One of the many serious lapses in animal welfare committed for decades by the SPCA was the killing of dogs rather than allowing alternative rescue groups to have them. AAS documented this and put the proof on its web site in 2000 along with the other proofs of SPCA bottom-line self-serving not animal-serving policies.

In 2001, after the SPCA was forced to say it would reform, "We work with rescue" became one of its new p.r. spins. And to give one individual at the BC SPCA credit, Cindy Soules, the SPCA started to hold meetings with purebred rescue, the most long-established and organized rescue groups and the most vocal about the SPCA's habit of killing a dog rather than picking up the phone to offer it to a rescue group. An arrangement was agreed to in meetings held last summer. Approved purebred rescue groups would have the opportunity to foster and rehome any dog of their breed.

At the time, Animal Advocates Society praised the SPCA for this unselfish policy which put the needs of a dog ahead of the needs of the SPCA to make money reselling purebred dogs.

As usual with this process of reform, we spoke too soon. The SPCA has now reclaimed its "marketable product" (the SPCA's own term for animals in its "care").

The SPCA has just announced a reversal of last summer's agreement and now easily sellable purebred dogs will be kept by the SPCA for at least a week before possibly letting a rescue group to have the dog. Hard to sell dogs, old, sick, poor temperament, are still available.

There never was a real policy at the SPCA: some branches cooperated sometimes, some didn't. The SPCA continued to kill dogs in spite of offers to foster, both by purebred groups and by individuals. AAS has documented this. But there was the appearance of policy, enough to allow SPCA spokespersons to repeat it to the media at every opportunity.

On the face of it, it does not seem unreasonable for the SPCA to have first crack at selling its product, and purebreds attract a lot of traffic.

And one can see the inherent difficulties for the SPCA in giving or selling purebred dogs to be resold. But as always - the difficulty arises from the SPCA's own actions. Dirty, cold, friendless, frightening, cement cells are the SPCA's choice. They exist because they are the cheap, easy way to impound dogs. They are proof of the SPCA's business agenda: protecting the bottom line - not animals.

As long as SPCA facilities and care are so inferior to the care that rescue offers an abandoned dog, then the SPCA is in no position to say "No" for even one day much less one week. SPCA facilities are barren of comfort, isolating, frightening, impersonal, and devoid of any remediation. They are called shelters by the SPCA, another deceit. A "shelter" is not a cold, comfortless cell that can lead to death. SPCA facilities are a form of cruelty to dogs and themselves cause "distress" sometimes even "critical distress" resulting in death . Some dogs are so horrified that they vomit and become catatonic when they realize they have been led into hell and left there.

When the SPCA offers real shelter to the animals in its care - then it is in a position to turn down offers of in-home foster care.

Example: an SPCA turned down an offer from a purebred rescue group to pay full price for a desperate dog that has "housetraining problems". Its problems can only be exacerbated by being kept in an SPCA cell. If it is returned too many times for this problem will the rescue group then be allowed to buy it, or will CAMP, the SPCA's highly questionable, unproven "scientific" tests be used to decide it is "ill" and to kill it? This rescue group offered the dog a loving foster home that would begin housetraining it and was turned down. SPCA policy is still what is best for the SPCA, not what is best for an animal.

Nor can it be said that the SPCA's adoption process is in a dog's best interests either. As for claims made by the SPCA's media spokesperson that it screens homes, carefully matches, and does home checks, we have reason to doubt this claim. Not so long ago, when the SPCA had a desirable dog for sale and multiple offers, it would flip a coin or draw lots to decide who got the dog. We are still being told that there is often little or no screening, home visits, and follow-up calls.

When the SPCA offers a comforting facility, training, rehabilitation, careful matching and screening, then it would have a right to hang onto any animal, but this is not yet the case - except in the unreal world of press releases, TV appearances, and newspaper articles, in other words, in the SPCA's cloud-cookoo land, a land that the media still believes in.

Links: The Beaverdell/Topaz Creek Comparison: How rescue saves, how the SPCA kills: http://www.animaladvocates.com/beaverdell-topaz.htm

Killing puppy mill dogs - the SPCA at work: http://www.animaladvocates.com/SPCA-kamloops-puppymill.htm

CAMP: http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/2573