Strays: Killing policy

I have read with interest the contributions of the SPCA and the Island Sanctuary in connection with the policy regarding the killing of stray dogs.

On a personal explanation I should say that my case over what I claim to be unjust dismissal from the SPCA is still with the industrial tribunal and readers will understand that I would have to be very restrained in what I write, restricting myself to what actually happened while I was the executive secretary of the SPCA.

It is neither fair nor correct to describe the sanctuary's neutering policy as "capture, neuter and abandon". I had discussed this matter at length with Claire Gafà. To the best of my knowledge, neutered dogs are never "abandoned" but released to the care of known, named feeders who continue to care for these strays. It is also incorrect to describe the "collect, neuter and release" policy adopted by the sanctuary as inhumane. This policy has been successfully practised in many countries. I cannot quote chapter and verse as the literature is at the SPCA offices. This type of misreporting does not in any way help animal sanctuaries get together.

The SPCA is also not correct regarding the "two dogs mentioned by Ms Gafà. I was executive secretary of the SPCA at the time. For the record, the two dogs belonged to the SPCA and were due to be homed. I had asked Island Sanctuary to neuter the two bitches (as I had been told by the then treasurer that the SPCA could not afford to neuter bitches at the home). Ms Gafà agreed and after the operation the bitches were brought back to the SPCA. Some days after Sandy, an Island Sanctuary volunteer, came to the home to remove the stitches. Both dogs were young and healthy. We had then named the bitches Sandy and Claire after their main benefactors. Both dogs were later put down by lethal injection, having been deemed unhomeable. It is obvious that Barbara Cassar Torregiani has been looking up the wrong records.

To be fair to the SPCA, it must be said that the society receives a grant from the government specifically because the government expects the society to pick up stray dogs as necessary. For this purpose, the grant includes the salaries of two inspectors (drivers). The law states that no animal shall be put down before the lapse of seven days which is why the government, in addition to the grant, gives the society 12c per day to feed each dog collected for seven days and 6c for each dog put down. Obviously today these rates are not realistic. These rates should be renegotiated and the government asked to foot the bill for the drug used to kill strays. SPCA moneys collected from animal lovers should not, in my opinion, be used to buy drugs and/or pay vets to kill dogs.

The president of the SPCA wrote to say that she has "wondered why the animal NGOs do not work together". This is indeed sad news. At the time when I was the executive secretary of the SPCA we did "work together". The SPCA had the best relations possible with the Abandoned Animals Association, the Society for Abandoned Animals, Island Sanctuary, Thomasina Sanctuary, Cat Care Society and SOS Animals, all working tirelessly together to ensure that as many cats and dogs as possible were saved.

I wholeheartedly agree with the president of the SPCA when she states that "all NGOs working in this field have a valid role to play, even if their views and policies differ". Island Sanctuary policy has always been very clear - they never put a healthy dog down. They are not in a position to accept all dogs that are brought to them. They receive no help from the government. All the work involved is carried out by volunteers. Their dogs are happy and cared for. Anybody visiting the sanctuary can see for themselves that this is no concentration camp. This is not a matter for debate but fact. Readers may go and see for themselves how the Island Sanctuary treats its pets.

I also agree with Antoine Vella that the public should know how moneys collected are being spent. We must be vigilant and learn from past mistakes. We all must make an effort to ensure that history does not repeat itself. What is really important is for all animal charities to work towards the same goal. They do not need to have the same policies but they do need to have policies and rules which are clear, unequivocal and transparent .