I just saw an article that rated the top 25 most humane cities. A city that is humane to animals is one with few fur shops, creatures kept captive for entertainment or pet stores that sell dogs raised in puppy mills. The top 5 are:

1. San Fransisco
2. Seattle
3. Portland, Ore.
4. Washington, D.C.
5. San Diego

Intresting, all west coast cities.

I would be interested in seeing the study. Do you have a link?

quote:

Originally posted by angeeleeta:
Interesting, all west coast cities.

Well, except for Washington, D.C.

I think it's all semantics, what do people consider humane? If a creature is 'humanely' euthanized for it's fur why should it count any more than cities that sell meat or have leather shops?

They pick and choose what they want to call humane and so it's an unreliable source imho. And yes links to these studies would be interesting.

www.humaneindex.org

I was unable to look at this link. It would load to 70% and stop. It looks as though the "study" was done by the Humane Society. Let me know what you think if you can see it.

lol, I would have put D.C. At the top of the list...there are a million no kill shelters in and around the city in Maryland/Virginia...and have you Seen the main shelter there? It's amazing!!! And Huuuuuuuge....and people have to go through all kind of hoops to volunteer there...they train you up right good.

So amazing

Sometimes I rate the HSUS up there with PeTA because they often seem to go overboard from welfare (which I agree with) to animal rights activists(which I don't).

They try to pull sympathy many a time with overzealous campaigns condemning anyone who's ever touched fur but seem to ignore leather wearers (models vs. bikers? hmm wise choice) And things like PeTA's eat a whale campaign because eating one whale would sustain more people than one cow.

This is also only concentrating on the big cities as well where I think if they are going to be the most humane in America they need to look at smaller towns as well.

They are judging by several criteria I feel are bogus. If there are shops that sell fur (what's to say the animals weren't euthanized humanely?)

How many captive marine mammals and elephants on public display per capita. (if these animals are kept and treated well what does it matter how many there are. When was it a crime to preserve and display endangered animals?)

They are also carrying the same grudge against the still not proven cruelty of Ringling Bros. Circus. (the only employees I've seen to have stepped forward were fired. Hmm coincidence?)

They are promoting vegetarianism by judging how many Humae Eats (vegetarian restaurants) there are. I'm sorry I eat meat HSUS.

Oh and get this they also judged by how many people in said city were apart of their online community or basically involved with the HSUS....

Sorry this whole thing is a load of bull imho

I think they were concentrating their study on the largest metropolitan areas. I agree with badkittyamy that the study should have focused on the method of killing when it came to fur and meat packers, rather than who was eating or wearing what. They did so at least with the chickens, I think they were looking at free range poultry growers for the study. As far as the captive animal part of the study, they did include San Diego, which I believe has the biggest zoo and animal park in the US if not the world. So I think they judged the cities fairly in that aspect. And, yes, as badkittyamy pointed out the study focused only on people who supported HSUS. I am not a member of HSUS, but I do volunteer at my local animal shelter, that should count for something.

Over all I feel that this study was a promotional for the HSUS, rather than a comprehensive compilation of actual humane practices.