December 10, 2001

Dear Sir,

Please allow me to respond, on behalf of the SPCA, to the two letters in the newspaper dated November 19, 2001, regarding the cruelty case involving "Fluffy".

The first writer, Kevin Grigsby, defends Fluffy's owner Mr. Walter Brangman stating that he had taken good care of Fluffy over the years. While it may be true that Mr. Brangman cared for Fluffy, there is no excuse for abandoning that responsibility in the last months of Fluffy's life when it was needed more than ever. The writer states that Mr. Brangman had taken Fluffy to the vet twice in the past year. What he didn't mention was that the owner had been forced to take Fluffy to the vet when the dog was found to be in deplorable condition six months before she was euthanised. As a result of an anonymous call, the Inspector examined Fluffy and found her to be flea ridden, matted, thin, dirty and suffering from hair loss. After an initial visit to the vet her condition improved. Apparently Mr. Brangman failed to follow through on a follow through on a follow-up visit to the vet. Obviously Fluffy's condition deteriorated again resulting in the conditions seen in the photographs and reported in the paper. No degree of prior care can reduce the severity of the negligence that Fluffy suffered in the last days of her life. For an owner to allow an animal to become emaciated and maggot infested because he/she can't bear to put it to sleep is beyond comprehension. The SPCA makes no apology for bringing charges under the circumstances.

The second writer, K. Pitchai, expresses anger that the Inspector, Mr. Whited, "applauded" the fine of $1,000. I can assure the writer that no one was more disgusted with the case than our Inspector. He had the unfortunate task of seeing this animal when it was alive. No photograph can truly demonstrate how bad some of these cruelty cases are. Mr. Whited was pleased that the judge immediately instituted the highest penalty allowed under the current law, without question. As it was a first offence, a prison sentence would not be awarded. I agree fully with the writer that our laws protecting animals need to be improved and the SPCA has lobbied for years to have this done.

Perhaps now that the dog laws are being reviewed in parliament as a result of the Dog Control Committee Report, we should be contacting our MPs (Government and Opposition) to express our views. We need all the help we can get to see some action in this area.

The SPCA has several cases pending and will continue to pursue prosecutions in every case we fell necessary.

While it is unpleasant to read about these cases, it is important that the public realise how some animals live (and die) on our Island.

The SPCA appreciates the members of the public that call in their concerns and would like to thank everyone who assists us with our cause, particularly our staff, local veterinarians, Animal Control Officers and Police who give generously of their time and expertise.

Should anyone wish to know more about the SPCA, please feel free to contact our staff at the Valley Road shelter.

ANDREW MADEIROS

Shelter Chairman

SPCA Executive Committee