In his Vancouver Sun Sound Off piece, Mr Daniell specifically used the word "facilities": "When the SPCA must euthanize an animal, it is for the same reason so-called “no-kill” facilities euthanize animals — to end the suffering of an animal that is beyond medical help or to protect the public from a highly aggressive animal that has not responded to rehabilitation."
The BC SPCA has dual roles: To protect animals from the public and to protect the public from animals. In many BC municipalities, the SPCA is paid to protect the public from dogs deemed by itself to be dangerous, and to dispose of them. Which role is referred to in Mr Daniell's statement? "...or to protect the public from a highly aggressive animal that has not responded to rehabilitation", seems to narrow the "so-called no-kill facilities" Mr Daniell compares the SPCA to, to the agencies that protect the public from animals, not the agencies that protect animals from the public.
Mr Daniell seems to be saying that the SPCA kills animals for the same reasons all the other dog-catcher/impound/disposers do.
Mr Daniell may be referring to a list of reasons that permits "so-called no-kill" pounds to say, as the SPCA does, "We don't euthanize any adoptable animals". The weasel word (aside from "euthanasia") is "adoptable"; and the secret to who is unadoptable is in the list of reasons that is used to blame an innocent animal for its own death. Saying, "We don't euthanize any adoptable animals is the new animal control/disposal industry standard. It actually works well... AAS is told not infrequently that the SPCA is no-kill, even though the SPCA has not ever actually said that.
We recently wrote the BC SPCA and asked it for its list of reasons an animal can be labelled "unadoptable" and killed. Here is our letter, to which we received no reply:
To: spca@bcspca.bc.ca
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 9:16 AM
Subject: The BC SPCA's list of reasons
June 24, 2008
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Can you please direct me to the web page on your site that lists the BC SPCA's reasons that an animal is "unadoptable" and therefore killable? I have been unable to find it.
I look forward to your earliest reply.
Sincerely,
Judy Stone
Animal Advocates Society of BC