THE "MORATORIUM" ON KILLING: WAS IT JUST P.R., GRANDSTANDING, AND DAMAGE CONTROL? IT BLEW UP IN THE SPCA'S FACE ALMOST IMMEDIATELY |
| In January of this year (2002) the Vancouver SPCA
killed six healthy dogs. It was the final straw for six volunteers who went to the
media and told the sad and brutal story of the slaughter of these six innocents. (Read
more, click here) The BC SPCA seemed to panic at all the bad p.r. and loss of donations, so without any consultation with the shelter staff who had to stop killing without being allowed to stop taking in, immediately announced a counter p.r. "moratorium on killing". The response from the branches was immediate; there was threatened insurrection in the ranks, normally loyally silent managers publicized their intentions to revolt. Read about the revolt in the ranks that forced the SPCA to stumble backwards, shooting themselves in the other foot, click here) From an BC SPCA memo on the reworking of the "Moratorium" announcement.... BC SPCA: The Executive Committee, with staff input, have made amendments to the Moratorium
in light of the Animal Management course this past week. AAS: We believe that the moratorium was a time bomb that almost went off and this is damage control. This announcement is being made because of: (a) mutiny in the ranks, who weren't even consulted (especially anger from the Prince George SPCA, click here) and (b) because as long as the SPCA has dog-killing contracts it must kill and so there was no way the moratorium could work and that was about to become very public. (Read more about how pound contracting corrupts, click here) It was long-time SPCA pound contracting boss John van der Hoeven who said the six dogs at the Vancouver SPCA were killed because they were aggressive and triggered the damage controlling moratorium announcement, and we believe he should be fired. And the leader who panicked and made the moratorium announcement when there was no way it could be carried out, without even consulting the branches who have to somehow make it work, should be fired, in our opinion. Some leader. If that was not CEO Douglas Brimacombe, who was it? BC SPCA: It was resolved that the moratorium on euthanasia remain
in place, and that staff having received the BC SPCA Animal Management Certification are
authorized to make decisions on euthanasia. Euthanasia for reasons of sickness and/or
injury shall only be made after consultation with a veterinarian. And even worse - the SPCA's moratorium was now labeling everything ill-health, including behaviour, so they could go on killing for negative behaviours (which can include too much barking, too timid, etc, as well as too aggressive) as before, but now they looked compassionate, ("Poor thing, it was too sick to save!). Behaviours that made a dog hard to sell, like barking, were now going to be called mental ill-health! The Manager of the Surrey SPCA, Hugh Nichols, jumped on that weasel-reason immediately and was quoted in a Surrey newspaper as saying that Surrey hasn't killed a dog for any other reason for years! (Read Nichols comments in the Surrey Leader, click here) Under the rubric of ill-health any dog with weepy eyes, bad skin, nervous barking, fear growling, shelter blues, "unfriendliness", could be now be killed on compassionate grounds of ill-health. Within a few days, this moratorium was transparently fake to all of us who have figured out the SPCA. And it was about to blow up in their faces because the ranks were threatening exposure. The SPCA was saved for a while by the Vancouver Sun's multi-page p.r. on behalf of the SPCA that meant more dogs and cats were sold than usual (we can't help but cringe when we think who the SPCA sells to), but it covered up the reasons why the SPCA is in this mess. Sales will drop back to normal levels almost immediately, and the public will never know why this is all happening, so that was just another betrayal of animals, in our opinion. Lots of real animal welfare people felt real anger and some despair at the Sun for helping the SPCA to cover up its self-serving fumbling, but in the end it won't matter. The press moves on to other issues to misrepresent. The web never lets up, never sleeps, never stops, never loses interest. One day, the SPCA will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into real animal welfare and real prevention of cruelty. All their friends cannot stop this from happening. BC SPCA: Over the next several weeks staff will receive further
training in the application of the animal assessment tool with the aim of receiving
certification. The goal is to empower staff to be able to make accurate euthanasia
decisions based on sound animal welfare principles with a tool that all shelters employ
across the province. March 10, 2002 Douglas Brimacombe,CEO, Surrey manager Hugh Nichols is quoted as commenting on the P.O.'s announcement of the moratorium on euthanasia except for medical reasons, saying, " virtually every animal destroyed in Surrey has been put down only for medical reasons - age, illness or vicious temperament." He is calling vicious temperament a medical reason for euthanasia. Can you tell me if the twisting of temperament into a medical condition is now BC SPCA policy? Judy Stone, No answer of course. There never is. |
Our branch feels we must take a strong position because our back is to the wall. Our shelter is full, and there is no hope of growing our foster program and increasing our adoption rate to accommodate the overflow (if there had been any hope, we would have done it a long time ago). Because the Executive Committee has not rescinded the previous directive that no animal can be refused admission to a shelter, our staff is left with only two alternatives; insubordination or quitting. To put them in such an impossible situation is unconscionable, and amounts to constructive dismissal.
Our submission to the Executive Committee is as follows:
____________________________________________________
March 10, 2002
Executive Committee
B.C. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
#322 - 470 Granville Street
Vancouver, B.C. V6C 1V5
Dear Executive Committee Members:
We are writing with regard to the memorandum of March 5, 2002, which imposed a moratorium on euthanasia at all BC SPCA branches, effective as of that date. It is our view that this new policy is unworkable, and must be rescinded immediately.
We have been advised that the Executive Committee’s decision in this matter was taken over the course of just one meeting, without any consultation with those who stood to be affected. We find this arbitrary, unilateral and exclusionary method of decision making unacceptable because, over time, it leads inevitably to poor decisions such as this one. It also leads to alienation of others in the organization.
We are concerned because this decision continues a pattern by this Executive Committee of ignoring processes you yourselves have put in place to gather facts and make recommendations on complex matters of great importance to our Society. As you will all be aware, the Society struck the Max-Adopt (No-Kill) Task Force to consider the question of reducing euthanasia at BCSPCA shelters. The result of this process clearly indicated that, while adoption of a ‘zero-kill’ policy was an appropriate long term goal for the society, it would not be possible under present circumstances. Those circumstances have not changed, and so the Executive Committee’s decision is simply ill-advised and poorly considered.
What further concerns us is that the basis for this decision appears to have been some unspecified public pressure over the issue, and two relatively minor incidents at the Victoria and Vancouver Regional branches stemming from a lack of clarity over euthanasia decision making authority. Firstly, the problem of structures of authority at two branches is unrelated to, and should not be allowed to dictate euthanasia policy for all of the BCSPCA’s diverse branches. Secondly, the Executive Committee’s interpretation of the extent of public demand for a euthanasia moratorium once again ignores the findings of a process that you yourselves had set up to collect information and make fact-based recommendations on an important issue. The Public Consultation Task Force did not recommend instant adoption of a zero kill policy.
This completely unexpected and sudden decree has placed staff at shelters across the province in an impossible position. Under current BCSPCA policy, they are not allowed to refuse any animal for admission while at the same time not being allowed to euthanise when over-crowding becomes critical. The response from head office has been the facile advice to start foster programs, promote animals for adoption and ‘do the best you can.’ It is our view that this is precisely what volunteers and staff have been doing to the best of their ability within the limited resources available at most branches, and certainly so at ours.
The unstated but necessary implication of this decree is that the Executive Committee is of the view that branches have not been trying hard enough to adopt out animals, and are euthanising them because it is easier. This is a wrong and offensive assumption. We do not euthanise because we like it or because we are lazy, but rather because it is an ugly necessity here. A euthanasia moratorium will not change this fundamental fact. It will only make a difficult situation worse, because if nothing changes our shelter will have to close.
In conclusion, we hereby submit that the Executive Committee must immediately reverse the euthanasia moratorium and reconstitute the Max-Adopt Task force to make fact-based recommendations on a workable transition to ‘zero-kill’. We also ask that the Executive Committee adopt a more open, inclusive and responsible decision making process to avoid crises such as this in the future.
Signed,
NORTH PEACE BRANCH
Fort St John
March 16, 2002
Mr Douglas Brimacombe,
CEO, BC SPCA
Dear Mr. Brimacombe,
Re. Kelowna Capital News article of Friday, March 8th, 2002 “SPCA takes dogs from all over B.C.”
The comment of assistant manager, Ms. K. Woodward, that she “can’t remember ever euthanizing an adoptable animal” at the Kelowna shelter, needs to rebutted. Can she really not remember? What do her words mean when they are set next to the lives of the hundreds of animals that were killed at the shelter in the last year? Sadly, the statistics speak for themselves. With 4,365 animals surrendered and 2,196 adopted, did the remaining 2,169 animals simply evaporate? Is Ms. Woodward really asking the citizens of the Central Okanagan to believe that almost exactly half of the animals surrendered to the shelter were sick or aggressive?
How about the endless parade of adorable kittens that were dropped off at the shelter during the spring and summer months, whose only ailments and crimes were over- abundance? What about the loyal old cats condemned to death, whose only illness was advanced years and whose only misbehavior was having lost their youth and spunk? Or the big, bouncy black mutts that have never been housebroken or obedience trained, whose crimes were the unwillingness of new owners to spend the time and energy necessary to overcome the neglect and poor management of the dogs’ previous owners? How about the countless cages of gentle rabbits? What about the animals whose only sin was that they allowed their owners to move away without them? Perhaps Ms. Woodward’s denial is of the Bill Clinton variety--she doesn’t “remember ever euthanizing an adoptable animal” because she didn’t actually do the euthanizing.
I suggest that, of the 2169 “unadoptable” animals, a number worthy of remembering were neither sick nor vicious. Nevertheless, many of these animals were destroyed simply because there are far too many unwanted animals in the Central Okanagan for the number of adoptable homes available. Why can’t that sad reality be stated loudly and publicly by the Kelowna SPCA?
Furthermore, Ms. Woodward’s comments also demean the endless work being done by other smaller animal groups. Some volunteers have raised funds to help low income families afford spay/neuter costs for their pets. Volunteers all over the Okanagan Valley worked outside all months of the year, trapping, spaying and neutering, and managing feral cat colonies. Still others rescued and rehabilitated high risk animals from shelters. Yet, according to Ms. Woodward, the Kelowna shelter was able to take in “500 animals from other shelters” because it was so empty. Is Ms. Woodward really expecting the public to believe that the above volunteers’ efforts were unnecessary because there wasn’t a problem with animal over-population in our area?
The sad truth is that until pet ownership becomes a privilege and not a right and strict spay/neuter bylaws are enacted and enforced--thus curtailing the backyard breeders and puppy mills--the problem of unwanted animals will only continue to worsen. In order for the public to act on the truth, it must know the truth. Selective amnesia and comments that knowledgeable people can’t and won’t swallow only exacerbate the problem.
Certainly, it’s time for the Kelowna SPCA to stop ‘sugar coating’ the truth and admit that memorable numbers of loving, healthy, adoptable animals must be killed every month because there are not enough adoptive homes. It’s time for the BCSPCA to free its employees and boards all over the province to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Please, enable the public to know the full extent of the cruelty caused by animal over-population. Isn’t that the least that your society, whose apparent goal is the prevention of cruelty to animals, should do?
Sincerely,
Mandy Rawson,
Critteraid Director
How can you help
AAS to really help animals?
contact us at office@animaladvocates.com |
