Eileen Stein

There are tons of working GSDs out there though being bred in the US.

If that's true, then why does every police K-9 handler and vet I talk to say they have to go to Europe to get a decent GSD?

 

You just don't get discussion here about who should be allowed to use the name "border collie" because that isn't the every day label of the working dog. It is just a technical term on a piece of paper if the dog is registered.

 

Yes, it's so often a mistake to assume that the situation in one country is the same as the situation in another.

One of the differences here is that I can't imagine that anyone in the US who is not directly involved with working labs would ever ask what "type" a lab they were told about is. The working lab has been so marginalized here that even in the unlikely event someone knew such a distinction existed, he would just assume the lab in question was the show/sport/pet type. Very occasionally there will be a pet owner who will have gotten a lab of the working "type" and s/he will almost always make a big point of saying so. The usual response is something like an uninterested,"Oh really? Well, he sure is a pretty dog." And privately: "There can't be any distinction there that matters -- a lab is a lab, after all."

Another possible difference: I'm guessing the trousers worn by competitors in the Working Gundog class at Crufts would not have been called knickers in the UK? Just a guess.

I'm not really angry by any of the comments, I think confused is a better description. My dog is my dog and I love him for who he is. I will admit that he is working-lines bred and not working bred. If I was on these forums earlier I probably would have found a working bred, but I still don't regret getting the dog I got. I liked the family that breed him and I like their dogs. I also like the amount of work they put in to deciding the cross.

Of course you should love your dog and be proud of him. That would be true regardless of what breed he is, wouldn't it? I've loved every dog I've ever owned, border collie or not.

I am more just upset at the future of the breed stuff. I am not sure, but it just seems to me like people are saying these BC traits can't be captured and used for a purpose other then herding. I like the idea of breeding for a new purpose (that's why we breed dogs) and I think the sports people could breed BCs (sorry, calling them that due to lack of a better name) that still have their 'spark'. I am just upset because it sounds like people believe that breeding for something other then herding is ruining the dog. I believe that there are agility breeders out there that care more about their dogs and their breeding practice then some working breeders. Even though I am not part of that group, I do feel like this is being rude or insulting to those people that do care a lot about the health, performance, and temperament of their dogs.

If people want to create a dog for a different purpose, and want to start their breeding project with border collies because they like border collies and feel they're good raw material, they can do that, but when they do they are changing the standard of the breed. Whether they're changing the standard to a dog that looks a certain way (an appearance standard), or a dog who's good at agility (an agility performance standard), they're still breeding away from the standard that has traditionally defined a border collie (the working standard). They're free to do that, and I wouldn't down them at all for doing that, provided they changed the name of the dog to something else. If they don't, at best it's akin to "stolen valor" (wanting the dog to have the high-status name "border collie" when it's being bred to change it into something else), and at worst it's depriving the words "border collie" of meaning. The only purpose of words is to define things clearly, and they are defeating that purpose. I don't understand why they don't want to change the name, in recognition of what they're trying to achieve. They can pick their own name. The only reason the dogs end up being called Barbie collies or sporter collies is because they haven't chosen their own name, and those terms denote a distinction that is important. Also, there's no implication there that any of those people don't care a lot about the health, performance and temperament of their dogs. I am quite willing to assume they do, and it's certainly to their credit that they do. But that's a different issue.

Sure, this dog is no longer a traditional BC, but it was still created from the BC. The BC is it's heritage and that can't (and shouldn't) be ignored. I just personally feel that you can't be upset with these people for referring to them as a BC. Names like "sporter collie" and "barbie collie" doesn't cut it. They are no longer just any type of collie, and they certainly aren't a radically new collie (no crosses).

You're aware, aren't you, that the working dog was originally called just "collie." Then Queen Victoria and the Kennel Club began breeding them to meet an appearance standard, and what they developed became the show Collie, because they kept the original name. But what they created was so far from the "raw material" they started from that farmers/shepherds had to adopt a new name for the original collie to avoid confusion. That's why the ISDS adopted the new name "border collie" for the working (herding) collies. This time I think it would be nice if the people who are changing the dog would be the ones to change the name of the ones they're changing. Then we wouldn't have to keep pointing out that they're not really border collies, and risk hurting people's feelings.

I guess I am just not as much of a die hard when it comes to dog breeds.

I think most of us care only about our individual dogs at first. I think it takes a while living with a breed of dogs before you begin to think in terms of the breed as well as the dog -- what's good for the breed as well as what's good for an individual dog. Eventually -- especially if you understand and care about what's involved in the breed's standard -- you may come to care about both.

Thank you, that's very helpful.

I've had an email from a person in Omaha, Nebraska who is looking for a home for a border collie mix she got from the pound, before a death in the family that means she will have to move to an apartment. I thought I'd suggest Nebraska Border Collie Rescue, but since I have no personal knowledge of them, I thought I'd check here first to see if anyone had any reason to think I should not refer her there. Thanks.

Great post in general, Julie, but especially this:

I also try to make sure that the sheep stay between me and the dog so the dog is actually affecting/working the sheep. I understand wanting to get between the sheep and the dog to stop any misbehavior, but at that point a trainer is setting up an antagonistic situation between herself and the dog and the sheep are no longer in the picture, except as something that the dog would like to get to, but will have to get past the trainer (as fast as possible) to get to.

ETA: PSmitty, the trainer did not hit the dog, she hit the ground next to the dog.

If you watch the part where the trainer takes the dog by the collar, walks it towards the sheep then lets it loose, the dog rushes in and isn't in thinking mode. This was actually putting extra pressure on an already excited dog.

I felt that way also. When I use a line on a beginner dog, I just let go of it and let the dog trail it at the point when I want to give him freedom to work. That avoids the tension created by the process of unhooking it, and also is less of a demarcation for the dog between being controlled and being free. Usually it takes a little while before the dog realizes he is free, and so you skip over that "yee-ha!" moment and have a better chance that he will continue on in calmer mode. It also makes him easier to catch, if necessary.

I realize how problematic it is for you as a newbie to look like you're telling the trainer what to do, especially when she is apparently wanting to protect her sheep. This is one thing, though, where you might be able to indirectly suggest it by asking what would happen if the trainer just let go of the line when Otto seems to be relatively calm and focused and oriented correctly. If she was on the lookout for a moment when he was calm and focused and oriented correctly, she might let him go sooner and thus cut short the prolonged (counterproductive, IMO) stage of following the sheep around the ring.

ETA: Maybe I should add that I do like to start a dog in a ring (although preferably not one with a no-go zone in the middle), and I'm not inclined to use a line for much at that stage (though I'll often have the dog trailing one). This is just by way of illustrating that both methods have their proponents. I do like to move the dog out of the ring as soon as he's got the idea, though.

The dog has to reach balance (the place where he feels the sheep are under control between him and the handler) before he can fetch. That didn't happen in the video here, because the trainer was moving in a way that kept him off balance. I felt he spent the time he was free from the line just running off the tension he'd built up while he was on the line. Evidently the trainer is apprehensive that he would dive into the sheep if she did let him get to balance. She was certainly right about that early on in his "free running" -- he wasn't looking in to find balance at all -- but whether he might have been able to feel balance toward the end when he was tireder, I couldn't tell for sure. Anyway, in answer to your question, the bottom line, IMO, is that the trainer is not working on fetching, or even permitting fetching, at this point -- she is trying to get him more relaxed and wider circling, to a point where he no longer wants to dive in -- and therefore there's no reason for you to worry based on the stage he's at now that he won't fetch as the training goes forward. He just hasn't come to that point yet. It's a long road.

And BTW, I wouldn't count what he was doing when he was on the long line as driving, even though he was behind the sheep and they were moving forward. He was just walking behind the sheep because he was being kept in that position. So he's not learning to drive before he learns to fetch. You have to let him have the sheep before he can either fetch or drive, and the trainer clearly doesn't feel he's ready for that yet because she isn't letting him have them.

You gave Buddy a good life, and you were able and willing to let him go when the right time had come. I am so sorry for your loss, but happy for both of you that you had such a fulfilling time together.

Apologies for not going back to read everything, but does your vet feel s/he's ruled out hemangiosarcoma?

"The rule structure in our home [is] that dogs keep four on the floor in the kitchen" = Putting paws up on the counter is wrong.

"The correct behavior in the kitchen is to keep four on the floor" = Putting paws up on the counter is wrong.

I don't think you can escape that equivalence by saying that you don't conceptualize it that way, that you don't think of anything as "wrong," that you refuse to let "wrong" into the picture. In actual fact you are trying to train your dogs not to put their paws up on the counter, but at the same time you are trying to obscure that that is your aim (or to conceal it from the dog?). If one of them had an injured paw and was limping, you would be quite happy with "three on the floor" because you don't care how many paws are on the floor -- your purpose is simply to train the dogs not to put their paws up on the counter. And they will only do that when you are not there if they internalize the idea that putting their paws up on the counter is wrong. By "wrong," I don't mean sinful, I don't mean immoral, I don't mean punishable. I just mean that the dog knows it's something he is not to do.

I had understood your earlier post to be saying that if you left a steak on the counter, you've never had a dog who wouldn't take it while you were gone, but okay. I now understand you to be saying that three of your dogs would not take a steak off the counter, but only because they don't like steak enough to want it much. If they wanted it as much as your two other dogs do, you could not train them not to go up on the counter and take it. Right?

Nothing, IMO, to do with the dog truly internalizing any kind of morality or issue about the action. I think most dogs are fundamentally the same, in that they do what works for them and gets them what they want.

Yes, that is the sad reductionism of behavioral theory. I always advocate trying to learn from observing the dog rather than to learn from the theory.

This actually happened once. Our side door wasn't latching properly and it ended up open one day when I was at work.

 

A neighbor found Dean outside (this was in the unfenced part of the property), right by the stairs . . . waiting . . . .

 

He definitely knew that he was supposed to stay close to the house until he got some release to do otherwise. He certainly made the better choice, even when I wasn't there and he could have chosen to roam the neighborhood.

I don't understand why you see this story as bearing on what I wrote. Why did he go outside, if being inside was the "better choice"? Why wasn't he inside? That would have been the "better choice" according to your example -- the one he would have learned was better because you always called him in when he was outside. How does being outside by the stairs differ from being outside? All this illustrates my point -- calling him in from outside did NOT make him less likely to go outside when you're not there, because it didn't convey that being outside is wrong. Just as cueing a dog to do something else when he's countersurfing, without more, wouldn't make him less likely to countersurf because it wouldn't convey that countersurfing is wrong.

Did you train him to stay by the stairs when he's outside? If not, how was being by the stairs an example of being a better choice than lying under a tree?

And also, frankly, I have never had a dog who would refrain from doing something they wanted to do if I wasn't there to tell them not to do it. Like, oh, ever. Every once in a while for some things, but something they find rewarding? ...No. I put a steak on the counter and leave the house, I'm not coming back to a steak still on the counter. REGARDLESS of method I use to teach them not to counter surf.

It has been my experience that some dogs are more inclined to take advantage of loopholes and opportunities than others, and that it has very little to do with being punished when they counter surf, or just being given an alternate command. I have dogs who can be left alone with food, I do, and they'll never touch it, but that's JUST HOW THEY ARE WIRED. They were given the same training from puppyhood that the dog who will, if we're not there and food is out, take full advantage and eat it.

??

Why would they think it is "wrong"? There is no "wrong" conveyed through an off cue. Not any more than "wrong" is conveyed through "sit", or "come when called", or "twirl". It's just a directive, one. But yes, when cued consistently, good habits will develop.

 

At plenty of other times I cue the dog "up up" to put paws up on me. I cue "off" to cue "four on the floor". Why would they see that as "wrong"? It's just the opposite of paws up. That would be a horrible message to send "up up" - now "wrong". They would stop responding to the "up up" cue altogether if they were reading "off" as "wrong". And that doesn't happen.

IF you actually use "off" as a cue in neutral situations also, such as dancing, then I agree that it would not convey "wrong." Many people use "off" as a correction word only, in situations like countersurfing or jumping up, however, and in that case I think it does convey "wrong." I know you often employ a term -- "something-or-other directive" -- that I have difficulty seeing as functionally anything other than a correction that you don't want to term a correction. I took this to be an instance of that, but again, if you also use it in neutral situations, then I would expect it to convey a neutral meaning (as long as your manner is not different in the two instances, I suppose).

The better decision is conveyed through reinforcement. It's the opposite of conveying that X is wrong. It is conveying that Y is right, is good, is desired, is the better decision.

Think of it this way. If the dog is out in the yard and I decide that I want him in the house, I go out and call him into the house. He is not going to assume that he is "wrong" to be in the yard because I call him. I am just calling him. And, if I go out every day and call him, he will probably learn that when I step out the door, I am going to call, so he may start to come running when he sees me step out of the house. He hasn't learned to do that because I have conveyed that he is "wrong" to be in the yard, he has simply learned that it is time to come in when he is out there and I step outside.

Same principle. Dog puts his paws up and I cue "off". I'm not saying he is "wrong" to have his paws up, just that it is time to put four on the floor. It's just a cue to do a trained behavior. And, if every time he puts paws up on the counter, I cue off, the counter itself is going become a cue for "four on the floor".

 

There is no wrong involved in either scenario. It's just behavior. Habits are formed. No theory required.

But it's not the same principle. You have not conveyed to the dog that it's wrong to be outside in the yard, agreed, but by the same token he would not hesitate to go out into the yard if you weren't there (assuming he had a dog door) precisely BECAUSE you haven't conveyed that it's wrong to be in the yard. The fact that you call him in and reward him would not make coming inside a "better choice" for him when you're not there, because what you've taught him is that both things are acceptable -- being outside or being inside -- unless you tell him otherwise. One is not ipso facto better than the other. Surely you're not saying that if every time you call him in when he's outside, his being outside is itself going to become a cue for coming in? Or if you are, I don't buy it. He is in the habit of coming in when he's outside and you call him; he is in the habit of stopping when he's countersurfing and you say "off." I don't see how habit in either case is going to make him choose being inside over being outside (absent a cue), or choose keeping his feet on the floor over surfing the counter (absent a cue). If he in fact doesn't countersurf when you're not there, something else is in play.

It doesn't end up that way, though. For example, at Thanksgiving my dogs don't bother the food in the kitchen, even when there is nobody in the kitchen to tell them not to bother it. We tell them consistently "off" when we are there (in the beginning with reinforcers, later just with praise for compliance) and they decide that counter surfing looks like fun. They learn that "off" is the default expectation. Consistency really is the key, even when a trained directive is being used to build habits.

 

They learn, though the natural flow of life, what is expected, and where they need permission, where they are pretty much never going to get permission, and where even where permission is always given.

Mine learn through the natural flow of life too, but without reinforcers. To me, consistently telling them "Off" would be equivalent to telling them they are wrong, and I'm not surprised yours would internalize it as a No, and get the point that it's wrong to do that. I AM surprised that someone would think you can't train a dog not to countersurf when you are not there. In my opinion there are some things that most border collies readily grasp as having a special status, even a moral dimension, and rules surrounding food -- who is entitled to have the food or control the food -- is one of them. I have run into a store for something leaving my dog in the car with a rotisserie chicken in my groceries, and was not surprised to come back to find it untouched.

Part of the idea of reinforcement-based training is that you're allowing your dog to make decisions. You're not there to tell the dog what to do, but you are there to control the access to reinforcement after the choice. So, in theory, as dogs learn to be better decision makers, they will continue to make better decisions in your absence. Largely in part due to the dog having been more heavily reinforced for an alternate behaviour, and having its self control 'muscles' flexed over the years.

But how does the dog know that it's a "better decision" not to do X unless you have conveyed to him that X is wrong? For all he would know, X is okay and so is the thing you've told him to do instead of X. Unless you're saying that he would assume that anything you haven't rewarded him for is wrong? Surely not -- that would be too sad to contemplate.

But then, I shy away from dog training "in theory."

Except if you're training them to follow directives, you have to be there to give the directive. If you're not conveying "No. Not that," why would the dog internalize the concept "No. Not that"? And if he doesn't internalize "No. Not that," why would it occur to him to refrain from doing that when you're not there to give the cue to do something else?

I agree that the reason this probably isn't working is because she's saying NO! NOT THAT!

 

But she isn't saying 'Yes, this."

 

There was a blog post recently somewhere that compared this to sending a human to the grocery store without a list of what to buy, but instead a list of a dozen products NOT to get and being upset when they came home with the wrong things. Saying don't buy cream cheese, apples, or ham doesn't work nearly as well as saying buy oranges, turkey, and swiss . How long would it take you, staring down a whole grocery store, to accidentally get it right without more input?

 

Dogs have a LOT of options beyond that thing they're doing in the moment, and a lot of times communication isn't there to learn from anyway. Ie: They don't know that DOING THINGS for the human GETS THEM THINGS.

 

You can't communicate with just NO. You can't even come CLOSE. In 99% of issues, you don't even need the no. You can tell it specifically what to do instead and get to the yes.

 

Even in those instances where you need to communicate the no, you have to also actively teach what you want.

I think the grocery store analogy is a poor one for many reasons, chief among them the fact that it assumes you want the dog to be doing something in particular (oranges, turkey and swiss), rather than just not doing what it's doing. I've found my dogs are smart enough to understand the concept that I don't want them to do X, and that I don't care what they do as long as it's not X. That's a useful thing to be able to communicate.

Of course you can communicate with just NO. Think of the dog who picks up a (non-poisonous) toad, and never picks one up again. The toad didn't tell it to sit instead, or lie down instead, or tug on a tug toy instead. The toad told it "Don't pick up toads," and it communicated that very well.

It was very simple to train my dogs not to try to interact with me before the alarm goes off in the morning. Two steps: Murmur "Uh uh" when the dog tries, and never react in any other way until the alarm goes off. Now they wouldn't think of trying to interrupt my sleep. Did they get a reward for leaving me alone? Did they get a punishment for not leaving me alone? So why did it work?

Also, think about how dogs train thousands of pet owners to get up very early in the morning when the owner doesn't want to. Don't try to fit it into some terminology like +P or -R. Just think about what they do, and why it is (or is not) effective. The dog isn't giving the owner a list of things to do; the dog is just communicating "Stop lying there." "NO! NOT THAT!"

Buckeyeman, I'm a big believer in spending a lot of time observing the dog to decide what methods to use with him, and tailoring your approach to that. Start with a buckle collar, or no collar at all if you're in the house or you can safely confine him in a relatively small area. Preferably no leash. Talk to him, and use body language -- see how he responds to both. See what it takes to get his attention. To get him to come to you. To get him to come to you when he's playing with something. To get him not to do something he wants to do. To get him interested in something you're doing. To get him to do something you want him to do. Doesn't really matter what the things you want him to do or don't want him to do are -- the point isn't to train him to do or not to do those things. The point is just to see how different ways of communicating with him work. Do this whenever you're playing with him, not just when it's a set-up "observation session." Don't use any kind of force at this stage (or any kind of harsh vocal correction), or any kind of treat. Just use any other means of communication you can think of, regardless of whether it be termed "positive" or "negative," and watch closely how he reacts to them all. Try to be creative in response to what you see.

I think that's a good way to learn a lot about your particular pup/dog, without starting out with the assumption that he's going to be soft/scaredy or hard/insensitive. I do agree, though, that border collies are generally more sensitive than a first-time border collie owner is likely to realize. In fact, that's why I do this -- it's a way of learning how much your dog can comprehend and respond to when you use the most minimal of methods.

JMO

Yay! Go Buddy!

I'm not sure why I posted to this topic, since I've found discussions about PETA to be an incredible, futile time-sink, and never once have I felt that anyone understood any point I have tried to make in one. Therefore, this will be my last post on this thread.

@ Eileen

 

I surmise from the wording in your last sentence it referred to me? Regarding acting as a proxy, perhaps I should state I don't believe that anyone can properly claim innocence. Be it upbringing, education or training: any position that I hold I am an ambassador of the party that sends me. This sentiment is echoed at least in small part when we witness PR training and the like. Basically: if I (employer/organizer or employee/volunteer) do something not in keeping with the laws, bylaws, goals, or belief structure of another party (or vice versa), then I would expect to get the axe, absolutely.

A point of view that you are certainly entitled to hold. But you must be aware that not every organization, agency or company follows a "one strike and you're out" rule. Many do not. Many (including rescues and other non-profits) do not axe for one error. Therefore it's illogical to argue that, because PETA did not fire someone who did X, then that shows they approve of doing X.

I prefer to not claim 'unbiased' for anything. . . . Everyone has a bias, and I err on the side of the person who doesn't have a voice . . .

Nope, not everyone has a bias. Some people feel very strongly about whether there should be instant replays in different sporting events, for example. I have no interest or preference on that subject, and if it were referred to me to arbitrate, I could investigate, consider and decide without being influenced by any bias whatsoever. On issues where there are strong biases evident in the arguments of different parties, OTOH, or where parties have a strong interest in bending the facts a certain way, it always surprises me when those biases are not taken into account when people evaluate those arguments.

 

Reviewing the 2 sides of the tale linked by Eileen, there are certain discrepancies between the 'owner' and 'attorney' versions, and some facts neither dispute. What constitutes a 'stray' and why do two women apparently make that call? LEO talks to charges other than the claim of larceny. Video was claimed, but not addressed by attorney. Two questions left unanswered for me:

1. This may not be a PETA issue, if it is an EHO one: were fliers posted 30 days (or whatever VA state law dictates) notifying tenants of inspections/work orders? 2. Where the 'strays' held for a period of 30 days for claiming should the two women have made misjudgements about them?

It's odd to me that you characterize the second of these as the "attorney" version. Is it the version of an attorney for the owner? No. The biases of those on the owner's side are reflected in the first statement. Is it the version of an attorney for PETA? No. There is no account presented here from PETA's side; if there were, we would have to expect it to be biased to some degree also. Rather, it is an account by the prosecutor of the county in which the incident took place, who is charged with investigating the case, analyzing the evidence and determining what it proves. I suppose it's possible that he had a bias, but there is nothing indicating bias in what he wrote, and no reason to conclude that he was any more biased then I am about instant replays. He did not voluntarily get involved in this matter -- it was his job. I don't know what LEO or EHO refers to. I don't know the answer to your question 1, or whether the assumptions underlying it are correct (i.e., that under VA state law fliers are required to be posted for a certain period of time notifying tenants of inspections/work orders). With respect to your question 2, there's good reason to believe the dogs were not held for a period of 30 days, but no statements or evidence of why that happened or how long they should have been held.

Perhaps it would help to state my bias?

I don't see why. What does your political attitude about government controls or a duopoly political system have to do with anything?

I guess I'm always surprised when people say, in effect, "There are two versions of what happened in this instance, and even though I really don't have enough information on which to draw a conclusion about what happened, I'm going to believe X, and proclaim X. I will assume whatever facts I can argue to support X (e.g., the "fact" that the employees --or maybe they were volunteers--were not reprimanded; the "fact" that any organization will fire an employee/volunteer if they make a mistake, therefore PETA's not firing employees/volunteers proves that PETA approves of what they did).

It seems to me that a more reasonable option is: "I recognize that I don't have enough information on which to draw a conclusion about what really happened in this instance, so I'm going to withhold judgment."

I wonder if this will come across to some as a PETA apologetic. Probably.

I believe EPI is similar in its symptoms to cobalamin malabsorption syndrome (also called IGS), a hereditary condition sometimes found in border collies which also causes Vitamin B₁₂ (cobalamin) deficiency. There is a DNA test for this condition, but my understanding is that it's also possible to distinguish between the two via blood work and urinalysis. It would probably be good to suggest that your vet try to determine which of the two is implicated here, as cobalamin malabsorption syndrome is not as well known and has sometimes gone undiagnosed.

Good luck to you and her!

Well, I wish I thought he was right, because a PETA that spends the great majority of its money on direct mail to raise more money to spend on direct mail to raise more money to spend on direct mail is not much of a threat -- all they're doing is taking money away from suckers to spend on stationery and postage and to feather their own nests. But I've never gotten a mailing from PETA -- even though I'm one of those old ladies that care about animals, who Terrierman somewhat condescendingly describes as their best prospects. OTOH, I encounter them spending a heck of a lot of money on "education" and advocacy of every sort in the public sphere, so I kinda tend to doubt him if he were saying that 75% of PETA's money goes to direct mail. Speaking as someone who has held policy-making positions with non-profits, I think it's sloppy to suggest that all non-profits using direct mail follow the same model, or direct the same proportions of their income to direct mail. I also don't agree with him that a mailing that spends 3.5 pages on "the problem" and asks for a donation on the last .5 page is pure fund-raising. I know that if I were sending out 3.5 pages intended to make people aware of a problem and to persuade them toward a certain point of view about it, I would definitely append a brief appeal for funds at the end -- because what the heck, why not? -- and it wouldn't occur to me to consider that to be a pure fund-raising effort. If you don't agree with what PETA is advocating, it seems to me that those first 3.5 pages are a lot more dangerous than the request for donations at the end.

Has anyone noticed a page on the PETA website about how horrible crates are?

 

I don't know where the money goes that PETA raises but it sure doesn't go toward finding animals homes. Does anyone know how PETA spends that money?

Sure -- they are an advocacy and lobbying organization, not an organization to find homes for animals. They spend most of their money on publicity campaigns in aid of their goals, lobbying and educational efforts, political campaign support, undercover exposes of cruel practices, litigation, etc. I can't imagine anyone thinks they primarily operate animal shelters, any more than people think the NRA primarily spends its money on events featuring rifles.

ETA: Mark, I think Terrierman was writing about the HSUS.