PETA has done more to stop cruelty and to change public perceptions about animals than all other animal rights organizations put together. But PETA's version of compassion regarding unwanted dogs is so badly skewed that it is no longer possible to fully respect PETA's directing minds. Why did the directing minds at PETA not understand that such a policy is immoral and could not but blow up in its face one day? You don't need a PhD in philosophy to know that the lesser of two evils is still an evil. What PETA is doing is in the perverted, ghoulish, "angels of death" tradition shared by those nurses who kill "suffering" patients, and orphanage workers who kill children who are not adoptable, and animal "welfare" agencies that kill "unadoptable" animals. Soon, many patients, orphans and animals need to be "humanely euthanized" in the minds of the people who do this. Society knows that it is wrong to call killing "welfare" and rightly prosecutes those who do this.

Society has yet to fully embrace the idea that killing unwanted animals is also morally wrong, consequently animal welfare agencies such as the BC SPCA were able, for their whole sordid history, to get away with running a lucrative pet disposal business masked as animal welfare. The SPCA repeated over and over and over that it didn't like to have to kill animals but someone had to do it. Of course it didn't have to do it, but that was where the money was. As soon as the BC SPCA found itself with more animals than homes for them, it had a choice. Stop taking them in or kill the ones least likely to be wanted. What sort of perverted mind would chose the latter and then piously say it had no other choice and that this killing for convenience is actually saintly compassion. Yet that is precisely what the SPCA did for a least fifty years.

The SPCA could have, and should have, left the brutal disposal of society's cast-off pets to the taxpayers to kill, but there was a lot of money, as much as $20 million a year one way or another, in doing it for society. Full "shelters" attracted most of the money, the rest was in secretive pest control contracts with municipalities to dispose of "pest" animals such as unwanted dogs and cats.

If ever questioned why the SPCA was doing all this pet disposal killing (and it almost never was), the SPCA answered that it did it more humanely than the competition. That was a lie too. It used violently cruel, but dirt cheap, electrocution of dogs. It gassed small animals jammed together in gas boxes. It let animals slowly die in its concrete cells of untreated injuries and disease. It threw bags of puppies and kittens straight in the furnace saying that the extreme heat was a quicker death than gassing.

And it kept new product streaming in by accepting every piece of product brought struggling and crying through its doors and calling that compassion. It kept all the killing hidden by false statistics. It hid the huge salaries the bosses made. It set the lowest example of animal welfare to pet owners by accepting all surrendered animals and then blamed "irresponsible" pet owners for "making" it kill pets.

None of this is rocket science. AAS has proved all this about the SPCA. Any person with the least experience in business recognizes the SPCA's business for what it is. The thing that has protected the SPCA from change is that almost 100% of people who volunteer or work at SPCAs, and stay, are poorly educated women who don't get it at all, and there are no courses in the ethics of animal welfare at the BC SPCA. How could there be? The whole jobs-and-power structure would immediately collapse.

It's hard to believe that PETA would be so obtuse and immoral by dirtying its hands this way. PETA justifies the killing by saying that it is saving animals from being killed inhumanely by dog control agencies, and it obscures what it is doing by calling that humane euthanasia. (That is just what the SPCA has always done, except PETA is not paid to kill animals as the SPCA is; in fact, killing all these animals costs PETA money; and it spends "more than $240,000 in one North Carolina county alone, to provide shelter in winter for animals left out in the cold, to spay/neuter, to get vet care for animals in dire straits, to send Bertie County’s one animal control officer to professional training, to pay a cleaner to maintain two shelters, and much more.")

So PETA is not the BC SPCA. But you cannot kill as a solution or you will corrupt. These PETA employees had corrupted into killing kittens and puppies too, just as the SPCA did for so long. The principle behind what PETA did is corrupt. "You cannot do evil that good may result." "Two wrongs don't make a right". "The end does not justify the means". These maxims are basic human tenets. Killing "imperfect" humans was called humane by the Nazis. It is wrong to kill as a solution. Look at the kind of person you attract if you do.

If the killing is not done out in the open, by agents of taxpayer/voters who can vote the agents' bosses (Mayors and Councillors) out of office if taxpayer/voters decide that they are fed up with so much killing of helpless animals, but instead, is done by "animal protection" agencies, it has to be hidden, as the BC SPCA hid its pet disposal contracting business so successfully for so long. What is hidden will not change. Not until the BC SPCA was exposed by AAS and others did the SPCA change at all and then very little.