Dear Editor,
Once again, GSPCA has gone out of its way (see GSPCA letter of Oct 15, 2011) to condemn my comments made over the phone at the request of Stabroek News (published on Oct 4th, 2011) as: “inaccurate and counterproductive” and to say that “Ms. Manbodh has drawn an unfortunate analogy” in referring to the similarities between the burnt horse and abandoned donkey stories. If GSPCA reviews the facts it will see that my comments to Stabroek News contained two points: a) the similarities between the two examples of animal cruelty: the burnt horse and the abandoned donkey (East Coast) and b) the urgent need for updated animal welfare laws.
GSPCA goes into great detail to describe the many micro differences between the two cases (horse vs donkey) but fails to note that the root cause of both cases is the lack of an updated animal law, with teeth, that would force animal owners to treat their animals with more respect. Consequently, GSPCA referred to “Ms. Manbodh’s unfortunate analogy” which, seemingly, the GSPCA still fails to understand or appreciate. This seems quite strange and even contradictory since further down their letter GSPCA says, and I quote: “Ms. Manbodh was only reiterating the GSPCA’s consistent and continuous thrust which demands a revision of current animal laws.”
Perhaps when the donkey on the East Coast is killed by a vehicle the GSPCA will see the similarities between the dead horse and the dead donkey and realize that only with an updated animal welfare law can these type problems be avoided.
Yours faithfully,
S. Manbodh
