Dear Editor,
For some reason my letter of July 20, 2008 (‘GSPCA has a free spay and neuter programme’) seems to have ruffled some feathers within the Guyana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (GSPCA) Executive Committee. If that’s true, I sincerely apologize since my only purpose was to point out that: (1) Too few dog owners are aware of the positive opportunities offered by the GSPCA “free spay and neuter programme” (see paragraphs 1 and 2 of my letter); and (2) while spay and neuter at GSPCA may be free for those with transportation or within walking distance of GSPCA, it has a significant cost attached (transport and vaccine) for low-income persons outside of Georgetown (without transport) who must make several trips to GSPCA to take advantage of its “free” service (see paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of my letter).
In its letter of July 28, 2008, (‘The GSPCA does not charge for spaying and neutering’) the GSPCA Executive Committee states it “…must respond to the inaccuracies which abound in the substance of the letter penned by Ms Manbodh.” To refute my statement that “most people are not aware of the GSPCA free spay and neuter programme,” GSPCA points out that it has “spayed and neutered 139 dogs between January and June 2008,” going on to say, “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.” I applaud the GSPCA’s increasing number of spay/neuters in 2008 but 139 procedures hardly proves its programme is “well known and well utilized” by the public, just the opposite. It shows that out of an estimated 20,000 dog owners in the greater Georgetown area, only 139 used its spay/neuter service during January-June 2008. In my opinion those numbers (less than one per cent of all dog owners) do not suggest a well utilized service. The challenge then is, how can the GSPCA reach out more effectively to dog owners in need of its services?
While GSPCA should be commended for its efforts at the spaying and neutering of dogs, at its present speed (under 300 dogs/year) it will never be able to deal with Georgetown’s dog problem of over-population. For this reason my July 20 letter suggested some practical actions to reach out to poor persons unable to cover the costs of transport to the GSPCA clinic. My suggestions included transport subsidies for the poor and reaching out to dog owners in areas adjacent to Georgetown with home vists (mobile clinics).
I’m sorry the committee got the mistaken impression that I had implied the GSPCA “uses unqualified vets”; nothing could be further from the truth.
My letter said, “only qualified vets should benefit financially from spay/neuter services.” This statement was made in reference to the June GSPCA public advisory which informed citizens of reports that persons had been visiting homes demanding that owners spay/neuter their pets for a fee. I assumed such persons could have links to unqualified vets.
The committee also mistakenly got the impression that I was promoting “open-abdomen surgery” in “environments that compromise surgical hygiene.” Again, its ‘impression’ is totally false. I am not a vet but I know that successful surgery requires the right skills, the appropriate tools and a safe and hygienic environment. I also know that modern spay techniques only require a small incision and not open-abdomen surgery. It seems logical to me that modern techniques combined with mobile clinics would be an ideal way to reach out to the thousands of people that need GSPCA services.
It is unfortunate that the Executive Committee of GSPCA only saw “inaccuracies and insinuations” in my letter which was only intended to highlight the importance of developing a more effective spay/neuter programme that reaches out to low-income dog owners.
I will try to do a better job at communicating in the future, hopefully the Executive Committee of the GSPCA will do the same.
Save a life, adopt a pet. Save many lives, spay your pets.
Yours faithfully,
Syeada Manbodh
