Dear Editor,
Thank you for affording the Guyana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (GSPCA) the opportunity to respond to a letter writer who details two incidents involving persons seeking services at the GSPCA’s Animal Clinic and Shelter (‘Is the GSPCA still a humane society?’ Stabroek News, February 13).
In the first instance, the letter writer describes a situation in which a person living in Buxton paid $4,000 to an individual to transport two dogs and eight puppies to the Animal Shelter and Clinic at Robb Street and Orange Walk where that person then paid a further amount of $5,000 to the GSPCA—which the letter writer implies was for the GSPCA to simply accept these dogs. Evidently, the letter writer believes that the person should not have paid any fixed charges but should have instead been given the option to provide a donation.
Editor, the GSPCA has always been a not-for-profit organization. The Society is given an annual subvention by the government of $400,000 for which the Society is very grateful; however, this amount clearly cannot even cover the costs of salaries for the 9 staff members at the Clinic and Shelter, expenses for utilities and maintenance of its animal transport vehicle. To carry out the Society’s mandate of promoting the welfare of animals, largely through the provision of humane services for the benefit of thousands of Guyanese people and animals over the years, the GSPCA must, by necessity, institute minimal costs for these services in order to continue providing these. The amount of $5,000 paid by that particular person was in fact for these animals to be humanely euthanized.
In suggesting that the GSPCA is not a humane and charitable organization, however, this letter writer neglects to let the public know that, over the years, thousands of Guyanese have taken dogs and cats to the Animal Clinic and Shelter to have their pets spayed or neutered. These surgeries cause animals not to reproduce and thereby reduce the number of unwanted animals born. Such surgeries typically cost about $10,000—but through the GSPCA’s free spay and neuter programme, pet owners who could not ordinarily afford this pay nothing! Over the period of August 2003 to date, 3,845 dogs and cats were spayed or neutered by the GSPCA at no cost to their owners. Further, thousands of pet owners have over the years benefited from low cost vaccinations, deworming and treatment of minor conditions from the GSPCA for their pets. The GSPCA also investigates incidents of animal cruelty. Without the GSPCA, where would the letter writer have taken the stray dog and pups that she or he mentions taking to the Animal Clinic and Shelter?
In the second incident that the letter writer describes, a client’s request to lodge his dogs at the Animal Clinic and Shelter while he goes to the bank to withdraw money to pay for his dogs’ vaccinations is apparently met with a staff member’s response that the GSPCA does not keep animals. Editor, in this case, we feel that the letter writer does the GSPCA and the Guyanese public a grave injustice by omitting essential details of this incident. There have been numerous cases of persons requesting to leave their animals at the Animal Clinic and Shelter temporarily but never returning for the animals. Thus, the GSPCA requires anyone leaving an animal at the Clinic and Shelter (but not boarding the animal there) to sign a document giving ownership of the animal after a certain number of days. The client in question did not want to sign this document and therefore could not still leave his dogs at the Animal Clinic and Shelter. We hasten to assure the public that they may bring dogs and cats that they are not able to keep to the Animal Shelter and Clinic—instead of straying them—lest members of the public are led by this letter writer to believe that they can no longer do so. Interested persons may also board their pets over a short term at the Animal Clinic and Shelter.
It also not true, as the letter writer speculates, that the GSPCA does not house animals for adoption. The condition of each animal received at the Animal Clinic and Shelter is thoroughly assessed before a decision is taken to put an animal up for adoption. Unfortunately, animals that are in too poor a state of health for adoption are humanely euthanized.
In closing, we would like to note that from the information contained in her or his letter, the writer obviously utilizes the services of the Animal Clinic and Shelter often enough; and it would appear, that she or he is knowledgeable of the details of other clients’ transactions there. This letter writer therefore ought to be well aware of the information stated in this letter beforehand and would also have had the opportunity of seeking such clarifications from the Clinic Administrator or committee members if so desired. That this letter writer instead chose to use the public forum of your newspaper’s letter column to lead readers to believe that the GSPCA is not a humane and charitable organization makes us wonder about the letter writer’s true intent.
Yours faithfully,
Oliver Insanally
Jennifer Falconer-Majeed
Shiromanie Isaacs
Dominique Ahmad
Dr Steve Surujbally
Dr Nardeo Bassoodeo
Robin Sivanand
Stacey Gomes
The Executive Committee of the GSPCA
