As much as Animal Advocates calls for a 'better, reformed' SPCA, I too wonder, like many others if the SPCA needs such a major overhaul that it perhaps can't be done. My suspicions of the SPCA come from the volunteer work I've done with both the Vancouver Animal Shelter (the Vancouver pound) and the SPCA. These things are extremely clear to me:
1) that the animal overpopulation is out of hand. The amount of animals needing homes and the available homes out there are grossly out of whack.
2) that many, many people are not committed to having animals their whole lives. Too many things happen in a family that cause people to give up their pets...namely, moving, marriage, divorce, new baby. There are always going to be animals in need of a shelter.
3) that there are many dogs with behaviour problems that no one wants. These behaviour problems are often minor, but are often caused by poor breeding (genetics) or poor treatment (being left alone in yards with no socialization at all). Because so many people don't commit to animals for the dog's lifetime, it is extremely hard to place these dogs who might have behaviour issues.
If I figured this out, I know the SPCA knows all the above mentioned problems. So, if an organization was truly committed to animal welfare, would they not:
1) spay and neuter every single animal before the animal left the shelter (due to decades of public pressure, the SPCA has done this at some shelters in BC, but not all shelters, especially the shelters in more remote areas of BC, where probably spay and neuters are needed the most);
2) close down or put a lot of pressure on backyard breeders, breeding the big cross breed dogs that the shelters are full of. So far, I have seen the SPCA close down some puppy breeders where typically there are purebred dogs and small breed dogs (very sellable). I have seen them go after SOME bigger breed breeders, but on the whole, all those backyard bred dogs, being bred out in the Fraser Valley (Langley, Abbotsford, Chilliwack etc.) are still in business and those people are collecting loads of money, I'm sure without paying any taxes and selling them to anyone who will buy....and those are the dogs that fill SPCAs, many of which it has to sell to questionable purchasers or to kill. The SPCA seems to have done very little to nothing to stop this huge, huge supply. What is worrisome is that many of these dogs come from bad genetic lines, and are treated poorly, therefore not socialized, and are dogs that when end up at the SPCA are often very hard to adopt out;
3) what does the SPCA do with these hard to adopt dogs? Well, they kill them. I have volunteered at the SPCA and have seen them kill dogs who with a bit of rehabilitation, or if they were not kept in psychologically damaging cells, could live happy long lives. Now, I fully understand that the decision to kill dogs is always going to be fraught with controversy. I have seen Sue Sternberg speak at various dog conferences and she is a very noted public speaker on running shelters and euthanasia. She is controversial because of her views on euthanasia. If a dog has a real behaviour concern, she will euthanize. HOWEVER, I will say she seems to treat all dogs fairly (all dogs go through the same kind of temperament test), and she does try to match dogs with appropriate homes if the behaviour problems are minor. So, the temperament test isn't just to decide whether to kill a dog or not, but also to decide which home would be best suited for this particular dog. The SPCA temperament test is of some concern. (Sue Sternberg puts her shelter dogs through temperament tests after they have had time to settle into the shelter, and her shelter consists of very large rooms with couches in it.) I have room in my views to allow that a temperament test could be done, that people are not going to like this, and that some (but hopefully a very, very small amount) of dogs may have to be put down, BUT the SPCA does this in a very willy-nilly fashion. Dogs are tested way too soon when arriving at the SPCA and there are still too many good dogs being put down. The ultimate goal of any animal welfare organization is that NO dogs should ever have to be euthanized except to end unrelievable suffering);
The bottom line is, it is very hard to take a life, and the people working at the SPCA are supposedly there because they love animals. How can this affect morale if they have to put huge numbers of animals down? Would it not make sense then that the SPCA would do everything in its power to not put animals down? To do this, would it not make sense then, to not only spay and neuter everyone before leaving the shelter, and not only to close down as many backyard breeders as possible, but to also lobby to make it illegal to chain and leave dogs in backyards? Would it not make sense to run an SPCA where fewer and fewer animals are ending up at shelters? Because animals will always end up at shelters (because of moving, baby, marriage, divorce etc), to make sure when the animals (in particular, I mention dogs), that those dogs be as adoptable as possible (well socialized dogs from 'good' genetic lines)....this would mean dogs coming from reputable breeders where dogs have been allowed indoors to be well socialized to families...these are the dogs that will be easy to adopt out, so that the SPCA is not faced with the awful prospect of killing unadoptable dogs.
I am terribly suspect of the SPCA given they are not proactive on the issues I raise.
Lori Cumiskey
Defendant in the law suit being brought against AAS posters and directors by the BC SPCA, in BC Supreme Court, for alleged defamationVancouver, B.C.