I was saddened but not surprised to read about your unencouraging recent contact with the Chilliwack Animal Safe Haven Society. Bidding on the local pound contract was part of the initial plan.

During my (short) association with the group, my impression was that the majority seemed primarily focused on property aquisition at the expense of developing a pre-eminent spay/neuter policy and furthermore, seemed unable and/or unwilling to recognize let alone address the broader issues which you so eloquently wrote about in 'Building Shelters: Warehousing animals can attract a lot of money, but is it moral?"

While I was still a member of the group, a senior Chilliwack resident contacted me for help with a stray cat situation. Acting on behalf of CASH (I thought), we managed to trap, speuter, and release all the strays plus pet cats she cared for (6 females and 3 males). At a meeting held on May 1, 2003, I made a suggestion for financial support for this effort. Some members supported my suggestion. The president dismissed the request, with the support of the majority in attendance at the meeting.

At a subsequent meeting, the group discussed the spay/neuter issue and then voted in favour of 'fund-raising proceeds be divided as follows: 10% for spaying and neutering, 10% for marketting, and 80% for the land and buildings....'.

Since that time the group has obtained 30 acres of farmland in Chilliwack. Imagine how many animals could be speutered for the money that went into a downpayment and which will go into a monthly mortage, upgrading of dilapidated buildings, utilities, taxes, property insurance, on going maintenance etc etc.

Thank you for an excellent article. Thank you for bringing the policies of the Chilliwack Animal Safe Haven Society to light in the public arena. To have come from someone on the outside looking in helps to validate the concerns of those who discontinued their association with this group.

----------------
Wendy Weber
Chilliwack, B.C.