Unhappy Meals” campaign that’s been discussed on a previous thread.
In answer to your overall question: Few organizations are interested in hearing suggestions for structural and goal-oriented changes from people who don’t belong to the organization. Often, the way to make changes is from the inside.
Abolish animal welfare. Make them go out and get jobs like the rest of us. 
I don’t usually agree with PeTA but I think they’re right about this. Isn’t it obvious that a harness is much more comfortable for the animal (though obviously harder to put on or take off).
When we got our dog from the Denver Dumb Friends League a couple of months ago, they refused to sell us a choke chain, with the rationalization that it was inhumane. But they had no problems with buckle collars. So they seem to be somehwere in the middle…