EGAR IN THE NEWS FOR CRUELTY

DBB

Dodd and Raminahobbin, can we put the brakes on this line of discussion now before it gets started? It's going to potentially cause a serious tangent!
Thanks,
DBB

100200 shih

Hi guys,

This women is looking to get back the dogs that were at death door, please sign petition for her NOT to get the dogs back


<snip>

Mod note:Nope.Please read the thread from the start and Mod note #15

seamus

gctest50 wrote: »

Counting the state of the dogs is the kid ok ?

He's fine. There would often be pictures of the child on facebook with the dogs, looks like a happy and healthy pre-teen.

Having witnessed first-hand the stuff that goes on in huge and seemingly respectable and anti-cruelty rescues in this country, which flies completely against their charters and is hidden from the public, I'd like to think that this kind of thing can't really shock me anymore.

I read the statement and was willing to give EGAR the benefit of the doubt that Sarah had simply become overwhelmed on a single occasion and made a bad decision in what she believed was the best interests of all of the dogs. Even the photos from the GSPCA are somewhat forgivable (ignoring the pictures of a dead animal, which to be fair doesn't show that the dead animal was in the same place as the live ones) IF this was a super temporary hold, i.e. a couple of hours.

But assuming the Sunday World before/after images are accurate, then clearly something has been rotten there for a while; that Sarah has had far too many dogs to cope with for a long time, but is incapable of closing her doors and just looking after the ones she has.
Her actions after this, would appear to agree with this assessment - she has pretty much constantly lamented online about her lack of funding and resources, that she's full and stretched to the limit. Yet here she is exploring legal avenues for the return of dogs who are clearly being well cared for and maintained.
That's not the actions of a rescue. A rescue doesn't care where the dogs are located provided that they're safe and cared for. These are the actions of someone clearly in need of another kind of help.

No, a witch hunt is pointless. The animal rescue scene is a vipers nest of backstabbing and one-upmanship and focussing hordes of facebook fans on hating a single person reflects badly on the rescues who do it, and ultimately doesn't solve anything.

Regulation is the only way forward; anyone with more than X number of dogs must register themselves as farmers, rescues or breeders, all of which have their own specific regulations about the condition of the kennels, the maximum number of animals permitted and all of the other things which prevent this kind of thing from happening. Like the RSPCA in the UK, we need a statutory body with actual on-the-spot powers to seize animals and begin prosecutions. Until that changes, nothing else will.

doubter

seamus wrote: »

He's fine. There would often be pictures of the child on facebook with the dogs, looks like a happy and healthy pre-teen.

Having witnessed first-hand the stuff that goes on in huge and seemingly respectable and anti-cruelty rescues in this country, which flies completely against their charters and is hidden from the public, I'd like to think that this kind of thing can't really shock me anymore.

I read the statement and was willing to give EGAR the benefit of the doubt that Sarah had simply become overwhelmed on a single occasion and made a bad decision in what she believed was the best interests of all of the dogs. Even the photos from the GSPCA are somewhat forgivable (ignoring the pictures of a dead animal, which to be fair doesn't show that the dead animal was in the same place as the live ones) IF this was a super temporary hold, i.e. a couple of hours.

But assuming the Sunday World before/after images are accurate, then clearly something has been rotten there for a while; that Sarah has had far too many dogs to cope with for a long time, but is incapable of closing her doors and just looking after the ones she has.
Her actions after this, would appear to agree with this assessment - she has pretty much constantly lamented online about her lack of funding and resources, that she's full and stretched to the limit. Yet here she is exploring legal avenues for the return of dogs who are clearly being well cared for and maintained.
That's not the actions of a rescue. A rescue doesn't care where the dogs are located provided that they're safe and cared for. These are the actions of someone clearly in need of another kind of help.

No, a witch hunt is pointless. The animal rescue scene is a vipers nest of backstabbing and one-upmanship and focussing hordes of facebook fans on hating a single person reflects badly on the rescues who do it, and ultimately doesn't solve anything.

Regulation is the only way forward; anyone with more than X number of dogs must register themselves as farmers, rescues or breeders, all of which have their own specific regulations about the condition of the kennels, the maximum number of animals permitted and all of the other things which prevent this kind of thing from happening. Like the RSPCA in the UK, we need a statutory body with actual on-the-spot powers to seize animals and begin prosecutions. Until that changes, nothing else will.

Or like the dutch.but as long as politicians are more interested to amend legislation for concerts rather than living beings, we are pretty much ****.

John_Rambo

seamus wrote: »

The animal rescue scene is a vipers nest of backstabbing and one-upmanship

Why is that Seamus? Egos, money, jealousy?

muddypaws

John_Rambo wrote: »

Why is that Seamus? Egos, money, jealousy?

I think all 3

doubter

John_Rambo wrote: »

Why is that Seamus? Egos, money, jealousy?

I don't think it's money.or ego.jealousy yes. for fear of someone else doing it better.or different. every rescue has their own way of doing things and believe that their way is the only way. they are trying to get everybody else to do it their way.Hence the problems. I have been in rescuer for a while, and i've seen a lot.people will never accept someone else forcing their way on them.rescue needs to be regulated by a government body. and i don't see that happening.Not that i would trust any of the Irish government bodies to do that anyways. Therefore, the ones paying the price are the ones that have no voice.:(

DBB

John_Rambo wrote: »

Why is that Seamus? Egos, money, jealousy?

You know, having read through Seamus's post and for the most part agreed with it, the point about rescues being a viper's nest of back-biting etc is a little unfair.
There is a small group of VERY vocal people involved in rescue who make it seem like all rescues are the same.
But you know what? Some years ago there was a super animally forum on which many of Ireland's rescues and their supporters posted. It was a super community and, although there were scuffles from time to time, everyone helped everyone else out, supported each other, and believe it or not, many friendships were made, and still last to this day.
What ruined that close-knit forum? The loud, shouty, bitchy people who were trying to screw the public for every bloody cent they could get out of them. The quiet, humbler rescues just got sick of it and went their own ways.

As a small rescue, I work closely with quite a few other rescues big and small, and I'm in contact regularly with many more. No bitchiness, no nastiness, we just get on with it, and help each other, because there is a genuine drive to help the animals in our care. We don't much care what others are up to, we just get on with it.
I just don't want everyone tarnished with the one brush here folks... EGAR is a pretty extreme example at one end of the spectrum.

John_Rambo

Right, thanks, very interesting. What a shame.

muddypaws

DBB wrote: »

You know, having read through Seamus's post and for the most part agreed with it, the point about rescues being a viper's nest of back-biting etc is a little unfair.
There is a small group of VERY vocal people involved in rescue who make it seem like all rescues are the same.
But you know what? Some years ago there was a super animally forum on which many of Ireland's rescues and their supporters posted. It was a super community and, although there were scuffles from time to time, everyone helped everyone else out, supported each other, and believe it or not, many friendships were made, and still last to this day.
What ruined that close-knit forum? The loud, shouty, bitchy people who were trying to screw the public for every bloody cent they could get out of them. The quiet, humbler rescues just got sick of it and went their own ways.

As a small rescue, I work closely with quite a few other rescues big and small, and I'm in contact regularly with many more. No bitchiness, no nastiness, we just get on with it, and help each other, because there is a genuine drive to help the animals in our care. We don't much care what others are up to, we just get on with it.
I just don't want everyone tarnished with the one brush here folks... EGAR is a pretty extreme example at one end of the spectrum.

Fair point. Unfortunately, she who shouts loudest tends to get heard, but yes, I have made a lot of friends from the rescue community.

seamus

DBB wrote: »

I just don't want everyone tarnished with the one brush here folks... EGAR is a pretty extreme example at one end of the spectrum.

I accept that my comment is unfair, especially on smaller rescues who just go about their business. In general it's the larger and/or higher-profile rescues who seem to spend an enormous amount of time and energy "competing" with other rescues and calling their reputation into question.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Why is that Seamus? Egos, money, jealousy?

Egos would certainly play a part, arguments about money or jealousy about government grants would be a symptom of the root disagreement rather than the actual disagreement. Animal rescue is an emotive topic and tends to attract opinionated people.
Get two heavily opinionated people in a room together to discuss an emotive topic and they will nearly come to blows even if they agree with eachother on 99% on the matter. Many Irish rescues came about as splinter groups of others, as people disagreed over the best way of doing things. A person moves from one rescue to another because of such a disagreement, and suddenly the relationship between those two rescues is poisoned.
<snip> are a good example of this not in effect - they arrived here with a clear goal, an experienced professional company with no historical tie to any other rescue. As a result they're highly regarded by (almost) every other rescue, but in any case don't get involved in tit-for-tat spats.

Regulation would largely ease this collective tension by at the very least ensuring that every rescue conforms to a baseline. Set the bar high enough and disagreements will be over minor things like whether you walk the dogs for 30 or 35 minutes a day.

mosi

I've watched this unfolding over the last few days and, like a lot of people, hoped it wasn't what it appeared to be. Some people who have been involved with disputes with her seemed to be making a witch hunt out of it, some of whom were involved with rescues that also deserve scrutiny. I know stuff flares up publicly between some rescues and individuals...in fact it happens across all types of causes or campaigns in this country and some people come out with the most bizarre accusations (eg a friend of mine involved in a particular local issue was accused of being in the CIA!)
However, those pictures speak a thousand words. Those conditions were horrific, and her statement was defensive without remorse. I know it's been said already but emergency kennelling in less than ideal conditions is one thing...dead and starving dogs, the level of filth and the dog food tins unopened is quite another and there is no excuse for it. I saw the pictures of the dog that was taken from the pound in good condition and was totally emaciated after spending time in her so called "care". That was absolutely heartbreaking.
I had thought that she was one of the good ones...when I first took in the two dogs off the neighbour, I emailed her to see if she could help in some way as she was the "bull breed expert"...it chills me to the bone to think that either of those dogs could have ended up with her, especially big boy who was already underweight.
It's all just so awful...€250 and not even a ban. Hopefully the poor dogs will not be sent back to her.

Dodd

250 euro fine is why Irish law is wrong and why people will still do this sh1t.

From what I know you need to feed/water and have shelter for your dog and that is all that matters just as an owner.Crazy.

How many peo250 euro fine is why Irish law is wrong and why people will still do this.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Dodd

Fred Swanson wrote: »

I am shocked. Always had EGAR down as one of the more reputable rescues. I am so disappointed.

I am shocked too and have sent money to some rescues in the past but now have think twice about it.

This is where it will efect many other dogs.

dharma200

Dodd wrote: »

250 euro fine is why Irish law is wrong and why people will still do this sh1t.

From what I know you need to feed/water and have shelter for your dog and that is all that matters just as an owner.Crazy.

How many peo250 euro fine is why Irish law is wrong and why people will still do this.

I'm not sure how many times it has been said and reported.... She was convicted under the Old defunct 1911 laws.... Has she been charged in 2014 she would have been convicted under new laws meaning the outcome would have been different.... A lucky break for her, perhaps not so lucky for the animals in her care...

If egar is all now above board and adhering to law, hygiene and care for the animals, I suggest ms gunther not only issues a sincere apology but issues a full report including pictures etc from an unbiased third party about her current operation. If she is forced either by public pressure or law to surrender her many animals I would guess many of them will be destroyed. If as she said she has cleaned up her act, is receiving help, and is completely transparent perhaps this might go some was to saving those animals and dealing with the level of anger towards her and her supporters... I think it is time for her to start thinking seriously how to do this. If the animals are being cared for I think it will be very hard to have them siezed or for her to release them. She has dogs there that no other rescue will touch, dogs which will be put to sleep if siezed. I think we have to take a step back now and think of these animals welfare and I think ms gunther, if her or any of her friends supporters are reading this, ought to start doing something now before someone decides to take it into their own hands.

What a mess.

doubter

dharma200 wrote: »

I'm not sure how many times it has been said and reported.... She was convicted under the Old defunct 1911 laws.... Has she been charged in 2014 she would have been convicted under new laws meaning the outcome would have been different.... A lucky break for her, perhaps not so lucky for the animals in her care...

If egar is all now above board and adhering to law, hygiene and care for the animals, I suggest ms gunther not only issues a sincere apology but issues a full report including pictures etc from an unbiased third party about her current operation. If she is forced either by public pressure or law to surrender her many animals I would guess many of them will be destroyed. If as she said she has cleaned up her act, is receiving help, and is completely transparent perhaps this might go some was to saving those animals and dealing with the level of anger towards her and her supporters... I think it is time for her to start thinking seriously how to do this. If the animals are being cared for I think it will be very hard to have them siezed or for her to release them. She has dogs there that no other rescue will touch, dogs which will be put to sleep if siezed. I think we have to take a step back now and think of these animals welfare and I think ms gunther, if her or any of her friends supporters are reading this, ought to start doing something now before someone decides to take it into their own hands.

What a mess.

Completely agree. But knowing what I know of ms. Gunther, she will never do that unless really pushed into a corner. I know a few rescue's are willing to help out if she asks for help.Indeed, if her friends are reading this, the above would be the ONLY way forward for EGAR. And still, it's going to be a struggle as i for one would never trust her with any dog ever again.

Pumpkinseeds

I'm not familliar with the old law, but could they not have banned her from keeping animals? It's insane that given what's happened she could continue to hoarde animals, under the guise of being a rescue.

seamus

Neglect is typically classified into either intentional or unintentional.

Intentional neglect covers things like downright maliciousness, or someone who keeps an animal but doesn't care - like the UK solicitor who locked her dog in the kitchen and abandoned the house.

Unintentional neglect covers any situation where the person lacks the skills or understanding to provide adequate care, or who for whatever reason has allowed an animal to become neglected despite having good intentions. This could range from hoarding hundreds of animals to a single case where someone tried homeopathy on their dog's cancer.

In this country anyway, it's basically impossible to ban someone from keeping animals if the judge believes the neglect was unintentional. Certainly not for the first conviction anyway.

It also, to my mind, seems overkill. But she clearly needs a supervisory authority over her, and that's just not something we have at present.

Magenta

This whole debacle has certainly put me off rescuing a dog from a small rescue purely because I don't want to inadvertently fund an organisation like EGAR. Hopefully the bigger rescues like <snip> and <snip> are more trustworthy.

Magenta please read Mod note #15 and do not name any other rescues.

Raminahobbin

Small bit of good news, she has apparently agreed to release some of the dogs she has into the care of other rescues. I don't want to feel too relieved just yet, but hopefully she sees that it's best for all the dogs.

Raminahobbin

Magenta wrote: »

This whole debacle has certainly put me off rescuing a dog from a small rescue purely because I don't want to inadvertently fund an organisation like EGAR. Hopefully the bigger rescues like <snip> are more trustworthy.

I won't go in to details on what I've heard about one of those places, because again, it's all word of mouth, but don't be so sure.

And some of the smaller rescues I've actually worked with, first hand, have been worth their weight in gold.

I think you really need to just spend a bit of time researching any rescue you might want to deal with, and go physically visit the place. Talk to people involved and if something doesn't feel right, walk away.

njs030

Raminahobbin wrote: »

Small bit of good news, she has apparently agreed to release some of the dogs she has into the care of other rescues. I don't want to feel too relieved just yet, but hopefully she sees that it's best for all the dogs.

But not the 8 the GSPCA have...she's still making them sit in kennels!!

heartofwhite

If I am not mistaken - EGAR were looking for donations recently on Facebook because they had no money left. Loads of people donated including me. Where is that money gone.

tk123

heartofwhite wrote: »

If I am not mistaken - EGAR were looking for donations recently on Facebook because they had no money left. Loads of people donated including me. Where is that money gone.

The €250 fine probably

Galwayguy35

I live about 3 miles from this place, I know Sarah to see and everyone around here is shocked at what was going on.

Sittingpretty

Totally shocked.

TOTALLY

oppenheimer1

Surely the answer here is some sort of regulation. Maybe all rescues should have to register with the local authority and be subject to random inspections from the dog warden.

It would stamp out this kind of behaviour pretty quickly.

I Heart Internet

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Surely the answer here is some sort of regulation. Maybe all rescues should have to register with the local authority and be subject to random inspections from the dog warden.

It would stamp out this kind of behaviour pretty quickly.

I must be very naive, but would have thought that the above would already be taking place.

sambuka41

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Surely the answer here is some sort of regulation. Maybe all rescues should have to register with the local authority and be subject to random inspections from the dog warden.

That would assume that dog warden's know about dogs/ dog rescue/ dog behaviour or health, which generally they don't.