AAS received a submission from an SPCA defender named P. Greene. We do not know if P. Greene is an alias as most SPCA defenders use aliases and don't answer emails. We do not, as a rule, approve posts from anyone we can't identify, but there are some points raised in P. Greene's post that are worth addressing and have been by Emma Vandewetering.

I find it astounding that the AAS, long critical of the BCSPCA being involved in animal control, has taken an "animal control" position on the banning of "muscle mouthed" breeds.

Wrong! The animal control (SPCA) position is to kill these dogs after they've attacked. AAS is proposing changes to prevent the conditions responsible for these dogs becoming aggressive in the first place. Only by doing that, will the public be truly protected and will the suffering of these "muscle mouthed" breeds be stopped. That is what PREVENTION means. The "P" in SPCA should not stand for PUNISHMENT!

The BCSPCA has long held animal control contracts for a number of reasons, one being to keep a presence in all municipalities and cities in the Lower Mainland. With the contracts came city owned buildings in some cases, contractual funds but most importantly a constant presence in the areas that they hold contracts. One of the other benefits is the PCA Act.

Municipalities can adopt anti-cruelty bylaws and their bylaw officers can enforce them. Municipal bylaw officers are in the community already enforcing a variety of bylaws, and any of them can take the same Justice Institute training to become an SPC and enforce the PCA Act. Local Police forces can also enforce the PCA Act.

The BCSPCA has been attacked and criticized by the AAS and other so called animal rights groups for taking these animal control contracts, saying that the SPCA was not speaking for animals, but for "people" and at the expense of the rights of animals. Now, as the contracts are lost to other groups like LAPS, Delta Humane Society and the volunteers that took the North Vancouver contract, these same groups have taken those same animal control contracts in those areas. Is this hypocrisy in its truest form or what!!

The only hypocrisy is the SPCA portraying itself as the "animal protector" while it continues to kill animals as a paid pound contractor. None of these other groups is the SPCA, so there is no conflict and none of these other groups collect multi-millions in public donations each year, from people who expect the SPCA to live up to it's given name and speak for those who cannot. These other groups acting as pound keepers is morally more acceptable, and should allow the SPCA to focus on what it supposed to be its primary mandate: cruelty PREVENTION.

What is also astounding is the stand the AAS is taking on Pit bulls and Rotties. From one side of their mouths they criticize the SPCA for protecting humans at the expense of animals rights and from the other side they condone and insist on the banning of these dogs potentially causing the deaths of hundreds of these animals. At least the SPCA is consistent. An animals disposition is based on the individual dogs behavior, not on its breed.

To allow the breeding of powerful, fighting/protection breed dogs and then, for contract money, to kill so many, is what is truly hypocritical. And to never attempt to stop the cruelty so many of these breeds suffer, but to kill them when they are dumped, is also hypocritical. While AAS has been busy presenting solutions to authorities so that breed banning is NOT their first choice, what alternatives to banning breeds has the SPCA presented to any level of government?

The hypocrisy demonstrated by Delta Humane, the AAS and the rest is astounding!!

The proverbial SPCA pot is calling the kettle black, again.