Medicine Hat Media

People Are Mad About Helping the SPCA?

Image taken from the SPCA Website

Image taken from the SPCA Website

In the latest trending Ticked Off topic, apparently some people think the city should aid seniors instead of the SPCA.

It’s on the city councils priority list to address the need for an expanded animal shelter; not urgent just yet, but as the city continues to grow the need will increase. It seems the city is simply looking towards expanding the center and don’t intend to start funding for it. Unfortunately, the SPCA currently receives no ongoing sources of funding from any level of government, so they rely on donations, grants, and community support. As of January 7, 2011, the organization was at full capacity.

Some believe that people come before animals. So what happens when the shelter cannot accept more unwanted pets? According to the SPCA, most dogs arrive about 9 months to 1 year of age, as it takes this long for people to realize they’re not suited for raising a pet. While the idea of adoption is to hope someone can care for it better, it would certainly be incentive to keep the pet if you know the only other option is to leave it on the street.

Medicine Hat SPCA

User Comments

13 Responses to “People Are Mad About Helping the SPCA?”

  1. January 27th, 2011 at 9:55 AM

    Liz says:

    If i had the time and money I would graciously donate to the SPCA. I strongly believe inthis organization. Animals are people to. To not help them is like not helping your relatives. I can sa that if i win the lottery the SPCA would get what they need!

  2. January 27th, 2011 at 9:56 AM

    Sean says:

    My heart breaks every time I go to the SPCA or any pet adoption place. I want to save all the kittens before they get put down and all the older cats because they look disgruntled.

    In Regina, my Mother knits small blankets and donates them to the Humane Society for the cats.

  3. January 27th, 2011 at 10:05 AM

    Beth Hobson (Theriaka) says:

    I think that obviously people are much more important than animals, that being said we don’t need to neglect the critters! If expanding the SPCA doesn’t take funds from our seniors, I don’t see how anyone could possibly object.

    If people didn’t buy a pet before thinking it through or actually took responsibility for them and made sure they were spayed/neutered – we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.

    (As a side note – instead of giving pets as a gift you can buy gift certificates from the SPCA which supports the organization and allows the recipient to decide what they want and when!)

  4. January 27th, 2011 at 10:08 AM

    Dusty Melling says:

    Probably a good time to clarify that the SPCA does not put animals down unless they’re sick / dying. The people are there because they want to help animals, not kill them.

    It should also be noted that the reason there are animals in the SPCA is a result of people. It’s the fault of people that they get pets and aren’t equipped for it, as a result it’s the animal that suffers. The SPCA should be expanded so that all unwanted pets, who have been raised in a domestic lifestyle (the fault of people), have a place to go where they can be cared for, and perhaps another chance at a family.

  5. January 27th, 2011 at 12:02 PM

    Taylor says:

    As someone who has to change the channel when those Sarah MacLachlin SPCA commercials come on to avoid spiraling into a deep depression, I believe that funding for the SPCA is incredibly important. However, I agree with Beth that seniors should probably come first, and as long as money is not being diverted from seniors to animals I do not see a problem with expanding the SPCA shelter.

    I am also willing to bet that the people writing these Ticked Offs are the same disgruntled senior citizens that grumble about “the hoodlums at the mall” or “the immigrants that don’t have perfect English”. As yet, I don’t see half a dozen senior citizens with ear mites needing to share one of their newly built condos like so many kittens have to share small cages at our undersized animal shelter. Just sayin’…

  6. January 27th, 2011 at 1:37 PM

    Dusty Melling says:

    It wouldn’t be taking money away from the seniors, but if the city can “give” money to the SPCA then they could choose to give it to seniors? The original submitter was likely a senior, who figured they should get free money instead. I’d guess it’s the provincial or federal government in charge of managing seniors.

  7. February 2nd, 2011 at 9:22 AM

    ZiggyStardust says:

    It’s well-known that interest stories about animal abuse get millions more angry letters than those about person abuse.

    That said, pets are pets. They should not be part of the ‘normal’ funding infrastructure. For example, why not increase dog- and cat-licensing fees? That overhead can go to the SPCA and programs like the feral spaying they do in larger cities like Calgary. Better yet, levy a tax on animals obtained from the pet stores and private breeders. You’ll not only encourage people to check the shelter first, but you’ll put a small dent in the puppy and kitten mills.

    That all being said, I’m surprised the SPCA is a no-kill organization. Considering it’s the only option I’m aware of in the Hat, they really need to make decisions about what’s likely to find a good home and what animals are just taking up space.

  8. February 2nd, 2011 at 11:02 PM

    Dusty says:

    It’s a personal belief of mine that all life is equal, of which I’m certain because all life strives to live with equal vigor. It’s the sole fault of people that we domesticated animals to fit a domestic lifestyle as pets, and when we don’t want them we toss them aside like any other consumerist trash.

    With that, I would apply your logic to people – why not simply kill all those on welfare so as not to hog up our tax money? The biggest overpopulation problem on Earth is that of people, whose numbers continue to grow at a reckless pace, that the planet cannot continue to support.

    I know that nobody would agree with my perspective, or at least very few would. Animals have never done anything I could hate them for, but people have a history of doing awful things despite all the reasons why you think they’re better than animals. We decided they shouldn’t be wild because we wanted them, and now when we don’t want them you think we should kill them because they’re taking up space?

  9. February 6th, 2011 at 11:13 AM

    ZiggyStardust says:

    My problem with your perspective is this:
    Your basic assumption: All life is equal
    Your argument: Place the welfare of animals over people.
    That doesn’t add up. The reason “my” logic seems distasteful is because I’m not working from a basic assumption of equality.

    From an historic perspective, animals have killed more people than vice-versa. (Black plague spread via fleas/rats, mosquito-borne deseases).

    Though I agree with you on this point; “when we don’t want them we toss them aside like any other consumerist trash.”
    We should stop treating animals as a commodity then. If we disallow ownership of pets, breeders, pet stores, all of that structure that treats animals as something to be bought and sold. The problem with that slippery slope is you are punishing the “good” owners with the bad. Should everybody give up their pets because some people don’t take care of them? Would YOU give up your pet knowing it was for the ‘greater good.’
    What I’m saying is this: If you don’t agree with a system that allows this sort of abuse, you shouldn’t take part in it.

  10. February 6th, 2011 at 11:11 PM

    Dusty says:

    My “assumption” is actually based off definition: life is the condition which distinguishes active organisms from inorganic matter.

    Also my argument is not that we should treat animals above people. The SPCA is not funded through any form of government, unlike many social programs, therefor it would be equal treatment for the city to fund an expansion when the need for one has arose out of city growth.

  11. February 7th, 2011 at 11:11 AM

    Dean says:

    Issues in society have to be dealt with; using laws or other means to try and stop behaviour, such as puppy mills simply do not work. Many substances are illegal yet consumption, production and distribution continue.

    All the various laws in Canada surrounding prostitution have accomplished very little, except to make the situation worse. Same is true for Prohibition in the US.

    Deal with the issue. Animals will be around as pets forever because people want them, then when they don’t want them there is a problem. Someone has to step up to the plate and shoulder the costs of caring for the animals.

  12. July 24th, 2012 at 2:49 PM

    sydney says:

    hi im 9 years old and was wondering if i could volunteer at the medicine hat spca . do you think its possible if i could


  1. Tweets that mention People Are Mad About Helping the SPCA | Medicine Hat Media --

Leave a Reply