Animals Australia is now a self proclaimed "animal protection organisation" which is the incrimental arm to animal rights.
Animal protectionism is not about animal welfare, but about changing the perception of non-human animal interests.
Animal protectionism is a position within animal rights theory that favors incremental change in pursuit of non-human animal interests. It is contrasted with abolitionism, the position that human beings have no moral right to use animals, and ought to have no legal right, no matter how the animals are treated.
Animal protectionists agree with abolitionists that the animal welfare model of animal protection—whereby animals may be used as food, clothing, entertainment and in experiments so long as their suffering is regulated—has failed ethically and politically, but argue that its philosophy can be reformulated. - Wiki
The monumental difference between animal rights and animal welfare is animal rights will never endorse the use of animals for human benefit. Animal welfare is about the humane treatment and use of animals for commercial, recreational and medical purposes for the benefit of both humans and animals.
No matter how humanely you treat animals, Animals Australia will NEVER endorse the benefit of using animals for commerical use. This is the animal rights non-species argument, often purported by Peter Singer, Animals Australia's Animal Liberation guru.
"Animals Australia is an advocacy organisation. We don’t run animal shelters" - Animals Australia
So how much does it cost to protect or advocate for an animal? During 2012, Animals Australia's revenue was over $3,100,000 and they rescued 150 puppies in partnership with the RSPCA. This explains the $41,500 cost of rescuing 1 puppy. Then they outsourced the job of re-homing the pups to a real animal welfare organisation. Their prime activity is lobby
politicians, to change legislation to improve the RIGHTS not welfare of animals.
When your charity is based on the strange assumption that personal consumer choices improve animal welfare, the charitable outcomes of costing $41,500 to rescue 1 puppy become reasonable but for any animal welfare organisation, those figures are underwhelming even by the lowest charity standard, not to mention the millions of dollars they have cost the live stock industry, farmers and their families and tax payers who have paid for the disastrous consequences to cattle in the north after the government's ban on live exports. The negitive outcomes of this charity have far out weighed the benevolent ones.
"Food choices are of course not the only personal choices that impact the lives of animals — they often just happen to be the most topical. Making informed choices about the animals we welcome into our home, the clothes we wear, the entertainment we seek, the politicians we lobby, and many other choices can all make a profound, positive difference." - Animals Australia
Given that 98% of the Australian population eat meat, Animals Australia's whole purpose is to advocate for a non-meat eating Australia where no animal meat is commerically traded. This is a extraordinary political position to lobby for , even if AA calm to be "a-political" they want animal rights to be put on the political map.
Animals Australia is not about food choice, but removing your choice to eat meat either by making it unaffordable or unattainable. Being "informed" means being deceived that Animals Australia's charitable activities produces any meaningful outcomes for animal welfare, while enjoying the charity tax exemptions.
If you want to contribute to animal welfare in Australia, find your local pet shelter or animal rescue mob. They won't charge $41,500 for the privilege.