Dear Editor,
Please allow the GSPCA Executive Committee to thank Ms Syeada Manbodh for her recent letter highlighting one of the Animal Clinic’s primary activities, viz, a “free spay and neuter programme” (‘The GSPCA has a “free spay and neuter programme”’ SN 13.7.08). However, the GSPCA must respond to the inaccuracies which abound in the substance of the letter penned by Ms Manbodh. Much of what she has written can be misinterpreted.
First of all, it is quite unfair to simply state that “most people are not aware” of the free spay and neuter programme. Many people do not know the most obvious and the most publicized pieces of information; however, when the need arises for them to “know,” they find out and they act. The GSPCA has spayed and neutered 92 cats and 139 dogs between January and June 2008. These numbers attest to the fact that the GSPCA’s spay and neuter programme is not only well known, but is also well utilized by members of the public. All of these surgeries were performed by qualified veterinarians who are paid for their expertise by the GSPCA.
Secondly, the statement that “only qualified veterinarians should benefit financially from spaying and neutering” gives the impression that the GSPCA uses unqualified veterinarians to perform surgeries. The GSPCA wishes to state categorically that it does not engage in the practice of soliciting the services of unqualified veterinarians to perform surgeries for our spay neuter programme.
Thirdly, Ms Manbodh gives the impression that veterinarians carry out the open-abdomen surgery at someone’s home. Her words: “I explained that she could get in contact with a veterinarian and have him or her spay the dog at home…” are quite shocking. The veterinarians can answer for themselves, but we know of no experienced and qualified veterinarians who would open up an abdomen under conditions which have environments that will compromise surgical hygiene. The letter suggests that there is a veterinarian who is engaged in this practice. The GSPCA will not comment on this as we feel the veterinarian involved must be a professional who makes these decisions of his/her own accord and can or will face whatever consequences which will surely ensue. The GSPCA does not perform surgeries at residences and will not encourage members of the public to do so.
Additionally, this “solution” of having these surgical procedures performed at someone’s home also incurs costs, and the complications that could result from this practice make any cost differences between the two options trivial.
Further, Ms Manbodh’s letter gives the impression to the Society’s donors that monies are collected for free spaying/neutering but then clients are charged for this service. This is not all true. We do not charge for spays and neutering. We do, however, have to pay the veterinarians who perform them. The spay and neuter procedure in itself regularly costs in excess of ten thousand dollars to perform. Fortunately for the GSPCA, the fees we pay to qualified veterinarians who perform spay/neuter surgeries for our programme are far less that what those same veterinarians would gain from performing these surgeries through their own clinic.
The published letter also seeks to cast doubts about our charges for transporting animals to and from the Clinic and Shelter. The GSPCA is an organization whose finances are generated from a government subvention, fundraising, donations, clinic services, and membership dues, and in order to sustain our existence we have to charge fees for our services albeit subsidized. Our charges for the use of the vehicle are solely to offset expenses associated with its usage (fuel, driver, wear and tear, repairs, replacements, etc).
Finally, Ms Manbodh keeps suggesting that we should “have animal owners that can afford it pay part of the costs of spaying their animals to offset subsidies to the poor.” That is not as simple as it sounds. To begin with, it is not easy to ascertain who can (is willing to) pay and who cannot.
Its is unfortunate that Ms Manbodh’s letter that seeks to do good by highlighting the benefits of spaying and neutering also contains these inaccuracies and insinuations.
Yours faithfully,
Dominique Ahmad, Jennifer Falconer-Majeed, Noreen Gaskin, Shamane Hughes, Oliver Insanally, Shiromanie Isaacs, Robin Shivanand, Steve Surujbally
Members of the Executive Committee of the GSPCA
