The issue raised is at the heart of the fight between the BC SPCA and AAS.

What the fight boils down to, stated in its most basic form, is that AAS says the SPCA did not take responsibility for the welfare of the animals it accepted into its care; it only took responsibility for the most efficient disposal of them, whatever that was, whether it was selling them or killing them. We say that the BC SPCA made a pet disposal business out of homeless animals. And we say that the SPCA dishonestly led everyone to believe that what it did was animal welfare. Both the reality of animal disposal, and the impression of animal welfare, created jobs and wealth for the BC SPCA by municipal contracts to dispose of animals and by donations from animal-lovers; so much wealth that one CEO was paid $204,000 a year plus perks and unionized employees made up to $30 an hour, sometimes double and triple that.

Killing the healthy cannot logically be called 'welfare'.

Killing the healthy can only be exactly what it appears to be - the disposal by death of the indisposable by other means. Nor can killing the sick, the old, the homely, or the badly behaved be properly called welfare. For decades the SPCA publicly and repeatedly rationalized killing healthy animals on several grounds.

First, that to keep them in one of its 'shelters' for long was more inhumane than killing them. In other words, it has admitted that its facilities are worse than death. It has gone further with this rationalization - it has claimed that they are noble to kill the animals that they keep mind and body destroying conditions. Instead of spending its money on making its 'shelters' humane, it cheaply killed hundreds of thousands of helpless animals and spent the money on huge salaries, perks, travel, posh retreats, and new vehicles. AAS has the evidence that the SPCA did this for many decades - in other words this was no aberration, it was policy.

The SPCA kept dogs isolated in cells and cats in cages that made them psychologically sick and then used their mental and emotional breakdowns to justify killing them on the grounds that they were not 'adoptable', not being 'adoptable' the catch-all justification for killing to make room for undamaged goods. Over many decades thousands of people offered to walk dogs to relieve their misery and the SPCA refused. Only in 1998, after the Vancouver pound got much positive P.R. with new dog-focused programs which were compared unfavourably with the SPCA's ruthless refusal of any programs that would keep animals from going crazy, did the SPCA start to allow its dogs to get out of their cells a few times a week, if lucky.

'We were a lot more humane than the other dog disposal contractors.'

This is the sales pitch that the SPCA used to convince many BC municipalities to contact dog control with the SPCA's new dog-catcher business beginning in the 1950's. The SPCA was able to sway municipalities to contract with them by pointing out that some contractors shot the dogs. The SPCA itself says that as long as the shooting does not cause prolonged suffering, shooting is humane, and in fact, the SPCA itself has shot animals. But the sales pitch worked and the SPCA soon became the largest dog disposer in BC, possibly in the world as it had many contracts all over BC. (It has never said how many.)

Some SPCA contractors may have been more humane than some other dog-catching contractors; we can't prove that none were. But from what is provable, we can say that the SPCA was more inhumane than many contractors. In many branches the method of killing dogs was by the electrothanator, a electrified box that frequently malfunctioned, causing terrible pain and fear to the dogs that had to be 'zapped' over and over while their bodies jerked and their ears 'smoked'. The proof is at http://www.animaladvocates.com/spca-electrothanators.htm. Once the electrothanator was paid for, the only cost was the cost of the electricity, as the report at the link shows that the SPCA did not even pay for maintenance on the machines. The electrothanator is not the only inhumane method of killing animals practiced by some SPCAs; we have many reports from ex-SPCA employees of methods that only could have been used by an agency and its employees that had no empathy with the animals is was 'responsible' for. Bludgeoning, freezing, burning, chemicals, gases - every cheap method of killing was used until the pressure of public knowledge from ex-employees and from real animal welfarists made the SPCA change its methods. Because of a few people truly speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves, an animal's last moments at the SPCA are not as brutal and painful as they were.

Is it 'taking responsibility' to kill the unwanted, the unsellable, the sick, the badly behaved?

Yes, if the responsibility you have taken on is to rid society of unwanted pets. That responsibility actually is a money-maker, but it is not, by any stretch, taking responsibility for the welfare of animals. Taking responsibility is understood instinctively by real animal welfarists, the ones who did all the work for so long that the public thought the SPCA did. Once an animal has been accepted by a real animal welfare agency, that animal receives the same care that one would give one's own pet - nothing less. The sick must be healed; the badly behaved must be rehabilitated; the terminally ill must be gently put to sleep. Arguments that there are too many animals and not enough money and so the SPCA had no choice but to kill thousands of animals a year assumes that the SPCA had no other choices.

There are always other choices - but they require the resolve to put the welfare of each animal untouchably first - salaries, wages, vehicles, trips, all are paid after the bills for the animal are paid. They require intelligence and the imagination to look for a solution other than simply killing animals that are going to cost money instead of make money. The SPCA could have decided at any point in its history that it was not real animal welfare to accept animals that it knew it would kill. That is animal disposal - plain and simple. It is well-known that the SPCA killed whole boxes of kitten and pups every year, sometimes without even opening the boxes. We can't blame them for not wanting to see the little trusting faces they were about to destroy, but we can blame them for doing it year after year for a paycheque. And we can blame the SPCA for carrying on a massive pet disposal business masquerading as animal welfare for many decades.

Real animal welfare has been done by hundreds of women for just as long and they have done it on shoestring budgets. One difference is... they did not make money.

What are some of the other differences between real animal welfarists and the SPCA?

Real animal welfarists stick with the animal they have taken responsibility for, for as long as it takes, even if that is for the rest of the animal's life. Anything less is a betrayal. Reports to AAS still come in describing the killing of healthy animals by the SPCA, now mostly cats and small animals. Justifications are made, but they are only credible to the credulous: Killing 150 cats in Kamloops because some tested positive for a disease is not animal welfare - but it is cat disposal. If BC needs an agency to do massive pet disposal (and it does - in part because for decades the SPCA condoned pet dumping and then killed as many as it could not sell, and so set the lowest example of 'responsibility'), it should be an agency that is not disguised as a caring, compassionate, animal welfare agency. This fraud was an endless, paying treadmill of abandonment, misery, and death and it will not end until the SPCA itself refuses to be the disposer.

Once an animal is accepted into the care of a real animal welfarist, the responsibility is full and complete or it is not really taking responsibility. Half measures are no measures if they result in the death of the animal or even worse, the animal being sold to someone who will make it suffer for the rest of its life.

The SPCA is still taking dogs that they admit they may kill.

That is not animal welfare. But at least the SPCA, at the branches we phoned in the Lower Mainland, is now discouraging the surrender of dogs that are old or not really healthy or have behaviour problems, or are good dogs but are big cross breeds. The branches we phoned all discouraged us from surrendering our dog to the SPCA. The Burnaby SPCA said it would accept a Pit Bull but if it failed the SPCA's test it would be put down and it expected a $100 donation. That is Pit Bull disposal, not animal welfare.

The Richmond SPCA said it was full because it had to keep kennels available under its contract with the City of Richmond to impound stray dogs and that it might have to put the dog down if it was "unadoptable". That is not animal welfare.

Here is where the SPCA has shown it is moving toward real animal welfare.

We got the same general response from the Vancouver SPCA but it said that if my dog is aggressive with dogs they won't accept it. That is animal welfare. No animal real animal welfarist takes dogs that they might have to kill. The onus for unwanted dogs for whatever reason, should be put on the owners. Animal welfarists do not do owners' dirty work for them as it only encourages a culture of killing animals that are no longer wanted.

All the employees we talked to at these three branches were very much more helpful and concerned than in the past. They took quite a lot of time to explain things and to encourage me to look for other options, in fact, they seemed to be a new breed of SPCA employee.

We phoned the Richmond SPCA and asked if we could surrender a 5 year old miniature poodle with no health or behaviour problems and were told that they were full and that the SPCA is not the best place for small dogs and to contact Little Paws Rescue and though they didn't have a phone number for this group they gave us the web address. So the SPCA is not cherry-picking sellable little dogs in Richmond. That is animal welfare and we hope that this is a province-wide policy. We would like to see the SPCA concentrate its money and resources on the most desperate of dogs.