On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 5:02:19 AM UTC-8, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 22:57:03 -0800, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 18:42:40 -0500, Cheryl >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On 1/3/2016 6:26 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm watching a commercial now - it says "Local humane societies are
> >>>> independent of the HSUS". I wonder how much they pay Kaley Cuoco.
> >>>> She also did some sort of 2 hour prime time infomercial for them a few
> >>>> months ago. I couldn't change the channel fast enough.
> >>>
> >>>Oh, I just remembered it wasn't HSUS that is NY, it is ASPCA. But HSUS
> >>>is still the worst charity to donate to.
> >>
> >> I donate to the local Animal Kind:
> >>>http://www.animalkind.info/
> >> They do good work, they fix the cats I trap, and they find them good
> >> homes.
> >
> >I donate to Animal Friends Connection, local, and where we got our last two
> >rescues.
> >

> Seems they are a branch of the Humane Society, and their web site says
> their animals are non-sheltered, which means they euthanize. I would
> check them out more carefully:
> http://animalfriendsconnect.org/

I wondered what changes the New Year would bring -- but Brokelyn strides
unchanged into the New Year.

1. "Animal Friends Connect" is not a branch of the Humane Society of the
US, which I presume is what Brokelyn meant. The HSUS has no local
animal rescue branches.
Further, any pet rescue organization can call itself a "humane society."
The HSUS has no trademark on the words. That's why they have to spell
out HSUS when referring to themselves.

2.The statement that their animals are "non-sheltered" does NOT mean they
are euthanized. Quite the contrary, it means the animals are kept
("fostered") in volunteers' homes until adoption.

Now there is a danger in this, and the danger is animal hoarding.
However, presuming the volunteers police each other, to make sure
that none of them are overloaded to the point they can't care
for the animals, all should be well.