Ireland a disgrace in animal welfare

Discodog

doctor evil wrote: »

I hope we don't end up with anything like the above! No charity should be politicised. It unnerves when they make their uniform very similar to the police force, they are trying to trick people into thinking they have powers that they don't have. I'm on a few UK based forums and the general consensus is that they will go for easy targets, you certainly won't see them trying to get a prosecution against the likes of travellers.
<Snip>

A uniform is essential in the UK as is a signwritten vehicle. I used to be involved in wildlife rescue & whenever we say tried to rescue a swan, people would phone the police not realising that we were from a rescue.

In effect the RSPCA have a lot of power simply because they can usually get Police support pretty quickly. There are a lot of people who care about animal welfare in the UK including many Police Officers. I have witnessed quite a few situations where the Police have acted to help an animal & worried about the consequences later.

As Bond has pointed out the ISPCA should be a statutory body with the necessary power. It's crazy that we have wardens who can ticket & clamp cars but not similar to stop an animal being hurt.

Our man in Havana

Discodog wrote: »

So what would stop a rescue using the letters SPCA in a town that already had an SPCA ?.

It would take an Act of the Oireachtas.

Discodog wrote: »

I know of a rescue who wanted to call themselves The (name of town) Animal Rescue. The local SPCA threatened them with legal action & they had to change the name.

They just buckled. Unless the SPCA had the name registered as a company there is nothing in law to stop them from using the name.

WalkingDude

Nobody could stop that rescue using the name of their town. In Dublin there is Dublin SPCA and North County Dublin SPCA.

Though I still don't really understand the distinction, I would be of the opinion that some groups with SPCA in their name would use their money more effectively than some rescues without SPCA in their title and vica versa. Remember that many SPCAs operate their own rescue centres.

Different people make different contributions. Though Mrs. Catlady may do very valuable work, if she can't compile a good grant submission she is unlikely to be capable of lobbying for changes.

Professional outfits - with offices, paid employees, and maybe even new vans - are also required to advance animal welfare by lobbying the government, taking cruelty prosecutions etc.

Surely, the ultimate objective should be the same for all who have an interest in animal welfare.

Our man in Havana

Those grant applications would be available under The Freedom of Information Act.

It would be interesting to obtain a few and to compare them.

Discodog

I will speak up for Mrs Catlady & Doglady. In my opinion some of them lobby tirelessly & effectively. I can think of one who used to be on here a lot. She was often on the radio, held her own demos & did a huge amount of good.

It is a touch patronising to assume that because someone spends their grant on salaries that they have more knowledge in the field of rescue. One very well known rescue on this board has only recently got a grant of €2000 after 13 years of rescuing. She knows more about rescuing, rehabilitating, & rehoming dogs than most SPCA's. Many of her dogs come from SPCA's that won't take them because they are breeds that are difficult to rehome. The €2000 will not even pay her annual vet bill.

The idea that if someone cannot fill in a pile of forms & meet quite exacting criteria that they are not worthy of grant aid is wrong. It should be paid out based on results.

Right now the objective should be to ensure that reduced funds are used to maximum effect. Funds are going to be short for many years & more dogs will be thrown out as their owners can't or choose not to afford them.

WalkingDude

This is pointless. If you're not prepared to listen to reasonable common sense, then I'm wasting my time.

It is a touch patronising to assume that because someone spends their grant on salaries that they have more knowledge in the field of rescue.

Who suggested that is the case???

The idea that if someone cannot fill in a pile of forms & meet quite exacting criteria that they are not worthy of grant aid is wrong.

Who suggested that is the case???

I'm bored going around in circles. I will simply ask you again not to post ill-informed comments like the one below in the future.

But the SPCA's won't act & the Guards won't prosecute.

Our man in Havana

This thread is headed nowhere. I am considering locking it.

Discodog

The GSPCA website says that they "checked out" over 5000 cruelty cases/reports for 2008 - 2009.

The site lists one conviction & I can't find any more listed anywhere else. Maybe you can give links to a load more for the Galway area during that year.

Even if you found another 50 convictions it would still only be 1%.

I think that my comment is justified.

doctor evil

WalkingDude wrote: »

Certainly, the purpose of the uniform is to lend an air of authority to the wearer in order to maximise the chance of the person to whom the Inspector has called complying with any instructions are issued.

If the result is improved animal welfare, what's the problem with that? Some Irish SPCAs wear uniforms similar to the Gardai for the same reasons.

'Air of authority', are they entitled to it? No! Duplicity grinds my gears.

Animal welfare should never be used as an excuse to sanction/cover up dodgy practices or mess ups. The RSPCA has many.

Our man in Havana

Well the police forces in the UK have complained about their continued use of uniforms and insignias which are identical to real police uniforms and insignias.

The RSPCA do this to imply they have authority under law that they do not have. Many people do not know any better and will allow them into places they have no right to be.

The practice should be stopped here and in the UK.

Discodog

In 20 years of working with rescues in the UK. I have never found the Police to be anything less than 100% helpful. If an Inspector needs to go where he has no right to be, he makes a quick call. I have attended cases where the Police have gone straight to a magistrate & arrived with a search/entry warrant within a very short time.

The sheer size of the RSPCA & the amount of donations that it receives proves that it has the support of the population. Whenever I have been with inspectors - often they would call us regarding wildlife, we would get fabulous support from the public, police & other emergency services. I have even known cases where police officers would finish their shift & then come back to the incident as volunteers.

Every police officer wears a very prominent chequered band on hats & clothing. These were deliberated added many years ago to avoid any confusion with other uniforms. If an RSPCA inspector is looking through the front windows of a house the Police want him to be identifiable otherwise they will get calls from concerned residents. I can think of one case where an inspector was getting grief from a bunch of lads. Some workmen realised from the uniform that he was RSPCA & rushed to his defence.

It was always useful when we encountered someone mouthing off about us "having no right" etc because it usually meant that we were on to something. Innocent people that were often the victims of malicious calls would welcome us in.

Our man in Havana

It was always useful when we encountered someone mouthing off about us "having no right" etc because it usually meant that we were on to something.

But they were 100% correct.

Discodog

Absolutely. But if you are attending a job usually as a result of a call from the public & you are welcomed & invited in there is usually nothing wrong. But if someone starts reading the riot act then the Police will often go to extra lengths to get a quick warrant because there is every chance that the person has something to hide. In one case 4 badgers locked in a shed.

The same thing will apply with the guards. If you are obstructive (even if legally you are in the right) you will attract more attention.

Our man in Havana

Still I has absolutely nothing to hide but I would still deny any organisation without statutory powers from entering my property.

Discodog

I would too, if they had what I regarded as a malicious purpose. But if an SPCA inspector called at my door & said that there had been a complaint about my dogs I would invite them in & put on the kettle !.

A local "farmer" decided to make a malicious allegation that I was allow my dogs to foul a path. When the community warden called I could have told him to get lost. Instead I invited him to come for a walk down the path with my dogs. Afterwards over a cup of coffee he agreed that there was no dog mess at all. Now if ever he gets any other malicious calls he will know the lie of the land & I get a cheery wave whenever he drives by. It can achieve much more by being amiable. I had nothing to hide.

Many police forces are trained to use the tactic of knocking on the door & when it is answered politely asking to come in rather than discussing on the doorstep. They do this for a very good reason. If a guard knocked on my door & said something like "what were you doing at .....time" If he would not clarify then I probably would not let him in. If he said that we are investigating a local break in & did I see anything, I would have no qualms about letting him in.

So what new exotic beast are you hiding Bond - you can tell us !.

WalkingDude

The GSPCA website says that they "checked out" over 5000 cruelty cases/reports for 2008 - 2009.

The site lists one conviction & I can't find any more listed anywhere else. Maybe you can give links to a load more for the Galway area during that year.

Even if you found another 50 convictions it would still only be 1%.

I think that my comment is justified.

Prosecutions can only be taken if there is evidence that the law has been broken. The fact that so many reports were checked out and even one conviction achieved makes your comment incorrect.

Still I has absolutely nothing to hide but I would still deny any organisation without statutory powers from entering my property.

Why? To waste the time of the authorities with statutory powers who then have to be involved?

I assumed that this forum was for people with an interest in animal welfare and a desire to see improvements, who would therefore support other individuals or organisations that worked to try to achieve these aims.

I was clearly wrong.

Over and Out.

Discodog

WalkingDude wrote: »

Prosecutions can only be taken if there is evidence that the law has been broken. The fact that so many reports were checked out and even one conviction achieved makes your comment incorrect.


Are you really trying to suggest that out of 5000 potential cases that there was only evidence in one ? !. Cruelty cases are rarely short of evidence. It's usually a half starved, mange ridden dog !. The rescues are full of evidence.

boomerang

I've lost count of the number of calls I've taken from people who said they know of a dog who is locked up 24/7 and never walked, or dogs that are chained to a kennel 24/7, or dogs that are kept in a back garden while the owners go on holiday for two weeks and someone comes in every couple of days while the owners are gone to lob a bit of food at the dog. Said dog is barking all day out of loneliness and boredom. Or calls from people who say their neighbour has twenty or thirty cats, none of them neutered, many of the cats look sickly and the yearly crop of kittens mostly get killed on the road. We easily take hundreds of calls in that vein every year. None of the above constitutes cruelty under the current legislation. We can investigate, but we can't secure a conviction! So sadly, the GSPCA figures make sense to me.

doctor evil

Discodog wrote: »

If he said that we are investigating a local break in & did I see anything, I would have no qualms about letting him in.

Bad practice to allow a stranger into your home without seeing their ID and phoning their base, uniforms can be faked.

Discodog

I know how utterly frustrating & demoralising it can be working in this field. I also know that one can sometimes fall into the trap that "we tried it before & it didn't work".

If we ever get the AWB the threshold at which cruelty is deemed to have occurred will be lower. However we are dealing with now. The decision as to whether an animal has suffered is made by a vet & their report is put before a judge. There is nothing to stop a vet stating that, in their opinion, the animal has been subjected to unnecessary suffering. It would then be for the defendant's barrister & vet to show that the animal had not suffered.
Any "defending" vet could be on very thin ice professionally & the defence might find it very difficult to get a vet to testify.

The legal definition is "causing unnecessary suffering" but the law does not define suffering. So for example a vet could easily state that the animal was suffering mental distress. My advice to any SPCA is to find an animal loving solicitor who in turn can find an animal loving barrister. With the number of dog owners that should be possible given a little detective work.
It is also critical to use the right vet. Old school vets are usually too set in their ways. I would go for a young foreign vet who has not been disillusioned in the past with cruelty cases & is keen to make their mark.
I have sat in case conferences where one lawyer has said that we don't have a hope & another has got a successful conviction.

I would urge SPCA's to start again. Look at every cruelty case with the view of what do we have to do to get a conviction. It is no good relying on warnings etc. For example man keeps dog on 3 foot chain. You warn/advise him. He says he won't do it again. Now will he suddenly become an understanding animal owner ?. Can the SPCA afford the time to keep revisiting to check ?. Would the Guards do the same with child abuse or domestic violence ?.

Part of the problem is the reluctance of Inspectors to be confrontational. We would all prefer an amicable happy ending. But we should not forget that animal cruelty is a crime. Conviction is there to punish & more importantly deter. I suspect that one headline conviction does more deterring than any number of warnings.

Law is written words & how judges choose to define them. The following is the current law & it is open to interpretation. Please note that you do not have to prove permanent abandonment. The key word is "Suffering" & is wide open to interpretation which is why a Judge has to rely on vet evidence.

Mods: maybe it would be useful for have a sticky linking to the ISPCA legal handbook. A lot of posters here ask about animal law.

The Current Law:

Cruelty occurs if any of the acts set down in Section 1(1)(a) -(f) of the 1911 Act are committed by any person. More generally cruelty is “causing unnecessary suffering” to an animal. In addition to positive acts constituting cruelty, it is also unlawful, to abandon or neglect animals, where by doing so the animal is caused unnecessarily to suffer.

Section 1 (1) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, as amended creates the offence of cruelty “if any person” causes, procures or (if the owner) permits the following acts to be perpetrated on animals:-

1 (a) to cruelly beat, kick, ill treat, over ride, over drive, over load, torture, infuriate, or terrify any animal; or
1 (b) to convey or carry an animal in a manner or position which causes unnecessary suffering; or
1 (c) to assist in the fighting or baiting of an animal (including the provision of premises and obtaining admission fees for the same); or:
1(d) the administration of poisonous or injurious drugs or substances to animals; or
1 (e) subjecting an animal to an operation which is performed without due care and humanity.

Section 1 (1)(f) of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (inserted by Section 4 of the 1965 Act) introduced a further category of cruelty which arises:-

"(Where) being the owner or having charge or control of any animal [a person] shall without reasonable cause or excuse abandon it, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause it unnecessary suffering, or cause or procure or, being the owner, permit it to be so abandoned.”

According to Section 1(1)(a) it is further an offence to:

“..cause or procure, or, being the owner, permit any animal to be so used, or shall, by wantonly or unreasonably doing or omitting to do any act or causing or procuring the commission or omission of any act, cause any unnecessary suffering, or, being the owner, permit any unnecessary suffering to be caused to any animal;”


Not only is it an offence actively to commit acts of direct cruelty such as kicking or beating animals but acts of omission and neglect are also prohibited. These latter forms of cruelty are the most usual perpetrated in our society. It is, therefore, likely that members of the public will have encountered this type of cruelty at some stage.

GinaH

Bond-007 wrote: »

Those grant applications would be available under The Freedom of Information Act.

It would be interesting to obtain a few and to compare them.

They are

Discodog

The form is here if anyone wants to apply for a grant:

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/media/migration/animalhealthwelfare/animalwelfare/Application%20Ex%20gratia%20Payments%2009.pdf

Many charity accounts including SPCA's can be viewed here but you have to pay.

http://www.cro.ie/

The grants given to Rescues are listed here:

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/press/pressreleases/2007/december/title,13400,en.html

€1.5 million to SPCA's & rescues €68 million to horse & greyhound racing

GinaH

Closing date was in Sept, they are being very tough this year, we had to change our official name from 'Peoples Animal Welfare Society' to PAWS Animal Rescue. Now they have requested an extra 6 months accounts, which will take a few weeks to organise. I really hope the new checks extend to the people who say 'they do' and 'don't'. I think a really good judge of a rescue is their Vet. The Vets know exactly whats happening on the ground.

Discodog

I have heard similar things from other rescues. More accounts that's all you need - maybe you can put in an extra claim for the van ! ( for the uninitiated PAWS ended up with a broken down van a very long way from home & a huge bill )

I note that they say that existing recipients may get vet checked but new applicants will.

I would agree that the Vet bills are a pretty good guide - yours must be enormous. But vets do vary. Did they accept checking by your vet or was it the County vet ?.

GinaH

That will be 2009 accounts, they want 2008 from beginning to end, your talking over 200k a year .. It was not the vets bills I was referring to but a letter of recommendation from the rescue's vet, so that the Dept know we 'are doing what it says on the tin'
It is the County vet that does the inspection.
For example, we have just spent 2000 euro on a greyhound in the vet college. Maybe we are mad, but she deserves a chance as much as the next dog.

Whispered

PAWS animal Res wrote: »

For example, we have just spent 2000 euro on a greyhound in the vet college. Maybe we are mad, but she deserves a chance as much as the next dog.

It's so lovely to hear that. Fair play.

Discodog

Being mad is a pre-requisite of running a rescue. No sane person would do it.
If the Ministry introduced psychiatric checks instead of vet checks we would all be snookered !.

I would spend €2000 on Pearl (my Greyhound ) Btw if anyone reading this has any inclination to re-home a Greyhound my only regret is not having one years ago. They are the most wonderful dogs.

mallowgirl

I have 2 beautiful greyhounds and they are the gentlest and most loving animals I have ever had. Greyhounds have a really bad reputation, but in reality they are very docile, even tempered and love the company of people. They like nothing better than lying on the sofa having their tummy rubbed. They need very little exercise, just a run around they garden for a few minutes is usually enough. I take my two walking every day for about 15 minutes. In Ireland around 15,000 healthy greyhounds are killed every year just because they lose a race. There is no point in banning Greyhound racing as they will just take it underground and the conditions will get even worse. There are a number of sites including:
Dog Action Welfare Group.Telephone: 086 3457488
Kerrygreyhound Connection in Kerry
Orchard Greyhound Sanctuary in Offaly

So if you are thinking of getting a dog give a greyhound a chance they really do make great pets

Discodog

As a Greyhound owner I would agree with your sentiments however banning Greyhound racing would not make it move underground - you can't build secret dog tracks. Most of the Greyhounds that die are puppies that are not good enough to race. Even if you bred with champion parents you would need to produce a lot of pups to get a winner. These unwanted pups die. The breeder is not going to feed & keep unwanted dogs.

You are very right about Greyhounds being misunderstood. They make wonderful pets.