Excerpts....
I am at a loss to understand what you are trying to say for the animals with this legal action against Animal Advocates. In all fairness, I did visit your website to search for the BCSPCA's version of events which led to the lawsuit but found nothing which would explain the Society's position. More is the pity because I am also left with the perception that your actions are also draining Animal Advocates of even scarcer resources than yours.
It's common knowledge that this organization has had its troubles. But I've seen how the SPCA has tried to silence its critics or has refused to respond to them. This cannot help the SPCA.
I myself have found suggestions I have made on 'The Watchdog" implemented very quickly whereas when I write a letter to the Board of Directors I often receive no reply and no change is forthcoming.
With legal bills being up to $400 or $500 an hour, I dread to think what the bill will be! Going through all the posts must be consuming hours of lawyer's work. Maybe there'll be a mistake or two here and there, maybe there won't.
In light of the S.P.C.A.'s current vendetta toward Animal Advocates, I am cancelling my monthly donations to your organization. I do not want monies I intended to help sick, abused, injured and abandoned animals used for senseless lawsuits or any other reason.
The donations you receive should be exclusively for animal welfare not for law suits or fat salaries. I did have the SPCA included as a beneficiary in my will but that has now be cancelled.
I would like you to know why I withdrew my support from the SPCA and transferred it to Animal Advocates. You may be surprised to know it was not anything to do with AAS it was to do with my desire to adopt an older, mixed breed dog, preferable a Roti/Shepherd about three years ago.
As far as negative publicity, your organization shoots itself in the foot all the time. The massive payout to that Regional man – the terrible problems between you and your branches.
A lawsuit is not necessarily a tool of justice but often is used as a strategic tool to intimidate and silence. What a sad state of affairs if this is so. Please let reason prevail and drop the lawsuit against AAS.
The reputation of the SPCA will not be brought low by the words of A.A. or anyone else, but it will fall prey to its own egotistical intents.
If you can refute the statements made, then do it. If you can't, then change the way you do things.
Suing other rescue societies and persons at large makes me feel that the BCSPCA is not fulfilling its mandate. Openly answering any charges would be the correct way of demonstrating integrity.
It is still legal to have dogs living on the end of a chain or rope here in Vancouver – spend your money and efforts on getting this prohibited. Animal Advocates has urged the City for four years to ban the keeping of yard dogs. What public support have you given this effort?
I found the shelters to be very different from what I would have expected from an organisation that professes to “speak for those who cannot speak for themselves”.
I liken the latest attempt by the SPCA to an act of bullying, with no noble intentions. The ulterior motive here seems to be diverting AAS efforts from advocacy to defense, hence causing them financial hardship and loss of time.
Until I feel confident that my money will go toward animal welfare, and not to lawsuits, I will not be making any more donations to the SPCA.
Is this a privately funded lawsuit on your part? Or do you have a special fund set aside called the "Lawsuit Fund", so that donors know where so much of their money is going?
This organization has allowed neglect, abuse and cruelty to animals; pet overpopulation; unethical and "mill" breeding practices (even among its own employees); to remain the norm for decades without addressing these issues, setting the standard for constant improvement and either properly enforcing existing legislation or proposing and aggressively pursuing stiffer legislation.
I continue to be a supporter of BCSPCA -- monthly donations, annual donation for return address stickers, poster in my classroom to promote animal welfare to students -- but I would be appalled to find out that even a little of that money was being used to prosecute another organization (whom I also support) who, like yourself, is helping animals.
From my limited understanding of the issues at play here, the SPCA may well be disturbed by the criticism of its policies and behaviour. This, however, does not seem to me to be a valid reason to direct substantial resources away from the care and support of animals. Surely if your policies and practices are sound and overall humane, they will be recognized as such if public attention is focused on them.
In the past I have made donations to BC SPCA but, frankly, I could not do it again with clear conscience. Humanitarian organizations ought to engage in humanitarian acts, not lawsuits against other similar bodies. Once again, please reconsider your position.
We have reluctantly withdrawn all support because we do not want our money wasted on legal fees. We want our money to make a difference to the quality of life of animals.
About 6 years ago I called the SPCA to remove a puppy from a home because it was chained 24 hours a day 7 days a week with inadequate shelter, food & water. When an agent went to the home to view my claim I was told there was nothing the SPCA could do because there was shelter, food & water and it's not up to the SPCA to ensure dogs are walked and allowed in the home. The shelter: a 3 sided wooden crate, the food: old & mouldy, would not be given
fresh food everyday until the old was eaten, the pup ate more of it's own feces then it did the food, the water: as long as it rained the pup had water.
Basically she said we have to wait and see if someone will "kill" him then I can call the road kill line to come clean up the mess!! How inappropriate was her response. Is that where our donation goes to?
I was appalled at the indifference shown as regards the conditions for the cats and dogs and the unfeeling attitude of the tyrant who ran the shelter at that time. I am very pleased that the District of North Van took over management of that shelter and it is now a much more humane operation.
As professionals and business people may we suggest that the SPCA may be reaching the law of diminishing returns - the money you receive for euthanizing animals may not be replacing the money you are losing from ex-supporters who are disgusted by a short-sighted business plan that distorts and destroys the very mission
your organization was founded upon.
Reliable, well-documented evidence of questionable operating policies and decision making within your organization should not be a case for a defamation lawsuit. The controversy around the dog, Cheech, is one good example. It is when my personal trust in the BC SPCA began to founder.
I used to be a supporter of the SPCA, but stopped some time ago when I asked for some help with an abandoned cat and kittens, and was told essentially that since it was really frightened and the kittens were semi-wild you would put them down. Another group did help this cat and kittens and so I switched my donations to them.
I do not however want my hard earned money going to pay for lawyers fees for one animal rights organization to sue another, for whatever the reason. Therefore I will not be donating to the SPCA again as long as you persist in your lawsuit against Animal Advocates. I am very active in the animal rights community in Vancouver and many of my colleagues also contribute to the SPCA. I will be discussing this issue with them and encouraging them to stop donating to you as well.
We ourselves adopted a rescued dog from Animal Advocates and she's been with us for 5 years now. She's a lovely and happy dog whose life is 1000 times better than what she had before she was rescued. She was chained 24/7 outside from the age of 6 weeks to 9 months and the SPCA refused to do anything. She lived in her own feces and was forced to pick through her owners' garbage bags for food.