DSPCA secretly paid €12,000 to breeder for seized puppies

Remember all the news reports about over 100 puppies seized at Dublin docks on their way to UK? Seems DSPCA may not have been in the right. Strange case.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/ireland/News/article1630333.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2015_11_07

"THE Dublin Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (DSPCA) has paid thousands of euros to two dog breeders for puppies it seized at Dublin Port last February.

The society paid €12,600 to one puppy dealer from Cavan, and is refusing to say how much it paid to a second man from Co Armagh. The DSPCA received €210,000 in grants from the Department of Agriculture last year.

The 116 puppies were seized at Dublin docklands on the night of February 4 from two vehicles as they boarded a ferry to Britain. The seizures were the first of their kind under the Animal Welfare and Health Act 2013, which lays down strict regulations on the sale and transport of animals."

sillysmiles

Can't read the full article - what reason is given for paying the breeders?

Cherry Blossom

Closing this as the link is not free to view and it is unfair to speculate. If someone comes across a link to the full story, feel free to forward it to one of the mods and we can then reopen the thread.

Cherry Blossom

Hi guys,

We have decided to re-open this thread as an exception to the 'Do not discuss rescues' rule as the story is in the public eye. Please keep in mind that the defamation laws still stand and while you are able to discuss your opinion on this matter there is to be no discussion of DSPCA's affairs outside of this matter and there is to be no 'rescue bashing'. Thanks in advance.
AJ

DSPCA's response to the article above as provided by the OP

http://www.dspca.ie/cat_news_detail.jsp?itemID=19236

amdublin

It just reads strange to me. You are not managing these puppies right, we are entitled to take them - now here's money you would have got from selling these puppies that you are not managing right.

Saying that I take on board that they wanted to avoid the puppies being returned to the owners. But if they were in the right to take them then why would this happen??

They were in the right to take the puppies. They paid over the money to avoid lengthy and costly court proceedings.

"The regulations require that all puppies and dogs must hold a Pet Passport , be microchipped, Rabies vaccinated and have evidence of veterinary inspection within 24 hours prior to their departure.

The puppies involved did not have the required Pet Passports and in the opinion of our veterinary surgeons were far too young to have had the required vaccinations."

It may seem a bit over the top, but we are part of the EU and must abide by their Laws. The odd thing is that if they had taken the puppies out through a Northern Irish port, they wouldn't need to be microchipped, rabies vaccinated etc.

Cherry Blossom

The advice usually given by most rescues is not to hand over money to an undesirable in order to save a dog from it's circumstances as all you are doing is funding future breeding. I too am somewhat confused as to why they paid up. It seems they were stuck between a rock and a hard place, although so is the average member of the public when faced with handing over money for a disease ridden puppy or walking away.

boomerang

My understanding is that the DSPCA made a big booboo in stopping the vans before they got on the ferry - technically as they were still in Ireland at that point, the pups weren't required to have rabies vax and passports and therefore could not be confiscated?

awanderer

boomerang wrote: »

My understanding is that the DSPCA made a big booboo in stopping the vans before they got on the ferry - technically as they were still in Ireland at that point, the pups weren't required to have rabies vax and passports and therefore could not be confiscated?

I hope you are right!

That would be the least worrying and most understandable reason (anyone can make a mistake and indeed a payment would then probably have been the best way to ensure the best outcome possible for the puppies after the initial mistake).

I must say that I would be shocked if Dspca had paid the puppies' seller only because it was faster and easier than bringing them to court. I was imagining the puppy farmers starting to think ' I hope we won't be caught red handed by Gspca otherwise we will have to settle for a lower profit margin'

Kristopherus

boomerang wrote: »

My understanding is that the DSPCA made a big booboo in stopping the vans before they got on the ferry - technically as they were still in Ireland at that point, the pups weren't required to have rabies vax and passports and therefore could not be confiscated?

That would clarify the matter at least. But would DSPCA have authority to board the ship?

Kristopherus

Kristopherus wrote: »

That would clarify the matter at least. But would DSPCA have authority to board the ship?

I wouldn't be sure on that, but would imagine that they would have the right to inspect any vehicle suspected of carrying live animals.

muddypaws

No, the DSPCA have no legal jurisdiction, none of the local SPCAs do, which is why the Gardai and dog warden were with them, so really it was those two agencies that should have known the law. I don't know whether they could search vehicles on the ferry without a warrant, but presumably they had that in order to search the vehicle in the first place?

It was a difficult one for the DSPCA, as we all know, the law doesn't always make sense.

Inexile

Does the concept of 'intent' not have any weight here?

Afaik if I sit into my car after drinking and have my keys on me I can be done for drink driving as a Garda can form the impression that I intended to drive the car while under the influence even if I never move the car or even turn on the ignition.

Similarly if these 'breeders' have booked a ferry crossing, turn up at the port at the designated time, check in and queue up to get on a ferry surely they have the 'intent' to export the pups. Do they have to let them cross the sea and then pull them for export?

Seems mad to me. I can understand why the DSPCA paid the fee as the legal fees could mount up and take time and resources. But it seems there is a need for the authorities to set out the steps necessary to take dogs in such situations.