AAS must always be vigilant to avoid any perception that we have said anything out of malice. Not one word we have ever written has had any purpose except to keep forcing the SPCA down the road to honest animal welfare and honest enforcement of the PCA Act.

It has worked - somewhat, and we can prove that, and the fact that it has worked is one part of our defence.

(The fight to make the SPCA stop abusing its power under the PCA Act is in the early stages and much more serious than the fight to make it do animal welfare.)

We can prove that all the criticism, from AAS and its posters, and Donna Liberson, and so many others, and the last four years of disastrous P.R. of its own making, is the primary and possibly the only reason the SPCA has improved at all. The improvement is marginal, but we think we can glimpse some improvement. It's hard to be sure because the SPCA hides itself behind a shroud of secrecy, but the SPCA's secrecy is one of our strongest defences.

We can prove that during 50 years of begging by so many women who were doing the real work of animal welfare, for the SPCA to stop being cruel and start doing animal welfare, the SPCA hugely expanded its dog-disposal contracting business, got more ruthless, more self-serving, and more secretive. It's all in our mountain of documents.

We can prove that the SPCA only started to better itself when it was so cornered that it had no choice. Fear-driven change is absolutely untrustworthy. Only principle-driven change can be trusted.

Just one of hundreds of proofs that the SPCA is still not principle-driven is the law suit against us. How dare it claim piously to be an animal welfare organization when it spends money trustingly given for animals on fat cat lawyers for its personal-animus driven law suit?

It won't even reveal how much of animals' money it is using to get revenge on AAS.

Here is what I have personally paid so far to make sure the SPCA does not get away with just a P.R. facade of reform - $21,567.81.