This SPCA action raises some questions that one day are going to be addressed. The SPCA itself keeps animals in the diseased conditions of some of its facilities, animals that the SPCA has not bought out of its own pocket, out of compassion as Smith and hundreds of others have, but have been given to it for free by pet owners, to dispose of.

In May this year, the Kamloops SPCA killed 90 free cats after it made some of them sick. No vet bills, no "distress". Easy come...easy go.

The SPCA would argue (and undoubtedly will argue if AAS is allowed to have its day in court to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and tells the court about all the killing the SPCA does and the specious grounds it does it on), that Petra Smith and ten thousands of other compassionate animal-rescuers who do not kill the animals they love for having runny noses as it does, are permitting "distress", the offence under the PCA Act which the SPCA is using like a blunt instrument to grow more powerful.

There is only one way to avoid the expense of veterinary treatment or the risk of being accused of permitting the distress of untreated ailments, and that is to kill the animal. The SPCA avoids both by killing the animals, as it did in Kamloops. And it has argued for decades that killing is more compassionate than keeping dogs and cats for long periods in its "shelters". But instead of spending money to enrich the "shelters" or spend money on trainers, or spend time on comprehensive volunteer programs such as walking, fostering, and playing with the animals, it took the cheap way and killed the animals to prevent their suffering illegal "distress" in their own ghastly facilities. It did this until comparatively recently, for decades actually turning down volunteer programs. Under growing bad publicity it then slowly, slowly started to allow volunteer programs, while driving many of the volunteers away with its hard-nosed killing and ruthless lack of compassion.