Sorry, even though I dislike lengthy diatribes, I must since AAS has once again raised a number of points. I also included excerpts from the AAS posting for the sake of clarity.

AAS: “If I understand you correctly, you think that there will be more of this happening if the SPCA gets out of enabling.”

You understand correctly. And I know I am not alone.

AAS: “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)”

If the SPCA is full it is due to too many domestic animals being born and relinquished or neglected. The SPCA is killing less than before, so things are changing. Unfortunately, due to the size and cause of the problem, changes take time. Prosecuting an offender is a deterrent but not a short solution. How many car thieves do the courts deter?

If the SPCA shelter was gone, too many of those pets filling the shelters would be on the street creating more animals for someone to deal with. But until dealt with they suffer.

AAS: “Crystal's standards are so high that she is a person that the SPCA ought to be working with”

AAS: “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.”

I am sure people like Crystal would be welcomed as a volunteer at an SPCA. However a likely concern would be, if or how, her animal welfare philosophy is telegraphed to the public.

Volunteers represent the SPCA and the SPCA needs to be represented as the SPCA sees it should be.

AAS: “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.”

The publics pet owning morals were corrupted long before the SPCA existed. That’s why the SPCA exists. It’s the chicken before the egg thing. How has the SPCA furthered the corruption? The AAS view is the SPCA is simply going to make the pet suffer for a while then kill it. The public still believes the SPCA will kill their pet yet they are willing to leave them. The corruption walked in the door and hopefully was addressed. (Granted it was not likely corrected.) The SPCA is helping the animal not the public.

AAS once again skews the facts by greatly exaggerating the numbers of those killed. While I agree one is too many what, to AAS, are lots? I suspect the deceit AAS mentions revolves around SPCA statistics. If so, how can AAS represent “lots of killing” as a fact?

If a problem is to be fixed then it needs to be properly identified. This means factual information needs to be disseminated so plans can be devised that address only the problem and not the problem skewed by misinformation. To exaggerate or misrepresent a fact can send valuable resources in the wrong direction.

AAS: “SPCAs take boxes of kittens over the counter with barely a murmur and then puts them in the gas box.”

Kittens are no longer killed as frequently as AAS purports. In fact, per capita it is extremely low.

Once there is no longer an open door shelter, where are those kittens going to be? They were born before the irresponsible party knew all groups are full with a closed-door policy.

AAS: “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.”

I do not believe the SPCA keeps it a secret that they kill animals. They do tell people if that is to be the likely outcome if they deem it as the most humane action possible in the animal’s case.

To make a relinquisher aware of the magnitude of the problem the SPCA simply shows them the full kennels and cages. It’s far more affective than telling them to go away and find another solution to their pet’s problem.

I am aware of rescuers that have surrendered “rescued” animals to the SPCA. Does AAS think they told the relinquishers that it was a possibility or that they did it? Exceptions do exist.

How many animals has AAS handled looking to be re-homed? Were any of those killed for any reason? What about other groups?

AAS: “They” (rescuers) “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.”

So enablers are allowed in the AAS scheme. However you call them rescuers. I assume only if they are willing and able to say no and not prepared to kill. This is where I have a problem with the AAS plan. Either the enablers become far too crowded or animals are on their own. Is being left on their own an acceptable alternative to death?

After the owner has tried all options only to hear the phrase “no room” as an answer and they are not willing to cause cruelty by committing the unlawful act of abandonment, they have one choice. Go to the Vet and have the animal put down.

The only difference is an owner paid a Vet bill. There is no guarantee they won’t get another one later and do it again. At least if the SPCA was there the animal had a second chance. Is the AAS not interested in helping the individual animal along with all animals?

AAS: "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?"

This statement reinforces my case. If the relinquisher were willing to send their pet to a slaughterhouse what makes AAS think they wouldn’t simply open a car door, let it out and drive away? What rescuer won’t hear "If you don't take my pet, I will turn it loose?” Then what will the rescuer do? Report them to the SPCA? Meanwhile the pet is loose. Was cruelty prevented, no. Will it be AAS policy to allow some to suffer for the sake of the bigger picture?

AAS: “As a place of last resort? As a place of imprisonment in dirty, lonely miserable cells...”

Not so lonely, remember they are full of other animals. While I agree a shelter is not the desired place for any animal AAS paints a much bleaker picture than reality. There are a lot of people looking to the needs of the animals in a shelter. They walk them, groom them, pamper them, clean and feed them, talk to them and so on. They are called volunteers and staff.

If the last resort is gone what will replace it?

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

Until all humans become perfect guardians of the animals or a better viable solution is conceived, it is animal lovers who are defending the SPCA. Assumptions should be used with extreme caution. There are thousands of SPCA supporters and defenders not paid by the SPCA. They include volunteers and SPCA members.