We've been asked if we're not afraid of being "set on" by the SPCA's attack lawyers for a third time when we make allegations like we did in the above post " The sheltering/shuffling business and how it works".

The best defence against libel is the truth, and we think we can - again - prove that what we allege is true.

Our basic premise, that open, unlimited surrender means the SPCA must kill animals, can be proven by simple deductive reasoning: if the SPCA accepts more animals than it has space for it has to dispose of some. If it accepts more animals than there are homes for, it must kill some.

The SPCA itself does not deny this - when asked point blank.

What about our other allegations: that unlimited surrender leads to other evils, such as deceitful methods to obscure the killing; that the SPCA profits from unlimited surrender; and that it avoided programs, legislation, and actions that would have lessened the numbers of animals it killed? The proof of those allegations is in the SPCA's own actions - historical and present. CAMP may be further proof.