10 April 2018
Following a series of articles published by Randburg Sun about the Randburg SPCA and the alleged misleading of members of the public by the organisation, Randburg Sun was taken to the Press Ombudsman by both the Randburg SPCA, and a member of the public, Christine Kuch.
Some of the allegations levelled against Randburg Sun by the Randburg SPCA and Kuch included that Randburg Sun did not give the organisation adequate right of reply, Randburg Sun produced one-sided articles (biased towards the perspectives of the dog owners), and Randburg Sun did not adequately research the policies and procedures of the Randburg SPCA.
Press Ombudsman, Johan Retief dismissed all of the above allegations as unfounded.
Retief did however find that one of the captions on one of the photographs of a dog, which accompanied the first article, SPCA under fire, Week ending 19 January 2018, might have been misleading to the public.
He said the picture in question might have created the false impression that it had been taken at the Randburg SPCA, and the caption should have stated that that had not been the case.
Randburg Sun would like to clarify that the picture above was in fact not taken at the SPCA.
Should you wish to read the full finding from the Press Ombudsman on the above cases, visit: https://www.presscouncil.org.za/Ruling/View/randburg-spca-vs-randburg-sun-4255
https://www.presscouncil.org.za/Ruling/View/christine-kuch-vs-randburg-sun-4248
UPDATE: SPCA responds to allegations
It has been an emotional rollercoaster ride for Ellen Cheng as she tried to find out what happened to her beloved pit bull Tyson after she entrusted him to a friend for two weeks, who in turn, signed him over to the SPCA.
Tyson was in the care of Cheng’s friend because she had to attend a funeral overseas. It is unclear whether the dog has been euthanised or rehomed, and the SPCA themselves seem unsure.
“Tyson was microchipped with details that my friend is the owner since I was not around at the time.
After a few days, my friend could not cope with Tyson and her husband was threatening divorce so she took him to the Randburg SPCA. She asked them to look after Tyson, paid R1 000 and checked on Tyson daily.”
The friend was not aware that she would be signing the dog over to the SPCA permanently.
“After learning that Tyson was taken to the SPCA, I rushed there to retrieve him and was told he was doing well in the kennels. They said that I needed proof of ownership to take him home since his microchip was under my friend’s name,” said Cheng.
The Randburg SPCA allegedly told Cheng to bring an affidavit stating that she was Tyson’s owner before she could take him home. Cheng complied and provided the required documentation including vet medical records.
When she returned to the SPCA the following day, to collect Tyson the SPCA allegedly told her that Tyson had been rehomed.
Although Cheng was distraught at the thought of her beloved Tyson being raised by another family, she was content as long as he was in a good home.
“I asked for details of the family that had adopted him and was told that was against policy. I was then given the run around by the SPCA for weeks without any clear answers as to what happened.”
Not one to give up, Cheng continued to contact the SPCA, and that was when she realised that her worst fears may have materialised.
“I asked a veterinarian friend of mine to investigate and that was when I learned that Tyson might have been put down. That has really broken me because Tyson is a son to me, so how could they do something like this,” said Cheng.
Cheng alleges that a representative from the SPCA then told her over the phone that Tyson had been found running in the streets and because he is a pit bull, had to be put down.
Randburg SPCA manager Craig Rudman refuted the allegations that Cheng had been mistreated by his staff.
“The dog was brought to us, micro-chipped with the details of the person who brought it in, so we took it as a surrendered animal.
The animal was with us for about two weeks and even if it was brought in as an abandoned animal and the friend was truthful, the abandoned period is seven days before we are allowed to make a decision on whether to euthanize or home the animal,” said Rudman.
“She also mentioned that a behaviourist had told her to put the dog down and I suggested we try and home it first. She agreed to that and signed documents indicating that she was giving ownership of the dog over to us.
After a person signs the surrender documents, the SPCA has the rights to decide on the future of the animal. We do not have to divulge any information about what happened after the animal was surrendered,” he said.
In an email sent to Cheng and her daughter last week, the Randburg SPCA said Tyson had became ill and had to be put to sleep.
Rudman refused to comment on whether Tyson was rehomed or put down, leaving Cheng’s questions unanswered.
“How could a place that advertises itself as having a vested interest in animal welfare do something like this. Tyson was my son, my child and my family.
Tyson was there for me when I was having a difficult pregnancy and struggled with nausea. He would be there for me when I was hurling and feeling terrible. I love Tyson so much.”
ALSO READ: Choosing a pet that’s right for you
* From the Editor: This caption has been updated to provide clarity on where and when the photograph was taken. (19 February 2018)
