That statement contradicts the words of Mr Busch's boss, CEO Craig Daniell, who wrote in the Vancouver Sun last year: "When the SPCA must euthanize an animal it is for the same reason "so-called" no-kill facilities euthanize animals - the end the suffering of an animal that is beyond medical help."

Mr Daniell doesn't say who the '"so-called" no-kill facilities' are he had in mind, but we are aware that many people mistakenly think that the BC SPCA is no-kill and have thought so since 2002 after the BC SPCA announced a moratorium on killing. The public didn't understand that the SPCA only meant that it would stop killing for space - to stop killing unsold "product" (the SPCA's word for its animals), to make room for more product. In fact, several years later the SPCA admitted that it hadn't stopped killing for space, and even now it has a list of 56 reasons it allows itself to kill animals, one of which is "too many".

Mr Daniell also didn't mention that the BC SPCA "euthanizes" dogs where its contracts requires it to, but possibly he was only comparing the SPCA to other pounds, some of which may have a list of reasons an animal is "unadoptable", just like the SPCA's. That list seems to be common in the dog control/disposal industry which prefers that the public not know how easy and convenient it is for them to kill animals while saying they don't kill any adoptable animals.

Picasso is only one of countless dogs the SPCA has killed during its five decades of being paid to protect the public by killing dogs, just how many the SPCA has never revealed.

The torturous justification made by the BC SPCA for its five decades in the dog-catcher contracting business is that it is a more humane pound contractor than others. We have the proof that it was more brutal than some, and in fact, the bodies that replaced the SPCA as pound contractor in the last eight years, were more humane than the SPCA was.