AAS wrote this in 2002

March 2002: In response to two big articles and pages of pictures of SPCA animals in the Vancouver Sun, in which the Sun urged people to adopt a cat or dog from the SPCA because of overcrowding, the Sun wrote a misinformed editorial in which it blamed the public for being irresponsible for not sterilizing its pets (the official SPCA line), without noting that the SPCA itself sells intact "breeding animals" and has no spay and neuter program (though it never tires of claiming that this is the most important thing it does).

The editorial blamed the public for being irresponsible pet "guardians" by abandoning their pets, without telling how the SPCA encourages this by taking all surrendered pets when that means that it will have to kill some to make room for more. (The SPCA recently announced, in reaction to the publicity surrounding the killing of six dogs in February at the Vancouver SPCA, that it would not be killing for "lack of space" any longer, but then it said that shelters could go on killing for "health" reasons that include "behavioural health" (the excuse given for the killing of the six dogs; read more, click here).

Nor did the Sun editorial tell how the SPCA sells animals to anyone with the money no matter how clearly unsuitable, and has never spent money on ads that tell the public what responsible pet guardianship is.

It did not note that SPCA pound contracts mean overcrowding, such poor care of its animals that the SPCA ought to be charged with cruelty to animals, and unavoidable killing for space> Nor did it note that the SPCA has not announced that it will be getting out of this lucrative dog-disposal business. (See what taking more animals than you can care for leads to, click here). In five years of investigating the SPCA, AAS has heard countless stories of animals that have sickened and died; of injured animals being allowed to die slowly in lonely concrete prison cells without even a blanket and not one kind hand to comfort them. AAS believes that the SPCA should be charged under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for neglect and cruelty (The Act and a lawyer's opinion.)

It did not note that the SPCA’s open-door policy of taking all surrendered animals may be far from being compassionate (as the SPCA also never tires of saying), but it is a constant supply of free "product" (the SPCA's own word for the animals in its charge) to sell, and absolutely requires the SPCA to kill all the animals that no one going to ever buy because the SPCA does not have property on another planet for all the owner-surrendered pets it takes.

The editorial urged the public to send money to the SPCA without noting that the public has sent the SPCA many millions of dollars over the years, and all that was done with the money was to pay excessive salaries and maintain the status quo of bare minimum animal welfare and bare minimum prevention of cruelty, but lots of lavishly paid bureaucracy and expensive p.r., because that’s what worked so beautifully for them for so long. (See SPCA finances)

As a consequence of the Sun's articles there was an outpouring of donations and adoptions. But it will all be over by now, and animals’ lives at SPCAs will be just as tenuous and grim as ever. The Sun's articles and editorial helped a handful of dogs and cats but betrayed millions more by entrenching the SPCA in the public’s mind as a compassionate Society dedicated to animal welfare.

As a consequence of the editorial a misinformed public repeated parrot-like (as in the letter, "We the people are the problem", March 28/02) that the whole problem is the fault of the public, not the fault of the SPCA at all.

So the SPCA is off the hook again! What a shame that the Vancouver Sun blamed the public and repeated the SPCA's ages-old excuse for killing animals.

The Sun should have known that the SPCA has enabled and encouraged pet abandonment while doing almost no education on what "responsible animal guardianship" is; that the SPCA sells intact breeding animals; that the SPCA takes all surrendered animals and kills the unsellable to make room for more, and a host of other clues that the SPCA itself is the problem. The Sun's long-time animal issues writer, Nicholas Read, who at one time was a unrelenting SPCA critic, cannot but know all this. In fact, he wrote about what is wrong with the SPCA - at one time.

For the Sun and the SPCA to blame pet dumpers is the same as if the police were found to be only pretending to be enforcing the law and then blaming the public for a rise in crime. Or knowing that Social Services was repeatedly leaving children in situations of gross neglect and abuse (claiming that the law didn’t allow it to take the children, while secretly thwarting improvements to the law), and then blaming the public for that. This is what the SPCA has done and is doing and editorials such as the Sun's help them to do that.

The SPCA is the duly and legally appointed animal police force in this province and it has been shown to have been letting animal breeders, abusers and neglectors get away with this for decades. The SPCA itself is primarily responsible for all the cruelty and neglect in this province - animal abusers know that the SPCA is not going to do anything about them. Where are the editorials and articles on that?

Of course there are many irresponsible pet owners - that is a given. But the SPCA has encouraged this irresponsible behaviour by taking all surrendered pets. And a good case can be made for the SPCA actually capitalizing on all the irresponsible behaviour that they so glibly and convincingly blame on the people they are enabling.

AAS is not the only animal welfare organization to have figured this game out. There is a growing chorus of true animal welfare organizations (in the United States, not yet in Canada) that understand the double-dealing of taking owner-surrendered pets for resale (or cheap disposal if they don't sell), and of having an always-full "shelter" that attracts donations from kind-hearted animal lovers who don't know the game that is being played. (Read more, click here)

October 14/02 Another well-meaning, but misinformed SPCA fan is at it again. Today's Province published another defense of the SPCA's decades of blaming the public. The writer says:

"Instead of getting mad at the animal shelters which are trying to solve the pet overpopulation problem, get mad at the careless pet owners."

That's the old, "it's not the caring SPCA that is the problem, it's all those irresponsible owners" snake oil. And in what way has the SPCA ever tried to solve the pet overpopulation problem? The SPCA got income for decades to dispose of the pets of those "irresponsible owners", by pound contracts, and by reselling the pets. The SPCA benefited for decades from and from 'pet overpopulation'. While doing that for fifty years it never tried to stop puppymills or get control of breeding laws to force people to behave more responsibly. As for SPCA spay/neuter programs? - only just enough for the p.r. value. The "irresponsible owners" argument is like saying that it's not up to government to make laws against crooks and murders, it's up to the crooks and murderers to behave better. The SPCA has not tried to get laws to stop breeding and then has made itself look lily-white pure by pointing the finger at all those awful "irresponsible" people. Then this falsity gets entrenched by being endlessly repeated in the media. Nothing will change until the public truly understands what is going on so that it can demand control of breeding laws and is charged a hefty 'disposal' fee for getting rid of a pet. Vets charge at least $100 to euthanize an unwanted pet. That is why the public uses the free disposal service of the BC SPCA. And free disposal means the irresponsible owner need never take any responsibility. But it works for the SPCA - at least it has for a half century at least.