It seems like the argument that "we want our animals" is the least likely to win. There are few of us who are completely free of just a little bit of shame and guilt, just enough to believe that this argument is dead.
Maybe this is actually the best argument to use. If we argue that the HSUS or Humane Society doesn't have the facilities, that implies that it's OK if they have the facilities to take our animals to, or if they round up a volunteer and make temporary facilities. At those facilities a lot of animals have died and gotten pregnant, too.
The argument that we want our animals seems like a weak link. Don't they say to break a chain at its weakest link?
The entire substance of that link is the desire to own and use animals. It is a link in the chain whether we want to admit that to ourselves or not. It breaks first. It needs the most reinforcement. All of the reasons why we might want to run away from it are the reasons why we must cling to it. It's the first thing that they attack. We are as strong as our weakest link and we have only one option in regards to that link. It can't be replaced. It has to be made strong.