Today I spayed a cat. She was brought to me by an animal welfare organisation, having been dumped by some selfish ignorant fool. She was pregnant with 4 foetuses. If she had not been spayed, she and her statistically 2 daughters would each have had 4 kittens 6 months from now, and she and her 2 older daughters, her 2 new daughters and her 4 granddaughters would each have had 4 more kittens 6 months after that. Continue to do the maths, adding in the males, and after 4 years you are heading for 100 000 cats.

I sterilise about 50 homeless animals a week for charities. If I continue to do so until I have worked for 40 years, I will have sterilised 100 000 charity animals in my career. So if one idiot dumps one unsterilized animal about 4 years before I retire, he will replace all the animals I have sterilised with unsterilized ones the day I retire. Thanks idiot!?

Municipal pounds in Gauteng alone have to kill over 2000 homeless animals every month. Guess what that adds up to in 4 years……100 000 deaths. So all that senseless killing is only cancelling out the irresponsibility of one person who didn’t sterilise an animal 4 years before. Food for thought for that person. One female dog and her offspring, in 6 years, can be responsible for the birth of 67,000 dogs !! One female cat and her offspring, in 7 years, can be responsible for the birth of 420,000 cats !! Every neutered cat or dog stops many unwanted babies and makes a huge difference.

Tomorrow I will sterilise another 10 charity animals. While I am doing that, please send this email to everyone you know, maybe it will reach one person who will change their selfish mindset and sterilise their pet. Even if it can stop one pregnant animal from being abandoned before the year 2030, all the work I do for charities may not have been a complete waste of time.

Bookmark this post:

Many animal rescue and welfare workers received a picture (click to view) of a document in their email inboxes early this week, announcing that Tracy Forte of Wetnose had been ‘fired’ which is not strictly speaking true. She has been suspended with full pay pending investigations into certain allegations. As we know more we will keep everyone informed.

A colleague of mine observed:

“The article is an image of a word or PDF document, not a newspaper clipping. The mail address this was sent from is a gmail address and if I remember correctly, almost all the community papers are printed by Caxton and do not use gmail addresses. The image in the bottom right corner also looks similar to the AWFIG logo of the previous ‘newsletter’ sent out.”

In addition, the organisation it was sent from, the ‘community (sic) newsgauteng’ does not exist. I sent an email to the originating address asking for clarity and their source, and have yet to get a reply. Makes me wonder how legitimate these people are. To add to our suspicions, Marius Herselman, a member of the new board at Wetnose, in referring to the email stating that Tracy had been suspended because of a number of allegations and a large sum of money, said that he had “no idea where that came from”…

Whatever the case may be, I have worked with Tracy for many years, and cannot remember a single instance in which I found her behaviour to be questionable in any respect. She has been a champion of abandoned and abused animals for a long time, and while I recognise that it’s possible that certain events may have been hidden from us, I am not ready to conduct a ‘trial by media’. If I remember correctly, in our Constitution, anyone is innocent until proven guilty, and I will support Tracy until such time as I have incontrovertible proof that she is guilty of wrongdoing.

The second alarming news item was the criminal charge laid against the Manager of the East London SPCA, Lionel Taylor:

http://deadwelfare.wordpress.com

Daily Dispatch Article

While I have never met Lionel Taylor, this is a serious allegation, and it is of deep concern that according to the affidavit, the NSPCA allegedly did nothing after being informed of this event.

At the same time, it is important to recognise that Mr. Taylor has the same rights as anyone else, and that the court must prove that he committed these acts of cruelty. We should not find him guilty because someone claims he is.

It is however interesting that the NSPCA response was to ‘poison the well’ by discrediting the person who signed the affidavit and laid the charge. This is a standard response by the NSPCA and does not mention that there were TWO witnesses, one of which signed the affidavit.

In addition, posts last night from Marlene Emslie suggest that Lionel has admitted that the euthanasia took place, with modification to a few details.

Once again, we must let the courts decide, and suspend our own judgement until such time as the truth has been established.

We at Hopeful believe that it is important, where there has been behaviour, whether by organisations or individuals, that constitutes neglect or cruelty to animals, that there should be a place you can go to where you will be heard, and your confidentiality will be respected. Please email me at derek@hopeful.ws or fax 0866417608 if you know of or have witnessed events that you believe were either negligent or cruel. We have a strong legal team, a wealth of experience in these matters, and a growing network of extremely capable and committed people.

A Light in their Darkness,

Derek

The Hopeful Initiative

Bookmark this post:

Following the discussion on Leigh Bennie’s show, ‘A Word on Legal Matters’  which went on air this past Monday, 26^th July, at 7pm, I feel that a few comments need to be made.

If you missed the show, you can listen to the podcast here:

http://www.702.co.za/podcast/podcast_wordonlegalmatters.asp

This presentation was extremely one-sided, in that only those who promulgated, or are in favour of, the by-laws, were interviewed. No comments were taken from representatives of the animal welfare community and others who are negatively affected and who, furthermore, are working on the ground with the consequences of these by-laws and are in the best position to measure their effects.

Let me note here that I exclude NSPCA representatives from my definition of representatives of the welfare community. As an organisation that stands to benefit financially from the implementation of these by-laws and which already benefits financially from each euthanasia performed under its auspices, opinions given by such representatives should be taken with a pinch of salt at best.

The argument against the by-laws is simple; allowing less pets to be kept will mean less homes are available for needy animals, will deprive animals who already have caring homes of those homes and will prevent people from temporarily fostering animals or taking in strays.

All of this will impact negatively on an already overburdened welfare system, leading to increased homelessness, increased euthanasia and an increase in strays and cruelty to animals as pets are dumped. This will also negatively affect the human population due to the attendant noise and health issues as well as the dangers presented by abandoned, free roaming, unvaccinated and uncared for dogs.

The ability to apply for a permit to keep a greater number of animals is supposed to solve these problems, unfortunately, it creates more issues than it fixes.

Firstly, an already overextended Council staff is expected to take care of the permit application process. As their time is at a premium, this will encourage them to decline as many permits as possible, to lessen processing time and time spent on inspections. This is also taking time away from addressing valid complaints and lessening the effectiveness of the entire system. Nor are we guaranteed that Council staff will be sympathetic to our applications or to the issues we face, such as the potential loss of a beloved family member.

Secondly, there is no definition within the by-laws as to what constitutes a valid objection to an application. For example, can a person three blocks away be considered a neighbour and be allowed to object? Is a person required to supply proof of a noise issue in order for their objection to be considered valid or can they simply arbitrarily object?

According to the Council spokespeople on the show, objections must have grounds and the Council will assist in arbitration should there be objections. However, we are not guaranteed this is what will happen, as no provision is made for this in the text of the by-laws. Already, in practice, this is proving not to be true, with applications being turned down on the strength of a single unproved and uninvestigated objection.

The system is clearly open to abuse and as such I would call on the Council to instead focus its efforts on enforcing existing by-laws rather than bogging down the system with excessive regulation. They could also be attaching more severe penalties to by-law infringements, such as allowing a dangerous dog to roam free, in order to encourage public compliance.

To go back to the issue of permits, obtaining your permit is therefore a matter of luck and having sympathetic neighbours. If you live around one malicious person who does not like animals you are in as bad of a position as if no permit application process existed, with all the trauma which this creates for people and pets alike.

The programme began with discussion around people who take in 100 cats and are unable to care for them, or people who keep large numbers of outside only dogs on small properties, and how this law will enable the Council to address these situations. Such situations would be clearly unsanitory and can be satifactorily addressed by applying existing health and animal welfare laws.

Making emotional appeals against such cruelty is disingenious as they tar the person who has five or six well cared for cats or dogs with the same brush, as if they needs must also be hoarders or perpetrators of cruelty.

It needs to be understood that such extreme situations form a miniscule proportion of cases. Treating all pet owners as if they were hoarders is unfair as well as creating an unnecessary administrative burden. Not only that, the law potentially condemns well cared for animals to homelessness, which is of no benefit to anyone. The number of animals who will suffer under this law vastly exceeds the few who may benefit from its implementation and any concrete benefits are debatable.

As has been pointed out on numerous occassions, the number of animals on a property bears no relation to the ability of the owners of those pets to care for them. One animal may cause a problem and ten may not, depending on a number of factors, such as the size of the property and the means and dedication of the owner. The number of animals which a person can take care of is a decision best left to the person in question.

It was also stated that these laws are in line with international pet limit laws. While it is quite true that many countries have enacted pet limit laws, the Council has yet to produce any evidence that those laws have been in any way effective in curbing cruelty, health hazards or any of the other problems that they are supposed to address. To the best of my knowledge there is no such evidence. In fact, anecdotal evidence indicates that they have had the opposite effect. Just because everyone else is doing it is not a valid reason for enacting a law. Our Council could be using this as an opportunity to study the effectiveness of such laws, enacted elsewhere, and learning from this accordingly.

I can agree with Leigh’s guests in one respect, in that there is a need for consilidation of laws concerning cats and dogs. Putting measures such as definitions of acceptable care, and of cruelty, what constitutes a health hazard, laws dealing with free roaming pets, dangerous dogs and pet-related noise issues together, and streamlining the process of dealing with these issues, would make the law more accessible and user friendly for Council officials and the public alike. However, seeing as every problematic instance already has a law to address it, and that these are not enforced to due lack of manpower and public education, I fail to see what purpose an additional law serves, except to drain resources and cause unnecessary suffering.

Our main problem with regard to pet overpopulation arises due to the lack of sterilisation of pets and the fact that many people do not have the financial means to sterilise their animals. Whilst requiring mandatory sterilisation may be outside of the Council’s jurisdication, providing funding for initiatives to educate the public and to offer free sterlisation of pets to those who would like this, is not.

This would be vastly helpful in stemming the tide of unwanted pets, serving to decrease the numbers of strays, and of animals in shelters, along with the attendant animal cruelty, health problems and dangers to the public that uncontrolled breeding creates.

To my mind this presents a win win situation for everyone which also avoids the pitfalls that of necessity accompany the pet limit by-laws.

Candi Moon

(Footnote: I was informed this week that “the show was designed to give information to the people who needed LEGAL advice” – how good is legal advice that tells people to respect law that is unconstitutional and prejudicial? These by-laws do not have ONE redeeming quality; there is no benefit to anyone from their existence- animalman)

Bookmark this post:

Hopeful Forum

While we are grateful to at last receive information from Council regarding the permit process, the inspection criteria and the appeal process, the following questions come to mind, and will be presented to Council:

1. The Council has said there was said there was ‘extensive public consultation’. Could the Council explain what the process was, who was consulted and who was engaged? Presumably the entire process was documented, since it is a legally-binding process, and it should be a simple matter for Council to produce the evidence.
2. The substance of the by-laws still presents constitutional issues which we will challenge at a later stage. Why has Council not responded to our Constitutional objections?
3. Is the appeal process in the bylaws? If not, how are people supposed to know to whom to appeal? It’s not good enough that Council sends this information to the public – it has to be part of the bylaws. The same applies to the inspection criteria – they must be part of the by-laws. The by-laws are therefore incomplete.
4. What mechanisms are in place to prevent spurious or malicious reports of animals on peoples’ property?
5. Do the guidelines indicate the criteria people must use to ‘get rid of’ one of the companion animals? Indeed, is this something Government has the right to do, and should any civilised society accept this imperative?
6. To where must these animals be sent? To surrender them to any animal shelter is to sentence them to death, since the shelters are already overflowing, and since these by-laws reduce the aggregate end-user capacity, there is nowhere else for them to go. Effectively, why should anyone be asked to do something that should be contrary to the conscience of a Nation?

Having consulted with our legal advisers, we believe the following are appropriate attitudes with regard to these by-laws:

• The by-laws are procedurally and substantively problematic. This means that there are problems with the laws from both a legal and practical perspective,
• Go through the legal process of appealing if you are declined and in the meantime do not surrender your animal companions.
• If you do apply for a permit you should indicate that you are doing so with dissatisfaction with regard to the law. Ideally, any communication with Council should include the following statement, or something similar:

‘I am opposed to these by-laws on constitutional, legal and practical grounds, but since they are in force, I am obliged to comply with your process. I will however also seek, at every step, to ensure that my rights are upheld and that the requisite proof is furnished to support any decisions made’

• Stay ‘under the radar’ – if nobody is complaining, don’t apply for a permit. Let Council approach you, and then take the steps as outlined in the last Blog post: http://hopeful.ws/2010/07/15/no-joburg-we-will-not-put-up-with-this

Lastly, please email me with any anomalies that you discover in your interaction with Council, so that we can further build our case against these by-laws. We are preparing a petition to Council to have the by-laws set aside, and in addition intend to mount a Constitutional challenge.

Best Regards

Derek

Hopeful Homeless

Bookmark this post:

During the meeting held in Braamfontein, it was evident from the Council legal advisers’ attitude that they had not come to give any real consideration to our objections, nor negotiate a way forward. Instead we were met with defensiveness and arguments justifying the by-laws.

The core of the legal advisers’ argument was that the by-laws were created to address an existing problem with confiscating hoarders’ animals. In addition, they were supposedly developed to meet the needs of many different stakeholders in the community. In the case of hoarders it is difficult to see how treating everyone like hoarders will solve the problem or that this is an appropriate strategy for combating hoarding. With regard to the needs of the community, it is difficult to see how these by-laws benefit anyone at all. They certainly do not benefit the animals, since we have already established that the likely consequence is that there will be more strays, more animals in shelters, and therefore more animals euthanized. Furthermore, they do not benefit the public, since reducing the numbers will not reduce noise or strays, and will result in more health hazards and noise nuisances. Add to that the personal trauma of the people who would have to give up their personal companions, animals they regard as friends and family, and it is difficult to see who wins here. The only people who benefit are petty people who dislike animals, and it is debatable whether these people should be pandered to.

These By-Laws do not benefit anybody. They’re ill-conceived, irrational and are already having the consequences we predicted at the start of this campaign. People are being targeted using the by-laws as an excuse, and the Health personnel are already making unilateral decisions without conducting inspections, as was the case last week when a permit was refused because a neighbour had objected. This is not only contrary to the process as it was explained to us, since it necessitated an inspection, but contrary to common sense. An objection does not constitute evidence.

We asked, near the end of this meeting, to be provided with details concerning the permit process, the inspection criteria, and the appeal process, so that we could inform the public and set people’s minds at rest that the process was not vindictive. We were given the undertaking that we would have this information within 48 hours, and yet here we are, two weeks later, and not only do we not have the promised information, but our emails to the parties concerned have been ignored.

Since Council has shown that they have little regard for their public, and since they do not even have respect sufficient to keep to their promises or answer emails, we believe it is time to show disrespect for these ridiculous, ill-conceived, impractical and irrational by-laws.

Unless the Council come to you, don’t go to them. The by-laws are unconstitutional and illogical, and bring no social benefit whatsoever. Let’s see if they are willing to arrest people or take away animals by force because you have more animals than your arbitrarily-allocated quota. A society that tolerates a government doing such things is not worthy of its own respect.

It’s important that you ask for evidence at EVERY POINT in the process.

When they say you have been guilty of a noise nuisance, they must furnish proof that this is the case. ‘Proof’ cannot be a single instance; it must be shown to be occurring over time. They would necessarily have to do multiple observations.

From Noise Control Regulations (1999) “noise nuisance” means any sound which disturbs or impairs or may disturb or impair the convenience or peace of any person.

Keep a record of EVERY communication.

Ask for WRITTEN reasons for every decision. This is your RIGHT.

You have a right to be informed of the legal process in a clear and predictable manner.

The law may not be applied retrospectively. This means that if you were legal before the laws were enacted, you cannot be found in contravention of the law merely because a new law has been enacted. The law cannot change a previously legal status into an illegal one.

Lastly in both international law and South African law you have the right to privacy and family, of which your companion animals are a part. They simply have no right to remove them.

Keep us informed by emailing me at the address below if you think you are being treated unfairly or if you think your rights are being disregarded.

Failing communication from Council after our email today, we will let you know how you can help get the message across that we will not tolerate this disregard of our rights.

Derek

derek@hopeful.ws

The Hopeful Initiative

Bookmark this post:

The Council legal advisers, Pieter de Klerk and JP van Niekerk, were initially very defensive but did not respond at all to the constitutional objections made. When we went through the practical consequences of the By-Laws, they became more involved and ‘Nicky’ (DD van Niekerk) was nodding his head throughout. Pieter de Klerk was a lot more resistant but nevertheless conceded, as did Peter Manganye, Director of Environmental Health, that we had made a number of valid points.

They suggested that we petition the Council in respect of the objections we have and that is the next step. We do need to get our own story straight and present a coherent, consistent document.

Their opposing arguments had very little substance in my view, but it will be useful to examine them so that we may strategise how best to deal with them:

1. The focus of these By-Laws was never Animal Welfare, but Environmental Health, and they attempted to make the original intentions a crucial factor in their defence of the By-Laws. In my view those intentions are irrelevant to the issue of the consequences that will result from their implementation, but more importantly they will not achieve those intentions, since we showed that the outcome of these By-Laws will inevitably lead to Environmental, Nuisance, Negligence and Abuse problems, not to mention Social Trauma.
2. They claimed that the Sterilisation issue was out of scope for them because it is not a Council competency. This is debatable, and looks very much like a ‘pass the buck’ scenario.

3. They claimed that the by-laws were never intended to victimise anyone, and Inspectors will be fair and take all aspects into consideration. We have our reservations, but this will hopefully be clearer when we receive more detail on the process.

It is now necessary to prepare a document that details the constitutional and legal issues, the practical consequences, and the social effects. Our legal team will address the constitutional and legal issues, I will prepare the section dealing with consequences and effects on the animals, with input from the various rescue and welfare organisations, and Bernice Hammond and Jennifer Harper will collate the social effects with input from other members of the team such as Cora and Paula.

Deputy Director van Niekerk also undertook to provide more detail in respect of the permit process, the inspection criteria, and the appeal or compliance process. Once we have these in hand, we will be in a position to dispense advice to animal owners. We should have this information by tonight, so expect another email and Blog post tomorrow or Monday latest.

The process of petitioning the Council is one in which there are two major variables: the content of the document presented, and the numbers represented by the petition. We will let you know when the petition process is set up and how you will be able to help. It will be conducted on the Internet as well as by means of fax.

We will also, in the next Blog post, explain what your best course of action is.

A Light in their Darkness,

Derek and the By-Laws Team:

David Bilchitz – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Joburg

Bonita Meyersfeld – Associate Professor, School of Law, University of Witwatersrand

Tersia Baasden – NCat

Wendy Burrows – Wolfshaven

Jennifer Harper – Sterischeme

Julie Bezhuidenhout – Animal Behaviourist

Paula Spagnoletti – Say NO to Pet Shops

Bernice Strapp _ CHARM

Patti Baron-Lowe – ARRF

Mandy or Kim or Clair (Husky Rescue)

Cora Bailey – CLAW

Tracy Mcquarrie – Barking Mad

Tracy Forte – Wetnose

Irene or Julie or Karen (Collie Rescue)

Bookmark this post:

I would like to thank Dr Bismilla and his Team for investing their valuable time so that we could present our objections to the Dog and Cat By-Laws enacted recently. Those present not only gave the issue their undivided attention but also asked questions that indicated their genuine interest and concern. Special thanks to MMC Development Planning and Urban Management, Roslynn Greeff for not only arranging the meeting, but supporting this initiative as well as the Hopeful Homeless.

In referring to the presentation, Dr Bismilla said that he found it rational, and could find nothing in it with which he could disagree. He also said that he had some concerns, not only with regard to the By-Laws, but in relation to the process of participation and whether it was satisfactory. Dr Bismilla is himself a “big animal lover” and I have to say that I found his manner gentle and his understanding insightful.

He suggested that we should meet again on this issue and include a wider spectrum of people, both from Government and the Animal Welfare community, so that there was a more representative collaboration. In addition, he saw a need to create a committee/group that would help Government achieve more representative and sustainable solutions in the area of animal welfare in the future. I undertook to organise who should be at that that meeting, since Dr Bismilla stated his intention to move this along rather than delay it.

To that end, I need you to do the following: Send me 5 names that you think should be present, with their email addresses, by email to derek@hopeful.ws

I will collate the information, approach the people concerned, and make all the arrangements. While on the one hand the decision as to who attends that meeting should be democratic, numbers will be limited and we must be pragmatic. I do see a need for each sector to have a spokesperson, and here are my personal suggestions:

1. Legal – Prof David Bilchitz
2. Cat Welfare – Tersia Baasden
3. Specialist Breed Rescue – Malcolm Gaw, Pug Rescue
4. Specialist Breed Rescue – Mandy Merber, Husky Rescue
5. Education and Animal Health – Heather Müller, Animals in Distress
6. Education and Sterilisation – Cora Bailey, CLAW
7. General Dog Rescue – Brenda Michau, CHARM
8. Initiatives – Paula Spangoletti, NO Animals in Pet Shops
9. General Dog Rescue – Patti Barron-Lowe, FORA
10. Feral Cats –  June Bradbury, Cat Trapping & Sterilisation Network

Ideally the person should be diplomatic, a strong communicator, and experienced. While the above are those I would invite, this is not my process, it is yours, and I will only be involved in the next phase to bed it down. I will also, if necessary, create polls on the Hopeful forum to facilitate arriving at decisions where there may be conflict.

Please note: It would be counterproductive to send in a petition at this time. Let’s give Government an opportunity to correct the situation before making demands. A petition now would be superfluous anyway, since we are dealing directly with the Director to whom the departments report that enacted the By-Laws.

We’ve made a start, let’s get this right the first time. It will also give animal welfare SA the opportunity to engage in a more cohesive, integrated manner, which I believe is an important step in the right direction at this juncture.

A Light in their Darkness,

Derek

http://hopeful.ws

Link to documents related to this issue:  http://hopeful.ws/arf/viewthread.php?tid=14

Bookmark this post:

As far as I can ascertain from reading the by-laws, published on the City of Johannesburg’s website (www.joburg.org.za), people living in flats and townhouses are limited to two dogs and two cats per household and people living in separate houses are limited to four of each. There appears to be some confusion as to the exact definitions regarding properties.

Council officials seem also to be either unaware of the by-laws or unsure as to the exact strictures of the by-laws. When local press contacted Johannesburg city council officials for information they received answers ranging from being unaware of the by-laws to stating the the limit is two pets per property or four pets per property.

To my mind these by-laws are objectionable, and probably also unconstitutional…

Protests from the public and welfare organisations, made at the time pet limits were originally discussed, in 2005/6,  were completely disregarded.

The by-laws were applied willy nilly, without any concern for the people who will be affected by them, and without consulting with them. They allow for one particular group, pet owners, to be legally discriminated against.

The by-laws fail to take into account people’s attachment to their animals. Many people love their animals as members of their family or ‘furry kids’. No-one would  consider implementing a law stating that parents may only keep a particular number of children and that additional children must be given to friends or left at a state orphanage. Separation from the owner is not only stressful for the owner, but also for the animal. Our pets often form deep attachments to us.

It also needs to be considered that, with the huge numbers of animals in our shelters already looking for homes, owners forced to give up extra animals may have no choice but to leave them at the SPCA, an effective death sentence. The vast majority of animals left at SPCAs around the country are euthanased rather than homed. This is in part due to lack of homes, but also largely due to the draconian and unreasonable adoption polices applied by the SPCA (to be discussed in a future post).

The ostensible reason for the creation of these laws is to reduce animal cruelty and the number of unwanted animals. In practice however, this law will produce just the opposite effect.

This is because the limit applies only to pet owners. Breeders and pet shop owners may keep an unlimited number of dogs and/or cats. In other words, irresponsible breeding may continue unchecked, but the number of homes which may be offered to dogs and cats is reduced. This will increase the number of homeless animals and the number of animals euthanased.

The number of homes and foster homes which may be offered to rescue animals is also reduced, decreasing the number of animals which may be accomodated by shelters and again increasing our euthanasia figures.

The only concern of significance with regard to pet welfare is whether the owner is able to provide quality care for their pets. I.e. that the owner is able to provide adequate space and activity for their pets, as well as nutrition, shelter and veterinary care. This view is supported by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, the largest association of animal professionals in the world. Their position statement can be found here: http://www.apdt.com/about/ps/limit_laws.aspx

When pet limit by-laws were first proposed for Johannesburg, pet owners were promised that those who had more than the limit in terms of pet numbers would be allowed to keep their pets, provided they weren’t ‘replaced’ after the death of a pet. This would only be humane in ensuring that animals who are well cared for and loved can continue to live in their homes. The city has reneged on this promise.

The by-laws state that owners wishing to keep additional animals may apply for a license to do so, however, neither I nor anyone else I know has had any success in getting the proscribed application forms from the council and its seems that they have not yet been created.

The cost and application process also seems to be excessively onerous. The prescribed fee at this stage is, as was reported in the local press, R485 per pet. It therefore seems likely that the council is introducing these licenses in order to obtain another revenue stream, rather than for any genuine concern for animal welfare.

The by-laws state that anyone wishing to apply for a license must complete the prescribed form (the one no-one can get a copy of) and display this notice, outside of their property, no more that one metre away from a public road, for a period of two weeks, so that neighbours may voice their objections if any. In other words, it only takes one neighbour who hates dogs or cats, and your beloved pet is destined for euthanasia at the local SPCA.

Assuming this all goes to plan, the applicant must then, along with proof that the notice has been displayed, go to the police station and create a sworn affidavit stating that the requirements have been complied with. The completed documentation and payment must then be submitted, at which point the council may or may not grant the license. Property inspections may also be done.

This process seems designed to encourage people to either flout the law or to dump their animals in despair, at the very least, this application needs to be made a lot easier.

Anyone found to be in violation of this by-law is threatened with fines, up to six months imprisonment and the confiscation and euthanasia of their pets. Considering, due to the lack of forms, that no-one can even comply with the by-laws yet, one has to question the legality of this or whether the penalties can in fact apply.

In addition, the city’s bureaucracy is overloaded. It seems senseless to add extra functions to a system that is already barely functional. We have existing by-laws dealing with nuisance barking and dangerous dogs, which would allow the community to report problem dogs and for appropriate action to be taken. These additional laws serve no valid purpose.

While the by-laws make provision for breeders and pet shop owners, they do not make any provision for those who are in the front line of ensuring the welfare of the pet population; those who work for animal welfare organisations, those who are involved in rescue and those who take in and provide either permanent or temporary (foster) homes for rescue animals. It is for this group that pet limit by-laws should not apply.

Regards

Candi Moon

Bookmark this post:

The diabolical pet by-laws enacted recently limiting the number of animals you may have at your home, themselves a challenge to logic, common sense and practicality, have recently given rise to newspaper articles.

Amanda Watson wins the Irresponsible Journalism Prize this month for her article in the Eastern Sunday Tribune last week containing this sparkling quote from the Joburg city officials’ boundless catalogue of inspiring repartee: “Owners may give pets in excess of the permitted number to the SPCA or to friends who would like to have them”. In a single, sweeping sentence, Amanda has given voice to a malaise in our society that would be funny if its consequences were not so sad: we treat animals as if they are commodities. So never mind that there is an emotional bond, both ways, between non-human animal and human animal, in some cases stronger than that with other humans; never mind that the SPCA destroys 80% conservatively of the animals entrusted to its care, and never mind that the owners are quite capable of supporting them – just hand them over, they are excess to requirements…

Bad By-laws

This is the latest in a series of unfortunate and unnecessary events related to the animal legislation issue, and animal lovers in the Western Cape protested with sufficient verve to have their by-laws, very similar to these, repealed.  One would think that the Johannesburg lawmakers would have learned from those events, but it seems each province operates within its own vacuum, seemingly devoid of both intelligence and respect for the community. These by-laws must be repealed here too, and replaced with legislation that has at least a modicum of sense, compiled in consultation with those doing the real work of rescuing and homing animals, rather than the ever-present but useless NSPCA. Oh and how come these enacted by-laws are different from the draft by-laws? Surely the process that resulted in them being enacted without public review is unconstitutional?

The by-laws reflect a lack of forethought and understanding, not only of the real causes and effects of the current situation, but of the interaction of resources, processes and outcomes in any given large-scale complex system.

Let me explain.

Let’s start with the arbitrary number per household, always supposing you can understand the difference between a dwelling unit and a dwelling house, and this is by no means clear, especially when you consider that if you have more than one family living on a property with two buildings on it, your property would be disqualified anyway, another illustration of the weak thinking applied in the development of these by-laws. Whenever an arbitrary number is applied to a scenario in which the variables to which the rule must be applied have an almost infinite number of combinations, you can be assured that the result will be a half-baked solution. The by-laws equate two Dachshunds with two Great Danes, and you need only limited intelligence to recognise that the keeping of these two vastly different breeds demands differing levels of upkeep, attention and space. How then can this arbitrary number ever be appropriate? When you realise that it effectively enables people to keep 2 Great Danes in a flat, you see the silliness of the by-laws, since doing so would demonstrably be cruel, as it would be to keep any large breeds cooped up in a tiny space. And while we are on the subject of space, why is there no mention of space in the by-laws? Surely if they have been designed with the animals’ interests in mind, the provision of space to run and enjoy life is a more important issue than how many buildings there are? It is questionable whether the animals were even considered, but more on that later…

Not to nitpick, but the by-laws are also very clear that only animals over the age of 6 months are provided for. So WHERE, pray tell, would puppies grow up? Or would they be sent to the SPCA euthanasia machine, effectively wiping out the dog population of the future? The by-laws as currently written make the existence of puppies illegal. Stupid, stupid law, seemingly written by a student of horror movies rather than a competent legislator. Or perhaps the puppies of the future will spontaneously arrive in existence already 6 months old?!

Large-scale Complexity

THEN, and I need you to follow me here, since the issue of the consequences of the by-laws and their relationship to providing solutions to the challenges facing animal welfare workers in South Africa is complex, although not so complex that a person with just a little understanding cannot grasp what seems to be beyond those involved in the development of these by-laws.

According to the SPCA, introduction of the by-laws has a ‘positive impact by curbing backyard breeders and reducing animal cruelty’, to quote from a recent newspaper article in which the SPCA were referred to CHECK!!!

What utter nonsense. Since you only need two animals, a male and a female, to breed in your backyard, how will these by-laws have any impact whatsoever on the number of new animals becoming inputs into the system? If you intended to do something about these inputs, the best way would be to curb the breeding taking place by legislating against backyard breeding and making it illegal to have an unsterilised animal unless you are a licensed breeder. Surely this would have been a more logical place to focus, at the point where the inputs start the entire process, rather than putting a ‘cap’ on the outputs? Only an idiot believes that by limiting an effect you can alter a cause. You would be laughed out of any University classroom for suggesting so, yet here we have legislators and the SPCA claiming that this is not only rational, but desirable?

And how does limiting the numbers of animals in homes reduce cruelty? Cruelty is the result of an attitude and an underlying lack of respect and value for animals, not a question of numbers. It’s just nonsensical. Reducing the existing capacity is likely to be cruel, at the very least to the humans who may feel required to surrender their animals, and in addition to the animals that have lovely homes but would have to go and stay in a Shelter. How is this a reduction of cruelty? How would you make the choice, FIFO, LIFO? We use these terms when we speak of commodities…

“There are not enough homes for abandoned pets and people should only keep animals if they can afford to meet their needs such as food, water, shelter and veterinary care as a bare minimum”, Candice Segal of Sandton SPCA was quoted as saying in a recent newspaper article. While I am in agreement with Candice, the essence of her statement is found in the phrase ‘if they can afford’ – why then do the by-laws completely bypass the affordability issue and set an absolute number for all people irrespective of their means? I know plenty of homes where there are a lot more than 4 animals and they all live in the lap of luxury In addition, there is no guarantee that reducing the numbers will reduce the negligence, since negligence does not result from a single cause, and to suggest so would be to abdicate one’s intelligence. Ignorance, lack of resources, and blatant irresponsibility all play their part, and to isolate a single factor and produce by-laws focusing only on the volume of animals is to oversimplify the problem. No competent problem-solver would be so foolish as to think that by putting a cap on the output of a given system that it will magically reduce the numbers flowing into the system. I would not employ a person who believed this, except perhaps as a village idiot somewhere.

Let’s talk about the phenomenon of the growth of the number of animals for which homes cannot be found, caused by the increased number of animals bred by stupid householders who want their Popsy to have ‘just one litter’, or the indiscriminate backyard breeder who seeks to make a profit by having his Boxer permanently pregnant and the Puppy Mill owner who constantly finds buyers in Pet Shop owners who could care less as long as there is a market. Add to this the registered breeders who somehow see themselves as innocent in this plot, when they definitively contribute to the numbers and the sad statistics those of us familiar with the real world see every day: more than 1000 animals euthanized nationally daily and only one in every 12 animals born finding homes, and these are conservative estimates. They are an indictment of a nation and an illustration of the ineffectiveness of current strategies to combat the problem, and in enacting this legislation, Government and the SPCA just made it worse.

How can I say this? Think about it. If you increase the inputs into a given system and then you limit the capacity of resources to absorb those inputs, where do those inputs land up? They land up in the middle – in this case, in the Shelters, already strained to breaking point. And since the Shelters are little more than temporary storage bins for the euthanasia process, they effectively amount to almost certain death for any animals ‘dropped off at the SPCA’, so naively suggested in Amanda Watson’s article by Virgil James, city council spokesman who clearly has no understanding of the nature of a personal relationship between a human and a creature of another species….

This limit on individual capacity, one enforced by incompetent legislation, has another effect. In the animal rescue and welfare community, a process is used to buffer the fact of insufficient homes being available at any point in time – that of fostering, something the SPCA does not indulge in for some mysterious reason, and yet which is used successfully in the informal rescue and homing process all over the world. Animals are placed in existing homes temporarily until permanent homes can be found. I recently did this myself, and I will do it again, since the benefits of the process so far outweigh the downsides that it is simply a no-brainer. The foster animals become socialised, they can also be rehabilitated in a completely normal and natural manner, get a chance to develop normalised eating, sleeping and playing habits, and get the opportunity to recover where they have been abused or neglected. Under to the new by-laws, this would be illegal. Quite honestly, if a law is stupid, I will break it – over and over again, if necessary. And this one is not just stupid, it is insane – it should be consigned to a padded cell…

Public Consultation

I wondered how it is that such laws are enacted, since one marvels at the possibility that people so ignorant of the workings of the real world can be writing legislation. It did occur to me that, given the involvement of the NSPCA in the development of the by-laws, there must be some reason why they should find it necessary to implement the removal of a community’s civil liberty with little regard for the needs of that community and without their input. When the possibility did hit me, I initially rejected the notion, since it seemed too shocking to consider, but who benefits from this draconian legislation? It’s very simple – only one party does – the SPCA are paid as the ‘pound’ for every carcass, and since there will be more carcasses, SPCA coffers will swell. Strange state of affairs for an organisation supposedly mandated to ensure the protection of animals against cruelty, to profit from the death of their wards. Perhaps death is the new welfare…

Why were only the NSPCA involved in the consultation process? The SPCA is not the only body representing the animal-loving community in South Africa, and we demand that members of the non-SPCA affiliated organisations be involved in the review process in future. As far as we are concerned the SPCA lost the plot a long time ago. The fact that the SPCA does not support or engage in fostering is an illustration of how out of touch they are. When you advocate that people hand animals to you in the knowledge that there is a 90% probability that the animal will be put down, you have lost the position of custodian of animal affairs and represent little more than a white elephant institution, governed no longer by your mandate but by expediency.

The NSPCA also claims that it ‘enforces’ 90% of animal legislation, a statement I still believe to be debatable since I am not sure what they mean by ‘enforce’. How will they police this? Will it be their intention to create databases of animals on each property? I think not – they simply do not have the resource base. But what they have done in enacting these by-laws is given those who dislike animals leverage, and an opportunity to use the law to their own ends. Expect thousands of calls to SPCA’s all over SA from people complaining about their neighbour’s animals, thereby tying up resources that should be combating animal neglect and abuse in petty issues regarding the number of animals someone has. Brilliant. The SPCA just became the tool of the ignorant and petty.

These by-laws, enacted now in Tshwane, Joburg and Cape Town, must go. We welcome the addition of clauses enforcing Pet Shops to vaccinate their animals and the addition of a clause stopping the use of fireworks near animals. However the first is useless and we would have preferred outlawing animals in Pet Shops and the second is still too vague to be of any value. We must put together a team of people who can assist the Government to find their way out of the dark and propose by-laws that will be in the animals’ interests as well as the interests of their custodians.

A Light in their Darkness

Derek

The Hopeful Initiative

Link to our Forum on this topic:  http://hopeful.ws/arf/post.php?action=newthread&fid=7

Bookmark this post:

1. A Blog where individuals or organisations inform it’s readers of the latest news, where animal issues may be spoken about in articles and action alerts broadcast.
2. A Virtual Online Shelter where pictures and details of homeless animals may be placed by Homers belonging to the Hopeful Network
3. An Animal-Related Issues Forum, where issues pertinent to domestic animals in South Africa may be discussed.
4. A Facebook Group where members may network and distribute action alerts and pictures of homeless animals.
5. A presence on Twitter, the fastest-expanding social network on the Internet.
6. A mailing list called the Animails in which homeless animals as well as lost and found animals are distributed by email.

These facilities are all FREE. The costs are borne by advertising and sponsors, and the work is all done by volunteers. Nobody makes a cent from this venture. It is the most comprehensive set of animal welfare facilities available on the Internet in South Africa.

I was informed this week that SPCA’s do not place their animals on the Internet. Apparently it is a policy of the NSPCA, the governing body of the SPCA in South Africa.

Considering that there are more than 4 590 000 Internet users in South Africa, and given that the demographic of Internet users is that they are people with jobs and disposable income, I wonder about the wisdom of this policy. In addition, this number is growing at an increasing rate, currently at approximately 10% per annum…

The Internet is fast becoming the most useful electronic medium in the world because of its interactive nature, and the development of applications for the Web far outstrips development in any other medium.

So why does the NSPCA perceive the Internet to be a problem?

Of course, there are many well-known websites where animals are marketed, and of course the manner in which they do so is not ideal, since many who use these services take no responsibility for the animals and do not look after the animals’ interests. We at Hopeful do not abandon the animals to an uncertain future. We ensure, through a set of policies and processes, that any animal coming into the Hopeful Network will be protected from a number of risks associated with placing animals in the public domain:

Hopeful Policies and Processes

1. Only Homers registered with Hopeful and known to the Animal Welfare Community in South Africa can place animals on the Network. The vetting process is strict – those who are not known to us are placed in ‘apprenticeship’ to an existing Homer until such time as their trustworthiness may be established.
2. Any existing owner’s name will never be published with the animals’ picture and details, thus ensuring that anyone wanting to enquire about the animal has to work through a Homer, thereby protecting the animal from unscrupulous people. Our Homers are streetwise, experienced people who know how to deal with home breeders and the like…
3. Any animal placed on the Hopeful Network WILL have vaccinations and be sterilised before being homed. This is not negotiable since we believe that home breeding should be outlawed and vaccination made a legal requirement. In addition, a home check will be performed to ascertain the suitability of the environment for the specific animal. Our animals are also dewormed so that when the animal arrives at their new home, the new custodian has peace of mind, and the animal has a secure, loving and sustainable home.
4. The process through which Homers are selected and animals placed on the Network, the Facebook group and distributed by email is bullet-proof. We have been operating for 7 months and have not had a single instance where any unscrupulous person has been able to infiltrate both the software security and the human-directed processes. Go on, try to place an animal on the Network. I am willing to guarantee you it cannot be done unless you get through a rigorous filtering system.

Given the above information, it is a little bewildering to understand the NSPCA policy, and we maintain that:

1. The SPCA euthanases more animals than it homes, unless of course they can produce reliable, convincing evidence to the contrary? Have they become so dependent for income on being paid as the ‘pound’ that euthanasia is more viable than homing? Is death the new welfare? We believe it is in the public interest for them to publish their euthanasia statistics. We have a right to know.
2. Most SPCAs do not have a homing process. There is no proactive procedure for finding homes for the animals. I was told recently that someone high up in the SPCA once said, “We are not a homing facility”. Surely that can’t be true? How come some branches do advertise in online media and others do not?
3. The SPCA has huge overheads – buildings, staff, vehicles and other equipment to maintain, and seemingly considers those more important than trying to home more animals? Is it true that the branches are self-funding and receive no support from the NSPCA? The informal sector operates on a shoestring without any corporate funding and homes many more animals without buildings and salaried staff, and using their own equipment.

In addition, does the SPCA not have a home check policy? If that is the case, why not advertise on the Internet, since their staff will be making sure that the home is viable anyway? I cannot see a single justification for the SPCA policy. The needle is the easy way out – homing animals requires real work…

We agree there are some problems in the Informal Network. Not all welfare workers take the same care as those affiliated to Hopeful, and it is hoped that with time they will see that they effectively become part of the problem if they do not take the same care we do. We have set the benchmark – others will follow.

We have made the offer before and we make it again. Let us be the channel for those animals that end up behind the walls of the SPCA, and provide Hope.

A Light in their Darkness

Derek

Hopeful Homeless

Bookmark this post: