Could somebody please post the CAMP procedures? I know that there are valid reasons to euthanise some dogs- hopefully not by the SPCA. I thought that they were getting out of the pound contract programe.

I'd like to know the science on which CAMP is based and the methodology of the studies that were done. Who designed the initial hypotheses and questions, and how were they validated? This would be extremely difficult. What preliminary studies were done? Is the test based on a small sample (notoriously inaccurate) or was it administered to thousands of dogs? This type of test sounds more like a checklist of a sample of behviours, with decisions made by somebody who has done a 1 or 2 day course. This does not a scientist make. Science demands rigorous proof, objective observations, control group studies and accurate data interpretation, especially when life/death decisions for living creatures are involved. Were the "failing dogs" euthanised? How could that prove anything at all? We can not predict future behaviour if the dog is dead. If failing dogs were not euthanised, did they proceed to bite? Did they bite a plastic hand? Were the dogs observed under fair conditions- e.g. being well fed and stable healthwise? If a dog gets aggressive when his food is threatened, does this mean that the dog will inevitably be a biter? The statistics would be hard to compile as the factors are so varied and open to interpretation. I'd be satisfied if I could get answers, but until such time, I will be concerned, as shelter dogs come with so many problems. It's somewhat like giving an emotionally disturbed child an intelligence test, which may be better than nothing, but not much. No, it's not better than nothing, it's cruel.

I will be delighted if CAMP is used to save animals. An e-mail from the SPCA suggests that it will result in less euthanised animals.I am really just sitting on the sidelines waiting for further information.