Since I see this has come up in the comments, it deserves a quick overview.
It's all in the name. Humane, welfare, and cruelty prevention groups have been around for a very long time. In 1824, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) came into existence. Their mission: "The RSPCA as a charity will, by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of animals." They have expanded their mission and activities over the years as all groups tend to do and, in my opinion, they go too far. However, they exist in Great Britain, a constitutional monarchy, a society founded on the concept that all property belongs to the Crown. Of course, most of our early residents in the Americas that founded the US also came from this system but they founded an entirely different system. We are still fighting to get the system they set forth and that system is founded in the concepts of freedom of life, liberty, and property not subject to the whims of a Crown. However, all rights have to be balanced with responsibility.
As our society in America transitioned from rural and agricultural to urban, animals and children became susceptible to new and difficult circumstances not addressed by existing societal standards and many were severely abused and neglected; treated as assets to be used up and thrown away. Henry Bergh, was instrumental in both causes, founding the ASPCA in 1866 and helping to found the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in 1874.Bergh was NOT a lawyer. He never graduated from Columbia. He was born to a wealthy family and cashed in after his father's death (1843) and "became a man of privileged leisure". Bergh is reported to have said: "This is a matter purely of conscience; it has no perplexing side issues. It is a moral question in all its aspects." All well and good for the wealthy and their animals who are or should be spoiled pets. In my opinion, this is a ridiculous statement when applied to working animals or even the average pet even today. It presumes there are no budget constraints, that one lives in a world of unlimited resources to provide for animals as pampered pets.
"The ASPCA was the first humane organization in the Western Hemisphere. Our mission, as stated by our founder, Henry Bergh, in 1866, is “to provide effective means for the prevention of cruelty to animals throughout the United States.”" I particularly dislike the ASPCA as it does not provide much in the New York City area, much less across the US. It does however, continue to make statements like this and collect donations from around the world based on the inferences that it does. In response to such criticisms, it has begun to provide some nominal funding to other organizations. In 2008, they took in over $100,000,000.00, see page 44 here. Less than $7 Million went to grants and sponsorships, shown on pages 22-23 (all too often the money is for fundraising events). No matter how they classify the expenditures on their statement, the majority of it is spent on lobbying but you have to go seriously digging around their website to find where the dollars went and even that's a small peek. They do mention it on page 15. Even with the creative accounting, they had to show nearly $20,000,000.00 for membership recruiting and fundraising.
If you take a bit of time to read the ASPCA's policies and positions statements, you may find (as I have) that they go far, far beyond their stated mission of cruelty prevention. From the ASPCA sprang numerous local SPCAs and humane organizations; many of whom have tagged right along this radical path beyond preventing cruelty and into your homes. While early spay/neuter may have sounded nifty a few years ago, we know scientifically know that it may be quite detrimental to your pets' health yet these groups continue to support it at earlier and earlier ages. It's much like teaching "abstinence only" when we know it's failing pathetically. We can't lock our teens up when they go into heat but that's darn sure an alternative for a bitch in heat! That is but one example.
In 1954, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) came to be. With the SPCAs already all over the country, why? They chose a name that implies animals are more "human" and that's as far as I need to go to distrust them. HSUS has gone international (1991)and, more recently, they are actively recruiting your veterinarians to their cause through HSVMA. Personally, I'll be asking all veterinarians if they belong to this group and, if so, they'll go on my personal "black ball" list.
In 2006, along comes Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals International (SPCAI). "The majority of local SPCAs and humane societies around the world are not affiliated with national organizations, as most people may presume. Therefore, SPCA International seeks to develop and utilize a worldwide platform that both supports independent animal shelters and promotes the safety of animals. SPCA International strives to assist the growth and impact of independent shelters through alliance building, information networking, national and international programs." Really? Seriously, 3 years and not even a short list of affiliate shelters on the website? Looks to me like they are following the ASPCA model, collecting money...
All of these groups would raise the standards of care for all animals to absurd levels and make it so expensive that only the wealthy could have them at all. Beyond that, many of them have little or no real experience with animals and they draft standards that simply aren't workable and then lobby to have those standards made law for us all. "Animal" is a broad term that includes many creatures. Even "dog" standards and laws must, of necessity, be very broad to include animals ranging from ounces in size to well over 100 pounds. If humans came in such diversity, we would have more sizes of cribs, wouldn't we?
These radical groups have long since claimed the terms "humane society" and "SPCA" through history and use. I have absolutely no doubt that there are local groups that follow more conservative agendas directed at the true and basic welfare of animals. There is simply no way for them to distinguish themselves from their roots if they choose to use these terms in their names. One cannot "re-claim" what one never had in the first place. It would behoove such true animal welfare organizations to choose different names, to change their names if necessary.
It is "all in the name" but much is inferred from names. I won't give my money to any organization using these terms in their names. We should all be very careful who we give our money to and ensure that it goes where and for what we want. Did you know that you can make donations and specify it's use; specify that, if it won't be used per your directive that it MUST be returned to you?
Animal welfare groups are trying to distinguish themselves from the radical animal rights groups. You can find a list of some of them here. I disagree that some (like ASPCA) on this list are truly animal welfare groups but I must admit that they tend to better describe their intent in their names. Still, one should look beyond the names, one should specify what one wants done with their money. Be careful who you support with your time or your money as there will always be the opportunistic types out there.
PS: Yes, I intentionally omitted PETA from this entry. They are, in my opinion, so radical that they go beyond "animal rights" and into some area that needs a new classification.