AAS has many times published compliments about the Nanaimo SPCA (and the Powell River SPCA), and we must compliment the Nanaimo SPCA once again. It is this honesty about past, as well as present, practices that is so badly needed from every SPCA. Secrecy protects the status quo. Nothing, or little, changes when the truth is not known.
Where are the provincial or branch by branch destruction statistics that BC SPCA CEO Craig Daniell promised to give to Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe in 2004?
March 6, 2002, in the Vancouver Sun: “The SPCA admits to killing 18,000 animal yearly across 32 branches”. That statistic was given to the Sun at the time the SPCA announced a moratorium on killing some animals to make space for more incoming animals under its "unlimited surrender" policy which naturally caused chronic and severe crowding and naturally, the destruction of untold thousands of anaimls. The purpose of the moratorium was to slash the number of animals destroyed by the SPCA. Yet two years later, in 2004, the Prince George SPCA admitted to killing 2,000 animals a year. (http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/noframes/read/6203)
At various times, various other and conflicting destruction statistics have been quoted in SPCA publications and in the media. Unfortunately there is no independent oversight for any figures. This points up the concern that an animal welfare society, which depends on donations from animal lovers for most of its revenue, but which also has many contracts to control and dispose of unwanted or dangerous animals, combined with an unlimited surrender policy, may not want the public to know how many animals it destroys a year.
The SPCA has been losing some of those control and dispose contracts in the last few years though it has fought to keep them. This is counter to the SPCA's own 2001 Community Consultation Report's recommendations. That report, based on months of consultation with animal lovers all over BC and 500 submissions, was the template for true change:
With this in mind, we recommend that the BC SPCA consider getting out of animal control as contracts expire and put additional effort and resources into prevention of cruelty, education and advocacy, which are the foundation of its mission. While there would be a loss of revenue initially, we are of the opinion that the public would be highly supportive of this strategy, and would give the BC SPCA the opportunity to increase revenues through targeted fundraising initiatives.
Recommendations
It is the view of the independent panel that the BC SPCA's reputation has suffered because the public believes that it has put the business of animal control ahead of animal welfare. Cruelty prevention, education and advocacy appear to have an unacceptably low priority, and many participants in this public consultation are asking whether the BC SPCA can truly say, "it speaks for those who cannot speak for themselves". The BC SPCA must decide whether the heart and soul of the organization is based on business relationships with municipalities or with animal welfare. We understand the reasons why the BC SPCA became involved with animal control. However, in our view, animal control is a municipal issue and should be left to municipalities.
http://www.spca.bc.ca/community/cc_AnimalControl.htm
We believe that it is a great pity that that recommendation was not followed as the SPCA still being the dog-catcher in many municipalities is one of the greatest causes of many communications AAS still gets from angry animal lovers and SPCA volunteers.
In 2002, the SPCA released its report based on the Community Consultation panel's report, "New Eyes - New Directions". This report said, "... [the SPCA] should not be a dumping ground for animals whose caregivers have abdicated their responsibility." That is addressing the SPCA's unlimited surrender policy, a policy that experts in the animal welfare field know is the cause of killing of untold thousands of pets a year, and also enables and entrenches a culture of pet dumping. Yet five years later, unless the SPCA has changed this policy without announcing it, the SPCA still has an official policy of unlimited surrender. It still gets to say, "We never turn an animal away." If this policy has changed, we welcome the SPCA to tell us, as we have welcomed the SPCA to inform and correct us in the past.
Until we hear otherwise, we think that unlimited surrender is still the official policy. We would ask, but the SPCA seldom answers us, beginning with a letter to the BC SPCA in 1995 asking about salaries. Even now (as recently as yesterday), others tell us that letters to the SPCA complaining of policies and actions by some SPCA staff, go unanswered. Yet the SPCA's own "New Eyes - New Directions" report says, "We actively and effectively communicate with our staff, volunteers, partners and the public."
Happily, recent AAS researches show that the SPCA is practising some limited surrender, at least in the five Lower Mainland branches we phoned recently. We asked if we could surrender our old black mutt and were told that it may be killed if brought to the SPCA (honesty) and that we should try other groups. When we asked for names and number of other groups, we were told that they didn't have that information. Some of the branches had a list of purebred rescue groups, some didn't even have that. Nevertheless, this is progress.
All we want is the honesty that was promised in the Community Consultation and the New Eyes - New Directions reports so that the SPCA can move forward without all the damage to its reputation that sticking to the old ways of pound contracting and unlimited surrender has caused.