There are two egregious mistakes the SPCA is making. It has made these two mistakes many times in its history and it seems to have learned nothing from these glaring mistakes, even obtusely ignoring advice from expensive experts hired to advise it what to do about its crumbling image and support base, and about increasing criticism by the animal welfare community and the media.

Mistake #1 - making animal-welfare promises that it can't or won't fulfil. It takes in animals, promises to do animal welfare and then kills many of them for specious or no reasons except it chooses to take more when there is no room. (There is a business-related reason for a policy of unlimited surrender.) It promises to do animal welfare and then it takes money to rid society of unwanted dogs. It promises to do animal welfare and then it sells intact animals that can be used to profitably breed more, and it permits its employees to breed and sell dogs and cats on the side while it pays them to kill dogs and cats at work. Not keeping the "animal welfare" promise is the single greatest reason the SPCA is in such financial difficulties and under fire of so much criticism.

Mistake #2 - is to shoot the messenger. The SPCA is suing Gail Moerkerken because she documented many cases of blatant neglect, deceit, and anti-animal welfare actions by the SPCA, out of frustration at her entreaties being ignored.

Gail's good works - not her criticisms of the SPCA - are one reason the SPCA lost Jean's friend's support. That the SPCA is suing Gail is the nail in the coffin. Jean's friend's reaction is a microcosm of the two reasons why the SPCA is losing support and gaining critics.

This is true for AAS too. People support AAS for what we do, not for our criticisms of the SPCA, but the fact of the SPCA suing AAS has made many people decide to now only donate to AAS.

What does it say about the SPCA that it is drawn to bullying when all rational advise warns to stay away from bullying?