Page 68 current CAMP Manual:

" Neglect or abuse is not an excusable cause for aggressive behaviour. There are many people in prison who claim that they committed a violent crime because they were abused; there are also many people who were also abused who never committed a crime - people have choices, and so do animals."

AAS comment: This sounds more like spiritualism than science. For example, if dogs have choices (there is a debate that even humans do) that means that dogs have free will and therefore have an immortal soul and therefore are spiritual equals to humans, and as spiritual equals, then they must be equals in all ways. In our civil society humans are not summarily executed after a kangaroo court, which is what CAMP may be.

"We can certainly all understand how and why a dog who was beaten his whole life might react aggressively toward a person. However, we cannot then put that dog out into society, knowing that there is a high likelihood of aggression. We are assessing animals for their potential to cause harm or injury to themselves or others. At this point, we are not able to provide in-shelter remediation for this type of aggression."

AAS comment: We would be more convinced of SPCA good intentions if we knew what remediation resources were being planned for, but we are forced to be sceptical and questioning because requests to be kept apprised of developing CAMP policy are not answered.

CAMP may be just old SPCA policy tarted up in scientific garb. It may be just the same policy it has had for fifty years - to dispose of unsellable stock to make room for fresh stock (provided for free by the SPCA's open surrender policy), and as it does not intend to rescind that policy, it needs a "scientific" assessment of aggression in future because it was caught "making room" when it killed six nice dogs at the Vancouver SPCA in January 2002, then claimed, with no grounds, that the dogs were killed for aggression.

If so, then a policy that kills orange zone dogs (dog that are rehabilitatable with some time and expense) to make room for green zone dogs (dogs that are immediately sellable with very little expense) as does CAMP, is absolutely necessary and the CAMP test steps that seem to be designed for maximum and rapid failure are also absolutely necessary.

Or CAMP may be the SPCA truly trying to save as many lives as possible until such time as the SPCA no longer has an open surrender policy and no longer needs to kill to make room.

We cannot know what CAMP's purpose is and so can only speculate. It seems to us though, that if CAMP were as animal-serving as the SPCA tells the media it is, CAMP would be posted on the BC SPCA web site, or at the least, questions would be answered.