3 ms·
To put that in perspective: PETA's revenue is about $66 million. So they've got about $10 per animal per year. Even if PETA would only take care of 10% of anima
by arp242 3y ago
To put that in perspective: PETA's revenue is about $66 million. So they've got about $10 per animal per year. Even if PETA would only take care of 10% of animals, that means $100 per animal per year.
It's hard to say how much an "average dog" would cost to feed because there is so much variety, but ~$25/month seems like a minimal baseline. So that's $300/year in food alone, for a small dog with cheap food. Larger dogs can easily be $600/year.
And that's just food, not counting vet costs, housing, cost of things like toys and whatnot, staff costs (this sort of thing can't really run on 100% volunteer work), etc. etc.
"PETA has a lot of money, they can just set up a sanctuary" is one of those arguments from ignorance that only makes sense if you spent less than 10 seconds looking at it.
- huytersd 3y agoThere is a case to be made if you would rather kill them or let them live literally feral on a large enough plot of land with no labor/food/medication provided. Sort of like a wildlife reserve.
- cloverich 3y agoDogs are domesticated animals though. Can they actually survive in that scenario, in general? I would expect most of them would end up starving to death, or escaping to the larger area.
- huytersd 3y agoYeah that’s the question I’m posing. In a fenced area they can’t escape. I presume they will default to dog behavior like in some urban parts of India (where killing dogs is considered cruel and not done). They form packs and hunt together. Is that better than killing them outright? I think so. They quickly default to killing birds and other small animals for food.