The below article, from the Alberta SPCA web site, http://www.albertaspca.org/index.htm (the page link does not work so we are reproducing the article in full) is the official SPCA stratagem everywhere of directing the truth about pet disposal away from itself.
This tried and true strategy has successfully decoyed animal lovers for decades away from understanding how SPCAs profit from pet disposal. The writer slams limited surrender, using the "this is all the fault of irresponsible pet owners" deception . Nowhere does it tell the next layer of truth - that SPCAs have used unlimited surrender and the instant gratification/instant disposal ethic the writer blames, as the basis of their business empires.
AAS pointed out the "we don't kill any adoptable animals" scam in 1998 when Vancouver City Pound declared itself "no kill" and the media swallowed it like candy. We pointed out to the media that it was a lie and how it worked, but the lure of easy, feel-good copy was too much to resist for the equally self-serving media. Some of this is on our web site. There's a link right from our front page: "What No-Kill?" http://www.animaladvocates.com/vcp-euthanasias.htm
Follow the money if you want the truth. The truth of what an SPCA is, is in the money. Who benefits first, the employees or the animals? Are the animals kept in execrable holes where they are as likely to die as be sold like so many old shoes while the bosses drive new vehicles, travel on gold cards, attend posh resorts, are paid shocking salaries, with perks and huge buyouts? That has described the BC SPCA for decades. But, like all uncontrolled businesses, it treated the lower level employees badly too, paying insulting wages to do a degrading job, thereby attracting and keeping those who are willing to be pet disposers.
The writer accuses limited surrender pounds of self-interestedly following the law of supply and demand. AAS is limited surrender and we do not follow any law but this: can we do the right thing by this dog? That is a law that the SPCA pretends does not exist, implying that we are all equally in it for ourselves, just working the scam from different angles. Limited surrender is the only truly unself-serving, humane law, but the SPCA cannot admit that or its business would go belly-up.
The law of supply and demand requires disposal of the object sold and bought. People would not buy things so casually if they were not allowed to dispose of them so casually. No matter how you look at it, SPCAs have built their business on this principle of easy disposal.
And even more cleverly, they have worked both sides of the street by being both seller and disposer. What other business can you think of that gets free product? Since it's free, and more free product arrives daily, what possible sound business reason is there to invest money to make the product attractive to the pet buying shopper? No serious animal business would spend money on training, grooming, vets, etc, on a pet that is unlikely to sell, not as long as the free supply is assured.
And it is assured - by years of the SPCA p.r. claiming it was only there for animals and would find your pet a good home. Or at the least, by never refusing to take the surrendered pet. The SPCA may have started telling owners wishing to surrender their pet that it can't guarantee that it won't be killed, but by not refusing to take it, it still provides what the surrenderer came in for - free disposal. And it still gets its supply of free product.
The money tells the truth. Do the animals get the money - or does the SPCA get the money?
To Kill or Not to Kill? Is that the Question?
by Kimball Lewis
Animal shelters have become an integral component of modern North America. You’ll find an animal shelter, dog pound animal rescue agency, animal control or some form of animal refuge for unwanted, abused and abandoned pets in nearly every city, township or county. While their shapes and sizes vary widely, there is a painfully common thread among every one of these institutions: a never-ending sea of unwanted, cast away, disposable companion animals.
During the 1990s there was a concerted push, fuelled by public opinion, to reduce euthanasia in animal shelters. Both activists and the general public felt that too many pets were being euthanized, and demanded new approaches to stem the tide of killing. Many shelters responded to this by creating innovative programs to reduce euthanasia. Unfortunately, some shelters responded by playing a deceptive "numbers game" to produce more appealing statistics, even though their number of animals euthanized stayed the same or, in some cases, even increased. The "numbers game" worked like this: the shelter would simply report only on their "adoptable" animals… the rate of those adopted versus those euthanized. But by labelling more animals as "unadoptable" prior to euthanasia, they could boast incredible adoption rates to the public. It became commonplace to suddenly see 80% to 90 % adoption rates at facilities with a previous history of 40% to 50%. The statistic the public didn’t see was the increase in euthanasia of animals labelled as "sick", "fear biter", "dog aggressive", etc. Even today, there are a number of shelters still playing this shell game. On the other hand, some shelters have made remarkable and sincere strides in euthanasia reduction. They have accomplished this through expanded foster care programs, increased spay/neuter accessibility, and enhanced public access to the shelter.
The above-mentioned public concern over euthanasia rates has also led to a third scenario - the shelter that has suddenly shifted its policy to a "No Kill" operation. In this situation (and there are many) the shelter simply follows the basic laws of supply and demand. When the shelter is full, they place a temporary freeze on animal intake. Like the motel with the "No Vacancy" sign illuminated, no room at the Inn means… no room at the Inn. While the shelter enjoys a "No Kill" status with its donors, animals turned away when the shelter is full either wind up at another shelter, are abandoned on the roadside, or are disposed of inhumanely.
Regardless of which of the above scenarios you follow, believe in or have witnessed, there is one glaring problem with all of them: the supply of unwanted animals still outweighs the demand for adoption… to the tune of several million North American dogs and cats each year. In other words, no matter how creative you get with programs, hours of business, marketing plans, or statistic manipulation, there are still millions more dogs and cats than there are available homes for them.
So while the public cries for less euthanasia and the shelters do their level best to accommodate this new-found standard of morality, how do we address the real issue? Who will stem the tide of unwanted dogs and cats, puppies and kittens born each day? While the public demands more bang for their buck from their local animal welfare and protection agencies, they often lose sight of the fact that these pets did not originate in the shelter. They originated in the backyard of John Q Citizen… you, me, your neighbor, co-worker, boss, cleaning lady, etc. The real focus should be placed outside the shelter… on society itself, for it is here that the "doggie in the window" (or in this case, the puppy at the shelter) came from.
The problem of pet overpopulation can be directly related to the fact that, over the past several decades, North American life has been accelerated to the "instant" mode. We loved instant coffee and so we wanted instant rice. Instant hot chocolate gave way to instant microwave foods. Soon we had instant home loans and instant credit for any purchase of any size. The very ease with which we are now able to acquire possessions means that we no longer have to wait as long or work nearly as hard for things as our parents and grandparents did. We have become an "instant gratification" society. But there is a downside to the instant acquisition of things, and that is an increasingly lower tolerance for things that take time and effort. The institution of marriage is a glaring example. If we are married and our spouse does something that bring us displeasure, we are now more likely than ever to "divorce" ourselves from that which makes us feel bad. Instant gratification has a backlash and it is called "instant divestiture." We’re in a hurry for the reward and if the reward is not manifest in a constant and obvious way, then we get rid of "it" and move on in our quest for satisfaction. Unfortunately, companion animals have become a very real part of this phenomenon.
During my years as director of several animal welfare organizations I had the bittersweet opportunity to see first hand the surrender of tens of thousands of companion animals. The staff at most shelters have maintain a list of the most frequently used reasons owners give for surrendering their pets… a list that usually reads something like the one below. The order of the list may differ slightly from one shelter to the next, but you’ll get the idea:
1.Landlord doesn’t allow pets
2.Not enough time
3.Allergy problems
4.Excessive barking
5.Baby on the way
6.Moving (usually the next day)
7.Bites my child
8.Plays too rough with or knocks down our child
9.Aggressive toward others
10.Runs away too much, can’t keep home
11.Unable to housebreak
12.Chews or digs too much
13.She keeps getting pregnant
14.Too many pets already
15.Son/Daughter was supposed to care for the dog/cat and has moved away to school
16.Kids are irresponsible with pet and so this is their punishment
There are two simple reasons why North American animal shelters are so overcrowded. First, there are too many dogs and cats being born and not enough of them being spayed and neutered. Second, we have become an "instant gratification/instant divestiture" society. When you combine these two ingredients you have a recipe for disaster for which there is no magic cure. There is, however, a starting point for reducing the needless euthanasia of millions of pets, but it is based on society’s willingness to take three steps.
First, all of the education about spay and neuter has gone on long enough. Pets are being born by the tens of millions in backyards across the continent, owned by people who cannot or will not spay and neuter their companion animals. As controversial as it sounds, as radical as it seems, the first step is to get off of the education bandwagon and legislate mandatory spay or neuter for backyard, companion animals. Exceptions would be legitimate kennel club breeders and exhibitors. I don’t want to hear about how spay or neuter procedures cost too much for common folk. We have been infusing low cost spay and neuter programs into our communities for well over a decade, yet there is still that percentage of people who are too lazy or apathetic to take their animals to a spay/neuter clinic. I don’t want to hear about how you want your child to witness the miracle of birth… unless you are also ready for them to witness the miracle of death. I know this sounds harsh but facts are facts. The Learning Channel and Discovery Channel provide programs depicting the miracle of birth. Watch this miracle on TV instead of on your laundry room floor and you won’t be stuck with trying to give away a litter of kittens in front of the supermarket.
Second, animal welfare organizations need to stop focusing so much on saving pets and start helping the people who own the pets! People with pets sometimes get into situations where they need assistance, but often the available resources are so limited that they have nowhere to turn. The result is surrendered or abandoned pets. At the Greenhill Humane Society in Oregon, we developed three new programs during the 1990s: the Domestic Violence Assistance Program which provides free housing for animals belonging to victims of domestic violence, the Senior Pet Assistance Program which provides transportation to the vet and in some cases free veterinary care for pets belonging to seniors, and the Homeless Animals Living Outside (HALO) program, which provides veterinary care for pets belonging to homeless people. All three of these programs have one thing in common… they are all aimed at helping people who just happen to have pets. The principle is simple… if you help the person, you help the animals (and vice versa). Helping people build a lasting relationship with their animals is a win-win situation for all parties involved. It translates ultimately into fewer surrendered pets and less euthanasia.
Finally, we have to be ready and willing, as a society, to change our collective attitude toward companion animal ownership. We need, as a society, to make acquiring a pet a long-term commitment. This means taking the time to attend the obedience classes, reading up on puppy habits and behavior, going to the vet on a regular basis, and "pet proofing" the yard or house when we bring home a new companion animal. Many of you are saying, "Hey, I’m already a good pet owner," and I am sure you are. None the less, there are several million unwanted pets every year and they have to becoming from somewhere. The one place they are not coming from is the animal shelter. How ironic that our society now demands animal shelters perform less euthanasia on more and more pets that originate in its own back yards! It would be far more fitting for society to demand less euthanasia from itself by actualizing responsible pet ownership, and by doing everything possible to aid its local animal shelters in their compassionate stewardship of its disposable animals.