BC SPCA CEO Craig Daniell wrote that the SPCA only kills animals "...to end the suffering of an animal that is beyond medical help or to protect the public from a highly aggressive animal that has not responded to rehabilitation."

How is it possible that, according to its newsletter, in 10 months in 2007 the small Parksville SPCA had to kill 68 cats for "aggression". What kind of rehabilitation did the SPCA provide that the cats didn't respond to? They are kept for 23 1/2 hours a day in tiny cages. Why has the SPCA taken the position that it has a duty to protect the public from "aggressive" cats?

In the same period the Parksville SPCA killed 63 injured or sick cats. Sixty-three cats that were beyond medical help?

Mr Daniell says that the SPCA's standards are the same as no-kill shelters. Not any of the ones that I have knowledge of; they never say a cat is so dangerous it has to be killed and they rarely have to euthanize animals for untreatable illnesses. If they can do this on tiny budgets, why can't the $20 million a year BC SPCA do better?

Diane Esther
Coombs, BC