Readers bark out dissatisfaction SPCA criticized for failing to protect animals

Dear Editor,

I just read Craig Daniell's letter (News, Oct 27). Cry me a river Craig is all I have to say. As an animal lover and a resident of Richmond, I am tired of my worries being ignored. I called about a dog being kept in isolation many times and nothing has been done. I called about my neighbor's dogs who are outside 24/7 with no shelter, with rarely any food or water and they bark day and night. I was told a letter was sent. They didn't even go talk to the family. Guess where the dogs are today?
There are two rescue organizations in Richmond that will take any cat. Why does the SPCA need to put down cats if two rescues will take them, regardless of condition?
I caught a lovely stray dog one evening and was told to put it in my garage for the night. I don't have a garage and I had nowhere to put this dog. The SPCA wouldn't come and get it and wouldn't let me drop it off. How is that working for the community and the animals? Was I to set the dog free to continue to play on the Steveston Highway?
Until Craig realizes that, in fact, they are not doing a service to the community, change will never occur. I support the city in looking at having someone with more compassion to run the Richmond shelter. Someone who actually goes the extra mile for animals-the SPCA doesn't appear to. The only thing the SPCA speaks for is its wallet.

M.Lapointe
Richmond

Dear Editor,

This letter is regarding the letter from Craig Daniell, CEO, BCSPCA (News Oct 27).
It seems clear Daniell intends to maintain the status quo with whatever smoke-and-mirror reply he can muster rather than address the issues that are causing people to lose faith in the SPCA. To take one point from his letter, "Firstly, animals do not get colds. They do get upper respiratory infections..." For Daniell's information, The Random House dictionary definition of a "cold" states: "Also called common cold, a respiratory viral infection characterized by sneezing, sore throat, coughing, etc."
Why does Daniell even try to make such a lame point? If his letter is any indication, this organization's only response to criticisms will be to defend current practices in any way possible. I, for one, do not believe the SPCA is anywhere near perfect enough that it can afford to ignore its critics. Rather, as a publicly funded body, I think it has an obligation to listen and respond with more than defensive smoke-and-mirror replies.

Brigitta MacMillan
via e-mail