ANIMAL ADVOCATES SOCIETY OF BC - UNLIMITED INTAKE - THE SPCA POLICY THAT REQUIRES THOUSANDS OF ANIMALS TO BE KILLED EVERY YEAR

For decades, the SPCA has claimed that it is truly humane because it operates "open" shelters that take all owner-surrendered animals. "We won't turn an animal away", it says. But open shelters must kill - because - if a shelter never says No, what can it do but kill the animals that no one wants? No shelter has endless space and endless money and the SPCA has said itself that there is not a home for every abandoned dog and cat. At various times the SPCA says it finds homes for 99% of animals and at other times it gets closer to the truth about how many animals it kills; but at no time has it ever really told the truth about how many animals it has killed. (See what long-time SPCA volunteer, Brigitta MacMillan, has to tell about the SPCA's questionable euthanasia stats, click here, and what another SPCA volunteer, Mandy Rawson, has to say, click here)

At the same time the SPCA has publicly denigrated "closed" shelters as only helping a few. But only a shelter that says, "We cannot take your pet because we are full and to make room for your pet we will have to kill a pet that we are already sheltering, and we won't do that, is a shelter in the true sense of the word. And if your pet doesn't sell, then it will have to be killed to make room for the next. You will have to rehome or put down your pet yourself" is truly a shelter. Only closed shelters, that will not kill a pet to make room for the next can be truly humane. There is no hope for many animals where there are open shelters.

The public and the media have been fooled by this bafflegab for decades. (See more on how the media helps the SPCA to fool people, click here)

What is really wrong with the SPCA being an "open" shelter is this:

that it requires the SPCA to kill in large numbers for reasons of logistics and expense;
and that this requires the SPCA to deceive the public about how much killing it does; (See some questionable statistics, click here)
that because it had the trained employees and tools to euthanize all the unwanted animals that are the result of being "open", it led to getting into pound contracting; (See how pound contracting corrupts, click here)
that it required the SPCA to hire employees who were comfortable with doing paid animal control while seeming to be only doing animal welfare;
that keeping this sham going required most of the SPCA's time, and so very little of the mandate to prevent cruelty and educate was ever achieved; in fact in the end, prevention of cruelty was discouraged (probably for being time-wasting), and education was little more than some glossy reports that could be shown when required.

The SPCA explains its killing by saying piously, "We're an "open shelter", we don't turn any animals away, no-kill shelters are "closed". (The inference is that no kill shelters aren't as nice as open shelters because they turn away poor abandoned dogs and cats.)

Some sound business reasons for being an "open" shelter:

there is a constant supply of new dogs and cats for sale to chose from (called "product" by the SPCA);
there is a constant public "need" for the shelter's services;
shelters attract donations: a "shelter" where every pet is taken, that is seen to be constantly busy, and so must be necessary, and doing a good job, therefore deserves money and attracts donations.

Another evil of open shelters is that they perpetuate the idea that all is being taken care of, there is no excess pets problem, and that it is not irresponsible for you to get an animal that you may not be able to look after for it's whole life because this nice "open shelter" will not say to you, "We are full and you must take responsibility". It will say (or allow pet dumpers to believe) that it will find the dumped pet a "good" home, but in fact there is already more animals than can be housed and treated humanely and many do not survive the horrors of "sheltering" (read the story of Odie, click here), and many are killed, sometimes minutes after being brought in. Cats suffer from disease and death at SPCA shelters in huge numbers (read more, click here).

A shelter that is full of animals all the time (because of pound contracts and of being "open" ) means that the shelter must find ways to dispose of as many animals as quickly as it can. Selling animals is preferable to killing them because of the revenue, so open shelters will sell to anyone with the money no matter how clearly unsuitable. (We have ample proof of this.) The poor animal has already been betrayed by its "family" by being dumped into a horrifying prison and left, and then is betrayed again by its so-called "shelter" by being sold to another irresponsible person or worse (in the case of dogs), to a person who intends to chain it and use it as a yard/guard dog. AAS has proven that the SPCA not only sells dogs to abusers, but when told by a neighbour that the dog they sold is chained and neglected, it has refused to take the dog back, even though its adoption agreement (its sales agreement) says it will. (Read the difference between "adopting" animals and "selling" animals, click here)

This is why the SPCA must kill so many animals or sell animals to almost anyone. It has chosen to be "open" and keep taking animals because that's where, we believe, the sympathy money is. (It can't deny the killing and we have plenty of proof of it selling without any screening, to clearly unsuitable people.) The SPCA claims that its bylaws do not permit it to turn away any animal, but the SPCA must have realized many decades ago that being open meant massive killing and that this was immoral, and what is more, it enabled and entrenched pet dumping, and it could have changed its bylaws. It could have said, We choose to not kill people's unwanted pets for them. Instead, we believe it capitalized on pet-dumping, just as do many other so-called animal welfare groups.

Think what an example the SPCA sets for the public. Instead of setting the right example by refusing to kill excess and unwanted pets, it sets the wrong example of pet abandonment and killing.

It gets worse. Then it blamed the pet dumpers for being irresponsible, the very people who were supplying it with brand new "product" (the SPCA's own word for the animals in its "care"), to sell every day. The public and the media absolutely bought into that. So it worked: the irresponsible owner is the problem, not the agency that encourages the irresponsible behaviour. (Read how the SPCA has blamed "irresponsible" pet owners for decades and how the gullible media and public have repeated, parrot-like, this dishonesty, click here).

Only refusing to enable and shuffle would expose the enormity of the problem so that the public would start to demand controls on the supply of many of these homeless animals.

AAS stopped enabling irresponsible people (by finding homes for their unwanted pets) shortly after getting into animal rescue. It didn't take us long to realize that we were part of the problem. And we're trying to stop the supply of excess animals by working on control of breeding laws.

Where are the SPCA's efforts to dry up the supply of excess cats and dogs that are its bread and butter?

In order to keep getting donations, a shelter must appear to be busy constantly 'saving' animals. But a certain percentage of animals are truly 'not adoptable'. AAS found that and so we have kept those dogs and cats that no one is ever going to adopt. All shelters find that. And soon 'open" shelters are blocked with 'keepers'.

Every shelter either becomes a permanent 'unadoptable pet home' or it kills, or it sells (adopts) to just anyone. Those are the choices. This is pet-shuffling, and the SPCA's trusting donators are paying for this.

The solution is not to keep finding scarce homes for pets, and to kill the ones that no one wants, but to reduce the number of homeless pets, and that will never happen as long as there is an agency that makes it easy to dump pets.

Only refusing to enable and shuffle would expose the enormity of the problem so that the public would start to demand controls on the supply of many of these homeless animals.

AAS wants a solution. That is why we are determined to expose the hypocrisy of shelters that kill, of animal-shuffling, and the huge business of 'animal welfare'. We see the victims of all this use/abuse/ incomprehension and it makes us really mad.

AAS is asked all the time: "But won't people just abandon their unwanted pet by the road if an SPCA says it is full?" The answer is that people are already doing that, even though they can take their pet to an SPCA. And how can anyone believe that one evil excuses another?

Our answer is more questions:

Why do so many people think it is the SPCA or nothing? The SPCA, frankly, is often worse than nothing. (See Odie's story)

Take the example of cats:

Some SPCAs kill just about very last cat, no matter what it usually admits to. (Although ex-SPCA pound boss, Brian Nelson, once publicly admitted, at a City of North Vancouver council meeting, to not being able to rehome 97% of cats.) And when it is full of cats (daily at some times of the year), it kills the ones that have been on the shelf longest and are collecting dust. The product that doesn't move is killed. It kills boxes of kittens as they come over the counter. And the dumpers keep streaming through the door. (Read how the media help the SPCA to fool the public, click here)

How can anyone wonder if this endless cycle of deceit and death is preferable to the truth? How can anyone think the number of animals that die will increase? The ratio of pets available to pets wanted will not change if the SPCA says "No - we are full", so the death rate won't either. (Read why many SPCAs cannot say they are "too full to take any more" because of the requirements of their have pound contracts, click here)

Most people will be forced to look for a home for their pet themselves, instead of jumping into the car and popping into that nice SPCA that is going to find a lovely new home for our Puss or Rover while we go away on holidays (Yes, this is too common). And when we get back, we can just pop back into that nice SPCA and get a new kitten or puppy because they always have some because they never say No.

Being an open shelter and pet-shuffling is morally corrupting. The proof of this is in the state of the SPCA in BC.

The only way to stop the cycle of purchase/neglect/dump, is to make it so hard to dump that most won't purchase. That would also have the effect of cutting out the market for puppy mills and backyard breeders (which are still uncontrolled by the SPCA).

Make the owners do the deed and pay for it themselves instead of letting rescuers and the public purse pay to do it. That would soon slow down animal abandonment.

There are pet animals that really need "rescuing" - feral cats - a growing population in spite of rescuers hard work (with no help from the SPCA), and chained dogs, to name only two. What will really help animals? Stop shuffling and start advocating for laws to prevent pet dumping, and uncontrolled breeding and start real education on what good "pet guardianship is.

An email from animal rescuer Crystal Kerr:

When I first started reading the emails about pet shufflers and when I first read the comments about closing the doors to people who want to give up their pets, I too was worried and caught up in the whole "what will happen to that animal if they can't drop them off at the SPCA or one of the small shelters". But since I also volunteered at (a large cat shelter), I can see that that is not working. Every single cat in there gets sick, with at least a respiratory infection, and nothing else if they are very lucky. Can you imagine living like that yourself? What a miserable existence. I used to spend a lot of time there, because I felt so bad for the cats that I felt I had to spend time with them. And they absolutely know they've been ditched. Every single one of them. When I was volunteering there, I used to be so worried about what would happen if they ever stopped taking cats in, as they used to get really frustrated by all the idiots out there that just dumped their cats on them, and they couldn't say no or turn their back on those cats that no one else wanted. I also used to worry, when I first heard that the SPCA was on rocky footing and that some of its shelters might close down, about what would happen to all the animals that no one wanted, where would they go? But ever since I've been reading about animal shuffling and been thinking about this situation so much, I've really started to come to the realization that if you let people dump their animals off on you, they will. And that makes it all the easier for these same people, the next time they decide to get a pet, to do the same thing again. If they feel the need to get rid of it at some point for whatever reason, they know they can easily enough. What kind of message is that for the SPCA to give? Especially to children who are going to grow up and continue this cycle. A lot of these people have kids and they are simply sending the same message to them - that you don't have to make a lifetime commitment to an animal. And if you worry that if they can't dump it off on one of the shelters or the SPCA that a worse fate will happen, like they will abandon it out in the bush or on some lonely road somewhere, well that happens every single day anyway. Yes, this kind of person will behave this way, especially if allowed to, but for the average person, who now never thinks "What will I have to do with this animal if I ever can't keep it?", if they know that they can't get rid of it easily, there's less chance of them doing it again. I found that some of the people that called to try to dump their cats off at the shelter were able to shuffle their own pets anyway. It's just so much easier if they could make one call and the animal would disappear. Much easier than having to deal with it themselves. I believe the answer is - turn them away , make them deal with the problem themselves. Do not let them palm off their pet on you or anyone else. The animal deserves so much more than that. I know that animal-lovers would take every single animal we possibly could and more, because we don't want anything to have to live without love, dignity, and respect. But how is shuffling an animal respectful anyway? Shuffling animals only encourages the same hardship for many, many more and the continuation of the thinking that animals are unworthy of the effort and time and commitment we owe them. Pet shuffling is the root of the problem, because it propagates the idea that it's alright to give up an animal that you supposedly made a commitment to. It says you don't have to be responsible for an animal that you made a commitment to for the rest of it's life, because someone else will.

Here are some words written by AAS that really sink in if you think about them long enough:

"Pet-shuffling entrenches abandonment and sets an example of irresponsible behaviour. The SPCA never saying, "We're full and we won't kill an animal already in our care to make room for your animal", is the worst example-setter. The SPCA is supposed to be the moral leader in animal welfare and look at the example it is setting - no - look at what it is encouraging, by saying this is not only alright with it, but is killing thousands in the process!

The SPCA needs to just say "No". To people who ask them to help them abandon their pet, just say - "Do it yourself". There are more pets than homes, so it is only simple arithmetic that SPCAs have to kill some. So not only do shelters take all the moral and financial responsibility, but most are finally driven to silently and as secretly as possible, kill the ones that no one is ever going to want, or the ones too sick, or too abused. This is the ultimate enabling, and the ultimate betrayal of the animals it says it is helping.

The only way to stop the cycle of purchase/neglect/dump, is to make it so hard to dump that most won't purchase in the first place. That would also have the effect of cutting out the market for puppy mills and backyard breeders. The SPCA, pounds, animal welfare organizations, and the thousands of individuals "rescuers", should refuse to take owner-surrendered animals.

As for the argument that more people would then get rid of their pets in violent ways? That is a moot point, and we doubt that. Make the owners do the deed and pay for it themselves instead of letting rescuers and the public purse pay to do it. That would soon slow down animal abandonment."

This is going to take a long time, but that is the only way anything ever changes. Make it difficult to continue to act this way. People only change if things get too hard to continue to do them the same." Crystal Kerr

There should be no enabling of people who are surrendering their pet. Getting and then surrendering a pet that was never a commitment would become much less common if it wasn't so damned easy and guilt-free. You can't cure a problem by making the problem easy, and that's what sheltering and shuffling does. Making owners take responsibility will not change the fate of the pet - the same thing will happen to it as would if the SPCA took it - it will either go to a new home, or be killed.

People ask AAS, "How could you turn away a pet?"

Our answer is: Which should be harder - to kill a cat or dog that is down the hall from you, that you have fed and watered and maybe come to love, or to tell the person at the counter with an animal you don't even know to find another solution because you're not going to kill any of the ones already here so that you can take (and possibly kill) their pet too? You can suggest ways and means and give out the names of other groups, you can try to help the animal at the counter - without killing any of the ones in the back.

We know which we would find harder. It's no contest.

We ask: What would you do if you worked at an SPCA? Agree to kill the ones in the back? We know the questioner wouldn't do that. So your only option would be to turn dumpers away when you're full. Don't you think that should be the SPCA's only option?

More questions: Why didn't the SPCA have its bylaws amended so that it could turn away owner-surrendered pets when it was full? When did the SPCA realize that taking a dog or cat from a person at the counter today meant killing a dog or cat taken yesterday? When did the SPCA realize that this was never going to end? When did the SPCA realize that it was enabling pet dumping by giving people a place to dump their pets with impunity and at no cost. When did the SPCA realize that it was providing guilt-free pet abandonment? It didn't take AAS long to figure this out and when we did we immediately stopped shuffling people's pets and concentrated only on cats and dogs that truly needed rescuing from the streets, from chains, from SPCAs and pounds that were going to kill them. We think the SPCA realized this long ago because it is so obvious.

Why did the SPCA not amend its bylaws so that it could stop being an easy way to dump a pet? Did it realize, as AAS did, that there was money to be made in pet-shuffling? Not by the reselling of owner-dumped pets; but by the donations given by a public whose heart-strings are tugged by shelters full of homeless animals. "Never say no to a pet dumper if you want to get lots of donations", is what we were told by a long-time rescuer when we announced we would not shuffle people's pets for them anymore. That just made us realize the depths of the "animal welfare" scam and more determined to expose it.

Has anyone explained to SPCA donators that their money is being used to enable people to get rid of their pets for free? This service is a questionable use of donator's money as it entrenches the very behaviour that the SPCA calls irresponsible". (Read more about how the SPCA shifts the blame, click here)

Most pet dumping would stop if it weren't for this free, guilt free service provided. If the pet dumper had to deal themselves with the fact of having a pet that they are no longer willing or able to provide for, many people would pause before getting a pet in the first place, and without a huge market, breeding would lessen and much miserable pet shuffling and abandonment would end. Isn't that what we all profess to want? Less pet dumping, less abandonment, less suffering?

GOOD FOR THE PRINCE GEORGE SPCA

AAS received an email from an animal rescuer who is upset that the Prince George SPCA is full and is turning away animal dumpers after the BC SPCA issued its "moratorium on killing for space" policy. (Read more on why the Prince George SPCA made this announcement, click here). Good for the prince George SPCA! We wonder when animal-lovers and rescuers will figure out that "open" shelters must kill. Only "closed" shelters are moral. In fact open shelters must kill many animals and so are not "shelters" at all.

A place that is truly a "shelter" does not kill the sheltered.

All over North America the same thing has been noted and is being fought. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the BC SPCA, it is endemic in the animal welfare/sheltering business.

Only a closed shelter can chose not to kill. We wonder when animal-lovers and rescuers are going to figure out that the responsibility for "getting rid of" a pet must be put on the abondoner, if abandoning is ever to stop. We wonder when animal-lovers and rescuers are going to figure out that the cycle of purchase and dump will never end as long as there are enablers willing to take responsibility away from dumpers with barely a murmur. When the enabler is huge, like the SPCA, then many of the animals it is "sheltering" must be killed - unless the SPCA has property on another planet, because there is not enough room on this planet for all the dumped pets - even the SPCA acknowledges that. And who among "rescuers" believes there are enough foster homes for even a fraction of dumped pets? And how can animals be moved from one bursting shelter to another? It is bloody well time the SPCA closed its doors and said, "We're full, and we aren't going to kill an animal we are already "sheltering", to make room for yours. If anyone is going to kill your animal, it is going to be you." When it is not so easy to unburden oneself of a no-longer-wanted-animal, then people will have to think twice about getting one in the first place.

Animal-lovers and rescuers think it will get worse if SPCAs and pounds stop silently killing people's unwanted pets. But that isn't rational. It will only get better if silent killers start saying, loud and clear, as the Prince George SPCA just did, No more!

Millions of animals have suffered and died because so few "animal-lovers" understand this.