EGAR IN THE NEWS FOR CRUELTY

DBB

Roquentin wrote: »

can someone tell me how the <snip> could turn a blind eye to what they saw in place? Seems a bit strange.....

Mod note: please do not discuss any other rescues bar EGAR and the GSPCA involvement in the recent court case. No other rescues or organisations have been legally implicated in any wrongdoing in this instance and should not be implicated via hearsay, on this forum at least.

Now with mod hat off, what you read on that fb page is one person's take on an event that allegedly happened some years ago. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the person who wrote what you've read is basing their words on hearsay, because many who were rescuing animals at that time heard what had allegedly happened 10+ years ago at EGAR, and indeed Sarah was asked to account for herself on several animal rescue forums at the time. However, very few people were there to witness it first hand, and you can be sure that many have heard the story second-, third-, fourth-, or more-hand.
For example, I have never heard that the investigating animals welfare organisation simply walked away from it. For various reasons to do with due process, they felt they could not make the charges stick. So, it just goes to show, there are at least two versions of the same story floating about. It's absolutely certain that something happened, but the actual details around it are not known by that many people.

Roquentin

DBB wrote: »

Mod note: please do not discuss any other rescues bar EGAR and the GSPCA involvement in the recent court case. No other rescues or organisations have been legally implicated in any wrongdoing in this instance and should not be implicated via hearsay, on this forum at least.

Now with mod hat off, what you read on that fb page is one person's take on an event that allegedly happened some years ago. Unless I'm very much mistaken, the person who wrote what you've read is basing their words on hearsay, because many who were rescuing animals at that time heard what had allegedly happened 10+ years ago at EGAR, and indeed Sarah was asked to account for herself on several animal rescue forums at the time.
But I have never heard that the investigating animals welfare organisation simply walked away from it. For various reasons to do with due process, they felt they could not make the charges stick. So, it just goes to show, there are at least two versions of the same story floating about.

ok. she said she had other kennels with other dogs in her letter. What were they treated like?

DBB

Roquentin wrote: »

ok. she said she had other kennels with other dogs in her letter. What were they treated like?

I'm sorry, you'll have to be a little more specific. What letter?
Please bear in mind that I am no longer reading the fb page that was linked to above!

Roquentin

DBB wrote: »

I'm sorry, you'll have to be a little more specific. What letter?
Please bear in mind that I am no longer reading the fb page that was linked to above!

she made a response to the fine in which she said she had other kennels with other animals (its on the FB page)....

why arent you reading the fb page?

DBB

Roquentin wrote: »

she made a response to the fine in which she said she had other kennels with other animals....

So, the original statement that Sarah put up on her own facebook page, that was promptly taken down?
Sarah originally lived and ran EGAR from the place where the dogs were seized from in 2013. This is the same place that is mentioned in the alleged incident 10 years ago.
She moved out of there a few years ago to live in a new premises, also with kennels, a few miles away.
But she continued to use the premises she had vacated to house dogs in... I do not know whether this was on a full-time basis since moving out, or whether it was a more recent thing.

why arent you reading the fb page?

The main reason is that I don't much like the line it's taking. I don't feel it is a good or appropriate way to try to do what they're doing.

Roquentin

DBB wrote: »

So, the original statement that Sarah put up on her own facebook page, that was promptly taken down?
Sarah originally lived and ran EGAR from the place where the dogs were seized from in 2013. This is the same place that is mentioned in the alleged incident 10 years ago.
She moved out of there a few years ago to live in a new premises, also with kennels, a few miles away.
But she continued to use the premises she had vacated to house dogs in... I do not know whether this was on a full-time basis since moving out, or whether it was a more recent thing.

The main reason is that I don't much like the line it's taking. I don't feel it is a good or appropriate way to try to do what they're doing.

You seem to know a lot and are taking an unbiased view. Can i ask whats your personal opinion on the whole affair and why the dogs were ill treated?

DBB

Roquentin wrote: »

You seem to know a lot and are taking an unbiased view. Can i ask whats your personal opinion on the whole affair and why the dogs were ill treated?

I only know most of it from what I was told by people who were close to Sarah ten years ago, and more recent events. So it is hearsay too, but not derived from facebook!
I'm not going to wax lyrical about what I heard over the years that was going on, and I've already described my own personal experience with Sarah in this thread. As I have already stated in this thread, as have others, I'd rather not draw her onto me
My opinion on the whole affair? I'm utterly disgusted, but I'm not at all surprised.
Why were the dogs ill treated? I think there are probably a lot of factors at play here. I'm inclined to think Sarah took on way more than she could handle over quite a long period of time, and wouldn't ask for help. Her motivations underlying all of this are anyone's guess, there's probably more to it too.

SingItOut

I don't know if this has been posted here already but This is the email I got from the petition on changes.org, some positive news on this case :

"27 Jul 2014 — A very important response from Minister Covneys office was received by one of our supporters. In the letter it states that ''Officials of the Department will monitor, in conjunction with the Galway local authority veterinary officer to ensure the lady in question (Sarah Gunther) will not resume rescue activities''. A very positive response. Thank you Mr Covney"

doubter

here ya go

new old poster

jesus I remember EGAR used to post when I did a few years ago this is shocking and disgusting .totally shocking 250 euro fine??? that in itself is exactly what is wrong with the laws protecting our animals in this country

Calhoun

It has been stated many times on thread that the law in which she was prosecuted against was the old law. If she repeated what she had done under new law it would be a completely different thing.

new old poster

Calhoun wrote: »

It has been stated many times on thread that the law in which she was prosecuted against was the old law. If she repeated what she had done under new law it would be a completely different thing.

sorry don't have the time to read every post

Evac101

From the looks of things EGAR will be de-commissioned and the Minister for Agriculture seems to be assuring people that she will be prevented from keeping animals in the future (anyone know whether this affects her own pets/how many pets there are?) and that's just gravy however....

<caveat> Yes, I know how badly people feel about her actions (proven and assumed) but equally I think this is important to say </caveat>

the posters and the, anonymous, proprietor of that FB page seem all too eager to get digs in and to push to harder/more comprehensive punishment of Sara Gunter. Two things, they seem to be consistently implying that she's mentally unwell and that their goals are for the welfare of animals, yet the posts consistently treat her as being culpable under law (which mental state may well affect) and, if the Ministers word is worth anything, she won't be in a position to keep animals (whether this is on a shelter or a shelter and personal basis we don't know) going forward. So, once the last of her current wards are passed over to other rescues what's the point with the personal attacks.

If she was/is (and I'm no psychoanalyst) delusional with persecution and saviour complexes does anyone think she should be held fully accountable? If someone's depressed we don't attack them for it, is it the animal welfare that causes people to dismiss her humanity? Don't misunderstand, I don't know her, I've never met her, my only dealings on this forum that I would find of note were always antagonistic between us but, at the end of it, if she's sick, she's sick and we should be blaming the cause not the person.

I can't consider that she's perfectly rational and can/should be tried in the court of opinion because rational people don't do what she's been shown to have done. So if the government will prevent her from causing distress to animals in the future and that she has no animals in distress in her care, are we not better off moving forward past this and looking to ensure that similar situations don't occur in the future.

Once again this is just my (emotive) reaction to a brief perusal of that page and if I'm mistaken on how it's being curated I apologise but once they've achieved their aim of banning Gunter from keeping animals it kind of seems like the continuing vitriol and insults on there aren't serving any positive purpose.

DBB

In fairness to you Evac101, yours is possibly one of the most sensible and balanced posts I've seen anywhere on the whole issue
The fb campaign makes me cringe and has done almost since the start. In fact, it's making me feel just as angry towards them as I do towards Sarah for her actions... this business of Trial by Social Media is disgusting (and Sarah was guilty of it too in her day!)
I don't believe that Sarah should be stopped from keeping a limited number of her own animals as pets, but I do feel that she should be supported and monitored (let's face it... the latter is going to happen for the rest of her life by people like those running the fb campaign).
But she should step down from rescuing animals.

wolfpawnat

I have not been on the FB page so I cannot comment on its content, but to me the idea of social media would be to inform people that the dogs were taken and are now is such a condition, and to inform people as to what is happened regarding her being allowed keep animals again, anything past that is in no way productive, and as said by others, trail by social media, which helps no one.

I get that people get very emotional regarding animals, as much as most would about children, and that her actions and subsequent consequences on the lives of the animals in her care evoked outrage and anger in many, but getting aggressive behind a computer screen is in no way productive.

I am glad Minister Coveney is trying to ensure she will not be allowed to do this again, and I hope Ms Gunter finds the help she clearly needs (no one in a fit mind allows that happen surely) and that she can get on with her life as best as possible, away from animals.

Sassy58

The fb page thankfully has been removed it was nothing more than a witch hunt that was allowing someone not even in Ireland run the page and have a rant about a rescue she may/may not have had dealings with

I can understand the need to highlight the issues and there are no excuses for what Sarah did, but if this was a lady on the edge with a young child all that page was doing was pushing her further. Her child is of an age where he can get access and read the internet and so can his friends and to allow people go on to that page and call Sarah all the names they did and say she should die etc is uncalled for.

There was people working in the background to try and secure the safety of the dogs and didn't need to blast it all over fb.

I know someone who tried to highlight what was going on in Sarah's 18/20 months ago and she was accused of all sorts by some of the same people who were only too quick to jump on the fb page band wagon.

I hope for Sarah she gets the help she needs and that she realises the impact her actions had on defenceless animals and she never puts another animal in that situation or is allowed to.

sambuka41

I'm glad the page is down, it wasn't helping matters at all, it's sad that the same amount of energy couldn't have been put into something more constructive like real solutions or proposals to ensure that it won't happen again, beyond Sarah and her circumstances. Maybe now it can.

Sassy58 wrote: »

Her child is of an age where he can get access and read the internet and so can his friends and to allow people go on to that page and call Sarah all the names they did and say she should die etc is uncalled for.

I hadn't even thought of that, how sad it must be for that kid seeing or hearing all this stuff. Thankfully it's down.

Whispered

sambuka41 wrote: »

it's sad that the same amount of energy couldn't have been put into something more constructive like real solutions or proposals to ensure that it won't happen again, beyond Sarah and her circumstances. Maybe now it can.

Lately I've been thinking about this. Not related to this topic, but things in general. If people put more energy into being kind, imagine how much better the world could be. I dunno, maybe it's a hormonal pregnancy thing, but I'm fed up reading bad news things, and hearing bad things about people. For every bad person there are a hundred good ones, for every sad story there are a hundred little triumphs. For every bad person in rescue, there are so many good ones out there working their asses off to save and rehome animals.

I have an EGAR rescue dog here. We love him, so much it still surprises me. He is my little doggy soul mate. He didn't stand a chance and now he's healthy and happy and will never know a minutes worry in his life. I'm not using him to try to justify or defend anything, rather to point out a happy story in the whole thing.

DBB

I have an EGAR dog too, she has lived a happy and very spoiled 11 years with me at this point, and she's another silver lining... In my life anyway!

Okay folks, with mod hat on now, I'm going to take a pre-emptive step and close the thread until further notice, as there are rumblings of legal action being taken by Sarah against other agencies.
So, until and unless the mod and cat mod team feel it's safe to keep this thread open, I'll close it down for now.
Thank you everybody for your contributions, and moreover, thanks you all for generally keeping it all above board and non-witch hunty! It can be done :-)
Thanks,
DBB

DBB

Hi all,
After discussion, we've decided to update this thread a bit.
It seems that Sarah Gunther has recently lost her appeal to get the 8 dogs that were seized from her premises last year. These 8 dogs are now the property of GSPCA and as such can now, at last, be rehomed.

https://www.facebook.com/GalwaySPCA/posts/10152851578741255:0

Thanks,
DBB