AAS is eternally optimistic that Craig Daniell will turn out to be the honest man we have been hoping for. We can't forget that he said to us that 'his' SPCA would only have seized animals. That means that he understands the ethics of limited surrender. Not that he can change that policy - it is only the Board of Directors that can do that, and we would be surprised if even one member understands that though unlimited surrender means income, it also means the SPCA's eventual downfall. We are hopeful that Craig does understand this and wonder if he has any support on his board.

If Craig does understand, it may take him years to get the wrong people voted off the Board and the right people voted onto the BC SPCA Board of Directors. Until then, all he can do is keep telling his board what policy is needed and why, and hope to get them to agree, and to hope that eventually members who grasp the moral nub of animal welfare replace those who don't.

Even if the Board voted tomorrow to change the unlimited surrender policy, it can't do it now, not when it is still in a state of flux and hasn't the money to change the policy that underpins the whole BC SPCA. First it would have to set up a fail-proof system of screening for acceptance, determining what would be the optimum number allowed of old, or unwell, or behaviourally-challenged, or large (dogs) in relation to "easy' animals is. It would have to start to educate the donating public as to why limited surrender is true animal welfare. It would have to truly set up relationships with alternative groups. It would have to put in place a 'no questions asked' s/n program so that there is no reason to own an intact animal. It would have to have laws on the books to control breeding. It would have to train staff to help surrendering pet owners understand what their other options are. It would have to spend millions on upgrading its facilities which are not "shelters" no matter how you twist the word and where the "miracle" is that animals survive them at all.

We have hopes that Craig Daniell understands all this. AAS has never wanted the ruin of the SPCA, only for the SPCA to start to tell the truth so that we can trust it. We understand that no one at the SPCA can tell the whole truth about the SPCA, not even a small part of the truth, because that could result in its ruin. But we see no reason why Craig Daniell can't avoid untruthful statements in the future.