Who would better care for Fluffy - Vick or PETA?

That question was pondered today in a post today on a New York Times sports blog.

In the writer's opinion, he would take his chances with Michael Vick. Why? Because PETA puts down more than 90 percent of the pets it cares for each year.

Interestingly enough, the NYT post came the same day new numbers were put out about PETA's ability to adopt pets versus put them down. According to this, in 2008 the organization "killed 2,124 pets and placed only seven in adoptive homes."

That set a new record low for PETA....

PETA has a $32 million annual budget. But instead of investing in the lives of the thousands of flesh and blood creatures in its care, the group spends millions on media campaigns telling Americans that eating meat, drinking milk, fishing, hunting, wearing leather shoes, and benefiting from medical research performed on lab rats are all "unethical."

Yet PETA is somehow taken seriously.