If I understand you correctly, you think that more off-road pet abondonment will happen if the SPCA gets out of enabling pet abondoment with its 'open surrender' policy.

This is a complicated issue, but the short answer is that the SPCA has been enabling for 106 years and SPCAs are still full, still killing. The short solution is for people like that man to be prosecuted - if anyone will speak up. (See the message above: Cat abandonment leads to charges)

Crystal's standards are so high that she is a person that the SPCA ought to be working with and helping to fund as it did by giving Richmond Homeless Cats $10,000, and is currently working with Greater Victoria Animal Crusaders.

Working with intelligent women like Crystal makes good sense for so many reasons, not least of which is that Crystal's hundred hours a week is unpaid labour. By working with people like Crystal, the SPCA only has the expense of matching "care" funds: S/N, minor vet care, etc.

The defenders of wide open/pound SPCAs do not talk about what those policies require of the SPCA (lots of killing, lots of deceit, lots of hard-nosed employees, lots of hypocrisy), and how these enabling policies have corrupted public pet-owning morals. SPCAs take boxes of kittens over the counter with barely a murmur and then puts them in the gas box.

With no exceptions that we know of, rescuers do not enable by secretly killing an animal to make room for more as does the SPCA; they will turn away a pet relinquisher rather than do that, making the relinquisher aware of the magnitude of their behaviour. This educates the relinquisher. They will offer the relinquisher alternatives and advice, not just take the animal and kill it. They make sure the animal is as completely physically sound as it can be, before rehoming it, and some also make sure that dog's behaviour is sound, no matter what that takes or costs, before rehoming it.

What rescuer has not been threatened by a relinquisher, "If you don't take my pet, I will take it to an SPCA!"? Think about that...doesn't that make clear how the SPCA has allowed itself to recognized far and wide as a place that will kill? As a place of last resort? As a place of imprisonment in dirty, lonely miserable cells and then death when this "sheltering" ruins the animal? As a place that makes animal-lovers cringe? Does any relinquisher threaten, "If you don't take my pet I will take it to FOTA, or PAF, or OAWF, or GVAC, or Happy Cat Haven, or AAS?

Who exactly keeps defending SPCA enabling policies? We guess the defenders are paid - by the SPCA and the SPCA's union.