SPCA still prefers to kill animals than shut off the supply. The juxtaposition of these two articles shows why
AAS has said for close to a decade that the SPCA cannot resist the millions of dollars in donations it gets for heart and wallet-tugging stories of crowded "shelters" that will have to kill more animals if everyone doesn't give more money.
The SPCA is doing business right before the eyes of all animal-lovers and the media.
The SPCA is hanging onto its "unlimited surrender" policy when real animal shelters like the Coquitlam Animal Shelter and the Vancouver Animal Shelter have seen the immorality of a policy that takes all the free product (animals) it can get, kills the unsellable, then sells what hasn't being driven mad, or died, or been killed by diseases caused by overcrowding in tiny, unclean, germ-filled kennels and cages.
In a recent interview, Coquitlam shelter manager Cal Martin told AAS that Coquitlam Animal Shelter does not accept owner surrendered animals. Mr Martin expressed the opinion that to do so makes it too easy for owners to shirk their responsibilities.
That unlimited surrender is responsible for the culture of pet-dumping is not rocket science and nor is it hard to see how lucrative unlimited surrender is. The SPCA has successfully blamed the pet-dumper, at the same time it has encouraged pet-dumping by taking every animal that is dragged through its doors instead of saying, We are full and we can't kill an animal already in our care to make room for yours, you will have to find an alternative and take responsibility yourself, as real animal welfarists say. Only animal-hoarders and those in the pet disposal business take every animal even when no money may be spent on rehabilitation. For decades, the SPCA has fattened off pet-dumping.
None of the money appeals like this one raises is spent on making the facilities clean and uncrowded. None of the money can ever be accounted for because the SPCA (illegally) does not submit audited financial statements to the government as the PCA Act says it must. What we do know is that the vets all over B.C. are furious at not being paid by the SPCA even when more than enough money has been raised. The SPCA chooses a particularly sad story, milks it in the media for all it's worth, the money, given by kind-hearted animal lovers to pay the bills for a specific animal, disappears into head office's huge black hole and the vets have to threaten to go to the media to get paid.
CEO Craig Daniell and the SPCA's Spinmistress, Lorie Chortyk, have told the media many times that the SPCA does not kill for overcrowding. The huge rescue community has contrary information secretly supplied by some SPCA employees and volunteers. Labelling a dog so aggressive that it must be killed is one way to account to the media for dog-killing to make space for more dogs. Cheech is only the most public example of this business tactic. Letting cats get upper respiratory infections (a cold, which any good cat shelter can handle) is the SPCA's excuse for killing thousands of cats.
The SPCA is still unwilling to give up the two policies, unlimited surrender and pound contracting, that generate millions of dollars in revenue a year but which at the same time require the disposal of hundreds of thousands of unsellable animals. Since it won't give up these lucrative businesses, and now that the internet is tracking its every move and it can no longer get away with killing hundreds and thousands of animals with impunity, it has had to come up with justifications for the media.
The SPCA's justification for dog-killing is a test called DTA4 it does on dogs under the worst conditions - in stress-filled cells, by uniformed strangers doing very intimidating things, right after having been abandoned. This test, done this way, is rigged for failure. The SPCA tells the media the test is highly scientific, but (as with the money and statistics) it provides no proof other than what it says is proof. Even UBC Professor Stanley Coren, one of North America's leading dog behaviour experts, has said of the SPCA's test, "You don't get normal behaviour, you get all the wrong readings".
Mr Martin told AAS that the Coquitlam Animal Shelter does not use a test as does the BC SPCA. Mr Martin said that there is no need of a test for the reasons that he has not seen a test that he agrees with; that tests are not an efficient use of staff time because CAS does not intend to kill any dogs, rather it intends to rehabilitate them and place them wisely: that a dog cannot be accurately assessed in an upsetting kennel environment, being poked and prodded by strangers.
SPCA euthanasia statistics are just as unprovable as its finances and its science. One day it's P.R. spinner, Lorie Chortyk, says it has no statistics, as in this Province article of August 9, 2004:
Chortyk, however, says there is "no euthanasia for space reasons." She does not have figures for dogs killed in Surrey last year.
When only five days before she magically had lots of statistics for the Vancouver Courier:
In March 2002, the organization decided to put down pets only for untreatable health problems and aggressive behaviour. Euthanizations to make space at the shelter or at an owner's request are no longer permitted.
Between March 2002 and February 2003, 1,200 cats (95 of which were euthanized)and 600 dogs (72 of which were euthanized) went through the shelter.
B.C. SPCA spokeswoman Lorie Chortyk said 52 of the canines were killed for aggressive behaviour or temperament problems, 11 for medical reasons, and nine after owners who couldn't afford vet bills brought them in to be put down for ill health. Of the 195 cats, 27 were euthanized for bad temperament, 151 for medical reasons and 17 at owners' request-also for health reasons.
Between March 2003 and February 2004, 74 dogs were put down-45 for temperament, 24 for medical and four for health issues at their owners' request. One was for an unspecified reason.
During the same period, 170 cats were killed-30 for temperament, 128 for medical, five for poor health at owners' request. Seven cases were for unspecified reasons.