Roodepoort SPCA in the firing line

Animal activists and animal welfare organisations are up in arms about Roodepoort/ Krugersdorp SPCA’s handling of at least two cases.

The activists showed their dismay publicly on April 24 when they held a heated protest outside the SPCA’s premises, holding up placards for passing motorists along Nadine Street, and later moving the protest to the gates of the organisation.

Protesters were upset about two cases where the SPCA refused to approve prospective adopters – one of which was the original owner of the dog in question.

According to animal activist Sanchia Pienaar who organised the protest, the Roodepoort/ Krugersdorp SPCA has overstepped its powers by refusing to return a lost puppy to its owners after it got out of their yard and was taken to the SPCA by a member of the public.

In another case, a purebred and registered bull terrier, originally bought from a breeder, was surrendered to the SPCA by its rightful owner. The SPCA refused to release the dog to a private breed-specific rescue organisation and also declined an application by a prospective adopter referred by the organisation.

The Roodepoort Record was present when an already tense situation became more heated. One animal activist attempted to intercept puppies found on the side of the road from a person who showed up at the SPCA to surrender them.

An SPCA worker rushed to retrieve the puppies, and a scuffle ensued. The SPCA had to call the police and a case of assault was opened. The protest subsided somewhat after police intervened, although some protesters remained outside the organisation’s gates for most of the afternoon before finally dispersing.

The pro-life animal activist admitted to the Record that she had in the past posed as an adopter, only to surrender animals to pro-life shelters in a bid to save them from potentially being euthanased, although she admitted that she knows this is a criminal offence.

According to SPCA manager Mandi Cattanach a Pekinese was brought to the SPCA by a member of the public, who found the dog in the street on Monday, April 8.

The dog was not chipped, thus the organisation had no way of contacting its owners.

“The owners came to the SPCA on April 13 after seeing the dog on our adoption page on Facebook,” Cattanach said.

“They showed up outside our business hours demanding to be let in. Our security refused since were were closed at the time. Our emergency after-hours numbers are indicated on the board outside the building. We can also be contacted via our social media pages, or emailed. They did not attempt to contact us through any of these channels.

“After 96 hours, if not claimed, the SPCA takes ownership of any animal in its care. They came into the SPCA on April 16 while I was in a meeting. They could not wait, and they were asked to send me an email, which they did not do. This is already eight days after the dog was originally brought to us. We had already approved a home for the dog by this time, and incurred expenses to prepare the dog for its new home, as had the adoptive family.

“They came back on April 19 after I had left for the day and spoke to another inspector. I finally met with them on April 22, and explained the situation to them, only to receive Small Claims Court documents the next day.

“I am in the business of finding good homes for animals, and that is exactly what I did.”

Cattanach explains that once the SPCA takes ownership of an animal, it cannot simply be returned to someone.

“We have processes in place that are there to first and foremost protect the animal. An owner can, in such a case, apply to adopt the animal and we would follow our normal procedure to ensure that they are fit to own an animal and that they can provide a safe and adequate space for the animal.

“In this case, the dog was already adopted. I feel for the person who loves this puppy, but we are not in the business of removing animals from good homes. We followed the correct procedure as prescribed by the SPCA.”

Concerning the second case involving the bull terrier, Cattanach explained that the dog was surrendered to the SPCA by its rightful owner.

“We did not scan him for a chip since he was surrendered by his rightful owner, who provided more than ample proof of ownership. The dog was surrendered because the owner was unable to handle the rambunctious young dog due to problems with his health.

“A potential adopter was referred by a bull terrier-specific organisation and we started the usual screening process. The application was declined after suspicions surfaced that the person was helping this organisation to get the dog, which, as a pure breed, is worth a significant amount of money.”

Cattanagh said that the monetary worth of an animal is not something that the SPCA considers during the adoption process.

“It is not about money, but rather about finding good homes for animals.

“I deemed the information of such potential underhandedness serious enough to decline the application, which is within my right. We do not give animals to breeders or other animal welfare organisations. If there is any evidence or information that casts doubt on the intention of the potential adopter, I prefer to err on the side of caution.”

The SPCA was, at the time, in the process of finalising an adoption inspection for the dog in question.

“If this organisation’s intentions are pure, we have the same goal and that is to house this dog in a loving and safe home. I fail to see why they are making such a fuss about this unless they intend to profit from this poor animal.”

One of the accusations made by Pienaar was that the bull terrier was chipped and that the chip identified the animal welfare organisation in question as the owner of the dog.

Cattanach explained, “It is against SPCA policies to give animals to other animal welfare organisations. Also, the chip is only one of how we identify the owner of a dog. We require further proof, like vaccination certificates, and even photos of the owner with the animal.

“Our mandate is to act in the best interest of the animal, and that is, without exception, what we do.”