Crossposted from CYA: http://www.b2g3.com/boards/board.cgi?action=read&id=1058141790&user=CYABC

CAMP should be euthanized!
Posted on 7/13/2003 at 05:16:30 PM by mike

I recently reviewed a copy of the CAMP manual. My comments on it, which are based on my 20 years volunteer experience of dealing with dogs in a shelter situation, are:

C.A.M.P. Comments (Dogs)
There are a number of fundamental flaws that make the whole process unacceptable:

It is a process to generate excuses for putting dogs to sleep. It takes no account of the individuality of dogs and the many reasons that they are in the shelter in the first place. In fact it is stated in the Manual that “Orange zone animals that cannot be adopted by average pet guardians must be euthanized to enable equal access to resources for all adoptable animals.”

The testing by people unknown to the dogs is nonsense. To get a true picture of the dog it is far better to have the dog under standard stable conditions and when the dog has had time to adjust to being in the shelter. The people who are best able to know how the animal will react in the “real’ world are those who relate with it on a day-to-day basis.

It is based on pseudo-science. There is no such thing as a “science” of anthrozoology - science of human - animal relationships. The field of study appears to more descriptive and statistical rather than scientific.

Only one half of the package is given consideration. I.e. the dog only, nothing about the guardian. The result is that only those dogs that will be perfect with the “average” guardian will get past the screening.

The assessment test is biased. The test deliberately works hard to get the worst case result. If the dog is not perfect then it is probably sentenced to euthanasia.

The R. Ledger paper, which I presume is a key basis for the assessment program has a number of questionable statements which include: pet guardians are said to act as consumers; it states that “assessing a dog is about taking the guesswork out of predicting if the dog is a good companion” while at the same time saying that the “temperament can change if the dog is taught new things“; it states that dogs, even abused dogs have a choice, and implies that no special consideration should be given for such cases; it says that there should be no re-testing since the most unacceptable response is the one that is wanted; the fact that a dog may be in distress by actually being in the shelter is not relevant.

I hope that the “new” Board of Directors gives the whole CAMP process a re-look and throws it out, lock stock and barrel, together with the authors who dreamt up the whole sorry thing. It is one of the worst programs that has been put in place for the animals, and has been a complete negative for the credibility of the BC SPCA.