Matthew Kannemeyer tells us this story of animal cruelty:
“I went to a certain home on the morning of the 23rd July to clean the carpets. Whilst busy getting the said cleaning under way, I saw a dog with its paws up against the window-sill peering through the window to see who the new visitors were. I could not help noticing the chain around its neck and the resigned look in its face. So once I had my staff sorted with regards to the cleaning required, I walked outside to take a closer look at the dog. I saw that she was not intimidated by me, and went up to stroke her head. She put her head against my leg, but showed no particular excitement. I then noticed that she was severely starved and had most of the hair missing off her lower legs. She then started to sniff around the garbage lying within the range of her chain in the hope that she might find something to eat. When I saw that there was no water for her to drink, I filled her food bowl and tried to encourage her to drink a little water; she did not seem to comprehend that the water was drinkable. By this time I had a lump in my throat, and I decided that something drastic needed to happen, or this dog would continue to suffer. I got the Jhb SPCA telephone number from the MTN directory, and reported the plight of the dog to them. The lady then told me that I needed to contact the inspector directly, which I did. The inspector turned out to be a friendly chap by the name of Gerry, who said that he would go and investigate the situation. I gave him the address in question, and told him that I would like to remain anonymous at this stage.
On calling Gerry on the same cell phone number the next morning (Saturday) to find out what had transpired, he told me that they were unable to find the place. I found this a little astounding, as I had found the place first off, even though my map book is about six years old. I humoured him and gave him directions to the address in question. He then told me that he was unable to go and investigate the dog on that Saturday, as he could not leave the office due to there not being anybody else to man the reception; he promised to try on Sunday.
On Monday 27th July, at around 3pm, I called the SPCA to follow up on the dog. They could not tell me anything, and told me to get hold of the inspector on the same cell no that I had used previously. I did this a couple of minutes later, and spoke to Gerry. He told me that he had in fact been to the above address and issued the occupants with a 48 hour warning to get the dog off the chain and to a vet for treatment. Gerry told me that he would personally ensure that they had complied with his warning by the due period.
On Thursday the 29th July I remembered that it was time to call the SPCA and follow up on the neglected dog story. By this time I was not going to bother calling the land line, as each time previously they had told me to contact the inspector directly. On the past two occasions that I had called the office number I could not help overhearing the pleasant (although unprofessional) way in which the staff were laughing and joking with each other in the background whilst I was trying to communicate my concerns with the lady on the switchboard. Gerry answered when I called at 11:50 am, and said that he had done a follow-up on the neglected dog, and was happy to see that it was off the chain and undergoing (according to the person/s present) treatment from the vet. I thanked him for his efforts, and decided that the SPCA was not going to be very effective in this situation.
I sent one of the pictures of the neglected dog to Merinda, along with a note about my misgivings of the situation. Merinda assured me that they would send somebody to the address to assess the situation.”
Merinda Brits of FOUR PAWS takes up the story:
“When we questioned the owner, Kathleen Visser, she said that the SPCA is treating the dog. We told her that the dog needs to be taken to a vet and demanded that we take her to our vet.
The findings of our vet were very DISTURBING! The dog suffered from severe malnutrition, she had mange all over her body; her legs and feet were severely swollen (probably as a result from the malnutrition); she was underweight; she was riddled with worms and there was blood coming through the cracks in her bare skin. This poor dog had been in such pain and agony for such a long time!
We contacted the owner and informed her that she is guilty of animal abuse, punishable by law and that we are not giving her dog back! We are considering legal action.”
Some questions occur to anyone with an understanding of animal welfare:
- WHY did Gerry not inform Matthew when he could not find the place? Surely if you have a report of negligence where there is an animal in pain, a level of urgency is appropriate? Unless, of course, Gerry had made no attempt to find the place, and was lying. Given that Matthew found the place easily, what would any reasonable person deduce?
- WHY could Gerry not leave the office on Saturday? Surely the fact that there is an animal in trouble is more important than manning the phones, which could easily be redirected to his cellphone?
- Do SPCA inspectors generally believe whatever owners of neglected animals tell them? Did the Inspector ask who the vet was and check that the dog was in fact undergoing treatment there?
- Surely it did not take more than 30 seconds to recognise that this animal was being neglected? WHY was the animal not confiscated the first time? Surely as a “Society for the PREVENTION of Cruelty”, the logical choice would be to stop any further cruelty by confiscating? It’s just as well Gerry didn’t, however, since sick animals and animals that have been neglected to this extent do not have a great prognosis once they arrive at an SPCA branch…
- EVERY complaint should be logged with a reference number and ANYONE who works in the office, mans the phones, or the Inspector themselves, should be able to look up the complaint number and give you feedback on the complaint, when the property was visited and what the findings were. This is imperative and there is no way that ONE person i.e. Gerry the Inspector should be the only person with whom you can discuss the complaint. It is also necessary for record purposes should there be any legal ramifications or someone goes to the press with the complaint. WHY did the people answering the phones not have any record of what had transpired, making it necessary to phone the Inspector again? What happens if the Inspector is incapacitated or is unavailable? This is shoddy at the least, demonstrably incompetent and is poor service to the public WHO FUND THE SPCA.
- Who does one question at the branch if the inspector himself/herself is not performing their duties? Where does the buck stop?
Were these issues isolated, we could easily write them off to individual incompetence or lack of commitment. But they are not. They are so widespread and consistent and the complaints so numerous that they are evidence of a malaise in the organisation that needs attention, not only because they’re not doing the job properly, but because of the public funding received. They are effectively responsible to the public for their actions, and yet seem unaware, as demonstrated by their actions, of that fact.
1 Comment(s)
Absolutely disgraceful. That inspector should be sacked. Actually the buck should not stop there, his manager should be sacked too as he should be overseeing his tasks on a day to day basis.
Start a petition demanding an investigation into how this came about.
Thank goodness you were persistent.
Hope the poor dog is ok.
Den