From the internal SPCA memo May 31/03: "The Board of Directors has directed staff to pursue a new direction of providing sheltering only services in these regions while municipalities oversee the ticketing/bylaw component of animal control."

Is the BC SPCA is creaming the dog disposal contracts? It is proposing to divest itself of the unprofitable and unpopular "dog catcher" component (enforcing dog control bylaws) and to keep the profitable and popular impounding/disposal part. It is proposing to get out of the component that does not require killing and to keep the component that absolutely requires killing. (See explanation of dog control contracting below)

The new BC SPCA CEO, Craig Daniell, said in a January meeting with AAS that his SPCA would only have seized animals (so that it would have the space and financial resources to humanely rehabilitate them), just what AAS has been saying for several years.

We believe that this announcement is the polar opposite: that this is to improve the bottom line, not to improve animal welfare. This is about keeping the high-profile, donation-attracting, second-hand pet store business: that this is about full "shelters" that seem to the uninformed animal-lover to be full of needy animals and in a constant need of money: that this is about making sure that up to $2 million that each branch attracts in donations every year is not lost: that this is about staying in the lucrative pet shuffling/disposal business - a business that requires the disposal of a lot of unmarketable product. (The SPCA itself has referred to dogs and cats as "marketable product".)

The SPCA has still not addressed the reason it has to kill possibly as many as 10,000 pets a year, which is unlimited surrender. Unlimited surrender is the ultimate dishonesty because it legitimises animal abandonment and results in thousands of animals that will be killed because there is no unlimited space and money to keep all the animals alive for ever that no one will buy.

The SPCA has not suggested it will stop unlimited surrender. But unlimited surrender, combined with cheaply operated facilities, is the big money-maker in the animal welfare business. It provides the SPCA with a constant turnover of free goods to sell and makes it look terribly necessary and busy, and this attracts millions in donations. Money is not spent )or only spent sparingly) to make the goods more sellable because there is no need as there is new free product streaming through the door every day.

By getting out of enforcement, it is denying one of its 50 year justifications for dog control contracting - that bylaw enforcement allowed the SPCA to be aware of animal neglect and cruelty in a municipality. The other justification was that it treated dogs in its pounds more humanely than did other private contractors.

AAS does not buy either of those justifications as the SPCA was also inhumane to dogs in its pounds causing distress and even critical distress (as defined by the PCA Act) to untold thousands, and it ignored cruelty and neglect complaints in the community (we have much documented proof of this and more comes to us weekly). As we say below, AAS wants the SPCA to get out of all aspects of pet disposal.

There are two components to the dog control business:

Enforcement of animal bylaws:
Patrolling for off- leash and unlicensed dogs; also barking complaints; and biting complaints. In 1995-1998, in North Vancouver City, District, Coquitlam, West Vancouver, Delta, Maple Ridge, Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby, New Westminster, AAS had Humane Treatment of Dogs bylaws incorporated into these municipalities' animal control bylaws. These laws were designed to relieve the suffering of chained and neglected dogs and became part of the bylaws the SPCA was paid to enforce. But we know that the SPCA did not use this bylaw to help chained dogs. Enforcement is the unprofitable part of the SPCA's contracts in most municipalities. This part made the SPCA unpopular with many dog owners for being the dog catcher.

Impound/Dispose:
Impounding of stray or dangerous dogs picked up under the Enforcement component. The SPCA suggests that it will go on doing this for municipalities on a fee for service basis.

Disposing of dogs that are not claimed by owners or are dangerous: Dangerous dogs must be killed. The SPCA now has CAMP, a program that validates the killing of dogs which it designates as dangerous. CAMP provides wide scope for the dangerous designation, for example, a dog can be designated dangerous for chasing another companion animal. (We don't know of a single dog that will not chase an unfamiliar cat or rat or gerbil so this is very wide scope indeed, in fact no other justification is even needed.) Unclaimed stray dogs can be disposed of by either selling them, or, if they are not sellable, by killing them. This is the most profitable part of the dog control business. Selling the dogs is not particularity profitable, but having a high profile in a municipality and a constantly full "shelter" attracts millions in donations to every branch. We know this is true because the Vancouver SPCA's ex-pound business boss, Brian Nelson, publicly said so and in fact said that the SPCA in Coquitlam attracted approximately $2 million a year in donations. (Note: Every cent went to Vancouver head office and into general revenues in every one of the ten Vancouver SPCA branches, while the facilities that trusting donators thought would be improved by their donations became older, dirtier, less humane and grimmer with every year. Restructuring the SPCA in 2002 did not change this - every penny still goes to head office where the staff has been increased three-fold and retreats to posh resorts are still the order of the day.)

The SPCA says that the Lower Mainland municipalities where it is currently the dog control contractor can do dog control themselves or contract it out to private contractors (as it did to the SPCA for 50 years). But the 50 year justification for being in the dog control/disposal business was that these private contractor were grossly inhumane and the SPCA wasn't. (Not true of course, we know the SPCA's "shelters" were deadly for thousands of animals some of who were electrocuted, gassed and left to die slowly in concrete prison cells that make the middle ages look kindly. All this is documented on the AAS web site: www.animaladvocates.com )

AAS agrees with new BC SPCA CEO Craig Daniell that the BC SPCA should only shelter animals that it has seized under the PCA Act because of cruelty and neglect. We think the SPCA should get completely out of the pet shuffling/disposing business. Only then can it be honest. Until it does it has to keep finding ways to justify and hide all the killing its two policies of unlimited surrender and fee for service impounding require. (See following posts for an explanation of why unlimited surrender is immoral and results in the hiding or justification of the killing thousands of animals yearly and on the misuse of the word "euthanasia".)