The New York Times interviewed both PETA and Best Friends Animal Society (a sanctuary in Utah which took a number of Michael Vick's dogs).
An excerpt from the article; quotes both sides:
Ingrid Newkirk, the founder and chief executive of PETA, called Best Friends “an expensive Camelot.”
“These are celebrity dogs,” she said this week in a telephone interview. “That isn’t a good use of money, it isn’t the best uses of time. The Vick dogs are the least likely candidates for success. It’s just a much more exciting story that comes with money attached to it.”
The founder of Best Friends, Michael Mountain, said PETA, for all its high-profile advocacy, is boxed in by an outdated philosophy.
“I don’t think PETA’s argument is with us, I think it’s with themselves,” he said from Utah in a telephone interview. “It’s really difficult as an animal-rights, animal-protection, animal-whatever-you-want-to-call-it organization to explain away the fact that pretty much all the animals you rescue, you kill. It doesn’t make logical sense; it doesn’t make emotional sense.”
Since when is PETA worried about expenses? The billions of dollars they take in from the half wits who support their execution of thousands of adoptable pets, is money much better spent on what? The expense agenda from PETA indicates:
-money spent on rehabilitating animals to prepare them for a chance to have a good loving home is pointless because PETA do not believe in finding animals homes. In PETA's philosophy, animals are better off dead, which is exactly the 'gift' they give the animals in their custody.
-money would be much better spent on media campaigns targeting reputable breeders and spewing the rhetoric of mandatory spay/neuter laws, breed specific laws and other self serving issues.
The question was asked; will both sides (animal rights groups and animal welfare groups) ever be able to work together. Well, I am one to never say never, but in this case I will make an exception to my rule.