nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Appalling comments by the ISPCA

Discodog

From today's Sunday Times:

"Noel Griffin, the ISPCA's chief executive said that his group's put to sleep figures were higher than other pounds because it does not give dogs to other welfare groups to rehome in Britain. He questioned how other Irish animal-welfare groups were managing to find homes for dogs that he said were of "no value" & "not the prettiest".

"The exporting of dogs to the UK improves the statistics but I would question where these dogs are going" said Griffin.

Griffin questioned why rescue groups in Britain, who accept Irish strays were taking "a load of old mongrels". "With all due respect to the little dogs they are not the prettiest so what is the attraction ?. Why would someone take five or six dogs to England ?. These are not thoroughbreds that have a value. When a dog has no value I think animal welfare goes out the window".

Griffin said that the ISPCA did not give unwanted dogs to charities like the Dog's Trust".

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Tranceypoo

Seriously??!! This guy is CEO of the ISPCA??!! Actually you know, everything has fallen into place reading this, the disdain and disregard of dogs and their welfare in this country. I am so fcking disgusted to read this and shocked, but maybe that's naive of me.

Nollipop

Without being able to read the full article in context, its hard to see what point he's making here, but it sounds like a horrific attitude to hold in his position!

What was he thinking!? Its not exactly going to give his organisation more positive publicity.

Discodog

The ISPCA Pound in Donegal kills 85% of incoming dogs & Roscommon kills 80%.

The article also states that the ISPCA get €1 million in payment from local authorities to run Pounds.

Griffin also insults the UK rescues that take Irish dogs:

"The exporting of dogs to the UK improves the statistics but I would question where those dogs are going" said Griffin. "While we accept that many people who rehome dogs in Britain are well meaning, the (agencies) cannot honestly say that they know where the dogs end up"

He ignores that fact that the vast majority of dogs, rehomed by Irish rescues, are rehomed in Ireland. I just hope that the UK rescues realise that he does not represent the views of many here - we need all the help that we can get.

I have been aware of this "stance" for some time & have also been made aware by correspondence from concerned people. I am amazed that he has committed his thoughts to print.

The article is pretty big & on page 4 in a prominent spot. They list all the Pounds & their percentage PTS figures. I can link to it but you have to pay to view it :mad:.

Shazanne

I cant believe I just read that:mad: How the hell did a man who can speak so callously and coldly about animals be in that position as CEO - and what is he being paid for it and by whom?
How dare he say those things about "dogs with no value" and "mongrels" - how dare he:mad: I have two rescue dogs that are more precious to me than any purebred animal could ever be. And I see no mention or acknowledgment by him of all the good that ordinary people do for animals all the time - and they dont have his fancy title! This country is useless when it comes to animal rights - and even to basic animal respect. And when you read that sort sh1t is not hard to understand why.
Get rid of him is what I say!!!

anniehoo

I went and bought the Times just to read this article. One word-SHOCKED! I cannot believe the CEO of a major animal welfare charity would say such amazingly idiotic and downright offensive comments.

wrote:

Griffin questioned why rescue groups in Britain who accept Irish strays were "taking a load of old mongrels"

:mad:

Im astounded to be quite honest. How on earth are other worthy animal charities and rescues meant to continue with their constant struggle of rehoming these dogs if one of the so called "top" managerial and supposedly influential people running the NATIONAL organisation for animal cruelty doesnt seem to care less about animals at all and bases a dogs "value" on whether its a pedigree or not. Im floored and downright appalled. He should be sacked end of....

Here is the statistics for the "Proportion of Dogs put down by area". Quoted from that article and sourced from the DoE. Orange highlights ISPCA pounds.

EGAR

Discodog wrote: »

He ignores that fact that the vast majority of dogs, rehomed by Irish rescues, are rehomed in Ireland.

I don't agree with you there, DD, although I rarely send dogs to the UK (3 last year), there is a lively rescue tourism going to the UK every week with van loads of dogs going to the UK, straight from the pound via pound rescues or directly from Irish rescue. Also, a lot of rescues send dogs to Sweden, Germany, Tchech Republic and Italy (the latter has half a million stray dogs and appalling *shelters*).

mymo

I can tell you exactly how they find homes for them in the UK, 30 years of serious work to get people to neuter has paid off, there is better legislation and a higher standard of care for animals in the UK. Don't get me wrong they aren't perfect, but they now have less dogs there that need rehoming.
I know of someone who was looking for a mutt and couldn't find one in rescue there, so got one through a rescue that shipped them over from here.
There are far more pedigree dogs in shelters there now as they are the only ones that are being bred, the mutts were all neutered.
The shelter my friend went to told her that only about 30% of the dogs they re-home are from local area, about half they get from Ireland. The others from other shelters.
One day I hope Ireland will be in that situation, that we have a shortage of dogs needing rehoming due to no accidental litters etc.

EGAR

Hm, just realised, nice swipe at Dogstrust there. Which brings to mind that that last CEO of the ISPCA left to run the Irish branch of the Dogstrust

hpsheba

few points that I would like to make on this article. (1) Noel Griffin should resign or retract his comments asap. He has no understanding at all of the hard work, sweat and tears that animal welfare advocates show day in and day out to get homes for dogs. . Thankully most of them don’t care how the dogs look unlike Noel who makes that most bizarre comments in realtion to how people who love animals pick may pick a companions. Me and my 3 mongrels here are very happy and they are all rescue dogs. (2) His point in relation to dogs going to the UK for homing to improve statistics??? Well I personally am very thankfull to organision that do cover the cost of not only transporting these dogs to the UK for rehoming but also generally have to cover the veterinary costs involved, vaccinations, micro chipping and nuetering. I would be very surprised if many of them did not follow up on where the dogs went after they homed them. I fostered dogs many times and always got an update when I enquired how they were getting on in the UK? Is Noel Griffin refering to a particular rescue??? maybe he should name them i so and not try and discredit some fo the best rescue groups with some murky brush. (3) Thoughbreds are horses, I think someone who is the CEO of the most high profile animal resue in Ireland should knlw that full breed dogs are generally referred to as PEDIGREE. (4) ISPCA running pounds which operate the 5 days PTS rules, what a contradiction between their name and their operating practises.
One other point, Blackhall Boarding Kennels as far as I am aware operate a Dog Pound and I was not aware that they had a no kill policy. Thats fantastic news and I am delighted for the rescue groups that work so hard to help rehome the dogs from there, in particular A Dogs Life, that must really take some of the pressure of them now. Well done Blackhall.

Discodog

The worrying thing is that the ISPCA are assumed to be beyond reproach. They may even get preferential treatment in the awarding of Pound contracts. I wonder if Griffin was caught on the hop without an excuse. After all you would not expect a journalist here to be concerned about Pound deaths.

If the CEO of the RSPCA had made those remarks they would be gone by now. I wonder how the rest of the ISPCA management will react ?. I fully accept that you cannot operate a no kill Pound in a busy area. But clearly the ISPCA are turning down offers of homes & killing dogs instead.

This is in stark contrast to Mr Griffin's statement earlier this year:

"The ISPCA continues to work tirelessly with our
affiliated societies and other welfare groups to rescue, rehabilitate and
responsibly re-home all the animals that come into our care.

It is not the case that we put down healthy animals nor is this our intention
in the future.

NOEL GRIFFIN
CEO, ISPCA, CO LONGFORD"

According to Likedin Mr Griffin's previous job was : " Head of Treasury & Deposits at Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd" !

The Sweeper

Definitely tactless and unfeeling comments, but I wonder what his underlying point was? He seems to be saying they're taking a load of old mongrels, and nobody could possibly want those dogs, so what's happening to them? I wonder if he's expecting people to read between the lines and take on an implication that the dogs end up somewhere other than loving homes.

To be more clear, I wonder if he's suggesting that rescues who take 'unwantable' dogs and ship them to the UK for alleged rehoming actually have no control over where the dogs wind up, so they could be fuelling the demand for bait dogs for fighting rings or breeding dogs for puppy factories and so on?

Tallon

Absolute disgrace

ppink

The Sweeper wrote: »

Definitely tactless and unfeeling comments, but I wonder what his underlying point was? He seems to be saying they're taking a load of old mongrels, and nobody could possibly want those dogs, so what's happening to them? I wonder if he's expecting people to read between the lines and take on an implication that the dogs end up somewhere other than loving homes.

To be more clear, I wonder if he's suggesting that rescues who take 'unwantable' dogs and ship them to the UK for alleged rehoming actually have no control over where the dogs wind up, so they could be fuelling the demand for bait dogs for fighting rings or breeding dogs for puppy factories and so on?

yea that is the way I read it first and still do really.

It seems to me to pose the question as to who is taking all these dogs in the UK, is it possible they are used for unscrupelous means and what control do the rescues sending them there really have?

I see the question as to why is there a demand to adopt non purebred or thoroughbred as he puts its.

"When a dog has no value I think animal welfare goes out the window" i see this as basically saying that if you pay a fortune for your dog you are more likely to look after it??

Thats just the way I read it

Anyway he needs to explain this interview I think:(

wonderfulname

ppink wrote: »

"When a dog has no value I think animal welfare goes out the window" i see this as basically saying that if you pay a fortune for your dog you are more likely to look after it??

Hmm.. I read it as him poorly wording that people only really adopt cute puppies and generally aren't all that interested in an old mongrel or a dog that needs some form of speciality treatment. It is something that we've been hearing for a long time, that some dogs have a close to zero chance of being re-homed, mainly for cosmetic reasons, so where do they end up?

I do think that this interview could probably be explained, and that, ironically given his previous position, he took a really bad approach in addressing the figures. If you look at them again you'll see that figures are grouped roughly by region, the midland's are all around the 50 mark, a lot of the east at the low end of the scale, why oh why didn't he just turn it around and advocate more funding for those areas or something? I know its avoiding the point but he's doing that anyway, just poorly.

Discodog

The Sweeper wrote: »

To be more clear, I wonder if he's suggesting that rescues who take 'unwantable' dogs and ship them to the UK for alleged rehoming actually have no control over where the dogs wind up, so they could be fuelling the demand for bait dogs for fighting rings or breeding dogs for puppy factories and so on?

I would suggest that he goes to Britain. He will find that the vast majority of rescues there operate to high standards. We admire the Dogs Trust centre in Dublin but they have 17 such centres in the UK & they are just one of many organisations. I have rehomed in the UK & the home checks are just as rigorous as here. Mongrels are no good for puppy farming.

The difference in the UK is that the RSPCA are a very active organisation. Any "dodgy" rescue would soon attract attention. In any event the numbers would be insignificant. I suspect that the facts are that rehoming requires a lot of effort & killing doesn't. I would also be concerned that the lure of Council money may appeal to an ex banker.

He doesn't need to explain, he needs to be sacked. If & to me it's a big if, he has been misunderstood then he clearly does not have the communication skills for the job.

seamus

imyourstruly, you're new here so I'll give you one warning.

You can contribute without lowering yourself to commenting on someone's appearance or otherwise flinging insults.

I'm a little confused by some of this.

How can he say "ISPCA did not give unwanted dogs to charities like the Dog's Trust"?

Once a dog has been surrendered (or its 5 days are up) surely Dog's trust (or anyone) can go into a pound and take any dog they choose?

Is it financials, are Dog's trust taking dogs from other pounds without paying whatever fees a normal member of the public would have to pay?

Even if you didn't give a fig about dogs, it would seem that every dog taken from them by someone else, at the very least doesn't harm them? So what motivation is there *not* to do it?

Do they get a fixed fee per year to run a pound? Do they get paid by the dog? Can they charge for each dog put down? otherwise none of it makes sense to me.

Hellrazer

seamus wrote: »

imyourstruly, you're new here so I'll give you one warning.

You can contribute without lowering yourself to commenting on someone's appearance or otherwise flinging insults.

Bit of a cross over.Ive banned him.

ppink

mongrels are used up and down this country for dog breeding (puppy mills) are they not........I sat next to a cavapom or some such mix in the vets the other day and he cost €500 but was "an excellent line that came from Dublin you know":rolleyes:

UK have their own problems, it would be a bit naieve of us to think they do not.

Shazanne

[QUOTE=Discodog;71752605 After all you would not expect a journalist here to be concerned about Pound deaths.

I take offence to this remark. I am many of my colleagues take great interest in animal welfare at all levels. While I may not have the clout of the Times behind me, I do spread the message of responsible pet ownership regularly and I also run a regular column advertising dogs for re-homing, which has proven very successful. Please do not generalise when making such comments!

seamus

pH wrote: »

How can he say "ISPCA did not give unwanted dogs to charities like the Dog's Trust"?

Once a dog has been surrendered (or its 5 days are up) surely Dog's trust (or anyone) can go into a pound and take any dog they choose?

Is it financials, are Dog's trust taking dogs from other pounds without paying whatever fees a normal member of the public would have to pay?

No, I don't that's the case. Some pounds work very closely with local charities and rescues.
When they take in a dog, they will hold onto it for as long as they can, and then alert local charities when a dog is in imminent danger of being pts. I don't know if the charities pay release fees. I imagine they do. This is what accounts for the very low PTS figure in South Dublin; I imagine it's the same for the other areas with a rate under 20%.

The ISCPA-run pounds however don't get in contact with anyone and simply put the dog to sleep when his time runs out. In a lot of the ISPCA areas, charities are smaller and so have less resources, and they have to do their best to go to the pound to rescue the dogs.
What makes it worse is that the ISPCA in its main areas will swallow up a lot of charitable donations which could go towards genuine animal welfare organisations.
It's not really any surprise that low PTS figures are somewhat clustered in the east and in cities; this is where there are the most welfare organisations working with the local pounds and rescuing dogs. In Donegal the ISPCA would be the dominant organisation, hence why such a pathetic number of dogs are being rescued.

It's an admission on his part to what everyone else has known for a long time - the ISPCA have zero interest in rescuing animals. Instead they prefer to seize and destroy them.

What makes it more annoying is that despite the DSPCA being quoted as "unaffiliated" in that article, most people will still not realise that the organisations are unaffiliated, and his ridiculous comments will result in negative PR for all of the other SPCA's.

My advice to them would be to join forces and investigate if there's a possibility of legally challenging the ISPCA's right to use that name on the basis that they do not act in the best interests of animals. Then the other SPCA's could seize the name and use it countrywide under the proper ethos.

Do they get a fixed fee per year to run a pound? Do they get paid by the dog? Can they charge for each dog put down? otherwise none of it makes sense to me.

I imagine it's a fixed fee each year. Hence why there's no motivation beyond the warden's humanity to attempt to rehome the dogs.

gbee

Obviously the statement has a deeper meaning. On the surface it seems better to put down animals rather than to export them to the UK.

Obviously he knows or suspects something that may not be public knowledge.

thebullkf

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/most-dogs-rescued-by-ispca-destroyed-2622180.html

i was gonna post this till i saw DD had beaten me to it...

A LEADING animal welfare group last night defended its policies after figures showed its dog pounds put down three in every five of the animals it rescued.
Figures compiled by the Department of the Environment show pounds run by the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ISPCA) put down a higher percentage of dogs than pounds run by other charities.
But chief executive Noel Griffin said the figures did not tell the full story, pointing to the large numbers of dogs being exported to Britain in "appalling conditions".
"Our figures will probably always look worse but is it a matter of keeping animals alive regardless?" he asked. "I would say no."In all, nine ISPCA pounds destroyed 59pc of dogs in 2009, the latest year for which official figures are available, compared with 38pc in 25 services overseen by local authorities.
Facilities operated by the ISPCA in Donegal and Roscommon were recorded as putting down 85pc and 80pc of the dogs under their care respectively
Seized
Wicklow was at the opposite end of the ISPCA record where only 34pc of the dogs it rescued were eventually destroyed, with the rest rehomed.
Non-ISPCA pounds found homes for all but a small number of their dogs.
In Leitrim, just 2pc were destroyed. In Louth it was 7pc, and in South Dublin 95pc were categorised as rehomed/ reclaimed.
Mr Griffin said the society took in an estimated 3,500 to 4,000 dogs each year, most of them seized or surrendered by their owners.Their figures for the number put down would always be higher because they did not give dogs to other welfare groups to rehome in Britain, he added.
"We know for a fact that dogs are being exported in appalling conditions to the UK. If we also shipped dogs we would improve our figures."
The agencies involved could not honestly say they knew where the animals ended up.
"It's easy for people to knock us and say we could do more but we need to get a little less emotional and if anyone has a better suggestion we are open to it," Mr Griffin added.

Boils my blood:mad:

Maybe a retrospective financial burden should be placed on irresponsible owners?

ppink

seamus wrote: »

My advice to them would be to join forces and investigate if there's a possibility of legally challenging the ISPCA's right to use that name on the basis that they do not act in the best interests of animals. Then the other SPCA's could seize the name and use it countrywide under the proper ethos.

I imagine it's a fixed fee each year. Hence why there's no motivation beyond the warden's humanity to attempt to rehome the dogs.

surely the most important thing for any rescues in this country is to have themselves regulated in some fashion. Little point in them seizing the name and all still going about their merry business all with separate objectives and standards.

seamus

ppink wrote: »

surely the most important thing for any rescues in this country is to have themselves regulated in some fashion. Little point in them seizing the name and all still going about their merry business all with separate objectives and standards.

That is a good point, but my suspicion would be that the ISPCA in their current fashion would be well inside any code of practice guidelines set out by a Irish regulator.

toadfly

seamus wrote: »

I don't know if the charities pay release fees. I imagine they do.

Any dog I have helped in taking from the pound and transported to a rescue I didnt have to pay a fee.

Shenshen

In all fairness, while his tone could be chosen better, I can't fault him for questioning why there would the UK would have such a demand for dogs that nobody wants in Ireland. It would make me just as suspicious as him.

And I think that his words about mongrels and their value were meant to be taken not as his personal point of view, but rather as the experience he had made with people wanting a dog. I know all mongrel-owners out there will bite of my head for this, but the fact is that most people who decide they want a dog are not all that likely to pick an "old mongrel", if they can have a younger pure-bred from the same pound.
I find him questioning what will happen to these dogs in the UK a valid concern.

It obviously doesn't excuse the numbers of dogs being put down, so please don't read my post this way.

seamus wrote: »

No, I don't that's the case. Some pounds work very closely with local charities and rescues.
When they take in a dog, they will hold onto it for as long as they can, and then alert local charities when a dog is in imminent danger of being pts. I don't know if the charities pay release fees. I imagine they do. This is what accounts for the very low PTS figure in South Dublin; I imagine it's the same for the other areas with a rate under 20%.

No, as far as I understand it (with Dogslife from Dunboyne pound) its all proactive management on the side of Dogs life, they visit the pound, photo the dogs, maintain dates for pickup. There's little (or no) proactive pushing and management of the dogs from the pound's point of view.

I'm still querying the ISPCA comment that they "Don't give dogs to rescues like Dogs Trust", how can they not do this, if members of Dogs Trust (for example - or any other rescue) attend a public pound and say they'll take dogs (like any other member of the public can), how does the ISPCA not give them to them?

Tranceypoo

I would take exception to his comments that dogs are transported to the UK in 'appalling conditions' and I'd like to know where he gets his information from on this, I've first hand taken dogs to certain rescues who run a van to the UK most Fridays and lots of shelters send their dogs over and the dogs are far from being in 'appalling conditions' and they have to have their vacs, passports, be chipped and netuered/spayed and the rescue I help out sometimes certainly do know where there dogs end up, with reputable, established rescues, it's actually not in an Irish rescues best interest to send a dog to the UK or anywhere in Europe because it costs them money as they have to be chipped etc etc and the rescue they are going to rarely give them any contribution, if they rehome in Ireland they will at least cover their costs of the chipping and neutering and the vacs.

I would just have to echo another poster by saying how dare he and how fcking DARE he!!!

mosi

This is sadly unsurprising. I remember a few years back, there being an uproar over conditions in a certain ISPCA pound...allegations of dogs being arbitrarily pts, the pound refusing to cooperate with rescues, the staff refusing to scan for microchips because of a union dispute and so on.
I had hoped things might change but obviously not. Griffin's comments are unexcusable. I would be incensed if I heard someone on the street saying this and it is even worse that the CEO of the ISPCA has this attitude. How is the general public to be educated and encouraged to rehome rescue dogs when the head of the most prominent animal charity in the country speaks like this?
It just confirms that the ISPCA does not care about rehoming strays. There is no reason for them not to allow dogs to go to the UK or elsewhere if need be. The line about not knowing what will happen to the dogs is BS. If the ISPCA wanted to, they could work with the most reputable UK rescues - of which there are many - to ensure that the dogs get to safety. Yes, they have their own problems over there, but on a whole, the UK is simply a more dog friendly society than we are (admittedly, that's not difficult).