EGAR IN THE NEWS FOR CRUELTY

muddypaws

TheSockMonster wrote: »

It was a HSE hospital and I don't think anything happened except a lecture from the judge about working conditions.

That is the real issue, bet they weren't changed.

seamus

Calhoun wrote: »

Part in bold, actually you are defending her. Your looking for an excuse to explain a situation that shouldnt have happened.

Excuses and explanations are not the same thing.

An explanation is just an understanding of the course of events which led to an incident occurring.

An excuse is the reason why the explanation is morally justifiable.

It's a subtle difference, but something like this or the HSE case mentioned, can have a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation. But the existence of a reasonable explanation doesn't automatically mean it's excusable.

Calhoun

TheSockMonster wrote: »

Calhoun, please do not put words in my mouth. I am not defending her and have said so in both of my posts. I have also said that her punishment wasn't enough and that she shouldn't work with animals again. There is absolutely no proof that she did this more than once and I don't deal in hearsay, speculation and rumours. If you want to that's fine, but please don't drag me into it. My point was that not everything is black and white and sometimes good people do bad things and that it's wrong to have a hate filled Facebook page where people can condemn her as a sociopath when none of us bar Sarah Gunther herself knows what happened in her rescue.

I am not putting words in your mouth the tone and text of your post implied that you were defending here, in one breath you are saying punish here in the other you are effectively explaining it away.

I dont agree with the attacks on her either but i think this is the chickens coming home to roost in her case. Her reputation is in tatters and people are going for blood, in a similar way to how she has done so in the past.

I wasnt sure if there were other cases i was just going by what was on thread which implied this was an ongoing issue for some time.

doubter

[QUOTE=Calhoun;91317475
I dont agree with the attacks on her either but i think this is the chickens coming home to roost in her case. Her reputation is in tatters and people are going for blood, in a similar way to how she has done so in the past.

[/QUOTE]

This will be the case for some of them, possibly even as many as 75%.
And it's understandable.
I used to run a large transport group, taking dogs from pounds and bringing them to rescue's all over the country. I think we had a request to find a staffie a safe place, and were told that EGAR might have space. She was contacted, but when she heard we were working with another 2 rescue's she didn't get along with, she bluntly refused. And kept stirring up trouble on the page, attacking others and making threats.
I don't recall if we managed to get the staffie to safety, but the simple fact of her saying: oh, if you work with such and such, i won't help the dog' staid with me fore ever.That is not a rescue mentality and it still shocks me to date.

Calhoun

seamus wrote: »

Excuses and explanations are not the same thing.

An explanation is just an understanding of the course of events which led to an incident occurring.

An excuse is the reason why the explanation is morally justifiable.

It's a subtle difference, but something like this or the HSE case mentioned, can have a perfectly reasonable and rational explanation. But the existence of a reasonable explanation doesn't automatically mean it's excusable.

Agreed but i suppose in this case the explanation like everything in this thread is unfounded and speculation. Allot of this shouldnt be happening but from what i read it seems she brought allot of this flak her own way.

When you live your life off the donations of the general public, when something like this happens i think an explanation from the parties involved are required and not just a lapse in judgement with no remorse.

snoman

DBB wrote: »

I can completely understand why Boomerang would prefer to stay silent. There are many people, myself included, who got very badly burned by Sarah for daring to suggest that things were less than perfect with EGAR... And I'm not just talking that things were not right just in the recent past. I got burned for sticking my head over the parapet eleven whole years ago.
I actually had it all typed out here, my story of what she did to me over several years afterwards, but on second thoughts, though I didn't take it lying down then, I don't need a repeat performance from her, so I'll hold my counsel too.
I think it's likely most others in my shoes feel the same way.

DBB that sounds really awful and I'd understand why you and Boomerang wouldn't want a round 2.

DBB

snoman wrote: »

DBB that sounds really awful and I'd understand why you and Boomerang wouldn't want a round 2.

Thanks snoman, I don't want to start a pity party or anything, and I think the hassle she put me through was fairly mild, at least in comparison to some of the stuff that's coming out in the wash now!

gozunda

snoman wrote: »

http://www.examiner.com/article/ireland-woman-fined-250-for-animal-abuse-now-wants-dogs-back?cid=rss

The team found a rundown house with two dilapidated sheds that housed the EGAR dogs. Trash was piled everywhere on the property. When they entered the sheds they found dogs that were so emaciated, some had to be carried out by the team. The dogs feeding and watering bowls were embedded in layers of dirt, feces, and trash, and every one of bowls were empty. There were dogs that had been forced to live alongside the skeletal remains of other dogs that had died long ago. The food the team did find on the property was in rusty cans and covered with maggots.

Absolutely Nothing excuses keeping animals in these conditions.

The article also mentions that the team was able to recover 8 live dogs from EGAR, and the skeletal remains of 3 more dogs.

Some posts here have questioned why the skeletal remains weren't mentioned in the report of the court case.

In cases of this type the case against the accused is presented for only those individual cases of Cruely that are most likley to succeed in a prosecution. I have read similar cases of dozens of animals dead and dying but again only those individual examples likley to succeed in a prosecution were listed.

So while yes there were evidently skeletal remains found and may have been mentioned in the overall GSPCA report they may not have been listed by the prosecution.

snoman

gozunda wrote: »

Absolutely Nothing excuses keeping animals in these conditions.

The article also mentions that the team was able to recover 8 live dogs from EGAR, and the skeletal remains of 3 more dogs.

Some posts here have questioned why the skeletal remains weren't mentioned in the report of the court case.

In cases of this type the case against the accused is presented for only those individual cases of Cruely that are most likley to succeed in a prosecution. I have read similar cases of dozens of animals dead and dying but again only those individual examples likley to succeed in a prosecution were listed.

So while yes there were evidently skeletal remains found and may have been mentioned in the overall GSPCA report they may not have been listed by the prosecution.

As a matter of interest is there access to the court documents?

Frigga_92

gozunda wrote: »

Absolutely Nothing excuses keeping animals in these conditions.

The article also mentions that the team was able to recover 8 live dogs from EGAR, and the skeletal remains of 3 more dogs.

Some posts here have questioned why the skeletal remains weren't mentioned in the report of the court case.

In cases of this type the case against the accused is presented for only those individual cases of Cruely that are most likley to succeed in a prosecution. I have read similar cases of dozens of animals dead and dying but again only those individual examples likley to succeed in a prosecution were listed.

So while yes there were evidently skeletal remains found and may have been mentioned in the overall GSPCA report they may not have been listed by the prosecution.

Remains of 3 dogs??? That is shocking.

In relation to the latter part of your post, it may operate similar to a driving offence prosecution. Dangerous driving often gets reduced to careless driving in order to prosecute successfully, as the alternative sometimes leads to no prosecution at all. The severity of the prosecution is decided on by the gardai who would have experience in how a case might be treated based on precedent.

doubter

26sdrawkcab wrote: »

Remains of 3 dogs??? That is shocking.

warning. this is very graphic. Admin, please remove if outside the rules

maggiepip

doubter wrote: »

warning. this is very graphic. Admin, please remove if outside the rules

Does that dog have something tied round him? Its all just heartbreaking.

gozunda

maggiepip wrote: »

Does that dog have something tied round him? Its all just heartbreaking.

I think that have may have been the dogs collar. It probably looks big as the body of the dog is emaciated and already skelatised even though the fur has not completely rotted away.

Vel

Believe me when I say I have no time for Sarah Gunther but the two Facebook pages I have seen are a disgrace and whoever is posting all/some of the content on them isn't coming across very stable at all! Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind!

All of the emotive language being used and the shouting in capital letters makes them come across badly and will make it very hard to get the 'regular' person on board who isn't involved in the online/FB community of 'rescue'. I've long since 'unliked' most of the rescue/animal group pages I used to frequent as I just couldn't deal with the rubbish spouted on them by the usual suspects and I see quite a few of the usual suspects cropping up on this page. It will descend into farce, chaos, and the usual sniping and bitching without achieving anything meaningful and in fact, they could do more harm than good in the long run.

I am SO SO glad I got out of doing the little bit of rescue that I did as I just hated all of the politics and everything that goes with it, and that is a shame because I was one of the good ones!!!

Magenta

Vel wrote: »

I am SO SO glad I got out of doing the little bit of rescue that I did as I just hated all of the politics and everything that goes with it, and that is a shame because I was one of the good ones!!!

To be honest, it's put me right off ever entering the world of rescue!!!
I have taken in numerous feral pregnant cats and sorted them for food/homes/neutering, yes, but entering the rescue world in an official capacity, no.

John_Rambo

Magenta wrote: »

To be honest, it's put me right off ever entering the world of rescue!!!

Frickin right... Qualified doctors assessing people anonymously on a Facebook page?

No.

DBB

John_Rambo wrote: »

Frickin right... Qualified doctors assessing people anonymously on a Facebook page?

No.

She has a doctorate in psychology... that's not quite the same thing, written in this context at least, as being a qualified doctor!
But I take your point, regardless

doubter

DBB wrote: »

She has a doctorate in psychology... that's not quite the same thing, written in this context at least, as being a qualified doctor!
But I take your point, regardless

and she has met Miss gunther in person quite a few times.Still, I agree, and have said that to the group in a pm, that that kind of talk isn't helpfull.I'm trying to stay levelheaded, but I have been shown some pics that haven't been posted yet and i'm afraid this is going to get worse before it gets better

TheSockMonster

Meeting someone isn't the same as doing a psychological assessment which requires several hours of interviews and the administration of standardised psychological tests. Anyone with any knowledge of mental health, an especially a qualified (I'm assuming clinical) psychologist should know that what they're suggesting about Sarah Gunther's personality/mental health on the page is completely outrageous. It's really annoys me but that's the last I'll say on the subject.

I'm curious to know what's coming so I will be keeping an eye out but I do think the admin on the page are going too far.

Whispered

Irish animal rescues must be regulated Facebook page seems to be a level headed page and they're asking for opinions and ideas. If anybody wants to join in. It may not get anywhere but has a fair but of info on It. I'm sure further contributions would be appreciated.

It doesn't appear to be directed towards any one person and is looking at problems as a whole......Although they don't have their own resident psychologist.

doubter

TheSockMonster wrote: »

Meeting someone isn't the same as doing a psychological assessment which requires several hours of interviews and the administration of standardised psychological tests. Anyone with any knowledge of mental health, an especially a qualified (I'm assuming clinical) psychologist should know that what they're suggesting about Sarah Gunther's personality/mental health on the page is completely outrageous. It's really annoys me but that's the last I'll say on the subject.

I'm curious to know what's coming so I will be keeping an eye out but I do think the admin on the page are going too far.

as said earlier..live by the sword, die by the sword. She has been very good in accusing people of being re****, mentally challenged and psychopaths.What do you expect?I don't know all the fights with everyone she had but I'm probably not far besides the truth when i say that at least part of the people stating that were accused of the same by her. Doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes it understandable.Either way, we'll see what else comes to light

doubter

I for one are going to take one of horses down to the beach for an evening canter whilst it's still nice.:D

muddypaws

doubter wrote: »

as said earlier..live by the sword, die by the sword. She has been very good in accusing people of being re****, mentally challenged and psychopaths.What do you expect?I don't know all the fights with everyone she had but I'm probably not far besides the truth when i say that at least part of the people stating that were accused of the same by her. Doesn't make it right, but it certainly makes it understandable.Either way, we'll see what else comes to light

Or be the bigger person and do things properly.

Have a nice canter on the beach, and give the two mutts a hug from me

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

DBB

Fred Swanson wrote: »

So when is the government going to actually regulate what is a rescue and who can operate one? I don't think it would be advisable to hold your breath.

I suppose one good start would be to properly commence/enforce the latest charity registration process. I think new regulations were enacted in 2009(?), but there are insufficient funds at the moment to enforce that Act, and charities are still being registered under the old system, which is cumbersome and probably full of opportunities to not do things by the book.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Roquentin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What I've found the most amazing about this whole saga is the politics of animal rescue. While i know there's a few holier than thou types in it, i could never have imagined it was so bitchy.

Here was me thinking they were all on the same team.

yea a lot of tribalism. Its like monty pyton, the society for prevention of cruelty against animals Vs the animal society for prevention against cruelty

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

DBB

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The Revenue decides who can be a charity. They have some pretty tough rules. So what happens is many "charities" operate as a business instead.

I know that, I've been through the process with my own rescue, and though it's a pain in the butt, it's not that hard.
Charities should not be permitted to operate as a business, and that might be a good place to start.

There needs to be actual legislation that deals specifically with rescues. Even the ISPCA is a not a statutory body.

Again, I'm aware of what the ISPCA is and isn't. The new Animal Welfare Act confers statutory powers on the uniformed ISPCA inspectors.

In any case, there has been a lot of talk about how Sarah couldn't be fully "punished" because she was prosecuted under the old legislation. But the fact that quite a few animal hoarders and people found guilty of cruelty, even first-time offenders, have been banned from keeping animals, and have received harsher fines, because the old legislation allowed for that.
Which begs the question being asked across a huge range of offences, even with more powerful legislation is this another example of the judiciary being far out of touch with reality? Seems to me that this problem needs to be addressed from a lot of angles, but at least now we have a national SPCA with sharper teeth.

Roquentin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was saying on another thread (foal beaten to death) that you need an animal welfare statutory body to legislate the whole shebang. What we have is all these factions and we dont know whos who.

Roquentin

DBB wrote: »

I know that, I've been through the process with my own rescue, and though it's a pain in the butt, it's not that hard.
Charities should not be permitted to operate as a business, and that might be a good place to start.



Again, I'm aware of what the ISPCA is and isn't. The new Animal Welfare Act confers statutory powers on the uniformed ISPCA inspectors.

In any case, there has been a lot of talk about how Sarah couldn't be fully "punished" because she was prosecuted under the old legislation. But the fact that quite a few animal hoarders and people found guilty of cruelty, even first-time offenders, have been banned from keeping animals, and have received harsher fines, because the old legislation allowed for that.
Which begs the question being asked across a huge range of offences, even with more powerful legislation is this another example of the judiciary being far out of touch with reality? Seems to me that this problem needs to be addressed from a lot of angles, but at least now we have a national SPCA with sharper teeth.

animal hoarders are trying to care for the animals, its just they have so many that they cant. There is a difference between animal hoarder and breeder although those accused of breeding often jump on the hoarding bandwagon to escape prosecution.

Roquentin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

ive only just read the story but it seems like there was underlying aggravation between the two organizations.

In fairness my parents got our dog of the gspca and they seemed very nice. never had any dealings with egar.

DBB

Roquentin wrote: »

animal hoarders are trying to care for the animals, its just they have so many that they cant. There is a difference between animal hoarder and breeder although those accused of breeding often jump on the hoarding bandwagon to escape prosecution.

I'm not entirely sure why you posted the above in reply to my post which you quoted?! There doesn't seem to be much connection between them!
I'm not sure why anyone would confuse a hoarder with a breeder? Do people accuse people of being breeders as if it's illegal? Unless by "breeder" you're referring to puppy farmers? Which are not illegal if properly registered under the relevant legislation!
Why would a puppy farmer have to pretend to be a hoarder to escape prosecution? From memory, there have been as many if not more hoarders prosecuted in the past decade in Ireland as there have been puppy farmers, both groups equally punished, so it's not clear to me why a puppy farmer would want to pretend to be a hoarder?

doubter

muddypaws wrote: »

Or be the bigger person and do things properly.

Have a nice canter on the beach, and give the two mutts a hug from me

done. they told me to give you a big slob back.

Roquentin

DBB wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure why you posted the above in reply to my post which you quoted?! There doesn't seem to be much connection between them!
I'm not sure why anyone would confuse a hoarder with a breeder? Do people accuse people of being breeders as if it's illegal? Unless by "breeder" you're referring to puppy farmers? Which are not illegal if properly registered under the relevant legislation!
Why would a puppy farmer have to pretend to be a hoarder to escape prosecution? From memory, there have been as many if not more hoarders prosecuted in the past decade in Ireland as there have been puppy farmers, both groups equally punished, so it's not clear to me why a puppy farmer would want to pretend to be a hoarder?

because public opinion matters. if you say that you had the animals best intentions at heart, it differs from saying that you were using them as breeding machines or just simply neglecting them because you couldnt care.

The psychology of how the public views them is different because someone who actually has the the OCD hoarding mentality, is actually trying to make the lives of the animals better. But he or she gets blinded by their own morals and ends up making the lives of the animals worse.

Now judges are human and if a highly skilled laywer pulls that OCD hoarding trick, that judge or jury may look upon the individual in a more positive light.

Im not saying the guilty party in this case had the ocd hoarding disorder. Certainly she appears to have narcissist traits. Whether she was an ocd hoarder or just using the shelter as a front to make money i dont know.

But there are good people out there who take in animals out of guilt, trying to do the right thing and end up having too many animals to properly care for.
That is why the puppy farmer or just pure evil person will say they were hoarders, so the public will view them in a better light. The lesser of the two evils as they say

Magenta

Roquentin wrote: »

That is why the puppy farmer or just pure evil person will say they were hoarders, so the public will view them in a better light. The lesser of the two evils as they say

What puppy farmers claim to be hoarders??? When? Have you actually seen this or are you hypothesising? Puppy farms are pretty obvious because there are pregnant and nursing bitches everywhere as well as litters of puppies, the dogs are all purebred or "designer crossbreeds", a very different demographic in terms of the dogs kept. It would be pretty hard to walk into EGAR and confuse it for a breeding operation, and vice versa.

dharma200

Roquentin wrote: »

ive only just read the story but it seems like there was underlying aggravation between the two organizations.

In fairness my parents got our dog of the gspca and they seemed very nice. never had any dealings with egar.

I think there was underlying aggravation between EGAR and Mulitple organisations. from what I have read and what dbb is saying egar stood out like a sore thumb in the rescue world in Ireland, due to the strange, rude, dismissive behaviour of the owner and some of her volunteers... The way they operated their fb page etc and the online campaigns that were waged in order to discredit or simply intimidate others working I rescue. It is all on google and makes some interesting reading.

muddypaws

dharma200 wrote: »

I think there was underlying aggravation between EGAR and Mulitple organisations. from what I have read and what dbb is saying egar stood out like a sore thumb in the rescue world in Ireland, due to the strange, rude, dismissive behaviour of the owner and some of her volunteers... The way they operated their fb page etc and the online campaigns that were waged in order to discredit or simply intimidate others working I rescue. It is all on google and makes some interesting reading.

No, unfortunately not, and thats the point, whilst it is true what you say about the behaviour, she is/was most definitely not the only one.

Evac101

snoman wrote: »

http://www.examiner.com/article/ireland-woman-fined-250-for-animal-abuse-now-wants-dogs-back?cid=rss

Not questioning whether EGAR was in the wrong (she admitted guilty so she was definitely in the wrong for the offences she was charged with and possibly a lot more besides) but an American based animal welfare news blog isn't what I would call a 100% reliable source for something happening in Galway. Now if it were the Examiner.ie, I'd be without a bone to pick

doubter

muddypaws wrote: »

No, unfortunately not, and thats the point, whilst it is true what you say about the behaviour, she is/was most definitely not the only one.

agree. But people, and especially rescue people will often respond in kind when attacked. I have been doing the same i must admit, but i think i'm over that.The block button comes in handy

snoman

Evac101 wrote: »

Not questioning whether EGAR was in the wrong (she admitted guilty so she was definitely in the wrong for the offences she was charged with and possibly a lot more besides) but an American based animal welfare news blog isn't what I would call a 100% reliable source for something happening in Galway. Now if it were the Examiner.ie, I'd be without a bone to pick

My error, thought it was Examiner.ie initially, amended after.

DBB

muddypaws wrote: »

No, unfortunately not, and thats the point, whilst it is true what you say about the behaviour, she is/was most definitely not the only one.

There are, indeed, a number of sore thumbs that stand out. EGAR is perhaps one of the most public, and one of the longest-running, pre-dating the facebook era!

Whispered

There is a rescue close to me, and the person I've dealt with in it stands out to me as being great. I have never heard him say a word against another rescue and I'd trust him totally. I'm sure he's not the exception. If these people were used as an example of the rescue world in this conversation, it would read totally different.

muddypaws

I think we made the FB page. hubble, bubble, toil and trouble :rolleyes:

Raminahobbin

muddypaws wrote: »

I think we made the FB page. hubble, bubble, toil and trouble :rolleyes:

Lol is that about here?? Not happy campers atall :P

gozunda

I believe the lack of regulation is one of the major problems in the rescue sector at the moment. I know of an individual who was taking in animals from various sources in the guise of being a 'Rescue' centre. The said individual was then selling the animals by advertising them elsewhere. As far as I know he was caught out by a former owner and the guy was stopped. Sad to say that without the individual being caught out he would have continued merrily on as strictly he was not 'breaking' any law.

Magenta

Raminahobbin wrote: »

Lol is that about here?? Not happy campers atall :P

I'm not sure that it is.

muddypaws

apologies, not us, another FB group.

How on earth did we manage before Facebook?

Roquentin

gozunda wrote: »

I believe the lack of regulation is one of the major problems in the rescue sector at the moment. I know of am individual who was taking in animals from various sources in the guise of being a 'Rescue' centre. The said individual was then selling the animals by advertising them elsewhere. As far as I know he was caught out by a former owner and the guy was stopped. Sad to say that without the individual being caught out he would have continued merrily on as strictly he was not 'breaking' any law.

that is basically the point i was inferring. people will do such things and say, well i had the best interests of the animals at heart and it wasnt against the law

dharma200

muddypaws wrote: »

No, unfortunately not, and thats the point, whilst it is true what you say about the behaviour, she is/was most definitely not the only one.

I most certainly did not say she was the only one, however, as you agree, her behaviour stuck out like a sore thumb. There is huge bitchiness in the rescue world, mention raw feeding, ceser milan, not treating animals like humans , etc etc and the barrage comes, even here, however, this particular rescue the thread is about was more than often caustic, nasty , dismissive and very strange in rehoming techniques, visiting, excuses, and most of all, quite threatening and dangerous when it comes to online interaction. That in itself stuck out like a sore thumb to me, and many more.... I am sure she is not the only one, and would urge anyone who might know of other rescues with the same practises as gear to coe forward and report them.