“I went to a certain home on the morning of the 23^rd 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 27^th 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 29^th 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:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4. 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…
5. 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.
6. 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.

“Mrs Jean Button and I were attending to the feeding of cats and puppies and some compromised dogs. Mrs Button noticed that a healthy female dog from Kennel Q was in the process of giving birth to her puppies, and alerted me. I asked Mrs Button to inform the Manager, Mr. L Taylor to this fact, which she did. On my way to kennel Q I noticed Mr. Taylor was on his way there with a lead in his hands. Mr. Taylor got to Kennel Q before I did, so when I got there he had already put a collar and lead on the female dog. She appeared reluctant to leave the kennel, as 2 puppies had already been born. Mr. Taylor forcibly removed her from the kennel, trying to make her to walk, which she was unable to do. He was determined to get her to follow him but she could not as it appeared as if she was about to give birth to another puppy. He then continued to apply force, trying without success to make her move in the direction of the clinic. This female dog, tried to respond to his dragging as best she could, but for most of the way was forcibly pulled along by Mr. Taylor. It looked like she was bearing down about to have another puppy so she was unable to comply. While Mr. Taylor was dragging her along Mrs. Button and I tried to intervene, pleading with him to stop using force on this poor defenceless animal. He was extremely angry, and told us not to interfere. We tried to pick her up, and this made him even more angry. Mr. Taylor refused to let us assist with her removal to the clinic. We were prepared to carry her but he was determined to get her there by forcefully pulling her. She was terrified by his actions resulting in unnecessary suffering when she was at her most vulnerable. We begged him to leave her to finish having her puppies in the kennel, when it was obvious she was still in the birthing process. For a large dog having given birth to only 2 puppies at this stage, it was evident that there were still more puppies to be born. We again pleaded with Mr. Taylor to leave the dog, and that we would assist her. Mr. Taylor became extremely angry by our appeals and continued dragging the animal the rest of the +- 50m from Kennel Q , across grass and concrete pathways to the clinic door. Mrs. Button then rushed to kennel Q to remove her 2 newborn puppies. On that day the euthanasia process for other animals was underway in the clinic. About two minutes later Mr. Taylor emerged from the clinic and approached us and the look of fury was evident when he saw Mrs. Button holding the 2 new born puppies. She pleaded with him not to harm the female dog and the puppies. He snatched them from her hands and proceeded back towards the clinic with them. The time lapse between him entering the clinic with the birthing dog and returning for her 2 puppies was too short for him to ascertain any complications which may have occurred during the birthing process. Both Mrs. Button and I were there the whole time and witnessed everything that transpired. At no time did Mr. Taylor show compassion or concern for the mother or the puppies. It was evident to us that he was determined to complete the process of euthanasia of her and her puppies. This was a healthy dog, who had already had 2 live puppies with no evidence of any birthing difficulty prior to her extremely cruel treatment by Mr Taylor. Neither the female dog, nor her puppies were seen alive again.”

When an SPCA Manager can commit such an act of cruelty with impunity, there is something wrong with the organisation in which it occurs, and the governance systems employed. To quote Tessa van Heerden’s affidavit again:

“The reason I am only laying charges now, is because it was reported to the NSPCA, who should have dealt with the matter but are either unable or unwilling to do so. . According to the EL SPCA’s Disciplinary Code under section (h) Breach of SPCA Policies and Ethics section 1 and 6, Mr Taylor should immediately have been dismissed for his actions under both sections. Apparently no action was taken against Mr. Taylor by the NSPCA.”

This raises some critical questions concerning the NSPCA, about which there is a growing dossier of not only questionable ethics, but illegal activities.

CASE 2: Following is a response from Randburg SPCA to a series of emails which made the rounds recently, depicting dogs on ‘death row’. The SPCA was not mentioned in the email:

“To whom it may concern

I have read the various email’s which are circulating regarding the devious manner in which people intend to adopt dogs from the Randburg SPCA. Due to these devious way’s, these animals are no longer on our adoption list as we cannot be sure if a legitimate family is adopting them or an animals ”hoarder” is.

You had no right to take photos of our animals and then to put there photos under the ridiculous heading “on death row”.  The Randburg SPCA has a sign stating that photos are NOT to be taken.  Many of the dogs you say are” on death row” have homes and the new owners are now reconsidering adopting the dogs because of the big scene which has been made about their dogs.  The cross Belgium shepherd as you so incorrectly stated, actually is my dog and I do not appreciate it being stating my dog is “on death row”.

If you do not stop circulating these photos immediately I will have choice but to persue legal action against yourself.

It is disappointing to know that there are people in the community who would rather suppress an animals to living in “hoarder” conditions rather being adopted to a loving family.  Each animal is special to us and we will go to any length to ensure our animals are homed correctly and do not get passed from pillar to post cause people are taking then because someone has worked on their conscience.”

The following questions seem appropriate:

1. What right does the SPCA have to remove these animals from the adoption list, thereby allowing time to elapse towards the 96 hour cutoff, at which point they may, as the pound, ‘dispose of as they see fit’, which we know means euthanasia? Purely because other people are trying to spread the word that these animals need homes, why must the animals pay, in their case the ultimate penalty?
2. Why, if people are advertising these animals, should this place them at risk of getting not getting placed with a legitimate family, or getting placed with a ‘hoarder’? Does the SPCA not conduct home checks?
3. The label ‘death row’ is COMPLETELY appropriate. We know that any animals arriving at an SPCA have 96 hours to live, in most cases, and in some cases, for example when a breed arrives that the SPCA has a prejudice against, even less if the animal arrives sick…
4. Why should the prospective ‘new owners’ (always supposing these actually existed) suddenly reconsider because the animals had been advertised? What sane person would reason that because an animal they had applied to adopt had been advertised, they now no longer want to adopt them? Ridiculous. In addition, this Manager would have us believe that the SPCA keeps prospective adopters updated concerning events related to the animals. This would be incompatible with experiences we have had, where animals have been put down when there have been people ready to take them home, or other instances where lost animals have been discovered at an SPCA after it was denied that they were there.
5. WHY is it that the SPCA (and the NSPCA, for that matter) are so quick to threaten legal action? Imagine if they spent the money they are willing to invest in the SPCA image on the animals instead?

The next day, another person went to the Randburg SPCA, and this is an excerpt from her report:

“When I enquired why, a lady by the name of Cynthia told me that they were “just not available”. I continued to ask if they were sick as they were not in the quarantine area and she said “NO, just not available”. They had put red stickers saying ‘Not available’ in the file on the dogs pages which were on the list.”

Effectively, if anyone wanting any of those animals during this period, potentially good homes would have been passed up by the SPCA. If any of the animals have subsequently been euthanized, this can hardly be attributed to those trying to save them, but to the stupid, short-sighted, arrogant policies of the SPCA.

We have it on good authority that individual SPCA’s do not set these policies, they are set by the NSPCA, the governing body of SPCA’s in South Africa.

The behaviour of the East London and Randburg SPCA Managers is an indication that something is dreadfully amiss within the organisation looked upon by the public as the defenders of animal welfare in this country. These events are not isolated, as has been seen in recent times, and it is time that these events were scrutinised.

We believe that it has become a matter of urgency for a formal investigation of the NSPCA and its Management, since we believe they have lost sight of their mandate.

In September 2008, my fiancé Craig and I heard about a terrier cross that was at the Sandton SPCA waiting for adoption. We went through on a Saturday morning in order to adopt her. Upon arrival we spent some time with her but also spent a long time with 2 little daxie crosses who we were informed were called Noogy and Taffy. At the time, they were being treated according to the board outside their cage/kennel and were not allowed to be adopted until they were fully well.

Upon going to reception to put down our names for Kelly we also put down our names for Noogy and Taffy. We were going to give them a bit more time to find families BUT should this not happen the instruction was that Craig and I would adopt them without hesitation. We left both of our details which they wrote down on a piece of paper. (?!)

A few days later we called to follow up and were told that Kelly had been adopted by a family and gone to her new home. Noogy and Taffy were still undergoing treatment. I again expressed our intention to adopt them and told them that we would provide them with a home.

Another week passed and I called again. The person I spoke with initially was not 100% sure but said she thought they had been adopted. I requested to be put through to someone who could give me 100% clarification. She put me through to a person she called “The Receptionist”. This person confirmed that both puppies had been adopted.

For me the matter was now resolved. All 3 had been adopted and were settled in new homes.

Then in the beginning of December I received an sms telling me that Kelly was again back at Sandton SPCA. This sms did not come from the SPCA. Why did the SPCA not keep a file of the dogs in their care and potential homes? That way they could have called me immediately as opposed to putting her back into a kennel. The family who had adopted her had brought her back because she required “too much work”. I was distraught. We immediately tried to help find her a home through contacts. Having met her and spent time with her we knew that she was a super dog who would make someone very happy. She did find another home and hopefully this one understands what it means to have the honour of being a guardian for a beloved canine child.

Then in December, I received an URGENT plea from a contact about 2 little daxie crossbreeds at Sandton SPCA who had been there for 4 months and were already on borrowed time. I was beyond shocked when it was revealed that they were indeed Noogy and Taffy. We immediately used our extensive network to try to help these 2 little boys. I kept in contact with the SPCA checking to see if anyone had adopted them. 1 week after my plea for their adoption, I received the good news that one of them had been adopted when I made my regular calls. I asked which one but was told they were not sure which but the cage they were in only had one left now.

We continued to spread the word hoping that another home could be found. Again I called and this time I was informed that neither of them was there any longer. I asked if they had been adopted and I was told an emphatic yes.

Something was not sitting right with me though. The term “no longer here” has been used before and I wanted clarification so I emailed the Kennel Manager who confirmed my suspicions. Both Noogy and Taffy had been euthanized.

All those months ago we had offered to adopt them. Had followed up with calls. Offered to give them a forever home. But we had been informed that they had been adopted. Now instead of these 2 precious ones living in a home full of love and joy they lie rotting in the ground or as we know were most probably incinerated or used for other things.

This cannot be left without some sort of explanation. 2 loving puppies died unnecessarily.

Regards
Hayley Saul

The emails:

From: Spca Sandton (Charlotte) [mailto:spcasan1@mweb.co.za]
Sent: 14 January 2009 03:35 PM
To: Hayley Saul
Subject: Re: FW: Noogy and Taffy

Hi Hayley

Regrettably Noogy & Taffy were euthanazed to accommodate the huge influx of animals into our overflowing kennels.
This was a very sad decision to make due to their time spent with us, all our advertising together with your blurb on the Internet.

Thank you for caring.

Kind regards

Charlotte Levin
Manager

——-Original Message——-

From: Hayley Saul
Sent: 12 January 2009 04:11 PM
To: ‘spcasan1@mweb.co.za’
Subject: Noogy and Taffy
Importance: High

Hi there,

I would like to enquire about Noogy and Taffy. I would like to know if
they were actually adopted or if they were put to sleep. Please would
you be so kind as to confirm this for me.

I phoned your premises last week and was told that they were no longer
there but does this mean they were adopted or does this mean that they
were sent over the rainbow bridge?

I appreciate your reply in this regard.

Many thanks.

Hayley Saul