From: SealAlertSA email@example.com
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 01:21:36 +0200
To:Jason Bell firstname.lastname@example.org, Helen Dagut IFAW email@example.com
Subject: IFAW/SPCA OFFSHORE SEAL REHABILITATION FACILITY
Dear Jason and Helen,
IFAW/SPCA OFFSHORE SEAL REHABILITATION FACILITY
Can IFAW comment on the following;
Is IFAW together with the NSPCA or SPCA involved in the development of an offshore seal rehabilitation facility?
Is IFAW involved with any Seal Rehabilitation Facility, proposals, discussions or development with the NSPCA or SPCA?
Failure to reply or comment will be taken as a YES to either or both of points 1 & 2.
I furthermore refer you to the following reports by the Public Protectors Office;
PROPOSED SEAL REHABILITATION CENTRE : INTERIM RECOMMENDATION - 31st August 2001
COMPLAINT : SEAL WELFARE, PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION - 29th September 2001
"The SPCA Grassy Park facility is agreed by all concerned to be not only inadequate, but inherently dangerous to the prospects of seal rehabilitation". (These assessments was made by Dr T Gous/State Veterinarian and SPCA's own appointed Dr H Currie/Veterinary surgeon in private practice)
"Despite being alerted on several occasions to the dangers, no corrective action has been taken to date"
"It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the requisite duty of care has not been and is not being exercised".
"The subsequent release into the wild of seals taken to the SPCA in Grassy Park for any kind of attention is accepted by the experts referred to above and others to pose a serious risk of infecting the general wild seal population".
"The only 'responsible' alternative available to the SPCA in the circumstances, should it wish to continue to remove seals to its Grassy Park centre, seems to be to adopt a blanket policy of euthanasia, sometimes of generally healthy seals, this is however, clearly an unacceptable approach".
"The SPCA has, itself, conceded that it lacks the necessary facilities, knowledge and expertise to adequately care for seals".
"This potentially negligent action and the unwarranted secrecy surrounding what ought to be a simple and transparent activity can hardly instil confidence in the general public".
"not unfair to observe that the SPCA possesses no greater expertise than Seal Alert-SA, and arguably less".
"commitment to 'the cause' of seal welfare is another matter again".
"Whether the SPCA's existing permit should not be withdrawn".
"Whether the SPCA may not have rendered itself liable to be charged with the breach of both the permit issued by MCM and with breach of its own governing legislation".
"If the SPCA claims to have the relevant knowledge and expertise, the possibility of laying criminal charges against them may have to be considered".
"suggests prima facie the SPCA, may not, thus far, have exercised their responsibilities adequately or in good faith. Indeed, they may have rendered themselves culpable of maladministration; abuse or unjustifiable exercise of power; and other acts or omissions resulting in improper prejudice".
In a letter sent to the Argus Newspaper in July 2005, from Acting CEO Cape of Good Hope SPCA, Allan Perrins, "We see an enforceable ban on Mr Hugo interfering with seals rather than an indiscriminate unconstitutional ban on guns at sea as a preferred solution".
Seal Alert-SA wishes to inform all and sundry, that IFAW and in particular Jason Bell has been in possession of copies of these two above reports, and a copy of the debate letter and has a copy of the SPCA letter sent to the newspaper.
I await Jason Bell's comment on the above urgently, and request a publicly released statement on the above.
For the Seals
Francois Hugo Seal Alert-SA
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:21 AM