I must admit I am getting a bit of a kick out of the recent complaints I am reading regarding the SPCA. It seems a growing number of people are surprised to find that they are disqualified from adopting a pet from the SPCA. The reasons given were anything from having an outdoor dog house, or having owned an unspayed pet in the past, or even having surrendered animals found abandoned. The one constant was the feeling of outrage and confusion that the SPCA would actually refuse THEM, of all people. Actually, make that two constants, because each and every one of them is still falling over him/herself to assure the dear readers that the intent was to give a good home to a poor rescue animal and that the animal would most assuredly be spayed/neutered.
I have no sympathy for these folks. Each and every one of them has a degree of smug prick in their personality. After all, these people all supported the SPCA in their endless campaign for more regulatory powers, more money and most of all more spaying and neutering. Exotic pets? Ban them! Zoos? Regulate them into oblivion! The circus? No elephants allowed! Screening people who want to own a pet? Good idea! Keep those bad folks from owning an animal, especially if they are too poor to afford the extortionate vet charges! Well I guess what goes around comes around. So folks, if you have supported the SPCA in their crusades, or even if you have not objected to their quest to strangle the life out of pet ownership, don't complain when you find out that you have been judged unworthy of pet ownership.
Sympathy aside, there is the logical aspect. If the SPCA gets it's way, and all pets a re neutered, where will pets of the future come from? Why is it, when they are actually short of shelter pets at many shelters in BC that the SPCA still treats spaying and neutering as its prime directive? Apparently the general public are stupid enough to support spaying of all cats and dogs (one has to be a 'responsible ' pet owner after all) without ever wondering how they will get their dogs and cats in the future. I suppose most people don't really think that hard on the subject, or they believe there is a huge unwanted pet problem. The SPCA however labours under no such delusion. They know that there is no shortage of homes for pets. So much so that they can afford to get very picky about who can adopt. Their insistence on every owner being a lifelong believer in mandatory pet sterilization is clear evidence that they wish to make pet dogs and cats rare or extinct. This isn't all that far feteched when you consider that it is PETA's stated policy that pets would be better off dead than 'kept' and that the stated purpose of Zoo Check is to eliminate private zoos. Is it so hard to believe that the people running your local SPCA are not of the same ilk? It isn't hard for me, but then again I have been dealing with their sharp end for years now.
Even if you don't care about pets there is a moral of this story: If you are going to support judgement of regulations on other people, it is only just deserts when you become the one being judged or regulated.