Initially these overseas volunteers were faced off against the government-run shelters, until a way of working together could be found. It is therefore not surprising to find the law-endorsed champion of animal rights in South Africa, the NSPCA, in the uncomfortable position of being in conflict with the many grassroots animal rights organisations who are deeply perturbed by the millions of companion animals being killed in South Africa every year. Allowing this slaughter brutalises our society, and sweeps a problem under the carpet that should rather be confronted and solved at its source.

It is especially concerning that the NSPCA severely compromises the adoption process by not allowing most of the animals in its care to be publicised on the internet. Since the withdrawal of Lotto funding from the NSPCA it is now also in direct competition with the volunteer organisations for public money. Within this competitive context it is deeply concerning that the NSPCA is now targeting smaller rescue organisations with extreme demands for compliance with standards which the NSPCA has the right to unilaterally impose. In essence, they fulfil the roles of judge, jury as well as executioner, all with apparently vested interests.

In a recent series of “raids” by the NSPCA on Happy Yappers, a small animal rescue centre near Magaliesberg, the NSPCA has shown some alarming behaviour. Carelessly issued warrants allowing only for inspection of premises were used to confiscate animals of which the majority were killed, in spite of the fact that they were in good condition or under veterinary care. NSPCA inspectors deliberately acted contrary to the diagnosis of a veterinarian, something they are not entitled to do. Additionally, the centre was told at the time that the animals would remain under care by the NSPCA, as they were evidence in the criminal case to follow. However, it was confirmed by an NSPCA inspector that most of the animals had been killed. Television crews were invited onto the property by the NSPCA under cover of a warrant that permitted no such invasion of privacy. Edited and prejudicial footage from this raid was published via formal NSPCA channels, as well as on the international video-sharing YouTube platform, before being considered by a court.

The NSPCA seems to have over-stepped the mark by fuelling a media war by releasing their reports into the public domain. This appears to be an abuse of authority, and potentially compromises any future court proceedings. Other worrying acts have occurred: business records have been confiscated without leaving copies; highly prejudicial extracts from those business records have been made public out of context, and scuffles have ensued, resulting in a charge of assault having been laid against an NSPCA inspector.

Court proceedings have been launched by Happy Yappers to ask for the return of its confiscated animals, in lieu of which damages will be claimed. This would however do little for the more than 100 dogs that were euthanized without the oversight of a court. Surely the NSPCA must be more circumspect when using an irrevocable process such as euthanasia?

Happy Yappers is working hand-in-hand with a lawyer who shares their sense of outrage and has launched a bid to overturn the Act in terms of which the NSPCA operates on Constitutional grounds. They allege that the Act, which dates from 1967, has become out-dated, especially in that it allows for unilateral confiscation of property and does not allow for the other side to be heard in time to make an effective defence. The discretion granted to the NSPCA to set standards is also too wide and vague to allow a reasonable person to comply with them. Additionally, legal steps have been taken to put both the Magistrate who issued the warrants as well as the NSPCA themselves under Review for their actions.

It appears from off-the-record statements by NSPCA personnel that they are well aware of the fact that they are currently acting illegally and beyond their powers. However in the same breath, they have also been known to ask another animal rescue centre to not pursue their constitutional claims, as it would weaken the NSPCA’s hand in confiscating certain dog-breeds from owners who use them for violent pursuits. This sounds like emotional blackmail of a most perturbing kind.

In the meantime, Happy Yappers animal sanctuary is still under siege. NSPCA inspectors have returned to the premises several times, both with and without warrants. Stringent warnings have once again been issued, with generally unreasonable deadlines, often touching on points which were not deemed problematic at previous inspections. On one such visit, inspectors euthanased one animal which was about to be taken to the centre’s veterinarian for euthanasia anyway. The NSPCA inspectors recorded the killing act on video, which was once again disseminated through their official channels. The inspector in charge of these visits told the proprietor, twice, that it was his intention to close the centre down “if it was the last thing he did”.

The NSPCA appears to be clutching at straws in order to keep the pressure on Happy Yappers, apparently only to fuel the public’s sense of outrage, rather than addressing any actual cruelty issues. This vexatious behaviour has the ultimate effect of alienating the centre’s potential benefactors and undermining the centre’s ability to function effectively. Four vets have been to the property since the first NSPCA raid in July, none of whom has concurred with the NSPCA’s punitive measures.

The question that arises is how long the public is prepared to watch from the sidelines as a small, dedicated centre which mops up the results of animal abuse in their community is decimated by a behemoth with the backing of an outdated Animal Welfare Act which was left behind when our country’s Constitution was re-written.

Hanneke van Linge

BSc (UCT) (Zoology, Chemistry)

Volunteer, Happy Yappers Animal Sanctuary

Bookmark this post:

As an arm of government the NSPCA currently have overwhelming authority. They can demand all sorts of things that they consider necessary – unilaterally – and without a published set of standards to which one can try and conform proactively. It is these new demands which have disrupted the established order at HY and which has forced them to reach out for help beyond their current resources.

This “reaching out” has had a relatively small return, compared to the high cost of dealing with self-appointed “champions” of animal rights, many of whom have not contributed a drop of sweat or clink of money. Gay really does know how to look after dogs. She does not need the noise of a 100 unhappy yappers. She does need help to deal with these new pressures.

One is always on the back foot and vulnerable to the NSPCA’s latest whims or PR-driven campaigns. You may say that HY should have its house in order anyway. Well, it is grossly unreasonable to expect an NGO to invest money in an over-design of facilities just to anticipate what the NSPCA will consider necessary next. Be realistic enough to accept that there is not a single facility in South Africa that could bear the full brunt of a vindictive inspector’s gaze – not even the NSPCA’s own facilities.

They also have a very optimistic view on what can be done within the unreasonable deadlines with which they present HY – once again a matter against which there is no effective appeal. You do it or the dogs die at their hands. The HY vet had to come out to the site at 19h00, and work in the dark in the pens until the lightning (he blitzy kind) got too bad, to try and satisfy one of these administrative twitches.

One resists the NSPCA at the peril of the lives of the dogs in one’s care. There is no way to “undo” euthanasia. Ask them where the 122 dogs are that they confiscated from HY and you will be met by a smokey silence. They even refuse to tell Gay what happened to her personal dogs that were in perfect condition – not even a hint of whether they are dead or alive! Which may explain the silence of many who are just too grateful that the NSPCA are preoccupied with HY and not sniffing at their gates…

Please understand that we are in the midst of a highly political battle with propaganda an inevitable part of the mix. When you see a video that that portrays HY in a negative light, please consider who was filming it and why, and with which prejudicial filters it is presented to you.

Just for interest’s sake – what do you think of the practice of posting videos of someone’s private property, procured under warrant, without such material first having been considered and released by a court? This is such a gross invasion of privacy it should cause outrage in every sensible South African. If the NSPCA feel that a crime has been committed, present the evidence to court, but do not use it to feed a voyeuristic frenzy of self-righteousness. And what do you think of the ethics of arriving with commercial 50/50 TV cameras in tow, under cover of a government warrant? Is that a whiff of something very “off” on the wind?

As for leaving animals left dying: Why don’t you ask the NSPCA why they continued their inspection for more than 2 hours, forcing Gay to babysit them, instead of allowing her to get on with the scheduled care of her animals? She had scheduled an appointment that afternoon to euthanise the one dog that had suddenly fallen into a painless coma LATE THAT MORNING (please take note Ian Lombard). The other dog that was confiscated on the 13th was busy recovering, having eaten well that morning. But the NSPCA had to justify their little outing to HY, so they just HAD to kill and confiscate SOMETHING. And do you think they are prepared to reveal what happened to the confiscated dog?

HY is taking legal action to overturn the two illegal searches that were conducted, but such a victory will not resurrect the dogs that were taken from Happy Yappers – for ever. For those of you interested in a big issue: consider the fact that the legislation from the 1960s, in terms of which the NSPCA is acting, is obsolete in many respects and offensive to our Constitution in many others, a matter which is being addressed aggressively by HY and its advisers.

Are you up for a fight worth fighting?

Jacques van Schoor

Bookmark this post:

To assist our community in understanding the context of the news report in today’s BEELD newspaper about suspected distemper on the Happy Yappers premises we hereby present some relevant facts.

It is vitally important to know that we are managing the health of the dogs with the assistance of our primary veterinarian. Below are excerpts from the report submitted to the NSPCA by the centre’s veterinarian on 13 September.

• I visited the site on the 6^th of September 2011, to examine five dogs that were sick.
• All of these dogs were checked again by myself on the 13^th of September.
• On my visit on the 13^th of September 2011, I also examined animals that have become sick since my last visit.
• These dogs also showed signs of crusting around the eyes, hyperaemic conjunctivae, purulent nasal discharge and fever.
• None of them showed signs of nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea or nervous sings like twitching or spasms.
• These dogs are also treated for suspected distemper with Doxydog, but this being a pro-life organisation, and that distemper is not a controlled disease, they are allowed to treat the sick animals if they wish to do so.
• Except for one female from Cage 6, which was removed by you, all the dogs are responding well to the treatment and are improving

A second veterinarian has been to the premises when required, and where necessary, animals have been taken to their respective practices for treatment.

We feel that the NSPCA is aiming to shut the centre down for personal and political reasons that have little to do with the actual welfare of the animals. Our very existence inconveniently highlights the cavalier way in which the NSPCA disposes of inconvenient lives, instead of addressing the more difficult-to-address causes. Inspector Jaco Pieterse has repeatedly stated that he intends to shut us down “if that is the last thing I do”. This unprofessional approach is exacerbated by the arrogant and even violent way in which he has executed his “duties”, not responding to facts presented to him by ourselves or by our veterinarian, and being oblivious to the welfare of the animals he confiscated from us.

We have been informed by Mr Pieterse that only a handful of the 122 dogs they confiscated last time were rehomed, leaving us with the inevitable conclusion that the majority of these healthy dogs were euthanized. The NSPCA refuses to provide us with an official report on the fate of these animals. They are under the misapprehension that this behaviour is legal. In essence, they fulfil the role of Judge, Jury and Executioner, without transparency or accountability to the public nor to any higher authority. We, our legal advisors and other informed animal activists believe that it is deeply unconstitutional to dispossess without reason and accountability and we will be pursuing the matter.

We were informed only yesterday by the SAPS that a criminal charge has been laid against Happy Yappers, but as yet, we do not know specifically against whom and on what grounds. We will be attending an interview on Monday with the SAPS with the support of our legal counsel.

Please understand that we do not have adequate resources to administer a full-scale public relations campaign. We have however remained committed to deleting nothing off the Facebook page, no matter how upsetting or prejudicial it is to us, or our cause. It saddens us immensely that so many group members have judged us so harshly based on unsubstantiated rumours. We remain committed to providing essential front-line care in an area far away from the constancies of suburbia.

Because we have been under severe organisational and legal pressure it has not always been easy or even possible to keep our supporters in the loop with every development. However, here is an attempt to answer some of your more pressing questions:

• There are no animals in distress at Happy Yappers.
• Any sick animals are under appropriate care.
• Once the current risk of distemper has passed, re-homing will be considered. Please note that there are circumstances beyond our immediate control determining the time and speed at which this may happen.
• As usual, litters arising from bitches arriving at the centre pregnant will be re-homed through the kind support of FORA.
• An on-going vaccination programme is in place, but is dependent on available funds, which are allocated on a triage basis.
• There are no unsterilized males and females sharing runs at Happy Yappers.
• We are working on creating a sustainable infrastructure for Happy Yappers. This is not an overnight job, and has many ramifications.
• We have commenced the process of registration as an NPO which will enable us to solicit public finding. Until such time we may not request public support.

Development and education in the surrounding community are essential in the nearby township, or abused, pregnant and sick animals will continue to land on our doorstep. We have asked the NSPCA to perform this essential task as long as the centre has been operating, but no evidence of that has been observed or reported. Please focus your effort on lobbying for their best efforts in this regard.

We wish to express our sincere thanks to those who have supported us unstintingly from the start and in the midst of crisis. We invite our critics to visit us, to see for themselves what we do and why we do it.

Gay Freeborough

Bookmark this post:

( compiled by Mel Hood – VAWZ’s Animal Welfare Officer)

LIVESTOCK TRANSPORTATION (73 CASES) LIVESTOCK INVESTIGATIONS (40 CASES).

ABATTOIR CHECKS (14 CASES). Enforcement of the use of stun guns as opposed to ordinary rifles/more humane treatment prior to slaughter.

SECURITY DOGS (53 CASES).

Checks on Police, Private and Municipal security dogs. In some cases appalling living conditions with confines made out of old cars, scrap metal, fridge doors etc. Constant checks to ensure they comply with decent kennelling, feeding, exercise,  and training methods

PET SHOPS/DOG PARLOURS (21 CASES).

Regular routine checks carried out  to ensure correct welfare standards are maintained at all times.

RESEARCH ANIMALS (14 CASES).

Routine checks on the Animal House at the University Research department, and the Government Analysts to see that welfare standards are maintained in their housing and feeding, and experiments are being carried out according to strict standards, experiments are licensed and are carried out as humanely as possible.

HORSES (35 CASES).

Inspections of those kept on farms; tourist resorts, stud farms and riding schools.

Checking for adequate grazing and feeding, stabling, health care, saddle sores, and tack.  Prosecuting offenders.

WILD ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY (26 CASES)

VAWZ has been involved recently in several investigations of suspected cruelty involving lions kept in captivity. Several lions were humanely destroyed. One owner is facing prosecution.

DOMESTIC DOGS (150 CASES)

Responding to numerous reports of cruelty; animals being neglected, kept in inhumane conditions, un-spayed bitches etc. Where possible owners are educated and warned, failing which the pets are confiscated and taken to the SPCA.

This delightful dog is Basil who was found tied up in a chicken run, with no food or water, on Christmas Eve, whilst the owners went away on holiday. On her return VAWZ prosecuted the owner, who admitted to the charge of Cruelty and paid a fine. Basil now shares his new home, as well as the mattress by the bed, with “Petunia” a very large Nubian goat!; loves going for long walks and has sort of taken over the place. His new owners are besotted with him – even the husband who professed “not to be too much of a dog lover”- was recently heard to say “you know- I cannot fault that dog”!!

DONKEYS –  (one of the biggest on-going operations) –Meryl and Bernard can spend up to 5 days away from base confiscating illegal heavy wooden yokes, which leave the huge raw open sores on the back of the neck, and replacing them with donated harnesses. The wounds on the donkeys are treated, eye problems attended to, reflective strips put on the back of the carts and education pamphlets in the vernacular distributed. Up to 70-80 donkeys can be attended to in any one day, sometimes in temperatures in the upper 30’s and once recorded 46 degrees C at Ngundu Halt.

PRE AND POST HOMING CHECKS (45 CASES)

Involving all animals that have been rescued or confiscated and taken to SPCA’s. Prospective new homes are inspected and post homing checks carried out to ensure the animals are being correctly cared for.

GENERAL.

Every opportunity is taken to leave copies of the Cruelty Act at Police Stations throughout Zimbabwe – where often  not even the Member in Charge Crime has a copy. Further liaison with the Police and Government Vet departments has resulted in Meryl being invited to address several workshops. In addition she works closely with the Police Anti Stock Theft Unit in a joint effort to raise awareness and deal with problems involving livestock transportation.

Prosecutions, which entail writing of dockets, recording statements, gathering evidence and attendance at court cases, continues to take up a lot of time as numerous follow-ups have to be conducted before a case goes to trial. To date 17 assorted cruelty cases have been successfully prosecuted, with 12 remaining.

SPCA branches throughout Zimbabwe have been assisted by VAWZ with donations of rice, mealie meal, meat, blankets, syringes & needles, medicines, latex gloves, bowls, leads, chicken food etc and through the generosity of Roger Maitland, a friend of hers in the UK,  Meryl has distributed US$3866 of his to various branches. She has also been instrumental in getting 3 2nd hand deep freezers donated to Harare, and one each for Gweru and Mutare SPCA’s.

In many cases lack of education is to blame for welfare issues. Pamphlets and advice on “how to do it the right way” are given and most people are grateful for the assistance offered. On the flip side, aggression, racism, threats, verbal, and on occasion, physical abuse has to be dealt with.

“SANDY  & BEANS”

“Dear Meryl, These are the photo’s of our two dogs (the ones that were axed by the settlers who were successfully prosecuted) and are now fine. Thank you very much for all your help. – Ann Martin”

_____________________________________________________

MERYL.

Somewhere in between all of this Meryl has found time to attend to various fund-raisers, collect donated items, judge dog shows, deal with publicity campaigns, give interviews and write articles for the press, do necessary paper work at the office, reply to a constant stream of e-mails and respond to numerous phone calls throughout the day. Little wonder that she has very little time to herself and that the vehicle has clocked up 45000 kilometres in a year.

THANK YOU’S.

To the organisers of the Harare Bike show, Mike Engelbrecht and Brett Fisher, for the very generous donation of $1000 from proceeds raised at the show. VAWZ stall raised a further $900 and helped raise public awareness.

To all VAWZ Committee and helpers who assisted at the Fundraising Golf Day – a HUGE thankyou. Just over $12000 was raised which was brilliant as VAWZ receives no funding and relies solely on the goodwill of donors. To all the players – a very big thank you.

For all donations, generosity and time – Big thank you’s to:-

To Margie van Graan and Joey Friere who recently generously donated 2 second hand deep freezers.

Nicky Marsh (Australia); Cindy Griffith (UK); Sue Burr; Arnie and Cora Ross; Jenny McFadyen (SA); Big R Mica – Ronnie Coumbis; RSPCA International; Signs of the Times; Brian and Linda Townsend; Rudolph van der Merwe – Caltex garage Beit Bridge; Rosemary Dorward; Lindsay Davies; Mbizi Game Lodge; Roxy Dankwerts; Di Twiggs; Trevor Rumbles; Ram Petroleum.

YOUR SUPPORT FOR VAWZ IS SO VERY MUCH APPRECIATED –  WE HAVE SO MANY MORE ANIMALS TO HELP. FUNDING IS DESPERATELY NEEDED – WITHOUT IT WE CANNOT PREVENT CRUELTY.

Any Donations would be gratefully received and can be dropped off at Kamfinsa, Avondale or Chisipite surgeries – or contact Meryl on 0774168218 .                                                                                                                                                                               Details of the local account is : CABS Platinum; The Veterinarians of Animal Welfare Trust; a/c No 9015153557.

External Account details:  Standard Bank, Graaf -Reinet  in name of Verinarians for Animal Welfare in Zimbabwe;

a/c No 186623062;  Swift No SBZA.ZA.JJ    IBAN No 051001`.

Direct transfers may be made via www.standardbank.co.za

Bookmark this post:

This is Gay Freeborough’s heartfelt email to Jaco Pieterse of the NSPCA…

To Mr Jaco Pieterse; 15 August 2011

When my animals were taken, I was told that they would be impounded until after the court hearing. I thought it better not to pester you about my animals and make matters worse, but to get on with complying with the NSPCA warning. I trusted you to keep my animals safe.

I have since found out that at least 9 of my dogs have been re-homed from your Boksburg branch. Why are you going back on your word?

I was told on the day you came to take the animals away that they were being taken to the Johannesburg, Centurion and Pretoria branches. Why are my dogs now being re-homed from Boksburg, which is so far away?

Many of the dogs you took were healthy, and many were my family pets who had been with us for many, many years. You refused to listen to my pleas, and did not take the medication and special diet of two specific dogs who were under treatment into account. You did not want to listen when I tried to explain the conditions under which the dogs came to me, and how much better they were doing already.

I am totally devastated, heartbroken and confused, and cannot see the reason why you also took healthy dogs, who were like my children.

One dog, a gentle creature called Ginger, was with us for 8 years.
Little Bugsy, a tiny scruff who went with us in the car everywhere (we called him our Car Baby), was with us for 14 years.
Boy Sausage and Girl Sausage were with us for 8 years.
Teddybear and Gingernuts have been inseparable for 10 years.
Little Lady was with us for 9 years.
Mr Minder, who came in completely wild, who used to stay with the donkeys until we gained his trust over a period of several weeks, who saved my life when we had burglars, was my devoted friend for 7 years.
You also took my comical friend Fred, who was with us for 4 years and Zeus, our faithful and talkative Husky, who used to follow us everywhere.
You took tiny Tinkerbell, so fragile and loving, like a little fairy, who I handfed from birth with a 1ml syringe. She, too, followed us everywhere.
You took big silly Toffee, who pulled through a devastating illness.
You took Hoppy, who recently had a cancerous leg amputated, but would still prance around the garden as if on wings.

You also took the elderly dog which was one of two belonging to a lady who has been a benefactor of the centre for many years. This one had arthritis, as well as a limp due to a stroke, but was well content!

You took many, many more animals who had recovered from various ailments, even the ones who were expressly excluded by your own vet, Dr Suleiman, on the previous day. You also took three of the four Boerboels who had come through the Mange, while our vet expressly told you over the phone that they were healthy but had skin damage.

I cannot write anymore, I am too heart-sore, but I appeal to you to please stop more of my animals being given up for adoption while the court case runs it’s course.

I don’t know how else to appeal to you.

Regards,
Gay Freeborough
Happy Yappers Animal Sanctuary.

__________________________________

Sadly, most of the animals ‘had’ to be euthanized, as stated by the NSPCA’s new ‘hero’ Jaco Pieterse. WHY? And why is there no requirement for transparency by this publicly-funded organisation? It seems their prerogative is absolute – no appeal process, in fact no recourse at all in the law, which makes the NSPCA an absolute, unquestionable authority when it comes to animal welfare, with no requirement to justify their actions. How can this be? NO organisation can be the law – they must surely prove their findings in a court of law before destroying, in the case of animals, the property of others? Surely this is not only unconstitutional but also contrary to reason? How is it possible that the party has no remedy if they have been prejudiced? That this is so in this case is demonstrable; the Happy Yappers vet stated that there were no animals that ‘had’ to be euthanized.

Fact is, this part of the Animals Protection Act, named REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SEIZURE OF ANIMALS BY AN OFFICER OF A SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, added in 1986, gives any party that has been prejudiced no options. Under ‘Disposal’, the schedule states:

4. Whenever an animal that was taken into the custody of the society has not been claimed within seven days of the advertisement or notice to the owner, the society shall deal with the animal in its discretion: Provided that the society may destroy the animal, irrespective of the condition of the animal, if the animal cannot be disposed of otherwise.

NO appeal, NO appearing in a court of law to decide the merits of the decision in each case, the NSPCA (or any ‘Society’) has the unilateral right to do with the animals what they wish. WHY is it okay for the NSPCA to unilaterally decide the fate of these animals without proof that they should?

This law needs reviewing because it places too much authority in the hands of a Society, who may act with prejudice. The effect of the law is that it enables the Society to remove and destroy the property of the public on the basis of a warrant to inspect, in other words ‘probable cause’ just became ‘guilt’ – to place this in a human context, the arresting officer, in securing a warrant, may also act as jury and executioner…

NO organisation should be allowed to conduct actions that should be the province of the judiciary. WHO is watching the watchdog? In this case, nobody…

Apparently, the NSPCA are unwilling to conduct a trial by correspondence – it is ironic, however, that they are quite willing to assist the public in conducting a trial by media, bringing along television crews who showed scenes that bolstered the NSPCA case in the public mind.

This is merely a continuation of that trial. If the NSPCA thinks it okay to allow members of the public to make ignorant veterinary diagnoses and ethical judgements on the basis of film footage, then I see no reason why we should not conduct  public examination of the NSPCA’s ethically dubious actions.

It’s time to revisit the role of the NSPCA with regard to the animals in this country, whom they have failed once again, and consider alternative points of view in the animal welfare sector. We are not going away any time soon…

Derek

Bookmark this post:

On the one hand, the necessity for an intervention was patent. HY was well over capacity and significantly under-resourced for such a large facility. That downsizing was a necessity is beyond doubt. On the basis of that principle, I have no problem with the fact that they intervened. The shelter and quality of life issues were valid and something needed to be done – keeping large numbers of animals in ‘runs’ can never constitute quality of life.

What I do have a problem with is firstly the procedure, which was flawed in several practical and legal respects, and secondly the attitude of sheer arrogance adopted by the NSPCA, treating Gay, the owner of Happy Yappers, as if she was a common criminal, and showing no regard for the opinion of the vet who had been there just two weeks previously. The NSPCA went beyond their mandate and way beyond the provisions of the law and the warrant.

In the SPCA Act you will find the following section:

REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE SEIZURE OF ANIMALS BY AN OFFICER OF A SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Seizure and reporting

2. (1) If authorised thereto in writing under the hand of the magistrate of a district, any officer of any society may in that district if it appears that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an animal found in that district needs immediate care or if it is reasonably necessary to prevent cruelty to or suffering of such an animal, seize such animal and take it into the custody of the society.

What were the ‘reasonable grounds’ for taking in all the healthy dogs that were seized by the NSPCA? Since they were not diagnosed by a vet – there was no vet present on the second day – did the NSPCA Inspectors, who are AWAs (Animal Welfare Assistants) conduct the diagnosis? There is no such role stipulated in the SPCA document “Functions of an Inspector”, and in the 2009 Guidelines for Animal Welfare Assistants, it states clearly under SAVC (SA Veterinary Council) policy that AWAs ‘may not make diagnoses’. There is good reason for this. They are not vets – it’s that simple. Jaco said to Gay at one stage, “I can euthanase every dog here because of the mange” – so Jaco, an AWA, is now qualified to counter the knowledge of a vet?

If I saw someone carrying a dog like this I might be found guilty of cruelty to humans…

Two of the dogs in a pen were euthanased on the spot. The veterinary nurse present said that two more should also be euthanased (their fur was growing back patchily due to skin damage) but Dr Suleiman (the NSPCA vet) said no, give them two weeks with the more frequent dipping. An argument ensued between Dr Suleiman and the veterinary nurse. He said he would come back to check the rest of the animals in this pen in four weeks, but changed his mind to the end of August. ALL OF THE ANIMALS IN THIS PEN WERE TAKEN AWAY ON DAY 2, CONTRARY TO THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SPCA VET!

“These dogs are suffering because they are scratching”, Gay was told. Gay said they were treating a flea out break with Karbadust. “No, this is not fleas, this is mange”. Gay showed flea-scat on the dog in question, but was ignored.

All of the above call the competence of the SPCA/NSPCA personnel into question.

Elias told the men that this dog was extremely nervous and highly strung, that she had already been booked into FORA to have her mammary tumour removed, and that Dirk had earmarked sedatives for her to be collected with Gay’s next visit so they could transport her safely. They took her anyway and ended up having to drag her on the rope to the vans.

_____________________________________________________

Many welfare workers and members of the public seemingly have the ability to make diagnoses from photographs, judging from comments in emails and in Facebook, which I would find hysterical if it was not so sad. Only stupid people think that because it ‘looks’ bad (or good for that matter) that it is.

The photographs and videos appear damning, but what we do not have a record of is the state of these same animals when they were rescued. Go to ANY animal rescue facility that rehabilitates the animals they rescue, and at any point in time you will find animals in similar states – and they do recover. What Gay neglected to do was keep records and take ‘before’ pictures, because she did not think that it was necessary. Had she done so, however, I wonder whether the NSPCA would have taken that into consideration, since they completely ignored the vet, Dr Dirk Gouws, actually putting the phone down on him while he explained that it was unnecessary to remove the Boerboels, whose state of health he was familiar with. They took three of them anyway. A member of the SAP said that ‘now they’re taking healthy dogs’ – was this to make up the numbers so that the splash in the press would be bigger?

The Boerboels in question…

These animals had neglectful and abusive histories; one cannot expect them to look like dog show contestants or even normal pets. Dr Dirk Gouws, HY’s vet, stated the following just two weeks before the raid: (translated from Afrikaans)

“The number of dogs is less than before and there are more camps and shelters. The animals are in a good condition and look healthy. Some of the dogs are even overweight. The pens have full shelter, are cleaned regularly and the animals do not look stressed.

Although many of the dogs don’t look very nice, there is no physical or medical reason to remove them or put them to sleep.

I have personally examined and treated some of them, and those that don’t have active skin infections do unfortunately have permanent skin damage so that the hair growth cannot revert to normal. Those that do have active infections are treated weekly. All these infected animals are kept apart from the others.”

Why then did the NSPCA react in so militaristic a fashion? Is it possible that there was a personal agenda? A few weeks ago Gay had refused entry to Marcelle Meredith, CEO of NSPCA, because she was rude. When AACL, who had been with Marcelle the first time, asked to come back, and apologised for Marcelle’s behaviour, Gay said they could come back with pleasure. No SPCA personnel, visiting on legitimate grounds, have ever been refused entry. In fact Gerrit from the Rustenburg SPCA and his friend had been quite regular visitors during one period – why had they not raised alarms or started procedures against HY? Why had it taken the NSPCA so long to take action, and why did their action suddenly escalate after Marcelle was told (in no uncertain terms) that she was not welcome? Did Marcelle turn a personal slight into a professional agenda?

‘Kill’ vs ‘No-kill’

In the NSPCA press release, sent out the day following the raid, they made a point of using the term ‘no-kill’ to describe the HY facility. Was this another clumsy attempt to marginalise ‘pro-life’ organisations? It may be useful to consider what the terms in this somewhat political minefield mean:

‘No-kill’ is a term used mainly by those who do not understand the ‘pro-life’ philosophy, which regards the life of an animal as valuable and that the life of a healthy animal should not be taken unless that animal is so sick that they are better off dead. ‘Pro-life’ is the term preferred by those who operate such shelters, since the life of the animal is regarded as worth preserving and investing in..

‘Kill’ shelters kill healthy animals – this is a resourcing decision more than anything else and we know of shelters that have the capacity for more than 200 animals that have populations of only 50 or so and euthanize every week. This is really an adaptation to the economic conditions, the constant input into the population of unwanted animals by irresponsible people, whether these be private individuals, indiscriminate breeders, or puppy mills.

That the NSPCA has an agenda to marginalise and discredit the ‘pro-life’ movement by presenting the illusion that all shelters who do not do things the SPCA way are somehow the same, and that their crusade is justified, is obvious from the propaganda spewing forth in their press releases:

http://www.citizen.co.za/citizen/content/en/citizen/local-news?oid=214203&sn=Detail&pid=146836&SPCA-cracks-down-on-%E2%80%98no-kill%E2%80%99-animal-shelters

Fact is, they’re NOT all the same. Yes there are some problems and they should be addressed. But only a fool would believe that because one or two shelters have had some difficulty, that the entire movement should be stopped.

Another fact is that you will never find, in any SPCA, animals in anything approaching the same state as you may find in ‘pro-life’ shelters. Why? Because SPCA’s don’t make investments in sick animals – they kill them. So it’s really convenient for them to focus on shelters that take abused animals in and nurse them back to physical and psychological health – it’s also something SPCA staff have little experience of, so one wonders how they make value judgements about animals they see that are not perfect. In their eyes, a diseased animal, or one that does not ‘look right’, is a dead one…

Has the SPCA lost sight of its mandate?

It makes me wonder about the SPCA mandate. The organisations’ name includes it’s mandate – ‘prevent cruelty’. Since the consequences of having ‘too many animals’ or ‘more animals than homes’ are likely to be neglect and abuse, surely the root solution is to prevent them coming into being in the first place? It is less costly in every respect, to sterilise than it is to euthanize, less pain and suffering to both animals and humans, less money, less shelter, less time allocation, in fact wherever sterilisation legislation and control has been applied, it has successfully reduced not only the population but also the incidence of neglect and cruelty.

How is it that the NSPCA still, after 125 years in South Africa, has not focussed on this arguably obvious underlying cause of all the other problems we have in the domestic animal sector? Why do they conduct, in comparison with other orgs focussing on this issue, so few mass sterilisation campaigns? Why have they not used their position of power to influence government to introduce sterilisation legislation instead of the pathetic pet limit by-laws, which serve only to increase the inherent cruelty of the increase in shelter populations? That euthanasia of so many animals is necessary given the sheer volume of the problem cannot be placed at any other organisations’ door – after all, the NSPCA insist on being the Heads of Animal Welfare in SA.

The NSPCA could have helped HY by educating and guiding, even assisting with resources from time to time, which would have assisted in making HY sustainable – instead they adopted the Big Boss approach, and pushed down instead of lifting up people who, whether naively or not, have committed their lives to the animals. Where there is ignorance, we must educate, not destroy. Destruction is the mark of the despot, not the benign leader.

Insensitivity and unnecessary emotional trauma

An eyewitness reported that, “When Gay tried to hold one of the small dogs about to be euthanized, to let it at least die in her arms, Jaco prevented her from comforting the animal by shoving her out of the way and pinning her between the door and the doorway of a shed. The dog was screaming as they were hurting it by failing to get the needle in cleanly the first time, several tries were necessary.” One of the dogs that was euthanized took a very long time to die, it had to be given THREE injections. Clearly, NSPCA personnel competence leaves much to be desired, as does its treatment of people, in this case an older woman. Did they take her own personal companion dog to twist the knife in? Perhaps next time Jaco will have to deal with a man – I certainly hope it will be someone like me – I have little time for little boys looking to build a reputation on the demise of an older woman…

Who regulates the NSPCA and its branch SPCA’s?

The existence of an organisation that can act with such impunity, seemingly a law unto itself, is not a good thing for animal welfare, and it is not a good thing for any society. The problem with the SPCA Act is that it regulates only the internal governance of the organisation; it is mainly administrative in nature and says nothing about the manner in which the organisation carries out its mandate.

It’s time that the Animal Welfare sector was regulated, and such regulations should be a negotiated consensus, not something laid down by the SPCA, who are merely one organisation with an opinion on the subject of animal welfare practices and procedures. There are now many others who reject the status of the SPCA as the ‘Controllers’ of animal welfare policy, and who have every right to be included in any discussions on the subject.

Domination and Control is not leadership. The NSPCA has mistaken their position in the SA Animal Welfare Landscape. It’s a Dinosaur that cannot change with altering perceptions and aspirations, and we know what happened to the Dinosaurs…

Derek

Bookmark this post:

We have gone to great lengths in our attempts to convince the Western Cape’s governing party, the Democratic Alliance, to provide funding for the roll out of a mass animal sterilisation and primary treatment campaign to willing and competent animal welfare organisations – as has been successfully implemented in Gauteng by the provincial administration in that province.

Regardless of all our efforts and cautionary warnings, both the City and Province have continued to let this issue fall between two stools indefinitely.

The Gauteng Provincial Government has spent over R4 Million on this initiative so far and has extended their support for another three years. Thousands of animals in disadvantaged areas in Gauteng and Pretoria have been sterilised, vaccinated, and treated for internal and external parasites for free.

MILLIONS OF PUPPIES AND KITTENS HAVE NOT BEEN BORN INTO AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT THEM AND MILLIONS OF HUMANS LIVING IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES HAVE POSITIVELY BENEFITTED BECAUSE OF THIS LIFE SAVING INTERVENTION.

The Western Cape Provincial Government has spent nothing and to date the City of Cape Town has officially only allowed small amounts of funds to be given to animal welfare organisations by way of annual ‘grants in aid’. But this funding has only been given on the condition that it pays for carcass removal and at least one prominent animal welfare organisation says their grant in aid of R150 000 barely covers their body disposal costs for four months of the year.

SA.MAST however, is in the business of preventing the problem in the first place by way of mass animal sterilisation which is confirmed as the most effective population control method internationally.

A few ‘rogue’ municipalities have in the past defied this policy and made small amounts available for sterilisation purposes. When SA.MAST tried to officially access this funding, after being encouraged to do so by the DA Chief of Staff, Mr. Geordin Hill-Lewis, we hit yet another brick wall.

One UNSTERILISED bitch can lead to the birth of up to 474 puppies over a two year period. Total cost to collect, sterilise, vaccinate and treat for internal and external parasites and return the patient to their home: R418.66

Total cost to euthanize 1 Dog = R524 – 474 Dogs = R248 257

Hill-Lewis to Ian Neilson (2010): “I believe there is a real opportunity here to spend City money on something that will save the City huge amounts of money in the medium term.”

Ian Neilson, Executive Deputy Mayor and Mayoral Committee member for Finance: “We can only start considering funding if we can establish that it is a local government function. The following are possible areas of local government responsibility in this regard – control of public nuisances, facilities for the accommodation, care and burial of animals and municipal health services. That is however outweighed by the concurrent National and Provincial competence of animal control and diseases. We would be reluctant to put any funds into yet another area of other government competence, when we are already paying R350-million a year on Province’s health function and R191-million on library services”.

Repeated pleas on behalf of SA.MAST and the City to meet with Provincial representatives were met with disdain and disinterest. Our Premier was asked to intervene but she did not.

12 April 2010: Animal welfare meeting is held at Civic Centre. SA.MAST alerted all present, including Alderman JP Smith, Safety and Security for Mayco, DA Chief Whip and DA Chief of Staff that:

•           Substantial funding was being provided to animal welfare organisations in Gauteng.

•           The conservative estimate of the number of euthanasias currently performed each month in the Western Cape is 5000.

•           That the consequences of overpopulation are:

•           Diseases spreading from one animal to another

•           Prolonged disease resulting in slow death

•           Neglect by humans

•           Diseased animals infecting human population

•           Desensitisation of human populations

•           Cruel killing of animals

•           Animal over population poses a threat to the most vulnerable (eg. children)

•           Stray pet become a growing burden to City Health, Safety and Security, Animal Welfare Organisations

•           The Constitutional right to psychological and physical health of humans living in animal over populated areas was being violated.

None of the promises made by the City or DA at or after this meeting were implemented.

19 April 2011: Letter of Demand is delivered to the Western Cape Premier (Province) and Cape Town Mayor (City). In brief, our letter of demand called for the City and Province to immediately financially support SA.MAST and all other organisations also engaged with animal sterilisation and primary treatment activities in the Western Cape.

May 2010 – February 2011: SA.MAST continues to lobby both the City and Province to act in an accountable manner and with urgency.

4th of May 2011: Demands are not met by the Premier or Cape Town Mayor. Instead they were passed on to the Department of Agriculture – the very same department that had refused to meet with the City or SA.MAST in the first place and who had made it perfectly clear that they did not consider domestic animal welfare issues to be part of their mandate.

9th of May 2011: Complaint against the Premier is laid by SA.MAST at the Office of the Public Protector. Investigations into our complaints have begun. There are no costs involved.

10th May 2011: One week before municipal elections, another meeting is held, this time hosted by the City but listing Department of Agriculture as their partner. Efforts by Cllr James Vos were made to ‘park’ animal welfare issues including mass animal sterilisation with Department of Agriculture. Chairman Cllr James Vos and SA.MAST rebuke Department of Agriculture for coming to the meeting hopelessly unprepared with no submissions as to how domestic animal welfare issues applies to them or not.

10th May to date: Minutes for the meeting still have not been received and the task force has been disbanded due to ‘reshuffling’ taking place post municipal elections. SA.MAST believes that the exercise was an election white wash.

17th of May 2011: SA.MAST held a well attended rally in Khayelitsha, urging government to act in an accountable and transparent manner.

29 June 2011: A child is allegedly savaged to death by up to seven dogs in Sweet Homes informal settlement, Phillipi, W.C. In retaliation, the community beat dogs to death and tied puppies up to rail way tracks. Over 150 dogs are removed, many of them surrendered because pet guardians fear that their dogs will become victims of similar revenge acts. A member of the press reports to SA.MAST that it seemed like a desperate effort to meet quotas was taking place.

For more information contact:

Tamsin Nel, CEO, South African Mass Sterilisation Trust

Tel: +27 (0) 21 712 2170 | Cell: +27 (0) 84 778 1215

Email: samast@samast.co.za | www.samast.co.za

PUBLIC BENEFIT ORGINISATION NO: 930028769 | TRUST REGISTRATION NUMBER: IT3310/2006

Bookmark this post:

Some puppies were tossed on a train track and crushed by a passing train, while others were beaten to death with sticks or smashed with bricks. Even children joined in the bloody slaughter. Another two dogs were found that were stoned to death.

60 dogs were collected from the area, many strays but many others given up by people who no longer wanted their dogs, either because of the hatred in the community towards dogs as a result of the attack, or perhaps because they feared for their dogs or their own safety. There is no doubt that most of these dogs will be ‘put to sleep’, the euphemism we use for taking the life of a sentient, healthy creature because we’ve screwed up…

It is sad that the people of this community saw fit to blame the dogs.

When you treat dogs in the manner that many people do in township communities – when you have multiple strays running around; when you offer dogs little or no affection; when you do not provide shelter or food; what exactly do you expect as a consequence of such treatment? The ignorance that pervades this scenario is obvious, but the root causes of these events lie far outside the understanding or scope of the individuals involved here to solve. We need to consider them carefully, because this situation is getting worse, not better, and will do so until we have similar circumstances to those in Greece, Romania and other European countries, where packs of dogs roam the streets, and police go out and shoot them…

How did this come to be?

Given the gestation period of 9 weeks in dogs, the likelihood in a normal suburban setting is that within 5 years, assuming a mortality rate of 5% and a cycle of 6 puppies to every female every 6 months, the result will be 65 000 new animals, and that is just from one pair in the beginning. If you consider the fact that the total domestic dog population in SA is estimated to be around 9.1 MILLION, you can perhaps see how easy it is for events to get out of control. About 10% of those 65 000 dogs will find homes; the rest will die as strays or in shelters at the end of a needle. Yet we somehow do not have laws restricting breeding…

It is inevitably more complex than mere biological reproduction rates, however. The behaviour of the dogs and the people must be brought into focus if we want a clear understanding.

When domesticated dogs are left to their own devices – the longer they have to survive by their instincts – the more they lose their respect for and eventually fear of humans, and become more and more predatory in nature.  It is natural for them to form packs and work together to find food and shelter. To a large extent, they become opportunist and will generally prefer to scavenge food left around, but will steal it if the opportunity presents itself. Given desperate enough conditions, they will attack.

As Alan Perrins (SPCA CT) says: “Many township dogs lack affection and often there is no mutual respect, forcing them to lead a feral existence. This is when their instincts as a predator manifest itself. Unsupervised children are most vulnerable and prone to being attacked due to their naivety and inquisitiveness.”

The step from being community dogs, given scraps of food from time to time, never given affection, and expected to survive in harsh environments without shelter, to becoming fully-fledged strays, is not a large one. When communities disregard the needs of the animals in their midst in this manner, the consequences that follow are really a negative feedback loop that results in the dogs paying the penalty for the ignorance.

The root causes lie with the humans, and it is ultimately the humans who are responsible for these horrific circumstances and events. Had there been consideration of the likely consequences of allowing animals  to breed, roam the streets, and leaving them to starve, the attacks could have been prevented.

The travesty is that somehow the animals have been blamed and an entire community has a distorted perspective on the role and value of domestic animals. Ignorance breeds ignorance, and we move further and further away from a society that gives moral consideration to creatures that have as much right as us to be here.

The part I found most alarming about all the news reports was that there was not one that drew any attention to the community’s contribution, nor was there any mention of the sterilisation imperative or even education of the public – the cycle of ignorance is continued by the press, and few are any wiser…

It’s more glaring evidence that as a society, we are failing our animals.

It’s time to take the steps that will lead to success: Click for Change

Derek

Read this excellent article which deals with the behavioural dynamics in more detail:

http://www.animalbehaviour.co.za/dogs/township-dogs/dogs-kill-toddler-in-cape-town/

Bookmark this post:

As a strategist and problem solver in the Corporate world, I was always somewhat dumbfounded by the degree to which problem-solving was directed rather simplistically at symptoms rather than root causes, effectively only solving part of the problem, or solving it only for a short time, or causing other problems that negated the solution anyway.

Animal Welfare SA suffers the same malaise. Many organisations and individuals focus on rescue, rehabilitation and rehoming, and of course there is a necessity that somebody do this, since there are so many homeless animals. This is an attempt at finding, for each animal, a ‘cure’ – a home in which they can live happy lives.  If we recruited more people to welfare, could we home more animals? That very much depends on whether there would be a market for them, and that would depend on whether more people could be convinced to adopt a shelter dog rather than buy a puppy from a pet shop or a breeder. There are many public preconceptions in this regard and this would not happen overnight, but let’s assume that this was possible.

The question we would have to ask is, “How many more workers would it take to solve the problem?”. Let’s remember that for every ten animals born, ONE finds a home. So potentially we would have to have the effect of homing 9 times more animals, or increase our effectiveness by 900% While this may well be achieved by an increase in resources of less than that, it’s not likely to be much less. To complicate matters, the human population is increasing, and that leads us to the real issue we must combat.

When we find an animal a home, effectively bringing about a ‘cure’ for that animal, we have no effect whatsoever on the root cause of the problem, which problem may be defined as, “There are more animals than homes”. This is definitively an outcome, a result, a SYMPTOM. It is not a cause. When we home an animal, we alter the symptom, but have no effect on the events leading to it merely by homing an animal. The Animal Welfare Imperative cannot be to rescue, rehabilitate and rehome in perpetuity, since the job is just going to get bigger and it will grow faster than the resource base can be increased to deal with it. How can I say this? Because the human population is increasing and that has an effect on animal populations. If the welfare community expands at the same rate or better, but at a rate slower than the human population in this country, the problem will become too large to cope with. I think we’re already at that stage. The shelters are full and yet the animals keep coming, partly because the situation is now worsened by economic conditions, emigration and by-laws limiting animal populations in individual homes.

So our ‘pound of cure’ is not the solution. It’s not the solution partially because the aggregates of supply and demand say so, but also because some welfare organisations themselves contribute to the problem. More organisations than you know release animals to adopters without sterilising them and rely on the integrity of the adopter to ensure that the process is completed. In many cases, a proper home check does not get done, and effectively it means that instead of shutting the door so that the next phase of cycle cannot be continued, they leave it ajar, and we know human nature to default to doing what is easiest; the chances are the animal will not be sterilised, the effect will be another unwanted litter, and we effectively create a positive feedback loop that starts the cycle again. Even worse, the lack of the home check opens the door to neglect and abuse: people will always put their best face forward when seeking to adopt an animal but this does not mean they should be trusted. To rely on personal intuition in this regard is just stupid – intuition is proven to be the weakest of human faculties. Organisations should the homework and make sure; The happiness of an entire generation of animals depends on getting this part of the equation right. The greatest contribution to the long-term solution that welfare workers can make is to stop the cycle through sterilisation and comprehensive home checks.

So how are we to address this problem, if the ‘band-aid’ of more rescuers will not do it?

It should be obvious that we need to reduce or stop the inputs into the system, not try to manage the outputs, if we want to have a sustainable impact. It should also be obvious that sterilisation is the key, but that would be a simplistic problem statement, since we could then argue that getting more organisations doing sterilisation would solve the problem, and it won’t.  Once again, the increase in capacity would have to be dramatic and simply unrealistic.

There are a number of factors which, if targeted collectively, will have a lasting  impact on the problem. They are focused on prevention, a 125 year maxim of the SPCA who somehow, in all that time, have not managed to find solutions for the indiscriminate breeding problem:

Ignorance of the Public – Education regarding treatment of animals and  consequences of breeding at home will correct this, but it’s a long-term project and there are not nearly enough organisations involved in this process. It’s a difficult job, too, requiring special skills.

Legislation – Sterilisation should be enforced, although I am not sure that blanket sterilisation on its own is a useful strategy unless the problem of the costs of sterilisation can be addressed. Government must be lobbied to enact sterilisation laws. The scope of such an initiative is beyond any single organisation since there needs to be consensus among many organisations if we wish to sway Government.

Policing – If the police have ‘more important issues to attend to’, then who will police animal issues? Is this not an argument for creating a body who will do this job and be empowered by Government with authority? This will not be achievable by any one organisation; it requires many acting in concert under one unified set of criteria and under one umbrella identity.

Cost of Sterilisation – Government must be lobbied to subsidise sterilisation at least in the short term. Innovations like the male injectable sterilisation could be implemented in the meantime. This outcome will be easier to impact by a representative body than by individual organisations.

Only if this combination of factors are addressed at the same time to varying degrees will sustainable solutions be found to our chronic problems, and none of them are achievable by single organisations acting independently.

The Welfare Imperative in the long term is not to ‘Rescue More’, it is to ‘Make Rescue Unnecessary’.

An ounce of education, legislation, policing and sterilisation is worth a pound of rescue.

Now click here to play a part in making a long-term difference:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restrict-domestic-animal-breeding/

Derek

The Hopeful Foundation

Bookmark this post:

PROFESSIONAL  BREEDERS we need, without them we would lose all the wonderful breeds we have. If all breeders were these, animals would be rarer, more in demand, and more valued by the public. They are generally the people who DENY being breeders. Their motivation is a sincere love of a breed and genuine interest in its future and improvement. They don’t just breed with their animals, they play with them, groom them, take them out socialising, show them, train them. They don’t want their breed to be too popular with the general public. They give puppy/kitten buyers a hard time, tell them the disadvantages of the breed, interrogate them and put them on waiting lists. They sell puppies or kittens from their own premises and never mind anyone visiting their home or kennel. They can show you the parents, and want to do so. They seldom sell animals with breeding rights (except to each other) and follow up to make sure other buyers have sterilised their puppy/kitten at the right time. Owners of males are very selective in giving stud services. They breed very little and don’t care if they do so at a financial loss. They watch trends in the breed and don’t breed at times when the market is flooded. They don’t need to advertise litters in the free press, or sell animals to pet shops,(different from displaying in good pet shops and doing the interview and sale at home, this is a bit of a grey area).They network with other pro breeders and their potential buyers through dedicated animal publications, buyers go searching for them, they don’t have to look for buyers. They never breed with too young or too old animals or on consecutive heats. They don’t allow a mating to take place until they have a committed list of suitable buyers. They constantly improve their knowledge and worry that they don’t know enough. They usually breed one or two breeds for a lifetime. They breed for temperament and health as well as looks, because they know most of the animals are going to be in people’s homes with their kids and other animals, not in the show ring. They know what hereditary defects are found in the breed and always do the necessary X-rays, tests etc and don’t breed with animals carrying defects. They sterilise and keep as pets, or sterilise and rehome as pets, retired or unsuitable breeding stock. They always vaccinate and deworm properly, because they are knowledgeable about infectious diseases and parasite control. They microchip their babies and make sure they are traceable back to them. They stay in touch with buyers and check on the welfare of their offspring lifelong. Most important of all, they will always take back any animal bred by them, and take responsibility for it. Animals bred by them never end up in welfare.

STATISTICALLY, IF EVERY HOUSEHOLD OF FOUR PEOPLE HAS AN AVERAGE OF TWO DOGS AND TWO CATS, PROPERLY CARED FOR FOR A TEN YEAR LIFESPAN, ONLY ONE PERSON IN EVERY THOUSAND NEEDS TO BE A PROFESSIONAL BREEDER WITH  ONLY TWO BREEDING FEMALE ANIMALS.

COMMERCIAL BREEDERS  we don’t need, they are responsible for creating most of the problems in welfare. They make supply exceed demand and devalue animals lives. They make it too easy for the wrong people to get animals. They boast that they are professional breeders. Their motivation is profit and they don’t care about the future of the breed. Their animals are just there to breed, they have little or no other relationship with them. They want everyone to have their breed. They sell them to anyone and tell everyone they should have one. They advertise or sell from anywhere and never see, hear from, or think of the animal again. Many deliver the animals in a public place so buyers don’t see the breeding stock and conditions. They tell buyers to breed. They always have the BEST male that everyone must use as a stud. They breed on every heat, from the first, and as many litters as they can get from each parent animal. They breed for profit and cut corners on facilities, food, and veterinary care to try and keep making as much profit as possible. They breed as many as possible, regardless of how many of their breed are sitting in shelters, being put down, or advertised in the free press. They are not prepared to care for babies after weaning (when mommy stops cleaning up!) and sell underage puppies and kittens to agents and pet dealers. They think they know everything. They don’t know or care or test if their stock are carrying any hereditary defects, but will always claim to KNOW for sure they are fine if buyers ask. They produce breeds that are always the most irresistible as puppies, or the latest fashion (either farming labs, dachsies, spaniels, Siamese, etc all the time, or staffies in the 70’s , rottis in the 80’s, Dalmatians then huskies in the 90’s, sharpeis and BIGGER boerboels in the 2000’s then Chinese cresteds, now pocket yorkies and minpins and Maine coons!) (apologies to the true pro breeders of these for having to mention them here) They sell to even worse breeders, or dump unsterilised on welfare, the animals that are no longer profitable breeders. Some even deliberately breed crossbreeds that have proven to be cute or impressive easy-sellers. They don’t vaccinate, or obtain vaccines on the black market (or actually don’t) and forge their own vaccination cards. (while debatable if it is right for a developing country, as the law stands at present the only legal vac certificate is issued by a vet clinic or registered Welfare organisation and is signed by a qualified vet, AWO or veterinary nurse, and has the vaccine brand and batch no). They don’t deworm or think one dose of deworming before sale is ok, don’t deworm their breeding stock, and have no clue what coccidia or giardia or ringworm actually are. They would never microchip in their name because the last thing they want is any of those babies ever being their problem in the future…well, they might take them back if they can be bred with but no chance if they are old, sterilised or those terrible temperaments or hereditary defects have shown themselves. They don’t know or care where their offspring are or how they are living or being treated. It doesn’t cross their minds that impulsive people to whom they have sold move to properties that don’t take animals, or give animals to staff who live in squatter camps, or the rarer but true stories of heavy dogs being used to detonate landmines, pretty dogs and cats being skinned for fur etc. Animal shelters are full of their animals all the time.

ACCIDENTAL BREEDERS are totally responsible themselves for deciding whether they are more of a curse than a commercial breeder, or almost as acceptable as a professional breeder. Take the accidental breeder  who loves the parent animal/s, who realises that he has made a big blunder, asks for advice, does a crash course to get his knowledge up to scratch, works with his vet and knowledgeable breeders, compensates for his error ( eg does all he can with correct nutrition to feed too young a mommy correctly), keeps the babies til they are old enough to sterilise early,  homes them with lifelong interest in their welfare, and sterilises the parent/s so it can’t happen again. He has done very little harm. Properly and responsibly handled, an unplanned pregnancy can have as its only negative the fact that it took up spaces in homes that could have been for shelter animals. All of the most gorgeous mongrels and moggies that so many of us own and adore are accidents that turned out well  BUT MUST NOT GO ANY FURTHER. The accidental breeder who actually doesn’t care if his animals breed and does nothing to stop is worse than a profiteering commercial breeder because he invariably dumps the babies he can’t home on welfare, they are more often than not crossbreeds, and the ones he does home mostly go to his equally irresponsible friends and family and the oke he met at the pub, who do exactly the same and continue the cycle. He is also the least likely to learn anything about breeding or spend any money on proper veterinary care etc because he’s not making anything out of it. This is where the rest of animals dying in shelters come from. The accidental breeder must choose which he will be.

Dr Shelagh Hahn

Addendum:

It’s about time we stopped people breeding whenever and wherever they wish – breeding should be the domain of professionals:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/restrict-domestic-animal-breeding/

Derek

The Hopeful Foundation

Bookmark this post: