I read this article twice. First with the eyes of innocent and trusting readers. Then next, with the eyes of those who watched and followed the work and dealings and the movements of the BC SPCA, particularly of this past year since CEO Mr.Daniell joined in from Ontario as a fresh face and with high expectations from both the SPCA and the other smaller animal welfare organizations, one of which is the most outspoken group AAS with its straightforward, transparent and no-nonsense attitude.

What worries me the most is that this article can easily mislead and misguide the public into thinking as, "Yeah they're doing their job right,
aren't they? Look at these figures, they saved what 30,000 animals last year! and look at this guy Craig, he's actually adopted one rescued dog as his own. Give him a break. As he says, no organization is perfect." From the other point of view though, it is yet far from being perfect, indeed.

First, I willingly and happily admit that some good actions were taken and changes were made by him and the staff in the last year. That was to our relief and he was highly approved and praised by other animal right groups, with hope rising to see some light at the end of the dark tunnel finally for the true animal welfare in this province.

However, it didn't take long to start noticing that there were still many loopholes and lousy handlings existed, often with the poor animals at stake (as giving them back to the original neglective owner soon after the seizure). Also something was always not quite right, with desperate calls kept coming from people about the dogs chained up 24/7 in miserable situation, previously reported to the SPCA but nothing was done except one brief visit by the officer, etc. The controversial CAMP program often regarded as an excuse for euthanasia was one of them, too.

Regrettably though, the more often the question of simple 'Why?' was asked, and care and attention requested, the more the SPCA stiffened its attitude and became elusive and evasive. It was just as though they couldn't do their job when other people raised their
concerns and voiced opinions with such blatant genuineness. Too much to handle? Too noisy to listen to?

But people have to speak, often loud and clear, otherwise the animals's suffering continues day in and day out, and some would even die before ever experiencing a real joy of living, such as simple patting on the head or a little walk with the owner they so humbly crave for.(Let's think about that Dalmatian found frozen, tied up all alone in the yard in the freezing temprature of -12 degrees, a couple weeks ago). Can't people express their upset and anger after learning that this dog had been known to the SPCA since 2001?

One thing is clear. Most smaller organizations of animal welfare, the AAS among others, never wants the SPCA go nor disappear.
On the contrary, we need a big organization, we want it to be strong, doing all the jobs Mr. Daniell described fully in one paragraph, and we pray they'll do it right and well.

At the same time though, if the organization is run mostly by the public-donated money (also stated by the CEO), isn't it even so important for it to be monitored by, watched by, and receive opinions from those who care and who happen to be the dedicated experts in the same area of animal welfare? So dedicated that they can't shut up.

Please don't take it as 'throwing stones', or 'snapping and snarling'. Instead just stay cool and do your job and be strong. Please listen to the critisism with a big heart and open mind. And deal with it with honesty. Then hopefully soon enough the critics will be on your side, so will be the public.
Hiroko Nakagawa