The Animal Advocates Society WatchDog News

For once I must take the side of C. Daniell

Posted By: Robert Brodgesell
Date: Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 8:42 p.m.

In Response To: "When the SPCA must euthanize an animal, it is for the same reason so-called "no-kill" facilities euthanize animals" *LINK* (AAS)

For once I must take the side of C. Daniell.
It is clear to me, that by "so called no kill" he means they do not kill, but euthanize to end suffering when the animal is beyond medical help.

He wants to imply, that this is what the SPCA does.

However and unfortunately, the BCSPCA has shown, that in some of their shelters, some times animals are killed, where euthanization would not be necessary.

So as far as this is concerned, C. Daniell had better revise his statement, or start acting accordingly and high time it would be.

Messages In This Thread

"When the SPCA must euthanize an animal, it is for the same reason so-called "no-kill" facilities euthanize animals" *LINK*
AAS -- Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 10:24 a.m.

What is the SPCA's definition of "beyond medical help"?
AAS -- Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 10:26 a.m.

What does Mr Daniell mean by 'so-called “no-kill” facilities'?
AAS -- Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 10:32 a.m.

According to information we continue to receive...
AAS -- Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 10:34 a.m.

Here is a list of real no-kill facilities in BC
AAS -- Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 10:48 a.m.

Questions about salaries and litigation
AAS -- Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 10:52 a.m.

Letters to the Sun *LINK*
AAS -- Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 10:59 a.m.

For once I must take the side of C. Daniell
Robert Brodgesell -- Thursday, 27 November 2008, at 8:42 p.m.

Parksville SPCA high kill stats don't support Mr. Daniell's statements *LINK*
Lyn MacDonald -- Saturday, 29 November 2008, at 7:38 a.m.