It doesn't surprise us that Doctor Jamie Lawson called SPCA animals "product". Dr Lawson was hired by the Vancouver SPCA while it was expanding its dog-disposal contracting business. We don't know what Dr Lawson's imperatives are, but we don't believe it is possible to be both humane and in the dog-disposal business. Business is driven by imperatives such as bottom lines, controlling expenses, expansion, competition, employee suitability, and in the case of an organization that promotes itself as saving animals from cruelty, the need to hide what it is doing. So a climate of hypocrisy and secrecy evolved, and people who did not mind killing animals were hired. Douglas Brimacombe, the CEO of the BC SPCA, seems reluctant to clean his house of employees who were hired at that time, not only at the Vancouver Regional SPCA, but wherever the BC SPCA holds dog-disposal contracts, and it holds many, maybe as many as one hundred - it won't say.
No wonder it won't say: a pound contract is a contract to dispose of unclaimed and aggressive dogs: there is no way to avoid killing dogs without losing the contract. And there is not enough money in a competitive pound contract to warehouse thousands of dogs that no one wants, for their whole lives. Employees who understand the nature of the business were hired to carry it out. Employees who couldn't stomach the hypocritical cruelty of the job quit, those that didn't mind enough stayed and collected their paycheques. This policy is coming back to haunt the SPCA, just as it should. Gail's letter to the Maple Ridge Times points out absolutely clearly that SPCA dog-killing policy has not changed, no matter how many glossy, media-friendly announcements of "assessment tools" and "moratoriums" and "Companion Animal Management Programs (CAMP)" it churns out.
Tom Bishop, the ex-manager of the Vernon SPCA, is an example of the CEO refusing to fire people who are doing this job, even when it has been shown that the person is the antithesis of animal-loving. Bishop oversaw the dog-disposal contracts that the Vernon SPCA held with NORD (North Okanagan Regional District) for the City of Vernon, District of Coldstream, Village of Lumby, Electoral Areas 'B' and 'C', and part of Electoral District 'D'. The file on Tom Bishop is several years long, but Brimacombe did not deal with him until the Bishop story was about to appear on the AAS web site. There many more "Tom Bishops" to be weeded out if Brimacombe is serious about moving the BC SPCA in a "new direction" that is for animals instead of for himself.
AAS has said for two years that dog disposal should be done by municipalities and the BC SPCA should be the writer and enforcer of province-wide pound regulations and standards (not using their own grim, cheap, "shelter" standards of course!).
This would accomplish two things that would be of immeasurable benefit to dogs in BC: It would force municipalities to understand the true extent and the true expense of allowing the uncontrolled production of big cross breed dogs, and of the uncontrolled desocialization of these dogs by chaining and penning and isolation, that make up almost 100% of the dogs that pounds kill. For fifty years the BC SPCA has hidden the problem from municipalities and the public by self-serving surrender policies and pound contracting. Instead of being the arms-length spokesperson for dogs, it has been in a conflict of interest for fifty years by profiting from their plight.
Doctor Lawson is the BC SPCA's regional manager for Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Kitimat, Prince George, and Prince Rupert. Even if he sincerely wants to stop killing unwanted dogs he will not be able to because of the contracts the BC SPCA has with all of these places to dispose of unclaimed and dangerous dogs. (We are waiting for a call back to find out who does dog disposal for another SPCA branch Dr Lawson is responsible for, the Queen Charlottes.)
AAS has never advocated the "bringing down" of the BC SPCA; no other body or organization is even remotely capable of running animal welfare in BC. We have said for years that it must be reformed; old-guard employees must be weeded out, but this cannot be done as long as the SPCA holds pound contracts; pound contracts need employees who see animals as "product".
And we are puzzled by those who say they want to run pound contracts if the SPCA stops contracting. A pound contract held by anyone who also professes to be doing animal welfare must inevitably lead down the same path of secrecy, false euthanasia figures, selling to unsuitable purchasers to get the numbers down, etc., that the SPCA took, fifty years ago.
By the way - AAS has referred to the animals at SPCAs as "product" for a long time because we recognized that many SPCA's were simply businesses and that animals were its product, supplied free of charge by a "open" surrender policy. Free products don't have to be made more sellable by holding, training, grooming, socializing, medicating, etc - that costs money. By comparison it only costs pennies to get rid of (euthanize) product that doesn't sell, and thanks to the open surrender policy, there is new free product coming through the door every day (read: http://www.animaladvocates.com/spca-shelter-shuffle.htm and http://www.animaladvocates.com/spca-blame-public.htm and http://www.animaladvocates.com/spca-pounds-corrupt.htm).