BC SPCA Craig Daniell's announcement
July 2, 2003

The changes affect 15 of our 400 staff positions around BC and I want to assure you that the decision to cut these staff positions was not taken lightly or without deep regret. The individuals involved are superb and skilled employees who have served the Society with dedication and have demonstrated the highest commitment to animal welfare. The affected positions are Kim Capri (COO), Steve Raper (Regional Manager, North), Cindy Soules (Regional Manager, Fraser Valley), Jacqui Hall (Companion Animal Management Research), Lynne Dunnett (Bookkeeping), Kae Harman (Humane Education), Laura Mowbray (Farm Animal Welfare), A. D. (Communications), Bernice Demchuk (Volunteer Supervisor), Valerie Lykkemark (Volunteer Supervisor), Steven McGibbon (Branch Manager, Boundary), Diane Hart (Branch Manager, Victoria). The internal clinic which services shelter animals at the Victoria Branch will also close, resulting in the layoff of two animal health technicians Tara Carlson and Raelle Hanley. Bob Gordon (Manager of Shelter Logistics) will begin a 20-month working notice period.

We have significantly raised the bar for animal care, both in our own shelters and in the community, and this has led to higher costs as we provide these levels of care and look to replace aging shelters. We have also dramatically increased our cruelty investigation activities, increased our humane education and volunteer support presence, and implemented a moratorium on euthanasia followed by our Companion Animal Management Program to ensure that every animal that enters one of our shelters gets the best possible chance for a good life. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we accomplish miracles every single day in our shelters.

AAS comment

We again congratulate Mr Daniell for increasing prevention of cruelty by making seizures.

It does not matter to us how many staff it takes as long as the end result is true prevention of cruelty and true animal welfare, but it was clear that a reduction in head office staffing levels was necessary if the SPCA is to afford prevention of cruelty and true animal welfare.

We take issue with Mr Daniell's statement that the SPCA has significantly raised the bar for animal care in the SPCA's own shelters. While head office staff levels jumped in less than two years from nine to thirty-four, staff were treated to retreats at luxury resorts, expensive consulting firms wrote reports, and expensive (and unsuccessful) law suits were launched against AAS, the animals in SPCA "shelters" were dying of disease, injuries and neglect, were going mad from isolation and fear, and being ruined and killed for lack of humane remediation. (See: http://www.animaladvocates.com/spca-haves-have-nots.htm). If shelters are changed from grim, dirty, inhumane jails to friendly, stimulating environments, both physically and emotionally, then Mr Daniell will be justified in making such a statement.

As for Mr Daniell's belief in the daily "miracles" at SPCA shelters? It is not very miraculous that sellable animals are sold. The real miracles are performed by all the alternative rescue groups who are truly no-kill in spite of having no shelters and almost no money.

Nor has there been any "raising of the bar" for yard dogs although it has been promised for two years. AAS continues to receive reports of suffering dogs that the SPCA has raised no bar for. (See: http://www.animaladvocates.com/Cruelty-reports40-50.htm

We take issue with Mr Daniell's statement that the SPCA has increased humane education. In two years of promising, the SPCA has been unable to produce a simple handout on a dog's basic physical and social needs and what constitutes cruelty. If the disgrace of suffering yard dogs is not addressed, in all languages, there will be no bar raised.

We take issue with Mr Daniell invoking the catch phrase "moratorium on euthanasia" which has been widely misinterpreted by the public to mean no kill, making the SPCA look like something it is not and can't be as long as it takes an unlimited number of surrendered animals.

We take issue with Mr Daniell invoking CAMP and saying that it "ensure(s) that every animal that enters one of our shelters gets the best possible chance for a good life" CAMP is the systemizing of the same reasons the SPCA always killed animals: lack of space and the "unsellableness" of many animals whether for age, health, breed, or behaviour (some of which is exacerbated or actually caused by the SPCA's lack of remediation, and disgraceful shelters). CAMP has provided the impression of science-based decisions, but the SPCA has provided no evidence of this and there is much anger and disagreement between CAMP enforcers and volunteers.

There is still little assurance that any animal unfortunate enough to be in an SPCA "shelter" will have a good life, or any life. (See the latest example: http://www.animaladvocates.com/unhappy-ending-goldie.htm)

AAS continues to look to the SPCA - not for perfection - but for honesty. Only honesty is a guarantee of all the things Mr Daniell is claiming will actually happen.