Letters: In defense of the PSPCA

STU Bykofsky's column on PACCA vs. PSPCA provided his readers with an erroneous view of both PSPCA and its CEO, Howard Nelson.

To say that "one issue has struck fear into local animal activists," and then quote an out-of-context 2006 euthanasia statistic falls short of impartial journalism. In fact, were it not for Nelson, the Washington Humane Society would never have developed its Good Home Guarantee program, which continues to provide medical treatment, behavioral rehabilitation and loving homes for adoptable dogs and cats in an open-access shelter that assists upward of 20,000 animals a year and never turns away any animal in need.

The vision Nelson exhibited while with WHS is the reason the PSPCA board brought him here. It's the reason many animal welfare organizations supported PSPCA's animal-control proposal and why the city Health Department selected PSPCA to carry out the city's animal care and control function. It's also the reason thousands more of Philadelphia's animals in need will find new loving homes.

It is the goal of the PSPCA to help all animals in Pennsylvania and the society would have been derelict in its mission were it not to have submitted a timely and appropriate response to the city's request for proposal.

This is the reason the PSPCA bid on the contract.

If Bykofsky's goal was to ensure the well-being of animals in Philadelphia via his column, he could have easily highlighted the success of the PSPCA's current adoption programs.

He could have also reported that the PSPCA is supporting Nathan Winograd and No-Kill Solution's Companion Animal Protection Act and will comply with all components of CAPA for animal control. The job of rescuing homeless and harmed animals is in and of itself an emotionally charged issue, and the topic certainly doesn't need or benefit from negative "embellishment."

Harrise Yaron, President

PSPCA Board of Directors